# Stability Analysis of a Class of Second Order Sliding Mode Control Including Delay in Input

Authors: Pedro R. Acosta
Journal: Mathematical Problems in Engineering
 (2013)

---

## Abstract

This paper deals with a class of second order sliding mode systems. Based on the derivative of the sliding surface, sufficient conditions are given for stability. However, the discontinuous control signal depend neither on the derivative of sliding surface nor on its estimate. Time delay in control input is also an important issue in sliding mode control for engineering applications. Therefore, also sufficient conditions are given for the time delay size on the discontinuous input signal, so that this class of second order sliding mode systems might have amplitude bounded oscillations. Moreover, amplitude of such oscillations may be estimated. Some numerical examples are given to validate the results. At the end, some conclusions are given on the possibilities of the results as well as their limitations.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Sliding mode control has been effectively used in engineering for more than three decades. One of the major concerns for some applications is chattering in output or control signal. Along with other techniques, higher order sliding modes have been proposed to alleviate chattering. Most used algorithms for high sliding motion are the twisting controller [1], suboptimal controller [2], and the super twisting controller [3]. These algorithms need to measure or estimate the derivative of the sliding surface. The super twisting algorithm is used to get robust differentiators, so that it can be used together with the other algorithms to get such a derivative. Recently [4], homogeneity has been used to ease parameter design for second order sliding mode controllers. Some recent examples of engineering applications using second order sliding mode controllers are [5–8].When delays arise, sliding mode controller performance deteriorates. Such delays may occur in states and/or inputs and have been treated using several approaches (see e.g., [9–16]). In [12], a good review is given for different control techniques up to 2003. When only a delayed measure is available for the control signal, two techniques have been used to compensate delay effects: predictors and integral sliding mode control. Some instances are [11, 12, 14], respectively. On the other hand, concerning analysis for existence and amplitude of steady oscillations due to delays, very few works have been reported, such as [17], where sufficient conditions are given for steady oscillations to exist in a first order sliding mode system; describing function and Poincaré map approach are used in [18] to analyze oscillations for a system with hysteresis. In [19], a different approach for perturbed first sliding mode systems is reported. For second order sliding mode systems with delay, [20] reported sufficient conditions for steady oscillations to occur in a class of systems; in [21], an analysis is given about oscillations for the suboptimal algorithm considering delay in the input.Motivated by the aforementioned analysis, this paper presents sufficient stability conditions for a class of sliding mode system that does not require a measure of the derivative of the sliding surface in order to provide the control input. Also, sufficient conditions are given for stable oscillations to exist if a delay occurs in the input, as well as an estimate for their amplitude. The class of systems treated here is a more general class of systems than the one reported in [20] and using a different approach. In Section 2, the problem is formulated. Section 3 presents the main results by way of two propositions and their proofs, giving sufficient conditions for finite time sliding motion stability without delay and stability for oscillations when delay in input occurs. Next, in Section 4, some numerical examples are given and conclusions for the reported results are related.


## 2. Problem Statement

Let us consider a second order sliding mode system in the form(1)x.1=x2,x.2=f(t,x1,x2)-ksign(x1(t)),
where f(t,x1,x2) is smooth and k>0. The first issue to consider is getting sufficient conditions such that the system has a stable equilibrium point in x1=0, x2=0 and reached in finite time, considering a domain of attraction D(2)x=[x1x2]T∈D.
Now, if conditions for stability are met for (1), when a delay is present in the control input as follows:
(3)x.1=x2,x.2=f(t,x1,x2)-ksign(x1(t-h)),
with x∈D, ∀t∈[-h,0), x1 might have steady oscillations if the time delay is sufficiently small, such that the system remains in the attraction domain. Otherwise, its dynamics will be unstable. Hence, it is important to get sufficient conditions for delay size, such that the system remains in the domain of attraction and an estimate for the amplitude of the oscillations. Next section shows sufficient conditions to reach the surface in finite time without delay and for existence of bounded amplitude oscillations in presence of delay.


## 3. Sufficient Conditions for Second Order Sliding Modes without Delay and Amplitude Bounded Oscillations with Delay

In the following proposition, sufficient conditions are given for finite time reaching and, stability of the equilibrium pointx1=0, x2=0 in system (1) considering a domain of attraction.Proposition 1.
Consider system (1) with f(t,0,0)=0. If k-|f(t,x1,x2)|≥c0>0 and, moreover, after x1 first zero crossing, the following is met thereafter:
(4)|cncn+1|>k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|k-|fn+1max(t,x1,x2)|,
where tn is the nth zero crossing time, cn and cn+1 are the values for x2(tn) and x2(tn+1) in the nth and n+1th zero crossing time for x1. Also, |fnmax(t,x1,x2)| is the biggest value of |f(t,x1,x2)| in the interval tn≤t<tn+1 and |fn+1max(t,x1,x2)| is the biggest value of |f(t,x1,x2)| in the interval tn+1≤t<tn+2. Then, system (1) has a stable equilibrium point in x1=0, x2=0 which will be reached in finite time.Proof.
As a first step, let us demonstrate that there exists a finite time forx1(t) zero crossing. Without loss of generality, let us consider x1(0)>0, therefore, in a neighborhood t+ of t=0 we will have
(5)x.1=x2,x.2=f(t,x1,x2)-k.
From hypothesis, k-|f(0,x1(0),x2(0))|≥c0>0 and hence
(6)x.2≤-c0.
Therefore,
(7)x2(t)≤-c0t+x2(0).
And so
(8)x1(t)≤-c0t22+x2(0)t+x1(0).
Hence, in a finite time, t1, x1(t1)=0, where
(9)t1≤x2(0)+x22(0)+2c0x1(0)c0.
Now, as a second step, let us demonstrate by induction that in a finite time the equilibrium point is reached. Without loss of generality, assume that the nth x1(t) zero crossing goes from positive to negative, and therefore x2(tn)=cn with cn<0. Hence, for tn≤t≤tn+1, where t=tn+1 is the next time for zero crossing, we will have
(10)x.1=x2,x.2=f(t,x1,x2)+k.
And therefore
(11)x2(t)≥(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|)(t-tn)+cn.
So that
(12)x1(t)≥(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|)(t-tn)22+cn(t-tn).
From the above, for the following zero crossing, x1(tn+1)=0,
(13)(tn+1-tn)≤-2cn(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|).
To assure finite time for equilibrium point reaching, it only has to be guaranteed that (tn+1-tn)>(tn+2-tn+1) since if (tn+1-tn)=T and hence (tn+2-tn+1)≤anT, where 0<an≤a<1, total time will be
(14)∑n=1∞(tn+1-tn)≤T+aT+a2T+⋯=T∑n=1∞an-1=T11-a.
From (13), and a similar development for negative to positive zero crossing, the following can be deduced:
(15)(tn+2-tn+1)+(tn+1-tn)≤|2cn+1|(k-|fn+1max(t,x1,x2)|)+|2cn|(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|).
Now, considering that to comply with the supposed sufficient condition for reaching the equilibrium point in finite time (tn+1-tn)=T and (tn+2-tn+1)≤anT, the following must be complied as well:
(16)(1+an)(tn+1-tn)≤|2cn+1|(k-|fn+1max(t,x1,x2)|)+|2cn|(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|).
So that, making
(17)1(tn+1-tn)×[|2cn+1|(k-|fn+1max(t,x1,x2)|)+|2cn|(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|)]<2,
it is guaranteed that 1+an<2.
Now, using again (13) together with (17)
(18)|cn+1|(k-|fn+1max(t,x1,x2)|)+|cn|(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|)<|2cn|(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|).
Therefore, it is sufficient
(19)|cn+1|(k-|fn+1max(t,x1,x2)|)<|cn|(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|).
In other words
(20)|cn||cn+1|>(k-|fnmax(t,x1,x2)|)(k-|fn+1max(t,x1,x2)|).Remark 2.
If|fnmax(t,x1,x2)| and |fn+1max(t,x1,x2)| are not known, instead of (20) we may use as a more conservative condition k-|f(t,x1,x2)|≥c0, together with
(21)|cn||cn+1|>1.
When a delay exists in the discontinuous control signal, the equilibrium point cannot be reached. If the dynamics are in the domain of attraction, amplitude bounded oscillations are obtained. Next proposition presents sufficient conditions for an upper bound on the delay in order to get amplitude bounded oscillations.Proposition 3.
Considering system (1), complying with conditions of Proposition 1, a sufficient condition such that system (3) has steady oscillations is
(22)h≤min{Mx1′+Mx2′+,Mx1′-Mx2′-},
where
(23)Mx2′+=supt>0,x∈D+,0<δ<k{x2∣f(t,x1,x2)+k=2δ}Mx2′-=inft>0,x∈D-,0<δ<k{x2∣f(t,x1,x2)-k=-2δ}0<Mx1′+≤Mx1+=sup{x1>0∣〈x1x2=Mx2′+〉∈D}0>Mx1′-≥Mx1-=inf{x1<0∣〈x1x2=Mx2′-〉∈D},
with the domain of attraction being
(24)x=[x1x2]T∈D,D+={D∣x1>0,x2≥0}D-={D∣x1<0,x2≤0}.Proof.
First, let us get an estimate for a bound onx2 in the domain of attraction. For 0≤t0<t1<t2, without loss of generality, let us consider 0<x1(t1)≤Mx1+, x1(t2)>x1(t1)>0>-β=x1(t0), β→0, and t1-t0=hmax<t2-t0. Where hmax is the maximum delay such that the system remains in the domain of attraction, so that h≤hmax. Then, in the interval t1<t≤t2, we have sign(x1(t))=sign(x1(t-h))=1 and in the interval t0<t<t1, sign(x1(t-h))=-sign(x1(t))=-1.
Therefore, withh=hmax and while t0<t<t1, we will have x1(t)>0 and x1(t-h)<0, so that x.2=f(t,x1,x2)+k. Moreover, since k-|f(t,x1,x2)|≥c0>0, it can be seen that x2(t)≥c0(t-t0)+x2(t0), and accordingly x1 will grow while sign(x1(t-h))=-1, but when t>t1 and since x1>0, we have sign(x1(t-h))=1, and therefore x.2=f(t,x1,x2)-k. Hence, x2(t)≤-c0(t-t1)+x2(t1).
Therefore, there existst=t2, where x2(t2)=0, and accordingly when t=t2≤t1+x2(t1)/c0, x1 arrives to a maximum and in the interval t2<t<t3, it will diminish until being zero at
(25)t=t3≤x2(t1)+x2(t1)2+2c0[t1x2(t1)+x1(t1)]c0+t1.
This happens provided the system is in the domain of attraction, so the maximum value must occur for x∈D+. An estimate for the maximum x2 reached value can be gotten noticing that 0<c0≤k, since k-|f(t,x1,x2)|≥c0>0. Therefore, the biggest possible value for |f(t,x1,x2)|, inside the domain of attraction, occurs when c0→0, making feasible that |f(t,x1,x2)|→k. On the other hand, if c0→k, |f(t,x1,x2)| might only take the smallest possible value, |f(t,x1,x2)|→0. Hence, from the aforementioned, 0<f(t,x1,x2)+k<2k, and the maximum value for x2, Mx2′+ inside the domain of attraction may be estimated as
(26)Mx2′+=supt>0,x∈D+,0<δ<k{x2∣f(t,x1,x2)+k=2δ}.
Now, with a similar reasoning as above, it can be shown that once x1(t)<0, a time will come such that sign(x1(t-h))=-1, and if the dynamics are in the domain of attraction, x1 will reach a minimum and begin moving toward the opposite direction remaining bounded. Therefore, an estimate for the minimum value of x2 is
(27)Mx2′-=inft>0,x∈D-,0<δ<k{x2∣f(t,x1,x2)-k=-2δ}.
Now, since in the interval t0≤t≤t1 (see Figure 1), we have x.1=x2≤Mx2′+, and considering that
(28)0<Mx1′+≤Mx1+=sup{x1>0∣〈x1x2=Mx2′+〉∈D},
we have, x1(t1)≤Mx1′+≤Mx2′+hmax. Therefore, it is clear that there exists h′≤hmax such that Mx1′+=Mx2′+h′. And then for h≤h′, we have h≤Mx1′+/Mx2′+. So that for this delay, the system dynamics remains in the domain of attraction for positive values of x1.
Similarly, whenx1<0, x.1=x2≥Mx2′-, and for hmax=t4-t3, where t4 is the time when x1(t4)≥Mx1′-≥Mx2′-hmax.
Considering0>Mx1′-≥Mx1-=inf{x1<0∣〈x1x2=Mx2′-〉∈D} and since Mx2′-<0, there exists h′′≤hmax  such that Mx1′-=Mx2′-h′′. Therefore, for h≤h′′, h≤Mx1′-/Mx2′-, so that, for this delay, the system dynamics remains in the domain of attraction for negative values of x1.
Hence, if(29)h≤min{Mx1′+Mx2′+,Mx1′-Mx2′-},
the system dynamics will stay inside the domain of attraction; so this is a sufficient condition in the delay size for amplitude bounded oscillations to exist.Behavior ofx1 for different forms of f(t,x1,x2), where it can be seen as h<t1-t0 and maximum value for x2=Mx2+, when 0<x1≤Mx1+.
(a)
(b)
(c)Remark 4.
For a second order sliding mode system in the form (1), with a specified delay, h, and noticing that the maximum x1 amplitude is obtained when sign(x1(t))=sign(x1(t-h)) and x2=0, an estimate for the oscillation amplitude, Ax1, can be obtained with
(30)mx2′h≤Ax1≤max{supt>0,x∈D+,0<δ<k{x1∣f(t,x1,0)-k=-2δ},supt>0,x∈D-,0<δ<k{|x1|∣f(t,x1,0)+k=2δ}},
where mx2′ is the lowest magnitude value of x2 for the interval when sign(x1(t))=-sign(x1(t-h)). Now, noticing that x.2=0 is an extreme for x2 in some cases, such lowest value for those cases may be obtained from
(31)mx2′=min{inft>0,x∈D+∣x1(t-h)<0,x2>0{x2∣f(t,x1,x2)+k=0},inft>0,x∈D-∣x1(t-h)>0,x2<0{|x2|∣f(t,x1,x2)-k=0}},
verifying that x..2>0 when sign(x1(t))=1 and x..2<0 when sign(x1(t))=-1.Remark 5.
If the second order sliding mode system is of the form(32)x.1=x2⋮x.n=f(t,x1,x2)-ksign(s(x1(t-h),…,xn-1(t-h))),
such that
(33)s.=η(x)s..=φ(t,x)-msign(s(t-h)),
so that x=0 is stable for h=0, with the domain of attraction being x∈D and
(34)Ds+={D∣s>0,s˙≥0},Ds-={D∣s<0,s˙≤0},
an estimate of the maximum delay for steady oscillations in the sliding surface is
(35)h≤min{Ms′+Ms.′+,Ms′-Ms.′-},
where
(36)Ms.′+=supt>0,x∈Ds+,0<δ<m{s.∣φ(t,x)+m=2δ}Ms.′-=inft>0,x∈Ds-,0<δ<m{s.∣φ(t,x)-m=-2δ}0<Ms′+≤Ms+=sup{s>0∣〈ss˙=Ms.′+〉∈D}0>Ms′-≥Ms-=inf{s<0∣〈ss˙=Ms.′-〉∈D}.Remark 6.
If the system is a first order sliding mode system with the form(37)x.1=x2⋮x.n=f(t,x1,x2)-ksign(s(x1(t-h),…,xn(t-h))),
such that
(38)s.=ψ(t,x)-psign(s(t-h)),
so that x=0 is stable for h=0, with the domain of attraction being x∈D and
(39)Ds+={D∣s>0}Ds-={D∣s<0},
an estimate for the maximum delay where steady oscillations in the sliding surface are obtained may be gotten with
(40)h≤min{Ms′+Ms.′+,Ms′-Ms.′-},
where
(41)Ms.′+=supt>0,x∈Ds+,0<δ<p{s˙∣ψ(t,x)+p≤2δ}Ms.′-=inft>0,x∈Ds-,0<δ<p{s˙∣ψ(t,x)-p≥-2δ}0<Ms′+≤Ms+=sup{s>0∣s˙=Ms.′+∈D}0>Ms′-≥Ms-=inf{s<0∣s˙=Ms.′+∈D}.Remark 7.
For a first order sliding mode system with amplitude bounded oscillations, if an upper bound for the sliding surface derivative magnitude is known (see Remark6), together with the delay, h, an upper bound for the oscillation amplitude, As, of the sliding surface, s, can be obtained with
(42)As≤max{Ms.′+h,|Ms.′-|h}.


## 4. Examples

In this section, three examples are given to validate the results presented above.


### 4.1. Reaching Equilibrium Point in Finite Time for Second Order Sliding Modes

Let us consider the following system:(43)x1.=x2,x2.=x1-5x2-5sign(x1).
It is easy to verify that system dynamics are unstable if 5sign(x1) is not present. In order to verify if the dynamics of (43) reach in finite time the equilibrium point in zero, Proposition 1 is used. Let’s consider x1>0. Since k=5, x.2>-k=-5 must be complied and also x.2≤-c0, such that x2>-5t+x2(0), and x1≤-c0t2/2+x2(0)t+x1(0).Therefore,x.2≤-c0t2/2+(25+x2(0))t+x1(0)-5x2(0)-5. From this expression, it can be observed that the time when the biggest value for x˙2 (less negative) is t=0, since for |f(t,x1,x2)|<5, it is required that |x2|<5, then from t=0, x˙2 goes more negative while x1>0. Similarly, it can be shown that if the initial condition is x1<0, the lowest value for x˙2 occurs at t=0, such that k-|f(t,x1,x2)|≥c0. Hence, a sure way to choose the initial conditions would be |x1(0)-5x2(0)|<5.So that, for this example, we choosex1(0)=4, x2(0)=0. Therefore, at t=0, |f(t,x1,x2)|<5, and just afterwards, x2 is and remains negative while x1>0. Therefore x1 goes down until reaching the first zero crossing. Knowing that
(44)x1(t)=-.9642e0.19258t-0.03328e-5.1958t+5,
it is easy to see that x1=0, when x2=-.93.Up to now, first conditions for the Proposition1 are met in order to get the first zero crossing. Now, to see if the condition for finite time surface reaching is met, let us consider an arbitrary time of zero crossing from positive to negative tn. In the interval tn≤t≤tn+1, the maximum value for |f(t,x1,x2)| is at tn, since this is the initial time in this interval. Then f(tn,0,cn)=-5cn and at t=tn+1, f(tn+1,0,cn+1)=-5cn+1. From Proposition 1, it is needed
(45)|cn||cn+1|>(k-|f(tn,0,cn)|)(k-|f(tn+1,0,cn+1)|)=5-5|cn|5-5|cn+1|.
Resulting in the condition |cn|>|cn+1|.Let’s see if the system meets such a condition. Meanwhile,x1<0 in the interval tn≤t≤tn+1,
(46)x1(t)=Ae0.19258(t-tn)+Be-5.1958(t-tn)-5x2(t)=0.19258Ae0.19258(t-tn)-5.1958Be-5.1958(t-tn),
with
(47)A=5-0.1958cn1.037,B=5+5.1958cn27.963.
Now, considering that in the following zero crossing, t=tn+1,
(48)0=Ae0.19258(tn+1-tn)+Be-5.1958(tn+1-tn)-5,cn+1=0.19258Ae0.19258(tn+1-tn)-5.1958Be-5.1958(tn+1-tn),
and solving (48), using expressions for A and B in (46),
(49)cn+1=0.963-0.963e-5.1958(tn+1-tn)-e-5.1958(tn+1-tn)cn.
This is an asymptotically stable first order difference equation for cn dynamics, since tn+1>tn, giving the eigenvalue magnitude less than one and guaranteeing that |cn+1|<|cn|, complying with the condition for reaching the surface in finite time. Eventually, when tn+1=tn, the equilibrium point is reached, cn=0. Therefore, system dynamics are stable and reach the surface in finite time without need of using a measure or estimate of x2 for the control signal. In Figure 2, the behavior of x1 and x2 is shown using x1(0)=4, x2(0)=0. It is seen that effectively, x1 approaches smoothly and in finite time to zero and chattering is confined to x2, which also approaches in finite time to zero.Figure 2
Behavior of system (43) dynamics showing that x1=0 and x2=0 are reached in finite time. As expected for second order sliding mode, chattering is not present in x1.


### 4.2. Maximum Permissible Delay in the Second Order Sliding Mode System

Knowing that sliding modes are gotten for system (43), now a delay in the control is introduced as shown below:
(50)x.1=x2x.2=x1-5x2-5sign(x1(t-h)).
Now, using (22), Mx1′-5Mx2′+5=2δ, which gives the maximum with δ=0(51)Mx2′≤Mx1′+55.
The domain of attraction is shown in Figure 3, together with all possible values for Mx2′. It is noticed that at x1=4.5, Mx2′=1.9 intersects the upper limit of the domain of attraction. Therefore
(52)h<Mx1′Mx2′=4.51.9=2.368.
In this example, h=2.36 was used along with initial conditions set to x1=2 and x2=0, in order to ensure the initial crossing by zero since for t∈[0,h] no control is available. To estimate the oscillation amplitude, Remark 4 of Proposition 3 is used. To obtain mx2′, we have x1-5x2+5=0. And so mx2′=minx1>0((5+x1)/5)=1. Therefore, Ax1≥mx2′h=2.36. Now, the biggest value for x1 is obtained from x1-5=-2δ, so that Ax1≤max0≤δ<5(5-2δ)=5.Figure 3
Estimate for biggest value ofx2 in the system with delay (50) inside the domain of attraction.Hence, the oscillation amplitude forx1 is bounded with a value between 2.36 and 5. In Figure 4, it can be verified that h=2.36 is a sufficient condition for bounded oscillations to occur. Also, the amplitude is seen to be a little bigger than 3, which is inside the estimated limits. For this case the describing function approach cannot be used to estimate the amplitude, because of the instability of the associated linear system.Figure 4
Behavior of dynamics for system (50) with delay h=2.36.


### 4.3. Amplitude Estimate for a Globally Stable System

Considering a case where the equilibrium point of the involved system is globally stable such as(53)x.1=x2,x.2=-5x2-5sign(x1(t-h)).
Using Remark 4 of Proposition 3, the inferior bound for amplitude Ax1 with mx2′=5/5=1 is Ax1>hmx2′=h. If h=5, then A>5. In Figure 5, the system response for x1 is seen. The oscillation amplitude is a little bigger than 5, verifying the estimated value. Also, since x2 is almost constant, the estimated amplitude is very close to the real one. If the describing function approach was used, the estimated amplitude would be around 4.44, which is lower than the minimum estimated with the proposed method. In this particular case, an estimate of the superior bound for x1 using Remark 4 cannot be obtained, since x1 is not explicit in f(t,x,0)-k=-2δ.Figure 5
Behavior of globally stable system (53) with a delay h=5.


## 4.1. Reaching Equilibrium Point in Finite Time for Second Order Sliding Modes

Let us consider the following system:(43)x1.=x2,x2.=x1-5x2-5sign(x1).
It is easy to verify that system dynamics are unstable if 5sign(x1) is not present. In order to verify if the dynamics of (43) reach in finite time the equilibrium point in zero, Proposition 1 is used. Let’s consider x1>0. Since k=5, x.2>-k=-5 must be complied and also x.2≤-c0, such that x2>-5t+x2(0), and x1≤-c0t2/2+x2(0)t+x1(0).Therefore,x.2≤-c0t2/2+(25+x2(0))t+x1(0)-5x2(0)-5. From this expression, it can be observed that the time when the biggest value for x˙2 (less negative) is t=0, since for |f(t,x1,x2)|<5, it is required that |x2|<5, then from t=0, x˙2 goes more negative while x1>0. Similarly, it can be shown that if the initial condition is x1<0, the lowest value for x˙2 occurs at t=0, such that k-|f(t,x1,x2)|≥c0. Hence, a sure way to choose the initial conditions would be |x1(0)-5x2(0)|<5.So that, for this example, we choosex1(0)=4, x2(0)=0. Therefore, at t=0, |f(t,x1,x2)|<5, and just afterwards, x2 is and remains negative while x1>0. Therefore x1 goes down until reaching the first zero crossing. Knowing that
(44)x1(t)=-.9642e0.19258t-0.03328e-5.1958t+5,
it is easy to see that x1=0, when x2=-.93.Up to now, first conditions for the Proposition1 are met in order to get the first zero crossing. Now, to see if the condition for finite time surface reaching is met, let us consider an arbitrary time of zero crossing from positive to negative tn. In the interval tn≤t≤tn+1, the maximum value for |f(t,x1,x2)| is at tn, since this is the initial time in this interval. Then f(tn,0,cn)=-5cn and at t=tn+1, f(tn+1,0,cn+1)=-5cn+1. From Proposition 1, it is needed
(45)|cn||cn+1|>(k-|f(tn,0,cn)|)(k-|f(tn+1,0,cn+1)|)=5-5|cn|5-5|cn+1|.
Resulting in the condition |cn|>|cn+1|.Let’s see if the system meets such a condition. Meanwhile,x1<0 in the interval tn≤t≤tn+1,
(46)x1(t)=Ae0.19258(t-tn)+Be-5.1958(t-tn)-5x2(t)=0.19258Ae0.19258(t-tn)-5.1958Be-5.1958(t-tn),
with
(47)A=5-0.1958cn1.037,B=5+5.1958cn27.963.
Now, considering that in the following zero crossing, t=tn+1,
(48)0=Ae0.19258(tn+1-tn)+Be-5.1958(tn+1-tn)-5,cn+1=0.19258Ae0.19258(tn+1-tn)-5.1958Be-5.1958(tn+1-tn),
and solving (48), using expressions for A and B in (46),
(49)cn+1=0.963-0.963e-5.1958(tn+1-tn)-e-5.1958(tn+1-tn)cn.
This is an asymptotically stable first order difference equation for cn dynamics, since tn+1>tn, giving the eigenvalue magnitude less than one and guaranteeing that |cn+1|<|cn|, complying with the condition for reaching the surface in finite time. Eventually, when tn+1=tn, the equilibrium point is reached, cn=0. Therefore, system dynamics are stable and reach the surface in finite time without need of using a measure or estimate of x2 for the control signal. In Figure 2, the behavior of x1 and x2 is shown using x1(0)=4, x2(0)=0. It is seen that effectively, x1 approaches smoothly and in finite time to zero and chattering is confined to x2, which also approaches in finite time to zero.Figure 2
Behavior of system (43) dynamics showing that x1=0 and x2=0 are reached in finite time. As expected for second order sliding mode, chattering is not present in x1.


## 4.2. Maximum Permissible Delay in the Second Order Sliding Mode System

Knowing that sliding modes are gotten for system (43), now a delay in the control is introduced as shown below:
(50)x.1=x2x.2=x1-5x2-5sign(x1(t-h)).
Now, using (22), Mx1′-5Mx2′+5=2δ, which gives the maximum with δ=0(51)Mx2′≤Mx1′+55.
The domain of attraction is shown in Figure 3, together with all possible values for Mx2′. It is noticed that at x1=4.5, Mx2′=1.9 intersects the upper limit of the domain of attraction. Therefore
(52)h<Mx1′Mx2′=4.51.9=2.368.
In this example, h=2.36 was used along with initial conditions set to x1=2 and x2=0, in order to ensure the initial crossing by zero since for t∈[0,h] no control is available. To estimate the oscillation amplitude, Remark 4 of Proposition 3 is used. To obtain mx2′, we have x1-5x2+5=0. And so mx2′=minx1>0((5+x1)/5)=1. Therefore, Ax1≥mx2′h=2.36. Now, the biggest value for x1 is obtained from x1-5=-2δ, so that Ax1≤max0≤δ<5(5-2δ)=5.Figure 3
Estimate for biggest value ofx2 in the system with delay (50) inside the domain of attraction.Hence, the oscillation amplitude forx1 is bounded with a value between 2.36 and 5. In Figure 4, it can be verified that h=2.36 is a sufficient condition for bounded oscillations to occur. Also, the amplitude is seen to be a little bigger than 3, which is inside the estimated limits. For this case the describing function approach cannot be used to estimate the amplitude, because of the instability of the associated linear system.Figure 4
Behavior of dynamics for system (50) with delay h=2.36.


## 4.3. Amplitude Estimate for a Globally Stable System

Considering a case where the equilibrium point of the involved system is globally stable such as(53)x.1=x2,x.2=-5x2-5sign(x1(t-h)).
Using Remark 4 of Proposition 3, the inferior bound for amplitude Ax1 with mx2′=5/5=1 is Ax1>hmx2′=h. If h=5, then A>5. In Figure 5, the system response for x1 is seen. The oscillation amplitude is a little bigger than 5, verifying the estimated value. Also, since x2 is almost constant, the estimated amplitude is very close to the real one. If the describing function approach was used, the estimated amplitude would be around 4.44, which is lower than the minimum estimated with the proposed method. In this particular case, an estimate of the superior bound for x1 using Remark 4 cannot be obtained, since x1 is not explicit in f(t,x,0)-k=-2δ.Figure 5
Behavior of globally stable system (53) with a delay h=5.


## 5. Conclusions

Stability analysis for a class of second order sliding mode systems, which does not need measuring or estimation of the derivative of the sliding variable for the control signal, was presented. Also, when delay in input is present, bounded oscillations are studied. The system can be linear or nonlinear. The class of systems treated is a more general class of the systems studied in [20], where sufficient conditions are given for stationary oscillations to exist using another approach and no means is given to estimate amplitude of oscillations. The analysis presented in this paper is based on two propositions. One of them gives sufficient conditions for sliding mode existence for a class of second order sliding mode systems. The other can be used as a method based on maximum derivative to get a delay estimate on the control signal for a class of second order sliding mode systems, giving sufficient conditions to maintain amplitude bounded oscillations on the sliding surface. Also, for a given delay in input, oscillation amplitude for the sliding surface dynamics can be estimated if the system state is in the attraction region. On the other hand, when oscillation amplitude is known, such as hysteresis happening in the discontinuous input, frequency of oscillation can be estimated. Numerical examples for second order sliding modes were presented to illustrate the proposed approach, first two examples have unstable dynamics when no input is applied. Third example has global stability for the considered input. It is clear that very conservative results using this method would arise for systems where the expected sliding surface derivative is much lower than the maximum derivative. For linear stable processes, the describing function method has been used in the literature to estimate oscillations amplitude. In the second example such approach cannot be used since the linear process is unstable. In the third example, the simulation shows the amplitude just a little bigger than the minimum estimated by the approach presented here. For this example, the describing function method gives a lower estimate than the minimum given by the proposed approach.



---

*Source: 523527-2013-11-12.xml*