Automatica 46 (2010) 1354–1362

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automatica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/automatica

Brief paper

Sliding mode control for time-varying delayed systems based on a

reduced-order observerI
Xing-Gang Yan a , Sarah K. Spurgeon a,∗ , Christopher Edwards b
a
Instrumentation, Control and Embedded Systems Research Group, Department of Engineering and Digital Arts, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NT, United Kingdom
b
Control and Instrumentation Research Group, Department of Engineering, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom

article info abstract

Article history: In this paper, a stabilisation problem for a class of nonlinear systems is considered, where both the non-
Received 1 July 2009 linear term and the nonlinear uncertainty are mismatched and subject to time-varying delay. Under the
Received in revised form assumption that the delay is known, a reduced-order observer is designed using an appropriate trans-
11 December 2009
formation. A sliding surface is proposed in an augmented space formed by the system outputs and the
Accepted 21 April 2010
Available online 12 June 2010
estimated states. The sliding mode dynamics are derived using an equivalent control approach, and the
Lyapunov–Razumikhin approach is exploited to analyse the stability of the sliding motion. Then, a sliding
Keywords:
mode control law is developed such that the system can be driven to the sliding surface in finite time. A
Time delay simulation example shows the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Nonlinear systems © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reduced-order observer
Sliding mode control
Lyapunov–Razumikhin approach

1. Introduction linear time-delayed control systems will finally produce linear

In the mathematical modeling of a real system, it is often as-
sumed that the system future behaviour depends only on the cur-
rent state. However, such an assumption is not always true due
to the existence of time delay elements such as material or infor-
mation transfer. If the delay is neglected, sometimes the model
cannot reflect the system sufficiently well, leading to poor perfor-
mance. This has motivated the current emphasis on the study of
time-delay systems (Richard, 2003).
Since Krasovskii and Razumikhin successfully applied Lyapunov
techniques to time-delay systems, many researchers have been
attracted to the field. However, much of the early work was for
linear systems and unforced systems. With the advancement of
control theory, the interest in control systems with time delay
has been increased greatly. Many results associated with different
types of delay such as state delay, input delay, and output delay
have been produced (Levaggi & Punta, 2006; Shtessel, Zinober, &
Shkolnikov, 2003; Wang, Ho, Liu, & Liu, 2009). Most results for
I The work is supported by EPSRC via grant reference EP/E020763/1. The material
in this paper was not presented at any conference. This paper was recommended for
publication in revised form by Associate Editor Masayuki Fujita under the direction
of Editor Ian R. Petersen.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1227 823258; fax: +44 1227 456084.
E-mail addresses: x.yan@kent.ac.uk (X.-G. Yan), S.K.Spurgeon@kent.ac.uk
(S.K. Spurgeon), ce14@le.ac.uk (C. Edwards).
0005-1098/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2010.05.017
matrix inequalities (LMIs) (Fridman & Orlov, 2009; Lin, Wang, &
Yang, 2009; Suplin & Shaked, 2008). When a time-delay system
has nonlinear uncertainties and nonlinear behavior, the problem
becomes more complicated. Although many results have been
obtained for time-delay systems, the problem of output feedback
control of time-delayed nonlinear systems is much less mature.
It should be noted that a real system unavoidably experi-
ences uncertainty or modeling error, and in this case sliding mode
control has been recognised as powerful (Edwards & Spurgeon,
1998; Utkin, 1992). Although some authors have proposed static
output feedback sliding mode control schemes (Janardhanan &
Bandyopadhyay, 2006; Luo, De La Sen, & Rodellar, 1997), strong
conditions are necessarily imposed on the system. This has mo-
tivated the study of dynamical output feedback control in which
not only the system output, but also additional dynamics are em-
ployed. An observer-based sliding mode control is proposed in Niu,
Lam, Wang, and Ho (2004) where it is required that the nonlin-
ear term is matched. Luo et al. studied a class of time-delay sys-
tems where static and dynamic output feedback strategies are
both considered (Luo et al., 1997), but it is required that the un-
certainty is matched. Moreover, all the existing results based on
sliding mode techniques for nonlinear time-delay systems require
that the bounds on the mismatched uncertainties satisfy a linear
growth condition.
In this paper, a class of nonlinear systems is considered, where
both the nonlinear terms and nonlinear uncertainty are misma-
tched and involve time-varying delay. A reduced-order observer is
 X.-G. Yan et al. / Automatica 46 (2010) 1354–1362 1355

designed for the system using structural characteristics. Based on
the estimated states and system outputs, a sliding surface is pro-
posed and the associated sliding mode dynamics, which are non-
linear and time delayed, are derived using an equivalent control
approach and an appropriate coordinate transformation. A suffi-
cient condition is developed, based on the Lyapunov–Razumikhin
approach, such that the sliding motion is uniformly asymptotically
stable. A sliding mode control law dependent only on the time, the
system output and the designed reduced-order dynamical system
states, is developed to drive the system to the sliding surface in fi-
nite time and maintain a sliding motion thereafter. Although the
delay considered in this paper is assumed to be known, it is al-
lowed to be time varying and the limitation that the time deriva-
tive of the delay is less than unity, which is required when the
Lyapunov–Karasovskii approach is employed, is not necessary
here. Finally a numerical example is given to show the effective-
ness of the proposed approach.
Remark 1. Assumption 2 implies that (5) obeys the constraint (6),
which can be considered as the standard Constrained Lyapunov
Problem (CLP) (Galimidi & Barmish, 1986). Similar limitations have
been employed in Cheng (1998), Choi (2008), Yan, Wang, Lü, and
Zhang (1998), and Yan, Spurgeon, and Edwards (2006). Several
algorithms to solve the CLP have been discussed in Edwards,
Yan, and Spurgeon (2007) and Galimidi and Barmish (1986). In
particular, recently Edwards et al. (2007) has shown that with
special parameterisations of the variables L0 , P0 and F , this observer
version of the CLP can be written in the form of strict LMIs and
solved using any of the convex solvers commonly available.
In this paper, local results are sought for the time-delayed sys-
tem (1)–(2). In order to avoid difficulties in describing the domain
under consideration, the term ‘‘a neighborhood of the origin’’ is
used to express the domain throughout the paper. Also, since the
output matrix C is full row rank, without loss of generality, it is
assumed that C = [Ip 0] at the outset.

Assumption 3. The nonlinear function f t , x, xd is Lipschitz with

2. System description
respect to x and xd uniformly for t ∈ R+ , and has the decomposi-
Notation: In this paper, a variable/vector with subscript d is intro- tion
duced to denote the time-delayed variable/vector, for example xd
f t , x, xd = Φ (t , x)xd


denotes x(t − d). The symbol R+ denotes the set of nonnegative (7)
numbers {t | t ≥ 0}. For a function ψ(t , x) which is Lipschitz about where Φ (·) ∈ Rn×n is continuous and Lipschitz with respect to x
x uniformly for t ∈ R+ , the symbol Lψ denotes its Lipschitz con- and uniformly for t ∈ R+ .
stant (maybe a function of t). The symbol C[a,b] represents the set
of Rn -valued continuous function on [a, b]. The expression A > 0 Assumption 4. The uncertainty satisfies
(A < 0) means that A is a symmetric positive (negative) definite
matrix and λmax (A) (λmin (A)) represents its maximum (minimum)
k∆f (t , x, xd )k ≤ ρ(t , x)kxd k
eigenvalue. Finally, the symbol k · k denotes the Euclidean norm or where the function ρ(·) is known continuous and Lipschitz with
its induced norm. respect to x uniformly for t ∈ R+ .
Consider a time-varying delayed system
Remark 2. Assumptions 3 and 4 require that the nonlinear terms
ẋ = Ax + Bu + f t , x, xd + E ∆f (t , x, xd )


(1) f (·) and ∆f (·) are affine about the delayed variable xd , which limits
the class of nonlinear functions f (·) and uncertainties ∆f (·). How-
y = Cx (2)
ever, they include the linear situation as a special case. Moreover,
n m p
where x ∈ R , u ∈ R and y ∈ R are states, inputs and outputs the assumption that the delay is not involved in the functions Φ (·)
respectively; xd is a delayed state where d := d(t ) is the time- and ρ(·) is employed mainly for the simplification of the presenta-
varying delay which is assumed to be known, nonnegative and tion of the subsequent analysis, and is not an inherent limitation.
bounded in R+ , and thus d := supt ∈R+ {d(t )} < ∞. The initial The approach proposed in this paper can be extended to the case
condition associated with the delay is given by when Φ (·) and ρ(·) have time delay in the form of Φ (t , x, xd ) and
ρ(t , x, xd ).
x(t ) = φ(t ), t ∈ [−d̄, 0] (3)
where φ(t ) ∈ Θ , with Θ the admissible initial condition set 3. Reduced-order observer design
defined by
Θ = {φ(t ) | φ(t ) ∈ C[−d̄,0] , kφ(t )k ≤ l0 } (4) In this section, a reduced-order dynamical system is proposed
and a sufficient condition in terms of simple LMIs is developed.
for some constant l0 > 0. The matrices A ∈ Rn×n , B ∈ Rn×m , Partition system (1)–(2) in a compatible way to C = [Ip 0]. The
C ∈ Rp×n and E ∈ Rn×q (m ≤ p < n) are constant with both B system can be rewritten as
and C of full rank. The vector functions f (·) ∈ Rn and ∆f (·) ∈ Rq
f (t , x, xd )
        
ẋ1 A1 A2 x1 B
are, respectively, the known nonlinear term and the nonlinear un- = + 1 u+ 1
certainty experienced by the system. It is assumed that all the non- ẋ2 A3 A4 x2 B2 f2 (t , x, xd )
 
linear functions are smooth enough such that the unforced system E1
+ ∆f (t , x, xd ) (8)
has unique continuous solutions. E2

Assumption 1. The pair (A, B) is controllable and the pair (A, C ) is y = x1 (9)
observable. where x = col(x1 , x2 ) with x1 ∈ R , A1 ∈ R , B1 ∈ R
p p×p
; f1 (·)
p×m

From the fact that (A, C ) is observable, there exists a matrix L0 are the first p components of f (·) and E1 is the first p rows of the
such that A − L0 C has n eigenvalues which lie in the open left half- matrix E.
plane. Then, the inequality Consider inequality (5). Partition P0 and L0 conformably with
the decomposition (8)–(9) as
(A − L0 C )T P0 + P0 (A − L0 C ) < 0 (5)    
P1 P2 L1
is solvable for P0 > 0. P0 = and L0 = . (10)
P2T P3 L2

Assumption 2. The matrix equation Applying the partition above to the matrix equation E T P0 = FC in
Assumption 2, it follows from C = [Ip 0] that E1T P2 + E2T P3 = 0
E T P0 = FC (6) and thus from P3 > 0, P3−1 P2T E1 + E2 = 0. Then, introduce a non-
is solvable for F ∈ R q×p
where P0 satisfies (5). singular coordinate transformation w = T̂ x defined by
1356 X.-G. Yan et al. / Automatica 46 (2010) 1354–1362

w1 = x1
 1 
(11) V̇1 ≤ eT (t ) ĀT P̄ T + P̄ Ā + P̄ P̄ T + ε L2f In−p e(t )
w2 = P3−1 P2T x1 + x2 ε
where w = col(w1 , w2 ) with w1 ∈ R . Then, in the new co- p +ε L2f eTd (t )ed (t ). (26)
ordinates w , system (8)–(9) is described by If (19) holds, then there exists a constant γ > 0 such that
ẇ1 = (A1 − A2 P3−1 P2T )w1 + A2 w2 + B1 u  1 
+ F1 (t , w, wd ) + E1 ∆F (t , w, wd ) (12) Γ := − ĀT P̄ T + P̄ Ā + P̄ P̄ T + 2P3 + γ P3 > 0. (27)
ε
ẇ2 = (P3−1 P2T (A1 − A2 P3−1 P2T ) + A3 − A4 P3−1 P2T )w1 Consequently, when V1 (e(t − d)) ≤ (1 + γ )V1 (e(t )) for any
+ (A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 )w2 + P3−1 P2T In−p Bu
 
d ∈ [0, d], the inequality (1 + γ )eT (t )P3 e(t ) − eTd (t )P3 ed (t ) ≥ 0
+ P3 P2 In−p F (t , w, wd )
 −1 T 
(13) holds and thus from (20),
y = w1 (14)  1 
V̇1 ≤ eT ĀT P̄ T + P̄ Ā + P̄ P̄ T + ε L2f In−p e
where w1d ∈ Rp , wd = col(w1d , w2d ), ε
+ ε L2f eTd ed + (1 + γ )eT P3 e − eTd P3 ed
F (t , w, wd ) := f (t , x, xd ) x=T̂ −1 w
 
(15)
 1 
∆F (t , w, wd ) := ∆f (t , x, xd ) x=T̂ −1 w ≤ eT ĀT P̄ T + P̄ Ā + P̄ P̄ T + 2P3 + γ P3 e
 
(16)
ε
and F1 (·) in (12) are the first p components of the vector F (·) in λ min Γ )
(
(15). Construct a dynamical system ≤ −eT Γ e ≤ − V1 (28)
 λmax (P3 )
˙ 2 = (A4 + P −1 P T A2 )ŵ2 + P −1 P T (A1 − A2 P −1 P T )
ŵ 3 2 3 2 3 2 where Γ is defined in (27). Inequality (28) implies that

λmin (Γ )
 
+ A3 − A4 P3−1 P2T y + P3−1 P2T In−p Bu
 
V1 (e(t )) ≤ e(0)T P3 e(0) exp − t . (29)
λmax (P3 )
+ P3−1 P2T In−p F (t , y, ŵ2 , yd , ŵ2d )
 
(17)
Notably, there exists a neighbourhood of the origin such that for
where ŵ2 ∈ R and F (·) is defined in (15). The initial condi-
n−p
any initial value w2 (0) in the neighbourhood of the origin, there
tion associated with the delay d(t ) is given by ŵ2 (t ) = [P3−1 P2T exists a constant b > 0 and the initial value ŵ2 (0) for the designed
In−p ]φ(t ) for t ∈ [−d̄, 0], where φ(t ) is given in (3). dynamical system (17) such that ke(0)k = kw2 (0) − ŵ2 (0)k ≤ b.
Then, from (29)
Theorem 1. Suppose that Assumptions 1–4 are satisfied in a neigh-
λmin (Γ )
 
bourhood of the origin. Then, there exist positive constants α1 and α2 λmin (P3 )ke(t )k ≤ b λmax (P3 ) exp −
2 2
t . (30)
such that in the neighbourhood of the origin λmax (P3 )
kw2 (t ) − ŵ2 (t )k ≤ α1 exp{−α2 t } (18) Let

if there exists a constant ε > 0 such that 1 λmin (Γ )

α1 = λmax (P3 )/λmin (P3 )b and α2 =
p
(31)
2 λmax (P3 )
1
ĀT P̄ T + P̄ Ā + P̄ P̄ T + 2P3 < 0 (19) then it is clear from (30) that (18) holds. Hence the conclusion
ε
follows. 
ε L2f In−p − P3 ≤ 0 (20)
Remark 3. A necessary condition for inequality (19) to hold is that
hold where
T ĀT P̄ T + P̄ Ā < 0. (32)
Ā = AT2 AT4 , P̄ = P2T P3 .
  
(21)
However, from partitions (8) and (10) and the fact that C = [Ip 0],
Proof. Let e(t ) = w2 (t ) − ŵ2 (t ). From (13) and (17), it follows that
 
∗ ∗
−1 T −1 T
In−p δ(F , F̂ ) (A − L0 C )T P0 + P0 (A − L0 C ) =

 
ė = A4 + P3 P2 A2 e + P3 P2 (22) ∗ T T
Ā P̄ + P̄ Ā
where the symbol
where ∗ represents entries which do not need to be shown. It fol-
lows from (5) that (32) holds.
δ(F , F̂ ) := F (t , w, wd ) − F (t , y, ŵ2 , yd , ŵ2d ) (23)
is introduced to simplify the notation. Since P0 > 0, it follows from Corollary 2. Let x̂2 := ŵ2 − P3−1 P2T y where ŵ2 is the state of
(10) that P3 > 0. For system (22), consider a Lyapunov function system (17). Then, under the conditions of Theorem 1, the inequality
candidate V1 = eT (t )P3 e(t ). Then, the time derivative of V1 along kx2 (t ) − x̂2 (t )k ≤ α1 exp{−α2 t }
the trajectories of system (22) is described by
holds in a neighbourhood of the origin, where the constants α1 and α2
V̇1 = eT (t ) ĀT P̄ T + P̄ Ā e(t ) + 2eT (t )P̄ δ(F , F̂ )


(24) are those in (18).

where Ā and P̄ are defined in (21). From Young’s inequality 2X T Y ≤ Proof. From transformation (11) and y = x1 ,

ε
X X + ε Y T Y for any scalar ε > 0,
1 T
x2 − x̂2 = w2 − P3−1 P2T x1 − ŵ2 + P3−1 P2T y = w2 − ŵ2
1 Hence, the conclusion follows from Theorem 1. 
2eT (t )P̄ δ(F , F̂ ) ≤ eT (t )P̄ P̄ T e(t ) + εkδ(F , F̂ )k2
ε
1 4. Sliding motion stability analysis
eT (t )P̄ P̄ T e(t ) + ε L2f eT (t )e(t ) + eTd (t )ed (t )


= (25)
ε In this section, a sliding surface based on the system output y
where Lemma 6 in Appendix B is used. Substituting (25) into (24), and the estimated state x̂2 given in Corollary 2 will be designed.
 X.-G. Yan et al. / Automatica 46 (2010) 1354–1362 1357

A sufficient condition will be developed to guarantee the uniform where δe (f , fˆ ) is defined in (38). From sliding mode control the-
asymptotic stability of the corresponding sliding motion. ory, the reduced-order sliding mode dynamics are given by Eq.
(42)–(43) limited to the sliding surface (39). Since by design SB is
4.1. Sliding surface design nonsingular, the matrix S is full row rank, and thus there exists a
nonsingular matrix T such that
From sliding mode control theory, for a controllable pair (A, B), ST = [Im 0] (45)
there exists a matrix S ∈ Rm×n such that
• the matrix SB is nonsingular; where T can be obtained using elementary column operations. In-
• the matrix A − B(SB)−1 SA has n − m eigenvalues which lie in the troduce a coordinate transformation z = T −1 x. Then, in the new
open left half-plane. coordinates (z , e), system (42)–(43) can be described by
Such a matrix S can be designed using any existing state feedback
ż = T −1 (A − B(SB)−1 SA)Tz + T −1 B(SB)−1 S2 (A4
sliding mode control design methodology (Edwards & Spurgeon,
+ P3−1 P2T A2 )e + T −1 In − B(SB)−1 S


1998; Utkin, 1992). Then, partition the matrix S as S = [S1 S2 ]
where S1 ∈ Rm×p and S2 ∈ Rm×(n−p) . Choose a switching function × f (t , Tz , Tzd ) + E ∆f (t , Tz , Tzd )


as + T −1 B(SB)−1 S2 P3−1 P2T P3 [δe (f , fˆ )]x=Tz
 

σ (y, x̂2 ) = S1 y + S2 x̂2 (33) ė = (A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 )e + P3−1 P2T P3 [δe (f , fˆ )]x=Tz .
 

then the sliding surface, which is defined in an augmented space, Partition

is described by  
D1 D2
T −1 (A − B(SB)−1 SA)T =
(x1 , x2 , x̂2 ) | S1 y + S2 x̂2 = 0 .

(34) D3 D4

In coordinates (x, e) where e = x2 − x̂2 , system (1) and error

 
M1
T −1
B(SB)−1
S2 (A4 + P3 P2 A2 ) =
−1 T
dynamics (22) can be written as M2

ẋ = Ax + Bu + f (t , x, xd ) + E ∆f (t , x, xd )
 
(35) N1
T −1 In − B(SB)−1 S =


N2
ė = A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 e + P3−1 P2T In−p δe (f , fˆ )

 
(36)  
H1
y = x1 (37) T −1 B(SB)−1 S2 P3−1 [P2T P3 ] =
H2
where
where D4 ∈ R(n−m)×(n−m) , M2 ∈ R(n−m)×(n−p) , H2 ∈ R(n−m)×n and
δe (f , fˆ ) := f (t , x, xd ) − f (t , y, x2 + e, yd , x2d + ed ). (38) N2 ∈ R(n−m)×n . Then, the system above can be rewritten as
From x2 − x̂2 = e, it follows that S1 y + S2 x̂2 = S1 x1 + S2 x2 − S2 e =
ż1 = D1 z1 + D2 z2 + M1 e + N1 f (t , Tz , Tzd )
Sx − S2 e. Therefore, in the augmented space (x, e), the sliding
surface (34) can be described by + N1 E ∆f (t , Tz , Tzd ) + H1 [δe (f , fˆ )]x=Tz (46)
ż2 = D3 z1 + D4 z2 + M2 e + N2 f (t , Tz , Tzd )
(x, e) | Sx − S2 e = 0 .

(39)
+ N2 E ∆f (t , Tz , Tzd ) + H2 [δe (f , fˆ )]x=Tz (47)

ė = (A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 )e + P3−1 P2T P3 [δe (f , fˆ )]x=Tz

 
(48)
4.2. Equivalent system and sliding mode dynamics
where z = col(z1 , z2 ) with z1 ∈ Rm and z2 ∈ Rn−m . Comparing
Consider system (35)–(37) with the sliding surface given in (39). system (46)–(48) with system (42)–(43), it follows that the matrix
During a sliding motion, S ẋ − S2 ė = 0. From equivalent control  
theory (Edwards & Spurgeon, 1998; Utkin, 1992), it follows that D1 D2 M1
D3 D4 M2  =: Aeq (49)
SAx + SBueq + Sf (·) + SE ∆f (·) −1 T
0 0 A4 + P3 P2 A2
− S2 A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 e − S2 P3 −1
P2T P3 δe (f , fˆ ) = 0

 
(40)
has 2n − p − m eigenvalues which lie in the open left half-plane.
where ueq is the equivalent control. Since SB is nonsingular by From (45) and z = T −1 x, Sx − S2 e = z1 − S2 e. Then, in the new
design, ueq can be described by coordinates (z , e), the sliding surface (39) is described by

ueq = −(SB)−1 SAx − (SB)−1 S (f (·) + E ∆f (·)) (z1 , z2 , e) | z1 − S2 e = 0 .


(50)
+ (SB)−1 S2 A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 e


Partition T as T = [T1 T2 ], where T1 ∈ Rn×m and T2 ∈ Rn×(n−m) .
+ (SB)−1 S2 P3−1 P2T P3 δe (f , fˆ ). On the sliding surface (50),
 
(41)
The equivalent control ueq , involves the uncertainty ∆f (·), and
 
S2 e
x = [T1 T2 ] = T1 S2 e + T2 z2 . (51)
is not the real control signal. Substituting ueq in (41) into Eq. z2
(35)–(36), the equivalent system governing the sliding motion is
given by Thus, by using (51), the reduced-order sliding mode dynamics is
the equivalent system (46)–(48) restricted to the sliding surface
ẋ = (A − B(SB)−1 SA)x + B(SB)−1 S2 (A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 )e (50), which is described by
+ In − B(SB)−1 S f (t , x, xd ) + E ∆f (·)



ż2 = D4 z2 + (M2 + D3 S2 )e + N2 f (t , T1 S2 e + T2 z2 ,
+ B(SB)−1 S2 P3−1 P2T P3 δe (f , fˆ ) T1 S2 ed + T2 z2d ) + N2 E ∆f (t , T1 S2 e + T2 z2 , T1 S2 ed
 
(42)
+ T2 z2d ) + H2 δT (f , fˆ ) (52)
ė = (A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 )e + P3−1 P2T In−p δe (f , fˆ )
 
(43)
ė = (A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 )e + P3 −1
P2T P3 δT (f , fˆ )
 
y = x1 (44) (53)
1358 X.-G. Yan et al. / Automatica 46 (2010) 1354–1362

where and from (81) in Appendix B,

δT (f , fˆ ) := [f (t , x, xd ) 1
2 eT P̄ + z2T PH2 δT (f , fˆ ) ≤ (eT P̄ P̄ T e + z2T PH2


− f (t , y, x2 + e, yd , x2d + ed )] " #. (54) ε2
S2 e
x =T
z2 × (PH2 )T z2 + 2z2T PH2 P̄ T e) + ε2 L2f (eT e + eTd ed ). (59)

If V (z2d , ed ) ≤ q2 V (z2 , e) for some q2 > 1, then from the definition

4.3. Stability of sliding motion of V (·) in (55)

q2 z2T (t )Pz2 (t ) + eT (t )P3 e(t ) − z2d

T
(t )Pz2d (t )


A sufficient condition which guarantees the stability of the slid-
ing motion will be proposed in terms of a set of matrix inequalities. − eTd (t )P3 ed (t ) ≥ 0. (60)

Substituting (57)–(59) into (56) and employing (60),

Theorem 3. Suppose that Assumptions 1–4 are satisfied in a neigh-
bourhood of the origin. Then, system (1)–(2) has a uniformly asymp- V̇ ≤ z2T (DT4 P + PD4 )z2 + 2z2T P (M2 + D3 S2 )e
totically stable sliding motion with respect to the sliding surface (34) if
there exists a matrix P > 0 such that in a neighborhood of the origin
+ 2z2T PN2 Φ (·)T1 S2 ed + 2z2T PN2 Φ (·)T2 z2d
in the state space (z2 , e), the matrix inequality. 1 
+ z2T PN2 E (PN2 E )T z2 + ε1 ρ 2 (·) eTd (T1 S2 )T T1 S2 ed
ε1
X1 Λ PN2 Φ (·)T2 PN2 Φ (·)T1 S2
 

T
T2T T2 z2d + 2z2d
T
T2T T1 S2 ed + eT ĀT P̄ T + P̄ Ā e


∗ X2 0 0 + z2d
W :=  <0

∗ ∗ X3 ε1 ρ 2 (·)T2T T1 S2 
1 T T 
∗ ∗ ∗ X4 + e P̄ P̄ e + z2T PH2 (PH2 )T z2 + 2z2T PH2 P̄ T e
ε2
holds with q0 := sup{λmax (W (·))} < 0, where Λ := P (M2 + D3 S2 +
+ ε2 L2f (eT e + eTd ed ) + q2 z2T (t )Pz2 (t ) + eT (t )P3 e(t )


1
H P̄ T ), W is symmetric, the ∗ s represent the corresponding sym-
ε2 2
metric entries, and
T
− z2d (t )Pz2d (t ) − eTd (t )P3 ed (t )
= YWY ≤ q0 kz2 k2 + kek2
T


1 1
X1 := DT4 P + PD4 + PN2 EE T N2T P + PH2 H2T P + q2 P
ε1 ε2 where Y := [z2 e z2d ed ], and q0 < 0 is used in the last inequal-
1 ity. Hence, by applying Lemma 5 in Appendix A, the conclusion fol-
X2 := ĀT P̄ T + P̄ Ā + P̄ P̄ T + ε2 L2f In−p + q2 P3
ε2 lows. 
X3 := ε1 ρ 2 (·)T2T T2 − P
Remark 4. The necessary condition for X1 < 0 is that DT4 P + PD4 <
X4 := ε1 ρ 2 (·)(T1 S2 )T T1 S2 + ε2 L2f In−p − P3 0 is solvable for P > 0. Since (32) can be rewritten as
where the constants q2 > 1, ε1 > 0 and ε2 > 0, P3 is defined in (10), P3−1 P2T A2 + A4

T
P3 + P3 P3−1 P2T A2 + A4 < 0


and Ā and P̄ are defined by (21).
which shows that A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 is stable because P3 > 0, A4 +
Proof. The analysis above shows that (52)–(53) represents the
sliding mode dynamics in the coordinates (z , e). It is only required P3−1 P2T A2 has n − p eigenvalues in the open left half-plane. Since
to prove that system (52)–(53) is uniformly asymptotically stable. Aeq defined in (49) has 2n − p − m eigenvalues which lie on the
Consider a Lyapunov function candidate open left half-plane, the matrix
 
D4 M2 + D3 S2
V (z2 (t ), e(t )) = z2T (t )Pz2 (t ) + eT (t )P3 e(t ). (55)
0 A4 + P3−1 P2T A2
Then, the time derivative of V (·) along the trajectories of the dy-
namic system (52)–(53) is given as associated with the sliding mode dynamics in (52)–(53) has 2n −
p−m eigenvalues which lie in the open left half-plane. Therefore D4
V̇ = z2T (DT4 P + PD4 )z2 + 2z2T P (M2 + D3 S2 )e has n − m eigenvalues which lie in the open left half-plane, which
+ 2z2T PN2 f (·) + 2z2T PN2 E ∆f (·) + eT ĀT P̄ T in turn implies that the matrix inequality DT4 P + PD4 < 0 is solvable
for P > 0.
+ P̄ Ā e + 2 eT P̄ + z2T PH2 δT (f , fˆ )



(56)
Remark 5. Since sliding motion is completely robust to the ma-
where Ā and P̄ are defined in (21). From (7), tched term, it should be emphasised that the function Φ (·) in Theo-
rem 3 can be replaced by Φ1 (·) if f (·) in system (1) can be expressed
z2T PN2 f (·) = z2T PN2 Φ (t , T1 S2 e + T2 z2 )(T1 S2 ed + T2 z2d )
in f (·) = Bf0 (·) + Φ1 (·)xd , which may reduce the conservatism.
= z2T PN2 Φ (·)T1 S2 ed + z2T PN2 Φ (·)T2 z2d . (57)
5. Sliding mode control design
From Assumption 4 and Young’s inequality 2X Y ≤ ε X X + ε Y T Y T 1 T

for any ε > 0, it follows that

In this section, a control law will be proposed such that the
1 reachability condition (Edwards & Spurgeon, 1998; Utkin, 1992)
2z2T PN2 E ∆f (·) ≤ z2T PN2 E (PN2 E ) z2
T
ε1
σ T (y, x̂2 )σ̇ (y, x̂2 ) ≤ −ηkσ (y, x̂2 )k (61)
+ ε1 k∆f (t , T1 S2 e + T2 z2 , T1 S2 ed + T2 z2d )k2
1 is satisfied for some constant η > 0, where σ (·) is the sliding func-
≤ z2T PN2 E (PN2 E )T z2 + ε1 ρ 2 (·) eTd (T1 S2 )T T1 S2 ed tion designed in (33). Consider system (1)–(2) in a neighborhood
ε1
of the origin defined by {x | kxk ≤ l1 }. Let l := max{l1 , l0 }, where
T
T2T T1 S2 ed


+ 2z2d (58) l0 is given in (4). The following control law is proposed:
 X.-G. Yan et al. / Automatica 46 (2010) 1354–1362 1359
 
u = −(SB)−1 σ T (·)σ̇ (·) ≤ kσ (·)k (S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )A2 kx2 − x̂2 k

S1 A1 − S2 P3−1 P2T A2 P3−1 P2T

+ S2 (A3 − A4 P3−1 P2T ) y + S2 A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 ŵ2 + lk(S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )E1 k ρ(t , x) − ρ(t , y, x̂2 )

+ (S1 − S2 · P3−1 P2T )A2 x̂2 + lρ(t , y, x̂2 )k(S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )E1 k

+ kS1 − S2 P3−1 P2T kLf (kx2 − x̂2 k + kx2d − x̂2d k)
 σ (y, x̂2 ) − k(·)kσ (·)k
+ Sf (t , y, x̂2 , yd , x̂2d ) − k(·)(SB)−1 (62)
kσ (y, x̂2 )k 
≤ α1 exp{−α2 t } (S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )A2

where the function k(·) is the control gain to be determined later.
+ lk(S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )E kLρ + kS1 − S2 P3−1 P2T k
Theorem 4. Suppose Assumptions 1–4 are satisfied in a neighbor- 
hood of the origin. Then, the control given in (62) drives the sys- × (1 + exp{α2 d̄})Lf kσ (·)k − k(·)kσ (·)k. (69)
tem (1)–(2) to the sliding surface (34) and maintains a sliding motion
if in the neighbourhood of the origin, the control gain k(·) satisfies From the choice of k(·) in (63), it follows that σ T (·)σ̇ (·) ≤ −η
 kσ (·)k. Hence the conclusion follows. 
k(·) ≥ α1 exp{−α2 t } (S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )A2

Theorem 4 shows that the control in (62) drives system (1)–(2)
+ l (S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )E Lρ + S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T

to the sliding surface (34) and maintains a sliding motion there-

 after. Theorem 3 has shown that the sliding motion is uniformly
× 1 + exp{α2 d̄} Lf + η (63) asymptotically stable under certain conditions. From sliding mode
control theory, the closed-loop system formed by applying the con-
where α1 and α2 are given in Theorem 1, and η is a positive constant. trol (62) to system (1)–(2) is uniformly asymptotically stable.
Proof. From the analysis above, all that needs to be proved is Remark 6. From (34) and/or (39), it follows that the sliding surface
that the reachability condition (61) is satisfied when applying the is designed in the augmented space (x, x̂2 ) and/or (x, e). The for-
control in (62) to system (1)–(2). mulae in (34) and/or (39) clearly show that it is not required that
From (33), (8)–(9), (17) and using the fact that x̂2 = ŵ2 −P3−1 P2T y e(t ) = 0 when the sliding motion takes place. This implies that
in Corollary 2, in the reduced order sliding motion stability analysis, it is not re-
σ̇ (y, x̂) = (S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T ) (A1 y + A2 x2 + E1 ∆f (·)) quired that e(t ) = 0. Also, in the reachability analysis, only the fact
 that ke(t )k ≤ α1 exp{−α2 t } is employed. The fact that ke(t )k is
+ S2 A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 ŵ2 + P3−1 P2T (A1 − A2 P3−1 P2T )


bounded is enough to guarantee reachability for some sufficiently

 large control, and it is not required that the estimation error e(t )
+ A3 − A4 P3−1 P2T y + (S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T ) be zero.

× B1 u + S2 P3−1 P2T In−p Bu + (S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )f1 (·)

 
Remark 7. As in much of the existing work (Lin et al., 2009; Niu &
Ho, 2006; Richard, 2003; Wang et al., 2009), the delay is assumed to
+ S2 P3−1 P2T In−p F (t , y, ŵ2 , yd , ŵ2d ).
 
(64) be known for the purpose of the observer design, which makes the
It is clear that observer-based control scheme delay dependent. This may limit
the application of the work. However, in some industrial systems,
(S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )B1 u + S2 P3−1 P2T In−p Bu
 
such as flow through pipes and web forming processes, the delay
 
 B1 existing in the process is known, and can thus be employed in the
−1 T
 −1 T
= S1 B1 u − S2 P3 P2 B1 u + S2 P3 P2 S2 u control design and/or the observer design (Saffer, Castro, & Doyle,
B2
2005). Moreover, if the time delay is unavailable, the approach
= S1 B1 u + S2 B2 u = SBu. (65) proposed in Drakunov, Perruquetti, Richard, and Belkoura (2006)
can be employed to identify the time delay.
By similar reasoning, and from (15),
(S1 − S2 P3−1 P2T )f1 (·) + S2 P3−1 P2T In−p F (·)
 
6. Simulation study

= Sf (·) − S2 P3−1 P2T In−p δ(f , fˆ )

 
(66) Consider a time-delay system described by
where "
−1 0 0
#
1
" #
1
"
1
#
1
δ(f , fˆ ) := f (t , x, xd ) − f (t , y, x̂2 , yd , x̂2d ). (67) ẋ = 0 1 0 x+ 1 u+ 1 −1 ∆f (·) (70)
1 0 −1 −1 2 0 0
Substituting (65) and (66) into (64) yields: | {z } | {z } | {z }
A B E
σ̇ (y, x̂) = S1 A1 − S2 P3 P2 A2 P3 P2 + S2 (A3 − A4 P3 P2 ) y
−1 T −1 T −1 T


x211 x13d
 
+ (S1 − S2 P3 P2 )A2 x2 + (S1 − S2 P3 P2 )E1 ∆f (·)
−1 T −1 T
+ x211 x13d + |x12 |x12d exp{−t − 2} (71)
+ S2 A4 + P3−1 P2T A2 ŵ2 + SBu −x211 x13d


| {z }
f (t ,x,xd )
+ Sf (t , x, xd ) − S2 P3−1 P2T In−p δ(f , fˆ ).
 
(68)
 
1 0 0
Note y= x (72)
0 1 0
S δ(f , fˆ ) − S2 P3 P2 −1 T
In−p δ(f , fˆ )
 
| {z }
C
−1 T
0 δ(f , fˆ )
 
= S1 − S2 P3 P2
where x = col(x11 , x12 , x13 ) ∈ R3 , u1 ∈ R and y = col(y11 , y12 ) ∈
and in the neighborhood of the origin, kxd k ≤ l. It follows by R2 are, respectively, the state variables, input and outputs of the
applying control (62) to (68) that system. The uncertainty is assumed to satisfy
1360 X.-G. Yan et al. / Automatica 46 (2010) 1354–1362

k∆f (t , x, xd )k ≤ 0.3|x12 | sin2 (t ) kxd k. domain Ω with maximum eigenvalue q0 = −0.0125. Therefore,
the associated sliding motion is uniformly asymptotically stable.
| {z }
ρ(·)
Further, by direct computation, Lρ and LΦ1 can be given by Lρ =
The considered domain is Ω := (x11 , x12 , x13 )||x11 | < 5, |x12 | <

sin2 t and LΦ1 = exp{−t − 2}. Then the k(·) satisfying (63) can be
1.16, |x13 | < 5 . It is clear that Assumptions 1 and 4 hold, and

determined directly and thus the controller (62) is well-defined.
For simulation purposes, the uncertainty ∆f (·) is chosen as
x211
 
0 0
0.27x12 sin2 (t )kxd k
 
f (·) = 0 |x12 | exp{−t − 2} x211  xd ∆f (·) = .
−0.12x12 sin2 (t )kxd k
0 0 −x211
| {z } Let η = 2, and x0 = (−3.5, −1, 4.5) with ŵ20 = 2. Assume the
Φ (·)
delay is d(t ) = 5 + sin(t ), and the initial condition associated with
0
"
0 0
# the delay is φ(t ) = [cos(t ) 0 1 + 2 sin(t )]T . The simulation results
= x211 x13d B + 0 |x12 | exp{−t − 2} 0 xd (73) in Fig. 1 demonstrate that the proposed approach is effective.
0 0 0
| {z } 7. Conclusions
Φ1 (·)

which shows that Assumption 3 holds by using Remark 5. Let In this paper, a reduced-order observer has been designed for
 T a class of systems with time-delayed mismatched nonlinearities.
0 0 1 A sliding mode controller has been designed such that the as-
L0 = .
0 2 0 sociated closed-loop system is uniformly asymptotically stable.
Coordinate transformations are employed to explore the systems
It is easy to check that A − L0 C is stable and Assumption 2 holds
with P0 = 0.5I3 and F = diag{0.25, −0.25}. Let ε = 0.8. It follows structure and the features of sliding mode control are fully ex-
that the conditions in Theorem 1 are satisfied with γ = 0.01, and ploited, which enhance the robustness of the scheme. Also, the fea-
thus the reduced-order observer (17) is well defined and α1 = 5 ture of the reduced-order observer make the approach beneficial to
and α2 = 0.1825. According to the algorithm given in Edwards and real implementation. A simulation example shows the feasibility of
Spurgeon (1998), the sliding surface is chosen as the approach.

S := [S1 S2 ] = [0.1961 − 0.9806 | 0] (74) Appendix A

and the coordinate transformation matrix T is Consider a time-delay system
0.1961 0.9806 0 ẋ(t ) = f (t , x(t − d(t )))
" #
(76)
T = [T1 T2 ] = −0.9806 0.1961 0 .
with an initial condition
0 0 1
x(t ) = φ(t ), t ∈ [−d, 0]
Then, ST = [1 0 0] and
where the function vector f : R+ × C[−d,0] 7→ Rn takes R ×
0 0 0 (bounded sets of C[−d,0] ) into bounded sets in Rn ; d(t ) is the time
  " #
D1 D2
:= 1 −1.5 0 delay and d := supt ∈R+ {d(t )} < ∞.
D3 D4
−0.9806 1.4709 −1
Lemma 5. Consider the delay system in Eq. (76). If there exists a
−0.0833
 
function V0 (x) = xT Px with P > 0 such that for d ∈ [0, d], the
 
H1
:= 10−15  0.1249  time derivative of V0 along the solution of the system (76) satisfies
H2
−0.1061
V̇0 (t , x) ≤ −q1 kxk2 if V0 (x(t − d)) ≤ q2 V0 (x(t )) (77)
0.0833
 
  0 0
M1 for some q1 > 0 and q2 > 1, then the system (76) is uniformly
:= 10−15  0 0 −0.1249 
M2 asymptotically stable.
0 0 0.1061
  Proof. Since P > 0, it is clear that
  0 0 0
N1 λmin (P )kxk2 ≤ V0 (x) ≤ λmax (P )kxk2 .
:=  1.2748 −1.2748 0  .
N2
−0.2500 1.2500 1 Let ζ1 (τ ) = λmin (P )τ 2 and ζ2 (τ ) = λmax (P )τ 2 . Then, both ζ1 (·)
When the system is constrained to the sliding surface, it follows and ζ2 (·) are class K∞ functions satisfying
from (74) that ζ1 (kxk) ≤ V0 (x) ≤ ζ2 (kxk), x ∈ Rn .
x12 = 0.9806S2 e + 0.1961z12 = 0.1961z12 (75) Further, let ζ3 (τ ) = −q1 τ 2 and ξ (τ ) = q2 τ . It is clear from q1 > 0
where z =: col(z11 , z12 , z13 ). From Remark 5, the function matrix and q2 > 1 that for τ > 0.
Φ (·) in Theorem 3 can be replaced by Φ1 (·) in (73). Let q2 = 1.01, ξ (τ ) > τ and ζ3 (τ ) > 0.
ε1 = 2 and ε2 = 0.8. By direct computation, it follows that the Hence, the conclusion follows from (77) and the well-known Razu-
matrix W defined in Theorem 3 is given by
minkhin Theorem (See pages 14–15 in Gu, Kharitonov, and Chen
−0.2848 0.3063 −0.0833$ (2003)). 
 
0 0 0
 0.3063 −0.4794 0 0.0490$ 0 0 
 

 ∗ ∗ −0.1825 0 0 0

 Appendix B
−0.3768 −0.2942
 
 ∗ ∗ ∗ 0 
In this Appendix, two results associated with coordinate trans-
−0.2942 −0.2550
 
∗ ∗ ∗ 0
formations will be presented. From the fact that f (t , x, xd ) satisfies
 
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ −0.1080
the Lipschitz condition with respect to x and xd in Assumption 3,
where $ := |x12 | exp{−t − 2} and ∗ represents the corresponding it follows that for any x, x̂ and xd , x̂d in the domain considered, and
symmetric entries, which is negative definite in the considered any t ∈ R+
 X.-G. Yan et al. / Automatica 46 (2010) 1354–1362 1361

Fig. 1. Evolution of states, control, sliding function and estimate error (e(t ) := x13 − x̂13 ).

   2
f (t , x1 , x2 , x1d , x2d ) − f (t , x1 , x̂2 , x1d , x̂2d ) x=T −1 z
x − x̂ 
xd − x̂d .
kf (t , x, xd ) − f (t , x̂, x̂d )k ≤ Lf

(78) 0
 2
= f (t , x, xd ) − f (t , x̂, x̂d ) x=T −1 z

Lemma 6. Assume that f (·) satisfies (78) in a neighbourhood of the
0

x − x̂ 2
 
origin. Then there exists a neighbourhood of the origin such that for
≤ L2f xd − x̂d = Lf e e + ed ed .
2 T T


any (w1 , w2 ), (ŵ1 , ŵ2 ), (w1d , w2d ) and (ŵ1d , ŵd2 ) in the neighbour-

hood of the origin and t ∈ R+
Hence the conclusion follows. 
w2 − ŵ2
 
δ(F , F̂ ) ≤ Lf (79) Lemma 7 shows that if (78) holds in a neighbourhood of the

w2d − ŵ2d

origin, then the inequality (80) holds in the neighbourhood of the
origin. Specifically, (80) holds during the sliding motion, which
where δ(F , F̂ ) is defined in (23).
implies that
Proof. For convenience, introduce µ(ξ1 , ξ2 ) := ξ2 − P3−1 P2T ξ1 .
kδT (f , fˆ )k2 ≤ L2f eT e + eTd ed


From (78), the definition of F (·) in (15), y = x1 in (9) and the (81)
transformation (11), it follows that
where δT (f , fˆ ) is defined in (54).
δ(F , F̂ ) = f t , w1 , µ(w1 , w2 ), w1d , µ(w1d , w2d )


References
− f (t , w1 , µ(w1 , ŵ2 ), w1d , µ w1d , ŵ2d )


Cheng, C. F. (1998). Output feedback stabilization for uncertain systems:
  constrained Riccati approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 43(1),
0
81–84.
 kµ(w1 , w2 ) − µ(w1 , ŵ2 )k 

Choi, H. H. (2008). Output feedback variable structure control design with an H2
≤ Lf 
0 performance bound constraint. Automatica, 44(9), 2403–2408.


µ(w , w ) − µ(w , ŵ ) Drakunov, S. V., Perruquetti, W., Richard, J.-P., & Belkoura, L. (2006). Delay
1d 2d 1d 2d identification in time-delay systems using variable structure observers. Annual
w2 − ŵ2

Reviews in Control, 30(2), 143–158.

= Lf . Edwards, C., & Spurgeon, S. K. (1998). Sliding mode control: theory and applications.
w2d − ŵ2d

London: Taylor and Francis Ltd.
Edwards, C., Yan, X. G., & Spurgeon, S. K. (2007). On the solvability of the constrained
Hence the conclusion follows.  Lyapunov problem. IEEE Trans. on Automat. Control, 52(10), 1982–1987.
Fridman, E., & Orlov, Y. (2009). Exponential stability of linear distributed parameter
Lemma 7. Assume that the transformation z = T0 x is nonsingular. systems with time-varying delays. Automatica, 45(1), 194–201.
Galimidi, A. R., & Barmish, B. R. (1986). The constrained Lyapunov problem and
If (78) holds, then its application to robust output feedback stabilization. IEEE Trans. on Automat.
 2 Control, 31(5), 410–419.
f (t , x1 , x2 , x1d , x2d ) − f (t , x1 , x̂2 , x1d , x̂2d ) x=T −1 z

Gu, K., Kharitonov, V. L., & Chen, J. (2003). Stability of time-delay systems. Boston:
0 Birkhäuser.
Janardhanan, S., & Bandyopadhyay, B. (2006). Output feedback discrete-time sliding
≤ L2f eT e + eTd ed


(80) mode control for time delay systems. IEE Proceedings Part D: Control Theory and
Applications, 153(4), 387–396.
p n −p Levaggi, L., & Punta, E. (2006). Analysis of a second-order sliding-mode algorithm in
where x1 ∈ R , x̂2 ∈ R is given by Corollary 2, e := x2 − x̂2 and
presence of input delays. IEEE Trans. on Automat. Control, 51(8), 1325–1332.
ed := x2d − x̂2d . Lin, C., Wang, Z., & Yang, F. (2009). Observer-based networked control for
continuous-time systems with random sensor delays. Automatica, 45(2),
   
x1 x1d
Proof. Let x̂ := x̂2
. Then x̂d = x̂2d
and it follows from (78) that 578–584.
1362 X.-G. Yan et al. / Automatica 46 (2010) 1354–1362

University of Leicester and the University of Kent, UK. His research interests include
Luo, N., De La Sen, M., & Rodellar, J. (1997). Robust stabilization of a class of uncertain
nonlinear sliding mode control for time-delay systems, decentralised control for
time delay systems in sliding mode. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear
Large-scale systems, fault detection and isolation and the applications in practical
Control, 7(1), 59–74.
systems.
Niu, Y., & Ho, D. (2006). Robust observer design for Ito stochastic time-delay systems
via sliding mode control. Systems & Control Letters, 55(10), 781–793.
Niu, Y., Lam, J., Wang, X., & Ho, D. (2004). Observer-based sliding mode control for
nonlinear state-delayed systems. International Journal of Systems Science, 35(2),
139–150.
Richard, J. P. (2003). Time-delay systems: an overview of some recent advances and
Sarah K. Spurgeon was born in Wolverhampton, England.
open problems. Automatica, 39(10), 1667–1694.
She received first class B.Sc. and D.Phil. degrees from the
Saffer, D. R., II, Castro, J. J., & Doyle, F. J., III (2005). A variable time delay compensator
University of York (UK) in 1985 and 1988 respectively. She
for multivariable linear processes. Journal of Process Control, 15(2), 215–222.
has held academic positions at the University of Loughbor-
Shtessel, Y. B., Zinober, A. S. I., & Shkolnikov, I. A. (2003). Sliding mode control for
ough, the University of Leicester and the University of Kent
nonlinear systems with output delay via method of stable system center. ASME
in the UK and is currently Professor of Control Engineering
Journal Dynamics Systems, Measurement and Control, 125(2), 253–257.
and Head of the School of Engineering and Digital Arts at
Suplin, V., & Shaked, U. (2008). Robust H∞ output-feedback control of systems with
Kent University. Sarah Spurgeon (CEng, CMath) is a Fellow
time-delay. Systems & Control Letters, 57(3), 193–199.
of the Royal Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of the IET,
Utkin, V. I. (1992). Sliding modes in control optimization. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
a Fellow of the IMA, a Fellow of the InstMC and a Senior
Wang, Z., Ho, D., Liu, Y., & Liu, X. (2009). Robust H∞ control for a class of
Member of the IEEE. She was awarded an IEEE Millenium
nonlinear discrete time-delay stochastic systems with missing measurements.
medal in 2000. Her research interests are in the area of robust nonlinear control
Automatica, 45(3), 684–691.
and estimation, particularly via sliding mode techniques, in which area she has pub-
Yan, X. G., Spurgeon, S. K., & Edwards, C. (2006). Decentralised sliding mode control
lished in excess of 250 refereed papers.
for nonminimum phase interconnected systems based on a reduced-order
compensator. Automatica, 42(10), 1821–1828.
Yan, X. G., Wang, J. J., Lü, X. Y., & Zhang, S. Y. (1998). Decentralized output
feedback robust stabilization for a class of nonlinear interconnected systems
with similarity. IEEE Trans. on Automat. Control, 43(2), 294–299.
Christopher Edwards was born in Swansea, South Wales.
Xing-Gang Yan received the B.Sc. degree from Shanxi He graduated from Warwick University in 1987 with a
Normal University in 1985, the M.Sc. degree from Qufu B.Sc. in Mathematics. In 1991 he moved to Leicester Uni-
Normal University in 1991, and the Ph.D degree in versity as a Ph.D. student supported by a British Gas Re-
Engineering from Northeastern University, PR China in search Scholarship and was awarded a Ph.D. in 1995. He
1997. He was a teaching assistant and then a lecturer in was appointed as a Lecturer in the Control Systems Re-
Weinan Educational University from 1985 to 1988, and search Group at Leicester University in 1996 and promoted
a lecturer in Qingdao University, PR China from 1991 to to full professor in 2010. His main research interest is the
1994. Since 1997, he has been doing research work as use of sliding mode observers for robust estimation in non-
a Research Fellow/Research Associate in Northwestern linear systems. He is a co-author of over 200 refereed pa-
Polytechnical University, the University of Hong Kong, pers including two books on Sliding Mode Control and an
China, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, the edited volume on Fault Tolerant Control.