Research Article Less Conservative Optimal Robust Control of a 3-DOF Helicopter L. F. S. Buzachero,1 E. Assunção,2 M. C. M. Teixeira,2 and E. R. P. da Silva3 1Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), 86812-460 Apucarana, PR, Brazil 2Research Laboratory in Control, Department of Electrical Engineering, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Campus of Ilha Solteira, 15385-000 Ilha Solteira, SP, Brazil 3Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), 86300-000 Cornélio Procópio, PR, Brazil Correspondence should be addressed to L. F. S. Buzachero; luiz.buzachero@yahoo.com.br Received 6 October 2014; Accepted 14 January 2015 Academic Editor: Yongji Wang Copyright © 2015 L. F. S. Buzachero et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Thiswork proposes an improved technique for design andoptimization of robust controllers norm for uncertain linear systems,with state feedback, including the possibility of time-varying the uncertainty. The synthesis techniques used are based on LMIs (linear matrix inequalities) formulated on the basis of Lyapunov’s stability theory, using Finsler’s lemma.The design has used the addition of the decay rate restriction, including a parameter 𝛾 in the LMIs, responsible for decreasing the settling time of the feedback system. Qualitative and quantitative comparisonsweremade betweenmethods of synthesis and optimization of the robust controllers norm, seeking alternatives with lower cost and better performance that meet the design restrictions. A practical application illustrates the efficiency of the proposed method with a failure purposely inserted in the system. 1. Introduction Thehistory of linearmatrix inequalities (LMIs) in the analysis of dynamical systems dates back to over 100 years. The story begins around 1890 when Lyapunov published his work introducing what is now called Lyapunov’s theory [1]. The researches and publications involving Lyapunov’s theory have grown up a lot in recent decades [2], opening a very wide range for various approaches such as robust stability analysis of linear systems [3]. In addition to the various current controllers design techniques, the design of optimal robust controllers (or controller design by quadratic stability) using LMI stands out for solving problems that previously had no known solution [4]. These designs use specialized computer packages [5]. Recent publications have found a certain conservatism inserted in the analysis of quadratic stability, which led to a search for solutions to eliminate this conservatism. Finsler’s lemma [6] has been widely used in control theory for the stability analysis by LMIs, with results similar to the LMI quadratic stability, but with extra matrices, allowing a certain relaxation in the stability analysis (referred as “extended” stability), by obtaining a larger region of feasibility. However, these methods only guarantee stability for uncertain time- invariant systems or with very small variation rate [7]. The main focus of this paper is to propose an improved method of design and optimization technique than the one presented in [8], including the possibility of time-varying the uncertainty, searching for lower gains of controllers that have the same dynamic performance when the system is forced to have a faster transient with the inclusion of decay rate restriction (a D-stability performance index [9] which ensures that the eigenvalues of the uncertain system are on the left of 𝛾 scalar) in the LMIs formulation. Comparisons will be made through a practical applica- tion in a Quanser’s 3-DOF helicopter [10], considering a fail- ure during the landing treated as a time variant uncertainty, and a generic analysis involving 1000 randomly generated polytopic uncertain systems. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Control Science and Engineering Volume 2015, Article ID 720203, 10 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/720203 2 Journal of Control Science and Engineering The notation used throughout the paper is standard. The symbol ( 󸀠) indicates transpose and (−1) indicates the inverse matrix; 𝑃 > 0means that 𝑃 is symmetric positive definite. N denotes the nonnegative integers {0, 1, 2, . . .} and R the real numbers. 2. Robust Stability Using Decay Rate as a Performance Index Consider the controllable uncertain linear time-invariant system described in the state space form: �̇� (𝑡) = 𝐴 (𝛼) 𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝐵 (𝛼) 𝑢 (𝑡) . (1) This system can be described as convex combination of the polytope vertexes: �̇� (𝑡) = 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝐴 𝑗 𝑥 (𝑡) + 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝐵 𝑗 𝑢 (𝑡) (2) with 𝛼 𝑗 > 0, 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟, 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 = 1, (3) where 𝑟 is the number of the polytope vertexes [1]. Considering the uncertain system (2) and exiting Lya- punov theory for designing controllers, the following theo- rem is stated [1]. Theorem 1. A sufficient condition for the uncertain system (2) stability guarantee subject to decay rate greater than or equal to 𝛾 is the existence of matrices𝑋 = 𝑋 󸀠 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛 and 𝐺 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛, such that 𝐴 𝑗 𝑋 − 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 + 𝑋𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 + 2𝛾𝑋 < 0, (4) 𝑋 > 0 (5) with 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟. When the LMIs (4) and (5) are feasible, a state feedback matrix that stabilizes the system can be found as 𝐾 = 𝐺𝑋 −1 . (6) Proof. See [1]. Thus, the feedback of the uncertain system presented in (1) can be done, with (4) and (5) being sufficient conditions for asymptotic stability of the polytope for a state feedback system with decay rate restriction. If the solution of LMIs is feasible, the uncertain system’s stability is guaranteed. In many situations the norm of the state feedback matrix is high, precluding its practical application. In [11] an opti- mization method that minimizes the gains of the controller designed via LMIs (4) and (5) was proposed, but this does not eliminate the inherent conservatism. Thus, in [8] a new way to optimize the norm of 𝐾 controller was presented eliminating the conservatism of the LMIs by Finsler’s lemma. We can use the Finsler’s lemma to express the stability in terms of LMIs, with advantages over the existing Lyapunov’s theory [1], once it introduces new variables (𝜇, X) under conditions which involve onlyL,B, andB⊥. Lemma 2 (Finsler). Consider 𝑤 ∈ R𝑛𝑥 , L ∈ R𝑛𝑥×𝑛𝑥 , and B ∈ R𝑚𝑥×𝑛𝑥 with rank(B) < 𝑛 𝑥 and B⊥ a basis for the null space ofB (i.e.,BB⊥ = 0). Then the following conditions are equivalent: (1) 𝑤󸀠L𝑤 < 0, ∀𝑤 ̸= 0 : B𝑤 = 0 (2) B⊥󸀠LB⊥ < 0 (3) ∃𝜇 ∈ R : L − 𝜇B󸀠B < 0 (4) ∃X ∈ R𝑛𝑥×𝑚𝑥 : L +XB +B󸀠X󸀠 < 0. Proof. See [6] or [12]. 2.1. Robust Stability of Systems Using Finsler’s Lemma with Decay Rate Restriction. Defining 𝑤 = [ 𝑥 ̇𝑥 ], B = [(𝐴 − 𝐵𝐾) −𝐼], B⊥ = [ 𝐼 (𝐴−𝐵𝐾) ], and L = [ 2𝛾𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 0 ], note thatB𝑤 = 0 corresponds to the feedback system with𝐾 and 𝑤 󸀠L𝑤 < 0 represents the stability restriction with decay rate formulated from the quadratic Lyapunov function [1]. In this case the dimensions of Lemma’s 2 variables are 𝑛 𝑥 = 2𝑛 and 𝑚 𝑥 = 𝑛. Thus, it is possible to characterize stability through the quadratic Lyapunov function (𝑉(𝑥(𝑡)) := 𝑥(𝑡) 󸀠 𝑃𝑥(𝑡)), gener- ating new degrees of freedom for the synthesis of controllers. From existing proof of Finsler’s lemma it can be con- cluded that the properties of one to four are equivalent.Thus, we can rewrite fourth property as follows: (4) ∃X ∈ R2𝑛×𝑛, 𝑃 = 𝑃 󸀠 > 0 such that [ 2𝛾𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 0 ] +X [(𝐴 − 𝐵𝐾) −𝐼] + [ (𝐴 − 𝐵𝐾) 󸀠 −𝐼 ]X 󸀠 < 0 (7) conveniently choosing the matrix variables X = [ 𝑍 𝑎𝑍 ], with 𝑍 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛 nonsymmetric and 𝑎 a relaxation constant that has the function of flexible matrix X in the LMI [13]. This constant can be defined bymaking a one-dimensional search. Applying the congruence transformation [ 𝑍−1 0 0 𝑍 −1 ] at the left and [ 𝑍−1 0 0 𝑍 −1 ] 󸀠 at the right, in the fourth property, andmaking 𝑌 = (𝑍 󸀠 ) −1,𝐺 = 𝐾𝑌, and𝑄 = 𝑌 󸀠 𝑃𝑌, the following LMIs were found: [ 𝐴𝑌 + 𝑌 󸀠 𝐴 󸀠 − 𝐵𝐺 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 + 2𝛾𝑄 𝑄 + 𝑎𝑌 󸀠 𝐴 󸀠 − 𝑎𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 − 𝑌 𝑄 + 𝑎𝐴𝑌 − 𝑎𝐵𝐺 − 𝑌 󸀠 −𝑎𝑌 − 𝑎𝑌 󸀠 ] < 0, 𝑄 > 0 (8) with 𝑌 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, 𝑌 ̸= 𝑌 󸀠, 𝐺 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛, and 𝑄 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛. These LMIs meet the restrictions for the asymptotic stability of the system with state feedback. The stability resulting of the LMIs derived from Finsler’s lemma referred Journal of Control Science and Engineering 3 to as extended stability [14]. The advantage of using Finsler’s lemma formulation for robust stability analysis is the freedom of Lyapunov’s function, now defined as 𝑄(𝛼) = ∑ 𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑄 𝑗 , ∑ 𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 = 1, 𝛼 𝑗 ≥ 0 and 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟. As 𝑄(𝛼) depends on 𝛼, the Lyapunov matrix use fits to time-invariant poly- topic uncertainties, with permitted rate of variation being sufficiently small. Thus in [8] the following theorem was presented. Theorem 3. In order to guarantee the stability of the uncertain system (2) subject to decay rate greater than or equal to 𝛾, a sufficient condition is the existence of matrices 𝑌 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, 𝑄 𝑗 = 𝑄 󸀠 𝑗 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, and 𝐺 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛, such that [ 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 + 𝑌 󸀠 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 + 2𝛾𝑄 𝑗 𝑄 𝑗 + 𝑎𝑌 󸀠 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝑎𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝑌 𝑄 𝑗 + 𝑎𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 − 𝑎𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 − 𝑌 󸀠 −𝑎𝑌 − 𝑎𝑌 󸀠 ] < 0, (9) 𝑄 𝑗 > 0 (10) with 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟. When LMIs (9) and (10) are feasible, a state feedback matrix that stabilizes the system can be given by 𝐾 = 𝐺𝑌 −1 . (11) Proof. See [8]. Thus, it can be feedback into the uncertain system with (9) and (10) sufficient conditions for asymptotic stability of the polytope. 2.2. Optimization of 𝐾 Norm Using Finsler’s Lemma. In [8] there was a difficulty in applying the existing theory for the optimization of 𝐾 matrix norm [11] for the new structure of LMIs. This was due to the nonsymmetry of 𝑌 matrix for the controller synthesis, condition that was necessary to the LMI development when the controller synthesis matrix was 𝑋 = 𝑃 −1. The solution found was using the idea of the optimization procedure for redesign presented in [15]. Thus, in [8] the new optimization method adequacy was proposed, with the minimization of a scalar 𝛽 obeying the relation 𝐾 󸀠 𝐾 < 𝛽𝑃 𝑗 with𝑃 𝑗 the Lyapunov function, to the new relaxed parameters through the following theorem. Theorem 4. A constraint for the 𝐾 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛 matrix norm of state feedback can be obtained, with 𝐾 = 𝐺𝑌 −1 and 𝑄 𝑗 = 𝑌 󸀠 𝑃 𝑗 𝑌, being 𝑌 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, 𝐺 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛, and 𝑃 𝑗 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, 𝑃 𝑗 = 𝑃 󸀠 𝑗 > 0 finding the minimum 𝛽, 𝛽 > 0, such that 𝐾󸀠𝐾 < 𝛽𝑃 𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑁. One can get the optimal value of 𝛽 solving the optimization problem with the LMIs: min 𝛽 s.t. [ 𝑄 𝑗 𝐺 󸀠 𝐺 𝛽𝐼 𝑚 ] > 0 (LMIs given in (9)) , (12) where 𝐼 𝑚 denotes the identity matrix of𝑚 order. Proof. See [8]. This way of optimizing the norm of 𝐾 showed better results than the one presented in [11]. However, the optimiza- tion LMI, in order to be bound by the Lyapunov’s matrix 𝑃 𝑗 , still does not have the minimal gains that would be found to meet the design requirements. In order to improve the optimization performance, an alternative is presented in Section 2.4 to optimize the norm of𝐾 controller reducing the conservatism of the LMIs design with a convenient manipulation. 2.3. Robust Stability of Systems Using Reciprocal Projection Lemmawith the Decay Rate Restriction. In order to verify the advantages of the new formulation proposed in Section 2.4, one of the best examples of optimal design of𝐾was borrowed from [8] for comparison purposes. As in the extended stability case, the advantage of using the reciprocal projection lemma for robust stability analysis is Lyapunov’s function degree of freedom, now defined as 𝑃(𝛼) = ∑ 𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑃 𝑗 , ∑ 𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 = 1, 𝛼 𝑗 ≥ 0 and 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟. As described before Theorem 3, the use of 𝑃(𝛼) fits to time-invariant polytopic uncertainties, with permitted rate of variation being sufficiently small. To verify this, Theorem 5 follows. Theorem 5. A sufficient condition which guarantees the sta- bility of the uncertain system (2) is the existence of matrices 𝑉 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, 𝑃 𝑗 = 𝑃 󸀠 𝑗 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, and𝑍 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛, such that LMIs (13) are met as follows: [ [ [ − (𝑉 + 𝑉 󸀠 ) 𝑉 󸀠 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝑍 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 + 𝛾𝑉 󸀠 + 𝑃 𝑗 𝑉 󸀠 𝐴 𝑗 𝑉 − 𝐵 𝑗 𝑍 + 𝛾𝑉 + 𝑃 𝑗 −𝑃 𝑗 0 𝑉 0 −𝑃 𝑗 ] ] ] < 0, 𝑃 𝑗 > 0 (13) with 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟. When the LMIs (13) are feasible, a state feedback matrix which stabilizes the system can be given by 𝐾 = 𝑍𝑉 −1 . (14) Proof. See [8]. Theorem 6 shows the optimization of𝐾 for LMIs (13). Theorem 6. A constraint for the 𝐾 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛 matrix norm of state feedback is obtained, with𝐾 = 𝑍𝑉 −1,𝑉 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, and𝑍 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛 finding the minimum 𝛽, 𝛽 > 0, such that 𝐾󸀠𝐾 < 𝛽𝑀, being 𝑀 = 𝑉 󸀠−1 𝑉 −1 and therefore 𝑀 = 𝑀 󸀠 > 0. We can get the optimal value of 𝛽 solving the optimization problem with the LMIs as follows: min 𝛽 s.t. [ 𝐼 𝑛 𝑍 󸀠 𝑍 𝛽𝐼 𝑚 ] > 0 (LMIs (13)) , (15) 4 Journal of Control Science and Engineering where 𝐼 𝑚 and 𝐼 𝑛 denote the identity matrices of𝑚 and 𝑛 order, respectively. Proof. See [8]. 2.4. New Formulation for Robust Stability of Systems Using Finsler’s Lemma with Decay Rate Restriction. Defining B = [𝐴 󸀠 −𝐼], B⊥ = [ 𝐼 𝐴 󸀠 ] and also consider L = [ −𝐵𝐺−𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 +2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 𝑋 0 ]. Check that the lemma variables (1) dimensions are 𝑛 𝑥 = 2𝑛 and 𝑚 𝑥 = 𝑛. Considering that 𝑋 is the matrix used to define the quadratic Lyapunov function, we will have the second propriety of Finsler’s lemma written as follows: (2) ∃𝑋 = 𝑋 󸀠 > 0 such that [ 𝐼 𝐴 󸀠] 󸀠 [ −𝐵𝐺 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 + 2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 𝑋 0 ] [ 𝐼 𝐴 󸀠] < 0 (16) which results in the necessary and sufficient condition for the system’s stabilizability, including decay rate: (2) 𝐴𝑋 − 𝐵𝐺 + 𝑋𝐴 󸀠 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 + 2𝛾𝑋 < 0. Thus, it is possible to characterize stability through the quadratic Lyapunov function (𝑉(𝑥(𝑡)) = 𝑥(𝑡) 󸀠 𝑃𝑥(𝑡)), generating further degrees of freedom for the controllers synthesis. From existing Finsler’s lemma proof (Lemma 2), it can be concluded that the second and fourth properties are equivalent. Thus, we can rewrite the fourth property as follows: (4) ∃Y ∈ R2𝑛×𝑛,𝑋 = 𝑋 󸀠 > 0 such that [ −𝐵𝐺 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 + 2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 𝑋 0 ] +Y [𝐴 󸀠 −𝐼] + [ 𝐴 −𝐼 ]Y 󸀠 < 0. (17) Conveniently choose thematrix variablesY = [ 𝑌 1 𝑌 2 ], with 𝑌 1 , 𝑌 2 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛. Developing the fourth property, we have [ −𝐵𝐺 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 + 2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 𝑋 0 ] + [ 𝑌 1 𝐴 󸀠 −𝑌 1 𝑌 2 𝐴 󸀠 −𝑌 2 ] + [ 𝐴𝑌 󸀠 1 𝐴𝑌 󸀠 2 −𝑌 󸀠 1 −𝑌 󸀠 2 ] < 0. (18) Thus the following LMIs subject to decay rate greater than or equal to 𝛾 were found: [ 𝐴𝑌 󸀠 1 − 𝐵𝐺 + 𝑌 1 𝐴 󸀠 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 + 2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 − 𝑌 1 + 𝐴𝑌 󸀠 2 𝑋 − 𝑌 󸀠 1 + 𝑌 2 𝐴 󸀠 −𝑌 2 − 𝑌 󸀠 2 ] < 0, (19) 𝑋 > 0 (20) with 𝑌 1 and 𝑌 2 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, 𝑌 1 ̸= 𝑌 󸀠 1 and 𝑌 2 ̸= 𝑌 󸀠 2 , 𝐺 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛, and 𝑋 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛,𝑋 = 𝑋 󸀠 > 0. These LMIs meet the restrictions for the asymptotic stability of the system with state feedback. It can be seen that the first principal minor of LMI (19) has the structure of the results found with the theorem of stability with decay rate. However, there is also, as stated in Finsler’s lemma, a high degree of freedom, due to the relaxation variable matrices 𝑌 1 and 𝑌 2 , without being symmetric, and for a robust stability approach, they may be polytopic: 𝑌 1 (𝛼) = ∑ 𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 1𝑗 and 𝑌 2 (𝛼) = ∑ 𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 2𝑗 , ∑𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 = 1, 𝛼 𝑗 ≥ 0 and 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟. Therefore the following theorem is proposed. Theorem 7. In order to guarantee the stability of the uncertain system (2) subject to decay rate greater than or equal to 𝛾 a sufficient condition is the existence of matrices 𝑌 1𝑗 and 𝑌 2𝑗 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛,𝑋 = 𝑋 󸀠 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, and 𝐺 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛, such that [ [ 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 − 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 + 𝑌 1𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 + 2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 − 𝑌 1𝑗 + 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 𝑋 − 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 + 𝑌 2𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 −𝑌 2𝑗 − 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 ] ] < 0 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟, (21) [ [ 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑘 − 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 + 𝐴 𝑘 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 − 𝐵 𝑘 𝐺 + 𝑌 1𝑘 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 + 𝑌 1𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑘 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑘 + 4𝛾𝑋 2𝑋 − 𝑌 1𝑗 − 𝑌 1𝑘 + 𝐴 𝑘 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 + 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑘 2𝑋 − 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 − 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑘 + 𝑌 2𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑘 + 𝑌 2𝑘 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 −𝑌 2𝑗 − 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 − 𝑌 2𝑘 − 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑘 ] ] < 0 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟 − 1; 𝑘 = 𝑗 + 1, . . . , 𝑟, (22) 𝑋 > 0. (23) Journal of Control Science and Engineering 5 WhenLMIs (21), (22), and (23) are feasible, a state feedback matrix that stabilizes the system can be given by 𝐾 = 𝐺𝑋 −1 . (24) Proof. Assume that LMIs (21), (22), and (23) are feasible. Considering 𝛼 𝑗 > 0 for 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟, then we have 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 2 𝑗 [ 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 − 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 + 𝑌 1𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 + 2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 − 𝑌 1𝑗 + 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 𝑋 − 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 + 𝑌 2𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 −𝑌 2𝑗 − 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 ] + 𝑟−1 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝑟 ∑ 𝑘=𝑗+1 𝛼 𝑗 𝛼 𝑘 [ 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑘 − 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 + 𝐴 𝑘 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 − 𝐵 𝑘 𝐺 + 𝑌 1𝑘 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 + 𝑌 1𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑘 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑘 + 4𝛾𝑋 2𝑋 − 𝑌 1𝑗 − 𝑌 1𝑘 + 𝐴 𝑘 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 + 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑘 2𝑋 − 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 − 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑘 + 𝑌 2𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑘 + 𝑌 2𝑘 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 −𝑌 2𝑗 − 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 − 𝑌 2𝑘 − 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑘 ] < 0. (25) Knowing that generically 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 = 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 2 𝑗 + 2 𝑟−1 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝑟 ∑ 𝑘=𝑗+1 𝛼 𝑗 𝛼 𝑘 , 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝐻 𝑖 𝑅 𝑗 = 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 2 𝑗 𝐻 𝑗 𝑅 𝑗 + 𝑟−1 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝑟 ∑ 𝑘=𝑗+1 𝛼 𝑗 𝛼 𝑘 (𝐻 𝑗 𝑅 𝑘 + 𝐻 𝑘 𝑅 𝑗 ) (26) thus the following equivalences are true: 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝐴 𝑖 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 = 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 2 𝑗 𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 + 𝑟−1 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝑟 ∑ 𝑘=𝑗+1 𝛼 𝑗 𝛼 𝑘 (𝐴 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑘 + 𝐴 𝑘 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 ) , 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 = 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 2 𝑗 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 + 𝑟−1 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝑟 ∑ 𝑘=𝑗+1 𝛼 𝑗 𝛼 𝑘 (𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 + 𝐵 𝑘 𝐺) , 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 1𝑗 = 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 2 𝑗 𝑌 1𝑗 + 𝑟−1 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝑟 ∑ 𝑘=𝑗+1 𝛼 𝑗 𝛼 𝑘 (𝑌 1𝑗 + 𝑌 1𝑘 ) , 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 2𝑗 = 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 2 𝑗 𝑌 2𝑗 + 𝑟−1 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝑟 ∑ 𝑘=𝑗+1 𝛼 𝑗 𝛼 𝑘 (𝑌 2𝑗 + 𝑌 2𝑘 ) , 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑋 = 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 2 𝑗 𝑋 + 2 𝑟−1 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝑟 ∑ 𝑘=𝑗+1 𝛼 𝑗 𝛼 𝑘 𝑋. (27) So, (25) can be rewritten as 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 [ [ [ 𝐴 𝑖 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 − 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 + 𝑌 1𝑖 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 + 2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 − 𝑌 1𝑗 + 𝐴 𝑖 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 𝑋 − 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 + 𝑌 2𝑖 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 −𝑌 2𝑗 − 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 ] ] ] < 0 (28) and consequently [ [ [ [ [ [ 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝐴 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 − 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝐵 𝑗 𝐺 + 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑌 1𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝐺 󸀠 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝐵 󸀠 𝑗 + 2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 − 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 1𝑗 + 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝐴 𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 𝑋 − 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 1𝑗 + 𝑟 ∑ 𝑖=1 𝛼 𝑖 𝑌 2𝑖 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝐴 󸀠 𝑗 − 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 2𝑗 − 𝑟 ∑ 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 󸀠 2𝑗 ] ] ] ] ] ] < 0. (29) Thus (29) can be rewritten as [ 𝐴 (𝛼) 𝑌 󸀠 1 (𝛼) − 𝐵 (𝛼) 𝐺 + 𝑌 1 (𝛼) 𝐴 󸀠 (𝛼) − 𝐺 󸀠 𝐵 󸀠 (𝛼) + 2𝛾𝑋 𝑋 − 𝑌 1 (𝛼) + 𝐴 (𝛼) 𝑌 󸀠 2 (𝛼) 𝑋 − 𝑌 󸀠 1 (𝛼) + 𝑌 2 (𝛼) 𝐴 󸀠 (𝛼) −𝑌 2 (𝛼) − 𝑌 󸀠 2 (𝛼) ] < 0, (30) 6 Journal of Control Science and Engineering where 𝑌 1 (𝛼) = ∑ 𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 1𝑗 and 𝑌 2 (𝛼) = ∑ 𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 𝑌 2𝑗 , with ∑ 𝑟 𝑗=1 𝛼 𝑗 = 1, 𝛼 𝑗 ≥ 0 and 𝑗 = 1, . . . , 𝑟. There is a great advantage in using the new formulations (21) and (22) using Finsler’s lemma compared with the old one (9) due to insertion of two polytopic matrices 𝑌 1𝑗 and 𝑌 2𝑗 , relaxing more the LMIs when compared to the old formulation where there was only the polytopic Lyapunov matrix 𝑄 𝑖 ; moreover as described before Theorem 3, the use of 𝑄(𝛼) fits to time-invariant polytopic uncertainties, with permitted rate of variation being sufficiently small, unlike this new formulation where the Lyapunov matrix 𝑋 is not polytopic, allowing variations in 𝛼. Below we have an alternative optimization of the norm of 𝐾, which together with LMIs (21), (22), and (23) shows better results for the controller gains, as will be seen in Section 4. Theorem 8. Given a constant 𝜇 0 > 0, a constraint for the state feedback 𝐾 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛 matrix norm is obtained, with 𝐾 = 𝐺𝑋 −1, 𝑋 = 𝑋 󸀠 > 0,𝑋 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛, and𝐺 ∈ R𝑚×𝑛 by finding theminimum of𝛽,𝛽 > 0 such that𝐾󸀠𝐾 < (𝛽/𝜇 0 )𝐼 𝑛 .We can get theminimum 𝛽 solving the follwoing optimization problem: min 𝛽 s.t. [ 𝑋 𝐺 󸀠 𝐺 𝛽𝐼 𝑚 ] > 0 (31) 𝑋 > 𝜇 0 𝐼 𝑛 (32) (LMIs (18) or (20) and (21)) , (33) where 𝐼 𝑚 and 𝐼 𝑛 denote identity matrices of 𝑚 and 𝑛 order, respectively. Proof. Applying the Schur complement for the first inequality of (31) results in 𝛽𝐼 𝑚 > 0, (34) 𝑋 − 𝐺 󸀠 (𝛽𝐼 𝑚 ) −1 𝐺 > 0. (35) Thus, from (35) we obtain 𝑋 > 1 𝛽 𝐺 󸀠 𝐺 󳨐⇒ 𝐺 󸀠 𝐺 < 𝛽𝑋. (36) Replacing 𝐺 = 𝐾𝑋 in (36) results in 𝑋𝐾 󸀠 𝐾𝑋 < 𝛽𝑋 󳨐⇒ 𝐾 󸀠 𝐾 < 𝛽𝑋 −1 . (37) From (32) we obtain 𝑋 −1 < 1 𝜇 0 𝐼 𝑛 . (38) So from (37) and (38), 𝐾 󸀠 𝐾 < 𝛽 𝜇 0 𝐼 𝑛 (39) Figure 1: Quanser’s 3-DOF helicopter of Control Research Labora- tory at FEIS, UNESP. Back motor Travel axis Counterweight Elevation axis Support Front motor Pitch axisFb mbxg mhxg 𝜌 ≥ 0 Ff mfxg lh lh la lw mw·g 𝜀 ≥ 0 𝜆 ≥ 0 Figure 2: Schematic drawing of 3-DOF helicopter. Source: [10]. on which𝐾 is the optimal controller associated with (19) and (20) or (21), (22), and (23). 3. 3-DOF Helicopter Consider the schematic model in Figure 2 of the 3-DOF heli- copter [10] shown in Figure 1. This equipment is a patrimony of Control Research Laboratory at FEIS, UNESP. Two DC motors are mounted at the two ends of a rectangular frame and drive two propellers. A positive voltage applied to the front motor causes a positive pitch while a positive voltage applied to the back motor causes a negative pitch (pitch angle (𝜌)). A positive voltage to either motor also causes an elevation of the body (elevation angle (𝜀) of the arm). If the body pitches, the thrust vectors result in a travel of the body (travel angle (𝜆) of the arm) as well. The objective of this experiment is to design a control system to track and regulate the elevation and travel of the 3-DOF helicopter [10]. Journal of Control Science and Engineering 7 Table 1: Helicopter parameters. Power constant of the propeller (found experimentally) 𝑘 𝑓 0.1188 Mass of the helicopter body (kg) 𝑚 ℎ 1.15 Mass of counterweight (kg) 𝑚 𝑤 1.87 Mass of the whole front of the propeller (kg) 𝑚 𝑓 𝑚 ℎ /2 Mass of the whole back of the propeller (kg) 𝑚 𝑏 𝑚 ℎ /2 Distance between each axis of pitch and motor (m) 𝑙 ℎ 0.1778 Distance between the lift axis and helicopter (m) 𝑙 𝑎 0.6604 Distance between elevation axis and counterweight (m) 𝑙 𝑤 0.4699 Gravitational constant (m/s2) 𝑔 9.81 The state space model that describes the helicopter is [10] [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ ̇𝜀 ̇𝜌 �̇� .. 𝜀 .. 𝜌 .. 𝜆 ̇𝜉 ̇𝜒 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] = 𝐴 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 𝜀 𝜌 𝜆 ̇𝜀 ̇𝜌 �̇� 𝜉 𝜒 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] + 𝐵[ 𝑉 𝑓 𝑉 𝑏 ] . (40) The variables 𝜉 and 𝜒 represent the integrals of the angles 𝜀 of yaw and 𝜆 of travel, respectively. Matrices 𝐴 and 𝐵 are presented in sequence: 𝐴 = [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2𝑚 𝑓 𝑙 𝑎 − 𝑚 𝑤 𝑙 𝑤 𝑔 2𝑚 𝑓 𝑙2 𝑎 + 2𝑚 𝑓 𝑙2 ℎ + 𝑚 𝑓 𝑙2 𝑤 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] , 𝐵 = [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 0 0 0 0 0 0 𝑙 𝑎 𝑘 𝑓 𝑚 𝑤 𝑙2 𝑤 + 2𝑚 𝑓 𝑙2 𝑎 𝑙 𝑎 𝑘 𝑓 𝑚 𝑤 𝑙2 𝑤 + 2𝑚 𝑓 𝑙2 𝑎 1 2 𝑘 𝑓 𝑚 𝑓 𝑙 ℎ − 1 2 𝑘 𝑓 𝑚 𝑓 𝑙 ℎ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] . (41) Details of themodel constants are given in Table 1. To add robustness to the system without any physical change, a 30% drop in power of the backmotor is forced by inserting a timer switch connected to an amplifier with a gain of 0.7 in tension acting directly on engine, and thus a polytope of two vertexes is constituted with an uncertainty in the input matrix of the system acting on the helicopter voltage between 0.7𝑉 𝑏 and𝑉 𝑏 . The polytope is described as follows. Vertex 1 (100% of the amplifier gain): 𝐴 1 = [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1.2304 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] , 𝐵 1 = [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0858 0.0858 0.5810 −0.5810 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] . (42) Vertex 2 (70% of the amplifier gain): 𝐴 2 = [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1.2304 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] , 𝐵 2 = [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0858 0.0601 0.5810 −0.4067 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] . (43) 4. Comparison of Techniques for Controller 𝐾 Design and Optimization To verify the efficiency of the new optimization technique practical applications of the controllers were carried out, in order to view the controllers acting in real systems subject to failures. 8 Journal of Control Science and Engineering 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Re fe re nc es First stage Second stage Third stage Reference 𝜀(t) Reference 𝜆(t) t (s) Figure 3: Tracking curves for 𝜀 and 𝜆. The trajectory of the helicopter was divided into three stages as shown in Figure 3. The first stage is to elevate the helicopter 27.5∘ reaching the yaw angle 𝜀 = 0 ∘. In the second stage the helicopter travels 120∘, keeping the same elevation; that is, the helicopter reaches 𝜆 = 120 ∘ with reference to the launch point. In the third stage the helicopter performs the landing recovering the initial angle 𝜀 = −27.5 ∘. During the landing stage,more precisely in the instant 22 s, the helicopter loses 30% of the power back motor. The robust controller should maintain the stability of the helicopter and have small oscillation in the occurrence of this failure. Fixing the decay rate grater or equal to 0.8, the fol- lowing was designed: a controller with extended stability (Theorem 3) using the optimization (Theorem 4), controllers with projective stability (Theorem 5) using the optimization (Theorem 6), and the newproposed formulation for extended stability (Theorem 7) also with the improved optimization (Theorem 8) to perform the practical application. The value of the relaxation constant 𝑎 in the LMIs of Theorem 3 can be adequately specified by the designer. In this example we did not find difficulty in specifying 𝑎 = 10 −6. The designer has an alternative to perform a one-dimensional search to set this constant. Theorems 3 and 5 hypothesis establishes a sufficiently low time variation of 𝛼. However, for comparison purposes of Theorems 3 and 5 with Theorem 7, the same abrupt loss of power test made with controller (48) was done with controllers (46) and (44). Respectively, the controllers norm was 56.47 for the controller designed with extended stability (Theorem 3) and optimization (Theorem 4), 110.46 for the controller designed with projective stability (Theorem 5) and optimiza- tion (Theorem 6), and 44.84 for the controller designed with the new proposed formulation for extended stability (Theorem 7) and optimization (Theorem 8). Below we have the controller designed with the LMIs from Theorem 3 and optimization from Theorem 4 for the application illustrated in Figure 4 and its norm: 𝐾 = [ [ 23.7152 12.9483 −9.8587 18.7322 4.9737 −14.3283 10.7730 −2.6780 33.8862 −15.2923 11.6132 25.4922 −6.0776 16.5503 15.8350 3.4475 ] ] , (44) ‖𝐾‖ = 56.47. (45) Below we have the controller designed with the LMIs from Theorem 5 and optimization from Theorem 6 for the application illustrated in Figure 5 and its norm: 𝐾 = [ [ 50.7121 28.7596 −35.1829 29.8247 7.9563 −41.0906 28.8974 −11.7405 66.5405 −31.9853 34.7642 38.3173 −9.9376 42.0298 38.3418 11.8207 ] ] , (46) ‖𝐾‖ = 110.46. (47) Below we have the controller designed with the LMIs from Theorem 7 and optimization from Theorem 8 for the application illustrated in Figure 6 and its norm: 𝐾 = [ [ 18.8559 12.5461 −11.3752 13.9628 4.5026 −15.1159 9.1565 −3.4071 27.8671 −10.8534 7.8933 20.0978 −4.5951 11.3897 13.6784 2.3623 ] ] , (48) ‖𝐾‖ = 44.84. (49) Journal of Control Science and Engineering 9 0 5 10 15 20 22 25 30 35 40 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 t (s) Failure 𝜀(t) 𝜌(t) 𝜆(t) 10 × Vb(t) 10 × Vf(t) St at es (d eg ) a nd 10 × vo lta ge (V ) Figure 4: Practical application of the 𝐾 designed by extended sta- bility (Finsler’s Lemma) with the optimization method (Theorems 3 and 4). Source: [8]. 0 5 10 15 20 22 25 30 35 40 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 t (s) Failure 𝜀(t) 𝜌(t) 𝜆(t) 10 × Vb(t) 10 × Vf(t) St at es (d eg ) a nd 10 × vo lta ge (V ) Figure 5: Practical application of the 𝐾 designed by projective sta- bility (reciprocal projection lemma) with the optimization method (Theorems 5 and 6). Source: [8]. In Figures 4, 5, and 6 the states are shown: elevation (𝜀), pitch (𝜌), and travel (𝜆) in degrees for the trajectory previously stated with the application of the controllers (44), (46), and (48), respectively. All three figures also show, respectively, the control signals (voltage) in the front (𝑉 𝑓 ) and back (𝑉 𝑏 ) engines, in which it is possible to verify that the control signals in Figure 6 are smoother comparedwith those of Figures 5 and 4.This smoothness is due to the fact that the norm of controller (48) is smaller than the others. Note that even if the proposed method has smaller norm than the ones presented in [8], the transients before and after failure are almost the same with small differences in amplitude. 4.1. General Comparison of the Design and Optimization Methods. A generic comparison between the three methods of design and optimization was carried out to obtain more satisfactory results onwhat would be the best way to optimize the norm of 𝐾. One thousand polytopes of second order uncertain systems were randomly generated, with only one uncertain parameter (two vertexes). The one thousand poly- topes were generated feasible in at least one case of design and optimization for 𝛾 = 0.5 and the consequences of the 𝛾 increase were analyzed as Figure 7 shows. As we can see in Figure 7, the proposed formulation for extended stability with the optimization method showed 0 5 10 15 20 22 25 30 35 40 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 t (s) Failure 𝜀(t) 𝜌(t) 𝜆(t) 10 × Vb(t) 10 × Vf(t) St at es (d eg ) a nd 10 × vo lta ge (V ) Figure 6: Practical application of the 𝐾 designed by the proposed formulation for extended stability with the optimization method (Theorems 7 and 8). 0. 5 10 .5 20 .5 30 .5 40 .5 50 .5 60 .5 70 .5 80 .5 90 .5 10 0. 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 N um be r o f c on tro lle rs w ith lo w er n or m 𝛾 Projective stability [8] Extended stability [8] Proposed formulation Figure 7: Number of controllers with lower norm for the design methods considering the increase in 𝛾. better results for the norm of the one thousand polytopes of second order uncertain systems randomly generated. This happened for all situations of 𝛾 increase, that is, from 0.5 to 100.5 due to the insertion of the polytopic matrices 𝑌 1𝑗 and 𝑌 2𝑗 , relaxing more the LMIs when compared to the existing formulation where there were only the polytopic Lyapunov matrices 𝑄 𝑗 , thus allowing more efficient optimization using LMIs (31) and (32). Results for extended stability [8] are so small that they hardly appear in the bar chart due to the magnitude values of the other two methods. 5. Conclusions Thenew proposed formulation for extended stability with the optimization method showed better results compared with those presented in [8]. Controllers were implemented for all methods in 3-DOF helicopter and for the performance of controllers in the system; it was found that the proposed method showed better results requiring lower energy expen- diture. The controller designed by the proposed technique presented in this paper showed the norm reasonably smaller than the existing techniques; in addition to this for the existing techniques the abrupt variation of the uncertainty 10 Journal of Control Science and Engineering in the failure was made only for comparison purposes, while the new formulation allows rapid changes of 𝛼, because the Lyapunovmatrix is not polytopic, thus showing the advantage of the proposed method for application. In the one thousand randomly generated polytopes anal- ysis, the technique proposed in this paper proved to be better in all cases of comparison. The respective controllers design was made usingMATLAB’s package LMI control toolbox [5]. An immediate step in this work fits to the intelligent automatic control through the design of fuzzy control systems based on Takagi-Sugeno models. Conflict of Interests The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the Brazilian agencies CAPES, CNPq, and FAPESP which have supported this research. References [1] S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix Inequalities in SystemandControlTheory, vol. 15 of SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics, 2nd edition, 1994. [2] C. Chen, Linear System Theory and Design, Oxford Series in Electrical and Computer Engineering, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 1999. [3] Q. Yang and M. Chen, “Robust control for uncertain linear sys- tem subject to input saturation,” Journal of AppliedMathematics, vol. 2014, Article ID 803842, 12 pages, 2014. [4] S. He, Z. Wu, H. Shen, Y. Yin, and Q. Zhu, “Robust control, optimization, and applications to markovian jumping systems,” Abstract and Applied Analysis, vol. 2014, Article ID 582549, 3 pages, 2014. [5] P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A. J. Laub, and M. Chilali, LMI Control Toolbox—For Use withMATLAB,TheMathWorks Inc., 1995. [6] R. E. Skelton, T. El Iwasaki, and K. Grigoriadis, A Unified Algebric Approach to Control Design, Taylor & Francis, Bristol, Pa, USA, 1997. [7] V. Solo, “On the stability of slowly time-varying linear systems,” Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 331–350, 1994. [8] L. F. S. Buzachero, E. Assunção, M. C. M. Teixeira, and E. R. P. da Silva, “New techniques for optimizing the norm of robust controllers of polytopic uncertain linear systems,” in Frontiers in Advanced Control Systems, pp. 75–100, InTech, 2012. [9] V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres, “An improved LMI condition for robust D-stability of uncertain polytopic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 500–504, 2003. [10] Quanser, 3-DOF Helicopter Reference Manual, 2002. [11] E. Assunção, M. C. Teixeira, F. A. Faria, N. A. da Silva, and R. Cardim, “Robust state-derivative feedback LMI-based designs for multivariable linear systems,” International Journal of Control, vol. 80, no. 8, pp. 1260–1270, 2007. [12] M. C. de Oliveira and R. E. Skelton, “Stability tests for con- strained linear systems,” in Perspectives in Robust Control, vol. 268 of Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, pp. 241–257, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2001. [13] G. Pipeleers, B. Demeulenaere, J. Swevers, and L. Vanden- berghe, “Extended LMI characterizations for stability and performance of linear systems,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 510–518, 2009. [14] V. J. S. Leite and P. L. D. Peres, “Robust control through piece- wise Lyapunov functions for discrete time-varying uncertain systems,” International Journal of Control, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 230– 238, 2004. [15] W. Chang, J. B. Park, H. J. Lee, and Y. H. Joo, “LMI approach to digital redesign of linear time-invariant systems,” IEE Proceed- ings: Control Theory and Applications, vol. 149, no. 4, pp. 297– 302, 2002. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Robotics Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Active and Passive Electronic Components Control Science and Engineering Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 International Journal of Rotating Machinery Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Journal ofEngineering Volume 2014 Submit your manuscripts at http://www.hindawi.com VLSI Design Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Shock and Vibration Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Civil Engineering Advances in Acoustics and Vibration Advances in Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Electrical and Computer Engineering Journal of Advances in OptoElectronics Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 The Scientific World Journal Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Sensors Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Modelling & Simulation in Engineering Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Chemical Engineering International Journal of Antennas and Propagation International Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Navigation and Observation International Journal of Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Distributed Sensor Networks International Journal of