0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

2 visualizzazioni9 pagineJun 07, 2015

art-3A10.1007-2Fs40031-014-0114-z.pdf

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

2 visualizzazioni9 pagineart-3A10.1007-2Fs40031-014-0114-z.pdf

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 9

DOI 10.1007/s40031-014-0114-z

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

Manipulator

G. Leena K. B. Datta G. Ray

Received: 19 October 2012 / Accepted: 20 February 2014 / Published online: 8 July 2014

The Institution of Engineers (India) 2014

Introduction

paper considers the problem of designing a class of stabilizing PD controllers for a robot manipulator. A major

obstacle of designing the best controller has been the difficulty in characterizing the entire set of stabilizing controllers. Very few papers are published [13] where a class

of stabilizing controllers is designed. An effective solution

to this problem was obtained in [1]. This is accomplished

by generalizing a classical stability result developed in the

last century, the Hermite Biehler theorem. The characterization of all feedback gain values is useful for carrying out

optimal designs with respect to various performance indices. In this communication, an attempt has been made to

obtain a class of PD controllers based on PD stabilization

theorem obtained from generalized Hermite Biehler theorem for each subsystem of MIMO nonlinear systems. The

significant results of Siljak and Stipanovic [4] demonstrate

how the linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) formulation can

be used to quadratically stabilize linear/nonlinear interconnected system via centralized/decentralized linear

constant feedback laws. Motivated by the work of Siljak

and Stipanovic [4], the method by which the designed set

of controllers for each subsystems can stabilize the MIMO

nonlinear systems has been established.

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

G. Leena (&)

Department of Electrical and Electronics, Faculty of Engineering

and Technology, Manav Rachna International University,

Sector 43, Aravali Hills, Faridabad, India

e-mail: leenagjeevan@rediffmail.com

Here r is the command signal; y is the output, G(s) = N(s)/

D(s) is the plant to be controlled; N(s) and D(s) are coprime

polynomials. The controller C(s) is to be designed which is

given by

a class of stabilizing proportional derivative (PD) controllers for multi-input multi-output (MIMO) nonlinear systems. For a MIMO nonlinear system a set of stabilizing PD

controllers were designed for each subsystem. The design

approach is based on PD stabilization theorem derived

from generalized result of the classical Hermite Biehler

theorem. By considering the nonlinear terms as interconnections, a linear matrix inequalities optimization problem

is formulated to ensure the stability of the composite

nonlinear system with the designed decentralized controller

parameters. A genetic algorithm based search technique is

adopted to select an optimal PD controller gain from a

search space of stabilizing controllers in order to have an

optimum value of performance index. A two-link robot

manipulator system is considered to show the effectiveness

of the design procedure.

Keywords Proportional derivative Robot manipulator

Hermite Biehler theorem Robust stabilizing controller

K. B. Datta G. Ray

Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute

of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India

Cs Kp sKd

123

28

G(s) =

C(s)

pf x; Kp

N (s)

D( s)

qf x; Kd

ds; Kp ; Kd Ds Kp sKd Ns

determine the value of Kp, and Kd for which the closedloop characteristic polynomial d(s, Kp, Kd) is Hurwitz. A

new polynomial is constructed by multiplying d(s, Kp, Kd)

with N s [N s Ns Ne s2 sNo s2 ; where Ne

and No are the even and odd parts of N(s)] and examining

the resulting polynomial, one can write

rr ds; Kp ; Kd N s

lds; Kp ; Kd N s rds; Kp ; Kd N s

lds; Kp ; Kd rds; Kp ; Kd lNs rNs

3

where l(d(s, Kp, Kd)) and r(d(s, Kp, Kd)) indicate the roots

of characteristic polynomial d(s, Kp, Kd) in left and right

half of complex plane respectively. Now, the closed-loop

characteristic polynomial d(s, Kp, Kd), of degree n is

Hurwitz if and only if l (d(s, Kp, Kd)) = n and r (d(s, Kp,

Kd)) = 0. Equation (3) can be restated as

which (4) holds and d(s, Kp, Kd) N s has the following

expression:

s2 Do s2 No s2 De s2 Ne s2

Kp Ne s2 Ne s2 s2 No s2 No s2

2

1 x2 mn=2

;

:

part whereas Kp appears in the even part. Furthermore for

every fixed Kp, the zeros of p(x, Kp) will not depend on Kd.

The range of Kd for a fixed Kp can be obtained by solving

the PD stabilization theorem. The PD stabilization theorem

is derived from the results given in Ref. [1]. Further details

on this theorem is shown in Appendix. Our main

contribution is to develop a set of stabilizing PD controllers

for a class of MIMO nonlinear system and subsequently to

investigate the stability of the controlled system based on

LMI framework [5].

of Nonlinear System

Let us consider a class of MIMO nonlinear system, which

arises out of n interconnected subsystems, is described by

x_i Ai xi Bi ui Bi hi t; x;

i 1; 2; . . .; n;

yi Cni xi

where xi are the states; ui, the inputs; and hi(t, x) are the

nonlinear terms. The only information about the

nonlinearity is that it satisfies the quadratic constraint.

The transfer function of the ith decoupled system (without

interaction terms, i.e. hi t; x 0) is described by

i 1; 2; . . .; n

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

sDo s Ne s No s De s

Stability Analysis

Kd Ne s2 Ne s2 s2 No s2 No s2

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

Kd q2(x)

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

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

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

q2 x x Ne x2 Ne x2 x2 No x2 No x2 :

The new polynomial described by (6) is normalized in

the following manner.

123

1 x2 mn=2

qx; Kd

Cni sI Ai 1 Bi ;

ds; Kp ; Kd N s

px; Kp

x_i Ai xi Bi ui wi t; x

yi Cni xi ;

i 1; 2; . . .; n

stabilizable and the ith nonlinear term wi satisfies the

quadratic constraints

wTi t; xwi t; x a2i xT WiT Wi x;

i 1; 2; . . .; n

10

matrices of appropriate dimensions. Figure 2 shows the ith

subsystem with the PD controller.

29

refi +

ith PD

Controller

Bi

xi

i C

11

are respectively, the proportional and derivative (PD)

controller gains of the ith subsystem. Assume refi = 0, then

12

substitute for ui in Eq. (9) to get

Eni x_i Ani xi wi x

w x

" XN

a2 W T Wi

i1 i i

yi

Ai

13

#"

x

wx

#

0

15

was introduced to get the following equation.

wxt

F z_ Az

" #16

x

I 0

0

I

where F

; A

; z

is

0 0

An En

x_

"

#

0

2n 9 1 vector and wx

:

wx

A Lyapunov function candidate [6] is chosen for the

descriptor system (16) as

V zT FPz

P1

where P

P2

0

P3

17

is non-singular with P1

PT1

[0

F and P. Then the following Eq. (18) is being simplified as

w

T xPz zT PT wx

V_ zT AT P PT Az

where

Eni I Bi Kdi Cni ;

i 1; 2; . . .; n

following conditions hold.

results the matrices Ani and Ei are in interval form. In a

compact form the Eq. (13) can be rewritten as

En x_ An x wx

P1 [ 0;

w

T xPz zT PT wx\0

zT AT P PT Az

18

14

En2,, Enn}are interval matrices of appropriate dimensions. In the compact notation, w = (wT1 , wT2 ,, wTn )T and

x = [xT1 , xT2 ,, xTn ]T are the interconnection vector and the

state vector respectively. A descriptor system approach to

stability analysis is carried out [6] for the composite non-

P1 [ 0;

wT xP2 x wT xP3 x_ xT PT2 wx x_T PT3 wx\0

19

These inequalities can be rewritten as,

P1 [ 0;

2 T

A P2 PT2 An

T T T 6 nT

x x_ w x 4 P3 An P1 EnT P2

P2

ATn P3 P1 PT2 En

PT3 An P1 EnT P2

3

PT2

7

EnT P3 PT3 En PT3 5

P3

controllers is discussed below.

The constraint (10) is equivalent to the quadratic

inequality [4]

6

7

6 x_

7\0

4

5

wx

20

quadratic inequalities (15) and (20) into one single

inequality (LMI) such that

123

30

P

ATn P2 PT2 An b Ni1 a2i WiT Wi

4

PT3 An P1 EnT P2

P2

3

PT2

PT3 5\0

b I

ATn P3 P1 PT2 En

EnT P3 PT3 En

P3

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

Eq. (21) can be rewritten as

ATn P2 PT2 An

6 PT An P 1 E T P 2

n

6 3

6

P2

6

6

W1

6

6

..

4

.

Wn

ATn P3 P1 PT2 En

EnT P3 PT3 En

P3

0

..

.

PT2

PT3

I

0

..

.

W1T

0

0

c1 I

..

.

..

.

6 PT Ar 1 P1 E r 2 T P 2

n

6 3 n

6

P

2

6

6

W1

6

6

..

4

.

Wn

123

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

WnT

0

0

0

..

.

7

7

7

7

7\0

7

7

5

22

cn I

where ci 1=a2i :

The matrices An and En of Eq. (22) are interval matrices

[obtained from Eq. (13)]. A sufficient condition for the

stability robustness of interval matrices, i.e., matrices

having the elements varying within given bounds, requires

that the Lyapunov equation be negative definite when

evaluated at the so-called corner matrices [8, 9]. The corner

matrices of an n 9 n interval matrix A is defined as

2

Ar = {arij}, r 1; 2; . . .; 2n with arij = alij or auij, i,

j = 1, 2,, n, where alij and auij are minimum and maximum values respectively of ijth element of interval matrix.

Hence Eq. (22) should be satisfied for all the corner

matrices of An and En to ensure that the composite system

(16) to be asymptotically stable. The matrix Wi is computed so that constraint (10) is satisfied and the bounding

parameter ai is to be maximized. Hence Eq. (22) can be

reformulated as an LMI optimization problem as stated

below

P

Minimize Ni1 ci ; subject to P1 [ 0, and

21

of decoupled stabilizing PD controllers provided the LMI

problem (23) has a feasible solution for all corner matrices.

Simulation Results

The two-link manipulator has been considered as shown in

Fig. 3 and its dynamics can be described by the nonlinear

equation given below [10].

_ Gh

s Mhh Vh; h

24

_ is a 2 9 1 of Coriolis and centrifugal

matrix; Vh; h

vector; G(h) is a 2 9 1 gravity vector of the manipulator; h

is the 2 9 1 vector representing joint angular positions;

and s is the 2 9 1 vector of applied joint torques.

The manipulator dynamic model (24) shows strong interactions between joint motions, since each element of M, N

Enr2 T P3 PT3 Enr2

P3

0

..

.

PT2

PT3

I

0

..

.

W1T

0

0

c1 I

..

.

..

.

WnT

0

0

0

..

.

cn I

3

7

7

7

7

7\0

7

7

5

23

31

and

G

can in general be a function of all joint variables

h; h_ and M is a non-diagonal matrix, indicating inertial

coupling between joint accelerations.

For simplicity, it is denoted that

_ Vh; h

_ Gh

Nh; h

25

_ due to

There are uncertainties in M(h) and Nh; h

unknown loads on the manipulator and unmodelled frictions.

The following bounds are assumed on the uncertainties [11]:

1.

2.

such that Ml h Mh Mu h;

_ and a nonnegative scalar function

There exist Nu h; h

_

_ Nh; h

_ nmax h; h

_

nmax h; h such that Nu h; h

x2 h_ 1 h_ 2 T and the concept of inverse dynamics of

robot manipulator is utilized to have the control law in the

form

_

u Mu h1 s Nu h; h

26

Then x_1 h_ x2 ;

_

x_2 h Mh1 s Nh; h

_ Nh; h

_

Mh1 Mu hu Mh1 Nu h; h

Mx1 1 Mu x1 u Mx1 1 Nu x1 ; x2 Nx1 ; x2

27

The state space representation of Eq. (27) is represented by

x_ Ax Bu f xu Bhx

28

"

#

" #

" #

0 I

0

x1

x2 Nx1 ; x2 ; A

;B

and x

:

0 0

I

x2

Bf (x) is the uncertainty in the input matrix and in order to

make its effect maximum f(x) is taken as

f x Ml x1 1 Mu x1 I

29

matrix which is found out as explained in [12]. In general,

one can rewrite the Eqs. (24)(29) for an n-link manipulator

by considering h = [h1 h2]T and the basic structure of these

equations are remain unchanged. After obtaining f(x) using

Eq. (29), the combined system input matrix is transformed in

decoupled form by considering f(x) as

f x diagkmax f x;

30

kmin f xT x xT k x kmax f xT x

31

eigenvalues of f(x). The uncertainty h(x) has the following

bounds [13]:

khxk Mx1 1 Nu x1 ; x2 Nx1 ; x2

Mx1 1 kNu x1 ; x2 Nx1 ; x2 k

32

1

kM l x1 k nmax x1 ; x2

In many cases, the largest feasible region of x can be

found out to determine a quadratic bound for khxk2 such

that

hxT hx xT Qx

33

of the decentralized control scheme, it is convenient to

view each joint as a subsystem of the entire manipulator

system and state variables are rearranged in Eq. (28) and

are written as

x_ An x Bn u Bhx;

y Cn x

34

[f obtained from Eqs. (29) and (30)] and x x11 x12 x21

x22 T h1 h_ 1 h2 h_ 2 T :

For the two-link robot considered, the matrices M(h),

_ and G(h) are

Vh; h

m11 m12

Mh

m12 m22

a1 a2 2a3 cos h2 a2 a3 cos h2

;

a2 a3 cos h2

a2

2

3

2

35

a3 sin h2 h_ 2 2h_ 1 h_ 2

_ 4

5;

Vh; h

2

a3 sin h2 h_ 1

"

#

a4 cos h1 a5 cos h1 h2

Gh

a5 cos h1 h2

In the above expressions a1, a2, , a5 are constant

parameters obtained from mass (m1, m2) and length (l1, l2)

of robot links, that is, a1 m1 m2 l21 ; a2 m2 l22 ; a3

m2 l1 l2 ; a4 m1 m2 l1 g; a5 m2 l2 g: The parameters

are m1 = m2 = 1.0 kg, l1 = l2 = 1.0 m and g = 9.81 m/

s 2.

For the system (34), with the expressions (35) the following numerical values are obtained

"

#

0 1

A1 A2

;

0 0

"

#

0

Bn1 Bn2

;

5:8

" #

0

;

B1 B2

1

Cn1 Cn2 1

0;

and

123

32

"

hx

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

"

h1 x

m2

h2 x

36

l2

Manipulator

A set of decentralized PD controllers was designed for each

of the two subsystems of (34) considering nonlinear

interconnection term hi(x) as zero, as discussed in section

A Brief Description of all Stabilizing PD Controllers.

The transfer function for each subsystem is given by

Gi s 5:8=s2 ;

i 1; 2

m1

l1

37

as Kp1 [ 0; Kd1 [ 0 and Kp2 [ 0; Kd2 [ 0: From the class

of stabilizing decentralized PD controllers a region is

selected as

Kp1 2 0:9 500;

Kd1 2 0:9 100;

38

Kd2 2 0:9 100

hd2 = 45. From the set of stabilizing controllers given in

Eq. (38), optimal controller gains were found out using

genetic algorithm based optimization technique [14] by

maximizing fitness function

1

;

Jf

1J

Zt

39

positions of joints 1 and 2 of the robot manipulator. The

genetic operations applied were arithmetic crossover,

uniform mutation and ranking selection. The population

size of 80 was taken and GA was run for 25 generations.

The optimal gain parameters obtained for hd1 = 30,

hd2 = 45 are

Kp1

466:28;

Kd1

48:68

Kp2

221:12;

Kd2

48:89

40

Eq. (40) are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The plots showing the

desired position and actual position of joint 1 and 2 are

sketched in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.

Stability Analysis of Two-Link Robot Manipulator

The stability analysis of the two-link robot manipulator

(34) was studied by solving the LMI optimization problem

123

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

K*p2 = 221.12, K*d2 = 48.89

(23) for all the corner matrices of An and En. The designed

ranges of An and En are calculated using Eq. (14) with the

controller gains (38) and are given by

An diagfAn1 ; An2 g;

41

En diagfEn1 ; En2 g

0

1

1

0

; En1

;

where An1

2900 5:22 0

5:22 580 1

0

1

1

0

and En2

:

An2

2900 5:22 0

5:22 580 1

As given by Eq. (10), the term wt; x; can be bounded

by a quadratic inequality and is constrained as

33

2

wT1 t; xw1 t; x 3:36x12 x22 1:72x212 1:68x222

17:07x12 x22 8:54x212 x222 xT a21 W1T W1 x;

29:44x12 x22 14:72x212 x222 xT a22 W2T W2 x 42

(since x12 and x22 are much less than unity and the terms

associated with the power of x12 and x22 equal to three or

more than three are neglected), where a1 ; a2 [ 0 and W1

and W22are found out as 3

0

0

0

0

6 0 2:92 0

0 7

6

7

W1 6

7

40

0

0

0 5

2

0

0

0

0

6 0 3:87

6

W2 6

40

0

0

0

0

0

2:92

3

0

0 7

7

7

0 5

3:87

43

Conclusions

Fig. 5 hd2 and h2 with optimal PD gains K*p1 = 466.28, K*d1 = 48.68,

K*p2 = 221.12, K*d2 = 48.89

Table 1 Corner matrices of An and En

A1n fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g

A2n

A3n

A4n

fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g

fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g

fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g

controller

En1

En2

four corner matrices for each of An and En are obtained.

Table 1 shows the corner matrices of An and En. Thus there

are sixteen combinations for which optimization problem

(23) is solved using LMI control toolbox [15] with W1 ; W2

taken as Eq. (43). Table 2 shows the values of a1 ; a2 the

bounding parameter values of the interconnection terms

obtained by solving the LMI problem (23) with the designed

range of controller parameters (30). It is seen that a feasible

solution exists for all the combination of corner matrices.

Hence, it is concluded that the set of decentralized PD

controllers designed based on PD stabilization theorem

stabilizes the two-link manipulator system (34).

where Ani 2; 1 andAni 2; 1denote the lower and upper

limits of (2, 1)th element of matrix Ani :

En3

En4

multi-output nonlinear system is designed based on generalized Hermite Biehler theorem. The nonlinear terms

associated with the system dynamics were considered as

interconnection terms. The set of stabilizing controllers is

designed for the linear model (neglecting nonlinear interaction terms) and it is then proved that the designed set of

PD controllers stabilizes the nonlinear system provided the

nonlinearity term satisfies certain quadratic constraints and

subsequently, the feasible solution of bounding parameters

(a) for the nonlinear terms exits. The proposed decentralized information structure constraints ensure connective

stability of the composite system while a set of decentralized robust stabilizing controller is adopted for a class of

nonlinear interconnected systems. The genetic algorithm

based optimization technique is employed to get an optimal

controller gain from the range of stabilizing controller

parameters. Simulation results are given to illustrate the

efficacy of the proposed set of PD controller for a two-link

robot manipulator system.

With a fixed Kp, the gain Kd is solvable for a plant with

transfer function G(s) if and only if the following conditions hold:

1.

a1

a2

a1

a2

a1

a2

a1

a2

A1n

0.0216

0.0188

0.0216

0.0188

0.0216

0.0188

0.2225

0.1933

A2n

0.0216

0.0188

0.0216

0.0188

0.1973

0.1714

0.2228

0.1953

A3n

0.1970

0.1712

0.1973

0.1714

0.1973

0.1714

0.2246

0.1950

A4n

0.0216

0.0188

0.1973

0.1714

0.0216

0.0188

0.2228

0.1935

and FK p is given as

44

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

123

34

xNjx2 [ 0 since N s does not have any zeros

on jx axis. Hence

If N jxt 0 for some t = 1, 2, , (l - 1), then

define it 0;

(b) If N s has a zero of multiplicity k at the origin, then

define

(a)

q1 xj

\Kd

q2 xj

if

ij q2 xj [ 0

47

i0 sgnq1f 0

where q1f x

(c)

it 2 f1; 1g

ffi0 ; i1 ; . . .; il g

for

A Kp

2.

(b)

q1 x

1x2 mn=2

n m eveng

for n m oddg

45

h

i

h

i

1

1

Re

maxit 2R;it [0 Re jxt Gjx

\min

i

2R;i

\0

t

t

jxt Gjxt

t

x3 \ \xl1 be the real, nonnegative, distinct finite

zeros of pf (x, Kp) with odd multiplicities (it is to be

noted that these zeros are independent of Kd). Also, if the

feasible strings satisfy the above conditionR1 ; R2 ; . . .;

Rs 2 FK p ; then the set of all stabilizing gains is given

by

s

Kd [ Kr

46

r1

where

0

B

B

Kr B

@

1

max Re

;

it 2Rs ;it [ 0

jxt Gjxt

1

min Re

it 2Rs ;it \0

jxt Gxt

1

C

C

C;

A

r 1; 2; . . .; s

Hurwitz if and only if

R 2 AKp n lNs rNs

k

sgnqf 0; Kd ; ij

sgnqf

where R fi0 ; i1 ; . . .g; i0

xj ; Kd and j = 1, 2, , (l - 1) or j = 1, 2, , l,

accordingly as (m ? n) is even or odd. Now consider two

different cases:

Case 1: N s does not have any zeros on the imaginary

axis: In this case for all stabilizing values of the gain

Kd ; ds; Kp ; Kd N s will also not have any zeros on the jx

axis so that ij 2 f1; 1g for j = 1, 2, , l. Two different

possibilities are considered below.

(a)

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

123

Kd q2 xj \0: According to the same explanation as

given in (a) and subsequently, q2 x [ 0; it follows

that

q1 xj

[ Kd

q2 xj

48

including a zero of multiplicity k at the origin. In this case

for all stabilizing values of the gain Kd ; ds; Kp ; Kd N s

will also have the same set of jx axis zeros. Furthermore, it

is clear that these zero locations will be a subset of

fx1 ; x2 ; . . .; xl1 g: Since the location of these zeros

depends on N s and is independent of the gain Kd, it is

reasonable to expect that such a zero, at xm say, will not

impose any additional constraint on Kd. Instead, it will

constrain im 2 R to a particular value. Those conditions

have been incorporated in the definition of AKp [(a) and

(b) of Eq. (45)].

Of the two cases discussed above, only case 1 imposes

constraints on Kd as given by Eqs. (48) and (49). Thus it is

concluded that each ij [ 0 in the string R 2 AKp n

lNs rNs contributes a lower bound on Kd

while ij \0 contributes to the upper bound on Kd. For a

fixed Kp, in order that the string R 2 AKp n lNs

rNs corresponds to a stabilizing Kd, the condition to

be satisfied is

q1 xt

q1 xt

max

\ min

49

it 2R; it [ 0 q2 xt

it 2R; it \0 q2 xt

2

Ne s sNo s

Now, Gs Ns

Ds De s2 sDo s2 ; so that

1

De x2 j x Do x2

q1 x jp1 x

q2 x

Hence it follows that

q1 x

1

Re

q2 x

jxt Gjxt

50

h

i

1

Thus, from hEq. (49),i maxit 2R; it [ 0 Re jxt Gjx

t

1

\ minit 2R; it \0 Re jxt Gjx

:

t

This completes the proof of the necessary and sufficient

conditions for the existence of a stabilizing Kd. The set of

all stabilizing Kds is now determined by taking the union

of all Kds that are obtained from all feasible strings which

satisfy (2).

References

1. S.P. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta, L.M. Keel, Linear Control Theory:

Structure, Robustness And Optimization, Automation and Control

Engineering Series (CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2009)

2. M.-T. Ho, C.-Y. Lin, PID controller design for robust performance. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 48(8), 14041409 (2003)

3. M.-T. Ho, S.-T. Huang, On the synthesis of robust PID controllers for plants with structured and unstructured uncertainty. Int.

J. Robust Nonlinear Control 15(6), 269285 (2005)

4. D.D. Siljak, D.M. Stipanovic, Robust stabilization of nonlinear

systems: the LMI approach. Math. Prob. Eng. 6, 461493 (2000)

5. S. Boyd, E. Feron, L.E. Ghaoui, V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix

Inequalities in System and Control Theory (SIAM, Philadelphia,

1994)

35

6. Y.Y. Cao, Z. Lin, A descriptor system approach to robust stability

analysis and controller synthesis. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control

49(11), 20812084 (2004)

7. V.A. Yakubovich, The S-procedure in nonlinear control theory,

English Translation in Vestnik Leningrad Univ. Math., 4, 7393

(1977)

8. M. Mansour, Sufficient condition for the asymptotic stability of

interval matrices. Int. J. Control 47(6), 19731974 (1988)

9. F. Garofalo, G. Celentano, L. Glielmo, Stability robustness of

interval matrices via Lyapunov quadratic forms. IEEE Trans.

Autom. Control 38(2), 281284 (1993)

10. M.W. Spong, M. Vidyasagar, Robot Dynamics and Control

(Wiley, New York, 1989)

11. Z. Qu, D.M. Dawson, Robust Tracking Control of Robot

Manipulators (IEEE Press, New York, 1996)

12. F. Lin, Robust Control Design: An Optimal Control Approach

(Wiley, New York, 2007)

13. F. Lin, R.D. Brandt, An optimal control approach to robust

control of robot manipulators. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 14(1),

6977 (1998)

14. D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and

Machine Learning (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1999)

15. P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A.J. Laub, M. Chilali, LMI Control

Toolbox for use with Matlab. (The Math Works Inc, 1995)

123