IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 16, NO.
7, JULY 2020
Adaptive Fault-Tolerant Prescribed-Time Control
for Teleoperation Systems With Position
Error Constraints
Ziwei Wang , Bin Liang, Member, IEEE, Yanchao Sun , and Tao Zhang, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—In this article, we present an adaptive
prescribed-time control method for a class of nonlinear
telerobotic systems with actuator faults and position error
constraints. Extended from prescribed-time stability, prac-
tically prescribed-time stability (PPTS) is proposed for the
first time aiming at stability analysis and control synthe-
sis of nonlinear systems with disturbance and uncertainty.
We show that, under the control scheme in the frame-
work of PPTS, the system states are guaranteed to con-
verge to a user-defined set (physically realizable) within
user-defined settling time (physically realizable). Based on
PPTS, an adaptive fault-tolerant controller is developed by
integrating a novel exponential-type barrier Lyapunov func-
tion. Rigorous stability analysis based on back-stepping
approach proves that, under the proposed control strategy,
synchronization errors converge to a user-defined residual-
set within predefined settling time and never exceed the
prescribed range. Universal performance indexes, includ-
ing the settling time, residual-set, accuracy, and overshoot,
can be user-defined and only dependent on fewer user-
defined parameters. Simulation results illustrate the effec-
tiveness of the developed control scheme.
Index Terms—Actuator fault, fault tolerant, prescribed-
time control, state constraint, teleoperation system.
I. INTRODUCTION
ELEOPERATION system is a typical industrial cyber-
T physical system, which consists of master–slave robotic
Manuscript received May 25, 2019; revised October 12, 2019; ac-
cepted October 26, 2019. Date of publication November 4, 2019; date of
current version March 17, 2020. This work was supported in part by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61673239,
Grant 61703228, and Grant 61803119; in part by Science and Technol-
ogy Project of Shenzhen under Grant JCYJ20160428182227081, Grant
JCYJ20160301100921349, and Grant JCYJ20170412171459177; and
in part by Science and Technology Planning Project of Guang-
dong Province under Grant 2017B010116001. Paper no. TII-19-2030.
(Corresponding author: Yanchao Sun.)
Z. Wang and T. Zhang are with the Department of Automation,
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China (e-mail: wang-zw16@mails.
tsinghua.edu.cn; taozhang@tsinghua.edu.cn).
B. Liang is with the Department of Automation, Tsinghua Univer-
sity, Beijing 100084, China, and also with the Graduate School
at Shenzhen, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen 518055, China (e-mail:
bliang@tsinghua.edu.cn).
Y. Sun is with the Science and Technology on Underwater Vehi-
cle Laboratory, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China
(e-mail: sunyanchao@hrbeu.edu.cn).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TII.2019.2951329
1551-3203 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4889
manipulators connected via communication channels. Due to
the merit that multiple types of perception can be fused to avoid
direct interaction with environments, teleoperation systems are
widely applied in industrial scenarios, such as on-orbit service,
medical surgery, and unmanned aerial vehicle [1]–[3]. Time
delay induced by communication channels is the primary issue
to be addressed in the field of teleoperation, which thus attracts
attention from the research community. As a consequence, many
classic methods were proposed to overcome the adverse effect
of time delay, such as wave variable [4], [5], sliding mode con-
trol [6]–[8], and adaptive scheme [9]–[11]. Although the above
works tackled the time-delay issue to some extent, only asymp-
totic stability was realized, which means that the synchronization
errors converge to zero or a small set around zero when time
approaches infinity. However, the settling time cannot be infinite
in practice because it will lead to excessive energy consumption
or a task failure, especially in fine operation. For example, the
space robot is required to capture the expired satellite within
a limited time window. The aforementioned control methods
would miss the time window due to the orbital action, resulting
in the failure of the capture task. Thus, these methods may not
apply to practical teleoperation systems directly in view of cost.
Different from asymptotic stability, finite-time control ensures
that the system states converge within finite time, which thus
provides a computable upper bound of the settling time [12].
In [13], a nonsingular sliding mode was incorporated with neural
networks to overcome the unknown disturbance and system
uncertainty. In [14], finite-time convergence of the closed-loop
system was guaranteed in the framework of “adding a power
integrator,” where Chebyshev neural network was utilized to deal
with unmodeled dynamics. However, there exist two problems
in the aforementioned finite-time controllers: (1) the bound
of settling time is not unified with respect to different initial
conditions. That means the corresponding results depend on the
initial values, which may be difficult to obtain exactly in practice.
(2) The so-called finite time is only the upper bound of the
estimated settling time rather than the actual convergence time,
which implies conservatism of the obtained settling. Although
recent work [15] proposed a fixed-time controller to overcome
the reliance on initial values, the question (2) has not been
thoroughly addressed. Recently, a new concept “prescribed-time
stability” (PTS) was proposed to cope with these two ques-
tions in [16], where the system state was guaranteed to con-
verge within user-defined settling time. A time-varying scaling
4890
function was developed to achieve PTS in the field of multiagent
systems in [17], [18]. However, the above controllers may result
in unnecessary high accuracy for nonlinear systems with dis-
turbance and uncertainty, leading to excessive control input and
cost in practice. In fact, with predefined convergence accuracy,
prescribed-time convergence property with predefined residual
set would play a key role in control design, which is thus required
in industrial teleoperation systems especially in fine operation.
For example, in space rendezvous and docking teleoperation,
the end-effector of the space robot is required to arrive at the
predefined capture area within predefined time. Otherwise, the
space robot would miss the capture target due to orbital motion,
resulting in mission failure. To the best of authors, no previous
work has discussed the prescribed-time prescribed-residual-set
control of nonlinear teleoperation systems.
Moreover, specific constraint is required to guarantee the
safety of teleoperation systems, especially when the force in-
teraction between the slave manipulator and unknown environ-
ments occurs. In addition, necessary constraint helps to realize
superior transient-state performance, such as high convergence
speed and small overshoot. To this end, barrier Lyapunov func-
tion (BLF) [19] was proposed, featured by approaching infinity
when the argument is close to the preassigned limit. States
will never exceed the prescribed range if the positive-definite
property of BLF holds, which is the basis of stability analysis
and control synthesis based on BLF. In [20], [21], tan-type
BLF was developed to maintain the quadratic characteristics
of BLF when the constraint function tends to infinity, which
was thus applied to address systems with or without constraint
requirement. It is noticed that, although some works [22], [23]
incorporated finite-time stability with BLF, the estimated set-
tling time subject to control parameters cannot be user-defined.
Thus, a challenging problem is how to deal with such issue in
the framework of prescribed-time control, which has not been
thoroughly addressed.
Despite some works discussing the constraint control issue
of teleoperation systems via BLF [13], [15], the developed con-
trollers were based on the assumption that all actuators operate
normally. However, this condition may not hold especially when
the slave manipulator interacts with harsh environments. Thus, it
is required to develop advanced control scheme in consideration
of actuator faults. Different from the cooperative control proto-
col in the normal case [24], a fault-tolerant consensus [25] was
realized for multivehicle networked systems subject to packet
loss or temporary actuator failure. Combining the sliding mode
technique, adaptive control schemes were developed to achieve
finite-time convergence in the presence of actuator faults in [26],
[27]. In addition to the mentioned fault accommodation, fault
detection problem was discussed in [28], [29]. Although some
research works incorporated finite-time technique to compen-
sate the adverse effect of actuator faults, the estimate settling
time containing some conservatism in conventional finite-time
control would cause estimation failure. Thus, finite-time control
subject to actuator faults is still an open issue to be addressed.
Motivated by the above analysis, we propose a novel
prescribed-time control strategy for a class of nonlinear teler-
obotic systems subject to state constraints and actuator faults.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 16, NO. 7, JULY 2020
We show that, under the developed controller, the synchroniza-
tion error will converge to a user-defined set within prescribed
settling time, and never exceed the preassigned range. The main
contribution is presented as follows.
1) A new concept practically prescribed-time stability (PPTS)
is first proposed for stability analysis and control synthe-
sis of uncertain nonlinear systems. Different from traditional
finite/fixed-time control, systems satisfying the given sufficient
conditions of PPTS, will converge within finite time, which can
be user-defined arbitrarily subject to physically possible range.
In addition, compared with prescribed-time control [16]–[18],
the control structure in the framework of PPTS ensures the
prescribed residual-set, which can be user-designed arbitrarily
within physically accessible ranges.
2) The universal control performances, including settling
time, residual-set, overshoot, convergence accuracy, can be
entirely user-defined, which is realized via integrating a new
exponential-type barrier Lyapunov function (EBLF). The con-
straint control problems of single input single output/multiple
input multiple output (SISO/MIMO) nonlinear systems with or
without constraints can be addressed in a unified framework of
EBLF.
3) A novel adaptive fault-tolerant control scheme is proposed
in the framework of PPTS. Under the proposed controller,
prescribed-time convergence of the synchronization errors is
guaranteed in the presence of time delay, nonparametric uncer-
tainty, actuator faults, and state constraint. The control algorithm
can be easily extended to multimaster–multislave teleoperation
systems.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In
Section II, the preliminary knowledge of teleoperation systems
and PPTS is presented. The control design of PPTS controller, in-
corporating the EBLF, is presented in Section III. In Section IV,
simulation study is shown to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the proposed control method. Section V concludes this article.
Notation: Throughout this article, the subscripts i = m, s, and
j = m, s (i = j) represent the master and slave manipulator,
respectively. For any matrix A, A and tr(A) stand for the
Euclidean norm and trace of A, respectively. col{(xk )} denotes
the column vector, where xk is the kth component of x. C 1
denotes the set of first-order continuous-derivable functions. L∞
is the set of bounded functions. λmin {A} and λmax {A} are the
minimum and maximum eigenvalue of A, respectively.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND PRELIMINARIES
A. Dynamics of Teleoperation Systems Subject to
Actuator Faults
Consider a class of nonlinear teleoperation systems with
n-degree-of-freedom (DOF) manipulators as below

Mm (qm )q̈m + Cm (qm , q̇m )q̇m + dm (t) = Fm + Fm h
(1)
Ms (qs )q̈s + Cs (qs , q̇s )q̇s + ds (t) = Fs + Fsh
where qi , q̇i , q̈i ∈ Rn are the the joint position, velocity, and
acceleration vector defined in the body frame with respect to
inertial frame, respectively. Mi0 (qi ) is the nominal part of inertia
WANG et al.: ADAPTIVE FAULT-TOLERANT PRESCRIBED-TIME CONTROL FOR TELEOPERATION SYSTEMS 4891

matrix, Ci0 (qi , q̇i ) is the nominal Coriolis and centrifugal effects Definition 2 ([16]): Let T = {Tmf ∈ R+ : ∀x0 ∈ Rn :
matrix, and Fi=m,sh
is the bounded torque generated by the T (x0 )  Tmf }. The origin of (5) is said to be prescribed-time
human operator and environment, respectively. The gravity item stable (PTS) if Tf = inf T can be user-defined.
is omitted because feed-forward technique is widely used to Definition 3 ( practically prescribed-time stability): The origin
compensate it. di (t) stands for the nonparametric uncertainties of (5) is said to be practically prescribed-time stable (PPTS) if
including nonpassive contact collision and unknown external Tp = inf Tp and   0 can be tuned by user-defined parameters,
disturbances. Fi ∈ Rn is the applied control torque subject to and ∀x0 ∈ Rn , ∃ Tmp  T (x0 ), x(t)   for t  Tmp , where
actuator faults [27] Tp = {Tmp ∈ R+ : ∀x0 ∈ Rn : T (x0 )  Tmp }.
Remark 2: Compared with FTS and PTS, PPTS provides
Fi = δi ui + δi (2) a novel basis for stability analysis and control synthesis of
where δi = diag{δik } ∈ R n×n
denotes the partial loss of actua- nonlinear systems with external disturbances. It is well known
tor effectiveness, δi = col{δik

} ∈ Rn stands for the additional that, under conventional FTS controllers, the system trajectory
bias torque induced by actuator faults, with δik ∈ (0, 1] being the would converge to a small set containing the equilibrium point.
positive continuous function, and δik 
∈ L∞ for k = 1, 2, . . ., n. The set is dependent on external disturbances, which leaves con-
ui represents the designed control torque. trol engineers difficulties to choose proper control parameters
Remark 1: The formulation (1) improves the dynamics according to practical requirements, especially when the type
model [30] in three parts. First, the typical assumption [30] and boundary of external disturbance are thoroughly unknown.
that the interactive force during interaction with environments Moreover, due to x(t) = 0 for t  Tf , the accuracy in the
is nonpassive or passive is relaxed, that is, prior knowledge framework of PTS cannot be estimated, leading to unnecessarily
about the environment characteristics is not required, which is small convergence domain. The over-small set guaranteed by
more applicable to practical teleoperation. Second, instead of PTS would result in a large control input. Thus, the convergence
considering contact collision with known bound, we consider the set is expected to be user-defined according to practical tasks,
general uncertainty with unknown bound. Moreover, compared which is the motivation of Definition 3.
with [30], additive and multiplicative actuator faults are taken To this end, we introduce a time-varying piecewise function
into account simultaneously, which is a common formulation of as follows:

actuator faults in [26], [27]. exp (α (t0 + T − t)) − 1, t ∈ [t0 , t0 + T )
The joint position errors between the master and slave robot ς(t) = (6)
E − Etanh (α (t − t0 − T )) , t ∈ [t0 + T, +∞)
are defined as xm1 (t) = qm (t) − qs (t − Ts ), xs1 (t) = qs (t) −
qm (t − Tm ), where Tm and Ts are the forward and backward where α > 0 is a tunable parameter. T denotes the user-defined
time-varying delay, respectively. It is noted that Tm and Ts are settling time such that T ≥ Tc > max{Tm , Ts }, in which Tc
unknown and bounded by unknown constants. Then, the joint represents the time consuming of signal transmission and pro-
velocity errors are denoted by xm2 (t) = q̇m (t) − q̇s (t − Ts ), cessor computing. t0 denotes the initial time. E is a positive
xs2 (t) = q̇s (t) − q̇m (t − Tm ). Thus, the master–slave synchro- constant.
nization dynamics can be equivalently written as Lemma 1: For the system (5), the origin is PPTS if there exists
a continuous-differentiable function V (x(t), t): Rn × R+ →
Mi (qi )ẋi2 = −Ci (qi , q̇i )xi2 + δi ui + Γ(Xi ) (3) †
R+ such that V̇ ≤ −bV − 2 ς̇ς V + ης + c, where ς˙† = |ς(t)|, ˙
T
where Xi = [qiT , q̇iT , q̇jT , q̈jT ] for i = m, s, and Γ(Xi ) = δi + b > 0, c ≥ 0, and η ≥ 0 is a user-defined constant.
Fih − di (t) − ξi (Xi )θi , with ξi (Xi ) ∈ Rn×p and θi ∈ Rp be- Proof: We first analyze the case for t ∈ [t0 , t0 + T ). Recalling
ing a known regressive function and parameter vector, respec- ς˙† > 0, the time derivative of V /ς is given by
tively [31]–[33]. For later derivation, we have the following V̇ ς˙ V̇ ς˙†
assumption. V̇  = + 2V ≤ + 2V (7)
ς ς ς ς
Assumption 1: For Γ(Xi ), there exist unknown constants Θ1 ,
where V  = V /ς, which indicates
Θ2 such that
   V̇ ς˙† η c
δi + Fih − di (t) ≤ Θ1 , θi  ≤ Θ2 . (4) V̇  ≤ + 2 2 V ≤ −bV  + 2 + . (8)
ς ς ς ς
B. Lemmas and New Properties Solving the inequality (8) yields
  
c η
Definition 1 ([16]): Consider the system V  ≤ e−b(t−t0 ) V  (t0 ) + e−b(t−t0 ) + 2 eb(t−t0 ) dt
ς ς
ẋ(t) = f (x(t), t) (5)
≤ e−b(t−t0 ) V  (t0 ) + e−b(t−T −t0 )
where x(t) ∈ R is the state, f : R × R+ → R is a
n n n  
η ς +1 c−η
continuous-differentiable function, and the initial condition is × (c − η)(t0 + T − t) + − ln ς .
α ς α
x(0) = x0 . The origin of (5) is said to be fixed-time stable
(9)
(FTS) if it is globally asymptotically stable and there exists a
settling-time function T : Rn → R+ ∪ {0} such that ∀x0 ∈ Rn , Note that ς(t) → 0 at t → t0 + T and limς→0 ςln ς = 0, then
∃ Tmf  T (x0 ), x(t, x0 ) = 0 for t  Tmf . V (T + t0 ) = limt→(t0 +T ) V (t) ≤ αη . Thus, when t = t0 + T ,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4892 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 16, NO. 7, JULY 2020

the state trajectory of (5) converges to the set Ω1 = {x|V (x) ≤ subject to physically achievable ranges. To this end, in general,
α }. It is clear that the convergence set is determined by two
η
we choose α in the range of α ∈ [0.5, 1]. Furthermore, E is
user-designed parameters rather than initial conditions. As a con- designed to keep the continuity property of ς˙ hold, which is
sequence, the convergence set can be user-defined and unified chosen to be 1 typically.
with respect to different initial conditions.
Next, we consider the case for t ∈ [t0 + T, +∞). In the same III. CONTROLLER DESIGN
manner, one can obtain
For the master part, the position and velocity signals of the
V  ≤ e−b(t−t0 −T ) V  (t0 + T ) + e−b(t−t0 −T ) master robot and those of the slave robot are transferred to
   master controller, generating the master control torque. Then
c η
× + 2 eb(t−t0 −T ) dt human-inserted torque and master control torque drive the robot
ς ς to produce the position and velocity, which are the ideal input
η 2b(t0 +T −t) η signals with regard to the slave part. These ideal input signals
≤ V  (t0 + T ) − e − 2
8bE 2 8E (2α + b) and the position and velocity signals of the slave robot are
η collected in the slave controller, generating the slave control
× e(4α+2b)(t0 +T −t) − 2 e(2α+2b)(t0 +T −t) torque. Similarly with the master part, the slave control torque
4E (α + b)
c
and environment torque lead to an update of the position and
− eb(t0 +T −t) 2α + b + be2α(t0 +T −t) . speed signals from the slave robot, which will be passed to the
2bE(2α + b) master part. In this section, the control design is presented via
(10)
back-stepping method, which is composed of two steps.
Recalling the property ς(t) → 0 for t > t0 + T , then V (t) ≤ Step 1: Define zi1 = ẋi1 − ρi1 , where ρi1 is a virtual stabi-
ς(t) Vς(t(t00+T
+T )
) ≤ α over t ∈ (t0 + T, +∞). Thus, the state tra-
η lizing function to be designed. Consider the Lyapunov function
jectory will be restricted in the set Ω1 since t ≥ t0 + T . That candidate as follows:

completes the proof. V1 = kc2 [exp(kc ◦ xi1 ) − 1] (11)
Remark 3: The user-defined settling time and convergence i=m,s
domain are guaranteed simultaneously via Lemma 1. It is noticed
that, with η = 0 and c = 0, the state trajectory will converge where kc is a positive continuous-differential function such
to zero, which indicates PTS is ensured. It means, PTS is a that kc (0) > xi1 (0). kc ◦ xi1 = xTi1 xi1 /(kc2 − xTi1 xi1 ). Then
special case of PPTS under the certain parameter selection, and taking the time-derivative of V1 yields
thus the framework of PPTS leads to less conservative stability 
conditions, indicating the generality and versatility of PPTS. V̇1 = 2kc k̇c [exp(kc ◦ xi1 ) − 1] + 2kc2 exp(kc ◦ xi1 )
Remark 4: PPTS is proposed for the first time aiming at i=m,s

stability analysis and control synthesis of nonlinear systems with 

kc2 xTi1 ẋi1 k̇c
external disturbances. Different from finite/fixed-time stability, × − (kc ◦ xi1 )(kc ⊕ xi1 ) (12)
the settling time in the framework of PPTS can be user-defined (kc − xTi1 xi1 )2
2 kc
rather than subject to control parameters or initial conditions,
where kc ⊕ xi1 = kc2 /(kc2 − xTi1 xi1 ). It is noted that kc is re-
which reduces the conservatism of the settling time especially
garded as the prescribed performance function to limit the
when the initial condition is unknown or under external uncer-
synchronization errors. Therefore, the constraint function sat-
tainty. Compared with PTS, the residual-set in PPTS can be
isfying k̇c < 0 is widely utilized [22], [34], [35]. Then, further
user-defined rather than limited by the upper bound of uncer-
simplification of (12) yields
tainty, which is beneficial to control design addressing nonlinear
systems with external disturbance and system uncertainty. In   
V̇1 ≤ 2kc (−k̇c ) exp(kc ◦ xi1 )(kc ◦ xi1 )(kc ⊕ xi1 ) + 1
other words, the system trajectory will enter a prescribed set i=m,s
within user-defined settling time if Lemma 1 is satisfied, which
is substantially different from the control objective of PTS. + 2exp(kc ◦ xi1 )(kc ⊕ xi1 )2 xTi1 (zi1 + ρi1 ). (13)
Remark 5: In the developed time-varying piecewise function 
(6), we use three parameters to describe the control performance Define μc = with ε1 being a positive constant,
sup ( k̇kcc )2 +ε1
quantitatively. First, T is the user-defined settling time such that then the virtual stabilizing function can be designed as below
T ≥ Tc . That means, as a control parameter, the settling time  
η φ(xi1 ) ς˙†
can be preassigned rather than subject to constraints of control ρi1 = −μc xi1 + φ(vxi1 ) − k 2
k 1 + 2
parameters. It is noted that T should be defined according to nς 2n(kc ⊕ xi1 )2 c ς
(14)
practical requirement and computational capability. Second, α
where k1 > 0; vxi1 = 2exp(kc ◦ xi1 )(kc ⊕ xi1 )2 xi1 ; φ(xi1 ) =
is a key control parameter related to the prescribed convergence
col{φ(xi1k )} with φ(xi1k ) = l(xi1k )/xi1k , in which
set, namely Ω = {x|V (x) ≤ αη }. It indicates that the larger α we
  
choose, the smaller convergence set we would obtain. However,
sin π2 |xεi1k |
if |xi1k | ≤ ε2
excessive α may lead to excessive control gain. Hence, there l(xi1k ) = 2 (15)
exists a tradeoff for α according to demand on practical accuracy 1 else

Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ADAPTIVE FAULT-TOLERANT PRESCRIBED-TIME CONTROL FOR TELEOPERATION SYSTEMS 4893

for k = 1, 2, . . ., n. ε2 is a small positive constant. As a conse- the Lyapunov function candidate as follows:
quence, combining (13) with (14) yields 
 V2 = kd2 [exp(kd ◦ zi1 ) − 1] + V3 (20)
V̇1 ≤ 2exp(kc ◦ xi1 )(kc ⊕ xi1 )2 xTi1 zi1 − 2kc k̇c i=m,s
i=m,s  1  2 
 †
 V3 = δi ˜i + (Θ̃1 )2 + (Θ̃2 )2 (21)
ς˙ η 2σi
− kc2 k1 + 2 exp(kc ◦ xi1 ) + i=m,s
ς ς
 where kd is a user-defined prescribed performance function. In
≤ 2exp(kc ◦ xi1 )(kc ⊕ xi1 )2 xTi1 zi1 view of the constraint effect, kd is required to be designed satisfy-
i=m,s
ing k̇d < 0; ˜i = i − ˆi ; Θ̃1 = Θ1 − Θ̂1 with Θ̂1 representing
 
ς˙† η the estimation of Θ1 ; Θ̃2 = Θ2 − Θ̂2 with Θ̂2 being the estima-
− k1 + 2 V1 + + c 1 (16) tion of Θ2 ; Θ1 = Θ1 /λ and Θ2 = Θ2 /λ are unknown constants,
ς ς
in which λ = λmin {Mi }; σi > 0. Then, the time derivative of V2
which indicates that, according
 to Lemma 1, xi1 will be PPTS if leads to
zi1 is stabilized. c1 = i=m,s −2kc k̇c . 
Remark 6: It is noted that, if kc → +∞, we can obtain V̇2 = 2kd k̇d [exp(kd ◦ zi1 ) − 1] + 2kd2 exp(kd ◦ zi1 )
according to (11) i=m,s
 
kc2 xTi1 xi1 kd2 zi1
T
żi1 k̇d
lim V1 = lim = xTi1 xi1 × − (k d ◦ z i1 )(k d ⊕ z i1 ) + V̇3 .
kc →+∞ kc →+∞ kc2 − xT
(17) (kd2 − zi1T z )2
i1 kd
i1 xi1
(22)
where L’Hopital rule is used. It shows the EBLF will reduce
to a traditional quadratic Lyapunov function in the case of no Note that żi1 = ẍi1 − ρ̇i1 = ẋi2 − ρ̇i1 , then combining (22)
constraint requirement. Thus, the proposed EBLF is a general with (3), we have
Lyapunov function, which is effective within or without state 
constraints, compared with the conventional log-type BLF [19] V̇2 ≤ 2kd (−k̇d )(exp(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ⊕ zi1 ) + 1)
i=m,s
1 k2 + 2exp(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ⊕ zi1 )2 zi1
T
(ẋi2 − ρ̇i1 ) + V̇3
Vlog (kc , xi1 ) = log 2 cT , xi1 (0) < kc (0). (18)
2 kc − xi1 xi1 
≤ 2kd (−k̇d )(exp(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ⊕ zi1 ) + 1)
The log-type BLF will approach zero if kc → +∞, which i=m,s
implies that such BLF fails in the case of infinite con- + 2exp(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ⊕ zi1 )2 zi1
T
(−Mi−1 Ci (qi , q̇i )xi2
straint requirement. In addition, a tan-type BLF is proposed as
follows [36]: + Mi−1 δi ui + Mi−1 Γ(Xi ) − ρ̇i1 ) + V̇3 . (23)
 
kc πxi1 Let vzi1 = 2exp(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ⊕ zi1 )2 zi1 , and then we can ob-
Vtan = tan2 , |xi1 (0)| < kc (0) (19)
π 2kb tain from (23) that

which indicates Vtan = 0 when the constraint function is infinite. cmax

−vzTi1 Mi−1 Ci (qi , q̇i )xi2 ≤ vzi1  q̇i  xi2  (24)
Also, it can only deal with SISO systems, leading to limited use λ
in MIMO systems. Furthermore, since the exponential function 1
is uniquely characterized by the fact that the growth rate of vzTi1 Mi−1 Γ(Xi ) ≤ vzTi1 (δi +Fih − di (t)−ξi (Xi )θi )
λ
such a function (that is, its derivative) is directly proportional
to the value of the function, it would be easier to implement ≤ vzi1  (Θ1 + ξi (Xi ) Θ2 ). (25)
stability analysis and control synthesis when using the EBLF
Then, taking the time-derivative of V3 , one can further sim-
as a potential Lyapunov function in the framework of PPTS,
plify (23) as below
compared with the existing works [19], [23], [36]. Hence, a
universal framework of the EBLF is provided for stability anal-   
V̇2 ≤ 2kd (−k̇d ) exp(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ⊕ zi1 ) + 1
ysis and control synthesis of nonlinear systems with or without
i=m,s
constraint requirement.
cmax
Remark 7: It is noted that, with L’Hopital rule, one can + vzi1  q̇i  xi2  + vzTi1 Mi−1 δi ui − vzTi1 ρ̇i1
obtain limxi1k →0 φ(xi1 ) = π/2ε2 , which implies the potential λ
singularity in ρi1 is overcome due to the switching effect + vzi1  (Θ1 + ξi (Xi ) Θ2 )
of l(xi1k ). Moreover, the smoothness characteristic of l(xi1k )
1  ˙  + Θ̃ Θ̃
˙

ensures φ(xi1 ), ρi1 ∈ C 1 , where a small constant should be + δi ˜i ˜˙ i + Θ̃1 Θ̃ 1 2 2 . (26)
†
added to the denominator of ς̇ς to avoid the singularity when σi
t → t0 + T . Design the bilateral control torque as
Step 2: Next, the stability analysis of zi1 is presented as fol-
lows. Define 1/δi = i , and ˆi is the estimation of i . Consider ui = −Mi ˆi τi (27)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4894 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 16, NO. 7, JULY 2020

where τi is designed as In the same manner, the last two terms of (34) become
  κi   κi κi
φ(zi1 ) ς˙† Θ̃1 Θ̂1 ≤ − (Θ̃1 )2 + (Θ )2 (36)
τi = μd zi1 − ρ̇i1 + k2 k2 + 2 σi 2σi 2σi 1
2n(kd ⊕ zi1 )2 d ς
κi   κi κi
φ(zi1 )    Θ̃ Θ̂ ≤ − (Θ̃ )2 + (Θ )2 . (37)
+ Θ̂1 + ξi (Xi ) Θ̂2 + Θ3 q̇i  xi2  zi1  σi 2 2 2σi 2 2σi 2
n
(28) Then combining (34) with (35)–(37) yields
κi δ i 2 κi κi κi
and ˆi , Θ̂1 , and Θ̂2 are updated by ˜i + δi ˜i ˆi ≤ δi 2i = i . (38)
2σi σi 2σi 2σi
ˆ˙ i = σi vzTi1 τi − κi ˆi (29) Similarly with (38), (34) can be further simplified as below
˙  
Θ̂1 = σi vzi1  − κi Θ̂1 (30) ς˙†
V̇2 ≤ − k2 + 2 V2 + c 2 (39)
ς
˙
Θ̂2 = σi vzi1  ξi (Xi ) − κi Θ̂2 (31)   

where c2 = i=m,s 2kd (−k̇d ) + 2σi i + (Θ1 ) + (Θ2 ) .
κi  2  2
†
in which μd = sup ( k̇kdd )2 +ε1 ; Θ3 ≥ cmax /λ; κi = k2 + 2 ς̇ς . The previous back-steeping design leads to the Theorem 1 as
Combining the controller (27), (29) with (26) yields follows.
 Theorem 1: With the bilateral controller (27) and the adaptive
 
V̇2 ≤ 2kd (−k̇d ) exp(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ◦ zi1 )(kd ⊕ zi1 ) + 1 laws (29)–(31), the nonlinear telerobotic systems with time
i=m,s delay, nonparametric uncertainty, and actuator faults have the
following properties.
cmax 1) The practically prescribed-time convergence of the syn-
+ vzi1  q̇i  xi2  − vzTi1 τi − vzTi1 ρ̇i1
λ chronization errors is guaranteed, where the synchronization po-
√ γ
sition error converges to xi1  ≤ 1+γ kc within the prescribed
+ vzi1  (Θ1 + ξi (Xi ) Θ2 )
settling time T , where γ = ln(η + αkc2 ) − ln(αkc2 ).
1 ˙ 2) The time-varying constraint on the synchronization posi-
κi ˙ 
+ δi ˜i ˆi − Θ̃1 Θ̂1 + Θ̃2 Θ̂2 . (32) tion error is satisfied, which means that the system state will
σi σi
never exceed the prescribed range in the convergence process.
Substituting (28), (29)–(31) into (32), we have Proof: First, we show that the PPTS property of the closed-
   loop system is ensured. According to Lemma 1 in the case of
ς˙†
V̇2 ≤ 2kd (−k̇d ) − kd k2 + 2
2
exp(kd ◦ zi1 ) η = 0, zi1 will converge to zero within prescribed time, which
i=m,s
ς implies the PTS property of zi1 is guaranteed. Moreover, as
  shown in (39), zi1 never exceeds the constraint function kd ,
+ vzi1  Θ̃1 + ξi (Xi ) Θ̃2 namely zi1  ≤ kd for t ≥ t0 . Then for t ∈ (t0 + T, +∞), (16)
becomes
κi 1 ˙ ˙   
+ δi ˜i ˆi − Θ̃1 Θ̂1 + Θ̃2 Θ̂2 ς˙† η
σi σi V̇1 ≤ − k1 + 2 V1 + + c1 (40)
ς ς
  
ς˙† which indicates xi1 is PPTS with the residual set being Ω1 =
≤ 2kd (−k̇d ) − kd k2 + 2
2
exp(kd ◦ zi1 )
ς {xi1 |V1 ≤ αη }. In view of the monotonic incremental character-
i=m,s √ γ
istic of V1 , solving it yields xi1  ≤ 1+γ kc .
κi κi κi The above analysis shows that the synchronization position er-
+ δi ˜i ˆi + Θ̃1 Θ̂1 + Θ̃2 Θ̂2 . (33)
σi σi σi ror is ensured to converge to a user-defined set within prescribed
Recalling (20), (33) can be rewritten as settling time, which also means the PPTS property of xi1 is
    guaranteed. Next, we consider the constraint on the joint position
ς˙† ς˙† of the slave robot. The position of the slave robot is bounded
V̇2 ≤ − k2 + 2 V 2 + k2 + 2 V3
ς ς such that qs (t − Ts ) ≤ qs (t − Ts ) − qm (t) + qm (t) ≤
√ γ
 κi κi κi 1+γ kc + qm (t). Since the master is controlled by human
+ 2kd (−k̇d ) + δi ˜i ˆi + Θ̃1 Θ̂1 + Θ̃2 Θ̂2 . operator, the position of which can be regarded as bounded.
i=m,s
σ i σ i σi
Hence, the boundedness of the position signal of the slave robot
(34) is guaranteed. The proof is therefore completed.
Note that from (34), we can obtain Remark 8: Compared with traditional finite/fixed-time con-
trol [13]–[15], the proposed approach shows the practically
κi κi
δi ˜i ˆi = δi (−˜ 2i + ˜i i ) prescribed-time characteristics. Most finite/fixed-time control
σi σi works provide the upper bound of the settling time, which is de-
κi κi pendent on control parameters or initial system condition. This
≤− δi ˜2i + δi 2 . (35)
2σi 2σi i time is conservative because it is just an estimated upper bound

Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ADAPTIVE FAULT-TOLERANT PRESCRIBED-TIME CONTROL FOR TELEOPERATION SYSTEMS 4895

Fig. 1. Forward and backward time-varying delay. Fig. 2. Human-inserted force.

instead of the actual settling time, which will result in parameter

design difficulty in practice. In this article, a time-varying piece-
wise function (6) explicitly including the actual settling time is
utilized in control design, which can be user-defined according
to practical requirements within the physically achievable range
rather than subject to parameter constraints.
Remark 9: Compared with the literature [37]–[39] aiming at
tackling adaptive fault-tolerant prescribed performance issue,
the novelty and contribution of this article include the following
parts.
1) Instead of dealing with linear or intrinsically linear systems,
we consider the fault-tolerant problem for a class of nonlinear
Fig. 3. Position errors xm1 with prescribed-time controller (27).
mechanical systems subject to Euler–Lagrange form with ex-
ogenous disturbances, system uncertainties, and time-varying
delays, where the inherent nonlinearity brings great difficulties
of ς [40]. The human-inserted force is illustrated in Fig. 2,
to the controller design. h h
where Fmx and Fmy represent the force along x and y direction
2) Different from the asymptotic convergence realized in the
imposed at the end-effector of the master robot, respectively.
aforementioned works, prescribed-time convergence of tracking
The dynamics of the interaction with passive environment can
errors is guaranteed. It means that the user-defined settling time
be written as Fsh = me (ẍe − ẍ) + de (ẋe − ẋ) + ke (xe − x)
and convergence set can be obtained while the constrained
for 15 s ≤ t ≤ 17 s, where xe and x stand for the position of
states never exceed the preassigned range. Thus, user-defined
the environment and end-effector defined in Cartesian space,
performance, including the settling time, residual-set, accuracy,
respectively; me , de , and ke denote the mass, damping, and
and overshoot, can be realized by fewer parameters in this article,
stiffness coefficient of the environment, respectively. The
producing less conservative stability analysis results.
control parameters for the controller (27) are selected as below:
α = 0.5, E = 1, T = 8 s, t0 = 0 s, η = 0.001, k1 = k2 = 2,
IV. SIMULATION
ε1 = 0.1, ε2 = 0.001, σi = 1. To demonstrate the effectiveness
To validate the effectiveness of the proposed prescribed-time of the developed controller, two cases are considered.
control scheme (27), two identical two-DOF serial links manipu-
lators are chosen as the master and slave robot, where the practi-
cal mass and length are set as m1 = m2 = 1 kg, l1 = 1.2 m, and A. Case 1: Healthy Actuator Without Contact Collision
l2 = 2.2 m. The nominal mass and length are set as m̂1 = m̂1 = The developed controller (27) is compared with the adap-
1 kg, ˆl1 = 1 m, and ˆl2 = 2 m. Since the human-inserted force tive finite-time controller in [14] and finite-time control in
will change the initial conditions rapidly, without loss of gener- [41] with the same initial conditions in Case 1. In order to
ality, we set qm (0) = qs (0) = [0, 0]T , q̇m (0) = q̇s (0) = [0, 0]T . guarantee the identical settling time theoretically, we select
The time-varying delays (see Fig. 1) are set as Tm = (0.3 + the control parameters for [14] as below: a1i = a2i = 0.3,
0.1sin(t) + m )s and Ts = (0.2 + 0.1sin(3t) + s )s, in which b1i = 0.75, b2i = 1.2, c1i = 0.5, c2i = 0.6, p1i = 0.6, p2i =
m and s denote the random time-delay subject to Gaussian dis- 1.5, p3i = p4i /2 = 1; the control parameters for [41] are
tribution N (0.3, 0.02) and N (0.3, 0.01), respectively. Similarly chosen as follows: Ki = diag{7, 7}, Bi = diag{0.8, 0.8}, βi =
with [12], the constraint functions on the synchronization error diag{0.8, 0.8}, ρi = diag{0.8, 0.8}, γi = diag{1, 1}. The syn-
are given by kc = kd = 1.2exp(−0.4t) + 0.25 for i = m, s. To chronization position errors are demonstrated in Figs. 3–8,
avoid the potential singularity phenomenon, a dynamic damped where xi11 and xi12 represent the position error of the first
reciprocal approach is employed in items with a reciprocal and second joint, respectively, for i = m, s. Figs. 3–5 show the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4896 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 16, NO. 7, JULY 2020

Fig. 4. Position errors xm1 with adaptive finite-time controller [14]. Fig. 7. Position errors xs1 with adaptive finite-time controller [14].

Fig. 8. Position errors xs1 with finite-time controller [41].

Fig. 5. Position errors xm1 with finite-time controller [41].

Fig. 9. Velocity errors xm2 with prescribed-time controller (27).

Fig. 6. Position errors xs1 with prescribed-time controller (27).

position error (xm1 ) responses driven by three controllers in

Case 1. It can be observed from Fig. 3 that the prescribed-time
performance is ensured in spite of manual manipulations at
t = 0 s and t = 15 s. By contrast, finite-time bilateral controllers
lead to longer convergence time (10 and 13 s) and higher over-
shoot, as shown in Figs. 4–5. In addition to this, Fig. 6 shows
that prescribed-time convergence and constraint performance
can be obtained under the prescribed-time control scheme,
leading to less conservative settling time compared with that of
finite-time methods [14], [41] illustrated in Figs. 7–8. Moreover,
Figs. 9–14 show the comparative results from the perspective of
synchronization velocity error, where xi21 and xi22 stand for the Fig. 10. Velocity errors xm2 with adaptive finite-time controller [14].

Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
WANG et al.: ADAPTIVE FAULT-TOLERANT PRESCRIBED-TIME CONTROL FOR TELEOPERATION SYSTEMS 4897

Fig. 11. Velocity errors xm2 with finite-time controller [41].

Fig. 15. Synchronization position response in Case 2.

Fig. 12. Velocity errors xs2 with prescribed-time controller (27).

Fig. 16. Synchronization velocity response in Case 2.

velocity error of the first and second joint, respectively. It is clear

that human-inserted force results in serious chattering, which
extends settling time in finite time control approaches [14], [41].
Fig. 13. Velocity errors xs2 with adaptive finite-time controller [14]. Compared with [14], [41], the proposed control strategy realizes
PPTS featured by oscillation-free and prescribed performance
convergence.

B. Case 2: Serious Actuator Faults With

Contact Collision
Different from Case 1, serious actuator faults are considered
as follows: δm = diag{0.6, 0.8}, δs = diag{0.5, 0.5} during t ∈
[15, 18]s. In addition to this, contact collision with the passivity
environment is considered in Case 2, where xe = [1.5, 1.5]T ,
de = 1, ke = 0.1. The synchronization convergence of position
and velocity errors is guaranteed in the multiple actuator failures,
√ γ
as shown in Figs. 15–16, where kcu = qmk (t) + 1+γ kc and
√ γ
kcl = qmk (t) − 1+γ kc are the prescribed bounds with respect
Fig. 14. Velocity errors xs2 with finite-time controller [41]. to the position of the slave robot, respectively, and kvu =

Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4898
q̇mk (t) + kd and kvl = q̇mk (t) − kd are the prescribed bounds
with respect to the velocity of the slave robot, respectively, for
k = 1, 2. Figs. 15–16 show the desirable convergence features,
such as robustness to time-varying delays, fault-tolerance ability,
and prescribed-time control performance.
V. CONCLUSION
In this article, we investigated the practically prescribed-time
synchronization control of teleoperation systems with time-
varying delays, system uncertainties, state constraints, and ac-
tuator faults. As a general case of PTS, PPTS was proposed first
for the stability analysis of nonlinear systems with unknown
disturbance. Incorporating the novel EBLF, we showed that,
the universal control performance can be guaranteed in the
framework of PPTS. The developed control scheme ensures the
synchronization errors to converge to a predefined set within
user-defined settling time while the prescribed range will never
be violated during the entire convergence process. As one of
future works, experimental study verifying the effectiveness
should be conducted in practice.
REFERENCES
[1] Z. Ya-kun, L. Hai-yang, H. Rui-xue, and L. Jiang-hui, “Shared control
on lunar spacecraft teleoperation rendezvous operations with large time
delay,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 137, pp. 312–319, 2017.
[2] K. Watanabe, T. Kanno, K. Ito, and K. Kawashima, “Single-master dual-
slave surgical robot with automated relay of suture needle,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 6343–6351, Aug. 2018.
[3] J. Smisek, E. Sunil, M. M. van Paassen, D. A. Abbink, and M. Mulder,
“Neuromuscular-system-based tuning of a haptic shared control interface
for UAV teleoperation,” IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst., vol. 47, no. 4,
pp. 449–461, Aug. 2017.
[4] C. Yang, X. Wang, Z. Li, Y. Li, and C. Su, “Teleoperation control based
on combination of wave variable and neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Syst.,
Man, Cybern., Syst., vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 2125–2136, Aug. 2017.
[5] D. Sun, F. Naghdy, and H. Du, “Neural network-based passivity control
of teleoperation system under time-varying delays,” IEEE Trans. Cybern.,
vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1666–1680, Jul. 2017.
[6] S. Ganjefar, M. H. Sarajchi, and M. T. H. Beheshti, “Adaptive sliding
mode controller design for nonlinear teleoperation systems using sin-
gular perturbation method,” Nonlinear Dyn., vol. 81, pp. 1435–1452,
Aug. 2015.
[7] R. Kikuuwe, K. Kanaoka, T. Kumon, and M. Yamamoto, “Phase-lead
stabilization of force-projecting master-slave systems with a new sliding
mode filter,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 2182–
2194, Nov. 2015.
[8] R. Moreau, M. Pham, M. Tavakoli, M. Le, and T. Redarce, “Sliding-mode
bilateral teleoperation control design for master–slave pneumatic servo
systems,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 584–597, 2012.
[9] Z. Li, L. Ding, H. Gao, G. Duan, and C. Su, “Trilateral teleoperation
of adaptive fuzzy force/motion control for nonlinear teleoperators with
communication random delays,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 21, no. 4,
pp. 610–624, Aug. 2013.
[10] Z. Li, Y. Xia, and F. Sun, “Adaptive fuzzy control for multilateral coopera-
tive teleoperation of multiple robotic manipulators under random network-
induced delays,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 437–450,
Apr. 2014.
[11] D. Zhai and Y. Xia, “Adaptive fuzzy control of multilateral asymmetric
teleoperation for coordinated multiple mobile manipulators,” IEEE Trans.
Fuzzy Syst., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 57–70, Feb. 2016.
[12] S. P. Bhat and D. S. Bernstein, “Finite-time stability of continuous
autonomous systems,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol. 38, pp. 751–766,
Feb. 2000.
[13] Y. Yang, C. Hua, and X. Guan, “Finite time control design for bilateral
teleoperation system with position synchronization error constrained,”
IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 609–619, Mar. 2016.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, VOL. 16, NO. 7, JULY 2020
[14] Z. Wang, Z. Chen, Y. Zhang, X. Yu, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Adaptive
finite-time control for bilateral teleoperation systems with jittering time
delays,” Int. J. Robust Nonlin. Control, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1007–1030,
2019.
[15] Z. Wang, Y. Sun, and B. Liang, “Synchronization control for bilateral tele-
operation system with position error constraints: A fixed-time approach,”
ISA Trans., vol. 93, pp. 125–136, 2019.
[16] J. D. Snchez-Torres, E. N. Sanchez, and A. G. Loukianov, “Predefined-
time stability of dynamical systems with sliding modes,” in Proc. Amer.
Control Conf., Jul. 2015, pp. 5842–5846.
[17] Y. Song, Y. Wang, J. Holloway, and M. Krstic, “Time-varying feedback
for regulation of normal-form nonlinear systems in prescribed finite time,”
Automatica, vol. 83, pp. 243–251, 2017.
[18] Y. Wang, Y. Song, D. J. Hill, and M. Krstic, “Prescribed-time consensus
and containment control of networked multiagent systems,” IEEE Trans.
Cybern., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1138–1147, Apr. 2019.
[19] K. P. Tee, B. Ren, and S. S. Ge, “Control of nonlinear systems with time-
varying output constraints,” Automatica, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 2511–2516,
2011.
[20] J. Xu and X. Jin, “State-constrained iterative learning control for a class
of mimo systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1322–
1327, May 2013.
[21] X. Jin and J.-X. Xu, “Iterative learning control for output-constrained sys-
tems with both parametric and nonparametric uncertainties,” Automatica,
vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 2508–2516, 2013.
[22] X. Jin, “Adaptive fixed-time control for MIMO nonlinear systems with
asymmetric output constraints using universal barrier functions,” IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 3046–3053, Jul. 2019.
[23] X. Jin, “Fault tolerant finite-time leader–follower formation control for
autonomous surface vessels with los range and angle constraints,” Auto-
matica, vol. 68, pp. 228–236, 2016.
[24] B. Wang, W. Chen, J. Wang, B. Zhang, Z. Zhang, and X. Qiu, “Accurate
cooperative control for multiple leaders multiagent uncertain systems:
A two-layer node-to-node communication framework,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Informat., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 2395–2405, Jun. 2018.
[25] B. Wang, J. Wang, B. Zhang, W. Chen, and Z. Zhang, “Leader–follower
consensus of multivehicle wirelessly networked uncertain systems subject
to nonlinear dynamics and actuator fault,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Sci. Eng.,
vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 492–505, Apr. 2018.
[26] B. Jiang, Q. Hu, and M. I. Friswell, “Fixed-time attitude control for rigid
spacecraft with actuator saturation and faults,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1892–1898, Sep. 2016.
[27] M. Van, S. S. Ge, and H. Ren, “Finite time fault tolerant control for robot
manipulators using time delay estimation and continuous nonsingular
fast terminal sliding mode control,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 47, no. 7,
pp. 1681–1693, Jul. 2017.
[28] S. Hu, L. Wang, J. Mao, C. Gao, B. Zhang, and S. Yang, “Synchronous
online diagnosis of multiple cable intermittent faults based on chaotic
spread spectrum sequence,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 66, no. 4,
pp. 3217–3226, Apr. 2019.
[29] B. Zhang, C. Sconyers, C. Byington, R. Patrick, M. E. Orchard, and
G. Vachtsevanos, “A probabilistic fault detection approach: Application
to bearing fault detection,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 5,
pp. 2011–2018, May 2011.
[30] C. Hua and X. P. Liu, “Delay-dependent stability criteria of teleopera-
tion systems with asymmetric time-varying delays,” IEEE Trans. Robot.,
vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 925–932, Oct. 2010.
[31] B. Siciliano and O. Khatib, Springer Handbook of Robotics. Berlin,
Germany: Springer, 2016.
[32] Z. Li, Y. Xia, and C.-Y. Su, Intelligent Networked Teleoperation Control.
Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2015.
[33] R. Kelly, V. S. Davila, and J. A. L. Perez, Control of Robot Manipulators
in Joint Space. London, U.K.: Springer, 2005.
[34] J. Zhang and G. Yang, “Prescribed performance fault-tolerant control
of uncertain nonlinear systems with unknown control directions,” IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 6529–6535, Dec. 2017.
[35] Y. Li, S. Tong, L. Liu, and G. Feng, “Adaptive output-feedback control
design with prescribed performance for switched nonlinear systems,”
Automatica, vol. 80, pp. 225–231, 2017.
[36] Z.-L. Tang, K. P. Tee, and W. He, “Tangent barrier Lyapunov functions for
the control of output-constrained nonlinear systems,” IFAC Proc. Volumes,
vol. 46, no. 20, pp. 449–455, 2013, 3rd IFAC Conference on Intelligent
Control and Automation Science ICONS 2013.
[37] S. Xiao and J. Dong, “Robust adaptive fault-tolerant tracking control for
uncertain linear systems with time-varying performance bounds,” Int. J.
Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 849–866, 2019.
WANG et al.: ADAPTIVE FAULT-TOLERANT PRESCRIBED-TIME CONTROL FOR TELEOPERATION SYSTEMS
[38] E. Arabi, B. C. Gruenwald, T. Yucelen, and J. E. Steck, “Guaranteed
model reference adaptive control performance in the presence of actuator
failures,” in Proc. AIAA Inform. Syst.-AIAA Infotech @ Aerosp., Jan.
2017. [Online]. Available: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2017-
0669website
[39] E. Arabi, B. C. Gruenwald, T. Yucelen, and N. T. Nguyen, “A set-theoretic
model reference adaptive control architecture for disturbance rejection
and uncertainty suppression with strict performance guarantees,” Int. J.
Control, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 1195–1208, 2018.
[40] W. Xu, B. Liang, and Y. Xu, “Practical approaches to handle the singular-
ities of a wrist-partitioned space manipulator,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 68,
no. 1, pp. 269–300, 2011.
[41] Y. Yang, C. Hua, H. Ding, and X. Guan, “Finite-time coordination control
for networked bilateral teleoperation,” Robotica, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 451–
462, 2015.
Ziwei Wang received the B.Sc. degree in detec-
tion, guidance and control technology from the
Department of Control Science and Technology,
Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, in
2012. He is currently working toward the Ph.D.
degree in guidance, navigation and control with
Guidance and Control Institute, Department of
Automation, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
His current research interests include teleop-
eration control, robotics, and control systems.
Bin Liang (M’97) received the Ph.D. degree
in instrument science and technology from the
Department of Precision Instrument, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, China, in 1994.
He was a Senior Visiting Scholar with
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, from 1997 to 1998. He was
the Director of Beijing Control Engineering Insti-
tute, China Aerospace Science and Technology,
Beijing, from 1999 to 2001. He was a Senior
Research Fellow with the Chinese University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, from 2001 to 2003. He visited EADS
Astrium, Bremen, Germany, from 2003 to 2005. From 2003 to 2007, he
served the Sino Satellite Communications Company, Ltd., Beijing, as
an Assistant Chief Engineer. He is currently a Professor and Director
of Center of Guidance and Control, with the Department of Automation,
Tsinghua University, Beijing. He has authored over two edited books
and 200 journal papers in the field of space-robot and spacecraft con-
trol. His research interests include space robotics, teleoperation, and
fault-tolerant control.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on October 10,2021 at 14:55:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4899
Yanchao Sun received the B.S. degree in flight
vehicle design and engineering, and the M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in control science and en-
gineering from the Harbin Institute of Technol-
ogy, Harbin, China, in 2010, 2012, and 2016,
respectively.
He is currently an Associate Professor of Sci-
ence and Technology on Underwater Vehicle
Laboratory at the Harbin Engineering University.
His research interests include distributed coop-
erative control of multiple Euler–Lagrange sys-
tems, multiagent system control, and multiple autonomous underwater
vehicle (AUV) systems control.
Tao Zhang (M’00–SM’11) received the B.S.,
M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in automatic control,
automation instrument and device, and detec-
tion technology and automation from Tsinghua
University, Beijing, China, in 1993, 1995, and
1999, respectively, and the second Ph.D. de-
gree from Saga University, Saga, Japan, in
2002.
He was a Visiting Associate Professor with
Saga University, from 1999 to 2003. From 2003
to 2006, he worked as a Researcher with the
National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan. He is currently a Profes-
sor and serves as the Dean of the Department of Automation, School
of Information Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing. He
has authored or coauthored more than 200 papers and eight books.
Dr. Zhang is a Fellow of IET, member of the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics and Institute of Electronics, Information
and Communication Engineers. He currently serves as the Editorial
Board Member and Technical Editor for IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS
ON MECHATRONICS. His current research includes robotics, image pro-
cessing, control theory, artificial intelligent, navigation and control of
spacecraft.