Asymptotic Robust Adaptive Tracking of Nonlinear Systems with Additive Disturbance

Z. Cai , M.S. de Queiroz , and D.M. Dawson

Dept. Mechanical Engineering Dept. Electrical and Computer Engineering Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803-6413 [zcai1, mdeque1]@lsu.edu Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0915 ddawson@ces.clemson.edu

ABSTRACT This paper deals with the tracking control of multi-input/multi-output nonlinear systems in the presence of additive disturbances and parametric uncertainties. For such systems, robust adaptive controllers usually cannot ensure asymptotic tracking or even regulation. In this work, under the assumption the disturbances are C 2 with bounded time derivatives, we present a C 0 robust adaptive control construction that guarantees the tracking error is asymptotically driven to zero. We address this problem for two classes of nth-order nonlinear systems: parametric strict-feedback systems and at systems. Numerical examples illustrate the main results, including cases where the disturbances do not satisfy the aforementioned assumptions. I. Introduction

During the early 1980s it became well known that the performance of adaptive controllers can signicantly deteriorate and even become unstable in the presence of bounded external disturbances [8]. This problem lead to the development of so-called robust adaptive controllers, which are dened to be adaptive controllers that guarantee signal boundedness in the presence of reasonable classes of unmodeled dynamics and bounded disturbances as well as performance error bounds that are of the order of the modeling error [8]. Common robust adaptive techniques include adding a robustifying (leakage) term to the adaptation law (e.g., the -modication [7] and the e1 -modication [12]), or using a projection operator [7, 10, 17] to conne the parameter estimate to a bounded convex set in the parameter space. Leakage modications have the disadvantage of not recovering the disturbance-free stability performance of the unmodied adaptation law if the disturbance disappears after some time. On the other hand, projection operators preserve the ideal properties of the adaptive controller if the disturbance disappears, but require parameter bounds to be known a priori. As one might expect, robust adaptive control laws in the presence of additive disturbances can generally ensure closed-loop signal boundedness and convergence of the tracking error (state) to a residual bounded set with size of the order of the disturbance magnitude, but not asymptotic tracking (regulation). For example, [19] proposed a projection-based adaptive backstepping controller for single-input/single-output (SISO), minimum phase linear systems 1

of relative degree two in the presence of input and output disturbances, which guarantees the tracking error is ultimately bounded and small in the mean square sense. A robust adaptive backstepping controller with a leakage-based adaptation law was designed in [15] for nth-order, SISO, nonlinear parametric strict-feedback systems with function uncertainties (including external disturbances) satisfying a triangular bound. The proposed design ensures global uniform ultimate boundedness of the system state. A similar class of systems was considered in [4] in the development of two robust adaptive control methods using the tuning function design and the modular design of [10]. Both methods give L /L2 estimates on the eect of the uncertainties/disturbances on the tracking error. In [6], an adaptive backstepping controller with tuning functions for linear systems with output and multiplicative disturbances was designed with a switching -modication. The controller gives a tracking error proportional to the size of the perturbations. In [11], a class of SISO nonlinear systems aected by unknown, time-varying bounded parameters and additive disturbances was considered, and a robust adaptive tracking controller was presented that achieves boundedness of all signals and arbitrary disturbance attenuation. The work in [14], which studied a class of systems similar to the one in [11], proposed a robust adaptive controller that ensures the L2 norm of the tracking error is bounded. The tracking control problem for SISO nonlinear systems with unknown control coecients and time-varying disturbances was recently studied in [5]. The robust adaptive controller proposed in [5] was shown to guarantee the global uniform boundedness of the tracking error. In this paper, we consider multi-input/multi-output (MIMO) nonlinear systems subjected to bounded additive disturbances that are twice continuously dierentiable and have bounded time derivatives. For these systems, we present a continuous robust adaptive control construction that guarantees asymptotic tracking. The proposed construction is based on the nonlinear robust control technique of [18], which was originally used to compensate for unstructured uncertainties. Here, we use it as a robustifying mechanism for adaptive controllers. That is, adaptation is used to compensate for structured (parametric) uncertainties while the robust mechanism compensates for disturbances, hence recovering the disturbancefree, asymptotic tracking property of the adaptive controller. We address the aforementioned problem for two classes of nonlinear systems. First, we consider a class of nth-order nonlinear parametric strict-feedback systems with matched, unknown, time-varying, additive disturbances and unmatched, uncertain, constant parameters. The standard adaptive backstepping design [10] is judiciously modied to allow the use of the robust control technique of [18]. Also instrumental to our new construction is the use of the suciently smooth projection-based adaptation law recently introduced in [3]. This allows the adaptive stabilizing functions of the backstepping design to be dierentiable as many times as necessary. A Lyapunov-type stability analysis is used to prove the proposed robust adaptive controller yields semi-global asymptotic tracking. In the second part of the paper, we consider a class of at1 nth-order nonlinear systems with matched and unmatched, unknown, time-varying, additive disturbances. A judicious formulation of the error system allows us to construct a robust adaptive controller that ensures semi-global asymptotic tracking.
A at system is one where there exist special outputs, equal in number to the inputs, that are functions of the state vector and of a nite number of its derivatives. That is, a system is at if its relative degree is the same as the system degree [13].
1

The remaining of the paper is organized as follows. In Sections II. and III., we present the robust adaptive control design for parametric strict-feedback systems and at systems, respectively. Numerical examples are included in each section to illustrate the control performance. Section IV. summarizes the contributions of this work. II. A. Problem Statement We consider a class of parametric strict-feedback systems of the form x1 = | (x1 ) + x2 1 x2 = | (x1 , x2 ) + x3 2 . . . xi = | (x1 , ..., xi ) + xi+1 i . . . xn = | (x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) + d + u n y = x1 (1a) (1b) (1c) (1d) (1e) Parametric Strict-Feedback Systems

where xi (t) Rm , i = 1, ..., n are the system states, i Rpm , i = 1, ..., n are known nonlinearities, Rp is an uncertain constant parameter vector, d(t) Rm is an unknown additive disturbance, u(t) Rm is the control input, and y(t) Rm is the system output. We make the following assumptions regarding the system: A1. i C n+1i , i = 1, ..., n. A2. d C 2 and d(t), d(t), d(t) L . A3. The parameter vector belongs to a compact convex set := { : kk 0 } where 0 is a known positive constant. Let the output tracking error be dened as e := y yr where the C n+1 reference trajectory yr (t) Rm is such that
(i) yr (t) L , i = 0, ..., n + 1,

(2)

(3)

and ()(i) (t) denotes the ith derivative with respect to time. Our goal is to construct a state feedback control u(x1 , x2 , ..., xn ) that ensures e(t) 0 as t and the boundedness of all closed-loop signals. The following notation will be used throughout this section: i (t) Rp , 2 i = 1, ..., n 1 are parameter estimates ; i (t) := i (t), i = 1, ..., n 1
2

(4)

Despite the existence of the single parameter vector , the control law to be proposed will contain n 1 parameter estimates; i.e., the control law will be overparameterized.

denote the corresponding parameter estimation errors; Proj(i , i ) Rp , i = 1, ..., n 1, p ni1 i (t) L independent of i (t) R denote C projection operators used to ensure the stability analysis (see Appendix A for details); i Rpp , i = 1, ..., n 1 are constant, diagonal, positive-denite matrices; and ci , i = 1, ..., n + 1 are positive constants. To reduce the notational complexity and facilitate the readability of this section, the control construction that follows is presented for the case where m = 1. Note, however, that the main result is readily applicable to the MIMO case. Remark 1 Solutions to some special cases of the above-described problem were presented in preliminary versions of this paper. In [1], we considered the case where n = 2 in (1). In [2], we addressed the regulation problem, i.e., yr 0 in (2), for the general nth-order system (1). B. Construction of Robust Adaptive Control Law Step 1 We begin by dierentiating (2) and substituting from (1a) to obtain e = | (y) + x2 yr . 1 (5)

After adding and subtracting the term | (yr ) to (5), we write the error system in the 1 following form e = | (yr ) + x2 yr + w1 . (6) 1 where w1 = (| (y) | (yr )) 1 1 (7)

Remark 2 Due to assumption A1 and (140), we can use the Mean Value theorem to show kw1 k 11 (kek) ktanh (e)k where 11 () R0 is some globally invertible, nondecreasing function. 1 (x2 1 ) c1 where 1 is a stabilizing function yet to be designed. To facilitate the notation, let 2 := 1 := e, 1 | 1 V1 = ln (cosh( 1 )) + 1 1 1 . 2 Dierentiating (11) along (6) gives
| V1 = tanh( 1 ) (| (yr ) yr + 1 + w1 + c1 2 ) 1 1 1 . 1 1 .

(8)

Let

(9)

(10)

and dene

(11)

(12)

Based on (12), we design the stabilizing function and parameter update law as follows 1 = c1 tanh ( 1 ) | (yr )1 + yr 1
.

(13) (14)

1 = 1 Proj(1 , 1 ),

1 = 1 (yr ) tanh( 1 ). 1 1 1 1

Substituting (13) and (14) into (12) gives V1 = c1 tanh ( 1 ) + tanh ( 1 ) (c1 2 + w1 ) +
2

| 1

c1 tanh2 ( 1 ) + tanh ( 1 ) (c1 2 + w1 )

(15)

where property P2 of the projection operator was used (see Appendix A).
.

Remark 3 The nal step of the control design will require that i (t) L , i = 1, ..., n 1 independent of the stability analysis. This motivates the use of the term ln (cosh ( i )) in the Lyapunov function candidate of the rst n 1 steps of the backstepping procedure. In . i (t) particular, due to property P3 of the projection operator (see Appendix A), we know L if i (t) L . The boundedness of i is facilitated by the fact that ln (cosh ( i )) / i = tanh( i ). Remark 4 Using (9) and (13), the state x2 can be decomposed into x2 = c1 2 c1 tanh( 1 ) | (yr )1 + yr | {z } | 1 {z } b1 1 (16)

where the term 1 is a function of 1 and 2 , and the term b1 is bounded. The usefulness of this decomposition will become apparent in the next step. Step 2 Let

1 (x3 2 ) c2 where 2 is the second stabilizing function. Using (9) and (1b), we obtain 3 := 2 = 1 | ( + 2 1 + c2 3 ) . c1 2

(17)

(18)

After dierentiating 1 of (13), we obtain 1 =

. 1 1 1 1 1 + x1 + yr + yr x1 yr yd 1 . 1 | 1 1 1 1 = + x2 + yr + yr 1 + x1 1 x1 yr yr 1 | {z } 1 , yr , yr , yr ) 1 (x1 , x2 ,

(19)

 Adding and subtracting the term wb2 /c1 , where wb2 := w2 (yr , b1 , 1 ), to the right-hand side of (20) yields 2 = where w2 = (w2 wb2 ) . (22) 1 (wb2 1 + 2 + c2 3 + w2 ) c1 (21)

where 1 is known. Using (19) in (18) produces 1 | 1 | 2 = 1 + 2 + c2 3 2 c1 x1 1 {z } | 1 ) w2 (x1 , x2 ,

(20)

Remark 5 Using assumption A1, (16), (139), and (140), we can use the Mean Value theorem to show kw2 k c1 (21 (k2 k) ktanh ( 1 )k + 22 (k2 k) ktanh ( 2 )k) (23) where 2j () R0 , j = 1, 2 are some globally invertible, nondecreasing functions and 2 := ( 1 , 2 )| . Note that the calculation of (22) is facilitated by the fact that x2 b1 = 1 (see Remark 4). 1 | V2 = V1 + ln (cosh( 2 )) + 2 1 2 , 2 2 and dierentiate (24) along (21) to obtain V2 c1 tanh2 ( 1 ) + tanh( 1 ) (c1 2 + w1 ) . 1 | 1 2 + tanh( 2 ) (wb2 1 + 2 + c2 3 + w2 ) 2 2 c1 Now, dene

(24)

(25)

where (15) was used. Based on (25), we design the second stabilizing function and parameter update law as follows 2 = c2 tanh( 2 ) wb2 2 + 1 . 2 = 2 Proj(2 , 2 ), 2 = 1 w| tanh( 2 ). c1 b2 (26) (27)

Substituting (26) and (27) into (25) and making use of property P2 of the projection operator yields c2 1 V2 c1 tanh2 ( 1 ) tanh2 ( 2 ) + tanh ( 1 ) (c1 2 + w1 ) + tanh ( 2 ) (c2 3 + w2 ) . (28) c1 c1

Remark 6 Using (17) and (26), the state x3 can be written as x3 = c2 3 c2 tanh ( 2 ) wb2 2 + 1 = c2 3 c2 tanh ( 2 ) + 1 b1 +b1 wb2 2 {z } | {z }| b2 2

(29)

where b1 := 1 (yr , b1 , 1 , yr , yr , yr ), 2 is a function of 1 , 2 , and 3 , and b2 is bounded. Step i (3 i n 1) Let i+1 :=

1 (xi+1 i ) ci
1 ci1

(30) (xi i1 ) to obtain (31)

where i is a stabilizing function, and dierentiate i := i = ci1

where (1c) was used. The derivative of i1 can be written as i1 =

i1 X i1

1 | i + ci i+1 + i i1
. i X i1

y (j) (j1) r j yr j=1 j=1 j=1 ! i1 i1 i . X i1 | X i1 X i1 i1 j + = j + xj+1 + y (j) (j1) r j xj xj j=1 j=1 j=1 yr | {z } 1 , ..., i1 , yr , ..., y (i) ) i1 (x1 , ..., xi , xj xj +
r

i1 X i1

j +

(32)

where i1 is known. Using (32), we can rewrite (31) as ! i1 1 | X i1 T i = j i1 + i + ci i+1 i ci1 xj j=1 | {z } wi (x1 , ..., xi , 1 , ..., i1 ) Adding and subtracting the term wbi /ci1 to (33) yields i = ci1 1 wbi i1 + i + ci i+1 + wi wi = (wi wbi ) .

(33)

(34)

where wbi := wi (yr , b1 , ..., b(i1) , 1 , ..., i1 ) and

(35)

Remark 7 Using assumption A1, (139), and (140), we can show kwi k ci1
i X j=1

where ij () R0 , j = 1, ..., i are some globally invertible, nondecreasing functions and i := ( 1 , ..., i )| . Dene whose derivative is Vi i1 X cj 1 2 tanh ( j ) + tanh j cj j+1 + wj cj1 cj1 j=1 + tanh ( i ) ci1 1 1 | Vi = Vi1 + ln (cosh ( i )) + i 1 i i 2

ij (ki k) tanh j

(36)

(37)

| wbi i1 + i + ci i+1 + wi i 1 i i

(38)

where c0 = 1. Based on (38), we design

i = ci tanh ( i ) wbi i + i1 . i = i Proj(i , i ), i = 1 w| tanh ( i ) . ci1 bi Substituting (39) and (40) into (38) gives Vi
i X j=1

(39) (40)

cj cj1

tanh ( j ) +

1 cj1

tanh j cj j+1 + wj .

(41)

Remark 8 Using (30) and (39), the state xi+1 can be written as xi+1 = ci i+1 ci tanh ( i ) wbi i + i1

where b(i1) := i1 (yr , b1 , ..., b(i1) , 1 , ..., i1 , yr , ..., yr ), i is a function of 1 , ..., i+1 , and bi is bounded.. Step n In the last step, we modify the standard backstepping procedure in order to use the new robust control mechanism of [18] to deal with the additive disturbance in (1d). Let the variable r(t) be dened as 1 r := n + n (43) cn 8

= ci i+1 ci tanh ( i ) + b(i1) i1 b(i1) wbi i | {z }| {z } i bi

(i)

(42)

where n := After dierentiating (43), we obtain r= Dierentiating n twice produces n = cn1

1 cn1

(xn n1 ) .

(44)

1 + cn r cn n . cn n

(45)

1 | n + d + u n1

(46)

where (1d) was used. We rst concentrate on the calculation of the term n1 in (46). To that end, we have n1 = =
n1 X n1 j=1

xj

xj +

n1 X

where is known. Dierentiating (47) gives " j # n1 X n1 X | j n1 = + xk+1 + T k xj xk j=1 k=1 " ! # n1 n1 n X X 2 n1 X 2 n1 2 n1 . + y (k) T xk+1 + T + + k j (k1) r k k xj xk xj xj yr
j=1 k=1 k=1 (n) = + g1 (x1 , ..., xn , 1 , ..., n1 , yr , ..., yr ) (n1) ) +f1 (x1 , ..., xn , 1 , ..., n1 , yr , ..., yr

j=1

n1 n n1 X n1 . X n1 X n1 | n1 (j) j + xj+1 + y + (x1 , , xj ) (j1) r xj xj j j=1 j j=1 yr j=1 {z } (47)

n1 X n1 j=1

j +

n X n1

y (j) (j1) r j=1 yr

(48)

where g1 ! # n X 2 n1 2 n1 + = (xk+1 + | ) + y (k) T j k (k1) r k bk xj xk xj j=1 k=1 k=1 xj yr " j # n1 X n1 X | j | (xk+1 + k ) T , (49) + j xj xk j=1 k=1 n1 ! n1 X X 2 n1 | , f1 = j k k xj
j=1 k=1

" n1 n1 X X 2 n1

(50)

and property P3 of the projection operator was used. 9

We now turn our attention to the calculation of the term | in (46). Thus, we have n T n =
n1 X | j=1 n

xj

xj +

| n xn xn cn1 cn r cn1 cn n +
n1 X n1 j=1

n1 X | | | n n j + xj+1 + = xj xn j=1

xj

| + j

(n) (n) = g2 (x1 , , xn , 1 , , n1 , yr , ..., yr ) + f2 (x1 , , xn , 1 , , n1 , yr , ..., yr ) (51) n1 | X n = xn j=1

where g2

! n1 | n1 n1 n1 (j) + xj+1 + bj + (j1) yr xj j xj j yr (52) !

+ and

n1 X | | n j + xj+1 xj j=1

| n f2 = xn

cn1 cn r cn1 cn n +

After substituting (48), (51), and (46) into (45), we obtain 1 r= (54) f2 f1 + d + u + g2 g1 + cn r cn n . cn1 cn (n) We now add and subtract the terms gb1 := g1 (yr , b1 , ..., b(n1) , 1 , ..., n1 , yr , ..., yr ) and (n) gb2 := g2 (yr , b1 , ..., b(n1) , 1 , ..., n1 , yr , ..., yr ) to the right-hand side of (54) to obtain 1 + u + g2 gb2 + gb1 g1 + gb2 gb1 + cn r cn n (55) r = f2 f1 + d | {z } | {z } cn1 cn h f3
(n) where h(yr , b1 , ..., b(n1) , 1 , ..., n1 , yr , ..., yr ) has the special property that

n1 X n1 j=1

(53)

h(t), h(t) L

(56)

due to (3) and properties P1 and P3 of the projection operator. Finally, we rewrite (55) as 1 r= (57) + h + d + u + f + cn r cn n cn1 cn where f := (f2 f1 + f3 ) /cn1 cn . Remark 9 Using (137), (139), and (140), we can show f has the special property that kf k f (kxk) kzk where f () R0 is some globally invertible, non-decreasing function, and | x = ( 1 , 2 , ..., n , r)| z = tanh( 1 ), tanh( 2 ), ..., tanh( n1 ), n , r . 10 (58)

(59)

Based on (57), we design u as [18] u = sgn( n ) cn1 cn (cn + cn+1 + 1)r where > 0. The actual C 0 control input can be written from (60) as follows u(t) = (t) (0) cn1 cn (cn + cn+1 + 1) ( n (t) n (0)) Z t [cn1 cn (cn + cn+1 + 1) n ( ) + sgn( n ( ))] d
0

(60)

(61)

where u(0) = 0. After substituting (112) into (55), we obtain the closed-loop system 1 h + d sgn( n ) . r = r cn n + f cn+1 r + cn1 cn C. Main Result

(62)

We now state the main result for the robust adaptive controller for the parametric strictfeedback system (1). In proving the main result, we will utilize the technical lemmas in Appendix C. Theorem 1 The control law (61) ensures that all system signals are bounded and e(t) 0 as t , provided 1 > kh(t)kL + d(t) + , (63) h(t) + d(t) cn L L L 2 cn1 cn > , (64) 2cn2 and the control gains ci , i = 1, ..., n + 1 are selected suciently large relative to the system initial conditions. Proof. Let the function P (t) R be dened as follows Z t P (t) := b L( )d
0

(65)

where sgn( n ) L = h+d cn1 cn i 1 h b = | n (0)| + n (0) h(0) + d(0) . cn1 c2 n r If is selected to according to (63), it follows from Lemma 1 that P (t) 0. We now dene the following function V 1 1 V := Vn1 + 2 + r2 + P. n 2 2 11 (68) (66) (67)

Using (138), we can bound (68) as follows 1 ln (cosh(ksk)) V 2 ksk2 where | | | s = x| , 1 , ..., n1 , P , 1 1 = min 1, min 1 , i 2 (69) 1 1 max i , 1 , 2 (70)

2 = max

and x was dened in (59). After taking the time derivative of (68) and substituting from (43), (62), and (65), we obtain3 r V = Vn1 cn 2 r2 + rf cn+1 r2 + h + d sgn( n ) L n cn1 cn 2 2 2 = Vn1 cn n r + rf cn+1 r (71) upon use of (66). Substituting now from (41) for j = n 1 and (58) gives V n1 X cj 1 2 tanh ( j ) + tanh j cj j+1 + wj cj1 cj1 j=1 cn 2 r2 + f (kxk) kzk krk cn+1 r2 . n

(72)

We can upper bound (72) by using (36) as follows V

Using (139) and (140), we can show that for k = 1, ..., n 2 ck ck1

n1 X cj tanh2 ( j ) cn 2 r2 + f (kxk) kzk krk cn+1 r2 n cj1 j=1 " # j n1 X cj X + tanh j j+1 + tanh j jk j ktanh ( k )k . cj1 j=1 k=1

(73)

ck1

Let f (s, t) denote the right-hand side of the closed-loop system on which the stability analysis is being performed. Notice from (62) and (66) that f (s, t) has a discontinuity on the set of Lebesgue measure zero {(s, t) : n = 0}. Since Lemma 2 requires that a solution exist for s = f (s, t), see [18] for a discussion on the issue of existence of solutions.
3

= k+1,k k+1 ktanh ( k )k tanh k+1

+k+1,k k+1 ktanh ( k )k tanh k+1

ck k+1 + 1 ktanh ( k )k tanh k+1

tanh ( k ) k+1 + tanh k+1 k+1,k k+1 ktanh ( k )k (74)

12

where

Now, let cj = cj1 (kj + n j), j = 1, ..., n 2 and cn1 = cn2 (kn1 + 2), and rewrite (73) as V +
n1 X j=1

ck k+1 + 1 + k+1,k k+1 . k+1,k k+1 := ck1

n1 X j=1

(75)

(kj + 1) tanh ( j )

cn 2 n

r +

where j+1,j = j+1,j and 10 = 0. After completing squares on the bracketed terms of (76), we obtain " 2 # n1 X 2 (kxk) cn1 f 2 2 2 V n + tanh ( j ) r cn kzk2 2cn2 4cn+1 j=1 " # j1 n1 X 1 X 2 kj jj j jk j tanh2 j . (77) 4 k=1 j=1 Let
j1 1 X 2 j , j j := jj j 4 k=1 jk

cn1 2 tanh n1 n tanh n1 + f (kxk) kzk krk cn+1 r2 + cn2

n1 j1 XX j=1 k=1

jk j ktanh ( k )k tanh j tanh2 ( j )

jj j tanh2 j

(76)

j = 1, ..., n 1,

(78) (79)

2 cn1 , then (77) can be written as and := min 1, cn 2cn2 V

cn > (cn1 /2cn2 )2 ,

It follows from (80) that for

n1 X 2 (kxk) j tanh2 j f kzk2 . kj j 4cn+1 j=1 V kzk2

(80)

(81) (82)

2 (kxk) j , j = 1, ..., n 1 and cn+1 > f kj > j 4 where the constant satises 0 < < 1. We now apply Lemma 2 by rst determining from (69) and (81) that W1 (s) = 1 ln (cosh(ksk)) W2 (s) = 2 ksk2 13 W (s) = kzk2 .

(83)

We can now invoke Lemma 2 to state that s(t) L . From (3), we then know x1 (t) L . . 1 (t) L . From (13), (14), and property P3 of the projection operator, we know 1 (t), We can now use (9) to show x2 (t) L . From (1a), we know x1 (t) L . Continuing with this procedure, we can show i (t), xi+1 (t), L , i = 2, ..., n 1. We can then state i (t), i1 (t) L , i = 1, ..., n 1 by using (33). Using (62) and assumption A2, we can show r(t) L . From (43) and (47), we know n (t), n1 (t) L ; hence, from the time derivative of (44), we can conclude xn (t) L . Finally, we can use (1d) to show that u(t) L . Using the above boundedness statements, it is clear from (83) that W (s(t)) L , which is a sucient condition for W (s) being uniformly continuous. It then follows from Lemma 2 that kz(t)k2 0 as t s(0) S, which implies from (59) that e(t) 0 as t s(0) S. Note that the region of stability in (85) can be made arbitrarily large to include any initial conditions by increasing the control gains ci , i = 1, ..., n+1 (i.e., a semi-global stability result). Specically, we can use the second equation in (83) and (85) to calculate the region of stability as follows s 1 ln cosh min 1 (ki ), 1 (2 cn+1 i f ks(0)k < , (86) 2 or 2 2 1 exp , i = 1, ..., n 1 and ks(0)k ki > i cosh 1 (87) 2 1 2 2 1 cn+1 > exp ks(0)k f cosh 4 1 where v u n n1 uX X | (0)i (0) + P (0) i 2 (0) + r2 (0) + (88) ks(0)k = t i
i=1 i=1

From (82), we dene the sets D and S as follows D = s : ksk < min 1 (kj ), 1 (2 cn+1 ) , j = 1, ..., n 1 (84) j f S = s D : W2 (s) < 1 ln cosh min 1 (kj ), 1 (2 cn+1 ) , j = 1, ..., n 1. (85) j f

Note that the inequalities in (79) and (87) can be satised for large enough gains ci , i = 1, ..., n + 1 because: i) i () is not a function of ci , ii) i (0), r(0), and P (0) are only a function of 1/ci , and iii) r(0) is not a function of cn+1 since u(0) = 0.

D. Numerical Example For simulation purposes, we considered the parametric strict-feedback system (1) with the following model # # # " " " x2 x2 x2 1 1 2 1 (x1 ) = 1 3 , 2 (x1 , x2 ) = 1 3 , 3 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = 1 2 , = . 1 x1 x2 x1 x3 4 4 4 (89) 14

The reference trajectory was selected as 3 t . yr = sin t 1 exp 3 (90)

The initial conditions of the system were set to x1 (0) = 1, x2 (0) = 0, x3 (0) = 0, 1 (0) = 2 (0) = (0, 0)| , while the controller parameters were set to c1 = 20, c2 = 300, c3 = 30, c4 = 10, = 10, = 1, = 1, 0 = 3, 1 = diag (20, 200) , 2 = diag (2, 20) .

(91)

In the rst simulation, the disturbance was set to d (t) = 10 sin t (see Figure 1(a)). The simulation results are given in Figures 2 to 4(a). Figure 2 shows the output y (t) versus the reference trajectory yr (t) and the tracking error e(t). Figure 3 shows the elements of the parameter estimate vectors 1 (t) and 2 (t) while the control input u (t) is shown in Figure 4(a). Two other simulations were conducted to test the robustness of the proposed control law to disturbances that do not satisfy assumption A2. To that end, the disturbance was set to the triangle and square waveforms shown in Figures 1(b,c), and the simulation was rerun without retuning the control gains. In both cases, the results for the tracking error and parameter estimates were nearly identical to the ones for the sinusoidal disturbance shown in Figures 2 and 3, and thus are not reproduced here. The prole of the control law is given in Figures 4(b,c). III. A. Problem Statement We now consider a class of at nonlinear systems of the form x(n) = f (x, x, ..., x(n1) , ) + G(x, x, ..., x(n1) , ) (u + d1 ) + d2 (92) Flat Systems

where x(i) (t) Rm , i = 0, ..., n 1 are the system states, f Rm and G Rmm are nonlinear functions, Rp is an unknown constant parameter vector, d1 (t), d2 (t) Rm are unknown additive disturbances. We make the following assumptions regarding the system model: A4. G is symmetric positive denite and m kk2 | M(x, x, ..., x(n1) , ) m(x, x, ..., x(n1) ) kk2 Rm (93)

where M := G1 , m > 0, and m(x, x, ..., x(n1) ) > 0 is a globally invertible, nondecreasing function of each variable. A5. f, G C 2 and ane in . A6. di C 2 and di (t), di (t), di (t) L , i = 1, 2. 15

Given a C n reference trajectory xr (t) Rm satisfying x(i) (t) L , i = 0, 1, ..., n + 2 r and the tracking error e1 := xr x, (95)
(i)

(94)

our goal is to construct a state feedback control u(x, x, ..., x(n1) ) that ensures e1 (t) 0 as t , i = 1, ..., n 1 and the boundedness of all closed-loop signals. B. Construction of Robust Adaptive Control Law We begin the construction by introducing the following auxiliary error signals ei (t) Rm , i = 2, 3, ..., n e2 := e1 + e1 e3 := e2 + e2 + e1 . . . en := en1 + en1 + en2 . (96a) (96b)

(96c)

An expression can be derived for ei , i = 3, 4, ..., n in terms of e1 and its derivatives as follows [18] ei =
i1 X j=0

aij e1

(j)

(97)

where the constants aij are given by !i !i 1+ 5 1 1 5 ai0 = B(i) = , i = 2, 3, ..., n 2 2 5 aij =
i1 X k=1

(98)

B(i k j + 1)ak+j1,j1 , i = 3, 4, ..., n, j = 1, 2, ..., i 2

(99) (100)

ai,i1 = 1, i = 1, 2, ..., n. Using assumption A4, we rewrite (92) as follows Mx(n) = h + u + d1 + Md2 where h = Mf . We now introduce the variable r := en + en

(101)

(102)

16

where Rmm is diagonal positive denite. After dierentiating (102) and multiplying both sides of the resulting equation by M, we obtain Mr = M
n1 X

anj e1

(j+2)

+ Men anj e1
(j+2)

= M

j=0

x(n+1) + r

1 = Mr en u + N d1 M d2 Md2 2 where the auxiliary function N(x, x, ..., x(n) , t) is dened as follows ! n2 X 1 (j+2) (n+1) (n) + anj e1 + en + M x + r + en h. N = M xr 2 j=0 We now arrange (103) into the following form 1 M r = Mr en u + N + Nr + 2 where N(x, x, ..., x(n) , t) = 2 Md2 Nr Mr d2 Mr d2 N Md

n2 X j=0

+ en

+ Mx(n) h u d1 M d2 Md2 (103)

(104)

(105)

(106) (107) (108) (109)

Nr (t) = N(xr , xr , ..., x(n) , t) r Mr (t) = M(xr , xr , ..., x(n1) , ) r 1 Mr d2 Mr d2 . (t) = d

Remark 10 Due to assumptions A5 and A6, we can use the Mean Value theorem to show (110) N (kzk) kzk Nr = Wr (t) where Wr (t) Rmp is the known regressor, function only of xr and its derivatives. Based on (105) and (111), we design u as u = (K + Im ) r + CSgn (en ) + Wr = W | r r where K, C Rmm and Rpp are diagonal positive denite, and

where z := (e| , e| , ..., e| , r| )| and () R0 is some globally invertible, nondecreasing 1 2 n function. In view of assumption A5, we can also linearly parameterize Nr in the sense that (111)

(112) (113)

Sgn() := (sgn( 1 ), sgn( 2 ), ..., sgn( m ))| , = ( 1 , 2 , ..., m )| . 17

(114)

 Since r is not available for measurement, we can generate via Z t Z t | = Wr ( )en ( )d Wr| ( )en ( )d + Wr| (t)en (t) Wr| (0)en (0), (t)
0 0

(115)

while the actual control input is given by u(t) = (K + Im )en (t) (K + Im )en (0) Z th i ( ) d . + (K + Im )en ( ) + CSgn (en ( )) + Wr ( )
0

(116)

Finally, after substituting (112) into (105), we obtain the closed-loop system 1 M r = Mr en (K + Im )r + Wr CSgn (en ) + N + 2 where = . C. Main Result The main result for the robust adaptive control for the at system (92) is given next. Theorem 2 The control law (116) and (115) ensures the boundedness of all system signals and e(i) (t) 0 as t , i = 0, ..., n 1, provided 1 Cii > k i (t)kL + (118) i (t) , i = 1, ..., m, ii L 1 , (119) min () > 2 and the elements of K are selected suciently large relative to the system initial conditions. Proof. Let L and b in (65) be given by L = r| ( Csgn(en )) m X Cii |eni (0)| + e| (0)(0). b = n
i=1

(117)

(120) (121)

If Cii is selected to according to (118), it follows from Lemma 1 that P (t) 0. We now dene the following function 1X | 1 V := ei ei + r| Mr + 2 i=1 2
n

1 | 1 + P, 2

(122)

which satises the bounds 1 ksk2 V 2 (ksk) ksk2 (123)

18

where4 | 1 1 1 1 | | s = z , , P , 1 = min 1, m, min , 2 = max 1, m(ksk), max . 2 2 (124) Dierentiating (122) along (96), (102), (113), and (117), we obtain V =
n1 X i=1

e| ei e| en + e| en r| r + r| N r| Kr n1 n i

(125)

upon use of (120). Using (110), (119), and the fact that eT en 1 ken1 k2 + ken k2 , we n1 2 obtain 3 kzk2 + krk (kzk) kzk min (K) krk2 2 (kzk) kzk2 3 4min (Ks ) where 3 = min 1 , min () 1 . From (126), we can state that 2 2 V kzk2 for min (K) > 1 2 (kzk) 43 V (126)

(127)

Then, from Lemma 2, we know s(t) L . From (102), we know en (t) L . Using (94) and (i) (95), we can show x (t) L , i = 0, 1, ..., n. We now know that M(t), f (t) L . Finally, we can use (101) to show u(t) L . We can now establish the uniform continuity of W (s), and then invoke Lemma 2 to show kz(t)k2 0 as t y(0) S. From the denition of z, this implies ei (t), r(t) 0 as t y(0) S and i = 1, 2, ..., n. From (102), we know (i) en (t) 0 as t y(0) S. Now, we can recursively use (97) to show e1 (t) 0 as t , i = 1, 2, ..., n 1 y(0) S. Finally, from the time derivative of (97) with i = n, we (n) can show e1 (t) 0 as t y(0) S. Note that the set (129) can be made arbitrarily large to include any initial conditions by increasing the eigenvalues of K.
Using (94), (95), and (96), one can show (x, x, ..., x(n1) ) (ksk) where () is some positive function. Thus, m(x, x, ..., x(n1) ) m(ksk).
4

where 0 < < 3 . From (123) and (127), Lemma 2 can be invoked using arguments similar to those in the proof of Theorem 1. That is, we rst determine the sets p o n 1 2 3 min (K) (128) D = s : ksk < 2 p S = s D : W2 (s) < 1 1 (2 3 min (K)) . (129)

19

D. Numerical Example To illustrate the proposed control, we considered the at system of (92) with n = 1 and the following model 2 + cos x1 0 x1 x2 1 f= , G= 3 + sin x2 , x2 2 0 (130) 2 1 2 cos 2t sin 3t , d1 = , d2 = = = 1 sin 2t cos 3t 2 where x = (x1 , x2 )| . The reference trajectory was selected as 3 t sin t 1 exp 5 xr1 3 = xr = t xr2 2 sin t 1 exp 2

The initial conditions of the system were set to x (0) = (0.1, 0.2)| and (0) = (0, 0)| , while the controller parameters were chosen as = I2 , K = 20I2 , C = 15I2 , and = 10I2 . Figure 5 shows the state x (t) versus the reference trajectory xr (t) (top plots) and the tracking error e1 (t) (bottom plots). Figure 6 shows the parameter estimate (t) and the control input u (t). IV. Conclusion

(131)

This work considered the tracking problem for nth-order MIMO nonlinear systems in the presence of additive disturbances and parametric uncertainties. The continuous robust adaptive controller, whose construction is founded on the fusion of an adaptation law and a dynamic robust control mechanism, exploits the two times continuous dierentiability of the disturbances. The proposed construction was applied to two classes of nonlinear systems: parametric strict-feedback systems and at systems. In both cases, the resulting robust adaptive control law guarantees the semi-global asymptotic convergence of the tracking error to zero and boundedness of all closed-loop signals. Numerical simulations illustrated the performance of the proposed control laws, including the robustness to disturbances that do not satisfy the given assumptions. Since the tuning function method [10] does not seem applicable to the proposed construction for parametric strict-feedback systems, the robust adaptive control law for this class of systems is overparameterized. References [1] Z. Cai, M.S. de Queiroz, B. Xian, and D.M. Dawson, Adaptive Asymptotic Tracking of Parametric Strict-Feedback Systems in the Presence of Additive Disturbance, Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision and Control, pp. 1146-1151, Paradise Island, Bahamas, 2004. [2] Z. Cai, M.S. de Queiroz, and D.M. Dawson, Asymptotic Adaptive Regulation of Parametric Strict-Feedback Systems with Additive Disturbance, Proc. American Control Conf., Portland, OR, 2005, to appear. 20

[3] Z. Cai, M.S. de Queiroz, and D.M. Dawson, A Suciently Smooth Projection Operator, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, in press. [4] R.A. Freeman, M. Krstic, and P.V. Kokotovic, Robustness of Adaptive Nonlinear Control to Bounded Uncertainties, Automatica, Vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 1227-1230, 1998. [5] S.S. Ge and J. Wang, Robust Adaptive Tracking for Time-Varying Uncertain Nonlinear Systems With Unknown Control Coecients, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 48, No. 8, pp. 14621469, 2003. [6] F. Ikhouane and M. Krstic, Robustness of the Tuning Functions Adaptive Backstepping Designs for Linear Systems, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 431 437, 1998. [7] P.A. Ioannou and P.V. Kokotovic, Adaptive Systems with Reduced Models, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, Vol. 47, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1983. [8] P. Ioannou and J. Sun, Robust Adaptive Control, Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. [9] H. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 2002. [10] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1995. [11] R. Marino and P. Tomei, Robust Adaptive State-Feedback Tracking for Nonlinear Systems, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 84-89, 1998. [12] K.S. Narendra and A.M. Annaswanny, Stable Adaptive Systems, Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989. [13] R. Ortega, A. Loria, P.J. Nicklasson, and H. Sira-Ramirez, Passivity-based Control of Euler-Lagrange Systems, London: Springer-Verlag, 1998. [14] Z. Pan and T. Baar, Adaptive Controller Design for Tracking and Disturbance Ats tenuation in Parametric Strict-Feedback Nonlinear Systems, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 1066-1083, 1998. [15] M.M. Polycarpou and P.A. Ioannou, A Robust Adaptive Nonlinear Control Design, Automatica, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 423-427, 1996. [16] J.-B. Pomet and L. Praly, Adaptive Nonlinear Regulation: Estimation from Lyapunov Equation, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 729-740, 1992. [17] S. Sastry and M. Bodson, Adaptive Control: Stability, Convergence, and Robustness, Englewood Cli, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989. [18] B. Xian, D.M. Dawson, M.S. de Queiroz, and J. Chen, A Continuous Asymptotic Tracking Control Strategy for Uncertain Nonlinear Systems, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 49, No. 7, pp. 1206-1211, 2004. 21

[19] Y. Zhang and P.A. Ioannou, A New Class of Nonlinear Robust Adaptive Controllers, Int. J. Control, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 745-769, 1996. A Projection Operator

A smoothened version of the projection operator introduced in [16] was recently proposed in [3]. The projection operator of [3] replaces the Lipschitz continuity property of the Pomet/Praly projection [16] with the stronger property of arbitrarily many times continuous dierentiability, while introducing minor or no modications to the other projection properties. This new projection operator is useful for backstepping-based, robust adaptive controllers, such as the one in Section II., which require multiple dierentiations of the adaptation law. The projection operator of [3] is given by Proj(i , i ) = i where
T p(i ) = i i 2 , 0 ni p (i ) 1 = 0

1 2 p(i ) , i = 1, ..., n 1 2 + 2 )ni 2 4 ( 0 0

(132)

(133) if p(i ) > 0 (134)

otherwise, s 2 1 1 i )i + i )i + 2 , p( p( = 2 2

(135)

i was dened in (40), is the gradient operator, , are arbitrary positive constants, and 0 was dened in assumption A3. It can be proven that the above projection operator has the following properties [3]: If i (0) , then P1. i (t) 0 + t 0; " 2 # 0 + 0 + P3. Proj(i , i ) = i + bi and Proj(i , i ) ki k 1 + + , where 0 22 0 s 2 1 1 p(i )i + 2 p(i ) 1 p(i )i + 2 2 , i = i (136) 4 (2 + 20 )ni 2 0 1 p(i ) , bi = 2 + 2 )ni 2 4 ( 0 0 and " 2 # i ki k 1 + 0 + 0 22 k bi k 0 + ; 22 0
T T P2. i Proj(i , i ) i i ;

(137)

P4. Proj(i , i ) C ni1 . B Hyperbolic Function Inequalities

It can be shown that the following inequalities hold Rq

tanh (kk) kTanh ()k kk kk + 1 tanh (kk) | where Tanh() := tanh ( 1 ) , tanh ( 2 ) , ..., tanh q . C

q X 1 2 tanh (kk) ln (cosh (kk)) ln (cosh ( i )) kk2 2 i=1

(138) (139) (140)

Technical Lemmas

The following lemmas are used in establishing the main results of the paper. Lemma 1 Let z, : R0 Rm , (t), (t) L , and r = cz + Az L = r| ( BSgn(z)) where c > 0, A, B Rmm are diagonal positive denite, and Sgn(z) := (sgn(z1 ), sgn(z2 ), ..., sgn(zm ))| . (141) (142)

(143)

then

If the elements of B are selected to satisfy the following sucient condition c Bii > ki (t)kL + i (t) , i = 1, ..., m, Aii L where the positive constant b is given by m ! X b = c Bii |zi (0)| + z | (0)(0) .
i=1

(144)

L( )d b

(145)

(146)

Proof. After substituting (141) into (142) and then integrating in time, we obtain Z
t

L( )d =

(cz( ) + Az( ))| (( ) BSgn(z( ))) d 0 Z t | Z t dz ( ) | z ( )A (( ) BSgn(z( ))) d + c = ( )d d 0 0 Z t | dz ( ) BSgn(z( ))d . c d 0 23

(147)

After integrating by parts the second integral on the right-hand side of (147), we have Z t Z t Z t d( ) t | | d L( )d = z ( )A (( ) BSgn(z( ))) d + cz ( )( )|0 c z | ( ) d 0 0 0 m X c Bii |zi ( )||t 0 d( ) BSgn(z( )) d = z ( )A ( ) cA1 d t0 m X | | +c (z (t)(t) z (0)(0)) c Bii (|zi (t)| |zi (0)|) . Z
t | i=1 i=1

(148)

We now upper bound the right-hand side of (148) as follows Z

t

c di ( ) Bii d L( )d |zi ( )| Aii |i ( )| + Aii d 0 i=1 m ! m X X +c |zi (t)| (|i (t)| Bii ) + c Bii |zi (0)| z | (0)(0) . (149) Z tX m
i=1 i=1

It follows from (149) that if B is chosen according to (144), then (145) holds. Lemma 2 Consider that a solution exists for the system = f (, t), f : Rq R0 Rq . (150)

Let the set D be dened as D := { : kk < s } where s > 0, and let V : D R0 R0 be a C 1 function satisfying W1 () V (, t) W2 (), t 0, D whose derivative along the trajectories of (150) satisfy V (, t) W (), t 0, D (152) (151)

where W1 (), W2 () are C 0 positive denite functions and W () is a dierentiable, positive semi-denite function. If (0) S, where S := { D : W2 () } , 0 < < min W1 (),
kk=s

(153)

then (t) is bounded. Furthermore, if W () is uniformly continuous, then W ((t)) 0 as t . Proof. See proof of Theorem 8.4 in [9]. (154)

24

(a) Sinusoid 10
Disturbance

5 0 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 (b) Triangle 10 6 7 8 9 10

Disturbance

5 0 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 (c) Square 10 6 7 8 9 10

Disturbance

5 0 5 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (sec) 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 1: (Parametric strict-feedback system) Disturbance d(t).

1.5 yr 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 y

10 Time (sec)

15

20

25

0.8 0.6
Error

0.4 0.2 0 0.2

10 Time (sec)

15

20

25

Figure 2: (Parametric strict-feedback system) Top plot: output y(t) versus reference trajectory yr (t). Bottom plot: tracking error e(t). 25

2.5 2
Parameter Estimates

1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20

11 12

hat hat 25

3 2.5
Parameter Estimates

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 21 hat 22 hat 25

Figure 3: (Parametric strict-feedback system) Parameter estimates 1 (t) and 2 (t).

(a) Sinusoidal Disturbance 40

Control Input

20 0 20 40 60 0 5 10 15 (a) Triangle Disturbance 40 20 0 20 40 60 0 5 10 (a) Square Disturbance 40 20 0 20 40 60 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 25 15 20 25 20 25

Figure 4: (Parametric strict-feedback system) Control input u(t).

Control Input

Control Input

26

1.5 1 0.5 0 x1 0.5 1 1.5 0 xr1

1.5 1 0.5 0 x2 0.5 1 1.5 0 xr2

4 5 Time (sec)

4 5 Time (sec)

0.5 0.4 0.3

0.1 0.05 0

0.2
11

0 0.1

e12
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (sec) 6 7 8 9

0.1

0.05

0.2 0.3 0.4 0

4 5 Time (sec)

Figure 5: (Flat system) Top plots: state x(t) versus reference trajectory xr (t). Bottom plots: tracking error e(t).

0.5 hat
1 2

0.4
Parameter Estimates

hat

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 1 2 3 4 Time (sec) 5 6 7 8 9

3 u1 2 1
Control Inputs

u2

0 1 2 3 4 0

4 Time (sec)

Figure 6: (Flat system) Parameter estimate and control input u(t). (t) 27