See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/4049299

A continuous asymptotic tracking control strategy for uncertain multi-input

nonlinear systems

Conference Paper · February 2003

DOI: 10.1109/ISIC.2003.1253913 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
44 344

4 authors, including:

Marcio de Queiroz Jiaju Chen

Louisiana State University Guiyang Medical University
169 PUBLICATIONS   5,038 CITATIONS    163 PUBLICATIONS   2,844 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multi-Agent System View project

MD simulation of biotin carboxylase View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jiaju Chen on 20 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE
International Symposium on Intelligent Control
Houston, Texas • October 5-8, 2003
A Continuous Asymptotic Tracking Control Strategy for Uncertain
Multi-Input Nonlinear Systems
B. Xian, D.M. Dawson, M.S. de Q u e i r o z t, a n d J. C h e n
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634-0915
[xbin, ddawson, jianc]@ces.clemson.edu
Abstract
In this paper, we present a novel continuous control
mechanism that compensates for uncertainty in a class
of multi-input nonlinear systems. The control strategy
is based on limited assumptions on the structure of the
system nonlinearities. A Lyapunov-based stability argu-
ment is employed to prove semi-global asymptotic track-
ing. The control mechanism has the interesting feature of
"learning" the unknown system dynamics. For the sake of
clarity, the proposed control design is initially presented
for a first-order, single-input case. Using this result as
a stepping stone, the design is then extended to higher-
order, multi-input systems.
1 Introduction
The control of uncertain nonlinear dynamic systems is
a topic that continues to challenge control theoreticians.
This topic is also of practical importance since many real-
world systems exhibit nonlinear dynamic behavior. To
make matters even more difficult, in many practical cases,
the mathematical model is poorly known or uncertain. To
cope with the uncertainty issue, an abundance of design
tools have emerged during the last two decades that fa-
cilitate the systematic construction of controllers for var-
ious classes of uncertain nonlinear systems. As one might
expect, the choice of a specific control design method is
strongly influenced by the type of uncertainty associated
with the system model. To illustrate this point (and facil-
itate the paper motivation), consider the following scalar
system
~b = - w + ~(t) - ~(t) (1)
where w(t) is the state variable, and qb(t) represents a
feedforward control term injected to compensate for the
unknown nonlinear function ~(t). The main issue here
is: How does one design ~(t) such that w(t) is regu-
lated to zero7 If ~(t) can be linearly parameterized (i.e.,
~p(t) = Y(t)O where the nonlinearity Y(t) is known, and
0-7803-7891-1/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
tDepartment of Mechanical Engineering
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-6413
dequeiroz~me.lsu.edu
0 is a constant unknown parameter), adaptive control
[10, 18] is often considered to be the method of choice. If
~(t) can be upper bounded by a norm-based inequality,
sliding mode or variable structure controllers [21] (i.e.,
discontinuous control strategies) can be developed. If
~(t) is periodic and the period is known, learning con-
trol schemes can be designed [13]. The approach of [13]
is also applicable to the case where ~(t) can be repre-
sented as an integral of a predefined kernel function mul-
tiplied by a unknown influence function. While this brief
discussion is not intended to be a comprehensive review
of all the various methods of control, we also note that
there has been much progress in the areas of adaptive
control for time-varying systems [6], robust control [15]
(i.e., the continuous counterpart of sliding mode control),
control of exosystems [20] (i.e., ~(t) is the solution of a
linear time-invariant system with unknown coefficients),
adaptive control for classes of nonlinearly parameterized
systems [1, 5, 12], and neural network-based control [11].
In addition to the problem of modeling uncertainty, the
obstacles associated with dealing with high-order, multi-
input nonlinear systems represent additional control de-
sign challenges. Since this paper addresses the control
of a class of uncertain, multi-input nonlinear systems,
a brief review of related work in this area is also war-
ranted. For example, recently in [9], a general proce-
dure was presented for designing robust switching adap-
tive controllers for a broad class of multi-input nonlin-
ear systems which includes feedback linearizable systems,
parametric-pure feedback systems, and systems with a
linear-in-the-parameters control Lyapunov function. A
more restrictive class of multi-input systems than [9] was
considered in [22] in the design of an adaptive robust con-
troller. Adaptive controllers were proposed for a class of
feedback linearizable systems in [2, 3, 19]. For a more in
depth review of control approaches for multi-input non-
linear systems, the reader is referred to the references in
the aforementioned papers.
In this paper, we present a full-state feedback tracking
controller for a class of uncertain, multi-input nonlinear
52
systems. Specifically, we examine the following class of Let Xd(t) E ~ be a given reference trajectory that is
higher-order, multi-input systems continuously differentiable up to its third derivative such
that
dn - l z ) dixd(t)
d~z E£~, i = 0,1,2,3. (7)
H z,$,..., dtn_ 1 ,t91(t),t + dt ~
dtr~
To quantify the control objective, we define the tracking
(
G z, ~,..., dt~_l,~2(t),t ) u. (2) error e(t) E ~ as follows

where z(t) is the output vector, u(t) is the control input
vector, O/(t), i = 1,2 denote unknown, time-varyingpara-
meter vectors, H (.) is an uncertain nonlinear vector func-
tion, and G (.) is an uncertain nonlinear matrix function.
The proposed controller produces semi-global asymptotic
tracking under the assumption that g (.) and G(.) are
second-order differentiable, and G (.) is a positive-definite
symmetric matrix. To achieve this result, we utilize a
new continuous control mechanism which is inspired by
a simple example provided in [16]. The control approach
compensates for the uncertainty associated with H (-)and
G (.) with limited assumptions with regard to structure
of the nonlinearities.
The paper is organized as follows. For the sake of clar-
ity, we first present the proposed control design for the
first-order, single-input, scalar version of (2), i.e.,
dz
d--[ = H(z, 01 (t), t) + G(z, O2(t), t)u.
We then illustrate how the control approach can be ap-
plied to the system given by (2).
2 First-Order Single-Input
tems
To explain the control technique, we first examine a first-
order, single-input nonlinear system having the general
form
rn(x)~c + f (x) = u (4)
e---Xd--X. (8)
Our objective is to obtain asymptotic tracking with a
continuous control law using (7) and norm-based, in-
Oim(xd) oif(xd)
equality bounds on the functions OXid and Ox~ '
i = 0,1,2.
R e m a r k 1 For simplicity of presentation, we have as-
sumed re(x) and f(x) do not depend explicitly on time
or on unknown time-varying parameters. However, it
should be emphasized that the proposed control approach
can compensate for these phenomena provided the time-
varying effects satisfy second-order differentiability condi-
tions similar to those given in (6). That is, the functions
re(x) and f (x) could be easily replaced by m(x, Ol (t), t)
and f (x, 02(t),t) where Oi(t), i = 1, 2 denote unknown
time-varying parameter vectors and other time-varying
(3) disturbance that may appear nonlinearly in the model;
hence, the system given by (~) represents the same class
of systems introduced in (3).
2.1 Control Law
Sys- Based on the subsequent stability analysis, we propose
the following control law I to achieve the stated control
objective
(ks + 1)e(t) - (ks + 1)e(to)+
fit( [(ks + 1 ) a e ( T ) + ~sgn(e(7))] dT (9)

where x(t) E IR is the system state, u(t) E IR is the con-

trol input, and re(x), f(x) E 1R are uncertain nonlinear
functions. It is assumed that m(x) and f(x) satisfy the
following assumptions:
A s s u m p t i o n S l . The function m(x) is positive and
bounded as follows
< <
where m E ~ denotes a positive constant, and
~ ( x ) c R denotes a positive nondecreasing function.
where ks, a, fl E IR are positive control gains, to is the ini-
tial time, and sgn(.) denotes the standard signum func-
tion. The control law of (9) ensures asymptotic tracking
provided the control gains ks and 3 are chosen sufficiently
large relative to the norm of the initial tracking error
and a reference trajectory-based bound, respectively. The
proof of this result is presented in the following two sub-
(5) sections. In particular, we first develop the closed-loop
error system under the proposed control and then ana-
lyze its stability using a Lyapunov-based argument.

A s s u m p t i o n $2. The functions re(x) and f(x) are

2.2 Error System Development
second-order differentiable with respect to x(t) such
that To facilitate the following analysis, we define the filtered
tracking error [21] r(t) e ~ as follows
re(x), ore(x) o m(x) E£o¢ if x(t) E£.oo
Ox ' Ox 2 (6) •
r - - e -}- Ole (lo)
Of(x) f (x)
f(x), Ox' Ox 2 e£.~ if x(t) E g ~ . 1 T h e s e c o n d t e r m in (9) is u s e d to e n s u r e t h a t u(to) --O.

53
where a was introduced in (9). After differentiating (10) 2.3 Stability A n a l y s i s
and then multiplying both sides of the resulting equation
Before presenting the main result of this section, we state
by re(x), we have
the following two lemmas which will be invoked later.
m(x)i ~ = m(x)(~d -6 c~) -6 ~h(x)2 -6 ](x) - it (11)
L e m m a 1 Let the auxiliary function L(t) E l~ be defined
where the time derivative of (4) was used. After some as follows
simple manipulations, (11) can be rewritten as follows L ~- ~ (N~ - # ~ ( ~ ) ) . (22)

.~(x)~ = -~l~h(x)r - e - it + N ( x , ~ , t ) (12) If the control gain fl is selected to satisfy the following
sufficient condition
where

N(x,~, t) A m(x)(i~d + e~e) + m(x) ( x + l r ) + e + ](x).

fl > INn(t)l + - 11 I
O/
Nd(t) , (23)

(13) then
After taking the time derivative of (9), we obtain f t l L(~') d~" <- ~b (24)
/t = (ks + 1)r + flsgn(e) (14)
where the positive constant ~b E I~ is defined as
upon use of (10). After substituting (14) into (12), we
obtain the following closed loop system G ~ # I~(t0)l- e(to)Nd(to). (2~)
m(x)÷ = --~17h(x)r - e - (ks + 1)r - flsgn(e) -6 N(x, 2, t) Proof. See Appendix A.
(15) L e m m a 2 Let the region D in the state space be defined
Before analyzing the stability of the closed-loop sys- as follows D A {~ E I~'n I [l~[I < ~} where ~ E I~ is some
tem, we perform the following manipulation on (15). Let positive constant and let V(t, ~)" I~+ x D ~ ~+ be a con-
Nd(t) A N(Xd, iCd,t); hence, from (13), we can show that tinuously differentiable function such that
a~(x~) ~ + Sf(xd) ~ (16)
Nd = m ( x d ) ~ + ax~ Ox~ Wl (~~(t<_' ~)V(t' - W<-
( ~W2(~)
) (26)
and
a~n(xd) ~ + Vt >_ to and V~ E D where WI(~), W2(~) E IR are contin-
uous positive definite functions, W(~) E ~ is a uniformly
continuous positive semi-definite function, and to denotes
O2f (Xd) the initial time. Provided (26) is satisfied and ~(to) E S,
Om (Xd) J:di~d -6
2 OXd ax~ ~ + we have
Of(Xd) .. lim W(~) = 0 (27)
OXd Xd.
(17) t- +c<)

where the region in the state space denoted by S is defined

We note that Nd(t), 7Vd(t) E £oo due to (6) and (7). Now, as follows
after adding and subtracting Nd(t) to the right-hand side
of (15), we have S&{~ED[W2(~)_<6} where
6 < min WI(~)
II~ll=s
(28)
m(x)÷ = - l ~ h ( x ) r - e - (ks + 1)r - flsgn(e) +
2 with 6 E ~ being some positive constant.
Nd + N(x, ic, t) (18)
Proof. Direct application of Theorem 4.4 in [7].
where
A N- Nd. (19) We now state the stability result for the proposed con-
troller with the following Theorem.
R e m a r k 2 It is not difficult to show by the Mean Value
theorem that IV (.) defined in (19) can be upper bounded T h e o r e m 1 The control law of (9)ensures that all system
as [2S] signals are bounded under closed-loop operation and that

lim e(t), ~(t) = 0 (29)

t---~oo
where z(t) E 1~2 is defined as
provided that the control gain fl is adjusted according to
Z--- [~ ~]~ (21) (23), and the control gain k8 is adjusted as follows
and the bounding function p(llzll) e ~ is nondecreasing
in IizI[. The inequality given by (20) will be utilized in the 1
subsequent stability analysis. k~ > ~ ~--q--,0

54
 where p(.) was defined in (20), At, A2(x), and A3 e lI~ are We now apply Lemma 2 to (36) and (40). Specifically,
defined as follows we see from (36) that lower and upper bounds for (34)
are given as follows
A1 ~ ½ min{1,m} A2(x) A max {½~(x), 1} (31)
A3 ~ min {1, a } ,
W~(y) - ~ iryll ~ W~(y) = ~(x)rlyrl ~ (41)
and 7o C ~ is defined as follows
while the upper bound for the derivative of (34) is given
by
~ e2(t0)+ [2d(t0)+ m-l(x(to))f(x(to))
(32)
~o = +ae(t0)2] ~ +/~ le(to)l - e(to)Nd(to) "
W(y) - ~ Ilzll ~ . (42)
Following Lemma 2, we utilize the right-most inequality
P r o o f . Let the auxiliary function P(t) C ]~ be defined as in (40) to define the region T~ as
follows
T~ ~ { y E IE3 }i}y]l< p - l ( 2 ~V~-~3k~)}. (43)
P(t) ~- ~ b -
f2 L(T)d7 (33)
From (34) and (40), we know V(t,y(t)) E £ ~ ; hence,
where (b and L(t) were defined in Lemma 1. It is easy to e(t), r(t) e £ ~ . From (10), we then know ~(t) e £ ~ .
see that the use of Lemma 1 ensures P(t) >~ O. Continuing Using (7) and (8), we can conclude that x(t), ~(t) e £ ~ .
with the proof, we define the function V(t, y)" I~+ × l~3~ We now know from (6) that re(x), f(x) E £ ~ . Finally,
l~+ as follows we can use (4) to show that u(t) E £ ~ .
Using the above boundedness statements, it is clear
V a le2 lm(x)r2 (34) from (18), (21), and (42) that l~V(y(t)) e £.00, which is a
= ~ +2 +P
sufficient condition for W(y(t)) being uniformly continu-
where y(t) E I~3 is defined as ous. If we define the region S as follows

y = [z T v/-fi]T (35) s~ { yez~lw~(~)<al ( p-~(2~) , (44)

and z(t) was defined in (21). Note that (34) can be we can now invoke Lemma 2 to state that lim 7 IIz(t)II 2 -
t---*(x)
bounded as
0 Vy(to) C S. From (21) we then know that lim r(t) = 0
' t----~oo
~ Ilyll = ~ v ~ ~(x)llyll = (36) Vy(to) E S. Finally, the structure of (10) allows us to
conclude that [17] lim e(t) ~(t) = 0 Vy(to) E S.
t---*(:x~
where (31) has been utilized. Note that the region of attraction in (44) can be made
After taking the time derivative of (34) and substitut- arbitrarily large to include any initial conditions by in-
ing from (10) and (18), we obtain creasing the control gain ks (i.e., a semi-global type of
stability result). Specifically, we can use the right-most
= - a e 2 - r 2 + riV - ksr 2 + r (Nd --/3sgn(e)) -- L
equality in (41) and the definition given by (44) to calcu-
= - a e 2 - r 2 + r.N - ksr 2 (37) late the region of attraction as follows

upon use of (22). After applying (20) and (21), we can w~(y(to)l < ~ (p-~(2 ~57~k~))~
upper bound the right-hand side of (37) as follows
A1 -1(24A31%) (45)
< -~ Ilzll ~ + [1~1p(llzll)Ilzll- k, I~1~]. (38) Jly(t0)l] < A2(x(to)) p

After completing the squares on the bracketed term in which can be rearranged as
(38), we obtain
( I ks> 1 P 2 ( ~ A2(x(t°)) ) (46)
p~(llzll) ilzlj~ (39) ~ ~ Iry(t0)rt .
~- A3- 4k~
By using (10) and (35), we can write an explicit expres-
From (39), we can state that sion for ]]y(to)]l as follows
< -'Yiizii 2 for
]]y(t0)lJ = v/e2(t0) + (~(t0) + ae(t0)) 2 + P(to). (47)
k~ > ~ 1p 2 (llzll) (or Ilzll<p- 1(2 ~X/-A~3ks))(40)
From (4), (8), and the fact that u ( t o ) = 0, we have that
where 7 E I~ is some positive constant. ~(to) = 5cd(to) + m-l(x(to))f(x(to)); (48)

BB
hence, (47) can be rewritten as Let xd(t) E ]RTM be the reference trajectory that is con-
tinuously differentiable up to its (n + 2)th derivative such

~ e2(to)+ [k2]d(to)+rn-l(x(to))f(x(to))+ that x(~)(t) E £ ~ f°r i = O , l , . . ,n+2" (54)

Ily(t°)ll = de(to) 2 +/3 le(t0)l - e(to)Nd(to)
(49) To quantify the control objective, we define the tracking
where (3a) and (25) were used. The condition given by error el (t) E IRTM as follows
(30) and (32)directly follows from (46) and (49). I
e l - - Xd -- x . (55)
R e m a r k 3 The result of (29) has an interesting implica-
tion on the "steady-state" behavior of the proposed control As before, our objective is to obtain asymptotic track-
law. Namely, after applying (29) to (~), we have ing with a continuous control law with full-state feed-
back (i.e., x (i), i = 0, ..., n - 1 are assumed measur-
u(t) = m(xd)iCd + f (xd) as t ~ co. (50) able) and only using (54) and norm-based, inequal-
(n--i)
ity bounds on the functions M(i)(xd,:kd, ...,x d ) and
That is, the control tends to behave like an exact-model- f(i)(Xd, ±d, ..., X(dn--1)), i = 0, 1,2.
knowledge, nonlinear feedforward controller as time ap-
proaches infinity. This indicates that the proposed control
law has the ability to learn the unknown system model. 3.1 Open-Loop Error System Develop-
ment

3 Extension to Higher-Order We begin by defining the following auxiliary error signals

Multi-Input Systems ~(t) E ]RTM, i = 2, 3, ..., n
A
e2 = e l -t- e l
In this section, we discuss the extension of the proposed ix o
e3 = e2 zr-e2 - t - e l
control design to higher-order, multi-input nonlinear sys- ix •
e4 = e3 -t- e3 -t- e2
tems. Specifically, we consider a system of the form
: (56)
ei = e i - 1 -Jr-e i - 1 + e i - 2
M ( x , ±, ..., X(n--1))X (n) ~- f(x, ±, ...,x (~-1)) = u (51)
A •
where x(i)(t) E ]Rm, i = 0 , . . . , n - 1 are the system e n = C a - 1 -t- e n - 1 ~ e n - 2

states, (-)(~)(t) denotes the ith derivative with respect

where el (t) was defined in (55).
to time, u(t) E IRm is the control input vector, and
M(x,x,...,x (n-l)) E ~rnxrn and f ( x , x , . . . , X (n-l)) E
]Rm are uncertain nonlinear functions which satisfy the 3.2 Control Law
following assumptions: 2
Based on subsequent stability analysis, we design the con-
A s s u m p t i o n M 1 . The matrix M(.) is symmetric and trol input u ( t ) a s follows
positive-definite, and is bounded by
u(t) (Ks + I.~)en(t) - (Ks + Im)en(t0)+
m ]]t~][2 ~< ~TM(.)~ < m(.)]l~[I 2 V~ E N "~ (52)
ftl [(Ks + Im)hen(~')+
where rn E IR denotes a positive constant, and r~gn(e~(~))l d~ (57)
~ ( x ) E R denotes a positive, nondecreasing func-
tion. where Ks, F and A E ~mxm a r e positive-definite, diag-
onal, control gain matrices, I m E ~m×rn represents the
A s s u m p t i o n M 2 . The functions M(.) and f(.) are m x m identity matrix, and sgn(.) is defined as follows
second-order differentiable such that

M(.), 1VI(.), l~I(.) E / 2 ~ if x, ~k, ..., x (n-l) E / 2 ~ sgn(~) ~ [ sgn(~l) sgn(~2) ... sgn(~m) ]T
= . (bs)
f (.) , t (.) ,]~ (.) E E ~ if x, x, ..., x (n-l) E £cxD.

(53) (Note that u(t0) = 0). After taking the time derivative
of (57), we have
2The symbol "." is used from now on to indicate the function's
dependency on x , ± , ...,x ( n - l ) . Note t h a t the comments made in
Remark 1 are also applicable to M ( - ) and f (.).
fl = (Ks + Im)(~,~ + A e n ) + Fsgn(en(~-)). (59)

56
 3.3 Stability Analysis
The main result of this section is delineated by the fol-
lowing theorem.
T h e o r e m 2 The control law of (5"/) ensures that all sys-
tem signals are bounded under closed-loop operation and
that
lim ei(t) = 0 , i=0,1,...,n, (60)
t---~ (x)
provided that the elements of the control gain matrices F
and Ks are selected sufficiently large. 3
P r o o f . Please refer to [24] for details.
References
[1] A. Annaswanny, F. Skantze, and A. Loh, "Adaptive Con-
trol of Continuous-Time Systems with Convex/Concave
Parametrizations," Automatica, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 33-
49, Jan. 1998.
[2] G. Cambion and G. Bastin, "Indirect Adaptive State
Feedback Control of Linearly Parameterized Nonlinear
Systems," Int. J. Adaptive Control and Signal Process-
ing, Vol. 4, pp. 345-358, Sept. 1990.
[3] I. Kanellakopoulos, P.V. Kokotovic, and R. Marino, "An
Extended Direct Scheme for Robust Adaptive Nonlinear
Control," Automatica, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 247-255, Mar.
1991.
[4] R. Ellis and D. Gulick, Calculus with Analytic Geometry,
Saunders College Publishing, 1994.
[5] A. Fradkov, R. Ortega, and G. Bastin, "On Semi-
Adaptive Control of Convexly Parametrized Systems,"
Int. J. Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 15,
No. 5, July 2001.
[6] P.A. Ioannou and J. Sun, Stable and Robust Adaptive
Control, Prentice Hall, 1996.
[7] H. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, Prentice Hall, 1996.
[8] T. Koshy, Fibonacci and Lucas Numbers with Applica-
tions, John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
[9] E.B. Kosmatopoulos and P.A. Ioannou, "Robust Switch-
ing Adaptive Control of Multi-Input Nonlinear Systems,"
IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 610-
624, Apr. 2002.
[10] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. Kokotovic, Nonlin-
ear and Adaptive Control Design, John Wiley ~ Sons,
1995.
3The sufficient conditions for the control gain matrices are ex-
plicitly delineated in [24].
57
View publication stats
[11] F.L. Lewis, S. Jagannathan, and A. Yesildirak, Neural
Network Control of Robot Manipulators and Nonlinear
Systems, Taylor & Francis, 1999.
[12] W. Lin and C. Qian, "Adaptive Control of Nonlinearly
Parameterized Systems: A Nonsmooth Feedback Frame-
work," IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 47, No. 5,
pp. 757-774, May 2002.
[13] W. Messner, R. Horowitz, W.W. Kao, and M. Boals, "A
New Adaptive Learning Rule," IEEE Trans. Automatic
Control, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 188-197, Feb. 1991.
[14] R. Ortega and A. Astolfi, "Nonlinear PI Control of Un-
certain Systems: An Alternative to Parameter Adapta-
tion," Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision and Control, pp. 1749-
1754, Orlando, FL, Dec. 2001.
[15] Z. Qu, Robust Control of Nonlinear Uncertain Systems,
Wiley, 1998.
[16] Z. Qu and J.X. Xu, "Model-Based Learning Controls and
Their Comparisons Using Lyapunov Direct Method,"
Asian J. Control, Vol. 4, No.l, pp. 99-110, Mar. 2002.
[17] M.S. de Queiroz, D.M. Dawson, S.P. Nagarkatti, and F.
Zhang, Lyapunov-Based Control of Mechanical Systems,
Birkh~iuser, 1999.
[18] S. Sastry and M. Bodson, Adaptive Control: Stability,
Convergence, and Robustness, Prentice Hall, 1989.
[19] S.S. Sastry and A. Isidori, "Adaptive Control of Lineariz-
able Systems," IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 34,
No. 4, pp. 405-412, Apr. 1989.
[20] A. Serrani, A. Isidori, and L. Marconi, "Semiglobal
Nonlinear Output Regulation with Adaptive Internal
Model," IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, Vol. 46, No.
8, pp. 1178-1194, Aug. 2001.
[21] J.J. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control, Pren-
tice Hall, 1991.
[22] B. Yao and M. Tomizuka, "Adaptive Robust Control of a
Class of Multivariable Nonlinear Systems," IFAC World
Congress, Vol. F, pp. 335-340, San Francisco, CA, 1996.
[23] M.S. de Queiroz, J. Hu, D. Dawson, T. Burg, and S.
Donepudi, "Adaptive Position/Force Control of Robot
Manipulators without Velocity Measurements: Theory
and Experimentation", IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 27, No. 5, Oct., 1997, pp.
796-809.
[24] B. Xian, D.M. Dawson, M.S. de Queiroz, and J. Chen,
"A Continuous Asymptotic Tracking Control Strategy
for Uncertain Multi-Input Nonlinear Systems," Techni-
cal Report ME-MS1-03, Department of Mechanical En-
gineering, Louisiana State University, Feb. 2003.
Appendices are available upon request.