energies

Article
Sliding Mode Control for Perturbed Nonlinear Systems with
State and Control Signal Constraints
Piotr Leśniewski * and Marek Jaskuła

Institute of Automatic Control, Łodź University of Technology, 18 Stefanowskiego St., 90-924 Łodź, Poland
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In this paper, the continuous nonlinear perturbed system is discussed. A sliding mode
controller was designed using the reaching law technique. The main goal was to satisfy the state
constraints in the form of linear combinations for the whole regulation process. We also took
into account the control signal limitation and did not require that the external disturbances fulfill
the matching conditions. Moreover, we aimed to ensure the fastest, monotonic, and finite-time
convergence of the representative point to the sliding hyperplane.

Keywords: nonlinear system; continuous-time system; control signal limitation; state variables
constraints; sliding mode control; reaching law technique

1. Introduction
In recent years, the popularity of the variable structure control approach has been
gradually increasing, both in the theoretical field as well as in practical applications [1–6].
The main reason is the intense research to find the method that will efficiently reject the
external disturbances and model uncertainties. This is one of the most important topics
in the control theory because unpredictable perturbations can cause a major reduction in
the system performance or even make it unstable. Among the most popular applications
of the sliding mode control one can find power converter and electric drive systems. The
Citation: Leśniewski, P.; Jaskuła, M.
reason for this is that the disadvantage of the “basic” sliding mode control paradigm, i.e.,
Sliding Mode Control for Perturbed
the discontinuous control signal is not an issue, as the control signal in those systems is
Nonlinear Systems with State and
naturally discontinuous (switching transistor on or off). However, for any other system,
Control Signal Constraints. Energies
2023, 16, 5481. https://doi.org/
this basic control method can be changed in various ways to produce a continuous signal.
10.3390/en16145481
One of the leading approaches to address this issue, in the area of variable structure
control, is the sliding mode [7–10]. This technique provides robustness to a wide class of
Academic Editor: Juan-José González external disturbances and model uncertainties, even if they do not satisfy the matching
de la Rosa
conditions. Moreover, the sliding mode control can be applied to both continuous-time
Received: 30 March 2023 and discrete-time systems, which is of great importance, since modern control processes
Revised: 27 April 2023 are commonly applied digitally. Moreover, sliding mode control usually requires a small
Accepted: 17 July 2023 computational effort.
Published: 19 July 2023 The roots of this strategy can be traced down to the early 1960s when Emelyanov [11]
made an interesting observation: switching between separately unstable systems may
result in a stable system. Later, Drazenowić in [12] stated and proved the theorem that the
sliding mode control is more the just robust—it can ensure the insensitivity to all external
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. disturbances. Since then, researchers have investigated this technique to adjust it to handle
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. many different control problems [13–16].
This article is an open access article
The main concept of the sliding mode control is to lead the system’s representative
distributed under the terms and
point to the predefined sliding hyperplane and then enforce the stable sliding motion along
conditions of the Creative Commons
it, until the moment when the desired state is settled. Thus, during the control process,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
we distinguish the reaching phase and the sliding phase. The significant improvement
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
of the sliding mode control design methodology was the introduction of the reaching
4.0/).

Energies 2023, 16, 5481. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16145481 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 5481 2 of 12

law approach. Instead of investigating the stability of the sliding motion by Lyapunov’s
theorem, the alternative way is to predefine the evolution of the sliding variable. This
variable, in some sense, reflects the distance between the state and the sliding hyperplane.
This approach greatly reduces the complexity of the controller design, since the existence
of a stable sliding mode results directly from the reaching law and thus does not need to be
demonstrated. Such a method was found to be very popular for both continuous-time and
discrete-time systems. Various authors have presented a wide range of reaching laws, to
claim the favorable system properties.
Nonetheless, in the literature, an insufficient emphasis has been placed on the problem
of constraining the state and, at the same time, ensuring fast convergence of the represen-
tative point to the sliding hyperplane [17–22]. In particular, there are few works on this
topic for nonlinear systems in which disturbances do not satisfy the matching conditions.
In [23], a second-order sliding mode controller for nonlinear systems was proposed. It
had some important advantages, as a second-order sliding mode inherently removed the
chattering. Unfortunately, only constraining the output of the system was considered, and
not all of the states. In [24], a sliding mode controller was proposed, and its validity was
demonstrated for a quadrotor system. Unfortunately, the authors took into account only
the limits of the control signal, not all the state variables. Moreover, the approach was
presented only for second-order systems. In [25], a sliding mode controller for attitude
control of a satellite was analyzed. It took into account the saturations of reaction wheels
and the maximum torques that could be exerted by them. Unfortunately, the approach
was developed specifically for this task, and it was not clear how it could be extended
to a general dynamical system. In [26], sliding mode control of a micropositioning piezo
stage was analyzed. In order to cope with constraints, such as the maximum input voltage,
the controller used the model predictive paradigm. The controller action was tested in
computer simulations as well as in experimental tests. A drawback of introducing the pre-
dictive part was that it increased the computational complexity. Moreover, this approach,
similarly to [25] was developed for a specific task, and it was not evident how it could be
generalized; furthermore, only control signal constraints were taken into account. In [27],
the authors proposed an adaptive sliding mode controller for a linear motor positioner. The
approach was based on the barrier function, which enabled variation of the control effort,
as the disturbance magnitude varied. The results were verified analytically as well as in
real laboratory tests. Unfortunately, the results were obtained for a particular second-order
system, and it was not entirely clear how they could be generalized. In [28], authors also
used the adaptive control approach to obtain fault tolerant control of Euler–Lagrange sys-
tems. Unfortunately, even for a relatively simple example of a two-link manipulator, there
seemed to be many parameters to tune, and the authors did not present any clear guidelines
on their selection. In [29], a sliding mode controller for trajectory control of Permanent
Magnet Synchronous Machines was developed. One of the interesting aspects was the
use of iterative feedback tuning, which allowed them to take into account the results of
a single task and fine-tune the parameters to obtain better performance when this task
was repeated.
In this paper, we demonstrate the technique to limit the linear combinations of the
state variables and also restrict the control input. What is more, we guarantee the fast,
monotonic, and finite-time convergence of the sliding variable to zero. We also present the
a priori sufficient condition that determines if the mentioned system properties are assured
for the whole regulation period, even if the external disturbances are the most unfavor-
able. Another advantage of our control strategy is that it does not need any additional
parameter tuning.
This paper is organized in the following way. Section 2 introduces the considered
system dynamics, the proposed reaching law, and the preliminary controller design. Then,
in Section 3, the details about the sliding variable convergence rates are considered. These
rates address the issue of fulfilling the enforced constraints. Section 4 proposes the general
control strategy and presents the sufficient condition for monotonic, finite-time conver-
Energies 2023, 16, 5481 3 of 12

gence of the representative point to the sliding hyperplane without violating the imposed
restrictions. Section 5, demonstrates the simulation results while Section 6 concludes
the paper.

2. Materials and Methods

In this paper, we take into consideration the class of disturbed, nonlinear plants.
Therefore, the system dynamic can be described in the state space as

ẋ(t) = f(x(t)) + g(x(t))u(t) + d(t), (1)

where x(t) is a n × 1 dimensional state vector, f, g are nonlinear functions that process the
state into the same dimensional output, u(t) is a scalar control input and d(t) denotes the
unknown but bounded, external perturbations: |di (t)| < Di for i ∈ {1, . . . , n}. For the sake
of clarity, we define D = [ D1 , . . . , Dn ] T . Subsequently, the sliding hyperplane is selected as

cT x(t) = 0, (2)

where cT = [c1 , . . . , cn ]. The distance between the representative point and the sliding
hyperplane will be reflected by the sliding variable s(t) = cT x(t). Let us note that vector c
has to satisfy cT g(x) 6= 0. Otherwise, the control input would not have a direct impact on
the sliding variable.
Predetermining the evolution of the sliding variable comes with many benefits, such
as simplicity in controller design or significant insight into the reaching phase. Thus, we
consider the following, simple reaching law:

ṡ(t) = −Ksgn[s(t)] + cT d(t), (3)

where K determines the controller impact on the sliding variable. In the above equation, as
well as in the remainder of the paper, “sgn” denotes the sign function; it is equal to one
for positive arguments, −1 for negative, and is equal to zero when its argument is zero. In
the upcoming section, we will adjust this convergence rate in such a manner to match all
requirements that were mentioned in the introduction.
Let us notice that the introduced reaching law is not free from external disturbances.
If this was not true, the unknown disturbances would appear in the control signal, making
it unfeasible. Another important observation is that the convergence range K should
exceed the most extreme impact of the perturbations. Otherwise, we would not be able
to guarantee the monotonic and finite-time convergence of the sliding variable to zero.
Precisely, the convergence rate needs to be designed so that the condition

−sgn[s(t)]ṡ(t) ≥ λ > 0 (4)

is fulfilled up to the moment when the sliding hyperplane is reached. The above inequality
is equivalent to
K − cT d(t)sgn[s(t)] ≥ λ > 0, (5)
which is more descriptive in terms of the convergence rate. We can further simplify this,
without the loss of generality, by introducing

Dmax = |c1 | D1 + . . . |cn−1 | Dn−1 + |cn | Dn , (6)

so the final requirement is

K − Dmax ≥ λ > 0. (7)
Subsequently, the controller design is performed by taking into account (1) and (2). As a
result we obtain
h i −1 n o
u(t) = − cT g(x(t)) cT f(x(t)) + Ksgn[s(t)] . (8)
Energies 2023, 16, 5481 4 of 12

Once again, let us observe that the uncertain terms are not present in the formula for the con-
trol signal, even though the external disturbances occur in the reaching law. Another benefit
of predefining the evolution of the sliding variable is that we can approximate the duration
of the reaching phase. The only uncertainty will be caused by the unknown perturbations.

3. State and Control Input Restriction

In this section we will design the convergence rates Ku , Kαi , i ∈ {1, . . . , m}, where
m denotes the number of state restrictions. These convergence rates correspond to the
control signal constraint and the linear combinations of the state variable constraints:
αi (x) = αi1 x1 + · · · + αin xn , αij ∈ <. We presume that the constraints result in a compact region.
The general approach used in this paper is similar to the one already applied in [30].
However, there are some significant improvements. First of all, in this paper, we consider
a nonlinear system that extends the applicability of the results. Moreover, we introduce
a method that, by taking into account the initial state, can extend the range of systems
for which the proposed approach guarantees satisfying the constraints. Thirdly, the input
vector, by which the control signal is multiplied, is allowed to vary with the state, which
also extends the results.
To clarify the upcoming formulas, we introduce αie = [αi1 , . . . , αin ]. First of all, let us
explicitly specify the admissible set:

X0 = {x ∈ <n : ∀i∈{1,...,m} αi (x) ≤ ri , |cT x| ≤ |cT x0 |}, (9)

where x0 = x(0) is the initial state. As one can observe, the form (9) allows to constrain any
linear combinations of the state. Moreover, those constraints do not need to be symmetric
with respect to the origin. As the controller ensures convergence to the sliding hyperplane,
only the part of the admissible region, which is “closer” to the sliding hyperplane (namely
for which |cT x| ≤ |cT x0 |) than the initial state needs to be considered. Nonetheless, if the
initial state is unidentified, then the form of the admissible set is

X = {x ∈ <n : ∀i∈{1,...,m} αi (x) ≤ ri }. (10)

Next, we consider the state variable constraints αi (x) ≤ ri . The idea is to ensure
α̇i (x) ≤ 0 (which is equivalent to αi (ẋ) ≤ 0), when αi (x) = ri . Then, the restriction will not
be violated. To reach this goal, let us rewrite this condition using (1). As a result, we obtain
h i −1
0 ≥ αie f(x(t)) + αi (d) − αie g(x(t)) cT g(x(t)) {cT f(x(t)) + Ksgn[s(t)]}. (11)

To improve clarity, we introduce the maximal possible disturbance that acts in the direction
of the considered linear combination:

Dαi = [|αi1 |, . . . , |αin |]D. (12)

The inequality (11)describes the condition that the convergence rate must satisfy, in order
not to violate the i-th constraint. Thus, we can obtain from it the maximum convergence
rate (assuming the “worst” possible disturbance values) that will be used when the state
slides along the i-th constraint. As K is a general symbol for the convergence rate, we
mark this new convergence rate as Kαi ; it will be used only when the state lies on the
i-th constraint.

Kαi = −sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)) + sgn[s(t)]cT g(x(t))[αie g(x(t))]−1 [αie f(x(t)) + Dαi ]. (13)
Energies 2023, 16, 5481 5 of 12

Let us notice that we need to require αie g(x(t)) 6= 0. Else, the control input would not have
a direct impact in the direction of the respective linear combination of state variables. What
is more, let us observe from (11) that when
h i
sgn αie g(x(t))cT g(x(t))s(t) = −1 (14)

and αi (x) = ri , then diminishing the convergence rate K below Kαi will not cause exceeding
the respective limitation. However, in such case, raising the convergence rate above (13)
may cause the respective constraint violation—it depends on the impact of the perturba-
tions. Whereas if (14) is not satisfied, then we can increase the convergence rate up the
level corresponding to the control signal constraint. Thus, we denote Kαi = Kα−i if (14) is
satisfied and Kαi = Kα+i otherwise. We can observe, that if we substitute (13) to the formula
for the control signal, we obtain u(t) = −[αie g(x(t))]−1 [αie f(x(t)) + Dαi ]. In our notation,
u(t) corresponds to the control signal that will actually be generated by the controller. We
additionally introduce Ui (t), which is the control signal that would be used in order to
“slide” along the i-th constraint so as not to violate it. This allows us to write the following
equations in a more compact and readable form. Thus, we denote the direct control input
in the situation when Kαi is used:

Ui (t) = −[αie g(x(t))]−1 [αie f(x(t)) + Dαi ]. (15)

As a consequence, we can rewrite (13) in a more meaningful and clear form

Kαi = −sgn[s(t)]cT g(x(t))Ui (t) − sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)). (16)

Lastly, let us design the convergence rate Ku connected with the control signal restric-
tion |u(t)| ≤ ru . Let us point out, that our approach could take into account non-symmetric
bounds on the control signal. In every case considered below, one would then have to
split the state space into two regions: one where a positive control signal is generated
and one where a negative one is used. Then one would need to demonstrate the validity
of the theorems presented in the next section separately for those two regions. We have
chosen not to do this in the presented paper, as in our view, it would make the derivations
significantly harder to follow. Using the formula for the control signal, we rewrite the
limitation to obtain
h i −1 n o
−ru ≤ − cT g(x(t)) cT f(x(t)) + Ksgn[s(t)] ≤ ru . (17)

As the sign of the sliding variable is constant and non-zero in the reaching phase, we derive
the biggest
Ku = cT g(x(t)) ru − sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)) (18)

and the smallest

Kminu = − cT g(x(t)) ru − sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)) (19)
 T 
 T using(18) we have u(t) = −sgn c g(x(t)) ru
convergence rates that satisfy (17). Hence,
whereas using (19) we have u(t) = sgn c g(x(t)) ru .

4. Sufficient Condition and Control Strategy

In this section, we will present the regulation strategy that determines how to choose
the convergence in each possible case. Moreover, we will formulate sufficient conditions
for the monotonic and finite-time convergence of the representative point to the sliding
hyperplane, at the same time maintaining the state and control input constraints. It will
be divided into four theorems for readability reasons so that each of them will clearly
determine its purpose.
Energies 2023, 16, 5481 6 of 12

First of all, the control signal limitation must be sufficient to overcome the perturbation
and guarantee that the sliding variable will gradually decrease to zero. This condition can
be written in the following way:

Ku − Dmax ≥ λ > 0. (20)

The above inequality needs to be true up to the moment when the sliding motion begins.

Theorem 1. To fulfill inequality (20) it is sufficient to satisfy

−1 n o
ru ≥ cT g(x(t)) sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)) + Dmax + λ , (21)

for x(t) in the admissible set.

Proof. The inequality (21) can be directly obtained by substituting (18) to (20) and then
dividing both sides by cT g(x(t)) .

Since any (21) results in satisfying Kminu ≤ 0, thus any positive convergence rate will
not be too small to violate the control signal constraint.
Secondly, we must ensure the analogous condition for the state constraint. However, if
Kαi = Kα+i , then the convergence rate can be increased; we just need to enforce the condition
in the case when Kαi = Kα−i . Therefore, we only require

Kα−i − Dmax ≥ λ > 0, (22)

for i ∈ {1, . . . , m}.

Theorem 2. To fulfill inequality (22) it is sufficient to satisfy

−1 n o
sgn[αie g(x(t))]Ui (t) ≥ cT g(x(t)) sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)) + Dmax + λ , (23)

for i ∈ {1, . . . , m}, when Kαi = Kα−i , αi (x) = ri and x(t) belonging to the admissible set.

Proof. After substituting (16) into (22), subtracting from both sides the λ and then dividing
both sides by cT g(x(t)) we obtain
h i −1 n o
−sgn cT g(x(t))s(t) Ui (t) − cT g(x(t)) sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)) + Dmax + λ ≥ 0. (24)

Now, taking into account that (14) is true we have −sgn cT g(x(t))s(t) = sgn[αie g(x(t))].
 

Therefore, we obtain (23).

Even though a similar condition to the (22) for Kα+i is not required, we must guarantee
that the allowed control signal value range enables us to implement Kα+i when it is needed.
As a consequence, we must satisfy
Ku ≥ Kα+i . (25)

Theorem 3. To fulfill inequality (25) it is sufficient to satisfy

sgn[αie g(x(t))]Ui (t) + ru ≥ 0, (26)

for i ∈ {1, . . . , m}, when Kαi = Kα+i , αi (x) = ri and x(t) belonging to the admissible set.

Proof. Let us begin with multiplying both sides of the above inequality by cT g(x(t)) .
Then, we subtract from both sides the expression sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)). As a consequence
we obtain
Energies 2023, 16, 5481 7 of 12

cT g(x(t)) ru − sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)) ≥ − cT g(x(t)) sgn[αie g(x(t))]Ui (t) − sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)). (27)

 for Ku . To transform
We can notice that the left-hand side of the inequality is the formula  the
right hand side to Kα+i we observe that since Kαi = Kα+i , then sgn αieg(x(t))cT g(x(t))s(t) = 1.
From this we have that sgn[αieg(x(t))] = sgn cT g(x(t))s(t) . Hence, the right-hand side is
 

equal to Kα+i , which ends the proof.

Up to this point, we guaranteed that Kαi , Ku are large enough to overcome the perturba-
tion and that the control signal limitation will not contradict the particular state limitation.
Now, we need to ensure that two different state constraints will not contradict each other.
To obtain this goal, we must consider the case only on the intersection of i-th and j-th state
limitation. Therefore, we need to satisfy

Kα−i ≥ Kα+j , (28)

or else at least one of the constraints will be exceeded.

Theorem 4. To fulfill inequality (28) it is sufficient to satisfy

 
sgn[αie g(x(t))]Ui (t) + sgn α je g(x(t)) Uj (t) ≥ 0, (29)

for i, j ∈ {1, . . . , m}, i 6= j, when αi (x) = ri , α j (x) = r j and x(t) belonging to the admissible set.

Proof. First of all, let us notice that if Kαi = Kα−i , Kα j = Kα+j , then sgn[αie g(x(t))] =
−sgn cT g(x(t))s(t) as well as sgn α je g(x(t)) = sgn cT g(x(t))s(t) . Therefore, we
     

can write
h i h i
−sgn cT g(x(t))s(t) Ui (t) ≥ −sgn cT g(x(t))s(t) Uj (t). (30)

Secondly, we need to multiply both sides by cT g(x(t)) and then subtract from both sides
sgn[s(t)]cT f(x(t)). As a result, we obtain (28).

As we mentioned at the beginning of this section, we have to design the regulation

strategy that will determine which convergence rate should be selected in each case. Let us
remember that our purpose is to obtain the fastest, monotonic, and finite-time convergence
of the sliding variable to zero, simultaneously limiting the control input and the state
variables. Therefore, if we can, we should select Ku , and if is not possible, then choose the
biggest possible convergence rate allowed—so only a respective Kα−i , because if K = Kα+i ,
then we can rise the rate up to Ku .

Control Strategy
1. If the representative point belongs to the interior of the admissible set or to its bound-
ary/boundaries for which (14) is not satisfied, then we choose K = Ku .
2. Otherwise, K = min{Ku , Kα−i , Kα−i , . . . , Kα−i }, for those Kα−j for which α j (x) = r j .
1 2 l
3. After the sliding hyperplane is reached, K should be chosen big enough to overcome
the extreme impact of the external disturbances on the sliding variable K ≥ Dmax .
Another benefit of the above regulation strategy is that the designer will be assured in
advance that the constraints will hold for the whole control process.
Nevertheless, the presented strategy may result in a chattering effect even during
the reaching phase. This undesirable effect can be caused by fast switching between
two different convergence rates. Let us explain in detail the reasons for that. When the
boundary of the admissible region is reached, for which K = Kα−i , the convergence rate Kα−i
is selected. However, this convergence rate is designed with a safe margin, so as to handle
Energies 2023, 16, 5481 8 of 12

even the extreme impact of the disturbance. As the extreme impact is rarely probable to
occur, this will drive the representative point back into the interior of the admissible set.
As a consequence, the convergence rate Ku will be selected, and the state will reach the
constraint again. This repeating process will be reflected in chattering. To prevent this
from happening, we can implement a smooth transition between Ku and Kα−i . This can be
α (x)+ε−r r − α (x)
obtained for instance, by implementing the convex combination: i ε i
Kα−i + i εi Ku ,
if αi (x) ≥ ri − ε. The neighborhood width ε is arbitrary, but it should be narrow. Moreover,
if αi (x) ≥ ri − ε is true for many limitations, we should consider only the one for which Kα−i
is the smallest.

5. Results
For the purpose of illustrating the theoretical results, we performed computer simula-
tions of the system (1) with

sgn[x2 (t)]|x2 (t)|1.5

   
0.1
f(x(t)) =  x3 (t) , g(x(t)) =  1 + |x1 (t)| ,
sin(x1 (t)) 2 + 0.1 sin(x2 (t))

h i
cT = 5(−1)b10tc
 
1 0.5 3 , d( t ) = 10 sin(10t) 2 sin(20t) .

Therefore, the biggest impact of the external disturbances in the direction of the sliding
hyperplane is Dmax = 36. Moreover, the sliding hyperplane was designed so that the
sliding motion is assured and cT g(x(t)) 6= 0.
Our goal was to drive the representative point from the initial state x(0) = [70, −2, 5] T
to [0, 0, 0] T and satisfy the following limitations from the very beginning of the control
process: −70 ≤ x1 (t) ≤ 70, −10 ≤ x2 (t) ≤ 10, −8 ≤ −1.5x2 (t) + x3 (t) ≤ 8 and
−150 ≤ u(t) ≤ 150. Thus, α1e = [1, 0, 0], α2e = [−1, 0, 0], α3e = [0, 1, 0], α4e = [0, −1, 0],
α5e = [0, −1.5, 1], α6e = [0, 1.5, −1] and r1 = r2 = 70, r3 = r4 = 10, r5 = r6 = 8, ru = 150.
Moreover, we required that the sliding hyperplane would be reached monotonically and
in finite time. The initial state was chosen on the boundary of the admissible set (on the
intersection of two different constraints) to demonstrate the properties of our regulation
strategy. We could observe that the sufficient condition, presented in the previous sec-
tion, was fulfilled. In order to remove the chattering effect during the sliding phase, the
convergence rate K was reduced in a small vicinity of the sliding hyperplane, using the
saturation function.
Figure 1 presents the sliding variable. As we can see, the sliding hyperplane is reached
monotonically and in finite time. Then, the quasi-sliding motion was preserved for the
purpose of avoiding the chattering effect. This can be verified in Figure 2, where the
control signal is illustrated and is achieved by replacing the sign function with a saturation
function in the vicinity of the sliding hyperplane. Moreover, from Figure 2, we can see
that the maximal possible value is used just for a brief period of time (for one millisecond).
It is a consequence of rapidly driving the representative point onto the state constraint,
for which (14) is satisfied. This can be seen in Figure 3, where the evolution of state
combination −1.5x2 (t) + x3 (t) is depicted. We can observe that the state combination
swiftly decreases from its maximal possible value. The reason for that is the use of the
maximal possible control signal, which was described above, and the fact that (14) is false
for this constraint. Then, the motion similar to quasi-sliding motion is obtained along the
limitation −1.5x2 (t) + x3 (t) = −8. This is a result of the smooth transition between the
convergence rates. The benefit of this approach is removing the chattering effect. Next,
Figure 4 presents the first state variable. Due to the fact that (14) is true for i = 2, the Ku
is implemented. Thus, the representative point leaves the constraint x1 (t) = −70. Lastly,
Figure 5 depicts the evolution of the second state variable. In the beginning, the second
Energies 2023, 16, 5481 9 of 12

state variable value increases from −2 to approximately 9 and then remains in the interval
[10, −2], so the second state variable limitation holds for the whole regulation time.

Figure 1. Sliding Variable.

Figure 2. Control Signal.

Figure 3. State Combination.

Energies 2023, 16, 5481 10 of 12

Figure 4. First State Variable.

Figure 5. Second State Variable.

6. Discussion
In this paper, the issue of constraining the state variables and the control signal in
the sliding mode control was discussed. The nonlinear continuous system, impacted by
external disturbances that did not need to fulfill the matching conditions, was analyzed.
The sliding mode controller was designed using the reaching law approach. After that,
the method for choosing a proper convergence rate in each case was demonstrated. As a
result, we established a method to obtain fast, monotonic, and finite-time convergence of
the sliding variable to zero. The sufficient condition that guarantees imposed properties
was then stated and formally proved. What is more, the simulation results illustrated the
benefits of the proposed technique. Our next aim is to enhance the control strategy by
taking into account the nonlinear constraints and time-varying parameter uncertainties.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization , P.L.; Methodology, P.L. and M.J.; Validation, M.J. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2023, 16, 5481 11 of 12

References
1. Jedda, O.; Douik, A. Optimal discrete-time sliding mode control for nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of the 15th International
Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices, Hammamet, Tunisia, 19–22 March 2018; pp.1369–1373.
2. Keleher, P.; Stonier, R. Sliding mode control of a PR manipulator at physical constraint boundaries. In Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Marina Mandarin, Singapore, 2–5 December 2002;
pp. 833–838.
3. Schreibeis, J.; Wulff,K.; Reger, J.; Moreno, J. Lyapunov-stability for the sliding-mode control of a turbocharger subject to
state constraints. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Beijing, China,
29 October–1 November 2017; pp. 4068–4073.
4. Wu, Q.; Wang, C.; Li, A.; Huang, B. Integral sliding mode controller design for near space vehicle with input constraints.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Chinese Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Nanjing, China, 12–14 August 2016;
pp. 187–191.
5. Zhang, K.; Yang, S. Fast convergent nonsingular terminal sliding mode guidance law with impact angle constraint. In Proceedings
of the 37th Chinese Control Conference, Wuhan, China, 25–27 July 2018; pp. 2964–2968.
6. Zhou, M.; Zhou, J.; Guo, Z. Finite-time sliding mode based terminal area guidance with multiple constraints. In Proceed-
ings of the 3rd International Conference on Control and Robotics Engineering (ICCRE), Nagoya, Japan, 20 April 2018;
pp. 60–64.
7. Bartoszewicz, A.; Nowacka-Leverton, A. SMC without the reaching phase—The switching plane design for the third order
system. Proc. IET Part D Control Theory Appl. 2007, 1, 1461–1470. [CrossRef]
8. Bartoszewicz, A.; Leśniewski, P. Reaching law approach to the sliding mode control of periodic review inventory systems. IEEE
Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2014, 11, 810–817. [CrossRef]
9. Janardhanan, S.; Bandyopadhyay, B. Output feedback sliding-mode control for uncertain systems using fast output sampling
technique. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2006, 53, 1677–1682. [CrossRef]
10. Junejo, K.; Xu, W.; Ismail, M.; Liu, Y. Adaptive Speed Control of PMSM Drive System Based A New Sliding-Mode Reaching Law.
IEEE Trans. Pow. Electron. 2020, 35, 2110–12121. [CrossRef]
11. Emelyanov, S. Variable Structure Control Systems; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1967.
12. Draženović, B. The invariance conditions in variable structure systems. Automatica 1969, 5, 287–295. [CrossRef]
13. DeCarlo, R.; Żak, S.; Mathews, G. Variable structure control of nonlinear multivariable systems: A tutorial. Proc. IEEE 1988,
76, 212–232. [CrossRef]
14. Milosavljević, C̆. General conditions for the existence of a quasisliding mode on the switching hyperplane in discrete variable
structure systems. Autom. Remote Control 1985, 46, 307–314.
15. Utkin, V.; Drakunow, S. On discrete-time sliding mode control. IFAC Conf. Nonlinear Control 1989, 22, 484–489.
16. Bartoszewicz, A. Discrete-time quasi-sliding-mode control strategies. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 1998, 45, 633–637.
[CrossRef]
17. Gao, W.; Hung, J. Variable structure control of nonlinear systems: A new approach. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 1993, 40, 45–55.
18. Zhou, J.; Liu, Z.; Pei, R. Sliding mode model predictive control with terminal constraints. In Proceedings of the 3rd World
Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, Hefei, China, 28 June–2 July 2000; pp. 2791–2795.
19. Innocenti, M.; Falorni, M. State constrained sliding mode controllers. In Proceedings of the 1998 American Control Conference
(ACC), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 26–26 June 1998; pp. 104–108.
20. Dinuzzo, F. A second order sliding mode controller with polygonal constraints. In Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control (CDC) Held Jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference, Shanghai, China, 15–18 December 2009;
pp. 6715–6719.
21. Bartoszewicz, A. A new reaching law for sliding mode control of continuous time systems with constraints. Trans. Inst. Meas.
Control 2015, 37, 515–521. [CrossRef]
22. Haroon, F.; Aamir, M.; Waqar, A. Second-Order Rotating Sliding Mode Control with Composite Reaching Law for Two Level
Single Phase Voltage Source Inverters. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 60177–60188. [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, L.; Ding, S.; Ma, L.; Pan, T. SOSM Controller Design for Output Constrained Systems Subject to Disturbances with
Unknown Magnitudes. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. 2022, 69, 3799–3803. [CrossRef]
24. Liu, K.; Wang, R. Antisaturation Adaptive Fixed-Time Sliding Mode Controller Design to Achieve Faster Convergence Rate and
Its Application. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. 2022, 69, 3555–3559. [CrossRef]
25. Mancini, M.; Capello, E. Reaching Law-Based SMC for Spacecraft Applications with Actuators Constraints. IEEE Control Syst.
Lett. 2022, 6, 2036–2041. [CrossRef]
26. Kang, S.; Wu, H.; Yang, X.; Yao, J.; Chen, B.; Lu, H. Discrete-Time Predictive Sliding Mode Control for a Constrained Parallel
Micropositioning Piezostage. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 2022, 52, 3025–3036. [CrossRef]
27. Shao, K.; Zheng, J.; Wang, H.; Wang, X.; Lu, R.; Man, Z. Tracking Control of a Linear Motor Positioner Based on Barrier Function
Adaptive Sliding Mode. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat. 2021, 17, 7479–7488. [CrossRef]
28. Shao, K.; Tang, R.; Xu, F.; Wang, X.; Zheng, J. Adaptive sliding mode control for uncertain Euler–Lagrange systems with input
saturation. J. Frankl. Inst. 2021, 358, 8356–8376. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 5481 12 of 12

29. He, C.; Li, S.; Shao, K.; Meng, W.; Zhao, H. Robust Iterative Feedback Tuning Control of a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor
with Repetitive Constraints: A Udwadia–Kalaba Approach. J. Vib. Eng. Tech. 2021, 10, 83–94. [CrossRef]
30. Jaskuła, M.; Leśniewski, P. Constraining State Variables and Control Signal via Sliding Mode Control Approach. IEEE Access 2020,
8, 111475–111481. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.