Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Performance Analysis for Recursive Passive Adaptive Controllers *

Miroslav KrstiC, Petar V. KokotoviC


Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Abstract
Computable Lz and L, performance bounds are derived for a recently
proposed class of adaptive systems which show that, in addition to
global stability and asymptotic tradcin a systematic improvement of
transient performance can be achieved. %he underlying linear nonadaptive controller is shown to possess a parametric robustness property, but
for large parameter uncertautty it requires high gain. A comparison between the ada tive and the nonadaptive performance bounds demonstrates that alaptation improves the overall performance without the
undesirable effects of high gain.

We make the following assumptions about the plant and the reference
signal:
Assumption 2.1 The plant is minimum phase, i.e., the polynomial
b1.9
bo is Huururitt, and the plant order (n),
relative degree ( p = n - m), and high-frequency gain b, are known.

Recursive nonlinear design and the new


class of adaptive systems

Assumption 2.2 The reference signal y,(t) and its first p derivatives
ape known and bounded, and, in addition, d"(t) is piecewise wntinuow. In particular, %(t) may be the output of a reference model of
relative degree h 2 p with a piecewise continuous input r(t).

Recursive nonlinear design. The main features of our design are


summarized from [5, 61. We first represent the plant (2.1) as

in = -Qy+bou
y =

4 3 )

b,S"
+ . . . + b l s + bo u(s).
3" + a,-ls"-'
+ . ..t a13 + a0

21.

To design the estimate of the state 2 we construct the two filters, one
at the output and the other a t the input of the plant (2.1):

where & =

[ 1:.
i

1::;
0

satisfies pih+&po = -1,Po =

+.

P z > 0, that is, K ( s ) = s"+IC,,-~S"-~ ..+kls+ko = det (SI- &)is


Hurwitz. If the parameters a i , bi were known, then the vector B(&)XA(&)q would be an exponentially convergent estimate of 2, because
E = z - [B(&)X - A(&)q] is exponentidly decaying:
2=&s.

Let

(2.4)

6 be an estimate of the parameter vector


BT = [-an-l,.

..,-@,bm-l,.. .,bo],

(2.5)

and let e' = 8 8 be the corresponding parameter estimation error. At


each step i of the recursive procedure we construct an c m r system Si
represented by the state vector [ X I , . .,.z;IT and define a tuningfunction
q as its output. For each error system we design a stabilizingfunction
ai to guarantee that the operator f" the parameter error input B to
the tuning output r; is strictly passive. The states and the outputs of
the error systems are defined as follows:

The control objective is t o irsymptotically track a reference signal ~ ( t )


with the output y of the plant

y(s) = -u(s)
B(3)

+ +

B ( s ) = b,sm t

To simplify our presentation we will consider the case where the highfrequency gain is known, b, = 1.

Introduction

In the absence of disturbances and unmodeled dynamics, the tracking error of most adaptive control schemes converges to zero, that is,
they satisfy the asymptotic performance requirement. In applications,
however, the system's traniiient performance is often more important.
Numerous simulations indicate that the transient response of adaptive
systems may be unacceptable due to large initial swings. An example was presented in [12], where an extremely poor transient behavior
occurs together with ideal asymptotic performance. It is therefore necessary that in the performance analysis of adaptive systems both transient and asymptotic behavior be adressed. Recently, such an analysis
of transient performance hals led to its improvement, suggested in [ll]
and further developed in [Z]. The proposed modifications of adaptive
controllers render the tracking error arbitrarily small in terms of both
mean-square and L, bounds. This important advance is conceptual,
because the bounds derivecl in [2] depend on the normalizing signal
and therefore are not a priori verifiable. Other efforts for estimating or
improving transient performance are presented in [7, 9, 131.
In this paper we undertitke a performance analysis for a new class
of adaptive controllers [5, 61 which in simulations exhibited a transient
behavior far superior to other adaptive schemes. Here we demonstrate
that the observed improvement of the transient performance is systematic, and due to the nonlinear adaptive design and the structure of the
underlying nonadaptive linear controller. We prove this by deriving L2
and Is, bounds which show that all the error states of the adaptive_system can be made arbitrarily small, except for the parameter error e(t),
which is bounded by a constant proportional to e'(0). The performance
bounds are computable and informative: they are explicit functions of
initial conditions and des& parameters. Another remarkable property
of the new class of adaptive controllers is that for a known bound on
the uncertain parameters the stability can be guaranteed even without
adaptation [6]. When the adaptation is switched off, the underlying
linear nonadaptive controller satisfies L, bounds which can be used for
a comparison with the adaptive controller. The adaptation, although
not necessary for stabilizatilon when the bounds on the parametric uncertainties are known, results in a smaller L- bound and achieves the
asymptotic tracking not possible with nonadaptive controllers. It is
ala0 important that the new adaptive Controllers avoid the use of high
gain with which the nonadaptive controllers counteract large parameter
uncertainties.

Ioannis Kaneflakopoulos
Dept. of Electrical Engineering
University of California LOSAngeles, CA 90024

(2.1)

'This work wm supported in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research
nnder Grant F-49620-925-0004, and in part by the National Science Foundation
under Grant ECS-9203491.

195

Y-VI

(trackkg error)

-%

z;

= eTArX-ai-1 ( y , ,...,
~ yp-*),q,X,i) , i = 2 ,...,p(2.6)

- '

- e:&'

e;

,T

'

e i h
W =

constant, the nonlinear terms a;jI'w vanish from (2.9) and, as explained
in [SI,the nonlinear terms
reduce to known constants, so that the
whole closed-loop system becomes linear. In Section 4 we analyze the
CM and mean-square performance of this unerlying linear system. Finally, in Section 5, we use the derived bounds to qualitatively evaluate
the advantages of adaptation.

m-1
2-40

'

(2.8)

+elY.

e:&
-

Performance bounds for the adaptive sys-

3
-

...

024rw

...

azprw

~~

-CI

51

-l

22
i3

24

- dl
-1

1
-c2 - d2

(t)'1 + aZ3rw

- d3 (g)' 1 + c34rw
-1 - usrw
-cq - d4 (%)'

-1 - a23rw -c3

-uz,rw

...
. ..

21

z2

u3prw

23

u4prw

- 2, -

ZP

p1.oof. The derivative of V, along the solutions of (2.4)-(2.10) is

v, 5 -c0Izl2

1 tb J
The closed-loop adaptive system consists of the plant, the input and
output filters, and the parameter update law. In our analysis, the
states of the closed-loop system are %pressed in the error coordinates
E E W,fj E EL",( E R",t E RP,B E Et"+*. The filter states are
represented by E , and the error f j = 7 % of the output filter state ?j
with respect to its ideal tracking reference %(t). Since ~ ( tis)not an
implemented signal and is used only for analysis purposes, without loss
of generality, its initial value q ( 0 ) can be chosen such that fj(0) = 0.
The error state ?j is governed by:

- 4d01&13

2 5 -colz12.

(3-4)

Since V, is nonincreasing, we have

6 = hi t e,z1

i(0) =0 .

(2.11)

The zero dynamics C of the plant are represented by

=A d

bbzi

t(0) = 0

(2-12) and (3.2)follows. Similarily, from (2.12) we define

A
where = C Cr,and c(t) is the ideal tracking reference. Likewise, the
( = ( 5 1 - Ab)-'bbZI = wi(")ZI,
(3.8)
initial reference d u e cr(O) is chosen such that {(O) = 0.
Global uniform stability of the origin of the adaptive system (2.4)- which yields
(2.10), and the convergence of the states t o the manifold M =
1
{ z = 0, E = 0, ?j = 0, = 0} were proven in 151 using the positive def(3-9)
I I ~ I5I IIw~ll-llzlllz
~
I
inite function
1
1
1-2 ,
(2.13) and proves (3.3).
U
v, = -I.#-I&~
zieir-l
2
do
It should be pointed out that although the initial states
zz(O), ...,zp(0) may depend on c;,di, r (see [5]), they are at the dewhere l = p 1 and 121; = zTPz.'
signer's disposal. As explained in [5],by appropriately intializing the
do j = 1 dJ.
In Section 3 we analyze the L2 and L, performance of the adaptive reference model or the filter states, z ( 0 ) can be set to zero, while
system (2.4)-(2.10). The dosed-loop adaptive system is nonlinear, and &(O),j(O) and the initial conditions of the reference model and the illters remain independent of c,, d i , l'. Therefore, by setting z(0) = 0, we
'Notation: The C
, h and truncated L nonas for signals d be denoted by achieve that
11 . llmt I(. 112 and 11 . Ilz,t, respectively. The H' , norms for trsnsfer functions will be
(3.10)
denoted by 11. ]Im, and the CI norms of their impnlse responses by 11 . Ill.

~h2311~~11w

196

is a decreasing function of $&and I?, independent of CO.


The possibility to improve performance with the adaptation gain is
particularly clear in the case z(0) = 0, ~(0)= 0, fi(0) = 0, t(0) = 0
and r = 71,when the L2 bounds of Theorem 3.1 become
1
(3.11)
llzllz .I =l%O)l

IIiIIz :S -I%O)IWiIIm

(3'12)

m
1 --l~(O)lllw&.
m

IIAlz :s

Upon multiplication by e2**, the last inequality becomes

d
dt (IzI2eZqt) i

Iz(t)12 5 Iz(0)(2e-2at+L

be arbitrarily small.
Another advantage of the derived bounds is that they are computable.
The bound for llzllz is explick, while the bound for 11fi112 involves IlW,&
which is known from (3.6). Only the factor l[Willmin the bound for the
zero dynamics ll(112 dependii on the unknown parameters bo,. ,bm-l.
When these parameters belong to known intervals, IIWJlm can be computed using [l].
For a more complete characterization of the achieved performance, we
proceed to derive C, norm bounds for the error states of the adaptive
system (2.4)-(2.10). These bounds are also useful for a comparison with
nonadaptive systems.

lz(t)I2

5 Iz(0)12e-2'at +

e, _< 0, the bound (3.14) follows immediately from


2
2Vp(t) =
+ -&Wt)l&
+ le(t)l;-i I 2V,(O),
IZ(t)l2

and the bound (3.15) is obtained by noting that


1 --p12 I
18gl 5 2VP(0).
For

r = 71,it further follows from (3.15)-(3.16)


llfillm 5 film1 +

-&lE(O)lP0

(3.16)

I Iz(0)12e-2af

(3.18)

d r , (3.25)

e-2*(f-')dr

SUP

te[o.m)

l P ~ (+
t )&z(t)l*

+~ z l l t ,

(3.26)

gives

O)

(3.27)

It was shown in I61 that

where J&(t)l 5 Kwe-ut is the response due to the initial conditions of


the filters 9(O),X(0). Observe that nwrU depend only on the plant and
filter parameters and not on CO, &, r. Now, using y = zl+yr and (3.14),
we get

+ IIYrIIm) + we-"*
IlbWlll
(I@%%+ YI J), +
llhwlll (ll~1Iloo

(3.29)

{ jRT+GG[tlhwll1 (m+

I I ~ I I ~I,

tlvrllm)

Itwill1 3

+m

I+,.
-

4z1
( - m+ I ~
~ ( o ) I ~ - * 't1wi111
)
+ tz(011e-a')

+ E,(,)>'

Substituting (3.29) into (3.27), and using (3.15) we obtain

t IJ(0)l.

of the adaptive system (24-(2.10) ape bounded by


1
llzllm I --M (t(O)le-@'

llillm I (;-M

(3.24)

1
am

parameters.

Ilzll- 5 (118ltwt1uiim + -Ir(o)l&) + Iz(O)le-".


2-

Theorem 3.2 (L, performance) The C


, n o m of the states I,ij, (

%CO

eZat

e-2a(t-T) ( p w ( r )

/*

(3.17)

In this way, Ili((,is explicitly related with initial conditions and design

tliillm I

+w

which in view of I ~ z ( t ) l5 J'-le(O)l~,,

llullm I

that

I'

26 0
1
-1IeTw
4cod0

..

Since

and from this we obtain

The error states t,ij, < , E are guaranteed to have good La performance.

This is an improvement over [2] where only the mean-square tracking


error J,' [y(r) - %(r)]'d r of a modified MRAC scheme wa8 proven to

Integrating (3.24) over [O,t], we arrive at

2&

(3'13)

&

1 M

+ Iz(O)le-a'.

(3.30)

(3.19)
From (2.11) we have
(3.20)
(3.21)

llijllm 5 llWill1ll~1llw5

(&1

+ lz(0)Ie-m')

IlWilll,

(3.31)

and from (2.12) we have

where

5 12 { &&74

(\/2ypo+ 11YrIl~)

[llhwlll
1

+Kw]

+ -&m140)lPo}

IItllm 5 ~
(3.22)

~ 5 ~(=M
~ ~

+ I tZ (zO )1I ~ ~-IIwill1.


~~) m

(3.32)
0

The expression (3.10) for V,(O) and (3.22) show that M is a decreasing
function of 4 independent of Q, whenever z(0) = 0 due to the filter or
reference model initializaticn.
proof. Differentiating ilz12 = i z T t along the solutions of (2.9) we get
Thus, the entire state z, 0, E , fi, 1is guaranteed to have good Lm per2
P
This is an improvement over [2] where only the tracking error
(1
' z1)'
=Ckzi dkZi
- Zkaak-l ( p , &Z) formance.
of a modified MRAC scheme wan proven to be arbitrarily small.
dt 2
k=i
k=1
k=i
Since M in (3.30) depends on Ilhwlli,the bounds (3.19)-(3.21)require
1
computation of Ilhwlll,llwilli and llw~lli. Although llhwlliand llwilli
= - Ckzi dk *Z[k
- (pU &2
depend on uncertain parameters we can employ the procedure of [l]
k=l
k=l
2dk
to compute their H
' , norms and then apply the well known inequality
llgllr 5 (2n l)llGll,, where G(s) is a stable transfer function, n is its
+
p w Ez)2
Mchfillan degree, and g ( t ) is its impulse response.
=1
Let us now give a special but more revealing form of the above L,
1
2
I--colz12 4& ( P w a,) .
(3.23) bounds.
and llw.jll1, IIwilli, llhwlll,K cm independent of CO,
do.

f:

{<

2 {c
[' )

(9)
+

+
+- +

197

Corollary 3.1 In the case z(0) = 0 , ~ ( 0 )


= 0,
the C, bounds of Theorem 3.2 become

K,

= 0 and 'I = 71, Changing the sequence of integration, (4.10) becomes

(3.33)

1
2&

5 -JtezW'

The assumption t ( 0 ) = 0, ~ ( 0=) 0, K, = 0 is satisfied in the particular case where the initial conditions of the plant and the filter states
are zero and the system is driven by r(t).
This form clarifies the dependence of the ,
C performance on the
parameter uncertainty lO(0)l and the design parameters Q, & and 7.
Any increase in those parameters results in an improvement of the L,
performance. It is of interest to observe that 4, present in the L,
bounds (3.33)-(3.35), is absent from the Lz bounds (3.11)-(3.13). This
is consistent with the "peak-shaving" ability of the nonlinear damping
terms observed in [5].

2co

(4.11)

(4.12)
On the other hand, since Hw(s) is stable and proper, then the truncated
norms of w and z are related as

132

II~IIz,~
I II~wIlmllYllz,t i I l z w l l m (II4l2,t + I l ~ 4 z , t ) *

(4-13)

From (4.12) and (4.13),by the small gain theorem, C2 stability is guar> 18111Hwllm,and asymptotic stability is argued aa
anteed for 2&&
in the proof of Theorem 6.1 of [6].Substituting (4.13)into (4.12) and
solving for

2 1
( p w ( s ) ) -e-2co'ds

11z112,t=

(J: ~z(r)l'dr)',we get

Performance bounds without adaptation

It is of interest to evaluate the performance achievable with the underlying linear controller resulting from setting r = 0 in the adaptive
C performance and the
system (2.4)-(2.10). Here we investigate the ,
mean square performance of this nonadaptive system.
Without 1088 of generality we assume that all initial conditions of the
linear nonadaptive system are zero.
Using Theorem 6.1 of [6],the following result is immediate.
T h e o r e m 4.1 (Stability and L, performance) The nonadaptive
(NA) system (2.4)-(2.9) is asymptotically stable for

The 13,

norms of the states of this system are bounded by

s,'

and (4.6) follows because IlyJl:,t = la(r)I2dr5 Ily&$,t. Inequalities


(4.7) and (4.8)areimmediate from (4.6)(recall that fj(0) = 0, ((0) = 0).
0

Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 provide two different stability conditions (4.1)
and (4.5), of which (4.5)is directly computable [l]and less conservative
5 llhwlll.
because llHwllm
Another usual way of expressing performance properties of a h e a r
system is to examine the difference between the actual and the desired
closed-loop transfer function. In the case of tracking the desired transfer
= 1. The actual closed-loop transfer function of the
function is
nonadaptive system was derived in [6] as

The nonadaptive controller does not, in general, achieve asymptotic


tracking, so we cannot talk about .CZperformance in this case. However,
it in possible to prove that the mean-square performance can be made
arbitrarily good.
T h e o r e m 4.2 (Stability and mean-square performance) The
nonadaptive (NA) system (2.4)-(2.9) is asymptotically stable for

> l~lllHwllm.

&
2
The menn-square values o f t , f j ,

< are bounded by

In this expression,
is the transfer function from $w t o q in (2.9)
when r = 0. This transfer function is stable, relative degree one, and
with deg a, = p. Its poles can be arbitrarily placed by using the design
parameters c;,di.
T h e o r e m 4.3 (Tracking performance) In the nonadaptive system
(4.15), the design parameters c;,d;, 15 i 5 p can be chosen to satisfy,
for any 6, > 0 , the following tmcking performance specification:
IGc(jw)- 11 < 6,,

(4.5)

By setting t =

of

00

Vu E

R.

(4.16)

in (4.12) we see that the induced .Cz norm

% is not greater than h.


This in turn means that
l l ~ ~ l 5l m

&,

2 -

which implies

5 *,

Vu E

E.From (4.15) we now

have

which is less than any 6, provided that q& is sufficiently large:

Proof. For

= 0, with initial conditions z(0) = 0, ~ ( 0=) 0, we proceed

from (3.25):

(4.9)
Now, integrating (4.9)over

[a, t ] ,we get

a
As expected, the tracking condition (4.18) is more stringent than the
corresponding stability condition (4.5). The required value of 2&
is increased by the factor 1
and tends to infinity as 15, 4 0. In this
sense the underlying linear controller is a "high-gain" controller which
achieves a good tradring performance at the expense of an increase of
the bandwidth of the closed-loop system.

+&

198

Performance improvement due to adaptation

With the global stability and tracking properties of the adaptive


system established in (5, 61 and the bounds derived in the preceding
sections, we have assembled a data base for a semi-quantitative performance comparison of the nonlinear adaptive system and its linear
nonadaptive counterpart.
The stability of the adaptive system is guaranteed to be global for
any positive values of the design parameters Q, do and I'. No a priori
information is required about the parameter uncertainty. In contrast,
the linear Controller guarant,ees stability only if a bound on the parame
ter uncertainty is known and the value of q&, is large enough to satisfy
the stability condition (4.5).
Asymptotic tmcking is achieved by the adaptive controller for any
initial condition, any parameter uncertainty and any positive Q, do and
r. The tracking error of the linear system can be reduced, but, in
general, does not converge to zero. To make the tradcing error small,
the value of @do is requircd to be high. It can be shown that the
increase of
increases the bandwidth which may be undesirable.
lhaneient performance of the adaptive system can be improved over
that of the linear system without an increase of CO&. Performance improvement due to adaptation follows from the bounds (3.33)-(3.35) and
(4.2)-(4.4) as a corollary. We use the superscripts A and NA to denote
the quantities in the adaptive and in the nonadaptive system, respectively, and assume the same parameter uncertainty FA= iA(O) 2 8.
Then we meaaure the perfoimance improvement due to adaptation using the performance ratio

performance is systematic. It is crucial that with adaptation this performance improvement, in the presence of large parameter uncertainty,
can be achieved without large bandwidth required by the nonadaptive
linear controller.
The performance bounds derived in this paper are for the ideal w e ,
that is, in the absence of disturbances and unmodeled dynamics. The
problem of robustness with respect to Such modeling errors is yet to be
addressed, and robust update laws for the new class of adaptive systems
will have to be developed. As in [2, 3, 4, 81, it is of interest to study
performance of the new adaptive controllers in presence of unmodeled
dynamics.

References
[l] H. Chapdat, M. Dahleh and S. P. Bhattacharyya, "Robust st%
b i t y under structured and unstructured perturbations", IEEE
Zhneactiona on Automatic Control, vol. 35, pp. 1100-1108,1990.

[2] A. Datta and P. Ioannou, "Performance improvement versus robust


Stability in model reference adaptive control", Proceedings of the
30th ZEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Brighton, UK,
1991, pp. 1082-1087.
[3] P. A. Ioannou and G. Tao, "Dominant richness and improvement
of performance of robust adaptive control", Automatica, vol. 25,
pp. 287-291,1989.
[4] J. M. Krause, P. P. Khargonekar and G. Stein, "Robust adaptive
control: stability and asymptotic performance", IEEE Tkunuactions on Automatic Control, vol. 37, pp. 316332,1992.
[5] M. Krstit, I. Kanellakopoulos and P. V. Kokotovit, "A new generation of adaptive controllers for linear systems", Proceedings of the
$let IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Tucson, AZ, December 1992, pp. 3644-3651, also submitted to IEEE Ifnnsactions
on Automatic Control.

C bounds (21.33)-(3.35) and (4.2)-(4.4). The improvebetween the ,


ment is achieved if the performance ratio is small: Rc- 5 Rc- < 1.

[6] M. KrstiC, I. Kanellakopoulos and P. V. KokotoviC, "Passivity and


parametric robustness of a new dass of adaptive systems", Report

CCEC-92-1016,University of California, Santa Barbara, 1992, also


submitted t o Automatica.

Corollary 5.1 Let the initial conditions of the ermr states I,E , ij, t be
zero, and w(0) = 0. Then with adaptation gain

- 18111hwlll
m ELc, - ( 2 J m - 18111hyI11)

F 5&2

72 2

and 2Rcc, > 2 @ F is no gmter than Rcc, < 1.

l$lllh&,

1'-

''I2 ,
IlVJt

[7] D. E. Miller and E. J. Davison, "An adaptive controller which


provides an arbitrarily good transient and steady state response",
IEEE lhansactions on Automatic Control, vol. 36, pp. 68-81,1991.

(5.2)

[S] S. M. Naik, P. R. Kumar and B. E. Ydstie, "Robust continuoustime adaptive control by parameter projection", IEEE %nsactions on Automatic Control, vol. 37, pp. 182-197,1992.

the performance mtio RL,

From this corollary we (:an deduce two further advantages of the


adaptive controller. First, the adaptation gain 7 provides an additional degree of freedom with which the performance can be improved
when c$dk and G A d t A are the Same. Second, and more important,
performance improvements can be achieved even with c$d$ smaller
than
In the pratience of a large parameter uncertainty,6,
sufficiently large t o satisfy
the nonadaptive controller must use
2
~
~
~ >~
0, thus
~ increasing
~
~ theh bandwidth.
W
~ From
~ Corol1
lary 5.1 it is c l a that with the adaptive controller such ap undesirable
bandwidth increase can be avoided, because when both B and G A d t A
are large, the condition 2d&d$R~- > 2 4 w (8(llhlll can be
satisfied with t$d$ much iimder than c$*d:*.
This confirms that
adaptation is an efficient toto1 for reducing the effects of large parametric uncertainty without unitcceptable widening of system bandwidth.
For small parametric uncerhinty, the linear controller is effective.
The improvement of performance due to adaptation was illustrated
by simulations in [6] for ctdk =
While (5.2) shows the performance improvement only b,eyond a certain 7, the simulations indicate
that the performance improvement is present for any 7 I 0.

GAdtA.

GAGA

[9] R. Ortega, "On Morse's new adaptive controller: parameter convergence and transient performance" ,to appear in ZEEE 2hm"tions on Automatic Control.

[lo] J. Sun, A. Olbrot and M. Polis, "Robust stabilization and robust


performance using model reference control and modeling error compensation", Pnxeedings of the 1991 Americon Control Conference,
Boston, MA, pp. 892-897.

[ll] J. Sun, "A modified model reference adaptive control scheme for
improved transient performance", Pmceedings of the 1991 American Control Conference, Boston, MA, pp. 150-155.
[12] Z. Zang and R.R, Bitmead, "Transient bounds for adaptive control
systems", Proceedings of the 29th IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, Honolulu, HI,1990, pp. 2724-2729.
[13] B. E. Ydstie, "'Bansient performance and robustness of direct
adaptive control", IEEE hnsactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 37, pp. 1091-1106,1992.

Conclusions

Our L2 and L, bounds show that the performance of the new class
of adaptive controllers proposed in [5, 61 can be made a8 good as d e
sired. The use of design parameters for improvement of the transient
199

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen