Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

CHATTERING PROBLEM IN SMC AND ITS REDUCTION

1. During the initial stages of sliding mode control theory development,


chattering was the main obstacle for its implementation. Small time constants of
real differentiators could not be disregarded if control actions were discontinuous
state functions, and they led to oscillations in the vicinity of discontinuity surfaces
in the system state space. Chattering is a harmful phenomenon because it leads
to low control accuracy, high wear of moving mechanical parts, and high heat
losses in power circuits.

2. There are two reasons which can lead to chattering:-

(a) Chattering can be caused by fast dynamics which were neglected


in the ideal model. These ‘unmodeled’ dynamics with small time constants
are usually disregarded in models of servomechanisms, sensors and data
processors.

(b) The second reason of chattering is utilization of digital controllers


with finite sampling rate, which causes so called ‘discretization chatter’.
Theoretically the ideal sliding mode implies infinite switching frequency.
Since the control is constant within a sampling interval, switching
frequency cannot exceed that of sampling, which lead to chattering as
well.

Chattering Refreshed

3. Consider the plant given by the state equation


.
x = Ax + Bu + Be( x, u, t ) _________________________________ (3.1)
A conventional sliding mode behaviour would have a sliding surface dynamics of
the form
σ = Sx _________________________________________ (3.2)
The sliding condition is given by

σσ ≤0 _________________________________________ (3.3)

Choosing the control as


u = ueq + un ____________________________________________ (3.4)

The known parameters of the plant can be compensated by the control


ueq = −( SB ) −1 SAx _______________________________________ (3.5)
The uncertainties are compensated by assuming proper matching conditions and
known bound of uncertainty by the control given by
un = − ρ sgn(σ SB ) _______________________________________ (3.6)

The signum function in equation (3.5) is characterized by a discontinuity at origin.


In other words, the control signal has to switch from one level to another in zero
time or very fast. However, due to finite bandwidth of the actuator, the input
cannot switch fast enough near the sliding surface. This causes chattering.
Chattering is finite frequency, finite amplitude oscillations about the sliding
surface.

Boundary Layer Control

4. To remedy chattering, the strict requirement of “movement on sliding


surface” is relaxed and we try to get ‘almost’ sliding mode (Quasi sliding mode)
by the so called piecewise linear or smooth approximation of the switching
element in a boundary layer of the sliding manifold [20]–[23]. Inside the boundary
layer, the switching function is approximated by a linear feedback gain. The
possible linear approximations for the signum function of equation (3.6) are

(a) The ‘sat’ or saturation function: Thus the control takes the form
un = − ρ sgn(σ SB ); σ SB > ε
σ SB _____________________ (3.7)
un = − ρ ; σ SB < ε
ε
(b) The sigmoid function: Thus the control takes the form
σ SB
un = − ρ ; σ SB >> δ
σ SB + δ
_____________________ (3.8)
σ SB
un = − ρ ; σ SB << δ
δ
(c) The third method involves the use of a conical boundary layer
centred symmetrically at the origin instead of the cylindrical boundary
layer dictated by sat function.

5. To make the system behavior to be as close to that of the ideal sliding


mode, particularly when an unknown disturbance is to be rejected, sufficiently
high magnitude of control signal gain is needed. In the absence of disturbance
the boundary layer thickness can be enlarged further while magnitude of control
is decreased, to reduce the oscillatory behavior or chattering about the sliding
manifold. However, this reduces the system to one with no sliding mode inside
the boundary layer and hence the system is no longer robust to uncertainties
inside the boundary layer. Thus though the proposed method has wide
acceptance by many sliding mode researchers as cited in the work in [3] and [22]
in practice it has shortcomings. The effectiveness of boundary layer control is
immediately challenged when realistic parasitic dynamics are considered. [24]
Parasitics dynamics must be carefully modeled and considered in the feedback
design in order to avoid instability inside the boundary layer which leads to
chattering.

6. In the literature, the first approach to chattering reduction is the boundary


layer control BLC (Burton & Zinober, 1986; Slotine & Sastry, 1983). In the BLC
design, the boundary layer width plays two contradicting roles: on one hand, it
has to be large to reduce the control chattering; on the other hand, it has to be
small to achieve good control accuracy. When the requirement on the control
accuracy is high, the BLC becomes ineffective in reducing the control chattering.
This is especially true when the state measurements are corrupted with
measurement noises. When the measurement noise is of a level larger than the
boundary layer width, the high-frequency oscillations in the noise will be reflected
and amplified in the control signal.

Observer-Based Sliding Mode Control

7. Recognizing the essential triggering mechanism for chattering is due to


the interactions of the switching action with the parasitic dynamics, an approach
which utilizes asymptotic observers to construct a high-frequency by pass loop
has been proposed [4]. This design exploits a localization of the high frequency
phenomenon in the feedback loop by introducing a discontinuous feedback
control loop which is closed through an asymptotic observer of the plant [25].
Since the model imperfections of the observer are supposedly smaller than those
in the plant, and the control is discontinuous only with respect to the observer
variables, chattering is localized inside a high-frequency loop which bypasses the
plant. However, this approach assumes that an asymptotic observer can indeed
be designed such that the observation error converges to zero asymptotically.

8. The superb rejection of the disturbance by sliding mode in the observer


state-space is expected since a large gain value can be chosen freely when the
constraints imposed by the parasitic dynamics are no longer present. However
the plant state response has a steady-state error of 0.05 which is due to the
observation error caused by the relatively low feedback gain of the observer
h=10.This error can be reduced by increasing the value of gain , provided that
the time scales and stability of the system are preserved.
9. However the drawback of this approach is that it reduces the problem of
robust control to the problem of robust estimation. Since there is a mismatch
between the plant and observer dynamics, this can lead to deterioration of
robustness with respect to the plant uncertainties and disturbances.

Dynamic Sliding Mode Control (DSMC)

10. Another approach to chattering reduction is the dynamic sliding mode


control DSMC (Bartolini, 1989; Bartolini, Ferrara, & Usai, 1998; Bartolini &
Pydynowski, 1996; Sira-Ramirez, 1993), where an integrator (or any other strictly
proper low-pass filter) is placed in front of the system to be controlled. The
advantage of DSMC design is that control chattering is reduced by low-pass
filtering, not by sacrificing the control accuracy since no boundary layer is used in
the design. Hence, the mechanism of chattering reduction and that of accuracy
control are decoupled in the DSMC design.

11. Another advantage of DSMC is that it is better immune to the


measurement noise since the low-pass filter (1/s) can to some extent filter out the
noise contained in the signal w. Despite its superiority to the BLC, the design of
DSMC is challenging for the following reason. In the DSMC design, the sliding
variable is different from that in the BLC design since the augmented system will
be one dimension larger than the original system. As a result of this, the new
sliding variable in DSMC contains an uncertainty term due to the external
disturbance and/or parametric uncertainty. Evaluation of the new sliding variable
in DSMC becomes difficult. In Bartolini (1989), a variable structure estimator is
proposed to estimate the sliding variable in DSMC, but it must assume a priori
that the system state is uniformly bounded before proving the system stability.
Higher Order Sliding Modes (HOSM)

12. Consider the differential equation

z +α z sign ( z ) +β∫sign ( z )dτ =ξ(t )


1/ 2

It can be shown that the solution to the above differential equation and its
derivative converge to zero in finite time under the following conditions:-
α ≥1 / 2 L
and
β ≥ 4L
and
ξ(t ) ≤L

13. The higher order sliding mode approach formulates an algorithm which is
based on the above differential equation. Thus it can be seen that it allows for
convergence to zero of not only the sliding variable but also its derivatives. The
most effective second order sliding mode algorithm is the super-twisting
algorithm (STA) which introduces the control, u, based on the above differential
equation as
1/ 2
u=α σ s ig n(σ ) + β ∫ s ig n(σ )dσ
The sliding surface and the coefficients are chosen in the same way as in
traditional sliding mode control.

14. However, the main drawback of the standard STA algorithm is that due to
its homogenous nature it will not be able to compensate the uncertainties and
disturbances which grow with the state variables. Hence the linear part must be
exactly known for ensuring sliding motion of the given uncertain system. This
drawback can be overcome by choosing a non-homogenous extension to the
standard STA algorithm which will compensate for those uncertainties and
disturbances that grow with the state variables. This modified algorithm is called
the variable gain STA or VGSTA.
REFERENCES

1. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 7,


NO. 3, MAY 1999, “A Control Engineer’s Guide to Sliding Mode Control”, K. David
Young, Senior Member, IEEE, Vadim I. Utkin, Senior Member, IEEE, and ¨ Umit ¨
Ozg¨uner, Member, IEEE

2. Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Variable Structure Systems


Alghero, Italy, June 5-7, 2006, “Chattering Problem in Sliding Mode Control Systems”,
Vadim Utkin and Hoon Lee

3. “Variable Gains Super-Twisting Algorithm: A Lyapunov Based Design”,


Alejandro D´avila, Jaime A. Moreno, Leonid Fridman, 2010 American Control
Conference, Marriott Waterfront, Baltimore, MD, USA, June 30-July 02, 2010.

4. G. Bartolini, A. Ferrara, and E. Usai, “Chattering avoidance by second order


sliding mode control,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 241–246, Feb.
1998.

5. G. Bartolini, A. Ferrara, A. Levant, and E. Usai, “On second order sliding mode
controllers,” in Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, K. D. Young and U.
Ozguner, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1999, vol. 247, Variable Structure
Systems, Sliding Mode and Nonlinear Control, pp. 329–350.

6. G. Bartolini, A. Ferrara, A. Pisano, and E. Usai, “On the convergence properties


of a 2-sliding control algorithm for nonlinear uncertain systems,” Int. J. Control, vol. 74,
pp. 718–731, 2001.

7. G. Bartolini, A. Pisano, E. Punta, and E. Usai, “A survey of applications of


second order sliding mode control to mechanical systems,” Int. J.Control, vol. 76, no.
9/10, pp. 875–892, 2003.

8. D. Benmerzouk and J. P. Barbot, “Lyapunov-Schmidt method dedicated to the


observer analysis and design,” Math. Problems Eng., pp.1–28, 2006, Article ID 43681.

9. I. Boiko, “Analysis of sliding modes in the frequency domain,” Int. J.Control,


vol. 78, no. 13, pp. 969–981, 2005.

10. I. Boiko, L. Fridman, and M. I. Castellanos, “Analysis of second order sliding


mode algorithms in the frequency domain,” IEEE Trans. Autom.Control, vol. 49, no. 6,
pp. 946–950, Jun. 2004.
11. I. Boiko and L. Fridman, “Analysis of chattering in continuous sliding mode
controllers,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 50, no. 9, pp.1442–1446, Sep. 2005.

12. A. Levant, “Sliding order and sliding accuracy in sliding mode control”,
International Journal of Control, Vol. 58,no. 6, pp. 1247-1263. 1993.

13. J. A. Moreno and M. Osorio, “A Lyapunov approach to second-order sliding


mode controllers and observers”, 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, CDC
2008, pp.2856-2861, 2008.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi