actuators
Article
Impedance Learning-Based Hybrid Adaptive Control of Upper
Limb Rehabilitation Robots
Zhenhua Jiang 1,2 , Zekai Wang 3 , Qipeng Lv 4 and Jiantao Yang 3, *
Citation: Jiang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Lv, Q.;
Yang, J. Impedance Learning-Based
Hybrid Adaptive Control of Upper
Limb Rehabilitation Robots. Actuators
2024, 13, 220. https://doi.org/
10.3390/act13060220
Academic Editors: Monica Tiboni and
Steve Davis
Received: 15 May 2024
Revised: 6 June 2024
Accepted: 10 June 2024
Published: 12 June 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Actuators 2024, 13, 220. https://doi.org/10.3390/act13060220
1 Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Donghua University, Shanghai 201620, China; zhjiang@dhu.edu.cn
2 Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Industrial Big Data and Intelligent System, Shanghai 201620, China
3 School of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology,
Shanghai 200093, China; wzk_1125@163.com
4 The Second Research Institute of China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, Taiyuan 030024, China;
13513623169@163.com
* Correspondence: jty@usst.edu.cn
Abstract: This paper presents a hybrid adaptive control strategy for upper limb rehabilitation robots
using impedance learning. The hybrid adaptation consists of a differential updating mechanism for
the estimation of robotic modeling uncertainties and periodic adaptations for the online learning of
time-varying impedance. The proposed hybrid adaptive controller guarantees asymptotical control
stability and achieves variable impedance regulation for robots without interaction force measure-
ments. According to Lyapunov’s theory, we proved that the proposed impedance learning controller
guarantees the convergence of tracking errors and ensures the boundedness of the estimation errors
of robotic uncertainties and impedance profiles. Simulations and experiments conducted on a parallel
robot validated the effectiveness and the superiority of the proposed impedance learning controller
in robot-assisted rehabilitation. The proposed hybrid adaptive control has potential applications in
rehabilitation, exoskeletons, and some other repetitive interactive tasks.
Keywords: adaptive control; impedance learning; rehabilitation robot; periodic adaptive control;
hybrid adaptation
1. Introduction
Comfort and safety are of significant value in robot-assisted rehabilitation and can
be improved through robot impedance regulation. As a well-known compliance control
approach, impedance control has shown its powerful abilities in robot impedance regulation
and has been extensively applied in service robots and industrial robots [1–4]. However,
robot modeling uncertainties and human impedance variation bring in difficulties for
impedance control implementation in rehabilitation training.
Robot modeling uncertainties affect the control stability and the control robustness
of impedance control. Up to now, considerable research attention has been paid to robust
impedance control [5], adaptive impedance control [6,7], neural impedance control [8–11],
and iterative learning impedance control [12]. These impedance control methods improve
the stability and robustness of closed-loop control systems; however, these methods mainly
focus on constant impedance regulation.
In robot-assisted rehabilitation, human impedance varies along with the variation in
interaction forces and tasks. Time-varying impedance control [13] has better robustness
and compliance in rehabilitation training through robotic variable impedance regulation,
in comparison with constant impedance control [14–16]. Although categories of variable
impedance control methods were designed for robot-assisted rehabilitation [17], many of
these results neglected the stability of the desired variable impedance dynamics (DVID)
which is of significant value for human–robot cooperative motion. Actually, the DVID
are described by linear time-varying systems and may be violated by the variation in
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/actuators
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 2 of 19

impedance profiles. In [18], the stability region of impedance parameters was evaluated
experimentally for the DVID with zero stiffness. In [19], an adaptive variable impedance
controller was designed for force tracking in interaction with an unknown environment
with constant impedance. In [20–22], novel constraints on time-varying impedance profiles
were proposed to guarantee the stability of the DVID, but how to design impedance profiles
in robot-assisted rehabilitation was not given in these results.
Designing appropriate impedance profiles to balance between the desired control
stability and the desirable interaction performance is of significant value for robot-assisted
rehabilitation. For impedance profile construction, the algorithms of Learning from Demon-
stration and sEMG-based Dynamic Movement Primitives (DMPs) were applied for time-
varying impedance control in physical HRI. In [23–25], two-loop-based optimal admittance
controllers were proposed for robot-assisted rehabilitation. An inner-control loop makes
robots behave in a prescribed impedance model, and an outer-loop optimal control aims at
finding the optimal parameters of the prescribed impedance model by minimizing a perfor-
mance function of interaction forces and tracking errors. Almost all impedance/admittance
controllers mentioned above were designed using interactive forces; however, the force
measurements may become impossible without related force sensors or ineffective due to
measurement delay or noises.
From the above analysis, the variable impedance regulation of robots can improve
human–robot interactive performances, but impedance variation brings in control stability
problems. Recently, model-based impedance learning controllers were proposed in [26–28]
for human–robot interaction with a control stability guarantee and without the requirement
of interaction forces. Specifically, human impedance uncertainties were estimated by using
the periodicity characteristics of task reference trajectory and human impedance profiles
in [26,27], and an adaptive impedance learning controller was proposed in [28], where
robot modeling uncertainties and human impedance uncertainties were estimated by using
traditional differential updating laws. However, the results in [26–28] have the following
deficiencies: (i) these adaptive impedance learning controllers only guarantee the closed-
loop control systems be uniformly ultimately bounded (UUB) but not be asymptotically
stable; (ii) precise knowledge about robotic dynamic parameters is required in [26,27]; and
(iii) the result in [28] requires the unknown impedance profiles be slowly varying due to
the weakness of differential adaptation in estimating time-varying signals.
In this paper, we propose an impedance learning-based hybrid adaptive control
strategy with potential applications in repetitive rehabilitation training. In comparison with
the related literature, the innovations and contributions of this paper are stated as follows:
(1) A differential updating mechanism is designed for estimating robotic parameter
uncertainties, while periodic adaptive learning laws are designed for the learning of human
time-varying impedance profiles.
(2) The projection function used in the adaptive law and the saturation functions in
the periodic adaptive laws avoid the possible drift of estimators.
(3) The proposed hybrid adaptive robot controller guarantees asymptotical control
stability and achieves variable impedance regulation for rehabilitation robots without
interaction force measurements.
(4) The asymptotical convergence of tracking errors and the finiteness of the estimation
errors of the robot parameters and the human impedance profiles are validated through a
Lyapunov-like analysis.
Compared with the constant impedance control, the proposed impedance learning-
based controller can provide time-varying impedance regulation for rehabilitation robots.
In comparison with the impedance learning controllers in [13,18–22], the proposed model-
based impedance learning controller can guarantee the control stability without using
interaction force signals. Compared with the model-based impedance learning controllers
in [26–28], the proposed controller guarantees the asymptotical convergence of tracking
errors. In addition, robotic parameter uncertainties are considered and estimated in this
paper in comparison with [26,27], and the impedance profiles are not required to be slowly
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 3 of 19

varying in comparison with [28]. A summary of currently used adaptive controllers with
impedance regulation and the gap where this paper is located are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. A summary of the currently used adaptive controllers with impedance regulation
in rehabilitation.

Index Currently Used Methods Innovations or Contributions of This Paper

The constant impedance control Time-varying impedance regulation for rehabilitation robots are
1
[14–16] provided
The impedance learning controllers The control stability without using interaction force signals is
2
[13,18–22] guaranteed
(a) The asymptotical convergence of tracking errors is guaranteed
The model-based impedance learning
3 (b) Robotic parameter uncertainties are considered and estimated
controllers [26–28]
(c) The impedance profiles are not required to be slowly varying

2. Problem Formulation
Consider the robot dynamics with the following form
.. .
. .
M (q)q + C q, q q + G (q) + F q = τ + τh (1)
.

where q ∈ Rn denotes the vector of joint angles, M (q) the inertial matrix, C q, q the
.
Coriolis and centrifugal matrix, G (q) the gravity torque, and F q the viscous force with F
being a constant matrix. In (1), τh and τ are the interaction force vector in joints and the
system control input, respectively.
Denote x as the end-effector Cartesian position. The robot has the following kinematic
transformations
x = ∆ ( q ), (2)
. .
x = J (q)q. (3)
In (3), J (q) = d∆(q)/dq is the Jacobian matrix from the joint space to the Cartesian
coordinates. Based on (2) and (3), one can convert the joint space dynamics in (1) into the
following Cartesian dynamics
.. .
.
Mx ( x ) x + Cx x + x x + Gx ( x ) + Fx ( x ) = u + f h (4)
.
where Mx = J −T MJ −1 , Cx = J −T (Cq − MJ −1 J ) J −1 , Gx = J −T G, Fx = J −T F, f h = J −T τh ,
and u = J −T τ.

Property 1. Mx ( x ) is a symmetric positive definite matrix and satisfies

σ1 I ≤ Mx ( x ) ≤ σ2 I (5)

where σ1 , σ2 > 0, and σ1 and σ2 can be regarded as the minimum and maximum eigenvalues
of Mx ( x ), respectively.
. .

Property 2. M x ( x ) − 2Cx x, x is skew symmetric, i.e.,
 . .


ξ T M x ( x ) − 2Cx x, x ξ = 0, ∀ξ ∈ Rn . (6)

Property 3. The left part of (4) can be parameterized in the following form
.
.

Mx ( x )ϕ1 + Cx x, x ϕ2 + Gx ( x ) = Y ϕ1 , ϕ2 , x, x θ (7)
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 4 of 19

.

where ϕ1 , ϕ2 ∈ Rn , Y ϕ1 , ϕ2 , x, x is a regression matrix, and θ is a constant vector that contains
unknown parameters and satisfies ||θ ||≤ θc .
. .

Property 4. If x, x ∈ L∞ , then Mx ( x ), Cx x, x , Gx ( x ), and their partial derivatives with respect
. .

to their respective arguments are bounded. If ϕ1 , ϕ2 , x, x ∈ L∞ , Y ϕ1 , ϕ2 , x, x , and its partial
derivatives with respect to its arguments are bounded.
Assumption 1. Suppose the desired trajectory xr and its first and second time derivatives are
bounded for the considered robot in the HRI.
Define the trajectory tracking error e as

e = xr − x (8)

As proven in [26], the interaction force can be expanded as

.
f h = f f ( t ) − K h ( t ) e − Bh ( t ) e (9)

where f f (t) denotes the feedforward force of the human, and K h (t) and Bh (t) denote the
stiffness term and the damping term of the interaction force, respectively. The interaction
force f h can be further expressed as
.
f h = f f ( t ) + K h ( t ) x + Bh ( t ) x (10)
.
where f f (t): = f f (t) − Ks∗ (t) xr − Kd∗ (t) xr denotes a modified feedforward force. In repeti-
tive rehabilitation training, the impedance profiles f f (t), Kh (t), and Bh (t) can be assumed
to be periodic with T, i.e.,

f f ( t + T ) = f f ( t ), K h ( t + T ) = K h ( t ), (11)

Bh ( t + T ) = Bh ( t ) . (12)
It is assumed that f f (t), Kh (t) and Bh (t) are continuous functions and satisfy

f f ( t ) ≤ f ∗ , K h ( t ) ≤ K ∗ , Bh ( t ) ≤ B ∗ . (13)

where f ∗ , K ∗ , and B∗ are constant matrices; ‘≤’ in the last equation means each element of
the left part of ‘≤’ is no more than the related element of the right part of ‘≤’.

Remark 1. In [25], the feedforward force, the stiffness term, and the damping term are assumed
to be slowly varying and are estimated by using traditional adaptive laws. In this paper, f f (t),
Kh (t), and Bh (t) are only required to be continuous and bounded functions that will be estimated
in Section 3 using periodic adaptation.

3. Hybrid Adaptive Control via Impedance Learning

Define the auxiliary error ϵ as
.
ϵ = e + k1 e (14)
where k1 > 0.
From (4), ϵ has the following dynamics
. .
.. . . .

Mx ( x )ϵ = −Cx x, x ϵ + Y xr + k1 e, xr + k1 e, x, x θ
(15)
− f h − u.

It is convenient to design the following control law

.. . . .

u = k2 ϵ + Y xr + k1 e, xr + k1 e, x, x θ̂ − fˆh (16)
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 5 of 19

where θ̂ and fˆh are estimators of θ and f h , respectively; fˆh is designed as

.
fˆh = fˆf + K̂h x + B̂h x (17)

with fˆh , K̂h , and B̂h being estimators of f f , Kh , and Bh , respectively.

Substituting (11) and (12) into (10) yields

. .
.. . . .
∼
Mx ( x )ϵ = −Cx x, x ϵ − k2 ϵ + Y xr + k1 e, xr + k1 e, x, x θ
∼ ∼ ∼ . (18)
− f f − K h x − Bh x.
∼ ∼ ∼
where f f = f f − fˆf , K h = Kh − K̂h , and Bh = Bh − B̂h denote estimation errors.
In (15), θ is a constant vector that can be estimated by the sing traditional differential
updating mechanism, while the impedance profiles f f (t), Kh (t), and Bh (t) are time-
varying signals that may not be slowly varying and cannot be effectively estimated using
traditional adaptive laws. By exploiting their periodicity characteristics, the impedance
profiles can be estimated by using periodic adaptations. Therefore, we propose a hybrid
adaptive law for estimating θ and the impedance profiles.
For θ̂, we design the following adaptive update law
.
.. . . .

n o
θ̂ = projθ α0 Y T xr + k1 e, xr + k1 e, x, x ϵ (19)

where α0 is the learning rate, and projθ (•) is a projection function defined as


 • if θ̂ ≤ cθ
= cθ &θ̂ T ·• ≤ 0

projθ (•) = or θ̂ (20)
T ·•
• −

 θ̂ θ̂
2 if θ̂ = cθ &θ̂ T ·• ≥ 0
||θ̂ ||

with θc being defined in Property 3.

To estimate the time-varying terms f f (t), Kh (t), and Bh (t), we design the following
periodic learning laws
(  
ˆ
ˆf f (t) = sat f ∗ f f (t − T ) − α1 ϵ, t ∈ [ T, ∞) (21)
−α10 (t)ϵ, t ∈ [0, T ]

satK∗ K̂h (t − T ) − α2 ϵx T , t ∈ [ T, ∞)


K̂h (t) = (22)
−α20 (t)ϵx T , t ∈ [0, T ]
.T
(
satB∗ B̂h (t − T ) − α3 ϵ x , t ∈ [ T, ∞)


B̂h (t) = .T (23)
−α30 (t)ϵ x , t ∈ [0, T ]

where fˆf (t) = 0, K̂h (t) = 0, and B̂h (t) = 0 for t < 0; α1 , α2 , and α3 are positive gains;
α10 (t), α20 (t), and α30 (t) are a continuous and strictly increasing function that satisfy
α10 (0) = α20 (0) = α30 (0) = 0, α10 ( T ) = α1 , α20 ( T ) = α2 , and α30 ( T ) = α3 ; sat f * ( fˆf (t − T ))
is defined by
(
  fˆf i (t − T ), if | fˆf i (t − T )| ≤ f i∗
sat f ∗ fˆf i (t − T ) = ∗ ˆ (24)
f i sgn( f f i (t − T )), otherwise



and satK∗ K̂h (t − T ) , satB∗ K̂h (t − T ) are defined similarly to the definition
of sat f ∗ ( fˆf (t − T )).
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 6 of 19

∼ ∼
Based on (12), (13) and (21)–(23), the estimation errors f f (t) := f f (t) − fˆf (t), K h (t) :=
∼
Kh (t) − K̂h (t), and Bh (t) := Bh (t) − B̂h (t), satisfy
∼
f f (t) = sat f ∗ ( f f (t − T )) − sat f ∗ ( fˆf (t − T )) + α1 ϵ,
∼
K h (t) = satK∗ (Kh (t − T )) − satK∗ K̂h (t − T ) + α2 ϵx T , (25)


∼
.T
Bh (t) = satB∗ ( Bh (t − T )) − satB∗ B̂h (t − T ) + α3 ϵ x ,

for t ≥ T.

Remark 2. If α10 ( T ) = α1 , α20 ( T ) = α2 , and α30 ( T ) = α3 , then the impedance profile estima-
tors fˆf (t), K̂h (t), and B̂h (t) will be discontinuous at t = iT with i = 0, 1, 2, · · · , just as the
impedance profile estimators in [26,27]. In this paper, the designed α10 (t), α20 (t), and α30 (t) in
(21)–(23) guarantee the continuity of the impedance profiles estimators at t = iT with i = 0, 1, 2,
···.

Theorem 1. For the robot dynamics in (1), design the periodic adaptive control strategy in (16),
where θ̂ is updated by the differential type updating law in (19), and fˆf (t), K̂h (t), and B̂h (t) are
∼ ∼ ∼ ∼
updated by the periodic adaptive laws in (21)–(23). Then, the estimation errors θ , f f , K h , and Bh are
uniformly bounded, and the tracking error e converges to zero.

Proof. As ϵ and θ̂ are with differential dynamics and fˆf (t), K̂h (t), and B̂h (t) are with
periodic difference update learning laws, it is convenient for us to consider the following
non-negative function

V (t) = V1 (t) + Vf (t) + VK (t) + VB (t) (26)

where V1 (t), Vf (t), VK (t), and VB (t) are chosen as

∼T ∼
V1 (t) = 12 ϵ T M(q)ϵ + 2α1 0 θ θ ,
Rt
Vf (t) = 2α1 t−T Z1T (τ ) Z1 (τ )dτ, (27)
R1 t
VK (t) = 2α1 2 t−T tr{ Z2T (τ ) Z2 (τ )}dτ,
Rt
VB (t) = 2α1 3 t−T tr{ Z3T (τ ) Z3 (τ )}dτ

with Z1 (t), Z2 (t), and Z3 (t).

Z1 (t) = sat f ∗ ( f f (t)) − sat f ∗ ( fˆf (t)) (28)

Z2 (t) = satK∗ (Kh (t)) − satK∗ (K̂h (t)) (29)
Z3 (t) = satB∗ ( Bh (t)) − satB∗ ( B̂h (t)) (30)
with Z1 (t) = 0, Z2 (t) = 0, Z3 (t) = 0 for t < 0. □

i. Finiteness of V(t)on [0,T]

Since θ̂, f̂ f (t), K̂h (t), and B̂h (t) are continuous functions, the righthand side of Equation (15)
is continuous. According to the existence theorem of differential equation, there exists
a finite solution to (15) in an interval [0, T1 ] ⊂ [0, T ] with 0 < T1 ≤ T. It is obvi-
ous that V (t) is finite on the interval [0, T1 ]. In the following, we will show the finite-
ness of V (t) on [ T1 , T ], where 0 < α10 ( T1 )≤ α10 ( T )< α1 , 0 < α20 ( T1 )≤ α20 ( T )< α2 , and
0 < α30 ( T1 )≤ α30 ( T )< α3 . Taking the time derivative of V (t) for t ∈ [ T1 , T ] and substitut-
ing (18), one can obtain
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 7 of 19

. ∼ ∼ ∼ .
V= −k2 ϵT ϵ − ϵT f f − ϵT K h x − ϵT Bh x
∼T . .. . . .
− α10 θ (θ̂ − α0 Y T ( xr + k1 e, xr + k1 e, x, x )ϵ) (31)
+ 2α1 1 Z1T (t) Z1 (t) + 2α1 2 tr Z2T (t) Z2 (t)


+ 2α1 3 tr Z3T (t) Z3 (t) .



The used projection modification in (20) guarantees the following: (1) ∥ θ̂ (t) ∥≤ cθ for
∼T . .. . . .
t ≥ 0 i f ∥ θ̂ (0) ∥≤ cθ ; (2) θ (θ̂ − α0 Y T ( xr + k1 e, xr + k1 e, x, x )ϵ) ≥ 0. From the definitions
of sat f ∗ (·), satK∗ (·), and satB∗ (·), we have the following inequalities [29,30]: Z1T (t) Z1 (t) ≤
∼ ∼ ∼T ∼ ∼T ∼
f f f f , tr Z2T (t) Z2 (t) ≤ tr{K h (t)K h }, and tr Z3T (t) Z3 (t) ≤ tr{ Bh (t) Bh }. Substituting
 

these results into (31), one obtains

. ∼ ∼T ∼T . T ∼ ∼
1
V≤ −k2 ϵ T ϵ − ϵ T f f − tr{K h ϵx T } − tr{ Bh ϵ x } + 2α1 ffff
∼T ∼ ∼T ∼ (32)
+ 2α1 2 tr{K h (t)K h (t)} + 2α1 2 tr{ Bh (t) Bh (t)}

for t ∈ [ T1 , T ].
∼ ∼ .T
From (21)–(23), ϵ = −( f f − f f )/α10 (t), ϵq T = −(Kh − K h )/α20 (t), and ϵq = −( Bh −
∼
Bh )/α30 (t) for t ∈ [ T1 , T ].
Applying these equations into (32) yields

. ∼T ∼ ∼T ∼ ∼T ∼
V≤ −k2 ϵ T ϵ − α1 f f f f − α2 tr{K h K h } − α3 tr{ Bh Bh }
∼ ∼T
1 1 (33)
+α f f ff + tr{K h (t)Kh }
10 ( t ) α20 (t)
∼T
1
+α tr{ Bh (t) Bh }
30 ( t )

for t ∈ [ T1 , T ], where α1 = 1/α10 (t) − 1/(2α1 ) > 0, α2 = 1/α20 (t) − 1/(2α2 ) > 0, α3 =
1/α30 (t) − 1/(2α3 ) > 0
Using Young’s inequality,

∼T ξ 1 ∼T ∼ 1 T
f f ff ≤ f f + f f (34)
2 f f 2ξ 1 f f
∼T ξ2 ∼ T ∼ 1
tr{K h Kh } ≤ tr{K h K h } + tr{KhT Kh } (35)
2 2ξ 2
∼T ξ3 ∼T ∼ 1
tr{ Bh Bh } ≤ tr{ Bh Bh } + tr{ BhT Bh } (36)
2 2ξ 3
where ξ 1 , ξ 2 , ξ 3 are chosen positive constants, such that

β 1 := α1 − ξ 1 /(2α10 (t)) > 0, β 2 := α2 − ξ 2 /(2α20 (t)) > 0,

(37)
β 3 := α3 − ξ 3 /(2α30 (t)) > 0.

From inequalities in (33)–(36), ∀t ∈ [ T1 , T ]

. ∼T ∼ ∼T ∼ ∼T ∼
V ≤ −k2 ϵ T ϵ − β 1 f f f f − β 2 tr{K h K h } − β 3 { Bh Bh } + cd (38)

where cd is defined as

f dT f d /(2ξ 1 α10( T1 )) + tr KdT Kd /(2ξ 2 α20 ( T1 ))


cd =
(39)
+tr BdT Bd /(2ξ 3 α30 ( T1 )).
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 8 of 19

.
From (38), V is negative-definite outside the following region

∼ ∼ ∼ ∼T ∼ ∼T ∼
Ω= {[ϵ, f f , K h , Bh ] : k2 ϵ T ϵ + β 1 f f f f + β 2 tr{K h K h }
∼T ∼
(40)
+ β 3 { Bh Bh } ≤ cd }
∼
Furthermore, θ is bounded from the projection modification (20). Therefore, V is
bounded on [ T1 , T ].
ii. Convergence of e
For t ≥ T, the time derivatives of V1 and Vf satisfy
. ∼ ∼ ∼ .
V 1 (t) ≤ −k2 ϵ T ϵ − ϵ T f f − ϵ T K h x − ϵ T Bh x, (41)

.
1
Z1T (t) Z1 (t) − Z1T (t − T ) Z1 (t − T )


V f (t) = 2α1
(42)
∼ ∼
Substituting (29) and Z1T (t) Z1 (t) ≤ f f f f into (42), ∀t ≥ T

. ∼ ∼
V f (t) = − 2α1 1 ( f f (t) − α1 ϵ(t))T ( f f (t) − α1 ϵ(t))
+ 2α1 1 Z1T (t) Z1 (t) (43)
∼
≤ − α21 ϵ T (t)ϵ(t) + ϵ T (t) f f (t).

Similarly, one obtains ∀t ≥ T

. α2 T ∼T
V K (t) ≤ − ϵ (t) x (t) x T (t)ϵ(t) + tr{K h ϵx T } (44)
2
. α3 T . .T ∼T . T
V B (t) ≤ − ϵ (t) x (t) x (t)ϵ(t) + tr{ Bh ϵ x }. (45)
2
∼ ∼T ∼ . ∼T . T . . .
Since ϵ T K h x = tr{K h ϵx T } and ϵ T Bh x = tr{ Bh ϵ x }, from V (t) = V 1 (t) + V f (t) +
. .
V K (t) + V B (t) and (41)–(45),
.
V (t) ≤ −k2 ϵ T ϵ, ∀t ≥ T (46)
from which one can obtain V (t) ∈ L∞ for t ≥ T and
Z ∞
k2 ϵ T (τ )ϵ(τ )dτ ≤ V ( T ) < ∞. (47)
0

∼
From the above analysis, V (t) ∈ L∞ for t ≥ 0 which implies ϵ, θ ∈ L∞ and
. . . . .

e, e ∈ L∞ Combining e, e, ϵ ∈ L∞ and xr , xr ∈ L∞ , one can obtain x, x ∈ L∞ and Cx x, x ,
.. . . .
.
Y xr + k1 e, xr + k1 e, x, x ∈ L∞ based on Property 4. Based on x, x, ϵ ∈ L∞ and (21)–(23),
∼ ∼ ∼ .
f f , K h , Bh ∈ L∞ . Therefore, the righthand side of (18) is bounded and then ϵ ∈ L∞ which
shows that ϵ is uniformly continuous in [ T, ∞). Babalat’s Lemma can be conducted to show
.
that lim ϵ = 0 which implies lim e = lim e = 0.
t→∞ t→∞ t→∞

Remark 3. The proposed impedance learning control method requires that the human impedance
profiles are temporally periodic, and the robotic dynamics can be linearly parameterized. If any of
these requirements are not satisfied, the proposed control method cannot be implemented.

Remark 4. The hybrid adaptive impedance learning control can provide variable impedance
regulation for repetitive robot-assisted rehabilitation without the requirement of the interactive
force sensing.
 Actuators 2024, 13, 220 9 of 19

Remark 5. In applications, control parameters can be selected step by step. Firstly, PD control
gains k1 and k2 are adjusted to make the closed-loop control system stable. Secondly, the adaptive
learning rate α0 is designed to make the robot follow the reference trajectory with satisfactory
tracking accuracy in the case of no human–robot interaction. Next, periodic learning parameters for
time-varying impedance are set. Finally, the control parameters are further fine-tuned to achieve
satisfactory interactive performances. Under the proposed hybrid adaptive control strategy, the
human–robot system follows the reference trajectory cooperatively and repetitively.
Actuators 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18
4. Simulations
The planar five-bar parallel mechanism depicted by Figure 1 with the structure in
adopted2 here
Figure is considered as the mechanism
for simulation validation.for
Tosome
showupper limb rehabilitation
the effectiveness of the robots and hybrid
proposed is
adopted here for simulation validation. To show the effectiveness of the proposed hybrid
adaptive control (HAC) and its advantages in comparison with the adaptive control (AC)
adaptive control (HAC) and its advantages in comparison with the adaptive control (AC)
in [28] and the biomimetic adaptive control (BAC) in [26,27], simulations are conducted
in [28] and the biomimetic adaptive control (BAC) in [26,27], simulations are conducted on
on a planar
a planar parallel
parallel robot
robot depicted
depicted byrender
by the the render
graphgraph
in withina with a five-bar
five-bar parallel.parallel.

Figure 1. The render graph of a planar parallel robot.

Figure 1. The render graph of a planar parallel robot.
In Figure 2, Ai , i = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 are the five joint points, where A0 is the HRI point, and
A2 A4 , A4 A0 , A0 A3 , A3 A1 denote four robotic links whose masses, lengths, and inertial
moments are given in Table 2. The distances between the joints and respective centers of
mass are all 0.25 m, i.e., lci = 0.25 m for i = 1, 2, 3, 4, and the length of A1 A2 is 0.15 m. In
addition to its advantages over a series mechanism, a parallel mechanism results in a more
complex model for the robot. In robot-assisted rehabilitation, the reference trajectory is
xr = [0.075 + 0.15sin(πt/2), 0.55 + 0.15cos(πt/2)] T .

Table 2. The parameters of the parallel robot.

Inertial
Link Mass (kg) Length (m)
Moment (kg·m2 )
A2 A4 m2 = 4.859 l2 = 0.5 I2 = 0.128
A4 A102. The robotic structure m
Figure 4 = 4.053
diagram. l4 = 0.5 I4 = 0.093
A0 A3 m3 = 1.423 l3 = 0.5 I3 = 0.0327
1 Figure 2, 𝐴𝑖 , 𝑖 = 0, 1,m2,
A3 AIn 1= 3,4.859
4 are the five joint
l1 = points,
0.5 where 𝐴0I1 =is0.128
the HRI point,
and 𝐴2 𝐴4 , 𝐴4 𝐴0 , 𝐴0 𝐴3 , 𝐴3 𝐴1 denote four robotic links whose masses, lengths, and iner-
tial moments are given in Table 2. The distances between the joints and respective centers
of mass are all 0.25 m, i.e., 𝑙𝑐𝑖 = 0.25 m for 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4, and the length of 𝐴1 𝐴2 is 0.15 m.
In addition to its advantages over a series mechanism, a parallel mechanism results in a
more complex model for the robot. In robot-assisted rehabilitation, the reference trajectory
is 𝑥𝑟 = [0.075 + 0.15𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜋𝑡/2), 0.55 + 0.15𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜋𝑡/2)]𝑇 .

Table 2. The parameters of the parallel robot.

Inertial
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 10 of 19

Figure 1. The render graph of a planar parallel robot.

Figure2.2.The
Figure Therobotic
robotic structure
structure diagram.
diagram.

In Figure
The 2, 𝐴𝑖 ,force,
feedforward 𝑖 = 0,the
1, 2, 3, 4 are
stiffness the five
matrix, andjoint points, where
the damping 𝐴0 is the HRI point,
matrix are
and 𝐴2 𝐴4 , 𝐴4 𝐴0 , 𝐴0 𝐴3 , 𝐴3 𝐴1 denote four robotic links whose masses, lengths, and iner-
T
tial moments are given finf = 10 2.
Table cosThe(π/3t (π/3t) ]the
) , 10 sinbetween
distances joints and respective centers
of mass are all 0.25 m, i.e., 𝑙𝑐𝑖 = 0.25 m for 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, 4, and the length of 𝐴1 𝐴2 (48)
K h = diag { 5 | cos ( π/3t )| , 5 | sin ( π/3t )|} is 0.15 m.
Bh = diag {3|sin (π/3t)|, 3|cos (π/3t)|}
In addition to its advantages over a series mechanism, a parallel mechanism results in a
more complex
For model for
the proposed the robot.
HAC, In robot-assisted
we choose the followingrehabilitation, the reference
control parameters: k1 = trajectory
10,
𝑇
is 𝑥 = [0.075 + 0.15𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜋𝑡/2), 0.55 + 0.15𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜋𝑡/2)] 2 . 2 2 +


k2 = 𝑟70,
α0 = 125, α1 = α2 = α3 = 600, α 10 ( t ) = t + α 1 − T t/T, α 20 ( t ) = t
α2 − T 2 t/T, α30 (t) = t2 + α3 − T 2 t/T. In the PD control, the proportional control


Table 2. Theare
parameters parameters
determinedof the parallel to
according robot.
the requirements for the response speed and the
static speed error based on the transfer function of the robot model, and the derivative
Inertial
control parameters
Link are designed based
Mass (kg) on the regulation time(m)
Length and overshooting. Then, 𝟐
Moment
the hybrid adaptive learning parameters are determined by trial and evaluation to obtain (kg· 𝐦 )
𝑨𝟐 𝑨𝟒
satisfactory 𝑚2 = 4.859
interactive performance. 𝑙2 = 0.5 𝐼2 = 0.128
𝑨𝟒 𝑨Figure
𝟏𝟎 3a shows the tracking𝑚4 performance
= 4.053 𝑙4 = 0.5HAC, the AC in𝐼4[28],
by the proposed and
= 0.093
the BAC
𝑨𝟎 𝑨𝟑 in [26,27] with locally enlarged
𝑚3 = 1.423 parts shown in the right
𝑙3 = 0.5 part of the figure. From
𝐼3 = 0.0327
Figure 3a, we can see that the actual trajectory (AT) and the desired trajectory (DT) are
𝑨𝟑 𝑨𝟏 𝑚1 = 4.859 𝑙1 = 0.5 𝐼1 = 0.128
almost coincident after several periodic motions using the proposed method, while the AT
consistently deviates from the DT using the AC in [28] and the BAC in [26,27]. To better
displayThethefeedforward
effectivenessforce, the stiffness
and advantages matrix,
of the and the
proposed damping
control matrix
method, are
comparisons of
tracking errors among the three methods are illustrated in Figure 3b. It can be seen that the
HAC makes the tracking error converge to zero, while the AC in [28] and the BAC in [26,27]
only make the tracking error be bounded. The not satisfactory tracking performance by
the AC is mainly due to the limitations of traditional differential adaptation in estimating
time-varying signals. The better tracking performance validates the superiority of the HAC
in comparison to the BAC in [28].
It should be noted that the estimated force cannot be very close to the actual interactive
force (see Figure 4a) due to the strong coupling between robot modeling uncertainties and
human impedance uncertainties. Such derivation is allowable and does not affect control
performance shown in Figure 3. In addition, the stiffness and damping variation is finite,
which is illustrated by Figure 4b.

Actuators 2024, 13, 220
Actuators 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
isons of tracking errors among the three methods are illustrated in Figure 3b. It can be
seen that the HAC makes the tracking error converge to zero, while the AC in [28] and the
BAC in [26,27] only make the tracking error be bounded. The not satisfactory tracking
performance by the AC is mainly due to the limitations of traditional differential adapta-
tion in estimating time-varying signals. The better tracking performance validates 11
theofsu-
19
periority of the HAC in comparison to the BAC in [28].
11 of 18
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. Cont.
 Actuators 2024, 13, 220 12 of 19

(b)

Actuators 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW (c) 12 of 18

FigureFigure
3. Simulation performances
3. Simulation by thebyproposed
performances HAC,HAC,
the proposed the AC
thein
AC[28], and and
in [28], the BAC in [26,27].
the BAC in [26,27].
(a) The(a)tracking performance,
The tracking (b) The
performance, (b)tracking error,error,
The tracking (c) The control
(c) The input.
control input.

It should be noted that the estimated force cannot be very close to the actual interac-
tive force (see Figure 4a) due to the strong coupling between robot modeling uncertainties
and human impedance uncertainties. Such derivation is allowable and does not affect con-
trol performance shown in Figure 3. In addition, the stiffness and damping variation is
finite, which is illustrated by Figure 4b.

(a)
Figure 4. Cont.
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 13 of 19

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure4.4.The
Theestimation
estimation of
of the interactive
interactive force
forceand
andthetheestimated
estimatedstiffness
stiffness and
and damping
damping by by
the the
proposed HAC. (a)
proposedHAC. Interactive
(a) Interactive force
force estimation
estimation, , (b) Stiffness
(b) Stiffness and damping.
and damping.

5. Experiments
5. Experiments
To further verify the effectiveness and validity of the proposed control method,13ex-
Actuators 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEWTo
further verify the effectiveness and validity of the proposed control method,ofex- 18
periments are implemented on the self-designed planar five-bar parallel mechanism (see
periments are implemented on the self-designed planar five-bar parallel mechanism (see
Figure 5) which was driven by rotary actuators (erob80, ZeroErrInc., Beijing, China).
Figure 5) which was driven by rotary actuators (erob80, ZeroErrInc., Beijing, China).

Figure 5. Physical HRI.

Figure 5. Physical HRI.

Twincat 3.0 eXtended automation engineering running on a PC acts as the fieldbus

master in the EtherCAT network. The control algorithm is implemented by the TwinCAT
Component Object Model (TcCOM) programed in structured Text (ST) languages. Both
the control frequency and the sampling period for the controller are 1 ms. The rotary ac-
tuator is operated in torque mode. The planar parallel robot used in our study is an end-
effector rehabilitation robot. The trajectory of the robot is usually predefined by therapists
during rehabilitation training. During the rehabilitation process, the patient’s upper limbs
are trained with the help of a rehabilitation robot, as in Figure 5. The emerging interactive
 Actuators 2024, 13, 220 14 of 19

Twincat 3.0 eXtended automation engineering running on a PC acts as the fieldbus

master in the EtherCAT network. The control algorithm is implemented by the TwinCAT
Component Object Model (TcCOM) programed in structured Text (ST) languages. Both the
control frequency and the sampling period for the controller are 1 ms. The rotary actuator
is operated in torque mode. The planar parallel robot used in our study is an end-effector
rehabilitation robot. The trajectory of the robot is usually predefined by therapists during
rehabilitation training. During the rehabilitation process, the patient’s upper limbs are
trained with the help of a rehabilitation robot, as in Figure 5. The emerging interactive
forces between subjects and the robot may give rise to trajectory deviation for the robot.
The proposed impedance learning control can make the human robot system cooperatively
follow the desired trajectory. In the experiment, the robot and a subject repetitively track an
ellipse trajectory. A typical set of experimental results of the proposed method is illustrated
in Figure 6 which presents the tracking performance from the 1st task completion to the
40th completion. It can be inferred from Figure 6 that the tracking error is satisfactory
after 30 task completions, i.e., after 120 s. The tracking error in the experiment will not
converge to zero due to measurement noises, device inherent deficiencies, and so on. The
proposed HAC provides finite stiffness variation for robot–environment interaction (see
Figure 7). Although there exists some chattering in the experiment results by the proposed
HAC due to measurement noises and the difference form of the periodic adaptation in
(21)–(23), the chattering is very limited and is allowable. The experimental results by
the AC [28] are shown in Figure 8. It is obvious that the tracking performance and the
tracking error are unsatisfactory in the whole interactive process. The reason comes from
Actuators 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18
the inherent deficiencies of the traditional differential adaptation in estimating time-varying
signals. Taking Figures 6 and 8, we can conclude the superiority of the proposed HAC in
comparison with the AC [28].

(a)
Figure 6. Cont.
 Actuators 2024, 13, 220 15 of 19

(a)

Actuators 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18

(b)

(c)
Figure
Figure6.6.The
Theexperimental
experimentalresults
results by
by the proposedHAC.
the proposed HAC.(a)
(a)The
Thetracking
tracking performance,
performance, (b) (b)
TheThe
tracking error, (c) The control input.
tracking error, (c) The control input.
 (c)
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 16 of 19
Figure 6. The experimental results by the proposed HAC. (a) The tracking performance, (b) The
tracking error, (c) The control input.

Actuators 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 18

Figure 7.
Figure 7. The
Theestimated
estimatedstiffness
stiffnessbyby the
the proposed
proposed HAC.
HAC.

(a)
Figure 8. Cont.
 Actuators 2024, 13, 220 17 of 19

(a)

Actuators 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 18

(b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 8.8. The
The experimental resultsby
experimental results bythe
theAC
ACinin[29].
[29].(a)(a) The
The tracking
tracking performance,
performance, (b) (b)
TheThe tracking
tracking
error, (c) The control input.
error, (c) The control input.

6.6.Conclusions
Conclusions
This paper
This paper presents
presents an
animpedance
impedancelearning-based
learning-basedHAC
HACstrategy forfor
strategy HRI with
HRI robotic
with robotic
modeling parameter uncertainties and human impedance uncertainties. The
modeling parameter uncertainties and human impedance uncertainties. The robotic robotic pa-pa-
rameter vector is constant and is estimated by a differential adaptive law with projection
rameter vector is constant and is estimated by a differential adaptive law with projection
modification, while the time-varying impedance profile including the feedforward force,
modification, while the time-varying impedance profile including the feedforward force,
the stiffness, and the damping is estimated by periodic adaptations in (21)–(23). In Theorem
the stiffness, and the damping is estimated by periodic adaptations in (21)–(23). In Theo-
1, we prove the convergence of tracking errors and the boundedness of estimation errors
rem 1, we prove the convergence of tracking errors and the boundedness of estimation
errors using Babalat’s Lemma. Though the illustrative example on a parallel robot, we
validate the following: (i) the HAC achieves time-varying impedance regulation for HRI
with a stability guarantee; (ii) the asymptotic convergence of the tracking error is achieved
by the HAC as opposed to the uniformly ultimately bounded results of the tracking errors
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 18 of 19

using Babalat’s Lemma. Though the illustrative example on a parallel robot, we validate the
following: (i) the HAC achieves time-varying impedance regulation for HRI with a stability
guarantee; (ii) the asymptotic convergence of the tracking error is achieved by the HAC
as opposed to the uniformly ultimately bounded results of the tracking errors in [25]; and
(iii) the periodic adaptations have better performances in the estimation of time-varying
impedance profiles than the differential adaptation in [25] by using the periodicity.
The subjects in this study are healthy individuals. Next, we will apply the device to
patients with spasticity in upper limbs for assisted rehabilitation to study its robustness,
as well as its capability in assistive movement with low tracking error in the presence
of spasticity.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.J., Q.L. and J.Y.; Investigation, Z.W.; Methodology, J.Y.;
Writing—original draft, Z.W.; Writing—review and editing, Z.J. and J.Y. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant
number 62103280.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Qipeng Lv was employed by the company The Second Research
Institute of China Electronics Technology Group Corporation. The remaining authors declare that
the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, F.; Hou, Z.G.; Cheng, L.; Wang, W.; Chen, Y.; Hu, J.; Peng, L.; Wang, H.B. iLeg—A lower limb rehabilitation robot: A proof
of concept. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 2016, 46, 761–768. [CrossRef]
2. Hogan, N. Impedance control: An approach to manipulation: Part II—Implementation. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 1985, 107, 8–16.
[CrossRef]
3. Spong, M.W.; Hutchinson, S.; Vidyasagar, M. Robot Modeling and Control, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2006;
pp. 1–18.
4. He, W.; Tang, X.; Wang, T.; Liu, Z. Trajectory tracking control for a three-dimensional flexible wing. IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst.
Technol. 2022, 30, 2243–2250. [CrossRef]
5. Chan, S.P.; Yao, B.; Gao, W.B.; Cheng, M. Robust impedance control of robot manipulators. Int. J. Robot. Autom. 1991, 6, 220–227.
6. Li, Z.; Huang, Z.; He, W.; Su, C.Y. Adaptive impedance control for an upper-limb robotic exoskeleton using biological signals.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 1664–1674. [CrossRef]
7. Sun, T.; Peng, L.; Cheng, L.; Hou, Z.G.; Pan, Y. Composite learning enhanced robot impedance control. IEEE Trans. Neur. Net. Lear.
2010, 31, 1052–1059. [CrossRef]
8. He, W.; Dong, Y.; Sun, C. Adaptive neural impedance control of a robotic manipulator with input saturation. IEEE Trans. Syst.
Man Cybern. 2016, 46, 334–344. [CrossRef]
9. Yang, C.; Chen, C.; He, W.; Cui, R.; Li, Z. Robot learning system based on adaptive neural control and dynamic movement
primitives. IEEE Trans. Neur. Net. Lear. 2019, 30, 777–787. [CrossRef]
10. Yang, C.; Peng, G.; Cheng, L.; Na, J.; Li, Z. Force sensorless admittance control for teleoperation of uncertain robot manipulator
using neural networks. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A 2021, 51, 3282–3292. [CrossRef]
11. He, W.; Xue, C.; Yu, X.; Li, Z.; Yang, C. Admittance-based controller design for physical human-robot interaction in the constrained
task space. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2022, 19, 1937–1949. [CrossRef]
12. Li, X.; Liu, Y.H.; Yu, H. Iterative learning impedance control for rehabilitation robots driven by series elastic actuators. Automatica
2018, 90, 1–7. [CrossRef]
13. Buchli, J.; Stulp, F.; Theodorou, E.; Schaal, S. Learning variable impedance control. Int. J. Robot. Res. 2011, 30, 820–833. [CrossRef]
14. Ajoudani, A.; Tsagarakis, N.; Bicchi, A. Tele-impedance: Teleoperation with impedance regulation using a body-machine interface.
Int. J. Robot. Res. 2012, 31, 1642–1656. [CrossRef]
15. Howard, M.; Braun, D.J.; Vijayakumar, S. Transferring humanimpedance behavior to heterogenous variable impedance actuators.
IEEE Trans. Robot. 2013, 29, 847–862. [CrossRef]
16. Kronander, K.; Billard, A. Learning compliant manipulation through kinesthetic and tactile human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans.
Haptics 2013, 7, 367–380. [CrossRef]
17. Abu-Dakka, F.J.; Saveriano, M. Variable impedance control and learning-a review. Front. Robot. AI 2020, 7, 590681. [CrossRef]
Actuators 2024, 13, 220 19 of 19

18. Ficuciello, F.; Villani, L.; Siciliano, B. Variable impedance control of redundant manipulators for intuitive human-robot physical
interaction. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2015, 31, 850–863. [CrossRef]
19. Duan, J.; Gan, Y.; Chen, M.; Dai, X. Adaptive variable impedance control for dynamic contact force tracking in uncertain
environment. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2018, 102, 54–65. [CrossRef]
20. Kronander, K.; Billard, A. Stability considerations for variable impedance control. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2016, 32, 1298–1305.
[CrossRef]
21. Dong, Y.; Ren, B. UDE-based variable impedance control of uncertain robot systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A 2019, 49,
2487–2498. [CrossRef]
22. Sun, T.; Peng, L.; Cheng, L.; Hou, Z.G.; Pan, Y. Stability-guaranteed variable impedance control of robots based on approximate
dynamic inversion. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A 2021, 51, 4193–4200. [CrossRef]
23. Modares, H.; Ranatunga, I.; Lewis, F.L.; Popa, D.O. Optimized assistive human-robot interaction using reinforcement learning.
IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2016, 46, 655–667. [CrossRef]
24. Peng, G.; Chen, C.P.; Yang, C. Robust admittance control of optimized robot-environment interaction using reference adaptation.
IEEE Trans. Neur. Net. Learn. 2023, 34, 5804–5815. [CrossRef]
25. Sadrfaridpour, B.; Wang, Y. Collaborative assembly in hybrid manufacturing cells: An integrated framework for human robot
interaction. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2018, 15, 1178–1192. [CrossRef]
26. Yang, C.; Ganesh, G.; Haddadin, S.; Parusel, S.; Albu-Schaeffer, A.; Burdet, E. Human-like adaptation of force and impedance in
stable and unstable interactions. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2011, 27, 918–930. [CrossRef]
27. Li, Y.; Ganesh, G.; Jarrassé, N.; Haddadin, S.; Albu-Schaeffer, A.; Burdet, E. Force, impedance, and trajectory learning for contact
tooling and haptic identifification. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2018, 34, 1170–1182. [CrossRef]
28. Sharifi, M.; Azimi, V.; Mushahwar, V.K.; Tavakoli, M. Impedance learning-based adaptive control for human-robot interaction.
IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol. 2022, 30, 1345–1358. [CrossRef]
29. Dixon, W.E.; Zergeroglu, E.; Dawson, D.M.; Costic, B.T. Repetitive learning control: A lyapunov-based approach. IEEE Trans.
Syst. Man Cybern. B 2002, 32, 538–545. [CrossRef]
30. Costic, B.T.; de Queiroz, M.S.; Dawson, D.N. A new learning control approach to the active magnetic bearing benchmark system.
In Proceedings of the 2000 American Control Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 28–30 June 2000; pp. 2639–2643.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.