Received: 1 March 2019 Revised: 28 May 2019 Accepted: 13 August 2019

DOI: 10.1002/asjc.2253

REGULAR PAPER

Adaptive robust dynamic surface control for uncertain

strict‐feedback nonlinear systems using fuzzy logic systems

Sanyan Chen1 | Yuchao Wang1 | Wenrui Shi1 | Hansheng Wu2

1
College of Mechanical and Electrical
Engineering, Sichuan Agricultural
University, China
2
Department of Information Science,
Prefectural University of Hiroshima,
Japan
Correspondence
Yuchao Wang, College of Mechanical and
Electrical Engineering, Sichuan
Agricultural University, Yaan 625014,
China.
Email: wangyc0918@yahoo.co.jp
Funding information
Education Department of Sichuan Prov-
ince, Grant/Award Number: 18ZB0456
Abstract
In this paper, an adaptive robust stabilization problem is dealt with for a class
of uncertain strict‐feedback nonlinear systems in the presence of unknown
structure uncertainties, external disturbances, and unknown time‐varying vir-
tual control coefficients. It is not required to know the upper bounds of external
disturbances, as well as the upper and lower bounds of unknown time‐varying
virtual control coefficients. The controller is designed by adopting
backstepping. In addition, to avoid suffering from the problem of ‘explosion
of terms’, a dynamic surface control approach is employed by introducing the
first‐order low‐pass filter. Furthermore, at every step of the backstepping design
procedure, fuzzy logic systems are used to approximate the unknown structure
uncertainties. In particular, the norms of weight matrices and the upper bounds
of approximation errors of fuzzy logic systems are supposed to be unknown. It
is also shown that the proposed controller can guarantee the uniform bounded-
ness of uncertain strict‐feedback nonlinear systems. Finally, the simulation for
a single‐link manipulator actuated by a brush DC motor is carried out to illus-
trate the validity of the proposed controller.

K E YWO R D S
adaptive robust control, backstepping design, dynamic surface control, fuzzy logic systems

1 | I N T RO D U C T I O N stability of uncertain nonlinear systems. In [10], an adap-

It is generally known that there always exist uncertainties
in engineering systems owing to modeling errors, mea-
surement errors, changes of external environment condi-
tions, and so on [1–5]. Therefore, in the literature,
extensive efforts have been devoted to the problem of
robust stabilization for dynamical systems with signifi-
cant uncertainties. Many robust state (or output) feedback
controllers have been developed (see, e.g. [6–8] and the
references therein) in order to generate satisfactory per-
formance of control systems. In [9], a class of adaptive
robust controllers has been presented to guarantee the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2019 Chinese Automatic Control Society and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
tive robust state feedback controller has been developed
to make the closed‐loop system globally uniformly expo-
nentially convergent to a sphere. Nevertheless, a common
assumption of the above methods is that the systems are
required to satisfy the matched uncertainties. As a break-
through in the field of nonlinear control, a backstepping
design is proposed to obtain adaptive robust stabilization
or model asymptotical tracking for dynamic systems that
can be transformable to uncertain strict‐feedback nonlin-
ear systems [11,12]. It is a powerful tool that can relax the
requirement of matched conditions. Therefore, in recent
years, there have been many studies into the

Asian J Control. 2021;23:761–773. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/asjc 761

762
backstepping design approach [13–19]. Nevertheless, it is
noted that the virtual control coefficients in [13–19] are
set equal to one. In reality, it is impossible to decide vir-
tual control coefficients in many cases [20–27]. Unfortu-
nately, both upper bounds and lower bounds of the
unknown time‐varying virtual control coefficients are
supposed to be known [20–22], while the unknown
time‐varying virtual control coefficients are assumed to
be upper bounded by the known smooth functions in
[23] and [24]. Although the upper bounds of the
unknown time‐varying virtual control coefficients are
unknown, it is assumed that the unknown time‐varying
virtual control coefficients have known lower bounds
[25–27].
In traditional backstepping the problem of ‘explosion of
terms’ is a significant disadvantage, that is, the differentia-
tion of the virtual controllers is included in the process of
controller design. As a result, with the increasing of the
order of the systems, the complexity of the controller rap-
idly increases. In the last two decade, the dynamic surface
control technique (see, e.g., [28–37] and the references
therein) that utilizes a first‐order low‐pass filter at every
step of the virtual controller design procedure is adopted.
The dynamic surface control technique was first put for-
ward by Swaroop [38]. The important merits of the
dynamic surface control technique include the following.
1) The control approach associated with the dynamic sur-
face control technique is a solution to the issue of ‘explo-
sion of terms’ caused by the repeated differentiation of
the virtual controllers. 2) The requirements of the nonlin-
ear functions in the virtual controllers are released. The
nonlinear functions employed in the virtual controllers
only require to be first order derivable functions, which
are irrelevant to the order of systems. 3) The dynamic sur-
face control technique has been applied to several practical
nonlinear control systems [39–42], such as autonomous
surface vehicles, permanent magnet synchronous motor,
underactuated autonomous underwater vehicles, inte-
grated missile guidance and autopilot, and so on. Hence,
this technique can be utilized to design the controllers in
this paper. By contrast, in [30] and [34], the time‐varying
virtual control coefficients are known functions; in [31],
[33], and [35], neural networks are used to estimate the
terms including negative first power of control coefficients,
and so the control coefficients are required to be smooth
functions; in [32], the negative first power of the deriva-
tives of control coefficients are needed in the proposed
controllers. To sum up, they all have strict requirements
on the control coefficients.
On the other hand, it is well known that fuzzy logic
systems have been extensively exploited for nonlinear
systems due to their universal approximation properties
[43–47]. As such, fuzzy logic systems have been widely
CHEN ET AL.
used for the modeling and controller design for uncertain
nonlinear systems [48–53]. However, the upper bounds of
the norms of ideal weight vectors are needed in [48], and
prior knowledge of the approximation errors is required
in [49]. Moreover, in [48–53], the elements of the ideal
weight vector are updated online one by one. Obviously,
this will produce a certain amount of computational
burden.
In this paper, motivated by the previous works, the
adaptive robust stabilization problem is developed for a
class of uncertain strict‐feedback nonlinear systems in
the presence of unknown structure uncertainties, external
disturbances, and unknown time‐varying virtual control
coefficients. Fuzzy logic systems are utilized to approxi-
mate the unknown structure uncertainties. Meanwhile,
the adaptation laws are employed to estimate the norms
of weight matrices, the upper bounds of approximation
errors of fuzzy logic systems, the upper bounds of external
disturbances, as well as the upper and lower bounds of
unknown time‐varying virtual control coefficients. Based
on the dynamic surface control technique and
backstepping manner, a class of adaptive robust control-
lers is synthesized. It is confirmed that the proposed con-
trol scheme can guarantee the uniform boundedness of
uncertain strict‐feedback nonlinear systems. The contri-
butions of this paper include the following. 1) By compar-
ison with the existing literature, such as [20–27], the
upper and lower bounds of virtual control coefficients
can be supposed to be unknown. Accordingly, this paper
removes the restricted assumption that the upper bounds
or the lower bounds of unknown time‐varying virtual
control coefficients are known. 2) The differentiations of
the virtual controllers are not included in the process of
controller design, and the issue of ‘explosion of terms’ in
the traditional manner of backstepping is avoided. 3) In
the controller design, fuzzy logic systems are used to
model the unknown nonlinear structure uncertainties,
and the prior knowledge about the weight matrices and
approximation errors of the fuzzy logic systems is not
required. Furthermore, the norm of the ideal weight vec-
tor in the fuzzy logic systems is taken as the estimation
parameter, not as the elements of the weight vector. For
this reason, compared with [48–53], the computational
load is reduced in this paper.
This paper is organized as follows. The preliminaries,
problem formulation, and standard assumptions are
introduced in Section 2. A class of adaptive robust
dynamic surface controllers is proposed and the corre-
sponding stability analysis is carried out in Section 3.
The application of the proposed controller to the problem
of stabilization for a single‐link manipulator actuated by a
brush DC motor is presented in Section 4. Finally, conclu-
sions are made in Section 5.
CHEN ET AL. 763

2 | P RO BL EM FO RM U L A TI O N A N D 8
>
> g2i
P R E L I MI N A R I E S >
> ; i ¼ 1;
>
> 2g2i
>
>
>
< g2
2.1 | Nonlinear control problem * 1
ϕi : ¼ i
þ 2; 2 ≤ i ≤ n − 1;
>
> 2g 2 2g
>
> i i
Consider the following uncertain strict‐feedback nonlin- >
>
>
> 1
ear system: : 2g2 ;
> i ¼ n::
i
x_ 1 ¼ g1 ð~
x 1 Þx 2 þ f 1 ð~
x 1 Þ þ d1 ðtÞ (3b)
x_ 2 ¼ g2 ð~
x 2 Þx 3 þ f 2 ð~
x 2 Þ þ d2 ðtÞ
where ω*i are the optimal fuzzy parameter
⋮ ⋮
vectors and εi are the upper bounds of
x_ n−1 ¼ gn−1 ð~
x n−1 Þx n þ f n−1 ð~
x n−1 Þ þ dn−1 ðtÞ approximation errors. Here, it is obvious that
x_ n ¼ gn ð~
x n ÞuðtÞ þ f n ð~
x n Þ þ dn ðtÞ the parameters ψ*i and ϕ*i are still unknown
(1) positive constants.

where x~i ðtÞ ¼ ½x 1 ; x 2 ; … ; x i ⊤ ∈ Ri ; i ¼ 1; 2; … ; n are
the system state vectors, u(t)∈R is the control input, gi
(·), f i(·) and di(·),i=1,2,…,n are all unknown functions,
where gi(·) represent time‐varying virtual control coeffi-
cients, f i(·) represent structure uncertainties that are
assumed to be continuous and differentiable, and di(·)
represents external disturbances assumed to be continu-
ous and bounded.
Control target: Utilizing a dynamic surface control
technique and fuzzy logic systems to synthesize a state
feedback controller such that the state x~n ðtÞ involved in
nonlinear system (1) is uniformly bounded.
In order to make the control scheme feasible, some
assumptions are put forward for nonlinear system (1).
Assumption 1. The time‐varying virtual
control coefficients gi(·),i=1,2,…,n are contin-
uous and bounded with known sign. Without
loss of generality, it is assumed that gi(·)>0.
In addition, for any i∈{1,2,…,n}, there exist
the unknown positive constants g iand gi
such that 0 < gi ≤ gi ð·Þ ≤ gi < ∞:Here,
from this assumption, it is obvious that
gi ð·Þ
≥ 1; i ¼ 1; 2; … ; n
gi
Assumption 2. For any i∈{1,2,…,n}, there
 satisfy
exists the unknown positive constant di
the following inequality
 i < ∞;
jdi ðtÞj ≤ d i ¼ 1; 2; … ; n
Without loss of generality, some definitions
are also given.
!
* 1 1 * 2  ; i ¼ 1; 2; … ; n
ψi : ¼ ‖ω ‖ þ εi þ d
gi 4gi i i
(3a)
Remark 1. Actually, the system (1) describes
the control problems of power systems,
motors, and so on [1,2]. The dynamic charac-
teristics of the system, as well as the distur-
bances caused by changes of external
environment conditions, are often uncertain
and time‐dependent. Therefore, the control
coefficients and disturbances of the system
are time‐varying and bounded. Here, it is
not required to know the upper bounds of
the disturbances. Meanwhile, the upper and
lower bounds of virtual control coefficients
can be allowed to be unknown, and gi(·)
away from zero is the controllable condition
of system (1). Hence, Assumptions 1 and 2
are reasonable.
2.2 | Description of fuzzy logic systems
Fuzzy logic control is a kind of nonlinear control based
on fuzzy set theory, fuzzy linguistic variables and fuzzy
logic reasoning. The experts' control experience and
knowledge are described as control rules through linguis-
tic variables, and then these rules are used to control the
(2)
systems. In this paper, fuzzy logic systems are imple-
mented to estimate the nonlinear structure uncertainties
f i(·) in the controller design procedure. The knowledge
base for fuzzy logic systems is constructed from fuzzy
IF–THEN rules as follows.
Rl : If x 1 is F l1 and x 2 is F l2 and … and x n is F ln ;
Then y is Gl ; l ¼ 1; 2; … ; N:
where x(t)=[x1,x2,…,xn]⊤ is the input, y is the output, N is
the rules number. F li and Gl are fuzzy sets associated with
the fuzzy functions μF li ðx i Þ and μGl ðyÞ, respectively.
764 CHEN ET AL.

The fuzzy logic systems with center‐average where k1 and σ1 are any given positive constants and π1(t)
defuzzifizer, product inference, and singleton fuzzifizer b ðtÞ þ ‖ρ ð~
is defined as π 1 ðtÞ: ¼ ψ x 1 Þ‖2 and ρ ð~
x 1 Þ will be
1 1 1
are in the following form: b ðtÞ and ϕ
given later. Furthermore, ψ b ðtÞ are the estimates
1 1
  *
of the unknown constants ψ1 and ϕ*1 , and they are
N n
∑l¼1y l ∏i¼1 μF li ðx i Þ
  updated through the following adaptation laws
yðxÞ ¼ (4)
N n
∑l¼1 ∏i¼1 μF li ðx i Þ
b ðtÞ
dψ 1 b ðtÞ þ γ jS1 j
¼ −γ 11 σ 1 ψ (8a)
where y l ¼ maxy∈R μGl ðyÞ. dt 1 11

Define the fuzzy basis functions as

b ðtÞ
dϕ
n
1 b ðtÞ þ γ 12 jS1 j2
¼ −γ 12 σ 1 ϕ (8b)
∏i¼1 μF li ðx i Þ dt 1
ρl ðxÞ ¼  
N n
∑l¼1 ∏i¼1 μF li ðx i Þ where γ11 and γ12 are any given positive constants.
Moreover, letting ψ~ 1 ðtÞ ¼ ψb 1 ðtÞ−ψ*1 and ϕ~ 1 ðtÞ ¼ ϕb 1 ðtÞ−ϕ*1 ,
Denoting ω⊤ ¼ ½y1 ; y2 ; … ; yN  ¼ ½ω1 ; ω2 ; … ; ωN ; it is held that
ρðxÞ ¼ ½ρ1 ðxÞ; ρ2 ðxÞ; … ; ρN ðxÞ⊤ , then equation (4) can
be rewritten into the following form: ~ ðtÞ
dψ 1 ~ ðtÞ þ γ jS1 j−γ σ 1 ψ*
¼ −γ 11 σ 1 ψ (9a)
1 11 11 1
dt
⊤
yðxÞ ¼ ω ρðxÞ (5)
~ ðtÞ
dϕ 1 ~ 1 ðtÞ þ γ 12 jS1 j2 − γ 12 σ 1 ϕ*
¼ −γ 12 σ 1 ϕ (9b)
Lemma 1. [53]. Let f (x) be a continuous dt 1

function defined on a compact set Ω. Then

for any constant ϵ>0, there exists a fuzzy logic
system (5) such as supx∈Ω j f ðxÞ−ω⊤ ρðxÞj ≤ ϵ:
Based on Lemma 1, given a compact set x∈Ωx,
we know that the smooth function f (x) can be
expressed as
f ðxÞ ¼ ω*⊤ ρðxÞ þ εðxÞ
Inspired by the dynamic surface control technique, a
new variable ξ2d is introduced. The estimated value ξ2d
is obtained by passing ξ2 through a first‐order low‐pass
filter with time constant τ2. In this way, we can avoid
direct differentiation of ξ2 . The equation of the first‐order
low‐pass filter is as follows.
(6)

where ω* is an optimal fuzzy parameter vector, τ 2 ξ_ 2d þ ξ 2d ¼ ξ 2 ; ξ 2d ð0Þ ¼ ξ 2 ð0Þ (10)

and the approximation error ε(x) satisfies
‖εðxÞ‖ ≤ ε with the constant ε > 0. Then, we define the errors S2 and y2 as

S2 ¼ x 2 − ξ 2d (11a)
3 | MAIN RESULTS
y2 ¼ ξ 2d − ξ 2 ¼ −τ 2 ξ_ 2d (11b)
In this section, we design the adaptive robust controller
using dynamic surface control technique and fuzzy logic
Then, S_ 1 can be expressed as
systems in a step‐by‐step manner for the uncertain non-
linear system (1). The design process consists of n steps.
The virtual controllers ξi,i=2,3,…,n are designed at the S_ 1 ¼ g1 ð~
x 1 ÞS2 þ g1 ð~
x 1 Þy2 þ g1 ð~
x 1 Þξ 2 þ f 1 ð~
x 1 Þ þ d1 ðtÞ
previous n−1 steps, and then ξid,i=2,3,…,n are obtained (12)
by using ξi,i=2,3,…,n as the inputs through a first‐order
low‐pass filter. Finally, the actual controller u(t) is intro- For any i∈{1,2,…,n}, according to (6), we know that for
duced at step n. an arbitrarily small positive number εi , there exists an
Step 1: optimal fuzzy parameter vector ω*i such that f i ð~ x iÞ ¼
*⊤
We define S1=x1. Then, the time derivative of S1 can be ωi ρi ð~
x i Þ þ εi ð~
x i Þ, and the approximation error εi ð~
x iÞ
expressed as S_ 1 ¼ g1 ð~
x 1 Þx 2 þ f 1 ð~
x 1 Þ þ d1 ðtÞ: satisfies the inequality ‖εi ð~ x i Þ‖ ≤ εi .
Therefore, S_ 1 becomes
Choose the virtual controller as
S_ 1 ¼ g1 ð~
x 1 ÞS2 þ g1 ð~
x 1 Þy2 þ g1 ð~
x 1 Þξ 2
1 b ðtÞS1 − π 21 ðtÞS1 (13)
ξ 2 ¼ − k 1 S1 − ϕ (7) þ ω*⊤
π 1 ðtÞjS1 j þ σ 1 1 ρ1 ð~
x 1 Þ þ ε1 ð~
x 1 Þ þ d1 ðtÞ
1
2
CHEN ET AL. 765

From (11), it is derived that By using (3b), (7), and (9), it is derived that

y2 _
y_ 2 ¼− − ξ2 g ð~x 1Þ 1
τ2 V_ 1 ðtÞ ≤ ϕ*1 S21 þ S22 þ y22 þ 1 S1 − k1 S1
g1 2
y ∂ξ ∂ξ b_ ∂ξ 2 b_ (14)

¼ − 2 − 2 S_ 1 − 2 ϕ 1− ψ b ðtÞS1 − π 1 ðtÞS1
2
τ 2 ∂S1 b
∂ϕ 1 b 1
∂ψ −ϕ
1 1
π 1 ðtÞjS1 j þ σ 1
(19)
~ ðtÞ þ ψ* þ ‖ρ ð~
þ ðψ 1 x 1 Þ‖ ÞjS1 j
2
It is clear that there exists the continuous function η2(·) 1 1

such that − σ1ϕ ~ ðtÞS2 − σ 1 ϕ

~ 2 ðtÞ þ ϕ ~ ðtÞϕ*
1 1 1 1 1
y2 b Þ ≤ 
b1 ; ψ ~ 2 ðtÞ−σ 1 ψ
~ ðtÞψ*
jy_ 2 þ j ≤ η2 ðS1 ; S2 ; y2 ; ϕ η2 − σ1 ψ 1 1 1
τ2 1

From (2), we can readily conclude that

where η2 is the maximum of |η2(·)| on compact region
ΩS1 × ΩS2 × Ωy2 × Ωb × Ωb . Here, ΩS1 ; ΩS2 ; Ωy2 ; Ωb 1 b 1 ðtÞS2
ϕ1 ψ1 ϕ1 V_ 1 ðtÞ ≤ ϕ*1 S21 þ S22 þ y22 − k1 S21 − ϕ 1
2
and Ωb are appropriate compact sets. S1 ; S2 ; y2 ; ϕ b
ψ1 1 σ 1 π 1 ðtÞjS1 j 1 ~2
  þ − σ 1 ϕ 1 ðtÞ
and ψb 1 will be suppressed: ΩSi ¼ Si jSi j ≤ S ; ∃S > 0: π 1 ðtÞjS1 j þ σ 1 2 (20)
   i i
1 ~2 ~ * ~
⊂ Rði ¼ 1; 2Þ, Ωy2 ¼ y2 jy2 j ≤ y2 ; ∃y2 > 0: ⊂ R, Ωb ¼ − σ1 ϕ 1 ðtÞ−σ 1 ϕ 1 ðtÞϕ1 þ ϕ 1 ðtÞS1
2
ϕ 2
n  o n  1

b 1 jϕ
ϕ b1 j ≤ ϕ
 ; ∃ϕ
 > 0: ⊂ R, and b 1 jψ
Ωb ¼ ψ b1j ≤ ψ
 ; 1 ~2 1 ~2 ~ *
1 1 ψ1 1 − σ1ψ 1 ðtÞ− σ 1 ψ 1 ðtÞ−σ 1 ψ 1 ðtÞψ1
 > 0:g ⊂ R.
2 2
∃ψ 1
For the uncertain nonlinear subsystem described by (9) ab
By using the fact that 0 < ≤ b; ∀a; b > 0, (20)
and (12), we consider the Lyapunov function candidate of aþb
can be further written into
the following form
1 1 ~2
1 2 1 −1 ~ 2 1 ~2 V_ 1 ðtÞ ≤ S22 þ y22 − k1 S21 þ σ 1 − σ 1 ϕ 1 ðtÞ
V 1 ðtÞ ¼ S1 þ γ 11 ψ 1 ðtÞ þ γ −1 ϕ ðtÞ (15) 2 2
2g1 2 2 12 1 1 1 ~2 1
(21)
* 2
þ σ 1 ðϕ*1 Þ2 − σ 1 ψ 1 ðtÞ þ σ 1 ðψ1 Þ
The time derivative of V1(t) along the trajectories of (9) 2 2 2
and (12) results in Step i: (2 ≤ i ≤ n−1)
Taking the derivative of the error Si=xi−ξid, it is
1 ~ 1 ðtÞ
dψ ~ ðtÞ
dϕ derived that S_ i ¼ gi ð~ x i Þ þ di ðtÞ− ξ_ id :
x i Þx iþ1 þ f i ð~
V_ 1 ðtÞ ¼ S1 S_ 1 þ γ −1 ~ þ γ −1 ~
11 ψ 1 ðtÞ 12 ϕ 1 ðtÞ
1
(16)
g1 dt dt Then, similar to step 1, we choose the virtual controller
as
Based upon Assumption 2 and (13), it is deduced that
b i ðtÞSi − π i ðtÞSi
2
1
ξ iþ1 ¼ − ki Si − Si − ϕ (22)
g ð~x 1Þ g ð~
x 1Þ g ð~x 1Þ 2 π i ðtÞjSi j þ σ i
V_ 1 ðtÞ ≤ 1 S1 S2 þ 1 S1 y2 þ 1 S1 ξ 2
g1 g1 g1
! where ki and σi are any given positive constants and πi(t)
1 1 * 2  1 jS1 j b ðtÞ þ ‖ρ ð~
is defined as π i ðtÞ: ¼ ψ b ðtÞ
x i Þ‖2 : Furthermore, ψ
þ ‖ω ‖ þ ε 1 þ d i i i
g1 4g1 1 (17) b ðtÞ are the estimates of the unknown constants ψ*
and ϕ i i
þ ‖ρ1 ð~x 1 Þ‖2 jS1 j and ϕ*i , and they are updated through the following adap-
dψ~ ðtÞ ~ ðtÞ
dϕ tation laws
þ γ −1 ~ þ γ −1 ~
11 ψ 1 ðtÞ 12 ϕ 1 ðtÞ
1 1
dt dt
b ðtÞ
dψ
From Assumption 1 and (3a), we have
i b ðtÞ þ γ jSi j
¼ −γ i1 σ i ψ (23a)
i i1
dt

g 2 g 2 g ð~x 1Þ
V_ 1 ðtÞ ≤ 12 S21 þ S22 þ 12 S21 þ y22 þ 1 S1 ξ 2 b i ðtÞ
dϕ
4g1 4g1 g1 b ðtÞ þ γ i2 jSi j2
¼ −γ i2 σ i ϕ (23b)
i
  dt
þ ψ*1 þ ‖ρ1 ð~ x 1 Þ‖2 jS1 j (18)
where γi1 and γi2 are any given positive constants.
~ ðtÞ
dψ ~ ðtÞ
dϕ Moreover, letting ψ~ i ðtÞ ¼ ψb i ðtÞ−ψ*i and ϕ~ i ðtÞ ¼ ϕb i ðtÞ−ϕ*i , it
þ γ −1 ~ þ γ −1 ~
11 ψ 1 ðtÞ 12 ϕ 1 ðtÞ
1 1
dt dt is held that
766 CHEN ET AL.

~ ðtÞ
dψ Based upon on Assumptions 1–2, (3), (22), (24), and
i ~ ðtÞ þ γ jSi j−γ σ i ψ*
¼ −γ i1 σ i ψ (24a) (27), it is derived that
i i1 i1 i
dt
~ ðtÞ
dϕ i ~ ðtÞ þ γ i2 jSi j2 − γ i2 σ i ϕ*
¼ −γ i2 σ i ϕ g 2 g
dt i i (24b) V_ i ðtÞ ≤ V_ i−1 ðtÞ þ i 2 S2i þ S2iþ1 þ y2iþ1 þ i Si
2gi gi
Considering the first‐order low‐pass filter, it can be

b ðtÞSi − π i ðtÞSi
2
1
obtained × − k i Si − Si − ϕ
2 i
π i ðtÞjSi j þ σ i
 
τ iþ1 ξ_ ðiþ1Þd þ ξ ðiþ1Þd ¼ ξ iþ1 ; ξ ðiþ1Þd ð0Þ ¼ ξ iþ1 ð0Þ (25) þ ψ~ ðtÞ þ ψ þ ‖ρ ð~
*
x i Þ‖ jSi j
2
i i i

1 1 ~ ðtÞS2 − σ i ϕ
~ 2 ðtÞ þ ϕ ~ ðtÞϕ*
Then, we define the errors Si+1 and yi+1 as þ 2 S2i þ 2 y2i − σ i ϕ i i i i i
2gi 2τ i
Siþ1 ¼ x iþ1 − ξ ðiþ1Þd (26a) ~ 2 ðtÞ−σ i ψ
−σ i ψ ~ ðtÞψ*
i i i
(31)
yiþ1 ¼ ξ ðiþ1Þd − ξ iþ1 ¼ −τ iþ1 ξ_ ðiþ1Þd (26b) From (2), we can readily conclude that

Then, S_ i can be expressed as i

1 1 ~2
V_ i ðtÞ ≤ S2iþ1 þ ∑ − k j S2j þ y2jþ1 þ σ j − σ j ϕ ðtÞ
2 2 j
S_ i ¼ gi ð~
x i ÞSiþ1 þ gi ð~x i Þyiþ1 þ gi ð~x i Þξ iþ1 j¼1

(27) 1 1 ~2 1
x i Þ þ di ðtÞ− ξ_
* 2
þ ω*⊤ ρ ð~ x i Þ þ εi ð~ þ σ j ðϕ*j Þ2 − σ j ψ ðtÞ þ σ j ðψ Þ (32)
i i id 2 2 j 2 j

i 1
From (26), it is deduced that þ ∑ 2 y2j
j¼22τ j
yiþ1 _
y_ iþ1 ¼− − ξ iþ1
τ iþ1 Step n:
y ∂ξ ∂ξ b_ ∂ξ iþ1 b_ (28) Taking the derivative of the error Sn=xn−ξnd, which
¼ − iþ1 − iþ1 S_ i − iþ1 ϕ i− ψ
τ iþ1 ∂Si b
∂ϕ i b i
∂ψ yields
i

It is clear that there exists the continuous function ηi+1 S_ n ¼ gn ð~ x n Þ þ dn ðtÞ− ξ_ nd

x n ÞuðtÞ þ f n ð~ (33)
(·) such that
yiþ1  To stabilize (33), we propose the following controller
jy_ iþ1 þ b;ψ
j ≤ ηiþ1 ðS1 ; … ; Siþ1 ; y2 ; …; yiþ1 ; ϕ b ≤ η iþ1
τ iþ1 i i
1 b ðtÞSn − π 2n ðtÞSn
uðtÞ ¼ − k n Sn − Sn − ϕ (34)
where ηiþ1 is the maximum of |ηi+1(·)| on compact region 2 n
π n ðtÞjSn j þ σ n
ΩS1 × … × ΩSiþ1 × Ωy2 × … × Ωyiþ1 × Ωb × Ωb . Here, ΩS1 ; … ;
ϕ ψ i i
where kn and σn are any given positive constants and πn(t)
ΩSiþ1 ; Ωy2 ; … ; Ωyiþ1 ; Ωb and Ωbψ are appropriate compact
ϕi i b ðtÞ þ ‖ρ ð~
is defined as π n ðtÞ: ¼ ψ b ðtÞ
x n Þ‖2 :Moreover, ψ
n n n
sets. b and
Siþ1 ; yiþ1 ; ϕ b i will be suppressed:
ψ
  i
  and ϕb n ðtÞ are the estimates of the unknown constants
  
ΩSiþ1 ¼ Siþ1 jSiþ1 j ≤ Siþ1 ; ∃Siþ1 > 0:g ⊂ R, Ωyiþ1 ¼ yiþ1 jyiþ1 j
n  o ψ*n and ϕ*n , and they are updated through the following
≤ yiþ1 ; ∃yiþ1 > 0:g ⊂ R, Ωbϕ ¼ ϕb i jϕb i j ≤ ϕ i ; ∃ϕ i > 0: ⊂ R, and adaptation laws
i

n  o
b jψ
Ωb ¼ ψ bj≤ψ ; ∃ψ
 > 0: ⊂ R.
ψi i i i i b ðtÞ
dψ n b ðtÞ þ γ jSn j
¼ −γ n1 σ n ψ (35a)
n n1
Consider the following Lyapunov function candidate dt

1 2 1 −1 ~ 2 1 ~2
V i ðtÞ ¼ V i−1 ðtÞ þ S þ γ ψ ðtÞ þ γ −1 ϕ ðtÞ (29) b ðtÞ
dϕ
2gi i 2 i1 i 2 i2 i n b n ðtÞ þ γ n2 jSn j2
¼ −γ n2 σ n ϕ (35b)
dt
The time derivative of Vi(t) is deduced as
where γn1 and γn2 are any given positive constants.
~ Moreover, letting ψ~ n ðtÞ ¼ ψb n ðtÞ−ψ*n and ϕ~ n ðtÞ ¼ ϕb n ðtÞ−ϕ*n ,
1
V_ i ðtÞ ¼ V_ i−1 ðtÞ þ Si S_ i þ γ −1 ~ dψ i ðtÞ
i1 ψ i ðtÞ it is held that
gi dt
(30)
~
þ γ −1 ~ dϕ i ðtÞ ~ ðtÞ
dψ
i2 ϕ i ðtÞ n ~ ðtÞ þ γ jSn j−γ σ n ψ*
¼ −γ n1 σ n ψ (36a)
dt dt n n1 n1 n
CHEN ET AL. 767

~ ðtÞ
dϕ where
n ~ ðtÞ þ γ n2 jSn j2 − γ n2 σ n ϕ*
¼ −γ n2 σ n ϕ (36b) 
n n
dt
μ¼ min min ðk j gj Þ;
ðγ j1 σ j Þ; min
j¼1; 2; … ; n j¼1; 2; … ; n
Consider the following Lyapunov function candidate 
min ðγ j2 σ j Þ; min ð−2τ j N j Þ
1 2 1 −1 ~ 2 1 ~2 j¼1; 2; … ; n j¼2; … ; n
V n ðtÞ ¼ V n−1 ðtÞ þ S þ γ ψ ðtÞ þ γ −1 ϕ ðtÞ (37)

2gn n 2 n1 n 2 n2 n n 1 1 n 1
Δ ¼ ∑ σ j þ σ j ðϕ*j Þ2 þ σ j ðψ*j Þ2 þ ∑ 
ηj
j¼1 2 2 j¼24ð1 − mÞ
The time derivative of Vn(t) is deduced as
2τ 2j þ 1 − 2m
n
Nj ¼
1 1 ~2 2τ 2j
V_ n ðtÞ ≤ ∑ − k j S2j þ σ j − σ j ϕ ðtÞ
j¼1 2 2 j

Solving (42) results in 0 ≤ V ðtÞ ≤
Δ Δ
þ ðV ð0Þ− Þe−μt :
1 1 ~2 1 μ μ
þ σ j ðϕ*j Þ2 − σ j ψ ðtÞ þ σ j ðψ*j Þ2 (38) (
2 2 j 2 1 1
Letting δ ¼ min min ð Þ; min ð γ i1 Þ; :
n−1 n y2j i¼1; 2; … ; n 2g i¼1; 2; … ; n 2
þ ∑ y2jþ1 þ ∑  i

n 
2
j¼1 j¼22τ j 1 ~ 2 ðtÞþ
min ð γ i2 Þ , We have ∑i¼1 S2i þ ψ i
i¼1; 2; … ; n 2

~ 2 ðtÞÞ ≤ δ−1 Δ þ V ð0Þ :Therefore, all signals

The block diagram of the proposed adaptive robust
ϕ
control scheme is shown in Figure 1. i
μ
Then, we have the following Theorem 1. in the closed‐loop system remain bounded,
Theorem 1. Consider the uncertain strict‐ and the state x~n ðtÞ and ψ~ i ðtÞ; ϕ~ i ðtÞ; i ¼ 1; ···; n
feedback nonlinear system described by (1). eventually converge to the compact set
Suppose that Assumptions 1 and 2 are satis-  n
 
fied. Under the adaptive robust control scheme Ωs ≜ x~n ðtÞ; ψ 1 ðtÞ; ···; ψ n ðtÞ; ϕ 1 ðtÞ; ···; ϕ n ðtÞ ∑ S2i
~ ~ ~ ~
given in (34) with (35), the state x~n ðtÞis uni-
i¼1


 Δ
formly bounded in the presence of the nonlin- ~ 2
~ −1
þ ψ i ðtÞ þ ϕ i ðtÞ ≤ δ
2
þ V ð0Þ
ear uncertainties, external disturbances, and μ
unknown time‐varying virtual control
coefficients. Thus, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.

Proof From the backstepping design proce- Remark 2. It is clear that for the sufficiently
dure above, we consider the Lyapunov func- small time constants τj of the first‐order
tion candidate as follows: low‐pass filter, there always exists a positive
constant m such that Nj ≤ 0. Furthermore, m
V ðtÞ ¼ V n ðtÞ þ V y ðtÞ (39) is not required to be known for the system
designers. In this paper, the selections of time
where constants τj are not restricted by ηj , that is, it

n 1 2 does not matter whether ηj are known.

V y ðtÞ ¼ ∑ yj (40)
j¼2 2τ j
Remark 3. It is noteworthy that the lower
Based on (26) and (28), we can easily obtain and upper bounds of gi(·) are not required
in the proposed controllers. They are only

!
1n n 1 y2j used for stability analysis in the Proof,
V_ y ðtÞ ¼∑ yj y_ j ≤ ∑ − 2 þ jyj j
ηj whereas the lower and upper bounds of gi(·)
j¼2 τ j j¼2 τj τj
! are required in [20–22], and the lower
n m 2 m−1 2 bounds of gi(·) are needed in the proposed
≤ ∑ − 2 yj þ 2 yj
j¼2 τj τj controllers in [25–27]. Moreover, although
! the problem of ‘explosion of terms’ is avoided
n 1−m 2 1
þ∑ y þ 
η ; 0<m<1 via employing the dynamic surface control
j¼2 τ 2j j 4ð1 − mÞ j approach in [30–35], in [30] and [34], the
(41) time‐varying virtual control coefficients are
According to (38) and (41), V_ ðtÞ is known functions; in [31],[33], and [35], neu-
ral networks are used to estimate the terms
V_ ðtÞ ≤ −μV ðtÞ þ Δ (42) including the negative first power of control
768
FIGURE 1 The block diagram of the proposed adaptive robust control scheme
coefficients, which requires the first order dif-
ferentiability of control coefficients; in [32],
the negative first power of the derivatives of
control coefficients are needed in the pro-
posed controllers.
Remark 4. Being different from [48], the
upper bounds of the norm of ideal weight
vector are not needed. Meanwhile, compared
with [49] and [53], the upper bounds of the
approximation errors are not required to be
known. Additionally, in the controller
design, the norm of the ideal weight vector
in the fuzzy logic systems is taken as the esti-
mation parameter, not as the elements of the
weight vector. As a result, by comparison
with [48–53], the computational load is
severely reduced.
Remark 5. As a matter of fact, in the tradi-
tional manner of backstepping, ξn and the
(higher order) derivatives of ξi with i=2,···,n
−1 would have to emerge in true controller
u, causing u to be much more complex. For
higher dimensional systems, we would find
that the contrast is greater. By fusion of
dynamic surface control technique, the pro-
posed control scheme is much simpler than
[47] and [54] since the differentiation of vir-
tual controller ξi,i=2,3,…,n is replaced by
ξ_ ; i ¼ 2; 3; … ; n, and ξid are obtained by
id
using ξi as the inputs through a first‐order
low‐pass filter. Hence, simpler algebraic
operations can take the place of differential
operations. This can be explained more
clearly in equations (10), (11), (25), and (26).
Thus, the repeated differentiations of virtual
controllers ξi with i=2,···,n−1 are avoided.
Moreover, compared with [54], not only the
issue of ‘explosion of terms’ is better solved,
but also the number of adaptive parameters
CHEN ET AL.
to be updated online are reduced in the vir-
tual controllers ξi+1 with i=1,···,n−1 and true
controller u.
Remark 6. It should be mentioned that the
size of convergent region Ωs can be suffi-
ciently small by reasonably selecting the con-
trol gain ki,i=1,···,n, the parameters of
adaptation laws γi1,γi2,σi,i=1,···,n and time
constants τi,i=2,···,n. Obviously, Δ can be
reduced by decreasing σi, which makes the
size of convergent region Ωs sufficiently
small. However, in this situation, from the
definition of the positive constant μ, the cor-
responding positive constants γi1,γi2, some
other tunable parameters in the adaptation
laws, should be large enough to maintain
the invariance of the the positive constant μ.
At the same time, it should be noted that
decreasing the value of the σi may give rise
to a lower convergence rate in the terms of
the adaptation laws. Besides, larger control
gain ki may lead to better control perfor-
mance in general. However, if the controller
gain ki is too large, oversaturation will occur.
Consequently, in practical application, design
parameters should be carefully adjusted so
that better stability can be guaranteed for
the systems.
4 | SIMULATION RESULTS
In this section, we present a practical example to validate
the performance of our proposed scheme, and the control
performance is compared using the method of [27].
Similar to [54–56], the stabilization of a single‐link
manipulator actuated by a brush DC motor is considered.
Its dynamic model can be expressed as follows.
 q€ þ N
M  sinðqÞ þ B
 q_ ¼ I þ ΔðIÞ (43a)
CHEN ET AL. 769

For the controllers and adaptation laws, the

 ¼ −RI − K B q_ þ V þ ΔðV Þ
Lİ (43b) parameters are chosen as k1 = 0.5, k2 = 0.5,
2 2 2 k3 = 0.1, γ12 = 100, γ21 = γ22 = 10, γ31 = γ32 = 100,
where  ¼ J þ md þ Md þ 2Mδ ; N
M  ¼ mdg þ Mdg and σ1 = 0.4, σ2 = 0.5, σ3 = 0.2. It is worth men-
K r 3K r Kr 5K r 2K r Kr
tioning that because of f 1(·) = 0, the approx-
 ¼ B . J is the motor rotor inertia, m is the link mass,
B
Kr imation is unnecessary. Then, the time
M is the load mass, d is the link length, δ is the radius constants of the low‐pass filter and the initial
of load, g is the gravity coefficient, B is the coefficient of conditions are set as τ 2 ¼ 0:02; τ 3 ¼ 0:04;
viscous friction at the joint, Kr is the coefficient which b ð0Þ ¼ 0:5;
x 1 ð0Þ ¼ x 2 ð0Þ ¼ x 3 ð0Þ ¼ 0:8; ϕ1
characterizes the electromechanical torque coupling, L  b ð0Þ ¼ 1; ϕ
b 2 ð0Þ ¼ ψ b ð0Þ ¼ 0:4.
b 3 ð0Þ ¼ ψ
ϕ 2 3
is the armature inductance, q(t) is the angular motor rotor With our proposed algorithm and the above
(load) position, I(t) is the motor armature current, ΔI is parameter settings, the simulation results
the current disturbance, V(t) is the input control voltage, are shown in Figure 2.
ΔV is the input control voltage disturbance.
Setting _
x 1 ðtÞ ¼ qðtÞ; x 2 ðtÞ ¼ qðtÞ; x 3 ðtÞ ¼ IðtÞ and Case B. Using the controller of [27] to con-
uðtÞ ¼ VðtÞ, (43) can be transformed into trol this system. First, the lower bound values
10 25
x_ 1 ¼ x 2 (44a) are chosen as g1 ¼ 1, g2 ¼ and g3 ¼ .
11 2
Then, to approximate the structure uncer-
1 
N 
B ΔI
x_ 2 ¼  x 3 −  sinðx 1 Þ−  x 2 þ  (44b) tainties f i(·), i = 2,3, we take the basis func-
M M M M tions of RBFNN as
!
1 KB R 1 ‖~
x i − cj ‖ 2
x_ 3 ¼  u −  x 2 −  x 3 þ  ΔV (44c) ρij ð~
x i Þ ¼ exp − ; i ¼ 2; 3; j ¼
L L L L δ2ij
It is obvious that nonlinear system (44) satisfies 1; 2; ···; Li , where L2=L3=11, c2=[cj1cj2]⊤,
unmatched condition. The system parameters and distur- c3=[cj1cj2cj3]⊤, and the centers cj1,cj2 and cj3
bances are given as M ¼ 1 þ 0:1 sinð2tÞ; N
 ¼ 10 þ sinð2tÞ; are, respectively, spaced in [−0.50.5],
 ¼ 1 þ 0:1 sinð2tÞ; L
B  ¼ 0:05 þ 0:03 sinð2tÞ; R ¼ 0:8; K B ¼ 5; [−0.50.5] and [−0.50.5] with widths
ΔðIÞ ¼ 0:08 sinð2tÞ; ΔðV Þ ¼ 0:03 cosð2tÞ. δ2j=δ3j=0.1. For the controller and adapta-
Case A. Using the proposed method to con- tion laws of [27], the parameters are taken
trol this system. To estimate the structure as k1 = k2 = k3 = 2.5, γ12 = γ21 = γ22 =
uncertainties, we choose the following fuzzy γ3 = m1 = m2 = 1, and σ 1 ðtÞ ¼ 10expð−0:08tÞ;
membership functions. σ 2 ðtÞ ¼ 10expð−0:08tÞ and σ 3 ðtÞ ¼
100expð−0:08tÞ. Finally, the initial condi-
2 1 tions are set as x 1 ð0Þ ¼ x 2 ð0Þ ¼ x 3 ð0Þ ¼
μF 1 ðx 1 ; x 2 Þ ¼ ∏
i¼1 1 þ exp½5ðx i þ 0:6Þ 0:8; ϕ b ð0Þ ¼ ϕ
b ð0Þ ¼ 0:5; ψ b ð0Þ ¼ b
κ 1 ð0Þ ¼ 1,
1 2 2
2
 and ψb ð0Þ ¼ b κ 2 ð0Þ ¼ 0:4. With the method of
μF l ðx 1 ; x 2 Þ ¼ ∏exp − ðx i þ 0:8−0:2lÞ2 ; l ¼ 2; ···; 6 3
i¼1 [27], the simulation results are shown in
2 1 Figure 3.
μ F 7 ðx 1 ; x 2 Þ ¼ ∏
i¼1 1 þ exp½ −5ðx i − 0:6Þ It can be seen from Figures 2 and 3 that both
3 1 the proposed controller and the controller of
μ F 1 ðx 1 ; x 2 ; x 3 Þ ¼ ∏
i¼1 1 þ exp½5ðx i þ 0:6Þ [27] can solve the stabilization problem of
3
 system (44). However, the proposed control-
μF l ðx 1 ; x 2 ; x 3 Þ ¼ ∏exp − ðx i þ 0:8−0:2lÞ2 ; l ¼ 2; ···; 6 ler illustrates a better performance than the
i¼1
3 1 controller of [27] in terms of convergence
μF 7 ðx 1 ; x 2 ; x 3 Þ ¼ ∏ time. From Figures 2(a) and 3(a), the conver-
i¼1 1 þ exp½−5ðx i − 0:6Þ
gence time of our proposed controller is
Then, we can obtain about 1.8 seconds, which is shorter than the
convergence time of [27]. Furthermore, it
μF l ð~
x iÞ
ρl ð~
x iÞ ¼ 7
; i ¼ 2; 3 l ¼ 1; …; 7 can be observed from Figures 2(b), 2(c),
∑ μF j ð~
x iÞ 2(d) and 3(b) that the number of adaptive
j¼1 parameters to be updated online are reduced
ρð~
x i Þ ¼ ½ρ1 ð~
x i Þ; ρ2 ð~ x i Þ⊤ ;
x i Þ; ···; ρ7 ð~ i ¼ 2; 3 from 6 to 5.
770
(A)
(C)
FIGURE 2 Case A: Using the proposed method to control this system [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
(A)
FIGURE 3 Case B: Using the controller of [27] to control this system [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
5 | CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have dealt with the adaptive robust sta-
bilization problem for a class of uncertain strict‐feedback
nonlinear systems in the presence of unknown structure
uncertainties, external disturbances, and unknown time‐
varying virtual control coefficients. The upper bounds of
external disturbances, as well as the upper and lower
bounds of unknown time‐varying virtual control coeffi-
cients, were not required to be known. We designed the
controller by adopting the backstepping manner. Further-
more, to avoid suffering from the problem of ‘explosion of
terms’, a dynamic surface control approach was employed
by introducing the first‐order low‐pass filter. Particularly,
we exploited the fuzzy logic systems to approximate the
unknown structure uncertainties without a priori knowl-
edge on the weight matrices and approximation errors of
CHEN ET AL.
(B)
(D)
(B)
fuzzy logic systems. Also, it was proved that the proposed
controller can guarantee the uniform boundedness of
uncertain strict‐feedback nonlinear systems. Finally, the
application to the problem of stabilization for a single‐
link manipulator actuated by a brush DC motor is pre-
sented to demonstrate the utilization of the proposed
controller.
There are several diverse opportunities for future
research. First, the results of this paper could be extended
to uncertain strict‐feedback nonlinear systems with full‐
state constraints. Second, the signs of the control coeffi-
cients are assumed to be known, the relaxation of this
condition would be of interest. Third, the control gains
ki, the adaptive parameters γi1,γi2 and σi and time con-
stants τi should be carefully selected by the designers of
the systems so that better stability can be guaranteed for
the systems. How to choose these parameters to obtain
CHEN ET AL.
the best control performance would be of considerable
interest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Scientific Research Foundation of the Education
Department of Sichuan Province, China,Grant Number,
18ZB0456.
ORCID
Yuchao Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6541-0663
REFERENCES
1. S. Li, X. Liu, and X. Liu, The coordinated immersion and vari-
ance control of power systems with excitation and steam‐valve,
J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control. 140 (2018), 071014.
2. D. Xu et al., Adaptive command‐filtered fuzzy backstepping con-
trol for linear induction motor with unknown end effect, Inf. Sci.
477 (2019), 118–131.
3. H. Liang et al., Adaptive distributed observer approach for cooper-
ative containment control of nonidentical networkst, IEEE Trans.
Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. Hum. 49 (2019), 299–307.
4. W. Shen, H. Huang, and J. Wang, Robust backstepping sliding
mode controller investigation for a port plate position servo system
based on an extended states observer, Asian J. Control 21 (2019),
302–311.
5. H. Liang, Z. Zhang, and C. K. Ahn, Event‐triggered fault detection
and isolation of discrete‐time systems based on geometric tech-
nique, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II‐Express Briefs (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2019.2907706
6. E. Lavretsky and K. A. Wise, Robust and adaptive control,
Spring‐Verlag, New York, 2013.
7. H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear systems, 3rd Edition, Prentice‐Hall,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2002.
8. R. A. Freeman and P. V. Kokotovic, Robust nonlinear control
design: state space and Lyapunov techniques, Birkhauser, Boston
MA, 1996.
9. H. Wu, Continuous adaptive robust controllers guaranteeing uni-
formly ultimate boundedness for uncertain nonlinear systems, Int.
J. Control. 72 (1999), 115–122.
10. S. Xu and G. Feng, Further results on adaptive robust control of
uncertain time‐delay systems, IET Control Theory Appl. 2
(2008), 402–408.
11. M. Krstic, I. Kanellakppoulos, and P. V. Kokotovic, Nonlinear
and adaptive control design, Wiley, New York, 1995.
12. I. Kanellakopoulos, P. V. Kokotovic, and A. S. Morse, Systematic
design of adaptive controllers for feedback linearizable systems,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 36 (1991), 1241–1253.
13. F. Wang and X. Zhang, Adaptive finite time control of nonlinear
systems under time‐varying actuator failures, Systems, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2018.2868329
14. G. Lai et al., Robust adaptive fuzzy control of nonlinear systems
with unknown and time‐varying saturation, Asian J. Control 17
(2014), 791–805.
771
15. S. Tong and Y. Li, Adaptive fuzzy output feedback control for
switched nonlinear systems with unmodeled dynamics, IEEE
Trans. Cybern. 47 (2017), 295–305.
16. S. Li, X. Liu, and X. Dong, Non‐certainty equivalent practically
adaptive control for high‐order lower triangular systems, IMA J.
Math. Control. Inf. 32 (2015), 809–822.
17. H. Wu, Simple adaptive robust control schemes of uncertain strict‐
feedback nonlinear time‐delay systems, IET Control Theory Appl.
11 (2017), 2222–2231.
18. Y. Li and G. Yang, Event‐triggered adaptive backstepping control
for parametric strict‐feedback nonlinear systems, Int. J. Robust
Nonlinear Control 28 (2018), 976–1000.
19. H. Wang et al., Direct adaptive neural control of nonlinear strict‐
feedback systems with unmodeled dynamics using small‐gain
approach, Int. J. Adapt Control Signal Process. 30 (2016),
906–927.
20. Y. Yu and Y. Zhong, Robust backstepping output tracking control
for SISO uncertain nonlinear systems with unknown virtual con-
trol coefficients, Int. J. Control. 83 (2010), 1182–1192.
21. B. Chen, X. Liu, and C. Lin, Observer and adaptive fuzzy control
design for nonlinear strict‐feedback systems with unknown virtual
control coefficients, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 26 (2018), 1732–1743.
22. H. V. Le and K. T. Chu, Robust control of positive fractional‐order
interconnected systems with heterogeneous delays, Asian J. Con-
trol 21 (2019), 596–608.
23. W. Chen et al., Globally stable adaptive backstepping neural net-
work control for uncertain strict‐feedback systems with tracking
accuracy known a priori, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst.
26 (2015), 1842–1854.
24. S. S. Ge, F. Hong, and T. H. Lee, Adaptive neural control of non-
linear time‐delay systems with unknown virtual control
coefficients, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern.
34 (2004), 861–872.
25. Y. Yu and Y. Zhong, Semi‐global robust output tracking for non-
linear uncertain systems in strict‐feedback form, IET Control
Theory Appl. 6 (2012), 751–759.
26. H. Wu, Adaptive robust stabilization of uncertain nonlinear
dynamical systems: an improved backstepping approach, Int. J.
Control. 91 (2018), 114–131.
27. Y. Wang and H. Wu, Adaptive robust backstepping control for a
class of uncertain dynamical systems using neural networks, Non-
linear Dyn. 81 (2015), 1597–1610.
28. D. Swaroop et al., Dynamic surface control for a class of nonlin-
ear systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 45 (2000), 1893–1899.
29. Z. J. Yang, Robust control of nonlinear semi‐strict feedback sys-
tems using finite‐time disturbance observers, Int. J. Robust
Nonlinear Control 27 (2017), 3582–3603.
30. Y. Pan and H. Yu, Dynamic surface control via singular perturba-
tion analysis, Automatica 57 (2015), 29–33.
31. M. Chen, G. Tao, and B. Jiang, Dynamic surface control using neu-
ral networks for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems with input
saturation, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 26 (2015),
2086–2097.
32. S. Han and J. Lee, Adaptive fuzzy backstepping dynamic surface
control for output‐constrained non‐smooth nonlinear dynamic
system, Int. J. Control. Autom. Syst. 10 (2012), 684–696.
772
33. M. Wang and C. Wang, Learning from adaptive neural dynamic
surface control of strict‐feedback systems, IEEE T. Neur. Net.
Lear. 26 (2015), 1247–1259.
34. Y. Pan and H. Yu, Composite learning from adaptive dynamic
surface control, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 61 (2016),
2603–2609.
35. N. Abasi, M. Kamali, and M. Zekri, Application of RBF neural
networks in robust adaptive DSC design of nonlinear systems,
2017 25th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering.
Tehran, Iran, 2017, pp. 877–882.
36. T. Zhang, M. Xia, and Y. Yi, Adaptive neural dynamic surface
control of strict‐feedback nonlinear systems with full state con-
straints and unmodeled dynamics, Automatica 81 (2017),
232–239.
37. J. Ma, Z. Zheng, and P. Li, Adaptive dynamic surface control of a
class of nonlinear systems with unknown direction control
gains and input saturation, IEEE Trans. Cybern. 45 (2015),
728–741.
38. D. Swaroop et al., Dynamic surface control of nonlinear systems,
Proceedings of the American Control Conference. Albuquerque,
NM, USA, 1997, pp. 3028–3034.
39. Z. Peng et al., Adaptive dynamic surface control for formations of
autonomous surface vehicles with uncertain dynamics, IEEE
Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 21 (2013), 7513–520.
40. H. Wang, Y. Li, and K. Liu, Globally stable adaptive dynamic sur-
face control for cooperative path following of multiple
underactuated autonomous underwater vehicles, Asian J. Control
20 (2018), 1204–1220.
41. Q. Du et al., Robust adaptive dynamic surface control of chaos in
permanent magnet synchronous motor, Phys. Lett. A 363 (2007),
71–77.
42. M. Hou, X. Liang, and G. Duan, Adaptive block dynamic surface
control for integrated missile guidance and autopilot, Chin. J.
Aeronaut. 26 (2013), 741–750.
43. L. Wang, Adaptive fuzzy systems and control: design and stability
analysis, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.
44. W. Wang et al., Adaptive fuzzy control for strict‐feedback canoni-
cal nonlinear systems with H∞ tracking performance, IEEE Trans.
Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern. 30 (2000), 878–885.
45. D. Zhai et al., Adaptive fuzzy fault‐tolerant control with guaran-
teed tracking performance for nonlinear strict‐feedback systems,
Fuzzy Sets Syst. 302 (2016), 82–100.
46. Y. Li et al., Adaptive output‐feedback control design with pre-
scribed performance for switched nonlinear systems, Automatica
80 (2017), 225–231.
47. H. Liang et al., Prescribed performance cooperative control for
multiagent systems with input quantization, IEEE Trans. Cybern.
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2019.2893645
48. X. Li and G. Yang, FLS‐based adaptive synchronization control of
complex dynamical networks with nonlinear couplings and state‐
dependent uncertainties, IEEE Trans. Cybern. 46 (2016),
171–180.
49. S. Tong and Y. Li, Adaptive fuzzy output feedback tracking
backstepping control of strict‐feedback nonlinear systems with
unknown dead zones, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 20 (2012),
168–180.
CHEN ET AL.
50. Y. Li, K. Li, and S. Tong, Finite‐time adaptive fuzzy output feed-
back dynamic surface control for MIMO non‐strict feedback
systems, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 27 (2019), 96–110.
51. L. Wu, X. He, and D. Zhang, Cooperative adaptive fuzzy control
for a class of uncertain non‐linear multi‐agent systems with time
delays, J. Control Decis. 4 (2016), 131–152.
52. L. Wu and J. H. Park, Adaptive fault‐tolerant control of uncertain
switched nonaffine nonlinear systems with actuator faults and
time delays, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2894750
53. S. Tong, X. He, and Y. Li, Direct adaptive fuzzy backstepping
robust control for single input and single output uncertain nonlin-
ear systems using small‐gain approach, Inf. Sci. 180 (2010),
1738–1758.
54. Y. Wang, L. Xu, and H. Wu, Adaptive robust backstepping output
tracking control for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems using
neural network, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control. 140 (2018).
55. J. Carroll and D. Dawson, Integrator backstepping techniques for
the tracking control of permanent magnet brush DC motors, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl. 32 (1995), 248–255.
56. J. Mao et al., Adaptive practical stabilization of a class of uncer-
tain nonlinear systems via sampled‐data control, Nonlinear
Dynamics 92 (2018), 1679–1694.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Sanyan Chen is currently a M.S.
degree candidate in the College of
Mechanical and Electrical Engineer-
ing, Sichuan Agricultural University.
Her current research interests include
adaptive robust control, fuzzy control,
and mobile robots.
Yuchao Wang received his Ph.D. in
management and information systems
from Prefectural University of Hiro-
shima, Japan, in March 2016. In July
2016, he joined the College of
Mechanical and Electrical Engineer-
ing, Sichuan Agricultural University, China, where
he is an associate professor. His research interests
are nonlinear systems, uncertain systems, time‐delay
systems, stochastic systems, adaptive robust control,
and their applications.
Wenrui Shi is currently a M.S.
degree candidate in the College of
Mechanical and Electrical Engineer-
ing, Sichuan Agricultural University.
His current research interests include
adaptive control, neural network con-
trol, and agricultural robots.
CHEN ET AL. 773

Hansheng Wu. received his BS and How to cite this article: Chen S, Wang Y, Shi W,
MS in Automatic Control Engineering Wu H. Adaptive robust dynamic surface control for
from Northeast University of Technol- uncertain strict‐feedback nonlinear systems using
ogy, China, in 1982 and 1984, respec- fuzzy logic systems. Asian J Control. 2021;23:
tively, and a Ph.D in Information 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1002/asjc.2253
Engineering from Hiroshima Univer-
sity, Japan, in 1989. He is currently working as a Pro-
fessor in the Department of Information Science,
Prefectural University of Hiroshima, Japan. His
research interests include optimal control, dynamical
games, large‐scale systems, robust control, adaptive
control, and their applications.