Linear Controllers for the NXT Ballbot with Parameter Variations
Using Linear Matrix Inequalities
Rafael A. García-García and Manuel Arias-Montiel
F
or years, one of the main challeng-
es for teachers of the automatic
control courses at both the under-
graduate and postgraduate levels has
been breaking the barrier between the
strong mathematical content of these
courses and the practice of applying
such knowledge to real systems. Some
students envision automatic control
courses as a set of abstract mathemat-
ics, and even when they understand
how to solve textbook problems, few
students assimilate how to apply this
knowledge to real systems or grasp
the true importance of such courses in
various branches of engineering [1],
[2]. To try to address these issues, some
researchers have exerted considerable
effort to make the understanding of
some advanced automatic control con-
cepts more accessible from the math-
ematical point of view using graphical
or tabular concepts that can be handled
in any basic control course [3]–[5].
Recently, with advances in computer
technology, numerical simulation tools
have also been widely used to facilitate
the teaching-learning process in the au-
tomatic control area [6]–[8].
Laboratory practices and design
projects have been the most widely
used tools by the community for
teaching automatic control to ensure
that the students relate the theory
learned in the classroom with its
implementation in real systems. How-
ever, the equipment required in an
automatic control laboratory is often
expensive and difficult to maintain,
leading to too few workstations for the
number of students. For these reasons,
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MCS.2016.2535915
Date of publication: 18 May 2016
1066-033X/16©2016ieee
Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the trend is to base laboratory ses- of RAM and 256 KB of flash memory.
sions in the automatic control courses The brick also contains an Atmel 8-b
in experimental platforms that are AVR processor running at 8 MHz to
affordable, portable, and reconfigu- operate the servomotors and rotation
rable to allow the students to develop sensors [14], [15]. In addition, LEGO
practical activities, including outside Mindstorms NXT can be programmed
the laboratory setting [1], [2], [9]. in different programming languages
In this context, LEGO Mindstorms and environments such as RobotC [14],
is a reprogrammable, low-cost robot- Java [15], Matlab [16], and Labview [17].
ics kit widely used in education and The ballbot is a skinny, agile, and
research activities. These features omnidirectional robot that balances on,
allow the kit to be applied in various and is propelled by, a single spherical
fields of engineering, mainly in the wheel. The ballbot dynamics are based
automatic control and robotics areas on the spherical inverted pendulum,
[2], [10]–[14]. The LEGO Mindstorms and it is an interesting object of study
NXT kit includes structural elements, for students, engineers, and researchers
servomotors, sensors for different in automatic control. The NXT ballbot
physical variables, and the NXT brick, [18] is a version designed for the LEGO
which contains an Atmel 32-b ARM Mindstorms NXT kit based on the orig-
processor running at 48 MHz. This inal ballbot [19]. The NXT ballbot (see
processor has direct access to 64 KB Figure 1) is built using standard parts
NXT Brick
Gyroscopic
Sensors dc Motors and
Rotary Encoders
Rubber Wheels
y
Plastic Ball
z x
Figure 1  A three-dimensional view of the ballbot structure. The plastic ball is supported
by three wheels and the LEGO structural parts attached diagonally. The wheels include
two rubber tires attached to servomotors and one freely spinning wheel. The NXT ballbot
can be moved and kept in equilibrium controlling independently the servomotors, which
provide rotational movement in xy and zy planes.
JUNE 2016  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  121
included in the LEGO Mindstorms
NXT kit and two gyroscopic sensors
used to measure the inclination rates
and angles about the two axes needed
to balance the ballbot.
The balancing problem of the NXT
ballbot has been dealt with using
model-based control such as the linear-
quadratic regulator (LQR) [14], [18] and
the eigenvalue-placement approach [20].
However, in any mathematic model,
there are often parametric uncertain-
ties. In the particular case of the NXT
ballbot, uncertainties appear when the
actuator dynamics are included in the
model due to the servomotor param-
eters that cannot be measured. In this
context, some authors have reported
different values for physical param-
eters for NXT servomotors based on
experimental tests [14], [18], [21]–[23].
The parametric uncertainties can nega-
tively impact the control algorithm per-
formance, so other control approaches,
such as robust ­control techniques, must
be ­considered.
The robust control approach pre-
sented here is based on linear matrix
inequalities (LMIs), which is an
approach to deal with the problem of
parametric uncertainty and to pro-
vide robustness to control algorithms
developed based on dynamical mod-
els. In spite of LMI theory going back
more than 100 years, their importance
in control systems was only recently
recognized (in the early 1960s), and,
due to the lack of powerful comput-
ers and efficient algorithms to solve
them, they did not receive a great
deal of consideration from control
researchers until the late 1980s [3],
[24]–[26]. In recent years, LMIs have
become in a powerful tool in the field
of control systems, mainly because
of the development of efficient and
reliable solution algorithms. Today,
many theoretical and practical control
applications can be efficiently solved
by the LMI approach using commer-
cial software, such as Matlab, Yalmip,
or CVX [26], [27]. These computational
tools have made the use of LMIs more
accessible for students, engineers, and
researchers without the need for a
122  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2016
Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
deep mathematical background. In
particular, in the formulation of robust
control problems as LMIs, a reduced
number of elementary technical results,
in the context of linear algebra, are
required. These technical results can
be introduced by motivating examples
dealing with basic concepts such as sta-
bility and state feedback (see [3] and [26,
Chaps. 2 and 7]).
The results presented in this article
are intended to help meet the goal of
bridging the gap between the theory of
automatic control and its application
to real systems, with emphasis on the
use of commonly accessible tools such
as commercial software for numerical
simulation and for solving the LMIs
and low-cost hardware for the practical
implementation. In the opinion of the
authors, the results presented in this
article may be used in control courses
for graduate and senior undergraduate
students because they would have the
prerequisite background knowledge in
linear algebra, calculus, linear system
theory, and numerical methods. More-
over, the LEGO Mindstorms NXT is an
affordable test rig used for the experi-
mental implementation.
The NXT can be programmed in
Matlab, which makes it possible to
take advantage of specific toolboxes
to solve LMI problems [28], [29]. This
article follows directly from the results
presented in [11], where the LMI
approach was used to provide robust-
ness to classical LQR control to solve the
balancing problem of the NXT ballbot.
However, the results were presented
only for one vertex of the polytopic
model, and the comparison of the clas-
sical LQR performance and the robust
case is not covered in the experimental
results. Moreover, neither classical nor
robust eigenvalue-placement control-
lers were considered. In this article,
the NXT ballbot dynamics based on
[18] are considered. The nonlinear
model is linearized around an equilib-
rium point, and this linearized model
is used to synthesize classical eigen-
value-placement and LQR control
schemes. By numerical simulation, the
effects of some parameter variations
are investigated in the closed-loop
system. A polytopic model consider-
ing variations within a bounded set
for the inertial and friction parameters
for system actuators is defined. The
eigenvalue-placement and LQR con-
trollers are redesigned by LMIs using
the polytopic model. Some simulation
results show that controllers designed
by LMIs are robust against parameter
variation. Finally, some experimental
results are presented to demonstrate
the robust behavior of the controllers
including some external disturbances.
To emphasize the possible use
of the obtained results in control
courses, an introduction paragraph
has been included in some sections
with suggested activities for students.
The authors hope that the concepts
and results presented in this article
will be able to help students realize
that the theory learned in the class-
room can be applied to real systems
and, in this way, to break the barrier
between control theory and control
application, even for relatively new
control algorithms, such as those
based on LMIs.
Dynamic Modeling
Dynamical models are a necessary
tool in control systems analysis and
design. This section presents the
dynamical model of the NXT ballbot
based on [18]. The authors propose,
as a classroom activity, that students
obtain the NXT ballbot dynamics by
the Euler–Lagrange formalism and
after that, they linearize the nonlin-
ear obtained system. In this way, stu-
dents will be able to apply a part of
the knowledge acquired in previous
courses such as system dynamics.
NXT Ballbot Dynamics
Assuming that the motion in xy plane
and zy plane are decoupled and that
the equations of motion in these two
planes are identical, the NXT ballbot
can be considered as two separate, and
identical, spherical wheeled inverted-
pendulum models for each plane [14],
[18]. Under this assumption, two iden-
tical motion equations are obtained
and only one plane of motion is ana-
y ψ
lyzed. In Figure 2, a simplified repre-
sentation for the NXT ballbot in the xy
plane is shown. Motion in the xy plane
yb
from Figure 2 is described by the body
Mb, Jψ
inclination angle in relation to vertical
axis }, the plastic ball angle in rela-
L
tion to vertical axis i, the plastic ball
angle due to the contact with the drive
wheel i s, and the drive wheel angle θ θs
given by the actuator i m .
Assuming no slippage between the
drive wheel and the plastic ball, and θm
considering i and } as the generalized Rs
ys Rw
coordinates within the Euler–Lagrange
formalism, the dynamic model for NXT Ms, Js Mw, Jw
ballbot is [18]
xs xb x

;(M s + M b) R s2 + ( J m + J ~) + J sE ip +
2
R s
R~ 2 Figure 2  A spherical wheeled inverted pendulum model for the xy plane. The NXT ball-
bot body is considered an inverted pendulum with mass center coordinates xb, yb; mass
;M b R s L cos } - 2s (J m + J ~)E }p -
R2
Mb; and mass moment of inertia J } . Ms, Js, and Rs are the mass, moment of inertia, and
R~ radius of the plastic ball and Mw, Jw, and Rw are the mass, moment of inertia, and radius

M b R s L}o 2 sin } = Fi, of drive wheels attached to servomotor.
(1)

;M b R s L cos } - (J m + J ~)E ip +
R s2 where ea is the input voltage, kb is the
;M b R s L - (J m + J ~)E ip +
R 2s
R ~2 R 2~ back electromotive force constant, and
;M b L2 + J } + 2s ( J m + J ~)E }p -
R2
;M b L2 + J } + 2s (J m + J ~)E }p -
R2 Ra is the armature resistance. Substi-

R~ R~ tuting (8) into (5) and (6), the gener-
 
M b gL sin } = F} . M b gL} = F} . alized forces as functions of input
(2) (4) voltage are
Actuators Fi = ae a - b (io - }o ), (9)
Model Linearization The generalized forces Fi and F} in
The mathematical model expressed F} = - ae a + b (io - }o ), (10)
the ballbot model (3) and (4) represent
by (1) and (2) is nonlinear. To be able the servomotor torques
to control the NXT ballbot by linear with a = k p /R a and b = k ((k p k b /R a)
control schemes, the dynamic model Fi = k p i a - b e io m, (5) + b e).
can be linearized around an equilib-
F} = - k p i a + b e io m, (6)
rium point using the algebraic method
State-Space Ballbot Model
[30]. The control objective is to keep where kp is the torque constant, be is the
the NXT ballbot in a vertical position, friction coefficient inside the motor, ia is The linearized model expressed by (3)
so the dynamic model is linearized the armature current, and io m is the angu- and (4) can be rewritten in matrix form as
around } = 0. lar speed. With k = R s /R w, the motor
E = G + F = G + G ; E = He a, (11)
ip io i
Accounting for the limit } " 0 angular speed can be expressed as [18]
}p }o }
(sin } . }, cos } . 1) and neglecting
io m = k (io - }o ) . (7)
the higher-order terms for } (assuming where E is the inertia matrix, F is the
small oscillations), (1) and (2) are linear- To be able to control the servomotor Coriolis and centrifugal forces matrix,
ized around the equilibrium point [14], from a voltage input, using the electri- G is the potential energy matrix, and H
[18] to yield cal dynamics of the servomotor and is the input matrix. These matrices are
neglecting the armature inductance, defined as
the armature current can be expressed
(J m + J ~) + J sE ip +
;(M s + M b) R 2s +
R 2s
E=; E, F = ; E,
R 2~ in terms of the input voltage as E 11 E 12 F11 F12
E 21 E 22 F21 F22
;M b R s L - 2s (J m + J ~)E }p = Fi,
R2 
G=; E, H = ; E,
R~ e a - k b k (io - }o ) G 11 G 12 H1
ia = , (8)
(3) Ra G 21 G 22 H2

JUNE 2016  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  123

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
with theory that can be solved with the
LMI approach include the construc-
E 11 = (M s + M b) R s2 + k 2 (J m + J ~) + J s, tion of quadratic Lyapunov functions
E 12 = M b R s L - k 2 (J m + J ~), for stability and performance analy-
E 21 = LM b R s - k 2 (J m + J ~), sis of linear differential inclusions,
E 22 = M b L2 + J } + k 2 (J m + J ~), the joint synthesis of state-feedback
F11 = b, F12 = - b, F21 = - b, F 22 = b, and quadratic Lyapunov functions for
G 11 = 0, G 12 = 0, G 21 = 0, G 22 =- M b gL, linear differential inclusions, and the
optimization over an affine family of
H 1 = a, H 2 = - a .
transfer function matrices including
Choosing the state vector x = synthesis of multipliers for analysis of
6i } io }o @T and the input vector u = linear systems with unknown param-
ea, the ballbot model in state space can eters and multicriterion linear qua-
be represented by dratic Gaussian (LQG) or LQR [24]. An
LMI is a constraint of the form
xo = Ax + Bu,
 papers published about LMIs are related
y = Cx, (12) m
F (z) _ F0 + / z i Fi 2 0, (13)
with the definitions of A, B, and C i=1
shown in the box at the bottom of
the page. where z = (z 1, f, z m) T ! R m is the vec-
tor of m variables, Fi = F iT ! R n # n,
Linear Matrix Inequalities i = 0, f, m are given symmetric mat­­
and Polytopic Models rices, the symbol > means that the
This section is a brief introduction to matrix F (z) is positive definite, which
LMIs and polytopic models, which means u T F (z) u 2 0 for all non-
are central topics in this article. Basic zero u ! R n [24]–[26]. The LMI (13)
concepts about LMIs are discussed is a convex constraint on z, that is,
in [3] and the introduction chapters {z F (z) 2 0} is convex. Although the
of [24] and [26]. See [27], [31], and [34] LMI (13) may seem to have a special-
for further applications in engineering ized form, it can represent a wide vari-
systems of polytopic models. ety of convex constraints on z.
The history of LMIs begins with
Linear Matrix Inequalities the Lyapunov theory in about 1890.
A wide variety of problems in sys- He showed that the differential
tems and control theory can be equation
reduced to a few standard convex or
xo (t) = Ax (t), 
quasi-convex optimization problems
involving LMIs. These optimization is stable (all trajectories converge to
problems can be solved numerically zero) if and only if there exists a posi-
and efficiently using commercial and tive-definite matrix P such that
accessible software tools. The types
of problems in control and systems A T P + PA 1 0. 
R0 V = ) / j i v i, j i 2 0,
S 0 1 0 W i=1
S0 0 0 1 W
S E 12 G 22 E 12 F21 - E 22 F11 E 12 F22 - E 22 F12 W
A = S0 ,
2
S E 11 E 22 - E 12 E 11 E 22 - E 12
2
E 11 E 22 - E 212 WW
SS0 - E 11 G 22 2 E 21 F11 - E 11 2F21 E 21 F12 - E 11 F22 W
E 11 E 22 - E 12 E 11 E 22 - E 12 E 11 E 22 - E 212 W
RT 0 V X
S W R1 0 V sented by the convex polytope
S 0 W S 0 0W
S E 22 H 11 - E 12 H 21 W S0 1 0 0W
B=S W , C=S .
1 0W
2
S E 11 E 22 - E 12 W SS
0 0
WW
SS E 11 H 21 - E 21 2H 11 WW T0 0 0 1X
T
E 11 E 22 - E 12
X = ) / j i g i, j i 2 0,
124  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2016
Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The requirement P 2 0, A T P + PA 1 0
is the Lyapunov inequality on P, which
is a special form of an LMI. This mile-
stone was followed by other relevant
advances in the 20th century about the
application of Lyapunov’s methods to
some practical problems in control engi-
neering, the development of graphical
techniques for solving some families of
LMIs, the recognition that various LMIs
can be solved by computer using convex
programming, and the development of
efficient algorithms for LMIs [24]. The
importance of LMIs in automatic control
is reflected by the fact that nearly half of
to control and systems applications.
Polytopic Models
In general terms, a dynamic model of
a linear system expressed in state vari-
ables, as (12), can be considered a linear
differential inclusion (LDI). An LDI is
called a polytopic LDI, or PLDI, when
model matrices include terms with a
linear dependence on uncertain param-
eters that vary within some bounded
set [24]. PLDIs are expressed as
xo = A (t) x + B (t) u, x (0) = x 0,
  
y = C (t) x + D (t) u, (14)
where t = (t 1, f, t n p) is the vector
of np uncertain parameters. Each
uncertain parameter t i is bounded
by a minimum and maximum value
[t imin, t imax] . The possible combinations
of minimum and maximum values of
the vector t define a convex polytope
with 2 n p vertices " v 1, f, v L , . Convex
polytopes can be represented by the
convex combination
t ! C 0 " v 1, f, v L ,
L L
/ j i = 1 3,
i=1
where C 0 ! R n p is the convex hull of
the set of vertices.
When dependency on t is linear,
the matrix system X (t) can be repre-
X (t) ! C 0 " g 1, f, g L ,
L L
/ j i = 1 3,
i=1 i=1
 Table 1  Physical parameters for servomotors obtained experimentally by some authors. The moment of inertia and the
friction coefficient are the parameters with more variation in their values.

Parameter Reference [14] Reference [21] Reference [22] Reference [18] Reference [23]
R a [X] 4.6 6.85 5.0012 6.69 4.6

L a [H] 3.7 # 10 - 3 Neglected 1 # 10 - 3 neglected 5.7 # 10 - 3

J m 6kg·m 2@ 45 # 10 - 9 Neglected 2.4589 # 10 - 6 10 # 10 - 6 2.96 # 10 - 3

b e [N·m·s] 1.85 # 10 - 3 1.1278 # 10 - 3 38.745 # 10 - 6 2.2 # 10 - 3 0.914 # 10 - 3

K p ; N·m E 0.48 0.3179 0.5246 0.317 0.49

A

K b ; V·s E 0.48 0.46389 0.5246 0.468 0.49

rad

with
  X (t) ! C 0 = '; E, f, ; E1,
A1 B1 AL BL
C1 D1 CL DL
(15)
where the vertices g i correspond
to images v i, that is, g i = X (v i) . See
[24]–[26] for more details on LMIs and
polytopic models of uncertainty.
NXT Ballbot
Polytopic Model
This section develops the polytopic
model of the NXT ballbot. Students
are encouraged to read some refer-
ences about polytopic models, apply
the concepts learned to the NXT ball-
bot, and then validate the presented
polytopic model. Moreover, students
can explore the possibility of includ-
ing uncertainties in other parameters
in the polytopic model.
The approach taken is to include these
parameter variations in a polytopic
model, so for the NXT ballbot, the
polytopic model is obtained in terms
of these two parameters. The uncer-
tain parameter vector is
t = ^b e J mh, (16)
with the resultant polytope having L =
4 vertices, bounded by the minimum
and maximum values
b e ! 6b e min b e max@, J m ! 6J m min J m max@ .
 (17)
These uncertain parameters are
present in matrices A and B of (12),
and these matrices depend on the
uncertain parameters in a linear
form, so it is possible to define a poly-
tope with four vertices that contains
all the possible values for the uncer-
the matrices A and B depend on ele-
ments of matrices E and F, the mini-
mum and maximum values for these
matrices are presented to simplify
the notation as shown in (18), at the
bottom of the page. In terms of the
matrix elements of (18), the four ver-
tices of polytopic model for matrices
A and B are shown in the box at the
top of the next page. To ensure that
the steady-state error converges to
zero, another state variable p, corre-
sponding to the integral of position
error [18], is added to the polytopic
model. The extended polytopic model
is expressed by
xo a = A a x + B a u, (19)
where
x a = 6x p@T,

Aa = ; E, B a = ; E, i = 1, f, L.
As mentioned above, different tain parameters between their mini- Ai 0 Bi
values for the NXT ballbot actua- mum and maximum values. Because -C 0 0
tors (NXT servomotors) have been
reported in the literature. Accord-
ing to data presented in Table 1, the
E min = = G,
(M s + M b) R 2s + k 2 (J m min + J ~) + J s M b R s L - k 2 (J m min + J ~)
moment of inertia Jm and friction coef- LM b R s - k 2 (J m min + J ~) M b L2 + J } + k 2 (J m min + J ~)
ficient be are the parameters with the
E max = = G,
2 2 2
(M s + M b) R s + k (J m max + J ~) + J s M b R s L - k (J m max + J ~)
most variation. These parameters are LM b R s - k 2 (J m max + J ~) M b L2 + J } + k 2 (J m max + J ~)
difficult to measure, and, in particu- R V
S k c b e min + (K b K p) m - k c b e min + (K b K p) mW
lar for the friction, complex to model S Ra Ra W
Fmin = S b e min + (K b K p) b e min + (K b K p) W,
with accuracy because different phe- SS- k c m kc m WW
nomena can cause energy dissipation Ra Ra
RT XV
(viscous damping, Coulomb friction). S k c b e max + (K b K p) m - k c b e max + (K b K p) mW
S Ra Ra W
These parameters appear in a linear Fmax = S b e max + (K b K p) b e max + (K b K p) W .
form in the system model [(3) and (4)] SS- k c m kc m WW (18)
Ra Ra
that considers the actuator dynamics. T X

JUNE 2016  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  125

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 R0 0 1 0 V
S W
S0 0 0 1 W
S E min 12 G 22 E min 12 Fmin 21 - E min 22 Fmin 11 E min 12 Fmin 22 - E min 22 Fmin 12 W
A1 = 0
S E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 ,
S E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 WW
SS0 - E min 11 G 22 E min 21 Fmin 11 - E min 11 Fmin 21 E min 21 Fmin 12 - E min 11 Fmin 22 W
E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 W
T X
R 0 V
S W
S 0 W
S E min 22 H 11 - E min 12 H 21 W
B1 = S 2 W,
S E min 11 E min 22 - E min 12 W
SS E min 11 H 21 - E min 21 H211 WW
E E - E min 12
TR min 11 min 22 X V
S 0 0 1 0 W
S0 0 0 1 W
S E min 12 G 22 E min 12 Fmax 21 - E min 22 Fmax 11 E min 12 Fmax 22 - E min 22 Fmax 12 W
A 2 = S0 ,
S E min 11 E min 22 - E min 12
2
E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 WW
SS0 - E min 11 G 22 E min 21 Fmax 11 - E min 11 Fmax 21 E min 21 Fmax 12 - E min 11 Fmax 22 W
E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 E min 11 E min 22 - E min 212 W
T X
B 2 = B 1,
R0 0 1 0 V
S W
S0 0 0 1 W
S E max 12 G 22 E max 12 Fmin 21 - E max 22 Fmin 11 E max 12 Fmin 22 - E max 22 Fmin 12 W
A 3 = S0 ,
S E max 11 E max 22 - E max 12
2 2
E max 11 E max 22 - E max 12 E max 11 E max 22 - E max 12 WW
2

SS0 - E max 11 G 22 E max 21 Fmin 11 - E max 11 Fmin 21 E max 21 Fmin 12 - E max 11 Fmin 22 W
E max 11 E max 22 - E max 212 E max 11 E max 22 - E max 212 E max 11 E max 22 - E max 212 W
T X
R 0 V
S W
S 0 W
S E max 22 H 11 - E max 12 H 21 W
B3 = S 2 W,
S E max 11 E max 22 - E max 12 W
SS E max 11 H 21 - E max 21 H211 WW
E E - E max 12
TR max 11 max 22 X V
S0 0 1 0 W
S0 0 0 1 W
S E max 12 G 22 E max 12 Fmax 21 - E max 22 Fmax 11 E max 12 Fmax 22 - E max 22 Fmax 12 W
A 4 = S0 ,
S E max 11 E max 22 - E max 12
2
E max 11 E max 22 - E max 212 E max 11 E max 22 - E max 212 WW
SS0 - E max 11 G 22 E max 21 Fmax 11 - E max 11 Fmax 21 E max 21 Fmax 12 - E max 11 Fmax 22 W
E max 11 E max 22 - E max 212 E max 11 E max 22 - E max 212 E max 11 E max 22 - E max 212 W
T X
B4 = B3 .

Robust Controller
Design Using LMIs
Students should follow the tutorial
in “Linear Matrix Inequalities with
Matlab’s Robust Control Toolbox” to
use the concepts developed in this
section and to try to reproduce the
obtained results. Moreover, [28] and
[29] provide insights on using Matlab
to numerically solve some common
LMIs in control systems.
During the development of con-
trollers, a minimum requirement is to
stabilize the system; however, it is often
desirable that these controllers improve
performance in terms of optimizing
the effort in the control input, ensure
a fast enough response time, yield a
well-damped system response, and
are robust to uncertainties in the sys-
tem model. Such requirements can be
formulated as convex optimization
problems using LMIs [24]–[26]. This
section presents some relevant results
to show how some typical problems in
control theory can be solved with the
LMI approach.
Quadratic Stability of an Uncertain
Plant Based on Lyapunov Function
The most important feature of the
behavior of a dynamical system is
the stability [26]. The majority of the
work done on the stability behavior
of dynamical systems is based on a
formal definition of stability given by
Lyapunov [32]. The Lyapunov stability
criterion can be expressed in the LMI
context as follows.
Given a linear time-invariant (LTI)
system
xo = Ax + Bu,

y = Cx, (20)
a necessary and sufficient c­ondition
for all trajectories converge to the ori-
gin (zero), (which means the system
is stable) when t " 3, is the existence

126  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2016

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
of a quadratic function (V (x) = x T P x,
P 2 0, for all x ! 0) decreasing along
any nontrivial trajectory. If such P
exists, the system LTI is quadratically
stable and function V is called a qua-
dratic Lyapunov function [24]–[26].
Since
d V (x) = x T (A (t) T P + PA (t)) x,
dt
a necessary and sufficient condition for
quadratic stability of an LTI system is
P 2 0, A T P + PA 1 0, for all A ! X,
(21)
which represents the necessary condi-
tion for the existence of the Lyapunov
function in LMI form [24]–[26]. It is
often convenient to express (21) in an
alternative way [24], [26]. Multiplying
the second inequality in (21) left and
right by P -1, and defining a new vari-
able Q = P -1, (21) can be rewritten as
Q 2 0, QA T + AQ 1 0, for all A ! X.
 (22)
This double inequality is equivalent to
the quadratic stability condition [24]–
[26]. For LTI and PLDI systems
»» LTI systems: P 2 0, A T P +
PA 1 0, or analogously Q 2 0,
AQ + QA T 1 0,
»» PLDI polytopic systems: P2 0,
A Ti P + PA i 1 0, i = 0, f, L, or
analogously
  Q 2 0, QA Ti + A i Q 1 0, i = 0, f, L.
(23)
Quadratic Stabilization
by Linear State Feedback
The following theorem adapts the
quad­ ratic stability inequality (23) for
a closed-loop system (20) with a linear
state feedback u = - Kx [24], [26]. The
proof of the theorem is given in [33] or
[25, Chap. 6].
Theorem 1
System (20) can be stabilized by linear
state feedback u = - Kx if and only
if there exists a symmetric matrix
Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Q ! R n # n and a matrix Y ! R m # n
such that
AQ + QA T + BY + Y T B T 1 0, (24)
where Y = KQ .  4 bility concept is to try to measure
Once this LMI has a feasible solu-
tion for Q 2 0 and Y, then the qua-
dratic function V (x) = x T Q -1 x proves
quadratic stability of system (20) with
linear state feedback u = - YQ -1 x.
The case with PLDI systems is
a direct extension that is solved by
computing (24) at all the vertices of
the convex polytope (14). This exten-
sion ensures the quadratic stability of
a uncertain parameter system if there
exists Q 2 0 and Y such that
A i Q + QA Ti + B i Y + Y T B Ti 1 0,

i = 1, f, L. (25)
The quadratic stability condition can
also be interpreted as an invariant
ellipsoid. The ellipsoid
f = "p ! R
n
p Q
T -1
p # 1 ,, 
is invariant for the system (20) if, for
every trajectory x of the LDI, x (t 0) ! f
implies x (t) ! f for all t $ t 0 . This
statement is true if and only if (24), or
alternatively (25), is satisfied [24].
Constraints on the Variables
When the initial condition is known,
an upper bound on the norm of the
control input u = - Kx can be found
as follows. Once the Q 2 0 and Y that
satisfy the quadratic stability condi-
tion have been found, an additional
constraint x (0) T Q -1 x (0) # 1, implies
that x (t) belongs to f for all t $ 0, and,
consequently,
max
t$0
u (t) = max
t$0
YQ -1 x (t) ,
# max YQ -1 x ,
x!
f
1 1
= m max ` Q - 2 Y T YQ - 2 j .
Therefore, the constraint u (t) # n is
guaranteed at all times t $ 0, if the LMIs
 = G $ 0, = G $ 0, (26)
1 x (0) T Q YT
x (0) Q Y n2 I
JUNE 2016  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  127
hold, where Q 2 0 and Y satisfy the
stability conditions [24].
Robustness
The basic idea behind the robust sta-
how stable a system is in the pres-
ence of some uncertainty or pertur-
bation in the closed-loop system. If
this same concept is applied in terms
of a given level of acceptability of a
specific performance criterion, such
as overshoot or settling time, this is
called robust performance [32]. When
the closed-loop system is robustly
stable, the quadratic stabilization for
the polytopic model can be guaran-
teed. This condition can be achieved
by considering the corresponding
restrictions in the LMI formulation.
On the other hand, the closed-loop sys-
tem with eigenvalue-placement con-
trol has robust performance because
solving the corresponding LMIs for
this controller ensures the closed-
loop eigenvalues are within an LMI
region (see the next section), and this
is equivalent to imposing a certain
performance criterion on the system.
Finally, LQR control minimizes a cost
function that can be translated as a
minimization of the quadratic state
error considering constraints on the
control effort available. This con-
trol scheme can be extended to poly-
topic models using LMIs, and, in this
sense, the control presents a robust
performance because it continues
complying with the performance cri-
terion even if there are variations in
system parameters.
Eigenvalue Placement
Before stating the requirements for eigen-
value placement in certain regions of the
complex plane, the LMI region concept is
defined [34].
Definition 1
A subset D of the complex plane is
called an LMI region if there exists
a symmetric matrix L ! R m # m and a
matrix M ! R m # m such that
D = " z ! C: L + zM + zr M T 1 0 ,,
 Linear Matrix Inequalities with Matlab’s Robust Control Toolbox

R eference [29] presents the LMI Toolbox, which is included in ­structures) and by an additional structure matrix that con-
the Robust Control Toolbox in the latest versions of Matlab. tains specific information about the structure and corre-
This LMI toolbox has been designed to assist control engineers sponds to the second argument of lmivar syntax. Note that
and researchers with a user-friendly interac-
tive environment. Through this environment,
it is possible to specify and solve various
LMIs often found in engineering problems
[26]. The specification of an LMI system in-
volves two steps: declaring the dimensions
and structure of each matrix variable and de-
scribing the content of each term in the LMIs.
Matlab offers two ways of generating the in-
ternal description of a given LMI system:
• a command-based description by a se-
quence of lmivar/lmiterm commands
that build the LMI incrementally
• an LMI editor description by the lmiedit
command, where the LMIs can be speci-
fied directly as symbolic matrix expres- Figure S1  Description of matrix variables and linear matrix inequalities (LMI) as
sions by a graphical user interface (GUI). Matlab expressions in the graphical user interface of LMI editor description.
The first step is to evaluate the quadratic sta-
bility of the polytopic system using (23). An
infeasible solution is obtained due to the fact
that the open-loop system is unstable. After
that, a control law u = - Kx that stabilizes
the system is found from the LMI equations
for the eigenvalue-placement and LQR ap-
proaches. The initial conditions and upper
bound of the control input u = 9V in (26) can
also be satisfied.
The following steps show how to find con-
troller gains when using eigenvalue place-
ment in LMI regions.
1) Typing lmiedit in the command window of
Matlab and give a name to the LMI system
in the worksheet, in this case EigenLMIs.
2) Declare each matrix variable (name and
structure) in the upper half of the work-
sheet. The structure is characterized by
its type (S for symmetric block diago- Figure S2  Description of the linear matrix inequality system generated by lmivar/
nal, R for unstructured, and G for other lmiterm commands.

where the function
fD (z) = L + zM + zr M T,
is the characteristic function of D.
An LMI region is a subset of the
complex plane that is representable
by an LMI in z y zr or, equivalently, an
LMI in x = Re (z) and y = Im (z) . As
a result, LMI regions are convex and
symmetric with respect to the real
axis of the complex plane.
An interesting region for control
purposes is the set S (a, r, i) of complex
numbers x + yj such that
x 1 - a 1 0, x + yj 1 r, tan ix 1 - y .
(27)
Confining the closed-loop eigenval-
ues to this region ensures a mini-
mum decay rate a, a minimum
damping ratio g = cos i, and a maxi-
mum undamped natural frequency
w d = r sin i [34]. The next theorem
provides a condition that restricts the
closed-loop eigenvalue to the region
S (a, r, i) [25], [26], [34].

128  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2016

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 it is necessary to use one line for each array variable in the
areas of text editing.
3) Specify the LMIs as Matlab expressions in the lower half of
the worksheet. For instance, the LMI (28) is entered by ­typing
W 2 0;
A_i * W + W * A_il - B_i * Y – Yl * B_il + 2 * alfa * W 1 0;
and (26), (29), and (30) are entered, as shown in Figure S1.
Once the LMI system is fully specified, clicking the view
commands button shows the sequence of lmivar/lmiterm
commands needed to describe this LMI system, as shown
in Figure S2.
Recall that Figures S1 and S2 only show LMI descriptions
for a single vertex of the polytopic system, but the polytopic
system has four vertices. Once the complete LMI system is
described, three types of basic LMI problems can be solved
using the ­c ommands feasp, mincx, and gevp. In the case
of pole placement in LMI regions, it is intended to solve a
feasibility problem, so the feasp syntax, which solves the
feasibility problem defined by the system EigenLMIs can be
used. When the problem is feasible, the output xfeas is a
feasible value of the vector of (­s calar) decision variables.
These steps are
[tmin, xfeas] = feasp (PolesLMIs);
W = dec2mat (PolesLMIs, xfeas, W),
Y = dec2mat (PolesLMIs, xfeas, Y),
K_poloslmi = Y/W.
This yields the equations W and Y found in the box at the bot-
tom of this sidebar, where W 2 0 is positive definite and the gain
matrix K = YW - 1 is
K = 6- 0.0026 - 1.5075 - 0.0175 - 0.2326 0.0005@ .
For the case of LQR with LMIs constraints, the numerical
problem described by (26) and (36) is solved analogously using
the mincx command and the trace operator with the results of
P and Y, found in the box at the bottom of the sidebar, where
P 2 0 is positive definite and the gain matrix K = YQ - 1 is
K = 6- 0.0072 - 1.3851 - 0.0181 - 0.2298 0.0025@ .
Thus, the gain matrix satisfies the LMI constraints while qua-
dratically stabilizing the closed-loop system. The gain matrix
reported in the literature for the simple LQR [18] is
K = 6- 0.0150 - 1.5698 - 0.0270 - 0.2325 0.0071@,
and for the eigenvalue placement without integral term [17] is
K = 6- 0.0075 - 1.4776 - 0.0226 - 0.1324@ .

R 823713.4328 56327.7536 - 680251.1018 - 326112.4245 1250408.7591VW

S
S 56327.7536 28511.4011 - 261122.3580 - 164956.8002 15520.9531W
W = SS- 680251.1018 - 261122.3580 2847006.3138 1487889.0651 3213.4952WW,
S- 326112.4245 - 164956.8002 1487889.0651 956379.5931 - 91658.1082W
S 1250408.7591 15520.9531 3213.4952 - 91658.1082 7416331.4479W
T X
Y = 61377.8228 - 164.0709 - 672.3299 885.3352 - 1673.3221@,

R 55640.1008 - 499.0107 - 29731.4429 2213.1898 3502.6265VW

S
S - 499.0107 78.3463 408.7464 - 411.7397 - 103.3359W
P = SS- 29731.4429 408.7464 383279.2671 - 23452.4578 47392.2934WW,
S 2213.1898 - 411.7397 - 23452.4578 4037.0795 73.5334W
S 3502.6265 - 103.3359 47392.2934 73.5334 99087.6544W
T X
Y = 6326.3348 - 17.9351 - 1772.9123 50.8749 - 503.7193@,

Theorem 2 and see (30), in the box at the bottom of

= G 1 0,
- rW WA Ti - Y T B Ti
The closed-loop eigenvalues of a sys- the page, where K = YW -1 is the state
Ai W - Bi Y - rW
tem (14) with state feedback u = - Kx  (29) feedback gain. 4
are within the region S (a, r, i) if there
exist matrices W = W T ! R n # n 2 0
and Y ! R m # n such that
= G1 0,   (30)
sin i (A i W + WA Ti - B i Y - Y T B Ti ) cos i (A i W - WA Ti - B i Y + Y T B Ti )
T T
A i W + WA - B i Y - Y T B + 2aW 1 0,
i i cos i (- A i W + WA Ti + B i Y - Y T B Ti ) sin i (A i W + WA Ti - B i Y - Y T B Ti )
(28)

JUNE 2016  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  129

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

The ballbot is a skinny, agile, and omnidirectional
robot that balances on, and is propelled by,
a single spherical wheel.
Linear Quadratic Regulator
The LQR problem can be extended to
polytopic systems through LMI restric-
tions, allowing a solution for systems
with uncertain parameters. Consider-
ing a linear system with parametric
uncertainties
xo = A (t) x + B (t) u, x (0) = x 0, (31)
the problem is finding a control law
by state feedback u = - Kx so that the
cost function
J= #0 3 ^x T Qx + u T Ruhdt 
can be minimized. The cost function
in closed loop is
J= #0 3 ^x T ^Q + K T RKhxhdt. 
By using the trace operator Tr ($),
which satisfies Tr (x T (Q + K T RK) x) =
Tr ((Q + K T RK) xx T) [24], [26], the per-
formance index is equivalent to
J= #0 3 Tr ^^Q + K T RK h xx T h dt,
= Tr ^^Q + K T RK h P h,
where P = # ^xx T h dt is a positive-
3
0
definite symmetric matrix that satisfies
^ A i - B i K h P + P ^ A i - B i K hT + I = 0,
 
i = 1, f, L, (32)

xref yref +
C ki
– tem. Finally, the LQR and eigenvalue-
+
kf
–
Figure 3 The servo controller scheme. The control law is state feedback plus an integral
of the error of state x1, which represents the angular position with respect to the vertical.
130  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2016
Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Therefore, the complete LMI for-
mulation of the LQR problem is
min
P, K, X
Tr ^QP h + Tr ^X h,
subject to
P 2 0,
A i P + PA Ti - B i Y - Y T B Ti + I 1 0,
i = 1, f, L
1
 = TX 1 R 2 YG 2 0. (36)
where the subscript i represents each Y R2 P
vertex of the polytope.
The optimal feedback gain K can Once this constrainted minimization
be found by solving is solved, the optimal LQR control-
ler can be recovered by K = YP -1 .
1 1 For details of the numerical solution
min Tr ^QP h + Tr ^R 2 KPK T R 2 h,
P, K for the LMIs in controller design, see
subject to ^A i - B i K h P +  “Linear Matrix Inequalities with Mat-
P ^A i - B i K hT + I 1 0. (33) lab’s Robust Control Toolbox.”
Note that (33) is not linear because the Numerical and
objective function involves the mul- Experimental Results
tiplication of variables P and K. So, a This section reports the numerical and
new variable is introduced Y = KP experimental results for the designed
and (33) is rewritten as controllers and robustness against
parametric uncertainties is proved.
1 1
min Tr ^QP h + Tr ^R 2 YP -1 Y T R 2 h, The authors hope that readers carry
P, K
out the experiments and simulations
subject to A i P + PA Ti - B i Y -
to reproduce these results and see
Y T B Ti + I 1 0. them applied to a real system.
(34) The general scheme for the pre-
sented controllers is based on state
1 1
The nonlinear term ^R 2 YP -1 Y T R 2 h feedback plus an integral term of
can be replaced by a second auxiliary state x1 as is shown in Figure 3. One of
1 1
variable X such that X 2 R 2 YP -1 Y T R 2 , the purposes of this article is to com-
which can be decomposed by the pare the controller’s performance
Schur complement [24] with variation in some parameter
values. To do this, parameter values
1 1
X - ^R 2 YP -1 Y T R 2 h 2 0 ,  for the NXT ballbot (see Table 2) and
gain values for classical LQR and
which is equivalent to eigenvalue-placement controllers
1
= TX 1 R YG 2 0. 
2 were taken from [18] and [20]. After
(35)
Y R2 P that, moment of inertia Jm and friction
coefficient be of the servo motors are
changed from a minimum to a maxi-
mum value according to Table 1 to
verify the effect of these variations in
+ u x y the behavior of the closed-loop sys-
x = Ax + Bu C
+
placement controllers are tuned by
LMIs considering the NXT ballbot
polytopic model to add robustness
against parametric uncertainties to
the controllers.
The design of the controllers is
carried out using Matlab functions
lqr and place. Numerical results were
obtained using Matlab, Simulink, and Table 2 NXT ballbot parameters used to synthesize the controllers and for
numerical simulations.
a supplement called Support Package for
LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT Hardware.
Parameter Value Parameter Value
The block diagram used for simula-
tion (and for experimental) purposes R a [X] 6.69 M s [kg] 0.013
is presented in Figure 4. L a [H] neglected R s [m] 0.026

Simulation Results for J m [kg·m 2] 10 # 10 - 6 J s [kg·m 2] 5.858 # 10 - 6

Classical Controllers b e [N·m·s] 2.2 # 10 - 3 M w [kg] 0.015
For all simulations, an initial value
of 2° was induced to the inclina- K p ; N·m E 0.317 R w [m] 0.021
A
tion angle } and the voltage input
for the servomotors was limited to 9 K b ; V·s E 0.468 L w [m] 0.022
rad
V because the NXT brick is supplied M b [kg] 0.682 J w 6kg·m 2@ 3.63 # 10 - 6
from six AA batteries. In Figure 5,
the numerical results for the closed- L [m] 0.17 J p 6kg·m 2@ 6.569 # 10 - 3
loop system with classical LQR are

pwm_z

pwm_x

Sim

NXT Ballbot Model Out

Coder
pwm_z
Environment
Controller of NXT Ballbot System Controller

pwm_x

NXT Ballbot Hardware

pwm_z pwm_z
0 Thetadot_ref_z
pwm_x pwm_x
1
Voltage Voltage
0 Thetadot_ref_x
Battery Battery
Reference Signal
Theta_Reference Theta_Reference
Sensor Signal
State_x State_x
Controller Monitor Real-Time Variables

Figure 4  A Simulink block diagram used to implement the control of the NXT ballbot in both numerical simulations and experimentally.
In simulation mode, the environment controller selects the NXT ballbot model, which contains the equations of the dynamical model of
the NXT ballbot, and receives the control signal (converted to pulse-width modulation) from the controller block; the output (the state
vector) is fed back to the controller. In experimental mode, the environment controller selects the NXT ballbot hardware, and the pro-
gram is run in external model. This NXT hardware block receives the control signal from controller block for the servomotors, and its
output is the gyrosensors signal of the real NXT ballbot.

JUNE 2016  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  131

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 presented. This controller shows an
400
acceptable performance stabilizing
300 Nominal Vertex 1 Vertex 2
200 Vertex 3 Vertex 4 the NXT ballbot, but only for the nom-
θ (°)

100 inal model (with nominal parameters)

0 and at vertices 1 and 2 of the polytopic
−100 model given by (19). However, at ver-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
tices 3 and 4, the controller is not able
10
to stabilize the system with the avail-
5
able control effort, that is, the con-
ψ (°)

0
troller is not robust to these changes
−5 in parameters.
−10 For the classical eigenvalue-place-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) ment controller, the same param-
eter variation cases as for LQR are
Figure 5 A closed-loop system response with a classical linear quadratic regulator
considered. In Figure 6, simulation
(LQR). The nominal model corresponds to parameters given in Table 2, and each vertex
corresponds to a combination of minimum and maximum values for the inertial and fric- results are shown. In the same way
tion parameters of the servomotors (Table 1). The control scheme is not able to stabilize as for LQR, the eigenvalue-placement
the system for all the possible values of the inertial and friction parameters of the servo- controller is not robust to parameter
motors. This means that classical LQR is not robust to parameter uncertainties. uncertainties. Moreover, the system
is not able to reach the zero reference
400 in the i state with the nominal model,
Nominal Vertex 1 Vertex 2 even for vertices 1 and 2.
200 Vertex 3 Vertex 4 These classical controllers are
θ (°)

0 tuned with the nominal model par­

ameters, and the numerical results
−100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 show that their performance is highly
10 affected by variations in parameter
5 values. In the next section, the meth-
odology previously described to pro-
ψ (°)

0
−5
vide robustness to these controllers
against bounded parameter uncer-
−10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 tainties is explored.
Time (s)

Figure 6  A closed-loop system response with classical eigenvalue-placement control. Simulation Results for
The control scheme is not able to stabilize the system for all possible values of the inertial LMI-Tuned Controllers
and friction parameters of the servomotors. This means that classical eigenvalue place- The LQR formulation can be extended
ment is not robust to parameter uncertainties. to polytopic systems by LMI constraints
to add robustness against parametric
200 uncertainties. The numerical problem
100 Nominal Vertex 1 Vertex 2 described by the constraints in (36) is
Vertex 3 Vertex 4 obtained by LMI solvers included in
θ (°)

0
the Robust Control Toolbox of Matlab
−100
[28], [29]. The first step is to evaluate
−200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 the quadratic stability of the polytopic
10 system using (23). An infeasible solu-
5 tion is obtained due to the fact that
the open-loop system is unstable.
ψ (°)

0
−5
Next, a control law u = - Kx that sta-
bilizes the system is found from the
−10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 LMI equations in the LQR approach
Time (s) with the additional constraint that the
upper bound of the control input is
Figure 7  A closed-loop system response with a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) tuned
by linear matrix inequalities. The control scheme is able to stabilize the system for all pos-
u = 9 V in (26). For details about the
sible values of the inertial and friction parameters of the servomotors. This means that use of Matlab’s Robust Control Tool-
tuning by linear matric inequalities provided robustness to uncertainties for LQR control. box to numerically solve this problem,

132  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2016

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
see “Linear Matrix Inequalities with
­Matlab’s Robust ­Control Toolbox.” 800
600
In Figure 7, the simulation of the 400
200

θ (°)
LQR controller tuned with the LMI 0
method is presented. Unlike classical −200
−400
LQR, the controller tuned with LMIs −600
is able to stabilize the system even 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
when the inertial and friction param- 10
5 Nominal Vertex 1 Vertex 2 Vertex 3 Vertex 4
eters of the servomotors change from

ψ (°)
the minimum to maximum values 0
given in Table 1. −5
For the case of eigenvalue place- −10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ment, LMI equations (28)–(30) with
Time (s)
a = 0.01, r = 2000, i = 85c, and the
constraint for the control input (26) Figure 8  A closed-loop system response with eigenvalue placement tuned by linear ma-
with u = 9 V was formulated and trix inequality regions. The control scheme improves the classical eigenvalue-placement
solved with Matlab’s Robust Control controller by adding robustness to changes in servomotor parameters. This controller
Toolbox [28], [29] (for details refer to is able to stabilize the system for all values for the inertial and friction parameters of the
servomotors.
“Linear Matrix Inequalities with Mat-
lab’s Robust Control Toolbox”). So,
this gain matrix guarantees the LMI 200
constraints while quadratically stabi- 100 XY Plane ZY Plane
lizing the closed-loop system. 0
θ (°)

−100
The numerical results for eigenvalue −200
placement within LMI regions are pre- −300
−400
sented in Figure 8. Again, the use of 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
LMIs provides robustness to parametric 50
uncertainty to the classical eigenvalue- 25
0
placement controller. The controller tuned
ψ (°)

–25
using LMI regions is able to stabilize the −50
system even when inertial and friction −75
−100
parameters of the servomotors change 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
from the minimum to maximum values Time (s)
given in Table 1.
Figure 9  An experimental closed-loop system response with the classical linear qua-
dratic regulator. The controller is tuned at one vertex of the polytopic model and, as a
Experimental Results result, is not able to keep the NXT ballbot in balance.
Some experiments were carried out to
experimentally validate the obtained
numerical results. The block diagram 2000
used for experiments is depicted in 1500 XY Plane ZY Plane
1000
Figure 4. One advantage of Simulink
θ (°)

500
is the possibility of interacting in real 0
time with the sensors and actuators −500
−1000
from LEGO Mindstorms NXT via 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bluetooth communication between 50
the NXT brick and a PC. Once the con- 25
0
figuration is done, the Simulink pro-
ψ (°)

–25
gram is executed in external mode. −50
The classical LQR and eigenvalue- −75
−100
placement controllers were tuned on 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
vertex 1 of the NXT ballbot polytopic Time (s)
model. In Figures 9 and 10, the experi-
Figure 10 An experimental closed-loop system response with classical eigenvalue-
mental responses for both planes of placement control. The controller is tuned at one vertex of the polytopic model and, in the
motion are presented. In both cases, the same way as the classical linear quadratic regulator, is not able to keep the NXT ballbot
controllers are not able to stabilize in balance.

JUNE 2016  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  133

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 with less oscillations in } than the LQR-
The NXT can be programmed in Matlab, which LMI though it still has some movement
in XZ plane.
makes it possible to take advantage of specific
Comparing Numerical and
toolboxes to solve LMI problems. Experimental Results
Figures 13 and 14 compare numeri-
cal and experimental results for the
closed-loop system in a plane. Some
differences in both figures can be
500
appreciated. It is necessary to take
0 into account that a mathematical
θ (°)

model is only an approximation of

−500
XY Plane ZY Plane the real system, so unmodeled effects
−1000 are always present and the control
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
system must be able to guarantee the
10
desired system performance even
5
with this kind of unknown dynam-
ψ (°)

0
ics. The differences between numeri-
−5 cal and experimental results may be
−10 caused by unmodeled dynamics such
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) as the elasticity of the plastic ball and
the drive wheels, the possible slip-
Figure 11  An experimental closed-loop system response in both planes of motion for the page between the drive wheel and the
linear quadratic regulator tuned by linear matrix inequalities. Oscillations in i represent plastic ball, and even the uncertainty
the displacements in xz plane needed to keep the vertical equilibrium of the NXT ballbot. in other parameters not considered in
the polytopic model.

500 Conclusions
Control-systems design based on
dy­namic models is a common approach
θ (°)

0
in robotics and mechatronics, and the
controller performance can be affected
−500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 by uncertainty in model parameters.
10 On the other hand, parametric uncer-
5 XY Plane XZ Plane tainty is always present in any model,
so it is necessary that the controller be
ψ (°)

0
able to deal with this problem.
−5
In this article, the tuning of lin-
−10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 ear controllers by LMIs is presented
Time (s) to provide robustness against some
parametric uncertainties in the sys-
Figure 12 An experimental closed-loop system response in both planes of motion for tem model. One of the main limita-
eigenvalue-placement control tuned with linear matrix inequality regions. Oscillations in tions for LMIs is that the uncertain
i represent the displacements in xz plane needed to keep the vertical equilibrium of the
NXT ballbot.
parameters must appear linearly in
the system model. The NXT ballbot
was used as a case study. It is a version
the system and the NXT ballbot in the response. However, the control- of the original ballbot and represents
falls down. ler is able to keep the NXT ballbot in an interesting system for engineers
The robust control schemes were balance with the control effort avail- and researchers in mechatronics and
experimentally tested in similar condi- able. In a similar way, the eigenvalue- robotics areas because of its poten-
tions to the classical controllers. The placement controller tuned using LMI tial applications. Both numerical
closed-loop system response with LQR regions is experimentally validated by and experimental results show an
tuned by LMIs is depicted in Fig­u re the response presented in Figure 12. This improvement in the robustness of
11. Some oscillations can be observed controller stabilizes the NXT ballbot classical controllers. The LMI control

134  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2016

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
scheme presented in this article can
be extended to include uncertainties The design of the controllers is carried out using
in other system parameters, to con-
sider state observers, and even to take Matlab functions lqr and place.
into account the disturbance rejection
problem. A video for the NXT ballbot
in closed loop with robust controllers,
including a test under external distur-
bances, is available [35].
600
In the opinion of the authors, LMIs Experimental Response Simulation Response
300
represent an accessible tool to solve

θ (°)
problems in robust control. The devel- 0
opment and results presented in this –300
article may be used to present this −600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
LMI technique in control courses at
10
graduate and undergraduate levels
5
because, with the use of computa-
ψ (°)

0
tional tools (such as Matlab), the back-
ground in mathematics and numerical −5
methods needed to solve the LMI −10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
constraints is not excessive. Moreover, Time (s)
the use of LEGO Mindstorms NXT in
practice and laboratory demonstra- Figure 13  A comparison of experimental and simulation results for the closed-loop sys-
tions is useful to motivate students to tem using linear quadratic regulator control with linear matrix inequalities.
implement the theoretical knowledge
acquired in the classroom on a real
system that can be easily reconfig-
ured and reprogrammed. In addition, 900
the NXT ballbot has been exhibited 600
at events such vocational guidance 300
θ (°)

fairs for high school students, confer- 0

ences, and at local robotics events. The –300
−600
NXT ballbot has had high acceptance 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
from both students and teachers. In 10
these demonstrations the authors 5 Experimental Response Simulation Response
explain the importance of studying
ψ (°)

mathematics, physics, and program-
ming to raise the interest of students in
automatic control. Moreover, with the
same LEGO Mindstorm NXT, another
configuration of pendulum problem,
a wheeled, inverted-pendulum, Seg-
way-like robot, has been developed
and used to implement some control
techniques. Some preliminary results
are shown in [36].
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank to
Kent Von Vlarblerghe for his support
in the manuscript’s revision.
Author Information
Rafael A. García-García received the
B.S. degree in mechatronic engineer-
0
−5
−10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
Figure 14  A comparison of experimental and simulation results for the closed-loop sys-
tem using eigenvalue-placement control tuned with linear matrix inequality regions.
ing from the Universidad Tecnológica gree in mechanical engineering from
de la Mixteca in Huajupan de León, the Universidad Autónoma Metro-
Oaxaca, México. He is currently pur- politana, México, and the M.Sc. and
suing the master’s degree in robotics Ph.D degrees in electrical engineer-
at the same university. His research ing (mechatronics) from CINVESTAV
interests are in the design and con- (IPN), México. He is currently a titular
trol of mechatronic systems and mo- researcher in the Institute of Electron-
bile robots. ics and Mechatronics of the Univer-
Manuel Arias-Montiel (mam@ sidad Tecnológica de la Mixteca in
mixteco.utm.mx) received the B.S. de- Oaxaca, México. He is an IEEE and

JUNE 2016  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  135

Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Control-systems design based on dynamic
models is a common approach in robotics
and mechatronics.
ASME member, and he is the author
of articles published in international
journals and conferences. His research
interests are in analysis and control of
mechanical vibrations, mobile robots,
and rehabilitation robotics.
References
[1] J. L. Newcomer, “A design project based ap-
proach to teaching automatic control theory to
mechanical engineers,” in Proc. 28th Annu. Fron-
tiers in Education Conf., Tempe, AZ, Nov. 1998, pp.
1242–1245.
[2] Y. Kim, “Control systems lab using a LEGO
Mindstorms NXT motor system,” IEEE Trans.
Educ., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 452–461, 2011.
[3] T. Alamo, J. E. Normey-Rico, M. R. Arahal, D.
Limon, and E. F. Camacho, “Introducing linear
matrix inequalities in a control course,” in Proc.
7th IFAC Symp. Advances in Control Education, Ma-
drid, Spain, June 2006, pp. 1–6.
[4] D. Qian, J. Yi, and S. Tong, “Understanding
neighborhood of linearization in undergraduate
control education,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol.
33, no. 4, pp. 54–60, 2013.
[5] L. Qiu and K. Zhou, “Preclassical tools for
postmodern control,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag.,
vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 26–38, 2013.
[6] J. Figueiredo, V. Carvalho, J. Machado, and F.
Soares, “Modelica modeling language as a tool
on control engineering education: Simulation of
a two-tank system,” in Proc. 2014 Int. Conf. Teach-
ing, Assessment and Learning, Wellington, Dec.
2014, pp. 6–11.
[7] X. Wang, X. Zhao, S. Wu, and H. Chen, “Edu-
cation of computer simulation for control systems
in Internet,” in Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. Power Electron-
ics and Drive Systems, Nov. 2003, pp. 1050–1053.
[8] Y. Zhang, M. T. Munir, W. Yu, and B. R. Young,
“A real-time approach to process control educa-
tion with an open-ended simulation tool,” Educ.
Chem. Eng., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 105–112, 2013.
[9] M. K. Jouaneh and W. J. Palm III, “Control sys-
tems take-home experiments,” IEEE Control Syst.
Mag., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 44–53, 2013.
[10] A. Bobstov, A. Pyrkin, S. Kolyubin, S. Che-
pinskiy, S. Shavetov, Y. Kapitanyuk, A. Titov,
M. Surov, and V. Bardov, “Using of LEGO
Mindstorms NXT technology for teaching of
basics of adaptive control theory,” in Proc. 18th
136  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2016
Authorized licensed use limited to: American University of Beirut. Downloaded on April 30,2023 at 13:46:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IFAC World Congr., Milano, Italy, Sept. 2011, pp.
9818–9823.
[11] R. A. García-García and M. Arias-Montiel,
“A robust control scheme against some paramet-
ric uncertainties for the NXT ballbot,” in Multi-
body Mechatronic Systems, M. Ceccarelli and E. E.
Hernández Martínez, Eds. Switzerland: Springer
International, 2015, pp. 249–260.
[12] B. S. Heck, N. S. Clements, and A. A. Ferri, “A
LEGO experiment for embedded control system
design,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 24, no. 5, pp.
61–64, 2004.
[13] M. Pinto, A. P. Moreira, and A. Matos, “Lo-
calization of mobile robots using an extended
Kalman filter in a LEGO NXT,” IEEE Trans. Educ.,
vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 135–144, 2012.
[14] S. Sánchez-Prieto, T. Arribas-Navarro,
M. Gómez-Plaza, and O. Rodríguez-Polo, “A
monoball robot based on LEGO Mindstorms,”
IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 71–83,
2012.
[15] B. Bagnall, Maximum LEGO Nxt: Building Ro-
bots with Java Brains, 3rd ed. Winnipeg, Canada:
Variant Press, 2013.
[16] A. Behrens, L. Atorf, R. Schwann, B. Neu-
man, R. Schnitzler, T. Herold, A. Telle, T. G. Noll,
K. Hameyer, and T. Aach, “MATLAB meets
LEGO Mindstorms—A freshman introduction
course into practical engineering,” IEEE Trans.
Educ., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 310–317, 2010.
[17] J. M. Gómez-de-Gabriel, A. Mandow, J.
Fernández-Lozano, and A. J. García-Cerezo, “Us-
ing LEGO NXT mobile robots with labview for
undergraduate courses in mechatronics,” IEEE
Trans. Educ, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 41–47, 2011.
[18] Y. Yamamoto, NXT Ballbot Model-Based De-
sign-Control of Self-balancing Robot on a Ball, Built
with LEGO Mindstorm NXT, 1st ed. Japan: Cyber-
net Systems, 2009.
[19] R. Hollis, “Ballbots,” Sci. Am., vol. 295, no. 4,
pp. 72–77, 2006.
[20] P. T. Hernández-Cruz. (2010) Control of mo-
bile robots: The ballbot case (in Spanish). [Online].
Bachelor thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, México. Available: http://132.248.9.195/
ptb2010/noviembre/0664627/0664627_A1.pdf (ac-
cessed Nov. 19. 2015)
[21] P. Hurbain. LEGO 9V Technic Motors com-
pared characteristics. [Online]. Available: http://
www.philohome.com/motors/motorcomp.htm
(accessed Nov. 19. 2015)
[22] M. L. Pinto-Salamanca and G. R. Bermúdez-
Bohórquez, “Parameters determination of a
mobil robot of LEGO Mindstorms (in Spanish),”
Ingeniería Investigación y Desarrollo, vol. 5, no. 2,
pp. 7–13, 2007.
[23] R. A. García-García. (2014). Development
of a robot ballbot-like for control applications
(in Spanish). [Online]. Bachelor thesis, Uni-
versidad Tecnológica de la Mixteca, México.
Ava i lable: ht t p://jupiter.ut m.m x/~te si s _
dig/12495.pdf
[24] S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Bal-
akrishnan, Linear Matrix Inequalities in System
and Control Theory. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 1994.
[25] E. Ostertag, Mono and Multivariable Control
and Estimation—Linear, Quadratic and LMI Meth-
ods. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag, 2011.
[26] D. Guang-Ren and Y. Hai-Hua, LMIs in Con-
trol Systems—Analysis, Design and Applications.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2013.
[27] H. Hoang and M. Wongsaisuwan, “Robust
controller design for a rotary double inverted
pendulum using linear matrix inequalities,” in
Proc. SICE Annual Conf., Kagawa, Japan, Sept.
2007, pp. 515–520.
[28] Mathworks. Matlab Robust Control Toolbox.
[Online]. Available: http://www.mathworks.com/
help/robust/index.html (accessed Nov. 19. 2015)
[29] P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A. J. Laub, and M.
Chilali, LMI Control Toolbox: For Use with Matlab.
Natick, MA: The Mathworks, Inc., 1995.
[30] Z. Vukic, L. Kuljaca, D. Donlagic, and S. Tes-
njak, Nonlinear Control Systems. New York: Mar-
cel Dekker, 2003.
[31] C. Olalla, A. R. Leyva, A. El Aroudi, and I.
Queinnec, “Robust LQR control for PWM con-
verters: An LMI approach,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec-
tron., vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 2548–2558, 2009.
[32] D. Inman, Vibration with Control. West Sus-
sex, U.K.: Wiley, 2006.
[33] C. Olalla, A. El Aroudi, R. Leyva, and I.
Queinnec, “LMI Robust of PWM converters: An
output-feedback approach,” in Recent Advances
in Robust Control—Theory and Applications in Ro-
botics and Electromechanics, A. Muller, Ed. Rijeka,
Croatia: InTech, 2011, pp. 317–342.
[34] M. Chilali and P. Gahinet, “H 3 design with
pole placement constraints: an LMI approach,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 41, no. 3, pp.
358–367, 1996.
[35] R. A. García-García, M. Arias-Montiel. NXT
ballbot control. [Online]. Available: http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=OIuE_GAn2Ww (ac-
cessed Nov. 19. 2015)
[36] R. A. García-García. Wheeled invert-
ed pendulum system (Segway NXT). [On-
line]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=DLzuwzrkJoE (accessed Nov. 19. 2015)