IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO.
9, SEPTEMBER 2019
Fuzzy Adaptive State-Feedback Control Scheme of
Uncertain Nonlinear Multivariable Systems
Abdesselem Boulkroune , Loubna Merazka, and Hongyi Li , Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—In this article, we propose a new fuzzy adaptive state-
feedback control strategy for unknown nonlinear multivariable
systems whose the input-gains matrix is not necessarily symmetric
and is characterized by nonzero leading principle minors. A lin-
early parameterized fuzzy system is used to appropriately model
the uncertainties. When designing our control scheme and study-
ing the stability analysis, a decomposition property of the input-
gain matrix is employed. A proportional-integral adaptation law
is suggested to enhance the adaptive parameter convergence. An
appropriate Lyapunov function is exploited to study the stability
of the corresponding closed-loop control system as well as to derive
the adaptation laws. Numerical simulations and a detailed com-
parison study are given to evaluate the efficiency of the proposed
control methodology.
Index Terms—Adaptation proportional-integral (PI) law, fuzzy
adaptive control, matrix SDU decomposition.
I. INTRODUCTION
HE MAJORITY of systems in control engineering is nat-
T urally multivariable and displays an uncertain nonlinear
behavior resulting unfortunately to complex control issues. We
are convinced that the developed control theory for multivari-
able (linear or nonlinear) systems will have an immediate appli-
cation in many practical systems, space technology, chemical
processes, robotics, and so on. Due to the existence of a natural
coupling between the plant inputs and outputs, the control prob-
lem of multivariable nonlinear plants is also far from an easy
task [1].
Over the past three decades, many adaptive fuzzy con-
trol strategies have been developed for uncertain nonlinear
multivariable systems [1]–[9], by exploiting the universal
Manuscript received June 24, 2017; revised March 29, 2018 and July 28, 2018;
accepted November 12, 2018. Date of publication November 29, 2018; date of
current version August 30, 2019. This work was supported in part by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61622302, in part by the
Department of Education of Guangdong Province under Grant 2016KTSCX030
and Grant 2017KZDXM027, in part by the Science and Technology Planning
Project of Guangdong Province under Grant 2017B010116006, and in part
by the Innovative Research Team Program of Guangdong Province Science
Foundation under Grant 2018B030312006. (Corresponding author: Abdesselem
Boulkroune.)
A. Boulkroune and L. Merazka are with the LAJ, University of Jijel, Jijel
18000, Algeria (e-mail:,boulkroune@2002@yahoo.fr; lou_meraz@yahoo.fr).
H. Li is with the Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Intelligent Deci-
sion and Cooperative Control, Guangzhou 510006, China, and also with the
College of Engineering, Bohai University, Jinzhou 121013, China (e-mail:,
lihongyi2009@gmail.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2883369
1063-6706 © 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1703
approximation feature of fuzzy systems [10]. In these control
strategies, the stability study associated to the closed-loop
system is established using a Lyapunov’s approach. To handle
the fuzzy approximation (reconstruction) errors and eventual
disturbances, the main controller (which is the fuzzy control
term) is generally improved by adding a robust control term
to the latter, namely a sliding mode control term and/or H∞
control term [1]–[7], [9]. In [8], this issue has been differently
solved by adding to the integral update laws a proportional
term derived from the Lyapunov stability theory. In spite of this
important extension and improvement, the control scheme in
[8] presents unfortunately some drawbacks.
1) In the adaptive laws, the proportional term has been de-
signed as a nonderivable function, while it should be
derivable.
2) The presence of the well-known algebraic-loop problem
in these updates laws.
Although the control schemes in [2]–[6] can give, in general,
good performances, they are unfortunately limited to MIMO
systems, which are characterized by an input-gains matrix being
positive definite (PD) or negative definite (ND). It is worth
noting that this assumption is paramount in the control design
as well as in the stability study, thereby it limits the scope of
applications of these fundamental results. How to extend these
results to MIMO systems with an input-gains matrix which is
not PD or ND is an important issue. Motivated by the early
works in [11]–[13], this problem has been solved in [8], by
exploiting a so-called matrix SDU-factorization lemma. The
latter allows to factorize the input-gains matrix into a product of
three useful matrices, namely, a PD symmetric matrix (denoted
by S), a diagonal matrix (denoted by D) having the values +1 or
−1 on its main diagonal. Next, the matrix S can be incorporated
in the Lyapunov’s function candidate, as to the matrix U, it
allows us to sequentially design the control signals by avoiding
algebraic-loop problem.
Motivated by the aforementioned discussions, the purpose of
this paper is to design a new fuzzy adaptive state-feedback con-
troller for multivariable nonlinear systems with uncertainties
and eventual dynamical external disturbances. The so-called
matrix SDU factorization is used when designing the control
scheme. A new proportional-integral (PI) update law is pro-
posed to estimate the unknown fuzzy parameters. It is theoret-
ically demonstrated that our controller can ensure the tracking
errors’ convergence asymptotically to the origin. Compared to
the available results [8], our contributions can be summarized
as follows.
1704 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2019

1) By designing a low-pass filter, new PI update laws are Let us define the tracking error of the system’s output,
introduced, in which the proportional part is designed as a e1 (t) = [e11 , e12 , . . . , e1m ]T ∈ Rm , as
derivable function and the famous algebraic-loop problem
e1 = yd − y (4)
is avoided.
2) A detailed comparison study is conducted to investigate In addition, we introduce the following error variables ei ∈
the influence of each term in both the main control law Rm , i = 2, . . . , n, [13]:
and the adaptation law.
e2 = ė1 + e1

II. PRELIMINARIES AND SYSTEM DESCRIPTION e3 = ė2 + e2 + e1

Consider the uncertain multivariable nonlinear systems ..
.
y (n ) = F (x) + G (x) u + P (x, t) (1) en = ėn −1 + en −1 + en −2 . (5)
(n −1) T T
where x = [y T ẏ T . . . (y ) ] ∈ Rr denotes the state vec- From (5), the errors, ei , i = 2, . . . , n, can be simply ex-
tor with r = m ∗ n, u(t) ∈ Rm is the input, y(t) ∈ Rm is the pressed as [13] follows:
output. The functions F (x) ∈ Rm and G(x) = [gij ] ∈ Rm ×m

i−1
are smooth and uncertain, and P (x, t) ∈ Rm is an unknown ei = aij e1
(j )
∀ i = 2, 3, . . . , n. (6)
disturbance. j =0
Our goal is to design a state-feedback control scheme that en-
Where the constants aij can be determined via the well-known
sures the boundedness of all variables in the closed-loop system
Fibonacci number series [12].
and guarantees the output’s tracking to the desired trajectory
Define the error E as follows:
yd (t) ∈ Rm , in spite of the presence of uncertainties in the
model and eventual disturbances. E = en + en −1 . (7)
The next assumptions will be helpful to design our control
From (6) and (7), the time-derivative of E can be expressed
system.
as follows:
Assumption 1: The vector of the desired trajectories,
n −1

(n −1) T
xd = [ydT ẏdT . . . (yd ) ]T ∈ Rm ∗n , is continuous and Ė = ėn + ėn −1 = an j e1
(j +1)
+ ėn −1
bounded. j =0
Assumption 2:
n −2

a) The signs of the leading principal minors of input-gains (j +1) (n )
= an j e1 + e1 + ėn −1
matrix G(x), are known.
(n −1) j =0
b) ∂gij (x) /∂yj = 0 ∀ i = 1, . . ., m and j = 1,
n −2

. . ., m. (j +1) (n )
Assumption 3: The disturbance vector, P (x, t) ∈ Rm , is = an j e1 + yd − y (n ) + ėn −1 . (8)
j =0
bounded and uncertain.
Remark 1: Assumptions 1 and 3 are not restrictive. They are Multiplying (8) by S1 and using (3), we get the following:
standard assumptions for adaptive control theory [1], [5], ]10]. ⎛ ⎞
n −2

Remark 2: Assumption 2 can be considered as a condition S1 Ė = S1 ⎝
(j +1)
an j e1 + yd + ėn −1 ⎠ − S1 y (n )
(n )
of controllability and is not restrictive as it is fulfilled by numer- j =0
ous practical systems: e.g., robotic systems, chaotic systems, ⎛ ⎞
mechanical systems, electrical machines, and so on. n −2
Lemma 1: (SDU-factorization): Any matrix G(x) ∈ Rm ×m = S1 ⎝ + yd + ėn −1 ⎠
(j +1) (n )
an j e1
having nonzero leading-principle minors can be decomposed as j =0
a product of three matrices [7], [8]
− H (x) − DT (x) u
G (x) = S (x) DT (x) (2) ⎛ ⎞
n −2
= S1 ⎝ + yd + ėn −1 ⎠
(j +1) (n )
with S(x) ∈ Rm ×m is a PD symmetric matrix, D ∈ Rm ×m is a an j e1
diagonal matrix, and T (x) ∈ Rm ×m is a unity upper triangular j =0
matrix. The diagonal elements of the matrix D (which are +1
− H(x) − Du − D (T (x) − Im ) u. (9)
or −1) represent the ratios of the signs of the leading-principal
minors of G(x). We can also write (9) as follows:
By using Lemma 1, we can rewrite the system (1) as follows: ⎛ ⎞
n −2

D−1 S1 D D−1 Ė = D−1 S1 ⎝ + yd + ėn −1 ⎠
(j +1) (n )
S1 (x) y (n ) = H (x) + DT (x) u (3) an j e1
j =0
where S1 (x) = S −1 (x) is PD and symmetric,
H(x) = S −1 (x)(F (x) + P (x, t)) ∈ Rm . − D−1 H (x) − (T (x) − Im ) u − u
BOULKROUNE et al.: FUZZY ADAPTIVE STATE-FEEDBACK CONTROL SCHEME OF UNCERTAIN NONLINEAR MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS 1705

or equivalently as
⎛ ⎞
n −2

S̄1 Ē˙ = D−1 S1 ⎝ + ėn −1 ⎠
(j +1) (n )
an j e1 + yd
j =0

− D−1 H (x) − (T (x) − Im ) u − u (10)

where S̄1 = D−1 S1 D and Ē = [Ē1 , . . . , Ēm ]T = D−1 E.
Finally, by posing
α (z) = [α1 (z1 ) , . . . , αm (zm )]T
⎛ ⎞
n −2

= D−1 S1 ⎝yd + + ėn −1 ⎠
(n ) (j +1) Fig. 1. Basic configuration of a FLS.
an j e1
j =0

1
− D−1 H (x) + S̄˙ 1 Ē − (T (x) − Im ) u + Den −1 . where Ai1 , Ai2 , . . . , and Ain are fuzzy sets and f i is the fuzzy
2
(11) singleton for the ith rule. The use of the singleton fuzzifier, prod-
uct inference, and center-average defuzzifier allows to express
Equation (10) becomes simply the fuzzy system output as follows:
1 M i  n 
S̄1 Ē˙ + S̄˙ 1 Ē = α (z) − u − Den −1 (12) f μ
j =1 A ji (x j )
2 i=1
  = θT ψ (x)
fˆ (x) =  (14)
M n
where z = [z1T , z2T , . . . , zm
T T
] . Due to the special structure of i=1 μ
j =1 A ji (x j )
αi (zi ), one can select the argument vector zi as follows [7], [8]
 T where μA ij (xj ) represent the degree of membership of xj to Aij ,
z1 = xT , u2 , . . . , um
M is the number of fuzzy rules, θT = [f 1 , f 2 , . . . , f M ] stands
 T for the adaptable parameter vector (the consequent parameters),
z1 = xT , u2 , . . . , um
and ψ T = [ψ 1 , ψ 2 , . . . , ψ M ] where
 T
z2 = xT , u3 , . . . , um  
n
j =1 μ A i (xj )
 
j
.. ψ i (x) =  (15)
. M n
μ i (x )
i=1 j =1 A j j
 T
zm −1 = xT , um is the fuzzy basis function (FBF).
zm = x . T
(13) It is worth noting that the FLS (14), which is broken down
into the product of two main terms θ and ψ(x), allows us to
Note that this helpful triangular structure of zi permits us to show well the concept of fuzzy adaptive control and helps us
sequentially design control inputs ui , ∀ i = 1, 2, . . . , m, with- in the control design and stability analysis. Via an update law
out any algebraic loop problem. usually determined based on the Lyapunov stability theorem,
Now, let us denote the following compact sets all the elements of the vector θ are prone to be changed in
 T
order to ameliorate the fuzzy approximation, [10], [17]–[19].
Ωz i = xT , ui+1 , . . . , um |x ∈ Ωx ⊂ Rr
However, the FBF vector ψ(x) should be adequately specified
∀ i = 1, . . . , m − 1 by the designer.

Ωz m = {x |x ∈ Ωx ⊂ Rm } . IV. ADAPTIVE FUZZY CONTROL DESIGN

In what follows, adaptive fuzzy-logic systems will be The uncertain function αi (zi ) may be expressed in terms of
employed to model the uncertain function αi (zi ). the fuzzy system (14) as follows:

III. FUZZY APPROXIMATION α̂i (zi , θi ) = θiT ψi (zi ) , i = 1, . . . , m (16)

The main structure of a fuzzy logic system (FLS), as presented where ψi (zi ) is the FBF vector. The latter should be properly
in Fig. 1, consists in a fuzzifier, certain fuzzy IF–THEN rules, a determined by the designer. And θi is the vector of the updated
fuzzy inference engine, and a defuzzifier [10], [14]–[16]. online parameters.
A mapping from an input vector xT = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ] ∈ Rn Now, denote the parametric estimation error as follows:
to an output fˆ ∈ R is performed by the fuzzy inference engine θ̃i = θi − θi∗ with i = 1, . . . , m (17)
using a set of fuzzy IF–THEN [1]. The ith fuzzy rule can be
expressed as and the fuzzy reconstruction error as [10], [20]–[25]
R(i) : IF x1 is Ai1 and . . . and xn is Ain THEN fˆ is f i εi (zi ) = αi (zi ) − α̂i (zi , θi∗ ) (18)
1706 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2019

with α̂i (zi , θi∗ ) = θi∗ ψi (zi ). tracking errors. In fact, the latter introduces, in the time-
According to the universal approximation theorem [10], we derivative of the Lyapunov function, a significant negative term
have [see (26)].
|εi (zi )| ≤ ε̄i , ∀ zi ∈ Ωz i , Remark 5:
1) The adaptation law mechanism (22) is also equipped by
where ε̄i is an uncertain constant. Also, let us denote an useful robust term, namely: an e-modification term,
α (z) = θT ψ (z) = [α1 (z1 , θ1 ) , . . . , αm (zm , θm )]T σi γ1i |Ēi |θi , which guarantees the uniform boundedness
of the adaptive parameters.
ε (z) = [ε1 (z1 ) , . . . , εm (zm )]T , ε̄ = [ε̄1 , . . . , ε̄m ]T . 2) Contrary to [8], because the proportional term (−γ2i δf i )
From the above considerations, we can get is obtained via the low-pass filter (23), the algebraic-loop
problem and the time-differentiability requirement of the
α̂ (zi , θ) − α (zi ) = α̂ (zi , θi ) − α̂ (zi , θi∗) + α̂ (zi , θi∗ ) − α (zi) proportional term are indeed solved in the modified adap-
= α̂ (zi , θi ) − α̂ (zi , θi∗ ) − εi (zi ) tive law (22). Recall that the PI adaptive law in [8] uses
only the term δi = −(−σi |Ēi |θi + Ēi ψi (zi )) as a propor-
= θ̃T ψ (zi ) − εi (zi ) (19)
tional term.
with θ̃T ψ(z) = [θ̃1T ψ1 (z1 ), . . . , θ̃m
T
ψm (zm )]T , and By considering (21), the dynamics (20) become
∗
θ̃i = θi − θi where i = 1, . . . , m. 1  m
Using (17), (18) and (19), (12) can be expressed as follows: Ē T S̄1 Ē˙ + Ē T S̄˙ 1 Ē = − Ēi θ̃iT ψi (zi )
2 i=1
1 m m
 t 
Ē T S̄1 Ē˙ + Ē T S̄˙ 1 Ē = − Ēi θ̃iT ψi (zi ) + Ēi εi (zi )
2 − Ē T Ki Ēdt − Ē T Kp Ē
i=1 i=1 o

m

m
   m
+ Ēi θiT ψi (zi) − Ē T u − Ē T Den −1 . −  
kr i Ēi + Ēi εi (zi )
i=1 i=1 i=1
(20)
− Ē T Den −1 . (24)
The control law u can be determined based on (20) as follows:
 t Theorem: Let’s consider the system (1) subject to Assump-
 
u = θT ψ (z) + Kr sign Ē + Kp Ē + Ki Ēdτ. (21) tions 1–3, and with the control law (21) and its update law given
o by (22) and (23), one can ensures the following properties.
With Ki = diag{ki1 }, Kp = diag{kpi }, and Kr = diag{kr i }. 1) The boundedness of all signals involved in the closed-loop
Ki , Kp , and Kr ∈ Rm ×m are PD design matrices. control system.
Remark 3: Note that the control input (21) is essentially 2) The underlying tracking errors, e1 , asymptotically vanish
comprised of four terms, namely: at the origin.
1) a fuzzy term, θiT ψi (zi ), employed to model the uncertain Proof: Consider the following candidate quadratic
functions αi (zi ); Lyapunov function:

1  2
2) a robust control term, Kr sign(Ē), designed to deal with n −1
1 T
m
the uncertain term σ2i θ∗ 2 + ε̄i ;
1  
V = ei ei + Ē T S1 Ē + θ̃i + γ2i δf i 
3) a linear control term, Kp Ē, introduced for stability pur- 2 i=1 2 2γ1i i=1
poses, and finally m  t T  t 
t 2 1
4) an integral control term, Ki o Ēdτ , added to compensate + δf i  + Ēdτ Ki Ēdτ . (25)
2 o o
for the steady-state error. i=1
The PI update laws associated to (21) are given by the By considering (22)–(24), the derivative of V is
following:
n −1
 
m
 
θ̇i + γ2i δ̇f i = −σi γ1i Ēi  θi + γ1i Ēi ψi (zi ) (22) V̇ ≤ − eTi ei − Ē T Kp Ē − γ2i δf i 2
i=1 i=1
δ̇f i = −γ2i δf i + γ2i δi (23)

m
   m
  
m
 
where δi = −(−σi |Ēi |θi + Ēi ψi (zi )), with γ1i , γ2i , σi > 0 − kr i Ēi  − σi Ēi  θ̃iT θi + Ēi  ε̄i . (26)
are design parameters. i=1 i=1 i=1

Remark 4: The adaptation law mechanism (22) can be also Using the inequality
written as follows:    T  σi    
 2  σi   ∗ 2
m m m
 t  
    − σi Ēi θ̃i θi ≤ − Ēi θ̃i  + Ēi θi 
θ = θI + θ P = −σi γ1i Ēi  θi + γ1i Ēi ψi (zi ) dτ − γ2i δf i i=1 i=1
2 i=1
2
0 (27)
t
where θI = 0 (−σi γ1i |Ēi |θi + γ1i Ēi ψi (zi ))dτ is an adapta- and if we select kr∗i ≥ σ2i θ∗i 2 + ε̄i , (26) becomes
tion integral term, and θP = −γ2i δf i is an adaptation propor- n −1

tional term. Note that the added proportional term (−γ2i δf i ) V̇ ≤ − eTi ei − Ē T Kp Ē. (28)
allows a rapid convergence to adaptive fuzzy parameters and i=1
BOULKROUNE et al.: FUZZY ADAPTIVE STATE-FEEDBACK CONTROL SCHEME OF UNCERTAIN NONLINEAR MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS 1707

TABLE I
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CONTROL SCHEME OF THIS PAPER AND THAT OF [8]

The system (29) can be transformed to (1) as follows:

ÿ = F1 (x) + G1 (x) u + P1 (x, t) (30)

with
 −1   
1 + q22 0 q2 q̇2 0 q̇1
F1 (x) = −
0 1 −q̇1 q2 1 q̇2
 −1  
1 + q22 0 (1 + q2 ) cos(q1 )
−
0 1 sin(q1 )
 −1
1 + q22 0
G1 (x) =
0 1

Fig. 2. 2-DOF polar manipulator robot. where y = [x1 , x2 ]T = [q1 , q2 ]T , x = [x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ]T =

[q1 , q2 , q̇1 , q̇2 ]T , u = [u1 , u2 ]T is the system input, and
Then, from (28), we can easily conclude about the bound- P1 (x, t) = [p11 (x, t) , p12 (x, t)]T is an added disturbance.
edness of all signals in the closed-loop control system, includ- It is assumed that the model (30) includes the dynamics of
ing the control input u. By the Barbalat’s lemma [26], we both drives and the desired trajectories are given by the follow-
can establish that the errors e1 , Ēj ( for j = 1, . . . , m, and ing: qd1 = 0.5 sin(2t) + 0.5 and qd2 = 0.2 sin(4t) + 1, [27].
ei (for i = 2, . . . , n), can vanish asymptotically at the origin. For the proposed controller (21), two adaptive fuzzy systems,
Remark 6: To highlight the theoretical contributions of this namely θ1 T ψ1 (z1 ) and θ2 T ψ2 (z2 ), have been constructed,
paper, a comparison between this work and that of Boulkroune where z1 = [xT , u2 ]T and z2 = x. One defines for each input
et al. in [8] is given in Table I. variable, as in [28], three membership functions (one triangular
and two trapezoidal) being uniformly distributed on the fol-
lowing selected intervals: [−2,2] for q̇2 and q̇1 ; [0.5,2] for q2 ;
V. SIMULATION RESULTS AND COMPARATIVE STUDY
[−0.5,1.5] for q1 ; and [−10,10] for u2 . Thus, the number of the
In this section, one will give some simulation examples to fuzzy rules (for both fuzzy system) is, respectively, 35 and 34 . It
show the efficiency of the above theoretical results and will is worth noting that the fuzzy rule bases are full bases. Therefore,
conduct a detailed comparison to investigate the influence of the sizes of the FBF vectors (ψ1 (z1 ) and ψ2 ) are 243 × 1 and
each term in both main control law and adaptation law. 81 × 1, respectively. The consequent parameters are determined
through the PI adaptive laws (22) and (23), and they are initial-
A. Simulation Examples ized as follows: θ1i (0) = 0, for i = 1, . . . , 243, θ2j (0) = 0,
for j = 1, . . . ,81.
Example 1: Consider a 2-degree of freedom (DOF) po-
The control parameters are chosen as follows:
lar manipulator (see Fig. 2). Its mathematical model is given
γ11 = γ12 = 100, γ21 = γ22 = 35, σ1 = σ2 = 0.1, λ1 = λ2 =
by [27]:
      2, kr 1 = kr 2 = 0.2, ki1 = ki2 = 0.2, kp1 = kp2 = 0.2. The ini-
1 + q22 0 q̈1 q2 q̇2 0 q̇1 tial conditions are chosen as follows: x(0) = [0, 0.5, 0, 0]T .
+
0 1 q̈2 −q̇1 q2 1 q̇2 The external disturbances p11 (x, t) and p12 (x, t) are square
    signals with an amplitude of ∓1 and a frequency of 1/2π Hz.
(1 + q2 ) cos (q1 ) u1 The simulation results obtained are presented in Fig. 3. It
+ = . (29)
sin (q1 ) u2 can be seen from this figure that the system effectively tracks
1708 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2019

Fig. 3. Simulation results for a 2-DOF polar manipulator robot (example 1): (a) Tracking of q1 . (b) Tracking of q2 . (c) Tracking of q̇1 . (d) Tracking of q̇2 . (e)
Tracking errors e1 1 and ė1 1 . (f) Tracking errors e1 2 and ė1 2 . (g) Norm of fuzzy parameters: θ1  and θ2 . (h) Control signals: u1 and u2 .

where M11 = a1 + 2a3 cos(q2 ) + 2a4 sin(q2 ), M22 = a2 ,

M21 = M12 = a2 + a3 cos(q2 ) + a4 sin(q2 ), and h = a3 sin
(q2 ) − a4 cos(q2 ), with a1 = I1 + m1 lc1 2
+ Ie + me lce 2
+
2 2
me l1 , a2 = Ie + me lce , a3 = me l1 lce cos(δe ), and
a4 = me l1 lce sin(δe ).
The robot’s parameter values used are as follows:
m1 = 1, me = 2, l1 = 1, lc1 = 0.5, lce = 0.6, I1 = 0.12,
Ie = 0.25, and δe = 30.
Let y = [q1 , q2 ]T , u = [u1 , u2 ]T , x = [q1 , q2 , q̇1 , q̇2 ]T .
System (31) can be rewritten in the form of system (1) as
follows:
ÿ = F2 (x) + G2 (x) u + P2 (x, t) (32)
Fig. 4. Two links manipulator robot. where
    
f1 (x) −hq̇2 −h (q̇1 + q̇2 ) q̇1
the desired reference signals and also the control signals are F2 (x) = = −M −1
f2 (x) hq̇1 0 q̇2
bounded and admissible.    
Example 2: Consider the dynamical equations of a two-link g11 g12 −1 M11 M12
G2 (x) = =M =
rigid manipulator robot moving on a horizontal plane shown in g21 g22 M21 M22
Fig. 4, this MIMO system is given by [8]
and P2 (x, t) = [p21 (x, t) p22 (x, t)]T .
   −1
q̈1 M11 M12 The desired trajectories are yd1 = qd1 = sin(t) and
= yd2 = qd2 = sin(t).
q̈2 M21 M22
      For the proposed controller (21), two adaptive fuzzy sys-
u1 −hq̇2 −h (q̇1 + q̇2) q̇1 tems, namely θ1 T ψ1 (z1 ) and θ2 T ψ2 (z2 ), have been con-
× − (31)
u2 hq̇1 0 q̇2 structed, where z1 = [xT , u2 ]T and z2 = x. One defines for each
BOULKROUNE et al.: FUZZY ADAPTIVE STATE-FEEDBACK CONTROL SCHEME OF UNCERTAIN NONLINEAR MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS 1709

Fig. 5. Simulation results for a two links manipulator robot (example 2): (a) Tracking of q1 . (b) Tracking of q2 . (c) Tracking of q̇1 . (d) Tracking of q̇2 .
(e) Tracking errors e1 1 and ė1 1 . (f) Tracking errors e1 2 and ė1 2 . (g) Norm of fuzzy parameters: θ1 and θ2 . (h) Control signals: u1 and u2 .

input variable, as in [28], three membership functions (one tri-

angular and two trapezoidal) being uniformly distributed on the
following selected intervals: [−2,2] for q1 and q̇1 ; [−2,2] for
q2 , q̇2 ; and [−10,10] for u2 . Thus, the number of the fuzzy
rules (for both fuzzy system) is, respectively, 35 and 34 . It is
worth noting that the fuzzy rule bases are full bases. Therefore,
the sizes of the FBFs vector (ψ1 (z1 ) and ψ2 (z2 )) are 243 × 1
and 81 × 1, respectively. The consequent parameters are deter-
mined through the PI adaptive laws (22) and (23), and they are
initialized by θ1i (0) = 0, for i = 1, . . . , 243, θ2j (0) = 0, for
j = 1, . . . ,81.
The controller parameters are selected as follows:
γ11 = γ12 = 100, γ21 = γ22 = 100, σ1 = σ2 = 0.005,
λ1 = λ2 = 2, kp1 = kp2 = 0.2, ki1 = ki2 = 2, kr 1 = kr 2 =
0.1. The initial conditions are given as x(0) = [1, 1, 0, 0]T .
The external disturbances p21 (x, t) and p22 (x, t) are square
signals with an amplitude of ∓1 and a frequency of 1/2π Hz. Fig. 6. 2-DOF helicopter (CE150).
Simulation results of this example are displayed in Fig. 5.
Despite the presence of disturbances and uncertainties, it is clear
from this figure, that this MIMO system successfully follows with
the desired trajectories. The control signals associated are also
bounded and admissible.    
cos(φIl2 )2 0 0
Example 3: Let us consider in this example a 2-DOF heli- M (φ, ϑ) = , G(φ, ϑ) =
0 Il2 mgIc cosϑ
copter (CE150) shown in Fig. 6. The dynamics of this MIMO  
nonlinear system are given by [29], [30] the following: −cosϑ sinϑϑ̇Il2 −cosϑ sinϑφ̇Il2
C(φ, ϑ, φ̇, ϑ̇) =
cosϑ sinϑφ̇Il2 0
    φ̇  
φ̈ u1
M (φ, ϑ) + C φ, ϑ, φ̇, ϑ̇ + G (φ, ϑ) = u (33) and u= .
ϑ̈ ϑ̇ u2
1710 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2019

Fig. 7. Simulation results for a 2-DOF helicopter (example 3): (a) Tracking of φ. (b) Tracking of ϑ. (c) Tracking of φ̇. (d) Tracking of ϑ̇. (e) Tracking errors e1 1
and ė1 1 . (f) Tracking errors e1 2 and ė1 2 . (g) Norm of fuzzy parameters: θ1  and θ2 . (h) Control signals: u1 and u2 .

TABLE II TABLE III

EFFECT OF EACH TERM IN THE CONTROL LAW (35) EFFECT OF THE PI TERMS IN THE ADAPTATION LAW (36)

Where where
 
ml (l13 + l23 ) −cosϑ sinϑφ̇Il2
−cosϑ sinϑϑ̇Il2
Il2 = + m1 l12 + m2 l22 and F3 (x) = −M −1
3 (l1 + l2 ) cosϑ sinϑφ̇Il2 0
   
lc = (ml (l1 − l2 ) + m1 l1 − m2 l2 )/m. φ̇ g11 g12
× − M −1 G G3 (x) = = M −1
ϑ̇ g21 g22
The helicopter given by (33) can be expressed in the following
form: and P3 (x, t) = [p31 (x, t) , p32 (x, t)]T .
The desired trajectories are yd1 = φd = sin(t) and
ÿ = F3 (x) + G3 (x) u + P3 (x, t) (34) yd2 = ϑd = sin(t).
BOULKROUNE et al.: FUZZY ADAPTIVE STATE-FEEDBACK CONTROL SCHEME OF UNCERTAIN NONLINEAR MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS
Fig. 8. Comparative study 2: Norm of fuzzy parameters: θ1  and θ2 , obtained by using the (a) Proposed PI adaptation law. (b) E-modification adaptive law.
(c) σ-modification adaptive law. (d) Standard adaptation law.
For the proposed controller (21), two adaptive fuzzy systems,
namely θ1 T ψ1 (z1 ) and θ2 T ψ2 (z2 ), have been constructed,
where z1 = [xT , u2 ]T and z2 = x. One defines for each input
variable, as in [28], three membership functions (one triangular
and two trapezoidal) being uniformly distributed on the fol-
lowing selected intervals: [−2, 2] for φ and φ̇; [−2, 2] for
ϑ, ϑ̇; and [−10, 10] for u2 . Thus, the number of the fuzzy
rules (for both fuzzy system) is, respectively, 35 and 34 . The
consequent parameters are determined through the PI adaptive
laws (22) and (23), and they are initialized by θ1i (0) = 0, for
i = 1, . . . , 243, θ2j (0) = 0, for j = 1, . . . ,81.
The helicopter’s parameters are: m1 = 0.42(kg),
m2 = 0.16(kg), ml = 0.35(kg), m = ml + m1 + m2 ,
l1 = 0.198(m), l2 = 0.174(m), g = 9.8.
The controller parameters used are selected as follows:
γ11 = γ12 = 100, γ21 = γ22 = 100, σ1 = σ2 = 0.005, λ1 =
λ2 = 2, kp1 = kp2 = 0.2, ki1 = ki2 = 2, kr 1 = kr 2 = 0.1.
The initial conditions are chosen as: [0.5, −0.5, 0, 0]T . The
external disturbances, p31 (x, t) and p32 (x, t) are square signals
with an amplitude of ∓1 and a frequency of 1/2π Hz.
In this third example, the simulation results are presented in
Fig. 7. These results show good tracking as well as the efficiency
of our proposed control strategy.
B. Comparative Study 1
In this section, one will conduct a series of tests to evaluate
the performances and the contribution of each term in the main
control law and in the adaptive law by applying the developed
control law in different situations on our robotic system (29).
First, one evaluates the effect of each term in the main control
laws (21). The latter can be expressed as follows:
u = uPI + ur + uf
1711
t
where uPI = Kp Ē + Ki o Ēdτ is a PI control term,
ur = Kr sign(Ē) is a robust control term, and uf = θT ψ(z)
is a fuzzy control term.
Second, one investigates the influence of both main terms in
the adaptation laws (22) (i.e., the adaptation integral term and
the adaptation proportional term). From Remark 4, one has
θ = θI + θP (36)
t
where θI = 0 (−σi γ1i |Ēi |θi + γ1i Ēi ψi (zi ))dτ is an adapta-
tion integral term, and θP = −γ2i δf i is an adaptation propor-
tional term.
Moreover, to quantify the tracking performances in all tests,
the following performance index (the integral of absolute value
of the tracking error) is used
 T
IIAE = |ydi − yi | dt. (37)
o
The obtained results are given in Tables II and III. From
Table II, in the third test (i.e., when the robust term is added to
the control law), we can clearly observe a notable improvement
in the tracking performances.
From Table III, the superiority of the PI adaptation law over
other adaptation laws (i.e., in the test 6) is clearly shown in these
results.
C. Comparative Study 2
In this section, one will conduct a test of our PI update law
(22) and (23), with three well-known update laws, namely σ −
modification [31], e − modification [32], and standard adaptive
law [33]. For that, for all update laws, the control law given by
(35) (21) is applied to the system (29).
1712
Fig. 9. Comparative study 2: The underlying tracking errors e1 and e2 , obtained by using the (a) Proposed PI adaptation law. (b) E-modification adaptive law.
(c) σ-modification adaptive law. (d) Standard adaptation law.
Simulation results for all update laws are displayed in
Figs. 8 and 9. From Fig. 8, the PI adaptation law proposed
in this paper allows for a rapid convergence of adaptive fuzzy
parameters and the final values of the steady state are well ac-
ceptable. However, the behavior of fuzzy parameters tuned with
σ − modification is well similar to that of the of fuzzy parame-
ters adjusted only with e − modification. For these two update
laws, the fuzzy parameters are bounded and their final values
are quite acceptable. However, for the standard adaptation law,
we can remark that the adaptive parameters tend to diverge, due
to the pure integral action.
Also, Fig. 9, which shows the underlying tracking errors ob-
tained by applying the four update laws, confirms well the su-
periority of our PI update laws. The standard adaptation law
also gives a satisfactory tracking performance, but at the cost
of a great value for fuzzy parameters (i.e., an important control
effort).
VI. CONCLUSION
A fuzzy state-feedback controller for a class of uncertain mul-
tivariable nonlinear systems has been proposed. Adaptive fuzzy
systems have been used to online model uncertain functions.
To enhance the convergence of the updated fuzzy parameters
as well as the tracking performances, a PI update law has been
introduced. Simulation results of three practical examples have
been given to emphasize the performance of the proposed con-
troller. A comparative study has been conducted also to evalu-
ate the effect of each terms in the main control and PI update
laws.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2019
REFERENCES
[1] A. Boulkroune, M. M’Saad, and H. Chekireb, “Design of a fuzzy adaptive
controller for MIMO nonlinear time-delay systems with unknown actuator
nonlinearities and unknown control direction,” Inf. Sci., vol. 180, no. 24,
pp. 5041–5059, 2010.
[2] S. C. Tong, J. Tang, and T. Wang, “Fuzzy adaptive control of multivariable
nonlinear systems,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 153–167, 2000.
[3] S. C. Tong and H. X. Li, “Fuzzy adaptive sliding model control for MIMO
nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 354–360,
Jun. 2003.
[4] S. C. Tong, B. Chen, and Y. Wang, “Fuzzy adaptive output feedback
control for MIMO nonlinear systems,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 156, no. 2,
pp. 285–299, 2005.
[5] S. Labiod, M. S. Boucherit, and T. M. Guerra, “Adaptive fuzzy control
of a class of MIMO nonlinear systems,” Fuzzy sets Syst., vol. 151, no. 1,
pp. 59–77, 2005.
[6] N. Essounbouli, A. Hamzaoui, and J. Zaytoon, “An improved robust adap-
tive fuzzy controller for MIMO systems,” Control Intell. Syst., vol. 34,
no. 1, pp. 12–21, 2006.
[7] A. Boulkroune, M. M’Saad, M. Tadjine, and M. Farza, “Adaptive fuzzy
control of MIMO nonlinear systems with unknown hysteresis and control
gain matrix sign,” in Proc. 16th Mediterranean Conf. Control Automat.,
2008, pp. 380–385.
[8] A. Boulkroune, M. Tadjine, M. M’Saad, and M. Farza, “Fuzzy adaptive
controller for MIMO nonlinear systems with known and unknown control
direction,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 161, no. 6, pp. 797–820, 2010.
[9] A. Boulkroune, M. M’Saad, and M. Farza, “Fuzzy approximation-based
indirect adaptive controller for multi-input multi-output non-affine sys-
tems with unknown control direction,” IET Control Theory Appl., vol. 6,
no. 17, pp. 2619–2629, 2012.
[10] L. X. Wang, A Course in Fuzzy Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:
Prentice-Hall, 1999.
[11] A. S. Morse, “A gain matrix decomposition and some of its applications,”
Syst. Control Lett., vol. 21, pp. 1–10, 1993.
[12] B. Xian, D. Dawson, M. deQueiroz, and J. Chen, “A continuous asymptotic
tracking control strategy for uncertain nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 1206–1206, Jul. 2004.
[13] J. Chen, A. Behal, and D. M. Dawson, “Adaptive output feedback control
for a class of MIMO nonlinear systems,” in Proc Amer. Control Conf.,
2006, pp. 5300–5305.
BOULKROUNE et al.: FUZZY ADAPTIVE STATE-FEEDBACK CONTROL SCHEME OF UNCERTAIN NONLINEAR MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS
[14] E. Lughofer and S. Kindermann, “Sparse FIS: Data-driven learning of
fuzzy systems with sparsity constraints,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 18,
no. 2, pp. 396–411, Apr. 2010.
[15] M. Luo, F. Sun, and H. Liu, “Hierarchical structured sparse representation
for T–S fuzzy systems identification,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 21,
no. 6, pp. 1032–1043, Dec. 2013.
[16] M. Luo, F. Sun, and H. Liu, “Joint block structure sparse representation
for multi-input–multi-output (MIMO) T–S fuzzy system identification,”
IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1387–1400, Dec. 2014.
[17] W. Liu, C. C. Lim, P. Shi, and S. Xu, “Backstepping fuzzy adaptive control
for a class of quantized nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,
vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1090–1101, Oct. 2017.
[18] Y. Li, S. Tong, and T. Li, “Hybrid fuzzy adaptive output feedback control
design for uncertain MIMO nonlinear systems with time-varying delays
and input saturation,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 841–853,
Aug. 2016.
[19] G. Lai, Z. Liu, Y. Zhang, C. P. Chen, S. Xie, and Y. Liu, “Fuzzy adaptive
inverse compensation method to tracking control of uncertain nonlinear
systems with generalized actuator dead zone,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,
vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 191–204, Feb. 2017.
[20] L. Merazka, F. Zouari, and F. A. Boulkroune, “Fuzzy state-feedback con-
trol of uncertain nonlinear MIMO systems,” in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Syst.
Control, 2017, pp. 103–108.
[21] Y. J. Liu, J. Li, S. Tong, and C. L. Philip Chen, “Neural network
control-based adaptive learning design for nonlinear systems with full-
state constraints,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 27, no. 7,
pp. 1562–1571, Jul. 2016.
[22] B. Xu, F. Sun, and Y. Pan, “ Disturbance observer based composite learning
fuzzy control of nonlinear systems with unknown dead zone,” IEEE Trans.
Syst., Man, Cybern.: Syst., vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1854–1862, Aug. 2017.
[23] Y. C. Hsueh and S.-F. Su, “Learning error feedback design of di-
rect adaptive fuzzy control systems,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 20,
no. 3, pp. 536–545, Jun. 2012.
[24] J. Fu, H. He, and X. Zhou, “Adaptive learning and control for MIMO
system based on adaptive dynamic programming,” IEEE Trans. Neural
Netw., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1133–1148, Jul. 2011.
[25] Y. J. Liu, L. Tang, S. Tong, and C. L. Philip Chen, “Reinforcement learning
design-based adaptive tracking control with less learning parameters for
nonlinear discrete-time MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn.
Syst., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 165–176, Jan. 2015.
[26] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems. 3rd., New Jersey, NY, USA: Prentice
Hall, 2001.
[27] A. Vitecek and A. M. Viteckova, “Control of mechanical systems with
uncertainties,” in Proc. 17th Int. Carpathian Control Conf., 2016.
[28] A. Boulkroune, M. Tadjine, M. Msaad, and M. Farza, “How to design a
fuzzy adaptive control based on observers for uncertain affine nonlinear
systems,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 159, pp. 926–948, 2008.
[29] Humusoft, CE 150 Helicopter Model User’s Manual, 1989.
[30] L. Merazka and A. Boulkroune, “Adaptive fuzzy state-feedback control
for a class of multivariable nonlinear systems,” in Proc. 8th Int. Conf.
Model., Identification Control, 2016, pp. 925–931.
[31] P. Ioannou and P. Kokotovic, “Instability analysis and improvement of
robustness of adaptive control,” Automatica, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 583–594,
Sep. 1984.
[32] K. Narendra and A. Annaswamy, “A new adaptive law for robust adapta-
tion without persistent excitation,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 32,
no. 2, pp. 134–145, Feb. 1987.
[33] H. P. Whitaker and A. Kezer, “New developments in the design of adap-
tive control systems,” Developments in the Design of Adaptive Control
Systems, no. 61–39, 1961.
1713
Abdesselem Boulkroune received the Engineering
degree from Setif University, Setif, Algeria, in 1995,
the master’s degree from the Military Polytechnic
School (EMP) of Algiers, Bordj-El-Bahri, Algeria,
in 2002, and the Ph.D. degree in automatic from the
National Polytechnic School (ENP) of Algiers, El
Harrach, Algeria, in 2009.
In 2003, he joined the automatic control de-
partment, Jijel University, Jijel, Algeria, where he
is currently a Full Professor. His research interests
include in nonlinear control, chaos synchronization,
fractional-order systems, induction motor drives, and fuzzy control and adaptive
control.
Loubna Merazka received the bachelor’s degree in
automatic control, in 2011, the master’s degree in
automation and industrial informatics, in 2013, from
the University of Jijel, Jijel, Algeria. She is currently
working toward the Ph.D. degree in automatic control
with the University of Jijel. Her research interests in-
clude nonlinear control, fuzzy control, adaptive con-
trol and observer-based control.
Hongyi Li (SM’17) received the Ph.D. degree in in-
telligent control from the University of Portsmouth,
Portsmouth, U.K., in 2012.
He was a Research Associate with the Depart-
ment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong and Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni-
versity, Hong Kong. He was a Visiting Principal
Fellow with the Faculty of Engineering and Infor-
mation Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wol-
longong, Australia. His research interests include
adaptive control, fuzzy control, sliding mode control,
and their applications.
Dr. Li was a recipient of the National Science Fund for Excellent Young
Scholars of China, in 2016, the New Century Excellent Talents in University
of Ministry of Education of China, in 2013, the Distinguished Professor of
Liaoning Province, China, in 2015, and the 2016 Andrew P. Sage Best Transac-
tions Paper Award from IEEE System, Man, Cybernetics Society and the Best
Paper Award in Theory from ICCSS 2017. He has been in the Editorial Board
of several international journals, including IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL
NETWORKS AND LEARNING SYSTEMS, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN
AND CYBERNETICS: SYSTEMS, IEEE/CAA JOURNAL OF AUTOMATICA SINICA,
Asian Journal of Control, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, International
Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, and Circuits, Systems, and Signal
Processing, etc. He has been a Guest Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
CYBERNETICS and IET Control Theory and Applications. He is a member of the
IFAC Technical Committee on Computational Intelligence in Control.