&VSPQFBO
$POUSPM
$POGFSFODF

&$$


1PSUP

1PSUVHBM


4FQUFNCFS



HIGHER ORDER SLIDING MODES AND
ARBITRARY-ORDER EXACT ROBUST DIFFERENTIATION
A. Levant
Institute for Industrial Mathematics, 4/24 Yehuda Ha-Nachtom St., Beer-Sheva 84311, Israel
Fax: +972-7-231211 and E-mail: levant@bgumail.bgu.ac.il
Keywords: Variable Structure Control, Trajectory Tracking
in Non-linear Systems, Stabilization of Non-linear Systems,
Robust Filtering, Non-linear Observers.
Abstract
An arbitrary-order finite-time-convergent exact robust
differentiator is constructed based on higher-order sliding
mode (HOSM) technique. Being used in a feedback together
with previously proposed HOSM controllers, it produces a
universal controller, formulated in input-output terms only,
which causes the output of any uncertain smooth SISO
minimum-phase dynamic system with known relative degree
to vanish in finite time. That allows exact tracking of
arbitrary real-time smooth signals. The control can be made
arbitrarily smooth, providing for arbitrarily-high tracking-
accuracy order with respect to the sampling step. Only one
parameter is to be tuned.
1 Introduction
Control under heavy uncertainty conditions remains one of
the main research fields of the modern control theory. One of
the most simple and effective ways to withstand the
uncertainty is based on the sliding-mode technique [13].
Sliding modes keep equality of some output variable σ to
zero. With σ being the deviation of some real-time given
signal from the output, the standard sliding mode provides
actually for full output control in the case when the relative
degree is 1 (i.e. the control appears explicitly already in the
first total derivative of σ). In order to apply that approach
with higher relative degrees some auxiliary output is to be
found with relative degree 1. Another restriction is that
standard sliding modes may cause possibly dangerous system
vibrations (the so-called chattering effect). These restrictions
are removed by higher-order sliding modes (HOSM) [4, 6,
1].
Arbitrary-order sliding mode controllers [8, 10] provide for
full output control of any uncertain smooth SISO minimum-
phase dynamic system with known relative degree r,
provided r-1 exact successive output derivatives σ, σ , ...,
(r-1)
σ being estimated in real time. The auxiliary-constraint
construction is avoided, the convergence time is finite and
may be made arbitrarily small, while only one scalar
Proceedings of the European Control Conference 2001
*4#/


parameter needs to be adjusted [8, 10]. The control can be
made an arbitrarily smooth function of time, totally removing
the chattering effect and providing for ultimate accuracy in
realization.
Hence, the real-time robust exact differentiation becomes the
main problem of output-feedback HOSM control design. Even
the most modern differentiators [3, 2, 14] do not provide for
exact differentiation with finite-time convergence or require
some knowledge on the noise and would actually eliminate the
above-listed advantages of the HOSM controllers [10]. The
derivatives may be calculated by successive implementation of
a robust exact first-order differentiator [7] with finite-time
convergence. That differentiator is based on 2-sliding mode
and is proved to feature the best possible asymptotics in the
presence of infinitesimal Lebesgue-measurable measurement
noises if the second time derivative of the unknown base
signal is bounded.
The accuracy of the mentioned differentiator is proportional to
1/2
ε , where ε is the maximal measurement-noise magnitude.
Therefore, having been n times successively implemented, that
differentiator will provide for nth-order differentiation
-n
(2 )
accuracy of the order of ε . Hence, the differentiation
accuracy deteriorates rapidly. On the other hand, it is proved
[7] that when the Lipschitz constant of the nth derivative of
the unknown clear-of-noise signal is bounded by a given
constant, the best possible differentiation accuracy of the ith
(n+1-i)/(n+1)
derivative is proportional to ε , i = 0, 1, ..., n.
Therefore, a special differentiator is to be designed for each
differentiation order. Such second-order differentiator was
proposed in [8, 9]. Having been used in combination with the
above-mentioned r-sliding controller, an (r-1)th-order
asymptotically optimal differentiator would provide for sup|σ|
to be proportional to the maximal measurement error [8].
An arbitrary order asymptotically-optimal robust exact
differentiator with finite-time convergence is presented for
the first time in this paper. Computer simulation and a model
example of the differentiator usage in a closed loop are
demonstrated.
In spite of the good features of the proposed differentiator
the author does not claim to solve immediately a very
complicated practical problem of the input-based output
996
 1/2
control under heavy uncertainty conditions. Nevertheless, he z 1 = v1 , v1 = -λ1 | z1 - v0| sign(z1 - v1) + w1,
believes that the proposed theoretical solution indicates a w 1 = -α1 sign(z1 - v0); z2 = w1.
way promising future practical success. At the same time the
proposed differentiator is possibly the best solution for the Similarly, a 2nd-order differentiator from each of these
single problem of real-time numerical differentiation. sequences may be used as a base for a new recursive scheme.
An infinite number of differentiator schemes may be
constructed in this way. The only requirement is that the
2 Arbitrary-order differentiator resulting systems be homogeneous in a sense described
further. While the author has checked only the above two
Let input signal f(t) be a function defined on [0, ∞) consisting
schemes (1), (2) and (3), (4), the hypothesis is that all such
of a bounded Lebesgue-measurable noise with unknown
schemes produce working differentiators, provided suitable
features and an unknown base signal f0(t) with the nth
parameter choice. Differentiator (1) takes on the form
derivative having a known Lipschitz constant C > 0. The
n/( n + 1)
problem is to find real-time robust estimations of f0 (t), z 0 = v0 ,v0 = -λ0 | z0 - f(t)| sign(z0 - f(t)) + z1,
(n-1)/ n
f (n)
(t), ... , f0 (t) being exact in the absence of measurement z 1 = v1 ,v1 = -λ1 | z1 - v0| sign(z0 - v0) + z2,
0
...
noise. (n - i)/ ( n - i + 1)
z i = vi , vi = -λi | zi - vi-1| sign(zi - vi-1) + zi+1, (5)
Two similar recursive schemes of the differentiator are ...
1/ 2
proposed here. Let an (n-1)th-order differentiator Dn-1(f(⋅), C) z n-1 = vn-1 , vn-1 = -λn-1 | zn-1 - vn-2| sign(zn-1 - vn-2) + zn,
i
produce outputs Dn-1 , i = 0, 1, ..., n - 1, being estimations of z n = -λn sign(zn - vn-1),
(n-1) (n-1)
f0, f0 , f0 , ..., f0 for any input f(t) with f0 having Theorem 1. The parameters being properly chosen, the
Lipschitz constant C > 0. Then the nth-order differentiator following equalities are true in the absence of input noises
i
has the outputs zi = Dn , i = 0, 1, ..., n, defined as follows: after a finite time of a transient process for both
differentiator schemes:
n/( n + 1)
z 0 = v , v = -λ0 | z0 - f(t)| sign(z0 - f(t)) + z1, (i)
z0 = f0(t); zi = vi-1 = f0 (t), i = 1, ..., n.
(1)
0 n-1
z1 = Dn-1 (v(⋅), C), ..., zn = Dn-1 (v(⋅), C). Moreover, the corresponding solutions of the dynamic
systems are Lyapunov stable, i.e. finite-time stable [12]. The
Here D0(f(⋅), C) is a simple nonlinear filter (i)
Theorem means that the equalities zi = f0 (t) are kept in
D0: z = -λ sign(z - f(t)), λ > C. (2) 2-sliding mode, i = 0, ..., n-1.

Thus, the first-order differentiator coincides here with the Theorem 2. Let the input noise satisfy the inequality | f(t) -
differentiator published in [7]: f0(t)| ≤ ε. Then the following inequalities are established in
z 0 = v , finite time for some positive constants μi, νi depending
1/2
v = -λ0 | z0 - f(t)| sign(z0 - f(t)) + z1, (3) exclusively on the parameters of differentiators (1) or (4):
z 1 = -λ1 sign(z1 - v) = -λ1 sign(z0 - f(t)). (i)
|zi - f0 (t)| ≤ μi ε
(n - i +1)/(n + 1)
, i = 0, ..., n;
(i+1) (n - i )/(n + 1)
|vi - f0 (t)| ≤ νi ε , i = 0, ..., n-1.
Another recursive scheme is based on the differentiator (3)
~ Consider the discrete-sampling case, when z0(tj) - f(tj) is
as the basic one. Let Dn −1 (f(⋅), C) be such a new (n-1)th-
~ substituted for z0 - f(t) with tj ≤ t < tj+1, tj+1 - tj = τ > 0.
order differentiator, n ≥ 1, D1 (f(⋅), C) coinciding with the
differentiator D1(f(⋅), C) given by (3). Then the new scheme Theorem 3. Let τ > 0 be the constant input sampling
is defined as interval in the absence of noises. Then the following
z 0 = v , inequalities are established in finite time for some positive
v = -λ0 | z0 - f(t)|
n/( n + 1)
sign(z0 - f(t)) + w0 + z1 , constants μi, νi depending exclusively on the parameters of
(4) differentiators (1) or (4):
(n - 1)/( n +1)
w 0 = -α0 | z0 - f(t)| sign(z0 - f(t)); (i) n-i+1
~ ~ |zi - f0 (t)| ≤ μi τ , i = 0, ..., n;
z1 = Dn0−1 (v1(⋅), C), ..., zn = Dnn−−11 (v(⋅), C). (i+1) n-i
|vi - f0 (t)| ≤ νi τ , i = 0, ..., n - 1.
The resulting 2nd-order differentiator was presented at
In particular, the nth derivative error is proportional to τ. The
ECC’99, CDC’00 [8, 9]:
latter Theorem means that there are a number of real sliding
2/3
z 0 = v0, v0 = -λ0 | z0 - f(t)| sign(z0 - f(t)) + w0 + z1, modes of different orders [6]. Nevertheless, nothing can be
1/3
w 0 = -α0 | z0 - f(t)| sign(z0 - f(t)); said on the derivatives of vi and of z i, because they are not
continuously differentiable functions.

Proceedings of the European Control Conference 2001 997

Homogeneity of the differentiators. The differentiators are The Theorems are proved by induction. Define the main
invariant with respect to the transformation features of differential inclusion (6), (7) which hold with a
proper choice of the parameters λi .
 ( ηt, η f, η
n+1 n-i+1 n-i n-i
(t, f, zi, vi, wi ) zi, η vi, η wi).
The parameters αi, λi are to be chosen recursively in such a Proposition 2. Let ξδ(t) satisfy the condition that the integral
way that α1, λ1, ..., αn, λn provide for the convergence of the ∫|ξδ(t)|dt over a time interval δ is less than some fixed K > 0.
(n-1)th order differentiator with the same Lipschitz constant Then for any 0 < Si < S′i, i = 0, ..., n, each trajectory of (6),
C, and α0, λ0 be sufficiently large (α0 is chosen first). The (7) starting from the region |σi| ≤ Si does not leave the region
best way is to choose them by computer simulation. |σi| ≤ S′i during this time interval if δ is sufficiently small.
Substituting f(t)/C for f(t) and taking new coordinates z′i = C
zi, v′i = C vi, w′i = Cwi achieve the following proposition. Proposition 3. For each set of numbers Si > 0, i = 0, ..., n,
there exist such numbers Σi > Si, ki >0 and T > 0, εM ≥ 0 that
Proposition 1. Let parameters α0i, λ0i, i = 0, 1, ...., n, of for any ξ(t) ∈ [-ε, ε], ε ≤ εM , any trajectory of (6), (7)
differentiators (1), (2) or (3), (4) provide for exact n-th starting from the region |σi| ≤ Si enters within the time T,
order differentiation with C = 1. Then the parameters αi = and without leaving the region |σi| ≤ Σi , the region
2/(n-i+1) 1/(n-i+1)
α0i C , λi = λ0i C are valid for any C > 0 and |σi| ≤ ki ε
n-i+1
and stays there forever.
(i) i/(n + 1) (n - i +1)/(n + 1)
provide for the accuracy |zi - f0 (t)| ≤ μi C ε
for some μi ≥ 1. It is easy to see that these Propositions are true with n = 0, λ0
> C. Prove these Propositions by induction. Let them be true
Remark. It is easy to check that differentiator (5) may be for the differentiator of the order n - 1. Prove them for the
rewritten in the non-recursive form nth order differentiator (1) with sufficiently large λ0.
n/( n + 1)
z 0 = -κ0 | z0 - f(t)| sign(z0 - f(t)) + z1, Proof of Proposition 2. Choose some SMi, Si < S′i < SMi,
... i = 0, ..., n. Then
(n - i)/( n + 1)
z i = -κi | z0 - f(t)| sign(z0 - f(t)) + zi+1, i = 1, ..., n-1 n/( n + 1)
... | σ 0 | ≤ λ0 | |ξ(t)| + |σ0| | + |σ1|
n/( n + 1) n/( n + 1)
z n = -κn sign(z0 - f(t)) ≤ λ0 |ξ(t)| + λ0 SM0 + SM1.
for some positive κi calculated on the basis of λ0, ..., λn. Thus, according to the H|lder inequality
1/( n + 1) n/( n + 1) n/( n + 1)
∫| σ 0 |dt ≤ λ0δ (∫|ξ(t)|dt) + δ(λ0 SM0 + SM1).
3 Proofs
The remark that σ 0 serves as the input disturbance for the
Consider for simplicity differentiator (5). The proof for (n-1)th order system (7) and satisfies the conditions of
differentiator (4) is very similar. Introduce functions σ0 = z0 -
(n)
Proposition 2 finishes the proof. ‡
f0(t), σ1 = z1 - f0 (t), ..., σn = zn - f0 (t), ξ = f(t) - f0(t). Then
any solution of (5) satisfies the following differential Lemma. If for some Si < S′i , i = 0, ..., n, and T > 0 any
inclusion understood in the Filippov sense [5]: trajectory of (6), (7) starting from the region |σi| ≤ S′i enters
n/( n + 1) within the time T the region |σi| ≤ Si and stays there forever,
σ 0 = -λ0 |σ0 + ξ(t)| sign(σ0 + ξ(t)) + σ1 , (6)
then the system (6), (7) is finite-time stable.

(n-1)/ n
The Lemma is a simple consequence of the invariance of (6),
σ 1 = -λ1 | σ1 - σ 0 | sign(σ1 - σ 0 ) + σ2, (7) with respect to transformation (8). The convergence time
... is estimated as a sum of a geometric series.
(7)
1/ 2
σ n −1 = -λn-1 | σn-1 - σ n −2 | sign(σn-1 - σ n −2 ) + σn, Proof of Proposition 3. Consider first the case εM = 0.
σ n ∈ -λn sign(σn - σ n −1 ) + [-C, C], Choose some larger region |σi| ≤ S′i, Si < S′i , i = 0, ..., n, and
let Σi > S′i, i = 0, ..., n - 1, be some upper bounds chosen with
where ξ(t) ∈ [-ε, ε] is a Lebesgue-measurable noise function.
respect to Proposition 3 for (7) and that region. It is easy to
It is important to mark that (6), (7) do not “remember”
check that for any q > 1 with sufficiently large λ0 the
anything on the unknown input basic signal f0(t). ( n + 1)/n
trajectory enters the region |σ0| ≤ (qΣ1/ λ0) in arbitrarily
System (6) is homogeneous in sense [12] with ε = 0, its small time. During that time σ 0 does not change its sign.
trajectories are invariant with respect to the transformation Therefore, ∫| σ 0 |dt ≤ S′0 for sufficiently large λ0. Thus, the
Gη: (t, σi, ξ, ε)  ( ηt, η
n-i+1
σi, η
n+1 n+1
ξ, η ε). (8) disturbance - σ 0 entering the subsystem (7) satisfies

Proceedings of the European Control Conference 2001 998

Proposition 2 and the inequalities |σi| ≤ S′i are kept. From
that moment on | σ 0 | ≤ 3 Σ1 is kept with a properly chosen q.
Differentiating (6) with ξ = 0 achieve
-1/( n + 1)
σ
 0 = -λ0 |σ0| σ 0 + σ 1 ,
where according to (7) the inequality | σ 1 | ≤ 4λ1Σ1 + Σ2
holds. Thus, with sufficiently large λ0 within arbitrarily small
-1 1/n
time the inequality | σ 1 | ≤ λ0 (4λ1Σ1 + Σ2) (qΣ1/ λ0) is
established. Its right-hand side may be made arbitrarily small
with large λ0. Thus, due to Proposition 3 for (n-1)-order
system (7) and to the Lemma, the statement of Proposition 3
is proved with εM = 0.
Let now εM > 0. As follows from the continuous dependence
of the solutions of a differential inclusion on the right-hand
side [5] with sufficiently small εM all trajectories concentrate
within a finite time in a small vicinity of the origin. The
asymptotic features of that vicinity with εM changing follow
now from the homogeneity of the system.
Theorems 1 and 2 are simple consequences of Proposition 3
and the homogeneity of the system. To prove Theorem 3 it is
sufficient to consider
n/( n + 1)
σ 0 = -λ0 |σ0 (tj)| sign(σ0(tj)) + σ1 ,
instead of (6) with tj ≤ t < tj+1 = tj + τ. The resulting hybrid
system (9), (7) is invariant with respect to the transformation
 ( ηt, ητ, η
n-i+1
(t, τ, σi) σi).
On the other hand, it may be considered as system (6), (7)
with arbitrarily small ε for any fixed region of the initial
values when τ is sufficiently small. Applying successively
Proposition 3 and the homogeneity reasoning with
transformation (10) achieve Theorem 3.
Remark. It is easy to see that the above proof may be
transformed in order to obtain a constructive upper
estimation of the convergence time. Also the accuracy may
be estimated by means of the suggested inductive approach.
4. Numeric differentiation results
Following are equations of the 5th-order differentiator with
simulation-tested coefficients for C = 1. As mentioned, it
contains also differentiators of the lower orders:
5/6
z 0 = v0 , v0 = -50| z0 - f(t)| sign(z0 - f(t)) + z1 ,
4/5
z 1 = v1 , v1 = -30 | z1 - v0| sign(z1 - v0) + z2 ,
3/4
z 2 = v2 , v2 = -16 | z2 - v1| sign(z2 - v1) + z3 ,
2/3
z 3 = v4 , v4 = -8 | z3 - v2| sign(z4 - v3) + z4 ,
1/2
z 4 = v4 , v4 = -4 | z4 - v3| sign(z4 - v4) + z5 ,
z 5 = -2 sign(z5 - v4);
Proceedings of the European Control Conference 2001
These parameters can be easily changed, for the
differentiator is not very sensitive to their values. The
tradeoff is as follows: the larger the parameters, the faster
the convergence and the higher sensitivity to input noises and
the sampling step.
Differentiator (11) - (16) and its 3rd-order sub-differentiator
(13) - (16) were used for simulation. Initial values of the
differentiator state were taken zero with exception for the
initial estimation of f , which is taken equal to the initial
measured value of f. The base input signal
f0(t ) = sin 0.5t + cos t. (17)
was taken for the differentiator testing. The higher
derivatives of f0(t ) do not exceed 1.25 in absolute value.
Third order differentiator. The measurement step τ = 5⋅10
-4
was taken, noises are absent. The attained accuracies are
-11 -7 -4
9.40⋅10 , 2.97⋅10 , 2.40⋅10 , 0.0401 for the signal
tracking, the first, second and third derivatives respectively.
-15
‡ The derivative tracking deviations changed to 9.44⋅10 ,
-10 -6
2.97⋅10 , 2.42⋅10 and 0.00410 respectively after τ was
-5
reduced to 5⋅10 . That corresponds to Theorem 3.
Fifth order differentiator.. The attained accuracies are
-13 -10 -7 -4
1.46⋅10 , 7.16⋅10 , 9.86⋅10 , 3.76⋅10 , 0.0306 and 0.449
(9) for tracking the signal, the first, second, third, fourth and
-4
fifth derivatives respectively with τ = 5⋅10 . The derivative
-16 -12
tracking deviations changed to 4.44⋅10 , 6.34⋅10 ,
-8 -5
2.24⋅10 , 2.44⋅10 , 0.00599 and 0.265 respectively after τ
(10) -5
was reduced to 5⋅10 . The latter results are demonstrated in
Fig. 1. Reduction of τ no longer leads to noticeable
improvement of the fifth-derivative tracking. Following is
the explanation.
‡ The demonstrated asymptotics is not trivially obtained by
computer simulation. For example, the computer realization
accuracy of the harmonic functions is not sufficient here. In
other words, in computer GWG sin t ≠ cos t, and even the long
double precision does not help here. For that reason the
input was modeled as a solution of the corresponding
differential equation and most calculations were carried out
with the long double precision. Nevertheless, there is such a
value of the sampling interval τ = τ∗ that any further
reduction of τ no longer leads to any considerable accuracy
-4
improvement. In particular, τ∗ is about 10 with the
-3
differentiation order 4 and τ∗ ≈ 10 with the differentiation
order 5, when the Lipschitz constant C of the 4th and 5th
(11)
derivative respectively is C = 1. While preparing this paper
(12)
the author wanted to demonstrate 10th order differentiation,
(13) but found that differentiation of the order exceeding 5 is
(14) unlikely to be performed with the standard software. Further
calculations are to be carried out with precision higher than
(15)
(16) the standard long double precision (128 bits per number).
999
 ∂ (r) r
Km ≤ ∂u
σ ≤ KM, | La σ | ≤ L for some Km, KM, L > 0. The
controller has the form
(r-1)
u = - α sign(φ(β 1,..., βr-1, σ, σ , ..., σ )).
Here β1,..., βr-1 may be chosen in advance, α is adjusted
mainly by computer simulation, not using the unknown exact
(r) (r) r
values of Km, KM, L. The identity σ = u ∂∂u σ + La σ
(r)
implies |σ | ≤ L + αKM , which allows implementation of the
proposed (r-1)th-order differentiator [8]. A list of such
controllers is presented in [8, 10].

Fig. 1: 5th-order differentiation

Sensitivity to noises. The main problem of the differentiation
is certainly its well-known sensitivity to noises. As we have
seen, even small computer calculation errors appear to be a
considerable noise in the calculation of the fifth derivative.
Recall that, when the nth derivative has the Lipschitz
constant 1 and the noise magnitude is ε, the best possible
(n-i+1)/(n+1)
accuracy of the ith order differentiation, i ≤ n, is kε
Fig. 2: Kinematic car model
[7], where k > 1 is a constant independent on the
differentiation realization. That is a minimax (worst case)
Consider a simple kinematic model of car control [11]
evaluation. Since differentiator (11) - (16) assumes this
Lipschitz input condition, it satisfies this accuracy restriction y1 = v cos ϕ, y 2 = v sin ϕ, ϕ = v/l tan θ, (18)
as well (see also Theorems 2, 3). In particular, with the noise
-6 1/6 θ = ξ, ξ = u, (19)
magnitude ε = 10 the 5th derivative error exceeds ε = 0.1.
For comparison, if successive first order differentiation were where x and y are Cartesian coordinates of the rear-axle
-5
used, the respective error would be at least ε
(2 )
= 0.649 and middle point, ϕ is the orientation angle, v is the longitudinal
some additional conditions on the input signal would be velocity, l is the length between the two axles and θ is the
required. Taking 10% as a border, achieve that the direct steering angle (Fig. 2). The system is artificially extended by
successive differentiation does not give reliable results (19) in order to provide for smoother performance, u is the
starting with the order 3, while the proposed differentiator resulting control. The task is to steer the car from a given
may be used up to the order 5. initial position to the trajectory given by the equation y2 =
g(y1), while y1 and y2 are assumed to be measured in real
The lack of place does not allow to list here detailed time. Define
simulation results with noisy inputs. With the noise s = y2 - g(y1),
magnitude 0.01 and the noise frequency about 10000 the 5th
Let v = const = 10 m/s, l = 5 m, g(y1) = 10 sin 0.05y1 + 5, y1
order differentiator produces estimation errors 0.000200,
0.0136, 0.184, 0.649, 1.05 and 0.740 for signal (17) and = y2 = ϕ = θ = ξ = 0 at t = 0. Suppose that x, y, ϕ, θ are
its 5 derivatives respectively. The author found that the available, and apply the universal 4-sliding controller [8, 10]
second differentiation scheme (4) provides for slightly better with α = 40
3 2 6 1 4
accuracies. u = - 40 sign{ D3 (s(⋅))+3 (D3 (s(⋅))) + (D3 (s(⋅)))
3 1/12 2 1 4 3 1/6 1
+|s| ) sign[ D3 (s(⋅))+(D3 (s(⋅)) +|s| ) sign(D3 (s(⋅))
5. Output-feedback HOSM control 3/4
+0.5 |s| sign s )]},
1 2 3
Universal HOSM controllers [8, 10] are used in order to where D3 (s(⋅)), D3 (s(⋅)), D3 (s(⋅)) are the outputs of the third
make vanish in finite time the output σ of any uncertain order differentiator (6) with parameters λ0 = 15, λ1 = 20, λ2
minimum-phase system x = a(t,x) + b(t,x)u with an output σ = 40, λ3 = 88. During the first half-second control was not
n
= σ(t, x). Here x ∈ R , a, b, σ are unknown smooth functions, applied. The trajectory of the car is shown in Fig. 3 and the
u ∈ R, n is also uncertain. The relative degree r of the system corresponding steering angle θ in Fig. 4. The tracking
-4
is assumed to be constant and known. It is supposed that 0 < accuracy 1.63⋅10 was attained with τ = 0.001.

Proceedings of the European Control Conference 2001 1000


Fig. 3: Trajectory of the car
Fig. 4: Steering angle
6. Conclusions
Arbitrary order real-time exact differentiation with the
optimal input-output noise asymptotics is demonstrated.
Together with the arbitrary order sliding controllers it
provides for full SISO control based on the input
measurements only, when the only information on the
controlled process is actually its relative degree. The
proposed differentiator as well as the resulting closed-loop
controller are robust with respect to measurement noises. At
the same time this robustness drastically decreases with the
growing differentiation order. The reason is not an
unsuccessful differentiator structure, but the very nature of
higher order differentiation.
It is easy to see that most practically important problems of
output control are covered by the cases when relative degree
r equals 2, 3 and 4. Indeed, according to the Newton law, the
relative degree of a spatial variable with respect to a force,
being understood as a control, is r = 2. Taking into account
some dynamic actuator, achieve relative degree 3. If the
actuator input is needed to be a continuous Lipschitz
function, the relative degree has to be artificially increased to
4. As was mentioned above, the rth order sliding controller
(r-1)
requires availability of σ, σ , ..., σ . Thus, in practice the
need for more than 3 successive output derivatives is very
(r-1)
rare. In fact, often only the sign of σ is actually required.
Proceedings of the European Control Conference 2001
(r-2) (r-2)
Thus, it may be replaced by sign Δσ , where Δσ is the
first difference between successive discrete measurements. In
such a way the second order differentiator appears to be
sufficient in many cases.
References
[1] G. Bartolini, A. Ferrara, and E. Usai, “Chattering
avoidance by second-order sliding mode control”, IEEE
Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 43, no. 2, pp.241-246,
(1998).
[2] G. Bartolini, A. Pisano and E. Usai, “First and second
derivative estimation by sliding mode technique”,
Journal of Signal Processing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 167-
176, March 2000, Research Institute of Signal
Processing, Tokyo, (2000).
[3] A. Dabroom, H.K. Khalil, “Numerical Differentiation
Using High-Gain Observers”, Proc. of the 37th Conf.
on Decision and Control (CDC'97), San Diego,
California, December '97, pp. 4790-4795, (1997).
[4] S.V. Emelyanov, S.K. Korovin, and L.V Levantovsky,
“Higher order sliding regimes in the binary control
systems”, Soviet Physics, Doklady, vol. 31, no. 4, pp.
291-293, (1986).
[5] A.F. Filippov, Differential Equations with
Discontinuous Right-Hand Side, Kluwer, Dordrecht,
the Netherlands, (1988).
[6] A. Levant (L.V. Levantovsky), “Sliding order and
sliding accuracy in sliding mode control”, International
Journal of Control, vol. 58 , no.6, pp.1247-1263,
(1993).
[7] A. Levant, “Robust exact differentiation via sliding
mode technique”, Automatica, vol. 34, no.3, pp. 379-
384, (1998).
[8] A. Levant, “Controlling output variables via higher
order sliding modes”, Proc. of the European Control
Conference (ECC’99), September 1999, Karlsruhe,
Germany, (1999).
[9] A. Levant, “Higher order sliding: differentiation and
black-box control”, Proc. of the 39th IEEE Conf. on
Decision and Control (CDC2000), December 2000,
Sydney, Australia, pp. 1703-1708, (2000).
[10] A. Levant, “Universal SISO sliding-mode controllers
with finite-time convergence”, to appear in IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, (2001).
[11] R. Murray and S.Sastry, “Nonholonomic motion
planning: steering using sinusoids”, IEEE Trans.
Automat. Control, vol. 38, no. 5, pp.700-716, (1993).
[12] L. Rosier, “Homogeneous Lyapunov function for
homogeneous continuous vector field,” Syst. Control
Lett., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 467–473, (1992).
[13] V.I. Utkin, Sliding Modes in Optimization and Control
Problems, Springer Verlag, New York, (1992).
[14] X. Yu and J.X. Xu, “Nonlinear derivative estimator”,
Electronic Letters, vol. 32, no. 16, (1996).
1001