Cited by 196Advanced Control Systems OptimizationStability and Control of Uncertain SystemsAdaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems

Robust Model Predictive Control With Integral Sliding Mode in Continuous-Time Sampled-Data Nonlinear Systems

Open access
Rubagotti, Matteo, Raimondo, Davide Martino, Ferrara, Antonella, Magni, Lalo·2011·IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control

Abstract

This paper proposes a control strategy for nonlinear constrained continuous-time uncertain systems which combines robust model predictive control (MPC) with sliding mode control (SMC). In particular, the so-called Integral SMC approach is used to produce a control action aimed to reduce the difference between the nominal predicted dynamics of the closed-loop system and the actual one. In this way, the MPC strategy can be designed on a system with a reduced uncertainty. In order to prove the stability of the overall control scheme, some general regional input-to-state practical stability results for continuous-time systems are proved.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tac.2010.2074590

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other robust MPC schemes including min-max optimization and sliding mode techniques improve robustness without significant increase of complexities.

    “Other robust MPC schemes, including min-max optimization [25], [26] and sliding mode techniques [27], [28], are also employed to improve robustness without significant increase of complexities.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rubagotti, M., Raimondo, D. M., Ferrara, A., & Magni, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Trento (IT)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • University of Pavia (IT)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
Published
2011-03
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
556-570
ISSN
0018-9286 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135688580
Cited by
196
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control (publishedVersion)
  • ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/) (submittedVersion)
  • INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission (FP7 ICT, 223866)
  • Università degli Studi di Pavia
  • FP7 Information and Communication Technologies
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Advanced Control Systems Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Stability and Control of Uncertain Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Adaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems
Keywords
robust model predictive control, integral sliding mode control, sampled-data systems, continuous-time nonlinear systems, constrained systems, uncertain systems, input-to-state practical stability, regional stability, model uncertainty reduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review