Journal of Control Theory and Applications 2007 5 (3) 278–284 DOI 10.

1007/s11768-006-6053-8

Observer-based robust H-infinity control for

uncertain switched systems
Zhengyi SONG 1,2 , Jun ZHAO 2
(1.Key Laboratory of Process Industry Automation Ministry of Education China, Northeastern University, Shenyang Liaoning 110004, China;
2.School of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang Liaoning 110004, China)

Abstract: The problem of observer-based robust H-infinity control is addressed for a class of linear discrete-time
switched systems with time-varying norm-bounded uncertainties by using switched Lyapunov function method. None of
the individual subsystems is assumed to be robustly H-infinity solvable. A novel switched Lypunov function matrix with
diagonal-block form is devised to overcome the difficulties in designing switching laws. For robust H-infinity stability
analysis, two linear-matrix-inequality-based sufficient conditions are derived by only using the smallest region function
strategy if some parameters are preselected. Then, the robust H-infinity control synthesis is studied using a switching
state feedback and an observer-based switching dynamical output feedback. All the switching laws are simultaneously
constructively designed. Finally, a simulation example is given to illustrate the validity of the results.
Keywords: Linear discrete-time switched system; Robust H-infinity control; Switched Lyapunov function; Linear
matrix inequality (LMI)

1 Introduction completely available in practical control systems, output

A switched system is a hybrid system which consists of a
family of continuous-time or discrete-time subsystems and
a switching law specifying which subsystem is activated
along the system trajectory during a certain interval of time.
Many practical processes can be modeled as switched sys-
tems, including power systems, chemical processes, com-
puter disk drives, constrained robotics and automated high-
ways, and so on [1]. Therefore, the analysis and control of
switched systems is a research topic of both practical and
theoretical importance, which has attracted growing atten-
tion in control theory field in the last decade. Much atten-
tion is focused on the stability and design issues of switched
systems [2∼10]. Recently, for linear discrete-time switched
systems, a switched state feedback controller and a switched
static output feedback controller were designed to study sta-
bilization problem under any switching law in [8] and then
[9], respectively. [10] considered the information of time-
delay in controller design to achieve better system perfor-
mance under any switching law. It is a more important and
challenging issue to design a switching law under which the
switched system is stable when none of individual subsys-
tems is stable [2]. However, in this respect, very few results
have appeared for discrete-time switched system.
On the other hand, since state variables are usually not
feedback or observer-based control is more feasible. Es-
pecially, observer-based controller is widely accepted for
its simple structure and explicit physical meaning. Further-
more, since exogenous disturbance input is often unavoid-
able, the H∞ state observer design problem has been stud-
ied for many years, to preserve the satisfactory attenuation
of the disturbance. However, relevant literature is relatively
few for linear discrete-time systems with uncertainty [11],
and is even fewer for the state observer design problems of
linear discrete-time switched systems in the simultaneous
presence of uncertainty, exogenous disturbance inside sub-
systems. This motivates the present research.
In this paper, based on switched Lyapunov function
method, we investigate the problem of robust H∞ control
for linear discrete-time switched systems with time-varying
norm-bounded uncertainties. For robust H∞ performance,
two sufficient conditions are derived via an appropriately
designed switching law when all subsystems do not have
robust H∞ performance. Then, for robust H∞ control, a
switching state feedback controller and an observer-based
switching output feedback controller are designed where
a novel switched Lypunov function matrix with diagonal-
block form is used to guarantee that the switching laws only
depend on observer state, not depend on system state. Fi-

Received 29 March 2006; revised 27 October 2006.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 60274009, 60574013).
 Z. SONG et al. / Journal of Control Theory and Applications 2007 5 (3) 278–284 279

nally, a simulation example is given to illustrate the validity analysis and control synthesis for system (1) via an ap-
of the results. propriately designed switching law. The robust H∞ perfor-
Notations In the sequel, the Euclidean norm is used mance analysis looks for the condition under which the un-
for vectors. μmax (W ) denotes the maximum singular value forced system (1) has robust H∞ performance. The robust
of any square matrix W . The notation W > (, <, )0 H∞ control synthesis designs a switching feedback con-
is used to denote a symmetric positive-definite (positive- troller such that the resulting closed-loop system of system
semidefinite, negative-definite, negative-semidefinite, re- (1) has robust H∞ performance, in this case, system (1) is
spectively) matrix W , I is the identity matrix of appropriate said to be robust H∞ solvable.
dimension. N denotes the set of nonnegative integer. The In this paper, we consider using the switching state feed-
space l2 [0, ∞) consists of quadratically integrable vectors back controller
sequences over [0, ∞). The symbol ∗ is used to induce a uk = Kσ xk , (3)
symmetric structure of a matrix, that is, if given matrices
and the observer-based switching dynamical output feed-
L = LT and R = RT of appropriate dimensions, then
    back controller

L ∗ L ST uk = Kσ x̂k ,
= . (4)
S R S R x̂k+1 = Aσ x̂k + Bσ uk + Lσ (yk − Fσ x̂k ),
For simplicity, the system with uk ≡ 0 (or wk ≡ 0) is where x̂k is the observer state, Kσ and Lσ are the controller
referred to as the unforced system ( or the disturbance-free gain and observer gain to be designed, respectively.
system). Remark 1 The problem of robust H∞ control synthe-
sis for system (1) is studied when none of the individual
2 System description subsystems is robust H∞ solvable. This is because if there
We consider a switched system of the form exists a subsystem in system (1), say, j-th subsystem, which
⎧
⎪ is robust H∞ solvable, then the problem will be trivial.
⎨ xk+1 = Âσ xk + B̂σ uk + H1σ wk ,
⎪
yk = Fσ xk , (1)
⎪
⎪ 3 Robust H∞ performance analysis
⎩z = C x + D u + H w ,
k σ k σ k 2σ k In this section, we first consider the unforced system (1).
where k ∈ N, xk ∈ Rn is the state, uk ∈ Rl is the con- We introduce
trol input, wk ∈ Rq is the disturbance input which belongs 1, i = σ(k),
to l2 [0, ∞), yk ∈ Rr is the measurement output, zk ∈ Rp αi (k) = i ∈ M̄ . (5)
0, i = σ(k),
is the controlled output, σ(k) : N → M̄ = {1, 2, · · · , m}
Then, the unforced system (1) is described as follows,
is a piecewise constant switching signal. For ∀i ∈ M̄ , Ci , ⎧
⎪ 
m 
m
Di , Fi , H1i and H2i are known real constant matrices; Âi ⎪
⎨ xk+1 = αi (k)Âi xk + αi (k)H1i wk ,
i=1 i=1
and B̂i are unknown matrices with time-varying parameter 
m 
m (6)
⎪
⎪
uncertainties, and are assumed to be of the form ⎩ zk = αi (k)Ci xk + αi (k)H2i wk .
i=1 i=1
[Âi , B̂i ] = [Ai + ΔAi , Bi + ΔBi ] Choose the switched Lyapunov function for system (6) as
= [Ai , Bi ] + Ei Γ i [Fi1 , Fi2 ], (2) 
m
V (k, xk ) = xT
k( αi (k)Pi )xk , (7)
where Γi is an unknown time-varying matrix function sat- i=1

isfying μmax (Γi )  1, Ai , Bi , Ei , Fi1 and Fi2 are known where Pi > 0, i ∈ M̄ .
real constant matrices. Proposition 1 Given γ > 0. The system (6) has robust
Definition 1 Given γ > 0. The unforced system (1) H∞ performance γ, if there exist a set of scalars βij  0 and
is said to have robust H∞ performance γ, if there exists a matrices Pi > 0, i, j ∈ M̄ , such that the following matrix
switching signal σ(k), such that for all admissible uncer- inequalities hold,
⎡
tainties, the following conditions are satisfied: T −1 T
m
⎢ Âi Pi Âi − Pi + γ Ci Ci + βij (Pj − Pi )
i) The unforced disturbance-free system (1) is stable; ⎣ j=1
T
ii) Under the zero initial condition, the controlled output H1i Pi Âi + γ −1 H2i
T
Ci

zk satisfies ∗

∞
2 
∞
2 < 0. (8)
|zk | < γ 2 |wk | T −1 T
H1i Pi H1i + γ H2i H2i − γI
k=0 k=0
Proof Choose a switching law as follows,
for any nonzero wk ∈ l2 .
In this paper, we investigate the robust H∞ performance σ(k) = arg min{xT
k Pi xk }. (9)
i∈M̄
280 Z. SONG et al. / Journal of Control Theory and Applications 2007 5 (3) 278–284

We split the proof into two parts. ties hold,

⎡ ⎤
Case 1 When σ(k + 1) = σ(k) = i, m
−1
⎢ −ηi Qi + βij Qi Qj Qi ∗ ⎥
ΔV (k, xk ) = V (k + 1, xk+1 ) − V (k, xk ) ⎣ j=1 ⎦ < 0, (16)
ˆ
Ji Qi Xi
= xT T
k+1 Pi xk+1 − xk Pi xk
  where⎡
T ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
T Âi Pi Âi − Pi ∗
= x̄k T T
x̄k , (10) Âi −Qi ∗ ∗
H1i Pi Âi H1i Pi H1i ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ m
Jˆi = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ Ci ⎦ , Xi = ⎣ 0 −γI ∗ ⎦ , ηi = 1 + j=1 βij .
where
 0 T
H1i T
H2i −γI
x̄T T T
k = xk wk .
C) There exist a set of scalars βij  0, matrices Qi > 0
Case 2 When σ(k) = i, σ(k + 1) = j and i = j, using and Gi , i, j ∈ M̄ , such that the following matrix inequali-
the switching law (9), we have ties hold,
⎡ ⎤
ΔV (k, xk ) = xT T
k+1 Pj xk+1 − xk Pi xk ηi (Qi − Gi − GT i ) ∗ ∗
⎢ ⎥
 xT T
k+1 Pi xk+1 − xk Pi xk . (11) ⎢ Xi ∗ ⎥
⎣ Jˆi Gi ⎦ < 0, (17)
From (10) and (11), we obtain β̄i Gi 0 Q̄
 
T
Âi Pi Âi − Pi ∗ where
ΔV (k, xk )  x̄T
k T T
x̄k . (12) ⎡√ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
H1i Pi Âi H1i Pi H1i βi1 −Q1 · · · 0
⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . .. ⎥
Define β̄i = ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ .
⎣ . ⎦ , Q̄ = ⎣ .
⎥
. ⎦.
W (zk , wk ) = γwkT wk − γ −1 zkT zk , (13) √
βim 0 · · · −Qm
then Proof A) ⇔ B): By the Schur complements, from (8)
ΔV (k, xk ) − W (zk , wk ) we⎡have ⎤
 m
T −1 T
T Âi Pi Âi − Pi + γ Ci Ci
⎢ −P i + β ij (P j − Pi ) ∗ ∗ ∗ ⎥
 x̄k T −1 T ⎢ j=1 ⎥
H1i Pi Âi + γ H2i Ci ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ 0 −γI ∗ ∗ ⎥ < 0.
⎢ ⎥
∗ ⎢ Ci H2i −γI ∗ ⎥
x̄k . (14) ⎣ ⎦
T
H1i Pi H1i + γ −1 H2i
T
H2i − γI Âi −1
H1i 0 −Pi
Employing (8), we get
Let Qi = Pi−1 , we have

m ⎡ ⎤
ΔV (k, xk ) − W (zk , wk ) < xT
k βij (Pi − Pj )xk 
m
−1
j=1 ⎢ −Qi + βij (Qi Qj Qi − Qi ) ∗ ⎥
⎣ j=1 ⎦ < 0.
by (9), we have
Jˆi Qi Xi
ΔV (k, xk ) − W (zk , wk ) < 0, (15)
Therefore, we know that (8) is equivalent to (16).
which means B) ⇒ C): Let Gi = Qi , by the Schur complements, from
∞ 
∞
ΔV (k, xk ) − W (zk , wk ) < 0. (16) we get
k=0 k=0
⎡ ⎤
ηi (Qi − Gi − GT i ) ∗ ∗
i) When wk = 0, ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Xi ∗ ⎥
ΔV (k, xk ) < W (zk , wk ) = −γ −1 zkT zk , ⎣ Jˆi Gi ⎦ < 0.
β̄i Gi 0 Q̄
which implies that system (6) is robustly stable.
Therefore, we have (17).
ii) Under the zero initial condition, we have
∞ C) ⇒ B): Since (Qi − Gi )T Q−1 i (Qi − Gi )  0, we get
ΔV (k, xk ) = V (∞) > 0, −GT Q −1
G i  Q i − G i − G T
. It follows from (17) that
i i i
k=0 ⎡ ⎤
T −1

∞ 
∞ −ηi Gi Qi Gi ∗ ∗
which implies |zk |2 < γ 2 |wk |2 . ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Xi ∗ ⎥
k=0 k=0 ⎣ Jˆi Gi ⎦ < 0.
Proposition 2 Given γ > 0. The following statements
β̄i Gi 0 Q̄
are equivalent:
We have ⎡ ⎤
A) There exist a set of scalars βij  0 and matrices
−ηi Qi ∗ ∗
Pi > 0, i, j ∈ M̄ , such that the matrix inequalities (8) hold. ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Jˆi Qi Xi ∗ ⎥ < 0.
B) There exist a set of scalars βij  0 and matrices ⎣ ⎦
Qi > 0, i, j ∈ M̄ , such that the following matrix inequali- β̄i Qi 0 Q̄
 Z. SONG et al. / Journal of Control Theory and Applications 2007 5 (3) 278–284 281

By the Schur complements, we get (16). Hence this propo- i, j ∈ M̄ , such that the following matrix inequalities hold,
sition holds. ⎡ ⎤
−λi I ∗ ∗ ∗
By Proposition 1, A), B) and C) in Proposition 2 are suf- ⎢ T T ⎥
⎢ Gi Fi1 ηi (Qi − Gi − GT i ) ∗ ∗⎥
ficient conditions for system (6) to have robust H∞ perfor- ⎢ ⎥ < 0. (19)
⎢ ⎥
mance γ. But Proposition 2 is not applicable directly be- ⎣ 0 Ji Gi X̄i ∗ ⎦
cause of the uncertainty involved in matrix Âi . For its ap- 0 β̄i Gi 0 Q̄
plication, we need the following Lemma. Proof It follows from C) in Proposition 2 and the proof
Lemma 1 [9] Let Y, M, N be given matrices of ap- of Theorem 1.
propriate dimensions, then for any matrix Γ satisfying Remark 2 Unlike the positive definite matrix Qi in
μmax (Γ )  1, (18). Gi in (19) is a general matrix, not even necessar-
Y + M Γ N + N T Γ T M T < 0, ily symmetric. This feature means that inequalities (19) are
much easier to solve than inequalities (18).
if and only if there exists a constant λ > 0 such that
1 T 4 Robust H∞ control synthesis
Y + λM M T + N N < 0.
λ In this section, we design the controller (3) and the con-
Theorem 1 Given γ > 0. The system (6) has robust troller (4), such that the resulting closed-loop system of sys-
H∞ performance γ under the switching law (9), if there ex- tem (1) has robust H∞ performance.
ist matrices Qi > 0, scalars βij  0 and λi > 0, i, j ∈ M̄ , 4.1 Switching state feedback
such that the following matrix inequalities hold,
When state variables are completely available, applying
⎡ ⎤
−λi I ∗ ∗ the state feedback controller (3) to system (1) results in the
⎢ ⎥
⎢ QT F T −η Q +  β Q Q−1 Q ∗ ⎥
m closed-loop system
⎢ i i1 i i ij i j i ⎥ < 0, (18) ⎧
⎣ j=1 ⎦ ⎪ m m
⎪
⎨ xk+1 = αi (k)(Âi + B̂i Ki )xk + αi (k)H1i wk ,
0 Ji Qi X̄i i=1 i=1 (20)
⎪ 
m 
m
⎪
⎩ kz = α i (k)(Ci + D K )x
i i k + αi (k)H w
2i k .
where
i=1 i=1

JiT = [ AT
i CiT 0 ], X̄i = Xi + λi Ēi ĒiT , From Proposition 2 and Lemma 1, we can obtain the the-
orems below.
ĒiT = [ EiT 0 0 ].
Theorem 3 Given γ > 0. System (1) is robust H∞
Proof From (16) and (2), we have solvable under the switching law (9), if there exist matri-
Zi + Mi Γi Ni + NiT ΓiT MiT < 0, ces Qi > 0, Yi , scalars βij  0 and λi > 0, i, j ∈ M̄ , such
that the following matrix inequalities hold,
where ⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤ −λi I ∗ ∗
m   ⎢ ⎥
⎢ QT F T + Y T F T −η Q +  β Q Q−1 Q ∗ ⎥
−1 m
⎢ −ηi Qi + βij Qi Q Qi ∗ ⎥ 0
Zi = ⎣ j=1
j
⎦ , Mi = , ⎢ i i1 i i2 i i ij i j i ⎥
⎣ j=1 ⎦
Ji Qi Xi Ē i
0 Ji Qi + Jui Yi X̄i
Ni = [ Fi1 Qi 0 ]. < 0, (21)

Using Lemma 1, we get where

T
1 T Jui = [ BiT DiT 0 ],
Zi + λi Mi MiT + N Ni < 0,
λi i and a switching state feedback controller is given by
i.e. 
m
⎡ ⎤ uk = αi (k)Ki xk , Ki = Yi Q−1
i . (22)
1 T i=1
Qi Fi1 Fi1 Qi 0
Zi + ⎣ λi ⎦ < 0. Proof By B) in Proposition 2, system (20) has robust
T
0 λi Ēi Ēi H∞ performance γ if there exist matrices Qi > 0, scalars
By the Schur complement, we can prove that (18) is equiv- βij  0, i, j ∈ M̄ , such that the following matrix inequali-
alent to (16). Hence this theorem is fulfilled. ties hold,
⎡ ⎤
Theorem 2 Given γ > 0. The system (6) has robust 
m
−1
⎢ −ηi Qi + βij Qi Qj Qi ∗ ⎥
H∞ performance γ under the switching law (9), if there ⎣ j=1 ⎦ < 0, (23)
exist matrices Qi > 0, Gi , scalars βij  0 and λi > 0, (Jˆi + Jˆui Ki )Qi Xi
282 Z. SONG et al. / Journal of Control Theory and Applications 2007 5 (3) 278–284

where we get
T
Jˆui = [ B̂iT DiT 0 ]. σ(k) = arg min{x̂T −1
k Qi x̂k }. (28)
i∈M̄
Therefore, system (1) is robust H∞ solvable.
Let Yi = Ki Qi , then By Proposition 2, system (26) has robust H∞ perfor-
⎡ ⎤ mance γ, if there exist matrices Q̃i > 0 and scalars βij  0,

m
−1
⎢ −ηi Qi + βij Qi Qj Qi ∗ ⎥ i, j ∈ M̄ , such that the following matrix inequalities hold,
⎣ j=1 ⎦ < 0. ⎡ ⎤
Jˆi Qi + Jˆui Yi Xi m
−1
⎢ −η i Q̃i + β ij Q̃i Q̃j Q̃i ∗ ∗ ∗ ⎥
⎢ j=1 ⎥
From Lemma 1 and the proof of Theorem 1, we find that ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Ãi Q̃i −Q̃i ∗ ∗ ⎥ < 0. (29)
(21) is equivalent to (23). Hence this theorem holds. ⎢ ⎥
⎢ C̃i Q̃i 0 − γI ∗ ⎥
Theorem 4 Given γ > 0. System (1) is robust H∞ ⎣ ⎦
T T
solvable under the switching law (9), if there exist matri- 0 H̃1i H̃2i − γI
ces Qi > 0, Gi , Yi , scalars βij  0 and λi > 0, i, j ∈ M̄ ,
By Lemma 1, we get the following theorems.
such that the following matrix inequalities hold,
⎡ ⎤ Theorem 5 Given γ > 0. System (26) has robust H∞
−λi I ∗ ∗ ∗ performance γ under the switching law (28), if there exist
⎢ T T ⎥
⎢ Gi Fi1 + YiT Fi2 T
ηi (Qi − Gi − GT i ) ∗ ∗⎥ matrices Qi > 0, Q > 0, Ui , Vi and Yi , scalars βij  0 and
⎢ ⎥ < 0. (24)
⎢ ⎥ λi > 0, i, j ∈ M̄ , such that the following matrix inequali-
⎣ 0 Ji Gi + Jui Yi X̄i ∗ ⎦
ties hold,
0 β̄i Gi 0 Q̄ ⎡
In this case, a switching state feedback controller is given −λi I ∗
⎢ m
⎢
by ⎢ −Qi Fi1T
− YiT Fi2
T
− ηi Qi + βij Qi Q−1
j Qi

m ⎢ j=1
⎢
uk = αi (k)Ki xk , Ki = Yi G−1
i . (25) ⎢ QFi1 T
0
i=1 ⎣
Proof It is easy to obtain from (C) in Proposition 2 and 0 J1i Qi + J˜u1i Yi
˜
the proof of Theorem 3. ⎤
∗ ∗
⎥
4.2 Observer-based switching dynamic output feed- ∗ ∗ ⎥
⎥ < 0, (30)
back ⎥
−Q ∗ ⎦
When state variables are not completely available, apply-
J˜2i Q − Ui J˜u2i X̃i + λi Ẽi ẼiT
ing the controller (4) to system (1) results in the following
closed-loop system: where
⎧
⎪ 
m m T ˜T
⎪
⎨ x̃k+1 = αi (k)Ãi x̃k + αi (k)H̃1i wk , J˜1i = [ AT T T T
i 0 Ci 0 ], Ju1i = [ Bi 0 Di 0 ],
i=1 i=1 T ˜T
⎪ 
m 
m (26) J˜2i = [ 0 AT T T T
i −Ci 0 ], Ju2i = [ Fi Fi 0 0 ],
⎪
⎩ zk = αi (k)C̃i x̃k + αi (k)H̃2i wk , ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
i=1 i=1 0 −Qi ∗ ∗ ∗
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Ei ⎥ ⎢ ∗ ⎥
⎥ , X̃i = ⎢ 0 −Q ∗
where
    Ẽi = ⎢
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎥,
⎥
x̂k Ai + Bi Ki −Li Fi ⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 −γI ∗ ⎦
x̃k = , Ãi = ,
x̂k − xk −(ΔAi +ΔBi Ki ) Âi −Li Fi T T
0 0 −H1i H2i −γI
 
0  and
H̃1i = , C̃i = Ci + Di Ki −Ci , H̃2i = H2i .
−H1i
Vi Fi = Fi Q. (31)
Choose a switched Lyapunov function candidate
The controller gain Ki and the observer gain Li are given

m
Ṽ (k, x̃k ) = x̃T
k( αi (k)Q̃−1
i )x̃k , by
i=1

where Q̃i = diag{Qi , Q}. Ki = Yi Q−1 −1

i , Li = Ui Vi . (32)
Design a switching law, Proof From (31) and (32) we get Yi = Ki Qi , Ui Fi =
σ(k) = arg min{x̃T −1
k Q̃i x̃k }. (27) Li Fi Q. Replacing Yi and Ui Fi by Ki Qi and Li Fi Q, re-
i∈M̄
spectively, and applying Schur complement, we get
Recalling that
1 T
x̃T −1 T −1 T −1 Z̃i + λi M̃i M̃iT + Ñ Ñi < 0, (33)
k Q̃i x̃k = x̂k Qi x̂k + (x̂k − xk ) Q (x̂k − xk ), λi i
 Z. SONG et al. / Journal of Control Theory and Applications 2007 5 (3) 278–284 283

where Example 1 Consider system (1) with m = 2,

⎡ 
m ⎤        
−ηi Qi + βij Qi Q−1
j Qi ∗ ∗ 1 0 0.9 0 0 1
⎢ j=1 ⎥ A1 = , A2 = , B1 = , B2 = ,
⎢ ⎥
Z̃i = ⎢ , 0 0.9 0 1 1 0
⎣ 0 −Q ∗ ⎥⎦
J˜1i Qi + J˜u1i Ki Qi J˜2i Q − Li J˜u2i Q X̃i C1 = [ 0 0.2 ], C2 = [ 0.2 0 ], D1 = 0.2, D2 = 0.2,
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤        
0 −Qi (Fi1 + Fi2 Ki )T 0.2 0 0.1 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ H11 = , H12 = , E1 = , E2 = ,
M̃i = ⎢ ⎥ T
⎣ 0 ⎦ , Ñi = ⎣
⎢ T
QFi1 ⎥.
⎦
0 0.2 0 0.1

Ẽi 0 F1 = [ 1 2 ], F2 = [ 2 1 ], F11 = [ 0 0.1 ], F21 = [ 0.1 0 ],

F12 = 0.1, F22 = 0.1, H21 = 0.2, H22 = 0.2. (37)
By Lemma 1, (33) is equivalent to
Z̃i + M̃i Γi Ñi + ÑiT ΓiT M̃iT < 0, Choosing

which is exactly (29). Hence this theorem holds. β12 = 2, β21 = 4,

Theorem 6 Given γ > 0. The system (26) has robust (34) and (35) in Theorem 6 are solved, we get γ = 0.8001,
H∞ performance γ under the switching law (28), if there the controller gain Ki and the observer gain Li are given by
exist matrices Qi > 0, Q > 0, Gi , G, Ui , Vi and Yi , scalars K1 = [ 0 − 1 ], K2 = [ −1 0 ],
βij  0 and λi > 0, i, j ∈ M̄ , such that the following    
matrix inequalities hold, 0.1936 0.3448
L1 = , L2 = , (38)
⎡ 0.3371 0.1974
−λi I ∗
⎢
⎢ −Gi Fi1T
− Yi Fi2 ηi (Qi − Gi − GT
T T
i )
and the switching region
⎢   
⎢ T Ω1 = (x̂1 , x̂2 ) 0.0014x̂21 − 0.0024x̂22  0 ,
⎢ GFi1 0 
⎢  
⎢ 0 J1i Gi + J˜u1i Yi
˜ Ω2 = (x̂1 , x̂2 ) 0.0014x̂21 − 0.0024x̂22 > 0 .
⎣
0 β̄i Gi It is obvious that
⎤ 
∗ ∗ ∗ Ω1 Ω2 = R2 .
⎥
∗ ∗ ∗⎥ ⎥ The switching law is designed as follows,
⎥
−Q ∗ ∗ ⎥ < 0, (34)
⎥ 1, x̂k ∈ Ω1 ,
J˜2i G − Ui J˜u2i X̃i + λi Ẽi ẼiT ∗⎥ ⎦ σ(k) = (39)
2, x̂k ∈ Ω2 .
0 0 Q̄
The state response curves of the first subsystem and the
and second subsystem under the controller (38) are shown in
Vi Fi = Fi G, (35) Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The state response curve
of system (37) under the controller (38) and the switching
and the controller gain Ki and the observer gain Li are
law (39) is shown in Figure 3, where the initial condition is
given by
x̂0 = [x01 x02 ] = [0.5 − 1.1],
Ki = Yi G−1 −1
i , Li = Ui Vi . (36)
x̂0 − x0 = [e01 e02 ] = [−3 5].
Proof Let G̃i = diag{Gi , G}. Following similar argu-
ments to the proof of proposition 2, we can obtain that (34)
is equivalent to (30). Hence this theorem holds.
Remark 3 For coefficients βij , ∀i, j ∈ M̄ in (18), (19),
(21), (24), (30) and (34), we have a number of possible ways
of choosing them. One way is to utilize the optimization ap-
proach proposed in [12] and the references therein in order
to reduce the possible conservatism that may result from the
inequalities (15).

5 Simulation example
In the section, a simulation example is given to illustrate
the validity of the results. Fig. 1 The state response of the first subsystem of (37).
284 Z. SONG et al. / Journal of Control Theory and Applications 2007 5 (3) 278–284
Fig. 2 The state response of the second subsystem of (37).
Fig. 3 The state response of system (37) under the controller (38) and
the switching law (39).
6 Conclusions
In this paper, the problem of robust H∞ performance
analysis and robust H∞ control synthesis of discrete-time
switched system have been addressed. Two different condi-
tions for the systems to have robust H∞ performance have
been derived which guarantee the existence of a switched
quadratic Lyapunov function, the corresponding switching
law is simultaneously constructed. Instead of a single con-
troller/observer for all subsystems, we design an individual
controller/observer for each subsystem. Then, a switching
state feedback controller and an observer-based switching
dynamic output feedback controller have been established.
References
[1] A. V. Savkin, A. S. Matveev. Cyclic linear differential automata:
a simple class of hybrid dynamical systems[J]. Automatica, 2000,
36(5): 727 – 734.
[2] D. Liberzon, A. S. Morse. Basic problems in stability and design
of switched systems[J]. Control Systems Magazine, 1999, 19(5):
59 – 70.
[3] D. Cheng, L. Guo, J. Huang. On quadratic Lyapunov functions[J].
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2003, 48(5): 885 – 890.
[4] S. Pettersson, B. Lennartson. Stability and robustness for hybrid
systems[C]//Proceedings of the 35th Conference Decsion and
Control. Kobe: IEEE Press, 1996: 1202 – 1207.
[5] M. A. Wicks, P. Peleties, R. A. de Carlo. Construction of piecewise
Lyapunov functions for stabilizing switched systems[C]//Proceedings
of the 33rd Conference Decsion and Control. Lake Buena Vista: IEEE
Press, 1994: 3492 – 3497.
[6] J. Zhao, G. M. Dimirovski. Quadratic stability of a class of switched
nonlinear systems[J]. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2004,
49(4): 574 – 578.
[7] Z. Song, J. Zhao. A sufficient condition for stability with H∞
performance for linear discrete-time switched systems[J]. Journal of
Northeastern University, 2005, 26(1): 9 – 12 (in Chinese).
[8] J. Daafouz, P. Riedinger, C. Iung. Stability analysis and control
synthesis for switched systems: a switched Lyapunov function
approach[J]. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2002, 47(11):
1883 – 1887.
[9] D. Xie, L. Wang, F. Hao, et al. LMI approach to L2 -gain analysis and
control synthesis of uncertain switched systems[J]. IEE Proceedings
of Control Theory and Applications, 2004, 151(1): 21 – 28.
[10] J. Shi, T. Wu, S. Du. Delay-dependent robust H∞ control for switched
systems with parameter uncertainties and time delay[C]//Proceedings
of the 5th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation.
Piscataway, New Jersey: IEEE Press, 2004: 951 – 955.
[11] Z. Wang, B. Huang, H. Unbehauen. Robust H∞ observer design of
linear state delayed systems with parametric uncertainty: the discrete-
time case[J]. Automatica, 1999, 35(6): 1161 – 1167.
[12] L. Xie, Y. C. Soh. Robust kalman filtering for uncertain systems[J].
Systems & Control Letters, 1994, 22(2): 123 – 129.
Zhengyi SONG received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees in mathematics in 1989 and 1996, re-
spectively, both from Northeast Normal Uni-
versity, China. Currently, he is a Ph.D. can-
didate in Control Theory and Applications at
Northeastern University. His research interests
are switched systems and robust control. E-
mail: songzhy12@163.com.
Jun ZHAO received the B.S. and M.S. degrees
in mathematics in 1982 and 1984, respectively,
both from Liaoning University, China. He re-
ceived his Ph.D. in Control Theory and Ap-
plications in 1991 at Northeastern University,
China. From 1992 to 1993, he was a postdoc-
toral fellow at the same university. Since 1994
he has been with School of Information Sci-
ence and Engineering, Northeastern Univer-
sity, China, where he is currently a professor. From February 1998 to
February 1999, he was a visiting scholar at the Coordinated Science Lab-
oratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His main research
interests include hybrid systems, nonlinear systems, geometric control the-
ory, and robust control.