Proceedings of the 2006 American Control Conference
1
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, June 14-16, 2006
Sliding Mode Control for a Model of an Electrohydraulic Actuator
System with Discontinuous Nonlinear Friction
Shu Wang, Saeid Habibi, Rich Burton, Eric Sampson
Abstract— This paper considers the application of Sliding
Mode Control (SMC) to a high precision hydrostatic actuation
system with nonlinear discontinuous friction. An important
consideration in such systems is the oscillations that occur in
the system response due to friction for small input signals at
cross-over regions where the velocity changes sign. A new
model for a high precision hydrostatic actuation system is
developed assuming discontinuous and nonlinear friction in the
actuator. This model is used in the development of a sliding
mode control strategy. A significant result from this study is
that the SMC can suppress such oscillations. In addition, the
paper introduces for the first time, a linear quadratic approach
for defining a discrete-time sliding surface for nonlinear
systems.
A comparative study involving the application of the
proposed SMC versus a gain-scheduled proportional controller
is presented. This comparison demonstrates the performance
improvements resulting from the SMC and the added
robustness of this strategy given large modeling uncertainties.
I. INTRODUCTION
N onlinear friction exists in all hydraulic systems which
have sliding surfaces aided by lubricating oil. It is very
difficult to model friction characteristics in most
simulation studies and hence the approach is often to
approximate the friction characteristic by an “equivalent”
linear viscous friction term. Friction can lead to tracking
errors, undesirable “stick-slip” motion and even limit cycle
oscillations. [1]. A general survey of friction and control was
done by Armstrong-Helouvry et al in 1994, [2]. Seven
representations of friction were considered including
Viscous, Coulomb, Static+Coulomb+Viscous, Stribech,
Rising Static Friction, Frictional Memory, and Presliding
Displacement. For these, black box and model-based control
strategies have been investigated extensively by many
researchers. Black box compensation for friction have
included stiff PD control [3], adaptive pulse-width control
(PWC) [4], and neural network control [5] amongst others.
Model-based-control approaches have included
compensation [6], and adaptive control [7]. A unique two-
relay system configuration method was proposed in [8] to
identify and control a system with a dominant Coulomb
friction effect.
Manuscript received March 6, 2006. This work was supported in part by
University of Saskatchewan and National Science and Engineering
Research Council of Canada.
Shu Wang, Saeid Habibi, Richard Burton are with University of
Saskatchewan 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon SK, S7N 5A9, Canada (phone:
306-966-5462, e-mail: shw750@mail.usask.ca).
Eric Sampson is with the Mathworks Company (e-mail:
eric.s@usask.ca).
1-4244-0210-7/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE
FrC15.
In this manuscript, friction compensation in a novel
hydrostatic actuation system referred to as the
ElectroHydraulic Actuator (EHA) is considered. This
actuation system is the first reported hydrostatic system that
has achieved a sub-micron resolution of 100nm and is hence
used as the subject of this paper. In [9], a linearized
mathematical model of the EHA was derived and used as a
basis for model identification. A prototype model of the
EHA system was fabricated and extensively tested.
Experimental studies indicated that coulomb, static and
viscous friction exist in the linear actuator [10]. Further to
experimental results of [10], a typical friction characteristic
from a prototype of the EHA is shown in Fig. 1. Here, this
friction characterization is adopted in a simulation study of
this actuator in order to faithfully reproduce the associated
physical effects of friction. Ability to compensate for friction
is particularly importance for achieving a higher level of
precision and resolution with EHA, thus making the control
strategy including friction compensation that is presented in
this paper particularly relevant to the EHA system.
Fig. 1. Experimental friction in the EHA actuator and the linear and
quadratic approximation (Units of force is Nt).
In [11], a linearized model of the EHA was presented by
assuming negligible coulomb and static friction and
assuming only an equivalent viscous friction term (as
illustrated in Fig. 1). Based on this linearized model,
proportional control and nonlinear proportional control were
applied to the EHA in [12] and [13] respectively. The
challenge was to be able to achieve a high positioning
performance in the presence of severe nonlinear friction but
with a higher dynamic performance. Thus the objective of
this study was to investigate nonlinear type controllers to
achieve this goal. This paper will first present a new
nonlinear model of the EHA which includes static, coulomb
and viscous friction in the actuator. This controller is based
on Sliding model control (SMC), and a brief overview of the
concept and research conducted on the controllers is now
provided.
5897
 Sliding Mode Control (SMC), a subclass of variable A Pressure area in symmetrical 5.051 u 10 4 m 2
actuators
structure systems (VSSs) theory, is a popular nonlinear Coefficients of the quadratic
a1 , a 2 , a3 2.1 u 10 4 , -1450, 46
control method that forces a prescribed structural response function of nonlinear function
from a system. SMC achieves this effect by using a B Viscous friction coefficient 760 Ns / m
switching nonlinear input that drives the state trajectory to a b , 'b(˜) Input vector and its scalar
uncertainty factor
predetermined sliding surface and then retains them on that C(k) Real-valued constant vector
surface. The dynamic response of the system is then Cep The pump external leakage m3/sPa
determined by the choice of the switching surface. Although coefficient
CT Lumped pump and actuator 5 u 10 13 m3 / sPa
the derivation of a suitable control signal (u) is relatively leakage coefficient
simple and straightforward, the analysis and choice of the Pump volumetric displacement
Dp 1.6925 u 10 7 m3
switching surface (or function denoted by S) can be very
/ rad
challenging, [14]. Utkin and Young have proposed three Nonlinear function, uncertain
f , fˆ , 'f
methods for designing the sliding surface in SMC systems: nonlinear function and its
desirable placement of eigenvalues of the plant’s system uncertainties
i, j Subscripts used to identify
matrix, optimal quadratic performance, and optimal elements of matrices and
quadratic performance with equivalent control defined in the vectors
cost function, [15]. All of these methods apply to both J linear quadratic cost function
k Calculation step index
continuous and discrete linear systems. The sliding surface K Sliding gain
for the discrete linear system using a Lyapunov function was Coefficient due to viscosity
K pipe
2.2 u 10 3 Nm / rad / s
proposed by Spurgeon in 1992 [16]. DeCarlo, et al in 1996
proposed a sliding surface design approach using a “regular” L Leakage coefficient 2.6 u 10 11 m3 / s /
form (the form of the plant equations after a diffeomorphic
Nm  2
transformation) of the plant dynamics for one class of Actuator chamber pressures Pa
P1 , P2
continuous nonlinear systems [17]. In 1984, Slotine
Pa , Pb Pump port pressures Pa
presented a sliding mode controller for tracking a class of
continuous nonlinear time-varying multivariable systems in Ppipe Pressure drop modeled for the Pa
pump/actuator pipe connection
the presence of disturbances and parameter variations, [18].
In 1988, Decarlo et al published a tutorial paper about Pr The accumulator pressure Pa
variable structure control (VSC) of nonlinear systems in P_gain Scheduled proportional gain
which VSC design developments were described and several Qa , Qb Pump flow m3 / s
approaches were summarized, [19]. In 1997, Misawa Load flow
QL m3 / s
proposed a discrete-time sliding mode controller with S Switching function
uncertainties which did not require the controller to satisfy T Diffeomorphic transformation
the “matching conditions” for nonlinear systems, [20]. matrix
Ts Sampling period
In a study on friction compensation, it has been reported Control input, equivalent
u , ueq , uc
that as the velocity of an actuator changes direction (or sign), control and correct term of
small oscillatory transients are observed at the crossover control
V Optimal control
point when using a classical PID controller, [21]. This effect
Va ,Vb Pump section volumes m3
can be attributed to nonlinear friction and to alleviate it, associated with its two ports
Qian et al [1] proposed a combined PID/Neural Networks V0 Total mean volume 6.85 u105 m3
controller that suppressed these crossover transients. Their V0 ac Pipe plus mean actuator m3
control strategy did reduce the magnitude of the transient at chamber volume
wi , W max Lumped disturbance and its
the crossover points, but could not completely remove them. upper bound
The nomenclature is provided in Section II. In Section III, Pump section volumes
x0 , x m3
the EHA system and its nonlinear modeling are described. In associated with its two ports
Section IV, the design of a sliding mode controller and its x, xd, xe System states and their desired
value and desired/actual error
application to the EHA system are presented. The z, zd, ze Transformed states and their
implementation results in a simulated study are considered desired value and
in Section V. Section VI contains the concluding remarks. desired/actual error
E,J Adjustment gain
Ee Effective bulk modulus of 2.1 u 108 Pa
II. NOMENCLATURE hydraulic oil
H Arbitrary positive constant
Table 1 Nomenclature (Experimental values for the Numerical approximation
G i (k ), V
prototype EHA were obtained from Chinniah [10]). errors
' i (k ), ¦ Lumped uncertainty term
Symbol Comments Values and Units
) , Q, * Matrix
.̂ Denotes uncertain values

5898
 < ,I Boundary layer and its element (3), the nonlinear friction based on (4) and the actual EHA
Zp Pump angular velocity rad / s experimental friction coefficients are shown in Fig. 1.
Substituting (4) into (2) yields,
Table 1 gives all parameters and coefficients and their
values used in this paper. Matrices and vectors are denoted P1  P2 A Mx  a1 x 2  a 2 x  a 3 x ! 0
by using bold letters. P1  P2 A Mx  a1 x 2  a 2 x  a 3 x  0 (5)
Taking the derivative of both side yields:
III. . EHA NONLINEAR MODEL dP1 dP2 M 2a xx a
A schematic of the EHA system is shown in Fig. 2. The  x  1  2 x x ! 0
dt dt A A A
EHA uses a bi-directional, fixed displacement gear pump to
dP1 dP2 M 2a xx a
supply oil to the actuator and a symmetrical actuator to  x  1  2 x x  0 . (6)
provide high accurate motion by simply varying the speed of dt dt A A A
the electric motor. A simplified pump/actuator model was Combining equations (5) and (6) yields,
developed in [12] and is given as: P1  P2 A Mx  a 2 x  (a1 x 2  a 3 ) sign( x ) (7)
V § dP dP · C ep dP1 dP2 M a 2a xx
D p Z p Ax  o ¨¨ 1  2 ¸¸ ([  )P1  P2   x  2 x  1 sign( x ) . (8)
2E e © dt dt ¹ 2 dt dt A A A
(1)
L .
 (2[  C ep ) Ppipe  P1  P2  Note: the transient impulse due to the derivative x at 0 is
2
Fig. 2. Schematic of the Electrohydraulic Actuator (EHA)
Since the EHA system is connected to a horizontal sliding
mass, the displacement of the mass could be related to the
output force as follows:
neglected in this model.
A second nonlinearity which arises in the EHA system is
due to pipe/entrance losses. Due to the symmetry of EHA,
the pump/actuator pipe connection is modeled as a pressure
drop Ppipe , which is a function of flow. In the EHA system,
Ppipe is approximately modeled by using Darcy’s pipe flow
equation as:
Ppipe | K pipe Q L2 | K pipe D p2 Z 2p (9)
Although it is most desirable to include all identifiable
nonlinearities in the model, it is recognized that the resulting
complexity would interfere with the proposed controller in
the first instance. Preliminary studies showed that this
P1  P2 A Mx  F f (2)
nonlinearity was known to be small compared to the actuator
where friction F f may be written as a summation friction effects and hence it was decided to linearized pipe
three terms including Static ( Fstatic ), Coulomb flow. Thus in a linearized form:
( Fcoulomb )and Viscous friction ( Fviscous ) such that 'Ppipe | 2 K pipe D 2p Z p 0 'Z p (10)
F f Fstatic  Fcoulomb  Fviscous . Substituting (7), (8) and (10) into (1) yields,
MV0
In [11], it was assumed that coulomb and static friction 
D p 1  4 K pipe ([  C ep / 2) D p Z p 0 Z p 
2 AE e
x
were negligible and thus the EHA model assumed only
viscous friction in the form of: a 2V0  ME e CT 2 A 2  a 2 CT
F f Bx (3) ( ) x  x (11)
2 AE e 2A
where B is the viscous friction coefficient. Based on
2a1V0 xx  E e CT (a1 x 2  a 3 )
these equations, a linear model for EHA was proposed  sign( x )
in [12]. Chinniah in 2004 [10] used the Extended 2 AE e
Kalman Filtering to estimate the nonlinear friction. A In practice, 4 K pipe D p ([  C ep / 2)Z p 0  1 . As such and
quadratic form of the friction, which combined static,
choosing the state variables, xi , as shown below, it is more
coulomb and viscous friction characteristic, is given
as: convenient to convert these state equations into a discrete
F f a1 x 2  a 2 x  a 3 x ! 0 form. Assuming the presence of system noise, and using the
sampling period, Ts , replacing the input term Z p as u (a
Ff a1 x 2  a 2 x  a 3 x  0 (4)
more general form of the input), the state-space discrete
where a1 , a 2 , a3 are the experimental coefficients whose equations may be approximated (using the “forward
values are given in Table 1 for the prototype EHA, and x is difference” approach to discretization) as:
the velocity of load. The linearized form of friction based on

5899
­ used in the discretization of the state space model at any
° time Ts and given by:
°
° x (k  1) x (k )  T x (k )  T w (k ) x i (k  1)  x i (k )
° 1 1 s 2 s 1 x i  G i (k ), i 1,2,  n (17)
° x2 (k  1) x2 (k )  Ts x3 (k )  Ts w2 (k ) Ts
°
° ª a2V0  ME eCT º (2 A2  a2CT ) E e where Ts is the sampling time and the term G i (k ) denotes
® x3 (k  1) «1  Ts ( )» x3 (k )  Ts x2 ( k )
° ¬ MV0 ¼ MV0 the numerical approximation error. The discrete model of
° (14) can be written in the form of (13). The general form of
2a V x (k ) x3 (k )  E eCT [a1 ( x2 (k )) 2  a3 ]
°  Ts 1 0 2 sign( x2 (k )) (13) will now be used to design the sliding surface and the
° MV0
° controller.
° 2 AD p E e
°  Ts u (k )  Ts w3 (k ) A. Sliding Surface Design
¯ MV0
In sliding mode control, the full-order discrete-time
(12)
system given in (13) is transformed into the cascade of two
The discrete equation can be now represented by the more
reduced-order subsystems, referred to as the “regular” form,
generic form:
z (k  1) z (k )  T fˆ (z (k ))  T ' (k ) (18)
x(k  1) x(k )  T fˆ (x(k ))  T b(x(k ))u (k )  T '(k ) (13)
s s s
1 1 s 1 s 1

The development of this form will now be considered. z 2 (k  1) z 2 (k )  Ts fˆ2 (z (k ))  bˆ2 u (k )  Ts ' 2 (k ) (19)
nm m
where z 1 (k )  R , z 2 (k )  R . This decomposition is
IV. SLIDING MODE CONTROL
done by applying a linear transformation, z (k ) Tx(k ) ,
SMC is fairly simple to implement and has been effective where T is a diffeomorphic transformation, In order to
in controlling against external disturbances and parameter design a linear sliding surface, only equation (18) is
variations [22]. The theory and application of SMC design required. However, in this form, only z2 contains the input
can be broken down into two steps: variable. Thus it is necessary to choose a different form of T
1. design of a sliding surface that represents the to define a new equation that does contain the input but is
desired system dynamics; and still linear. One such transformation is given
2. development of a control law that makes the sliding
by: Tbˆ [0 bˆ ]T , [23]. It is assumed without loss of
2
surface “attractive” (which means that there exists a
part of surface in the neighborhood of which all the generality that equation 18 is linear such that it can be
state trajectories are directed towards.). written in the form:
Before designing the controller, it is necessary to
z 1 (k  1) [)ˆ ˆ ªz 1 (k ) º  T ' (k )
represent mathematically a generic discrete model which 11 ) 12 ]« » s 1 (20)
¬z 2 (k )¼
includes uncertainties. Consider the following class of
where ) ˆ ,)ˆ are constants. As an example and referring
uncertain systems: 11 12

x (t) Fˆ (x, t , u ) fˆ (x, t )  bˆ(x, t )u (x, t )  'f (x, t ) (14) ˆ ,)

to the EHA model of equations of (12) and (13), ) ˆ
11 12
n
where x(t )  R is the state vector , u (t ) is the input signal can be obtained using diffeomorphic transformation matrix T
ˆ ª1 Ts º ˆ ª0º
and 'f ( x, t ) is the time-dependent parameter uncertainties = [ I3 ] as ) 11 «0 1 », ) 12 «T » .
¬ ¼ ¬ s¼
with known upper bound. fˆ ( x, t ) and bˆ( x, t ) are known
In the derivation of the sliding surface, the known part of the
functions determining the system characteristics, where dynamic model will be used and the uncertainties such that
> 1 2
T
fˆ (x, t ) fˆ (x, t ) fˆ (x, t )  fˆ (x, t ) , n @ the term Ts '1 (k ) are assumed small and negligible.
In state tracking or trajectory following problems, the
bˆ(x, t ) >bˆ (x, t )
1 bˆ2 (x, t )  bˆn (x, t )
T
@ sliding surface is defined in terms of the error. The control
'f (x, t ) >'f1 (x, t ) 'f 2 (x, t )  'f n (x, t )@T problem becomes one of constraining the states x to follow a
Tprescribed trajectory xd. Let
> fˆ (x, t )  f (x, t )
1 1 fˆ2 (x, t )  f 2 (x, t ) 
fˆ2 (x, t )  f n (x, t ) @
x d (k ) [ x d (k ), x d (k ),  , x d( n 1) (k )] (21)
(15)
Furthermore, let the sliding surface be defined as:
where f (.) > f 1 (.) f 2 (.)  f n (.)@ is the exact model
wS (k ) (22)
function. The real input matrix b can be written as the S (k ) x e (k ) C (k ) x e (k ) 0
wx e
product of the uncertain input matrix b̂ and a scalar
wS (k )
uncertainty factor 'b(˜) , which is bounded such that where. x e (k ) x d (k )  x(k ) . C (k ) is a real-
wx e
1 / E d 'b d E for E ! 1 , and
valued vector; thus in discrete form,
b( x(k )) bˆ(x(k ))'b(˜) (16) S (k  1)  S (k ) C (k )[x e (k  1)  x e (k )]  V (k ) and V (k )
The approach of “forward difference” approximation is is the numerical approximation error for the sliding surface.

5900
 Using the transformation T, the parameter matrix of the Substituting (34) into (30) yields:
switching function can be partitioned as: 1
z 2e (k ) Q 22 T
(Q 21  ) 12 P )z 1e (k )  Fz 1e (k )
ª z (k ) º Thus the sliding surface coefficients (embedded in F) can
S (k ) CT T Tx e (k ) [C1 C 2 ]« 1e » (23)
¬z 2e (k )¼ be determined by solving the discrete Riccati equation (33).
During an ideal sliding motion, the z2e(k) can be expressed This is the first application of the linear quadratic method to
in terms of z1e(k): a discrete nonlinear problem for sliding surface
determination.
z 2e (k )  Fz 1e (k ) (24)
where F C 21C1 . B. Controller
Assuming that the desired states satisfy the system model The equivalent control method in SMC for nonlinear
for a “hypothetical” control input [24], such that: systems was proposed by Utkin in 1977 [25]. The control
law may be selected such that a “candidate” Lyapunov
ˆ
z 1d (k  1) [) ˆ ªz 1d (k ) º , (25) function satisfies Lyapunov stability criteria. The control
11 ) 12 ]« »
¬z 2 d (k )¼ signal will then ensure existence of a sliding mode on the
then, surface S=0, which is determined as:
u (t ) u eq (t )  u c (t ) (35)
ˆ
z 1e (k  1) [) )ˆ ]ªz 1e (k ) º , (26)
11 12 « »
¬z 2e (k )¼ where u eq (t ) is the equivalent control and u c (t ) is the
where z1e(k)=z1d(k)-z1(k), z2e(k)=z2d(k)-z2(k). corrective control or discontinuous term.
Consider the linear quadratic cost function: However, an exact mathematical model of system must be
f
T
known to calculate the equivalent control ueq. In practice, the
J ¦x
ksm
e (k )Qx e (k ) , (27) presence of uncertainties make an exact calculation of the
equivalent control input impossible. Slotine in 1984
where Q ! 0 are symmetric matrices, and k is the step in proposed a sliding mode controller for continuous nonlinear
which the sliding motion is starting. The objective is to systems in presence of parameteric variations and
choose the coefficients of the linear sliding surface such as uncertainties, [18]. A discrete but similar approach is
to minimize this cost function. By using the same considered in this paper. For discrete-time nonlinear systems
transformation T as for the states, and by partitioning the with large uncertainties, the discrete controller proposed by
matrix Q, then Misawa [20] is adopted here. This controller is expressed as
ªQ Q12 º
E 2 1 ª E 2 1 EK º S
TQT T « 11 ». (28) u (k ) pˆ (k )  « | pˆ (k ) |  » ˜ sat ( )
¬Q 21 Q 22 ¼ 2E «¬ 2 E ˆ
b(x(k ))C (k ) »¼ I
Define, [22]: (36)
1
* Q11  Q12 Q 22 Q 21 , (29) where
and let: C (k ) ª ˆ 'x d (k ) º
1 pˆ (k ) «  f (x(k ))  » (37)
v (k ) z 2e (k )  Q22 Q21z1e (k ) . (30) bˆ( x(k ))C (k ) ¬ Ts ¼
The quadratic cost function given in (27) can be written and 'x d x d (k  1)  x d (k ) . K is the sliding mode gain
as:
f
which is specified as K V (k )  Ts C (k )'(k )  2H , where H
T
J ¦ [z 1 (k )*z 1 (k )  v T (k )Q 22 v (k )] (31) is an arbitrary positive constant and E is an adjustment
ksm coefficient. In the general case of nonlinear systems, the
where Q 22 ! 0 ensured by Q ! 0 so that Q 22 is sliding surface can be chosen as a nonlinear function
nonsingular, and * ! 0 . associated with the time index as shown in equations (36)
Combining equations (26) and (30) to eliminate the z2e , and (37). But for the controller implemented in this paper,
C(k) is determined as a constant vector by solving equation
the constraint equation may be written as:
(33).
ˆ z (k )  ) v(k )
z 1e (k  1) ) (32)
1e 12 To remove the chattering caused by the discontinuous
ˆ
where ) )  ) Q Q . 1 control signal, a smoothing boundary layer is defined as:
11 12 22 21
A positive-definite unique solution P is guaranteed by the < {x e || S (x e ) d I } (38)
discrete algebraic Riccati equation defined as: In this result, the value of I (k ) (evaluated to be a
P) ˆ )ˆ T P  P) Q 1) T P  * 0 . (33) maximum value which depends on 'b(˜) ) is selected as E
12 22 12
Thus the problem becomes one of minimizing the or 1 / E based on the sign of S and pˆ (k ) . Thus, the width of
function of (31) constrained by (32), which can be restated the boundary layer is a considerable conservative number as
as a standard optimal control law v(k) given as: first proposed in [20]. To obtain a more accurate trajectory
1 T
v (k ) Q 22 ) 12 Pz 1e (k ) . (34) following, the boundary layer can be adjusted by some gain

5901
J to make the boundary layer width smaller, such that,
Ts ˆ ( E 2  1)
I (k ) t {b(x(k ))C (k ) ˜ J ˜ [(3E 2  1) | pˆ (k ) |
2 2E 2
§ S (k ) ·
 ( E 2  1) pˆ (k ) sat ¨¨ ¸¸]  (1  E 2 )6(k )  2E 2H }
© I (k  1) ¹
(39)
where 0  J  1 , 6(k ) V (k )  Ts C (k )'(k ) . Fig. 4. Step Response of Scheduled Proportional Control

V. SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS

The uncertain system model of the EHA can be expressed
in the same form as (12), but there are some parameter
variations such that aˆ1 , aˆ 2 , aˆ 3 , Aˆ , Mˆ , Cˆ T , Dˆ p , Eˆ e , Vˆ0 are
rendered uncertain parameters. As such, wi’s are used to Fig. 5. Step Response Error of Scheduled Proportional Control
denote lumped disturbances and uncertainties.
Consider the following cases that assume different
levels of uncertainty. These cases are presented by
using computer simulation of the EHA model.
Case I
In this simulation, the variations in the parameters are
assumed to be zero (the model is assumed to be known). A
scheduled proportional controller, proposed by Sampson et
al [13] for a linearized model of the EHA was used on the
Fig. 6. Step Response of SMC
nonlinear EHA model in order to provide a comparison with
the performance of the Sliding Mode Controller. The
nonlinear gain scheduled proportional controller (SPC) is
illustrated in Fig. 3. The proportional gain is switched from
6980 to 42800 depending on whether the error signal was
greater or less than 5 u 10 4 m . The position of the sliding
mass and the steady state error between the EHA model
output position and the desired trajectory for a step input are
shown in Fig. 4. and Fig. 5. respectively. The settling time Fig. 7. Step Response Error of SMC
of the transient was about 0.25s and the steady state error is Case II
in the order of 4 u 10 4 m . In order to improve the settling time of the SPC on the
Using the same step input, the sliding surface coefficients EHA nonlinear model, the switched gain was increased by a
factor of one hundred such that
are chosen as C (k ) [1618 16181 1] and the gains set to
­° P _ gain 698000 error ! 5 u 10 -4 m
E 1 , and J 0.5 . The output displacement and positional ® .
error for these conditions are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. °̄ P _ gain 4280000 error d 5 u 10 -4 m
These results show the sliding mode controller can where P_gain is the scheduled proportional gain.
demonstrate a very fast response with a more accurate The step response with the new switched gain is shown in
motion (than the SPC) given the nonlinear model of the Fig. 8. The results show that the SPC also can obtain a very
EHA. The steady state error is less than 1.6 u 10 5 m . From fast response with higher switched gains. It should be noted
these results, it is observed that the SMC produces a much that oscillatory effect due to discontinuous and nonlinear
shorter rise or settling time than the SPC. In addition, friction can be observed in both system responses as shown
because there exists a discontinuous friction in the nonlinear in Fig. 4 and Fig. 8.
EHA model, there are oscillations in the steady state Given a periodic input signal, the displacement, velocity
response of SPC that are not present in the SMC response. and acceleration of the actuator are shown in Fig. 9. The
errors between the desired and actual state trajectories are
shown in Fig. 10. For the sliding mode controller, the same
periodic input signal is used as above. The same sliding
surface and adjustment gains E , J as in Case I, were
Fig. 3. Scheduled Proportional Controller for EHA
chosen. The transient responses and the steady-state error are
shown in Fig. 11. and Fig. 12. respectively.

5902
 From the above simulation results, it is observed that there
are visible transients in the output response of the EHA at
the zero velocity cross over points or the maximum position
points (the region of discontinuity due to friction) using the
SPC. On the other hand, Fig. 11. and Fig. 12. indicate that
the (SMC) does not demonstrate any visible transients at the
crossover points.
Fig. 8. Step Input Response of SPC
Fig. 9. Periodic Input Response of SPC
Fig. 10. Periodic Input Response Error of SPC
Fig. 11. Periodic Input Response of SMC
Fig. 12. Periodic Input Response Error of SMC
Case III.
The most important characteristic of SMC is its
insensitivity to parameter variations, uncertainties, and
rejection of external disturbances, i.e. robustness. In this
case, the upper bound of external disturbances is defined as
Wmax >0.1 1 10@ . The parameter variations were
assumed to be 20% of the known parameter values, i.e.
5903
[aˆ1 , aˆ 2 , aˆ 3 , Aˆ , Mˆ , Cˆ T , Dˆ p , Eˆ e ]T
.
(1 r 0.2) * [a1 , a 2 , a 3 , A, M , CT , D p , E e ]T
The same periodic reference input was used in case II.
The sliding surface was defined by the discrete linear
quadratic approach as C (k ) [1016.1 324.5 1] and
adjustment gains E 1.25 , J 0.5 . The transient response
of the states and the error with respect to the desired input
are shown in Fig. 13. and Fig. 14.
Fig. 13. Periodic Input Response of SMC for Uncertain Model
Fig. 14. Periodic Input Response Error of SMC for Uncertain Model
The simulation results show that even with 20% variation
in the parameters and disturbances, the proposed sliding
surface and controller shows an excellent trajectory
following capability with minimal transient effects at the
cross over points. But the steady state error of states is
increased compared to Case II due to the large value of the
uncertainties.
The controller is successful in both cases (involving a
known and an uncertain model) in compensating the
oscillations due to static friction (observed in Fig. 5). The
effect of the controller can be explained by considering the
elements that make up the control signal. In essence, the
control signal (input to the plant) consists of two elements
that are its continuous and its discontinuous (switching)
elements. There is a limit in the size of the gains associated
with the continuous element of the controller that is
determined by the stability of the closed loop system. To
alleviate the effect of static friction this gain would need to
increase at the expense of stability. In the controller
presented in this paper, the gain of the continuous element of
the control signal is indeed set to a conservative level that
satisfies the stability considerations. The added control
action needed for compensating for static friction is provided
by the discontinuous element of the control signal. The
discontinuous terms comes into effect only when the error is
greater than the width of the smoothing boundary layer. In
this case, it compensates the uncertainty due to friction in the
small error margins that the static friction is significant.
The importance of the proposed controller becomes
evident when considering the application that is considered
in this paper. The EHA actuator is capable of moving large
loads with sub-micron precision. Static friction is an
important limiting factor for this level of precision. The
SMC controller compensates static friction here without the
necessity of implementing high gains at the sub-micron scale
that could result in instability. It provides the means of
achieving a stable macro-motion while providing the added
control action needed for precision trajectory-tracking at the
sub-micron scale to achieve high precision.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The paper considers the application of sliding mode
control to a hydrostatic actuation system with discontinuous
and nonlinear friction effects. The associated sliding surface
design is defined by using a linear quadratic cost function.
This is the first application of the linear quadratic method to
a discrete nonlinear problem for the determination of the
switching hyperplane. An important controller design
consideration for systems with discontinuous friction is the
oscillations that can occur given small input signals at
crossover regions where the sign of the velocity changes.
The Sliding Mode Controller proposed in this paper shows
little sensitivity to discontinuous friction and alleviates the
above mentioned oscillations. This feature of the controller
is particularly important for the class of actuation system
presented in this paper that targets trajectory tracking with
sub-micron precision. A comparative study with a gain-
scheduled proportional controller demonstrates the
robustness and performance benefits of the SMC.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to acknowledge the financial
support of the University of Saskatchewan and National
Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC).
REFERENCES
[1]W. Qian, R. Burton, G. Schoenau, and P. Ukrainetz, “Comparison of a
PID controller to a neural net controller in a hydraulic system with
nonlinear friction”, in Proceedings of the 1998 ASME International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, 1998, no. 5, pp. 91-98.
[2] B. Armstrong-Helouvry, P. Dupont, , and C. Canudas de Wit, “Asurvey
of models, analysis tools and compensation methods for the control of
machines with friction”, Automatica, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1083–1138.1994.
[3] P. E. Dupont, “Avoiding stick-slip through PD control”, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1059-1097, 1994
[4] S. Yang, and M. Tomizuka, “Adaptive pulse width control for precise
positioning under the influence of stiction and Coulomb friction”, Journal
of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 221-
227, 1988.
[5]W Qian, “Neural Network Control of Nonlinear Hydraulic System”,
Master Thesis, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Saskatchewan, 1999.
[6] P. E. Dupont, “The effect of friction on the forward dynamics problem”,
International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 164-179.
1993.
[7] B. Friedland, and Y. Park, “On adaptive friction compensation”, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1609-1612. 1992.
5904
[8] A. Besan-con-Voda, and P. Blaha, “Describing function approximation
of a two-relay system configuration with application to Coulomb friction
identification”, Control Engineering Practice, vol. 10, pp.655–668, 2002.
[9] S. R. Habibi, V. Pastrakujic, and A. A. Goldenberg, “Model
identification of a high performance hydrostatic actuation system”,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, The Fluid Power and Systems
Technology Division (Publication) FPST, vol. 7, pp. 113-119, 2000.
[10]Y. A. Chinniah, , “Fault Detection In the Electrohydraulic Actuator
Using Extended Kalman Filter”, Ph.D Dissertation, Dept. of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 2004
[11] S. R. Habibi, and A. Goldenberg, “Design of A New High-
Performance ElectroHydraulic Actuator”, IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 158-164, 2000.
[12] S. R. Habibi, and G. Singh, 2000, “Derivation of Design Requirements
for Optimization of A High Performance Hydrostatic Actuation System”,
International Journal of Fluid Power, vol. 2, pp. 11-27, 2000.
[13] E. Sampson, S. Habibi, R. Burton, and Y. Chinniah, “Effect of
controller in reducing steady-state error due to flow and force disturbances
in the electrohydraulic actuator system”, International Journal of Fluid
Power, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 57-66, 2004.
[14] V. Utkin, “Sliding Mode and Their Application in Variable Structure
Systems”, English translation, Mir Publication, Moscow, 1978.
[15] V. I Utkin, and K. D. Yang, “Methods for constructing discontinuity
planes in multidimensional variable structure systems”, Automation and
Remote Control, vol. 39, pp. 1466-1470, 1978.
[16] S. K. Spurgeon, “Hyperplane Design Techniques for Discrete-Time
Variable Structure Control Systems”, International Journal of Control, vol.
55, no. 2, pp.445-456, 1992.
[17] R. A. DeCarlo, S. H Zak, and S. V Drakunov, “Variable structure,
sliding-mode controller design”, in W. S. Levine, editor, The Control
Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 941-951, 1996.
[18] J.-J. E. Slotine, “Sliding Controller Design for Non-linear Systems”,
International Journal of Control, vol. 40, no. 2, pp.421-434, 1984.
[19] R. A. Decarlo, S. H. Zak, and G. P. Matthews, “Variable Structure
Control of Nonlinear Multivariable Systems: A Tutorial”, in Proceedings of
the IEEE, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 212-232, 1988.
[20] E. A. Misawa, “Discrete-Time Sliding Mode Control for Nonlinear
Systems With Unmatched Uncertainties and Uncertain Control Vector”,
ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 119,
pp. 503-512, 1997.
[21] Y. Yasuda, S. Mano, N. Mori, T. Azegami, and S. Crotty, “PID
controller with overshoot suppression algorithm”, Proceedings of the ISA
'90 International Conference and Exhibition Part 4 (of 4), vol. 45, no. pt 4,
pp. 1849-1857, 1990.
[22] C. Edwards, and S. K. Spurgeon, 1998, “Sliding Mode Control: Theory
and Applications”, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 1998.
[23] L. R. Hunt, R. Su, and G. Meyer, “Global Transformations of
Nonlinear Systems”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 28, no.
1, pp. 24-31, 1983.
[24] E. A. Misawa, “Discrete-Time Sliding Mode Control: The Linear
Case”, ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol
119, pp. 819-821, 1997
[25] V. I. Utkin, “Variable structure system with sliding modes.” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. AC-22, pp. 212-222, 1977.