This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 03 June 2015, At: 14:00

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Systems Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsys20

Adaptive control of HammersteinWiener nonlinear

systems
a

Bi Zhang , Hyokchan Hong & Zhizhong Mao

ab

Institute of Automation, College of Information Science & Engineering, Northeastern

University, Shenyang P.R. China
b

State Key Laboratory of Synthetical Automation for Process Industries, Northeastern

University, Shenyang P.R. China
Published online: 21 Oct 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Bi Zhang, Hyokchan Hong & Zhizhong Mao (2014): Adaptive control of HammersteinWiener nonlinear
systems, International Journal of Systems Science, DOI: 10.1080/00207721.2014.971089
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2014.971089

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Systems Science, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2014.971089

Adaptive control of HammersteinWiener nonlinear systems

Bi Zhanga , Hyokchan Honga and Zhizhong Maoa,b,
a

Institute of Automation, College of Information Science & Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang P.R. China; b State Key
Laboratory of Synthetical Automation for Process Industries, Northeastern University, Shenyang P.R. China

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

(Received 23 December 2013; accepted 26 September 2014)

The HammersteinWiener model is a block-oriented model, having a linear dynamic block sandwiched by two static nonlinear
blocks. This note develops an adaptive controller for a special form of HammersteinWiener nonlinear systems which are
parameterized by the key-term separation principle. The adaptive control law and recursive parameter estimation are updated
by the use of internal variable estimations. By modeling the errors due to the estimation of internal variables, we establish
convergence and stability properties. Theoretical results show that parameter estimation convergence and closed-loop system
stability can be guaranteed under sufficient condition. From a qualitative analysis of the sufficient condition, we introduce
an adaptive weighted factor to improve the performance of the adaptive controller. Numerical examples are given to confirm
the results in this paper.
Keywords: HammersteinWiener nonlinear system; adaptive control; convergence properties; closed-loop system stability;
adaptive weighted factor

1. Introduction
There exist many methods for parameter estimation and
adaptive control for linear dynamic systems (Chen & Guo,
1991; Goodwin & Sin, 1984; Ljung, 1999). In practice,
however, almost all the physical systems are nonlinear to
some extent. As is reported recently in many papers, the
so-called block-oriented models have turned out to be very
useful in modeling and controlling nonlinear systems (Giri
& Bai, 2010). Typically, such models are Hammerstein
model (H, linear time-invariant (LTI) block following some
static nonlinear block), Wiener model (W, LTI block preceding some static nonlinear block), HammersteinWiener
model (HW, LTI block sandwiched by two static nonlinear blocks), and WienerHammerstein model (WH, a static
nonlinear blocks sandwiched by two LTI blocks).
Many approaches have been proposed to identify blockoriented nonlinear models. We list only some of the constructive contributions to readers. Roughly speaking, the
most commonly used approaches are the iterative method
(Giri, Rochdi, & Chaoui, 2009; Liu & Bai, 2007; Zhu,
2002), the blind identification method (Bai, 2002), the overparameterized method (Bai, 1998; Ding & Chen, 2005),
and the key-term separation identification method (Voros,
1999,2003; Yu, Mao, & Jia, 2013). Identification of blockoriented models is one of the key challenges explored by
many researchers. Up to now, the identification methods are
attractive, advanced, and successful.

Corresponding author. Email: maozhizhong@ise.neu.edu.cn


C 2014 Taylor & Francis

In contrast to the contributions for block-oriented nonlinear systems identification, much less efforts have been
done to design controllers for block-oriented models, which
is another key challenge omitted by many researchers. In the
previous work, Dolanc and Strmcnik (2008) and Lv and Ren
(2012) have proposed nonlinear controllers based on the
classic linear pole placement principle. The model parameters are obtained by the off-line identification, conducted
prior to the control experiment. In Fruzzetti, Palazoglu, and
McDonald (1997), Harinischmacher and Marquardt (2007),
and Patikirikorala, Wang, Colman, and Han (2012), nonlinear model predictive controllers are with applications to
realistic process conditions. Assuming the state is measurable, Bloemen, Boom, and Verbruggen (2001) and Bloemen
et al. (2001) have proposed robust model predictive controllers. Bloemens work has been further studied in Ding
and Huang (2007) and Ding and Ping (2012) in the sense
that the state is unmeasurable. In Kim, Rios-Patron, and
Braatz (2012), a robust nonlinear internal model controller
is reported.
In view of the uncertainties in the block-oriented models, an adaptive controller can achieve global stability and
satisfactory output tracking performance simultaneously
(Moreno-Valenzuela, 2013). In Chen (2007), Ding, Chen,
and Iwai (2007), Figueroa, Cousseau, Werner, and Laakso
(2007), Kung and Womack (1983), Pajunen (1992), and
Zhao and Chen (2009), adaptive controllers are studied

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

B. Zhang et al.

for H and W models, which are consisted of two blocks

and contain only one nonlinear part. As far as the authors
known, there are few adaptive controllers designed for H
W systems, which is the motivation of this work. As well,
this is the first contribution of this work.
In this work, in order to derive an adaptive controller
for HW systems, the first issue is to establish a parameterized HW model, which is suitable for identification
using the available data. Recall the most commonly used
identification methods introduced in the second paragraph.
Some special persistent excitation input signals are required in the iterative method and the blind identification method. Therefore, the methods above cannot be used
to serve as a recursive estimator in adaptive controller
design.
Up to now, the over-parameterized method has been
used successfully as recursive estimator in adaptive control for H and W systems (Chen, 2007; Ding et al., 2007;
Figueroa et al., 2007; Kung & Womack, 1983; Pajunen,
1992; Zhao & Chen, 2009). In these contributions, blockoriented models (only H and W systems considered) are parameterized to be bilinear models. Then, convergence and
stability analysis can be viewed as an extension of the linear
case well studied in Chen and Guo (1991), Goodwin and
Sin (1984), and Ljung (1999). However, if HW systems are
addressed, it is difficult and unlikely to obtain bilinear parametric models, which means that the over-parameterized
method seems not to work.
For adaptive control of HW systems, an attractive parameterization method is by the key-term separation principle, which has seldom been focused on in the contributions.
In Voros (1999, 2003), the so-called key-term separation
principle is proposed to identify the block-oriented models.
However, no general proof of convergence is carried out.
The main problem with the proof of convergence is caused
by the presence of internal variables in the data vector.
In view of this challenge, this work establishes the convergence and stability properties of block-oriented models
which are parameterized by the key-term separation principle. Theoretical results show that parameter estimation
convergence and closed-loop system stability can be guaranteed under sufficient condition. This is the second contribution of this work.
It is also noted that from a qualitative analysis of the
sufficient condition, we introduce a weighted factor and
set it as an adaptive form to enlarge the attraction domain,
enhance the stability of the closed-loop system, and improve
the performance of the proposed adaptive controller. This
is the third contribution of this work.
For a preview of this note, with the parameterization
model of the HW system, a new adaptive controller is
developed. Theoretical results show that parameter estimation convergence and closed-loop system stability can be
guaranteed under sufficient condition. From a qualitative
analysis of the sufficient condition, we introduce a weighted

Figure 1.

The discrete-time SISO HammersteinWiener model.

factor and set it as an adaptive form to enhance the stability

of the closed-loop system.
The rest of this note is arranged as follows. The problem
formulation is described in Section 2. The main results
are presented in Section 3. Some simulation examples are
conducted in Section 4. Finally, a brief summary of the
main contents is given in Section 5.
2. Problem formulation
The HW models in Figure 1 are comprised of three blocks,
where the first one g() and the third one f () are nonlinear
and static, and the second part G(z1 ) is linear and dynamic. The system output signal y(t) and input signal u(t)
are measurable. The intermediate signals x(t) and w(t) are
unmeasurable.
Assume that the linear part is an unknown single-input
single-output (SISO) discrete-time stable system which can
be described by a stable ARX model as follows:
w(t) = G(z1 )x(t)
G(z1 ) =

(1)

b1 z1 + b2 z2 + + bn zn
B(z1 )
=
A(z1 )
1 + a1 z1 + a2 z2 + + an zn
(2)

The nonlinear parts g [u(t)] and f [w(t)] can both be

expressed by nonlinear functions of the following known
bases:
x(t) = g [u(t)] =

m


ci gi [u(t)]

(3)

dj fj [w(t)]

(4)

i=1
p

y(t) = f [w(t)] =


j =1

Here, we assume that the known bases

(g
[u(t)],
g2 [u(t)], . . . , gi [u(t)], . . . , gm [u(t)]) 
and
 1
f1 [w(t)], f2 [w(t)], . . . , fj [w(t)], . . . , fp [w(t)] can both
be expressed by
gi [u(t)] = ui (t)

(5)

fj [w(t)] = w j (t)

(6)

In connection with Figure 2, the objectives of this paper

are summarized as follows:

International Journal of Systems Science

3.1. Adaptive controller design

Combining (1)(6) with Assumption 2.1 yields
y(t) = 0T (t)

(8)

where the parameter vector and signal regressive vector

0 (t) are

Figure 2.


= c1 , c2 , . . . , cm , b2 , b3 , . . . , bn , a1 , a2 , . . . , an ,
T
d2 , d3 , . . . , dp
(9)

HW system control scheme.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

0 (t) = [u(t 1), u2 (t 1), . . . , um (t 1), x(t 2),

(1) Establish a parameterized HW model which is
suitable for identification using the available signals
{u(t), y(t)}t=1,... .
(2) Propose a recursive algorithm to estimate
the parameters [a1 , a2 , . . . , an , b1 , b2 , . . . , bn , c1 ,
c2 , . . . , cm , d1 , d2 , . . . , dp ], and as well the unknown intermediate signals {x(t), w(t)}t=1,... .
(3) Design an adaptive controller so that the output
y(t + 1) tracks the given reference output y (t + 1)
by minimizing the following tracking error criterion
and study the properties of the closed-loop system

J [u(t)] = [y(t + 1) y (t + 1)]2

(7)

Before giving the main results, the following assumptions are required for deeper analysis in Section 3.
Remark 2.1: For convenience, we assume the time delay
is 1. It is easy to extend the results to d time delay.
Remark 2.2: For some nonzero and finite constants and , there is no
algo identification
1
),
f
()
and
rithm
for
distinguishing
between
g(),
G(z


g(), G(z1 )/ () , f () (Bai, 1998).
Assumption 2.1: For identifiability, two gains of the three
blocks must be fixed. Without loss of generality, we assume
that b1 = 1 and d1 = 1.
Assumption 2.2: The orders of m, n, and p are known.
B(z1 ) is of minimum phase. The nonlinear parts g [u(t)]
and f [w(t)] are continuous and the characteristics in both
can be expressed by polynomial functions.

x(t 3), . . . , x(t n), w(t 1),

w(t 2), . . . , w(t n), w2 (t), w 3 (t), . . . ,
(10)
w p (t)]T
Let y (t + 1) be a reference output signal; and the output tracking error can be defined as follows:
(t + 1) = y(t + 1) y (t + 1).
Thus, if the control signal u(t) is chosen according to
the equation y (t + 1) = 0T (t + 1) , which is obtained by
minimizing the criterion function (7), then the tracking error
(t) approaches zero asymptotically.
Let (t) be the estimate of the unknown parameter vector , then according to the certainty equivalence principle
in Goodwin and Sin (1984), or minimizing the criterion
function (7), we obtain the one-step-ahead adaptive control
law as follows:
y (t + 1) = 0T (t + 1) (t)

(11)

Now it is obvious that only the updating form of (t)

is required. One may employ the following recursive least
squares (RLS) algorithm to update (t):
a(t)P (t 1)0 (t)e0 (t)
1 + a(t)0T (t)P (t 1)0 (t)
a(t)P (t 1)0 (t)0T (t)P (t 1)
P (t) = P (t 1)
1 + a(t)0T (t)P (t 1)0 (t)
1)
e0 (t) = y(t) 0T (t)(t
= (t 1) +
(t)

(12)
(13)
(14)

Assumption 2.3: The reference output sequence {y (t)} is

bounded, i.e., |y (t)| < , t > 0.
3. Main results
Let us introduce some notation first. The symbol I stands
for an identity matrix. The superscript T denotes the matrix
transpose. E denotes the expectation of a random variable.
max [X] means the maximum eigenvalue of X.

0 (t) = [u(t 1), u2 (t 1), . . . , um (t 1), x(t 2),

x(t 3), . . . , x(t n), w(t 1),
w(t 2), . . . , w(t n), w2 (t),
w 3 (t), . . . , w p (t)]T

(15)


(t) = c1 , c2 , . . . , cm , b2 , b3 , . . . , bn , a 1 , a 2 , . . . , a n ,
T
d2 , d3 , . . . , dp
(16)

B. Zhang et al.

For system identification, maybe the most important

factor is innovation (Ljung (1999)). The true innovation
e0 (t) of system (8) can be expressed by (14). However,
since 0 (t) contains two internal variables {x(t), w(t)}t=1,...
which are generally unmeasurable, the recursive parameter
estimation cannot be performed directly on the basis of (8).
Motivated by the key-term separation principle in Voros
(1999) and (2003), we apply the estimated innovation e(t)
instead of the true innovation e0 (t) to the recursive parameter estimation algorithm and derive the following updating of (t) by the use of internal variable estimations
{x(t),

w(t)}

t=1,... :
a(t)P (t 1)(t)e(t)
1 + a(t) T (t)P (t 1)(t)
a(t)P (t 1)(t) T (t)P (t 1)
P (t) = P (t 1)
1 + a(t) T (t)P (t 1)(t)
1)
e(t) = y(t) T (t)(t

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

(t) = (t 1) +

1) =
x(t
1) +
w(t)
= x(t

n

k=2
2

m


ci ui (t 1)

i=1

k)
bk x(t

n


al w(t
l)

(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)

l=1

2),
(t) = [u(t 1), u (t 1), . . . , um (t 1), x(t
3), . . . , x(t
n), w(t
x(t
1), w(t
2), . . . ,
w(t
n), w 2 (t), w 3 (t), . . . , w p (t)]T

(22)


(t) = c1 , c2 , . . . , cm , b2 , b3 , . . . , bn , a 1 , a 2 , . . . , a n , d2 ,
T
d3 , . . . , dp
(23)
According to the certainty equivalence principle in
Goodwin and Sin (1984), or minimizing the criterion function (7), we obtain the one-step-ahead adaptive control law
as follows:
y (t + 1) = T (t + 1) (t)

(24)

In (17)(24), a(t) is a positive weighting coefficient, (t) is the approximate signal regressive vector,
[(0), (0), P (0)] are the initial conditions of the algorithm,
and P (0) = I , with normally a large positive scalar.
The control signal u(t) in (24) may be obtained by
combining (24) with (20)(23) and solving the following
nonlinear equation:
y (t + 1) = c1 u(t) + c2 u2 (t) + cm um (t)
1) + b3 x(t
2) +
+ b2 x(t
+ 1 n) a 1 w(t)
+ bn x(t
a 2 w(t
1)
2

a n w(t
+ 1 n) + d2 w (t + 1)
3

+ d3 w (t + 1) + + dp w p (t + 1)

y (t + 1)

n


+ 1 k)
bk x(t

k=2

n


al w(t
+ 1 l)

l=1

= c1 u(t) + c2 u2 (t) + + cm um (t) + d2 (c1 u(t)

+ c2 u2 (t) + + cm um (t)
n
n


+ 1 k)
+
bk x(t
al w(t
+ 1 l))2
k=2

l=1

+ d3 (c1 u(t) + c2 u2 (t) + + cm um (t)

n
n


+ 1 k)
+
bk x(t
al w(t
+ 1 l))3
k=2

l=1

. . . + dp (c1 u(t) + c2 u2 (t) + + cm um (t)

n
n


+ 1 k)
+
bk x(t
al w(t
+ 1 l))p
k=2

l=1

It is obvious that only the right-hand side of the above

equation contains unknown, i.e., the control signal u(t).
Therefore, the control signal u(t) in the above equation
may be solved by numerical methods.
The following assumption is also required and is also
reasonable: Note that we do not require that u(t) be uniquely
determined by the control law (24), because there may exist
many u(t) producing the same y (t + 1), which does not
affect our output tracking performance (Ding et al., 2007).
Remark 3.1: Notice that the degrees m and p of the
nonlinear polynomials must be odd to ensure at least one
real solution for the adaptive control law (24).
Remark 3.2: Recursive parameter estimation algorithm
(17)(23) differs from the commonly used RLS algorithm
which is applied to ordinary linear system. A standard
1). For comlinear regression model is y(t) = T (t)(t
monly used RLS in linear system, every element in (t) is
totally measurable; however, for recursive algorithm (17)
(23) proposed in this paper, not every element in (t) is mea
surable, and internal variable estimations {x(t),
w(t)}

t=1,...
are employed. One may doubt if the proposed algorithm is
feasible. Thus, convergence and stability properties are our
concerns.
Remark 3.3: Subsequence to Remark 3.2, the weighted
factor a(t) mentioned above is an important factor in convergence and stability properties analysis. Later, we will
select a(t) as an adaptive form to enlarge the attraction domain, improve performance of the proposed algorithm and
study its effect on initialization of the algorithm in details.

International Journal of Systems Science

3.2. Convergence properties
In the following, we analyze convergence properties of the
system (8) with the recursive parameter estimation algorithm (17)(23).
Define
= (t)
(t)

(25)

V (t) = T (t)P 1 (t)(t)

(26)

Q(t) = a(t) T (t)P (t 1)(t)

(27)

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

Then, from (8), (19) and (25), we have

1) = 0T (t) T (t)(t
1)
e(t) = y(t) T (t)(t

 T
= 0 (t) T (t) + T (t)[ (t 1)]
1)
= T (t) T (t)(t
(28)
where (t)
= 0 (t) (t).
Define an unknown coefficient (t) to model errors due

to the estimation of internal variables {x(t),

w(t)}

t=1,... , so
that we obtain the following equality:
(t) = T (t) e1 (t)

(29)

Proof of Lemma 1: The proof of this lemma is motivated

by Boutayeb and Darouach (1995) and Fu and Chai (2013).
We define the gain vector as follows:
L(t) =

P (t 1)(t)
P (t 1)(t)
=
1 + a(t) T (t)P (t 1)(t)
1 + Q(t)

(32)

Then, (18) becomes

P (t) = P (t 1) a(t)L(t) T (t)P (t 1)
= [I a(t)L(t) T (t)]P (t 1)
[I a(t)L(t) T (t)] = P (t)P 1 (t 1)
P 1 (t) = [1 + Q(t)] P 1 (t 1)
P 1 (t)P (t 1) = [1 + Q(t)] I
(33)
And (17) becomes
(t) = (t 1) + a(t)L(t)e(t)
1) + (t)e(t)]
= (t 1) + a(t)L(t)[ T (t)(t
T
1) + a(t)L(t)(t)e(t)
= [I a(t)L(t) (t)](t
1

= P (t)P (t 1) (t 1) + a(t)L(t)(t)e(t) (34)

Then, (28) becomes

1)
e(t) = (t)e(t) T (t)(t

(30)

Remark 3.4: Consistent with Remark 3.2, due to the

use of internal variable estimations {x(t),

w(t)},

convergence properties of recursive parameter estimation algorithm (17)(23) are different from the commonly used RLS
in linear system. The aim, in what follows, is to determine
conditions for which {V (t)}t=1,... is a decreasing sequence
taking (t) into account. This problem returns to show
that what limitations are in using the estimated innovation
e(t), which is estimated from internal variable estimation
{x(t),

w(t)}

t=1,... , instead of the true innovation e0 (t) to

recursive parameter estimation algorithm.

Therefore, from (34), it is obvious that

= P 1 (t 1) (t 1)
P 1 (t)(t)
+ a(t)P 1 (t)L(t)(t)e(t)
According to (25)(35), we can obtain
T (t 1)
V (t) V (t 1) = T (t)P 1 (t)(t)
1)
P 1 (t 1)(t
1) + a(t)L(t)e(t)]T
= [(t
[P 1 (t 1) (t 1)
+ a(t)P 1 (t)L(t)(t)e(t)]
T (t 1)P 1 (t 1) (t 1)

Lemma 1: For the system (8) with the recursive estimator

(17)(23), if the condition


1
< (t) < 
1 + Q(t)
1 + Q(t)
1

(31)

= a(t)LT (t)P 1 (t 1) (t 1)e(t)

+ a(t) T (t 1)P 1 (t)L(t)(t)e(t)
+ a 2 (t)LT (t)P 1 (t)L(t)(t)e(t)
1)]
[e(t) T (t)(t

holds, then it follows that



1
2
V (t) V (t 1) = a(t)e (t)
(t) 0
1 + Q(t)
a(t)e2 (t)
=0
lim
t 1 + Q(t)
1)] = 0
lim [ (t) (t
2

(35)

a(t) [(t)e(t) e(t)] [e(t) + (t)e(t)]

1 + Q(t)
2
a(t)Q(t) (t)e2 (t)
+
1 + Q(t)


1
2
2
(t)
= a(t)e (t)
(36)
1 + Q(t)
=

B. Zhang et al.

Since a(t) is positive, therefore, if condition (31) holds,

we have


1
2 (t) 0
V (t) V (t 1) = a(t)e2 (t)
1 + Q(t)
(37)
From (26) and (37), we know that V (t) is a nonnegative,
nonincreasing function, hence the limit of V (t) exists when
t . Therefore, it yields

lim a(t)e2 (t)

1
2 (t) = 0
1 + Q(t)

(38)

Since the condition (31) holds, there exists a such

that

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

2 (t) =

,
1 + Q(t)

1+Q(t)

rameter estimation algorithm may tolerate arbitrary bad

initial condition and consequently converges to a finite vector (t) (not necessarily equal to ). Therefore, a small a(t)
can enhance the convergence of the proposed algorithm.
However, it is also noted from (17) that a small a(t) can
also slow down the convergence rate.
A compromise is to set a(t) as an adaptive form
(Boutayeb & Aubry, 1999):
a(t) =

0 < 1

1
1 + Q(t)


=0

(39)

It is obvious that
a(t)e2 (t)
=0
t 1 + Q(t)
lim

(40)

From (17), we have

(t 1)||2 =
||(t)

a (t)e (t) (t)P (t 1)(t)

2

[1 + Q(t)]2
a 2 (t)e2 (t)max [P (0)]

1 + Q(t)

where max [P (0)] means the maximum eigenvalue of P (0).

Therefore,
2
2
(t
1)||2 lim a (t)e (t)max [P (0)] = 0
lim ||(t)
t
t
1 + Q(t)
(41)
This proves Lemma 1.

Remark 3.5: Equation (31) can be viewed as a sufficient

condition for parameter estimation convergence. For system
with enough prior knowledge, it is easy to obtain a good
initialization, such that condition (31) holds; however, not
every system is that well known. Therefore, it is important
to find an effective way to tolerate a bad initial condition
and enhance convergence of parameter estimation.
Most certainly, sufficient condition (31) cannot be
checked before the process is started; however, a qualitative analysis from sufficient
condition (31) is of great

determines
interest since the internal 1 , 1
1+Q(t)

T (t)P (t

1
1)(t) +

(42)

where and are positive real coefficients to fixed by the

user, may enlarge the internal

Rewrite (38) as follows:

lim a(t)e2 (t) (1 )

domain to which (t) should belong to, so that {V (t)}t=1,...

is a decreasing sequence. At the same time, it inspires us
to investigate the role of weighted factor a(t) in satisfying
condition (31). For example, from the definition of (t)
in (29) and Q(t) in (27), one intuitive idea is to set a(t)
is close to 1, then the pasufficiently small so that 1

1+Q(t)

1
1 + Q(t)

,

1 + Q(t)

(43)

in order to satisfy sufficient condition (31). The choice of

is suggested to be sufficiently large, especially for a bad
initial condition; while is suggested to be small enough
to ensure a fast convergence rate.
Remark 3.6: It is also noted that the adaptive form a(t)
is bounded provided that (t) and P (t) are bounded. Later,
in the next part, we will illustrate that if the adaptive controller (17)(24) is applied, then all the signals are bounded.
Therefore, the proof of Lemma 1 is still tenable even if an
adaptive form of a(t) is adopted.

3.3. Closed-loop system stability

Now we will present the stability results of the closed-loop
system via applying the key technical lemma (Lemma 6.2.1
in Goodwin & Sin, 1984) to (40).
Rewrite (40) as follows:
a(t)e2 (t)
e2 (t)
= lim 1
=0
t 1 + Q(t)
t a (t) + T (t)P (t 1)(t)
(44)
Since a(t) is an adaptive form in (42), we have
lim

e2 (t)
=0
t ( + 1) T (t)P (t 1)(t) +
lim

(45)

From (13), it is noted that P 1 (t) = 1 +

T
i=1 a(i)(i) (i). Therefore, P (t) is sure to converge to a finite symmetric matrix P (t).
t

International Journal of Systems Science

Motivated by the key technical lemma (Lemma 6.2.1 in
Goodwin & Sin, 1984), it is obvious that only the linear
boundedness condition between (t) and e(t) is required:
||(t)|| k1 + k2 max |e( )|
1< <t

||(t)||
is bounded.

(49)

Since (t) is bounded at any time t, from (20) and (47),

we have

Remark 3.7: For a commonly used linear adaptive control

system, the so-called linear boundedness condition (44) is
easy to be met (Theorem 6.3.1 in Goodwin & Sin, 1984);
while for an HW system with adaptive controller (17)
(24), since the approximate signal regressive vector (t)
i), w(t
contains internal variable estimations x(t
i),

and powers of u(t i), x(t i), w(t

i), we seek to establish the linear boundedness condition (46) in a different
way.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

T (0)(0),

i.e., it
From (35), we know that T (t)(t)
yields that

(46)

where ki represents the finite positive constant.

1)| k5 + k6 max |u( 1)| k7 + k8 max |y( )|

|x(t
1< <t

Definition 1: le denotes the space of sequences which are

bounded in finite time, i.e.,


= X : N R/ sup |x(j )| < , for all k N

1< <t

(50)
Similar to the analysis in (50), we can also obtain the
boundedness condition between |w(t)|

and |y(t)|:
|w(t)|

k9 + k10 max |y( )|

1< <t

(51)

From the definition of (t) in (22), we have

First, let us give a definition proposed by Kung and

Womack (1983, De.1).

le

||(t)|| k11 + k12 max |y( )|

1< <t

(52)

Combining (52) with (24) and (28), and using Assumption 2.3 yield
||(t)|| k11 + k12 max |e( ) + y ( )|

kj

1< <t

k1 + k2 max |e( )|

Remark 3.8: We emphasize that the following lemmas are

established via the fact that two related sequences which
are uniformly bounded grow at the same rate (Kung &
Womack, 1983).
Lemma 2: For the system (8), if um (t) and x(t) belong to
le , then um (t) and x(t) grow at the same rate; if w p (t) and
y(t) belong to le , then w p (t) and y(t) grow at the same
rate.
Proof of Lemma 2: Kung and Womack (1983) provide a
method to establish the linear boundedness condition for
polynomial nonlinearities. The proof of this lemma is a
straightforward extension of Lemma 5 in Kung and Womack (1983).

1< <t

(53)

This proves Lemma 4.

Now we give the main theorem.
Theorem 1: Let Assumptions 2.12.3 and the condition (31) hold for the system (8); use the adaptive controller (17)(24), then all the signals are bounded and
lim [y(t) y (t)] = 0.

Proof of Theorem 1: First, we want to prove that {e(t)} is a

bounded sequence. The proof is by contradiction. Assume
there exists a subsequence {tn } such that

Lemma 3: For the system (8), if u(t), x(t), w(t) and y(t)
belong to le , then

lim |e(tn )| =

(54)

|e(t)| |e(tn )|, if t < tn

(55)

tn

and
|u(t 1)| k3 + k4 max |y( )|
1< <t

(47)

Proof of Lemma 3: From Lemmas 2 and B3.3 in Goodwin

and Sin (1984), it is easy to obtain Lemma 3.
Lemma 4: For the system (8) with the adaptive controller
(17)(24), if the sufficient condition (31) holds, then the
linear boundedness condition (46) holds.
Proof of Lemma 4: From Lemma 1, we obtain
V (t) V (t 1) V0 (t)
T (t)P 1 (t)(t)

T (0)P 1 (t)(0)
(48)

Along the subsequence {tn }, since and are finite

positive scalars, and P (tn ) is a finite symmetric matrix, we
say that there exists a finite positive K such that




e(tn )




 ( + 1) T (tn )P (tn 1)(tn ) + 1/2 
|e(tn )|

1/2
K||(tn )||2 + K

B. Zhang et al.
|e(tn )|
1/2
n )|| + K
|e(tn )|
1/2
K (k1 + k2 |e(tn )|) + K 1/2

K 1/2 ||(t

(56)

Step 2. The updating of { (t), x(t),

w(t)}:

{(t),
x(t),
w(t)}

are updated according to

(17)(23) and (42).
Step 3. The updating of u(t): u(t) is updated according to (24).

Combining (56) with (54) yields





e(tn )


lim  


1/2
tn 

T
( + 1) (tn )P (tn 1)(tn ) +

1
K 1/2

k2

>0

4. Examples
Three simulation examples are conducted to confirm the
results in this paper.
(57)

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

Conclusion (57) is obviously contradictory to (45).

Therefore, {e(t)} must be a bounded sequence.
From (53), we know that {||(t)||} is also a bounded
sequence. Thus, all the signals in Figure 2 are bounded.
From equation (45) and the boundedness of (t),
, , and P (t), we conclude that limt e(t) =
limt [y(t) y (t)] = 0.
This proves Theorem 1.
To end this section, in connection with Figure 2, the
implementation steps of the proposed control algorithm are
summarized as follows:
The initialization methods are as follows:
Step 1 (Initialization of (0)): If a prior knowledge about the system is available, it would
be preferable to choose (0) as close to the
true parameter as possible.; Otherwise, (0)
may be chosen as
(0) = l1 (1, . . . , 1)T
where l1 is a small positive real scalar.
Step 2 (Initialization of P (0)): A large enough
parameter estimation error covariance matrix
P (0) is suggested:
P (0) = l2 I
where l2 is a large positive real scalar.
Step 3 (Determination of a(t)): The weighted
factor a(t) is chosen as (42), where and
are chosen appropriately according to the
initial conditions.
The updating steps of parameter estimation (t), in
ternal variable estimations {x(t),
w(t)},

and control
signal u(t) are as follows:
Step 1. Collect available input-output data
{u(t), y(t)}.

4.1. Example 1
The first one is to introduce how to choose a(t) to find good
initialization and improve the performance of the algorithm.
Suppose that the simulated plant is given by the following
HW system.
The discrete-time linear block is described by
w(t) = G(z1 )x(t) =

z1 +0.15z2
x(t)
1 0.2z1 +0.35z2

The two nonlinear blocks are both described by threeorder polynomial functions:
x(t) = 0.1u3 (t) + 0.5u2 (t) + 0.1u(t)
y(t) = 0.13w3 (t) + w(t)
The adaptive controller (17)(24) is applied. The
information vector of the above HW system is
2), w(t
(t) = [u(t 1), u2 (t 1), u3 (t 1), x(t

1), w(t
2), w 3 (t)]T , and the parameter vector is
Parameter
= [0.1, 0.5, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.35, 0.13]T .
estimation error covariance matrix P (0) = 105 I is
applied. The reference output signal y (t) is designed to
be

y (t) =

1,
0.5,

if
if

t [1, 100)
t [100, 200]

We consider the following three situations to show the

effect of a(t) and the initial condition (0) on the corresponding tracking performance.
Simulation 1.1: Initial condition is (0) = 2 (1, . . . , 1)T ,
and the weighted factor is chosen as a(t) = 1.
Simulation 1.2: Initial condition is (0) = 2 (1, . . . , 1)T ,
and the weighted factor is chosen as
a(t) =

1
20 T (t)P (t 1)(t) + 0.01

Simulation 1.3: Initial condition (0)

comes from the
convergent parameter estimation of Simulation 2, and the

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

International Journal of Systems Science

Figure 3.

Output response and control input signal in Simulation 1.2.

weighted factor is chosen as

a(t) =

10 T (t)P (t

1
1)(t) + 0.01

The simulation experiment goes through 200 samples.

Numerical results are shown in Figures 3 and 4 with both
the output response y(t) and input control u(t). In each
group of figures, the upper one shows the tracking output
response y(t) (the solid line) versus the reference y(t) (the
dotted line); while the lower one shows the control signal
u(t).
In Simulation 1.1, a divergent tracking is obtained
(therefore, it is not shown in the figures). The reason is
that, without a weighted factor a(t), a bad initial estimate
(0) cannot ensure the parameter convergence condition
(31); therefore, Theorem 1 cannot hold and the closed-loop
HW system is not stable. In Simulation 1.2, the initial estimate (0) is still bad; however, since a suitable weighted
factor a(t) is applied to enlarge the parameter convergence
domain (31), the closed-loop system is stable. At the same
time, it can be seen from Figure 3 that the speed of response is very slow and therefore the controller cannot be
put into practice yet. But through Simulation 1.2, we have
some level of knowledge about the unfamiliar system, and
therefore obtain a good enough initial condition for later
work. In Simulation 1.3, the initialization of (0) comes
directly from the convergent parameter estimation of Simulation 1.2, which is good enough for the proposed adaptive controller (17)(24) to achieve a satisfactory tracking
performance.

Example 1 confirms the results earlier: the adaptive

form a(t) enlarges the attraction domain, enhance performance of the proposed algorithm and can be chosen suitably
to explore an unfamiliar HW system, and obtain a good
enough initialization.
It is noted that in (42) the coefficients and play
important roles in controller design. In our experiment, the
coefficient is set to be 0.01, but it is of great interest to
choose an appropriate . If is too large, then, although
the closed-loop stability is guaranteed, the response is very
slow; on the other hand, if is too small, then the overshoot
and oscillation may be undesirable. Therefore, it is better
to choose the coefficients and by trial and error.
Simulations 1.2 and 1.3 can be seen as the procedures to
put the proposed adaptive controller (17)(24) into practice
when an HW system is unfamiliar to us. Sure enough, if
parameter estimation of an unfamiliar HW system is possible to be conducted prior to our experiment, the controller
design may become much easier and the performance may
become better as well. The parameter estimation schemes
are extensive indeed: one may refer to the existing contributions in Section 1; actually, the parameter estimation
algorithm (17)(23), which is derived by the use of the internal variable estimation, is also effective in identifying
the HW system and the corresponding theoretical proof
can be found in Yu, Mao, and Jia (2013).

4.2. Example 2
In this example, we show the performance of the proposed
adaptive controller (17)(24) when there exist disturbance

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

10

Figure 4.

B. Zhang et al.

Output response and control input signal in Simulation 1.3.

uncertainties and plant uncertainties. We consider the following two situations:

Simulation 2.1: Consider the same HW system as that
in Example 1. The noise works on the output y(t) with
SNR = 20db. The controller is the same as that in Sim-

Figure 5.

Output response and control input signal in Simulation 2.1.

ulation 1.3. In this work, only disturbance uncertainty is

considered.
Simulation 2.2: Based on Simulation 2.1, some plant uncertainties are also added into the HW system in this simulation. At the 100th sample time, the whole block-oriented

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

International Journal of Systems Science

Figure 6.

11

Output response and control input signal in Simulation 2.2.

system suffers about 10% plant uncertainties, i.e., the linear

block becomes
w(t) = G(z1 )x(t) =

z1 +0.17z2
x(t)
1 0.22z1 +0.37z2

and the two nonlinear blocks become

x(t) = 0.11u3 (t) + 0.52u2 (t) + 0.11u(t)
y(t) = 0.15w 3 (t) + w(t)
The other conditions are the same as those in Simulation
2.2. In this work, both disturbance uncertainties and plant
uncertainties are considered.
From numerical results shown in Figures 5 and 6, we
can see that the closed-loop tracking performance is satisfactory when uncertainties exist in the nonlinear systems.
This confirms that the robustness of the proposed adaptive
controller is reliable.

4.3. Example 3
In this example, we compare the proposed adaptive controller (17)(24) with some other existing HW model controllers. Consider the following HW plant:
A smooth saturation is taken as input nonlinearity,
which is often encountered in practice:
x(t) =

eu(t) 1
eu(t) + 1

In the state space, the discrete-time linear block is represented by


X 1 (t)
2.8
1.1
0.7


X (t + 1) = 2
0
0
X 2 (t)

2


0
0.5
0
X3 (t + 1)
X 3 (t)

2.5
+ 0 x(t)
0

X1 (t + 1)


w(t) = 0.4

X 1 (t)

0.1
X 2 (t)

X 3 (t)


In the above description, we let [X1 (t), X 2 (t), X 3 (t)]T

be the state. It is sure that the linear block can also be
described by the following discrete transfer function:
w(t) = G(z1 )x(t) =

z1 + 0.25z3
x(t)
1 2.8z1 + 2.2z2 0.7z3

The output nonlinear block is represented by

y(t) = w3 (t) + w(t)
The structures of the linear part and the input nonlinearity of this system are borrowed from Example 4.1 in

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

12

B. Zhang et al.

Figure 7. Output response and control input signal in Simulations 3.13.4. (a) Overall view for 100 samples (when the HW system
suffers plant parameters uncertainties at the 50th sample, the MPC control scheme via nonlinearities removal utilized in Simulation 3.1
leads to divergent and unstable control effect. Thus, this image shows no curves for Simulation 3.1 after the 50th sample.). (b) Partial
enlarged details for the 1st to the 30th and the 40th to the 70th samples (the left group of the images shows the dynamic response
performance, while the right-side group shows the robustness of Simulations 3.23.4).

Bloemen et al. (2001) with contrived parameters, which is

just a SISO H model. In order to consider the HW model,
we have also added the output nonlinearity.
In this work, we conduct the following four groups of
experiments:
Simulation 3.1: Apply the model predictive control (MPC)
scheme in Patikirikorala et al. (2012) to control the HW
plant.
This control method is derived from the standard finitehorizon linear MPC scheme. Based on the specific structure of HW model, the nonlinearities are removed from
the optimization problem via using pre-inverse and postinverse nonlinear compensators. Thus, the control problem

in the original nonlinear system is transformed into the intermediate linear block variables and may be solved using a
standard quadratic programming. Some similar approaches
can also be found in Fruzzetti et al. (1997), Norquay, Palazoglu, and Romagnoli (1998), and Patwardhan, Lakshminarayanan, and Shan (1998).
Simulation 3.2: Apply the MPC scheme in Bloemen et al.
(2001) to control the HW plant.
This control method is derived from the infinite-horizon
robust MPC scheme, which is first introduced in Kothare,
Balakrishnan, and Morari (1996). Unlike the methods in
Simulation 3.1, Bloemen et al. (2001) took the effect of the
input and output nonlinearities into account when solving

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

International Journal of Systems Science

the optimization problem subject to linear matrix inequalities (LMIs). This is achieved by transforming the static
nonlinearities into polytopic descriptions. Thus, the HW
model is represented as a linear model with uncertainty,
which enables the use of robust linear MPC techniques to
control this kind of system. A similar approach can also be
found in Bloemen et al. (2001).
Simulation 3.3: Apply the dynamic output feedback MPC
scheme (Algorithm 3) in Ding and Ping (2012) to control
the HW plant.
This control method is also derived from the infinitehorizon robust MPC scheme. Compared with the early
methods in Simulation 3.2, some important improvements
are made in Ding and Ping (2012): the state is assumed to be
unmeasurable and thus the dynamic output feedback control
law is derived to satisfy the real industrial situation; some
different formulations of the control algorithms with considerably lower online computational burden (Ding, Huang,
& Xu, 2011) are suggested; the input nonlinearity is alleviated by invoking the two-step method (Ding & Xi, 2006;
Ding, Xi, & Li, 2004). A similar approach can also be found
in Ding and Huang (2007).
Simulation 3.4: Apply the proposed adaptive control
scheme to control the HW plant. We use a five-order polynomial function to approximate the input nonlinearity. The
other conditions are the same as those in Examples 1 and
2.
In all the experiments, the reference output y (t) is always taken to be 2. Let us also introduce the disturbance
(t), which is selected to be 0.1 (t) 0.1. The disturbance works totally on the output nonlinearity, while it
multiplies 0.05 and then works on the linear block.
The simulations go through 100 samples. At the 50th
sample, the HW system suffers the following plant uncertainties, i.e., the linear block becomes

X 1 (t + 1)

2 1.1 0.7

X (t + 1) = 1
0
0
X2 (t)

2


0 0.5
0
X 3 (t + 1)
X3 (t)

2.5
+ 0 x(t)
0


X1 (t)


 

w(t) = 0.4 0 0.2

X2 (t)
X1 (t)

X3 (t)
or
w(t) = G(z1 )x(t) =

z1 +0.25z3
x(t)
1 2z1 +1.1z2 0.35z3

while the two nonlinear blocks remain undisturbed.

Table 1.

13

The computational burdens in Example 3.

Algorithm
Simulation 3.1
Simulation 3.2
Simulation 3.3
Simulation 3.4

Computational time for

each iteration (s)
0.01
5
1.5
0.01

Figure 7 shows the output response and control input

signal in Simulations 3.13.4, and Table 1 shows the corresponding online computational complexities. It is noted that
since the MPC control scheme via nonlinearities removal
leads to divergent and unstable control effect, we show no
curves for Simulation 3.1 after the 50th sample. To show the
dynamic response performance and the robustness clearly,
partial enlarged details are also available in Figure 7. From
the numerical results, we obtain the following conclusions:
In Simulation 3.1, since the nonlinearities are directly
removed from the control problem via an inversion,
the effects of the nonlinearities on inputoutput behaviors of the plant are not taken into account anymore by the controller. Even though the calculated
x(t) may be optimal with respect to the performance
index about the intermediate linear block, the resulting inverted u(t) may be far from the real optimal
control input. From Figure 7, we find that the overshoot and oscillation are really severe, which validate
the drawback of simply designing MPC controller via
nonlinearities removal. In addition, since the above
control scheme leads to divergent and unstable control effect when plant uncertainties appear at the 50th
sample, we know that its robustness is the worst.
This conclusion is coincident with the fact that the
primary disadvantage of the commonly used MPC
is its inability to deal with plant model uncertainties
(Kothare et al., 1996). Meanwhile, the main merit of
the above controller is that it is easy to be implemented and the computational complexity is low.
In Simulation 3.2, the nonlinearities are transformed
into polytopic descriptions and thus the infinitehorizon MPC algorithm leads to a convex optimization problem subject to LMIs. From Figure 7, it is
shown that the controller offers satisfactory control
performance. It outperforms the algorithm of Simulation 3.1 mainly because it takes the effect of the
nonlinearities into account in the optimization problem. However, at the same time, from Table 1, it is
obvious that the computational burden is too heavy.
It has become a consensus that the implementation of
the LMIs-based MPC algorithm suffers from a large
computational burden due to the complex optimization problem solved at every sampling time (Ping &

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

14

B. Zhang et al.
Ding, 2013). On the other hand, from the control effect of the later 50 samples when plant uncertainties
suffered, we find that its robustness is still limited and
seems not good enough.
In Simulation 3.3, since some important improvements are made in Ding and Ping (2012), from
Figure 7 and Table 1, it is known that both the
controller performance (the dynamic response performance and the robustness) and the computational
time are improved. However, due to the inevitable optimization procedure, it may be still only suitable to
implement such a controller on some slow-response
control systems, e.g., some chemical industry control
systems.
In Simulation 3.4, the main merits of the proposed
adaptive controller are shown in Figure 7 and Table 1:
the closed-loop performance is satisfactory; at the
same time, the controller is suitable to be implemented online. In addition, as the proposed control
scheme also contains the recursive estimator, thus the
controller can adaptively handle the plant uncertainties and guarantee the closed-loop stability.

It is also necessary to point out the limitations of the

proposed adaptive control scheme at the present stage. Although it has already been shown in the simulation study
that, compared with the method in Ding and Ping (2012),
the proposed method is simpler, easier to be implemented
online, and more adaptive to plant uncertainties; however,
three main drawbacks are as follows:
For HW models containing some complex and hard
nonlinearities, the descriptions in (3)(6) may be no
more appropriate, which may lead to unsatisfactory
control performance. For instance, the descriptions
(3)(6) may not deal with the nonlinearities in Examples 6.16.2 in Ding and Ping (2012).
From numerical results, the proposed algorithm
tracks the reference rapidly; however, it also sometimes lead to small overshoot and undershoot at the
beginning procedure. This may be improved by taking the control signal increment into account in the
criterion function (7). It is well known that the adaptive control scheme derived from such criterion has
always been a challenge (Lo, Jiang, & Li, 2009), especially for the HW nonlinear system. Some further
researches on this topic are interesting.
Theoretical results have shown that the closed-loop
stability can be guaranteed under sufficient condition
(31). At present, we give a qualitative analysis for this
sufficient condition and set the weighed factor a(t)
as an adaptive form to enhance the stability. However, this treatment may still limit the performance
of the proposed controller. A better choice may be
some deeper quantitative analysis of the sufficient
condition (31).

In sum, the proposed control method has some significant merits, but some further researches are still needed.
We should also point it out that, for some complex HW
systems, the method in Ding and Ping (2012) may result in
better performance.

5. Conclusions
In this note, an adaptive controller is developed for the H
W systems. In view of adaptive control of HW systems, an
attractive parameterization method is by the key-term separation principle, which is omitted by many researchers.
Though the key-term separation principle has been proposed several years ago and used to identify the blockoriented models successfully, however, to our knowledge,
no general proof of convergence has been carried out. The
main problem of the proof is caused by the presence of
internal variables in the data vector. In view of this challenge, this work analyzes convergence and stability properties of block-oriented models which are parameterized by
the key-term separation principle. Theoretical results show
that parameter estimation convergence and the closed-loop
system stability can be guaranteed under sufficient condition. From a qualitative analysis of the sufficient condition,
we introduce a weighted factor and set it as an adaptive
form to enhance the stability of the closed-loop system.
The basic ideas can be easily extended to adaptively control H and W systems with polynomial nonlinearities. It
is also noted that the key-term separation principle has
successfully been used to identify block-oriented models
with piecewise-linear nonlinearities (Voros, 1999, 2003)
or dead-zone nonlinearities (Yu, Mao, & Jia, 2013). Other
problem areas where further research might give new results are adaptive controllers for these discontinuous blockoriented models.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful and constructive comments to improve the quality of this
note.

Funding
This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 61333006, 61473072].

Notes on contributors
Bi Zhang was born in Shenyang, Liaoning, China. He is currently studying for a
PhD degree in the Northeastern University,
Shenyang, China. His main research interests are nonlinear adaptive control and parameter estimation.

International Journal of Systems Science

Hyokchan Hong is working towards his
PhD degree at Northeastern University,
China. His main research interests are nonlinear system modeling and control.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

Zhi-Zhong Mao received his BS degree

from Harbin Electrician College, Harbin,
China in 1982, and the MS and PhD degrees
from Northeastern University, Shenyang,
China in 1984 and 1991 respectively. He
is a professor and a PhD supervisor at
Northeastern University, China. His main
research interests are modeling, control and
optimization in complex industrial systems.

References
Bai, E. (1998). An optimal two-stage identification algorithm for
HammersteinWiener nonlinear systems. Automatica, 34(3),
333338.
Bai, E. (2002). A blind approach to the HammersteinWiener
model identification. Automatica, 38(6), 967979.
Bloemen, H., Boom, T., & Verbruggen, H. (2001). Model-based
predictive control for HammersteinWiener systems. International Journal of Control, 74(5), 482495.
Bloemen, H., Chou, C., Boom, T., Verdult, V., Verhaegen, M., &
Backx, T. (2001). Wiener model identification and predictive
control for dual composition control of a distillation column.
Journal of Process Control, 11(6), 601620.
Boutayeb, M., & Aubry, D. (1999). A strong tracking extended
Kalman observer for nonlinear discrete-time systems. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 44(8), 15501556.
Boutayeb, M., & Darouach, M. (1995). Recursive-identification
method for MISO WienerHammerstein model. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 40(2), 287291.
Chen, H.F. (2007). Adaptive regulator for Hammerstein and
Wiener systems with noisy observations. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 52(4), 703709.
Chen, H.F., & Guo, L. (1991). Identification and stochastic adaptive control. Boston, MA: Birkhauser.
Ding, B., & Huang, B. (2007). Output feedback model predictive control nonlinear systems represented by Hammerstein
Wiener model. IET Control Theory Applications, 1(5), 1302
1310.
Ding, B., Huang, B., & Xu, F. (2011). Dynamic output feedback
robust model predictive control. International Journal of Systems Science, 42(10), 16691682.
Ding, B., & Ping, X. (2012). Dynamic output feedback model
predictive control for nonlinear systems represented by
HammersteinWiener model. Journal of Process Control,
22(9), 17731784.
Ding, B., & Xi, Y. (2006). A two-step predictive control design for
input saturated Hammerstein systems. International Journal
of Robust Nonlinear Control, 16(7), 353367.
Ding, B., Xi, Y., & Li, S. (2004). On the stability of output feedback
predictive control for systems with input nonlinearity. Asian
Journal of Control, 6(3), 388397.
Ding, F., & Chen, T.W. (2005). Identification of Hammerstein
nonlinear ARMAX systems. Automatica, 41(9), 14791489.
Ding, F., Chen, T.W., & Iwai, Z. (2007). Adaptive digital control of Hammerstein nonlinear systems with limited output

15

sampling. SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization, 45(6),

22572276.
Dolanc, G., & Strmcnik, S. (2008). Design of a nonlinear controller based on a piecewise-linear Hammerstein model. Systems & Control Letters, 57(4), 332339.
Figueroa, J.L., Cousseau, J.E., Werner, S., & Laakso, T. (2007).
Adaptive control of a Wiener type system: application of a
pH neutralization reactor. International Journal of Control,
80(2), 231240.
Fruzzetti, K., Palazoglu, A., & McDonald, K. (1997). Nonlinear
model predictive control using Hammerstein models. Journal
of Process Control, 7(1), 3141.
Fu, Y., & Chai, T. (2013). Robust regulation of discrete time
nonlinear systems with arbitrary nonlinearities. Automatica,
49(8), 25672570.
Giri, F., & Bai, E. (2010). Block-oriented nonlinear system identification. London: Springer.
Giri, F., Rochdi, Y., & Chaoui, F.Z. (2009). Hammerstein system
identification in presence of hard nonlinearities of preload
and dead-zone type.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
54(9), 21742178.
Goodwin, G.C., & Sin, K.S. (1984). Adaptive filtering, prediction
and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harinischmacher, G., & Marquardt, W. (2007). Nonlinear model
predictive control of multivariable processes using blockstructured models. Control Engineering Practice, 15(10),
12381256.
Kim, K., Rios-Patron, E., & Braatz, R. (2012). Robust nonlinear
internal model control of stable Wiener systems. Journal of
Process Control, 22(8), 14681477.
Kothare, M., Balakrishnan, V., & Morari, M. (1996). Robust constrained model predictive control using linear matrix inequalities. Automatica, 32(10), 13611379.
Kung, M., & Womack, B. (1983). Stability analysis of a discretetime adaptive control algorithm having a polynomial input.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 28(12), 1110
1112.
Liu, Y., & Bai, E. (2007). Iterative identification of Hammerstein
systems. Automatica, 43(2), 346354.
Ljung, L. (1999). System identification: Theory for the user. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lo, K., Jiang, R., & Li, D. (2009). Adaptive one-step-ahead optimal controller based on WLS schemes. International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, 23(3), 241
259.
Lv, X., & Ren, V. (2012). Non-iterative identification and model
following control of Hammerstein systems with asymmetric
dead-zone nonlinearities. IET Control Theory and Applications, 6(1), 8489.
Moreno-Valenzuela, J. (2013). Adaptive anti control of chaos for
robot manipulators with experimental evaluations. Communication in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 18(1),
111.
Norquay, S., Palazoglu, A., & Romagnoli, J. (1998). Model predictive control based on Wiener models. Chemical Engineering
Science, 53(1), 7584.
Pajunen, G. (1992). Adaptive control of Wiener type-nonlinear
systems. Automatica, 28(4), 781785.
Patikirikorala, T., Wang, L., Colman, A., & Han, J. (2012).
HammersteinWiener nonlinear model based predictive control for relative QoS performance and resource management
of software systems. Control Engineering Practice, 20(1),
4961.
Patwardhan, R., Lakshminarayanan, S., & Shan, S. (1998). Constrained nonlinear MPC using Hammerstein and Wiener models: PLS framework. AIChE Journal, 42(7), 16111622.

16

B. Zhang et al.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 14:00 03 June 2015

Ping, X., & Ding, B. (2013). Off-line approach to dynamic output

feedback robust model predictive control. Systems & Control
Letters, 62(11), 10381048.
Voros, J. (1999). Iterative algorithm for parameter identification of
Hammerstein systems with two-segment nonlinearities. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 44(11), 21452149.
Voros, J. (2003). Modeling and identification of Wiener systems
with two-segment nonlinearities.IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 11(2), 253257.

Yu, F., Mao, Z., & Jia, M. (2013). Recursive identification for
HammersteinWiener systems with dead-zone input nonlinearity. Journal of Process Control, 23(8), 11081115.
Zhao, W., & Chen, H. (2009). Adaptive tracking and recursive
identification for Hammerstein systems. Automatica, 45(12),
27732783.
Zhu, Y. (2002). Estimation of an N-L-N HammersteinWiener
model. Automatica, 38(9), 16071614.