2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control
Mexico City, Mexico. September 26-28, 2012
Nonlinear Control for Plants with Partial Information via Takagi-Sugeno
models: an Application on the Twin Rotor MIMO System
Temoatzin González, Pedro Rivera, Miguel Bernal1
1
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sonora Institute of Technology
E-mail: miguel.bernal@itson.edu.mx
Abstract –– This work is concerned with the synthesis of
nonlinear controllers for plants where full state information is
not available. By means of the equivalent Takagi-Sugeno form
of the nonlinear model, conditions were found that allow a
parallel distributed compensation of the model to be
constructed only with partial information of the state and no
need of an observer. These conditions are expressed in terms of
linear matrix inequalities which are efficiently solved by
convex optimization techniques in commercially available
software. The proposed approach is successfully applied to the
stabilization of a twin rotor MIMO system and compared with
another partial-information technique.
Keywords –– Linear Matrix Inequality, Takagi-Sugeno
models, Twin Rotor MIMO System.
I. INTRODUCTION
Takagi-Sugeno (TS) models have been widely used for
more than two decades under the linear matrix inequality
(LMI) framework [1, 2]; their approximation properties
when used under fuzzy schemes [3] as well as their exact
representation of nonlinear models when obtained via the
sector nonlinearity approach [4] have attracted many
researchers in the nonlinear control field. A TS model is a
nonlinear blending of linear models held together by
nonlinear functions which in certain methodologies capture
the nonlinearities of the system while preserving a convex
structure. This convex form allows polytope-based
techniques to be applied to TS models for analysis and
synthesis purposes.
A lot of results concerning stabilization, robustness,
optimality, and observer design have been fully developed
through the direct Lyapunov method for TS models, leading
to conditions in the form of LMIs [5, 6]. Thus expressed,
LMI conditions can be tested and solved via convex
optimization techniques which are efficiently implemented
through commercially available software [7]. Moreover,
controller design is easily extended to include performance
specifications such as constraints on the input/output,
disturbance rejection, decay rate, etc [5]. Several traditional
areas of nonlinear control have benefited from the
systematic design procedures of the LMI framework and
there are plenty of applications where this approach has
played a crucial role [8, 9, 10].
IEEE Catalog Number: CFP12827-CDR
ISBN: 978-1-4673-2168-6
978-1-4673-2169-3/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
Most of the previous results assume that the states are
fully available for control purposes or at least that a suitable
observer can be designed to reconstruct the missing ones
[6]. Notwithstanding, many heuristic results (for instance
those based on fuzzy control) suggest that control laws
based on partial information of the state vector might be
enough to obtain the desired dynamics [11]. Inspired in this
observation, the present work investigates an LMI solution
for controller design of nonlinear models rewritten in the
Takagi-Sugeno form. This structure has been selected
among others because of its suitability for LMI treatment as
well as its capacity for exactly representing a nonlinear
model in a compact set of the state variables.
In order to test the applicability and usefulness of the
proposed approach, the twin rotor multi-input multi-output
system (TRMS) has been considered. The TRMS is a highly
nonlinear coupled system long considered as an interesting
control problem due to its similarities to the dynamics of a
helicopter [12, 13]. Several control techniques have been
tested on this plant with different degrees of success: gain
scheduling of local controllers [14], fuzzy controllers [15],
sliding-mode control [16], and mixed schemes such as [17].
Intuitively, a model-free fuzzy decoupled control of the
TRMS belongs to the kind of controllers this paper is
interested at, i.e., controllers which depend only on a subset
of the state variables; this makes the TRMS plant an ideal
illustration of the theoretical contributions of this research.
The organization of this paper is as follows: section II
introduces notation as well as the basic concepts related with
LMI-based controller design for Takagi-Sugeno models;
section III develops the main result of this work, i.e., LMI-
based controller design with partial information of the state
variables; section IV illustrates the previously developed
technique with simulation as well as real-time results on the
TRMS plant; finally section V draws some concluding
remarks.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Consider a nonlinear model affine in control with the
following form:
x (t ) = f ( z (t )) x (t ) + g ( z (t )) u (t ) (1)
7
 2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control
Mexico City, Mexico. September 26-28, 2012

where f ( ⋅) , g ( ⋅) are nonlinear functions, x ( t ) ∈ n

is the thus making it suitable for LMI treatment [2]. Its form is as
follows:
state vector of the system, u ( t ) ∈ m
the input vector, and
z ( x (t )) ∈ p
a premise vector bounded and smooth in a r
u ( t ) = ∑ hi ( z ( t ) ) Fi x ( t ) = Fz x ( t ) , (5)
compact set of the state variables C ⊃ 0 . i =1

Consider the set of bounded nonlinearities of (1) in C where Fi ∈ m× n

, i ∈ {1,… , r} is a set of gains to be
nl j ( ⋅) ∈ ⎡ nl j , nl j ⎤ , j ∈ {1,… , p} . By sector nonlinearity calculated via LMI conditions. Substituting (5) in (4) the
⎣ ⎦ following closed-loop equation arises:
approach [4], nonlinear model (1) will be rewritten in the TS
form. This methodology begins by defining the following
x ( t ) = ( Az + Bz Fz ) x ( t ) . (6)
weighting functions:

LMI-based controller design usually begins with the

nl j − nl j ( ⋅) proposition of a quadratic Lyapunov function of the form:
w (⋅) =
j
, w (⋅) = 1 − w (⋅)
j j
(2)
nl j ( ⋅) − nl j
0 1 0

V ( x ( t ) ) = xT ( t ) Px ( t ) , P = PT > 0 . (7)
with j ∈ {1, , p} , from which so called membership
functions (MFs) are given by: from which its time-derivative can be further developed as
follows:
p
hi = h1+ i + i × 2 + + i p × 2 p −1
= ∏ wijj ( z j )  (3) V ( x ( t ) ) = 2 xT ( t ) Px ( t ) = xT (t ) P ( Az + Bz Fz ) x ( t ) + ( ∗)
1 2
j =1
= xT (t ) ( PAz + PBz Fz + ( ∗) ) x ( t ) .
with i ∈ {1,… , 2 p } , i j ∈ {0,1} . These MFs satisfy the
A sufficient condition for guaranteeing V < 0 is
∑ h ( ⋅) = 1 , hi ( ⋅) ≥ 0 in C. Then,
r
convex sum property i =1 i

the following TS model is derived with r = 2 p being the PAz + PBz Fz + ( ∗) < 0 ⇔ Az P −1 + Bz Fz P −1 + ( ∗) < 0
number of linear models blended together by the MFs:
⇔ Az X + Bz M z + ( ∗) < 0 (8)
r
x ( t ) = ∑ hi ( z ( t ) ) ( Ai x ( t ) + Bi u ( t ) ) (4) where X = P −1 and M z = Fz X . MFs will be dropped out
i =1
from the nested convex sums in (8) to obtain LMI
conditions. An adequate compromise between quality of
where i ∈ {1,… , r} , are controllable pairs of
( Ai , Bi ) , results and computational complexity is given by the
matrices of proper dimensions, respectively. Recall that the following lemma, provided ϒij = Ai X + Bi M j + ( ∗) < 0 :
TS model (4) is an exact representation of (1) in C; it is not
an approximation.
Relaxation Lemma [19]: Let ϒij be matrices of proper
Certain expressions involving convex sums can be dimensions. Then ϒ zz < 0 is implied by
r
written shortly as follows [18]: ϒ z = ∑ hi ( z ( t ) ) ϒi and
2 ( r − 1) ϒ ii + ϒ ij + ϒ ji < 0, ∀(i, j ) ∈ {1, , r} . (9)
2
i =1
r r
ϒ zz = ∑∑ hi ( z ( t ) ) h j ( z ( t ) ) ϒij . A star ( ∗ ) in a symmetric
i =1 j =1 Problem statement: Consider the state vector divided in
matrix denotes the transpose of its symmetric element while two sets: x1 ∈ a to denote the states unavailable for control
in a sum it stands for the transpose of the terms on its left- and x2 ∈ b the remaining ones that will be used in a PDC
hand side. In matrix expressions, symbols “>” and “<” stand
for positive and negative-definiteness, respectively. When control law of the form (5) with n = a + b and
convenient, arguments will be omitted.
xT ( t ) = ⎡⎣ x1T x2T ⎤⎦ . (10)
Parallel distributed compensation (PDC) is usually
employed with TS models as a natural option for control law The goal is to find LMI conditions guaranteeing stable
design because its structure shares the MFs of the model controller design under this partial information scheme.

IEEE Catalog Number: CFP12827-CDR

ISBN: 978-1-4673-2168-6 8
978-1-4673-2169-3/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
 2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control
Mexico City, Mexico. September 26-28, 2012

III. MAIN RESULT Pre- and post-multiplying the previous expression by

X = P −1 , i.e.,
According to the definition in (10), TS model in (4) can
be rewritten as: −1
⎡X
X = ⎢ 11
( ∗) ⎤ = ⎡ P11 (∗)⎤ T
⎥ ⎢ ⎥ = X >0
⎡A A12 z ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ B1z ⎤ ⎣ X 21 X 22 ⎦ ⎣ P21 P22 ⎦
x ( t ) = ⎢ 11z + u (t ) (11)
⎣ A21z A22 z ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ x2 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ B2 z ⎥⎦
produces the following LMI expression providing that
a× a a× b b× a b× b M 21z = Fz X 21 and M 22 z = Fz X 22 :
where A11z ∈ , A12 z ∈ , A21z ∈ , A22 z ∈ ,
a× m b× m
B1z ∈ , and B2 z ∈ .
⎡ A11z X 11 + A12 z X 21 T
A11z X 21 + A12 z X 22 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
Since the states grouped in x2 are available for control ⎢ + B1z M 21z + B1z M 22 z ⎥ + ∗ < 0 .(16)
⎢A X + A X ( )
purposes, the PDC control law in (5) is rewritten as
T
A21z X 21 + A22 z X 22 ⎥
⎢ 21z 11 22 z 21
⎥
⎣⎢ + Bz M 21z + B2 z M 22 z ⎦⎥
r
⎡x ⎤
u ( t ) = ∑ hi ( z ( t ) ) Fi x2 ( t ) = [ 0 Fz ] ⎢ 1 ⎥ . (12)
i =1 ⎣ x2 ⎦ Despite the fact that (16) is an LMI expression,
reconstructing Fz from it might be impossible since nothing
with Fz ∈ m× b
, which after substitution of (12) in (11) guarantees that [ M 21z M 22 z ] X −1 will be equal to [ 0 Fz ]
yields as required for the partial-information structure.
Nevertheless, by choosing X 21 = 0 , expression (16) is
⎡A A12 z + B1z Fz ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ implied by the LMI conditions in (14) allowing
x ( t ) = ⎢ 11z . (13)
⎣ A21z A22 z + B2 z Fz ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ x2 ⎥⎦ Fz = M 22 z X 22−1 , thus concluding the proof.

Theorem 1: The closed-loop TS model (13) under the Remark 1: Results in Theorem 1 are sufficient
partial information PDC control law (12) is asymptotically conditions: this implies that the TS model might be
stable if LMIs (9) hold with: stabilizable even if the LMI conditions given above fail to
be feasible. The sources of conservatism responsible of this
⎡ A11i X 11 A12i X 22 + B1i M 22 j ⎤ limitation come from the choice X 21 = 0 which limits the
ϒij = ⎢ + ( ∗) (14)
⎣ A21i X 11 A22i X 22 + B2i M 22 j ⎥⎦ Lyapunov function alternatives as well as from the way the
MFs are dropped out from the expressions above since the
Relaxation Lemma is only one among many other options
under decision variables X 11 , X 22 > 0 , M 22 . Controller
[5].
gains are given by Fz = M 22 z X 22−1 .
Proof: Consider the Lyapunov function candidate (7) Remark 2: Due to the LMI nature of the proposed result,
with the following partition: other performance designs can be incorporated in a natural
way. For instance: constraints on the input/output and decay
rate design. In any case, the main advantage of avoiding
( ∗) ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ > 0 ,
T
⎡ x ⎤ ⎡P
V ( x ( t ) ) = ⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎢ 11 ⎥⎢ ⎥ (15) observer design by using partial information is preserved.
⎣ x2 ⎦ ⎣ P21 P22 ⎦ ⎣ x2 ⎦

with P11 ∈ a× a , P21 ∈ b×a , and P22 ∈ b×b . IV. IMPLEMENTATION ON THE TWIN ROTOR MIMO SYSTEM
The time-derivative of (15) is given by
There are several models of the TRMS, most of them 6-
state based [8, 9, 17]; these states arise from the elevation
(∗)⎤ ⎡ A11z
T
⎡x ⎤ ⎛ ⎡ P11 A12 z + B1z Fz ⎤ ⎞⎡x ⎤ and azimuth angles, their corresponding angular speeds, and
V = ⎢ 1⎥ + ( ∗) ⎟ ⎢ 1 ⎥
⎜⎜ ⎢ P ⎥⎢ ⎥
A22 z + B2 z Fz ⎦ ⎟ the motor speeds. Since the provider of the TRMS employed
⎣ x2 ⎦ ⎝ ⎣ 21 P22 ⎦ ⎣ A21z ⎠ ⎣ x2 ⎦
in this investigation utilizes a 7-state model as in [20], it will
which is guaranteed to be V < 0 if be adopted in the sequel. Considering x1 the main motor
speed, x2 the elevation angle, x3 the elevation angular
⎡ P11 ( ∗) ⎤ ⎡ A11z A12 z + B1z Fz ⎤
+ (∗) < 0
speed, x4 the tail motor speed, x5 the azimuth angle, x6 the
⎢ ⎥⎢
⎣ P21 P22 ⎦ ⎣ A21z A22 z + B2 z Fz ⎥⎦ azimuth angular speed, and x7 a coupling internal state, the

IEEE Catalog Number: CFP12827-CDR

ISBN: 978-1-4673-2168-6 9
978-1-4673-2169-3/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
 2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control
Mexico City, Mexico. September 26-28, 2012

TRMS model is given by [21]: Only states x2 , x3 , x5 , and x6 are available for control
purposes in the TRMS plant, which means that Theorem 1
⎡ −0.83 0 0 0 0 ⎤
0 0 may apply in this case with x1 = [ x1 x4 x7 ]
T
and
⎢ 0 ⎥⎥ ⎡ x1 ⎤
⎡ 1⎤ ⎢ 0
x 0 1 0 0 0
x2 = [ x2 x6 ] . To that end, notice that the input is
T
⎢x ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢x ⎥
x3 x5
⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ E1 0.006
E2 − 0 0 E3 0 ⎥⎢ 2⎥ only coupled with x1 whilst x1 is decoupled from x2 , so
⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢ I1 ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ the TS model (18) is rewritten as:
⎢ x4 ⎥ = ⎢ 0 0 0 −1 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ x4 ⎥
⎥
⎢ x5 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ x5 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎡A 0 ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ B1z ⎤
1 ⎥ ⎢ x6 ⎥ x ( t ) = ⎢ 11z + u (t ) (19)
⎢ x6 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 E4 0 −
0.1
− ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎣ A21z A22 z ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ x2 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
⎢x ⎥ ⎢ I2 I 2 ⎥ ⎣ x7 ⎦
⎣ 7⎦
⎢ E 0 0 0 0 0 −0.5⎥⎦
⎣ 5 ⎡−0.83 0 0 ⎤ ⎡0.917 0 ⎤
where ⎢
A11z = ⎢ 0 −1 0 ⎥⎥ ,B1z = ⎢⎢ 0 0.8⎥⎥ ,
⎡ 0.917 0 ⎤
⎢ 0 0 ⎥⎥ ⎢⎣ E5 0 −0.5⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ E6 0 ⎥⎦
⎢
⎢ 0 0 ⎥ ⎡0 1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎡u ⎤ ⎡0 0 0 ⎤ ⎢0 0
+⎢ 0 0.8⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥ (17) ⎢0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 ⎥⎥
u 0
⎢ 0 0 ⎥⎣ 2⎦ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0.006 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ E1 0 0 ⎥ ⎢0 E2 − 0 E3 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥ A21z = ⎢ ⎥ , A22 z = ⎢ I1 ⎥.
⎢ E ⎢0 0 0 ⎥
⎣ 3 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢
⎢0 0 0 0 1 ⎥
1⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 E4 − ⎥ ⎢0 0 0.1
⎢⎣ I 2 ⎥⎦ 0 0 − ⎥
⎛ 1 − 0.05 x6 cos x2 ⎞ 0.32sin x2 ⎢ I 2 ⎥⎦
with E1 = ( b1 + a1 x1 ) ⎜ ⎟ , E2 = − , ⎣
⎝ I1 ⎠ I 1 x2 Conditions (14) in Theorem 1 were found feasible in the
0.0163x6 sin( 2x2 ) 1 MATLAB LMI Toolbox and produced a set of 32 gains
E3 = , E4 = ( b2 + a2 x4 ) , E5 = −0.035( b1 + a1 x1 ) which constitute Fz . For illustration purposes the Lyapunov
I1 I2
function matrices are shown ( P12 = P21T = 0 ):
⎛b ⎞ 1.1Acte ⎛ b1 ⎞
+0.583 ⎜ 1 + a1 x1 ⎟ , E6 = ⎜ 2 + a1 x1 ⎟ , a1 = 0.0135 ,
⎝ 2 ⎠ 1.2 ⎝ ⎠
⎡840 −68 5 2 ⎤
a2 = 0.02 , b1 = 0.0924 , b2 = 0.09 , I1 = 0.068 , and ⎡ 215 −44 1541 ⎤ ⎢−68 193 1 −1 ⎥⎥
I 2 = 0.02 . P11 = ⎢⎢ −44 262 −2058⎥⎥ , P22 = ⎢ .
⎢ 5 1 5179 1030⎥
An exact representation of the nonlinear model (17) in ⎢⎣1541 −2058 67866⎥⎦ ⎢ ⎥
the TS form can be found by the sector nonlinearity ⎣ 2 −1 1030 1275⎦
approach by taking nli ∈ ⎡⎣ nli , nli ⎤⎦ , for nl1 = x1 ∈ [ −8,8] ,
0.5
sin( x2 )
nl2 = x4 ∈ [ −2,2] , nl3 = ∈ [ 0.8270,1] , nl4 = x6 sin(2 x2 ) 0.4
x2
0.3
⎡ π π⎤ ⎡ π π⎤
∈ ⎢ − , ⎥ , and nl5 = x6 cos( x2 ) ∈ ⎢ − ⎥ , from which 0.2
⎣ 8 8⎦ ⎣ 8 8⎦
nli − nli 0.1
States

weighting functions w0i = , w1i = 1 − w0i are defined 0

nli − nli
5 -0.1
to produce MFs hi = h1+ i + i × 2 + + ip ×2 4 = ∏ wijj ( z j ) , i.e.: -0.2
1 2
j =1

-0.3
32
x ( t ) = ∑ hi ( z ( t ) ) ( Ai x ( t ) + Bi u ( t ) ) , (18) -0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
i =1 Time (s)
Fig. 1. Coupled stabilization.
where the pairs ( Ai , Bi ) come from (17) when hi ( z ( t ) ) = 1 .

IEEE Catalog Number: CFP12827-CDR

ISBN: 978-1-4673-2168-6 10
978-1-4673-2169-3/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
 2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control
Mexico City, Mexico. September 26-28, 2012

Simulation results follow. Fig. 1 shows the time

0.05
evolution of the states of nonlinear model (17) under the
partial information control law (12) designed via Theorem 1 0
and under the assumption that the propellers are coupled in
-0.05
the way explicitly shown by the model; as expected, all of

Azimuth angle (rads)

them go asymptotically to the origin. It is important to -0.1
notice that this scheme achieves stabilization without any
-0.15
observer required for full-state PDC controller design.
-0.2
For the sake of comparison, a decoupled fuzzy -0.25
controller is compared with a decoupled LMI-based design.
The latter is obtained from applying Theorem 1 to the -0.3
x5 (LMI based)
reduced decoupled subsystems for the elevation angle: -0.35
x5 (Fuzzy based)
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
⎡ x ⎤ ⎡ −0.83 0 ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ 0.916 ⎤
x1 = ⎢ 1 ⎥ = ⎢ + u (t ) Time (s)

⎣ x7 ⎦ ⎣ E5 −0.5⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ x7 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ E6 ⎥⎦
Fig. 3. Decoupled stabilization: LMI based vs Fuzzy based.
⎡0 1 ⎤ (20)
⎡ x2 ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ ⎡ x2 ⎤ ⎡ 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ Real-time implementation of the simulation results
x2 = ⎢ ⎥ = 0.006 ⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥,
⎣ x3 ⎦ ⎢⎢ E2 − I ⎥⎥ ⎣ x3 ⎦ ⎣ E1 0 ⎦ ⎣ x7 ⎦ above are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 for the elevation and
⎣ 1 ⎦ azimuth angles, respectively. For the elevation angle the
and the azimuth angle: model has been augmented by an integrator x0 = x 2 , but the
design procedure remained the same. The peaks presented in
x1 = [ x4 ] = [ −1][ x4 ] + [ 0.8] u ( t ) both figures are user-induced perturbations. As before, LMI-
based results are contrasted with the fuzzy ones; from both
⎡0 1 ⎤ the simulation and real-time results it can be concluded that
⎡x ⎤ ⎡ x5 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤ (21)
x2 = ⎢ 5 ⎥ = ⎢ 0.1 ⎥⎥ ⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ ⎥ x4 . their performance is very similar. Nevertheless, LMI-based
⎢
⎣ x6 ⎦ ⎢0 − I ⎥ ⎣ x6 ⎦ ⎣ E4 ⎦ design has several important methodological advantages
⎣ 2 ⎦
with respect to the fuzzy one: a) it is a Lyapunov-based
The LMI-based controllers for decoupled subsystems design which is able to establish analytical stability proofs,
(20) and (21) have produced control laws of the form (12) b) it is expressed in terms of conditions that can be
with 16 and 2 rules, respectively. Figs. 2 and 3 show the efficiently solved by convex programming, c) it can be
time evolution of the controlled elevation angle and the combined with other performance constraints which are
azimuth angle, respectively, for the fuzzy-based and the LMI expressible, d) it is fully based on the nonlinear model
LMI-based designs. without any approximation or linearization involved.

0.1 0.2
x2 (LMI based)
0.15
x2 (Fuzzy based)
0.08 0.1
Elevation angle (rads)
Elevation angle (rads)

0.05
0.06
0

-0.05
0.04
-0.1

-0.15
0.02
x2 (LMI based)
-0.2
x2 (Fuzzy based)
0 -0.25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 2. Decoupled stabilization: LMI based vs Fuzzy based. Fig. 4. Decoupled real-time stabilization: LMI based vs Fuzzy based.

IEEE Catalog Number: CFP12827-CDR

ISBN: 978-1-4673-2168-6 11
978-1-4673-2169-3/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
 2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control
Mexico City, Mexico. September 26-28, 2012
0.5
0.4
0.3
Azimuth angle (rads)
0.2
0.1
0 inequalities in system and control theory. Studies in Applied
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 10 20 30
Time (s)
Fig. 5. Decoupled real-time stabilization: LMI based vs Fuzzy based.
V. CONCLUSION
A partial information LMI-based controller design for
nonlinear models exactly represented in the Takagi-Sugeno
form has been presented. A PDC control law which only
depends on a subset of the state vector was thus constructed.
An illustration of the usefulness of this approach has been
provided in the TRMS model, both for simulation and for
real-time implementation. The results were contrasted with
another classic example of partial-information control: the
fuzzy heuristic approach. The advantages of LMI-based
design were found in a proper methodology which allows
efficient numerical treatability.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been supported by the Sonora Institute of
Technology (ITSON) through the PROFAPI Project
00219/1A4005208007, the Mexican Council of Science and
Technology (CONACYT) through scholarships SNI-37449,
and the SEP-CONACYT Project CB-2011-168406. The
authors gratefully acknowledge the support of these
institutions.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Takagi and M. Sugeno, “Fuzzy identification of systems and its
application to modeling and control”, IEEE Trans. on System Man
and Cybernetics, Vol.15(1), pp116-132. 1985.
[2] H.O. Wang, K. Tanaka, M. Griffin, “An approach to fuzzy control of
nonlinear systems: Stability and Design Issues”, IEEE Trans. on
Fuzzy Systems, Vol.4(1), pp14-23. 1996.
[3] E. Mamdani and S. Assilian, “An experiment in linguistic synthesis
with a fuzzy logic controller”, in International Journal of Man-
Machine Studies, vol. 7, pp. 1-13, 1975.
IEEE Catalog Number: CFP12827-CDR
ISBN: 978-1-4673-2168-6
978-1-4673-2169-3/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
[4] T. Taniguchi, K. Tanaka, H.O. Wang, “Model construction, rule
reduction and robust compensation for generalized form of Takagi-
x5 (LMI based) Sugeno fuzzy systems”, IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, Vol.9(4), pp
x5 (Fuzzy based) 525-537. 2001.
[5] K. Tanaka and H.O. Wang, Fuzzy control systems design and analysis.
A linear matrix inequality approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
USA. 2001.
[6] Zs. Lendek, T.M. Guerra, R. Babuška, and B. De Schutter, Stability
Analysis and Nonlinear Observer Design Using Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy
Models, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010.
[7] S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Féron, V. Balakrishnan, Linear matrix
Mathematics; Philadelphia. 1994.
[8] Nejjari, F.; Rotondo, D.; Puig, V.; Innocenti, M.; , "LPV modelling and
control of a Twin Rotor MIMO System," Control & Automation
(MED), 2011 19th Mediterranean Conference on , vol., no., pp.1082-
1087, 2011.
[9] B. Pratap; S. Purwar, “Neural network observer for twin rotor MIMO
40 50 system: An LMI based approach”, in Proc. 2010 International
Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC), pp.
539 – 544, 2010.
[10] Q. G. Wang, “Decoupling control” LNCIS 285,pp 115-128 2003.
[11] D. Driankov, H. Hellendoorn, and M. Reinfrank, An introduction to
fuzzy control, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1993.
[12] K. P. Tee, S. S. Ge, and F. E. H. Tay, “Adaptive neural network
control for helicopters in vertical flight,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 753–762, Jul. 2008.
[13] P. Wen and T. W. Lu, “Decoupling control of a twin rotor MIMO
system using robust deadbeat control technique,” IET Control Theory
Appl., vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 999–1007, 2008.
[14] T. S. Kim, J. H. Yan, Y. S. Lee, and O. K. Kwo, “Twin rotors system
modeling and bumpless transfer implementation algorithm for LQ
control,” in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. SICE-ICAE, 2006, pp. 114–119.
[15] C. S. Liu, L. R. Chen, B. Z. Li, S. K. Chen, and Z. S. Zeng,
“Improvement of the twin rotor MIMO system tracking and transient
response using fuzzy control technology,” in Proc. IEEE Congr. Ind.
Electron. Appl., 2006, pp. 1–6.
[16] C. L. Hwang and C. Y. Kuo, “A stable adaptive fuzzy sliding mode
control for affine nonlinear systems with application to four-bar
linkage systems,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 238–252,
Apr. 2001.
[17] Chin-Wang Tao; Jin-Shiuh Taur; Yeong-Hwa Chang; Chia-Wen
Chang, "A Novel Fuzzy-Sliding and Fuzzy-Integral-Sliding Controller
for the Twin-Rotor Multi-Input–Multi-Output System," Fuzzy
Systems, IEEE Transactions on , vol.18, no.5, pp.893-905, 2010.
[18] T.M. Guerra and L. Vermeiren, “LMI-based relaxed non-quadratic
stabilization conditions for nonlinear systems in Takagi-Sugeno's
form”, Automatica, Vol. 40(5), pp823-829. 2004.
[19] H.D. Tuan, P. Apkarian, T. Narikiyo, and Y. Yamamoto.
“Parameterized linear matrix inequality techniques in fuzzy control
system design”. IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, 9(2):324–332, 2001.
[20] Q. Ahmed, A.I. Bhatti, S. Iqbal, "Robust decoupling control design for
twin rotor system using Hadamard weights," Control Applications,
(CCA) & Intelligent Control, (ISIC), 2009 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1009-
1014, 8-10 July 2009.
[21] Twin Rotor MIMO System Advanced Technical Manual, Feedback
Instruments LTD., Crowborough, UK, 33-007-4M5, 1997.
12