Article

Journal of Vibration and Control

2016, Vol. 22(6) 1568–1592

A robust and new simple control ! The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
strategy for a class of nonlinear power DOI: 10.1177/1077546314543729
jvc.sagepub.com
systems: induction and servomotors

Mohammad Reza Soltanpour1, Mohammad Hassan Khooban2

and Taher Niknam2

Abstract
In this paper, a robust backstepping controller is presented for position tracking of a class of servomotors. It has been
shown by mathematical proof that the closed-loop system with the proposed controller has global asymptotic stability in
the presence of structured and unstructured uncertainties, and external disturbances. In the following sections of this
paper, to remove the undesirable phenomenon of chattering in the proposed control input, using a Takagi-Sugeno-Kang
fuzzy system a robust fuzzy backstepping controller is designed that does not suffer from the undesirable phenomenon of
chattering. To investigate the performance of the proposed controller, an induction motor and a DC motor with
uncertainties are used as case studies. In the simulation phase, to provide essential challenges for the proposed con-
trollers, simulations have been implemented in two steps. The results of these simulations show that the proposed
approaches are very robust in the presence of parametric uncertainties, especially in the presence of external disturb-
ances. In the design of a robust fuzzy controller, practical implementation considerations are taken into account in a way
where the control input has a low computational burden.

Keywords
Fuzzy backstepping controller, fuzzy logic, power systems, robust controller, servomotors

1. Introduction
A wide variety of automatic processes involve control-
ling the position of electrical servodrives. However, the
performance of these servodrives is affected by uncer-
tainties, e.g. external disturbances, unmodeled dynam-
ics, unstructured uncertainties caused by non-ideal field
orientation in the transient state, mechanical-parameter
variation, and so on. In practice, it is very difficult to
obtain complete information about these uncertainties
in advance. So far, in order to deal with these uncer-
tainties, much research has been carried out to apply
various methods in the field of control.
Variable structure control and especially sliding
mode control are among the approaches that are com-
monly used in the field of electrical machine drives
(Slotine and Li, 1991; Khalil, 2002; Tadjine et al.,
2003).
Sliding mode control has a very good performance
in overcoming the structured and unstructured uncer-
tainties and external disturbances that exist in the
dynamics of servomotors. However, this desirable per-
formance encounters the undesirable chattering phe-
nomenon in control input. To overcome this
phenomenon, researchers have proposed various
approaches, one of which is to create a boundary
layer around the zero sliding surface (Kim and Jeon,
2004). Although the chattering problem is solved by
this, the servomotor encounters steady-state errors.
In recent years, various approaches have been
presented to solve this problem (Byungkook and
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Shahid Sattari Aeronautical
University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Electronic and Electrical, Shiraz University of Technology,
Iran
Received: 14 December 2013; accepted: 9 May 2014
Corresponding author:
Mohammad Hassan Khooban, Department of Electronic and Electrical,
Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, Iran.
Email: khooban@sutech.ac.ir
Soltanpour et al.
Woonchol, 1998; Huang and Huang, 2001; Tao et al.,
2003; Agamy et al., 2004; Lin and Hsu, 2004; Hsu et al.,
2005; Shahnazi et al., 2008). Combinations of sliding
mode control, adaptive control, and fuzzy theory have
been used in these methods. Simulation results show the
desirable performance of the proposed controllers in
overcoming structured and unstructured uncertainties,
and external disturbances. However, these approaches
have the following problems:
. In the rule base of fuzzy inference of these control-
lers, multiple input-multiple output (MIMO) fuzzy
rules have been used. On the other hand, various
adaptive laws have been used for online updating
of membership functions that exist in these
rule bases. Therefore, the computational burden
of the proposed controllers is extremely high.
Consequently, high speed processors have to be
used to implement these controllers in practice, and
as a result, their implementation costs greatly
increase.
. The design stages of these controllers are very com-
plicated. Therefore, learning these methods is diffi-
cult for students of control engineering and the
researchers who work in this field.
When the capability of fuzzy theory to overcome the
chattering phenomenon was revealed, researchers pre-
sented simpler approaches (Khooban and Soltanpour,
2013; Niknam and Khooban, 2013; Niknam et al.,
2014). As a result, the proposed approaches did not
suffer from the aforementioned drawbacks. In other
words, implementation of these controllers is simple
and the computational burden control input is very
low. However these methods have the following
disadvantage:
. Similar to approaches presented by Byungkook and
Woonchol (1998), Huang and Huang (2001), Tao
et al. (2003), Agamy et al. (2004), Lin and Hsu
(2004), Hsu et al. (2005), and Shahnazi et al.
(2008), the proposed approaches could only be
applied on single input-single output (SISO) systems.
In recent years, a backstepping control method was
presented to control a particular group of MIMO
industrial systems. As the backstepping method can
be designed step by step, learning this control approach
is very simple. Over time, researchers used this method
to overcome the problems that they encountered in
controlling industrial systems. Soon it became clear
that it is only if an accurate dynamic model of the
system under control is available that the backstepping
method performs well and can guarantee the stability of
a closed-loop system, while because of the existence of
1569
structured and unstructured uncertainties and external
disturbances in many industrial systems, it is very dif-
ficult and often even impossible to present a highly
accurate dynamic model for the system under control
(Khalil, 2002). When the problems of the backstepping
technique became known, researchers tried to combine
this method with other control techniques in order
to overcome the problems existing in controlling the
position of electrical servomotors.
1.1. Neural network-based backstepping control
Along with the backstepping approach, sliding
mode control techniques and neural networks
(NN) have recently been used to control the DC servo-
motors that are the actuators of industrial robot
manipulators (Shafiei and Soltanpour, 2009;
Soltanpour et al., 2012). A controller which is presented
by combining these methods has a desirable perform-
ance and successfully controls the DC servomotor in
the presence of structured and unstructured uncertain-
ties, and external disturbances. Despite these advan-
tages, the proposed controllers have the following
drawbacks:
. Because sliding mode control is used, the control
input has severe chattering. The occurrence of this
undesirable phenomenon could excite the natural
frequencies existing in the dynamics of the DC
motor. If this happens, the stability of the closed-
loop system is lost.
. The design stages of the proposed controller are
complicated and the control input has a high com-
putational burden.
1.2. Neural network-based adaptive-
backstepping control
To control induction servomotors, researchers have
used combinations of backstepping, neural networks
and adaptive control methods (Lin et al., 2002; Lin
and Hsu, 2005). Finally, the proposed controllers
have the properties of all these three control
approaches and the induction servomotor system has
global asymptotic stability. In spite of these outstand-
ing results, the proposed controllers have the following
drawbacks:
. Using a hidden-layer NN, an adaptive-backstepping
control system has been proposed. In this system, the
gradient-descent technique is used for deriving the
NN parameter-training algorithms. However,
the global convergence of these parameters could
not be guaranteed by the gradient-descent method.
1570
. The proposed controllers make the closed-loop
system asymptotically stable in the presence of para-
metric uncertainties. However, where there are exter-
nal disturbances and unmodeled dynamics, it is
impossible to guarantee the stability of the closed-
loop system.
. As there is an adaptive rule that updates the coeffi-
cients of the controller online, the proposed control-
lers have a high computational burden. Therefore, if
a delay occurs in control input calculations, guaran-
teeing the stability of the closed-loop system encoun-
ters some difficulties.
1.3. Adaptive backstepping controller
In the past, combinations of the backstepping
approach and adaptive control have been used to
control induction motors with uncertainties (Lin
and Lee, 2000). The proposed controller shows
good performance in overcoming the parametric
uncertainties and makes the closed-loop system
asymptotically stable. In Shieh and Shyu (1999) , to
overcome the structured and unstructured uncertain-
ties, and external disturbances, sliding mode control
has been used along with an adaptive backstepping
technique. However, when researchers wish to
use these approaches, they have to consider the
following:
. The proposed approaches can only be used for
controlling a particular type of induction motors
. The occurrence of the undesirable chattering
phenomenon in the control input
. To design the control system, it is necessary to have
prior knowledge of the system
1.4. Backstepping wavelet neural network control
Using combinations of backstepping, wavelet, and
neural network methods is one of the approaches pro-
posed for decreasing the problems of the backstepping
technique in controlling induction motors (Wai and
Chang, 2004). The proposed control outperforms all
the approaches mentioned above in overcoming all
the uncertainties that exist in the dynamics of the induc-
tion motor. However, the proposed control encounters
the following drawbacks:
. The performance of a control input for tracking the
desirable non-smooth path is accompanied with the
occurrence of chattering phenomenon
. The design stages of the controller are extremely
complicated
Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)
. Because various adaptive laws exist in the control
input, the computational burden of this controller
is very high
In this paper, using a combination of backstepping
approach and Lyapunov redesign approach, a robust
backstepping controller is presented for controlling the
position of a class of servomotors. In the design process
of the proposed control, the authors have tried to con-
sider the simplicity of designing stages, the computa-
tional burden of the control input and, generally, to
take into account the practical considerations of imple-
mentation. The proposed control successfully over-
comes all the uncertainties existing in the dynamics
of servomotors. However, as with most of the control-
lers investigated in this section, it encounters the chat-
tering phenomenon. Next, to solve this problem,
the TSK fuzzy system is used in designing this control-
ler. Finally, combining the backstepping method,
the Lyapunov redesign approach, and the TSK
fuzzy system results in the presentation of a robust
fuzzy controller that does not encounter the undesirable
chattering phenomenon. The proposed controller has
the design simplicity of the backstepping approach,
the robustness of the Lyapunov redesign approach,
and a high capacity of fuzzy theory against
uncertainties.
2. Problem formula
Consider the following MIMO system:
(
_ ¼ f ð, Þ
ð1Þ
_ ¼ fa ð, Þ þ ga ð, Þ½u þ ð, Þ
In equation (1), the state variable  2 Rnp , the state
variable 2 Rp , the control input u 2 Rp , and fð, Þ,
fa ð, Þ, ga ð, Þ, and ð, Þ are smooth and differen-
tiable functions.
Assumption 1: In equation (1), it is assumed
that the function ga ð, Þ does not have any singular
value.
2.1. Stabilizing MIMO systems using robust
backstepping method
In this section, it is attempted to design the control
input, u, in such a way that it makes the origin of
system (1) i.e. ð ¼ 0, ¼ 0Þ asymptotically stable in
the presence of all structured and unstructured uncer-
tainties. The backstepping approach could be used to
stabilize all systems with dynamic equations of (1)
Soltanpour et al. 1571

(Khalil, 2002). To stabilize system (1), the equations are From equation (5) it can be concluded that if z ¼ 0
changed as follows: then, ¼ ðÞ and finally  converges to zero. Next,
the control input, u, is designed in a way that it makes z
8
> _ ¼ fN ð, Þ þ fU ð, Þ converge to zero in a limited time and then keeps
>
< it equal to zero the rest of the times. To do this, equa-
_ ¼ faN ð, Þ þ faU ð, Þ þ ð gaN ð, Þ ð2Þ
>
> tion (5) is differentiated with respect to the time:
:
þgaU ð, ÞÞ½u þ ð, Þ

In equation (2), fN ð, Þ, faN ð, Þ, gaN ð, Þ and z_ ¼ _  ðÞ

_ ð6Þ
fU ð, Þ faU ð, Þ, gaU ð, Þ are the known and unknown
parts of functions f ð, Þ fa ð, Þ and ga ð, Þ, respect- Equation (3) is substituted into equation (6) and then,
ively and ð, Þ is an unknown function. the result is organized as follows:

Assumption 2: Although fU ð, Þ is not known,

fU ð, Þ   where  is a positive and known constant.
Assumption 3: Although faU ð, Þ is not known,
faU ð, Þ   where  is a positive and known
constant.
Assumption 4: Although gaU ð, Þ is not known,
0 5 gaU ð, Þ   where  is a known and positive
constant.
z_ ¼ faN ð, Þ þ gaN ð, Þ½u þ ð, Þ þ ð, , uÞ
@ðÞ ð7Þ
 ½ fN ð, Þ þ fU ð, Þ
@
Theory 1: the system of equation (7), with the following
control input and in the presence of all structured and
unstructured uncertainties, makes the state variable z
converge to zero. Therefore, the closed-loop system
becomes global asymptotically stable:

Assumption 5: Although ð, Þ is not known,

8
ð, Þ   where  is a known and positive constant. >
> u ¼ ueq þ g1
aN ð, Þ
In the mentioned assumptions,  stand for >
>  
>
> @ðÞ
>
> 1
Euclidean norm. By defining ð, , uÞ ¼ faU ð, Þ < ueq ¼ gaN ð, Þ faN ð, Þ þ @ fN ð, Þ
þgaU ð, Þ½u þ ð, Þ, equation (2) is organized as
follows: >
>  ¼ signðzÞ,   
>
>
>
>
( >
> @ðÞ
:  ¼ gaN ð, Þð, Þ þ ð, , uÞ  fU ð, Þ
_ ¼ fN ð, Þ þ fU ð, Þ @
ð3Þ
_ ¼ faN ð, Þ þ gaN ð, Þ½u þ ð, Þ þ ð, , uÞ ð8Þ
where,  represents the Euclidean norm.

Proof: The control input is called ueq. This control

Remark 1: ð, , uÞ is a part of the sum of structured input is selected in such a way that it removes the
and unstructured uncertainties existing in system (1). known dynamics of the right side of equation (7). In
In order to stabilize equation (3) by using the back- other words, if equation (7) does not have unknown
stepping approach, as a virtual input, is considered to dynamics and uncertainties, ueq could result in z_ ¼ 0:
be equal to ðÞ: The function ðÞ must be selected in a In fact, ueq is a part of the control input which keeps the
way that ð0Þ ¼ 0 for  ¼ 0. Consequently, the origin of condition of z ¼ 0 for future times and prevents the
the following system is made asymptotically stable by changes of z:
this virtual input:
 
@ðÞ
_ ¼ fN ð, ðÞÞ þ fU ð, ðÞÞ ð4Þ ueq ¼ g1
aN ð, Þ faN ð, Þ þ fN ð, Þ ð9Þ
@
Next, in this paper, in the section on designing a
controller for systems used as case studies, it is Next, the control input obtained as
explained how ðÞ is selected. The following variable
is introduced for designing the controller: u ¼ ueq þ g1
aN ð, Þ ð10Þ

In equation (10),  is a new control input which is

z¼  ðÞ ð5Þ designed to overcome the existing uncertainties.
1572
Substituting equations (9) and (10) in equation (7)
results in
@ðÞ
z_ ¼  þ gaN ð, Þð, Þ þ ð, , uÞ 
@
By defining  ¼ gaN ð, Þð, Þ þ ð, , uÞ  @ðÞ
@
fU ð, Þ, equation (11) is simplified as follows:
z_ ¼  þ 
Remark 2:  is the sum of all structured and unstruc-
tured uncertainties in system (1). In fact, if all the
dynamics of system (1) are known then,  ¼ 0.
Next, the new control input, , is designed in such a
way that it makes the variable z converge to zero. To
achieve this goal, equation (12) is written in the form of
p scalar equations:
z_i ¼ i þ i , 1ip
To design the control input , the Lyapunov candi-
date function is presented as the following:
1 e ¼   d
Vi ðzi Þ ¼ z2i
2
Equation (14) is differentiated with respect
to the time and equation (13) is substituted into the
result:
V_ i ðzi Þ ¼ zi z_i ¼ zi ði þ i Þ
In order to satisfy V_ i ðzi Þ  0, i ¼ i zzii is selected. It
is necessary to mention that i is a positive constant
that satisfies the condition of i  i . Substituting
i ¼ i zzii in equation (15) results in
V_ i ðzi Þ  i kzi k þ zi i  0
From equation (16), it can be concluded that by
selecting control input (8), the energy of co-energy
function of Vi ðzi Þ decreases with time. Therefore, as
time passes, the variable z converges to zero and these
result in i ¼ i ði Þ and finally, the closed loop becomes
globally asymptotically stable.
Remark 3: It can be concluded from equation (16) that
Vi ðzi Þ ¼ 0 if zi ¼ 0. In this case, the global asymptotic
stability of the system is guaranteed again.
Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)
2.2. Implementing robust backstepping method
The implementation steps of the proposed method in
the previous section are as follows:
fU ð, Þ
1. First, the dynamic equations of the system must be
ð11Þ expressed in the form of equation (1):
2. Collecting the system information and determining
its known dynamics
3. Determining the virtual input ¼ ðÞ
4. Determining ¼ ðÞ:
5. Estimating the value of ,  using the system informa-
ð12Þ
tion and equation :
6. Designing the control input by using equation (8)
3. Position tracking control of the
system using the robust backstepping
method
In many industrial works, researchers do not seek to
stabilize industrial systems, but position tracking con-
trol of these systems is considered vital (Khalil, 2002).
ð13Þ Therefore, in this section, the proposed approach in
Section 2 is attempted for position tracking control of
a system that has the dynamic equation of (1). To do
so, first the tracking error is introduced:
ð17Þ
ð14Þ
In equation (17), d is a desirable path that must be
tracked by the state variable, . Equation (17) is differ-
entiated with respect to the time, and equation (1) is
substituted into it:
(
ð15Þ e_ ¼ f ð, Þ  _ d
ð18Þ
_ ¼ fa ð, Þ þ ga ð, Þ½u þ ð, Þ
According to Section 2, the dynamic equations of
(18) are divided into the following known and unknown
parts:
ð16Þ 8
e_ ¼ fN ð, Þ þ fU ð, Þ  _ d
>
<
_ ¼ faN ð, Þ þ faU ð, Þ þ ð gaN ð, Þ ð19Þ
>
:
þ gaU ð, ÞÞ½u þ ð, Þ
By defining ð, , uÞ ¼ faU ð, Þ þ gaU ð, Þ
½u þ ð, Þ, equation (19) is organized as follows:

e_ ¼ fN ð, Þ þ fU ð, Þ  _ d
_ ¼ faN ð, Þ þ gaN ð, Þ½u þ ð, Þ þ ð, , uÞ
ð20Þ
Soltanpour et al. 1573

By comparing equations (20) and (3) it can the proposed control (8) is modified as follows (Kim
be concluded that the problem of designing a pos- and Jeon, 2004):
ition tracking controller has been converted into
a stabilization problem. Therefore, using the pro- 8
>
> u ¼ ueq þ g1aN ð, Þ 
posed approach in Section 2, a position tracking >
>
>
> 1 @ðÞ
controller could be designed in such a way that it >
< u eq ¼ gaN ð, Þ fa N
ð, Þ þ f N ð, Þ
makes the tracking error, e, converge to zero in the z @
presence of all uncertainties. Since the details of the >
>  ¼ sat , 
>
> 
proposed design approach are fully described in >
> @ðÞ
>
:  ¼ gaN ð, Þð, Þ þ ð, , uÞ  fU ð, Þ
Section 2, they are not described again in this @
section.
ð21Þ

3.1. The Advantages of robust backstepping
control
In the design of the proposed controller some points
are considered to make it possible to implement this
control approach in practice. The advantages of the
proposed control are listed below:
1. Using known dynamics in the design of the proposed
controller limits the boundaries of structured and
unstructured uncertainties. Therefore, the amplitude
of control input becomes small and saturation of
actuator is prevented
2. The design steps of the proposed controller are
such that when it is attempted to prove the stabil-
ity of a closed-loop system, Lyapunov candi-
date functions are simply given to the designers.
In most of the control approaches, however,
finding Lyapunov functions is a very complicated
task
3. In the proposed control, the converging speed of z to
zero could be increased by properly selecting the
coefficients of controllers
4. In contrast to most of the existing techniques, the
proposed control could be implemented on MIMO
systems
5. The design process of the proposed controller is car-
ried out step by step, and therefore learning this
approach is very easy for designers.
3.2. The drawback of robust backstepping control
Despite the advantages mentioned in the previous sec-
tion, the proposed approach has some disadvantages.
Considering the proposed control (8), the occurrence of
an undesirable chattering phenomenon in the control
input is inevitable. The natural frequencies of the
system are excited with the occurrence of chattering.
Therefore, guaranteeing the stability of the closed-
loop system is no longer possible (Khalil, 2002). To
solve the problem of chattering in the control input,
Where, sat(*) is the saturation function. In equation
(21), the chattering phenomenon could be removed
from the control input by properly selecting 
(the thickness of boundary layer). However, in this
case we have no control over the position tracking
error of the system under control. In fact, by selecting
 one of the following conditions takes place in this
controller:
1. Selecting a large value for  removes the chattering
in the control input and increases the error in track-
ing the position of the system under control
2. Selecting a small value for  increases the accuracy
in tracking the position of the system under control
but unfortunately it brings about vibration phenom-
enon in the control input.
While in most industrial applications of servomotors,
removing chattering of the control input and accuracy
in position tracking are especially important. This is the
reason why in the next section the first order TSK fuzzy
system is used for controlling the position tracking
error and overcoming the undesirable chattering
phenomenon.
4. Position tracking control using fuzzy
robust backstepping method
A first-order fuzzy TSK system is defined by fuzzy
if-then rules which show the relationship between
inputs and outputs. Generally, the fuzzy rules of the
first-order TSK fuzzy control system are defined as fol-
lows (Wang, 1997):
if x1 is Ai1 and . . . and xn is Ain then yi
ð22Þ
¼ ai0 þ ai1 x1 þ    þ ain xn
where, i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , and M is the number of fuzzy rules.
yi s are the outputs of these M fuzzy rules and
ai0 , ai1 , . . . , ain are positive constant coefficients.
1574 Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)

To design a fuzzy robust backstepping position control- 2. System information is collected and the known
ler, equation (8) can be expressed as follows: dynamics of the system are determined
8   3. The virtual input ¼ ðÞ is determined
>
> 1 @ðÞ 4. z ¼  ðÞ is determined
>
> u ¼ gaN ð, Þ faN ð, Þ þ fN ð, Þ
< eq @ 5. The value of  using system information and equa-
ð23Þ tion  is estimated
>
> u ¼ ueq  g1
aN ð, Þ z40
>
> 6. ueq by using equation (2) is determined
:
u ¼ ueq þ g1
aN ð, Þ z50 7. u1 and u2 and membership functions A1 and A2 are
determined
8. Build fuzzy inference system
Remark 4: It is known that if the control input of the 9. Select the center average defuzzifier
fuzzy robust backstepping controller is similar to the
_  0, and based
control input of equation (23) then VðzÞ
on theory 1, the global asymptotic stability of the 4.2. Advantages of fuzzy robust backstepping
closed-loop system is achieved.
To achieve this goal, the fuzzy rules of the proposed
position tracking control
controllers can be expressed as follows: In addition to the advantages mentioned in Section
3.1., the fuzzy robust backstepping position tracking
R1 : if z is A1 then u ¼ u1 ¼ ueq  g1
aN ð, Þ ð24Þ control also has the following advantages:

R2 : if z is A2 then u ¼ u2 ¼ ueq þ g1

aN ð, Þ
1. The rule base of proposed control has only two
rules. Therefore, practical implementation of this
If we consider ‘z’ as the input of the TSK fuzzy proposed controller is possible because of its low
system, using center average defuzzifier, its output computational burden
could be obtained as follows: 2. Due to the existence of stability proof mentioned in
Section 2, determining the membership functions of
P2
i ðzÞui the rule base of the proposed TSK fuzzy system is
u ¼ Pi¼1
2
ð25Þ very easy
i¼1 i ðzÞ
3. The undesirable chattering phenomenon is removed
i ðzÞ is the triggering power of ith rule which is obtained from control input
by using the following equation: 4. The fuzzy part of the proposed control can be easily
optimized by using heuristic algorithms such as gen-
i ðzÞ ¼
Ai ðzÞ ð26Þ etic algorithms, ant colony optimization and so on

In fact, equation (26) is the membership degree of Next, to investigate the performance of the proposed
input z in membership function Ai from ith rule. So, the controller, a case study is carried out on an induction
proposed controller generally has the following form: motor and a DC servomotor. Overcoming the struc-
8   tured and unstructured uncertainties existing in the
>
> 1 @ðÞ dynamic equations of these servomotors could be a
>
> u eq ¼ g aN ð, Þ f aN ð, Þ þ f N ð, Þ
>
> @ great challenge for the proposed controllers.
>
> P
>
< 2
i ðzÞui
u ¼ Pi¼1 2 ð27Þ
>
>
ðzÞ
i¼1 i
>
> 5. Case studies
>
> u1 ¼ ueq  g1
>
> aN ð, Þ
>
: 2 In this section, to investigate the performance of the
u ¼ ueq þ g1 aN ð, Þ proposed controllers, two different types of servo-
motors with uncertainties are used as case studies.
4.1. Implementing fuzzy robust backstepping These servomotors are selected in such a way that
they encounter the proposed controllers with the great-
position tracking control est challenges (Lin et al., 2002; Shahnazi et al., 2008;
In order to implement the proposed controller the Shafiei and Soltanpour, 2009; Rodriguez-Donate et al.,
following steps are carried out: 2011; Ganesh and Patnaik, 2012; Soltanpour et al.,
2012; Guoguang et al., 2013; Khooban and
1. First, the dynamic equations of the system must be Soltanpour, 2013; Niknam and Khooban, 2013;
expressed in the form of equation (1) Niknam, et al., 2014).
Soltanpour et al. 1575

Example 1: Consider a three-phase Y-connected, two- the state variable . Deriving the error and placing
pole 800 W and 60 Hz 120 V/5.4 A induction servo- equation (29) into it results in:
motor that has the following model: (
e_ ¼ _  _ d ¼  _ d
J€ðtÞ þ B_ðtÞ þ Tl ¼ Te ð28Þ ð32Þ
_ ¼ a þ buðtÞ þ cd ðtÞ

Where, J, B, , Tl , and Te represent the moment of

inertia, damping coefficient, rotor position, external Step 3: in equation (32), as a virtual input, is defined
load disturbance, and the electric torque, respectively. in such a way that it makes e converge to zero:

Step 1: To design the proposed controllers, first by

_
defining  ¼ ðtÞ and ¼ ðtÞ, equation (28) is trans- ¼ ðeÞ ¼ K1 e þ _ d ð33Þ
formed into the form of equation (1):
 Where, K1 is positive constant. To prove that e becomes
_ ¼ zero, the Lyapunov candidate function VðeÞ ¼ 12 e2 is
_ ¼ a þ buðtÞ þ cd ðtÞ ð29Þ
introduced, which is differentiated with respect to the
time, then equation (33) is placed in it:
In equation (29), uðtÞ ¼ TKet represents the torque cur-
rent command (control input), a ¼  BJ, b ¼ KJt 4 0, _ ¼ ee_ ¼ eð  _ d Þ ¼ eðK1 e þ _ d  _ d Þ
VðeÞ
ð34Þ
c ¼  1J, d ðtÞ ¼ Tl , and Kt denotes the torque constant, ¼ K1 e2  0
  2 
3n L
Kt ¼ 2p Lmr ids , where, np is the number of pole pairs,
Lm denotes the magnetizing inductance per phase, Lr Step 4: The variable z is selected as follows:
represents the rotor inductance per phase, and ids is the
flux current command.
z¼ þ K1 e  _ d ð35Þ
A second-order transfer function is selected as the
reference model for a periodic step command. It is clear that if the variable z becomes zero, then
In the equation above, ucommand denotes a periodic equation (33) is satisfied and as a result e converges to
step signal. It is assumed that the initial condition zero. Using equation (32) it can be concluded that
is ½ð0Þ ð0ÞT ¼ ½1 1T : Two cases are considered to
show the effectiveness of the proposed methods: e_ ¼  _ d ð36Þ

d 25 K1e and _ d are once added to and subtracted from

¼ ð30Þ
ucommand s2 þ 10s þ 25 equation (36):

Case1: Robust backstepping method, which was dis- e_ ¼  _ d þ K1 e þ _ d  K1 e  _ d ð37Þ

cussed in Section 2.
Considering equations (35) and (37) it can be concluded
Case2: Fuzzy robust backstepping method, which was that
discussed in Section 4.
e_ ¼ K1 e þ z ð38Þ
5.1. Case 1
The following equation could be obtained using equa-
Step 2: in this step, to design the RBM, it is assumed tions (32), (35), and (38):
that the known parameters of the induction motor are (
as follows: e_ ¼ K1 e þ z
ð39Þ
z_ ¼ a þ buðtÞ þ cd ðtÞ þ K1 e_  € d
KtN ¼ 0:4851 N:m=A
JN ¼ 4:78  103 N:m=s2 ð31Þ
Now, considering Section 2 of this paper, ueq could be
3
BN ¼ 5:34  10 N:m:s=rad determined using equation (39):

To design the RBM, the tracking error, e ¼   d , is

defined. d is the desirable path that must be tracked by ueq ¼ b1
N ðaN  K1 e_ þ 
€d Þ ð40Þ
1576 Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)

K
where, aN ¼  BJNN and bN ¼ JtNN . By determining ueq , Step 6: It can be concluded from equation (47) that
control input is determined as follows: with the proposed control, the closed-loop system has
overall asymptotic stability in the presence of uncer-
uðtÞ ¼ ueq þ b1
N  ð41Þ tainties. Therefore, control input of the proposed
RBM is as follows:
In equation (41),  is a new control input that must
be designed to overcome the existing uncertainties. To
8
design , equation (39) must be rewritten as follows: > u ¼ b1N ðaN  K1 e_ þ 
€d Þ
< eq z
  ¼  ¼ signðzÞ ð48Þ
e_ ¼ K1 e þ z >
: kzk
z_ ¼ ðaN þ aU Þ þ ðbN þ bU ÞuðtÞ þ cd ðtÞ þ K1 e_  € d uðtÞ ¼ ueq þ b1
N 

ð42Þ
In this section of paper, to show the performance of
where, aN , aU , bN , and bU are the known and unknown the RBM controller, two simulation stages are pre-
parts of a and b, respectively. Substituting (40) and (41) sented. The simulation stages are chosen in such a
in equation (42) and simplifying it yields: way that step by step they encounter the proposed con-
troller with more challenges.
8
< e_ ¼ K1 e þ z
z_ ¼  þ ,  ¼ aU  bU b1 1
N aN  bU bN K1 e_ Simulation 1: In this stage of simulation, it is supposed
: that the dynamic equations of the induction motor have
þ bU b1
N € d þ bU b1
N  þ cd ðtÞ
only structured uncertainties. In other words, d ðtÞ ¼ 0:
ð43Þ
in this stage, in order to encounter the proposed control
with maximum structured uncertainties, the following
Step 5: Considering equation (43), it can be concluded values are considered for parameters J and B of the
that  is the sum of all structured and unstructured motor:
uncertainties existing in the dynamic equations of the
induction motor. Next, the control input  is designed J ¼ 2  JN , B ¼ 2  BN ð49Þ
in such a way that it makes the variable z converge to
zero. To do this, the following Lyapunov candidate In this stage of simulation, the coefficients of
function is introduced: the RBM controller were adjusted to K1 ¼ 50 and
 ¼ 250. After carrying out the simulation, according
to Figure 1, it is concluded that the proposed controller
1 1 gives a correct performance in the presence of existing
Vðe, zÞ ¼ e2 þ z2 ð44Þ
2 2 uncertainties and makes the state variable  converge to
the desirable path in less than 1.5 seconds. It is seen in
Equation (44) is differentiated with respect to the Figure 2 that despite severe parametric uncertainties,
time and, considering equation (34), the following the amplitude of control input is within an allowable
equation is obtained: range. However, in this figure, it is very clear that the
undesirable chattering phenomenon has occurred.
_ zÞ ¼ K1 e2 þ zz_
Vðe, ð45Þ According to Figure 3, the tracking error is converged
to zero in less than 1.5 seconds. If close attention is
Substituting (43) into (45) gives paid to this figure, it can be seen that there is a small
variation error around the zero region. It has to be
_ zÞ ¼ K1 e2 þ zð þ Þ
Vðe, ð46Þ mentioned that these error variations could be removed
by increasing the coefficients of control input.
The control input  ¼  zz is selected. Where  is the
positive constant that must satisfy the condition of Simulation 2: In this stage of simulation, in addition to
  : So, the following equation can be obtained by the severe uncertainties of the previous simulation, the
substituting  into equation (46): unstructured uncertainty of d ðtÞ ¼ 2 þ 2sinðtÞ is added
to the dynamics of the induction motor. In this stage of
_ zÞ ¼ K1 e2 þ z þ z
Vðe, simulation, the coefficients of the proposed controller
were adjusted to K1 ¼ 200 and  ¼ 650. After simula-
z2
 K1 e2   þ z ð47Þ tion is carried out, it can be concluded from Figures 4
z
and 6 that the proposed control performs well in the
 K1 e2  z þ z  0 presence of all uncertainties and makes the tracking
Soltanpour et al. 1577

Figure 1. The desirable path and the actual path caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of
structured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of induction motor.

Figure 2. The control input caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured uncertainties
existing in the dynamics of induction motor.
1578 Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)

Figure 3. Tracking error caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured uncertainties
existing in the dynamics of induction motor.

Figure 4. The desirable path and the actual path caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of
structured and unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of induction motor.
Soltanpour et al. 1579

Figure 5. The control input caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured and
unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of induction motor.

Figure 6. Tracking error caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured and unstructured
uncertainties existing in the dynamics of induction motor.
1580 Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)

Figure 7. The desirable path and the actual path caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of
structured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of induction motor.

error converge to zero in less than 0.5 seconds. Of where, z is the premise variable and fuzzy membership
course, according to Figure 5, this appropriate tracking functions are defined as follows:
causes severe chattering to occur in the control input.
This severe chattering can excite the natural frequencies 8
>
> 1
of the dynamics of the induction motor and finally < 1 ðzÞ ¼
damage the system. 1 þ expðrzÞ
1 ð51Þ
>
>
: 2 ðzÞ ¼
1 þ expðrzÞ

5.2. Case 2 where, r ¼ 100. Also, in this section, to show the

In this section, the performance of the fuzzy robust performance of the proposed controller, the simula-
backstepping method (FRBM) controller on the tions of previous stages are repeated.
induction motor is investigated. Based on the
design of the RBM controller which was described Simulation 1: The conditions governing this stage of
in detail in the previous section, the input of the simulation are similar to those of the previous section.
FRBM controller of induction motor (29) is as In this section, K1 ¼ 500 and  ¼ 1000. After simula-
follows: tion, it can be concluded from Figures 7 and 9 that
8 despite the existence of severe parametric uncertainties
>
> ueq ¼ b1
N ðaN  K1 e_ þ 
€d Þ in the system, the FRBM controller performs well and
>
> makes the tracking error converge to zero. If close
>
> P
>
>
2
i ðzÞui attention is paid to Figure 9, it can be concluded that
>
< uðtÞ ¼ Pi¼12
i¼1
i ðzÞ
ð50Þ the closed-loop system encounters a persistent error of
>
> about 0.02. However, it can be seen in Figure 8 that the
>
> 1 1
> u ¼ ueq  bN 
>
> chattering of the control input is significantly decreased
>
>
: 2 and the amplitude of the control input is within the
u ¼ ueq þ b1
N  allowable range.
Soltanpour et al. 1581

Figure 8. The control input caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured uncer-
tainties existing in the dynamics of induction motor.

Figure 9. Tracking error caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured uncertainties
existing in the dynamics of induction motor.
1582 Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)

Figure 10. The desirable path and the actual path caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of
structured and unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of induction motor.

Figure 11. The control input caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured and
unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of induction motor.

Simulation 2: This section of simulation is exactly the and 11 that the proposed controller performs well in
same as Section 2 of the previous simulation. In this the presence of all severe structured and unstructured
section, K1 ¼ 1000 and  ¼ 1200. After simulation is uncertainties, and makes the tracking error converge to
carried out, it can be concluded from Figures 10 zero in less than one second. Figure 12 shows that the
Soltanpour et al. 1583

Figure 12. Tracking error caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured and
unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of induction motor.

Table 1. DC motor parameters.

Back EMF at rated speed Stall current Stall torque Rated speed
E ¼ 120V In ¼ 5:9A Tn ¼ 5:5N:m _ n ¼ 1200r=min
n ¼w
Number of poles Torque constant Back EMF constant Moment of inertia
1 1 2
p¼4 kt ¼ 0:93NA ke ¼ 0:95V:s:rad J ¼ 3  103kg:m
Damping factor Terminal resistance Armature inductance
b ¼ 0:001N:s r ¼ 2:3 l ¼ 6:8mH
EMF: electromotive force.

closed-loop system encounters a maximum error of In equation (52),  represents the position of
0.035. In Figure 1, it can be seen that the effect of chat- the rotor, _ is the angular speed of the rotor, i(t)
tering in control input has decreased and the induction is the phase current, and u(t) is the voltage supply.
motor faces a smooth input with acceptable amplitude. T(t) represents the unknown load disturbance,
and motor parameters are represented by b, kt , J,
Example 2: It was observed in the previous section that r, l, and ke . The ratings and specifications of
the FRBM controller performed very well in the pres- the commercial motor in simulation are given
ence of all uncertainties in the dynamics of the induc- in Table 1.
tion motor. In this section, to create more challenges _
First, by selecting 1 ¼ ðtÞ, 2 ¼ ðtÞ, and ¼ iðtÞ,
for the proposed controller, a system where the the dynamic equations of the DC motor are written in
dynamic equations are more complicated than those the form of equation (1):
of an induction motor was selected. 8
Considering the following DC motor (Shahnazi >
> _ 1 ¼ 2
>
>
et al.,
8 2008): >
>
< b kt
>
> d2 bd kt _ 2 ¼  2 þ ð53Þ
>
< dt2 ðtÞ ¼  J dt ðtÞ þ J iðtÞ J J
>
>
ð52Þ >
>
>
>
>
> d r k e d 1 : _ ¼  r  ke 2 þ 1 ðuðtÞ þ TðtÞÞ
>
: iðtÞ ¼  iðtÞ  ðtÞ þ ðuðtÞ þ TðtÞÞ l l l
dt l l dt l
1584 Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)

Figure 13. The desirable path and the actual path caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of
structured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

Figure 14. The control input caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured and existing
uncertainties in the dynamics of DC motor.
Soltanpour et al. 1585

Figure 15. Tracking error caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured uncertainties
existing in the dynamics of DC motors.

In this stage of simulation, initial conditions are The design steps of the RBM controller were dis-
½1 ð0Þ, 2 ð0Þ, 1 ð0ÞT ¼ ½1, 0, 0T and the desirable path cussed in detail in the first example. Therefore,
is 1d ¼ 6sinðtÞ. only the designed control input is presented in this
Two cases are considered to show the effectiveness of section:
the proposed approaches:
8   
>
> rN keN JN bN
Case 1: Robust backstepping method, which was dis- >
> ueq ¼ lN þ 2 þ _ 2  K1 e þ € 1d  K2 z_1
>
> lN lN k tN J N
cussed in Section 2. >
>
>
>
>
> z_1 ¼ _ 2 þ K1 e_  € 1d
>
>
Case 2: Fuzzy robust backstepping method, which was <
discussed in Section 4.  ¼ signðz2 Þ
>
>
>
>  
>
> JN bN
>
> z ¼    K _
e þ  €  K z
5.3. Case 2 >
> 2
ktN JN
2 1 1 d 2 1
>
>
>
>
In this stage, in order to design the RBM controller, the :
uðtÞ ¼ ueq þ lN 
tracking error is defined as e ¼ 1  1d , and 1d is the
desirable path that must be tracked by the state variable ð55Þ
1 . Differentiating the error and substituting equation
(53) results in where, the parameters with index N are the known par-
ameters of the DC motor and coefficients K1, and K2
8 are positive constants. To investigate the performance
>
> e_ ¼ 2  _ 1d
>
> of the proposed controller, some simulations are car-
>
>
< b kt ried out in two stages.
_ 2 ¼  2 þ ð54Þ
> J J
>
> Simulation 1: In this stage of simulation, the known
>
> r ke 1
>
: _ ¼  2 þ ðuðtÞ þ TðtÞÞ parameters are considered to be equal to half the
l l l actual values of the DC motor parameters shown
1586 Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)

Figure 16. The desirable path and the actual path caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of
structured and unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

in Table 1, and the external disturbance d(t) is con-

sidered to be equal to zero. Therefore, in this stage,
5.4. Case 2
the DC motor has only structured uncertainties or In this section, the performance of the FRBM control-
severe parametric uncertainties. Both the coefficients ler on the DC motor is investigated. The control input
K1 and K2 are considered to be equal to 80, and  of the designed FRBM is as follows:
is considered to be equal to 200. After simulations   
8
are carried out, it can be concluded from Figures 13 > rN keN JN bN
> u
> eq N¼ l þ  2 þ _
 2  K1 e€þ €
 1d  K _
z
2 1
and 15 that the proposed control shows a good per- >
> lN lN ktN JN
>
>
formance in the presence of all uncertainties, and it >
> z_1 ¼ _ 2 þ K1 e_  € 1d
>
>
makes the tracking error converge to zero in less >
> P2
>
< i ðz2 Þui
than 0.5 seconds. Despite high tracking accuracy, it uðtÞ ¼ Pi¼1 2
ðz Þ
i¼1 i 2
can be seen in Figure 14 that the control input is >
>  
>
> J b
accompanied by chattering. > z2 ¼  N N 2  K1 e_ þ € 1d  K2 z1
>
>
> ktN JN
>
>
>
> u 1
u
Simulation 2: In addition to the parametric uncer- >
> ¼ eq lN 

: 2
tainty of simulation 1, the external disturbance u ¼ ueq þ lN 
d ðtÞ ¼ 2 þ 2sinðtÞ is considered in this stage of simu- ð56Þ
lation. Both the coefficients K1 and K2 are con-
sidered to be equal to 500, and  is considered to In equation (56), the premise variable is represented
be equal to 1300. After simulation, according to by z2 , and the fuzzy membership functions are
Figures 16 and 18, it can be seen that the proposed defined as:
controller has a desirable performance and makes
the tracking error converge to zero in less than 8 1
< 1 ðz2 Þ ¼ 1þexpðrz
one second. However, as can be seen in Figure 17, 2Þ
ð57Þ
this desirable performance is accompanied by severe : ðzÞ ¼ 1
2 1þexpðrz2 Þ
chattering.
Soltanpour et al. 1587

Figure 17. The control input caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured and
unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

Figure 18. Tracking error caused by applying robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured and unstructured
uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

Where, r ¼ 100. Also, in this section, in order Simulation 1: The conditions governing this stage of
to show the performance of the proposed con- simulation are considered to be similar to those of the
troller, the simulations of previous sections are previous section. In this stage, both the coefficients of
repeated. K1 and K2 are considered to be equal to 80, and  is
1588 Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)

Figure 19. The desirable path and the actual path caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of
structured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

Figure 20. The control input caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured
uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

considered to be equal to 200. After simulation, accord- about 0.5 seconds. Figure 20 shows that the con-
ing to Figures 19 and 21, the proposed controller per- trol input does not suffer from chattering, and it
forms well in the presence of structured uncertainties, is within an allowable range from an amplitude point
and it makes the tracking error converge to zero in of view.
Soltanpour et al. 1589

Figure 21. Tracking error caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured
uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

Figure 22. The desirable path and the actual path caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of
structured and unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

Simulation 2: This stage of simulation is exactly the
same as simulation 2 in the previous section. In this
stage, K1 ¼ K2 ¼ 500 and  ¼ 1300. It can be con-
cluded from Figures 22 and 24 that the FRBM con-
troller performs well in the presence of all
uncertainties and external disturbance. It also makes
the tracking error converge to zero in less than one
second. By paying close attention to Figure 23, it can
be seen that there is no chattering in the control
input.
1590 Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)

Figure 23. The control input caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured and
unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

Figure 24. Tracking error caused by applying fuzzy robust backstepping method controller in the presence of structured and
unstructured uncertainties existing in the dynamics of DC motor.

Remark 5: By investigating Figures 8, 11, 20, and 23, it because no chattering is observed in Figures 20 and 23
can be concluded that the performance of the FRBM while some signs indicating the occurrence of chattering
controller in controlling the DC motor is better than its are seen in Figures 8 and 11. The reason for this is
performance in controlling the induction motor. This is related to selecting the desirable paths in these
Soltanpour et al.
motors. As in Figure 7, the desirable path selected for
the induction motor is not so smooth, and the derivate
of this non-smooth path causes some signs of chattering
to be seen in the control input of the FRBM.
Investigating Figure 19 reveals that the desirable path
for the DC motor is very smooth. Consequently, there
is no sign of chattering in the control input of the
FRBM. In this paper, the desirable paths are selected
in such a way that they show the performance of the
proposed controller in the best way.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, a robust backstepping controller was pre-
sented for position tracking of a class of electrical motors.
Despite its advantages, the proposed controller encoun-
tered the problem of chattering in the control input. This
problem increases the probability of exciting natural fre-
quencies. Under these conditions, it will be impossible to
guarantee the stability of the closed-loop system. To solve
this problem by using the TSK fuzzy system, the robust
backstepping controller was designed in such a way that it
would not suffer from the problem of the occurrence of
chattering. To investigate the performance of the pro-
posed controllers, two different types of motors, namely
induction and DC motors, were used as case studies. The
results of multistage simulations show that the fuzzy
robust backstepping controller has a desirable perform-
ance in the presence of structured and unstructured
uncertainties that exist in the dynamics of these motors,
and it can make the tracking error converge to zero in a
very short time. In this paper, the way in which the pro-
posed controllers are implemented, and their advantages,
disadvantages, and practical implementing consider-
ations were discussed in detail.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Agamy MS, Yousef HA and Sebakhy OA (2004) Adaptive
fuzzy variable structure control of induction motors.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Canadian Conference
on Electrical and Computing Engineering, Canada, 2–5
May 2004, Vol 1, pp. 89–94.
Byungkook Y and Woonchul H (1998) Adaptive fuzzy sliding
mode control of nonlinear system. IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems 6(2): 315–321.
Ganesh C and Patnaik SK (2012) Artificial neural network
based proportional plus integral plus derivative controller
for a brushless DC position control system. Journal of
Vibration and Control 18(14): 2164–2175.
Guoguang Z, Zhang Y and Yu F (2013)
-Synthesis control- tion motor drive. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
ler design for a DC-motor-based active suspension with
1591
parametric uncertainties. Journal of Vibration and
Control 19(4): 585–604.
Hsu CF, Lin CM and Lee TT (2005) Adaptive fuzzy sliding-
mode control for linear piezoelectric ceramic motor. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Fuzzy Systems, Reno, NV, 25–25 May 2005, pp. 507–512.
Huang SJ and Huang KS (2001) An adaptive fuzzy sliding-
mode controller for servomechanism disturbance rejec-
tion. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 48(4):
845–852.
Khalil HK (2002) Nonlinear Systems, 3 rd edn. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Khooban MH and Soltanpour MR (2013) Swarm optimiza-
tion tuned fuzzy sliding mode control design for a class of
nonlinear systems in the presence of uncertainties. Journal
of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 24(2): 383–394.
Kim YK and Jeon GJ (2004) Error reduction of sliding mode
control using sigmoid-type nonlinear interpolation in the
boundary layer. International Journal of Control Systems
2(4): 523–529.
Lin CM and Hsu CF (2004) Adaptive fuzzy sliding mode
control for induction servomotor systems. IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion 19(2): 362–368.
Lin CM and Hsu CF (2005) Recurrent-neural-network-based
adaptive-backstepping control for induction servomotors.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 52(6): 18–29.
Lin FJ and Lee CC (2000) Adaptive backstepping control for
linear induction motor drive to track periodic references.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Power Applications 147(6):
449–458.
Lin FJ, Wai RJ, Chou WD and Hsu SP (2002) Adaptive
backstepping control using recurrent neural network for
linear induction motor drive. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics 49(1): 134–146.
Niknam T and Khooban MH (2013) Fuzzy sliding mode con-
trol scheme for a class of non-linear uncertain chaotic sys-
tems. IET Science, Measurement and Technology 7(5):
249–255.
Niknam T, Khooban MH, Kavousifard A and Soltanpour
MR (2014) An optimal type ii fuzzy sliding mode control
design for a class of nonlinear systems. Journal of
Nonlinear Dynamics 75(1–2): 73–83.
Rodriguez-Donate X, Romero-Troncoso RJ, Cabal-Yepez E,
Garcia-Perez A and Osornio-Rios RA (2011) Wavelet-
based general methodology for multiple fault detection
on induction motors at the startup vibration transient.
Journal of Vibration and Control 17(9): 1299–1309.
Shafiei SE and Soltanpour MR (2009) Robust neural network
control of electrically driven robot manipulator using
backstepping approach. International Journal of
Advanced Robotic Systems 6(4): 285–292.
Shahnazi R, Shanechi HM and Pariz N (2008) Position con-
trol of induction and DC servomotors: a novel adaptive
fuzzy PI sliding mode control. IEEE Transactions on
Energy Conversion 23: 1–8.
Shieh HJ and Shyu KK (1999) Nonlinear sliding-mode torque
control with adaptive backstepping approach for induc-
Electronics 46: 380–389.
1592
Slotine JJ and Li W (1991) Applied Nonlinear Control.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Soltanpour MR, Khalilpour J and Soltani MR (2012) Robust
nonlinear control of robot manipulator with uncertainties
in kinematics, dynamics and actuator models.
International Journal of Innovative Computing,
Information and Control 8(6): 5487–5498.
Tadjine M, Chekireb H and Djemai M (2003) On a sliding
mode control and observer of induction motor. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, California, USA, 5–8
October 2003, pp. 1371–1377.
Journal of Vibration and Control 22(6)
Tao CW, Chan ML and Lee TT (2003) Adaptive fuzzy sliding
mode controller for linear systems with mismatched time-
varying uncertainties. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man
and Cybernetics B, Cybernetics 33(2): 283–294.
Wai RJ and Chang HH (2004) Backstepping wavelet neural
network control for indirect field-oriented induction
motor drive. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks
15(2): 20–29.
Wang LX (1997) A Course in Fuzzy Systems and Control.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.