Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Although
that the performance of a system that executes the error signals from previous iterations are information rich,
same task multiple times can be improved by learning they are unused by a nonlearning controller. The objective
from previous executions (trials, iterations, passes). of ILC is to improve performance by incorporating error
For instance, a basketball player shooting a free throw information into the control for subsequent iterations. In
from a fixed position can improve his or her ability to doing so, high performance can be achieved with low transcore by practicing the shot repeatedly. During each shot, sient tracking error despite large model uncertainty and
repeating disturbances.
the basketball player observes
ILC differs from other
the trajectory of the ball and
DOUGLAS A. BRISTOW, MARINA THARAYIL,
learning-type control strateconsciously plans an alteration
and ANDREW G. ALLEYNE
gies, such as adaptive control,
in the shooting motion for the
neural networks, and repetinext attempt. As the player
tive control (RC). Adaptive
continues to practice, the correct motion is learned and becomes ingrained into the control strategies modify the controller, which is a system,
muscle memory so that the shooting accuracy is iteratively whereas ILC modifies the control input, which is a signal
improved. The converged muscle motion profile is an [1]. Additionally, adaptive controllers typically do not take
open-loop control generated through repetition and learn- advantage of the information contained in repetitive coming. This type of learned open-loop control strategy is the mand signals. Similarly, neural network learning involves
the modification of controller parameters rather than a
essence of ILC.
We consider learning controllers for systems that per- control signal; in this case, large networks of nonlinear
form the same operation repeatedly and under the same neurons are modified. These large networks require extenoperating conditions. For such systems, a nonlearning con- sive training data, and fast convergence may be difficult to
A LEARNING-BASED METHOD
FOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE
TRACKING CONTROL
JUNE 2006
1066-033X/06/$20.002006IEEE
JUNE 2006
yj(k) = Cx j(k),
(1)
(2)
(3)
d(k)
(4)
where the LTI dynamics Q(q) and L(q) are defined as the
Q-filter and learning function, respectively. The twodimensional (2-D) ILC system with plant dynamics (1) and
learning dynamics (4) is shown in Figure 1.
There are several possible variations to the learning algorithm (4). Some researchers consider algorithms with linear time-varying (LTV) functions [42], [46], [47], nonlinear
functions [37], and iteration-varying functions [1], [48].
Additionally, the order of the algorithm, that is, the number N0 of previous iterations of ui and ei ,
i { j N0 + 1, . . . , j} , used to calculate u j+ 1 can be
increased. Algorithms with N0 > 1 are referred to as higher-order learning algorithms [26], [36], [37], [44], [49][51].
The current error e j+ 1 can also be used in calculating u j+ 1
JUNE 2006
Outline
The remainder of this article is divided into four major
sections. These are System Representations, Analysis, Design, and Implementation Example. Time
and frequency-domain representations of the ILC system are presented in the System Representation section. The Analysis section examines the four basic
topics of greatest relevance to understanding ILC system behavior: 1) stability, 2) performance, 3) transient
learning behavior, and 4) robustness. The Design section investigates four different design methods: 1) PD
type, 2) plant inversion, 3) H , and 4) quadratically
optimal. The goal is to give the reader an array of tools
to use and the knowledge of when each is appropriate.
Finally, the design and implementation of an iterative
learning controller for microscale robotic deposition
manufacturing is presented in the Implementation
SYSTEM REPRESENTATIONS
Analytical results for ILC systems are developed using two
system representations. Before proceeding with the analysis, we introduce these representations.
(5)
urrent-iteration ILC is a method for incorporating feedback with ILC [52][56]. The current-iteration ILC
algorithm is given by
uj+1 (k) = Q(q)[uj (k) + L(q)ej (k + 1)] + C(q)ej+1 (k)
Feedback control
and shown in Figure A. This learning scheme derives its name from the addition of a learning component in the current iteration
through the term C(q)ej +1 (k). This algorithm, however, is identical to the algorithm (4) combined with a feedback controller in the
parallel architecture. Equivalence can be found between these two forms by separating the current-iteration ILC signal into feedforward and feedback components as
uj+1 (k) = wj+1 (k) + C(q)ej+1 (k),
ILC
where
Memory
Memory
w j +1 (k) = Q(q)[u j (k) + L(q)ej (k + 1)].
Q
Then, solving for the iteration-domain dynamic equation for
w yields
w j +1 (k) = Q(q)[w j (k) + (L(q) + q1 C(q))ej (k + 1)].
Therefore, the feedforward portion of the current-iteration ILC is identical to the algorithm (4) with the learning function L(q) + q1 C(q). The algorithm (4) with
learning function L(q) + q1 C(q) combined with a
feedback controller in the parallel architecture is equivalent to the complete current-iteration ILC.
yd
wj
ej
uj
C
Feedback
Controller
Plant
yj
JUNE 2006
y (1)
p1
j
yj(2) p2
. = .
.. ..
pN
y (N)
j
yj
0
p1
..
.
pN1
d(1)
d(2)
..
.
..
.
u (0)
0
j
u j(1)
0
..
..
.
.
p1
u (N 1)
j
uj
and
(6)
d(N)
L(q) = + l2 q2 + l1 q1 + l0 + l1 q1 + l2 q2 + ,
respectively. In lifted form, (4) becomes
u j+1 (0)
u j+1 (1)
..
.
u j+1 (N 1)
and
e (1)
y (1)
yd(1)
j
j
e j(2) yd(2) yj(2)
. = . . .
.. .. ..
y (N)
e (N)
y (N)
j
d
j
ej
yd
yj
u j+1
q0
q1
..
.
qN1
yj(m)
0
0
pm
yj(m + 1) pm+1
pm
0
=
..
..
..
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
pm+N1 pm+N2 pm
yj(m + N 1)
u (0)
d(m)
j
u j(1) d(m + 1)
+
,
..
..
.
.
d(m + N 1)
u j(N 1)
e j(m)
yd(m)
e j(m + 1) yd(m + 1)
..
..
.
.
yd(m + N 1)
e j(m + N 1)
yj(m)
yj(m + 1)
.
..
.
yj(m + N 1)
The lifted form (6) allows us to write the SISO time- and
iteration-domain dynamic system (1) as a multiple-input,
multiple-output (MIMO) iteration-domain dynamic system. The time-domain dynamics are contained in the structure of P, and the time signals u j, yj, and d are contained in
the vectors u j, y j, and d.
JUNE 2006
q1
q0
..
.
qN2
..
.
u (0)
q(N1)
j
u j(1)
q(N2)
..
..
.
.
q0
u (N 1)
j
uj
l0
l1
..
.
l1
l0
..
.
lN1
lN2
..
.
e (1)
l(N1)
e j(2)
l(N2)
. .
..
..
.
l0
e (N)
j
(7)
ej
z-transform requires that signals be defined over an infinite time horizon. Since all practical applications of ILC
have finite trial durations, the z-domain representation is
an approximation of the ILC system [44]. Therefore, for the
z-domain analysis we assume N = , and we discuss
what can be inferred about the finite-duration ILC system
[44], [56], [61][64].
The transformed representations of the system in (1)
and learning algorithm in (4) are
Y j(z) = P(z)U j(z) + D(z)
(8)
and
U j+1 (z) = Q(z)[U j(z) + zL(z)E j(z)],
(9)
respectively, where E j(z) = Yd(z) Y j(z). The z that multiplies L(z) emphasizes the forward time shift used in the learning. For an m time-step plant delay, zm is used instead of z.
ANALYSIS
Stability
The ILC system (1), (4) is asymptotically stable (AS) if there
exists u R such that
|u j(k)| u for all k = {0, . . . , N 1} and j = {0, 1, . . . , },
and, for all k {0, . . . , N 1},
lim u j(k) exists.
(10)
Theorem 1 [44]
The ILC system (1), (4) is AS if and only if
(Q(I LP)) < 1.
(11)
(13)
(12)
JUNE 2006
(14)
Theorem 3 [57]
A sufficient condition for stability of the transformed system can be obtained by requiring that Q(z)[1 zL(z)P(z)]
be a contraction mapping. For a given z-domain system
T(z), we define T(z) = sup[,] |T(ei )|.
Suppose P and L are not identically zero. Then, for the ILC
system (1), (4), e (k) = 0 for all k and for all yd and d, if
and only if the system is AS and Q(q) = 1.
Theorem 2 [44]
Proof
If
(15)
Performance
The performance of an ILC system is based on the asymptotic value of the error. If the system is AS, the asymptotic
error is
e (k) = lim e j(k)
j
(16)
1 Q(z)
[Yd(z) D(z)]
1 Q(z)[1 zL(z)P(z)]
(17)
JUNE 2006
Example 1
Consider the ILC system (1), (4) with plant dynamics
yj(k) = [q/(q .9)2 ]u j(k)
and learning algorithm
u j+1 (k) = u j(k) + .5e j(k + 1). The leading Markov parameters of this system are p1 = 1, q0 = 1, and l0 = 0.5. Since
Q(q) and L(q) are causal, all of the eigenvalues of the lifted
system are given by (12) as = 0.5. Therefore, the ILC
system is AS by Theorem 1. The converged error is identically zero because the Q-filter is unity. The trial duration is
set to N = 50, and the desired output is the smoothed-step
function shown in Figure 2. The 2-norm of e j is plotted in
Figure 3 for the first 180 trials. Over the first 12 iterations,
the error increases by nine orders of magnitude.
Example 1 shows the large transient growth that can
occur in ILC systems. Transient growth is problematic in
1
yd
0
0
10
20
30
Time (k)
40
50
e e j+1 e e j,
1010
[E (z) E j+1 (z)] = Q(z) [1 zL(z)P(z)] E (z) E j(z) .
(19)
Let () be the maximum singular value and let 2
denote the Euclidean norm. Using (18) and (19) we obtain
the following monotonic convergence conditions.
Theorem 4 [44]
If the ILC system (1), (4) satisfies
(20)
then
e e j+1 2 < 1 e e j2
for all j {1, 2, . . . }.
Theorem 5 [11]
If the ILC system (1), (4) with N = satisfies
(21)
100
105
(18)
When P(q), Q(q), and L(q) are causal (that is, P, Q, and L
are Toeplitz and lower triangular), the matrices P, Q, and L
commute, and (18) reduces to
1 = PQ(I LP)P1 < 1,
105
||ej||2
1010
20
40
60
then
E (z) E j+1 (z)
< 2 E (z) E j(z)
JUNE 2006
For an AS ILC system, the worst-case learning transients can be upper bounded by a decaying geometric
function
Theorem 6
If
|W(ei )|
i )|
|Q(ei )||1 ei L(ei )P(e
.
i
i
i
i
(25)
for all [, ], then the ILC system (1), (4), (24) with
N = is monotonically convergent with convergence rate
< 1.
Proof
From Theorem 5, the ILC system is monotonically convergent with rate < 1 if
Robustness
Implicit in the ILC formulation is uncertainty in the plant
dynamics. If the plant were known exactly, more direct
methods could be used to track a given reference. As such,
robustness is a central issue in ILC. Here, we consider
robustness to uncertainty as related to stability and monotonicity. This discussion provides insight into the limitations that safe operation requirements (good transients and
stability) impose on the achievable performance of a learning algorithm. We then consider stability robustness to
time-delay error in the system model and, finally, the
effects of nonrepeating disturbances on performance.
A key question is whether or not a given AS ILC system
remains AS to plant perturbations. Consider the scenario
in which Q(q) = 1, which achieves zero converged error,
and L(q) is causal [4]. Then the stability condition (13) is
equivalent to |1 l0 p1 | < 1. Therefore, assuming l0 and p1
are both nonzero, the ILC system is AS if and only if
sgn(p1 ) = sgn(l0 ),
(22)
and
l0 p1 2,
(23)
P(q) = P(q)[1
+ W(q)(q)],
(24)
JUNE 2006
Q(z)[1 zL(z)P(z)[1
+ W(z)(z)]]
i )[1 + W(ei )(ei )]]|
= max |Q(ei )[1 ei L(ei )P(e
i )]|
= max[|Q(ei )[1 ei L(ei )P(e
i )W(ei )|],
+ |(Q(ei )ei L(ei )P(e
which is equivalent to (25).
Unlike the stability robustness condition (22), (23),
which depends only on the first Markov parameters, the
monotonic robustness condition (25) depends on the
dynamics of P(q), Q(q), and L(q). Examining (25), we see
that the most direct way to increase the robustness |W(ei )|
at a given is to decrease the Q-filter gain |Q(ei )|. Recall
from the Performance section that decreasing |Q(ei )|
negatively impacts the converged performance. Therefore,
when we consider a more practical measure of robustness,
such as monotonic robustness, there is a tradeoff between
performance and robustness, with the Q-filter acting as the
tuning knob.
Uncertainty in the system time delay may also lead to
stability and learning transient problems. Recall that the
error is forward shifted in the learning algorithm by the
system delay m. If m is not the true delay, then the entries
of the matrix P are shifted diagonally [73]. If, instead, the
plant has an unknown time-varying delay, then each row
of P is shifted left or right according to the system delay at
that time. Either case can lead to loss of stability or poor
learning transients, and currently there is no complete
analysis technique for determining robustness to timedelay error. However, several ILC algorithms have been
developed for dealing with a constant time-delay error
[50], [74][77].
As a robust performance issue, we consider the
effects of noise, nonrepeating disturbances, and initial
condition variation on performance. All of these effects
can be considered together by adding an iterationdependent exogenous signal dj to (1). The iterationdependent signal prevents the error from converging to
e . However, if dj is bounded, then the error converges
DESIGN
From a practical perspective, the goal of ILC is to generate
an open-loop signal that approximately inverts the plants
dynamics to track the reference and reject repeating disturbances. Ideally, ILC learns only the repeating disturbance
and ignores noise and nonrepeating disturbances. We
emphasize that ILC is an open-loop control and has no
feedback mechanism to respond to unanticipated, nonrepeating disturbances. As such, a feedback controller in
combination with ILC can be beneficial. Using Feedback
Control with Iterative Learning Control illustrates the two
basic forms for combining ILC with feedback algorithms.
In the following sections, we discuss four of the most
popular ILC algorithms and design techniques. The PDtype learning function is a tunable design that can be
applied to a system without extensive modeling and
analysis. The plant inversion learning function converges
quickly but relies heavily on modeling and can be sensitive
to model errors. The H design technique can be used to
design a robustly monotonically convergent ILC but at the
expense of performance. The quadratically optimal (QILC) designs use a quadratic performance criterion to
obtain an optimal ILC. An experimental comparison of the
P-type, plant inversion, and Q-ILC designs on a rotary
robot are presented in [40].
JUNE 2006
reset and run for sufficient iterations to determine the transient behavior and asymptotic error. Initially, the learning
gains and filter bandwidth are set low. After a stable baseline transient behavior and error performance have been
p1 (0)
0
j
y
(2)
p1 (1)
j
p2 (1)
. =
..
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
(N
1)
p
(N
1)
p
yj (N)
N
N1
yj
uj (0)
uj (1)
..
.
PLT V
0
0
..
.
p1 (N 1)
uj
d(N)
= ,
Mr (q)q Cr (q,q)
r (q) dr (q,q)
d(1)
d(2)
+ . .
..
uj (N 1)
JUNE 2006
1
,
|Q(ei )|
Note that setting the ILC input u j to zero in both cases results in
the standard feedback-controlled response to the reference yd .
Therefore, in both of these arrangements, the ILC can be disabled
whenever nonrepeating reference trajectories are used.
ILC
Memory
ILC
Memory
Memory
Memory
uj
yd
uj
yd
ej
Feedback
Controller
Plant
yj
ej
Feedback
Controller
Plant
yj
JUNE 2006
One of the immediate difficulties with the plant inversion approach occurs when dealing with nonminimum
phase systems, in which direct inversion of the plant P(q)
results in an unstable filter. Although finite-duration iterations ensure bounded signals, the unstable filter undoubtedly generates undesirably large control signals. This problem
can be avoided by using a stable inversion approach, which
results in a noncausal learning function [96], [97]. For nonlinear systems, direct inversion of the dynamics may be difficult. However, in some cases, inversion of the dynamics
linearized around the dominant operating conditions may
be sufficient to achieve good results [7], [98].
Whether P(q) is minimum phase or not, the success of
the plant inversion method ultimately depends on the
accuracy of the model. A mismatch between the model
P(q)
and the actual dynamics P(q) prevents convergence
from occurring in one iteration. Furthermore, mismatch
can lead to poor transient behavior. Consider using the
plant-inversion learning function with the uncertain system (24). From Theorem 6, the uncertain system is monotonically convergent with a rate better than if
|W(ei )| < for [, ], where W(q) is the uncertainty weighting function. If at a given 0 , |W(ei0 )| 1, signifying an uncertainty greater than 100%, then the system
will not be robustly monotonically convergent. Since
model uncertainty of greater than 100% is common at high
frequencies, the plant inversion algorithm is not robustly
monotonically convergent. To avoid poor transients associated with model uncertainty, a lowpass Q-filter is typically
employed [7], [99]. By setting the filter cutoff to a sufficiently low frequency, frequencies where uncertainty is
greater than 100% can be disabled in the learning function
and robust monotonicity can be achieved.
H Methods
Dropping the complex argument for notational convenience, this model matching problem can be written equivalently as a lower linear fractional transform,
Q(I zLP) = G11 + G12 L(I G22 L)1 G21 = FL (G, L),
where
G=
G11
G21
G12
G22
=
Q
Q
.
zP 0
zP
Ej E
In Q-ILC, the learning functions are designed in the lifted-system representation to minimize a quadratic nextiteration cost criterion. Typically, the criteria used have
the form
Jj+1 (u j+1 ) = eTj+1 QLQ e j+1 + uTj+1 RLQ u j+1
JUNE 2006
z Axis
y
x
y Axis
x Axis
Nozzle
1 mm
Nozzle
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 5 (a) Photo of -RD system. (b) Schematic of motion system layout. The motion system is a standard H-drive or gantry robot with linear motors for x and y travel and a rotary motor and ballscrew for z travel. An electronic pressure regulator controls the ink extrusion flow rate.
JUNE 2006
Phase (deg)
Magnitude (dB)
F(z) =
100
Data
Model
50
0
50
100
0
Tuning
90
180
270
0.1
1
10
100
Frequency /(2Ts) (Hz)
500
Phase (deg)
Magnitude (dB)
FIGURE 6 Experimental frequency response and model of the RD x axis with sampling period Ts = 0.001 s. The experimental
data are obtained from 170 Hz. Outside this range nonlinearities
appear in the form of static friction at low frequencies and high signal-to-noise ratio at high frequencies. The frequency response
shows dominant double-integrator dynamics with structural resonances at 16 Hz and 55 Hz.
40
30
20
10
90
90
0.1568(z + 0.8093)
,
z2 1.25z + 0.5335
0.1
1
10
100
Frequency /(2Ts) (Hz)
500
JUNE 2006
(28)
where Q(q) is a zero-phase, finite-impulse-response Gaussian lowpass filter [6], [39]. Note that (28) is the PD law in
(26) with a Q-filter added for robustness. A position step
with trapezoidal velocity profile (see Figure 10) is used as
the sample trajectory for tuning the ILC parameters. The
maximum velocity and acceleration of this trajectory are
10 mm/s and 250 mm/s2 , respectively.
We begin tuning with conservative gains kp = 1 and
kd = 10 and a Q-filter bandwidth of 20 Hz. Holding the
bandwidth constant, various gains are used, and the maximum and RMS errors are plotted versus iteration. For clarity, only a subset of these gains is shown in Figure 8. From
these results, the gains kp = 2 and kd = 50 are selected.
Holding these gains fixed, a second set of trials is performed with varying Q-filter bandwidths. Representative
results are shown in Figure 9, and the 40-Hz bandwidth filter is chosen as the best among the set.
80
60
30
Learning
Transient
kp=1 kd=10
kp=2 kd=20
kp=2 kd=50
kp=5 kd=20
40
20
CONCLUDING REMARKS
100
Max Error (m)
feedforward controller combination. Note that the learning function was obtained
with the simplest of ILC
approaches.
25
20
Learning
Transient
15
kp=1 kd=10
kp=2 kd=20
kp=2 kd=50
kp=5 kd=20
10
Position (mm)
5
This article surveyed the
0
0
major results in ILC analy0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
sis and design over the past
Iteration
Iteration
two decades. Problems in
(a)
(b)
stability, performance,
learning transient behavior, FIGURE 8 Transient behavior and asymptotic performance for PD gain tuning. While the gain combiand robustness were dis- nation kp = 5, kd = 20 has low asymptotic error, the learning transients do not converge monotonicussed along with four cally like the others and, therefore, may not be a good choice of gains. The other three
combinations have nearly monotonic transients, but kp = 2, kd = 50 converges fastest with the lowdesign techniques that have est final error.
emerged as among the
most popular. The content
of this survey was selected
100
30
20 Hz
20 Hz
to provide the reader with
40
Hz
40 Hz
25
80
60 Hz
60 Hz
a broad perspective of the
20
60
important ideas, potential,
15
and limitations of ILC.
40
Learning
Learning
10
Indeed, the maturing field
Transient
Transient
20
of ILC includes many
5
results and learning algo0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
rithms beyond the scope of
Iteration
Iteration
this survey. Though begin(a)
(b)
ning its third decade of
active research, the field of
ILC shows no signs of FIGURE 9 Transient behavior and asymptotic performance for Q-filter bandwidth tuning. These plots
show that the Q-filter has little effect on the convergence rate of the error, but instead primarily deterslowing down.
mines the magnitude of the converged error and stability of the system. Although increased bandwidth
Good learning transient improves the error, a bandwidth that is too high results in learning transients.
behavior was identified as
the practical stability condition, where good transient behavior was defined as
Reference
monotonic convergence. Furthermore, when robustness
1
Feedback Only
Feedback + Feedforward
is considered, model uncertainty leads to limitations on
Feedback + ILC
0.8
the performance of LTI learning algorithms. An open
research topic is the formalization of the robustness-ver1.05
0.6
sus-performance tradeoff. Nonrepeating disturbances
1
and noise can be detrimental to the performance of ILC,
0.4
yet few algorithms or designs consider these effects in a
0.95
comprehensive manner amenable to implementation.
0.2
0.4
0.42
0.44
0.46
Finally, ILC researchers have not yet developed general
methods for using the information gained through ILC
0
training to aid in nonidentical, but similar, reference sig0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
nals. Therefore, many opportunities exist for advanceTime (s)
ment of theoretical and practical knowledge in the field.
The ILC field grew out of practical problems in robotics FIGURE 10 Tracking results with and without ILC on the -RD
and should continue to be motivated by real-world prob- system. The ILC is shown after 50 learning iterations, outperformlems. One rapidly growing area where the authors see par- ing the reference feedforward controller. Note that the ILC
response to the changing velocity is immediate, whereas the feedticularly strong opportunities for ILC is in micro- and
back and reference feedforward controllers show a lagged
nano-manufacturing. The dynamics at these length scales are response. The improved tracking provides lower overshoot and
nonlinear and uncertain, while accurate, real-time feedback shorter settling time.
JUNE 2006
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the National Science
Foundation (NSF), for support under DMI-0140466, an
NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, and the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Nano-CEMMS Center NSF
Award 0328162.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Douglas A. Bristow received his B.S. from the University of Missouri at Rolla in 2001 and his M.S. from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2003,
both in mechanical engineering. He is currently a Ph.D.
candidate in mechanical engineering at the University of
Illinois. In 2002 he was awarded the National Science
Foundation Graduate Fellowship. His research interests
include micro- and nano-manufacturing systems and
iterative learning control.
Marina Tharayil received the B.S. degree in mechanical
engineering from the University of Illinois, Chicago, in
1999. She received her M.S. (2001) and Ph.D. (2005) in
mechanical engineering from the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, where she was a National Science
Foundation Graduate Fellow. She is currently employed as
a research engineer at the Xerox Wilson Center for Research
and Technology in Webster, New York. Her research interests include repetitive and iterative learning control.
Andrew G. Alleyne (alleyne@uiuc.edu) received his
B.S.E. degree from Princeton University in mechanical
and aerospace engineering in 1989. He received his M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering in 1992
and 1994, respectively, from the University of California
at Berkeley. He joined the Department of Mechanical
and Industrial Engineering at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in 1994 and is also
appointed in the Coordinated Science Laboratory of
UIUC. He currently holds the Ralph M. and Catherine
V. Fisher Professorship in the College of Engineering.
His research interests are a mix of theory and implementation with a broad application focus. He was awarded
the ASME Dynamics Systems and Control Divisions
Outstanding Young Investigator Award in 2003 and was
a Fulbright Fellow to the Netherlands in 2003 where he
held a visiting professorship in vehicle mechatronics at
TU Delft. He is an editor of Vehicle System Dynamics and
an associate editor of IEEE Control Systems Magazine. He
is a Fellow of the ASME and a Senior Member of the
IEEE. He can be contacted at the University of Illinois,
1206 West Green St., MC-244, Urbana, IL 61801 USA.
JUNE 2006
REFERENCES
[1] K.L. Moore, Iterative Learning Control for Deterministic Systems. London:
Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[2] K.J. Hunt, D. Sbarbaro, R. Zbikowski, and P.J. Gawthrop, Neural networks for control systemsA survey, Automatica, vol. 28, no. 6,
pp. 1083112, 1992.
[3] G. Hillerstrom and K. Walgama, Repetitive control theory and applicationsa survey, in Proc. 13th World Congress Vol.D: Control Design II, Optimization, 1997, pp. 16.
[4] R.W. Longman, Iterative learning control and repetitive control for engineering practice, Int. J. Contr., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 930954, 2000.
[5] S. Arimoto, S. Kawamura, and F. Miyazaki, Bettering operation of
robots by learning, J. Robot. Syst., vol. 1, pp. 123140, 1984.
[6] D.A. Bristow and A.G. Alleyne, A manufacturing system for microscale
robotic deposition, in Proc. Ame. Contr. Conf., 2003, pp. 26202625.
[7] H. Elci, R.W. Longman, M. Phan, J.-N. Juang, and R. Ugoletti, Discrete
frequency based learning control for precision motion control, in Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. Syst., Man, Cybern., 1994, pp. 27672773.
[8] W. Messner, R. Horowitz, W.-W. Kao, and M. Boals, A new adaptive
learning rule, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 36, no. 2,
pp. 188197, 1991.
[9] M. Norrlof, An adaptive iterative learning control algorithm with experiments on an industrial robot, IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 18, no. 2, pp.
245251, 2002.
[10] D.-I. Kim and S. Kim, An iterative learning control method with application for CNC machine tools, IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 32, no. 1, pp.
6672, 1996.
[11] D. de Roover and O.H. Bosgra, Synthesis of robust multivariable iterative learning controllers with application to a wafer stage motion system,
Int. J. Contr., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 968979, 2000.
[12] H. Havlicsek and A. Alleyne, Nonlinear control of an electrohydraulic
injection molding machine via iterative adaptive learning, IEEE/ASME
Trans. Mechatron., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 312323, 1999.
[13] F. Gao, Y. Yang, and C. Shao, Robust iterative learning control with
applications to injection molding process, Chem. Eng. Sci.,
vol. 56, no. 24, pp. 70257034, 2001.
[14] M. Pandit and K.-H. Buchheit, Optimizing iterative learning control of
cyclic production processes with application to extruders, IEEE Trans.
Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 382390, 1999.
[15] S. Garimella and K. Srinivasan, Application of iterative learning control
to coil-to-coil control in rolling, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 6, no.
2, pp. 281293, 1998.
[16] S.A. Saab, A stochastic iterative learning control algorithm with application to an induction motor, Int. J. Contr., vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 144163, 2004.
[17] A.D. Barton, P.L. Lewin, and D.J. Brown, Practical implementation of a
real-time iterative learning position controller, Int. J. Contr., vol. 73, no. 10,
pp. 992999, 2000.
[18] W. Hoffmann, K. Peterson, and A.G. Stefanopoulou, Iterative learning
control for soft landing of electromechanical valve actuator in camless
engines, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 174184, 2003.
[19] Y.Q. Chen and K.L. Moore, A practical iterative learning pathfollowing control of an omni-directional vehicle, Asian J. Contr., vol. 4, no. 1,
pp. 9098, 2002.
[20] C. Mi, H. Lin, and Y. Zhang, Iterative learning control of antilock braking of electric and hybrid vehicles, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54, no. 2,
pp. 486494, 2005.
[21] D.R. Yang, K.S. Lee, H.J. Ahn, and J.H. Lee, Experimental application
of a quadratic optimal iterative learning control method for control of wafer
temperature uniformity in rapid thermal processing, IEEE Trans. Semiconduct. Manufact., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3644, 2003.
[22] D. Gorinevsky, Loop shaping for iterative control of batch processes,
IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 5565, 2002.
[23] M. Mezghani, G. Roux, M. Cabassud, M.V. Le Lann, B. Dahhou, and
G. Casamatta, Application of iterative learning control to an exothermic
semibatch chemical reactor, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 10, no. 6,
pp. 822834, 2002.
[24] S. Kawamura and N. Sakagami, Analysis on dynamics of underwater
robot manipulators basing on iterative learning control and time-scale transformation, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., pp. 10881094, 2002.
[25] C.V. Giessen, Q. Zou, and S. Devasia, Inversion-based precisionpositioning of inertial reaction devices, in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., 2004, pp.
37883793.
[26] Y. Chen, C. Wen, J.-X. Xu, and M. Sun, High-order iterative learning
identification of projectiles aerodynamic drag coefficient curve from radar
measured velocity data, IEEE Tran. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 6, no. 4, pp.
563570, 1998.
[27] C.T. Abdallah, V.S. Soulian, and E. Schamiloglu, Toward smart tubes
using iterative learning control, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 26, no. 3, pp.
905911, 1998.
[28] M. Garden. Learning control of actuators in control systems, U.S.
Patent 3555252, 1971.
[29] M. Uchiyama, Formation of high-speed motion pattern of a mechanical
arm by trial, Trans. Soc. Instrument Contr. Engineers, vol. 14, no. 6, pp.
706712, 1978.
[30] J.J. Craig, Adaptive control of manipulators through repeated trials, in
Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf, 1984., pp. 15661573.
[31] G. Casalino and G. Bartolini, A learning procedure for the control of
movements of robotic manipulators, in Proc. IASTED Symp. Robot. Automat.,
1984, pp. 108111.
[32] S. Kawamura, F. Miyazaki, and S. Arimoto, Iterative learning control
for robotic systems, in Proc. Int. Conf. Ind. Electron., Contr. and Instrum, 1984.,
pp. 393398.
[33] K.L. Moore and J.-X. Xu, Editorial: Iterative learning control, Int. J.
Contr., vol. 73, no. 10, 2000.
[34] Iterative learning control Asian J. Contr., vol. 4, no. 1, 2002.
[35] Z. Bien and J.-X. Xu, Iterative Learning Control: Analysis, Design, Integration and Applications. Boston: Kluwer, 1998.
[36] Y. Chen and C. Wen, Iterative Learning Control: Convergence, Robustness,
and Applications. London: Springer, 1999.
[37] J.-X. Xu and Y. Tan, Linear and Nonlinear Iterative Learning Control. Berlin:
Springer, 2003.
[38] K.L. Moore, M. Dahleh, and S.P. Bhattacharyya, Iterative learning control: A survey and new results, J. Robot. Syst., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 563594,
1992.
[39] R. Horowitz, Learning control of robot manipulators, Trans. ASME J.
Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 115, no. 2B, pp. 402411, 1993.
[40] M. Norrlof and S. Gunnarsson, Experimental comparison of some classical iterative learning control algorithms, IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol.
18, no. 4, pp. 636641, 2002.
[41] T. Kavli, Frequency domain synthesis of trajectory learning controllers
for robot manipulators, J. Robot. Syst., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 663680, 1992.
[42] J.H. Lee, K.S. Lee, and W.C. Kim, Model-based iterative learning control with a quadratic criterion for time-varying linear systems, Automatica,
vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 641657, 2000.
[43] H. Elci, R.W. Longman, M.Q. Phan, J.-N. Juang, and R. Ugoletti, Simple
learning control made practical by zero-phase filtering: Applications to
robotics, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I: Fundamental Theory Applicat., vol. 49,
no. 6, pp. 753767, 2002.
[44] M. Norrlof and S. Gunnarsson, Time and frequency domain convergence properties in iterative learning control, Int. J. Contr., vol. 75, no. 14,
pp. 11141126, 2002.
[45] Y. Chen and K.L. Moore, An optimal design of PD-type iterative learning control with monotonic convergence, in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Intelligent
Contr., 2002, pp. 5560.
[46] K.L. Moore, Y. Chen, and V. Bahl, Monotonically convergent iterative
learning control for linear discrete-time systems, Automatica, vol. 41, no. 9,
pp. 15291537, 2005.
[47] H.-S. Lee and Z. Bien, A note on convergence property of iterative
learning controller with respect to sup norm, Automatica, vol. 33, no. 8,
pp. 15911593, 1997.
[48] D.H. Owens and G.S. Munde, Universal adaptive iterative learning
control, in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision Contr., 1998, pp. 181185.
[49] Y. Chen, C. Wen, and M. Sun, Robust high-order P-type iterative learning controller using current iteration tracking error, Int. J. Contr., vol. 68, no.
2, pp. 331342, 1997.
[50] Y. Chen, Z. Gong, and C. Wen, Analysis of a high-order iterative learning control algorithm for uncertain nonlinear systems with state delays,
Automatica, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 345353, 1998.
[51] D.H. Owens and K. Feng, Parameter optimization in iterative learning
control, Int. J. Contr., vol. 76, no. 11, pp. 10591069, 2003.
[52] N. Amann, D.H. Owens, E. Rogers, and A. Wahl, An H approach to
linear iterative learning control design, Int. J. Adaptive Contr. Signal Processing, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 767781, 1996.
[53] J.-X. Xu, X.-W. Wang, and L.T. Heng, Analysis of continuous iterative
learning control systems using current cycle feedback, in Proc. Amer. Contr.
JUNE 2006
JUNE 2006
[108] D. Bristow, A. Alleyne, and D. Zheng, Control of a microscale deposition robot using a new adaptive time-frequency filtered iterative learning
control,in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., 2004, pp. 51445149.
[109] J. Cesarano, R. Segalman, and P. Calvert, Robocasting provides moldless fabrication from slurry deposition, Ceram. Industry, pp. 94102, 1998.
[110] Q. Li and J.A. Lewis, Nanoparticle inks for directed assembly of threedimensional periodic structures, Adv. Mater., vol. 15, no. 19,
pp. 16391643, 2003.
[111] P.B. Goldsmith, On the equivalence of causal LTI iterative learning
control and feedback control, Automatica, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 703708, 2002.
[112] P.B. Goldsmith, The fallacy of causal iterative learning control,in Proc.
40th IEEE Conf. Decision Contr., 2001, pp. 44754480.
[113] F. Padieu and R. Su, H approach to learning control systems, Int. J.
Adaptive Contr. Signal Processing, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 465474, 1990.
[114] C.J. Goh, A frequency domain analysis of learning control, Trans.
ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 116, no. 4, pp. 781786, 1994.
[115] L.M. Hideg, Stability of linear time varying multiple input multiple
output continuous time learning control systems: A sufficient condition, in
Proc. 1994 IEEE Int. Symp. Intell. Contr., Aug. 1618 1994, 1994, pp. 285290.
[116] M. Togai and O. Yamano, Analysis and design of an optimal learning
control scheme for industrial robots: A discrete system approach, in Proc.
24th IEEE Conf. Decision Contr., 1985, pp. 13991404.
[117] T.-Y. Kuc, J.S. Lee, and K. Nam, Iterative learning control theory for a
class of nonlinear dynamic systems, Automatica, vol. 28, no. 6,
pp. 12151221, 1992.
[118] Y.A. Jiang, D.J. Clements, and T. Hesketh, Betterment learning control
of nonlinear systems, in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision Contr., 1995, pp.
17021707.
[119] T.-J. Jang, C.-H. Choi, and H.-S. Ahn, Iterative learning control in
feedback systems, Automatica, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 243248, 1995.
[120] J. Ghosh and B. Paden, A pseudoinverse-based iterative learning control, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 831837, 2002.
[121] R. Horowitz, W. Messner, and J.B. Moore, Exponential convergence of
a learning controller for robot manipulators, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 890894, 1991.
[122] T.H. Lee, J.H. Nie, and W.K. Tan, Developments in learning control
enhancements for nonlinear servomechanisms, Mechatronics, vol. 5, no. 8,
pp. 919936, 1995.
[123] J.-X. Xu, B. Viswanathan, and Z. Qu, Robust learning control for
robotic manipulators with an extension to a class of non-linear systems, Int.
J. Contr., vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 858870, 2000.
[124] T. Sugie and T. Ono, Iterative learning control law for dynamical systems, Automatica, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 729732, 1991.
[125] T.-J. Jang, H.-S. Ahn, and C.-H. Choi, Iterative learning control for
discrete-time nonlinear systems, Int. J. Syst. Sci., vol. 25, no. 7, pp.
11791189, 1994.
[126] S.S. Saab, Discrete-time learning control algorithm for a class of nonlinear systems, in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., 1995, pp. 27392743.
[127] J.-X. Xu, Analysis of iterative learning control for a class of nonlinear
discrete-time systems, Automatica, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 19051907, 1997.
[128] D. Wang, Convergence and robustness of discrete time nonlinear systems with iterative learning control, Automatica, vol. 34, no. 11,
pp. 14451448, 1998.
[129] C.-J. Chien, A discrete iterative learning control for a class of nonlinear time-varying systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 43, no. 5, pp.
748752, 1998.
[130] M. Sun and D. Wang, Robust discrete-time iterative learning control:
Initial shift problem, in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision Contr., 2001, pp. 12111216.
[131] M. Sun and D. Wang, Analysis of nonlinear discrete-time systems
with higher-order iterative learning control, Dynamics Control, vol. 11, no. 1,
pp. 8196, 2001.
[132] Y.-T. Kim, H. Lee, H.-S. Noh, and Z.Z. Bien, Robust higher-order iterative learning control for a class of nonlinear discrete-time systems, in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Man Cybern., 2003, pp. 22192224.
[133] D.-Y. Pi and K. Panaliappan, Robustness of discrete nonlinear systems
with open-closed-loop iterative learning control, in Proc. 2002 Int. Conf.
Machine Learning Cybern., 2002, pp. 12631266.
[134] M. Sun and D. Wang, Initial shift issues on discrete-time iterative
learning control with system relative degree, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 144148, 2003.
[135] R. Longman, Designing iterative learning and repetitive controllers,
in Iterative Learning Control: Analysis, Design, Integration and Applications, Z.
Bien and J.-X. Xu, Eds. Boston: Kluwer, 1998.