Automatica 116 (2020) 108921

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Brief paper

Conditioned Super-Twisting Algorithm for systems with saturated

control action✩
∗
Richard Seeber a , , Markus Reichhartinger b
a
Christian Doppler Laboratory for Model Based Control of Complex Test Bed Systems, Institute of Automation and Control,
Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
b
Institute of Automation and Control, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The super-twisting algorithm is a robust sliding-mode control law, which in the case of a saturated
Received 29 November 2018 control input suffers from a windup effect. This contribution proposes a modified control law that
Received in revised form 23 January 2020 is obtained by mitigating windup by means of the conditioning technique. Closed-loop stability is
Accepted 21 February 2020
analyzed for bounded and Lipschitz continuous perturbations acting on a first-order linear time-
Available online xxxx
invariant plant. Advantages compared to existing approaches are demonstrated both analytically, in
Keywords: terms of stability conditions, and numerically, in the course of simulations. An experiment considering
Sliding-mode control the control of a servomotor demonstrates the practical usability, straightforward implementation and
Robust control simple tuning of the proposed controller.
Control input saturation © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Windup
Conditioning technique
Servomotors

1. Introduction A well-known second order sliding mode control law is the

One of the main goals of feedback control is reducing the
influence of disturbances. Robust control techniques offer several
different approaches to achieve this. Among these, sliding mode
control techniques stand out by being able, in theory, to fully
compensate for certain classes of unknown disturbances, such as
signals with bounded amplitude and/or slope, see, e.g., Shtessel,
Edwards, Fridman, and Levant (2014). All of these techniques
have in common that a function of the plant’s state, the so-
called sliding variable, is driven to zero and is kept there re-
gardless of the disturbance’s behavior. This way, the closed-loop
performance becomes independent of the disturbance.
In practice, limitations of the control input, which typically
occur in the form of a saturation function, have to be taken into
account. However, several approaches, especially higher order
sliding mode controllers, require additional modifications to deal
with these limitations, see, e.g., Ferrara and Rubagotti (2009) and
Incremona, Rubagotti, and Ferrara (2017) for some works in that
regard.
✩ The financial support by the Christian Doppler Research Association, the
Austrian Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs and the National Foun-
dation for Research, Technology and Development is gratefully acknowledged.
The material in this paper was not presented at any conference. This paper was
recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Luca Zaccarian
under the direction of Editor Daniel Liberzon.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: richard.seeber@tugraz.at (R. Seeber),
markus.reichhartinger@tugraz.at (M. Reichhartinger).
Super-Twisting Algorithm (STA). Denoting the control error by e
and the control signal by u, it is given by
√
u = k1 |e| sign(e) + v, (1a)
v̇ = k2 sign(e) (1b)
with positive parameters k1 and k2 , and the state variable v . Since
initially being proposed in Levant (1993), it has widely been used
for robust control purposes in both, simulations, see, e.g., Goel
and Swarup (2017), Plestan, Evangelista, Puleston, and Guenoune
(2018), Ruiz-Zea, Jimenez-Rodriguez, Castaneda, Loukianov, and
Sanchez-Torres (2018), and experiments, e.g., in Derafa, Benal-
legue, and Fridman (2012), Elyoussef, Martins, Pieri, and Moreno
(2014), Reichhartinger, Golkani, and Horn (2015), Vazquez, Col-
lado, and Fridman (2014). Its properties, such as closed-loop
stability conditions and convergence times, have also been exten-
sively studied, see, e.g., Levant (1998), Moreno and Osorio (2012),
Orlov, Aoustin, and Chevallereau (2011) and Dávila, Moreno, and
Fridman (2009), Polyakov and Poznyak (2009), Seeber and Horn
(2019b), Utkin (2013), respectively.
When the STA is used along with an actuator saturation,
it can exhibit a windup phenomenon due to the integrator in
(1b). While the problem of computing the domain of attrac-
tion without anti-windup measures is considered in literature,
see Behera, Chalanga, and Bandyopadhyay (2018), the windup
deteriorates the closed-loop performance in practice. To prevent
this, a modification of the algorithm itself is required. For linear
controllers, a number of techniques are available for this purpose,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2020.108921
0005-1098/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 R. Seeber and M. Reichhartinger / Automatica 116 (2020) 108921

see, e.g., Hippe (2006) for an overview, but to the best knowledge given by U > 0 and the control input before saturation is denoted
of the authors their application or extension to the STA in the by u. One can see that u∗ satisfies |u∗ | ≤ U. The perturbation w
presence of disturbances has not been analyzed before. For the and its time-derivative ẇ are assumed to be bounded by
super-twisting algorithm, a few approaches in that regard have
recently been proposed in literature, see Castillo, Steinberger, |w| ≤ W , |ẇ| ≤ L, (6)
Fridman, Moreno, and Horn (2016a, 2016b) and Golkani, Koch, with the maximum perturbation amplitude W and the perturba-
Reichhartinger, and Horn (2018). For each approach it is proven tion’s Lipschitz constant L being non-negative constants.
that its application to a first-order integrating plant leads to Starting from any initial state x0 , the state x is to be steered
a globally asymptotically (even finite-time) stable closed loop. towards some given reference r, which is assumed to be bounded
However, the modifications also change the behavior of the con- by
troller when the actuator saturation is inactive. One of the mod-
ifications, which is based on switching from a relay controller | r | ≤ R. (7)
to the STA, furthermore may introduce a discontinuity into the
For this task to be feasible, the assumptions
otherwise continuous control signal.
The present paper contributes a modification of the STA, which a ≥ 0, (8a)
does not have these drawbacks, and a stability analysis of its
application to a first-order linear plant, which includes the first- U > W + aR (8b)
order integrator as a special case. In particular, the proposed are made. If (8a) or (8b) do not hold, there exist either initial
control law yields a continuous control signal and deviates from states, e.g., x0 = −a−1 (U + W ), or disturbance and reference
the unmodified STA only when the control input saturation is ac- values, e.g., w = −W , r = R, respectively, which make it
tive. It is constructed using the conditioning technique proposed impossible to steer x towards r.
in Hanus, Kinnaert, and Henrotte (1987) and is therefore called
the conditioned super-twisting algorithm (conditioned STA). 4. Conditioned super-twisting algorithm
The paper is structured as follows: After introducing some
definitions and notations in Section 2, the considered problem is
For the purpose of steering x towards r and keeping it there
stated in Section 3. The conditioned STA is derived in Section 4,
despite the perturbation w , the super-twisting control law
and its stability properties are analyzed in Section 5. The ap-
1
proach is then compared to existing approaches in Section 6 and u = k1 ⌊r − x⌉ 2 + v, (9a)
applied in the course of an experiment in Section 7. Section 8,
finally, draws conclusions and gives a brief outlook. An Appendix v̇ = k2 ⌊r − x⌉ 0
(9b)
contains proofs of lemmas and propositions. may be used. It can be interpreted as a non-linear PI-type con-
trol law and may hence suffer from a windup effect when the
2. Preliminaries and notation control input u is saturated. To prevent this windup, the condi-
tioning technique proposed in Hanus et al. (1987) is applied. This
A few notational conventions and definitions are first dis- technique consists of computing a modified, so-called realizable
cussed. Throughout the paper, common use of the abbreviation
reference r ∗ , such that applying r ∗ to the controller instead of r
⌊y⌉p = |y|p sign(y) (2) yields u = u∗ . As argued in Hanus et al. (1987), this mitigates
0
windup, because the controller with reference r ∗ then behaves
is made. In particular, ⌊y⌉ denotes the sign of y. It is worth as if no actuator saturation were present.
pointing out that the relations From (9a) one can see that the realizable reference r ∗ satisfies
d⌊y⌉p d|y|p ⌉ 21
= p |y|p−1 , = p ⌊y⌉p−1 (3) u∗ = k1 r ∗ − x + v.
⌊
(10)
dy dy
hold for all y ̸ = 0. The so-called conditioned control law is then obtained by replac-
The saturation function, whose output is limited to ±M with ing r by r ∗ in the dynamic part of the controller; (9b) is thus
M > 0, is denoted by satM and is defined as replaced by
⌉0
v̇ = k2 r ∗ − x .
{ ⌊
y |y| ≤ M (11)
satM (y) := (4)
M ⌊y⌉0 |y| > M . By subtracting v and taking the sign on both sides of (10), one
The time derivative of a function y(t) is denoted by ẏ(t). The so- can see that ⌊r ∗ − x⌉0 = ⌊u∗ − v⌉0 holds. Hence, the conditioned
lutions of all systems of differential equations with discontinuous STA is obtained as1
right-hand side, such as, e.g., (1b), are understood in the sense of 1
u = k1 ⌊r − x⌉ 2 + v, (12a)
Filippov, see Filippov (1988). ⌉0
v̇ = k2 u − v ∗
,
⌊
A solution of a system is called finite-time stable, if it is stable in (12b)
the sense of Lyapunov and all trajectories starting in some vicinity
u = satU (u).
∗
(12c)
of that solution converge to it in finite time. The solution is called
globally finite-time stable, if this is true for all trajectories. Fig. 1 depicts block diagrams of the classical (unconditioned)
and the conditioned STA. One can see that the conditioned STA is
3. Problem statement straightforward to implement, because, compared to the classical
STA, only the term in the sign function of the controller’s dynamic
Consider a first-order plant of the form part needs to be changed.
ẋ = −ax + u∗ + w (5a) In practical implementations, the super-twisting control law
typically is implemented in a discrete-time environment. The
u∗ = satU (u) (5b)
with a constant parameter a, the state variable x, the saturated 1 It is noteworthy that the conditioned control law (12) is obtained without
control input u∗ , and a perturbation w . The control input bound is explicitly calculating r ∗ .
 R. Seeber and M. Reichhartinger / Automatica 116 (2020) 108921 3

Fig. 1. Block diagrams of classical STA (9) and conditioned STA (12).

simplest approach for this purpose is forward Euler discretization.
For more systematic ways of discretizing the STA, which maintain
several desirable properties of the continuous time controller, the
reader is referred to Brogliato, Polyakov, and Efimov (2020), Koch
and Reichhartinger (2019) and references therein.
5. Stability analysis
Corollary 2. If the positive parameters k1 , k2 and the non-negative
Lipschitz constant L satisfy (17), then system (16) with |δ| ≤ L is
globally finite-time stable.
Proof. Without input saturation, u = u∗ always holds. Thus,
Proposition 1 guarantees finite-time convergence of all trajecto-
ries to the Lyapunov-stable origin. □

In order to investigate the stability properties of the closed 5.2. Saturated control input
loop, the control error e := r − x and abbreviations ∆ := w − ar
and δ := ∆ ˙ = ẇ are introduced. The control error is then
The closed loop with control input saturation is now consid-
governed by the differential equation
ered. In this case, the closed loop formed by the interconnection
ė = −ae − u∗ − ∆. (13) of plant (5) and controller (12) in terms of the state variables (15)
is given by
One can see that ∆ acts as a disturbance on the error system;
according to (6), (7) it and its time-derivative δ are bounded by
1
ẋ1 = −ax1 + satU (x2 − ∆ − k1 ⌊x1 ⌉ 2 ) + ∆ (18a)
|∆| ≤ W + aR, |δ| ≤ L.
⌉0
(14)
⌊ 1
ẋ2 = −k2 x2 − ∆ − satU (x2 − ∆ − k1 ⌊x1 ⌉ ) 2 + δ. (18b)
5.1. Unsaturated control input The following theorem gives conditions that guarantee global
finite-time stability of the closed loop with the conditioned con-
Finite-time stability of the closed loop without control input
troller and with saturation:
saturation, i.e., for u = u∗ , is first shown. The obtained results are
then used to prove global finite-time stability of the closed loop
Theorem 3 (Stability of the conditioned STA). Let the perturbation
with control input saturation.
w(t) and the reference r satisfy (6), (7) with given non-negative
Introducing the state variables
bounds W , L, and R. Suppose that the plant parameter a and the
x1 := −e = x − r , x2 := v + ∆, (15) control input bound U satisfy (8) and that the controller parameters
k1 , k2 fulfill the inequalities
the closed loop in the case u = u∗ is given by √
1 U + W + aR
ẋ1 = −ax1 − k1 ⌊x1 ⌉ + x2 ,
2 (16a) k1 > 2k2 , k2 > L. (19)
U − W − aR
ẋ2 = −k2 ⌊x1 ⌉ + δ.
0
(16b)
Then, the origin of the closed-loop system (18) or, equivalently, the
Stability of this system is investigated in Orlov et al. (2011), and solution x(t) = r, v (t) = ar − w (t) of the interconnection of plant
for a = 0 in Moreno and Osorio (2012) and Seeber and Horn (5) and controller (12) is globally finite-time stable.
(2017), for example. Here, the Lyapunov based approach pro-
posed in Seeber and Horn (2017) is used with a little modification Remark 4. Condition (19) is equivalent to the inequalities
to obtain the following stability condition.
k21 − 2k2
W < U − aR, L < k2 , (20)
Proposition 1. Suppose that the perturbation w (t) satisfies (6) and k21 + 2k2
that the parameters k1 and k2 satisfy which give an upper bound on the perturbation amplitude W in
√
k1 > k 2 + L, k2 > L. (17) terms of control input bound U and maximum reference value R.

Suppose, furthermore, that for all trajectories of the closed-loop
system formed by the interconnection of plant (5) and controller (12)
there exists a time instant T , after which the control saturation is
inactive, i.e., such that u(t) = u∗ (t) holds for all t ≥ T . Then, x1 (t)
and x2 (t) as defined in (15) converge to the origin in finite time, and
the origin is Lyapunov-stable.
Proof. Given in the Appendix. □
The assumptions of Proposition 1 are stated in a rather in-
volved fashion in order to enable its use in the following section,
where, essentially, the existence of the time instant T will be
proven. The following corollary, which is an immediate conse-
quence, restates the stability result more concisely in terms of
system (16) without control input saturation.
Remark 5. The conditioned STA (12) is independent of the pa-
rameter a. Therefore, it is also robust against uncertain knowledge
of this parameter, as long as all possible values of a satisfy (19)
or, equivalently, (20).
√
Remark 6. Note that k1 > 2k2 is a necessary condition for
the theorem’s conditions to be fulfilled. Since large values of k1
are known to lead to increased chattering, this condition seems
restrictive. In Pérez-Ventura and Fridman (2019), √ it is shown,
however, that the parameter setting k1 ≈ 2 k2 minimizes
the amplitude of chattering with second-order parasitic actua-
tor dynamics. Furthermore, Zhang and Reger (2018) show that
√
having k1 ≥ 2 k2 is desirable if the impact of brief violations
of the assumed bound on the disturbance’s time-derivative is to
4 R. Seeber and M. Reichhartinger / Automatica 116 (2020) 108921

Remark 8. One can see from this proof that under the conditions
of the theorem, the set N is a domain of attraction also for the
classical (i.e., unconditioned) STA (9) applied to the plant (5) with
control input saturation. This is obvious from the fact that, for any
trajectories starting in N , the relations |u| ≤ U and, thus, u = u∗
hold for all time.

6. Comparison to existing approaches

In this section the obtained results are compared to some

results from literature. Since the problem is studied there only
for a = 0, i.e., for the first-order integrating plant
1
Fig. 2. Sets M, N from (22) in the k1 ⌊e⌉ 2 -v plane for a = 0.
ẋ = u∗ + w, (24)
the comparisons are also restricted to this case. A plant with
be minimized. Both settings satisfy the necessary condition, and a > 0 will be considered in the course of the experiment in the
the former yields perturbation bounds of up to one third of the following section.
control input bound. The conditions of Theorem 3 for a = 0 are equivalent to the
In order to prove Theorem 3, an auxiliary result is shown first. conditions
It characterizes the behavior of e, v and u in terms of invariant k21 − 2k2
sets, which are guaranteed to be entered after a finite time. For W < U, L < k2 (25)
k21 + 2k2
this purpose, the inequalities
1 on the perturbation bounds.
a |e| + k1 |e| 2 ≤ U + W + aR, (21a)
|v| ≤ U , (21b) 6.1. Original super-twisting algorithm
⏐ 1
⏐
|u| = ⏐k1 ⌊e⌉ 2 + v ⏐ ≤ U (21c)
⏐ ⏐
The STA as originally proposed in Levant (1993) includes a
measure to keep the control input bounded. The control law in
are considered, and with their help, the sets this case is given by
{ }
M := (e, v ) : (21a) and (21b) hold ,
1
(22a) u = k1 ⌊r − x⌉ 2 + v, (26a)
k2 ⌊r − x⌉0
{ } {
N := (e, v ) ∈ M : (21c) holds ⊆ M (22b) |u| ≤ U
v̇ = (26b)
−u |u| > U .
are defined. Fig. 2 illustrates these sets for a = 0.
The following lemma shows that, subject to certain conditions For this approach, a sufficient stability condition is given in Sht-
on the parameters k1 , k2 , both sets M and N are forward invari- essel et al. (2014, Theorem 4.5), which is equivalent to the per-
ant and finite-time attractive, i.e., trajectories of the closed-loop turbation bounds
system enter them after a finite time and then stay there forever.
√
2(k2 +L)2
k1 − k2 −L
W < U, L < k2 . (27)
Lemma 7. Let the perturbation w (t) and the reference r satisfy (6),
√
2(k2 +L)2
(7) with given non-negative bounds W , L, and R. Suppose that a and k1 + k2 −L
U satisfy (8) and consider the system formed by the interconnection
One may verify that these conditions are more restrictive than
of (5) and (12) or, equivalently, the closed-loop system (18). Then,
the conditions (25) for the conditioned STA.
the following statements hold:

(a) If k1 and k2 are positive, then the set M is forward invariant 6.2. Saturated super-twisting algorithm
and any trajectory enters M in finite time.
(b) If k1 and k2 satisfy (19), then the set N is forward invariant In Castillo et al. (2016b), the so-called Saturated Super-
and any trajectory enters N in finite time. Twisting Algorithm (saturated STA) is proposed for dealing with a
constrained control input. It consists in applying a relay controller
Proof. Given in the Appendix. □ up to the first time instant T when the switching condition
Once trajectories stay in the set N , the control input saturation
|r − x(T )| ≤ γ 2 with a non-negative switching level parameter
is inactive, i.e., |u| ≤ U holds, due to (21c). The behavior of γ is satisfied. Starting at t = T , the STA (9) with v (T ) = 0 is then
the trajectories in this set is, hence, determined by the stability applied to the plant. The control law may be written as
properties of the closed loop without saturation, i.e., of system
{
U ⌊r − x⌉0 t<T
(16). Using these considerations, Theorem 3 can now be proven. u= 1 (28a)
k1 ⌊r − x⌉ 2 + v t ≥ T,
Proof of Theorem 3. Since k1 and k2 satisfy (19), all trajecto-
t<T
{
0
ries enter the forward invariant set N in finite time by virtue v̇ = (28b)
of Lemma 7. In this set, |u| ≤ U and, thus, u = u∗ holds; k2 ⌊r − x⌉0 t≥T
furthermore, one has T = inf{t : |r − x(t)| ≤ γ 2 } (28c)
√ √
k1 > 2k2 > k 2 + L, k2 > L. (23) with initial condition v (0) = 0.
Thus, the conditions of Proposition 1 are fulfilled and any trajec- Closed-loop stability with this controller is proven in Castillo
tory x1 (t), x2 (t) of system (18) or, equivalently, of the interconnec- et al. (2016b) using a Lyapunov function from a family of
tion of (5) and (12), converges to the origin in finite time. System quadratic functions that was originally proposed in Moreno and
(18) is therefore globally finite-time stable. □ Osorio (2012). In Seeber and Horn (2019) it is shown how to
 R. Seeber and M. Reichhartinger / Automatica 116 (2020) 108921 5

select this Lyapunov function in an optimal way. A prerequisite

for the existence of such a Lyapunov function are the necessary
conditions
{√ √
U k22 − (4k2 − k21 )2 k1 < 2 k2
W ≤ , L< √ (29)
2 k2 k2 ≥ 2 k2 ,
which are also sufficient if either W or L are zero.
The restriction of perturbation amplitudes to half the control
input bound in (29) is relaxed in Castillo et al. (2016a) and Seeber
and Horn (2019a). The former uses an estimator to reconstruct
the perturbation before switching to the STA. Its parameters need
to be chosen depending on the initial state, however, which
makes this estimator-based concept more difficult to implement
in practice. The latter proposes a different Lyapunov function and
obtains a similar bound on W as the conditioned STA, but subject
to a more restrictive condition on the Lipschitz constant L. In the
interest of conciseness, these two approaches are not considered
in the course of the comparison.
Fig. 3. Maximum perturbation amplitude W for L = 0 (top) and Lipschitz
6.3. Damped super-twisting algorithm
constant L for W = 0 (bottom) of different concepts as a function of the
parameter k1 .
In Golkani et al. (2018), a damping term is added to the
integrator of the STA in order to prevent windup. Although orig-
inally also called a saturated super-twisting algorithm, it will be
referred to as the Damped Super-Twisting Algorithm (damped 6.4. Comparison of perturbation bounds
STA) here, in order to avoid confusion. Its control law is given
The bounds on the perturbation amplitude W and Lipschitz
by
constant L imposed by the different approaches are compared
1
u = satη (k1 ⌊r − x⌉ 2 ) + v (30a) in Fig. 3. Its top part shows the upper bound on W for L = 0,
while the bottom part depicts the upper bound on L for W = 0.
v̇ = k2 ⌊r − x⌉ − k3 v. 0
(30b) Note that for all except the proposed approach, the bounds on
with positive parameters η and k3 in addition to k1 and k2 . If the W and L depend on each other, i.e., for a larger value of L the
parameters satisfy bound W typically will be lower, and vice-versa. One can see
that the saturated STA and the damped STA are limited in terms
k2
η+ ≤ U, (31) of permissible perturbations, but
√ are the only ones that cover
k3 the parameter region k1 < 2k2 . The original STA and
√ the
then |u| ≤ U holds for all times. conditioned STA are not limited in this regard, if k1 ≥ 2k2 is
The stability proof in Golkani et al. (2018) imposes several selected large enough.
conditions on the parameters, which are not repeated here due to
their complexity. For comparison purposes, a necessary condition 6.5. Simulation results
for them to be satisfied will be derived instead. The conditions
in Golkani et al. (2018, eq. (11) and (15)) require k2 to fulfill the The proposed conditioned STA is compared to the existing
inequality approaches outlined above as well as to an STA without any anti-
windup in the course of a simulation. Note that its purpose is
9(k3 W + L)2 k21 solely to demonstrate the approaches’ handling of comparatively
k2 > 4(k3 W + L) + + . (32)
2k21 2 large perturbations; a comprehensive performance comparison
with different perturbations and parameter settings is beyond its
Furthermore, according to (31), the inequality k2 < Uk3 has to scope.
be satisfied. Solving both inequalities for k3 and combining them For this purpose, the plant (5) with a = 0 and U = 5 is
leads to considered. The signal w (t) = −0.72U + 0.08U sin(4.5t) is used
as a perturbation. It satisfies (6) with W = 0.8U and L = 1.8.
√
k1 7k21 + 18k2 − 4k21
L k2
− > k3 > . (33) The STA’s parameters are chosen as k1 = 7 and k2 = 2. For the
9W W U saturated STA, the switching level γ = 0, and for the damped STA,
Rewriting this inequality yields the combined bound the parameters k3 = k2 (U − η)−1 and η = 0.7U are selected. The
√ reference r = 10 is used.
W L k1 7k21 + 18k2 − 4k21 Fig. 4 shows simulation results comparing the STA without
+ < (34) anti-windup, the proposed conditioned STA, and the three ap-
U k2 9k2 proaches from literature. Though only the conditioned STA is
on perturbation amplitude W and Lipschitz constant L. It should proven to be stable for this parameter setting and disturbance,
be highlighted that satisfying this bound is necessary but not all approaches except the damped STA appear to converge. The
sufficient for finding parameters fulfilling the stability conditions latter is restricted to smaller perturbations in principle, due to
given in Golkani et al. (2018). the fact that the damping in (30b) limits the maximum amplitude
Note that, unlike the other approaches, the control law (30) and change rate of v . One can see that without anti-windup
never behaves like the unmodified super-twisting algorithm. the state variable x exhibits a significant overshoot. The orig-
Therefore, depending on the choice of k3 and η, the meaning inal STA prevents this overshoot, but exhibits a comparatively
of the parameters k1 and k2 may not be fully comparable to slow convergence to the reference instead. The saturated STA
the other approaches. This should be kept in mind also when and the proposed approach, on the other hand, maintain a fast
comparing the perturbation bounds in (34) later on. convergence speed.
6 R. Seeber and M. Reichhartinger / Automatica 116 (2020) 108921

Table 1
Parameters of the mathematical model (35) for the experimental setup depicted
in Fig. 5.
Parameter Symbol Unit Value
Motor inertia Im kg m2 3.87 × 10−7
Load inertia Ia kg m2 1.60 × 10−3
Gear ratio ηg – 70
Motor torque constant km Vs 7.67 × 10−3
Winding resistance Rw  2.44

Table 2
Parameters of the control law (39) as well as maximum control input and
reference speed used in the experiments.
Parameter Symbol Unit Value
Maximum motor voltage U V 8
Maximum desired speed ωd,max rad
√ s
−1
4
STA gain k1 V s −1 9
STA integrator gain k2 V s−1 20

Fig. 4. Plant state x and control input u∗ for r = 10 without anti-windup,

with the proposed conditioned STA, the saturated STA, the original anti-windup
concept, and the damped STA for a disturbance with amplitude W = 0.8U.
yields system (5) with the parameter
k2m ηg2
a= ≈ 33.79 s−1 (38)
IRw
and the disturbance w accounting for any parameter uncertain-
ties and disturbances that are present in the real setup. Hence,
the conditioned super-twisting control law as given in (12), i.e.,
√
IRw 1
u = k1 ⌊ωd − ω⌉ 2 + v, (39a)
km ηg
⌉0
v̇ = k2 u∗ − v ,
⌊
(39b)
u∗ = satU (u), (39c)
Fig. 5. Laboratory setup consisting of dc-motor and load. can be applied. The reference ωd for the angular velocity ω is
assumed to be bounded by |ωd | ≤ ωd,max for some positive
constant ωd,max .
7. Application to DC-motor speed control The maximal control input U and reference angular velocity
ωd,max , as well as the selected controller parameters k1 , k2 are
listed in Table 2. The latter were tuned experimentally, taking into
In order to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed
account the inequality
algorithm in practice, the experimental setup shown in Fig. 5 is √
used. It consists of a dc-motor with input voltage u∗ , to which U + aR
k1 > 2k2 , (40)
a load is attached via a gear box. The control objective is for U − aR
the load’s angular velocity ω to track a given constant reference which is necessary for the conditions of Theorem 3 to hold.
signal ωd . A mathematical model of the setup is obtained by the Therein, the maximum reference value R for the state x is given
application of the principle of angular momentum, i.e., by
k2m ηg2 km ηg IRw
I ω̇ = − ω+ u∗ , (35) R= ωd,max ≈ 0.0636 V s. (41)
Rw Rw km ηg

where km , ηg and Rw denote the dc-motor’s torque constant, the
gear ratio, and the resistance of the dc-motor’s coil, respectively.
The total moment of inertia I is given by
I = ηg2 Im + Ia ,
with Im and Ia being the motor and additional load inertia, re-
spectively. Friction effects, mainly introduced by the bearings and
the slip rings, which are used for signal transmission between
load and motor, are neglected. Note that this does not change the
model structure and has only a minor impact on the final model’s
parameters. The parameters of the setup are given in Table 1.
Rewriting the dynamics captured by the model (35) in terms
of the state variable
IRw
x := ω (37)
k m ηg
According to (20), this tuning permits for a maximum perturba-
tion amplitude W and Lipschitz constant L of
k21 − 2k2
W < U − aR ≈ 0.563 V, (42a)
(36) k21 + 2k2
L < k2 = 20 V s−1 . (42b)
In order to demonstrate how windup is mitigated by applying
the proposed concept, a temporary blockade of the rotating load
is considered. To realistically simulate this event without actually
mechanically blocking the rotor, which is difficult to do in a
reproducible way, a voltage of zero is temporarily applied to the
motor instead of the control signal u∗ .
The conditioned STA and an STA without anti-windup are
applied to this setup using the parameters in Table 2. For this
purpose, both control laws are implemented in a discrete-time
environment with a sampling time of Ts = 5 ms and the forward
 R. Seeber and M. Reichhartinger / Automatica 116 (2020) 108921 7

technique. The proposed approach’s main advantages are its sim-

Fig. 6. Experimentally obtained angular velocity ω and control signal u∗ ; in the
shaded region (1 s ≤ t ≤ 6 s) the motor voltage was set to zero to simulate a
blocked rotor.
ple implementation, its easy parameter tuning based on a simple
stability condition, its continuous control signal, and its ability to
handle any perturbation amplitude that is strictly upper-bounded
by the control input bound.
In simulations, the proposed approach’s performance was
shown to be comparable to a switching-based saturated super-
twisting algorithm, while being both easier to implement and
able to maintain a continuous control signal. Compared to other
approaches, superior performance was demonstrated in the form
of reduced overshoot, faster convergence and full utilization of
the available control input range.
In the course of an experiment, the blockade of a rotating load
tracking a constant reference speed was considered. The condi-
tioned super-twisting algorithm mitigates the resulting windup,
which otherwise leads to a large control deviation over a pro-
longed period of time. It is furthermore the only approach among
those compared, for which stability is proven with the plant
considered in the experiment.
The conditioning technique can straightforwardly be applied
also for nonlinear plants as well as to generalizations of the super-
twisting algorithm and to other higher order sliding mode control
laws. Future research may focus on studying the stability of these
approaches in the presence of perturbations.
Appendix. Proofs

Proof of Proposition 1. Since u = u∗ , the closed-loop dynamics

Euler method. The angular speed ω is obtained by differenti-
are governed by (16) with |δ| ≤ L. As in Seeber and Horn
ating the incremental encoder’s angular position signal using a
s (2017), introduce the state vector x := [x1 x2 ]T , select a positive
linear differentiator with transfer function G(s) = 1+τ . The
s constant α < 1 such that
lag element with time constant τ = 10 ms, the discretization, √
and parasitic unmodeled dynamics lead to a small amount of α k1 > k2 + L (A.1)
chattering, i.e., high frequency oscillations with small amplitude,
and consider the Lyapunov function candidate
see Pérez-Ventura and Fridman (2019).
The angular speed ω and the control signal u∗ during such
⎧ √
⎨2√x2 + 3α k1 x1 − x2 x ∈ R
⎪ 2 2 2
an experiment are shown in Fig. 6. In steady state, both the
⎪
classical and the conditioned STA exhibit similar chattering of the V (x) = 2 x2 − 3α 2 k2 x + x −x ∈ R (A.2)
2 1 1 2
control signal u∗ , which is due to the aforementioned discretiza-
⎪
⎪
3 |x2 | otherwise
⎩
tion effects and parasitic dynamics. In the shaded time interval,
i.e., for 1 s ≤ t ≤ 6 s, the rotor is blocked and the angular with the set R being given by
speed thus is zero despite the controller output being at its limits. √
R := {x | x1 ≥ 0, x2 ≤ α k1 x1 }. (A.3)
This is expected, of course, because the blockade amounts to
a perturbation that is larger than any that the controller could Due to symmetry reasons, only the first and the third case in (A.2)
handle. need to be considered when computing the time derivative of V
After the blockade, the proposed conditioned controller along the system trajectories. One may verify that from these two
quickly recovers, while without anti-windup a significant control cases, the result only depends on a in the first case, i.e., if x ∈ R.
deviation occurs over a prolonged period of time. The small In this case, V̇ is bounded by
undershoot that still persists in the former case is outweighed √
by the concept’s simple implementation. For example, it is not 3α 2 k21 (x2 − k1x1 − ax1 ) − 2x2 (k2 − δ )
V̇ = k2 − δ + √
straightforward to handle the considered scenario in the switch- x22 + 3α 2 k21 x1
ing condition of the saturated STA, since it would have to switch √
back to the relay controller during the blockade. Furthermore, the 3α 2 k21 (x2 − k1 x1 ) − 2x2 (k2 − δ )
≤ k2 − δ + . (A.4)
stability proofs of the other approaches presented in Section 6
√
x22 + 3α 2 k21 x1
are not applicable to the considered plant with a ̸ = 0, making
the proposed concept the only one that is actually proven to be This bound does not depend on a and is the same as obtained
stable for the considered plant. in Seeber and Horn (2017), where a = 0; hence, all further com-
putations that are done there stay valid. Consequently, one has
8. Conclusion and outlook V̇ < −c for some positive constant c. This guarantees Lyapunov
stability and finite-time convergence of the trajectories. □
The conditioned super-twisting algorithm, a variant of the
super-twisting algorithm for plants with a saturated control in- Proof of Lemma 7. To show forward invariance and finite-time
put, was presented. It avoids undesirable windup of the super- attractivity of M, i.e. statement (a), it will first be shown that
twisting algorithm’s integrator by means of the conditioning there exists a time T1 such that (21b) holds for all t > T1 . If
8 R. Seeber and M. Reichhartinger / Automatica 116 (2020) 108921

|v| > U, then v and v − u∗ have the same sign due to the fact k1 1
≤− |e|− 2 (U − W − aR) + k2 . (A.13)
that |u∗ | ≤ U. One thus obtains from (12b) 2
⌉0 Here, the fact is used that u, e, u∗ and u∗ − v have the same sign
v̇ = k2 u∗ − v = −k2 ⌊v⌉0 .
⌊
(A.5)
if (21b) is satisfied. Using (21a) one furthermore obtains
Clearly, if (21b) holds at any time instant t = T1 , it also holds 1

for all t ≥ T1 . Furthermore, such a T1 clearly exists, because k1 |e| 2 ≤ U + W + aR (A.14)

|v| decreases at a constant rate according to (A.5) until (21b) which yields
eventually holds.
Consider now the behavior of e for t ≥ T1 , i.e., suppose that d|u| k21 U − W − aR
≤− + k2 ≤ 0. (A.15)
|v| ≤ U holds. It will be shown that there exists T ≥ T1 such that dt 2 U + W + aR
the bound (21a) holds for all t ≥ T . To that end, two cases are Since |u| cannot increase when |u| = U, (21c) holds for all
distinguished. t ≥ T ≥ T1 if it holds for t = T . Thus, N is forward invariant.
Suppose first that |u| > U; then, using |v| ≤ U, one obtains The existence of such a time instant T is now shown by
from (12a) contradiction. Suppose that |u| > U for all t ≥ T1 . Then, the
⌊e⌉0 = ⌊u − v⌉0 = ⌊u⌉0 , (A.6) saturated control input u∗ is constant and v converges to this
constant in finite time. Once this is the case, v is constant and
i.e., the signs of e, u − v , and u coincide. Thus, differentiating |u| yields instead of (A.15) the inequality
d|e| d|u| k21 U − W − aR
= ⌊e⌉0 (−ae − u∗ − ∆) ≤− < 0. (A.16)
dt dt 2 U + W + aR
= −a |e| − ⌊u⌉ (u + ∆)0 ∗
Since |u| decreases at a rate bounded from above by a nega-
≤ −U + W + aR < 0 (A.7) tive constant, (21c) eventually holds at a finite time instant T .
This shows finite-time attractivity of N , and thus concludes the
holds, regardless of whether (21a) is satisfied or not. If on the
proof. □
other hand |u| ≤ U then one has u∗ = u, and thus, if (21a) is not
satisfied, one obtains References
d
|e| = ⌊e⌉0 (−ae − u − ∆) Behera, A. K., Chalanga, A., & Bandyopadhyay, B. (2018). A new geometric proof
dt
1 of super-twisting control with actuator saturation. Automatica, 87, 437–441.
= ⌊e⌉ (−ae − k1 ⌊e⌉ − v − ∆)
0 2 Brogliato, B., Polyakov, A., & Efimov, D. (2020). The implicit discretization
1 of the super-twisting sliding-mode control algorithm. IEEE Transactions on
≤ −a |e| − k1 |e| 2 + U + W + aR < 0. (A.8) Automatic Control.
Castillo, I., Steinberger, M., Fridman, L., Moreno, J., & Horn, M. (2016a). Saturated
This shows that |e| is non-increasing when (21a) does not super-twisting algorithm based on perturbation estimator. In 55th conference
hold; therefore, (21a), like (21b), holds for all t ≥ T if it holds on decision and control (pp. 7325–7328). IEEE.
for t = T , i.e., the set M is forward invariant. Castillo, I., Steinberger, M., Fridman, L., Moreno, J. A., & Horn, M. (2016b).
The existence of such a T is now shown by contradiction. Saturated super-twisting algorithm: Lyapunov based approach. In 14th
international workshop on variable structure systems (pp. 269–273).
Suppose that for all T relation (21a) does not hold for any t ∈
Dávila, A., Moreno, J. A., & Fridman, L. (2009). Optimal Lyapunov function selec-
[T1 , T ], i.e., that tion for reaching time estimation of super twisting algorithm. In Proceedings
1 of the 48th IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 8405–8410).
a |e(t)| + k1 |e(t)| 2 > U + W + aR (A.9) Derafa, L., Benallegue, A., & Fridman, L. (2012). Super twisting control algorithm
for the attitude tracking of a four rotors UAV. Journal of the Franklin Institute,
is fulfilled for all t in this interval. Then, e is clearly nonzero and
349(2), 685–699.
due to (A.7), the total time duration θ during which |u| > U holds Elyoussef, E. S., Martins, N. A., Pieri, E. R. D., & Moreno, U. F. (2014). PD-super-
is bounded by twisting second order sliding mode tracking control for a nonholonomic
|e(T1 )| wheeled mobile robot. In 19th IFAC world congress (pp. 3827–3832).
θ≤ . (A.10) Ferrara, A., & Rubagotti, M. (2009). A sub-optimal second order sliding mode con-
U − W − aR troller for systems with saturating actuators. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
For the remaining time T − T1 − θ , |u| ≤ U holds and, because Control, 54(5), 1082–1087.
Filippov, A. F. (1988). Differential equations with discontinuous right-hand side.
the sign of e by assumption is constant, one has Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
d( Goel, A., & Swarup, A. (2017). MIMO uncertain nonlinear system control via
v ⌊−e⌉0 = v̇ ⌊−e⌉0 = −k2
)
(A.11) adaptive high-order super twisting sliding mode and its application to
dt robotic manipulator. Journal of Control, Automation and Electrical Systems,
during this time. This yields the inequality 28(1), 36–49.
Golkani, M. A., Koch, S., Reichhartinger, M., & Horn, M. (2018). A novel saturated
v (T ) ⌊−e(T )⌉0 ≤ |v (T1 )| + θ k2 − k2 (T − θ − T1 ) super-twisting algorithm. Systems & Control Letters, 119, 52–56.
2k2 |e(T1 )| Hanus, R., Kinnaert, M., & Henrotte, J.-L. (1987). Conditioning technique, a general
≤ |v (T1 )| + − k2 (T − T1 ), (A.12) anti-windup and bumpless transfer method. Automatica, 23(6), 729–739.
U − W − aR Hippe, P. (2006). Windup in control: Its effects and their prevention. London, United
which for sufficiently large T contradicts (21b). Kingdom: Springer.
Incremona, G. P., Rubagotti, M., & Ferrara, A. (2017). Sliding mode control of
Now consider statement (b); to show forward invariance of
constrained nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(6),
N , suppose that (21a) and (21b) hold, and consider the time- 2965–2972.
derivative of |u| for |u| = U: Koch, S., & Reichhartinger, M. (2019). Discrete-time equivalents of the
( ) super-twisting algorithm. Automatica, 107, 190–199.
d|u| k1 − 12
⌉0
= − |e| (ae + u + ∆) + k2 u − v
∗
⌊u⌉0
⌊ ∗
Levant, A. (1993). Sliding order and sliding accuracy in sliding mode control.
dt 2 International Journal of Control, 58(6), 1247–1263.
Levant, A. (1998). Robust exact differentiation via sliding mode technique.
k1 1 k1 a 1
≤− |e|− 2 (|u| − W − aR) − ⌊e⌉ 2 ⌊u⌉0 + k2 Automatica, 34(3), 379–384.
2 2 Moreno, J. A., & Osorio, M. (2012). Strict Lyapunov functions for the
k1 − 12 k1 a 1 super-twisting algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 57(4),
=− |e| (U − W − aR) − |e| 2 + k2 1035–1040.
2 2
 R. Seeber and M. Reichhartinger / Automatica 116 (2020) 108921
Orlov, Y., Aoustin, Y., & Chevallereau, C. (2011). Finite time stabilization of a
perturbed double integrator–Part I: continuous sliding mode-based output
feedback synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 56(3), 614–618.
Pérez-Ventura, U., & Fridman, L. (2019). Design of super-twisting control gains:
A describing function based methodology. Automatica, 99, 175–180.
Plestan, F., Evangelista, C., Puleston, P., & Guenoune, I. (2018). Control of a
twin wind turbines system without wind velocity information. In 15th
international workshop on variable structure systems (pp. 150–155).
Polyakov, A., & Poznyak, A. (2009). Reaching time estimation for ‘‘super-twisting’’
second order sliding mode controller via Lyapunov function designing. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 54(8), 1951–1955.
Reichhartinger, M., Golkani, M. A., & Horn, M. (2015). Experimental evaluation
of observer-based throttle valve control using super-twisting algorithm. In
2015 European control conference (pp. 2144–2149).
Ruiz-Zea, C. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, E., Castaneda, J. M. C., Loukianov, A. G.,
& Sanchez-Torres, J. D. (2018). Second order sliding mode control of a
STATCOM with saturated inputs. In 15th international conference on electrical
engineering, computing science and automatic control.
Seeber, R., & Horn, M. (2017). Stability proof for a well-established super-twisting
parameter setting. Automatica, 84(10), 241–243.
Seeber, R., & Horn, M. (2019). Optimal tuning of the saturated super-twisting
algorithm. In 18th European control conference (pp. 3606–3612).
Seeber, R., & Horn, M. (2019a). Guaranteeing disturbance rejection and control
signal continuity for the saturated super-twisting algorithm. IEEE Control
Systems Letters, 3(3), 715–720.
Seeber, R., & Horn, M. (2019b). Optimal Lyapunov-based reaching time bounds
for the super-twisting algorithm. IEEE Control Systems Letters, 3(4), 924–929.
Shtessel, Y. B., Edwards, C., Fridman, L., & Levant, A. (2014). Sliding mode control
and observation. New York, NY: Springer.
Utkin, V. (2013). On convergence time and disturbance rejection of
super-twisting control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58(8),
2013–2017.
9
Vazquez, C., Collado, J., & Fridman, L. (2014). Super twisting control of a
parametrically excited overhead crane. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 351(4),
2283–2298.
Zhang, D., & Reger, J. (2018). H∞ optimal parameters for the super-twisting algo-
rithm with intermediate disturbance bound mismatch. In 15th international
workshop on variable structure systems (pp. 303–308).
Richard Seeber received his M.Sc. degree in Electrical
Engineering from Graz University of Technology in
2012, and he completed his Ph.D. at the Institute of
Automation and Control, Graz University of Technol-
ogy in 2017. He currently holds a Postdoc position
at the Christian Doppler Laboratory for Model Based
Control of Complex Test Bed Systems at Graz University
of Technology, Austria. His research interests include
theory of sliding mode control systems, control of
automotive test beds, and control of systems with
actuator constraints.
Markus Reichhartinger currently is an Associate Pro-
fessor at the Institute of Automation and Control at
Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria. He re-
ceived his Master of Science degree in Information and
Computer Engineering (Telematik) at Graz University
of Technology and the Doctor degree in Information
Technology at University of Klagenfurt, Austria in 2006
and 2011, respectively. His research interests include
the design of robust feedback loops, sliding-mode
based concepts and applications of automotive and
mechatronic systems.