IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO.

1, JANUARY 1993 17
Global Adaptive Output-Feedback Control
of Nonlinear Systems, Part I:
Linear Parameterization
Riccardo Marino and Patrizio Tomei, Member, IEEE
Abstract-This paper addresses the problem of designing
global adaptive output-feedback tracking controls for single-
input, single-output nonlinear systems which are linear with
respect to the input and an unknown constant parameter vector.
A class of systems which can be globally controlled by adaptive,
observer-based, output-feedback compensators is identified by
geometric coordinate-free conditions. The nonlinearities are re-
stricted to depend, in suitable coordinates, on the output only:
growth conditions are not required. Each system in the class
admits observers with linear error dynamics and is minimum
phase, i.e., it has linear asymptotically stable zero dynamics:
feedback linearizability property is not required. When the pa-
rameters are known, new sufficient conditions for global
output-feedback tracking control are obtained as a special case.
For linear systems the result obtained applies to minimum
phase bnes with unknown poles and zeroes, known sign of
high-frequency gain and known relative degree thus recovering a
well-known fundamental adaptive result. Three hxamples, in-
cluding a physical one, are discussed. In the companion paper
[311 the assumption of linear parameterization is removed as
far as set point regulation is concerned.
I. INTRODUCTION
IS paper deals with the design of global output-
single-output nonlinear systems containing a vector of
unknown constant parameters, under the assumption of
linearity with respect to inputs and parameters.
In the special case of known parameters, few results are
available [26]-[29] for the simpler problem of global out-
put-feedback stabilization, that is for the existence of a
dynamic output-feedback control such that the origin of
the closed-loop system is globally asymptotically stable. In
[281and [291 static output-feedback stabilizing controls are
proposed: in [29] the existence of an output control Lya-
punov function is assumed; in [28] the existence of a
storage function which guarantees passivity properties is
required. In [26] necessary and sufficient conditions for
local output-feedback linearization, which can be global-
ized according to [201, [251, are obtained: output-feedback
T feedback tracking controls for single-input,
Manuscript received February 7, 1991; revised J uly 29, 1991 and
February 15, 1992. Paper recommended by Associate Editor, A. Arapos-
tathis. This work was supported in part by Ministery of the University
and of Scientifical and Technological Research and in part by CNR, PFR
under Grant 90.00374.PF67.
The authors are with the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettronica,
Seconda Universits di Roma, Tor Vergata, Via 0. Raimondo, 00173
Rome, Italy.
IEEE Log Number 9204920.
linearization means transformation into a linear, observ-
able and controllable system by state-space change of
coordinates and static output feedback. In [27] sufficient
conditions are given for dynamic output-feedback lin-
earization which implies global output-feedback stabiliza-
tion for a class of systems including those considered in
[26]. Nevertheless, at the present state of the art, it is not
known how to globally stabilize by output feedback a
simple example such as
i, =x2 +x:
i2 =xg
i3 =U
(1.1)
Y =x 1
or the physical system made of a pendulum with a tor-
sional linear spring when only the pendulum position is
measured (see Section V), even though they both are
globally state feedback linearizable and global observers
with linear error dynamics exist for both of them. The
nonadaptive contribution of this paper is given by Theo-
rem 5.1, which provides new sufficient geometric condi-
tions for the existence of a global output-feedback track-
ing control. They generalize those given in [271 and in-
clude: the conditions which guarantee the existence of a
global observer with linear error dynamics (obtained lo-
cally in [19] and globalized according to the results in [201,
[25]); additional conditions which guarantee that the zero
dynamics (see [l], ch. 4) be asymptotically stable and
linear in suitable coordinates. They do not imply the state
feedback linearizability property. The only restriction im-
posed on the nonlinearities is their dependence, in suit-
able state coordinates, on the output only: no matching
condition, boundedness or growth restrictions are re-
quired.
The main results of the paper (Theorems 3.1 and 4.1)
provide sufficient conditions for the existence of adaptive
output-feedback controls: an adaptive control is designed
which guarantees global tracking for every unknown value
of the parameter vector. It is built upon a series of
contributions which have developed adaptive versions of
nonlinear control algorithms designed via the geometric
approach to nonlinear systems. Adaptive versions of
state-feedback linearizing controls have been developed
in [3]-[7], of state feedback input-output linearizing con-
0018-9286/93$03.00 0 1993 IEEE
18 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
trols were given in [8], of nonlinear observers in [91, [lo],
[ 1.51. Nonlinear state feedback adaptive stabilization using
the "control Lyapunov function" technique was studied in
[l l l , [12]. In particular, only recently in [5] and [l l ] adap-
tive techniques were developed and which are able to
achieve global adaptive state-feedback stabilization of the
system
il =x2 +ex;
x2 =x3 ( 1-21
x3 =U
which does not satisfy the matching and the extended
matching conditions introduced in [3] and [4], respectively.
As shown in Example 5.2, the techniques presented in this
paper allow us to achieve global adaptive stabilization and
tracking for (1.2) from the output y =x,. The first results
in adaptive output-feedback linearization were presented
in [13] and [14] where adaptive versions of the output-
feedback linearizing control in [26] were developed under
the restriction of so-called output matching conditions
and of sector-type nonlinearities. No such conditions are
needed in this paper: not even state feedback lineariza-
tion is required.
From a technical viewpoint we make use of nonlinear
adaptive observers presented in [lo] and [15] and of the
concept of filtered transformation introduced in [ 151, which
are time-varying state space change of coordinates de-
pending on asymptotically stable filters driven by output
dependent nonlinearities and by the input. In the case of
relative degree equal to one, we construct filtered trans-
formations in order to transform the system into a special
"adaptive observer form." In the case of relative degree
greater than one, we use techniques developed in [16]-[ 181
for the construction of Lyapunov functions for cascade
systems and, following [5], we employ several "parameter
estimators" for every single unknown parameter. The
higher the relative degree is, the higher is the dimension
of the resulting output-feedback compensator. We view
the construction of the global output-feedback tracking
control as an existence result. Additional efforts are
needed to reduce the dimension of the compensator, to
simplify the control algorithm and to assess its robustness.
As a corollary, Theorem 5.2 provides a different proof of
the well-established result (see [21] and [24]) on the exis-
tence of an output feedback, adaptive, tracking control for
a linear single-input, single-output minimum phase sys-
tem, with unknown poles and zeroes, known upper bound
on the number of poles, known relative degree, and
known sign of high frequency gain: the resulting control
algorithm appears to be different than the ones available
in the literature. Those readers who are familiar with the
complexity of the different proofs given in the 80's of this
fundamental result for linear systems will not be surprised
by the proof of Theorems 3.1 and 4.1 of this paper which
can handle non-lipschitz nonlinearities as well.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section I1 we
introduce the geometric conditions which characterize the
class of nonlinear systems for which we are able to design
output-feedback tracking controls, recall basic facts and
definitions and prove some preliminary technical results.
We then prove the main adaptive result for relative de-
gree one in Section I11 and for relative degree greater
than one in Section IV, respectively. In Section V special
cases are discussed: adaptive output-feedback control for
linear systems and nonadaptive output-feedback control
for nonlinear systems. Several examples are also given in
order to illustrate the theory, including the physical sys-
tem made of a pendulum with a linear torsional spring.
The reader is referred to [l ] and [2] for basic results,
references and terminology in nonlinear geometric con-
trol and to [211 and [24] for basic results and references in
adaptive control of linear systems. A preliminary version
of this work was presented in [30]; special cases are
treated in [321.
This is the first part of a two part paper on output-
feedback control of nonlinear systems. In the second part
[31] we shall remove the key assumption of linear parame-
terization at the expense of limiting ourselves to the set
point regulation problem.
11. BASIC DEFINITIONS AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Consider single-input, single-output nonlinear systems
r m 1 m
x E R", U E R, 8 E R c R"
y =h(x), Y E R ( C)
where x is the state vector, U is the control, 8 =
[ O,,..., 8,IT is the (constant) parameter vector belonging
to Cl , a closed subset in R",h:C"(R",R) is the output
function, f , go, gi , qi, 1 I i I m, are smooth vector fields
on R", with g,(x) #0, Vx E R". Throughout the paper,
we shall assume without loss of generality that h(0) =0
and that 8 =0 is the nominal parameter such that system
(2) with U =0 and 8 =0
satisfies the condition
rank (d(Lj h(x)): 0 < j I n - 1) =n , Vx E R"
which implies local observability for every x (see [2], page
95).
We now restrict our attention to the class of systems
(2) identified by means of the geometric, coordinate-free
conditions given in the following theorem.
Theorem 2.1: The system (2) is transformable by a
global state-space diffeomorphism (independent of 8 1
f =T(x), T(0) =0, 5 E R" (2.2)
MARINO AND TOMEI: ADAPTIVE OUTPUT-FEEDBACK CONTROL: PART I 19
- -
0 1 0 ..- b 1 ( 0 )
3 b ( 0 ) = :
A, =
bn- 1( @)
0 0 0 --.
0 0 0 ..*
- b n ( e ) -
into ing (2) into
This is a consequence of the main result in [19]: in the
coordinates 5 =T( x ) we have
d
adi r =(- 1)'-
a5n i
and iv) becomes
Y =c c 5. (2.5)
+ e, *l(Y)
1 = 1
Condition iv) implies that the vector fields P, ( y) in (2.5)
become
m
b ( e ) o ( Y ) u +@o( Y> +c @ L Y ) ~ , (SI
, 0 I i I m. (2.6)
r =l
Y =c,5
Pl ( Y) =V ( Y )
with a : R -+R, +l : R -+R", p , E R", 0 I i I m, and
( Ac , b, C, ) in observer canonical form
i)
ii) [ q, , udf r ] =0, 11i 1m,O.:k1n-2,
iii) [g, , adf "r] =0, 01k i n- 2, 01i <m,
iv) g, =a( . ) pL,( - ~ ) ~ ~ ' a d ; - J r ,
[ adi r , adi t-] =0, o I i , j I n - 1,
n
] =I
pI J E R, 0 I i I m,
v)
the vector fields adj r, 0 I i I n - 1, are
complete
where r is the vector field satisfying
Proof Condition i) is shown in [191 and [l ] to be
necessary and sufficient for the existence of a local state-
space change of coordinates
(2.3)
in which adi r =(-l )i (d/d&pl ), 0 I i I n - 1, and the
system (2.1) takes the form
5, =t , ( x ) , t i ( 0 ) =0,
1 I i i n
5 =4 5 +@o( Y)
Y =C, l . (2.4)
Conditions i), ii), and iii) are shown in [lo] to be necessary
and sufficient for the existence of a local, parameter
independent, state-space diffeomorphism (2.3) transform-
i.e., (2.6). Note that since by assumption g , ( x ) #0, Vx E
R", it follows that a ( y > #0, t l y E R. On the other hand,
the necessity of conditions i), ii), iii), and iv), which are
coordinate free, is readily verified in (S). Condition v) is
necessary and sufficient, according to [20] and [251, for the
above change of coordinates to be global. When v>is
violated, the change of coordinates is a local one in a
Remark 2.1: Conditions i)-iv) are coordinate free, that
is they can be verified in any coordinates. The computa-
tions involved can be performed by a computer equipped
with symbolic manipulation languages. In particular, con-
dition iv) provides the function a(.) and the components
pL1; . *, pl n of the vectors p, appearing in (S). Condition v)
0
Remark 2.2: Under the assumptions i), ii), and iii), for
every known parameter vector B E Cl, system (2) is lo-
cally observable and
neighborhood of the origin. 0
is more difficult to check (see [201, [251).
; = A c t + [ P o ( Y ) +T L 1 e l P , ( Y ) l u
++o( Y) +CY=iel@1(Y) +K( Y - c Ct )
is, according to [191, an asymptoLic observer for (2.5) with
linear error dynamics (e =5 - 5)
i =( A , - KCc) e
provided that K is chosen so that A, - KC, is asymptoti-
cally stable. Adaptive versions of this observer have been
0
Remark 2.3: Theorem 2.1 characterizes those systems
(2) which are transformable into (S) by a global change of
coordinates which is independent of 6. It is still open the
more general problem of determining coordinate-free
obtained in [lo] and 1151.
20 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
conditions on the system
i = f * ( ~ , e*) + g * ( x , e* ) ~,
x E R", U E R, 8* E R* c R"*
y =h*(x, e*), y E R (Z* 1
with h*(O, e*) =0, g*( x, e*) #0 Vx E R", for every e*
E R* c R"*, which guarantee the existence of
1) a global state space change of coordinates (possibly
depending on e*)
J =T'(X, e*>,
2) a global output space change of coordinates (inde-
pendent of e* )
5 =T 2 ( Y ) 7
3) a reparameterization
e =T3( e *) ,
e E ~ m ,
with m possibly different than m*
transforming system (C* into
m
4 = A , [ +b ( e ) a ( Y > u +(clo(Y) +c ( cl , ( Y) 6
5 =e,<.
i = 1
Any result in this direction would enlarge the applicability
0
Definition 2.1: Let p , the relative degree of the output
y with respect to the control U for the system ( 2) with
0 =0 (nominal system), be defined as
of the theory presented in the next two sections.
LgnL'fh(x) =0,
0 5 i I p - 2, Vx E U, c R"
LgnLf-'h(0) #0,
where U, is a neighborhood of the origin. 0
Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.1 the vector field
g =go +C,"=O,g, becomes in {-coordinates
Definition 2.2: A vector b =[ bl , . . . , b,IT is said to be
Hunvitz of degree p if the associated polynomial
bl Sn- l +b 2 s n - 2 +... +b,
is of degree n - p( b, =
witz, i.e., all its zeros have real part less than zero.
=b, -l =0, b, #0) and Hur-
We finally introduce the last assumption on system (XI:
vi) the vector b ( 0 ) =p o +Cy=lpipii, which is formed
on the basis of condition iv), is Hunvitz with constant
degree n - p for every 8 E a, and the sign of the scalar
p o p + p i p 0, is known and constant in Cl.
We now establish that system (2) satisfying conditions
i)-vi>have a zero dynamics (see [l , ch. 41, for a definition)
which can be expressed, in suitable global coordinates, by
a linear asymptotically stable system.
Theorem2.2: If system ( 2 ) with relative degree p satis-
fies conditions i)-vi) and f (0) =0, qi(0) =0, 1 i i i m,
then the zero dynamics is asymptotically stable and can be
expressed in suitable global coordinates as
. . .
. . . . . : I z. (2.7)
. .
Proofi According to Theorem 2.1, conditions i>-v)
guarantee the existence of a global change of coordinates
(2.2) in which system ( 2) is expressed as (SI with (cli(0) =0,
0 2 i _<m. Since the relative degree is p, we have b, =
... =bP- ] =0, b, #0 and, by assumption vi), the polyno-
mial
b,,d-P +* * * +b, - , s +b,
(2.8)
is Hunvitz. By choosing the control law
1
U = -
b, u ( y ) ( - '&')
the manifold ( 5 E R": l1 =... =l, =0) is made invari-
ant and the dynamics on it (the zero dynamics according
to [l , ch. 41) are given by (2.7) and are asymptotically
stable since (2.8) is Hunvitz. Note that the zero dynamics
0
Remark 2.4: In Theorem 2.2 even though conditions iv)
and vi) are not satisfied the zero dynamics are linear and
globally expressed as (provided that PP(O> #0)
depend in general on 8.
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
z
where &( y ) =[ poi ( y ) +2y! l ~j pj,(y)] denotes the ith
component of the vector field multiplying U in (2.5). 0
We now recall from [15] the key concept of filtered
transformation and establish a technical lemma which will
be one of the basic tools in the next two sections.
Definition 2.3: A filtered transformation is defined as
a time-varying global state diffeomorphism, which may
MARINO AND TOMEI: ADAPTIVE OUTPUT-FEEDBACK CONTROL PART I
-
... 0 0
. . .
. . .
. .
... 0
... 0 0
-
~
21
w . -
1 -
depend on the unknown 8:
z =s ( x , 5 ( t ) , e),
fying
z =s ( s - ' ( z , 5 ( t ) , e ) , 5 ( t ) , e ) , V ~ E w,veE [ wm
z E R", x E RE, 5 E R ~, e E [ wm
such that there exists a C" function S- ' ( z , g( t ) , 6) satis-
where t ( t ) is a signal generated by the auxiliary linear
asymptotically stable filter ( A is Hurwitz)
4 =A5 +6 ( Y( t ) , u( t ) ) ,
driven by the inputs y( t >, u(t ).
Lemma 2.3: Consider the system
m
1 = A , X + f O ( y , u , e ) +Cf i ( y , u ) e i
PA , x + f o ( y , u , ~ ) + F( y , u ) B
i = 1
y =c,x. (2.10)
Let fij, 1 I j I n, denote the components of the vector fi;
if
f i j ( Y7 U) =0,
vy E R, v u E R,
1 I i I m, 1 ~j I p1 - 1 <n (2.11)
then there exists a filtered transformation
(2.12)
from system (2.10) into
m
i = ~ c z + f O ( y , u , e ) + b C Yi ( y , u, t ) e i
i = 1
PA , Z + f O ( y , u , e ) +b ~ ~ ( ~ , u , 6 ) 6
y =c, z (2.13)
in which b =[O,..., 1, bP2+l,..*, b,IT is a Hurwitz vector of
degree p2 I p l , such that
s " - P z +0 . . +b, =( S +A,) * * e ( S +An-, , )
with Ai, 1 I i I n - p 2, arbitrary positive reals and yi,
1 I i I m, are scalar real valued functions.
Proofi Consider the transformation
z = x - ~ e (2.14)
where M( t ) is a time-varying n X m matrix yet to be
defined with the special structure (ti E Rn-pZ)
and B is a ( n - p 2) x m time-varying matrix. The dynam-
ics of the variables z are
i =1 - Me =A, Z +A, Me +fo +2: ,fiei - ke
PA, z + f o +( A, M +F - A i ) & (2.16)
We now determine the matrix M and the row vector
y T =[yl ,. ... yml such that
m
A, M +F - k =b y j Li bTT (2.17)
i = 1
which makes (2.16) coincide with (2.13). Since the vector b
has degree p 2, we have
C,A',b =0,
CCA,P2-'b =1.
0 I i I p2 - 2
Multiplying (2.17) by C,A,P2-' and recalling the structure
of M (2.13, we obtain y as a function of M
y T =CCA,P2M +C,A,PZ-'F (2.18)
which substituted in (2.17) gives a differential equation for
M
k= ( I - bC,A,PZ-')A,M +( I - bC,A,Pz-')F
+
where
1 ... 0 0
-bp, + 1
- bnPl 0 a * * 1 0
-b, 0 . * * 0 1
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
F = [i]
F (2.19)
and F is the ( n - p2 +1) X m submatrix of F. Equation
(2.19) can be rewritten as in (2.12) by defining 5 =
[ (:;--, ,$,'IT. Equations (2.14) and (2.19) provide the re-
quired filtered transformation: note that the filters are
asymptotically stable since the vector b is Hurwitz by
assumption. The functions [yl,***, ym] =y T appearing in
0
Remark 2.5: Filtered transformations were introduced
in [15] in the study of adaptive observers and applied in
[27] to obtain dynamic output-feedback linearization. As-
sume for instance that in (2.10) f o( y, U, 0) =bu with
b =[O;.., 1, bp2+l , . . . , b,IT a Hurwitz vector of degree p2
I p1 and f i ( y , U) =f , ( y ) with f i j ( y ) =0, 1 I j I p1 - 1,
1 I i I m: then, according to Lemma 2.3 there exists a
filtered transformation
the transformed system (2.13) are given by (2.18).
ti =ASj +Si ( y ) ,
1 I i I m (2.20)
22 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
with
-bp,+l 1 ... 0 0
. . . .
. . . .
A = [ . . 0 1 . .
-bn-l 0
-bn 0 ... 0 0
from system (2.10) into the system
m
i =l
Theorem 3.1: Consider system (2) with relative degree
p =1. If assumptions i)-vi) are satisfied, then there exists
a global adaptive output-feedback tracking control for
every unknown value of the parameter vector 8 E CR.
Proofi Since assumptions i)-v) are satisfied, Theorem
2.1 applies and guarantees the existence of a global change
of coordinates 5 =T ( x ) transforming ( 2) into (S), which
can be rewritten by virtue of assumption vi) as
1 m
y =c,z. (2.22) Y = C c l
The system (2.201, (2.22) can be interpreted as a nonmini-
mal realization of system (2.10) which has some definite
advantages. In fact choosing
m
U = - c X ( Y , 5)8, +U ( 2.23)
the dynamics in z-coordinates become linear. Equations
(2.20) and (2.23) define a dynamic compensator of order
n - p2 +1. At this point, according to [27], the system is
output-feedback stabilized, for every known 8, by a con-
trol U designed following well-known linear techniques.
The role of filtered transformations is to create a match-
ing property [as in (2.22)] which is not enjoyed by the
We finally give the definitions for global adaptive out-
put-feedback stabilizing and tracking controls.
Definition 2.4: A global (adaptive) output-feedback sta-
bilizing control for system (C) is a finite dimensional
i =l
original system. U
where k =(l/lbll),& =[1,(b2/bl),...,(b,/bl)lT and the
variable 8, =1 is introduced for convenience of notation.
Consider the matrix
D = Ij: 2 [d, e . . d,] (3.2)
d1n d2n ...
where the vectors di , 1 I i I n, which are linearly inde-
pendent, are related by the recursive formula
dn =[0 e - . 0 lI T
d,-, =A,d, +SPl dj , n 2 j 2 2 (3.3)
with Aj, 1 ~j I IZ - 1, being positive reals. System (3.1)
becomes
1
i = A , l + (kd, +
+Cim=O4$dY)
system
b+ =c . ( w, y ( t ) ) , w( 0) =wo, w E R', Y =Cc l (3.4)
such that for every x(0) E Rn and w, E R', Ilx(t)ll and
& =Dp.
Ilw(t)ll are bounded Vt 2 0, and
Defining pj =( pj / k) , 1 I j I n - 1, system (3.4) is
limIl x(t )l l =0. 0 rewritten as
t - m
1
Definition 2.5: A global (adaptive) output-feedback
tracking control for system (C) is a finite dimensional
i =AJ +idl sign [b,]a(y)u
system
+Cy:lldj+l pi si gn[b,]a(y)u +C:08i$i(y)
kb =c . ( w, y ( t ) , t ) ,
w ( 0 ) =WO, w E R', Y =CCl .
U =P(w,y(t),t), U E R
Now, consider the filtered transformation consisting of
the filters
such that for every x(0) E R", w, E R' and for every
time derivatives, Ilx(t)ll, Ilw(t)ll, and u( t ) are bounded
bounded smooth output reference yR(t) with bounded bn-1,1 =- AI Pn- I , 1 +P n- 1, 2
Vt 2 0, and
limly(t) -yR(t)l =0.
t'"
111.ADAPTIVE OUTPUT-FEEDBACK TRACKING
CONTROL: RELATIVE-DEGREE-ONE CASE
In this section we solve in Theorem 3.1 the tracking
problem for systems having relative degree equal to one. b1,I =-4 / 4, 1 +si gn[b,l a(y)u (3.5)
MARINO AND TOMEI: ADAPTIVE OUTPUT-FEEDBACK CONTROL PART I 23
and of the transformation and (3.10) we obtain the error dynamics ( e =z - z M)
n-1 1 + 1 1
k
(3.6)
=( A, - d i K, ) e +-d1 sign [ b , ] a ( y ) u
2 =5 - c P, c d I P1 , ] - l *
l = l 1 - 2
+d, [ PTP +Y d Y , 5) +Y Y Y , 516 +Kcz - U M ] .
m n- 1 *[K,i +PTb +Y d Y , 5) +Y V Y , ( ) e ^ - UY] (3.13)
In new coordinates, we have
Let the control U be defined as
1
k
U =-iff-' ( Y ) sign [41
t =A,Z +-d, sign [ b , ] a ( y ) u
where a ( y ) #0, V y E R, by virtue of the hypothesis
g( x) #0, Vx E R", and sign[b,I is known by assumption
vi). The state estimate i in (3.13) is provided by the
adaptive observer developed in [15]
2 =A, i +Lid1 ( Y )U +di [ PT b +Yo( Y , 5
+c 0, 44( Y) +dl c P, P, , I
r = O r = l
(3.7)
The filtered transformation (3.51, (3.6) from (3.1) into (3.7)
is not needed when the vector b is known. We now
proceed as in Remark 2.5 in order to induce a matching
property. Lemma 2.3 applies to (3.7) and guarantees the
existence of a filtered transformation
y =C,Z.
+ r T ( y , 5161 +Ko ( Y - c,.q
(3.14)
in which KO is chosen so that (A, is a positive real)
det [ SI - ( A , - K, C, ) ]
z =S( 5, (( t ) , 3)
8 =A 5 +6 ( Y ) ,
=( S +A, ) ( S"- ' +dI2sn-' +... +d,,). (3.15)
Such a KO exists since the pair ( Cc, A, ) is observable and
guarantees that C, (d - A , +KoC,)-'d, =l /(s +Ao),
i.e., it is strictly positive real. The parameter estimates
dynamics are chosen to be
(3.8)
such that (3.7) is transformed into the special adaptive
observer form (see [15])
i = A, z +d, - sign [ b , ] a ( y ) u
(3.16)
(3.17)
[:
GOIY - YR +v ( Y - cci ) l Y( Y, 5)
=Gp[Y -YR +q ( Y - cci >l Pl
I
+x 11P, P, 71 +%oY1( Y75) 0,
= g k [ K c i +PTb +YO( y, 5) +Y ( y , - u M ]
(3.18)
(3.19)
y =c,z (3.9)
where P =[ PI , - - - , Pn-,I T, P, =[ P ~ , ~ , * * * , P , - ~, , I ~ and Y
=[ - yl , - *- , ymIT. Define the reference model
with q, g k and gb positive reals, Go and Gp symmetric
positive definite matrices. From (3.9), (3.13), (3.141, and
(3.16)-(3.19), we obtain t_heextenGed dynamics _(we use
;he-notations:A.2 =z - 2, 0 =6 - 6, P =P - P, k =k -
t =( A , - d, K, )e +d, KcZ +dl [ pTp +y T ( y , 5 ) 6 ]
i, =( A , - d , K, ) zm +d,u,, k, b, =b, - b, )
Z M ( 0 ) =[ YR( O) , o,..., OI T
(3.10)
where y R( t ) is the output reference. The matrix K, is
chosen so that (A, is a positive real)
f
+d, j - [ K, i +PTb +Yo( Y, 5) +Y V Y , [ > e ^ - U M ]
det [ SI - ( A, - d , K, ) ] (3.20)
=( S +h,)(s"-' +d12Sn- 2 +... +d,,) (3.11) t =( A , - KoCc)Z +d , h , a ( y ) u
i.e., the eigenvalues of the matrix ( A, - d, K, ) are the
zeros of the polynomial sn-' +d12sn-' +... +dl,, which
is Hurwitz by (3.3), in addition to -Ac. Such a K, exists
since the pair ( A, , d,) is controllable (d, is Hurwitz by
guarantees that C,(sI - A , +dl K, ) p' d, =l /(s +A,), '
i.e., it is strictly positive real. Substituting in (3.9)
+dl[ PTP +Y T ( Y , 5151
(3.21)
.
6 =- GoCc( e +' VZ) Y( Y,
construction and therefore d,, #0). This choice for K, P =- GpC, ( e ++) PI
=- g k c c e [ K c i +YO( YI 5) +PTb
(3.12) + Y ( Y , [ ) ' e ^ - U M ]
U M ( t ) =YR( t ) +
(3.22)
24 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
Consider the function
v =eTP,e +qi Tp, z +GTcilG
witz polynomial [recall assumption vi)] defined by
~i gn[ b, ] ( b, s" ~~ +... +b,)(s"-' +d12F 2 +
+d,,)
+a2n-1*
=al S2n-2 +...
1
k
+PTG;$ +-gL'&' +q g i ' 6 : (3.23)
System (3.30) can be realized as
where k =(l/lbll) is a positive unknown constant and P,
and P, are, respectively, the symmetrie positive definite
solutions of
( A, - dl K, ) TP, +P, ( A, - dlK,) =-Z,ZT - E,Z
P,d, =CT (3.24)
and
( A , - K,C,)TP, +P, ( A, - K,C,) =-z,z: - , I
Pedl =CT (3.25)
with E, and E, positive reals. Such solutions exist since,
according to (3.11) and (3.151, the triples ( A, -
dlK,, d,, C,) and ( A, - K,C,, d,, C,) satisfy the Meyer-
Kalman-Yakubovich Lemma (see [21, page 661). The time
derivative of (3.23) with respect to the dynamics
(3.20)-(3.22) satisfies the inequality
and, therefore, if q is chosen such that
IlCTK,II2
v>-
5 ' e
(3.27)
results negative semidefiniLe. From (3.23)_and (3.26>, we
obtain that Ile(t)ll, Ilz(t>ll, I1mil, II p(t)ll, k( t ) and bl(t)
are bounded. Since IIiM(t>ll is bounded also y(t) =C, z ( t )
is bounded, Vt 2 0. From (3.8) it follows that IIgYt)ll is
bounded. From (S), the input-output map is given by the
differential equation
(3.28)
in which lCsi denotes the ith element of vector $,. From
the first set of filters in (3.5), we obtain the differential
equation relating dy) u to pn-l , l
dn- 1 dn-2
dt n- l Pn- 1, 1 +d 1 2 3 ~ n - 1 , 1 + +dl npn- 1, 1
=sign [b,]c+(y)u. (3.29)
Substituting (3.29) in (3.281, we have
(3.30)
where ai , 1 I i 4 2n - 1, are the coefficients of the Hur-
. . . .
. . . .
: l o . . * * * . O l .
1 -:
a2n- 1
1-7
c:=1 - 2 + I 0 ( Y 'J
-
pn- l ,l =[i 0 o ... 010 (3.31)
where w is the (2n - 2) X 1 state vector and E, repre-
sents the ith column of the (2n - 2) x (2n - 2) identity
matrix. Since (3.31) is an asymptotically stable linear sys-
tem whose inputs are bounded (y has been already shown
to be bounded), it follows that the output pn- l,l(t) is also
bounded. A similar reasoning may be used to prove that
also the other filter variables pJ, l , 1 4 j I n - 2, are
bounded. According to (3.13) the control u(t) is bounded
as well. Consequently, in (3.5) the state vectors pl ( t ) ,
1 4 i I n - 1, are bounded. From (3.20) and (3.21) we
can see that Ile(t)ll and Ilt(t)ll are bounded, which imply
that V is uniformly continuous. Besides
- p(T)dT =V( 0) - lim V( t ) <W.
1 + m
Applying the Barbalat's Lemma (123, page 2101) it follows
that lim,+J ?t) =0 which by (3.26) implies
lim,+Ale(t)Il =0
lim,+J Z(t)ll =0. (3.32)
Since y =C,z and y, =CczM we finally obtain
- lim ( y ( t ) - yR(t)) =0. (3.33)
t+m
0
In conclusion, the dynamic output-feedback compen-
sator (3.5), (3.8), (3.13), (3.141, (3.16)-(3.19), (3.10) is shown
to be a global adaptive tracking control, according to
Definition 2.5.
Remark 3.1: If we are interested in the stabilization
problem (see Definition 2.4), we set y R( t ) =0, z,(t) =0,
and we assume that in system (Z)f(O>=0, q,(O) =0, l I i
4 m, which imply that in system (SI the function I,!J' are
such that @,(O) =0, 0 4 i I m. Consider systems (3.8)
and (3.31). Since y(t) is bounded, (3.33) holds and 6(0) =
0, we can apply a result in [22, page 591 to establish that
lim,+,ll5(t)ll =0
limf+mpn-I ,l(t) =0 (3.34)
MARI NO AND TOMEI: ADAPTIVE OUTPUT-FEEDBACK CONTROL PART I 25
and, similarly ics in Z-coordinates are given by
lim ~ ~ , ~ ( t ) =0,
1 I i I n - 2. (3.35)
t +m
Taking (3.32H3.35) into account, we obtain from (3.13)
=A,Z +z1cp1 +T(y)e (4.4)
that
y =C,Z
limu( t ) =0 (3.36)
t + m
which allows us to apply again the result in [22, page 591
to systems (3.51, yielding
where 6, =1 and al is an unknown Hurwitz vector, of
degree One bY construction, Whose first &-It 6, is of
known sign. Rewrite (4.4) as
limIIpi(t)ll =0,
1 I i I n - 1. (3.37)
t - m
1-
k
t =A, Z +-d,cp, sign[b,] +T(y)g
y =C,Z (4.5)
Since t ( t ) is related to z( t ) by the transformations (3.61,
(3.81, and (3.321H3.37) hold, we finally have that
limII l(t)ll =0
where k =(l/lbPl1 and d; =[l,(d,,/b,) ;..,(d,./b,)lT.
Introduce the filtered transformation
t
which, since 5 =T(x) with T(0) =0, implies
bn-1,1 =- A1 Pn-1,1 +p n - 1 , 2
limIlx(t)ll =0.
This proves that the dynamic output-feedback compen-
adaptive stabilizing control according to Definition 2.4. 0
The relative-degree-one case has been treated sepa-
- -
t + m
bn- 1, n- 1 - An- 1 pn- 1, n- 1 +si gn[bpI ~l
sator (3.51, (3.81, (3.13), (3.14), (3.16H3.19) is a global
bn-2,1 =-I ~ n - 2 , 1 +~ n - 2 , 2
(4.6)
- -
rately because the result obtained (Theorem 3.1) will be
b n - 2 , n - 2 - A n - 2 p n - 2 , n - 2 +sign[bplcp,
used in the proof of the case p 2 2 in the next section.
IV. ADAPTIVE OUTPUT-FEEDBACK CONTROL:
CASE p 2 2
n - 1 i +l
Zr = Z - Pi d j p i , j - l
j = l j = 2
where pi, 1 I i I n - 1, and d,, 1 I i I n, are defined as
in the proof of Theorem 3.1. In Z-coordinates, we have
=A,Zr +-d, sign [b,lcp1 +~ ( ~ 1 8 +d,
(4.7)
Theorem 4.1: Consider system (Z) with relative degree
p, 2 I p I n. If assumptions i)-vi) are satisfied, then there
exists a global adaptive output-feedback tracking control
for every unknown value of the parameter vector 6 E SZ.
Proof: Since assumptions i>-vi>are satisfied, Theo-
rem 2.1 applies and guarantees the existence of a global
change of coordinates 5 =T(x) transforming (Z) into (S)
with b =[ O; - - , O, b,,..., bnlT. Consider the filtered trans-
formation consisting of the filters
1
k
y =C,Z. (4.8)
-
4,pl =-~,-,cp,-, +C. ( Y ) U
2 =5 - c ( d, cp, - , )
(4.1)
with cpl E R, 1 I i I p - 1, and of the transformation
P
(4.2)
r =2
where h,, 1 I i I p - 1, are arbitrary positive reals and
d,, 1 _< i p, are unknown vectors given by the recursive
formula
-
d, =b
z,-l =Acd, +A,&, p 2j 2 2. (4.3)
rJ ote that, since the vector b is Hurwitz by assumption vi),
d, is Hurwitz and its first element is d,, =b,. The dynam-
We now apply Lemma 2.3, which guarantees that there
exists a filtered transformation
z = S ( Z , [ ( t ) , 8 )
& =A5 +6 ( ~ ) , (4.9)
such that (4.8) is transformed into the special adaptive
observer form
i =A, z +d, -sign[b,]cp, +pTP
i:
+YO( Y, 0 +Y Y Y , 4
y =c,z (4.10)
where P =[ P1, - * * , Pn-1IT, PI =[ PI ,I ,***, P n- l , l I T and Y
=[yl,--., y,lT. We now consider cpl as the control vari-
able (see [16]-[NI). Following the proof of Theorem 3.1,
26 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
cpl should be designed as follows
+ Y T ( Y , Oe^,] +K A Y - cc4
(4.23)
81=Gpl[Y - YR +v ( Y - cci>l Pl
(4.14)
We now consider (p2 as the control input which is to be
designed by using the function
=g k ( Y - YR) ( Kc 2 +PTbl +YO( Y, 5)
(4.15)
(4.24)
where hpz is an auxiliary estimate of b, (the use of several
"estimators" for the same Darameter was introduced in
(4.16)
[SI), hPz =bp - hpzLand gb, is a positive constant. The
time derivative of Vl with respect to (4.23) is
For the closed-loop system (3.10), (4.10)-(4.16), with 'pl =
cpT, the function ( e =z - z M)
with k =(l/lbpl) a positive unknown constant and P, and
P, solutions of (3.24) and (3.29, is such that its time
+2g;p,j p2
(4.25)
derivative, denoted by v:, with a'suitable
inequality [see (3.26) and (3.27)l
satisfies the
which can be rewritten as
.. ..
+2+,&, +2g;:6p26pz. (4.26)
Factoring out Cp1 in (4.26) and using the last of (4.23), the
function 'pz should be designed as
where k, is a positive real. Consider the extended system
consisting of (3.101, (4.10), (4.13)-(4.15) and
4 = Ac ? +hp,d1401 +dl[ PTP1+YO(Y3 5)
pi d =4: - ( y - y K) h P2 +Al (pT.
(4.27)
+Y T ( Y ? 5) 4] +K A Y - C A
(4.19)
bp, =gbl ( Y - cci)pl (4.20)
Let us examine 47, which is given by
-
41 =-4q1 +402.
Perform the change of coordinates
41=401 - d .
(4.22)
In new coordinates, we have A A A *
1
pf 1( y3z , +f 7uM, BM1 5 7 i 7 k 7 P17 e l , bp17 Pl7 P.2, G I )
i =A, z +sign [ b 1-dl( 40; +G1)
P k +-3 a(PT
+dl[ PTP +Yo ( Y, 5 ) +YT( Y7 081
JY
where p2 =[ P ~ , ~ ; . . , Since y is not available, it
follows that 4; and, consequently, vi d are not known.
4 =A, i +hPldl( pT +G1) +dl [ pYP1 +y o ( y , E )
MARINO AND TOMEI: ADAPTIVE OUTPUT-FEEDBACK CONTROL PART I 21
Noting that
with kal a positive real, so that (4.33) becomes
d'pT
[ - 1 ,'1 dY
y =C,i =C,Acz +C,d, @l +' pT) sign [b,] - - 2+,-CCA,2
f: =V: - 6; 2h +k,
(4.35)
and, in view of (4.181, a positive finite value of kal exists
such that
I
+Yo( Y, 6) +Y ~ ( Y , t ) e + PTP
1
=C,Acz +,(@i +' ~T ) si ~[ b, , l +Yo( Y, 0
+Y T ( Y , 5 ) e +PuTP
we will replace j by
(4.29)
Consider the function If p =2, ' pz represents the final control 9; =a ( y >u , so
that the input U is given by
A A A
Vl =Vl +@:Gi1b2 +6:G&'62 (4.32)
where Gp,, Go, are symmetric positive definite matrices.
f!.d =( +- ' ( y) ' p; ~ f ! . d ( y , z M , u ~ , ~ M , ~ , ~ , k 7 P ~ , e l ,
The time derivative of (4.32) with respect to the dynamics
(4.23), with 'p2 =' p;, is
A A A
Lpl, PI ? PZ, 62, bpz7 PZ, h ) . (4.38)
J'pT
dY
If p >2, we make a further change of coordinates +2 =
'p2 - ' p;, consider also the dynamics of 1 5 ~
Vi+ =V: - 2@,---(C,ACi +hpJ @l +' pT)
and consider 'p3 as a control variable which is designed
according to the function
+26,TGG162 +2bp, ( y - yR) +1. (4.33) v2 =v1+4," (4.40)
whose time derivative satisfies the inequality
We choose
' p i d =h2q; +cj ; -
(4.42)
and proceed as we did in the design of 'p2. At the end of
this step, weobtain an expression of the desired 'p, in the
(4.34)
~
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993 28
witz polynomial defined by following form
(Gills"-' +* a - +d ; , ) ( s " - l +d12Sn-' +
+d, , )
=a l S 2 n - 2 +... +u2n- 1. (4.50)
(4.43)
As shown in the proof of Theorem 3.1, (4.49) implies that
p,, - 1, is bounded. Similarly, we can prove that pi, 1, 1 I j
- <n - 2, are bounded. From (4.111, we can see that cp? is
bounded, and therefore cpl is also bounded, since GI has
been already proved to be bounded. Hence, the input to
the filters (4.6) is bounded, which implies that all the state
vectors pj , 1 s j I n - 1 and, from (4.441, the input U
are bounded. By using (3.101, .(4.1), (4:9), (4.101, (4.13)-
(4.151, (4.191, and (4.20), 1141, llz'll and I1CpII result bounded.
Recalling (4.46) and applying the Barbalat's Lemma, we
obtain
having introduced a new estimate j 2 of the time Geriya-
tjve of the output, the new parameter estimators b,,, P3,
O3 and a new function a&). Proceeding the same way,
we can obtain the final control U, which will be of the
form
(4.44)
the associated func-
limf+mllCp(t)ll =0 (4.51)
and, consequently
lim( y ( t ) - y R( t ) ) =0.
t"-=
(4.52)
0
Remark 4.1: Since the relative degree p is assumed to
be greater or equal than two, the idea of the proof is to
use a filtered transformation (4.1), (4.2) driven by the
control U in order to generate a signal cpl which, inter-
preted as a control in system (4.4), allows us to apply
Theorem 3.1 established for the relative-degree-one case.
The main problem is then to determine a suitable control
U capable of generating the needed signal cpl: a recursive
0
Remark 4.2: I n case of stabilization we assume that in
system ( 2) f(0) =0 and qi(0) =0, 1 I i I m; conse-
quently in system (S) we have +ki(0) =0, 0 I i I m. The
reference trajectory is z, (t ) =0. Consider systems (4.9)
and (4.49). Since 6(0) =0 and (4.52) holds, we can apply
the theorem in [22, page 591, yielding
procedure is developed to this purpose.
limt+mllt(t)ll =0
(4.53)
limr +m p n - 1, 1( t ) =0
0
P
6TG<16i (4.45)
i = 2
whose time derivative satisfies the inequality
where 5, =[5,1,*.-, 5,p-11'. &co:di?g to (4.45), (4.46) it
follows that llell, IIZII, 115,11, L, bpi, Pi , Oi, 1 I i I p, and, con-
sequently, y =C,z are bounded. The boundedness of
)I ,$(t)ll follows from (4.9). From (4.4) the differential equa-
tion relating cpl to y results
(4.47)
and, similarly
The first set of filters in (4.6) can be written as
dn- 1 dfl-2
d t n - l p n - 1 . 1 +d 1 2 z ~ n - 1 , 1 + +dl npn-1, 1
t - +x lim pi , *( t ) =0,
1 I i I n - 2 (4.54)
which, along with (4.44) and (4.51), imply
limu ( t ) =0.
t+-=
(4.55)
=cpl sign [b,] (4.48)
Hence, we can apply again the theorem in [22, page 591 to
systems (4.1) and (4.6), yielding
which substituted in (4.47), gives
2 n- 1 d 2 n - l - i
sign[bpI C a i w - 1 - i n - 1 , 1
i = 1
lim,,,cp,(t) =0,
1 I i I p - 1. (4.56)
Since [ ( t ) is related to z ( t ) by the transformations (4.2),
(4.7), and (4.9), in view of (4.51)-(4.54) we finally have that
where ai, 1 s i I 2n - 1, are the coefficients of the Hur-
MARINO AND TOMEI: ADAPTIVE OUTPUT-FEEDBACK CONTROL: PART I
~
29
which, since 5 =T( x ) with T(O) =0, implies
limIl x(t )l l =0.
t + m
v. SPECIAL CASESAND EXAMPLES
0
Assuming that the parameter vector in ( 2) is equal to
the nominal value 8 =0, that is all the parameters are
known, the nonadaptive versions of Theorems 3.1 and 4.1,
read as follows.
Theorem 5.1: Consider the system ( 2) with 8 =0
f = f ( x ) +g ( x ) u
y =h ( x ) .
Assume that
a) rank ( d( L) h( x) ) : 0 I j I n - l} =n, Vx E R";
b) [ adj r, adj r] =0, 0 I i, j _< n - 1;
c) [g,adfkr] =0, 0 I k I n - 2;
d) the vector fields adj r, 0 I i I n - 1, are com-
plete, where r is the vector field satisfying
e) g =a(.)C;= l bj (- l)"-jadf"-jr, b, E R, with b =
[bl;.., b,IT a Hurwitz vector.
Then, there exists a global output-feedback tracking con-
trol.
Proofi The proof follows the proofs of Theorems 3.1
and 4.1 with parameter estimates set equal to zero, since
8 =[Ol ,.--, 8,IT =0 is the nominal parameter: no param-
U
Remark 5. I : The sufficient conditions given in Theorem
5.1 generalize earlier ones presented in [27]. While the
conditions a), b), c), and d) guarantee, according to 1191,
[20], [lo], the existence of global observers with linear
error dynamics, Theorem 5.1 shows that the additional
condition e) is sufficient to guarantee the existence of
global output-feedback controls. As already pointed out in
Theorem 2.2, condition e) guarantees, among other things,
0
A well-known fundamental result in adaptive control of
linear systems (see [21] and [24]) is reobtained with a
different proof as a corollary of the Theorems in previous
sections.
Theorem 5.2: Consider the linear observable system
eter estimate dynamics need to be introduced.
that the system is minimum phase.
i =A x +gu,
y = a , y R (5.1)
x E R" , u E R
which is characterized by the transfer function
b p F P + +b,,
W( s ) = (5.2)
s n +u1sn-1 +* * * +a, .
Assume that this system is minimum phase and that the
relative degree p and the sign of the high-frequency gain
b, are known. Then, there exists a global adaptive
output-feedback tracking control.
Pro08 Since system (5.1) is observable, there exists a
linear transformation z =Tx, which depends on the un-
known entries of A, g, and c (recall Remark 2.31, trans-
forming (5.1) into an observer canonical form
i =A, z +bu - ay
y =c,z (5.3)
with b =[O;..,O, b,;.., b,IT and U =[a,;.., unIT, which is
a realization of (5.2) and satisfies the conditions i)-v).
Since the system is minimum phase and b, is of known
sign, condition vi) is also satisfied and Theorems 3.1 and
In order to illustrate the theory developed in Sections
Example 5.1: Consider the system
4.1 apply. 0
I11 and IV some examples will now be discussed.
1, =X, +OleY
i 2 =x3
i 3 =e2u
y =x1 +2x, +x3
with 8, >0. For every value of the constant unknown
parameter vector 8 =[e,, 8,IT such that 8, #0 this sys-
tem is not state-feedback linearizable. Hence, even when
the whole state is available the adaptive algorithms pro-
posed in [3], [4], [6], [7] do not apply. The global Lipschitz
conditions required in [8] are not satisfied either. How-
ever, this example is a relative-degree-one system which
satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 3.1 and can be
globally adaptively controlled by output-feedback. Indeed,
a linear transformation
J1 =x1 +2x, +x 3
J, =x2 +2x3
5 3 =x3
is needed so that in 5-coordinates we have
J1 =l2 +8,u +OleY
J', =8,u
Y =51
which is in the form (3.11, with 5 =[1,2, 1IT being a
Hurwitz vector. Since 8 is a known vector the filtered
transformations (3.51, (3.6) are not needed. We only need
the filtered transformation (3.8) which, according to (2.19)
( p2 =1) and (2.141, becomes
[ ;;] =[ 1:
z = 5 - el
0 '][ 5 2 "1 +[ -1 -2 0 o] [ i ] 1
51 O l
30 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
and transforms the system into
( 8 , ~ +Ol(ey +(,))
S I
y =[ 1 0 012 s S
for which, following the proof of Theorem 3.1, an adaptive
tracking control law is
U =- i [ e^,(eY +tl) +~ , i - U, , , ]
0 1 0
i, =([; ; ;] - [ i ] . . j Z M +[ +4
Fig. 1. Output, reference, and input for Example 5.1.
( 8, =1) was first obtained in [l l ]; this system belongs to
the class of systems in the so-called strict feedback form
which can be globally adaptively stabilized by state feed-
back via the systematic algorithm proposed in [5]. Accord-
ing to Theorem 4.1 and Remark 4.2 we can design global
adaptive output-feedback stabilizing or tracking controls:
in fact, the example is of relative degree p =3 and is
already in the form (SI, with b =[O,O, 8,IT a Hunvitz
vector of degree p =3. 0
Example 5.3: Consider a single-link robot arm with
revolute elastic joint, rotating in a vertical plane (see [l ,
page 2311). The dynamic model, which is feedback lin-
earizable, is given by
J lgl +F,q, +K( q1 - q2) +Mgl sin q1 =0
J m4 2 +Fm42 - K( ql - 42) =U (5.4)
in which ql and q2 are the link displacement and the
motor rotor inertia I,, the elastic constant K, the link
mass M, the gravity constant g, the center of mass 1 and
the friction coefficients F,, Fm are positive unknown con-
stant parameters (& and F, may be zero). Assuming as
state and output variables
with given by (3*12). corresponding rotor displacement, respectively. The link inertia J I , the
to the following initial conditions, parameters and gain
matrices are reported in Fig. 1:
X ( O ) =[2.2, -1.2,0.21T, 8, =e, =1,
i(0) =0, ((0) =[-1,OI T,
X I =41, x2 =41, x3 = q 2 , x4 = 4 2 , Y =41
e^,(O) =e^,(O) =i ( 0 ) =0,
we can write (5.4) in state space form
y R( t ) =sin(0.2t),
z,,,(O) =0,
il = x 2
K, =[5,1,0], KO =[12,21,10I T, A, =5 , Md K
i, =-FIx2 - - sin x1 - - ( x , - x 3 )
g, =g, =g, =77 =1. 0 J, J/
Example 5.2: Consider the system
i , = x 2 +8, x;
x, = x 3
i, =8,U
Y = X I
i , = x 4
K 1
i 4 =-Fmx4 +- ( x 1 - x 3 ) +-U
Jm Jm
y = x l . (5. 5)
If we perform the linear, parameter dependent, change of
coordinates
z1 = X I
Z , = X , + ( ( F ~ + F , ) X ~
z3 =-x3 +( : +FmF/ ) xI +Fmx2
J/
K FmK K F/ K
z4 =-x4 +__ x, +-x2 +-xl
with 8, >0. This system is both globally state-feedback
linearizable and input-output linearizable by state feed-
back for any value of the parameters O1 and 8,. Never-
theless, the adaptive algorithms proposed in [31, 141, [SI do
conditions are violated and global Lipschitz conditions
K
not apply, since matching [3] or extended matching [4]
required in [SI are violated as well. A global adaptive
stabilizing state feedback control for a simpler example J/ J/ Jm Jm
MARINO AND TOMEI: ADAPTIVE OUTPUT-FEEDBACK CONTROL: PART I
~
31
and we reparameterize
4 =- ( F/ +F,)
1
K K
Mgl
JI
e,= --
FmMgl
J I
KMsr
Jim JI
os = -~
e,= --
K
b = -
J/ Jm
system (5.5) becomes in z-coordinates
l b 1
+
y o 0 0 0 0
0 y si ny 0 0 0
0 0 0 y si ny 0
0 0 0 0 0 si ny
y =c,z.
Since the sign of b is known to be positive, this system
satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 4.1. Note, however,
that in this case a parameter dependent change of coordi-
nates and a reparameterization from ( J, , F,, K, Mgl,
J,, F,) into ( el , e,, e,, e,, 05, e,, b) are needed in order to
transform system (5.5) in the form (SI. Hence, the neces-
sary and sufficient conditions of Theorem 2.1 do not apply
to (5.5). 0
VI. CONCLUSIONS
A class of single-input, single-output nonlinear sys-
tems, linear with respect to the input and parameters, for
which there exists a global adaptive output-feedback con-
trol has been characterized by the geometric coordinate-
free conditions i)-vi).
According to Theorem 2.1, any system in such a class
can be globally expressed, in suitable coordinates, as an
observable linear system with output dependent nonlin-
earities. For each known value of the parameter vector,
observers with linear error dynamics exist [19] which can
be made adaptive as shown in [15]. Under the additional
assumption vi), which implies the minimum phase prop-
erty, observer-based adaptive controls are designed in
Theorem 3.1 when p =1 and in Theorem 4.1 when p 2 2,
using the concept of filtered transformations introduced
in [15].
In the special case of linear systems we obtain as a
corollary (Theorem 5.2) a well-known result with a control
algorithm which appears to be different than the ones
proposed in the literature. In the special case in which all
parameters are known, Theorem 5.1 solves the problem of
global output-feedback control for a new class of nonlin-
ear systems.
The guiding concept of this work has been the determi-
nation of those systems which can be brought by filtered
transformations into the special adaptive observer form
(3.9). While using some techniques developed in [31-[51,
we have taken a different viewpoint concentrating on
adaptive observer forms introduced in [15] instead of
considering feedback linearizable systems. As a result,
feedback linearization property, matching conditions or
growth restrictions (see [13], [14]) are not required, while
observability and the existence of global observers with
linear error dynamics are indeed required.
The assumption of linearity with respect to parameters
is certainly restrictive and not often met in physical sys-
tems. In many situations it may be difficult to obtain a
linear parameterization, or a reparameterization at all, of
uncertain nonlinearities. It is more realistic to ask for
functional bounds, eventually parameterized, so that for
instance look up tables are allowed. This is precisely the
problem addressed in the companion paper [31] that fol-
lows which provides a solution as far as set point regula-
tion is concerned. Additional work is required to analyze
the transients, to reduce the complexity of the adaptive
compensator and to analyze its robustness: some results in
this direction will be given in [311.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank P. V. Kokotovic and I.
Kanellakopoulos for helpful discussions on the proof of
Theorem 4.1 and for making available to them a preprint
of [51.
REFERENCES
[l] A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag, 1989.
[2] H. Nijmeijer and A. van der Schaft, Nonlinear Dynamical Control
Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1990.
[3] D. Taylor, P. KokotoviC, R. Marino, and I. Kanellakopoulos,
Adaptive regulation of nonlinear systems with unmodeled dynam-
ics, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34, pp. 405-412, Apr. 1989.
I. Kanellakopoulos, P. Kokotovic, and R. Marino, An extended
direct scheme for robust adaptive nonlinear control, Automatica,
vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 247-255, 1991.
[5] I. Kanellakopoulos, P. V. Kokotovic, and A. S. Morse, Systematic
design of adaptive controllers for feedback linearizable systems,
IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 1241-1253, 1991.
K. Namand A. Arapostathis, A model-reference adaptive control
scheme for pure-feedback nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Au-
tomat. Contr., vol. 33, pp. 803-811, Sept. 1988.
[7] G. Campion and G. Bastin, Indirect adaptive state feedback
control of linearly parameterized nonlinear systems, Int. J . Adapt.
Contr. Signal Proc., vol. 4, pp. 345-358, 1990.
[4]
[6]
32 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1, JANUARY 1993
S. S. Sastry and A. Isidori, Adaptive control of linearizable
systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34, pp. 1123-1131,
Nov. 1989.
G. Bastin and M. R. Gevers, Stable adaptive observers for nonlin-
ear time-varying systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 33,
R. Marino, Adaptive observers for single output nonlinear sys-
tems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 35, pp. 1054-1058, Sept.
1990.
J . B. Pomet and L. Praly, Adaptive nonlinear regulation: equation
error from the Lyapunov equation, in Proc. 8th IEEE Conf.
Decision Contr., Tampa, FL, 1989, pp. 1008-1013.
L. Praly, G. Bastin, and J . B. Pomet, Adaptive stabilization of
nonlinear systems, in Proc. Conf. Analysis Controlled Dynam.
Syst., Lyon, France, 1990.
I. Kanellakopoulos, P. V. Kokotovic, and R. H. Middleton, Ob-
server-based adaptive control of nonlinear systems under matching
conditions, in Proc. 1990 Amer. Contr. Conf., San Diego, CA, pp.
-, Indirect adaptive output-feedback control of a class of
nonlinear systems, in Proc. 29th IEEE Conf. Decision Contr.,
Honolulu, HI, 1990, pp. 2714-2719.
R. Marino and P. Tomei, Global adaptive observers for nonlinear
systems viafiltered transformations, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
to appear.
C. I. Byrnes and A. Isidori, New results and examples in nonlin-
ear feedback stabilization, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 12, pp. 437-442,
1989.
P. V. Kokotovic and H. J . Sussmann, A positive real condition for
global stabilization of nonlinear systems, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 12,
pp. 125-134, 1989.
J . Tsinias, Sufficient Lyapunov-like conditions for stabilization,
Math. Contr. Signals Syst., vol. 2, pp. 343-357, 1989.
A. J. Krener and A. Isidori, Linearization by output injection and
nonlinear observers, Syst. Confr. Lett., vol. 3, pp. 47-52, 1983.
W. Respondek, Global aspects of linearization, equivalence to
polynomial forms and decomposition of nonlinear control systems,
Algebraic and Geometric Methods in Nonlinear Control Theory, M.
Fliess and M. Hazewinkel, Eds. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing
K. S. Narendra and A. M. Annaswamy, Stable Adaptiue Systems.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 1989.
C. A. Desoer and M. Vidyasagar, Feedback Systems: Input-Output
Proper$es. Orlando: Academic, 1975.
V. Popov, Hyperstability of Control Systems. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag, 1973.
S. S. Sastry and M. Bodson, Adaptwe Control: Stability, Concer-
gence and Robustness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 1989.
W. P. Dayawansa, W. M. Boothby, and D. L. Elliott, Global state
and feedback equivalence of nonlinear systems, Syst. Contr. Lett.,
W. Respondek, Linearization, feedback and Lie brackets, in
Proc. Int. Conf. Geometric Theory of Nonlinear Contr. Syst. Wro-
pp. 650-658, J uly 1988.
549-552.
CO., 1986, pp. 257-284.
vol. 6, pp. 229-234, 1985.
claw: Wroclaw Technical Univ. Press, 1985, pp. 131-166.
[27] R. Marino and P. Tomei, Dynamic output feedback linearization
and global stabilization, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 17, no. 3, 1991.
[28] C. I. Byrnes, A. Isidori, and J . C. Willems, Stabilization and
output regulation of nonlinear systems in the large, in hoc . 29th
IEEE Conf. Decision Contr., 1990, pp. 1255-1261.
[29] J . Tsinias, Optimal controllers and output feedback stabilization,
Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 15, pp. 277-284, 1990.
[30] R. Marino and P. Tomei,Global adaptive observers and output
feedback stabilization for a class of nonlinear system, Foundations
of Adaptive Control, P. V. Kokotovic Ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
-, Global adaptive output-feedback control of nonlinear sys-
tems, Part 11: Nonlinear parameterization, IEEE Trans. Automat.
Contr., this issue.
-, Observer-based adaptive stabilization for a class of nonlin-
ear systems, Automatica, vol. 28, pp. 787-793, 1992.
pp. 455-494, 1991.
[31]
[32]
Riccardo Marino was born in Ferrara, Italy, in
1956. He received the degree in nuclear engi-
neering, in 1979, and the Masters degree in
systems engineering, in 1981, both fromthe Uni-
versity of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy. He
received the Doctor of Science degree in system
science and mathematics fromWashington Uni-
versity, St. Louis, MO, in 1982.
Since 1984, he has been with the Department
of Electronic Engineering at the University of
Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy where he is
currently Professor of systems theory. He visited the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, during the academic years of 1985-86
and 1988-89 and the University of Twente, The Netherlands, in 1986. His
research interests include theory and applications of nonlinear control
and, more recently, nonlinear adaptive control.
Patrizio Tomei (M90) was born in Rome, Italy,
on J une 21, 1954. He received the dottore
(Ph.D) degree in electrical engineering fromthe
University of Rome, La Sapienza, in 1980.
From 1980 to 1984, he was in industry work-
ing on the implementation of real-time process
controls. Since 1984, he has been working in the
University of Rome, Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
He isnow an Associate Professor at the Univer-
sity of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. His research in-
terests are in adaptive control, nonlinear con-
trol, and robotics.