# Stability Analysis of a Class of Second Order Sliding Mode Control Including Delay in InputAcademic research paper on "Mathematics"

CC BY
0
0
Share paper
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{""}

## Academic research paper on topic "Stability Analysis of a Class of Second Order Sliding Mode Control Including Delay in Input"

﻿Hindawi Publishing Corporation Mathematical Problems in Engineering Volume 2013, Article ID 523527, 9 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/523527

Research Article

Stability Analysis of a Class of Second Order Sliding Mode Control Including Delay in Input

Pedro R. Acosta

Instituto Tecnológico de Chihuahua, Avenida Tecnológico 2909, 31310 Chihuahua, CHIH, Mexico Correspondence should be addressed to Pedro R. Acosta; pacosta@itchihuahua.edu.mx Received 27 July 2013; Revised 4 October 2013; Accepted 6 October 2013 Academic Editor: Xudong Zhao

Copyright © 2013 Pedro R. Acosta. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This paper deals with a class of second order sliding mode systems. Based on the derivative of the sliding surface, sufficient conditions are given for stability. However, the discontinuous control signal depend neither on the derivative of sliding surface nor on its estimate. Time delay in control input is also an important issue in sliding mode control for engineering applications. Therefore, also sufficient conditions are given for the time delay size on the discontinuous input signal, so that this class of second order sliding mode systems might have amplitude bounded oscillations. Moreover, amplitude of such oscillations may be estimated. Some numerical examples are given to validate the results. At the end, some conclusions are given on the possibilities of the results as well as their limitations.

1. Introduction

Sliding mode control has been effectively used in engineering for more than three decades. One of the major concerns for some applications is chattering in output or control signal. Along with other techniques, higher order sliding modes have been proposed to alleviate chattering. Most used algorithms for high sliding motion are the twisting controller [1], suboptimal controller [2], and the super twisting controller [3]. These algorithms need to measure or estimate the derivative of the sliding surface. The super twisting algorithm is used to get robust differentiators, so that it can be used together with the other algorithms to get such a derivative. Recently [4], homogeneity has been used to ease parameter design for second order sliding mode controllers. Some recent examples of engineering applications using second order sliding mode controllers are [5-8].

When delays arise, sliding mode controller performance deteriorates. Such delays may occur in states and/or inputs and have been treated using several approaches (see e.g., [9-16]). In [12], a good review is given for different control techniques up to 2003. When only a delayed measure is available for the control signal, two techniques have been used to compensate delay effects: predictors and integral sliding mode control. Some instances are [11, 12, 14], respectively.

On the other hand, concerning analysis for existence and amplitude of steady oscillations due to delays, very few works have been reported, such as [17], where sufficient conditions are given for steady oscillations to exist in a first order sliding mode system; describing function and Poincare map approach are used in [18] to analyze oscillations for a system with hysteresis. In [19], a different approach for perturbed first sliding mode systems is reported. For second order sliding mode systems with delay, [20] reported sufficient conditions for steady oscillations to occur in a class of systems; in [21], an analysis is given about oscillations for the suboptimal algorithm considering delay in the input.

Motivated by the aforementioned analysis, this paper presents sufficient stability conditions for a class of sliding mode system that does not require a measure of the derivative of the sliding surface in order to provide the control input. Also, sufficient conditions are given for stable oscillations to exist if a delay occurs in the input, as well as an estimate for their amplitude. The class of systems treated here is a more general class of systems than the one reported in [20] and using a different approach. In Section 2, the problem is formulated. Section 3 presents the main results byway of two propositions and their proofs, giving sufficient conditions for finite time sliding motion stability without delay and stability

for oscillations when delay in input occurs. Next, in Section 4, some numerical examples are given and conclusions for the reported results are related.

2. Problem Statement

Let us consider a second order sliding mode system in the form

x2 = f(t,x1,x2)-k sign (x1 (t)),

where f(t,x1,x2) is smooth and k > 0. The first issue to consider is getting sufficient conditions such that the system has a stable equilibrium point in x1 = 0, x2 = 0 and reached in finite time, considering a domain of attraction D

x = \x

[Xi X2] e D.

Now, if conditions for stability are met for (1), when a delay is present in the control input as follows:

x2 = f (t, x1,x2) - k sign (x1 (t - h)),

with x e D, Vt e [-h, 0), x1 might have steady oscillations if the time delay is sufficiently small, such that the system remains in the attraction domain. Otherwise, its dynamics will be unstable. Hence, it is important to get sufficient conditions for delay size, such that the system remains in the domain of attraction and an estimate for the amplitude of the oscillations. Next section shows sufficient conditions to reach the surface in finite time without delay and for existence of bounded amplitude oscillations in presence of delay.

3. Sufficient Conditions for Second Order Sliding Modes without Delay and Amplitude Bounded Oscillations with Delay

In the following proposition, sufficient conditions are given for finite time reaching and, stability of the equilibrium point — 0, attraction.

Proof. As a first step, let us demonstrate that there exists a finite time for x1 (t) zero crossing. Without loss of generality, let us consider ^(0) > 0, therefore, in a neighborhood t+ of t = 0 we will have

X1 — x2> X2 — f {t> X1, X2) - k-From hypothesis, k- |/(0, x1(0),x2(0))| > c0 > 0 and hence

Therefore,

x2 — CQ.

X2 (t) — -c0t + X2 (0) .

x1 (t) — + x2 (0) t + x1 (0).

Hence, in a finite time, 11, x1(t1 ) — 0, where

*2 (0) + ^x2 (0) + 2c0X1 (0)

Now, as a second step, let us demonstrate by induction that in a finite time the equilibrium point is reached. Without loss of generality, assume that the nth x1(t) zero crossing goes from positive to negative, and therefore x2(tn) = cn with cn < 0. Hence, for tn < t < tn+1, where t = tn+1 is the next time for zero crossing, we will have

X1 — x2, x2 — f(t,x1,x2) + k-And therefore

X2 (t) >(k- \fnmax (t, X1,X2)\) (t - tn) + Cn- (11)

So that

= 0 in system (1) considering a domain of (k-\fnmax (t,X1,X2)\)(t-tn) , , (12)

X1 y-) - Ö r CnV Vn) • V '

Proposition 1. Consider system (1) with f(t, 0, 0) = 0. If k - \f(t,x1,x2)\ > c0 > 0 and, moreover, after x1 first zero crossing, the following is met thereafter:

From the above, for the following zero crossing, x1(tn+1) = 0,

(tn+1 -tn)— 2Cn

k \fnmax (t>x1>x2)\ k - \ fn+1 max (t, X1'X2)\

(k-\fnmax (t,x1 ,x2)\ï

where tn is the nth zero crossing time, cn and cn+1 are the values for x2(tn) and x2(tn+1) in the nth and n + 1th zero crossing time for x1. Also, \fnmax(t,x1,x2)\ is the biggest value of \f(t,x1,x2)\ in the interval tn < t < tn+1 and \fn+1 max(t'x1,x2)\ is the biggest value of \f(t,x1,x2)\ in the interval tn+1 < t < tn+2. Then, system (1) has a stable equilibrium point in x1 = 0, x2 = 0 which will be reached in finite time.

To assure finite time for equilibrium point reaching, it only has to be guaranteed that (tn+1 - tn) > (tn+2 - tn+1) since if (tn+1 -tn) = T and hence (tn+2 - tn+1) < anT, where 0 < an < a < 1, total time will be

X (tn+1 -tn) — T + aT + a2T + --- = T^a

n=1 n=1

From (13), and a similar development for negative to positive zero crossing, the following can be deduced:

(^«+2 i«+1) + (¿«+1 O <

|2c„

(fc- I/«max (i>^1>^2)|)'

Now, considering that to comply with the supposed sufficient condition for reaching the equilibrium point in finite time (i„+1 - i„) = T and (i„+2 - i„+1) < fl„T, the following must be complied as well:

(1 + fl«) (*«+1 - Ü <

«+i I

|/n+1 max (^'x1'x2)|)

+ _W_.

(fc- I/«max (i>^1>^2)|)

So that, making 1

(^«+1 O

|2c„

|2c„

|/«+1 max (i>^1>^2)|) (fc- I/«max (i>^1>^2)|).

it is guaranteed that 1 + fl„ <2.

Now, using again (13) together with (17)

(fc- |/«+1 max (i>*1>*2)|) (fc- I/«max (i>^1>^2)|)

|2c„

(fc- I/«max (i>^1>^2)|)'

Therefore, it is sufficient

|/«+1 max Ml^P (fc- I /«max (i>*1>*2)|)'

In other words

lC«+1| l/«+1 max (i'X1'X2)|)

(20) □

Remark 2. If |/„max(i>^i>^2)l and |/„+imax(i> ^1-^2)! are not known, instead of (20) we may use as a more conservative condition k - |/(i, x1, x2)| > c0, together with

ü«+1|

When a delay exists in the discontinuous control signal, the equilibrium point cannot be reached. If the dynamics are

in the domain of attraction, amplitude bounded oscillations are obtained. Next proposition presents sufficient conditions for an upper bound on the delay in order to get amplitude bounded oscillations.

Proposition 3. Considering system (1), complying with conditions of Proposition 1, a sufficient condition such that system (3) has steady oscillations is

t>0,xeD+,0<S<fc

m;7 'MF

{*2 I /(i'^1'^2 ) + = 25}

M^- = if >2 |/(i'X1'X2)-fc = -2^}

0 < < M+ = sup {^1 > 0 I (*1 X2 = ) e Dj 0 > M^; > M- = inf {*! < 0 I (%1 X2 = ) e Dj'

with the domain of attraction being

x = X,

x,l e D'

D+ = {D | x1 > 0,x2 > 0} D- = {D | x1 < 0,x2 < 0}.

Proof. First, let us get an estimate for a bound on x2 in the domain of attraction. For 0 < i0 < i1 < i2, without loss of generality, let us consider 0 < x1(i1) < M+ , x1(i2) > x1(i1) > 0 > = x1(i0), p ^ 0, and i1 - f0 = hmax < i2 - i0. Where hmax is the maximum delay such that the system remains in the domain of attraction, so that h < hmax. Then, in the interval i1 < t < i2, we have sign(x1 (i)) = sign(x1(i -h)) = 1 and in the interval i0 < i < i1, sign(x1(i - h)) = - sign(%1(f)) = -1.

Therefore, with h = hmax and while i0 < i < i1, we will have x1(i) > 0 and x1(i - h) < 0, so that x2 = /(i, x1, x2) + fc. Moreover, since fc - |/(i, x1, x2)| > c0 >0, it can be seen that - i0) + %2(i0X and accordingly x1 will grow while sign(x1(i - h)) = -1, but when t > i1 and since x1 > 0, we have sign(x1(i - h)) = 1, and therefore x2 = /(i, x1, x2) - fc. Hence, x2(i) < -c0(i - i1) + x2(i1).

Therefore, there exists t = i2, where x2(i2) = 0, and accordingly when t = i2 < i1 + x2(i1)/c0, x1 arrives to a maximum and in the interval i2 < t < i3, it will diminish until being zero at

t = i.

X2 (Î1) + y^2(Î1 )2 + 2Co [¿1*2 (^1) + (Î1)]

This happens provided the system is in the domain of attraction, so the maximum value must occur for x e D+.

An estimate for the maximum x2 reached value can be gotten noticing that 0 < c0 < k, since k - lf(t,x1,x2)l > c0 > 0. Therefore, the biggest possible value for lf^t,x1 ,x2)l, inside the domain of attraction, occurs when c0 ^ 0, making feasible that lf(t,x1,x2)l ^ k. On the other hand, if c0 ^ k, lf^t,x1 ,x2)l might only take the smallest possible value, lf(t,x1,x2)l ^ 0. Hence, from the aforementioned, 0 < f(t,x1 ,x2) + k < 2k, and the maximum value for x2, M'+ inside the domain of attraction maybe estimated as

t>0,x£D+,0<S<k

[x2 | f(t,x1,x2) + k = 2S}.

Now, with a similar reasoning as above, it can be shown that once x1(t) < 0, a time will come such that sign(x1(i - h)) = -1, and if the dynamics are in the domain of attraction, x1 will reach a minimum and begin moving toward the opposite direction remaining bounded. Therefore, an estimate for the

minimum value of x2 is

t>0,xeD- ,0<S<k

1X2 1 f(t,X1,X2)-k = -2Sj. (27)

Now, since in the interval t0 < t < t1 (see Figure 1), we have x1 = x2 < M'x, and considering that

0<M'+ < Ml

= sup {xi >01 (xi X2 = M'x+2 }fDj;

we have, x1 (t1) < M< M'+ hmax. Therefore, it is clear that there exists h' < hmax such that M'X+ = M'X+h'. And then

for h < h', we have h < M'XJM'+. So that for this delay, the system dynamics remains in the domain of attraction for positive values of x1.

Similarly, when xx < 0, x1 = x2 > M, and for hmax = t4 - t3, where t4 is the time when x1(t4) > M> Mhmax. Considering 0 > м'- > M- = inf [x1 < 0 | x2 = М'-} e D} and since М'— < 0, there exists h" < hmax such that M'- = M'~h". Therefore, for h < h",

Шал -2

h < M'~/M'~, so that, for this delay, the system dynamics remains in the domain of attraction for negative values of x1. Hence, if

мр MÏ-

the system dynamics will stay inside the domain of attraction; so this is a sufficient condition in the delay size for amplitude bounded oscillations to exist. □

Remark 4. For a second order sliding mode system in the form (1), with a specified delay, h, and noticing that the maximum x1 amplitude is obtained when sign(x1(i)) =

sign(x1(i - h)) and x2 = 0, an estimate for the oscillation amplitude, AXi, can be obtained with

m' h < AX

sup {x1 \ f (t,x1,0) - k = -25},

t>0,x£D+ ,0<S<k

sup {\x1\\ f(t,x1,0) + k = 28}

t>0,x£D- ,0<S<k

where m'X2 is the lowest magnitude value of x2 for the interval whensign(x1 (t)) = - sign(x1 (i-h)). Now, noticingthat x2 = 0 is an extreme for x2 in some cases, such lowest value for those cases may be obtained from

t>0,xeD+lx1(t-h)<0,x2>0

t>0,x^D-lxl (t-h)>0x2<0

¡X2 I f(t,Xi,X2) + k=0}, I f(t,Xi,X2)-k = 0j

verifying that x2 > 0 when sign(x1(i)) — 1 and x2 < 0 when sign(%1(f)) — -1.

Remark 5. If the second order sliding mode system is of the form

x1 — X2

К = f (t> Xi, X2) - к sign (s(xi (t-h),..., xn_i (t - h))),

such that

s = n(x) s = f(t, x) - m sign (s (t - h)),

so that x = 0 is stable for h = 0, with the domain of attraction being x e D and

Ds+ = |D I s > 0, s > 0}, Ds- = |D I s < 0, s < 0},

an estimate of the maximum delay for steady oscillations in the sliding surface is

M+ M'r

M1^ = sup {s I <p(t, x) + m = 25}

t>0,x£Ds+,0<S<m

M'r = inf {¿Icp(t, x) - m = -25}

t>0,x£Ds-,0<S<m

0<M'S+ < M+ = sup {s > 0 I (s s = M.+) e D} 0> M^- > M- = inf {s < 0 I (s s = M--) e D}.

Figure 1: Behavior of Xj for different forms of /(i,xj,x2), where it can be seen as h < tj - i0 and maximum value for x2 = M+, when 0 < x, < M+ .

Remark 6. If the system is a first order sliding mode system with the form

X1 - X2

K = / (*> *i> ^2) - k sign (\$ (*i (i - , . . . , %„ (f - fo))) ,

such that

s = y (i, x) - p sign (s (i - fo)),

so that x = 0 is stable for h = 0, with the domain of attraction beingx eDand

Ds+ = |D | s > 0} Ds- = |D | s < 0},

an estimate for the maximum delay where steady oscillations in the sliding surface are obtained may be gotten with

h < min -

sup {s | f (i, x) + p < 25}

t>0,xeDs+,0<S<p

M'- = inf {i|v(i, x)-p>-2S}

: t>0,xeDs-,0<S<p

0 < < M+ = sup {s > 0 | s = e Dj 0 > M^- > M; = inf {s < 0 | s = e Dj.

Remark 7. For a first order sliding mode system with amplitude bounded oscillations, if an upper bound for the sliding surface derivative magnitude is known (see Remark 6), together with the delay, h, an upper bound for the oscillation amplitude, As, of the sliding surface, s, can be obtained with

As < max {M[+ h^M^jhj

4. Examples

In this section, three examples are given to validate the results presented above.

4.1. Reaching Equilibrium Point in Finite Time for Second Order Sliding Modes. Let us consider the following system:

= X1 - - 5 sign (x1).

It is easy to verify that system dynamics are unstable if 5 sign(x1) is not present. In order to verify if the dynamics of (43) reach in finite time the equilibrium point in zero, Proposition 1 is used. Let's consider x1 > 0. Since fc = 5, x2 > -fc = -5 must be complied and also x2 < -c0, such that x2 > -5i + %2(0), and x1 < -c0i2/2 + %2(0)i + x1 (0).

Therefore,x2 < -c0i2/2 + (25 + x2(0))i + x1(0)-5x2(0)-5. From this expression, it can be observed that the time when the biggest value for x2 (less negative) is t = 0, since for |/(i, x1,x2)| < 5, it is required that |x2| < 5, then from t = 0, x2 goes more negative while x1 > 0. Similarly, it can be shown that if the initial condition is x1 < 0, the lowest value for x2 occurs at t = 0, such that fc - |/(i, x1, x2)| > c0. Hence, a sure way to choose the initial conditions would be |*1(0)-5*2(0)| < 5.

So that, for this example, we choose x1 (0) = 4, x2(0) = 0. Therefore, at t = 0, |/(i, x1,x2)| < 5, and just afterwards, x2 is and remains negative while x1 > 0. Therefore x1 goes down until reaching the first zero crossing. Knowing that

x1 (i) = -.9642e0'19258t - 0.03328e-5'1958t + 5, (44) it is easy to see that x1 = 0, when x2 = -.93.

Up to now, first conditions for the Proposition 1 are met in order to get the first zero crossing. Now, to see if the condition for finite time surface reaching is met, let us consider an arbitrary time of zero crossing from positive to negative i„. In theintervali„ < t < i„+1,themaximumvaluefor |/(i,x1, x2)| is at i„, since this is the initial time in this interval. Then /(¿„>0,0 = -5c„ andat t = i„+1, /(i„+1,0,c„+1) = -5c„+1. From Proposition 1, it is needed

(*-|/(f«, 0, c« )|)

5 - 5 lc«

|c«+1 «+1 0'C«

5 - 5 lc,

Resulting in the condition |c„| > |c„+1|.

Let's see if the system meets such a condition. Meanwhile, x1 <0 in the interval i„ < t < in+1,

x1 (i) = Ae°-19258(t-t») + ¿g-5-1958(t-t») - 5 x2 (i) = 0.19258Ae0'19258(t-t") - 5.1958ße-5'1958(t-t»)' with

5 - 0.1958c«

A = -«,

5 + 5.1958c,

27.963

Now, considering that in the following zero crossing, t = in+1,

0 = Ae0'19258^1-") + Be-5'1958(t»+i-t») - 5, c„+1 = 0.19258Ae0'19258(t»+1-g - 5.1958£e-5'1958(t»+1

and solving (48), using expressions for A and B in (46), cn+1 = 0.963 - 0.963e-5'1958(t"+i-t") - e-5'1958(wyC(j. (49)

This is an asymptotically stable first order difference equation for cn dynamics, since in+1 > in, giving the eigenvalue magnitude less than one and guaranteeing that |c„+1| < |c„|, complying with the condition for reaching the surface in finite time. Eventually, when in+1 = in, the equilibrium point is reached, cn = 0. Therefore, system dynamics are stable and reach the surface in finite time without need of using a measure or estimate of x2 for the control signal. In Figure 2, the behavior of x1 and x2 is shown using x1(0) = 4, x2(0) = 0. It is seen that effectively, x1 approaches smoothly and in finite time to zero and chattering is confined to x2, which also approaches in finite time to zero.

4.2. Maximum Permissible Delay in the Second Order Sliding Mode System. Knowing that sliding modes are gotten for system (43), now a delay in the control is introduced as shown below:

x2 = x1 - 5x2 - 5 sign (x1 (i - h)).

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

-0.5 -1

4 3 2 1

10 20 30 40 50 60 t

Figure 2: Behavior of system (43) dynamics showing that x1 = 0 and x2 = 0 are reached in finite time. As expected for second order sliding mode, chattering is not present in x1.

Figure 4: Behavior of dynamics for system (50) with delay h = 2.36.

50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40

E )omaii i of att raction uppe r limi t

Domain ol attrac tion lc )wer limit

-5 -4 -30 -2 -1

Figure 3: Estimate for biggest value of x2 in the system with delay (50) inside the domain of attraction.

Now, using (22), M'xt - 5M[2 + 5 = 25, which gives the maximum with 5 = 0

The domain of attraction is shown in Figure 3, together with all possible values for M'x . It is noticed that at x1 =4.5, Mx = 1.9 intersects the upper limit of the domain of attraction. Therefore

h< —^ ML

— = 2.368. 1.9

In this example, h = 2.36 was used along with initial conditions set to x1 =2 and = 0, in order to ensure the initial crossing by zero since for t e [0, h] no control is available. To estimate the oscillation amplitude, Remark 4 of

Proposition 3 is used. To obtain m'x , we have x1 - 5x2 + 5 = 0. And so m = minXi>0((5 + x1 )/5) = 1. Therefore, AXi > m h = 2.36. Now, the biggest value for x1 is obtained from x1 - 5 = -25, so that A < max0<g<5(5 - 25) = 5.

Hence, the oscillation amplitude for x1 is bounded with a value between 2.36 and 5. In Figure 4, it can be verified that h = 2.36 is a sufficient condition for bounded oscillations to occur. Also, the amplitude is seen to be a little bigger than 3, which is inside the estimated limits. For this case the describing function approach cannot be used to estimate the amplitude, because of the instability of the associated linear system.

4.3. Amplitude Estimate for a Globally Stable System. Considering a case where the equilibrium point of the involved system is globally stable such as

x2 = -5x2 - 5 sign (i - h))

Using Remark 4 of Proposition 3, the inferior bound for amplitude AXi with m'x = 5/5 = 1 is AXi > hm^ = h. If h = 5, then A > 5. In Figure 5, the system response for x1 is seen. The oscillation amplitude is a little bigger than 5, verifying the estimated value. Also, since x2 is almost constant, the estimated amplitude is very close to the real one. If the describing function approach was used, the estimated amplitude would be around 4.44, which is lower than the minimum estimated with the proposed method. In this particular case, an estimate of the superior bound for x1 using Remark 4 cannot be obtained, since x1 is not explicit in /(f,x,0) - fc = -25.

5. Conclusions

Stability analysis for a class of second order sliding mode systems, which does not need measuring or estimation of the derivative of the sliding variable for the control signal,

0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 5: Behavior of globally stable system (53) with a delay h = 5.

was presented. Also, when delay in input is present, bounded oscillations are studied. The system can be linear or nonlinear. The class of systems treated is a more general class of the systems studied in [20], where sufficient conditions are given for stationary oscillations to exist using another approach and no means is given to estimate amplitude of oscillations. The analysis presented in this paper is based on two propositions. One of them gives sufficient conditions for sliding mode existence for a class of second order sliding mode systems. The other can be used as a method based on maximum derivative to get a delay estimate on the control signal for a class of second order sliding mode systems, giving sufficient conditions to maintain amplitude bounded oscillations on the sliding surface. Also, for a given delay in input, oscillation amplitude for the sliding surface dynamics can be estimated if the system state is in the attraction region. On the other hand, when oscillation amplitude is known, such as hysteresis happening in the discontinuous input, frequency of oscillation can be estimated. Numerical examples for second order sliding modes were presented to illustrate the proposed approach, first two examples have unstable dynamics when no input is applied. Third example has global stability for the considered input. It is clear that very conservative results using this method would arise for systems where the expected sliding surface derivative is much lower than the maximum derivative. For linear stable processes, the describing function method has been used in the literature to estimate oscillations amplitude. In the second example such approach cannot be used since the linear process is unstable. In the third example, the simulation shows the amplitude just a little bigger than the minimum estimated by the approach presented here. For this example, the describing function method gives a lower estimate than the minimum given by the proposed approach.

References

[1] A. Levant, "Sliding order and sliding accuracy in sliding mode control," International Journal of Control, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 12471263,1993.

[3 [4 [5

[9 [10 [11

[12 [13 [14

[15 [16

G. Bartolini, A. Ferrara, and E. Usai, "Chattering avoidance by second-order sliding mode control," IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 241-246,1998.

A. Levant, "Robust exact differentiation via sliding mode technique," Automatica, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 379-384,1998.

A. Levant, "Homogeneity approach to high-order sliding mode design," Automatica, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 823-830, 2005.

H. An, J. Li, J. Wang, J. Wang, and H. Ma, "Second-order geometric sliding mode attitude observer with application to quadrotor on a test bench," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2013, Article ID 328974,12 pages, 2013.

M. Defoort, T. Floquet, A. Kokosy, and W. Perruquetti, "A novel higher order sliding mode control scheme," Systems & Control Letters, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 102-108, 2009. N. Zhang, M. Yang, Y. Jing, and S. Zhang, "Congestion control for diffserv network using second-order sliding mode control," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 3330-3336, 2009.

B. Beltran, M. E. H. Benbouzid, and T. Ahmed-Ali, "Second-order sliding mode control of a doubly fed induction fenerator-driven wind turbine," IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 261-269, 2012.

M. Akian, P.-A. Bliman, and M. Sorine, "Control of delay systems with relay," Journal of Mathematical Control and Information, vol. 19, no. 1-2, pp. 133-155, 2002. F. Gouaisbaut, M. Dambrine, and J. P. Richard, "Robust control of delay systems: a sliding mode control design via LMI," Systems & Control Letters, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 219-230, 2002. X. Li and S. Yurkovich, "Sliding mode control of delayed systems with application to engine idle speed control," IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 802-810, 2001.

J.-P. Richard, "Time-delay systems: an overview of some recent advances and open problems," Automatica, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1667-1694, 2003.

Y. Xia and Y. Jia, "Robust sliding-mode control for uncertain time-delay systems: an LMI approach," IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1086-1092, 2003. M. Basin, J. Rodriguez-Gonzalez, L. Fridman, and P. Acosta, "Integral sliding mode design for robust filtering and control of linear stochastic time-delay systems," International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 407-421, 2005. L. Wu, X. Su, and P. Shi, "Sliding mode control with bounded L2 gain performance of Markovian jump singular time-delay systems," Automatica, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1929-1933, 2012. Y. Xia, G.-P. Liu, P. Shi, J. Chen, and D. Rees, "Robust delay-dependent sliding mode control for uncertain time-delay systems," International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 1142-1161, 2008.

E. Fridman, L. Fridman, and E. Shustin, "Steady modes in relay control systems with time delay and periodic disturbances," Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, Transactions of the ASME, vol. 122, no. 4, pp. 732-737, 2000.

I. Boiko, "Asymmetric limit cycles and transfer properties of relay servo systems with integrating plants," in Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 3932-3936, Las Vegas, Nev, USA, December 2002.

P. Acosta, A. Polyakov, L. Fridman, and V. Strygin, "Estimation of amplitude of oscillations in sliding mode systems caused by time delay," Asian Journal of Control, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 507-513, 2004.

[20] E. Shustin, E. Fridman, and L. Fridman, "Oscillations in a second-order discontinuous system with delay," Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems A, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 339-358, 2003.

[21] L. Levaggi and E. Punta, "Analysis of a second-order sliding-mode algorithm in presence of input delays," IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1325-1332, 2006.

Copyright of Mathematical Problems in Engineering is the property of Hindawi Publishing Corporation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.