Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42835-020-00436-3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Robust Backstepping Sliding Mode Control Design for a Class

of Underactuated Electro–Mechanical Nonlinear Systems
Safeer Ullah1   · Qudrat Khan2 · Adeel Mehmood1 · Aamer Iqbal Bhatti3

Received: 9 October 2019 / Revised: 20 February 2020 / Accepted: 24 April 2020

© The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers 2020

Abstract
This paper presents a backstepping sliding mode control (BSMC) scheme for uncertain underactuated nonlinear systems.
Since, underactuated electro-mechanical nonlinear systems (UEMNS) operate under the fewer number of inputs than the
degree of freedom, therefore, the control of such systems remains a complex task. In this work, a class of UEMNS is con-
sidered which can be transformed into the so-called regular form. In the design process, these UEMNS are first transformed
into regular form. In this form, the systems are properly subdivided into series cascaded blocks in which the one of the
blocks is indirectly driven by the applied control input whereas the second block is directly controlled by the control input.
This structure is apparently suitable for backstepping design. Hence, all the controller steps are designed via the proposed
backstepping sliding mode technique. The step by step stability is proved rigorously by considering the Lyapunov approach.
In term of benefits, this designed control law provides low-frequency vibration as compared to conventional SMC along with
robust performance in the presence of matched uncertainties. This claim is verified via the numerical simulation results of
the cart-pendulum system. For further confirmation, these results are also compared with the standard literature results to
demonstrate the benefits and effectiveness of the aforesaid control scheme for such class.

Keywords  Backstepping · Sliding mode control · Finite-time sliding mode · Inverted pendulum · Non-linear underactuated
systems

1 Introduction they have drawn much attention, of the researcher, for the
last three decades (see for instance [1] and the references
Underactuated electro-mechanical nonlinear systems are therein). The main issues, like coupling effects, high-order
nonlinear control systems having fewer numbers of control nonholonomic constraints and non-integrable differential
inputs than the numbers of output variables. A wide range conditions, make the control of such systems very chal-
of real life systems are underactuated in nature. Therefore, lenging task [2]. Generally, a control strategy devised for
one underactuated nonlinear system is not necessarily be
* Safeer Ullah applicable to the other [3]. Nevertheless, there are plenty of
safeer_iiui@yahoo.com research publications containing different nonlinear control
Qudrat Khan methodologies designed for the stability of these systems.
qudratullah@comsats.edu.pk For the sack of explanation, some are reported below.
Adeel Mehmood In a passivity-based method [4], it was claimed that
adeel.mehmood@comsats.edu.pk the total energy of the system can be used to achieve the
Aamer Iqbal Bhatti equilibrium. This scheme has the capability to stabilize the
aamer987@gmail.com dynamics of UEMNS e.g. manipulator [5] and double pen-
dulum system [6]. However, the solutions of some particular
1
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, partial differential equations are generally very difficult to
COMSATS Univerity, Islamabad, Pakistan
find. Thus the practical application range of this scheme, in
2
Center for Advanced Studies in Telecommunication, the field of robotics and aerospace engineering, was very
COMSATS Univerity, Islamabad, Pakistan
short [7]. Fuzzy logic control (FLC) was proposed to deal
3
Department of Electrical Engineering, Capital Univerity with uncertain and imprecise dynamics (information) for
of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

decision-making. This approach has also been extensively
used in the realistic applications of UEMNS. The model
based and heuristics based FLC approaches were used for
the set-point control [8] and the trajectories control [9] of
UEMNS. Furthermore, the combination of FLC with some
other control strategies have some interesting results (see for
instance [10]). In optimal control approach, the control input
is designed to decrease (or increase) the value of the cost
function. The energy optimal control has a great relationship
with the issue of energy utilization of the system dynamics
[11]. On the other hand, in the case of time-optimal control,
the differential geometric methods based control approaches
are used to control either a class of nonholonomic rigid
systems [12] or some specific applications [13]. The main
drawback of this approach is that there is no generalized
procedure for both energy-optimal and time-optimal control
methods to find the control laws for UEMNS.
In the family of nonlinear controller, the backstepping
control approach converts the dynamic system of an n rela-
tive degree into a new feedback/ recursive form. Each outer
block, in the transformed recursive form, is controlled by the
virtual controllers. The step by step backing out process will
continue until the ultimate control law is realized. In recent
years, many control researchers applied this technique to
design nonlinear controllers for a class of UEMNSs, like
overhead cranes [14] and translational oscillator/rotational
actuator (TORA) [15]. However, the procedure of this tech-
nique, for the global asymptotic stability of the systems hav-
ing the high degree of freedom, becomes more complicated,
and therefore, their implementation in real life applications
is not feasible. Another basic noncontrollable issue of the
UEMNS is the uncertainty in the system model. A direct
adaptive control technique [16] was applied to normal-form
of linearized parameter based system dynamics. This was
a suitable technique to control the dynamics of the afore-
mentioned class in the presence of parametric uncertainty.
A nonlinear robust adaptive control strategy is proposed
in [17] to stabilize the surface vessel system with envi-
ronmental disturbances. However, the adaptive technique
is sensitive to unstructured uncertainty while the robust
technique cannot manipulate large-scale uncertainty [18].
To overcome these limitations, an extensively popular non-
linear approach, called sliding mode control (SMC), is pre-
sented. SMC is insensitive to parametric uncertainties and
internal and external disturbances in sliding mode [19, 20].
This approach has an excellent robust performance. Some
very good simulation results were developed by the sliding
mode control approach in [21] which represent their han-
dling capability for a class of UEMNS in the presence of
uncertainties. Even with its extensive applicability, much
complexity occurs in controlling the dynamics of the sys-
tems having relative degree greater than one with respect to
sliding surfaces.
13
Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology
One of the famous nonlinear control strategies, is the
backstepping sliding mode control approach. In this design,
in each step a simple first order system is treated, so it
becomes easier to choose a virtual control law which can
stabilize the system either asymptotically or in finite time.
Secondly, one may cancel the effects of the uncertain terms
appearing in the associated step. Thirdly, the Lyapunov sta-
bility of each step is confirmed by the choice of the virtual
controllers. With the introduction of sliding mode in a syn-
thetic manner with backstepping, one may certainly be able
to get the benefits against the ignored dynamics, parametric
variations and bounded disturbances. In other words, one
may also take into account the attributes of sliding modes
like invariance property. Since a strong reachability law
with multi surface control is used in the sliding mode con-
troller to ensure robustness. Therefore, this law results in
suppressed chattering across the switching manifolds. Such
kind of benefits can’t be claimed by strategies like feedback
linearization and pole placement control accompanied by
sliding mode controllers.
In this paper, a backstepping sliding mode control for
a class of UEMNS is presented. Before pursuing design,
the dynamics of the systems needed to be converted into a
suitable regular form. In this form, the overall dynamics are
subdivided into two blocks which are named as indirectly
driven block and directly driven blocks by the control input.
The synthesized control law utilizes the good features of
the basic control techniques i.e., (in case of backstepping)
easy nonlinear control design for each state and (in case
of sliding modes) the invariance property. The step by step
backstepping strategy is devised to steer the corresponding
errors to zero in finite time and the SMC scheme is used to
handle the uncertain disturbances with strong reachability
law. The rigorous stability analysis of each step is presented
and the designed control law is tested on a cart-pendulum
system in a closed loop under the action of uncertainties
and disturbances. Note that, the main contributions are three
fold. First, we have proposed a backstepping based robust
sliding mode strategy for all uncertain underactuated non-
linear systems which can be transformed to regular form.
Secondly, we have proved the overall closed loop stability of
the system very comprehensively and thirdly, the simulation
results of the proposed technique, for cart pendulum system,
are compared with the standard literature results. The rest
of the paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, the problem
statement is given. Afterward, general backstepping based
sliding-mode controller for the class of UEMNS is designed
in Sect. 3. The stability of the proposed approach is also
presented in the same section. The control of the bench-
mark cart pendulum system through BSMC technique along
with simulation results and detailed discussions are given
in Sect. 4. The conclusion of this research work is given in
the last section.
Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology

2 Problem Formulation Before the control design, the assumptions are made.

A multi-body system is generally modeled via Euler- Lagrange Assumption 1  It is assumed that the matched uncertainties
equations of motion in a configuration space of 2n variables. 𝛿i should be the norm bounded by a positive constant 𝜆i i.e.
The governing dynamics look like [22] |𝛿 | ≤ 𝜆 , i = 2, 4.
| i| i
( )
d 𝜕 𝜕 Assumption 2  Assume that the function F̃ 1 can be subdi-
𝔏(q, q)
̇ − 𝔏(q, q)̇ = Fe (q)U (1)
dt 𝜕 q̇ 𝜕q vided into the following structure
( ) ( ) ( )
where q and q̇ denotes the position and velocity vectors, F̃ 1 y1 , z1 , y2 = F̃ 11 y1 , y2 F̃ 12 z1 .
U ∈ R is the controlled input, Fe (q) denotes the applied
external forces matrix and 𝔏(q, q) ̇ is the kinetic energy KE In addition, it is assumed that the inverse of F̃ 12 also
minus potential energy PE  , i.e., exists.
Now, the main task is to steer both the y1 and z1 dynam-
̇ = KE (q) − PE (q) = 1∕2q̇ T 𝔍(q)q̇ − PE (q)
𝔏(q, q) (2) ics to equilibrium in the presence of the uncertainties. For
this purpose, the following design procedure is presented.
where 𝔍(q) is a symmetric and full rank inertia matrix. The
equation of motion for an electro-mechanical system in vec-
tor form is expressed as follows
𝔍(q)q̈ + FC (q, q)
̇ q̇ + Fg (q) + Fb (q)
̇ = Fe (q)U (3) 3 Controller Design

where FC (q, q) ̇ points to centrifugal forces or Coriolis
forces, Fg (q) are gravitational forces (see [23] for more
details) and Fb (q) ̇ are the fractional forces. The system (3),
in alternate form, can be expressed as
( ) ( ) }
q̈ 1 = F1 q1 , q2 , q̇ 1 , q̇ 2 + G1 q1 , q2 U
( ) ( )
q̈ 2 = F2 q1 , q2 , q̇ 1 , q̇ 2 + G2 q1 , q2 U
The aforementioned dynamic model of UEMNS is coupled
both in states and inputs which can be converted into an input
decoupled form via the introduction of the following nonsin-
gular coordinate transformation.
Referring to the case-I [4], it is evident that majority of
the zero dynamics of the underactuated electro-mechan-
ical systems remains unstable. Therefore, in this section,
we directly study a scenario where the zero dynamics
(6) remain unstable. A step by step development of the
proposed control technique is comprehensively presented
(4)
which confirms the convergence of both the dynamics to
their respective equilibria.
To stabilize the internal dynamics, at its desired trajec-
tory yd  , the control law invokes backstepping strategy at
the first stage of the first block. For this purpose, a tracking
error s1 is defined in the following equation

z = q2 , y = 𝜓(q1 , t), ẏ =
𝜕
𝜓(q1 , t)q̇ 2 and
s1 = y1 − yd ⇒ ṡ 1 = y2 − ẏ d (7)
𝜕q2
( ) Now, the time derivative of a Lyapunov function
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕
ÿ = 𝜓(q1 , q2 , t)q̇ 2 q̇ 2 − 𝜓(q1 , q2 , t)q̈ 2 V1 = 1∕2(s21 ) along (6), becomes
𝜕q2 𝜕q2 𝜕q2
V̇ 1 = s1 ṡ 1 ⇒ V̇ 1 = s1 (y2 − ẏ d ) (8)
Consequently, the following regular form is achieved
} The state y2 , in this equation, is treated as a virtual
ÿ = F̃ 1 (y, y,
̇ z, z)
̇ control input to make the derivative of the Lyapunov nega-
(5)
z̈ = F̃ 2 (y, y, ̃ 2 (y, z)U
̇ +G
̇ z, z) tive definite and to ensure the finite time convergence of
the error term to zero. Thus, this virtual control input is
where the y-dynamics represent the internal dynamics and choosen as follows
the z-dynamics represent the visible dynamics. The vis-
ible dynamics are directly controlled by the control input U y⋆2 = ẏ d − 𝜂1 s1 (9)
whereas the internal dynamics are enforced to zero by the
where 𝜂1 is a positive design constant. Consequently, one has
virtual control input named as z⋆ . In state space, the above
dynamic model is given by V̇ 1 = −𝜂1 s21 = −2𝜂1 V1 (10)
( )
ẏ 1 = y2 , ẏ 2 = F̃ 1 y1 , z1 , y2 , z2 + 𝛿2 where 𝜂̃1 = 2𝜂1 . The expression for the settling time [4] is
( ) ( ) (6)
ż 1 = z2 , ż 2 = F̃ 2 y1 , z1 , y2 , z2 + G
̃ 2 y1 , z1 U + 𝛿4 as follows

13
 Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology

( 1∕2
)
1 𝜂̃1 V1 (s1 (0)) + 𝛾̃1 V̇ 3 = V̇ 2 + s3 ṡ 3 (19)
Ts 1 ≤ ln (11)
2𝜂̃1 𝛾̃1
Substituting the right side of V̇ 2 and ṡ 3 , one gets
In the next step, a sliding variable with its time derivative V̇ 3 = −𝜂1 s21 − 𝜂2 s22 − 𝛽2 |s2 | + s3 (z2 − ż ⋆1 ) (20)
is defined as follows
Using nonlinear feedback, the virtual input z⋆2  , is obtained
s2 = y2 − y⋆2 ⇒ ṡ 2 = ẏ 2 − ÿ d + 𝜂1 ṡ 1 (12) from Eq. (20) as follows
Now, substituting the right side of ẏ 2 (subject to Assump- z⋆2 = ż ⋆1 − 𝜂3 s3 (21)
tion 2) and ṡ 1 = s2 − 𝜂1 s1 , one has
( ) ( ) where 𝜂3 and 𝛾3 are the design constants. Consequently, one
ṡ 2 = F̃ 11 y1 , y2 F̃ 12 z1 + 𝛿2 − ÿ d + 𝜂1 (s2 − 𝜂1 s1 ) (13) has

V̇ 3 ≤ −𝜂1 s21 − 𝜂2 s22 − 𝛽2 |s2 | − 𝜂3 s23 (22)

Remark 1  In order to have fast sliding mode enforcement
with suppressed chattering, the following strong reachability where s3 ≤ |s3 |.
law is used. Now, the time derivative of sliding manifold s4 = z2 − z⋆2  ,
in the final step, is expressed as follows
ṡ 2 = −𝜂2 s2 − 𝛾2 sign(s2 ) (14)
ṡ 4 = ż 2 − z̈ ⋆1 + 𝜂3 ṡ 3 (23)
In order to design a desired reference for the third step,
the time derivative of Lyapunov function V2 = V1 + 1∕2s22 By substituting the value of ż 2 from (6) and ṡ 3 = s4 − 𝜂3 s3 ,
along (13) and (14) takes the forthcoming form one has
( )
V̇ 2 = − 𝜂1 s21 + s2 (s1 + F̃ 11 y1 , y2 F̃ 12 (z1 ) + 𝛿2 ṡ 4 = F̃ 2 + G
̃ 2 U + 𝛿4 − z̈ ⋆ + 𝜂3 (s4 − 𝜂3 s3 )
1 (24)
− ÿ d + 𝜂1 (s2 − 𝜂1 s1 ))
Very similar to (14), the following strong reachability
To law is considered
( make
) V̇ 2 negative definite, the virtual input function,
̃F12 z1  , is chosen as follow ( )
ṡ 4 = −𝜂4 s4 − 𝛾4 sign s4 (25)
/
F̃ 12 (z1 ) = 1 F̃ (y , y )(−𝜂1 (s2 − 𝜂1 s1 ) − s1
11 1 2
(15) Now, the time derivative of final Lyapunov function
+̈yd − 𝜂2 s2 − 𝛾2 sign(s2 )) V4 = V3 + 1∕2s24 is defined as follows

and the desired backstepping reference appears to be V̇ 4 = V̇ 3 + s4 ṡ 4

/ (
( F̃ (y , y ) −𝜂1 (s2 − 𝜂1 s1 ) − s1 + ÿ d
−1 1
z⋆1 = F̃ 12 By substituting the right side of V̇ 3 and ṡ 4 , the above equa-
11 1 2
(16) tion becomes
− 𝜂2 s2 − 𝛾2 sign(s2 )))
}
V̇ 4 = − 𝜂1 s21 − 𝜂2 s22 − 𝜆2 |s2 | − 𝜂3 s23 + s4 (F̃ 2 + s3 + 𝛿4
where 𝜂2 and 𝛾2 are the
( design
) constants. Thus, the aforemen-
̃ 2 U − z̈ ⋆ + 𝜂3 (s4 − 𝜂3 s3 ))
tioned choice of F̃ 12 z1 ensures +G 1

V̇ 2 ≤ −𝜂1 s21 − 𝜂2 s22 − (𝛾2 − |𝛿2 |)|s2 |
≤ −𝜂1 s21 − 𝜂2 s22 − 𝛽2 |s2 |
where |s2 | = s2 sign(s2 ) and 𝛽2 ≤ 𝛾2 − |𝛿2 | . The inequal-
ity (17) remains true (while applying assumption 1) if
𝛾2 ≥ 𝛽2 + 𝜆2.
To move towards the third step, the desired trajectory
for the visible dynamic block is considered to be z⋆1 and the
sliding surface s3 can be defined as follows
s3 = z1 − z⋆1 ⇒ ṡ 2 = z2 − ż ⋆1
Now, the time derivative of a Lyapunov function along
the second block of (6), becomes
To make V̇ 4 negative definite, the control input U is cal-
(17) culated as follow
/ }
U =1G ̃ 2 (−s3 − 𝜂3 (s4 − 𝜂3 s3 ) + z̈ ⋆1 − 𝜂4 s4
(26)
−F̃ 2 − 𝛾4 sign(s4 ))
where 𝜂4 and 𝛾4 are the design constants. Thus, the calculated
control input U ensures
V̇ 4 ≤ −𝜂1 s21 − 𝜂2 s22 − 𝛽2 |s2 | − 𝜂3 s23 − 𝜂4 s24 − (𝜂4 − |𝛿4 |)|s4 |
(18) ≤ −𝜂1 s21 − 𝜂2 s22 − 𝛽2 |s2 | − 𝜂3 s23 − 𝜂4 s24 − 𝛽4 |s4 |
where s4 ≤ |s4 | and 𝛽4 ≤ 𝜂4 𝛾4 − |𝛿4 |. The above differen-
tial inequality, in term of V4 , remains true if 𝜂4 ≥ 𝛽4 + 𝜆4 .

13
Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology

( )/
The control law in (26) ensures that s4 → 0 in finite time,
ẍ = − mg cos 𝜃sin𝜃 − 4∕3U 𝜌(𝜃)
which conforms that z2 reaches z⋆2 in finite time. Moving (27)
backward, the Eq. (22) conforms that s3 → 0 which clarify 𝜃̈ = ((M + m)g sin 𝜃 − cos 𝜃 U)∕l𝜌(𝜃)
that z1 reaches to z⋆1 in finite time. Having reached z⋆1 by z1 ,
the sliding mode establishes against (12) under the action of where 𝜌(𝜃) = 4∕3(M + m) − m cos2 𝜃 and U = u + ml𝜃̇ 2 sin 𝜃 .
(16). This conforms that y2 → y⋆2 which further provides us The typical parameter values of the aforesaid model are
the opportunity that y1 → yd in finite time. This shows that given in [4]. By introducing the following coordinate
the motion of the 1 block is stabilized in finite time while transformation
taking care of the s3 which should approach to zero. 4l ̇ 4l sin 𝜃 ̇ 2 4l ̈
This conforms the 2 block stabilization at an unstable ẏ = ẋ + 𝜃, ÿ = ẍ + 2
𝜃 + 𝜃 (28)
3 cos 𝜃 3 cos 𝜃 3 cos 𝜃
equilibrium point via the action of final input u.
Now, in the next section a practical example of cart- and substituting the right side of ẍ and 𝜃̈ , the pendulum-
pendulum is considered to clarify the design strategy and card system (27) is transformed into the following regular
to conform its results in term of simulations. form
ẏ 1 = y2 , ẏ 2 = Γ1 (𝜃1 , 𝜃2 ) tan 𝜃1 + 𝛿2
(29)
𝜃̇ 1 = 𝜃2 , 𝜃̇ 2 = Γ2 (𝜃1 ) + Υ2 (𝜃1 )U + 𝛿4
(( ) )
4 Illustrative Example where Γ1 = 𝜌g 43 − cos2 𝜃1 m + 34 M + 4 l𝜃2
2
,
3 cos 𝜃1

The swinging pendulum on a cart (shown in Fig. 1) is
one of the most interesting research problem that is used
for illustrating nonlinear control techniques in a research
laboratory. The pole of the pendulum is freely swing about
the pivot point and its position and velocity can be directly
controlled by the applied control force. On the other hand,
the cart can move on the horizontal plane and its position
and velocity states are controlled by virtual control input.
The rockets control is the motivational applications for
this system.
4.1 Model Description and Controller DEsign
The dynamic model of this system is displayed as follows
Γ2 = (M + m)g sin 𝜃1 ∕l𝜌 and Υ2 = − cos 𝜃1 ∕l𝜌. Equation (29)
shows that the 1st block is free of control input u whereas
the 2nd block is under the action of u . Having stabilized the
y-dynamics, the (28) is verified which conforms that the cart
motion take care of the angular motion.
Now, we move to design steps while following the strat-
egy outlined in the previous section. The conventional
backstepping and sliding-mode controller guarantees sta-
bility of both pendulum and cart block and provides track-
ing capability. However, the aforementioned controllers
have some deficiencies in term of slow tracking perfor-
mance with chattering and existence of steady state error.
Thus, SMC alone is not suitable for position trajectory
tracking control. In this section, the backstepping based
SMC technique is designed to ensure the linear and angu-
lar position trajectory tracking. In order to stabilize the
cart and the rod, it is necessary to steer the variable y to yd
in the presence of uncertainties. Therefore by defining an
error variable as follows
s1 = 𝜉1 = y1 − yd (30)
The virtual control input y⋆2 can be defined as follows

y⋆2 = ẏ d − 𝜂1 s1 ) (31)

which ensures
1∕2
V̇ 1 + 𝜂̃1 V1 + 𝛾̃1 (V1 ) ≤ 0 (32)

where 𝜂̃1 and 𝛾̃1 are positive constants. Now, moving ahead,
the sliding surface in the 2nd step can be defined as follows

s2 = y2 − y⋆2 (33)

and a virtual control input 𝜃1⋆ can be defined as

Fig. 1  Cart-pendulum system

13
 Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology

Table 1  Gains of the proposed control strategy

Parameter 𝛾1 𝛾2 𝛾3 𝛾4

Valve 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006

Parameter 𝜂1 𝜂2 𝜂3 𝜂4

Valve 2.45 2.41 2.40 2.24

𝜃1⋆ = tan−1 (1∕Γ (𝜃 , 𝜃 )(̈yd − 𝜂1 (s2 − 𝜂1 s1 ) − s1 2

Cart position by Chen & Haung
1 1 2
(34) Cart position via BSMC
−𝜂2 s2 − 𝛾2 sign(s2 ))) 1.5

Position (m)
Similarly, following this procedure, one may get the vir-
1
tual control input as

𝜃2⋆ = 𝜃̇ 1⋆ − 𝜂3 s3 (35) 0.5

which enforces sliding mode against s2 = 𝜃1 − 𝜃1⋆ . Now, 0

the sliding surface for the fourth step is considered as follows 0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
s4 = 𝜃2 − 𝜃2⋆ (36)
Fig. 2  Comparison of cart position stabilization with standard result
A driving control input u can be defined as follows of [15] in the presence of uncertainty

u = 1∕Υ (𝜃̈1⋆ − 𝛾2 sign(s2 ) − Γ2 − 𝜂3 (s4 − 𝜂3 s3 )

2
(37) 1
−𝜂4 s4 − s4 ) − ml𝜃22 sin 𝜃1 Pendulum position Chen & Haung
Angular Position (rad)

Pendulum position via BSMC

0.5
This is the final control law for controlling the overall
system. Now, its simulation results will be discussed.
0

4.2 Result Discussion -0.5

The main objective of the proposed control strategy is to -1

place the rod of the pendulum at vertically upright unstable
position i.e., 𝜃 = 0◦ with the control law (37) while enforcing
the translational cart position at the origin.
The design parameters 𝜂1 , 𝜂2 , 𝜂3 , 𝜂4 are selected to force
the system’s states to the sliding surface. The parameters
𝛾1 , 𝛾2 , 𝛾3 , 𝛾4 are set to control the errors and create robust-
ness against uncertainties. In controller design, the values
of 𝜂1 , 𝜂2 , 𝜂3 , 𝜂4 are kept a bit higher than the values of
𝛾1 , 𝛾2 , 𝛾3 , 𝛾4 to achieve fast tracking and to minimize the
problem of high frequency switching the so-called chatter-
ing. The design parameters of the proposed control strategy
are listed in Table 1.
In order to show the merits of the proposed techniques, its
simulation results are compared with the standard published
results of [15]. The simulation result of the cart position y1 is
displayed in Fig. 2. It is evident that position convergence of the
proposed techniqe has very appealing transient response (i.e.,
low rise time with minimum overshoot and samll settling time)
as compared to that of [15] which experiences an oscillatory
behaviours. The response of [15] in such kind of applications
0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
Fig. 3  Comparison of rod angle stabilization with the standard litera-
ture produced by [15] in the presence of uncertainty
is no more desirable. The pendulum rod angle 𝜃1 convergence
to its desired value is depicted in Fig. 3. It is quite clear from
the figure that as compared to the standard result reported in
[15], the rod angle stabilization is fast enough and is almost
oscillation-free. The robustness, in the presence of an abrupt
disturbance i.e.,0.3 cos(t) , is shown in the both the figures for
time 20 ≤ t ≤ 30. It is obvious that the proposed algorithm sup-
press the effects of the abruptly introduced disturbance, quite
effectively to a tolerable band as compared to its counterpart.
The controlled input results in the presence of the given
disturbance, for the proposed and that of [15], are shown
in Fig. 4. It worthy to note that the proposed control input
appear with almost chatter free structure while fulfilling
the main tasks required. The control input of the proposed

13
Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology

40 Table 2  Performance comparison with [15]

Input Torque reported by Chen & Haung
20 Input Torque via proposed BSMC Specifications Pendulum Cart
Input Torque (Nm)

0
[15] BSMC [15] BSMC
10-12

-20
10
Peak undershoot − 0.912 − 0.725 1.721 1.180
Peak overshoot 0.615 0.172 0.353 0.952
5
-40
Rise time (s) 0.415 0.215 0.957 0.214
-60 0 Peak time (s) 0.474 0.312 0.527 0.457
16.7 17.8 Settling time (s) 8.824 0.865 9.612 0.564
0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
5 Conclusion
Fig. 4  History of control input effort compared with the standard
result of [15] A control design strategy for UEMNS, based on the back-
stepping sliding mode strategy, is proposed in this work.
strategy utilizes low energy as compared to it counterpart. To pursue the design, the system was first transformed to
Note that, the proposed controller making use of multiple regular form and then a step by step BSMC design was pre-
surfaces accompanied by the strong reachability law for the sented. The robustness against the uncertainties is proved in
sliding mode enforcement in step two and step four. There- each step and the finite time convergence is ensured via the
fore, it shows no chattering phenomena and, of course, it is Lyapunov theory. The designed control was tested on a cart-
in agreement with that of [24] which claims that minimum pendulum system and the simulation results were compared
chattering occurs in ideal sliding mode. However, in practi- with the standard literature results of [15]. Having looked at
cle context, there must exist chattering which is always asso- the results, our proposed strategy is suggested as an appeal-
ciated with sliding modes. On the other hand, the controller ing candidate for UEMNS.
of [15] experiences no chattering because there is no concept
of sliding mode in that work. In nutshell, the proposed con-
troller performance is far better than that of [15].
Apart from these comparisons, it is necessary to present References
the multiple sliding surfaces convergence. Therefore, they
1. Singh AM, Ha QP (2019) Fast terminal sliding control application
are displayed in Fig. 5. The surface convergence, along with for second-order underactuated systems. Int J Control Autom Syst
rigourous mathematical analysis, confirms the finite time 17(8):1884–1898
establishment of sliding modes in each step which ensure 2. Zhang M, Tarn TJ (2002) Hybrid control of the Pendubot. IEEE/
ASME Trans Mechatron 7(1):79–86
step by step robustness along with increased precision. Fur-
3. Khan Q, Akmeliawati R, Bhatti AI, Khan MA (2017) Robust
thermore, an in-depth analysis is provided in a comparison stabilization of underactuated nonlinear systems: a fast terminal
Table 2 that shows the enhanced transient and steady state sliding mode approach. ISA Trans 66:241–248
characteristics of the proposed BSMC strategy over its coun- 4. Back J, Ha W (2019) Robust tracking of robot manipulators via
momentum-based disturbance observer and passivity-based con-
terpart. The overall study certify that the proposed approach
troller. Int J Control Autom Syst 17(4):976–985
is one of the best candidate for a the class of underactuated 5. Gogte G, Venkatesh C, Kazi F, Singh NM, Pasumarthy R (2012)
electro-mechanical nonlinear systems (which can be pre- Passivity based control of underactuated 2-d spidercrane manipu-
sented in regular form). lator. In: 20th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory
of Networks and Systems MTNS
6. Cornejo C, Alvarez-Icaza L (2007) A nonlinear friction model for
the passivity-based control of underactuated mechanical systems.
10-13 Slinding surface s2 In: 46th IEEE conference on decision and control, pp 3859–3864
4 20
Slinding surface

Slinding surface s4 7. Fierro R, Lewis FL, Lowe A (1999) Hybrid control for a class of
10
0 underactuated mechanical systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern
2
Part A Syst Hum 29(6):649–654
8. Tao CW, Taur JS, Hsieh TW, Tsai CL (2008) Design of a fuzzy
0 controller with fuzzy swing-up and parallel distributed pole
assignment schemes for an inverted pendulum and cart system.
-2 IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 16(6):1277–1288
9. Raguraman SM, Tamilselvi D, Shivakumar N (2009) Mobile
0 10 20 30 40 robot navigation using fuzzy logic controller. In: International
Time (s) conference on control, automation, communication and energy
conservation, pp 1–5
Fig. 5  Convergence of sliding surfaces in 2nd and 4th step

13
 Journal of Electrical Engineering & Technology

10. Aloui S, Pages O, El Hajjaji A, Chaari A, Koubaa Y (2011) Qudrat Khan  received the B.Sc.
Robust adaptive fuzzy sliding mode control design for a class of degree in mathematics from the
MIMO underactuated system. IFAC Proc Vol 44(1):11127–11132 University of Peshawar in 2003,
11. Yang ECY, Chao PCP, Sung CK (2010) Optimal control of an the M.Sc. and M.Phil. degrees in
under-actuated system for landing with desired postures. IEEE mathematics from Quaid-i-Azam
Trans Control Syst Technol 19(2):248–255 University, Islamabad, in 2006
12. Hussein II, Bloch AM (2008) Optimal control of underactuated and 2008, respectively, and the
nonholonomic mechanical systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control Ph.D. degree in nonlinear con-
53(3):668–682 trol systems from Mohammad
13. Mason P, Broucke M, Piccoli B (2008) Time optimal swing- Ali Jinnah University, Islama-
up of the planar pendulum. IEEE Trans Autom Control bad, in 2012. He was a Post-
53(8):1876–1886 Doctoral Fellow at International
14. Wu X, He L, Gao H, Qian J, Wu X (2018) Finite-time tracking Islamic University, Malaysia, for
control of underactuated overhead cranes. In: 2018 Chinese con- one year. He is currently an
trol and decision conference (CCDC), pp 3146–3151 Assistant Professor with the
15. Chen YF, Huang AC (2012) Controller design for a class of Center for Advanced Studies in
underactuated mechanical systems. IET Control Theory Appl Telecommunications, COMSATS University, Islamabad. His research
6(1):103–110 interests include robust nonlinear control, observers/estimators design,
16. Gu YL (1993) A direct adaptive control scheme for under-actuated and fault diagnosis of dynamic systems via sliding mode and its
dynamic systems. In: Proceedings of 32nd IEEE conference on variants.
decision and control, pp 1625–1627
17. Mu DD, Wang GF, Fan YS (2017) Design of adaptive neural Adeel Mehmood  received Ph.D.
tracking controller for pod propulsion unmanned vessel subject degree from the Technical Uni-
to unknown dynamics. J Electr Eng Technol 12(6):2365–2377 versity of Belfort-Montbeliard,
18. Khan Q, Bhatti AI, Iqbal S, Iqbal M (2011) Dynamic integral Belfort Cedex, France, in 2012.
sliding mode for mimo uncertain nonlinear systems. Int J Control He completed MS in robotics
Autom Syst 9(1):151–160 and embedded systems from the
19. Razmjou EG, Sani SKH, Jalil-Sadati S (2018) Output tracking of University of Versailles Saint-
uncertain fractional-order systems via robust iterative learning Quentin en Yvelines, Versailles,
sliding mode control. J Electr Eng Technol 13(4):1705–1714 France, in 2008, and BS in
20. Zhang M, Zhang Y, Cheng X (2019) An enhanced coupling PD mechatronics engineering from
with sliding mode control method for underactuated double- the National University of Sci-
pendulum overhead crane systems. Int J Control Autom Syst ence and Technology, Islamabad,
17(6):1579–1588 Pakistan, in 2006. He was a Post-
21. Xu R, Özgüner Ü (2008) Sliding mode control of a class of under- Doctoral Researcher with the
actuated systems. Automatica 44(1):233–241 University of Haute-Alsace,
22. Choukchou-Braham A, Cherki B, Djemaï M, Busawon K (2013) Madhouse, France. He is cur-
Analysis and control of underactuated mechanical systems. rently working as an assistant professor at COMSATS University
Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin Islamabad, Pakistan. His research interests include robotics, robust and
23. Olfati-Saber R (2001) Nonlinear control of underactuated mechan- nonlinear control of servo systems.
ical systems with application to robotics and aerospace vehicles
(Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Aamer Iqbal Bhatti  received the
24. Utkin V, Guldner J, Shi J (2009) Sliding mode control in electro- B.S. degree in Electrical Engi-
mechanical systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton neering from the University of
Engineering and Technology,
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Lahore, Pakistan, in 1993, the
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. M.S. degree in Control Systems
from Imperial College of Sci-
ence, Technology and Medicine,
London, U.K., in 1994, and the
Safeer Ullah  received the B.S. Ph.D. degree in Control Engi-
degree in Electronics Engineer- neering from the University of
ing from International Islamic Leicester, Leicester, U.K., in
University, Islamabad in 2012 1998. He is now with Moham-
and M.S. Electrical Engineering mad Ali Jinnah University,
from COMSATS University, Islamabad as a Professor of DSP
Islamabad in 2016. He is cur- and control systems with the
rently pursuing the Ph.D. degree Department of Electronic Engineering. He is also head of Control &
in COMSATS University, Islam- Signal Processing Research Group (CASPR). His research interests
abad. His research interests are include sliding-mode applications and radar signal processing.
in analysis, observation and con-
trol of under-actuated nonlinear
systems, particularly UAVs,
using advanced nonlinear control
approaches.

13