This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
Parameter Estimation and Adaptive Control for
Servo Mechanisms With Friction Compensation
Shubo Wang, Member, IEEE, and Jing Na, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents a new adaptive parameter esti-
mation method and the corresponding control design for nonlin-
ear servo mechanisms with friction compensation. A continuous
friction model is employed to capture the friction dynamics
of servo mechanisms. Then, the unknown system parameters
including friction model parameters are online estimated via the
derived adaptive law. Hence, a new adaptive law is proposed
to achieve faster and more accurate parameter estimation over
classical adaptive laws so as to suppress the undesired transient
dynamics. For this purpose, an auxiliary filter is introduced to
extract the estimation error for driving the parameter updating
law. Moreover, an adaptive control is designed in conjunction with
a robust integral of the sign of the error (RISE) feedback term
to address the bounded disturbances and enhance the tracking
precision. Simulations and experiments are given to validate the
efficiency of the developed control scheme.
Index Terms—Adaptive control, servo mechanisms, parameter
estimation, friction dynamics, robust integral of the sign of error.
N OMENCLATURE
J Motor inertia.
id d− axis stator current.
iq q− axis stator current.
ud d− axis stator voltage.
uq q−axis stator voltage.
np Number of pole pairs.
ψf Rotor flux linkage.
q Angular position.
q̇ Angular speed.
TL Load torque.
KT Torque time constant.
Td Load disturbance.
Tf Friction torque.
I. I NTRODUCTION
High performance servo mechanisms have been widely used
in practical engineering applications, and thus have drawn
significant attentions in the academic fields [1]–[3]. However,
Manuscript received Mar 9, 2019; revised Jul 23, 2019; accepted Jan
4, 2020. Date of publication XXX, 2020; date of current version XXX,
2020.This work is support by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grant No. 61803216, Grant No. 61873115, Grant No. 61922037,
the China Post-Doctoral Science Foundation under Grant No. 2019M650159,
and the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province under Grant No.
ZR2018BF022. (Corresponding author: Jing Na)
Shubo Wang is with the School of Automation, Qingdao University,
Qingdao, 266071, P. R. China. (e-mail:wangshubo1130@126.com)
Jing Na is with the Faculty of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering,
Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming Yunnan 650500,
China.(e-mail: najing25@163.com)
1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
there are usually unknown dynamics such as friction, modeling
uncertainties and external disturbances in such systems, which
can reduce the control precision. Among these dynamics,
frictions are highly nonlinear, nonsmooth and difficult to be
modelled, while leading to significant tracking performance
degradation and potential instability of servo mechanisms.
To improve the control performance of such systems, many
control algorithms such as PID [4], adaptive control [5], and
sliding mode control (SMC) [6]–[8] have been proposed.
In addition, neural networks (NN) [9]–[11] and fuzzy logic
systems (FLS) [12] have also been utilized to compensate the
unknown frictions. In these methods, the friction dynamics
are considered as a part of unknown system nonlinearities,
and then approximated via NNs or FLSs. Hence, no offline
friction modeling effort is required. However, the inherent
nonsmooth feature of friction dynamics may make the function
approximation invalid.
Over the past decades, some control methods based on static
friction models have been proposed (e.g., [13] and references
therein), and various friction models have also been developed
to capture diverse friction dynamics [14]–[16]. Among these
friction models, LuGre model can represent stribeck effect,
hysteresis, stick-lop limit cycling, and rising static friction,
and thus it has been used in the control designs for many
servo systems. For example, Xie [17] proposed a sliding
mode-observer which was incorporated into adaptive control
to compensate for the friction of servo actuator. In [18], an
adaptive feedforward NN control scheme was developed to
compensate the friction effect of the pendubot. However, the
above adaptive controllers impose a stringent assumption that
the friction model parameters should be known, which in turn
requires an offline modeling work to obtain these parameters.
Moreover, in the adaptive control designs, the traditional
adaptive learning approaches (e.g., gradient [19] and least-
squares (LS) [20] algorithms) have been used to derive the
adaptive laws to online update the unknown model/control
parameters. These methods may trigger bursting phenomena
when the system is subject to disturbances, i.e., the estimated
parameters may go to infinity, leading to the instability of
control system. To address this issue, some modified parameter
estimation methods have been developed in [21], where the
boundedness of the estimated parameters is retained. However,
the estimation error can not converge to zero due to the
included damper terms in these robust adaptive laws [22].
Following this observation, a composite estimation method
was incorporated into adaptive control to identify the unknown
parameters to achieve guaranteed tracking error convergence
[23]. Nevertheless, the parameter estimation stay around the
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

pre-set values only. To overcome this problem, a new pa- PC for Display and Data Motor Drive
Power
Supply
rameter estimation method [24] was developed for nonlinear Acquisition
qd iq* uq uD
systems, where filter operation was proposed to extract the u Position
u PI
Inverse
 0 
Control Park PW
estimation error to design new adaptive laws to obtain expo-
*
i ud uE IPM
u Transfor M
d
q  iq
PI
mation
nential or finite-time error convergence.
It is noted that in the above schemes, the unavoidable iD iaU V W
id Park Clark
ib
measurement noise or modeling uncertainties will make the Transf iE Transf
ormati ormati ic
on on
control error converge to a compact set only. In this respect, a
new continuously control scheme with a robust integral of the
Position Calculation of
sign of the error (RISE) term was proposed to accommodate angular and velocity
Encoder PMSM

the uncertainties and bounded disturbances in [25]. This idea

has been successfully applied to servo systems [26], robotic Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of position control for PMSM.
systems [27], autonomous underwater vehicles [28], and mag-
netic levitation systems [29].
However, the estimated parameters in the existing RISE in Section V and Section VI. Some conclusions are given in
based adaptive control designs may not converge to true Section VII.
values since the adaptive laws are again designed based on
the gradient based algorithms, which will reduce the transient II. DYNAMIC M ODEL
control performance. A. Servo Mechanisms Model
Motivated by the above discussions, this paper proposes This paper considers a class of nonlinear servo systems
a new adaptive parameter estimation and control method for which are driven by a permanent-magnet synchronous motor
servo mechanisms. An auxiliary filter is introduced to extract (PMSM). According to [1], the system is modeled as
the estimation error for driving the parameter updating law to    −R  
achieve guaranteed convergence of the estimated parameters. i̇d L −np q̇ 0 id
A continuously differentiable friction model is employed to  i̇q  =  −np q̇ −R np ψf  
iq 
L L
address the friction dynamics, where the friction model co- q̈ 0 − JK T 1 q̇
efficients and unknown model parameters are estimated using  ud J (1)
uLq
the proposed adaptive law. Moreover, to minimize the effect of + L

measurement noise on the control and parameter estimation, −Tf −Tl −Td
J
the desired trajectory to be tracked is adopted to replace
the actual system state. Finally, a modified adaptive control where the variables are given in the above nomenclature.
with a smooth robust feedback term is designed to address In general, the d−axis reference current i∗d is set to be i∗d = 0
the bounded disturbance and modeling uncertainties, so as to to eliminate the couplings between the angular velocity and
improve the tracking control performance. In comparison to currents. If the controllers for the current loops work well, the
the existing adaptive control designs, the proposed adaptive output id satisfies id = i∗d = 0. Thus, Eq. (1) can be reduced
law can retain the convergence of parameter estimation, apart to the following form:
( ) ( −R KE ) ( ) ( uq )
from the tracking error convergence. This property in turn help i̇q iq
= L L + L (2)
to achieve the online modeling and control, simultaneously. KT 1 −Tf −TL −Td
q̈ J J
q̇ J
Comparative simulations and experiments are given to validate
the effectiveness of the developed approach. where KE = np ψf . In practice, the electrical constant L/R is
The main contributions of this paper are summarized as: small, then the electrical transients Ldid /dt converges to zero
very fast [1]. Thus, one has
1. A new adaptive parameter estimation method is present-
KE q̇ + uq
ed and incorporated into the adaptive control synthesis, iq = (3)
where the extracted estimation error is used as the R
leakage term. This scheme can retain the convergence We choose the state variable as x = [x1 , x2 ]T = [q, q̇]T ,
of both the tracking error and estimation error simulta- then the system model can be written as
neously, implying that both the modeling and control of 
 ẋ1 = x2
systems with uncertain parameters can be achieved.
1( ) (4)
2. A modified adaptive control design with a RISE based  ẋ2 = K1 u − K2 x2 − Td − Tl − Tf
robust term is proposed to address the bounded distur- J
bance and enhance the tracking control performance. where u = uq . K1 = KT /R and K2 = KT KE /R are positive
Moreover, the effect of the noise is suppressed by using constants.
the desired trajectory in the control design. To address the friction dynamics, a recently proposed fric-
tion model [3], [30] is adopted to describe the behaviour of
The organization of this paper is as follows. Section II
Tf in system (4), which is defined as
describes the model of the studied servo system. The controller
design is given in Section III, and Section IV provides the Tf = γ1 (tanh(β1 x2 ) − tanh(β2 x2 )) + γ2 tanh(β3 x2 ) + γ3 x2
convergence analysis. Simulations and experiments are shown (5)

1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

Finite-Time Parameter Estimation To facilitate the parameter estimation, the second equation
in (6) can be written as
Adaptive law Filter operation
H
­°kx2 f  x2 f x2 ­ P lP  M f M Tf ẋ2 = ΘΨ(x2 , u) + ∆ (7)
 °
4ˆ * <d r  M  ®
°̄kM f  M f M ®
4̂ Q lQ  M f ª¬ x2  x2 f  / k º¼
¯°
where Θ = [θ1 , θ2 , θ3 , θ4 , θ5 , θ6 ] is the unknown param-
eter vector, and Ψ(x2 , u) = [u, −x2 , −(tanh(β1 x2 ) −
Reference
Control x1, x2 tanh(β2 x2 )), − tanh(β3 x2 ), −x2 , −1]T is the known regres-
Servo Command Servo
Controller Mechanisms Output sor vector.
xd The filtered variables x2f and Ψf of the dynamics x2 and
Closed-loop Servo System
Ψ are defined as [24]
{
k ẋ2f + x2f = x2 , x2f (0) = 0
Fig. 2. Structure of the proposed adaptive controller. (8)
k Ψ̇f + Ψf = Ψ, Ψf (0) = 0
where k > 0 is a filter constant. The following auxiliary
where γ1 , γ2 , γ3 , β1 , β2 and β3 are friction model parameters. variable ∆f (only used to analysis) is also defined:
The above friction model (5) has piecewise continuous feature,
˙ f + ∆f = ∆, ∆f (0) = 0
k∆ (9)
which can contribute to the smoothness of the derived control
signals when it is involved in the control designs. Moreover, Since ∆ is bounded, we know ∆f is also bounded.
the friction model coefficients γ1 , γ2 , γ3 can be online updated By applying low-pass filter operation given in (8) on both
via the proposed adaptive law to cover more realistic friction sides of (7) and considering the first equation of (8), we have
behaviors. The modeling errors of the friction model (5) will
x2 − x2f
be further compensated in the following control via a robust ẋ2f = = ΘΨf + ∆f (10)
term. k
Then, model (4) can be expressed as Based on (10), we define matrix P1 and vector Q1 as
 {
 Ṗ1 = −lP1 + Ψf ΨTf , P1 (0) = 0
 ẋ1 =x2 [ ] (11)
ẋ2 =θ1 u − θ2 x2 − θ3 (tanh(β1 x2 ) − tanh(β2 x2 )) (6) Q̇1 = −lQ1 + Ψf (x2 − x2f )/k , Q1 (0) = 0


− θ4 tanh(β3 x2 ) − θ5 x2 − θ6 + ∆ where l > 0 is a constant.
The solution of (11) is derived as
where θ1 = K1 /J, θ2 = K2 /J, θ3 = γ1 /J, θ4 = γ2 /J,  ∫ t
θ5 = γ3 /J, and θ6 = Tl are the unknown parameters to be 
 e−l(t−r) ΨTf (r)Ψf (r)dr
 P1 =
estimated in this paper, and ∆ = −Td denotes the lumped 0
∫ t (12)
disturbances and modeling uncertainties. 
 [ ]
 Q1 = e−l(t−r) ΨTf (r) (x2 − x2f )/k dr
Assumption 1: The disturbance ∆ and its first two-order
0
derivatives ∆ ˙ and ∆ ¨ are bounded.
Substituting (10) into (12), one has
The aim of this paper is to estimate the unknown parameters
θi , i = 1, ..., 6 and design an adaptive controller to achieve Q 1 = P 1 ΘT − ∆
¯ (13)
position tracking for servo system (6), i.e., the output x1 tracks ∫t
where ∆¯ = − e−ℓ(t−r) ΨT (r)∆f (r)dr is bounded since the
a desired trajectory xd . 0 f
lumped disturbance ∆ is bounded and the regressors Ψ and Ψf
are locally bounded. Thus, we have ∥∆∥¯ ≤ ε∆ for a constant
III. A DAPTIVE C ONTROL D ESIGN W ITH G UARANTEED ε∆ > 0.
PARAMETER E STIMATION Another auxiliary vector H1 is further defined as
In this part, a novel parameter estimation method is pro- H1 = P1 Θ̂T − Q1 (14)
posed for system (6). Fig.2 shows the structure of the devel-
oped control system, which consists of a feedback control with where Θ̂ is the estimate of the unknown parameter Θ.
a robust term to obtain tracking response, and a new adaptive Substituting (13) into (14), it is verified that H1 equals to
law used for parameter estimation.
H1 = P1 Θ̂T − P1 ΘT = −P1 Θ̃T + ∆
¯ (15)
where Θ̃ = Θ − Θ̂ denotes the estimation error.
A. Parameters Estimation Error Extraction It is shown in (15) that the variable H1 calculated based on
In the traditional adaptive control, the adaptive laws are P1 , Q1 given in (12) contains the estimation error Θ̃. Thus, as
derived by the gradient algorithm to minimize the tracking shown in [22], this variable can be used in the updating law to
error. It is clear that if the estimated parameters converge to retain the estimation error convergence and also enhance the
the true values fast (e.g., finite time (FT)), the convergence control performance in the adaptive control system.
of tracking error can be enhanced. Differing to these existing Moreover, as widely recognized in adaptive control, the
results, we will introduce a novel parameter updating law with proper excitation condition should be imposed to guarantee
the estimation error to obtain better estimation response. the convergence of the parameter estimation. In this line, we

1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
assume that the derived matrix P1 is positive definite, such
that its minimum eigenvalue λmin (P1 ) > ϱ > 0. As proved in
[22], this condition is related to the standard persistent exaction
(PE) condition widely used in adaptive control, which can be
fulfilled in our case studies.
B. Adaptive Controller Design with RISE
To address the position tracking control by introducing a
smooth RISE term to address the effect of modeling uncer-
tainties and disturbances, we let z1 = x1 − xd be the position
tracking error, and define a first-order sliding surface z2 and
the associated error r as
z2 = ż1 + k1 z1 , r = ż2 + k2 z2
where k1 and k2 are positive constants. Note that the filter
error r is used to facilitate the stability analysis only and it is
not used in the control design since equation (16) depends on
the immeasurable acceleration variable ẍ.
From (6) and (16), one has
r =θ1 u − θ2 x2 − θ3 (tanh(β1 x2 ) − tanh(β2 x2 ))
− θ4 tanh(β3 x2 ) − θ5 x2 − θ6 + ∆ − ẍd + k1 ż1 + k2 z2
(17)
To reduce the effect of noise in the measurements x, the
desired trajectory xd is adopted to replace the system state x
in the control design. Thus, the error variable r given in (17)
can be rewritten by using the desired trajectories xd as:
r = θ1 u − θ2 ẋd − θ3 (tanh(β1 ẋd ) − tanh(β2 ẋd ))
− θ4 tanh(β3 ẋd ) − θ5 ẋd − θ6 − ẍd + S + ∆
where the auxiliary function S(x1 , x2 , xd , ẋd ) is defined as
S = − θ2 (x2 − ẋd ) − θ3 [(tanh(β1 x2 ) − tanh(β2 x2 ))
− (tanh(β1 ẋd ) − tanh(β2 ẋd ))] − θ4 (tanh(β3 x2 ) (19)
− tanh(β3 ẋd )) − θ5 (x2 − ẋd ) + k1 ż1 + k2 z2
Then, the controller can be designed as
(
1 as shown in the next subsection. In this respect, this new
u= (θ̂2 + θ̂5 )ẋd + θ̂3 (tanh(β1 ẋd ) − tanh(β2 ẋd ))
θ̂1 ) (20)
+ θ̂4 tanh(β3 ẋd ) + θ̂5 ẋd + ẍd + θ̂6 − µs
where θ̂i is the estimate of unknown parameters θi , which will
be online updated with the lumped vector Θ̂, and µs denotes
the RISE feedback term, which is defined as
µs = (ks + 1)z2 − (ks + 1)z2 (0)
∫ t
[ ]
+ (ks + 1)k2 z2 (σ) + λsgn(z2 (σ)) dσ
0
(21)
where ks and λ are positive constants, and sgn(·) is the signum
function.
The parameter updating law for Θ̂ can be designed as
˙ 3) Choose the controller parameters k1 , k2 , ks , and calcu-
Θ̂ = Γ(Ψ̇d r − M )
with
P1T H1
M = σH1 + σ
∥H1 ∥
1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
where Ψd = [u, −xd , −(tanh(β1 ẋd ) −
tanh(β2 ẋd )), − tanh(β3 ẋd ), −ẋd , −1]T is the regressor
with the desired trajectory xd , and Γ > 0, σ > 0 are learning
gains.
It is noted that the variable r is not available for imple-
menting the online learning (22) directly. Hence, inspired by
the Newton-Leibniz formula and the idea given in [31], we
write equation (22) as the following form, which can be online
calculated:
∫ t( )
P T (τ )H1 (τ )
Θ̂(t) =Θ̂(0) + σ H1 (τ ) + 1 dτ
0 ∥H1 (τ )∥
∫ t
[ (24)
+ ΓΨ̇d (τ )z2 (τ )|t0 − Γ Ψ̈d (τ )z2 (τ )
(16) ] 0
− k2 Ψ̇d (τ )z2 (τ ) dτ
It is found in (24) that the immeasurable variable r can be
replaced by the term ż2 + k2 z2 , where ż2 can be online
calculated by using the Newton-Leibniz formulation. Hence,
the estimated parameter Θ̂ can be obtained based on (24).
Specifically, since the desired trajectory xd is used in the
adaptive law (24), the derivatives of the regressor Ψd can be
calculated online, which is free of measurement noise and thus
smooth, helping to obtain smoother parameter estimation.
Remark 1: To avoid potential singularity in the proposed
control (20) (for the case with θ̂1 = 0), the initial condition
θ̂1 (0) should be properly selected and/or the project operation
[21] can be applied, while the subsequent stability analysis
does not change. Specifically, since the unknown parameter
(18) θ1 in the studied servo system is a positive constant, we can
choose the initial condition as θ̂1 (0) > 0.
Remark 2: Differing from the existing adaptive control
schemes, a novel leakage term M , containing the parameter
estimation error information H1 , is imposed on the traditional
˙
adaptive law Θ̂ = ΓΨ̇d r in (22), which can guarantee the
convergence of parameter estimation and the control error. In
particular, a sliding mode term given in (23) is used, such
that the finite-time convergence of H1 can be guaranteed
leakage term improves the results over other adaptive methods
(e.g., e-modification and σ-modification [32]), which cannot
retain the convergence of Θ̂ to Θ. This convergence property
allows online modeling of uncertain systems (i.e., accurate
estimation of unknown parameters including the friction model
parameters), apart from achieving motion tracking.
C. Practical Implementation
The implementation of the proposed control algorithm is
given as follows:
1) Select the adaptive law parameters κ, Γ, l, σ and initial
condition Θ̂(0).
2) Calculate the tracking error z1 = x1 −xd , and the filtered
errors z1 .z2 based on (16).
(22) late the control action u and parameter updating law Θ̂
based on (20) and (24).
4) Apply the control action on the servo mechanisms and
(23) record the input/output measurements.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

5) Go back to step 2). Lemma 1: Define an auxiliary function L(t) as

In the practical implementation, the parameter tuning of the [ ]
L = r Nd − βsign(z2 ) + C1 (33)
proposed algorithm can be carried out in a straightforward
way. The parameters to be tuned include two sets: adaptive if β is selected to fulfill the following condition:
parameters Γ, κ, l, σ and Θ̂(0), and controller parameters k1 , 1
k2 and ks . The tuning guidelines can be briefly summarized β ≥ ζNd + ζ (34)
k2 Ṅd
as follows:
σζε2
1) Select the initial parameter value Θ̂(0) to satisfy θ̂1 (0) ≥ where ζNd and ζṄd are positive constants, and C1 = 2 ∆ +
0. σε∆ is a positive constant with ζ > 2ϱ. Then, the following
2) Large constants ks , k1 , k2 can lead to fast convergence defined function P2 is always positive:
of tracking error while triggering oscillations in the
Ṗ2 = −L (35)
control actions. A large learning gain Γ can improve
the estimation performance of Θ̃, but may excite the The detailed proof of Lemma 1 is similar to those given in
parameter shifting during the transient stage. [25] and [30]. Now, the following theorem can be given :
3) The leakage factor σ can guarantee the convergence of Theorem 2: Consider the servo system (1) with the proposed
parameter estimation in the finite-time sense, and thus control (20) and parameter estimation algorithm (22), then
retain better tracking control convergence. However, a 1) All signals in the closed-loop system are bounded,
too large σ may lead to oscillations in the estimated and the the tracking error z1 will converge to zero
parameters. The filter constants κ, l should be set to seek asymptotically.
for a trade-off between the robustness and convergence 2) The estimated parameter Θ̂ will converge to a set around
rate. the true value Θ in finite-time.
Proof: See the Appendix A.
IV. S TABILITY AND C ONVERGENCE A NALYSIS
This section will address the stability of the closed-loop V. S IMULATIONS
system with the proposed control (20) and adaptive law (22). Simulations are first provided to test the effectiveness of
For this purpose, by substituting (20) into (19), we have the developed control scheme. The model parameters are J =
r = Θ̃Ψd + S − µs + ∆ (25) 0.1kg/m2 , KE = 0.2V/(rad/s), KT = 5N·m /A, R = 5Ω, Tl =
0.1N· m, and thus K1 = KT /R = 1, K2 = KE KT /R = 0.2.
In order to analyze the system stability, the time derivative The friction model is Tf = γ1 (tanh(β1 x2 ) − tanh(β2 x2 )) +
of r is γ2 tanh(β3 x2 ) + γ3 x2 with γ1 = 0.07, γ2 = 0.08, γ3 =
ṙ = Θ̃Ψ̇d + Ñ + Nd − µ̇s − z2 (26) 0.075, β1 = 100, β2 = 1 and β3 = 1000. Then we
can obtain Θ = [K1 /J, K2 /J, γ1 /J, γ2 /J, γ3 /J, Tl /J] =
where the unmeasured term Ñ is defined as [10, 2, 0.7, 0.8, 0.75, 1]. The control and adaptive learning
( )
P1T H1 gains are set as k1 = 2, k2 = 80, ks = 100, l = 1, k = 0.001,
Ñ = −ΓΨ̇d Ψd r + ΓΨ̇d σ H1 + + Ṡ + z2 (27)
∥H1 ∥ Γ = diag([13.5 5 9 5 5 25]) and σ = 12. The initial condition
is Θ̂ = [6 0 0 0 0 0 ]. A sinusoidal signal xd = 0.1 sin(2πt)
and the auxiliary function Nd is
is adopted as the reference signal in the simulations.
˙
Nd = ∆ (28) To show the improved estimation and control performance,
the generic adaptive control with the gradient algorithm (set-
Using Assumption 1, Nd and its time derivative is bounded ting σ = 0 in the adaptive law) is used for comparison. It
∥Nd ∥ ≤ ζNd , ∥Ṅd ∥ ≤ ζṄd (29) should be noted that the servo system considered in this paper
is indeed a nonlinear system with unknown nonlinearities (e.g.,
where ζNd and ζṄd are positive constants. nonsmooth frictions as shown in system (6)). The presence
Moreover, from the definition of µs in (21), the time of these nonlinearities could enhance the excitation level
derivative of µs is to some extent. Hence, in the case studies with sinusoidal
references, the required persistent excitation (PE) condition
µ̇s = (ks + 1)r + λsgn(z2 ) (30)
can be fulfilled so that the introduced matrix P1 is positive
Then, as discussed in [25], one can verify that Ñ fulfills the definite as shown at the end of Section III A.
following condition
A. With Constant Parameters
∥Ñ ∥ ≤ ρ(∥z∥)∥z∥ (31)
Figs.3-4 show the comparative simulation results of the
where ρ(∥z∥) is a positive, globally invertible function, and position tracking and parameter estimation. Fig.3 provides
the cooridinate vector z is defined as the tracking performance of servo mechanisms with the two
z = [z1 , z2 , r, Θ̃]T (32) different control approaches. One can see from Fig.3 that the
control performance of the developed control with FT adaptive
Then the following Lemma 1 can be provided. law (22) is superior than the generic control with the gradient

1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

0.2
Reference Adaptive Gradient Reference Adaptive Gradient
0.1
Position tracking

Position tracking
0.1
0.05

0 0

-0.05
−0.1
-0.1

−0.2 -0.15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

1.5 1.5
Reference Adaptive Gradient Reference Adaptive Gradient
1 1
Speed tracking

Speed tracking
0.5 0.5

0 0

−0.5 -0.5

−1 -1

−1.5 -1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(s) Time (s)

Fig. 3. Simulation output tracking with constant parameters. Fig. 5. Simulation output tracking with varying parameters
10
True Value Adaptive Gradient

θ̂1
10 5
θ̂1

5 0
True Value Adaptive Gradient
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0 5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

θ̂2
5 0
-5
θ̂2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
1
-5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

θ̂3
0
1
-1
θ̂3

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

1
-1

θ̂4
0
20 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-1
θ̂4

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

1
-2
θ̂5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0

1
-1
θ̂5

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

1
-1
θ̂6

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0

2
-1
θ̂6

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Time(s)
-2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time(s)
Fig. 6. Simulation parameter estimation results for varying parameters
Fig. 4. Simulation parameter estimation results for constant parameters.

tracked after a very short transient at 2 sec with the estimation

algorithm. Fig.4 illustrates that the estimated parameters with algorithm (22). This is attributed to that the leakage term
the proposed updating law converge to the actual values very H1 including the estimation error Θ̃ is incorporated into the
fast. This means that the parameter updating law (22) can adaptive law, and thus it can drive the estimates converging
obtain accurate parameter estimation compared to the gradient to the true values. Again, the gradient algorithm can not
method. This result validates that the new leakage terms of H1 guarantee the parameter estimation convergence, though the
with the parameter estimation error included in the adaptive corresponding tracking response can be retained with slightly
law (22) can improve the parameter estimation performance, larger tracking errors.
which in turn contributes to enhancing the control response.
VI. E XPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
B. With Time-Varying Parameters A. Experimental setup
To show the ability of the proposed adaptive law to track To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms,
parameter variations, we also simulate the case with parameter experiments are carried out based on a turntable servo system
changes. In this case, the estimation performance of the fol- test-rig given in Fig.7. The turntable system comprises of a
lowing parameters is considered, where the inertia parameter PMSM (HC-UFS13), which is powered by a PWM amplifier
J has a jump at 2s as configured in the motor card (MR-J2S-10A). The motor angu-
{ lar position and angular speed are measured by encoders fixed
0.1, 0 ≤ t < 2 on the platform. The control algorithms are implemented by
J= (36)
0.2, 2 ≤ t ≤ 5 the DSP (TMS3202812) with the sampling time 0.01s. The
The control parameters are the same as Case A. Figs.5-6 presented control method is implemented by C++ in CCS3.0.
show the comparative simulation results, which show that
the tracking performance of the the proposed controller is B. Controller design
also better than generic adaptive control with the gradient For comparison, the following three control schemes are
method. Moreover, the change in the inertia parameter can be considered:

1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

One can find that fairly satisfactory tracking performance can


  

!
"
 
be achieved with the proposed control (20). In particular, the
, tracking errors of adaptive controllers decrease gradually as

#
  
long as the parameter estimates converge to constants, while
 
$%& PID control has a larger tracking error than others. We can

  ,

 
also see that the control error of the ANDSC is smaller than

 






 '
()*
PID control and the gradient based adaptive control. This is


+
-




 reasonable since NNs are adopted to handle the nonlinearities
Fig. 7. Structure of the two-axis servo system.
1) The proposed adaptive control: It is noted that there
is two terms of x2 associated with the parameters θ1
and θ5 in the regressor Ψ. Then, we can define the
regressor vector Ψ as Ψ = [u, −x2 , −(tanh(β1 x2 ) −
tanh(β2 x2 )), − tanh(β3 x2 ), −1]T to reduce the computation-
al costs. The parameters used in the proposed control are set
as: k1 = 10, k2 = 1, ks = 12, k = 0.1, l = 10, σ = 2,
β = 0.01 and Γ = diag([2 1 1 1 2]), The initial condition is
Θ̂(0) = [6, 0, 0, 0, 0].
2) Gradient based adaptive control: This control is the same
as the developed control, while the updating law (22) is set
with σ = 0, such that only the first term derived with the
gradient algorithm is used. All the control parameters and
conditions are the same as 1). Hence, the essential difference
to the proposed control in 1) is that the leakage term of H1
used in the adaptive law (22) is switched off.
3) Adaptive neural dynamic surface control (ANDSC) [33]:
We define z1 = x1 − xd and z2 = x2 − s1 with µ1 ṡ1 + s1 =
α1 and α1 = −k1 z1 − θ̂z1 ΦT1 Φ1 /2 − ε̂1 tanh(z1 /ω1 ). Then
the controller is u = −k2 z2 − θ̂z2 ΦT2 Φ2 /2 − ε̂2 tanh(z2 /ω2 )
and the adaptive laws are θ̂i = Γi [zi2 ΦTi Φi − σi θ̂i ]/2. The
parameters are set as k1 = 9, k2 = 4, Γ1 = Γ2 = 100,
in the ANDSC scheme.
Case 2: To further justify the control performance, a fast
varying sinusoid signal xd = 0.8 sin(2πt/5.5) is adopted as
the reference signal. We can find from Fig.10 that satisfactory
control response can also be achieved in this case. It is noted
that the tracking error of the proposed adaptive control is
smaller than the other control methods (gradient, ANDSC, and
PID), since fast convergence of the estimated parameters can
be retained as shown in Fig. 8. Nevertheless, we can also find
from Fig.10 (a) that the control error of the ANDSC is smaller
than PID control and gradient based adaptive control. More-
over, Fig.10(b) depicts the control signals of three controllers.
One can find that the control signal of the proposed adaptive
is smooth, while the control signal of the ANDSC method has
obvious oscillations due to the use of high-order derivatives of
the virtual controls. From these comparative results, one can
claim that the developed control scheme (20) with finite-time
learning algorithm (22) can effectively handle the unknown
disturbances and frictions.
To further quantitatively compare the performance of d-
ifferent controllers, the following performance indices are
calculated: 1) Maximum absolute value of the tracking error
Me = max {|z1 (i)|}; 2) Average tracking error Ae =
1
∑N i=1,...,N
N √ z1∑
i=1 (i); 3) Standard deviation of the tracking error
N
Se = N i=1 [z1 (i) − Ae ]2 . These performance indices of
1

µ1 = 0.01, Γa1 = Γa2 = 10, σ1 = σa1 = σa2 = 0.01, and two different controllers for the above two cases are shown in
ω1 = ω2 = 1. Table I.
4) PID : Finally, a well tuned PID control is also tested.
TABLE I
The PID control with gains kp = 30, ki = 0.05, kd = 10 C OMPARISON RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE INDICES
are tuned based on a reference signal xd = 0.4 sin(2πt/4) by
using a trial-and-error method to make a tradeoff between the .
steady-state performance and transient response. In general, xd = 0.4 sin(2πt/4) xd = 0.8 sin(2πt/5.5)
a large proportional gain kp may increase convergent speed PID ANDSC Gradient Adaptive PID ANDSC Gradient Adaptive
while trigging oscillations in the control system. Too large
Me 0.1156 0.0764 0.1595 0.0601 0.1312 0.1021 0.2016 0.0990
integral gain ki may lead to large overshoots in the transient
stage. The derivative gain kd can enhance convergence rate but Ae 0.0970 0.0192 0.0313 0.0148 0.0980 0.0203 0.0337 0.0136
it is sensitive to the measurement noise. The derived control Se 6.9× 1.4 × 3.01× 1.28× 8.3× 1.48× 1.9 × 1.25×
gains are then used for all experiments to compare their ability 10−4 10−5 10−4 10−5 10−4 10−4 10−4 10−4
and generality under different references.
Case 1: It is known that the effects of friction, ripple From Table I, one can see that the proposed adaptive control
disturbance are more notable at the low speed regime. Hence, obtains smaller Me , Ae and Se in all cases, which denote
a sinusoidal wave xd = 0.4 sin(2πt/4) is firstly used as the better control performance. In particular, all the performance
desired trajectory to test the control performance. Figs.8-9 indices of the proposed adaptive control are better than the
depict the experiment results. As it can be seen, the estimated gradient based adaptive control. This is due to the fact that the
parameters with adaptive law (22) converge to constants near introduced leakage term M in the adaptive law (22) contains
the nominal values, while the gradient based adaptive law can the estimation error information H1 , and thus it can drive
not obtain convergent estimates, i.e., the estimated parameters the estimated parameters converging to their actual values
have significant oscillations. Moreover, Fig.9 provides the fast. Moreover, it is also clear that the control performance
control errors and control actions u of these four controllers. of the ANDSC is close to the proposed adaptive control,

1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

6 0.1
Adaptive
5 Adaptive
θ̂1
Gradient
4 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-0.1

Tracking Error (rad)

2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
θ̂2

0 Gradient
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0
1.5
-0.1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
θ̂3

0.5
0 0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
ANDSC
0
0.5
θ̂4

-0.1
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.1
0.05 PID
0
θ̂5

0
-0.05 -0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time(s)
Time(s)

Fig. 8. Parameter estimation performance for experiments. (a)

2
Adaptive
while its computational costs are more demanding due to 0

the use of DSC scheme and two NNs to handle unknown

Control Signal u (vol)

-2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
dynamics. Nevertheless, the performance improvement over 2
Gradient
PID control is significant owing to the online learning ability 0

of the proposed method. -2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
All the simulation and experimental results indicate the 2
ANDSC
superior performance of the proposed adaptive control with 0

new adaptive law (22) over the generic adaptive control with -2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
the gradient algorithm. Specifically, it cannot only retain the 2

satisfactory motion tracking, but also allow to obtain accurate 0

PID

estimation of unknown system parameters to achieve online -2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
modeling of uncertain systems. Time(s)

(b)
VII. C ONCLUSION
This paper proposed and validated a novel adaptive control Fig. 9. Experimental results for reference signal xd = 0.4 sin(2πt/4): (a)
Tracking error, and (b) Control signal u
scheme for servo mechanisms with friction dynamics. An
auxiliary filter is introduced to extract the estimation error for
driving the parameter updating law, where a sliding mode term Select a Lyapunov function candidate as
was incorporated into the adaptive law to achieve FT parameter 1 1 1 1
estimation convergence. Moreover, the desired trajectory is VL (y) = z12 + z22 + r2 + P2 + Θ̃Γ−1 Θ̃T (38)
2 2 2 2
used to replace the actual system state to reduce the effect which satisfies the inequalities
of the noise injected into the online learning. The external
disturbance and modeling uncertainties can be compensated U1 (y) ≤ VL (y) ≤ U2 (y) (39)
by using a RISE term in the control design. The effectiveness The continuous, positive definite functions U1 (y) and U2 (y)
of the proposed method is validated by simulations and exper- are defined as
iments. The salient feature of the proposed adaptive control
over existing adaptive control methods lies in that it cannot U1 (y) = λ1 ∥y∥, U2 (y) = λ2 ∥y∥ (40)
only achieve satisfactory tracking performance, but also allow where λ1 and λ2 are positive constants.
the online modeling of uncertain systems since it can estimate The time derivative of VL can be written as
the unknown system parameters. It is also noted that the ˙T
rotation velocity of the servo mechanism is required in the V̇ =z ż + z ż + rṙ + Ṗ + Θ̃Γ−1 Θ̃
L 1 1 2 2 2

proposed control implementation. Thus, future work will focus = z1 (z2 − k1 z1 ) + z2 (r − k2 z2 ) + r(Θ̃Ψ̇d + Ñ + Nd
on the output feedback control design for servo mechanisms − z2 − (ks + 1)r − λsgn(z2 )) − rNd + rλsgn(z2 ) − C1
with other nonsmooth dynamics.
Θ̃P1T H1
− Θ̃Ψ̇d r + σ Θ̃H1 + σ
∥H1 ∥
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1 = − k1 z1 − k2 z2 − (ks + 1)r2 + z1 z2 + rÑ − C1
2 2

¯ − σ (H1 − ∆) H1
¯ T
Proof: We define a vector y as − σ Θ̃(P1 Θ̃ − ∆)
√ ∥H1 ∥
y = [z, P2 ] (37) (41)

1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

Hence, the inequalities (44) and (45) can be utilized to show

that VL ∈ L∞ over Ξ , which further implies that z1 , z2 , P2 ,
0.1
Adaptive
0
r ∈ L∞ in Ξ . Given z1 , z2 and r ∈ L∞ , the standard linear
-0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 analysis methods can be used to prove that ż1 , ż2 ∈ L∞ in Ξ
Tracking Error (rad)

0.1
Gradient
. This together with the fact that xd , ẋd and ẍd are bounded
0
implies that x1 , ẋ1 ∈ L∞ in Ξ.
-0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Given that r ∈ L∞ in Ξ, similar analysis as given in [30]
0.1
ANDSC
can be used to prove that µ̇s ∈ L∞ in Ξ. Then, we can also
0
verify that ṙ ∈ L∞ . Since ż1 , ż2 , and ṙ ∈ L∞ in Ξ, the
-0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
definitions for U (y) and z(t) can be used to prove that U (y) is
0.1 uniformly continuous in Ξ. Hence, following similar analysis
as shown in [25], [30], we can verify that U (y) → 0 and thus
PID
0

-0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
z → 0 for t → 0 and y(0) ∈ Ξ. Then, from the definition of
Time(s) r, z1 , z2 , we can obtain that z1 → 0 for t → ∞.
In the final step, we will prove the finite-time convergence
(a)
of the parameter updating law Θ̂ in (22) and (23).
2 Select the Lyapunov function VΘ̃ as
Adaptive
0
1 T −1 −1
VΘ̃ = H P P H1 (46)
-2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 1 1 1
2
The time derivative of VΘ̃ is
Control Signal u (vol)

Gradient
0

∂H1 P1 ( ′)
V̇Θ̃ =H1T P1−1 = H1T P1−1 Γ (Ψ̇d r − M ) + ∆
-2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
2 ∂t
′
=H1T P1−1 ΓΨ̇d r − H1T P1−1 ΓσH1 − Γσ∥H1 ∥ + H1T P1−1 Γ∆
ANDSC
0
[ ′ ]
-2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 ≤ − ζ(Γ)ζ(σ) − ζ̄(Γ)∥P1−1 ∥∥Ψ̇d ∥∥r∥ − ζ̄(Γ)∥P1−1 ∆ ∥ ∥H1 ∥
√
2 [
2

0
PID
≤− −1
ζ(Γ)ζ(σ) − ζ̄(Γ)ζ̄(P1−1 )∥Ψ̇d ∥∥r∥
ζ̄(P1 )
-2 ′ ]√
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time(s)
12 14 16 18 20
− ζ(Γ)ζ(P1−1 )∥∆ ∥ VΘ̃
(47)
′
(b) where ∆ = −P1−1 Ṗ1 P1−1 ∆ ¯ + P −1 ∆
1
¯˙ is a bounded variable,
which can be verified by considering the fact that the regressor,
Fig. 10. Experimental results for reference signal xd = 0.8 sin(2πt/5.5): ¯ are all bounded.
(a) Tracking error, and (b) Control signal u the matrix P1 , and the residual error ∆
Since r will converge to a small compact set, and the
regressor Ψ̇d is bounded, then there exists a time T and large
Using the Young’s inequality, one has learning gain Γ, such that for all t > T it can be claimed that
1 2 1 2 ′
z1 z2 ≤ z + z , ζ(Γ)ζ(σ) > ζ̄(Γ)ζ̄(P1−1 )(∥Ψ̇d ∥∥r∥ + ∥∆ ∥) (48)
2 1 2 2
2 2 (42)
ρ (∥z∥)∥z∥
rÑ ≤ ρ(∥z∥)∥z∥|r| ≤ ks |r|2 + . √ T1 and a constant ϵ > 0, such
Thus, there is a time instant
4ks that the condition V̇Θ̃ ≤ −ϵ VΘ̃ is true for all t > T1 . There-
Substituting (42) into (41), yields fore, according to the convergence property of sliding mode
( ) ( ) control in [34], the finite-time convergence of the estimation
1 2 1 2
V̇L ≤ − k1 − z 1 − k2 − z − r2 − C1 error P1−1 H1 to zero can be claimed. Then, by recalling the
2 2 2 fact given in (15), one can verify that Θ̃ = P1−1 H1 = P1−1 ∆ ¯
( ) (43)
ρ2 (∥z∥)∥z∥2 σ in finite-time. This completes the proof.
+ − σϱ − ∥Θ̃∥2 + C1
4ks 2ζ
σζε2 R EFERENCES
where C1 = 2 ∆ + σε∆ is a positive constant for design
parameter ζ > 2ϱ. [1] S. Li and Z. Liu, “Adaptive speed control for permanent-magnet syn-
Then, the derivative of VL can be obtained as chronous motor system with variations of load inertia,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 3050–3059, 2009.
ρ2 (∥z∥)∥z∥2 [2] W. Sun, Y. Liu, and H. Gao, “Constrained sampled-data arc for a class of
V̇L ≤ −λ3 ∥z∥2 + ≤ −U (y) (44) cascaded nonlinear systems with applications to motor-servo systems,”
4ks
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 766–
where λ3 = min{k2 − 21 , k3 − 12 , 1, σ(ϱ − 1/2ζ)} is a positive 776, 2019.
[3] J. Na, Q. Chen, X. Ren, and Y. Guo, “Adaptive prescribed performance
constant, and U (y) = c∥z∥2 with a positive constant c is a motion control of servo mechanisms with friction compensation,” IEEE
continuous positive function over a set Ξ defined as Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 486–494, 2014.
√ [4] P. Dupont, “Avoiding stick-slip through pd control,” IEEE Transactions
Ξ ≡ {y(t)|∥y∥ ≤ ρ−1 (2 λ3 ks )} (45) on Automatic Control, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1094–1097, 1994.

1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2020.2971056, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
[5] T. Gao, Y. Liu, L. Liu, and D. Li, “Adaptive neural network-based control
for a class of nonlinear pure-feedback systems with time-varying full
state constraints,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 5, no. 5,
pp. 923–933, 2018.
[6] X. Chen and T. Hisayama, “Adaptive sliding-mode position control
for piezo-actuated stage,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 3927–3934, 2008.
[7] C. Milosavljevic, B. Perunicic-Drazenovic, and B. Veselic, “Discrete-
time velocity servo system design using sliding mode control approach
with disturbance compensation,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Infor-
matics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 920–927, 2013.
[8] Q. Chen, S. Xie, M. Sun, and X. He, “Adaptive nonsingular fixed-
time attitude stabilization of uncertain spacecraft,” IEEE Transactions
on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 2937–2950,
2018.
[9] B. Xu, D. Yang, Z. Shi, Y. Pan, B. Chen, and F. Sun, “Online recorded
data-based composite neural control of strict-feedback systems with
application to hypersonic flight dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Neural
Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 3839–3849, 2018.
[10] H. Gao, W. He, C. Zhou, and C. Sun, “Neural network control of a two-
link flexible robotic manipulator using assumed mode method,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 755–765,
2019.
[11] S. Wang, H. Yu, J. Yu, J. Na, and X. Ren, “Neural-network-based
adaptive funnel control for servo mechanisms with unknown dead-zone,”
IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, pp. 1–12, 2018.
[12] L. Cao, H. Li, N. Wang, and Q. Zhou, “Observer-based event-triggered
adaptive decentralized fuzzy control for nonlinear large-scale systems,”
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, pp. 1–1, 2018.
[13] J. Moreno, R. Kelly, and R. Campa, “Manipulator velocity control
using friction compensation,” IEE Proceedings - Control Theory and
Applications, vol. 150, no. 2, pp. 119–126, 2003.
[14] J. Amin, B. Friedland, and A. Harnoy, “Implementation of a friction
estimation and compensation technique,” IEEE Control Systems, vol. 17,
no. 4, pp. 71–76, 1997.
[15] P. Dahl, “A solid friction model,” DTIC Document, Tech. Rep., 1968.
[16] C. De Wit, H. Olsson, K. Astrom, and P. Lischinsky, “A new model
for control of systems with friction,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 419–425, 1995.
[17] W.-F. Xie, “Sliding-mode-observer-based adaptive control for servo
actuator with friction,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1517–1527, 2007.
[18] D. Xia, L. Wang, and T. Chai, “Neural-network-friction compensation-
based energy swing-up control of pendubot,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1411–1423, 2014.
[19] M. Bodson and S. Sastry, Adaptive control: stability, convergence and
robustness. Prencice Hall, 1989.
[20] K. S. Narendra and A. M. Annaswamy, Stable adaptive systems. Courier
Corporation, 2012.
[21] P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun, Robust adaptive control. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1995.
[22] J. Na, Y. Huang, X. Wu, G. Gao, G. Herrmann, and J. Z. Jiang,
“Active adaptive estimation and control for vehicle suspensions with
prescribed performance,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Tech-
nology, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 2063–2077, 2018.
[23] G. Zhang, J. Chen, and Z. Li, “Identifier-based adaptive robust con-
trol for servomechanisms with improved transient performance,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 2536–2547,
2010.
[24] J. Na, M. N. Mahyuddin, G. Herrmann, X. Ren, and P. Barber, “Robust
adaptive finite-time parameter estimation and control for robotic sys-
tems,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 25,
no. 16, pp. 3045–3071, 2015.
[25] B. Xian, D. Dawson, M. de Queiroz, and J. Chen, “A continuous
asymptotic tracking control strategy for uncertain nonlinear systems,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 1206–1211,
2004.
[26] L. Lu, Z. Chen, B. Yao, and Q. Wang, “Desired compensation adaptive
robust control of a linear-motor-driven precision industrial gantry with
improved cogging force compensation,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 617–624, 2008.
[27] T. Dierks and S. Jagannathan, “Neural network control of mobile robot
formations using rise feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 332–347, 2009.
[28] Y. Xu and K. Mohseni, “Bioinspired hydrodynamic force feedforward
for autonomous underwater vehicle control,” IEEE/ASME Transactions
on Mechatronics, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1127–1137, 2014.
1551-3203 (c) 2019 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.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 13,2020 at 21:48:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
10
[29] Y. Zhang, B. Xian, and S. Ma, “Continuous robust tracking control for
magnetic levitation system with unidirectional input constraint,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 5971–5980,
2015.
[30] C. Makkar, G. Hu, W. Sawyer, and W. Dixon, “Lyapunov-based tracking
control in the presence of uncertain nonlinear parameterizable friction,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 1988–
1994, 2007.
[31] N. Sharma, S. Bhasin, Q. Wang, and W. E. Dixon, “Rise-based adaptive
control of a control affine uncertain nonlinear system with unknown
state delays,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 1,
pp. 255–259, 2012.
[32] J. J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied nonlinear control. NJ,USA:Prentice-
Hall, 1991.
[33] J. Na, X. Ren, G. Herrmann, and Z. Qiao, “Adaptive neural dynamic
surface control for servo systems with unknown dead-zone,” Control
Engineering Practice, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1328–1343, 2011.
[34] S. P. Bhat and D. S. Bernstein, “Continuous finite-time stabilization of
the translational and rotational double integrators,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 678–682, 1998.
Shubo Wang (M’19) received the B.S. degree in
physics from Binzhou University, Shandong, China,
in 2008; the M.S degree in control science and
engineering from the School of Information Science
and Engineering, Central South University, Hunan,
China, 2011; and the Ph.D. degree in control sci-
ence and engineering from the Beijing Institute of
Technology, Beijing, China, in 2017. Since 2017, He
has been with the School of Automation, Qingdao
University, where he became an Associate Professor
in 2019. He has coauthored one monograph and
more than 30 international journal and conference papers.
His current research interests include adaptive control, adaptive parameter
estimation, neural network, motor control, nonlinear control and applications.
Jing Na (M’15) received the B.Eng. and Ph.D.
degrees from the School of Automation, Beijing
Institute of Technology, Beijing, China, in 2004
and 2010, respectively. From 2011 to 2013, he was
a Monaco/ITER Postdoctoral Fellow at the ITER
Organization, Saint-Paul-ls-Durance, France. From
2015 to 2017, he was a Marie Curie Intra-European
Fellow with the Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering, University of Bristol, U.K. Since 2010, he
has been with the Faculty of Mechanical and Elec-
trical Engineering, Kunming University of Science
and Technology, Kunming, China, where he became a Professor in 2013. He
has coauthored one monograph and more than 100 international journal and
conference papers. His current research interests include intelligent control,
adaptive parameter estimation, nonlinear control and applications for robotics,
vehicle systems and wave energy convertor, etc.
He is currently an Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Indus-
trial Electronics, the Neurocomputing, and has served as the Organization
Committee Chair of DDCLS 2019, international program committee Chair of
ICMIC 2017. Dr Na has been awarded the Best Application Paper Award of
the 3rd IFAC International Conference on Intelligent Control and Automation
Science (IFAC ICONS 2013), and the 2017 Hsue-shen Tsien Paper Award.