PRESENTED BY

RISHI KANT SHARMA

ADAPTIVE CONTROL
To adapt means to change (oneself) so that ones behaviour
will conform to new or changed circumstances.
An adaptive controller is a controller with adjustable
parameters and a mechanism for adjusting the parameters.
Adaptive control systems have two loops. One loop is a
normal feedback loop with the process and the controller. The
other loop is the parameter adjustment loop.
A control engineer uses adaptive control because it has
useful properties, which can be profitably used to design
control system with improved performance and functionality
References: Adaptive control (2nd Edition); Karl Johan Astrom, Bjorn Wittenmark, Prentice Hall
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
PARAMETER
ADJUSTMENT
PLANT
CONTROLLER
Fig Block diagram of an adaptive system
HISTROY OF ADAPTIVE
CONTROL
In early 1950s there was an extensive research on adaptive control in connection with
design of autopilots for high performance aircraft. After a significant effort it was found
that gain scheduling was a suitable technique for flight control systems.
Model reference adaptive control was suggested by Whitaker etal, to solve the autopilot
control problem. The sensitivity method and the MIT rule was used to design the adaptive
laws of the various proposed adaptive control schemes. An adaptive pole placement
scheme based on the optimal linear quadratic problem was suggested by Kalman
The 1960s State space techniques and stability theory based on Lyapunov were
introduced. Developments in dynamic programming, dual control and stochastic control
in general, and in system identification and parameter estimation played a crucial role in
the reformulation and redesign of adaptive control.
By 1966 Parks and others found a way of redesigning the MIT rule-based adaptive laws
used in the MRAC schemes of the 1950s by applying the Lyapunov design approach.
By the mid 1980s, several new redesigns and modifications were proposed and analyzed,
leading to a body of work known as robust adaptive control. The focus of adaptive
control research in the late 1980s to early 1990s was on performance properties and on
extending the results of the 1980s to certain classes of nonlinear plants with unknown
parameters.


ADAPTIVE SCHEMES
The different adaptive schemes are as follows:
Gain scheduling,
Model reference adaptive control (MRAC),
Self tuning regulators (STR)&
Dual control.
References: Adaptive control (2nd Edition); Karl Johan Astrom, Bjorn Wittenmark, Prentice Hall
GAIN SCHEDULING
In many cases it is possible to find measurable variables that correlate well
with changes in process dynamics. These variables can then be used to
change the controller parameter. This approach is called gain scheduling as
it was used to measure the gain and then change, i.e., schedule, the
controller to compensate for changes in the process gain.
Gain scheduling can be viewed as a feedback control system in which the
feedback gains are adjusted by using feedforward compensation.
Fig block diag. for gain scheduling
ADVANTAGES / disadvantages
OF GAIN SCHEDULING
ADVANTAGES
The advantage of gain scheduling is that the controller gains can be
changed as quickly as the auxiliary measurements respond to
parameter Changes. Frequent and rapid changes of the controller gains,
however, may lead to instability; therefore, there is a limit as to how
often and how fast the controller gains can be changed.
Direct (no complex online calculations are needed).
Convenient if relation is known.
DISADVANTAGES
In gain scheduling, the adjustment mechanism of the controller gains is
precomputed on-line and, therefore, provides no feedback to
compensate for incorrect schedules. Unpredictable changes in the plant
dynamics may lead to deterioration of performance or even to
complete failure.
The high design and implementation costs increase with the number of
operating points.
Not always applicable
No real learning possibilities


INDIRECT ADAPTIVE CONTROL
An adaptive controller is formed by combining an on-line parameter estimator, which
provides estimates of unknown parameters at each instant, with a control law that is
motivated from the known parameter case. The way the parameter estimator, also referred
to as adaptive law, is combined with control law give rise to two different approaches.
In the first approach, referred to as indirect adaptive control, the plant parameters are
estimated on-line and used to calculate the controller parameters. This approach has also
been referred to as explicit adaptive control, because the design is based on an explicit
plant model.
In indirect adaptive control, the plant model P(*) is parameterized with respect to some
unknown parameter vector *.


References: ROBUST
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
by Petros A. Ioannou & Jing
Sun, PTR Prentice -
Hall(1996)
INDIRECT ADAPTIVE CONTROL
For example, for a linear time invariant (LTI), SISO plant model, * may represent the
unknown coefficients of the numerator and denominator of the plant model transfer
function.

An on-line parameter estimator generates an estimate (t) of * at each time t by
processing the plant input u and output y. The parameter estimate (t) specifies an
estimated plant model characterized by ((t)) that for control design purposes is treated
as the true" plant model and is used to calculate the controller parameter or gain vector
c(t) by solving a certain algebraic equation c(t) = F((t)) at each time t.

The form of the control law C(c) and algebraic equation c = F () is chosen to be
the same as that of the control law C(c*) and equation c*=F(*) that could be used
to meet the performance requirements for the plant model P(*) if * was known. It is,
therefore, clear that with this approach, C(c(t)) is designed at each time t to satisfy the
performance requirements for the estimated plant model ((t)), which may be different
from the unknown plant model P(*).

Therefore, the principal problem in indirect adaptive control is to choose the class of
control laws C(c) and the class of parameter estimators that generate (t) as well as
the algebraic equation c(t) = F((t)) so that C(c(t)) meets the performance
requirements for the plant model P(*) with unknown *.
DIRECT ADAPTIVE CONTROL
In the second approach, referred to as direct adaptive control, the plant model is parameterized
in terms of the controller parameters that are estimated directly without intermediate
calculations involving plant parameter estimates. This approach has also been referred to as
implicit adaptive control because the design is based on the estimation of an implicit plant
model.
In direct adaptive control, the plant model P(*) is parameterized in terms of the unknown
controller parameter vector c*, for which C(c*) meets the performance requirements, to
obtain the plant model Pc(c*) with exactly the same input/output characteristics as P(*).
The on-line parameter estimator is designed based on Pc(c*) instead of P(*) to provide
direct estimates c(t) of c* at each time t by processing the plant input u and output y. The
estimate c(t) is then used to update the controller parameter vector c without intermediate
calculations.
References: ROBUST
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
by Petros A. Ioannou & Jing
Sun, PTR Prentice -
Hall(1996)
SELF TUNING REGULATORS
(STR)
In adaptive schemes if the estimates of the process parameters are updated and the controller
parameters are obtained from the solution of a design problem using the estimated parameters
then it is known as self tuning regulator (STR). The adaptive controller, inner loop consists of
the process and the ordinary feedback controller. The parameters of the controller are adjusted
by the outer loop, composed of a recursive parameter estimator and a design calculation. If the
system is viewed as the automation of process modelling and design, in which the process
model and control design are updated at each sampling period, then such type of construction is
known as self tuning regulator (STR) to emphasize that the controller automatically tunes its
parameter to obtain the desired properties of the closed loop system

References: Adaptive control (2nd Edition); Karl Johan Astrom, Bjorn Wittenmark, Prentice Hall
Dual Control
In this method it is possible to obtain a solution that follows from an abstract problem formulation and uses
optimization theory. In dual control approach the uncertainties in the estimated parameters are taken into
account in the controller. The controller will also take special action when it has poor knowledge about the
process.
A Stochastic Approach
No separation between state variables and modelparameters
Uncertainties of model parameters are taken into account
Leads to hyperstate
T

Estimators generates the conditional probability distribution p(z|y,u)
Minimization of loss function
Over control signal u(k)
Dynamic programming
MODEL REFERENCE ADAPTIVE
SYSTEM (MRAS)
Model reference adaptive system (MRAS) was originally proposed to solve the
problem in which the performance specifications are given in terms of a
reference model. This model tells how the process output ideally should
respond to the command signal.
The objective of MRC is to find the feedback control law that changes the
structure and dynamics of the plant so that its I/O properties are exactly the
same as those of the reference model.
MRAS can be regarded as an adaptive servo system in which the desired
performance is expressed in terms of reference model, which gives the desired
response to the command signal. The ordinary feedback loop is composed of
the process and the controller and another feedback loop changes the controller
parameters. The parameters are changed on the basis of feedback from the error,
which is the difference between the output of the system and the output of the
reference model.

References: Adaptive control (2nd Edition); Karl Johan Astrom, Bjorn Wittenmark, Prentice Hall
MODEL REFERENCE ADAPTIVE
SYSTEM (MRAS)
In the MRAS the desired behaviour of the system is specified by a model, and
the parameters of the controller are adjusted based on the error, which is the
difference between the outputs of the closed loop system and the model.

Fig General structure of MRAC scheme.
Controller
Model
Adjustment
Mechanism
Plant
Controller
Parameters
y
model

u y
plant

u
c

MODEL REFERENCE ADAPTIVE
SYSTEM (MRAS)
Design controller to drive plant response to mimic ideal response
(error = yplant-ymodel => 0)
Designer chooses: reference model, controller structure, and tuning gains for
adjustment mechanism
References: ROBUST
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
by Petros A. Ioannou &
Jing Sun, PTR Prentice -
Hall(1996)
The structure of an MRC scheme
for a LTI, SISO plant
The transfer function Wm(s) of the reference model is designed so that for a given reference input
signal r(t) the output ym(t) of the reference model represents the desired response the plant output
y(t) should follow. The feedback controller denoted by C(c*) is designed so that all signals are
bounded and the closed-loop plant transfer function from r to y is equal to Wm(s). This transfer
function matching guarantees that for any given reference input r(t), the tracking error ,
which represents the deviation of the plant output from the desired trajectory y
m
, converges to zero
with time. The transfer function matching is achieved by cancelling the zeros of the plant transfer
function G(s) and replacing them with those of Wm(s) through the use of the feedback controller
C(c*). The cancellation of the plant zeros puts a restriction on the plant to be minimum phase, i.e.,
have stable zeros. If any plant zero is unstable, its cancellation may easily lead to unbounded signals.
The design of C(c*) requires the knowledge of the coefficients of the plant transfer function G(s). If
* is a vector containing all the coefficients of G(s) = G(s, *), then the parameter vector c* may
be computed by solving an algebraic equation of the form c* =F(*).
It is, therefore, clear that for the MRC objective to be achieved the plant model has to be minimum
phase and its parameter vector * has to be known exactly.
y
e
m
y ~
1
References: ROBUST
ADAPTIVE
CONTROL by Petros A.
Ioannou & Jing Sun,
PTR Prentice -
Hall(1996)
Direct & indirect MRAC
When * is unknown the MRC scheme of previous Fig. cannot be implemented because c
cannot be calculated using c* =F(*) and is, therefore, unknown. One way of dealing with
The unknown parameter case is to use the certainty equivalence approach to replace the
unknown c* in the control law with its estimate c(t) obtained using the direct or the indirect
approach .

Fig Direct MRAC
References: ROBUST
ADAPTIVE CONTROL by
Petros A. Ioannou & Jing Sun,
PTR Prentice -Hall(1996)
Direct & indirect MRAC
In direct MRAC, the parameter vector of the controller C() is updated directly by
an adaptive law, whereas in indirect MRAC is calculated at each time t by solving
a certain algebraic equation that relates with the on-line estimates of the plant
parameters. In both direct and indirect MRAC with normalized adaptive laws, the
form of C(), motivated from the known parameter case, is kept unchanged.

Fig Indirect MRAC
References: ROBUST
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
by Petros A. Ioannou & Jing
Sun, PTR Prentice -
Hall(1996)
MRAC using MIT rule
The MIT rule is the original approach to MRAC. The name is derived from the fact that it was developed
at the Instrumentation Laboratory at MIT.
Let us consider a closed loop system in which the controller has one adjustable parameter . The desired
closed loop response is specified by a model whose output is ym. let e be the error between the output y of
a closed of a closed loop system and the output of the model ym. one possibility is to adjust parameters in
such a way that the loss function


is minimized. To make J small, it is reasonable to change the parameters in the direction of
negative gradient of J, that is,


This is known as MIT rule. The partial derivative which is called the sensitivity
derivative of the system, tells how the error is influenced by the adjustable parameter. It is
assumed that parameters change more slowly than other variables in system. Then the
sensitivity derivative can be obtained by assuming as a constant.
) (
2
1
) (
2
u u e J =
u c
ce
u

u
c
c
=
c
c
=
e
e
J
dt
d
References: Adaptive control (2nd Edition); Karl Johan Astrom, Bjorn Wittenmark, Prentice Hall
MIT Rule
Can chose different cost functions
EX:








From cost function and MIT rule, control law
can be formed

<
=
>
=
=
=
0 , 1
0 , 0
0 , 1
) ( where
) (
) ( ) (
e
e
e
e sign
e sign
e
dt
d
e J
ou
o

u
u u
MIT Rule- Example of Adaptation
of feedforward gain
For system where is unknown.

Goal: Make it look like using plant

(note, plant model is scalar multiplied
by plant)
Choose cost function:

Write equation for error:

Calculate sensitivity derivative:

Apply MIT rule:




) (
) (
) (
s kG
s U
s Y
=
k
) (
) (
) (
s G k
s U
s Y
o
c
=
) ( ) ( s G k s G
o m
=
ou
o

u
u u
e
e
dt
d
e J = = ) (
2
1
) (
2
c o c c m m
U G k U kG U G kGU y y e = = = u
m
o
c
y
k
k
kGU
e
= =
ou
o
e y e y
k
k
dt
d
m m
o

u
= = '
block diagram of Adaptation of
feedforward gain using mit-rule


Adjustment Mechanism
y
model

u y
plant
u
c




Reference
Model
Plant
s

) ( ) ( s G k s G
o m
=
) ( ) ( s G k s G
p
=
-

+

considered tuning parameter. Increasing its value leads eventually to

oscillations, even stability.
References: Adaptive control (2nd Edition); Karl Johan Astrom, Bjorn Wittenmark, Prentice Hall
MRAC using MIT Rule Adaptation
of feedforward gain
e y
m
u =

e y
m
u =

Control Law:
gamma (g) = 1
Actual Kp = 2
Initial guessed Kp = 1
Simulation block diagram
Simulation results of MRAC using
MIT Rule Adaptation of
feedforward gain
Error between Estimated and Actual value of Kp
Simulation results for MRAC
using MIT- rule
Error between Model and Plant
MRAC of Pendulum


( ) T d mgd c J
c 1
sin = + + u u u

d
2

d
1

d
c

T
c
mgd cs Js
d
s T
s
+ +
=
2
1
) (
) ( u
77 . 10 0389 . 0
89 . 1
) (
) (
2
+ +
=
s s s T
s u
As an exercise in the use of MRAC, the MIT rule (explained in the theory section) was
applied to a driven pendulum system. The system contained a vertically oreinted bar whose
pivot point was attached to an encoder, so that the angle and angular velocity could be
measured. To the end of the bar, a DC motor and propellor were affixed. When voltage was
applied to the motor, the propellor spin and pull the bar up. The goal was to command the
bar to a specified angle. A diagram of the system is given below:
Newton's laws and conservation of angular
momentum were used to derrive the equations of
motion. The equations and resulting transfer function
for the linearized system are given below:

MRAC of Pendulum
Controller will take form
Controller
Model
Adjustment
Mechanism
Controller Parameters
y
model

u y
plant

u
c

77 . 10 0389 . 0
89 . 1
2
+ + s s
Reference:
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~kws23/tutorials/MRAC/simulation/simulation.html
MRAC of Pendulum
Following process as before, write equation for error, cost function, and
update rule
model plant
y y e =
ou
o

ou
o

u e
e
J
dt
d
= =
) (
2
1
) (
2
u u e J =
It is then assumed that the controller has both an adaptive feedforward (Theta1) and an adaptive
feedback (Theta2) gain. To derive expressions for the sensitivity derivatives associated with these
parameters, the error function must be restated to invlude Theta1 and Theta2. The equation for the
error is first rewritten as the transfer function of the plant and model multiplied by their respective
inputs. The input Uc is not a function of either of the adaptive parameters, and therefore can be
ginored for now. However, the input U can be rewritten using the feedforward and feedback gains.
This can be used to derrive an equation for Yplant.

MRAC of Pendulum
Assuming controller takes the form:

( )
c plant
plant c p plant
c m p model plant
plant c
u
s s
y
y u
s s
u G y
u G u G y y e
y u u
2
2
1
2 1
2
2 1
89 . 1 77 . 10 0389 . 0
89 . 1
77 . 10 0389 . 0
89 . 1
u
u
u u
u u
+ + +
=

|
.
|

\
|
+ +
= =
= =
=
( )
plant
c
c
c m c
y
s s
u
s s
e
u
s s
e
u G u
s s
e
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
89 . 1 77 . 10 0389 . 0
89 . 1
89 . 1 77 . 10 0389 . 0
89 . 1
89 . 1 77 . 10 0389 . 0
89 . 1
89 . 1 77 . 10 0389 . 0
89 . 1
u
u
u
u
u
u u
u
u
+ + +
=
+ + +
=
c
c
+ + +
=
c
c

+ + +
=
The error can now be written with the adaptive terms included. Taking the partial derivative of the error with respect to
Theta1 and Theta2 gives the sensitivity derivatives. Remember that Uc does not include either parameter, and therefore is
inconsequential when evaluating the derivative
plant
m m
m m
c
m m
m m
m m
y
a s a s
a s a e
u
a s a s
a s a e
a s a s s s
0 1
2
0 1
2
0 1
2
0 1
1
0 1
2
2
2
89 . 1 77 . 10 0389 . 0
+ +
+
=
c
c
+ +
+
=
c
c
+ + ~ + + +
u
u
u
e y
a s a s
a s a
e
e
dt
d
e u
a s a s
a s a
e
e
dt
d
plant
m m
m m
c
m m
m m
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
+
=
c
c
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
+
=
c
c
=
0 1
2
0 1
2
2
0 1
2
0 1
1
1

u
From MIT rule, update rules are then:
The sensitivity derivatives obtained contain the parameters from the plant. The premise of
design with MRAC assumes that the plant characteristics are not absolutely known. This
seemingly places the design process at a dead end. However, the goal was to make the plant
approach the model. If the model is close to the actual plant, the model characteristics can be
substituted for the plant characteristics, giving the following sensitivity derivatives
MRAC of Pendulum
Block diagram
y
model

e
y
plant
u
c

1
Reference Model
Plant
s

77 . 10 0389 . 0
89 . 1
2
+ + s s

+

-
m m
m m
a s a s
a s a
0 1
2
0 1
+ +
+
m m
m m
a s a s
a s a
0 1
2
0 1
+ +
+
m m
m
a s a s
b
0 1
2
+ +
s

-
+

2
Simulation block diagram :
am
s+am
am
s+am
-gamma
s
gamma
s
Step
Saturati on
omega^2
s+am
Reference Model
180/pi
Radi ans
to Degrees
4.41
s +.039s+10.77
2
Pl ant
2/26
Degrees
to Vol ts
35
Degrees
y m
Error
Theta2
Theta1
y
The controller designed above was implemented. The Simulink block diagram is shown below, along with the
response to a step command of 35 degrees. The transfer function implemented does not exactly mach the transfer
function stated earlier. There are also several gains added around the plant. This is because the system stated earlier
assumed an input of a commanded angle. Here, the plant must receive a voltage command
Reference:
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~kws23/tutorials/MRAC/simulation/simulation.html
Simulation results
Simulation with small gamma = UNSTABLE! The plant response obviously doesnt
match the reference model. In fact, the plant almost goes unstable. This response is
largely due to the near instability of the open loop system. Tuning of gamma and
changing the reference model did not alleviate this problem. In an unconventional
attempt to kill the oscillations, proportional and derivative control was applied across
the plant.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
ym
g=.0001
am
s+am
am
s+am
-gamma
s
gamma
s
Step
Saturati on
omega^2
s+am
Reference Model
180/pi
Radi ans
to Degrees
4.41
s +.039s+10.77
2
Pl ant
1
P
du/dt
2/26
Degrees
to Vol ts
35
Degrees
1.5
D
y m
Error
Theta2
Theta1
y
Solution: Add PD feedback
Reference:
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~kws23/tutorials/MRAC/simulation/simulation.html
Simulation results with varying
gammas
The reference model was chosen to have a settling time of 3 seconds and a damping ratio of
.707, which is an industry accepted standard. The plot shows the response for several different
values of gamma. As can be seen, when the value of gamma is increased, the system responds
much faster, but threatens to become unstable. A smaller value of gamma leads to longer
adaptation times, but a less volatile response.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
ym
g=.01
g=.001
g=.0001
707 .
sec 3
: such that Designed
56 . 3 67 . 2
56 . 3
2
=
=
+ +
=
,
s
m
T
s s
y
Experimental Results
of mrac of pendulam
PD feedback necessary to stabilize system.
Deadzone necessary to prevent updating when plant approached model.
Often went unstable (attributed to inherent instability in system i.e. little
damping).
Much tuning to get acceptable response.
Reference:
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~kws23/tutorials/MRAC/simulation/simulation.html
Design of MRAC using LYAPUNOV
THEORY
Let the process is described by

The desired response is given by
Where am > 0 and reference signal is bounded. The controller is
Introduce the error

For minimizing error, we take differential of e, such that


The error goes to zero if the parameters are equal to
u b
y
a
dt
dy
+ =
u b
y
a
dt
dy
c m
m
m
m
+ =
y
u u c u u 2 1
=
y y
e
m
=
( ) ( )
u b b
y
a a b e a
dt
de
c m m m
+ + =
u u 1 2
b
b
m
o
= =
u u
1 1
b
a
a m
|
.
|

\
|

= =
u u
0
2 2
&
References: Adaptive control (2nd Edition); Karl Johan Astrom, Bjorn Wittenmark, Prentice Hall
Design of MRAC using LYAPUNOV
THEORY
Now a parameter adjustment mechanism is constructed that will drive the
parameters 1; 2 to there desired values. For this purpose, let us assume that
> 0 and introduce the following quadratic function



This function is zero when e is zero and the controller parameters are equal to
correct values.
For function to be a Lyapunov the derivative must be negative. The derivative
is

b
( )
( ) ( )
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + + =
2
1
2
2
1 1
2
2
1
2 1
, ,
b b
b
a a b
e
e V
m m
b
u

u u u

dt
de
( ) ( )
dt
d
b b
dt
d
a a
b
dt
de
e
dt
dV
m m
u
u

u
u

1
1
1 2
2
1
+

+ =
+
References: Adaptive control (2nd Edition); Karl Johan Astrom, Bjorn Wittenmark, Prentice Hall
Design of MRAC using LYAPUNOV
THEORY
If the parameters are updated as
(
)
( )( )
e
u
dt
d
b b
ye
dt
d
a a
b
e
a
dt
dV
c
m
m m

u
u

u
u

+ +
|
.
|

\
|
+ = +

1
1
1 2
2
1
2
e u
dt
d
c

u
=
1
ye
dt
d

u
=
2
And we get
e a
dt
dV
m
2
=
The derivative of V is thus negative semidefnite but not negative definite. This implies
that V(t) V(0) and that e,
1
and
2
must be bounded. This implies that y = e + y
m

also is bounded. Since u
c
, e, and y are bounded, it follows is bounded. Hence
dV/dt is uniformly continous.
V
..
V
..
Block diagram of MRAC using
LYAPUNOV THEORY
References: Adaptive control (2nd Edition); Karl Johan Astrom, Bjorn Wittenmark, Prentice
Hall
MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEM
A continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) is used to convert a reactant (A) to a product (B). The
reaction is liquid phase, first order and exothermic. Perfect mixing is assumed. A cooling jacket
surrounds the reactor to remove the heat of reaction. In this system variables of interest (from a
control engineers perspective) could be, for example, product composition and temperature of the
reacting mass. There will therefore be a composition control loop as well as a temperature control
loop. Feed to the reactor is often used to manipulate product composition while temperature is
controlled by adding (removing) energy via heating (cooling) coils or jackets. This basic control
configuration is demonstrated in Fig (1). 'TC' represents a temperature controller, the mv for this
loop being coolant flowrate to the jacket. 'CC' represents the composition controller, the mv being
reactant feedrate.
References: Multivariable Control: An introduction, Dr M.J. Willis: Department of Chemical and
Process Engineering, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Input-Output
Multivariable System
Models:
Here G11(s) is a symbol used to represent the forward path dynamics between mv1 and cv1, while
G22(s) describes how cv2 responds after a change in mv2. The interaction effects are modelled
using transfer functions G21(s) and G12(s). G21(s) describes how cv2 changes with respect to a
change in mv1 while G12(s) describes how cv1 changes with respect to a change in mv2.
For the CSTR shown in above figure mv1 could be the coolant flowrate, while mv2 could be the
flowrate of the reactant. The output cv1 may be the reactor temperature while the output cv2
would be the effluent concentration.
The mathematical model written in matrix-vector notation:
on a loop by loop basis, the outputs of the system model are related to the inputs as follows,
Loop 1: cv
1
= G
11
mv1 + G
12
mv2 ; Loop 2: cv
2
= G
21
mv1 + G
22
mv2 or cv = G mv

where cv = [cv1, cv1]
T

mv = [mv1 mv2 ]
T

G=
(

G G
G G
22 21
12 11

and, G=
References:
Multivariable Control:
An introduction, Dr M.J.
Willis: Department of
Chemical and Process
Engineering, University
of Newcastle upon Tyne
Adaptive Control for
Multivariable Plants
Decentralized Adaptive Control:
Let us consider the MIMO plant model
Where y R
N
, u R
N
and H(s) C
N*N
is the plant transfer matrix that is assumed to be proper.
Where hij , the elements of H(s), are transfer function.
For some different hij(s) and qij(s). If the MIMO plant model is such that the interconnecting or
coupling transfer functions hij(s);qij(s). (I j) are stable and small in some sense, then they can be treated
as modelling error terms in the control design. This means that instead of designing an adaptive controller
for the MIMO plant (3), we can design N adaptive controllers for N SISO plant models of the form
=
References: ROBUST ADAPTIVE CONTROL by Petros A. Ioannou & Jing Sun, PTR Prentice -Hall(1996)
MRAC FOR MULTIVARIABLE
Consider the MIMO plant
y=G(s)u (1)
where y R
N
, u R
N
and G(s) is N*N transfer matrix. The reference model to be matched by
the closed-loop plant is given by
y
m
=W
m
(s)r (2)
where y
m
,r R
N
Because G(s) is vector transfer function. The following Lemma is used to
define the counterpart of the high frequency gain and relative degree for MIMO plants.
Lemma (1) : For any N*N strictly proper rational full rank transfer ma-

References: ROBUST ADAPTIVE CONTROL by Petros A. Ioannou & Jing Sun, PTR Prentice -Hall(1996)
To meet the control objective we make the following assumptions about
the plant:
A1. G(s) is strictly proper, has full rank and a known MLI matrix (s)
A2. All zeros of G(s) are stable.
A3. A matrix Sp that satisfies KpSp = (KpSp)T > 0 is known.
Furthermore we assume that the transfer matrix Wm(s) of the reference model is
designed to satisfy the following assumptions:

Tao, G. and P.A. Ioannou, Robust Model Reference Adaptive Control for Multivariable Plants," International Journal of
Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 217-248, 1988.
DESIGN of MRAC for
Multivariable system
We can design a MRAC scheme for the plant (1) by using the certainty equivalence
approach by assuming that all the parameters of G(s) are known and propose the control
law
vo
(s) is a monic Hurwitz polynomial of degree
.
A
Kp
1
The closed-loop plant transfer matrix from y to r is equal to W
m
(s) provided
3
*
= and 1*; 2*
are chosen to satisfy the matching equation


(3)
(4)
Tao, G. and P.A. Ioannou, Robust Model Reference Adaptive Control for Multivariable Plants," International Journal of
Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 217-248, 1988.
CONTINUE..
The same approach as in the SISO case can be used to show that the control law with i*; i=
1; 2; 3 as chosen above guarantees that all closed-loop signals are bounded and the elements
of the tracking error e1 = y-ym converge to zero exponentially fast.
Because the parameters of G(s) are unknown, instead of (3) we use the control law
u =
T
(t) (5)
where (t) is the on-line estimate of the matrix * to be generated by an adaptive law.
From the plant and matching equations (1), (4) we obtain

(6)

m
Let dm be the maximum degree of (s) and choose a Hurwitz polynomial f(s) of degree d
m.
Filtering
each side of (6) with 1=f(s) we obtain
(7)
Refrence:Tao, G. and P.A. Ioannou,
Robust Model Reference Adaptive
Control for Multivariable Plants,"
International Journal of Adaptive
Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 2,
no. 3, pp. 217-248, 1988.
CONTINUE..
Generated the estimated value of z,
and the estimation error
Refrence:Tao, G. and P.A. Ioannou, Robust Model Reference Adaptive Control for Multivariable Plants," International
Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, Vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 217-248, 1988.
Multivariable nonlinear model
reference control of cement
mills
The dynamical model of the system is described by three coupled and nonlinear differential
equations as given in (1)(3). The states of the system are characterized by the mill load denoted
by z (in tons), the product flow rate denoted by yf (in tons/h) and the tailings flow rate denoted by
yr (in tons/h). On the other hand, w is the output flow rate of the mill and d denotes the relative
hardness of the material inside the mill with respect to the nominal one, which is unity. The
system has two control inputs, denoted by u (tons/h), the feed flow rate and, v (rpm), the classifier
speed
( )
y
u
d z
z
r
+ + =
-
,

( )
( ) ( ) d z
d v z y
y
T
f
f f
,
, ,
1
o
+ =
-
( ) ( ) d z d v z
y y
T
r
r
r
, , , o + =
-
(1)
(2)
(3)
The variables T
f
and T
r
stand for the time constants for product flow rate and tailings flow
rate dynamics, respectively.
(4)
References: Mehmet Onder Efe, Multivariable nonlinear model reference control of cement mills, Transactions of the
Institute of Measurement and Control 25,5 (2003), pp. 373385
Schematic diagram of the
cement milling circuit
References: Mehmet Onder Efe, Multivariable nonlinear model reference control of cement mills, Transactions of the
Institute of Measurement and Control 25,5 (2003), pp. 373385
The control problem is to enforce the system states to follow the states of a reference model by
appropriately altering the two control inputs.
Reference model: In choosing the reference dynamics for z and yf, we assume
1) The reference model for each state, whose variables are represented with a subscript m, must
be stable and must follow the command signal. Since the differential equations in (1)-(3) are
of first order, we choose the corresponding reference dynamics as a first-order system;
2) The response imposed by the reference system must not be faster than what could be achieved
by the actual system, i.e., the time constants must be compatible.
Denote the command signals for reference mill load (z
m
) and the reference product flow rate (y
mf
)
states by r and f, respectively. If for some tc 0, z
m
(tc ) = r(tc) is satisfied, then (5) is
satisfied for all t tc.


>
>
Two out of three state variables are kept under control; the behaviour of the third state is determined by the first two.
Refrence:Tao, G. and P.A. Ioannou,
Robust Model Reference Adaptive
Control for Multivariable Plants,"
International Journal of Adaptive Control
and Signal Processing, Vol. 2, no. 3, pp.
217-248, 1988.
Synthesis of the control signal for
cement mill
Simulation
results:
In the upper subplot of Figure, the command signal (r), the response of the reference model (zm) and the response of the
system are illustrated together. After approximately 5 h, the value of the plant output comes admissibly close to that of the
model output. In order to clarify the tracking claim, the lower subplot depicts the model following error in state z. The
variation in the plant output is due to the uncertainty on the relative material hardness parameter.
Refrence:Tao, G. and P.A. Ioannou,
Robust Model Reference Adaptive
Control for Multivariable Plants,"
International Journal of Adaptive Control
and Signal Processing, Vol. 2, no. 3, pp.
217-248, 1988.
Recent development in mrac
Modified MRAC methods
Fuzzy-MRAC
Variable Structure MRAC (VS-MRAC)
Robust multiple model adaptive control (RMMAC)

Brief History:
Generated Library of
Tools
1960s
Sensitivity Method, MIT Rule
Limited stability analysis
Whitaker, Kalman, Parks,

1970s
Lyapunov based
Passivity based
Morse, Narendra, Landau,

Late 1970s - 1980s
Global stability
Morse, Narendra, Egardt, Landau, Goodwin,
Keisselmeier, Anderson, Astrom.
Early 1980s
Robustness issues, Instability
Egard, Rohrs, Ioannou, Athans, Anderson,
Astrom,
1980s
Robust adaptive control
Praly, Ioannou, Narendra, Tsakalis, Annaswamy,
Sun, Tao, Goodwin, Middleton etc
1990s
Nonlinear adaptive control
1990s
Search methods, Multiple
models, Switching
techniques
Martenson, Miller, Barmish,Morse,Narendra,
Morse, Andreson, Safonov, .
Adaptive backstepping
Krstic, Kanelakopoulos,
Kokotovic, Zhang,
Neuro-Adaptive
control
Fuzzy-Adaptive control
Narendra, Lewis, Polycarpou,
Kosmatopoulos, Xu, Ioannou, Wang,
Lavresky, Hovakimyan

A New Toolbox for use with MATLAB

and Simulink

[P.A. Ioannou & B. Fidan]
Parameter Identification
Adaptive Control
in both Continuous-Time and Discrete-Time
Parameter Identification
Gradient Methods
Least-Squares Methods
SPR-Lyapunov Approaches

(Adaptive) Control
Model Reference (Adaptive) Control
Direct, Indirect
(Adaptive) Pole Placement Control
Polynomial, State-Variable,
Linear Quadratic
Minimum Prediction Error Control
Direct, Indirect, Semi-direct
Adaptive Law Modifications
Normalization
Static, Dynamic
Parameter Projection
Robustness Modifications
, , Dead-zone
Other
(Adaptive) State Estimation
Output Prediction (ARMA)
Parametric Model Order Reduction
Polynomial Algebra
Adaptive control toolbox
Simulink

Blocks:
MATLAB

Commands:
|
z u
y
Plant I/O
Signals
Parametric
Model
Signals
|
z
u
d
n
Parameter
Estimate
Parametric Model
Signals
Normalizing Signal
u
y
Plant I/O
Signals
u
Parameter
Estimate
z
r
z
|
r
|
Original
Parametric Model
Signals
Reduced-Order
Parametric Model
Signals
Gradient Methods:
Function Purpose
ucgrad,ucgradbk,ucgradint Continuous-time gradient algorithms
dgradb, dgradl, udgrad Discrete-time gradient algorithms
dprojmod, dprojorth, Discrete-time projection algorithms
dprojpure, udproj

Least-Squares (LS) Methods:
Function Purpose
ucrls, urlsarg Continuous-time LS algorithms
drls, udrls, urlsarg Discrete-time LS algorithms
Model Conversion/Model Order Reduction:
Function Purpose
utf2lm, io2lm Transfer function to linear parametric model
uarma2lm, io2lm ARMA to linear parametric model
lmred Parametric model order reduction
d
n
Normalizing Signal
On line Parameter Estimators
Simulink

Block:
MATLAB

Commands:
r
u y
Plant Output Control Signal
|
z
u d
n Parameter Estimate
Parametric Model
Signals
Dynamic Normalizing Signal
Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC):
Function Purpose
mrcpoly MRC/MRAC design Polynomial Approach
dmrc Discrete-time MRC/MRAC design
umrcdrb, umrcdrl Continuous-time direct MRAC
umrcidr Continuous-time indirect MRAC
udmracdr Discrete-time direct MRAC
udmracidr Discrete-time indirect MRAC

One-Step Ahead Adaptive Control (OSAAC):
(Discrete Time)
Function Purpose
dosac OSAC/OSAAC design
udosacdr Direct OSAAC
udosacidr Indirect OSAAC
udosaclcf OSAAC Linear control form approach
Adaptive Pole Placement Control (APPC):
Function Purpose
ppcpoly, ppcssv Continuous-time PPC/APPC design
dppcdo, dppcimp, Discrete-time PPC/APPC design
dppcdo, dppcimp
ppcclq Continuous-time (adaptive) LQC design
ppcdlq Discrete-time (adaptive) LQC design
uppcpoly, uppcrsf PPC/APPC & (adaptive) LQC implementation


Polynomial Algebra Tools:
Function Purpose
bezout, diophant Solving Diophantine equations
euclid Greatest common divisor of two polynomials
polylcm Lowest common multiple of two polynomials
Reference Signal
Adaptive control
Numerical implementation of an extensive set of parameter
identification and adaptive control schemes.

Simulink

blocks with user-friendly GUIs to implement the

schemes and to select/tune the design parameters easily.

Ability to implement the same schemes using the provided
MATLAB

commands in order to have flexibility.

Applicability to both continuous-time and discrete-time plants.

Normalization, parameter projection, and robust modification
capabilities to guarantee stability and robustness.

Basic polynomial algebra tools to design controllers based on
model matching and pole placement techniques.

M
% Process:
for k = 1:N_final-1,
theta(:,k) = ucrls('parameter',x_est,ntheta);
[thetau, thetay, thetar, RETYPE] = mrcpoly(theta(1,k),
[1 theta(2,k)],Zm,Rm,Lambda_c);
theta_c(:,k) = [thetau(:); thetay(:); thetar(:)];
u(k) = umrcidr('control',xc,[y(k) r(k)],[n m],Lambda_c,Lambda_p,theta_c(:,k));
dxc = umrcidr('state',xc,[u(k) y(k)],[n m],Lambda_c,Lambda_p);
[z(k), phi(:,k)] = umrcidr('output', xc,[u(k) y(k)],[n m],Lambda_c,Lambda_p);
xc = xc + dxc*dt;
dxp = ufilt('state', xp, u(k), b, a);
y(k+1)= ufilt('output',xp, u(k), b, a); xp = xp + dxp*dt;
dxm = ufilt('state', xm, r(k), Zm, Rm);
ym(k+1)= ufilt('output', xm, r(k), Zm, Rm); xm = xm + dxm*dt;
dx_est = ucrls('state', x_est,z(k),phi(:,k), 0,ArgLS,[],[]);
x_est = x_est + dx_est*dt;
end
M
Key features
Conclusions
Major Achievements:
Plethora of control design and analysis tools, practical and theoretical are generated
Over the years some will be forgotten, others will be rediscovered but many will be used to
advance the field further.
Rich library of tools to choose from. Choosing the right control design for a particular
application is often an art
o Challenges:
On line learning via data processing may take time leading to bad transients till the appropriate
controller is found
I/O data may contain corrupted information due to external disturbances, modeling errors i.e.
low signal/noise leading to the choice of a wrong controller again causing bad transients
The time varying and nonlinear nature of adaptive control makes it difficult if at all possible to
use the well established practical tools for LTI plants to meet robustness and performance
specifications

references
Astrom K.J.and Bjorn Wittenmark, Adaptive control, Prentice Hall, Second
edition, India, 2001.
Petros A. Ioannou & Jing Sun, Robust adaptive control, PTR Prentice Hall(1996)
Astrom, K.J., Theory and Applications of Adaptive Control-A Survey,"
Automatica, Vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 471-486, 1983.
Tao, G. and P.A. Ioannou, Robust Model Reference Adaptive Control for
Multivariable Plants," International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal
Process g, Vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 217-248, 1988.
Dr M.J. Willis, Multivariable Control: An introduction, Department of Chemical
and Process Engineering, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Mehmet Onder Efe, Multivariable nonlinear model reference control of cement
mills, Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 25,5 (2003), pp.
373385.
Petros Ioannou, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Robust Adaptive
Control : The Search for the Holy Grail (ppt.)
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~kws23/tutorials/MRAC/simulation/simulation.html
MATLAB 7.0.1 (Adaptive control tool box)