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

net/publication/366646637

Approximation-free Adaptive Prescribed Performance Control for Unknown

SISO Nonlinear Systems with Input Saturation

Conference Paper · December 2022

DOI: 10.1109/CDC51059.2022.9993286

CITATIONS READS

0 95

2 authors:

Panagiotis S. Trakas Charalampos Panagioti Bechlioulis

University of Patras University of Patras
5 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    120 PUBLICATIONS   4,684 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

RECONFIG View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Panagiotis S. Trakas on 30 December 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)
December 6-9, 2022. Cancún, Mexico

Approximation-free Adaptive Prescribed Performance Control for

Unknown SISO Nonlinear Systems with Input Saturation
Panagiotis S. Trakas and Charalampos P. Bechlioulis

Abstract— A universal approximation-free adaptive pre-
scribed performance control scheme is designed for unknown
SISO nonlinear systems with input saturation. The proposed
control method introduces a compromising relaxation of output
performance specifications depending on the input limitations.
Given the conflicting nature between input and output con-
straints, the stability properties are inevitably local. In this
respect, a sufficient stability condition for the closed-loop system
is provided through theoretical analysis. Owing to the adopted
prescribed performance control technique, the satisfaction of
the aforementioned stability properties guarantees the desired
trade-off between input and output constraints. Moreover, no
hard calculations are needed, neither for the controller nor for
the adaptive law, maintaining the complexity of the control
algorithm relatively low. Finally, the proposed approach is
clarified and verified by various simulation studies.
I. I NTRODUCTION
In all practical dynamical systems, hardware constraints
impose inevitably physical actuation limitations (e.g., satu-
ration in magnitude and slew rate as well as hysteresis, back-
lash, stiction and deadzone), which can severely degrade the
closed-loop system performance, giving rise to undesirable
inaccuracy or even leading to instability. The development
of control schemes for uncertain nonlinear systems under
actuation limitations has been a task of major practical
interest as well as theoretical significance and continues to
pose tremendous challenges to system designers. However,
the number of available results that take input nonlinearities
into account, in the design and analysis of controllers, is
still limited owing to the inherent difficulty of the problem.
Moreover, the considered plants in the related works should
satisfy certain restrictive structural conditions. In particular,
saturation nonlinearities which are unavoidable in all actu-
ators and include constraints of the magnitude and the rate
of the control signal, stand as the most harsh and complex
actuation limitations in nonlinear control systems. When an
actuator has reached such a limit, it is saturated, since efforts
to further increase the actuator output would not result in any
variation of its output.
To tackle the saturation problem, a general actuator satura-
tion compensator scheme was developed in [1]. An adaptive
controller to accommodate saturation constraints in the pres-
ence of time delays was proposed in [2]. Furthermore, to
effectively handle physical limitations, constrained adaptive
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Patras, Greece. E-mails:
ptrakas@upatras.gr, chmpechl@upatras.gr.
This work was supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and
Innovation (H.F.R.I.) under the second call for research projects to support
post-doctoral researchers (HFRI-PD19-370).
backstepping control was proposed in which command filters
were used to impose constraints on the virtual control laws
[3], [4], [5]. In [3], nonlinear approximation-based backstep-
ping control was presented for nonlinear dynamical systems
subject to magnitude, rate, and bandwidth constraints. Fi-
nally, the control input saturation was investigated via online
approximation-based control for uncertain nonlinear systems
[4].
The problem becomes significantly more challenging
when, in addition to uncertainties and input saturation,
performance specifications on the output tracking error,
like maximum transient period and steady-state error, are
considered. A control method that deals with performance
attributes, called Prescribed Performance Control (PPC), was
first proposed in [6] for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems
and further extended in approximation-free paradigms in
[7]. The key idea behind PPC, is that the performance
characteristics are incorporated in the control design via
a transformation of the original constrained (with respect
to the output response) system into an unconstrained one,
whose robust stability only is sufficient to impose the desired
performance specifications. Unfortunately, conventional PPC
does not provide a universal solution to the control of uncer-
tain nonlinear systems under saturation nonlinearities, as the
limited control effort may fail to maintain the boundedness of
closed-loop signals and possibly lead to instability. Recently,
a modified PPC (mPPC) scheme that accomplishes a trade-
off between input and output constraints was proposed in [8].
Although, the authors in [8] assume known nonlinearities the
proposed control algorithm is quite complex which renders
difficulties of its implementation in realistic conditions along
with uncertainties and necessity of rapid computations.
In this paper, we propose a low complexity approximation-
free adaptive control scheme with prescribed performance
specifications for scalar unknown SISO nonlinear systems
under symmetrical input saturation, which is also extended
for n-th order systems in the Brunovsky canonical form. The
assumptions made, concern the satisfaction of a sufficient
controllability condition, the continuity of the unknown
nonlinear functions, as well as full state availability. The
proposed scheme accomplishes a trade-off between input
limitations and output constraints, by relaxing the perfor-
mance bounds of conventional PPC, when the plant reaches
saturation. Theoretical analysis provides a sufficient stability
condition for the closed-loop system as well as a necessary
and sufficient condition for the input-output constraints trade-
off to be vanished.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section

978-1-6654-6761-2/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE 4351

II states the problem and reviews preliminary knowledge on
prescribed performance control and dynamical systems. The
proposed control scheme along with the stability analysis is
presented in Section III. In Section IV, simulation results
clarify and verify the theoretical findings. Finally, we con-
clude in Section V.
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION AND P RELIMINARIES
Consider the nonlinear scalar dynamical system:
ẋ = f (x) + g(x)u + d(t) (1)
where x ∈ R is the state, f (x), g(x) are smooth functions,
u ∈ R is the saturated control input given by:

∗
 a if
 a > a∗
u = sat(a) = a if |a| ≤ a∗ (2)
 ∗
 ∗
−a if a < −a
with a⋆ > 0 denoting the input saturation level, and d :
R+ → R models bounded and piecewise continuous external
disturbance effects. In this work, assuming no prior knowl-
edge on the system nonlinearities f (x), g(x) and the external
disturbances d(t), we aim at designing an approximation-
free, state feedback controller for the input saturated system
(1) that meets the following properties: i) all signals in the
closed-loop system remain bounded and ii) the desired signal
xd (t) is tracked with prescribed transient and steady state
performance specifications.
In order to solve the Prescribed Performance Control under
Input Saturation (PPCIS) problem, we pose the following
assumptions:
Assumption 1: There exists a positive constant g ∗ such
that inf x∈R {g(x)} = g ∗ , which guarantees that (1) is
controllable.
Assumption 2: The state x of the system is available for
measurement.
Assumption 3: The reference signal xd (t) is a contin-
uously differentiable and bounded function of time with
bounded thought unknown first derivative.
A. Conventional Prescribed Performance Control (PPC)
In PPC, the prescribed performance concerns the conver-
gence of the output tracking error to a residual set that is
predefined and arbitrarily small. The minimum convergence
rate as well as the maximum overshoot are also prespec-
ified. For clarity, in this work we drop the performance
specification requirement regarding overshoot (see Remark
6 in [7] for more details on the overshoot specification). In
particular, consider the measurable tracking error e : R+ →
R. Prescribed performance is achieved if e evolves strictly
within a region that is bounded by decaying functions of
time that incorporate the performance specifications. Hence,
prescribed performance can be expressed mathematically via
the following inequalities:
−ρ(t) < e(t) < ρ(t), ∀t ≥ 0 (3)
where ρ : R+ → R∗+ is a continuously differentiable and
strictly decreasing function of time satisfying limt→∞ ρ(t) >
0, called performance function.
4352
B. Dynamical Systems
Consider the initial value problem:
ξ˙ = h(t, ξ(t)), ξ(0) = ξ0 ∈ Ω (4)
with h : R+ × Ω → Rn , where Ω ⊂ Rn is an open set.
Definition 1: [9] A solution to the initial value problem
(4) is maximal, if it has no proper right extension that is also
a solution of (4).
Theorem 1: [9] Consider the initial value problem (4).
Assume that h is: i) locally Lipschitz on ξ and ii) piecewise
continuous and locally integrable on t for each ξ ∈ Ω. Then,
there exists a unique maximal solution ξ : [0, τmax ) → Ω
of (4) on the time interval [0, τmax ) with τmax ∈ {R∗+ , ∞}
such that ξ(t) ∈ Ω, ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ).
Proposition 1: [9] Assume that the hypotheses of Theo-
rem 1 hold. For a maximal solution ξ : [0, τmax ) → Ω on the
time interval [0, τmax ) with τmax < ∞ and for any compact
set Ω′ ⊂ Ω there exists a time instant t′ ∈ [0, τmax ) such
that ξ(t′ ) ̸∈ Ω′ .
III. M AIN R ESULTS
In this section, we present an adaptive control scheme
that provably solves the PPCIS problem and establishes the
required stability properties of the closed-loop dynamical
system (1). We rely on the concept of conventional PPC, a
control technique that is capable of imposing, any predefined
performance specifications to a nonlinear system in the form
of (1), through bounded control input. However, the PPCIS
problem is rendered intractable owing to the fact that input
limitations restrict the magnitude of the generated control
signal. As a consequence, the saturated control input may
fail to guarantee the boundedness of tracking error within
the envelope that is formed by the preassigned performance
functions, and thus lead the closed-loop system to instability
(i.e., there does not exist enough control input to steer the
tracking error and avoid crossing the performance bounds).
Given the conflicting nature between input constraints and
output specifications and the fact that the former one is
an uncontrollable constraint, we introduce an adaptive PPC
method capable of: i) relaxing the performance functions
when the input signal is saturated and ii) restoring them
when the system operates away from the saturation limit.
Moreover, the unknown system nonlinearities, which couple
the aforementioned constraints, inevitably lead to local sta-
bility properties, i.e., a solution of the PPCIS problem with
respect to a compact subset of the state space domain.
A. Adaptive PPC Design
In conventional PPC [7], given a reference signal xd (t)
and any initial system condition x(0) = x0 ∈ R, we select
the performance function ρ(t) = (ρ0 − ρ∞ )e−λt + ρ∞ such
that λ, ρ∞ encapsulate the desired transient and steady state
performance specifications and ρ0 satisfies ρ0 > |x(0) −
xd (0)| (the performance envelope at t = 0 includes the initial
tracking error).
 Then,
 the control protocol is designed as
x−xd
u = −kT ρ , where k > 0 and T (⋆) : (−1, 1) → R
  
1+⋆
with T (0) = 0 (e.g., T (⋆) = ln 1−⋆ ), and guarantees sn−1 + qn−1 sn−2 + ... + q2 s + q1 satisfy min{|ri |} > λ [10].
that any preselected transient and steady state performance Furthermore, let yd (t) be the desired trajectory with bounded
specifications (via the selection of the performance function high order derivatives, which can be written in vector form
(n−1) T
ρ(t)) can be achieved in terms of (3) with bounded control as ȳd = [yd , ..., yd ] . Hence, the tracking error surface
input. However, when the control input is saturated then may be defined as σ(ẽ) = q T ẽ, where ẽ = x − ȳd . Then, by
certainly a trade-off between input constraint and output selecting ρ0 > |σ(ẽ(0))| and modifying the proposed control
performance is expected. Towards this direction, we modify scheme (6) as:  
the aforementioned controller to compensate for the input σ(ẽ)
a = −kT (9)
limitation as follows: ρ
!
u−a we extend the results for the PPCIS problem from the scalar
ρ̇ = −λ(ρ − ρ∞ ) + γ x−xd , γ > 0 (5) system (1) to the SISO high-order system (8).
ρ
B. Stability Analysis
 
x − xd
a = −kT , k>0 (6)
ρ Theorem 2: Consider system (1) and a reference trajec-
u = sat(a) (7) tory xd (t) that obey Assumptions 1-3. For a sufficiently large
saturation level a⋆ , there exists an upper bound ρ̄ of the
Remark 1: Note that the first term of the derivative of performance function ρ(t) such that the proposed adaptive
the performance function (5) stands for the conventional control scheme (5)-(7) guarantees:
exponential performance function ρ(t) = (ρ(0)−ρ∞ )e−λt +
ρ∞ , whereas the second term, which is non negative for all −ρ̄ ≤ −ρ(t) < x(t) − xd (t) < ρ(t) ≤ ρ̄, ∀t ≥ 0.
t ≥ 0, relaxes the performance specifications by increasing Proof: Let us define the normalized with respect to the
ρ, in order to maintain the boundedness of the control signal performance function tracking error:
a and subsequently the stability of the closed-loop system. x − xd
Notice also that u − a = 0 when x−x d
is close to zero, since ξ= (10)
ρ ρ
saturation is not active for a set around x−x ρ
d
= 0, thus the Differentiating (10) with respect to time we obtain:
dynamics of ρ is well defined. Moreover, when the system  
operates without saturation the relaxed performance function 1 (x − xd )
ξ˙ = (ẋ − ẋd ) − ρ̇ . (11)
progressively recovers its conventional form, as u = a. ρ ρ
Apparently, for generic nonlinear functions f (x), g(x) and Notice also from (10) that the state of the system can be
disturbances d(t) in (1), the results regarding the stability written as x = xd +ξρ. Thus, substituting the aforementioned
properties under saturation, which are examined in Theorem equation as well as (1) and (5) into (11) we get:
2, are expected to be local.
1
Remark 2: The proposed adaptive PPC scheme does not ξ˙ = ((f (xd + ξρ) + g(xd + ξρ)u + d(t) − ẋd )
require either knowledge of the system or any approximating ρ (12)
structures (i.e., neural networks, fuzzy systems, etc.) to + ξλ(ρ − ρ∞ ) + γ(a − u)).
acquire information about the system nonlinear functions. Moreover, the control signals (5),(7) may be written as
Moreover, both the control signal (6) and the update law functions of ξ as:
(5) are produced through simple calculations resulting to a  
low complexity algorithm. Furthermore, our algorithm does 1+ξ
a(ξ) = −k ln
not utilize the derivative of the reference signal xd (t), thus 1−ξ (13)
making it appropriate for applications where the desired u(ξ) = sat(a(ξ)).
signal is measured online and is not a priori known.
Thus, by letting h(ξ, ρ, xd , ẋd , t) = (f (xd + ξρ) + d(t) − ẋd )
Remark 3: The aforementioned control strategy is appli-
as well as B(ρ) = λ(ρ − ρ∞ ) and substituting (13) in (12),
cable to n-th order SISO nonlinear systems in the Brunovsky
the dynamics of ξ becomes:
canonical form:
1
ẋi = xi+1 , i = 1, . . . , n − 1 ξ˙ = ((h(ξ, ρ, xd , ẋd , t) + g(xd + ξρ)sat(a(ξ)))
ρ (14)
ẋn = f (x) + g(x)u + d(t), (8) + ξB(ρ) + γ(a(ξ) − sat(a(ξ))).
y = x1
In compact form, the latter can be written as:
where x = [x1 , x2 , ..., xn ]T ∈ Rn denotes the state vector, ξ˙ = s(t, ξ). (15)
u is the control input, y is the output, f (x), g(x) are
unknown nonlinear scalar functions and d(t) denotes a Subsequently, the proof proceeds in two steps. First, we
bounded and piecewise continuous external disturbance term. establish the existence of a unique maximal solution ξ :
First, let us define a filtered signal σ(⋆) = q T ⋆, where [0, τmax ) → (−1, 1) of (15), i.e. ξ ∈ (−1, 1), ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ).
q = [q1 , q2 , . . . , qn−1 , 1]T ∈ Rn are positive constants such Next, we prove that the proposed control scheme guarantees
that the roots ri , i ∈ {1, ..., n−1} of the Hurwitz polynomial ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ): i) the boundedness of all closed-loop signals

4353
of (15) and ii) ξ remains strictly within a compact subset of where H̄ = maxϵ≤ϵ̄,ρ≤ρ̄ {|h(ξ, ρ, xd , ẋd , t)|} and M =
(−1, 1), which leads to τmax = ∞ by contradiction. maxρ≤ρ̄,ϵ≤ϵ̄ {|γ − g(xd + ρϵ)|}. The right side of (23) is
Step 1. Let us define the open set: positive if the following inequality is satisfied:

Ω := {(t, ξ) : t ∈ [0, τmax ), ξ ∈ (−1, 1)} (16) γkϵ̄ − Msat(kϵ̄) > H̄ (24)

for which ξ(0) ∈ Ω since ρ(0) > |x(0)−xd (0)| (i.e., |ξ(0)| < Incorporating (23) in (22) we arrive at:
1). Additionally, s : Ω → R is a continuous function on
 
kϵ̄ − sat(kϵ̄)
t and locally Lipschitz on ξ over the set (-1,1), under the A(ϵ̄) ≤ γ B(ρ̄) (25)
γkϵ̄ − Msat(kϵ̄) − H̄
assumption that there exists a compact set in which ρ is
Hence, the closed-loop system is stable when:
bounded (i.e., ρ ∈ (0, ρ̄] for a positive constant ρ̄), which we
will prove in Step 2. Therefore, the conditions of Theorem 1 (γ − M)sat(kϵ̄) ≥ H̄ (26)
are satisfied, and consequently we conclude that there exists
a unique maximal solution ξ : [0, τmax ) → (−1, 1), such Thus, we conclude the existence of a compact set within
that (t, ξ(t)) ∈ Ω. which the stability of the system is guaranteed. Owing to
Step 2. In Step 1, we showed that, ξ(t) ∈ (−1, 1), ∀t ∈ (24) and (26) and incorporating the saturation level a⋆ we
[0, τmax ). Hence, the signal t 7→ ϵ(t) with: arrive at:

1 + ξ(t)
 W := {(w, γ) : w = (γ − M)a⋆ − H̄ ≥ 0, γ > M} (27)
ϵ(t) = ln (17)
1 − ξ(t) As a consequence, for a sufficiently large saturation level a⋆
all closed-loop signals remain bounded within the set W for
is well defined ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ). Now, consider the positive
all t ∈ [0, τmax ). Therefore, combining (17) with the inverse
definite and radially unbounded Lyapunov function candidate
logarithmic function, we get:
V = 21 ϵ2 . Differentiating with respect to time we obtain:
e−ϵ̄ − 1 ϵ̄
¯= e − 1 < 1
ϵ −1 < = ξ ≤ ξ ≤ ξ (28)
V̇ = (h(ξ, ρ, xd , ẋd , t) e−ϵ̄ + 1 ¯ eϵ̄ + 1
(1 − ξ 2 )ρ (18)
+ [γ − g(xd + ξρ)]sat(kϵ) + ξB(ρ) − γkϵ) Note that (t, ξ) ∈ Ω′ , for a nonempty compact set Ω′ :=
¯ However it is clear from
{(t, ξ) : t ∈ [0, τmax ), ξ ∈ (ξ, ξ)}.
Furthermore, owing to the continuity of f, g and the bound- ¯
(28) that Ω′ ⊂ Ω. Hence, assuming that τmax < ∞, there
edness of d(t), ẋd (t) as well as the supposition that ρ ∈ exists a time instant t′ ∈ [0, τmax ), as dictated by Propo-
(0, ρ̄] (i.e., the performance function ρ(t) remains upper sition 1, such that ξ(t′ ) ∈ ¯ which is a contradiction.
/ (ξ, ξ),
bounded by a positive constant ρ̄), and invoking the Extreme Consequently, τmax = ∞ and¯ all closed-loop signals remain
Value Theorem, we get: bounded within W and additionally ξ(t) ∈ (ξ, ξ) ¯ ∀t ∈ R+ ,
which, through (28), leads to: ¯
D = sup {|h(ξ, ρ, xd , ẋd , t)
t≥0,ρ≤ρ̄ (19) −ρ̄ ≤ −ρ(t) < x − xd < ρ(t) ≤ ρ̄ (29)
+ [γ − g(xd + ξρ)]sat(kϵ) + ξB(ρ)|}
and eventually guarantees prescribed performance tracking
1
Thus, employing (19), the property that (1−ξ 2) ≥ 1 as under input saturation.
concluded by Step 1, in addition to the fact that ρ ≥ ρ∞ , Remark 4: Note that the output performance specifica-
then V̇ becomes: tions of the closed-loop system is solely determined by the
1 evolution of ρ(t). More specifically, in Theorem 2 we proved
V̇ ≤ (D|ϵ| − γk|ϵ|2 ) (20) that the tracking error is upper bounded from a positive
(1 − ξ 2 )ρ
constant ρ̄, with respect to a compact set W. Despite the
D
Hence, V̇ < 0 when |ϵ| > γk , which implies: fact that the size of W depends on the unknown nonlinear
terms, the evolution of ρ(t) is also coupled with the control
D gains k, γ and the convergence rate λ. On account of this, the
|ϵ(t)| ≤ ϵ̄ = max{|ϵ(0)|, } ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ]. (21)
γk proper selection of the aforementioned parameters affects the
As a result, a sufficient condition yielding all closed-loop response of the system. Notice from (5) that as k increases,
signals bounded is the existence of a positive constant ρ̄ such the control law reaches saturation faster, and thus for large
that: values of k even the limited input capability is not fully
reclaimed. Moreover, as γ increases, the relaxation of ρ(t)
kϵ̄ − sat(kϵ̄)
B(ρ̄) = λ(ρ̄ − ρ∞ ) ≥ γ = A(ϵ̄) (22) in saturation is greater, due to the second term in (5).
ξ¯ As a result, large values of γ increase the tracking error
where ξ¯ = T −1 (ϵ̄) ∈ (0, 1). Notice from (19) and (21) that: boundaries, more than it is necessary. On the other hand,
an increment of λ implies decrease of ρ̇(t). Hence, for
¯
γkϵ̄ ≤ H̄ + Msat(kϵ̄) + ξB(ρ̄) =⇒ large selection of λ the system may be leaded to instability
γkϵ̄ − Msat(kϵ̄) − H̄ (23) if the tracking error is increased faster than the adaptive
ξ¯ ≥
B(ρ̄) performance function ρ(t). Based on the aforementioned, it

4354
is obvious that the selection of the adaptive PPC parameters Σ1 with the following nonlinear terms:
λ
is based on the ratio kγ , which should be selected relatively
f (x) = −x + x3 − x7
small.
Remark 5: Theorem 2 is applicable to any system (1) that Σ1 : g(x) = x4 + log(x2 + 2)
satisfies Assumptions 1-2. Nevertheless, the local stability d(t) = 4 cos(t) − 2 cos(3t)
properties that we proved, extend to global stability in case
with initial condition x(0) = 0 and desired trajectory
of input to state stable (ISS) systems. The aforementioned
xd (t) = 2 sin(2t) + 1.3 cos(t). In this case, we illustrate
inference derives from the fact that the state x remains
the effect of input saturation to the performance specifi-
bounded for ISS systems with saturated (bounded) input.
cations determined by the parameters provided in Table I
Hence, ρ remains globally bounded, as we proved in the
(i.e., convergence rate greater than exp(−λt) and maximum
above analysis that ϵ is globally bounded.
steady state error less than ρ∞ ). The saturation level was
Remark 6: Theorem 2 guarantees the stability of the sys- also set at a∗ = 10. Fig. 1 depicts the response of the closed-
tem by introducing a trade-off between the input constraint loop system. Notice that when the control input u reaches
and the output performance. Therefore, in some control saturation, i.e., no further control effort can be applied to
applications where the saturation level a∗ is adjustable, it the system, the performance bounds are relaxed to maintain
is essential to know the compact set where the trajectory the stability of the system. Eventually, the trade-off between
tracking is precise, i.e., the steady state tracking error be- input and output constraints vanishes when the control signal
comes less than ρ∞ . Towards this direction, employing the is away from saturation. Apparently, the aforementioned sat-
inverse dynamics of (1), a sufficient condition for accurate uration level does not allow perfect tracking of the reference
tracking at the steady state is given by: trajectory (see Remark 6).
|ẋd (t) − f (xd (t)) − d(t)|
P := {(t, xd (t)) : t ∈ R+ , < a∗ }
g(xd (t))
(30)
As a consequence, if the reference trajectory lies within the
compact set P, the tracking performance can be precisely
predefined by ρ∞ and the trade-off between the input con-
straints and the output performance specifications vanishes
at the steady state.

IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS

In this section, we demonstrate the capability of the
proposed control scheme to solve the PPCIS problem, via
two simulated scenarios: a first-order paradigm consisting of
two different scalar systems in the form of (1), illustrating the
full capabilities of our method, in addition to a higher order
system in the form of (8). Both paradigms were simulated
in MATLAB, using the ode15s routine, with error tolerances
RelTol = 10−6 and AbsTol = 10−10 .
A. First Order System
In order to show the universal capabilities of the proposed
control algorithm, we keep unaltered the control protocol,
i.e., fixed parameters, for all systems, as listed in Table I. The
closed-loop system in each case is obtained by incorporating
the adaptive control scheme (5)-(7) into the plant dynamics.
Throughout this simulation scenario all Assumptions 1-3 are
met. Finally, let us define the tracking error as e = x − xd .
TABLE I
C ONTROL PARAMETERS
k γ λ ρ∞
2 2 5 0.05
Case A. Consider the input to state stable (ISS) system
Fig. 1. (a) Tracking response of Σ1 . (b) The evolution of the tacking error;
the dashed lines indicate the adaptive performance bounds. (c) The control
signal a(t) and the saturated input u(t).
Case B. In this case, we simulate a generic nonlinear sys-
tem by dropping the ISS assumption. In particular, consider
the system Σ2 with the following nonlinear terms:
f (x) = x3 + x5
Σ2 : g(x) = x2 + 1
d(t) = 5 cos(t)
with initial condition x(0) = 0 and desired trajectory
xd (t) = 0.8 sin(t) + 0.5 cos(t). In Theorem 2, we stated that
for an unknown nonlinear system, there exists a compact set
W, within which the closed-loop system under the proposed
control scheme (5)-(7) remains bounded. The conclusions of
the aforementioned theorem are illustrated in Fig. 2. Notice
from Fig. 2a, that for saturation level a∗ = 3.3, Σ3 escapes
W, i.e. w < 0, resulting in a → ∞ (see the subplot in
Fig. 2a). On the other hand, for larger saturation levels a∗ ,
Σ3 remains within W and all closed-loop signals remain
bounded, as can be seen in Fig. 2b and Fig. 2c. Moreover,
as dictated in Remark 6, when the states of Σ2 enter the

4355
 compact set P then the tracking performance is determined
solely by λ and ρ∞ , i.e., as in conventional PPC. Fig. 2
illustrates this property, e.g., the steady state error is less
than ρ∞ , when the controller does not saturate.
Fig. 2. (a)-(c): response of Σ2 for various input saturation levels (the
subplots provide details at the steady state). (d)-(f): the corresponding
control signals.
B. High Order System
In this simulation study, we illustrate the applicability of
our adaptive PPC method in a high order SISO system in the
form of (8) under the assumptions and definitions dictated
by Remark 3. In particular, we consider a third order system
in the canonical form as follows:
ẋ1 = x2
ẋ2 = x3
Σho :
ẋ3 = f (x) + g(x)u + d(t)
y = x1
where f (x) = −2(x21 − 1)x2 − x2 − x33 , g(x) = 5 +
cos(x1 x2 ) + x23 ), d(t) = 4 cos(t) with initial condition
x(0) = [1, 0.8, 1]T . The desired trajectory is yd (t) =
1.1 sin(t) and the control parameters (as dictated by Remark
3) are listed in Table II. In Fig. 3 the effectiveness of the
proposed adaptive control strategy on the third order SISO
system (IV-B) is visualized. Notice that the proposed scheme
established prescribed steady state response and relaxed the
convergence rate since the saturation level did not allow
faster convergence owing to input limitation. Nevertheless,
despite the heavily saturated control signal during the tran-
sient, the stability of the closed-loop system is secured and
the steady state performance is readily recovered.
TABLE II
C ONTROL G AINS
k γ λ ρ∞ q1 q2 a∗
1 1 0.5 0.001 9 10 1 1998.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have considered the PPC problem for
unknown SISO nonlinear systems under input saturation. The
4356
View publication stats
Fig. 3. (a) the tracking response of Σho . (b) the evolution of the tacking
error; the dashed lines indicate the adaptive performance bounds. (c) the
control signal a(t) and the saturated control input u(t).
proposed adaptive PPC scheme counteracts input limitations
by properly modifying the output constraints, depending on
the feasible control effort that can be applied to the plant.
Furthermore, a sufficient stability condition is provided by
the theoretical analysis. Contrary to the related literature,
no prior knowledge on the system nonlinearities nor any
approximation mechanisms are required, thus maintaining
the complexity of the control scheme relatively low. Future
research efforts will be devoted to more general system
structures as well as encountering slew rate (apart from
magnitude) input constraints.
R EFERENCES
[1] K. J. Åström and B. Wittenmark, Computer-controlled systems: theory
and design. Courier Corporation, 2013.
[2] B. Armstrong-Hélouvry, P. Dupont, and C. C. De Wit, “A survey of
models, analysis tools and compensation methods for the control of
machines with friction,” Automatica, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1083–1138,
1994.
[3] M. M. Polycarpou, J. Farrell, and M. Sharma, “Robust on-line approx-
imation control of uncertain nonlinear systems subject to constraints,”
in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Engineering
of Complex Computer Systems, ICECCS, 2004, pp. 66–74.
[4] M. Polycarpou, J. Farrell, and M. Sharma, “On-line approximation
control of uncertain nonlinear systems: issues with control input
saturation,” in Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference,
2003., vol. 1, 2003, pp. 543–548 vol.1.
[5] L. Sonneveldt, Q. P. Chu, and J. A. Mulder, “Nonlinear flight control
design using constrained adaptive backstepping,” Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 322–336, 2007.
[6] C. P. Bechlioulis and G. A. Rovithakis, “Robust adaptive control
of feedback linearizable mimo nonlinear systems with prescribed
performance,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 53, no. 9,
pp. 2090–2099, 2008.
[7] ——, “A low-complexity global approximation-free control scheme
with prescribed performance for unknown pure feedback systems,”
Automatica, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1217–1226, 2014.
[8] K. Yong, M. Chen, Y. Shi, and Q. Wu, “Flexible performance-based
robust control for a class of nonlinear systems with input saturation,”
Automatica, vol. 122, 2020.
[9] E. D. Sontag, Mathematical Control Theory: Deterministic Finite
Dimensional Systems (2nd Ed.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag,
[10] I. S. Dimanidis, C. P. Bechlioulis, and G. A. Rovithakis, “Output feed-
back approximation-free prescribed performance tracking control for
uncertain mimo nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 5058–5069, 2020.