Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Backstepping Enhanced Adaptive Second Order

Sliding Mode Controller to compensate Actuator


Failures
Arghya Chakravarty and Chitralekha Mahanta
Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam, India- 781039
Email: c.arghya, chitra@iitg.ac.in

AbstractIn this paper, a failure compensation scheme is


designed for affine nonlinear systems prone to actuator stuck
failures unknown in time, magnitude and pattern. The design
scheme utilizes an adaptive second order sliding mode control
developed in a backstepping framework exploiting the advantages
of both the methodologies. An adaptive law is used to estimate
the unknown upper bounds of uncertainties introduced due to
the occurrence of actuator failures and guarantees a globally
bounded estimation. The proposed failure compensation scheme
ensures effective failure accommodation while providing excellent
transient and steady state performances compared to the basic
scheme based on backstepping, with chattering free control
inputs. Stability and asymptotic tracking in presence of unknown
actuator failures at unknown time instants is proved for the
proposed control scheme using Lyapunov criterion. Simulation
results illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology.
Index Termsfault tolerance, backstepping, actuator failure,
sliding mode control

I. I NTRODUCTION
With the rapid advancement of science and technology, the
design and development of complex critical systems facilitating and aiding the humankind has gained high momentum.
These complex systems are often subjected to rugged environmental conditions and in course of time may experience
faults and failures during operation which can prove to be
catastrophic. Therefore, ensuring an acceptable performance
with guaranteed stability of the overall system in the event
of such failures by compensating the adverse effects of such
eventualities, is the motivation behind fault tolerant control
(FTC) [1]. In accordance with the past literature, fault tolerant
control design has two major directions, namely, passive and
active approaches. Passive FTC methodologies rely on framing
the FTC design as a robust control problem offline and
ultimately an optimal solution is attained assuring robustness
towards anticipated faults and failures. Typical passive FTC
approaches can be found in [2][5]. On the contrary, active
FTC depends on a fault detection and isolation (FDI) scheme
for the online detection, isolation and subsequent estimation of
the fault. According to the fault estimated by the FDI module,
reconfiguration or adaptation of the controller takes place to
maintain an acceptable post fault performance and a considc
978-1-4799-5364-6/14/$31.00 2014
IEEE

erable time is expended in due course of such computations.


Time is a crucial parameter in FTC design because the time
window in which the system affected by faults or failures is
stabilizable can be very small. Adaptive control methods have
found the best way through in the design of active FTC which
is evident from the works in [6][10].
In this work, we focus on the problem of actuator failure
accommodation. Actuator failures are unanticipated and are
unknown in their time of occurrence, pattern and magnitude.
Hence, reconfiguration or online adaptation of the controller is
necessary to counteract the adverse effects of the failures and
maintain stability with acceptable performance of the system.
Several reconfigurable control strategies have been proposed to
address the problem of actuator failures such as multiple model
adaptive control (MMAC) [11][13], direct adaptive control
[8][10], adaptive sliding mode control (ASMC) with control
allocation [14][16]. For instance, the MMAC technique results in an improved post failure transient performance, but
it requires the bounds of the failure magnitudes and unknown
parameters associated with the failures in advance to construct
a finite set of models covering the entire uncertainty space.
Moreover, it suffers from an increased operational cost due
to the presence of a large number of models. Besides, the
switching between the models is crucial as far as stability is
concerned. On the other hand, sliding mode control strategies
incorporated with control allocation have been designed for
linear systems guaranteeing effective mitigation of uncertainties due to failures. But an FDI scheme is required for the
consequent reallocation of the control. Furthermore, direct
adaptive control strategies in [8], [9] have proved to be rewarding in the design of actuator failure compensators for linear
as well as nonlinear systems with parametric uncertainties. In
the context of direct adaptive control for nonlinear systems
with actuator failures, backstepping [17] technique has been
utilized successfully but it suffers from the drawback of
its incompetence to compensate non-parametric uncertainties.
Moreover, it exhibits a significant computational complexity
due to explosion of terms in each subsequent steps. Therefore, in order to counteract the limitation of computational
complexity, dynamic surface control (DSC) [18][20] was
introduced in the design of FTC for systems with total loss

of actuators yielding a simpler control structure. In contrast to


backstepping, asymptotic stability has to be compromised for
simplicity in the dynamic surface control method.
The proposed algorithm designs the control using backstepping integrated with adaptive second order sliding mode [21]
technique, retaining the advantages of both the methodologies.
It offers the freedom to improve the tracking performance as
well as assure robustness to a larger class of uncertainties
not necessarily linearly parameterized, by only estimating
their upper bounds. The scheme ensures global finite time
convergence of the last error variable and its time derivative
to the origin thereby improving the transient performance
indirectly. Moreover, the discontinuous sign function is made
to act on the time derivative of the control inputs and the
actual control signal obtained after integration is continuous
and hence chattering is removed. Lastly, due to its structural
simplicity, the computational complexity is reduced without
sacrificing asymptotic stability of the controlled output. The
control is designed for multi-input single output systems using
a procedure similar to [22] but with little modifications.
The paper is organized as follows. The control objective of
the proposed actuator failure compensation controller along
with the inherent assumptions are discussed in Section II. The
proposed failure tolerant controller in the event of actuator
failures is presented in Section III. The stability analysis
is discussed briefly in Section IV. Simulation results are
presented in Section V. Conclusions are drawn in Section VI.

Let us consider a class of multi-input (m) single output


affine nonlinear system described as,
= x2 + f1 (x1 )
= x3 + f2 (x1 , x2 )

x i
x n
y


x i = xi+1 + fi (x1 , x2 , ..., xi1 )
m
X
kj gj (x1 , ..., xn )uj
x n = fn (x1 , . . . , xn ) +

(1)

j=1

x 1

= x2 + f1 (x1 )

x 2 = x3 + f2 (x1 , x2 )

II. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT

x 1
x 2

The actuator model considered in (2) characterizes stuck


failures and the magnitude at which the j th actuator is stuck
is denoted by u
j . Furthermore, the signal vj represents the
controller output fed to the input of the j th actuator. A
proportional actuation scheme has been considered throughout
the design of the proposed failure compensation scheme.
The problem of actuator saturation is not considered and the
actuator faults and failures are ascertained to be unknown and
uncertain in time, pattern and magnitude. Moreover, the system
(1) under consideration is assumed to achieve the desired
control objective in the event of (m p) actuator failures,
where p is the number of outputs. This assumption ensures
that the system (1) exhibiting actuator failures is controllable
and hence a control input can be designed to achieve failure
compensation and attain the required objective. Withal, the
system has a well defined relative degree r with respect to its
output y, equal to the order n.
Let us define a set P = {j1 , j2 , ..., jm } and two subsets of
the set Pk as PtotF = {j1 , j2 , ..., jk }, k = 1, 2, .., (m p)
= P / PtotF . The subset PtotH contains
and PtotH
the indices corresponding to the total healthy actuators. On
contrary, the other subset PtotF consists of elements through
which the totally failed actuators can be identified. Hence,
considering the actuator failure model (2), the system (1) can
be rewritten as,

= x1

where x := [x1 , ....xn ]T Rn is the state vector representing


the states of the system and uj R, j = 1, 2, ..., m are
the control inputs, whose actuators may fail during system
operation. The functions fi : Ri R, i = 1, ...., n are
assumed to be known smooth nonlinear functions. The terms
gj : Rn R, j = 1, ..., m considering gj () 6= 0 denote the
known nonlinear smooth actuation functions corresponding to
each control input uj . The constants kj , j = 1, ..., m define
the unknown parameters of the plant given by (1). Assuming
that the actuators can experience uncertain catastrophic events
characterized as total failures, the actuator input-output relationship can be mathematically modeled as [11],

u
j ,
t tjF
j = 1, 2, ...., m
(2)
uj =
t < tjF
vj ,

= xi+1 + fi (x1 , x2 , ..., xi1 )


mp
X
= fn (x) +
kj gj (x)
uj +

= x1

j=1,PtotF

(3)
m
X

kj gj (x)uj

j=1,PtotH

By virtue of the above mentioned assumptions, the problem


can be stated as follows: For the nonlinear system (1), a state
feedback controller is to be designed such that the system
output tracks a continuous and bounded reference signal yr
with bounded time derivatives and ensures asymptotic stability
of the tracking error dynamics in presence of actuator failures.
The failure compensation design assumes no apriori knowledge of the active actuators in action on the system (3) under
the total loss of atmost (m p) of them.
III. P ROPOSED ACTUATOR FAILURE C ONTROLLER
The proposed control design strategy is based on adaptive
second order sliding mode control developed in a backstepping
framework offering numerous advantages. To unveil a few,
the proposed methodology can deal with nonparametric
matched uncertainties as well as linearly parameterized
mismatched perturbations while guaranteeing excellent output
tracking performance. Global asymptotic stability is not
compromised with the structural simplification of the existing
backstepping controller in the proposed method. The adaptive
state feedback controller based on this approach is designed

for the system described in (3), to compensate for total


actuator stuck failures without considering any modeling
uncertainties or exogeneous disturbances. The design of vj is
generated by following the procedures detailed in Chakravarty
and Mahanta [22] with modifications and is given below.
The error variables are chosen as:

1 2
z
2 1
The time derivative of V1 is given by,
V1

V 1

z1

x1 yr

zi

xi i1 yr(i1)

i = 2, ....., n

(4)

where i are smooth virtual control inputs determined at the


ith step as,
i

Now proceeding with the design, the error variables are


chosen as in (4) and the first Lyapunov function is taken as,

= zi1 ci zi fi (x1 , ...., xi )


i1
i1
X
X
i1
i1 (k+1)
+
xk+1 +
y
(k) r
xk
k=1
k=0 yr

(5)

where the subscript i = 2, ...., n 1. The control law and


the gain parameter update law is obtained as follows,

(13)

z1 z1 = z1 (x2 + f1 (x1 ) y r )

z1 (z2 + 1 + y r + f1 (x1 ) y r )

Using (5) yields


V 1

= z1 z2 + z1 (c1 z1 )
= c1 z12 + z1 z2

V 1

= 1 V1 + z1 z2

(15)

where, 1 = 2c1 . Clearly, if z2 = 0, then V 1 = 1 V1 and


hence z1 converges to zero asymptotically.
For i = 2, ....., n 1, the Lyapunov function is defined as,
1 2
z
2 i
The time derivative of Vi yields,
Vi =

vj

wnom

k1

1
(Tsign() + wnom sign())d(6)
gj 0
1 sign(s1 ) | s1 |1 2 sign(s 1 ) | s 1 |2 (7)
k k+1
, 1 , 2 > 0,
(8)
2k+1 k
2, ....., q,
q+1 = 1, and here q = 2.
Z
s2 (t) s2 (0) wnom dt
(9)
Z

= (T + ||)

(10)

(14)

V i

(16)

zi zi = zi (x i i1 yr(i) )
i1
X
i1
zi (zi+1 + i + yr(i) + fi
xk+1 yr(i)
xk

=
=

k=1

i1
X
i1
(k)

k=0

yr

yr(k+1) )

(17)

Using the expressions (6), the term V i can be written as,

and denotes the designed integral sliding surface and wnom


is the control which stabilizes the sliding variables s1 and
s2 in finite time [23]. Whereas, T represents the estimate of
the discontinuous control gain T signifying the upper bound
of uncertainties perturbed into the system in case of actuator
failures. The details of the control law (6) will be discussed
during stability analysis. The terms , , 1 , 2 > 0 and
ci > 0 for i = 1, 2, ...., n 1 are positive constants, all
chosen by the user.

V i

= zi (zi+1 + i + fi

i1
X
i1
k=1

i1
X
i1
(k)
k=0 yr

xk

xk+1

yr(k+1) )

(18)

= zi zi+1 + zi (ci zi zi1 )


= zi zi+1 ci zi2 zi1 zi
Hence,
V i

IV. S TABILITY A NALYSIS


This section discusses the stability of the overall system in
the event of finite number of actuator failures with the control
scheme designed in the preceding section. The unknown
parameters of the system (3) in the event of actuator failures
are defined as,

m
X

kj

(11)

i Vi + zi zi+1 zi1 zi ,

i = 2ci

Retaining the (n 1) steps of backstepping, the last error


variable zn is chosen as the sliding variable s1 . Subsequently,
defining w as the derivative of the actual control, an extended
nonlinear uncertain second order system (20) in s1 and s2 ,
finite time stabilized by w is formed. This second order
nonlinear uncertain dynamics is augmented with the (n 1)th
order tracking error dynamics thereby guaranteeing asymptotic
output tracking by the same control law.

j=1,PtotH

s 1

s2

mp
X

s 2

=
=

() + (() 1)w + w
() + w

j=1,PtotF

kj gj (x)
uj

(12)

(19)

(20)

Here in (20), the function () collects all the terms related


to w and () collects remaining terms found in the
course of failure compensation design using the proposed
method. Assuming that () is bounded with unknown upper
bounds, the set of equations in (20) represent a perturbed
double integrator, which can be finite time stabilized by the
application of the control law given by (6). The controller
requires the design of an auxiliary integral sliding surface
and thereafter a discontinuous control law in addition to
wnom to ensure finite time stability and invariance of (20) to
perturbations [24] collectively represented by ().
The integral sliding surface is defined as,
Z t
:= s2 (t) s2 (0)
wnom d
0

Since the upper bound of () is unknown, it is adaptively


estimated in the form of the discontinuous control signal gain
T. Therefore, defining T = T T and the last Lyapunov
function V as,
V

1 2
1 2
+
T
2
2

finite time convergence to the origin. This is very beneficial


in view of failure compensation control design.
As the sliding variable zn converges to zero in finite time, due
to the backstepping control action, firstly zn = 0 is achieved
using adaptive second order sliding mode control and using
(22) and (24) results in,
V

n1
X

i Vi + V

Henceforth, we define a Lyapunov function Vk1 in the


time interval [tk1 , tk ) as,

1 2
T
4

(24)
= ||
4
So a decrease in V eventually drives the closed loop system

trajectories into the region defined by || 4


. Therefore,
it can be concluded that,
r !

 \


||
kk
(25)
4
4

The application of the control first drives the s1 and s 1 = s2


into this small set containing the origin and then the global
finite time convergence to the origin is attained.It is observed
that the sliding pair {s1 , s1 } or conversely the error variables
zn and zn , are ultimately upper bounded and also achieves

n1
1
1X 2
1 2
z + 2 +
T
2 i=1 i
2
2

(27)

In accordance with the design procedure discussed and proved


in this section, it yields from (26), that,
V k1 < 0,

||

(26)

where = min{1 , ...i ...n1 }


Finally, from (26) the boundedness of the closed loop signals
is ensured and asymptotic stability of the output tracking
error dynamics is guaranteed. Moreover, boundedness of
w implies the boundedness of the actual control signal as
discussed in [22].

(21)

1
V = ( + w wnom ) + TT
(22)

||(T ) + (Tsign()) || + T(T + ||)


|| TT
|| (T 2 T T)
1
1
|| (T T )2 + T 2
2
4
1 2
(23)
|| + T
4
Now let T 2 = and for, V < 0, condition (24) has to
be satisfied, that is,

Vi + V < 0

i=1

i=1

Vk1 =

where |()| T and substituting w = Tsign() +


wnom sign() we get,

n1
X

for k = 1, 2, ...., (m p)

(28)

The piecewise continuity of Vk1 in the interval [tk1 , tk ) can


be easily proved. Again, from (28), it is evident that Vk1 is a
+
decreasing function and hence, Vk1 (t
k ) Vk1 (tk1 ).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the boundedness of

Vk1 (t+
k1 ) implies the boundedness of Vk1 (tk ). Now, from

(27), at time instant tk , Vk1 (tk ) undergoes a change to


Vk (t+
= Vk1 (t
k)
k ) + Vk . The term Vk is finite
and is due to the possible jumpings in the estimate of T
1 2
T in (27) and the sliding surface
affecting the quantity 2

. It can be inferred that Vk (t+


k ) is bounded iff Vk1 (tk ) is
bounded. Hence the boundedness of z1 , z2 , ...., zn1 , and
T is concluded t [0, ). The closed loop stability has
been proved and the designed controller guarantees asymptotic
output tracking even in the eventuality of unknown actuator
failures.
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
To prove the efficiency of the proposed controller over the
existing actuator failure compensation controllers, simulations
on a nonlinear system have been performed. The results
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach
in cases of total actuator failures. Proceeding with the
simulation, let us consider a nonlinear system described as
[19],
x 1

= x2 + cos(x21 )

x 2
y

= sin(x2 )cos(x1 )2 + k1 u1 + k2 u2 + k3 u3 (29)


= x1

u3 (t) = v3 (t), t [0, )

(32)

0.6
0.4
0.2
Output y = x1

The actuator failure patterns considered in simulation studies


are as follows,

u
1 ,
t [15, )
u1 (t) =
(30)
v1 (t),
t [0, 15)

u
2 ,
t [25, )
(31)
u2 (t) =
v2 (t),
t [0, 25)

0
0.2
0.4
Output y = x

0.6

Reference y

where, j = 1, 2, 3. The nominal control wnom and the


adaptive law for estimating the discontinuous control gain T
is taken to be,

10

Fig. 1.

15

20

25
Time (s)

30

35

40

45

50

System output y = x1 and the reference signal yr

0.03
0.02
Tracking error ( y yr )

As in [19], the unknown parameters are assumed to be


k1 = 2, k2 = 3, and k3 = 1 for the purpose of
simulation. The actuation functions g1 (x), g2 (x) and g3 (x)
are taken to be unity. The controller for the system (29) is
given as,
Z
1 t
vj =
(T sign() + wnom sign())d
(33)
gj 0

0.8
0

0.01
0

0.01
0.02

50.5sign(s1)|s1 | 20.5sign(s2)|s2 | (34)


(T + ||)
(35)

The adaptation parameters in the adaptive law is considered


to be = 20 and  = 0.05. The adaptation law used
here ensures boundedness of the parameter estimates and no
overestimation, thereby reducing the magnitude of required
control with simultaneous reduction of chattering and high
frequency components in the control law. The value of is
considered to be 0.75. The initial conditions are given by
[x1 (0) x2 (0)]T = [0 0]T . The gain c1 of the virtual control
law 1 is equal to c1 = 25. The reference signal yr to be
tracked by the system output is given as yr (t) = 0.5sin(t).
The proposed backstepping based adaptive second order sliding mode control scheme is compared with the backstepping
methodology for actuator failures proposed by Tang et al.
[10].The method proposed by Tang et al. [10], from its results
and performances so far has proven to be a representative of
adaptive actuator failure compensation design and therefore
has been chosen for an effective comparison. The virtual
control coefficients are chosen to be c1 = 30 and c2 = 20
for simulation of the procedure in [10].
The performance of the designed failure tolerant controller
in presence of actuator failures is quantified by root mean
square value of the output tracking error (RMSE) and the
transient performance of the output at the onset of failure.
The transient performance has been characterized in terms
of time of post failure performance recovery defined as the
settling time ts , maximum peak overshoot Mp and steady
state error ess . The proposed method provides a superior
transient performance in comparison to the procedure in [10],
as evident from the Figs.(1)-(4). The maximum peak overshoot
Mp , settling time ts and the steady state error ess have been

Tang et al. [10]


Proposed

0.03
0

10

15

20

25
Time (s)

30

35

40

45

50

Fig. 2. Comparison of tracking error in the event of failure of u1 and u2


at t1 = 15s and t2 = 25s

4
2

Control inputs u1, u2 and u3

3
5

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0

Fig. 3.

u1
5

10

15

20

25
Time (s)

30

35

u2

40

u3

45

50

Control input with the proposed failure compensation scheme

10

Control inputs u1, u2 and u3

wnom

3
4

10
u1
0

10

15

20

25
Time (s)

30

35

u2
40

u3
45

Fig. 4. Control input with Tang et al.s method [10] in the event of actuator
failures

50

measured at t = 25s when two of the three actuators


fail. Here, the maximum peak overshoot has been defined
as the maximum change in tracking error at the onset of
actuator failure. As the steady state error obtained by the
method proposed in [10] oscillates around 0.025 and -0.023,
the average value is considered as ess . In Table I, a tabular
comparison has been drawn between the proposed scheme and
that by Tang et al. [10] to further bring out the advantages
offered by the presented method. From Figs. (3) and (4), it
is also observed that the proposed control is smooth and has
sufficiently low manipulated input usage.
TABLE I
P OST FAILURE TRACKING PERFORMANCE WITH TOTAL LOSS OF TWO
ACTUATORS AT t = 25s
Performance Measures
RMSE
Settling time ts
Peak Overshoot Mp
Steady state error ess

Methodologies
Proposed
Tang et al. [10]
0.0015
0.0105
1.62 s
0.23
0.2385
0
0.02336

VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, an actuator failure compensation strategy for
nonlinear uncertain systems is proposed and designed using
an adaptive second order sliding mode control developed in a
backstepping framework. The design has resulted in a simpler
control structure in comparison to the control law given by
[10]. The proposed methodology has been utilized in the
design of failure compensators in the event of actuator stuck
failures, which are unknown in time, pattern and magnitude.
The closed loop stability of the proposed fault tolerant control
is proved using Lyapunovs criterion and is guaranteed at
every time instances of the occurrence of actuator failures.
Moreover, the method presented provides an increased robustness towards nonparametric uncertainties and actuator failures.
On the other hand, the design freedom is increased as the
transient performance of the output can be improved due to its
direct dependence on the virtual control gain (set by the user).
Finally, since the controller structure is simplified, there is
significant reduction in the number of computations needed in
the application of the proposed control law with respect to the
procedure in [10]. Simulation results illustrate the efficiency
of the control method in the case of actuator failures.
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Zhang and J. Jiang, Bibliographical review on reconfigurable faulttolerant control systems, Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 32, no. 2, pp.
229 252, 2008.
[2] M. Benosman and K.-Y. Lum, Application of absolute stability theory
to robust control against loss of actuator effectiveness, IET Control
Theory Applications, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 772788, 2009.
[3] Q. Hu, B. Xiao, and M. Friswell, Fault tolerant control with H
performance for attitude tracking of flexible spacecraft, IET Control
Theory Applications, vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 13881399, 2012.
[4] , Robust fault tolerant control for spacecraft attitude stabilization
under actuator faults and bounded disturbance, Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement and Control, vol. 133, pp. 051 0061051 006
8, 2011.

[5] B. Liang and G. Duan, Robust H fault-tolerant control for uncertain


descriptor systems by dynamical compensators, Journal of Control
Theory and Applications, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 288292, 2004.
[6] D. Bustan, S. Sani, and N. Pariz, Adaptive fault-tolerant spacecraft
attitude control design with transient response control, IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 14041411, Aug 2014.
[7] L.-B. Wu, G.-H. Yang, and D. Ye, Robust adaptive fault-tolerant control
for linear systems with actuator failures and mismatched parameter
uncertainties, IET Control Theory Applications, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 441
449, April 2014.
[8] G. Tao, S. Joshi, and X. Ma, Adaptive state feedback and tracking control of systems with actuator failures, IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 7895, 2001.
[9] X. Tang, G. Tao, and S. M. Joshi, Adaptive actuator failure compensation for parametric strict feedback systems and an aircraft application,
Automatica, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 1975 1982, 2003.
[10] X. Tang, G. Tao and S.M. Joshi, Adaptive actuator failure compensation
for nonlinear MIMO systems with an aircraft control application,
Automatica, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 1869 1883, 2007.
[11] J. Boskovic and R. Mehra, Stable multiple model adaptive flight control
for accommodation of a large class of control effector failures, in
Proceedings of the American Control Conference, vol. 3, San Diego,
CA, June 1999, pp. 19201924.
[12] P. S. Maybeck, Multiple model adaptive algorithms for detecting and
compensating sensor and actuator/surface failures in aircraft flight control systems, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control,
vol. 9, no. 14, pp. 10511070, 1999.
[13] G. Yen and L.-W. Ho, Online multiple-model-based fault diagnosis and
accommodation, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 50,
no. 2, pp. 296312, April, 2003.
[14] Alwi, H. and Edwards, C., Fault detection and fault-tolerant control of
a civil aircraft using a sliding-mode-based scheme, IEEE Transactions
on Control Systems Technology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 499 510, May 2008.
[15] M. Hamayun, C. Edwards, and H. Alwi, Design and analysis of an
integral sliding mode fault-tolerant control scheme, IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1783 1789, July 2012.
[16] H. Alwi and C. Edwards, Fault tolerant control using sliding modes
with on-line control allocation, Automatica, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1859
1866, 2008.
[17] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and adaptive
control design, ser. Adaptive and learning systems for signal processing,
communications, and control. Wiley, 1995.
[18] D. Swaroop, J. Hedrick, P. Yip, and J. Gerdes, Dynamic surface control
for a class of nonlinear systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 18931899, Oct 2000.
[19] S. Kendrick Amezquita, W. Butt, and Y. Lin, An adaptive dynamic
surface control scheme for a class of output feedback nonlinear systems
with actuator failures, in 8th World Congress on Intelligent Control and
Automation (WCICA), 2010, July 2010, pp. 750755.
[20] S. Kendrick Amezquita, Y. Lin, and W. Butt, Adaptive output feedback
control for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems with actuator failures,
in 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2010, Dec
2010, pp. 46064611.
[21] A. Levant, Universal single-input-single-output (siso) sliding-mode
controllers with finite-time convergence, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 14471451, 2001.
[22] A. Chakravarty and C. Mahanta, Actuator fault tolerant control scheme
for nonlinear uncertain systems using backstepping based sliding mode,
in Annual IEEE India Conference (INDICON), 2013, Dec 2013, pp. 16.
[23] S. Bhat and D. Bernstein, Geometric homogeneity with applications to
finite-time stability, Math. Control Signals Systems, vol. 17, pp. 101
127, 2005.
[24] M. Defoort, T. Floquet, A. Kokosyd, and W. Perruquetti, A novel higher
order sliding mode control scheme, System and Control Letters, vol. 58,
pp. 102108, 2009.