IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 42, NO.

3, MARCH 1997

1
r Model ym f
-

New Results on Output-Feedback Variable Structure Model-Reference Adaptive Control: Design and Stability Analysis
Liu Hsu, Fernando Lizarralde and Aldayr D. de Ara jo

nom 2n
+ +

e0

+ -

U = f0 sgn( 0 ) 0

U
+ +

nom

d
+

^ e0

Abstract The Variable Structure Model-Reference Adaptive Control (VS-MRAC) redesign and stability analysis, presented earlier for the case of plants with relative degree n 2, is gen1/L eralized to the case of arbitrary n 1. This paper presents a 1 complete stability analysis in the general case. The redesign is based on the explicit consideration of input disturbances which 2 U U N 0 L may include the disturbance originated by the uncertainty of the plant high frequency gain. This leads to considerably simpler and less restrictive stability analysis as well as to a systematic Fig. 1. Block diagram of the VS-MRAC. controller design for external disturbance rejection. The overall error system is globally exponentially stable with respect to a small residual set. Robustness to unmodeled dynamics is also discussed. ym characterized by the rational transfer function M (s) = Km Nm (s)=Dm (s). I. Introduction The objective of model following is to nd a control law u(t) In this paper, we consider the class of variable structure such that the output error e0 := y ? ym tends asymptotically to (VS) model reference adaptive controllers proposed in 7], 8] some small residual interval, for arbitrary initial conditions and and 10], which only require input/output measurements to an arbitrary piece-wise continuous uniformly bounded reference be implemented, referred to as I/O VS-MRAC. Adaptation is signal r(t). The usual assumptions for MRAC are made 15, achieved through signal synthesis, instead of parameter adjust- p. 183]. An input disturbance d(t) is also included. Such a ment. For simplicity we will omit the acronym I/O from now on. disturbance accounts for the uncertainty of the high frequency The acronym MRAC will denote the usual parameter adaptive gain and for uniformly bounded external disturbances. model reference schemes. The main interest in the VS-MRAC relies on its remark- A. Notation a) Given a vector x 2 I n , its elements are denoted R able stability, disturbance rejection, and performance robustx1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xn . We denote by jxj, either the absolute value of a ness properties, as compared to parameter adaptive and robust R linear controllers ( 7], 8], 10]). Recent related works have also scalar x, or the vector jx1 j ; : : : ; jxn j]T , if x is a vector (x 2 I n ). b) Operators and convolution operators: For precise meanconsidered robustness issues and the extension to multivariable plants ( 1], 2], 18]). Successful full-scale experimental imple- ing of mixed time domain (state-space) and Laplace transform mentations of the VS-MRAC include underwater vehicle control domain (operator) representations, the following notations and concepts are adopted. The output y of a linear time invariand robot manipulator control ( 3], 12]). The stability analysis for the case of relative degree n =1 is ant system with transfer function H (s) and input u is denoted rather simple 10], however, it becomes much more involved for H (s)u. For (strictly) stable H (s), consider an arbitrary, possibly non-minimal, stable realization x = Ax+Bu; y = Cx+Du. Let _ n 2 (see 8] for n = 2). Based on the key observation that a plant with known high h(t) be the impulse response and y0 be the transient term due _ frequency gain (HFG) is much simpler to analyze, a redesign to the0 initial0 state x0 (0) of0the homogeneous system x0 = Ax0 of the VS-MRAC was proposed in 11]. The resulting stability and y = Cx .0 The state x is called the transient state. The analysis is less complicated than in previous works. Also, some superscript (:) will henceforth be used to identify the transient restrictive assumptions made in earlier works 8] were removed. terms. Then, the following notation is adopted Details, however, were presented only for the case n =2. y(t) = H (s)u(t) = h(t) u(t)+ y0 (t) This paper presents a complete stability analysis in the general case including external disturbances. The extension to Pure convolution operations will be denoted H (s) u (= h(t) plants with unmodeled dynamics is also discussed. u(t)), thus, Hu = H u + y0 .

Plant

knom ML
-

B. The controller structure Consider an unknown" single-input/single-output linear The block-diagram of the VS-MRAC is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. time invariant plant with strictly proper rational transfer func- The corresponding algorithm is presented in Table I alongside 1 W (s) = KpNp (s)=Dp (s), with input u and tion given by algorithm. One output y, and a model reference having input r and output the MRAC is comparable. can verify that the computational complexity
Manuscript received January 21, 1994; revised November 22, 1994; September 30, 1995, and May 30, 1996. This work was supported in part by teh Brazilian Research Council (CNPq). L. Hsu and F. Lizarralde are with the Department of Electrical Eng., COPPE/Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, CP 68504, 21945/970 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A.D de Ara jo is with the Dept. of Electrical Eng., UFRN, 59072/970 Natal, Brazil. Publisher Item Identi er S 0018-9286(97)02037-0 1 The symbol \s" represents either the Laplace variable or the di erential operator (d=dt), according to the context.
f U N
N

II. Preliminaries

f1
N
+

1/FN

U1

1
-

1/F 1

U0

1/L N

1/L1

Fig. 2. VS implementation of the operator L.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 42, NO. 3, MARCH 1997

The algorithms for MRAC and VS-MRAC

TABLE I

VS-MRAC State Variable v_1 = v1 + gf u ; v1 2 I n?1 ; 2 I n?1 n?1 Hurwitz R R n?1 ; gf 2 I n?1 Filter v_2 = v2 + gf y ; v2 2 I R R T T Regressor vector !T := v1 y v2 ] Filtered i = L?1 : : : L?1 ! ; (i = 0; :::;N ? 1) ; ( N = !) i+1 N signals i = L?1 :::L?1 u ; (i = 0; :::;N ? 1) ; ( N = u) i+1 N Prediction error "0 = e 0 ? e0 ^ T 0a ) + "0 0a 0a ] T Predicted error e0 = ML ( 0 ? ^ e0 = knom ML U0 ? L?1 UN ] ^ T := T ; L?1 r] ; T = T 2n ] 0a 0 w T Control law u = ! ! + 2n r u = ?UN + unom Auxiliary signals Ui = fi sgn("i ) _! = ?"0 0 ; _2n = ?"0 L?1 r Adaptation law T _ = "0 0 ? ! 0 ? 2n L?1 r] Auxiliary errors "i = Fi?1 (Ui?1 ) ? L?1 (Ui ) i Modulation Functions eqs. (30)-(31) or (32)-(33) The operator L(s) = L1 (s) : : : LN (s), where Li (s) = s + i , > 0, and N := n ? 1, is chosen such that ML is Strictly Positive Real (SPR). The operator L is an approximation of L. In the VS-MRAC, the VS implementation of Fig. 2 is adopted. If n = 1, L = L = 1, then the prediction error becomes null, i.e. e0 0 and one can remove the internal loops passing by ^ knom ML. The averaging lters Fi?1 ( i s) in Fig. 2 are low-pass lters where Fi is a Hurwitz polynomial in i s and F (0) = 1, e.g., Fi ( i s) = i s + 1. With su ciently small i , they give an approximation of the equivalent control signals (Ui )eq 17]. In the MRAC design, the control is parameterized as u = T T ! ! + 2n r, where ! = 1 ; :::; 2n?1 ] (see Table I); ! and 2n are the matching parameters, i.e., with u = u = !T !+ 2n r, the closed-loop transfer function matches M (s) exactly, i.e., y = M (s)r. Note that 2n = Km =Kp . We also de ne k = 1= 2n = Kp =Km . To account for the available a priori knowledge we introduce
i nomT nom U nom = ! ! ; unom = 2n r + U nom nom nom where ! ; 2n and knom are nominal values for ! ; 2n and k , respectively. Then, the uncertainty upper bounds j and are de ned as (j = 1; : : : ; 2n): nom ; j(k ? knom )=knom j (1) j j? j The relay modulation functions fi , are calculated from the regressor vector !, the ltered signals (Table I) and the uncer-

MRAC

tainty bounds (1). C. A formulation for the uncertainty on Kp nom nom Following 11], if Kp = Kp + k , where Kp is some nominal value of Kp, and k is the uncertainty on Kp , one can write k nom N (s) y = Kp Dp (s) u + du ]; du = K nom u = u (2) p p Thus, the uncertainty on the HFG can be formulated as an input disturbance du . External input disturbance rejection can

be achieved by adequate redesign of the modulation functions fi . Here, the di culty is that no prior bound is available since du is state dependent, in the closed-loop system. Notwithstanding, we show in Section IV that the modulation functions for known k can be appropriately redesigned so as to solve the problem for uncertain k . The following notation will also be adopted (note that > 0) nom knom = Kp =Km ; k = Kp=Km ; nom )=knom ; =1 + = k =knom =(k ? k D. Di erential equations with discontinuous right-hand side When dealing with systems described by di erential equations with discontinuous right-hand sides, it is necessary to dene precisely the meaning of a solution for such systems. Here, Filippov's de nition is assumed 6]. Note that u or d are not necessarily functions of t in the usual sense when sliding modes take place. In order to avoid clutter, we will denote by u(t) and du (t) the locally integrable functions which are equivalent to u and du , respectively, in the sense of equivalent control, along any given Filippov solution z (t) of the closed-loop system. It should be stressed that z (t) is, by de nition, absolutely continuous. Then, along any such solution, u or du can be replaced by u(t) or du (t) respectively , in the right-hand side of the governing di erential equations. Although the equivalent control u(t) = ueq (t) is not directly available, ltering u with any strictly proper lter G(s) gives G(s)u = G(s)u(t) = G(s)ueq (t). This section considers the problem of redesign and stability analysis of the VS-MRAC (Fig. 1), for a plant (2) with known" nom HFG Kp , under the action of a general input disturbance d(t) = du (t) + de(t) = u(t) + de (t) where du is given by (2) and de is uniformly bounded by hypothesis. It is also assumed that an instantaneous upper bound de (t) of de (t) is known and satis es de (t) jde(t)j (8t). The term du allows the case of unknown HFG to be embedded in
III. Stability Analysis

HSU, LIZARRALDE AND ARA JO: NEW RESULTS ON OUTPUT-FEEDBACK VS-MRAC

3
Q

the case of known HFG. The redesign is centered on the derivation of conditions to be satis ed by the modulation functions in order to guarantee stability and disturbance rejection. It is important to remark that the standard error equations (see 15]) have to be rewritten in terms of u = U + 2n r and ^ ^ nom knom instead of u = U + 2n r and k , respectively, where T ^ U = ^! ! is such that u is the ideal control law that leads ^ nom N to perfect model following of the plant (2) (Kp Dp (s) ), with p (s) du de 0. The error equations become: State-Space form: e = Ac e + knom bc (?UN ? U ) (3) _ e0 = hT e; c I/O form: e0 = knom M (s) ?UN ? U ] (4) where nom ^ U = U ? U nom + ((1=knom ) ? 2n )r ? Wd d; (5) nom M (s)]?1Wd , and Wd (s) = hT (sI ? Ac )?1 b0 with Wd (s) = k c 0 is the closed-loop transfer function from d to e0 with control u = u. ^ Since there exists U = !T ! such that u = U + 2n r ?Wd de gives the perfect model following control law, it is reasonable to restrict the class of admissible control laws to that de ned by 8t 0 : sup ju(t)j K! sup j !(t)j + Kred (6)
t t

where Li;j = j =i Lk (Li;j =1 if j <i), Fi;j is de ned in similar k way and (by convention, e1 0) ?1 (14) uN = (F1;N ? 1)F1;N L?1 UN ] N
j=1 nom ?1 0i = (k MF1;i Li;N ) "0 ] ei = i?1 X

Lj;i?1 Fj?1 ;i "j ] = Li?1 Fi?1 +1

e;i?1 + "i?1 ](15)

where K! and Kred are arbitrary positive constants. This condition is consistent with the modulation function fN to be determined (Section IV) and assures that all signals of the system belong to L1e . Condition (6) will be relaxed in Section IV to be satis ed modulo some exponentially decaying term, due to initial conditions. A. Error equations From Figs. 1 and 2, the auxiliary error equations can be expressed by (i = 1; : : : ; N ): "0 = knom ML ?U0 ? L?1 (U ) "i = Fi?1 Ui?1 ] ? L?1 Ui ] ; i The dynamic system governing "0 can be represented as xe = Acxe + knom b0c ?U0 ? L?1 (U ) ; "0 = hT xe (7) _ c In order to obtain less conservative (smaller) modulation functions, the following identity 15, p. 320] is used: ^ Wd (s) = 1 ? G1 (s) (8) T T ^ where G1 (s) = ^u (sI + )?1gf , ( ^u = ^1 : : : ^n?1 ] and gf from ^ 1 u is the contribution of the input lter to the Table I), i.e., G ideal matching control u. Then, taking into account that d = ^ ^ ^ du+de (du = u) and noting that U = !T ! =(U + G1 u)= (see Appendix A), the signal U of (5) can be rearranged as: U = Ud + UN ; (9) t 1 ? nom )r ? W d (10) with some positive constants M ; Mred and := maxi i . Ud = (U ? U nom ) + ( knom d e 2n Proof: see Appendix C. After some algebraic manipulations, taking into account (10), Remark 3: In 9] similar analysis was carried out with "i = 1 the auxiliary errors can be rewritten as (i = 1; : : : ; N ? 1): L?1 ?Ui ? L?1 ;N (U )] + FF;i;i ?1 U + ei + 0i , instead of (12) i i+1 1 Li;N "0 = knom ML ?U0 ? L?1 (U ) ; (11) and fi L?1 ;N U instead of (18). The results, however, i+1 ?1 ?Ui ? F ?1 L?1 (U ) + ei + 0i ; (12) required excessively small time constants of the averaging lters "i = L i 1;i i+1;N F ?1 ( s), e.g., i = 2N ?i and su ciently small , whereas here ?1 ? (UN + F ?1 Ud ) + uN + eN + 0N (13) this restriction is eliminated and we can even take i "N = LN . 1;N

necessarily of order 2 or higher. It is su cient, however, to use rst order lters. The essential tool that has led to the new result is Lemma 2, which gives a bound for the solution of error equation (34) where is an output disturbance", while d(t) is an input disturbance". Remark 2: Note that the and terms in (12) and (13) are absolutely continuous since the operator in (14) is strictly proper and those in (15) and (16) are proper. B. Bounds for the auxiliary errors The error system to be considered here is composed of (3), (7), (12) and (13). Let x0 denote the transient state correFL sponding to: L?1 in (7), Wd in (5), F1?1 L?1 ;N in (12) and all ;i i+1 the remaining operators associated with uN ; ei ; 0i in (14) (16). Since all these operators are stable, there exist positive KFL and aFL such that x0 (t) KFLe?aFLt x0 (0) FL FL In order to fully account for the initial conditions, the following state vector z is used z T = (z 0 )T ; "N ; eT ]; (z 0 )T = xT ; "1 ; "2 ; :::;"N ?1 ; (x0 )T ] e FL (17) In what follows, all K 's and a's denote positive constants, operator norms (j j ) are L1 induced norms 5], and EXP" and EXP0 " denote any term of the form K j z (0)j e?at and K z 0 (0) e?at , respectively, where K and a are (generic) positive constants. Theorem 1: Consider the auxiliary errors (11) (13). If condition (6) is satis ed and the relay modulation functions satisfy (i = 0; : : : ; N ? 1) 8t 0 : fi (F1?1 L?1 ;N ) (U ) and fN F1?1 Ud ; ;i i+1 ;N (18) then the auxiliary errors "0 (N = 0) or "i (i = 0; : : : ; N ? 1( 0)) tend to zero, at least exponentially. Moreover, j"i (t)j ; j xe(t)j EXP0 (19) j"N (t)j 2 KeN C (t) + EXP (20) and j ei (t)j ; j 0i (t)j EXP0 ; i = 1; : : : ; N (21) j uN (t)j K N C (t) + EXP0 (22) where C1 (t) = sup j !(t)j ; C (t) = M C1 (t) + Mred (23)

Remark 1: In 7] the averaging lters Fi0 s were believed to be

(16)

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 42, NO. 3, MARCH 1997

C. Error system stability one easily concludes that (26) (27) are satis ed, modulo expo2 The following stability theorem will be demonstrated for the nentially decaying terms, if (i = 0; : : : ; N ? 1) T nomT i + j i j full error system given by (3), (7), (12) and (13). For N = fi = F1?1 ! j i j + i ? ! (30) ;i 0(n = 1) exponential stability follows immediatly from (3)(4) ?1 T j!j + 2n jrj + j N j (31) fN = F1;N ! and Lemma 1. , j j. Theorem 2 ((N 1)) Assume that condition (6) is satis ed where 0 < Note that Theorems 1 and 2 hold for these modulation funcand that the modulation functions satisfy (18). Then, for sufciently small > 0 ( = max1 i ), the error system (3), (7), tions, which do not use convolution operators. Indeed, the addi(12) and (13) with state z as de ned in (17) is globally expo- tional transient terms can be easily included in the EXP0 terms nentially stable with respect to a residual set of order , i.e., which appear in the proofs of both Theorems. ^ The poles of G1 (s) are the (known) roots of det(sI + ) = 0. there exist positive constants K and a such that 8z (0), 8t 0, ?at j z (0)j + O( ). Then, for su ciently small and 2 (0; ], bounds for i j z (t)j Ke and N can be established via Lemma 3 and Corollary 1 (see Proof: see Appendix D. Appendix B), using signals ltered from de (t). Similarly, j i j and i ? nomT i can be bounded using signals ltered from D. Unmodeled Dynamics and Robustness T := ! j!j unom := u nom . should Unmodeled dynamics can also be assessed. Consider, as an j ujuse ju ? Uand j in order to ? U tooNote that one results nom avoid conservative 1? s u where > 0 is the unmodeled dynamics pa- not example, y = s(s?1) u be smoothed rameter. The nominal plant ( =0) has n =2 and is minimum since a is a discontinuous control law and shouldThen, the folwith lter prior to taking its absolute value). phase, but the actual plant is not. The unmodeled dynamics lowing modulation functions can be derived (i = 0; : : : ; N ? 1): can be formally embedded in an input disturbance d = ? su. For simplicity, we assume k known and u = ?U1 (U nom = 0, ^ ^ fi = Fi?1 L?1 ;N j uj + L?1 ;N unom + ci dei (32) i+1 i+1 nom 2n = 0). Then, Ud = u + Wd ( su) and (F = F1 ; L = L1 ): ^ ^? (33) fN = FN 1 j uj + 2n jrj + cN deN (t)+ ?1 de 2 3

^ ^ ? "0 = k ML 4?U0 ? L?1 u + | sL{z1 Wd U1 ]5 (24) where F0 = 1, Fi?1 = skFiFi for i = 1; : : : ; N ; the positive + } constants kFi ; Fi can be precalculated from F1?1 ; ci=0;:::;N ;i O( ) can be calculated from (28) (29) and the uncertainty bounds; ^ (25) dei = s+i i de ; i = mink jRe(pi;k )j, with pi;k being the poles of "1 = L?1 ?U1 ? F ?1 u ] + sWd U1 + 01 FL} | {z ^ L?1 ;N (1 ? G1 ). Note that either (31) or (33) implies that (6) i+1 O( ) is satis ed. 1 Example: Consider y = s(s1?1) u and ym = (s+1)(s+2) r. Choos?4 . Choosing L = s +1, it ^ ing = gf = 1 we have G1 (s) = s+1 is easy to verify that c1 = 5 and 1 = 0:9 are possible choices ^ ^ since c1 1 e? 1 t L?1 fL?1 (1 ? G1 )g or L?1 fG1 g (L?1 denotes ^ the inverse Laplace transform). Of course, in general, G1 is not known, then some uncertainty bound for u (see below (8)) has to be used to determine ci and i .

Applying Lemma 1 to (24), with f0 slightly modi ed to f0 = f0 + (k + G(s))f1 (the -term here dominates the -term in (24) with appropriate lter G, according to Lemma 3), and Lemma 2 to (25), one easily concludes that "0 EXP 0 and "N 2 KeN C (t) + EXP as in Theorem 1. Noting that (3) is now given by e = Ace + k bc (?U1 ? u + Wd sU1 ), we rewrite _ (25) in a form similar to (41) (Appendix D), "1 = L?1 ?U1 ? u + Wd sU1 ] + u1 + 01 , with u1 := (F ? 1)F ?1 L?1 u ? V. Simulation Results Wd sU1 ]. Then, as before, we de ne e1 := "1 ? ( u1 + 01 ) and ^ e := e?k bc e1 . Now, referring to Appendix D, the equation (42) ^ This section presents an example which highlights the perforis then obtained (knom = k ) and all the remaining inequalities mance of the VS-MRAC. The actual system is (43)-(51) hold with replaced by + . Thus one can conclude that global exponential stability with respect to a residual set of e? s y = s ? 1 u + d] order + holds for su ciently small + . A slightly di erent result holds if f0 remains unchanged. Details for more general where 2 0; 0:2] and d is a bounded input disturbance. Simcases will be presented in a separate paper. ilar example was utilized in 4]. The nominal plant was assumed without delay ( = 0). The reference model is choIV. The relay modulation functions 1 sen to be ym = s+1 r. For the simulations presented here Explicit formulas for the modulation functions are now de- d =3sqw(0:3t); r = sqw(0:1t), where sqw(:) denotes a unit square nom nom rived. Noting that 2n ? 2n = ?1 ((1=knom ) ? 2n ), the ex- wave. In order to avoid chattering in the VS-MRAC 8], the sigpressions (18) can be rewritten as ( = ? 1; i = 0; : : : ; N ? 1) nal U0 was ltered by 1 inserted between the points 1 and s+1 ?1 to ~ fi F1?1 L?1 ;N U nom ? (u ? U nom) ? Wd de (26) 2 of Fig. 1, before being fed= 1the plant and the operator L ;i i+1 (see Fig. 1). Note that L here. From (31) or (33), the nom fN F1?1 U nom ? ( 2n ? 2n )r ? ?1 Wd de ] (27) modulation function was chosen as f0 =3 jyj+4 and =0:05. As ;N ~ shown in Fig. 3, the MRAC ( 13], 14]) fails completely under ~ where, U nom := (U ? U nom ). De ning i and i as in Table I the action of the external disturbance while the VS-MRAC and the modi ed MRAC of 4] maintain remarkable model follow(see also (8) and the notation below (13)) and ing performance. Fig. 4a illustrates the progressive degradation ^ (28) of the VS-MRAC performance in the presence of unmodeled i = L?1 ;N Wd de = L?1 ;N (1 ? G1 )de i+1 i+1 ^ (29) 2 see Section II-A for notations N = ?1 Wd de = ?1 (1 ? G1 )de

HSU, LIZARRALDE AND ARA JO: NEW RESULTS ON OUTPUT-FEEDBACK VS-MRAC

5
(a) 1.5

dynamics. For 0:06 ideal sliding is preserved and no oscillation appears at the output. An oscillation grows continuously when is increased beyond = 0:06 (in Fig. 4a, = 0:073). On the other hand, Fig. 4b shows how the MRAC, based on modi cation, projection and the swapping lemma, proposed in 4], is explosively unstable for =0:065, similarly to what occurs with high-gain linear robust control 8]. To be fair, = 0:05 was also used as the small time constant that appears in 4] and the corresponding controller was carefully tuned to achieve its best performance. The VS-MRAC was shown to outperform standard MRAC algorithms in several previous works (see Introduction). The latter example shows that it also outperforms more recent versions of parameter adaptive schemes ( 4], 14]).
(a) 1.5

0.5 y, ym

0.5

1.5 0

5 Time (seg)

10

15

(b)
1

5 4

0.5 y, ym

3 2 1

0.5

0 1

y
5 Time (seg) (b) 10 15

2
1.5 0

3 4 5 0 5 Time (seg) 10 15

1.5

Fig. 4.

0.5 y, ym

d = 0; (a) VS-MRAC: (dashed line) ym , (solid line) y for (b) MRAC 4]: y for = 0:065.

= 0:073

0.5

be used for more e ective external disturbance rejection. The robustness to unmodeled dynamics is brie y discussed showing that the methods presented here can also be used to assess this important issue.
Appendices

^ A. Relationship between U and U ^ ^ The key formulas needed to derive U = (U + G1 u) are 1.5 0 5 10 15 those given in 16, pp. 105 106] for the transfer functions Time (seg) ^ ^ G1 (s); G2 (s); G1 (s) and G2 (s) giving U = G1 (s)u + G2 (s)y N (s) ^ ^ (which matches W (s) = Kp Dp (s) to M (s)) and U = G1 (s)u + Fig. 3. = 0; (a) VS-MRAC: (dashed line) ym , (solid line) y for d = 0, p (dotted line) y for d = 3sqw(0:3t), (b) MRAC: (dashed line) ym , (solid G (s)y (which matches W (s) = K nom Np (s) to M (s)). ^2 ^ p Dp (s) line) MRAC 14] y for = 10, d = 3sqw(0:3t), (dotted line) MRAC 4] y for = 1, d = 3sqw(0:3t), B. Auxiliary Lemmas In what follows, we always consider t 2 I + , so that 8t means R VI. Conclusions t 0 (except otherwise stated). We denote locally integrable", In this paper, earlier results about design and stability anal- in the sense of Lebesgue, by LI (ueq (t) is LI , c.f. Section II-D). ysis of the VS-MRAC, taking into account the e ect of the av- and omit the term almost everywhere" since its need is believed eraging lters, were generalized to the case of arbitrary relative obvious where necessary 5]. In the Lemmas to follow, all input degree. Global exponential stability of some small residual set and output signals are scalars; the signal (t) is exponentially in the error space was obtained. The present analysis reveals decreasing, i.e., j (t)j Re? t for some positive scalars , R that the averaging lters can be chosen of order one, contrary to and 8t; all transfer functions are rational, stable and strictly what was believed originally. Moreover, the new design can also proper.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 42, NO. 3, MARCH 1997

Lemma 1: Consider the input/output relationship:

"0 (t) = M (s) u + d(t) + (t)] where M (s) is SPR and d(t) and (t) are LI . Let xe be the state of a stable, possibly nonminimal, realization of M . If u = ?f (t)sgn("0 ), where f is LI and f (t) jd(t)j 8t, then the
inequality

c1 j xe (0)j + c2 R]e? 1 t holds 8t 0 and for some positive constants c1 ; c2 ; 1 . Moreover, if f (t) satis es f (t) jd(t)j + (8t), with arbitrarily small positive constant , then "0 (t) becomes identically zero after some nite time tr 0 (for a proof see 10], 11]).

j"0 (t)j and j xe (t)j

"i (t) = L?1 (s) u + d(t)] + (t) + (t) (34) i where Li (s) = s + i ( i > 0); d(t) is LI ; and (t) and (t) are absolutely continuous (8t). If u = ?f (t)sgn("i ), where f is LI and f (t) jd(t)j 8t, then, the signals "i (t) and ei (t):= "i (t)? (t) ^
are bounded by

Lemma 2: Consider the input/output relationship

jei (t)j and j"i (t)j jei (0)j e? i t +2 Re?min( ^ ^

i ; )t +supj

(35) _i = ? ei + (u("i ) + Proof: Let ei := "i ? ( + ). Then, e ^ ^ ^ d). De ne m and m by: m = ? i m, m = m + , where , _ F1;N ? 1 C (t) = K N C (t) (40) absolutely continuous, is to be chosen later on. One can write 0 sup uN (t) ? uN (t) d _ the comparison equation m = ? i (m ? ) + dt . Then one has F1;N LN t | {z } d m ? ei ] ? i m ? ei ] + fsgn("i ) ? d] + d + i . Now, we ^ ^ dt dt O( ) d require dt ? i ; (t) j (t)j + (t) (8t). A satisfying 0 the later inequalities is (t) = R e?min( i ; )t + supt j (t)j. where := maxi i and uN (t) is bounded by EXP0 . Then, It is easy to verify that m(0) > 0 implies applying Lemma 2 to equation (13), which can be rewritten 0 0 as "N = L?1 ?UN ? U ] + uN ? uN ] + uN + eN + N m(t) > 0; m(t) > sup j (t)j ; 8t: (36) 0N ], one readily concludes (20). Since supt uN ? uN 0 t 0 j uN j ? EXP0 , then (22) follows from (40). uN ? uN Then, if m(t0 )= ei (t0 ) for any t0 0, one concludes that "i (t0 ) > ^ 0 since, from (36), m(t0 ) > supt0 j (t0 )j, 8t0 0. Therefore, D. Proof of Theorem 2 d under these conditions dt m ? ei ] 0 (t = t0 ). Similarly, if ^ Proof: It is convenient to rewrite (13) as d ^ ?m(t0 ) = ei (t0 ) one obtains dt m ? ei ] 0 (t = t0 ). Thus using ^ "N = L?1 ?UN ? U ] + uN + eN + 0N (41) the Comparison Lemma in 6, Theorem 7], we conclude that N jei (t0 )j m(t0 ) implies jei (t)j m(t); 8t t0 . This in turn ^ ^ ?1 L?1 U ] can be bounded by where uN = (F1;N ? 1)F1;N N results in (35), where t0 =0 without loss of generality. 0 C (t) similarly as uN in (40), i.e., supt uN (t) ? uN (t) Lemma 3: Consider the stable strictly proper input/output ?1 operates on the same relationship z = W (s)d. Let 0 be a positive constant satisfying K N C (t). Note that, in form (41), LN 0 < 0 < minj jRe(pj )j (pj are the poles of W (s)), and d(t) be an input as the one in (3). From (3) and (13), the model follownom ^ _ ^ _ instantaneous upper bound of d(t), i.e., jd(t)j d(t) 8t. Then, ing error can be rewritten as: e = Ace + k bc eN + N eN , where eN := "N ? ( uN + eN + 0N ). Then, in order to ^ there exists a positive constant c1 such that the impulse response _ the ^ w(t) satis es jw(t)j c1 0 e? 0 t and the following inequalities eliminate nom derivative term eN , a variable transformation e := e ? k bc eN is performed yielding ^ hold _ e = Ace + knom (Ac + I N )bc eN ^ (42) (37) jW d(t)j c1 s +0 d(t); 0 The bound (20) and ^ ^ ^ z (t) ? z 0(t) c1 d(t) ? d(t)0 ; d = ( s +0 )d (38) Ac imply that e(t(Theorem 1) by j ethej exponential+stability of ) is bounded (t) KC (t) EXP with 0 C (t) de ned in (23). Moreover, as explained below, ^(t) + exp (39) jz (t)j c1 d ^ where z 0 ; d0 and exp depend on the initial conditions and j e(t)j KeC (t) + EXP; and je0 (t)j K0 C (t) + EXP (43) decay exponentially to zero with rate 0 (for a proof see 13]). C1 (t) K1 C (t) + K2 j z (0)j + Km (44) 0 + K4 j z (0)j Corollary 1 (Lemma 3) Consider z = GF ( s)GL (s)d = 1 (45) C (t) Kred1 ? K GF ( s) s+ GL (s)d where GF ; GL are rational, stable, strictly 3

proper, GL has positive impulse response, > 0. If 2 0; ] and is su ciently small, there exists k > 0 such that (38) and (39) hold with ^ d(t) = kGL d(t) Proof: By Lemma 3, there exist kF ; F > 0, such that 1 z (t) ? z 0(t) ( skF F ) jGL jdjj (( skF F )( s+ )GL ) jdj. The + + latter inequality comes from the positive impulse response as1 F sumption. However, L?1 ( skF F )( s+ )] = ( Fk? )(e? t ? + ? t ) ke? t , for su ciently small and some k > 0. Thus, e z ? z 0 kGL e? t jdj = kGL jdj. C. Proof of Theorem 1 Proof: By Lemma 1, "0 (11), as well as the state xe, converge to zero, at least exponentially, if the signal f0 satis es (18). Note that the transient part of L?1 is represented by (t) which is thus bounded by EXP0 . Consequently, one concludes j"0 (t)j EXP0 . 0 From (16) one can write 0i = Hi (s)"0 = hi (t) "0 (t)+ 0i (t). 0 0 and hi (t) "0 (t) 0 , then j 0i j Since 0i EXP EXP EXP0 . Now, for i = 1, since e1 0, equation (12) results in j"1 (t)j EXP0 , from Lemma 2. With similar argument, we recursively conclude from (12), (15) and Lemma 2 that j ei(t)j EXP0 and j"i (t)j EXP0 (i = 2; : : : ; N ? 1). Now consider "N (see (13)). Note that, from condition (6), M and Mred can be chosen so that supt j0UN (t)j C (t). Since e;N ?1 and "N ?1 are bounded by EXP , so is eN , i.e., j eN (t)j EXP0 . From (14) one has

HSU, LIZARRALDE AND ARA JO: NEW RESULTS ON OUTPUT-FEEDBACK VS-MRAC

Indeed, inequalities (43) follow from e = e ? knom bc eN . From ^ T T T the relation ! = !m + e, where !m = vm1 ym vm2 ] is the regressor vector corresponding to the reference model and is a constant matrix, it follows that j !j Km + K j ej and, since C1 (t) = supt j !(t)j , then from (43) we obtain (44), where K2 j z (0)j comes from the initial value of the term EXP appearing in the bound (43) of j ej . Now, from (23) and (44), C (t) can 0 also be bounded by C (t) K3 C (t)+K4 j z (0)j +Kred, whereby, after a simple algebraic manipulation one obtains (45), which is ? valid for < K3 1. Now, as explained below, we can also write

z 0 (t)

Kz e?az t z 0 (0)

(46)

13] P. Ioannou and K. Tsakalis, A robust direct adaptive controller , IEEE Trans. Aut. Contr., vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1033 1043, 1986. 14] S. M. Naik, P. R. Kumar, and B. E. Ydstie, Robust continuous-time adaptive control by parameter projection , IEEE Trans. Aut. Contr., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 182 197, 1992. 15] K. Narendra and A. Annaswamy, Stable Adaptive Systems, Prentice Hall, 1989. 16] S. S. Sastry and M. Bodson, Adaptive Control: Stability, Convergence and Robustness, Prentice Hall, 1989. 17] V. I. Utkin, Sliding Modes and Their Application in Variable Structure Systems, MIR, 1978. 18] A. C. Wu, L. C. Fu, and C. F Hsu, Robust MRAC for plant with arbitrary relative degree using variable structure design , in Proc. American Contr. Conf., Chicago, 1992, pp. 2735 2739.

bounded by EXP0 in Theorem 1. Therefore, with the partiT T tion z T = (z 0 )T ; ze ], where ze := "N ; eT ] one gets (46), where only the initial condition on z 0 appears. Now, from (20), (43) and (45) follows (47), where O( ) is independent of the initial conditions. Noting that the initial time is irrelevant in deriving the above expressions, we can write, for arbitrary t t0 0, some T1 > 0 and < 1

K5 j ze (0)j + z 0 (0) + O( ) + EXP (47) Indeed, the variables xe ; "i=0;:::;N ?1 ; x0 were shown to be FL

j ze (t)j

j ze (t)j
z 0 (t)

K5 + K6 e?a(t?t0) j ze (t0)j + z 0(t0) + O( )(48) Kz e?az (t?t0 ) z 0 (t0 ) (49)

?

j ze (t0 + T1 )j
z 0 (t0 + T1 )

j ze (t0 )j + z 0 (t0 ) + O( ) (50)

z 0 (t0 )

(51)

Equations (50) and (51) are obtained from (48) and (49) as ? follows: for < K5 1, there exists T1 > 0 such that = max K5 + K6 e?aT1 ; Kz e?az T1 ] < 1. Then, the simple linear recursive inequalities (50) and (51) hold and easily lead to the conclusion that, for small enough, the error system is globally exponentially stable with respect to a residual set of order .
1] C.J. Chien, A.C. Wu, L.C. Fu, and K.C. Sun, A robust model reference using VS design: The general case for multivariable plants , in Proc. American Contr. Conf., Chicago, 1992, pp. 2730 2734. 2] R. R. Costa and L. Hsu, Robustness of VS-MRAC with respect to unmodeled dynamics and external disturbance , Int. J. Adaptive Contr. Signal Process., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 19 33, 1992. 3] J. P. V. S. Cunha, R. R. Costa, and L. Hsu, Design of a new high performance VS position control of ROVs , IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 42 55, 1995. 4] A. Datta and P. Ioannou, Performance improvement versus robust stability in MRAC , in Proc. IEEE Conf. Dec. and Contr., Brighton, 1991, pp. 748 753. 5] C. A. Desoer and M. Vidyasagar, Feedback Systems: Input-Output Properties, Academic Press, 1975. 6] A. F. Filippov, Di erential equations with discontinuous right-hand side , American Math. Soc. Translations, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 199 231, 1964. 7] L. Hsu, Variable structure model reference adaptive control using only I/O measurement: General case , IEEE Trans. Aut. Contr., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1238 1243, 1990. 8] L. Hsu, A. D. Ara jo, and R. R. Costa, Analysis and design of I/O based variable structure adaptive control , IEEE Trans. Aut. Contr., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 4 21, 1994. 9] L. Hsu, A. D. Ara jo, and F. Lizarralde, New results on VS-MRAC: Design and stability analysis , in Proc. American Contr. Conf., San Francisco, 1993, pp. 1091 1095. 10] L. Hsu and R. R. Costa, Variable structure model reference adaptive control using only input and output measurement: Part I , Int. J. Contr., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 399 416, 1989. 11] L. Hsu and F. Lizarralde, Redesign and stability analysis of VS-MRAC systems , in Proc. American Contr. Conf., Chicago, 1992, pp. 2725 2729. 12] L. Hsu and F. Lizarralde, Experimental results on variable structure adaptive robot control without velocity measurement , in Proc. American Contr. Conf., Seattle, 1995, pp. 2317 2321.

References