International Journal of Control

ISSN: 0020-7179 (Print) 1366-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcon20

Sliding controller design for non-linear systems

JEAN-JACQUES E. SLOTINE

To cite this article: JEAN-JACQUES E. SLOTINE (1984) Sliding controller design for non-linear
systems, International Journal of Control, 40:2, 421-434, DOI: 10.1080/00207178408933284

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207178408933284

Published online: 06 Apr 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 555

Citing articles: 702 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcon20
INT. J. CONTROL, 1984, VOL. 40, No.2, 421-4:34

Sliding controller design for non-linear systems

JEAN-JACQUES E. SLOTINEt

New result.s are presented OIl the sliding control methodology introduced by Siotine
and Sastry (l983) to achieve accurate tracking for a class of non-linear time-varying
rnultivariable systems in the presence of dist.urbences and parameter variations. An
explicit trade-off is obtained between tracking precision and robustness to modelling
uncertainty: tracking accuracy is set according to the extent of parametric un-
certainty and the frequency range of unmodelled dynamics. The trade-off is further
refined to account for time-dependence of model uncertainty.

1. Introduction
New results are presented on the sliding control methodology introduced
by Slotine and Sastry (198:3) to achieve accurate tracking for a class of non-
linear time-varying systems in the presence of disturbances and parameter
variations.
The classical 'sliding mode control' methodology has been developed
essentially in the literature from the Soviet Union (see, for example, Utkin
(1978) and references contained therein), where it has been used to stabilize a
class of non-linear systems. However, as discussed by Slotine and Sastry
(198:3), this methodology has several important drawbacks, particularly high
control authority and control chattering. Chattering is generally undesirable
in practice, since it involves extremely high control activity, and further may
excite high-frequency dynamics neglected in the course of modelling. Siotine
and Sastry (198:3) showed how to transform the classical sliding mode control
schemes and achieve accurate tracking control for a large class of non-linear
time-varying systems, while maintaining reasonable control activity. In
particular, the methodology involved a trade-off between tracking precision
and robustness to unmodelled high-frequency dynamics. Here we quantify
the precise nature of this trade-off, and complete the methodology of Slotine
and Sastry (198:3) by showing how to achieve optimal tracking performance
given bandwidth requirements and (perhaps time-varying) modelling un-
certainties.
Section 2 summarizes the methodology of Slotine and Sastry (198:3) and
illustrates, with an example, the simplicity of the preliminary design. Section 3
shows how chattering is indeed eliminated, and quantifies the corresponding
trade-off between robustness and tracking precision. The analysis of §:3 is
further refined in § 4, leading to significant improvements in tracking perfor-
mance at the price of modest additional complexity. Section 5 presents
concluding remarks.

Received 3 November 1983.

t Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 021:39, U.s.A.
422 J .-J. E. Slotiue
I

2. Tracking control of non-linear systems using sliding surfaces

In this section, we review the basic results of Slotine and Sastry (1983).
For notational simplicity, the development will be presented for single-input
systems, although the extension to a large class of multi-input non-linear
systems is straightforward, as illustrated here in an example.
Consider the system

x(nl=/(X; t)+b(X; t)u+d(t) (1)

where X = [x, d; ... , x(n-llJ'!' is the state and u is the control input, In (I), the
function 1 (in general non-linear) is not exactly known, but the extent of the
imprecision 111 on 1 is bounded by a known continuous function of X and t.
Similarly, control gain b(X; t) is not exactly known, but is of constant sign
and is bounded by known continuous functions of X and t. Disturbance
d(t) is unknown but bounded by a known continuous function of X and t. The
control problem is to get the state X to track a specific state X d = [x d, Xd, ... ,
~;d (,,-I )JI' in the presence of model imprecision 'on I(X; t) and b(X; t), and of
disturbances d(t). For this to be achievable using a finite control u, we must
assume
(2)
where

is the tracking error vector.

Let us define a time-varying sliding surface S(t) in the state space R» as

S(t): s(X; t) = 0
where

s(X; t) (:t + .\
= r x, .\> 0 (3)

Given the initial condition (2), the problem of tracking X = X,\ is equivalent
to that of remaining on the surface S(t) for all t > O. Now a sufficient condition
for such positive invariance of S(t) is to choose the control law u of (I) such that
outside'S(t) (sliding condition)

Ii
- S2(X; t).,; -'1ls(X; t)1 (4)
dt

where '1 is a positive constant (Slotine and Sastry 1983). Given the bounds of
the uncertainties on I(X ; t) and b(X; t), and of the disturbances d(t), obtaining
such a control law is quite straightforward, as we shall illustrate in the example
below (numerous examples can also be found in Slotine (1983)). Moreover,
satisfying eqn. (4) guarantees that if (2) is not exactly verified, i.e. if X II~o is
actually off X d I1-0' the surface S(t) will none the less be reached in a finite time
(inferior to 2s(X(0); 0)/'1), while (3) then guarantees that X.-O as t-s o».
We now illustrate the choice of control law u to satisfy (4), with a simple
multivariable example.
 Sliding controller design for non-linear systems 423

Example 2.1
Consider the coupled multi-input system
(Jl = a(t)023 + 20,2 + '11, + «. (t) (5)

{
°
(J2=f2(Ov 0" 02' 2 ; t)+u 2+d2(t) (6)

Parameter a(t) is estimated as d(t), where

la(t) - d(t) I:; ; a:
Consider the problem of getting 01 to track a desired trajectory 0d1> specified
in real time, such that
1(J'I1(t)I:;;;v, Vt~O
in the presence of disturbances d1 (t) such that
Id1(t ) I:;;; d, "It ~ 0
We define the sliding surface S,(t) according to (3), namely
SI(t): SI = 0, with SI = 01 + >'01
where 01 = 0, - 0d' is the tracking error. Note that s, depends on 0, only. To
satisfy a sliding condition of the form (4), it is sufficient to define control law
'11, as
'11 1 = -d(t)023-20,2-AB,-("'10213+y) sgns v y>d+v (7)
where sgn (s) = - 1 for s < 0, and sgn (s) = + 1 for s> O. We have, indeed
i
"2
d (SI) 2-s,s,-s,(
de _' _ Il,- Il.n + "11,)
,A

so that control law (7) leads to

! :t (S,)2 = s,[(a(t) - d(t))023- Ild , + d 1(t)] - Is,I[",I023 + y]

1

where
"'~ la(t)-d(t)j, y>v+ih 1-(Jd,+d,(t)1
and thus the control law satisfies the sliding condition (4) for surface S,(t)
d -
dt (S,)2:;;; - 2[y - (v + dll Is,1

Note that'll, is discontinuous across S,(t), and that control discontinuity

increases with modelling imprecision and the strength of disturbances to be
compensated for.
Assume now that eqn. (5) is replaced by
Il, =a(t)023+2012+b,(t)u, +d,(t) (8)
where gain b,(t) is estimated by b,(t) such that
1 b,(t)
/3, ,,;; b,(t) ,,;; /3" /3, ~ I (9)

Letting
424 J.-J. E. Slotine

we can satisfy the sliding condition (4) by now choosing

u'=-6,~t)[UlO+.8,(lulOl(I-~J+o:I1I213+Y)Sgn8,J y>d+v (10)

instead of (7). We thus have further increased control discontinuity at S,(t)

in order to compensate for uncertainty on gain b,(t).
Parameter .81 in (9) can be interpreted as the gain margin on control law u 1 ,
relative to (possibly time-varying or state-dependent) control gain estimate
b,(t).
We note the decoupling in the design; if 11 2 were also required to 'track a
given trajectory, one would define 8 2 : = 02 + A2 82 and repeat the procedure
independently.
As illustrated in the example above, and shown in further detail in Slotine
and Sastry (1983), the methodology can easily be extended to multivariable
systems of the form
x/nj)=I;(X!> ,X",; t)+b/X" ... ,X",; t)u;+d;(t), j=I, ... ,m (11)

where X; = [x;, x;, , x/nj-')]T; we again assume that the imprecisions of the
I;, b, and d; are bounded by known continuous functions of the X; and of time.
Dynamics of the form (11) describe a large number of non-linear systems
encountered in practice, including a vast class of mechanical systems. More-
over, Hunt et al. (1983) have shown that a wider class of controllable non-linear
systems could be put in the form (II) by using appropriate ' global' trans-
formations; being able to deal explicitly with imprecision of the system model
allows for numerical conditioning problems, that may affect such transforma-
tions, to be easily accounted for.
As remarked in the example, control laws which satisfy the sliding condition
(4) are discontinuous across the surface S(t), thus leading to control chattering.
Chattering is, in general, highly undesirable in practice, since it involves
extremely high control activity, and may excite high-frequency dynamics
neglected in the course of modelling. Slotine and Sastry (1983) suggested
a solution to this problem by smoothing out the control discontinuity in a thin
boundary layer neighbouring the switching surface (Fig. I)
(12)

where. is the boundary layer width. This is achieved by choosing control law u
outside B(t) as before (i.e. satisfying the sliding condition (4), which guarantees
boundary layer attractiveness, and hence positive invariance), and then
interpolating u inside B(t)-for instance, replacing in the expression of u the
term sgn 8 by [8/(An - ' . ) ] , inside B(t), as illustrated in Fig. 2. As shown by
Slotine and Sastry (1983), this leads to tracking within a guaranteed precision e,
while allowing avoidance of control chattering. We now quantify the trade-off
thus achieved between tracking precision and robustness to unmodelled high-
frequency dynamics.

Remark
We have assumed full state feedback in the preceding development. Effects
of measurement uncertainty and state estimation are discussed by Slotine
 Sliding controller design [or non-linear systems 425

5=0

Figure I. The construction of the boundary layer in the case that" = 2.

Figure 2. A sample interpolation of control law 1L in the boundary layer.

(1983), and robustness to such perturbations is demonstrated experimentally by

Slotine and Yoerger (1983).

3. Quasi-sliding control using continuous control laws

'Ve now take a closer look at state trajectories inside the boundary layer
B(t) where they lie by construction. In particular, we show that the smoothing
of control discontinuity inside B(t) essentially assigns a lowpass filter structure
to the local dynamics of the variable s, thus eliminating chattering. Recogniz-
ing this structure then allows us to tune lip the control law so as to achieve a
trade-off between tracking precision and robustness to unmodelled dynamics.
For clarity, we first consider the case of no gain margin (f3 = 1), and then
generalize. Further details on the following development can be found in
Slotine (1983).
426 J.-J. E. Slotine

Consider the system

x(n)=f(X ; t)+u+d(t) (13)
where
f(X; t) =j(X; t) + M(X; t) (14)

In eqn. (14),j(X; t) is the available model of f(X; t). Further, as in § 2, we

assume
I!::.f(X; t) I <;; F(X; t) (15)

Id(t) I <;; D(X; t) (16)

F, D and j are known continuous functions of X and t; uncertainty !::.f(X; t)

on dynamics f(X; t) is assumed to be continuous in X.
The control problem is to get the state X to track a desired state Xd'
specified in real time: such that a priori
IXl! (n)1 <;; v(t)
although xd(n) itself is not explicitly available. Defining s(X; t) according to
(3), and letting
k(X; t):= F(X; t)+D(x; t)+v(t)+1)~1»O (17)

where 1) is a positive constant, the control law

U= -J(X; t)- "f (n-l)

p~1 P
>'.P:i;(n-p)-k(X; t) sgn (s) (18)

satisfies sliding condition (4)t. Let us now smooth out the control discon-
tinuity inside a boundary layer B(t) of width E, defined by (12). Control law U
then becomes

U= -J(X; t) - "f (n P I)
p_1
,\px(n-p)-k(X ; t) sat [~J
"n-IE
(19)

where the function sat is defined by

lyl<;;1 =>sat(y)=y; lyl>1 =>sat(y)=sgn(y)
Now, since by construction control U satisfies (4) outside B(t), the boundary
layer is attractive, hence (positively) invariant. Thus, for trajectories starting
inside B(t) (in particular, if X I,~o = 0) we can write from (3), (19)

8= -k(X; t) [,\n~IEJ+(M(X; t)+d(t)-Xd(nJ(t)) (20)

Moreover, since by construction a tracking error of E is achieved, we can

rewrite (20) as

8= -k(X d; t) [,\LJ + (!::.f(X d ; t)+d(t)-xd<nJ(t)+O(E)) (21)

t (n) = n!
m m! (n-m)!
for m c n,
 Sliding controller desiqn. for non-linear 8Y8tern8 427

since !:>.f(X; t) and k(X; t) are continuous in X. We see from (21) that the
variable 8 (which is a measure of the algebraic distance to the surface S(t)) is the
output of a stable first-order filter whose dynamics only depend on the desired
state Xd(t) and perhaps explicitly on time, and whose inputs are (to first order)
, perturbations': disturbance d(t), uncertainty !:if(X d ; t) on the dynamics,
and nth order derivative xd(n) of the desired trajectory.
Equation (21) shows that chattering is indeed eliminated, as long as un-
modelJed high-frequency dynamics are not excited. The dynamic structure of
the closed-loop system is summarized in Fig. 3; perturbations are lowpass
filtered according to (21) to give 8, which in turn provides tracking error x by
further filtering, according to definition (3); control u is a function of 8, X and
X d as specified by eqn. (19). Now, since A is the break frequency of filter (3),
it has to be chosen to be ' small' with respect to frequencies of un modelled
dynamics (such as unmodelled structural modes, neglected time delays, etc).

lIf(Xd,t) (21) (3)

~

x
-xdn)(t) J----'T--j 5 OYNAMICS )----r-T---1 DEFINITION
dl t} +O(E)
(l st ORDER) OF 5

Figure 3. Dynamic structure of the controlled system.

Assume now that F(X d ; t), D(X d ; t) and v(t) can be a priori upper bounded,
so that k(X d ; t) can be upper bounded, say by k m a x • By abuse, kmax/(An-l.)
may be thought of as the' break frequency' of (21); as A, it must also be
chosen to be 'small' with respect to unmodelled high-frequency dynamics.
Thus, if A is set to be the largest acceptable break frequency of (3), we must
have

which fixes the best attainable tracking precision.

An. =k m ax (22)
We shall refer to (22) as the balance condition for the control system.
Intuitively, it amounts to tuning up the control law so that the closed-loop
system is as close as possible to ' critical damping' (if k(X d ; t) were constant,
(22) would exactly correspond to critical damping). Of course, desired
trajectory xd(t) itself must be ' slow' with respect to unmodelJed dynamics.
The preceding development was for /3= 1 (no gain margin). Assume now
that (13) is replaced by
x(n) = f(X; t) + b(X; t)u + d(t)
428 J.-J. E. Slotine

where gain b(X; t) is estimated by ux , t), with a gain margin ,8t

I O(x; t) ,8
-,;:: ,;::
,8 '" b(x; t) -e
It can then easily be shown (Slotine 1983) that the balance condition is now of
the form
b(X ; t) k(X d ; t)) = A
( ti«, t) An-I. max
that is
An. = ,8kmax (23)
instead of (22). Thus, having chosen A to be small with respect to unmodelled
high-frequency dynamics, the balance condition (23) fixes the best attainable
tracking precision " given bandwidth requirements and a choice of k(X; t)
accounting for parametric uncertainties, disturbances to be rejected, and range
of trajectories to be tracked. Also, as shown by Slotine (198:1), extension of
the balance condition to the class of multivariable systems (II) is straight-
forward; for each degree of freedom j (j = I, ... , m) we obtain a condition of
the form ('1\).)nJ€). = ,8.k.
1 J max
(24)

where in general k j max depends on all X,H' ... , X d m •

Erumple 3.1
Consider again the system (8) of § 2, with (discontinuous) control law u,
defined as in eqn. (10). The corresponding gain k,(X; t) is

k,(X; t)=,8, (Iulo l (1-~J+"'18213+y)

so that
k,(X d ; t)=(,81-1)ld(t)8d23+20d,21+,8,("'18d3+y)
Assume now that
Ied2 I ,-c;: ed2 max" IUdl
A I,;::-..;;:: Udl
A max
. ~ laA(t) I «__ a max , "t>-
v - 0
Then
k , (X,I; t),,; k l mn x

: = (,8, - 1)[a maX(8d2max)3 + 2(Odl muX)2] + ,8,[", 18d2max13 + y]

Assume further that the system exhibits an unmodelled structural mode at
".tru<:turc "" 5 Hz. A reasonable choice for A may then be, for instance

A: = 10 rad s-' < (~) (217 "structure)

which then fixes tracking precision "
,8,k l max
100 .

t If f3ndn ,,;b(X : f)/b(X; /)"; f3mu" set 13: = (f3lnux!f3min)1/2 and use bncw(X ; /): =
ux , f)!(f3mi"f3n",xl as the new estimate of us , I).
fJ can be timc-depcndcnt.
l /2
Note that fJmin. fJmux and
 Sliding controller design {or non-linear systems 429

Continuous control law 1t 1 is then obtained by replacing the term sgn S1 by

sat (S1/I.E 1) in expression (10).

Remark
The effect of data sampling can also be interpreted as part of unmodelled
, high-frequency dynamics'. It is shown by Slotine (1983) that the corres-
ponding upper bound that sampling rate "sampling imposes on I. is

where (""ampling'TprOcc"") is the ratio of processing delay over sampling period.

For instance. in the case of a full-period processing delay we must choose

Let us now summarize our sliding control methodology for the class of
coupled non-linear systems considered in (11). For each j (j = 1• . .. ,111.)
(i) Choose bandwidth I. j according to the frequency range of unmodelled
dynamics.
(ii) Define a set of 111. time-varying sliding surfaces Sj(t)
Sj(t) : = {X j: Sj(X j; t) = O}
where Sj depends only on tracking error xj

S;(X j; t):= (:t+ I. j r

i
-
1
xj
(iii) Choose (discontinuous) control law 1t j to satisfy the sliding condition
(4). This defines control discontinuity function k j(X 1 , .... X",; t)
which accounts for parametric uncertainties. disturbances to be rejected
and range of trajectories to be tracked.
(iv) Defining Ej according to balance condition (24)
Ej= I. j - Oj
max [kj(X lI 1, ... , Xli"'; t)]

smudge 1t j (by linear interpolation) inside a boundary layer Bj(t) of

width Ej. neighbouring the sliding surface Sj(t)
Bj(t) : = {X j: ISj(X j; t) 1<;; l./j-1 Ej}
This achieves tracking to within guaranteed precision Ej. while avoiding
excitement of unmodelled high-frequency dynamics.
\Ve now show that the above trade-off between robustness and tracking
precision, quantified by balance conditions (24). can be further improved by
allowing boundary layer widths to be time-dependent.

4. Suction control and the dynamic balance conditions

In this section we further refine the analysis of § 3. to achieve optimal
time-varying tracking performance. givcn bandwidth requirements and a choice
of k(X; t) accounting for parametric uncertainties. As in § 3, we first consider
the case f3 = I (no gain margin), and then extend the results to the general case.
430 J.-J. E. Slotine

Consider again the dynamics (21) of the variable s inside the boundary layer
B(t)

In § 3, by seeking the smallest constant. such that

we obtained the static balance condition (22)

If we now allow boundary layer width. to be time-varying, we expect to be

able to refine the balance condition, i.e. to define a boundary layer width
history .(t) such that
k
.(t) ~ ~=x, "It?; 0 (2.5)

while preserving system bandwidth A. However, to maintain boundary layer

attractiveness while allowing for variations of width " we must now choose
the control law u such that outside B(t)
1 d
2 iii S2~ -1]/sl + ,\n-1i lsl (26)

instead of (4)-the additional term ,\n-1ilsl in (26) reflects the fact that the
boundary layer attractiveness condition is more stringent during boundary
layer contraction (i < 0), and less stringent during boundary layer expansion
(ti > 0).
To satisfy eqn. (26), we simply replace control gain k(X; t) in (17) by
k(X; t) - ,\n-1i (note that ti is well known since .(t) is defined deterministically).
Equation (21) is then replaced by

with corresponding balance condition given by

k(X d ; t) - ,\n-1 i
,\n-1.

which fixes the desired update law for .(t)

. , _ k(X d ; t)
.+I\E- ,\n-1 ' Vt~O (28)

We shall refer to (28) as the dynamic balance condition. We further set

k(X<I(O); 0)
.(0) = An (29)
 Sliding controller design for non-linear systems 431

so that the term ,\n-l. does not introduce discontinuity in the control law at
t = 0. With such a choice in initial conditions, (25) is then indeed achieved,
thus leading to improved tracking precision

( atd + ,\)n-l x(t) = sIt) ;

Control law u is defined by substituting (k(X; t) - ,\n-l.) to k(X; t) in
eqn. (17), with
k(X; t) - ,\n-l. = [k(X; t) -k(X d ; t)] + ,\n.(t) (30)

and by replacing. by .(t) in eqn. (19), with .(t) defined by (28) and (29).
We now extend the previous results to the case that control gain b(X; t) is
estimated by D(X; t), with a gain margin f3
1 D(X; t)
.:«; ,;:. f3
f3" b(X; t)"
In this case, simply subtracting ,\n-l. from the control gain k(X; t) would not
necessarily satisfy attraction condition (26), since it would only guarantee

However, we remark that for all f3' such that I '" f3' '" f32
I d I d ,\n-I·lsl
2 «rs2+>:n lsl- ,\n-I'lsl "<::.-
=> -- nl s l- - =-'--'-

Ij
.>-0
~ 2a s2+
- : >: f3'

I d I d
.",0 =>"2 dt s2+ TJl sl-,\n-I·l s l "'"2 at s2+ TJ IS I- ,\n-l.jslf3'

where
.",o=>k(X; t)=k(X; t)--f3-
\
so that to satisfy (26) we can simply use gain ia , t) in place of k(X ; t),
"n-I£'

•'" °=> k(X; t) =k(X; t) - ,\n-I'f3

Note that us , t) depends continuously on .e. The corresponding balance
conditions are such that

that is
 J.-J. E . Slotine

We thus obtain the desired dynamic balance conditions

'\"<. f3
t) "' 7f => < + ,\< = ,\"-1 k(X d; t) (31 )

'\"< ,\< I
t) ~ 7f => i+ f32 = f3,\"-1 k(X d ; t) (32)

f3
«0) = ,\n k(Xd(O), 0) (33)

which define E as a continuous function of k(X d ; t). The corresponding control

gainl.;(X; t) is givcn by
'\"«t)
ux , t)=[k(X ; t)-k(X d ; t)]+-f3-

As expected, when f3= I the dynamic balance conditions (3\) and (32)
reduce to (28), while (30) and (34) then give identical expressions for the control
gain. Also, eqns. (3\ )-(33) again lead to better tracking precision than that
provided by the static balance condition (23).
This particular type of sliding control, which uses time-varying boundary
layer widths to account for time-dependence of parametric uncertainty, will be
referred to as suction control. It is often the case in practice that k(X d ; t)
shows large variations along a desired trajectory. In these instances, the use
of time-varying boundary layer widths, as specified by the dynamic balance
conditions, greatly improve tracking performance while only introducing
modest additional complexity. In robot manipulator control, for instance,
k(X; t) involves centripetal terms 0,2 and Coriolis terms (Oi OJ); the dynamic
balanco conditions then allow to trade-off speed efficiently against tracking
precision, while preserving system robustness to un modelled dynamics. Also,
recalling that k(X; t) reflects uncertainty on system dynamics, k(X'I; t)
may be decreased as the result of a parameter estimation process, for instance,
thc dynamic balance conditions allow us to account for such on-line improve-
mcnt on modelling precision. Our suction control methodology is thus likely
to provide robust' adaptive' schemes, since it guarantees stability and fixes
control system bandwidth, while achieving the best tracking precision given
current modelling uncertainties.

Remark
In the case that the dynamics of k(X d : t) are 'slow' with respect to
break frequcncy ,\1f3 2 of eqn. (32), the dynamic balance conditions (31)-(33)
lead to
f3k(X,I; t)
«t) ::::; ,\n

so that, from (:34)

k(X; t) d(X; t)
In practice, the control law of § 3 is usedwith < now replaced by «t)=
f3k(X<1; t)/,\n. In this case, «t) can be interpreted as essentially describing the
instantaneous guarantecd tracking precision, i.e. a time-varying upper bound
on tracking error :c.
 Sliding controller design for non-linear systems 433

Further, for some practical instances desired bandwidth itself may vary
with time. In robot manipulator control, for example, structural resonant
frequencies decrease as the load mass at the tip of the arm gets larger (see, for
example, Paul (1981)). The control law, initially tuned not to excite the lowest
expectable mode (i.e. to handle maximum load), can thus exploit on-line load
estimation by increasing control bandwidth, in addition to decreasing k(X d ; t).
Similarly, it is desirable to monitor mechanical compliance when performing
automatic assembly of close-tolerance parts. Changes in desired bandwidth
are also encountered in the control of high-performance aircraft, for instance.
In these cases attraction condition (26) should be replaced by the more general
form
(35)

where e and ;\ are now possibly time-dependent. Let us call ;\0 the constant
value of ;\ that we previously used, i.e. the desired cut-off frequency based on a
uniform lower bound on frequencies of unmodelled dynamics. Since ;\(t);;,
;\0> 0 for all t;;, 0, the definition (3) of s, now written

(
d
de + ;\(t) )n-I x =: s

still describes a stable filter (sequence of stable first-order filters). Defining

boundary layer thickness </>(t) as
</>(t) = ;\n-I(t)e(t)

and remarking that interpolation of control law u. can be defined as a function

of </>(t) only, attraction condition (35) is satisfied by choosing

U= -J(X; t)- L (n-l)

n-l
-- ;\P-I(;\x(n-p)+pXx(n-I'-I»)
p~1 p

with, generalizing (31 )-(34)

-k(X; t) sat (i) (36)

k(X d ; t);;, ;\(t) </>~) ~ 1>(t) + ;\(t)</>(t) = f3k(X,:; t)

~ ;\(t) </>~) ~ 1>(t) + ;\(t~~(t) k(X~,

!k(X d ; t) t)

</>(0) = f3k(Xd(O); 0)
;\(0)

us , t): = [k(X; t) -k(X d; I)] + 1

Time derivative X of (36) must be chosen smooth enough not to excite un-
modelled high-frequency dynamics (a practical way to do so is to obtain ;\(t)
by filtering the desired bandwidth value ;\dcsircd through a second-order
lowpass filter, say of break frequency ;\0)' Note that bandwidth variations are
strongly reflected in tracking performance, since e essentially varies as ;\-n for
given parametric uncertainty.
434 Sliding controller design for non-linear systems

Again, in the case that the dynamics of k(X,,; t) are' slow' with respect to
Ao/{12, we can simply use
tax , t): = k(X; t)
A(t)q,(t) = {1k(X d ; t)
i.e.
An(t)e(t) = {1k(X d ; t)

s. Concluding remarks
A sequence of transformations led us from classical sliding mode control to
our suction control scheme:
(i) By replacing fixed sliding surfaces in the state space by time-varying
sliding surfaces we avoided high-gain' reaching phases' (Slotine and
Sastry 1983) and achieved perfect tracking of desired trajectories for a
large class of multivariable non-linear time-varying systems.
(ii) By substituting smooth transitions across a boundary layer to control
switching at the sliding surface we eliminated chattering and obtained
a trade-off between tracking precision and robustness to unmodelled
dynamics.
(iii) By allowing boundary layer width to be time-varying we refined the
above trade-off to account for time-dependence of parameter uncer-
tainties, thus improving tracking precision while still maintaining
robustness to unmodelled high-frequency dynamics.
(iv) Finally, we monitored the orientation of the boundary layer in the
state space (defined by A) to account for possible time-dependence of
the desired bandwidth (whether due to actual changes in the plant or to
on-line modelling improvements), thus further improving tracking
performance.
The foregoing methodology has been demonstrated in the high-speed
control of two-link manipulators handling variable loads (Slotine 1983, Slotine
and Sastry 1983). It is currently being implemented on a large hydraulic
manipulator (Slotine and Yoerger 1983), and on a fast direct-drive robot.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is deeply grateful to Professor W. S. Vander Velde for valuable
advice and suggestions. This research also benefited from stimulating
discussions with Dr. P. K. Chapman, Professor B. K. P. Horn, Professor 1\1.
Pelegrin, Professor S. S. Sastry, Professor W. S. Widnail and Dr. D. Yoerger.

REFERENCES
HUNT, L. R., Su, R., and G., 1983, Differential Geometry and Control Theory
MEYER,
Conj., Birkhauscr. Boston, pp. 268-298.
PAUL, 1{,. P., 1981, Robot Manipulators : Mathematics, Programming, and Control
(Cam bridgc: IIHT Press),
SLOTINE, .J. J., 1983, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massnohusetts.
SLOTINE, .J. J., and SASTRY, S. S., 1983, Int. J. Control, 38,465.
SLOTD1E, J. J., and YOERGER, D., 1983, Suction Control 0/ a Large Hydraulic lIfanipu-
laior, IIHT-MMSL Report (to be published).
UTKIN, V. L, 1978, Sliding Mode Control and its Appl-ications to Variable Structure
Systems (Mir: Moscow}.