Received October 15, 2017, accepted November 23, 2017, date of publication December 6, 2017, date of current version

March 9, 2018.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2780118

A Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon

Adaptive Neural Network Disturbance Observer
for a Constrained Hypersonic Vehicle
YU MA AND YUANLI CAI
Institute of Control Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
Corresponding author: Yu Ma (mayu_xjtu@163.com)
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61463029 and Grant 61308120.

ABSTRACT A fuzzy model predictive control scheme based upon adaptive neural network disturbance
observer is proposed for the longitudinal dynamics of a constrained hypersonic vehicle (HV) in the presence
of diverse disturbances. First, an equivalent disturbed fuzzy dynamic model with the varying parameters is
constructed to approximate the nonlinear dynamics, where the inevitable lumped disturbances, including
the fuzzy modeling error, extraneous disturbances, and model uncertainties caused by aerodynamic uncer-
tainties, need to be suppressed. Subsequently, according to the parameter-dependent Lyapunov function,
the proposed scheme taking the varying parameters into account is developed to explicitly handle the
constraints of fuel equivalence ratio, elevator deflection, and angle of attack. Furthermore, based on the
strong nonlinear approximation ability of neural network (NN), an adaptive neural network disturbance
observer with the adaptive laws of NN’s weight matrixes is established to estimate lumped disturbances, and
then an additional compensator formulated by integrating the estimations of lumped disturbances and the
corresponding compensation gain matrix is appended to the proposed method for suppressing the lumped
disturbances directly. Finally, the comparative simulation results for tracking the reference commands of
velocity and altitude demonstrate that the proposed method provides a satisfactory tracking performance
even when HV is in the presence of lumped disturbances and constraints.

INDEX TERMS Hypersonic vehicle, adaptive neural network disturbance observer, fuzzy model, fuzzy
model predictive control, parameter dependent Lyapunov function.

I. INTRODUCTION Over the past decades, numerous control methods have

Hypersonic vehicle (HV) primarily powered by the advanced
scramjet engine provides a promising access to sustained
hypersonic flight in near space compared with the conven-
tional turbojet-powered aircraft whose extreme velocity is
less than Mach 5. Hence, HV will make the intercontinental
voyage and global military attack promptly, and occupy a
pivotal role in space routine of civilian and military [1], [2].
With the development of scramjet engine, the flight control
system considered as another crucial component of HV has
attracted much attention in recent years [3]. However, there
exist highly nonlinear dynamics and significant couplings
between propulsive and aerodynamic forces, so the flight con-
trol system design is still a challenging task due to the afore-
mentioned inherent peculiarities and the devastating impacts
caused by the aerodynamic uncertainties and extraneous
disturbances [4], [5].
been applied to obtain the control system with satisfactory
stability, performance and robustness. Due to the complex
nonlinear dynamics of HV, Lie derivative notation could be
employed to linearize the nonlinear dynamics of velocity
and altitude, and then an input-output linearization model
is obtained to facilitate the flight control system design.
On the basis of the input-output linearization model which
could be regarded as a nonlinear dynamic inversion structure,
nonlinear robust control [6] and sliding mode control [7], [8]
were implemented. Furthermore, considering that the distur-
bance observer widely used in engineering fields [9]–[12]
could be employed to handle system uncertainties, composite
predictive flight control [13] and anti-windup control [14]
provided superior uncertainties rejection and tracking per-
formance under uncertain conditions. Although the above
nonlinear control methods based on the input-output

2169-3536
2017 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only.
VOLUME 6, 2018 Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. 5927
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV
linearization method have provided superior control perfor-
mance, there exist strict requirements on the accuracy and
relative order of the model. Therefore, due to the cascade
structure of HV dynamics, the strict-feedback formulations
of the nonlinear dynamics were obtained for the purpose
that back-stepping methods [15], [16] were applied to design
control system. To solve the problem of ‘‘explosion of terms’’
existed in the traditional back-stepping method, tracking
differentiator [17] and dynamic surface control methodol-
ogy [18], [19] were integrated with back-stepping method.
Besides, nonlinear disturbance observer [20] and extended
state observer [21], [22] were employed to enhance the
robustness against diverse uncertainties. Recently, instead
of HV dynamics in the strict-feedback form, neural net-
works (NNs) [23]–[25] were employed to approximate the
nonlinear dynamics due to NNs’ strong nonlinear approx-
imation ability [26], and the control strategies based on
NNs achieved excellent robustness performance. Especially,
a minimal-learning-parameter (MLP) [25] algorithm utilized
to simplify the control structure only regulated the maximum
norm rather than the elements of NN’s weight vector. Com-
pared with the two methods mentioned to simplify the nonlin-
ear dynamics for designing control system, small perturbation
method employed to directly linearize the nonlinear system at
a specific trim condition is more easily and commonly used
in engineering areas [3]. Then on the basis of the linearized
model obtained by the small perturbation method, diverse lin-
ear control methods, such as robust control [27], guaranteed
cost control with poles assignment [28] and robust model pre-
dictive control (RMPC) [29], have been investigated to design
control system. However, because the linearized model could
only approximate the nonlinear dynamics in the neighbor-
hood of the specific trim condition, one drawback to these
linear control methods is that expected control performance
cannot be achieved under the flight condition far from the
specific trim condition. To overcome this drawback, Takagi-
Sugeno (T-S) fuzzy model utilized to approximate smooth
nonlinear systems in [30] and [31] has attracted tremendous
attention recently. Then the T-S fuzzy model constructed
by a set of linearized models with fuzzy If-Then rules was
investigated to approximate the nonlinear dynamics, and then
fuzzy control schemes, such as fuzzy guaranteed cost tracking
control [32] and fault-tolerant control [33] were proposed
on the T-S fuzzy model. Nevertheless, the constraint task
of the fuel equivalence ratio, elevator deflection and angle
of attack (AOA), which was not taken into account in the
control schemes [32], [33], has been considered as a crucial
issue to be addressed directly in the control system design.
It is because the fuel equivalence ratio for the propulsion
system is constrained to ensure normal operation of scram-
jet engine without the influence of thermal choking, the
elevator deflection is constrained due to the limitation of
the control surface displacement, and AOA which mainly
determines the air flow properties into the scramjet engine of
HV is constrained to ensure that the performance of scramjet
engine is not degraded. Generally, in addition to auxiliary
5928
systems [16], [18], [25] exploited to deal with the constraints
of fuel equivalence ratio and elevator deflection, RMPC [29]
was utilized to explicitly handle the constraints of fuel equiv-
alence ratio, elevator deflection and AOA at the stage of
control system design. In addition, the lumped disturbances
which mainly consist of the fuzzy modeling error, extraneous
disturbances, and model uncertainties caused by aerodynamic
uncertainties were not taken into account in the control
schemes [32], [33], but may degrade the control performance
and destroy the stability of the system. Hence, handling
constraints and suppressing lumped disturbances which are
regarded as attractive issues are addressed in this paper, and
consequently, a fuzzy model predictive control scheme based
upon adaptive neural network disturbance observer is pro-
posed on the basis of the equivalent disturbed fuzzy dynamic
model with the varying parameters which is constructed to
approximate HV nonlinear dynamics. Considering that the
general fuzzy model predictive control methods [34], [35]
merely obtained conservative control performance due to the
ignorance of the varying parameters, so inspired by the linear
parameter varying model predictive control (LPVMPC) [36]
which was derived by using parameter dependent Lyapunov
function (PDLF), a fuzzy model predictive controller which
takes the varying parameters into account and explicitly
handles the constraints of fuel equivalence ratio, elevator
deflection and AOA is proposed on the basis of the equivalent
fuzzy dynamic model. Furthermore, to counteract the effect
of lumped disturbances directly, an adaptive neural network
disturbance observer (ANNDO) based on the strong non-
linear approximation ability of NN is proposed to estimate
lumped disturbances, and then an additional compensator
is formulated by integrating the estimations of lumped dis-
turbances and the corresponding compensation gain matrix.
Therefore, the fuzzy model predictive control scheme based
upon ANNDO can make the velocity and altitude track their
reference commands effectively in the presence of inevitable
lumped disturbances.
The contributions of this paper are mainly summarized
as follows: 1. Because the equivalent fuzzy dynamic model
with the varying parameters measured online can approach
the nonlinear dynamics of HV more accurately, the fuzzy
model predictive control scheme based upon ANNDO takes
the measured parameters and the modeling error into account,
and provides more satisfactory tracking performance than
RMPC [29] developed on a single linear model; 2. Com-
pared with the control schemes [32], [33], the fuzzy model
predictive control scheme based upon ANNDO addresses
the attractive issues of handling constraints and suppressing
lumped disturbances, and provides effective tracking per-
formance of the velocity and altitude even when HV is in
the presence of lumped disturbances and constraints. The
remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
presents the problem formulation including model descrip-
tion and fuzzy model construction. Then, the detailed proce-
dure of the fuzzy model predictive control scheme based upon
ANNDO is established in Section III. Finally, Section IV
VOLUME 6, 2018
Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV

demonstrates the simulation studies, and Section V provides In actual flight, the aerodynamic coefficients are uncertain,
conclusions. so their uncertain forms considered in this paper are expressed
as follows
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
A. MODEL DESCRIPTION
CL (α) = (1 + 1CL ) CL (α)
In order to facilitate controller design and stability analy- CD (α) = (1 + 1CD ) CD (α)
sis of HV, the model constructed by five order nonlinear CT (β) = (1 + 1CT ) CT (β)
differential equations was developed to describe the motion CM = (1 + 1CM ) CM (4)
of HV’s longitudinal dynamics at NASA Langley Research
Center [6]. Considering HV is affected by the extraneous dis- where CM = CM (α) + CM (q) + CM (δe , α); 1CL , 1CD , 1CT
turbances di (i = 1, 2, . . . , 5), then disturbed model including and 1CM denote the corresponding uncertain terms.
velocity V , flight-path angle γ , altitude h, AOA α and pitch
rate q is expressed as follows B. FUZZY MODEL CONSTRUCTION
(T cos α − D) µ sin γ In order to facilitate controller design, we define the state
1
V̇ =
m
−
r2
+ d1 vector as x = [x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 ]T = [V , γ , h, α, q]T , and
1
L + T sin α (µ − V 2 r) cos γ input vector as u = [β, δe ]T , then the disturbed model (1)
γ̇ = − + d2 with the aerodynamic forces (2) and (3) can be rewritten as
mV V r2
ḣ = V sin γ + d3 the following form of MIMO nonlinear system
α̇ = q − γ̇ + d4 ẋ = f (x) + g(x)u + d + 11
q̇ = Myy /Iyy + d5 (1) y = Cx (5)
where m, µ, Iyy denote vehicle mass, gravitational constant, where
moment of inertia, respectively; r = h + R is radial distance 
−D m − µ sin γ r 2
  
from Earth’s center, and R is radius of Earth; For the sake  L (mV ) − (µ − V 2 r) cos γ (V r 2 )


of systemic analysis, the lift L, drag D, thrust T , pitch- 
f (x) = 
 V sin γ


ing moment Myy are approximated by the following curve-  q − L (mV ) + (µ − V 2 r) cos γ (V r 2 ) 
  
fitted functions that depend on state variables ( V , γ , h, ρV 2 S c̄[CM (α) + CM (q) + CM ,1 (α)] (2I )

α, q) and control inputs (fuel equivalence ratio β, elevator
deflection δe ) = [f1 (x), f2 (x), f3 (x), f4 (x), f5 (x)]T ,
0.01288ρV 2 S cos α m
  
0
L = 0.5ρV 2 SCL (α)  0.01288ρVS sin α m 0 
D = 0.5ρV 2 SCD (α)
 
g(x) =  0 0 ;
 −0.01288ρVS sin α m
  
T = 0.5ρV 2 SCT (β) 0 
Myy = 0.5ρV 2 S c̄[CM (α) + CM (δe , α) + CM (q)] (2) 0 ρV 2 S c̄ce (2Iyy )
d = [d1 , d2 , d3 , d4 , d5 ]T
with the following aerodynamic coefficients simplified at the
nominal cruising flight denotes the extraneous disturbances imposed on HV;
2 11 denotes model uncertainties caused by the uncertainties
CD (α) = 0.645α + 0.0043378α + 0.003772
of the aerodynamic coefficients in (4); Because we con-
β<1

0.02576β sider the tracking task of the altitude and velocity in this
CT (β) =
0.0224 + 0.00336β β > 1 paper,the output of system is y = [V , h]T by defining
CM (α) = −0.035α 2 + 0.036617α + 5.3261 × 10−6 10000
C = .
CM (q) = (c̄/2V )q(−6.796α 2 + 0.3015α − 0.2289) 00100
CM (δe , α) = CM ,1 (α) + CM ,2 (δe ) In addition, the constraints of fuel equivalence ratio, eleva-
tor deflection and AOA considered in this paper are the same
CM ,1 (α) = −ce α, CM ,2 (δe ) = ce δe , CL (α) = 0.6203α as that adopted in [29], namely
(3)
xmin ≤ x4 ≤ xmax
where CL (α), CD (α) are the functions of α, and denote the
umin ≤ u ≤ umax (6)
coefficients of lift and drag; the thrust coefficient CT (β) is a
function of β; The moment coefficient consists of the coef- where xmin = −8◦ and xmax = 8◦ ; umin = [0, −20◦ ]T and
ficients CM (α), CM (q), CM (δe , α) which are the functions umax = [3, 20◦ ]T .
depending on α, q, and δe ; ρ, S, c̄ represent the air density, Note that the control goal for the cruise phase of HV is
reference area, and mean aerodynamic chord, respectively; to steer the altitude and velocity from the initial values to
ce denotes the scaling factor. The values of above parameters the desired trim conditions [3], so the reference command
are the same as that in [7]. vector yr = [Ve , he ]T considered in this paper is assumed

VOLUME 6, 2018 5929

 Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV

as a given set of constants. According to yr , we could obtain

the equilibrium point (xe , ue ) at the desired trim conditions,
meanwhile, f (xe ) + g(xe )ue = 0 and yr = Cxe , then y is
driven to track yr by controlling system to the desired trim
conditions.
1 1
Define x̃ = [x̃1 , x̃2 , . . . , x̃5 ]T = x − xe and ũ = u − ue
as the shifted state vector and shifted input vector, then the
nonlinear model (5) is transformed into

x̃˙ = f̃ (x̃) + g̃(x̃)ũ + d + 11 (7)

Where f̃ (x̃) = f (x̃ + xe ) + g(x̃ + xe )ue and g̃(x̃) = g(x̃ + xe );

x̃min ≤ x̃4 ≤ x̃max , ũmin ≤ ũ ≤ ũmax , x̃min = xmin − xe,4 ,
x̃max = xmax − xe,4 , ũmin = umin − ue and ũmax = umax − ue .
Considering that HV’s longitudinal dynamics can be
approximated more accurately by a T-S fuzzy model [37]
than by a single linear model [29], so we construct a fuzzy
dynamic model to approximately describe the local nonlinear
dynamics of nonlinear model (7). In this paper, we select FIGURE 1. Block diagram of the proposed control system. (a) Overall
control scheme. (b) Architecture of ANNDO’s NN with adaptive laws.
x̃1 , x̃4 , x̃5 as three premise variables zj , j = 1, 2, 3, namely
z1 = x̃1 , z2 = x̃4 , z3 = x̃5 . Furthermore, assuming z1 = x̃1 ∈
[δx 1 , δ x̄1 ], z2 = x̃4 ∈ [δx 4 , δ x̄4 ] and z3 = x̃5 ∈ [δx 5 , δ x̄5 ],
Finally, the fuzzy dynamic model equivalent to the nonlin-
two fuzzy sets are chosen for each premise variable: fuzzy
ear model (7) is constructed as
sets ‘‘about δx 1 ’’ and ‘‘about δ x̄1 ’’ are denoted as F11 and
F12 , respectively; fuzzy sets ‘‘about δx 4 ’’ and ‘‘about δ x̄4 ’’ x̃˙ = A(ω)x̃ + B(ω)ũ + 1 (8)
are denoted as F21 and F22 , respectively; fuzzy sets ‘‘about 8 8
δx 5 ’’ and ‘‘about δ x̄5 ’’ are denoted as F31 and F32 , respectively. ωi (z)Ai , B(ω) = ωi (z)Bi , z =
P P
where A(ω) =
Then the membership functions are 1
 defined as F1 (z1 ) =
i=1 i=1
[z1 , z2 , z3 ]T and ω = [ω1 , ω2 , . . . , ω8 ]T ; Set i = 4(i1 −
1 − 1 1 + e−0.125[z1 +(δ x̄1 −δx 1 )/2] , F12 (z1 ) = 1 − F11 (z1 ),

1) + 2(i2 − 1) + i3 , i1 , i2 , i3 = 1, 2, and define ,ϕi (z) =
F21 (z2 ) = 1 − 1 1 + e−67.45z2 , F22 (z2 ) = 1 − F21 (z2 ),


8
i
F1i1 (z1 )F2i2 (z2 )F33 (z3 ), then we have ωi (z) = ϕi (z) ϕi (z)
P
F31 (z3 ) = 1 − 1 1 + e−46.35z3 , F32 (z3 ) = 1 − F31 (z3 ).


i=1
Moreover, let i = 1, 2, . . . , 8, and define µi1 , µi2 , µi3 as 8
which satisfy 0 ≤ ωi (z) ≤ 1 and ωi (z) = 1 ; In addition,
P
follows:
i=1
F1 , i = 1, 2, 3, 4 F2 , i = 1, 2, 5, 6 considering that the modeling error of fuzzy model is 12 =
 1  1
µi1 = µi2 = f̃ (x̃) + g̃(x̃)ũ − A (ω) x̃ − B (ω) ũ, so 1 = 11 + 12 + d
F12 , i = 5, 6, 7, 8, F22 , i = 3, 4, 7, 8,
denote the lumped disturbances primarily comprising three
F3 , i = 1, 3, 5, 7
 1
µi3 = categories: extraneous disturbances d, model uncertainties
F32 , i = 2, 4, 6, 8. 11 and modeling error of fuzzy model 12 .
Hence, the fuzzy dynamic model is constructed by eight Remark 1: Note that A(ω) and B(ω) are time varying due to
(23 ) fuzzy rules, and the i th rule is given as following form. the varying parameters ωi (z) which can be measured online,
Rule i: so compared with the single linear model adopted to represent
If z1 is µi1 , z2 is µi2 , z3 is µi3 the nonlinear model (7) in [29], the equivalent fuzzy dynamic
Then x̃˙ = Ai x̃ + Bi ũ + d + 11 model (8) can approach the dynamic motion of the nonlinear
where eight corresponding operating points are chosen as model (7) more accurately, and additionally, take modeling
δ x̃1 = [δx 1 , 0, 0, δx 4 , δx 5 ]T , δ x̃2 = [δx 1 , 0, 0, δx 4 , δ x̄5 ]T , error into account.
δ x̃3 = [δx 1 , 0, 0, δ x̄4 , δx 5 ]T , δ x̃4 = [δx 1 , 0, 0, δ x̄4 , δ x̄5 ]T ,
δ x̃5 = [δ x̄1 , 0, 0, δx 4 , δx 5 ]T , δ x̃6 = [δ x̄1 , 0, 0, δx 4 , δ x̄5 ]T , III. CONTROLLER DESIGN
δ x̃7 = [δ x̄1 , 0, 0, δ x̄4 , δx 5 ]T , δ x̃8 = [δ x̄1 , 0, 0, δ x̄4 , δ x̄5 ]T . In this paper, a fuzzy model predictive control scheme based
The linearization approach proposed in [38] is uti- upon ANNDO is proposed to design a composite controller
lized to obtain the corresponding linear models [Ai , Bi ]: u for the purpose that the altitude and velocity are con-
Ai = [ai1 , ai2 , ai3 , ai4 ,. ai5 ]T and air = ∇ f˜r (δ x̃i ) + trolled to track their reference commands effectively even
2 when HV suffers from inevitable lumped disturbances and
(f˜r (δ x̃i ) − δ x̃Ti ∇ f˜r (δ x̃i ))δ x̃i kδ x̃i k , r = 1, 2, . . . , 5, in the constraints of control inputs and AOA. As depicted in
which f˜r is the r th element of f̃ in (7), and ∇ f˜r (δ x̃i ) is the Fig. 1 (a), the composite controller u consists of nominal
gradient of f˜r at δ x̃i ; Bi = g̃(δ x̃i ). fuzzy model predictive controller unc and compensator ucc .

5930 VOLUME 6, 2018

Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV

For the equivalent fuzzy dynamic model in absence of lumped Assumption 2: Assuming 3 in (13) is bounded, and
disturbances, it is obvious that the varying parameters ωi (z) then there exists a small positive upper bound ξ such that
are measurable, so we firstly propose that the LPVMPC k3k2 ≤ ξ .
strategy [36] taking ωi (z) into account is utilized to design Define the observer error of the ANNDO (9) as e = x̃ − χ ,
the nominal fuzzy model predictive controller unc for dealing subtract (9) from (8), then we obtain the following observer
with the constraints explicitly. In fact, lumped disturbances 1 dynamic system
may deteriorate nominal performance of unc , or even lead to
ė + λe = 1̃ (14)
instability. Hence, in order to counteract the effects of lumped
disturbances, the ANNDO is constructed to estimate lumped Theorem 1: Consider the observer dynamic system (14)
disturbances for formulating the compensator ucc with the under Assumption 1 and Assumption 2, the adaptive laws of
compensation gain matrix κ(ω). w̄i and v̄j are proposed as follows
 T T
A. ANNDO CONSTRUCTION w̄˙ i = −w̃˙ i = η1 [φ(V̄ s)ei − φ 0 V̄ sei − θ1 w̄i ] (15)
˙v̄j = −ṽ˙ j = η2 [sj (eT W̄ T φ 0 ) − θ2 v̄j ]
Based on the strong nonlinear approximation ability of NN,
the following ANNDO depicted in Fig. 1 (b) is designed to where ei is the i th element of e, and sj is the j th element of
estimate the inevitable lumped disturbances 1 in the equiva- s; ηl and θl , l = 1, 2, are the positive adjusted coefficients to
lent fuzzy dynamic model(8). be designed properly.
The signals involved in the Lyapunov function (16)
χ̇ = λ(x̃ − χ ) + A(ω)x̃ + B(ω)ũ + 1̂ (9)
are semi-globally uniformly ultimately bounded since the
where χ is inner state vector of ANNDO; λ is the gain Lyapunov function is bounded for all initial conditions.
parameter, and satisfies λ > 21 ; 1̂ defined as the estimation Proof: Choose a Lyapunov function as
of 1 is the output of NN, namely 1 T 1 T 1 T
T T
V (e, W̃ , Ṽ ) = e e+ tr(W̃ W̃ ) + tr(Ṽ Ṽ ) (16)
1̂ = W̄ φ(V̄ s) (10) 2 2η1 2η2

where s = [1, x̃T ]T is the input of NN; V̄ = The time derivative along V (e, W̃ , Ṽ ) is expressed as
[v̄T1 , · · · , v̄Tj , · · · , v̄Tn1 ]T ∈ Rn1 ×n2 and W̄ = [w̄1 ,· · · ,w̄i , · · · , 1 T ˙ 1 T
V̇ (e, W̃ , Ṽ ) = eT ė + tr(W̃ W̃ ) + tr(Ṽ˙ Ṽ ) (17)
w̄n3 ] ∈ R(n2 +1)×n3 are the weight matrixes to be adjusted η1 η2
adaptively; w̄i is the i th column of W̄ , v̄j is the j th row T ˙ n3 T n1
w̃Ti w̃˙ i and tr(Ṽ˙ Ṽ ) = ṽ˙ j ṽTj ,
T
P P
of V̄ , and vp is defined as the p th column of V̄ ; φ(V̄ s) = Note that tr(W̃ W̃ ) =
i=1 j=1
.φ1 , · · · , φp , · · · , φn2 ] , in which φp is chosen as φp =
[1, T
substituting (13)-(15) into (17)yields
1 (1 + exp(−vTp s)).
V̇ (e, W̃ , Ṽ )
Assumption 1: According to the universal approximation n3 n1
∗ ∗ 1 X ˙i + 1
X
theorem [39], the ideal weight matrixes V̄ and W̄ are = eT (−λe + 1̃) + w̃Ti w̃ ṽ˙ j ṽTj
assumed to be bounded, η1 η2
and there exist positive upper bounds i=1 j=1
∗ 2 2 n3 n1
(0v̄ , 0w̄ ) such that v̄ ≤ 0 2 and w̄∗ ≤ 0 2 . The ideal X X
j i j v̄j i w̄i = −λkek2 + eT 3 + θ1 w̃Ti w̄i + θ2 v̄j ṽTj
∗T ∗T
estimation is 1∗ = W̄ φ(V̄ s), and then we have i=1 j=1
T T T 0 T T T
∗T ∗T + e (W̃ φ(V̄ s) − W̃ φ V̄ s) + e (W̄ φ 0 Ṽ s)
T T
1 = 1∗ + ε = W̄ φ(V̄ s) + ε (11) n 3 n1
X T T X T
− w̃Ti [φ(V̄ s)ei − φ 0 V̄ sei ] − [sj (eT W̄ φ 0 )]ṽTj
where ε is the approximation error, and there exists an suffi-
i=1 j=1
ciently small constant ε̄ such that kεk ≤ ε̄. (18)
∗ ∗
Define Ṽ = V̄ − V̄ and W̃ = W̄ − W̄ , then subtract (10) n1
T
from (11), we obtain the estimated error 1̃ T
Since eT (W̄ φ 0 Ṽ s) −
T
[sj (eT W̄ φ 0 )]ṽTj
P
= 0,
∗T ∗T T T j=1
1̃ = W̄ φ(V̄ s) − W̄ φ(V̄ s) + ε (12) n3
T T T T T T
w̃Ti [φ(V̄ s)ei −φ 0 V̄ sei ]−eT (W̃ φ(V̄ s)− W̃ φ 0 V̄ s) =
P
∗T T T
where φ(V̄ s) = φ(V̄ H s) + φ 0 Ṽ s + O
denotes the first ; φ0 i=1 2
∗T
derivative of φ(V̄ s), and OH is the higher order term in the 0, 2w̃Ti w̄i ≤ w̄∗i − kw̃i k2 ≤ 0w̄2 i − kw̃i k2 , 2v̄j ṽTj ≤
2
∗T
0v̄2j − ṽj and 2eT 3 ≤ kek2 + k3k2 ≤ kek2 + ξ , we

Taylor expansion of φ(V̄ s). Then 1̃ can be expressed as
∗T T ∗T T T T
have
1̃ = W̄ φ(V̄ s) + W̄ φ 0 Ṽ s − W̄ φ(V̄ s)
∗T V̇ (e, W̃ , Ṽ )
+W̄ OH + ε 1 1 X 3
1 X 1 n
2 n
T T T
= W̃ φ(V̄ s) + W̄ φ Ṽ s − W̃ φ V̄ s + 3 (13)0 T T 0 T ≤ −(λ − )kek2 − θ1 kw̃i k2 − θ2 ṽj + σV
2 2 2
i=1 j=1
T ∗T ∗T
where 3 = W̃ φ 0 V̄ s + W̄ OH + ε. ≤ −ζ V (e, W̃ , Ṽ ) + σV (19)

VOLUME 6, 2018 5931

 Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV

where ζ = min {2λ − 1, θ1 η1 , θ2 η2 } > 0 and σV = the compensation gain matrix κ(ω) is properly designed as
n3 n1
θ1 P 2
2 0 w̄i + θ2 P 2
2 0v̄j + ξ2 . follows
n o−1
i=1 j=1
According to the standard Lyapunov extension theo- κ(ω) = − C[A(ω) + B(ω)K(ω)]−1 B(ω)
rem [40], solving the inequality (19) yields ·C[A(ω) + B(ω)K(ω)]−1 (25)
σV
 
0 ≤ V (e, W̃ , Ṽ ) ≤ V (e, W̃ , Ṽ )|t=0 − exp(−ζ t) Then we obtain the compensator ucc = κ(ω)1̂ to directly
ζ counteract the effects of lumped disturbances.
σV To sum up the above analysis, the fuzzy model predic-
+ , ∀t ≥ 0 (20)
ζ tive control scheme based upon ANNDO is summarized as
follows.
Therefore, e, W̃ and Ṽ are proved to be semi-globally uni-
Design Procedure:
formly ultimately bounded since V (e, W̃ , Ṽ )|t=0 is bounded.
Step 1. Select x̃1 , x̃4 , x̃5 as three premise variables zj ,
Moreover, e, W̃ and Ṽ can be sufficient small by selecting
j = 1, 2, 3, the equivalent fuzzy dynamic model (8) is
proper values of λ, θ1 , θ2 , η1 and η2 , so 1̃ is sufficient small,
obtained by defining the membership functions Fjl (zj ), l =
and there exists a sufficient small upper bound 01̃ such that
1, 2 and Rule i, i = 1, 2, . . . , 8, which are discussed exhaus-
||1̃|| ≤ 01̃ . Thus, the proof is complete.
tively in section II.B.
Step 2. At each control period, considering the nomi-
B. FUZZY MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROLLER BASED
UPON ANNDO
nal fuzzy dynamic model with measurable  parameter ωi (z),
define a PDLF V (k + i|k) = x̃(k + i k)T P(ω)x̃(k + i k),
Considering the nominal fuzzy dynamic model in absence 8
ωi (z)P i , and then a state feedback control law
P
of lumped disturbances, A(ω) and B(ω) are linear combi- P(ω) =
8 i=1
ωi (z)Ai and
P
nations of Ai and Bi such that A(ω) = 8
ωi (z)K i is design to ensure that the constraints
P
i=1 K(ω) =
8 i=1
ωi (z)Bi in which the varying parameters ωi (z) (23),(24) and the following inequality are satisfied.
P
B(ω) =
i=1  2
8 V (k + i + 1|k) − V (k + i|k) = − x̃(k + i k) 2
satisfy 0 ≤ ωi (z) ≤ 1 and ωi (z) = 1. Accord-
P
 2
i=1 − ũ(k + i k) R (26)
ingly, the nominal fuzzy dynamic model could be regarded
as a polytopic uncertain system with the polytope  = Assuming that there exists an upper bound ϕ such that
Co {[A1 , B1 ], [A2 , B2 ], . . . , [A8 , B8 ]}, so according to the J∞ (k) ≤ V (k|k) ≤ ϕ, then we define symmetric matrices
LPVMPC strategy [36], we could design the nominal fuzzy Qi = ϕP −1 −1
i and K i = Y i Gi , Y i and Gi are fully parame-
model predictive controller terized matrices, and can be obtained by solving the follow-
ing convex optimization problem which minimizes ϕ with
unc = ũ + ue LMI constraints.
8
ũ = K(ω)x̃, K(ω) =
X
ωi (z)K i (21) min ϕ (27)
ϕ,Y i ,Gi ,Qi
i=1
1 x̃T
 
s.t ≥ 0, ∀i = 1, 2, . . . , 8 (28)
which minimizes the upper bound on the worst case perfor- x̃ Qi
mance criterion 
Gi + GTi − Qi ∗ ∗ ∗

 Ai Gi + Bi Y i Ql ∗ ∗ 
min max J∞ (k)  ≥ 0,
2 Gi ϕI
 1/2
ũ(k+i/k), i≥0  0 ∗ 
∞ h
 i R1/2 Y i 0 0 ϕI
x̃(k + i k) 2 + ũ(k + i k) 2
X 
J∞ (k) = 2 R
(22) ∀i = 1, 2, . . . , 8, ∀l = 1, 2, . . . , 8 (29)
i=0  
X ∗
≥ 0, ∀i = 1, 2, . . . , 8,
subject to Y Ti Gi + GTi − Qi
ũr (k + i k) ≤ ũmax,r , X rr ≤ ũ2max,r , r = 1, 2 (30)
  
r = 1, 2 (23)
 
Z
  
x̃4 (k + i k) ≤ x̃max (24) ∗
≥ 0,
(Ai Gi + Bi Y i )T C Tx Gi + GTi − Qi
where 2 and R are the symmetric weighting matrices.
∀i = 1, 2, . . . , 8, 2
Znn ≤ x̃max , n = 4. (31)
Furthermore, note that it is difficult to guarantee the stable
tracking of altitude and velocity only by the robustness of where C x = [0, 0, 0, 1, 0]; Symbol ∗ denotes transpose of the
the nominal fuzzy model predictive controller when HV is in lower block part in (29)-(31).
the presence of diverse lumped disturbances, so the proposed A toolbox for optimization in MATLAB [41] is used
ANNDO is constructed to estimate lumped disturbances, and to solve the convex optimization problem (27)-(31), and

5932 VOLUME 6, 2018

Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV
then we obtain the feasible decision variables, ϕ, Qi , Y i
and Gi . Accordingly, the state feedback controller is ũ =
K(ω)x̃, and the nominal fuzzy model predictive controller is
unc = ũ + ue .
Remark 2: According to the results in [36], the LMI (29)
ensures that inequality (26) holds by applying the Schur
complement. Hence, the PDLF V (k|k) is strictly decreasing,
and the closed-loop system is proved to be asymptotically
stable. Meanwhile, the LMIs of (30) and(31) ensure that the
constraints of (23) and (24) hold.
Remark 3: Because the measurable parameters ωi (z) are
taken into account, the LPVMPC strategy derived by using
PDLF achieves less conservative results as compared with
RMPC adopted in [29] and derived by using a single quadratic
Lyapunov function.
Step 3. Define the observer error as e = x̃ − χ and set the
input of NN as s = [1, x̃T ]T , ANNDO (9) with the adaptive
laws (15) is proposed to estimate the lumped disturbances,
then we obtain the compensator ucc = κ(ω)1̂ by inte-
grating the estimation 1̂ and the compensation gain matrix
ye
≤ σ̄ around
κ(ω) in (25). Finally, the following composite controller u is
implemented.
u = K(ω)x̃ + ue + κ(ω)1̂
Theorem 2: Consider HV longitudinal model (5) in the
presence of lumped disturbances and constraints, the com-
posite controller (32) designed by the fuzzy model predictive
control scheme based upon ANNDO is proposed to guarantee
that the velocity and altitude track their reference commands
effectively.
Proof: Note that x̃ = x − xe , ũ = u − ue , the fuzzy
dynamic model (8) equivalent to model (5) can be represented
as
ẋ = A(ω)x + B(ω)u − A(ω)xe − B(ω)ue + 1
Furthermore, considering 1̃ = 1 − 1̂, the composite
controller (32) is rewritten as
u = K(ω)x̃ + ue + κ(ω)1̂
= K(ω)(x − xe ) + ue + κ(ω)(1 − 1̃)
Substituting (34) into the model (33) yields
h i
ẋ = B(ω) K(ω)(x − xe ) + ue + κ(ω)(1 − 1̃)
+ A(ω)x − A(ω)xe − B(ω)ue + 1
= [A(ω) + B(ω)K(ω)] x − B(ω)K(ω)xe
− A(ω)xe + (B(ω)κ(ω) + I)1 − B(ω)κ(ω)1̃
Then we have
x = [A(ω) + B(ω)K(ω)]−1 ẋ − [A(ω) + B(ω)K(ω)]−1
h i
· (B(ω)κ(ω) + I)1 − B(ω)κ(ω)1̃ + xe (36)
where I is an identity matrix.
VOLUME 6, 2018
Invoking the compensation gain matrixκ(ω), we obtain
B (ω) κ(ω) + I = 0, and the output y is represented as
y = C[A (ω) + B (ω) K(ω)]−1 ẋ + Cxe
+ C[A (ω) + B (ω) K(ω)]−1 B (ω) κ(ω)1̃ (37)
In [36], it was proved that the state feedback controller
ũ = K(ω)x̃ could asymptotically stabilize the closed-loop
system, so the state x ultimately converges to a steady state
such that lim ẋ → 0. In Theorem 1, we have proved
t→∞
that 1̃ is sufficient small, and there exists a sufficient
small upper bound 01̃ such that ||1̃|| ≤ 01̃ . Let σ =
−C[A (ω) + B (ω) K(ω)]−1 1̃, and assume that there exists
a small positive constant σ̄ such that ||σ || ≤ σ̄ . Therefore
when t → ∞, y(∞) will be
y(∞) = yr + σ (38)
Define ye = y − yr as the tracking error vector of velocity
and altitude, so when t → ∞, ye ultimately converges
into a small neighborhood ψ = ye |
zero. Hence, it is proved that the proposed composite con-
troller (32) could make the velocity and altitude track their
reference commands effectively even when HV is in the
(32) presence of lumped disturbances and constraints.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
To verify the effectiveness of the previously proposed
method, we carry out two numerical simulations for HV
model (1)-(3) in the MATLAB environment where a fourth
order Runge-Kutta algorithm is employed with the fixed-
step 0.01s. The detailed parameters of simulation model
could refer to [7]. In both numerical simulations for the
cruise phase, the velocity tracks a step command of 100 ft/s
from initial value 14960 ft/s to final value 15060 ft/s,
(33) meanwhile, the altitude tracks a step command of 180 ft
from initial value 109820 ft to final value 110000 ft.
And then the initial and final trim conditions listed in
Table 1 are obtained. For constructing the equivalent fuzzy
dynamic model(8), the he upper bounds and lower bounds
of the premise variables are selected as δx 1 = −100,
(34) δ x̄1 = 0, δx 4 = −0.1, δ x̄4 = 0.1, δx 5 = −0.15
and δ x̄5 = 0.15. In the performance criterion(22), we
select 2 = diag(0.005, 0.005, 0.5, 0.005,0.005) and R =
diag(0.01, 0.01). To set the proper parameters of ANNDO,
we firstly select the nodes in each layer of NN as n1 = 6,
n2 = 11 and n3 = 5, then initialize the weights W̄ and V̄
as zero matrixes with appropriate dimensions. Accordingly,
the adjustment coefficients of the adaptive laws in (15) are
(35) selected as η1 = η2 = 250, θ1 = 0.25 and θ2 = 0.01, and
additionally, the gain parameter in (9) is chosen as λ = 0.51.
Case 1. In order to verify the superiorities of the fuzzy
model predictive control scheme based upon ANNDO
(FMPC-ANNDO), the RMPC [29] is introduced for compar-
ison. In the same nominal conditions without the considera-
tion of extraneous disturbances and model uncertainties, the
comparative simulation results under FMPC-ANNDO and
5933
 Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV

FIGURE 2. Tracking results in Case 1. (a) Velocity. (b) Altitude.

FIGURE 3. Control inputs in Case 1. (a) Fuel equivalence ratio. (b) Elevator deflection.

FIGURE 4. Other states in Case 1. (a) Flight-path angle. (b) Pitch rate. (c) AOA.

TABLE 1. Initial condition for state variables and final trim condition for
state variables and control inputs.
RMPC are shown in Figs. 2-4. It is observed from Fig. 2,
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4(c) that both methods achieve the satisfactory
tracking performance of velocity and altitude in the condi-
tion that the fuel equivalence ratio, elevator deflection and
AOA vary in the given bounds, but FMPC-ANNDO makes
the velocity and altitude track their desired command more
quickly, in particular, provides much less fluctuation when the
altitude approaches its desired command. Moreover, because
FMPC-ANNDO employs the equivalent fuzzy dynamic
model to approach the nonlinear dynamics and takes the
modeling error into account directly, the tracking errors under
FMPC-ANNDO are smaller than that under RMPC. In addi-
tion, Fig. 4 reveals that compared with RMPC, the response
curves of the flight-path angle, pith rate and AOA provided
by FMPC-ANNDO fluctuate with smaller ranges.

5934 VOLUME 6, 2018

Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV

FIGURE 5. Tracking results in Case 2. (a) Velocity. (b) Altitude.

FIGURE 6. Control inputs in Case 2. (a) Fuel equivalence ratio. (b) Elevator deflection.

FIGURE 7. Other states in Case 2. (a) Flight-path angle. (b) Pitch rate. (c) AOA.

Case 2. To facilitate this simulation case for practice flight,
the uncertainties of aerodynamic coefficients and the extra-
neous disturbances are taken into account. The uncertainties
of aerodynamic coefficients in (4) are set as 1CL = 0.04,
1CD = 0.04, 1CT = −0.04 and 1CM = 0.04. Addition-
ally, the extraneous disturbances imposed on the nonlinear
system of HV are set as d1 = −8, d4 = 0.005sin(2t) when
t ≥ 10, and d5 = 0.05sin(0.2π t + π ) when t ≥ 13. On the
basis of the same fuzzy dynamic model, we introduce the
fuzzy guaranteed cost tracking control (FGCTC) presented
in [32] for comparison with FMPC-ANNDO. Figs. 5-9 show
the comparative simulation results under FMPC-ANNDO
and FGCTC. It is apparent from Fig. 5 that due to the
excellent estimations of lumped disturbances by ANNDO,
the proposed FMPC-ANNDO performs an excellent robust-
ness against lumped disturbances, and guarantees that the
velocity and altitude asymptotically converge to their desired
commands such that the tracking errors are bounded with the
sufficiently small regions. However, FGCTC cannot make the
velocity and altitude track their desired commands any more

VOLUME 6, 2018 5935

 Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV

FIGURE 8. Results of estimations and curve of kσ k in Case 2. (a)-(e) 1i and estimations 1̂i , i = 1, 2, . . . , 5. (f) kσ k and its upper bound σ̄ .

9. Adaptive adjustment results of NN’s weight matrixes in case 2. (a) w̄i , i = 1, 2, . . . , 5.

FIGURE
(b) v̄j , j = 1, 2, . . . , 6.

in the presence of lumped disturbances. Figs. 6 and Fig. 7(c)
illustrate that FMPC-ANNDO dealing with constraints dur-
ing control design procedure guarantees that fuel equivalence
ratio, elevator deflection and AOA vary in the given bounds,
which avoids the repeated parameter adjustment of FGCTC.
Consider that FMPC-ANNDO’s compensator for suppress-
ing lumped disturbances is constructed by the estimations
of lumped disturbances, so the control inputs, the elevator
deflection in particular, are fluctuated subject to the vary-
ing lumped disturbances. Accordingly, Fig. 7 shows that the
flight-path angle, AOA and pith rate are also affected, but
still tend to be stable under FMPC-ANNDO, whereas they
are fluctuated with larger amplitudes under FGCTC.
Figs. 8(a)-(e) show the estimations of lumped disturbances,
which are obtained by ANNDO, and particularly, the estima-
tions of model uncertainties and modeling errors in altitude
and flight-path angle loops are depicted in Figs. 8 (b)-(c).
It is apparent that there exists an adaptive adjustment process
due to the parameters of ANNDO which need to be regulated
online at the beginning. Fig. 8(f) verifies that when t → ∞,
σ in (38) is bounded, and there exists a small positive constant
σ̄ = 0.11 such that kσ k ≤ σ̄ . Hence, the tracking errors

5936 VOLUME 6, 2018

Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV
of velocity and altitude are bounded such that they are suf-
ficiently small. In addition, as shown in Fig. 9, we can see
that the adaptive laws in (15) guarantee NN’weight matrixes
bounded.
It can be concluded that compared with FGCTC, the pro-
posed FMPC-ANNDO provides the satisfactory tracking per-
formance of velocity and altitude even when HV is in the
presence of lumped disturbances and constraints.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a fuzzy model predictive control scheme based
upon ANNDO has been proposed for HV, where the attrac-
tive issues of handling constraints and suppressing lumped
disturbances have been addressed. On one hand, based on the
equivalent fuzzy model constructed to approach the nonlinear
dynamics of HV, the proposed scheme taking the varying
parameters of fuzzy model into consideration explicitly deals
with the constraints of the fuel equivalence ratio, elevator
deflection and AOA. On the other hand, due to the proposed
ANNDO constructed to estimate the diverse lumped distur-
bances excellently, an additional compensator is appended to
enhance the robustness of the proposed method in order to
counteract the effect of lumped disturbances directly. There-
fore, the proposed method makes the velocity and altitude
asymptotically converge to their desired commands such that
the tracking errors are bounded with the sufficiently small
regions. The effectiveness of the proposed method is vali-
dated by the simulation results. In this paper, all states of
HV are assumed to be available, but flight-path angle and
AOA are difficult to be measured in practice. In our future
research, we will improve our proposed method purely on the
basis of partially measurable states.
REFERENCES
[1] F. R. Chavez and D. K. Schmidt, ‘‘Uncertainty modeling for multivariable-
control robustness analysis of elastic high-speed vehicles,’’ J. Guid. Con-
trol Dyn., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 87–95, 1999.
[2] M. A. Bolender, ‘‘An overview on dynamics and controls modelling of
hypersonic vehicles,’’ in Proc. IEEE Amer. Control Conf., St. Louis, MO,
USA, Jun. 2009, pp. 2507–2512.
[3] B. Xu and Z. K. Shi, ‘‘An overview on flight dynamics and control
approaches for hypersonic vehicles,’’ Sci. China Inf. Sci., vol. 58, no. 7,
p. 070201, Jul. 2015.
[4] A. A. Rodriguez et al., ‘‘Modeling and control of scramjet-powered hyper-
sonic vehicles: Challenges, trends, and tradeoffs,’’ in Proc. AIAA Guid.,
Navigat. Control Conf. Exhib. Honolulu, HI, USA, Aug. 2008, p. 6793.
[5] B. Fidan, M. Mirmirani, and P. A. Ioannou, ‘‘Flight dynamics and control
of air-breathing hypersonic vehicles: Review and new directions,’’ in Proc.
12th AIAA Int. Space Planes Hyperson. Syst. Technol., Norfolk, VA, USA,
Dec. 2003, p. 7081.
[6] Q. Wang and R. F. Stengel, ‘‘Robust nonlinear control of a hypersonic
aircraft,’’ J. Guid., Control, Dyn., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 577–585, 2000.
[7] H. Xu, M. D. Mirmirani, and P. A. Ioannou, ‘‘Adaptive sliding mode control
design for a hypersonic flight vehicle,’’ J. Guid., Control, Dyn., vol. 27,
no. 5, pp. 829–838, 2004.
[8] Q. Zong, J. Wang, and Y. Tao, ‘‘Adaptive high-order dynamic sliding
mode control for a flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicle,’’ Int. J. Robust
Nonlinear Control, vol. 23, no. 15, pp. 1718–1736, Jul. 2013.
[9] T. D. Do, ‘‘Disturbance observer-based fuzzy SMC of WECSS without
wind speed measurement,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 147–155, 2017.
[10] Z. Q. Liu, ‘‘Ship adaptive course keeping control with nonlinear distur-
bance observer,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 17567–17575, 2017.
VOLUME 6, 2018
[11] W.-H. Chen, ‘‘Nonlinear disturbance observer-enhanced dynamic inver-
sion control of missiles,’’ J. Guid., Control, Dyn., vol. 26, no. 1,
pp. 161–166, Jan. 2003.
[12] X. Y. Diao, Y. Jin, L. Ma, S. H. Ding, and H. B. Jiang, ‘‘Composite active
front steering controller design for vehicle system,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 5,
pp. 6697–6706, 2017.
[13] J. Yang, Z. Zhao, S. Li, and W. X. Zheng, ‘‘Composite predictive flight
control for airbreathing hypersonic vehicles,’’ Int. J. Control, vol. 87, no. 9,
pp. 1970–1984, Mar. 2014.
[14] H. An, J. Liu, C. Wang, and L. Wu, ‘‘Disturbance observer-based anti-
windup control for air-breathing hypersonic vehicles,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 3038–3049, May 2016.
[15] B. Xu, F. Sun, H. Liu, and J. Ren, ‘‘Adaptive Kriging controller design for
hypersonic flight vehicle via back-stepping,’’ IET Control Theory Appl.,
vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 487–497, Mar. 2012.
[16] Q. Zong, F. Wang, R. Su, and S. K. Shao, ‘‘Robust adaptive backstepping
tracking control for a flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicle subject to
input constraint,’’ Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. G, J. Aerosp. Eng., vol. 229, no. 1,
pp. 10–25, Jan. 2015.
[17] X. Bu, X. Wu, R. Zhang, Z. Ma, and J. Huang, ‘‘Tracking dif-
ferentiator design for the robust backstepping control of a flexible
air-breathing hypersonic vehicle,’’ J. Franklin Inst., vol. 352, no. 4,
pp. 1739–1765, Apr. 2015.
[18] Q. Zong, F. Wang, B. Tian, and R. Su, ‘‘Robust adaptive dynamic surface
control design for a flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicle with input
constraints and uncertainty,’’ Nonlinear Dyn., vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 289–315,
Oct. 2014.
[19] D. D. Lei, T. T. Wang, D. Cao, and J. T. Fei, ‘‘Adaptive dynamic surface
control of MEMS gyroscope sensor using fuzzy compensator,’’ IEEE
Access, vol. 4, pp. 4148–4154, 2016.
[20] G. H. Wu and X. Y. Meng, ‘‘Nonlinear disturbance observer based robust
backstepping control for a flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicle,’’
Aerosp. Sci. Technol., vol. 54, pp. 174–182, Jul. 2016.
[21] Z. Q. Pu, R. Y. Yuan, X. M. Tan, and J. Q. Yi, ‘‘Active robust
control of uncertainty and flexibility suppression for air-breathing
hypersonic vehicles,’’ Aerosp. Sci. Technol., vol. 42, pp. 429–441,
May 2015.
[22] Z. Pu, X. Tan, G. Fan, and J. Yi, ‘‘Uncertainty analysis and robust trajectory
linearization control of a flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicle,’’ Acta
Astronaut., vol. 101, pp. 16–32, Sep. 2014.
[23] B. Xu, C. G. Yang, and Y. Q. Pan, ‘‘Global neural dynamic surface
tracking control of strict-feedback systems with application to hypersonic
flight vehicle,’’ IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 26, no. 10,
pp. 2563–2575, Oct. 2015.
[24] B. Xu, ‘‘Robust adaptive neural control of flexible hypersonic flight vehi-
cle with dead-zone input nonlinearity,’’ Nonlinear Dyn., vol. 80, no. 3,
pp. 1509–1520, 2015.
[25] X. Bu, X. Wu, D. Wei, and J. Huang, ‘‘Neural-approximation-based robust
adaptive control of flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicles with para-
metric uncertainties and control input constraints,’’ Inf. Sci., vols. 346–347,
pp. 29–43, Jun. 2016.
[26] J. P. Cai, L. T. Xing, M. Zhang, and L. J. Shen, ‘‘Adaptive neural network
control for missile systems with unknown hysteresis input,’’ IEEE Access,
vol. 5, pp. 15839–15847, 2017.
[27] C. I. Marrison and R. F. Stengel, ‘‘Design of robust control systems for
a hypersonic aircraft,’’ J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 58–63,
Feb. 1998.
[28] H. Y. Li, Y. L. Si, L. G. Wu, X. X. Hu, and H. J. Gao, ‘‘Guaranteed
cost control with poles assignment for a flexible air-breathing hypersonic
vehicle,’’ Int. J. Syst. Sci., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 863–876, May 2011.
[29] H. Gao et al., ‘‘Nonlinear disturbance observer-based model predictive
control for a generic hypersonic vehicle,’’ Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., I, J. Syst.
Control Eng., vol. 230, no. 1, pp. 3–12, Jan. 2016.
[30] Z. Zhong, Y. Zhu, and T. Yang, ‘‘Robust decentralized static output-
feedback control design for large-scale nonlinear systems using
Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy models,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 8250–8263,
2016.
[31] Z. X. Zhong, Y. Z. Zhu, and M. Karimi, ‘‘Dynamic output feedback
fuzzy control of large-scale nonlinear networked systems: A two-channel
triggering approach,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 12428–12438, 2017.
[32] X. Hu, L. Wu, C. Hu, and H. Gao, ‘‘Fuzzy guaranteed cost tracking control
for a flexible air-breathing hypersonic vehicle,’’ IET Control Theory Appl.,
vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1238–1249, Jun. 2012.
5937
 Y. MA, Y. CAI: Fuzzy Model Predictive Control Based Upon ANNDO for a Constrained HV
[33] Q. K. Shen, B. Jiang, and V. Cocquempot, ‘‘Fault-tolerant control for
T-S fuzzy systems with application to near-space hypersonic vehicle with
actuator faults,’’ IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 652–665,
Aug. 2012.
[34] S. Mollov, R. Babuska, J. Abonyi, and H. B. Verbruggen, ‘‘Effective
optimization for fuzzy model predictive control,’’ IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,
vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 661–675, Oct. 2004.
[35] T. Zhang, G. Feng, and J. Lu, ‘‘Fuzzy constrained min-
max model predictive control based on piecewise Lyapunov
functions,’’ IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 686–698,
Aug. 2007.
[36] N. Wada, K. Saito, and M. Saeki, ‘‘Model predictive control for lin-
ear parameter varying systems using parameter dependent Lyapunov
function,’’ IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 1446–1450,
Dec. 2006.
[37] H.-N. Wu, Z.-Y. Liu, and L. Guo, ‘‘Robust L∞ -gain fuzzy disturbance
observer-based control design with adaptive bounding for a hypersonic
vehicle,’’ IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1401–1412,
Dec. 2014.
[38] M. C. M. Teixeira and S. H. Zak, ‘‘Stabilizing controller design for
uncertain nonlinear systems using fuzzy models,’’ IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,
vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 133–142, Apr. 1999.
[39] F. L. Lewis, A. Yesildirek, and K. Liu, ‘‘Stabilizing controller design for
uncertain nonlinear systems using fuzzy models,’’ IEEE Trans. Neural
Netw., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 388–399, Mar. 1996.
[40] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. V. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and Adap-
tive Control Design. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1995.
[41] J. Lofberg, ‘‘YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in
MATLAB,’’ in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Comput. Aided Control Syst. Design,
Sep. 2004, pp. 284–289.
5938
YU MA was born in Shaanxi, China, in 1988. He
received the B.S. degree in automation engineering
from Chang’an University, Xi’an, China, in 2011.
He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in con-
trol science and engineering with Xi’an Jiaotong
University, Xi’an. His current research interests
include nonlinear control system, model predictive
control, intelligent control, and flight control.
YUANLI CAI was born in Guizhou, China,
in 1963. He received the B.S. and Ph.D. degrees
in aerospace engineering from Northwestern Poly-
technical University, Xi’an, China, in 1984 and
in 1990, respectively.
From 1993 to 1998, he was an Associate Pro-
fessor with the School of Electronics and Infor-
mation Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University,
Xi’an. From 1998 to 1999, he was invited as
a Senior Scholar with the Chinese Academy of
Sciences. From 2003 to 2004, he visited the University of California at
Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA. Since 1999, he has been a Professor with
the School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong
University. His research interests include guidance, control and dynamics of
aircraft, intelligent information processing system and technology, modeling
and simulation of complex systems, and nonlinear theory and application.
He is currently a Senior Member of the AIAA.
VOLUME 6, 2018