Automatica 38 (2002) 1783 – 1790

www.elsevier.com/locate/automatica

Brief Paper
Second-order sliding-mode control of container cranes

Giorgio Bartolini ∗ , Alessandro Pisano, Elio Usai
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica ed Elettronica, Universita di Cagliari piazza d’Armi, I-09123 Cagliari, Italy
Received 24 November 2000; received in revised form 24 July 2001; accepted 2 May 2002

Abstract

Moving a suspended load along a pre-speci0ed path is not an easy task when strict speci0cations on the swing angle and on the transfer
time need to be satis0ed. Intuitively, minimizing the cycle time and the load swing are con5icting requirements, and their satisfaction
requires proper control actions, especially if some uncertainties in the system dynamics are present. In this paper we propose a simple
control scheme, based on second-order sliding modes, which guarantees a fast and precise load transfer and the swing suppression during
the load movement, despite of model uncertainties and unmodeled dynamic actuators. Such controller has been tested on a laboratory-size
model of the crane, and some experimental results are reported.
? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Container cranes; Second-order sliding modes; Uncertain systems; Nonlinear systems

1. Introduction consumption, which is claimed to be meaningful with re-

Inmanyindustrialaswellascivilengineeringenvironments,
safety and economical constraints demand a fast and pre-
cise transfer of suspended heavy loads over long distances,
minimizing the load oscillation and the operation time.
Human drivers, often aided by automatic anti-sway sys-
tems, are always involved, and the resulting performance,
in terms of swiftness and safety, heavily depends on their
experience and capability. For this reason, a growing inter-
est is arising about the design of automatic control systems
for container cranes.
The relevant control strategy is often designed in
two-stages: o>-line path planning, in accordance with some
optimization criteria, and on-line path tracking. In partic-
ular, optimal control techniques have been widely used
to address the path planning problem (Auernig & Troger,
1987; Beeston, 1969; Hamalainen, Marttinen, Baharova, &
Virkkunen, 1995; Sakawa & Shindo, 1982; Hong, Park, &
Lee, 2000). The reference trajectories were chosen to min-
imize some speci0c indices, linked to the swing angle and
its derivative (Sakawa & Shindo, 1982), or to the energy

This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was
recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Tsutomu
Mito under the direction of Editor Mituhiko Araki.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-0706-755869; fax: +39-0706-
755900.
E-mail address: giob@dist.unige.it (G. Bartolini).
spect to system stresses such as oscillations and non-smooth
motions (Hamalainen et al., 1995). In Hong et al. (2000)
an interesting combination of time-optimal control (for the
path planning), and variable structure control (for the path
tracking), can be found, together with experimental results.
Other approaches are based on the knowledge of
a linear, parameter varying, crane model, obtained by
means of a suitable time scaling (Virkkunen, 1990;
Giua, Seatzu, & Usai, 1999) that allows for the use of
adaptive pole-placement control techniques (Virkkunen,
1990), gain scheduling (Corriga, Giua, & Usai, 1998) or
Lyapunov-equivalence-based observer=controller design
(Giua et al., 1999).
While the usual goal is to achieve zero-swing only at
the end of the transport, in Moustafa and Ebeid (1988)
an e>ective approach to obtain the swing suppression also
during the transfer of the load was presented. This is a desir-
able property since the e>ect of environmental disturbances,
such as wind gusts, must be necessarily taken into account.
The controller in Moustafa and Ebeid (1988) was based
on local linearization, and, therefore, it requires the perfect
knowledge of the system model. On the contrary, in this
paper we address and solve the same problem assuming that
the actual system parameters (including those of the actu-
ators) are uncertain but belonging to a known compact do-
main; thus, the use of robust control techniques appears to be
motivated.

0005-1098/02/$ - see front matter ? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 5 - 1 0 9 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 1 - X
1784 G. Bartolini et al. / Automatica 38 (2002) 1783–1790

Variable structure control systems are well known to be

robust and easy to implement (Utkin, 1992). A suitable man-
ifold in the state space is de0ned such that the system ex-
hibits the desired behaviour when constrained to evolve on
such a manifold. Then, a robust control action is de0ned to
drive the system onto the so-called “sliding manifold” de-
spite of model uncertainties. As a result, the plant behaviour
becomes insensitive to (and independent from) any uncer-
tainty and=or disturbance that does not steer the plant outside
from the manifold.
The actual case is particularly involved since there are
three degrees of freedom (dof) to be controlled (the load co-
ordinates and the swing angle) but only two control actions
(the trolley and hoisting motor voltages), i.e. the system is Fig. 1. Overhead crane. A frontview.
under-actuated.
In this paper we succeed in proving that: (1) It is pos-
sible to identify a suitable couple of sliding outputs, that constants A1 ; A2 ; B1 ; B2 are
involve the three controlled dof’s, such that the associated
zero-dynamics is stable and satis0es the control objective. A1 = [(J1 =b1 ) + (M + m)b1 ]; B1 = Mb1 ;
(2) It is possible to de0ne a robust control scheme that steers
A2 = [(J2 =b2 ) + Mb2 ]; B2 = Mb2 (4)
the system motion onto the chosen manifold in 0nite time,
despite of uncertainties. in which M and m are the total mass of the container and
The paper is organized as follows: in the next section of the trolley, respectively, J1 and J2 are the total inertia of
the crane model is given and the control problem is formu- brake, drum and reduction gears of the trolley motor (TM)
lated. In Section 3, the sliding manifold is proposed, and and of the hoist motor (HM) drive, respectively, and b1
the behaviour of the system when constrained on such man- and b2 represent the equivalent TM and HM drum radius,
ifold is analysed. In the subsequent Section 4, recent results reduced to the motor side. The actuator (permanent magnet
on multi-input second-order sliding mode control (2-SMC) DC motors) dynamics is linear and time invariant, and can
are applied to attain, in 0nite time, a sliding motion on the be expressed in compact form as
desired manifold. In Section 5 the implementation issues
are discussed and some experimental results are presented, 1 t˙ + 2 t = v − 3 ṙ (5)
while in Section 6 some 0nal conclusions are drawn.
where v = [v1 ; v2 ]T is the vector of the motor supply volt-
ages, t = [t1 ; t2 ]T , r = [xt l]T and i , i = 1; 2; 3, are suitable
positive-de0nite diagonal matrices.
2. Problem formulation
Let the crane and motor parameters be uncertain but be-
longing to a known compact set P. The goal is to move
Consider a container crane of the type in Fig. 1 (where
the load from the initial position (xi ; yi ) to a 0nal, desired,
the laboratory-size prototype used for our experiments is
location (xf ; yf ) along a pre-speci0ed path, while keeping
shown).
the load oscillation as small as possible. Since the rope is
By taking the trolley position xt , the rope length l and
assumed always stretched, the load coordinates x and y de-
the swing angle ’ (and their time derivatives) as the state
pend on the system state as follows
variables, assuming that the load can be regarded as a ma-
terial point and that the rope is always stretched (so that x = xt + l sin ’; y = l cos ’: (6)
the swing angle can be uniquely de0ned), the equations of
motion have been derived in Sakawa and Shindo (1982) as Often, in the previously quoted literature, the load is forced
to track a desired path with an o>-line designed trolley ve-
A1 xMt + B1 lM sin ’ + B1 l’M cos ’ locity pro0le, without any direct feedback of the swing an-
gle. In the actual case, on the contrary, the swing suppres-
+ B1 (2l̇’˙ cos ’ − l’˙ 2 sin ’) = t1 ; (1) sion is obtained by constraining the system motion on a
suitable manifold which involves both the desired path and
B2 xMt sin ’ + A2 lM − B2 l’˙ 2 − B2 g cos ’ = t2 ; (2) the swing angle. Roughly speaking, the trolley velocity is
modi0ed on-line, on the basis of the actual swing angle, to
xMt cos ’ + l’M + 2l̇’˙ + g sin ’ = 0; (3) obtain the suppression of the oscillations not only at the end
of the transport but during transfer as well.
where t1 and t2 are the applied trolley and hoisting torques, We divide the overall motion of the suspended mass
respectively, g is the gravity constant, and the positive in two phases (to which correspond di>erent control
 G. Bartolini et al. / Automatica 38 (2002) 1783–1790 1785

strategies), namely, the “traveling phase”, including the load -XM XM

travel towards the 0nal location, and the “arrival phase”, xt
activated as soon as a suitable vicinity of the destination l0
point is reached, in which the load must be stabilized on the
0nal location.

3. Sliding manifold design for trajectory tracking and

oscillation damping
l
The present section deals with the 0rst step of the
sliding-mode control design procedure, i.e., the design of Fig. 2. The parabolic reference path.
the sliding manifold and the stability analysis of the asso-
ciated zero-dynamics. The stability of the above time-varying dynamics is a>ected
If the swing angle were not an issue, it would be possible by the sign of l̇, and no control action seems to be available
to de0ne the sliding output vector as to ensure it.



s1 ẋt − ẋdt + c1 (xt − xtd ) The main idea in this paper is to add a swing-dependent
s(q) = = d ; (7) term in the de0nition of s1 , i.e., we propose the following
s2 l̇ − l̇ + c2 (l − ld ) couple of sliding outputs
where c1 ; c2 are positive constants and the superscript “d” s1 = ẋt − ẋdt + c1 (xt − xtd ) − k’;
indicates the desired behaviour.
As for the analysis of the system zero dynamics, we refer d
s2 = l̇ − l̇ + c2 (l − ld ); (15)
to the approximate model suggested in Sakawa and Shindo
(1982), valid for small load oscillations: where k is a positive constant.
Following the previously described standard procedure,
xMt = 1 g’ + z1 − 1 ’z2 ; (8) the swing-angle zero-dynamics (14) turns out to be modi0ed
as follows:
lM = −2 ’z1 + z2 ; (9)
g k + 2l̇(t) 1 d
’M = − ’− ’˙ − [xM − c1 (ẋt − ẋdt )]; (16)
l(t) l(t) l(t) t
1 1 1
’M = − [(1 + 1 )g’ + 2l̇’]
˙ − z1 + ’z2 ; (10)
l l l i.e., an arti0cial viscous damping, proportional to kl−1 (t),
where z1 and z2 are new control variables de0ned as appears in the new zero-dynamics (16). It is reasonable to
argue that the increase of k could have a stabilizing e>ect,
b1 b2 (t2 + Mb2 g) and this intuitive property is formalized in the next section.
z1 = t1 ; z2 = (11)
J1 + mb21 J2 + Mb22
and 1 ; 2 are the positive constants 3.1. The traveling phase

Mb21 Mb22 Let the desired path be expressed as

1 = ; 2 = : (12)
J1 + mb21 J2 + Mb22
ld = f(xt ): (17)
The swing-angle zero-dynamics can be obtained substituting
for z1 and z2 in (8) – (10) those keeping the sliding mode In order to better explain our proposal, the procedure will be
condition s1 = s2 = 0. Since the relative degree of s(·) is detailed making reference to a parabolic reference trajectory
one, such input zeq =[z1eq ; z1eq ] (which is referred in the VSS (Fig. 2), i.e.
community as the “equivalent control”) is the solution of
ld = l0 + xt2 ; |xt | 6 XM : (18)
the system ṡ(·) = 0.
Di>erentiating (7), and considering (8) – (12), one obtains Consider the following two-dimensional sliding manifold
z1eq M + xMdt − c1 (ẋt − ẋdt );
= −1 (g − l)’ s1 = ẋt − V0 − k’;

z2eq = 2 [xMdt − c1 (ẋt − ẋdt )]’ + l:M (13) d

s2 = l̇ − l̇ + c2 (l − ld ); (19)
Accordingly, the swing-angle zero-dynamics is given by d
where V0 is a positive constant and l̇ = 2xt ẋt .
g 2l̇(t) 1 d When constrained onto the two-dimensional manifold
’M = − ’− ’˙ − [xM − c1 (ẋt − ẋdt )]: (14)
l(t) l(t) l(t) t s1 = s2 = 0 , the original sixth-order system is represented
1786 G. Bartolini et al. / Automatica 38 (2002) 1783–1790

by a fourth-order dynamics, which must be proved to enjoy Consider the auxiliary variable w = ’˙ + c’; where c is a
the desired properties of tracking and stability. By consid- positive arbitrary constant. In the new w–’ coordinates; (26)
ering (19) and (16), one obtains can be rewritten as
’˙ = −c’ + w;
ẋt = V0 + k’; (20) (27)
ẇ = −[b() − c]w + ["() − a()]’;
g k + 2l̇(t) where
’M = − ’− ’;
˙ (21)
l(t) l(t)
"() = c(b() − c): (28)
d
l̇ = l̇ − c2 (l − ld ): (22) Since the di>eomor0sm (’; ’) ˙ = T (’; w) preserves the
origin; the asymptotic stability of system (27) – (28) implies
The stabilizing e>ect the k parameter on the nonlinear that of system (26).
swing-angle dynamics (21) is shown to guarantee the De0ning the Lyapunov candidate function V (’; w) =
asymptotic vanishing of the load swing (Lemma 1). The 1 2
’ + 12 w2 , the corresponding derivative along the trajec-
2
rationale of the proof is the following: we 0rst observe that tories of system (27) – (28) is a quadratic form of the type
the rope-length zero-dynamics (22) is such that l and l̇
exponentially converge to the desired values in (49). Thus V̇ (·) = −[’; w]T M()[’; w]; (29)
the relationships
where
d

l(t) = ld + 1 e−c2 t; l̇(t) = l̇ + 2 e−c2 t (23) c − "()−a()+1
2
M() = : (30)
are satis0ed, for some constants 1 , 2 , at any t ¿ T ∗ , − "()−a()+1
2 b() − c
T ∗ being the time instant at which the sliding mode on
The matrix M() is positive de0nite if the following in-
s1 = s2 = 0 is permanently established. Then, by combining
equality holds:
(23), (49), (20), and (21), it is shown that the swing angle
asymptotically converges to the origin, provided that the 4"() ¿ ["() − a() + 1]2 ; || 6 XM : (31)
k coeScient is suitably chosen and that the trolley position
remains con0ned within a suitable compact domain. As a Note that the parameter c is absolutely 0ctitious, as it appears
0nal step, it is easily derived from (20) that, as soon as ’ only in the stability proof and does not a>ect neither the
tends to zero, the load moves with the desired constant structure of the sliding manifold nor that of the controller.
velocity V0 . After some algebraic manipulations, (31) can be rear-
ranged as follows:
Lemma 1. There exists open intervals K ≡ (km ; kM ) and
Xt ≡ (−XM ; XM ) such that; if k ∈ K and xt ∈ Xt ; the swing g1 () ¡ "() ¡ g2 (); (32)
dynamics (21) is locally asymptotically stable at the origin where
and the load trajectory tends to the prescribed one. 
g1 () = a() + 1 − 2 a();
Proof. By (22); conditions (23) hold. Substituting (23);  (33)
(49) and (20) into (21); and neglecting the terms containing g2 () = a() + 1 + 2 a():
’’˙ on the basis of the small oscillation assumption; it yields According to (33), (24) and (28), the limiting curves g1 ()
g k + 4V0  and g2 () depend only on the reference path, while the func-
’M = − ’− ’˙ + d(t)e−c2 t tion "() depends also on parameters c and k, therefore, the
l0 + 2 l0 + 2
actual crane parameters do not a>ect the stability condition
, −a()’ − b()’˙ + d(t)e−c2 t ; (24) (32) – (33).
The curve "(), de0ned by (28) and (24), can be shaped
where  = xt and d(t) is given by by properly setting k and c in order to make it lying within
the limiting curves g1 () and g2 () in a suitable domain of
d
1 g’ + [1 (k + 2l̇ ) − 22 ld ]’˙ interest X : || 6 XM .
d(t) = : (25) While ’ approaches zero, by (20), it is immediate to
ld (ld + 1 e−c2 t )
conclude that the actual trolley velocity becomes closer and
Since the “disturbing” term d(t)e−c2 t is exponentially closer to the desired value V0 . .
vanishing; in order to prove the lemma it suSces to guar-
antee the stability of the nominal part Remark. As a design example; consider the desired path
de0ned by l0 = 0:1 m;  = 1 m−1 and XM = 3 m; and let the
’M = −a()’ − b()’:
˙ (26) reference horizontal speed be V0 = 0:1 m s−1 . A reasonable
 G. Bartolini et al. / Automatica 38 (2002) 1783–1790 1787

120 where d (t) is bounded. Around the 0nal location, the swing
g2(ξ) dynamics is an LTI system a>ected by a vanishing distur-
100 bance; thus, choosing
 
γ (ξ)
g
80 ka ∈ 0; (38)
c1
60
g1(ξ)
the asymptotic stability is trivially guaranteed.

40
4. A multi-input second-order sliding mode controller
20
In this section it is shown that the problem of steer-
0
ing the system motion onto the desired manifold can be
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
solved, both in the travel phase and in the arrival phase,
by means of a recently proposed multi-input second-order
Fig. 3. The curves g1 , g2 and " for l0 = 0:1 m,  = 1 m−2 , c = 0:6 and sliding mode control strategy (Bartolini, Ferrara, Usai, &
k = 16:65. Utkin, 2000).
Di>erentiating twice (19) and (34), taking into account
(1) – (5), it yields

way for choosing c and k is to guarantee that the point Travel phase
"(0)=c(k=l0 −c) lies approximately at the medium between
sM = F2 (q; p) + 1−1 B(xt ; ’; p; )v;
g1 (0) and g2 (0). By continuity; (32) will remain satis0ed in
an open neighbour of  = 0. In the actual case 12 (g2 (0) + Arrival phase
g1 (0)) ≈ 100; and choosing c = 0:6 and k = 16:65 one can
place "(0) as required; obtaining the shape in Fig. 3. Note sM = F2 (q; p) + 1−1 B(xt ; ’; p; 0)v; (39)
that the actual curve "() is entirely contained between the
limiting curves in the domain of interest || 6 3. If one wants where q =[xt ; ẋt ; l; l̇; ’; ’;˙ t1 ; t2 ], p ∈ P is the vector contain-
to enlarge the size of the stability domain Xt , a qualitative ing the system (crane and actuators) parameters, s =[s1 ; s2 ]T
criterion to adopt is that of reducing c while keeping constant and s = [s1 ; s2 ]T . The vector 0elds F2 (·) = [f21  
(·); f22 (·)]
  
the value of "(0). and F2 (·)=[f21 (·); f22 (·)], are given in the appendix, while
the matrix B(·) is expressed as follows:


1 A2 −B1 sin(’)
B(xt ; ’; p; ) = : (40)
+(’) −B2 sin(’) − 2xt A2 A1 − B1 cos2 (’) + 2B1 xt sin(’)

Fact 1: Provided that the design parameter  is suS-

3.2. The arrival phase ciently small, it can be veri0ed that the matrix B(·) is al-
ways non-singular and “suSciently” dominant diagonal, as
As for the stabilization of the load around the desired required in Bartolini et al. (2000).
0nal location, let us consider the following sliding Fact 2: Provided that the reference path is suSciently
outputs: smooth, the uncertain vector 0elds F2 (·) and F2 (·) are
norm-bounded in any bounded domain, i.e. for any com-
s1 = ẋt + c1 (xt − xf ) − ka ’; s2 = l̇ + c2 (l − yf ); (34)  
pact domain of interest Q two constants FT 2 and FT 2 can be
where ka ; c1 and c2 are positive constants and xf , yf repre- evaluated such that
sent the 0nal, desired, location. Following the same proce- 
F2 (·) 6 FT 2 ;
dure as in Section 3.1, it is not diScult to derive the system’s p ∈ P; q∈Q ⇒ (41)

zero dynamics in the form F2 (·) 6 FT 2 :

ẋt = −c1 (xt − xf ) + ka ’; (35) Those facts, according to Bartolini et al. (2000), are
suScient to separate the multi-input control problem
g − c 1 ka ka in a set of almost-decoupled single-input control
’M = − ’− ’˙ + d (t)e−c2 t ; (36)
yf yf problems.
According to the “sub-optimal” sliding mode control al-
l̇ = −c2 (l − yf ); (37) gorithm (Bartolini, Ferrara, Levant, & Usai, 1999), during
1788 G. Bartolini et al. / Automatica 38 (2002) 1783–1790

the traveling phase the control is set as

vi = −Vi sign(si (t) − 12 si (TM ki )); i = 1; 2; (42)

where si is de0ned in (18) – (49), TM ki are the time in-
stants at which ṡi (i = 1; 2), is zero and Vi (i = 1; 2),
are proper constants computed on the basis of the un-
certainty upperbounds (Bartolini et al., 2000). The ad-
missible domains for the control e>ort is semi-in0nite,
and of the type Vi ∈ [ViL ; ∞), so that, in order to avoid
over-sizing of the controller, a trial-and-error proce-
dure, based on choosing V1 and V2 “suSciently large”
to ensure satisfactory performance, should be adopted in
Fig. 5. First test. The actual swing angle.
practice.
After a vicinity of the destination point has been attained
(e.g. |xt − xf | 6 ., . ¿ 0), the arrival phase is activated.
The control strategy is still of the type (42) but the sliding initial oscillation, intentionally introduced, is damped dur-
variables s1 ; s2 in (34), and new control amplitudes V1 and ing the transfer (see Fig. 6). Note that the actual trajec-
V2 de0ned by a trial-and-error procedure as before, must tory remains close to the desired one, and the oscillation
be used. disappears before the vertex of the actual trajectory is
reached.

5. Implementation issues and experimental results

6. Conclusions
The digital implementation of the proposed control
scheme (Bartolini, Pisano, & Usai, 2001) has been tested The problem of moving a suspended load using a
on a laboratory-size prototype built for experimental in- container crane has been addressed and solved using a
vestigations (Fig. 1). The trolley and rope velocities second-order sliding-mode technique. The explicit depen-
have been estimated by using real-time numerical dif- dence of the sliding manifold on the swing angle, that guar-
ferentiators based on second-order sliding modes (Lev- antees the stability of the system zero dynamics, constitutes
ant, 1998). A sampling period of Ts = 0:002 s was used, the main novelty of the present approach, which guarantees
and the acquired data have been stored on-line in the zero-swing and at the end of transportation as well as the ac-
PC memory and then o>-line processed to make the tive swing-damping during the load movement. The use of
graphics. the robust control methodology allows to take into account
A load with mass of about 1 kg is moved with a parabolic parameter uncertainty and unmodeled actuator dynamics,
reference trajectory. In Figs. 4 and 5 the actual and de- often neglected by other methodologies. Experimental in-
sired load trajectory, and the swing angle versus time, vestigations con0rm the good performance of the proposed
are depicted, respectively. In a second experiment, an method.

100
40
Load vertical position [cm]

80
Load coordinates [cm]

30 x
60

20
40

10 20 y
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10
Load horizontal position [cm] Time [sec]

Fig. 4. First test. The actual and reference load trajectory.

 G. Bartolini et al. / Automatica 38 (2002) 1783–1790 1789

Actual trajectory (solid line) and reference trajectory (dotted line)

0.3

40

0.2

Vertical load position

Swing angle [rad]

30

20 0.1

10 0.0

0
-0.1
0 20 40 60 80 0 2 4 6 8 10
Horizontal load position Time [sec]

Fig. 6. Second test. The actual and reference load coordinates and the load swing.

Appendix A. The crane dynamics in explicit form Explicit expressions for xt(3) , l(3) and ’(3) , which can be
obtained by di>erentiating (43) and considering (44) – (46)
The dynamic equations (1) – (3) can be rewritten in matrix and (5), are given
form as
 
  x(3)
xM  
 (3) 
 M  l  = -̇1 (·) + Ġ(l; ’)t + G(l; ’)t˙
 l  = -1 (·) + G(·)t; (43)  
’M (3)
’

 
  K1 (l’˙ 2 sin(’) + g cos(’) sin(’))
/1x (·)
  1   K2 (l’˙ 2 + g cos(’))


-1 (·) =  /1l (·)  =  ; (44)
+(’)  
/1’ (·) K 1 K 3 K 0
− (l’˙ 2 sin(’) cos(’) − 2l̇’˙ sin2 (’)) − 2 l̇’˙ − g sin(’)
l l l

  = -̇1 (·) + Ġ(l; ’)t

G11 (·) G12 (·)
  + G(l; ’)(−1−1 2 t − 1−1 3 r)
G(l; ’) =  
 G21 (·) G22 (·) 
G31 (·) G32 (·) + G(l; ’)1−1 v

  , -2 (q) + G(l; ’)1−1 v: (47)

A2 −B1 sin(’)
1   −B2 sin(’)

A1 − B1 cos2 (’)  The entries of vector 0eld -2 will be referred to as /2x , /2l
=   ; (45)
+(’)   and /2’ , respectively.
A2 B1
− cos(’) sin(’) cos(’)
l l
Appendix B. The sliding variable dynamics
and the constants K0 ; K1 ; K2 ; K3 , and the function +(’), are
de0ned as B.1. The travelling phase

By di>erentiating twice (19) and (34), considering (43)

+(’) = K0 − K1 cos2 (’); and (47), one obtains

K0 = A1 A2 − B1 B2 ; K1 = A2 B1 − B1 B2 ; sM1 = xt(3) − k ’;
M
(3) d
K2 = A1 B2 − B1 B2 ; K3 = A1 A2 − A2 B1 : (46) sM2 = l(3) − ld + c2 (lM − lM ); (48)
1790 G. Bartolini et al. / Automatica 38 (2002) 1783–1790
The derivatives of ld can be expressed as
d for container cranes. International Journal of Japan Society of
ld = l0 + xt2 ; lM = 2ẋ2t + 2xt xMt ;
d (3)
l̇ = 2xt ẋt ; ld = 6ẋt xMt + 2xt xt(3) : (49)
By combining (48) – (49) with (43) and (47) the relevant
vector 0elds turn out to be expressed as

f21 (·) = /2x (·) − k(/1’ (·) + G31 (·)t1 + G32 (·)t2 );
 Springer.
f22 (·) = /2l (·) − (6ẋt + 2c2 xt )
×[/1x (·) + G11 (·)t1 + G12 (·)t2 ] − 2xt /2x (·) + c2
×/1l (·) + G21 (·)t1 + G22 (·)t2 − 2ẋ2t ]: (50)
B.2. The arrival phase
Following the same procedure as that in the traveling
phase, one easily obtains

f21 (·) = /2x (·) + c1 [/1x (·) + G11 (·)t1 + G12 (·)t2 ]
− ka [/1’ (·) + G31 (·)t1 + G32 (·)t2 ];

f22 (·) = /2l (·) + c2 [/1l (·) + G21 (·)t1 + G22 (·)t2 ]: (51)
References
Auernig, J. W., & Troger, H. (1987). Time optimal control of overhead
cranes with hoisting of the load. Automatica, 23(3), 437–447.
Bartolini, G., Ferrara, A., Levant, A., & Usai, E. (1999). On second
order sliding mode controllers. In K.D. Young, & U. Ozguner (Eds.),
Variable structure systems, sliding mode and nonlinear control,
Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, Vol. 247, Springer,
Berlin, pp. 329 –350.
Bartolini, G., Ferrara, A., Usai, E., & Utkin, V. I. (2000). On multi-input
second order sliding mode control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 45(9), 1711–1717.
Bartolini, G., Pisano, A., & Usai, E. (2001). Digital second order sliding
mode control for uncertain nonlinear systems. Automatica 37(9),
1371–1377.
Beeston, J. W. (1969). Closed-loop time optimal control of a suspended
load: A design study. Proceedings of the 4th IFAC world congress
(pp. 85 –99).
Corriga, G., Giua, A., & Usai, G. (1998). An implicit gain-scheduling
controller for cranes. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, 6(1), 15–20.
Giua, A., Seatzu, C., & Usai, G. (1999). Observer-controller design for
cranes via Lyapunov equivalence. Automatica, 35(4), 669–678.
Hamalainen, J. J., Marttinen, A., Baharova, L., & Virkkunen, J. (1995).
Optimal path planning for a trolley crane: Fast and smooth transfer of
the load IEE Proceedings on Control Theory Applications, 142(1),
51–57.
Hong, K. -S., Park, B. -J., & Lee, M. -H. (2000). Two-stage control
Mechanical Engineering (JSME Series C), 43(2), 273–282.
Levant, A. (1998). Robust exact di>erentiation via sliding mode technique.
Automatica, 34, 379–384.
Moustafa, K., & Ebeid, A. M. (1988). Nonlinear modeling and control of
overhead crane load sway. Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement
and Control, Transactions ASME, 110, 266–271.
Sakawa, A., & Shindo, Y. (1982). Optimal control of container cranes.
Automatica, 18(3), 257–266.
Utkin, V. I. (1992). Sliding modes in control and optimization. Berlin:
Virkkunen, J. (1990). Adaptive pole-placement control of a pilot crane.
Proceedings of the 11th IFAC world congress, Tallinn, Estonia (pp.
313–318).
Giorgio Bartolini was born in Milano,
Italy, in 1944. He graduated in Electrical
Engineering at the University of Genova in
1968, where he became associate professor
at the Department of Computer, Commu-
nication and System Science (DIST). He is
currently full professor of Control Systems
Optimization at the University of Cagliari.
Research interests are in the 0elds of ro-
bust and variable structure control, adap-
tive control, robotics, simulation of con-
tinuous systems. He is author of about 70
journal papers. He has been responsible for some research projects of the
Italian National Research Council (CNR) and the European Community
in the 0eld of mobile and submarine robotics.
Alessandro Pisano was born in Sassari,
Italy, in 1972. He graduated in Electronic
Engineering in 1997 at the University of
Cagliari, Italy, and he obtained the Ph.D. in
Electronic Engineering and Computer Sci-
ences in 2000 at the same university. He is
actually assistant researcher at the Depart-
ment of Electrical and Electronic Engineer-
ing, University of Cagliari (ITALY). His
current research interest include nonlinear
control, variable-structure systems and the
application of sliding-mode control to me-
chanical and electromechanical systems.
Elio Usai was born in Sassari, Italy, in
1960. He graduated in Electrical Engineer-
ing at the University of Cagliari, Italy, in
1985. Up to 1994 he has been working for
international industrial companies. Since
1994, he is at the Department of Electrical
and Electronic Engineering (DIEE), Uni-
versity of Cagliari, where currently he is
associate professor of automatic control.
Current research interests are in the 0eld
of control engineering, variable structure
systems and chaos synchronisation. He is a
member of IEEE and of the Associazione
Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica Italiana.