Multivariable Adaptive Harmonic Steady-State Control for
Rejection of Sinusoidal Disturbances Acting on an Unknown System
Mohammadreza Kamaldar and Jesse B. Hoagg

arXiv:1608.02508v2 [] 11 May 2017

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506-0503

Abstract— This paper presents an adaptive harmonic steadystate (AHSS) controller, which addresses the problem of
rejecting sinusoids with known frequencies that act on a completely unknown multi-input multi-output linear time-invariant
system. We analyze the stability and closed-loop performance
of AHSS for single-input single-output systems. In this case,
we show that AHSS asymptotically rejects disturbances. 1

I. I NTRODUCTION
The rejection of sinusoidal disturbances is a fundamental
control objective in many active noise and vibration control applications such as noise cancellation [1], helicopter
vibration reduction [2], and active rotor balancing [3].
For an accurately modeled linear time-invariant (LTI)
system, the internal-model principle can be used to design
a feedback controller capable of rejecting sinusoidal disturbances of known frequencies [4]–[6]. In this case, disturbance rejection is accomplished by incorporating copies of
the disturbance dynamics in the feedback loop.
If, on the other hand, an accurate model of the system
is not available, but the open-loop dynamics are asymptotically stable, then adaptive feedforward cancellation can
be used to accomplish disturbance rejection [7], [8]. One
approach for sinusoidal disturbance rejection is harmonic
steady-state (HSS) control [9], which has been used for
helicopter vibration reduction [2] and active rotor balancing
[3]. To discuss HSS control, let Gyu denote the control-toperformance transfer function, and assume that there is a
single known disturbance frequency ω. Then, HSS control
requires an estimate of Gyu (ω). In the SISO case, the estimate of Gyu (ω), which is a single complex number, must
have an angle within 90◦ of ∠Gyu (ω) to ensure closedloop stability. In the MIMO case, closed-loop stability is
ensured provided that the estimate of Gyu (ω) is sufficiently
accurate. If there are multiple disturbance frequencies, then
estimates are required at each frequency.
For certain applications Gyu (ω) can be difficult to estimate or subject to change. To address this uncertainty,
online estimation methods have been combined with HSS
control [10]–[12]. For example, a recursive-least-squares
identifier is used in [10], [11] to estimate Gyu (ω) in real
time; however, an external excitation signal, which degrades
performance, is required to ensure stability.
1 This paper is the preprint version of the following paper: Kamaldar M,
Hoagg JB, “Multivariable adaptive harmonic steady-state control for rejection of sinusoidal disturbances acting on an unknown system,” American
Control Conference (ACC), 2016. IEEE (pp. 1631-1636), which has been
published by IEEE at DOI: 10.1109/ACC.2016.7525150, and is subject to
IEEE copyright ploicy.

In this paper, we present a new adaptive harmonic steadystate (AHSS) controller, which is effective for rejecting
sinusoids with known frequencies that act on a completely
unknown MIMO LTI system. We analyze the stability and
closed-loop performance for SISO systems. We show that
AHSS asymptotically rejects disturbances.
The new AHSS algorithm in this paper is a frequencydomain method, and all computations are with discrete
Fourier transform (DFT) data. The AHSS algorithm including DFT is demonstrated on a simulation of an acoustic
duct.
II. N OTATION
Let F be either R or C. Let x(i) denote the ith element
of x ∈ Fn , and let A(i,j) denote the element in row i and
column j of A ∈ Fm×n . Let k · k be the 2-norm on Fn .
Next, let A∗ denote the complex √conjugate transpose of
A ∈ Fm×n , and define kAkF , tr A∗ A, which is the
Frobenius norm of A ∈ Fm×n .
Let spec(A) , {λ ∈ C : det(λI − A) = 0} denote
the spectrum of A ∈ Fn×n , and let λmax (A) denote the
maximum eigenvalue of A ∈ Fn×n , which is Hermitian
positive semidefinite. Let ∠λ denote the argument of λ ∈ C
defined on the interval (−π, π] rad. Let OLHP, ORHP,
and CUD denote the open-left-half plane, open-right-half
plane, and closed unit disk in C, respectively. Define N ,
{0, 1, 2, · · · } and Z+ , N\{0}.
III. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
Consider the system
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + D1 d(t),

(1)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) + D2 d(t),
(2)
where t ≥ 0, x(t) ∈ Rn is the state, x(0) = x0 ∈
Rn is the initial condition, u(t) ∈ Rm is the control, y(t) ∈ R` is the measured performance, d(t) ∈
Rp is the unmeasured disturbance, and A ∈ Rn×n
is asymptotically stable. Define the transfer functions
Gyu (s) , C(sI − A)−1 B + D, and Gyd (s) , C(sI −
A)−1 D1 + D2 . Let ω1 , ω2 ,P
· · · , ωq > 0, and consider the
q
tonal disturbance d(t) =
i=1 dc,i cos ωi t + ds,i sin ωi t,
where dc,1 , · · · , dc,q , ds,1 , · · · , ds,q ∈ Rp .
Our objective is to design a control u that reduces or even
eliminates the effect of the disturbance d on the performance
y. We seek to design a control that relies on no model
information of (1) and (2), and requires knowledge of only
the disturbance frequencies ω1 , · · · , ωq .
For simplicity, we focus on the case where d is the singletone disturbance d(t) = dc cos ωt + ds sin ωt. However, the

adaptive controller presented in this paper generalizes to the
case where d consists of multiple tones. We address multiple
tones in Example 3.
For the moment, assume that Gyu , Gyd , dc , and ds
are known, and consider the harmonic control u(t) =
uc cos ωt + us sin ωt, where uc , us ∈ Rm . Define û ,
uc − us , which is the value at frequency ω of the DFT
obtained from a sampling of u. The HSS performance of
(1) and (2) withcontrol û is


yhss (t, û) , Re M∗ û + dˆ cos ωt − Im M∗ û + dˆ sin ωt,
(3)
ˆ
where M∗ , Gyu (ω) ∈ C
and d , Gyd (ω)(dc −
ds ) ∈ C` . The HSS performance yhss is the steady-state
response of y, that is, limt→∞ [yhss (t, û) − y(t)] = 0 [13,
Chap. 12.12]. Consider the cost function
Zt
1
T
yhss
(τ, û)yhss (τ, û) dτ,
(4)
J(û) , lim
t→∞ t
`×m

0

which is the average power of yhss . Define
ˆ
ŷhss (û) , M∗ û + d,
(5)
which is the value at frequency ω of the DFT obtained
from a sampling of yhss . It follows from (3)–(5) that
∗
(û)ŷhss (û). The following result provides an
J(û) = 12 ŷhss
expression for an open-loop control û = u∗ that minimizes
J. The proof is omitted due to space limitations.
Theorem 1. Consider the cost function (4), and assume
rank M∗ = min{`, m}. Then, the following statements
hold:
−1
ˆ
i) Assume ` > m, and define u∗ , − (M∗∗ M∗ ) M∗∗ d.
−1
∗ ˆ
∗
Then, ŷhss (u∗ )
=
I` − M∗ (M∗M∗ ) M∗ d,
ˆ and for all
J(u∗ ) = 12 dˆ∗ I` − M∗ (M∗∗ M∗ )−1 M∗∗ d,
m
û ∈ C \{u∗ }, J(u∗ ) < J(û).
ˆ Then,
ii) Assume ` = m, and define u∗ , −M∗−1 d.
m
ŷhss (u∗ ) = 0, J(u∗ ) = 0, and for all û ∈ C \{u∗ },
J(u∗ ) < J(û).
iii) Assume ` < m, and let u∗ ∈ {−M∗∗ (M∗ M∗∗ )−1 dˆ +
(Im − M∗∗ (M∗ M∗∗ )−1 M∗ )v : v ∈ Cm }. Then,
ŷhss (u∗ ) = 0 and J(u∗ ) = 0.
Theorem 1 provides an expression for a control u∗ that
ˆ
minimizes J, but u∗ requires knowledge of M∗ and d.
In this paper, we consider a sinusoidal control with
frequency ω but where the amplitude and phase are updated
at discrete times. Let Ts > 0 be the update period, and
for each k ∈ Z+ , let uk ∈ Cm be determined from an
adaptive law presented later. Then, for each k ∈ N and for
all t ∈ [kTs , (k + 1)Ts ), consider the control
u(t) = (Re uk ) cos ωt − (Im uk ) sin ωt.
(6)
Let yk ∈ C` denote the value at frequency ω of the DFT
of the sequence obtained by sampling y on the interval [(k−
1)Ts , kTs ). If Ts is sufficiently large relative to the settling
time of Gyu , then yk+1 ≈ ŷhss (uk ). For the remainder of
this paper, we assume yk+1 = ŷhss (uk ), and it follows from
(5) that
ˆ
yk+1 = M∗ uk + d.
(7)
In addition, we assume rank M∗ = min{`, m}.

IV. H ARMONIC S TEADY-S TATE C ONTROL
In this section, we review HSS control, which relies on
knowledge of an estimate Me ∈ C`×m of M∗ . Let ρ > 0,
and for all k ∈ N, consider the control
uk+1 = uk − ρMe∗ yk+1 ,
(8)
m
where u0 ∈ C is the initial condition. It follows from
(7) that yk+1 = M∗ uk + dˆ = M∗ uk + yk − M∗ uk−1 , and
substituting (8) yields the closed-loop dynamics
yk+1 = yk − ρM∗ Me∗ yk ,
(9)
+
ˆ
where k ∈ Z and y1 = M∗ u0 + d. Define Λ ,
spec(Me∗ M∗ )∩spec(M∗ Me∗ ). The following result presents
the stability properties of the closed-loop system (9). The
proof is omitted due to space limitations.
Theorem 2. Consider the closed-loop system (9), which
consists of (7) and (8). Assume that Λ ⊂ ORHP, and
assume that ρ satisfies
2Re λ
.
(10)
0 < ρ < min
λ∈Λ |λ|2
Then, for all u0 ∈ Cm , u∞ , limk→∞ uk exists and
y∞ , limk→∞ yk exists. Furthermore, for all u0 ∈ Cm ,
the following statements hold:
−1
i) If ` > m, then u∞ = − (Me∗ M∗ ) Me∗ dˆ and y∞ =
−1
∗ ˆ
∗
[I` − M∗ (Me M∗ ) Me ]d.
ii) If ` = m, then u∞ = −M∗−1 dˆ and y∞ = 0.
iii) If ` < m, then u∞ = u0 − Me∗ (M∗ Me∗ )−1 (M∗ u0 + d)
and y∞ = 0.
Theorem 2 relies on the condition that Λ ⊂ ORHP. This
condition depends on the estimate Me of M∗ . In the SISO
case, Λ ⊂ ORHP if and only if Me is within 90◦ of M∗ ,
that is, |∠(Me /M∗ )| < π2 . In this case, (10) is satisfied by
a sufficiently small ρ > 0.
If Me = M∗ , then Λ ⊂ ORHP. In this case, (10) is
satisfied if ρ < 2/λmax (M∗∗ M∗ ).
If Λ∩OLHP is not empty, then for all ρ > 0, I` −ρM∗ Me∗
has at least one eigenvalue outside the CUD. In this case,
(9) implies that yk diverges.
V. A DAPTIVE H ARMONIC S TEADY-S TATE C ONTROL
In this section, we present AHSS control, which does
not require any information regarding M∗ . Let µ ∈ (0, 1],
ν1 > 0, and u0 ∈ Cm , and for all k ∈ N, consider the
control
µ
M ∗ yk+1 ,
(11)
uk+1 = uk −
ν1 + kMk k2F k
where Mk ∈ C`×m is an estimate of M∗ obtained from the
adaptive law presented below. Note that (11) is reminiscent
of the HSS control (8) except the fixed estimate Me is
replaced by the adaptive estimate Mk , and the fixed gain

ρ is replaced by the Mk -dependent gain µ/ ν1 + kMk k2F .
To determine the adaptive law for Mk , consider the cost
function J : R`×m × R`×m → [0, ∞) defined by
1
2
J(Mr , Mi ) , k(Mr + Mi )(uk − uk−1 ) − (yk+1 − yk )k .
2
Note that J(Re M∗ , Im M∗ ) = 0, that is, M∗ minimizes J.
Define the complex gradient
∂J(Mr , Mi )
∂J(Mr , Mi )
∇J(Mr , Mi ) ,
+
∂Mr
∂Mi

= [(Mr + Mi )(uk − uk−1 ) − (yk+1 − yk )]
× (uk − uk−1 )∗ ,
(12)
which is the direction of the maximum rate of change of
J with respect to Mr + Mi [14]. Let M0 ∈ C`×m \{0},
γ ∈ (0, 1], and ν2 > 0, and for all k ∈ Z+ , consider the
adaptive law
Mk , Mk−1 − ηk ∇J(Re Mk−1 , Im Mk−1 ),
(13)
where
γ(ν1 + kMk−1 k2F )2
(14)
ηk ,
2.
ν2 µ2 + (ν1 + kMk−1 k2F )2 kuk − uk−1 k
Using (12)–(14), it follows
that, for all k ∈ N,
h
i
Mk = Mk−1 − ηk Mk−1 (uk − uk−1 ) − (yk+1 − yk )
× (uk − uk−1 )∗ .
(15)
Thus, the AHSS control is given by (11), (14), and (15).
The control architecture is shown in Fig. 1. All AHSS
computations are performed using complex DFT signals. At
time kTs , the control u is updated using (6) and the complex
signal uk . Note that uk is calculated using yk , which is
the DFT of y at frequency ω sampled over the interval
[(k − 1)Ts , kTs ), which corresponds to the time between
the k − 1 and k steps.
The update period Ts must be sufficiently large such that
the harmonic steady-state assumption yk+1 ≈ ŷhss (uk ) is
valid. Numerical testing suggests that Ts should be at least
as large as the settling time associated with the slowest mode
of A, that is, Ts > 4/(ζωn ), where ζ and ωn are the damping
ratio and natural frequency of the slowest mode of A.
The AHSS controller parameters are µ ∈ (0, 1], γ ∈
(0, 1], ν1 > 0, and ν2 > 0. The gains µ and γ influence the
step size of the uk and Mk update equations, respectively.
The gain ν1 and ν2 influence the normalization of the uk
and Mk update equations, respectively.
VI. S TABILITY A NALYSIS
The following result provides stability properties of the
estimator (15). The proof follows from direct computation
and is omitted due to space limitation.
Proposition 1. Consider the open-loop system (7), and
the AHSS control (11), (14), and (15), where µ ∈ (0, 1],
γ ∈ (0, 1], ν1 > 0, and ν2 > 0. Then, for all u0 ∈ C
and M0 ∈ C\{0}, the estimate Mk is bounded, and for all
k ∈ Z+ ,
kMk − M∗ k2F − kMk−1 − M∗ k2F
∗
γk(Mk−1 − M∗ )Mk−1
yk k 2
≤−
. (16)
∗ y k2
ν2 + kMk−1
k
Proposition 1 implies that kMk − M∗ k2F is nonincreasing.
We now analyze closed-loop performance under the assumption that the open-loop system is SISO. Define u∗ ,
ˆ ∗ , which exists because M∗ 6= 0. Note that if uk ≡
−d/M
u∗ , then yk ≡ 0. Next, (7) implies that yk+1 = M∗ uk + dˆ =
M∗ uk + yk − M∗ uk−1 , and substituting (11) yields
∗
µM∗ Mk−1
yk
,
(17)
yk+1 = yk −
ν1 + |Mk−1 |2
ˆ Furthermore, (14) and
where k ∈ Z+ and y1 = M∗ u0 + d.
(15) can be written as

γ
∗
Mk = Mk−1 −
Mk−1 Mk−1
yk
ν2 + |Mk−1 |2 |yk |2

Fig. 1: AHSS control architecture.


ν1 + |Mk−1 |2
+
(yk+1 − yk ) yk∗ Mk−1 . (18)
µ
Define M , C\{x ∈ C : |∠x − ∠M∗ | = π}, which is
the set of all complex numbers except those numbers that
are exactly 180◦ from M∗ . The following result provides
the closed-loop SISO stability properties. The proof is in
Appendix A.
Theorem 3. Consider the closed-loop system (17) and
(18), which consists of (7), (11), (14), and (15), where
µ ∈ (0, 1], γ ∈ (0, 1], ν1 > 0, and ν2 > 0. Then,
(yk , Mk ) ≡ (0, M∗ ) is a Lyapunov stable equilibrium of
(17) and (18). Furthermore, for all initial conditions u0 ∈ C
and M0 ∈ M\{0}, Mk is bounded, limk→∞ uk = u∗ and
limk→∞ yk = 0.
VII. N UMERICAL E XAMPLES
Consider the acoustic duct of length L = 2 m shown
in Fig. 2, where all measurements are from the left end of
the duct. A disturbance speaker is at ξd = 0.95 m, while 2
control speakers are at ξψ1 = 0.4 m and ξψ2 = 1.25 m. All
speakers have cross-sectional area As = 0.0025 m2 . The
equation for the acoustic duct is
∂ 2 p(ξ, t)
1 ∂ 2 p(ξ, t)
=
+ ρ0 ψ̇1 (t)δ(ξ − ξψ1 )
2
2
c
∂t
∂ξ 2
˙
+ ρ0 ψ̇2 (t)δ(ξ − ξψ2 ) + ρ0 d(t)δ(ξ
− ξd ),
where p(ξ, t) is the acoustic pressure, δ is the Dirac delta,
c = 343 m/s is the phase speed of the acoustic wave, ψ1 and
ψ2 are the speaker cone velocities of the control speakers, d
is the speaker cone velocity of the disturbance speaker, and
ρ0 = 1.21 kg/m2 is the equilibrium density of air at room
conditions. See [15] for more details.
Using separation of variables and retaining r modes,
the
Pr solution p(ξ, t) is approximated by p(ξ, t) =
pi=0 qi (t)Vi (ξ), where for i = 1, · · · , r, Vi (ξ) ,
c 2/L sin iπξ/L, and qi satisfies the differential equation
(1), where
 Rt
T
Rt
x(t) =
,
q (σ)dσ q1 (t) · · ·
q (σ)dσ qr (t)
0 1
0 r
i
h
i
h
0
1
0
1
2
A = diag
, · · · , −ωn2r −2ζr ωnr
,
−ωn
−2ζ1 ωn
1
1

T
ρ0 0 V1 (ξψ1 ) · · · 0 Vr (ξψ1 )
B=
,
As 0 V1 (ξψ2 ) · · · 0 Vr (ξψ2 )


ρ0
T
0 V1 (ξd ) · · · 0 Vr (ξd )
D1 =
,
As

d

"
N/m2
!
y
u (m/s)

−200
5
0
−5
0

4

8

0

4

t (s)

8
t (s)

Fig. 3: For a SISO plant with |∠M0 − ∠M∗ | < 90◦ , both HSS
and AHSS yield y(t) → 0 as t → ∞. Dashed lines show ±|u∗ |.

"

HSS
200
0

ψ2

φ1

φ2

Feedback
microphone

Feedback
microphone

y

ψ1

0

AHSS

!

Disturbance Control
speaker speaker

AHSS

200

−200

u (m/s)

Control
speaker

HSS

N/m2

and for i = 1, · · · , r, ωni , iπc/L is the natural frequency
of the ith mode, and ζi = 0.2 is the assumed damping ratio
of the ith mode.
Two feedback microphones are in the duct at ξφ1 =
0.3 m and ξφ2 = 1.7 m, and they measure the acoustic pressures φ1 (t) = p(ξφ1 , t) and φ2 (t) = p(ξφ2 , t),
respectively. Thus, for i = 1, 2, φi (t) = Ci x(t), where
ρ0
[ 0 V1 (ξφi ) · · · 0 Vr (ξφi ) ]. For all examCi = A
s
ples, r = 5 and x(0) = 0. The DFT is performed using a 1
kHz sampling frequency. The HSS and AHSS parameters
are Ts = 0.1 s, u0 = 0, µ = γ = 0.2, ν1 = ν2 =
0.1kM0 k2F , ρ = µ/(ν1 + kM0 k2F ), and Me = M0 , where
M0 is specified in each example. The following examples
consider the acoustic duct with different control speaker and
feedback microphone configurations. Let ω1 = 251 rad/s
and ω2 = 628 rad/s.

5
0
−5

ξφ1
ξψ1

0

4

8

0

t (s)

ξd

4

8
t (s)

Fig. 4: For a SISO plant with |∠M0 − ∠M∗ | > 90◦ , the response
y with HSS diverges, whereas AHSS yields y(t) → 0 as t → ∞.
Dashed lines show ±|u∗ |.

ξψ2
ξφ2
L

40

Fig. 2: Acoustic duct.

M0
Mk
M∗
M 61

30
20
Im M

Example 1. SISO (m = ` = 1). Let u = ψ1 , y = φ1 ,
ψ2 = 0, and d = sin ω1 t + 2 cos ω1 t. First, consider
the case where M0 is within 90◦ of the M∗ , specifically,
π
M0 = 2e 3 M∗ . Figure 3 shows y and u for HSS and AHSS.
The control is turned on after 1 s. Both HSS and AHSS yield
2π
asymptotic disturbance rejection. Next, let M0 = 2e 3 M∗
◦
which is not within 90 of M∗ . Figure 4 shows y and u
for HSS and AHSS. In this case, y with HSS diverges,
whereas y with AHSS converges to zero. Figure 5 shows
the trajectory of the estimate Mk , which moves toward
M∗ . Proposition 1 states that |Mk − M∗ | is nondecreasing;
however, this result assumes that y reaches harmonic steady
state. Figure 5 shows that Mk − M∗ may increase slightly
in practice but generally decreases.
4
Example 2. Single-input two-output (m = 1 and ` =
2). Let u = ψ1 , y = [ φ1 φ2 ]T , ψ2 = 0, and
d = sin ω1 t + 2 cos ω1 t. First, consider the case where
M0 is selected such that (10) is satisfied, specifically,
π
π
M0 = [ 1.5e 4 (M∗ )(1,1) 0.5e 3 (M∗ )(2,1) ]T . Note that
the optimal control is u∗ = −1.66 + 0.98, which minimizes the average power (4). Figure 6 shows y and u
for HSS and AHSS. The control is turned on after 1 s.
In this case, HSS and AHSS each yield uk → u∗ as
k → ∞. Thus, limk→∞ kyk k is minimized. Next, let M0 =
3π
2π
[ 1.5e 4 (M∗ )(1,1) 0.5e 3 (M∗ )(2,1) ]T , which does not

10
0
−10
−60

−50

−40

−30

−20 −10
Re M

0

10

20

Fig. 5: Trajectory of Mk with AHSS for a SISO plant where
|∠(M0 /M∗ )| > π2 . The dashed line shows the locus of M
such that |∠(M/M∗ )| = π2 , which is HSS stability boundary
for Me . Selection of Me = M0 from the lower region, where
|∠(M/M∗ )| > π2 , results in an unstable response with HSS,
whereas AHSS yields asymptotic disturbance rejection for all
M0 ∈ M.

satisfy (10). Figure 6 shows y and u for HSS and AHSS.
In this case, y with HSS diverges, whereas y with AHSS
converges and uk → u∗ as k → ∞, which implies that
limk→∞ kyk k is minimized.
4
Example 3. MIMO (m = 2 and ` = 2) with a twotone disturbance. Let u = [ ψ1 ψ2 ]T , y = [ φ1 φ2 ]T ,
and d = sin ω1 t + sin ω2 t + cos ω1 t + cos ω2 t, which is
a two-tone disturbance. Define M∗,1 , Gyu (ω1 ), and
M∗,2 , Gyu (ω2 ). Since d has 2 tones, we use 2 copies of
the HSS or AHSS algorithm—one copy at each disturbance

AHSS
!
"
y(1) N/m2

HSS

150
0

!
"
y(2) N/m2

−150
300
0
−300

u(1) (m/s)

!
"
y(2) N/m2

!
"
y(1) N/m2

HSS

u (m/s)

5
0

0

2

4
t (s)

6

0

2

4
t (s)

6

Fig. 6: For a single-input two-output plant satisfying (10), both
HSS and AHSS minimize limk→∞ kyk k. Dashed lines show
±|u∗ |.

u(2) (m/s)

−5

300
0
−300
300
0
−300

1
0
−1
2
0
−2
0

4

8

.
AHSS

16

0

4

HSS
!
"
y(1) N/m2

0
−150
300

−300

0
−5
0

2

4
t (s)

6

0

2

4
t (s)

6

Fig. 7: For a single-input two-output plant that does not satisfy
(10), the response y with HSS diverges, whereas AHSS minimizes
limk→∞ kyk k. Dashed lines show ±|u∗ |.

frequency. Let M1,0 and M2,0 denote the initial estimates
of M∗,1 and M∗,2 . First, consider the case where M1,0 and
M2,0 are such that (10) is satisfied, specifically, M1,0 =
π
π
0.6e 6 M∗,1 , and M2,0 = 0.9e 3 M∗,2 . Figure 8 shows y
and u for HSS and AHSS. The control is turned on after 1 s.
Both HSS and AHSS yield asymptotic disturbance rejection.
π
Next, consider the case where M1,0 = 0.2e 7 M∗,1 , and
π
 14
M2,0 = 0.6e M∗,2 , which do not satisfy (10). Figure 9
shows y and u for HSS and AHSS. In this case, y with HSS
diverges, whereas y with AHSS converges to zero.
4
A PPENDIX A: P ROOF OF T HEOREM 3
Proof. Define M̃k , Mk − M∗ , VM (M̃k ) , |M̃k |2 ,
and ∆VM (k) , VM (M̃k ) − VM (M̃k−1 ). It follows from
Proposition 1 that for all k ∈ Z+
γ|Mk−1 |2 |yk |2 |M̃k−1 |2
∆VM (k) ≤ −
.
(19)
ν2 + |Mk−1 |2 |yk |2

u(1) (m/s )

!
"
y(2) N/m2

0

5
u (m/s)

12
t (s)

8

12
t (s)

16

Fig. 8: For a MIMO plant that satisfies (10) with a 2-tone
disturbance, both HSS and AHSS yield y(t) → 0 as t → ∞.

150

u(2) (m/s )

!
"
y(2) N/m2

!
"
y(1) N/m2

HSS

AHSS

AHSS

300
0
−300
300
0
−300

1
0
−1
2
0
−2
0

4

8

12
t (s)

16

0

4

8

12
t (s)

16

Fig. 9: For a MIMO plant that does not satisfy (10) with a 2-tone
disturbance, the response y with HSS diverges, whereas AHSS
yields y(t) → 0 as t → ∞.

Next, define Vy (yk ) , |yk |2 and ∆Vy (k) , Vy (yk+1 ) −
Vy (yk ). Evaluating ∆Vy (k) along the trajectories of (17)
yields

µ|yk |2
∗
∆Vy (k) = −
2Re M∗ Mk−1
ν1 + |Mk−1 |2

µ|M∗ |2 |Mk−1 |2
−
,
(20)
ν1 + |Mk−1 |2
∗
Note that |M̃k−1 |2 = |Mk−1 |2 + |M∗ |2 − 2Re M∗ Mk−1
,
and it follows from (20) that

µ|yk |2
∆Vy (k) = −
|Mk−1 |2 + |M∗ |2 − |M̃k−1 |2
ν1 + |Mk−1 |2


µ|M∗ |2 |Mk−1 |2
.
(21)
ν1 + |Mk−1 |2
Define the Lyapunov function V (yk , M̃k−1 ) , ln(1 +
aVy (yk )) + bVM (M̃k−1 ), where a , (|M0 | + 2|M∗ |)2 /ν2 ,
and b > 0 is provided later. Consider the Lyapunov difference
∆V (k) , V (yk+1 , M̃k ) − V (yk , M̃k−1 ).
(22)
Since for all x > 0, ln x ≤ x − 1, evaluating ∆V along
the trajectories of (17)
 and (18) yields
a∆Vy (k)
∆V (k) = ln 1 +
+ b∆VM (k)
1 + aVy (yk )
a∆Vy (k)
+ b∆VM (k).
(23)
≤
1 + aVy (yk )
Substituting (19) and (21) into
 (23) yields

−

aµ|yk |2 |M∗ |2 −

∆V (k) ≤ −

µ|M∗ |2 |Mk−1 |2
ν1 +|Mk−1 |2

(1 + a|yk |2 )(ν1 + |Mk−1 |2 )
aµ|yk |2 |M̃k−1 |2
+
(1 + a|yk |2 )(ν1 + |Mk−1 |2 )
|Mk−1 |2 |yk |2 |M̃k−1 |2
.
(24)
− bγ
ν2 + |Mk−1 |2 |yk |2
Since for all k ∈ Z+ , ∆VM (k) ≤ 0, it follows that
|Mk−1 | ≤ |M̃k−1 | + |M∗ | ≤ |M̃0 | + |M∗ | ≤ |M0 | + 2|M∗ |,
and thus |Mk−1 |2 ≤ aν2 . Therefore, since µ ∈ (0, 1], it
follows from (24) that
c1 |yk |2
aµ|yk |2 |M̃k−1 |2
∆V (k) ≤ −
+
1 + a|yk |2
ν1 (1 + a|yk |2 )
2
|Mk−1 | |yk |2 |M̃k−1 |2
,
(25)
− bγ
ν2 + aν2 |yk |2
2

1 |M∗ |
where c1 , aµν
(ν1 +aν2 )2 > 0.
To show that (0, M∗ ) is a Lyapunov stable equilibrium,
define D , C × {x ∈ C : |x| < |M∗ |/2}, and note that for
2
all (yk , M̃k−1 ) ∈ D, |Mk−1 | ≥ |M∗ |/2. Let b , γν4aµν
2,
1 |M∗ |
and it follows from (25) that for all (yk , M̃k−1 ) ∈ D,
∆V (k) ≤ −c1 |yk |2 /(1 + a|yk |2 ), which is nonpositive.
Therefore, (yk , Mk−1 ) ≡ (0, M∗ ) is a Lyapunov stable
equilibrium.
To show convergence of yk and uk , let M0 ∈ M\{0},
and define (
|M∗ |,
if M0 = M∗ ,
c2 ,
(26)
∗
|Im M̃0 M∗ |/|M̃0 |, if M0 6= M∗ .
First, assume M0 = M∗ , and it follows that for all k ∈ N,
Mk = M∗ . In this case, for all k ∈ N, |Mk | = c2 .
Next, assume M0 6= M∗ . Since M0 ∈ M\{0}, it
follows that, ∠M∗ − ∠M0 6= π, which implies that
∠(M0 /M∗ ) 6= π. Thus, Im(M0 /M∗ ) 6= 0, which implies
that Im M̃0 M∗∗ = Im (M̃0 M∗∗ + M∗ M∗∗ ) = Im M0 M∗∗ =
|M∗ |2 Im(M0 /M∗ ) 6= 0, and it follows from (26) that
c2 > 0. Next, note
 that it follows2 from2 (17)
 and (18) that
γ|Mk−1 | |yk |
M̃k = 1 −
M̃k−1 ,
ν2 + |Mk−1 |2 |yk |2
which has the solution M̃k = βk M̃0 , where βk ,
Qk−1
γ|Mi |2 |yi+1 |2
. Thus, for all k ∈ Z+ ,
1
−
i=0
ν2 + |Mi |2 |yi+1 |2
|Mk |2 = |M̃k + M∗ |2 = |M̃0 βk + M∗ |2 = |M̃0 |2 βk2 +

2(Re M̃0 M∗∗ )βk + |M∗ |2 . Since f (x) , |M̃0 |2 x2 +
2(Re M̃0 M∗∗ )x + |M∗ |2 is quadratic and positive definite
−Re M̃0 M∗∗
in x, it follows that f is minimized at
. Thus,
|M̃0 |2
for all k ∈ N,
2

|M∗ |2 |M̃0 |2 − Re M̃0 M∗∗
= c22 .
|Mk |2 ≥
|M̃0 |2
aµν2
Thus, for all k ∈ N, |Mk | > c2 . Let b , γν
2 , and it
1 c2
follows from (25) that
c1 |yk |2
∆V (k) ≤ −
.
(27)
1 + a|yk |2
Next, since V is positive-definite, and for all k ∈ N,
∆V (k) is nonpositive, it follows from (22) and (27) that
Pk
Pk
c1 |yi |2
0 ≤ limk→∞ i=1 1+a|y
2 ≤ − limk→∞
i=1 ∆V (i) =
i|
V (y1 , M̃0 ) − limk→∞ V (yk , M̃k−1 ) ≤ V (y1 , M̃0 ), where
the upper and lower bounds imply that all the limc1 |yk |2
= 0. Since in addiits exist. Thus, limk→∞ 1+a|y
2
k|
2

c1 |yk |
tion, 1+a|y
2 is a positive-definite function of yk , it folk|
lows that limk→∞ yk = 0. Furthermore, (7) implies that
ˆ
limk→∞ uk = limk→∞ (yk+1 − d)/M
∗ = u∗ .

R EFERENCES
[1] S. J. Elliott and P. A. Nelson. Active noise control. IEEE Sig. Proc.
Mag., 10(4):12–35, 1993.
[2] P. P. Friedmann and T. A. Millott. Vibration reduction in rotorcraft
using active control: A comparision of various approaches. J.
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 18(4):664–673, 1995.
[3] C. R. Knospe, R. W. Hope, S. M. Tamer, and S. J. Fedigan.
Robustness of adaptive unbalance control of rotors with magnetic
bearings. J. Vibration Contr., 2(2):33–52, 1996.
[4] E. J. Davison. The robust control of a servomechanism problem
for linear time-invariant multivariable systems. IEEE Trans. Autom.
Contr., 21:25–34, 1976.
[5] B. A. Francis, A. Sebakhy, and W. M. Wonham. Synthesis of
multivariable regulators: The internal model principle. J. Appl. Math.
Optim., 1:64–86, 1974.
[6] J. B. Hoagg, M. A. Santillo, and D. S. Bernstein. Internal model
control in the shift and delta domains. IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr.,
53:1066–1072, 2008.
[7] M. Bodson, A. Sacks, and P. Khosla. Harmonic generation in
adaptive feedforward cancellation schemes. IEEE Trans. Auto. Contr.,
39(9):1939–1944, 1994.
[8] D. S. Bayard. A general theory of linear time-invariant adpative
feedforward systems with harmonic regressors. IEEE Trans. Auto.
Contr., 45(11):1983–1996, 2000.
[9] S. J. Elliott, C. C. Boucher, and P. A. Nelson. Active noise control.
IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., 40(5):1041–1052, 1992.
[10] D. Patt, J. Chandrasekar, D. S. Bernstein, and P. P. Friedmann.
Higher-harmonic-control algorithm for helicopter vibration reduction
revisted. J. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 28(5):918–930, 2005.
[11] J. Chandrasekar, L. Liu, D. Patt, P. P. Friedmann, and D. S. Bernstein.
Adaptive harmonic steady-state control for disturbance rejection.
IEEE Trans. Contr. Sys. Tech., 14(6):993–1007, 2006.
[12] S. Pigg and M. Bodson. Adaptive algorithms for the rejection of
sinusoidal disturbances acting on unknown plants. IEEE Trans. Contr.
Sys. Tech., 18(4):822–836, 2010.
[13] D. S. Bernstein. Matrix Mathematics. Princeton University Press,
2009.
[14] D. H. Brandwood. A complex gradient operator and its application in
adaptive array theory. IEE Proceedings F (Communications, Radar
and Signal Processing), 130(1):11–16, 1983.
[15] J. Hong, J. C. Ackers, R. Venugopal, M. N. Lee, A. G. Sparks,
P. D. Washabaugh, and D. S. Bernstein. Modeling, identification, and
feedback control of noise in an acoustic duct. IEEE Trans. Contr. Sys.
Tech., 4:283–291, 1996.

