352
2, OCTOBER 2017
Robust Gradient-Based Adaptive Control of
Nonlinearly Parametrized Plants
Sayan Basu Roy, Shubhendu Bhasin, Member, IEEE, and Indra Narayan Kar, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Most of the contributions in adaptive control
literature assume that the system dynamics is linearly
parametrizable, and a certainty equivalence principle is
exploited to guarantee global stability and asymptotic con-
vergence of tracking error to zero. Although linear-in-the-
parameters (LIP) assumption is reasonable for a large class
of dynamics, there exists a considerable number of real
world systems, involving complex dynamics, where nonlin-
ear parametrizations are inevitable. Previous research has
shown that classical gradient-based adaptive designs with
the certainty equivalence principle do not perform satis-
factorily for nonlinear-in-the-parameter (NLIP) systems, and
may, in fact, cause instability in many situations. This let-
ter is an attempt toward addressing this issue by a novel
non-certainty equivalence adaptive control design, where
the classical gradient-based adaptive algorithm is used to
tackle the LIP component of the NLIP dynamics, while a
robust compensator, appended to the controller, accounts
for the linearization error. The designed controller ensures
global uniformly ultimately bounded stability of the error
dynamics. Simulation results on a model of biochemical
process, involving NLIP dynamics, are provided to validate
the theoretical development.
Index Terms—NLIP, adaptive control.
I. I NTRODUCTION
DAPTIVE control is largely applied to uncertain
A dynamical systems, which are linear-in-the-parameters
(LIP) [1]–[3]. Exploiting the LIP property, certainty equiva-
lence controllers have been designed in the literature, guar-
anteeing global stability and asymptotic tracking. Despite the
LIP assumption being reasonable for a large class of dynamical
systems, nonlinear appearance of the unknown parameters is
inevitable in models of many real-world plants, especially
if the model is fairly intricate. For instance, biochemical
processes [4], friction dynamics [5], dynamics of magnetic
bearing [6], limb dynamics [7] etc. are some differential mod-
els, which are nonlinear-in-the-parameters (NLIP). In many
cases, suitable transformations have to be used to satisfy the
Manuscript received March 5, 2017; revised May 10, 2017; accepted
June 6, 2017. Date of publication June 13, 2017; date of current version
July 7, 2017. Recommended by Senior Editor M. Guay. (Corresponding
author: Sayan Basu Roy.)
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India (e-mail:
sayanetce@gmail.com; sbhasin@ee.iitd.ac.in; ink@ee.iitd.ac.in).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LCSYS.2017.2715068
2475-1456 c 2017 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.
IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS LETTERS, VOL. 1, NO.
LIP assumption [8], which often leads to increased dimension-
ality of the parameter space and over-parametrization [9]. In
general, it is not trivial to find a transformation, which converts
the NLIP dynamics to an LIP one. Hence, there is a natural
motivation for designing adaptive controllers, capable of tack-
ling NLIP dynamics. However, as compared to the LIP case,
contributions on adaptive control of nonlinearly parametrized
dynamical systems are significantly scarce.
As far as the authors are aware, majority of litera-
ture in NLIP adaptive control is contributed by/originated
from the work by Annaswamy and co-workers [9]–[12].
Annaswamy et al. [9] have shown that classical gradient-based
adaptive estimation rule with the certainty equivalence con-
trol design, which works satisfactorily in case of LIP systems,
cannot guarantee global stability in the case of NLIP systems.
An alternative strategy considered in [9] is to design a min-
max optimization based switched adaptive controller under the
assumption of convex/concave parametrization. The gradient
term is replaced by a sensitivity function in the estimation
law, whereas a term comprising the tuning function is added
to the control input, deviating from the certainty equiva-
lence principle. The min-max framework guarantees that the
tracking error converges to a -ball around the origin asymp-
totically, while requiring the knowledge of parametric bounds.
In [12], the min-max method is extended to a general non-
linear parametrization, where the concept of convex/concave
cover (see [12, Definition 2]) is utilised in the design, how-
ever, the computational complexity increases as compared to
the convex/concave parametrization. A similar type of formu-
lation can be found in [13], where nonconvex parametrization
is dealt with using the knowledge of a convex upper-bound
and a concave lower-bound of the uncertain function.
Tyukin et al. [14] have addressed the problem of nonlinear
parametrization in the presence of unstable target dynam-
ics, while requiring monotonicity and globally Lipschitz-like
assumptions with respect to the unknown parameters. An
alternative approach to gradient-like methods is proposed
in [15] and [16], where immersion and invariance principle
is generalized for NLIP systems with the assumptions of P-
monotonicity, and input-to-state-stable (ISS) condition with
respect to parameter estimation error. A set-based parameter
estimation technique is proposed in [17] for NLIP systems,
guaranteeing parameter convergence in the presence of persis-
tently exciting (PE) state trajectory. Further, contraction theory
based formulation for NLIP adaptive control can be found in
ROY et al.: ROBUST GRADIENT-BASED ADAPTIVE CONTROL OF NONLINEARLY PARAMETRIZED PLANTS
the works [18] and [19], where the contraction condition, in
general, leads to local stability. Other notable contributions in
NLIP adaptive control can be found in [20] and [21], which
builds on ISS-like assumptions with respect to parameter esti-
mation errors. Further, adaptive observer design problem is
addressed in [22] in the context of NLIP dynamics.
A tunable/adaptive robust control is developed in [23] for
a class of single-input-single-output (SISO) systems which
can be transformed to output feedback form, while guaran-
teeing asymptotic regulation. Lin and Qian [24] have applied
a parameter separation technique on the upper-bound of the
NLIP uncertainty, and designed an adaptive robust controller
using power integrator technique to achieve feedback domina-
tion of the uncertain term. Ye [25], designed a novel switched
adaptive robust controller for NLIP dynamics without requir-
ing the parametric upper-bound, while requiring knowledge
of a bounding function, which is strictly increasing in its
second argument. The work in [26] considers two differ-
ent classes of fractional parametrization, while guaranteeing
global uniformly ultimately bounded (UUB) and semi-global
UUB stability via an adaptive robust and a pure adaptive
control design, respectively (also see [27], where an adap-
tive iterative learning control is formulated for similar type of
fractional parametrization).
Universal approximation-based controllers [28]–[30] are
also applicable in the context of NLIP systems, since these
controllers do not require structural knowledge of the dynam-
ics. However, these methods demand over-parametrization
for approximating the unknown nonlinearity with sufficient
accuracy and thereby increase computational burden.
The proposed work falls in the category of robust adap-
tive control [31], where the actual parameters are estimated
online. Since a certainty equivalence control with a classi-
cal gradient-like update rule has been proved to be incapable
of handling NLIP uncertainty [9], this work investigates the
design of a non-certainty equivalence controller along with the
classical gradient-based adaptive algorithm. The main philos-
ophy of the design is that the gradient-based estimator along
with a certainty equivalence term in the controller tackles
the LIP component of the NLIP uncertainty, while a robust
compensator (non-certainty equivalence), added to the control
input, accounts for the linearization error. The novelty lies in
appropriately characterizing the upper-bound of the lineariza-
tion error, and accordingly designing a robust compensator,
leading to global uniformly ultimately bounded (UUB) sta-
bility of the error dynamics. As compared to [9]–[11], the
convex/concave parametrization assumption is not required
in the current framework. Unlike [9], [12], [23], and [25],
which are proposed for the single input case, the results
in this letter are applicable, in general, for multiple input
dynamics. Moreover, the proposed controller does not per-
form any intricate switching, unlike [13], [20], and [25], thus
providing easier implementability. The assumption of ISS sta-
bility, which is required in [15], [19], [20], and [22], is not
required in the current framework. The gradient law, used
to update the certainty equivalence term in the controller,
preserves the simplicity of the adaptive algorithm, while the
−1 r
non-certainty equivalence robust term ensures global stability
353
and boundedness of the error dynamics. This is in contrast
to the min-max framework [9], [12], where global stability is
achieved at the cost of simplicity and computational ease of
implementing the adaptive algorithm.
II. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT AND C ONTROL D ESIGN
Consider the plant of the form [9]
 
ẋ = Ax + B f (x, θ ) + u (1)
where x(t) ∈ Rn is the plant state, u(t) ∈ Rm
is the con-
trol input, and the matrices A ∈ Rn×n , and B ∈ Rn×m are
system-matrix and input-matrix, respectively, where without
loss of generality B is assumed to be full column-rank. The
system-matrix A is considered to be unknown. The nonlinear
function f (x, θ ) ∈ Rm is structurally known with the uncertain
parameter vector θ ∈ Rp , where θ appears nonlinearly in the
function f (x, θ ). Hence, the A matrix and the parameter vector
θ comprise the system uncertainty.
Assumption 1: The unknown parameters are bounded as
θli ≤ θi ≤ θui , where θli , θui ∈ R are known scalars, for
i = 1(1)p, and θ  [θ1 , θ2 , . . . , θp ]T .1
The goal is to design a control input u(t) such that the
closed-loop system is globally stable and the plant state
x(t) tracks a model state xm (t) ∈ Rn , whose dynamics is
specified as
ẋm = Am xm + Bm r (2)
where r(t) ∈ Rc
is the bounded piecewise-continuous ref-
erence input, Am ∈ Rn×n is a Hurwitz system-matrix, and
Bm ∈ Rn×c is the input- matrix of the reference model. Since
r(t) ∈ L∞ and Am is Hurwitz, it implies that xm (t) ∈ L∞ , i.e.,
xm  ≤ d (3)
where d is a known positive scalar. In order to facilitate the
control design the standard matching conditions of MRAC are
considered [1].
A + BKx = Am (4)
BKr = Bm (5)
where Kx ∈ Rm×n and Kr ∈ Rm×c are known as control param-
eters. In model reference adaptive control (MRAC), the control
input u(t) is typically designed as
u(t) = K̂x x(t) + Kr r(t) + unlip (t) (6)
where the control gain K̂x (t) ∈ Rm×n is an online estimate of
the true control parameter Kx .2 The term unlip (t) ∈ Rm is to
be designed subsequently to account for the NLIP uncertainty
f (x, θ ).
The uncertain function f (x, θ ) in (1) can be expanded using
the Taylor’s series expansion as
∂f (x, φ) 
f (x, θ ) = f (x, θ̂ ) +  θ̃ + E(x, θ, θ̂ ) (7)
∂φ φ=θ̂
  
Y(x,θ̂)∈Rm×p
1 Similar assumption is also considered in [9] and [12].
2 Note that since B is known, K can be directly computed using (5) as
Kr = BT B BT Bm .
354
where θ̂ (t) ∈ Rp is an online estimate of the true parame-
ter θ , and the parameter estimation error is θ̃ (t)  θ − θ̂ (t).
The Taylor’s expansion is performed around the estimate
θ̂ (t), whose update rule is subsequently designed. The term
E(x, θ, θ̂ ) ∈ Rm denotes the linearization error, containing
the higher order terms. Unlike LIP dynamics, the nonlinear
appearance of θ in f (x, θ ) makes the regressor Y(x, θ̂ ) also
dependent on θ̂ (t). In [9], it has been shown that by neglecting
the error E(x, θ, θ̂ ) term, the classical gradient-based adaptive
controller in this context cannot guarantee global stability. This
fact motivated Annaswamy et al. [9] to switch from a gradient-
based design to a min-max optimization technique under the
convex/concave assumption of the NLIP uncertainty. However,
the complexity of the design is increased as compared to the
classical gradient-based design. Unlike [9], this letter con-
siders the classical gradient-based adaptive design for NLIP
systems, where, instead of neglecting the error term E(t), a
robust component is introduced in the control input u(t) to
account for E(t), leading to global stability. In a nutshell, clas-
sical adaptive control technique is used to achieve feedback
cancellation of the linearized component of f (x, θ ) around
θ̂ (t), i.e., f (x, θ̂ ) + Y(x, θ̂ )θ̃ , whereas a robust term is incorpo-
rated to achieve feedback domination of the linearization error
E(x, θ, θ̂ ).
To facilitate the control design, the following assumptions
are considered.
Assumption 2: The true control parameter Kx satisfies the
following upper-bound.
Kx F ≤ K̄ (8)
where  · F denotes Frobenius norm of the argument matrix,
and K̄ > 0 is a known positive constant.
Assumption 3: The function f (x, φ) satisfies the following
upper-bound relation:  ∂fi∂φ
(x,φ)
2 ≤ ρi (x)x, uniformly in
φ, ∀φ ∈ , where  is a compact subset of Rp , and  · 2
denotes vector 2-norm. The function fi (x, φ) is the ith compo-
nent of the vector function f (x, φ), and ρi (·) : Rn → R is a
positive bounding function with the property that x(t) ∈ L∞
implies that ρi (x(t)) ∈ L∞ , ∀ i = 1(1)m.3
The above assumption implies that the regressor Y(x, φ)
satisfies the following inequality.
Y(x, φ)F ≤ ρ(x)x, ∀φ ∈  (9)
m
where ρ(x) = i=1 ρi (x). From this point onwards the sub-
scripts of the norms will be omitted for convenience with the
implicit understanding that the Frobenius norm is used for
matrices and the 2-norm is used for vectors unless otherwise
specified.
The Assumption 3 seems reasonable for a large class of
NLIP dynamics. In case of f (0, φ) = 0 or at least ∂f (0,φ) = 0,
∂φ
∀φ ∈ , and the function f (x, φ) is sufficiently smooth
in its arguments, then using Taylor series expansion around
x = 0, Assumption 3 can, in fact, be proved (for details refer
[25, eq. (18)]). Systems where f (x, θ ) is a nonlinear function
of linear parametrization [19], the above assumption is usu-
ally satisfied. For example, if f (x, θ ) = exp(xθ ), the bounding
3 The notation “i = a(m)b” implies that “i = a, a + m, a + 2m, . . . ., b”.
IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS LETTERS, VOL. 1, NO. 2, OCTOBER 2017
∂f
function for  ∂φ  can be exp(γ |x|)|x|, i.e., ρ(x) = exp(γ |x|)
where γ is a known upper-bound of θ . It can be shown that
simulation examples considered in [9], [15], [25], and [32] etc.
also satisfies Assumption 3.
The control input component unlip (t) is designed as
unlip (t) = −f (x, θ̂ ) − ks ρ 2 (x) B
T
Pe (10)
s(t)
where ks is a positive scalar gain, the tracking error e(t) 
x(t) − xm (t), and P ∈ Rn×n is a positive-definite symmet-
ric matrix, which is the solution of the following Lyapunov
equation.
ATm P + PAm + Q = 0 (11)
where Q ∈ Rn×n is a positive-definite symmetric design
matrix. Note that similar to the min-max optimizer based
framework [9], the proposed method deviates from cer-
tainty equivalence adaptive control design. However, instead
of incorporating a term involving the tuning function (see
[9, eq. (19)]), the proposed method appends a nonlinear
damping-like robust compensator “−ks ρ 2 (x)s” in the con-
troller. Using (4), (6), (7), and (10) in (1), and subtracting (2),
the closed-loop error dynamics is formulated as
ė = Am e − BK̃x x + BY(x, θ̂ )θ̃ + BE(x, θ, θ̂ ) − Bks ρ 2 (x)s
(12)
Further, a gradient-based adaptive update law for θ̂ as well as
K̂x are designed as
θ̂˙ = Proj θ Y T (x, θ̂ )s (13)
ν
K̂˙ x = Proj x sxT (14)

where θ ∈ Rp×p and x ∈ Rn×n are positive-definite
symmetric learning gain matrices, introduced to tune the
performance of the adaptive controller, and Proj(·) denotes
the smooth -projection operator [33, Sec. 4, Definition 11],
used to confine the parameter estimate θ̂ (t) within a convex-
compact region in the parameter space without hampering
stability (for details please refer [33, Lemma 12]).4 The
convex-compact hypercubes used in the projection operator
are chosen as

ν = {φ ∈ Rq  θli − ν ≤ φi ≤ θui + ν, for i = 1(1)q} (15)

 = {K ∈ Rn×m  KF ≤ K̄ + } (16)
where ν,  are positive scalars introduced to maintain Lipschitz
continuity (for details see [33]), and φ  [φ1 , φ2 , . . . , φp ]T .
Note that, the true parameter vector θ ∈ ν=0 ⊂ ν and
Kx ∈ =0 ⊂  following Assumptions 1 & 2, respectively.
Therefore referring to [33, Lemma 9], the following claim
holds, provided θ̂(0) ∈ ν and K̂x (0) ∈  .
θ̂ (t) ∈ ν , K̂x (t) ∈  , ∀t ≥ 0 (17)
4 The Lemma shows that projection introduces a negative semi-definite term
in the Lyapunov derivative and hence does not alter stability
ROY et al.: ROBUST GRADIENT-BASED ADAPTIVE CONTROL OF NONLINEARLY PARAMETRIZED PLANTS
Since the linearzation error E(x, θ, θ̂ ) acts like a unmodeled
disturbance in the dynamics, any of the robust adaptive con-
trol methods like projection, σ -modification etc. are required
to prevent parameter drift (for details refer to [31]). The pro-
jection algorithm is preferred in the present context since
inequality (17), derived from the property of the projection
algorithm, is exploited in the proof of subsequently developed
Lemma 1. Using Assumption 1 & 2 and inequality (17), θ̃ (t)
and K̃x (t)  Kx − K̂x (t) can be upper-bounded as
355
the overall error dynamics ξ(t) = [eT (t), θ̃ T (t), vecT (K̃x (t))]T 7
is globally uniformly ultimately bounded (GUUB), i.e.,
ξ(t) ≤ γ1 ξ(0) exp(−γ2 t) + γ3 , ∀t ≥ 0 (24)
where γ1 , γ2 , γ3 are positive scalars, provided the following
sufficient gain condition is satisfied.
λmin (Q)ks ≥ 4β 2 (25)
where Q and β are defined in (11) and (18), respectively.

q Proof: Consider the following Lyapunov candidate
θ̃ (t) ≤ (θui − θli + ν), ∀t ≥ 0
1

(18)
1 1
i=1 V(e, θ̃ ) = eT Pe + θ̃ T θ−1 θ̃ + Tr K̃x x−1 K̃xT (26)
   2 2 2
β where Tr(·) denote the trace operator of the argument
K̃x (t) ≤ 2
 K̄+ , ∀t ≥ 0. (19) matrix. The Lyapunov candidate in (26) satisfies the following
γ
inequality
1 1
λm e2 + θ̃ 2 + K̃x 2F ) ≤ V(e, θ̃ ) ≤ λM (ξ 2 ) (27)
III. S TABILITY A NALYSIS 2    2
At the outset, an upper-bound of the linearization error ξ 2
E(x, θ, θ̂ ) is derived, which is utilized in proving the sub- where the positive constants λm and λM are defined as
sequently considered main result. In fact, this upper-bound

charactrization is the cornerstone of the proposed method, λm  min λmin (P), λ−1
max ( θ ), λ −1
max ( x )
since the upper-bound knowledge is necessary for successful

design of a robust compensator, ensuring global stability. λM  min λmax (P), λmin (θ ), λ−1
−1
(
min x )
Lemma 1: The linearization error E(t) satisfies the follow- where λmin (·) and λmax (·) denote the minimum eigen value
ing inequality. and the maximum eigen value of the argument matrix, respec-
E(x, θ, θ̂ ) ≤ 2ρ(x)xθ̃  (20) tively. Taking the time derivative of (26) along the error
dynamics (12), (13), & (14) yields
Proof: From (7), it can be deduced that
1
V̇ = − eT Qe − sT K̃x x + sT Y θ̃ + sT E − ks ρ 2 (x)s2
E ≤ f (x, θ ) − f (x, θ̂ ) + Y(x, θ̂ )θ̃  (21) 2

Using the Mean Value Theorem [34], it can be shown that −θ̃ T Y T s + Tr K̃x xsT (28)
∂fi T Using (20), and cancelling the like terms in (28), V̇ can be
fi (x, θ ) − fi (x, θ̂ ) =  θ̃ (22)
∂φ φ=i upper-bounded as

where i = λi θ + (1 − λi )θ̂ , for some λi ∈ (0, 1), for i = 1
V̇ ≤ − λmin (Q)e2 + 2sρ(x)xθ̃  − ks ρ 2 (x)s2
1(1)m. 2
Since the set ν is convex,5 θ, θ̂ ∈ ν implies that i ∈ (29)
ν , for i = 1(1)m. Further, due to ν being a compact (closed
∂fi Using the fact that x ≤ e + xm , the inequality (29) can
and bounded) set, Assumption 3 applies to ∂φ at φ = i , for
be modified to
i = 1(1)m. Hence, 
1 ks

m V̇ ≤ − λmin (Q)e2 + 2sρ(x)eθ̃  − ρ 2 (x)s2
f (x, θ ) − f (x, θ̂ ) ≤ |fi (x, θ ) − fi (x, θ̂ )| 2 2
ks 2 
i=1 + 2sρ(x)xm θ̃  − ρ (x)s 2
(30)
m 2
≤ ρi (x)xθ̃  ≤ ρ(x)xθ̃  (23) Further, completing squares on the square bracketed terms
i=1 in (30), and exploiting (3) & (18) deduces
Since θ̂ ∈ ν , using (9), (21) and (23), the relation (20) is 1 ks 2β 2 2β 2 d2
V̇ ≤ − λmin (Q)e2 − ρ(x)s − +
established.6 2 2 ks ks
Theorem 1: For the system in (1), the control law in (6)   
≥0
and (10), with the parameter update law in (13) guarantee that
ks 2βe 2 2β 2
5 For the definition of a convex set, please refer to [35]. − ρ(x)s − + e2 (31)
2 ks ks
6 It can be observed that the above upper-bound is characterised without   
going into the standard Cauchy-form of Taylor series remainder [34], which ≥0
requires a second order partial of f (x, φ) with respect to φ in this case.
Since Assumption 3 is imposed on first order partials, the above derivation in 7 vec(Z) ∈ Rab denotes the vectorization of a matrix Z ∈ Ra×b , obtained
Lemma 1 is preferred. by stacking the columns of the matrix Z one after another.
356 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS LETTERS, VOL. 1, NO. 2, OCTOBER 2017

Further neglecting the term in the square bracket in (31) and

imposing the sufficient gain condition (25) yields

2β 2 d2
V̇ ≤ −qe2 + (32)
ks
2β 2
where q  2 λmin (Q)
1
− ks > 0 according to the gain
2 2
condition (25). Hence, for ≥ 2βqksd , V̇ ≤ 0. Further,
e2
using (18)-(19), the Lyapunov function (26) can be upper-
bounded as
Fig. 1. Tracking error e(t).
1 1
V≤ λmax (P)e2 + (λ−1 −1
min (θ )β + λmin (x )γ )
2 2
(33)
2 2
  
ζ IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
Using (33), the inequality (31) can be modified as The performance of the proposed controller is validated by
simulating it on a model of biochemical process [4], [32]. The
2q 2qζ 2β 2 d2 dynamics of the process is given by [32]
V̇ ≤ − V+ + (34)
λ (P) λ (P) ks α0 (1 + αn x)
 max
   max   ẋ = x +u (38)
α η (1 + αd x)
  
f (x,θ)
Using Comparison Lemma ([36, Lemma 3.4]), The above dif-
ferential inequality can be converted to the following algebraic where x(t) ∈ R is the state of the biochemical process (can
inequality represent concentration of certain chemical). The parameter
vector θ  [α0 , αn , αd ]T ∈ R3 , where α0 , αn , αd are unknown
η
V(t) ≤ V(0) exp{−αt} + (1 − exp{−αt}), ∀t ≥ 0 (35) scalars. As shown in [32], the function f (x, θ ) is neither con-
α vex nor concave in θ . Consequently, a re-parametrization is
Further using (27), the inequality in (35) can be modified in performed in [32] to convexify the dynamics and apply the
terms of the error variable ξ(t) as follows min-max framework. However, since the function f (x, θ ) sat-
  isfies Assumption 3, the proposed method can be directly
λM α 2η applied without any re-parametrization. Similar to [32], it is
ξ(t) ≤ ξ(0) exp{− t} + (36)
λm 2 αλm assumed that the system is operating in the positive region
to avoid the singularity phenomenon, i.e., x(t) > 0, ∀t ≥ 0.
resulting in a GUUB stability as stated in (24). Hence, Simulation results validate this assumption. The true values of
V(t) ∈ L∞ , which implies that e(t), θ̃ (t), K̃x (t) ∈ L∞ , and the parameters are chosen as α0 = αn = αd = 2. The known
as a consequence x(t), θ̂ (t), u(t), ė(t), θ̂˙ (t), K̂˙ x (t) ∈ L∞ . bounds of these parameters are considered as 1.5 ≤ α0 ≤ 2.5,
Remark 1: In case of regulation objective the upper-bound 1.5 ≤ αn ≤ 2.5, 1.5 ≤ αd ≤ 2.5. The dynamics in (38) can be
of the desired trajectory can be treated as zero, i.e., d = 0. represented as ẋ = ax + b(f (x, θ ) + u), where a = 0, b = 1.
Hence, from (32) The reference model is chosen as ẋm = am xm + bm r, where
am = −5, bm = 2. The reference trajectory is defined as
V̇ ≤ −qx2 ≤ 0 (37)
r(t) = 10 + sin(20t) (39)
Using Barbalat’s Lemma ([36, Lemma 8.2]), it can be shown The controller input and the parameter update law is designed
that x(t) → 0 as t → ∞. Therefore, in case of regulation as in (6) and (13). The regressor Y(x, θ ) ∈ R3 is given as
global Lyapunov stability and asymptotic convergence of states
∂f ∂f ∂f T
to zero are achieved. Y(x, θ̂ ) = [ , , ]
Remark 2: It can inferred that the above approach is tech- ∂ α̂0 ∂ α̂n ∂ α̂d
nically different from nonlinear-approximation based learn- ∂f (1 + α̂n x) ∂f α̂0 x2
= x, =
ing control (see [28]–[30] and references there in), where ∂ α̂0 (1 + α̂d x) ∂ α̂n (1 + α̂d x)
a unknown function is approximated online by a nonlin- ∂f −α̂0 (1 + α̂n x) 2
= x
ear approximator by exploiting the universal approximation ∂ α̂d (1 + α̂d x)
property. Those techniques do not allow online learning The controller parameters are chosen as: ks = 4, Q = 10, θ =
of the actual parameters of the dynamics, while requiring 50I3 , ν = 0.05. The bounding function ρ(x) is constructed as
over-parametrization. Thus, the computational burden in the
(1 + 2.55|x|) + 2.55|x| + 2.55(1 + 2.55|x|)|x|
proposed method is sufficiently less as compared to the uni- ρ(x) = (40)
versal approximator-based learning controllers. Due to exploit- 1 + 1.45|x|
ing the structural knowledge of the dynamics, the proposed The initial conditions are considered as x(0) = 4, xm (0) =
method can heuristically lead to better transient performance 5, θ̂ (0) = [1.6, 1.6, 2.2]T . The simulation results are shown in
as compared to universal approximation-based techniques. the Figures 1 & 2.
ROY et al.: ROBUST GRADIENT-BASED ADAPTIVE CONTROL OF NONLINEARLY PARAMETRIZED PLANTS
Fig. 2. Parameter estimation error θ̃ (t).
V. C ONCLUSION
This letter proposes a novel non-certainty equivalence robust
adaptive controller for nonlinearly parametrized plants. As
compared to previous results, where the NLIP uncertainty
is tackled using a complicated and computationally intensive
adaptive algorithm, the proposed method uses the classical
gradient-based adaptive update law, thus preserving simplicity
and ease of implementation. While the adaptive component of
the controller accounts for the LIP component of the NLIP
uncertainty, the robust compensator achieves feedback domi-
nation of the linearization error. The novelty lies in appropriate
characterization of the upper-bound of the linearization error,
exploited to design the robust component. The amalgamation
of the adaptive and the robust terms in the controller allows for
estimation of the unknown parameters while ensuring GUUB
stability. Future research will focus on guaranteeing parameter
convergence in the context of NLIP uncertainty.
R EFERENCES
[1] K. S. Narendra and A. M. Annaswamy, Stable Adaptive Systems.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1989.
[2] L. Praly, G. Bastin, J.-B. Pomet, and Z. P. Jiang, “Adaptive stabilization
of nonlinear systems,” in Foundations of Adaptive Control. Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer, 1991, pp. 347–433.
[3] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. V. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and
Adaptive Control Design. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1995.
[4] J. D. Boskovic, “Adaptive control of a class of nonlinearly parameter-
ized plants,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 930–934,
Jul. 1998.
[5] B. Armstrong-Hélouvry, P. Dupont, and C. C. De Wit, “A survey of mod-
els, analysis tools and compensation methods for the control of machines
with friction,” Automatica, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1083–1138, 1994.
[6] T.-J. Yeh, “Modeling, analysis and control of magnetically levitated
rotating machines,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Mech. Eng., Massachusetts
Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996.
[7] R. Yang and M. de Queiroz, “Adaptive control of the nonlinearly param-
eterized limb dynamics with application to neuromuscular electrical
stimulation,” in Proc. IEEE Amer. Control Conf., Boston, MA, USA,
2016, pp. 4883–4888.
[8] S. S. Sastry and A. Isidori, “Adaptive control of linearizable
systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 1123–1131,
Nov. 1989.
[9] A. M. Annaswamy, F. P. Skantze, and A.-P. Loh, “Adaptive con-
trol of continuous time systems with convex/concave parametrization,”
Automatica, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 33–49, 1998.
[10] A. Kojić and A. M. Annaswamy, “Adaptive control of nonlinearly
parameterized systems with a triangular structure,” Automatica, vol. 38,
no. 1, pp. 115–123, 2002.
357
[11] A. Kojić, A. M. Annaswamy, A.-P. Loh, and R. Lozano, “Adaptive
control of a class of nonlinear systems with convex/concave parame-
terization,” Syst. Control Lett., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 267–274, 1999.
[12] A.-P. Loh, A. M. Annaswamy, and F. P. Skantze, “Adaptation in the pres-
ence of a general nonlinear parameterization: An error model approach,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1634–1652, Sep. 1999.
[13] I. Y. Tyukin, D. V. Prokhorov, and V. A. Terekhov, “Adaptive control
with nonconvex parameterization,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 48,
no. 4, pp. 554–567, Apr. 2003.
[14] I. Y. Tyukin, D. V. Prokhorov, and C. van Leeuwen, “Adaptation and
parameter estimation in systems with unstable target dynamics and non-
linear parametrization,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 52, no. 9,
pp. 1543–1559, Sep. 2007.
[15] X. Liu, R. Ortega, H. Su, and J. Chu, “Immersion and invariance adaptive
control of nonlinearly parameterized nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 2209–2214, Sep. 2010.
[16] X. Liu, R. Ortega, H. Su, and J. Chu, “On adaptive control of nonlinearly
parameterized nonlinear systems: Towards a constructive procedure,”
Syst. Control Lett., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 36–43, 2011.
[17] V. Adetola, M. Guay, and D. Lehrer, “Adaptive estimation for a class
of nonlinearly parameterized dynamical systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 2818–2824, Oct. 2014.
[18] A. Flores-Perez, I. Grave, and Y. Tang, “Estimation and indirect adaptive
control for nonlinearly parameterized systems,” in Proc. Eur. Control
Conf., 2014, pp. 2649–2654.
[19] A. Flores-Perez, I. Grave, and Y. Tang, “Contraction based adaptive
control for a class of nonlinearly parameterized systems,” in Proc. Amer.
Control Conf., Washington, DC, USA, 2013, pp. 2649–2654.
[20] Z. Chen, “A novel adaptive control approach for nonlinearly parame-
terized systems,” Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process., vol. 29, no. 1,
pp. 81–98, 2015.
[21] H. F. Grip, T. A. Johansen, L. Imsland, and G.-O. Kaasa, “Parameter
estimation and compensation in systems with nonlinearly parameterized
perturbations,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 19–28, 2010.
[22] M. Farza, M. M’Saad, T. Maatoug, and M. Kamoun, “Adaptive observers
for nonlinearly parameterized class of nonlinear systems,” Automatica,
vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 2292–2299, 2009.
[23] R. Marino and P. Tomei, “Global adaptive output-feedback control of
nonlinear systems. Part II. Nonllinear parameterization,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 33–48, Jan. 1993.
[24] W. Lin and C. Qian, “Adaptive control of nonlinearly parameterized
systems: The smooth feedback case,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1249–1266, Aug. 2002.
[25] X. Ye, “Global adaptive control of nonlinearly parametrized systems,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 169–173, Jan. 2003.
[26] Z. Qu, “Adaptive and robust controls of uncertain systems with non-
linear parameterization,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 48, no. 10,
pp. 1817–1824, Oct. 2003.
[27] M. Sun and S. S. Ge, “Adaptive repetitive control for a class of non-
linearly parametrized systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 51,
no. 10, pp. 1684–1688, Oct. 2006.
[28] F. L. Lewis, S. Jagannathan, and A. Yesildirek, Neural Network Control
of Robot Manipulators and NonLinear Systems. New York, NY, USA:
Taylor & Francis, 1999
[29] J. A. Farrell and M. M. Polycarpou, Adaptive Approximation
Based Control: Unifying Neural, Fuzzy and Traditional Adaptive
Approximation Approaches, vol. 48. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2006.
[30] J. Spooner, M. Maggiore, R. Ordónez, and K. M. Passino, Stable
Adaptive Control and Estimation for Nonlinear Systems: Neural and
Fuzzy Approximator Techniques. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 2002.
[31] P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun, Robust Adaptive Control. Mineola, NY, USA:
Courier Corporat., 2012.
[32] M. Netto, A. Annaswamy, R. Ortega, and P. Moya, “Adaptive control
of a class of non-linearly parametrized systems using convexification,”
Int. J. Control, vol. 73, no. 14, pp. 1312–1321, 2000.
[33] E. Lavretsky, T. E. Gibson, and A. M. Annaswamy, “Projection operator
in adaptive systems,” arXiv ePrints, arXiv:1112.4232v6, 2012.
[34] N. Y. Piskunov, Differential and Integral Calculus. Moscow, Russia:
MIR, 1969.
[35] S. P. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix
Inequalities in System and Control Theory, vol. 15. Philadelphia, PA,
USA: SIAM, 1994.
[36] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, vol. 9, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2002.