IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 21, NO.

3, JUNE 2016 1659

H∞ Observer Design for LPV Systems With

Uncertain Measurements on Scheduling
Variables: Application to an Electric
Ground Vehicle
Hui Zhang, Member, IEEE, Guoguang Zhang, and Junmin Wang, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, we aim to study the observer de-
sign problem for polytopic linear-parameter-varying (LPV)
systems with uncertain measurements on scheduling vari-
ables. Due to the uncertain measurements, the uncertain-
ties are considered in the weighting factors. It is assumed
that the vertices of polytope are the same when the
measurements on scheduling variables are uncertain and
perfect. Then, an LPV system with the uncertain weight-
ing factors can be transferred to an LPV system with un-
certainties. To deal with the uncertainties and unknown
disturbance in the observer design problem, we propose
a gain-scheduling sliding mode observer. Defining the esti-
mation error as the state vector minus the estimated state
vector, the estimation error dynamics is established. The
sliding mode observer design method is developed based
on analysis results of the established estimation error sys-
tem. The proposed observer design method is then applied
to an electric ground vehicle (EGV) in which the measure-
ment of longitudinal velocity is assumed to be uncertain.
Experimental tests and comparisons are given to show the
advantages of the proposed design method and the de-
signed observer.
Index Terms—Electric ground vehicle, H∞ filtering,
linear-parameter-varying system, sliding mode observer,
uncertain measurements.
I. INTRODUCTION
HE last two decades have witnessed the increasing at-
T tention to linear-parameter-varying (LPV) systems; see
[1]–[6] and the references therein. The main reason arises from
the fact the LPV technique is very useful to deal with smooth
nonlinearities. In LPV systems, the state-space models depend
on exogenous nonstationary parameters. When the bounds of
Manuscript received April 5, 2015; revised December 28, 2015; ac-
cepted January 25, 2016. Date of publication January 27, 2016; date
of current version April 28, 2016. Recommended by Technical Editor M.
Basin. The work of H. Zhang was supported in part by The National
Science Foundation of China under Grant 61403252.
H. Zhang is with the School of Transportation Science and
Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191 China (e-mail:
huizhang285@gmail.com).
G. Zhang and J. Wang are with the Department of Mechani-
cal and Aerospace Engineering, The Ohio State University, Colum-
bus, OH 43210 USA (e-mail: zhang.3682@buckeyemail.osu.edu;
wang.1381@osu.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMECH.2016.2522759
exogenous parameters are available, an LPV system can be re-
formulated into a convex combination of linear-time-invariant
(LTI) systems and the well-developed results on LTI systems
can be extended to the LPV systems. If the nonlinearities are
determined with exogenous nonstationary parameters, the non-
linear system can be transferred into an LPV system and the
analysis and synthesis of the nonlinear system are available to
be carried out under the framework of linear systems. Due to
the significant advantages, the research on LPV systems have
gained numerous attention from both theoretical development
and application sides. The authors in [7] investigated the model
predictive control (MPC) for LPV systems with bounded rates
of parameter changes. The theory of MPC control was extended
to LPV systems. The dynamic output feedback controller de-
sign for discrete-time LPV systems was presented in [8]. The
uncertain issue of LPV systems was discussed in [9] and the
observer-based controller was designed for discrete-time LPV
system. The finite-time stability for LPV systems was discussed
in [10]. At the application side, the LPV techniques have been
successfully applied to a number of practical setups, to name
a few, such as polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell
systems in [11], Diesel engines in [12], inverted pendulums in
[13], and wind turbine systems in [14].
When the exogenous nonstationary parameters are measur-
able online, it is desired that the controllers and observers for
LPV systems are also dependent on the measurable parameters.
In this way, the conservativeness of the design can be reduced.
This is the idea of gain-scheduling approach. In most of gain-
scheduling controller or observer design work, it is generally
assumed that the measurements on the scheduling variables are
perfect and the controller or observer directly employs the mea-
sured scheduling variables. However, in many practical appli-
cations, the measurements on the scheduling variables cannot
be so ideal. For example, the vehicle longitudinal velocity is
quite important for vehicle control and diagnosis. For engine-
powered vehicles, the longitudinal velocity is estimated with
the engine speed. Without the vehicle slip, this approach may
be accurate. However, the vehicle should maintain the slip ratio
at a certain level to fulfill a good road cohesive condition. There-
fore, the estimated vehicle longitudinal velocity is inaccurate.
If the inaccurate or uncertain measurements of the scheduling
variables are directly taken as the ideal measurements, the per-
formance of the designed controllers and observers cannot be

1083-4435 © 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1660 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, JUNE 2016

guaranteed. Recently, there are some research works on the un-
certain measurements of LPV scheduling variables. In [9], the
uncertain-measurement-induced issue was regarded as a distur-
bance. However, when the scheduling variables lie in the system
matrix and the uncertainties are large, definitely, the stability
will be degraded and the disturbance method cannot be applied.
In [15] and [16], the difference between the weighting factors
calculated with ideal measurements and the estimated values
satisfies with a Lipschitz condition.
The main principle is to design an observer to estimate the
unavailable states [17]–[22]. In the literature, there are a lot of
well-known types of observer such as the Kalman filter [23],
[24], the Luenberger observer [25], [26], the H∞ filter [27],
[28], the H2 filter [29], [30], the mixed H2 /H∞ filter [31], [32],
and the sliding mode observer [33], [34]. Each type of observer
has its own advantages and application fields. The H∞ filters
are robust to system uncertainties. However, the uncertainties
should be well studied or modeled before the filters design. The
sliding model observers or controllers are also capable to deal
with system uncertainties and only the bounds of uncertainties
are necessary [35], [36].
In this study, we aim to study the observer design problem for
LPV systems with uncertain measurements on scheduling vari-
ables. The contributions of this study can be summarized as: 1)
we employ a different method to describe the LPV systems with
uncertain measurements on scheduling variables; 2) we propose
robust H∞ sliding mode observer for LPV systems subject to the
exogenous disturbances, unknown inputs, and uncertainties on
scheduling variables; 3) slack matrices are introduced to reduce
the conservativeness of obtained condition; and 4) the proposed
design method is successfully applied to an EGV to estimate the
sideslip angle.
Notation: The notations used in this paper are standard.
Superscript “T” and “−1” indicate matrix transposition and
matrix inverse; in symmetric block matrices or long ma-
trix expressions, we use ∗ as an ellipsis for the terms that
are introduced by symmetry; and X represents the Eu-
clidean norm for vectors and the spectral norm for matri-
ces. Matrices, if their dimensions are not explicitly stated,
are assumed to be compatible for algebraic operations. For
a real symmetric matrix P , the notations P > 0, and P <
0, mean that P is positive definite, and negative definite,
respectively.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION AND PRELIMINARY
Consider a class of the LPV system with the following ex-
pression:
scheduling variables are known and the scheduling variables are
measurable, the number of polytope vertices to describe the sys-
tem is 2r and the system matrix set S = (A(α), B1 (α), B2 (α))
expressed as
 
 
2r 
2r

S = ΩΩ = αi Ωi ; 0 ≤ αi ≤ 1; αi = 1 (2)
i=1 i=1
where Ωi = (Ai , B1,i , B2,i ) and the value of matrix set for each
vertex is known. Since the scheduling variables are measurable
online, the value of weighting factor αi for each vertex can
be determined online. To formulate the problem, we make the
following assumptions.
Assumption 1: The matrix Ai is a Hurwitz matrix and each
subsystem is observable.
Assumption 2: The symbol u denotes the control input that is
known and the symbol ω is the disturbance that is unknown
but bounded as
ω ≤ δ1 (3)
where δ1 is a known positive scalar.
Assumption 3: Though the measurements on the scheduling
variables may not be accurate, the vertices of the describ-
ing polytope do not change, that is, we use one polytope to
describe the system.
In this study, we dedicate to develop a gain-scheduling sliding
mode observer for the LPV system. If the scheduling variables
are perfectly measurable, the determined weighting factors can
be directly used in the gain-scheduling observer design. How-
ever, each physical sensor has its own resolution and the mea-
surement cannot be totally perfect. If the weighting factors of the
original system in (1) are directly used in the gain-scheduling
observer, the mismatched weighting factors may deteriorate
the designed observer. Therefore, it is necessary to consider
the asynchronous weighting factors. Consider a generalized case
for the scheduling variables with uncertain measurements as
k i α̂i ≤ αi = ki α̂i ≤ k̄i α̂i ∀ i = 1, . . . , 2r (4)
where α̂i denotes the weighting factor for the ith vertex calcu-
lated with the imprecisely measured scheduling variables, ki is
the uncertain factor, and k i and k̄i are known bounds of ki . With
the expression in (4), one gets
 
r r
2 2
A(α) = αi Ai = α̂i (Ai + (ki − 1)Ai )
i=1 i=1

 
r r
2 2
ẋ = A(α)x + B1 (α)u + B2 (α)ω
= α̂i (Ai + ΔAi ) , α̂ = 1
y = Cx + Dv (1) i=1 i=1

 
r r
where x is the system state vector, u is the input vector, ω is 2 2

the disturbance, y is the measured output vector, and v denotes B1 (α) = αi B1,i = α̂i (B1,i + (ki − 1)B1,i )
the measurement noise. A(α), B1 (α), B2 (α), C, and D are i=1 i=1


r
matrices with compatible dimensions. Suppose that the number 2
of scheduling variables ρl (l = 1, . . . , r) is r and the scheduling = α̂i (B1,i + ΔB1,i )
variable is independent with each other. Then, if the bounds of i=1
ZHANG et al.: H∞ OBSERVER DESIGN FOR LPV SYSTEMS WITH UNCERTAIN MEASUREMENTS ON SCHEDULING VARIABLES 1661

 
r r
2 2
B2 (α)ω = α̂i ki B2,i ω = α̂i B2,i ω1
i=1 i=1

ΔAi = (ki − 1)Ai , ΔB1,i = (ki − 1)B1,i , ω1 = ki ω.

(5)
Here, X(α̂) represents a matrix determined with the measured
scheduling variables. To facilitate the observer design, we make
the following practical assumptions:
ΔAi  ≤ ζi , and ω1  ≤ δ2 (6)
with positive scalars ζi and δ2 . The assumptions are used to
constrain the induced uncertainty and the external noise, which
would benefit the sliding mode observer design. Since ki has
a lower bound and a upper bound, the matrix ΔB1,i can be
rewritten as
ΔB1,i = δ3,i M B1,i (7)
where δ3,i is a positive scalar with the value of δ3,i = max{|k̄i −
1|, |k i − 1|} and M  ≤ 1.
For the LPV system in (1), we propose the following sliding
mode observer:
x̂˙ = A(α̂)x̂ + B1 (α̂)u + L(α̂)(y − ŷ) + ϕ1 (α̂) + ϕ2 (α̂)
ŷ = C x̂ (8)
where x̂ is the estimated state vector, L(α̂) is the observer gain
to be tuned, and ϕ1 (α̂) and ϕ2 (α̂) are two discontinuous func-
tions to compensate for the induced uncertainty ΔA(α̂) and the
disturbance ω1 , respectively. The main objective of observer de-
sign is to make the estimated state vector x̂ to follow the state
vector x quickly. Defining the estimation error as e = x − x̂,
the estimation error dynamics is expressed as
 surements. For the matrices C and D in the output y, they are
ė = (A(α̂) − L(α̂)C)e + ΔA(α̂)x + B̂1 (α̂)ν
 reason is that, for most of practical applications, the outputs are
+ B2 (α̂)ω1 − ϕ1 (α̂) − ϕ2 (α̂) (9)
where
 Remark 2: The proposed observer in (8) is different from
B̂1 (α̂) = B̄1 (α̂) + Δ3 (α̂)M B̃1 (α̂), B̄1 (α̂) = 0 −L(α̂)D
 terms ϕ1 (α̂) and ϕ2 (α̂). The discontinuous terms are used to
 u
Δ3 (α̂) = δ3 (α̂)I, B̃1 (α̂) = B1 (α̂) 0 ,ν = . compensate for the uncertainties and the unknown inputs. This
v type of sliding mode observers were original developed in [37].
We can see from (9) that the gains to be tuned, and state vector
x and the unknown external input, ϕ1 (α̂) and ϕ2 (α̂) are also
involved in the estimation error system. Since the main criterion
of selecting the gain L(α̂) is to make the estimation error system
stable such that the estimation error will converge to zero, we
define a new variable as
z = Ge (10)
with a constant matrix G. Then, the challenges and objectives
are to tune the observer gain L(α̂) and discontinuous functions
ϕ1 (α̂) and ϕ2 (α̂) such that
O1: The estimation error system in (9) is asymptotically
stable when the external input is zero.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the observer design problem.
O2: The effect from the external input ν to the signal z is
constrained as
z2 < γν2 (11)
where X2 denotes the 2 norm of L2 -bounded signal
X and γ is the H∞ performance index.
O3: The discontinuous functions ϕ1 (α̂) and ϕ2 (α̂) can com-
pensate for the effects of ΔA(α̂)x and B2 (α̂)ω1 , re-
spectively.
Remark 1: The schematic diagram of the observer design
problem is illustrated in Fig. 1. The primary objective is to de-
sign the sliding model observer to estimate the signal z for the
LPV system. The signal z can be the states or the combina-
tion of the states. The available signals for the sliding mode
observer include the output of the LPV system and the schedul-
ing variables. Different from most of the existing works on
LPV systems, we consider the uncertain measurements on the
scheduling variables, that is, the scheduling variables are not
precisely known. Though we discuss and formulate the prob-
lem for polytopic LPV systems with uncertain measurements
on scheduling variables, the case with precise measurements on
scheduling variables is a special one of the uncertain case. If
ki = 1, ∀ i = 1, . . . , 2r , ΔAi and ΔB1,i become zero matrices.
The formulated problem is reduced to the case with precise mea-
not assumed to depend on the scheduling variables. The main
only the states or the combination of states besides the mea-
surement noises. The weighting factors are not involved in the
output matrices.
the Luenberger-like observer since there are two discontinuous
Due to the good performance, the idea was then extended to
various setups and applications; see [38]–[40]. Motivated by the
aforementioned works, we develop the sliding mode observer
for LPV systems. It is not a straightforward extension of the
existing works. The significant differences include that: 1) the
studied setups are LPV systems with uncertain measurements;
2) not only the stability but also the H∞ performance [41],
[42] will be discussed in this study; and 3) the proposed design
method will be applied to a practical application.
III. OBSERVER DESIGN
In this section, we propose the observer design method based
on the analysis conditions for the estimation error system. Since
1662 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, JUNE 2016

the observer gain is unknown and to be determined, we assume 

2r
x̂T x̂ −1 T
that the gain L(α̂) is given during the stability and H∞ perfor- = α̂i ψ1 (1 + ψ4 )ζi2 P C ey , if ey = 0
mance analysis. Before proceeding, we introduce the following i=1
2eTy ey
useful lemmas.

r
2
Lemma 1: [43] If there exist real matrices Ξ = ΞT , Ê and F̂ ϕ1 (α̂) = α̂i ϕ1,i = 0, if ey = 0
with compatible dimensions, and M satisfying M  ≤ 1, then, i=1
the following condition

r
2
ϕ2 (α̂) = α̂i ϕ2,i = 0, if ey = 0
Ξ + ÊM F̂ + (ÊM F̂ )T < 0 (12)
i=1

is satisfied if and only if there exists a positive scalar ψ > 0 such ψ1

ψ4 = . (16)
that the following condition ψ2 − ψ1
⎡ ⎤ Proof: It infers from [44] that the asymptotically stable and
Ξ Ê ψ F̂ T
⎢ ⎥ the H∞ performance of the estimation error system are both
⎣∗ −ψI 0 ⎦<0 (13)
achieved if the following statement is satisfied:
∗ ∗ −ψI
J = V̇ + z T z − γ 2 ν T ν < 0 (17)
is satisfied.
Lemma 2: For any matrices Ê and F̂ with compatible di- where V is the Lyapunov function and selected as V = eT P e
mensions and a positive scalar ψ, the following condition holds: with a positive-definite matrix P . Considering the trajectories of
the estimation error system, the expression J can be evaluated
Ê T F̂ + (Ê T F̂ )T ≤ ψ Ê T Ê + ψ −1 F̂ T F̂ . (14) as
Observe that the uncertain term M in the condition of (12) J = ėT P e + eT P ė + z T z − γ 2 ν T ν
is eliminated in the condition of (13). Therefore, Lemma 1 can
be used to deal with the bounded uncertainties. The following = eT ((A(α̂) − L(α̂)C)T P + P (A(α̂) − L(α̂)C))e
theorem gives the conditions that guarantee the asymptotically
stable and the H∞ performance of the estimation error system + xT ΔAT (α̂)P e + (xT ΔAT (α̂)P e)T
in (9). + 2eT P B̂1 (α̂)ν + 2eT P B2 (α̂)ω1
Theorem 1: Given a positive scalar γ, the estimation error
system in (9) is asymptotically stable and the H∞ performance − 2ϕT1 (α̂)P e − 2eT P ϕ2 (α̂)
is guaranteed if there exists a positive-definite matrix P and
+ eT GT (α̂)G(α̂)e − γ 2 ν T ν. (18)
positive scalars ψ1 , ψ2 , and ψ3 , such that the following condition
is satisfied:
In terms of Lemma 2, one gets
⎡ ⎤
Λ1 P B̂1 (α̂) GT P
⎢ ⎥ xT ΔAT (α̂)P e + (xT ΔAT (α̂)P e)T
⎢ ∗ −γ 2 I 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥<0 (15) ≤ ψ1−1 eT P 2 e + ψ1 xT ΔAT (α̂)ΔA(α̂)x
⎢ ∗ ∗ −I 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∗ ∗ ∗ −ψ1 I = ψ1−1 eT P 2 e + ψ1 (x̂ + e)T ΔAT (α̂)ΔA(α̂)(x̂ + e)
≤ ψ1−1 eT P 2 e + ψ1 ζ 2 (α̂)(x̂ + e)T (x̂ + e)
where
= ψ1−1 eT P 2 e + ψ1 ζ 2 (α̂)(x̂T x̂ + eT e + x̂T e + eT x̂)
Λ1 = P (A(α̂) − L(α̂)C) + (P (A(α̂) − L(α̂)C))T
= ψ1−1 eT P 2 e + ψ1 ζ 2 (α̂)(x̂T x̂ + eT e + x̂T e + eT x̂)
2
+ ψ2 ζ (α̂)I + ψ3 I
≤ ψ1−1 eT P 2 e + ψ2 ζ 2 (α̂)eT e + ψ1 (1 + ψ4 )ζ 2 (α̂)x̂T x̂
ey = y − ŷ (19)

r
2
ϕ1 (α̂) = α̂i ϕ1,i where ψ2 is defined as ψ2 = ψ 1 (ψψ44 +1) . If ey is zero, since each
i=1 subsystem is observable, the estimation error is zero. If ey is
nonzero, we have the following expressions:

r
2
P B2,i 2 −1 T
= α̂i δ22 ψ3−1 P C ey , if ey = 0
i=1
2eTy ey −2ϕT1 (α̂)P e = −δ22 ψ3−1 P B2 (α̂)2 . (20)


2r
2eT P B2 (α̂)w1 ≤ ψ3 eT e + δ22 ψ3−1 P B2 (α̂)2 (21)
ϕ2 (α̂) = α̂i ϕ2,i
i=1 −2ϕT2 (α̂)P e = −ψ1 (1 + ψ4 )ζ 2 (α̂)x̂T x̂. (22)
ZHANG et al.: H∞ OBSERVER DESIGN FOR LPV SYSTEMS WITH UNCERTAIN MEASUREMENTS ON SCHEDULING VARIABLES 1663

Then, the expression J equals to The main disadvantage of polytopic LPV systems is that the
number of vertices would exponentially increase with respect
J = e Γe + 2e P B̂1 (α̂)ν − γ ν ν
T T 2 T
to the number of scheduling variables. When the number is

T

 large, the computational load becomes heavy and it is difficult
e Γ P B̂1 (α̂) e
= (23) to find the feasible solution. Thus, it is necessary to reduce the
ν ∗ −γ I 2 ν conservativeness of obtained condition. The following theorem
offers less conservative results.
where Γ = P (A(α̂) − L(α̂)C) + (P (A(α̂) − L(α̂)C))T +
Theorem 3: Given a positive scalar γ, the estimation error
ψ1−1 P 2 + ψ2 ζ 2 (α̂)I + ψ3 I + GT G. Performing the Schur
system in (9) is asymptotically stable and the H∞ performance
compliment to (15), we can get

 is guaranteed if there exists a positive-definite matrix P , random
Γ P B̂1 (α̂) matrices E(α̂), F (α̂), and positive scalars ψ1 , ψ2 , ψ3 , and ψ5 (α̂)
< 0. (24) such that the following conditions are satisfied:
∗ −γ 2 I
⎡
Obviously, the condition in (17) is satisfied when the condition Λ2 Λ3 F (α̂)B̄1 (α̂) GT
⎢
(15) holds. Therefore, both the stability and the H∞ perfor- ⎢ ∗ −E(α̂) − E T (α̂) E T (α̂)B̄1 (α̂) 0
⎢
mance are achieved when the condition (15) holds. The proof is ⎢ ∗ ∗ −γ 2 I
⎢ 0
completed.  ⎢
Ψ= ⎢ ∗⎢ ∗ ∗ −I
Though Theorem 1 provides the condition that can guarantee
⎢
the stability and the H∞ performance, the varying matrix M is ⎢ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
⎢
involved. Since the value of matrix M is uncertain, the condi- ⎢ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
⎣
tion in (15) has infinite dimensions. In the following theorem,
Lemma 1 will be used to eliminate the matrix M . ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Theorem 2: Given a positive scalar γ, the estimation error ⎤
P F (α̂)Δ3 (α̂) 0
system in (9) is asymptotically stable and the H∞ performance ⎥
0 T
E (α̂)Δ3 (α̂) 0 ⎥
is guaranteed if there exists a positive-definite matrix P and ⎥
positive scalars ψ1 , ψ2 , ψ3 , and ψ5 (α̂) such that the following 0 0 ψ5 (α̂)B̃1 (α̂) ⎥
T
⎥
⎥
condition is satisfied: 0 0 0 ⎥<0 (27)
⎡ ⎤ ⎥
GT ⎥
Λ1 P B̄1 (α̂) P P Δ3 (α̂) 0 −ψ1 I 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ∗ −γ 2 I 0 0 0 ψ5 (α̂)B̃1T (α̂) ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ∗ −ψ5 (α̂)I 0 ⎦
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ∗ ∗ −I 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥ < 0.
∗ ∗ −ψ5 (α̂)I
⎢ ∗ ∗ ∗ −ψ1 I 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ where Λ2 = F (α̂)(A(α̂) − L(α̂)C) + (F (α̂)(A(α̂) − L(α̂)
⎢ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ −ψ5 (α̂)I 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ C))T + ψ2 ζ 2 (α̂) + ψ3 I and Λ3 = P − F (α̂) + (A(α̂) −
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ −ψ5 (α̂)I L(α̂)C)T E(α̂).
(25) Proof: The gap between the condition (27) and the condition
(25) can be bridged by multiplying Φ on the left of Ψ and the
Proof: The condition in (15) can be rewritten as transpose on the right of Ψ with
⎡ ⎤
Λ1 P B̄1 (α̂) GT P ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ I (A(α̂) − L(α̂)C)T 0 0 0 0 0
⎢ ∗ −γ 2 I 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢0 B̄1T (α̂) I 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ∗ ∗ −I 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎢0 0 0 I 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
∗ ∗ ∗ −ψ1 Φ=⎢ ⎥ . (28)
⎢0 0 0 0 I 0 0 ⎥
⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
P Δ3 (α̂) ⎢ T ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ 0 Δ 3 (α̂) 0 0 0 I 0 ⎦
⎢ 0 ⎥  
+⎢
⎢
⎥M 0
⎥ B̃1 (α̂) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
⎣ 0 ⎦

0 Since the weighting factor vector α̂ is involved in the condi-
⎛⎡ ⎤ ⎞T tion of Theorem 3, the condition has infinite dimensions. The
P Δ3 (α̂)
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎟ following theorem is going to project the condition to the ver-
⎜⎢ 0 ⎥  ⎟ tices of the polytope such that the conditions can be used to
+⎜⎢
⎜⎢
⎥ M 0 B̃1 (α̂)
⎥ 0 0 ⎟
⎟ < 0. (26)
⎝⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎠ calculate the observer gain.
Theorem 4: Given a positive scalar γ and scalars λi , the
0
estimation error system in (9) is asymptotically stable and
In terms of Lemma 1, the conditions (15) and (25) are equivalent the H∞ performance is guaranteed if there exists a positive-
with each other.  definite matrix P , random matrices Fi , L̂i , and positive scalars
1664 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, JUNE 2016

ψ1 , ψ2 , ψ3 , and ψ5,i such that the following conditions are is nonsingular. Therefore, F (α̂) is nonsingular and the inverse
satisfied: exists. With the definition of L̂(α̂), the observer gain can be
calculated in terms of (30). 
Ψij + Ψj i < 0 (29)
It is necessary to mention that the H∞ performance index γ
where indicates the effect of the disturbance to the signal z. It is desired
⎡   that the performance index γ is as small as possible. The optimal
Λ2,ij Λ3,ij 0 −L̂i D GT
⎢   observer is defined as the one with the gain which is obtained
⎢ ∗ −λi Fi − λi FiT 0 −λi L̂i D 0 by minimizing the value for γ. The minimization can be done
⎢
⎢ in terms of the following corollary.
⎢ ∗ ∗ −γ I2
0
⎢ Corollary 1: The minimum H∞ performance index γ ∗ in
⎢
Ψij = ⎢ ∗ ∗ ∗ −I Theorem 4 can be found by solving the following convex opti-
⎢
⎢
⎢ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ mization problem:
⎢
⎢ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
∗
⎣ γ = min γ
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ s. t. (29).
⎤
P Fi Δ3,j 0 Remark 3: It was reported in [37] that the sliding mode ob-
⎥
0 λi Fi Δ3,j 0 ⎥ servers are different from Luenberger observers since there are
⎥
T ⎥ nonlinear discontinuous terms incorporated in the observer ex-
0 0 ψ5,i B̃1,j ⎥
⎥ pressions. The discontinuous terms are dependent on the out-
0 0 0 ⎥<0
⎥ put estimation error. It can be seen from (8) and (16) that
⎥
−ψ1 I 0 0 ⎥ there are two output-estimation-error-dependent discontinuous
⎥
∗ −ψ5,i I ⎥ terms. Therefore, the designed observer in (8) is a sliding mode
0 ⎦ observer. The sliding surface is the estimation error space.
∗ ∗ −ψ5,i I Moreover, we can see from Theorem 1 that the discontinuous
functions ϕ1 (α̂) and ϕ2 (α̂) may have too large values when
Λ2,ij = Fi Aj − L̂i C + (Fi Aj − L̂i C)T + ψ2 ζi2 I + ψ3 I, the residual ey is quite small. These large values of discontinu-
Λ3,ij = P − Fi + λi ATj Fi − λi C T L̂Ti , and 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ 2r . ous functions are harmful for the design observer. To avoid this
In addition, the observer gain L(α̂) can be calculated via the phenomenon, the discontinuous functions in Theorem 1 can be
following expression: reformulated as
L(α̂) = F −1 (α̂)L̂(α̂). (30) 
2r

ϕ1 (α̂) = α̂i ϕ1,i

Proof: Note that, in Theorem 3, both E(α̂) and F (α̂) are i=1
coupled with the observer gain L(α̂). Moreover, E(α̂), F (α̂),

r
2
and L(α̂) are all unknown. In order to eliminate the coupled P B2,i 2 −1 T
= α̂i δ22 ψ3−1 P C ey , if ey  > φ
terms, we make the following assumptions:
i=1
2eTy ey

r
2

r
2
ψ5 (α̂) = α̂i ψi ϕ2 (α̂) = α̂i ϕ2,i
i=1
i=1

r
2

r
2
F (α̂) = α̂i Fi x̂T x̂ −1 T
= α̂i ψ1 (1 + ψ4 )ζi2 P C ey , if ey  > φ
i=1
i=1
2eTy ey

2r

2r

E T (α̂) = λi α̂i Fi . (31) ϕ1 (α̂) = α̂i ϕ1,i = 0, if ey  ≤ φ

i=1
i=1

Define a new variable as L̂(α̂) = F (α̂)L(α̂) and assume that 

2r

ϕ2 (α̂) = α̂i ϕ2,i = 0, if ey  ≤ φ


r
2
i=1
L̂(α̂) = α̂i L̂i . (32)
i=1 where φ is a positive scalar that can be obtained by using the
Then, it is obvious that trial-and-error method. Then, the residual ey would be bounded
to φ.

2 r
2
r
−1 
2r
Remark 4: In robust control and filtering problems, conser-
Ψ= α̂i2 Ψii + α̂i α̂j (Ψij + Ψj i ). (33) vativeness is one of the most frequently discussed issues since
i=1 i=1 j =i+1
conservative results may lead to infeasible solutions. Generally,
Since α̂i α̂j is nonnegative, Ψ is negative definite if the condi- there are two main approaches to derive less conservative re-
tions in (29) are satisfied. In addition, it infers from (29) that Fi sults. One is to introduce slack matrices and the other one is
ZHANG et al.: H∞ OBSERVER DESIGN FOR LPV SYSTEMS WITH UNCERTAIN MEASUREMENTS ON SCHEDULING VARIABLES 1665

the fact that tracking/braking forces are difficult to measure or

estimate as the forces are related to the variable road condition,
it is reasonable to assume that the direct yaw moment Mz is
unknown.
In this application, the EGV which is developed in The Ohio
State University [49] is driven on good road condition and the
tire sideslip angles are not too large. Then, we can assume that
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of a simplified lateral dynamics model. the tires are working in the linear areas and the corresponding
state-space model of the lateral dynamics is governed as

ẋ = Ax + B1 δ + B2 Mz (34)
to develop parameter-dependent conditions. In this study, we
introduce two slack matrices F (α̂) and E(α̂) in Theorem 3. In where
Theorem 1 and Theorem 2, the positive-definite P is coupled ⎡ c̄ ⎤
with the system matrix A(α̂) − L(α̂)C. However, in Theorem
 f ⎡ ⎤
⎢ mvx ⎥ 0
3, a nonsingular matrix F (α̂) is coupled with the system matrix β
x= , B1 = ⎢
⎣ l c̄
⎥ , B2 = ⎣ 1 ⎦
⎦
instead of the positive-definite matrix. Therefore, the derived η f f
condition in Theorem 3 is relaxed. Moreover, both F (α̂) and Iz
Iz
E(α̂) are dependent on the scheduling variables. ⎡ ⎤
−c̄f − c̄r lr c̄r − lf c̄f
Remark 5: Observe from (30) that the calculation of observer
⎢ − 1 ⎥
gain consists of online computation and offline computation. ⎢ mvx mvx2 ⎥
A= ⎢ ⎥
The offline computation is to solve the conditions in (29) and ⎣ lr c̄r − lf c̄f −lf2 c̄f − lr2 c̄r ⎦
derive the values for Fi and L̂i ∀i = 1, . . . , 2r . The online Iz Iz vx
calculation includes the computation of weighting factors α̂i
and the matrix operation in (30). Moreover, there are some where β is the vehicle sideslip angle, vx is the longitudinal
prescribed scalars λi ∀i = 1, . . . , 2r in Theorem 4. In order to velocity, and the approximated values of corning stiffness are
simply the observer design, the scalars can be selected as one. denoted by c̄f and c̄r , respectively.
However, in order to derive smaller H∞ performance index, Since the longitudinal velocity vx is not always constant,
the nonlinear optimization algorithms such as the MATLAB the model in (34) is not an LTI system but a nonlinear system
functions “fmincon” and “fminsearch” can be employed. [50]. It can be converted to an LPV representative. Suppose
that the longitudinal velocity vx is within the range [ v x v̄x ] in
IV. APPLICATION TO AN EGV which v x is the lower bound of the velocity and v̄x is the upper
bound of the velocity. The scheduling variables are chosen as
The lateral stability is of importance for ground vehicles and
ρ1 = v1x and ρ2 = v12 . Then, the nonlinear model in (34) can be
the vehicle sideslip angle is a critical index for the lateral stabil- x
represented by
ity. It is well-known that the vehicle sideslip angle is necessary
for electronic stability program systems. Unfortunately, cur- ẋ = A(α)x + B1 (α)δ + B2 Mz
rently, the sideslip angle is not measurable by using affordable
physical sensors [45]–[48]. In order to deal with the conflict, 
4

an alternative approach is to estimate the sideslip angle with = αi (Ai x + B1,i δ + B2 Mz ) (35)
i=1
relatively cheap physical sensors. We can see from the existing
work that the yaw rate measurement is a good choice for the where
sideslip angle estimation since the commercialized gyroscope ⎡ ⎤
−c̄f − c̄r lr c̄r − lf c̄f ⎡ c̄ ⎤
can get the accurate yaw rate. − 1 f
To analyze the lateral dynamics and establish the model, we ⎢ mv x mv x2 ⎥ ⎢ mv ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥ , B1,1 = ⎢ ⎥
x
employ a two-degree-of-freedom bicycle model as shown in A1 = ⎢ ⎣ l c̄ ⎦
⎣ lr c̄r − lf c̄f −lf2 c̄f − lr2 c̄r ⎦ f f
Fig. 2. The importation notations are given as follows: the total
Iz Iz v x Iz
ground vehicle mass is represented by m; the inertia moment ⎡ ⎤
about the yaw axis through its center of gravity (CG) is repre- −c̄f − c̄r lr c̄r − lf c̄f ⎡ c̄f ⎤
⎢ − 1⎥
sented by Iz ; lf and lr are used to denote distances of the front ⎢ mv̄x mv 2x ⎥ ⎢ mv̄x ⎥
axis and the rear axis from the CG, respectively; the front-wheel A2 = ⎢ ⎥ , B1,2 = ⎢
⎣ l c̄
⎥
⎦
⎣ lr c̄r − lf c̄f −lf c̄f − lr c̄r
2 2 ⎦ f f
steering angle is δ, which is controlled by the driver and can be
Iz Iz v̄x Iz
measured online via the encoder mounted on the steering col-
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
umn; αf and αr stand for the wheel slip angles of the front −c̄f − c̄r lr c̄r − lf c̄f c̄f
⎢ − 1⎥
and rear tires, which are decided the front and rear lateral tire mv x mv̄x2
⎢ mv x ⎥
⎢ ⎥
forces Fy f and Fy r , respectively. In addition, Mz denotes the A3 = ⎢ ⎥ , B1,3 = ⎢
⎣ l c̄
⎥
⎦
⎣ lr c̄r − lf c̄f −lf c̄f − lr c̄r ⎦
2 2
f f
direct yaw moment about the yaw axis, which is induced by
the unequal tracking/braking forces on the force tyres. Due to Iz Iz v x Iz
1666 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, JUNE 2016

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ c̄ ⎤
−c̄f − c̄r lr c̄r − lf c̄f f
⎢ − 1 ⎥
⎢ mv̄x mv̄x2
⎥ ⎢ mv̄ ⎥
⎥ , B1,4 = ⎢ ⎥
x
A4 = ⎢ ⎣ ⎦
⎣ lr c̄r − lf c̄f −lf c̄f − lr c̄r ⎦
2 2 lf c̄f
Iz Iz v̄x Iz
     
1   1 1  1 1 
 v x − v̄1x   v1x2 − v̄12   v − vx   v 2 − v̄ x 
2
α1 =    , α2 =  x  x 
x

  1 1  1 1 
 v1x − v̄1x   v12x − v̄12 
x
 vx − v̄ x   vx 2 − v̄ x 
2

     
1   1 1  1 1 
 v x − v̄1x   v1x2 − v12   v − vx   v 2 − vx 
2
α3 =   x
 , α4 =  x  x .
  1 1  1 1 
 v1x − v̄1x   v12x − v̄12 
x
 vx − v̄ x   v 2x − v̄ x2 

It is necessary to mention that in traditional vehicles the longi-

tudinal velocity vx is generally estimated with the engine speed
and in electric vehicles the longitudinal velocity vx is estimated
with the motor speed. Considering the variable vehicle slip in
the longitudinal direction, the estimated longitudinal velocity
Fig. 3. Acquisition system and corresponding sensors.
cannot be accurate, that is, the calculated weighting factors α1 ,
α2 , α3 , and α4 with the estimated longitudinal velocity are
inaccurate. It is reasonable to assume that
 
ki ∈ 0.9 1.1 ∀ i = 1, 2, 3, 4. (36)
Then, ΔAi  can be calculated. In addition, the upper bound
of Mz is the maximal longitudinal force multiplied by one half
of vehicle width. The proposed algorithm of observer design is
applied to estimate the sideslip angle with the yaw rate mea-
surements, that is, the output is
y = Cx + v (37)
with C = [ 0 1 ]. In this application, we design two observers
for comparisons.
 
Observer 1 : ki ∈ 0.9 1.1 ∀ i = 1, 2, 3, 4.
Observer 2 : ki = 1∀ i = 1, 2, 3, 4.
Since the main objective is to estimate the sideslip angle,
the value of matrix G is selected as G = [ 1 0 ]. For a fair
Fig. 4. Front-wheel steering angle in the first test.
comparison, all the conditions are identical when designing the
two observers.
In order to evaluate the performance of the designed ob-
servers, the EGV is equipped with an acquisition system. The equip to vehicles in the market. In order to simulate the inac-
system is consisted of a steering angle encoder and a high-end curate longitudinal velocity measurements, the GPS-measured
RT3003 navigation system from Oxford Technical Solutions. It longitudinal speed is multiplied by a factor within the range
is necessary to mention that the navigation system can measure [ 0.95 1.05 ] and the factor randomly changes with respect to
the longitudinal, the lateral, the yaw, and the pitch motions with time.
a high accuracy. The encoder placed on the steering column We carry out the experimental tests at Transportation Re-
can measure the hand-wheel steering angle. The front-wheel search Center (TRC) in East Liberty, OH, USA. Fig. 4 depicts
steering angle is available since the hand-wheel steering angle the front-wheel steering angle during the first test. The maximal
and the front-wheel steering angle have a fixed relationship. steering angle is around 16◦ and the front wheels are turned from
The acquisition system is described in Fig. 3. The utilized out- left to right frequently. Fig. 5 shows the longitudinal velocity
puts of the GPS include the longitudinal speed (vx ), the lateral vx in the test. For the safety issue, the EGV is not driven too
speed (vy ), and the yaw rate (η). During the experiments, the fast. The red-dash curve is the actual velocity, which is measured
measured signals are collected by a dSPACE MicroAutoBox with the accurate GPS. Since the revolution is high, the red curve
and the data are then transmitted and stored in a Host PC. It is can be taken as the actual value. The blue-solid curve illustrates
necessary to mention that the longitudinal velocity (vx ) can be the simulated uncertain measurements and the uncertain factor
precisely measured in this application since the equipped GPS is realized with the Simulink block Uniform Random Num-
has a high performance. However, the expensive GPS cannot ber (minimum 0.95 and maximal 1.05). It is obvious that the
ZHANG et al.: H∞ OBSERVER DESIGN FOR LPV SYSTEMS WITH UNCERTAIN MEASUREMENTS ON SCHEDULING VARIABLES
Fig. 5. Longitudinal velocity in the first test.
Fig. 6. Yaw rate comparison for the designed observers in the first test.
weighting factors calculated with the measured velocity are not
the same with the ones calculated by using the actual velocity.
Therefore, the uncertain weighting factors should be considered
from the application perspective.
With the experimental data, both observers are used to esti-
mate the sideslip angle during the test. Since the longitudinal
speed vx and the lateral speed vy are available from the accurate
GPS, the measured sideslip angle is the ratio of vy and vx when
vx is nonzero. When vx is close to zero, the sideslip angle is
defined as zero. Fig. 6 shows the yaw rate comparison between
the measured signal and the estimated values with the designed
two observers. We can see from the zoom-in figure that both
observers can estimate the yaw rate well and there is almost no
estimation error. Fig. 7 illustrates the sideslip angle comparison
between the measured value and the estimated values. It infers
from the figure that the observer 1 can achieve better perfor-
mance than observer 2. The sideslip angle estimation error eβ
1667
Fig. 7. Sideslip angle comparison for the designed observers in the
first test.
TABLE I
COMPARISON OF SIDESLIP ANGLE ESTIMATION ERROR eβ FOR TWO
OBSERVERS IN THE FIRST TEST
Method 2 Norm of e β ∞ Norm of e β
Observer 2 0.7673 0.0742
Observer 1 0.6121 0.0642
Relative improvement 21.94% 13.48%
is defined as the measured value minus the estimate value. The
errors are sampled with the sampling period of 0.1 s. Table I
lists the comparison of sideslip angle estimation error eβ for two
observers. Observe that, in terms of 2 norm and ∞ norm of eβ ,
observer 1 can lead to better performance than observer 2 and
the relative improvements are 21.94% and 13.48%, respectively.
In the first test, the data are recorded when the vehicle starts
up. Therefore, the measured initial sideslip angle is the same
with the estimated initial sideslip angle. In the second test, the
measured initial conditions are nonzero and the initial condi-
tions of the designed observers are zeros. Fig. 8 depicts the
front-wheel steering angle in the second test. The measured lon-
gitudinal velocity is also multiplied by a random factor similar
to the first test for the design observers.
With the experimental data in the second test, both observers
are used to estimate the sideslip angle and show the transient
response. Fig. 9 shows the yaw rate comparison between the
measured signal and the estimated values with the designed two
observers. Similarly, we can see from the zoom-in figure that
both observers can estimate the yaw rate well and there is al-
most no estimation error. Moreover, the estimated yaw rate can
increase from zero to the measured value quickly. Fig. 10 il-
lustrates the sideslip angle comparison between the measured
value and the estimated values. Again, observe that the observer
1 can achieve better performance than observer 2. The estimated
value can follow the actual value in the first two seconds, that is,
the transient response is excellent. Table II lists the comparison
1668 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, JUNE 2016

TABLE II
COMPARISON OF SIDESLIP ANGLE ESTIMATION ERROR eβ FOR TWO
OBSERVERS IN THE SECOND TEST

Method 2 Norm of e β ∞ Norm of e β

Observer 2 0.6533 0.0456

Observer 1 0.5295 0.0418
Relative improvement 18.95% 8.33%

of sideslip angle estimation error eβ for two observers. We can

seen that, in terms of 2 norm and ∞ norm of eβ , observer 1
can lead to better performance than observer 2 and the rela-
tive improvements are 18.95% and 8.33%, respectively. We can
conclude that, with the consideration of uncertain scheduling
parameters during the design, the designed observer is more
reasonable and can achieve better performance.
Fig. 8. Front-wheel steering angle in the second test.
V. CONCLUSION
In this study, we have investigated the gain-scheduling ob-
server design for LPV systems with uncertain scheduling vari-
ables. Due to the uncertain measurements on scheduling vari-
ables, the corresponding weighting factors were not the same
with the actual ones and assumed to be uncertain times of the ac-
tual values. Then, the system was converted to an LPV system
with uncertainties. A gain-scheduling sliding mode observer
was proposed to estimate the system state vector. Both the sta-
bility and the H∞ performance were studied for the estimation
error system. Based on the analytic results, the observer design
method was developed. The developed method was applied to
an EGV. Experimental tests were carried out and the compari-
son results validated the advantages of the designed observer. In
the future research, we will focus on the sliding mode controller
design [51], [52] and mode predictive control [53], [54].
REFERENCES
Fig. 9. Yaw rate comparison for the designed observers in the second
test. [1] M. Butcher and A. Karimi, “Linear parameter-varying iterative learning
control with application to a linear motor system,” IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatronics, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 412–420, Jun. 2010.
[2] S. Zhang, J.-J. Yang, and G. Zhu, “LPV modeling and mixed constrained
H2 /H∞ control of an electronic throttle,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron-
ics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 2120–2032, Oct. 2015.
[3] P. Apkarian, P. Gahinet, and G. Becker, “Self-scheduled H∞ control
of linear parameter-varying systems: a design example,” Automatica,
vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1251–1261, 1995.
[4] J. S. Shamma and M. Athans, “Guaranteed properties of gain scheduled
control for linear parameter-varying plants,” Automatica, vol. 27, no. 3,
pp. 559–564, 1991.
[5] G. Becker and A. Packard, “Robust performance of linear parametrically
varying systems using parametrically-dependent linear feedback,” Syst.
Control Lett., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 205–215, 1994.
[6] L. Wu, X. Yang, and F. Li, “Nonfragile output tracking control of hy-
personic air-breathing vehicles with an LPV model,” IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatronics, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1280–1288, Aug. 2013.
[7] D. Li and Y. Xi, “The feedback robust MPC for LPV systems with bounded
rates of parameter changes,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 55, no. 2,
pp. 503–507, Feb. 2010.
[8] J. De Caigny, J. F. Camino, R. C. L. F. Oliveira, P. L. D. Peres, and
J. Swevers, “Gain-scheduled dynamic output feedback control for discrete-
time LPV systems,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 22, no. 5,
pp. 535–558, 2012.
Fig. 10. Sideslip angle comparison for the designed observers in the [9] W. Heemels, J. Daafouz, and G. Millerioux, “Observer-based control of
second test. discrete-time LPV systems with uncertain parameters,” IEEE Trans. Au-
tom. Control, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 2130–2135, Sep. 2010.
ZHANG et al.: H∞ OBSERVER DESIGN FOR LPV SYSTEMS WITH UNCERTAIN MEASUREMENTS ON SCHEDULING VARIABLES
[10] F. Amato, M. Ariola, and C. Cosentino, “Finite-time stability of linear
time-varying systems: Analysis and controller design,” IEEE Trans. Au-
tom. Control, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1003–1008, Apr. 2010.
[11] F. Bianchi, C. Kunusch, C. Ocampo-Martinez, and R. Sanchez-Pena, “A
gain-scheduled LPV control for oxygen stoichiometry regulation in PEM
fuel cell systems,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 22, no. 5,
pp. 1837–1844, Sep. 2014.
[12] X. Wei and L. del Re, “Gain scheduled H∞ control for air path systems of
diesel engines using LPV techniques,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 406–415, May 2007.
[13] D. Robert, O. Sename, and D. Simon, “An H∞ LPV design for sampling
varying controllers: Experimentation with a T-inverted pendulum,” IEEE
Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 741–749, May 2010.
[14] P. Gebraad, J. van Wingerden, P. Fleming, and A. Wright, “LPV identi-
fication of wind turbine rotor vibrational dynamics using periodic distur-
bance basis functions,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 21, no. 4,
pp. 1183–1190, Jul. 2013.
[15] D. Ichalal, B. Marx, J. Ragot, and D. Maquin, “State estimation of Takagi-
Sugeno systems with unmeasurable premise variables,” IET Control The-
ory Appl., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 897–908, 2010.
[16] K.-Y. Lian, C.-H. Chiang, and H.-W. Tu, “LMI-based sensorless control
of permanent-magnet synchronous motors,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 2769–2778, Oct. 2007.
[17] K. Cho, J. Kim, S. B. Choi, and S. Oh, “A high-precision motion con-
trol based on a periodic adaptive disturbance observer in a PMLSM,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 2158–2171,
Oct. 2015.
[18] G. Phanomchoeng and R. Rajamani, “Real-time estimation of rollover in-
dex for tripped rollovers with a novel unknown input nonlinear observer,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 743–754, Apr. 2014.
[19] W. He and S. S. Ge, “Vibration control of a nonuniform wind tur-
bine tower via disturbance observer,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics,
vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 237–244, Feb. 2015.
[20] H. Zhang, J. Wang, and Y.-Y. Wang, “Nonlinear observer design of diesel
engine selective catalytic reduction systems with NO x sensor measure-
ments,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1585–1594,
Aug. 2015.
[21] H. Hur and H.-S. Ahn, “Unknown input H∞ observer-based localization
of a mobile robot with sensor failure,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics,
vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1830–1838, Dec. 2014.
[22] A. Mujumdar, B. Tamhane, and S. Kurode, “Observer-based sliding
mode control for a class of noncommensurate fractional-order sys-
tems,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 2504–2512,
Oct. 2015.
[23] R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear filtering and prediction prob-
lems,” J. Basic Eng., vol. 82, pp. 35–45, 1960.
[24] S. Helm, M. Kozek, and S. Jakubek, “Combustion torque estimation and
misfire detection for calibration of combustion engines by parametric
Kalman filtering,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 4326–
4337, Nov. 2012.
[25] D. Luenberger, “Observing the state of a linear system,” IEEE Trans. Mil.
Electron., vol. ME-8, no. 2, pp. 74–80, Apr. 1964.
[26] K. Erazo and E. M. Hernandez, “A model-based observer for state and
stress estimation in structural and mechanical systems: Experimental val-
idation,” Mech. Syst. Signal. Process., vol. 43, no. 1-2, pp. 141–152,
Feb. 2014.
[27] H. Gao and T. Chen, “H∞ estimation for uncertain systems with limited
communication capacity,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 52, no. 11,
pp. 2070–2084, Nov. 2007.
[28] M. Sahebsara, T. Chen, and S. L. Shah, “Optimal H∞ filtering in net-
worked control systems with multiple packet dropouts,” Syst. Control
Lett., vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 696–702, 2008.
[29] V. Dragan and A.-M. Stoica, “Optimal H2 filtering for a class of linear
stochastic systems with sampling,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 2494–
2501, 2012.
[30] L. Wu and W. X. Zheng, “Reduced-order H2 filtering for discrete linear
repetitive processes,” Signal Process., vol. 91, no. 7, pp. 1636–1644, 2011.
[31] W. M. Haddad, D. S. Bernstein, and D. Mustafa, “Mixed-norm H2 /H∞
regulation and estimation: The discrete-time case,” Syst. Control Lett.,
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 235–247, 1991.
[32] D. J. N. Limebeer, B. D. O. Anderson, and B. Hendel, “A Nash game
approach to the mixed H2 /H∞ control problem,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 69–82, Jan. 1994.
1669
[33] M.-F. Hsieh and J. Wang, “Sliding-mode observer for urea-selective cat-
alytic reduction (SCR) mid-catalyst ammonia concentration estimation,”
Int. J. Auto. Technol., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 321–329, 2011.
[34] L. Zhao, J. Huang, H. Liu, B. Li, and W. Kong, “Second-order
sliding-mode observer with online parameter identification for sensorless
induction motor drives,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 10,
pp. 5280–5289, Oct. 2014.
[35] Y. Lin, Y. Shi, and R. Burton, “Modeling and robust discrete-time sliding
mode contril design for a fluid power electrohydraulic actuator (EHA)
system,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–10,
Feb. 2013.
[36] F. Li, L. Wu, P. Shi, and C. C. Lim, “State estimation and sliding mode con-
trol for semi-Markovian jump systems with mismatched uncertainties,”
Automatica, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 385–393, 2015.
[37] C. P. Tan and C. Edwards, “An LMI approach for designing sliding mode
observers,” Int. J. Control, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 1559–1568, 2001.
[38] P. Bergsten, R. Palm, and D. Driankov, “Observers for Takagi-Sugeno
fuzzy systems,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. B, vol. 32, no. 1,
pp. 114–121, Feb. 2002.
[39] C. P. Tan and C. Edwards, “Sliding mode observers for detection and
reconstruction of sensor faults,” Automatica, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 1815–
1821, 2002.
[40] A. Akhenak, M. Chadli, J. Ragot, and D. Maquin, “Design of sliding
mode unknown input observer for uncertain Takagi-Sugeno model,” in
Proc. Mediterranean Conf. Control Autom., Athens, Greece, Jun. 2007,
pp. 1–6.
[41] M. Fallah, R. Bhat, and W. F. Xie, “Optimized control of semiactive
suspension systems using H∞ robust control theory and current signal
estimation,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 767–
778, Aug. 2012.
[42] S. Ibaraki, S. Suryanarayanan, and M. Tomizuka, “Design of Luenberger
state observers using fixed-structure H∞ optimization and its applica-
tion to fault detection in lane-keeping control of automated vehicles,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 34–42, Feb. 2005.
[43] L. Xie and Y. C. Soh, “Robust control of linear systems with generalized
positive real uncertainty,” Automatica, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 963–967, 1997.
[44] H. Zhang, Y. Shi, and A. Saadat Mehr, “Robust weighted H∞ filtering for
networked systems with intermitted measurements of multiple sensors,”
Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 313–330, 2011.
[45] R. Wang, H. Zhang, and J. Wang, “Linear parameter-varying controller
design for four wheel independently-actuated electric ground vehicles
with active steering systems,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 22,
no. 4, pp. 1281–1296, Jul. 2014.
[46] D. Piyabongkarn, R. Rajamani, J. A. Grogg, and J. Y. Lew, “Development
and experimental evaluation of a slip angle estimator for vehicle stability
control,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 78–88,
Jan. 2009.
[47] Y. H. Hsu, S. M. Laws, and J. C. Gerdes, “Estimation of tire slip angle and
friction limits using steering torque,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 896–907, Jul. 2010.
[48] S. H. You, J. O. Hahn, and H. Lee, “New adaptive approaches to real-time
estimation of vehicle sideslip angle,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 17, no. 12,
pp. 1367–1379, 2009.
[49] R. Wang, Y. Chen, D. Feng, X. Huang, and J. Wang, “Development and
performance characterization of an electric ground vehicle with inde-
pendently actuated in-wheel motors,” J. Power Sources, vol. 196, no. 8,
pp. 3962–3971, 2011.
[50] H. Zhang, X. Zhang, and J. Wang, “Robust gain-scheduling energy-to-
peak control of vehicle lateral dynamics stabilisation,” Vehicle Syst. Dy-
nam., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 309–340, 2014.
[51] H. Li, P. Shi, D. Yao, and L. Wu, “Observer-based adaptive sliding
mode control of nonlinear Markovian jump systems,” Automatica, vol. 64,
no. 1, pp. 133–142, 2016.
[52] H. Li and J. Wang and P. Shi, “Output-feedback based sliding mode control
for fuzzy systems with actuator saturation,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., to
be published.
[53] H. Li and Y. Shi, “Robust distributed model predictive control of con-
strained continuous-time nonlinear systems: A robustness constraint ap-
proach,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1673–1678,
Jun. 2014.
[54] H. Li and Y. Shi, “Robust distributed receding horizon control of
continuous-time nonlinear systems: Handling communication delays and
disturbances,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 41, pp. 1264–1271, 2014.
1670
Hui Zhang (M’15) received the B.Sc. degree
in mechanical design manufacturing and au-
tomation from the Harbin Institute of Technol-
ogy, Weihai, China, in 2006, the M.Sc. degree
in automotive engineering from Jilin University,
Changchun, China, in 2008, and the Ph.D. de-
gree in mechanical engineering from the Univer-
sity of Victoria, Victoria, Canada in 2012.
He was a Research Associate at the Depart-
ment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer-
ing, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
His research interests include Diesel engine aftertreatment systems,
vehicle dynamics and control, Mechatronics, robust control and filter-
ing, networked control systems, and signal processing. He is an au-
thor/coauthor of more than 50 peer-reviewed papers on journals and
conference proceedings.
Dr. Zhang has served on the IFAC Technical Committee on Automo-
tive Control, ASME Automotive and Transportation Systems Technical
Committee, SAE Commercial Vehicle Committee, and International Pro-
gram Committee for the IASTED International Conference on Control
and Applications. He serves as an Associate Editor for Neurocomputing;
Board member of International Journal of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles,
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing; Guest Editor of Mechatron-
ics, Journal of the Franklin Institute, and International Journal of Vehicle
Deisgn; and Conference Editorial Board of the ASME Dynamic Systems
and Control Division, American Control Conference, and ASME Dynamic
Systems and Control Conference.
Guoguang Zhang received the B.S. degree in
vehicle engineering from the Shandong Uni-
versity of Technology, Zibo, China, in 2010
and the M.S. degree in mechanical engineering
from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai,
China, in 2013. He is currently working toward
the Ph.D. degree in the Department of Mechani-
cal and Aerospace Engineering at the Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH, USA.
His research interests include modeling, esti-
mation, and control systems for ground vehicles.
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 21, NO. 3, JUNE 2016
Junmin Wang (SM’14) received the B.E. de-
gree in automotive engineering and the first
M.S. degree in power machinery and engineer-
ing from the Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
in 1997 and 2000, respectively, the second and
third M.S. degrees in electrical engineering and
mechanical engineering from the University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, USA, in 2003, and
the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering
from the University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA,
in 2007.
He has five years of full-time industrial research experience (May
2003–August 2008) at Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX,
USA. In September 2008, he joined Ohio State University and founded
the Vehicle Systems and Control Laboratory, whose major research in-
terests include control, modeling, estimation, optimization, and diagno-
sis of dynamical systems, specifically for automotive engine, powertrain,
aftertreatment, hybrid, flexible fuel, renewable energy, (electric) ground
vehicle, transportation, sustainable mobility, energy storage, and mecha-
tronic systems. He is the author or coauthor of more than 230 peer-
reviewed publications including 110 journal articles and 11 U.S. patents.
Prof. Wang received the Ohio State University Harrison Faculty Award
for Excellence in 2015, IEEE Distinguished Lecturer in 2015, National
Science Foundation CAREER Award, SAE International Ralph R. Tee-
tor Educational Award in 2012, SAE International Vincent Bendix Au-
tomotive Electronics Engineering Award in 2011, and Office of Naval
Research Young Investigator Program (ONR-YIP) Award in 2009. He is
a Fellow of the Society of Automotive Engineers and serves as an As-
sociate Editor for various international journals.