Applied Nonlinear Control Nguyen Tan Tien - 2002.

5
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 7 Sliding Control
30
7. Sliding Control



In this chapter:
- The nonlinear system with structured or unstructured
uncertainties (model imprecision) is considered.
- A so-called sliding control methodology is introduced.

7.1 Sliding Surfaces

Consider the SI dynamic system

u b f x
n
) ( ) (
) (
x x + = (7.1)
x y =
where,
u : scalar control input
| |
T
n
x x x
) 1 (
= L & x : state vector
) ( x f : unknown, bounded nonlinear function
) ( x b : control gain, unknown bounded but known sign

Control objective: To get the state x to track a specific time-
varying state | |
T
n
d
d d d
x x x
) 1 (
= L & x in the presence of
model imprecision on ) ( x f and ) ( x b .

Condition: For the tracking task to be achievable using a
finite control u , the initial desired state must be such that

) 0 ( ) 0 ( x x =
d
(7.2)

7.1.1 A Notation Simplification
- Tracking error in the variable x
d
x x x
~

- Tracking error vector
| |
T
n
d
x x x
) 1 ( ~ ~ ~ ~
= L
&
x x x
- Time-varying surface ) (t S in the state-space
) (n
R by the
scalar equation 0 ) ; ( = t s x , where

|
.
|

\
|
+ =

,
~
) ; (
1
x
dt
d
t s
n
x is positive constant (7.3)

For example, x x x s n x x s n
~ ~
2
~
3 ,
~ ~
2
2
+ + = = + = =
& & & &
.

Given initial condition (7.2), the problem of tracking
d
x x is equivalent to that of remaining on the surfaces
) (t S for all 0 > t ; indeed 0 s represents a linear differential
equation whose unit solution is 0
~
x , given initial condition
(7.2). The problem of tracking the n-dimensional vector
d
x can be reduced to that of keeping the scalar quantity s at
zero.

Bounds on s can be directly translated into bounds on the
tracking error vector x
~
, and therefore the scalar s represents
a true measure of tracking performance. Assume that
0 ) (
~
= 0 x , we have

) ( , 0 t s t 1 , , 0 , ) 2 (
~
, 0
) (
= n i t x t
i i
L
(7.4)
where
1
/

=
n
.
By definition (7.3), the tracking error x
~
is obtained from
s through a sequence of first order low-pass filter as shown in
Fig. 7.1.a, where ) / ( dt d p = is the Laplace operator.

s
+ p
1
+ p
1
+ p
1
L
x
~
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1
blocks n 1

Fig. 7.1.a Computing bounds on x
~


Let
1
y be the output of the first filter

=
t
T t
dT T s e y
0
) (
1
) ( .
From s we thus get


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

/ ) 1 )( / (
t
e . Apply the same procedure, we get
=
t
x /
~
.
Similarly,
) ( ~ i
x can be thought of as obtained through the
sequence of Fig. 7.1.b.

s
L
+ p
1
+ p
1
L
+ p
1
+ p
1
) ( ~ i
x
z
1
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 1
blocks i
4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 1
blocks i n 1

Fig. 7.1.a Computing bounds on
) ( ~ i
x

From previous results, one has
i n
z


1
1
/ , where
1
z is
the output of the
th
i n ) 1 ( filter. Furthermore, noting that
+

=
+ p p
p
1 = |
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|

i
i
i n
i
x ) 2 ( 1
~
1
) (
is
bounded. In the case that 0
~
) 0 ( x , bounds (7.4) are obtained
asymptotically, i.e., within a short time-constant / n ) 1 ( .
The simplified, 1
st
-order problem of keeping the scalar s at
zero can now be achieved by choosing the control law u of
(7.1) such that outside of ) (t S

s s
dt
d

2
2
1
(7.5)

where is a strictly positive constant. Essentially, (7.5) states
that the squared distance to the surface, as measured by
2
s ,
decrease along system trajectories. Thus it constrains
trajectories to point towards the surface ) (t S , as illustrated in
Fig. 7.2.
) (t S

Fig. 7.2 The sliding condition
Applied Nonlinear Control Nguyen Tan Tien - 2002.5
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 7 Sliding Control
31
Condition (7.5) is called sliding condition. ) (t S verifying (7.5)
is referred to as sliding surface. The systems behavior once
on the surface is called sliding regime or sliding mode. The
other interesting aspect of the invariant set ) (t S is that once on
it, the system trajectories are defined by the equation of the set
itself, namely ( ) 0
~
/
1
= +

x dt d
n
. Satisfying (7.5) guarantees
that if condition (7.2) is not exactly verified,
i.e., ) 0 ( ) 0 (
d
x x , the surface ) (t S will be reach in a finite
time smaller that = / ) 0 (t s .

The typical system behavior implied by satisfying sliding
condition (7.5) is illustrated in Fig. 7.3 for 2 = n .
sliding mode
exponential convergence
x
d
(t)
slope -
s = 0
finite -time
reaching phase
x&
x

Fig. 7.3 Graphical interpretation of Eqs. (7.3) and (7.5),n=2

When the switching control is imperfect, there is chattering as
shown in Fig. 7.4
sliding mode
exponential convergence
x
d
(t)
slope -
s = 0
finite -time
reaching phase
x&
x

Fig. 7.4 Chattering as a result of imperfect control switchings.

7.1.2 Filippovs Construction of the Equivalent Dynamics

The dynamics while in sliding mode can be written as

0 = s& (7.6)

By solving (7.6), we obtain an expression for u called the
equivalent control,
eq
u , which can be interpreted as the
continuous control law that would maintain 0 = s& if the
dynamics were exactly known. Fro instance, for a system of
the form u f x + = & & , we have

)
~
( x x f x f u u
d eq
& &
& & & & + + = + =

From (7.6)

0
~ ~
= + = x x s
&
& x x
& & & ~ ~
=

Hence,

x x f u
d eq
&
& &
~
+ = (7.7)

And the system dynamics while in sliding mode is, of course,

x x u f x
d eq
&
& & & &
~
= + = (7.8)
Geometrically, the equivalent control can be constructed as

+
+ = u u u
eq
) 1 (

i.e., as a convex combination of the values of u on both side of
the surface ) (t S . The value of can be obtained formally
from (7.6), which corresponds to requiring that the system
trajectories be tangent to the surface. This intuitive
construction is summarized in Fig. 7.5
s = 0
s > 0
s < 0
f
-
f
+
f
eq

Fig. 7.5 Filippovs construction of the equivalent
dynamics in sliding mode

7.1.3 Perfect Performance At a Price

A Basic Example:
Consider the second-order system

u x x t a x + = 3 cos ) (
2
& & & (7.10)
where,
u : control input
x y = : scalar output of interest
x x t a f 3 cos ) (
2
& = : unknown bounded nonlinear function
with 2 1 a . Let f

be an estimation value of f , assume

that the estimation error is bounded by some known function
) , ( x x F F & = as follows

F f f

(7.9)

assume that x x f 3 cos 5 . 1
2
& = x x F 3 cos 5 . 0
2
& = . In
order to have the system track ) ( ) ( t x t x
d
= , we define a
sliding surface 0 = s according to (7.3), namely

x x x
dt
d
s
~ ~ ~
+ = |
.
|

\
|
+ =
&
(7.11)

We then have

x x u f x x x x x s
d d
&
& &
&
& & & &
& & &
&
~ ~
) (
~ ~
+ + = + = + = (7.12)

To achieve 0 = s& , we choose control law as x x f u
d
&
& &
~
+ = .
Because f is unknown and replaced by its estimation f

, the
control is chosen as

x x f u u
d
&
& &
~
+ = (7.13)

u can be seen as our best estimate of the equivalent control. In
order to stratify the sliding condition (7.5), despite the
uncertainty on the dynamics f , we add to u a term
discontinuous across the surface 0 = s

) sgn( s k u u = (7.14)
Applied Nonlinear Control Nguyen Tan Tien - 2002.5
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 7 Sliding Control
32
where sgn is the sign function:

< =
> + =
0 1 sgn
0 1 sgn
s if
s if


By choosing ) , ( x x k k & = in (7.14) to be large enough, we can
now guarantee that (7.5) is verified. Indeed, from (7.12) and
(7.14), s k s f f s s k f f s s s
dt
d
= = = )

( )] sgn(

[
2
1
2
& .
So that, letting

+ = F k (7.15)

we get from (7.9): s s
dt
d

2
2
1
as desired.

Note that:
- from (7.15), the control discontinuity k across the
surface 0 = s increases with the extent of parametric
uncertainty.
- f

and F need not depend only on x or x& . They may

more generally be functions of any measured variables
external to system (7.8), and may also depend explicitly
on time.
- To the first order system, the sliding mode can be
interpreted that if the error is negative, push hard
enough in the positive direction, and conversely. It does
not for higher-order systems.

Integral Control
A similar result would be obtained by using integral control,
i.e., formally letting

t
dr r x
0
) (
~
be the variable of interest. The
system (7.8) now third-order relative to this variable, and (7.3)
gives

+ + =
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
t t
dr x x x dr x
dt
d
s
0
2
0
2
~ ~
2
~ ~ &
. Then, we
obtain, instead of (7.13), x x x f u
d
~ ~
2

2
+ =
&
& & with
(7.14) and (7.15) formally unchanged. Note that

t
dr r x
0
) (
~
can
be replaced by

t
dr r x ) (
~
, i.e., the integral can be defined
within a constant. The constant can be chosen to obtain
0 ) 0 ( = = t s regardless of ) 0 (
d
x , by letting

+ + =
t
x x dr x x x s
0
2
) 0 (
~
2 ) 0 (
~ ~ ~
2
~

& &


Gain Margin
Assume now that (7.8) is replaced by

u b f x + = & & (7.16)

where the (possibly time-varying or state-dependent) control
gain b is unknown but of known bounds

max min
0 b b b < (7.16)

Since the control input enters multiplicatively in the dynamics,
it is natural to choose our estimate b

of gain b as the
geometric mean of the above bounds
max min

b b b = . Bound
(7.17) can then be written in the form

b
b

1
(7.18)
where,
min max
/ b b = . Since the control law will be
designed to be robust to the bounded multiplicative
uncertainty (7.18), we shall call the gain margin of our
design. With s and u defined as before, one can then easily
show that the control law

)] sgn( [
1
s k u b u =

(7.19)

with

u F k ) 1 ( ) ( + + (7.20)

satisfies the sliding condition. Indeed, using (7.19) in the
expression of s& leads to

) sgn(

)
~
)(

1 ( )

(
1 1 1
s k b b x x b b f b b f s
d

+ + =
&
& & &

Condition (7.5) can be rewritten as ) sgn(s s s s s = & .
Hence we have

( )
) sgn(
) sgn(

)
~
)(

1 ( )

(
1 1 1
s s
s s k b b x x b b f b b f
d

+ +
&
& &

or
( )
) sgn(
)
~
)(

1 ( )

( ) sgn(
1 1 1
s s
s x x b b f b b f s s k b b
d

+
+ +
&
& &

( )
1 1 1
) sgn( )
~
)( 1

( )

(

+ + + b b s x x b b f f b b k
d
&
& &

so that k must verify


1 1 1
)
~
)( 1

(

+ + + b b x x b b f f b b k
d
&
& &

Since ),

f f f f + = where ,

F f f this in turn leads to

x x f b b b b F b b k
d
&
& &
~
1
1 1 1
+ + +



and thus to (7.20). Note that the control discontinuity has been
increased in order to account for the uncertainty on the control
gain b .

Example 7.1________________________________________

A simplified model of the motion of an under water vehicle
can be written

u x x c x m = + & & & & (7.21)
where
x : position of vehicle
u : control input (force provided by a propeller)
m : mass of the vehicle
c : drag coefficient
In practice, m and c are not known accurately, because they
only describe loosely the complex hydrodynamic effects that
govern the vehicles motion. From (7.3),

x x s
~ ~
+ =
&

x x x x x s
d
&
& & & &
& & &
&
~
) (
~ ~
+ = + =
x m x m u x x c x m x m x m s m
d d
&
& & & &
&
& & & & &
~ ~
+ + = + =

The estimated controller is chosen as
Applied Nonlinear Control Nguyen Tan Tien - 2002.5
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 7 Sliding Control
33
x x c x x m u
d
& &
&
& & )
~
( + =

and a control law satisfying the sliding condition can be
derived as

) sgn( )
~
( ) sgn( s k x x c x x m s k u u
d
+ = = & &
&
& & (7.22)

where k is calculated from (7.20)

x x c x x m F
u F k
d
& &
&
& & )
~
( ) 1 ( ) (
) 1 ( ) (
+ + +
+ +



Hence k can be chosen as follows

)
~
( ) 1 ( ) ( x x m F k
d
&
& & + + = (7.23)

Note that the expression (7.23) is tighter than the general
form (7.20), reflecting the simpler structure of parametric
uncertainty: intuitively, u can compensate for x x c & & directly,
regardless of uncertainty on m . In general, for a given
problem, it is a good idea to quickly rederive a control law
satisfying the sliding condition, rather than apply some pre-
packed formula.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

7.1.4 Direct Implementations of Switching Control Laws

The main direct applications of the above switching controller
include the control of electric motors, and the use of artificial
dither to reduce stiction effects.

- Switching control in place of pulse-width modulation
- Switching control with linear observer
- Switching control in place of dither

7.2 Continuous Approximations of Switching Control
Laws

In general, chattering must be eliminated for the controller to
perform properly. This can be achieved by smoothing out the
control discontinuity in a thin boundary layer neighboring the
switching surface

0 } ) ; ( , { ) ( > = x x t s t B (7.25)

where, is boundary layer thickness, and
1 n-
/ = is the
boundary layer width. Fig. 7.6.a illustrates boundary layer for
the case 2 = n .

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

l
a
y
e
r
x&
x

Fig. 7.6.a The boundary layer

Fig. 7.6.b illustrates this concept:
- Out side of ) (t B , choose the control law u as before (7.5)
- Inside of ) (t B , interpolate to get u - for instance, replacing in
the expression of u the term ) sgn(s by / s .

boundary
layer
u
s

u

Fig. 7.6.b Control interpolation in the boundary layer

Given the results of section 7.1.1, this leads to tracking to
within a guaranteed precision , and more generally
guarantees that for all trajectories starting inside ) 0 ( = t B

1 , , 0 ) 2 ( ) (
~
, 0 = n i t x t
i i
K

Example 7.2________________________________________
Consider again the system (7.10): u x x t a x + = 3 cos ) (
2
& & & ,
and assume that the desired trajectory is ) 2 / sin( t x
d
= . The
constants are chosen as 1 . 0 , 20 = = , sampling time
001 . 0 = dt sec.
Switching control law:

)
~
20
~
sgn( ) 1 . 0 3 cos 5 . 0 (
~
20 3 cos 5 . 1
) sgn(
2
2
x x x x
x x x x
s k u u
d
+ +
+ =
=
&
&
&
& & &
Smooth control law with a thin boundary layer 1 . 0 = :

] / )
~
20
~
[( ) 1 . 0 3 cos 5 . 0 (
~
20 3 cos 5 . 1
) / (
2
2

x x sat x x
x x x x
s sat k u u
d
+ +
+ =
=
&
&
&
& & &

The tracking performance with switching control law is given
in Fig. 7.7 and with smooth control law is given in Fig. 7.8.

0 1.0 2.0 4 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
i
n
p
u
t
Time (s)
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
6
5
0 1.0 2.0 4 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
1.5
1.0
-1.5
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
E
r
r
o
r
Time (s)

Fig. 7.7 Switched control input and tracking performance

0 1.0 2.0 4 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
I
n
p
u
t
Time (s)
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
6
5
0 1.0 2.0 4 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
5
4
Time (s)
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
E
r
r
o
r
(
x
1
0
-
3
)

Fig. 7.8 Smooth control input and tracking performance
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Note that:
- The smoothing of control discontinuity inside ) (t B
essentially assigns a low-pass filter structure to the local
Applied Nonlinear Control Nguyen Tan Tien - 2002.5
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 7 Sliding Control
34
dynamics of the variable s , thus eliminating chattering.
Recognizing this filter-like structure then allows us, in
essence, to tune up the control law so as to achieve a
trade-off between tracking precision and robustness to
un-modeled dynamics.
- Boundary layer thickness can be made time-varying,
and can be monitored so as to well exploit the control
bandwidth available.

Consider again the system (7.1): u b f x
n
) ( ) (
) (
x x + = , with
1

= = b b . In order to maintain attractiveness of the boundary

layer now that is allowed to vary with time, we must
actually modify condition (7.5). Indeed, we now need to
guarantee that the distance to the boundary layer always
decreases.
s ) ( s
dt
d

s ) ( s
dt
d

Thus, instead of simply required that (7.5) be satisfy outside
the boundary layer, we now required that

s s s
dt
d
) (
2
1
2
- & (7.26)

The additional term s & in (7.26) reflects the fact that the
boundary layer attraction condition is more stringent during
boundary layer contraction ( 0 < & ) and less stringent during
boundary layer expansion ( 0 > & ).In order to satisfy (7.26),
the quantity & is added to control discontinuity gain ) (x k ,
i.e., in our smooth implementation the term
) sgn( ) ( s k x obtained from switched control law u is actually
replaced by ) / sat( ) ( x s k , where

x x & = ) ( ) ( k k (7.27)

and sat is the saturation function

=
=
otherwise y y
y if y y
) sgn( ) sat(
1 ) sat(

and can be seen graphically as in the following figure

1
) sat( y
y
1


Accordingly, control law becomes ) / sat( ) ( x s k u u = . Now,
we consider the system trajectories inside the boundary layer.
They can be expressed directly in terms of the variable s as

) ( ) ( x

x f
s
k s = & (7.28)

where f f f =

. Since k and f are continuous in x ,

using (7.4) to rewrite (7.28) in the form

( ) ) ( ) ( ) ( O f
s
k s + + = x

x & (7.29)
We can see from (7.29) that the variable s (which is a
measure of the algebraic distance to the surface ) (t S ) can be
view as the output of the first order filter, whose dynamics
only depend on the desired state
d
x , and whose input are, to
the first order, perturbations, i.e., uncertainty ) (
d
f x .
Thus chattering can be eliminated, as long as high-frequency
un-modeled dynamics are not excited.

Conceptually, the perturbations are filtered according to (7.29)
to give s , which in turn provides tracking error x
~
by further
low-pass filtering, according to definition (7.3)

s x
~
1
st
order filter
(7.29)
1
) (
1

+
n
p
) ( ) ( O f
d
+ x
of choice s of definition

Fig. 7.9 Structure of the closed-loop error dynamics

Control action is a function of x and
d
x . Since is break-
frequency of filter (7.3), it must be chosen to be small with
respect to high-frequency un-modeled dynamics (such as un-
modeled structural modes or neglected time-delays).
Furthermore, we can now turn the boundary layer thickness
so that (7.29) also presents a first-order filter of bandwidth .
It suffices to let

=

x ) (
d
k
(7.30)

which can be written from (7.27) as

) (
d
k x = + & (7.31)

(7.27) can be rewritten as

x x x + = ) ( ) ( ) (
d
k k k (7.32)

Note that:
- The s-trajectory is a compact descriptor of the closed-
loop behavior: control activity directly depends on s ,
while tracking error x
~
is merely a filtered version of s
- The s-trajectory represents a time-varying measure of the
validity of the assumptions on model uncertainty.
- The boundary layer thickness describes the evolution
of dynamics model uncertainty with time. It is thus
particularly informative to plot ) (t s , ) (t , and ) (t on
a single diagram as illustrated in Fig. 7.11b.

Example 7.3________________________________________

Consider again the system described by (7.10):
u x x t a x + = 3 cos ) (
2
& & & . Assume that / ) 0 ( = with 1 . 0 = ,
20 = . From (7.31) and (7.32)

( ) ( )

& &
& &
+ =
+ + + =

x x
x x x x x k
d d
3 cos 5 . 0
3 cos 5 . 0 3 cos 5 . 0 ) (
2
2 2

where, ) 3 cos 5 . 0 (
2
+ + = x x
d
& & . The control law is now

Applied Nonlinear Control Nguyen Tan Tien - 2002.5
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 7 Sliding Control
35
] / )
~
20
~
[( ) 3 cos 5 . 0 (
~
3 cos 5 . 1
) / ( ) (
2
2

x x sat x x
x x x x
s sat x k u u
d
+ +
+ =
=
&
& &
&
& & &

Note that:
- The arbitrary constant (which formally, reflects the
time to reach the boundary layer starting from the
outside) is chosen to be small as compared to the average
value of ) (
d
k x , so as to fully exploit our knowledge of
the structure of parametric uncertainty.
- The value of is selected based on the frequency range
of un-modeled dynamics.

The control input, tracking error, and s -trajectories are
plotted in Fig. 7.11.

0 1.0 2.0 4 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
I
n
p
u
t
Time (s)
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
6
5
0 1.0 2.0 4 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
5
4
Time (s)
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
E
r
r
o
r
(
x
1
0
-
3
)

Fig. 7.11a Control input and resulting tracking performance

-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
S
-
t
r
a
j
e
c
t
o
r
i
e
s
(
x
1
0
-
2
)
0 1.0 2.0 4 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time (s)

s

Fig. 7.11b s-trajectories with time-varying boundary layer

We see that while the maximum value of the time-varying
boundary layer thickness is the same as that originally
chosen (purposefully) as the constant value of in Example
7.2, the tracking error is consistently better (up to 4 times
better) than that in Example 7.2, because varying the thickness
of the boundary layer allow us to make better use of the
available bandwidth.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

In the case that 1 , one can easily show that (7.31) and
(7.32) become (with ) (
d d
x = )

d
d
k

x ) ( ) (
d d
k x = + & (7.33)
d
d
k

x ) (
d
d
d
k

) (
2
x
= + & (7.34)
d d
k k k / x x x + = ) ( ) ( ) ( (7.35)

with initial condition ) 0 ( defined as:

/ )) 0 ( ( ) 0 (
d d
k x = (7.36)

Example 7.4________________________________________

A simplified model of the motion of an under water vehicle
can be written (7.21): u x x c x m = + & & & & . The a priori bounds
on m and c are: 5 1 m and 5 . 1 5 . 0 c . Their estimate
values are 5 = m and 1 = c . 20 = , 1 . 0 = . The smooth
control input using time-varying boundary layer, as describe
above is designed as follows:

x x s
~ ~
+ =
&

x x x s
d
&
& & & & &
~
+ =
)
~
( x x m u x x c s m
d
&
& & & & & + =
)
~
( x x m x x c u u
d
&
& & & & + =
) sgn( )
~
(
) sgn(
s k x x m x x c
s k u u
d
+ =
=
&
& & & &

) sgn( )
~
( ) ( ) (
)
~
( ) sgn( )
~
(
s k x x m m x x c c
x x m s k x x m x x c x x c s m
d
d d
+ =
+ + =
&
& & & &
&
& &
&
& & & & & & &

Condition (7.5): s s s &

s m s s m &
( ) s m s s k x x m m x x c c
d
+ ) sgn( )
~
( ) ( ) (
&
& & & &
( ) s m s x x m m x x c x x c c s s k
d
+ + + )
~
( ) ( ) ( ) sgn(
&
& & & & & &
( ) m s x x m m x x c c k
d
+ + ) sgn( )
~
( ) ( ) (
&
& & & &
m s x x m m x x c c k
d
+ + ) sgn( )
~
( ) ( ) (
&
& & & &

And the controller is

=
+ =
=
=
+ + =
+ =
) / sat(
~ ~
) (
) (
) max(
~
max max ) (
)
~
(
2

s k u u
x x s
x k k
x k
m x x m m x c c x k
x x m x x c u
d
d
d

&
&
&
&
& & &
&
& & & &


The results are given in Fig. 7.12

0 1.0 2.0 4 0.5 1.5 2.5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
5
4
D
e
s
i
r
e
d
T
r
a
j
e
c
t
o
r
i
e
s
Time (s)
acceleration (m/s
2
)
velocity (m/s)
distance (m)
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1.0 2.0 4 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time (s)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
I
n
p
u
t

a. References b. Control input
0 2 4 6 1 3 5
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Time (s)
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
E
r
r
o
r
(
x
1
0
-
2
)
0 2 4 6 1 3 5
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
S
-
t
r
a
j
e
c
t
o
r
i
e
s
(
x
1
0
-
2
)
Time (s)

s


c. Tracking error b. s- trajectories
Fig.12
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Remark:
- The desired trajectory
d
x must itself be chosen smooth
enough not to excite the high frequency un-modeled
dynamics.
- An argument similar to that of the above discussion
shows that the choice of dynamics (7.3) used to define
sliding surfaces is the best-conditioned among linear
dynamics, in the sense that it guarantees the best tracking
performance given the desired control bandwidth and the
extent of parameter uncertainty.
- If the model or its bounds are so imprecise that F can
only be chosen as a large constant, then from (7.31) is
Applied Nonlinear Control Nguyen Tan Tien - 2002.5
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 7 Sliding Control
36
constant and large, so that the term ) / sat( s k simply
equals / s in the boundary layer.
- A well-designed controller should be capable of
gracefully handling exceptional disturbances, i.e.,
disturbances of intensity higher than the predicted
bounds which are used in the derivation of the control
law.
- In the case that is time-varying, the term
x u
~

&
= should be added to the corresponding u , while
the augmenting gain ) (x k according by the quantity
) 1 ( u . It will be discussed in next section.

7.3 The Modeling/Performance Trade-Offs

The balance conditions (7.33)-(7.36) have practical
implications in term of design/modeling/performance trade-
offs. Neglecting time-constants of order / 1 , condition (7.33)
and (7.34) can be written

d d
n
k (7.39)

Consider the control law (7.19): )] sgn( [
1
s k u b u =

, we see
that the effects of parameter uncertainty on f have been
dumped in gain k . Conversely, better knowledge of
f reduces k by a comparable quantity. Thus (7.39) is
particularly useful in an incremental mode, i.e., to evaluate the
effects of model simplification on tracking performance:

) / (
n
d d
k (7.40)

In particular, margin gains in performance are critically
dependent on control bandwidth : if large s are available,
poor dynamic models may lead to respectable tracking
performance, and conversely large modeling efforts produce
only minor absolute improvements in tracking accuracy. And
it is not overly surprising that system performance be very
sensitive to control bandwidth.

Thus, give system model (7.1), how large can be chosen ?
In mechanical system, for instance, given clean measurements,
typically limited by three factors:

i. structural resonant modes: must be smaller than the
frequency
R
of the lowest un-modeled structural resonant
mode; a reasonable interpretation of this constrain is,
classically

R R

3
2
(7.41)

although in practice this bound may be modulated by
engineering judgment, taking notably into account the
natural damping of the structural modes. Furthermore, in
certain case, it may account for the fact that
R
may
actually vary with the task.

ii. neglected time delays: along the same lines, we have a
condition for the form

A
A
T 3
1
(7.42)

where
A
T is the largest un-modeled time-delay (for
instance in the actuators).

iii. sampling rate: with a full-period processing delay, one
gets a condition of the form
sampling S

5
1
(7.43)

where,
sampling
is the sampling rate.

The desired control bandwidth is the minimum of three
bounds (7.41-43). Ideally, the most effective design
corresponds to matching these limitations, i.e., having


S A R
(7.44)

7.4 Multi-Input System

Consider a nonlinear multi-input system of the form

=
+ =
m
j
j ij i
n
i
u b f x
i
1
) (
) ( ) ( x x , m i , , 1 L = , m j , , 1 L =
where
T
m
u u u ] [
2 1
L = u : the control input vector
| |
T
n n
x x x & L
) 2 ( ) 1 (
= x : the state vector

7.5 Summary