ROBUST GLOBAL ADAPTIVE EXPONENTIAL STABILIZATION
OF DISCRETE-TIME SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATION TO
FREEWAY TRAFFIC CONTROL
Iasson Karafyllis*, Maria Kontorinaki** and Markos Papageorgiou**
*

Dept. of Mathematics, National Technical University of Athens,
Zografou Campus, 15780, Athens, Greece, email: iasonkar@central.ntua.gr
**

Dynamic Systems and Simulation Laboratory, Technical University of Crete,
Chania, 73100, Greece, email: mkontorinaki@dssl.tuc.gr, markos@dssl.tuc.gr
Abstract
This paper is devoted to the development of adaptive control schemes for uncertain
discrete-time systems, which guarantee robust, global, exponential convergence to
the desired equilibrium point of the system. The proposed control scheme consists
of a nominal feedback law, which achieves robust, global, exponential stability
properties when the vector of the parameters is known, in conjunction with a
nonlinear, dead-beat observer. The obtained results are applicable to highly
nonlinear, uncertain discrete-time systems with unknown constant parameters. The
applicability of the obtained results to real control problems is demonstrated by the
rigorous application of the proposed adaptive control scheme to uncertain freeway
models.

Keywords: Nonlinear systems, adaptive control, discrete-time systems, freeway models.

1. Introduction
Adaptive control for discrete-time systems has been studied in many works (see for instance
[8,29,30,31]) and in many cases it is a direct extension of adaptive control schemes for continuoustime systems (see [16]). Although discrete-time systems allow a direct study of the limitations of
adaptive control schemes (see for example [28]), the major shortcoming of many adaptive control
methodologies is that the closed-loop system does not exhibit an exponential convergence rate to
the desired equilibrium point of the system, even if the nominal feedback law achieves global
exponential stability properties when the parameters are precisely known.
This work is devoted to the development of adaptive control schemes for uncertain discrete-time
systems, which guarantee robust, global, exponential convergence to the desired equilibrium point
of the system. The idea is simple: use a nominal feedback law, which achieves robust, global,
exponential stability properties when the vector of the parameters is known, in conjunction with a
nonlinear, dead-beat observer. The dead-beat observer (designed using an extension of the
methodology described in [12]) achieves the precise knowledge of the vector of unknown
parameters after a transient period; then the states of the closed-loop system are robustly led to the
desired equilibrium point with an exponential rate by the nominal feedback law. The proposed

1

adaptive scheme does not require the knowledge of a Lyapunov function for the closed-loop system
under the action of the nominal feedback stabilizer.
The obtained results are applicable to highly nonlinear, uncertain discrete-time systems with
unknown constant parameters. The applicability of the obtained results to real control problems is
demonstrated by the rigorous application of the proposed adaptive control scheme to uncertain
freeway models.
Traffic congestion in freeways leads to serious degradation of the infrastructure causing
excessive delays, and impacting traffic safety and the environment. Extensive research has been
conducted to investigate and develop traffic control measures which can tackle this phenomenon.
However, measures such as ramp metering, variable speed limits or dynamic route guidance have to
be driven by appropriate control strategies in order to achieve their target. Traffic control strategies
such as nonlinear optimal control [2,5] and Model Predictive Control [1,9] have been extensively
studied but they are highly demanding from the computational point of view. However, the
efficiency of traffic operations can also be enhanced by explicit feedback control approaches such
as the pioneering I-type regulator ALINEA [23] and its extensions [26,27], as well as other
proposed feedback control algorithms in [10,11,24,25]. These explicit feedback control strategies
should guarantee local stability properties for the desired uncongested equilibrium point of the
freeway model.
A Lyapunov approach was adopted in [14,15], which led to the robust, global exponential
stabilization of the uncongested equilibrium point of a nonlinear freeway model. The nonlinear
freeway model considered in [14,15] is a generalization of various freeway models (see [4,5,19]),
which are special cases of the model used in [14,15]. However, the nonlinear feedback stabilizer
demands the knowledge of several model parameters, which are usually unknown. The present
work proposes an adaptive control scheme, which is based on a dead-beat nonlinear observer and
guarantees the robust, global exponential convergence rate to the desired uncongested point of the
freeway model.
The structure of the present work is as follows. Section 2 is devoted to the development of the
robust, global, exponential adaptive control scheme for nonlinear uncertain discrete-time systems.
The obtained results are applied rigorously in Section 3 to uncertain freeway models for the robust,
global, exponential attractivity of the (unknown) desired uncongested equilibrium point of the
freeway model. The concluding remarks of the paper are given in Section 4.
Notation. Throughout this paper, we adopt the following notation:
   : [0,) . For every set S , S n  S


S for every positive integer n .  n :   n . For every


n times

x   , x  denotes the integer part of x   .

denoted by

n

S

i

For certain sets S1 , S 2 ,..., S n , the set S1  S2  Sn is

.

i 1
n

 Let x, y   . By x we denote the Euclidean norm of x   n and by x  we denote the transpose

of x   n .
 When R is an index set, then by ( x i ; i  R ) we denote a vector with components all x i   with
i  R , in increasing order. For example, if R  {2,5,10} , then ( x i ; i  R )  ( x 2 , x 5 , x10 )  .

2

2. Exponential Stabilization Of Systems With Unknown Parameters
Consider the discrete-time system:
z   F (d , z ) , z  X   n , d  D

(2.1)
where X   is a non-empty closed set with z  X , D   is a non-empty set, F : D  X  X is a
locally bounded mapping with F (d , z  )  z  for all d  D . In this work we adopt the following robust
exponential stability notion (see similar notions in [7,13,18]).


n

l

Definition 2.2: We say that z   X is Robustly Globally Exponentially Stable (RGES) for system
(2.1) if there exist constants M ,   0 such that for every z 0  X , d i  Di0 , the solution z (t ) of
(2.1) with z (0)  z 0 corresponding to d i  Di0 satisfies z (t )  z   M exp  t  z 0  z  for all t  0 .
We next consider discrete-time systems with uncertain constant parameters and outputs. Consider
the discrete-time system:
x   f ( d ,  , x , u ) , x  S , d  D, u  U
(2.2)
n
l
m
q
where S   , D   , U   ,    are non-empty sets and f : D    S  U  S is a locally
bounded mapping. In this setting, x  S denotes the state of system (2.2), d  D is an unknown, timevarying input, u  U is the control input and    denotes the vector of unknown, constant
parameters. The measured output of the system is given by
y (t )  h(d (t ),  , x(t ))
(2.3)
k

where h : D    S   is a locally bounded mapping. We assume that x  S is an equilibrium
point for system (2.2) and d  D is a vanishing perturbation, i.e., there exist vectors
y   h( D  { }  S ) such that f (d ,  , x  , u  )  x  , y   h(d ,  , x  ) for all d  D . Moreover, let Y   k be a
set with h( D    S )  Y .
In what follows we denote by y ( p ) (t )  ( y (t  1), y (t  2),..., y (t  p )) for certain positive integer p  0
the “ p  history” of the signal y (t ) (defined for all t  p ).
The main result of this section provides sufficient conditions for dynamic, robust, global,
exponential stabilization of the equilibrium point x   S . The stabilizer is constructed under the
following assumptions.
(H1) Suppose that there exists a mapping k :   Y  U such that x   S is RGES for the closed-loop
system (2.2), (2.3) with u  k  , y  .
(H2) Suppose that there exist a positive integer p  0 , a mapping  : Y  A   and a set A  Y p
which contains all w  Y p in a neighborhood of ( y  ,..., y  ) , such that for every sequence

(d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  


t 0

and for every x 0  S , the solution x(t ) of (2.2), (2.3) with u  k (ˆ, y ) , initial

condition x(0)  x 0 corresponding to inputs (d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  t 0 satisfies    ( y (t ), y ( p ) (t )) for all
t  p with y ( p ) (t )  A .


(H3) There exists a positive integer m  0 , such that for every sequence (d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  t 0 and for


every x 0  S , the solution x(t ) of (2.2), (2.3) with u  k (ˆ, y ) , initial condition x(0)  x 0

corresponding to inputs (d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  t 0 satisfies y ( p ) (t  i(t ))  A for some i(t )  {0,1,..., m} and for
all t  m  p .


Assumption (H1) is a standard assumption, which guarantees the existence of a robust global
exponential stabilizer when the vector of the parameters    is known. Assumptions (H2)-(H3)
are equivalent to complete, robust observability assumption of  from the output given by (2.3) (see
also [12]).
3

Theorem 2.1: Consider system (2.2) with output given by (2.3) under assumption (H1), (H2), (H3).
Moreover, suppose that the sets f ( D    S  U ), Y ,  are bounded. Finally, assume that there exist a
constant L  0 , neighborhoods N 1   n of x  , N 2   k of y  , N 3   q of  , such that the
inequalities
f ( d ,  , x, k (ˆ, h ( d ,  , x )))  x   h( d ,  , x )  y   L x  x   L ˆ   ,
 ( h ( d ,  , x ), w )    L x  x   L

p



wi  y 

i 1

hold for all x  N 1  S , d  D , ˆ  N 3   , wi  N 2  Y ( i  1,..., p ) with w  ( w1 ,..., w p ) .
Then the dynamic feedback stabilizer
w1  y
w2  w1

w p  w p 1

(2.4)

 ˆ if w  A
 ( y, w) if w  A

ˆ   

 

u  k ˆ, y

where w  ( w1 ,..., w p )  Y , ˆ   achieves the following:
p

1)

There exist constants M ,   0 such that for every sequence d (i)  Di0 and for every

( x 0 , w0 , ˆ0 )  S  Y p   , the solution ( x(t ), w(t ), ˆ(t )) of the closed-loop system (2.2), (2.3) with (2.4),
initial condition ( x(0), w(0), ˆ(0))  ( x 0 , w0 , ˆ0 ) corresponding to input d (i)  Di0 satisfies

x(t )  x  

p

 w (t)  y
i



 ˆ(t )  

i 1


 M exp( t ) x(0)  x  



2)

For every sequence d (i)  D


i 0

p


i 1


wi (0)  y   ˆ(0)   



, for all t  0

(2.5)

and for every ( x 0 , w0 , ˆ0 )  S  Y p   , the solution

( x(t ), w(t ), ˆ(t )) of the closed-loop system (2.2), (2.3) with (2.4), initial condition
( x(0), w(0), ˆ(0))  ( x 0 , w0 , ˆ0 ) corresponding to input d (i )  Di0 satisfies ˆ(t )   , for all t  m  p  1 .

Remark: The dynamic feedback stabilizer (2.4) achieves dead-beat estimation of the vector of
unknown parameters    . More, specifically, the variable ˆ provides an estimate of the vector of
unknown parameters    . Due to the dead-beat estimation, the exponential convergence property
for the closed-loop system is preserved, as estimate (2.5) shows.
The proof of Theorem 2.1 relies on the following technical lemma.
Lemma 2.2: Consider system (2.1) and suppose that the following hold:
i) There exist constants M ,   0 such that for every z 0   , d (i)  Di0 the solution z (t ) of (2.1)
with

initial

condition

z (0)  z 0

corresponding

to

input

d (i)  Di0

satisfies

z (t )  z   M z 0  z  exp( t ) for all t  0 .

ii) There exists an integer N  1 such that for every z 0  X , d (i)  Di0 and t  N there exists
i(t )  {0,1,..., N } for which the solution z (t ) of (2.1) with initial condition z (0)  z 0 corresponding to
input d (i)  Di0 satisfies z (t  i(t ))   .
4

iii) There exists a constant L  1 , such that the inequality F (d , z )  z   L z  z  holds for all d  D
and for all z  X in a neighborhood of z  .
Then z   X is RGES for the uncertain system (2.1).
Proof: By virtue of assumption (iii), there exists   0 such that the inequality F (d , z )  z   L z  z 





holds for all d  D and z  A : y  X : y  z    . Since F : D  X  X is a bounded mapping, there
exists a constant R  0 which satisfies

supF (d , z ) : z  X , d  D   R

(2.6)

It follows from (2.6) and the triangle inequality that the following inequality holds:
 F (d , z )  z 



sup 
:d  D , z  X \ A  

zz











 1 sup F (d , z )  z  : z  X , d  D   1 R  z 



(2.7)

Combining (2.7) and the fact that F (d , z )  z   L z  z  holds for all d  D and for all z  A , we get:





F (d , z )  z   max L,  1 ( R  z  ) z  z 

, for all (d , z )  D  X

(2.8)

Let z 0  X be an arbitrary vector and let d (i)  Di0 be an arbitrary sequence. Consider the solution
of z   F (d , z ) with initial condition z (0)  z 0 corresponding to input d (i)  Di0 . By virtue of
assumption (ii), there exists i( N )  {0,1,..., N } with z ( N  i( N ))   . By virtue of assumption (i), we get:
z (t )  z   M z (k )  z  exp( (t  k )) , for all t  k , where k  N  i(N ) .
(2.9)
z (t )

Notice that k {0,1,..., N} . Using induction and (2.8), we get
where





~
L : max L,  1 ( R  z  )  1 .

~
z (t )  z   L t z 0  z 

, for all t  0 ,

(2.10)

Combining (2.9), (2.10) and the fact that k  {0,1,..., N } , we obtain:

~
z (t )  z   ML N exp( N ) z 0  z  exp( t ) ,

for all t  0

(2.11)

Noticing that assumption (iii) guarantees that z   F (d , z  ) , we conclude that estimate (2.11) implies
that z   X is RGES for the uncertain system (2.1). The proof is complete. 
We are now ready to provide the proof of Theorem 2.1.
Proof of Theorem 2.1: Let (x) be the (possibly empty) set of all w  ( w1 ,..., w p )  Y p for which
there exist   S , (d (i), ˆ(i))  D   , i  0,..., p  1, such that the vectors x (i ) , i  0,..., p , defined by the
recursive formula
x (0)   , x (i  1)  f (d (i ),  , x (i ), k (ˆ(i ), h(d (i ),  , x (i )))) , for i  0,..., p  1 ,
(2.12)
satisfy x ( p)  x and w p i  h(d (i),  , x (i)) for i  0,..., p  1 .

All assumptions of Lemma 2.2 hold with X  S  Y p   , z  ( x, w, ˆ) ,    ( x, w,  ) : w  ( x), x  S  ,
N  m  p  1 , z   ( x  , y  ,..., y  ,  ) and





 f d ,  , x, k ˆ, h(d ,  , x)

h( d ,  , x )


w1
F (d , z ) : 



w p 1

 g (h(d ,  , x), w, ˆ)

5





’





ˆ if w  A
. We show next that assumptions (i), (ii) of
 (h(d ,  , x ), w) if w  A


where g (h(d ,  , x), w, ˆ) : 

Lemma 2.2 are direct consequences of assumptions (H1), (H2), (H3).
Let d (i)  Di0 be an arbitrary sequence and let ( x 0 , w0 , ˆ0 )   be an arbitrary vector with ˆ0   .
Consider the solution ( x(t ), w(t ), ˆ(t )) of the closed-loop system (2.2), (2.3) with (2.4), initial
condition ( x(0), w(0), ˆ(0))  ( x 0 , w0 , ˆ0 ) corresponding to input d (i)  Di0 . By virtue of (2.12), the
component x(t ) of the solution satisfies x(t )  x (t  p) for all t  0 , for certain solution x (i) of the
system x   f ( ,  , x , k (v, h(d ,  , x ))) (that corresponds to certain inputs ( (t ), v(t ))  D  t0 with
 (t  p )  d (t ) , v(t  p )  ˆ(t ) for all t  0 and appropriate initial condition   S ). Moreover,
w(t )  y ( p ) (t  p)   ( x(t ))

for all t  0 , where y (t )  h( (t ),  , x (t )) . Notice that if w(0)  w0  A then
y ( p ) ( p)  A , and, consequently, assumption (H2) guarantees that ˆ(1)   . If w(0)  w0  A then
ˆ(1)  ˆ(0)   . Using induction and the previous argument, it follows that ˆ(t )   for all t  0 .
Therefore, assumption (i) of Lemma 2.1 is a consequence of assumption (H1).
Assumption (ii) of Lemma 2.1 follows from the fact that w(t )  y ( p ) (t )   ( x(t )) for all t  p .
Assumption (H3) guarantees that w(t  i(t ))  y ( p ) (t  i(t ))  A for some i(t )  {0,1,..., m} and for all
t  m  p . It follows from (2.4) that ˆ(t  i(t) 1)   . Since t  i(t ) 1  p 1 , we also get w(t  i(t )  1)  ( x(t ))
and thus z (t  i(t )  1)   . Therefore, assumption (ii) of Lemma 2.2 holds with N  m  p  1 .
Since A  Y p contains all w  Y p in a neighborhood of ( y  ,..., y  ) and since there exist
neighborhoods N 1   n of x  , N 2   k of y  , N 3   q of  , such that the inequalities
f (d ,  , x, k (ˆ, x))  x   h(d ,  , x)  y   L x  x   L ˆ   ,  (h(d ,  , x), w)    L x  x   L

p

w

i

 y

i 1

hold for all x  N 1  S , d  D ,

ˆ  N 3   , wi  N 2  Y

assumption (iii) of Lemma 2.2 holds.

( i  1,..., p ) with w  ( w1 ,..., w p ) , it follows that



3. Application to Freeway Traffic Control
3.I. The freeway model

We consider a freeway which consists of n  3 components or cells; typical cell lengths may be
200-500 m. Each cell may have an external inflow (e.g. from corresponding on-ramps), located near
the cell’s upstream boundary; and an external outflow (e.g. via corresponding off-ramps), located
near the cell’s downstream boundary (Figure 1). The number of vehicles at time t  0 in component
i  {1,..., n} is denoted by x i (t ) . The total outflow and the total inflow of vehicles of the component
i  {1,..., n} at time t  0 are denoted by Fi ,out (t )  0 and Fi ,in (t )  0 , respectively. All flows during a
time interval are measured in [veh]. Consequently, the balance of vehicles (conservation equation)
for each component i  {1,..., n} gives:
x i (t  1)  x i (t )  Fi ,out (t )  Fi ,in (t ) , i  1,..., n , t  0 .

(3.1)

Each component of the network has storage capacity a i  0 ( i  1,..., n ). Our first assumption states
that the external (off-ramp) flows from each cell are constant percentages of the total exit flow, i.e.,
there exist constants Pi  [0,1) , i  1,..., n , such that:

6

 flow of vehicles 
  (1  Pi ) Fi ,out (t ) , for i  1,..., n  1

 from cell i to cell i  1

(3.2)

flow of vehicles



  Pi Fi ,out (t ) , for i  1,..., n .
 from cell i to regions out of the freeway 

(3.3)

The constants Pi are known as exit rates. Since the n -th cell is the last downstream cell of the
considered freeway, we may assume that Pn  1 . We also assume that Pi  1 for i  1,..., n  1 , and that
all exits to regions out of the network can accommodate the respective exit flows.
Our second assumption is dealing with the attempted outflows f i ( x i ) , i.e. the flows that will exit
the cell if there is sufficient space in the downstream cell. We assume that there exist functions
f i : [0, a i ]    with 0  f i ( x i )  x i for x i  (0, a i ] , variables s i (t )  [0,1] , i  2,..., n , so that:
Fi 1,out (t )  s i (t ) f i 1 ( x i 1 (t )) , i  2,..., n , t  0

and Fn,out (t )  f n ( x n (t )) .

(3.4)

The variable s i (t )  [0,1] , for each i  2,..., n , indicates the percentage of the attempted outflow
from cell i  1 that becomes actual outflow from the same cell. The function f i : [0, a i ]    is
called, in the specialized literature of Traffic Engineering (see, e.g., [4,5,6,19,20,21]), the demandpart of the fundamental diagram of the i -th cell, i.e. the flow that will exit the cell i if there is
sufficient space in the downstream cell i+1. Notice that equation (3.4) for Fn,out (t ) follows from our
assumption that all exits to regions out of the network can accommodate the exit flows.
Let v i  0 ( i  1,..., n ) denote the attempted external inflow to component i  {1,..., n} from the region
out of the freeway. Typically, vi , i  2,..., n , correspond to external on-ramp flows which may be
determined by a ramp metering control strategy. For the very first cell 1, we assume, for
convenience, that there is just one external inflow, v1  0 . Let the variables Wi (t )  [0,1] , i  1,..., n ,
indicate the percentage of the attempted external inflow to component i  {1,..., n} that becomes
actual inflow. Then, we obtain from (3.2) and (3.4):
F1,in (t )  W1 (t )v1 (t )

and Fi,in (t)  Wi (t)vi (t)  si (t)(1 Pi1 ) f i1 (xi1 (t)) , i  2,..., n .

(3.5)

Our next assumption requires that the inflow of vehicles at the cell i  {1,..., n} at time t  0 ,
denoted by Fi,in (t )  0 , cannot exceed the supply function of cell i  {1,..., n} at time t  0 , i.e.,
Fi ,in (t )  minq i , c i (a i  x i (t ))  , i  1,..., n , t  0

(3.6)

where q i  (0,) denotes the maximum flow that the i -th cell can receive (or the capacity flow of
the i -th cell) and c i  (0,1] ( i  1,..., n ) denotes the congestion wave speed of the i-th cell.
Following [4], we assume that, when the total demand flow of a cell is lower than the supply of
the downstream cell, i.e. when vi (t)  (1 Pi1) f i1(xi1(t))  minqi , ci (ai  xi (t)) for some i  {2,..., n} , then the
demand flow can be fully accommodated by the downstream cell, and hence we have
s i (t )  Wi (t )  1 . Similarly, when v1 (t )  min q1 , c1 (a1  x1 (t ))  , then we have Wi (t )  1 . In contrast, when
the total demand flow of a cell is higher than the supply of the downstream cell, i.e. when
v i (t )  (1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( x i 1 (t ))  min q i , c i (a i  x i (t )) 
for
some
i  {2,..., n}
(or
when
v1 (t )  min q1 , c1 (a1  x1 (t ))  ), then the demand flow cannot be fully accommodated by the downstream

7

cell, and the actual flow is determined by the supply function, i.e. we have Fi,in (t)  minqi , ci (ai  xi (t))
(or F1,in (t)  minq1 , c1 (a1  x1 (t)) ). Therefore, we get:
F1,in (t )  min q1 , c1 (a1  x1 (t )), v1 (t )  , t  0

(3.7)


 minqi , ci (ai  xi (t)) 
 minqi , ci (ai  xi (t))  vi (t) 

  di (t) min1,
si (t)  (1  di (t))min1, max 0,
 (1  P ) f (x (t))  , i  2,..., n , t  0


(
1
P
)
f
(
x
(
t
))

i 1 i 1 i 1
i 1 i 1 i 1





Fi ,in (t )  minqi , ci (ai  xi (t )), vi (t )  (1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( xi 1 (t )) , i  2,..., n , t  0

(3.8)
(3.9)

where
d i (t )  [0,1] , i  2,..., n , t  0

(3.10)

are time-varying parameters. Note that, if the supply is higher than the total demand, then (3.8)
yields s i  1 , irrespective of the value of d i , since the total demand flow can be accommodated by
the downstream cell. Thus, the parameter d i determines the relative inflow priorities, when the
downstream supply prevails. Specifically, when d i (t )  0 , then the on-ramp inflow has absolute
priority over the internal inflow; on the other hand, when d i (t )  1 , then the internal inflow has
absolute priority over the on-ramp inflow; while intermediate values of d i reflect intermediate
priority cases. The parameters d i (t )  [0,1] are treated as unknown parameters (disturbances). Notice
that by introducing the parameters d i (t )  [0,1] (and by allowing them to be time-varying), we have
taken into account all possible cases for the relative priorities of the inflows (and we also allow the
priority rules to be time-varying); see [3,4] for freeway models with specific priority rules, which
are special cases of our general approach.

Figure 1: Scheme of the freeway model.

All the above are illustrated in Figure 1. Combining equations (3.1), (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), (3.7) and
(3.9) we obtain the following discrete-time dynamical system:
x1  x1  s 2 f 1 ( x1 )  min q1 , c1 (a1  x1 ), v1 

(3.11)

 x1  s 2 f 1 ( x1 )  w1 v1
xi  xi  si1 f i ( xi )  minqi , ci (ai  xi ), vi  (1 Pi1 ) f i 1 ( xi1 )
 xi  si1 f i ( xi )  Wi vi  si (1 Pi 1 ) f i1 (xi1 )

, for i  2,..., n  1

xn  xn  f n (xn )  minqn , cn (an  xn ), vn  (1 Pn1 ) f n1 (xn1 )
 xn  f n (xn ) Wn vn  sn (1 Pn1 ) f n1 (xn1 )

(3.12)
(3.13)

where s i  [0,1] , i  2,..., n are given by (3.8). The values of Wi  [0,1] , i  1,..., n , may also be similarly
derived from (3.5), (3.7), (3.9) when v i  0 but they are not needed in what follows. Define
n

S

 (0, a ] . Since the functions
i

f i : [0, a i ]   

satisfy 0  f i ( xi )  x i for all xi  (0, a i ] , it follows

i 1

that (3.11), (3.12), (3.13) is an uncertain control system on S (i.e., x  ( x1 ,..., x n )   S ) with inputs
v  (v1 ,..., v n )   (0,)   n1 and disturbances d  (d 2 ,..., d n )   [0,1] n 1 . We emphasize again that the
uncertainty d  [0,1] n 1 appears in the equations (3.11), (3.12) and (3.13) only when the supply
function prevails, i.e., only when v i (t )  (1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( x i 1 (t ))  minq i , c i (a i  x i (t ))  for some i  {2,..., n} .
8

We make the following assumption for the functions f i : [0, a i ]    ( i  1,..., n ):
(H) There exist constants  i  (0, a i ] and ri  (0,1) such that f i ( z )  ri z for z  [0,  i ] . Moreover, there
exists a positive constant f i min  0 such that f i ( i )  ri  i  f i ( z )  f i min for all z  [ i , a i ] .

Assumption (H) is a technical assumption that allows a very general class of demand functions
(which are also allowed to be discontinuous). A more general assumption than assumption (H) was
used in [14,15], but in [14,15] it was assumed that all parameters of the model were known. More
specifically, in [14,15], it was not necessary the demand functions f i : [0, a i ]    ( i  1,..., n ) to be
linear on the corresponding intervals [0,  i ] .
3.II. Global Exponential Stabilization of Freeway Models

Define

the

vector

field

~
F : D  S  (0,)   n1  S

for

all

n

xS 

 (0, a ] ,
i

i 1

d  (d 2 ,..., d n )  D  [0,1] n 1

and v  (0,)   n1 :
with

~
~
~
F (d , x, v)  ( F1 (d , x, v ),...., Fn (d , x, v))    n
~
F1 (d , x, v)  x1  s 2 f 1 ( x1 )  min q1 , c1 (a1  x1 ), v1  ,

~
Fi (d , x, v)  xi  s i 1 f i ( xi )  minqi , ci (ai  xi ), vi  (1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( xi 1 )  , for i  2,..., n  1 ,
~
Fn (d , x, v)  xn  fn ( xn )  minqn , cn (an  xn ),vn  (1  Pn1) fn1( xn1) and

 min q i , c i ( a i  x i )   v i
s i  (1  d i ) min 1, max  0,

(1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( x i 1 )



 min q i , c i ( a i  x i )  


   d i min 1,
 (1  P ) f ( x )  , for i  2,..., n . (3.14)

i 1
i 1 i 1 



Notice that, using definition (3.14), the control system (3.11), (3.12), (3.13) can be written in the
following vector form:
~
x   F (d , x, v) , x  S , d  D, v  (0,)   n1 .
(3.15)



n 1
Consider the freeway model (3.15) under assumption (H). Let v  (v1 ,..., v n )   (0,)    be a
vector that satisfies:
v1  min q1 , c1 (a1   1 ), r1 1 

v i 

Any

inflow

x   ( x1 ,..., x n ) 

vector

that

 i 1

v j 
(1  Pk )   min q i , c i (a i   i ), ri  i 


j 1
 k j


(3.16)

i 1

 

satisfies

(3.16),

defines

an

uncongested

equilibrium

point

n

 (0,  ) for the freeway model:
i

i 1

x1  r11v1

x i  ri1  v i 



 i 1

v j 
(1  Pk )   , i  2,..., n


j 1
 k j


i 1

 

(3.17)

The uncongested equilibrium point is not globally exponentially stable for arbitrary v1  0 , v i  0
( i  2,..., n ); indeed, for relatively large values of inflows v1  0 , v i  0 ( i  2,..., n ), other equilibria
for model (3.15) (congested equilibria) may appear, for which the cell densities are large and can
attract the solution of (3.15).
The following result (see [14,15]) is the main result in feedback design that provides the nominal
feedback for the adaptive control scheme that we intend to use. The result shows that a continuous,
robust, global exponential stabilizer exists for every freeway model of the form (3.15) under
assumption (H).
9

Theorem 3.1: Consider system (3.15) with n  3 under assumption (H) for each i  1,..., n . Then
there exist a subset R  {1,..., n} of the set of all indices i  {1,..., n} with v i  0 , constants   (0,1] ,
bi  (0, v i ) for i  R and a constant    0 such that for every   (0,   ) the feedback law k : S   n
defined by:
k ( x)  (k1 ( x),..., k n ( x))    n with
k i ( x)  max bi , v i   1 v i  bi ( x)  , for all x  S , i  R and k i ( x)  v i , for all x  S , i  R
(3.18)
where
n

( x) :



i



max 0, x i  x i

 , for all x  S

(3.19)

i 1

achieves robust global exponential stabilization of the uncongested equilibrium point x  of system
(3.15), i.e., x  is RGES for the closed-loop system (3.15) with v  k (x) .
The result of Theorem 3.1 (see [14,15]) is based on the construction of a Control Lyapunov
function for system (3.15) under a more general assumption than assumption (H). The feedback law
provides values for the controllable inflows v i , i  R , in the interval [bi , v i ] for all i  R , where
bi  (0, v i ) for i  R are the minimum allowable inflows. Since the proof of Theorem 3.1 is
constructive, criteria for the selection of the index set R  {1,..., n} and the constants   (0,1] ,
bi  (0, v i ) for i  R and    0 are provided.
Without loss of generality, we will assume, in what follows, that R   (because otherwise the
uncongested equilibrium point is open-loop RGES).
Let  i  (0,  i ) , v i,max  (0,) ( i  1,..., n ) be constants such that
v1,max  min q1 , c1 (a1  1 )  ,

vi,max  (1  Pi 1 )ri 1  i 1  minqi , ci (ai   i ) , i  2,..., n

n

n

i 1

i2

(3.20)

It follows that if x     (0,  i ) and v  (0, v1,max ]   [0, v i ,max ] :
Wi  1 , for i  1,..., n
x1

 x1  f 1 ( x1 )  v1 ,

and s i  1 , for i  2,..., n
 xi  f i ( xi )  vi  (1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( xi 1 ) , for i  2,..., n .

xi

(3.21)
(3.22)

n

In what follows, we assume that x   ( x1 ,..., x n )   (0,  i   ] , v i  [bi   , v i ,max ] for i  R and for
i 1

n

some   (0,1 / 2) and v   (0, v1,max ]   [0, v i ,max ] . Moreover, we assume that Pi  [0,1   ] for
i 2

i  1,..., n  1

and ri  [ ,1   ] for i  1,..., n .

Another feature of the present problem is that the selection of the uncongested equilibrium point
may be made in an implicit way. For example, we may want the uncongested equilibrium point that
guarantees the maximum outflow from the freeway. In such cases, the equilibrium position of the
controllable inflows is determined as a function of the nominal values of the uncontrollable inflows
and the parameters of the freeway, i.e., there exists a smooth function
g : [0,1  ]n1 

[0, v

i,max ][ ,1   ]

n



iR

[b   , v
i

i,max ]

iR

such that
(v i ; i  R )  g ( P, v i ; i  R, r )

where P  ( P1 ,..., Pn 1 )   [0,1   ] n 1 and r  (r1 ,..., rn )   [ ,1   ] n .
10

(3.23)

3.III. Measurements and Unknown Parameters

Let m  {1,..., n} be the cardinal number of the set R and let u  U   [bi , v i ,max ]  (0,) m be the
iR

vector of all controllable inflows v i with i  R .
The model parameters which are (usually) unknown or uncertain are: the exit rates Pi  [0,1) for
i  1,..., n  1 , the uncontrollable inflows v i    for i  R and the demand coefficients ri  (0,1) for
i  1,..., n . All these parameters will be denoted by   ( P, v i ; i  R, r ) and are assumed to take values in
a compact set  : 0,1   n 1   0, v i,max   ,1   n , for some   (0,1 / 2) . Therefore, the control
iR

system (3.11), (3.12), (3.13) can be written in the following vector form:
x   F ( d ,  , x, u )
x  S , d  D,   , u  U 

 [b , v
i

(3.24)

i , max ]

iR

Notice that the feedback law defined by (3.18) is a feedback law of the form u  k ( , x) : the
feedback law depends on the unknown parameters through x  and (v i ; i  R) (recall (3.17) and
(3.23)). It follows that assumption (H1) holds for system (3.24). An explicit definition of the
feedback law k :   S  U is given by the following equations for all ˆ  ( Pˆ , vˆi ; i  R, rˆ)   , x  S
with rˆ  (rˆ1 ,..., rˆn )   [ ,1   ] n , Pˆ  ( Pˆ1 ,..., Pˆn 1 )   [0,1   ] n 1 :
(vˆ i ; i  R)  g ( Pˆ , vˆ i ; i  R, rˆ)
(3.25)



xˆ1  min rˆ11vˆ1 , 1  



 

i 1

 i 1


xˆ i  min rˆi1  vˆi 
vˆ j 
(1  Pˆk )   ,  i    , i  2,..., n



 

j 1

 k j
 


1 
ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
u  k ( , x) with k i ( , x)  max bi , vˆ i   vˆ i  bi ( , x) , for all x  S , i  R

 



(ˆ, x) :

n





i



max 0, x i  xˆ i





, for all x  S ,

(3.26)
(3.27)
(3.28)

i 1

The measured quantities are the cell densities x  S and the outflows from each cell. We have two
kinds of outflows from each cell: the outflow to regions out of the freeway
Qout  (Q1,out ,...., Q n,out )    n

(3.29)

Qi ,out  Pi s i 1 f i ( x i ) , i  1,..., n  1
Q n,out  f n ( x n )

and the outflows from one cell to the next cell
Q  (Q1 ,...., Q n 1 )    n1

(3.30)

Qi  (1  Pi ) s i 1 f i ( x i ) , i  1,..., n  1

Therefore, the measured output is given by:
y  h(d ,  , x)  ( x, Qout , Q)  S   n   n 1 ,

Assumption

(H)

guarantees

that

 [0, a ]   [0, a ] .
i

i 1


i 1

i

Notice

that

i 1

n 1

n

Y : S 

n 1

n

h( D    S )  Y : S 

(3.31)

[0, a i ] 

 [0, a ] is a bounded set.
i

i 1

It follows from (3.21), (3.22), (3.29), (3.30), assumption (H) and the fact that  i  (0,  i ) ( i  1,..., n ),
that:
11

n

“if x(t  1)     (0,  i ) , t  1 , then the following equations hold:
i 1

Pi 

Qi ,out (t  1)

(3.32)

, i  1,..., n  1

Qi ,out (t  1)  Qi (t  1)

vi  xi (t )  xi (t 1)  Qi (t 1)  Qi,out (t 1)  Qi 1 (t 1) , i  {2,..., n} \ R
v1

(3.33)
(3.34)

 x1 (t )  x1 (t  1)  Q1 (t  1)  Q1,out (t  1) , if 1  R

ri 

Qi ,out (t  1)  Qi (t  1)
x i (t  1)

, i  1,..., n ”.

(3.35)

Equations (3.32), (3.33), (3.34), (3.35), (3.31) allow us to define a mapping  : h( D    S )  Y  
for which   (P1 ,..., Pn1 , vi ; i  R, r1 ,..., rn )  ( y(t ), y(t 1)) for all t  1 with y (t  1)  A , where A  Y is the
set for which
n

w  ( w1 , w2 , w3 )  A  ( w1 , w2 , w3 )  Y , w1   

 (0,  )
i

and

w2,i  w3,i  0

for

i  1,..., n  1 .

(3.36)

i 1

The mapping  : h( D    S )  Y   is defined by
ˆ  ( Pˆ1 ,..., Pˆn 1 , vˆ i ; i  R, rˆ1 ,..., rˆn )    ( y, w)

w 2,i
Pˆi  min1   ,

w2,i  w3,i


(3.37)


 , i  1,..., n  1



(3.38)

vˆ i  max 0, min v i , max , x i  w1,i  w3,i  w2,i  w3,i 1  , if i  {2,..., n} \ R
vˆ n  max 0, min v n,max , x n  w1,n  w2, n  w3,n 1  , if n  R

and i  n

(3.39)
(3.40)
(3.41)

vˆ1  max 0, min v1,max , x1  w1,1  w3,1  w2,1  , if 1  R



w2,i  w3,i
rˆi  max  , min1   ,


w1,i




  , i  1,..., n  1




w 2, n  

rˆn  max  , min1   ,



w
1
,
n




(3.42)
(3.43)

Using assumption (H), (3.16), (3.17) and (3.31), it follows that there exists y   Y with
y   h( d ,  , x  )

for all

dD .

By virtue of our assumption

x  (x1 ,..., xn ) 

n

(0,  )
i

and

i 1

v (0, v1,max]

n

[0, v

i,max]

, (3.36), we conclude that A contains all w  Y in a neighborhood of y  . It

i2

follows that (H2) holds with p  1 for system (3.24) with output given by (3.29), (3.30), (3.31).
In order to prove that assumption (H3) holds for system (3.24) with output given by (3.29),
(3.30), (3.31), we need the following fact, which is a consequence of property (C5) shown in [14]
and (3.20).
j

Fact: Define I j ( x) :  xi for j  1,..., n . There exists a constant C  (0,1) such that the following
i 1

inequality holds:
n


i 1

I i ( x  )  (1  C )

n



n

n

I i ( x) 

i 1


i 1

( n  1  i )v i

, for all ( x, v, d )  S  (0, v1,max ] [0, vi,max ][0,1]n1

(3.44)

i 2

where x  is given by (3.24).
The following proposition guarantees that assumption (H3) holds for system (3.24) with output
(3.29), (3.30), (3.31).

12

Proposition 3.2: Suppose that bi  0 ( i  R ) and v i ,max ( i  R ) are sufficiently small and that   0 is
sufficiently small (    2 n min (v i,max  bi ) 1  ). Then there exists an integer m  1 such that for every

sequence (d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  

iR


t 0

and for every x 0  S , the solution x(t ) of (3.24), (3.31) with u  k (ˆ, x) ,

initial condition x(0)  x 0 corresponding to inputs (d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  t 0 satisfies y (t  1  i(t ))  A for
some i(t )  {0,1,..., m} and for all t  m  1 .


Proof: Assume that bi  0 ( i  R ) and v i,max ( i  R ) are sufficiently small so that

 (n 1  i)b   (n 1  i)v  C min (n 1  i)  .
 b )  and vˆ  [b   , v
] for i  R , it follows that
 vˆ  b    (v
 b )
, for all i  R .
i , max

i

Since    2 n min(v i,max
iR

iR

i

iR

i

1

1


i

i

i

1

i

i 1,...,n

(3.45)

i , max

i , max

i

n

(3.46)

Let m  1 be an integer that satisfies
 
 n

 ln min (n  1  i) i   C 1   ln (n  1  i)ai  



  i 1,...,n
 i 1

m  2 
.

ln(
1
C
)









(3.47)

Next, we show the following claim.
Claim: If x   then for every (ˆ, d )  [0,1]n1 it holds that
n



I i ( x  )  (1  C )

i 1

n

 I ( x)  

(3.48)

i

i 1

where C  (0,1) is the constant involved in (3.44),  :  (n  1  i)bi   (n  1  i)v i ,max and x  is given
iR

by (3.24) with

iR

u  k (ˆ, x) .
n

Proof of Claim: If x     (0,  i ) , then there exists i  {1,..., n} such that x i   i . Since
i 1

n

 [0,    ] (recall (3.26)), it follows from (3.28) and the fact that   (0,1] that
x  xˆ     . Since (3.46) holds, it follows from (3.27) that v  b for all i  R . Inequality

xˆ   ( xˆ1 ,..., xˆ n ) 

i

i 1

(ˆ, x)   n

i


i

n

i

i

(3.48) is a consequence of (3.44) and the fact that  0, v i,max  for all i  R . The proof of the claim
is complete.

We show next, by means of a contradiction, that for every sequence (d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  t 0 and for
v i

every x 0  S , the solution x(t ) of (3.24), (3.31) with u  k (ˆ, y ) , initial condition x(0)  x 0

corresponding to inputs (d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  t 0 satisfies y (t  1  i (t ))  A for some i(t )  {0,1,..., m} and for
all t  m  1 .


Suppose that, on the contrary, there exists a sequence (d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  t 0 , a vector x 0  S and an


integer t  m  1 , such that the solution x(t ) of (3.24), (3.31) with u  k (ˆ, y ) , initial condition

corresponding to inputs (d (t ), ˆ(t ))  D  t 0 satisfies y (t  1  i(t ))  A for all i(t )  {0,1,..., m} .
By virtue of (3.36), this implies that x(t  1  i(t ))   for all i(t )  {0,1,..., m} (notice that (3.21), (3.22),
(3.29), (3.30), (3.31) and (3.36) guarantee that x   implies that y  A ). It follows from the Claim,
that
x(0)  x 0



13

n



n

I i ( x (l  1))  (1  C )

i 1

 I ( x(l ))   , for l  t  1  m,..., t  1 .

(3.49)

i

i 1

Using (3.49) repeatedly, we get:
n



I i (x(t 1))  (1 C) m

i1

n



I i (x(t 1 m)) 

i1

1 (1 C) m
.
C

j

(3.50)

n

Using the definition I j ( x) :  x i for j  1,..., n and the fact that x  S   (0, a i ] , we get from (3.50):
i 1

i 1

(n  1  j ) x j (t  1)  (1  C ) m

n

 (n  1  i)a

i

 C 1

, for all j  1,..., n .

(3.51)

i 1

Using (3.51), (3.45) and (3.47), we get:

(n 1 j) x j (t 1)  min (n 1 i)i  ,
i 1,...,n

for all j  1,..., n

n

which implies that x(t  1)     (0,  i ) , a contradiction. The proof is complete.



i 1

The main result for the freeway model is a consequence of Theorem 2.1 and the fact that all
functions are sufficiently smooth in a neighborhood of the equilibrium.
Corollary 3.3: Consider system (3.24) with output given by (3.29), (3.30), (3.31). Suppose that
bi  0 ( i  R ) and v i , max ( i  R ) are sufficiently small and that   0 is sufficiently small. Then the
dynamic feedback law given by:
w1  x , w2  Qout , w3  Q
(3.52)
Pˆi 


Pˆi if w  A



w 2 ,i



min 1   , w  w  if
2,i
3,i 



w A

, i  1,..., n  1

(3.53)


vˆi if w A
(vˆi )   
, if i  {2,..., n} \ R and i  n
(3.54)
max0, minvi,max, xi  w1,i  w3,i  w2,i  w3,i1  if w A

vˆ n if w  A
(vˆ n )   
, if n  R
(3.55)
max0, minv n,max , x n  w1,n  w2,n  w3,n 1  if w  A
vˆ1 if w  A

( vˆ1 )   
, if 1  R
(3.56)
 max 0, min v1, max , x1  w1,1  w 3,1  w 2 ,1  if w  A
rˆi if w  A




w2,i  w3,i  
(3.57)
rˆi  
  if w  A , i  1,..., n  1
max  , min1   ,





w
1,i




rˆn if w  A





w 2, n  
(3.58)
rˆn  
  if w  A
max  , min1   ,





w1,n  



with (3.25), (3.26), (3.27), (3.28), Pˆ  ( Pˆ1 ,..., Pˆn 1 ) , P  ( P1 ,..., Pn 1 ) , rˆ  (rˆ1 ,..., rˆn ) , r  (r1 ,..., rn ) ,
w  ( w1 , w 2 , w3 ) , vˆ   (vˆ1 ,..., vˆ n ) ,

achieves the following:
There exist constants M ,   0 such that for every sequence d(i) Di0 and for every
1)
( x 0 , w0 , Pˆ0 , vˆ j ; j  R, rˆ0 )  S  Y   , the solution of the closed-loop system (3.24), (3.31) with (3.52)(3.58),

(3.25)-(3.28),

initial

( x(0), w(0), pˆ (0), vˆ j (0); j  R, rˆ(0))  ( x0 , w0 , pˆ 0 , vˆ j ; j  R, rˆ0 )

condition

corresponding to input d (i)  Di0 satisfies

14

x(t )  x   w(t )  y   rˆ(t )  r  Pˆ (t )  P  vˆ  (t )  v 

vˆi  vi
 M exp( t ) x(0)  x   w(0)  y   rˆ(0)  r  Pˆ (0)  P 

iR




 , for all t  0




(3.59)

There exists an integer N  1 such that for every sequence d (i)  Di0 and for every
( x 0 , w0 , Pˆ0 , vˆ j ; j  R, rˆ0 )  S  Y   , the solution of the closed-loop system (3.24), (3.31) with (3.52)-

2)

(3.58),

(3.25)-(3.28),

initial

( x(0), w(0), Pˆ (0), vˆ j (0); j  R, rˆ(0))  ( x0 , w0 , Pˆ0 , vˆ j ; j  R, rˆ0 )

condition

corresponding to input d (i)  Di0 satisfies Pˆ (t )  P , rˆ(t )  r , vˆ  (t )  v  , for all t  N .
Proof: Let N1   be a neighborhood of x* , N 2  A be a neighborhood of y * , and let N 3   3n 1 m
n

be a neighborhood of  . Since    (0,  i ) , it follows from Assumption (H) and the fact that
i 1

 i  (0,  i ) for i  1,..., n that f i ( x i )  ri x i for i  1,..., n . Definitions (3.29), (3.30), (3.31) in conjunction

with (3.21) and the fact that Pi  [0,1) for i  1,..., n  1 , ri  (0,1) for i  1,..., n , imply that the following
n

inequality holds for all x     (0,  i ) and d  (d 2 ,..., d n )  D  [0,1] n 1 :
i 1


h ( d ,  , x )  y   x  x   Q out  Q out
 Q  Q
n 1



 x  x* 

Pi f i ( x i )  Pi f i ( x i* )  f n ( x n )  f n ( x n* )

i 1

n 1





(3.60)

(1  Pi ) f i ( x i )  (1  Pi ) f i ( x i* )

i 1
n



 x  x* 

i 1


ri x i  x i*   1 



n



i 1


ri  x  x *



Next, we notice that by virtue of (3.22) and the facts that Pi  [0,1) for i  1,..., n  1 , ri  (0,1) for
i  1,..., n , f i ( x i )  v i  (1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( x i1 ) for i  2,..., n , f 1 ( x1 )  v1 , it follows that the following holds
n

for all x     (0,  i ) , d  D  [0,1] n 1 and u   m :
i 1

F (d ,  , x, u )  x *
 x1  f1 ( x1 )  v1  x1* 

n

x

i

 f i ( xi )  vi  (1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( xi 1 )  xi*

i2

n



x

i

 f i ( xi )  f i ( xi* )  (1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( xi 1 )  (1  Pi 1 ) f i 1 ( xi1 )  xi*

i2

(3.61)

 m u  u   x1  f1 ( x1 )  f1 ( x1* )  x1*
 (1  r1 ) x1  x1* 

n

 (1  r ) x
i

i

 xi*

i2

n



 (1  P

i 1 ) ri 1

xi 1  xi1  m u  u 

i2


 n 




where u 

(v i ; i  R )

n

n

 r   (1  P
i

i 1

i2


 x  x  m u  u 


i 1 ) ri 1 

. Using (3.27) and (3.28), it is straightforward to show that there exists a
n

~

constant L  0 such that the following inequality holds for all x, xˆ   S and vˆ    [0, v i ,max ] :
~
~
~
u  u  L x  x   L xˆ   x   L vˆ   v 


15

i 1

.

(3.62)

Using (3.25), (3.26) and the fact that the function g : [0,1   ] n1  [0, vi,max ] [ ,1   ] n  [bi   , vi,max ]
iR

iR

is a smooth function, it follows that the following inequality holds for all
xˆ   x   vˆ   v   M ˆ  

.

ˆ  N 3   :

(3.63)

Finally, using definitions (3.37)-(3.43) in conjunction with the fact that N 2  A , it follows that there
exists a constant L  0 such that
 (h(d ,  , x), w)    L x  x   L

p

w

i

 y

,

i 1

for all x  N 1  S , d  D , ˆ  N 3   , wi  N 2  Y ( i  1,..., p ) with w  ( w1 ,..., w p ) . (3.64)
Since, we have already proved that assumptions (H1), (H2), (H3) hold for the closed-loop system
(3.24), (3.31) with (3.52)-(3.58), (3.25)-(3.28), it follows from (3.60), (3.61), (3.62), (3.63) and
(3.64) that all assumptions of Theorem 2.1 hold. Therefore, Corollary 3.3 is a direct application of
Theorem 2.1 to the closed-loop system (3.24), (3.31) with (3.52)-(3.58), (3.25)-(3.28). The proof is

complete.

4. Concluding Remarks
Novel results for adaptive control schemes for uncertain discrete-time systems, which guarantee
robust, global, exponential convergence to the desired equilibrium point of the system, were
provided in the present work. The proposed control scheme consists of a nominal feedback law,
which achieves robust, global, exponential stability properties when the vector of the parameters is
known, in conjunction with a nonlinear, dead-beat observer. The proposed adaptive scheme did not
require the knowledge of a Lyapunov function for the closed-loop system under the action of the
nominal feedback stabilizer and is directly applicable to highly nonlinear, uncertain discrete-time
systems with unknown constant parameters.
Acknowledgments: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European
Research Council under the E.U.'s 7th Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant
Agreement n. [321132], project TRAMAN21.

References

[1] Burger, M., M. van den Berg, A. Hegyi, B. De Schutter, and J. Hellendoorn, “Considerations for
Model-Based Traffic Control”, Transportation Research - Part C, 35, 2013, 1–19.
[2] Carlson, R.C., I. Papamichail, M. Papageorgiou, and A. Messmer, “Optimal Motorway Traffic
Flow Control Involving Variable Speed Limits and Ramp Metering”, Transportation Science,
44, 2010, 238-253.
[3] Coogan, S. and M. Arcak, “Dynamical Properties of a Compartmental Model for Traffic
Networks”, Proceedings of the American Control Conference, 2014.
[4] Daganzo, C. F., “The Cell Transmission Model. Part II: Network Traffic”, Transportation
Research, Part B, 29(2), 1995, 79–93.
[5] Gomes, G. and R. Horowitz, “Optimal Freeway Ramp Metering Using the Asymmetric Cell
Transmission Model”, Transportation Research – Part C, 14(4), 2006, 244-262.

16

[6] Gomes, G., R. Horowitz, A. A. Kurzhanskiy, P. Varaiya and J. Kwon, “Behavior of the Cell
Transmission Model and Effectiveness of Ramp Metering”, Transportation Research Part C,
16(4), 2008, 485-513.
[7] Haddad, W. M. and V. Chellaboina, Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Control A LyapunovBased Approach, Princeton University Press, 2008, Princeton.
[8] Hayakawa, T., W. M. Haddad and A. Leonessa, “A Lyapunov-Based Adaptive Control
Framework for Discrete-Time Non-Linear Systems With Exogenous Disturbances”,
International Journal of Control, 77(3), 2004, 250–263.
[9] Hegyi, A., B. De Schutter, and H. Hellendoorn, “Model Predictive Control for Optimal
Coordination of Ramp Metering and Variable Speed Limits”, Transportation Research – Part C,
13(1), 2005, 185-209.
[10] Hou, Z., J.-X. Xu, and J. Yan, “An Iterative Learning Approach for Density Control of
Freeway Traffic Flow via Ramp Metering”, Transportation Research - Part C, 16, 2008, 71–97.
[11] Kachroo, P. and K. Ozbay, Feedback Ramp Metering in Intelligent Transportation Systems,
Springer, 2003.
[12] Karafyllis, I., and C. Kravaris, “On the Observer Problem for Discrete-Time Control Systems”,
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 52(1), 2007, 12-25.
[13] Karafyllis, I., and M. Papageorgiou, “Global Stability Results for Traffic Networks”, IEEE
Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 2(1), 2015, 68-77.
[14] Karafyllis, I., M. Kontorinaki and M. Papageorgiou, “Global Exponential Stabilization of
Freeway Models”, to appear in the International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control (see
also arXiv:1408.5833 [math.OC]).
[15] Karafyllis, I., M. Kontorinaki and M. Papageorgiou, “Global Exponential Stabilization of
Freeway Models”, Proceedings of the European Control Conference 2015, Linz, Austria, 26452650.
[16] Krstic, M., I. Kanellakopoulos and P. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design,
John Wiley and Sons, 1995.
[17] Kurzhanskiy, A. A. and P. Varaiya, “Active Traffic Management on Road Networks: A
Macroscopic Approach”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1928), 2010, 4607–4626.
[18] Lakshmikantham, V. and D. Trigiante, Theory of Difference Equations Numerical Methods
and Applications, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2002.
[19] Lebacque, J. P., “The Godunov Scheme and What it Means for First Order Traffic Flow
Models”, Proc. of the 13th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory,
1996, Pergamon, 647–677.
[20] Lebacque, J. P., “Two-Phase Bounded Acceleration Traffic Flow Model Analytical Solutions
and Applications”, Transportation Research Record 1852, Paper No. 03-4397, 2003, 220-230.
[21] Lebacque, J. P. and M. Khoshyaran, “First Order Macroscopic Traffic Flow Models for
Networks in the Context of Dynamic Assignment”, Transportation Planning, 2004, 119–140.
[22] Lebacque, J. P., “Intersection Modeling, Application to Macroscopic Network Traffic Flow
Models and Traffic Management”, Traffic and Granular Flow’03, 2005, 261–278.
[23] Papageorgiou, M., H. Hadj-Salem, and J.-M. Blosseville, “ALINEA: A Local Feedback
Control Law for On-Ramp Metering”, Transportation Research Record, 1320, 1991, 58 - 64.
[24] Shlayan, N. and P. Kachroo, “Feedback Ramp Metering Using Godunov Method Based Hybrid
Model”, Journal of Dynamic Systems,, Measurement, and Control, 135(5), 2013.
[25] Sun, X. and R. Horowitz, “Set of New Traffic-Responsive Ramp-Metering Algorithms and
Microscopic Simulation Results”, Transportation Research Record, 1959, 2007, 9-18.
[26] Wang, Y., and M. Papageorgiou, “Local Ramp Metering in the Case of Distant Downstream
Bottlenecks”, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
Toronto, Canada, September 17-20, 2006, 426-431.
[27] Wang, Y., M. Papageorgiou, J. Gaffney, I. Papamichail, G. Rose and W. Young, “Local Ramp
Metering in Random-Location Bottlenecks Downstream of Metered On-Ramp”, Transportation
Research Record, No. 2178, 2010, 90-100.
17

[28] Xie, L. L., and L. Guo, “Fundamental Limitations of Discrete-Time Adaptive Nonlinear
Control”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 44(9), 1999, 1777-1782.
[29] Zhang, Y., C. Wen, Y. C. Soh, “Robust Adaptive Control of Uncertain Discrete-Time
Systems”, Automatica, 35, 1999 321-329.
[30] Zhang, Y., C. Wen, Y. C. Soh, “Robust Adaptive Control of Nonlinear Discrete-Time Systems
by Backstepping Without Overparameterization”, Automatica, 37, 2001, 551-558.
[31] Zhao, J.-X., and I. Kanellakopoulos, “Adaptive Control of Discrete-Time Strict-Feedback
Nonlinear Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conf. Decision and Control, San Diego, CA, Dec.
1997.

18

