SEMINAR-II

SLIDING MODE CONTROL – A SURVEY

BY

WG CDR D VISWANATH

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

PROF SB PHADKE,Sc ’F’

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING (AEROSPACE)

OF

DEFENCE INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY

DEEMED UNIVERSITY

MAY 2008
 4

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Seminar paper titled SLIDING MODE CONTROL
– A SURVEY submitted by Wg Cdr D Viswanath, as Seminar II in Semester II in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of
Engineering (Aerospace) by the Defence Institute of Advanced Technology,
(Deemed University), Pune is a bonafide record of the student’s own work carried
out by him (except where indicated) under my supervision and guidance.

(Prof SB Phadke)
Sc ‘F’
Guide
Dept of Aerospace Engg
Defence Institute of
Advanced Technology
Date : May 2008 Girinagar, Pune-411025

COUNTERSIGNED

(Prof SB Phadke)
Scientist ‘F’
Chairman, Dept of Aerospace Engg
Defence Institute of Advanced Technology
 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1. I sincerely thank my guide Prof S B Phadke, Sc ‘F’ for introducing me to

the subject “Control of Uncertain Systems’ and kindle my interest and aspiration
to understand ‘Sliding Mode Control’ in the best possible way.

2. I also take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. S E

Talole who renewed my interest in Control Systems and its application to Missile
Control as a subject. He was instrumental in converting Communication Engg
which was my favourite subject to Control Systems Engg.

(D Viswanath)
Wg Cdr
SWC-43
 6

ABSTRACT

Variable structure control was first proposed and elaborated in the early
1950’s in the Soviet Union by Emelyanov and several co-researchers. In their
pioneer works, the plant considered was a linear second-order system modeled
in phase variable form. Since then, VSC has developed into a general design
method being examined for a wide spectrum of system types including nonlinear
systems, multi-input/multi-output systems, discrete-time models, large-scale and
infinite-dimensional systems, and stochastic systems. The most distinguished
feature of VSC is its ability to result in very robust control systems; the system is
completely insensitive to parametric uncertainty and external disturbances or
“invariant”. The sliding mode (SMC) is the major mode of operation in variable
structure systems.

Most of the real life processes in mechanical, electrical, aerospace

engineering and other areas when characterised by differential equations have
discontinuity. The discontinuity is due to certain peculiarities in the system
behavior. The simplest case is the Coulomb friction in mechanical systems which
is not defined in points where velocity equals zero. If such discontinuities are
deliberately introduced on certain surfaces in the system state space, then
motions as a sliding mode may occur in the system. The discontinuous nature of
the control action in the feedback channels results in switching between two
distinctively different system structures (or components) such that a new type of
system motion, called sliding mode, exists in a manifold. This results in superb
system performance which includes insensitivity to parameter variations, and
complete rejection of disturbances. The variations of dynamic characteristics of
the control plant pose a central problem in automatic control. Thus, discontinuous
control systems provides an effective tool for solving control problems for
complex dynamic plants. This means unlike continuous systems with non-
measurable disturbances where the condition of invariance requires use of
infinitely high gains, discontinuous systems require use of finite control gains.
From a technological point of view also, the increasing use of electric inertia-less
actuators built around power electronics which operate in a switching mode only
naturally favors use of discontinuous control algorithms over employing
continuous control algorithms where the control is shaped as a high frequency
discontinuous signal whose mean value is equal to the desired continuous
control.

However there are many problems faced in the attempt to employ the
properties of sliding modes for the design of automatic control systems. Various
publications on the matter show diverse viewpoints leading to diverse sliding
mode equations. This paper is an attempt to survey the current developments
vis-à-vis remedies to the problems in SMC.
 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii

LIST OF FIGURES iii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION
2. SLIDING MODE CONTROL (SMC)
3. CHATTERING PROBLEM IN SMC AND REMEDIES
4. REACHING PHASE AND ITS ELIMINATION
5. NEED FOR BOUNDS OF UNCERTAINTY - ADAPTIVE CONTROL
6. NEED FOR FULL STATE VECTOR AND USE OF OBSERVER
7. INVARIANCE AND MATCHING CONDITIONS – BACKSTEPPING
8. TIME DELAY CONTROL AND INERTIAL DELAY CONTROL
9. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SMC APPLICATIONS
10. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
 8

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1 Sigma Line

Fig. 1.2 Sliding Mode Control Phase plane Plot
Fig. 3.1 Boundary Layer Control Using Sat Function
Fig. 9.1 Heading Reversal Maneuver for Futuristic Missiles
Fig. 9.2 Missile Configuration Using RCS
Fig. 9.3 Simulation Results for Missile Autopilot Using RCS
Fig. 9.4 Simulation Results for Missile Autopilot Using RCS
(Time Response for angles)
Fig. 9.5 Simulation Results for Missile Autopilot Using Standard
g- Command Autopilot
 9

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. Variable structure control originated in the early 1950’s in the Soviet Union.
In their pioneer works, Emelyanov and several co-researchers [43], [79],
considered the plant as a linear second-order system modeled in phase variable
form. The most important property of VSC is its ability to result in very robust
control systems; in many cases invariant control systems. Invariance means that
the system is completely insensitive to parametric uncertainty and external
disturbances. Successful results have been reported in terms of eliminating
disturbances, addressing nonlinearities, and achieving acceptable control in the
presence of modeling errors. During the last three decades since the publication
of the survey paper in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL
in 1977 [1], significant work has been carried out on variable structure systems
(VSS) and sliding mode control (SMC). The sliding mode (SMC) is the major
mode of operation in variable structure systems. Today, research and
development continue to apply VSC to a wide variety of engineering systems.
Numerous VSC papers have been published in this area. The issues studied
include existence of the sliding mode, stability of the sliding mode, effects of
system parameter perturbations and outside disturbances and study of systems
having unmeasurable state variables. Two more survey papers [2],[3] have been
published in 1993 and 1999 respectively.

2. Variable structure control (VSC) results in high performance systems that

are robust to parameter uncertainties and noise. Design of such systems
includes two steps: -

(a) Choosing a set of switching surfaces that represent some sort of a

desired motion and
 10

(b) Designing a discontinuous control law that guarantees the

attractiveness of the switching surfaces and ensures convergence to the
switching surfaces. Sliding mode occurs when the system trajectories are
confined to the switching surfaces and do not leave them for the
remainder of the motion.

3. Sliding Mode Control (SMC) is best explained with a second order system
whose phase plane plot clearly shows the response of the system when in sliding
mode. Consider a system represented by
.
x1  x2
.
____________________________(1.1)
x 2  a1 x1  a2 x2  bu
Where a1 and a2 and b are parameters that are not exactly known but some
knowledge about their range is known i.e.,
_ _
ai  ai  a i i=1,2,… and 0  b  b  b  1 .
_ _

Our objective is to design a control ‘u’ in such a way that the response of the
system represented by equation (1.1) is independent of a1, a2 and b after some
time t=t1.

4. Consider a line drawn through the origin of the phase plane plot across
the second and fourth quadrants as shown in figure(Fig (1.1)) below. It can be
shown that all trajectories which lie in these two quadrants are stable i.e., they
asymptotically tend towards origin with time. This line is designated as the sigma
line and is represented by the equation,
  c1 x1  x2  0 ____________________________(1.2)
where c1 is a user chosen constant. The control is to be designed such that the
system trajectory is attracted to the sigma line and once the trajectory intersects
it, keep switching the control to keep the trajectory on the sigma line so that it
does not leave it. As a result after a certain finite time, the system is governed by
 11

the equation of the sigma line only and not on the system equation. Thus the
dynamics will be independent of the system parameters.

Fig. 1.1 Sigma Line

5. One such trajectory is shown in the phase plane plot of Fig (1.2). Along
the curve PQ the system is affected by equation (1.1). This is called the reaching
phase. Along the line QO the system is affected by equation (1.2). This is called
the sliding mode (SM) phase. The control initially applied in equation (1.1) helps
the system trajectory to move towards the sigma line. Thereafter the control is
switched so that the trajectory does not leave the sigma line. The switching
action can be explained as follows: -

(a) When the trajectory (consider curve PQ) crosses the sigma line,
sigma becomes greater than zero. We now use a control that makes the
rate of change of sigma become less than zero so that the trajectory is
brought back to the sigma line.
 12

(b) If now the trajectory crosses the sigma line again but from the
opposite direction, sigma becomes less than zero. We use a control
that makes the rate of change of sigma to become greater than
zero so that the trajectory is again brought back to the sigma line.

Fig 1.2 Sliding Mode Control Phase plane Plot

6. It is obvious that for the trajectory to follow the sigma line very smoothly
the switching action has to be very fast. In practice, switching delays exist and
this causes the phenomenon called chattering which is the major and most
important disadvantage of SMC systems. The chattering phenomenon [3] is
generally perceived as motion which oscillates about the sliding manifold. There
are two possible mechanisms which produce such a motion.

(a) First, when the switching device is not switching ideally at an infinite
frequency, the presence of parasitic dynamics in series with the plant
causes a small amplitude high-frequency oscillation to appear in the
neighborhood of the sliding manifold. These parasitic dynamics represent
 13

the fast actuator and sensor dynamics which, are often neglected in the
open-loop model used for control design if the associated poles are well
damped, and outside the desired bandwidth of the feedback control
system. Generally, the motion of the real system is close to that of an ideal
system in which the parasitic dynamics are neglected, and the difference
between the ideal and the real motion, which is on the order of the
neglected time constants, decays rapidly. However, the theory is not
applicable for VSS since they are governed by differential equations with
discontinuous right hand sides. The interactions between the parasitic
dynamics and VSC generate a non-decaying oscillatory component of
finite amplitude and frequency, and this is generically referred to as
chattering.

(b) Second, the switching non-idealities alone can cause such high-
frequency oscillations.

7. The other shortcomings of the sliding mode control technique are as

follows: -

(a) When a multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) system is considered,

state space representation makes the analysis and synthesis of the
system simple and straightforward. In the phase variable canonical form of
state space representation, if the input does not occur in the channel
where the uncertainty occurs, the uncertainty is not matched i.e., matching
conditions are not satisfied. This causes invariance.

(b) In equation (1.1), we had shown that the ranges of uncertainties in

a1, a2 and b were known. This is termed the bounds of uncertainty. If the
bounds are not exactly known or cannot be determined, the sliding
condition may not be satisfied.
 14

(c) SMC requires that the full state vector be available for the control to
be applied effectively. But states may not be available always.

(d) In the reaching phase the system parameters affect the trajectory
which is undesirable.

8. Various methods have been attempted and applied to overcome the

above shortcomings of sliding mode control and various papers have been
published from time to time. A study on the various methods which are in vogue
along with the survey of papers in the respective contexts has been attempted.
 15

CHAPTER TWO

CLASSIFICATION OF SMC

1. Classification

Sliding mode control can be classified into the following modes [3]: -
(a) Continuous-time Sliding Mode
(b) Discrete Time Sliding Mode and
(c) Sampled Data Sliding Mode

2. Continuous-time Sliding Mode. Sliding mode is originally conceived as

system motion for dynamic systems whose essential open-loop behavior can be
modeled adequately with ordinary differential equations. The discontinuous
control action which is often referred to as variable structure control (VSC) is also
defined in the continuous-time domain. The VSS is also defined in the
continuous-time domain and is governed by ordinary differential equations with
discontinuous right-hand sides. The manifold of the state-space of the system on
which sliding mode occurs is the sliding mode manifold, or simply, sliding
manifold.

3. Discrete Time Sliding Mode. The discrete-time implementation of the

feedback loops is merely a matter of convenience due to the increasingly
affordable microprocessor hardware. The essential conceptual framework of the
feedback design remains to be in the continuous-time domain. When control
engineers approach sampled data control, the choice of sampling rate is an
immediate, and extremely critical design decision. Unfortunately, in continuous-
time SM, desired closed-loop bandwidth does not provide any useful guidelines
for the selection of sampling rate. Asymptotic observers or sliding mode
observers can be constructed to eliminate chattering which is one of the serious
 16

problems in SMC. Observers are most likely constructed in discrete time for any
real life control implementations. However, in order for these observer based
design to work, the sampling rate has to be relatively high since the notion of
continuous-time sliding mode is still applied.

4. Sampled Data Sliding Mode. We shall limit our discussions to plant

dynamics which can be adequately modeled by finite dimensional ordinary
differential equations, and assume that an a priori bandwidth of the closed-loop
system has been defined. The feedback controller is assumed to be implemented
in discrete-time form. The desired closed-loop behavior includes insensitivity to
significant parameter uncertainties and rejection of exogenous disturbances.
Without such a demand on the closed-loop performance, it is not worthwhile to
evoke DSM in the design. Using conventional design rule of thumb for sampled
data control systems, it is reasonable to assume that for the discretization of the
continuous-time plant, we include only the dominant modes of the plant whose
corresponding corner frequencies are well within the sampling frequency. This is
always achievable in practice by antialiasing filters which attenuate the plant
outputs at frequencies beyond the sampling frequency before they are sampled.
Actuator dynamics are assumed to be of higher frequencies than the sampling
frequency. Otherwise, actuator dynamics will have to be handled as part of the
dominant plant dynamics. Thus, all the undesirable parasitic dynamics manifest
only in the between sampling plant behavior, which is essentially the open-loop
behavior of the plant since sampled data feedback control is applied. Clearly, this
removes any remote possibilities of chattering due to the interactions of sliding
mode control with the parasitic dynamics.

5. Classification by methods

Sliding mode control can be classified into the following methods based on
sliding surface used: -
 17

(a) Conventional Sliding Surface with or without model following.

Here the sliding surface is defined by the equation
  Sx (2.1)

(b) Dynamic Sliding Surface with or without model following.

Here the sliding surface is defined by the equation
  BT x  z
 (2.2)
z   BT Ax  BT ua

With initial condition z (0)   BT x(0)

 18

CHAPTER THREE

CHATTERING PROBLEM IN SMC AND ITS REDUCTION

1. During the initial stages of sliding mode control theory development,

chattering was the main obstacle for its implementation. Small time constants of
real differentiators could not be disregarded if control actions were discontinuous
state functions, and they led to oscillations in the vicinity of discontinuity surfaces
in the system state space. Chattering is a harmful phenomenon because it leads
to low control accuracy, high wear of moving mechanical parts, and high heat
losses in power circuits.

2. There are two reasons which can lead to chattering:-

(a) Chattering can be caused by fast dynamics which were neglected

in the ideal model. These ‘unmodeled’ dynamics with small time constants
are usually disregarded in models of servomechanisms, sensors and data
processors.

(b) The second reason of chattering is utilization of digital controllers

with finite sampling rate, which causes so called ‘discretization chatter’.
Theoretically the ideal sliding mode implies infinite switching frequency.
Since the control is constant within a sampling interval, switching
frequency cannot exceed that of sampling, which lead to chattering as well.

3. Chattering Refreshed

Consider the plant given by the state equation

.
x  Ax  Bu  Be( x, u, t ) _________________________________ (3.1)
 19

A conventional sliding mode behaviour would have a sliding surface dynamics of

the form
  Sx _________________________________________ (3.2)
The sliding condition is given by

 0 _________________________________________ (3.3)
Choosing the control as
u  ueq  un __________________________________________ (3.4)

The known parameters of the plant can be compensated by the control

ueq  ( SB)1 SAx ______________________________________ (3.5)

The uncertainties are compensated by assuming proper matching conditions and

known bound of uncertainty by the control given by
un    sgn( SB) ______________________________________ (3.6)

The signum function in equation (3.6) is characterized by a discontinuity at origin.

In other words, the control signal has to switch from one level to another in zero
time or very fast. However, due to finite bandwidth of the actuator, the input
cannot switch fast enough near the sliding surface. This causes chattering.
Chattering is finite frequency, finite amplitude oscillations about the sliding
surface.

4. SMC Using Boundary Layer Control

To remedy chattering, the strict requirement of “movement on sliding surface” is

relaxed and we try to get ‘almost’ sliding mode (Quasi sliding mode) by the so
called piecewise linear or smooth approximation of the switching element in a
boundary layer of the sliding manifold [3]. Inside the boundary layer, the
switching function is approximated by a linear feedback gain. The possible linear
approximations for the signum function of equation (3.6) are

(a) The ‘sat’ or saturation function: Thus the control takes the form
 20

un    sgn( SB);  SB  
 SB _____________________ (3.7)
un    ;  SB  

(b) The sigmoid function: Here the control takes the form
 SB
un    ;  SB  
 SB  
_____________________ (3.8)
 SB
un    ;  SB  

(c) The third method involves the use of a conical boundary layer
centred symmetrically at the origin instead of the cylindrical boundary
layer dictated by sat function.

Fig. 3.1 Boundary Layer Control Using Sat Function

To make the system behavior to be as close to that of the ideal sliding mode,
particularly when an unknown disturbance is to be rejected, sufficiently high
magnitude of control signal gain is needed. In the absence of disturbance the
boundary layer thickness can be enlarged further while magnitude of control is
decreased, to reduce the oscillatory behavior or chattering about the sliding
manifold. However, this reduces the system to one with no sliding mode inside
the boundary layer and hence the system is no longer robust to uncertainties
 21

inside the boundary layer. Thus though the proposed method has shortcomings.
The effectiveness of boundary layer control is immediately challenged when
realistic parasitic dynamics are considered. [4]. Parasitic dynamics must be
carefully modeled and considered in the feedback design in order to avoid
instability inside the boundary layer which leads to chattering.

5. Observer-Based Sliding Mode Control

Since it known that the essential triggering mechanism for chattering is the
interactions of the switching action with the parasitic dynamics, an approach
which utilizes asymptotic observers to construct a high-frequency by pass loop
has been proposed [5]. This design exploits a localization of the high frequency
phenomenon in the feedback loop by introducing a discontinuous feedback
control loop which is closed through an asymptotic observer of the plant [6].
Since the model imperfections of the observer are supposedly smaller than those
in the plant, and the control is discontinuous only with respect to the observer
variables, chattering is localized inside a high-frequency loop which bypasses the
plant. However, this approach assumes that an asymptotic observer can indeed
be designed such that the observation error converges to zero asymptotically.

6. Disturbance Compensation

In SMC, the main purpose of sliding mode is to make the system robust to
disturbances unknown parametric perturbations. Building on the observer based
SMC, a sliding mode disturbance estimator which uses sliding mode to estimate
the unknown disturbances and parametric uncertainties was introduced [7]. In
this approach, the control law consists of a conventional continuous feedback
control component, and a component derived from the SM disturbance estimator
for disturbance compensation. If the disturbance is sufficiently compensated,
there is no need to evoke a discontinuous feedback control to achieve sliding
 22

mode. Chattering becomes a non-issue since a conventional feedback control

instead of SMC can now be applied. The critical design issues are transferred to
the SM disturbance estimator and its associated sliding mode.

7. Actuator Bandwidth Constraints

In plants where control actuators have limited bandwidth, e.g., hydraulic

actuators, there are two possibilities:

(a) First, the actuator bandwidth is outside the required closed-loop

bandwidth. Thus the actuator dynamics become unmodeled dynamics
which can be ignored in linear control design. But by ignoring actuator
dynamics in a classical SMC design, chattering is likely to occur since the
switching frequency is limited by the actuator dynamics even in the
absence of other parasitic dynamics. Strictly speaking, sliding mode
cannot occur, since the control input to the plant is continuous.

(b) Second, the desired closed-loop bandwidth is beyond the actuator

bandwidth. In this case, regardless of whether SMC or other control
designs are to be used, the actuator dynamics are lumped together with
the plant, and the control design model encompasses the actuator-plant in
series. With the actuator dynamics no longer negligible, often the
matching conditions for disturbance rejection and insensitivity to
parameter variations in sliding mode [8] which are satisfied in the nominal
plant model are violated. This results from having dominant dynamics
inserted between the physical input to the plant, such as force, and the
controller output, usually an electrical signal.

The design of SMC which incorporates the actuator dynamics as a

prefilter for the VSC was proposed in [9]. This design utilizes an expansion of the
original state-space by including state derivatives, and formulates an SMC
 23

design such that the matching condition is indeed satisfied in the extended space.
Another alternative approach is to utilize sliding mode to estimate the disturbance
for compensation as discussed earlier. Since sliding mode is not introduced
primarily to reject disturbances, the matching conditions are of no significance in
this design. This approach may also resolve the limitations imposed by actuator
bandwidth constraints on the design of sliding mode based controllers.

8. SMC with Frequency Shaping

Attenuating the effects of unmodeled parasitic dynamics in sliding mode by the

introduction of frequency shaping in the design of the sliding manifold has been
proposed in Ref [10]. Instead of treating the sliding manifold as the intersection of
hyperplanes defined in the state space of the plant, sliding manifolds which are
defined as linear operators are introduced to suppress frequency components of
the sliding mode response in a designated frequency band. For unmodeled high-
frequency dynamics, this approach implants a low-pass filter either as a prefilter,
similar to introducing artificial actuator dynamics, or as a postfilter, functioning
like sensor dynamics. By combining frequency shaping sliding mode and the
SMC designs introduced earlier, the effects of parasitic dynamics on switching
induced oscillations, as well as their interactions with sliding mode dynamics can
be dealt with.
 24

REACHING PHASE AND ITS ELIMINATION

1. The motion of a VSC system includes two phases: the reaching phase
and the sliding phase. During the reaching phase, the system state is pushed
toward the switching surfaces. During this period, however, the tracking error
cannot be controlled directly and the system response is sensitive to parameter
uncertainties and noise. Thus, one ideally would like to shorten the duration or
even eliminate the reaching phase. Several methods have been proposed to
completely eliminate the reaching phase. Such works include Chang and
Hurmuzlu [11], Choi et. al. [12], Bartoszewicz [13], and Roy and Olgac [14]. All of
the past methods consider (except the one presented in Roy and Olgac [14])
second order systems. These approaches reformulate the sliding domain
equations such that the initial state of the system resides on the modified sliding
domain. When this is achieved, and since the system state never leaves the
sliding domain, the reaching phase is eliminated from the motion of the resulting
system. Naturally, one has to take additional steps to ensure that the modified
sliding domain converges to the original one as the state evolves in time. This is
realized by replacing the static sliding domain equations in the classical case with
dynamic ones. This can be done by formulating a modified sliding domain
equation that exponentially decays to the original one (Chang and Hurmuzlu [11]).
Alternatively, one may achieve the same goal by replacing the exponential decay
by a series of rotations and translations sequentially applied to the sliding surface
(Roy and Olgac [14]).

2. The scheme based on exponential decay to eliminate the sliding phase

has two distinct advantages over the one based on rotations and translations.
The first advantage is the fixed structure of the sliding domain equations, which is
less laborious than the continuously translating and rotating case. The second
 25

advantage of the exponential scheme is that it results in continuous control action,

while the other scheme often yields control signal with jump discontinuities. But,
up to date, the exponential scheme was developed for second order systems
only, while the rotational/translational scheme proposed in Roy and Olgac [14]
can be applied to higher order system. In this paper, we expand the approach
presented in Chang and Hurmuzlu [11] to a general class of nth order systems.
We present a new control scheme that eliminates the reaching phase, and
ensures optimal tracking subject to minimal control effort.

3. Exponential form is the most preferable choice for a good convergence.

For example, almost all adaptive algorithms have exponential convergence terms
(Sastry and Bodson [15]). The advantages of this choice can be enumerated as
follows:
(a) The speed of converge can be easily tuned to match almost any
other choice.

(b) It is easy to manipulate when it is differentiated sequentially (its

differentiation always yields a result including itself), which leads to a
simplified design procedure.

4. The main difference can be observed in the control effort that is required
to achieve tracking using the individual approaches. The rotation/translation
approach seems to have the most problematic profile when it comes to practical
implementation. For this case, the control signal includes sudden jumps due to
the discontinuous translations in the sliding surface. Compared to the other two,
the continuously sliding approach requires significantly less control action to
achieve the required tracking performance. We should note that although some
of the conclusions are based only on a specific example, they should also remain
valid for more general cases. The modified surface exponentially converges to
the original one. Once the system state reaches the sliding surface it never
 26

leaves it. Thus, this feature may be used to accurately predict the system
response without solving the differential equations. Using this advantage, we
have developed a standard optimization procedure to optimize convergence
parameters. In conclusion, compared to existing approaches, the main
advantage of the proposed controller generates a continuous and an optimized
control signal.
 27

CHAPTER FIVE

NEED FOR BOUNDS UNCERTAINTY AND WAYS TO CIRCUMVENT IT

1. Variable structure control provides an effective solution to deterministic

design of uncertain dynamical systems. The main feature of variable structure
systems (VSS) is the sliding mode during which the system remains insensitive
to parameter variations and disturbances. Ryan [16] proposed a hierarchical
control which under certain hypotheses, guarantees global asymptotic stability in
the presence of bounded uncertainties. Madani-Esfahani et al [17] and Walcott
and Zak [18] proposed variable structure control systems that possess
uncertainties which satisfy certain matching conditions. In the above deterministic
design, the assumption that the uncertainties are bounded and their bounds are
available to the designer is involved. However, sometimes bounds on the
uncertainties may not be easily obtained due to complex structure of the
uncertainties. This result in over-estimation and consequently the magnitude of
control will be large. Slotine and Coetzee [19] proposed an SMC in which the
bounds are found adaptively. Simple adaptation laws were proposed by Yoo and
Chung [20] for upper bounds on the norm of uncertainties the use of which
guarantees asymptotic stability of uncertain dynamical systems.

2. Consider the plant given by the state equation

.
x  Ax  Bu  Be( x, u, t ) _________________________________ (5.1)

The following assumption has been made in arriving at equation (5.1): -

(a) Assumption 5.1. The pair (A,B) are controllable and the
uncertainties in A and B, nonlinearities f(x,t), and disturbance v are continuous
and are matched.
 28

(b) Assumption 5.2. There exists a positive scalar valued function

rho such that
e( x, u, t )   ( x, u, t ) __________________________________ (5.2)

For all values of x,u,t.

A conventional sliding mode behaviour would have a sliding surface dynamics of

the form
  Sx _________________________________________ (5.3)
The sliding condition is given by

 0 _________________________________________ (5.4)
Choosing the control as
u  ueq  un  uS ________________________________________ (5.5)

The known parameters of the plant can be compensated by the control

ueq  ( SB)1 SAx _______________________________________ (5.6)

The uncertainties are compensated by assuming proper matching conditions and

known bound of uncertainty by the control given by
un    sgn( SB) _____________________________________ (5.7)

The handle uS which ensures equation (5.4) is satisfied under any condition is
given by
uS  ( SB)1 K _______________________________________ (5.8)

Thus the sliding condition of equation (5.4) is satisfied if the control is chosen as
per the control law of equation (5.5) under substitution from equations (5.6) and
(5.7).

3. In the above design, the continuous positive scalar valued function rho
may not be easily obtained due to complex structure of the uncertainties and the
magnitude of the external disturbance in particular cannot be simply estimated.
Yoo and Chung [20] modified assumption 5.2 which is stated below:
Assumption 5.3. There are positive constants c0 and c1 such that
 29

e( x, u, t )  c0  c1 x ________________________________ (5.9)

In other words, the adaptive upper bound is now given as

  
 ( x, u, t )  c0 ( x, u, t )  c1 ( x, u, t ) x _______________________ (5.10)

Where c0^ and c1^ are the adaptive parameters about c0 and c1,
respectively.
Now consider the simple adaptation laws for the upper bound of the norm
e( x, u, t ) such that


c0 ( x, u , t ) q0 BT S T 

______________________________ (5.11)

c1 ( x, u, t ) q1 BT S T  x

Where q0 and q1 are adaptation gains with positive values. Since c0 and
c1 are constant the adaptive parameters can be obtained by integrating equation
(5.10),
  t
c0 ( x, u, t )  c0i  q0  BT S T  dt
t0
_________________________ (5.12)
  t
c1 ( x, u, t )  c1i  q1  BT S T  x dt
t0

Where c0i^ and c1i^ are the initial values.

 
 
By choosing appropriate q0 , q1 and c0i , c1i , we can adjust the rate of

parameter adaptation. The discontinuous characteristic of the control induces

chattering which is overcome by introducing the boundary layer technique using
sat function.

4. The above assumption is proved by using the improved Lyapunov function


given instead of  T  by
   2 2
2V ( , c0 , c1 )   T   q01 c0  q11 c1 _______________________ (5.13)
 30

However, in this proposition, the convergence of the adaptive parameters to real

ones cannot be guaranteed though they converge to some values depending on
the values of the adaptation gains.

5. The use of boundary layer technique may result in the estimated gain to
grow unboundedly inside the boundary layer since the restriction on the sliding
surface cannot always be achieved [21]. Yuri, Su and Stepanenko propose an
improved adaptation law, the stability analysis of which shows that this method
guarantees boundedness of both the state of the plant and the adaptive gain
when boundary layer technique is applied.
 31

CHAPTER SIX

NEED FOR FULL STATES – UNKNOWN INPUT OBSERVER (UIO)

1. Most modern control laws need the full state vector for their
implementation. In general, the full state is not accessible making these laws
unimplementable. Even when the states are accessible the cost of the sensors
could be very high. This makes the use of state estimators mandatory. Another
problem that real plants present is that their models are not known accurately.
For such plants the classical Luenberger observer does not work, thus further
compounding the problem of state estimation.

2. The problem of designing an observer for a multivariable linear system

partially driven by unknown inputs is of great interest. This problem has been
studied extensively for the last two decades. One approach has been to design
linear observers (both full order and reduced order). In the literature, linear
observers which are completely independent of the unmeasurable disturbances
are known as unknown input observers (UIOs).

3. The concept of sliding mode control has been extended to the problem of
state estimation by an observer, for linear systems, uncertain linear systems and
nonlinear systems. Using the same design principles as for variable structure
control, the observer trajectories are constrained to evolve after a finite time on a
suitable sliding manifold by the use of a discontinuous output injection signal (the
sliding manifold is usually given by the difference between the observer and the
system output). Subsequently the sliding motion provides an estimate
(asymptotically or in finite time) of the system states. Sliding mode observers
 32

have been shown to be efficient in many applications, such as in robotics,

electrical engineering and fault detection.

4. The Lyapunov based approach of Walcott and Zak [22, 23, 24] considered
the problem of state observation in presence of bounded uncertainties/UI. Slotine
[25] examined the potential use of sliding surfaces for observer design for
systems in companion form with extension to non-linear systems. Lopez in [26]
formulated an alternative form of sliding mode observer wherein the output
disturbances are transformed into state disturbances, avoiding noise
amplification. Similar work was seen in [27] wherein the UI and model
uncertainties were considered as a fictitious state added to the slotine like
structure [25]. Chen [29] proposed a disturbance observer which required the
states of the system. There are other disturbance observers also in literature [28]
which also require the states in order to estimate the disturbances. In general,
the states are not available. The state estimator is possible using Luenberger
type [30] of observers provided the system does not have uncertainties. Thus, we
have a situation that the state estimation can be done in the absence of
disturbances and disturbance estimation is possible if the states are available.

5. Luenberger Observer

The classical Luenberger observer is the fundamental state observer and all
other observers are extensions of this basic structure. Consider a plant defined
by,

x = Ax + Bu ___________________________________ (6.1)
y = Cx
Assuming the state x to be approximated by the state ˆx of the dynamic model,

  
x  A x  Bu  L( y  x) _________________________________ (6.2)
and denoting e = x − ˆx, the state error dynamics is deduced as,
 33


e  ( A  LC )e _____________________________ (6.3)
Thus, the dynamic behavior of the error vector is determined by the eigen values
of (A − LC). Thus, by choosing L such that (A − LC) is stable, the error dynamics
will reduce to zero asymptotically.

6. Limitations of Luenberger Observer

The problem with this observer is that it fails when the output is sensed in
presence of model uncertainties and/or sensor noise. To examine the reason
consider the plant with lumped uncertainties d as,
.
x  Ax  Bu  Bd __________________________ (6.4)
y  Cx  n0

and the observer modeled as eqn. 2.3, the error dynamics is thus deduced as,

e  ( A  LC )e  Ln0  Bd ____________________ (6.5)

The last terms shows that the proportional gain observer tends to amplify the
measurement noise by L and that the lumped uncertainty d affects the
convergence.

7. Chen’s Disturbance Observer

In [29], the non linear disturbance observer is considered. The general

description of the plant for a SISO system is given as,
.
x = f(x) + g1 (x)u + g 2 (x)d ___________________ (6.6)
y = h(x)
Where, f(x), g1(x) and g2(x) are the vector of nonlinear functions of states x, u is
the control input and d the unknown disturbance whose estimate is given by,
z1    p( x) ________________________ (6.7)

z1   l(x)g2(x)-  l(x)(g2(x)p(x) + f(x) + g1(x)u) ____ (6.8)
 34

Where, z1 and  are the estimates of the unknown disturbance and the internal
state of the nonlinear observer respectively and p(x) is a nonlinear function to be
designed. The nonlinear observer gain l(x) is defined as,
p(x)
l(x) = ______________________________ (6.9)
x
Let, the disturbance estimation error be defined as,
  d  z1 ___________________________ (6.10)

Thus, it can be shown that, under the assumption that the disturbances are slow
varying, z1 approaches d exponentially if p(x) is chosen such that,
 p(x)
+ g2(x) =0 _______________________ (6.11)
x
is globally exponentially stable for all x 2 <n. As far as the stability of the
p(x)
estimation error is concerned, any nonlinear vector-valued function l(x) =
x
such that equation (7.11) is asymptotically stable and can be chosen. After l(x)
has been chosen, p(x) is found by integration.

8. Limitations of Chen’s DO

.
The problem with this observer is that it fails when the assumption of d  0 is
.
violated. Thus, under the assumption that d  0 we can write,

  d  z1
_____________________________________________ (6.12)
  d  C1
or

  C1  d ___________________________________________ (6.13)

Thus, if C1 > 0, then   d .

10. Extended State Observer (ESO)

 35

Many controllers need information of the full state vector. One more requirement
is the estimation of uncertainties as well. This requirement of obtaining the
estimate of uncertainty as well as states in an integrated manner is met by the
Extended State Observer (ESO) [31], [32]. The ESO is an observer which can
estimate the uncertainties along with the states of the system enabling
disturbance rejection or compensation. Unlike traditional (linear or nonlinear)
observers, the ESO estimates the effect of uncertainties, unmodeled dynamics
and external disturbances acting on the system as an extended state of the
original system. Hence, it can be viewed as an unknown input observer or
disturbance observer. Since the observer estimates the uncertainty as an
extended state of the original system, it is designated as Extended State
Observer. Its merit is that it is relatively independent of mathematical model of
the plant, performs better and is simpler to implement. In Ref. [31], a comparison
study of performances and characteristics of three advanced state observers
namely high gain observer, ESO and Sliding Mode Observer is presented and it
is shown that over all the ESO is much superior in dealing with uncertainties,
disturbances and sensor noise. Several diverse applications of ESO based
control strategies have appeared in literature. Control of induction motor drive
[33], aircraft attitude control [34], hydraulic position servo system [35], and
torsional vibration control of main drive system of a rolling mill [36] are some
examples to mention.
 36

CHAPTER SEVEN

MATCHING CONDITIONS

1. As pointed out by Drazenovic (1969) [8], a salient feature of sliding mode

control is that it is completely robust to matched uncertainties that lie in the range
space of the input matrix. It is certainly true that many systems can be classified
under this category. For example, the rigid robot is one of them. However, there
are even more systems which unfortunately are affected by mismatched
uncertainties.

2. The Model Of The System. The multi input systems described with
the set of n differential first order equations will be discussed.
.
x  Ax  Bu  DF (7.1)
X n state vector-column. It is understood that all its elements are
available for forming a control function.
B (n×m) constant matrix, with linearly independent columns
U m control vector-column. Its elements, called control functions, are
linearly independent.
D (n ×L) matrix with linearly independent columns
F L vector-column of disturbances, with linearly independent
elements
A (n × m) matrix

4. Equations Of The Motion In The Sliding Mode. The sliding surface is

defined by
  Sx (7.2)
The sliding condition

 0 (7.3)
 37


 is given by substituting equation (7.1) as
 .
  S x  SAx  SBu  SDF (7.4)
If the matrix SB is nonsingular, u, is determinable in a unique manner as:
u  (SB)1 (SAx  SDF ) (7.5)
Substituting this value of u in (7.1), the sliding mode equations are obtained as:
.
x  ( I  B(SB)1 S ) Ax  ( I  B(SB)1 S ) DF (7.6)
where I is the unity matrix.

5. The Disturbance Influence On The Sliding Mode Motion

It is seen from (7.6) that disturbances F, in general, act in equations of the sliding
mode motion. There are two sorts of disturbance influences on that kind of
motion:

(a) The values of disturbances up to beginning of the sliding mode

which determine the initial conditions of the sliding mode.

(b) The values of the disturbances after the sliding mode begins, but
only if F acts in (7.6).

Let the following equation be satisfied:

( I  B(SB)1 S ) DF  0 (7.7)
The disturbance F is no longer present in the sliding mode equations, so that the
trajectory of the sliding mode motion depends only on the values of disturbances
up to the beginning of the sliding mode via the initial conditions. If the preliminary
part of the motion is shortened by a suitable choice of control function, the time of
disturbance influence, and by that its effect on the initial conditions as well, can
 38

be remarkably decreased, so that the whole system exhibits a low sensitivity to

disturbances.

Equation (7.7) can be satisfied for all the possible values of F, if all the columns
of D are linear combinations of the columns of B i.e.,
DF  B (7.8)
This requirement is represented by the equation
rank [B, D] = rank B (7.9)
where [B, D] is a matrix composed of all the columns of D and B.

6. Ref [37] discusses some results to explicitly tackle the mismatched

uncertainties. Two schemes to handle mismatched uncertainties are described
wherein the uncertainties are tackled without a reference model in one scheme
and in the other, a reference model is used. Although the design procedures are
quite similar, the assumptions and stability results are quite different. This new
dynamical approach of sliding variable formulation introduces on-line estimation
capability to the sliding variable so that, when the system is in sliding mode, an
adaptive reference signal is realized which can explicitly deal with mismatched
uncertainties. Note that when the system is in sliding mode, the system behavior
is completely determined by the reduced-order system. Hence we can allow the
system to be highly nonlinear and time-varying. This is a result of the well-known
model reduction capability of sliding control. Although the paper expresses that
the approach cannot handle all kinds of mismatched uncertainties, it is still a
significant step towards a more general theory of handling mismatched
uncertainties.

7. The key idea of backstepping is to start with a system which is stabilizable

with a known feedback law for a known Lyapunov function, and then to add to its
input an integrator. For the augmented system a new stabilizing feedback law is
explicitly designed and shown to be stabilizing for a new Lyapunov function.
 39

8. Adaptive and Robust Backstepping

There are many systems with nonlinearities known from physical laws, such as
kinematic nonlinearities, or energy, flow and mass balance nonlinearities. Some
of these nonlinearities may appear multiplied with unknown parameters and give
rise to the problem of controlling nonlinear systems with parametric uncertainty.
For a broader class of systems, the nonlinearities themselves may be unknown.
Such difficult problems may still be tractable if the uncertainties are within some
known nonlinear bounds, the so called nonlinear interval uncertainties.

9. Observer based Backstepping

 40

CHAPTER EIGHT

TIME DELAY AND INERTIAL DELAY SYSTEMS

Time Delay Control (TDC)

1. Time Delay Control was proposed as a robust control method for systems
with unknown dynamics by Yousuf-Toumi and Ito [38,39]. In recent years many
methods have been reported for designing control for time-delay systems [40],
[41] and criteria for the stability of time-delay systems [42], [43] have been
developed. Time-delays may appear in many ways: Delays in measurement of
system variables including physical properties of equipment used in the system
or signal transmission, delays in control which arise in many chemical processes
and radiation problems in physics.

2. Time Delay Control is based on the assumption that a continuous signal

remains unchanged during a small interval of time. Thus under this assumption,
the uncertainties and disturbances do not change significantly in a small interval
of time and are estimated from past measurements. This estimate is then used to
modify the control action so as to nullify the effect of uncertainty and
disturbances on the system. Thus this does not involve adjusting of control gains,
such as gain scheduling or to identify system parameters, such as adaptive
control. One important characteristic is that the control signal will not have
discontinuity if the assumption holds good.

3. Consider the plant given by the state equation

.
x  Ax  Bu  Be( x, u, t ) _________________________________ (8.1)
Assumption 1. A and B are known and the state x is available.
At a time t=t-L where L is a small interval of time, the system (8.1) can be
described by
 41

.
x(t  L)  Ax(t  L)  Bu(t  L)  Be(t  L) ___________________ (8.2)
Thus
.
e(t  L)  B  [ x(t  L)  Ax(t  L)  Bu (t  L)] ______________ (8.3)
Assumption 2. The interval L is very small so that system does not change.

If we define e  e(t  L) , then e( x, u, t )  e( x, u, t  L) . Hence

e  e(t  L) _____________________________________ (8.4)
Design of Control. A conventional sliding mode behaviour would have a sliding
surface dynamics of the form
  Sx _________________________________________ (8.5)
The sliding condition is given by

 0 _________________________________________ (8.6)
Choosing the control as
u  ueq  un ____________________________________________ (8.7)

The known parameters of the plant can be compensated by the control

ueq  ( SB)1 SAx _______________________________________ (8.8)

With the estimate of equation (8.4),


un  e ____________________________________________________ (8.9)

Thus the control of equation of (8.7) using (8.8) and (8.9), when substituted in
equation (8.1), nullifies the effect of uncertainties and disturbances. Also, the
control does not have any discontinuity.

4. However, TDC has the following drawbacks: -

(a) TDC inherently requires that all the states and their derivatives be
available for feedback.

(b) Oscillations always exist in the control signal.

 42

(c) Time delay makes system analysis difficult mainly in terms of

stability issues and it also tends to destabilize a system. The work on the
stability of time-delay linear systems has been reported by many authors
and can be found in [42] and [44] amongst others. Work on the
stabilization problem for a class of uncertain linear systems with delay on
the state has been studied in [45]. The proof of stability of closed-loop
time-delay systems with discontinuous control is more complicated than
for the continuous case.

(d) If the sensor used in the measurement of states is noisy, this

measurement noise will be further amplified by TDC.

Inertial Delay Control (IDC)

5. Zhong and Rhees [46] proposed a method called uncertainty and

disturbance estimator (UDE) for control of linear time invariant systems which is
similar to TDC but does not require the time derivatives of the system states and
does not use time-delayed signals. Thus the above drawbacks of TDC have
been addressed. Talole and Phadke [47] extended this method to disturbances
containing state dependent nonlinearities and to systems having uncertainties in
the control input matrix which is called the inertial delay control (IDC).

6. Consider the system of equation (8.1). The sliding surface is defined by

  Sx (8.5)
The sliding condition

 0 (8.6)

 is given by substituting equation (8.1) as
 .
  S x  SAx  SBu  SBe (8.10)
If the matrix SB is nonsingular, u, is determinable in a unique manner as:
u  (SB)1 (SAx  SBe) (8.11)
 43

Defining u as in equation (8.7) , the first part for compensating known terms can
be given as
ueq  (SB)1 SAx  K ________________________ (8.12)

Substituting u in equation (8.10) using (8.7) and (8.12) gives


  SBun  SBe  K _________________________ (8.13)

Thus e is given by

e  ( SB)1 (  K )  un ________________________ (8.14)

7. TDC adopts an estimation of this signal by using a time delay in the time
domain. However, in IDC, the control signal and states are used to observe the
uncertainties and disturbances.
Assumption. Let Gf(s) be a strictly proper low-pass filter with unity steady-
state gain and broad enough bandwidth.
The signal of equation (8.14) is passed through this filter. Thus
mathematically
 
e( x, u, t )  [( SB) 1 (  K )  un ]G f ( s) _______________ (8.15)

The signal un is chosen such that it nullifies the effect of uncertainty

e(x,u,t). Hence

un   e( x, u, t ) _________________________________ (8.16)

From equation (8.15)


un  [( SB) 1 (  K )  un ]G f ( s)

un (1  G f ( s ))  [( SB) 1 (  K )]G f ( s) ______________ (8.17)

un  [( SB) 1 (  K )]G f ( s) /(1  G f ( s))

Assuming that the frequency range of the system dynamics and the external
disturbances is limited by wf, then the ideal low pass filter Gf has a low frequency
gain (w<wf) of 1 (making 1-Gf(s) zero) and a high frequency gain (w>wf) of zero
 44

(making Gf zero). Hence the estimation error of the uncertainty and disturbance
will be approximately zero at both high and low frequency ranges.

1
8. Let G f ( s)  ___________________________________(8.18)
1 s
Then equation (8.17) becomes

un  [( SB) 1 ( /  s)]  [( SB) 1 K /  s)]
________________ (8.19)
un  [( SB) ( /  )]  [( SB) ( K   dt ) /  ]
1 1

Stability analysis [47] shows that the error feedback gain K can be used to
guarantee the robust stability of the closed-loop system. Intuitively, if T is small
enough the system is always stable. However, this might be difficult to implement
due to larger magnitude of the control and hence the value of T has to be a
compromise. The accuracy of estimation can be improved by an appropriate
choice of Gf(s).

9. Thus the TDC and its improvement IDC can be implemented to give a far
better performance and without the inherent drawback of chattering since the
control is no longer discontinuous.
 45

CHAPTER NINE

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SMC AEROSPACE APPLICATIONS

1. The fundamental objective in the autopilot design for missile systems is to

provide satisfactory stability, performance, and robustness for all flight conditions
which may occur in probable engagements. In view of the uncertainties in
aerodynamic parameters, the cross coupling effects, nonlinearities and
measurement inaccuracies, the task of guaranteeing stability and performance
throughout the flight envelope is a challenging one. Classically, missile autopilots
are designed using linear control approaches. In general, the missile dynamics is
linearized around certain finite number of operating points in the flight envelope.
For each linearization, a linear time invariant controller is obtained, which in the
local region of the fixed operating point delivers the desired performance
characteristics. Gain scheduling, is then employed to deliver the performance in
the complete flight envelope of the missile. To this end, the linear control
techniques have dominated missile autopilot design over the past several
decades [48]–[50]. For medium- and long-range missiles, in general, the flight
envelopes are so large that gain scheduling is inevitable. Thus, the conventional
autopilot design with gain scheduling causes the design process to be time-
consuming and tedious. It is obvious that various modern control methods based
on time-invariant, linear models do not help this problem.

2. Lately, to cater for large uncertainties, various robust control techniques

such as H∞ and µ analysis [51-53] has been used to design robust autopilots.
Although design of autopilots by linearizing the missile dynamics is one of the
most prominent approach, the controller thus designed may offer unsatisfactory
performance especially when the dynamics is highly nonlinear and undergoes
large motion. The ever increasing high performance and greater maneuverability
requirement now demand that the missiles operate in regimes of large angles
 46

and angular rates where nonlinearities are dominant. For example, the missiles
having wingless configurations will need to execute high angle of attack
maneuvers to generate the desired acceleration levels. Under these
circumstances, the assumption of small motion about operating point do not hold
true and so one need to employ nonlinear approaches for designing of missile
autopilots. Various theories have been developed for design of controllers for
nonlinear dynamic systems and applications of the same for missile autopilot
designs. Owing to the highly nonlinear dynamics, various nonlinear approaches
such as the Feedback Linearization (FL) [54], Predictive Control [55], Sliding
Mode Control [56] have been proposed for the designing of the missile autopilot.
The issue of robustness in nonlinear controllers has also been addressed widely.

3. Apart from the highly nonlinear dynamics, the problem areas in the design
of missile autopilots broadly include the following: -

(a) Controllers based on state feedback require availability of states.

For example, in the design of the pitch autopilot, the state vector consists
of angle of attack, pitch rate and control surface deflection. While pitch
rate and control surface deflection can be measured angle of attack is not
available for measurement. This necessitates design of observer.

(b) Secondly, due to the non-minimum phase characteristics of

acceleration dynamics, frequently the controllers are designed with angle
of attack as output instead of the acceleration. The desired acceleration
command is translated into an equivalent desired angle of attack
command and the controller is asked to track the same. Obviously such
an approach may result into inferior performance whenever the
requirements of desired acceleration are not translated accurately in terms
of the desired angle of attack.
 47

(c) Almost all robustification techniques require some knowledge in

terms of bounds of the uncertainty. This requires estimation of the
uncertainty in such a way as to cancel out the unknown dynamics and
disturbances.

Thus sliding mode control is found to address all the above issues and can
provide a robust controller by proper design. Some methods based on research
papers are discussed below.

4. A new design based on the Extended State Observer (ESO) technique is

proposed for the pitch autopilot of a tail controlled, skid-to-turn missile [57]. The
ESO simultaneously estimates the state and the uncertainty. A notable feature of
the proposed controller is that, unlike many modern controllers, it works for non-
minimum phase systems. As the controller structure becomes more complex, it
requires more information on state variables. In particular, it is important to know
the wind angles, i.e., the angle of attack and side slip angle, as they are used in a
feedback control system. In fact, several state variables such as acceleration,
angular rate, dynamic pressure, and missile speed can be measured rather
accurately through instruments such as accelerometers, the Inertial Navigation
System (INS) including rate gyros, and barometers. However, the measurement
of the wind angles is not general, since the angle of attack and sideslip angle are
not readily available due to the existence of measurement noise and the
vulnerability of the sensor to mechanical damage. Thus, the practical design of
autopilots utilizes the values of wind angles estimated from the measured
angular rates and accelerations.

5. An observer-based control approach for the acceleration control of tail-

controlled skid-to-turn (STT) missiles [58] is proposed to provide a solution to
overcoming the drawbacks of existing nonlinear missile controllers that it is
needed to know the values of wind angles (angle of attack and sideslip angle). A
nonlinear observer for wind angles is designed using a parametric affine missile
 48

model developed by the authors, where the coupling term between the lateral
and longitudinal motion is also considered. Using the wind angle estimate, we
can design the observer-based controller to show the desired acceleration
tracking performance.

6. Future missile systems will be required to possess higher turn rates and
larger maneuverability envelopes, while simultaneously requiring reduced
storage and signature volumes. In this respect, efforts are under way to evaluate
alternate means of missile control as opposed to purely aerodynamic control [59],
[60]. Several technology payoffs can be envisioned if alternate control strategies
are implemented. Some of them are: -

(a) Smaller fin sizes that decrease stowage volume for internal
carriage, especially important for the type of fighters currently being
developed.

(b) Increased maneuverability and off-boresight capability for an

improved all-aspect defensive shield.

(c) High angle of attack launch capability to match improved aircraft

agility.

(d) Improved end-game performance (higher g-levels).

7. The achievement of these payoffs poses difficult challenges to the control

system designer since the design has to encompass all phases of flight. For
example, during separation from the launch aircraft, an increase in pitch-up
tendencies can be expected due to lack of sufficient aerodynamic stabilization
(smaller fins). After safe separation, the system may be required to perform fast
180 turns to defend against and engage rear hemisphere positioned threats and
targets. During the endgame, the reduced aerodynamic control effectiveness due
 49

to smaller fin sizes must be appropriately compensated in order to generate

sufficient load factors in a very short time.

8. This loss in control power due to reduced aerodynamic effectiveness of

the missile must be compensated for and/or improved by using alternate control
technologies. Possible options are propulsion based control in the form of thrust
vectoring (TVC) [62] and/or a reaction jet control system (RCS) [61]. This
requires the potential modifications involving the implementation of propulsion
control and its integration with aerodynamic surfaces. Ajay Thukral and Mario
Innocenti in Ref.[61] have proposed a solution using reaction jets. The paper
discusses a high angle of attack maneuver as the test scenario and in particular,
a two-dimensional heading reversal trajectory in the longitudinal plane as shown
in figure below.

Fig 9.1 Heading Reversal Maneuver for Futuristic Missiles

Ajay Thukral and Mario Innocenti, “A Sliding Mode Missile Pitch Autopilot Synthesis for High Angle of Attack
Maneuvering”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 3, MAY 1998 pp. 359-
371
 50

9. The missile configuration is as shown in figure below: -

Fig. 9.2 Missile Configuration Using RCS

Ajay Thukral and Mario Innocenti, “A Sliding Mode Missile Pitch Autopilot Synthesis for High Angle of Attack
Maneuvering”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 3, MAY 1998 pp. 359-
371

10. Variable structure control (VSC) methods are suggested for the control
design for several reasons. First of all, the maneuver characteristics present
nonlinear dynamics with large parameter variations. Second, the autopilot will
require high gain capabilities, due to the maneuver requirements in terms of time
of steady state acquisition. Third, the use of reaction jets, as the main component
of the actuation system, leads naturally to the implementation of nonlinear, relay-
type logic. VSC, with due care, is one of the methodologies capable of
addressing all these issues in a structured framework.

11. From the simulation results shown in the paper [61] the advantage of
using RCS in conjunction with fins is evident, as shown by figures below. The
turn radius for the missile autopilot using RCS in conjunction with fins is of the
order of 150 feet and the time necessary for a 180 degree maneuver is 2
seconds while the turn radius for a standard g-command autopilot using the
 51

same configuration is of the order of 15 000 feet and the time necessary for the
maneuver is about 50 s. Dynamic pressure loss is recovered by the main engine
according to the attitude of the missile, or by performing the maneuver during
boost phase. Autopilot performances are validated via nonlinear simulation,
showing the robustness with respect to aerodynamic uncertainties and speed
variations. Current work [63] indicates that the autopilot gains do not require
scheduling even in the presence of varying flight conditions (initial reference
speed), reaction jet thrust, and main engine main thrust values. Future work is
directed toward the extension of the design to the three-dimensional case, to the
selection of the best VSC structure, and to the problem of output feedback, since
the autopilot presented in this work assumes full state availability.

Fig. 9.3 Simulation Results for Missile Autopilot Using RCS

 52

Fig. 9.4 Simulation Results for Missile Autopilot Using RCS (Time
Response for angles)

Fig. 9.5 Simulation Results for Missile Autopilot Using Standard g-

Command Autopilot
(Ajay Thukral and Mario Innocenti, “A Sliding Mode Missile Pitch Autopilot Synthesis for High Angle of Attack
Maneuvering”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 3, MAY 1998 pp. 359-
371)
 53

CHAPTER TEN

CONCLUSION

1. Introducing DSM, and restructuring the SMC design in a sampled data

system framework are appropriate, and positive steps in sliding mode control
research. It directly addresses the pivotal microprocessor implementation issues;
it moves the research in a direction which is more sensitive to the concerns of
practicing control engineers who are faced with the dilemma of whether to ignore
this whole branch of advanced control methods for fear of the reported
implementation difficulties, or to embrace it with caution in order to achieve
system performance otherwise unattainable. However, as compared with the
ideal continuous-time sliding mode, a realistic approach about the limitations of
DSM control designs in rejecting disturbances, and in its ability to withstand
parameter variations is required. The real test for the sliding mode research
community in the near future will be the willingness of control engineers to
experiment with these SMC design approaches in their professional practice.
 54

REFERENCES

[1] V. I. Utkin, “Variable structure systems with sliding modes,” IEEE

Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-22, pp. 212–222, 1977.

[2] John Y. Hung, Weibing Gao, James C. Hung, “Variable Structure Control:
A Survey” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 40,
NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1993.

[3] K. David Young, Vadim I. Utkin, ¨ Umit ¨ Ozg¨uner, “A Control Engineer’s

Guide to Sliding Mode Control”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL
SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 7, NO. 3, MAY 1999.

[4] K.-K. D. Young and P. V. Kokotovic, “Analysis of feedback loop interaction

with parasitic actuators and sensors,” Automatica, vol 18, pp. 577–582, Sept.
1982.

[5] A. G. Bondarev, S. A. Bondarev, N. E. Kostyleva, and V. I. Utkin, “Sliding

modes in systems with asymptotic state observers,” Automation and Remote
Control, 1985, pp. 679–684.

[6] H. G. Kwatny, and K. D. Young, “The variable structure servomechanism,”

Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 184–191, 1981.

[7] K. D. Young and S. V. Drakunov, “Discontinuous frequency shaping

compensation for uncertain dynamic systems,” in Proc. 12th IFAC World
Congr., Sydney, Australia, 1993, pp. 39–42.

[8] B. Drazenovic, “The invariance conditions in variable structure systems,”

Automatica, vol. 5, pp. 287-295, 1969.

[9] V. I. Utkin, Sliding Modes in Control Optimization. New York: Springer-

Verlag 1992.

[10] K. D. Young and ¨ U. ¨ Ozg¨uner, “Frequency shaping compensator design

for sliding mode,” Int. J. Contr., (Special Issue on Sliding Mode Control),
1993, pp. 1005–1019.

[11] Chang, T.H., and Hurmuzlu, Y., \Sliding Control Without Reaching Phase
and Its Application to Bipedal Locomotion," Journal of Dynamics Systems,
Measurement and Control, Vol.115, pp. 447-455, 1993.

[12] Choi, S. , Park, D., and Jayasuriya, S., \A Time-Varying Sliding Surface for
Fast and Robust Tracking Control of Second-Order Uncertain Systems,"
Automatica, 30, pp. 899-904, 1994.
 55

[13] Bartoszewicz, A., \A comment on A Time-Varying Sliding Surface for Fast

and Robust Tracking Control of Second-Order Uncertain Systems," Automatica,
31, No.12, pp. 1893-1895, 1995.

[14] Roy, R.G., and Olgac, N., \Robust Nonlinear Control via Moving Sliding
Surfaces - n-th order case," Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Decision and
Control, San Diego, California USA, pp. 943-948, 1997.

[15] Sastry, S, and Bodson, M., Adaptive Control - Stability, Convergence, and
Robustness, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1989.

[16] E P Ryan, “A variable structure approach to feedback regulation of

uncertain dynamical systems,”, Int. J. Contr., vol.38,no.6, pp. 1121-1134, 1983.

[17] S.M.Madani-Esfahani, R.A.DeCarlo, M.J.Corless, and S.H.Zak, “On

deterministic control of uncertain nonlinear systems,” in Proc. Amer. Conf.,
Seattle, WA, 1986, pp. 1523-1528.

[18] B.L.Walcott and S.H.Zak, “Combined observer-controller synthesis for

uncertain dynamical systems with applications,” IEEE Trans. Sys., Man,Cybern.,
vol.18, no.1, pp. 367-371, 1989.

[19] Slotine.J.J.E., and Coetsee, J.A., 1986, “Adaptive Sliding Controller

Synthesis for Nonlinear Systems”, Int. J. Control, 43(6), pp.1631-1651.

[20] Yoo,D.S., and Chung,M.J., 1992, “A Variable Structure Control Simple

Adaptation Laws for Upper Bounds on the Norm of the Uncertainties”, IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, 37(6), pp. 860-864.

[21] Wheeler,G., Chun-Yi Su and Y.Stepanenko, “A Sliding Mode Controller

with Improved Adaptation Laws for the Upper Bounds on the Norms of
Uncertainties”, Automatica, vol. 34, pp. 1657-1661, 1998.

[22] Walcott, B. L.and Zak, S., “Combined Observer-Controller Synthesis

Uncertain Dynamical Systems with Applications,” Journal of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement and Control , Vol. 125, 2003, pp. 19–26.

[23] Walcott, B. L.and Zak, S. H., “State Observation of Nonlinear Uncertain

Dynamical Systems,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control ,
Vol. AC-32, No. 2, 1987, pp. 166–170.

[24] Chen, W.and Saif, M., “Novel Sliding Mode Observers for a Class of
Uncertain Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , Vol. 51, No. 5,
2006, pp. 814–818.
 56

[25] Slotine, J. J. E. and Misawa, E. A., “On Sliding Mode Observers for
Nonlinear Systems,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control ,
Vol. 109, 1987,pp. 245–252.

[26] Lopez, R. and Yescas, R., “State Estimation for Nonlinear Systems under
Model Uncertainties: A Class of Sliding-mode Observers,” Journal of Process
Control , Vol. 15, 2005, pp. 363–370.

[27] Jiang, L.and Wu, Q., “Nonlinear Adaptive Control via Sliding-mode State and
Perturbation Observer,” IEE Proc.- Control Theory Applications, Vol. 149, No. 4,
2002, pp. 269–277.71

[28] Liu, C. and Peng, H., “Disturbance Observer Based Tracking Control,”
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, Transactions of ASME,
Vol. 122, 2000, pp. 332–335.

[29] Chen, W.-H., “Nonlinear Disturbance Observer-Enhanced Dynamic

Inversion Control Of Missiles,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol.
26, No. 1, 2003, pp. 161–166.

[30] Luenberger, D. G., “An Introduction to Observers,” IEEE Transactions on

Automatic Control , Vol. AC-16, No. 6, 1971, pp. 596–602.

[31] W. Wang and Z. Gao, “A comparison study of advanced state observer

design techniques,” in Proc. of the American Control Conference, (Denver,
Colarado, USA), pp. 4754–4759, June 2003.

[32] D. Yoo, S. S.-T. Yau, and Z. Gao, “Optimal fast tracking observer
bandwidth of the linear extended state observer,” International Journal of Control,
vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 102–111, 2007.

[33] G. Feng, L. Huang, and D. Zhu, “A nonlinear auto-disturbance rejection

controller for induction motor,” IEEE IECON, vol. 3, pp. 1509–1514, 1998.

[34] Y. Huang, K. Xu, J. Han, and J. Lam, “Flight control design using
extended state observer and non-smooth feedback,” in Proc. of the 40th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, (Orlando, Florida, USA), pp. 223–228,
December 2001.

[35] W. Wang, S. Pan, and F. Wang, “A comparison study of two disturbance

rejection control strategies for hydraulic position servo systems,” in Proc. of the
30th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, (Busan,
Korea), pp. 1993–1996, November 2004.

[36] R. Zhang and C. Tong, “Torsional vibration control of the main drive
system of a rolling mill based on an extended state observer and linear quadratic
control,” Journal of Vibration and Control, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 313–327, 2006.
 57

[37] Chi-Man Kwan, “Sliding Mode Control of Linear Systems with Mismatched
Uncertainties*”, Automatica, vol.31, no.2, pp. 303-307, 1995.

[38] Youcef-Toumi K., and Ito, O., 1987, “Controller Design for Systems With
Unknown Nonlinear Dynamics”’ Proc. Of ACC, Minnesota, pp. 836-844.

[39] Youcef-Toumi K., and Iti, O., 1990, “A Time Delay Controller for Systems
with Unknown Dynamics,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, 112(1), pp. 133-
142.

[40] M. s. Mahmoud and N. F. Al-Muthairi,l‘Design of robust controller for time-

delay systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 39, 995-999, 1994.

[41] K. K. Shyu and J. J. Yan, “Robust stability of uncertain timedelay systems

and its stabilization by variable structure control,” Int. J . Control, 57, 237-246,
1993.

[42] J. Chen, D. Xu and B. Shafai, “On sufficient conditions for stability

independent of delay,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 40, 1675-1 6780, 1995.

[43] T. Mori, E. Noldiis and M. Kuwahara, “A way to stabilize linear systems

with delayed state,” Atomntica, 19, 571-573, 1983.

[44] J. Chen and H. A. Latchman, “Frequency sweeping tests for stability

independent of delay,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., IEEE Trans. Automat.
Contr., 40. 1640-1645, 1995.

[45] M. s. Mahmoud and N. F. Al-Muthairi,l‘Design of robust controller for time-

delay systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 39, 995-999, 1994.

[46] Zhong, Q,-C., and Rees, D., 2004, “Control of Uncertain LTI Systems
Based on an Uncertainty and Disturbance Estimator”, ASME, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas.,
Control, 126(4), pp. 905-910.

[47] S.E.Talole,S.B.Phadke, 2008, “Model Following Sliding Mode Control

Based on Uncertain and Disturbance Estimator”, ASME, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas.,
Control, 126(4), to be published.

[48] P. Garnell, Guided Weapon Control Systems. Oxford, England:

Pergamon press, 2nd ed., 1980.

[49] M. P. Horton, “Autopilots for tactical missiles: An overview,” Proc. Instn

Mech. Engrs, Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, vol. 209, pp. 127–139,
1995.
 58

[50] P. Zarchan, Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance, vol. 199 of Progress
in Astronautics and Aeronautics. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc., 4th ed., 2002.

[51] R. A. Nichols, R. T. Reichert, and W. J. Rugh, “Gain scheduling for h-

infinity controllers: A flight control example,” IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, vol. 1, pp. 69–78, June 1993.

[52] G. J. Balas and A. K. Packard, “Design of robust, time-varying controllers

for missile autopilots,” Proc. of the 1st IEEE Conference on Control Applications,
pp. 104–110, Sep 1992.

[53] R. T. Reichert, “Robust autopilot design using µ synthesis,” Proc of

American Control Conference, pp. 2368–2373, May 1990.

[54] E. Devaud, H. Siguerdidjane, and S. Font, “Some control strategies for a

high angle of attack missile autopilot,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 8, pp.
885–892, 2000.

[55] V. Upreti, S. E. Talole, and S. B. Phadke, “Predictive estimation and

control based missile autopilot design,” AIAA Paper 2004-5331, AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 16-19 August 2004, Providence,
Rhode Island, USA.

[56] D.-G. Choe and J.-H. Kim, “Pitch autopilot design using model following
adaptive sliding mode control,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol.
25, no. 4, pp. 826–829, 2004.

[57] S.E.Talole,S.B.Phadke, 2008, “Robust Missile Autopilot Design using

Extended State Observer”, Intl Conf on Avionics Systems, RCI,Hyd.,India.

[58] Dongkyoung Chwa and Jin Young Choi, “Observer-Based Control for Tail-
Controlled Skid-to-Turn Missiles Using a Parametric Affine Model”, IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 12, NO. 1,
JANUARY 2004 pp 167-175.

[59] M. Innocenti and A. Thukral, “Simultaneous reaction jet and aerodynamic

control of missile systems,” in AIAA-93-3739 Guidance, Navigation, and Contr.
Conf., Monterey, CA, Aug. 1993.

[60] M. Innocenti, “Preliminary missile autopilot using reaction jet and

aerodynamic control,” AFOSR Summer Faculty Program, Wright Lab., Armament
Directorate, Eglin AFB, Final Rep. RDL-33, Aug. 1992.
 59

[61] Ajay Thukral and Mario Innocenti, “A Sliding Mode Missile Pitch Autopilot
Synthesis for High Angle of Attack Maneuvering”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 6, NO. 3, MAY 1998 pp. 359-371

[62] M. Polites, D. Groll, and J. Evers, “Recent events in guidance, navigation,

and control,” in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Contr. Conf., San Diego, CA,
July 1996.

[63] M. Innocenti and A. Thukral, “Variable structure autopilot for high angle of
attack maneuvers, using on–off thrusters,” in 33rd Contr. Decision Conf., Lake
Buena Vista, FL, Dec. 1994.