Adaptive Actuator Nonlinearity Compensation for

Multivariable Systems
Gang Tao

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22903
Jason O. Burkholder

Barron Associates, Inc., Charlottesville, VA, 22901

This work solves the open problem of adaptive compensation of actuator nonlineari-
ties with unknown parameters for feedback control of unknown multi-input multi-output
(MIMO) linear time-invariant dynamic systems. The solutions are developed in the model
reference adaptive control framework, for achieving desired tracking performance in the
presence of system parameter uncertainties.
Such an adaptive control problem is solved by employing an adaptive feedback control
law combined with an adaptive inverse to deal with uncertain parameters in the system.
There are two sets of system parameters, one from the dynamics and one from the actuator
nonlinearity, which appear bilinearly. For MIMO systems, the interaction between input
and output components, characterized by the system high frequency gain matrix, needs
additional treatment for such a parametrization.
In this paper, some key technical issues in deriving controller parametrizations involv-
ing bilinearly appeared system parameters are claried in details and dierent adaptive
actuator nonlinearity compensation control schemes for MIMO systems are systematically
designed and analyzed. The developed control schemes are state feedback for output track-
ing, for both continuous and discrete time cases, and state feedback for state tracking, for
the continuous-time case.
I. Introduction
In this paper, we address the adaptive compensation problems for the general case of the aircraft dy-
namic system with nonlinearities at an aircrafts ap, elevator, rudder and aileron servo-mechanisms as
multi-input actuators. We conduct a systematic investigation on adaptive compensation of uncertain ac-
tuator nonlinearities in multi-input multi-output systems, and develop a general framework for adaptive
actuator nonlinearity compensation control of such uncertain systems with linear dynamics and actuator
nonlinearities, with aircraft ight control consideration.
The adaptive control architecture presented herein leverages control theory developed for the adaptive
compensation of systems with unknown actuator nonlinearities via the adaptive inverse method.
810, 13
The
adaptive inverse technique employs readily implementable algorithms to cancel the eects of unknown actu-
ator nonlinearities.
The adaptive inverse compensation approach
13
for handling uncertain actuator nonlinearities has been
well-developed for single input single output systems, and some preliminary results have been obtained
for multi-input multi-output systems.
8
In,
14
adaptive algorithms are developed for ight control systems
to compensate for synthetic jet actuator nonlinearities. An adaptive inverse is used to compensate for a
deadzone nonlinearity in.
15
Neural networks and backstepping techniques are used to compensate nonsmooth
nonlinearities in uncertain systems in.
14

Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

Principal Research Scientist, Barron Associates, Inc., Charlottesville, VA, Member AIAA.
1 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference
08 - 11 August 2011, Portland, Oregon
AIAA 2011-6397
Copyright 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

The essence of such an approach is to use adaptive algorithms to detect actuator nonlinearities (imperfec-
tions) such as deadzone, backlash and hysteresis characteristics, and to modify control signals to compensate
the eects of the actuator nonlinearities. A key component of this approach is an adaptive inverse of the
actuator nonlinearity, which generates an input signal to adaptively cancel the eects of the uncertain actua-
tor nonlinearity. This approach has been used by many researchers in their study of some important control
applications (see
8
).
There have been some open technical issues in developing this approach for multi-input multi-output
systems, caused by the dynamic couplings and parameter uncertainties in such systems, in particular, the
bilinear appearance of the two sets of parameters: one from the system dynamics and one from the actuator
nonlinearities. In this paper, we have solved some key open problems and developed a general framework
and derived a systematic set of adaptive inverse compensation schemes for multi-input multi-output dynamic
systems with actuator nonlinearities. The details of this paper are given as follows.
In Section II, we explain the motivation of this research, present the modeling of actuator nonlin-
earities in a multi-input multi-output system, and formulate the adaptive inverse compensation
control problems: to develop adaptive schemes based on (i) designs using state feedback for
output tracking, and (ii) designs using state feedback for state tracking.
In Section III, we discuss a key technical issue in designing an adaptive inverse compensation
control scheme for multi-input multi-output systems with actuator nonlinearities, and present
two illustrative designs to handle the dynamic couplings and multi-input actuator nonlinearity
parameter uncertainties. In addition, we develop several new state feedback adaptive actuator
nonlinearity compensation control schemes for multivariable systems with unknown dynamics
G(D) and unknown actuator nonlinearities N(). State feedback control designs have simpler
structures as compared with output feedback designs and are practically useful for applications
when the system state variables are available for measurement, such as aircraft ight control
systems. We develop new solutions to the design and analysis of adaptive state feedback control
schemes for either state tracking or output tracking.
In Section IV, we present a benchmark example system for the study of adaptive actuator non-
linearity compensation for aircraft ight control.
In Section V, we summarize our conclusions from the documented results and discuss some future
research tasks to extend the developed multivariable adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation
techniques to other classes of systems.
II. Problem Statement
In this section, we rst illustrate the research motivation in terms of aircraft ight control applications,
and then describe the plant model and actuator nonlinearity model and present the adaptive control problems
to be solved in this research.
A. Research Motivation
This research is motivated from the need to compensate for the actuator nonlinearities in aircraft ight
control systems, in particular, at the joints of the airframe with aps, ailerons and rudder, represented
by certain dead-zone/backlash characteristics whose parameters are uncertain. Future morphing, exible,
ow control, and biomimetic actuators will likely lend additional urgency to the need to compensate for
unknown nonlinear actuator dynamics. A desirable control system should be eectively able to compensate
such uncertain nonlinearities so that the desired ight control system performance can be guaranteed. For
ight control, actuator nonlinearity compensation needs to be realized in a closed-loop framework involving
an adaptive nonlinearity inversion scheme and an adaptive feedback control law. Since aircraft ight control
systems have multiple inputs and multiple outputs (which are called multivariable systems), the design
of an adaptive inverse needs to take into account the eect of dynamic couplings in the system, which
create new technical challenges to be overcome, in particular, the linear parametrization of the actuator
nonlinearity parameters and the dynamic system parameters, which appear bilinearly, is a major issue which
has remained to be an open problem for multivariable systems. In this work, we develop a systematic
2 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

framework for new solutions to adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation for multi-input multi-output
systems, with application to aircraft ight control systems.
A linearized lateral motion dynamics of an aircraft is described as
x(t) = Ax(t) +Bu(t), (1)
where the system state vector is x = [v
b
, p
b
, r
b
, , ]
T
with lateral velocity v
b
, roll rate p
b
, yaw rate r
b
, roll
angle , and yaw angle , and the input vector u = [d
r
, d
a
]
T
with rudder angular position d
r
and aileron
angular position d
a
. The system output vector y can be selected by the control system designer. What is
important is that there are nonlinear characteristics in generating the input signal u(t), that is,
u(t) = N(v(t)), (2)
where v(t) is the control signal from a feedback control law, and the block N() represents actuator nonlinear
characteristics such as a dead-zone or backlash at the aileron and rudder jointed with the airframe.
The main question, to be answered in this study, is how to generate the control signal v(t) to pre-
compensate the eects of the actuator nonlinearities in N() so that a suitable feedback control law can be
used to achieve desired system performance, despite the uncertainties of the actuator nonlinearities.
The approach we will take is to design an adaptive inverse

NI() to generate the signal v(t): v(t) =

NI(u
d
(t)) such that, ideally, that is, when

NI() is implemented using the exact parameters of N(), we
have u(t) = N(

NI(u
d
(t))) = u
d
(t), so that the signal u
d
(t) can be designed as if the actuator nonlinearity
N() is absent. When the parameters of N() are not available, we use their adaptive estimates to implement
the inverse

NI() so that the control error u(t) u
d
(t) is adaptively reduced, to achieve the desired system
performance.
Imperfections of system components, especially those of actuators, are among the factors that severely
limit the performance of feedback control, and they are usually poorly known, increase with wear and tear,
and vary from component to component. Components without such imperfections are costly to manufacture.
The essence of the adaptive inverse approach is that, upon an adaptation transient, the inverse cancels the
eects of the unknown component imperfections, to improve control system performance in the presence of
component imperfections, equivalently, to remove such imperfections.
B. System Model and Control Objective
Consider a multi-input multi-output system with actuator nonlinearities, described by a state space model:
x(t) = Ax(t) +Bu(t), u(t) = N(v(t)), y(t) = Cx(t) (3)
with A R
nn
, B R
nM
and C R
Mn
being unknown and constant parameter matrices, and x(t) R
n
,
v(t) R
M
and y(t) R
M
being the system state, input and output vector signals, where N() is the actuator
nonlinearity. The discrete-time version is x(t + 1) = Ax(t) +Bu(t), u(t) = N(v(t)), y(t) = Cx(t).
Such a plant model can be expressed in the input-output form:
y(t) = G(D)[u](t), u(t) = N(v(t)), (4)
where y(t) R
M
is the plant output vector, G(D) is an M M strictly proper rational matrix: G(D) =
C(DI A)
1
B, and u(t) = [u
1
(t), . . . , u
M
(t)]
T
and v(t) = [v
1
(t), . . . , v
M
(t)]
T
are the output and input of
the multivariable actuator nonlinearity N() = [N
1
(), . . . , N
M
()]
T
, that is,
u
i
(t) = N
i
(v
i
(t)), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, (5)
for some nonlinear functions N
i
() such as deadzone, backlash or hysteresis. As a notation, G(D) is a transfer
matrix in continuous time (when D = s denotes the Laplace transform variable or the time dierentiation
operator s[x](t) = x(t)) or in discrete time (when D = z denotes the z-transform variable or the time advance
operator z[x](t) = x(t + 1)) for a unied presentation.
The control problem is to design adaptive inverses to generate the signals v
i
(t) for canceling the eects
of the nonlinearities N
i
(), to be combined with commonly used multivariable control schemes for the linear
part G(D) to achieve desired tracking performance. In this problem, v(t) is the applied control signal and
u(t) is not accessible for either control or measurement. Such a problem can be solved in dierent ways:
output feedback for output tracking, state feedback for output tracking, and state feedback for state tracking,
depending on dierent application needs, for which systematical design solutions and analysis procedures
have been developed.
3 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

C. Actuator Nonlinearity Model and Its Inverse Model
We consider the cases when each N
i
() can be parametrized as
u
i
(t) = N
i
(v
i
(t)) = N
i
(

Ni
; v
i
(t)) =
T
Ni

Ni
(t) +a

i
(t) (6)
for some unknown parameter vectors

Ni
R
ni
, n
i
1, i = 1, . . . , M, and some unknown regressor vector
signals

Ni
(t) R
ni
and scalar signals a

i
(t). Such a parametrization has been established for N
i
() being a
dead-zone, backlash, hysteresis, or other piecewise-linear characteristic.
8, 13
To cancel the eects of such actuator nonlinearities, we use a multivariable nonlinearity inverse
v(t) =

NI(u
d
(t)), (7)
where u
d
(t) = [u
d1
(t), . . . , u
dM
(t)]
T
is a design vector signal from a feedback control law, that is,
v
i
(t) =

NI
i
(u
di
(t)), i = 1, . . . , M. (8)
Then, each

NI
i
() can be parametrized as
u
di
(t) =
T
Ni
(t)
Ni
(t) +a
i
(t), i = 1, . . . , M, (9)
where
Ni
R
ni
is an estimate of

Ni
and
Ni
(t) R
ni
and a
i
(t) are some known signals, as in the case of
an inverse for a dead-zone, backlash, or hysteresis,
8
.
13
The uncertainties in N
i
() cause a control error at each input channel:
u
i
(t) u
di
(t) =

T
Ni
(t)
Ni
(t) +d
Ni
(t), (10)
where

Ni
(t) =
Ni
(t)

Ni
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and the unparametrized error is
d
Ni
(t) =
T
Ni
(
Ni
(t)

Ni
(t)) +a

i
(t) a
i
(t), (11)
which should satisfy that conditions that d
Ni
(t) is bounded, t 0, and d
Ni
(t) = 0, t t
0
, if
Ni
(t) =

Ni
,
t t
0
, and

NI
i
() is correctly initialized: d
Ni
(t
0
) = 0 (such initialization is needed for inversion of a dynamic
nonlinearity N
i
() such as a backlash or hysteresis characteristic).
In the vector form, the control error is
u(t) u
d
(t) =

T
N
(t)
N
(t) +d
N
(t), (12)
where

T
N
(t) =
_

T
N1
(t) 0 0 0
0

T
N2
(t) 0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 0 0

T
NM
(t)
_

_
(13)

N
(t) = [
T
N1
(t), . . . ,
T
NM
(t)]
T
(14)
d
N
(t) = [d
N1
(t), . . . , d
NM
(t)]
T
. (15)
D. Adaptive Control Problems
Since the parameters

Ni
of the actuator nonlinearities N
i
() are unknown in our adaptive control problems,
we need to design adaptive schemes to update their estimates
Ni
for implementing the adaptive inverses

NI
i
(), for the dierent cases when G(D) is either known, partially known or unknown.
For model reference adaptive control of multivariable systems, we need to employ the interactor matrix
and high frequency gain matrix of the plant dynamics G(D). For an MM strictly proper full rank rational
4 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

matrix G(D), there exists a lower triangular polynomial matrix
m
(D), dened as the modied left interactor
matrix of G(D), of the form

m
(D) =
_

_
d
1
(D) 0 0
h
m
21
(D) d
2
(D) 0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
h
m
M1
(D) h
m
M M1
(D) d
M
(D)
_

_
, (16)
where h
m
ij
(D), j = 1, . . . , M 1, i = 2, . . . , M, are polynomials, and d
i
(D), i = 1, . . . , M, are monic stable
polynomials of degrees l
i
> 0, such that the high frequency gain matrix of G(D), dened as
K
p
= lim
D

m
(D)G(D), (17)
is nite and nonsingular.
8
The high frequency gain matrix represents certain couplings among the system
input and output signals. The uncertainty of such a matrix introduces challenges to the design and analysis
of adaptive control schemes for multivariable systems, especially, in the presence of actuator nonlinearities
which have another set of uncertain parameters to be addressed.
Based on the knowledge of G(D), we can design adaptive inverse control schemes for the system (4) for
the case (i) when G(D) is known, or (ii) when G(D) is unknown but K
p
is known, or (iii) K
p
is partially
known, or (iv) when G(D) and K
p
are both unknown. The solutions for the cases (i)(iii) can be derived
using the results developed in,
8
and the solutions for the case (iv) which has been an open problem are to
be developed in this paper.
In this work, we will make use of our recent progress in multivariable model reference adaptive control
(MRAC) to solve this open problem and apply the solution to adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation
for aircraft ight control systems, which are multivariable in nature. The key technical advance is a new
parametrization scheme based on the LDU or SDU decomposition of the system high frequency gain matrix
K
p
, to deal with the uncertainties of K
p
, in order to develop completely parametrized adaptive inverse
compensation control schemes with desired stability properties.
We will develop several types of adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation schemes: (i) designs using
state feedback for output tracking, and (ii) designs using state feedback for state tracking. Applications of
the developed adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation control schemes to aircraft ight control systems
will also be addressed.
We will employ the model reference adaptive control method for the design of feedback controllers based
on which adaptive schemes are designed for updating the parameters of the actuator nonlinearity inverse

NI() (we should note that, with our new results presented in this paper, other feedback control methods
can also be employed for the multi-input multi-output cases, similar to that for the single-input single-
output cases
13
). For output tracking, the control objective is to design a feedback control signal v(t) which
guarantees all signals in the closed-loop system are bounded and the system output y(t) tracks the output
y
m
(t) of a chosen reference model system
y
m
(t) = W
m
(D)[r](t), r(t) R
M
, y
m
(t) R
M
, (18)
where W
m
(D) is an M M stable transfer matrix and r(t) is a chosen reference input signal. For model
reference adaptive control, such a reference model transfer matrix is chosen as
W
m
(D) =
1
m
(D), (19)
where
m
(D) is the interactor matrix of G(D) dened in (16).
For state tracking (whose design is for the continuous-time case), the control objective is to design a
feedback control signal v(t) which guarantees all signals in the closed-loop system are bounded and the
system state vector x(t) tracks the state vector x
m
(t) of a chosen stable reference model system
x
m
(t) = A
m
x
m
(t) +B
m
r(t). (20)
where A
m
R
nn
is stable and B
m
R
nM
.
A state feedback adaptive inverse compensation control system structure is shown in Figure 1, where K
1
and K
2
are gain matrices which can be either xed or adaptively updated, depending on the knowledge of
5 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

Figure 1. State feedback inverse compensation control system.
Figure 2. Output feedback inverse compensation control system.
the system matrices (A, B, C),

NI() is an adaptive inverse of the actuator nonlinearity N(), u
d
is a state
feedback control signal, and D is either the dierentiation operator; D[x] = x(t) for the continuous-time
case, or the advance operator: D[x] = x(t + 1) for the discrete-time case.
An output feedback adaptive inverse compensation control system structure is shown in Figure 2, where

3
is a gain matrix and C
1
(D) and C
2
(D) are dynamic control blocks which can be either xed or adaptively
updated, depending on the knowledge of the plant dynamics G(D),

NI() is an adaptive inverse of the
actuator nonlinearity N(), and D is either the Laplace transform variable D = s for the continuous-time
case, or the z-transform variable D = z for the discrete-time case. To illustrate the dynamic block C
1
(D)
and C
2
(D), we consider a xed design of C
1
(D) and C
2
(D) for the case when G(D) is known. In this case,
the feedback control signal u
d
(t) is from the output feedback controller
u
d
(t) =
T
1

1d
(t) +
T
2

2
(t) +

20
y(t) +

3
r(t), (21)
where

1d
(t) = F(D)[u
d
](t), F(D) =
A(D)
(D)
, A(D) = [I
M
, DI
M
, . . . , D
2
I
M
]
T
, (22)
for a monic and stable polynomial (D) of degree 1, with being the observability index of G(D), and

i
, i = 1, 2, 20, 3, are some constant parameter matrices. With this controller structure, the dynamic blocks
C
1
(D) and C
2
(D) can be identied as
C
1
(D) =
_
I
T
1
A(D)
(D)
_
1

3
, C
2
(D) =
1
3
_

T
2
A(D)
(D)
+

20
_
. (23)
Such a feedback control structure needs to be expanded for the case when G(D) is unknown, whose design
was not available for the multivariable case and is to be developed in this paper. We next discuss key
technical issues in adaptive actuator nonlinearity inverse compensation control of multivariable systems and
then proceed to new state feedback control designs to address these issues.
E. LDU and SDU Decompositions of the High Frequency Gain Matrix K
p
The high frequency gain matrix K
p
represents certain coupling of inputs and outputs in a multivariable
system G(D) and depends on the structure and parameters of G(D). The knowledge of K
p
is crucial for
6 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

multivariable MRAC designs, and since K
p
is usually unknown, a desirable MRAC design is one which uses
less knowledge of K
p
. Recently, we have developed several multivariable MRAC designs using LDU, SDU
and LDS decompositions to reduce the knowledge of K
p
for adaptive control.
8
For the problem considered in
this research, an additional challenge is the existence of uncertainties of the actuator nonlinearity parameters

Ni
in N
i
(), which requires a new parametrization scheme to handle the uncertainties from both the actuator
nonlinearity N() and the system dynamics G(D). Such a new parametrization scheme can be derived based
on either an LDU or an SDU composition of K
p
.
We rst introduce such decompositions which are based on the leading principal minors of K
p
. The kth
leading principal minor of a square matrix A = {a
ij
} R
MM
is det
_

_
a
11
a
1k
.
.
.
.
.
.
a
k1
a
kk
_

_
, k = 1, 2, . . . , M.
Let
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, denote the leading principal minors of K
p
R
MM
.
LDU decomposition of K
p
. Assume that
i
= 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , M. Then, the high frequency gain
matrix K
p
has a unique LDU decomposition
K
p
= LD

U (24)
for some M M unit (i.e., with all diagonal elements being 1) lower triangular matrix L and unit upper
triangular matrix U and
D

= diag{d

1
, d

2
, . . . , d

M
} = diag
_

1
,

2

1
, . . . ,

M

M1
_
. (25)
In view of (25) and under the assumption that the signs of
i
are known, we have that sign[d

i
] is known,
i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and will be used in constructing adaptive parameter update laws. Such a decomposition
of K
p
will be used to derive a new error model with which the parameters in L, D

, and U can also be

estimated. For the discrete-time case, we also assume
(A1): Some upper bounds d
0
i
of |d

i
|, that is, |d

i
| d
0
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, are known.
SDU decomposition of K
p
. The gain matrix K
p
R
MM
with all its principal minors
i
= 0,
i = 1, 2, . . . , M, has a nonunique decomposition
K
p
= SD
s
U
s
, (26)
where S R
MM
is symmetric and positive denite, U
s
is an M M unit upper triangular matrix, and
D
s
= diag{s

1
, s

2
, . . . , s

M
}
= diag
_
sign [
1
]
1
, sign
_

1
_

2
, . . . , sign
_

M

M1
_

M
_
(27)
for some
i
> 0, i = 1, . . . , M, which may be arbitrary.
This SDU decomposition of K
p
follows from the LDU decomposition of K
p
, with S = LD

D
1
s
L
T
and
U
s
= D
1
s
L
T
D
s
U, for D
s
with a set of chosen
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M (that is, D
s
is not unique).
III. Adaptive Actuator Nonlinearity Compensation Control
As mentioned above, there are two sets of parameter uncertainties to be handled: one from the plant
dynamics G(D) and one from the actuator nonlinearity N(). An adaptive inverse

NI() is to handle N(),
and a multivariable feedback controller is to handle G(D). In this section we develop a general framework
for the design of adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation control schemes which employ an adaptive
inverse and an adaptive feedback controller, for dierent cases of G(D) and N().
7 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

A. Key Technical Issues
To illustrate the key technical issues in adaptive control of multivariable systems with uncertain actuator
nonlinearities, we consider the simple case when y(t) = G(D)[u](t) with G(D) = W
m
(D)K
p
, where W
m
(D)
is known and stable with desired performance properties (and thus can be used as the reference model
transfer matrix) and K
p
is nonsingular and unknown. Since W
m
(D) has good stability properties, a simple
open-loop controller structure can be used which may be chosen as
u
d
(t) =
3
r(t), (28)
where
3
R
MM
is an estimate of the unknown parameter matrix

3
= K
1
p
. For the tracking error
e(t) = y(t) y
m
(t), we can derive the tracking error equation
e(t) = W
m
(D)K
p
[

3
r](t) +W
m
(D)K
p
[

T
N

N
](t) +W
m
(D)K
p
[d
N
](t). (29)
We ignore the eect of the disturbance related W
m
(D)K
p
[d
N
](t) (to focus on the uncertainty of K
p
) and
introduce = [
T
N
,
3
]
T
,

= [
T
N
,

3
]
T
,

=

, and = [
T
N
, r
T
]
T
. Then, we write (29) as
e(t) = W
m
(D)K
p
[

T
](t). (30)
The design of a stable adaptive law for in an error equation of the form (30) needs the condition
that a matrix S
p
R
MM
is known such that K
p
S
p
= (K
p
S
p
)
T
> 0. For simplicity of presentation, we
consider the case when W
m
(D) = w
m
(D)I
M
where w
m
(D) is a scalar stable transfer function, and I
M
is the M M identity matrix. Letting

K
p
be the estimate of K
p
and

K
p
=

K
p
K
p
, and introducing
(t) = w
m
(D)I
M
[](t) and (t) =
T
(t)(t) w
m
(D)I
M
[
T
](t), we can dene the estimation error
(t) = e(t) +

K
p
(t)(t). (31)
Using (30), we have an alternative expression for the dened estimation error (t) as
(t) = K
p

T
(t) +

K
p
(t). (32)
We then choose the adaptive laws for and

K
p
(for the continuous-time case) as

T
= S
p

T
(33)

K
p
=
T
, =
T
> 0. (34)
To analyze the stability of the adaptive laws, we consider the positive denite function
V = tr[

T
] + tr[

K
T
p

1

K
p
], (35)
where
p
= K
T
p
S
1
p
= S
T
p
(K
p
S
p
)
T
S
1
p
> 0, and tr[] is the matrix trace operator
a
. With the adaptive
laws (33)(34) and the estimation error equation (32), it follows that

V = 2
T
0, which shows that the
adaptive laws (33)(34) are stable. However, there is a hidden problem in this development: the derivation
has assumed a general structure for = [
T
N
,
3
]
T
in (30), which is updated from (33), but the parameter
matrix
N
(or

N
or

=

) has a special structure as given in (13). In other words, the adaptive

law (33) generates the parameter matrix
N
(t) from

T
N
= S
p

T
N
, (36)
where
N
(t) = w
m
(D)[
N
](t), and such a
N
(t) does not have the required special form (13) in which all of
the o block-diagonal elements of
N
need to be zero and should not be updated.
Hence, the key technical issue in adaptive control of multivariable systems with uncertain actuator
nonlinearities is how to eectively deal with the uncertainty of the high frequency gain matrix K
p
of the
system transfer matrix G(D), for the design of stable adaptive laws.
On one hand, such an issue does not exist if K
p
is known. On the other hand, the issue may be unsolvable
if K
p
is completely unknown. The essential question is how to specify and use some minimum knowledge of
K
p
for adaptive control. For example, if
p
and S
p
are both diagonal, which leads to a diagonal K
p
, parameter
projection can be used to set the o-block-diagonal elements (and their time-derivatives) of
N
(t) to be zero
for all time t, to still give the desired result

V = 2
T
. How about other more general cases of K
p
? It is
the question to be addressed and answered in this paper.
a
tr[

T
] = tr[

T
p] = tr[(

T
N

N
+

T
3
)p] = tr[

N
p

T
N
] + tr[

T
3
p

3
]
8 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

Remark III.1 For the more general case when W
m
(D) is not diagonal, we can introduce the ltered error
signal e(t) = w
m
(D)W
1
m
(D)[e](t) where w
m
(D) =
1
f(D)
with f(D) being a stable polynomial such that
w
m
(D)W
1
m
(D) is a proper transfer matrix, and use (30) to express
e(t) = w
m
(D)K
p
[

T
](t), (37)
which has the same form as that considered above so that the same analysis procedure applies.
Remark III.2 When the actuator nonlinearity N() is absent from the system: y(t) = G(D)[v](t), and the
adaptive inverse

NI( ) is not needed: v(t) = u
d
(t), so that u(t) = u
d
(t), a (standard) multivariable model
reference adaptive controller can be designed for u
d
(t) to lead to a tracking error equation of the form
e(t) = W
m
(D)K
p
[

T
](t), (38)
for some

=

with and

not in a prespecied special structure, and some known vector signal

(t). For such a tracking error equation, with the help of ltering as described in (37), stable adaptive laws
similar to that in (33)(34) can be used to achieve the desired control objective.
8

Clearly, in the presence of the actuator nonlinearity N(), it is still an open technical issue to adaptively
handle the uncertainties of the system high frequency gain matrix K
p
, based on the special structure of
the actuator nonlinearity parameter matrix

N
, and new adaptive schemes are needed for stable adaptive
actuator nonlinearity compensation control for multivariable systems y(t) = G(D)[u](t) with u(t) = N(v(t))
(note that the single-input and single-output case when M = 1 has been solved in
13
).
Before we address the general cases with G(D) unknown and K
p
uncertain, next we consider two special
forms of K
p
for this open-loop control case with G(D) = W
m
(D)K
p
for W
m
(D) known and stable.
Design for K
p
= SD
s
with S = S
T
> 0 unknown and D
s
= diag{d
s1
, d
s2
, . . . , d
sM
} known. For
this case, we write the estimation error expression (32) as
(t) = SD
s
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

T
N1
(t)
N1
(t)

T
N2
(t)
N2
(t)
.
.
.

T
NM
(t)
NM
(t)
_

_
+
_

T
31
(t)
r
(t)

T
32
(t)
r
(t)
.
.
.

T
3M
(t)
r
(t)
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
+

K
p
(t), (39)
for some vector signals
Ni
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and some vector signal
r
(t), where

T
3i
(t) is the ith row of

3
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M. Introducing the augmented parameter vectors

i
= [
T
Ni
,
T
3i
]
T
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M (40)
and regressor vector signals

i
(t) = [
T
Ni
(t),
T
r
(t)]
T
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M (41)
we express (39) as
(t) = SD
s
_

T
1
(t)
1
(t)

T
2
(t)
2
(t)
.
.
.

T
M
(t)
M
(t)
_

_
+

K
p
(t). (42)
Based on the error model (42), we choose the adaptive laws for the continuous-time design as

i
(t) =
d
i

i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M (43)

(t) =
(t)
T
(t)
m
2
(t)
, (44)
9 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

where
m(t) =

_
1 +
M

i=1

T
i
(t)
i
(t) +
M

i=1

2
i
(t) (45)
and
i
> 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and > 0 are scalar design parameters.
We consider the positive denite function
V =
M

i=1
1

T
i

i
+
1

tr[

T
S
1

] (46)
and derive its time-derivative along the trajectories of (43)(44) as

V =
2
m
2
(t)
_
M

i=1
d

i
(t)

T
i
(t)
i
(t) + tr[

T
(t)S
1
(t)
T
(t)]
_
=
2
m
2
(t)
_

T
(t)D
s
[

T
1

1
(t),

T
2

2
(t), . . . ,

T
M

M
(t)]
T
+
T
(t)S
1

(t)(t)
_
=
2
T
(t)S
1
(t)
m
2
(t)
0. (47)
Hence the adaptive laws (43)(44) are stable. Since the parameters in
i
(t) take into account the special
structure (13), this design is suitable for adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation control.
Design for K
p
= D

= diag{d

1
, d

2
, . . . , d

M
} with sign[d

i
] known for i = 1, 2, . . . , M. In this case
(which leads to the choice of diagonal
p
and S
p
in (35) and (36)), we further express (42) as
(t) = D

T
1
(t)
1
(t)

T
2
(t)
2
(t)
.
.
.

T
M
(t)
M
(t)
_

_
+
_

_
(d
1
d

1
)
1
(t)
(d
2
d

2
)
2
(t)
.
.
.
(d
M
d

M
)
M
(t)
_

_
, (48)
where (t) = [
1
(t),
2
(t), . . . ,
M
(t)]
T
, and d
i
(t) is the estimate of d

i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M.
Based on this decoupled error model, we choose the adaptive laws for the continuous-time design as

i
(t) =
sign[d

i
]
i

i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M (49)

d
i
(t) =

i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, (50)
where
m(t) =

_
1 +
M

i=1

T
i
(t)
i
(t) +
M

i=1

2
i
(t) (51)

i
=
T
i
> 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and
i
> 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , M.
We consider the positive denite function
V =
M

i=1
|d

i
|

T
i

1
i

i
+
M

i=1

1
i

d
2
i
, (52)
and derive the time derivative of V as

V =
M

i=1
2d

T
i

i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)

M

i=1
2

d
i
(t)
i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
=
M

i=1
2
2
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
. (53)
10 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

This implies that the adaptive laws (49)(50) are also stable. Similarly, since the parameters in
i
(t) are
dened to take into account the special structure (13), this design is also suitable for adaptive actuator
nonlinearity compensation control. We note that the ltering technique described in Remark III.1 for a
non-diagonal W
m
(D) is also applicable to this special form of K
p
as well as that studied above.
Next, we develop stable adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation control schemes for multivariable
systems y(t) = G(D)[u](t) with u(t) = N(v(t)) for an unknown G(D) (for which adaptive feedback control
designs are used) and a general uncertain K
p
(for which the LDU or SDU decomposition of K
p
is employed,
to transfer K
p
into some special structure plus some parameter uncertainties to be estimated, for the design
of stable adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation control schemes).
B. Adaptive State Feedback Inverse Compensation Control Designs
Model reference adaptive control can be designed using either output feedback or state feedback. In many
applications, such as ight control, system states are available and state feedback control is commonly used
due to its simpler structure (as compared with compensator based on output feedback designs) and powerful
functions. State feedback control systems can be designed for either state tracking or output tracking,
under dierent design conditions. Such model reference adaptive control designs can be also developed for
multivariable systems with uncertain actuator nonlinearities. In this section, we rst solve the adaptive
actuator nonlinearity compensation control problem using state feedback for output tracking, and then
address the state tracking problem under some more restrictive plant-model matching conditions.
1. Output Tracking Designs
State feedback for output tracking designs can be derived using either the LDU or SDU decomposition of
the high frequency gain matrix K
p
of the plant transfer matrix G(D).
Consider an M-input and M-output linear time-invariant system described by
x(t) = Ax(t) +Bu(t), u(t) = N(v(t)), y(t) = Cx(t) (54)
with A R
nn
, B R
nM
and C R
Mn
being unknown and constant parameter matrices, and x(t) R
n
,
v(t) R
M
and y(t) R
M
being the system state, input and output vector signals, where N() is the actuator
nonlinearity. The discrete-time version is x(t + 1) = Ax(t) +Bu(t), u(t) = N(v(t)), y(t) = Cx(t).
The control objective is to design a state feedback control signal v(t) to make all signals in the closed-loop
system bounded and the output vector signal y(t) asymptotically track a given reference vector signal y
m
(t),
which is generated from the reference model system
y
m
(t) = W
m
(D)[r](t), W
m
(D) =
1
m
(D) (55)
where
m
(D) is a modied left interactor matrix of the system transfer matrix G(D) = C(DI A)
1
B, and
r(t) R
M
is a bounded reference input vector signal.
We use the adaptive inverse (7): v(t) =

NI(u
d
(t)), to generate the control input v(t). Then, for achieving
the stated output tracking control objective when the state vector x(t) is available, we consider the simple
nominal state feedback controller
u
d
(t) = K
T
1
x(t) +K

2
r(t) (56)
where the constant parameters K

1
R
nM
and K

2
R
MM
are dened to satisfy
C(DI ABK
T
1
)
1
BK

2
= W
m
(s), K
1
2
= K
p
. (57)
The existence of K

1
and K

2
is guaranteed, under the nominal system condition:
(A2) (A, B) is stabilizable and (A, C) is observable.
Basic control designs. To illustrate some basic design ideas, the control design for (A, B, C) known and
u(t) = v(t) is with v(t) = u
d
(t) generated from (56), which, with the plant-model matching equation (57),
leads to lim
t
(y(t) y
m
(t)) = 0 exponentially. The control design for (A, B, C) unknown and u(t) = v(t)
is with v(t) = u
d
(t) generated from the adaptive controller
u
d
(t) = K
T
1
(t)x(t) +K
2
(t)r(t) (58)
11 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

where K
1
(t) R
nM
and K
2
(t) R
MM
are the adaptive estimates of the parameters K

1
and K

2
which
are unknown as (A, B, C) are unknown. A stable adaptive law can be developed for updating the parameter
estimates K
1
(t) and K
2
(t) to ensure lim
t
(y(t) y
m
(t)) = 0.
6
The design for (A, B, C) known but u(t) = N(v(t)) with unknown parameters in N() is with v(t) =

NI(u
d
(t)) and u
d
(t) generated from (56). A stable adaptive law can be developed for updating the parameters
of

NI(), for adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation,
8
as shown next.
For the plant equation (54), control error equation (12) and control law equation (56), we have
D[x](t) = (A+BK
T
1
)x(t) +BK

2
r(t) +B

T
(t)(t) +Bd
N
(t),
y(t) = Cx(t), (59)
where D is either the dierentiation operator; D[x] = x(t) for the continuous-time case, or the advance
operator: D[x] = x(t + 1) for the discrete-time case. From the reference model equation (55) and matching
equation (57), we derive the tracking error equation
e(t) = y(t) y
m
(t) = W
m
(D)[

T
](t) +d(t), (60)
where W
m
(D) = C(DI ABK
T
1
)
1
BK

2
and d(t) = W
m
(D)[d
N
](t).
Error equation for (A, B, C) unknown and u(t) = N(v(t)). The important case which is solved in
this research is when (A, B, C) unknown and u(t) = N(v(t)) with unknown parameters. We can derive two
adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation control designs: the design based on the LDU decomposition of
K
p
, and the design based on the SDU decomposition of K
p
. Before developing such designs, we rst derive
a tracking error identity.
Using the nominal parameters K

1
and K

2
of (56), we express the plant (54) as
x(t) = Ax(t) +Bu(t)
= (A+BK
T
1
)x(t) +BK

2
r(t) +BK

2
K
p
(u(t) K
T
1
x(t) K

2
r(t))
y(t) = Cx(t). (61)
Then, with the plant-model matching equation (57) and the reference model system (55), the tracking error
e(t) = y(t) y
m
(t) satises
e(t) = W
m
(D)K
p
[u K
T
1
x K

2
r](t). (62)
Design based on LDU Decomposition of K
p
. Based on the LDU decomposition (24) of K
p
, we
have K
p
= LD

U for some M M lower triangular matrix L and upper triangular matrix U (both with all
diagonal elements being 1) and for D

in (25). Instead of using the controller structure (58), we develop an

adaptive version of
Uu
d
(t) = UK
T
1
x(t) +UK

2
r(t). (63)
Introducing the new parameter matrices

0
= I U,
T
1
= UK
T
1
,

2
= UK
T
2
, (64)
we express (63) as
u
d
(t) =

0
u
d
(t) +
T
1
x(t) +

2
r(t). (65)
We use the adaptive state feedback controller structure
u
d
(t) = [
T
1

1
(t),
T
2

2
(t), . . . ,
T
M1

M1
(t), 0]
T
+
T
1
x(t) +
2
r(t), (66)
where
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M 1,
j
, j = 1, 2, are the estimates of

i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M 1,

j
, j = 1, 2,
respectively, to be updated from some stable adaptive laws which can be developed expressing
U(u(t) K
T
1
x(t) K

2
r(t)) = u(t)

0
u(t)
T
1
x(t)

2
r(t) (67)
12 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

in the tracking error identity (62), replacing the rst u(t) in (67) by u(t) given in (12): u(t) = u
d
(t) +

T
N
(t)
N
(t)+d
N
(t), and the second u(t) by u(t) = u
d
(t)+

T
N
(t)
N
(t)+d
N
(t) , that is, u(t) =
T
N

N
(t)+
a
N
(t) +d
N
(t), to obtain
e(t) = W
m
(D)LD

[u
d
+

T
N

N
+d
N
+

0
(
T
N

N
+a
N
+d
N
)
T
1
x

2
r](t), (68)
and using (66) to lead to the tracking error equation:
e(t) = W
m
(D)LD

T
N

N
+ [

T
1

1
(t),

T
2

2
(t), . . . ,

T
M1

M1
(t), 0]
T
+

T
1
x +

2
r + (I
M
+

0
)d
N
_
(t). (69)
The design procedure below can be used for this state feedback case.
Introducing

0
= L
1
I and d
Nf
(t) = (I
M
+

0

T
1
F(D))[d
N
](t), we express

m
(D)[e](t) +

m
(D)[e](t) = D

_
(
1
(t)

1
)
T

1
(t)
(
2
(t)

2
)
T

2
(t)
.
.
.
(
M1
(t)

M1
)
T

M1
(t)
(
M
(t)

M
)
T

M
(t)
_

_
+D

d
Nf
(t), (70)
where, for (t) = [
T
4
(t),
T
40
(t),
T
2
(t), y
T
(t), r
T
(t)]
T
,

1
(t) = [
T
N1
(t),
T
1
(t),
T
(t)]
T
,

2
(t) = [
T
N2
(t),
T
2
(t),
T
(t)]
T
,
.
.
.

M1
(t) = [
T
NM1
(t),
T
M1
(t),
T
(t)]
T
,

M
(t) = [
T
NM
(t),
T
(t)]
T
(71)
and (
i
(t)

i
)
T
, i = 1, 2 . . . , M, are the (row) parameter error vectors corresponding to
i
(t), that is,

1
(t) = [
T
N1
(t),
T
1
(t), [
T
4
(t),
40
(t),
T
2
(t),
20
(t),
3
(t)]
1
]
T
,

2
(t) = [
T
N2
(t),
T
2
(t), [
T
4
(t),
40
(t),
T
2
(t),
20
(t),
3
(t)]
2
]
T
,
.
.
.

M1
(t) = [
T
NM1
(t),
T
M1
(t), [
T
4
(t),
40
(t),
T
2
(t),
20
(t),
3
(t)]
M1
]
T
,

M
(t) = [
T
NM
(t), [
T
4
(t),
T
2
(t),
20
(t),
3
(t)]
M
]
T
, (72)
where [
T
4
(t),
40
(t),
T
2
(t),
20
(t),
3
(t)]
i
is the ith row of [
T
4
(t),
40
(t),
T
2
(t),
20
(t),
3
(t)].
For

0
= L
1
I in the form

0
=
_

_
0 0 0 0

21
0 0 0

31

32
0 0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

M1 1

M1 M2
0 0

M 1

M M2

M M1
0
_

_
. (73)
we dene the parameter vectors

2
=

21
R,

3
= [

31
,

32
]
T
R
2
,
.
.
.

M1
= [

M1 1
, . . . ,

M1 M2
]
T
R
M2
,

M
= [

M 1
, . . . ,

M M1
]
T
R
M1
(74)
13 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

and let their estimates be

2
(t) =
21
(t) R,

3
(t) = [
31
(t),
32
(t)]
T
R
2
,
.
.
.

M1
(t) = [
M1 1
(t), . . . ,
M1 M2
(t)]
T
R
M2
,

M
(t) = [
M 1
(t), . . . ,
M M1
(t)]
T
R
M1
. (75)
Consider the modied interactor matrix
m
(D) given in (16). For i = 1, 2, . . . , M, choose f
i
(D) (with
f
1
(D) = d
1
(D)) as a stable polynomial whose degree is equal to the maximum of the degrees of the poly-
nomials d
j
(D) and h
m
kl
(D), j = 1, 2, . . . , i, k = 2, . . . , i, l = 1, . . . , k 1, and contains d
i
(D) as a factor,
introduce the lters h
i
(D) =
1
fi(D)
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and H(D) = diag{h
1
(D), . . . , h
M
(D)}, and dene
e(t) = H(D)
m
(D)[y y
m
](t) = [ e
1
(t), . . . , e
M
(t)]
T
(76)
for y(t) = [y
1
(t), . . . , y
M
(t)]
T
and y
m
(t) = [y
m1
(t), . . . , y
mM
(t)]
T
. For a discrete-time design, the polynomials
f
i
(D) can be simply chosen as f
i
(D) = D
ni
for a specied degree n
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M.
Dening the auxiliary error signals
e

(t) =
m
(D)[y y
m
](t) = [e
1
(t), . . . , e
M
(t)]
T
, (77)
e
i
(t) = [e
1
(t), . . . , e
i1
(t)]
T
R
i1
, i = 2, 3, . . . , M, (78)

i
(t) = h
i
(D)[e
i
](t) R
i1
, i = 2, 3, . . . , M, (79)
operating both sides of (70) by H(D), with

d
N
(t) = H(D)[D

d
Nf
](t) = [

d
N1
(t), . . . ,

d
NM
(t)]
T
, we have
e
1
(t) = d

1
h
1
(D)[(
1

1
)
T

1
](t) +

d
N1
(t),
e
2
(t) +

2
(t) = d

2
h
2
(D)[(
2

2
)
T

2
](t) +

d
N2
(t),
.
.
.
e
M1
(t) +
T
M1

M1
(t) = d

M1
h
M1
(D)[(
M1

M1
)
T

M1
](t) +

d
NM1
(t),
e
M
(t) +
T
M

M
(t) = d

M
h
M
(D)[(
M

M
)
T

M
](t) +

d
NM
(t). (80)
Introduce the auxiliary signals

i
(t) = h
i
(D)[
i
](t), (81)

i
(t) =
T
i
(t)
i
(t) h
i
(D)[
T
i

i
](t), (82)
let d
i
(t) be the estimate of d

i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and dene the estimation errors

1
(t) = e
1
(t) +d
1
(t)
1
(t),

2
(t) = e
2
(t) +
2
(t)
2
(t) +d
2
(t)
2
(t),
.
.
.

M1
(t) = e
M1
(t) +
T
M1
(t)
M1
(t) +d
M1
(t)
M1
(t),

M
(t) = e
M
(t) +
T
M
(t)
M
(t) +d
M
(t)
M
(t). (83)
Then, from (80)(83), we have the error model

1
(t) = d

1
(
1
(t)

1
)
T

1
(t) + (d
1
(t) d

1
)
1
(t) +

d
N1
(t),

2
(t) = (
2
(t)

2
)
2
(t) +d

2
(
2
(t)

2
)
T

2
(t) + (d
2
(t) d

2
)
2
(t) +

d
N2
(t),
.
.
.

M1
(t) = (
M1
(t)

M1
)
T

M1
(t) +d

M1
(
M1
(t)

M1
)
T

M1
(t)
+ (d
M1
(t) d

M1
)
M1
(t) +

d
NM1
(t),

M
(t) = (
M
(t)

M
)
T

M
(t) +d

M
(
M
(t)

M
)
T

M
(t)
+ (d
M
(t) d

M
)
M
(t) +

d
NM
(t). (84)
14 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

In this model, the parameters d
i
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, are the estimates (to be updated from some adaptive
laws) of d

i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, which are the diagonal elements of the matrix D

in the LDU decomposition (24)

of the high frequency gain matrix K
p
of the system transfer matrix G(D). The signals

d
Ni
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M,
are bounded disturbances due to the unparametrizable uncertainties of the actuator nonlinearity N(), which
are to be handled by robustication of adaptive parameter update laws.
Based on the error model (84), we choose the adaptive laws

i
(t)

i
(t + 1)
i
(t)
_
=

i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
+f
i
(t), i = 2, 3, . . . , M, (85)

i
(t)

i
(t + 1)
i
(t)
_
=
sign[d

i
]
i

i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
+f
i
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, (86)

d
i
(t)
d
i
(t + 1) d
i
(t)
_
=

i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
+f
di
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, (87)
where
m(t) =

_
1 +
M

i=1

T
i
(t)
i
(t) +
M

i=1

2
i
(t) +
M

i=2

T
i
(t)
i
(t), (88)
and, for the continuous-time case,
i
=
T
i
> 0, i = 2, 3, . . . , M,
i
=
T
i
> 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and
i
> 0,
i = 1, 2, . . . , M, or for the discrete-time case, 0 <
i
=
T
i
< 2I, i = 2, 3, . . . , M, 0 <
i
=
T
i
<
2
d
0
i
I,
i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and 0 <
i
< 2, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, with d
0
i
> 0 as in Assumption (A1). The functions f
i
(t),
f
i
(t) and f
di
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, are robustifying design signals,
7
,
8
for robustness of the adaptive laws
with respect to the bounded disturbances

d
Ni
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M. For example, f
i
(t), f
i
(t) and f
di
(t),
i = 1, 2, . . . , M, can be designed using parameter projection,
8
for which the gain matrices
i
and
i
are
chosen to be diagonal with positive diagonal elements, and the upper and lower bounds of the unknown
parameters

i
,

i
and d

i
are known and used for the parameter projection algorithm design.
Introduce the parameter errors

i
(t) =
i
(t)

i
, i = 2, 3, . . . , M,

i
(t) =
i
(t)

i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M,

d
i
(t) = d
i
(t) d

i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, (89)
and consider the positive denite function
V (

i
,

i
,

d
i
) =
M

i=2

T
i

1
i

i
+
M

i=1
|d

i
|

T
i

1
i

i
+
M

i=1

1
i

d
2
i
. (90)
For the continuous-time case, with a parameter projection design for f
i
(t), f
i
(t) and f
di
(t), i =
1, 2, . . . , M, we have the desired properties that

T
i

1
i
f
i
0,

T
i

1
i
f
i
0,
1
i

d
i
f
di
0, (91)
and that the parameter estimates
i
,
i
and d
i
are within the known upper and lower bounds of the unknown
parameters

i
,

i
and d

i
, for all i = 1, 2, . . . , M, that is, the parameters
i
,
i
and d
i
are all bounded.
Furthermore, the time derivative of V is

V =
M

i=2
2

T
i

i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)

M

i=1
2d

T
i

i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)

M

i=1
2

d
i
(t)
i
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
+
M

i=2
2

T
i

1
i
f
i
+
M

i=1
2

T
i

1
i
f
i
+
M

i=1
2
1
i

d
i
f
di
15 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7


M

i=1
2
2
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
+
M

i=1
2

d
Ni
(t)
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
=
M

i=1

2
i
(t)
m
2
(t)

M

i=1
(

d
Ni
(t)
i
(t))
2
m
2
(t)
+
M

i=1

d
2
Ni
(t)
m
2
(t)
. (92)
From this expression, it follows that
_
t2
t1
M

i=1

2
i
(t)
m
2
(t)
dt a
1
+b
1
_
t2
t1
M

i=1

d
2
Ni
(t)
m
2
(t)
dt (93)
for some constants a
1
> 0 and b
1
> 0, where

d
Ni
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, are all bounded signals.
A similar result can be derived for the discrete-time case, based on (84), using a discrete-time robust
adaptive system analysis procedure (see Section 3.8.2 and Section 9.2.11 of
8
).
Design based on SDU Decomposition of K
p
. Based on the SDU decomposition of K
p
: K
p
= SD
s
U
s
,
as given in (26), where S = S
T
> 0, U
s
is unit upper triangular, and D
s
= diag{s

1
, s

2
, . . . , s

M
} is a known
matrix with s
i
= sign[d

i
]
i
and
i
> 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, we can use the same controller structure (66) to
design an SDU based multivariable adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation control scheme, based on
the resulted tracking error equation (similar to that in (69)):
e(t) = W
m
(D)SD
s
_

T
N

N
+ [

T
1

1
(t),

T
2

2
(t), . . . ,

T
M1

M1
(t), 0]
T
+

T
1
x +

2
r + (I
M
+

0
)[d
N
]
_
(t). (94)
A dierence between an LDU based design and an SDU based design is that the uncertainty of the
matrix L in K
p
= LD

U is to be handled by adaptive estimation, while the positive deniteness of S in

K
p
= SD
s
U
s
will be utilized in the adaptive law analysis.
2. State Tracking Designs
A state tracking control system is based on the state variable system model
x(t) = Ax(t) +Bu(t), u(t) = N(v(t)). (95)
The control objective is to design the control input v(t) to ensure that the system state vector signal x(t)
can asymptotically track a reference state vector signal x
m
(t) generated from a chosen reference system
x
m
(t) = A
m
x
m
(t) +B
m
r(t) (96)
where A
m
R
nn
is stable and B
m
R
nM
. For such a control design, the matching conditions
A+BK
T
1
= A
m
, BK

2
= B
m
(97)
need to be satised, for some constant matrices K

1
R
nM
and K

2
R
MM
.
8
Adaptive state tracking
designs are developed for continuous-time systems only.
Basic control designs. To show the basic design ideas, the control design for (A, B) known and
u(t) = v(t) is with v(t) = u
d
(t) generated from the controller
u
d
(t) = K
T
1
x(t) +K

2
r(t), (98)
in the same form as that in (56), which, with the plant-model state matching equation (97), leads to
lim
t
(x(t) x
m
(t)) = 0 exponentially. The design for (A, B) unknown and u(t) = v(t) is with v(t) = u
d
(t)
generated from the adaptive controller structure
u
d
(t) = K
T
1
(t)x(t) +K
2
(t)r(t) (99)
16 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

where K
1
(t) R
nM
and K
2
(t) R
MM
are the adaptive estimates of the parameters K

1
and K

2
which
are unknown as (A, B) are unknown in this case. A stable adaptive law can be developed for updating K
1
(t)
and K
2
(t) to ensure lim
t
(y(t) y
m
(t)) = 0.
8
The design for (A, B) known but u(t) = N(v(t)) with unknown parameters in N() is with v(t) =

NI(u
d
(t)) as from (7) and u
d
(t) generated from (98). Introducing the state tracking error e
x
(t) = x(t)x
m
(t)
and using (97), (95), (96) and (12), we obtain the tracking error equation
e
x
(t) = A
m
e
x
(t) +B(

T
N
(t)
N
(t) +d
N
(t)), (100)
where

T
N
(t)
N
(t) =
_

T
N1
(t)
N1
(t)

T
N2
(t)
N2
(t)
.
.
.

T
NM
(t)
NM
(t)
_

_
. (101)
Let P = P
T
> 0 be the solution of
PA
m
+A
T
m
P = Q (102)
for a chosen matrix Q = Q
T
> 0 and dene
e(t) = B
T
Pe
x
(t) = [ e
1
(t), e
2
(t), . . . , e
M
(t)]
T
R
M
. (103)
Then, we choose the adaptive laws for
Ni
(t) as

Ni
(t) =
i
e
i
(t)
i
(t) +f
i
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, (104)
where
i
is diagonal and positive denite, and f
i
(t) is a parameter projection signal,
8
for i = 1, 2, . . . , M.
Consider the positive denite function
V (e
x
,

N1
, . . . ,

NM
) = e
T
x
Pe
x
+
M

i=1

T
Ni

1
i

Ni
(105)
and derive its time derivative along (100) and (104) as

V = e
T
x
(t)Qe
x
(t) + 2e
T
x
(t)PBd
N
(t) + 2
M

i=1

T
Ni

1
i
f
i
(t), (106)
where

T
Ni

1
i
f
i
(t) 0 from parameter projection which also ensures that the components of
Ni
(t) are
within some lower and upper parameter bounds, for i = 1, 2, . . . , M. Hence, it follows from (106) that
_
t2
t1
e
T
x
(t)e
x
(t) dt a
1
+b
1
_
t2
t1
M

i=1
d
2
Ni
(t) dt (107)
for some constants a
1
> 0 and b
1
> 0, where d
Ni
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, are all bounded signals.
Design for (A, B) unknown and u(t) = N(v(t)). In this case we also use the adaptive inverse structure
(7): v(t) =

NI(u
d
(t)) to generate the signal v(t) but an adaptive controller structure dierent from that in
(99). For adaptive state tracking control, we assume that the gain matrix K
p
=: K
1
2
satises
(A3): K
p
= L
0
D

U for a known matrix L

0
R
MM
, a matrix D

= diag{d

1
, d

2
, . . . , d

M
} with
d

i
= 0 and sign[d

i
] known, i = 1, 2, . . . , M, and a unit upper triangular matrix U R
MM
.
To derive a desired adaptive controller structure, using the nominal parameters K

1
and K

2
of (98), we
express the plant (95) as
x(t) = Ax(t) +Bu(t)
= (A+BK
T
1
)x(t) +BK

2
r(t) +BK

2
K
p
(u(t) K
T
1
x(t) K

2
r(t)). (108)
17 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

With the plant-model matching equation (97) and the reference model system (96), the state tracking error
e
x
(t) = x(t) x
m
(t) satises
e
x
(t) = A
m
e
x
(t) +B
m
K
p
(u(t) K
T
1
x(t) K

2
r(t)). (109)
With the decomposition of K
p
= L
0
D

U as in Assumption (A3), we rst develop an adaptive version of

Uu
d
(t) = UK
T
1
x(t) +UK

2
r(t), (110)
which has the same form as that in (63). Hence, following the development of (63)(66), we also use the
adaptive controller structure (66) for this state tracking case:
u
d
(t) = [
T
1

1
(t),
T
2

2
(t), . . . ,
T
M1

M1
(t), 0]
T
+
T
1
x(t) +
2
r(t). (111)
Similar to that in (67)(69), we can express (109) as
e
x
(t) = A
m
e
x
(t) +B
m
L
0
D

T
N

N
+ [

T
1

1
(t),

T
2

2
(t), . . . ,

T
M1

M1
(t), 0]
T
+

T
1
x +

2
r + (I
M
+

0
)d
N
](t)
_
. (112)
In view of (70)(72), we can further express (112) as
e
x
(t) = A
m
e
x
(t) +B
m
L
0
D

_
(
1
(t)

1
)
T

1
(t)
(
2
(t)

2
)
T

2
(t)
.
.
.
(
M1
(t)

M1
)
T

M1
(t)
(
M
(t)

M
)
T

M
(t)
_

_
+B
m
L
0
D

(I
M
+

0
)d
N
(t). (113)
for some parameters

i
(which contain

Ni
as an individual components) and their estimates
i
(t), and some
known regressor vector signals
i
(t), for i = 1, 2, . . . , M.
For P = P
T
> 0 satisfying (102), we dene
e(t) = (B
m
L
0
)
T
Pe
x
(t) = [ e
1
(t), e
2
(t), . . . , e
M
(t)]
T
R
M
(114)
where L
0
is known as given in Assumption (A3). Then, we choose the adaptive laws for
i
(t) as

i
(t) =
i
sign[d

i
] e
i
(t)
i
(t) +f
i
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, (115)
where
i
is diagonal and positive denite, and f
i
(t) is a parameter projection signal,
8
for i = 1, 2, . . . , M.
Consider the positive denite function
V (e
x
,

1
, . . . ,

M
) = e
T
x
Pe
x
+
M

i=1
|d

i
|

T
i

1
i

i
(116)
and derive its time derivative along (113) and (115) as

V = e
T
x
(t)Qe
x
(t) + 2e
T
x
(t)PB
m
L
0
D

d
N
(t) + 2
M

i=1

T
i

1
i
f
i
(t), (117)
where

T
i

1
i
f
i
(t) 0 from parameter projection which also ensures that the components of
i
(t) are within
some lower and upper parameter bounds, for i = 1, 2, . . . , M. Hence, it follows from (117) that
_
t2
t1
e
T
x
(t)e
x
(t) dt a
2
+b
2
_
t2
t1
M

i=1
d
2
Ni
(t) dt (118)
for some constants a
2
> 0 and b
2
> 0, where d
Ni
(t), i = 1, 2, . . . , M, are all bounded signals.
For the state tracking case, we need more knowledge of K
p
for an adaptive control design, that is, we
need to know the matrix L
0
given in Assumption (A3), unlike the output tracking case where the unit lower
triangular matrix L of K
p
= LD

U can be estimated. Moreover, an SDU type design does not seem to be

available for the state tracking case, due to the similar diculty in estimating such a matrix S.
18 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

IV. Concluding Remarks
Motivated by the need to compensate for the uncertain actuator nonlinearities at an aircrafts ap,
elevator, rudder and aileron servo-mechanisms, we have carried out a systematic investigation on adaptive
compensation of uncertain actuator nonlinearities in multi-input multi-output systems, and developed a
general framework for adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation control of such uncertain systems with
linear dynamics and nonlinear actuator nonlinearities represented by a general characteristic.
We have solved some key technical issues in adaptive compensation of actuator nonlinearities present
at the inputs of a multi-input multi-output dynamic system whose parameters are unknown. The system
parameter uncertainty leads to the uncertainty of the system high frequency gain matrix which, together
with the system interactor matrix, represents the system input-output coupling. We have shown how to
deal with the uncertainty of the system high frequency gain matrix in the development of adaptive laws for
the adaptive nonlinearity inverse parameters, for multivariable adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation.
Our solutions to this problem are based new parametrizations of the feedback controller structures applicable
to various cases of interest to aircraft ight control applications: state feedback control for state tracking,
state feedback control for output tracking, and output feedback control for output tracking (not presented
in this paper).
Further work is needed to extend the developed multivariable adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensa-
tion techniques to other classes of systems, including approximation based adaptive inverse compensation
designs for multi-input systems with uncertain state-dependent actuator nonlinearities and uncertain system
parameters, and adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation designs for uncertain multivariable nonlinear
systems (such designs will need to eectively handle the uncertain system gain matrices).
V. Acknowledgement
The authors thank former University of Virginia graduate students Dr. Dipankar Deb, Ms. Charu Singhal,
and Mr. Stephen Mondschein for their signicant contributions to this area of research in recent years. Their
preceding work has made possible the research presented herein.
References
1
D. Deb, G. Tao, J. Burkholder and D. Smith, An adaptive inverse control scheme for a synthetic jet actuator model,
Proceesings of the 2005 American Control Conference, pp. 2646-2651, Portland, Oregon, 2005.
2
D. Deb, G. Tao and J. Burkholder, Adaptive approximation based compensation of synthetic jet actuator nonlinearities
for aircraft control, Proceedings of the 2007 AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Hilton Head, SC, 2007.
3
D. Deb, G. Tao and J. O. Burkholder, An adaptive inverse compensation scheme for signal-dependent actuator nonlin-
earities, Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 48214826, New Orleans, LA, 2007.
4
D. Deb, G. Tao, J. O. Burkholder, D. R. Smith, Adaptive Synthetic Jet Actuator Compensation for A Nonlinear Aircraft
Model at Low Angles of Attack, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 983995, September
2008.
5
S. Mondschein, G. Tao, and J. Burkholder, Adaptive actuator nonlinearity compensation and disturbance rejection
applied to aircraft models with synthetic jets, to appear in Proc. of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference,
August 2010.
6
J. X. Guo, Y. Liu and G. Tao, Multivariable MRAC with state feedback for output tracking, to appear in Proceedings
of 2009 American Control Conference, St. Louis, MO, June 2009.
7
P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun, Robust Adaptive Control, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1996.
8
G. Tao, Adaptive Control Design and Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2003.
9
Tao, G., Adaptive inverse control using a gradient projection optimization, Journal of Optimization Theory and
Applications, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 677-691, 1997.
10
Tao, G., Adaptive inverse for actuator compensation, in Adaptive Control Systems: Advanced Techniques for Appli-
cations, G. Feng and R. Lozano, ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, London, March 1999.
11
G. Tao, Technical report for the Air Force SBIR Phase I Project Adaptive Control of Systems with Actuator Nonlin-
earities Including Actuator Free-Play, submitted to Barron Associates Inc., September, 2008.
12
G. Tao, S. H. Chen, X. D. Tang and S. M. Joshi, Adaptive Control of Systems with Actuator Failures, Springer, London,
2004.
13
G. Tao and P. V. Kokotovic, Adaptive Control of Systems with Actuator and Sensor Nonlinearities, John Wiley & Sons,
1996.
14
J. Zhou, M. J. Er, J. M. Zurada, Adaptive neural network control of uncertain nonlinear systems with nonsmooth actuator
nonlinearities, Neurocomputing vol. 70, pp. 10621070, 2007.
19 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7

15
J. Zhou, C. Wen, Y. Zhang, Adaptive output control of nonlinear systems with uncertain dead-zone nonlinearity, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 504511, March 2006.
20 of 20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

I

S

A

E

I

8
9
4

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

1
3
,

2
0
1
2

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
6
.
2
0
1
1
-
6
3
9
7