Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
2
Systems and Control, Marrakech, Morocco, October
23-25, 2019
Static Output Feedback Control of Polynomial Takagi-Sugeno Systems
using a Sum Of Squares Approach
Redouane CHAIBIa , Ismail ER RACHIDa , El Houssaine TISSIRa , AbdelAziz HMAMEDa , Fernando TADEOb
Abstract— The static output feedback (SOF) control for
continuous-time polynomial Takagi-Sugeno (T-S) systems is
solved in this paper. Using a Polynomial Lyapunov Function,
sufficient conditions are derived, in the form of sum-of-squares
(SOS). Thanks to some special derivations, these conditions
do not include neither transformation matrices nor equality
constraints, which simplifies the numerical solution. Moreover,
the proposed conditions can provide controllers that are less
conservative than those derived from existing results. This is
illustrated with some examples at the end of the paper, that
show the applicability of the proposed design approach.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Takagi-Sugeno (T-S) models [1] are receiving a great
deal of attention thanks to their properties as universal
approximators for nonlinear systems, making possible to
extend linear system tools to nonlinear systems. Indeed, a T-
S system represents exactly a nonlinear system (in a certain
region) as a set of linear models interpolated by membership
functions. Numerous techniques for T-S systems have been
discussed in the literature in both the continuous-time and
discrete-time: [2], where the stability and stabilization of T-
S fuzzy time-varying delay systems is investigated with pa-
rameter uncertainties; in [3] sufficient conditions for discrete-
time T-S fuzzy systems, subject to actuator saturation were
presented, with the associated stabilization conditions solved
using LMIs. Static output feedback (SOF) control strategies
are important in practice as they are simpler to implement,
and more reliable than state-feedback controllers (See, for
instance, [4] and the references therein). It must be pointed
out that the stabilization problem with SOF controllers has
not been sufficiently investigated for T-S systems as it is
quite hard. In this context we can cite [5]–[8] and [9].
In particular, a numerical procedure based on the cone
complementary algorithm was given for the design of SOF
stabilizing controllers of T-S systems in [7]. The design of
discrete-time SOF controllers in the presence of bounded
delays was solved in [8].
Generally speaking, polynomial systems are a generaliza-
tion of the T-S systems that makes possible to deal with
a wider class of nonlinear systems. Sum of squares (SOS)
approaches are currently being actively investigated for these
a LESSI, Department of Physics Faculty of Sciences Dhar El Mehraz,
B.P. 1796 Fes-Atlas Morocco c.redouane.chaibi@gmail.com,
ismail.errachid@gmail.com, elhoussaine.tissir@usmba.ac.ma,
hmamed − abdelaziz@yahoo. f r,
b Instituo de Procesos Sostenibles, Universidad de Valladolid, 47005
Valladolid, Spain. Fernando.Tadeo@uva.es
978-1-7281-1938-0/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
ThAC.
systems, as solving SOS-based conditions of polynomial sys-
tems is less conservative than using LMI-based conditions for
T-S systems. It is worth to note that the static output feedback
control for polynomial systems is not widely studied as its
linear counterpart. We can cite [10], where the robust H∞
control of uncertain polynomial systems was studied. The
stabilization and H∞ dynamic output feedback control for
discrete-time polynomial systems were discussed in [11] and
[12] respectively. Based on polynomial Lyapunov functions,
polynomial SOF fuzzy controllers has been recently derived
in terms of SOS in [13]. Moreover, a static output feedback
H∞ controller for polynomial systems with parametric un-
certainties is studied in [14]. In these addressed works, the
conditions are bi-linear in the decision variables, so iterative
algorithms based on SOS decomposition that depend on
the initial values, has been developed to numerically solve
the stabilization problem. However, how to select the initial
values is still an open problem.
Motivated by these earlier developments, we propose in
this paper an SOF control of continuous-time polynomial
systems in the form of SOS. The SOF controller guarantees
that the closed-loop system is asymptotically stable. The
main advantage of the proposed method is to overcome the
problem of bi-linear matrix inequalities, and to reduce the
conservatism with respect to the existing methods. Moreover,
the theoretical proof, shows that the proposed design condi-
tions include the existing ones published in [5], [6] as special
cases. The rest of this paper is arranged as follows: Section
II presents a system description and some preliminaries.
The main results are given in Section III, while Section
IV presents some illustrative examples to demonstrate the
validity and the advantages of the proposed methodologies.
Some conclusions are drawn in Section V.
II. P ROBLEM FORMULATIONS
Consider a polynomial T-S system, in which the i-th rule
is represented as follows:
Plant Rule i: IF ς1 (t) is Mi1 AND . . . AND ςs (t) is Mis
THEN

ẋ(t) = Ai (x(t))x̃(x(t)) + Bi (x(t))u(t)
(1)
y(t) = Ci (x(t))x̃(x(t))
where i = 1, 2, . . . , r, with r the number of rules, ς (t) =
[ς1 (t)ς2 (t) . . . ς p (t)] are known premise variables, Mi j are
fuzzy sets, u(t) ∈ Rm1 is the control input, y(t) ∈ Rm2
is the measurement output, Ai (x(t)), Bi (x(t)), and Ci (x(t))
309
are polynomial matrices in x(t). The column vector whose This implies f (x) ≥ 0 for any x ∈ Rn .
entries are all monomials in x(t) is denoted by x̃(x(t)). Proposition 1: [17] Let f (x) be a polynomial in x ∈ Rn
x̃(x(t)) ∈ Rn is an n × 1 vector of monomial in x(t). A of degree 2d. Let Z(x) be a column vector whose entries
monomial in x(t) is a function of the form x1α1 x2α2 . . . xNαN , are all monomials in x with degree no greater than d. Then,
where α1 ,α2 ,. . ., αN is a non-negative integer. f (x) is said to be SOS if and only if there exists a positive
In this paper, it is assumed that x̃(x(t)) = 0 if x(t) = 0. semi-definite matrix Q such that
The defuzzification process of the polynomial T-S system
(1) can be represented as (2). f (x) = Z(x)T QZ(x) (7)
⎧ Lemma 1: [18] For matrices T , Q, U, and W with
r
⎪
⎪ appropriate dimensions and scalar ξ , the inequality
⎪
⎨ ẋ(t) = ∑ hi (ς (t))[Ai (x(t))x̃(x(t)) + Bi (x(t))u(t)]
i=1
(2) T +W T QT + QW < 0 (8)
⎪
⎪
r
⎩ y(t) = ∑ hi (ς (t))Ci (x(t))x̃(x(t))
⎪
is fulfilled if the following condition holds:
i=1
 
where T ∗
<0
ξ QT +UW −ξU − ξU T
wi (ς (t)) s
hi (ς (t)) = , wi (ς (t)) = ∏ Mi j (ς j (t)) Lemma 2: [19] Given a symmetric matrix Σ ∈ R p×p and
∑i=1 wi (ς (t))
r
j=1 two matrices X, Z of column dimension p, there exists a
Mi j (ς j (t)) is the grade of membership of ς j (t) in Mi j matrix Y such that the LMI
and wi (ς (t)) represents the weight of the i-th rule. This Σ + sym{X T Y Z} < 0 (9)
paper assumes that wi (ς (t)) ≥ 0, for i = 1, 2, . . . , r, and
∑ri=1 wi (ς (t)) > 0 for all t. Therefore, hi (ς (t)) ≥ 0, for i = holds if and only if the following two projection inequalities
1, 2, . . . , r and ∑ri=1 hi (ς (t)) = 1 for all t. with respect to Y are satisfied:
Based on the concept of parallel distributed compensation T T
(PDC) [15] frequently used to design the polynomial T- X ⊥ ΣX ⊥ < 0, Z ⊥ ΣZ ⊥ < 0. (10)
S fuzzy controllers, the polynomial SOF controller for the where X ⊥ and Z ⊥ are arbitrary matrices whose columns form
polynomial T-S fuzzy system (2) is represented as. a basis of the null spaces of X and Z, respectively.
Controller Rule i : IF ς1 (t) is Mi1 AND . . . AND ςs (t) is
Mis THEN III. M AIN RESULTS
This section presents the main results of the paper. To
u(t) = Ki (x(t))y(t) (3) simplify the notation, x is used instead of x(t) and x̃(x)
where i = 1, 2 . . . , r and Ki (x(t)) are the polynomial feed- instead of x̃(x(t)). Moreover, Aki (x) denotes the k-th row
back gain matrices, that depend on x(t) as a polynomial. The of Ai , K = {k1 , k2 , ..., km } denotes the row indices of Bi (x)
overall polynomial SOF is then inferred as follows: whose corresponding row is zero, and x̂ = (xk1 , xk2 , .., xkm ).
r
u(t) = ∑ hi (ς (t))Ki (x(t))y(t) Theorem 1: Let ξ > 0, system (5) is asymptotically stable,
i=1 if there exist symmetric polynomial matrices P(x̂), and
r r (4) polynomial matrices G(x), Ni (x), and U(x) such that (11),
= ∑ ∑ hi h j Ki (x(t))C j (x(t))x̃(x(t)) (12), (13), and (14) hold, where εi (x), εi j (x), and εi jl (x),
i=1 j=1
are non-negative polynomial such that εi (x) > 0, for x = 0,
Combining (4) and (2), the closed-loop polynomial T-S εi j (x) ≥ 0, εi jl (x) ≥ 0, for all x, i, j, l = 1, 2, . . . , r
system is then equivalently: ν1T (P(x̂) − ε1 (x)I)ν1 is SOS (11)
r r r

ẋ(t) = ∑ ∑ ∑ hi h j hl [Ai (x(t)) −ν2T Ωiii (x) + εi (x)I ν2 is SOS i = 1, 2, . . . , r (12)

i=1 j=1 l=1 (5)

+ Bi (x(t))K j (x(t))Cl (x(t))]x̃(x(t)) −ν2T Ωii j (x) + Ωi ji (x) + Ω jii (x) + εi j (x)I ν2 is SOS
(13)
where 1 ≤ i = j ≤ r

hi = hi (ς (t)), h j = h j (ς (t)), hk = hk (ς (t)).
−ν2T Ωi jl (x) + Ωil j (x) + Ω jil (x) + Ω jli (x) + Ωli j (x)
We now provide some definitions and lemmas that would

+ Ωl ji (x) + εi jl (x)I ν2 (14)

be needed later in the paper.
Definition 1: [16] A multivariate polynomial f (x), for is SOS 1 ≤ i = j = l ≤ r
x ∈ RN is a Sum of Squares (SOS) if there exist polynomials
fi (x), i = 1, . . . , n such that where ⎡ ⎤
Ω11
i jl ∗ ∗
n
Ωi jl (x) = ⎣ Ω21 Ω22 ∗ ⎦
f (x) = ∑ fi2 (x) (6) i jl i jl
i=1 Ω31
i jl Ω32
i jl Ω33
i jl

978-1-7281-1938-0/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 310

 −1
jl = (G(x)T (x)Bi (x) − T (x)Bi (x)U(x))U (x)N j (x)Cl (x)
T̄i12
T
Ω11
i jl = −G(x) − G (x)

jl = sym{(G(x)T (x)Bi (x)

T̄i22
T T T T T T T
i jl = P(x̂) + Ai (x)T (x)G (x) +Cl (x)N j (x)Bi (x)T (x)
Ω21
− G(x) − T (x)Bi (x)U(x))U −1 (x)N j (x)Cl (x)}
Ω22 (20)
i jl = sym{G(x)T (x)Ai (x) + T (x)Bi (x)N j (x)Cl (x)}
∂ P(x̂) k Substituting Ti jl in (17) into (19) and applying the change
+∑ Ai (x)x̃(x) of variables N j (x) = U(x)K j (x) we obtain:
k∈K ∂ xk
 
Ω31 T T T T T T
i jl = ξ (Bi (x)T (x)G (x) −U (x)Bi (x)T (x)) −G(x) − GT (x) ∗
Ω32 T T T T T T −G(x) + ĀTijl T T (x)GT (x) + P(x̂) Ḡ22 (21)
i jl = ξ (Bi (x)T (x)G (x) −U (x)Bi (x)T (x))
+ N j (x)Cl (x) <0
Ω33 T where
i jl = −ξU(x) − ξU (x)
(15) Āi jl = Ai (x) + Bi (x)K j (x)Cl (x)
with νk , k = 1, . . . , 2, are vectors of appropriate dimensions Ḡ22 = Ṗ(x̂) + sym{G(x)T (x)Āi jl }
that are independent of x(t). T (x) ∈ Rn×n is a polynomial we can verify that (21) is equivalent to,
matrix whose (i,j)-th entry is given by T i j (x) = ∂∂ xx̃ij (x).    
The stabilizing feedback gains Ki (x) are defined as 0 P(x̂) G(x)  
+ sym( −I T (x)Āi jl ) < 0
Ki (x) = U −1 (x)Ni (x), i = 1, . . . , r. P(x̂) Ṗ(x̂) G(x)
(22)
By Lemma 2 with
Proof 1: Suppose that SOS conditions in (12)-(14) hold.    
The feasible solution of these SOS conditions satisfies 0 P(x̂) G(x)
Σ= ,Y= , X = I,
−ξU(x) − ξU T (x) < 0, which implies that matrix U(x) is P(x̂) Ṗ(x̂) G(x)
 
non-singular. Since (12)-(14) hold, we can write Z = −I T (x)Āi jl ,
r r r

the inequality (22) can guarantee

∑ h3i Ωiii (x) + ∑ ∑ h2i h j Ωii j (x) + Ωi ji (x) + Ω jii (x)   
i=1 i=1 j=1  T  0 P(x̂) T (x)Āi jl
i= j Āi jl T (x)T I < 0 (23)
r−2 r−1 r P(x̂) Ṗ(x̂) I
+∑ ∑ ∑ hi h j hl Ωi jl (x) + Ωil j (x) the inequality (23) can be rewritten as:
i=1 j=i+1 l= j+1

+ Ω jil (x) + Ω jli (x) + Ωli j (x) + Ωl ji (x) P(x̂)T (x)Āi jl + ĀTijl T (x)T P(x̂) + Ṗ(x̂) < 0 (24)
r r r
Let us consider the Lyapunov function given by [15]
=∑∑ ∑ hi h j hl Ωi jl (x) < 0
i=1 j=1 l=1
V (x(t)) = x̃(t)T P(x̂)x̃(t) (25)
which is verified if
⎡ ⎤ the derivative of (25) with respect to time satisfies
Ω11
i jl ∗ ∗
r r r
Ωi jl (x) = ⎣ Ω21 Ω22 ∗ ⎦<0 V̇ (x(t)) = ∑ ∑
i jl
Ω31
i jl
Ω32 Ω33
(16)
∑ hi h j hl {x̃(t)T [ĀTijl T (x)T P(x̂) (26)
i jl i jl i jl i=1 j=1 l=1

Applying Lemma 1 with + PT (x)Āi jl + Ṗ(x̂)]x̃(t)}

 11  which concludes the proof.
Ωi jl ∗  
Ti jl = , W jl = 0 N j (x)Cl (x) Remark 1: Based on previous studies on polynomial T-
Ω21
i jl Ω 22
i jl
  (17) S fuzzy ( [11], [15], [20]), the numerical computational
G(x)T (x)Bi (x) − T (x)Bi (x)U(x) cost is the major drawback of the SIS approach. Indeed,
Qi = ,
G(x)T (x)Bi (x) − T (x)Bi (x)U(x) when the degree of the Lyapunov polynomial increases,
Obviously, (16) can be written as the computational time required increases. Nevertheless, the
  SOS approach has a great advantage, as it allows existing
G(x)T (x)Bi (x) − T (x)Bi (x)U(x)
Ti jl + sym{ U −1 approaches for T-S systems to be generalized, and non-linear
G(x)T (x)Bi (x) − T (x)Bi (x)U(x) (18) control systems to be represented more effectively. In fact,
 
× 0 N j (x)Cl (x) } < 0 the SOS approach used here is more general and relaxed than
From (18), we have the LMI approach previously used in, for instance, [5], [6],
  [21].
0 T̄i12
jl Remark 2: In [6] and [13], the authors presented sufficient
Ti jl + <0 (19)
∗ T̄i22
jl conditions for SOF, when equality constraint are imposed.

978-1-7281-1938-0/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 311

An iterative method decomposition has been presented in
[14], [21], [22], to solve numerically that stabilization prob- ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
1 1 1 −0.1 1 + a2
lem. The major drawback of this approach is that the design ⎢ 1 −2 ⎥ ⎢
0 0 0 ⎥
of SOF control depends on the initial values. To avoid such A1 = ⎢
⎣ 1 a2 −0.3
⎥ , B1 = ⎢
⎦ ⎣
⎥,
0 0 ⎦
drawback, an SOS design method is provided here: with the
0 0 1 −1 0
aid of some special derivations, bilinear matrix inequalities ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
are converted into a set of SOS, which can be solved 1 1 sin b
b −0.1 1
⎢ 1 −2 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
without requiring iterative algorithms or equality constraints; ⎢
A2 = ⎣ ⎥ , B3 = ⎢ ⎥,
moreover, the output matrix of the considered system is not 1 a2 −0.3 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦
restricted to be full row rank. 0 0 sin b
−1 0
⎡ b ⎤
Remark 3: A difference from [5], [6], [13], [14], [21], 1 1 1 −0.1
is that this paper considers explicitly the problem of SOF ⎢ 1 −2 0 0 ⎥
control for polynomial T-S systems. The proposed method A3 = ⎢
⎣ 1 0 −0.3
⎥ , B2 = B1 , B4 = B3
⎦
0
do not include neither transformation matrices nor equality 0 0 1 −1
constraints, which simplifies the numerical solution. More- ⎡ ⎤
1 1 sin b
−0.1  
over, the selection of ξ provides extra free dimensions in the ⎢ 1 −2
b
⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥ , C3 = 0 1 0 1
solution space for the design condition. A4 = ⎣ ⎦ ,
1 0 −0.3 0 1 0 0 0
IV. C OMPUTER SIMULATIONS 0 0 sin b
−1
 b 
Example 1: To illustrate the proposed method we consider 0 1 0 1 + a2
the following nonlinear system, borrowed from [6]. C1 = C2 = , C4 = C3
1 0 0 0
ẋ1 (t) = x1 (t) + x2 (t) + sin x3 (t) − 0.1x4 (t) + (x12 (t) + 1)u(t)
Now a = 1.4 and b = 0.7 are selected for the simulation
ẋ2 (t) = x1 (t) − 2x2 (t)
experiment, based on the conditions of Theorem 1, with
ẋ3 (t) = x1 (t) + x12 x2 (t) − 0.3x3 (t) both the Lyapunov matrix P and the SOF gain matrices are
ẋ4 (t) = sin x3 (t) − x4 (t) not polynomials. The control gain matrices computed are as
follows:
y1 (t) = x2 (t) + (x12 (t) + 1)x4 (t)
   
y2 (t) = x1 (t) K1 = − 0.1228 3.772 , K3 = − 0.1656 10.6003
   
(27) K2 = − 0.1210 3.7706 , K4 = − 0.1616 10.472
Assuming that x1 (t) ∈ [-a a], x3 (t) ∈ [-b b] with a > 0 and b >
Figures 1-4 show a comparison of the trajectories for the
0, the nonlinear system (27) can be equivalently represented
closed-loop nonlinear system (27) with the SOF proposed in
by a four-rules fuzzy model:
[5] an the initial conditions x(0) = [1 3 − 0.5 − 1]T .
Plant Rule 1: IF x1 (t) is M11 and x3 (t) is M21

ẋ(t) = A1 x(t) + B1 u(t)
T HEN
y(t) = C1 x(t) 1
Theorem 1
Theorem 1 [5]

Plant Rule 2: IF x1 (t) is and x3 (t) is

M11 M22 0.8

ẋ(t) = A2 x(t) + B2 u(t)
T HEN 0.6
y(t) = C2 x(t)
Plant Rule 3: IF x1 (t) is M12 and x3 (t) is M21
x 1 (t)

0.4

ẋ(t) = A3 x(t) + B3 u(t)
T HEN 0.2
y(t) = C3 x(t)
Plant Rule 4: IF x1 (t) is M12 and x3 (t) is M22 0


ẋ(t) = A4 x(t) + B4 u(t) -0.2
T HEN
y(t) = C4 x(t)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)

The premise membership functions are defined by the fol-

Fig. 1. Evolution of the system state x1 (t)
lowing equations
⎫
x2 ⎪
⎪
M11 (x1 ) = 12 ⎪
⎪ It can be seen from Figs. 1-4 that the conditions of
a ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Theorem 1 are efficient. Now, substituting
M1 (x1 ) = 1 − M1 (x1 )
2 1
⎬ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

b sin x3 −x3 sin b 1 + a2 1
x3 (b−sin b) x3 = 0 ⎪
⎪ ⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
M21 (x3 ) = ⎪
1 x3 = 0 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
B1 = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 ⎦ , B3 = ⎣ 0 ⎦ , B 2 = B 1 , B 4 = B 3
⎪
⎭
M2 (x3 ) = 1 − M2 (x1 )
2 1
0 0

978-1-7281-1938-0/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 312

 3 3
Theorem 1 x1 (t)
Theorem 1 [5] x (t)
2.5 2
2.5 x3 (t)
2 x4 (t)
2
1.5

1.5 1
x 2 (t)

1 0.5

0
0.5
-0.5

0
-1

-0.5 -1.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 2. Evolution of the system state x2 (t) Fig. 5. Evolution of the closed loop states in Example 1

0.5
Theorem 1

0.4
Theorem 1 [5] it is possible to compare our results with previous results in
0.3
the literature. For instance, the LMI methods in [6], [5] and
[21] are infeasible when fixing a = 4 and b = 4; on the other
0.2
hand, the proposed Theorem 1 gives a feasible solution even
0.1
when the Lyapunov matrix P and the SOF gain matrices are
x 3 (t)

0
not polynomials (i.e., for degree 2d = 0). The corresponding
-0.1
SOF gains are:
-0.2    
K1 = 0.002667 −2.818 , K2 = 0.004089 −2.805
-0.3
   
-0.4 K3 = 0.009141 −5.494 , K4 = 0.02927 −6.183
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Fig. 5 shows the trajectories for the closed-loop nonlinear
Time (sec)
system (27), with the SOS approach for Theorem 1 when
Fig. 3. Evolution of the system state x3 (t)
2d = 0 and x0 = [1 3 − 0.5 − 1]T . It is confirmed that
the closed-loop system (5) is asymptotically stable with the
derived controller.
0.5
Theorem 1
Theorem 1 [5]
Example 2: This example presents the design of SOF
controller for a system in [13]. Consider the two-rules T-
0 S system of the form (2), with the parameters from [13]:
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
1 1 sin b
b −0.1 1 + x12
⎢ 1 −2 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
A1 (x) = ⎢ ⎥ , B1 (x) = ⎢ 0 ⎥ ,
x 4 (t)

-0.5
⎣ 1 x2 −0.3 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦
1
0 0 sin b
−1 0
⎡ b ⎤
-1
1 1 1 −0.1
⎢ 1 −2 0 0 ⎥
A2 (x) = ⎢
⎣ 1 x2 −0.3
⎥ , B2 (x) = B1 (x)
-1.5 1 0 ⎦
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 0 1 −1
Time (sec)
 
Evolution of the system state x4 (t)
0 1 0 1 + x12
Fig. 4. C1 (x) = C2 (x) = ,
1 0 0 0

by The membership functions are as follows:

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎤⎡
(1 + a2 ) (1 + a2 ) 1  b sin x3−x3 sin b
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ x3 (b−sin b) x3 = 0
B1 = ⎢
0 ⎥ , B2 = ⎢ 0.1 ⎥, B3 = ⎢ ⎥ h1 (z(t)) =
⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦, 1 x3 = 0 (28)
0 0 0 h2 (z(t)) = 1 − h1 (z(t))
⎡ ⎤
1 Solving the optimisation problem under SOS constraints in
⎢ 0 ⎥
B4 = ⎢
⎣
⎥ Theorem 1 gives the following feedback gains:
0 ⎦    
0.1 K1 = K111 K112 , K2 = K211 K212 ,

978-1-7281-1938-0/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 313


K111 = 0.04024x22 + 0.01689x2 − 1.267
K112 = −3.689x22 − 0.05939x2 − 119.6
K211 = 0.01061x22 − 0.04073x2 − 0.9133
K212 = −3.694x22 + 0.01474x2 − 113
Fig. 6 shows some trajectories for the closed-loop nonlinear
system. It can be confirmed from the figure that the designed
controller stabilizes the nonlinear system.
3
x (t)
1
2.5
x (t)
2 International Conference on Systems and Control (ICSC), 2016, May
x3 (t)
2
x (t)
4 [12] Ye, D., & Diao, N., Dynamic output feedback H∞ control for
1.5
1
0.5
0 [14] Krug, M., Saat, S., & Nguang, S. K., Robust H∞ static output feedback
-0.5
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (sec)
Fig. 6. Trajectories for the closed-loop 2d=2, Example 2
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper a new result for designing static output feed-
back controllers for the class of polynomial Takagi-Sugeno
systems has been presented. Based on Polynomial Lyapunov
Functions the SOF controller is constructed such that the
closed-loop polynomial T-S system is asymptotically stable.
Some numerical examples have been given to demonstrate
the advantages and the merit of the proposed approach.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Prof. Tadeo is supported by the Regional Government of
Castilla y Leon and EU-FEDER (CLU 2017-09 and CP19-
25)
R EFERENCES
[1] Tagaki, T., & Sugeno, M., Fuzzy identification of systems and its
application to modelling and control. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man
and Cybernetics, 1985, 15(1), 116-132.
[2] Ma, Y., Chen, M., & Hu, X., Exponential stability and stabilization of
uncertain TS fuzzy system with time-varying delay. J. of the Chinese
Institute of Engineers, 2016, 39(3), 324-330.
[3] Naamane, K., Chaibi, R., Tissir, E. H., & Hmamed, A., Stabilization
of discrete-time TS fuzzy systems with saturating actuators. In Ad-
vanced Technologies for Signal and Image Processing (ATSIP), 2017
International Conference on 2017, May (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
[4] Syrmos, V. L., Abdallah, C. T., Dorato, P., & Grigoriadis, K., Static
output feedbacka survey. Automatica, 1997, 33(2), 125-137.
[5] Jeung, E. T., & Lee, K. R. , Static output feedback control for
continuous-time TS fuzzy systems: an LMI approach. Int. Journal of
Control, Automation and Systems, 2014, 12(3), 703-708.
[6] Fang, C. H., Liu, Y. S., Kau, S. W., Hong, L., & Lee, C. H., A new
LMI-based approach to relaxed quadratic stabilization of TS fuzzy
control systems. IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, 2006, 14(3), 386-
397.
978-1-7281-1938-0/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
[7] Nachidi, M., Benzaouia, A., Tadeo, F., & Rami, M. A., LMI-Based Ap-
proach for Output-Feedback Stabilization for Discrete-Time Takagi–
Sugeno Systems. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2008, 16(5),
1188-1196.
(29) [8] Nachidi, M., Tadeo, F., Benzaouia, A., & Ait Rami, M. , Static output-
feedback for TakagiSugeno systems with delays. International Journal
of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, 2011, 25(4), 295-312.
[9] Chaibi, R., Er Rachid, I., Tissir, E. H., and Hmamed, A., Finite
Frequency Static Output Feedback H∞ Control of Continuous-Time
TS Fuzzy Systems. Journal of Circuits, Systems, and Computers,
1950023, 2018.
[10] Yu, G. R., Huang, Y. C., & Cheng, C. Y., Robust H∞ controller design
for polynomial fuzzy control systems by sum-of-squares approach. IET
Control Theory & Applications, 2016, 10(14), 1684-1695.
[11] Hmamed, A., Chaibi, R., & Tadeo, F., Stabilization of discrete-time
2-D TS Fuzzy system via a sum of squares (SOS) approach. In 5th
(pp. 109-114).
discrete-time polynomial-fuzzy-model-based systems using piecewise
Lyapunov function. In 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC 2016),
pp. 3755-3760.
[13] Chaibi, R., & Hmamed, A., Static output feedback control problem
for polynomial fuzzy systems via a sum of squares (SOS) approach.
In IEEE 2017 Intelligent Systems and Computer Vision (ISCV), 2017,
April, pp. 1-6.
controller design for parameter dependent polynomial systems: an
iterative sums of squares approach. Journal of the Franklin Institute,
2013, 350(2), 318-330.
[15] Tanaka, K., Yoshida, H., Ohtake, H., & Wang, H. O., Stabilization of
20 polynomial fuzzy systems via a sum of squares approach. In IEEE
22nd International Symposium on Intelligent Control, ISIC 2007,
October, pp. 160-165.
[16] Prajna, S., Papachristodoulou, A., & Parrilo, P. A., SOSTOOLS: Sum
of squares optimization toolbox for MATLAB, 2002.
[17] Parrilo, P. A., Structured semidefinite programs and semialgebraic ge-
ometry methods in robustness and optimization (Doctoral dissertation,
California Institute of Technology, 2000).
[18] Chang, X. H., Zhang, L., & Park, J. H. , Robust static output feedback
H∞ control for uncertain fuzzy systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2015,
273, 87-104.
[19] P. Gahinet, and P. Apkarian. A linear matrix inequality approach to
H∞ control. Int. Journal of Robust and Nonlinear control 4 (4) 1994,
421-448.
[20] Tanaka, K., Yoshida, H., Ohtake, H., & Wang, H. O., A sum-of-squares
approach to modeling and control of nonlinear dynamical systems
with polynomial fuzzy systems. IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, 2009,
17(4), 911-922.
[21] Chen, J., Lin, C., Chen, B., & Zhang, D., Stabilisation of T-S fuzzy
systems via static output feedback: An iterative method, 35th Chinese
Control Conference (CCC), 2016, pp. 3710–3715.
[22] Saat, S., Krug, M., & Nguang, S. K., Nonlinear H∞ static output
feedback controller design for polynomial systems: an iterative sums
of squares approach. In 6th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics
and Applications (ICIEA), June 2011, pp. 985-990.
314