Asymptotic Robust Adaptive Tracking of Nonlinear Systems with Additive Disturbance

Z. Cai† , M.S. de Queiroz† , and D.M. Dawson‡
† Dept. Mechanical Engineering ‡ Dept. Electrical and Computer Engineering Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803-6413 [zcai1, mdeque1]@lsu.edu Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0915 ddawson@ces.clemson.edu

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

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

of relative degree two in the presence of input and output disturbances, which guarantees the tracking error is ultimately bounded and small in the mean square sense. A robust adaptive backstepping controller with a leakage-based adaptation law was designed in [15] for nth-order, SISO, nonlinear parametric strict-feedback systems with function uncertainties (including external disturbances) satisfying a triangular bound. The proposed design ensures global uniform ultimate boundedness of the system state. A similar class of systems was considered in [4] in the development of two robust adaptive control methods using the tuning function design and the modular design of [10]. Both methods give L∞ /L2 estimates on the effect of the uncertainties/disturbances on the tracking error. In [6], an adaptive backstepping controller with tuning functions for linear systems with output and multiplicative disturbances was designed with a switching σ-modification. The controller gives a tracking error proportional to the size of the perturbations. In [11], a class of SISO nonlinear systems affected by unknown, time-varying bounded parameters and additive disturbances was considered, and a robust adaptive tracking controller was presented that achieves boundedness of all signals and arbitrary disturbance attenuation. The work in [14], which studied a class of systems similar to the one in [11], proposed a robust adaptive controller that ensures the L2 norm of the tracking error is bounded. The tracking control problem for SISO nonlinear systems with unknown control coefficients and time-varying disturbances was recently studied in [5]. The robust adaptive controller proposed in [5] was shown to guarantee the global uniform boundedness of the tracking error. In this paper, we consider multi-input/multi-output (MIMO) nonlinear systems subjected to bounded additive disturbances that are twice continuously differentiable and have bounded time derivatives. For these systems, we present a continuous robust adaptive control construction that guarantees asymptotic tracking. The proposed construction is based on the nonlinear robust control technique of [18], which was originally used to compensate for unstructured uncertainties. Here, we use it as a robustifying mechanism for adaptive controllers. That is, adaptation is used to compensate for structured (parametric) uncertainties while the robust mechanism compensates for disturbances, hence recovering the disturbancefree, asymptotic tracking property of the adaptive controller. We address the aforementioned problem for two classes of nonlinear systems. First, we consider a class of nth-order nonlinear parametric strict-feedback systems with matched, unknown, time-varying, additive disturbances and unmatched, uncertain, constant parameters. The standard adaptive backstepping design [10] is judiciously modified to allow the use of the robust control technique of [18]. Also instrumental to our new construction is the use of the sufficiently smooth projection-based adaptation law recently introduced in [3]. This allows the adaptive stabilizing functions of the backstepping design to be differentiable as many times as necessary. A Lyapunov-type stability analysis is used to prove the proposed robust adaptive controller yields semi-global asymptotic tracking. In the second part of the paper, we consider a class of flat1 nth-order nonlinear systems with matched and unmatched, unknown, time-varying, additive disturbances. A judicious formulation of the error system allows us to construct a robust adaptive controller that ensures semi-global asymptotic tracking.
A flat system is one where there exist special outputs, equal in number to the inputs, that are functions of the state vector and of a finite number of its derivatives. That is, a system is flat if its relative degree is the same as the system degree [13].
1

2

In Sections II. d(t) ∈ L∞ . x2 ) θ + x3 ˙ 2 . .. Our goal is to construct a state feedback control u(x1 . the control law will be overparameterized... x2 . n. i = 1.. .. . II. n are known nonlinearities. 3 . . . The parameter vector θ belongs to a compact convex set Ω := {θ : kθk ≤ θ0 } where θ0 is a known positive constant... .e. ˜i (t) := θ − ˆi (t). .. θ 2 i = 1. i.. we present the robust adaptive control design for parametric strict-feedback systems and flat systems. summarizes the contributions of this work... xn ) that ensures e(t) → 0 as t → ∞ and the boundedness of all closed-loop signals.. θ ∈ Rp is an uncertain constant parameter vector. respectively.. u(t) ∈ Rm is the control input.. Numerical examples are included in each section to illustrate the control performance. and III. .The remaining of the paper is organized as follows. d ∈ C 2 and d(t).. ϕi ∈ C n+1−i . . i = 1. A3.. xi = ϕ| (x1 . . . xi ) θ + xi+1 ˙ i .. the control law to be proposed will contain n − 1 parameter estimates.. ˙ ¨ A2. We make the following assumptions regarding the system: A1.. i = 1. ϕi ∈ Rp×m . n are the system states. . n − 1 are parameter estimates . d(t). xn ) θ + d + u ˙ n y = x1 (1a) (1b) (1c) (1d) (1e) Parametric Strict-Feedback Systems where xi (t) ∈ Rm . xn = ϕ| (x1 . and y(t) ∈ Rm is the system output. .. The following notation will be used throughout this section: ˆi (t) ∈ Rp . i = 0.. d(t) ∈ Rm is an unknown additive disturbance.. n − 1 θ θ 2 (4) Despite the existence of the single parameter vector θ. Problem Statement We consider a class of parametric strict-feedback systems of the form x1 = ϕ| (x1 ) θ + x2 ˙ 1 x2 = ϕ| (x1 . Let the output tracking error be defined as e := y − yr where the C n+1 reference trajectory yr (t) ∈ Rm is such that (i) yr (t) ∈ L∞ . i = 1.... A. Section IV... (2) (3) and (·)(i) (t) denotes the ith derivative with respect to time... x2 . n + 1.

˙ ˜ θ 1 θ 1 . . . the control construction that follows is presented for the case where m = 1.. for the general nth-order system (1). In [2]. positive-definite matrices. n − 1. . we addressed the regulation problem. i = 1. and ci . nondecreasing function. i. To facilitate the notation.. B.denote the corresponding parameter estimation errors. we can use the Mean Value theorem to show kw1 k ≤ ρ11 (kek) ktanh (e)k ˜ where ρ11 (·) ∈ R≥0 is some globally invertible. ˆi ) ∈ Rp . i = 1. 1 (x2 − α1 ) c1 where α1 is a stabilizing function yet to be designed. let η 2 := η 1 := e. In [1]. (8) Let (9) (10) and define (11) (12) 4 . Proj(µi . n − 1 are constant. Remark 1 Solutions to some special cases of the above-described problem were presented in preliminary versions of this paper.. we considered the case where n = 2 in (1). Γi ∈ Rp×p .. i = 1..e. diagonal. n + 1 are positive constants. θ p n−i−1 ˆi (t) ∈ L∞ independent of ∀µi (t) ∈ R denote C projection operators used to ensure θ the stability analysis (see Appendix A for details). 1 | θ 1 θ V1 = ln (cosh(η 1 )) + ˜1 Γ−1 ˜1 .. ˙ 1 (5) After adding and subtracting the term ϕ| (yr )θ to (5)... we write the error system in the 1 following form e = ϕ| (yr )θ + x2 − yr + w1 . 2 Differentiating (11) along (6) gives | ˙ V1 = tanh(η 1 ) (ϕ| (yr )θ − yr + α1 + w1 + c1 η 2 ) − ˜1 Γ−1 ˆ1 . yr ≡ 0 in (2).. Note. however. Construction of Robust Adaptive Control Law Step 1 We begin by differentiating (2) and substituting from (1a) to obtain ˙ e = ϕ| (y)θ + x2 − yr . that the main result is readily applicable to the MIMO case. ˙ ˙ ˜ (6) 1 where w1 = (ϕ| (y) − ϕ| (yr )) θ ˜ 1 1 (7) Remark 2 Due to assumption A1 and (140). To reduce the notational complexity and facilitate the readability of this section..

we know θ L∞ if µi (t) ∈ L∞ . θ Remark 3 The final step of the control design will require that ˆi (t) ∈ L∞ . we obtain η 3 := η2 = ˙ 1 | (ϕ θ + α2 − α1 + c2 η 3 ) . θ θ µ1 = ϕ1 (yr ) tanh(η 1 ). ∂α1 ∂α1 ˆ ∂α1 ∂α1 θ1 + x1 + ˙ yr + ˙ yr ¨ ∂x1 ∂yr ∂ yd ˙ ∂ ˆ1 θ ¶ µ . we design the stabilizing function and parameter update law as follows θ ˙ α1 = −c1 tanh (η 1 ) − ϕ| (yr )ˆ1 + yr 1 . yr . Step 2 Let 1 (x3 − α2 ) c2 where α2 is the second stabilizing function. The boundedness of µi is facilitated by the fact that ∂ ln (cosh (η i )) /∂η i = tanh(η i ). ˙ c1 2 (17) (18) After differentiating α1 of (13). . yr . we obtain α1 = ˙ . x2 ... yr ) ˙ ¨ Ψ1 (x1 . . θ (19) 5 .. (13) (14) ˆ1 = Γ1 Proj(µ1 . i = 1. Remark 4 Using (9) and (13). n − 1 independent of the stability analysis. ˆi (t) ∈ particular. ˆ1 ). µ · ¶ −1 ˆ µ1 − Γ1 θ1 Substituting (13) and (14) into (12) gives ˙ ˜ V1 = −c1 tanh (η 1 ) + tanh (η 1 ) (c1 η 2 + w1 ) + 2 ˜| θ1 ˜ ≤ −c1 tanh2 (η 1 ) + tanh (η 1 ) (c1 η 2 + w1 ) (15) where property P2 of the projection operator was used (see Appendix A). In . The usefulness of this decomposition will become apparent in the next step. Using (9) and (1b). the state x2 can be decomposed into θ ˙ x2 = c1 η 2 − c1 tanh(η 1 ) −ϕ| (yr )ˆ1 + yr | {z } | 1 {z } ζ b1 ζ η1 (16) where the term ζ η1 is a function of η 1 and η 2 .Based on (12). This motivates the use of the term ln (cosh (η i )) in the Lyapunov function candidate of the first n − 1 steps of the backstepping procedure. and the term ζ b1 is bounded. due to property P3 of the projection operator (see Appendix A). ∂α1 | ∂α1 ∂α1 ˆ ∂α1 ∂α1 = ϕ θ+ x2 + yr + ˙ yr ¨ θ1 + ∂x1 1 ∂x1 ∂yr ∂ yr ˙ ∂ ˆ1 θ | {z } ˆ1 .

to the right-hand side of (20) yields η2 = ˙ where w2 = (w2 − wb2 ) θ. θ θ c1 b2 (26) (27) Substituting (26) and (27) into (25) and making use of property P2 of the projection operator yields c2 1 ˙ ˜ ˜ V2 ≤ −c1 tanh2 (η 1 ) − tanh2 (η 2 ) + tanh (η 1 ) (c1 η 2 + w1 ) + tanh (η 2 ) (c2 η 3 + w2 ) . ζ b1 .θ Adding and subtracting the term wb2 θ/c1 . nondecreasing functions and η 2 := (η 1 . and (140). η 2 )| . (28) c1 c1 6 . (16). 1 | V2 = V1 + ln (cosh(η 2 )) + ˜2 Γ−1 ˜2 . define (24) (25) where (15) was used. x2 . ˜ (22) 1 (wb2 θ − Ψ1 + α2 + c2 η 3 + w2 ) ˜ c1 (21) where Ψ1 is known. µ2 = 1 w| tanh(η 2 ). we design the second stabilizing function and parameter update law as follows α2 = −c2 tanh(η 2 ) − wb2 ˆ2 + Ψ1 θ . ˆ2 ). Based on (25). 2 are some globally invertible. where wb2 := w2 (yr . θ (20) Remark 5 Using assumption A1. 1 ˜| Γ−1 ˆ2 ˜ + tanh(η 2 ) (wb2 θ − Ψ1 + α2 + c2 η 3 + w2 ) − θ2 2 θ c1 Now. ˆ1 ). j = 1. Note that the calculation of (22) is facilitated by the fact that x2 − ζ b1 = ζ η1 ¯ (see Remark 4). θ 2 θ 2 and differentiate (24) along (21) to obtain ˙ ˜ V2 ≤ −c1 tanh2 (η 1 ) + tanh(η 1 ) (c1 η 2 + w1 ) . Using (19) in (18) produces ⎛ ⎞ ¶ µ 1 ⎝ | ∂α1 | η2 = ˙ ϕ θ − Ψ1 + α2 + c2 η 3 ⎠ ϕ2 − c1 ∂x1 1 {z } | ˆ1 ) w2 (x1 . we can use the Mean Value theorem to show kw2 k ≤ c1 (ρ21 (k¯2 k) ktanh (η 1 )k + ρ22 (k¯2 k) ktanh (η 2 )k) ˜ η η (23) where ρ2j (·) ∈ R≥0 . (139). ˆ2 = Γ2 Proj(µ2 .

we can rewrite (31) as ⎛ ⎞ Ã ! i−1 1 ⎜ | X ∂αi−1 T ⎟ ηi = ˙ ϕj θ − Ψi−1 + αi + ci η i+1 ⎠ ⎝ ϕi − ci−1 ∂xj j=1 | {z } θ θ wi (x1 . ˆ1 .. xi .. i X ∂αi−1 y (j) (j−1) r ∂ ˆj θ ∂yr j=1 j=1 j=1 Ã ! i−1 i−1 i . yr . yr .... yr . yr ). and η 3 .. ˜ (33) (34) θ θ where wbi := wi (yr . . .. ζ η2 is a function of η 1 . X ∂αi−1 | X ∂αi−1 X ∂αi−1 ∂αi−1 ˆ θj + = ϕj θ + xj+1 + y (j) (j−1) r ˆj ∂xj ∂xj ∂θ j=1 j=1 j=1 ∂yr | {z } ˆ1 . and ζ b2 is bounded.. ˆi−1 .. ˆ1 .Remark 6 Using (17) and (26).. ζ b(i−1) . ˆi−1 ) and (35) 7 . and differentiate η i := ηi = ˙ ci−1 where (1c) was used... . Using (32). ζ b1 ... ζ b1 . The derivative of αi−1 can be written as αi−1 = ˙ i−1 X ∂αi−1 ¢ 1 ¡ | ˙ ϕi θ + ci η i+1 + αi − αi−1 . . the state x3 can be written as θ x3 = c2 η 3 − c2 tanh (η 2 ) − wb2 ˆ2 + Ψ1 = c2 η 3 − c2 tanh (η 2 ) + Ψ1 − Ψb1 +Ψb1 − wb2 ˆ2 θ {z } | {z }| ζ b2 ζ η2 (29) where Ψb1 := Ψ1 (yr ... . xi . ˆ1 . θ θ ∂xj xj + ˙ r i−1 X ∂αi−1 ˆj + θ (32) where Ψi−1 is known. ˆi−1 ) Adding and subtracting the term wbi θ/ci−1 to (33) yields ηi = ˙ ci−1 ¢ 1 ¡ ˜ wbi θ − Ψi−1 + αi + ci η i+1 + wi wi = (wi − wbi ) θ. η 2 . .. . θ ˙ ¨ Step i (3 ≤ i ≤ n − 1) Let η i+1 := 1 (xi+1 − αi ) ci 1 ci−1 (30) (xi − αi−1 ) to obtain (31) where αi is a stabilizing function... y (i) ) Ψi−1 (x1 ...

nondecreasing functions and η i := (η 1 .. ˆi ). . ˆi−1 .. ˆ1 . ζ b1 .. η i+1 . .. yr ). we design θ αi = −ci tanh (η i ) − wbi ˆi + Ψi−1 .. and (140). ˆi = Γi Proj(µi . Let the variable r(t) be defined as 1 r := η n + η n ˙ (43) cn 8 = ci η i+1 − ci tanh (η i ) + Ψb(i−1) − Ψi−1 −Ψb(i−1) − wbi ˆi θ | {z }| {z } ζ ηi ζ bi (i) (42) . the state xi+1 can be written as θ xi+1 = ci η i+1 − ci tanh (η i ) − wbi ˆi + Ψi−1 where Ψb(i−1) := Ψi−1 (yr . j = 1. (139). i are some globally invertible. θ θ and ζ bi is bounded.. . Step n In the last step. .. Based on (38).. ¯ Define whose derivative is ˙ Vi ¸ i−1 X ∙ cj ¡ ¢¡ ¢ 1 2 − ≤ tanh (η j ) + tanh η j cj η j+1 + wj ˜ cj−1 cj−1 j=1 + tanh (η i ) ci−1 1 ¡ ¢ 1 | Vi = Vi−1 + ln (cosh (η i )) + ˜i Γ−1 ˜i θ i θ 2 ° ¡ ¢° ρij (k¯i k) °tanh η j ° η (36) (37) | ˜ wbi θ − Ψi−1 + αi + ci η i+1 + wi − ˜i Γ−1 ˆi θ i θ . ζ b(i−1) . . µi = 1 w| tanh (η i ) ...Remark 7 Using assumption A1.... ... we modify the standard backstepping procedure in order to use the new robust control mechanism of [18] to deal with the additive disturbance in (1d). (38) where c0 = 1.. η i )| .. yr . ζ ηi is a function of η 1 . θ θ ci−1 bi Substituting (39) and (40) into (38) gives ˙ Vi ≤ i X∙ j=1 (39) (40) − cj cj−1 tanh (η j ) + 2 1 cj−1 ¸ ¡ ¢¡ ¢ tanh η j cj η j+1 + wj . ˜ (41) Remark 8 Using (30) and (39). we can show kwi k ≤ ci−1 ˜ i X j=1 where ρij (·) ∈ R≥0 ...

. ..... . (44) 1 η + cn r − cn η n . xj ) θ θ (j−1) r ˆ ∂xj ∂xj j j=1 ∂ θ j j=1 ∂yr j=1 {z } Φ (47) n−1 X ∂αn−1 j=1 . xn ... ˆ1 . To that end. γ f1 = j ˆk µk ∂xj ∂ θ j=1 k=1 " Ã n−1 n−1 X X ∂ 2 αn−1 (50) and property P3 of the projection operator was used. ¨ cn n (45) ´ 1 ³ | ˙ ˙ ¨ ϕn θ + d + u − αn−1 ˙ (46) where (1d) was used. xn .where η n := After differentiating (43). . · · · .. . We first concentrate on the calculation of the term αn−1 in (46). ... yr | j=1 n−1 n n−1 X ∂αn−1 .. ˆn−1 . 9 . we have ¨ αn−1 = ˙ = n−1 X ∂αn−1 j=1 ∂xj xj + ˙ n−1 X where Φ is known.. yr . ˆ1 . .. X ∂αn−1 X ∂αn−1 | ∂αn−1 (j) ˆj + xj+1 + y + ϕ (x1 .. we obtain r= ˙ Differentiating η n twice produces ηn = ¨ cn−1 1 cn−1 (xn − αn−1 ) .. ∂ ˆj θ ˆj + θ n X ∂αn−1 y (j) (j−1) r j=1 ∂yr (48) where g1 ! # n X ∂ 2 αn−1 ∂ 2 αn−1 + = (xk+1 + ϕ| θ) + γ y (k) ϕT θ j k (k−1) r ˆk bk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xj ∂ θ j=1 k=1 k=1 ∂xj ∂yr " j ¶# n−1 X ∂αn−1 X µ ∂ϕ| j | (xk+1 + ϕk θ) ϕT θ.. Differentiating (47) gives " j ¶# n−1 X ∂αn−1 X µ ∂ϕ| ¡ ¢ j ˙ θ αn−1 = Φ + ¨ xk+1 + ϕT θ k ∂xj ∂xk j=1 k=1 " Ã ! # n−1 n−1 n X X ∂ 2 αn−1 ¡ X ∂ 2 αn−1 ¢ ∂ 2 αn−1 . ˆn−1 .. yr . (49) + j ∂xj ∂xk j=1 k=1 Ã n−1 ! n−1 X X ∂ 2 αn−1 ϕ| θ.. yr ) θ θ (n−1) θ θ ) +f1 (x1 . ˆ + y (k) ϕT θ xk+1 + ϕT θ + θ + k j (k−1) r ˆk k ∂xj ∂xk ∂xj ∂ θ ∂xj ∂yr j=1 k=1 k=1 (n) ˙ = Φ + g1 (x1 .

We now turn our attention to the calculation of the term ϕ| θ in (46).. . r)| z = tanh(η 1 )... . Remark 9 Using (137)... ˆn−1 .. · · · . ˆ1 . cn−1 cn (n) We now add and subtract the terms gb1 := g1 (yr .. Finally. (53) ˙ h(t)... yr . (51)... ζ b1 . yr . ζ b(n−1) . yr .. xn . yr ) and θ θ (n) θ θ gb2 := g2 (yr . . · · · .. yr .. . ˆ1 . we rewrite (55) as ´ 1 ³ ˙ ˙ ˙ r= ˙ (57) −Φ + h + d + u + f + cn r − cn η n cn−1 cn where f := (f2 − f1 + f3 ) /cn−1 cn . we obtain ´ 1 ³ ˙ ˙ ˙ r= ˙ (54) f2 − f1 + d + u − Φ + g2 − g1 + cn r − cn η n ... ... ˆn−1 . ˆn−1 . · · · .. Thus. ˆ1 ... 10 (58) (59) .. ζ b(n−1) . yr ) (51) θ θ θ θ n−1 ∂ϕ| X n = ∂xn j=1 where g2 à ! ∂αn−1 | ∂αn−1 ∂αn−1 ∂αn−1 (j) θ ϕ θ+ xj+1 + γ bj + (j−1) yr ∂xj j ∂xj ∂ ˆj θ ∂yr (52) ! + and n−1 X ∂ϕ| ¡ | ¢ n ϕj θ + xj+1 θ ∂xj j=1 ∂ϕ| n f2 = ∂xn à cn−1 cn r − cn−1 cn η n + After substituting (48)...η n ... ˆn−1 . yr ) to the right-hand side of (54) to obtain µ ¶ 1 ˙ + u − Φ + g2 − gb2 + gb1 − g1 + gb2 − gb1 + cn r − cn η n (55) ˙ r = ˙ f2 − f1 + d ˙ | {z } | {z } cn−1 cn h f3 (n) where h(yr .. . ζ b(n−1) . r .. η n . we can show f has the special property that kf k ≤ ρf (kxk) kzk where ρf (·) ∈ R≥0 is some globally invertible. ˆ1 .. η 2 . .. ˆn−1 . ζ b1 . yr ) has the special property that θ θ n−1 X ∂αn−1 j=1 ∂ ˆj θ γ µj θ. · · · . yr ) + f2 (x1 . and (140). .. xn .. we have ˙n ϕT θ ˙n = n−1 X ∂ϕ| j=1 n ∂xj xj θ + ˙ ∂ϕ| n xn θ ˙ ∂xn à cn−1 cn r − cn−1 cn η n + n−1 X ∂αn−1 j=1 n−1 X ∂ϕ| ¡ | ¢ ∂ϕ| n n ϕj θ + xj+1 θ + = ∂xj ∂xn j=1 ∂xj ϕ| θ + Φ θ j ! (n) (n) = g2 (x1 .. . . . ζ b1 . h(t) ∈ L∞ (56) due to (3) and properties P1 and P3 of the projection operator. tanh(η n−1 ). ˆ1 .. and (46) into (45).... tanh(η 2 ). and ¡ ¢| x = (η 1 . (139). . yr . ... non-decreasing function.

n 2 2 11 (68) (66) (67) . cn−1 c2 n r If β is selected to according to (63).. . we will utilize the technical lemmas in Appendix C. (63) °h(t)° + °d(t)° cn L∞ L∞ L∞ ¶2 µ cn−1 cn > . it follows from Lemma 1 that P (t) ≥ 0. we design u as [18] ˙ ˙ u = Φ − βsgn(η n ) − cn−1 cn (cn + cn+1 + 1)r ˙ where β > 0.Based on (57). Main Result (62) We now state the main result for the robust adaptive controller for the parametric strictfeedback system (1).. provided µ ° ° ° ° ¶ 1 °˙ ° ° ° °˙ ° °¨ ° β > kh(t)kL∞ + °d(t)° + . r = −r − cn η n + f − cn+1 r + ˙ cn−1 cn C. Let the function P (t) ∈ R be defined as follows Z t P (t) := ζ b − L(τ )dτ 0 (65) where ´ ³ ˙ − βsgn(η n ) L = h+d cn−1 cn ³ ´i 1 h ˙ ζb = β |η n (0)| + η n (0) h(0) + d(0) . Theorem 1 The control law (61) ensures that all system signals are bounded and e(t) → 0 as t → ∞.. After substituting (112) into (55). The actual C 0 control input can be written from (60) as follows u(t) = Φ (t) − Φ (0) − cn−1 cn (cn + cn+1 + 1) (η n (t) − η n (0)) Z t − [cn−1 cn (cn + cn+1 + 1)η n (τ ) + βsgn(η n (τ ))] dτ 0 (60) (61) where u(0) = 0. we obtain the closed-loop system ´ 1 ³ ˙ h + d − βsgn(η n ) . i = 1. Proof. We now define the following function V 1 1 V := Vn−1 + η 2 + r2 + P. In proving the main result. (64) 2cn−2 and the control gains ci . n + 1 are selected sufficiently large relative to the system initial conditions.

we can bound (68) as follows λ1 ln (cosh(ksk)) ≤ V ≤ λ2 ksk2 where ³ √ ´| | | θ θ s = x| . and (65).k °η k+1 ° ktanh (η k )k ¯ (74) 12 . λmin Γ−1 .. ˜1 . 1 .Using (138). (62). t) : η n = 0}. 2 (70) λ2 = max and x was defined in (59). n (72) We can upper bound (72) by using (36) as follows ˙ V Using (139) and (140).. ˜n−1 . Substituting now from (41) for j = n − 1 and (58) gives ˙ V ¸ n−1 X ∙ cj ¡ ¢¡ ¢ 1 2 − tanh (η j ) + tanh η j cj η j+1 + wj ˜ ≤ cj−1 cj−1 j=1 £ ¤ −cn η 2 − r2 + ρf (kxk) kzk krk − cn+1 r2 . t) has a discontinuity on the set of Lebesgue measure zero ¯ {(s. see [18] for a discussion on the ˙ issue of existence of solutions. . t). After taking the time derivative of (68) and substituting from (43). t) denote the right-hand side of the closed-loop system on which the stability analysis is being ¯ performed.. we obtain3 ´ r ³ ˙ ˙ ˙ V = Vn−1 − cn η 2 − r2 + rf − cn+1 r2 + h + d − βsgn(η n ) − L n cn−1 cn 2 2 2 ˙ = Vn−1 − cn η n − r + rf − cn+1 r (71) upon use of (66). we can show that for k = 1... 3 ° °¢ ¡ ¡° ¢° = ρk+1.k °η k+1 ° ktanh (η k )k °tanh η k+1 ° ¯ ¯ ° °¢ ¡ ¡° ¢° +ρk+1. Notice from (62) and (66) that f (s. i 2 ½ (69) ¾ ¡ −1 ¢ 1 λmax Γi . . P . Since Lemma 2 requires that a solution exist for s = f (s. n − 2 ck ck−1 ≤ n−1 X cj ≤ − tanh2 (η j ) − cn η 2 − r2 + ρf (kxk) kzk krk − cn+1 r2 n cj−1 j=1 " # j n−1 X cj ° ¡ ¢ ¡ ¢° X £ ¡° °¢ ¤ + tanh η j η j+1 + °tanh η j ° ρjk °η j ° ktanh (η k )k . cj−1 j=1 k=1 (73) ck−1 ¯ Let f (s..k °η k+1 ° ktanh (η k )k °tanh η k+1 ° ¯ ° ° ¡ ¢ ¢° ck ¡° °η k+1 ° + 1 ktanh (η k )k °tanh η k+1 ° ° °¢ ¡ ¢° ¡° tanh (η k ) η k+1 + °tanh η k+1 ° ρk+1. © ¡ ¢ª 1 λ1 = min 1.

cn − 2cn−2 ˙ V ≤− cn > (cn−1 /2cn−2 )2 .k °η k+1 ° := ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ck−1 n−1 X j=1 (75) (kj + 1) tanh (η j ) − 2 cn η 2 n −r + 2 ¯ where ρj+1. ¯ ¯ ¯ ρj °η j ° := ρjj °η j ° − 4 k=1 jk ¸ ¡ ¢ ¡ ¢ £ ¤ cn−1 2 tanh η n−1 η n − tanh η n−1 + ρf (kxk) kzk krk − cn+1 r2 + cn−2 ∙ n−1 j−1 XX j=1 k=1 ° ¡ ¢° ¤ £ ¡° °¢ ρjk °η j ° ktanh (η k )k °tanh η j ° − tanh2 (η j ) ¯ ¡° °¢ ¡ ¢ ρjj °η j ° tanh2 η j ¯ (76) j = 1. After completing squares on the bracketed terms of (76).. then (77) can be written as and σ := min 1.. we obtain " ¶2 # µ n−1 X ρ2 (kxk) cn−1 f 2 2 2 ˙ ≤ − V ηn + tanh (η j ) − r − cn − kzk2 2cn−2 4cn+1 j=1 " # j−1 n−1 X ¡° °¢ 1 X 2 ¡° °¢ ¡ ¢ kj − ρjj °η j ° − − ρjk °η j ° tanh2 η j ..where Now. n − 2 and cn−1 = cn−2 (kn−1 + 2). kj − ρj ¯ 4cn+1 j=1 ˙ V ≤ −γ kzk2 (80) (81) (82) ¡° °¢ ρ2 (kxk) °η j ° .. and rewrite (73) as ˙ V ≤ − + n−1 X j=1 °¢ ° °¢ ¢ ¡° ¡° ck ¡° °η k+1 ° + 1 + ρk+1.. let cj = cj−1 (kj + n − j). . . ¯ ¯ (77) 4 k=1 j=1 Let j−1 ¡° °¢ ¡° °¢ 1 X 2 ¡° °¢ ρ °η j ° . n − 1 and cn+1 > f kj > ρj ¯ 4σ where the constant γ satisfies 0 < γ < 1. n − 1.j = ρj+1.j and ρ10 = 0... j = 1. (83) . It follows from (80) that for ¶ µ n−1 X¡ ¡° °¢¢ ¡ ¢ ρ2 (kxk) °η j ° tanh2 η j − σ − f kzk2 .. ..k °η k+1 ° . ρk+1. (78) (79) ½ ³ ´2 ¾ cn−1 . We now apply Lemma 2 by first determining from (69) and (81) that W1 (s) = λ1 ln (cosh(ksk)) W2 (s) = λ2 ksk2 13 W (s) = γ kzk2 . j = 1.

j = 1. Continuing ˙ with this procedure. we know η n (t). and iii) r(0) is not a function of cn+1 since u(0) = 0... n − 1 and ks(0)k ki > ρi cosh µ µ λ1 µ ¶¶¶ (87) λ2 1 2 2 −1 cn+1 > exp ks(0)k ρf cosh 4σ λ1 where v u n n−1 uX X | ˜ (0)˜i (0) + P (0) θi θ η 2 (0) + r2 (0) + (88) ks(0)k = t i i=1 i=1 From (82).. 1 x1 x2 x1 x3 4 4 4 (89) 14 .. which is a sufficient condition for W (s) being uniformly continuous. . (14). we then know x1 (t) ∈ L∞ . Using (62) and assumption A2.. r(0).. ϕ2 (x1 . n+1 (i... we define the sets D and S as follows © © ªª √ D = s : ksk < min ρ−1 (kj ). j = 1. Specifically. . from the time ˙ ˙ ˙ derivative of (44).. x2 . ϕ3 (x1 . n − 1. ii) η i (0). ˆ1 (t) ∈ L∞ . (85) j f Note that the inequalities in (79) and (87) can be satisfied for large enough gains ci . Numerical Example For simulation purposes. a semi-global stability result). n + 1 because: i) ρi (·) is not a function of ci . x3 ) = 1 2 . D. ˙ Using the above boundedness statements.. we can show αi (t). αn−1 (t) ∈ L∞ . . i = 1. n − 1 (84) j f © ¡ ¡ © ª¢¢ª √ S = s ∈ D : W2 (s) < λ1 ln cosh min ρ−1 (kj ). i = 1. it is clear from (83) that W (s(t)) ∈ L∞ . . n − 1. .. and P (0) are only a function of 1/ci . It then follows from Lemma 2 that γ kz(t)k2 → 0 as t → ∞ ∀s(0) ∈ S.. We can then state η i (t). . ρ−1 (2 σcn+1 ¯i f ks(0)k < . we can conclude xn (t) ∈ L∞ . n − 1 by using (33). we know x1 (t) ∈ L∞ . θ= . θ We can now use (9) to show x2 (t) ∈ L∞ .. xi+1 (t).We can now invoke Lemma 2 to state that s(t) ∈ L∞ . hence. i = 1. From (3). and property P3 of the projection operator. αi−1 (t) ∈ L∞ . ∈ L∞ .. From (1a). From (43) and (47).. which implies from (59) that e(t) → 0 as t → ∞ ∀s(0) ∈ S... we can ˙ ˙ show r(t) ∈ L∞ . .e. x2 ) = 1 3 .. (86) λ2 or µ µ µ ¶¶¶ λ2 2 −1 exp . Finally. i = 1. ρ−1 (2 σcn+1 ) . Note that the region of stability in (85) can be made arbitrarily large to include any initial conditions by increasing the control gains ci .. we considered the parametric strict-feedback system (1) with the following model # # # " " " ∙ ¸ −x2 −x2 −x2 1 1 2 ϕ1 (x1 ) = 1 3 ... ρ−1 (2 σcn+1 ) . From (13). we know α1 (t). i = 2. we can use the second equation in (83) and (85) to calculate the region of stability as follows s ¡ ¡ © ª¢¢ √ λ1 ln cosh min ρ−1 (ki ). . we can use (1d) to show that ˙ u(t) ∈ L∞ ..

θ ∈ Rp is an unknown constant parameter vector. d1 (t). A. III. the results for the tracking error and parameter estimates were nearly identical to the ones for the sinusoidal disturbance shown in Figures 2 and 3. x(n−1) . ˆ1 (0) = ˆ2 (0) = (0. ˙ ¨ A6. the disturbance was set to d (t) = 10 sin πt (see Figure 1(a)). di (t) ∈ L∞ .. di ∈ C 2 and di (t). while the controller parameters were set to θ c1 = 20. Figure 2 shows the output y (t) versus the reference trajectory yr (t) and the tracking error e(t).. θ0 = 3. c3 = 30. x(n−1) ) > 0 is a globally invertible. Two other simulations were conducted to test the robustness of the proposed control law to disturbances that do not satisfy assumption A2... x2 (0) = 0. β = 10.. . yr = sin t 1 − exp − 3 (90) θ The initial conditions of the system were set to x1 (0) = 1. .. c2 = 300. ε = 1. m > 0. . x.c). x(n−1) .. x. and the simulation was rerun without retuning the control gains. Γ2 = diag (2. di (t). i = 1. x(n−1) ) kξk2 ˙ ¯ ˙ ∀ξ ∈ Rm (93) ¯ ˙ where M := G−1 . θ)ξ ≤ m(x. x. The profile of the control law is given in Figures 4(b. A5. θ) (u + d1 ) + d2 ˙ ˙ (92) Flat Systems where x(i) (t) ∈ Rm . n − 1 are the system states. We make the following assumptions regarding the system model: A4. f ∈ Rm and G ∈ Rm×m are nonlinear functions. i = 0. c4 = 10.c)... x. Figure 3 shows the elements of the parameter estimate vectors ˆ1 (t) and ˆ2 (t) while the control input u (t) is shown in Figure θ θ 4(a). G is symmetric positive definite and m kξk2 ≤ ξ | M(x.. To that end. nondecreasing function of each variable... In both cases.. 2. (91) In the first simulation. 15 .. x(n−1) .. θ) + G(x. Problem Statement We now consider a class of flat nonlinear systems of the form x(n) = f (x. . 200) . 0)| . Γ1 = diag (20. 20) .. x3 (0) = 0. and thus are not reproduced here. and m(x. the disturbance was set to the triangle and square waveforms shown in Figures 1(b... . . G ∈ C 2 and affine in θ. f.The reference trajectory was selected as µ µ 3 ¶¶ t . d2 (t) ∈ Rm are unknown additive disturbances. δ = 1. x. The simulation results are given in Figures 2 to 4(a).

. .j−1 ... 4.. n e2 := e1 + e1 ˙ e3 := e2 + e2 + e1 ˙ .. i = 3. i = 2. x(n−1) ) that ensures e1 (t) → 0 as ˙ t → ∞.. i = 3. Using assumption A4. 3. i = 1.. 1.. . j = 1.. ˙ (96a) (96b) (96c) An expression can be derived for ei . i = 0. n. we rewrite (92) as follows Mx(n) = h + u + d1 + Md2 where h = Mf .. . . x.Given a C n reference trajectory xr (t) ∈ Rm satisfying x(i) (t) ∈ L∞ . .. . n − 1 and the boundedness of all closed-loop signals.. .. 4. i − 2 (99) (100) ai.i−1 = 1.. B. .. en := en−1 + en−1 + en−2 ... n + 2 r and the tracking error e1 := xr − x. Construction of Robust Adaptive Control Law We begin the construction by introducing the following auxiliary error signals ei (t) ∈ Rm . n 2 2 5 aij = i−1 X k=1 (98) B(i − k − j + 1)ak+j−1. i = 1.. 2.... We now introduce the variable r := en + Λen ˙ (101) (102) 16 .. (95) (i) (94) our goal is to construct a state feedback control u(x. n. n in terms of e1 and its derivatives as follows [18] ei = i−1 X j=0 aij e1 (j) (97) where the constants aij are given by ⎡à ⎤ √ !i à √ !i 1+ 5 1 1− 5 ⎦ − ai0 = B(i) = √ ⎣ .. 3.. 2. .. .. i = 2.. .

t) = ˙ ´ ³ ´ ³ ˙ ˙2 − Md2 − Nr − Mr d2 − Mr d2 ˙ ˙ N − Md n−2 X j=0 + Λen ˙ ! ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ + Mx(n) − h − u − d1 − M d2 − Md2 ˙ (103) (104) (105) (106) (107) (108) (109) ˙ Nr (t) = N(xr . nondecreasing 1 2 n function. . sgn(ξ m ))| . we can also linearly parameterize Nr in the sense that (111) (112) (113) Sgn(ξ) := (sgn(ξ 1 ). .. ˙ ψ(t) = −d Remark 10 Due to assumptions A5 and A6... x. In view of assumption A5. r| )| and ρ(·) ∈ R≥0 is some globally invertible... function only of xr and its derivatives... e| .. we design u as ˙ θ u = (K + Im ) r + CSgn (en ) + Wr ˆ ˙ ˆ = ΓW | r θ r where K. we can use the Mean Value theorem to show ° ° ° ˜° (110) °N ° ≤ ρ(kzk) kzk Nr = Wr (t)θ where Wr (t) ∈ Rm×p is the known regressor. sgn(ξ 2 ).. ∀ξ= (ξ 1 .... e| .. x(n) . xr .where Λ ∈ Rm×m is diagonal positive definite. x(n−1) . C ∈ Rm×m and Γ ∈ Rp×p are diagonal positive definite.. xr . ξ m )| . . ..... x(n) . Based on (105) and (111). After differentiating (102) and multiplying both sides of the resulting equation by M. θ) r ˙ ˙1 − Mr d2 − Mr d2 . . and · where z := (e| .. x. 17 (114) .. t) is defined as follows ˙ ! Ã µ ¶ n−2 X 1 (j+2) (n+1) (n) ˙ ˙ + anj e1 + Λen + M x + r + en − h. . t) r ˙ Mr (t) = M(xr . ξ 2 . . x(n) . we obtain Mr = M ˙ n−1 X anj e1 (j+2) + MΛen ˙ anj e1 (j+2) = M Ã j=0 x(n+1) + r 1 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ = − Mr − en − u + N − d1 − M d2 − Md2 ˙ 2 where the auxiliary function N(x. ˙ N = M xr 2 j=0 We now arrange (103) into the following form 1 ˙ ˜ M r = − Mr − en − u + N + Nr + ψ ˙ ˙ 2 where ˜ N(x..

m.. provided ° 1 °˙ ° ° Cii > kψ i (t)kL∞ + (118) °ψ i (t)° . we can generate θ via Z t Z t | ˆ =Γ ˙ Wr (τ )Λen (τ )dτ − ΓWr| (τ )en (τ )dτ + ΓWr| (t)en (t) − ΓWr| (0)en (0). Theorem 2 The control law (116) and (115) ensures the boundedness of all system signals and e(i) (t) → 0 as t → ∞. Main Result The main result for the robust adaptive control for the flat system (92) is given next. i = 1. i = 0. We now define the following function 1X | 1 V := ei ei + r| Mr + 2 i=1 2 n 1 ˜| −1 ˜ θ Γ θ + P.. .. Λii L∞ 1 . it follows from Lemma 1 that P (t) ≥ 0. we obtain the closed-loop system 1 ˙ ˜ M r = − Mr − en − (K + Im )r + Wr ˜ − CSgn (en ) + N + ψ ˙ θ 2 ˜ ˆ where θ = θ − θ. after substituting (112) into (105). Let L and ζ b in (65) be given by L = r| (ψ − Csgn(en )) m X Cii |eni (0)| + e| (0)ψ(0).. n − 1. ζb = n i=1 (117) (120) (121) If Cii is selected to according to (118)... θ(t) 0 0 (115) while the actual control input is given by u(t) = (K + Im )en (t) − (K + Im )en (0) Z th i ˆ (τ ) dτ . + (K + Im )Λen (τ ) + CSgn (en (τ )) + Wr (τ ) θ 0 (116) Finally.ˆ Since r is not available for measurement. 2 (122) which satisfies the bounds λ1 ksk2 ≤ V ≤ λ2 (ksk) ksk2 (123) 18 . Proof. . (119) λmin (Λ) > 2 and the elements of K are selected sufficiently large relative to the system initial conditions. C.

we can state that 2 2 ˙ V ≤ −γ kzk2 for λmin (K) > 1 2 ρ (kzk) 4λ3 ˙ V (126) (127) ˙ Then. 2. m. .where4 ½ ¾ ³ √ ´| © ¡ −1 ¢ª ¡ −1 ¢ 1 1 | ˜| s = z . we can use (101) to show u(t) ∈ L∞ . we (n) can show e1 (t) → 0 as t → ∞ ∀y(0) ∈ S. .. (102). m(ksk). and then invoke Lemma 2 to show kz(t)k2 → 0 as t → ∞ ∀y(0) ∈ S. we know s(t) ∈ L∞ . (129) 19 . n − 1 ∀y(0) ∈ S. Using (94) and (i) (95). and the fact that °eT en ° ≤ 1 ken−1 k2 + ken k2 . we obtain ˙ V =− n−1 X i=1 ˜ e| ei − e| Λen + e| en − r| r + r| N − r| Kr n−1 n i (125) ° ° ¡ ¢ upon use of (120). we n−1 2 obtain ≤ −λ3 kzk2 + krk ρ(kzk) kzk − λmin (K) krk2 ¶ µ ρ2 (kzk) kzk2 ≤ − λ3 − 4λmin (Ks ) © ª where λ3 = min 1 . From (102). . 1. (113). Now. ˙ Thus. Lemma 2 can be invoked using arguments similar to those in the proof of Theorem 1. and (96). ¯ ˙ ¯ 4 where 0 < γ < λ3 . From the definition of z.. λ1 = min 1. From (102).. and (117). 2 2 (124) Differentiating (122) along (96). ° ° Using (94). n. r(t) → 0 as t → ∞ ∀y(0) ∈ S and i = 1. from Lemma 2. .. m(x. n. We now know that M(t). That is. i = 0. .. one can show °(x. x(n−1) ) ≤ m(ksk). λmax Γ . this implies ei (t).. From (123) and (127).. x(n−1) )° ≤ ϑ(ksk) where ϑ(·) is some positive function. Finally. we know en (t) ∈ L∞ . We can now establish the uniform continuity of W (s). i = 1. f (t) ∈ L∞ . θ . P . λ2 = max 1.. Finally... we can show x (t) ∈ L∞ . Using (110). we first determine the sets ³ p ´o n −1 2 λ3 λmin (K) (128) D = s : ksk < ρ ½ ³ ´2 ¾ p S = s ∈ D : W2 (s) < λ1 ρ−1 (2 λ3 λmin (K)) . x. from the time derivative of (97) with i = n. Note that the set (129) can be made arbitrarily large to include any initial conditions by increasing the eigenvalues of K. 2. (95). we can recursively use (97) to show e1 (t) → 0 as ˙ t → ∞.... (119). λmin (Λ) − 1 . From (126). we know (i) en (t) → 0 as t → ∞ ∀y(0) ∈ S. x... λmin Γ ¯ .

OR. pp. de Queiroz. B.. “Adaptive Asymptotic Tracking of Parametric Strict-Feedback Systems in the Presence of Additive Disturbance. M. Figure 6 shows the parameter estimate ˆ (t) and the control input u (t). In both cases. K = 20I2 . we considered the flat system of (92) with n = 1 and the following model ⎤ ⎡ 2 + cos x1 ∙ ¸ 0 x1 x2 ⎥ ⎢ θ1 f= . Since the tuning function method [10] does not seem applicable to the proposed construction for parametric strict-feedback systems.” Proc. Cai. The reference trajectory was selected as ⎡ µ µ 3 ¶¶ t ¸ ∙ ⎢ sin t 1 − exp − 5 xr1 µ µ 3 ¶¶ =⎢ xr = ⎣ t xr2 2 sin t 1 − exp − 2 ⎤ The initial conditions of the system were set to x (0) = (0. The continuous robust adaptive controller. and D. the resulting robust adaptive control law guarantees the semi-global asymptotic convergence of the tracking error to zero and boundedness of all closed-loop signals. while θ the controller parameters were chosen as Λ = I2 . x2 )| . exploits the two times continuous differentiability of the disturbances. Xian.S. de Queiroz.D.2)| and ˆ (0) = (0. Numerical simulations illustrated the performance of the proposed control laws. C = 15I2 . American Control Conf.S. M. [2] Z. 20 . θ IV. including the robustness to disturbances that do not satisfy the given assumptions.1. Bahamas. Numerical Example To illustrate the proposed control. 0)| .M.” Proc. 1146-1151. 2004. Decision and Control. the robust adaptive control law for this class of systems is overparameterized. whose construction is founded on the fusion of an adaptation law and a dynamic robust control mechanism. IEEE Conf.M. 0. G=⎣ 3 + sin x2 ⎦ . Figure 5 shows the state x (t) versus the reference trajectory xr (t) (top plots) and the tracking error e1 (t) (bottom plots). to appear. d1 = . Paradise Island. Dawson. Conclusion ⎥ ⎥. Portland. 2005. x2 2 0 (130) ¸ θ2 ¸ ∙ ¸ ∙ ¸ ∙ ∙ θ1 2 cos 2t sin 3t . and D. Cai. The proposed construction was applied to two classes of nonlinear systems: parametric strict-feedback systems and flat systems. ”Asymptotic Adaptive Regulation of Parametric Strict-Feedback Systems with Additive Disturbance. ⎦ (131) This work considered the tracking problem for nth-order MIMO nonlinear systems in the presence of additive disturbances and parametric uncertainties. and Γ = 10I2 . Dawson. References [1] Z. d2 = θ= = 1 sin 2t cos 3t θ2 where x = (x1 .

Pomet and L.” Automatica. 1998. Ge and J. Kanellakopoulos.M.S. Ikhouane and M. M.” IEEE Trans. M. 7. No.A.S. “A Robust Adaptive Nonlinear Control Design. [5] S. Vol. 729-740.V. [18] B. [8] P. 43. Automatic Control. Narendra and A. Praly.A. Dawson. NY: John Wiley & Sons. 2002. Vol. [15] M. and H. [6] F. Automatic Control. Kokotovic. pp. [4] R.[3] Z. pp.S. Annaswanny. Krstic. [11] R. 8. No.M. 1462—1469. Convergence. Passivity-based Control of Euler-Lagrange Systems. Marino and P. pp. 8. Krstic. Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design. Freeman. Vol. 431— 437. Nicklasson. [12] K. Vol. Vol.” Automatica. pp. “Robustness of Adaptive Nonlinear Control to Bounded Uncertainties. 1998. “Adaptive Controller Design for Tracking and Disturbance Ats tenuation in Parametric Strict-Feedback Nonlinear Systems. pp. Ortega. 49. pp. in press. No. Wang. Vol. [13] R. and D. pp. Automatic Control. 1998. Pan and T. A. M. Adaptive Systems with Reduced Models.S. No. Englewood Cliffs. Loria. de Queiroz. [9] H. 1989. Dawson. Chen. de Queiroz. 2004. [14] Z. Xian. Vol. Khalil. “Robustness of the Tuning Functions Adaptive Backstepping Designs for Linear Systems.” IEEE Trans. 33. 43. Ioannou.M. Ioannou and P. “A Continuous Asymptotic Tracking Control Strategy for Uncertain Nonlinear Systems. [16] J. and J. 1066-1083. 1996. Vol. Automatic Control. Ioannou and J. Ba¸ar.” IEEE Trans. 47. Robust Adaptive Control. and P. Automatic Control. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences. “Robust Adaptive State-Feedback Tracking for Nonlinear Systems. NY: Prentice Hall. 3. 1998. I. Cai. pp. 21 . Tomei. Stable Adaptive Systems. Polycarpou and P. Automatic Control. NJ: Prentice Hall.” IEEE Trans. 1. 423-427. Sira-Ramirez. “Robust Adaptive Tracking for Time-Varying Uncertain Nonlinear Systems With Unknown Control Coefficients. 48. London: Springer-Verlag.” IEEE Trans. 1206-1211.A. and Robustness. No. 1996.” IEEE Trans.V. 1983. 2003. 6. [7] P. 37. 1998. Sastry and M. 1989. P. 43. 1995. and P. New York. Kokotovic.-B. Nonlinear Systems. [10] M. New York. NJ: Prentice Hall.J. 84-89. Krstic. Automatic Control. New York. 1227-1230. NJ: Prentice Hall. Sun. Englewood Cliffs. 34. Bodson.” IEEE Trans. Englewood Cliff. 3. 10. D. 1992. Kokotovic. Vol. “A Sufficiently Smooth Projection Operator. [17] S. “Adaptive Nonlinear Regulation: Estimation from Lyapunov Equation. No. Adaptive Control: Stability. NY: Springer-Verlag.M. No. No.

This new projection operator is useful for backstepping-based.A. 5. which require multiple differentiations of the adaptation law. Proj(µi .. It can be proven that the above projection operator has the following properties [3]: If ˆi (0) ∈ Ω. n − 1 2 + 2εθ )n−i θ 2 4 (ε 0 0 (132) (133) if p(ˆi ) > 0 θ (134) π2 otherwise. robust adaptive controllers. then θ ° ° ° ° θ P1. . Ioannou.. ˆi )° ≤ kµi k 1 + + θ θ δ. Vol.[19] Y. such as the one in Section II. 745-769. Control. ∇ is the gradient operator. No. 65. pp. 1996. 2θ2 0 T T θ θ P2. ε. θ (137) .” Int. γ µi = µi − (136) 4 (ε2 + 2εθ0 )n−i θ2 0 θ π 1 δ∇p(ˆi ) . “A New Class of Nonlinear Robust Adaptive Controllers. δ are arbitrary positive constants. Zhang and P. sµ ¶2 1 1 ˆi )µi + ˆi )µi + δ 2 . ˆi ) = µi − θ where T p(ˆi ) = ˆi ˆi − θ2 . A Projection Operator A smoothened version of the projection operator introduced in [16] was recently proposed in [3]. where θ0 2θ2 0 ⎛ ⎞ sµ ¶2 1 1 θ ∇p(ˆi )µi + δ 2 ⎠ ∇p(ˆi ) θ π 1 ⎝ ∇p(ˆi )µi − δ + θ 2 2 . °ˆi (t)° ≤ θ0 + ε ∀t ≥ 0. ˆi ) = γ µi + γ bi and °Proj(µi . ∇p(θ ∇p(θ = 2 2 (135) µi was defined in (40). The projection operator of [3] replaces the Lipschitz continuity property of the Pomet/Praly projection [16] with the stronger property of arbitrarily many times continuous differentiability. θ θ θ 0 ⎧ n−i ˆ ⎨ p (θi ) π1 = ⎩ 0 π 1 π 2 ∇p(ˆi ) θ . ˜i Proj(µi . " ¶2 # µ ° ° θ0 + ε θ0 + ε ° ° P3. ˆi ) ≥ ˜i µi . J. and θ0 was defined in assumption A3... γ bi = − 2 + 2εθ )n−i θ 2 4 (ε 0 0 and " ¶2 # µ ° ° °γ µi ° ≤ kµi k 1 + θ0 + ε θ0 22 kγ bi k ≤ θ0 + ε δ. The projection operator of [3] is given by Proj(µi . i = 1. while introducing minor or no modifications to the other projection properties.

tanh (ξ 2 ) . A.. sgn(zm ))| .. B ∈ Rm×m are diagonal positive definite. tanh ξ q . m.. φ(t). and Sgn(z) := (sgn(z1 ). φ(t) ∈ L∞ .. After substituting (141) into (142) and then integrating in time. . Proj(µi ... . θ B Hyperbolic Function Inequalities It can be shown that the following inequalities hold ∀ξ ∈ Rq tanh (kξk) ≤ kTanh (ξ)k kξk ≤ kξk + 1 tanh (kξk) ¡ ¡ ¢¢| where Tanh(ξ) := tanh (ξ 1 ) . we obtain Z t L(τ )dτ = 0 (cz(τ ) + Az(τ ))| (φ(τ ) − BSgn(z(τ ))) dτ ˙ 0 Z t | Z t dz (τ ) | z (τ )A (φ(τ ) − BSgn(z(τ ))) dτ + c = φ(τ )dτ dτ 0 0 Z t | dz (τ ) BSgn(z(τ ))dτ . ˙ Lemma 1 Let z.P4.. and r = cz + Az ˙ L = r| (φ − BSgn(z)) where c > 0. −c dτ 0 23 Z t (147) . i=1 (144) Z t 0 L(τ )dτ ≤ ζ b (145) (146) Proof. . i = 1. ˆi ) ∈ C n−i−1 . Aii L∞ where the positive constant ζ b is given by Ãm ! X ζb = c Bii |zi (0)| + z | (0)φ(0) . sgn(z2 ). C q X 1 2 tanh (kξk) ≤ ln (cosh (kξk)) ≤ ln (cosh (ξ i )) ≤ kξk2 2 i=1 (138) (139) (140) Technical Lemmas The following lemmas are used in establishing the main results of the paper. (141) (142) (143) then If the elements of B are selected to satisfy the following sufficient condition ° c °˙ ° ° Bii > kφi (t)kL∞ + °φi (t)° . φ : R≥0 → Rm ...

If ξ(0) ∈ S. t) ≤ −W (ξ). where S := {ξ ∈ D : W2 (ξ) ≤ δ} . we have Z t Z t Z t dφ(τ ) t | | dτ L(τ )dτ = z (τ )A (φ(τ ) − BSgn(z(τ ))) dτ + cz (τ )φ(τ )|0 − c z | (τ ) dτ 0 0 0 m X −c Bii |zi (τ )||t 0 ¶ µ dφ(τ ) − BSgn(z(τ )) dτ = z (τ )A φ(τ ) − cA−1 dτ t0 m X | | +c (z (t)φ(t) − z (0)φ(0)) − c Bii (|zi (t)| − |zi (0)|) . t) ≤ W2 (ξ). Furthermore. f : Rq × R≥0 →Rq . 0 < δ < min W1 (ξ). Z t | i=1 i=1 (148) We now upper bound the right-hand side of (148) as follows Z t 0 ¯ ¯ µ ¶ c ¯ dφi (τ ) ¯ ¯ ¯ − Bii dτ L(τ )dτ ≤ |zi (τ )| Aii |φi (τ )| + Aii ¯ dτ ¯ 0 i=1 Ãm ! m X X +c |zi (t)| (|φi (t)| − Bii ) + c Bii |zi (0)| − z | (0)φ(0) . See proof of Theorem 8. ∀t ≥ 0. (150) Let the set D be defined as D := {ξ : kξk < εs } where εs > 0. Proof. and let V : D × R≥0 → R≥0 be a C 1 function satisfying W1 (ξ) ≤ V (ξ. ∀ξ ∈ D (152) (151) where W1 (ξ). kξk=εs (153) then ξ(t) is bounded. Lemma 2 Consider that a solution exists for the system ˙ ¯ ¯ ξ = f (ξ.After integrating by parts the second integral on the right-hand side of (147). if W (ξ) is uniformly continuous. W2 (ξ) are C 0 positive definite functions and W (ξ) is a differentiable. then (145) holds. positive semi-definite function. ∀t ≥ 0. (149) Z tX m i=1 i=1 It follows from (149) that if B is chosen according to (144). then W (ξ(t)) → 0 as t → ∞.4 in [9]. t). (154) 24 . ∀ξ ∈ D whose derivative along the trajectories of (150) satisfy ˙ V (ξ.

1.5 0 −0.4 0. 25 . Bottom plot: tracking error e(t).2 0 −0.(a) Sinusoid 10 Disturbance 5 0 −5 −10 0 1 2 3 4 5 (b) Triangle 10 6 7 8 9 10 Disturbance 5 0 −5 −10 0 1 2 3 4 5 (c) Square 10 6 7 8 9 10 Disturbance 5 0 −5 −10 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 1: (Parametric strict-feedback system) Disturbance d(t).5 yr 1 0.5 y 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 25 0.6 Error 0.8 0.2 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 25 Figure 2: (Parametric strict-feedback system) Top plot: output y(t) versus reference trajectory yr (t).5 −1 −1.

5 −1 −1.5 −1 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 θ21 hat θ22 hat 25 Figure 3: (Parametric strict-feedback system) Parameter estimates ˆ1 (t) and ˆ2 (t).5 Parameter Estimates 2 1.5 1 0.2.5 −2 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 θ θ 11 12 hat hat 25 3 2.5 1 0.5 2 Parameter Estimates 1. Control Input Control Input 26 .5 0 −0. θ θ (a) Sinusoidal Disturbance 40 Control Input 20 0 −20 −40 −60 0 5 10 15 (a) Triangle Disturbance 40 20 0 −20 −40 −60 0 5 10 (a) Square Disturbance 40 20 0 −20 −40 −60 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 25 15 20 25 20 25 Figure 4: (Parametric strict-feedback system) Control input u(t).5 0 −0.

2 −0.5 1 0.5 0.5 θ hat 1 2 0.2 11 0 −0. 0.5 0 xr2 1 2 3 4 5 Time (sec) 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 Time (sec) 6 7 8 9 0.05 e −0.4 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 Time (sec) 5 6 7 8 9 3 u1 2 1 Control Inputs u2 0 −1 −2 −3 −4 0 1 2 3 4 Time (sec) 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 6: (Flat system) Parameter estimate ˆ and control input u(t).5 0 x1 −0. Bottom plots: tracking error e(t).5 0 x2 −0.5 1 0.4 Parameter Estimates θ hat 0.5 −1 −1.1 −0.3 0.3 −0.1 0. θ(t) 27 .3 0.15 −0.25 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (sec) 6 7 8 9 0.1 e12 −0.5 0 xr1 1.5 −1 −1.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (sec) 6 7 8 9 Figure 5: (Flat system) Top plots: state x(t) versus reference trajectory xr (t).05 0 0.1 −0.2 0.1.2 −0.