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

net/publication/330582533

Adaptive $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ Synthesis for Linear Systems with Uncertain

Parameters

Conference Paper · December 2018

DOI: 10.1109/CDC.2018.8619125

CITATIONS READS
2 37

3 authors, including:

Luis T. Aguilar
Instituto Politécnico Nacional
215 PUBLICATIONS 2,329 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Special Issue- Advanced Control for Robotics and Autonomous Systems View project

Robust control View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luis T. Aguilar on 04 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)
Miami Beach, FL, USA, Dec. 17-19, 2018

Adaptive H∞ Synthesis for Linear Systems with Uncertain Parameters

Yury Orlov, Anders Rantzer, and Luis T. Aguilar

Abstract— A performance-based approach is developed for
adaptive robust control of linear systems with uncertain param-
eters. The dual control objective involves the disturbance atten-
uation and worst case identification of the unknown parameters.
The proposed synthesis procedure relies on sufficient conditions,
given in terms of suitable solutions of perturbed differential
Riccati equations to exist. Although being reminiscent from
the standard H∞ synthesis, the resulting Riccati equations are
to be updated on-line with estimated values of the unknown
plant parameters. Capabilities of the proposed synthesis are
illustrated by simulations made for a scalar linear system with
unknown parameters.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The primary concern of the present investigation is the
adaptive robust control of linear systems with uncertain
parameters. The proposed development is borrowed from the
H∞ design for the nominal system with known parameters
and implemented using identified values for these parame-
ters. Such an approach is long-recognized as dual control,
introduced in [1] to formulate optimal control problems
which would give rise to adaptive control. Different attempts,
initially in a stochastic setting, were made (see, e g., [2],
[3] and references therein) to address dual control strategies,
leading to excessive computations. Due to powerful com-
puting, which is available nowadays, the area continues to
develop in both stochastic and deterministic settings [4], [5],
[6], [7], [8], [9] with a particular interest in adaptive H∞
identification and control [10], [11], [12].
In the latter work, the adaptive H∞ control was
performance-based and confined to SISO (single input - sin-
gle output) nonlinear systems in parametric strict-feedback
form with the perfect state measurements. The objective of
the present investigation is to make a step beyond [11] and
extend the adaptive robust design to parametric non-strict
feedback systems over noise-corrupted output measurements.
Similar to [11], the intended extension is expected to share
dual specifications of the worth case identification with
desired asymptotic stabilization and disturbance attenuation.
The development focuses on linear time-varying systems
with uncertain parameters. For dual control, the L2 -gain
concept of [13] is refined for the underlying system in terms
This work was supported by CONACYT under Grant 285279.
Y. Orlov is with CICESE Research Center, Ensenada, México and
currently on sabbatical leave in the LCCC Linnaeus Center, Lund University,
Sweden (yorlov@cicese.mx).
A. Rantzer is with Automatic Control LTH and the LCCC Lin-
naeus Center, Lund University, Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
(anders.rantezer@control.lth.se).
L. Aguilar is with Instituto Politécnico Nacional, CITEDI, Ave. Instituto
Politécnico Nacional 1310 Col. Nueva Tijuana, Tijuana, B.C., 22435,
México (laguilarb@ipn.mx).
of the dissipativity inequality [14], [15] to (locally) hold for
all admissible square integrable external disturbances and all
admissible constant parameters.
The present work aims to synthesize an admissible
controller-estimator pair that would attenuate the influence of
external disturbances on the underlying system with a certain
parameter-independent L2 -gain attenuation level γ > 0. It
is worth noticing that the performance output is in general
composed not only of the state and control inputs but also
of the parameter estimation errors, thereby imposing worst
case parameter identification on the robust feedback to be
designed.
The adaptive and dual H∞ design procedures are devel-
oped side by side where the performance output is directly
penalized with the parameter estimation error in the latter
design. The augmented state representation is involved with
trivial dynamics for the unknown parameters to subsequently
be viewed as state components.
Thus interpreted, the extended vector field becomes non-
linear. The unknown parameters are further estimated along
with the original state components by invoking the nonlin-
ear H∞ approach from [16]. Sufficient conditions for the
problem in question to possess a solution are thus stated in
terms of the existence of suitable solutions of the perturbed
differential Riccati equations (DREs) which appear in the
standard state feedback and output injection designs.
Dealing with perturbed DREs allows one [16] to obviate
extra work on the verification of the local stabilizability and
detectability of the extended nonlinear vector fields as these
properties are guaranteed by the appropriate solvability of
the DREs. Since the resulting DREs come with the unknown
parameters, their implementation is made with the estimated
parameter values, substituted for the unknown parameters.
Thus, the overall solution relies on the perturbed DREs,
coupled to the extended H∞ filter, as opposed to the standard
H∞ design procedure where DREs are admitted to be solved
off-line, independently of the filter dynamics. The extended
filter is composed of the state and parameter estimates.
Hopefully, the latter estimates approach their actual values
whenever system dynamics are persistently excited, and the
unknown plant parameters are identifiable from the perfect
output measurements. Capabilities of the proposed synthesis
to identify unknown parameters is numerically illustrated
while stabilizing a scalar linear system with an unknown
controller gain.
The contribution to the existing literature is summarized
as follows. The adaptive H∞ output feedback synthesis
of linear systems with uncertain parameters is proposed
based on worst case parameter estimation. Although being

978-1-5386-1394-8/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 5512

developed within the standard differential game (Hamilton-
Jacobi-Isaacs) approach, the resulting synthesis procedure is
however new, because it deals with DREs which are updated
on-line with the estimated parameter values, extracted from
the extended (state-parameter) filter dynamics. The effective-
ness of the developed synthesis is illustrated by simulations,
made for first order linear system with unknown parameters.
A. Outline
The underlying dual control problem is stated in Section II
where the L2 gain concept is revisited for linear systems with
uncertain parameters. Sections III and IV develop adaptive
and dual H∞ control designs side by side and illustrate the
main theoretical results by numerical simulations. Finally,
Section V collects some conclusions.
B. Notation
Notation is rather standard. The symbol I stands for the
identity matrix of an appropriate dimension. A time-varying
matrix P (·) is said to be positive definite if P (t) = P T (t)
and P (t) > εI for all t and some positive constant ε.
II. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
Bearing in mind potential tracking problems, consider a
linear time-varying system
ẋ = a(q, t)x + b1 (q, t)w + b2 (q, t)u
z = h0 (t)∆q(t) + h1 (t)x + D12 (t)u
y = h2 (t)x + D21 (t)w
with an uncertain vector parameter q ∈ Q, living in an
admissible set Q ⊂ Rs . Hereinafter, x ∈ Rn is the state
vector, t ∈ R is the time variable, u ∈ Rm is the control
input, w ∈ Rr is the unknown disturbance, y ∈ Rp is the
only available measurement on the system at the current time
instant with
ηt = {(y(s), u(s)) ∀s ∈ [0, t]},
being the cumulative information on the system behavior,
admitted for the output feedback synthesis; z ∈ Rl is the
unknown output to be controlled;
∆q(t) = q(t) − δ(t, ηt )
is the parameter estimation error at the time instant t, where
δ(t, ηt ) is a causal estimator of the unknown parameter q.
Without loss of generality, it is assumed that 0 ∈ Q and a
confident initial parameter estimate q̄ = 0 is centered in the
origin; otherwise, the state equations could be represented in
terms of the parameter deviation ∆q = q − q̄ whose initial
estimate ∆q = 0 would have no value.
The functions a, b1 , b2 , h0 , h1 , h2 , D12 , D21 are of appro-
priate dimensions and are assumed to be uniformly bounded
piece-wise continuous in t for all q and differentiable in q
for all t. For a technical reason of having compact formulas
to be worked out, the following simplifying assumptions
T
D12 (t)D12 (t) = I, hTi (t)D12 (t) = 0, i = 0, 1,
T
(4)
D21 (t)D21 (t) = I, D21 (t)bT1 (q, t) = 0, for all q, t,
are made throughout that has become standard in the H∞
control literature.
The dual control objective to be attained is to synthesize
an admissible controller that would attenuate the influence of
both external disturbances and unknown parameters on the
closed-loop system (1) with a certain parameter-independent
L2 -gain attenuation level γ > 0. A causal dynamic controller
u = K(ξ, η) (5)
with the internal state ξ ∈ Rν , involving a parameter
estimator δ(·, ·), is said to be admissible if it operates under
the only available information (2) on the system behavior.
In turn, the L2 -gain concept in the present circumstances is
specified as follows.
Definition 1: Given a real number γ > 0 it is said
that the closed-loop system (1)–(5) has L2 -gain less than
the disturbance attenuation level γ > 0 if the dissipation
inequality
Z t1 Z t1
2 2 2
kz(t)k dt < γ kw(t)k dt + β(x0 , q) (6)
t0 t0
holds for a system response z, resulting from w and initial
(1)
state x(t0 ) = x0 , some positive definite function β(x0 , q),
for all t0 > t1 > 0, x0 ∈ Rn , q ∈ Q, and all piecewise
continuous functions w(t).
Definition 2: The closed-loop system (1)-(5) is said to
locally have L2 -gain less than the disturbance attenuation
level γ > 0 if there exist neighborhoods Ux = {x ∈ Rn :
kxk2 ≤ rx } and Uq = {q ∈ M : kqk2 ≤ rq } with
rx , rq > 0 such that the dissipation inequality (6) holds
for some positive definite function β(x0 , q), for all T > 0,
(2) x0 ∈ Ux , q ∈ Uq̄ , and all piecewise continuous functions
w(t) for which the state trajectory, starting from the initial
point x(0) = x0 , remains in Ux for all t ∈ (0, T ).
It is worth noticing that the standard Isidori-Astolfi L2 -
gain inequality (6) has been introduced for the system trajec-
tories, initialized in the origin. Such an initialization has no
(3) sense in the present case of unknown parameters because it
would confine the consideration to the case of a priori known
parameter values. That’s why, the L2 -gain meaning has been
modified towards the Jan C. Willems dissipativity concept
which is consistent with the original L2 -gain definition.
Indeed, once confined to the system trajectories which are
initialized in the origin, the dissipation inequality is nothing
else than the standard L2 -gain inequality.
It should also be noted that the weight functions h0 and
h1 of the output z to be controlled are respectively involved
to penalize the estimation error and the state deviation from
the equilibrium. It is clear that neglecting separately either
5513
weight would result in the adaptive robust control problem C1. coupled to (9) with a sufficiently small initial
with h0 = 0 and h1 6= 0 (similar to that of [11] confined condition ξ0 , the perturbed DRE (10) possesses
to SISO nonlinear systems in the parametric strict-feedback a uniformly bounded positive definite symmetric
form) or to the robust parameter estimate problem with solution P (t) for a small ε > 0;
h0 6= 0 and h1 = 0 (similar to that of [10]). Once a C2. being specified with (12) and with P (t), inher-
nontrivial weight combination h0 6= 0, h1 6= 0 is in play, ited from the above condition C1, the DRE (11)
one arrives at the general robust adaptive control problem possesses a uniformly bounded positive definite
with simultaneous parameter estimate that could be referred symmetric solution Z(t).
to as dual robust control problem. Theorem 1: Consider system (1) with the assumptions
III. A DAPTIVE H∞ D ESIGN above. Let Conditions C1 and C2 be satisfied with a certain
γ > 0 and sufficiently small ε > 0. Let (1) be driven by the
This section is confined to the adaptive robust design
causal dynamic controller
where the estimation error does not contribute to the perfor-
mance output z of (1), which is thus specified with h0 ≡ 0.
u = −B2 (q̃, t)T P (t)x̃, (13)
A. Main result
The extended state vector which is fed by the extended H∞ filter (9) of the augmented
state dynamics (14). Then the disturbance-free closed-loop
ζ T = (q T , xT ), q ∈ Rs , x ∈ Rn (7) system (1), (9), (13) is asymptotically stable and its perturbed
version possesses the L2 -gain less than γ.
is further involved with the unknown parameter q to be Proof: The proof is rather technical and it follows the
viewed as an extra state component, governed by q̇ = 0. line of reasoning used in the case where the plant parameters
Then setting are known a priori [16]. Because of the space limitations
  the proof will be published elsewhere, and only numerical
0 0 evidences will additionally be provided to support the result.
A(ζ, t) = ,
0 a(q, t)
   
0 0 (8) B. Discussion on the resulting synthesis procedure
B1 (ζ, t) = , B2 (ζ, t) = ,
b1 (q, t) b2 (q, t)
    The proposed synthesis is actually reminiscent from the
C1 (t) = 0 h1 (t) , C2 (t) = 0 h2 (t) , nonlinear H∞ output feedback synthesis, applied to the
extended parameter-state dynamics
a causal extended filter
.
.
ξ= A(ξ, t)ξ + Z(t)C2T (t)[y(t) − C2 (t)ξ(t)] ζ = A(ζ, t)ζ + B1 (ζ, t)w + B2 (ζ, t)u
h1 i z = C1 (t)ζ + D12 (t)u (14)
+ 2 B1 (ξ, t)B1T (ξ, t) − B2 (ξ, t)B2T (ξ, t) P (t)ξ (9)
γ y = C2 (t)ζ + D21 (t)w.
is proposed for estimating the parameter-state vector (7) by In this regard, a significant difference should however be
the filter output ξ T = (q̃ T , x̃T ). The gain matrices P (t), Z(t) pointed out. For this purpose, let us recall that the standard
in the above filter are updated in such a manner to remain result with a priori known parameters allows one to indepen-
uniformly bounded and positive definite, and to satisfy the dently solve the DREs off-line. To the contrary, the present
differential Riccati equations synthesis deals with the DREs (10), (11), whose matrix
. parameters (12) are updated on-line with the parameter
T T
 P +P Ã(t) + Ã (t)P + C1 (t)C1 (t) + estimates to be proceeded from the filter dynamics (9),
1 running in parallel.
P 2 B̃1 (t)B̃1T (t) − B̃2 (t)B̃2T (t) P + εI = 0 (10)
γ The resulting over-all filter can thus be referred to as
.
− Z +A1 (t)Z + ZAT1 (t) + B̃1 (t)B̃1 (t)T + adaptive as it updates the gain matrices P (t) and Z(t)
  by injecting the generated parameter estimate into their
1
Z 2 P (t)B̃2 (t)B̃2T (t)P (t) − C2T (t)C2 (t) Z + εI = 0, (11) dynamics. This feature complicates the resulting synthesis
γ
procedure and constitutes a challenging problem of solving
perturbed with a sufficiently small ε > 0 and running in on-line a new kind of DREs, coupled to the extended filter
parallel with with updated parameters. A relevant remark is in force.
Remark 1: An initial upper estimate of the optimal (low-
Ã(t) = A(ξ(t), t), Bj (t) = Bj (ξ(t), t), j = 1, 2 est) disturbance attenuation level γ can be obtained by
1 (12) solving LMIs at the vertices, corresponding to the extremal
Ã1 (t) = Ã(t) + 2 B̃1 (t)B̃1T (t)P (t). values of the unknown parameters. It is clear that with such a
γ
γ, the DREs, coupled to the extended filter dynamics, possess
The result, stated below, establishes the adaptive H∞ output appropriate solutions P (t), Z(t), whose initial values can
feedback synthesis under the conditions with a small ε > 0: subsequently be used to initialize the DREs, while iterating

5514
on γ. The feasibility of the resulting iteration procedure, iteratively employing the sufficient conditions of Theorem 1
proposed ad hoc to approach appropriate DREs solutions, are for numerical simulations of the coupled filter and Riccati
successively tested in simple examples with good numerical dynamics (9)–(12) (see Remark 1), the adaptive H∞ output
results obtained. feedback proves to achieve the best disturbance attenuation
level as low as γmin ≈ 1.4 which is very close to the best
C. Case study: linear scalar system with unknown input gain value (20), found for the a priori known parameter values
Consider a particular case a = 1.5 and b = 1.
The performance of the closed-loop system with the
ẋ = −ax + w1 + bu proposed design, resulting from Theorem 1, is depicted in
   
0 1 Fig. 1 for a reasonably small ε = 0.1 and disturbances
z= x+ u (15)
1 0 w0 (t) = w1 (t) = 0.01 sin(10t), applied in all simulation
y = x + w0 , runs. Since no parameter estimation error ∆b = b − b̂ is
contributed to the closed-loop performance, the convergence
of the underlying system (1), specified with the scalar state of the parameter estimate b̂(t) to its actual value is not
x(t) ∈ R and control input u(t) ∈ R, the external disturbance attained. Nevertheless, decaying of the state trajectory is
w(t) = [w0 (t), w1 (t)]T ∈ R2 , and indeed enforced.
     
0 0 0 0 0 1
A= , B1 = , B2 = ,
0 −a 0 1 b
    0.8
0 0 1 (16)
C1 = , D12 = ,
0 1 0 0.6
   
C2 = 0 1 , D21 = 1 0 .
0.4
If the system parameters a and b are known a priori, then the ∆b
standard H∞ design [17] is applicable to the state feedback 0.2 x
with an attenuation level γ > 0. Such a state feedback is
0
given by 0 5 10 15 20
Time [s]

u = −bpx (17)
Fig. 1. Case study with sign-definite b: state response and estimation error,
where p is a positive solution of the algebraic Riccati resulting from the adaptive robust design.
equation
  As seen from Fig. 2, the closed-loop performance is
1 essentially impaired if the sign of the unknown parameter b
p2 − b 2
+ 2pa + (1 + ε) = 0, (18)
γ2 is unavailable and the parameter estimate is initialized with
a wrong sign. With this in mind, a challenging question
perturbed with a small ε > 0, which does exist provided that
arises as if a better closed-loop performance is achievable
 1 with another output feedback design. To partially address
γ 2 > γmin
2
= a2 +b2 , if a ≤ 0 (19)
1
if a ≥ 0. this question, the dual version of the proposed H∞ design
b2 ,
is developed in the next section with a penalized state
For instance, given nominal parameters a = 1.5, and b = estimation error.
1, the best disturbance attenuation level (19) is specified to
1.5
γmin = 1/b = 1.
For the output feedback synthesis of system (15) over a ∆b
noise-corrupted measurement y, the best disturbance attenu-
1
ation level is increased to

γmin ≈ 1.36, (20)

0.5

computed numerically according to the standard H∞ itera-

x
tion procedure.
0
In the case where the nominal parameter a = 1.5 is known 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
a priori whereas the value b = 1 is unknown, the standard
H∞ design becomes inapplicable because it requires (e.g.,
in (17)) the knowledge of the parameter b. With this in mind, Fig. 2. Case study with sign-indefinite b: state response and estimation
the proposed output feedback design is available as it is error, resulting from the adaptive robust design.
capable of on-line estimating the unknown parameter b. By

5515
D. Another case study: linear scalar system with unknown measurement y(t) = h2 (t)x(t) of a persistently excited
plant parameter system trajectory x(t). This hypothesis calls for further
Capabilities of the proposed adaptive H∞ output feedback investigation and it is additionally supported by numerical
synthesis are further tested for the same scalar system (15) simulations to be presented next.
in a situation where the control gain b = 1 is known a A. Case study: penalty on the unknown parameter estimation
priori whereas the plant parameter a = 1.5 is unknown. error ∆b
Following Remark 1, the best attenuation level in the present
The output of the scalar system (15) is subsequently
circumstances is established to be slightly higher γ ≈ 1.41
modified to
with the same ε = 0.1, yet feasible as before. The closed-
 
loop performance is depicted in Fig. 3 where the state 0 0
trajectory is enforced to decay to zero while the parameter z = ρ1 0  (22)
estimate ∆a(t) = a − â(t) becomes reasonably smaller (but 0 ρ2
not vanishing to zero because it does not contribute to the
performance output). so that

1
     
0 0 0 0 0
A= , B1 = , B2 = ,
0 −a 0 1 b1
0.8    
0 0 1
(23)
0.6 C1 = ρ1 0  , D12 = 0 ,
0 ρ2 0
0.4    
∆a C2 = 0 1 , D21 = 1 0 ,
0.2 x and
0
0 5 10
Time (s)
15 20 kzk2 = z T z = ρ21 (∆b)2 + ρ22 x2 + u2 (24)

where ∆b = b − b̂ is the parameter estimation error, b̂ is

Fig. 3. Case study with unknown a: state response and estimation error,
resulting from the adaptive robust design.
IV. D UAL H∞ D ESIGN
To hopefully enhance the closed-loop performance, let us
modify the to-be-controlled output z of system (1) by penal-
izing the parameter estimation error with a nontrivial weight
the component of the filter output (9), corresponding to the
estimate of the unknown parameter b.
For the simulation to be conducted, the weight parameters
are set to ρ1 = 0.1, ρ2 = 0.32 to arrive at the best attenuation
level γmin ≈ 1.4 as low as before.
1.2

function h0 (t). Thus modified, the performance output z 1

should then be accompanied with the matrix 0.8

0.6
 
C1 (t) = h0 (t) h1 (t) (21)
0.4
to be substituted for C1 into (8). 0.2 x
The resulting synthesis of Theorem 1, being applied to
0
system (1) with a nontrivial weight function h0 (t) in the ∆b
C1 -matrix specification (21), remains in force and it is −0.2
0 5 10 15 20
Time [s]
intrinsically of the same complexity as that of the adaptive
H∞ design of Section III. Moreover, with the proposed
modification, the design procedure becomes dual because Fig. 4. Case study with sign-definite b: state response and estimation error,
the parameter estimation error contributes to the closed- resulting from the adaptive robust design.
loop performance, thereby requiring the parameter-state filter
(9) to adequately estimate the unknown system parameters The performance of the closed-loop system, numerically
and involve their updated estimates into the synthesized simulated under the same (yet feasible) ε = 0.1 and external
controller (13). disturbances w0 (t) = w1 (t) = 0.01 sin(10t), is depicted in
It is our guess that in addition to the disturbance at- Fig. 4. In contrast to the adaptive H∞ design of Section
tenuation, guaranteed by Theorem 1, the disturbance-free III, the proposed dual H∞ design yields a good parameter
error dynamics of the parameter estimate turn out to be estimation while also attenuating external disturbances and
asymptotically stable under extra conditions, imposed on the steering the state trajectory to the desired equilibrium. As
unknown plant parameters to be identifiable from the perfect seen from Fig. 5, an appropriate parameter estimation and

5516
 disturbance attenuation are preserved even if the parameter effectiveness of solving these equations simultaneously has
estimate is initialized with a wrong sign. This illustrates the successfully been tested in simple numerical examples. The
applicability of the proposed dual H∞ procedure when no general implementation calls for further investigation, since it
sign information is available for the unknown parameter b. faces the so-called curse of dimensionality. Another relevant
challenge is to establish conditions under which asymptotic
1.5 stability of the parameter estimation error is guaranteed in
the closed-loop.
1
∆b R EFERENCES
0.5
[1] A. Feldbaum, “Dual control therapy I-IV,” Automation and Remote
Control, vol. 21-22, pp. 874–890; 1033–1039;1–12’ 109–121, 1960.
0 [2] K. Åström, Introduction to stochastic control. New York: Academic
Press, 1970.
−0.5 [3] S. Sastry and M. Bodson, Adaptive control: stability, convergence and
x
robustness. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1989.
−1 [4] P. Kumar, “A survey of some results in stochastic adaptive control,”
SIAM J Contr Optimiz., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 329–380, 1985.
−1.5 [5] K. Aström and A. Helmersson, “Dual control of an integrator with un-
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) known gain,” Computers and Mathematics with Applications, vol. 12,
no. 6, pp. 653–662, 1986.
[6] K. Narendra and A. Annaswamy, Stable adaptive systems. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1989.
Fig. 5. Case study with sign-indefinite b: state response and estimation [7] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulus, and P. Kokotivic, Nonlinear and
error, resulting from the dual robust design . adaptive control design. New York: Willey, 1989.
[8] L. Guo and H. Chen, “The Åström-Wittenmark self-tuning regulator
revisited and ELS-based robust trackers,” IEEE Transactions on Au-
B. Another case study: penalty on the unknown parameter tomatic Control, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 802–813, 1991.
estimation error ∆a [9] P. Ioannnou and J. Sun, Robust adaptive control. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
As in the unknown gain case, a good plant parameter [10] G. Dudinsky, Z. Pan, and T. Basar, “Parameter identification for
estimation becomes feasible under the dual H∞ design uncertain plants using H∞ methods,” Automatica, vol. 31, no. 9, pp.
1227–1250, 1995.
with the same weights ρ1 = 0.1 and ρ2 = 0.32. The [11] Z. Pan and T. Basar, “Adaptive controller design for tracking and dis-
corresponding closed-loop performance, simulated through a turbance attenuation in parameteric strict-feedback nonlinear systems,”
similar route, is presented in Fig. 6 where along with the state IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1066–
1083, 1998.
trajectory x(t), the parameter estimate error ∆a(t) decays to [12] Q. Zhang, D. Xu, and K. Zhang, “Model reference robust adaptive
zero. H∞ controller design,” International Journal of Control and Systems,
vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1507–1514, 2017.
[13] A. Isidori and A. Astolfi, “Disturbance attenuation and H∞ -control
1 via measurement feedback in nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1283–1293, Sep. 1992.
∆a [14] J. Willems, “Dissipative dynamic systems, part I: General theory,”
0 Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., vol. 45, pp. 321–351, June 1972.
[15] ——, “Dissipative dynamic systems, part II: Linear systems with
x quadratic sypply rates,” Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., vol. 45, pp. 352–
−1 393, June 1972.
[16] Y. Orlov and L. Aguilar, Advanced H∞ control – towards nonsmooth
theory and applications. New York: Birkhauser, 2014.
−2 [17] J. Doyle, K. Glover, P. Khargonekar, and B. Francis, “State-space so-
0 5 10 15 20
Time [s] lutions to standard H2 and H∞ control problems,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 831–847, Aug. 1989.

Fig. 6. Case study with unknown a: state response and estimation error,
resulting from the dual robust design.

V. C ONCLUSIONS
A novel adaptive robust technique is proposed for output
feedback synthesis of linear systems with unknown param-
eters. The technique is performance-based with the dual
control objective of disturbance attenuation and worst case
parameter estimation. Being reminiscent from the standard
H∞ design, the technique however relies on suitable so-
lutions of perturbed DREs, whose parameters are updated
on-line from the output of the extended filter, estimating
both the state and unknown plant parameters. The extended
filter equations and DREs are coupled together and the

5517

View publication stats