Auronwrica, Vol. 33, No 12, pp.
2203-2212, 1997
Pergamon PII: SOOOS-1098(97)00147-7
Output Tracking Control of Uncertain Nonlinear
Second-Order Systems*
G. BARTOLINI,t$
Key WordsModel reference control; sliding mode control; uncertain dynamic systems
Abstract-The solution of a tracking problem for a second-
order nonlinear system with uncertain dynamics and incomplete
state measurement is obtained by means of a procedure directly
inspired by the solution of the classical minimum-time optimal
control problem. Two different types of uncertainty are con-
sidered in the paper: in the first case a constant bound on the
uncertain dynamics is assumed to be known; in the second case,
the bound is a function of both the measurable and the un-
measurable state variable of the system. In both cases, the
possibility of applying the proposed control algorithms is pro-
ved to be determined by a proper choice of the control signal
features. The resulting system is characterized by a suitable
feedback switching logic and the convergence of the system
trajectory to the desired one (or to a d-vicinity of this latter) is
proved also in the uncertain case. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
1. INTRODUCTION
Deterministic control of uncertain nonlinear sys-
tems has gained the attention of many researchers
during the last two decades. The two representa-
tives of such an approach consist of the Lyapunov
control design techniques (see, for instance, Leit-
mann, 1979; Ryan and Corless, 1984, Zinober,
1994) and the sliding mode control techniques
(Utkin, 1992; Zinober, 1990,1994). In particular, as
far as sliding mode control is concerned, both the-
oretical and application aspects of this approach
have been deeply investigated to provide an axio-
matic mathematical apparatus capable of describ-
ing the ideal behaviour of systems controlled via
sliding mode techniques (Utkin, 1992), as well as
a comprehensive set of regularization procedures
(Bartolini and Zolezzi, 1985; Utkin, 1992), which
constitutes the basis to justify the efficiency shown
in practical applications.
*Received 23 May 1995; revised 9 June 1997. Expanded
version of the work presented at 13th IFAC World Conference,
San Francisco, July 1996, paper no. IFAC-0322/2b. Correspond-
ing author G. Bartolini. Tel. 0039 70 675 5869; fax 0039 70 675
5900; e-mail {giob;eusai}@diee.unica.it.
TDipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica ed Elettronica,
Universita di Cagliari, piazza d’Armi, I-09123 Cagliari, Italy.
fDipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e Telematica,
Universita di Genova, via Opera Pia 13, I-16145 Genova, Italy.
<c) 1997 Elsevw Sc,ence Ltd. All rights reserved
Prmted in Great Britam
Om5-1098/97 $17.00 + 0.00
Brief Paper
A. FERRARAS and E. USAIt
The behaviour of a continuous-time finite-
dimensional system when a sliding mode control is
applied is characterized by a reaching phase of
finite duration which depends on the initial condi-
tions and on the system dynamics, followed by
a sliding motion during which the system trajecto-
ries are insensitive to uncertainties and distur-
bances and enjoy a semi-group property, as dis-
cussed in (Drakunov and Utkin, 1992) and
Drakunov (1994). Recently, the mentioned proper-
ties of sliding mode control have been extended
also to infinite dimensional systems (Drakunov and
Utkin, 1992) and discrete-time systems (see, Bar-
tolini et al., 1995 and the references cited therein).
The intrinsic limit of the conventional sliding
mode approach relies on the necessity of the com-
plete availability of the system state, if the system is
represented in Brunowsky canonical form, or,
equivalently, on the requirement that the system
has relative degree equal to one, with stable zero
dynamics (Isidori, 1989) (i.e., it is minimum phase),
if the system is in input/output form. Nevertheless,
some proposals to overcome this limitation ap-
peared in the literature. In particular, the concept of
higher order sliding mode, applicable to the incom-
plete state measurements case, has been defined in
Sira-Ramirez (1992) from the differential-algebraic
point of view, and in Levant (1993) and Levant and
Fridman (1996), where some examples of control
algorithms capable of causing the system trajec-
tory to undergo a higher order sliding mode are
also presented. Analogously, in Bartolini and
Pydynowski (1993) a control algorithm featuring
a higher-order sliding mode behaviour is proposed,
with the aim of reducing the chattering phenom-
enon which usually appears in conventional sliding
mode control.
The contribution of the present paper can be
located in the context of higher-order sliding mode.
Indeed, the paper deals with the output tracking
control of nonlinear second-order systems affine in
control, under the assumption that the output de-
rivative is unavailable for measurements, and in the
presence of different forms of uncertainty on the
2203
2204 Brief Papers
system dynamics. More precisely, the type of sys-
tems considered in this paper can be expressed as
follows:
&W = X2(0,
(1)
i W) =fCx@)l + 4th
where x(t) = [xi(t), x2(t)lT, x2(t) is unmeasurable,
andf[x(t)], a smooth function satisfying the stan-
dard conditions of existence and unicity of the
solution, is assumed uncertain but such that one of
the following assumptions holds:
(4 If[x(t)]I I F, withF > 0 a known real con-
stant.
@I IfCx(t)lI 5 N + Mx1(0l + IdOl), with NY
k known positive constants, and x*(O)E
B(xz(O),p), B(x$(O),p) being a ball in R’
centered in x;(O) with radius equal to p.
Note that, in this paper, second order systems are
considered only for the sake of simplicity: actually,
the presented results can be straightforwardly ex-
tended to any uncertain nonlinear invertibly stable
systems of higher order having relative degree
equal to two.
The control objective considered in this work is
that of tracking a linear reference model of the type
Jil(t) = Y2 w,
(2)
J&(t)= - &Y,(t) - %Y&) + bdt),
where y(t) = [yl(t), yz(t)lT and u,,,(t) are the refer-
ence model state and control, respectively. If x2(t)
were available, relying on conventional sliding
mode approach, this problem could be solved
by means of a discontinuous control law of the
form
a(r) = - HCx(r), y(r), h&)1 x sign{sW}, (3)
s(r) = xz(t) - Yz(d + CC%@)- YI(t)l, (4)
where the signal amplitude H( *) can be chosen as
Ht.) = a1 IYl(Ql + GlY&)l + ~l%&)l
+F+k’
(5)
guaranteeing that the so-called “reaching condi-
tion”, i.e., si < - k2 IsI, for the manifold s = 0 is
fulfilled (Utkin, 1992).
In contrast, in the case considered in this paper,
since x2(t) in not available by assumption, the
above conventional technique cannot be applied.
Indeed, the actual value of s cannot be evaluated.
One way to face this problem is to identify a pro-
cedure for estimating the unavailable state. If the
xl(t) derivative is evaluated approximatively, the
effect of this approximation on the sliding mode
control scheme for the uncertain nonlinear system
must be analysed. Any error induced by the ill-
conditioned evaluation of the incremental ratio
could produce a reduction of the frequency of the
oscillation, and this fact could excite unmodelled
dynamics of the plant. To prevent this phenomenon
Utkin (1992) proposed a scheme involving ob-
servers. In Bartolini and Pydynowski (1993), this
guideline is followed in an uncertain nonlinear con-
text with the introduction of a nonlinear estimator.
To guarantee the convergence of the estimator and
the fulfillment of the control objective, an uncertain
differential inequality must be solved.
The solution proposed in this paper is based on
a different philosophy, close, in some sense, to that
in Levant (1993), and exploits some robustness
properties of the bang-bang control solution to the
classical minimum-time optimal control problem
with respect to errors in the evaluation of the
switching time instants, as well as the possibility of
expressing the commutation logic of the control
signal in terms of the available state variable only.
The main advantages of the proposed control
scheme are: no observer needs to be introduced and
the control has a simple structure, any differential
inequality is substituted by simple algebraic in-
equalities, the evaluation of the errors induced by
the approximate differentiator is straightforward,
the steady state is reached in finite time while in
Bartolini and Pydynowski (1993) the convergence
was asymptotic.
A couple of original control algorithms are pre-
sented which can be viewed as two versions of the
same control procedure relevant to the case in
which the time instant when the measurable state
variable (i.e., the system output) presents an ex-
tremal value is determined with ideal precision or
with a delay 6, respectively. Note that the second
situation is the one which occurs in practice, since,
having no way to monitor the derivative of the
output, the extremal value of the latter can be
revealed only by checking the changes of the sign of
an incremental ratio computed over a time interval
equal to 6. What is shown is that the proposed
algorithms enable a second order sliding mode to
be attained so that the origin or a b-vicinity of the
origin (which, in the case considered, play the role
of sliding manifold) of the tracking error state plane
is reached in finite time.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next
section the problem in question is formally stated
and the proposed algorithms are discussed dis-
tinguishing, in the various subsections, among
the cases previously mentioned. A simulation
example relevant to the uncertain second-order
systems considered in the paper is presented in
Section 3, while some conclusions are gathered in
Section 4.
 Brief Papers 2205

2. THE PROPOSED CONTROL ALGORITHMS
The control problem to be solved can be stated
as follows.
Problem 1. Given the state error el(t) = x1(t) -
yI(t) and ez(t) = x2(t) - yz(t) and the resulting
state error dynamics
4tQ = et@),
i20) =fCWl + 4YlW + a2YzM
+ u(t) - bu,(t)
find a control law u(t) = g[eI(t), t] so that the ori-
gin of the error state plane [el (t); e2(t)] is reached in
finite time in spite of the plant uncertainties and the
incomplete state measurements.
The aim of this section is to provide a solution to
this problem proceeding with a progressively in-
creasing degree of generality. The following three
cases will be dealt with in a row: the case of systems
of type (1) withf[x(t)] = 0 (no uncertainty), that of
systems with uncertain f[x(t)] satisfying assump-
tion (a), and finally the case of systems with uncer-
tain f [x(t)] satisfying assumption (b).
2.1. Systems withf[x,(t),x,(t)] = 0
Consider the system defined by equation (1) with
fCx(Ol= 0, where x2(t) is unmeasurable and the
control signal is chosen as
u(t) = w(t) - alyl(t) - a&t) + bu&).
Taking into account equation (6), the resulting state
error equation is
4 tt) = e2tQ,
i i*(t) = w(t).
If the system defined by equation (8) were required
to solve the classical minimum-time optimal con-
trol problem, namely:
Problem 2. Given the state error equation (8), for
any el(0), e2(0) find a control law w(t), such that
Iw(0l < W&f>which minimizes the performance in-
dex J = tf with eI(tf) = e,(tJ = 0.
The well-known solution would be the so-called
bang-bang control, i.e.,
as described in Leitmann (1981) and Kirk (1970),
which is based on the crucial assumption that both
the state variables are measurable.
If e2(t) is unavailable, as in our case, the control
law, equation (9), cannot be implemented. Thus,
a sub-optimal way to solve Problem 2 needs to be
sought. The motivation for our approach can be
found in the following considerations. Interpreting
the evolution of the optimal trajectory only in
terms of the accessible variable cl(t), one observes
(6) that, assuming to start with el(0) > 0, e2(0) > 0
(case l), and applying w*(t = - W,, t 2 0, the
state trajectory follows a parabolic arc whose pro-
jection on the axis e2(t) = 0 corresponds to an
increasing behaviour of e, (t) until a maximum elMis
reached. The optimal switching line cl(t) = - +
(e2(t)Ie2(t)I)/WM is crossed at eI(t) = j elM. On the
other hand, if e1 (0) > 0, e2(0) < 0, and, for the sake
of simplicity, the initial point (el (0), e2(0)) is above
the optimal switching line (case 2), applying
w*(t) = - W,, t 2 0, eI(t) turns out to be strictly
decreasing, so that elM = el (0). The optimal switch-
ing occurs when the trajectory crosses the switching
line, and this fact cannot be expressed only in terms
of el (t).
The first algorithm proposed in this paper, over-
comes this drawback by forcing the control to
switch from - W, to + W, at the time instant
when eI(t) = ieI, also in case 2. In case 1, the
maximum value elM is evaluated with ideal pre-
cision; in case 2, since elM= cl(O), the switching
occurs in a sub-optimal way, in the sense that it
(7)
takes place at a time instant &such that el(t*) =
iel(0), which is successive with respect to the opti-
mal switching time t* (i.e., t* such that e1 (t*) = - f
(e2(t*)le2(t*)I)/WM). Note that the two situations
depicted above repeat analogously when el (0) < 0,
(8) e2(0) < 0 (such as case l), and el(0) < 0, e2(0) > 0
(such as case 2) if elMis the extremal value of cl(t).
The proposed algorithm can be expressed through
the following sequence of steps.
Algorithm 1.
(i) Set elM= cl(O). Repeat, for any t > 0, the
following two steps:
(ii) If cl(t) is an extremal value then set
e1bI= eI(t).
(iii) Apply the control law
w(t) = - W,sign {eI(t) - +eI,}. (10)

(jp =
Until the end of the control time interval.
x21x21

I
- WMsign(x2); XI+== 3
With the term “extremal values” the local
minima, local maxima, and horizontal flex points
- W,sign(x: +z); xt ++-$+1, of the signal eI(t) are defined. With refe-
rence to Algorithm 1, the following result can be
(9) proved.
2206 Brief Papers

Theorem 1. Given the state error equation (8) with
ez(t) unavailable, if the extremal value of e1 (t) is
evaluated with ideal precision, then, for any el(0),
ez(0), the sub-optimal control strategy defined by
Algorithm 1 causes the convergence of the system
trajectory to the origin of the error state plane.
Proof: Consider the error equation (8) and the con-
trol signal w(t) = - IV, sign {ei(O)}. By integra-
tion. one has
elM = cl(O)+ e2W
-4lV,sign{ei(O))t*,
e,(t) = e*(O) - W,sign (el(0)}t.
For the sake of simplicity, assume el(0) > 0 (the
treatment in the case er(0) < 0 is similar), and dis-
tinguish between the following two cases:
Case 1: (e1(0)e2(0) > 0. Let tM be the time in-
stant when e,(t) = elM. Such a time instant can be
computed by posing e2(tM) = iI = 0, obtaining
t _ e2(0)
&f-p.
WM
Substituting in equation (1 l), it yields
1 d(O)
elhf) = cl(O)+ j w
M
which is equation (14) if e,(t*) = te,(tM), i.e., t* = f.
So, in case 1, it has been proved that to switch from
- W, to + W, at the time instant when el (t) = f
e, is equivalent to the optimal switching.
Case 2: (e1(0)e2(0) < 0). In this case, cl(t) < el,
Vt 2 0 and cl(t) decreases as t increases. So the
maximum value reached by cl(t) is glM= cl(O),
which is surely less than elM= el(tM) determined in
case 1. Hence, performing the switching in t^such
that ei(i) = ier(O), as suggested by Algorithm 1,
implies that the switching occurs when the optimal
switching line, equation (16), has already been
crossed. After the switching the state trajectory
(11) reaches the third quadrant of the error state plane
in finite time. Starting from such time instant, the
(12)
system turns out to be as in case 1, then the state is
steered to zero in finite time. 0
Up to now, it has been assumed that the value
elMcan be evaluated with ideal precision. What still
needs to be considered is the actual precision of the
device used to determine the extremal value of ei (t),
to ascertain the actual performances of the pro-
posed control. Since e*(t) is not accessible, it is
(13)
impossible to determine elM by observing the zero
crossing of e*(t). A possibility to evaluate the ex-
tremal values is to use a device of the type
(14) - 4 - el(t)lcl(t),
A(t) = Gel@ (20)

where 6 is an arbitrarily small time delay. In prac-

The aim of this part of the proof is to show that at tice, this means that, even if the state e*(t) is not
the time instant f such that el(t*) = $el(tM) the available for measurements, its sign can be indirect-
value of el(t^) coincides with the optimal value of ly determined by observing the signs of both cl(t)
er(t) at the switching time instant t*. From equa- and A(t). The extremal values of ei(t) are stored at
tion (1 l), the time instant when A(t) changes its sign accord-
ing to the following Algorithm 2.
el(t*) = ei(0) + e2(0)t* - f W, t**, (15)
while from the equation of the switching line, Algorithm 2.
namely 0) Set 6 > 0, elM = el(0)
Repeat, for any t > 0, the following steps:
1 e2W2@)l (ii) If (t - 6) < 0 then set el(t - 6) = 0
el(O= -5 w (16)
M (iii) If A(t) < 0 then elmem= el(t),
taking into account that e2(t*) < 0, since it was else elm__= el,_.
e2(tM) = 0, one has (vi) If A(t) < 0 then
if {ei,_ elM > O> AND {lel_l < Ied> then
1 e:(t*) 1 [e*(O) - WMt*]* elM= ek_,,else elM = elM
ei(t*) = z 7 = 2 (17) else elM = elm,,
M WA4

(v) Apply the control law (10) until the end of the
Solving equations (15) and (17) simultaneously, and control time interval.
discarding the negative solution, we obtain
Then, with reference to Algorithm 2 the follow-
t* = $(e2(0) + fes(O) + el(0) WM). (18) ing result can be proved.
M

Substituting t* in equation (11) we have Theorem 2. Given the state error equation (8), with
e*(t) unavailable, if the extremal values of cl(t) are
1 e30) evaluated in accordance with the change of sign of
el(t*) = ie,(O) + ; w (19)
M the device A(r) in equation (20), then, for any el(0),
 Brief Papers
e2(0), the sub-optimal control strategy defined by
Algorithm 2 causes the convergence of the system
trajectory to a b-vicinity of the origin of the error
state plane.
Proof: When a device of type of equation (20) is
used, the “evaluated” extremal value of er (t), say
* optimal control strategy defined by Algorithm 1
eiM,is that stored when A(t) changes its sign accord-
ing to Algorithm 2. So, at most, the value is regis-
tered after a delay equal to S/2 with respect to the
time instant tM when the actual extremal value
elM occurs. This implies that le^lMlturns out to be
less than lelnrl, at most, of the order O(S’). Indeed,
assuming, for the sake of simplicity, e*iM> 0, the
actual maximum value and its corresponding esti-
mate can be evaluated by equation (1 l), so that
*
eiN = el(tM + +S) = elM - 6 W,S’. (21)
As a consequence, the system trajectory when the
device of equation (20) is used differs from the
optimal one at most of order O(S*), as far as the
abscissas are concerned, and of order O(6), as for
the ordinates. Then, the maximum error in conver-
gence, computable as the distance from the origin
of the points belonging to the limit cycle which
appears, is O(6). 0 split into the following steps.
Note that the b-vicinity is reached after at most
two switchings. As far as precision is concerned,
applying Algorithm 2 the system trajectory is for-
ced to reach in finite time a neighbourhood of the
origin of size arbitrarily small with 6, that is, the
lack of precision is analogous to what one has in
traditional sliding mode control when the sign of
the constraint variable s is evaluated with a small
error (Utkin, 1992).
2.2. Systems with If[xl(t), x2(t)] I I F
Now consider the system defined by equation (1)
with uncertainty f[x(t)] satisfying assumption (a).
Again assume that the control signal u(t) is de-
signed as in equation (7). The resulting state error
dynamics is
c,(r) = e2@),
(22)
= fCx(tll + 4th
i P*(t)
Then, the problem in question can be reformulated
as follows.
Problem 3. Given the state error equation (22), with
If[x(t)] ( < F, for any ei(O), e*(O)find a control law
w(t), with Iw(t)l < WM, such that el(tf) = e2 (t/) = 0.
In this case of uncertainty the proposed algo-
rithms still work provided that a suitable choice of
2207
the control amplitude is made, as pointed out by
the following proposition.
Theorem 3. Given the state error equation (22)
withf[x(t)] as in assumption (a) and e*(t) unavail-
able, then, if the extremal value of cl(t) is evaluated
with ideal precision, for any ei(O), e*(O), the sub-
with the additional constraint
W,>2F (23)
causes the generation of a sequence of states with
coordinates (elnr,,0) featuring the following contrac-
tion property:
leiM,,,II 4ed i = 1,2, . . . , ccE[O;1). (24)
Moreover, the convergence of the system trajectory
to the origin of the error state plane takes place in
finite time.
Proof: Let elH, be the ith extremal value of ei(t),
tM, the corresponding time instant and t, the time
instant subsequent to tM, at which a switching oc-
curs, and e2,, the corresponding value of the e*(t)
variable,(i = 1, 2, . . . ). The proof of the finite time
convergence to the origin of the state plane can be
Proof of convergence with contraction property.
Consider the state error equation (22) with
/w(t)1< WM according to the statement of Problem
3, and If[x(t)]I I F according to assumption (a).
Moreover, If [x(t)] I d F < W, since, by assump-
tion, equation (23) holds. Starting, at time instant
t = 0, from any initial condition one has
- F + w(t) I ti2(t) I F + w(t) (25)
and it is trivial to see that after at most a finite
time interval, say tM,, the system trajectory reaches
a point of the abscissa axis, i.e., e2(tM,) = 0. Assume
el(tM,) > 0 for the sake of simplicity; starting from
this first extremal point (ei,,; 0), w(t) = - WV and,
taking into account equation (25) the possible tra-
jectories starting from the considered initial point
lie, for t 2 tM,, between the following two limiting
trajectories
1 &
e;(t) = -2 w _ elM, , (26)
F +
M
(27)
According to Algorithm 1, in both limiting cases,
cl(t) decreases and [e*(t)/increases, until a switching
of the control signal w(t) from - WM to + WM
occurs in t,, such that el(t,,) = jelM,. The corres-
ponding values of e2(t,,) belong to the interval
C - JeiM,(W, + F); - JelM,( W, - VI.
2208 Brief Papers

Starting from any point in this interval, for t 2 t,,, so that

the system trajectories lie between the two new
limiting curves t, - t&f, = (34)
1 4(t)
e;(t) = - e&F
(28) After the switching, the considered limiting traject-
2W,+F+WM+F’
ory evolves according to
(29)
e&) = ielM, + ez,,(t - t,i) + +(WM - F)(t - tJ2,
Now, according to Algorithm 1, in both cases, el(t) (35)
e2(t) = e2,, + (W, - F)(t - tJ.
and leJt)l decrease, until the axis e2 = 0 is reached
at tM,. The points of arrival (elMz;O)are such that So, the time instant when e2(t) = 0 is

eLf,F
WM-F’W,+F’
eLf,F

The points belonging to the subinterval [O; (elM,F)/

1 tM,+, (36)

(W, + F)], regarded as new initial conditions for and, from equation (33),
the continuation of the trajectories, satisfy again
the assumption el(tM,) > 0, so the treatment can be (37)
repeated iteratively. Clearly, for all the trajectories
belonging to such a subinterval the contraction
Replacing t, from equation (36)
property of the control algorithm is apparent since,
trivially,
t.W+,
2WM& (38)
(30) = tMi
+(W, - F),/w’

In contrast, for the points belonging to the sub- and, by successive iteration, from the first of
interval [ - (el,,F)/(WM - F); 01, the contraction equation (32)
occurs if
cc(j- lb/z. (39)
(31) tM,+,5 t&f, +
(WM - F)Jw,+I’
This is verified as equation (23) holds by By the assumption of equation (23) the last of
assumption. equation (32) is true, therefore, with implicit defini-
In the case elM, < 0 the treatment is similar but tion of the constant coefficient y,
with reversed extremes of the relevant intervals.
The treatment can be repeated iteratively and the 1
following relationships hold: lim tM, < tM, + y ~ (40)
i+m 1-G

which concludes the proof. 0

le2,,l < ,/leI,,l(W~ + FL i = L2, ..
The above proposition shows the advantage of
<- ct(i-‘)‘2,/lel,,l (W, + F) (32) the proposed control strategy with respect to con-
ventional sliding mode control. Indeed, the latter
F
< 1, guarantees only the asymptotical convergence to
‘=W,-F the origin of the error state plane, while with the
and the convergence is a straightforward conse- proposed control algorithm the origin is reached in
quence of the contraction. finite time. Now, considering the version of the
Proof of the Jinite time convergence to the origin. algorithm in which the device of equation (20) is
Consider the ith extremal point (el,,;O) at the time used to evaluate the extremal values of cl(t), namely
instant tMi, and assume, for the sake of simplicity, Algorithm 2, an analogous result can be proved.
elM,> 0, thus it is a local maximum. Starting from
tMp and considering the slowest limiting trajectory Theorem 4. Given the state error equation (22)
defined by f[x(t)] = F sign [e2(t)], it evolves ac- withf[x(t)] as in assumption (a), ez(t) unavailable, if
cording to the extremal values of cl(t) are evaluated in accord-
ance with the change of sign of the device A(t) in
edt) = el,, - %WM+ F‘Xt- td2, equation (20), then, for any el(0), e2(0), the sub-
(33)
e,(t) = - (W_M+ F) (t - td, optimal control strategy defined by Algorithm 2
 Brief Papers 2209

with the additional constraints consideration the control switches at a time instant
t, such that
2F + Zi, < WMi < 2F + Zi*,
(41) el(tJ E C*ely. -&W, + F); fe,J,
Zil = O(6), ZiI = 0 _sli
0 e2(t,,) E [: - eIM.(w, + F) + %VV, + F)2
causes the finite time convergence of the system
trajectory to a b-vicinity of the origin. Moreover, - e,Jw, - F)l. (44)
a sequence of states with coordinates (el,,,O) is
The subsequent extremal point is such that
generated with the following contraction property:
F% WM FM + 4 62.
3NE f+J+:lery,+,l G 4 Ied
WM-F- 8(Wv - F) ’
i=l,2, ...) N-1,

1
aiE[O; l),
(42) F
IelJ = 0(S2), i= N, N+ 1, . . . .
WM + FerMs
lel.“, - &,,I = W2), i= 1,2, . . . .
While the right extreme of the interval of equation
where elN, is the actual ith extremal value of er(t), (45) coincides with that appearing in Theorem 3
and ;I, its estimate provided by Algorithm 2. and therefore does not put in question the related
convergence results, the left extreme differs from
Proof: Let elM, be the ith extremal value of eI(t), that in Theorem 3. The new contraction condition
tM,the corresponding time instant, gIM,its estimate is
according to Algorithm 2, t,; the time instant sub-
F WdW, + F$ < e
sequent to tM, at which a switching occurs, and ly, (46)
e2, the corresponding value of the e2(t) variable, WM - FelM, + 8(WM - F)
(i = 1,2, . . . ). The proof of the finite time conver- which is verified provided that
gence to a b-vicinity of the origin of the error state
plane can be split into the following steps. 2F + ZiI < WM, < 2F + Zi,>
Proof of the 62-approximation of the extremal
4elM 5F d2
values. When a device of type of equation (20) is Zil, I = d I---
I32 8 e1.K
used, the evaluated extremal value of eI(t) is stored
when A(t) changes its sign according to Algo-
rithm 2. The corresponding time instant differs from
_+ J-y] (47)
tMp at which an extremal value of eI(t) occurs, of
a time delay which can be proved to be less than +S.
in accordance with equation (41). The previous
Let t, be a time instant preceding tM, and assume,
condition of equaiton (46) implicitly defines the
for the sake of simplicity, eI(ts) > 0, e2(ts) > 0, and
coefficients cli as
eI(tM,) > 0; analogously to the proof of Theorem 2,
it can be shown that, starting from [eI(ts); e2(ts)], + FP2
@‘el,, + WM,(WM,
the interval of the estimate is ai = (48)
8WMi- Fh,,
,.
elN, = ely, - ;(W, f F)d2. (43) which are minor than unity if the corresponding
extremal value satisfies the following inequality:
This implies that le*r,,- elJ is of order 0(S2).
Proof of the convergence with contraction WdW,u, + W2
property. It is straightforward to show that after eLf, ’ (49)
8(WM, - 2F) ’
at most a finite time interval, say tM,, the system
trajectory reaches a point of the abscissa axis, i.e., The convergence is a straightforward consequence
e2(tM,) = 0. Let us consider the ith extremal value, of the contraction. The maximum error in conver-
and assume, for the sake of simplicity, elw, > 0. gence is computable as the distance from the origin
Starting from the considered extremal (er,,,O), the of the points of the strange attractor which, from
system trajectory in the error state plane lies be- equations (44) and (49) turns out to be of order
tween two limiting trajectories. One is that defined O(6).
for f [x(t)] = - F sign[e2(t)] and with no delay in Proof of the jinite time convergence. The finite
the evaluation of the current extremal value, i.e., it time convergence is a consequence of the results of
correspond to equations (26) and (28); the second is Theorem 3, of the contraction property of Algo-
defined for f [x(t)] = Fsign[e2(t)] and takes into rithm 2 and of its 62-approximation property with
account the maximum delay in evaluating the cur- respect of the actual extremal values of eI(t), which
rent extremal value. On the basis of the previous are considered in Algorithm 1. q
2210
Remark 1. The dimension of the vicinity of the
origin of the error state plane elOez can be mini-
mized by a proper choice of the control amplitude
WMz. By minimizing the bound in equation (49)
with respect to the control amplitude, one can
obtain
W,,=(2+$)F, i= 1,2, . . .
which assures the contraction property
that
5 + 2& F62
e1.w ’
8 (51)
’ value of cl(t) is reached,
2.3. Systems with If[xl(t),x2(t)]l I
N + k( Ixl(t)l + lx2Wl)
Now consider the system of equation (1) with
f[x(t)] satisfying assumption (b). Again assume that
the control signal u(t) is designed as in equation (7).
The resulting state error equation is again equation
(22) and the control problem to be solved is still
expressed by Problem 3. What can be proved, in
this case, is that the proposed algorithm, in its two
versions, still provides a solution to the problem
provided that a suitable choice of the control am-
plitude is made and a proper initialization step is
taken, i.e.
Theorem 5. Given the state error equation (22)
withf[x(t)] as in assumption (b) and e2(t) unavail-
able, assume that x2(O)E B(x;(O), p), B(x’,(O),p)
known ball in R’ centered in x;(O) with radius
equal to p. Then, if the extremal value of cl(t) is
evaluated with ideal precision, for any el(0), e2(0),
the sub-optimal control strategy defined by Algo-
rithm 1 with the additional constraint
WM > 2 N’ + k[lle~,,,,l(2
+ WI
+ kJ12N’leIJ + 3k(4 + 3k)ef,,
and the initialization phase, lasting until the first
extremal value of eI(t) is reached, in which,
w(t) = - VMsign{e,(0)),
r’, > 2 {N + 4lxdt)l + IvzWll)
+ 2kmaxbW)+ P - y2(0)l (54)
causes the finite time convergence of the
system trajectory to the origin of the error state
plane.
Proof: Consider the state error equation (22) with
Iw(t)l < WM according to the statement of Problem
3, and If[x(t)]l as in assumption (b). Then, by the
Brief Papers
boundness of yl(t) and y2(t), we can write
IfCWll 5 N + k MOI + IxzWl)
s N’ + k (IedtI + ledt)lh (55)
N’ = N + k maxClv&)l + IyM1.
Now, distinguish between the initialization phase
(50)
and the convergence phase.
provided Initialization phase. The idea is to prove that the
initialization phase is such that the axis e2(t) = 0 is
reached in finite time. From any [eI(0),ez(O)],
by applying equation (53) until the first extremal
it is i2(t) =
f[x(t)] - WMsign{e2(t)> with Vi, as in equation
(54). W’, > If[x(t)]l on the basis of the properties
of the absolute value function, then ti2(t)e2(t) < 0,
i.e., e,(t) + 0 in finite time (Utkin, 1992). Note
that the sign of e2(0) could be known, if the points
of the ball B(x;(O),p) has all the same sign,
or evaluable after an arbitrarily time delay z as
sign[e2(0)] = sign [eI(r) - el(0)].
Convergence phase. The idea is to prove that
starting from a point of the abscissas axis, namely
(elH,,0), the next crossing of such an axis takes place
in (el,,+,, 0) such that a contraction occurs, i.e.,
lelM,+,l< Ied (56)
To this end, assume to be able to find an upper-
bound F off[x(t)]. Then, choosing WM > 2F, the
controlled system satisfies the assumptions of
Theorem 3, i.e., the present result could be proved
by virtue of the proof of Theorem 3. Moreover,
under the mentioned assumption, one can use the
fact that the ith maximum value of e2(t), namely
ezH,,is related to the corresponding maximum value
of cl(t), that is elM,,by the following relationship:
le2.J 5 &,,I FM + F) (57)
as shown in the second of equation (32). On the
(52) basis of the value elH, and of the bound on e2,,, one
can actually evaluate the upperbound on f[x(t)]
which, previously, was taken for granted, i.e.,
F = IV’ + kClel,,l+ Jh,,l(W~ + J’ll. (58)
(53)
By considering simultaneously equations (56)-(58)
in the worst case, i.e., i = 1, the following inequality
is obtained:
Wti - 2CN’ + k le~ax,lU+ %I
> &/Cle~ax,IW + Wd + k dtax,U+ $)I.
(5%
Note that inequality (59) is of the type
(x - b)2 > ax , with a, b positive numbers, which
admits positive solutions on a semi-infinite interval
defined by equation (27). The result of Theorem 3
 Brief Papers 2211

holds (since WY > 2F) also in the present case, and

the finite time convergence of the system trajectory
to the origin of the error state plane is proved. El

In this case as well the convergence is associated

with a contraction. Moreover, in analogy to what
has been done in the previous subsections, the
results addressed by Theorem 5 can be extended to
the case in which the evaluation of the extremal
values of er(t) is performed in accordance with the
time instants when d(t) in equation (20) changes its
sign. In such a situation only the convergence to el 0)
a b-vicinity of the origin is guaranteed. Fig. 2. The tracking error trajectory.

Remark 2. Note that the error system evolution, in

all the previous cases, can be interpreted as a sec-
ond order sliding mode, according to the definition
in Levant (1993) and Levant and Fridman (1996),
since, in finite time, the second order sliding regime
s = e,(t) = 0, S = e*(t) = 0 is attained, while in the
conventional sliding mode approach only the
asymptotic reaching of ei(t) = 0 is ensured.

3. A SIMULATION EXAMPLE

To complement the theoretical development 2 4 6 a 10

above, let us consider an example relevant to non-
Time [ s ]
linear second-order systems with uncertain dynam-
ics. The control objective is that of tracking a linear Fig. 3. The system state evolution.
reference model described by

J+(t)= Yz(C),
(60) with lf[xl(t), x2(t)]l taken to be uncertain as in
Y2 0) = - 3YlG) - 2 Y2W + %I@) assumption (b) with k = 3, N = 0, i.e.,
with u,,,(t) = 26 _ i(t) (where S_ i(t) is the unitary step
input), and zero initial conditions. The reference
IfCxIw~ x2(01I 5 3(lx1(0l + IX2(00
model behaviour is illustrated, versus time, in
Fig. 1.
The system considered is I4 + 3ClelMl + le2(011,

it(t) = x2(t), x2(t) a non-measurable state variable, and initial

i2 (t) = 2x1(t)sinx2(t) (61) conditions: xi(O) = - 0.3, x2(0)e [l, 23. The time
+ 3 I x,(t)lcosx,(t) + u(t) instants of occurrence of the extremal values of er(t)
are determined according to Algorithm 2, with the
time delay 6 = 0.005 s. The control strategy defined
in Theorem 5 is applied. That is, in the initialization
phase (which leads to the first extremal value), the
control signal applied is expressed by equation (53),
with IpM = 6{2 -t [lxl(t)l + Iy2(t)l]}. While, from
the first extremal value on, the control signal ap-
plied is that of equation (10) with W, = 1.1
(8 + 331eiY,I + 3JC48 lelnrlI + 117 e:,J>. The
evolution of the tracking error trajectory in the
error state plane e10e2 is now depicted in Fig. 2,
I I I I I I while the corresponding behaviour, versus time, of
2 4 6 a 10
the system states is shown in Fig. 3. The conver-
Time [ s ] gence, featuring a second order sliding mode, to
Fig. 1. The reference model state evolution. a a-vicinity of the origin is guaranteed in spite of the
2212 Brief Papers
uncertainty and the incomplete availability of the
system state.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The problem of tracking a linear reference model
by a nonlinear uncertain second-order system with
incomplete state measurements is addressed in this
paper. First, two control algorithms are proposed
capable of steering the states of a double integrator
error system, with unmeasurable derivative of the
output signal, to the origin or to a b-vicinity of the
origin of the error state plane, respectively, depend-
ing on the precision of evaluation of the extremal
values of the measurable state variable. Then, the
validity of the proposed algorithms is extended to
the considered case of second-order nonlinear sys-
tems with uncertain dynamics and one of the state
variables inaccessible for measurements. Actually,
two different types of uncertainty are considered in
the paper: in the first case a constant bound on the
uncertain dynamics is assumed to be known; in the
second case, the bound is a function of both the
measurable and the unmeasurable state variable of
the system. In both cases, the possibility of applying
the proposed algorithms is shown to be determined
by a proper choice of the control amplitude. When
an uncertainty of the second type affects the system
also a proper design of the initialization phase is
mandatory. What is obtained, in both cases, is
a second order sliding mode behaviour of the track-
ing error model analogous to the one attainable in
the case of completely known (double integrator)
system.
REFERENCES
Bartolini, G., A. Ferrara and V. I. Utkin (1995). Adaptive sliding
mode control in discrete-time systems. Automatica, 31.
Bartolini, G. and P. Pydynowski (1993). Asymptotic lineariz-
ation of uncertain nonlinear systems by means of continuous
control. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, 3, 87-103.
Bartolini, G. and T. Zolezzi (1985). Variable structure systems
nonlinear in the control law. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control,
30,681-684.
Drakunov, S. (1994). Sliding modes in hybrid systems, a semi-
group approach. Proc. 33rd Conf: on Decision and Control,
Lake Buena Vista, FL, pp. 4235-4240.
Drakunov, S. and V. I. Utkin (1992). Sliding mode control in
dynamic systems. Int. J. Control, 55, 1029-1037.
Isidori, A. (1989). Nonlinear Control Systems. Springer, Berlin.
Kirk. D. E. (19701 OotimaI Control Theorv. Prentice-Hall.
Englewood ‘cliffs: NJ:
Leitmann, G. (1979). Guaranteed asymptotic stability for some
linear systems with bounded uncertainties. ASME J. Dyn.
Measurement Control, 101, 212-216.
Leitmann, G. (1981). The Calculus of variations and Optimal
Control. Plenum Press, New York.
Levant, A. (1993). Sliding order and sliding accuracy in sliding
mode control. Int. J. Control, 58, 1247-1263.
Levant, A. and L. Fridman (1996). Higher order sliding modes as
a natural phenomenon in control theory. In Robust control oia
variable structure and Lyapunov techniques, eds, E. Garofalo
and L. Glielmo, Lecture Notes in Control and Optimization,
Vol. 217, Springer, London, pp. 107-133.
Ryan, E. P. and M. Corless (1984). Ultimate boundedness and
asymptotic stability of a class of uncertain dynamical systems
via continuous and discontinuous feedback control. IMA J.
Math. Control and Inform., 1, 223-242.
Sira-Ramirez. H. (1992). On the sliding mode control of non-
linear systems. systems Control Lett.: 19, 303-312.
Utkin, V. I. (1992). Sliding Modes in Control and Optimization.
Springer, Berlin.
Zinober, A. S. I. (ed.) (1990). Deterministic Control of Uncertain
Systems, IEE Control Engineering Series, Vol. 40, Peter
Peregrinus Ltd., Stevenage.
Zinober, A. S. I. (ed.) (1994). Variable Structure and Lyapunoo
control, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences,
Vol. 193, Springer, London.