See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220387268

A Filtered Repetitive Controller for a Class of

Nonlinear Systems

Article in IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control February 2011

DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2010.2089379 Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

7 31

2 authors, including:

Quan Quan
Beihang University (BUAA)
71 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Quan Quan on 08 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

A Filtered Repetitive Controller for a Class of
Nonlinear Systems
+
Quan Quan and Kai-Yuan Cai
Abstract In this note, a filtered repetitive controller (FRC)
is designed to compensate for periodic disturbances in a class of
nonlinear systems. First, a new model of periodic disturbances is
esT
proposed. By this model, the FRC is designed and the resulting
esT
+ U s
closed-loop error dynamics are analyzed with the help of a
Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional. Finally the method is applied to
periodic disturbance rejection in a class of robotic manipulators.
Compared with repetitive controllers, the FRC provides the
: a suitable filter
flexibility to choose filter parameters to achieve a tradeoff
between tracking performance and stability. More importantly,
FRC can deal with small input delay while the corresponding
RC cannot.
Index Terms Repetitive control, nonlinear systems, robotic
manipulator, additive decomposition.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Repetitive control (RC) is an internal-model-based control
approach in which the infinite-dimensional internal model
1
gives rise to an infinite number of poles on the imagi-
1esT
nary axis. It was proved in [1] that, for a class of general linear
plants, exponential stability of RC systems could be achieved
only when the plant is proper but not strictly proper. Moreover,
the internal model 1e1sT may destabilize the system. To
enhance stability, a suitable filter is introduced as shown in
Fig. 1, forming a filtered repetitive controller1 (FRC, or filtered
repetitive control, also designated FRC) in which the loop gain
is reduced at high frequencies. Stability results only with some
sacrifice of high frequency performance. With appropriate
design, however, an FRC can often achieve an acceptable
tradeoff between tracking performance and stability, a tradeoff
which broadens the application of RC in practice.
In fact, RC can also be considered as a special case of FRC
with an all-pass filter. In the past two decades or more, FRC
for linear time-invariant systems has reached maturity [2][4].
There has been little research, however, on RC, let alone FRC,
for nonlinear systems. This is the initial objective of this note.
A linear RC system is a neutral type system in a critical case
[5],[6]. The characteristic equation of the neutral type system
has an infinite sequence of roots with negative real parts
approaching zero, i.e. sup{Re s |F (s) = 0 } = 0 where F (s)
is the characteristic equation. This implies that a sufficiently
small uncertainty may lead to sup{Re s |F (s) = 0 } > 0.
It is proved that a linear RC system will lose its stability
when subject to an input delay no matter how small the
delay is (see Appendix A). Therefore, the stability of RC
This work was supported by the 973 Program (2010CB327904), the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (60904066), and the Innovation
Foundation of BUAA for PhD Graduates.
The authors are with National Key Laboratory of Science and Tech-
nology on Holistic Control, Department of Automatic Control, Bei-
jing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100191, China
(qq buaa@asee.buaa.edu.cn; kycai@buaa.edu.cn)
1 In this note we have replaced the term modified in [1] with the more
descriptive term filtered.
1
1
1  esT
esT U s
E s
+
B s
(a) Repetitive Controller
1
1  Q s
Q s
E s
+
B s
Q s
(b) Filtered Repetitive Controller
Fig. 1. A suitable filter Q(s) is introduced into a repetitive controller to
form an FRC
systems is insufficiently robust. On the other hand, with a
low-pass filter, an FRC system is a retarded type system. For
a stable FRC system, we have sup{Re s |F (s) = 0 } < 0.
Continuity arguments would suggest that for a sufficiently
small uncertainty, the FRC system is still stable. Therefore,
it is expected that, with a low-pass filter, a nonlinear FRC
system with a small input delay is still stable. This is our
second objective.
To achieve the two objectives we must analyze the tracking
performance of a closed-loop system composed of an FRC
and a nonlinear plant. The theory of FRC proposed in [1]
is derived in the frequency domain and can be applied only
with difficulty, if at all, to nonlinear systems. For this reason,
tracking performance needs to be analyzed in the time domain.
The contributions of this note are: 1) a method to design
and analyze an FRC for a class of nonlinear systems; 2) the
ability of our FRC to cope with small input delay; and, 3) a
tradeoff achieved by tuning filter parameters between tracking
performance and stability.
We use the following notation. Rn is Euclidean space of
dimension n and R+ denotes the space of nonnegative reals
in R. kk denotes the Euclidean vector norm or induced
matrix norm. C ([T, 0] ; Rn ) denotes the space of contin-
uous n-dimensional vector functions on [T, 0] . kxt kc ,
sup kx (t + )k , where xt , xt () = x (t + ) ,
[T,0]
[T, 0] . CPn T ([0, ) ; Rm ) is the space of nth-order contin-
uously differentiable functions g : [0, ) Rm which are
T -periodic, i.e. g (t + T ) = g (t) . min (X) and max (X)
denote the minimum and maximum eigenvalues respectively
of a positive semidefinite matrix X. In is the identity matrix
with dimension n.
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION AND A N EW M ODEL OF
P ERIODIC S IGNALS
A. Problem Formulation
To illustrate the generality of FRC, we consider the follow-
ing error dynamics examined in [7],[8]:
e (t) = f (t, e (t)) + b (t, e (t)) [v (t) v (t)] . (1)
 2

Here e (t) Rn is a tracking error vector, v (t) Rm is a Example 1: Let A0, = Im and A1, = (1 ) Im . Then
disturbance, v (t) Rm is a signal designed to compensate for (5) becomes
v (t) . For simplicity, we set the initial time t0 = 0. Throughout
xp (t) = xp (t) + (1 ) xp (t T ) + (t)
this note, we assume the following for the system (1).
Assumption 1[7],[8]: The functions f : [0, ) Rn v (t) = xp (t) + (t)
R and b : [0, ) Rn Rnm are bounded when e (t)
n
xp () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] . (6)
is bounded on R+ . Moreover, there exists a differentiable
The system (6) is a retarded system driven by a bounded
function V0 : [0, )Rn [0, ) , a positive definite matrix
external signal (t) , t [0, ). We examine the bound on
M (t) = M T (t) Rnn with 0 < M In < M (t) and a
k (t)k by the frequency response method. By (6), the Laplace
matrix R (t) Rnm such that
transform from v (s) to (s) is defined by
2
V0 (t,e (t)) c0 ke (t)k (2)
(s) = G (s) v (s)
T
V0 (t,e (t)) e (t) M (t) e (t)
where (s) and v (s) are the Laplace transforms of (t) and
+ eT (t) R (t) [v (t) v (t)] (3) 1+s(1) exp(sT )
v (t), respectively; here G (s) = 2+s(1) exp(sT ) . The
where c0 > 0. frequency responses of G (s) with T = 2 and = 0.01, 0.001
Assumption 2: The disturbance v satisfies v are shown in Fig.2.
CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ).

Under Assumptions 1-2, our objective is to design a single

FRC with the following two properties: 1) with certain filter
parameters, lim e (t) = 0; 2) with another set of appropriate
t
filter parameters, for any value of e (0), e (t) is uniformly
ultimately bounded (for the definition see Definition 1 below),
and the FRC can cope with small input delay.

B. A New Model of Periodic Signals

A new model to describe periodic signals is proposed. In
order to show the difference, the usual model of periodic
signals is given first. Any v CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ) can be
generated by the model [1]

x (t) = x (t T )
v (t) = x (t)
x () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] (4) Fig. 2. Frequency responses of G (s)

where t R+ and x (t) Rm is the state. By the internal As shown in Fig.2, G (s) has a comb shape with notches
model principle [9], it is expected that asymptotic rejection of matching the frequencies of the periodic signal v (t) , t
a periodic disturbance can be achieved by incorporating the [0, ). This makes the frequency response of G (s) close to
above model (4), i.e. 1e1sT Im (the transfer function of (4)), 0 at k, k = 0, 1, 2, . As the parameter decreases, the
into the closed-loop system. This is also the basic idea of RC periodic components, especially in the low frequency band,
[1]. will be attenuated by G (s) more strongly. Since the low
A new model to describe v CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ), which frequency band is dominant in most periodic signals, this will
will help in design of the FRC for the nonlinear system (1), result in a smaller upper bound on k (t)k. In particular, if
is given in Lemma 1. = 0, then (t) 0 by Lemma 1.
Lemma 1: If A0, > 0 and kA1, k < 1, then for any v
CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ) there exists a signal CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ) III. C ONTROLLER D ESIGN AND S TABILITY A NALYSIS
such that
A. Controller Design
A0, xp (t) = xp (t) + A1, xp (t T ) + (t) According to (5), to compensate for the disturbance v (t) ,
v (t) = xp (t) + (t) the FRC is designed as
xp () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] (5) A0, v (t) = v (t) + A1, v (t T ) + ke RT (t) e (t) (7)
mm +
where A0, , A1, R . If A0, = 0 and A1, = Im , with v () = 0, for [T, 0] , where t R , A0, , A1,
then any v CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ) can be generated by (5) with Rmm , ke R+ , and R (t) is as in (3). The FRC (7) can
(t) 0. be considered not only as a repetitive controller, but also as a
Proof: See Appendix B. modified repetitive controller as described in [1].
 3

1) In particular, the controller (7) with A0, = 0 and A1, =
Im reduces to
v (t) = v (t T ) + ke RT (t) e (t) (8)
Therefore, the controller (7) with A0, = 0 is a repetitive
controller.
2) Denote the Laplace transforms of v (t) and
ke RT (t) e (t) , by v (s) and re (s) respectively.
Then the Laplace transform from re (s) to v (s) is
defined by
1 (11) are
v (s) = 1 Q (s) esT B (s) re (s) . (9)
1
Here Q (s) = (sA0, + I) A1, is called the Q-filter
1
in [1] and B (s) = (sA0, + I) . This controller is
therefore a modified repetitive controller in the sense
of [1].
Subtracting (7) from (5) yields
A0, v (t) = v (t) + A1, v (t T )
ke RT (t) e (t) + (t) (10)
Lemma 2[10]: Assume that there exists a continuously
differentiable functional V (t, zt ) : [0, )C ([T, 0] ; Rn )
[0, ) such that
Z t
2 2 2
1 kz (t)k V (t, zt ) 2 kz (t)k + kz (s)k ds (12)
tT
where 1 , 2 are positive real numbers. If there exists b R+
such that
2
V (t, zt ) 3 kz (t)k + b (13)
where 3 is a positive real number, then the solutions of
q uniformly ultimately bounded with respect to the
bound (1 + ) 1b3 (2 + T ), where is an arbitrarily small
positive real number.
With the help of Lemma 2, we have
Theorem 1: For the error dynamics (1), suppose Assump-
tions 1-2 hold, and v (t) is generated by the FRC (7) in
which the parameters satisfy ke > 0, A0, = AT0, 0
and A1, = I A0, . We claim that 1) if A0, = 0, then
lim e (t) = 0; 2) if A0, > 0, ensures kA1, k < 1,
t
and if V0 (t,e) in (2) further satisfies V0 (t,e) c1 ke (t)k
2

where v , xp v. In (10), the initial condition on v is with c1 > 0, then, for any value of e (0), e (t) is uniformly
bounded. We do not concern ourselves with the concrete value ultimately bounded.
of the initial condition as the following results hold globally. Proof: For (11), choose the nonnegative function V (t, zt )
Combining (1) and (10) yields a closed-loop error dynamics to be
in the form V (t, zt ) = 2ke V0 (t, e (t))
Z t
E z (t) = fa (t, z (t)) + fd (z (t T )) + ba (t, z (t)) (t) . T
+ v (t) A0, v (t) + v T (s) v (s) ds (14)
(11) tT
Here
where V0 satisfies Assumption 2 and A0, = AT0, 0. Under
v m+n Assumption 2, taking the time derivative V (t, zt ) along (11)
z= R , = Rm+n ,
e 0n1 yields

v (t) ke RT (t) e (t)
fa (t, z (t)) = Rm+n , V (t, zt ) 2ke eT (t) M (t) e (t)
f (t, e (t)) + b (t, e (t)) v (t)
+ v T (t) H v (t) + g (t) + 2v T (t) (t) (15)
A1, v (t T )
fd (z (t T )) = Rm+n ,
0n1 where

A0, 0mn
E= R(m+n)(m+n) , H = Im + AT1, A1,
0nm In
g (t) = v T (t) AT1, A1, v (t) + 2v T (t) AT1, v (t T )
Im 0mm
ba (t, z (t)) = R(m+n)2m . v T (t T ) v (t T ) .
0nm b (t, e (t))
Remark 1: The closed-loop error dynamics (11) is a retarded Under Assumptions 1-2, using the fact that g (t) 0, we obtain
type system if A0, is nonsingular; whereas it will become a
V (t, zt ) 2ke eT (t) M (t) e (t) + v T (t) H v (t)
neutral type system if A0, = 0.
+ 2 kv (t)k k (t)k . (16)

B. Stability Analysis Based on the results above, conclusions 1) and 2) will be

proved in detail in the Appendix C.
The closed-loop error dynamics (11) will be analyzed with
the help of a Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional, with the results
stated in Theorem 1 below. The following preliminary result IV. ROBOTIC M ANIPULATOR T RACKING
is needed. To show its effectiveness, we apply the proposed controller
Definition 1[10]: A solution z (t, zt0 ) of (11) with zt0 design to the tracking problem for a class of robotic manipu-
C ([T, 0] ; Rn ) is said to be ultimately bounded with bound lators. The latter are described by
, uniformly with respect to t 0, if for each > 0 there
D (q (t)) q (t) + C (q (t) , q (t)) q (t)
exists T 0 = T 0 (, ) > 0 independent of t0 0 such that,
when kzt0 kc < , then kz (t, zt0 )k for all t t0 + T 0 . + G (q (t)) + d (t) = (t) (17)
 4

where q (t) Rn is the vector of generalized coordi- C. Numerical Simulation

nates, (t) Rn is the vector of input torques, d The robot, the initial condition and tracking task used
CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rn ) is the vector of T -periodic disturbances, for this example are the same as in [11]. We assume the
D (q (t)) Rnn is the symmetric inertia matrix satisfying disturbance is
0 < D In D (q (t)) D In < for t R+ , 2t
C (q (t) , q (t)) Rnn is the centripetal-Coriolis matrix, and 0.5 1 cos
2t 3
G (q (t)) Rn is the gravity vector. d (t) = 0.5
sin 2t3 t

0.5 cos 3 1
A. Error Dynamics which is unknown for the controller
design except for the fact
In this section, the tracking problem will first be converted that d CP0 T [0, ) ; R3 . According to the dynamics in
into error dynamics as in (1). Define the filtered tracking error [11], we obtain the expressions:
as in [11]: T
p = Jp l2 l3
e (t) = q (t) + q (t)
q32 qe,1 + q3 q3 qe,1
where q (t) = qd (t) q (t) and qd (t) is a desired trajectory. q
e,1 0
+q3 q1 qe,3
Our control design is based on the fact that the parameters = 0
.

qe,2 + g qe,2 + g
appear linearly in the robot dynamics (17). For convenience 0 0 qe,3 q3 q1 qe,1
of control synthesis, the linear-in-the-parameters property [11]
is written as [12][14]: Here Jp = 0.8 kg/m2 , l2 = 2 m, l3 = 1 m, g = 9.8
m2 /s and xj denote the jth element in the vector x, x =
D (q (t)) qe (t) + C (q (t) , q (t)) qe (t) {q, q, qe , qe } . The parameters Jp , l2 , l3 are assumed unknown
+ G (q (t)) = (q, q, qe , qe , t) p (18) for the controller design.
In (19), choose M (t) to be M (t) 10I3 and design v (t)
where qe (t) = qd (t)+q (t) and qe (t) = qd (t)+q (t) , p Rm
as (7) with ke = 1, A0, = I3 and A1, = (1 0.0001) I3 .
is the vector of constant parameters, and (q, q, qe , qe , t)
For tracking performance comparison, we introduce the per-
Rnm , denoted by (t) for brevity. Design (t) according
formance index as Jk = sup kq (t)k , where k =
to t[(k1)T,kT ]
(t) = M (t) e (t) + (t) p (t) + d (t) . (19) 1, 2, .
Here M (t) Rnn is a positive definite matrix, p (t) is the 1) Without Input delay: If = 0, then these parameters
designers estimate of p, and d (t) Rn is the designers above satisfy the conditions of Theorem 1. As seen in Fig.3,
estimate of d (t) . By employing (18) and (19), the filtered the performance index Jk approaches 0 as k increases. It
error dynamics are obtained as follows implies that q (t) approaches 0 as t . This result is
consistent with conclusion 1) in Theorem 1. If = 2, 1, 0.5,
D (q (t)) e (t) + C (q (t) , q (t)) e (t) then the chosen parameters satisfy the conditions of Theorem
= M (t) e (t) + (t) [p p (t)] + [d (t) d (t)] . 1. As seen in Fig.3, the performance index Jk is bounded.
This result is consistent with conclusion 2) in Theorem 1.
Furthermore, the system above can be written in the form of
(1) with
f (t, e (t)) = D1 (q (t)) [C (q (t) , q (t)) + M (t) e (t)]

b (t, e (t)) = D1 (q (t)) (t) In

p p (t)
v (t) = , v (t) = . (20)
d (t) d (t)

B. Verification of Assumptions
Define the positive definite function
1
V0 (t,e (t)) = eT (t) D (q (t)) e (t) .
2
Then
2 2
c0 ke (t)k V0 (t,e (t)) c1 ke (t)k ,
where c0 = 12 D and c1 = 12 D are positive reals. By
skew-symmetry of matrix D (q (t)) 2C (q (t) , q (t)) , the
time derivative of V0 (t,e) along (1) with (20) is evaluated
as (3) with R (t) = (t) In . Therefore, Assumption 1
is satisfied. Since p is a vector of constant parameters and Fig. 3. Tracking performance with different
d (t) is the vector of T -periodic disturbances, v (t) in (20)
satisfies v CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rn+m ). Therefore, Assumption 2 is As seen in Fig.3, the tracking performance improves as
satisfied. decreases. This is consistent with the conclusion for linear
 5

systems that, recalling (9), as the bandwidth of Q (s) = FRC can deal with small input delay while the corresponding
12
s+1 I3 increases, i.e. decreases, the tracking performance RC cannot, which demonstrates the effectiveness of FRC.
improves, and vice versa [1],[4].
2) With Input delay: Consider the robotic manipulator with
A PPENDIX
an input delay as follows:
A. RC Systems with an Input Delay
D (q (t)) q (t) + C (q (t) , q (t)) q (t)
Consider the following simple RC system:
+ G (q (t)) + d (t) = (t d )
where d > 0 is the input delay. The controllers are designed x (t) = x (t) + u (t)
as above. When RC is adopted ( = 0) and d = 0.001s, it u (t) = u (t T ) x (t) (21)
is observed from Fig.4 that a state of the closed-loop system
diverges at about 30s. This confirms that the stability of RC where x (t) , u (t) R. The RC system above can be also
systems is insufficiently robust. Using the FRC with = 0.5 written as
and prolonging the input delay from d = 0.001s to d =
x (t) x (t T ) = 2x (t) + x (t T ) . (22)
0.01s, it is observed from Fig.4 that the closed-loop system
can still track the desired trajectory. This shows that an FRC From [6], the system above is asymptotically stable. In the
system is more robust than its corresponding RC system. following, we claim that the RC system (21) with an input
delay > 0, namely

x (t) = x (t) + u (t )
u (t) = u (t T ) x (t) (23)

will lose its stability no matter how small is.

T
For simplicity, let = 2N , where N is a positive integer.
The characteristic equation of (23) is
T 1
1 eT s = e 2N s . (24)
s+1
From [15, p. 28, Lemma 7.1], the roots of (24) will approach
2k
T j as k . Therefore, if k is sufficiently large, then a
root of (24) is
2k
s = j + + j
T
with sufficiently small , R. Setting k = 2N k 0 + N,
where k 0 is a positive integer, and substituting s into (24)
Fig. 4. Time response of qd,3 (t) and q3 (t) with input delay. [solidresponse, results in
dotteddesired trajectory]
1 eT (cos (T ) j sin (T ))
T T
Remark 2: From the simulations, the FRC provides the T
2N cos 2N j sin 2N
flexibility to choose filter parameters to achieve a tradeoff =e 2k
.
T j + + j + 1
between tracking performance and stability. More importantly,
it is shown that FRC is effective because input delay exists Setting k 0 to be large enough, and then neglecting the higher
widely in practice. order infinitesimal, we have
T 2k
T 1 sin 2N T
V. C ONCLUSIONS 1 eT cos (T ) e 2N 2k 2
Compared with existing repetitive controllers, the FRC T
T

provides flexibility to choose different filter parameters such e 2N

eT sin (T ) 2k
.
as A0, to satisfy performance requirements and tolerate some T
small uncertainties, such as input delay. If a periodic distur-
bance is present, then the proposed controller with A0, = 0 Furthermore, we can obtain
causes the tracking error to approach 0 as t . In T (N + 1)
order to demonstrate its effectiveness, the proposed method is 2.
2N (2k)
applied to periodic disturbance rejection in a class of robotic
manipulators. Simulation data show that a tradeoff between Therefore, we can conclude > 0. This implies the RC
tracking performance and stability can be achieved by tuning system (21) with an input delay > 0 is unstable no matter
the filter parameters. Furthermore, simulation data show that how small is (or how large N is).
 6

B. Proof of Lemma 1 for all (t, e (t)) [0, ) K. Let t1 and t2 be any real
Let (4) be the original system. To apply Additive Decom- numbers such that 0 < t2 t1 h. Then we have
position[16], choose the primary system as follows: Z t2

ke (t2 ) e (t1 )k =
e (s) ds

A0, xp (t) = xp (t) + A1, xp (t T ) + (t) t1
Z t2

xp () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] (25) = [f (s, e (s)) + b (s, e (s)) v (s)] ds

t1
where A0, , A1, Rnn , (t) Rn . From the original Z t2
system (4) and the primary system (25), the secondary system bf (t2 t1 ) + bb kv (s)k ds. (32)
is determined by Additive Decomposition[16]: t1

Note that by (31) V (t, zt ) is bounded for all t R+ with

A0, xp (t) = xs (t) + xs (t T )
respect to the bound bV R+ , hence
+ (I A1, ) xp (t T ) (t) Z t
xs () = 0, [T, 0] . (26) 2
kv (s)k ds bV
tT
By Additive Decomposition[16], we have
+
for all t R . Thus
x (t) = xp (t) + xs (t) . (27) Z t2
2
kv (s)k ds N bV (33)
Let (t) xs (t T ); then (4) can be written as t1

A0, xp (t) = xp (t) + A1, xp (t T ) + (t) where N = b (t2 t1 )/ T c + 1 and b (t2 t1 )/ T c represents
v (t) = xp (t) + (t + T ) the floor integer of (t2 t1 )/ T . By the Cauchy-Schwarz
xp () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] (28) inequality, we have
Z t2 Z t2 21 Z t2 21
In the following, we will discuss the bound on (t) , t 2 2
kv (s)k ds 1 ds kv (s)k ds .
[0, ) . From (26) and (27), we obtain t1 t1 t1

A0, xp (t) = xp (t) (I A1, ) xp (t T ) + v (t) (29) Consequently, ke (t2 ) e (t1 )k in (32) is further bounded by

If A0, > 0 and kA1, k < 1, then A0, xp (t) = ke (t2 ) e (t1 )k bf h + h1 h
xp (t) (I A1, ) xp (t T ) is exponentially stable[17].
Consequently, there exists a bounded and T -periodic function where (33) is utilized and h1 = N bV bb . Therefore, for any
xp (t) which satisfies (29)[18]. Note that (t) v (t T ) > 0 there exists
xp (t T ) is also a bounded and T -periodic function. Conse- " p #2
quently, (28) can be rewritten in the form of (5). h1 + h21 + bf
h= >0
If A0, = 0 and A1, = Im , then (4) can be rewritten as (5) 2bf
with (t) 0.
such that ke (t2 ) e (t1 )k < for any 0 < t2 t1 < h. This
implies that e (t) is uniformly continuous.
C. Detailed Proof of Theorem 1 2) By noticing the form of V (t, zt ) in (14), the inequality
1) If A0, = 0, then (t) 0 by Lemma 1. Thus (16) (12) is satisfied with 1 = min [2ke c1 , min (A0, )] and 2 =
becomes max [2ke c2 , max (A0, )] . If A0, > 0, then L by
Lemma 2. Then, the inequality (16) becomes
V (t, zt ) 2ke eT (t) M (t) e (t) . (30) 2
V (t, zt ) 21 kz (t)k + 22 kz (t)k .
Then
V (t, zt ) 2c3 ke (t)k
2 where 1 = min M ke , 21 min (A0, ) and 2 = kk .
Since 1 > 0, the following inequality holds
From the inequality above, we obtain
2
1 kz (t)k + 22 kz (t)k 1 2
1 2 0.
V (t, zt ) V (0, z0 ) . (31)
Therefore (13) is satisfied with 3 = 1 and b = 1 2
1 2 .
Also Z Note the fact that ke (t)k kz (t)k by the definition of z (t) ,
t
2 1
ke (s)k ds V (0, z0 ) . then e (t) is globally uniformly ultimately bounded with the
0 2c3 ultimate bound
Therefore, e L L2 . Next, we prove that e (t) is uniformly v
u
continuous. If this is true, then lim e (t) = 0 by Barbalats u (1 + ) ( + 1)2 kk2 {max [2ke c2 , max (A0, )] + T }
t
t 2 ,
Lemma [19]. min [2ke c1 , min (A0, )] min M ke , 12 min (A0, )
Since e L , e (t) K Rm for a compact set K. By (34)
Assumption 2, there exists bf R+ such that kf (t, e)k bf where is an arbitrarily small positive real number.
 7

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Prof. W.M. Wonham of the
University of Toronto, together with the editor and anonymous
reviewers, for helpful comments on this note.

R EFERENCES
[1] S. Hara, Y. Yamamoto, T. Omata, and M. Nakano, Repetitive control
system: a new type servo system for periodic exogenous signals, IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 659667, Jul. 1988.
[2] G. Weiss and M. Hafele, Repetitive control of MIMO system using
H design, Automatica, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 11851199, Jul. 1999.
[3] R.W. Longman, Iterative learning control and repetitive control for
engineering practice, Int. J. Control, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 930954, Jul.
2000.
[4] J. Li and T.C. Tsao, Robust performance repetitive control systems,
J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control-Trans. ASME, vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 330337,
2001.
[5] R. Rabaha, G.M. Sklyarb, and A.V. Rezounenkoc, Stability analysis of
neutral type systems in Hilbert space, J. Differ. Equ., vol. 214, no. 2,
pp. 391428, Jul. 2005.
[6] Q. Quan, D. Yang and K.-Y. Cai, Linear matrix inequality approach
for stability analysis of linear neutral systems in a critical case, IET
Contr. Theory Appl., vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 1290-1297, Jul. 2010.
[7] W. Messner, R. Horowitz, W. W. Kao, and M. Boals, A new adaptive
learning rule, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 188197,
Feb. 1991.
[8] W.E. Dixon, E. Zergeroglu, and B.T. Costic, Repetitive learning control:
A Lyapunov-based approach, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B-
Cybern., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 538545, Aug. 2002.
[9] B.A. Francis and W.M. Wonham, The internal model principle of
control theory, Automatica, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 457465, Sep. 1976.
[10] S. Oucheriah, Robust tracking and model following of uncertain
dynamic delay systems by memoryless linear controllers, IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 14731577, Jul. 1999.
[11] M. Sun, S.S. Ge, and I.M.Y. Mareels, Adaptive repetitive learning
control of robotic manipulators without the requirement for initial
repositioning, IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 563568, Jun.
2006.
[12] M.W. Spong and M. Midyasagar, Robot Dynamics and Control, New
York: Wiley, 1989.
[13] F.L. Lewis, C.T. Abdallah, and D.M. Dawson, Control of Robot Manip-
ulators, New York: Macmillan, 1993.
[14] S.S. Ge, T.H. Lee, and C.J. Harris, Adaptive Neural Network Control of
Robotic Manipulators, London, U.K.: World Scientific, 1998.
[15] J.K. Hale, Theory of Functional Differential Equations, New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1977.
[16] Q. Quan and K.-Y. Cai, Additive decomposition and its applications
to internal-model-based tracking, in Joint Proc. 48th IEEE CDC and
Proc. 28th CCC, Shanghai, China, December 16-18, 2009, pp. 817822.
[17] L. Dugard and E.I. Verriest, Stability and Control of Time-delay Systems,
London: Springer, 1998.
[18] T.A. Burton and S. Zhang, Unified boundedness, periodicity, and
stability in ordinary and functional differential equations, Annali di
Matematica Pura ed Applicata, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 129158, Dec. 1986.
[19] J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1991.

View publication stats