2018
DOI: 10.1002/acs.2891
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Command governor‐based adaptive control for dynamical systems with matched and unmatched uncertainties

Abstract: SummaryIn this paper, we propose a command governor‐based adaptive control architecture for stabilizing uncertain dynamical systems with not only matched but also unmatched uncertainties and achieving the desired command following performance of a user‐defined subset of the accessible states. In our proposed solution, online least‐squares solutions for the matched and unmatched parameters are obtained through integration method and they are employed in the adaptive control framework. Specifically, the matched … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, based on Barbalat's Lemma, 3 Moreover, according to analysis given in References 24,27, we can calculate the integration of both sides of inequality (43), and then verify that 0 < V(e,W) ≤ V(e 0 ,W 0 )e − ≤ ( max (P)‖e 0 ‖ 2 2 + max (Γ −1 )‖W 0 ‖ 2 F )e − . This together with the facts min (P)‖e(t)‖ 2 2 ≤ V(e,W) and min (Γ −1 )‖W(t)‖ 2 F ≤ V(e,W) indicates the tracking error bound given by (39) and the estimation error bound given by (40). Clearly, compared with the error bounds of the standard MRAC scheme given by (12) and (13), the error bounds given by (39) and (40) can be vanishing rapidly since an exponentially decreasing term e − t is included.…”
Section: Lemma 6 61827mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Hence, based on Barbalat's Lemma, 3 Moreover, according to analysis given in References 24,27, we can calculate the integration of both sides of inequality (43), and then verify that 0 < V(e,W) ≤ V(e 0 ,W 0 )e − ≤ ( max (P)‖e 0 ‖ 2 2 + max (Γ −1 )‖W 0 ‖ 2 F )e − . This together with the facts min (P)‖e(t)‖ 2 2 ≤ V(e,W) and min (Γ −1 )‖W(t)‖ 2 F ≤ V(e,W) indicates the tracking error bound given by (39) and the estimation error bound given by (40). Clearly, compared with the error bounds of the standard MRAC scheme given by (12) and (13), the error bounds given by (39) and (40) can be vanishing rapidly since an exponentially decreasing term e − t is included.…”
Section: Lemma 6 61827mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…34,35 For other specific systems where this condition is not fulfilled, neural networks or fuzzy logic systems can be adopted to approximate these unknown dynamics. [25][26][27][28][29][30][36][37][38][39] In this case, the formulation (6) is still feasible, though the tracking error dynamics given by (16) is slightly modified owing to the inherent bounded approximation error. Consequently, the stability analysis of the control system to be presented in Section 3.3 does not change.…”
Section: Problem Statementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The equations of motion for this system are defined as follows, where m 11 , m 12 , m 22 The equations of motion for this system are defined as follows, where m 11 , m 12 , m 22 …”
Section: Disk-on-disk Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12 Besides IDA-PBC, a sliding-mode-control formulation was proposed in the work of Martinez et al 13 for underactuated mechanical systems with Coulomb friction of known amplitude. 21,22 Additionally, differently from friction, constant disturbances do not vanish at equilibrium. Initial results in this respect were presented in the works of Teo et al 16 and Ryalat et al,17 where integral control was overlaid to IDA-PBC in order to compensate constant matched disturbances (ie, only affecting the actuated joints).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation