SLIDING MODE ESTIMATION AND OPTIMIZATION METHODS IN NONLINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ibrahim Haskara, B.S.E.E., B.S.Phys., M.S. ARK RE The Ohio State University 1999 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Umit Ozgiiner, Adviser LETT Professor Vadim Utkin — Adviser Professor Stephen Yurkovich Blectrical Engineering DepartmentABSTRACT In this thesis, several sliding mode estimation and optimization methods are de- veloped and their usage in nonlinear control problems are investigated in a Lyapunov stability framework. We first present ideal illustrative designs for both the equiva- Jent control based disturbance estimation and state observation problems and then perform an ultimate boundedness analysis by tracing the propagation of possible low- pass filtering approximation errors through the sequential derivation, Utilizing the proof on the approximability of the equivalent control by a low-pass filter at each step, we demonstrate a relation between the estimation accuracy and the selection of the filter time constants. Second, these estimation methods are utilized in several nonlinear control design methods so as to provide a nominal design with robustness while keeping the conservatism at an acceptable level. The basic control idea is sim- ply to estimate the perturbation of a nominal system from its actual and to use the estimated quantities in the specification of the control law. The robustness of the closed loop system then needs to be guaranteed against the estimation errors which would relatively be an easier task since the estimated values are already compen- sated throughout the design. Specifically, this idea is studied on the tracking control problems of an uncertain nonlinear system in strict feedback form and an uncertain feedback linearizable system via backstepping and feedback linearization design meth- ods. The on-line optimization of a closed loop system is also studied in this thesis. A iitwo-time scale sliding mode optimization method where an on-line performance cri- terion is to be maximized while a regulative control is in the loop is developed. The proposed method assumes a regulative control which creates an equilibria as a func- tion of a free control parameter and then this parameter is adapted in a slower time scale so as to increase the performance of the overall system. Finally, the estimation and the optimization tools developed in this dissertation are used in an application example from automotive industry where the tire force is to be kept in the vicinity of its maximum during an acceleration transient. iiiDedicated to my loving family ..ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my adviser, Prof, Dr. Umit Ozgiiner, for his guidance, encouragement and support during my stay at The Ohio State University. I also thank Prof. Dr. Vadim Utkin, Prof. Dr. Stephen Yurkovich and Prof. Dr. Theodore T. Allen for being in my committee and their helpful comments about the thesis. Lalso wish to thank Dr. Jim Winkelman and Dr. K. David Young for the technical discussions we had at several occasions. I also thank all the members of the control group here, who have formed a very pleasant enviroment to work in. T would also like to acknowledge the FORD Motor Company/Visteon, which pro- vided the funding for some parts of this work Finally, I sincerely appreciate my family for their endless support at all stages of my life.VITA 1973 .. dene teen ett ensentee ee . ... Born - Manisa, Turkey 1995 eee eecteeetcreessesressssss B.S. in Electrical Engineering BSS. in Physics Bogazici University, istanbul, Turkey 1995 = 1996.0... ccseeeeccsesseseseeseeeess Graduate Research Associate The Ohio State University 1996 oo .eeeeeeeeceeeee Lovssseessesescss+ M.S. in Electrical Engineering, The Ohio State University 1996-present .......0.-..sscecssssesseee+- Graduate Research Associate e Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Ibrahim Haskara, Umit Ozgiiner and Vadim Utkin, “On Variable Structure Ob- servers” in IEEE Workshop on Variable Structure Systems (VSS'96), pp. 193-198, December 1996, Japan. ibrahim Haskara, Cem Hatipogla and Umit Ozgiiner, “Combined Decentralized Lon- gitudinal and Lateral Controller Design for Truck Convoys” ITSC’97, November 1997, Boston, MA. ibrahim Haskara, Umit Ozgiiner and Vadim Utkin, “Variable Structure Control for Uncertain Sampled Data Systems” CDC, pp. 3226-3231, December 1997, San Diego, CA. ibrahim Haskara, Umit Ozgiiner and Jim Winkelman, “Dynamic Spark Advance Con- trol” in IFAC Workshop on Advances in Automative Control, pp. 249-254, February 1998, Mohican State Park, Loudonville, OH. viUmit Ozgiiner et. al. and ibrahim Haskara, “Radar Based Convoying Using a Fre- quency Selective Surface Patch” in Proceedings of ITS-America’96, April 1996, Hous- ton, TX. ibrahim Haskara, Umit Ozgiiner and Vadim Utkin, “On Sliding Mode Observers via Equivalent Control Approach”, International Journal of Control, vol 71, no 6, pp. 1051-1067, 1998. ibrahim Haskara and Umit Ozgiiner, “Equivalent Value Filters in Disturbance Esti- mation and State Observation”, Variable Structure Systems, Sliding Mode and Non- linear Control, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences 247, K.D. Young and U. Ozgiiner (Eds), pp. 167-179, 1999. Jim Winkelman, fbrahim Haskara and Umit Ozgiiner, “Tuning for Dynamic Spark Advance Control”, in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, San Diego, CA, pp. 163-164, 1999, tbrahim Haskara and Umit Ozgiiner, “An Estimation Based Robust Tracking Con- troller Design for Uncertain Nonlinear Systems in Strict Feedback Form”, To appear in CDC’99. ibrahim Haskara, Umit Ozgiiner and Jim Winkelman, “Wheel Slip Control for Anti- spin Acceleration via Dynamic Spark Advance” Submitted to IFAC Journal Control Engineering Practice, 1999. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Electrical EngineeringTABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract... 0... : Dood encepsse . ii Dedication tee eee oe biceee eee iv Acknowledgments . fee . veces . fee Vita. . : ee : bocce eee vi List of Figures eee eee teen : ne List of Tables . . . eee : + xiii Chapters: 1. Introduction. . 2... bees bec eee Lee 1 1.1 Problem Statement . 1 1.2. Literature Survey bee ci. 4 1.3 Organization of Dissertation... 0... 2... beeeeees UL 2. Disturbance Estimation and State Observation via Equivalent Control Methodology .... fee bee bee eee id 2.1. Motivation: Equivalent Control Methodology 4 2.2 Equivalent Control Based Disturbance Estimation . 16 2.3 An Observer Design for Nonlinear Systems| in Strict Feedback Form 21 2.4 Simulation Example . eee cee 2.5 Summary .......... oe bee 28 viiiEstimation Based Robust Nonlinear Centro! via Equivalent Value Filters 29 31 Overview oo... ee eee we . wee 29 3.2 Robustness Against Matched Disturbances... . . . 30 3.2.1 Linear Systems . . . : . 30 3.2.2 Nonlinear Systems . . . : 37 3.3 Robustness Against Mismatched Disturbances cae 41 3.4 Summary Lee nn » 4A Output ‘Tracking Control of Uncertain Nonlinear Systems in Strict Feed- back Form. 2... 2. L bees bec eee 46 4.1 Overview ee cone 46 4.2 Integrator Backstepping |... 0.000. 47 43 Robust Backstepping via Equivalent Value Filters - An Introductory Example... eee . 49 44 Robust Backstepping via Equivalent Value Filters - Genteral Case 58 4.5 Simulation Example en) 4.6 Concluding Remarks . . eee tae 72 Observer Based Robust Output Tracking of Feedback Linearizable Systems 74 5.1 Overview Sete eee 4 5.2 Problem Formulation... . . an vee eee TB 53 An Ideal Output ‘Tracking Controller . bocce eevee eee 5.4 Sliding Mode Derivative Estimator Design seve ss 80 5.5 Stability Analysis of the Composite System... . 84 5.6 Simulation Example . bee e ee 88 5.7 Conclusions . see eee we. OL Two-Time Scale Extremum Control via Sliding Modes .......... 92 6.1 Introduction . . . rn 1. 9 6.2. Problem Formulation 1 93 6.3 An Introductory Optimization Example : L295 6.4 Optima] Operating Point Determination vee eae . 101 6.5 Set Point Optimization ...... Levee pee. 103 6.6 A Numerical Example beeen 106 6.7 Concluding Remarks . . . ee . ee 109An Application Example: Wheel Slip Control for Anti-spin Acceleration via Dynamic Spark Advance . 71 7.2 7.3 76 17 78 Overview . Problem Description ne . — The Model vee 73.1 Parametric Models Dynamic Output Feedback Spark Advance Controller . Variable Structure DSA Controllers... 2... 2... 7.5.1 Tire Force Observer 7.5.2 An Ideal Variable Structure DSA Controller : 7.5.3 An Optimization Based Variable Structure DSA Controller . Dynamic Output Feedback Spark Advance Controller with Sliding Mode Optimization . . Simulations and Discussion Summary Summary and Future Directions... 00.0... Bibliography 2. ..... Appendices: A. Mathematical Proofs . Ad A.2. Proofs of Theorem 2,2 and Lemma 2.2 Proofs of Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 2.1 ...... A.3_ Proof of Theorem 5.1 Wheel Slip Control... eee Notation Summary... : Derivation of the Slow Model . Slow Model Parameters of Section 7.6 Longitudinal Tire Force . Numerical Model Parameters § Engine Torque Map 111 ul qu 114 17 uly 119 120 121 123 126 129 135 137 148 146 146 151LIST OF FIGURES Figure 21 2.2 2.3 24 41 4.2 43 4.4 Position . Speed ....... Disturbance... . « ec e Disturbance derivative Output Variable (Casel) .. 2... Control Input (Casel) Output Variable (Case2) Control Input (Case2) Output Variable (Case3) Control Input (Case3) Reference Signal and Output... 2.2... State Variables, 2.2.0.0... . State variable ty 2.0... Regulation Output (Slow-time Scale) Regulation Output (Original-time Scale) xi 26 wee 27 ween . . 27 een 69 wee 69 70 555: . 70 7 ma bee 89 en: ')6.3 6.4 71 7.2 7.3 TA 75 7.6 77 78 79 Set Point. . oa eee eee Performance Variable . A typical tire force-relative slip curve Simulation Vehicle Model Dynamic Output Feedback Spark Advance Controller . DOFSAC with SM Optimization No Control (Tire Fore)... 2.0... ee No Control (Relative Slip) Optimization Based VS-DSA Controller (Tire Force) Optimization Based VS-DSA Controller (Relative Slip) . Optimization Based VS-DSA Controller (Control) 7.10 DOFSAC with SM Optimization (Tire Force) 7.11 DOFSAC with SM Optimization (Relative Slip) 7.12 DOFSAC with SM Optimization (Control) . . xii 108 109 113 15 118 127 130 130 131 132 132 133 134 134LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Simulation Parameters Page 72CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem Statement ‘The control of dynamical systems constitutes one of the major engineering dis- ciplines which still keeps its popularity and offers unresolved challenging endeavors to human intelligence despite all the extensive efforts and remarkable developments which it has encountered in the past. From one perspective, this is quite related to the non-existence of an absolute measure for being the best. One can always demand a better performance from an existing control system beyond its limits and can quantify this desire in scientific terms. In this dissertation, our primary concern is the design of robust nonlinear control systems. This problem is naturally quite general since most of the industrial systems to be controlled exhibit significant nonlinear behaviors and the current technological demands from a control system can often be met more effectively by taking the non- linearities into consideration during the design. However, the contro] of a nonlinear system is usually more cumbersome than a linear one since the class of nonlinear sys- tems is indeed a generalization which gathers the dynamical systems of considerably different behaviors under a single title,Generally speaking, the first step in the development of a control system is the understanding of the dynamical behavior of the plant to be controlled. A mathe- matical model based on first-laws is the most common way of describing a physical system. However, in many cases, it is quite unlikely to come up with an exact repre- sentative of the reality and sometimes the model simplification is deliberate to make the controller design phase easier, Moreover, a control design which is solely based on the nominal mode] may not show satisfactory performance and can be a source of instability in real situations. It is then desirable to develop a contro strategy which would maintain the desired properties even when the controlled system perturbs from the system designed. The robustness of a control system is a measure for its capacity to cope with these perturbations. Robust and adaptive controls represent the two main design approaches which deal with the control of uncertain systems. Robust control usually aims at designing a fixed controller which achieves the control objective for any member of a specified family of admissible uncertain systems whereas adaptive control often parameterizes the controller and employs an adaptation logic accordingly. Robust control is usually conservative since the controller is designed considering the worst-case which may possibly never occur while the adaptive control sometimes may not be proper for highly uncertain situations, On the contrary, our main design approach is the incorporation of an on-line perturbation estimator into a contro{ design in an attempt to seek the reality at the first hand. This is obviously quite intuitive since in this case the control designed would be ideal for a fictitious system which deviates from the system controlled only as much as the the error in this perturbation estimation. The robustification of thedesign then needs to be against just to the estimation errors which would naturally be easier to deal with upon sufficient accuracy in this estimation. From a robust control point of view, the robustness task of the controller is shared by an estimator which in turn allows additional freedom in adjusting the conservatism of the controller, Although this recipe is quite generic, its outcome is closely related to the ade- quacy of the answers to the three basic questions: How to design an accurate on-line perturbation estimator and what are the basic properties of it? How to utilize the estimated quantities in the control design? What are the stability properties of the closed loop system? For a complete estimation-based design all these issues need to be addressed in detail and this actually forms the problem statement of the first four chapters. Besides the incorporation of an on-line perturbation estimator to a nominal design for robustification purposes, the on-line optimization problem of a nonlinear control system is also investigated in this dissertation. In the design of a control system, it is often desirable to operate at the peak of an appropriate performance surface which characterizes the performance of the closed loop operation. However, in many cases, only a limited information might be available on the plant and the desired performance criterion which makes a priori determination of such an optimal operation mode difficult in the first place. The on-line identification of an optimal operating point and the development of a controller structure which enables the system to robustly operate at such a point constitute a remarkable research problem with this motivation ‘Towards these on-line perturbation estimation based robust control and on-line optimization objectives, we primarily exploit estimation and optimization tools from sliding mode control theory and study how these tools can be treated in severalpopular nonlinear controller design techniques in a Lyapunov stability framework, To give further inside about the boundaries of this study, we next briefly discuss the relevant literature on robust nonlinear and sliding mode controls. 1.2 Literature Survey ‘The robust control of uncertain, nonlinear systems has been one of the key research areas reported in the control literature over the last: two decades. One of the earliest developments in robust nonlinear control is Lyapunov redesign which is also often referred to as min-mag control in the literature [22], The basic idea of this method is to strengthen 2 nominal design with an additional term in the control law in such a way that the same Lyapunov function which shows the nominal system’s stability will also serve as a Lyapunov function in the presence of bounded matched uncertainties. The original min-max design uses an upper bound for the disturbance and employs a discontinuous term to deal with it. The practical and theoretical difficulties related a discontinuous control have later stimulated several extension studies where basicaily the discontinuous terms have been continuously approximated at the expense of trading-off the asymptotic stability with ultimate boundedness [9], [32], [42]. Later, this idea has further been studied so as to provide a measure for robustness of the design to mismatched uncertainties [2], [7], [40]. In these studies, the controller design is first performed just considering the matched disturbances and then a mathematical measure is introduced to analyze the tolerance of the closed loop system to mismatched disturbances. The parameters of the controller is then selected so as to adjust the tolerance level desirably to a certain extent.Sliding mode control (SMG) is another well-known robust nonlinear control design approach [60], (62), [11]. A standard sliding mode controller design consists of two stages. First, an appropriate lower order sliding manifold whose dimensionality is ee eee Simca Tani © SmenEO NN. the same as that of the control vector is selected. The motion constrained on this manifold is to be prespecified. Second, a suitable control law is determined to steer the trajectories onto this manifold in finite time and to keep the subsequent motion on it. Order reduction and the insensitivity to matched disturbances in sliding mode are the two main advantages of this technique. Sliding mode control theory has been studied extensively from different perspectives over the last three decades since the publication of [60] and currently it represents one of the widely-used design approaches applicable to a variety of control problems from both theoretical and practical paints of view, Since the estimation and optimization tools developed in this dissertation primarily originates from sliding mode control theory, only the specific points of the theory pertaining to our purposes are enhanced in detail at several portions of this section and the subsequent chapters rather than giving a broad literature survey of it. For the purposes of this study, the discontinuous control terms resulting from a sliding mode control design will often be replaced by suitable smooth approximates in the first place if they are to appear in the final control law. This obviously prevents the occurrence of an ideal sliding motion; instead, the system trajectories can at most be kept at an arbitrarily small vicinity of the sliding manifold. A Lyapunov stability analysis for a continuously approximated sliding mode control design can be found in (17), (92The discovery of the feedback linearizable systems which are transformable into linear controllable ones via coordinate transformation and state feedback can be re- garded as one of the early breakthroughs in nonlinear control theory. The feedback linearization concept has originally appeared in [36], (6), [28], [54], [26] and has been studied extensively over the years. Currently, comprehensive summaries on its basics can even be found in several control textbooks (for instance, see [27], [32]) ‘There are several feedback linearization notions in the literature. Input-staée lin- earization seeks to linearize the input-state behavior without considering the outputs whereas input-output linearization aims at only rendering the input-output response linear despite the remaining possibly nonlinear and unobservable zero dynamics which do not affect the input-output behavior. Exact state space linearization is a combi- nation of both where the full state space response is to be linearized. For output tracking problems, the linearizability of the full input-state response is not necessary; instead, input-output linearization easily suffices to serve as the first step of a track- ing controller design to form a linearized input-output map ({5}, {20], [40], [51], [42]) which is actually the main topic from this area which will be examined partially in our study. The original problem then can be solved by a variety of linear control design techniques in the transformed coordinates, However, a control design solely based on the nominal linearized system may not provide satisfactory performance and even cause instability problems in the presence of uncertainties [5], [50], [51]. The internal stability issues related to the zero dynamics and possible computation errors which might arise during the successive differentiations of the output due to the system being uncertain are the two major problems to be resolved. If the uncer- tainty satisfies the (generalized) matching conditions ({5]) which basically prevent themismatched appearance of the uncertainty in the output coordinates, min-maz, high gain or sliding mode control design methods can be easily used to robustify a nominal design of the linearized input-output map ((5], [20]). However, if the uncertainty does not satisfy certain structural properties at the first place, both the linearized coordi- nates and the exact linearizing control term will be uncertain and the whole output coordinates might then need to be estimated ((18}, [42]). ‘The technique of adding an integrator ([29], [38]), which is usually referred to as integrator backstepping in the literature, has also been another key achievement in nonlinear control theory. Its recursive application leads to a powerful systematic Lyapunoy design method applicable to certain classes of nonlinear systems in several triangular forms (strict feedback systems, pure feedback systems, etc. [38]). Moti- vated by the efficiency of the recursive nature of the design in dealing with mismatched uncertainties, its basic ideas have been extended in several directions for robustness purposes (tuning functions-adaptive backstepping [37], [38] nonlinear damping [30] and robust control Lyapunov functions [19]). The incorporation of on-line function approximators (fuzzy systems, neural networks and so on) to the recursive backstep- ping design so as to parameterize the uncertainties has also been reported [46]. ‘There are also a few alternative recursive design procedures similar to backstep- ping appeared in the literature using sliding mode control ideas. Multiple surface sliding control ([21]) and dynamic surface control ({59]) are the two examples in this area. Combined adaptive backstepping and sliding mode control design techniques have also been studied [3], (4), [48]. The basic idea of these combined design ap- proaches is to perform the adaptive backstepping design until the last step, interpret the results till that step (transformed coordinates, virtual control and tuning functions)as a sliding manifold design and induce a sliding motion on the resulting manifold through a second order sliding mode control algorithm ([3], [4]) or a dynamical dis- continuous feedback law ([47], [48}). On the other hand, many controllers in the nonlinear system context are normally of the state feedback type and call for the complete information about the plant states if they are to be implemented. The problem of state estimation has been considered as an important topic in the control literature with this motivation. A comprehensive review of earlier nonlinear observation methods can be found in [43]. The problem of designing a disturbance (perturbation) estimator for uncertain systems has also been an appealing research area recently. If the disturbance can be parameterized linearly by an unknown parameter vector, several adaptive control techniques that already ex- ist in the literature may be used. On the other hand, for functional disturbances, the most popular current estimation approach is to use an on-line approximator satisfying the universal approximation property. The use of an on-line approximator provides a nonlinear parameterization of the disturbance which then need to be complemented by a parameter adaptation technique for on-line tuning purposes. Specifically, the equivalent control methodology ((60], [62]) which has been introduced originally as a regularization technique to analyze the sliding motion for systems affine in the con- trol can also been used to estimate additive disturbances for compensation purposes ({62}, [69], [35], [70}) and to design state observers. An eatly equivalent control based sliding mode observer has appeared as the sliding mode realization of a reduced order asymptotic observer for a linear system ([62]). In this formulation, the original sys- tem is first transformed into a canonical form where the output variables constitute a part of the state vector. A sliding motion is induced on the known output error bya discontinuous injection and the remaining observer states converge to the related system states asymptotically by the equivalent value of this injection in sliding mode. Its extension to nonlinear systems can be found in [13]. The recursive application of the equivalent control method ideally leads to an observer with a finite time con- vergence property ((23], [16], (24], [25]). In our earlier papers [24], (25], the recursive finite tite converging observer design procedure has been formalized on a generic linear system by expressing the observer as a replica of the original system with an additional auxiliary input of a certain nested structure and a discrete time equivalent control based sliding mode observer design has been introduced. Another application of this idea has been reported in [49] where a full state sliding mode control law is implemented by a sliding mode observer and in [53] where the output vector of a nonlinear system in strict feedback form is estimated by a recursive equivalent con- trol based observer in an attempt to simplify the backstepping design. Note that, the idea of first designing a controller without limiting it to being only in terms of the available variables and then to replace those which are not directly available with their estimates generated by an observer is very common to the control engineering practice. However, from a theoretical point of view, the coupling of a controller with an independently designed observer needs to be analyzed further for a nonlinear sys- tem since the separation principle of the linear system theory does not hold for the nonlinear case. In this direction, a complete Lyapunov observer/controller synthesis, has recently been published in [18], [42] introducing the globally bounded control idea where a high-gain observer is used to implement an ideal nominal design. On the other hand, the on-line adjustment of the structure of a control system or adaptation of its certain parameters so as to optimize a performance criterion isanother significant problem with direct implications to many industrial control prob- lems. The methods on this topic are usually gathered under the title of self-optimizing control or extremum control in the literature. Despite its practical importance, the extremum control problem has not taken considerable attention in the modern control literature. The problem formulations and the summaries of the contributions to this area from adaptive control theory can be found partially in the book {1] and the survey paper [52] among others. In a recent paper ((39]), a rigorous stability analysis is pre- sented for an industrial extremum control scheme by utilizing the tools of averaging and singular perturbation theory. This problem has also been studied in the sliding mode control framework. Section 13.3 of [62] presents a method of self-optimization where the main idea is to make the desired output to follow an increasing (decreasing) function of time so as to keep the output as close as possible to its extremal value via discontinuous controls and sliding mode motions. This idea has further been studied in [12] om a general nonlinear system by introducing the term of periodic switching function and applied to ABS control problem in [16]. ‘The main goal of this dissertation is to investigate the use of sliding mode estima- tion and optimization methods in nonlinear control problems with proven stability results. To this end, we first study the equivalent control based disturbance estima- tion and state observation ideas in greater depth in order to be able to use them in a Lyapunov stability context. Their usage in several nonlinear control design problems for on-line estimation purposes are then examined. A two-time scale sliding mode optimization method is presented. A practical application example from automotive industry in which the methods developed in this dissertation are partially used is also discussed in addition to several numerical simulation studies. 101.3 Organization of Dissertation The dissertation starts in Chapter 2 with a presentation of the equivalent con- trol idea in on-line disturbance estimation and state observation problems. After a brief description of equivalent control methodology, we first present ideal illustra~ tive equivalent control based designs for both the disturbance estimation and state observation problems and then perform an ultimate boundedness analysis for the es- timation /observation errors by tracing the propagation of possible low-pass filtering approximation errors in the implementation of equivalent control operators through the sequential derivation. ‘The effects of estimator/observer parameters on the esti- mation accuracy is quantified in order to bring the estimation technique in a suitable form for a Lyapunov control design and an intuitive parameter selection guide is also demonstrated. In Chapter 3-5, we investigate the use of estimation/observation technique of Chapter 2 in robust nonlinear control problems. To this end, in Chapter 3, the on-line disturbance estimation is specifically incorporated into two nonlinear robust control design methods: Lyapunov redesign and sliding mode control. For matched disturbances, the proposed estimation-based design can be considered as the general- ization of disturbance compensation methods of [69}, [70], [63] whereas for mismatched disturbances it appears as the robustification of a nominal sliding motion. Tn Chapter 4, an estimation-based robust tracking contro] design methodology is proposed for a Class of uncertain nonlinear systeras in strict feedback form. Equiv- alent control based disturbance estimators are utilized to estimate the uncertainties of a system and this on-line information is incorporated into the recursive backstep~ ping controller design in a systematic way. The disturbance estimators are shown iLto provide the uncertainties of the system with ultimately bounded estimation errors where the size of the ultimate error bounds are controllable by the design parame- ters in closed loop. The estimated parts are compensated throughout the recursive design and a nonlinear damping technique is used to deal with the resulting residual estimation errors. A semi-global ultimate boundedness result is obtained for tracking error by a complete Lyapunov analysis. In Chapter 5, the sliding mode observer design of Chapter 2 is utilized in an observer-based robust output tracking controller design performed on a class of non- linear systems which are input-output linearizable and minimum-phase. The observer is used to implement an ideal tracking control law of the input-output coordinates as. an alternative to an high-gain observer which has been the mostly used nonlinear con- troller/observer coupling tool in the literature so far. The stability of the closed loop system is studied by a complete Lyapunov analysis utilizing the observer/controller synthesis tools developed in [42]. Chapter 6 presents a two-time scale sliding mode optimization method. ‘The adopted scheme assumes a regulative controller of any type so as to create an equi- librium point parameterized a free control parameter. This free contral parameter is then adapted in a slower time-scale to adjust the equilibrium so as to increase an on-line performance criterion via a sliding mode optimization method, The stability properties of the design are examined by a Lyapunov analysis. This approach can be considered as an on-line optimal tuning tool since the optimization is indeed em- ployed over a control parameter rather than the control input itself while a preselected control is already in the loop. 12Chapter 7 considers an application example which comprises several theoretical sliding mode controller, estimator and optimizer design methods studied in this dis- sertation. The example is from automotive industry where the wheel spin is to be prevented during acceleration which is usually known as the traction control problem. A brief summary of the topics covered in this thesis as well as possible future directions are given in Chapter 8. The mathematical proofs of several theorems and the specific details of Chapter 7 are included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. 13CHAPTER 2 DISTURBANCE ESTIMATION AND STATE OBSERVATION VIA EQUIVALENT CONTROL METHODOLOGY 2.1 Motivation: Equivalent Control Methodology Equivalent control methodology ((62J) has originally been introduced as a formal regularization technique to obtain the sliding motion equations of a dynamical system constrained to a reduced order manifold by a discontinuous control. According to the equivalent control methodology, the traditional discontinuous control switches in sliding mode so as to imitate the equivalent contro! in the average which can be broadly defined as the continuous control which would provide a motion to proceed along the discontinuity manifold once started on it. The system input can then be replaced by this equivalent control to yield the resulting sliding motion equations. ‘This procedure specifically allows a unique description of the sliding modes for systems affine in the control. In [62], it has also been shown that, for this class of systems, the slow component of the discontinuous control is actually the equivalent control and this component can be extracted by passing the discontinuous control through a low-pass filter whose time constant is sufficiently large to filter out the high frequency switching terms, yet sufficiently small not to eliminate any slow component. 14To present the core idea of the equivalent control methodology which implicates the disturbance estimator and the state observer designs of the following sections, consider a generic sliding mode control design for a nonlinear system of the form #= f()+g(o)u (2.1) where 2 € R" is the state, u € R is the scalar control and f(z) : R" + R*, g(z):R" > R” are smooth vector fields. Let the sliding manifold be defined by S ={r|s=C(c)=0,seR} (2.2) where O(c) : R” R is such that (2C/8x)9(2) # 0 for any 7 € R” and the motion restricted to the manifold S is as desired. The dynamical equation that the sliding surface variable s satisfies can be written as follows: 4(2) = a(z) + 6(2)u (2.3) where a(z) = (80/82) f(z) and (x) = (8C/Az)g(z). Any control of the form _ Jf w(z) if s(x) >0 ula) -{ u-(x) if s(x) <0 (2.4) where u+(2) and u~(z) are such that a(z) + blxju*(x) <0 . { a(x) +6(2)u-(2) > 0 (2.5) can easily he shown to suffice to steer the trajectories onto S in finite time and ‘to keep the subsequent motion on it. It is important to note that although u*(z) and u~ (x) need to be selected in accor- dance with the system functions they are just required to satisfy certain inequalities so that the same control is indeed able te induce a sliding motion on S for any system 15satisfying the conditions of Eq. 2.5. This implies that the control can actually force a family of systems to possess the same behavior since the motion in the sliding mode is only a property of the manifold. On the other hand, the equivalent control, denoted by Ueg: is defined as follows: tg = —b"a)a(2)|,_g (2.6) ‘According to the equivalent control methodology, the discontinuous control u(x) in- terpolates u*(x) and u~(zx) in sliding mode so as to keep the trajectories on the manifold. ‘The average value of u in sliding mode is an approximate for the equiva- lent control and it can be realized by a low-pass filter provided that the filter time constant is compatible with the boundary layer width of a real sliding motion. This property leads to the following claim: Although, a number of different sys- tems can be made to have the same motion in sliding made by a discontinuous control of a fixed structure, the equivalent value of each discontinuous control will have spe- cific information pertaining to the system and it can be extracted by a low-pass filter in order to obtain additional information about the system. This states the underly- ing idea behind the equivalent control based sliding mode observer and disturbance estimator designs ({16], [23], (24), [25], [62)). 2.2 Equivalent Control Based Disturbance Estimation We first present an iterative disturbance estimator which provides the disturbance and its several order derivatives with an accuracy controllable by the designer using the equivalent control idea and summarize the results of a detailed ultimate bound- edness analysis for the estimations errors in a theorem. 16Consider a scalar system = f(c)+g(z)u+hy(t,2,u) (2.7) where x € Ris the state, v € R is the control, f(1) and g(2) are known smooth functions and hy(t,z,u) is an unknown disturbance function which lumps all the uncertainties of the system, It is assumed that |ha(x,u, t)) S He (2.8) where H, is an upper bound for the disturbance magnitude. The problem considered is to estimate the disturbance using the available state x. To this end, the nominal system is rewritten with an additional auxiliary input term: f(x) + 9(a)ut Li agn (x - &) (2.9) where sgn (e) denotes the discontinuous signum function defined by 1 6 sgn(y) = { eo (2.10) and L; € R is a free design parameter to be chosen. Note that, f(x) + 9(«)u repre- sents the nominal part which is available since the state and the control are known. Subtracting Eq. 2.9 from Eq. 2.7, the following error dynamic is produced: $= hy(t,2,u) — Li sgns (2.11) where 5 = —#. Selecting Li > Hh, s converges to and stays at zero ideally after a finite time, Furthermore, the initial condition selection of (fo) = (to) eliminates the reaching phase. According to the equivalent control methodology, although the 17additional auxiliary input term is completely discontinuous, its equivalent value is equal to the disturbance on the error manifold s = 0, i.e; [Ly sgn s Jey = hit, 2,4) (2.12) where the equivalent value operator [¢ ].) outputs the equivalent value of its discon- tinuous argument which would itself lead to the invariance conditions for the sliding motion which this discontinuous input induces (s = 0, $ = 0). Suppose that the disturbance is also differentiable y(t, u) = halt) (218) where the derivative ho(t) is uniformly bounded according to |ha(¢}i < Hz with Hp being a positive constant. Selecting Ay(t) = Ly sgn (hy — hy) (2.14) y(t) = La sgn (( Li 8gn 8 Jeq ~ hi) (2.15) as the disturbance derivative estimator with an Ly > Hg, the error hy(t) — hi(t) converges to zero in finite time and after that one gets {La sgm ((L1 gm leq — hr)leq = halt) (2.16) Eq. 2.15 has been obtained from Eq. 2.14 using the relation of Eq. 2.12 which can be approximately realized by a low-pass filter. The overall design is sequential and it can ideally be continued to estimate higher order derivatives of the disturbance as long as the disturbance is continuously differentiable to some order. Note that the estimator design has been carried out using equivalent value op- erators based on the approximability property of the equivalent control by low-pass 18filtering [62] as in the literature cited herein. However, since these operators are used to pass information from one step to the next one, an implementation error of the current step can affect not only the accuracy of this step but also that of all the sub- sequent ones due to the recursive nature of the design. Therefore, an assessment on the overall estimation accuracy is closely pinned upon the questions of how low-pass filtering errors propagate throughout the design and how the estimation accuracy is related to the selection of the filter time constants. To address the possible implementation problems, we let |s| < A where the term A denotes the width of the boundary layer of a real sliding motion around s = 0 which can be defined as the layer in which the sliding surface variable will be kept in real situations. The effects of a possible discrete-time implementation, the presence of a measurement noise, a continuous approximation for the sgn function or actuator device imperfections are all considered in A. Theorem 2.1 summarizes a detailed ultimate boundedness analysis for estimation errors when the equivalent value operators are implemented by low-pass filters, Theorem 2.1 Consider the following set of equations $= hi(t)—Lisgns Ty) +3 Ly sgns . Tal, + U2 Lz sgn (ur ~ hy(t)] (2.17) Trip +p = Ly 5gr [vp — hys(t)] where hy(t,x,u) is rth order differentiable; i.e, |hg(t)| < Hy where hy(t) = hesa(t) for k=1,--+,r—1 and Ait) = Lysgnfy, - hd) ( halt) = Tasentn hold) (2.18) hyaa(t) = Ly sgn [up — hy-1(t)] 19For any T, > to, there exist sufficiently large Ly > Hx’s such that lim ug(t) = hy (t) W>T Alnmrn 0 aifregatentre 0 b2Ly- hI no for k=1,--+,r where |s| < A. Lemma 2.1 Let 7,1 for i=0,1,-++,7—1 and select € such that >A Then limus(t)=he(t) Vt Te fork Proof 2.1 See Appendix A. (2.19) (2.20) (2.21) Remark 2.1 The proposed filter time constant selection is independent of the dis- turbance properties; however, the actual values of the error bounds obviously depend on them. For a real sliding motion, the filter time constants need to be matched with the boundary layer width according to Eq. 2.20 which shows the tradeoff. ¢ should be as stall as possible to make the disturbance estimation errors smaller, however without violating the condition of Bq. 2.20. In the practical case, the low-pass filters cause time Jag and the filter outputs might contain some unfiltered terms in addition to the related equivalent signals. The time lag and the maximum steady state error bounds reduce as the filter time constants approach to their ideal values and shrink to zero in the ideal situation. This recovers the performance of the ideal analysis. 20Remark 2.2 The filter time constant, selection of Lemma 2.1 is based on balancing all the terms in the ultimate error bound expressions as detailed in the Appendix and it will not necessarily be the best selection since the whole analysis is performed by conservative order of magnitude arguments. 2.3 An Observer Design for Nonlinear Systems in Strict Feed- back Form To show how the equivalent control methodology can be exploited for state obser~ vation purposes, consider a nonlinear system in strict feedback form f= mt f(r) fy = a3 + fo(a1,22) (2.22) = Gat foi(@1s Bay +++ Zn-1) = ut fa(tis22)*++ yan) where 2; € R are the states, u € R is the control, f;’s are nonlinear functions known in form and they are assumed to be Lipschitz in their arguments over the domain of interest. We further assume that the system is either open loop stable (with u = 0) or has already been stabilized by a proper control input so that the state variables are uniformly bounded for all times. The problem considered is to estimate the state vector from 2). Although, this system is clearly a very special class of nonlinear systems it has been selected just to analyze the equivalent value filtering in an equivalent control based sliding mode observer design. The design idea is the same as the linear case ({16], (24], [25]). The overall design problem is transformed into independent smaller order stabilization problems which share information with each other through the equivalent value operators. 21Let 4 = files) + Li sgn (01 - fh) (2.23) be the observer equation for the variable x, where L, is the free parameter to be chosen. Subtracting Eq. 2.23 from the dynamical equation of 2; the following error dynamic is obtained: = ay ~ Ly sgn (2.24) where @, = 2; — #. Since the original state vector to be estimated is uniformly bounded by assumption, one can always select a sufficiently large L, such that a sliding motion is induced on %, = 0 in finite time. Furthermore, in sliding mode, one gets [Li sgn Bijeq = 22 (2.25) Considering that

to, there exists suitable sufficiently large L,’s such that lim g(t) = 2¢(t) wet A/nitat3-Th-1 90 (2 34) TATA Tig TRO PSL kD ” Tr 0 for k = 2,--+,n where & quantifies the sliding mode accuracy on # = 0, i.e; [zt — Rl 0 is a design parameter, The selection of (to) = C'x(to) eliminates the reaching phase and the error & = o ~ 6 is ideally kept at zero. In the sequel, we let |@| < A for all ¢ > to considering the possible implementation problems of an ideal sliding motion, Note that, even if the system is unstable, the states will become unbounded through the manifold & = 0 (or vicinity in practice) so that the control design can be carried out with a Lyapunov function independent of the error variable & as in the decoupling property of the original sliding mode control design. Note that z is actually the output of a low-pass filter with 6(t, xz) and & being the two inputs according to té+2=6(t,2) (3.13) By a direct analogy with the open loop disturbance estimation, the estimation accu- racy can be expressed as follows [z - 6(t,2)| < ds WP)" + eft, 2,7, A) (3.14) dim gé(*) +0 (3.15) where ds is a constant related to the initial conditions and ¢(e) represents the remain- ing part of the estimation error. As in the open loop disturbance estimation, the selection of a small 7 along with an arbitrarily small boundary layer width A increases the accuracy of the estimation 33since a smaller r reduces the low-pass filtering errors and a smaller A implies that the sliding motion on the manifold & closer to its ideal ( = 0). Lyapunov Stability Analysis of the Closed Loop System Incorporating the estimated disturbance into the control law, we choose u=Kae~z+i (3.16) where a is to be selected and K is as before. With this control, the derivative of V(e) =e" Px satisfies V =~2"Qr + si(t,x,7, A) + 8a (3.17) where d(t,2,7,A) 4 6(t,2)— z. Let peidereove £hba)hy —{dew@e/e + L(t, 2)} tanh He (3.18) where d > ds, 0 > 7 and L(t, 2) is to be selected. If L(t, ) > |e(t,2,7, A)| over the set S;,, the Lyapunov function derivative becomes Vs -27Qa+ nu (3.19) as before and the same stability results can be claimed. Note that, so far we have just retrieved the previous ultimate boundedness result provided that the gain of the additional control term @ can be selected so as to bound the estimation error. Next, we will show that the disturbance estimator indeed offers flexibility in the selection of @ in such a way that the same ultimate boundedness result can be obtained with a significantly less conservative control signal. To this end, first note that the inputs to the equivalent control filter (6(t,x) and &) can always be bounded by constants independent of + over Sp, and 2 is bounded 34for a bounded input for any + > 0. Therefore 4(t,x,7,A) can also be bounded by a constant independent of 7 over Sp, although the actual estimation error will clearly depend on r. Let this constant be denoted by Sinax- Select an L(t, 2) which is continuous in (t,2) and bounded in ¢ for each fixed x and let L;, L® be the bounding constants of L(t, 2): 0 e(t,2,7, 4)| can indeed be guaranteed to hold for any L(t,2) > 0 with ar € (0,7*] where 7* depends on L(¢,r) considering the accuracy of the sliding motion also as a design freedom. Since L,, L* can be made arbitrarily small with a correspondingly smaller 7* and a sliding motion closer to its ideal the maximum magnitude of @ can be made much smaller than that of the min-max design and therefore the same stability result can still be claimed with a less conservative control action. Furthermore, even with the control u = Kx — z, one can easily write V< ~ dally + at /7 (3.29) 36where a(t) = 2|PBI|[dg OO! + 7Hy + O(A/r) //Amin(P) (3.30) over S;, whose magnitude decreases in time due to its structure. Let b: and 7 such that 4 > a(t)?7, ? az (P)/d?in(Q)- Note that, for given initial conditions, this selection is feasible since ds only depends on initial conditions and the other terms of the estimation error are controllable by 7 as analyzed before in detail. The dependence of the design parameters to the initial conditions can also be overcome by restricting the initial conditions to another compact region residing in S;,. Since V < 0 for > a(t)?d2,44(P)/A2in(Q) and the region V < a(t)?d2,,.(P)/A2in(Q) is contained in S,, with the previous selection of 6, and 7 for given initial conditions, the set S,, is positively invariant. Furthermore, since the region V < a(t)?\?ge(P)/Amin(Q) is attractive and a(t) converges to an arbitrarily small vicinity of zero with a convergence rate determined by 7, an ultimate boundedness result is still valid even without the additional control term w of Eq. 3.16. 3.2.2 Nonlinear Systems The design idea and the closed loop stability analysis of Section 3.2.1 can also be extended to the nonlinear systems. To this end, consider = f(t,x) + g(t,2)[ut 6(t, 2)] (3.31) where « € R® is the state vector, u € R is the control, f(t,2): Rx R™ > R", g(t.) : RXR” - R” are known vector fields and 6(t, x) : Rx” — R isan unknown disturbance function which lumps all the uncertainties and external disturbances of the system. It is also assumed that f(¢,0) = 0 so that the origin is an equilibrium point of the nominal unforced system and all f, g, 6 are smooth in their arguments. 37The control objective is to stabilize the state vector to the origin in the presence of unknown disturbance 4(t, x) satisfying Eq. 3.2 where (t,x) is known, continuous in (t,z) and bounded in time for any fixed z. It, is further med that a smooth function ®(¢, x) which vanishes at the origin and a corresponding Lyapunov function V(t,2) are also known such that allel) < V(t) < r2((Ix|) (3.32) aV(tz) _ aV(G,2) + Me) x) dt ot [F(t,2) + g(t,2)®(t,2)] $ -r(llel]) (3.83) where 1(¢), 72(0) € K® and y(e) € K. Note that Eq. 3.32-3.33 simply imply that the origin is globally, uniformly, asymptotically stable for the nominal system with the contro] input u = &(z, 2) ({32]). The idea is to incorporate the estimated disturbance into the nominal control law in such a way that the stability of the nominal system will be preserved in the presence of an unknown 4(¢,.r).. To estimate the disturbance, we first select a C(z) : R” +> R such that G(t,«) & [8C(2)/Oz]g(t,2) # 0. The existence of such a C(z) is assured by the Frobenius’ theorem with a global full rank assumption on g(t,z). Defining ¢ * C(z), one gets = F(t,x) + G(t,2)[u + 6(t, 2)] (3.34) where F(t, 2) * [8C(z)/d2]f (t,x). The disturbance estimator is given by = F(t, 2) + G(t,x)u + [|G(t,2)|a(t, 2) +m] sgn (0 - (3.38) ré+2=G(t,2)"IIG(t,2)|olt, 2) +n] sgn (o —8) 3.96) with the initial conditions o(tp) = C(2(ty)), z(to) = 0 where to denotes the initial time and 7 > 0 is a design constant. Note that, a sliding motion occurs on the 38error manifold & 0 and the initial condition selection of a(t} = C(x(to)) eliminates the reaching phase. The disturbance estimator results in ri+z= (t,x) -Glt,2) 16 (3.37) and provides an estimate for (t,x) by z as in Eq. 3.14-3.15 Let the control input be u=Ot,c)-—2+0 (3.38) where ®(t,2) is as before and @ is to be determined. With this control, the closed loop system and the Lyapunoy function derivative become &= f (tx) + g(t) 9(¢,2) + 9(t,2)[a+ 5t,2,7,4) (3.39) V < -14(\[al|) + w [a + 5(t,2,7, d)] (3.40) where d(t, 2,7, A) 4 4(t,x) — z and w 4 [OV (t,2)/Ax|g(t,x). Let w {dele + L(t, 2)} a= {dere + L(t,2)} tanh [ Fe ] (3.41) where d > ds, 9 > 7 and L(t,z) is to be selected. If L(t,2) > e(e), the Lyapunov function derivative can be easily shown to satisfy Vs —nalllell) + 60 (3.42) where # = 0.2785 is a parameter for tanh as before. Since ~(|[z||) is a class K function, there exists a small enough yu and a related a; such that 7s(a:) = KE (3.43) For ||x(to)|| > a1, V is strictly decreasing and therefore lle(e)ll SF * Callie (tod) (3.44) 39whereas for |[(to)|| < lix(@)Il $ %*2(m)) (3.45) for all t > to. Therefore, x(t) is uniformly bounded. Furthermore, since 7a(|(to)|]) — 71(a1) < 00 (3.46) and V <0 for ||x(t)|| > a1, the state vector converges to the following region: We(t)l] < A (3.47) where 8, = 7 1(72(a1)). Since a can be made arbitrarily small decreasing 2 and ‘yi (q2(0)) is a class K function, f; can also be made arbitrarily small. To analyze the closed loop stability, we restrict ourselves to the set Si, 2 {2 ER": V(t,2) |e(t, 2,7, A)| can be guaranteed to hold in the closed loop for any + € (0,7*] provided that the boundary layer width A can also be controlled associated with 7. Since the magnitude of L(t,) is controllable, the ultimate boundedness of x can be assured with a less conservative control action which would need to include an high frequency term of a magnitude greater than that of the disturbance bound otherwise. 3.3 Robustness Against Mismatched Disturbances Consider a nonlinear system in regular form Salt, t1) + gi(t, 21) [ae + 54, 21)] Jolt 21,22) + galt,2r,22)[u + 59(t,2n.22)] (50) where 2; € R", r2 € Rare the states, u € Ris the control, f,(t,2;):R xR" -» R", folt, 21,02): RXR" xR R, gi(t,21) RXR" > R", golt, 21,29): RXR"xR > R, are known vector fields and 6,(t,2,) : RxR” > R, 6:(t, 21,42): Rx R?xR +R are unknown disturbance functions which lump all the uncertainties and external disturbances of the system. It is also assumed that f(t,0) = 0 so that the origin is an equilibrium point of the nominal unforced system, all fi, fz; 91; 92, 51(¢), 62(#) are sufficiently smooth in their arguments and go(t,21,22) # 0. The disturbance functions are assumed to be bounded as follows: |6.(t,21)| < pi(t, 21) \baltsz1s2)] < palt.21, 22) ee) where p,, p» are sufficiently smooth known functions which are also bounded in time for any fixed (1,2). The control objective is the robust stabilization of 2; to the origin. 41In the previous section, we have presented an ultimate boundedness analysis for an estimation based design where the matched uncertainty of the system was estimated by an equivalent control based disturbance estimator and the estimated value was incorporated into the control law. In this section, we extend this design to the system of Eq. 3.50 whose uncertainties do not satisfy the usual matching condition due to 61. The design idea is simply to interpret a fictitious control design for 22 as in Section 3.2.1 as a robust sliding manifold design and to specify a control law so as to induce a sliding motion on this manifold. To this end, it is further assumed that a smooth function ®, (t, 2) which vanishes at 2; = 0 and a corresponding Lyapunoy function ¥4(¢,.) are also known such that sn(lleall) < Vile, 21) $ 72(|heal}) (3.52) + BED py Q,2) +alemiblie) +9) Srl!) — 39) V(t, 1) for ||zil| > (Js!) where 7:(0),72(0) € K% and 73(¢0),74(0) € K. Note that, the conditions of Eq. 3.52-3.83 are more restrictive than those of Eq. 3.32-3.33. They also guarantee that x, is bounded for a bounded nonzero s i addition to the motion on the manifold s © z, — &;(t,21) = 0 being globally, uniformly, asymptotically stable. To estimate 6,(#) and 6,(e), the following equations are utilized: & = F(t,x1) +G(tm)e2 + [JG(t,2:)\e(t, 21) +m] sgn (o - 6) ty = frlt,ar,22) + galt, ti,02)u + [l9a(t, 71, 22)|or(t. x1, 22) + m] sgn (x2 — fe) = Gaye ap (Ot) (Galen tm) +m) son (02) ba = ay Mole) Mlttmnallo(tsanza) +m) sam (2a 42)) (854) with the initial conditions (tp) = C(#1(to)), @2(to) = £2(to) where oS O(a) : B® Wr R is to be selected such that G(t,m) * [80(z,)/AxJgi(t,21) # 0, F(t,21) 42[AC (21)/Aer}/(E, 21), m,m > 0 are free design parameters and 7, 7 are the fil- ter time constants. The disturbance estimator provides estimates for 6,, 52 by 4, 4. A second order filter has been used for the estimation of 6; since the estimated disturbance also needs to be differentiable. Let s=a2- O(t,2,) +5, — A(t.) (3.55) be the sliding manifold where wi La(t, 2: Ma By (t,a@,) = Ly(t, 2) tanh [ ] (3.56) w, 2 (OVi(t,«1)/Axi]gi(t,7), 1) > 0 is a free design parameter and L;(t,21) is to be selected so as to satisfy L;(t,21) > |6:(t,21) — 4| ‘The control input is structured as follows: = AS + eq + Ua + Holt, 21,22) (3.57) where _ 0%; Op, 3m, Of . ee oe ) (n+ a)] (3.58) ~ (00, | dh wen noi' [in (Get ") gd | + (3.59) Bo(t, 21,22) is to be determined and 4 is a design constant. With this control, the dynamic equations for the sliding manifold variable becomes x o, + $= As + gabe ~ (se + 3) gibi + Balt, 21, %2) (3.60) where 5, 5 5, — 4; and 4, © 5; ~ 4, represent the disturbance estimation errors. 1 , Letting V2 = re be the Lyapunov function candidate and selecting (3.61) Dalyan) = Lazy) tanh (272062128) Ha 43Lnlt, 21,22) > gabe - ( : (3.62) one can easily show that the Lyapunov function derivative satisfies Vo & -2AV2 + Ku (3.63) where & = 0.2785 is a parameter related to tanh as before. Define Sy, 2 {(01,8) ER” XR: Vit) < al ra(V2b1)) 9 Vals) Shi} (3.64) Choosing 4; € (0, uj], H2 € (0, 45], where wy = 93(4(V2b1))/m, 43 = 2Abi/x, it can be easily shown that S,, is positively invariant and the trajectories originating in S,, are ultimately bounded to the set Sp, where by = Kpla/2A for all pr € (0,93(14(V251))/x]). Since b can be made arbitrarily small decreasing 42, the size of the region to which 1; is ultimately bounded can also be made arbitrarily small. The selection of sufficiently small filter time constants along with an arbitrarily small boundary layer width guarantees that the estimation errors will be confined to an O(r;) vicinity of zero, This provides an additional freedom in the selection of the gains of the damping functions since their task is just to deal with the residual estimation errors. An analysis of the feasibility of the selection of the estimator’s parameters and a discussion on the benefits of having an estimator in the loop are omitted for the sake of brevity since a very similar closed loop Lyapunoy stability analysis will be fully presented in Chapter 4 for an estimation based backstepping design. 443.4 Summary In this chapter, we studied the disturbance estimation technique of Chapter 2 as an alternative additional robustification tool that can be utilized for several nonlinear control design problems. The method has been presented with proven stability results on two nonlinear control design techniques: Lyapunov Redesign and Sliding Mode Control. The main approach is simply to incorporate the estimated disturbances into the control design so that only the estimation errors need to be taken into account for robustification. Using the inherent properties of the disturbance estimation, first an ultimate bound of a certain structure has been obtained for each estimation error and then it has been shown that the disturbance estimator parameters can indeed be used to adjust each ultimate error bound in the closed loop while assuring the overall stability. This provides an additional freedom in the robustness-conservatism trade-off for a robust control design.CHAPTER 4 OUTPUT TRACKING CONTROL OF UNCERTAIN NONLINEAR SYSTEMS IN STRICT FEEDBACK FORM 4.1 Overview The idea of backstepping has recently gained enormous attention in the nonlinear control literature mainly because it leads to a systematic Lyapunov design technique with proven stability properties for stabilization/tracking control problems of certain classes of nonlinear systems [38]. However, it may also be desirable to support its core idea with some kind of robustification to enable the method to embrace a broader class of robust control design problems. With this motivation, this chapter is primarily concerned with the investigation of how the equivalent control based disturbance estimation technique can be incorporated into a backstepping design for robustness purposes. To this end, an interlaced robust output tracking control design methodology which blends the backstepping and the equivalent control based disturbance estima- tion techniques is presented in this chapter and its stability properties are studied by a Lyapunov approach. The proposed design utilizes equivalent control based dis- turbance estimators for on-line disturbance estimation and the estimated values are 46combined with the nominal system information in the recursive backstepping design in a systematic way. ‘The organization of the chapter is as follows: ‘The basic idea and terminology of backstepping are briefly presented in Section 4.2. The proposed tracking control design is first studied on as cond-order nonlinear system in Section 4.3 for illustration purposes and the results are extended to general, nth-order nonlinear systems in strict feedback form in Section 4.4. A simulation example is summarized in Section 4.5 to show the theoretical validity of the proposed approach and the chapter ends with brief concluding remarks in Section 4.6 4.2 Integrator Backstepping To present the basic idea of backstepping, consider a nonlinear system of the form ty = f(n)+o(n)n (41) iy =u where },22 € R are the states, u is the control, f(x1), g(z1) are known smooth functions and g(21) # 0 over the domain of interest. Suppose that f(0) = 0 and the control objective is to stabilize the system to the origin (; = 0, rt» = 0). If rz were the control input, the selection of t=! (ex)[F(e1) + az] 2 @(e:) (4.2) with a 4, > 0 would easily achieve the control objective for 2; and it could be shown . 1 . with the Lyapunov function Vj = zt However, since x is just an intermediate state variable it would be of interest at least to be able to use Eq. 4.2 to determine the actual control input. To this end, let Vavit Her O(n)? (43) a7be the Lyapunov function candidate for the system of Eq. 4.1. A direct manipulation yields V = ailf(a) +o(m)m|+(m-e@))u- de) = nlf (ti) + 9(21) (21) + (#2 ~ O(a) [u + arg (a1) ~ (21)] (4.4) —Ast + (22 - B(a))[u + r19(t1) — O(21)] where (1) can be computed by dei) = Pipe) + olendza (43) Note that Eq. 4.2 and intermediate Lyapunov function V; have been directly used to represent the Lyapunov derivative in the form of Eq. 4.4. The control input w= ~9(21)a1 + 8(01) ~ Aa(a2 ~ ®(a1)) (4.6) with any 2 > 0 provides May — da(2 ~ #(e1))? (4.7) which simply shows that the origin is (globally) asymptotically stable. ‘The overall design problem has been solved recursively where the fictitious control law of ay = (z,) and the intermediate Lyapunov function Vj = 5a were used to specify the actual control law. Furthermore, a Lyapunov function for the overall system has also been generated. Although, the underlying idea behind the design has been presented on a simple example, it actually appears as a Lyapunov design technique and can easily be uti- lized for more complex nonlinear systems as long as the system possesses a triangular structure. A compherensive treatment of several design techniques based on backstep- ping can be found in the book [38] among numerous other papers. Its recursive and systematic nature allows to decompose a control problem of an higher-order system 48into sequential smaller-order (sometimes scalar) design problems. This feature brings extra freedom in managing with mismatched disturbances and it will be studied in detail in the-rest of the chapter. 4.3 Robust Backstepping via Equivalent Value Filters - An Introductory Example To illustrate the usage of the equivalent control based disturbance estimation tech- nique in the design of a robust tracking controller in case of mismatched disturbances via backstepping, consider an uncertain nonlinear system of the form + A(tm) a = 4 dn = wt faltse1,a) (48) your where 21,22 € R are the states, u € R is the control input, y € R is the output and t is the independent time variable. The functions fi(t,a1) : Rx R > R, folt,a1,%2) :R x R? + R are assumed to be expressed as follows: Aba Salt, 1, 02 = Altai) + 4 (¢,21) Salt, a1, 22) + da(t, 21,22) (49) where fi, fy represent the known information on f,, f2, respectively whereas 61, 5 are the disturbances of the system. It is also assumed that the funetions fi, fa, 61, 5, are sufficiently smooth, ie; all the partial derivatives required in the design are well-defined, continuous in their arguments and the partial derivatives as well as the functions themselves are bounded in time for each fixed (1, x2). It is further assumed that the disturbances can be bounded as follows: \5.(,21)| < pit.) [6o(t, 211,02) < pa(t, 1,2) (410) where p; and p, are known, continuous in their arguments and bounded in time for each fixed (2,2). The control objective is to force the output y to track a 49given reference signal y,(i) where y,, jr, Jp are known and uniformly bounded. Note that the uncertainty in f is mismatched for the control input so that the standard matching condition does not hold for the overall disturbance vector. Our main idea is to employ equivalent control based disturbance estimators for the estimation of 5, (t, 1), 6a(t, 21, 22) so as to provide robust tracking in the presence of these unknown disturbances. The estimated values are incorporated into the recursive backstepping controller design and an ultimate boundedness result is presented for tracking error while the estimators are in the loop. During the following development, we suppress the arguments of the several functions for notational simplicity unless it is not clear. Define a new set of coordinates: a 1 — Ur ) & = m-ata-r (uy) where @; and 2, are called the virtual control and the disturbance cancelation term, respectively. To select a and 2, the first equation of Eq. 4.8 is first rewritten in terms of the new coordinates as follows: =Qta-atfth (4.12) Let 1 We) = 54 (4.1) be a Lyapunov function for this scalar system and select oa (ts 21,91) = —m&— fit Bilt, 21) (4.14) asd ” where g, > 0 is a design constant, ; is to be determined and 4, represents the estimated value for 6,. If & was zero this selection would yield Y= -m€f + [1 + i] (4.15) 50where 4; 4 6, — 4, is the estimation error for 5; and the stability of €, would be guaranteed with a proper selection of (. To obtain an expression for the control input u, let VG@.a) =3E+) (419) be a Lyapunov function candidate for the entire system. The Lyapunov function derivative satisfies aay as Oy Bt oot f:)- oa Git bimis (4.17) V = 91 6+6 (6+ Bilt rtut fot: The following selection for the control input we Bm feb et ft) ie dts alten) (Als) with g, > 0 provides ~ag8 + GB + Baly20)] ~ 90 + Ge — FE, + Balen] (49) where 4, and é, denote the estimated value and the estimation error for 62, respec- tively. For disturbance estimation, the following equations are utilized: By = apt Altar) + lols) +m) sgn (m ~ 1) by = ut felt, a2) + lpa(t, 1,22) + m2] sgn (a2 — 2) B= pap lets) + m)san (ea) be = Ey lettre) + mean (e229) (4.20) with the initial conditions 4; (to) = 21 (to), &2(to) = 2(to) where ty denotes the initial time, m,7 > 0 are the design parameters and 7), 7; are the equivalent value filter 51time constants. Note that the control law of Eq. 4.18 also requires the derivative of 5, in addition to 6, and 4, so that the derivative of the estimated disturbance 4; also needs to be bounded. To this end, a second order filter has been used for 5, to guarantee this boundedness requirement. After some manipulations, one gets he aa [éx(t,24) ~ 1] (4.21) & = aan [60(t, 21, 22) — ¥2] (4.22) where the error variables @, = 2; — 1, Z2 = 1 — & satisly 5,(t, 21) — [oi(t,21) +m] sgn By ee Bolt, 2) ~ falter, 2) + ml gy (428) Note that, ideally #; and % are kept at zero identically. Considering the practical implementation difficulties of an ideal sliding motion, we allow each error variable to be || < Au, |é2| < Ae where Aj, Ap are arbitrarily small positive constants, The disturbance estimation errors are expressed in the following forms for convenience [6x(t,21) - | < Da (11) + (6217, Ay) (4.24) [6a(t, 1,02) ~ 59] S Deg(t,72) + €a(ts a1, 22,72, Ao) (4.28) where Dg,, Dj, denote the transient response of the equivalent value filters which are exponentially decaying time functions depending only on the initial conditions and ¢, €2 characterize the phase lag errors due to filtering as well as the unfiltered chattering terms. To complete the control design, ,’s should be determined. Using a nonlinear damping technique ([46], [65]), we select falta) = ~{Di(,0) + Ialtsy)}tamh (S4PME0 + B62} 52&{D2 2) + Lot, 21 He Ba(t, 1,02) = —{Da(t, 02) + Lelt,z1,22)} tanh ( ) (4.26) where tanh denotes the hyperbolic tangent function, j11, jy > 0 are design parameters, and Dy, Ds, Ly, Ly are continuous in their arguments and bounded in time for each fixed (1,72). Ly further needs to be smooth since i; is differentiated during the design. Note that, the gains have been expressed as the sum of an explicit time function and a state dependent one to be in accordance with the anticipated form of the disturbance estimation errors as given in Eq. 4.24-4.25. This separation will be exploited later to show how the disturbance estimation allows to control the gains of Bi's. If Dal(t,o1) + Li(t,m) 2 [4:(t,21,71, 41)| (4.27) . Aa, = Dalt, ga) + Lally, a2) > [Balt 2,20, 70, 0) ~ Fdi(t 2071, An)] (4.28) 1 the Lyapunov function derivative can be written as follows: VS ~gnbt — 9263 + 6(u1 + He) (4.29) according to Eq. 3.8 where « = 0.2785 is a constant related to tanh as before. Note that, tanh is actually a smooth approximation for the signum function. Other smooth approximations are also possible which yield the Lyapunov function derivative in the form above possibly with different « values. For technical reasons related to the disturbance estimation, we examine the sta- bility of the closed loop system over the sets &, 2 {EER VO t where di.s,, dag, and di, are constants related to the initial conditions and O(e) denotes terms of the order of ©. Furthermore, 61 is finite. Proof 4.1 The ultimate error bound of Eq. 4.37 has already been shown in the proof. of Theorem 2.1. To prove Eq, 4.36, we write the disturbance estimation error in the following form: . 2 ee 2n lL & 1 é. #01) — 6 = oh + i + St - > (4.38) Alba) — = Cesap + Getie* Gest) nn Getie (88) Since |éi{ < Hy,, |b: < Hy, and |é:/r1| < O(Ai/r71) over Sp, the estimation error 6,(t,21) — 6, is bounded as in Eq. 4.36 where the first two terms represent, the tran- sient response due to the initial conditions, To show that increasing the order of the 55filter which implements the equivalent value operator guarantees 6; to be bounded, consider 2 1 ‘ 8 Gory Bal : 1, er fl = Gesip 4 Geant (4.39) 1232 Since the filter ney is BIBO stable with r > 2 and #,/r? = O(A,/72) is finite with a proper selection of 7; so as to match with the boundary layer width, 4) is also bounded. Proposition 4.1 shows that after the controller parameters and the design functions have been determined, the ultimate disturbance estimation error bounds appear in the form of Eq. 4.36-4.37 with arbitrary parameters over S, even without requiring the positive invariance of Sy. Since, each estimated disturbance is actually the output of a low-pass filter with unity gain and the filter inputs (6,'s and #’s) can always be bounded by constants independent of the controller parameters over S, due to the continuity and boundedness assumptions on 6), 62, 1, p2, the estimated disturbances as well as the estimation errors can also be bounded by constants over the compact set S, independent of 71,72 > 0. Therefore, for any fi’s selected, Hj,, Hy,, Hi, cannot exceed certain constants over S, independent of 7, 72 and the estimation errors are indeed controllable by the filter time constants. The only restriction is that D;’s should be compatible with the initial estimation errors since they cannot be controlled by the estimator parameters. However, since dh,4,, da,s, are only related to the initial conditions, one can always select a Di(t, 01) to bound Ds,(t,7:) and the conservatism of this selection can further be reduced by allowing D,(t, a) to be in terms of the initial conditions using the disturbance bounding functions for 56this purpose. With a proper selection of D:(t, 01), similar to the detailed analysis of Section 3.2.1, one can easily show that for any Ly(t,21) > 0, Lo(t,ay,22) > 0 there exists a r{() such that the condition of Eq. 4.27 is satisfied for all 7, € (0, rf] Once /i;(t,21) has been selected, da; /Ax will be fixed and can be bounded over Sj, independent of the unspecified parameters of S2(t, 21,22). Since dis, das,, diy only depend on the initial conditions and the multiplying term a,/82; of 4,(t,21) has already been argued to be bounded by a bound depending on (t,21) which has already been selected, one can always select a D2(t, g2) so as to bound Ds,(t, 72) and can also show that for any Ly(t,21) > 0, Lo(t,21, 212) > 0, there exists a 73(h) depending on L;(t,21), Le(t,1, 22) such that the condition of Eq. 4.28 is satisfied for all 72 € (0,73] provided that the selected 7, matches with the boundary layer width. In summary, it has just been verified that, for any given L,(t, 1) > 0, Lo(t,11,%2) > 0, there exist sufficiently small filter time constants, a small boundary layer width and D,(t, 0.), De(t, o2) to guarantee the ultimate boundedness of the tracking error. Since £,(t,21) > 0 and Lo(t,21,22) > 0 can be made arbitrarily small in magnitude with correspondingly smaller 7, 73 and the task of D;’s is just to bound the transient parts of the estimation errors which decay in time with a rate determined by 71,72, the gains of 6;’s can be chosen much smaller than those without any estimation and the same ultimate boundedness result can be claimed with a less conservative control action. Since 4’s actually create local high-gain feedback regions at some parts of the state space, a decrease in their gains will provide the designer with freedom to control the conservatism of the closed loop signals without sacrificing any tracking performance. Theorem 4.1 summarizes the main result. 57Theorem 4.1 Consider the system given by Eq. 4.8. Let yr(t) € Vre and the initial conditions are belong to the sets &,, Sy with arbitrary c,bi,h. For any c,b,h and 91; 925m, M, Li(t, 1), Lo(t, 21,2) > 0, there exist rf, 73 and explicit time functions Dy(e), Da(o) such that the control law of Eq. 4.18 and the disturbance estimator of Eq. 4.20 with the filter time constants 7; € (0,7{], T2 € (0, 73] and a sufficiently small boundary layer width depending on 7, 72 result in: (i) ly(t) — yp(t)| is uniformly bounded by 2b; for allt > to selecting fy, U2 € (0, 12") where pi" = big/2k, (ii) Given a by € (0,b,], there exists a _ 1, fobs r=2in(h z| (4.40) such that the ultimate tracking error bound satisfies |y(t) — y,(t)| < V/2b2 for all t > to +T with p11, 2 € (0, u"] where u* = bag/2k, for any by € (0,02). 4.4 Robust Backstepping via Equivalent Value Filters - Gen- eral Case In this section, the results of Section 4.3 is generalized to nth order SISO nonlinear systems in the following strict feedback form fe = tet fille ee) for B= Le yn 1 fn = ut faltti y= m (4.41) where 2,-++,2n € R are states, u € R is the control input and y € R is the output. ‘The functions fi(e) :Rx RR, fre): RX R? > R,--, f,(e): Rx R®>R are assumed to be expressed as follows: Salt, 1,++ 50m) = Fits tis +++ te) + Oe (tyB1s++ +4 tQ) |Se(ts 215° 0e)| S Pat tay ++ Te) (4.42) 58where fi(t,v1,+++,2%) and 6,(t,21,°+*,x) represent the nominal information and the uncertainty, respectively, for each f,(t,2,,+++,2,) for k = 1,---,n. The func- tions f,’s and 6,’s are assumed to be sufficiently smooth and p,(t,1,-+-,z4)'s are continuous in their arguments and bounded in time for each fixed (x1,-++,a,). The control objective is to make the output y to track a given reference signal y,(t) where Yes Grs**- yf (t) are known and uniformly bounded. As in the previous second order example, the equivalent control based disturbance estimators are employed into the recursive backstepping controller design to provide robust tracking in the presence of unknown 4;’s. Note that, unlike the most adaptive designs where the allowed uncer- tainty is an unknown parameter vector, there is no further restriction on the form of 6's other than being in the strict feedback form. Consider the following change of coordinates & = 1th Ges Be Opa + ter — YD (4.48) for k = 2,-++,m where a_’s and z-1’s are the virtual control and the disturbance cancelation terms to be determined, respectively. As in the previous second order example, we first write &=ththta-a (4.44) and use , lia 5 161) = ge (4.45) as a Lyapunoy function candidate for this scalar system. Choosing a = 96 ~ fi + Alt.) nd (4.46) 59with g; > 0, the stability of &, in case & is identically zero, can be guaranteed with a proper selection of 8; according to the Lyapunov function derivative given by VY = ~ne? + ld, + Bi) (447) where 5; At the second step, let 1 ValEi, &2) = Vili) + 58 (4.48) be an intermediate Lyapunov function. The selection of Oa 7) 8 a a2 = mob fat Fleet A+ Ste b Get Halt 2122) a = (4.49) with gp > 0 yields 2 5 2 5, _ oz o Vo = — 9187 + Erld1 + 61] ~ 922 + Ea[d2 — a + Ba] (4.50) for 3 = 0. Note that, the selection of the second step’s parameters a2, z2 requires information on o and 2. Following the same reasoning, at the kth step, we choose 1 Vi(Eas +++ &e) = Ve-r(6is-++ 5 & +56 (451) and let &41 = 0. Selecting ay and 2p as follows: + ery 1 tin + E+ Pe 4 +E aes mo a = — OEE — Ee hes ws ay + Be (4.52) 60ket kaki gy, mt Ea wit i+] (4.53) where g, > 0 is a design parameter and A‘ denotes the i** order derivative of any function A with h being h itself , the derivative of V_ becomes oe Bamat§, 4 Mka05, + ay (4.54) 1 a ke - Ve =~ Di 98 + 61161 + i] ++ + elbe - DE ai ai and the stability of the subsystem (£,,-+-,€:) can also be guaranteed with proper selections of ((3;,---, Ax), as usual. Proceeding with this manner, the control input and the ultimate Lyapunov func- tion appear at the last step as follows: U= Oy — ant yh” (4.55) VG Ge) = 5 oe (4.56) where On = Onn — Ext - i+ we loin + + Bent +¥ oe ul? >be ae +Bn (487) a = bn = oo + (4.58) and gy > 0 is a free design parameter. With these selections, the Lyapunov function derivative satis! 2 ek = _ dor; V = —Yoé? + &lb +i) + lb - on, 9 + Bolte it 61+Enldn — ta oe 46, hoe 15; + Bal (4.59) where 4; — 6; denotes the estimation error for 6; for each i = 1,--+,n and the stability of the overall system can be guaranteed with proper selections of ’s. The control input requires estimates for the disturbance terms with bounded derivatives to a certain order. To this end, the disturbance estimator equations are selected as follows: 1 = Bat filtyan) + [ar(t,21) + m] sgn (a1 — 1) By = a3 + fo(t,a1, 22) + [po(t, 1,22) + ne] sgn (x2 — 2) " Tn + frmt(ty@15*++ stn) + [Pa-a(ts By" **Zn-1) + Maa] $97 (Ge — En-1) Bq = ut Falt,aiy-++y tn) + [Pn(ty tis 2n) + Mh] 897 (ttn — Fn} (4.60) where each &4(to) = cg(to), me > 0 and 2 1 as be = Teri beta ++,a) + ne] sgn (ae — &e) (4.61) snwhere re =n —k +L As in the previous second order example, we perform a regional analysis defining & 2 {EER V(E) sh} (4.62) Vc & {¥ ER": V(¥,) Sc} (4.63) where € = [5° = [ues yf YFP and voa5ee . vod=3y bey (4.64) Note that if & and y, are bounded 2 is clearly bounded. Since a is bounded with bounded arguments by definition and 4, is bounded as it will be shown later, <2 is also bounded for a bounded g,. Using the same reasoning, it can be easily argued 62that € € &,, ¥; € Vpe in addition to the fact that 60 is bounded for k = 1,-++,n and i= 1,+++,n—k imply the existence of an A depending on by and c such that 7 € Sy for € € Ey,, Yr € Dae where & 2 (CER Va)=F >a sh} (4.65) ra ‘Oe (ty ry, - Hy 2 sup |Pe(heu--t8) (4.66) - (ea)e(Rxsy) ats for i= 1,-++,rp and k= 1,+++,n where ry, =n—k+1. Note that each Hw is finite since 6,’s have already been assumed to be sufficiently smooth at the first place and the supremum is taken over a compact set. Furthermore, due to the system structure, each Hy depends on 21,-+-,a44j for i= 1,-+-,re — 1 and Hyey is also affected by control explicitly but not any control derivative. ‘The disturbance estimator provides the following error dynamics: % = 4(t,a1) f= ba(t,a1, 02) [os (t, 21) + m] sgn 4 [po(t, 21,22) + me] sgn Eo (4.67) = Spat, @iy++y2n-a) — [Pn-a(t, 21 °**)Zn-1) + Mra] 890 Epa = bn(tyt1,°°+,2n) — [Pn(t,21,°++, tn) + Mn] sgn En and it can easily be proven that each error variable #; © «r; — &; is kept at zero ideally. As before, considering a real sliding motion we allow each Z; to satisfy |%;| < A; where Ay’s are arbitrarily small positive constants Proposition 4.2 The disturbance estimator given by Bq. 4.60-4.61 produces the dis- turbance terms over S;, with the following ultimate error bounds: We (t,e1,°**,2%) — bel S YO dis, tf eM + SY ( " ) its + O(Ak/t«) (4.68) & a 63for all t > to where dis, ’s are constants related to initial conditions and ( 7 ) ~ Teo (4.69) yt and k Furthermore, each 6°" is finite for all i Proof 4.2 Consider a Te \ ig) E(t )ae (tes + 1) —1 (m5 +1)? Te (Tes a Te A) Se(t, tis +++5 te) — ok Since |é{°} < Hy and |&x/ri| < O(Ax/re) over Sp, the ultimate estimation error bound can be expressed as in Proposition 4.2 where the first summation represents the transient response due to the initial conditions. To show that each 6 is Anite for all i= 1,+++,ry and k=1,--+,n, we write 5 1 x = Gege [eee] aan 1 ais! fe 8 (1) Th Sg /ri AM i Gest ~ Geete (am) Since the filter —#* — is BIBO stable for i < ry and the input to the filter &/rj = (es + 1% O(Ax/7i) is finite with a proper selection of the design parameter 7 according to the boundary layer width of A,, 6" is also bounded for a bounded 6{-», Note that all the ultimate error bounds contain a transient term, an O(7,) phase lag term resulting from the equivalent value filtering and an O(A;/Tx) term due to the unfiltered chattering terms. As discussed before, the selection of sufficiently smali 7,’s along with an arbitrarily small boundary layer width guarantees that each estimation error will decay very rapidly to an arbitrarily small vicinity of zero. To counteract 64the disturbance estimation errors we select ,’s as follows: Puc(t,e1y--+5%4) = —{De (ty on) + La(t,mr,--+,te)} x tanh (GPM od tine 2eh) ary Be where tanh denotes the hyperbolic tangent function, j4’s are free design parameters as before and D,/(t, ox)’, L(t, 21, ++, e)’s are to be selected so as to guarantee ket ka z Seey1 = 3: = Duty ox) + Let 2r,-+-,a4) 2 [de — So FE*G, + Yo EG, | (4.73) On, 25 Oa With these selections, the Lyapunov function derivative becomes VS -YoaP+ n(n ++ + un) (4.74) Gi where — 0.2785 is a constant related to the tanh function as usual. Let g = 2min(g:,+++, gn) and j= max(j,++*, fn), and rewrite Eq. 4.74 as fol- lows: Vis-gV tne (4.75) Selecting u € (0, u"] where p* = b,g/nx, the set &, is guaranteed to be positively invariant so that the ultimate disturbance estimation error bounds hold for all times and all the trajectories starting in this set converge to &, in finite time for any by satisfying neju/g < by < by. Since |y — y,| < /2V(G), the tracking error y — y, cannot exceed /2b; and is ultimately bounded by 2p. To verify the feasibility of the selections of Dg(t, ax)’s and Ly(t,21,--,24)'s to guarantee the conditions of Eq. 4.73, we first note that all the disturbance estimates as well as the estimation errors can be bounded by constants independent of 7:’s since the estimated disturbances are the outputs of low-pass filters of unity gain and theinputs to filters are just state dependent and can be bounded over the compact set Sp. Therefore, Hys’s will be bounded by constants independent of 7, > 0's and the estimation errors can indeed be controlled by 7,’s. The selections of De(t, gx)'s can be analyzed sequentially. Since the task of D,(é, a1) is just to’ bound the transient part of the estimation error for 6:(¢, 1) resulting from the initial condition mismatch which is independent of the design parameters, one can always find a D,(t, 01) for this purpose. Once Ly(t,1,-+,4)’s and D,(t, 9,) have been selected, multiplying term 00;/d2; of 4,(t, 2) will be fixed and a suitable Do(t, 0:) can also be selected Continuing in this manner, the so as to bound the transient part of — 8a,/Az: feasibility of the selections of all Dx(t, ox)’s can easily be verified sequentially. Similar to the detailed analysis of Section 3.2.1, for any given Ly(e) > 0 one can also prove the existence of 7;'s depending on L,’s such that the conditions of 4.73 hold for any ‘rx from the set (0, 7g] with properly selected D,’s. Theorem 4.2 extends the results of Theorem 4.i to the nth order strict feedback systems. Theorem 4.2 Consider the system given by Eg. 4.41. The initial conditions are be- long to Ey,, Sp and the reference trajectory y,(t) € Y,,< with arbitrary constants by, h, c. For given by, hc and selected gg, m, Le(ts21,°*,2e) > 0, there exist rf,---,7% and explicit time functions D,(e),--+,Dn(@) such that the control law of Eq. 4.55 and the disturbance estimator of Eq. 4.60-4.61 with filter time constants 7 € 0,7] and a sufficiently large switching frequency depending on r,’s result in: (i) \y(t) — y,(t)| #8 uniformly bounded dy 2b; for all t > to sel cting H1,---, Hn € (0, *] where u* = big/nx, 66(ii) Given ba € (0,0), there exists a (4.76) such that the ultimate tracking error bound satisfies |\y(t) — y-(t)| < V2b2 for allt > T selecting j11,--~, Hn € (0, p*] where pu = byg/nK, for any bs € (0, br) Remark 4.1 Due to the disturbance estimator dynamics, the resulting controller is actually a dynamic controller. However, since sliding mode exists on each %, = 0 globally, the controller is robustified to take into account the ultimately bounded estimation errors by a Lyapunov function independent of %’s using the decoupling property of the sliding mode control theory. Remark 4.2 Since the disturbances have already been assumed to be bounded by known functions, one could still give an ultimate boundedness result without any disturbance estimation employing the same analysis. However, the equivalent control based disturbance estimators provide the low-pass filtered versions of the disturbance terms where the filter time constants are specified by the designer. Since the selection of sufficiently small filter time constants provides each of the ultimate estimation error bound to converge to an arbitrarily small vicinity of zero with an arbitrarily fast convergence rate as analyzed in detail, the gain of each @, can be chosen much smaller than the one without any disturbance compensation, This is preferable since the q's need to be differentiated throughout the recursive design and actually form the high frequency part of the control input. This reduces the conservatism of the controller significantly. Remark 4.3 The design idea is also valid when the uncertainty terms can further be separated into parametric and functional parts. For the parametric uncertainties, the 67tuning function design ([37]) can be used while the disturbance estimators are still employed in the loop to deal with the functional uncertainties. We also note that the regional (semi-global) analysis has been employed to express the estimation accuracy in a suitable form independent of the state vector to easily argue on the ultimate boundedness of the disturbance estimation error. 4.5 Simulation Example In this section, a simulation example is summarized to illustrate the performance of the presented tracking controller design. The model used for simulation purposes is given by fy = a) +sin(@:21) By rs + Ont, + Osa} (4.77) dy = ut+Oxn + Osriz} + Oca where x; is the output variable and @;'s are the system parameters. During the control design, all the additional terms at the right hand sides were treated as the uncertainties of the system, i.e; 6y(t, 1) = sin(O,a1) do(t, 21,22) = Oga 122 + Oz} (4.78) 5a(t, 1,22, %y) = Oya, + Osxiz} + Ooty and the known bounding functions for the uncertainties were selected as follows: pr(ts 2 po(t, 21,22) = 2|xy20| + |sr3| (4.79) a(t, 215 22,23) = 5|ea| + 2a |x} + [ars Fig. 4.1-4.6 show the results when the tracking controller design of Section 4.4 has been applied using the parameters tabulated in Table 4.1 for three different reference trajectories: y, = 0 (Casel), y, = 1 (Case2) and y, = sin(nt/2) (Case3) with the simulation step size of 100 usec. The time constant for each equivalent value filter has been chosen as 0.01 sec, the orders of the filters were 5, 3 and 2 , respectively and 68o7 os 24 § oa Nee TO ae Figure 4.1: Output Variable (Casel) _ Figure 4.2: Control Input (Casel) cons 2Figure 4.3: Output Variable (Case2) Figure 4.4: Control Input (Case2) 70Figure 4.5: Output Variable (Case3) Figure 4.6: Control Input. (Case3)©; = 0.5 O5=-1 gs=4 Ha = 0.02 ts = 0.1 Table 4.1: Simulation Parameters the gains of 6;(e)'s have been generated by suitable low-pass filters so as to satisfy Di(t) + Lie) = 1.82 et + tee" + emer’ 4.0.2 Dz(t) + Lo(e) Beret + pe-ert 4. 2 (4.80) D3(t) + Ls(@) Bee! + tenet 4 4 where each g; was 0.05 sec. The selections of Eq. 4.80 has been used thanks to the convergence characteristic of the disturbance estimators at the expense of obviously making the tracking results regionally valid. As shown in Fig. 4.1-4.6, the output variable has been forced to an arbitrary vicinity of the desired reference signal with a smooth control law for all cases. It is also worthwhile to note that similar tracking accuracy has also been observed for a variety of tracking signals even without damping terms. 4.6 Concluding Remarks An estimation based robust tracking control design methodology which follows the robust backstepping design procedure with the incorporation of equivalent con- trol based disturbance estimators has been presented for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems in strict feedback form. The proposed method provides flexibility in the de- sign of damping functions since the estimated parts of the disturbances are already eliminated. Therefore, the task of the damping functions only remains to deal with 72the residual estimation errors. Unlike the most adaptive backstepping designs where the allowable uncertainties are required to be parameterized, the proposed design is applicable for a broader class of functional uncertainties and the disturbance estima- tors are easy to implement compared to an on-line function approximator.CHAPTER 5 OBSERVER BASED ROBUST OUTPUT TRACKING OF FEEDBACK LINEARIZABLE SYSTEMS 5.1 Overview In this chapter, we study an observer based robust output tracking controller design methodology for an uncertain output feedback linearizable system. The un- certainty in the system is not required to satisfy a certain structural property as long as the relative degree is preserved. For simplicity, the system is further assumed to have full relative degree. The proposed design employs an equivalent control based observer to implement an ideal tracking controller. Note that, the most crucial point in an observer-based design for a nonlinear system is the stability analysis of the closed loop system since the separation principle of the linear system theory is not valid for the nonlinear case. The main objective of this chapter is to present how the observer design of Chapter 2 can be utilized in an output tracking control problem with proven Lyapunov stability results. The organization of the chapter is as follows: In Section 5.2, the problem formu- lation and the assumptions imposed are given. Using the input-output linearization approach and a continuous min-max design method, an ideal tracking controller which 74requires the output coordinates for implementation is developed in Section 5.3. The observer design is presented in Section 5.4 and the ultimate boundedness of the es- timation errors is proven upon the selection of the filter time constants according to arule. The stability of the composite system is studied in Section 5.5. A simulation example is summarized in Section 5.6 to illustrate the approach and the chapter ends with brief concluding remarks in Section 5.7. 5.2 Problem Formulation Consider a SISO nonlinear system of the form é F(z) +9(x)u (6 y A(z) where x € R",u € Rand y € R are the state, input and output variables, respectively and the vector fields f : Dz +R”, 9: D, + R” and the output function h: D; + R are smooth on a domain D, CR". The system is allowed to be uncertain and its nominal model is defined as follows: (5.2) where f : D, +R", 9: Dz + R", which represent the known information on f and g, respectively, are also smooth on D, and the output function h is assumed to be known exactly. The problem considered is to force the output y to track a given reference signal ur() in the presence of uncertainties where y,, Jr, +++, ys") are known and uniformly bounded. We further assume the following:Assumption 5.1 The actual system of Eq. 5.1 and its nominal model represented in Bq. 5.2 both have relative degree n on Ds, i.e; L,Lk"h(2) = 0, LyLk*h(2) = Lyle *h(z) #0 , Lgl A(z) #0 for Vr € Dz (5.3) where Lrh(z) denotes the Lie derivative of h along f with the following standard definition and properties: Lyk) = Fie) gb yr(s) = “Eo tyne) = UE 18h(x) = A(z) (5.4) so that they are both input-state and input-output dinearizable, i.e; there exist diffeo- morphisms Ty, Ts h(x) (a) nyay=| 2) | aaa) 2 (8) Ly h(a) Lyne) such that the systems of Bg. 5.1 and Eq, 5.2 can be transformed into RPG) +G(u Boheme 68) and fa = aap (6.7) 2n = F(a) + G(a)u respectively, where yx = Lk'h(x), F(x) = L3h(x), G(z) = LgLF'h(x), ze = LS ‘h(z), Pla) = Lph(z), G(e) = LyL3th(x) and G(z),G(e) # 0 on Dz. Note that yx = 21 76Assumption 5.2 The difference between the transformed coordinate variables (yx’s and 2's) for the systems of Bq. 5.6-5.7 can be bounded on Dz according to Wy (2) 2 yess — zen = LER(2) - Lhh(e) (8) [Vi(a)| < pe(z) for = 1-1 ! where px(x)’s are known bounding functions. Our basic approach is first to design an ideal tracking controller based on the “representation of Eq, 5.6 assuming that all y,’s are available for feedback and then implement the resulting control law with the estimates of yx’s generated by an equiva- lent control based sliding mode observer leading to a standard observer based design. In the literature so far, this problem has especially been studied with high-gain ob- servers which suffer from the well-known peaking phenomena (for instance, see [18], [42]). The usage of a sliding mode observer can be a remedy to this problem since the sliding mode control is actually an efficient way of implementing an high-gain control action. In the sequel, the state vector « is assumed to be available although this requirement can be overcome with minor modifications. The full relative degree assumption has been imposed just for a clear presentation of the main idea although the design is also applicable to systems with stable nontrivial zero dynamics. 5.3 An Ideal Output Tracking Controller Consider the system of Eq. 5.6. Since the vector fields f,g are only partially known, F(x) and G(z) cannot be computed exactly. However, they can be approxi- mated by F(x) and G(c), respectively using the nominal model and the uncertainty in this representation satisfies the standard (generalized) matching condition. ‘To de- velop an ideal output tracking controller with the assumption of availability of all y,'s 7for feedback, we define & = yey Y(t) for k= 1m (5.9) and write the system in terms of these tracking error coordinate variables as follows: = Ae + BF (2) + AF (2) + G(z)u + AG(a)u - yl") (6.10) where € = (61,--+,&)", AF = F-F, AG=G-G and ol 0 0 A= ee a0 1 0 00 0 1 Since the pair (A, B) is controllable one can select a K such that (A + BK) is Hurwitz placing its eigenvalues at desired locations. Let P = P? be the unique, positive definite solution to the following Lyapunov matrix equation P(A+ BK) +(A+BK)"P = -Q (5.11) where Q = Q? is a user-selected positive definite matrix and take Vz = €7Pé as the Lyapunov function candidate for the tracking error dynamics. The stability analysis is performed over the set &, 2 {EER Ve [b + e+ 2V/biCAmaz(P)/Amin(P)] where MS VER": W sd} (6.14) and Vy = ¥Y™PY. The control input is selected as follows: u(t,2,6)=G"[-F + KE +y +a] (5.15) It consists of there components: a linearizing term to cancel the nominal nonlineari- ties, a linear feedback term which would achieve the asymptotic tracking objective in case the available information represents the actual system exactly and an additional robustifying term @ which is to be determizred so as to counteract the effect of the un- certainties. With this control the Lyapunov derivative along the system trajectories satisfies £7 QE + 267 PB[(1 + AGG)a + AF - AGG F + AGG" KE + AGG 'y™)] (6.16) It is also assumed that JAF — AGG- +AGGTKE + AGGE™"Y")| < D(t,2,€) (5.17) O7'GH(#) 21 (5.18) over the domain of interest where D(t,2,£) and H(z) are known. We further require D(t,2,€) to be locally Lipschitz in € due to the stability analysis of the composite system as it will be clarified later. Note that, since a regional analysis is employed one could select D(e) and H(e) as sufficiently large constants. However, the conservatism 79of the design generally decreases if state dependent bounds are allowed. Since both the actual and the nominal systems are feedback linearizable, G # 0, G # 0 and 1 ig sign definite over Dz. Therefore a sign definite function or a constant can easily be found for H(z). Let a= —D(t,«,€)H(a) tanh (Pes.02"e) (5.19) a Using Eq. 5.19 and Eq. 3.8, Eq. 5.16 can be rewritten as follows: Ves ~PQE + eu (5.20) where « is a parameter pertaining to tanh as usual. Selecting » € (0,q*] where pt = biAmin(Q)/#Amaz(P) it can be easily shown that &, is positively invariant and all the trajectories originating from this set are also ultimately bounded to €), for any by satisfying {16\mas(P)/Amin(Q) < bo 0, Ve converges to zero exponentially satisfying Amin(Q) (4 5.2 Ver Jal S Rpg eee (5.21) and the tracking objective can indeed be achieved exponentially. 5.4 Sliding Mode Derivative Estimator Design The tracking controller design of Section 5.3 assumes the availability of the full output vector. In this section, we present an estimator design which provides an estimate for the output vector Y = [y1,-++, ya]” with an accuracy controllable by the designer in the closed loop. The estimator is theoretically an equivalent control based sliding mode observer which recursively uses equivalent control operators to extract additional information from the system. The subsequent design can be regarded as a 80special case of the one presented on a strict feedback system in Section 2.3 originated from our earlier studies ([24], (25]) Let. D, = 22 + (r(x) +m) sgn (ys — th) (5.22) be the observer equation for the variable y; which satisfies h=nt%(z) 3) where zp represents the available information on j: which can be computed using the nominal model, ¥;(z) is the computation error and m, is a design parameter. Subtracting Eq. 5.22 from Bq. 5.23, one gets th = Vile) — (oi(2) +m) sont (5.24) where 1 = yi: — 1 and it can be easily shown that a sliding motion occurs on ji in finite time for any m > 0. The reaching phase of this motion can further be eliminated with the initial condition selection of §;(to) = yi(to) where to denotes the initial time and g; is kept at zero ideally Vé > to. According to equivalent control methodology, ((os(2) +m) son Galeg = Va(z) (5.25) so that an alternative expression for y is obtained as follows: Ye = 22+ [(or(z) +m) 897 Gale (5.26) At the next step, we select Ua = 23 + (p22) + m)sgn(y2 — be) (5.27) 81as the observer equation for the variable y, and rewrite it for implementation as follows: Ga = 2 + (02(z) +m) sar (z2 + |(er(z) +m) 897 Tileg — G2) (5.28) using the equivalent representation of y» in Eq. 5.26 which can be implemented ap- proximately by a low-pass filter. For the sake of clarity, the estimator design algorithm is next carried out in terms of the equivalent value operators by postponing the de- tailed analysis of equivalent value filtering in the realization of sequential equivalent value operators to Theorem 5.1 Noting that =a +Vo(c) (5.29) where zs represents the computable ideal value of ja, with W(x) being the error in this computation, subtracting Eq. 5.28 from Eq. 5.29, results in 2 = Va(z) — (022) +12) sgn 2 (5.30) where 2 = ya — Jo is steered to zero in finite time and kept at zero ideally for any 1m > 0. In sliding mode, [(2(2) + 12) 897 Taleq = Wa(x) (8.31) and ys can also be written as follows: Ys = 25 + [(p2(z) +1) sgn Ge leg (5.32) Continuing in this manner, at the kth step, the observer equation for the variable yx is chosen as follows: te = en tlh (5.33) Te = (ox(2) + me) sgn (zx + [Pe-aleg ~ de) (5.34) 82for any k = 1,+++,n—1 where [I Jeg = 0 and ™ > 0. With this selection, J is also steered to zero in finite time, the equivalent value of the discontinuous input of that step gives information required for the next step and so on and so forth. The recursive design is terminated at the (n ~ 1)th step and y, is estimated using the relation Yn = n+ [Dn-tleg (5.35) while an estimate for each y, for k = 1,-+-,n—1 can be read through the related observer variable gy. Theorem 5.1 summarizes the result of a complete stability analysis of the observer when the equivalent value operators are implemented by first order high bandwidth low-pass filters by expressing the estimation accuracy in terms of a single design parameter which couples the equivalent value filter time constants, Theorem 5.1 Consider de=2enth, for k= Yn = Zn + Una (5.38) where Py = (pe() + ne) sgn (ze + ti ~ de) (5.37) Tek + Up = Pe (5.38) with uo = 0. Suppose that ¥(t) € Yy with an arbitrary d, the control input is uniformly bounded Vt > to and let Tt», =" fork =1,---,n—1. For any 6 > 0 and T- > to, there exist an €* and positive n,’s such that Iy-Ysd wet (5.39) 83selecting € € (0,¢*] with a boundary layer width A so as to guarantee |fi| < A < where Y = [fi.+++, Onl” and ||¢|| denotes any vector norm. Proof 5.1 See Appendix A. 5.5 Stability Analysis of the Composite System The control law of Eq. 5.15 needs the full output vector for implementation. In this section, we study the stability of the composite system when the controller is implemented using the estimated output vector provided by the observer. The esti- mation accuracy of the observer has already been proven to be controllable by a free parameter provided that the control input is uniformly bounded and Y € Yu. Assume that the initial conditions are such that & € £ and restrict the stability analysis to the compact set € € &, with a b; > by as before. For any allowable reference signal, € € £), implies that Y € ) for some d so that the positive invariance of the set &, actually meets one of the requirements of Theorem 5.1. The key point of the analysis is to saturate the control by a suitable value using the globally bounded control idea [18] so as to guarantee that the system trajectories do not escape &, during the initial convergence phase of the observer and the tracking error can further be confined to an arbitrarily small vicinity of zero after this initial phase by employing an analysis adopted from [18], [42]. To this end, the control input is modified as follows: Pe: GOLF + Ket yf” + a(t, 2,8) if [a] 8/72, € € &o, Ye > to. Otherwise, there exists a time instant T’ given by rely (eee) a (645) 2 \n/a- vi such that € &, Vt € {to,T). Since, for any by > by, the conditions € € &, and Y € Yq are at least satisfied during the time interval [fo, 7), the observer gains (7's) need to be selected sufficiently large depending on bo,d: with T. < T’ so as to assure that the trajectories do not escape € € &;, during the initial phase. The existence of such 7x’s has been explored in the proof of Theorem 5.1 in detail. Specifically, one can even use Eq. A.42 to generate a suitable set of 74's if some information on N;,’s and T is available. Consider the closed loop system with the modified control of Eq. 5.40 for t> T €= A€ + BIF (2) + G(z)alt, 2,8 - yf] € = AE-+ BIF a) + Gle)alt,2,8) ~Y] + BE(e\(att,2,€) — atte.) O49) Noting that alt, 2,8) = ult,2,€) . [BG (o){ult, 2,6) ~ ult,2, 61 < ailig - él| < arene (an) 85for € € &, where ay is the related Lipschitz constant for the control, a is an additional parameter which quantifies the O(¢) estimation accuracy of the observer for t > T according to Theorem 5.1 and using the stability result of Section 5.3 for the ideal control, one gets Ve S -€TQE + wpe + a9¢ (5.48) for € € &, where a3 = 2\\VPl| Vbiaiaz. Let p € (0,u"], € € (0,€"] where pt = Yrnin(Q)b1/2KAmax(P) and e* = Ku,/ars. With these selections, the Lyapunov deriva tive becomes Ves -€°QE + 2 (5.49) and the positive invariance of &, can easily be seen to be guaranteed. Therefore, the tracking error & is uniformly bounded and it further converges inside the layer of thickness \/b2/Amin(P) in finite time for any by satisfying 2}Amar(P)/Amin(Q) < ba $ by. Since jis the ultimate error bound parameter it is desired to be as small as possible. However, this also requires € to be small because a usually increases with a decrease in j due to its role in the tanh function. Nevertheless, it has just been proven that the tracking error is always bounded and can indeed be made arbitrarily small with suitable design parameters at the expense of possibly increasing the conservatism of the design, The final result is summarized in Theorem 5.2. Theorem 5.2 Consider the system of Eq. 5.1 with the control input given by Eq. 5.40 implemented by the observer of Theorem 5.1. Let Eto) € Em, Yr € Yne and consider the set E(t) E, with an arbitrary by > bo provided that c € Dz on which Assump- tions 5.1-5.2 hold when &(t) € &5, and ¥; € Jy. For any b,c, bi, P,Q > 0 there exist suitable n’s to guarantee T, ty for u € (0, 1") and ¢ € (0, ¢"] where u* = Amnin(Q)bi/26Amax(P) and e* = Ku /as. (ii) Given a by € (0,b:], there exists a time instant T, given by —bs h5 such that \y(t) — yet) S Vb2/Amin(P) for all t > T, for w€ (0,n"] and € € (0, e"] where T is as in Eq. 5.45, u* = Amin(Q)bs/2KAmac(P) and e* = Ku/as for any by © (0, be). | +T (6.50) Remark 5.1 Since is related to the smoothness of the control, it is directly af- fected by jz. Furthermore, although the estimation accuracy has been proven to be O(¢) the actual value of the estimation error also depends on the control input but not on its derivatives by the nature of the estimator. However, when the linear feedback gain K’, the gains D, H and ju has been selected, there will be a maximum value for a1; over the restricted domain considered. Although a,’s are not known, Theorem 5.2 guarantees the existence of an ¢* such that the ultimate boundedness result is valid for all ¢ € (0, ¢'}. Remark 5.2 Although each observer gain has been expressed as the sum of a state dependent bounding function W;(x) and a constant gain m, they could be replaced by a single sufficiently large constant since the whole analysis is employed over a compact set. Furthermore, even if the state vector is not available, the observer can still be used by replacing all z's with zero and selecting the observer gains so as to bound ys’s instead of just their differences from the computed ones. The state dependence of D and H can also be overcome due to the regional analysis to achieve the tracking objective using only the output feedback. 87Remark 5.3 The estimator summarized in Theorem 5.1 can be linked to an high- gain observer considering that a multiple time scale behavior is created for both observers where this is achieved by the proposed filter time constant selection for the former whereas by a suitable observer gain selection for the latter. For an high- gain observer, a direct trade-off exists between the steady state estimation accuracy and the transient performance leading to the well-known peaking phenomena. How- ever, for the proposed observer, the estimation errors are always bounded during the convergence transient irrespective of ¢. Furthermore, the convergence time behavior and the steady state accuracy can indeed be controlled independently by the design parameters. 5.6 Simulation Example The model used for the simulation purposes is given by 4 = Oya + On(23 + 2g) % = sin(Q321) + Ogu (5.51) Osx + Opa} — 2OgarQu with the following parameters: ©, = —1, @, = —2, Oy = 0.5, O4 = 3, Os ©, = —1.5. The first state variable 2 has been selected as the output and it can be easily verified that the system has a relative degree 3 for this output with this parameter set. The deviation of the computed output vector from the actual one was estimated recursively by the observer of Section 5.4 and this information was used to implement the tracking controller of Section 5.3 so as to track y,(t) =0.5+sin(mt/3). The nominal model is assumed to have the same structure with the original one expect for the available parameter values: 6, = —1.5, @2 = —3, O3 = 0.8, 6 = 2, Os = 6 88~ Quiput Roterance Figure 5.1: Reference Signal and Output 5 = —1. Fig. 5.1-5.3 show the results for the case where 10 0 0 Q=|0 3 0 K=[-24 -26 -9] 0 0 01 : DH = 20, w= 0.2, m = 2, m = 30, 7 = 0.005 sec, % = 0.01 sec with a sampling size of 50 jisec by replacing px, p2 by zero. ‘As shown in Fig. 5-1, the output variable has been forced to an arbitrarily small vicinity of the reference signal in the presence of parametric uncertainties. ‘The equiv- alent value filter parameters have been tuned via simulations starting from an initial parameter set suggested by Theorem 5.1 so as to obtain an accurate tracking accuracy while also having a reasonable bandwidth for a numerical simulation. The observer gains has been selected as large constants at the expense of reducing the size of the region on which the ultimate boundedness result of the tracking error is valid 89‘ate Var & Ta eed Figure 5.2: State Variable «2 ‘sate Vera, Figure 5.3: State variable x3 905.7 Conclusions ‘An observer based robust output tracking controller design has been presented for a certain class of nonlinear systems. Based on the input-output linearization approach, a continuous min-max controller has been developed assuming that the output coordinates are available and the resulting control law has been implemented by an equivalent control based observer leading to a standard observer based design. A complete stability analysis has been performed to prove the semi-global ultimate boundedness of the tracking error. 91CHAPTER 6 TWO-TIME SCALE EXTREMUM CONTROL VIA SLIDING MODES 6.1 Introduction Many controllers in the nonlinear system context are regulative type controllers whose main task is to stabilize the system to a fixed operating point or to make a desired output to follow a given reference trajectory. In many cases, the selection of an operating point or a tracking signal (constant) is straightforward and comes directly with the control objective. However, it may sometimes be more appropriate to select those parameters so as to operate the system in an optimal mode according to an optimality criterion and @ priori determination of such an optimal operation mode is usually difficult in the presence of uncertainties in the plant to be controlled and the criterion to be optimized. Furthermore, the optimality criterion might often be an online signal whose analytical dependence on other variables is unknown. The online adjustment of the control structure or its certain parameters for optimization purposes appears as a promising research area with this motivation. In this chapter, we develop a two-time scale sliding mode optimization method. The basic ingredient of the proposed approach is to introduce a free parameter to 92CHAPTER 6 TWO-TIME SCALE EXTREMUM CONTROL VIA SLIDING MODES 6.1 Introduction Many controllers in the nonlinear system context are regulative type controllers whose main task is to stabilize the system to a fixed operating point or to make a desired output to follow a given reference trajectory. In many cases, the selection of an operating point or a tracking signal (constant) is straightforward and comes directly with the control objective. However, it may sometimes be more appropriate to select those parameters so as to operate the system in an optimal mode according to an optimality criterion and a priori determination of such an optimal operation mode is usually difficult in the presence of uncertainties in the plant to be controlled and the criterion to be optimized. Furthermore, the optimality criterion might often be an online signal whose analytical dependence on other variables is unknown. The online adjustment of the control structure or its certain parameters for optimization purposes appears as a promising research area with this motivation. In this chapter, we develop a two-time scale sliding mode optimization method. ‘The basic ingredient of the proposed approach is to introduce a free parameter to 92the closed loop through the control Jaw and to adapt this parameter in a slower time le to optimize the performance of the overall syst in this area, the sliding mode optimization is performed over a control parameter Unlike the previous studies rather than the control input itself while a smooth controller is already in the loop. The chapter is outlined as follows: In Section 6.2, the problem formulation and the assumptions are given. The basic idea of the proposed method is presented on an integrator system in Section 6.3 and extended to the operating point and the set point optimization problems of a generic nonlinear system in Section 6.4 and Section 6.5, respectively. A numerical example is discussed in Section 6.6 and the chapter concludes with brief remarks in Section 6.7. In this chapter, due to the two- time scale nature of the design, the derivative notation is written explicitly in order to point out the differentiation time variable. 6.2 Problem Formulation Consider a SISO nonlinear system of the form S = sew y = A(z) (6.1) where x € R” is the state, u € R is the control, y € R is the output and the vector field f : R x D, x R + R" is smooth on a domain D, C R®. Our objective is determine a control structure which enables the system to operate robustly at the peak of a performance surface defined by 2=F(2) (6.2) 93where z is the performance variable. The proposed design has two consecutive phases: First, a control law is determined to create a unique equilibrium point as a smooth function of a free scalar parameter inserted to the closed loop through the control law and to stabilize the closed loop system to this equilibrium point. Second, this control parameter is adapted in a slower time scale to move the resulting equilibria so as to increase the performance of the overall system. We assume the following: Assumption 6.1 A regulative control law u = u,(z,®) with a constant @ € © where © C R is an arbitrarily large compact set has already been specified such that it produces a unique equilibrium point x-(©) with |\Oz,(@)/80\| to > 0, ¥ |la(to)—ze(O)I| < do (6.4) for some c,7,d > 0 and 0 < dy = -A(r-8 6. dt (2-9) (6.9) where A is a positive control parameter, é is the adaptation gain and v is the adap- tation input to be determined. To express the system in the standard singularly perturbed form, we define a slow time variable by + = et and rewrite the system of Eq. 6.8-6.9 as follows do = = Ke (6.10) de cE = -Ne-8) (6.11) where the adaptation gain is chosen in the form k = eH with a small positive € and K € O(1). As in [62], [12], the adaptation input is selected to make the performance variable to follow an increasing function g(t) y = &s) (6.12) s = z~9(t) (6.13) where ®(s) = sgn sin(7s/a) is the periodic switching function ({12]) and g = ep with p € O(1) being a positive constant. To study the stability and the performance of the closed loop system, first consider A the slow motion on n = z — 6 = 0. On this slow manifold: 2 = F@) (6.14)& . FE) ca) - p (6.18) and the sliding mode existence condition of keeping s at a constant is satisfied outside a region characterized by aF@)| 30 SA+p/K |z~zpas| $5 (6.16) for any A > 0 where A, p/K and the corresponding 6 are sufficiently small so that the gradient satisfies this inequality only around the peak performance denoted by Zax Which is not necessarily known. Outside this region >eKA (6.17) ¢ and ¢ is kept at a constant irrespective of the sign of the gradient after a finite time interval whose duration cannot exceed a/¢K A. From Eq. 6.13 and Eq. 6.17, it follows that the region [2 tna] 5-40 (1+ 3) (6.18) is positively invariant, i.e; the slow motion trajectories converge to this region in finite time and are kept there after that where the last term of Eq. 6.18 results directly from the maximum possible changes in s and g(t) during the finite time interval prior to the reoccurence of a sliding motion at a constant s after the system leaves the region of Eq, 6.16 in which the sliding mode does not exist. Note that, the size of the region given by Eq. 6.18 is controllable by the design parameters. The boundary layer model for the system of Eq, 6.10-6.11 satisfies dn = dt (6.19) and it is asymptotically stable for A > 0. 97So far we have just examined the stability of the slow and the boundary layer models. However, the basic results of the singular perturbation theory require certain differentiability assumptions and therefore the current singular perturbation analysis needs to be further examined since the adaptation input is a discontinuous function of the state for our case. To overcome this difficulty, the easiest way is to replace the original discontinuous periodic switching function by a smooth approximate so that the continuous differentiability requirements of the standard singular perturbation theory would be satisfied at the first place. For example, the following approximate periodic switching function (s) = tanh[8 sin(nj/a) (6.20) can be easily shown to keep s in an O(37*) vicinity of a constant with a sufficiently large # and all the previous results of the slow motion still holds with the exception that the invariant region expression of Eq. 6.18 will have an additional O(8~') term. The performance variable tracks g(t) with an O(8-!) accuracy and 2 is steered to- wards the vicinity of its optimum value at which the performance is maximum in the average as before. Asan alternative approach, one can also study the stability and the performance of the original system without resorting to a continuous approximation directly with a Lyapunov analysis. To this end, let (6.21) be a Lyapunov function candidate for the boundary layer variable. Calculating the derivative of V with respect to the slow time variable along the trajectories of the 98closed loop system, one gets We By _ enw (6.22) dr € ¥ < -Pv 4 viKVV (6.23) 5 For V > K?e?/2)*, dV/dr < 0 so that 7 is uniformly bounded and converges to an O(c) vicinity of zero in finite time. Specifically, for any b > 0, it can be easily shown that In) < (KA+i)e Vr 2 r (6.24) where cc) if |n(t0)| < (K/A + Be T=) ey [nleo)—Ke/d (6.28) x be and 7) denotes the initial time. Note that, 7, is finite for any b € O(1) and € > 0. ] +7 otherwise For 7 < 7, @ will not necessarily be updated in the optimal direction; however, © is bounded for any finite time interval due to its adaptation rule, The subsequent analysis considers the closed loop performance for r > 7 where the regulative contro! keeps x in an O(€) vicinity of © according to Eq. 6.24. Define o=F@)-9 (6.26) IA by = lA b (6.27) 99where L is the Lipschitz constant for the performance surface by the smoothness assumption of the performance surface and L’ which has been introduced just for notational simplicity is a constant depending on L, K, \ and 6. The dynamical equation which o satisfies is given by do _ aF(®) F = SS" Ka(s) ~ p (6.28) Note that G(s) = O(c) for Die 2L'e. Therefore, ¢ will be kept in the vicinity of a constant according to |s-jal 0, the inequality of Eq, 6.38 implies that [eq cyK < ( (ame le vron 6.39 ino = (224 (6:39) where . fez cK it foil < (224445) 4K neos,_ [intra fee eon, | Ver cs” cn be +10 otherwise (6.40) where 7» denotes the initial time and 7, is finite for any ) € O(1) and « > 0 as before. Therefore, it has just been proven that the regulative control still provides the ultimate boundedness of 7 according to Equation 6.39-6.40 in the presence of an O(¢) adaptation in © given by Eq. 6.35 which will not necessarily be optimal before 1 <7. Furthermore, @ is bounded before + < 7, due to its adaptation rule. ‘The adaptation input can easily be chosen as in Eq. 6.12-6.13 which has been shown to steer the performance variable z to an arbitrarily small vicinity of the peak performance tracking the reference signal g(t) in the average after the initial regulation phase. For 7 > 7¢, the controller keeps the trajectories of the closed loop system in an O(¢) vicinity of the resulting equilibria while this equilibria is adjusted in a slower time scale so as to increase the performance of the system. However, there might be 102oscillations in s with an O(e) magnitude since |\n|| is nonzero and these oscillations might be observed directly in z due to the sliding surface definition of Eq. 6.13. To alleviate this problem, let 7 seate|(e—2dy (6.41) where ¢ = eC with C € O(1) and 2 is any constant greater than the peak performance 2maz- Noting that O< gS Clz - Zo (6.42) the closed foop stability analysis of the previous section can be repeated to conclude that the performance variable is confined to a region around the peak performance in the following form Cle = Aloo - < lz - 2maz] 4{/P\[?K?\3.(P)e/2in(Q)Amin(P), V < 0 so 105that V is uniformly bounded and converges to an O( antasw=0 (7.12) so that the wheel speed can be calculated from w= -a;3a4n (7.13) with an O(6) accuracy using the available engine RPM. First, an observer is designed to estimate the unknown tire force. Second, we present an ideal sliding mode con- troller which regulates the slip to a user-specified desired value as a summary of our initial attempt on the problem. The resulting controller requires the slip as well as its optimal value for implementation which makes it hard to implement. Finally, the original control problem js considered as an optimization problem of a priori unknown criteria which forms the core idea of the strategy. The controller does not require any information on the slip, its optimal value as well as the tire force-slip curve. 1197.5.1 Tire Force Observer For notational convenience, consider the wheel dynamic equation of the slow sys- tem given by Eq. 7.11 in terms of the original state variables as follows: wh = dw + by + a3Te(—a7"asw, O)u (7.14) The proposed observer is given by th =c(w — w) + Gg + GgTe(~az'asw, O)u +L sgn (w— wv) (7.15) where L, ¢ are the free design parameters to be selected. Subtracting Equation 7.15 from Equation 7.14 yields the error dynamic: (a ~ od + BpFy— L sgn (7.16) where @ = w—@. Selecting L > |beFy+ (a —c)i|, the sliding mode existence condition is satisfied, i.e; ad G 2) ala™) <° (7.17) and ideally @ is drawn to and kept at zero. According to the equivalent control methodology, one gets [L sgn tileq = boku (7.18) and a low-pass filter can be used to extract the equivalent signal, i.e; rite =Lsgnt (7.19) where v yields a value proportional to the tire force and 7 is the filter time constant. Other than the observer gain L and the filter time constant 7, an additional free parameter c is used to provide adjustable damping for @ to alleviate the task of the 120equivalent value filter. Selection of c = a2 eliminates the @ term from the RHS of the error equation completely. To implement the tire force observer, the wheel speed and the engine torque should be available. The wheel speed can be calculated using an with the available engine RPM as before and the engine torque can be obtained using the engine torque map with the available engine RPM and the throttle angle. 7.5.2 An Ideal Variable Structure DSA Controller The main objective of this algorithm is to regulate the state trajectories on a hypersurface where the relative slip is confined to the vicinity of the optimal relative slip. Let 1s — Font (7.20) denote the sliding surface variable where a, is the relative slip variable for the slow system and oop; is the desired value for the relative slip to be regulated. Differentiating s along the slow system trajectories given by Eq. 7.10-7.11 and returning to the original notation for the state variables, one gets (7.21) where A(e), which is given by w a F, Ale) = “aw + dag + Bast + Fe (7.22) denotes the terms which do not contain the control and all the terms multiplying the control are positive. If there was no bound on the control input, the control law u=~—K sign s with a sufficiently large positive K would steer s to zero in finite time. Since the control input u should be between 0.5 and 1, the sliding mode existence 121cannot be guaranteed globally. With this limitation, the control law is modified as follows: { 1 if s<0 (7.23) 0.5 if s>0 The resulting algorithm reduces the engine torque output by applying the maximum spark retard if the relative slip o exceeds op and does not modulate the engine torque output, otherwise. The control expression is easy to implement. However, it requires the relative slip as well as its optimal value. The requirement that the optimal slip value should be known for implementation can be alleviated by also incorporating the estimated tire force into the control law. Because of the unimodular nature of the tire force-relative slip curve, the following relations are obtained dFi(t,o) | do SEO x G0 7 o> Cone (7.24) which provide information about the location of the slip with respect to its optimal value even if ¢,,; is not known. The control law is updated as follows: aR y(t 0). dor ¢ do ta * ar? w= (7.28) _. dFx(t,0) — do os ip SH) S 0. This selection guarantees that s is kept at ka for some k which de- pends on the system and the initial conditions, if the following sliding mode existence condition is satisfied: > oft SFE Ae (7.35) If we choose FY a constant, A(e) = Ae with a A > 0 and also assume that explicit time dependence of the tire force is negligible, the sliding mode existence condition turns into MB > dle| (7.36) oo In sliding mode, if FY is attainable the tire force reaches exponentially to it with a convergence rate determined by . On the other hand, if F} > Fymaz the tire force behaves as before until it enters the region where the gradient is too small such that the sliding mode existence condition of Eq. 7.36 is no longer satisfied. After that, the system becomes uncontrollable and the tire force behaves arbitrarily. However, the controller always forms a region of attraction around the maximum point whose size can be made arbitrarily small increasing M. Consider the region (7.37) For any controller parameter M > 0, there exists a A given by a VAMFa= Filme M > Ms (7.38) such that the tire force is guaranteed to be confined to the region which Eq. 7.37 defines. Eq. 7.38 is intuitive. If \ or the initial error are large, we demand a fast convergence which requires a larger control signal. Similarly, if A is small it is simply 125desired to restrict the tire force to a region where the control coefficient is considerably small which clearly demands again a larger control signal. For implementation, the resulting controller requires the tire force to compute the sliding surface variable and the estimated tire force is used for this purpose. Note that the periodic switching function divides the s line into cells of a width. In practice, a possible mismatch between the tire force and its estimated value might cause the computed sliding surface variable to deviate from its actual value where the amount of deviation depends on the estimation error. To prevent a control direction change due to an estimation error, a should be selected so as to exceed the maximum amplitude of a resulting oscillation on the s-line. 7.6 Dynamic Output Feedback Spark Advance Controller with Sliding Mode Optimization In this section, our objective is to use the optimization idea of Section 7.5.3 to provide the already existing Dynamic Output Feedback Spark Advance Controller (DOFSAC) with an optimal set point. As discussed in Section 7.4, the standard DOFSAC compares the engine RPM to a preselected threshold and modulates the engine torque accordingly. However, the selection of a threshold might require ex- tensive simulation or experimental studies and it may be hard to come with a single threshold which gives satisfactory performance for all possible situations. The main idea of the current design is to consider the system with the DOFSAC in the loop and to wrap an additional loop for the threshold so as to maximize the tire force. Figure 7.4 shows the closed loop system. To this end, considering the control input as the variable engine torque multiplier u which takes values between 0.5 and 1 in the current setting the DOFSAC is first 126Throtle Engine Torque Mulupter S| VEHICLE | S822 RPM sM |g Optimizer os 8S ‘ Bandpa H Gmier Fitter |“ _ DOFSAC__ modeled as follows: u = pr-gnr (7.39) where n is the engine RPM, p denotes the threshold, = 1+gp and g is to be selected to assure that the error g(m — p) is properly mapped to a value between 0 and 0.5 over the domain of interest so as to produce a control within its limits. Note that this mathematical representation of DOFSAC is actually a way of implementing the control strategy of Section 7.4. If the RPM increasing rate is more than p the torque output is reduced by an amount proportional to the error and it is not modulated otherwise. Considering the engine equation for the full order system of Eq. 7.9 with the control input of Eq. 7.39, after straightforward manipulation one gets as ar bets wg gy be T+bggte”* Ttbggte * 1+ bghe” (7-40) Note that, bog7 > 0 for Tz > 0. The set point p also enters the system through the same place with the original control and the remaining dynamics are unchanged. 127However, the coefficients now become state dependent. Repeating the singular per- turbation analysis of Appendix B for the full-order system with the control in the loop, one gets = aV2 +b Falt,os) (7.41) tis = daw, + boFult, Ve,ws) + GsTe(ws, OAs (7.42) where @», 6 and 3 are given in Appendix B. ‘The subsequent development is carried out on the reduced order system of Eq. 7.41- 7.42 by resuming the original notation for the state variables. Defining an error signal e = Fy(t,o) — F3(t) where FY(¢) is a preselected time function and differentiating along the trajectories of Eq. 7.41-7.42, one gets de_ 10% de _ 10% aFy _ Fy dt V do [Alw, V, Fa) + B(w, ©)A] + aa (7.43) where A(e) arid B(e) lump several state dependent terms. Let A(e) = A+ AA, 0 < Bmin < B < Broz where A represents the nominal value of A, the unknown term AA satisfies |AA| < 64 with 64 known, B = Brin Braz is selected as the nominal value for B(e) for which 6-! < (B/B) < § where 8 = (Brraz/Bmin)¥/2 The set point is selected as follows: BA + y 8(s)] (7.44) where seer [ AMe)dr (7.45) A(e) is to be chosen, (s) = sgnsin(2xs/a) and y= 864+ (8~1)|Aoo+M with an M > 0. 128As in Section 7.5.3, selection of a sufficiently large M forms a region around the optimal slip defined by |9Fu/d0| < A such that s is kept at ka for some k outside this region irrespective of the sign of the tire force gradient which multiplies the control. In sliding mode, é+A(e) = 0 and the behavior of the tire force is controlled by the designer parameters Fj and A(e). Once # has been determined p can be calculated from p = g-1(f — 1). Note that, since the set point appears at the same place with the original control, the controller design of Section 7.5.3 has been repeated as if the set point is the control to be determined while the DOFSAC is also in the loop. 7.7 Simulations and Discussion The performances of the proposed optimization based variable structure controller and the DOFSAC with sliding mode optimization have been tested in simulations on the full model of Section 7.3 with the parameter set summarized in Appendix B. Figures 7.5-7.12 show the results for the scenario where a step input of 25 degrees is used for the throttle angle after 0.1 second and the road is considered as dry asphalt with the tire force-relative slip curve of Figure 7.2. If no spark retard is applied this throttle input causes the relative slip to pass the optimal point immediately which in turn results in a decrease in the tire force from its maximum value. As shown in Figure 7.5-7.6, after a transient behavior the relative slip approaches to a new equilibrium for the throttle input applied where the steady state tire force is just to compensate the road load forces at the resulting vehicle speed. During this acceleration transient, the relative slip first increases well beyond its optimal value until there is no longer an excess of engine torque and eventually decreases back to its new equilibrium value during which a temporary increase in the 1292 ] Land z Figure 7.5: No Control (Tire Force) Eu ze i ie aa wae Figure 7.6: No Control (Relative Slip) 130Optimization Based VS-DSA Contllor 5000 en 4500 4 00 Esco 2 | 1600 00 | 7 = 0 OS as a Figure 7.7; Optimization Based VS-DSA Controller (Tire Force) tire force is observed before the relative slip becomes less than its optimal. For both controllers, the tire force information has been obtained from the tire force observer, the wheel speed has been calculated from the engine RPM and the vehicle speed has been replaced by this calculated wheel slip for the calculations of A(e) and A(e). The observer parameters used are as follows: L = 100, 7 = 0.01, ¢= a Figure 7.7-7.9 illustrates the performance of the optimization based variable struc- ture controller with the parameters a = 200, y= 10, 4 = 2 and Fue = 5500 N. To alleviate chattering, a low pass filter with a time constant of 0.04 second has been used at the output of the controller without further theoretical verification. The throttle input produces a sudden increase in the tire force. After a small transient time, the controller forces the tire force to converge to the vicinity of its maximum point as desired where the gradient might be too small for the sliding mode existence. However, the relative slip is successfully kept around its optimal value without any 131Optimization Based V8-DSA Contrllor 7 \n AY Ay : VV Relative Sip) apa 2 ass “Tens (e00) Figure 7.8: Optimization Based VS-DSA Controller (Relative Slip) Engi Torque Mtr a re Time (200) Figure 7.9: Optimization Based VS-DSA Controller (Control) 132DOFSAC wih Siding Meee Optimization 5000 g000| Bes0o| = cova| 1500] 1000 4 00} | 8 Ra ‘Tine 000) Figure 7.10: DOFSAC with SM Optimization (Tire Force) knowledge about it until there is no excess engine torque any more and almost the maximum tire force is obtained during acceleration. The results of the DOFSAC with sliding mode optimization have been shown in Figure 7.10-7.12 where the parameters of the controller are a = 300, y = 7.5, A = 2 and Fes = 5500 N and g = 0.005. As in the first control, a low pass filter with a time constant of 0.1 second has been used at the output of the sliding mode optimizer which generates the set point signal for the DOFSAC for chattering reduction purposes and the tire force estimate has been obtained by the observer as before. The simulation results show the same behavior as those of the first controller. There are three consecutive phases for all time responses. First, the tire force is forced to converge towards its maximum value as desired after a small initial time, Second, the controller shows an oscillatory behavior to form a limit cycle around the optimal 133OFSAC with Skding Mode Optimization 2. $$ WAL pe 2 Relative Sip (8) 0 OS 2 3 Tie (02) Figure 7.11: DOFSAC with SM Optimization (Relative Slip) BOFSAC win hing Hoon Ormton Engine Torque Mutper rs 25 Time 00) Figure 7.12; DOFSAC with SM Optimization (Control) 134slip. Finally, the system approaches to a new equilibrium for the throttle applied where there is not an excess of engine torque any more. 7.8 Summary ‘The wheel slip control problem for anti-spin acceleration has been studied in an engine control framework where the engine torque output can be modulated via dynamic spark advance. Several control strategies with different level of complexities have been discussed. First, we have summarized a previously developed dynamic output feedback spark advance controller and presented a variable structure controller which regulates the relative slip to a desired value. Both controllers were regulator type controllers and certain parameters needed to be tuned in advance. Second, the original control problem has been stated as an online optimization problem of an analytically unknown criterion whick is the tire force for the current case. A sliding mode observer has been used to estimate the unknown tire force and a sliding mode optimization algorithm has been developed to keep the relative slip at its optimal value for which the driving tire force is maximum without any a priori information on the optimal relative slip. Finally, the optimization idea of this controller design has been exploited to provide the DOFSAC with a set point signal so as to maximize the tire force during acceleration. Simulation results have been presented to illustrate the performance of the control strategies. Note that although the optimization algorithm is the same as the one used in Chapter 6, the optimization and the control designs have both been performed in the original time-scale. This is due to the system behavior to be controlled since the driving tire force is desired to be optimized duringthe acceleration transient as opposed to the equilibrium point optimization of the two-time scale optimization setup. 136CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS This dissertation was primarily concerned with the development of several sliding mode estimation and optimization methods and investigated their usage in nonlinear control problems for robustification and on-line optimization purposes. Our main goal was to explore the sliding mode control theory in greater depth beyond the controller design purposes and to illustrate how its basic principles can be utilized in different control design methods to yield more effective control schemes. Jn Chapter 2, we studied an on-line disturbance (perturbation) estimation and state observation method based on the equivalent control methodology. The estima- tor/observer designs were first carried out, in terms of the ideal equivalent control operators and then the effects of low-pass filtering in the implementation of recursive equivalent control operators were analyzed to demonstrate a quantitative relation be- tween the estimation accuracy and the filter time constants. A rule of thumb for the selection of the design parameters was also provided. In Chapter 3 through Chapter 5, we examined the applications of the estima- tion/observation tools of Chapter 2 to the robust nonlinear control design problems in an attempt to formalize several estimation-based design methods with proven sta- bility properties. It was shown that these tools can indeed be used in the several 137popular nonlinear control design methods to increase the robustness of a control sys- tem to a broader range of perturbations while also keeping the conservatism of the controller at an acceptable level. ‘The basie control strategy was simply to estimate the perturbation of a nominal system from its actual and to use the estimated values directly in the specification of the control law. The robustness of the closed loop system then needs to be considered against the estimation errors which would relatively require a less conservative robus- tification action upon sufficient accuracy in the estimation. In Chapter 3, we used this strategy on two nonlinear robust control design methods: Lyapunov redesign and sliding mode control. In Chapter 4, we proposed an estimation-based robust output tracking control design method which combines the disturbance estimation method of Chapter 2 with the idea of backstepping for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems in strict feedback form. In Chapter 5, we utilized the sliding mode observer of Chapter 2 to implement an ideal output tracking control law for an uncertain (output) feedback linearizable system and presented a stability analysis for the closed loop system. It is worthy to note that our design strategy actually requires a baseline control design method which could be used to solve the nominal control problem. From this perspective, although the estimation-based designs and their stability analysis have been studied on generic strict feedback and feedback linearizable systems, the design idea and the available tools are indeed applicable to more general nonlinear systems including those with unstable zero dynamics provided that the nominal control prob- lem could be attacked to a certain extent. 138In Chapter 6, we developed a two-time scale sliding mode optimization method where an on-line performance criterion was desired to be maximized while a prese- lected regulative control was already in the loop. The regulative control was required control to create an exponentially stable equilibrium point parameterized by a fr parameter and then a sliding mode optimization was performed over this parameter to adjust the equilibrium point in a slower time scale so as to increase the performance of the overall system, The practical significance of this two-time scale optimization scheme is that one can assign different priorities to the control and the optimiza- tion objectives. The basic optimization idea can also be studied in a multivariable control framework where the multi-control channels could be used in a cooperative manner to simultaneously achieve several regulation and optimization objectives of different priorities. It can also be used an off-line tuning tool for calibration purposes in industrial control problems. Finally, an automotive control problem where the wheel spin was to be prevented during an acceleration transient was studied in Chapter 7 as an application of the several theoretical sliding mode control, estimation and optimization design methods developed in this dissertation. 139