A Fuzzy Approach For Robust Reference-Tracking of Ball Bearing Systems

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO.
6, DECEMBER 2010 1041

A Fuzzy Approach for Robust Reference-Tracking-
Control Design of Nonlinear Distributed Parameter
Time-Delayed Systems and Its Application
Yu-Te Chang and Bor-Sen Chen, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractThis paper addresses the robust reference-tracking-
control problem for nonlinear distributed parameter systems
(NDPSs) with time delays, external disturbances, and measure-
ment noises. The NDPS is measured at several sensor locations
for output-feedback tracking control. A fuzzy-spatial state-space
model derived via nite-difference approach is introduced to rep-
resent the nonlinear distributed parameter time-delayed system.
Thus, we use a fuzzy interpolation method with several local lin-
ear systems to approximate the nonlinear system and employ the
nite-difference method to approximate the partial differential op-
erators in fuzzy-spatial state-space model. Based on this model, a
robust fuzzy-observer-based reference-tracking controller is pro-
posed to control the NDPS to track a desired reference trajec-
tory. First, a 2-D H
tracking performance in a spatiotemporal

domain is proposed for robust tracking design of nonlinear dis-
tributed parameter time-delayed systems. Then, an equivalent 1-D
H
reference-tracking design is developed to simplify the design

procedure, and the linear-matrix-inequality (LMI) technique is ap-
plied to solve the control gains and observer gains for the robust
H
tracking-design problem via a systematic control-design pro-

cedure. Finally, a tracking-control-design example for the nervous
system is given to conrm the proposed reference-tracking-control
scheme of nonlinear distributed parameter time-delayed systems.
Index TermsFinite-difference approach, fuzzy interpola-
tion method, nonlinear distributed parameter systems (NDPSs),
reference-tracking control, robust observer-based tracking con-
trol, spatial state-space model, time delay.
I. INTRODUCTION
M
OSTphysical systems are inherently distributed in space
and time, e.g., chemical engineering [1], biodynam-
ics [2], [3], and mechanical systems related to heat ows, uid
ow, elastic wave, or exible structure [4], [5]. In the past,
most physical systems were modeled by ordinary differential
equations (ODEs) in order to simplify and systematically solve
control-design problems. However, it is not sufcient to model
the physical systems, if we consider the variation of the system
that is depended on the space. In chemical engineering, many
Manuscript received December 14, 2009; revised April 12, 2010; accepted
June 17, 2010. Date of publication July 15, 2010; date of current version
December 3, 2010. This work was supported by the National Science Council
(NSC) under Contract NSC 98-2221-E-007-113-MY3.
The authors are with the Laboratory of Control and Systems Biology, Depart-
ment of Electrical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 30013,
Taiwan (e-mail: d937908@gmail.com; bschen@ee.nthu.edu.tw).
Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TFUZZ.2010.2058809
chemical processes are characterized by the presence of spa-
tial variations and time delays [1]. Thus, the reactiondiffusion
equation is introduced to represent the chemical process. In
recent years, interactions between the mathematical and bio-
logical sciences have been increasing rapidly [2], [3]. In biol-
ogy, mathematical tools can help provide systematic analysis,
e.g., the stability or the robustness of biological systems. How-
ever, the evolution of physiological behavior is dependent on
time and space. For example, the nonlinear partial differential
HodgkinHuxley (HH) model has been applied to model sig-
nal transmission in a nervous system [2], [6]. Therefore, the
distributed parameter system (DPS), which is described by par-
tial differential equation (PDE), is more suitable to model the
spatiotemporal dynamic systems in biology.
In general, the tasks of control systems are one of two cate-
gories: stabilization and tracking. The stabilization problem is
to design a controller so that the states of the closed-loop system
can converge to an equilibrium point. In the tracking problem, a
controller is designed to guarantee that the output of the closed-
loop system can track a desired reference trajectory. Many stud-
ies have investigated the stabilization design problem of linear
DPSs (LDPSs), for example, the stability analysis of the LDPSs
introduced in [7] and [8]. Similarly, a robust stabilization of the
LDPS with the external disturbances has been developed to at-
tenuate the effect of external disturbances from the H
control
point of view [9]. However, the control-design problem of non-
linear DPSs (NDPSs) is more complex than the control design
of the LDPSs. Based on Galerkins method, controller-design
schemes have been proposed to stabilize the NDPS by a residual
model lter [10] or an inertial manifold model [11]. Over the
past 20 years, the fuzzy approach that uses several local linear
models to interpolate a nonlinear system has been widely ap-
plied to the analysis of the nonlinear systems in various elds,
which are described by ODE [12][29]. Recently, the fuzzy
approach was already applied to the eld of PDEs. A new tech-
nique using the adaptive fuzzy algorithm is proposed to obtain
the solutions of PDEs [30]. According to the adaptive scheme of
fuzzy-logic systems, a fuzzy solution with adjustable parameters
for the PDE can be obtained successfully. On the other hand,
an H
fuzzy-observer-based control design [31] is proposed

for a class of nonlinear parabolic PDE systems with control
constraints. In addition, a robust stabilization problem for the
NDPS with time delay is studied using a fuzzy-control approach
in [32]. Galerkins method is applied to derive a set of nonlinear
ODEs for the NDPS [31], [32]. A new fuzzy state-space model
is proposed in [33] to represent the NDPSs based on Galerkins
1063-6706/$26.00 2010 IEEE
1042 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2010
method, with the advantage of avoiding obtaining a complex
nonlinear ODE. The robust H
stabilization is developed to
attenuate the effects of modeling errors, external disturbances,
and measurement noises [33]. However, in a tracking-design
case, the asymptotic tracking cannot be achieved due to the
changing reference signal via Galerkins method, because this
tracking error will affect the residual subsystem continuously.
Therefore, this robust H
control-design method in [33] can-

not be extended from the stabilization problem to the tracking
problem of NDPSs.
For the reference-tracking problem of DPSs, there is only a
study of the linear case [34]. Byrnes et al. proposed an extended
output-regulation method to control the LDPS to track a refer-
ence model [34]. For the nonlinear case, to the best of our knowl-
edge, no result of tracking design for NDPSs has been presented
because of the complex nonlinearity, distributed parameter, and
design difculty. However, the tracking-control design is a more
important control problem in practical applications, because a
systemneeds to be controlled in order to track a reference signal.
Recently, the tracking-control problems of biological systems
have become a very important topic in the biomedical engi-
neering. However, biological systems are always nonlinear and
compartment-dependent with process delays. For example, the
control problem of the nervous system in [6], [35], and [36]
should be about how to design a controller to make the mem-
brane voltage of nervous system tracking a given membrane-
voltage reference time-course, e.g., short electrical pulses, and
not simply how to stabilize the nervous system. In a realistic
model, a space-clamped axon was described as the nonlinear
HH model of the spatiotemporal dynamics [36]. In this situa-
tion, the tracking-control design of NDPSs has the potential to
create a real-time therapeutic regime for the undesired neural os-
cillation caused by disturbances and environmental noises [35],
[37][39]. In addition, the problem of time delay commonly
emerges in practical systems. Therefore, this paper studies a
robust tracking-control-design problem for NDPSs with time
delays, external disturbances, and measurement noise.
Tseng et al. studied a robust tracking problem for a non-
linear ODE system using the fuzzy-tracking-control scheme,
where a TakagiSugeno (TS) fuzzy model was initially used
to represent the nonlinear ODE system [12]. Then, a fuzzy-
observer-based controller was developed to reduce the tracking
error as much as possible via the H
tracking performance.
In this study, a robust tracking-control scheme for NDPSs with
time delays, external disturbances, and measurement noises is
proposed based on a fuzzy-observer-based controller. A design
procedure is introduced as follows. First, a fuzzy DPS with time
delay is proposed to approximate the NDPS with time delay by
interpolating several linear distributed parameter time-delayed
systems. Unlike using the innite-dimensional ODE system to
represent the PDE system [33], for the convenience of tracking-
control design, the partial differential operator on space in PDE
could be approximated by a nite-difference operator. Then,
we can obtain a set of fuzzy nite-difference systems with the
approximation errors and the truncation errors to represent the
NDPS. When all nite-difference grid points are represented by
a spatial vector, a set of the fuzzy nite-difference systems is
represented by an equivalent fuzzy-spatial state-space system
by the Kronecker product method. In the output-feedback con-
trol design, a fuzzy observer based on fuzzy-spatial state-space
system is developed to estimate the state of the NDPS from the
output measurements at several sensor locations. Finally, a ro-
bust fuzzy-observer-based tracking-control scheme is proposed
to control the NDPS with time delay to track a reference model.
At the same time, it also attenuates the effects of the time delay,
the approximation errors, the truncation errors, the measure-
ment noises, and the external disturbances. In order to treat the
robust tracking problem, a 2-D H
tracking performance in a
spatiotemporal domain is introduced for NDPSs to efciently at-
tenuate the effects of the time delay, the approximation error, the
truncation error, the external disturbance, and the measurement
noise. For the convenience of tracking-control design, the 2-D
H
tracking performance is transformed to an equivalent 1-D

H
tracking performance, when all nite-difference grid points

are represented by a spatial vector. Based on H
attenuation
theory [12], the proposed fuzzy-observer-based tracking con-
troller is proved to guarantee that the NDPS can robustly track
a reference model by efciently eliminating the effect of time
delay, the approximation error, the truncation error, the external
disturbance, and the measurement noise on the tracking error
below a prescribed level. The effect of using a nite-difference
operator to approximate the partial differential operator on the
H
tracking performance is also discussed. We have found that

the effect due to nite-difference approximation is of the order
O(
2
x
), when
x
is the distance of the neighboring grid points.
Therefore, if the grid points in a spatial domain are dense enough
or the truncation error O(
2
x
) is small enough, the H
track-
ing performance of the fuzzy-spatial state-space system will
approach the H
tracking performance of the NDPS.

Generally, in the observer-based control design of both ODE
and PDE systems, how to solve coupling linear matrix inequali-
ties (LMIs) to obtain control gain and observer gain is still a dif-
cult problem. Atwo-step procedure [40][42] and a transformed
technique [33] have previously been proposed to conservatively
solve the coupling LMIs. Although this coupling problem could
be solved by a BMI optimal technique [43], the BMI problem
is not a convex problem. Especially for a complex multivariable
constraint case, BMI is not an efcient method to solve the cou-
pling LMIs of fuzzy-observer-based tracking design for NDPSs.
In [44], a single-step approach was proposed to solve the BMI
problem for matrix decoupling of the fuzzy-observer-based sta-
bilization design of the fuzzy time-delay systems. In this study,
the BMI problem is approximated to an LMI problem via the
Schur complement and several inequalities [45]. Therefore, the
coupling problem can be efciently solved by the conventional
LMI technique in the design procedure. Finally, in order to
emerge the importance of practical application, an example of
the reference-tracking-control design for the HH nervous sys-
tem [2], [35], [46][48] in biochemical engineering is given to
illustrate the design procedure and to conrm the robust track-
ing performance. This tracking-control design of the HH ner-
vous system is useful to suppress oscillations and blockage of
action potential transmission for patients suffering fromnervous
system dysfunction.
CHANG AND CHEN: FUZZY APPROACH FOR ROBUST REFERENCE-TRACKING-CONTROL DESIGN 1043
The main contribution of this paper is given as follows.
1) The difculty of the reference-tracking-control design for
an NDPS with time delay, external disturbances, and mea-
surement noises was overcome by the proposed fuzzy-
spatial state-space model via a nite-difference method.
2) A 2-D H
tracking performance in a spatiotemporal do-

main is proposed for robust tracking design of NDPS and
is then transformed into an equivalent 1-D H
tracking
performance for a fuzzy-spatial state-space system.
3) A fuzzy-observer-based tracking controller is success-
fully developed to control the NDPSs to efciently track
a desired reference model based on the H
tracking
performance.
This robust H
reference-tracking-control scheme can be

systematically designed through output feedback via the help of
the MATLAB LMI toolbox.
Notations: For the convenience of problem description and
control design, we dene the separable Hilbert space in the
following.
1) |y(t)|
2

=

n
i=1
[y
i
(t)[
2
, where y(t) = [y
1
(t), . . . ,
y
n
(t)]
T
.
2) L
2
(R
+
; R
n
) is the space of the n-dimensional measurable
functions z(t) R
n
dened on t R
+
= [0, ) such
that |z(t)|
2
L
2
(R
+
;R
n
)
=
_
0
|z(t)|
2
dt < .
II. REFERENCE-TRACKING-CONTROL-PROBLEM
FORMULATION FOR NONLINEAR DISTRIBUTED
PARAMETER TIME-DELAYED SYSTEMS
In this section, the reference-tracking control problems for
the NDPS are formulated. Time delays, external disturbances,
and measurement noise frequently appear in practical physical
systems. Therefore, we consider the following NDPS with time
delay, external disturbance, and measurement noise:
y(x, t)
t
= /y(x, t) +f(y(x, t), y(x, t
))
+g(x)u(t) +g
d
(x)d(t) (1)
z(t) = h(x)y(x, t) +D
n
n(t) (2)
for x = [x
1
, x
2
]
T
U R
2
+
and t > 0, where y(x, t)

=
[y
1
(x, t), . . . , y
n
(x, t)]
T
R
n
is the state variable, x and t are
the space and time variables, respectively, f(y(x, t), y(x, t
))
R
n
is a nonlinear function satisfying f(0, 0) = 0, t
denotes
the delayed time, i.e., t
= t , > 0, the distribution of

the control force u(t) is provided by p-point force actuators,
i.e., u(t) R
p
is the applied force to be designed as u(t) =
[u
1
(t), . . . , u
p
(t)]
T
, and the inuence function g(x) is an n
p-matrix form whose elements are of delta function (x p
i
).
For example, n = 1, g(x) = [g
1
(x p
1
), . . . , g
p
(x p
p
)],
where p
i
are control-force locations, and g
i
(x p
i
) = g
i
for x = p
i
or g
i
(x p
i
) = 0 for x ,= p
i
. The measured out-
put z(t) may be interpreted as observations or as parts of
the system whose behavior we wish to inuence, and the
output z(t) R
q
is a vector, i.e., z(t) = [z
1
(t), . . . , z
q
(t)]
T
,
where q is the number of observations and the observation
inuence function h(x) R
qn
is a matrix function. For ex-
ample, n = 1, h(x) = [(x q
1
), . . . , (x q
q
)]
T
. Therefore,
in the case that is free from measurement noise, we have
z
i
(t) = (x q
i
)y(x, t) = y(q
i
, t), with q
i
as the ith sensor
locations. g
d
(x) R
np
d
is an interactive location matrix of
the external disturbance, d(t) L
2
(R
+
; R
p
d
) is the vector of
the external disturbance, D
n
R
q
is the inuence matrix of the
measurement noise, and n(t) L
2
(R
+
; R) is the measurement
noise at the locations of observation. The differential operator
/ in L
2
(U; R
n
) is dened as follows [7]:
/y(x, t)

=
1
2
x
2
1
y(x, t) +
2
2
x
2
2
y(x, t)
where (
2
/x
2
k
)y(x, t)

= [(
2
/x
2
k
)y
1
(x, t), . . . , (
2
/x
2
k
)
y
n
(x, t)]
T
R
n
, for k = 1 and 2, in the 2-D case,
1
and
2
are the diagonal matrices, y(x, t) D(/) = y(x, t)
L
2
(U; R
n
)[ y(x, t), (y(x, t)/x
1
), (y(x, t)/x
2
) are ab-
solutely continuous, and
1
(
2
y(x, t)/x
2
1
) +
2
(
2
y(x, t)/
x
2
2
) L
2
(U; R
n
). The initial value is given by y(x, 0) =
y
0
(x). The boundary condition is given by the Dirichlet bound-
ary condition, i.e., y(x, t) = 0 on U, or the Neumann boundary
condition, i.e., y(x, t)/x = 0 on U.
Remark 1: In this paper, we address the robust tracking-
control-design problem for NDPSs via the proposed fuzzy ap-
proach. Therefore, we studied the constant delay for NDPSs. In
general, the cases of time-varying delay or multiple time delays
can be studied by combining the proposed fuzzy approach and
the delay-dependent approach for ODE systems [21][24].
A desired reference trajectory y
R
(x, t) R
n
is generated by
the following linear distributed parameter reference model:
y
R
(x, t)
t
= /
R
y
R
(x, t) +A
R
y
R
(x, t) +g
R
(x)r(t) (3)
where /
R
is a specied linear differential operator, A
R
is a spec-
ied matrix, g
R
(x) is a specied inuence function, and r(t) is a
bounded reference input. The linear distributed parameter refer-
ence model in (3) can be designed similar to the reference model
in [12] and [34]. First, we design the matrix A
R
and the refer-
ence input r(t) to decide the behavior of the time evolution [34].
Then, we choose the appropriate diffusion coefcients in differ-
ential operator /
R
according to the practical-application case.
The task of tracking control is to make y(x, t) in (1) and (2)
track the desired trajectory y
R
(x, t) generated by (3).
The external disturbance d(t) and the measurement noise n(t)
are uncertain, and the reference input r(t) could be arbitrarily
assigned by users, which can be all considered as disturbances of
the tracking system. Therefore, the robust 2-D tracking-control
design should be specied so that the effect of the external
disturbance d(t), the measurement noise n(t), and the reference
input r(t) on the tracking error in the spatiotemporal domain
must be below a prescribed level as follows:
_
t
f
0
_
U
|y
R
(x, t) y(x, t)|
2
dxdt
_
t
f
0
|v(t)|
2
dt

2
(4)
or
_
t
f
0
_
U
|y
R
(x, t) y(x, t)|
2
dxdt
2
_
t
f
0
|v(t)|
2
dt (5)
where v(t) = [r(t)
T
, d(t)
T
, n(t)
T
]
T
is considered as a vector
of disturbances. If the initial condition is considered, then
_
t
f
0
_
U
|y
R
(x, t) y(x, t)|
2
dxdt V (y
0
) +
2
_
t
f
0
|v(t)|
2
dt
(6)
for some positive function V () > 0. The inequality in (4) or (5)
is called the 2-D H
tracking performance on the spatiotempo-

ral domain. Its physical meaning is that the effect of all distur-
bances on the tracking error at the total space U [0, t
f
] must
be attenuated below a prescribed level from the energy per-
spective. Note that the norm
_
t
f
0
_
U
|y
R
(x, t) y(x, t)|
2
dx dt
describes the energy of tracking error for all positions in the
spatiotemporal space U [0, t
f
], which is different from the
conventional H
tracking performance that is only in the time

domain.
The robust H
tracking-control problem is formulated as

follows: Given a prescribed disturbance attenuation level , a
robust controller u(t) is designed to attenuate the effect of the
external disturbances d(t) and measurement noises n(t) on the
tracking error y
R
(x, t) y(x, t) below from the view point
of total energy on the space U [0, t
f
] to robustly track the
desired reference trajectory y
R
(x, t). In other words, the H
tracking performance in (5) is achieved.

Remark 2: The fuzzy-tracking-control design for nonlinear
ODE systems in [12] has previously been used to control the
states of the nonlinear dynamic system to track a desired state
trajectory; however, in this paper, it is more difcult to design
the tracking control of the NDPS in (1) because the NDPS is
a spatiotemporal dynamic system, and the H
tracking per-
formance (4) or (6) should be achieved in the spatiotemporal
domain. An output regulation for an LDPS developed previ-
ously [34] is designed to track a reference output generated by
an exogenous system. This reference output is limited to some
specic trajectories, e.g., stable trajectory or sinusoidal trajec-
tory. However, in this paper, the tracking problem of NDPSs is
to track any desired spatiotemporal trajectory, which could be
generated in (3). Therefore, this tracking-control-design scheme
is more general than the output-regulation design in [34].
Remark 3: We previously used Galerkins method to represent
a PDE by an innite-dimensional ODE to solve a stabilization
problem for the NDPS [33]. However, the effect of residual
subsystem on the tracking error cannot be neglected because
the asymptotic tracking cannot be achieved in NDPS due to
the change of y
R
(x, t). Moreover, Galerkins method is dif-
cult to extend into the multispace variable case for the state
y(x, t). Therefore, in this paper, we applied the nite-difference
approach to solve the tracking-control problem for the NDPS.
III. SYSTEM REPRESENTATION BY FUZZY-SPATIAL
STATE-SPACE MODEL
In the control-design problems of NDPSs, the main prob-
lem is to obtain a suitable state-space model to represent the
NDPSs. At rst, a TS fuzzy DPS with time delay is proposed
to approximate the NDPS with time delay as follows [33]:
Rule i : IF y
1
(x, t) is F
1i
, and . . . , and, y
n
(x, t) is F
ni
THEN
y(x, t)
t
= /y(x, t) +A
i
y(x, t) +A
,i
y(x, t
)
+g(x)u(t) +g
d
(x)d(t)
where F
ji
is the grade of the membership of y
j
(x, t), and A
i

R
nn
and A
,i
R
nn
are the system parameters without time
delay and with time delay in local LDPSs, respectively. The
overall fuzzy DPS can be formulated as follows [12], [33], [49],
[50]:
y(x, t)
t
=
M
i=1
i
(y(x, t))
_
/y(x, t) +A
i
y(x, t)
+A
,i
y(x, t
+g(x)u(t) +g
d
(x)d(t) +(x, t)
(7)
where
i
(y(x, t))

= (
n
j=1
F
ji
(y
j
(x, t)))/(
M
i=1
n
j=1
F
ji
(y
j
(x, t))). F
ji
(y
j
(x, t)) is the grade of the membership of
y
j
(x, t) or the possibility function of y
j
(x, t). The denomina-
tors of
i
(y(x, t)) are only for normalization so that the total
sum of the fuzzy bases
M
i=1

i
(y(x, t)) = 1.
In (7), we use the fuzzy interpolation via M local LDPSs to
approximate the NDPSin (1). The approximation error (x, t)
R
n
is dened as follows:
(x, t)

= f(y(x, t), y(x, t
))
i=1
i
(y(x, t))[A
i
y(x, t) +A
,i
y(x, t
)]. (8)
The bound of (x, t) could be estimated according to the fol-
lowing theorem.
Theorem 1 [33]: Supposing f(y(x, t), y(x, t
)) is a con-
tinuous function dened on a compact set U R
n
, i.e.,
y(x, t), y(x, t
) U, then for two arbitrary constants >

0, and
> 0, the fuzzy function

f(y(x, t), y(x, t
))

=
M
i=1

i
(y(x, t))[A
i
y(x, t) +A
,i
y(x, t
)] could be con-
structed to approximate the nonlinear function f(y(x, t),
y(x, t
)), and the approximation error is bounded by and
, i.e., |(x, t)|

2

2
|y(x, t)|
2
+
2
|y(x, t
)|
2
.
The nite-difference scheme [51], [52] has been widely ap-
plied to obtain numerical solutions of PDEs. In this paper, we
use the nite-difference method to represent the NDPS. Con-
sider a typical grid mesh, as shown in Fig. 1. The state y(x, t)
is represented by y
k,l
(t) R
n
at the grid node x
k,l
(x
1
= k
x
,
x
2
= l
x
), where k = 0, . . . , N
1
+ 1, and l = 0, . . . , N
2
+ 1,
i.e., y(x, t)[
x=x
k , l
= y
k,l
(t). Note that the grid nodes k = 0,
k = N
1
+ 1, l = 0, or l = N
2
+ 1 are the grid nodes at the
boundary. At the interior points of grid, i.e., 0 < k < N
1
+ 1,
and 0 < l < N
2
+ 1, the central-difference approximation for
the linear differential operator can be written as follows
Fig. 1. Finite-difference grids on the spatiodomain.
[51], [52]:
(/y(x, t))
x=x
k , l
=
1
_
2
y(x, t)
x
2
1
_
x=x
k , l
+
2
_
2
y(x, t)
x
2
2
_
x=x
k , l
=
1
y
k+1,l
(t) +y
k1,l
(t) 2y
k,l
(t)
2
x
+
2
y
k,l+1
(t) +y
k,l1
(t) 2y
k,l
(t)
2
x
+O
k,l
(
2
x
). (9)
The remainder term O
k,l
(
2
x
) R
n
is called the local trunca-
tion error.
A fuzzy nite-difference model can be constructed to repre-
sent the state y
k,l
(t) of the NDPS at x = x
k,l
in (7) as follows:
y
k,l
(t) =
M
i=1
i
(y
k,l
)
_
A
i
y
k,l
(t) +A
,i
y
k,l
(t
+B
k,l
u(t) +B
d,k,l
d(t) +
k,l
(t)
+
1
2
x
1
y
k+1,l
(t) +
1
2
x
1
y
k1,l
(t)
2
2
x
1
y
k,l
(t)
+
1
2
x
2
y
k,l+1
(t) +
1
2
x
2
y
k,l1
(t)
2
2
x
2
y
k,l
(t)
+O
k,l
(
2
x
). (10)
The elements of matrix B
k,l
= [B
k,l,1
, . . . , B
k,l,p
] R
np
are
dened as B
k,l,i
= g
i
for x
k,l
= p
i
, or B
k,l,i
= 0 for x
k,l
,= p
i
,
where g
i
is the inuence function at the location p
i
and is
dened in (1). The denition of B
d,k,l
is similar to B
k,l
. The
approximation error is given by
k,l
(t)

= (x, t)[
x=x
k , l
.
We dened a spatial state vector y(t) to collect the states
y
k,l
(t) R
n
at all grid nodes in Fig. 1. For Dirichlet boundary
conditions [52], the values of y
k,l
(t) at boundary are xed,
for example, y(x, t) = 0 on U. We have y
k,l
(t) = 0 at k =
0, N
1
+ 1, or l = 0, N
2
+ 1. Therefore, the spatial state vector
y(t) R
nN
is dened as follows:
y(t) = [y
T
1,1
(t), . . . , y
T
1,l
(t), . . . , y
T
1,N
2
(t), . . . , y
T
k,l
(t)
. . . , y
T
N
1
,1
(t), . . . , y
T
N
1
,l
(t), . . . , y
T
N
1
,N
2
(t)]
T
(11)
where N

= N
1
N
2
. Note that n is the dimension of the
vector y
k,l
(t) for each grid node, and N
1
N
2
is the number
of grid nodes. For example, letting N
1
= 2, and N
2
= 2, then
we have y(t) = [y
T
1,1
(t), y
T
1,2
(t), y
T
2,1
(t), y
T
2,2
(t)]
T
. For Neu-
mann boundary conditions [52], i.e., y(x, t)/x = 0 on U,
the boundary condition is given as (y(x, t)/x)
x=x
k , l
= 0 at
k = 0, N
1
+ 1, l = 0, N
2
+ 1. Therefore, if the grid nodes at
boundary are also considered in the spatial state vector y(t),
then y(t) R
nN
in (11) should be modied as follows:
y(t) = [y
T
0,0
(t), . . . , y
T
0,l
(t), . . . , y
T
0,N
2
+1
(t), . . . , y
T
k,l
(t)
. . . , y
T
N
1
+1,0
(t), . . . , y
T
N
1
+1,l
(t), . . . , y
T
N
1
+1,N
2
+1
(t)]
T
(12)
where N

= (N
1
+ 2) (N
2
+ 2).
In order to simplify the index of the node y
k,l
(t) R
n
in
the spatial state vector y(t) R
nN
, we denote the symbol
y
j
(t) R
n
to replace y
k,l
(t). Note that the index j is from 1
to N, i.e., y
1
(t)

= y
1,1
(t), y
2
(t)

= y
1,2
(t), . . ., y
j
(t)

= y
k,l
(t),
. . ., y
N
(t)

= y
N
1
,N
2
(t), where j = (k 1)N
1
+l in (11). The
fuzzy nite-difference model of two indices in (10) could be
represented with only one index as follows:
y
j
(t) =
M
i=1
i
(y
j
)
_
A
i
y
j
(t) +A
,i
y
j
(t
+B
j
u(t)
+B
d,j
d(t) +
j
(t) +T
j
y(t) +O
j
(
2
x
) (13)
where nite-difference matrix T
j
R
nnN
expresses the inter-
action from the other grid nodes to the node y
j
(t)

= y
k,l
(t) as
follows:
T
j
y(t)

=

1
2
x
y
k+1,l
(t) +

1
2
x
y
k1,l
(t)
2
1
2
x
y
k,l
(t)
+

2
2
x
y
k,l+1
(t) +

2
2
x
y
k,l1
(t)
2
2
2
x
y
k,l
(t).
The measurement output z(t) in (2) can be represented as
follows:
z(t) =
N
j=1
C
j
y
j
(t) +D
n
n(t) (14)
where the matrix C
j
is dened as C
j
= C
k,l
= [C
k,l,1
, . . . ,
C
k,l,q
]
T
R
qn
, in which the element is given as C
k,l,i
= I
n
for x
k,l
= q
i
, or C
k,l,i
= 0 for x
k,l
,= q
i
. Note that q
i
is the ith
sensor location, as dened in (2). The matrix D
n
is also dened
in (2).
We collect all states y
j
(t) of grid nodes in (13) and (2) to
the state y(t) in (11) or (12). Then, a diagonal fuzzy weighting
matrix
i
(y) R
NN
is dened as
i
(y)

= diag(
i
(y
1
), . . . ,
i
(y
N
)) and the n n identity matrix by I
n
. The Kronecker
product can be used to simplify the representation. Some prop-
erties for
i
(y) can be obtained as follows:
Lemma 1: Using the properties of Kronecker product, we
have the following properties.
1)
i
(y) A
i
= (
i
(y) I
n
)(I
N
A
i
) R
nNnN
where A
i
R
nn
.
2) (
i
(y) I
n
)(
j
( y) I
n
) = (
i
(y)
j
( y) I
n
)
R
nNnN
.
3)

M
i=1

i
(y) = I
N
,

M
i=1
(
i
(y) I
n
) = I
nN
and

M
i=1
M
j=1
(
i
(y)
j
( y) I
n
) = I
nN
.
Proof: The properties 1) and 2) are the fundamental properties
for the Kronecker product [53]. The property 3) can be proven
via the fuzzy fundamental property
M
i=1

i
(y
j
(t)) = 1 for j =
1, . . . , N.
Using the Kronecker product, the systems in (13) and (14)
can be written as the following fuzzy-spatial state-space system:
y(t) =
M
i=1
_
(
i
(y) A
i
)y(t) + (
i
(y) A
,i
)y(t
+Ty(t) +Bu(t) +B
d
d(t) +(t) +O(
2
x
)
=
M
i=1

i
(y)
_
(I
N
A
i
)y(t) + (I
N
A
,i
)y(t
(15)
+Ty(t) +Bu(t) +B
d
d(t) +(t) +O(
2
x
)
z(t) = Cy(t) +D
n
n(t) (16)
where we dene
i
(y)

=
i
(y) I
n
, and the spatial state vector
y(t) R
nN
is denoted in (11) or (12) to represent y(x, t) at all
nite-difference grid points on the spatial domain in Fig. 1. The
corresponding matrices are dened as T = [T
T
1
, . . . , T
T
N
]
T
R
nNnN
, B = [B
T
1
, . . . , B
T
N
]
T
R
nNp
, B
d
= [B
T
d,1
, . . . ,
B
T
d,N
]
T
R
nNp
d
, and C = [C
1
, . . . , C
N
] R
qnN
. The
matrix D
n
is dened in (2). The approximation error (t) is
dened as (t) = [
1
(t)
T
, . . . ,
N
(t)
T
]
T
.
The physical meaning of (15) and (16) is that the NDPS in
(1) and (2), at all nite-difference grid points on the spatial
domain in Fig. 1, can be represented by the fuzzy-spatial state-
space system in (15) and (16). In Theorem 1, the bound of
approximate error (x, t) can be proved to be less than two
arbitrary constants and
. The bound for approximate error

(t) can be obtained by the following corollary.
Corollary 2: If the bounds of (x, t) are provided with and
, then the bound of (t) could also be estimated as |(t)|

2
2
|y(t)|
2
+
2
|y(t
)|
2
.
Proof: By Theorem 1, we have |
j
(t)|
2

2
|y
j
(t)|
2
+
|y
j
(t
)|
2
. Thus
|(t)|
2
=
N
j=1
|
j
(t)|
2
j=1
2
|y
j
(t)|
2
+
2
|y
j
(t
)|
2
=
2
|y(t)|
2
+
2
|y(t
)|
2
.
Remark 4: Similarly, the reference model in (3) could be
transformed into a linear spatial state-space reference model by
the nite-difference method, i.e., the desired reference trajectory
y
R
(t) at all grid points can be generated by the following linear
spatial state-space reference model:
y
R
(t) = (I
N
A
R
)y
R
(t) +T
R
y
R
(t) +B
R
r(t) +O
R
(
2
x
)
(17)
where A
R
is a specied system matrix, B
R
is the specied
inuence matrix, T
R
is the nite-difference matrix, and O
R
(
2
x
)
is the truncation error.
Fig. 2. Block diagram of the tracking-control scheme for the NDPS in (1) and
(2).
Remark 5: The state variable y(x, t) in (1) depends on the
space x and time t. Based on the nite-difference scheme [51],
[52], the spatial state vector y(t) in (11) or (12) was used to
represent the y(x, t) at all grid points. Similarly, the state vari-
ables y
R
(x, t), at all grid points, can be represented by spa-
tial state vector y
R
(t). In this situation, the
_
t
f
0
_
U
|y
R
(x, t)
y(x, t)|
2
dxdt in the 2-D H
tracking performance (4) or (6)

could be modied by the 1-D form
_
t
f
0
|y
R
(t) y(t)|
2
2
x
dt
for the nite-difference systems (15) and (17) to simplify the
design procedure. As
x
0, the 1-D systems in (15) and (17)
will approach 2-D systems (7) and (3), respectively, and the 1-D
integration form will approach the 2-D integration form.
IV. ROBUST FUZZY-OBSERVER-BASED
TRACKING-CONTROL DESIGN
In Section III, a fuzzy DPS in (7) was proposed to ap-
proximate the NDPS in (1). Then, according to the nite-
difference method, the fuzzy-spatial state-space model in (15)
and (16) can be constructed for NDPSs. In this section, a fuzzy-
observer-based tracking-control scheme is developed to solve
the tracking-control-design problem of NPDSs. Then, a set of
the complex matrix inequalities is derived to guarantee the ro-
bust H
tracking performance. Finally, the design procedure is

given to simplify the robust tracking-design problem of NDPSs
by solving a set of LMIs to obtain the controller gains and
observer gains.
A. Robust H
Fuzzy-Observer-Based
Tracking-Control Design
A fuzzy-observer-based tracking controller based on the
fuzzy-spatial state-space system in (15) and (16) is proposed
to estimate the state of fuzzy-spatial state-space system and
then using a state feedback scheme to control the NDPS in (1)
and (2) to thereby robustly track a desired trajectory y
R
(x, t)
generated by the reference model in (3). The fuzzy-observer-
based tracking controller is proposed as the following form (see
Fig. 2):
y(t) =
M
i=1

i
( y)
_
(I
N
A
i
) y(t) + (I
N
A
,i
) y(t
)
+T y(t) +Bu(t) +G
i
(C y(t) z(t))
(18)
u(t) =
M
i=1
N
j=1
i
( y
j
)K
i,j
[ y
j
(t) y
R,j
(t)] (19)
=
M
i=1
K
i

i
( y)[ y(t) y
R
(t)] (20)
where G
i
R
nNq
and K
i
= [K
i,1
, . . . , K
i,N
] R
pnN
are,
respectively, the observer gains and the control gains to be
designed. The fuzzy weighting matrix
i
( y) is dened as

i
( y)

= (
i
( y) I
n
). In the observer equation (18), the ob-
server gains G
i
are designed so that the spatial state-estimation
error y(t) y(t) is as small as possible. In (19), the N
fuzzy tracking controllers u
j
(t)

=

M
i=1

i
( y
j
)K
i,j
[ y
j
(t)
y
R,j
(t)] R
p
are designed to make the tracking errors y
j
(t)
y
R,j
(t) as small as possible in spite of the fuzzy approximation
error, the truncation error, the time delay, the external distur-
bance, and the measurement noise, i.e., to achieve the robust
H
tracking design. The overall controller u(t)

=

N
j=1
u
j
(t)
can be formulated in (20).
The dynamic of the estimated error e(t) = y(t) y(t) is
given by
e(t) =
M
i=1

i
(y)[(I
N
A
i
)y(t) + (I
N
A
,i
)y(t
)]
+Ty(t) +B
d
d(t) +(t) +O(
2
x
)
_
M
i=1

i
( y)[(I
N
A
i
) y(t) + (I
N
A
,i
) y(t
)
+T y(t) +G
i
(C y(t) z(t))]
_
=
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1

i
1
(y)
i
2
( y)[((I
N
A
i
2
) +G
i
2
C)e(t)
+ (I
N
A
,i
2
)e(t
) +Te(t) + (I
N
(A
i
1
A
i
2
))y(t)
+ (I
N
(A
,i
1
A
,i
2
))y(t
) +B
d
d(t) +G
i
2
D
n
n(t)]
+(t) +O(
2
x
). (21)
Combining the fuzzy system in (15) with the observer-
based tracking controller, the closed-loop fuzzy-tracking-
control system could be described by the following augmented
system:
y(t) =

A(, ) y(t) +

A
(, ) y(t
) +

B
v
( )v(t)
+ (t) +

O(
2
x
) (22)
where y(t) = [y
R
(t)
T
, y(t)
T
, e(t)
T
]
T
, (t) = [0, (t)
T
,
(t)
T
]
T
, and

O(
2
x
) = [O
R
(
2
x
)
T
, O(
2
x
)
T
, O(
2
x
)
T
]
T
. The
other notations are dened as follows:
A(, )

=
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
_
11
0 0
21

22

23
0
32

33
_
(, )
=
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
_
_
0 0 0
0
i
1
(y)(I
N
A
,i
1
) 0
0 0
i
2
( y)(I
N
A
,i
2
)
_
B
v
( )

=
M
i
2
=1
_
_
B
R
0 0
0 B
d
0
0 B
d

i
2
( y)G
i
2
D
n
_
_
where
11
= I
N
A
R
+T
R
,
21
= BK
i
2

i
2
( y),
22
=

i
1
(y)(I
N
A
i
1
) +T +BK
i
2

i
2
( y),
23
= BK
i
2

i
2
( y),
32
=
i
1
(y)
i
2
( y)(I
N
(A
i
1
A
i
2
)), and
33
=
i
2
( y)
((I
N
A
i
2
) +T +G
i
2
C). Note that the augmented system in
(22) includes the reference model in (17), the fuzzy-spatial state-
space system in (15) with the fuzzy controller in (20), and the
estimated-error dynamic in (21).
The robust H
fuzzy-observer-based tracking controller is

specied to guarantee that the effect of the time delay, the ap-
proximation error, the truncation error, the external disturbance,
and the measurement noise on the tracking error y
R
(t) y(t)
and the estimation error e(t) are attenuated below a prescribed
level from the energy perspective. This design problem is
called the H
observer-based tracking-control-design problem.

Based on the augmented system in (22) and Remark 5, the H
observer-based tracking-control performance should be modi-

ed to include the state-estimation error e(t) and the effect of
truncation error

O(
2
x
) as follows:
_
t
f
0
|
R
1
(y
R
(t) y(t))|
2
+|
R
2
e(t)|
2
dt
_
t
f
0
|v(t)|
2
+|
O(
2
x
)|
2
dt

2
(23)
where the weighting matrices

R
1
= diag(
x
R
1
, . . . ,
x
R
1
)
R
nNnN
, and

R
2
= diag(
x
R
2
,. . . ,
x
R
2
) R
nNnN
, with
R
1
R
nn
and R
2
R
nn
, i.e., the effect of disturbances,
measurement noise, and truncation error on the tracking error
and the estimation error, should be belowthe attenuation level .
The weighting matrices

R
1
and

R
2
denote the tradeoff between
the tracking error and the estimation error. Since the trunca-
tion error due to nite-difference approach appears in (22), its
effect should be included in the H
tracking performance in
the design procedure. According to (6), the H
observer-based
tracking performance in (23) can be represented by the follow-
ing inequality:
_
tf
0
|R y(t)|
2
dt V ( y(0)) +
2
_
tf
0
|v(t)|
2
+|
O(
2
x
)|
2
dt
(24)
for some positive function V ( y(0)) when the initial condition
y(0) is also considered, where
R =
_

R
1

R
1
0
0 0

R
2
_
and y(t) is the state vector of the augmented system in (22).
Therefore, the H
observer-based tracking-control design

for NDPSs is based on how to specify the control gains and
observer gains of the fuzzy-observer-based controller in (18)
and (20) so that the H
observer-based tracking performance

in (23) or (24) could be achieved.
Remark 6: The term |R y(t)|
2
can be represented as
|R y(t)|
2
=

N
j=1
|R
1
(y
R,j
(t) y
j
(t))|
2
2
x
+|R
2
(y
j
(t)
y
j
(t))|
2
2
x
, where
2
x
is the area of the gridded rectangle, and
the term |R y(t)|
2
, which is called the Riemann sum [54], can
be used to approximate the integration of the 2-D H
tracking
performance in a spatiotemporal domain. Therefore, if the grid-
ded spacing
x
of the nite-difference approach is sufciently
small so that O(
2
x
) 0, then the H
observer-based tracking
performance in (23) will approach the 2-D H
observer-based
tracking performance in the spatiotemporal domain
_
t
f
0
_
U
|R
1
(y
R
(x, t) y(x, t))|
2
+|R
2
e(x, t)|
2
dx dt
_
t
f
0
|v(t)|
2
dt

2
(25)
where e(x, t)

= y(x, t) y(x, t).
Lemma 2 [55]: X
T
PY +Y
T
PX X
T
PX +
1
Y
T
PY
for any positive constant , a symmetric matrix P = P
T
0,
and two vectors X and Y with appropriate dimensions.
To solve the H
tracking problem in (25), let us choose a

Lyapunov function V ( y(t)) for the augmented system in (22)
as
V ( y(t)) = y(t)
T
P y(t) +
_
t
t
y(s)
T
Q y(s)ds (26)
where P = P
T
> 0, and Q = Q
T
> 0. Based on (26), we can
obtain the following result for the robust H
tracking problem
in (24).
Theorem 3: For the augmented system (22) with a prescribed
disturbance attenuation level in (24), if there exist two sym-
metric positive-denite matrices P and Q, the control gains K
i
,
and the observer gains G
i
, for i = 1, . . . , M, such that
(, )

=
_
11
(, ) P

A
(, ) P

B
v
( )
A
T
(, )P
Q 0
B
T
v
( )P 0
2
I
_
_ < 0 (27)
where

11
(, )

=

A(, )
T
P +P

A(, ) + (
1
2
+
1
)PP +
+R
T
R +Q,

= diag(0, 2
2
I, 0), and
= diag(0,
2
2
I, 0), then the H
observer-based tracking performance

for NDPSs in (24) is guaranteed by the fuzzy-observer-based
controller in (18)(20).
Proof: See Appendix A.
Remark 7: 1) Recently, some approaches based on the fuzzy
Lyapunov function [56] or piecewise Lyapunov function [57]
have been developed to relax the conservativeness of stability
and stabilization problems. The purpose of this paper is to extend
the fuzzy H
tracking-control approach to the eld of NDPSs.

Therefore, we use the Lyapunov function V ( y(t)) with com-
mon P and Q to simplify the reference-tracking-control-design
procedure of NDPSs with time delay. For the conservative anal-
ysis, see [17], [21], [22], and [56][59]. 2) When v(t) 0 in
(22), it is seen from (A7) in Appendix A that y(t) 0, and
R y(t) = [(

R
1
y
R
(t)

R
1
y(t))
T
, (

R
2
e(t))
T
]
T
0 as t
[12], i.e., the inequality in (27) guarantees the asymptotical sta-
bility and asymptotical tracking of (22) simultaneously.
Since it is still very difcult to solve the matrix inequal-
ity in (27) to nd control gains K
i
and observer gains G
i
for
H
observer-based tracking design of NDPSs, a simplica-

tion procedure is given below to improve the solution of matrix
inequality in (27). We can dene the Lyapunov function for
the jth fuzzy nite-difference model in (13), the jth reference
nite-difference model, and the jth estimated-error dynamic as
follows:
V
j
(y
R,j
(t), y
j
(t), e
j
(t))
=
j
(t)
T
_
_
P
11,j
P
12,j
0
P
12,j
P
11,j
0
0 0 P
33,j
_
_
j
(t)
+
_
t
t
j
(s)
T
_
_
Q
11,j
Q
12,j
0
Q
12,j
Q
11,j
0
0 0 Q
33,j
_
_
j
(s)ds
where
j
(t)

=[y
R,j
(t)
T
, y
j
(t)
T
, e
j
(t)
T
]
T
. Then, the Lyapunov
function V ( y(t)) in (26) for the augmented system (22) can
be formulated as V ( y(t)) =

N
j=1
V
j
(y
R,j
(t), y
j
(t), e
j
(t)).
Therefore, the following forms for the matrices P and Q in
(26) can be easily obtained as
P =
_
_
P
11
P
12
0
P
12
P
11
0
0 0 P
33
_
_ > 0
Q =
_
_
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
12
Q
11
0
0 0 Q
33
_
_ > 0 (28)
where P
ij
= diag(P
ij,1
, . . . , P
ij,N
) R
nNnN
, and Q
ij
=
diag(Q
ij,1
, . . . , Q
ij,N
) R
nNnN
.
Remark 8: For simplicity, we dene
P
(11)
=
_
P
11
P
12
P
12
P
11
_
,

Q
(11)
=
_
Q
11
Q
12
Q
12
Q
11
_
,

P
(22)
= P
33
and

Q
(22)
= Q
33
for the matrices P and Q in (28).
The following lemma gives a transformation technique from
the summation of matrices into a large matrix form to simplify
the design procedure of the H
observer-based tracking con-

trol in Theorem 3. The details of the derivation are given in
Appendix B. Thus, we can obtain the following results for
A(, ),

A
(, ), and

B
v
( ).
Lemma 3: The system matrix

A(, ) in (22) can be repre-
sented as follows:
A(, ) =

/
T
[

A+

]

/ (29)
where
/=
_

/
(11)
0
0

/
(22)
_
,

=
_
(11)
0
0

(22)
_
A =
_

A
(11)
+

B

K
(11)

B

K
(12)
A
(21)

A
(22)
+

G
(22)

C
_
.
Moreover, for the matrices

A
(, ) and

B
v
( ), we have
(, ) =

/
T

A
,

B
v
( ) =

/
T

B
v
(30)
where
=
_

A
(11)
0
0

A
(22)
_
B
v
=
_
H
T
(11)

B
v(11)
0
H
T
(22)

B
v(21)

G
v(22)

B
v(22)
_
H =
_
H
(11)
0
0 H
(22)
_
=
_
I
2nN
0 . . . 0 0 0 . . . 0
0 0 . . . 0 I
nN
0 . . . 0
_
R
3n3n

N
in which the dimension number

N is dened as

N = N

M,
with

M = 1 + (M M).
Proof: See Appendix B.
The related matrices in Lemma 3 are dened in Appendix B.
Since the matrix

A
(k)
is singular, we add the relaxed matrices
(k)
to adjust the relationship between the matrices

A
(k)
,

K
(k)
,
and

G
(k)
.
Lemma 4: Since
i
1
(y)
i
2
( y) is the diagonal matrix and the
matrix P has the form, as given in (28), it is easy to prove
the relationship

P
(11)

/
(11)
i
1
i
2
=

/
(11)
i
1
i
2
P
(11)
, and

P
(22)

/
(22)
i
1
i
2
=
/
(22)
i
1
i
2
P
(22)
. Moreover, the matrix

/P can be represented
as

/P =

P

/, where

P = diag(

P
(11)
,

P
(22)
)

= diag(I

M

P
(11)
, I

M

P
(22)
) R
3n

N3n

N
.
In Theorem 3, the sufcient condition of the H
tracking
control in (27) includes the fuzzy weighting matrices (y) and
( y). Based on Lemma 3, we obtain the following main result.
Theorem 4: For the augmented system (22) with a prescribed
disturbance attenuation level , if there exist two symmetric
positive-denite matrices P and Q in (28), the relaxed matrix
, the control gains K

i
, and the observer gains G
i
, for i =
1, . . . , M, in (18)(20) such that

=
_
11

P

A

P

B
v
A
T
Q 0
B
T
v

P 0
2
I
_
_ < 0 (31)
then the H
tracking-control performance in (24) is guaranteed

for a prescribed disturbance-attenuation level by the fuzzy-
observer-based controller in (18)(20). In (31), we have
11
= (

A+

)
T

P +

P(

A+

) +H
T
_
+R
T
R +Q
_
H
+
_
1
2
+
1
_

PH
T
H

P.
Proof: Using the equality

/P =

P

/in Lemma 4, we have
A(, )
T
P +P

A(, ) = (

/
T

A

/)
T
P +P(

/
T

A

/)
=

/
T

A
T

P

/+

/
T

P

A

/.
Based on Lemma 3,

(, ) in (27) can be reformulated as
follows:
(, ) =
_
/ 0 0
0 I 0
0 0 I
_
_
T
11

P

A

P

B
v
A
T
Q 0
B
T
v

P 0
2
I
_
_
_
/ 0 0
0 I 0
0 0 I
_
_. (32)
Finally, if

< 0 in (31), then

(, ) < 0.
Remark 9: The control gains K
i
and the observer gains G
i
,
for i = 1, . . . , M, are included in the matrix

A. The matrix

P
can be obtained by the matrix P in Lemma 4.
The H
tracking-control-design problem is to specify the

observer gains G
i
and the control gains K
i
, for i = 1, . . . , M,
to satisfy the inequality in (31). In the observer-based control-
design problem, the observer gains G
i
and the control gains K
i
are always coupled with the matrix P [41]. In this situation,
the matrix inequality in (31) will be a complex bilinear matrix
inequality (BMI). A systematic design procedure is developed
to solve this problem in the next section.
B. Solving Robust H
Tracking-Control Problem Via

the Linear-Matrix Inequality
Some algorithms to solve local optimal BMI solutions have
been proposed via the augmented Lagrangian method [43] and
the iteration method [31], [40][42]. However, because the BMI
problem is nonconvex, these algorithms are still inefcient to
solve BMI problems with multiple variables. A fuzzy-observer-
based H
control design was studied in [44] for a TS fuzzy

time-delay systemwithout the measurement noise. In this paper,
the measurement noise at the measured output is considered in
the NDPS. For the robust H
tracking problem of the NDPS,

the 2-D H
tracking performance is addressed. Therefore, we

proposed a different method to overcome a more complex prob-
lem. Note that the inequality in (31) is still BMI, even if the
matrices P and Q were chosen as (28). The following lemma
is introduced to reduce a BMI to an LMI that can be efciently
solved with the conventional LMI technique.
Lemma 5 [45]: Given a positive symmetric matrix X of ap-
propriate dimension, if the inequality
_
11
2X I
I
22
_
< 0 (33)
holds, then we have
11
+X
22
X < 0. In other words,
the inequalities
22
< 0 and 2X
2
1
22
< 0 imply that
X
22
X < 2X
2
1
22
< 0.
Proof: First, by the Schur complement, the inequality in (33)
is equivalent to
22
< 0 and
11
2X
2
1
22
< 0. From
22
< 0, we have (X +
1
22
)
T
22
(X +
1
22
) < 0, which is
equivalent to X
22
X < 2X
2
1
22
. Then, we can obtain
the inequality
11
+X
22
X < 0. The lemma is completely
proven.
Let us dene the matrix

X as follows:
X = diag(

X
(11)
,

X
(22)
)

= diag(I

M

X
(11)
, I

M

X
(22)
)
(34)
where
X
(11)
=
_
X
11
X
12
X
12
X
11
_
=
_
P
11
P
12
P
12
P
11
_
1
and

X
(22)
= X
11
X
12
. We also dene some symbols with
respect to the matrix Q in (28) as follows:
S
(11)
=

X
(11)

Q
(11)

X
(11)
and
S
(11)
=

X
(11)
H
T
(11)

Q
(11)
H
(11)

X
(11)
= H
T
(11)

S
(11)
H
(11)
.
(35)
Using the matrices P and Q in (28), the sufcient conditions
for robust H
tracking control in Theorem 3 can be derived as

follows.
Theorem 5: For the augmented system in (22) with a pre-
scribed disturbance attenuation level , suppose there exist the
symmetric matrices

X
(11)
> 0,

S
(11)
> 0,

P
(22)
> 0,

Q
(22)
>
0, the matrices Y
i
and Z
i
, i = 1, . . . , M,

(11)
,

(22)
, and the
scalars > 0,
2
> 0 such that
_
11

12

13

14
21

22

23
0
31

32

33
0
41
0 0
44
_
_ < 0. (36)
Then, the H
tracking performance in (24) is guaranteed by the

fuzzy-observer-based tracking controller in (18)(20), i.e., the
approximation error and the time delay can be tolerated, and the
effect of the truncation error, the external disturbance, and the
measurement noise on the tracking error can be attenuated below
a prescribed level by the fuzzy-observer-based controller with
observer gains G
i
= P
1
33
Z
i
and control gains K
i
= Y
i
(X
11

X
12
)
1
, i = 1, . . . , M. In (36)
11
=
_
11

B
Y
(12)
I 0
Y
T
(12)

B
T
2

X
(22)
0 I
I 0 2I +
2
I

A
T
(21)

P
(22)
0 I

P
(22)

A
(21)

22
_
11
=
11
+

S
(11)
2

X
(11)
11
=

X
(11)

A
T
(11)
+

A
(11)

X
(11)
+

B
Y
(11)
+

Y
T
(11)

B
T
+

T
(11)
+

(11)
Y
(11)
=

K
(11)

X
(11)
,

Y
(12)
=

K
(12)

X
(22)
(11)
(11)

X
(11)
22
=
22
+H
T
(22)

Q
(22)
H
(22)
22
=

A
T
(22)

P
(22)
+

P
(22)

A
(22)
+

Z
(22)

C +

C
T

Z
T
(22)
+

T
(22)
+

(22)
Z
(22)
=

P
(22)

G
(22)
,

Z
v(22)
=

P
(22)

G
v(22)
(22)
=

P
(22)
(22)
21
=
_
X
(11)

A
T
(11)
0 0 0
0 0 0

A
T
(22)

P
(22)
_
22
=
_
S
(11)
0
0
Q
(22)
_
,
12
=
T
21
31
=
_

1/2
(11)
H
T
(11)

X
(11)
, 0, 0, 0
,
13
=
T
31
32
=
_

1/2
(11)
, 0
,
23
=
T
32
,
33
= 2I +I
14,1
=
_

X
(11)
H
T
(11)

R
T
(11)
,

X
(11)
, H
T
(11)
,
H
T
(11)
, H
T
(11)

B
v(11)
,
41,1
=
T
14,1
14,2
=
_
H
T
(22)

R
T
(22)
,

P
(22)
H
T
(22)
,

P
(22)
H
T
(22)
,
P
(22)
H
T
(22)

B
v(21)
,

Z
v(22)

B
v(22)
,
41,2
=
T
14,2
44,1
= diag(I,
2
I,
2
I, I,
2
/2I)
44,2
= diag(I,
2
I, I,
2
/2I,
2
I)
41
=
_
41,1
0 0 0
0 0 0
41,2
_
,
14
=
T
41
44
=
_
44,1
0
0
44,2
_
where

(11)
= diag(0, 2
2
I),

,(11)
= diag(0, 2
2
I),
R
(11)
= [

R
1
,
R
1
], and

R
(22)
=

R
2
.
Proof: See Appendix C.
Remark 10: The control gains K
i
and the observer gains
G
i
, for i = 1, . . . , M, are included in the matrices

K
(11)
,
K
(12)
,

G
(22)
, and

G
v(22)
, respectively. We dene

Y
(11)
i
3
i
4
K
(11)
i
3
i
4
X
(11)
= [Y
i
4
, Y
i
4
],

Y
(12)
i
3
i
4
=

K
(12)
i
3
i
4
X
(22)
= Y
i
4
,
Z
(22)
i
1
i
2
=

P
(22)

G
(22)
i
1
i
2
= Z
i
2
, and

Z
(22)
v,i
1
i
2
=

P
(22)

Z
(22)
v,i
1
i
2
= Z
v,i
2
in which Y
i
4
= K
i
4
(X
11
X
12
) and Z
i
2
= P
33
G
i
2
. Then, we
have the following forms for

Y
(k)
, k = 11 and 12,

Z
(22)
, and
Z
v(22)
:
Y
(k)
=
_
_
0

Y
(k)
11
. . .

Y
(k)
MM
0 0 . . . 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 . . . 0
_
Z
(22)
=
_
_
0 0 . . . 0
Z
(22)
11
0 . . . 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Z
(22)
MM
0 . . . 0
_
_
and

Z
v(22)
= [0,

Z
(22)T
v,11
,

Z
(22)T
v,12
, . . . ,

Z
(22)T
v,MM
]
T
.
Remark 11: In (36), we use the term 2 + to replace the
term
1
with the fact,
1
2 +. From the inequality
2 + < 0, we know that < 2. Alternatively, we can use
the term 2 +
1
to replace the term by the fact
2 +
1
. For 2 +
1
< 0, we have > 1/2. Therefore, we
can choose either of two constraints on to obtain the suitable
scalar in the LMI (36). For
2
, we have the same result.
The H
tracking-control-design problem reduces to how

to specify the observer gains G
i
= P
1
33
Z
i
and control gains
K
i
= Y
i
(X
11
X
12
)
1
, i = 1, . . . , M by solving the LMI in
(36) with some positive-denite matrices. Finally, in order to
achieve the optimal attenuation of truncation error, external dis-
turbances, and measurement noises on the tracking error and
estimation error, the optimal H
tracking-control-design prob-
lem for the NDPS (1) and (2) can be solved by the following
constrained optimization problem:
0
= min
Y
i
, Z
i
, i=1,...,M
subject to

X
(11)
> 0,

S
(11)
> 0, P
33
> 0
Q
33
> 0, > 0,
2
> 0, and (36). (37)
This is called an eigenvalue problem (EVP) [55] and can be
easily solved by the LMI technique.
Based on the above analysis, the robust H
observer-based
tracking-control-design procedure for NDPSs is summarized in
the following steps.
Design procedure
Step 1: Given a desired reference model in (3), generate the
reference output y
R
(x, t) and a prescribed distur-
bance attenuation level .
Step 2: Select the fuzzy membership functions and fuzzy
rules to establish a fuzzy DPS in (7) to approximate
the NDPS in (1).
Step 3: Give grid size
x
and N to construct the fuzzy-spatial
state-space model in (15) and (16).
Step 4: Solve the observer gains G
i
and the tracking-control
gains K
i
of the fuzzy-observer-based tracking con-
troller, for i = 1, . . . , M, in (18)(20) by solving the
LMI problem in (36), or solve K
i
and G
i
from the
optimal H
tracking-control problem in (37).

Step 5: Construct a fuzzy-observer-based tracking controller
in (18)(20) to control the NDPSs in (1) and (2), and
track the reference model in (3).
Remark 12: 1) Note that the different grid size
x
can be cho-
sen for the different space variables x. 2) Note that the dimension
N depends on
x
. In theory, the grid size
x
is chosen as small
as possible, i.e,
x
0. However, in this situation, the dimen-
sion N will increase to innity. The computational complexity
will also increase to solve the LMI problem in (36). Therefore,
how to choose the grid size is a tradeoff problem. Suppose the
initial-value problem of the NDPS in (1) is well-posed [51] and
that the nite-difference scheme (method of lines scheme [60])
in (9) is consistent, i.e., O(
2
x
) 0 as
x
0 [51]. Apply-
ing LaxRichtmyer equivalence theorem [51], the fuzzy-spatial
state-space system with d(t) 0 in (15) is stable if and only if
the nite-difference scheme is a convergent scheme in which the
solution of the fuzzy-spatial state-space systemwith d(t) 0 in
(15) can converge to the solution of the NDPS with d(t) 0 in
(1). Based on 2) of Remark 7, the stability of the fuzzy-spatial
state-space system with d(t) 0 in (15) can be guaranteed by
the solvable conditions of Theorem5. In general, as N increases,
since the stability of every nite-difference dynamic equation
within
x
should be guaranteed simultaneously, it will lead to
the conservative of the stability criterion. Therefore, the grid
size
x
is chosen such that the LMI in (36) is solvable.
V. APPLICATION TO TRACKING CONTROL OF
HODGKINHUXLEY NERVOUS SYSTEMS
The nervous system consists of highly interconnected nerve
cells, which communicate by generating and transmitting short
action potential (i.e., short electrical pulse). Action potentials
are stereotypical and all-or-none electrical transient deections
of the membrane voltage from its resting value at electrochem-
ical equilibrium [35]. The phenomenological model of action-
potential generation in the nerve-cell dynamic is described by
the HH model [6], [35], [36]. An action potential is generated
at the initial segment of the nerve cells axon and propagated
to the synaptic contacts at the end of the axon. In nerve cells,
separation of ionic charge along the cell membrane causes a dif-
ference in electrical potential across the cell membrane. From
the dendrites of other nerve cells, nerve cells receive electrical
input signals. Depending on the spatiotemporal distribution of
the input current to depolarize the membrane voltage, the r-
ing threshold can be reached after sufcient membrane voltage
depolarization, and then, an action potential will be triggered.
The HH dynamic equations [36] represent a phenomenolog-
ical model of action potential generation in a nerve cell as a
function of a given current stimulus [2]. Electrical stimulation
of a nerve cell with rectangular pulses has a range of clinical
applications, for example, activation of muscles by stimulating
the motor nerve cell bers innervating muscles or activation of
different sensor-motor areas in the brain or spinal cord, such as
deepbrainstimulationfor Parkinsonismpatients [35], [37][39].
The HH dynamic model is expressed by nonlinear PDEs that
describe the spatiotemporal evolution of the membrane voltage
y
v
= y
v
(x, t). In the HH dynamic model, the total current
across nerve cell membrane is the sum of the capacitive current,
the ionic currents, and the external current. The HH model is
described by the total currents, leading to an equivalent electric
ionic currents as follows [2], [6], [36]:
c
m
y
v
t
=
m
2
y
v
x
2
+f(y
v
) +g(x)I
inj
(t) +g
d
(x)d(t) (38)
z(t) = h(x)y
v
+D
n
n(t) (39)
where f(y
v
)

= g
K
4
n
(V
K
y
v
) +g
Na
3
m
h
(V
Na
y
v
) +
g
m
(V
leak
y
v
). The
n
,
m
, and
h
are dened as the potas-
sium activation, the sodium activation, and the sodium inac-
tivation, respectively. The current generated from the ow of
potassium ions is determined by a maximum potassium con-
ductance g
K
, an ionic equilibrium potential V
K
expressing
steady-state potassium ion separation, and potassium activation
n
. Similarly, sodium-ion current is modeled with a maximal
sodium conductance g
Na
, an ionic equilibrium potential V
Na
,
and sodium activation
m
and inactivation
h
. The remaining
ion currents are collectively modeled by a leakage current with
conductance g
m
and ionic equilibrium potential V
leak
. The con-
stant c
m
is the membrane capacity per unit area. The constant
m
is dened as
m
= r
a
/2R
2
, where r
a
is the radius of the ber,
and R
2
is the specic resistance of the axoplasm. The potas-
sium activation
n
, the sodium activation
m
, and the sodium
inactivation
h
vary, depending on the change of the membrane
potential y
v
, and are given by the following equations:
=

n
(y
v
)
n
(y
v
) +
n
(y
v
)
,
m
=

m
(y
v
)
m
(y
v
) +
m
(y
v
)
=

h
(y
v
)
h
(y
v
) +
h
(y
v
)
.
The specic functions
n
(y
v
),
n
(y
v
),
m
(y
v
),
m
(y
v
),
h
(y
v
), and
h
(y
v
) are proposed by Hodgkin and Huxley [36]
as
n
(y
v
) = 0.01
10 y
v
exp((10 y
v
)/10) 1
n
(y
v
) = 0.125 exp
_
y
v
80
_
m
(y
v
) = 0.1
25 y
v
exp((25 y
v
)/10) 1
m
(y
v
) = 4 exp
_
y
v
18
_
h
(y
v
) = 0.07 exp
_
y
v
20
_
h
(y
v
) =
1
exp((30 y
v
)/10) + 1
.
The remaining constants are
m
= 0.336, c
m
= 1 F/cm
2
, g
K
=
36 mS/cm
2
, g
Na
= 120 mS/cm
2
, and g
m
= 0.3 mS/cm
2
with
equilibrium potentials V
K
= 12 mV, V
Na
= 115 mV, and
V
leak
= 10.613 mV [6]. I
inj
(t) is an externally injected cur-
rent in a spatially localized axonal compartment. The potential
y
v
is measured in units of millivolts, current density is in units
of microamperes per square centimeters, and the unit of time is
milliseconds. The initial distribution of the membrane voltage
is given as y
v
(x, 0) = 0. The boundary conditions are the Neu-
mann boundary condition, i.e., y
v
(x, t)/x = 0 at x = 0 and
x = 1.
When the HH nervous system suffers the effect of ex-
ternal disturbances, the inuence function of external dis-
turbances can be dened as g
d
(x) = [(x (5/10))]. The
observation inuence function is dened as h(x) = [(x
(2/10)), (x (4/10)), (x (6/10)), (x (8/10))]
T
, i.e.,
the sensors are located at x = 2/10, 4/10, 6/10, 8/10.
The inuence function of measurement noise is de-
noted as D
n
= [0, 1, 0, 1]
T
. The control inuence function
is denoted as g(x) = [(x (1/10)), (x (3/10)), (x
(5/10)), (x (7/10)), (x (9/10))]. For the convenience
of simulation, the measurement noise and the external distur-
bance are assumed as n(t) = sin(t) and d(t) = sin(t).
Fig. 3. (a) Spatiotemporal proles of the reference model in (40). (b) Spa-
tiotemporal proles of the HH nervous system in (38). (c) Spatiotemporal
proles of the tracking error y
R
(x, t) y
v
(x, t). (d) Time proles of the esti-
mated error e(t).
For communication in the nervous system, the nerve cells
should transmit a desired signal. Therefore, we control the ner-
vous system to track a reference signal. Suppose the desired
response of a HH nervous system is specied by the following
reference model:
y
R
(x, t)
t
= /
R
y
R
(x, t) +A
R
y
R
(x, t) +g
R
(x)r(t) (40)
where the differential operator is dened as /
R
y
R
(x, t) =
0.5
2
y
R
(x, t)/x
2
, A
R
= 1, and g
R
(x) = [200(x
(3/10)), 200(x (7/10))]. The reference input r(t) is given
to generate the impulse-response signals to simulate a nervous
system as r(t) = exp(0.5(t 5)
2
) + exp(0.5(t 15)
2
).
The spatiotemporal prole of the reference model is shown
in Fig. 3(a). The control target is to design the control input
I
inj
(t) in (38) so that the state y(x, t) could track the desired
trajectory y
R
(x, t) in (40) as good as possible in spite of the
measurement noise n(t) and the external disturbance d(t),
i.e., the control input I
inj
(t) is designed such that the tracking
error y
R
(x, t) y
v
(x, t) must be as small as possible under
the inuence of the measurement noise n(t) and the external
disturbance d(t).
First, we establish a TS fuzzy DPS as (7) with the trape-
zoidal membership functions. The range of the state is given as
y
v
(x, t) [5, 30]. The operation points of the fuzzy DPS are
given at y
v
(x, t) = 5 and y
v
(x, t) = 30. The number of fuzzy
rules is M = 2. The parameters in the fuzzy DPS (7) are ob-
tained as A
1
= 0.8089 and A
2
= 2.6473. We can obtain the
bounds of the approximate error = 1.67 10
2
and
= 0 in
Theorem 1. Obviously, the proposed fuzzy model can approach
the nonlinear partial system accurately. We give the grid space
x
= 0.1111 and N = 10; then, the nite-difference operator
can be constructed. Following the proposed design procedure in
the above section, the optimal H
fuzzy-observer-based track-
ing controller could be obtained easily with
0
= 0.0440 by
solving the constrained optimization problem in (37). The spa-
tiotemporal prole of the controlled HH nervous system is
shown in Fig. 3(b). The spatiotime proles of the tracking error
y
R
(x, t) y(x, t) between the nonlinear distributed parameter
system and the reference model are shown in Fig. 3(c).The time
proles of the estimated error e(t) between the nonlinear dis-
tributed parameter system and the fuzzy observer are shown
in Fig. 3(d). The simulation results show that the proposed ro-
bust H
fuzzy-observer-based tracking controller obviously can

control the trajectory of the HH nervous system to track a de-
sired trajectory by efciently attenuating the truncation error,
the external disturbances, and measurement noises. The H
tracking performance can be computed as follows:

_
30
0
y(t)
T
R
T
R y(t)dt
_
30
0
v(t)
T
v(t)dt
0.0171
2
<
2
0
= 0.0440
2
.
This conservative result is due to the conservative way of solving
LMIs in the H
control-tracking-design procedure. Therefore,

the simulation example has shown the feasibility of the pro-
posed robust H
fuzzy-tracking-control design of the NDPS

for potential practical applications. The effects of the external
disturbance and the measurement noise in the NDPScould be ef-
ciently attenuated by the proposed robust H
observer-based
tracking-control design.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper proposed a 2-D H
tracking performance in the

spatiotemporal domain for robust model reference-tracking con-
trol of NDPSs under time delay, external disturbances, and mea-
surement noises. The robust model reference-tracking-control
problem for the NDPSs with time delay, external disturbances,
and measurement noise was successfully solved by the fuzzy-
spatial state-space system based on the nite-difference model.
A fuzzy-observer-based tracking controller is proposed to at-
tenuate the effect of the truncation error, external disturbances,
and measurement noise on the desired tracking performance be-
low a prescribed level to achieve robust tracking-control design
of NDPSs. In order to simplify the design procedure, the pro-
posed H
fuzzy-observer-based tracking-control scheme for

NDPSs can be transformed from solving a BMI problem to
solving an LMI problem. Therefore, determining the observer
gains and the controller gains for the optimal H
observer-
based tracking control becomes an LMI-based optimization
problem, which can be efciently solved by the LMI Toolbox in
MATLAB. An HH nervous tracking-control problem in bi-
ology engineering is provided to illustrate the practical appli-
cation of the H
tracking-control scheme to NDPSs and to

conrm its robust tracking performance. The proposed robust
tracking-design method can also be applied to many elds, e.g.,
heat ows, elastic wave, exible structures, chemical engineer-
ing, biodynamic systems, etc. Therefore, the proposed design
method was the potential for the robust tracking control of
NDPSs with time delay, external disturbances, and measure-
ment noises.
APPENDIX
A. Proof of Theorem 3
Proof: First, we differentiate the function V ( y(t)) in
(26). Then, adding and subtracting the term
2
v(t)
T
v(t)
y(t)
T
R
T
R y(t), we get
V ( y(t)) =

y(t)
T
P y(t) + y(t)
T
P

y(t)
+ y(t)
T
Q y(t) y(t
)
T
Q y(t
)
= (

A(, ) y(t) +

A
(, ) y(t
) +

B
v
( )v(t)
+ (t) +

O(
2
x
))
T
P y(t) + y(t)
T
P(

A(, ) y(t)
+

A
(, ) y(t
) +

B
v
( )v(t) + (t) +

O(
2
x
))
+ y(t)
T
Q y(t) y(t
)
T
Q y(t
)
(
2
v(t)
T
v(t) y(t)
T
R
T
R y(t))
+ (
2
v(t)
T
v(t) y(t)
T
R
T
R y(t)). (A1)
By Lemma 2, we have
O(
2
x
)
T
P y(t) + y(t)
T
P

O(
2
x
)

2

O(
2
x
)
T

O(
2
x
) +
1
2
y(t)
T
PP y(t) (A2)
(t)
T
P y(t) + y(t)
T
P (t)
(t)
T
(t) +
1
y(t)
T
PP y(t) (A3)
where is any positive constant. According to the bound of (t)
in Corollary 2, we have
(t)
T
(t) = 2(t)
T
(t) y(t)
T
y(t) + y(t
)
T
y(t
)
(A4)
where and
are dened as

= diag(0, 2
2
I, 0), and
= diag(0, 2
2
I, 0). Based on the inequalities in (A2)(A4),

from (A1), we obtain
V ( y(t)) (t)
T

(, )(t) +
2
v(t)
T
v(t)
y(t)
T
R
T
R y(t) +
2

O(
2
x
)
T

O(
2
x
) (A5)
where (t) = [ y(t), y(t
), v(t)], and

(, ) is dened in (27).
Suppose the inequality

(, ) < 0 holds, then we have the
following inequality:
V
1
( y(t))
2
v(t)
T
v(t) y(t)
T
R
T
R y(t) +
2

O(
2
x
)
T

O(
2
x
).
(A6)
Integrating (A6) from t = 0 to t = t
f
yields
V ( y(t
f
)) V ( y(0)) +
_
t
f
0
2
|v(t)|
2
|R y(t)|
2
+
2
|
O(
2
x
)|
2
dt. (A7)
Since V ( y(t
f
)) > 0, we have the H
tracking-performance
inequality in (24). Therefore, if the inequality in (27)
holds, then the H
tracking performance in (24) could be

guaranteed.
B. Proof of Lemma 3
Since
i
1
(y) and
i
2
( y) are in matrix form and have the
property

M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1

i
1
(y)
i
2
( y) = I, by Lemma 1, the
term

A(, ) in (22) can be represented as follows:
A(, ) =
_

A
(11)
0
0
0 0
_
+
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
_

/
(11)
i
1
i
2
0
0

/
(22)
i
1
i
2
_
_

A
(11)
i
1
i
2
0
A
(21)
i
1
i
2
A
(22)
i
1
i
2
+

G
(22)
i
1
i
2
C
_
+
M
i
3
=1
M
i
4
=1
_
B

K
(11)
i
3
i
4
B

K
(12)
i
3
i
4
0 0
__

/
(11)
i
3
i
4
0
0

/
(22)
i
3
i
4
_
(B1)
where

/
(11)
i
1
i
2
= diag(
i
1
(y)
i
2
( y),
i
1
(y)
i
2
( y)),

/
(22)
i
1
i
2
=

i
1
(y)
i
2
( y),

A
(11)
0
= diag(I
N
A
R
+T
R
, 0),

A
(11)
i
1
i
2
=
diag(0, (I
N
A
i
1
) +T),

A
(21)
i
1
i
2
= [0, I
N
(A
i
1
A
i
2
)],
A
(22)
i
1
i
2
= (I
N
A
i
2
) +T,

B

= [0, B
T
]
T
,

K
(11)
i
3
i
4
= [K
i
4
,
K
i
4
],

K
(12)
i
3
i
4
= K
i
4
, and

G
(22)
i
1
i
2
=G
i
2
. Similarly, for

A
(, )
and

B
v
( ), we have
(, ) =
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
_

/
(11)
i
1
i
2
0
0

/
(22)
i
1
i
2
__

A
(11)
,i
1
i
2
0
0

A
(22)
,i
1
i
2
_
(B2)
B
v
( ) =
_

B
v(11)
0
B
v(21)
0
_
+
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
_

/
(11)
i
1
i
2
0
0

/
(22)
i
1
i
2
_
_
0 0
0 G
(22)
i
1
i
2
B
v(22)
_
(B3)
where

A
(11)
,i
1
i
2
= diag(0, I
N
A
,i
1
),

A
(22)
,i
1
i
2
= I
N
A
,i
2
,
G
(22)
v,i
1
i
2
= G
i
2
,

B
v(11)
= diag(B
R
, B
d
),

B
v(21)
= [0, B
d
], and
B
v(22)
= D
n
.
Lemma 6: Given the matrices
0
,
i
1
,
1,i
1
, and
2,i
1
i
2
with
appropriate dimensions for i
1
= 1, . . . , M, and i
2
= 1, . . . , M,
we have the following equality:
0
+
M
i
1
=1
i
1
T
1,i
1
+
M
i
2
=1
1,i
2
i
2
+
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
i
1
2,i
1
i
2
i
2
=
_
_
I
1
.
.
.
M
_
_
T
_
0

1,1
. . .
1,M
T
1,1

2,11
. . .
2,1M
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1,M

2,M1
. . .
2,MM
_
_
_
_
I
1
.
.
.
M
_
_
. (B4)
Before further simplication, we dene some notations as
B

= I

M

B,

C

= I

M
C, and the following matrices:
/
(k)
=
_
_
I
/
(k)
11
.
.
.
/
(k)
MM
_
_
,

A
(k)
=
_
A
(k)
0
0 . . . 0
A
(k)
11
0 . . . 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
(k)
MM
0 . . . 0
_
(k)
=
_
(k)
0

(k)T
0
+
(k)
3

(k)
0

(k)
1,11
(k)T
0

(k)T
2,11

(k)
1,11
+
(k)T
2,11

(k)
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
(k)T
0

(k)T
2,MM

(k)
1,11
+
(k)T
2,MM
. . . . . .
(k)
0

(k)
1,MM
. . . . . .
(k)
1,MM
+
(k)T
2,11
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . .
(k)
1,MM
+
(k)T
2,MM

(k)
3
_
K
(k)
=
_
_
0

K
(k)
11
. . .

K
(k)
MM
0 0 . . . 0
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 . . . 0
_
G
(22)
=
_
_
0 0 0 0
G
(22)
11
0 . . . 0
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
G
(22)
MM
0 . . . 0
_
A
(k)
= [0,

A
(k)T
,11
, . . . ,

A
(k)T
,MM
]
T
G
v(22)
= [0,

G
(22)T
v,11
, . . . ,

G
(22)T
v,MM
]
T
where for

/
(k)
,

(k)
, and

A
(k)
, we have k = 11 and 22; for
A
(k)
, k = 11, 21, and 22; for

K
(k)
, k = 11, and 12; the matrices
(11)
0
R
2nN2nN
,
(22)
0
R
nNnN
,
(11)
1,i
1
i
2
R
2nN2nN
,
(11)
2,i
1
i
2
R
2nN2nN
,
(22)
1,i
1
i
2
R
nNnN
,
(22)
2,i
1
i
2
R
nNnN
,
(11)
3
R
2nN2nN
, and
(22)
3
R
nNnN
are some relaxed
matrices applied in the following lemma, and other matrices
are dened in (B1)(B3).
Remark 13: In the matrices

A
(k)
,

A
(k)
,

K
(k)
,

G
(k)
,
G
v(k)
, and

(k)
, it should be noted that the subscript in-
dex i
1
i
2
of submatrices is dened as i
1
i
2
= 11, 12, . . . ,
MM, for i
1
= 1, . . . , M, and i
2
= 1, . . . , M, i.e., (i
1
, i
2
) =
(1, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3), . . . , (M, M).
Proof of Lemma 3
Proof: By the equality I +
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1

/
(k)
i
1
i
2
= 0, for
k = 11 and 22, we can add the following equalities to relax the
equation given in (29):
_
I +
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
/
(k)
i
1
i
2
_
(k)T
0
= 0
(k)
0
_
I +
M
i
3
=1
M
i
4
=1
/
(k)
i
3
i
4
_
= 0
_
I +
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
/
(k)
i
1
i
2
__
M
i
3
=1
M
i
4
=1
(k)
1,i
3
i
4
/
(k)
i
3
i
4
_
= 0
_
M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
/
(k)
i
1
i
2
(k)T
2,i
1
i
2
__
I +
M
i
3
=1
M
i
4
=1
/
(k)
i
3
i
4
_
= 0
_
(k)
3

M
i
1
=1
M
i
2
=1
M
i
3
=1
M
i
4
=1
/
(k)
i
1
i
2
(k)
3

/
(k)
i
3
i
4
_
= 0.
Adding the above three equalities into (B1) and using Lemma
6, we can obtain the equation given in (29). Moreover, it is easy
to prove the equation given in (30) by Lemma 6.
C. Proof of Theorem 5
Proof: First, the fact that the inequality in (36) implies the
inequality in (31) is proven in the following. Because the fact
(1 )
1
(1 ) 0 implies the inequality
1
2 +,
we have

33
=
1
I
33
in (36). Similarly, we
have
1
2
2 +
2
. Using the aforementioned inequality
and Schur complement, the inequality in (36) implies the
inequality,
11

13

1
33

31

12
_
22

23

1
33

32
_
1
21

14
1
44

41
< 0, which can be written as follows:
_
11

B
Y
(12)
I 0
Y
T
(12)

B
T
2

X
(22)
0 I
I 0
1
2
I

A
T
(21)

P
(22)
0 I

P
(22)

A
(21)

22
+
22
_
_
< 0
(C1)
where
11
=
11
+
11
2

X
(11)
11
=

X
(11)
H
T
(11)
(11)
H
(11)

X
(11)
+

A
(11)
1
(11)

A
T
(11)
+
1
X
(11)

X
(11)
+
_
1
2
+
1
_
H
T
(11)
H
(11)
+
1
2
2H
T
(11)

B
v(11)

B
T
v(11)
H
(11)
22
= H
T
(22)
(22)
H
(22)
+

P
(22)

A
(22)
1
(22)

A
T
(22)

P
(22)
+
_
1
2
+
1
_

P
(22)
H
T
(22)
H
(22)

P
(22)
+
1
2
2

P
(22)
H
T
(22)

B
v(21)

B
T
v(21)
H
(22)

P
(22)
+
1
2

Z
v(22)

B
v(22)

B
T
v(22)

Z
T
v(22)
in which
(k)
= (
(k)
+

R
T
(k)

R
(k)
+

Q
(k)
), and
(k)
=
(
(k)

Q
(k)
), k = 11 and 22. Note that

(22)
= 0 and that
(22)
= 0. By Lemma 5, the inequality in (C1) implies the
following inequality:

=
_

11

12
T
12

X
(22)
_
22
+
22
_

X
(22)
_
< 0 (C2)
where

11
=
11
+
11

1
2

X
(11)

X
(11)
, and

12
Y
(12)
+

X
(11)

A
(21)
T

P
(22)

X
(22)
.
On the other hand, by the Schur complement, the inequality
in (31) is equivalent to the following form:
(

A+

)
T

P +

P(

A+

) +H
T
( +R
T
R +Q)H
+

P

A
Q)
1

A
T

P +
_
1
2
+
1
_

PH
T
H

P
+
1
2

P

B
v

B
T
v

P < 0. (C3)
Note that = diag(
(11)
,

(22)
), R
T
R = diag(

R
T
(11)

R
(11)
,
R
T
(22)

R
(22)
), Q = diag(

Q
(11)
,

Q
(22)
),
= diag(
,(11)
,
(22)
), and (
Q)
1
= diag
_
(
(11)

Q
(11)
)
1
,
(
(22)

Q
(22)
)
1
_
.
Pre- and postmultiplying the above inequality by the matrix
X in (34), and substituting the denitions of

P,

A,

A
,

B
v
, and
H in (29) and (30) into this inequality, we obtain

=
_
11

12
T
12

X
(22)
22

X
(22)
_
+
_

11
0
0

22
_
+
_

,11
0
0

,22
_
+
_
1
2
+
1
_
H
T
(11)
H
(11)
0
0

X
(22)

P
(22)
H
T
(22)
H
(22)

P
(22)

X
(22)
_
+
1
2
_

T
v,11

v,11

T
v,11

v,22
T
v,22

v,11

T
v,22

v,22
+

T
n,22

n,22
_
< 0
(C4)
where

Z
v(22)
,
11
, and
22
are dened in (36), and

12
is
dened in (C2). The other notations are dened as follows:
11
=

X
(11)
H
T
(11)
(11)
H
(11)

X
(11)
22
=

X
(22)
H
T
(22)
(22)
H
(22)

X
(22)
,11
=

A
(11)
1
(11)

A
T
(11)
,22
=

X
(22)

P
(22)

A
(22)
1
(22)

A
T
(22)

P
(22)

X
(22)
v,11
=

B
T
v(11)
H
(11)
v,22
=

B
T
v(21)
H
(22)

P
(22)

X
(22)
n,22
=

B
T
v(22)

Z
v(22)

X
(22)
.
By Lemma 2, we can obtain the following inequality:
_
0

T
v,11

v,22
T
v,22

v,11
0
_
T
v,11

v,11
0
0

T
v,22

v,22
_
.
(C5)
Using the above inequality, we can get the inequality

,
in which and

are dened in (C2) and (C4), respectively.
Therefore, the inequality < 0 implies the inequality

< 0.
Since the inequality in (C4) is equivalent to the inequality in (31),
and the inequality (36) implies the inequality in (C2), we know
the inequality in (36) implies the inequality in (31). Finally,
using the result of Theorem3, we can prove that if the inequality
in (36) holds, then the H
tracking-control performance in
(24) can be guaranteed by the fuzzy-observer-based tracking
controller in (18)(20).
REFERENCES
[1] P. D. Christodes, Nonlinear and Robust Control of PDE Systems: Meth-
ods and Applications to Transport-Reaction Processes. Basel, Switzer-
land: Birkh auser, 2001.
[2] J. Keener and J. Sneyd, Mathematical Physiology. New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1998.
[3] C. V. Pao, Nonlinear Parabolic and Elliptic Equations. New York:
Plenum, 1992.
[4] M. J. Balas, Feedback control of exible systems, IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. AC-23, no. 4, pp. 673679, Aug. 1978.
[5] C.-L. Lin and B.-S. Chen, Robust observer-based control of large exible
structures, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control-Trans. ASME, vol. 116, pp. 713
722, Dec. 1994.
[6] C. Koch, Biophysics of Computation: Information Processing in Single
Neurons. London, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999.
[7] R. F. Curtain and H. Zwart, An Introduction to Innite-Dimensional Linear
Syst. Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995.
[8] J. Robinson, Innite-Dimensional Dynamical Systems. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001.
[9] B. van Keulen, H
-Control for Distributed Parameter Systems: A State-

Space Approach. Basel, Switzerland: Birkh auser, 1993.
[10] M. J. Balas, Nonlinear nite-dimensional control of a class of nonlinear
distributed parameter systems using residual mode lters: A proof of local
exponential stability, J. Math. Anal. Appl., vol. 162, pp. 6370, 1991.
[11] J. Baker and P. D. Christodes, Finite-dimensional approximation and
control of non-linear parabolic PDE systems, Int. J. Control, vol. 73,
no. 5, pp. 439456, 2000.
[12] C.-S. Tseng, B.-S. Chen, and H.-J. Uang, Fuzzy tracking control design
for nonlinear dynamic systems via TS fuzzy model, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 381392, Jun. 2001.
[13] L. X. Wang, A Course in Fuzzy Systems and Control. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
[14] C.-L. Hwang, Y.-M. Chen, and C. Jan, Trajectory tracking of large-
displacement piezoelectric actuators using a nonlinear observer-based
variable structure control, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 13,
no. 1, pp. 5666, Jan. 2005.
[15] K.-Y. Lian and J.-J. Liou, Output tracking control for fuzzy systems
via output feedback design, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 14, no. 5,
pp. 628639, Oct. 2006.
[16] K.-Y. Lian, C.-S. Chiu, T.-S. Chiang, and P. Liu, LMI-based fuzzy chaotic
synchronization and communications, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 9,
no. 4, pp. 539553, Aug. 2001.
[17] K. Tanaka, T. Ikeda, and H. O. Wang, Fuzzy regulators and fuzzy ob-
servers: Relaxed stability conditions and LMI-based designs, IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 250265, May 1998.
[18] K. Tanaka and H. O. Wang, Fuzzy Control Systems Design and Analysis:
A Linear Matrix Inequality Approach. New York: Wiley, 2001.
[19] H. O. Wang, K. Tanaka, and M. F. Grifn, An approach to fuzzy control
of nonlinear systems: Stability and design issues, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1423, Feb. 1996.
[20] S.-S. Chen, Y.-C. Chang, S.-F. Su, S.-L. Chung, and T.-T. Lee, Robust
static output-feedback stabilization for nonlinear discrete-time systems
with time delay via fuzzy control approach, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,
vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 263272, Apr. 2005.
[21] J. Qiu, G. Feng, and J. Yang, Anewdesign of delay-dependent robust H
ltering for discrete-time TS fuzzy systems with time-varying delay,

IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 10441058, Oct. 2009.
[22] M. Chen, G. Feng, H. Ma, and G. Chen, Delay-dependent H
lter
design for discrete-time fuzzy systems with time-varying delays, IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 604616, Jun. 2009.
[23] B. Chen and X. Liu, Fuzzy guaranteed cost control for nonlinear systems
with time-varying delay, IEEETrans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 238
249, Apr. 2005.
[24] H. Zhang, Y. Wang, and D. Liu, Delay-dependent guaranteed cost control
for uncertain stochastic fuzzy systems with multiple time delays, IEEE
Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 126140, Feb.
2008.
[25] Y.-C. Chang, Adaptive fuzzy-based tracking control for nonlinear SISO
systems via VSS and H
approaches, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 9,

no. 2, pp. 278292, Apr. 2001.
[26] Y.-C. Chang, Intelligent robust tracking control for a class of uncertain
strict feedback nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B,
Cybern., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 142155, Feb. 2009.
[27] F.-H. Hsiao, C.-W. Chen, Y.-W. Liang, S.-D. Xu, and W.-L. Chiang, TS
fuzzy controllers for nonlinear interconnected systems with multiple time
delays, IEEETrans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1883
1893, Sep. 2005.
[28] F.-H. Hsiao, J.-D. Hwang, C.-W. Chen, and Z.-R. Tsai, Robust stabiliza-
tion of nonlinear multiple time-delay large-scale systems via decentralized
fuzzy control, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 152163, Feb.
2005.
[29] C.-S. Tseng, A novel approach to H
decentralized fuzzy-observer-
based fuzzy control design for nonlinear interconnected systems, IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 13371350, Oct. 2008.
[30] Y.-Y. Chen, Y.-T. Chang, and B.-S. Chen, Fuzzy solutions to partial
differential equations: Adaptive approach, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 116127, Feb. 2009.
[31] H.-N. Wu and H.-X. Li, H
fuzzy observer-based control for a class of

nonlinear distributed parameter systems with control constraints, IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 502516, Apr. 2008.
[32] K. Yuan, H.-X. Li, and J. Cao, Robust stabilization of the distributed
parameter system with time delay via fuzzy control, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 567584, Jun. 2008.
[33] B.-S. Chen and Y.-T. Chang, Fuzzy state space modeling and robust sta-
bilization design for nonlinear partial differential systems, IEEE Trans.
Fuzzy Syst., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 10251043, Oct. 2009.
[34] C. I. Byrnes, I. G. Lauk o, D. S. Gilliam, and V. I. Shubov, Output
regulation for linear distributed parameter systems, IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 22362252, Dec. 2000.
[35] F. Fr ohlich and S. Jezernik, Feedback control of HodgkinHuxley nerve
cell dynamics, Control Eng. Practice, vol. 13, pp. 11951206, 2005.
[36] A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley, A quantitative description of membrane
current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve, J.
Physiol., vol. 177, pp. 500544, 1952.
[37] N. Chakravarthy, S. Sabesan, K. Tsakalis, and L. Iasemidis, Controlling
epileptic seizures in a neural mass model, J. Combinatorial Optim.,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 98116, 2009.
[38] A. W. L. Chiu and B. L. Bardakjian, Control of state transitions in an in
silico model of epilepsy using small perturbations, IEEE Trans. Biomed.
Eng., vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 18561859, Oct. 2004.
[39] N. Chakravarthy, K. Tsakalis, S. Sabesan, and L. Iasemidis, Homeostasis
of brain dynamics in epilepsy: A feedback control systems perspective of
seizures, Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 565585, 2009.
[40] E. Kim and S. Kim, Stability analysis and synthesis for an afne fuzzy
control systemvia LMI and ILMI: Acontinuous case, IEEETrans. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 391400, Aug. 2002.
[41] B.-S. Chen, C.-S. Tseng, and H.-C. Wang, Mixed H
2
/H
fuzzy output
feedback control for nonlinear uncertain systems: LMI approach, IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 249265, Jun. 2000.
[42] D. Huang and S. K. Nguang, Robust H
static output feedback control

of fuzzy systems: An ILMI approach, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern.
B, Cybern., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 216222, Jan. 2006.
[43] M. Ko cvara and M. Stingl, PENNON: a code for convex nonlinear and
semidenite programming, Optim. Method Softw., vol. 18, pp. 317333,
2003.
[44] C. Lin, Q.-G. Wang, T. H. Lee, and Y. He, Design of observer-based H
control for fuzzy time-delay systems, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 16,
no. 2, pp. 534543, Apr. 2008.
[45] M. de Oliveira, J. Bernussou, and J. Geromel, Anewdiscrete-time robust
stability condition, Syst. Control Lett., vol. 37, pp. 261265, 1999.
[46] D. V. Vavoulis, V. A. Straub, I. Kemenes, J. Feng, and P. R. Benjamin,
Dynamic control of a central pattern generator circuit: A computational
model of the snail feeding network, Eur. J. Neurosci., vol. 25, pp. 2805
2818, 2007.
[47] T. Takahata, S. Tanabe, and K. Pakdaman, White-noise simulation of the
HodgkinHuxley model, Biol. Cybern., vol. 86, pp. 403417, 2002.
[48] T. Nowotny, V. P. Zhigulin, A. I. Selverston, H. D. I. Abarbanel, and
M. I. Rabinovich, Enhancement of synchronization in a hybrid neural
circuit by spike-timing dependent plasticity, J. Neurosci., vol. 23, no. 30,
pp. 97769785, 2003.
[49] T.-H. S. Li and S.-H. Tsai, TS fuzzy bilinear model and fuzzy controller
design for a class of nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 15,
no. 3, pp. 494506, Jun. 2007.
[50] T.-H. S. Li and K.-J. Lin, Composite fuzzy control of nonlinear singularly
perturbed systems, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 176187,
Apr. 2007.
[51] J. C. Strikwerda, Finite Difference Schemes and Partial Differential Equa-
tions, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 2004.
[52] G. Evans, J. Blackledge, and P. Yardley, Numerical Methods for Partial
Differential Equations. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2000.
[53] P. Lancaster and M. Tismenetsky, The Theory of Matrices: With Applica-
tion, 2nd ed. New York: Academic, 1985.
[54] J. E. Marsden and M. J. Hoffman, Elementary Classical Analysis, 2nd ed.
New York: Freeman, 1993.
[55] S. Boyd, L. E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix
Inequalities in System and Control Theory. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM,
1994.
[56] K. Tanaka, T. Hori, and H. O. Wang, A multiple Lyapunov function
approach to stabilization of fuzzy control systems, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 582589, Aug. 2003.
[57] S. G. Cao, N. W. Rees, and G. Feng, Analysis and design of a class of
continuous time fuzzy control systems, Int. J. Control, vol. 64, pp. 1069
1087, 1996.
[58] W.-J. Wang and C.-H. Sun, Relaxed stability and stabilization conditions
for a TS fuzzy discrete system, Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 208
225, 2005.
[59] W.-J. Wang and C.-H. Sun, A relaxed stability criterion for TS fuzzy
discrete systems, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 34,
no. 5, pp. 21552158, Sep. 2004.
[60] J. G. Verwer and J. M. Sanz-Serna, Convergence of method of lines
approximations to partial differential equations, Computing, vol. 33,
pp. 297313, 1984.
Yu-Te Chang received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in
electrical engineering from Chung Hua University,
Hsinchu, Taiwan, in 2002 and 2004, respectively. He
is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in elec-
trical engineering with the National Tsing Hua Uni-
versity, Hsinchu.
His current research interests include robust con-
trol, fuzzy control and nonlinear systems, and partial
differential equations.
Bor-Sen Chen (F01) received the B.S. degree from
Tatung Institute of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, in
1970, the M.S. degree fromthe National Central Uni-
versity, Chungli, Taiwan, in 1973, and the Ph.D. de-
gree from the University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, in 1982.
From 1973 to 1987, he was a Lecturer, an Asso-
ciate Professor, and a Professor with Tatung Institute
of Technology. He is currently a Professor of electri-
cal engineering and computer science with the Labo-
ratory of Control and Systems Biology, Department
of Electrical Engineering, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. He
is an Editor of the Asian Journal of Control. He is a member of the Editorial
Advisory Board of the International Journal of Control, Automation, and Sys-
tems. He is a member of Editorial Board of Fuzzy Sets and Systems. He had
been the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Fuzzy Systems from
2006 to 2008. He is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal
of Systems and Synthetic Biology. His current research interests include control
engineering, signal processing, and systems biology.
Prof. Chen was the recipient of the Distinguished Research Award from the
National Science Council of Taiwan four times. He was also the recipient of
the Automatic Control Medal from the Automatic Control Society of Taiwan
in 2001. He was an Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY
SYSTEMS from 2001 to 2006. He is a Research Fellow with the National Sci-
ence Council of Taiwan and is the holder of the excellent Scholar Chair in
engineering.

A Fuzzy Approach For Robust Reference-Tracking of Ball Bearing Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Fuzzy Approach For Robust Reference-Tracking of Ball Bearing Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 18, NO.

6, DECEMBER 2010 1041

tracking performance in a spatiotemporal

reference-tracking design is developed to simplify the design

tracking-design problem via a systematic control-design pro-

fuzzy-observer-based control design [31] is proposed

control-design method in [33] can-

tracking performance is transformed to an equivalent 1-D

tracking performance, when all nite-difference grid points

tracking performance is also discussed. We have found that

tracking performance of the NDPS.

tracking performance in a spatiotemporal do-

reference-tracking-control scheme can be

= t , > 0, the distribution of

tracking performance on the spatiotempo-

tracking performance that is only in the time

tracking-control problem is formulated as

tracking performance in (5) is achieved.

) U, then for two arbitrary constants >

> 0, the fuzzy function

)), and the approximation error is bounded by and

, i.e., |(x, t)|

. The bound for approximate error

, then the bound of (t) could also be estimated as |(t)|

tracking performance (4) or (6)

tracking performance. Finally, the design procedure is

tracking design. The overall controller u(t)

fuzzy-observer-based tracking controller is

observer-based tracking-control-design problem.

observer-based tracking-control performance should be modi-

observer-based tracking-control design

observer-based tracking performance

tracking problem in (25), let us choose a

I, 0), then the H

observer-based tracking performance

tracking-control approach to the eld of NDPSs.

observer-based tracking design of NDPSs, a simplica-

observer-based tracking con-

, the control gains K

tracking-control performance in (24) is guaranteed

tracking-control-design problem is to specify the

Tracking-Control Problem Via

control design was studied in [44] for a TS fuzzy

tracking problem of the NDPS,

tracking performance is addressed. Therefore, we

tracking control in Theorem 3 can be derived as

tracking performance in (24) is guaranteed by the

tracking-control-design problem reduces to how

tracking-control problem in (37).

fuzzy-observer-based tracking controller obviously can

tracking performance can be computed as follows:

control-tracking-design procedure. Therefore,

fuzzy-tracking-control design of the NDPS

tracking performance in the

fuzzy-observer-based tracking-control scheme for

tracking-control scheme to NDPSs and to

I, 0). Based on the inequalities in (A2)(A4),

tracking performance in (24) could be

X in (34), and substituting the denitions of

-Control for Distributed Parameter Systems: A State-

ltering for discrete-time TS fuzzy systems with time-varying delay,

approaches, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 9,

fuzzy observer-based control for a class of