energies

Review
Robust Speed Control of PMSM Using Sliding Mode
Control (SMC)—A Review
Fardila Mohd Zaihidee 1,2 , Saad Mekhilef 1,3, * and Marizan Mubin 4
1 Power Electronics and Renewable Energy Research Laboratory (PEARL), Department of Electrical
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia;
farrmz@yahoo.com
2 Faculty of Technical and Vocational, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim 35900, Perak, Malaysia
3 Center of Research Excellence in Renewable Energy and Power Systems, King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
4 Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603,
Malaysia; marizan@um.edu.my
* Correspondence: saad@um.edu.my; Tel.: +6-037-967-6851




Received: 22 November 2018; Accepted: 18 January 2019; Published: 1 May 2019


Abstract: Permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) are known as highly efficient motors
and are slowly replacing induction motors in diverse industries. PMSM systems are nonlinear
and consist of time-varying parameters with high-order complex dynamics. High performance
applications of PMSMs require their speed controllers to provide a fast response, precise tracking,
small overshoot and strong disturbance rejection ability. Sliding mode control (SMC) is well known as
a robust control method for systems with parameter variations and external disturbances. This paper
investigates the current status of implementation of sliding mode control speed control of PMSMs.
Our aim is to highlight various designs of sliding surface and composite controller designs with
SMC implementation, which purpose is to improve controller’s robustness and/or to reduce SMC
chattering. SMC enhancement using fractional order sliding surface design is elaborated and verified
by simulation results presented. Remarkable features as well as disadvantages of previous works are
summarized. Ideas on possible future works are also discussed, which emphasize on current gaps in
this area of research.

Keywords: permanent magnet synchronous motor; sliding mode control; motion control; fractional
order; sliding surface; composite controller

1. Introduction
Permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMSMs) are widely used in low- to mid-power
applications and high performance drives, e.g., robotics, electric vehicles and machine tools. They are
preferred over brush-type motors and are gradually replacing induction motors in various fields of
application due to their advantages such as compact structures, high air-gap flux density, high power
density, high torque to inertia ratio, and high efficiency. However, PMSM systems are nonlinear and
consist of time-varying parameters with high-order complex dynamics [1,2].
In recent years, field oriented control (FOC) of PMSMs has been a focus for many researchers.
This technique simplifies the motor modeling, hence resulting in a simplified controller design. The
stator current is decoupled into torque and flux producing components to allow independent control
of both parameters as in DC motors [3]. FOC is used to achieve smooth starting, good acceleration
and fast four-quadrant operation [4,5]. Compared to the direct torque control (DTC) method, the
FOC approach results in lower torque and current ripple [6,7]. The FOC approach is the focused in
this review.

Energies 2019, 12, 1669; doi:10.3390/en12091669 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 1669 2 of 27

For speed regulation of PMSMs, control structures usually employ cascaded control loops, which
consist of an outer speed control loop and two inner current loops. The advantages of cascaded control
architecture lie in better disturbance resistance ability and better set point response performance.
In the speed-current cascaded control structure, the relationship between the speed output and the
reference quadrature axis current are usually described by a first-order model. However, considering
the possibility that the closed-loop performance might degrade due to vanishing relative differences in
control periods between both loops, second-order model relationships were also proposed [8]. For high
speed applications of PMSMs, integrated speed and current controllers were used to solve the problem
of nonlinear coupling between speed and current [9].
High performance PMSM applications require their speed controllers to provide a fast response,
precise tracking, small overshoot and strong disturbance rejection ability. Linear control algorithms,
e.g., PI controllers, have been widely used for speed control of PMSMs, but the performance was
unsatisfactory in terms of tracking ability and robustness [10]. Various nonlinear control methods
have been proposed to enhance the speed control performance of PMSMs in different aspects. These
methods include sliding mode control [1,4,8,11,12], predictive control [13,14], backstepping control [15],
adaptive control [15–19], H∞ control [20], automatic disturbance rejection control [21] and artificial
intelligence incorporated controllers [12,22].
Sliding mode control (SMC) is a class of variable structure system (VSS). Its theory was originated
in the late 1950s in the former USSR by Prof. V. I. Utkin and Prof. S. V. Emelyanov [23,24]. The key
idea of SMC is to reduce the complexity of high order systems to first order state variables, namely
the sliding function and its derivative [25]. Sliding mode control is well known as a robust control
method, which can guarantee excellent tracking although the system is exposed to internal parameter
variations and external disturbances. Other than that, remarkable features of SMC are its high accuracy
and simplicity. SMC has been successfully implemented in many fields [26–32] and applied to many
other machine types other than PMSMs, e.g., induction motors [26,33–35], linear variable reluctance
motors [36] and brushless DC motors [37,38]. SMC is applied to PMSMs directly for speed control,
position control and efficiency as well as indirectly for observer design. This literature focuses on the
application of SMC for speed control of PMSMs.
Challenges in SMC design are to ensure convergence of system state to sliding surface, to ensure
control target achieved on sliding surface (i.e., error converge to zero, ensure robustness), to minimize
reaching phase and to reduce chattering during sliding mode. Several sliding surface designs have
been introduced for speed control of PMSM.
Lyapunov stability analysis is widely used to analyse the stability of the developed SMC controllers,
where the stable convergence property is proven and evaluated. Several Lyapunov functions were
chosen by researchers to be employed in the analysis, but typically the function in Equation (1) is
chosen [4,39] with the conditions given in Equation (2). Reaching condition is satisfied when the
condition in Equation (3) is met:
V (t) = (1/2)s2 (t) (1)

V (0) = 0 and V (t) > 0 for s(t) , 0 (2)

. .
V (t) = s(t)s(t) < 0 (3)

The main disadvantage of SMC methods is the chattering phenomenon they produce and high
frequency switching near the sliding surface caused by the discontinuous control law in SMC design
and from parasitic dynamics interactions [1,4,40]. Chattering can affect the system in terms of reducing
control accuracy, resulting in high heat losses in electrical power circuits and high wear of moving
mechanical parts [41].
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 elaborates on various methods proposed by previous
researchers to enhance SMC for PMSM speed control. The effectiveness of SMC enhancement using
fractional order sliding surface design is verified through simulation results in Section 3. Discussion
and conclusion are presented in Sections 4 and 5, respectively.
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 3 of 27

2. Sliding Mode Controller Enhancement in PMSM Speed Control

Chattering phenomena in sliding mode control are said to be the main obstacle for SMC to
become one of the significant discoveries in modern control theory [40]. Researchers have proposed
various methods to overcome this issue, whereby in doing so, the controller’s performance in terms
of disturbance rejection properties and/or tracking was also affected, either in an advantageous or
deteriorative way. Conversely, the proposed controller enhancement methods also determine the
resulting chattering phenomena.

2.1. Sliding Surface Design Modification

New sliding surface designs have been proposed in many previous works in order to enhance the
performance of SMC instead of using the conventional linear sliding surface. Linear sliding surface as
in Equation (4) guarantees sliding mode asymptotic stability with convergence rate depending on the
value of c [11]. The remarkable advantage of this design is its simplicity. However, the performance of
conventional linear sliding surfaces is proven to be less satisfactory in terms of convergence rate and
settling time [1,42]. The dynamic response of a closed loop system can be improved by using nonlinear
sliding surfaces. For PMSM speed control, several works have been executed using linear SMC, but
the drawbacks of linear SMC were overcame by means of hybridization to develop a composite SMC
controller [8,43,44] or modification of the reaching law [11].

s = cx1 + x2 , c > 0 (4)

2.1.1. Integer Order Integral SMC

In conventional sliding mode control, the robustness of the system against parameters variation
and external disturbances is achieved in the sliding phase. Prior to that, i.e., during the reaching
phase, the robustness is not guaranteed. Integral sliding mode control (ISMC) (Equation (5)) was
introduced by Utkin and Jingxin [45] to overcome this problem by eliminating the reaching phase,
therefore, sliding phase is enforced throughout the entire system response. Furthermore, the order of
motion equation in integral SMC is not reduced by the control input dimension, but equal to the order
of the original system. The control law consists of a continuous nominal control and discontinuous
control, which is responsible for the performance of the nominal system without perturbations and
for rejecting perturbations respectively. Hence, with this type of SMC, system robustness can be
guaranteed from the initial time. In addition, smaller maximum control magnitude is required for
ISMC than conventional SMC since the value is usually bigger during the reaching phase [46,47].
Z t
s = e(t) − (a + bK) e(τ)dτ (5)
0

In PMSM speed control, constructing a conventional sliding surface requires both speed and
acceleration signals. However, acceleration signals are usually immeasurable and difficult to accurately
estimate due to noise and parameter uncertainties. Integral sliding mode solves this issue and avoids
degradation of the system closed loop performance [48]. As far as speed control of PMSM is concerned,
ISMC has proven to result in better speed response compared to conventional PI in terms of overshoot,
response time and steady-state error. In their simulation, Song and Jia [49] proved a smaller speed drop
by 87.5% under load disturbance when using ISMC, compared to a PI controller. Similarly, an improved
speed drop by almost 29% was observed in experiment executed by Zaky [50]. However, a better
result of 4% speed drop was obtained when using a tuned ISMC, concluding that good robustness is
only ensured when ISMC gain is carefully tuned. The drawback of ISMC is the difficulty of parameter
tuning of its gain, which is required to ensure good balance between disturbance rejection property of
the controller and the chattering phenomenon. This drawback was overcome using various techniques
such as using linear varying gain and extended state observer [48] or using gain tuning methods [50].
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 4 of 27

2.1.2. Fractional Order SMC

Another nonlinear sliding surface design method is the fractional order sliding surface, which
utilizes fractional calculus in constructing its sliding surface. Fractional calculus emerged theoretically
over 300 years ago, but in recent decades it has been applied practically in a wide range of science
and engineering disciplines [51]. It is a generalization of the traditional integer order integration
and differentiation to the non-integer order. Fractional order terms have the property of attenuating
old data and storing new data, hence they are more stable or at least as stable as their integer order
counterparts [4,52]. Fractional calculus has been extensively integrated with classical PID control theory
to come out with fractional PID controllers indicated as PIλ Dµ [53–55]. Other fractional order controller
includes fractional adaptive controllers [56,57], fractional order compensators [58–61], fractional order
sliding mode observer [62] and fractional order sliding mode control (FOSMC) [62–65].
Various hybrid FOSMC methods have been implemented in nonlinear systems. Delavari, et al. [64]
compared the performance of their genetic-based Fuzzy FOSMC with integer order SMC in their
simulation study. It was proven that the proposed FOSMC resulted in faster tracking response,
improved tracking performance, smoother control action, minimized chattering, minimized root
mean square errors, robust against model parameter uncertainties and is appropriate for practical
application for nonlinear systems with parameter variations. Zhang, et al. [4] have experimentally
implemented FOSMC with fuzzy logic tuning for speed control of PMSM. The extra degree of freedom
of integral and differential operators can improve the controller’s performance further compared to
traditional integer order SMC (IOSMC). Theoretically, fractional order sliding surfaces experience
slower energy transfer during switching, hence resulting in smaller chattering compared to integer
order sliding surfaces which decay towards zero exponentially (Figure 1). Experimentally, FOSMC
has been proven to achieve better control performance with smaller chattering and robust against
external load disturbance and parameter variations compared to IOSMC. Similar simulation result
was obtained by Huang, et al. [5]. The superior performance of FOSMC for applications in induction
motors was elaborated and compared with a few other SMC controllers in Sun, et al. [66].

s = kp e(t) + 0 Drt e(t)

(6)
kp > 0; Dr ( · )
0 t
is fractional order integral with 0 < r < 1
Energies 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 28

Figure 1. Comparison
Figure 1. Comparison of
of energy
energy transfer
transfer during
during sliding
sliding motion
motion of
of FOSMC
FOSMC (blue
(blue line)
line) and
and IOSMC
IOSMC
(black line) [4].
(black line) [4].

2.1.3. Terminal SMC

Terminal sliding mode (TSM) control utilizes terminal sliding surfaces in which fractional power
is introduced to ensure fast and finite-time states convergence during the sliding mode phase. Near
the equilibrium point, rate of convergence will speed up which makes this controller preferred for
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 5 of 27

Taking advantage of both integral SMC and fractional order integral, composite integral SMC
was developed for position control of PMSM. The feedforward compensation part that consists of a
fractional integral term in the control law ensures timely generation of control output during start-up or
load disturbance by eliminating the integral saturation effect without having to increase the switching
gain. In addition to the ability to suppress disturbance, the additional term also weakens the chattering
phenomenon during sliding mode [52]. Implementation of similar composite controller for speed
control of PMSM would also result in a robust, chattering-free system. Implementations of FOSMC in
PMSM speed control need to consider the proper selection of the order, which lies between 0 and 1,
proper determination of the frequency band for fractional order operator approximation and selection
of either fractional integration, fractional differentiation or both as a sliding surface design method.

2.1.3. Terminal SMC

Terminal sliding mode (TSM) control utilizes terminal sliding surfaces in which fractional power
is introduced to ensure fast and finite-time states convergence during the sliding mode phase. Near the
equilibrium point, rate of convergence will speed up which makes this controller preferred for high
precision control. The drawback of conventional terminal SMC Equation (7) is its singularity problem
that might occur if the initial conditions are not carefully selected, due to the recursive structure of
switching manifolds [1,67,68]. Singularity in TSM was overcame by using two-phase control strategy
by inducing the system state into a non-singular region, prior to finite time convergence control [69].
In [70], non-singularity was ensured by switching between TSM and linear hyperplane based sliding
mode. However, as the boundary decreases to zero, the singularity effect is not fully eliminated.
Furthermore, when the boundary is relatively large, the advantage of TSM is diminished [67].
q
s = x2 + βx1 p
β > 0; p, q are positive odd integers, (7)
p>q

Non-singular terminal sliding mode controller (NTSM, Equation (8)) was proposed to completely
eliminate the singularity problem of conventional terminal sliding mode control and applied to robot
manipulators [30,67,71] and other systems [28,72]. Mu and He [73] proposed two new definitions
and theorems to specifically characterize the dynamic behavior of TSM and NTSM for nonlinear
systems. NTSM was applied for PMSM speed control and resulted in shorter settling time, better
anti-disturbance ability, smaller tracking error and smaller chattering compared to conventional
SMC [1,74,75]. However, controller enhancement still involves setting the switching gain at higher
value as per in SMC. Hence, large chattering cannot be avoided due to discontinuity term in order to
improve the controller performance. Another drawback lies in providing good convergence especially
when the system state is far from equilibrium [42]. Furthermore, improper parameter selection of
NTSM can affect its convergence rate when its performance approaches that of linear SMC [76]. Several
works aimed to overcome these drawbacks using composite NTSM controllers [77,78] as well as
proposing a design principle of controller variables based on homogeneity analysis [77].
p
1 q
s = x1 + β x2
β > 0; p, q are positive odd integers, (8)
p
1< q <2

Another type of terminal sliding mode controller proposed in the literature is the non-singular
fast terminal sliding mode (NFTSM) controller Equation (9). NFTSM retains the advantages of NTSM
but with a faster state convergence. Near equilibrium, the convergence rate of linear sliding mode
remains constant while the convergence rate of NFTSM grows exponentially [76]. NFTSM has been
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 6 of 27

applied for various control applications [79–84] and has shown not only faster convergence, but also
stronger robustness, higher precision and lower chattering compared to conventional SMC.
q
p
s = x2 + αx1 + βx1
α, β > 0; p, q > 0 (odd numbers); (9)
p>q

NFTSM implemented for speed control of PMSM has proven that singularity problem of TSM is
successfully avoided and faster convergence is obtained [85]. Thorough research on application of
NFTSM for PMSM speed control is still unavailable. However, for position control of PMSM, NFTSM
was used to reduce the chattering phenomenon and provide better position tracking and convergence
rate compared to a PD controller [42]. Similar result is expected if NFTSM is applied for PMSM speed
control. This style of numbering is only for equations and none are given

2.2. Higher Order SMC

Higher order sliding mode control (HOSMC) was first introduced by Levant [86]. In first order
SMC, the selected sliding surface has a relative degree one with respect to the control input. The control
input acts on the first derivative of the sliding surface. In higher order SMC, the control input acts on
higher derivatives of the sliding surface. A sliding mode is defined as n-th order sliding mode when
Equation (10) is satisfied [39]. The n-th derivative is predominantly supposed to be discontinuous or
nonexistent [87]. The sliding order characterizes the system dynamics in the vicinity of the sliding
mode in terms of degree of smoothness [88]. In literatures, various sliding surface types were used in
designing their HOSMC. Reset numbering
.
s(t) = s(t) = · · · = s(n−1) (t) = 0 (10)

When compared to first order SMC, HOSMC provides smoother control, better performance
in terms of switching delays in control implementation, eliminates the requirement of derivative
information for the control and is better in chattering effects suppression while still preserving the main
advantages of the conventional SMC approach in terms of robustness and easiness of implementation [86,
89,90]. On the other hand, the challenge in HOSMC lies in the usage of differentiators, where
their practical behavior requires particular care in real implementation due to measurement noise.
The deteriorative effects on overall closed loop performance increase dramatically with the number of
differentiation stages [91].
For second order SMC (SOSMC), the main idea is not only to have the sliding surface at zero
but also its first order derivative. Its control acts on the first derivative of the sliding surface. Second
order sliding mode satisfies Equation (11). Different algorithms were proposed in literature to ensure
SOSMC finite time convergence to zero such as suboptimal [92], twisting, super-twisting [93,94], drift
and algorithm with a prescribed law of variation of s [88]. Robustness issues of second order SMC,
e.g., influences of measurement noise and unmodelled fast actuator dynamics, have been described in
details by Levant and Fridman [95] and Bartolini, et al. [91].
.
s(t) = s(t) = 0 (11)

Second order SMC has been implemented in many systems [96–101] and for many machine types,
e.g., DC motors [39,93,102], PMSM [103], induction motors [104] and induction generators [105,106].
For speed control of PMSM, SOSMC resulted in smaller output deviations, smaller convergence time
of up to 66% and smaller chattering in comparison with first order SMC [94,107,108]. Chattering
reduction property of SOSMC has been detailed by Bartolini, et al. [109]. Chattering analysis approach
for systems with second order sliding mode control has been proposed by Boiko, et al. [110], where it
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 7 of 27

can be applied to perform an in depth analysis of chattering for better comparison between SOSMC
and first order SMC.

2.3. Reaching Law Method

The reaching law method aims to eliminate the chattering caused by non-ideal reaching at the end
of the reaching phase. In sliding mode control, reaching law is the differential equation that specifies
the dynamics of a switching function. Several types of reaching law proposed in the literature are
constant rate, constant plus proportional rate, power rate, etc., where each has its own merits and
demerits [111]. Conventionally, a constant rate signum function is used as reaching law. The boundary
layer method is a common approach to alleviate chattering, where a smooth approximation is used to
replace the sign function when the state trajectories lie within a certain boundary layer of the switching
surface e.g., using saturation function [64] or hyperbolic tangent function [39]. However, this method
sacrifices the system’s anti-disturbance performance [1,40] and causes steady-state error depending on
boundary layer selection [99].
A novel exponential reaching law was proposed by Ke, et al. [9] for PMSM speed control. Absolute
value of system state variable was incorporated in conventional exponential reaching law, so that the
speed of convergence depends on how far the state variable is from the sliding surface. When sliding
surface is reached, trajectory will become stable and allow the chattering phenomenon to be suppressed
during sliding phase. However, the robustness of the controller is reduced and reaching time increases
as the state approaches the sliding surface [11].
Chattering can also be minimized by decreasing the switching gain, but then the controller’s
reaching time will be jeopardized. To find a balance between these two parameters in different phases
of SMC, Xiaoguang, et al. [11] proposed a novel reaching law that still uses the typical signum function
as reaching law, but with a modified gain. Instead of a constant gain, the proposed gain adapts to
sliding mode surface and system states variations. In the early stage of the reaching phase, a higher
gain expedites the reaching time. As the system trajectory approaches the sliding surface, the gain
will gradually decrease to zero in order to suppress chattering. The width of sliding mode band
decreases as the system state decreases until it reaches an equilibrium point, hence effectively limiting
the chattering effect of the SMC (Figure 2). Under disturbance-free conditions, chattering suppression
of more than 50% was recorded. Moreover, the convergence rate of the proposed SMC can be improved
by about 90%. For a similar purpose, Zhang, et al. [112] eliminated the usage of the signum function
in the reaching law and incorporated a terminal attractor term. However, chattering reduction was
not clearly quantitatively documented and compared. A modified gain sliding surface was proposed
by Jamoussi, et al. [113] for application in induction motors and their experimental results show a
significant reduction in chattering.
Energies 2019,12,
Energies2019, 11,1669
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of
of 27
28

(a) (b)
Figure 2.2. Sliding
Figure Sliding mode
mode band
band of
of (a) conventional
conventional reaching
reaching law
law and (b) novel reaching law [11].
Reproducedwith
Reproduced withpermission
permissionfrom
fromXiaoguang
Xiaoguanget
etal.,
al.,Nonlinear
Nonlinearspeed
speedcontrol
controlfor
forPMSM
PMSM system
system using
using
sliding mode
sliding mode control
control and
and disturbance
disturbance compensation
compensation techniques;
techniques; published
published by
by IEEE
IEEE Transactions
Transactions on
on
Power Electronics,
Power Electronics,2013.
2013.

2.4. Disturbance Compensation

2.4. Disturbance Compensation
In standard sliding mode control theory, disturbances can be rejected completely when the selected
In standard sliding mode control theory, disturbances can be rejected completely when the
switching gain is larger than the upper bound of disturbances. However, in practical applications, the
selected switching gain is larger than the upper bound of disturbances. However, in practical
upper bound of disturbances is hard to obtain. Hence, a high value of the switching gain is normally
applications, the upper bound of disturbances is hard to obtain. Hence, a high value of the switching
chosen to ensure disturbance rejection, which case will result in unwanted large chattering [8]. Several
gain is normally chosen to ensure disturbance rejection, which case will result in unwanted large
methods have been proposed to deal with this issue. An adaptive algorithm was incorporated to SMC
chattering [8]. Several methods have been proposed to deal with this issue. An adaptive algorithm
for position control of PMSM in order to estimate the bound of disturbances and reduce the control
was incorporated to SMC for position control of PMSM in order to estimate the bound of disturbances
effort [114]. However, the aforementioned proposed solution suffers from chattering problems [8].
and reduce the control effort [114]. However, the aforementioned proposed solution suffers from
Another proposal was by using a boundary layer method [115], which unfortunately sacrifices the
chattering problems [8]. Another proposal was by using a boundary layer method [115], which
disturbance rejection properties of the SMC to some extent.
unfortunately sacrifices the disturbance rejection properties of the SMC to some extent.
In addition to the conventional feedback part, a feed-forward compensation part is introduced
In addition to the conventional feedback part, a feed-forward compensation part is introduced
into the controller to improve the disturbance rejection performance of a system. The compensation
into the controller to improve the disturbance rejection performance of a system. The compensation
part needs to be estimated, since direct measurement of the disturbances in PMSM applications is
part needs to be estimated, since direct measurement of the disturbances in PMSM applications is
usually impossible. The estimated disturbance can be conventionally fed to the controller but fast
usually impossible. The estimated disturbance can be conventionally fed to the controller but fast
suppression is not guaranteed. Moreover, in cases of severe disturbances, the system’s performance
suppression is not guaranteed. Moreover, in cases of severe disturbances, the system’s performance
can degrade tremendously [1]. Disturbance compensation allows a smaller value of switching gain to
can degrade tremendously [1]. Disturbance compensation allows a smaller value of switching gain
be selected since the gain value needs to be more than the bound of the disturbance compensation
to be selected since the gain value needs to be more than the bound of the disturbance compensation
error instead of the lumped disturbances, which is usually larger. Hence, the disturbance rejection
error instead of the lumped disturbances, which is usually larger. Hence, the disturbance rejection
property of the controller is ensured without worsening the chattering effect [8]. Various disturbance
property of the controller is ensured without worsening the chattering effect [8]. Various disturbance
estimation techniques as detailed in Chen, et al. [116] have been proposed in other fields [117–119],
estimation techniques as detailed in Chen, et al. [116] have been proposed in other fields [117–119],
but for PMSM applications, disturbance observer and extended state observer are widely used.
but for PMSM applications, disturbance observer and extended state observer are widely used.
In extended state observers (ESO), the lumped disturbances of the system (external disturbances
In extended state observers (ESO), the lumped disturbances of the system (external disturbances
and internal dynamics) are regarded as a new state of the system. ESO can estimate the states as well
and internal dynamics) are regarded as a new state of the system. ESO can estimate the states as well
as the disturbances and its order is one magnitude higher than usual state observer. ESO was proposed
as the disturbances and its order is one magnitude higher than usual state observer. ESO was
by Jingqing [120] and has been incorporated in SMC for control in various fields [121]. SMC + ESO for
proposed by Jingqing [120] and has been incorporated in SMC for control in various fields [121]. SMC
speed control of PMSM has been experimentally proven to result in low speed drop (about 1%) under
+ ESO for speed control of PMSM has been experimentally proven to result in low speed drop (about
load disturbance of 2 Nm and lower chattering (by nearly 40%) compared to pure SMC controller [8].
1%) under load disturbance of 2 Nm and lower chattering (by nearly 40%) compared to pure SMC
The disturbance observer (DOB) was originated by Ohnishi [122]. Disturbance observer-based
controller [8].
SMC has been widely applied in various fields to improve the SMC in terms of disturbance rejection
The disturbance observer (DOB) was originated by Ohnishi [122]. Disturbance observer-based
performance and chattering [123–125]. Implementing sliding mode theory into the observer, extended
SMC has been widely applied in various fields to improve the SMC in terms of disturbance rejection
sliding mode disturbance observer (ESMDO) was developed by Xiaoguang, et al. [11] to provide the
performance and chattering [123–125]. Implementing sliding mode theory into the observer,
compensation part of their SMC. Estimated disturbance suffers from chattering since the observer
extended sliding mode disturbance observer (ESMDO) was developed by Xiaoguang, et al. [11] to
is designed based on sliding mode and in this work it was suppressed using a low pass filter.
provide the compensation part of their SMC. Estimated disturbance suffers from chattering since the
observer is designed based on sliding mode and in this work it was suppressed using a low pass
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 9 of 27

The proposed composite SMC + ESMDO controller has better disturbance rejection ability than PI
controller, with smaller overshoot and shorter settling time. Quantitatively, under a load disturbance of
4 Nm, the speed drop of the proposed controller was reduced by 75%, overshoot was reduced by 50%
and settling time was 60% shorter. A more relevant comparison was made between SMC with sliding
mode-based disturbance observer and SMC without observer, where the composite SMC showed
smaller overshoot, better robust stability and reduction in the effect of random load on the system [78].
Similarly, performance of a DOB-based nonsingular terminal SMC controller was compared with a
conventional nonsingular terminal SMC by Mu, et al. [77]. Both their simulation and experimental
approaches showed that their proposed composite DOB-based SMC controller resulted in faster speed
response with a tracking error of less than 0.2% and overshoot reduction by 50%. Furthermore,
a remarkable improvement in current chattering was recorded, speed ripple was reduced by 80%
as well as better robustness against step load torque compared to a conventional NTSM controller.
The success in SMC controller enhancement through observers depends on how exact and quick
the estimation can be obtained, which requires the parameters to be selected carefully. Furthermore,
the parameters selected must also ensure that the reachability condition of the main SMC controller
is satisfied.

2.5. Artificial Intelligence

Integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into SMC provides breakthrough to the sliding mode
theory that has been studied for over 50 years. Composite SMC and computational intelligence
controllers have been summarized technically by Kaynak, et al. [126], who discussed the possible
ways of integration and by Xinghuo and Kaynak [90], who emphasized the individual advantages
and disadvantages of integrating various AI methods into SMC. AI was incorporated in sliding mode
controllers for various purposes such as combined with SMC to enhance the controller’s performance,
utilized the advantage of SMC to enhance main AI controllers, used for online or offline parameter
tuning of a SMC controller, as uncertainties estimator and also to eliminate chattering. Several works
have combined SMC, AI and adaptive control technique. The main advantages of adaptive control
technique that researchers tried to bring to their controllers are their independence from precise
prior knowledge of dynamic parameters, ability to effectively suppress errors caused by parameter
uncertainties and also the ability to neutralize to some extent the influence of SMC high-frequency
switching [127].

2.5.1. Fuzzy Logic

Fuzzy logic was proposed by Zadeh [128]. The main advantage of fuzzy logic is that it uses
linguistic information instead of mathematical tools to model complex industrial processes. Memory
capacity remains its biggest drawback, especially when high sensitivity of output is required. Composite
fuzzy sliding mode controllers have been implemented in various fields [129–135]. For speed control
of PMSM, fuzzy logic inference scheme (FLIS) was implemented to obtain the switching control
gain of a fractional order SMC. This online tuning method has proven reliable in resulting a robust
controller under various disturbance conditions [4]. Usage of fuzzy logic inference systems to obtain
a gain requires the membership function to be sufficiently intensive for precision as well as wide
enough to minimize the sensitivity to noise [136]. On the other hand, a composite fuzzy SMC was
designed, whereby sliding mode properties can improve the performance of a conventional pure
fuzzy controller. The control output was obtained by FLIS, depending on three sliding conditions
(approaching, sliding and stable). Since the input variable of the fuzzy inference rules is defined by the
sliding surface, the number of fuzzy rules can be minimized [137]. The proposed controller improved
the performance of a pure fuzzy controller in terms of eliminating overshoot, settling time, tracking
precision and steady-state error elimination [138]. Fuzzy adaptive mechanism was used to tune an
integral SMC controller switching gain with respect to load torque. This method resulted in speed
output without overshoot, steady-state error and chattering compared to a conventional ISMC without
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 10 of 27

fuzzy [139]. For comparison purposes, similar performance was obtained when applying fuzzy SMC
to an induction motor [140].

2.5.2. Neural Network

Neural networks have characteristics of fault tolerance, parallelism and learning [141]. NN-based
SMC has been widely used as controller in various applications [142–146]. Wavelet NN (WNN) is
developed by combining wavelets with neural networks. It combines online learning ability of artificial
NN and identification ability of wavelet decomposition [12]. Its remarkable characteristics are quick
convergence and high precision with reduced network size [147]. For speed control of PMSM, uncertain
system dynamics was predicted using a WNN bound observer to solve the issue of uncertainty bound
in SMC design. This composite WNN-SMC controller allowed a robust speed control for a wide range
of operating conditions as compared to a conventional PID controller [12].

2.5.3. Fuzzy Neural Network

Both fuzzy logic and neural networks are universal approximators. However, the different
characteristics of each of them are complementary. Fuzzy neural network (FNN) improves fuzzy
logic-based controllers in terms of the learning abilities. Hence, it is capable of fuzzy reasoning in
handling uncertain information as well as has capability of artificial NN in learning from processes.
A combination of fuzzy and neural network theories was also incorporated in SMC controllers in
various fields [141,148]. A recurrent fuzzy neural network (RFNN) intelligent observer was designed
and combined with a SMC controller to facilitate real-time adjustment of the upper bound of the
lumped uncertainty for position control of PMSM. The proposed controller resulted in a robust position
control with less chattering and smaller control effort compared with a total SMC without RFNN
observer [149]. Elmas and Ustun [43] proposed a hybrid controller that consists of a SMC and a
neuro-fuzzy controller (NFC) connected in parallel for PMSM speed control. The error band method
is used to determine which controller needs to be activated at a certain time. SMC is active during
transient mode to get a fast dynamic response whereas the NFC is active during steady-state mode
to get a smooth, less chattering dynamic response. The idea is to use the advantages of both SMC
and NFC as well as to eliminate the disadvantageous factors of both. Current chattering of the
proposed hybrid controller is reduced by around 92% compared to a conventional SMC. However,
speed response of hybrid controller is faster by more than 7% compared to a conventional SMC. The
hybrid controller is also less sensitive to parameter variations and external load disturbances compared
to a conventional NFC.
The wavelet fuzzy neural network (WFNN) estimator combines fuzzy and wavelet neural network
theories to estimate the unknown lumped uncertainties online to enhance the performance of a sliding
mode controller. When applied to a six-phase PMSM, experimental results proved that the WFNN
can perform a reliable estimation of lumped uncertainty and WFNN-SMC controller resulted in
smaller tracking errors compared to a PI controller and SOSMC without WFNN lumped uncertainty
estimator [99] and an adaptive backstepping SMC without WFNN [150].

3. Fractional Order SMC for Speed Control of PMSM

This section elaborates on a fractional order sliding mode control with PID sliding surface design
(FOSMC-PID) proposed for speed control of PMSM using FOC approach, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 11 of 27
Energies 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 28

Figure 3.
Figure Typical block
3. Typical block diagram
diagram of
of field
field oriented
oriented control
control of
of PMSM.
PMSM.
3.1. Field Oriented Speed Control of PMSM
3.1. Field Oriented Speed Control of PMSM
In rotor rotating reference frame, the mathematical model of a PMSM is defined as below [4]:
In rotor rotating reference frame, the mathematical model of a PMSM is defined as below [4]:
.
u𝑢d ==R𝑅s id𝑖 ++λd𝜆− −
ω f𝜔λq𝜆 (12)
.
u𝑢q ==R𝑅s iq𝑖++λq𝜆+ + ω f𝜔λd𝜆 (13)
h   i
𝑇e =
T 1.5p L𝐿md I𝐼d f i𝑖q ++ Ld𝐿− −
= 1.5𝑝 Lq𝐿id iq𝑖 𝑖 (14)
(14)
ω f = pn ωr (15)
𝜔 = 𝑝 𝜔 (15)
where ud ,uq are the d,q-axis stator voltages, respectively; id ,iq are the d,q-axis stator currents, respectively;
where 𝑢 ,𝑢 are the d,q-axis stator voltages, respectively; 𝑖 ,𝑖 are the d,q-axis stator currents,
Ld ,Lq are the d,q-axis stator inductances, respectively; Te is the electric torque; Id f is the equivalent
respectively; 𝐿 ,𝐿 are the d,q-axis stator inductances, respectively; 𝑇 is the electric torque; 𝐼 is
d-axis magnetizing current; Lmd is the d-axis mutual inductance; pn is the pole pair; ω f is the inverter
the equivalent
frequency and d-axis magnetizing
ωr is the rotor speed.current; 𝐿 theisd,q-axis
λd ,λq are the d-axis mutual
stator inductance;
flux linkages, 𝑝 are
which is the pole pair;
defined as:
𝜔 is the inverter frequency and 𝜔 is the rotor speed. 𝜆 ,𝜆 are the d,q-axis stator flux linkages,
which are defined as: λq = Lq iq (16)
𝜆 = 𝐿 𝑖 (16)
λd = Ld id + Lmd Id f (17)

Motor dynamics is described as: 𝜆 = 𝐿 𝑖 + 𝐿 𝐼 (17)

Motor dynamics is described as: .
Te = Jωr + Bm ωr + TL (18)
𝑇 = 𝐽𝜔 + 𝐵 𝜔 + 𝑇 (18)
where J is the moment of inertia, Bm is the viscous friction coefficient and TL is the load torque.
where 𝐽 is the moment of inertia, 𝐵 is the viscous friction coefficient and 𝑇 is the load torque. In
In constant torque angle (CTA) control strategy (δ = 90◦ ), d-axis stator current command, id is set to be
constant torque angle (CTA) control strategy (δ = 90°), d-axis stator current command, id is set to be
zero. Electromagnetic torque in Equation (14) can be simplified as in Equations (19) and state equation
zero. Electromagnetic torque in Equation (14) can be simplified as in Equations (19) and state equation
of the servo drive is obtained as per Equations (20).
of the servo drive is obtained as per Equations (20).
h i
1.5𝑝 L𝐿md I𝐼d f iq𝑖 ==kt i𝑘q 𝑖
T𝑇e = 1.5p (19)

𝐵 𝑘 𝑇
𝜔 =− 𝜔 + 𝑖 − (20)
𝐽 𝐽 𝐽
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 12 of 27

! !
. Bm kt TL
ωr = − ωr + iq − (20)
J J J
In this study, the main control problem is to ensure the motor speed, ωr to track the desired
speed command, ω∗r asymptotically. For this purpose, the main speed controller i.e., the sliding mode
controller provides an output in terms of q-axis stator current command, iq as the control input for
the inner q-axis current controller. The speed tracking error, e(t) and its derivative are defined in
Equations (21) and (22) respectively, where a, b, c, ∅(t) and δ(t) are defined as in Equations (23)–(26)
with ∆a, ∆b, ∆c as the time-varying value of the system parameters and δ(t) is lumped uncertainty:

e(t) = ω∗r (t) − ωr (t) (21)

·
e(t) = −ae(t) − biq (t) + ∅(t) + δ(t) (22)

a = Bm /J, b = kt /J, c = TL /J (23)

. ∗
∅(t) = aω∗r (t) + c(t) + ωr (t) (24)

δ(t) = ∆aωr (t) − ∆biq (t) + ∆c(t) (25)

 
δ(t) ≤ Ω, Ω ∈ R+ (26)

3.2. Design of FOSMC-PID

The proposed fractional PID (PIα Dβ ) sliding surface is defined in Equation (27), where 0 D−α
t (.) is
a fractional integration of order α and 0 Dβt . is a fractional differentiation of order β. By selecting
()
α = β = 1, a classical integer order PID sliding surface is obtained. The control law in Equation (28)
is adopted in this study. The equivalent control law in Equation (29) is obtained. Stability analysis of
the proposed controller is detailed in [151]:

β
s(t)= kp e(t)+ki 0 D−α ( )+kd 0 Dt e(t)
t e t (27)
kp , ki , kd > 0, 0 < α < 1, 0 < β < 1
.
s = −ws − ks sign(s), w, ks ∈ R+ (28)
β+1
 ki 0 D1−α
 
t e t
( )+ kd 0 Dt e(t) 
 
 −1  +(w − a)kp e(t) 
i∗q (t) = bkp   (29)
 +kp ∅(t)+wki 0 D−α ()
t e t


 β 
+wkd 0 Dt e(t)+ks sign(s)

3.3. Simulation Results

The proposed controller is simulated in MATLAB/Simulink environment to evaluate its
performance as a speed regulator. The PMSM model used primarily in this simulation is a three-phase
Y-connected 1.93 kW motor with parameters as listed in Table 1. Fractional orders α and β of the
designed controller was chosen to be 0.35 and 0.3, respectively.
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 13 of 27

Table 1. Parameters of PMSM.

Parameter Value
Stator resistance, Rs 1.2 Ω
d-axis stator inductance, Ld
Energies 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6.35 m H 13 of 28
q-axis stator inductance, Lq 6.75 m H
Moment of inertia, J
Viscous friction coefficient, 𝐵 × 10−4
2.310.0002 Nmkg sm2
Viscous friction coefficient, Bm 0.0002 Nm s
FluxFlux
linkage, λf 𝜆
linkage, 0.15 Wb
0.15 Wb
PolePole pn 𝑝
pair,pair, 4

3.3.1.
3.3.1.Performance
PerformanceComparison
ComparisonofofFractional
FractionalOrder
OrderSMC
SMCwith
withConventional
ConventionalInteger Order
Integer SMC
Order SMC
The performance
The performanceof the
of proposed fractional
the proposed order order
fractional SMC isSMC
compared with the with
is compared conventional integral
the conventional
SMC. Reference
integral SMC. speed of 500
Reference rpmof
speed was500setrpm
andwas
loadset
torque of 2 Nm
and load wasofapplied
torque at t =
2 Nm was 0.5 s. Results
applied in s.
at t = 0.5
Figure 4 show
Results that drive
in Figure 4 show system with system
that drive SMC speedwithcontroller
SMC speed experienced
controller 9.22% overshoot,
experienced 9.22% which was
overshoot,
10which
times was
higher10 than
timesthe overshoot
higher of the
than the FOSMCofsystem.
overshoot the FOSMC system.

600

500

400
Speed (rpm)

FOSMC
300
SMC
510

200 505

500

100
495

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time(s)
Figure
Figure 4. 4.Speed
Speedresponse
responseofofthe
theproposed
proposed FOSMC
FOSMC and
and conventional
conventional SMC
SMC speed
speed controller.
controller.

The
Therecorded
recorded settling timefor
settling time for SMC
SMC system
system waswas
moremore
than than 30 longer
30 times times longer than FOSMC
than FOSMC system.
system. When
When load
load torque was applied, SMC system suffered from speed drop of almost the same as those of of
torque was applied, SMC system suffered from speed drop of almost the same as those
FOSMC system.
FOSMC However,
system. However,it took almost
it took 2525
almost times
timeslonger
longertime
time to
to settle backtotothe
settle back thereference
reference speed
speed
compared to thetoFOSMC
compared the FOSMCsystem.
system.Furthermore,
Furthermore,ininsystem
systemwith
with conventional
conventional SMC,SMC,1010 times
times higher
higher
speed ripple was observed.
speed ripple was observed.

3.3.2.
3.3.2.Performance
PerformanceComparison
ComparisonofofFractional
FractionalOrder
OrderSMC
SMCwith
withDifferent
DifferentSliding Surface
Sliding Designs
Surface Designs (PI,
(PI, PD and
PD and PID) PID)
InIn
this work,
this work,a fractional PID sliding
a fractional surfacesurface
PID sliding was proposed to construct
was proposed the slidingthe
to construct mode controller.
sliding mode
The
controller. The performance of the proposed sliding surface design is compared with PIsurface.
performance of the proposed sliding surface design is compared with PI and PD sliding and PD
Similarly, reference
sliding surface. speed was
Similarly, set at speed
reference 500 rpm
wasand load
set at 500torque
rpm andof load
2 Nmtorque
was applied
of 2 Nmatwast =applied
0.5 s.
From Figure 5, it can be seen that FOSMC with PID sliding surface resulted in better speed
at t = 0.5 s. From Figure 5, it can be seen that FOSMC with PID sliding surface resulted in better speed response
with almostwith
response 19 times
almost less
19overshoot
times lessthan FOSMC
overshoot with
than PI sliding
FOSMC withsurface. When
PI sliding loadWhen
surface. torqueload
of 2torque
Nm
of 2 Nm was applied, FOSMC-PI experienced a speed drop of 4%, which is 2.8% more than the speed
drop of a FOSMC-PID system. After the speed drop, the FOSMC-PI system settled back to reference
speed after almost 0.01 s, whereas the FOSMC-PID settled faster by one fifth. In terms of torque ripple,
the performance of FOSMC-PID was prominent, where the resulting torque ripple was half of the
torque ripple of FOSMC-PI. Figure 6 shows that FOSMC-PD resulted in no overshoot compared to
 Energies 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 28

to that,
Energies FOSMC-PD
2019, had a larger steady state error of almost three times higher than FOSMC-PID.
12, 1669 14 of 27
Torque ripple of both controllers was almost equal.

was applied, FOSMC-PI experienced a speed drop of 4%, which is 2.8% more than the speed drop of
a FOSMC-PID system. 600After the speed drop, the FOSMC-PI system settled back to reference speed
after almost 0.01 s, whereas the FOSMC-PID settled faster by one fifth. In terms of torque ripple,
the performance of FOSMC-PID
500 was prominent, where the resulting torque ripple was half of the
torque ripple of FOSMC-PI. Figure
Energies 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 shows that FOSMC-PD resulted in no overshoot compared to28
14 of
FOSMC-PID. However, its settling time was almost nine times longer than FOSMC-PID. In addition to
that, FOSMC-PD
to that, FOSMC-PD had400
ahad
larger steadysteady
a larger state error
stateoferror
almost three times
of almost threehigher
timesthan FOSMC-PID.
higher Torque
than FOSMC-PID.
Speed (rpm)

ripple
Torqueof both
ripplecontrollers was almost
of both controllers equal.
was almost equal.
FOSMC-PID
300 FOSMC-PI
600
510

200
500
500
490
100
480
400
0.49 0.5 0.51 0.52
Speed (rpm)

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 FOSMC-PID
0.7 0.8
300 Time(s) FOSMC-PI

510

200 5. Speed response of FOSMC-PID and FOSMC-PI speed controller.

Figure
500

In its own fractional order SMC group, the proposed FOSMC-PID 490 has shown its advantages in
100
balancing the individual strength and weaknesses of FOSMC-PI and FOSMC-PD. The proposed
480
FOSMC reduced the overshoot contributed by the integral portion 0.49
and
0.5
at0.51the0.52
same time reduce the
steady state error contributed
0 by the differential portion. The combination of PID also reduces the
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
speed drop when the load torque was applied. Small speed and torque ripple proves that chattering
Time(s)
phenomenon has been successfully suppressed. Performance indices of the proposed controller and
the controllers in comparison
Figure are summarized
5. Speed response in Table
of FOSMC-PID and2.FOSMC-PI speed controller.
Figure 5. Speed response of FOSMC-PID and FOSMC-PI speed controller.
600
In its own fractional order SMC group, the proposed FOSMC-PID has shown its advantages in
balancing the individual strength and weaknesses of FOSMC-PI and FOSMC-PD. The proposed
FOSMC reduced 500the overshoot contributed by the integral portion and at the same time reduce the
steady state error contributed by the differential portion. The combination of PID also reduces the
speed drop when the load torque was applied. Small speed and torque ripple proves that chattering
phenomenon has 400been successfully suppressed. Performance indices of the proposed controller and
Speed (rpm)

the controllers in comparison are summarized in Table 2.

FOSMC-PID
300
600 FOSMC-PD

502

200
500 500

498

496
100
400 494
Speed (rpm)

492
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65
FOSMC-PID
30000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
FOSMC-PD 0.8
Time(s)
502

200
Figure 6. 6.Speed
Figure Speedresponse ofof
response FOSMC-PID and
FOSMC-PID FOSMC-PD
and 500 speed
FOSMC-PD controller.
speed controller.
498

496
100 494

492
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 15 of 27

In its own fractional order SMC group, the proposed FOSMC-PID has shown its advantages
in balancing the individual strength and weaknesses of FOSMC-PI and FOSMC-PD. The proposed
FOSMC reduced the overshoot contributed by the integral portion and at the same time reduce the
steady state error contributed by the differential portion. The combination of PID also reduces the
speed drop when the load torque was applied. Small speed and torque ripple proves that chattering
phenomenon has been successfully suppressed. Performance indices of the proposed controller and
the controllers in comparison are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of performance indices of the proposed controller with previous works.

FOSMC-PID
Performance Indices SMC FOSMC-PI FOSMC-PD
(Proposed)
Overshoot (%) 9.22 5.52 0 0.8593
Settling time (s) 0.288 0.0094 0.096 0.0096
Speed drop (%) 1.28 4.3 1.5 1.16
Steady state error (%) 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.02
Torque ripple (%) 12 11 10 10
Speed ripple (%) 0.16 0.12 0.014 0.014

3.3.3. Performance of the Proposed FOSMC Speed Controller for Various Conditions
The controller is then tested for various conditions to ensure its robustness. Figure 7 shows the
controller performance when reference speeds of 100 to 3000 rpm are given. The reference speed is
tracked with settling time not more than 0.2 s and with overshoot not more than 2%. On a different
case, various load torque (2–6 Nm) are given to the system at t = 0.5 s and the speed reference is fixed
at 500 rpm. Figure 8 shows that the controller is able to track back the reference speed after speed drop
of less than 13%. The proposed controller is also tested for a few motor sizes. As shown in Figure 9,
the proposed controller ensures successful speed tracking for motors between 1.67 kW and 13.22 kW.
The performance of the proposed controller is further validated and compared with performance of
SMC under different scenarios. Figure 10 shows the speed response of system when positive loads
of 2 Nm (at t = 0.5 s) and 6 Nm (at t = 1.0 s) as well as negative loads of −4 Nm (at t = 1.5 s) are
applied. The speed response for both positive and negative reference speeds of 500 rpm, −500 rpm
and −1000 rpm at t = 0.0 s, t = 0.5 s and t = 1.0 s respectively is shown in Figure 11. In this case, a load
torque of 2 Nm is applied at t = 1.5 s.
 kW. The performance of the proposed controller is further validated and compared with performance
of SMC under different scenarios. Figure 10 shows the speed response of system when positive loads
of 2 Nm (at t = 0.5 s) and 6 Nm (at t = 1.0 s) as well as negative loads of −4 Nm (at t = 1.5 s) are applied.
The speed response for both positive and negative reference speeds of 500 rpm, −500 rpm and −1000
rpm2019,
Energies at t =12,0.0 s, t = 0.5 s and t = 1.0 s respectively is shown in Figure 11. In this case, a load torque
1669 16 of 27 of
2 Nm is applied at t = 1.5 s.

3500
100rpm
500rpm
1000rpm
3000 1500rpm
2000rpm
3000rpm

2500
Speed (rpm)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time(s)
Energies 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 28
Figure 7. Speed response of FOSMC-PID speed controller for various speed references.
Figure 7. Speed response of FOSMC-PID speed controller for various speed references.

600

500

400
2Nm
Speed (rpm)

4Nm
300 6Nm

520

200 500

480

460
100 440

420
0.49 0.5 0.51 0.52

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time(s)

Figure 8. Speed response of FOSMC-PID speed controller for various load torque.
Figure 8. Speed response of FOSMC-PID speed controller for various load torque.

600

500

400
1.67kW
Speed (rpm)

1.93kW
300 8.2kW
13.22kW
500
200 400 500
300
498
 0.49 0.5 0.51 0.52

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time(s)

Figure 8. Speed response of FOSMC-PID speed controller for various load torque.
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 17 of 27

600

500

400
1.67kW
Speed (rpm)

1.93kW
300 8.2kW
13.22kW
500
200 400 500
300
498
200
100 100 496

0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.495 0.5 0.505 0.51 0.515

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Energies 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Time(s) 18 of 28

Figure 9. Speed response of FOSMC-PID speed controller for motor sizes.

Figure 9. Speed response of FOSMC-PID speed controller for motor sizes.
700
FOSMC
600 SMC

500

400
Speed (rpm)

300

200
600
505 510
100 500 550
500 490
480 500
0 495 470
0.5 0.51 0.52 1 1.01 1.02 1.5 1.51 1.52

-100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time(s)

Figure 10. Comparison of speed response of FOSMC and SMC speed controller when positive and
Figureloads
negative 10. Comparison
are applied.of speed response of FOSMC and SMC speed controller when positive and
negative loads are applied.

600
FOSMC
400 SMC

200 -995
-600

0 -800
-1000
Speed (rpm)

-200 -1000
-1005
1 1.01 1.02 1.5 1.51 1.52

-400

-600
500
 -100
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time(s)

Figure 10. Comparison of speed response of FOSMC and SMC speed controller when positive and
negative
Energies 2019, loads are applied.
12, 1669 18 of 27

600
FOSMC
400 SMC

200 -995
-600

0 -800
-1000
Speed (rpm)

-200 -1000
-1005
1 1.01 1.02 1.5 1.51 1.52

-400

-600
500

-800
0

-1000
-500
0.5 0.51 0.52
-1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time(s)

Figure 11. Comparison of speed response of FOSMC and SMC speed controller when positive and
Figure 11. Comparison of speed response of FOSMC and SMC speed controller when positive and
negative reference speeds are given.
negative reference speeds are given.
Simulation results proved that the proposed FOSMC speed controller performs as a robust and
Simulation results
fast anti-disturbance proved
controller to that the proposed
regulate the speedFOSMC
of a PMSMspeed controller
and performs
proven its as a robust
advantages againstand
fast anti-disturbance controller to regulate the speed of a PMSM and proven its
SMC controllers. The proposed sliding surface design also improves the FOSMC in terms of torque advantages against
ripple reduction, chattering reduction and anti-disturbance properties, compared to FOSMC withtorque
SMC controllers. The proposed sliding surface design also improves the FOSMC in terms of PI
ripple
or PD reduction,
sliding surface.chattering reduction
Its robustness and
is also anti-disturbance
proven for variousproperties,
conditions compared
such as fortovarious
FOSMCspeed
with PI
or PD sliding
references, surface.
various Its robustness
load torques is also
and various proven
motor for various conditions such as for various speed
sizes.
references, various load torques and various motor sizes.
4. Discussion
Sliding mode control possesses many remarkable features to be applied in designing a robust
and precise speed controller for permanent magnet synchronous motors. Sliding surface design and
the chosen reaching law determine the equivalent control law that should result in system state’s
convergence to sliding surface and control target achieved on the sliding surface as well as should
ensure that reaching phase is minimized and chattering effect is attenuated. In addition to pure SMC
controllers, controller’s performance is enhanced in terms of robustness and chattering reduction by
many means. The main idea behind composite SMC is to have an adaptive sliding surface design based
on uncertainties and disturbances, compared to a sliding surface design with fix values in conventional
SMC. State-of-the-art implementation of SMC for speed control of PMSM is summarized in Figure 12
and compared in terms of their remarkable properties and disadvantages in Table 3.
ensure that reaching phase is minimized and chattering effect is attenuated. In addition to pure SMC
controllers, controller’s performance is enhanced in terms of robustness and chattering reduction by
many means. The main idea behind composite SMC is to have an adaptive sliding surface design
based on uncertainties and disturbances, compared to a sliding surface design with fix values in
conventional
Energies SMC. State-of-the-art implementation of SMC for speed control of PMSM
2019, 12, 1669 is
19 of 27
summarized in Figure 12 and compared in terms of their remarkable properties and disadvantages
in Table 3.

Figure12.
Figure 12. Summary
Summary of
of SMC
SMC enhancement
enhancement methods.
methods.

Table
As far 3. Comparison
as SMC for PMSM of state-of-the-art
speed controlimplementation
is concerned,ofopportunities
SMC for speed of control
futureof PMSM.
works are still
wide open. The lists of sliding surface designs and composite sliding mode controllers that have
Controller
been successfully Remarkable Properties Disadvantages
Description applied to other machines but have not been applied for speed control of PMSM
are endless. Similar good results are not guaranteed but they are worth to be researched on. It is
Unsatisfactory convergence rate and
also necessary to mention that more research works is required intime
settling the(can
areabeof SMC parameter
improved by
Linear since
tuning, SMC many researchers
Simplicity
still based their work on conventional trial and error method.
composite SMC or reaching law A new
promising approach to optimise parameter tuning is by using modification) adaptive SMC to ensure a dynamical
adaptation of the control• gainReaching
in orderphase
to beeliminated
as small as possible whereas sufficient to counteract the
uncertainties/perturbations• [152–158]. For PMSM
Order of motion equationapplication,
is equal disturbance
Controller gainestimation techniques
must be carefully are
tuned
mostly constraint
Integral SMC at either DOB or state
to order of theobserver. This situation
original system opensbalance
to ensure the opportunity for future
between robustness
researchers to explore the • combination of SMCcontrol
Smaller maximum with other estimation techniques.
and chattering
magnitude have
Many composite SMC controllers required
been proposed, but researchers should not compromise
•
one of the remarkable features of SMC
Improve namely
controller its simplicity. Integration of artificial intelligence
performance
into SMC in order to producewith extra degree of
an ‘intelligent’ freedom should not jeopardize the controller’s speed.
controller
Information on chattering (fractional
effect operator)
is crucial in presenting SMCs.Careful tuning
In several of fractional
literatures, operator
the chattering
Fractional order SMC
• Small chattering due to slower required
effect of their proposed controllers was not carefully presented or simply not addressed. It can be
energy transfer compared to
concluded that what remains in designing a SMC for speed control of PMSM is to find balance between
integral SMC
the robustness and the chattering for wide range of operating conditions.
Fractional power is introduced to Singularity problem that might occur if
ensure fast and finite-time states the initial conditions are not carefully
Terminal SMC
convergence during sliding mode selected (can be solved by NTSM,
phase NFTSM)
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 20 of 27

Table 3. Comparison of state-of-the-art implementation of SMC for speed control of PMSM.

Controller Description Remarkable Properties Disadvantages

Unsatisfactory convergence rate and settling
Linear SMC Simplicity time (can be improved by composite SMC or
reaching law modification)

• Reaching phase eliminated

• Order of motion equation is equal to order of Controller gain must be carefully tuned to
Integral SMC the original system ensure balance between robustness and
• Smaller maximum control magnitude required chattering

• Improve controller performance with extra

degree of freedom (fractional operator)
Fractional order SMC • Small chattering due to slower energy transfer Careful tuning of fractional operator required
compared to integral SMC

Fractional power is introduced to ensure fast and Singularity problem that might occur if the
Terminal SMC finite-time states convergence during sliding mode initial conditions are not carefully selected
phase (can be solved by NTSM, NFTSM)

• Control input acts on higher derivatives of the

sliding surface Usage of differentiators, where their practical
Higher order SMC • Sliding order characterizes the system dynamics behavior requires particular care in real
in the vicinity of the sliding mode in terms of implementation due to measurement noise.
degree of smoothness

• Sacrifices the system’s

Smooth approximation to replace sign function to anti-disturbance performance
Boundary layer SMC • Steady-state error depending on
alleviate chattering
boundary layer selection

• Speed of convergence depends on how far the • Robustness of the controller is reduced
SMC with reaching law state variable is from the sliding surface • Reaching time increases as the state
modification • To eliminate chattering approaches the sliding surface

• Allows smaller value of switching gain to

be selected
SMC with feed-forward • Disturbance rejection property of the controller
disturbance is ensured without worsening the Depends on disturbance estimation accuracy
compensation chattering effect
• Disturbance estimation using DOB or ESO

Areas of AI utilization with SMC:

• combined with SMC to enhance the
controller’s performance
• utilize the advantage of SMC to enhance main
SMC with AI AI controllers Computational load
• used for online or offline parameter tuning of a
SMC controller
• as uncertainties estimator
• to eliminate chattering.

5. Conclusions
An extensive review of the state-of-the-art implementation of SMC for speed control of PMSMs is
presented in this paper. Various sliding surface designs and composite controller designs with SMC
implementation have been highlighted. The remarkable properties as well as the disadvantages of
previous works are summarized. Ideas on possible future works are also discussed, which emphasize
on current gaps in this area of research. Certain areas have not been thoroughly covered in this study
and deserve a separate thorough review e.g. the application of sliding mode controllers in sensorless
speed control of PMSMs, the application of SMC for DTC control of PMSMs and sliding mode observers
in combination with other controllers for speed control of PMSMs.
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 21 of 27

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.M.Z., S.M. and M.M.; Methodology, F.M.Z., S.M. and M.M.; Software,
F.M.Z.; Validation, F.M.Z., S.M. and M.M.; Formal Analysis, F.M.Z., S.M. and M.M.; Investigation, F.M.Z., S.M.
and M.M.; Resources, F.M.Z., S.M. and M.M.; Data Curation, F.M.Z., S.M. and M.M.; Writing-Original Draft
Preparation, F.M.Z.; Writing-Review & Editing, F.M.Z., S.M. and M.M.; Visualization, F.M.Z., S.M. and M.M.;
Supervision, S.M. and M.M.; Project Administration, F.M.Z; Funding Acquisition, S.M. and M.M.
Funding: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the University of Malaya,
Malaysia, through FRGS Grant No. FRGS/1/2018/TK07/UM/01/3, Frontier Research Grant No. FG007-17AFR and
Postgraduate Research Grant (PPP) No. PG192-2015B.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Shihua, L.; Mingming, Z.; Xinghuo, Y. Design and Implementation of Terminal Sliding Mode Control Method
for PMSM Speed Regulation System. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2013, 9, 1879–1891. [CrossRef]
2. Pillay, P.; Krishnan, R. Modeling, simulation, and analysis of permanent-magnet motor drives. I.
The permanent-magnet synchronous motor drive. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 1989, 25, 265–273. [CrossRef]
3. Abu-Rub, H.; Iqbal, A.; Guzinski, J. High Performance Control of AC Drives with Matlab/Simulink Models; Wiley:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
4. Zhang, B.; Pi, Y.; Luo, Y. Fractional order sliding-mode control based on parameters auto-tuning for velocity
control of permanent magnet synchronous motor. ISA Trans. 2012, 51, 649–656. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Huang, J.; Li, H.; Teng, F.; Liu, D. Fractional order sliding mode controller for the speed control of a permanent
magnet synchronous motor. In Proceedings of the 24th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC),
Taiyuan, China, 23–25 May 2012; pp. 1203–1208.
6. Maleki, N.; Pahlavani, M.R.A.; Soltani, I. A Detailed Comparison Between FOC and DTC Methods of a
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Drive. J. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2015, 3, 92–100. [CrossRef]
7. Garcia, X.D.T.; Zigmund, B.; Terlizzi, A.A.; Pavlanin, R.; Salvatore, L. Comparison between FOC and DTC
Strategies for Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors. Adv. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2011, 5. Available online:
http://advances.utc.sk/index.php/AEEE/article/view/179 (accessed on 20 January 2019).
8. Li, S.; Zong, K.; Liu, H. A composite speed controller based on a second-order model of permanent magnet
synchronous motor system. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 2011, 33, 522–541. [CrossRef]
9. Ke, Z.; Xiao-guang, Z.; Li, S.; Chang, C. Sliding mode control of high-speed PMSM based on precision
linearization control. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems
(ICEMS), Beijing, China, 20–23 August 2011; pp. 1–4.
10. Gou-Jen, W.; Chuan-Tzueng, F.; Chang, K.J. Neural-network-based self-tuning PI controller for precise
motion control of PMAC motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2001, 48, 408–415. [CrossRef]
11. Xiaoguang, Z.; Lizhi, S.; Ke, Z.; Li, S. Nonlinear speed control for PMSM system using sliding mode control
and disturbance compensation techniques. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2013, 28, 1358–1365. [CrossRef]
12. El-Sousy, F.F.M. Robust wavelet-neural-network sliding-mode control system for permanent magnet
synchronous motor drive. IET Electr. Power Appl. 2011, 5, 113–132. [CrossRef]
13. Huixian, L.; Shihua, L. Speed Control for PMSM Servo System Using Predictive Functional Control and
Extended State Observer. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2012, 59, 1171–1183. [CrossRef]
14. Errouissi, R.; Ouhrouche, M.; Wen-Hua, C.; Trzynadlowski, A.M. Robust nonlinear predictive controller for
permanent magnet synchronous motors with an optimized cost function. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2012, 59,
2849–2858. [CrossRef]
15. Zhou, J.; Wang, Y. Adaptive backstepping speed controller design for a permanent magnet synchronous
motor. IEE Proc.—Electr. Power Appl. 2002, 149, 165–172. [CrossRef]
16. Vu, N.T.-T.; Choi, H.H.; Jung, J.-W. Certainty equivalence adaptive speed controller for permanent magnet
synchronous motor. Mechatronics 2012, 22, 811–818. [CrossRef]
17. Shihua, L.; Zhigang, L. Adaptive speed control for permanent magnet synchronous motor system with
variations of load inertia. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 56, 3050–3059. [CrossRef]
18. Han Ho, C.; Nga Thi-Thuy, V.; Jin-Woo, J. Digital Implementation of an Adaptive Speed Regulator for a
PMSM. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2011, 26, 3–8. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, Q.; Yu, H.; Wang, M.; Qi, X. A Novel Adaptive Neuro-Control Approach for Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Motor Speed Control. Energies 2018, 11, 2355. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 22 of 27

20. Hsien, T.L.; Sun, Y.Y.; Tsai, M.C. H∞ control for a sensorless permanent-magnet synchronous drive. IEEE Proc.
Electr. Power Appl. 1997, 144, 173–181. [CrossRef]
21. Su, Y.X.; Zheng, C.H.; Duan, B.Y. Automatic disturbances rejection controller for precise motion control of
permanent-magnet synchronous motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2005, 52, 814–823. [CrossRef]
22. Han Ho, C.; Jin-Woo, J. Discrete-Time Fuzzy Speed Regulator Design for PM Synchronous Motor. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2013, 60, 600–607. [CrossRef]
23. Utkin, V. Variable structure systems with sliding modes. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1977, 22, 212–222.
[CrossRef]
24. Hung, J.Y.; Gao, W.; Hung, J.C. Variable structure control: A survey. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 1993, 40, 2–22.
[CrossRef]
25. Fallaha, C.J.; Saad, M.; Kanaan, H.Y.; Al-Haddad, K. Sliding mode robot control with exponential reaching
law. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 600–610. [CrossRef]
26. Rong-Jong, W.; Kun-Lun, C.; Jeng-Dao, L. On-Line Supervisory Control Design for Maglev Transportation
System via Total Sliding-Mode Approach and Particle Swarm Optimization. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
2010, 55, 1544–1559. [CrossRef]
27. Chih-Lyang, H.; Li-Jui, C.; Yuan-Sheng, Y. Network-Based Fuzzy Decentralized Sliding-Mode Control for
Car-Like Mobile Robots. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2007, 54, 574–585. [CrossRef]
28. Syuan-Yi, C.; Faa-Jeng, L. Robust nonsingular terminal sliding mode control for nonlinear magnetic bearing
system. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2011, 19, 636–643. [CrossRef]
29. Bao-Lin, Z.; Qing-Long, H.; Xian-Ming, Z.; Xinghuo, Y. Sliding Mode Control With Mixed Current and
Delayed States for Offshore Steel Jacket Platforms. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2014, 22, 1769–1783.
[CrossRef]
30. Chuan-Kai, L. Nonsingular Terminal Sliding Mode Control of Robot Manipulators Using Fuzzy Wavelet
Networks. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2006, 14, 849–859. [CrossRef]
31. Jeng-Dao, L.; Suiyang, K.; Zhi-Bin, W. DSP-based sliding mode control for electromagnetic levitation precise
position system. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2013, 9, 817–827. [CrossRef]
32. Han, S.I.; Lee, J.M. Balancing and Velocity Control of a Unicycle Robot Based on the Dynamic Model.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 62, 405–413. [CrossRef]
33. Faa-Jeng, L.; Chih-Kai, C.; Po-Kai, H. FPGA-Based Adaptive Backstepping Sliding-Mode Control for Linear
Induction Motor Drive. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2007, 22, 1222–1231. [CrossRef]
34. El-Sousy, F.F.M. Adaptive Dynamic Sliding-Mode Control System Using Recurrent RBFN for
High-Performance Induction Motor Servo Drive. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2013, 9, 1922–1936. [CrossRef]
35. Veselic, B.; Perunicic-Drazenovic, B.; Milosavljevic, C. Improved Discrete-Time Sliding-Mode Position
Control Using Euler Velocity Estimation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2010, 57, 3840–3847. [CrossRef]
36. Pupadubsin, R.; Chayopitak, N.; Taylor, D.G.; Nulek, N.; Kachapornkul, S.; Jitkreeyarn, P.; Somsiri, P.;
Tungpimolrut, K. Adaptive Integral Sliding-Mode Position Control of a Coupled-Phase Linear Variable
Reluctance Motor for High-Precision Applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2012, 48, 1353–1363. [CrossRef]
37. Yaonan, W.; Xizheng, Z.; Xiaofang, Y.; Guorong, L. Position-Sensorless Hybrid Sliding-Mode Control of
Electric Vehicles With Brushless DC Motor. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2011, 60, 421–432. [CrossRef]
38. Jian-Bo, C.; Bing-Gang, C. Fuzzy-Logic-Based Sliding-Mode Controller Design for Position-Sensorless Electric
Vehicle. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2009, 24, 2368–2378. [CrossRef]
39. Eker, İ. Second-order sliding mode control with experimental application. ISA Trans. 2010, 49, 394–405.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Young, K.D.; Utkin, V.I.; Ozguner, U. A control engineer’s guide to sliding mode control. IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Technol. 1999, 7, 328–342. [CrossRef]
41. Utkin, V.I. Sliding mode control design principles and applications to electric drives. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
1993, 40, 23–36. [CrossRef]
42. Qi, L.; Shi, H. Adaptive position tracking control of permanent magnet synchronous motor based on RBF
fast terminal sliding mode control. Neurocomputing 2013, 115, 23–30. [CrossRef]
43. Elmas, C.; Ustun, O. A hybrid controller for the speed control of a permanent magnet synchronous motor
drive. Control Eng. Pract. 2008, 16, 260–270. [CrossRef]
44. Yan, L.; Ju-Beom, S.; Jang-myung, L. PMSM speed controller using switching algorithm of PD and Sliding
mode control. In Proceedings of the ICCAS-SICE, Fukuoka, Japan, 18–21 August 2009; pp. 1260–1266.
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 23 of 27

45. Utkin, V.; Jingxin, S. Integral sliding mode in systems operating under uncertainty conditions. In Proceedings
of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan, 11–13 December 1996; pp. 4591–4596.
46. Castanos, F.; Fridman, L. Analysis and design of integral sliding manifolds for systems with unmatched
perturbations. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2006, 51, 853–858. [CrossRef]
47. Liang, Y.W.; Ting, L.W.; Lin, L.G. Study of Reliable Control Via an Integral-Type Sliding Mode Control
Scheme. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2012, 59, 3062–3068. [CrossRef]
48. Xia, C.; Wang, X.; Li, S.; Chen, X. Improved integral sliding mode control methods for speed control of
PMSM system. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Control 2011, 7, 1971–1982.
49. Song, Q.; Jia, C. Robust Speed Controller Design for Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Drives Based on
Sliding Mode Control. Energy Procedia 2016, 88, 867–873. [CrossRef]
50. Zaky, M. Adaptive and robust speed control of interior permanent magnet synchronous motor drives.
Electr. Eng. 2012, 94, 49–58. [CrossRef]
51. Efe, M.O. Fractional Order Systems in Industrial Automation—A Survey. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2011, 7,
582–591. [CrossRef]
52. Huang, J.; Cui, L.; Shi, X.; Li, H.; Xiang, Z. Composite integral sliding mode control for PMSM. In Proceedings
of the 33rd Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Nanjing, China, 28–30 July 2014; pp. 8086–8090.
53. Hongsheng, L.; Ying, L.; Yang Quan, C. A Fractional Order Proportional and Derivative (FOPD) Motion
Controller: Tuning Rule and Experiments. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2010, 18, 516–520. [CrossRef]
54. Lanusse, P.; Oustaloup, A.; Sabatier, J. Robust factional order PID controllers: The first generation CRONE CSD
approach. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fractional Differentiation and Its Applications
2014 (ICFDA), Catania, Italy, 23–25 June 2014; pp. 1–6.
55. Zhang, B.T.; Pi, Y. Robust fractional order proportion-plus-differential controller based on fuzzy inference for
permanent magnet synchronous motor. IET Control Theory Appl. 2012, 6, 829–837. [CrossRef]
56. Efe, M.O. Fractional Fuzzy Adaptive Sliding-Mode Control of a 2-DOF Direct-Drive Robot Arm. IEEE Trans.
Syst. ManCybern. Part B Cybern. 2008, 38, 1561–1570. [CrossRef]
57. Ladaci, S.; Charef, A. On Fractional Adaptive Control. Nonlinear Dyn. 2006, 43, 365–378. [CrossRef]
58. Luo, Y.; Chen, Y.; Ahn, H.-S.; Pi, Y. Fractional order robust control for cogging effect compensation in
PMSM position servo systems: Stability analysis and experiments. Control Eng. Pract. 2010, 18, 1022–1036.
[CrossRef]
59. Salehtavazoei, M.; Tavakoli-Kakhki, M. Compensation by fractional-order phase-lead/lag compensators.
IET Control Theory Appl. 2014, 8, 319–329. [CrossRef]
60. Luo, Y.; Chen, Y.Q.; Ahn, H.S.; Pi, Y.G. Fractional Order Periodic Adaptive Learning Compensation for
State-Dependent Periodic Disturbance. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2012, 20, 465–472. [CrossRef]
61. Ying, L.; Yang Quan, C.; Hyo-Sung, A.; Youguo, P. Fractional order periodic adaptive learning compensation
for cogging effect in PMSM position servo system. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference
(ACC), St. Louis, MO, USA, 10–12 June 2009; pp. 937–942.
62. Mujumdar, A.; Tamhane, B.; Kurode, S. Observer-Based Sliding Mode Control for a Class of Noncommensurate
Fractional-Order Systems. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2015, PP, 1–9. [CrossRef]
63. Calderón, A.J.; Vinagre, B.M.; Feliu, V. Fractional order control strategies for power electronic buck converters.
Signal Process. 2006, 86, 2803–2819. [CrossRef]
64. Delavari, H.; Ghaderi, R.; Ranjbar, A.; Momani, S. Fuzzy fractional order sliding mode controller for nonlinear
systems. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2010, 15, 963–978. [CrossRef]
65. Abdelhamid, D.; Bouden, T.; Boulkroune, A. Design of Fractional-order Sliding Mode Controller (FSMC) for
a class of Fractional-order Non-linear Commensurate Systems using a Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
Algorithm. J. Control Eng. Appl. Inform. 2014, 16, 46–55.
66. Sun, G.; Wu, L.; Kuang, Z.; Ma, Z.; Liu, J. Practical tracking control of linear motor via fractional-order sliding
mode. Automatica 2018, 94, 221–235. [CrossRef]
67. Feng, Y.; Yu, X.; Man, Z. Non-singular terminal sliding mode control of rigid manipulators. Automatica 2002,
38, 2159–2167. [CrossRef]
68. Liu, J.; Wang, X. Advanced Sliding Mode Control for Mechanical Systems: Design, Analysis and MATLAB Simulation;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
69. Wu, Y.; Yu, X.; Man, Z. Terminal sliding mode control design for uncertain dynamic systems. Syst. Control
Lett. 1998, 34, 281–287. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 24 of 27

70. Man, Z.; Xing Huo, Y. Terminal sliding mode control of MIMO linear systems. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I
Fundam. Theory Appl. 1997, 44, 1065–1070. [CrossRef]
71. Jin, M.; Lee, J.; Chang, P.H.; Choi, C. Practical Nonsingular Terminal Sliding-Mode Control of Robot
Manipulators for High-Accuracy Tracking Control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 56, 3593–3601. [CrossRef]
72. Zhang, R.; Dong, L.; Sun, C. Adaptive nonsingular terminal sliding mode control design for near space
hypersonic vehicles. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. 2014, 1, 155–161. [CrossRef]
73. Mu, C.; He, H. Dynamic Behavior of Terminal Sliding Mode Control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 65,
3480–3490. [CrossRef]
74. Xu, W.; Jiang, Y.; Mu, C.; Yue, H. Nonsingular terminal sliding mode control for the speed regulation of
permanent magnet synchronous motor with parameter uncertainties. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual
Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON, Pattaya, Thailand, 9–12 November 2015;
pp. 001994–001999.
75. Liu, X.; Yu, H.; Yu, J.; Zhao, L. Combined Speed and Current Terminal Sliding Mode Control With Nonlinear
Disturbance Observer for PMSM Drive. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 29594–29601. [CrossRef]
76. Xinghuo, Y.; Man, Z. Fast terminal sliding-mode control design for nonlinear dynamical systems. IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. I Fundam. Theory Appl. 2002, 49, 261–264. [CrossRef]
77. Mu, C.; Xu, W.; Sun, C. On Switching Manifold Design for Terminal Sliding Mode Control. J. Frankl. Inst.
2016, 353. [CrossRef]
78. Lu, E.; Li, W.; Yang, X.; Xu, S. Composite Sliding Mode Control of a Permanent Magnet Direct-Driven System
For a Mining Scraper Conveyor. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 22399–22408. [CrossRef]
79. Xu, S.S.D.; Chen, C.C.; Wu, Z.L. Study of Nonsingular Fast Terminal Sliding-Mode Fault-Tolerant Control.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 62, 3906–3913. [CrossRef]
80. Gudey, S.K.; Gupta, R. Recursive fast terminal sliding mode control in voltage source inverter for a low-voltage
microgrid system. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2016, 10, 1536–1543. [CrossRef]
81. Komurcugil, H. Fast terminal sliding mode control for single-phase UPS inverters. In Proceedings of the
IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, Gdansk, Poland, 27–30 June 2011; pp. 277–282.
82. Mobayen, S. Fast terminal sliding mode tracking of non-holonomic systems with exponential decay rate.
IET Control Theory Appl. 2015, 9, 1294–1301. [CrossRef]
83. Al-Ghanimi, A.; Zheng, J.; Man, Z. Robust and fast non-singular terminal sliding mode control for piezoelectric
actuators. IET Control Theory Appl. 2015, 9, 2678–2687. [CrossRef]
84. Mu, C.; Sun, C.; Xu, W. Fast sliding mode control on air-breathing hypersonic vehicles with transient response
analysis. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part I J. Sys. Control Eng. 2015, 230, 23–34. [CrossRef]
85. Shuo, Z. Nonsingular fast terminal sliding mode control method and its application on permanent magnet
synchronous motor. In Proceedings of the 34th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Hangzhou, China, 28–30
July 2015; pp. 3383–3386.
86. Levant, A. Sliding order and sliding accuracy in sliding mode control. Int. J. Control 1993, 58, 1247–1263.
[CrossRef]
87. Levant, A. Principles of 2-sliding mode design. Automatica 2007, 43, 576–586. [CrossRef]
88. Bartolini, G.; Ferrara, A.; Levant, A.; Usai, E. On second order sliding mode controllers. In Variable Structure
Systems, Sliding Mode and Nonlinear Control; Young, K.D., Özgüner, Ü., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 1999;
pp. 329–350.
89. Khan, M.K.; Spurgeon, S.K. Robust MIMO water level control in interconnected twin-tanks using second
order sliding mode control. Control Eng. Pract. 2006, 14, 375–386. [CrossRef]
90. Xinghuo, Y.; Kaynak, O. Sliding-Mode Control With Soft Computing: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
2009, 56, 3275–3285. [CrossRef]
91. Bartolini, G.; Pisano, A.; Punta, E.; Usai, E. A survey of applications of second-order sliding mode control to
mechanical systems. Int. J. Control 2003, 76, 875–892. [CrossRef]
92. Matraji, I.; Laghrouche, S.; Jemei, S.; Wack, M. Robust control of the PEM fuel cell air-feed system via
sub-optimal second order sliding mode. Appl. Energy 2013, 104, 945–957. [CrossRef]
93. Damiano, A.; Gatto, G.L.; Marongiu, I.; Pisano, A. Second-order sliding-mode control of DC drives. IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron. 2004, 51, 364–373. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 25 of 27

94. Bounasla, N.; Hemsas, K.E. Second order sliding mode control of a permanent magnet synchronous motor.
In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and
Computer Engineering (STA), Sousse, Tunisia, 20–22 December 2013; pp. 535–539.
95. Levant, A.; Fridman, L. Robustness issues of 2-sliding mode control. In Variable Structure Systems: From
Principles to Implementation; Institution of Engineering and Technology: Stevenage, UK, 2004; pp. 131–156.
[CrossRef]
96. Bartolini, G.; Pisano, A.; Usai, E. Second-order sliding-mode control of container cranes. Automatica 2002, 38,
1783–1790. [CrossRef]
97. Ling, R.; Maksimovic, D.; Leyva, R. Second-Order Sliding-Mode Controlled Synchronous Buck DC-DC
Converter. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2016, 31, 2539–2549. [CrossRef]
98. Ferrara, A.; Incremona, G.P. Design of an Integral Suboptimal Second-Order Sliding Mode Controller for
the Robust Motion Control of Robot Manipulators. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2015, 23, 2316–2325.
[CrossRef]
99. Lin, F.J.; Hung, Y.C.; Ruan, K.C. An Intelligent Second-Order Sliding-Mode Control for an Electric Power
Steering System Using a Wavelet Fuzzy Neural Network. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2014, 22, 1598–1611.
[CrossRef]
100. Ebrahimi, B.; Tafreshi, R.; Mohammadpour, J.; Franchek, M.; Grigoriadis, K.; Masudi, H. Second-Order
Sliding Mode Strategy for Air-Fuel Ratio Control of Lean-Burn SI Engines. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
2014, 22, 1374–1384. [CrossRef]
101. Shtessel, Y.B.; Shkolnikov, I.A.; Levant, A. Guidance and Control of Missile Interceptor using Second-Order
Sliding Modes. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2009, 45, 110–124. [CrossRef]
102. Pisano, A.; Davila, A.; Fridman, L.; Usai, E. Cascade Control of PM DC Drives Via Second-Order Sliding-Mode
Technique. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2008, 55, 3846–3854. [CrossRef]
103. Laghrouche, S.; Plestan, F.; Glumineau, A.; Boisliveau, R. Robust second order sliding mode control for a
permanent magnet synchronous motor. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Denver, CO,
USA, 4–6 June 2003; pp. 4071–4076.
104. Kommuri, S.K.; Rath, J.J.; Veluvolu, K.C.; Defoort, M.; Soh, Y.C. Decoupled current control and sensor fault
detection with second-order sliding mode for induction motor. IET Control Theory Appl. 2015, 9, 608–617.
[CrossRef]
105. Susperregui, A.; Martinez, M.I.; Tapia, G.; Vechiu, I. Second-order sliding-mode controller design and
tuning for grid synchronisation and power control of a wind turbine-driven doubly fed induction generator.
IET Renew. Power Gener. 2013, 7, 540–551. [CrossRef]
106. Beltran, B.; Benbouzid, M.E.H.; Ahmed-Ali, T. Second-Order Sliding Mode Control of a Doubly Fed Induction
Generator Driven Wind Turbine. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2012, 27, 261–269. [CrossRef]
107. Bitao, Z.; Youguo, P. Velocity Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Based on Second-Order
Sliding-Mode Technology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Manufacturing &
Automation (ICDMA), Changsha, China, 18–20 December 2010; pp. 893–897.
108. Qi, L.; Shi, H. A Novel Second Order Sliding Mode Control Algorithm for Velocity Control Permanent Magnet
Synchronous Motor. In Intelligent Computing for Sustainable Energy and Environment: Second International
Conference; Li, K., Li, S., Li, D., Niu, Q., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.
109. Bartolini, G.; Ferrara, A.; Usani, E. Chattering avoidance by second-order sliding mode control. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control 1998, 43, 241–246. [CrossRef]
110. Boiko, I.; Fridman, L.; Pisano, A.; Usai, E. Analysis of Chattering in Systems With Second-Order Sliding
Modes. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2007, 52, 2085–2102. [CrossRef]
111. Gao, W.; Hung, J.C. Variable structure control of nonlinear systems: A new approach. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 1993, 40, 45–55. [CrossRef]
112. Zhang, X.; Zhao, K.; Sun, L. A PMSM sliding mode control system based on a novel reaching law.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Beijing, China,
20–23 August 2011; pp. 1–5.
113. Jamoussi, K.; Ouali, M.; Chrifi-Alaoui, L.; Benderradji, H.; Hajjaji, A.E. Robust Sliding Mode Control Using
Adaptive Switching Gain for Induction Motors. Int. J. Autom. Comput. 2013, 10, 303–311. [CrossRef]
114. Faa-Jeng, L.; Sheng-Lyin, C.; Kuo-Kai, S. Novel sliding mode controller for synchronous motor drive. IEEE
Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 1998, 34, 532–542. [CrossRef]
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 26 of 27

115. In-Cheol, B.; Kyeong-Hwa, K.; Myung-Joong, Y. Robust nonlinear speed control of PM synchronous motor
using boundary layer integral sliding mode control technique. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2000, 8,
47–54. [CrossRef]
116. Chen, W.H.; Yang, J.; Guo, L.; Li, S. Disturbance-Observer-Based Control and Related Methods—An Overview.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 1083–1095. [CrossRef]
117. Chiang, H.K.; Tseng, C.H. Integral variable structure controller with grey prediction for synchronous
reluctance motor drive. IEE Proc.—Electr. Power Appl. 2004, 151, 349–358. [CrossRef]
118. SangJoo, K.; Wan Kyun, C. A discrete-time design and analysis of perturbation observer for motion control
applications. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2003, 11, 399–407. [CrossRef]
119. She, J.H.; Fang, M.; Ohyama, Y.; Hashimoto, H.; Wu, M. Improving Disturbance-Rejection Performance Based
on an Equivalent-Input-Disturbance Approach. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2008, 55, 380–389. [CrossRef]
120. Jingqing, H. The Extended State Observer of a Class of Uncertain Systems. Control Decis. 1995, 1. Available
online: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-KZYC501.019 (accessed on 20 January 2019).
121. Wang, J.; Li, S.; Yang, J.; Wu, B.; Li, Q. Extended state observer-based sliding mode control for PWM-based
DC-DC buck power converter systems with mismatched disturbances. IET Control Theory Appl. 2015, 9,
579–586. [CrossRef]
122. Ohnishi, K. A new servo method in mechatronics. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Electr. Eng. 1987, 107, 83–86.
123. Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Xia, Y.; Zuo, Z.; Wang, Y. Disturbance Observer-Based Integral Sliding-Mode Control for
Systems With Mismatched Disturbances. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2016, 63, 7040–7048. [CrossRef]
124. Cao, Y.; Chen, X.B. Disturbance-Observer-Based Sliding-Mode Control for a 3-DOF Nanopositioning Stage.
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2014, 19, 924–931. [CrossRef]
125. Mu, C.; Zong, Q.; Tian, B.; Xu, W. Continuous sliding mode controller with disturbance observer for
hypersonic vehicles. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. 2015, 2, 45–55. [CrossRef]
126. Kaynak, O.; Erbatur, K.; Ertugnrl, M. The fusion of computationally intelligent methodologies and
sliding-mode control-a survey. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2001, 48, 4–17. [CrossRef]
127. Chen, Z.; Shan, C.; Zhu, H. Adaptive Fuzzy Sliding Mode Control Algorithm for a Non-Affine Nonlinear
System. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2007, 3, 302–311. [CrossRef]
128. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [CrossRef]
129. Mohanty, A.; Patra, S.; Ray, P.K. Robust fuzzy-sliding mode based UPFC controller for transient stability
analysis in autonomous wind-diesel-PV hybrid system. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2016, 10, 1248–1257.
[CrossRef]
130. Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, G.; Yuan, X. Robust Regenerative Charging Control Based on T-S Fuzzy Sliding-Mode
Approach for Advanced Electric Vehicle. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2016, 2, 52–65. [CrossRef]
131. Dasmahapatra, S.; Sarkar, B.K.; Saha, R.; Chatterjee, A.; Mookherjee, S.; Sanyal, D. Design of an Adaptive
Fuzzy-Bias SMC and Validation for a Rugged Electrohydraulic System. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2015,
20, 2708–2715. [CrossRef]
132. Yin, X.X.; Lin, Y.G.; Li, W.; Liu, H.W.; Gu, Y.J. Fuzzy-Logic Sliding-Mode Control Strategy for Extracting
Maximum Wind Power. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2015, 30, 1267–1278. [CrossRef]
133. Saghafinia, A.; Wooi Ping, H.; Nasir Uddin, M. Fuzzy sliding mode control based on boundary layer theory
for chattering-free and robust induction motor drive. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 71, 57–68. [CrossRef]
134. Elsayed, B.A.; Hassan, M.A.; Mekhilef, S. Fuzzy swinging-up with sliding mode control for third order
cart-inverted pendulum system. Int. J. Control Autom. 2015, 13, 238–248. [CrossRef]
135. Elsayed, B.A.; Hassan, M.; Mekhilef, S. Decoupled third-order fuzzy sliding model control for cart-inverted
pendulum system. Appl. Math. 2013, 7, 193–201. [CrossRef]
136. Lee, C.C. Fuzzy logic in control systems: Fuzzy logic controller. I. IEEE Trans. Syst. ManCybern. 1990, 20,
404–418. [CrossRef]
137. Guo, Y.; Long, H. Self organizing fuzzy sliding mode controller for the position control of a permanent
magnet synchronous motor drive. AIN Shams Eng. J. 2011, 2, 109–118. [CrossRef]
138. Kuo, C.-F.; Hsu, C.-H.; Tsai, C.-C. Control of a permanent magnet synchronous motor with a fuzzy
sliding-mode controller. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2007, 32, 757–763. [CrossRef]
139. Brock, S.; Deskur, J.; Zawirski, K. Robust speed and position control of PMSM. In Proceedings of Proceedings
of the IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (Cat. No.99TH8465) (ISIE), Bled, Slovenia,
12–16 July 1999; pp. 667–672.
Energies 2019, 12, 1669 27 of 27

140. Saghafinia, A.; Ping, H.W.; Uddin, M.N.; Gaeid, K.S. Adaptive Fuzzy Sliding-Mode Control Into
Chattering-Free IM Drive. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2015, 51, 692–701. [CrossRef]
141. Faa-Jeng, L.; Po-Hung, S. Robust Fuzzy Neural Network Sliding-Mode Control for Two-Axis Motion Control
System. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2006, 53, 1209–1225. [CrossRef]
142. Liangyong, W.; Tianyou, C.; Lianfei, Z. Neural-Network-Based Terminal Sliding-Mode Control of Robotic
Manipulators Including Actuator Dynamics. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 56, 3296–3304. [CrossRef]
143. Rossomando, F.G.; Soria, C.M. Adaptive Neural Sliding Mode Control in Discrete Time for a SCARA robot
arm. IEEE Lat. Am. Trans. 2016, 14, 2556–2564. [CrossRef]
144. Wiest, J.H.; Buckner, G.D. Indirect Intelligent Sliding Mode Control of Antagonistic Shape Memory Alloy
Actuators Using Hysteretic Recurrent Neural Networks. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2014, 22, 921–929.
[CrossRef]
145. Castaneda, C.E.; Loukianov, A.G.; Sanchez, E.N.; Castillo-Toledo, B. Discrete-Time Neural Sliding-Mode
Block Control for a DC Motor With Controlled Flux. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2012, 59, 1194–1207. [CrossRef]
146. Lin, F.J.; Hung, Y.C.; Chen, S.Y. Field-programmable gate array-based intelligent dynamic sliding-mode
control using recurrent wavelet neural network for linear ultrasonic motor. IET Control Theory Appl. 2010, 4,
1511–1532. [CrossRef]
147. Pan, H.; Xia, L.Z. Efficient Object Recognition Using Boundary Representation and Wavelet Neural Network.
IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 2008, 19, 2132–2149. [CrossRef]
148. Wai, R.J.; Muthusamy, R. Fuzzy-Neural-Network Inherited Sliding-Mode Control for Robot Manipulator
Including Actuator Dynamics. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 2013, 24, 274–287. [CrossRef]
149. Wai, R.J. Total sliding-mode controller for PM synchronous servo motor drive using recurrent fuzzy neural
network. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2001, 48, 926–944.
150. Sheng, L.; Xiaojie, G.; Lanyong, Z. Robust Adaptive Backstepping Sliding Mode Control for Six-Phase
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor Using Recurrent Wavelet Fuzzy Neural Network. IEEE Access 2017,
5, 14502–14515. [CrossRef]
151. Zaihidee, F.M.; Mekhilef, S.; Mubin, M. Fractional order SMC for speed control of PMSM. In Proceedings of
the 6th International Electrical Engineering Congress (iEECON2018), Krabi, Thailand, 7–9 March 2018.
152. Plestan, F.; Shtessel, Y.; Brégeault, V.; Poznyak, A. New methodologies for adaptive sliding mode control.
Int. J. Control 2010, 83, 1907–1919. [CrossRef]
153. Chen, Q.; Tao, L.; Nan, Y.; Ren, X. Adaptive Nonlinear Sliding Mode Control of Mechanical Servo System
With LuGre Friction Compensation. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 2015, 138, 021003–021009. [CrossRef]
154. Roy, S.; Kar, I.N. Adaptive robust tracking control of a class of nonlinear systems with input delay.
Nonlinear Dyn. 2016, 85, 1127–1139. [CrossRef]
155. Roy, S.; Kar, I.N. Adaptive sliding mode control of a class of nonlinear systems with artificial delay.
J. Frankl. Inst. 2017, 354, 8156–8179. [CrossRef]
156. Roy, S.; Kar, I.N.; Lee, J.; Jin, M. Adaptive-Robust Time-Delay Control for a Class of Uncertain Euler–Lagrange
Systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 7109–7119. [CrossRef]
157. Roy, S.; Kar, I.N.; Lee, J.; Tsagarakis, N.G.; Caldwell, D.G. Adaptive-Robust Control of a Class of EL Systems
With Parametric Variations Using Artificially Delayed Input and Position Feedback. IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol. 2018, 1–13. [CrossRef]
158. Mobayen, S. An adaptive chattering-free PID sliding mode control based on dynamic sliding manifolds for a
class of uncertain nonlinear systems. Nonlinear Dyn. 2015, 82, 53–60. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).