This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
During the initial stages of sliding mode control theory development,
chattering was the main obstacle for its implementation. Small time constants of real differentiators could not be disregarded if control actions were discontinuous state functions, and they led to oscillations in the vicinity of discontinuity surfaces in the system state space. Chattering is a harmful phenomenon because it leads to low control accuracy, high wear of moving mechanical parts, and high heat losses in power circuits. 2. There are two reasons which can lead to chattering:(a) Chattering can be caused by fast dynamics which were neglected
in the ideal model. These ‘unmodeled’ dynamics with small time constants are usually disregarded in models of servomechanisms, sensors and data processors. (b) The second reason of chattering is utilization of digital controllers
with finite sampling rate, which causes so called ‘discretization chatter’. Theoretically the ideal sliding mode implies infinite switching frequency. Since the control is constant within a sampling interval, switching frequency cannot exceed that of sampling, which lead to chattering as well. Chattering Refreshed 3. Consider the plant given by the state equation x = Ax + Bu + Be( x, u, t ) _________________________________
A conventional sliding mode behaviour would have a sliding surface dynamics of the form
σ = Sx
The sliding condition is given by
Choosing the control as u = ueq + un ____________________________________________ (3.4) The known parameters of the plant can be compensated by the control ueq = −( SB ) −1 SAx _______________________________________ (3.5)
The uncertainties are compensated by assuming proper matching conditions and known bound of uncertainty by the control given by un = − ρ sgn(σ SB ) _______________________________________ (3.6) The signum function in equation (3.5) is characterized by a discontinuity at origin. In other words, the control signal has to switch from one level to another in zero time or very fast. However, due to finite bandwidth of the actuator, the input cannot switch fast enough near the sliding surface. This causes chattering. Chattering is finite frequency, finite amplitude oscillations about the sliding surface. Boundary Layer Control 4. To remedy chattering, the strict requirement of “movement on sliding
surface” is relaxed and we try to get ‘almost’ sliding mode (Quasi sliding mode) by the so called piecewise linear or smooth approximation of the switching element in a boundary layer of the sliding manifold –. Inside the boundary layer, the switching function is approximated by a linear feedback gain. The possible linear approximations for the signum function of equation (3.6) are (a) The ‘sat’ or saturation function: Thus the control takes the form
un = − ρ sgn(σ SB ); σ SB > ε un = − ρ (b)
σ SB ; σ SB < ε ε
_____________________ (3.7) Thus the control takes the form
The sigmoid function: un = − ρ
σ SB ; σ SB >> δ σ SB + δ
σ SB un = − ρ ; σ SB << δ δ
The third method involves the use of a conical boundary layer
centred symmetrically at the origin instead of the cylindrical boundary layer dictated by sat function. 5. To make the system behavior to be as close to that of the ideal sliding
mode, particularly when an unknown disturbance is to be rejected, sufficiently high magnitude of control signal gain is needed. In the absence of disturbance the boundary layer thickness can be enlarged further while magnitude of control is decreased, to reduce the oscillatory behavior or chattering about the sliding manifold. However, this reduces the system to one with no sliding mode inside the boundary layer and hence the system is no longer robust to uncertainties inside the boundary layer. Thus though the proposed method has wide acceptance by many sliding mode researchers as cited in the work in  and  in practice it has shortcomings. The effectiveness of boundary layer control is immediately challenged when realistic parasitic dynamics are considered.  Parasitics dynamics must be carefully modeled and considered in the feedback design in order to avoid instability inside the boundary layer which leads to chattering. 6. In the literature, the first approach to chattering reduction is the boundary
layer control BLC (Burton & Zinober, 1986; Slotine & Sastry, 1983). In the BLC design, the boundary layer width plays two contradicting roles: on one hand, it has to be large to reduce the control chattering; on the other hand, it has to be small to achieve good control accuracy. When the requirement on the control
accuracy is high, the BLC becomes ineffective in reducing the control chattering. This is especially true when the state measurements are corrupted with measurement noises. When the measurement noise is of a level larger than the boundary layer width, the high-frequency oscillations in the noise will be reflected and amplified in the control signal.
Observer-Based Sliding Mode Control 7. Recognizing the essential triggering mechanism for chattering is due to
the interactions of the switching action with the parasitic dynamics, an approach which utilizes asymptotic observers to construct a high-frequency by pass loop has been proposed . This design exploits a localization of the high frequency phenomenon in the feedback loop by introducing a discontinuous feedback control loop which is closed through an asymptotic observer of the plant . Since the model imperfections of the observer are supposedly smaller than those in the plant, and the control is discontinuous only with respect to the observer variables, chattering is localized inside a high-frequency loop which bypasses the plant. However, this approach assumes that an asymptotic observer can indeed be designed such that the observation error converges to zero asymptotically. 8. The superb rejection of the disturbance by sliding mode in the observer
state-space is expected since a large gain value can be chosen freely when the constraints imposed by the parasitic dynamics are no longer present. However the plant state response has a steady-state error of 0.05 which is due to the observation error caused by the relatively low feedback gain of the observer h=10.This error can be reduced by increasing the value of gain , provided that the time scales and stability of the system are preserved.
However the drawback of this approach is that it reduces the problem of
robust control to the problem of robust estimation. Since there is a mismatch between the plant and observer dynamics, this can lead to deterioration of robustness with respect to the plant uncertainties and disturbances.
Dynamic Sliding Mode Control (DSMC) 10. Another approach to chattering reduction is the dynamic sliding mode
control DSMC (Bartolini, 1989; Bartolini, Ferrara, & Usai, 1998; Bartolini & Pydynowski, 1996; Sira-Ramirez, 1993), where an integrator (or any other strictly proper low-pass filter) is placed in front of the system to be controlled. The advantage of DSMC design is that control chattering is reduced by low-pass filtering, not by sacrificing the control accuracy since no boundary layer is used in the design. Hence, the mechanism of chattering reduction and that of accuracy control are decoupled in the DSMC design. 11. Another advantage of DSMC is that it is better immune to the
measurement noise since the low-pass filter (1/s) can to some extent filter out the noise contained in the signal w. Despite its superiority to the BLC, the design of DSMC is challenging for the following reason. In the DSMC design, the sliding variable is different from that in the BLC design since the augmented system will be one dimension larger than the original system. As a result of this, the new sliding variable in DSMC contains an uncertainty term due to the external disturbance and/or parametric uncertainty. Evaluation of the new sliding variable in DSMC becomes difficult. In Bartolini (1989), a variable structure estimator is proposed to estimate the sliding variable in DSMC, but it must assume a priori that the system state is uniformly bounded before proving the system stability.
Higher Order Sliding Modes (HOSM) 12. Consider the differential equation
z +α z
sign ( z ) +β∫sign ( z )dτ =ξ(t )
It can be shown that the solution to the above differential equation and its derivative converge to zero in finite time under the following conditions:α ≥1 / 2 L
β ≥ 4L
ξ t) (
The higher order sliding mode approach formulates an algorithm which is
based on the above differential equation. Thus it can be seen that it allows for convergence to zero of not only the sliding variable but also its derivatives. The most effective second order sliding mode algorithm is the super-twisting algorithm (STA) which introduces the control, u, based on the above differential equation as
The sliding surface and the coefficients are chosen in the same way as in traditional sliding mode control. 14. However, the main drawback of the standard STA algorithm is that due to
s ig nσ ) + β ∫ s ig nσ )dσ ( (
its homogenous nature it will not be able to compensate the uncertainties and disturbances which grow with the state variables. Hence the linear part must be exactly known for ensuring sliding motion of the given uncertain system. This drawback can be overcome by choosing a non-homogenous extension to the standard STA algorithm which will compensate for those uncertainties and disturbances that grow with the state variables. This modified algorithm is called the variable gain STA or VGSTA.
REFERENCES 1. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 7, NO. 3, MAY 1999, “A Control Engineer’s Guide to Sliding Mode Control”, K. David Young, Senior Member, IEEE, Vadim I. Utkin, Senior Member, IEEE, and ¨ Umit ¨ Ozg¨uner, Member, IEEE 2. Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Variable Structure Systems Alghero, Italy, June 5-7, 2006, “Chattering Problem in Sliding Mode Control Systems”, Vadim Utkin and Hoon Lee 3. “Variable Gains Super-Twisting Algorithm: A Lyapunov Based Design”, Alejandro D´avila, Jaime A. Moreno, Leonid Fridman, 2010 American Control Conference, Marriott Waterfront, Baltimore, MD, USA, June 30-July 02, 2010. 4. G. Bartolini, A. Ferrara, and E. Usai, “Chattering avoidance by second order sliding mode control,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 241–246, Feb. 1998. 5. G. Bartolini, A. Ferrara, A. Levant, and E. Usai, “On second order sliding mode controllers,” in Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, K. D. Young and U. Ozguner, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1999, vol. 247, Variable Structure Systems, Sliding Mode and Nonlinear Control, pp. 329–350. 6. G. Bartolini, A. Ferrara, A. Pisano, and E. Usai, “On the convergence properties of a 2-sliding control algorithm for nonlinear uncertain systems,” Int. J. Control, vol. 74, pp. 718–731, 2001. 7. G. Bartolini, A. Pisano, E. Punta, and E. Usai, “A survey of applications of second order sliding mode control to mechanical systems,” Int. J.Control, vol. 76, no. 9/10, pp. 875–892, 2003. 8. D. Benmerzouk and J. P. Barbot, “Lyapunov-Schmidt method dedicated to the observer analysis and design,” Math. Problems Eng., pp.1–28, 2006, Article ID 43681. 9. I. Boiko, “Analysis of sliding modes in the frequency domain,” Int. J.Control, vol. 78, no. 13, pp. 969–981, 2005. 10. I. Boiko, L. Fridman, and M. I. Castellanos, “Analysis of second order sliding mode algorithms in the frequency domain,” IEEE Trans. Autom.Control, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 946–950, Jun. 2004.
11. I. Boiko and L. Fridman, “Analysis of chattering in continuous sliding mode controllers,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 50, no. 9, pp.1442–1446, Sep. 2005. 12. A. Levant, “Sliding order and sliding accuracy in sliding mode control”, International Journal of Control, Vol. 58,no. 6, pp. 1247-1263. 1993. 13. J. A. Moreno and M. Osorio, “A Lyapunov approach to second-order sliding mode controllers and observers”, 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, CDC 2008, pp.2856-2861, 2008.