Design of an Optimized Sliding Mode Control for

Loaded Double Inverted Pendulum with Mismatched

Uncertainties
Manar Lashin, Abdullah T. Elgammal, Mahmoud Magdi , Mohamed Fanni, Ahmed Abo-Ismail

Mechatronics and Robotics Eng. Dept., Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology, E-JUST- Alexandria, Egypt

Mechanical Engineering Dept., Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

Email:{manar.lashin,abdallah.elgammal,mahmoud.magdi,mohamed.fannni,ahmed.aboismail}@ejust.edu.eg

AbstractIn this paper, the stabilization problem of loaded

double inverted pendulum using an optimized state feedback sliding mode control is investigated. ADAMS/Matlab co-simulation
environment is used for building a virtual nonlinear model for
loaded double inverted pendulum system and the state feedback
sliding mode control law is designed for stabilizing the system.
Mismatched uncertainties represented by payload variations is
considered. Genetic Algorithms are used to optimize the parameters of the sliding mode controller based on a performance
index containing the sum of squared errors. The proposed control
scheme can significantly suppress chattering effect and improves
the performance of the system against uncertainties. Simulation
results show the effectiveness of the approach and the robustness
of the system against payload changes.
KeywordsSliding Mode Control, Genetic Algorithms, Loaded
Double Inverted Pendulum, Mismatched Uncertainties.

I.

I NTRODUCTION

Inverted pendulum system is a benchmark control problem

for stability and robustness studies. It is a naturally unstable
and under-actuated system. The control of inverted pendulum
is a challenging problem; it can be divided into three aspects,
swing-up [1], [2], stabilization [3], [4] and tracking control
problems [5]. On the other hand, controlling a double inverted
pendulum (DIP) is more challenging than the common inverted
pendulum as increasing the number of links does increase the
complexity and uncertainty of the system. Stabilization of a
loaded double inverted pendulum (LDIP) is the scope of this
work. Several Stabilization control problems can be simplified
as an inverted pendulum stabilization problem. For instance,
keeping a Humanoid [6], [7] in an upright posture under
large disturbance, keeping a space shuttle balanced during
launching, and stabilization of a segway vehicle during its
motion [8], [9].
stabilization fuzzy control based on fusion function has
been presented in [10] for stabilizing a DIP. Simulation results
showed that the proposed scheme can stabilize the system
in a relatively short time. However, the approach did not
consider the robustness issue in the design. A comparative
study between LQR and Adaptive-Neuro Fuzzy inference
system (ANFIS) has been proposed in [11]. The ANFIS based
controller succeeded to stabilize the system for a wide range of
initial conditions in comparison with the LQR. However, the
performance of both controllers did not provide satisfactory
results in terms of settling time, overshoots and control effort.
A hierarchical sliding mode controller for a DIP system has

been introduced in [12]. A sliding mode controller (SMC)

has been designed and stability analysis has been investigated
at certain initial states without considering uncertainties. A
sophisticated self-tuning Neuro-PID controller was proposed
in [13], which kept the angular positions of its links at small
values. However a hunting motion was observed on the cart.
In general, the SMC law provides an effective and robust
way of controlling nonlinear systems. The proposed controller
has a good dynamic performance against uncertainties if the
controlled system satisfies a so-called invariance condition
which yields system behavior independent of uncertainties and
disturbance. However, this corresponds with one of two major
problems in designing SMC,
1) ensuring the existence of invariance condition, and
2) ensuring no chattering behavior.
The first condition guarantees controller robustness while the
second suppresses the chattering effect.
In this work, the design of an optimized sliding mode
control law scheme based on Genetic Algorithms (GAs) is
introduced. The validity of this control scheme is proved
via ADAMS/Matlab co-simulation environment. The proposed
control methodology is robust against mismatched uncertainties and effectively eliminates the chattering effect.
The paper is organized as follows: Section II briefly introduces the system mathematical model. In Section III, the
sliding mode controller is presented and the invariance condition is discussed. The optimization of sliding mode controller
parameters based on GAs are explained in Section IV. In
Section V, the simulation results based on ADAMS/Matlab
co-simulation are presented and analyzed. Finally, Section VI
draws the conclusion.
II.

S YSTEM M ATHEMATICAL MODEL

The LDIP system is graphically shown in Fig.1. The mathematical model can be obtained according to the principles
of dynamics and kinematics. The derivation for the dynamic
model of equations is carried out using Euler Lagrange
equation. This results in the nonlinear representation of the
system [14]. The state variables are given by the state vector:

T,
x(t)

= [z(t), (t), (t), z(t),

(t),
(t)]
where, z(t), z(t)

are the cart position and velocity ,respec

tively, (t), (t)
are angular position of first link and angular

velocity ,respectively, and (t), (t)

are the angular position
of the second link and angular velocity, respectively. The

TABLE I: Double Inverted Pendulum Model Parameters

Symbol
m1
m2
m3
M
l1
l2
L
L0
J1
J2

Fig. 1: Schematic configuration of a loaded double inverted

pendulum
detailed equations of the nonlinear model can be found in [11].
The parameters of the LDIP system are given in tableI. The
linearization of the nonlinear model around the equilibrium
point (z(t), (t), (t) 0, 0, 0) results in the LTI state space
model:
x(t)

= Ax(t) + Bu(t),

y = Cx(t) + Du(t),

(1)

where, x(t) is the state vector, u(t) is the control signal and
the state
space matrices are:
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
A=
4.5381
0.4210
0.117 0
0
0 149.6361 105.6702 0.3643 0
0 140.605 135.1784
0.0450 0

B=

D=

0
0
0
0.5174
1.7706
0.18546
0
0
0

, C =

1 0
0 1
0 0

0
0
1

0 0
0 0
0 0

0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
0

For the perturbed model of LDIP the state space representation

is represented as:
x(t)

= Ax(t) + Bu(t) + f (x, t),

y = Cx(t) + Du(t), (2)

where, f (x, t) denoted disturbance. It is considered that f (x, t)

is uniformly bounded with respect to time t, and locally
uniformly bounded with respect to state, therefore it can be
given by:
f (x, t) = Ax(t) + g(t)
(3)
where, A is the change in the state matrix A caused
by maximum payload variation. For this case the maximum
allowable payload is 5.6 times the mass of the second link or
2.30 times the nominal payload. While g(t) is the matched
disturbance and can be eliminated. The inherent feature of
SMC is to overcome this disturbance. However, the main target

J3
c1

Description
Mass of the first link assembly (0.205kg)
Mass of the second link assembly (0.178kg)
Mass of the payload (0.432kg)
Mass of the cart assembly (1.67kg)
Length from the first joint to the center of mass of the first link
(0.180m)
Length from the second joint to the center of mass of the second link
(0.185m)
length of the first link (0.36m)
length of the second link(0.37m)
Mass moment of inertia of the first link around its center of
gravity(0.0041kg.m2 )
Mass moment of inertia of the second link around its center of gravity
(0.0024kg.m2 )
Mass moment of inertia of the payload around its center of gravity
(0.00014kg.m2 )
Friction coefficient between the cart and the linear guide
(0.21N.sec/m)

TABLE II: Different payload values

Mass
m3 [Kg]

Mass Moment of Inertia

J3 [kg.m2 ]

Load/second Mass Ratio

(R = m3 /m2 )

234 103
432 103
997.5 103

49647.56 109
140000 109
436590 109

R(2) = 1.32
R(3) = 2.42
R(5) = 5.6

is to optimized SMC law to overcome the mismatched type of

disturbance. Different payloads and the corresponding mass
moments of inertia are listed in table II.
III.

S LIDING M ODE C ONTROLLER

A. Invariance condition and mismatched uncertainties

The matched condition is defined as: a disturbance can be
rejected by a control law if and only if the control subspace
spans the disturbance subspace. The system can be forced
to move along the sliding surface by a discontinuous control
action such that its behavior is only determined by the sliding
surface parameters and not influenced by uncertainties or
disturbance. The trajectory of the sliding mode motion will
depend only on the value of disturbance up to the beginning
of the sliding mode via the initial conditions. The precursory
part of the motion is abbreviated if the control function is
properly chosen. The whole system exhibits a low sensitivity
to disturbance. This is the so-called completely robust feature
of SMC for which it is assumed that the uncertainties and
disturbance satisfy the matched condition. However, this
discontinuous control action causes the chattering behavior
on the sliding plane S = C T x(t) = 0.
For the system in (2), the mismatched uncertainties
represented by f (x, t) cause the system to violate the
invariance condition. Designing a sliding mode controller
for such class of systems which dissatisfy this condition has
been widely discussed. Some approaches require additional
constraints before introducing a control law for such systems
[15], [16]. While in [17] the chattering effect may not
included as an important issue in the design. In this paper the
continuous control law proposed by [18] is used in designing
state feedback SMC. In this control law the stability of
the sliding plane and chattering elimination are considered
important issues in the design. It guarantees asymptotic
stability even if the system has mismatched uncertainties.
The types of disturbance that can affect the system motion

whether matched or mismatched are[19]:

1)
2)

the disturbance before reaching the sliding mode, this

type determine the initial conditions of the sliding
mode, and
the disturbance after the sliding mode begins.

In LDIP system the disturbance are determined by payload

variations, this violates the invariance condition. The trajectory
of the sliding mode motion depend on the value of the
disturbance, which may loose the robustness with the SMC.

where uc (t) is the corrective control used to compensate the

deviations from the sliding plane and ueq (t) is the equivalent
control or the robust control which guarantees zero derivatives
of the sliding plane. It may be obtained from a conventional
method of linear system theory. The control law (4) guarantees
that the sliding plane is asymptotically stable even if the
invariance condition is not satisfied. this means that the plane
is insensitive with respect to the disturbance. This conclusion
lights up the method introduced by Ackermann and Utkin
which show how the vector C may be found in an explicit
form using Ackermanns formula [20] as follow:
For an arbitrary system:

B. State Feedback Sliding Mode Control for Mismatched Uncertainties

The invariance condition in the case of LDIP with payload
variation is not satisfied. One way to satisfy this condition is
to utilize the following results by [18]. Thereom (1):
The proposed continuous control law considers two main
assumptions:
1)

2)

There exists a known non-negative continuous.

function (.) such that k f (x, t) k (x, t) where
k . k denotes the standard Euclidean norm.
The pair (A, B) is controllable and the matrix B has
full rank.

The continuous control law which drives the state trajectories

of this system onto the sliding surface S(t) = 0, and the
system remains on it thereafter can be described as:
u(t) = (CB)1 [CAx(t) + P S(t)]
(x, t)
(x, t)
T
k S (t)CB k (k (x, t) k +et )

(4)

where, P Rmm , is a positive definite symmetric matrix,

, > 0,
(x, t) = k S T (t)CB k(x, t)
(5)
(x, t) =

S T (t)CB(x, t)
k S T (t)CB k

(6)

Based on the control law (4), the state trajectories will hit
the sliding surface S = C T x(t) = 0 subject to any initial
condition. Therefore, the system remains on the sliding plane
as t . Further details about theorem (1) proof can be
found in [18]. As the maximum allowable value for the payload
is 5.6 times the mass of the second link. The disturbance can
be written as:
k f (x, t) k 169.9415x(t).

(7)

The design of the sliding mode control includes the selection

of a sliding function so the sliding motion is stable. The sliding
surface equation can be given by:
S = C T x(t) = c1 x1 + c2 x2 + c3 x3 + ..... + cn xn

(8)

CRmn , m is the number of inputs and n is the order

of the plant. The (n m) desired closed loop eigenvalues
1 , 2 , , nm may be assigned by a proper choice of the
vector C such that the sliding mode dynamics on the sliding
plane S = C T x(t) = 0, with (n m) desired. The sliding
mode control basically consists of two parts:
u(t) = uc (t) + ueq (t),

u(t) Rm

(9)

x(t)

= Ax(t) + Bu(t)

(10)

The control law is given by:

u = k T x, k T = eT P (A)
T

n1

e = [0 01][b Ab A

b]

(11)
1

C T = eT P1 ()

(12)
(13)

with,
P1 () = ( 1 )( 2 ) ( n1 ),
= P1 + P2 + + Pn1 n2 + n1 ,

(14)

1 , n1 are the eigenvalues of the sliding mode dynamics

in the plane S = C T x = 0 with n being an arbitrary value.
The control law should now be constructed for (2). In [21], The
remaining pole, n used to provide some stability margin for
the system by accelerating the reaching phase. This is occurred
by multiplying it by factor from [3, 5].
IV.

G ENETIC A LGORITHMS (GA S ) O PTIMIZATION

GAs are bio-inspired optimization techniques used in solving the constrained and unconstrained optimization problems.
The GAs start with a population of solutions that is modified - iteratively- through crossover and mutation operators.
The algorithm randomly selects individuals from the current
population which represents parents and generate the next generation; the children. This process is repeated for consecutive
generations, till the population converges to an optimal solution
with respect to the objective function chosen. For instance
in LDIP model, the sum of the squared errors between the
desired system response and the actual response is chosen as
the objective function. Hence the optimization problem is a
minimization of the objective function. Individuals with higher
fitness values will have bigger chances for recombination and
consequently for generating offspring [22]. GAs have five major parameters to be determined:(a) Population size, which influences amount of search points/solutions in every generation
(b) Crossover probability, which influences the efficiency of
exchanging information. In general, the crossover probability
is chosen between 0.6 and 1 (c) Mutation probability, which
occurs with a very small probability. The mutation probability
is usually chosen as 0.01 or less [23]. This value controlling
the probability of production and crossover (d) Chromosome
length, which influences the resolution of the searching result
(e) Maximum number of generations, which influences the
searching time and searching result. GAs with larger search
space and less population size need more generations to reach
a global optimum [23]. The standard architecture of GAs is

modules Adamas/Controls from the plug-in manager in

ADAMS. The input force in ADAMS is supplied form MATLAB as a variable depending on the control architecture and
the dynamic model of the system. ADAMS Input/Output vari , as outputs while F , the control effort
ables are z, z,
, ,
is the input. The co-Simulation sequence between ADAMS
and MATLAB is:

Fig. 2: The standard architecture of Genetic Algorithms

illustrated in Fig.2.
For the Control law (4), there are three parameters that
should be tuned in order to stabilize the LDIP system with
reasonable control effort. These parameters are: P , and .
GAs as an intelligent search technique sounds to be useful in
defining their optimal values in terms of an objective function.
The number of generations chosen is 100 with population size
of 5 individuals and 2 sub-population. Increasing the number of
generations or sub-populations over this value is found not to
add any improvement in this optimization problem. However,
these numbers have a remarkable effect in improving the
optimization quality in general. The chosen objective function
is the sum of squared errors for the cart position and the two
link angles such that:
F = 1000 (ez 2 + e 2 + e 2 )

(15)

The factor 1000 is a weighting factor to make the optimization

process much more sensitive to small values of error. The
optimization process is carried out based on ADAMS/Matlab
co-simulation model.
V.

SIMULATION RESULTS

A. ADAMS Dynamic Modeling Software

Adams/Controls help in eliminating the need to write
complex equations of motion describing mechanical plants or
complex models. ADAMS provides graphical representation
to model mechanical systems, containing a variety of constraints and force types as well as parts of arbitrary shape.
ADAMS enables visualizing the results using animations and
plotting that save time and money specially in complex models.
ADAMS enables exporting 3-D mechanical systems from other
specialized softwares such Solidworks and Catia in order to
study alternative designs as virtual prototypes by simulating
and comparing realistic motion behavior. ADAMS is found to
be useful for modeling the LDIP system as it is not a complex
mechanical model that needs to be built in a specialized 3-D
mechanical design software.
Matlab provides an effective tool for controlling different
systems. Co-Simulation between these two softwares facilitate
building a virtual environment for validating different control
schemes. This environment is built by activating the control

Build the mechanical model for the LDIP in ADAMS

Define the measurements: z,, , z,
,

Define the input force f as Matlab variable

Choose form the Plug-in manger Adams/Control

Determine the Input/output variables for ADAMS

Export the model to Matlab

Apply the control scheme in the co-simulation environment

As mentioned previously, all states are measured directly from

ADAMS model and then exported to Matlab. The implementation of state feedback SMC requires that all components of
the state vector to be accessible for measurement. However,
this is not the case for many practical situations. To solve
this problem, a state observer to restore the state vector using
available measurements of some states can be used. Some
other techniques derive a class of systems such that the control
problem can be solved by designing a static output feedback
controller [24].
Co-simulation between ADAMS and Matlab create a feasible environment as a real-time experiment. This assists in relying on the results and provides higher fidelity in the proposed
optimized control scheme. Moreover, co-simulation made it
easier for modeling and debugging systems in comparison
with traditional design strategies that are based on the use of
mathematical methods.
The linearized model of the LDIP is used in designing the
optimized sliding mode controller (OSMC) while the validation is applied on the nonlinear model built using ADAMS
software.
B. Controller Design
ADAMS software is used to build the virtual model of
LDIP by building a dynamic representation of equations.cThe
proposed algorithm for designing an optimized sliding mode
controller can be summarized in the following few steps:
1) Choose the desired closed loop poles for the model.
2) Construct the new poles vector 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
3) Find the gain vector C that places the system poles to that
of step (1).
4) Define the upper/lower bound for the disturbance (x, t).
5) Call GAs to find the optimized values for P, and .
6) According to equation (4), build the control law.
In order to obtain the eigenvalues, LQR technique is used to
get the optimal closed loop poles:
Z
v=
(xT Qx + uT Ru)dt
(16)
0

where Q and R are the weighting matrices which are selected

based upon the desired level of performance and permissible

0.15
0.1
0.05
0

5
Time (sec)

0.05

0.25

0.2

0.05
0.1

10

5
Time (sec)

10

The cart position (m)

Cart position

0.2

0.3

0.1
First arm angle [rad]

0.25

R=2.42
R=1.32
R=5.6

0.15

0.1

20

0.05

Control effort

Second arm angle [rad]

0.05

0.1

0
0.05
0.1

5
Time (sec)

10

0.05

20

10

15

Time (sec)

40
60

5
Time (sec)

10

Fig. 4: Cart position at different payloads-initial states

z = 0.1m , = 0.05rad , = 0.03rad

Fig. 3: Cart position[m], first and second angles[rad] at initial

states z = 0.1m , = 0.05rad , = 0.03rad

0.1
R=2.42
R=1.32
R=5.6

control energy levels. The chosen values for Q and R are:

The optimized parameters of the sliding mode controller

are P = 2.0907, = 5.029 (10)10 and = 0.0607. It
is worth mentioning that the obtained values of the state
feedback gains of SMC are kept constant while the payload is
changed. This is just to verify the robustness of the controller.
In addition, the initial states of the cart movement and the
two link angles are kept constant at values zint = 0.1m,
int = 0.05rad and int = 0.03rad while the payload
changes. At different payloads, the designed controller shows
robustness and maintains the stability. It shows a robust
performance against payload variations in spite that the
maximum applied payload variation is 2.3 times the nominal
payload. Figures.4, 5 and 6 show the Cart position[m],
first link and second link angles[rad] and control effort
at initial states z = 0.1m , = 0.05rad , = 0.03rad .
The maximum allowable payload is 0.9975kg and the
mass moment of inertia is 0.00014kg.m2. The overshoots
percentages and settling time are listed for table III. The
control effort is found to be less than 47N . Figure.7 shows
the output responses and the control effort in the case of
maximum payload in comparison with the nominal payload.
It is clear from results that the OSMC which is designed for
perturbed system with mismatched uncertainties is effectively
removes chattering and at the same time the control effort is
relatively small. In addition, using GAs confers optimality to
the algorithm as well guaranteeing minimum squared errors.
VI.

C ONCLUSION

AND

F UTURE W ORK

This paper presents a method to design a state feedback

sliding mode controller with mismatched uncertainties where
the controller parameters are optimal tuned through the use

The first arm angle (rad)

1 = 17.9326
2 = 14.5416
3 = 2.8461 + 1.6541i 4 = 2.8461 1.6541i
5 = 5.3130

0.05

0.1

0.15

10

15

Time (sec)

Fig. 5: First link angle at different payloads-initial states

z = 0.1m , = 0.05rad , = 0.03rad

0.1
R=2.42
R=1.32
R=5.6

0.08
0.06

The second arm angle (rad)

Q = diag(7200, 36, 900, 252, 18, 36) R = 5.5

The obtained closed loop eigenvalues for LDIP system are:

0.05

0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08

10

15

Time (sec)

Fig. 6: Second link angle at different payloads-initial states

z = 0.1m , = 0.05rad , = 0.03rad
of Genetic Algorithms. ADAMS/Matlab co-simulation environment is used in validating the proposed control scheme.
For control design purposes, the nonlinear model is linearized
with parameters which vary within definite limits. Simulation
results obtained from ADAMS/Matlab co-simulation affirm the

30
R=2.42
R=1.32
R=5.6

20

The Control effort (N)

10
0
10
20
30
40
50

4
Time (sec)

Fig. 7: Control effort at different payloads-initial states

z = 0.1m , = 0.05rad , = 0.03rad

TABLE III: Overshoots and settling time at different payloads

overshoots%
z%
%
%
26.29%
13.2%
8.1%

Settling Time(tss )
tss (z)sec
tss ()sec
tss ()sec
11sec
11sec
11sec

robustness of the optimized sliding mode controller against

payload variations and effectively removes chattering. The
virtual environment built by ADAMS assists relying on the
results. The asymptotic stability is guaranteed with the existence of disturbance. As a future work, the proposed control
technique will be applied to a real system for which sliding
mode observer will be designed to estimate the states. A comparison between the proposed optimized state feedback sliding
mode controller and other techniques will be investigated.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author is supported by a scholarship from the
Mission Department, Ministry of Higher Education of the
Government of Egypt which is gratefully acknowledged. Our
sincere thanks to Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology (E-JUST) for guidance and support.
The authors of the paper would like to thank Dr. Mohamed
Fanni; Mechatronics and Robotics Dep. (E-JUST), at Egypt
Japan University of Science and Technology for assistance
and support in the work. Also, the valuable comments and
suggestions from Prof. Ahmed Abouelsoud; Mechatronics and
Robotics Dep., (E-JUST) were gratefully appreciated.
R EFERENCES
[1]

[2]
[3]

[4]

K. Furuta, M. Yamakita, and S. Kobayashi, Swing up control of

inverted pendulum, in Industrial Electronics, Control and Instrumentation, 1991. Proceedings. IECON 91., 1991 International Conference
on, Oct 1991, pp. 21932198 vol.3.
om and K. Furuta, Swinging up a pendulum by energy
K. J. Astr
control, Automatica, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 287295, 2000.
Y. Sang, Y. Fan, and B. Liu, Double inverted pendulum control
based on three-loop pid and improved bp neural network, in Digital
Manufacturing and Automation (ICDMA), 2011 Second International
Conference on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 456459.
S. Zhang, S. Shao, R. An, S. Feng, and Y. Du, The sliding mode
variable structure control for double inverted pendulum system based
on fuzzy reaching law, in Advances in Electronic Engineering, Communication and Management Vol. 1. Springer, 2012, pp. 123129.

[5] E. Vinodh Kumar and J. Jerome, Robust lqr controller design for
stabilizing and trajectory tracking of inverted pendulum, Procedia
Engineering, vol. 64, pp. 169178, 2013.
[6] K.-i. Nagasaka, H. Inoue, and M. Inaba, Dynamic walking pattern
generation for a humanoid robot based on optimal gradient method,
in Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1999. IEEE SMC99 Conference
Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on, vol. 6. IEEE,
1999, pp. 908913.
[7] B. Sheng, M. Huaqing, Z. Zhongjie, H. Quanyong, M. Huaxi, Z. Yanping, and L. Shaojun, Walking control method of humanoid robot
based on fsr sensors and inverted pendulum model, in Advances in
Autonomous Robotics. Springer, 2012, pp. 402413.
[8] R. Watanabe, Motion control of nxtway (lego segway), Universidad
de Waseda, Japon, disponible en http://web. mac. com/ryo watanabe/(Septiembre 2008), 2007.
[9] H. G. Nguyen, G. Kogut, R. Barua, A. Burmeister, N. Pezeshkian,
D. Powell, N. Farrington, M. Wimmer, B. Cicchetto, C. Heng et al., A
segway rmp-based robotic transport system, in Optics East. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2004, pp. 244255.
[10] S.-Y. Zhang, R. An, S.-M. Shao, and D. Li, A new fuzzy controller
for stabilization of double inverted pendulum system, in Computer
and Communication Technologies in Agriculture Engineering (CCTAE),
2010 International Conference On, vol. 1, 2010, pp. 300303.
[11] O.Mehrez, A.Ramadan, , and A. Aboismail, Stabilization of a loaded
double inverted pendulum system, in Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology (E-JUST), 2011, pp. 4453.
[12] C. Edwards and S. K. Spurgeon, Sliding mode control: theory and
applications, vol. 7. CRC Press, 1998.
[13] T. Fujinaka, Y. Kishida, M. Yoshioka, and S. Omatu, Stabilization
of double inverted pendulum with self-tuning neuro-pid, in Neural
Networks, 2000. IJCNN 2000, Proceedings of the IEEE-INNS-ENNS
International Joint Conference on, vol. 4. IEEE, 2000, pp. 345348.
[14] A. Bogdanov, Optimal control of a double inverted pendulum on a
cart, OGI School of Science and Engineering, OHSU, 2004.
[15] H. H. Choi, Variable structure control of dynamical systems with mismatched norm-bounded uncertainties: an lmi approach, International
Journal of Control, vol. 74, no. 13, pp. 13241334, 2001.
[16] R. H. Takahashi and P. L. Peres, H 2 guaranteed cost-switching surface
design for sliding modes with nonmatching disturbances, Automatic
Control, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 22142218, 1999.
[17] C.-M. Kwan, Sliding mode control of linear systems with mismatched
uncertainties, Automatica, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 303307, 1995.
[18] K.-K. Shyu, Y.-W. Tsai, and C.-K. Lai, Sliding mode control for
mismatched uncertain systems, vol. 34, no. 24. IET, 1998, pp. 2359
2360.
[19] B. Drazenovic, The invariance conditions in variable structure systems, Automatica, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 287295, 1969.
[20] J. Ackermann and V. Utkin, Sliding mode control design based
on ackermanns formula, Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 234237, 1998.
[21] Q. Ha, H. Trinh, H. Nguyen, and H. Tuan, Dynamic output feedback
sliding-mode control using pole placement and linear functional observers, Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 50, no. 5,
pp. 10301037, 2003.
[22] A. Popov, Genetic algorithms for optimization, User Manual, Hamburg, vol. 2013, 2005.
[23] C.-C. Wong and S.-Y. Chang, Parameter selection in the sliding mode
control design using genetic algorithms, Tamkang Journal of science
and Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 115122, 1998.
[24] V. Utkin, J. Guldner, and M. Shijun, Sliding mode control in electromechanical systems. CRC press, 1999, vol. 34.