Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43

www.elsevier.com/locate/fss

Indirect adaptive fuzzy sliding mode control:

Part II: parameter projection and supervisory control
P.T. Chana , A.B. Rada; ∗ , J. Wangb
a Department of Electrical Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong
b Control and Simulation Lab, E4A-03-4, Department of Electrical Engineering, National University of Singapore,
10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore

Received 15 January 1999; received in revised form 24 September 1999; accepted 22 November 1999

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to show that the error dynamics of the Lyapunov synthesis is similar to the sliding surface
of sliding mode control (SMC). We compare and evaluate the role and performance of sliding surface, boundary layer and
Lyapunov synthesis. Finally, the indirect adaptive fuzzy sliding mode control (IAFSMC) is equipped with state boundedness
c 2001
supervisory controller and parameter projection. Simulation studies illustrate the application of the proposed method.

Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fuzzy sliding mode control; Lyapunov synthesis; State boundedness and parameter projection

1. Introduction provide a medium to convert a set of human heuristic

Fuzzy system (FS) and conventional control are
complementary rather than competitive. FS can bor-
row and refer ideas from conventional control to
consolidate into a stronger area. The integration of
fuzzy systems and conventional control has been
an active research in exploring the advantages of
both paradigms. They provide a platform for the
design of nonlinear system with incorporation of hu-
man knowledge. The property of approximating any
nonlinear system over compact input space to arbi-
trary accuracy with fuzzy system lays the founda-
tion for this integration [11,12]. Fuzzy systems also
∗ with the properties of avoiding the chattering prob-
Corresponding author. Tel.: +85-2766-6177; fax: +852-
2330-1544.
E-mail address: eeabrad@polyu.edu.hk (A.B. Rad).
rules into a mathematical description.
Wang [11,12] presented an in-depth analysis of
adaptive fuzzy logic control based on the error dy-
namics of adaptive systems. The latest challenge to
this approach is to solve the Lyapunov equation and
Bnd a symmetric positive deBnite matrix. Passino [6]
developed a fuzzy model reference learning control
(FMRLC) by introducing a reference model and a
fuzzy inverse model.
Palm et al. [5] noted the similarity between fuzzy
controller and sliding mode controller with a boundary
layer. He proposed a fuzzy SMC by tracing the sys-
tem with the principle of an SMC and fuzzy system.
This design can lead to a stable closed-loop system
lem in the SMC. Similarly, the research on fuzzy slid-
ing mode control has also been reported in [5]. By

0165-0114/01/$ - see front matter  c 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 5 - 0 1 1 4 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 8 0 - 3
32 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43
considering fuzzy approximation and sliding mode
control scheme, Yoo et al. [13] proposed two methods
of adaptive SMC for nonlinear systems.
In part I [10], we have merged the adaptive fuzzy
techniques into the design of SMC control and pro-
posed an indirect adaptive fuzzy sliding mode control
(IAFSMC). First, the SMC law was separated into two
parts: the equivalent control term ueq and the switch-
ing control term usw . Then two fuzzy systems were
used to approximate the system function in ueq and
the switching control term, respectively. An on-line
parameter adaptation law was designed to make the
system output track the desired input asymptotically.
Moreover, the chattering phenomenon was alleviated
due to the utilisation of fuzzy system in the design of
SMC.
The objective of this part is to show that the error
dynamics of Lyapunov synthesis is similar to the slid-
ing surface of SMC. We compare and evaluate the role
and performance of sliding surface, boundary layer
and Lyapunov synthesis. Finally, the indirect adaptive
fuzzy sliding mode control (IAFSMC) is equipped
with state boundedness and supervisory controller and
parameter projection. This part is written in a way that
can be read independently from the Brst part.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows.
Section 2 gives a brief description of sliding
model control. Section 3 presents the SMC, fuzzy
SMC [4,5,13], Lyapunov synthesis [11,12] and indi-
rect adaptive fuzzy sliding mode control (IAFSMC)
algorithm [10]. The IAFSMC equipped with state
boundedness and parameter projection [3,11] is de-
rived in Section 4. Computer simulation results are
illustrated in Section 5. Section 6 concludes the
paper.
2. A brief introduction to sliding mode control and
fuzzy systems
2.1. Sliding mode control
Utkin [9] presented a readable introduction to SMC.
DeCarlo et al. [1] and Hung et al. [2] gave a detailed
discussion on this subject. In the last decade, there
has been much work on fuzzy sliding mode control
(SMC) approaches. SMC has excellent robustness
properties with regard to parametric uncertainty. Con-
sider a nonlinear system governed by the diHerential
equation
xn = f(x; ẋ; : : : ; x(n−1) ) + g(x; ẋ; : : : ; x(n−1) )u + d(t);
(1)
where x ∈ Rn is the output of the system, u ∈ R is
the control, x = (x; ẋ; : : : ; x(n−1) )T is the state vec-
tor that is assumed to be observable, and f and
g are unknown nonlinear functions and d(t) is
the time-dependent disturbances with known up-
per bounds. We assume that g¿0; and |d(t)|6D
[3,11].
If the state trajectory e has reached the sliding
surface s = 0; the system trajectory remains on it
while sliding into the origin e = 0; independent of
model uncertainties, unmodeled frequencies and
disturbances.
The control objective is to determine a feed-
back control u = u(x) such that the state x of
the closed-loop system will follow the desired
state xd = (xd ; ẋd ; : : : ; xd(n−1) )T , that is, the tracking
error
e = xd − x = (e; ė; : : : ; e(n−1) )T (2)
should converge to zero.
Then a sliding surface in the space of the error state
can be deBned as
s(x; t) = − (k1 e + k2 ė + · · · + kn−1 e(n−2) + e(n−1) )
= − kT · e; (3)
where the coeKcients k1 ; k2 ; : : : ; kn−1 are the co-
eKcients of a Hurwitzian polynomial (n−1) +
kn−1 (n−2) + · · · + k1 . If initial error e(0) = 0, the
tracking problem can be considered as the state error
vector e remaining on the sliding surface s for all
t¿0.
The process of sliding mode control can be
divided into two phases, that is, the approach-
ing phase with s(x; t) = 0 and the sliding phase
with s(x; t) = 0. A suKcient condition to guar-
antee that the trajectory of the error vector e
will translate from approaching phase to slid-
ing phase is to select the control strategy such
that
1 d 2
s 6 − |s|: (4)
2 dt
 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43 33

Let where, " = (y1 ; : : : ; yl )T , !(x) = (!1 (x); : : : ; !l (x))T ;

n
ṡ = − (k1 ė + k2 eL + · · · + kn−1 e(n−1) ) + xdn − x(n) i=1 Aj (xi )
j
n−1
! (x) = l n i : (10)

i=1 Aj (xi )
=− ki e(i) + xd(n) − x(n) j=1 i

i=1
n−1

3. Fuzzy SMC, Lyapunov synthesis and fuzzy
=− ki e(i) − f(x; t) − g(x; t)u(t) − d(t) + xd(n) :
SMC with fuzzy switching
i=1
(5)
The concepts of fuzzy SMC (Fig. 1a), Lyapunov
Since f and d are unknown, we can select the control synthesis (Fig. 1b) and fuzzy SMC with fuzzy switch-
law as ing (Fig. 1c) are similar. They apply FS to approxi-
 n−1 mate the system dynamics and use a stable Hurwitzian
1
polynomial as reference dynamics. The idea of fuzzy
uI = ˆ t)
ki e(i) − f(x;
ĝ(x; t) SMC is to use (crisp) switching around the sliding
i=1
 surface to reduce the eHect of disturbances. Lyapunov
synthesis does not specially address the eHect of
− (D +  ) sgn(s) + xd(n) ; (6)
disturbance in its design. Fuzzy SMC with fuzzy
switching, which provides a smooth transition be-
where D +  ¿¿0: tween diHerent level of disturbance around sliding
It is obvious that in order to obtain the sliding mode surface, uses a fuzzy system to approximate the crisp
control law, the system function f(x; ˆ t); ĝ(x; t) and switching to avoid chattering and steady state error.
switching parameter (D +  ) have to be determined In the following sections, we summarise the proce-
in advance. dures for the three approaches (for details please refer
to the corresponding references) and discuss the dif-
2.2. Basic fuzzy systems ferent performance of these switching methods with
respect to disturbances in the design.
A fuzzy system is a collection of fuzzy IF–THEN
rules of the form:
3.1. Design steps of fuzzy SMC
R( j) : IF x1 is Aj1 and : : : and xn is Ajn
In fuzzy SMC [4,11], an FS is used to approximate
THEN y is Bj : (7) f and g in (6) and use (crisp) switching around the
By using the strategy of singleton fuzziBcation, prod- sliding surface (Fig. 2a).
uct inference and center-average defuzziBcation, the Without loss of generality, the design steps for the
output of the fuzzy system case can be carried out as follows:
l j
n
j=1 y ( i=1 Aji (xi )) 3.1.1. O7-line pre-processing and initial controller
y(x) = l n ; (8) construction
j=1 i=1 Aj (xi )
i A1.1. Specify the k1 ; : : : ; kn−1 such that (n−1 +
where (xi ) is the membership function of lin- kn−1 n−2 + · · · + k1 ) is a Hurwitzian polyno-
Aji
guistic variable xi , and y j is the point in R at mial, i.e., the roots of n−1 + kn−1 n−2 + · · · +
which Bj achieves its maximum value (assume that k1 = 0 are in the left-half-plane.
i A2. Specify the learning coeKcients r1 and r2 .
Bj (y ) = 1).
By introducing the concept of fuzzy basic function A3.1. DeBne mi fuzzy sets Ai for linguistic variable
vector !(x), (8) can be rewritten as xi whose membership functions Ai uniformly
cover the corresponding universe of discourse,
y(x) = "T !(x); (9) where i = 1; 2; : : : ; n:
34 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43

Fig. 1. Switching of SMC. (a) Sliding condition in two-dimensional planes. (b) Sliding condition of chatting and boundary layer.
(c) Sliding condition of fuzzy switching.

ˆ
A4.1. Construct the fuzzy rule bases of f(x|"f ) and 3.2. Lyapunov synthesis
ĝ(x|"g ) consist of rules:
In Lyapunov synthesis approach (indirect ap-
Rfj : IF x1 is Aj1 and : : : and xn is Anj proach [11,12]), the aim is to minimize a Lyapunov
function V
ˆ
THEN f(x|" j
f ) is F ; (11)  
1 T 1 1
V= e Pe + ’Tf ’f + ’Tg ’g (17)
Rgj : IF x1 is Aj1 and : : : and xn is Anj 2 r1 r2

THEN ĝ(x|"g ) is G j ; (12) by using FS to approximate fˆ and ĝ in (6) and de-

sign the adaptation law (Fig. 2b). In Eq. (17), ’f ; ’g
where j = 1; : : : ; l1 × l2 × · · · × ln , l = 1; : : : ; n. are the diHerences between the estimated and the opti-
A5.1. Construct the fuzzy systems mal fuzzy parameters for f and g, respectively, P the
positive deBnite matrix of (20). The Lyapunov syn-
ˆ
f(x|" T
f ) = "f !(x) (13) thesis approach is similar to the fuzzy SMC without
the sliding mode switching term. The control law is
and
 n 
1

ĝ(x|"g ) = "gT !(x); (14) uI = (i) ˆ t) + x
ki e − f(x; (n)
: (18)
d
ĝ(x; t)
i=1
where !(x) are expressed as (10).
3.3. Design steps of Lyapunov synthesis

3.1.2. On-line adaptation 3.3.1. O7-line preprocessing and initial controller

B1. Apply the feedback control (6) to the nonlinear construction
ˆ
system, f(x|"f ) and ĝ(x|"g ) are given by (13) A1.2. Specify the k1 ; : : : ; kn such that (n + kn n−1 +
and (14). · · · + k1 ) is a Hurwitzian polynomial.
B2. A2, A3.1, A4.1, A5.1 same as 3.1.
A6. After substituting (1) and (6) with some ma-
"˙f = − r1 s!(x); (15) nipulation, we obtain the closed-loop dynamics
of the fuzzy control system as
"˙g = − r2 s!(x)u: (16)
ˆ
e(n) = f(x|" ∗
f ) − f(x|t)
Use the adaptive laws (15) and (16) to adjust the
parameters "f and "g , respectively. + (ĝ(x|"g∗ ) − g(x|t))uI ; (19)
 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43 35
 
0 1 0 0 ::: 0 0
 0 0 1 0 ::: 0 0 
 
(= : : : 0 ::: 0 ::: ::: :::  ;
 0 0 0 0 ::: 0 1 
− kn − kn−1 ::: ::: ::: : : : − k1
 
0
:::
b= 
 0 ;
 (20)
g
then the dynamics equation (19) can be rewrit-
ten into the vector form
ˆ
ė = (e + b {[ f(x|" ∗
f ) − f(x|t)]

+ [ ĝ(x|"g∗ ) − g(x|t)]uI };

(T P + P( = − Q: (21)
Select Q and solve P for (21), where Q is a
positive deBnite matrix.

3.3.2. On-line adaptation

B1. Apply the feedback control (17) to the nonlinear
system
B2.
"˙f = − r1 eT Pb!(x); (22)

"˙g = − r2 eT Pb!(x)uI : (23)

Use the adaptive laws (22) and (23) to adjust the
parameters "f and "g , respectively.

3.4. Fuzzy SMC with fuzzy switching

The idea of fuzzy switching in Part I [10] is the

same as fuzzy SMC with using an FS to approxi-
mate the (crisp) switching to reduce the steady error
(Fig. 2c).
The control law is
 n−1 
1

uI = (i) ˆ t) − ĥ(s; t) + x
ki e − f(x; (n)
:
d
ĝ(x; t)
i=1
(24)
Design steps of fuzzy SMC with fuzzy switching:

Fig. 2. (a) Fuzzy SMC. (b) Lyapunov synthesis indirect adaptive 3.4.1. O7-line pre-processing and initial controller
fuzzy control system. (c) Indirect adaptive FSMC (IAFSMC). construction
A1.1, A2, A3.1, A4.1, A5 are same as 3.1.
36 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43

A3.1. DeBne fuzzy sets Ci for linguistic variable s Summary of control laws
whose membership functions ci uniformly Fuzzy SMC
cover the corresponding universe of discourse,  n−1
where i = 1; 2; : : : ; n: 1

uI = ˆ t)
ki e(i) − f(x;
A4.2. Construct the fuzzy rule bases of ĥ(s|"h ) which ĝ(x; t)
consist of rules: i=1 
−(D +  ) sgn(s) + xd(n) (6)
Rj : IF s is C THEN ĥ(s|"h ) is H j ; (25) Lyapunov Synthesis
 n−1 
1

uI = (i) ˆ (n)
ki e − f(x; t) + xd (18)
where j = 1; : : : ; n: ĝ(x; t)
i=1
A5.2. Construct the fuzzy systems
Fuzzy SMC with fuzzy switching
 n−1 
ĥ(s|"h ) = "hT +(s); (26) 1

uI = ˆ t) − ĥ(s; t) + x(n)
ki e(i) − f(x; d
ĝ(x; t)
i=1
where +(x) are expressed as (10). (24)

3.5. Switching: boundary layer and fuzzy switching

3.4.2. On-line adaptation
B1. Apply the feedback control (24) to the nonlinear 3.5.1. Boundary layer [7,2,11]
system The sliding control law (6) is discontinuous across
B2. the sliding surface s(t) and leads to chattering
(Fig. 1b). Chattering is undesirable because it
"˙h = − r3 s+(s) (27) involves high control activity and may excite high-
frequency dynamics. A thin boundary layer neigh-
bouring the sliding surface:
Use the adaptive laws (15), (16) and (27) to ad-
just the parameters "f , "g and "h , respectively. B(t) = {x: |s(x; t)|6,} (28)

Summary of adaptation of parameters which makes the control changes continuously within
this boundary layer and will lead to smoothing out of
the chattering (Fig. 1b).
Fuzzy SMC SpeciBcally, we change the control law (6) to
"˙f = − r1 s!(x), (15) n−1


u= ˆ t) + x(n) − (D +  ) sat(s=,);
ki e(i) − f(x;
"˙g = − r2 s!(x)uI (16) d
i=1
Lyapunov Synthesis (29)
"˙f = − r1 eT Pb!(x), (22) where the saturation function sat(s=,) is deBned as

"˙g = − r2 eT Pb!(x)uI (23)  −1 if s=,6−1;
Fuzzy SMC with fuzzy switching sat(s=,) = s=, if −1¡s=,61; (30)

1 if s=,¿1:
"˙f = − r1 s!(x), (15)
3.5.2. Fuzzy switching and its initialization
"˙g = − r2 s!(x)uI , (16)
Wang et al. in Part I [10], proposed a soft (fuzzy,
"˙h = − r3 s+(s) (27) ĥ(s|"h )) switching, to replace the crisp switching
 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43 37

sgn(s) to avoid chattering, to replace boundary layer
sat(s=,) to reduce the steady state error. ĥ(s|"h ) can
be regarded as a series of BL which linked nonlinear
smoothly with FS (Fig. 1c). The initialization of the
switching term can be selected to be boundary layer
which is a linear switching and continue to update
the switching term ĥ(s|"h ) to reduce the steady-state
error.
4. Supervisory control for states boundedness
In this section, we propose a fuzzy SMC with
state bounded supervisory controller and parameter
projection.
4.1. Supervisory controller
The key in this approach is to design an ap-
pended second-level supervisory nonfuzzy controller
to guarantee stability in a supervisory fashion [11,12]
(Fig. 3). The state x is uniformly bounded, that is
|x(t)|6Mx , ∀t¿0, where Mx is a constant given
by the designer. The switching term I ∗ is nonzero
only when the state x hits the boundary of the
constraint set {x: |x|6 Mx }; that is, the control
now is
where the indicator function I ∗ = 1 if |x|¿Mx and
I ∗ = 0 if |x|¡Mx . Therefore, the main control action
is still the fuzzy controller uI (x). The indicator func-
tion I ∗ can also be replaced by a saturation function
similar to (30).
Theorem 1. Consider the control problem of the non-
linear system (1). If control (31) is applied (where
us will be determined later on); f; g; and h are given
by (13); (14); (26); and the parameters vector "f ; "g
and "h are adjusted by the following adaptive laws
(15); (16); (27): Then the closed-loop system signals
will be bounded and the tracking error will converge
to zero asymptotically.
Assumption 1. We can determine functions fU (x);
gU (x); gL (x) and hU (x) such that |f(x)|6fU (x);
0¡gL (x)6|g(x)|6gU (x) and |h(x)|6hU (x) for all
x ∈ Rn .
Proof. DeBne the optimal parameters of fuzzy
systems:
 
∗
"f = arg min minn |f̂(x|"f ) − f(x; t)| ; (32)
"f ∈2f x∈R
 
"g∗ = arg min minn |ĝ(x|"g ) − g(x; t)| ; (33)
"g ∈2 g x∈R

u = uI (x) + I ∗ us (x); (31)  

"h∗ = arg min minn |ĥ(x|"h ) − usw | ; (34)
"h ∈2 h x∈R

where 2f ; 2g and 2h are constraint sets for "f ; "g

and "h , respectively. Meanwhile, deBne the minimum
approximation error

! = f̂(x|"f∗ ) − f(x|t) + (ĝ(x|"g∗ ) − g(x|t)) uI

+ ĥ(x|"h∗ ) − h(x|t): (35)
Then, we have
n−1


ṡ = − ki ei − x(n) + xd(n)
i=1
n−1


=− ki ei − f(x|t) − g(x|t) u(t) − d(t) + xd(n)
i=1
n−1


Fig. 3. Figure IAFSMC with parameter boundedness supervisory =− ki ei − f(x|t) + f̂(x|"f )
controller and parameter projection.
i=1
38 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43

− (g(x|t) + ĝ(x|"g ))uI (t) + ! The time derivative of V is

n−1

1 T 1 1
+ ki ei − xd(n) − ĥ(s|"k ) − d(t) V̇e = sṡ + ’ ’˙ + ’T ’˙ + ’T ’˙
r1 f f r2 g g r3 h h
i=1
= s(’fT !(x) + ’gT !(x) u + ’Th +(s) − d(t) + !
+ xd(n) − g(x|"f∗ )us
1 T 1 1
= f̂(x|"f ) − f(x|"f∗ ) + (ĝ(x|"g ) − g(x|"g∗ ))u(t) − ĥ − gus ) + ’f ’˙f + ’gT ’˙g + ’Th ’˙ h
r1 r2 r3
+ ĥ(s|"h∗ ) − ĥ(s|"h ) − d(t) + ! − ĥ(s|"h∗ ) 1 T
= s’fT !(x) + ’ ’˙ + s’gT !(x) u
r1 f f
− g(x|"g∗ ) us
1 1
= ’fT !(x) + ’gT !(x) + ’Tk +(s) − d(t) + ! + ’gT ’˙g + s’Th +(s) + ’Th ’˙ h
r2 r3
− ĥ(s|"h∗ ) − g(x|"g∗ )us ; (36) + s(− d(t) − ĥ) + s! − sgus
1 1
where ’f = "f − "f∗ ; ’g = "g − "g∗ ; ’h = "h − "h∗ . 6 s’fT !(x) + ’fT ’˙f + s’gT !(x) u + ’Tg ’˙ g
r1 r2
Now consider a Lyapunov function candidate
1
+ s’Th +(s) + ’Th ’˙ h − s(D +  ) sgn(s)
  r3
1 21 T 1 T 1 T
Ve = s + ’f ’f + ’g ’g + ’h ’h ; − sd(t) + s! + sgus
2 r1 r2 r3
1 1
(37) 6 s’fT !(x) + ’fT ’˙f + s’gT !(x) u + ’gT ’˙g
r1 r2
 n−1 2 1
1 1
+ s’Th ’(s) + ’Th ’˙ h − s(D +  ) sgn(s)
V1 = (s2 ) = − ki e i
: (38) r3
2 2
i=0 − s|d(t)| + s! − sgus
1 1
Since e = xd − x = (e; ė; : : : ; e(n−1) )T and xd = ¡ ’fT (r1 s!(x) + ’˙f ) + ’gT (s!(x) u + ’˙g )
r1 r2
(xd ; ẋd ; : : : ; xd(n−1) )T are assumed to be bounded,
1
the boundedness of e implies the boundedness of + ’Th (s+(s) + ’˙ h ) + s! − |s| − sgus ; (41)
x = (x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xn )T . Thus, our task becomes to design r3
the us such that V1 6V2 is guaranteed, where V2 is where ’˙f = − "˙f ; ’˙g = − "˙g ; ’˙ h = − "˙h , which are the
a given constant determined from √ thebound for x. choices of (15), (16) and (25). Substitute (15), (16),
n−1
From (37) we have V1 = (1= 2) ( i=1 ki |ei |)¿ (27) into (41), then we have
√ n−1 n−1
(1= 2)( i=1 ki (||xi |−|xd(i) ||)¿(kmin =2)1=2 ( i=1 ||xi |
−|xd(i) ||), where kmin = min(k1 ; : : : ; k(n−1) ). Hence, V̇e ¡ s! − |s| − sgus ;
V1 6V2 is equivalent to |x|6|xd | + (2V2 =kmin ). So if V̇e ¡ −|s| + s! − sgus ;
we want |x| 6 Mx , where Mx is a constant, then we
can choose V̇e ¡ − |s| + s(f̂(x|"f∗ ) − f(x|t) + (ĝ(x|"g∗ )

 n−1 2 − g(x|t)) uI + ĥ(x|"h∗ ) − h(x|t) − gus : (42)

kmin

V2 = Mxi − sup |xdi | ; (39) Based on fU ; gU ; gL and hU by observing (40), we
2 i¿0
i=1 choose the supervisory controller us as follows:
 
1 1 T 1 1 us = I ∗ sgn(s)[|f̂(x|"f ) + fU (x) + |ĝ(x|"g )uI |
VN = V2 + ’f ’f + ’gT ’g + ’Th ’h : (40)
2 r1 r2 r3 + |gU (x) uI | + |ĥ(x|"h∗ )| + |hU (x|t)|]=gL ; (43)

Since Ve ¿0, one way to guarantee Ve 6VN is to design where I ∗ = 1 if Ve ¿VN ; I ∗ = 0 if Ve ¡VN , and
the us such that V̇e ¡0 when Ve ¿VN . sgn(s) = 1(−1) if s¿0(¡0). Substituting (43) into
 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43 39

(42) we have that if Ve ¿VN , then

V̇e 6 −|s| + |s|[|f̂| + |f| + |ĝuI | + |guI |

+ |ĥ| + |h| − g=gL (|f̂| + |fU |

+ |ĝuI | + |gU uI | + |ĥ| + |hU |)]

6 −|s| ¡0; (44)

Fig. 4. Gradient projection method.
where we have assumed that e = 0 since this is nat-
ural under Ve ¿VN . Consequently, using control (24) see that ĝ = "gT ! must be nonzero. We now modify
with us given by (38), we can guarantee that Ve 6VN , the basic adaptation law (15), (16), (27) to guarantee
which, when VN is chosen according to (40), guaran- "f ∈ 2f ; "g ∈ 2g , and "h ∈ 2h .
tees |x|6Mx , for any given constant Mx . If the parameter is on the boundary of the con-
Because of the indicator function I ∗ ; us is nonzero straint set and moving outside of the constraint
only when Ve ¿VN , therefore us is a supervisory con- set, then project the gradient of the parameter onto
troller. That is, if the closed-loop system with the the supporting hyper-plane (see Fig. 4). The mod-
fuzzy controller uI of (24) is well behaved in the sense iBed adaptation law with projection is given as
that error is within the constraint set (that is, Ve 6VN follows:
or equivalently |x|6 Mx ), then the supervisory con- Adaptation law with projection:
troller us is idle. On the other hand, if the system tends • For "f , use
to be unstable (that is, Ve ¿VN ), then the supervisory 
controller takes action to force Ve 6VN . 
 − r1 s!(x)



4.2. Parameter boundedness by projection  if (|"f |¡Mf ) or

"˙f = (|"f | = Mf and s"fT !(x)¿0);


Using the basic adaptation law (15), (16), (27), we  P{− r1 s!(x)}



cannot guarantee that the parameters "f ; "g and "h are 
if (|"f |¡Mf and s"fT !(x)¿0);
bounded [3,11]. If "f diverges towards inBnity, then
the fuzzy system f̂(x|"f ) will steadily increase and where the projection operator P{∗ } is deBne as
result in an unbounded control uI ; this is clearly un-
P{− r1 s!(x)} = − r1 s!(x) + r1 s"fT "f !(x)=|"f |2 :
acceptable. Therefore, to develop a stable system we
must modify the adaptation law such that the param- (48)
eters are bounded.
In many practical problems, we may have some a • For "g , use
priori knowledge as to where "∗ is located in Rn . In- whenever an element "g of "g equals 4, use
tuitively, such a procedure may speed up convergence 
− r1 es!i (x) u; if s"gT !(x)¡0;
and reduce large transients that may occur when "(0) ˙
"g = (49)
is chosen to be far away from the unknown "∗ . 0 if s"gT !(x)¿0;
Let the constrain set 2f ; 2g and 2h for "f ; "g and
where !i (x) is the ith component of !(x). Other-
"h be deBned, respectively, as
wise, use
2f = {"f ∈ R|"f |6Mf }; (45) 

 − r2 s!(x)uI


2g = {"g ∈ R | 0¡46|"g |6Mg }; (46) 
 if (|"|¡Mg ) or

˙
"g = (|"g | = Mg and s"gT !(x)uI ¿0);
2h = {"h ∈ R|"h |6Mh }; (47) 

 P{− r2 s!i (x)uI }


where Mf ; 4; Mg are constants. We require |"g | to be 

bounded from below by 4¿0 because from (6) we if (|"g |¡Mg and s"gT !(x)¡0);
40 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43
where the projection operator P{∗ } is deBned as
P{− 62 s!(x)} = − r2 s!(x) + r2 s"gT "g !(x)=|"g |2 :
(50)
• For "h , use
 l(4=3 − m cos2 x1 =(mc + m))
 − r3 s!(x)



 if (|"f |¡Mh ) or

 l(4=3 − m cos2 x1 =(mc + m))
˙
"h = (|"h | = Mh and s"hT +(x)¿0);

 where x1 and x2 are the angular position and ve-

 P{− r3 s!(x)}

 locity of the pole. g = 9:8 ms−2 is the accelera-

if (|"h |¡Mh ) and s"hT +(x)¿0;
where the projection operator P{∗ } is deBned as
P{− r3 s!(x)} = − r3 s!(x) + r3 s"hT "h !(x)=|"h |2 ;
(51)
the following theorem shows that the modi-
Bed adaptation law (48) – (51) guarantees that
"f ∈ 2f ; "g ∈ 2g and "h ∈ 2h .
Theorem 2. Let the constraint sets 2f ; 2g and 2h
be de?ned in (48) – (51). If the initial values of the pa-
rameters satisfy "f (0) ∈ 2f ; "g (0) ∈ 2g and "h (0) ∈
2h ; then the adaptation law (46)– (49) guarantees
"f (t) ∈ 2f ; "g (t) ∈ 2g and "h (t) ∈ 2h for all t¿0.
Proof. To prove |"f |6Mf , let Vf = 12 "fT "f . If the con-
dition in the Brst line of (48) is true, we have either
|"f |¡Mf or Vf = − 62 s"fT !(x)60 when |"f | = Mf ;
hence, we have |"f |6Mf in this case. If the condition
in the second line of (48) is true, we have |"f | = Mf
and V̇f = − r1 s!(x) + r1 s["fT "f =|"f |2 ]!(x) = 0; hence,
|"f |6Mf in this case. Since the initial |"f (0)|6Mf ;
we have |"f (t)|6Mf for all t¿0.
Using the same method, we can prove that
|"g (t)|6Mg and |"h (t)|6Mh for all t¿0. To show
|"g |¿0, we see from (46) that if "gi = 4; then "gi ¿0;
hence, we always have "g ¿4 which guarantees
|"g |¿4.
5. Simulation results
Example 1 (Control of inverted pendulum). Consider
the benchmark control problem of inverted pendulum.
The dynamics of the system can be expressed as equa-
tions [11,12]
ẋ1 = x2 ;
g sin x1 − mlx22 cos x1 sin x1 =(mc + m)
ẋ2 =
cos x1 =(mc + m)
+ u; (52)
tion due to gravity, mc = 1 kg is the mass of cart,
m = 0:1 kg is the mass of pole, l = 0:5 m is the half-
length of pole, u is the applied force. The control
objective is to maintain the system states to track
the reference input xd (t) =
(sin(t))=30. Choose the
sampling period T = 0:01 s, and learning parame-
ters r1 = 50; r2 = 1; r3 = 10. DeBne the member-
ship functions for system states as N3 (x) = 1=(1 +
exp(5(x + 2))); N2 (x) = 1=(1 + exp(− (x + 1:5)2 );
2
N1 (x) = 1=(1 + exp(− (x + 0:5) ); P1 (x) = 1=(1 +
exp(− (x − 0:5) ); P2 (x) = 1=(1 + exp(− (x − 1:5)2 );
2
P3 (x) = 1=(1 + exp(−5(x − 2))); then there are,
respectively, 25 rules to approximate the system
functions f and g. DeBne three fuzzy sets for slid-
ing surface s = ė + 3e; N (s) = 1=(1 + exp(5(s +
3))); Z (s) = 1=(exp(−s2 ); P (s) = 1=(1 + exp(5(s +
3))). The IAFSMC control law is u(t) = − ( f̂ +
xL d + d − ĥ + k ė)= ĝ. The initial states are [−
=60; 0].
A random disturbance with 0 mean and 2 variance
is added to verify the robustness of control system.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the simulation results with random
disturbance by using the proposed IAFSMC with and
without the fuzzy switching term ĥ(s|"h ); respectively.
The results show that the addition of fuzzy switching
term improves the disturbance rejection performance.
IAFSMC with fuzzy switching term ĥ(s|"h ) gives bet-
ter transient response (lower overshoot) and steady
state error closer to the tracking path. The Lyapunov
Synthesis will give similar performance to Fig. 6.
Example 2. In this example, we consider the DuKng
forced-oscillation system [11,12]:
ẋ1 = x2 ; (53)
ẋ2 = − 0:1x2 − x13 + 12 cos(t) + u(t): (54)
 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43 41

Fig. 5. Closed-loop system state x(t) using the indirect adaptive fuzzy controller for the plant (52) using IAFSMC without fuzzy switching
term.

Fig. 6. Closed-loop system state x(t) using the direct adaptive fuzzy controller for plant (52) using IAFSMC with fuzzy switching term.
42 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43

Fig. 7. The trajectory of the chaotic system (53) and (54) in the (x1 ; x2 ) phase using IAFSMC without supervisory control.

Fig. 8. The trajectory of the chaotic system (53) and (54) in the (x1 ; x2 ) phase using IAFSMC with supervisory control.
 P.T. Chan et al. / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 31–43
If the control u(t) is equal to zero, the system is
chaotic. Choose T = 0:02 s, time period from t0 = 0
to tf = 60; choose r1 = 10; r3 = 1. The membership
functions for system states x1 ; x2 and sliding mode
are to deBne the six fuzzy sets N3, N2, N1, P1, P2,
and P3 over the interval [−3; 3] with membership
functions N3 (x) = 1=(1 + exp(5(x + 2))); N2 (x) =
1=(1+exp(− (x+1:5)2 )); N1 (x) = 1=(1+exp(− (x+
0:5)2 )); P1 (x) = 1=(1 + exp(− (x − 0:5)2 )); P2 (x) =
1=(1+exp(− (x−1:5)2 )); P3 (x) = 1=(1+exp(−5(x−
2))). There are a total of 36 fuzzy rules to approximate
the system function f(x), and 3 rules to approxi-
mate switching control term same as in Example 1.
The initial states are [2; 2]. In the phase plane, this ref-
erence trajectory is unit circle: xd + ẋd = 1. The closed-
loop trajectory without and with supervisory control
is shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The supervi-
sory controller forces the trajectory track within the
constraint boundary.
Remark. The performance of tracking can be im-
proved by choosing the reference dynamics at the ex-
pense of higher control eHort.
6. Conclusions
Sliding surface of SMC and error dynamics of
Lyapunov synthesis is to provide a reference dynam-
ics for the controlled system to follow. The crisp
switching (D + ) sgn(s) is used to reduce the dis-
turbance around sliding surface (resulting in chatter-
ing). Boundary Layer is used to avoid chattering for
the switching (resulted in steady-state error). Fuzzy
switching is to reduce steady-state error for bound-
ary error. State boundedness supervisory controller
is used to guarantee the boundedness of states of the
controlled system. Parameter projection is to avoid
the divergence of the parameter outside the constraint
parameter sets.
We have shown that a similarity exists between the
error dynamics of Lyapunov synthesis and the sliding
surface of SMC. We have compared and evaluated
the role and performance of sliding surface boundary
layer, state boundedness and parameter projection.
43
The fuzzy SMC with fuzzy switching has the com-
patible performance with Lyapunov synthesis method
without selecting Q and Bnding P in (21). The tech-
nology transfer between classical (e.g. SMC, Param-
eter projection) and soft computing (e.g. FS) can
cross-fertilize each other. The creative synthesis and
application of these complementary algorithms may
provide potential candidates for future challenges.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of
the Hong Kong Polytechnic University through the
grant G-V471.
References
[1] R.A. DeCarlo, S.H. Zak, G.O. Matthews, Variable structure
control of nonlinear multivariable systems: a tutorial,
Proceeding of the IEEE, Vol. 76, No. 3, March 1988, pp.
212–232.
[2] J.Y. Hung, W.B. Gao, J.C. Hung, Variable structure control:
a survey, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 40 (1) (1993) 2–22.
[3] P.A. Ioannou, J. Sun, Robust Adaptive Control, PTR
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1994.
[4] S.W. Kim, J.J. Lee, Design of a fuzzy controller with fuzzy
sliding surface, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 71 (1995) 359–367.
[5] R. Palm, D. Driankov, H. Hellendoorn, Model Based Fuzzy
Control: Fuzzy Gain Schedulers and Sliding Model Fuzzy
Control, Springer, Berlin, 1997.
[6] K.M. Passino, Fuzzy Control, Addison-Wesley, Monlo Park,
CA, 1998.
[7] J.J.E. Slotine, Sliding controller design for non-linear systems,
Internat. J. Control 38 (2) (1984) 465–492.
[8] J.J.E. Slotine, W.P. Li, Applied Non-Linear Control, PTR
Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliHs, NJ, 1991.
[9] V.I. Utkin, Variable structure systems with sliding modes,
IEEE Trans. Automat. Control AC-22 (2) (1977) 212–222.
[10] J. Wang, A.B. Rad, P.T. Chan, Indirect adaptive fuzzy sliding
model control — Part I: fuzzy switching, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 122 (2001) 21–30.
[11] L.X. Wang, A Course in Fuzzy Systems and Control,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
[12] L.X. Wang, Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control: Designing
and Stability Analysis, PTR Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliHs,
NJ, 1994.
[13] B. Yoo, W. Ham, Adaptive fuzzy sliding mode sliding mode
control of non-linear system, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 6
(2) (1998) 315–321.