Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
, ,,

ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000
Procedia Computer Science 125 (2018) 25–33 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

6th International Conference on Smart Computing and Communications, ICSCC 2017, 7-8
December 2017, Kurukshetra, India

RBF Neural Control Design for SISO Nonaffine Nonlinear Systems

Pramendra Kumara , Naveen Kumarb,∗, Vikas Panwara
a Department of Applied Mathematics, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida-201308, India
b Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology (NIT), Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra-136119, Haryana, India

Abstract
In the present paper, an RBF neural control scheme is designed for regulatory control of SISO nonaffine systems facing unknown
nonlinearities. Using Taylor series expansion, the nonaffine part of the system is converted into affine form. RBF network is utilized
to estimate the equivalent affine system. The parameters of RBF network are updated online based on Lyapunov stability theory.
To avoid the requirement of measurement of the states of the system, an observer is designed, which provides the estimated values
of the system’s states. Using Lyapunov theory, the signals of the system are shown to be asymptotically stable. To validate the
effectiveness of the presented scheme, numerical simulation study has been performed.

c 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

⃝
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 6th International Conference on Smart Computing and Commu-
nications.
Keywords: Nonaffine Nonlinear System, RBF Neural Network, Lyapunov stability theory.

1. Introduction

During last decade, a large number of control schemes are developed for uncertain systems with the assump-
tion that the the system is affine (linear) in the control input. However in many industrial applications such as flight
control[1], chemical systems [2], wind turbines [3], tank reactors [4] etc., the system to be controlled is nonaffine.
Therefore controller design for nonaffine systems has evolved as a challenging problem. Many remarkable controllers
are designed for nonaffine systems. Previously control schemes incorporated backstepping techniques for control of
nonaffine systems[5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. In [5] an adaptive scheme was discussed for non-affine systems using neural net-
works. By utilizing time-scale seperation to estimate the inversion of nonaffine system, a novel method was presented
by singular perturbation method in [6] and [7]. In [8] a neural control based synthesis approach was used for nonaffine
systems and the assumption of fixed-point was eliminated. A disturbance observer was designed for nonaffine system
in [9] to estimate the compounded disturbances of the system. In [10] a control scheme was designed for hysteretic
systems by combining the merits of hysteresis model with backstepping technique with no requirement of hysteresis
inverse.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-1744-233508

E-mail address: [email protected] (Naveen Kumar).
1877-0509 ⃝c 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 6th International Conference on Smart Computing and Communications.
1877-0509 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 6th International Conference on Smart Computing and Communications
10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.006
26 Pramendra Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 125 (2018) 25–33
2 Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

However, in backstepping design the complexity of the control design increases with the system order as a result of
the recurring differentiation of the control input. To overcome this issue, another technique named as dynamic surface
control (DSC), was used for control of nonaffine system[11, 12, 13]. In [11] novel DSC scheme was presented using
multilayer neural networks and a filter was utilized to eliminate the aforementioned issue of the repeated differenti-
ation. In [12] by incorporating DSC approach with NN based approach, backstepping based controller was designed
for nonlinear systems. However, it is a recursive method while requiring O(n) number of NNs and auxiliary low-pass
filters for an nth order system. Adaptive backstepping-free controllers were also studied [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. In
[14], an adaptive backstepping-free controller was presented. To approximate the states and unknown nonlinearities,
NN observer was proposed. In [15] an adaptive scheme was proposed for nonaffine systems. A fuzzy logic based
recurrent scheme was presented for non-affine system by utilizing observer for the states. in [16]. In [17] an adaptive
controller, based on observer, was presented for uncertain SISO non-affine systems. In [18] neural network based
control scheme was proposed for non-affine systems by considering the delay problem of the system. In [19], different
optimal control schemes were presented for systems having nonlinearities. For a nonaffine system with nonlinearities
of dead-zone and facing external disturbances, an asymptotically stable control scheme was presented in [20].
In the present paper, we have designed an RBF neural network based control scheme for nonaffine systems. Firstly
nonaffine part of the system is transformed into affine form by utilizing taylor series approach. Then RBF neural
network is utilized to estimate the equivalent affine system. In many industrial applications, the exact knowledge of
the states of the system are not available. Therefore the states of the system are estimated by using the designed
observer. Lyapunov approach is utilized for the purpose of stability analysis and based on the analysis, all signals of
the system are shown to be bounded. Finally the scheme is validated through numerical simulation studies.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the problem is formulated together with the description of RBF
neural network. In Section 3, the design of control system are described in details. In Section 4, the detailed sta-
bility analysis is presented. Numerical simulation studies are performed in Section 5. Finally conclusive remark are
described in Section 6.

2. Problem Formulation

We Consider the following form of SISO nonaffine nonlinear system

ẋ(t) = Mx(t) + NG(x(t), u(t))

y(t) = Dx(t) (1)

where M ∈ Rn×n , N ∈ Rn×n and D ∈ Rn×n are system matrices (known). Also u(t) ∈ R is the input of the system and
y(t) ∈ R is the output of the system. The the measurement of the state vector x(t) ∈ Rn , is not available and G(x, u) is
smooth function (unknown).
The following commonly found assumptions are used:
Assumption 1: G(x, u) ∈ C 1 ∀ (x, u) ∈ Rn+1 .
n+1
Assumption 2: ∂G ∂u ̸= 0 ∀ (x, u) ∈ R .
The objective of the present study is to outline a state feedback control scheme for SISO nonaffine system so that the
output of the system follows a reference signal, keeping all signals of system to be bounded.
In the presented work, RBFNN is utilized to design the control scheme. In the area of control engineering, NN is being
used to compensate the unknown function. It has been shown in the literature that a linear combination of Gaussian
functions can approximate any continuous function[21]. In RBFNN, the input space is mapped into an intermediate
space by a nonlinear transformation performed by hidden layer. Then the output of the network is obtained by linearly
combining the outputs of the intermediate layer. We can described RBFNN as

h(x) = Wht (x)θh† + ϵh (x) (2)

ϵh (x) is the NN reconstruction errors.

 Pramendra Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 125 (2018) 25–33 27
Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000 3

3. Control System Design

To obtain the desired goal, firstly the non-affine part of the system is transformed into affine form utilizing Taylor
series expansion method as
G(x, u) = d(x) + h(x)u + q(x, u) (3)
where
∂G
d(x) = G(x, u0 ) − ( )u u0 (x) (4)
∂u 0
∂G
h(x) = ( )u=u0 (x) (5)
∂u
with q(x, u) containing the higher degree terms and u0 (x) is utilized to minimize the function |q(x, u)|.
As a result, we obtained the affine system equivalent to (1)
ẋ = Mx + N{d(x) + h(x)u + q(x, u)}
y = Dx (6)
Now RBFNN is used to estimate the unknown d(x) and h(x).
Let θd and θh be the estimate of θd† and θh† , then we define the RBF neural network approximation d̂(x) and ĥ(x) of
d(x) and h(x) as follows:
d(x) = Wdt (x)θd† + ϵd (x)
d̂(x) = Wdt (x)θd (7)
h(x) = Wht (x)θh† + ϵh (x)
ĥ(x) = Wht (x)θh (8)
Using (7) and (8) in (6), we get
ẋ = Mx + N{Wdt (x)θd† + ϵd (x) + (Wht (x)θh† + ϵh (x))u + q(x, u)} (9)
y = Dx (10)
Since the state of the system is unmeasurable, we need to have an observer to approximate the state vector x(t). An
appropriate observer for x(t) is given by
x̂˙ = M x̂ + N{Wdt ( x̂)θd + (Wht ( x̂)θh )u + S (y − ŷ)} (11)
ŷ = D x̂ (12)
where x̂ is the estimate of x whereas ŷ(t) is output of the observer and S ∈ Rn×1 .
Now, the error vector of the estimation can be defined by e = x − x̂, then we have

ė = ẋ − x̂˙
ė = Mx + N[Wdt (x)θd† + ϵd (x) + (Wht (x)θh† + ϵh (x))u + q(x, u)] − [M x̂ + N{Wdt ( x̂)θd + (Wht ( x̂)θh )u + S (y − ŷ)}]
ė = (M − S D)e + N[Wdt (x)θd† − Wdt ( x̂)θd + (Wht (x)θh† − Wht ( x̂)θh )] + N[ϵd (x) + uϵh (x) + q(x, u)] (13)

In order to get the error equation of the system (1), we expand W(x) = W( x̂ + e) in terms of e as a Taylor series:
Wd (x) = Wd ( x̂ + e) = Wd ( x̂) + Jd e + HOT (14)

Wh (x) = Wh ( x̂ + e) = Wh ( x̂) + Jh e + HOT (15)

Where e = [e1 , e2 , e3 , ..., en ]t and Jd can be defined as:

 4 Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000
28 Pramendra Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 125 (2018) 25–33

 ∂Wd1 ∂Wd1 ∂Wd1 

 ∂x1 ∂x2 ··· ∂xn

 ∂Wd2 ∂Wd2 ∂Wd2 
 ∂x ∂x2 ··· ∂xn

Jd =  . 1 .. .. .. 

 .. . . . 

∂Wdn ∂Wdn ∂Wdn  
∂x1 ∂x2 ··· ∂xn

Similarly we can define Jh and HOT is higher order term. Then using (14) and (15), (13) is rewritten as
ė = (M − S D)e + N[Wdt ( x̂)θd† − Wdt ( x̂)θd + (Wht ( x̂)θh† − Wht ( x̂)θh )] + N[ϵd (x) + et Jd θd†
+uϵh (x) + et Jh θh† u + q(x, u)]

ė = (M − S D)e + N[Wdt ( x̂)(θd† − θd ) + (Wht ( x̂)(θh† − θh )] + N[ϵd (x) + et Jd θd† + uϵh (x) + et Jh θh† u + q(x, u)]

ė = (M − S D)e + N[Wdt ( x̂)θ̃d + Wht ( x̂)θ̃h u] + N[ϵd (x) + et Jd θd† + uϵh (x) + et Jh θh† u + q(x, u)] (16)

ė = (M − S D)e + N[Wdt ( x̂)θ̃d + Wht ( x̂)θ̃h u + w] (17)

where w = [ϵd (x) + et Jd θd† + uϵh (x) + et Jh θh† u + q(x, u)], θ̃d = θd† − θd and θ̃h = θh† − θh . It is assumed that w satisfies
|w(t)| ≤ ϵN with ϵN as some positive constant.
The desired controller is given as:
1 1 t
u= (−E x̂ − d̂( x̂) − N P̄ x̂ + rm ) (18)
ϕ(ĥ) 2δ2

where ϕ(ĥ) is selected so that ϕ(ĥ) = h0 , when ĥ → 0 and ϕ(ĥ) = ĥ, when ĥ ̸= 0, where h0 is a small positive design
parameter. E ∈ Rn is the gain vector, δ > 0 is a constant, rm is the reference signal of the input and P̄ = P̄T is a
symmetric matrix satisfying the Ricatti equation as follows
ϕtE P̄ + P̄ϕE + µ2 P̄2 = −Q2 (19)
where µ > 0 and Q2 is symmetric positive definite matrix.
Using (18) in (11), we get
1
x̂˙ = (M − NE) x̂ + N(rm − 2 N t P̄ x̂) + S De (20)
2δ
Where E and S are chosen so that ϕ = (M − NE) and ϕS = (M − S D) are Hurwitz matrices whereas P satisfies the
following Ricatti equation as
1 1
ϕtS P + PϕS + PNN t P + 2 Dt S t S D = −Q1 (21)
δ2 µ
where Q1 is symmetric positive definite matrix.

4. Stability Analysis

If the nonaffine system is given as (1) and the control scheme be chosen as (18), then for t ≥ 0, error and the weight
estimates are UUB whereas H ∞ tracking performance is contented as
∫ T
J= [et (t)Q1 e(t) + x̂(t)Q2 x̂(t)]dt
0
∫ T
1 ˜t 1 ˜t
≤ {et (0)Pe(0) + x̂t (0)P̄ x̂(0) + θd (0)θ˜d (0) + θh (0)θ˜h (0) + δ2 [rmt (t)rm (t) + wt (t)w(t)]dt}
2γd 2γh 0
 Pramendra Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 125 (2018) 25–33 29
Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000 5

Proof.
For the stability analysis, the Lyapunov function is chosen as
1 ˜t ˜ 1 ˜t ˜
V(t) = et Pe + x̂P̄ x̂ + θd θd + θ θh (22)
2γd 2γh h
The time derivative of (22) gives
1 1
V̇(t) = ėt Pe + et Pė + x̂˙ P̄ x̂ + x̂P̄ x̂˙ + θ˜dt θ˙˜d + θ˜ht θ˙˜h (23)
γd γh
Substituting (9), (11), (13) and (20) in (23), we get
1
V̇(t) = et (ϕtS P + PϕS )e + x̂(ϕtE P̄ + P̄ϕE ) x̂ + (ϕtS P + PϕS ) + 2θ˜dt Wd N t Pe + θ˜dt θ˙˜d
γd
1 1
+ 2θ˜ht Wh N t Peu + θ˜ht θ˙˜h − ( 2 x̂t P̄NN t P̄ x̂ − 2 x̂t P̄Nrm ) + (2et PNw + 2 x̂P̄S De) (24)
γh δ

1 ˜t ˙˜
V̇(t) = et (ϕtS P + PϕS )e + x̂(ϕtE P̄ + P̄ϕE ) x̂ + (ϕtS P + PϕS ) + 2θ˜dt Wd N t Pe + θ θd
γd d
1 1 1 1 1
+ 2θ˜ht Wh N t Peu + θ˜ht θ˙˜h − ( N t P̄ x̂ − δrm )t ( N t P̄ x̂ − δrm ) − ( N t Pe − δw)t ( N t Pe − δw)
γh δ δ δ δ
1 t 1 2 t ¯2 1 t t t 1
− ( S De − µP̄ x̂) ( S De − µP̄ x̂) + δ (rm rm + w w) + µ x̂ P x̂ + 2 e D S S De + 2 et PNN t Pe
2 t t
µ µ µ δ
1 1
≤ et (ϕtS P + PϕS + 2 TC t S t S D + 2 PNN t P)e + x̂(ϕtK P̄ + P̄ϕE + µ2 P¯2 ) x̂ + 2θ˜dt Wd N t Pe
µ δ
1 ˜t ˙˜ 1
+ θd θd + 2θ˜ht Wh N t Peu + θ˜ht θ˙˜h + δ2 (rmt rm + wt w) (25)
γd γh
If the neural network weights are updated as:

θ˙˜d = 2γd Wd N t Pe
θ˙˜h = 2γh Wh N t Peu (26)
Then using (19), (21), (25) can be rewritten as
V̇(t) ≤ −et Q1 e − x̂t Q2 x̂ + δ2 (rmt rm + wt w)
V̇(t) ≤ −λmin (Q1 )∥e∥2 − λmin (Q2 )∥ x̂(t)∥2 + δ2 (∥rm ∥2 + ∥w∥2 ) (27)
where λmin (Q1 ) and λmin (Q2 ) denote the singular value of matrix Q1 and Q2 respectively. Whenever
δ2 (∥rm ∥2 + ∥w∥2 )
∥e(t)∥2 + ∥ x̂(t)∥2 ≥ (28)
λmin (Q)
We get from (27) V̇(t) ≤ 0,
where λmin (Q) = min{λmin (Q1 ), λmin (Q2 )}. Then integrating (28) between the limits t = 0 to t = T , we get
∫ T
J= [et Q1 e + x̂t Q2 x̂]dt
0
∫ T
2
≤ V(0) + δ (rmt rm + wt w)dt
0
∫ T
t 1 ˜t ˜ 1 ˜t ˜ 2
t
≤ {e (0)Pe(0) + x̂ (0)P̄ x̂(0) + θ (0)θd (0) + θ (0)θh (0) + δ [rmt (t)rm (t) + wt (t)w(t)]dt}
2γd d 2γh h 0

This completes the proof.

30 Pramendra Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 125 (2018) 25–33
6 Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000

5. Simulation Results

In this section, simulation study has been performed for the proposed controller. For the simulation purpose, we
consider the following nonaffine system
x˙1 = x2
x˙2 = x12 + 0.15u3 + .1(1 + x22 )u + sin(0.1u)
y = x1 (29)
where A = [0 1; 0 0], B = [0; 1], C = [1 0]. The gain vectors are chosen as K = [1 3] and L = [3 1]′ so that ϕ and
ϕS are Hurwitz matrices. The matrix P is obtained as P = [201 − 100; −100 500].
The design parameters are taken as µ = 0.1, δ = 100, g0 = 0.1, rm (t) = 0.5 for case 1 and rm (t) = 1.0 for case 2. For
the simulation purpose we consider 10 nodes of RBFNN structure. The matrices γ f and γg are chosen as γ f = 50I5 ,
γg = 50I5 . The controller is simulated with MATLAB environment. The effectiveness of the proposed controller is
shown with the Figs. 1-3 for case 1 and with the Figs. 4–6 for case 2. From the figures, it is clear that the error are
quickly converging to zero levels and the proposed observer based RBF neural controller can achieve the desired
performance.

1 1
State x1 Observer Estimate for State x1
State x2 Observer Estimate for State x2
0.5 0.5

0 0
Trajectories

Trajectories

−0.5 −0.5

−1 −1

−1.5 −1.5

−2 −2
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec) time (sec)

Fig. 1. (a) Trajectories of x1 (t) and x2 (t) (Case 1) ; (b) Trajectories of Observer estimate x̂1 (t) and x̂2 (t) (Case 1)

−5
x 10
0.5 3
y(t) Error Estimate for State x1
rm(t)
2.5
0
2

1.5
Estimation Error

−0.5
Trajectories

−1
0.5

0
−1.5
−0.5

−2 −1
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec) time (sec)

Fig. 2. (a) Error estimate for x1 (t) and x̂1 (t) (Case 1) ; (b) Error estimate for x2 (t) and x̂2 (t) (Case 1)
 Pramendra Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 125 (2018) 25–33 31
Kumar et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2018) 000–000 7

−3
x 10
8
Error Estimate for State x2
6

Estimation Error
0

−2

−4

−6

−8
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec)

Fig. 3. The output of the closed loop system (Case 1)

1 1
State x1 Observer Estimate for State x1
State x2 Observer Estimate for State x2
0.5 0.5

0 0
Trajectories

Trajectories

−0.5 −0.5

−1 −1

−1.5 −1.5

−2 −2
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec) time (sec)

Fig. 4. (a) Trajectories of x1 (t) and x2 (t) (Case 2) ; (b) Trajectories of Observer estimate x̂1 (t) and x̂2 (t) (Case 2)

−5
x 10
1 3
y(t) Error Estimate for State x1
r (t)
m
2.5
0.5

2
0
Estimation Error
Trajectories

1.5
−0.5
1

−1
0.5

−1.5
0

−2 −0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec) time (sec)

Fig. 5. (a) Error estimate for x1 (t) and x̂1 (t) (Case 2) ; (b) Error estimate for x2 (t) and x̂2 (t) (Case 2)
 32
8 Pramendra
Kumar et al. /Kumar et Computer
Procedia al. / Procedia Computer
Science Science
00 (2018) 125 (2018) 25–33
000–000

−3
x 10
8
Error Estimate for State x2
6

Estimation Error
0

−2

−4

−6

−8
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec)

Fig. 6. The output of the closed loop system (Case 2)

6. Conclusion

In the present paper, an RBF neural network based scheme is presented for the regulatory control of nonaffine
nonlinear systems with unknown structure of nonlinearities. Taylor series expansion is utilized to convert the nonaffine
part of the system affine form. The RBF neural network is utilized to compensate the unknown dynamics of the system
without the requirement of offline learning. In many industrial applications, the exact knowledge of the states of the
system are not available. Therefore, an observer is designed, which provides the estimated states of the system. From
the stability analysis it is shown that all signals of the system are uniformly ultimately bounded and satisfy the given
H∞ criteria. It can ce concluded from the computer simulation studies that the presented controller achieves the
desired performance adequately. In future the investigation and design of varying trajectory tracking and study of
MIMO system will be interesting.

References

[1] A. Young, C. Cao, N. Hovakimyan, An adaptive approach to nonaffine control design for aircraft applications, AIAA Guidance, Navigation,
and Control Conference (2006) 1–28.
[2] Y. Akahane, M. Kato, Y. Miyake, A study on adaptation mechanism of physarum based on chemo-mechanical system, 39 th SICE Annual
Conference (2000) 191–196.
[3] W. Meng, Q. Yang, Y. Ying, Y. Sun, Z. Yang, Y. Sun, Adaptive power capture control of variable-speed wind energy conversion systems with
guaranteed transient and steady-state performance, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 28 (3) (2013) 716–725.
[4] T. Zhang, M. Guay, Adaptive control of uncertain continuously stirred tank reactors with unknown actuator nonlinearities, ISA Transactions
44 (2005) 55–68.
[5] S. S. Ge, T. Zhang, Neural-network control of nonaffine nonlinear system with zero dynamics by state and output feedback, IEEE Transactions
on Neural Networks 14 (2003) 900–918.
[6] N. Hovakimyam, E. Lavretsky, A. Sasane, Dynamic inversion for nonaffine-in-control systems via time-scale separation: part i, Journal of
Dynamical and Control Systems, 13 (4) (2007) 451–465.
[7] E. Lavretsky, N. Hovakimyam, Dynamic inversion for nonaffine-in-control systems via time-scale separation: part ii, In Proc. American control
conference (2005) 3548–3553.
[8] B. Yang, A. J. Calise, Adaptive control of a class of nonaffine systems using neural networks, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 18 (4)
(2007) 1149–1159.
[9] M. Chen, S. S. Ge, Direct adaptive neural control for a class of uncertain nonaffine nonlinear systems based on disturbance observer, IEEE
Transactions on Cybernetics 43 (4) (2013) 1213–1255.
[10] Y. H. Liu, L. Huang, D. Xiao, Y. Guo, Global adaptive control for uncertain nonaffine nonlinear hysteretic systems, ISA Transactions 58 (2015)
255–261.
[11] T. P. Zhang, S. S. Ge, Adaptive control of a class of nonaffine systems using neural networks, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 44 (7)
(2008) 1895–1903.
[12] D. Wang, Neural network-based adaptive dynamic surface control of uncertain nonlinear pure-feedback systems, International Journal of
Robust and Nonlinear Control 21 (5) (2011) 527–541.
 Pramendra
Kumar et al. / Kumar
ProcediaetComputer
al. / Procedia Computer
Science Science
00 (2018) 125 (2018) 25–33
000–000 339

[13] M. Wang, X. Liu, P. Shi, Adaptive neural control of pure-feedback nonlinear time-delay systems via dynamic surface technique, IEEE Trans-
actions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 41 (6) (2011) 1681–1692.
[14] J. Na, X. Ren, C. Shang, Y. Guo, Adaptive neural network predictive control for nonlinear pure feedback systems with input delay, Journal of
Process Control 22 (1) (2012) 194–206.
[15] Y. Leu, W. Wang, T. T. Lee, Observer-based direct adaptive fuzzy-neural control for nonaffine nonlinear systems, IEEE Transactions on Neural
Networks 16 (4) (2005) 853–861.
[16] C. H. Lee, H. Y. Hsueh, Observer-based adaptive control for a class of nonlinear non-affine systems using recurrent-type fuzzy logic systems,
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems 15 (1) (2013) 55–65.
[17] M. Arefi, J. Zarei, H. R. Karimi, Adaptive output feedback neural network control of uncertain non-affi ne systems with unknown control
direction, Journal of the Franklin Institute 351 (2014) 4302–4316.
[18] S. J. Yoo, Adaptive output-feedback control for nonlinear time-delay systems in pure-feedback form, Journal of the Franklin Institute 351
(2014) 3899 3913.
[19] M. H. Korayem, S. R. Nekoo, Finite-time state-dependent riccati equation for time-varying nonaffine systems:rigid and flexible joint manipu-
lator control, ISA Transactions 54 (2015) 125–144.
[20] L. Wu, G. Yang, H. Wang, F. Wang, Adaptive fuzzy asymptotic tracking control of uncertain nonaffine nonlinear systems with non-symmetric
dead-zone nonlinearities, Information Sciences 348 (2016) 1–14.
[21] J. Park, J. W. Sandberg, Universal approximation using radial basis function networks, Neural Computations 3 (1991) 246–257.