-

TA4 11:15
A ROBUST DISCRETE-TIME ADAPTIVE CONTROLLER+

Petros Ioannou a n d KostasTsakalis

University of SouthernCalifornia
Dept.of
ElectricalEngineering-Systems
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0781

ABSTRACT

This paperproposes a discrete-time model reference

adaptivecontrolalgorithm
which i s r o b u s t w i t h respect
t o s t a b l e a d d i t i v e and multiplicative plant uncertaint i e s . The algorithm employs the same c o n t r o l l e r
s t r u c t u r e a s t h e one t h a t would be used i f t h e paramet e r s of the dominant p a r t of the plant were known and
a robustadaptive law for adjusting the controller
parameters. Using e s s e n t i a l l yt h e same assumptions
that are necessary to design
a fixed controller based
on theexact knowledge of t h e dominant p a r t of the
p l a n t , we show t h a t t h e proposedalgorithmguarantees
boundedness forallsignalsintheclosedloop
and
"small"residualtrackingerrorsfor
any bounded i n i t i a l
conditions. In theabsenceofplantuncertainties,the
algorithmguaranteeszeroresidualtrackingerrors.
1.

INTRODUCTION

Recently,severalattempts
have been made t o analyzetherobustnessproperties
of adaptivecontrolalgorithmswithrespectto
bounded disturbances and unmodeled dynamics. I n [2]-[9] i t i s shown t h a t u n modeled dynamics o r even small bounded disturbances can
go u n cause mostof theadaptivecontrolalgorithmsto
s t a b l e . The outcome of t h e s ei n s t a b i l i t ys t u d i e si s
t h a t most of the adaptive controllers
need t o be modifiedorredesignedinordertocounteractinstability
and improve robustness.
Severaldifferentapproachesforrobustness
have
been recently proposed i nt h el i t e r a t u r e .
In thecase
of bounded disturbances, the basic idea
of most ofthe
modificationsistopreventinstability
by eliminating
theintegralactionoftheadaptivelaws.This
can be
achieved by theuse of a deadzone [2,4,10-131, a-modif i c a t i o n [6,9] and similarothertechniques[3,10].In
anotherapproach[14]forhandlingdisturbances,the
referenceinputsignal
is requiredto have enough f r e quencies for the measurement vector t o be p e r s i s t e n t l y
exciting and be l a r g e r e l a t i v e t o t h e d i s t u r b a n c e .
Persistent excitation guarantees exponential stabi 1 i t y
and thereforerobustnesswithrespecttodisturbances.
When unmodeled dynamics a r ep r e s e n t ,g l o b a ls t a b i l i t y
cannot be guaranteed by simplyeliminatingtheintegral
action of theadaptivelaws.
The unmodeled dynamics
a c t a s an externaldisturbanceintheadaptiveerror
equation and can no longer be assumed t o be bounded.
Despite this d i f f i c u l t y , however, severallocalresults
have been obtainedintheliterature[19,15,16]
by
using similarmodificationsasinthecase
of bounded
disturbances.Theseresults,
however, a r ea p p l i c a b l e

Globalrobustnessresultsarerecentlyobtained
f o r d i s c r e t e - t i m e [17-191 and continuous-time[20,21]
p l a n t s whose modeled p a r t s may have a r b i t r a r y r e l a t i v e
degree and whose unmodeled p a r t sa r es t a b l e .
A normalizingsignal, which bounds the modeling e r r o r s i g n a l , and a projection which keeps theparameterestimates bounded and within a chosensphereare
used in
[17,18].Ifthedesiredcontrollerparametervector
i s withinthesphere,thenglobalstabilityisguaranteedinthesense
t h a t f o r any bounded i n i t i a lc o n d i tionsallthesignalsintheadaptiveloopare
bounded.
I n anotherapproach,theidea
of normalizationtogether
with a r e l a t i v e dead zone and a projectionare used i n
theadaptive law toachieverobustnessfor
a discretetimealgorithm.
The approachof[19]requires
bounds
on the unknown plant and controllerparametersaswell
A similarapproach as in [19]
as on theplantzeros.
i s used t o proverobustnessinthecase
of an i n d i r e c t
continuous-timeadaptivecontrollerin[20].
It is
shown t h a t i f t h e unknown parameters of t h e p l a n t l i e
in a known convex setthroughout which no unstable
pole-zerocancellationoccurs,thentheuse
of normalization together with
a suitably designed relative
dead zone g u a r a n t e e s s t a b i l i t y i n t h e p r e s e w e o f
small
p l a n tu n c e r t a i n t i e s .
In [21] a directadaptivecontrol
algorithm which isapplicabletocontinuous-timeplants
w i t ha r b i t r a r yr e l a t i v ed e g r e e
i s proposed. The algowhich i s
rithm i s designedforthereducedorderplant
assumed t o beminimum phase and of known r e l a t i v e degree and order, b u t i s shown t o s t a b i l i z e t h e f u l l o r derplantwhich,
due t o t h e unmodeled dynamics, maybe
nonminimum phase and of unknown order. The algorithm
usestheideaofnormalization
and switchinga-modification. The onlyaprioriinformationrequiredforthe
implementation of thealgorithm i s an upper bound for
the norm of the desired controller parameter vector as
in[10,15].
of[21]
areextendedto
In this papertheresults
discrete-time plants with additive
and m u l t i p l i c a t i v e
p l a n tu n c e r t a i n t i e s .
The s t r u c t u r e of t h ec o n t r o l l e r
b u t i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t
issimilartothatin[l]
of[17-19,221.
The adaptivelawsforadjustingthe
controller parameters employ theidea of normalization
a n d switchingu-modification and a r e new. I t i s shown
t h a t t h e proposedalgorithmguaranteesboundedness
and
smallresidualtrackingerrorsfor
any bounded i n i t i a l
conditions.Intheabsence
of p l a n tu n c e r t a i n t i e st h e
residualtrackingerrorreducestozero.
The onlyaprioriinformationrequiredforimplementation
of the
algorithm i s an upper bound f o r t h e norm of thedesired controller parameter vector.
2 . PLANT AND THE CONTROL OBJECTIVE

tThis work was supported by theNationalScience

FoundationunderGrant
ECS-8312233 and i n p a r t by General
Motors Foundation,Inc.,
and Ford Motor Co. under a
Presidential Young Investigator Award Industrial
Matching Funds.
CH2344-0/86/0000-0838 $1.00 @ 1986 IEEE

tocontinuous-timeplants
whose dominant p a r t s a r e minimum phase and of relative degree (n*) one and whose
unmodeled p a r t s a r e s t a b l e and f a s t .

Consider a single-inputsingle-output
838

(SISO) plant

f o l l o w i n ga u x i l i a r ys i g n a l sa r eg e n e r a t e d :

representedby

(2. 1)

Yk = G(z)uk ; G(z) = Go(z)C1 + P A ~ ( Z ) I + I J A( 2~)

whereGo(z)

= kp

i s t h e n o m i n a lt r a n s f e rf u n c t i o n

o ft h ep l a n t .G ( z )i ss t r i c t l yp r o p e r ;u A 2 ( z ) ,p A l ( z )
i s an a d d i t i v e and a m u l t i p l i c a t i v e p l a n t p e r t u r b a t i o n
r e s p e c t i v e l y .F o rc l a r i t yo fp r e s e n t a t i o n
and w i t h o u t
l o s so fg e n e r a l i t yb o t hA l ( z ) ,A 2 ( z )a r er a t e db yt h e

Then t h e a d a p t i v e l a w i s g i v e n b y

same p o s i t i v es c a l a rp a r a m e t e r
u . F o rt h en o m i n a lp a r t
o f t h e p l a n t we make t h ef o l l o w i n ga s s u m p t i o n s :
(i)N(z)is

a monic mth o r d e r p o l y n o m i a l i n

z withall

rootsinsidetheunitcircle;(ii)D(z)is
o r d e rp o l y n o m i a li n
z with n>m; ( i i i ) k

a monic n t h
i s anunknown

a s t r i c t l yp r o p e rt r a n s f e rf u n c t i o n ;( v i )
bound 1 > p o > 0 o n t h e s t a b i l i t y m a r g i n p >

an upper
0 for which

(3.5)
where yo, 61, 62, u o , Mo, y a r e p o s i t i v e d e s i g n c o n s t a n t ss u c ht h a t

P
c o n s t a n tw i t h known s i g n ; ( i v ) t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f t h e
p o l y n o m i a l sN ( z ) ,D ( z )a r e
unknown.For
t h ep l a n tp e r Al ( z ) i s
t u r b a t i o n sA l ( z ) ,A 2 ( z )
we assumed t h a t :( v )

t h ep o l e so fA 1 ( z / p ) ,A 2 ( z I p )a r es t a b l ei s
The p l a n t o u t p u t

(3.6)

e*

(2.2)

where rk i s a bounded r e f e r e n c e s i g n a l , W,(z)

= km

m),1

same

s i g n as k
I nt h e absence o pf l a n ut n c e r t a i n t i e s ,
P'
i . e . , p = 0, t h e a d a p t i v e c o n t r o l l e r i n
[ l ] guarantees
boundedness o f a l l s i g n a l s i n t h e c l o s e d l o o p
and

The i n p u t u k

and t h e

(217-1) d i m e n s i o n a l a u x i l i a r y v e c t o r

a c o n s e r v a t i v e bound f o r

5sBk

term.

Ile*ll

can be

mk

The usek t e n r e t a r d sa d a p t a t i o n

whenever B k grows t o l a r g e v a l u e s

and, t h e r e f o r e ,

c o u n t e r a c t s p a r a m e t e r d r i f t [9], a f o r m o f i n s t a b i l i ty, which may a r i s e e v e n i n t h e p r e s e n c e

o f small
boundeddisturbances.
As i t wil be shown l a t e r on,
t h en o r m a l i z i n gs i g n a l
bounds t h e p o s s i b l y unbounded
termwhich i s due t o t h e unmodeleddynamicsand
enters
t h ea d a p t a t i o nl a w
and, t h e r e f o r e ,g u a r a n t e e st h a tt h e
i n p u tt ot h ea d a p t i v el a wi s
bounded. A k e yp r o p e r t y
o ft h en o r m a l i z i n gs i g n a l ,w h i c hi sc r u c i a lf o rt h e
a n a l y s i so ft h ea l g o r i t h m( 3 . 1 ) - ( 3 . 6 ) ,i sg i v e nb yt h e
f o l l o w i n g lemma.

ADAPTIVE CONTROLLER ( k p = 1)

and o u t p u t yk a r eu s e dt og e n e r a t e

[l].

The twoterms i nt h ea d a p t i v el a w( 3 . 5 )w h i c ha r e
c r u c i a lf o rr o b u s t n e s sa r et h en o r m a l i z i n gs i g n a l

t oz e r o .
When p # 0, however, t h e s t a b i l i t y p r o p e r t i e s
ofthealgorithmin
[l]cannolonger
be guaranteed no
w a t t e r how small IJ i s . The c o n t r o lo b j e c t i v ei st o
dev i s e an a d a p t i v e c o n t r o l l e r f o r t h e p l a n t ( 2 . 1 ) s o t h a t
t h ec l o s e dl o o ps y s t e mi sg l o b a l l ys t a b l e
and t h e
t r a c k i n g e r r o r i s as s m a l l as p o s s i b l e f o r a l l p o s s i b l e
p l a n t u n c e r t a i n t i e s Al ( z ) , A 2 ( z ) s a t i s f y i n g a s s u m p t i o n s
( V I ,( v i ) .
3. THE DESIGN OF
THE

a r e s t a b l e and

T i s the desired controller parameter

l a r g e ,t h e r e f o r e ,
s a f e l yu s e d .

-yk
m

asymptotic convergence of the tracking error ek=yk

[e~T,e;T,ej]

- Fl-'

Remark 3.1. The o n l ya p r i o r i n f o r m a t i o nu s e d

i n the
a d a p t i v el a w( 3 . 3 ) - ( 3 . 6 )i s
anupperbound
forthe
norm o f t h e unknown d e s i r e d c o n t r o l l e r p a r a m e t e r
v e c t o r e*. Our a n a l y s i sa l l o w s Mo t o be r e l a t i v e l y

and km i s a c o n s t a n t o f t h e

[(z/qo)I

v e c t o rd e f i n e di n

i s a m o n i c( n - m ) t ho r d e rp o l y n o m i a lw i t hr o o t si n -

sidetheunitcircle

where O < q o < 1 i s s u c h t h a t t h e p o l e s o f

aresatisfied
Wm(z/qo)and

model

y k = Wm(z)rk

D,(z)

0<62, d0<1, m a x [ ~ ~ , q ~ l ~ 6 ~ 6

known.

yk i s r e q u i r e d t o t r a c k t h e o u t -

ofthereference

p u t y:

y + 2 u 0 < 1 , Mo)2/18*11,

u,, as

L e m a3 . 1 .L e tx k R n

be t h es t a t eo ft h ef o l l o w i n g

system

F E R (n-l)x(n-l)
are strictly
wheretheeigenvaluesof
w i t h i nt h eu n i tc i r c l e ,( F , g )i s
a c o n t r o l l a b l ep a i r ,
T
and uk = [wk( ' I T 'Ok(2)T,yk]
For ease of presentation

xktl

where B k =

i n p u tt ot h e

(3.2)
wheregk i s a g e o m e t r i c a l l y decaying t e n whichdepends on t h e i n i t i a l cond i t i o n s .

is a (2n-1)
dimensional
ad-

[l]and i s g i v e n below.

13,7)

that

j u s t a b l ec o n t r o pl a r a m e t e rv e c t o r .
The c o n t r o l l e r
s t r u c t u r e( 3 . 1 ) - ( 3 . 2 )i st h e
same as t h e one t h a tw o u l d
known. The
be used i f t h ec o e f f i c i e n t s o f Go(z)were
a d a p t i v el a wf a ra d j u s t i n gt h ec o n t r o l l e rp a r a m e t e r
Bk
i sd i f f e r e n tf r o mt h a to f

BGk

where / A ~ ( A <) 6/ 0 6 2 , i = 1 , 2 , . . . ~ n ~ and l l u k I I I ( l u k I +

J y k l) . Then t h e r ee x i s t s a p o s i t i v ec o n s t a n t N1 such

we will assume t h a t k = k m = 1 anduseas

P
p l a n t t h e sequence
T
uk = e k W k + r k

= Axk +

Proof.Since

O < 60,62< 1 , t h e n t h e r e e x i s t s

s t a n t c o > 0 s u c ht h a t
( 3 . 7 ) we have

The

a39

k
(\A \( 2

a con-

~ ~ T6 h e~r e f .o r e f, r o m

k-1

where Bo i s a positiveconstant, by using(3.6) and

Ink 1
Lema3.1 t o show t h a t - i s bounded, t h ef a c t t h a t

i =O
From ( 3 . 4 ) we have

m I,r,

1 <k 1

(3.10)

< 1
-

and by completing the squares. Since

osek@k
T

mk

Hence mk 2 6 1 / ( 1 - ~ 5 >~ 0) and, therefore

- 0 forall

1
- i s a wellmk

collBll

k 5 0 . Taking N 1 -2- 6,

definedpositivequantityfor
(3.8)followsdirectly

'

Vk,Vo
where Vo i s a f i n i t ec o n s t a n t .T h e r e f o r e ,
a uniformly bounded sequence.Furthermore,there
existpositiveconstants
g o , g1 such t h a t

@k i s

from ( 3 . 9 ) ,( 3 . 1 0 ) .

Letus now applythealgorithm(3.1)-(3.6)tothe

actualplant(2.1)
and askthefollowingquestion:
Is
there a u*> 0 such t h a t f o r each IJ E [O,u*) and a l l
A1(z), A2(z) s a t i s f y i n g ( v ) , (vi)theclosed-loop
p l a n ti ss t a b l e ?
We answer thisquestion by t h ef o l lowing theorem.
Theorem 4.1.There
e x i s t s a p * > 0 such t h a t f o r each
LO,p*] a l lt h es i g n a l s
i n theclosedloopplant
( 2 . 1 1 , ( 3 . 1 ) - ( 3 . 6 )a r e bounded f o r anv bounded i n i t i a l
conditions.'Furthermore,thetrackinierrorekbelongs
totheresidualset

N-1
I C

sup

N+m

A V k < 0 whenever

ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

4.

D e = {ek:lim

k 1 0 , (4.5)impliesthat

'

"

N> 0

[ e k [(q6$+q7ul

(4.1)

k=O

where q 6 , q7 are positive constants

a r b i t r a r i l ys m a l l number.

and

Hence

($L<k)'

-2

+ o s e k @ k i s bounded, and small i n the

mk

mean for small u .

7

Step 2:

1 @kWk1

.
-

The "Smallness" of

I n orderto

mk
I

I @kwkI i s smallinthe
7

prove that(4.6)impliesthat

mk

mean f o r small p we need thefollowing lemmas:

T
I @kWk
1
Lemma 4.1. The sequence
i s bounded.

0> i s an

mk

Proof of Lema4.1.Since
have

uk

[u:'

T
) T , ~ : 2 ) T , y k ] we

Corollary4.1.
In theabsence of p l a n tu n c e r t a i n t i e s ,
i . e . , u=O, thecontroller(3.1)-(3.9)guaranteeszero
r e s i d u a lt r a c k i n ge r r o r ,i na d l i t i o nt os t a b i l i t y .

Proofof
Theorem 4.1. The proof of Theorem 4.1 i s
completed i n thefollowingthreesteps:

(e)'

Step 1 : Boundednessof

i n[ l ] ,t h et r a c k i n ge r r o re k

Wm(z)@lukt

T
Noting t h a t u k = @kuk+
r k +e t T u k , i t can be shown t h a t

Using t h e d e f i n i t i o n of e* given

t osek@k.
T

ek

ek and "Smallness"of

pnk

nk = A ( Z ) ' J k

- 6*'(zI - F)-'g]uk-

Wm(z)[B; +

6 * T ( ~ -I F)-lg]yk + uA(z)uk
(4.8)

can be expressed[24]as

where ~ ( z=)Wm(z)A2(z)[1- eYT(zI - F ) - 1g t e;]

h l ( z ) { l + wm(z)[e;+ e;T(zI

yk = W,(z)[l

(4.2)

Hence from (3.6) and Lemma 3.1,theresultfollows

( 4 . 8 ) ,( 4 . 9 ) .

Lemma 4.2.

- F)-'~II.

The sequence ckti,

n * = n-m i s t h e r e l a t i v e d e g r e e

T
Then from (3.6) and (4.2) we have ~ ~ = @ ~ and,
< ~ + m ~
t h e r e f o r e ,( 3 . 5 ) may
be
writtenas

from

i = 0 , l ,.. . ,n*, where

of Go(z) s a t i s f i e s
(4.9)

mk

(4.3)
We consider the following positive definite function
7

Then A V k = Vktl

- Vk
7

maybe

Proofof
Lemma 4 . 2 . Writing ckti = z ' W , ( z ) ~ ; ~ , we note
t h a t z'W,(z) i s a proper transfer function for
i = 0,
1 ,...,n* and uk i s bounded by mk. The proof of (4.19)
thenfollowsas
an immediate application of Lemma 3.1.
Lemma 4.3.

written as

If

"

(4.5)

840

(4.10)

is satisfied for

some E ~ [0,1]

and some k > 0, t h e n

t h e r ee x i s tp o s i t i v ec o n s t a n t sc 3 ,c 4s u c ht h a t
Il@k+l- Okl!

'

f '3%

P r o o fo fL e m a4 . 3 .

(4.11)
c4u
From (4.3) we o b t a i n
R4 = (N}\R3

(4.21)

L e t Mi be t h e number o f elements i n Ri.

and from(4.10)

we have

Then t h e f o l -

l o w i n gr e l a t i o n s h i p sh o l d :

Q3cnl and

M
3
M
iR2
N
i
c
l
R4
,
and M 2 ( M 4 5 N

(4.22)

(4.13)

f o r some k > 0.

I n v i e wo f( 4 . 1 3 )

The i n e q u a l i t y ( 4 . 6 ) t o q e t h e r w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t
kd+N-1 - T 2
($kck)
T
M
2
C
~
o
ti
usek@kf o r any koO
,
-2
k= ko
mk

we c a nw r i t e

2 Al
A0
M < + 1-1 - N.
a t m o s tn * + lp o i n t so f

i n (4.12)andusingthe

/ m k < 1, we o b t a i n

R1 f r o mb e l o n g i n gt oR 3 ,

l o w st h a tM 4 i M 2 ( n * * + 1 )a n dt h e r e f o r e

(4.15)

(p NAl + Ao). Using

N - - (n*tl)

~ T ~ 5 e , k~ = n,n+l
@ ,. .~.n+n*

it fol-

M3,N-M2(n*t1)

Lemmas 4.1, 4.4

we o b t a i n

k E n4 and some c, > 0.

-.( @ k e k ) i-

i n D2 canprevent

E0

2-Eo

4,13),(4.14)

Sinceeachpoint

i m p l yt h a t

Hence

(4.16)

mk
issatisfiedfor

some

Then

[0,1].
E

T h e r e f o r e ,t h e r ee x i s t sp o s i t i v ec o n s t a n t s
3,4 s u c ht h a t
ko+N-1

(4.17)

'
'

holdsfork=n,n+l,..
c59 c 6 '
P r o o fo f

Lemma 4.4.

.n+n*and

some p o s i t i v e c o n s t a n t s

k=ko

T
1 @kwk
I

c fl$t
- -

pf2+u2

mk

fi,

2
0

fq

i = 1,2,

(4.24)

NEO

The sequence uk c a nb ew r i t t e n

w h i ci hm p l i et sh asi stm aitlnhl e

as

I @kok1

mean f o r

mk
s m a l l p and c0.

(4.18)
f o r some s c a l a r s di,

i = 0,1,.

..n*.

Step3:
Boundedness o fS i g n a l sa n d" S m a l l n e s s "
I t can be shown t h a t ek may be expressedasthe
k'
o u t p u to ft h ef o l l o w i n gn o n - m i n i m a ls t a t er e p r e s e n t a ti on
T
e k + l = Acekt bc@k@k pbcl?lkt
pbc2n2k 9

of
-

Hence

'

- T-

(4.25)

ek - hcek
pn1k

where ~ I ~ ~ = A ~ ( Z ) U ~ , n 2 k = A 2 ( ~ ) ~ k , A ~ ( Z ) i sand
proper
t h ep o l e so fT 2 ( z / p o )a r es t a b l e ,
Ac i s s t a b l e and
where dm = max di
~

I.

Using ( 4 . 2 6 )a n dt h er e s u l t so f

Lemmas 4.2,4.3
i n ( 4 . 1 9 ) , ( 4 . 1 7 )f o l l o w sd i r e c t l y .
L e t u s now c o n s i d e r a t i m e i n t e r v a l c o n s i s t i n g o f
samplesand d e f i n e t h e f o l l o w i n gs e t s

hTc ( z I - A c ) -1 b = W,(z).
C

Similarly,

ck

can be represen-

t e da st h es t a t eo ft h es y s t e m

N
(4.26)

841

k tN-1

us now choose t h e

where A i s a s t a b l em a t r i x .L e t
positivedefinitefunction

f o r some p o s i t i v ec o n s t a n t sq 5 ,q 6 ,q 7 .L e t t i n g

P > 0,
where a , B a r e p o s i t i v e c o n s t a n t s a n d P =
T
T
P1 = P1 > 0 s a t i s f y t h e Lyapunov equations AcPAc P = -I,

A TPIAT

IlZ I] tu-r In

1 t T2

o1 kl k
UsingLema3.1

f o r some c o n s t a n t s

P r o o f o f C o r o l l a r y 4.1. The p r o o fo fC o r o l l a r y
P o l l o w s d i r e c t l y from t h e p r o o f o f Theorem4.1by

+ lykl 5

P1 = -I r e s p e c t i v e l y . N o t i n g t h a t l u k l

T ~ T, ~ ,T ~ .

noting that for

t o show t h a t 1n1kl/mkY Ir$kl/mkare

boundedand

t h ef a c tt h a tI $ i w k / / m ki s

$ 11gk112-r3mi-$

a1 Ba31
a2mk[73

t o a3,

T~

stants.Choosing

uo = min [

1
0

1l<k! 2

- l'kII

ck

71
,13

ADAPTIVE CONTROLLER FOR kp UNKNOWN

f - UT5

761

and
one

(4.28)

t o 'c6, y2, s1 , s 2 a r e p o s i t i v e c o n a
2
B = 8'r6, a = 4(al t B + a3and

73

When k i s unknown,two
a d d i t i o n a le s t i m a t e dp a P
rametersneed t o be i n t r o d u c e d : one f o re s t i m a t i n g

[ F -aa~u

f o re s t i m a t i n gl / k

The c o n t r o l a wi sg i v e n

P'

bY

' Y2taslIlekllI$~WkI
tas21@kwkI
where a.

ask+mandthenuse

bounded, i t can
5.

p = 0, + k w k + O

4.1
first

(4.31) t o show t h a t e k + O a s k + - .

be shown t h a t
v k + l -'k

N+m,

( 4 . 1 )f o l l o w s .

5I. Then foreach

B

u k = ekwk + c

(5.1)

Ok
where

ek,

wk a r ea sd e f i n e d

e s t i m a t eo f

k,/k,

i n s e c t i o n 3 and c

isthe
Ok
The f o l l o w i n g a u x i l i -

a ti n s t a n tk .

arysignalsaregenerated

u E [O,u,I

T
c k = 8k<k

we have

- wm(z)ukt: :oc

; E k = y k -Y;'

$kck
(5.2)

(4.29)
f o r some c o n s t a n t s 0 < y o <1 and y1 > 0.
same stepsas
shown t h a t

where qk i s t h e e s t i m a t e o f

k / ka ti n s t a n t
P m
i sg i v e nb y( 3 . 4 ) .O e f i n i n gt h ee s t i m a t e dp a r a m e t e r
T
T
theupdatelaw
v e c t o r Bk as Fk = [8kYco ,$kl
k
chosenas

F o l l o w i n gt h e

i n t h ep r o o fo fL e m a4 . 4 ,

i t can be

k and ck
is

(4.30)
(5.3)
for each

u E [O,ul)

2
by choosing O < ~~5( 1 - y o ) /16y4

and ul = m i n [ u o y ( l - y o ) / 4 y 3 1 where y3, y4, y 5 > 0 and

u2 such t h a t
q2, q 3 > 1 areconstants.Choosing
2
li /E

( 1t y o ) q 3 2

= ( 3 t y o ) / 2 and

li*=min[pl

,p2] i t f o l -

lows that for each

p E [O,LI*]
t h e homogeneous p a r t o f
(4.29) i se x p o n e n t i a l l ys t a b l e .
Hence Vk i s a bounded
sequenceand

therefore

i n t h ec l o s e dl o o pa r e

cky

mk, ekand

allthesignals

bounded.

T m
i k ' m k t2< k <-T-k Y Mo,2(18*I(
where r k = [ckYykY<klTY

max(E;,G*),

and mk, i s as d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 3 .

Remark 5.1.
I nt h eo - m o d i f i c a t i o nu s e d
i n (3.5),(5.3)
u s w i t c h e sf r o m 0 t o uo whenever llekl\, llekll exceed

M , No r e s p e c t i v e l y . An a l t e r n a t i v ea p p r o a c hi st o
0
use a d i f f e r e n t u f o r eachelement o f B k o r Bk. Such
anapproach w
i
l n o t change t h e s t a b i l i t y r e s u l t s a n d
i t may have a b e n e f i c i a l
proofsofthealgorithm,but
effectonthetransientofthesignalsintheclosed
1oop.

(4.31)
f o r some p o s i t i v e c o n s t a n t s
3.1and

The s t a b i l i t y p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e c o n t r o l l e r ( 5 . 1 ) (5.3) when a p p l i e d t o t h e a c t u a l p l a n t ( 2 . 1 ) , ( 2 . 2 )

aresimilartothoseof
Theorem 4.1 a n dC o r o l l a r y4 . 1 .
F u r t h e r m o r e ,t h ep r o o fo ft h e s ep r o p e r t i e sf o l l o w s
verycloselyfromtheproofof
Theorem4.1andCoroll a r y 4.1and
isomitted.

From (4.2) i t f o l l o w s t h a t

Using(4.24),Lema

e * = [ ~ * T , c ~ , ~ , ~ * ~ T , y m a x ( 1 , P ) + 2 u o2,<

k > 0.
q3, q4andany
o--_
t h e boundednessof mk , i t

Remark 5.2.
I n t h i s paper i t i s assumed t h a tn > m ,
i.e. , therelativedegreeofthenominaltransfer
f u n c t i o no ft h ep l a n ti s
n*,l.
When
n=m,
t w op o s s i b l e

f o l l o w s from ( 4 . 3 1 )t h a t

842

r o b u s ta d a p t i v ec o n t r o l l e r sc a n
be d e s i g n e d w i t h
s i m i l a r p r o p e r t i e s as t h o s eg i v e nb y
Theorem4.1and
Corollary4.1.

Samson, C. " S t a b i l i t y A n a l y s i s o f A d a p t i v e l y Cont r o l l e d SystemSubject t o Bounded Disturbances,"

Automatica,Vol
19,pp.81-86,1983.

The f i r s t one may employ a d e l a y t e r m z - l a t t h e

p l a n t and referencemodeloutput.
The r e l a t i v ed e g r e e
i
l t h e n be increasedbyone
o f t h e augmented p l a n t w
and t h e r e s u l t s o f s e c t i o n
4, 5 a r e d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a ble.

S a s t r y , S. S., "ModelReferenceAdaptiveControl:
Stability, Parameter Convergence and Robustness
I.M.A. J o u r n a lo fC o n t r o l
and Information,Vol.1,
PP. 27-66,1984.

The secondone

may choose W,(Z)

= 1 andthe

Martin-Sanches, J. M., " A G l o b a l l yS t a b l e APCS i n

thePresence o f Bounded NoisesandDisturbances,"
I E E E Trans.onAutomaticControl,Vol.
AC-29,
pp.461-464,1984.

same

f o r m o f f i l t e r s as i n ( 3 . 1 ) , ( 3 . 2 ) b u t w i t h
F b e i n g an
n x nm a t r i xi n s t e a d
o f ( n - 1 ) x ( n - 1 ) .I nt h i sc a s e
c k = u k and t h e p r o o f o f s t a b i l i t y androbustness i s
much s i m p l e r t h a n t h a t
o f Theorem4.1
oftheproofis
no l o n g e r needed.
6.

sinceStep

Narendra, K. S. and A. M. Annaswamy, " P e r s i s t e n t

E x c i t a t i o n andRobustAdaptiveAlgorithms,"Proc.
3 r d Y a l e Workshopon A p p l i c a t i o n s o f A d a p t i v e
SystemsTheory,pp.11-18,YaleUniversity,
New
Haven, CT, June15-17,1983.

CONCLUSION

The paperpresents a d i s c r e t e - t i m e modelreference

a d a p t i v ec o n t r o la l g o r i t h mw h i c hi sr o b u s tw i t hr e s p e c t
t o a d d i t i v e and m u l t i p l i c a t i v e p l a n t u n c e r t a i n t i e s .
The c r u c i a l f e a t u r e s o f t h e a l g o r i t h m i s
a normalizing
s i g n a lw h i c h bounds t h ed i s t u r b a n c et e r m
due t o t h e
p l a n t u n c e r t a i n t y and t h e o - m o d i f i c a t i o n [15,21]which
c o u n t e r a c t sp a r a m e t e rd r i f t
andguaranteesboundedness
forallsignalsintheclosedloop
a n ds m a l lr e s i d u a l
I n theabsence o f a n ym o d e l i n se r t r a c k i n qe r r o r s .
t k er e s i d u a lt r a c k i n ge r r o ri sz e r o .
7.

,I'

Ioannou. P. A. " R o b u s tA d a o t i v eC o n t r o l l e rw i t h
ZeroResidualTrackingErrors,"
I E E E Trans.on
AutomaticControl,Vol.
AC-31, No. 8, Aug. 1986.
Kosut, R. L.and
C. R. Johnson, Jr., "An I n p u t OutputView o f Robustness i n A d a p t i v e C o n t r o l ,"
Automatica,Vol.
20, No. 5, Sept.1984.
P r a l y , L. "Robustness o f ModelReferenceAdaptive
C o n t r o l ," 3 r d Y a l e Workshopon A p p l i c a t i o n s o f
A d a p t i v e SystemsTheory,June1983.

REFERENCES

Pralv,L."Robust
ModelReferenceAdaDtive
t r o l j e r s ,P a r t1 :S t a b i l i t yA n a l y s i s ' , "
23rd I E E E CDC, 1984.

Narendra, K . S. and Y . H. L i n ," S t a b l eD i s c r e t e

I E E E Trans. on Automatic ConA d a p t i v eC o n t r o l , "
t r o l ,V o l .
AC-25, No. 3,pp.456-461.

Con-

&

K r e i s s e l m e i e r . G. and B . D. 0. Anderson."Robust
," IEEE-Trans.
ModelReferenceAdaptiveControl
on AutomaticControl,Vol.
AC-31, No. 2,
Feb.1986.

E g a r d t , B., " S t a b i l i t y A n a l y s i s o f A d a p t i v e
ConJACC,
t r o l Systems withDisturbances,"Proc.
San F r a n c i s c o , CA, 1980.
Egardt, B., S t a b i l i t y o f A d a p t i v eC o n t r o l l e r s ,
S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g ,B e r l i n ,1 9 7 9 .

K r e i s s e l m e i e r , G., "A R o b u s tI n d i r e c tA d a p t i v e
ControlApproach,"4thYale
WorkshoponTheory
and A p p l i c a t i o n s o f A d a p t i v e C o n t r o l ,
May 1985.

ErPeterson, B. B. and K. S. Narendra,"Bounded

r o r A d a p t i v e C o n t r o l ,I' I E E E Trans. on Automatic
C o n t r o l ,V o l .
AC-27, No. 6, pp.1161-1168,1982.

Ioannou, P. A. and K . T s a k a l i s , "A R o b u s tD i r e c t

I E E E Trans. on Automatic
A d a p t i v eC o n t r o l l e r , "
C o n t r o l , Nov.1986.

Rohrs, C. E., L.Valavani,

M. Athansand
G. Stein,"RobustnessofAdaptiveControlAlgoo f UnmodeledDynamics,"
r i t h m si nt h eP r e s e n c e
P r e p r i n t s2 1 s t I E E E CDC, Orlando, FL,1982.

Goodwin, G. and K . S. S i n ,A d a p t i v eF i l t e r i n g
P r e d i c t i o n a n dC o n t r o l ,P r e n t i c e - H a l l ,
1984.
Narendra, K. S., Y. H. L i n andL.
S. Valavani,
" S t a b l eA d a p t i v eC o n t r o l l e rD e s i g n ,P a r t1 1 :
ProofofStability,"
I E E E Trans.onAutomatic
Control,Vol
AC-25, June1980.

Ioannou, P. A. and P. V. K o k o t o v i c , Ada t i v e

Systems w i t h Reduced Models, Springer-e r ag ,
B e r l i n , 1983.

yer

Astrom, K. J . , " A n a l y s i so f RohrsCounterexam," Dept. o fA u t o m a t i c

p l e st oA d a p t i v eC o n t r o l
C o n t r o l , Lund I n s t . o f Tech.Report,1983.

Ioannou, P. A. and K . T s a k a l i s , "A RobustDisUSC, EE-Systems

c r e t e - T i m eA d a p t i v eC o n t r o l l e r , "
Report85-10-1,October1985;also
i n 5Adapjive
and LearningSystems:TheoryandApplIcations,
e d i t e db y K. S. Narendra,PlenumPress,1986.

R i e d l e , B. D. and P. V . K o k o t o v i c ," D i s t u r b a n c e
IEEE
I n s t a b i l i t i e s i n anAdaptiveSystem,"
Trans. on AutomaticControl,Vol
AC-29,
pp.822-824.

Ioannou. P. A. and P. V . K o k o t o v i c ," I n s t a b i l i t y

AnalysisandImprovementofRobustnessof
AdaptiveControl,"Automatica,Vol.
20, No. 5,
Sept 1984,

K r e i s s e l n e i e r , G. and K. S. Narendra,"Stable
ModelReferenceAdaptiveControl
i n t h e Presence
o f Bounded Disturbances," I E E E Trans.onAutom a t i cC o n t r o l ,V o l .
AC-27, No. 6, pp.1169-1176,
1982.
843