Robust PID Controller Design

for Nonlinear Systems

PartII

AminSalar
8700884

FinalProject
NonlinearControlCourseDrH.D.Taghirad

AbouttheProject
In part one we discussed about autotuning techniques for PID controllers, and a number of
frequencyresponsemethodshavebeenintroduced,suchas:
PrototypeFrequencyResponseApproach(Nonparametric)
ParametricApproach
UsingFiniteNumberofFrequencyResponseData
In the first two topics which have been mentioned abovewe explained two ways for findingPID
parameterstocontrolnonlinearsystems,aftersearchingthroughtheinternetwefoundthatlike
authorsin[1]said,mostofthetuningmethodsmentionedinpapersandarticlesareonlysuitable
tolinearsystems.Theyintroducedafuzzymodelingapproachfornonlinearones.
So in part 2 of the project we will explain this technique that is one of the few main ways for
designing PID controllers for nonlinear systems, and we will show the results of our simulations
withsimulinksoftware.

Abstract
The design problem of proportional and proportionalplusintegral (PI) controllers design for
nonlinearsystemsviafuzzymodelingapproachisstudiedinthischapter.First,theTakagiSugeno
(TS)fuzzymodelwithparameteruncertaintiesisusedtoapproximatethenonlinearsystems.Then
a numerically tractablealgorithm based on the techniqueof iterativelinear matrix inequalities is
developedtodesignaproportional(staticoutputfeedback)controllerfortherobuststabilization
ofthesysteminTSfuzzymodel.Third,wetransformtheproblemofPIcontrollerdesigntothatof
proportionalcontrollerdesignforanaugmentedsystemandthusbringthesolutionoftheformer
problemintotheconfigurationofthedevelopedalgorithm.Finally,theproposedmethodisapplied
to the design of robust stabilizing controllers for the excitation control of power systems.
SimulationresultsshowthatthetransientstabilitycanbeimprovedbyusingafuzzyPIcontroller,
compared to the conventional PI controller designed by using linearization method around the
steadystate.

I.INTRODUCTION
Despitethedevelopmentsofvariouskindsofmodernorpostmoderncontroltheories,suchasLQG
orLQRoptimalcontrol,control,andanalysisandsynthesis,classicalproportionalplusintegral(PI)
or proportionalplusintegral derivative (PID) controllers are widely used in industry due to their
relatively simple structure, readyinhand implementation, and perhaps, being easily understood.
Therefore,itisoftenthecasethatinpracticalapplicationsonefirstconsidersPIDcontrollersunless
evidenceshowsthattheyareinsufficienttomeetspecifications.BecauseofthepopularityofPID
controllersintherealworld,manyapproacheshavebeendevelopedtodeterminetheparameters
ofPIDcontrollers.ThefirstsystematictuningmethodforPIDparameterswasproposedbyZiegler
and Nichols in the early 1940s. Then came the wellknown formulae such as the CohenCoon
method, integral absolute error (IAE) optimum method, integral timeweighted absolute error
(ITAE) optimum method, internal model control (IMC) method, and relay autotuning method.
Recently, many modified tuning methods have also been proposed associated with different
performancespecificationsordifferentmethodsusedaccordingly.
FengZheng, QingGuoWang,TongHengLee,andXiaogangHuangin[1],declaredthatallof the
aforementioned tuning methods are only suitable to linear systems and introduced a fuzzy
modeling approach for nonlinear ones (which we are going to explain) but in some articles

including[2]authorsintroducedawayforRobustselftuningPIDcontrollerfornonlinearsystems
whichIhaveexplainedcompletelyinthefirstpartofmyproject.

But it is true that compared with the voluminous references on tuning PID controllers for linear
systems, few results have been reported in the literature on PID controller tuning for nonlinear
systems. Indeed, many industrial processes can be approximated sufficiently well in concerned
operating region of state space by linear systems. However, many other plants exist whose
dynamics must be described by nonlinear systems. Therefore, it is highly desirable to develop
effectivemethodstodeterminetheparametersofPIDcontrollersfornonlinearsystems.AsIsaid
so apart from the above works, the only reference discussing this problem is the monograph by
FreemanandKokotovic[3],wherebacksteppingandcontrolLyapunovfunctionmethodsareused
todesignPIcontrol,butitissupposedthatallstatevariablesareavailable.Inthischapterastold
before,wewilltrytotakeadifferentapproachtodesignPIcontrollersfornonlinearsystems.As
shownlater,ourcontrollerswilluseoutputvariablesonlyorpartialstatevariables.
Asinthedesignmethodologiesofmanyothertypesofcontrollers,acrucialstepforthedesignof
PIDcontrollersisthemodelingofthenonlinearplants.Sincethe1980s,fuzzytechniquehasbeen
widely adoptedtomodelcomplexnonlinearplants.ThesocalledTSorTSKfuzzymodel,first
proposedbyTakagiandSugeno[4]andfurtherdevelopedbySugenoandKang[5],isoneofmost
successfulmodelsinthisdirection.Thebasicideainthisapproachisfirsttodecomposethemodel
ofanonlinearsystemorotherkindsofcomplexsystemsintolinearsystemsinaccordancewiththe
cases for which linear models are suitable to describe and then to aggregate (fuzzy blend) each
individual model (linear model) into a single nonlinear model in terms of their membership
function. Thus, the relatively complex consequence part allows the number of fuzzy rules (local
models)tobequitesmallinmanyapplications.Consequently,theTSfuzzymodelislessproneto
the curse of dimensionality than other fuzzy models. As is well known, the key problem in this
approachistowhatdegreethenonlinearsystemcanbeapproximatedbyaconvex(fuzzy)blending
ofseverallinearsystems.TheoreticaljustificationofTSfuzzymodelasauniversalapproximator
hasbeengivenbyWangandMendel[6].NowTSmodelhasfoundwideapplicationsinthecontrol
of complex systems, e.g., in the control of robot manipulators and time delay systems. In this
chapter, we will apply TS fuzzy modeling approach to the design of robust PI controllers for
nonlinearsystems.Thischapterisorganizedasfollows.Theproblemformulationisintroducedin
Section II. In Section III, proportional (static output feedback) controller design for nonlinear
systemsusingTSfuzzymodelsispresented.PIcontrollerdesignfornonlinearsystemsisgivenin
Section IV. A numerical example is provided in Section V to show the design procedure and the
effectivenessoftheproposedmethod.Finally,concludingremarksaredrawninSectionVI.

II.PROBLEMFORMULATION
Considerthefollowinguncertainnonlinearsystem:
,

, ,

(1)

Where

vectorofstatevariables
vectorofcontrolinputs
vectorofoutputs
vectorofuncertainparameterswhichisrestrictedtoaprescribedboundingset
nonlinearfunctionsof(x,t),representingthenominalmodelofthesystemunder
consideration,arecontinuouslydifferentiablewithrespectto(x,t)
3

representsthemodeluncertainties

constantmatrix
Ignoringtheuncertaintyterm,weobtainthenominalmodelofthesystem(1)asfollows:
,
,

(2),(3)

To deal with the problem for the system (2) to run at different operating points or in different
conditions,TakagiandSugeno[4]proposedaneffectivemethodtorepresentthesystem(2).The
mainfeatureofaTSfuzzymodelistoexpressthejoindynamicsofeachfuzzyimplication(rule)by
alinearsystem.TheithruleoftheTSfuzzymodelisofthefollowingform.
PlantRulei(i=1,,p):IF1isi1andandpisipTHEN

Wherej(x)(j=1,,p)arethepremisevariables,whicharefunctionsofstatevariablesx;ij(i=1,r
,j=1,,p ) are fuzzy sets; r is the number of the IFTHEN rules; p is the number of the premise
variables; and Ai and Bi are constant matrices of compatible dimensions. It is assumed that the
premisevariablesareindependentoftheinputvariablesu(t).Theoverallfuzzymodelisachieved
byfuzzyblending(aggregation)ofeachindividualrule(model)asfollows:

(4)

Where = [1 ,, p], and i: Rp > [0,1], i=1,,r, are the membership function of the system
belongingtoplantrulei.
Define

Thesystem(4)admitsthefollowingform:

(5)
withtheconstraints
0,
1
(6)
Strippingoffthefuzzycoverofsystem(5),onecanseethatthemodel(5)isnothingbuttheconvex
combination of several linearsystems. It has beenshown [6],[7] that a nonlinear system can be
approximatedbymeansoftheabovefuzzybasisfunctionstodesiredaccuracyinsideanarbitrarily
largecompactsubspaceofRn.
Correspondingly, we can model uncertain nonlinear system (1) as the following uncertain fuzzy
system:
PlantRulei(i=1,,r):IF1isi1andandpisipTHEN

, ,
(7)

whereAirepresentstheuncertaintiesinsystemmatrix.WeassumethatAiadmitsthefollowing
form:

, ,
, ,
1,2, , (8)
whereDiandEiareknownrealconstantmatricesofdimensionsnxnDiandnEixn,respectively,and
the uncertainty Ti(x,t,), an unknown matrixvalued function of (x,t,), belongs to the following
boundedset:
, ,
, , |
1
: |

1,2, , (9)
Fuzzyblendingofeachindividualmodelyieldstheoverallfuzzymodelasfollows:
4

, ,

(10)

Here,theoutputequationisalsoaddedintotheoverallmodelfortheconvenienceoflatercitation.
Weassumethatallthetriples(Ai,Bi,C),=1,2,,r,arecontrollableandobservable.
It should be noted that the parameter uncertainty structure in (8) and (9) describes how the
uncertainties enter the system model and has been widely used in the study of the problem of
robust stability and stabilization of uncertain linear systems and it can represent parameter
uncertainty in many physical cases. Actually, any normbounded parameter uncertainty can be
expressedintheformof(8)and(9).OurobjectiveinthischapteristodesignaPIcontrollerofthe
followingform:

(11)
suchthattheclosedloopsystem(10)and(11)isasymptoticallystable,whereFPandFIareconstant
matrices.
Controller(11)isanidealPIcontroller.Readersarereferredto[8]forhowtochangetheidealPI
controllers into practical ones and the relationships between the parameters of the two kinds of
controllers.

III.PROPORTIONALCONTROL
Inthissection,wefirststudythestabilizationofsystem(10)byaproportionalcontroller,i.e.,by
thefollowingcontroller:
(12)
whereFisaconstantmatrix.Todothis,weneedthefollowingproposition.
Proposition1:System(10)isasymptoticallystabilizedviacontroller(12)ifthereexistsamatrixsuch
thatthefollowingmatrixinequalitieshold:

0
, ,
,
1,2, ,

(13)
Proof: First notice that system (10) is asymptotically stabilized via controller (12) if there exists a
matrixP>0suchthat

0
, ,
,
1,2, ,

(14)

To show this claim, we choose V(x):=xTP1x(t) as a Lyapunov function candidate for system (10).
Sinceiisaclosedsetandrisfinite,thereexistsapositivedefinitematrixQ0suchthat

1,2, ,
, ,
,
ifmatrixinequality(14)holds.Then,noticingthefactthati(x)0,i=1,2,..,r,and
1,
wehave

Thusfollowstheclaim.
Now, following the same procedure as the proof of [9, Theorem 1], we can prove that matrix
inequality(14)holdsifandonlyifmatrixinequality(13)holds.Thiscompletestheproof.

Theorem 1: Consider the uncertain nonlinear system (10). Suppose there exist positive definite
matrices P, a matrix F, and positive numbers i , i=1,2,,r , such that the following matrix
inequalitieshold:
0
1,2, ,
(15)
Then,system(10)canberobustlystabilizedbycontrolleru(t)=Fy(t).
Toprovethistheorem,weneedthefollowinglemma.
Lemma 1: Let D, E, and T be real matrices of appropriate dimensions with T satisfying ||T||1.
Thenforanyrealnumber>0,wehave

(16)
T
Proof: The assumption ||T||1 leads to I-TT 0, which again yields the following inequality:
0
byapplyingSchurcomplements[10].Then,foranytworealnumbers1and2wewillhave
0

(17)

If12=1,theinequality(17)willbeofthefollowingform:

whichisequivalenttotheinequality(16).
From(8)and(9)andapplyingLemma1,wehave

, ,
, ,

wherei,i=1,2,,r,arerealpositivenumbers.Thus,itfollowsthatmatrixinequalities(13)holdif
sodomatrixinequalities(15).ApplyingProposition1,wearriveatthistheorem.
Onecannotdirectlyusematrix inequalities(15)tocalculate the requiredfeedbackmatrixdueto
the existence of the term PBBTP in (15), which makes the solution of (15) very complicated.
Neither is it convex, nor can it be transformed into a convex problem in the space of unknown
parameters (P,F, i, i=1,2,,r). In [9], an iterative linear matrix inequality (ILMI) algorithm was
developedtosolvethesimilarproblem.Followingthesameideaasin[9],wecanalsodevelopan
ILMIalgorithmtosolvematrixinequalities(15),whichissummarizedinthesequel.
Algorithm1(ILMIAlgorithmforProportionalNonlinearControllers):
Initialdata:systemsstatespaceparameters(Ai,Bi,Ci,Di,Ei,i=1,2,,r)
Step1.ChooseP0>0.Setj=1andX1=P0.
Step2.SolvethefollowingoptimizationproblemforPj,F,andj.
OP1:MinimizesubjecttothefollowingLMIconstraints

0
0
(18)
0
0
1,2, ,
(19)
Where

*
Denoteby jtheminimizedvalueofj.
Step3.If*j0,theobtainedmatrices(Pj,F,i,i=1,2,,r)solvetheproblem.Stop.Otherwisegoto
Step4.
Step4.SolvethefollowingoptimizationproblemforPj,Fandi,i=1,2,,r.

OP2:Minimizetr(Pj)subjecttoLMIconstraints(18)and(19)withj=*j,wheretrstandsforthe
traceofasquarematrix.DenotebyP*jtheoptimalPj.
Step5.If||XjP*j||<,whereisaprescribedtolerance,gotoStep6;otherwisesetj:=j+1,
Xj=P*jandgotoStep2.
Step6.Itcannotbedecidedbythisalgorithmwhethertheproblemissolvableforthesystem.
Stop.
The form of inequality (18) is different from the form of inequalities (15) in that there is an
additionaltermjPjin(18).
TheintroductionofthistermistoguaranteeLMI(18)hassolutionsforafixedXj,whichisevident
forasufficientlylargepositivenumberj.
TheoptimizationproblemOP1inStep2isageneralizedeigenvalueproblem(see[7,pp.1011])in
LMIlanguage,whichcanbesolvedbythecommandgevpinLMItoolboxofMatlab[11];whilethe
optimizationproblemOP2inStep4isaneigenvalueprobleminLMIlanguage,whichcanbesolved
bythecommandmincxinLMItoolboxofMatlab[11].InTheorem1,acommonfeedbackmatrixF
is to be found for the T matrix inequalities. This constraint is not necessary and sometimes it is
difficulttofindsuchacommonfeedbackmatrixF.Forsomesystemssuchastheonewewillstudy
later,alloftheTmatricesBi,i=1,2,,rareidentical,i.e.,B1=B2==Br:=B.Inthiscase,wecandesign
acontrollerofthefollowingform:

(20)

tostabilizesystem(10).Tothisend,wefirstestablishthefollowing.
Theorem 2: Consider the uncertain nonlinear system (10) with B1=B2==Br:=B. If there exist a
positive definite matrix P, matrices Fi and positive numbers i, i=1,2,,r , such that the following
matrixinequalitieshold:
0
1,2, ,
thensystem(10)canberobustlystabilizedbycontroller(20).Theproofofthistheoremissimilarto
thatofTheorem1,henceitisomitted.
A corresponding algorithm can also be developed accordingly to solve feedback matrices Fi,
i=1,2,,r.ThisisonlytochangeLMI(18)to

0
0
0
1,2, ,
(21)
ThenAlgorithm1appliesverbatim.

IV.PICONTROL
Weagainconsidersystem(10),butnowweusePIcontroller(11)insteadofproportionalcontroller
(12). Our objective here is to design the feedback matrices Fp and FI such that system (10) is
robustlystabilizedbythecontroller.Let

Denote z=[z1T, z2T]T . The variable z can be viewed as the state vector of a new system, whose
dynamicsisgovernedby
7

, ,

i.e.
, ,

Where

0
,
0

, ,

, ,

Define

0
0

Anddenote
:

0,

Then the problem of PI controller design for system (10) is reduced to that of proportional
controllerdesignforthefollowingsystem:
, ,

Thus,thefeedbackmatricesFPandFIcanbecalculatedbyapplyingAlgorithm1tosystem(22).
InthecasewhereallBi,i=1,2,,r,areequal,thefollowingkindofcontrollercanbealsodesigned
byapplyingAlgorithm1andTheorem2:

V.NUMERICALEXAMPLE:EXCITATIONCONTROLOFPOWERSYSTEMS
Mostexistingexcitationcontrollersofpowersystemsaredesignedbyapplicationoflinearcontrol
theorytotheapproximatelinearizedmodelsofpowersystems.Thus,theyworkwellonlywhenthe
disturbancecausedbyfaultsinthesystemsisrelativelysmall.Underlargedisturbance,thesystems
mightbeoutofsynchronization.Inthissection,wewillapplytheresultsobtainedintheprevious
sections to the designof excitation controllers for a thermal turbine synchronousgenerator. The
simplified dynamical model of the singlemachine infinitebus power system with a silicon
controlledrectifierdirectexcitorisasfollows:
2

Where
cos .
sin

where is the angular position of the rotor of generator (G) with respect to a synchronously
rotating reference, which is selected here to be the infinite bus; is the angular velocity of the
rotor; Pe and Pm are the active power and mechanical power of G, respectively, Eq is the
electromotive force (EMF) in the qaxis of G; Eq is transient EMF in the qaxis of G; Ef is the
equivalent EMF in the excitation winding of G; xd is the daxis reactance of G; xd is the daxis
transientreactanceofG;xTandxLarethereactancesofthetransformerandthetransmissionline,
respectivelyxd =xd+xT+xL,xd =xd+xT+xL,xadisthemutualreactancebetweentheexcitation
windingandthestatorwinding;Rfistheresistanceoftheexcitationwinding;kAisthegainofthe
amplifier,Vsisthebusvoltage;uisthecontrolinput;andh(t)denotestheexternaldisturbance.
Suppose0isthevalueofundersteadyoperatingcondition.Forthis0,let
sin

cos

Definenewstatevariablesandcontrolinputas

Thedynamicalmodelofthepowersystem(23)canberewrittenas
2
:
sin

sin

cos

cos
:

(24)
Theparametersofthesystemareasfollows:
f0=50Hz
0=1p.u.
0=60o
H=8s
D=0.8

Vs=1p.u.
xd=1.5p.u. xd=0.3p.u. xad=1.3p.u. xL=(0.8+xL)p.u.
xT=0.01p.u. kA=10
Td0=3s
Rf=0.0045p.u.
Theseparametersyield

Eq0=1.2723p.u.
u0=7.2942*10^4p.u.
9

Pm=0.79p.u.
xL=0.0008p.u.

NoticethatallparametersexceptxLaresupposedtobeknownhere.TheparameterxLissupposed
to have some perturbation. The reason why we choose the perturbation in xL to illustrate the
robustnessofourcontrolleristhatxLisoneofthesystemparameterswhicharemost uncertain
anddifficulttomeasure.
Generally, the state variable is difficult to measure. Hence, the system output equation is as
follows:
0 1 0

0 0 1
The physical limit of the excitation voltage leads to the constraint on the control input u as
follows:
|

3.0 . .

Orequivalently
0.0018 . .
0.00031 . .
The local fuzzy models of the system are obtained through the linearization of the system (24)
aroundthepointsx1=[30,0,0]T,x2=[0,0,0]Tandx3=[+30,0,0]T,respectively.IntermsofIF
THENrules,thefuzzymodelsadmitthefollowingform:

Rule1.IFx1(or)issmall(i.e.,x1isabout30o,orequivalently,isabout30o)THEN

Rule2.IFx1(or)ismiddle(i.e.,x1isabout0o,orequivalently,isabout60o)THEN

o
Rule3.IFx1(or)islarge(i.e.,x1isabout+30 ,orequivalently,isabout90o)THEN

whereAi(i=1,2,3)accountfortheparameterperturbationinxL.ByusingTeixeiraZaksformula
[12]

|| ||

0
1,2,3,
1,2,3
matricesAiandBiareobtainedasfollows(noticingthatwesetxL=0whilesolvingAiandBi):
0
314.16
0
0.1002
0.1
0.0563
0.2519
0
0.6937

0
314.16
0
0.1009
0.1
0.0975
0.3121
0
0.6937

0
314.16
0
0.085
0.1
0.1126
0.3441
0
0.6937

10

0
962.963
There are many options to assign membership functions. For the sake of convenience in
computation,weselecttriangularfunctionasourmembershipfunctions,whichare
1

3
3

6
0

3
2

3
1

Figure1Membershipfunctionsofthefuzzymodelsforpowersystem(24).
Sincetherighthandsideofthefirstequationofthepowersystem(24)includesnouncertainties
anditisalsolinearfunctionofthestatevariables,weletthefirstrowofAibezero.Toaccountfor
the parameter perturbation and approximation error caused by linearization, we let the second
andthirdrowsbe0.1%timesthecorrespondingelementsofAii.e.
0
0
0

10
0.1002
0.1
0.0563
0.2519
0
0.6937

0
0
0

10
0.1009
0.1
0.0975
0.3121
0
0.6937

0
0
0

10
0.085
0.1
0.1126
0.3441
0
0.6937
Since B1=B2=B3, we can use Theorem 2 combined with Algorithm 1 to calculate the feedback
matricesofproportionalandPIcontrollers,whichareasfollows.Forproportionalcontroller
0.0398
0.0071
11


0.0353

0.0065

0.0212

0.0027

ForPIcontroller
0.0163
0.0171
0.0241

0.0021

0.0028

0.0033

0.0037

0.0125

0.0028

0.0125

0.005

0.0125

12

SimulationswithSimulink
1)WithProportionalcontrolandswitchingA1,A2andA3,accordingtox1wehave:

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x1
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x2
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A 2x1 scope

A1x3
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du

Switch 1

A2x1
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du

Switch 3

A2x2
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
Switch 2

A2x3

x scope

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A3x1
u scope

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A3x2
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A3x3
u
x2 & x3 scope

MATLAB
Function

13

X1:Yellow

X2:Pink

X3:Blue

Figure2)X1:YellowX2:PinkX3:BlueforPcontrollerwithswitching

14

X2:Pink

X3:Blue

Figure3)X2:PinkX3:BlueforPcontrollerwithswitching

15

Theinputu:

Figure4)inputuforPcontrollerwithswitching

16

2)WithProportionalplusIntegralcontrolandswitchingA1,A2andA3,accordingtox1wehave:
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x1
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x2
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x3
u scope

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A 2x1

Matrix
Multiply

alfaiFij *(y/s)

Integrator 1
1
s
Integrator 2

Pu

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du

MATLAB
Function

A 2x2

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du

MATLAB
Function

A 2x3

1
s
alfa 1Fi1

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du

Fi1

Switch 3

Switch 2

x scope

A 3x1

[-.0037 -.0125 ]

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du

alfa
alfa 2Fi2

A 3x2

MATLAB
Function

Fi2
alfa 3Fi3

Switch 1

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du

[-.0028 -.0125 ]

A 3x3
x2 & x3 scope

Fi3
[.005 -.0125 ]

17

X1:Yellow

X2:Pink

X3:Blue

Figure5)X1:YellowX2:PinkX3:BlueforPIcontrollerwithswitching

18

X2:Pink

X3:Blue

Figure6)X2:PinkX3:BlueforPIcontrollerwithswitching

19

Theinputu:

Figure7)inputuforPcontrollerwithswitching

20

3)WithProportionalcontrolandwithoutswitchingA1,A2andA3wehave:

x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x1
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x2
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du

A1x3
u

Pu
MATLAB
Function

21

X1:Yellow

X2:Pink

X3:Blue

Figure8)X1:YellowX2:PinkX3:BlueforPcontrollerwithoutswitching

22

Theinputu:

Figure9)inputuforPcontrollerwithoutswitching

23

4)WithProportionalplusIntegralcontrolandwithoutswitchingA1,A2andA3wehave:
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x1
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x2
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du
A1x3
u scope
x scope

Pu
Matrix
alfaiFij*(y/s)
Multiply

MATLAB
Function

Integrator1

1
s
Integrator2

MATLAB
Function

1
s
Fi1

alfa1Fi1

[-.0037 -.0125]
alfa
alfa2Fi2

MATLAB
Function

Fi2
[-.0028 -.0125]

alfa3Fi3

Fi3
[.005 -.0125]

24

X1:Yellow

X2:Pink

X3:Blue

Figure10)X1:YellowX2:PinkX3:BlueforPIcontrollerwithoutswitching

25

Theinputu:

Figure11)inputuforPIcontrollerwithoutswitching

26

VI.CONCLUDINGREMARKS
Asyousawtheresponsesinswitchingmodehavesomejumpsandnonsmoothnessesbecauseof
switching phenomenon but they finally became stable, the results without switching obviously
shows more smoothness in responses. The design problem of proportional and PI controllers for
nonlinear systems has been studied in this chapter. First, TakagiSugeno (TS) fuzzy model with
parameter uncertainties is used to model the nonlinear systems. The introduction of parameter
uncertaintiesintheTSfuzzymodelcanaccountforbothapproximationerroroffuzzymodeland
theactualparameteruncertaintiesinthepracticalprocess.Second,analgorithmbasedonILMIis
developed to design a proportional controller to robustly stabilize the system which can be
expressedbyaTSfuzzymodel.Third,wetransformtheproblemofPIcontrollerdesigntothatof
proportionalcontrollerdesignforanaugmentedsystemandthusbringthesolutionoftheformer
problem into the configuration of the developed algorithm. The characteristics of the developed
method is that it is numerically tractable and can be applied to general multivariable nonlinear
systems.Finally,theproposedmethodisappliedtotherobuststabilizingcontrollerdesignforthe
excitation control of power systems. Simulation results show that the transient stability can be
improvedbyusinga fuzzyPIcontrollerwhen largefaultsappearinthesystem,compared to the
conventionalPIcontrollerdesignedbyusinglinearizationmethodaroundthesteadystate.Notice
that the controllers proposed in this paper use only output variables (in the case of common
feedback matrix corresponding to all the fuzzy rules) or output variables plus some other state
variables needed in the fuzzy premise (in the case of different feedback matrix corresponding to
each fuzzy rule accordingly). In the latter case, the state variables needed in the fuzzy premise
shouldbeavailablenormally.

VII.References
[1] Feng Zheng, Qing-Guo Wang, Tong Heng Lee and Xiaogang Huang Robust PI Controller Design for Nonlinear
Systems via Fuzzy Modeling Approach IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS
PART A: SYSTEMS AND HUMANS, VOL. 31, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2001
[2] K.K. Tan*, S. Huang, R. Ferdous Robust self-tuning PID controller for nonlinear systems Journal of Process
Control 12 (2002) 753761
[3] R. A. Freeman and P. K. Kokotovic, Robust Nonlinear Control Design. Cambridge, MA: Birkhaser, 1996
[4] T. Takagi and M. Sugeno, Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling and control, IEEE
Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. SMC-15, pp. 116132, 1985.
[5] M. Sugeno and G. T. Kang, Structure identification of fuzzy model, Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 28, pp. 1533, 1988.
[6] L. X.Wang and J. M. Mendel, Fuzzy basis functions, universal approximatiors and orthogonal least-square
learning, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 3, pp. 807814, Sept. 1992.
[7] T. A. Johansen and B. A. Foss, Constructing NARMAX models using ARMAX models, Int. J. Control, vol. 58,
pp. 11251153, 1993.
[8] PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning. Research Triangle Park, NC: Instrument Society of America, 1995.
[9] Y.-Y. Cao, J. Lam, and Y.-X. Sun, Static output feedback stabilization: An ILMI approach, Automatica, vol. 34,
pp. 16411645, 1998.
[10] S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory.
Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 1994.
[11] P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A. J. Laub, and M. Chilali, LMI Control Toolbox: The Math Works Inc., 1995.

27

[12] M. C. M. Teixeira and S. H. Zak, Stabilizing controller design for uncertain nonlinear systems using fuzzy
models, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 7, pp. 133142, Apr. 1999.

28