Robot Manipulators
A Unified Regressor-Free Approach

Adaptive Control of

This page intentionally left blank

Robot Manipulators
A Unified Regressor-Free Approach

Adaptive Control of

An-Chyau Huang Ming-Chih Chien
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

World Scientific
NEW JERSEY

LONDON

SINGAPORE

BEIJING

SHANGHAI

HONG KONG

TA I P E I

CHENNAI

Published by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ADAPTIVE CONTROL OF ROBOT MANIPULATORS A Unified Regressor-Free Approach Copyright © 2010 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.

For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher.

ISBN-13 978-981-4307-41-3 ISBN-10 981-4307-41-6

Printed in Singapore.

To Our Families .

This page intentionally left blank .

In the conventional adaptive control of robot manipulators. several considerations such as the joint flexibility and actuator dynamics are unavoidable. When the system contains time-varying uncertainties whose variation bounds are not given (defined later as general uncertainties). The robust controls and adaptive designs are then utilized to deal with these uncertainties. both the robust control and adaptive design are not feasible in general. In the industrial environment. while the later requires the linear parameterization of the uncertainties into a known regressor multiplied by an unknown constant parameter vector. and computation of the regressor matrix during each sampling period in the real-time realization is too time-consuming. the robot model is assumed to be linearly parameterizable into the regressor form. But the derivation of the regressor matrix is tedious in most cases.Preface The traditional computed torque design is only adequate for the control of robot manipulators with precisely known dynamics. and most robots are limited to be operated under slow motion conditions so that some system dynamics can be ignored. the former needs the knowledge of the variation bounds for the uncertainties. What is worse is that estimation of the system parameters in this complex model becomes more challenging. The unified approach is still valid for vii . This suggests the need for some regressor-free adaptive designs. an accurate robot model is not generally available. It is reasonable to regard some system dynamics as uncertainties to simplify the modeling tasks. however. When performing the tasks with precise tracking of fast trajectories under time-varying payloads. The aim of this book is to address recent developments of the unified regressor-free adaptive controller designs for robot manipulators with consideration of joint flexibility and actuator dynamics. This will generally lead to some extremely complex robot model which greatly increases the difficulty in the controller design. However.

Ming-Chih Chien Mechanical Engineering Department National Taiwan University of Science and Technology . many issues would never have been clarified. Without them. The book has been written as a text suitable for postgraduate students in the advanced course for the control of robot manipulators. An-Chyau Huang. We would like to thank all of our colleagues and students with whom we have discussed the basic problems in the control of robot manipulators over the last few years. The main tool used in this new design is the function approximation technique which represents the general uncertainties in the robot model as finite combinations of basis functions weighted with unknown constant coefficients. The authors are grateful for their support. it is also intended to provide valuable tools for researches and practicing engineers who currently employ the regressor-based algorithms but would benefit significantly from the use of the regressor-free strategies. In addition.viii Preface the robot control in the compliant motion environment. This work was partially supported by the National Science Council of the Republic of China government and by the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.

......................................10 Model Reference Adaptive Control ..............7 Representations for Approximation ....................................................... 2.......................................2 Vector Spaces .................... 2........................5..... 2.......................... Preliminaries ................3 Function norms and normed function spaces........6...............................................2 Lyapunov stability theorem........10.. 2..............................1 Properties of matrices.............. 2.................Contents Preface ........1 Vector norms....2 Matrix norms...... 2........... 2...........................................................................5........ 2......................8........................4 Robust adaptive control ...............................6.........................................10...... 1 2 Introduction...................2........................................................................8 Lyapunov Stability Theory ............2 Normed vector space.................... 2........ 2...... 2.6 Various Norms................ 2............................................................5 Vector and Matrix Analysis ........................................2 Differential calculus of vectors and matrices ....8..................................1 Concepts of stability...............................................6.............................................. 2.................................1 Metric space ............................................................10......................... 2..................................................................3 Best Approximation Problem in Hilbert Space............................. 2..................................................................1 Introduction..... 2...................................................... vii 1 11 11 11 13 14 15 17 24 24 26 28 28 29 30 31 35 35 37 39 45 45 48 50 54 ix ..........9 Sliding Control............................. 2.....................................................................3 Persistent excitation ..........2 MRAC of LTI systems: vector case...........10................... 2..............................4 Orthogonal Functions...................1 MRAC of LTI scalar systems ..... 2...2....... 2.......... 2.................................. 2............ 2.......................

................................................................................... 103 4............4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design ........................................................................1 MRAC of LTV systems..2 Regressor-free adaptive controller............................................. 3.................6...................................................5 Electrically-Driven Rigid Robot Interacting with Environment.................. 3................................. 5...................................... 101 4.........2 Review of Conventional Adaptive Control for Rigid Robots..........................4 The Regressor Matrix ................................................................................... 105 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots ...........2 Regressor-free adaptive control ...............................................11 General Uncertainties ..............6..........................x Contents 2............................... 3.................................................9 Electrically-Driven Flexible Joint Robot Interacting with Environment ..............................................12 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design ............ 2...1 Introduction ..... 5.........5......... 5.................. 3.............6 Flexible Joint Robot............7 Flexible Joint Robot Interacting with Environment..2 Impedance Control and Adaptive Impedance Control..........2 Sliding control for systems with unknown variation bounds......5......3 Slotine and Li’s Approach ............... 3...........................................1 Introduction ...................5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics .............................4 Electrically-Driven Rigid Robot........................3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design................ 91 4. 5................................ 89 4.. 5............1 Introduction ............... 2......... 5............................ 87 4...3 Rigid Robot Interacting with Environment .... 2.......1 Regressor-based adaptive control ......................................................6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics ..................8 Electrically-Driven Flexible Joint Robot..........................11.................................. 3.................. 3.................................... 129 129 130 134 136 146 147 148 5 . 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators .......................5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design .......... 3............................ 57 58 59 61 71 71 71 73 75 76 77 78 79 80 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots.......1 Regressor-based adaptive controller . 85 4.......2 Rigid Robot ............ 83 4......................... 83 4..................... 5.................................................................11.................................... 3.....

.2 Control of Known Flexible Joint Robots ......................1 Regressor-based adaptive controller design ....................1 Regressor-based adaptive controller design .... 7... 7..................................................3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible Joint Robots ...................... 6..............5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics.......................... Definitions and Abbreviations......Contents xi 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible Joint Robots ............................................................. 7.....5.......... Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible Joint Robots.............. 7.......................... 257 Index ....................... 247 Symbols......4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible Joint Robots....................................... 7........... 6... 6.......................1 Introduction.........3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible Joint Robots ... 6.................................. 6...............5............................5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics..................................................................................................................................... 6.........................2 Impedance Control of Known Flexible Joint Robots.......................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................5......4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible Joint Robots .......................2 Regressor-free adaptive controller design........ 7....................... 6..................................................................2 Regressor-free adaptive controller design..5............ 261 ................................................. 7................................... 163 163 164 167 168 181 184 186 201 201 202 205 207 220 223 224 7 Appendix .................................................. 241 References .....

Besides. Most of these applications are restricted to slow-motion operations without interactions with the environment. This is mainly due to limited performance of the available controllers in the market that are based on simplified system models. we are only going to consider electrically driven (ED) robot manipulators in this book. advanced control strategies are needed. The basic idea of FAT is to represent the uncertain term as a finite combination of known basis functions so that proper update laws can be derived based on the Lyapunov-like design to give good performance. explicit inclusion of the joint flexibility into the system dynamics can also improve the control performance. most conventional robust schemes are not applicable. the robot model inevitably contains uncertainties and disturbances. Consideration of the actuator dynamics in the controller design is one of the possible ways to improve system performance. Because their variation bounds are not known.Chapter 1 Introduction Robot manipulators have been widely used in the industrial applications in the past decades. Since the robot dynamics is highly nonlinear. To increase the operation speed with more servo accuracy. The main strategy we employed in this book to deal with the uncertainties is based on the function approximation techniques (FAT). These uncertainties are assumed to be time-varying but their variation bounds are not available. On the other hand. Therefore. Since the FAT-based adaptive design does not need to represent the system dynamics into a regressor form. most traditional adaptive designs are not feasible. this makes the control problem extremely difficult. joint flexibility and various system uncertainties. we would like to consider the control problem of robot manipulators with consideration of actuator dynamics. consideration of these effects will largely increase the difficulty in the controller design. most of them are still activated by motors. In this book. it is free from 1 . Although some of the industrial robots are driven by hydraulic or pneumatic actuators. Due to their time-varying nature. similar to majority of the related literature.

and a feedback linearization based controller is constructed to give proper performance. We will start with the case when all system parameters are precisely known. because starting from the simple ones can give us more insight into the unified approach to be introduced. When the robot end-effector contacts with the environment. Afterwards.1 presents the systems considered in this book. However. we assume that most parameters in the robot model are not known . the controllers designed for performing the free space tracking tasks cannot provide appropriate control performance. the complex regressor matrix has to be updated in every control cycle in the real-time implementation. Let us consider the tracking problem of a rigid robot in the free space first. Derivation of the regressor matrix is wellknown to be very tedious for a robot manipulator with more than four joints. the renowned impedance control strategy will be incorporated into the FAT-based design so that some regressor-free adaptive controllers with consideration of the actuator dynamics for the robot manipulators can be obtained. for the traditional robot adaptive control. Table 1. In this book. the regressor-free algorithm also effectively simplified the programming complexity.2 Introduction computation of the regressor matrix. Because. It is the simplest case in this book and several control strategies can also be found in robotics textbooks under various conditions. The regressor-free strategy greatly simplified the controller design process. The abbreviations listed will be used throughout this book to simplify the presentation. Table 1. To have a better understanding of the problems we are going to deal with. it is not appropriate to derive a controller for the system in 8 directly.1 Systems considered in this book Systems Rigid robot in the free space Rigid robot interacting with the environment Electrically-driven rigid robot in the free space Electrically-driven rigid robot interacting with the environment Flexible-joint robot in the free space Flexible-joint robot interacting with the environment Electrically-driven flexible-joint robot in the free space Electrically-driven flexible-joint robot interacting with environment Abbreviation RR RRE EDRR EDRRE FJR FJRE EDFJR EDFJRE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Free space tracking of a rigid robot It can be seen that systems from 1 to 7 are all special cases of 8.

the regressor-free adaptive control approach is developed. the robot dynamics should be linearly parameterized into a known regressor matrix multiplied by an unknown parameter vector. However. For example. Conventional adaptive strategies can thus be applied to give update laws to this unknown parameter vector. The output error can thus be proved to be uniformly ultimately bounded. Compliant motion control of a rigid robot Item 2. The entries of this vector should be constants that are combinations of unknown system parameters. The regressor matrix is known to be tedious in its derivation for a robot with degree of freedom more than 4. A well-known design proposed by Slotine and Li is then reviewed to get rid of the need for joint acceleration feedback and avoid the singularity problem. Update laws for the weighting matrices can be obtained by the Lyapunov-like design. both the transient performance and the steady state error can be modified. Finally. The effect of the approximation error is investigated with rigorous mathematical justifications. In the above designs. Many control strategies are available for rigid robots to give closed loop stability in the compliant motion applications. With proper adjustment of controller parameters. Among them.Introduction 3 but a regressor can be derived such that all uncertain parameters are collected into an unknown vector. The regressor matrix is not unique for a given robot. the impedance control employed in this book is the most widely used one which is a unified approach for controlling robot manipulators in both . It is not reasonable to construct a controller whose design needs to know an extremely complex regressor matrix but to update an easy-to-obtain parameter vector. moment of inertia and gravity center of a link are frequently seen in the parameter vector and their values are very easy to measure in practice. but depending on the selection of the parameter vector. However. these parameters are mostly easier to be found than the derivation of the regressor matrix. 4. The uncertain matrices and vectors in the robot model will be represented as finite combinations of basis functions.1 relate to the compliant motion control of robot manipulators whose dynamic model include the effect of the external force vector exerted by the environment. the weight. Motivated by this reasoning. implementation of this scheme requires the information of joint accelerations which is impractical in most industrial applications. 6 and 8 in Table 1. the trajectory of the output error is bounded by a weighted exponential function plus some constant. and closed loop stability can also be proved easily. length. What is worse is that the estimation in the inertia matrix might suffer the singularity problem.

The regressor-based adaptive designs are introduced first for items 3. we include considerations of actuator dynamics in the system equations to investigate their effects in performance improvement. This special cascade structure connecting the actuator and the robot dynamics enables us to employ backstepping-like designs to eliminate uncertainties entering the system in a mismatched fashion. while the input vector to electrically-driven robots is with signals in voltages. 7 and 8 followed by their regressor-free counterparts. The unified approach in the FAT-based regressor-free adaptive impedance controller designs for RRE.4 Introduction free space tracking and compliant motion phases. EDRRE. Besides. in item 3. To avoid derivation of the regressor matrix. Consideration of the actuator dynamics The control problem of rigid robot manipulators has been well developed under the assumption that all actuator dynamics are neglected. especially in the cases of high-velocity movement and highly varying loads. The regressor-based adaptive impedance controller is then derived for robot systems containing uncertainties. 4. The impedance controller makes the robot system behave like a target impedance in the Cartesian space.1. For rigid robots. 4. it had been reported that the robot control problem should carefully consider the actuator dynamics to have good tracking performance. the joint accelerations and derivative of the external force. but the regressor-free designs do not. Unlike the rigid robots. Implementations of most regressor-based methods introduced here need the information of the derivative of the regressor matrix and joint accelerations. the uniformly ultimately bounded performance can be proved to be maintained . FJRE and EDFJRE. 7 and 8 of Table 1. FJRE and EDFJRE can all give uniformly ultimately bounded performance to the output error and the transient performance can also be evaluated by using the bound for the output error signal. Therefore. much more complex derivations will be involved due to the complexity in the system model. All of these are not generally available. However. and hence regressor-free designs are introduced to get rid of their necessity. the regressor-free adaptive impedance controller using function approximation techniques is introduced. and the target impedance is specified as a mass-spring-damper system. the regressor-based designs of these robots need additional information such as the derivative of the regressor matrix. The input vector to a robot without consideration of the actuator dynamics contains torques to the joints. For the impedance controller of EDRRE. we start with the case when the robot system and the environment are known and the impedance controller is designed.

If the system model contains inaccuracies and uncertainties. Parameterization of the uncertainties into multiplications of the regressor matrix with the . and their derivatives. Simulation cases for justifying performance improvements are designed with high speed tracking problems. For simplicity. elastic coupling between actuators and links cannot be neglected. most researches regard the flexibility as an effect of the linear torsional spring connecting the shaft of the motor and the end about which the link is rotating. In addition. The regressor-free designs. The high system order and highly nonlinear coupling in the dynamics equation result in difficulties in the controller design. the realization of the regressor-based adaptive controller requires the knowledge of joint accelerations. A cup-shape component in the harmonic drive provides elastic deformation to enable large speed reduction. do not need these additional information. the controller design problem becomes extremely difficult. Consideration of the joint flexibility Many industrial robots use harmonic drives to reduce speed and amplify output torque. the regressor matrix. the actuator dynamics are to be considered so that in the most complex case a regressor-free adaptive impedance controller will be designed for an EDFJRE. This implies that the number of degree-of-freedom is twice the number for a rigid robot. however. Two secondorder differential equations should be used to describe the dynamic of a flexible joint: one for the motor shaft and one for the link. produces an enormously complicated model. it is known that harmonic drives introduce significant torsional flexibility into the robot joints.Introduction 5 when considering the actuator dynamics by using the regressor-free approach. The regressor-free adaptive controller design Calculation of the regressor matrix is a must in the traditional adaptive control of robot manipulators which is because the update laws are able to be designed only when the parameter vectors are unknown constants. Therefore. To have a high performance robot control system. All of these regressor-free schemes give good performance regardless of various system uncertainties. adaptive controllers for impedance control of flexible joint robot will also be derived. Modeling of these effects. since the motion of the motor shaft is no longer simply related to the link angle by the gear ratio. When considering the joint flexibility. however. we are going to design conventional regressor-based adaptive controllers for this system first and followed by a regressor-free control strategy. Furthermore. In this book.

in every control cycle of the real-time implementation. while some will become very complex. In this book. and hence most robust strategies are infeasible. In most cases. In addition. dimensions of the links. Therefore. and moments of inertia. the derivation of the regressor matrix becomes very tedious. Some definitions will give relatively simple forms for the regressor matrix. while the unknown constant parameters are put into a parameter vector. a unified approach for the design of regressor-free adaptive controllers for robot manipulators is introduced which is feasible for robots with considerations of the actuator dynamics. The FAT-based design Two main approaches are available for dealing with uncertainties in control systems. The variation bounds estimated from the uncertainty model are then used to design the robust terms in the controller. All of these designs will end up with the uniformly ultimately bounded closed loop performance via the proofs using the Lyapunov-like techniques. Although intuitively we think that an adaptive controller should be able to give good performance to a system with time-varying uncertainties. but require the complex regressor matrix to be known. However. to be feasible for the adaptive designs all time-varying parts in the system dynamics should be collected into a known regressor matrix. conventional adaptive designs can actually be useful to systems with constant uncertainties. the traditional adaptive designs are only capable of updating these easy-to-measure parameters. the regressor matrix can then be determined. the regressor matrix for a given robot is not unique either. these variation bounds are not available. The other approach for dealing with system uncertainties is the adaptive method. With proper definitions of the entries in the parameter vector. the entries in the parameter vector are combinations of the quantities such as the link masses.6 Introduction unknown parameter vector need to be done based on the system model. the worst case of the system is evaluated by proper modeling of the uncertainties either in the time domain or frequency domain. These quantities are relatively easier to measure compared with the derivation of the regressor matrix. In some practical cases. especially in the embedded applications. This process is called the . however. Since these definitions are not unique. joint flexibilities as well as the interaction with the environment. the calculation of the regressor matrix is also time consuming which largely limits the computation hardware selections. The robust strategies need to know the worst case of the system so that a fixed controller is able to be constructed to cover the uncertainties. In general. When the degree of freedom of the robot is more than four.

it is more practical to regard the uncertainties in the robot model to be general uncertainties. and some others are linearly parameterizable but the regressor matrices are too complex to derive (e. they will be arranged into the chapters different from the order as shown in the table. Here. For a system with general uncertainties. however. the FATbased adaptive method provides an effective tool in dealing with controller design problems involving the general uncertainties. Various . Organization of the book Robot systems considered in this book are all listed in Tables 1. Since these coefficients are constants. we are going to call this kind of uncertainties the general uncertainties.g.1 according to the complexity in their dynamics. we employ the function approximation technique to represent the uncertainties into finite combinations of basis functions. In this book. most conventional adaptive strategies are infeasible. In Chapter 2. Various concepts from the linear algebra and real analysis are briefly presented in this chapter. Now let us consider a case when the uncertainties are time-varying and their variation bounds are not available.Introduction 7 linear parameterization of the uncertainties which is almost a must for adaptive designs. the backgrounds for mathematics and control theories useful in this book are reviewed. robot manipulators). Since they are time-varying. there are some practical cases whose uncertainties are not able to be linearly parameterized (e. proper update laws can then be derived to provide sufficient information to the certainty equivalence based adaptive controller such that the closed loop system can give good performance. In this case. However...g. most traditional robust designs fail. in this book. few control schemes are available to stabilize the closed loop system. various friction effects). After the parameterization. Because their variation bounds are unknown. update laws can be derived by using the Lyapunov-like methods. Because the regressor-free adaptive controller design for robot manipulators should avoid the use of the regressor matrix. Due to the fact that the mathematical background for the function approximation has well been established and the controller design portion follows the traditional adaptive strategies. and the controller design problem is a challenge. Some emphasis will be placed on the spaces where the function approximation techniques are valid. Readers familiar to these fundamentals are suggested to go directly to the next chapter. a new representation for the system uncertainties is needed. For better presentation. This effectively transforms a general uncertainty into a known basis vector multiplied by a vector of unknown coefficients.

the actuator dynamics is included into the system model and adaptive controllers are derived using regressor-based designs and regressor-free designs. the problem for the model reference adaptive control when the system contains time-varying parameters is illustrated. A regressor-based and a regressor-free adaptive controller are then derived. The rigorous proof for the closed loop stability is presented to give uniformly ultimately bounded performance. A FAT-based regressor-free adaptive controller is then derived for the rigid robot with consideration of the approximation errors. the concept of general uncertainties is presented.1. Chapter 6 includes joint flexibility into consideration such that the order of the system model is doubled compared with its rigid joint counterpart. The actuator dynamics will be considered in the last section of this chapter. the FAT-based adaptive controller is designed for these systems with general uncertainties in detail. Examples for these systems will also be presented. The impedance controller is employed to enable the robot to interact with the environment compliantly while maintaining good performance in the free space tracking. Next. Limitations in the sliding controller designs when the variation bounds for the uncertainties are not available are investigated.8 Introduction orthonormal functions are also listed with their effective ranges for the convenience in the selection of basis functions for the FAT-based designs. Traditional regressor-based adaptive rules will be derived first followed by some investigation into the detail of the regressor matrix and the parameter vector. Likewise. Finally. These equations will be used in later chapters for controller designs. Significant amount of simulation results are provided to justify the efficacy of the controllers when actuator dynamics are considered. Then the Lyapunov stability theory and the Lyapunov-like methods are reviewed in detail followed by the introduction of the control theories such as the sliding control and model reference adaptive control. A 5th . After these conventional robust and adaptive designs. the actuator dynamics is considered to improve the control performance. The regressor-based adaptive controller is then introduced followed by the derivation of the regressor-free controller. This justifies the necessity for the regressorfree adaptive designs. The traditional impedance controller is reviewed first for the system with known dynamics. Adaptive control strategies for the rigid robots are introduced in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 considers the compliant motion control of rigid robot manipulators. Chapter 3 collects all dynamic equations for systems listed in Table 1. and they will also be used in the simulation studies later. Control of a known FJR is firstly reviewed. Finally.

The last chapter deals with the problem of the adaptive impedance control for FJR. The regressor-based adaptive controller is then designed. We review the control of a known robot first to have some basic understanding of this problem. but it requires some impractical knowledge in the real-time implementation. and the regressor-free adaptive design is still able to give good performance to the closed loop system. The regressor-free adaptive controller is derived without any requirements on additional information.Introduction 9 order differential equation should be used to describe a single link in this case which makes the controller design problem become extremely challenging. Consideration of the actuator dynamics further complicated the problem. .

This page intentionally left blank .

12 to cover the general uncertainties. The concept of general uncertainties is clarified in Section 2. vectors and matrices are summarized in Section 2.2. 2. In Section 2. and some normed spaces are also introduced. The vector and matrix analysis is reviewed in Section 2. In this section we review some concepts and results useful in this book. some modifications of the adaptive designs are also presented in Section 2. The limitations for traditional MRAC and robust designs will also be discussed.3. therefore. vectors and matrices. some notions of vector spaces are introduced.5 which includes their differential calculus operations.10 gives the basics of the model reference adaptive control to linear time-invariant systems. the FAT-based adaptive controller is introduced in Section 2. They can be found in most elementary mathematics books.2 Vector Spaces Vector spaces provide an appropriate framework for the study of approximation techniques. Section 2.8. some preliminaries in control theories will also be presented in this chapter as the background for the theoretical development introduced in the later chapters. To robustify the adaptive control loop.6. 11 .11. Section 2. The Lyapunov stability theory is reviewed in Section 2. Various orthogonal functions are collected in Section 2. Finally. Norms for functions.9 as an introduction to the robust design for a system containing uncertainties defined in compact sets.4 to facilitate the selection of basis functions in FAT applications. The concept of sliding control is provided in Section 2. most results are provided without proof.7 illustrates the approximation representations of functions. Some best approximation problems in the Hilbert space will be mentioned in Section 2. On the other hand.1 Introduction Some mathematical backgrounds are reviewed in this chapter.Chapter 2 Preliminaries 2.10.

β ∈ℜ α (x + y ) = α x + α y . y ∈ X . ∀x ∈ X ... the real vector space is also known as the real linear space. x k ∈ℜ n is said to be independent if the relation c1x1 + .. ∀x.. ∀x ∈ X (α + β )x = α x + β x . If S ⊂ ℜ n and if R is the set of all linear combinations of elements of S.. the set of all n-tuples of real numbers is a real vector space and is known as ℜ n . c k ∈ℜ . In some literature. i = 1.. z ∈ X There is a unique vector 0 ∈ X such that x + 0 = x . ∀α . The set of vectors x1 ... ∀α ∈ℜ α ( β x) = (αβ )x . The set of all functions maps the interval [a.. y ∈ X x + y = y + x . x k ∈ℜ and c1 . k . + ck x k = 0 implies ci = 0. β ∈ℜ 1x = x . ∀ x. b] ∈ℜ into ℜ n can also be proved to be a vector space.... ∀ x. A vector space is n-dimensional if it contains an independent set of n vectors.. ∀x ∈ X . otherwise. but every set of n+1 vectors is a dependent set. . ∀α ∈ℜ For example. ∀α .12 Chapter 2 Preliminaries A nonempty set X is a (real) vector space if the following axioms are satisfied: x + y ∈ X . y ........ ∀x ∈ X .... The set of all real-valued functions defined over an interval [a. n If x1 . the set of vectors is dependent. x k . ∀x ∈ X ∀x ∈ X . An independent subset of a vector space X ⊂ ℜ n which spans X is called a basis of X. there exists a unique vector − x ∈ X such that x + (− x) = 0 α x ∈ X .. or we may say that R is the span of S. then S spans R. b] ∈ℜ is also a vector space. + ck x k is said to be a linear combination of the vectors x1 . a vector of the form c1x1 + . ∀ x. y ∈ X ( x + y ) + z = x + ( y + z ) .

there is a ball B ( x. The distance function generates the notion of convergence: A sequence {xi} in a metric space X is said to be convergent to an element x if for each ε > 0 there exists an integer n such that d ( x. y ∈ E . x q ) ≤ ε . we may say. r. q ) ≤ d ( p.… is said to be a metric space if with any two points p and q there is associated a real number d ( p. The sequence {xi} is a Cauchy sequence if for each ε > 0 there exists an integer n such that p.2. respectively. but the converse is . y ∈ E . the distance between p and q. q) > 0 if p ≠ q . Clearly. r ) + d (r .1 Metric space A set X of elements p. y ) < δ ⇒ d Y ( f ( x ). f ( y )) < ε . there exist δ (ε ) > 0 such that d X ( x. q ) . y ) < r ∀x. A function f is continuous on E ⊂ X if it is continuous at every points of E. therefore. A set is closed if and only if its complement in X is open. Or.2 Vector Spaces 13 2. S is said to be dense in T if for each element t in T and each ε > 0 . y ) < δ ⇒ d Y ( f ( x ). f ( y )) < ε for all x. Let S ⊂ T be two subsets of X. Let X and Y be metric spaces with distance functions d X and d Y . d ( p.2. d ( p. The distance function on a metric space can be thought of as the length of a vector. A function f : X → Y is said to be continuous at a point x ∈ X if f ( x + δ x) → f ( x) whenever δ x → 0 . such that d ( p. A set E ⊂ X is said to be open if for every x ∈ E . r ) = { y ∈ X d ( y . q ) for any r ∈ X . and it is uniformly continuous on E if given ε > 0 . xi ) ≤ ε whenever i > n . p ) = 0 . In particular. a compact subset of ℜ n is necessarily closed and bounded. q ) = d ( q. q. r ) ⊂ E for some positive r. there exist δ > 0 such that d X ( x. Thus every element of T can be approximated to arbitrary precision by elements of S. many useful concepts can be defined. there exists an element s in S such that d ( s. f is continuous at x if given ε > 0 . every convergent sequence is a Cauchy sequence. p ) . t ) < ε . x ) < r} such that B ( x. d ( p. A set E is bounded if ∃r > 0 such that d ( x. q > n ⇒ d ( x p . A set E ⊂ X is compact if each sequence of points in E contains a subsequence which converges to a point in E.

y x + y . y = y .. The concept of sequence convergence can be defined using the norm as the distance function. y ∈ X . we need the notion of the inner product space. In a normed vector space. ∃n > 0 such that ∑ x − x < ε whenever m > n .2. a real-valued function ⋅ defined on X is said to be a norm on X if it satisfies the following properties x > 0. i i =1 m A complete normed vector space is called a Banach space. ∀x ∈ X . in particular the concept of orthogonality between vectors. 2. x > 0 ∀ x ≠ 0 . ∀x. ∀ x. x α x. i.14 Chapter 2 Preliminaries not true in general. z = x. A complete metric space X is a space where every Cauchy sequence converges to a point in X. x ≠ 0 0 =0 α x = α x for any scalar α x + y ≤ x + y . To define the angle between any two vectors. ∀ z ∈ X x. the length of any vector is defined by its norm. y ) = x − y . An inner product x. z + y . The series ∑x i =1 ∞ i is said to converge to x ∈ X if the sequence of partial sums converges to x. ⋅ ) is a metric space with the metric defined by d (x.2 Normed vector space Let X be a vector space. we are now ready to define convergence of series. y ∈ X A normed vector space ( X .e. z . y ∈ X with the properties x. Hence. y on a real vector space X is a real-valued mapping of the pair x. y = α x. if ∀ε > 0.

3 Best Approximation Problem in Hilbert Space 15 A real vector space with an inner product defined is called a real inner product space.. x 2 . y = 0 . we have the Schwarz inequality in the form x. D 2.. x. For example. {xi} is an orthogonal set if x i . then L2 is a Hilbert space with the inner product x. ∀i ≠ j . The equality holds if and only if x and y are dependent. Let {xi} be a set of elements in an inner product space X. The space L2 is separable since the countable set {1. there exist an integer n such . y ) = x − y = x − y.. A Hilbert space is a complete inner product space with the norm induced by its inner product. x j = 0. An inner product space is a normed vector space and hence a metric space with d ( x. if U = {1. y ≤ x y .3 Best Approximation Problem in Hilbert Space Let U be a set of vectors in a Hilbert space H.} ⊂ L2 . This can be rewritten as: given ε > 0 and x ∈ H . Two vectors x. The Hilbert space H is separable if it contains a countable spanning set U. x − y For any two vectors x and y in an inner product space. the set is orthonormal. For example.. a separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert space must contain a countably infinite set U={xi} so that each vector x ∈ H can be approximated to any desired accuracy by a linear combination of a finite number of elements of U.. The set S (U ) is the closure of S(U) and is called the closed span of U. If in addition every vector in the set has unit norm. Since an infinite-dimensional space cannot have a finite spanning set. Any finite-dimensional Hilbert space is separable because its basis is a countable spanning set. whereas S (U ) = L2 . x. x 2 .2.. The set U is a spanning set of H if S (U ) is dense in H. then S(U) is the set of all polynomials. y are orthogonal if x.} is a spanning set. ℜ n is a Hilbert space with inner product x. y = ∫ x(t ) y (t )dt . y = ∑x y i =1 n i i Suppose functions x(t ) and y (t ) are defined in a domain D. The algebraic span S(U) is defined as the set of all finite linear combinations of vectors x i ∈U (Stakgold 1979).

e i 2 (1) Hence. and the spanning set is necessarily an orthonormal basis of H. i = 1. the minimum error can be obtained when ci = x. the vector n +1 x ∈ H is thus approximated by the series ∑ x. These ci are known as the Fourier coefficients of x with respect to the orthonormal basis {e1 .... an orthonormal basis {e1 . e n } for Mn can be constructed from U by using the Gram-Schmidt procedure. It can also be observed that the right hand side of (2) gets smaller when the orthonormal set is taken larger... e i +1 e i +1 is added. n . e i =1 i ei . which is the same as the previous one except that one extra term x.. This implies that previously calculated Fourier coefficients do not need to be recalculated. e i 2 (2) If an additional vector e n +1 is included into the orthonormal set... With these coefficients. the approximating series becomes the Fourier series Hence... The best approximation problem in a separable Hilbert space is to approximate an arbitrary vector x ∈ H by a linear combination of the given independent set U = {x1 .. e i =1 i e i .16 Chapter 2 Preliminaries n that x− ∑c x i =1 i i < ε where ci ∈ℜ. the best approximation to x improves as we use more terms in the orthonormal set. e i =1 e i . the approximation error can be calculated as n 2 n x− ∑ i =1 ci e i = x + 2 ∑ i =1 x. As the number of terms used goes to ∞ infinity. x n }. Therefore. Since the set of linear combination of x1 . and the approximation error becomes n 2 n x− ∑ i =1 x. e i − c i − 2 n ∑ i =1 x. e i . Hence.. x n is an n-dimensional linear manifold Mn.. e i e i = x − 2 ∑ i =1 i x. e n }.. It can be proved that a separable Hilbert space H contains an orthonormal spanning set... the vector x ∈ H is approximated as n ∑ x.... . An orthonormal basis is also known as a complete orthonormal set.. (2) implies ∑ x.

the coefficients i→∞ of the Fourier series vanish as i → ∞ . The set of real-valued functions {φ i ( x)} defined over some interval [a. Consequently. e i 2 is monotonically increasing and is bounded above by x . b] . Convergence of the Fourier series can be proved by using the Riesz-Fischer theorem with the fact that the partial sum of the series 2 ∑ i =1 ∞ x. 2. b] having the property ∫ b a φ i2 ( x)dx = 1 for all i is called an orthonormal set on [a. e i 2 (3) which is known as the Parseval’s identity. an arbitrary function f ( x) can be represented in terms of φ i ( x) by a series . it is easy to prove that lim x. For any set of orthonormal functions {φ i ( x)} on [ a. we would like to restrict the scope to the function approximation problem using orthogonal functions. b] is orthogonal with respect to the weight function p( x) on that interval if b ⌠    ⌡a = 0 i ≠ j p( x)φ i ( x)φ j ( x)dx  ≠ 0 i = j (2) Any set of functions orthogonal with respect to a weight function p( x) can be converted into a set of functions orthogonal to 1 simply by multiplying each member of the set by p ( x) if p( x) > 0 on that interval. b] is said to form an orthogonal set on that interval if b ⌠ =  φ ( x )φ ( x ) dx  i j   ≠ ⌡a 0 i≠ j 0 i= j (1) An orthogonal set {φ i ( x)} on [ a. i. In this section..4 Orthogonal Functions 17 x 2 = ∑ i =1 ∞ x.e. e i = 0 . The set of real-valued functions {φ i ( x)} defined over some interval [ a.2. b] .4 Orthogonal Functions In the previous section we have reviewed the general framework for the best approximation problem in the Hilbert space.

b] and the expansion c1φ1 ( x) + c 2φ 2 ( x) + ⋯ + c nφ n ( x) + ⋯ of f ( x) converges and can be integrated term by term. the series becomes ∫ b a f ( x)φ n ( x)dx = cn ∫ b a φ n2 ( x)dx (4) Hence. b] satisfying that if {φ i ( x)} is a complete orthonormal set on [ a. Here. g ( x) is called a null function on [ a. An orthogonal set {φ i ( x)} on [ a. Multiplying by φ n ( x) and integrating over the interval [ a. then the sum of the series differs from f ( x) by at most a null function. Examples of orthonormal functions Since there are many areas of applications of orthonormal functions. b] . b] is said to be complete if the relation ∫ b a g ( x)φ i ( x)dx = 0 can hold for all values of i only if g ( x) can have non-zero values in a measure zero set in [a. It is easy to prove . the orthogonal set should be complete. b] and using the orthogonality property. In this section. a sizable body of literature can be easily found. it is not sufficient to conclude convergence of the series. the coefficient cn can be obtained from the quotient cn = ∫ b a f ( x)φ n ( x) dx b a ∫ (5) φ 2 n ( x ) dx It should be noted that although the orthogonality property can be used to determine all coefficients in (3).18 Chapter 2 Preliminaries f ( x) = c1φ1 ( x) + c 2φ 2 ( x) + ⋯ + c nφ n ( x) + ⋯ (3) This series is called a generalized Fourier series of f ( x) and its coefficients are Fourier coefficients of f ( x) with respect to {φ i ( x)} . ∫ b a g 2 ( x)dx = 0 . To guarantee convergence of the approximating series. we consider some of the orthonormal functions that are frequently encountered in engineering problems and useful in our applications.

2. however.1]. b] if the approximation is to be uniformly accurate over the entire domain. Chebyshev polynomials The set of Chebyshev polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight −1 function (1 − x 2 ) 2 on the interval [-1.4 Orthogonal Functions 19 1.. Taylor polynomial approximation is known to yield very small error near a given point. we list the first 7 polynomials below (7) T0 ( x) = 1 T1 ( x) = x T2 ( x) = 2 x 2 − 1 T3 ( x) = 4 x 3 − 3 x T4 ( x) = 8 x 4 − 8 x 2 + 1 T5 ( x) = 16 x 5 − 20 x 3 + 5 x . The following orthogonal polynomials. but the error increases in a considerable amount as we move away from that point. suppose the function is n-times differentiable at c. 2. can give a more uniform approximation error over the specified interval. 2. and the remaining polynomials can be determined by the recurrence relation Tn +1 ( x) = 2 xTn ( x) − Tn −1 ( x) for all n = 1. it is well known that given a function f ( x) and a point c in the domain of f. The first two polynomials are T0 ( x) = 1 and T1 ( x) = x .. For convenience. The Taylor polynomial is not well suited to approximate a function f ( x) over an interval [ a.. Taylor polynomials In the calculus courses. then we can construct a polynomial Pn ( x) = f (c) + f '(c)( x − c) + +⋯ + f ( n ) (c ) ( x − c) n n! f ′′ (c) ( x − c) 2 2! (6) where Pn ( x) is called the nth-degree Taylor polynomial approximation of f at c.

20 Chapter 2 Preliminaries T6 ( x) = 32 x 6 − 48 x 4 + 18 x 2 − 1 T7 ( x) = 64 x 7 − 112 x 5 + 56 x 3 − 7 x 3... The first two polynomials are L0 ( x) = 1 and L1 ( x) = x ..1]. The first two polynomials are 1 (231x 6 − 315 x 4 + 105 x 2 − 5) 16 1 (429 x 7 − 693 x 5 + 315 x 3 − 35 x) 16 . 2. Here. Hermite polynomials The set of Hermite polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight 2 function p( x) = e − x on the interval ( −∞. we list the first 7 polynomials for convenience (8) L0 ( x) = 1 L1 ( x) = x L2 ( x ) = L3 ( x) = 1 (3 x 2 − 1) 2 1 (5 x 3 − 3 x) 2 1 L4 ( x) = (35 x 4 − 30 x 2 + 3) 8 1 L5 ( x) = (63 x 5 − 70 x 3 + 15 x) 8 L6 ( x) = L7 ( x) = 4. Legendre polynomials The set of Legendre polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight function p( x) = 1 on the interval [-1. and the remaining polynomials can be determined by the recurrence relation (n + 1) Ln +1 ( x) = (2n + 1) xLn ( x) − nLn −1 ( x) for all n = 1. ∞) .

2. Here. we list the first 7 polynomials as (9) H 0 ( x) = 1 H 1 ( x) = 2 x H 2 ( x) = 4 x 2 − 2 H 3 ( x) = 8 x 3 − 12 x H 4 ( x) = 16 x 4 − 48 x 2 + 12 H 5 ( x) = 32 x 5 − 160 x 3 + 120 x H 6 ( x) = 64 x 6 − 480 x 4 + 720 x 2 − 120 H 7 ( x) = 128 x 7 − 1344 x 5 + 3360 x 3 − 1680 x 5..4 Orthogonal Functions 21 H 0 ( x) = 1 and H 1 ( x) = 2 x . The following are the first 7 polynomials (10) L0 ( x) = 1 L1 ( x) = − x + 1 L2 ( x ) = x 2 − 4 x + 2 .. ∞) .. The first two polynomials are L0 ( x) = 1 and L1 ( x) = − x + 1 . 2.. and the remaining polynomials can be determined by the recurrence relation H n +1 ( x) = 2 xH n ( x) − 2nH n −1 ( x) for all n = 1.. and the remaining polynomials can be determined by the recurrence relation Ln +1 ( x) = (2n + 1 − x) Ln ( x) − n 2 Ln −1 ( x) for all n = 1.. Laguerre polynomials The set of Laguerre polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight function p( x) = e − x on the interval [0. 2.

for n =0. Bessel polynomials The set of Bessel polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight function p( x) = x on the interval [0. 1. so that they are useful in computations. the Bessel polynomials are x2 x4 x6 J 0 ( x) = 1 − 2 + 2 2 − 2 2 2 + ⋯ 2 2 ⋅4 2 ⋅4 ⋅6 x x3 x5 x7 J 1 ( x) = − 2 + 2 2 − 2 2 2 + ⋯ 2 2 ⋅ 4 2 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 6 2 ⋅ 4 ⋅ 6 ⋅8 These two series converge very rapidly.22 Chapter 2 Preliminaries L3 ( x) = − x 3 + 9 x 2 − 18 x + 6 L4 ( x) = x 4 − 16 x 3 + 72 x 2 − 96 x + 24 L5 ( x) = − x 5 + 25 x 4 − 200 x 3 + 600 x 2 − 600 x + 120 L6 ( x) = x 6 − 36 x 5 + 450 x 4 − 2400 x 3 + 5400 x 2 − 4320 x + 720 L7 ( x) = − x 7 + 49 x 6 − 882 x 5 + 7350 x 4 − 29400 x 3 +52920 x 2 − 35280 x + 5040 6. The Bessel polynomials can be calculated with (−1) m x 2 m J n ( x) = x 2 2 m + n m !(n + m)! m=0 n ∑ ∞ (12) In particular. The recurrence relation below can also be used to find other Bessel polynomials based on J 0 ( x) and J 1 ( x) given above.b] in the form ∫ b 0 xJ n (k i x) J n ( k j x)dx = 0 (11) for all i ≠ j . .

These roots for n =0.3.520. i =1. 7.931. … J 1 ( x) = 0 for x=0. 14.… are called Fourier coefficients.016.832.2.654.2. 1 are listed here for reference J 0 ( x) = 0 for x=2. n =1.2.324.and left-hand limits of f ( x) at each point where it is discontinuous. 3. and the value 2T is the period of f ( x) ..4 Orthogonal Functions 23 J n +1 ( x) = − J n −1 ( x) + 2n J n ( x) x (13) It should be noted that k i .… in (11) are real numbers so that J n (k i b) = 0 . It can be proved that the Fourier series converges to f ( x) at all points where f ( x) is continuous and converges to the average of the right. The constants a0 . a n and bn . i.792. 13.e.173. they are distinct roots of J n = 0 . Table 2. 7.1 summarizes the orthonormal functions introduced in this section. 8. . b] with a given n f ( x) = ∑c J i i =1 ∞ n (k i x) (14) This series is called a Fourier-Bessel series or simply a Bessel series. Fourier series A bounded period function f ( x) can be expanded in the form f ( x) = a0 + 2 ∑ a   n =1 ∞ n cos nπ x nπ x  + bn sin T T   (15) if in any one period it has at most a finite number of local extreme values and a finite number of discontinuities. we can represent a given function f ( x) in a series of the form in [0. When using these functions in approximation applications. (15) is called the Fourier series of function f ( x) . 11. it is very important that the valid range for the functions to be orthonormal is ensured. … Having the orthogonality property in (11). 5. 10.405.

and aij ∈ℜ be the (i.1] L0 ( x) = 1 L1 ( x) = x (n + 1) Ln +1 ( x) = (2n + 1) xLn ( x) − nLn −1 ( x) H 0 ( x) = 1 H 1 ( x) = 2 x H n +1 ( x) = 2 xH n ( x) − 2nH n −1 ( x) L0 ( x) = 1 L1 ( x) = − x + 1 Ln +1 ( x) = (2n + 1 − x) Ln ( x) − n 2 Ln −1 ( x) Hermite (−∞.b] Pn ( x) = f (c) + f '(c)( x − c) + +⋯ + f ( n ) (c) ( x − c) n n! f ′′ (c ) ( x − c) 2 2! Chebyshev [-1.1 Some useful orthonormal functions Polynomial Taylor Valid Interval Forms [a.5.b] x2 x4 x6 + 2 2 − 2 2 2 +⋯ 22 2 ⋅ 4 2 ⋅4 ⋅6 x x3 x5 J 1 ( x) = − 2 + 2 2 − ⋯ 2 2 ⋅4 2 ⋅4 ⋅6 2n J n +1 ( x) = − J n −1 ( x) + J n ( x) x J 0 ( x) = 1 − f ( x) = a0 + 2 Fourier series One period ∑ a  n =1 ∞  n cos nπ x nπ x  + bn sin T T   2.24 Chapter 2 Preliminaries Table 2. Matrix A can also be represented as [ aij ] . ∞) Laguerre [0. j )th element of A. If the rows and columns are interchanged. then the resulting m × n matrix is called the .1 Properties of matrices Let A ∈ℜ n × m be a matrix with n rows and m columns.5 Vector and Matrix Analysis 2. ∞) Bessel [0.1] T0 ( x) = 1 T1 ( x) = x Tn +1 ( x) = 2 xTn ( x) − Tn −1 ( x) Legendre [-1.

2... then the trace of A is defined as Tr ( A ) = ∑a i =1 n ii (3) . A + A T is symmetric and A − A T is skew-symmetric. ∀i ≠ j .5 Vector and Matrix Analysis 25 transpose of A. An identity matrix is a diagonal matrix with a11 = ⋯ = a nn = 1. For any matrix A ∈ℜ n × n . It is positive definite (denoted by A > 0 ) if x T Ax > 0 ∀x ∈ℜ n . a nn ) .. The inverse operation has the following properties: ( A −1 ) −1 = A ( A T ) −1 = ( A −1 )T (α A) −1 = 1 (2a) (2b) (2c) (2d) α A −1 ∀α ∈ℜ. If A is a m × n matrix.. then it is known as the inverse of A and is denoted by A −1 . α ≠ 0 ( AB) −1 = B −1A −1 ∀B ∈ℜ n × n with valid inverse T A matrix A ∈ℜ n × n is said to be positive semi-definite (denoted by A ≥ 0 ) if x Ax ≥ 0 ∀x ∈ℜ n . It is negative (semi-)definite if − A is positive (semi-)definite. then A T A is symmetric. A matrix A ∈ℜ n × n is nonsingular if ∃B ∈ℜ n × n such that AB = BA = I where I is an n × n identity matrix. A diagonal matrix A can be written as diag ( a11 . The transpose operation has the following properties: T ( A T )T = A ( A + B) T = A T + B T ∀B ∈ℜ n × m ( AB) T = B T A T ∀B ∈ℜ m × n (1a) (1b) (1c) A matrix A ∈ℜ n × n is symmetric if A = A T . A matrix A ∈ℜ n × n is diagonal if aij = 0 . and is skew-symmetric if A = − A T . If B exists. x ≠ 0 . and is denoted by A . Let A ∈ℜ n × n . A time-varying matrix A (t ) is uniformly positive definite if ∃α > 0 such that A(t ) ≥ α I .

2 Differential calculus of vectors and matrices Suppose f ( x) : ℜ n → ℜ is a differentiable function. The trace operation has the following properties: Tr ( A ) = Tr ( A T ) Tr (α A) = α Tr ( A) ∀α ∈ℜ Tr ( A + B) = Tr ( A ) + Tr (B) ∀B ∈ℜ n × n Tr ( AB) = Tr (BA) = Tr ( A T B T ) ∀A ∈ℜ n × m . y ∈ℜ n (4a) (4b) (4c) (4d) (4e) 2. then the Hessian matrix can be defined as  ∂2 f ∂2 f   2 ⋯  ∂x1 xn  2  ∂x1 ∂ f ( x) =  ⋮ ⋱ ⋮  ∂x 2  2  2 ∂ f ⋯ ∂ f  2  ∂xn x1 ∂x n    (6) Let aij(x) be the (i.26 Chapter 2 Preliminaries where aii is the ith diagonal element of A. then the gradient vector is defined as ∂ ∂f   ∂f f ( x) =  ⋯ ∂x ∂x n   ∂x1  T (5) and if f is twice differentiable.j)th element of matrix A( x) ∈ℜ n × m with x ∈ℜ .5. then the derivative of A with respect to x is computed as da1m ( x)   da11 ( x) ⋯  dx dx    d A( x) =  ⋮ ⋱ ⋮  dx  da n1 ( x) da nm ( x)  ⋯   dx   dx (7) . B ∈ℜ m × n x T y = Tr (xy T ) = Tr (yx T ) = y T x ∀x.

x ∈ℜ n (9a) (9b) (9c) (9d) (9e) (9f) (9g) ∂ T T (x A Ax) = 2 Axx T ∂A (9h) ∂ T (x Ax) = Ax + A T x = 2 Ax ∀A ∈ℜ n × n . x ∈ℜ m . B ∈ℜ n × m dx dx dx d dA dB ( AB) = B+A ∀A ∈ℜ n × m .2. x ∈ℜ n ∂x ∂ T (y Ax) = Ax ∀A ∈ℜ n × m . y ∈ℜ n ∂y ∂ ( Ax) = A T ∂x ∂ T (x Ax) = xx T ∂A ∀A ∈ℜ n × m . y ∈ℜ n ∂x ∂ T (x y ) = x ∀x. y ∈ℜ n ∂y (9i) (9j) . (8) d dA dB ( A + B) = + ∀A. x ∈ℜ m ∀A ∈ℜ n × n . x ∈ℜ n ∀A ∈ℜ n × n .) : ℜ n × m → ℜ be a real-valued mapping.5 Vector and Matrix Analysis 27 Let f (. then ∂f   ∂f ⋯  ∂a ∂a1m   11  ∂ ⋱ ⋮  f ( A) =  ⋮ ∂A  ∂f ∂f    ⋯  ∂a n1 ∂a nm    The following basic properties of matrix calculus are useful in this book. B ∈ℜ m × n dx dx dx d −1 dA −1 A = − A −1 A ∀A ∈ℜ n × n dx dx ∂ T (x y ) = y ∀x.

which is also an inner product norm. x ∈ℜ m . B .6.6 Various Norms (9l) (9m) 2. then the p-norm of x can be defined as p  n p = xi   i =1  1 x p ∑ (1) for 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ . Three most commonly used vector norms are l1 norm on ℜ n : x1= ∑x i =1 n i =1 n i (2a) l 2 norm on ℜ : n x 2 = ∑x 1≤ i ≤ n 2 i (2b) l ∞ norm on ℜ n : x ∞ = max xi (2c) The l 2 norm on ℜ n is known as the Euclidean norm on ℜ n .1 Vector norms Let x ∈ℜ n . B ∈ℜ m × n ∂A ∂ ∂ ∂ Tr (BAC) = Tr (B T A T CT ) = Tr (CT A T B T ) ∂A ∂A ∂A ∂ ∂ Tr ( ACB) = Tr (CBA ) = ∂A ∂A ∂ Tr ( A T B T CT ) = B T CT ∀A .C ∈ℜ n × n = ∂A 2. All p-norms are equivalent in the sense that if . y ∈ℜ n ∂x (9k) ∂ ∂ ∂ Tr ( AB) = Tr ( A T B T ) = Tr (B T A T ) ∂A ∂A ∂A ∂ = Tr (BA ) = B T ∀A ∈ℜ n × m .28 Chapter 2 Preliminaries ∂ T (y Ax) = A T y ∀A ∈ℜ n × m .

then the matrix norm induced by the p-norm of vector x ∈ℜ n is defined as A p = sup x≠0 Ax x p p = sup Ax x p =1 p (4) for 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ . In particular. α 2 ∈ℜ + such that α 1 x p ≤ x p ≤ α 2 x p for all x ∈ℜ n . then we have the useful inequality λmin ( A) x ≤ x T Ax ≤ λmax ( A) x .6. AB ≤ A B A+B ≤ A + B A−B ≥ A − B (6a) (6b) (6c) . 2 2 (3) 2. For A ∈ℜ n × n . Let λmin ( A ) and λmax ( A ) be the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of A ∈ℜ n × n . when p = 1. we have A 1 = max A 1≤ j ≤ n ∑a i =1 n ij (5a) 2 = λmax ( A T A) = max 1≤ i ≤ n (5b) A ∞ ∑a i =1 n ij (5c) The following relations are useful in this book. any nonzero 1 2 1 vector x i satisfying Ax i = λi x i is called an eigenvcetor associated with an eigenvalue λi of A. ∞ .2 Matrix norms Let A ∈ℜ n × n . 2.6 Various Norms 29 ⋅ p1 and ⋅ p2 are two different norms. respectively. then there exist α 1 .2.

6. ∞ are defined as L1 = f (t ) : ℜ + → ℜ f  L2 =  f (t ) : ℜ + → ℜ f   L∞ =  f (t ) : ℜ + → ℜ f  n { 1 = ∫0 f (t ) dt < ∞ ∞ ⌠  ⌡0 ∞ } (8a) 2 =  2 f (t ) dt < ∞  (8b) ∞  = sup f (t ) < ∞ t ∈[0. then its p-norm is defined as ∞ p  =  ⌠0 f (t ) dt  p for p ∈[1.30 Chapter 2 Preliminaries 2. ∞ )  (8c) Let f : ℜ + → ℜ with f (t ) = [ f1 (t ) ⋯ f n (t )]T be a measurable vector function. then the corresponding p-norm spaces are defined as n L1   =  f (t ) : ℜ + → ℜ n f   = 1 ∞ n ⌠    ⌡0 i =1 ∑   f i (t ) dt < ∞     2 f i (t ) dt < ∞   (9a) Ln 2   =  f (t ) : ℜ + → ℜ n f (t )   2 = ∞ n ⌠    ⌡0 i =1 ∑ (9b) Ln = f (t ) : ℜ + → ℜ n f (t ) ∞ { ∞ = max f i (t ) < ∞ 1≤ i ≤ n } (9c) . ∞ ) The normed function spaces with p = 1. Let f (t ) : ℜ + → ℜ be a measurable function.3 Function norms and normed function spaces A real-valued function defined on ℜ + is measurable if and only if it is the limit of a sequence of piecewise constant functions over ℜ + except for some measure zero sets. 2. ∞) ⌡     1 f p (7a) (7b) f ∞ = sup f (t ) for p = ∞ t ∈[0.

i. and the series converges in the sense of mean square as t ⌠ 2  lim  n→ ∞  ⌡t1 f (t ) − ∑ w z (t ) i i i =1 k 2 dt = 0 . g >= ∫ t2 f (t ) g (t )dt and its t1 corresponding norm f = < f .2. f > . z i > is the Fourier coefficient. i i i =1 k (4a) An excellent property of (4a) is its linear parameterization of the time-varying function f(t) into a basis function vector z (t ) = [ z1 (t )⋯ z k (t )]T and a timeinvariant coefficient vector w = [ w1 ⋯ wk ]T . f (t ) ≈ w T z (t ) (4b) . t2] such that ∫ t2 t1 0. i ≠ j z i (t ) z j (t )dt =  1.7 Representations for Approximation 31 2. i = j (1) With the definition of the inner product < f . the space of functions for which f exists and is finite is a Hilbert space.e. vectors and matrices using finite-term orthonormal functions are reviews. Let us consider a set of real-valued functions {zi(t)} that are orthonormal in [t1.7 Representations for Approximation In this section some representations for approximation of scalar functions. If {zi(t)} is an orthonormal basis in the sense of (1) then every f(t) with f finite can be expanded in the form f (t ) = ∑ w z (t ) i i i =1 ∞ (2) where wi =< f . (3) This implies that any function f(t) in the current Hilbert space can be approximated to arbitrarily prescribed accuracy by finite linear combinations of the orthonormal basis {zi(t)} as f (t ) ≈ ∑ w z (t ) ..

With this approximation. Representation 1: We may use the technique in (4) to represent individual matrix elements. the estimation of the unknown timevarying function f(t) is reduced to the estimation of a vector of unknown constants w. The time-varying vector z(t) is known while w is an unknown constant vector. then matrix M is represented to be  m11 m12 m m22 21 M=  ⋮ ⋮   m p1 m p 2 ⋯ m1q   w 11z 11  ⋯ m2 q   w T z 21 21 = ⋱ ⋮   ⋮   ⋯ m pq   w T 1z p1  p T T w 12 z 12 w T z 22 22 ⋮ w T 2z p 2 p T w 1q z1q   ⋯ w Tq z 2q  2 (5) ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ w T z pq  pq  ⋯ An operation ⊗ can be defined to separate the above representation into two parts as T T  w 11z 11 w 12 z 12  T T  w 21z 21 w 22 z 22  ⋮ ⋮   w T 1z p1 w T 2 z p 2 p  p T w 1q z1q   ⋯ w Tq z 2q  2 ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ w T z pq  pq  ⋯ T T  w 11 w 12  T T  w 21 w 22 = ⋮ ⋮  T  w p1 w T 2 p  T ⋯ w 1q   z 11   ⋯ w T q   z 21 2 ⊗ ⋱ ⋮   ⋮   ⋯ w T   z p1 pq  z 12 z 22 ⋮ z p2 ⋯ z 1q  ⋯ z 2q   ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ z pq  . In the following. the same technique can be used to approximate vectors. j. three representations are introduced for approximating a matrix M (t ) ∈ℜ p × q .32 Chapter 2 Preliminaries We would like to abuse the notation by writing the approximation as f (t ) = w T z (t ) (4c) provided a sufficient number of the basis functions are used. In this book. Let w ij . By letting q=1. equation (4) is used to represent time-varying parameters in the system dynamic equation. z ij ∈ℜ k for all i.

say β. This notation can be used to facilitate the derivation of update laws. W is a p × kq matrix and Z is a kp × q matrix. Z ∈ℜ T  w 11 0  T  0 w 21 WT =  ⋮ ⋮   0 0  (7) pq β × p are in the form 0 0 ⋮ wT1 p T | w 12 ⋯ ⋯ ⋱ ⋯ 0 wT 22 ⋮ 0 ⋯ ⋯ ⋱ 0 0 ⋮ T | ⋯ | w 1q 0 | | | 0 ⋮ 0 | ⋯ | | ⋯ | 0 ⋮ 0 w Tq ⋯ 2 ⋮ ⋱ 0 ⋯ wT 2 | ⋯ | p 0   0  ⋮   ⋯ wT  pq  ⋯ T  z11  0 ZT =  ⋮  0  zT ⋯ zT1 | 21 p 0 ⋮ 0 ⋯ ⋱ ⋯ 0 ⋮ 0 | | | 0 T z 12 0 zT 22 ⋮ 0 ⋯ ⋯ ⋱ ⋯ 0 zT 2 p ⋮ 0 | ⋯ | | ⋯ | | ⋯ | | ⋯ | 0 0 ⋮ T z 1q 0 0 ⋮ zTq 2 ⋮ 0 0   ⋯ 0  ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ zT  pq  ⋯ The matrix elements wij and zij are β × 1 vectors. we use the usual matrix operation to represent M. but the dimension of M after the operation is still p × q . Representation 2: Let us assume that all matrix elements are approximated using the same number. but the sizes of W and Z are apparently much larger than those in the representation 1. and then the matrix M (t ) ∈ℜ p × q can be represented in the conventional form for matrix multiplications M = WT Z where M . Since this is not a conventional operation of matrices. we may write the above relation in the following form M = WT ⊗ Z (6) where W is a matrix containing all wij and Z is a matrix of all zij. dimensions of all involved matrices do T not follow the rule for matrix multiplication.7 Representations for Approximation 33 Or. of orthonormal functions. . Here. It can be easily check that T  w 11z11  T  w 21z 21 M = WT Z =  ⋮  T  w p1z p1  T w 12 z12 T w 1q z 1q   ⋯ w Tq z 2q  2 ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ w T z pq  pq  ⋯ w T z 22 22 ⋮ wT 2z p2 p (8) In this representation.2.

(9) can be written as f ( x) = [w Tf1 z f1 w T2 z f 2 f ⋯ w Tf m z f m ]T  w11 z11 + w12 z12 + ⋯ + w1 p1 z1 p1   w z + w z +⋯ + w z  22 22 2 p2 2 p2  21 21  =   ⋮    wm1 z m1 + wm 2 z m 2 + ⋯ + wmpm z mp m  i =1..m and j > pi .34 Chapter 2 Preliminaries Since this representation is compatible to all conventional matrix operations. it is used in this book for representing functions. all matrix elements are approximated by the same number of orthonormal functions. (13) .. it may be desirable to use different number of orthonormal functions for different matrix elements. m (11) Define p max = max pi and let wij = 0 for all i=1. z fi ∈ℜ pi ×1 and pi is the number of terms of the basis functions selected to approximate fi. however. z i = [ z1i ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ wmi  z 2i ⋯ z mi ]T ..⋯. In many applications.. Hence. Representation 3: In the above representations.m as f i (x) = w Tf i z f i (10) where w fi . i =1.... vectors and matrices. then (11) can be further written in the following form  w11  0 f (x) =   ⋮   0 0 ⋯ w21 ⋯ ⋮ ⋱ 0  w1 pmax   z11   0 z    21  + ⋯ +   ⋮  ⋮     ⋯ wm1   z m1   0 0 0 ⋮ 0 w2 pmax ⋮ 0 ⋯ ⋯   z1 pmax   z    2 pmax  (12) ⋱ ⋮  ⋮    ⋯ wmpmax   z mpmax  0 0 Define  w1i 0 Wi =   ⋮  0 0 ⋯ w2i ⋯ ⋮ 0 0  0   .. Suppose the component form of a vector field f(x) is written as f ( x) = [ f1 ( x ) f 2 ( x) ⋯ f m (x)]T (9) and we may approximate the real-valued function f i ( x) .

e. we may approximate m i using the technique above as  p1max M= W1i z 1i ⋯  i =1  ∑ p q max ∑ i =1  Wqi z qi    (15) 2. we may rewrite it into a row p vector as M = [m1 ⋯ m q ] where m i ∈ℜ . The invariant set theorem will be reviewed to facilitate the proof for asymptotically stability of autonomous systems when only negative semidefinite of the time derivative of the Lyapunov function can be concluded. It is going to be used for almost every controller designed in this book. all controllers derived in this book will be based on the rigorous mathematical proof via the Lyapunov or Lyapunov-like theories. On the other hand.8 Lyapunov Stability Theory The Lyapunov stability theory is widely used in the analysis and design of control systems. Therefore. a Lypunov-like technique summarized in Barbalat’s lemma will also be reviewed..pmax. t ) n n (1) where x ∈ℜ n and f : ℜ × ℜ + → ℜ . To ensure closed loop stability and boundedness of internal signals. 2. The concept of stability in the sense of Lyapunov will be introduced first in this section followed by Lyapunov stability theorems for autonomous and non-autonomous systems. i.8 Lyapunov Stability Theory 35 where i=1. and then (8) can be expressed in the form f ( x) = ∑Wz i =1 p max i i (14) For approximating the matrix M (t ) ∈ℜ p × q .8.. If the function f dose not explicitly depend on time t..1 Concepts of stability Let us consider a nonlinear dynamic system described by the differential equation ɺ x = f ( x. the system is in the form .2...

λ > 0 . t ) = 0 for all t > 0 . linear time-invariant. in studying the behavior of a non-autonomous system. λ > 0 . (iii) exponentially stable. If the matrix A is a function of time. we often transform the system equations in such a way that the equilibrium point is the origin of the state space. The state trajectory of an autonomous system is independent of the initial time. (iv) uniformly asymptotically stable if it is uniformly stable and ∃r1 > 0 such that x(t 0 ) < r1 implies that x(t ) → 0 as t → ∞ . the system is linear time-varying. ∀t ≥ 0 . a non-autonomous system. The equilibrium point x e = 0 of the autonomous system (2) is said to be (i) stable. otherwise. ∃r > 0 such that x(0) < r ⇒ x(t ) < R . (v) exponentially stable at t0. if the property holds for any initial condition. if ∃α . t 0 ) ⇒ x(t ) < R . Stability is the most important property of a control system. if ∃α . (vi) globally (uniformly) asymptotically (or exponentially) stable. The equilibrium point x e = 0 of the non-autonomous system (1) is said to be (i) stable at t0. The system (1) is linear if f ( x. This leads to the definition of the concept of the equilibrium state or equilibrium point. A state x e is said to be an equilibrium point of (1). if ∀R > 0 . if the property holds for any initial conditions. such that x(t ) ≤ α x(t 0 ) e − λ (t − t 0 ) for all t > t 0 in some ball around the origin. but the converse is not generally true. (iii) uniformly stable if ∀R > 0 . (iv) globally asymptotically (or exponentially) stable. It is noted that exponential stability always implies uniform asymptotic stability.36 Chapter 2 Preliminaries ɺ x = f ( x) (2) then the system is called an autonomous system. Likewise. otherwise. if ∀R > 0. such that x(t ) ≤ α x(0) e − λ t for all t > 0 in some neighborhood N of the origin. For simplicity. The concept of stability of a dynamic system is usually related to the ability to remain in a state regardless of small perturbations. but that of a non-autonomous system is generally not. ∀t ≥ t 0 . ∃r ( R ) > 0 such that x(t 0 ) < r ( R ) ⇒ x(t ) < R . t 0 ) > 0 such that x(t 0 ) < r ( R. otherwise the equilibrium point is unstable (ii) asymptotically stable at t0 if it is stable and ∃r1 (t 0 ) > 0 such that x(t 0 ) < r1 (t 0 ) implies that x(t ) → 0 as t → ∞ . t ) = A(t ) x for some mapping A(⋅) : ℜ + → ℜ n × n . if f ( x e . ∀t ≥ t 0 . if it is stable and if ∃r1 > 0 such that x(0) < r1 implies that x(t ) → 0 as t → ∞ . we have to consider the initial time explicitly. Therefore. ∃r ( R. (ii) asymptotically stable. . uniform asymptotic stability always implies asymptotic stability.

The result is global if the properties hold for the entire state space and V ( x) is radially unbounded. and let N be a neighborhood of the origin. It is decrescent if N = ℜ n . Lyapunov stability theorem for non-autonomous systems Given the non-autonomous system (1) with an equilibrium point at the origin. A continuous function V ( x. A continuous function V ( x. t ) ≤ β ( x ) for all t ≥ 0 in the neighborhood N of the origin of ℜ n .2 Lyapunov stability theorem A continuous function α ( r ) : ℜ → ℜ is said to belong to class K if α (0) = 0 α ( r ) > 0 ∀r > 0 α (r1 ) ≥ α (r2 ) ∀r1 > r2 . t ) is locally positive definite and has continuous partial derivatives.8 Lyapunov Stability Theory 37 2. then the origin is (i) stable if . t ) : ℜ n × ℜ + → ℜ is locally decrescent if there exists a class K function β (⋅) such that V ( x. t ) : ℜ n × ℜ + → ℜ is radially unbounded if V ( x. then the origin is (i) stable if there ɺ exists a scalar function V ( x) > 0 ∀x ∈ N such that V ( x) ≤ 0 . If function V ( x. V (x) < 0 and V (x) is radially unbounded. (ii) asymptotic ɺ (x) < 0 . t ) ≥ α ( x ) for all t ≥ 0 in the neighborhood N of the origin of ℜ n .2. It is positive definite if N = ℜ n . and if its time derivative along the trajectory of (1) is negative semi-definite then it is called a Lyapunov function for system (1). Lyapunov stability theorem for autonomous systems Given the autonomous system (2) with an equilibrium point at the origin. A continuous function V ( x.8. (iii) globally asymptotically stable if stable if V ( x) > 0 and V ɺ V (x) > 0 . and let N be a neighborhood of the origin. t ) : ℜ n × ℜ + → ℜ is locally positive definite if there exists a class K function α (⋅) such that V ( x. Then (2) is asymptotically stable if V identically along any trajectory of (2) other than the trivial solution x = 0 . t ) → ∞ uniformly in time as x → ∞ . LaSalle’s theorem (Invariant set theorem) ɺ Given the autonomous system (2) suppose V ( x) > 0 and V ( x) ≤ 0 along ɺ does not vanish the system trajectory.

t ) > 0 and decrescent and is radially unbounded and ɺ V (x. t ) such that V (x. (vii) exponentially stable if there exits α . t ) < 0 and V (x. Barbalat’s lemma La Salle’s theorem is very useful in the stability analysis of autonomous systems when asymptotic stability is desired but only with negative semidefinite result for the time derivative of the Lyapunov function. It can be restated as: if e ∈ L∞ ∩ L2 and ɺ e ∈ L∞ . V ≤ 0 . t ) > 0 and decrescent and V (x. t ) such that V (x. α x ≤ V ( x. A simple and powerful tool called Barbalat’s lemma can be used to partially remedy this situation. and V is bounded. β . ɺ (x. then e is going to converge to zero asymptotically. Hence. the lemma can be rewritten as: if lim f (t ) = k < ∞ and ɺɺ(t ) exists and is bounded. (vi) globally n uniformly asymptotically stable if ∀x ∈ℜ . t ) < 0 . In addition. t ) ≤ β x and V (x. then e → 0 as t → ∞ . La Salle’s theorem does not apply to non-autonomous systems. If we can prove that a time function e is bounded and square integrable. we would like to use the other form of Barbalat’s lemma to prove closed loop stability. t ) > 0 and V n asymptotically stable if ∀x ∈ℜ .38 Chapter 2 Preliminaries ∀x ∈ N . In this book. . t ) < 0 . Let f (t ) be a differentiable function. Unfortunately. there exists a scalar function V (x. then V → 0 as t → ∞ . t ) > 0 and ɺ ɺ V (x. t ) ≤ 0 . t ) such that V (x. In the Lyapunov stability analysis. Therefore. (ii) uniformly stable if V (x. t ) > 0 and decrescent and V (x. (iv) globally (iii) asymptotically stable if V (x. we can only conclude convergence of V . there exists a scalar function V (x. t ) ≤ −γ x . t ) is radially unbounded. to ɺ conclude asymptotic stability of a non-autonomous system with V ≤ 0 . ɺ then Barbalat’s lemma states that if lim f (t ) = k < ∞ and f (t ) is uniformly t→∞ ɺ continuous. (viii) globally exponentially stable if it is exponentially stable and V (x. and its time derivative is also bounded. It can be proved that a differentiable function is t→∞ uniformly continuous if its derivative is bounded. It should be noted that the Lyapunov function is only required to be lower bounded in stead of ɺ positive definite. t ) > 0 and V (x. t ) ≤ 0 . t ) is lower ɺ ɺɺ ɺ bounded. t ) < 0 . then lim f (t ) = 0 . (v) uniformly asymptotically stable if ∀x ∈ N . there exists a scalar function V (x. there exists a scalar function ɺ V (x. Barbalat’s lemma can be applied in the fashion similar to La Salle’s theorem: If V (x. t ) such ɺ that V (x. t ) is radially unbounded. not the states. then f t→∞ ɺ f → 0 as t → ∞ . we need to find a new approach. γ > 0 such that 2 2 2 ɺ ∀ x ∈ N .

t). t ) > 0 . the sliding control is perhaps the most popular approach to achieve the robust performance requirement. as ∆f ≤ α (x.9 Sliding Control A practical control system should be designed to ensure system stability and performance to be invariant under perturbations from internal parameter variation. a sliding surface is designed so that the system trajectory is force to converge to the surface by some worst-case control efforts.t)∈ℜ is assumed to be nonsingular for all admissible x and for all time t. t ) (3a) (3b) . In the sliding control.t) and d(t) can be modeled as f = f m + ∆f d = d m + ∆d (2a) (2b) where fm and dm are known nominal values of f and d. For nonlinear systems.t)∈ℜ and the disturbance d(t)∈ℜ are both unknown functions of time. The control gain function g(x. t ) ∆d ≤ β (x. we would like to design a sliding controller with the knowledge of g(x. t )u + d (t ) T n (1) ɺ where x = [ x x ⋯ x ( n −1) ] ∈ℜ is the state vector. In this section. respectively. unmodeled dynamics excitation and external disturbances. but bounds of their variations should be available. Let us consider a non-autonomous system x ( n ) = f (x. The function f (x. Let us assume that f (x.t) first.9 Sliding Control 39 2.2. and u(t)∈ℜ the control input. In the following derivation. and then a controller is constructed with unknown g(x. respectively. t ) + g (x. the system dynamics is reduced to a stable linear time invariant system which is irrelevant to the perturbations no matter from internal or external sources. t ) > 0 and β (x. Convergence of the output error is then easily achieved. we are going to review the sliding controller design including two smoothing techniques to eliminate the chattering activity in the control effort. The uncertain terms ∆f and ∆d are assumed to be bounded by some known functions α (x. Once on the surface. x∈ℜ the output of interest.

This condition is called the sliding condition which can be written in a compact form ɺ ss < 0 Using (5). Now. we can design a control u so that s will decrease in the s > 0 region. t ) is a linear stable differential operator acting on the tracking error e = x-xd as s=( d + λ ) n −1 e dt (5) where λ > 0 determines the behavior of the error dynamics. t ) (4) is not realizable. the inversion-based controller u= 1 [ − f ( x. Selection of the sliding surface is not unique. to make the sliding surface attractive. Intuitively. but the one in (5) is preferable simply because it is linear and it will result in a relative degree one dynamics.e. t ) = 0 as a desired error dynamics. the problem is how to drive the system trajectory to the sliding surface. Let us define a sliding surface s(x. t ) = 0 as the boundary. t ) − d (t ) + v ] g ( x. Once on the surface. One way to achieve output error convergence is to find a control u such that the state trajectory converges to the sliding surface. We would like to design a tracking controller so that the output x tracks the desired trajectory xd asymptotically regardless of the presence of uncertainties. asymptotic convergence of the tracking error can be obtained. and it will increase in the s < 0 region. where s (x. With s(x. the system behaves like a stable linear system ( d + λ ) n −1 e = 0 .40 Chapter 2 Preliminaries Since the system contains uncertainties. i. the sliding surface for system (1) is of the form (6) s=( d + λ ) n −1 e dt ɺ = c1e + c 2 e + ⋯ + cn −1e ( n − 2) + c n e ( n −1) (7) . the state space can be decomposed into two parts: the one with s > 0 and the other with s < 0 . dt therefore. u appears when we differentiate s once.

and the tracking error converges asymptotically regardless of the uncertainties in f and d.2. with the controller (9). but we do know that it is non-singular for all admissible state and time t. t ) is not available..n-1. In stead of the additive uncertainty model we used for f and d.. Now. let us multiply both sides of (10) with s as ɺ ss = (∆f + ∆d ) s − η1 s ≤ (α + β ) s − η1 s By picking η1 = α + β + η with η > 0 .9 Sliding Control 41 (n − 1)!λ n − k . and cn =1.. Let us differentiate s with (n − k )!(k − 1)! respect to time once to make u appear where ck = ɺ ɺ s = c1e + ⋯ + c n −1e ( n −1) + cn e ( n ) ( ɺ = c1e + ⋯ + c n −1e ( n −1) + x ( n ) − x dn ) ( ɺ = c1e + ⋯ + c n −1e ( n −1) + f + gu + d − x dn ) (8) Let us select the control u as u= 1 ( ɺ [−c1e − ⋯ − cn −1e ( n −1) − f m − d m + xdn ) − η1 sgn( s )] g (9) where η1 > 0 is a design parameter to be determined. so that (8) becomes ɺ s = ∆f + ∆d − η1 sgn( s ) (10) To satisfy the sliding condition (6). let us consider the case when g (x. once the sliding surface is reached. k=1. the sliding surface (7) is attractive.. and its variation bound is known with 0 < g min ≤ g ≤ g max . the above inequality becomes (11) ɺ ss ≤ −η s (12) Therefore. a multiplicative model is chosen for g as g = g m ∆g (13) .

the switching induced from this function will sometimes result in control chattering. we can also have the result in (12). the switching controller has to be modified with a continuous . the controller is chosen as u= 1 ( ɺ [ −c1e − ⋯ − c n −1e ( n −1) − f m − d m + x dn ) − η1 sgn( s)] gm (15) Substituting (15) into (8). Smoothed sliding control law Both controllers (9) and (15) contain the switching function sgn(s). In some cases. Consequently. equation (16) becomes ( ɺ ɺ ss = (1 − ∆g )[c1e + ⋯ + cn −1e ( n −1) + f m + d m − xdn ) ]s + ( ∆f + ∆d ) s − ∆gη1 s ( ɺ ≤ (1 − γ min ) c1e + ⋯ + c n −1e ( n −1) + f m + d m − x dn ) s + (α + β ) s − γ minη1 s The parameter η1 can thus be selected as (17) η1 = ( ɺ [(1 − γ min ) c1e + ⋯ + c n −1e ( n −1) + f m + d m − x dn ) γ min +(α + β ) + η ] 1 (18) where η is a positive number. the tracking performance degrades. In practical implementation. and the high-frequency unmodeled dynamics may be excited.42 Chapter 2 Preliminaries where ∆g satisfies the relation 0 ≤ γ min ≡ g min g ≤ ∆g ≤ max ≡ γ max . gm gm (14) In this case. we have ( ɺ ɺ s = (1 − ∆g )[c1e + ⋯ + c n −1e ( n −1) + f m + d m − x dn ) ] +∆f + ∆d − ∆gη1 sgn( s ) (16) Multiplying both sides with s. Therefore.

2. s > φ .e.9 Sliding Control 43 approximation. Thus. Hence. For example. because the robust term is linear in the signal s. the chattering behavior can indeed be eliminated with proper selection of the filer bandwidth and as long as the high-frequency unmodeled dynamics is not excited. At best we can say that once the signal s converges to the boundary layer. equation (10) becomes ɺ s + η1 s φ = ∆f + ∆d (20) This implies that the signal s is the output of a stable first-order filter whose input is the bounded model error ∆f + ∆d . the following analysis is performed. One drawback of this smoothed sliding controller is the degradation of the tracking accuracy. When s is inside the boundary layer.. Instead of the saturation function. This selection is very easy in implementation. (10) can be rewritten in the form ɺ s = ∆f + ∆d − η1 s φ (22) . we may also use s φ to have a smoothed version of the sliding controller. σ if σ ≤ φ sat(σ ) =  sgn(σ ) if σ > φ (19) where φ > 0 is called the boundary layer of the sliding surface. When s is outside the boundary layer. the sliding controller with sgn(s) is exactly the same as the one with sat( ) . the boundary layer is also s φ attractive. i. the output tracking error is bounded by the value φ . controller (9) can be smoothed in the form u= 1 s ( ɺ [−c1e − ⋯ − cn −1e ( n −1) − f m − d m + xdn ) − η1 ] g φ (21) To justify its effectiveness. When s is outside the boundary layer. One approach is to use the saturation function sat(σ ) defined below instead of the signum function sgn( s ) .

. (25) implies ss ≤ −η s2 (25) φ . we may have the result ɺ ss ≤ −η s2 φ . the initial control . When s is inside the boundary layer. By selecting η1 according to (18). Let us now consider the case when g ( x. therefore. Hence..44 Chapter 2 Preliminaries With the selection of η1 = α + β + η . i.. effective chattering elimination can be achieved. Since inside the boundary layer there is also an equivalent first order filter dynamics. the sliding condition can be checked as ɺ ss = (∆f + ∆d ) s − η1 s2 φ s2 ≤ (α + β ) s − (α + β + η )  s s = (α + β ) s 1 −  − η φ  φ φ (23) 2 Since s > φ . t ) is unknown and the sliding controller is smoothed with s φ as u= 1 s ( [u + xdn ) − η1 ] gm φ (24) ɺ where u = − c1e − ⋯ − cn −1e ( n −1) − f m − d m . the chattering activity can be effectively eliminated. the boundary layer is still attractive.e. i.e.e. The output tracking error. however. equation (20) can be obtained. all trajectories will eventually converge to the boundary layer even though the system contains uncertainties. There is one more drawback for the smoothing using s φ . i. when outside the boundary layer. can only be concluded to be uniformly bounded. the sliding condition is checked with s  s2 ɺ ss ≤ [(1 − β min ) u + α + β ] s 1 −  − η φ  φ ɺ If s is outside the boundary layer.

Two modifications to the update law are introduced to robustify the adaptive loop when the system contains unmodeled dynamics or external disturbances. followed by the design for the vector case. desired trajectory and initial conditions should be carefully selected. The parameters ap and bp are unknown constants. If plant parameters ap and bp are available. The pair (ap. 2.2. For an adaptive controller to be feasible the system structure is assumed to be known and a set of unknown constant system parameters (or equivalently the corresponding controller parameters) are to be estimated so that the closed loop stability is ensured via a certainty equivalence based controller.10. In this section.10 Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) 45 effort may become enormously large if there is a significant difference between the desired trajectory and the initial state.10 Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) Adaptive control and robust control are two main approaches for controlling systems containing uncertainties and disturbances. The sliding control introduced in the previous section is one of the robust designs widely used in the literature. The persistent excitation condition is investigated for the convergence of estimated parameters. In this section. bp) is controllable. To overcome this problem. 2. the model reference control (MRC) rule can be designed as .1 MRAC of LTI scalar systems Consider a linear time-invariant system described by the differential equation ɺ x p = a p x p + b pu (1) where x p ∈ℜ is the state of the plant and u ∈ℜ the control input. but sgn(bp) is available. The problem is to design a control u and an update law so that all signals in the closed loop plant are bounded and the system output xp tracks the output xm of the reference model ɺ xm = a m xm + bm r (2) asymptotically. and r is a bounded reference signal. the MRAC for a linear time-invariant scalar system is introduced first. where am and bm are known constants with a m < 0. the well-known MRAC is reviewed as an example in the traditional adaptive approach.

then equation (6) is further written as ɶ ɺ ɶ e = a m e + b p ax p + b p br (7) This is the dynamics of the output error e. Since the values of ap and bp are not given. Define the output tracking error as e = x p − xm then the error dynamics can be computed as following (5) ˆ ɺ ˆ e = a m e + b p (a − a ) x p + b p (b − b) r (6) ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ Define the parameter errors a = a − a and b = b − b . if update laws are found to have convergence of these parameter errors. let us define a Lyapunov function candidate 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ V (e. and proper update laws ˆ ˆ are to be selected to give a → a and b → b . Therefore. convergence of the output error is then ensured. b ) = e 2 + b p (a 2 + b 2 ) 2 2 Taking the time derivative of V along the trajectory of (7).46 Chapter 2 Preliminaries u = ax p + br where a = (3) am − a p bm and b = are perfect gains for transforming dynamics in bp bp (1) into (2). a. we may not select these perfect gains to complete the MRC design in (3) and the model reference adaptive control (MRAC) rule is constructed instead ˆ ˆ( u = a t ) x p + b(t )r (4) ˆ ˆ where a and b are estimates of a and b. respectively. we have (8) ɺ ɺ ɺ ɺ ɶˆ ɶˆ V = ee + b p (aa + bb ) ɺ ɶ ˆ ɶ ɶɺ ɶˆ = e(a m e + b p ax p + b p br ) + b p (aa + bb) ɺ ɺ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ = a m e 2 + a b p [sgn(b p )ex p + a ] + b b p [sgn(b p )er + b] (9) . which is a stable linear system driven by the parameter errors. To ˆ ˆ find these update laws for a and b .

It can be observed in (10) that the update laws are driven by the tracking error e. The result e ∈ L∞ can easily be concluded from (7). Therefore.. To investigate the problem of parameter convergence. a. the controller (4) together with update laws in (10) make the system (1) track the reference model (2) asymptotically with boundedness of all internal signals. T > 0 such that . Let us consider the situation when the system gets into the steady state. where k = − is the d. the estimated parameters converges to some values. We cannot predict the exact values these parameters will converge to from the above derivation. when t → ∞ . we need the concept of persistent excitation. gain of the reference model (2). From the simple derivation (11) ∫ ∞ 0 − e 2 dt = − a m1 ∫ ∞ 0 − ɺ Vdt = a m1 (V0 − V∞ ) < ∞ ɺ we know that e ∈ L2 . Therefore.10 Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) 47 If the update laws are selected as ɺ ˆ a = − sgn(b p )ex p ɺ ˆ b = − sgn(b p )er then (9) becomes (10a) (10b) ɺ V = ame 2 ≤ 0 ɶ ɶ This implies that e.2. In summary. then xp in (12) can be found as x p = xm = kr .c. Once e gets close to zero.e. both the estimated parameters do not necessarily converge to zero. i. if follows from Barbalat’s lemma that the output error e(t) converges to zero asymptotically as t → ∞ . for a constant reference input r. Equation (12) further implies bm am ɶ ɶ ka + b = 0 (13) which is exactly a straight line in the parameter error space. A signal v ∈ℜ n is said to satisfy the persistent excitation (PE) condition if ∃α . b ∈ L∞ . The error dynamics (7) becomes ɶ ɶ ax p + br = 0 (12) If r is a constant.

e. equation (17) implies θ = 0 . its integration in [t .10. t + T ] is ∫ ∫ t +T t T vv θɶdt = 0 (16) ɺ ɶ When t → ∞ . if v is PE. (16) becomes t +T t ɶ vv dtθ = 0 T (17) ɶ Hence. 2. and A p ∈ℜ n × n and B p ∈ℜ n × m are unknown constant matrices. Bp) is controllable. The pair (Ap.2 MRAC of LTI systems: vector case Consider a linear time-invariant system ɺ x p = A p x p + B pu (18) where x p ∈ℜ n is the state vector. A more general treatment of the PE condition will be presented in Section 2. and equation (12) is able to be ɶ a r]   = 0 ɶ b  (15) ɶ Since vv T θ = 0 . parameter convergence when t → ∞ .. therefore.3. update laws in (10) imply θ → 0.10. u ∈ℜ m is the control vector. i.48 Chapter 2 Preliminaries t +T ∫ t vv dt ≥ α I T (14) ɶ ɶ Define v = [ x p r ]T and θ = [ a represented into the vector form v Tθɶ = [ x p ɶ b ]T . The problem is to find a control u so that all signals in the closed loop system are bounded and the system states asymptotically track the states of the reference model ɺ x m = A m x m + B mr (19) .

2.10 Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) 49

where A m ∈ℜ and B m ∈ℜ are known and r ∈ℜ m is a bounded reference input vector. All eigenvalues of Am are assumed to be with strictly negative real parts. A control law for this problem can be designed in the form

n×n

n×m

u = BAx p + Br

(20)

where A and B are feedback gain matrices. Substituting (20) into (18), the closed loop system is derived as

ɺ x p = ( A p + B p BA) x p + B p Br
Hence, if A and B are chosen so that

(21)

A p + B p BA = A m B pB = B m

(22a) (22b)

then the behavior of system (18) is identical to that of the reference model. The control in (20) is called the MRC rule if A and B satisfy (22). Since the values of Ap and Bp are not given, the MRC rule is not realizable. Now, let us replace ˆ ˆ the values A and B in (20) with their estimates A (t ) and B(t ) , respectively, to have the MRAC rule

ˆ ˆ ˆ u = B(t ) A (t )x p + B(t )r

(23)

ˆ ˆ We would like to design proper update laws to have A → A and B → B . Define the tracking error
e = x p − xm
then the error dynamics can be computed as following (24)

ˆ ɺ e = A m (x p − x m ) + B m ( A − A)x p ˆ ˆ ˆ + (B p B − B m ) Ax p + (B p B − B m )r

ɶ ˆ ˆ = A me + B m Ax p + (B p B − B m )( Ax p + r )

(25)

50

Chapter 2 Preliminaries

ɶ ˆ where A = A − A . Using the relations in (22), the above equation is reduced to ɶ ˆ ˆ ˆˆ ˆ ɺ e = A me + B m Ax p + B m (B −1B − I )B −1 (BAx p + Br ) ɶ ˆ = A me + B m Ax p + B m (B −1 − B −1 )u
−1 ɶ ˆ −1 Define B1 = B − B , then equation (26) becomes

(26)

ɶ ɶ ɺ e = A me + B m Ax p + B m B1u

(27)

ˆ ˆ To find update laws for A and B , let us define a Lyapunov function candidate

ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶT ɶ V (e, A, B1 ) = eT Pe + Tr ( A T A + B1 B1 )
T

(28)

where P ∈ℜ n × n is a positive definite matrix satisfying A m P + PA m = −Q for n× n some positive definite matrix Q ∈ℜ . Taking time derivative of V along the trajectory of (27) and selecting the update laws

ɺ ˆ A = −B T Pex T m p ɺ ˆ B1 = −B T Peu T m
T

(29a) (29b)

ɺ we have the result V = −e Qe ≤ 0 . By using the identity (2.5-9c), update law (29b) can be transformed to ɺ ˆ ˆ m ˆ B = − BB T Peu T B
(29c)

ɶ ɶ Therefore, we have proved that the origin (e, A, B1 ) = 0 is uniformly stable using controller (23) with update laws in (29). It should be noted that the control ɶ ɶ scheme can only guarantee uniform stability of the origin in the {e, A, B} space. Since the Lyapunov function in (28) is not radially unbounded, the global behavior cannot be concluded. If the reference input is PE, convergence of the estimated parameters can further be proved.

2.10.3 Persistent excitation
We have introduced MRAC laws for linear time-invariant systems to have asymptotic tracking error convergence performance. However, we can only

2.10 Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) 51

obtain uniformly boundedness of parameter errors in those systems. In this section, we are going to investigate the problem of persistency of excitation of signals in the closed loop system, which relates to the convergence of the parameter vector. Consider a special linear system (Marino and Tomei 1996)

ɺ x = Ax +

T

(t )z

(30a) (30b)

ɺ z = − (t )Px

where x ∈ℜ n and z ∈ℜ p . A ∈ℜ n × n is a Hurwitz matrix, and P ∈ℜ n × n is a T positive definite matrix satisfying A P + PA = −Q for some positive definite n × n matrix Q. The p × n real matrix Ω has the property that (t ) and ɺ (t ) are uniformly bounded. System (30) is frequently encountered in the parameter convergence analysis of adaptive systems. Equation (30a) usually corresponds to the tracking error dynamics and (30b) is the update law. These can be confirmed with MRAC systems introduced in the previous section. To have parameter convergence in those systems, it is equivalent to require convergence of vector z in (30b). Here, we would like to prove that as long as the persistent excitation condition is satisfied by the signal matrix Ω, the equilibrium point ( x, z ) = 0 is globally exponentially stable. We first show that the tracking error vector x converges to zero asymptotically as t → ∞ . Define a Lyapunov function candidate

V (x, z ) = x T Px + z T z

(31)

Along the trajectory of (30), the time derivative of V can be computed to have

ɺ V = x T ( A T P + PA )x = − x T Qx ≤ 0
n p

(32)

Hence, the origin of (30) is uniformly stable, and x ∈ L∞ , z ∈ L∞ . From the computation


n

x T Qxdt = −

0

0

ɺ Vdt = V0 − V∞ < ∞

ɺ we have x ∈ L2 . Boundedness of x can be obtained by observing (30a). Therefore, by Barbalat’s lemma, we have proved x → 0 as t → ∞ .

52

Chapter 2 Preliminaries

To prove asymptotic convergence of z, we need to prove that ∀ε > 0 , ∃Tε > 0 such that z (t ) < ε , ∀t ≥ Tε . Since when t ≥ Tε , V in (31) satisfies V (Tε ) ≥ V (t ) , or equivalently

x T (Tε )Px(Tε ) + z T (Tε )z (Tε ) ≥ x T (t )Px(t ) + z T (t )z (t )

≥ z T (t )z (t )
Using relation (2.6-3), inequality (33) becomes

(33)

λmax (P ) x(Tε ) + z (Tε ) ≥ z (t )
2 2

2

This further implies

z (t ) ≤ λmax (P ) x(Tε ) + z (Tε )
2

2

(34)

Since we have proved x → 0 as t → ∞ , this implies that ∀ε > 0 , ∃tε > 0 such that ∀t ≥ tε ,

x(t ) ≤
Plug (35) into (34), yields

ε
2λmax (P )

.

(35)

z (t ) ≤

ε2
2

+ z (Tε )

2

(36)

If we may claim that ∀ε > 0 , T > 0 and for any initial conditions of x and z, ∃t > T such that z (t ) < ε , then we may use this property to say that ∀ε > 0 ,

∃Tε > tε such that z (Tε ) <
written as z (t ) ≤

ε

2

. Under this condition, (36) can be further

ε2
2

+

ε2
2

= ε for all t ≥ Tε . This completes the proof of

z → 0 as t → ∞ , if the claim is justified. Since all properties hold for all x and z, and are uniform respect to the initial time, the equilibrium point (x, z ) = 0 is
globally uniformly stable. Since the system is linear, it is also globally exponentially stable.

2.10 Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) 53

∀ε > 0 , we cannot find t1>0 such that z (t ) > ε for all t ≥ t1 . Suppose there exists a t1 > 0 such that z (t ) > ε for all t ≥ t1 . The PE condition says that there exist T, k>0, such that

Now let us prove the above claim by contradiction, i.e., to prove that

∫ ∫
Let w =
t +T t

t +T

t

(τ )

T

(τ )dτ ≥ kI > 0 ∀t ≥ t 0 .

(37)

For all w ∈ℜ p , w = 1, inequality (37) implies

w T (τ )P

T

(τ )w dτ ≥ k λmin (P ) ∀t ≥ t 0

(38)

z , then (38) becomes z

t +T

t

z T (τ )P

T

(τ )zdτ ≥ k λmin (P ) z ≥ k λmin (P )ε 2

2

∀t ≥ t 0 ∀t ≥ t1
(39)

Consider the bounded function for some T>0

φ T (z (t ), t ) = [z T (t + T )z (t + T ) − z T (t )z (t )]
Its time derivative is computed as following

1 2

(40)

ɺ ɺ ɺ φ T = z T (t + T ) z (t + T ) − z T (t )z (t )
=

t +T

t

d T ɺ [z (τ )z (τ )] dτ dτ

(41)

Using (30) and (39), equation (41) can be derived as

ɺ φT =


t +T

[xT P

T

t

Px − z T ɺ Px − z T PAx] dτ
T

t +T

zT P
T

t

z dτ

t +T

[xT P

t

Px − z T ɺ Px − z T PAx] dτ
∀t ≥ t1
(42)

− k λmin (P )ε 2

10. t 2 } . For practical control systems. z. In the following.10. Therefore. an adaptive control system should be designed to withstand all kinds of non-parametric uncertainties.54 Chapter 2 Preliminaries Since x. then ∃t 2 > 0 such that ∀t ≥ t 2 ∫ t +T [xT P T t 1 Px − z T ɺ Px − z T PAx] dτ ≤ k λmin (P )ε 2 2 (44) Plug (44) into (42) for all t ≥ max{t1 . uncertain parameters may vary with time and the system may contain some non-parametric uncertainties. a technique called dead-zone is introduced followed by the review of the well-known σ-modification. Then t t the integration term in (42) can be represented in the form ∫ t +T [xT P T t Px − z T ɺ Px − z T PAx] dτ 2 2 ≤ [ λmax (P ) x + λmax ( P) z + λmax (P ) z A ] ∫ t +T t x(τ ) dτ (43) Since we have proved that x → 0 as t → ∞ . 1 2 1 2 2. x = sup x(t ) and z = sup z (t ) .sup ɺ (t ) } . al. φ T is an unbounded function. an adaptive control system presents slow parameter drift behavior and the system output suddenly diverges sharply after a finite interval of time. we have proved the claim. Some modifications of the adaptive laws have been developed to deal with these problems.1 and 2. x and z such t = max{sup t (t ) .10. Ω and ɺ are all uniformly bounded. (1985) showed that in the presence of a small amount of measurement noise and high-frequency unmodeled dynamics. which is a contradiction to the assumption in (40). .2 are developed for LTI systems without external disturbances or unmodeled dynamics. we have ɺ φ T ≤ k λmin (P )ε 2 − k λmin (P )ε 2 = − k λmin (P )ε 2 < 0 Hence. there exist that .4 Robust adaptive control The adaptive controllers presented in Section 2. For practical implementation. Rohrs et.

Let a = (46) am − a p and b = 1 be ideal feedback bp gains for the MRAC law (4).2. then the error dynamics is computed as ɺ ɶ e = a m e + b p ax p + d (t ) The time derivative of the Lyapunov function (48) ɶ V (e. A reference model is designed as ɺ xm = a m xm + bm r where a m < 0 and bm = b p . a ) = along the trajectory of (48) is 1 2 ɶ (e + a 2 ) 2 ɺ ɺ ɶ ˆ V = a m e 2 + a (b p ex p + a) + ed With the selection of the update law (49) ɺ ˆ a = −b p ex p (49) becomes (50) ɺ V = a m e 2 + ed = ( d − a m e )e ≤ (δ − a m e ) e (51) . a practical feedback law is designed to be ˆ( u = a t ) x p + br (47) ~ ˆ ˆ( where a t ) is the estimate of a. Let e = x p − xm and a = a − a . The disturbance d(t) is assumed to be bounded by some δ > 0 . Since ap is not given.10 Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) 55 Dead-Zone Consider the uncertain linear time-invariant system ɺ x p = a p x p + b p u + d (t ) (45) where ap is unknown but b p ≠ 0 is available.

e > δ am .e. the update law (50) is modified as ɺ ˆ ˆ a = −b p ex p − σ a where σ is a small positive constant. σ-modification In applying the dead-zone modification. the modified update law c ɶ ɺ  −ex p if (e. Here. The notation D c denotes the complement of D. the upper bound of the disturbance signal is required to be given.56 Chapter 2 Preliminaries If δ − a m e < 0 . ɶ Let D be the set where V will grow unbounded. It should be noted that. i. Rewrite the two terms in (54) involving e as (54) 1 − am e + e δ = −  am e − 2  2 δ  1 1 δ2  − am e 2 + 2 2 am am   (55) 2 ≤− 1 1 δ2 am e 2 + 2 2 am . i. then (51) implies that V is non-increasing. the asymptotic convergence of the error signal e is no longer valid after the dead-zone modification even when the disturbance is removed. a ) e ≤   therefore. D = (e. however. The modified update law (52) implies that when the error e is within the dead-zone D. the update law is inactive to avoid possible parameter drift. a technique called σ-modification is introduced which does not need the information of disturbance bounds.. am   δ   (52) assures boundedness of all signals in the system.e. a) ∈ D ˆ= a ɶ if (e. a ) ∈ D  0   . Then (51) becomes (53) ɺ ɶˆ V = a m e 2 − σ aa + ed ɶ ɶ ≤ − a m e 2 − σ a 2 − σ aa + e δ for some unknown δ > 0 . Instead of (52).

11 General Uncertainties We have seen in Section 2. we obtain (58) 1 δ2 1 2 ɺ V ≤ −α V + + σ a 2 am 2 ɺ Therefore. One drawback of this method is that the origin of the system (48) and (53) is no longer an equilibrium point. the rest two terms in (54) are derived as ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ −σ a 2 − σ aa ≤ −σ a 2 + σ a a 1 1 2 ɶ ≤ − σ a2 + σ a 2 2 Substituting (55) and (56) into (54). 2.e. although bounds of these disturbances are not given. V ≤ 0 . we have (56) 1 1 δ2 1 1 2 ɺ ɶ V ≤ − am e 2 + − σ a2 + σ a 2 2 am 2 2 Adding and subtracting α V for some α > 0 . + 2α a m 2α (59) (60) This implies that signals in the closed loop system are uniformly bounded. σ } . to derive a sliding controller. the additional term σ a in the update law makes the adaptive control system robust to bounded external disturbances. the error signal e will not converge to zero even when the disturbance is removed. Availability for . ˆ Hence.11 General Uncertainties 57 Likewise. (57) becomes (57) 1 δ2 1 1 1 2 ɺ ɶ V ≤ −α V + + σ a + [α − a m ] e 2 + [α − σ ] a 2 2 am 2 2 2 Picking α < min{ a m . i.2. if V≥ 1 δ2 1 2 σ a .9 that.. the variation bounds of the parametric uncertainties should be give.

It is challenging to design controllers for systems containing general uncertainties. traditional adaptive design is not feasible. the robust strategies fail. we are going to have some investigation on the difficulties for the design of adaptive controllers when the system has timevarying parameters.1 MRAC of LTV systems In the conventional design of adaptive control systems such as the one introduced in Section 2. In Section 2. we will look at the problem in designing robust controllers for systems containing uncertain parameters without knowing their bounds. 2.2.58 Chapter 2 Preliminaries the knowledge of the uncertainty variation bounds is a must for almost all robust control strategies. a practical ˆ( u = a t ) x p + br (3) feedback law based on the MRAC is designed . Since it is timevarying.11. In Section 2.1. This is also almost true for most adaptive control schemes. we know from Section 2. there is a common assumption that the unknown parameters to be updated should be time-invariant. Since ap(t) is not given. This can be understood by considering the scalar linear time-varying system ɺ x p = a p (t ) x p + b p u (1) where ap is a time-varying unknown parameter and b p > 0 is known. A controller is to be constructed such that the system behaves like the dynamics of the reference model ɺ xm = a m xm + bm r where a m < 0 and bm = b p . This is because the robust controllers need to cover system uncertainties even for the worst case.11.11. We would like to call this kind of uncertainties the general uncertainties.10 that for the adaptive controller to be feasible the unknown parameters should be time-invariant. Let us now consider the case when a system contains timevarying uncertainties whose variation bounds are not known. Let a (t ) = (2) a m − a p (t ) and b = 1 be ideal feedback bp gains for the MRC law u = a (t ) x p + br .10. One the other hand. Because the variation bounds are not given.

The uncertainty f(x.2. .11 General Uncertainties 59 ˆ( where a t ) is an adjustable parameter of the controller. the definiteness of V can not be determined. t ) + g ( x. 2. Let e = x p − xm and ɶ ˆ a (t ) = a (t ) − a (t ) .10-10a) (6) ɺ ˆ a = −ex p then (6) becomes (7) ɺ ɶɺ V = a m e 2 − b p aa (8) ɺ ɶ ɺ Since a and a are not available.2 Sliding control for systems with unknown variation bounds Consider a first order uncertain nonlinear system ɺ x = f ( x.t) is a bounded uncertainty and g(x. we have (5) ɺ ɺ ɺ ɶ ˆ V = a m e 2 + b p a (ex p + a − a ) If we choose the update law similar to the one in (2.t) is modeled as the summation of the known nominal value fm and the unknown variation ∆f . we know that the assumption for the unknown parameters to be time-invariant is very important for the feasibility of the design of adaptive controllers. It is equivalent to say that the traditional MRAC fails in controlling systems with time-varying uncertainties.11. Therefore.t) is a known nonsingular function. we are not able to conclude anything about the properties of the signals in the closed loop system. then the error dynamics is computed to be ɺ ɶ e = a m e + b p ax p Take the time derivative of the Lyapunov function candidate (4) 1 1 ɶ ɶ V (e. a ) = e 2 + b p a 2 2 2 along the trajectory of (4). From here. t )u (9) where f(x.

60

Chapter 2 Preliminaries

f ( x, t ) = f m + ∆f

(10)

Since ∆f is a bounded function with unknown bounds, there is a positive constant α satisfying

∆f ≤ α

(11)

Let us select the sliding variable s = x − xd , where xd is the desired trajectory. The dynamics of the sliding variable is computed as

ɺ s = f + gu − x d
By selecting the sliding control law as

(12)

u=
equation (12) becomes

1 [− f m + xd − η1 sgn( s )] g

(13)

ɺ s = ∆f − η1 sgn( s)
Multiplying s to the both sides to have

(14)

ɺ ss = ∆fs − η1 s ≤ (α − η1 ) s
(15)

Since α is not given, we may not select η1 similar to the one we have in (2.911). Therefore, the sliding condition can not be satisfied and the sliding control fails in this case. Bound estimation for uncertain parameter An intuitive attempt in circumvent the difficulty here is to estimate α by using conventional adaptive strategies. Since α itself is a constant, it might be ɺ ˆ ˆ possible to design a proper update law α for its estimate α . ˆ Let η be a positive number, then we may pick η1 = α + η so that equation (15) becomes

ɺ ɶ ss ≤ α s − η s

(16)

2.12 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design

61

ɶ ˆ where α = α − α . Consider a Lyapunov function candidate V=
Its time derivative can be found as

1 2 1 2 ɶ s + α 2 2

(17)

ɺ ɺ ɺ ɶˆ V = ss − αα ɺ ɶ ˆ ≤ −η s + α ( s − α )
By selecting the update law as (18)

ɺ ˆ α= s
equation (18) becomes

(19)

ɺ V ≤ −η s

(20)

It seems that the estimation of the uncertainty bound can result in closed loop stability. However, in practical applications, the error signal s will never be zero, ˆ and the update law (19) implies an unbounded α . Therefore, the concept in estimation of the uncertainty bound is not realizable.

2.12 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design
In practical realization of control systems, the mathematical model inevitably contains uncertainties. If the variation bounds of these uncertainties are available, traditional robust control strategies such as the Lyapunov redesign and sliding control are applicable. If their bounds are not given, but we know that these uncertainties are time-invariant, various adaptive control schemes are useful. It is possible that system uncertainties are time-varying without knowing their bounds (general uncertainties); therefore, the above tools are not feasible. In this book, we would like to use the FAT-based designs to overcome the given problem. The basic idea of the FAT is to represent the general uncertainties by using a set of known basis functions weighted by a set of unknown coefficients (Huang and Kuo 2001, Huang and Chen 2004b, Chen and Huang 2004). Since these coefficients are constants, the Lyapunov designs can thus be applied to derive proper update laws to ensure closed loop stability. This approach has

62

Chapter 2 Preliminaries

been successfully applied to the control of many systems, such as robot manipulators (Chien and Huang 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2007a, 2007b, Huang and Chen 2004a, Huang et. al. 2006, Huang and Liao 2006), active suspensions (Chen and Huang 2005a, 2005b, 2006), pneumatic servo (Tsai and Huang 2008a, 2008b), vibration control (Chang and Shaw 2007), DC motors (Liang et. al. 2008) and jet engine control (Tyan and Lee 2005). In Section 2.11.1, we know that the traditional MRAC is unable to give proper performance to LTV systems. In the first part of this section, we would like to present the FAT-based MRAC to the same LTV system as in Section 2.11.1 without considering the approximation error. The asymptotical convergence can be obtained if a sufficient number of basis functions are used. In the second part of this section, we will investigate the effect of the approximation error in detail. By considering the approximation error in the adaptive loop, the output error can be proved to be uniformly ultimately bounded. The bound for the transient response of the output error can also be estimated as a weighted exponential function plus some constant offset. FAT-based MRAC for LTV systems Let us consider the linear time-varying system (2.11-1) again

ɺ x p = a p (t ) x p + b p u

(1)

We have proved in Section 2.11.1 that traditional MRAC is infeasible to give stable closed loop system due to the fact that ap is time-varying. Let us apply the MRAC rule in (2.11-3) once again so that the error dynamics becomes

ɺ ˆ e = am e + b p (a − a) x p
where a (t ) =

(2)

a m − a p (t ) is the perfect gain in the MRAC rule. Since it is bp

time-varying, traditional MRAC design will end up with (2.11-8), and no conclusions for closed loop system stability can be obtained. Here, let us ˆ represent a and a using function approximation techniques shown in (2.7-4) as

a = wT z + ε ˆ ˆ a = wT z

(3)

2.12 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design

63

ˆ where w ∈ℜ na is a vector of weightings, w ∈ℜ na is its estimate and na z ∈ℜ is a vector of basis functions. The positive integer na is the number of terms we selected to perform the function approximation. In this case, we would like to assume that sufficient terms are employed so that the approximation error ε is ignorable. Later in this section, we are going to investigate the effect of the ɶ ˆ approximation error in detail. Define w = w − w , and then equation (2) can be represented into the form ɺ ɶ e = a m e + b p w T zx p
A new Lyapunov-like function candidate is given as (4)

1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ V (e, w ) = e 2 + b p w T w 2 2
Its time derivative along the trajectory of (4) is computed to be

(5)

ɺ ɺ ɺ ɶ ˆ V = ee − b p w T w ɺ ɶ ˆ = a m e 2 + b p w T ( zx p e − w )
By selecting the update law (6)

ɺ ˆ w = zx p e
we may have

(7)

ɺ V = ame 2 ≤ 0

(8)

ɶ This implies that both e and w are uniformly bounded. The output error e can also be concluded to be square integrable from (8). In addition, the boundedness ɺ of e can easily be observed from (4). Hence, it follows from Barbalat’s lemma that e will converge to zero asymptotically.
Consideration of approximation error Let us consider a more general non-autonomous system in the standard form

64

Chapter 2 Preliminaries

ɺ x1 = x 2 ɺ x 2 = x3 ⋮ ɺ x n −1 = x n ɺ x n = f (x, t ) + g (x, t )u
(9)

where x = [ x1 x 2 ⋯ x n ]T ∈ , and Ω is a compact subset of ℜ n . f(x,t) is an unknown function with unknown variation bound. The uncertain function g(x,t) is assumed to be bounded by 0 < g min (x, t ) ≤ g (x, t ) ≤ g max (x, t ) for some known functions gmin and gmax for all x ∈ and t ∈[t 0 , ∞). Let g m = g min g max be the nominal function, and then we may represent g in the form g = g m ( x, t ) ∆g ( x, t ) where ∆g is the multiplicative uncertainty satisfying

0 < δ min ≡

g min g ≤ ∆g ≤ max ≡ δ max gm gm

We would like to design a controller such that the system state x tracks the desired trajectory x d ∈ d , where d is a compact subset of Ω. Define the tracking error vector as e = x − x d = [ x1 − x1d x 2 − x 2 d ⋯ x n − x nd ]T . The control law can be selected as

u=

1 ˆ (− f + ν − u r ) gm

(10)

ˆ where f is an estimate of f, ur is a robust term to cover the uncertainties in g, ɺ and ν = xnd −

∑k e
i=0

n −1

i i +1

is to complete the desired dynamics. The coefficients

ki are selected so that the matrix  0  0  A= ⋮   0 −k 0  1 0 ⋮ 0 − k1 0 1 ⋮ 0 −k2 ⋯ ⋯ ⋱     ∈ℜ n × n  ⋯ 1  ⋯ − k n −1   0 0 ⋮

With the controller (10). Since f is a general uncertainty. Taking the time derivative of (13) along the trajectory of (12). we may not use traditional adaptive strategies to have stable closed loop system.12 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 65 is Hurwitz. we have . Let us apply the function approximation techniques to represent f and its estimate as f = wT z + ε ˆ ˆ f = wT z Then (11) becomes ˆ ɺ ɶ e = Ae + b[w T z + ε + (1 − ∆g )( f − ν) − ∆gu r ] (12) ɶ ˆ where w = w − w.2. To find the update law. P satisfies the T Lyapunov equation A P + PA = −Q where Q is some positive definite matrix. let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate ɶ ɶ V = e T Pe + w T Γw (13) where P and Γ are positive definite matrices. In addition. the last line of (9) becomes ɺ xn = f + g ˆ (− f + ν − u r ) gm ˆ ˆ = ( f − f ) + (1 − ∆g )( f − ν) + ν − ∆gu r This can further be written into the form ɺ en + ∑k e i=0 n −1 i i +1 ˆ ˆ = ( f − f ) + (1 − ∆g )( f − ν) − ∆gu r Its state space representation is thus ˆ ˆ ɺ e = Ae + b[( f − f ) + (1 − ∆g )( f − ν) − ∆gu r ] (11) where b = [0 0 ⋯ 1]T ∈ℜ n .

Some modifications can be used to smooth out the control law. the time derivative of V becomes ɺ ɶ ˆ V ≤ −eT Qe + 2ε b T Pe + 2σ w T w ɶ ɶ = −eT Qe + 2ε b T Pe + 2σ w T (w − w ) ɶ ɶ ≤ − λmin (Q ) e + 2 λmax (P) ε e + 2σ [w T w − w ] 2 2 (a) (b ) (15) Let us derive part (a) in (15) using straightforward manipulations as .66 Chapter 2 Preliminaries ˆ ɺ V = e T ( A T P + PA) e + 2[(1 − ∆g )( f − ν) − ∆gu r ] b T Pe ɺ ɶ ˆ + 2ε b T Pe + 2w T (zb T Pe − Γw ) ˆ ≤ −eT Qe + 2(1 + δ max ) f − ν b T Pe − 2δ min u r b T Pe ɺ ɶ ˆ + 2ε b T Pe + 2w T (zb T Pe − Γw ) We may thus select ur = 1 + δ max ˆ f − ν sgn(b T Pe) δ min (14a) ɺ ˆ ˆ w = Γ −1 (zb T Pe − σ w ). σ > 0 (14b) The signum function in (14a) might induce chattering control activity which would excite un-modeled system dynamics. It is also noted that the σ-modification term in (14b) is to robustify the adaptive loop. The most intuitive way is to replace the signum function with the saturation function as ur = 1 + δ max ˆ f − ν sat(b T Pe) δ min (14c) One drawback for this modification is the reduction in the output tracking accuracy. With (14).

part (b) can also be written as ɶ ɶ wT w − w 2 ɶ ɶ ≤ w w − w 2 1 1 ɶ ɶ = − ( w − w )2 − ( w 2 2 1 2 2 ɶ ≤− ( w − w ) 2 Therefore (15) becomes 2 − w ) 2 1 2 λ 2 (P) 2 2 2 ɺ ɶ V ≤ − λmin (Q) e + max ε −σ w +σ w 2 λmin (Q) 1 2 2 ɶ = − λmin (Q) e − σ w + σ w 2 (c ) 2 2 + 2 2 λmax (P) 2 ε λmin (Q) (16) We would like to relate (c) to V by considering ɶ ɶ ɶ V = e T Pe + w T Γw ≤ λmax (P ) e + λmax (Γ) w 2 2 (17) Now (16) can be further derived as .2.12 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 67 − λmin (Q) e + 2λmax (P ) ε e 2 2 λmax (P ) ε  1 = −  λmin (Q) e −  2 λmin (Q)  2 1 4λ 2 (P) 2  2 −  λmin (Q ) e − max ε  2 λmin (Q)  1 2λ 2 (P) 2 2 ε ≤ − λmin (Q ) e + max λmin (Q) 2 Likewise.

However. but in practical applications the transient performance is also of great importance. V < 0 whenever 2   1 2 λmax (P)   2 ɶ ɶ (e. σ. For further development. this parameter adjustment is not always unlimited. The above derivation only demonstrates the boundedness of the closed loop system. because it might induce controller saturation in implementation. P. w ) is uniformly ultimately bounded. α λmin (Q) τ ≥ t0     ɶ This implies that (e. w ) V > σ w + sup ε 2 (τ )  .68 Chapter 2 Preliminaries λ (Q )   ɺ V ≤ −α V + αλmax (P ) − min e 2    ɶ +[αλmax (Γ) − σ ] w + σ w 2 2 2 + 2 2 λmax (P ) 2 ε λmin (Q) Pick α ≤ min   λmin (Q ) σ  . w ) ∈ E ≡ (e. and Q. Smaller size of E implies more accurate in output tracking.  . Note that the size of the set E is adjustable by proper selection of α. then we have  2 λmax (P ) λmax (Γ)  2λ (P ) 2 2 ɺ V ≤ −α V + σ w + max ε λmin (Q) 2 (18) ɺ Hence. we may solve the differential inequality in (18) to have the upper bound for V V ≤ e −α (t − t 0 )V (t 0 ) + σ 2λ 2 (P) 2 w + max sup ε 2 (τ ) α αλmin (Q) t0 ≤τ ≤ t (19) By using the definition in (13). we may also find an upper bound of V as ɶ ɶ ɶ V = e T Pe + w T Γw ≥ λmin (P ) e + λmin (Γ ) w 2 2 This gives the upper bound for the tracking error e ≤ 2 1 1 2 ɶ [V − λmin (Γ) w ] ≤ V λmin (P ) λmin (P ) .

then we may have If the control law and the update law are still selected as (10) and (14b) with ɺ V ≤ −eT Qe + 2 ε b T Pe − 2 β b T Pe ≤ −eT Qe ≤ 0 Therefore. there exists some β > 0 such that ε ≤ β for all t ≥ t 0 .2. .12 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 69 Taking the square root and using (19). we may improve output error convergence rate. The case when the bound for the approximation error is known If the bound for ε is known. it might also induce controller saturation problem in practice. i.e. This also implies that by adjusting controller parameters. we have proved that the tracking error is bounded by a weighted exponential function plus a constant. However. we may also have asymptotical convergence of the output error by using Barbalat’s lemma. we have e ≤ + V (t 0 ) − e λmin (P ) α (t − t0 ) 2 + σ αλmin (P ) w 2 2λmax (P ) sup ε (τ ) αλmin (P ) λmin (Q) t0 ≤τ ≤ t (20) Hence. then ur in (14a) can be modified as ur = 1 + δ max ˆ β f − ν sgn(b T Pe) + sgn(b T Pe) δ min δ min σ = 0.

This page intentionally left blank .

In Section 3. i. For their detailed derivation.7.9 to have the most complex dynamics considered in this book.1 Introduction In this chapter. resulting in a set of 3n differential equations in its dynamics. Section 3. we review the mathematical models for the robot manipulators considered in this book.3. its model becomes a set of 5n differential equations in Section 3.6 takes the joint flexibility into account where a set of 4n differential equations are used to represent the dynamics of an n-link flexiblejoint robot. In Section 3. the dynamics for an electrically driven rigid robot interacting with the environment is presented. please refer to any robotics textbooks. the external force is added into the dynamics equation in Section 3. the dynamics for an electrically driven flexible joint robot interacting with the environment.5.8. With consideration of the motor dynamics in each joint of the flexible joint robot. we include the external force in Section 3. a set of 2n coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations are used to describe the dynamics of an n-link rigid robot. The actuator dynamics is considered in Section 3. To investigate the effect when interacting with the environment. When interacting with the environment.4.e. 3.2 Rigid Robot (RR) An n-link rigid robot manipulator without considering friction or other disturbances can be described by ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators 3. It is composed of 3n differential equations with the inclusion of the external force. q )q + g(q) = τ (1) 71 .. the external force is included into the dynamics equation which is presented in Section 3. and a motor model is coupled to each joint dynamics. Finally.2.

several good properties can be summarized as (Ge et.1 A 2-D planar robot Consider a planar robot with two rigid links and two rigid revolute joints shown in Figure 3. Its governing equation can be represented by (Slotine and Li 1991) .72 Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators where q ∈ℜ n is a vector of generalized coordinates. q)q is the n-vector of centrifugal and Coriolis forces. Property 3: The left-hand side of (1) can be linearly parameterized as the ɺ ɺɺ multiplication of a known regressor matrix Y (q. D(q) is the n × n inertia ɺ ɺ matrix. and τ is the control torque vector. ɺɺ ɺ ɺ ɺ ɺɺ D(q)q + C(q. q) ∈ℜ n × r with a parameter vector p ∈ℜ r .1: A 2-D planar robot model (2) Figure 3.1. Although equation (1) presents a highly nonlinear and coupled dynamics. α 1 ≤ α 2 such that α 1I n ≤ D(q) ≤ α 2 I n for all q ∈ℜ n . q. q)p. q) is skew-symmetric. i. q )q + g(q) = Y (q. C(q. 1998) Property 1: D(q ) = DT (q) > 0 and there exist positive constants α1 and α2. g(q) is the gravitational force vector. al. q.e. ɺ ɺ Property 2: D(q ) − 2C(q. Example 3.

3. it is sometimes more convenient to represent (1) in the Cartesian space as ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x.2-1) is modified to ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. To facilitate controller derivation. then equation (3. there will be no external force and equation (1) degenerates to (3. During the free space tracking phase. while property 3 will further be investigated in Chapter 4.3 Rigid Robot Interacting with Environment (RRE) 73 ɺɺ ɺ  d11 d12   q1   c11 c12   q1   g1  τ 1  d   q  + c   q  +  g  = τ   21 d 22   ɺɺ2   21 c 22   ɺ 2   2   2  2 2 where d11 = m1l c1 + I 1 + m2 (l12 + l c 2 + 2l1l c 2 cos q 2 ) + I 2 (3) d12 = d 21 = m2l1lc 2 cos q 2 + m2lc22 + I 2 d 22 = m2lc22 + I 2 ɺ c11 = − m2l1lc 2 sin q 2 q 2 ɺ ɺ c12 = − m2l1l c 2 sin q 2 ( q1 + q 2 ) ɺ c21 = − m2l1l c 2 sin q 2 q1 c22 = 0 g1 = m1l c1 g cos q1 + m2 g[lc 2 cos(q1 + q 2 ) + l1 cos q1 ] g 2 = m2lc 2 g cos(q1 + q 2 ) Property 1 and 2 can be confirmed easily by direct derivation.2-1). q)q + g (q) = τ −J T (q)Fext a (1) where J a (q) ∈ℜ n × n is the Jacobian matrix which is assumed to be nonsingular. x)x + g x (x) = J −T (q) τ − Fext x a (2) .3 Rigid Robot Interacting with Environment (RRE) Suppose the robot manipulator will interact with a frictionless constraint surface. 3. n and Fext ∈ℜ is the external force vector at the end-effector.

74 Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators where x ∈ℜ n is the coordinate in the Cartesian space.1 again. q) − D(q)J a 1 (q)J a (q)]J a 1 (q) − g x (x) = J a T (q)g (q) (3) Example 3. but with a constraint surface as shown in Figure 3. x) = J a T (q)[C(q. Its equation of motion in the Cartesian space is represented as  d x11 d  x 21 ɺ d x12   ɺɺ  c x11 c x12   x   g x1  x   ɺɺ + c   y +  g  d x 22   y   x 21 c x 22   ɺ   x 2   J a11 =  J a 21 J a12  J a 22   −T τ 1   f ext  τ  +  0   2   (4) where  J a11 J  a 21  d x11 d  x 21 J a12   −l1 sin(q1 ) − l 2 sin(q1 + q 2 ) −l 2 sin(q1 + q 2 ) = J a 22   l1 cos(q1 ) + l 2 cos(q1 + q 2 ) l 2 cos(q1 + q 2 )     d x12   J a11 = d x 22   J a 21   J a12  J a 22   −T J a12  J a 22     c11  c   22 −T  d11 d12   J a11 d   21 d 22   J a 21 J a12  J a 22   -1  c x11 c x12   J a11 c =  x 21 c x 22   J a 21  d11 −  d 21 c12  c22   ɺ J a12    J a11 ɺ   J a 22    J a 21 J a12  J a 22   -1 d12   J a11 d 22   J a 21  -1 ɺ J a12   J a11  J a 22   J a 21  ɺ  g x1   J a11 g  = J  x 2   a 21 J a12  J a 22   −T  g1  g   2 .2: A 2-D planar robot interacting with the environment Let us consider the 2-D robot in Example 3. and other symbols are defined as − − D x (x) = J a T (q)D(q)J a 1 (q) − − − ɺ ɺ ɺ C x (x.2.

and K b ∈ℜ n × n is a constant matrix for the motor back-emf effect.4 Electrically-Driven Rigid Robot (EDRR) 75 Figure 3. q)q + g (q) = Hi (1a) (1b) ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u where i ∈ℜ n is the vector of motor armature currents. . L ∈ℜ n × n is a constant diagonal matrix of electrical inductance. when the system contains uncertainties and disturbances. The dynamic equation of a rigid robot with consideration of motor dynamics is described as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. u ∈ℜ n is the control input voltage. especially.3. H ∈ℜ n × n is an invertible constant diagonal matrix characterizing the electro-mechanical conversion between the current vector and the torque vector.4 Electrically-Driven Rigid Robot (EDRR) Let us consider the electrically-driven rigid robot. Inclusion of the actuator dynamics greatly increases the system order which gives large impact on the complexity of the controller design.2 A 2-D planar robot interacting with a constraint surface 3. R ∈ℜ n × n represents the electrical resistance matrix.

5 Electrically-Driven Rigid Robot Interacting with Environment (EDRRE) The dynamics of a rigid-link electrically-driven robot interacting with the environment can be described by ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.1 is now rewritten as ɺɺ ɺ  d11 d12   q1   c11 c12   q1   g1   h1 0   i1  d   q  + c   q  +  g  =  0 h  i  2  2  21 d 22   ɺɺ2   21 c 22   ɺ 2   2   (2a)  L1 0  ɺ 0   i1   r1 + L2   i 2   0  ɺ   0   i1   k b1 + r2  i2   0    ɺ 0   q1   u1    q  = u  k b2   ɺ 2   2  (2b) 3.3 can be modified to include the effect of the interaction force with the environment in the Cartesian space as  d x11 d  x 21 ɺ d x12   ɺɺ  c x11 c x12   x   g x1  x   ɺɺ + c   y + g  = d x 22   y   x 21 c x 22   ɺ   x 2   J a11 J  a 21 J a12  J a 22   −T  h1 0   i1   f ext   0 h  i  +  0  2  2    ɺ 0   q1   u1    q  = u  k b2   ɺ 2   2  (3a)  L1 0  ɺ 0   i1   r1 + L2   i 2   0  ɺ   0   i1   k b1 + r2  i2   0    (3b) . q)q + g(q) = Hi − J T (q)Fext a ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u We may also use equation (3.76 Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators Example 3. x)x + g x (x) = J −T (q)Hi − Fext x a ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u (2a) (2b) Example 3.3-3) to transform (1) to the Cartesian space (1a) (1b) ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x.3: With the consideration of the motor dynamics.4: The robot in Example 3. the 2-D robot introduced in Example 3.

For a robot with n links.5: A single-link flexible-joint robot Let us consider a single-link flexible-joint robot as shown in Figure 3. we need to use 2n generalized coordinates to describe its whole dynamic behavior when taking the joint flexibility into account. τ a ∈ℜ is the vector of actuator input torques.6 Flexible Joint Robot (FJR) The transmission mechanism in many industrial robots contains flexible components. and the viscous damping is neglected.3. Its dynamic equation is in the form of (1) and can be represented in the state space as Figure 3. Example 3. It can rotate in a vertical plane with the assumptions that its joint can only deform in the direction of joint rotation.6 Flexible Joint Robot (FJR) 77 3. respectively. q)q + g(q) = K(θ − q) ɺɺ ɺ Jθ + Bθ + K(θ − q) = τ a (1a) (1b) where q ∈ℜ n is the vector of link angles.3. J.3 A single-link flexible-joint robot . the link is rigid. B and K are n × n constant diagonal matrices of actuator inertias. damping and joint stiffness. such as the harmonic drives. Therefore. The dynamics of an n-rigid link flexible-joint robot can be described by ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. θ ∈ℜ n is the vector of actuator n angles. Consideration of the joint flexibility in the controller design is one of the approaches to increase the control performance. the modeling of the flexible joint robot is far more complex than that of the rigid robot.

Example 3. the link mass M. x)x + g x (x) = J −T (q)K(θ − q) − Fext x a ɺɺ ɺ Jθ + Bθ + K (θ − q) = τ a (1a) (1b) Example 3.. the stiffness K. i.….7 Flexible-Joint Robot Interacting with Environment (FJRE) The dynamics of an n-link flexible-joint robot interacting with the environment can be described by ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x.78 Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators ɺ x1 = x2 ɺ x2 = − MgL K sin x1 − ( x1 − x3 ) I I ɺ x3 = x 4 ɺ x4 = 1 K ( x1 − x3 ) + u J J (2) where xi ∈ℜ. i=1. the gravity constant g. and the output y=x1 is the link angular displacement.6: A 2-D rigid-link flexible-joint robot The equation of motion for the robot introduced in Example 3.4 are state variables.e. the rotor inertia J. θ 2 in the figure. The control u is the torque delivered by the motor.1 with consideration of joint flexibility can be represented as ɺɺ ɺ  d11 d12   q1   c11 c12   q1   g1   k1 0   θ1 − q1  d   q  + c   q  +  g  =  0 k  θ − q  (3a) 2  2 2  21 d 22   ɺɺ2   21 c 22   ɺ 2   2    j1 0  ɺɺ 0  θ1  b1 0  θɺ1   k1 0   θ1 − q1  τ a1    ɺɺ  +  0 b   ɺ  +  0 k  θ − q  = τ  j 2  θ 2   2  θ 2  2  2 2   a2  (3b) 3.7: A 2-D rigid-link flexible-joint robot interacting with environment . The link inertial I. and the center of mass L are positive numbers.

its dynamic equation in the Cartesian space becomes  d x11 d  x 21 ɺ d x12   ɺɺ  c x11 c x12   x   g x1  x   ɺɺ + c   y +  g  = d x 22   y   x 21 c x 22   ɺ   x 2   J a11 J  a 21 J a12  J a 22   −T  k1 0   θ1 − q1   f ext   0 k  θ − q  +  0  2  2 2    (2a)  j1 0  ɺɺ 0  θ1  b1 0  θɺ1   k1 0   θ1 − q1  τ a1    ɺɺ  +  0 b   ɺ  +  0 k  θ − q  = τ  j 2  θ 2   2  θ 2  2  2 2   a2  (2b) 3. q)q + g(q) = K (θ − q) ɺɺ ɺ Jθ + Bθ + K (θ − q) = Hi ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u Example 3.8 Electrically-Driven Flexible Joint Robot (EDFJR) 79 When the robot in Example 3.3.6-1) as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.6 is able to be modified in the form ɺɺ ɺ  d11 d12   q1   c11 c12   q1   g1   k1 0   θ1 − q1  d   q  + c   q  +  g  =  0 k  θ − q  2  2 2  21 d 22   ɺɺ2   21 c 22   ɺ 2   2    j1 0  (2a) ɺɺ 0  θ1  b1 0  θɺ1   k1 0   θ1 − q1   h1 0   i1    ɺɺ  +  0 b   ɺ  +  0 k  θ − q  =  0 h  i  (2b) j 2  θ 2   2  θ 2  2  2 2 2  2    L1 0  ɺ 0   i1   r1  i  +  0 L2   ɺ2   0   i1   k b1 + r2  i2   0    ɺ 0   q1   u1    q  = u  k b2   ɺ 2   2  (2c) .8: A 2-D electrically-driven flexible-joint robot (1a) (1b) (1c) When considering the actuator dynamics.6 performs compliant motion control.8 Electrically-Driven Flexible Joint Robot (EDFJR) The dynamics of an electrically-driven flexible-joint robot can be described by including the motor dynamics to (3. the robot in Example 3.

9 Electrically-Driven Flexible-Joint Robot Interacting with Environment (EDFJRE) The dynamics of an electrically-driven flexible-joint robot interacting with the environment in the Cartesian space can be described by ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x. some take the joint flexibility into account. x)x + g x (x) = J −T (q)K(θ − q) − Fext x a ɺɺ ɺ Jθ + Bθ + K (θ − q) = Hi ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u (1a) (1b) (1c) It is the most complex system considered in this book. a 5th order differential equation is needed to model its dynamics.80 Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators 3. Some of them consider the actuator dynamics.7 can be rewritten into the form  d x11 d  x 21 ɺ d x12   ɺɺ  c x11 c x12   x   g x1  x   ɺɺ + c   y +  g  = d x 22   y   x 21 c x 22   ɺ   x 2   J a11 J  a 21 J a12  J a 22   −T  k1 0   θ1 − q1   f ext   0 k  θ − q  +  0  2  2 2    (2a)  j1 0  ɺɺ 0  θ1  b1 0  θɺ1   k1 0   θ1 − q1   h1 0   i1    ɺɺ  +  0 b   ɺ  +  0 k  θ − q  =  0 h  i  j 2  θ 2   2  θ 2  2  2 2 2  2    L1 0  ɺ 0   i1   r1 + L2   i 2   0  ɺ   0   i1   k b1 + r2  i2   0    ɺ 0   q1   u1    q  = u  k b2   ɺ 2   2  (2b) (2c) 3. Example 3. eight robot models have been introduced.10 Conclusions In this chapter. controllers . For each joint.9: A 2-D electrically-driven flexible-joint robot interacting with environment When considering the actuator dynamics. the robot in Example 3. and some allow the robot to interact with the environment. In the following chapters. These robot models are summarized in Table 3-1 for comparison.

Table 3. q)q + g(q) = K (θ − q) ɺɺ + Bθ + K (θ − q) = Hi ɺ Jθ ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x. x)x + g x (x) x = ɺɺ + Bθ + K(θ − q) = Hi ɺ Jθ ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u J −T (q)K(θ − q) − Fext a (3.3. q )q + g (q ) = K (θ − q ) ɺɺ ɺ Jθ + Bθ + K(θ − q) = τ a ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x.9-1) .2-1) (3.3-2) (3. x)x + g x (x) = J a T (q) τ − Fext x ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q )q + C(q. q )q + g (q ) = Hi ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u − ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x. x)x + g x (x) x − = J aT (q)K(θ − q) − Fext ɺɺ ɺ Jθ + Bθ + K (θ − q) = τ a (3.7-1) EDFJR ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.4-1) ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. q)q + g (q) = τ − ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x.5-2) FJR ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D (q )q + C (q .10 Conclusions 81 will be designed for these robots when the models are known followed by derivations of adaptive controllers for uncertain robots.1 Robot models considered in this book Systems RR RRE EDRR Dynamics Models Equation Numbers (3.6-1) FJRE (3. x)x + g x (x) = J a T (q)Hi − Fext x ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u EDRRE (3.8-1) EDFJRE (3.

This page intentionally left blank .

although these control laws can give proper tracking performance under various uncertainties. Kawasaki et al. 1993) proposed some recursive algorithms for general n DOF robots. 83 . it should be updated in every control cycle. since the mathematical model inevitably contains various uncertainties and disturbances. For the adaptive approaches. Pagilla and Tomizuka 2001) are suggested. Under this circumstance. Yang (1999) proposed a robust adaptive tracking controller for manipulators whose regressor depends only on the desired trajectory and hence can be calculated off-line. the widely used computed-torque controller may not give high precision performance. Sometimes a large memory space should be allocated to store the look-up table containing the regressor.Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 4. This is because. Its controller design is generally not easy even when the system model is precisely known. most of them require computation of the regressor matrix. al. Due to the complexity in the regressor computation. velocity and acceleration. with the regressor matrix. In practical operations of an industrial robot.1 Introduction The dynamics of a rigid robot is well-known to be modeled by a set of coupled highly nonlinear differential equations. the robot dynamics is able to be expressed in a linearly parameterized form so that a proper Lyapunov function candidate can be found to give stable update laws for uncertain parameters. Since the regressor matrix depends on the joint position. 1991) and adaptive control strategies (Ortega and Spong 1988. Sadegh and Horowitz (1990) proposed a method to allow off-line computation of the regressor using the desired trajectories instead of actual measurements. (1996) presented a model-based adaptive control for a robot manipulator whose regressor was computed explicitly by a recursive algorithm based on the Newton-Euler formulation. Lu and Meng (1991a. these approaches may have difficulties in practical implementation. several robust control schemes (Abdallah et.

the regressor-free design is extended to the system considering the actuator dynamics. in the process of updating the inertia matrix. Significant performance improvement can be seen in the simulation results to verify the efficacy of the regressor-free design.5 based on the function approximation technique. Chien and Huang (2007b) designed a regressor-free adaptive controller for electrically driven robots. In Section 4. Yuan and Stepanenko (1993) suggested an adaptive PD controller for flexible joint robots without using the high-order regressor. it is still based on the regressor matrix.2 whose regressor matrix depends on the joint position. but the usual regressor is still needed. The regressor-free adaptive control strategy is then designed in Section 4. we are going to study the regressor-free adaptive control strategies for rigid robot manipulators. one of their controller parameters should be determined based on variation bounds of some complex system dynamics. Park et al. (2006) proposed an adaptive controller for robot manipulators without computation of the regressor matrix. . Song (1994) suggested an adaptive controller for robot motion control without using the regressor. In his design. We firstly review the conventional adaptive control laws for rigid robots in Section 4. but bounds of some system dynamics should be available. However. some bounds of the system dynamics should be found. In addition. However. In Qu and Dorsey (1991). and the tracking error can not be driven to arbitrary small in the steady state. (1994) designed an adaptive sliding controller which does not require computation of the regressor matrix. The famous Slotine and Li approach reviewed in Section 4. In Section 4.84 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots Some regressor-free approaches for the adaptive control of robot manipulators are available.4. Su and Stepanenko (1996) designed a robust adaptive controller for constrained robots without using the regressor matrix. there might be some singularity problem which greatly limits the effectiveness of the approach. In this chapter.3 eliminates the requirement for the acceleration feedback and avoids the singularity problem. a non-regressor based controller was proposed using linear state feedback. but some critical bounded time functions are to be determined to have bounded tracking error performance. it is generally not easy to find such a parameter for robots with more than 3 DOF. To confirm robust stability of the closed loop system. velocity and acceleration which is inconvenient in real-time implementation.6. Huang et al. we investigate the entries in the regressor matrix and the parameter vector to justify the necessity for the regressor-free approach.

let us consider the case when some of the parameters are not available and an adaptive controller is to be designed. equation (6) can be further written to be ˆ ɺɺ + K d e + K p e = − D −1Y (q. q)p ɺ ɺ ɺɺ ɶ e (7) . the left hand side of equation (1) can be linearly ɺ ɺɺ parameterized as a known regressor matrix Y (q.4. a PD controller can be designed as (1) ɺɺ ɺ ɺ ɺ τ = D[q d − K d (q − q d ) − K p (q − q d )] + Cq + g (2) where q d ∈ℜ n is the desired trajectory. q) ∈ℜ n × r multiplied by an unknown parameter vector p ∈ℜ r . K p ∈ℜ n × n are selected such that the closed loop dynamics ɺɺ + K d e + K p e = 0. As indicated in (3. q. C and g are estimates of D. the closed loop system becomes ˆ e ɶ ɺɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺ D(ɺɺ + K d e + K p e) = − Dq − Cq − g (6) ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ɶ ˆ where D = D − D.2-2). q )q + g(q) = τ If all parameters are available. and gain matrices K d . q)q + g(q ) = Y (q. With the controller defined in (5). and g = g − g are estimation errors. q. respectively. C and g.2-1) ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. C = C − C. q. By defining r ˆ ɶ ˆ ˆ p = p − p with p ∈ℜ an estimate of p in (4) and assuming that D is invertible for all time t ≥ 0 . ɺɺ ɺ ɺ ɺ ɺɺ D(q )q + C(q. Now. i. It is obvious that realization of controller (2) needs the knowledge of the system model.2 Review of Conventional Adaptive Control for Rigid Robots 85 4. q)p An intuitive controller can be designed based on (2) as (4) ˆɺ ˆ ˆ ɺɺ ɺ ɺ τ = D[q d − K d (q − q d ) − K p (q − q d )] + Cq + g (5) ˆ ˆ ˆ where D. e = q − q d ɺ e (3) is asymptotically stable.e..2 Review of Conventional Adaptive Control for Rigid Robots Let us consider the rigid robot described in (3.

To this end. and hence.86 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots ˆ The above error dynamics implies that if we may find a proper update law for p ˆ such that p → p asymptotically. p ) = 1 T 1 ɶ ɶ x Px + p T Γp 2 2 (9) where Γ ∈ℜ r × r is a positive definite matrix and P = P T ∈ℜ 2 n × 2 n is a T positive definite solution to the Lyapunov equation A P + PA = −Q for a T 2n × 2 n given positive definite matrix Q = Q ∈ℜ . Since it is easy to have ∞ 2n (12) ∫ ∞ ( Qx)T ( Qx)dt = 2n 0 ∫ ∞ x T Qxdt = 0 ∫ ∞ ɺ −2Vdt = 2[V (0) − V (∞)] < ∞. To design an  ∈ℜ −K d  I n  ˆ update law for p to ensure closed loop stability. q. Because A is Hurwitz and x is bounded. equation (8) ˆ ɺ gives boundedness of x if D is nonsingular. the time derivative of V can be computed to be 1 ɺ ɺ ɶ ˆ ˆ V = − x T Qx − p T [(D −1Y) T B T Px + Γp] 2 By selecting the update law as (10) ɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ ɺɺ p = − Γ −1[ D −1Y(q. we may have convergence of the output tracking error. Along the trajectory of (8). q)]T B T Px equation (10) becomes (11) 1 ɺ V = − x T Qx ≤ 0 2 ɶ Hence. Therefore. 0 we may conclude x ∈ L2 . asymptotic convergence . then (7) converges to (3) as t → ∞. we have proved that x ∈ L∞ and p ∈ Lr . let us ɺ denote x = [e T e T ]T ∈ℜ 2 n to represent equation (7) in its state space form ˆ ɶ ɺ x = Ax − BD −1Yp where A =  (8)  0  −K p In  0 2 n × 2n and B =   ∈ℜ 2 n × n . a Lyapunov-like function candidate can be selected as ɶ V ( x.

Define an error vector s = e + Λe where Λ = diag ( λ1 .3 Slotine and Li’s Approach 87 of x can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. It can also be proved that convergence of the parameter vector is dependent to the PE condition of the reference input signal.4. λn ) with λi > 0 for all i =1. To solve these problems. ˆ Hence. Its time derivative along the trajectory of (3) 2 1 ɺ ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T (D − 2C)s 2 .... the joint accelerations are required to be available. λ2 . Rewrite the robot model (4. Slotine and Li proposed ɺ the following design strategy. let us define a Lyapunov-like function candidate as V = can be computed as 1 T s Ds.…. a well-known strategy proposed by Slotine and Li (1988. However. In addition. its estimate D is not guaranteed to be invertible. 1991) based on the passivity design for rigid robots will be introduced in next section. This further implies asymptotic convergence of the output tracking error e. although the inertia matrix D ˆ is nonsingular for all t >0. By this definition. and some projection modification should be applied. Hence. convergence of s implies convergence of the output error e. To realize the control law (5) and update law (11). (11) might suffer the singularity problem when the determinant of D gets very close to 0.. the closed loop system becomes ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = 0 (3) To justify the feasibility of the controller (2). 4.2-1) into the form ɺ ɺɺ ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dq d − DΛe + Cq d − C Λe = τ (1) Suppose the robot model is precisely known. n. then we may pick an intuitive controller for (1) as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ τ = Dq d − DΛe + Cq d − C Λe + g − K d s (2) where Kd is a positive definite matrix. their measurements are generally costly and subject to noise.3 Slotine and Li’s Approach To get rid of the need for the joint acceleration feedback and to avoid the possible singularity problem stated above.

the above equation becomes ɺ V = −s T K d s ≤ 0 (4) ɺ It is easy to prove that s is uniformly bounded and square integrable. v) in (8) is independent to the joint accelerations. To find the update law. v. It is noted that the above design is valid if all robot parameters are known.2-7). q. let us define a Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ V (x. Now let us consider the case when D. q. if we may find an appropriate update law for p such that ɶ → 0 as t → ∞. v. the ɺ ɺ regressor matrix Y (q. q. and controller (2) cannot be realized.88 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots ɺ Since D − 2C can be proved to be skew-symmetric. ˆ On the other hand. C and g in (1) are not available. the closed loop system can be represented in the form ɶɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ Ds + Cs + K d s = − Dv − Cv − g (7) The right hand side of the above equation can be further expressed in the linearly parameterized form ɺ ɺ ɺ ɶ Ds + Cs + K d s = − Y(q. v)p (8) ɺ ɺɺ It is worth to mention that unlike the regressor matrix Y (q. Hence. s → 0 as t → ∞ . C and g can be properly designed. and the closed loop p stability can be ensured. A controller can be constructed based on (2) as ˆ ˆ ɺɺ ˆ ɺ ˆɺ ˆ τ = Dq d − DΛe + Cq d − CΛe + g − K d s (5) ˆ ˆ ˆ if some update laws for the estimates D. The above control law can be rewritten into the form ˆɺ ˆ ˆ τ = Dv + Cv + g − K d s (6) ɺ where v = q d − Λe is a known signal vector. With this control law. p) = s T Ds + p T Γp 2 2 Its time derivative along the trajectory of (8) can be derived as (9) ɺ ɺ ɶ ɶ V = −s T K d s − p T (Γp + Y T s) (10) . or we may conclude that the tracking error e converges asymptotically. then (8) converges to (3) asymptotically. q) in (4. and s is also uniformly bounded.

4. and its complexity results in a considerable burden to the control computer. (12) This is the same result we have in (4) and same convergence performance can thus be concluded for the tracking error. v. Besides. the robot model has to be represented as a linear parametric form so that an adaptive controller can be designed. v)s and (10) becomes (11) ɺ V = −s T K d s ≤ 0.2-3) can be represented into a linear parameterization form in (4. It can be seen that all entries in the parameter vector are unknown constants and most of them are relatively easy to obtain. we do not need the information of joint accelerations and it is free from the singularity problem in the estimation of the inertia matrix. For example. all time varying terms in the robot dynamics are collected inside the regressor matrix.4 The Regressor Matrix In the above development.4 The Regressor Matrix 89 Hence. the update law can be picked as ɺ ˆ ɺ ɺ p = − Γ −1Y T (q.2-4) by defining the parameter vector as (Spong and Vidyasagar 1989)  m1lc21    2  m2l1   2   m2l c 2   m2 I1lc 2  p =  I1     I2     m1lc1 g   m2l1 g     m 2l c 2 g    (1) . 4. To implement the control law (6) and update law (11). derivation of the regressor matrix for a high-DOF robot is tedious. the regressor matrix has to be computed in every control cycle. the 2-D robot in (3. In the realtime realization. to satisfy the limitation of the traditional adaptive design that the uncertainties should be time-invariant. However. q.

in traditional robot adaptive control designs. For the acceleration-free regressor used in (4.3-8). q) =  0 0 where ɺɺ ɺɺ q1 + q 2 ɺɺ ɺɺ q1 + q 2 y14 y 24 ɺɺ q1 ɺɺ q2 ɺɺ ɺɺ q1 + q 2 ɺɺ q2 cos q1 cos q1 cos(q1 + q2 ) 0 0 cos(q1 + q2 )  (2) ɺɺ ɺɺ ɺ ɺ ɺ2 y14 = 2cos q 2 q1 + cos q 2 q 2 − 2sin q 2 q1q 2 − sin q 2 q 2 ɺɺ y 24 = cos q 2 q1 + sin q 2 . However. etc. we are required to know the complex regressor matrix. one realization can be given as ɺ ɺ v2  v1 ɺ ɺ Y (q. and moments of inertia. v ) =  ɺ ɺ  0 v1 + v2 where ɺ v2 cos q 2 0 y14 ′ y 24 ′ cos q1 cos(q1 + q 2 )  (3) 0 cos(q1 + q 2 )   ɺ ɺ ɺ ɺ y14 = v2 cos q 2 + v1q 2 sin q 2 + (q1 + q 2 )v 2 sin q 2 ′ ɺ y ′ = v1 cos q 2 + v1q1 sin q 2 24 and the corresponding parameter vector is  m 1 l c1 2 + m2l1 2 + m2l c22 + I1 + I 2    m2l c 2 2 + I 2     2m2l1lc 2 p=  m2l1lc 2     m1lc1 g + m2l1 g    m 2l c 2 g    (4) In (1) and (4). q. but update the easy-to-obtain parameter vector. To ease the controller design and implementation. masses.…. v.90 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots and the regressor matrix is in the form ɺɺ ɺɺ  q1 q2 ɺ ɺɺ Y (q. these quantities are relatively easy to measure in practical applications compared to the derivation of the regressor matrix. the entries are some combinations of system parameters such as link lengths. q. Obviously. it is suggested to consider the regressor-free adaptive control .

C and g are functions of states and hence functions of time. C and g with the assumption that proper numbers of basis functions are employed T D = WD Z D + ε D T C = WC Z C + ε C T g = Wg z g + ε g (2a) where WD ∈ℜ n β D × n . traditional adaptive controllers are not applicable to give proper update laws except that the linearly parameterization assumption as shown in (4. we would like to use FAT to representation D. a FAT-based adaptive controller is designed for a rigid robot without the need for the regressor matrix.3-8) is feasible. Z C ∈ℜ and z g ∈ℜ are matrices of basis functions.3-6) is employed in this approach ˆɺ ˆ ˆ τ = Dv + Cv + g − K d s and hence the closed-loop dynamics can still be represented as (1a) ɶɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ Ds + Cs + K d s = − Dv − Cv − g (1b) This implies that s is an output of a stable first order filter driven by the approximation errors and tracking errors. then e → 0 can be concluded from (1b).4. the corresponding estimates can be represented as 2 2 nβ × n ˆ ˆT D = WD Z D ˆ ˆT C = WC Z C ˆ ˆT g = Wg z g (2b) . If some proper update laws can be ˆ ˆ ˆ found so that D → D . Here. 4. The number β (⋅) represents the number of basis functions used. Since D. since their variation bounds are not given.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 91 strategies. Using the same set of basis functions.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design The same controller (4. C → C and g → g . conventional robust designs do not work either.2 WC ∈ℜ n β C ×2n and Wg ∈ℜ g are weighting n β g ×1 n βD ×n n βC ×n matrices and Z D ∈ℜ . In next section. On the other hand.

their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of a Lyapunov-like function. the controller (1) becomes ˆT ɺ ˆT ˆT τ = WD Z D v + WC Z C v + Wg z g − K d s and the closed loop system dynamics can be represented as (3) ɶT ɺ ɶT ɶT ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = − WD Z D v − WC Z C v − Wg z g + ε1 (4) ɶ ˆ ɺɺ where W(⋅) = W(⋅) − W(⋅) and ε1 = ε1 (ε D . Q C ∈ℜ n β C × n β C and Q g ∈ℜ g are positive definite weighting matrices. ε C . ε g . s. The time derivative of V along the trajectory of (4) can be computed as nβ × n β ɺ ɶT ɺ ɶT ɶT V = s T [−Cs − K d s − WD Z D v − WC Z C v − Wg z g ] 1 ɺ ɺ ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ + s T Ds − Tr ( WD Q D WD + WC Q C WC + Wg Q g Wg ) + s T ε1 2 ɺ Using the fact that the matrix D − 2C is skew-symmetric. WC . Since W(⋅) are constant vectors.92 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots Therefore. Wg ) = s T Ds 2 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + Tr ( WD Q D WD + WC Q C WC + Wg Q g Wg ) 2 2 2 2 2 (5) g where Q D ∈ℜ n β D × n β D . q d ) ∈ℜ n is a lumped approximation error vector. WD . we further have ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɺ V = −s T K d s − Tr[ WD (Z D vs T + Q D WD )] ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ − Tr[ WC (Z C vs T + Q C WC )] − Tr[ Wg (z g s T + Q g Wg )] + s T ε1 (6) Let us select the update laws with σ-modifications to be ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q D1 (Z D vs T + σ D WD ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C1 (Z C vs T + σ C WC ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g 1 (z g s T + σ g Wg ) (7) . Let us consider a candidate 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s.

This will further give convergence of the output error by Barbalat’s lemma. Hence. (8) can be reduced to (4. and convergence of s can be further proved by Barbalat’s lemma.3-12). The following two inequalities are very useful in further derivation 2  ε1 1 2 −s T K d s + s T ε1 ≤ −  λmin (K d ) s −  λmin (K d )  2   (11a) 1 1 ɶ ⋅ ˆ ɶ ⋅ ɶ Tr ( W(T) W(⋅) ) ≤ Tr ( W(T) W(⋅) ) − Tr ( W(T) W(⋅) ) ⋅ 2 2 (11b) The proof for the first inequality is straightforward. Remark 2: If the approximation error cannot be ignored. n is the i-th entry in s. and the proof for the second one can be found in the Appendix. then the time derivative of V becomes ɺ V ≤ −s T K d s + δ s + s T τ robust (10) If we select τ robust = −δ [sgn( s1 ) sgn( s 2 ) ⋯ sgn( s n )]T . ɺ i =1.…. Hence. then we may have V ≤ −s T K d s ≤ 0 which is similar to the result of (4.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 93 where σ (⋅) are positive numbers. With the existence of the approximation error ε1 and the σ-modification terms. equation (8) may not conclude its definiteness as the one we have in (4. Together with the relationship .3-12).4. then it is not necessary to include the σmodification terms in (7). but we can find a positive number δ such that ε 1 ≤ δ . and the update law (7) without σ-modification.3-12). then a robust term τ robust can be added into (1a) to have a new control law ˆɺ ˆ ˆ τ = Dv + Cv + g − K d s + τ robust (9) Consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate (5) again. equation (6) becomes ɺ ɶT ˆ V = −s T K d s + s T ε1 + σ DTr ( WD WD ) ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ +σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) (8) Remark 1: Suppose a sufficient number of basis functions are used and the approximation error can be ignored. where si.

σD . σg (14) ɺ V ≤ −α V + ε1 1 T + [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + 2 λmin (K d ) 2 (15) 2 T T σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg )] ɺ This implies V < 0 whenever V> 1 2αλmin (K d ) τ ≥ t 0 sup ε1 (τ ) + 2 1 T [σ DTr ( WD WD ) 2α (16) T T +σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg )] . σC .94 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ V = [s T Ds + Tr ( WD Q D WD + WC Q C WC + Wg Q g Wg )] 2 1 2 ɶT ɶ ≤ [ λmax (D) s + λmax (Q D )Tr ( WD WD ) 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + λmax (Q C )Tr ( WC WC ) + λmax (Q g )Tr ( Wg Wg )] we may rewrite (8) into the form (12) ɺ V ≤ −α V + ε1 2 2 λmin (K d ) 1 2 + {[αλmax (D) − λmin (K d )] s + [αλmax (Q D ) 2 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ −σ D ]Tr ( WD WD )} + { [αλmax (Q C ) − σ C ]Tr ( WC WC ) 2 1 T ɶT ɶ +[αλmax (Q g ) − σ g ]Tr ( Wg Wg ) } + [σ DTr ( WD WD ) 2 T T +σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg )] where α is a constant to be selected as (13) α ≤ min  then (13) becomes  λmin (K d )    λmax (D) λmax (Q D ) λmax (Q C ) λmax (Q g )  .

Hence. WC and Wg are uniformly ultimately bounded. In addition.    λmax (Q D ) λmax (Q C ) λmax (Q g )   σD . we have proved that s. it is easy to prove that ∃ η D . σg Since α will not be used in the realization of the control law or the update law.η > 0 such that D λmax (D) ≤ η D and λmin (D) ≥ η and (14) can be rewritten as D α ≤ min     λmin (K d )  ηD .2. we may also compute the upper bound for V by solving the differential inequality of V in (15) as V (t ) ≤ e −α (t − t 0 )V (t 0 ) + + 1 2αλmin (K d ) t 0 <τ < t sup ε1 (τ ) 2 1 T T T [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg )] 2α (17) Using the inequality 1 2 ɶT ɶ V ≥ [ λmin (D) s + λmin (Q D )Tr ( WD WD ) 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + λmin (Q C )Tr ( WC WC ) + λmin (Q g )Tr ( Wg Wg )] we may find the upper bound for s 2 (18) as s 2 ≤ 1 ɶT ɶ [2V − λmin (Q D )Tr ( WD WD ) λmin ( D) ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ − λmin (Q C )Tr ( WC WC ) − λmin (Q g )Tr ( Wg Wg )] 2 V λmin ( D) ≤ . WD . By ɺ proper selection of the parameters there. It can be seen that all terms in the right side of (16) are constants. according to Property 1 in Section 3.4.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 95 It should be noted that selection of α in (14) depends on the maximum eigenvalue of the inertia matrix D which is not available. σC . we are going to use similar treatment in (14) in later chapters to simplify the derivation. we may adjust the set where V ≥ 0 to ɶ ɶ ɶ be sufficiently small. However.

Table 4.2-1) Regressor-based Controller Regressor-free Rigid-Link Rigid-Joint Robot ˆɺ ˆ ˆ τ = Dv + Cv + g − K d s ɺ ɺ ˆ = Y(q.96 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots With (17). Two columns are arranged to present the regressor-based and regressor-free designs respectively according to their controller forms. this can be further written as s 2 ≤ 2 1 2 e −α (t − t 0 )V (t 0 ) + sup ε1 (τ ) λmin (D) αλmin (D) λmin (K d ) t0 <τ < t 1 T T T + [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg )] αλmin (D) (19) We may also write the bound for the error signal s as s ≤ + 2V (t 0 ) − 2 (t − t 0 ) 1 + e sup ε1 (τ ) λmin (D) αλmin (D) λmin (K d ) t0 <τ < t 1 α αλmin (D) [σ T DTr ( WD WD ) + σ T CTr ( WC WC ) + σ 1 T 2 gTr ( Wg Wg )] (20) Inequality (20) implies that the time history of the error signal s is bounded by an exponential function plus some constants.5-1) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1Y T s (4. and implementation issues.3-11) ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q D1 (Z D vs T + σ D WD ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C1 (Z C vs T + σ C WC ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g 1 (z g s T + σ g Wg ) (4.1 Summary of the adaptive control for RR ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.1 summarizes the adaptive control laws derived in this section. v )p − K d s (4. q)q + g (q) = τ (4. q. Table 4. This completes the transient performance analysis.5-7) Does not need regressor matrix Realization Issue Need regressor matrix . v. update laws.3-6) ˆɺ ˆ ˆ τ = Dv + Cv + g − K d s T ˆ ˆ T ɺ = Wg z g + WD Z D v ˆ T + WC Z C v − K d s (4.

1.0022 1.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w g1 (0) = w g 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 The gain matrices in the update laws (4. WD and WC are in ℜ 44 × 2 . C and g are all unavailable.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C22 (0) = [0.75(m).. 1. we employ the FAT to have the representations in (2). lc1 =lc2 =0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w D12 (0) = w D21 (0) = [−0.e. l1 =l2 =0. 0. and ˆ g is in ℜ 22 × 2 . some significant transient response can be observed.5-7) are selected as − − Q −1 = I 44 . Q C1 = I 44 and Q g 1 = 100I 22 .8m).05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C12 (0) = w C21 (0) = [−0.8m. D .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w D22 (0) = [0. The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be W ˆ w D11 (0) = [0. the endpoint is initially at (0. 0.5019 0 0]T .8m. Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1 =m2 =0.5(kg). We would like the endpoint to track a 0.2m radius circle centered at (0.0234(kg-m2). and we are going to verify the control strategy developed in this section by using computer simulations. The initial condition of the generalized coordinate vector is set to be q(0) = [0.1: Consider a 2-DOF planar robot represented in example 3. Therefore.5-1a) is applied with the gain matrices  20 0  10 0  Kd =   . Since it is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C11 (0) = [0.8m.75m). and I1 =I2 =0. i. and their variation bounds are not known. The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis ˆ ˆ function for the approximation. The controller in (4.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 97 Example 4.4.375(m).0m) in 10 seconds without knowing its precise model.  0 20   Since we have assumed that the entries of D. and Λ =  0 10 .

we assume that the approximation error can be neglected. The transient states converge very fast without unwanted oscillations. Figure 4.75 0.1 to 4.85 0. Figure 4. the tracking error is small regardless of the time-varying uncertainties in D.75 0.3.1 1.98 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots In this simulation. It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges nicely to the desired trajectory. they still remain bounded as desired.85 0. After the transient state.desired trajectory) - . although the initial position error is quite large.9 0. --.8 0.8 X 0.95 1 Figure 4.7 0.2 1. and hence the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 .15 1. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law.6 0.6. Figure 4.1 Tracking performance in the Cartesian space ( actual trajectory. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 4.05 1 Y 0.65 0. 1.2 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance.1 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space.9 0. C and g.95 0. The simulation results are shown in Figure 4.6 are the performance of function approximation. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values.4 to 4.

6 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1.8 0.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.desired trajectory) 14 12 control input 1 (N.6 1.6 0.M) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 5 control input 2 (N.4 0.3 The control efforts for both joints are all reasonable - 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 .2 Joint space tracking performance ( actual trajectory.m) 0 −5 −10 −15 −20 0 1 Figure 4.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.4 0.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 99 0. --.2 1 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 4.4.

1 −0.1 0.05 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 4. --.2 −0.05 0.1 C(11) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 −0.6 0.05 0 −0.4 0.4 Approximation of D ( estimate.1 0.3 0.4 0 −0.2 0.35 0.1 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.2 −0.05 0 8 10 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 .100 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 1 0.2 0 −0.15 C(21) C(22) 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) Figure 4.15 0.1 −0.actual value) 0. --.6 0.05 −0.1 0.2 0.3 D(21) 0.actual value) - - 0.1 0 −0.4 0.3 0.05 0 −0.15 0.1 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 D(22) 0.4 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.4 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 D(12) 0.05 −0.1 D(11) 0.5 0.05 C(12) 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0 −0.8 0.5 Approximation of C ( estimate.25 0.15 0.

--. Finally.2. q)q + g (q) = Hi We firstly consider the case when all robot parameters are known. we are going to derive adaptive controllers for the rigid-link electrically-driven robot described in (3. Several simulation results will be presented to justify the necessity for the consideration of the actuator dynamics.4-1) as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.actual value) 4. and then the regressor-based adaptive controller is derived if the robot parameters are not available. we may rewrite (1a) into the form ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dv + Cv = Hi - (1a) (1b) ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u (2) .4.6 Approximation of g ( estimate. and to evaluate the performance of the controllers designed here.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 10 8 6 101 g(1) 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 3 2 1 g(2) 0 −1 −2 −3 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 4.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics In this section. With the definitions of s and v in Section 4. a regressor-free adaptive controller is introduced.

Substituting (3) into (2). since the desired current is defined according to (3) as (5) ɺ i d = H −1 (g + Dv + Cv − K d s) (6) we may rewrite (2) into the form below to represent the dynamics of the output tracking loop ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = H(i − i d ) (7) To prove the close loop stability. and hence convergence of s follows. and id is the desired current trajectory which is equivalent to the perfect current in (3). The gain matrix Kc is selected to be positive definite. the dynamics for the current tracking loop becomes ɺ Le i + K c e i = 0 On the other hand.102 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots Suppose all of the robot parameters are known. the closed ɺ loop dynamics becomes Ds + Cs + K d s = 0. To realize the perfect current vector in (3). we have to design a control input u in (1b) to ensure that the actual current can converge to the perfect one. Since all parameters are assumed to be known at the present stage. It is exactly the same as the one in (4.3-3). let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 1 V (s. we may construct the control input in the form ɺ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K bq − K c e i (4) where e i = i − i d is the current error. Substituting (4) into (1b). ei ) = sT Ds + eT Lei i 2 2 (8) . then we may design a proper control law u such that the current i in (1b) follows the trajectory ɺ i = H −1 (g + Dv + Cv − K d s) (3) where K d is a positive definite matrix.

1 Regressor-based adaptive control Let us consider the EDRR in (1) and (2) again ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dv + Cv = Hi (10a) (10b) ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u Suppose D. It is easy to further prove that s and ei are also square integrable. we may compute the time derivative of V as 1 ɺ ɺ V = −sT K d s + sT (D − 2C)s + sT Hei − eT K cei i 2 s = −[sT eT ]Q   ≤ 0 i ei  (9) 1   − H  Kd 2 where Q =   is positive definite by proper selection of Kc and − 1 H K  c  2    Kd. Remark 1: It has to be noted that in controller (4).2.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 103 Along the trajectory of (5) and (7). let us consider the desired current trajectory . and their time derivatives are uniformly bounded. we would like to derive a regressor-based adaptive controller for EDRR. This necessity will be eliminated in the following design of the FAT-based regressor-free adaptive controller in section 4. we have to find the time derivative of the desired current trajectory which implies that we need to feedback the joint accelerations to complete that computation. g. 4. The regressor-free design will be developed in section 4. Hence.6.6. if all parameters in the EDRR (1) are available. the controller (4) with the perfect current trajectory (6) can give asymptotic convergence of the output error. L. we may conclude asymptotic convergence of s and ei. In next step. and we may not realize the control laws in (4) and (6). R. C.4. and Kb are not available.6.2. by Barbalat’s lemma. Instead. In summary.

equation (10a) can be written as ɶɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ Ds + Cs + K d s = − Dv − Cv − g + H (i − i d ) ɺ ɺ ɶ = − Y(q. g and p the estimates of D. we may have the dynamics in the current tracking loop ɺ ɶi Le i + K ce i = −p T φ (15) ɶ ˆ where p i = p i − p i . v. v )p − K d s ] (11) ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ which is a modification of (6) with D . C = C − C . q . Let us consider the controller which is a modification of (4) as ˆɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K bq − K c e i (13) ˆ ˆ ˆ where L . v )p + H (i − i d ) (12) ˆ ɶ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ where D = D − D . g and p. let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 1 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶi ɶ V (s. For convenience. C. respectively. v . p. g = g − g and p = p − p . With this desired current trajectory. the controller (13) becomes ˆi u = p T φ − K ce i (14) Substituting (14) into (10b). respectively. R and K b are estimates of L. pi ) = sT Ds + eT Lei + pT Γp + Tr(pT Γipi ) i 2 2 2 2 (16) . C . q. then (12) implies controller u and an update law such that i → i d and p convergence of the output error vector. R and Kb. let use define φ = [ɺT id iT RT ˆ RT ɺ q T ]T ∈ℜ 3n p i = [LT ˆ ˆ p i = [LT K T ]T ∈ℜ 3n × n b ˆb K T ]T ∈ℜ 3n × n Therefore. ei . To proof the closed loop stability and to find appropriate update laws.104 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots ˆ ˆɺ ˆ i d = H −1 (g + Dv + Cv − K d s) ɺ ɺ ˆ = H − 1 [ Y ( q . If we may design a ˆ → p.

and q is not easy to measure. Hence. let us consider the case when D. This further implies q → q d and i → i d as t → ∞ . All of these requirements will be eliminated in the following design of the FAT-based regressor-free adaptive controller. R and Kb are not ɺɺ available. Remark 2: Realization of controller (14) and update law (18) needs to know the time derivative of the desired current which implies the need for the joint acceleration feedback and the time derivative of the regressor matrix. g. Equation (19) implies that s and ei are uniformly bounded and square integrable. asymptotic convergence of s and ei can be obtained by the Barbalat’s lemma. Along the where Γ ∈ℜ r × r and Γ i ∈ℜ trajectories of (12) and (15). (17) can be further written as (18) ɺ V = −[s T s e T ]Q   ≤ 0 i e i  (19) 1   − H  Kd 2 where Q =   is positive definite by proper selection of K d 1 − H K  c  2    and K c .4. 4.6.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 3n × 3n 105 are positive definite matrices. the time derivative of V is computed as ɺ V = −sT K d s + sT Hei − eT K cei i T ɺ + YT s) − Tr[pT (Γ p + φeT )] ɶ ˆ ɶi iɺi ˆ −p (Γp i The update laws can thus be picked as (17) ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1Y T s ɺ ˆ p i = − Γ i−1φeT i Therefore. we would like to design a desired current i d so that a FAT-based adaptive controller u can be constructed without . L. C.2 Regressor-free adaptive control Now. Their time derivatives can also be proved to be bounded.

we may have the dynamics of the current tracking loop ˆ ɺ Le i + K ce i = f − f (23) ˆ If an appropriate update law for f can be designed. 2 2 nβ × n nβ × n are and . and Wf ∈ℜ f 2 2 Z C ∈ℜ n β C × n . i Substituting (22) into (1b). we may ensure i → i d as t → ∞ . C. D performance. weighting matrices. C and g. WC ∈ℜ n β C × n . z g ∈ℜ n β g ×1 .106 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots using the regressor matrix to have i → i d which further implies convergence of the output error as desired. we ˆ ˆ → D. let us select the control input to be ˆ u = f − K ce i (22) ɺ ˆ ɺ ɺ where f is an estimate of the function f (ɺ d . C and g are respectively estimates of D. The dynamics of the output tracking loop can thus be found as ˆ ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = H (i − i d ) + (D − D) v ˆ ˆ + (C − C) v + (g − g ) (21) ˆ ˆ ˆ If a proper controller u and update laws for D . Here. let us consider the desired current i d in (11) as ˆ ˆɺ ˆ i d = H −1 (g + Dv + Cv − K d s) (20) ˆ ˆ ˆ where D . i. ZD ∈ℜn β D ×n . C → C and g → g so that (21) can give desired ˆ may have i → i d . C and g can be designed. Let us apply the function approximation representation for D. according to (4). q ) = Li d + Ri + K bq . g and f as T D = WD Z D + ε D T C = WC Z C + ε C T g = Wg z g + ε g (24) f = WfT z f + ε f where WD ∈ℜ n β D × n . Wg ∈ℜ g . Instead of (6).

Wg .4. Q g ∈ℜ g . WD . the corresponding estimates can also be represented as z f ∈ℜ n β f ×1 ˆ ˆT D = WD Z D ˆ ˆT C = WC Z C ˆ ˆT g = Wg z g ˆ ˆ f = WfT z f then equation (21) and (23) becomes (25) ɶT ɺ ɶT ɶT ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = H(i − i d ) − WD Z D v − WC Z C v − Wg z g + ε1 ɶ ɺ Le i + K c e i = − WfT z f + ε 2 (26a) (26b) ɺɺ where ε1 = ε1 (ε D . Let us consider a candidate 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s. their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of the Lyapunov-like function. and nβ f × nβ f Q f ∈ℜ are all positive definite. Since W(⋅) are constant matrices. Q C ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . WC .ε g . Wf ) = sT Ds + eT Lei i 2 2 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ + Tr(WD QDWD + WC QCWC + Wg Qg Wg + WfT Qf Wf ) 2 2 2 2 2 (27) g The matrices Q D ∈ℜ n β D × n β D .6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 107 are matrices of basis functions. q d ) and ε 2 = ε 2 (ε f . e i ) are lumped approximation errors. ei . s. The time derivative of V along the trajectory of (26) can be computed as nβ × nβ ɺ V = −sT K d s + sT Hei − eT K cei + sT ε1 + eT ε 2 i i ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ ɺ −Tr[WD (Z DvsT + QDWD ) + WD (ZCvsT + QCWC ) ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶ ˆ +Wg (z gsT + Qg Wg ) + WfT (z f eT + Qf Wf )] i (28) .ε C . and ε (⋅) are approximation error matrices. Using respectively the same set of basis functions. The number β (⋅) represents the number of basis functions used.

108

Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots

By selecting the update laws as

ɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q −1 (Z D vs T + σ D WD ) D

ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C1 (Z C vs T + σ C WC ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g 1 (z g s T + σ g Wg ) ɺ ˆ ˆ Wf = −Q f−1 (z f e T + σ f Wf ) i

(29)

where σ (.) are positive numbers. With these selections, equation (28) becomes

ɺ V = −[s T

s  ε1  ɶT ˆ e T ]Q   + [s T e T ]   + σ DTr ( WD WD ) i i e i  ε 2  T ˆ T ˆ ɶ ɶ ɶ ˆ +σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )

(30)

1   − H  Kd 2 where Q =   is positive definite which can be achieved by − 1 H K  c  2    proper selections of Kd and Kc.
Remark 3: Realization of the control law (22) and update laws (29) does not need the information of joint accelerations which largely simplifies its implementation. Remark 4: Suppose a sufficient number of basis functions are used and the approximation error can be ignored, then it is not necessary to include the σ-modification terms in (29). Hence, (30) can be reduced to (9), and convergence of s and ei can be further proved by Barbalat’s lemma. Remark 5: If the approximation error cannot be ignored, but we can find positive numbers δ1 and δ2 such that ε 1 ≤ δ 1 and ε 2 ≤ δ 2 , then robust terms τrobust 1 and τrobust 2 can be included into (20) and (22) to have

ˆ ˆɺ ˆ i d = H −1 (g + Dv + Cv − K d s + τ robust 1 ) ˆ u = f − K c e i + τ robust 2

4.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics

109

Consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate (27) again, and the update law (29) without σ-modification; then the time derivative of V becomes

ɺ V ≤ −[s T

s eT ]Q   + δ 1 s + δ 2 e i + s T τ robust 1 + e T τ robust 2 i i e i 

If we select the vector τ robust 1 = −δ 1[sgn( s1 ) sgn( s 2 ) ⋯ sgn( s n )]T , where si, i =1,…, n is the i-th entry in s, and τ robust 2 = −δ 2[sgn(ei1 ) ⋯ sgn(ein )]T , where eik , k =1,…, n is the k-th entry in ei, then we may have (9) again. This will further give convergence of the output error by Barbalat’s lemma. ɺ Owing to the existence of ε1 and ε 2 in (30), the definiteness of V cannot be determined. In the following, we would like to investigate closed loop stability in the presence of these approximation errors. It is very easy to prove the inequalities hold

−[s T

s e T ]Q   + [s T i e i  1 ≤ −  λmin (Q) 2 

 ε1  eT ]   i ε 2  s 1 e  − λ (Q) min  i
2

 ε1  ε   2

2

   

(31)

1 1 ɶ ⋅ ˆ ɶ ⋅ ɶ Tr ( W(T) W(⋅) ) ≤ Tr ( W(T) W(⋅) ) − Tr ( W(T) W(⋅) ) ⋅ 2 2
Together with the relationship

1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ V = [s T Ds + e T Le i + Tr ( WD Q D WD + WC Q C WC i 2 ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ + Wg Q g Wg + WfT Q f Wf )] s 1 ɶT ɶ ≤ [ λmax ( A )   + λmax (Q D )Tr ( WD WD ) 2 e i  ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + λmax (Q C )Tr ( WC WC ) + λmax (Q g )Tr ( Wg Wg ) ɶ ɶ + λmax (Q f )Tr ( WfT Wf )]
where A =  (32)
2

D 0   , we may rewrite (30) into the form  0 L

110

Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots
2 2

1 ɺ V ≤ −α V + [αλmax ( A) − λmin (Q)] 2

s  ε1  1 e  + 2λ (Q) ε  min  i  2 1 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + [αλmax (Q D ) − σ D ]Tr ( WD WD ) + [αλmax (Q C ) − σ C ]Tr ( WC WC ) 2 2 1 1 T ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ + [αλmax (Q g ) − σ g ]Tr ( Wg Wg ) + [αλmax (Q f ) − σ f ]Tr ( WfT Wf ) 2 2 1 T T T + [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] (33) 2

where α is a constant to be selected as

α ≤ min 

 λmin (Q)

  (34)  λmax ( A ) λmax (Q D ) λmax (Q C ) λmax (Q g ) λmax (Q f )  ,

σD

,

σC

,

σg

,

σf

Then (33) becomes

ɺ V ≤ −α V +

 ε1  1 T ε  + 2 [σ DTr ( WD WD ) 2 λmin (Q)  2  1
(35)

2

T T + σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )]

ɺ This implies V < 0 whenever  ε1 (τ )  1 T V> sup   + 2α [σ DTr ( WD WD ) 2αλmin (Q) τ ≥ t 0 ε 2 (τ )  1
T T + σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2

(36)

ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ Hence, we have proved that s, ei, WD , WC , Wg and Wf are uniformly ultimately bounded. From (35), we may also compute the upper bound for V as V (t ) ≤ e −α (t − t 0 )V (t 0 ) + +  ε1 (τ )  sup  2αλmin (Q) t 0 <τ < t ε 2 (τ )  1
2

1 T T [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) 2α T +σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )]

(37)

4.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics

111

Using the inequality

s 1 1 ɶT ɶ V ≥ λmin ( A )   + [ λmin (Q D )Tr ( WD WD ) 2 2 e i  ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + λmin (Q C )Tr ( WC WC ) + λmin (Q g )Tr ( Wg Wg ) ɶ ɶ + λmin (Q f )Tr ( WfT Wf )]
we may find the upper bound for [s T
2

2

(38)
2

e T ]T i

as
2

s e   i

 ε1 (τ )  2 1 ≤ sup  e −α (t − t 0 )V (t 0 ) + λmin ( A) αλmin ( A) λmin (Q) t0 <τ < t ε 2 (τ )   + 1

αλmin ( A)

T T [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC )

T +σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )]

Therefore, we may compute the bound as

s e  ≤  i +

2V (t 0 ) − 2 (t − t 0 ) 1 + e sup λmin ( A) αλmin ( A) λmin (Q) t0 <τ < t 1

α

 ε1 (τ )  ε (τ )  2 

αλmin ( A)

T T [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC )

1 T +σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2

This proves that the time history of the error signal is bounded by an exponential function plus some constants. The transient performance analysis is thus completed. Table 4.2 summarizes the adaptive control of EDRR derived in this section in terms of their controller forms, update laws and implementation issues.

112

Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots Table 4.2 Summary of the adaptive control of EDRR

ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dv + Cv = Hi (4.6-1), (4.6-2) ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u
Regressor-based Controller Regressor-free

Electrically Driven Rigid Robot

ɺ ɺ ˆ i d = H [ Y (q , q , v , v )p − K d s ] ˆi u = p T φ − K ce i
(4.6-11) (4.6-14)

−1

ˆ ˆɺ ˆ i d = H (g + Dv + Cv − K d s) ˆ u = f − K ce i
(4.6-20) (4.6-22)

−1

Adaptive Law

ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1Y T s ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1φe T
i i i

(4.6-18)

ɺ ˆ WD ɺ ˆ WC ɺ ˆ Wg ɺ ˆ Wf

ˆ ɺ = −Q −1 (Z D vs T + σ D WD ) D −1 T ˆ = −Q C (Z C vs + σ C WC )
− ˆ = −Q g 1 (Z gs T + σ g Wg )

ˆ = −Q f−1 (Z f eT + σ f Wf ) i

(4.6-29) Realization Issue 1. need computation of regressor matrix 2. need ɺ d to compute u which i implies the need for the joint accelerations and time derivative of Y. 1. no need for regressor matrix or its time derivatives 2. no need for joint accelerations

Example 4.2: Consider the same 2-DOF planar robot in example 4.1 with the inclusion of the actuator dynamics, and we are going to verify the control strategy developed in this section by using computer simulations. Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1 =m2 =0.5(kg), l1 =l2 =0.75(m), lc1 =lc2 =0.375(m), and I1 =I2 =0.0234(kg-m2). Parameters related to the actuator dynamics are given with h1 =h2 =10(N-m/A), L1 =L2 =0.025(H), r1 =r2 =1(Ω), and kb1 =kb2 =1(Vol/rad/sec). In order to observe the effect of the actuator dynamics, the endpoint is required to track a 0.2m radius circle centered at (0.8m, 1.0m) in 2 seconds which is much faster then the case in example 4.1. The initial conditions of the generalized coordinate vector is q(0) = [0.0022 1.5019 0 0]T , i.e., the endpoint is still at (0.8m, 0,75m) initially. Three cases will be investigated in this example to clarify the significance of the actuator dynamics in the closed loop stability. In case 1, an adaptive controller designed for EDRR robots is applied to a EDRR robot. Since the actuator dynamics is considered in the controller, good performance is to be expected. However, if an adaptive controller for RR is applied to the same

Torque RR q Voltage EDRR q Figure 4.. the robot models are in the voltage level. the controllers designed for RR are in the torque level.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 113 EDRR with the same set of controller parameters.e. Hence.3 Simulation cases Plant Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 EDRR EDRR EDRR Controller Designed for EDRR Designed for RR Designed for RR Remark Same controller parameters as in Case 1 Same configuration as in Case 2 but with gain adjustments It has to be emphasized that. Now.. It is seen that although the tracking error can be limited to some range. of course. Table 4. In the last case. Hence. i. we may arrive at a conclusion later that consideration of the actuator dynamics is very important if good performance is required. the performance would. The input for the EDRR is in the voltage level implying that its controller must be with output in voltage The adaptive controller in (4. the input to the joint is voltage (Figure 4. some modification is needed so that the robot and the controller are compatible. in case 2 and 3. their outputs are torque.7).3 summarizes the configuration of the simulation cases.e. we consider the same configuration in case 2. Table 4. i.4. let us introduce a conversion matrix K τ which satisfies K τ u(∞ ) = Hi(∞ ) = τ (∞ ) so that the controller becomes in the voltage level − ˆ ˆ ɺ ˆ u = K τ 1 (Dv + Cv + g − K d s) − ˆT ɺ ˆT ˆT = K τ 1 ( WD Z D v + WC Z C v + Wg z g − K d s) (39) . but with improvements in the tracking performance via controller gain adjustments. the control effort would become impractically huge. However.7 The input signal for a RR is in the torque level and its controller should also be in the torque level. be unsatisfactory which will be presented in case 2.5-1a) is designed for the rigid robot in the torque level.

4.6-29) − ˆ ˆ ɺ ˆ u = K τ 1 (Dv + Cv + g − K d s) −1 ˆ T ɺ ˆT = K τ (WD Z D v + WC Z C v T ˆ + Wg z g − K d s) Case 2 EDRR (4.114 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots The update laws can still be derived to be ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q D1 (Z D vs T + σ D WD ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C1 (Z C vs T + σ C WC ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g 1 (z g s T + σ g Wg ) Therefore.  0 20     Table 4.6-39) ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q D1 (Z D vsT + σ D WD ) ɺ −1 T ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C (Z C vs + σ C WC ) ɺ −1 T ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g (z g s + σ g Wg ) (4.6-39) Case 3 EDRR (4.6-20).6-40) .4 Realization details in simulation cases Plant Case 1 EDRR (4.6-1) − ˆ ˆ ɺ ˆ u = K τ 1 (Dv + Cv + g − K d s) −1 ˆ T ɺ ˆT = K τ (WD Z D v + WC Z C v ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q D1 (Z D vsT + σ D WD ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C1 (Z C vs T + σ C WC ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g 1 (z g s T + σ g Wg ) (4. Λ =  0 10 and K c =  0 50 .6-22) (4. Case 1: Controller for EDRR applied to EDRR The controller in (22) is applied with the gain matrices (40)  20 0  10 0  50 0  Kd =   .6-1) (4. some more detail in the simulation cases can be summarized as shown in Table 4. (4.6-1) Controller Update Laws ɺ − ˆ ˆɺ ˆ ˆ ˆ i d = H −1 (g + Dv + Cv − K d s) WD = −Q D1 (Z D vs T + σ D WD ) ɺ −1 ˆ T T ˆ ɺ ɺ −1 T = H ( Wg z g + WD Z D v ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C (Z C vs + σ C WC ) ˆ T + WC Z C v − K d s ) ɺ −1 T ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g (z g s + σ g Wg ) ˆ u = f − K ce i ɺ −1 T ˆ ˆ Wf = −Q f (z f e i + σ f Wf ) ˆ = WfT z f − K c e i (4.6-40) ˆT + Wg z g − K d s) (4.

D The approximation error is assumed to be neglected.8 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w D22 (0) = [0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C22 (0) = [0.9.5498 −3.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w g1 (0) = w g 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w f1 (0) = w f 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 The gain matrices in the update laws (29) are selected as − − − Q −1 = I 44 . Q g 1 = 100I 22 . It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges smoothly to the desired trajectory. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 115 The initial value for the desired current can be found by calculation from (20) as i d (0) = i(0) = [1.15 are the performance of function approximation. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that are presented in Figure 4.15. This justifies the effectiveness of the consideration of the actuator dynamics when high performance control is required. Figure 4. The transient state takes only about 0.3 seconds which can be justified from the joint space tracking history in Figure 4. . although the initial position error is quite large and most plant parameters are uncertain. and the σ-modification parameters are all zero.11.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C12 (0) = w C21 (0) = [−0. The performance in the current tracking loop is quite good as shown in Figure 4.3570]T .1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C11 (0) = [0.12 to 4.4. Q C1 = I 44 . and Q f 1 = 100I 22 .8 to 4. 22 × 2 ˆ ˆ . Figure 4. The simulation results are shown in Figure 4. they still remain bounded as desired.10. The 11-term Fourier series is selected as ˆ ˆ the basis function for the approximation so that WD and WC are in ℜ 44 × 2 .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w D12 (0) = w D21 (0) = [−0. The initial weighting vectors for the entries while Wg and Wf are in ℜ are assigned to be ˆ w D11 (0) = [0.

75 0.85 0.116 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 1.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.2 0 0 0.2 1 0.4 0. --.2 0.95 1 Figure 4.6 1.6 1.1 1.6 0.05 1 Y 0.desired trajectory) - - 0. --.4 0.2 1.95 0.2 1.8 X 0.2 0.2 0 0.8 0.8 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space ( actual trajectory.7 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.2 1.9 0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.75 0.15 1.85 0.6 0.desired trajectory) 0.65 0.6 1.4 1.6 0.8 2 Figure 4.4 1.6 0.8 0.4 1.9 Joint space tracking performance ( actual trajectory.8 2 .9 0.

4 0.6 0.2 1.4 1.4 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.4 1.8 2 1 0 −1 i(2) −2 −3 −4 0 0.2 - 0.2 1.10 Tracking in the current loop actual trajectory.2 1.8 2 ( 2 1.5 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 0 −0. --.2 0.6 0.4 0.8 2 Figure 4.8 2 2 control input 2 (vol) 1 0 −1 −2 0 0.4.8 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.6 0.2 resl desired 117 i(1) 1 0.4 0.11 Control efforts .8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 control input 1 (vol) Figure 4.6 0.2 0 0.2 1.desired trajectory) 1 0.5 −1 −1.6 0.4 1.6 1.

05 0 1.3 0.05 −0.15 0 0.5 2 0 0.12 Approximation of D ( estimate.15 0.3 0.3 0.5 2 .4 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 −0.actual value) 0.2 0.1 −0.2 0.2 0.05 C(21) C(22) 0 −0.actual value) - - 0.8 0.5 2 0.3 0.4 0.1 −0.13 Approximation of C ( estimate.05 0 −0.1 0 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.1 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.05 −0.2 −0.5 2 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.1 0 D(21) 0 0. --.1 0 −0.2 0.5 2 0.3 −0.2 0.6 D(11) D(12) 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.15 −0.5 2 C(12) 0 0.1 C(11) −0.1 0.2 0 0 0.5 2 D(22) 0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.118 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 0.5 1 Time(sec) Figure 4.15 0. --.5 2 Figure 4.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.15 0.1 −0.5 0.1 −0.

--.15 Approximation of f ( estimate.8 2 0.8 2 Figure 4.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 2 1 0 g(2) −1 −2 −3 −4 0 0.4 2 1 f(2) 0 −1 −2 0 0.4 1.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 1.4 0.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 10 8 6 g(1) 119 4 2 0 0 0.2 1.6 1.4 0.2 1.5 −1 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.actual value) 1.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.6 1.8 2 .6 0. --.6 0.6 0.5 1 0.14 Approximation of g ( estimate.4 1.6 0.actual value) - - 0.4.4 Figure 4.5 f(1) 0 −0.2 1.6 1.

6 0.8 X 0.6 seconds. Figure 4.7 0.17 indicates that the joint space motion deviates from the desired trajectory after 0.3 1. The simulation results are presented in Figure 4. 1.2 Figure 4.1 1 Y 0.6 0. Function approximation results shown in Figure 20 to 22 are not satisfactory either.120 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots Case 2: Controller for RR applied to EDRR Controller (39) is used with K τ =  10 0   (N-m/Vol).16 to 4. The purpose of using the same set of parameters is to have an effective comparison.18 and 19 presents the motor current and the control effort respectively.4 1.1 1. and impractically large values can be seen in both curves.7 0. In the following figures we may observe that the controller designed for RR is not able to give acceptable performance to a EDRR under the conditions when the actuator dynamics is important such as the fast motion trajectory tested here.16 shows that the endpoint motion does not converge to the desired trajectory.16 Tracking performance in the Cartesian space.8 0.22.5 0. Figure 4.2 1.9 0. All other required  0 10 parameters for the controller and update law (40) are the same as those in the previous case. Figure 4.9 1 1. It can be observed that the controller designed for RR is not able to give satisfactory performance when applied to EDRR under fast motion condition .

6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.18 Motor currents go to impractically large values after 1.4 0.4 0.2 1.6 1.6 0.2 0 0.8 0.6 1.6 1.2 0.6 1.8 2 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.6 0.17 The joint space motion trajectory 600 400 200 i(1) 0 −200 −400 −600 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 Figure 4.4.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.8 2 Figure 4.2 0 −0.2 0.2 121 angle of link 1 (rad) 0 0.8 2 500 i(2) 0 −500 0 0.6 0.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 0.4 1.4 0.8 seconds .4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.2 1 0.4 1.2 0.2 1.

8 seconds 150 150 100 100 D(11) D(12) 50 0 0 0.8 2 1.4 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 20 0 −20 300 250 200 D(21) D(22) 0 0.20 Approximation of D .19 The control efforts become very large after 1.4 0.5 0 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.122 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots x 10 5 1 control input 1 (vol) 0.4 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 50 0 −50 0 0.5 2 Figure 4.5 0 −0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 −1 x 10 5 control input 2 (vol) 0 0.2 1.4 1.6 0.8 2 Figure 4.2 0.5 2 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 150 100 50 0 0 0.6 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.5 −1 0 0.5 1 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.

8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 80 60 40 20 0 −20 C(21) 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 Figure 4.6 0.5 2 −10 −15 −20 −25 0 0.6 0.4 1.21 Approximation of C 600 400 200 g(1) 0 −200 −400 0 0.5 2 C(22) 0 0.8 2 1500 1000 500 g(2) 0 −500 −1000 0 0.2 1.22 The estimate of vector g diverges very fast .5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.8 2 Figure 4.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 20 15 10 5 0 −5 5 0 −5 123 C(11) C(12) 0 0.4 0.2 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.4.6 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.4 1.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 0.

and Q g 1 = I 22 .7 0.16).15 1.23 shows significant improvement (compared with Figure 4.75 0. However. Q C1 = 0. the tracking error is still unacceptable .05 1 Y 0.8 X 0.01I 44 . The joint space tracking performance is shown in Figure 4.85 0.95 0.24. The Cartesian space tracking performance in Figure 4.65 0.8).75 0.23 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space.8 0.2 1.27 to 29 are bounded as desired. D The simulation results are shown in Figure 4. but the tracking error is still large (compared with Figure 4.6 0.9 0.124 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots Case 3: Same as case 2 but with adjusted control parameters Same configuration as in case 2 is considered here but with adjusted gain matrices  200 0  100 0  Kd =   and Λ =  0 100 . significant improvement in the tracking performance can be observed.23 to 29.9 0.85 0. 1.  0 200   The gain matrices in the update laws are selected as − − Q −1 = 0.1 1. After proper gain adjustment. The estimated parameters in Figure 4.01I 44 . The motor currents and control efforts shown in Figure 4.25 and 26 respectively are still unacceptably large.95 1 Figure 4.

8 0.4 1.6 0.24 The joint space tracking performance 5000 i(1) 0 −5000 0 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 1 0.6 1.4 0.8 2 1.2 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 0.6 1.2 0.4.6 1.4 0.6 1.25 Motor currents go to impractically large values .6 0.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.2 1.8 2 Figure 4.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.8 2 Figure 4.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.2 1.8 125 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.8 2 4000 2000 i(2) 0 −2000 −4000 0 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.

8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 0 0.27 Approximation of D .5 2 Figure 4.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 0.5 2 5 0 −5 150 100 D(21) −10 −15 −20 −25 D(22) 50 0 0 0.5 2 0 0.6 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.8 2 Figure 4.8 2 3 2 1 0 −1 −2 x 10 6 control input 2 (vol) 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 control input 1 (vol) 0.126 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots x 10 6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.5 0 −0.5 2 D(12) −10 −15 −20 −25 0 0.4 1.6 0.6 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.2 0.5 −1 −1.26 The control efforts become very large 80 60 5 0 −5 D(11) 40 20 0 0 0.

5 1 Time(sec) 1.1 C(21) 0 −1 −2 −3 0 0.2 0.5 2 Figure 4.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.6 1.5 2 3 2 1 0.5 2 C(22) 0.4.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 4 5 127 2 C(11) 0 C(12) 0 0.2 0.4 1.05 −0.4 0.28 Approximation of C 8 6 4 g(1) 2 0 −2 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.1 0 0.4 1.15 0.2 1.6 0.6 1.2 1.8 2 5 0 −5 g(2) −10 −15 −20 0 0.5 2 0 −2 −4 −5 0 0.8 2 Figure 4.05 0 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.4 0.29 Approximation of g .

Slotine and Li’s approach derived in Section 4. and its realization does not need the information of the joint accelerations.1 for a EDRR.3 is well-known to be free from the singularity problem in the estimate of the inertia matrix. All of these approaches need to calculate of the regressor matrix. . Finally.128 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 4. A regressor-based adaptive controller is derived in Section 4. example 4. the actuator dynamics should be carefully considered to give better control performance.2. a regressor-free adaptive controller is derived in Section 4. In some operation conditions. To implement the update law. the estimate of the inertia matrix is required to be nonsingular and the joint accelerations should be known.4.4 that computation of the regressor matrix is tedious in general. a regressor based adaptive controller is derived. However. only the controller designed with consideration of actuator dynamics can give good performance with reasonable control efforts for a EDRR. under the fast motion condition. we consider the adaptive control of rigid robots in the free space.6. it not only needs the joint acceleration feedback but also the calculation of the time derivative of the regressor matrix. We have seen in Section 4. The simulation results show that.5 based on the FAT. A regressor-free adaptive controller for EDRR is then introduced in Section 4.2.2 investigates the necessity for the consideration of the actuator dynamics in three cases.7 Conclusions In this chapter. whose implementation is similar to those in Section 4.6. In Section 4.

the dynamics of the robot manipulator and the environment inevitably contains various uncertainties and disturbances. one of the effective ways to deal with this difficulty is to apply the adaptive strategy to the impedance control. and the impedance controller is derived so that the closed loop system behaves like the target impedance which can interact with the environment compliantly. Based on singular motion robot representation. the entire robot dynamics is required to be known. however. Yoshikawa (2000) surveyed the force control for robot manipulators. Gonzalez and Widmann (1995) presented a hybrid impedance control scheme which uses force commands to replace desired trajectory. Slotine and Li (1987) extended the adaptive free motion control to the constrained manipulators. Carelli and Kelly (1991) designed an adaptive position/force controller for constrained robots to achieve global stability results. Kelly et al. Lu and Meng (1991b) presented a concept of target-impedance reference trajectories to deal with the problems of imperfect sensor feedback and uncertain robot parameters. Colbaugh et al. several studies of the impedance control have been proposed. Following the work of Hogan (1985). Anderson and Spong (1988) combined the impedance control with the hybrid control. In Hogan’s design. Mills and Liu (1991) proposed an impedance control method to control the generalized contact force and position.1 Introduction The impedance control of robot manipulators is to maintain a desired dynamic relationship between the end-effector and the environment where a second order mass-spring-damper system is used to specify the target behavior. In practical applications. It gives a unified approach for controlling the robot in both free space and constrained motion phases.Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 5. (1991) 129 . Under this circumstance. Goldenberg (1988) used feedback and feedforward compensation for both force and impedance control. (1987) suggested two adaptive impedance controllers to reduce model uncertainties.

Section 5. Section 5. Most of the existing adaptive impedance designs require computation of the regressor matrix.4 gives the regressor–free adaptive impedance controller based on FAT with rigorous proof of closed loop stability. Zhen and Goldenberg (1995) designed an adaptive impedance controller without requiring measurements or estimates of acceleration.3 presents regressor-based adaptive impedance control designs. Section 5. q)q + g (q) = τ −J T Fext a (1) where J a (q) ∈ℜ n × n is the Jacobian matrix. Let x ∈ℜ n be the position vector of the end-effector in the Cartesian space and we may rewrite equation (1) as ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x. al.2 Impedance Control and Adaptive Impedance Control The dynamics of an n-link rigid robot interacting with the environment can be described by (3. Using the camera-in-hand.5 considers the case of inclusion of actuator dynamics. Since joint acceleration is difficult to measure precisely. and Fext ∈ℜ is the external force exerted by the end-effector on the environment which is assumed to be measured precisely by a wrist force sensor. Mut et. x) = J a T [C(q. 5. Simulation cases are also presented for verifying the effectiveness of the scheme introduced.130 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots proposed a direct adaptive impedance control scheme without the knowledge of the structure or the parameters of the robot dynamics. It is often more convenient to describe the dynamics of the robot in the Cartesian space when interacting with the environment. which is assumed to be n nonsingular. q) − D(q)J a 1J a ]J a 1 (2a) (2b) g x (x) = − J a T g (q) . x)x + g x (x) = J −T τ − Fext x a where − D x (x) = J −T D(q)J a 1 a − − ɺ − ɺ ɺ C x (x. This chapter is organized as following: Section 5. In this chapter.3-1) as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.2 reviews the traditional impedance control and adaptive impedance control strategies. we would like to introduce an adaptive impedance controller based on FAT without using the regressor matrix (Chien and Huang 2004). (2000) proposed an adaptive impedance tracking controller with visual feedback.

in the free space tracking phase of the operation. the system trajectory converges to the desired trajectory asymptotically. On the other hand. we may have . The impedance controller drives the robot to follow the dynamics of the reference model in both the free space tracking and constrained motion phases without any switching activity. Equation (3) implies that. and stiffness.5. Substituting (5) into (2) and after some straightforward manipulations. in the constrained motion phase. Since all quantities in equation (2) are known. respectively. we may design the impedance controller as below such that the closed loop system behaves like the target dynamics shown in (3) ɺ τ = J T (Fext + C x x + g x ) a ɺ ɺ + J T D x {ɺɺ d − M i−1[B i (x − x d ) + K i (x − x d ) + Fext ]} x a (4) where the terms in the first parenthesis is to cancel the corresponding dynamics in the robot model. Suppose some of the system parameters are not available and the above impedance controller cannot be realized.e. i.2 Impedance Control and Adaptive Impedance Control 131 In the traditional impedance control. we may regard the impedance controller as a model reference controller and the target impedance plays the role of the reference model. while the rest of the terms are for completing the target impedance in (3). all system parameters are given and a controller is designed so that the closed-loop system behaves like the target impedance ɺ ɺ M i (ɺɺ − ɺɺ d ) + B i (x − x d ) + K i (x − x d ) = −Fext x x n n×n n×n (3) where x d ∈ℜ is the desired trajectory. damping. and M i ∈ℜ . equation (3) represents a stable 2nd order LTI system driven by the external force. An adaptive controller can thus be designed by referring (4) as ˆ ɺ ˆ τ = J T (Fext + C x x + g x ) a ˆ x ɺ ɺ + J T D x {ɺɺ d − M i−1[B i (x − x d ) + K i (x − x d ) + Fext ]} a (5) where quantities with hats are respective estimates. It is obvious that by plugging (4) into (2). the closed loop system becomes exactly the target impedance (3). Conceptually. Fext = 0. B i ∈ℜ . and K i ∈ℜ n × n are diagonal matrices representing the desired apparent inertia.

the time derivative of V can be computed to be 1 ɺ ɺ ˆ ɶx ˆ x V = − x T Qx − p T [(D −1Y ) T B T Px + Γp x ] + x T PB x M i−1Fext x 2 (11) In the free space tracking phase. Along the trajectory of (9). a Lyapunov-like function candidate can be selected as ɶ V ( x. ɺɺ)p x − M i−1Fext ɺ ɺ x ɶ e (8) ɺ Denote x = [e T e T ]T ∈ℜ 2 n and then equation (8) is rewritten as ˆx ɶ ɺ x = A x x − B x (D −1Yp x − M i−1Fext ) where A x =  (9)  0n× n −1 −M i K i  −M i−1B i  In  0 n × n  ∈ℜ 2 n × 2 n and B x =  ∈ℜ 2 n × n .e. i. C x = C x − C x and g x = g x − g x . p ) = 1 T 1 ɶx ɶ x Px + p T Γp x 2 2 (10) where Γ ∈ℜ r × r is a positive definite matrix and P = P T ∈ℜ 2 n × 2 n is a T positive definite solution to the Lyapunov equation A x P + PA x = −Q for a T 2n × 2 n given positive definite matrix Q = Q ∈ℜ . Fext = 0 . the external force is zero. then (6) can be further written as ˆx ɶ x ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺɺ + M i−1B i e + M i−1K i e = − D −1 (D xɺɺ + C x x + g x ) − M i−1Fext ɺ e (7) Represent the right side of (7) into a linearly parameterized regressor form to have ˆx ɺɺ + M i−1B i e + M i−1K i e = − D −1Y(x.132 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots ɺ ɺ M i (ɺɺ − ɺɺ d ) + B i (x − x d ) + K i (x − x d ) x x −1 ˆ ˆ ɺ ˆ x ˆ = M i D x [(D x − D x )ɺɺ + (C x − C x )x + (g x − g x )] − Fext (6) ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ Define D x = D x − D x . x. To In    ˆ design an update law for p x to ensure closed loop stability. and the selection of the update law ɺ ˆx ˆ p x = − Γ −1 (D −1Y ) T B T Px x (12) .

we may represent (17) into −1 (17) ˆx ɶ ɺ x = A x x − B x D −1Yp x (18) Select the same Lyapunov-like function candidate in (10). 2 2n (13) 2n ɶ Hence. therefore. A possible modification to the controller (5) is to include an additional term as ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ x ɺ ɺ τ = J T (Fext + C x x + g x ) + J T D x {ɺɺ d − M i−1[B i (x − x d ) a a + K i (x − x d ) − Fext ]} + J T τ1 a where τ1 is to be designed.2 Impedance Control and Adaptive Impedance Control 133 gives the result 1 ɺ V = − x T Qx ≤ 0 . the selection of the update law in (12) will give the result 1 ɺ V = − x T Qx + x T PB x M i−1Fext 2 (14) Therefore. by Barbalat’s lemma we may conclude asymptotic convergence of x. x. i. in the constrained motion phase. It is also very easy to have x ∈ L2 . ɺɺ)p x Similar to (9). we may not conclude any stability property for the system states. This further implies asymptotic convergence of the tracking error e in the free space tracking phase.e. and then we may have 1 ɺ ɺ ɶx ˆ x ˆ V = − x T Qx − p T [(D −1Y) T B T Px + Γp x ] x 2 (19) . we have x ∈ L∞ and p x ∈ Lr . However. then (16) becomes ˆx ɶ x ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺɺ + M i−1B i e + M i−1K i e = − D −1 (D x ɺɺ + C x x + g x ) ɺ e ˆx ɺ x ɶ = − D −1Y (x. ∞ 2n ɺ and x ∈ L∞ . Fext ≠ 0 .5. Substituting (15) into (2) and we may have (15) ɺ ɺ M i (ɺɺ − ɺɺ d ) + B i (x − x d ) + K i (x − x d ) x x ˆx ˆ ˆx ɺ ˆ = M i D −1[(D x − D x )ɺɺ + (C x − C x )x + (g x − g x )] − Fext + M i D −1τ1 (16) x ˆ ˆ Let τ 1 = D x M i Fext .

However. we need to feedback the acceleration in the Cartesian space for the calculation of the ˆ regressor. the modified controller (15) can only ensure convergence of the closed loop system to the dynamics ɺ ɺ M i (ɺɺ − ɺɺ d ) + B i (x − x d ) + K i ( x − x d ) = 0 x x (20) if all parameters converge to their exact values.2-3) as desired. and some projection technique should be applied.2 to the adaptive impedance control does not ensure convergence of the closed loop system to the target impedance. the target impedance. the closed loop system will converge to the target impedance once the parameters go to their actual values. the design is free from the feedback of acceleration information and free from the singularity problem in parameter estimations. then the new target impedance (1a) converges to (5. Meanwhile.2-3).3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design In the previous section. according to (16). the dynamics of x will also converge to the dynamics of xi in (1b).3. In this section. Instead of (5. Similar to the result in section 4. In addition. because x converges to xi. the update law also suffers the singularity problem of D x . Remark 1: To realize the control law (15) and update law (12).3 to facilitate the design of the adaptive impedance controller. i. Therefore.134 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots With the selection of the update law in (12). it should be noted that. 5.. we consider a new target impedance ɺ ɺ M i (ɺɺ i − ɺɺ d ) + B i (x i − x d ) + K i (x i − x d ) = − Fext x x where x i ∈ℜ is the state vector of the reference model n (1a) ɺ ɺ M i ɺɺ i + B i x i + K i x i = M i ɺɺ d + B i x d + K i x d − Fext x x (1b) If an adaptive controller can be designed such that x → x i asymptotically. It is obvious that (20) is different from the target impedance in (3). the system is stable for both the free space tracking and constrained motion phases. equation (19) becomes (13). . In addition.e. we would like to apply Slotine and Li’s approach introduced in section 4. direct extension of the approach in section 4.

Rewrite the robot model (5. To find the update law. v )p x (5) It is noted that the regressor matrix here is not a function of Cartesian space accelerations. v. The adaptive control law is designed as ˆ ɺ ˆ τ = J T (g x + D x v + C x v + Fext − K d s) a ˆ Then the closed loop system can be represented in the form (3) ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ D xs + C x s + K d s = − D x v − C x v − g x (4) Represent the right side of (4) into a linearly parameterized regressor form to have ɺ ɺ ɺ ɶ D xs + C x s + K d s = − Y( x.. p x ) = s T D x s + p T Γ p x 2 2 Its time derivative along the trajectory of (5) can be derived as (6) ɺ ɶx ɺ ˆ V = −s T K d s − p T (Γp x + Y T s) Hence. v. λ2 .5.….3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 135 ɺ Define an error vector s = e + Λe where e = x − x i is the state error in the Cartesian space and Λ = diag ( λ1 . the update law is selected as (7) ɺ ˆ ɺ ɺ p x = − Γ −1Y T (x. (9) It is very easy to prove by Barbalat’s lemma that s → 0 as t → ∞ . n. define the Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 1 ɶ ɶx ɶ V ( x.. and hence x → x i as t → ∞ . x. x. λn ) with λi > 0 for all i =1.. This further implies the dynamics of x will converge to the .. v)s and (7) becomes (8) ɺ V = −s T K d s ≤ 0.2-2) into the form ɺ ɺ D x s + C x s + g x + D x v + C x v = J − T τ − Fext a (2) ɺ where v = x i − Λe.

5.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design In this section. let us apply the function approximation representation T D x = WD x Z D x + ε D x T C x = WC x Z C x + ε C x T g x = Wg x z g x + ε g x (4) where WD x ∈ℜ n β D × n . and ˆ g x → g x . and hence the closed loop system will converge to the target impedance in (5. However. then (2) becomes ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = 0 (3) and with proper selection of Kd we may have asymptotic convergence of s which further implies convergence of the closed loop system to the target impedance. the regressor matrix is still needed in the update law. a FAT-based adaptive impedance controller is designed without requiring the knowledge of the regressor.136 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots reference model in (1b). WC x ∈ℜ n 2β C × n and Wg x ∈ℜ g are weighting 2 n β ×1 matrices.3-4) again (1) ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ D xs + C x s + K d s = − D x v − C x v − g x (2) ˆ ˆ If we may design appropriate update laws such that D x → D x . Let us consider the controller (5. Z C x ∈ℜ n β C × n and z g x ∈ℜ g are matrices of 2 2 nβ × n . This solves one of the difficulties encountered in previous section. Remark 2: To implement the control (3) and update law (8).2-3). we do not need the information of Cartesian space accelerations and there is no singularity problem in the inertia matrix estimation. C x → C x . ZDx ∈ℜn β D ×n . ˆ ɺ ˆ τ = J T (g x + D x v + C x v + Fext − K d s) a ˆ and the closed loop dynamics (5.3-3). To design the update laws without utilizing the regressor matrix.

4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 137 basis functions. the corresponding estimates can also be represented as ˆ ˆT D x = WD x Z D x ˆ ˆT C x = WC x Z C x ˆT ˆ g x = Wg x z g x ˆ ˆ ˆ where WD x . ε C x . Using the same set of basis functions. Since W(⋅) are constant vectors. The number β (⋅) represents the number of basis functions used.5. equation (2) becomes ɶT ɶT ɺ ɺ ɶT D xs + C x s + K d s = − WD x Z D x v − WC x Z C x v − Wg x z g x + ε1 (6) (5) ɶ ˆ x where W(⋅) = W(⋅) − W(⋅) and ε1 = ε1 (ε D x . their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of the Lyapunov-like function. Q C x ∈ℜ n β C × n β C and Q g x ∈ℜ g are positive definite weighting matrices. ɺɺ i ) ∈ℜ n is a lumped vector of approximation errors. and ε (⋅) are approximation error matrices. WD x . WC x and Wg x . Let us consider a candidate 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s. s. Wg x ) = s T D x s 2 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + Tr ( WD x Q D x WD x + WC x Q C x WC x + Wg x Q g x Wg x ) 2 2 2 2 2 (7) g where Q D x ∈ℜ n β D × n β D . The time derivative of V along the trajectory of (6) can be computed as nβ × nβ ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T ε1 − Tr[ WD x ( Z D x vs T + Q D x WD x ) ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ + WC x (Z C x vs T + Q C x WC x ) + Wg x ( z g x s T + Q g x Wg x )] Choosing the update laws to be (8) ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD x = −Q D1x (Z D x vs T + σ D x WD x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC x = −Q C1x (Z C x vs T + σ C x WC x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg x = −Q g 1 ( z g x s T + σ g x Wg x ) x (9) . ε g x . With these representations. WC x . WC x and Wg x are respectively the estimates of WD x .

then equation (8) becomes ɺ ɶT ˆ V = −s T K d s + s T ε1 + σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ +σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) It can further be derived to (10) 1 2 ɺ ɶ T ɶ V ≤ −α V + {[αλmax (D x ) − λmin (K d )] s + [αλmax (Q D x ) − σ D x ]Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + [αλmax (Q C x ) − σ C x ]Tr ( WC x WC x ) + [αλmax (Q g x ) − σ g x ]Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + ε1 T T T + [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x )]} λmin (K d ) 2 By selecting α ≤ min  we may have  λmin (K d )  . V < 0 whenever V> τ ≥ t0 sup ε1 (τ ) 2 2αλmin (K d ) + 1 T [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2α T T +σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x )] ɶ ɶ ɶ and we have proved that s. σ Cx . differential inequality (11) implies V (t ) ≤ e −α (t − t 0 )V (t 0 ) + + 1 2αλmin (K d ) t 0 <τ < t sup ε1 (τ ) 2 1 T T T [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x )] 2α .  λmax (D x ) λmax (Q D x ) λmax (Q C x ) λmax (Q g x )  .138 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots where σ (⋅) are positive constants. σ gx ɺ V ≤ −α V + ε1 1 T + [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2 λmin (K d ) 2 (11) 2 T T + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x )] ɺ Therefore. WD x . σ Dx . On the other hand. WC x and Wg x are uniformly ultimately bounded.

n are the ɺ i-th element of the vector s. a new controller can be constructed as ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ τ = J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s + τ robust ) a (12) where τ robust is the robust term to be designed. the σ-modification terms in (9) can be T n n ɺ eliminated and (10) becomes V = −s K d s which implies s ∈ L∞ ∩ L2 . i =1.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 139 By the relationship from (7) as 1 2 ɶT ɶ V ≥ [ λmin (D x ) s + λmin (Q D x )Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + λmin (Q C x )Tr ( WC x WC x ) + λmin (Q g x )Tr ( Wg x Wg x )] we may derive the bound for s as s(t ) ≤ + 2V (t 0 ) − 2 (t − t 0 ) 1 e + sup ε1 (τ ) λmin (D x ) αλmin (D x ) λmin (K d ) t0 <τ < t 1 α αλmin (D x ) T T [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) 1 )] 2 +σ T g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x Remark 3: If a sufficient number of basis functions are employed in the function approximation so that ε1 ≈ 0 . where si. It is ɺ straightforward to prove s to be uniformly bounded. and asymptotic convergence of s can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. Let us consider the Lyapunov function candidate (7) and the update law (9) again but with σ (⋅) = 0 . Remark 4: Suppose ε1 cannot be ignored and there exist a positive number δ such that ε 1 ≤ δ for all t ≥ 0 .…. we may have V ≤ 0 . instead of (1). and hence convergence of s can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. .5. The time derivative of V can be computed as ɺ V ≤ −s T K d s + δ s + s T τ robust By picking τ robust = −δ [sgn( s1 ) ⋯ sgn( s n )]T . then.

adaptive laws and implementation issues. 0.4-1) + Fext − K d s) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ ɺ ɺ p x = − Γ −1 Y T ( x . Two columns are arranged to present the regressor based and regressorfree designs respectively according to their controller forms. The endpoint starts from x(0) = x i (0) = [0. x) x + g x ( x) = J a T τ − Fext (5. the external force vector becomes Fext = [ f ext 0]T .140 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots Remark 5: The regressor-free adaptive design introduced in this section is also free from the acceleration information and the singularity problem in inertia matrix estimation. x .0m) in 10 seconds without knowing its precise model. i.5(kg). Table 5. Hence.8m. m1 =m2 =0. lc1 =lc2 =0.3-4) is considered in this example to verify the efficacy of the strategy developed in this section by computer simulation.8m.3-8) ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD x = −Q D1x (Z D x vs T + σ D x WD x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC x = −Q C1x (Z C x vs T + σ C x WC x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg x = −Q g 1 (z g x s T + σ g x Wg x ) x (5. and xw =0. In addition. the closed loop system will converge to the actual target impedance provided all parameters are properly estimated. v ) s (5. Since the surface is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0.1 Summary of adaptive impedance control for RR Rigid robot interacting with environment − ɺ ɺ D x ( x)ɺɺ + C x ( x. 1. v . x is the coordinate of the end-point in the X direction. l1 =l2 =0.2-2a) x Regressor-based Regressor-free τ= Controller JT a ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ (g x + D x v + C x v (5. kw =5000N/m is the environmental stiffness.95m is the position of the surface.1.1: The 2-DOF planar robot (3.2m radius circle centered at (0. and I1 =I2 =0.375(m). Table 5.8m 0.75m 0 0]T to track a 0. Actual values of system parameters are the same as those in example 4.4-9) Does not need regressor matrix Realization Need regressor matrix Example 5.0234(kg-m2).e.75(m).1 summarizes the adaptive impedance control laws derived in this section. different phases of . The constraint surface is smooth and can be modeled as a linear spring (Spong and Vidyasagr 1989) fext =kw(x-xw) where fext is the force acting on the surface.3-3) ˆ ɺ ˆ τ = J T (g x + D x v + C x v a ˆ + Fext − K d s) (5.8m).

Therefore.7. WD and WC are in ℜ 44 × 2 .5. It can be seen that after some transient response the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory in the free . Mi =   . and Λ =  0 20 .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C x12 (0) = w C x 21 (0) = [−0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w g x1 (0) = w g x 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 . and hence the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 . The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be ˆ w Dx11 (0) = [0.1I 44 .1 to 5.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w Dx12 (0) = w Dx 21 (0) = [−0.5     The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the approximation ˆ ˆ ˆ of entries in D x .4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 141 operations can be observed. Figure 5. The simulation results are shown in Figure 5.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w Dx 22 (0) = [0.1I 44 and Q g 1 = 50I 22 . B i =  0 100 and K i =  0 1500  0 0.  0 50   Parameter matrices in the target impedance are selected as 0   0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x 22 (0) = [0. we assume that the approximation error can be neglected.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x11 (0) = [0. The gain matrices in the update laws (9) are designed as − − Q −1x = 0. C x and g x . D x In this simulation.1 shows the robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space.5 0  100 0  1500 . The controller in (1) is applied with the gain matrices 50 0   20 0  Kd =   . Q C1x = 0. and Wg 22 × 2 is in ℜ .

75 0. the endpoint follows the desired trajectory with very small tracking error regardless of the system uncertainties . The joint space trajectory in the constraint motion phase is smooth.8 0. Figure 5. The transient states converge very fast without unwanted oscillations. the endpoint contacts with the constraint surface at xw =0. 1.3.95(m) compliantly.6 0.7 are the performance of function approximation. Afterwards. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law. When entering the free space again. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 5. they still remain bounded as desired. Afterwards.75 0.142 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots space nicely.2 1.85 0.9 0.05 1 Y 0. the endpoint contacts with the constraint surface compliantly.4.2 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance.5 to 5.9 0.95 0.65 0.85 0. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values.1 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space.8 X 0.15 1.1 1. the endpoint follows the desired trajectory with very small tracking error regardless of the system uncertainties. When entering the free space again. The external forces exerted on the endpoint during the constraint motion phase are shown in Figure 5. After some transient the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory in the free space nicely.7 0. Figure 5.95 1 Figure 5.

6 0.6 1.4 0. The transient is very fast and the constraint motion phase is smooth 20 control input 1 (N.8 0.6 0.2 The joint space tracking performance.3 The control efforts for both joints are all reasonable .4 0.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 143 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1.m) −10 −20 −30 −40 −50 −60 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 5.m) 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 10 0 control input 2 (N.5.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.2 1 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 5.

8 1.5 1 0.5 3 1 Dx(21) Dx(22) 2.5 3.5 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 5.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 1.5 Approximation of Dx .6 Dx(11) Dx(12) 1 0.5 2 1.5 0.5 0 −0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 5.5 0 −0.5 0.144 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 80 external force fx (N) 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1 external force fy (N) 0.4 Time histories of the external forces in the Cartesian space 0.4 0.5 0.2 0 0 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 −0.

5.2 0 −0.5 −1 −1.6 Approximation of Cx 6 5 4 gx(1) 3 2 1 0 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 14 12 10 gx(2) 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 5.4 −0.5 0 −0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 2 1.4 Cx(11) 1 0.2 −0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 1 0 −1 −2 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 5.8 0.6 0.5 1 Cx(21) 3 2 Cx(22) 0.6 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0 −0.7 Approximation of gx .4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 145 0.5 Cx(12) 0.

C x and g x are known. and K c ∈ℜ is a positive ɺ definite matrix.3-2). Finally. With proper selection of Kd. we may have asymptotic convergence of s which further implies convergence of the closed loop system to the target impedance. equation (1a) can be represented in the Cartesian space as ɺ ɺ D x s + C x s + g x + D x v + C x v = J −T Hi − Fext a (2) Suppose D x . we will derive a regressor-free adaptive controller for the impedance control of system (1).146 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 5. we may have Le i + K ce i = 0. Then the closed loop dynamics becomes ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = 0. Then. a regressor-based adaptive controller is designed for (1) under the assumption that the system parameters contain uncertainties. we firstly consider the case when all parameters in (1) are known and a controller is developed so that the closed loop system behaves like the target impedance in (5. With the same definitions of s and v in (5. it is easy to prove that i → i d as t → ∞ with proper selection of gain matrix K c . i d ∈ℜ is the desired current which is n× n equivalent to the perfect current trajectory (3).5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics When the actuator dynamics is included.2-3). equation (5.2-1) has to be modified to ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. Substituting (4) into (1b). q)q + g(q) = Hi − J T Fext a ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u (1a) (1b) In this section. To make the actual current i converge to the perfect current in (3). and we may design a proper control law such that motor armature current i follows the trajectory ɺ i = H −1J T (g x + D x v + C x v − K d s + Fext ) a (3) where K d is a positive definite matrix. let us select the control input in (1b) as ɺ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K bq − K c e i n (4) where e i = i − i d is the current error. . Therefore.

x. if all parameters in the rigid-link electrically-driven robot (1) are available. The output tracking loop dynamics can be obtained from (2) and (5) as ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ D xs + C x s + K d s = − D x v − C x v − g x + J −T H (i − i d ) a − ɺ ɺ ɶ = − Y(x. v. p x .5. e i .1 Regressor-based adaptive controller Consider the robot model in (2) and (1b). Let us modify (3) to ˆ ɺ ˆ i d = H −1J T (g x + D x v + C x v − K d s + Fext ) a ˆ ɺ ɺ ˆ = H −1J T [ Y ( x. Therefore. v )p x − K d s + Fext ] a (5) where quantities with hats are respectively the estimated values. and update law is selected to ɺ ˆ have p x → p x . p i ) = s T D xs + e T Le i + p T Γp x + Tr (p T Γ ip i ) i 2 2 2 (9) (8) . and regressor matrix Y is defined similarly to the one in (5. controller (4) and perfect current trajectory (3) are not realizable.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 147 In summary. 5. The current tracking loop dynamics b with the controller in (7) can be represented in the form ɺ ɶi Le i + K ce i = −p T φ ɶ ˆ where p i = p i − p i . A modified controller from (4) is designed as ˆɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K bq − K c e i ˆi = p T φ − K ce i (7) ɺ ˆ where φ = [ɺT i T q T ]T ∈ℜ 3n and p i is an estimate of the parametric id matrix p i = [LT R T K T ]T ∈ℜ 3n × n . v. L. g x . then (6) reduces to D xs + C x s + K d s = 0.5. x. the controller (4) can give asymptotic convergence of the closed loop system behavior to the target impedance. R and K b are uncertain matrices.2-8). and convergence of the system dynamics to the target impedance can be obtained. v )p x + J a T H(i − i d ) (6) If controller u can be designed such that i → i d . A Lyapunov-like function candidate can be found as 1 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶx ɶ ɶi ɶ V (s. C x . and assume that D x .

C x .5. Hence. . It can also be proved that s and e i are uniformly bounded. Along the where Γ ∈ℜ r × r and Γ i ∈ℜ trajectories of (6) and (8). Remark 6: Realization of controller (7) and update laws in (11) require the time ɺ derivative of id in (5) which implies the needs for ɺɺ . R and Kb are not available. Equation (12) implies that s and ei are uniformly bounded and ɺ ɺ square integrable. some more feasible controllers are to be developed.2 Regressor-free adaptive controller Suppose D x . Besides. Availability x ɺ of all of these quantities is impractical in general. L. asymptotic convergence in the current tracking loop and output tracking loop can be concluded from Barbalat’s lemma. 5. Fext and Y . and we would like to design a regressor-free adaptive controller so that the closed-loop dynamics converges to the target impedance. therefore. realization of the controller designed in this section has to be independent to the acceleration feedback and time derivatives of the external force. g x . the time derivative of V is computed as ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T J −T He i − e T K ce i a i T T T ɺ ɺ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ −p x (Γp x + Y s) − Tr[p i (Γ ip i + φe T )] i The update laws are selected as (10) ɺ ˆ p x = − Γ −1Y T s ɺ ˆ p i = − Γ i−1φeT i and (10) becomes (11) ɺ V = −[s T s e T ]Q   ≤ 0 i e i  (12) 1   − J −T H  a  Kd 2 where Q =   is positive definite by proper selection 1 −T − J H Kc   2 a    of Kd and Kc.148 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 3n × 3n are positive definite matrices.

let us apply the function approximation representation T D x = WD x Z D x + ε D x T C x = WC x Z C x + ε C x T g x = Wg x z g x + ε g x (17a) (17b) (17c) (17d) nβ × n nβ × n f = WfT z f + ε f 2 2 where WD x ∈ℜ n β D × n . we may have i → i d . According to (7). traditional adaptive controllers are not directly applicable. i. we may have the dynamics in the current tracking loop ˆ ɺ Le i + K ce i = f − f (16) ˆ If an appropriate update law for f can be selected.5. we may obtain the output tracking loop dynamics − ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ D x s + C x s + K d s = − D x v − C x v − g x + J a T H (i − i d ) (13) (14) If controller u can be designed such that i → i d . and there are some update ˆ ˆ ˆ laws to have D x → D x . controller (4) and perfect current trajectory (3) are not realizable.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 149 Consider the robot model in (2) and (1b) again. Since D x . Wg x ∈ℜ g and Wf ∈ℜ f 2 n β ×1 are weighting matrices. WC x ∈ℜ2 n β C × n . let us select the control input in (1b) as ˆ u = f − K ce i (15) ɺ ˆ ɺ ɺ where f is an estimate of f (ɺ d . The perfect current trajectory can be modified similar to (5) as ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ i d = H −1J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s) a Substituting (13) into (2). C x . Since most robot parameters are unavailable. g x and f are functions of time. ZDx ∈ℜn β D ×n . and convergence of the system dynamics to the target impedance can be obtained. Substituting this control i law into (1b). then (14) reduces to ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = 0. and ε (⋅) are approximation error . q ) = Li d + Ri + K bq . Z C x ∈ℜ n β C × n . z g x ∈ℜ g and n β ×1 z f ∈ℜ f are matrices of basis functions. To design the update laws. C x → C x and g x → g x .

ε g . ɺɺ i ) and ε 2 = ε 2 (ε f . then equation (14) and (16) become − ɶT ɺ ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = J a T H (i − i d ) − WD x Z D x v ɶT ɶT − WC Z C v − Wg z g + ε1 x x x x (18a) (18b) ɶ ɺ Le i + K c e i = − WfT z f + ε 2 x where ε1 = ε1 (ε D . e i . Wf ) = s T D xs + eT Le i + Tr ( WD x Q D x WD x i 2 2 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ + WC x Q C x WC x + Wg x Q g x Wg x + WfT Q f Wf ) (19) g The matrices Q D x ∈ℜ n β D × n β D . WD x . Using the same set of basis functions. Let us consider a candidate 1 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶT ɶ V (s.150 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots matrices. the corresponding estimates can also be represented as ˆ ˆT D x = WD x Z D x ˆ ˆT C x = WC x Z C x ˆT ˆ g x = Wg x z g x (17e) (17f) (17g) (17h) ˆ ˆ f = WfT z f ɶ ˆ Define W(⋅) = W(⋅) − W(⋅) . s. Q g x ∈ℜ g and nβ f × nβ f Q f ∈ℜ are all positive definite. ε C . their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of the Lyapunov-like function. Q C x ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . The time derivative of V along the trajectory of (18) can be computed as 2 2 2 2 nβ × nβ − ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T J a T He i − e T K c e i + s T ε1 + e T ε 2 i i ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ ɺ −Tr[ WD x (Z D x vs T + Q D x WD x ) + WC x (Z C x vs T + Q C x WC x ) ɺ ɺ ˆ ˆ ɶT ɶ + Wg x (z g x s T + Q g x Wg x ) + WfT (z f e T + Q f Wf )] i (20) . Wg x . e i ) are lumped approximation errors. Since W(⋅) are constant matrices. The number β (⋅) represents the number of basis functions used. WC x .

Owing to the existence of ε1 and ε 2 in (22). and the inequalities L  2 where A =  D x  0 −[s T s e T ]Q   + [s T i e i  1 ≤ −  λmin (Q) 2   ε1  eT ]   i ε 2  2 s 1 e  − λ (Q) min  i  ε1  ε   2 2     . Let us proceed by considering the upper bound of V in (19) as 1 V ≤ λmax ( A ) 2 s 1 ɶT ɶ e  + 2 [ λmax (Q D x )Tr ( WD x WD x )  i ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + λmax (Q C x )Tr ( WC x WC x ) + λmax (Q g x )Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) ɶ ɶ + λmax (Q f )Tr ( WfT Wf )] 0 .5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 151 The update laws can thus be selected as ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD x = −Q D1x (Z D x vs T + σ D x WD x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC x = −Q C1x ( Z C x vs T + σ C x WC x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg x = −Q g 1 (z g x s T + σ g x Wg x ) x ɺ ˆ ˆ Wf = −Q f−1 (z f eT + σ f Wf ) i and (20) becomes (21a) (21b) (21c) (21d) ɺ V = −[s T s  ε1  ɶT ˆ e T ]Q   + [s T e T ]   + σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) i i ei  ε2    T ˆ ɶ ɶT ˆ ɶ ˆ +σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf ) (22) 1   − J −T H  a  Kd 2 where Q =   is positive definite by proper selection of 1 −T − J H Kc   2 a    ɺ Kd and Kc.5. definiteness of V cannot be determined.

V < 0 can be concluded whenever V>  ε1 (τ )  1 T sup   + 2α [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2αλmin (Q) τ ≥ t 0 ε 2 (τ ) 1 (24) 2 T T +σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ Hence. σ Dx . we may further have ɺ V ≤ −α V +  ε1  1 T ε  + 2 [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2 λmin (Q )  2  1 (23) 2 T T + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] ɺ So.152 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 1 1 ɶ ⋅ ˆ ɶ ⋅ ɶ Tr ( W(T) W(⋅) ) ≤ Tr ( W(T) W(⋅) ) − Tr ( W(T) W(⋅) ) ⋅ 2 2 then we may rewrite (22) into 1 ɺ V ≤ −α V + [αλmax ( A ) − λmin (Q)] 2 s 1 ɶT ɶ e  + 2 {[αλmax (Q D x ) − σ D x ]Tr ( WD x WD x )  i T ɶ ɶ C WC ) + [αλmax (Q g ) − σ g ]Tr ( Wg Wg ) ɶT ɶ +[αλmax (Q C x ) − σ C x ]Tr ( W x x x x x x ɶ ɶ +[αλmax (Q f ) − σ f ]Tr ( WfT Wf )} +  ε1  1 T + {σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2 λmin (Q) ε 2  2   1 2 2 T T +σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )} where α is selected to satisfy α ≤ min   λmin (Q)  . WD x . On the other hand. (23) also implies . Wg x and Wf are uniformly ultimately bounded. WC x . we have proved that s. e i . σf With this selection. σ Cx .  λmax ( A) λmax (Q D x ) λmax (Q C x ) λmax (Q g x ) λmax (Q f )  . σ gx .

as a result. we have the bound for λmin ( A) s e  ≤  i 2V (t 0 ) − 2 (t − t 0 ) 1 e + sup λmin ( A ) 2αλmin ( A) λmin (Q) t 0 <τ < t + 1 2αλmin ( A ) α  ε1 (τ )  ε (τ )  2  T T [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) 1 T + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2 Remark 7: If the number of basis functions is chosen to be sufficiently large such that ε1 ≈ 0 and ε 2 ≈ 0 . then (22) becomes ɺ V = −[s T s e T ]Q   ≤ 0 i e i  This implies that s and ei are uniformly bounded and square integrable.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 153 V (t ) ≤ e + −α ( t − t 0 )  ε1 (τ )  V (t 0 ) + sup  2αλmin (Q) t 0 <τ < t ε 2 (τ )  1 2 1 T T [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) 2α (25) T +σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] Consider the lower bound of V in (19) as 1 V ≥ λmin (A) 2 s 1 ɶT ɶ e  + 2 [λmin (QDx )Tr (WDx WDx ) i  2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ +λmin (QCx )Tr(WCx WCx ) + λmin (Qg x )Tr(Wg x Wg x ) + λmin (Qf )Tr(WfT Wf )] This implies   ≤ the error signal vector as s e i  2V . It is also ɺ ɺ easy to prove that s and e i are uniformly bounded.5. Together with (25). asymptotic .

joint accelerations.154 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots convergence of s and ei can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. i=1. The time derivative of V can be computed as ɺ V = −[s T s e T ] Q   + δ 1 s + δ 2 e i + s T τ robust 1 + e T τ robust 2 i i e i  By picking τ robust 1 = −δ 1[sgn( s1 ) ⋯ sgn( s n )]T . It should be noted that. This further implies that i → i d and q → q d .n is the k-th element of the vector ei. and asymptotic convergence of the state error can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. Let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate (19) and the update law (21) without σ-modification again. even though the robot model contains uncertainties. δ 2 > 0 such that ε1 ≤ δ 1 and ε 2 ≤ δ 2 for all t ≥ 0 . and the knowledge of the joint acceleration as well as the time derivative of the external force. i. and the control input (15) are modified to be ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ i d = H −1J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s + τ robust 1 ) a ˆ u = f − K c e i + τ robust 2 where τ robust 1 and τ robust 2 are robust terms to be designed. . or time derivatives of the external force. we may have V ≤ 0 . k=1.n is the i-th element of the vector s and τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(ei1 ) ⋯ sgn(ein )]T . there exists positive constants δ 1 . where si . To cover the effect of these bounded approximation errors.…. which largely simplified the implementation.e.2. in the actual implementation. the former needs to know the regressor and its derivative. control law (15) and update laws (21) does not need the information of the regressor matrix.…. Remark 8: Suppose ε1 and ε 2 cannot be ignored but their variation bounds are available. the desired current (13). ɺ where eik . Both the regressor-based and regressor-free approaches are listed for comparison. Remark 9: Realization of the desired current (13). The adaptive impedance control of EDRR is summarized in Table 5.

5-13). and we would like to verify the controller developed in this section by computer simulations.5-5). the derivative of the regressor matrix. In order to observe the effect of the actuator dynamics.5-21) Does not need the information for the regressor matrix. (5. x.5-2) Regressor-based Regressor-free Controller ˆ ɺ ˆ i d = H −1J T (g x + D x v + C x v a ˆ − K d s + Fext ) ɺ ɺ ˆ = H −1J T [ Y ( x. and kb1 =kb2 =1(Vol/rad/sec). or the derivative of the external force. v .1 with the inclusion of the actuator dynamics.5.025(H). v )p x a − K d s + Fext ] ˆɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K b q − K c e i ˆi = p T φ − K ce i (5. Example 5.2: Consider the same 2-DOF planar robot in example 5.2m radius circle centered at .5-11) ɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ WD x = −Q −1x (Z D x vs T + σ D x WD x ) D ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC x = −Q C1x (Z C x vs T + σ C x WC x ) ɺ ˆ ˆ Wg x = −Q −1 (z g x s T + σ g x Wg x ) gx ɺ ˆ ˆ Wf = −Q f−1 (z f e T + σ f Wf ) i (5. (5. (5.5(kg). r1 =r2 =1(Ω).2 Summary of adaptive impedance control for EDRR Electrically driven rigid robot interacting with environment 155 ɺ ɺ D x s + C x s + g x + D x v + C x v = J − T Hi − Fext a ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u (5.75(m). L1 = L2 =0.5-7) ˆ ɺ ˆ i d = H −1J T (Fext + g x + D x v a ˆ + C x v − K d s) ˆ u = f − K ce i (5. Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1 =m2 =0. and the derivative of the external force. Realization Issue Need to know the regressor matrix.375(m). lc1 =lc2 =0. the endpoint is required to track a 0. Parameters related to the actuator dynamics are the same with those used in chapter 4 and are given with h1 =h2 =10(N-m/A).0234(kg-m2). the joint accelerations. its derivative. the joint accelerations. l1 =l2 =0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics Table 5.5-1). and I1 =I2 =0.5-15) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p x = − Γ −1Y T s ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1φe T i i i (5.

0m) in 2 seconds which is much faster than the case in example 5.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C x12 (0) = w C x 21 (0) = [−0. Λ =  0 20 and K c =  0 100 .1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w g x1 (0) = w g x 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w f1 (0) = w f 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 .5 0  100 0  1500 .8m. 0.0022 1. while Wg x and Wf are 22 × 2 . B i =  0 100 and K i =  0 1500  0 0.  0 50     The initial value for the desired current can be found by calculation as i d (0) = i (0) = [0..156 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots (0. The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be in ℜ ˆ w Dx11 (0) = [0.e.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x 22 (0) = [0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w Dx 22 (0) = [0. Mi =   . The matrices in the target impedance are picked as 0   0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x11 (0) = [0.75m) initially.5019 0 0]T .5     The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ approximation so that WD x and WC x are in ℜ 44 × 2 .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w Dx12 (0) = w Dx 21 (0) = [−0. The controller gain matrices are selected as 50 0   20 0  100 0  Kd =   . 1.1.8m. i. The initial conditions of the generalized coordinate vector is q(0) = [0.8 0.1]T . the endpoint is still at (0.

and the σ-modification parameters are all zero. The performance in the current tracking loop is very good as shown in Figure 5.9 0. the transient state takes only about 0. Figure 5.8 0. Figure 4. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values.1I 44 .1 1. Figure 4.2 seconds which can be justified from the joint space tracking history in Figure 5.85 0.13 to 4.8 to 5.95 1 Figure 5.9.8 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space .65 0. The simulation results are shown in Figure 5.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 157 The gain matrices in the update laws are selected as − − − Q −1x = 0.75 0.05 1 Y 0. It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges smoothly to the desired trajectory in the free space tracking and contacts compliantly in the constrained motion phase. D x The approximation error is also assumed to be neglected.7 0.16.75 0.85 0. 1.8 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space.12 shows the time histories of the external forces.95 0.16 are the performance of function approximation. Q g 1 = 50I 22 and Q f 1 = 10000I 22 . Although the initial error is quite large.2 1.9 0.10.5.6 0. Q C1x = 0.15 1.1I 44 .8 X 0. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that are presented in Figure 5.11. they still remain bounded as desired.

8 2 Figure 5.4 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 1.2 1 0.8 2 1 actuator current 1 (A) 0 −1 −2 −3 −4 −5 −6 0 0.4 1.10 Tracking in the current tracking loop .6 1.2 0.2 1.6 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.9 Joint space tracking performance 2 actuator current 1 (A) 0 −2 −4 −6 −8 0 0.6 0.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.2 0.6 0.6 1.158 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 Figure 5.4 1.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.6 1.4 1.8 2 1.

11 Control efforts 80 external force fx (N) 60 40 20 0 0 0.4 0.8 2 1 external force fy (N) 0.6 0.5 −1 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 Figure 5.6 0.6 1.4 1.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 10 8 159 control input 1 (vol) 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 0 0.2 1.6 0.12 External force trajectories .4 0.5.6 1.5 0 −0.4 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.8 2 Figure 5.4 1.4 0.2 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.8 2 6 4 control input 2 (vol) 2 0 −2 −4 −6 0 0.

160 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 0.5 2 2 1.5 1 0.5 2 0.5 0 −0.13 Approximation of Dx 3 2 1 3 2 1 Cx(11) 0 −1 −2 −3 0 0.6 1 Dx(11) 0.5 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 3.5 2 0 −5 −4 −6 −10 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1.5 0.5 0.5 2 Figure 5.4 Dx(12) 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 1.5 2 6 4 10 5 2 Cx(21) 0 −2 Cx(22) 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 3 1 2.5 0.2 0 0 −0.5 Dx(21) Dx(22) 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 Cx(12) 0 −1 −2 −3 0 0.14 Approximation of Cx .5 2 Figure 5.

4 1.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.2 0.4 1.8 2 Figure 5.6 1.6 0.4 0.15 Approximation of gx 5 4 3 f(1) 2 1 0 −1 −2 0 0.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 14 12 10 gx(2) 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.4 1.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.2 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 6 5 4 161 gx(1) 3 2 1 0 −1 0 0.6 0.4 0.6 1.8 2 3 2 1 f(2) 0 −1 −2 −3 −4 0 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.8 2 Figure 5.4 1.16 Approximation of f .2 1.5.4 0.6 1.

5.3.6 Conclusions Compliant interaction between the robot and environment is very important in the industrial applications. However. Simulation cases show that the robot can be operated at a much higher speed with good performance for both the free space tracking and compliant motion control. we consider the adaptive impedance control of rigid robots where the impedance control enables the robot to have good performance in the free space tracking phase and to behave like the target impedance in the constrained motion phase. an adaptive impedance control is constructed by following the design introduced in Section 4. a regressorbased impedance controller is derived. but the closed loop system may not converge to the target impedance even when all parameters converge to their actual values. it is not feasible for practical applications.2. Therefore. A regressor-free adaptive impedance controller is thus designed in Section 5.4 which does not need the availability of the additional information required in the previous section. but also the joint accelerations and time derivative of the external force. . implementation of this controller requires the knowledge of not only the regressor matrix and its time derivative. In this chapter. Finally.3.162 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 5. the actuator dynamics is considered in Section 5. In Section 5. In Section 5.

gives a new insight into the control design problem of flexible joint robots and presents an alternative singular perturbation model for controller design. Because these inaccuracies may degrade the performance of the closed-loop system. This innovative approach leads to a controller more robust to the case of load sensor failure. Ott et. For a robot with n links. Dixon et.1 Introduction Most controllers for industrial robots are designed based on the rigid robot assumption. Ge (1996) suggested a robust adaptive controller based on a new singular perturbation model where the motor tracking error was modeled as the fast variables instead of the joint elastic forces. Since the mathematical model is only an approximation of the real system. unmodeled dynamics and external disturbances. A simple composite controller was designed such that the joint elastic forces were stabilized by a fast feedback control and link variables were controlled by a slow control law. Spong (1989. the simplified representation of the system behavior will contain model inaccuracies such as parametric uncertainties. the modeling of the flexible joint robot is far more complex than that of the rigid robot. The tracking quality was improved significantly by the use of the adaptive control law compared to the non-adaptive one. (1999) proposed an adaptive partial state feedback controller for flexible joint robots 163 .Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 6. Therefore. (2000) verified a singular perturbation based adaptive controller for flexible joint robots experimentally. we need to use 2n generalized coordinates to describe its whole dynamic behavior when taking the joint flexibility into account. al. Consideration of the joint flexibility in the controller design is one of the approaches to increase the control performance. al. The inherent highly nonlinear coupling and model inaccuracies make the controller design for a flexible joint robot extremely difficult. 1995) proposed one of the first adaptive controllers for flexible joint robots based on the singular perturbation formulation of the robot dynamics. any practical design should consider their effects.

q)q + g (q) = K (θ − q) (1a) (1b) ɺɺ ɺ Jθ + Bθ + K (θ − q) = τ a Define a transmission torque τ t = K (θ .5 considers the actuator dynamics. Like other adaptive strategies.4 presents regressor-free adaptive controller. Similar to most backstepping designs. the derivation is too complex to robots with more joints. we would like to study the FAT-based adaptive controller designs for n-link flexible-joint robots. Kozlowski and Sauer (1999a. 1999b) suggested an adaptive controller to have semi-global convergence to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the equilibrium point in the presence of bounded disturbances. This chapter is organized as following: in Section 6.164 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots based on the backstepping design with the knowledge of the regression matrix. Chien and Huang (2007a) included the actuator into consideration in the design of an adaptive controller for flexible-joint robots.2.6-1) as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. Huang and Chen (2004a) proposed an adaptive backsteppinglike controller based on FAT for single-link flexible-joint robots with mismatched uncertainties. q) τ (2a) (2b) . In this chapter.q) (Spong 1987. The tedious computation of the regressor matrix is avoided. Chien and Huang (2006a) designed an adaptive impedance controller for the flexible-joint robots to give good performance in both the free space tracking and compliant motion phase. 6. Section 6. then (1) can be rewritten to be ɺɺ ɺ Dq + Cq + g = τ t ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = τ a − q(q.2 Control of Known Flexible-Joint Robots The rigid-link flexible-joint robot considered in this chapter is shown in (3. Chien and Huang (2006b) suggested a FAT-based adaptive controller for general flexible-joint robots without requiring the computation of the regressor matrix. A backstepping design based output feedback adaptive controller for flexible joint robot was suggested in Yim (2001).3 derives the regressor-based adaptive controller and Section 6. Section 6. we consider the control of a known flexible-joint robot. Lin and Goldenberg 1995). the uncertain parameters are required to be time-invariant and capable of being collected to form a parameter vector.

Let us consider a reference model ɺ ɺ J r ɺɺ r + B r τ r + K r τ r = J r ɺɺ td + B r τ td + K r τ td τ τ n×n n×n (6) . B r ∈ℜ K r ∈ℜ n × n are selected to give proper dynamics for the convergence of τ r to ɺ τ ɺ τ td . then we may have q → q d . and where τr ∈ℜn is the state vector. and rewrite (2b) and (6) into τ r the state space form ɺ x p = A p x p + B p τ a − B pq ɺ x m = A m x m + B m ( τ td + τ td ) (7a) (7b) . then (5a) becomes ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = 0 (5b) and convergence of the output error follows.2 Control of Known Flexible-Joint Robots 165 ɺ ɺɺ ɺɺ ɺ where J t = JK . and matrices J r ∈ℜ . q ) = Jq + Bq . If a proper τ a can be constructed such that τ t → τ td . (3) gives the output tracking dynamics (4) ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = τ t − τ td (5a) If a control torque τ a can be designed to have τ t → τ td .6. Equation (2a) becomes ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dv + Cv = τ t (3) −1 −1 Suppose that all parameters in the system model are available. Define τ td ( τ td . Define the ɺ ɺ tracking error e = q − q d and the error signals s = e + Λe and v = q d − Λe . then the desired torque τ td can be defined as ɺ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s With this desired torque. To this end. B t = BK . and q (q. Since (2) is in a cascade form connected by the torque τt. we would like to employ the model reference control (MRC) rule below. a backstepping-like design procedure can be employed by regarding τt as a control signal to (2a). and a desired trajectory τ td is designed for the convergence of q. ɺɺ td ) = K −1 (B r τ td + J r ɺɺ td ) .

ɺ x p = A m x p + B m ( τ td + τ td ) (9) Substitute (8) into (7a) to have Define e m = x p − x m and eτ = τ t − τ r be error vectors. According to the MRC rule. respectively.166 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ɺt where x p = [τ T τ T ]T ∈ℜ2n and x m = [ τ T t r vectors. Let τ t = C p x p J r K r  and τ r = C m x m be respectively the output signal vector for (7a) and (7b). e m ) = s T Ds + e T Pt e m m 2 T 2n × 2n (11) where Pt = Pt ∈ℜ is a positive definite matrix satisfying the Lyapunov T T equation A m Pt + Pt A m = −C mC m . and h( τ td . A p =  are ɺr τ T ]T ∈ℜ 2 n are augmented state  0 −J t −1 augmented In×n  I n×n   0 2n × 2n 2n × 2n and A m =  −1  ∈ℜ  ∈ℜ −1 −1 −J t B t  −J r K r −J r B r   0  system matrices. q) where (8) Θ ∈ℜ n × 2 n and Φ ∈ℜ n × n are matrices satisfying relations A p + B p Θ = A m and B p Φ = B m . then from (7b) and (9) we may have the torque tracking loop dynamics ɺ e m = A me m eτ = C m e m (10a) (10b) To prove stability in the output tracking loop (5a) and the torque tracking loop (10). the time derivative of V is computed as . where C p = C m = [I n × n 0] ∈ℜ n × 2 n are augmented output signal matrices. and the transfer function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is strictly positive real. Along the trajectory (5a) and (10). ( A m . B m ) is controllable. It is noted that ( A m . q ) = Φτ td + q ∈ℜ n . C m ) is observable. the control torque τ a is selected as τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td . a Lyapunov-like function candidate is designed as 1 V (s. and B p =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n and J t   0  B m =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n are augmented input gain matrices.

C and g are assumed to be unavailable here. v )p + ( τ t − τ td ) (3) . Remark 1: Dependence of h( τ td . This greatly restricts the application of the strategy presented here. therefore. Hence. Finally. v )p − K d s (2) The dynamics of the output tracking loop can then be obtained by plugging (2) into (1a) as ɶɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ Ds + Cs + K d s = − Dv − Cv − g + ( τ t − τ td ) ɺ ɺ ɶ = − Y (q. q. we may conclude q → q d and τt →τtd as t → ∞ by Barbalat’s lemma. a regressor-free adaptive control is developed in section 6.4 to ease its realization. q . q ) in (8) implies the requirements for the knowledge of joint accelerations or even their higher time derivatives.2-4) and (6.2-3) and (6.6. its realization will still be limited due to its dependence on high-order state variable feedbacks. I n×n    Equation (12) implies uniform boundedness and square integrability of s and eτ . v. However.3 Regressor-based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 167 ɺ V = −[s T   Kd where Q =  − 1 I  2 n× n  s T eτ ]Q   ≤ 0  eτ  (12) 1  − I n×n  2  is positive definite by proper selection of Kd. v . ɺ ɺ Uniform boundedness of s and eτ can also be proved easily. q) τ where D. In next section. A new version of the transmission torque is designed as ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s ɺ ɺ ˆ = Y (q . (6.3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Let us consider the system described in (6.2-2b) as ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dv + Cv = τ t (1a) (1b) ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = τ a − q(q.2-8) are not feasible. 6. a regressor-based adaptive controller will be derived.

it still needs the feedback of joint accelerations and their higher order time derivatives. e m . τ t and g(q) are not available and their variation bounds are like to design a desired transmission torque τtd so that a τa can be constructed to have convergence in the torque ɺ → τ td . then (3) implies (6. C(q.e. Since D(q). and Γ ∈ℜ r × r is positive definite. p) = s T Ds + e T Pt e m + p T Γp m 2 2 T 2n × 2n (4) is a positive definite matrix satisfying the Lyapunov where Pt = Pt ∈ℜ T T equation A m Pt + Pt A m = −C mC m . q) τ ɺ where D(q).2-10). Remark 2: To implement the strategy designed in this section..2-8). q) not given. and all stability properties are the same there. C and g.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Let us consider the system described in (6. computation of the regressor matrix and its time derivatives are necessary here. However.3-1) as ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dv + Cv = τ t (1a) (1b) ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = τ a − q(q. Along the trajectory of (3) and (6. we may select a Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s.2-12). we do not need the knowledge of D. (5) becomes exactly (6. C(q. q) and g(q) are not available. Therefore. the time derivative of (4) becomes T ɺ ɺ ˆ ɶ V = − s T K d s + s T e τ − e τ e τ − p T ( Γp + Y T s ) (5) The update law is picked to be ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1Y T s (6) Hence. i. . The dynamics for the torque tracking loop is exactly the same as those in the previous section with the control law in (6. In addition. ˆ and a proper update law can be selected so that p → p .2-5b). 6. We would proper control torque tracking loop. if an effective control torque τ a can be designed to have τ t → τ td .168 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Therefore.

where Cm is also defined in Section 6. C(q. C → C and g → g so that (3) can give desired performance. A new one is constructed as ˆ τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h (6) . A p . A m .2 is employed here. Consider the reference model in (6. C ˆ ˆ ˆ D → D. Since the adaptive control of flexible-joint robots is much more difficult than that for its rigid-joint counterpart. If a proper controller τ a and ˆ and g can be designed. we would like to use the function approximation technique to design an adaptive controller for the rigid-link flexible-joint robot without the knowledge of the regressor matrix. B m ) is controllable. the same MRC scheme used in Section 6. we may have τ t → τ td . To this end. avoidance of the regressor computation in the FAT-based design largely simplifies the implementation in the real-time environment. The desired transmission torque τd can be designed as ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s (2) ˆ ˆ ˆ ɺ where D . we may have the dynamics for the output tracking loop ɶɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ Ds + Cs + K d s = − Dv − Cv − g + ( τ t − τ td ) (3) ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ɶ ˆ where D = D − D . and g = g − g . Since system (1) contains uncertainties. Hence. and the transfer function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is SPR. respectively. B p . the control torque in (6. C = C − C . ( A m . and B m are defined in Section 6. C and g are estimates of D(q). In the following. ɺɺ td ) = K r 1 (B r τ td + J r ɺɺ td ) .2. q) and g(q).6.2-8) is not feasible. we may represent (1b) τ and (4) into the state space representation as ɺ x p = A p x p + B p τ a − B pq ɺ x m = A m x m + B m ( τ td + τ td ) (5a) (5b) where x p . x m . ˆ ˆ update laws for D .2.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 169 the traditional adaptive control and robust control are not easy to be applied here. Substituting (2) into (1a).2-6) again ɺ ɺ J r ɺɺ r + B r τ r + K r τ r = J r ɺɺ td + B r τ td + K r τ td τ τ (4) − ɺ τ ɺ With the definition τ td ( τ td . we would like to derive the dynamics for the torque tracking loop next. The pair ( A m . C m ) is observable.

then the output error tracking dynamics (3) and the torque tracking dynamics (8a) become (10) . Z C ∈ℜ n β C × n . then (8) implies e m → 0 as t → ∞ . we may have the dynamics in the torque tracking loop ˆ ɺ e m = A m e m + B p (h − h ) eτ = C m e m (8a) (8b) ˆ If we may design an appropriate update law such that h → h . and ε (⋅) are approximation error matrices. q ) = Φτ td + q . z g ∈ℜ n β g ×1 . Using the same set of basis functions.170 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ˆ where h is the estimate of h( τ td . WC ∈ℜ n β C × n . and Wh ∈ℜ h are 2 weighting matrices. ZD ∈ℜn β D ×n . let us apply the function approximation representation T D = WD Z D + ε D T C = WC Z C + ε C T g = Wg z g + ε g T h = Wh z h + ε h (9) where WD ∈ℜ n β D × n . Plugging (6) into (5a). the corresponding estimates can also be represented as 2 2 nβ × n nβ × n ˆ ˆT D = WD Z D ˆ ˆT C = WC Z C ˆ ˆT g = Wg z g ˆ ˆT h = Wh z h ɶ ɶ Define W(⋅) = W(⋅) − W(⋅) . Θ ∈ℜ n × 2 n and Φ ∈ℜ n × n are matrices satisfying A p + B p Θ = A m and B p Φ = B m respectively. we have the dynamics ˆ ɺ x p = A m x p + B m (τ td + τ td ) + B p (h − h) (7) With the definition of e m = x p − x m and eτ = τ t − τ r . Wg ∈ℜ 2 g . and z h ∈ℜ n β h ×1 are matrices of basis functions. To proceed further.

s. e m ) are lumped where approximation errors. q d ) and ε 2 = ε 2 (ε h . Since W(⋅) are constant vectors. ε C . 2 2 Q C ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . WC . ε g . Q g ∈ℜ n β g × n β g and Q h ∈ℜ n β h × n β h are positive definite. e m .6.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 171 ɶT ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = ( τ t − τ td ) − WD Z D v ɶT ɶT − WC Z C v − Wg z g + ε1 (11a) (11b) ɶT ɺ e m = A m e m − B p Wh z h + B p ε 2 ɺɺ ε1 = ε1 (ε D . Wh ) = s T Ds + e T Pt e m + Tr ( WD Q D WD m 2 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + WC Q C WC + Wg Q g Wg + Wh Q h Wh ) (12) where Pt = Pt ∈ℜ is a positive definite matrix satisfying the Lyapunov 2 2 T T equation A m Pt + Pt A m = −C mC m . their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of the Lyapunov-like function. The time derivative of V along the trajectory of (11) can be computed as T T ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T eτ − eτ eτ + s T ε1 + e T Pt B p ε 2 m 2n × 2n ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ ɺ −Tr[ WD ( Z D vs T + Q D WD ) + WC (Z C vs T + Q C WC )] ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ −Tr[ Wg ( z g s T + Q g Wg ) + Wh (z he T Pt B p + Q h Wh )] m (13) T If we design B m = B p such that eT Pt B p = eτ and select the update laws as m ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q D1 (Z D vs T + σ D WD ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C1 (Z C vs T + σ C WC ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g 1 (z g s T + σ g Wg ) ɺ − T ˆ ˆ Wh = −Q h1 (z heτ + σ h Wh ) (14a) (14b) (14c) (14d) . Wg . Let us consider a candidate 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶT ɶ V (s. WD . The matrices Q D ∈ℜ n β D × n β D .

Let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate (12) and update laws (14) without the σ-modification terms again.172 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots where σ (⋅) are positive constants. the desired transmission torque (2) and actuator input (6) are modified to be ˆɺ ˆ ˆ τ td = Dv + Cv + g − K d s + τ robust 1 ˆ τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h + τ robust 2 where τ robust 1 and τ robust 2 are robust terms to be designed. then (15) becomes ɺ V = −[s T s T eτ ] Q   ≤ 0  eτ  Therefore it implies that that eτ and s are uniformly bounded and square ɺ ɺ integrable. Furthermore. This further implies that τ →τd and q → q d as t → ∞ even though D. eτ and s can be shown to be uniformly bounded. The time derivative of V can be computed as . C.e. Remark 4: Suppose ε1 and ε 2 cannot be ignored but their variation bounds are available i. 1  − I n×n  2  is positive definite due to the selection of I n×n    Remark 3: If the number of basis functions are chosen to be sufficiently large such that ε1 ≈ 0 and ε 2 ≈ 0 . then (13) becomes ɺ V = −[s T s  ε1  T T ɶT ˆ eτ ]Q   + [s T eτ ]   + σ DTr ( WD WD ) eτ  ε2    T ˆ ɶ C WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ + σ CTr ( W (15)   Kd where Q =  − 1 I  2 n× n  gain matrix Kd. g and h are all unknown. there exists positive constants δ 1 . To cover the effect of these bounded approximation errors. as a result. asymptotic convergence of eτ and s can easily be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. δ 2 > 0 such that ε1 ≤ δ 1 and ε 2 ≤ δ 2 .

σg . σD . where si .2n is the i-th element of the vector eτ .6-31).….6.….4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 173 ɺ V ≤ −[s T s T T eτ ]Q   + δ 1 s + δ 2 eτ + s T τ robust 1 + eτ τ robust 2 eτ   T By picking τ robust 1 = −δ 2 [sgn( s1 ) ⋯ sgn( s n )] . ɺ Owing to the existence of ε1 and ε 2 in (15). we may have ɺ V ≤ 0 and asymptotic convergence of the state error can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. the definiteness of V cannot be determined. n is the i-th element of the vector s. i =1. i =1. σh ɺ V ≤ −α V +  ε1  1 T ε  + 2 [σ DTr ( WD WD ) 2 λmin (Q )  2  1 (17) 2 T T T + σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] . σC . and τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(eτ 1 ) ⋯ sgn(eτ 2 n )]T where eτ i . we may define A =  D 0  2CT Pt C m  m 0  and rewrite (15) into 1 ɺ V ≤ −α V + [αλmax ( A ) − λmin (Q)] 2 s 1 e  + 2 λ (Q) min  τ 2  ε1  ε   2 2 1 ɶT ɶ + {[αλmax (Q D ) − σ D ]Tr ( WD WD ) + [αλmax (Q C ) 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ −σ C ]Tr ( WC WC ) + [αλmax (Q g ) − σ g ]Tr ( Wg Wg ) 1 T ɶT ɶ +[αλmax (Q h ) − σ h ]Tr ( Wh Wh )} + [σ DTr ( WD WD ) 2 T T T +σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] where α is a constant selected to satisfy (16) α ≤ min  so that we have  λmin (Q)    λmax ( A ) λmax (Q D ) λmax (Q C ) λmax (Q g ) λmax (Q h )  . By using the inequalities similar to those in (4.

Differential inequality (17) can be solved to have the upper bound for V(t) as V (t ) ≤ e + −α ( t − t 0 )  ε1 (τ )  V (t 0 ) + sup  2αλmin (Q) t 0 <τ < t ε 2 (τ )  1 2 1 T T [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) 2α T T +σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] (19) 1 From (12). we may estimate the lower bound for V as V ≥ λmin ( A ) 2 which gives the expression s e   τ 2 s e  ≤  τ 2V (t ) λmin ( A) Together with (19).174 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ɺ Therefore. . and Wh are uniformly ultimately bounded. V < 0 whenever  ε1 (τ )  1 T V> sup   + 2α [σ DTr ( WD WD ) 2αλmin (Q) τ ≥ t 0 ε 2 (τ ) 1 T T T + σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] 2 (18) ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ This verifies that s. WC . the bound is a weighted exponential function shifted with a constant. eτ . WD . Wg . we may have the bound for the error signals as s e  ≤  τ α  ε1 (τ )  2V (t 0 ) − 2 (t − t0 ) 1 e + sup   λmin ( A) αλmin ( A) λmin (Q) t0 <τ < t ε 2 (τ ) 1 T T + [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) αλmin ( A) 1 T T +σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] 2 Therefore.

1.1 summarizes the adaptive control laws derived in this section based on their controller forms.1 Summary of the adaptive control for FJR Flexible-Joint Robot ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dv + Cv = τ t ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = τ a − q (q . Does not need to compute the regressor matrix. v. and b2 =4(N-m-sec/rad)(Chien and Huang 2007a). We would like the endpoint to track a 0. the knowledge of joint accelerations.3-1) Regressor-free Controller ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s ɺ ɺ ˆ = Y (q. v )p − K d s τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h ( τ td . (6. q ) τ Regressor-based (6.6-3).4-2).4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 175 Remark 5: To implement the desired transmission torque (2).01(kg-m2). actuator input (6) and update law (14). update laws and implementation issues.2m radius circle centered at (0. q.0m) in .375(m). Need to compute the regressor matrix and its time derivatives.4-6) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1 Y T s (6.3-6) ɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q −1 (Z D vs T + σ D WD ) D ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C1 (Z C vs T + σ C WC ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g 1 ( z g s T + σ g Wg ) ɺ − T ˆ ˆ Wh = −Q h1 (z heτ + σ h Wh ) (6.1: Consider the flexible-joint robot in (3.3-2).2-8) ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s ˆ τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h (6. it is feasible for realization.02(kg-m2). Realization Issue Need information of joint accelerations and their higher derivatives. q ) (6. or their derivatives.5(kg). Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1 =m2 =0. I1 =I2 =0. Parameters for the actuator part are chosen as j1 =0. Table 6. Example 6. b1 =5(N-m-sec/rad). Therefore. and k1 =k2 =100(N-m/rad). j2 =0.0234(kg-m2). and we are going to verify the regressor-free adaptive control strategy developed in this section by computer simulations. (6.6. lc1 =lc2 =0. Table 6.75(m). l1 =l2 =0.8m.4-14) Does not need joint accelerations. we do not need the regressor matrix.

The initial condition for the generalized coordinate is at q(0) = θ(0) = [0.176 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 10 seconds without knowing its precise model. Q g 1 = 10I 22 .8m) for observation of the transient.8m.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C12 (0) = w C21 (0) = [−0.8 −2.8 0 0]T . The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be ˆ w D11 (0) = [0. It is away form the desired initial endpoint position (0. Therefore. while Wg and Wh are 22 × 2 in ℜ .8m. . and Λ =  0 5 .1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C11 (0) = [0. 0.. The controller in (6) is applied with the gain matrices 5 0 5 0 Kd =   . and Q h1 = 10000I 22 D The approximation error is assumed to be neglected in this simulation.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C22 (0) = [0. 0. The initial state for the reference model is τ r (0) = [1.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w D12 (0) = w D21 (0) = [−0.0022 1.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w g1 (0) = w g 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w h1 (0) = w h2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 The gain matrices in the update law (14) are selected as − − − Q −1 = 2I 44 . 0 5   The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ approximation.75m). and the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 . which is the same as the initial state for the desired torque. i. WD and WC are in ℜ 44 × 2 .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w D22 (0) = [0.e. Q C1 = 2I 44 . the endpoint is initially at (0.5019 0 0]T .

Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 6.95 1 Figure 6.05 1 Y 0.9 0.1 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space. The transient states converge very fast and the tracking errors are small.95 0.85 0. they still remain bounded as desired. After the transient state.85 0.75 0.7 0. 1.8 are the performance of function approximation.2 1. although the initial position error is quite large.8 X 0.8 0.3. Figure 6. the tracking error is small regardless of the time-varying uncertainties in D.1 Tracking performance in the Cartesian space .8.7 0.1 to 6.9 0. It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges nicely to the desired trajectory. The control torque for both joints can be seen in Figure 6. Figure 6.4.5 to 6. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 177 The simulation results are shown in Figure 6.1 1. C and g.6 0.75 0.15 1.6.2 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance. Figure 6.65 0.

6 0.2 0 −0.m) 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1 torque output 2 (N.4 0.8 0.m) 0 −1 −2 −3 −4 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 6. and the tracking error is very small 10 torque output 1 (N.3 Torque tracking performance.8 0. It can be seen that the transient is fast.4 0.2 angle of link 1 (red) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1.2 Joint space tracking performance.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 6.4 angle of link 2 (red) 1.6 0.178 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0. It can be seen that the torque errors for both joints are small .2 1 0.6 1.

6.4 −0.m) −10 −20 −30 −40 −50 −60 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 6.6 0.4 1.6 0.m) 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 10 0 control input 2 (N.2 0 −0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 6.2 0 2.4 0.2 1 D(22) 0.2 1 0.4 The control torques for both joints are reasonable 1.8 0.6 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 −0.4 1.5 D(21) 1.5 2 1.5 0 −0.4 0.8 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.5 Approximation of D .2 −0.8 0.6 0.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 80 179 control input 1 (N.4 0.2 1 D(11) D(12) 0.

05 −0.1 0.1 C(11) C(12) 0.6 0.8 0.2 0 −0.2 −0.05 0 −0.4 0.2 0.15 C(21) C(22) 0.2 0.7 Approximation of g .180 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.05 0 −0.2 0.15 0.6 −0.05 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 −0.2 0 −0.15 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.8 0.25 0.6 Approximation of C 8 6 g(1) 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 3 2 g(2) 1 0 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 6.1 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 −0.1 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 6.4 −0.

9 Cascade structure in equation (1) . q) τ ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u This system is in a cascade form with the configuration shown in Figure 6.6. u Equation (1c) i Equation (1b) τt s Equation (1a) Figure 6.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics According to (6.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 10 8 6 h(1) 181 4 2 0 −2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 5 0 −5 h(2) −10 −15 −20 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 6.8-1).8 Approximation of h 6.9.4-1) and (3. the dynamics of a rigid-link flexible-joint electrically-driven robot can be described by ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dv + Cv = τ t (1a) (1b) (1c) ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = Hi − q(q.

Finally. B r ∈ℜ n × n . ɺ τ ɺ With the definition of τ td ( τ td . ( A m . A desired current trajectory id can then be found to ensure τ t → τ td in (1b). and B p =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n and J t   0  B m =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n are augmented input gain matrices. A p =  are (5a) (5b) ɺr τ T ]T ∈ℜ 2 n are augmented state  0 −1 − J t augmented I n×n  I n×n   0 2 n × 2n 2n × 2n and A m =  −1  ∈ℜ  ∈ℜ −1 −1 −J t B t  −J r K r −J r B r   0  system matrices. Assuming that all parameters in (1) are known. The pair ( A m . ɺɺ td ) = K −1 (B r τ td + J r ɺɺ td ) . B m ) is controllable. where C p = C m = [I n × n 0] ∈ℜ n × 2 n are augmented output signal matrices. and K r ∈ℜ n × n are selected to give convergence of τ r to τ td . and J r ∈ℜ . Let τ t = C p x p J r K r  and τ r = C m x m be respectively the output signal vector for (5a) and (5b). the MRC rule is applied with the reference model ɺ ɺ J r ɺɺ r + B r τ r + K r τ r = J r ɺɺ td + B r τ td + K r τ td τ τ (4) n×n where τr ∈ℜn is the state vector of the reference model.182 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Therefore. then the desired torque can be designed as ɺ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s Therefore. we may rewrite τ r (1b) and (4) into the state space representation ɺ x p = A p x p + B p Hi − B p q ɺ x m = A m x m + B m ( τ td + τ td ) ɺt where x p = [ τT τT ]T ∈ℜ 2n and x m = [ τ T t r vectors. and the transfer . C m ) is observable. The concept is to design a desired torque trajectory τ td first for convergence of s in (1a). the backstepping-like procedure can be applied here. the control effort u is constructed to have convergence of i to id. the dynamics for output error tracking is found to be (2) ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = τ t − τ td (3) To ensure torque tracking in (1b).

6. the control law in (1c) is designed as ɺ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K b q − K c e i (9) where e i = i − i d is the current error vector. the desired current id is selected as i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td . To this end. and Kc is a positive definite matrix. we may obtain ɺ ɺ x p = A m x p + B m (τ d + τ td ) + B p H(i − i d ) (7) With the definition e m = x p − x m and eτ = τ t − τ r . we have the output error dynamics in (3). e i ) = s T Ds + eT Pt e m + eT Le i m i 2 2 T 2n × 2n (11) where Pt = Pt ∈ℜ is a positive definite matrix satisfying the Lyapunov T T equation A m Pt + Pt A m = −C mC m .5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 183 function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is SPR. we may have the dynamics for the current tracking loop ɺ Le i + K c e i = 0 (10) At this stage. respectively. the time derivative of V can be computed as . (9) into (1c). the dynamics for the torque tracking loop becomes ɺ e m = A m e m + B p H (i − i d ) eτ = C m e m (8a) (8b) In order to ensure τ t → τ td and i → i d . According to the MRC design. and h is defined as h( τ td . We have to ensure that all of these dynamics be stable. e m . (8) and (10). Along the trajectories of (3). Plugging. Using (6) and (5a). q ) = Φτ td + q . the dynamics of the torque tracking loop in (8) and the dynamics of the current tracking loop in (10). q )] (6) where Θ and Φ are matrices satisfying A p + B p Θ = A m and B p Φ = B m . let us consider a Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 1 V (s.

Therefore. The desired torque trajectory in (2) is not feasible. Therefore. g.1 Regressor-based adaptive controller design Consider the system in (1) again. and their square integrability can also be proved from (13). q → q d . and we need to feedback q and its higher order derivatives. but D. Remark 6: To implement the control strategy. equation (12) becomes ɺ V = −[s T eτ T eT i s ] Q  eτ  ≤ 0    ei    (13) 1   − I n×n 0   Kd 2   1 1 I n×n − H  is positive definite due to proper where Q =  − I n × n  2 2    1  0 − H Kc    2   selection of Kd and Kc. and hence.184 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 1 ɺ ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T (D − 2C)s + s T eτ 2 T −eτ eτ + eT Pt B p He i − eT K c e i m i (12) Selecting B m = B p and according to the Kalman-Yakubovic lemma. q . C.5. and e i are also easy to be proved. uniformly boundedness of s . v )p − K d s (14) . and we modify it as ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s ɺ ɺ ˆ = Y (q . the design introduced in this section is not feasible for practical applications. R and Kb are unavailable. τ t → τ td . 6. we have proved that s. L. v . ɺ ɺ ɺ Furthermore. eτ . and i → i d follow by Barbalat’s lemma. eτ and e i are uniformly bounded. all system parameters are ɺɺ required to be available.

C and g are estimates of D.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 185 ˆ ˆ ˆ where D . we select the Lyapunov-like function candidate ɶ ɶ V (s. respectively. Therefore. The desired current trajectory is designed as the one in (6) to have the dynamics for the torque tracking loop as in (8). C = C − C . C. and we may obtain the error dynamics for the output tracking loop ɶɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ Ds + Cs + K d s = − Dv − Cv − g + ( τ t − τ td ) ɺ ɺ ɶ = − Y (q. if we ˆ may find a control law to drive τ t → τ td and an update law to have p → p . and g. v. v )p + ( τ t − τ td ) (15) ˆ ɶ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ where D = D − D .6. we would like to use the MRC rule with the reference model in (4) and the state space representation in (5). Plugging (14) into (1a). then (15) implies convergence of the output error. g = g − g . To prove stability. e i . we have (19) . (15) and (17). Taking time derivative of (18) along the trajectories m T ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T eτ − eτ eτ + eT Pt B p He i − e T K c e i m i T ɺ + Y T s) − Tr[p T (Γ p + φe T )] ɺ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ − p (Γp i i i i of (8). and we id may have the dynamics for the current tracking loop as ɺ ɶi Le i + K ce i = −p T φ (17) ɶ ˆ where p i = p i − p i . To this end. p i = [LT R T K T ]T ∈ℜ 3n × n . Instead of the controller in (9). p. and p = p − p . p i ) = 1 T (s Ds + 2eT Pt e m + eT Le i m i 2 ɶ ɶ ɶi ɶ +p T Γp) + Tr (p T Γ i p i ) (18) where Pt = Pt ∈ℜ T 2n × 2n is positive definite satisfying the Lyapunov equation A T Pt m + Pt A m = −CT C m . we use ˆɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K bq − K c e i ˆi = p T φ − K ce i (16) ˆ ˆ ˆb ˆ ɺ where φ = [ɺT i T q T ]T ∈ℜ 3n . e m . q.

(19) becomes (13). then the update law can be selected to be m ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1Y T s ɺ ˆ p i = − Γ i−1φe T i (20a) (20b) Thus. The desired current trajectory is designed according to (6) to be ˆ i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h] (23) ˆ where h is an estimate of h( τ td . we have proved that s. and hence. then (22) implies convergence of the output error. C. τ t → τ td . eτ . the design introduced in this section is not feasible for practical applications. q ) = Φτ td + q . L. and g → g . C → C . ɺ ɺ ɺ Furthermore. but D.186 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots T Pick B m = B p to have eT Pt B p = eτ .5. g. R and Kb are unavailable. we would like to use the MRC rule with the reference model in (4) and the state space representation in (5). either. therefore. Remark 7: To implement the controller strategy. The desired torque trajectory in (2) is modified as ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s The dynamics for the output tracking loop can thus be written as (21) ɶɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ Ds + Cs + K d s = − Dv − Cv − g + ( τ t − τ td ) (22) Therefore. To this end. and their square integrability can also be proved from (13). eτ and e i are uniformly bounded. we do not need to have the ɺɺ knowledge of most system parameters. Consequently. 6. the dynamics for the torque tracking loop becomes . q → q d . and e i are also easy to be proved. uniformly boundedness of s .2 Regressor-free adaptive controller design Consider the system in (1) again. Therefore. if we may find a control law to drive τ t → τ td and update laws to ˆ ˆ ˆ have D → D . but we have to feedback q and calculate the regressor matrix and their higher order derivatives. and i → i d follow by Barbalat’s lemma.

5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 187 ˆ ɺ e m = A m e m + B p H ( i − i d ) + B p (h − h ) eτ = C m e m (24a) (24b) Hence. if we may design a control law to ensure i → i d and an update law to ˆ have h → h . WC ∈ℜ n β C × n . and z f ∈ℜ f are basis function matrices. q ) and ɺ d . then we may have convergence of the torque tracking loop. z h ∈ℜ n β h ×1 . q) . Wg ∈ℜ g . The control strategy can be constructed as ˆ u = f − K ce i (25) ˆ where e i = i − i d is the current error. respectively. Z C ∈ℜ n β C × n . while 2 n β ×1 ZD ∈ℜn β D × n . Since D(q) . q ) = Li d + Ri + K bq . Kc is a positive definite matrix and f is ɺ d . q) are time-varying functions and their variation bounds are not given. z g ∈ℜ n β g ×1 . the dynamics ɺ ɺ ɺ an estimate of f (i for the current tracking loop can be found as ˆ ɺ Le i + K ce i = f − f (26) ˆ If we may select a proper update law to have f → f . C.6. h( τ td . ɺ f (i we would like to use their function approximation representations as T D = WD Z D + ε D T C = WC Z C + ε C T g = Wg z g + ε g T h = Wh z h + ε h (27a) (27b) (27c) (27d) (27e) nβ × n nβ × n f = WfT z f + ε f 2 2 where WD ∈ℜ n β D × n . Wh ∈ℜ h . With this control law. i. g. (26) ensures convergence ɺ in the current tracking loop. and nβ × n Wf ∈ℜ2 f are weighting matrices for D. and f. h. i. C(q. Likewise. we have the representations for the estimates as ˆ ˆT D = WD Z D ˆ ˆT C = WC Z C (27f) (27g) . g (q) .

nβ f × nβ f nβ h × n β h Q h ∈ℜ . e i ) are lumped approximation error vectors. and current tracking error dynamics (26) can be rewritten as ɶT ɺ ɶT ɶT ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = ( τ t − τ td ) − WD Z D v − WC Z C v − Wg z g + ε1 (28a) ɶT ɺ e m = A me m − B p Wh z h + B p He i + B p ε 2 ɶ ɺ Le i + K ce i = − WfT z f + ε 3 (28b) (28c) ɺɺ where ε1 = ε1 (ε D . Q C ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . Define the Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s. Wg . we may compute the time derivative of V as T ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T eτ − eτ eτ + eT Pt B p He i − eT K c e i + s T ε1 m i ɺ ˆ ɶT ɺ +e T Pt B p ε 2 + e T ε 3 − Tr[ WD (Z D vs T + Q D WD ) m i ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ + WC (Z C vs T + Q C WC )] − Tr[ Wg (z g s T + Q g Wg ) ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶ ˆ + Wh (z he T Pt B p + Q h Wh )] − Tr[ WfT (z f e T + Q f Wf )] m i (30) . ε C . s. Q g ∈ℜ g . e m ) . torque tracking error dynamics (24a). and ε 3 = ε 3 (ε f .188 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ˆ ˆT g = Wg z g ˆ ˆT h = Wh z h ˆ ˆ f = WfT z f (27h) (27i) (27j) Thus the output error dynamics (22). Wf ) = sT Ds + eT Pt e m m 2 1 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + eT Lei + Tr(WD QDWD + WC QCWC i 2 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ + Wg Qg Wg + Wh Qh Wh + WfT Qf Wf ) 2 2 2 2 (29) n β × nβ g where matrices Q D ∈ℜ n β D × n β D . WD . q d ) . ei . Wh . and Q f ∈ℜ are positive definite. Along the trajectory of (28). ε 2 = ε 2 (ε h . e m . WC . ε g .

which largely simplified its implementation. regressor matrix. or their higher order derivatives. Remark 9: Suppose a sufficient number of basis functions are used and the approximation error can be ignored.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 189 T If we select B m = B p so that eT Pt B p = eτ .6. Remark 8: Realization of the control law (25) and update laws (31) does not need the information of joint accelerations. and if we pick the update laws as m ɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q −1 (Z D vs T + σ D WD ) D ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C1 (Z C vs T + σ C WC ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g 1 (z g s T + σ g Wg ) ɺ − T ˆ ˆ Wh = −Q h1 (z heτ + σ h Wh ) ɺ ˆ ˆ Wf = −Q f−1 (z f eT + σ f Wf ) i then (30) becomes (31a) (31b) (31c) (31d) (31e) ɺ V = −[s T eτ T eT i s ]Q eτ  + [s T    ei    eτ T eT i  ε1  ] ε 2    ε 3    ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ + σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) ɶT ˆ ɶ ˆ + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )   Kd  1 where Q =  − I n × n  2   0   1 − I n×n 2 (32)  0   1 I n×n − H  is positive definite due to proper 2   1 − H Kc   2  selection of gain matrices Kd and Kc. then it is not necessary to include the .

190 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots σ-modification terms in (31).…. the definiteness of V cannot be determined. and τ robust 3 = −δ 3[sgn(ei1 ) ⋯ sgn(ein )]T where eik .n is the j-th eτ . then we may have (13) again. then robust terms τrobust 1. This will further give convergence of the output error by Barbalat’s lemma. i=1. δ2 and δ3 such that ε i ≤ δ i . k=1. (32) can be reduced to (13). Remark 10: If the approximation error cannot be ignored. τrobust 2 and τrobust 3 can be included into (21).n is the k-th element in ei. eτ and ei can be further proved by Barbalat’s lemma. then the time derivative of V becomes ɺ V = −[s T eτ T eT i s ]Q eτ  + δ 1 s + δ 2 eτ + δ 3 e i    ei    T +s T τ robust 1 + eτ τ robust 2 + e T τ robust 3 i If we select τ robust 1 = −δ 1[sgn( s1 ) sgn( s 2 ) ⋯ sgn( s n )]T where si. ɺ Owing to the existence of the approximation errors.2. and the update law (31) without σ-modification. j=1.…. i=1. τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(eτ 1 ) ⋯ sgn(eτ 2 n )]T where entry in eτ j . Hence. but we can find positive numbers δ1. and convergence of s. By considering the inequality s 1 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ V ≤ λmax ( A) eτ  + [ λmax (Q D )Tr ( WD WD ) + λmax (Q C )Tr ( WC WC )   2 2  ei    ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ + λmax (Q g )Tr ( Wg Wg ) + λmax (Q h )Tr ( Wh Wh ) + λmax (Q f )Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2 .n is the i-th entry in s.3. (23) and (25) to have ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s + τ robust 1 ˆ i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h + τ robust 2 ] ˆ u = f − K c e i + τ robust 3 Consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate (29) again.….

σC . we have proved that V < 0 whenever  ε1 (τ )  1 1 T V> sup ε 2 (τ )  + [σ DTr ( WD WD )   2αλmin (Q) τ ≥ t0 2α  ε 3 (τ )    T T T +σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2 . σD . σh . σf such that we may further have  ε1  1 ε  + 1 [σ Tr ( W T W ) ɺ V ≤ −α V + 2 D D D 2 λmin (Q )   2 ε 3    T T +σ CTr ( WC WC ) + σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) T +σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2 (33) ɺ Therefore.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 191 0 D  T where A =  0 2C m Pt C m 0 0  0  0  .6. we may rewrite (32) as L  2 2 s  ε1  1 1 e  + ε  ɺ V ≤ −α V + [αλmax ( A ) − λmin (Q )] τ 2   2 2λmin (Q)    ei  ε 3      1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + {[αλmax (Q D ) − σ D ]Tr ( WD WD ) + [αλmax (Q C ) − σ C ]Tr ( WC WC ) 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ +[αλmax (Q g ) − σ g ]Tr ( Wg Wg ) + [αλmax (Q h ) − σ h ]Tr ( Wh Wh ) 1 T T ɶ ɶ +[αλmax (Q f ) − σ f ]Tr ( WfT Wf )} + [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) 2 T T +σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] where α is selected to satisfy α ≤ min   λmin (Q)    λmax ( A ) λmax (Q D ) λmax (Q C ) λmax (Q g ) λmax (Q h ) λmax (Q f )  . σg .

2 summarizes the adaptive control for EDFJR derived in this chapter in terms of the controller forms. s.192 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ i. (33) implies  ε1 (τ )  1 −α ( t − t 0 ) sup ε 2 (τ ) V (t ) ≤ e V (t 0 ) +  2αλmin (Q) t 0 <τ < t   ε 3 (τ )    + 1 T T [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) 2α (34) 2 T T +σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] Together with the inequality s 1 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ V ≥ λmin ( A ) eτ  + [ λmin (Q D )Tr ( WD WD ) + λmin (Q C )Tr ( WC WC )   2 2  ei    2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ + λmin (Q g )Tr ( Wg Wg ) + λmin (Q h )Tr ( Wh Wh ) + λmin (Q f )Tr ( WfT Wf )] we may find the error bound s e  ≤  τ  ei    +  ε1 (τ )  α 2V (t 0 ) − 2 (t − t0 ) 1 e + sup ε 2 (τ )  λmin ( A) αλmin ( A) λmin (Q) t0 <τ < t   ε 3 (τ )    1 αλmin ( A) T T [σ DTr ( WD WD ) + σ CTr ( WC WC ) 1 T T +σ gTr ( Wg Wg ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2 Table 6. In addition. and Wf are uniformly ultimately bounded. update laws and implementation issues. eτ . . WC .e. Wg . Wh . WD .. e i .

I1=I2 =0.. 1. and k1=k2=100(N-m/rad). q. j2 =0.025(H).5-16) Adaptive Law ˆ u = f − K ce i (6. q )] ˆɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K b q − K c e i ˆi = p T φ − K ce i (6. (6.2 Summary of the adaptive control for EDFJR Electrically driven flexible-joint robots 193 ɺ ɺ Ds + Cs + g + Dv + Cv = τ t ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = Hi − q (q. i. l1=l2=0. the endpoint is required to track a 0.1 but with consideration of the motor dynamics. v)p − K d s ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s ˆ i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h] i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h ( τ td .e. The initial condition for the generalized coordinate vector is at q(0) = θ(0) = [0.2m radius circle centered at (0. and h1 =h2 =10(N-m/A).0022 1.5-14).5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics Table 6.0m) in 2 seconds which is much faster than the case in example 6.1.2: Consider the flexible-joint robot in example 6.5-20) ɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ WD = −Q −1 ( Z D vs T + σ D WD ) D ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC = −Q C1 ( Z C vs T + σ C WC ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg = −Q g 1 (z g s T + σ g Wg ) ɺ − T ˆ ˆ Wh = −Q h1 ( z heτ + σ h Wh ) ɺ ˆ ˆ Wf = −Q f−1 (z f e T + σ f Wf ) i (6.5-23).75(m). kb1 =kb2 =1 (Vol/rad/sec) (Chien and Huang 2007a). Parameters for the actuator part are chosen as j1 =0.0234(kg-m2).5(kg). lc1=lc2 =0.01(kg-m2). (6.5-6). joint accelerations and their higher derivatives.5-25) ɺ ˆ p = −Γ Y s ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1φe T T i i i −1 (6.5-21).5-31) Does not need the information for the regressor matrix. Realization Issue Need to know the regressor matrix. b1 =5(N-m-sec/rad). joint accelerations.375(m). r1 = r2 =1(Ω). In order to observe the effect of the actuator dynamics. Example 6.6. b2 =4(N-m-sec/rad).02(kg-m2). v. (6. q ) τ ɺ + Ri + K b q = u ɺ Li Regressor-based Controller (6. Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1 =m2 =0. the endpoint is initially at . or their derivatives. Electrical parameter for the actuator are L1 =L2 =0. (6.5019 0 0]T .8m.5-1) Regressor-free ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s ɺ ɺ ˆ = Y(q.

5 −83. The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the approximation. It is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C22 (0) = [0.5 −33. Q g 1 = 50I 22 . Q h1 = 1000I 22 . Λ =  0 10 .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w D22 (0) = [0.9]T . 0. and Q f 1 = 10000I 22 .8m.1I 44 .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C12 (0) = w C21 (0) = [−0. while Wg . − − − − Q C1 = 0. −1 . and Wf are in 22 × 2 ℜ .  0 20     The initial value for the desired current can be found by calculation as i(0) = [77. and the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 .1I 44 . and K c =  0 50 . The initial state for the reference model is τ r (0) = [15. The approximation error is assumed to be neglected in this simulation. 0. which is the same as the initial state for the desired torque.8m) for observation of the transient.8m.75m). Wh .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w D12 (0) = w D21 (0) = [−0. The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be ˆ w D11 (0) = [0.6 0 0]T .194 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots (0. ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Therefore. The controller gain matrices are selected as  20 0  10 0  50 0  Kd =   .1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C11 (0) = [0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w g1 (0) = w g 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w h1 (0) = w h2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w f1 (0) = w f 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 The gain matrices in the update law (31) are selected as Q D = 0. WD and WC are in ℜ 44 × 2 .

11 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance.05 1 Y 0.9 0. The control voltages to the two motors are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 6. although the initial position error is quite large. Figure 6.12. g. 1. and f.15 to 6.8 X 0.95 0. After some transient. Figure 6. It is observed that the strategy can give very small current error. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values. The torque tracking performance is shown in Figure 6. C. they still remain bounded as desired.6 0. It can be seen that the torque errors for both joints are small. It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges nicely to the desired trajectory.8 0. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law.1 1.10 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space. Figure 6.85 0.13 presents the current tracking performance.10 to 6.95 1 Figure 6. h.10 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space.6.14.85 0.2 1. the tracking error is small regardless of the time-varying uncertainties in D.19 are the performance of function approximation.75 0. the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory nicely regardless of the uncertainties in the robot model . Figure 6.15 1.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 195 The simulation results are shown in Figure 6.65 0. After the transient state.19.75 0.7 0.9 0.

6 1.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1. It can be seen that the transient is fast.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0 0.4 1.4 1.6 1.4 0.M) 10 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 0 0.4 0.6 1.6 0.8 2 20 torque output 2 (N.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.12 Torque tracking performance.8 2 Figure 6.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 1. and the tracking error is very small 20 torque output 1 (N.8 0.2 0.2 1.196 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.4 1.8 2 Figure 6.6 0. It can be seen that the torque errors for both joints are small .2 1.4 0.2 0.8 2 1.4 0.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.2 1 0.M) 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.4 0.11 Joint space tracking performance.6 0.6 1.

4 0.6 1.14 The control voltages for both joints are reasonable .2 0.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 1. It can be seen that the current errors for both joints are small 60 40 20 0 −20 0 0.6 1.8 2 control input 1 (vol) control input 2 (vol) 40 20 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 0 0.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.4 0.2 1.2 1.13 Current tracking performance.6.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.8 2 Figure 6.8 2 40 actuator current 2 (A) 20 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.4 1.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 Figure 6.6 1.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 80 actuator current 1 (A) 197 60 40 20 0 −20 0 0.

2 0.15 0.05 0 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 Figure 6.2 −0.1 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.25 0.5 2 0.1 0.5 2 D(22) 0 0.05 0 −0.1 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.15 −0.15 0.1 0 0.1 0 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.1 −0.4 0.5 2 C(12) 0.1 0.15 C(21) C(22) 0 0.8 0.198 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.1 −0.16 Approximation of C .5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 C(11) 0 −0.3 0.05 −0.6 D(11) D(12) 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 2 0 −0.3 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 −0.4 0.5 2 −0.05 0.2 0.15 Approximation of D 0.2 0.5 2 0.2 0.2 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.05 0.25 0.15 0.05 D(21) 0 0.3 0.2 0.5 2 Figure 6.3 0.

6 1.8 2 Figure 6.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 1.6.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.4 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 8 199 6 g(1) 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.18 Approximation of h .4 0.4 0.8 2 Figure 6.2 0.4 1.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.2 1.8 2 2 1 0 g(2) −1 −2 −3 −4 0 0.17 Approximation of g 8 6 4 h(1) 2 0 −2 −4 −6 0 0.4 1.8 2 10 5 0 h(2) −5 −10 −15 −20 −25 0 0.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.2 1.6 0.6 0.2 1.6 1.4 0.

However.200 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 50 40 30 f(1) 20 10 0 −10 −20 0 0. its implementation requires the knowledge of joint accelerations. its realization still needs the joint accelerations.8 2 60 40 20 f(2) 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 0 0.4 1. and their derivatives.3.5. A regreesor-free adaptive controller for EDFJR is then introduced in Section 6.5. regressor matrix. the regressor matrix.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.2 0. However.6 Conclusions Adaptive controllers for flexible-joint robots in the free space are derived in this chapter.4 1.6 1.6 0.2 for the control of a known FJR. . The MRC rule is utilized in Section 6. a regressor based adaptive controller is derived.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0. or their higher order derivatives.4 whose realization do not need the joint accelerations.2 1.2 0.6 1. The actuator dynamics is considered in Section 6.5. The regressor-free adaptive controller based on FAT is designed in Section 6. the control strategy is not practical. In Section 6.4 0.2 and it is free from the information for joint accelerations or the regressor matrix. A regreesor-based adaptive controller is developed for EDFJR in Section 6.2 1. Therefore.8 2 Figure 6.1.19 Approximation of f 6. and their higher order derivatives. the regressor matrix.

al. Spong (1989) derived a control approach for force/impedance control of flexible-joint robot. Ider (2000) presented a hybrid force and motion trajectory tracking control law. several approaches have been proposed. and unmodeled dynamics. Two major strategies are hybrid control presented by Raibert and Craig (1981). Using the singular perturbation formulation and the concept of integral manifold. These two approaches are based on the same assumption that the robot is constructed with rigid links and joints. To control the robot to interact compliantly with the environment. (2003) proposed an impedance controller based on an internal torque controller in a cascade structure. Ott et. Ahmad (1993) addressed the problem of hybrid force/position control utilizing the constraint formulation developed by Yoshikawa (1986). 201 . To achieve better output performance. the simplified representation of the system behavior will contain model inaccuracies such as parametric uncertainties. Based on the solution of the acceleration level inverse dynamic equations. a lot of industrial robot manipulators are designed with harmonic drives to gain high torque with reduced motor speed. and impedance control proposed by Hogan (1985). (2003) implemented the impedance controllers based on three different kinds of nullspace projections for the realization of nullspace stiffness.Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 7. Since the mathematical model is only an approximation of the real system.1 Introduction Many practical operations of industrial robots such as grinding and assembling involve contact problems between the end-effector and the environment. al. the joint flexibility due to the harmonic drives should be carefully considered. Jankowski and ElMaraghy (1991) proposed a nonlinear decoupling and linearizing feedback control based on inverse dynamics. Schaffer et. However.

2 Impedance Control of Known Flexible-Joint Robots The dynamics of an n-link flexible-joint robot interacting with the environment is described in (3.3. However. a regressor-free impedance controller is constructed with consideration of the joint flexibility. an adaptive compliant control strategy for flexible joint robot without requiring the time rate of the force feedback is imperative. the computation of the regressor matrix becomes extremely difficult.202 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Because these inaccuracies may degrade the performance of the closed-loop system. internal force. most of the adaptive constrained motion control approaches need the information of time derivative of the external force which is rarely available precisely in practical applications. Chien and Huang (2006a) proposed a regressor-free adaptive controller for the impedance control of a flexible-joint robot.2-2) . al. A regressor-based adaptive impedance controller for a flexible-joint robot is derived in Section 7. 1996. any practical design should consider their effects. in Section 7. its dynamics is much more complex than that of its rigid-joint counterpart.2.7-1) which can be transformed in the form below by using the same technique in (6. and that the ultimate size of the system errors can be made arbitrarily small.4. it was shown that the schemes ensure semiglobal uniform boundedness of all signals. Lian et. the uncertainties should be linearly parameterizable into the regressor form. In this chapter. an impedance controller is designed for a known flexible-joint robot. Colbaugh et. It is well-known that derivation of the regressor matrix of a high DOF rigid robot is generally tedious. In addition. Hu and Vukovich (2001) developed a position and force control scheme for flexiblejoint robots based on the concept of the integral manifold. in most adaptive control strategies for robot manipulators. contact force and joint torque simultaneously. 1997) proposed a combined adaptive and robust control approach to control the motion. Finally. the actuator dynamics is include in the system equation of a flexible-joint robot.5. In Section 7. In Section 7. resulting in the most complex case in this book. al. Moreover. Lin and Goldenberg (1995. 7. Therefore. (1997) presented two adaptive schemes for flexible-joint robots based on impedance control and position/force control. (1991) presented an adaptive force tracking control scheme for a single-link mechanism with flexible joint based on a two-stage controller. For the flexible-joint robot. Hence. we would like to consider the impedance control problem for a flexible-joint robot.

q) . Instead of direct utilization of (2). If we can design a controller such that x converges asymptotically to xi then the two target impedances are equivalent. then (6) implies convergence of x to xi. q ) = Jq + Bq and τ t = K (θ .7. ɺ ɺ Define e = x − x i . we have the dynamics for the output tracking error − ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = J a T ( τ t − τ td ) (5) (6) Therefore. q) τ −1 −1 ɺ ɺɺ ɺɺ ɺ where x ∈ℜ n . we consider the new target impedance ɺ ɺ M i (ɺɺ i − ɺɺ d ) + B i (x i − x d ) + K i (x i − x d ) = − Fext x x n (3) where x i ∈ℜ is the state vector of (3). and the target impedance in (2) plays the role of the reference model.2 Impedance Control of Known Flexible-Joint Robots 203 − ɺ D x ɺɺ + C x x + g x = J a T τ t − Fext x (1a) (1b) ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = τ a − q(q. s = e + Λe . and M i ∈ℜ . q (q. This can be done by considering the desired torque trajectory ɺ τ td = J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s) a Plugging (5) into (4). if we may construct a proper controller τ a in (1b) to have τ t → τ td . Suppose all system parameters are known and a controller is to be designed so that the closed-loop system behaves like the target impedance ɺ ɺ M i (ɺɺ − ɺɺ d ) + B i (x − x d ) + K i (x − x d ) = −Fext x x n n×n n×n (2) where x d ∈ℜ is the desired trajectory. respectively. J t = JK . and K i ∈ℜ n × n are diagonal matrices representing the desired apparent inertia. and stiffness. B i ∈ℜ . B t = BK . The strategy is to regard the impedance controller as a model reference controller. This further implies convergence of the . then we may rewrite (1a) into ɺ ɺ D x s + C x s + g x + D x v + C x v = J − T τ t − Fext a (4) We would like to regard τ t as the control torque to drive the system in (4) so that the output tracking error will converge. damping. and v = x i − Λe .

C m ) is observable. ɺɺ td ) = K r 1 (B r τ td + J r ɺɺ td ) . A p =  are (8a) (8b) ɺr τ T ]T ∈ℜ 2 n are augmented state  0 −1 − J t augmented I n×n  I n×n   0 2n × 2n 2n × 2n and A m =  −1  ∈ℜ  ∈ℜ −1 − −J t B t  − J r K r − J r 1B r    0  system matrices. The transfer function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is SPR due to proper selection of the matrices Jr. and B p =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n and J t   0  B m =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n are augmented input gain matrices. we are going to employ the MRC rule with the reference model ɺ ɺ J r ɺɺ r + B r τ r + K r τ r = J r ɺɺ td + B r τ td + K r τ td τ τ (7) n×n where τr ∈ℜn is the state vector of the reference model. and ( A m . Substituting (9) into (8a). Br and Kr. B m ) is controllable. To this end. The MRC rule can thus be designed as τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td . The vector h ∈ℜ n is defined as h( τ td . q) (9) where Θ ∈ℜ n × 2 n and Φ ∈ℜ n × n are matrices satisfying A p + B p Θ = A m and B p Φ = B m . Matrices J r ∈ℜ . B r ∈ℜ n × n . The pair J r K r  ( A m . and K r ∈ℜ n × n are selected for the convergence of τ r to τ td .204 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots closed-loop system dynamics to the target impedance. q ) = Φτ td + q . where C p = C m = [I n × n 0] ∈ℜ n × 2 n are augmented output matrices characterizing the output signals τ t = C p x p and τ r = C m x m . − ɺ τ ɺ τ Define τ td ( τ td . and we may represent (1b) and (7) into their state space representations ɺ x p = A p x p + B p τ a − B pq ɺ x m = A m x m + B m ( τ td + τ td ) ɺt where x p = [ τT τT ]T ∈ℜ 2n and x m = [ τ T t r vectors. respectively. we may have the dynamics after some manipulation ɺ x p = A m x p + B m ( τ td + τ td ) (10) .

we may compute the time derivative of V as ɺ V = −[s T s T eτ ]Q   ≤ 0  eτ  (13) 1   − J −T  a  Kd 2 where Q =   is positive definite with proper selection of  − 1 J −T I n×n   2 a    Kd and Kc.3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots In this section. In addition. Therefore.3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 205 Define e m = x p − x m and eτ = τ t − τ r . This implies that the closed loop system converges asymptotically to the target impedance. 7. convergence of s and em can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. It ɺ ɺ is also easy to prove that s and eτ are uniformly bounded. Remark 1: This strategy is feasible only when all system parameters are available. e m ) = s T D x s + eT Pt e m m 2 T 2n × 2n (12) where Pt = Pt ∈ℜ is a positive definite matrix satisfying the Lyapunov T T equation A m Pt + Pt A m = −C mC m . Consider the system equation (7. Hence. we are concerned with the case when the system parameters are not available. we need to feedback accelerations and external forces as well as their higher order derivatives that largely restrict the practical applications.2-4) and (7. Along the trajectory of (6) and (11). s and em are uniformly bounded and square integrable.7.2-1b) again . then using (8b) and (10) we may obtain the error dynamics ɺ e m = A me m eτ = C m e m Let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate (11a) (11b) 1 V (s.

2-3) ɺ ɺ M i (ɺɺ i − ɺɺ d ) + B i (x i − x d ) + K i (x i − x d ) = − Fext x x (2) Since D x .2-7) and the state space representation (7.2-8). x.2-5) is not realizable. The control torque is selected as (7. and p x = p x − p x . and p x . equation (1a) becomes ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ D xs + C x s + K d s = − D x v − C x v − g x + J −T ( τ t − τ td ) a ɺ ɺ ɶ = − Y (x. v. and p x are estimates of D x . q) τ We would like to design a control torque τ a such that the closed-loop system converges to the target impedance (7.206 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ɺ ɺ D x s + C x s + g x + D x v + C x v = J − T τ t − Fext a (1a) (1b) ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = τ a − q(q. With this new desired transmission torque. p x ) = s T D x s + eT Pt e m + p T Γp x m 2 2 (6) . desired transmission torque τ td in (7. g x . v )p x − K d s ] a (3) ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ where D x . the closed-loop system behaves like the target impedance. respectively. g x . then (4) implies convergence of s. v )p x + J −T ( τ t − τ td ) a (4) ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ where D x = D x − D x . C x . Hence.2-9) to have the torque tracking loop dynamics (7.2-11) ɺ e m = A me m eτ = C m e m The Lyapunov-like function candidate is selected as (5a) (5b) 1 1 ɶ ɶx ɶ V (s. C x . g x = g x − g x . Let us consider the reference model (7. C x = C x − C x .e. the MRC rule is going to be used again to complete the design. and g x are not known. C x .. ˆ and an update law can be designed to have p x → p x . Let us consider a modified version ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ τ td = J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s) a ɺ ɺ ˆ = J T [Fext + Y ( x. Here. v. if a proper control torque τ a can be constructed such that τ t → τ td . x. e m . i.

3-3) is to be used without the regressor representation ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ τ td = J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s) a Again. (8) Remark 2: In this design.2-7) is to be used again ɺ ɺ J r ɺɺ r + B r τ r + K r τ r = J r ɺɺ td + B r τ td + K r τ td τ τ (4) . Therefore. we need to feedback the accelerations and external forces as well as their higher order derivatives. and Γ ∈ℜ r × r is positive definite.4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Let us consider the uncertain system equation (7. Again. we would like to employ the MRC rule to have τ t → τ td . in realization of the control torque τ a .4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 207 is a positive definite matrix satisfying the Lyapunov where Pt = Pt ∈ℜ T T equation A m Pt + Pt A m = −C mC m .2-13). equation (1a) can be further written as − ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ D xs + C x s + K d s = − D x v − C x v − g x + J a T ( τ t − τ td ) (2) (3) Along the same line as in the previous section. we do not need to know the system parameters. q) τ The same transmission torque in (7.3-1) again ɺ ɺ D x s + C x s + g x + D x v + C x v = J − T τ t − Fext a (1a) (1b) ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = τ a − q(q. the time derivative of (6) can be computed as T ɺ ɶx ɺ ˆ V = −s T K d s + s T J −T eτ − eτ eτ − p T (Γp x + Y T s) a T 2n × 2n (7) If we select the update law as ɺ ˆ p x = − Γ −1Y T s then (7) becomes (7. but the regressor matrix should be known. this strategy is not practical either. 7. and the reference model in (7.7. Along the trajectories of (4) and (5). and same performance can be concluded.

C x . if we may find a proper update law to have h → h. we have the state space representation ɺ x p = A p x p + B p τ a − B pq ɺ x m = A m x m + B m ( τ td + τ td ) The control torque can thus be designed based on the MRC rule as (5a) (5b) ˆ τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h (6) where Θ ∈ℜ n × 2 n and Φ ∈ℜ n × n satisfy A p + B p Θ = A m and B p Φ = B m . and h is the estimate of h( τ td . let us consider the function approximation representations of D x . we have the dynamics for the torque tracking loop ˆ ɺ e m = A m e m + B p (h − h ) eτ = C m e m (8a) (8b) ˆ Therefore. then the torque tracking can be achieved.208 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Similar to (7.2-8). To proceed. g x . ˆ respectively. q ) = Φτ td + q . Plugging (6) into (5a) gives ˆ ɺ x p = A m x p + B m (τ td + τ td ) + B p (h − h) (7) With the definition of e m = x p − x m and eτ = τ t − τ r . and h as T D x = WD x Z D x + ε D x T C x = WC x Z C x + ε C x T g x = Wg x z g x + ε g x T h = Wh z h + ε h (9a) (9b) (9c) (9d) Their estimates are respectively represented as ˆ ˆT D x = WD x Z D x ˆ ˆT C x = WC x Z C x (9e) (9f) .

m m − T ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T J a T eτ − eτ eτ + s T ε1 + e T Pt B p ε 2 m ɺ ɺ ɶT ɶT ˆ ˆ ɺ − Tr[ WD x (Z D x vs T + Q D x WD x ) + WC x (Z C x vs T + Q C x WC x )] ɺ ɺ ɶT ɶT ˆ ˆ − Tr[ Wg x (z g x s T + Q g x Wg x ) + Wh (z he T Pt B p + Q h Wh )] (12) m T By defining B m = B p to have eT Pt B p = eτ . Select the Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶT ɶ V (s. e m . Q g x ∈ℜ n β g × n β g . WCx . (3) and (8a) can be rewritten as − ɶT ɺ ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = J a T ( τ t − τ td ) − WD x Z D x v T T ɶ ɶ − WC Z C v − Wg z g + ε1 x x x x (10a) (10b) ɶT ɺ e m = A me m − B p Wh z h + B p ε 2 where ε1 = ε1 (ε D x . Q C x ∈ℜ n 2 βC ×n2 βC . the time derivative of (11) can be found as nβ h × n β h Q D x ∈ℜ n 2 βD ×n2 βD . ε g x . Wh ) = sT Dxs + eT Pt e m + Tr (WDx QDx WDx m 2 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + WCx QCx WCx + Wg x Qg x Wg x + Wh Qh Wh ) where (11) Q h ∈ℜ are positive definite matrices. ɺɺ i ) and ε 2 = ε 2 (ε h . and T Pt ∈ℜ 2 n × 2 n is a positive A T Pt + Pt A m = −CT C m . Wg x . s. Pt = definite matrix satisfying the Lyapunov equation Along the trajectory of (10). WDx . e m ) are lumped approximation x errors.4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 209 ˆT ˆ g x = Wg x z g x (9g) (9h) ˆ ˆT h = Wh z h Therefore. ε C x . and selecting the update laws as m ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD x = −Q D1x (Z D x vs T + σ D x WD x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC x = −Q C1x ( Z C x vs T + σ C x WC x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg x = −Q g 1 (z g x s T + σ g x Wg x ) x (13a) (13b) (13c) (13d) ɺ − T ˆ ˆ Wh = −Q h1 (z heτ + σ h Wh ) .7.

e. It is ɺ ɺ straightforward to prove s and eτ to be uniformly bounded. the σ-modification terms in ɺ (13) can be eliminated and (14) becomes V = −[s T s T eτ ]Q   ≤ 0 which  eτ  implies both s and eτ are uniformly bounded and square integrable. Let us consider the Lyapunov function candidate (11) and the update law (13) again but with σ (⋅) = 0 . and hence convergence of s and eτ can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma.. I n×n    Remark 3: If a sufficient number of basis functions are employed in the function approximation so that ε1 ≈ 0 and ε 2 ≈ 0 . i. instead of (2) and (6). Remark 4: Suppose ε1 and ε 2 cannot be ignored and there exist positive numbers δ1 and δ2 such that ε 1 ≤ δ and ε 2 ≤ δ 2 for all t ≥ 0 . then. the modified controllers can be constructed as ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ τ td = J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s + τ robust 1 ) a ˆ τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h + τ robust 2 where τ robust 1 and τ robust 2 are robust terms to be designed. the closed-loop system converges to the target impedance.210 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots then (12) becomes ɺ V = −[s T s T T  ε1  ɶT ˆ eτ ]Q   + [s T eτ ]   + σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) e τ  ε 2  T ˆ ɶ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) (14)   Kd where Q =   − 1 J −T  2 a  1  − J −T  a 2  is positive definite by proper selection of Kd. The time derivative of V can be computed as ɺ V = −[s T s T T eτ ]Q   + δ 1 s + δ 2 eτ + s T τ robust 1 + eτ τ robust 2 eτ   .

….4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 211 By picking τ robust 1 = −δ 1[sgn( s1 ) ⋯ sgn( s n )]T . k =1. σ Cx . σ Dx . i =1. σh Hence. ɺ Due to existence of ε1 and ε 2 . σ gx . ɺ where eτ k .2n is the k-th entry of eτ . Consider the inequality 1 V ≤ λmax (A) 2 s 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ e  + 2 [λmax (QDx )Tr(WDx WDx ) + λmax (QCx )Tr(WCx WCx ) τ  2 ɶT ɶ ɶTɶ + λmax (Qg x )Tr(Wg x Wg x ) + λmax (Qh )Tr(Wh Wh )] where A =  D 0  2CT Pt C m  m 0  . where si.  λmax ( A ) λmax (Q D x ) λmax (Q C x ) λmax (Q g x ) λmax (Q h )  . we may have V ≤ 0 . we may not determine definiteness of V . we may have ɺ V ≤ −α V +  ε1  1 T ε  + 2 [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2 λmin (Q)  2  1 (15) 2 T T T + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] .7. we may rewrite (14) to be 1 ɺ V ≤ −α V + [αλmax ( A ) − λmin (Q)] 2 s 1 e  + 2 λ (Q ) min  τ 2  ε1  ε   2 2 1 ɶT ɶ + {[αλmax (Q D x ) − σ D x ]Tr ( WD x WD x ) + [αλmax (Q C x ) 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ −σ C x ]Tr ( WC x WC x ) + [αλmax (Q g x ) − σ g x ]Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) 1 T ɶT ɶ +[ λmax (Q h ) − σ h ]Tr ( Wh Wh )} + [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2 T T T +σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] where α is selected to satisfy α ≤ min   λmin (Q)  . n is the i-th element of the vector s. and τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(eτ 1 ) ⋯ sgn(eτ 2 n )]T .…. and asymptotic convergence of s and eτ can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma.

. Wg x . The differential inequality (15) can be solved to have V (t ) ≤ e + −α ( t − t 0 )  ε1 (τ )  V (t 0 ) + sup  2αλmin (Q) t 0 <τ < t ε 2 (τ )  1 2 1 T T [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) 2α T T +σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] Together with the inequality s 1 1 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ V ≥ λmin (A)   + [λmin (QDx )Tr(WDx WDx ) + λmin (QCx )Tr(WCx WCx ) 2 2 eτ  ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ +λmin (Qg )Tr(Wg Wg ) + λmin (Qh )Tr(Wh Wh )] x x x 2 we may find the error bound  s(t )  e (t )  ≤  τ  + 2V (t 0 ) − 2 (t − t 0 ) 1 sup e + λmin ( A) αλmin ( A) λmin (Q) t0 <τ < t 1 α  ε1 (τ )  ε (τ )   2  αλmin ( A) T T [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) 1 T T +σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] 2 Remark 5: Realization of the strategy does not need the information of the regressor matrix. accelerations.212 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ɺ This implies that V ≤ 0 whenever  ε1 (τ )  1 T V> sup   + 2α [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) 2αλmin (Q) τ ≥ t0 ε 2 (τ )  1 T T T + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh )] 2 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ i. WD x . or time derivatives of the external force. and Wh are uniformly ultimately bounded.. s. WC x . which largely simplifies the implementation. eτ .e.

2-9) ˆ + C x v − K d s) ˆ τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h (7. external force. and we would like to verify the efficacy of the strategy developed in this section by computer simulation. q ) τ (7.8 3. lc1 =lc2 =0. adaptive laws and implementation issues.1 Summary of the adaptive impedance control for FJR Flexible-joint robots interacting with environment − ɺ ɺ D x s + C x s + g x + D x v + C x v = J a T τ t − Fext ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = τ a − q (q .2m radius circle centered at (0.0m) in 10 seconds without knowing its precise model.5(kg). Does not need to know the higher derivatives of the joint accelerations or external force. and their higher derivatives.4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 213 Table 7. I1 =I2 =0. and b2=4(N-m-sec/rad). The endpoint and the motor angle start from the initial value x(0) = [0.8m.0022 1. q) (7.1 summarizes the adaptive impedance control designs for FJR in this chapter in terms of the controller forms.5019 0 0]T respectively to track a 0.375(m). Actual values of the system parameters are m1 =m2 =0.02(kg-m2). (7. Table 7.75(m).2 0 0]T . b1 =5(N-m-sec/rad). l1 =l2 =0.8m 0. j2 =0.3-1) Regressor-based Regressor-free τ td = Controller JT a ˆ ɺ ˆ (Fext + g x + D x v τ td = JT a ˆ ɺ ˆ (Fext + g x + D x v ˆ +C x v − K d s) ɺ ɺ ˆ = J T [Fext + Y ( x.1: Consider the flexible-joint robot (3. Example 7.4-2).7.75m 0 0]T and θ(0) = [0. which is the same as the initial value for the .3-8) ɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ WD x = −Q −1x (Z D x vs T + σ D x WD x ) D ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC x = −Q C1x (Z C x vs T + σ C x WC x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg x = −Q g1 (z g x s T + σ g x Wg x ) x ɺ − T ˆ ˆ Wh = −Q h1 (z heτ + σ h Wh ) (7. and k1 =k2 =100(N-m/rad). Realization Issue Need to feedback joint accelerations.6-3). x.4-13) Does not need the information for the joint accelerations. v )p x a − K d s] τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td . The initial state for the reference model is τ r (0) = [9. (7. 1.01(kg-m2). v .4-6) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p x = − Γ −1Y T s (7. Parameters at the motor side are j1 =0.0234(kg-m2).3-3).

The constraint surface is smooth and can be modeled as a linear spring fext =kw(x-xw) where fext is the force acting on the surface.8m).05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w Dx12 (0) = w Dx 21 (0) = [−0. Mi =   . Q g 1 = 50I 22 . and W entries are assigned to be ˆ w Dx11 (0) = [0.8m.01I 44 . D x .95m is the position of the surface. x is the coordinate of the end-point in the X direction. and xw =0. B i =  0 100 .01I 44 . Q C1x = 0. Since the surface is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0. different phases of operations can be observed. The initial weighting vectors for the in ℜ . and Q h1 = 10I 22 .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x 22 (0) = [0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w Dx 22 (0) = [0. g x . and K i =  0 1000  0 0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C x12 (0) = w C x 21 (0) = [−0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w g x1 (0) = w g x 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w h1 (0) = w h2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 The gain matrices in the update laws (9) are designed as − − − Q −1x = 0. 0. and Λ =  0 10 . The controller is applied with the gain matrices  20 0  10 0  Kd =   . C x . WD and WC are 44 × 2 ˆ ˆ g and Wh are in ℜ 22 × 2 . and h.5     The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the ˆ ˆ approximation of entries in D x .  0 20   Parameter matrices in the target impedance are selected as 0   0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x11 (0) = [0.5 0  100 0  1000 . Therefore.214 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots desired transmission torque. kw =5000N/m is the environmental stiffness.

5. It can be seen that after some transient response the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory in the free space nicely.1 shows the robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space. Figure 7.9 0.1 1.95 0.7 0. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values.05 1 Y 0.7. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 7.65 0.3 gives the torque tracking performance. Figure 7. The transient states converge very fast without unwanted oscillations.9 0.8 0. Figure 7. the endpoint contacts with the constraint surface at xw =0. The simulation results are shown in Figure 7. the endpoint follows the desired trajectory with very small tracking error regardless of the system uncertainties .1 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space.2 1.4.15 1. The joint space trajectory in the constraint motion phase is smooth. Afterwards. Afterwards.1 to 7.6 to 7. the endpoint follows the desired trajectory with very small tracking error regardless of the system uncertainties.85 0.85 0. the endpoint contacts with the constraint surface compliantly. and hence the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 .75 0.75 0. When entering the free space again.4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 215 We assume in the simulation that the approximation error can be neglected.9.8 X 0. Figure 7.6 0.2 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance. 1. they still remain bounded as desired. After some transient the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory in the free space nicely. The external forces exerted on the endpoint during the constraint motion phase are shown in Figure 7.9 are the performance of function approximation.95(m) compliantly.95 1 Figure 7. When entering the free space again.

8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.4 0.8 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.2 1 0. The transient is very fast and the constraint motion phase is smooth 20 10 output torqut 1 (N.6 0.m) 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 7.4 0.216 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 7.m) 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 −50 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 10 output torqut 2 (N.6 0.3 Torque tracking performance .2 The joint space tracking performance.6 1.

4 The control efforts for both joints are all reasonable 50 external force fx (N) 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1 external force fy (N) 0.5 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 7.4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 217 60 control input 1 (N.5 0 −0.7.m) 40 20 0 −20 −40 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 10 control input 2 (N.m) 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 7.5 Time histories of the external forces in the Cartesian space .

6 Approximation of Dx 1 0.4 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 2 1.4 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 7.5 0 −0.8 0.2 −0.6 Cx(12) 0.218 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 1 0.2 0 −0.5 −1 −1.6 Cx(11) 1 0.5 1 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.5 Dx(21) Dx(22) 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 2 1.2 0 0.7 Approximation of Cx .2 −0.4 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 1.5 0 −0.4 0.5 3.4 0.5 1 Dx(11) Dx(12) 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.8 0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 1 0 −1 −2 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 7.5 1 Cx(21) 3 2 Cx(22) 0.5 0 −0.5 3 1 2.2 0 −0.

4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 219 6 5 4 gx(1) 3 2 1 0 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 14 12 10 gx(2) 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 7.8 Approximation of gx 4 3 2 h(1) 1 0 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 2 0 −2 h(2) −4 −6 −8 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 7.9 Approximation of h .7.

2-4). B r ∈ℜ n × n .5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics According to (3. and hence the backstepping-like procedure can be applied here. the dynamics for output error tracking is found to be (2) ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = J −T ( τ t − τ td ) a (3) To ensure torque tracking in (1b). the MRC rule is applied with the reference model ɺ ɺ J r ɺɺ r + B r τ r + K r τ r = J r ɺɺ td + B r τ td + K r τ td τ τ (4) n×n where τr ∈ℜn is the state vector of the reference model. the control effort u in (1c) is constructed to have convergence of i to id. we may rewrite τ r (1b) and (4) into the state space representation ɺ x p = A p x p + B p Hi − B p q ɺ x m = A m x m + B m ( τ td + τ td ) (5a) (5b) .9-1) and (7. and K r ∈ℜ n × n are selected to give convergence of τ r to τ td . ɺɺ td ) = K −1 (B r τ td + J r ɺɺ td ) .9.220 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 7. ɺ τ ɺ With the definition of τ td ( τ td . Assuming that all parameters in (1) are known. q) τ ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u This system is in a cascade form similar to the configuration shown in Figure 6. Finally. A desired torque trajectory τ td is firstly designed for convergence of s in (1a). the dynamics of a rigid-link flexible-joint electrically-driven robot interacting with the environment can be described by − ɺ ɺ D x s + C x s + g x + D x v + C x v = J a T τ t − Fext (1a) (1b) (1c) ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = Hi − q(q. and then the desired torque can be designed as ɺ τ td = J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s) a Therefore. and J r ∈ℜ . The desired current trajectory id can then be found to ensure τ t → τ td in (1b).

The pair ( A m . the control law in (1c) is designed as ɺ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K b q − K c e i (9) where e i = i − i d is the current error vector. and h is defined as h( τ td .7. Let τ t = C p x p J r K r  and τ r = C m x m be respectively the output signal vector for (5a) and (5b). (9) into (1c). B m ) is controllable. Substituting (6) into (5a). and Kc is a positive definite matrix. we may obtain ɺ ɺ x p = A m x p + B m (τ d + τ td ) + B p H(i − i d ) (7) With the definition e m = x p − x m and eτ = τ t − τ r . ( A m . q ) = Φτ td + q . the dynamics for the torque tracking loop becomes ɺ e m = A m e m + B p H (i − i d ) eτ = C m e m (8a) (8b) In order to ensure τ t → τ td and i → i d . Plugging. According to the MRC design. we may have the dynamics for the current tracking loop ɺ Le i + K c e i = 0 (10) .5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 221 ɺr ɺt where x p = [τ T τ T ]T ∈ℜ 2n and x m = [ τ T τ T ]T ∈ℜ 2 n are augmented state t r vectors. respectively. q )] (6) where Θ and Φ are matrices satisfying A p + B p Θ = A m and B p Φ = B m . and B p =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n and J t   0  B m =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n are augmented input gain matrices. and the transfer function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is SPR. C m ) is observable. where C p = C m = [I n × n 0] ∈ℜ n × 2 n are augmented output signal matrices. A p =  are  0 −J t −1 augmented In×n  I n×n   0 2 n × 2n 2n × 2 n and A m =  −1  ∈ℜ  ∈ℜ −1 − J t−1B t  −J r K r −J r B r   0  system matrices. the desired current id is selected as i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td .

uniformly boundedness of s . the design introduced in this section is not feasible for practical applications. the time derivative of V can be computed as 1 − ɺ ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T (D x − 2C x )s + s T J a T eτ 2 T −eτ eτ + e T Pt B p He i − e T K ce i m i T Selecting B m = B p such that eT Pt B p = eτ . e i ) = s T Ds + eT Pt e m + eT Le i m i 2 2 T 2n × 2n (11) where Pt = Pt ∈ℜ is a positive definite matrix satisfying the Lyapunov T T equation A m Pt + Pt A m = −C mC m . . and q → q d . ɺ ɺ ɺ Furthermore. equation (12) becomes m (12) ɺ V = −[s T eτ T eT i s ] Q  eτ  ≤ 0    ei    (13) 1 −   − J aT 0   Kd 2   1 −T 1  − J where Q = I n×n − H is positive definite due to proper  2 a 2    1  0 − H Kc    2   selection of Kd and Kc. and i → i d follow by Barbalat’s lemma. and e i are also easy to be proved. and their square integrability can also be proved from (13). Therefore. eτ . τt →τtd . Therefore. and we need to feedback q and its higher order derivatives. we have proved that s. all system parameters are ɺɺ required to be available. Remark 6: To implement the control strategy. Hence. (8) and (10). e m . eτ and e i are uniformly bounded. the closed-loop system behaves like the target impedance. Along the trajectories of (3).222 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots To prove the closed loop stability of the whole system. let us consider a Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 1 V (s.

Therefore. R and Kb are unavailable.1 Regressor-based adaptive controller design Consider the system in (1) again.7. g x = g x − g x . The desired torque trajectory in (2) is not feasible. C x = C x − C x . v. and p x = p x − p x . and p x . we would like to use the MRC rule with the reference model in (4) and the state space representation in (5). To this end. p i = [LT R T K T ]T ∈ℜ 3n × n .5. and we id may have the dynamics for the current tracking loop as ɺ ɶi Le i + K ce i = −p T φ (17) ɶ ˆ where p i = p i − p i . gx. e m . v. C x . e i . then (15) implies asymptotic convergence of the output error. Cx. x. L. To prove stability. we select the Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 ɶ ɶ V (s. The desired current trajectory is designed as the one in (6) to have the dynamics for the torque tracking loop as in (8). v )p x + J −T ( τ t − τ td ) a (15) ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ where D x = D x − D x . if we may find a controller so that τ t → τ td and an update law to ˆ have p → p.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 223 7. x. a new controller is designed as ˆɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K b q − K c e i ˆi = p T φ − K ce i (16) ˆ ˆ ˆb ɺ ˆ where φ = [ɺT i T q T ]T ∈ℜ 3n . Plugging (14) into (1a). g x . g x . p x . but Dx. and we modify it as ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ τ td = J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s) a ɺ ɺ ˆ = J T [Fext + Y ( x. p i ) = s T D xs + e T Pt e m m 2 1 1 ɶx ɶ ɶi ɶ + e T Le i + p T Γp x + Tr (p T Γ i p i ) i 2 2 (18) . and p x are estimates of D x . C x . Instead of (9). and we may obtain the error dynamics for the output tracking loop ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ D xs + C x s + K d s = − D x v − C x v − g x + J −T ( τ t − τ td ) a ɺ ɺ ɶ = − Y (x. v )p x − K d s ] a (14) ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ where D x . respectively.

(15) and (17). but Dx. Consequently. therefore. then (22) implies convergence of . then the update law can be selected to be m ɺ ˆ p x = − Γ −1Y T s ɺ ˆ p i = − Γ i−1φe T i (20a) (20b) Thus. the design introduced in this section is not feasible for practical applications. gx. and g x → g x . we may conclude that the closed-loop system will behave like the target impedance regardless of the system uncertainties. τ t → τ td . (19) becomes (13). 7. L. Taking time derivative of (18) along the trajectories m m T ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T J −T eτ − eτ eτ + e T Pt B p He i − e T K c e i a m i T ɺ + Y T s) − Tr[p T (Γ p + φe T )] ɺ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ − p (Γp x x i i i i of (8). Therefore. and i → i d follow by Barbalat’s lemma. we have (19) T Pick B m = B p to have eT Pt B p = eτ . Remark 7: To implement the controller strategy. The desired torque trajectory in (2) is modified as ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ τ td = J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s) a The dynamics for the output tracking loop can thus be written as − ɶ ɺ ɶ ɺ ɶ D xs + C x s + K d s = − D x v − C x v − g x + J a T ( τ t − τ td ) (21) (22) Therefore. Cx. and hence.2 Regressor-free adaptive controller design Consider the system in (1) again. we have proved that s. R and Kb are unavailable. C x → C x . but we have to feedback q and calculate the regressor matrix and their higher order derivatives. eτ and e i are uniformly bounded. q → q d .5. and e i are also easy to be proved. ɺ ɺ ɺ Furthermore. eτ . if we may find a control law to drive τ t → τ td and update laws to ˆ ˆ ˆ have D x → D x . and their square integrability can also be proved from (13).224 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots T 2n × 2n where Pt = Pt ∈ℜ is positive definite satisfying the Lyapunov equation A T Pt + Pt A m = −CT C m . either. we do not need to have the ɺɺ knowledge of most system parameters. uniformly boundedness of s .

The control strategy can be constructed as ˆ u = f − K ce i (25) ˆ where e i = i − i d is the current error. the ɺ ɺ ɺ is an estimate of f (i dynamics for the current tracking loop can be found as ˆ ɺ Le i + K ce i = f − f (26) ˆ If we may select a proper update law to have f → f . Since Dx. their function approximation representations are employed as T D x = WD x Z D x + ε D x T C x = WC x Z C x + ε C x T g x = Wg x z g x + ε g x T h = Wh z h + ε h (27a) (27b) (27c) (27d) (27e) f = WfT z f + ε f . the dynamics for the torque tracking loop becomes ˆ ɺ e m = A m e m + B p H ( i − i d ) + B p (h − h ) eτ = C m e m (24a) (24b) Hence. To this end. we would like to use the MRC rule again with the reference model in (4) and the state space representation in (5). q ) and f (ɺ d . gx. With this control law. q) are i time-varying functions and their variation bounds are not given.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 225 the output error.7. Cx. (26) ensures convergence ɺ in the current tracking loop. if we may design a control law to ensure i → i d and an update law to ˆ have h → h . Kc is a positive definite matrix and f ɺ d . q ) = Li d + Ri + K bq . q ) = Φτ td + q . The desired current trajectory is designed according to (6) to be ˆ i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h] (23) ˆ where h is an estimate of h( τ td . i. i. h( τ td . Consequently. then we may have convergence of the torque tracking loop.

respectively. nβ × n and Wf ∈ℜ f 2 are weighting matrices for Dx. ɺɺ i ) . gx. and f. e m . and ε 3 = ε 3 (ε f . and current tracking error dynamics (26) can be rewritten as ɶT ɺ ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = J −T ( τ t − τ td ) − WD x Z D x v a ɶT ɶT − WC Z C v − Wg z g + ε1 x x x x (28a) (28b) (28c) ɶT ɺ e m = A me m − B p Wh z h + B p He i + B p ε 2 ɶ ɺ Le i + K ce i = − WfT z f + ε 3 where ε1 = ε1 (ε D x . Along the trajectory of (28).226 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 2 2 where WD x ∈ℜ n β D × n . Likewise. ε C x . and n β f ×1 z f ∈ℜ are basis function matrices. and Q f ∈ℜ are positive definite. the output error dynamics (22). ε g x . s. z h ∈ℜ h . WCx . Cx. WC x ∈ℜ n β C × n . Z C x ∈ℜ n β C × n . h. Define the Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s. WDx . torque tracking error dynamics (24a). e i ) are x lumped approximation error vectors. ε 2 = ε 2 (ε h . z g x ∈ℜ g . 2 n β ×1 n β ×1 while ZDx ∈ℜn β D ×n . Wg x . ei . we may compute the time derivative of V as . nβ f × nβ f nβ h × nβ h Q h ∈ℜ . Q g x ∈ℜ g . Wh . Q C x ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . Wg x ∈ℜ g . e m ) . Wf ) = [sT D xs + 2eT Pt e m m 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + eT Lei + Tr(WDx QDx WDx + WCx QCx WCx + Wg x Qg x Wg x ) i ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ + Tr(Wh Qh Wh + WfT Qf Wf )] 2 2 2 2 (29) nβ × nβ g where matrices Q D x ∈ℜ n β D × n β D . we have the representations for the estimates as nβ × n nβ × n ˆ ˆT D x = WD x Z D x ˆ ˆT C x = WC x Z C x ˆT ˆ g x = Wg x z g x ˆ ˆT h = Wh z h ˆ ˆ f = WfT z f (27f) (27g) (27h) (27i) (27j) Thus. Wh ∈ℜ h .

5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics T ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T J −T eτ − eτ eτ + e T Pt B p He i − e T K ce i a m i 227 ɺ ɶT ˆ ɺ +s T ε1 + eT Pt B p ε 2 + e T ε 3 − Tr[ WD x (Z D x vs T + Q D x WD x )] m i ɺ ɺ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ −Tr[ WC x (Z C x vs T + Q C x WC x ) + Wg x (z g x s T + Q g x Wg x )] ɺ ɺ ɶT ɶ ˆ ˆ −Tr[ Wh (z he T Pt B p + Q h Wh ) + WfT (z f e T + Q f Wf )] m i (30) T If we select B m = B p so that eT Pt B p = eτ .7. (32)  0   1  − H is positive definite due to proper 2   Kc    . and if we pick the update laws as m ɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ WD x = −Q −1x (Z D x vs T + σ D x WD x ) D ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC x = −Q C1x ( Z C x vs T + σ C x WC x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg x = −Q g 1 (z g x s T + σ g x Wg x ) x ɺ − T ˆ ˆ Wh = −Q h1 (z heτ + σ h Wh ) ɺ ˆ ˆ Wf = −Q f−1 (z f eT + σ f Wf ) i then (30) becomes (31a) (31b) (31c) (31d) (31e) ɺ V = −[s T eτ T eT i s ]Q eτ  + [s T    ei    eτ T eT i  ε1  ] ε 2    ε 3    ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ ɶT ˆ +σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) ɶT ˆ ɶ ˆ +σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf ) 1  − J −T a  Kd 2  1 −T where Q =  − J a I n×n  2  1  0 − H  2  selection of Kd and Kc.

2. Hence.….n is the j-th eτ . Remark 10: If the approximation error cannot be ignored. i=1. and τ robust 3 = −δ 3[sgn(ei1 ) ⋯ sgn(ein )]T where eik . then we may have (13) again. then robust terms τrobust 1. then the time derivative of V becomes ɺ V = −[s T eτ T eT i s ]Q eτ  + δ 1 s + δ 2 eτ + δ 3 e i    ei    T +s T τ robust 1 + eτ τ robust 2 + e T τ robust 3 i If we select τ robust 1 = −δ 1[sgn( s1 ) sgn( s 2 ) ⋯ sgn( s n )]T where si. i=1. τrobust 2 and τrobust 3 can be included into (21). τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(eτ 1 ) ⋯ sgn(eτ 2 n )]T where entry in eτ j .228 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Remark 8: Realization of the control law (25) and update laws (31) does not need the information of joint accelerations. but we can find positive numbers δ1.…. By considering the inequality . ɺ Owing to the existence of the approximation errors. which largely simplified their implementation.n is the k-th element in ei.n is the i-th entry in s. δ2 and δ3 such that ε i ≤ δ i . and the update law (31) without σ-modification. j=1. or their higher order derivatives. Therefore. and convergence of s.3. then it is not necessary to include the σ-modification terms in (31). the definiteness of V cannot be determined. (32) can be reduced to (13). This will further give convergence of the output error by Barbalat’s lemma. the closed loop system behaves like the target impedance. (23) and (25) to have ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ τ td = J T (Fext + g x + D x v + C x v − K d s + τ robust ) a ˆ i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h + τ robust 2 ] ˆ u = f − K c e i + τ robust 3 Consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate (29) again. eτ and ei can be further proved by Barbalat’s lemma. k=1. regressor matrix.…. Remark 9: Suppose a sufficient number of basis functions are used and the approximation error can be ignored.

we may rewrite (32) as L  2 2 s  ε1  1 ε  ɺ ≤ −α V + 1 [αλmax ( A ) − λmin (Q)] eτ  + V 2   2 2 λmin (Q)    ei  ε 3      1 ɶT ɶ + {[αλmax (Q D x ) − σ D x ]Tr ( WD x WD x ) + [αλmax (Q C x ) 2 ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ −σ C x ]Tr ( WC x WC x ) + [αλmax (Q g x ) − σ g x ]Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) ɶT ɶ +[αλmax (Q h ) − σ h ]Tr ( Wh Wh ) + [αλmax (Q f ) 1 T T ɶ ɶ −σ f ]Tr ( WfT Wf )} + [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) 2 T T +σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] where α is selected to satisfy α ≤ min   λmin (Q)    λmax ( A) λmax (Q D x ) λmax (Q C x ) λmax (Q g x ) λmax (Q h ) λmax (Q f )  .5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 2 229 s 1 1 ɶT ɶ V ≤ λmax ( A ) eτ  + [ λmax (Q D x )Tr ( WD x WD x )   2 2  ei    ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + λmax (Q C x )Tr ( WC x WC x ) + λmax (Q g x )Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ + λmax (Q h )Tr ( Wh Wh ) + λmax (Q f )Tr ( WfT Wf )] 0 D  T where A =  0 2C m Pt C m 0 0  0  0  .7. σf such that we may further have  ε1  1 ε  + 1 [σ Tr ( W T W ) ɺ ≤ −α V + V 2 Dx Dx Dx 2 λmin (Q)   2 ε 3    T T +σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) T +σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2 (33) . σ Cx . σh . σ Dx . σ gx .

eτ . s. WC x . e i . WD x .e. Wh . In addition. Wg x . we have proved that V < 0 whenever  ε1 (τ )  1 1 T V> sup ε 2 (τ )  + [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x )   2αλmin (Q) τ ≥ t0 2α  ε 3 (τ )    T T +σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) T +σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ i.230 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ɺ Therefore. (33) implies  ε1 (τ )  1 −α ( t − t 0 ) V (t ) ≤ e V (t 0 ) + sup ε 2 (τ )  2αλmin (Q) t 0 <τ < t   ε 3 (τ )    1 T T [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) + 2α T T +σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] Together with the inequality 2 s 1 1 ɶT ɶ V ≥ λmin ( A ) eτ  + [ λmin (Q D )Tr ( WD x WD x )   2 2  ei    ɶT ɶ ɶT ɶ + λmin (Q C x )Tr ( WC x WC x ) + λmin (Q g x )Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) ɶT ɶ ɶ ɶ + λmin (Q h )Tr ( Wh Wh ) + λmin (Q f )Tr ( WfT Wf )] we may find the error bound 2 s e  ≤  τ  ei     ε1 (τ )  α 2V (t 0 ) − 2 (t − t0 ) 1 e + sup ε 2 (τ )  λmin ( A) αλmin ( A) λmin (Q) t0 <τ < t   ε 3 (τ )    1 T T + [σ D x Tr ( WD x WD x ) + σ C x Tr ( WC x WC x ) αλmin ( A) 1 T T +σ g x Tr ( Wg x Wg x ) + σ hTr ( Wh Wh ) + σ f Tr ( WfT Wf )] 2 .. and Wf are uniformly ultimately bounded.

The stiffness of the constrained surface . Example 7. q )] (7. adaptive laws and implementation issues.0234(kg-m2).5-31) Does not need the information for the regressor matrix. Table 7. kb1= kb2= 1 (Vol/rad/sec) (Chien and Huang 2007a). I1= I2=0.2: Consider flexible-joint robot in example 7.5-14). (7.5(kg). r1= r2= 1(Ω). j2= 0.5-20) ɺ − ˆ ˆ ɺ WD x = −Q D1x ( Z D x vs T + σ D x WD x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ WC x = −Q C1x ( Z C x vs T + σ C x WC x ) ɺ − ˆ ˆ Wg x = −Q g 1 (z g x s T + σ g x Wg x ) x ɺ − T ˆ ˆ Wh = −Q h1 ( z h eτ + σ h Wh ) ɺ ˆ ˆ Wf = −Q f−1 ( z f e T + σ f Wf ) i (7.1 but with consideration of the motor dynamics. b1= 5(N-m-sec/rad). Table 7. l1= l2= 0.375(m).01(kg-m2). (7.5-25) ˆɺ ˆ ˆ ɺ u = Li d + Ri + K bq − K ce i ˆ ɺ ˆ (Fext + g x + D x v ˆ x v − K d s) +C ˆ i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h ] ˆ u = f − K ce i τ td = JT a ˆi = p T φ − K ce i (7.02(kg-m2).025(H). lc1= lc2=0.5-16) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p x = − Γ −1Y T s ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1φeT i i i (7.2 summarizes the adaptive impedance control of EDFJR in terms of their controller forms. and h1= h2= 10(N-m/A). Realization Issue Need to know the regressor matrix. Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1= m2= 0. and k1= k2=100(N-m/rad).75(m). Electrical parameter for the actuator are L1= L2= 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 231 Therefore. or their derivatives. joint accelerations and their higher derivatives.5-23). v . (7. (7.7. q) τ ɺ + Ri + K bq = u ɺ Li Regressor-based Regressor-free τ td = Controller ˆ ɺ ˆ (Fext + g x + D x v ˆ x v − K d s) +C ɺ ɺ ˆ = J T [Fext + Y ( x. the error signal is bounded by an exponential function.5-6). Parameters for the actuator part are chosen as j1= 0.5-1) ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = Hi − q (q. joint accelerations. v )p x a − K d s] JT a i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td .5-21).2 Summary of the adaptive impedance control for EDFJR Electrically driven flexible-joint robots interacting with environment − ɺ ɺ D x s + C x s + g x + D x v + C x v = J a T τ t − Fext (7. b2= 4(N-m-sec/rad). x.

generalized coordinate vector is at q(0) = θ(0) = [0.0022 1.  0 50     The initial value for the desired current can be found by calculation as i d (0) = i(0) = [16.232 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots is assumed to be kw= 5000(N/m).75m).5     The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the approximation. the endpoint is initially at (0.8m. B i =  0 100 . while Wg x . 0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x 22 (0) = [0. The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be ˆ w Dx11 (0) = [0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C x12 (0) = w C x 21 (0) = [−0.5 0  100 0  1500 . and K i =  0 1500  0 0.4 0 0]T . Mi =   . and K c =  0 200 . the endpoint is required (0.8m.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w Dx 22 (0) = [0.8m) for observation of the transient.1. WD x and WC x are in ℜ 44 × 2 . In dynamics. Λ =  0 20 . ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Therefore. The controller gain matrices are selected as 50 0   20 0   200 0  Kd =   .1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x11 (0) = [0. i.8m.e.2m radius circle centered at much faster than the case in example 7. 0. It is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0.4]T . 1.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w Dx12 (0) = w Dx 21 (0) = [−0.0m) in 2 seconds which is The initial condition for the order to observe the effect of the actuator to track a 0.2 1. and Wf are in 22 × 2 ℜ .1 1.. Wh . which is the same as the initial state for the desired torque.5019 0 0]T . The matrices in the target impedance are picked as 0   0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w g x1 (0) = w g x 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w h1 (0) = w h2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w f1 (0) = w f 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 . The initial state for the reference model is τ r (0) = [8.

5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 233 The gain matrices in the update law (31) are selected as Q −1x = 0.85 0.8 0.05 1 Y 0. Figure 7. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law.2 seconds which can be justified from the joint space tracking history in Figure 7. they still remain bounded as desired. and the σmodification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 . the transient state takes only about 0. The control voltages to the two motors are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 7. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values.6 0. Q g 1 = 100I 22 .10 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space. It can be seen that the torque errors for both joints are small.20.9 0. It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges smoothly to the desired trajectory in the free space tracking and contacts compliantly in the constrained motion phase. In this x simulation.75 0. The torque tracking performance is shown in Figure 7.65 0.2 1.15 1. the approximation error is assumed to be neglected.15 to 7. 1.12.7 0.10 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space .10 to 7. D − − − − Q C1x = 0. Figure 7.1 1.95 0. It is observed that the strategy can give very small current error.95 1 Figure 7.20 are the performance of function approximation. Although the initial error is quite large. and Q f 1 = 10000I 22 . Q h1 = 10I 22 .13 presents the current tracking performance.7. Figure 7.001I 44 .9 0.001I 44 .11.75 0.85 0.8 X 0.14. The simulation results are shown in Figure 7.

4 0.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1 0.8 2 10 output torque 2 (N.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.6 0.6 1.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.2 1.8 2 Figure 7.6 0.2 0.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.4 1.12 Tracking in the torque tracking loop .4 0.2 0.6 1.6 1.234 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.4 1.8 2 Figure 7.6 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.2 0.2 0 0.4 1.6 1.2 0 0 0.11 Joint space tracking performance 60 output torque 1 (N.8 2 1.m) 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 −50 −60 0 0.m) 40 20 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 0 0.6 0.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.2 1.6 0.

6 0.7.4 1.2 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.2 0.8 2 Figure 7.4 0.4 0.8 2 Figure 7.2 1.6 1.6 1.13 Tracking in the current tracking loop 200 150 100 50 0 −50 control input 1 (vol) 0 0.4 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 20 235 actuator current 1 (A) 15 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 0 0.2 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.4 0.2 0.14 Control efforts .8 2 10 actuator current 2 (A) 5 0 −5 −10 0 0.6 0.8 2 80 60 control input 2 (vol) 40 20 0 −20 −40 0 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.

5 0 −0.8 1.4 Dx(12) 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.16 Approximation of Dx .5 0.2 0.4 0.8 2 Figure 7.5 2 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.5 2 Figure 7.6 1 Dx(11) 0.5 −1 0 0.15 External force trajectories 0.5 2 2 1.5 3 1 2.2 1.4 0.2 0.4 1.6 1.5 0 0 0.8 2 1 external force fy (N) 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.5 Dx(21) Dx(22) 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 3.5 0 0.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 0 −0.5 1 0.5 2 1.5 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0 0 −0.6 0.236 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 80 external force fx (N) 60 40 20 0 0 0.

6 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 Figure 7.6 0.8 2 Figure 7.5 1 Time(sec) 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.5 2 0 −1 −2 −3 6 4 10 5 2 Cx(21) Cx(22) 0 −2 0 −5 −4 −6 0 0.17 Approximation of Cx 12 10 8 gx(1) 6 4 2 0 −2 0 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 3 2 1 Cx(11) Cx(12) 237 4 3 2 1 0 −1 −2 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 −10 0 0.18 Approximation of gx .2 0.2 0.7.4 1.8 2 20 15 gx(2) 10 5 0 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.5 2 −3 0 0.4 0.6 1.

6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.19 Approximation of h 200 150 100 f(1) 50 0 −50 −100 0 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 Figure 7.2 0.20 Approximation of f .4 0.2 1.4 1.238 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 8 6 4 h(1) 2 0 −2 −4 −6 0 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.6 0.2 1.8 2 10 5 0 h(2) −5 −10 −15 0 0.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.6 1.6 1.8 2 Figure 7.6 0.2 0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 1.8 2 100 80 60 f(2) 40 20 0 −20 −40 0 0.2 1.

6 Conclusions In this chapter. a regressor based adaptive controller is derived in Section 7. However.5.3. and their higher order derivatives. However. and their derivatives. A regreesor-based adaptive impedance controller is then developed for EDFJR in Section 7. regressor matrix. the regressor matrix. its realization still needs the joint accelerations.1.2 for the impedance control of a known FJR. A regreesor-free adaptive impedance controller for EDFJR is then introduced in Section 7. the regressor matrix.5. its implementation requires the knowledge of joint accelerations. the MRC rule is utilized in Section 7. or their higher order derivatives. The actuator dynamics is included in the system equation in Section 7. Therefore. we consider the case when the flexible-joint robot contacts with the environment.2 and it is free from the information for joint accelerations or the regressor matrix. the control strategy is not practical. . Several simulation results show that the regressor-free design can give good performance to an EDFJR operating in a compliant motion environment. The adaptive impedance controllers are derived to give good performance in both free space tracking and constraint motion phase. To deal with the uncertainties. Firstly.5. The regressor-free adaptive impedance controller is developed in Section 7.4 whose realization do not need the joint accelerations.6 Conclusions 239 7.7.

This page intentionally left blank .

…. Proof: The proof is straightforward as below: T  w1  0 WT W =   ⋮   0 0 wT 2 ⋮ 0 0   w1  ⋯ 0  0  ⋱ ⋮  ⋮  ⋯ wT   0 m  ⋯ 0 ⋯ 0 0 w2 ⋮ 0 ⋯ 0  ⋯ 0   ⋱ ⋮  ⋯ wm    0 =  ⋮   0    =    w1 0 ⋮ 0 T  w1 w 1 wT w 2 2 ⋮ 0 2   ⋯ 0  ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ wT w m  m ⋯ ⋯ ⋱ ⋯   0  ⋮   2 wm   0 2 i 0 w2 ⋮ 0 m 2 Therefore.⋯ .m and W is a block i diagonal matrix defined as W = diag{w 1 . we have Tr ( W T W) = ∑w i =1 .Appendix Lemma A1: Let w T = [ wi1 wi 2 ⋯ win ] ∈ℜ1× n . Tr ( W T W) = ∑w i =1 m 2 i . i=1. Then. w 2 . 241 . w m } ∈ℜ mn × m .

Proof: The proof is also straightforward: T  v1  0 T V W= ⋮  0  0 vT 2 ⋮ 0 0  w1  ⋯ 0  0 ⋱ ⋮  ⋮  ⋯ vT   0 m ⋯ 0 vT w 2 2 ⋮ 0 ⋯ 0 0 w2 ⋮ 0 0  ⋯ 0   ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ wm  ⋯ T  v1 w 1  0 =  ⋮   0    ⋯ 0  ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ vT w m  m  Hence.⋯ . + v T w m 2 m ≤ v1 w 1 + v 2 w 2 + . i=1. respectively. T Tr (V T W ) = v1 w 1 + v T w 2 + ..⋯ . Then.. Let W and V be block diagonal matrices that are defined as W = diag{w 1 . v 2 . v m } ∈ℜ mn × m .. Tr ( V T W ) ≤ ∑v i =1 m i wi . w 2 .. Then ˆ ˆ W 1 1 ɶ ˆ ɶ ɶ Tr ( W T W) ≤ Tr ( W T W) − Tr ( W T W) 2 2 . + v m w m = ∑v i =1 m i wi .242 Appendix Lemma A2: w T = [ wi1 wi 2 ⋯ win ] ∈ℜ1× n and i 1× n = [vi1 vi 2 ⋯ vin ] ∈ℜ . Lemma A3: ɶ Let W be defined as in lemma A1. where W is a matrix with proper dimension.m. and W is a matrix defined as ɶ = W − W .…. w m } ∈ℜ mn × m and Suppose vT i V = diag{v 1 .

⋯ . we would like to extend the analysis to a class of more general matrices. we consider properties of a block diagonal matrix.…. w i 2 . are block diagonal T matrices with the entries of vectors w ij = [ wij1 wij 2 ⋯ wijn ] ∈ℜ1× n .…. Proof: W W T = [ W1T ⋯ T Wp  W1    ] ⋮  Wp    T = W1T W1 + ⋯ + W p W p . Then. Lemma A4: T T Let W be a matrix in the form W T = [ W1T W2 ⋯ W p ] ∈ℜ pmn × m mn × m where Wi = diag{w i1 .Appendix 243 Proof: ɶ ˆ ɶ ɶ ɶ Tr ( W T W ) = Tr ( W T W ) − Tr ( W T W) ≤ ɶ ∑( w i =1 m m i ɶ wi − wi ) 2 i 2 (by lemma A1 and A2) 1 = 2 ≤ 1 2 ∑[ w i =1 m ɶ − wi 2 ɶ − ( wi − wi )2 ] ∑( w i =1 2 i ɶ − wi ) (by lemma A1) 2 1 1 ɶ ɶ = Tr ( W T W) − Tr ( W T W) 2 2 In the above lemmas. w im } ∈ℜ . i =1.m. In the following. j=1. we may have Tr ( W W) = T ∑∑ w i =1 j =1 p m 2 ij . p.

Proof: T Tr (V T W) = Tr (V1T W1 ) + ⋯ + Tr (V p W p ) ≤ = ∑ j =1 p m v1 j w 1 j + ⋯ + m ∑v j =1 m pj w pj (by lemma A2) ∑∑ v i =1 j =1 ij w ij Lemma A6: ɶ Let W be defined as in lemma A4. Then ˆ ˆ W 1 1 ɶ ˆ ɶ ɶ Tr ( W T W) ≤ Tr ( W T W) − Tr ( W T W) 2 2 . we may calculate the trace as T Tr ( W T W ) = Tr ( W1T W1 ) + ⋯ + Tr ( W p W p ) = = ∑ j =1 p m w1 j m 2 +⋯ + 2 ij ∑w j =1 m 2 pj (by lemma A1) ∑∑ w i =1 j =1 Lemma A5: Let V and p m W ij be matrices defined in lemma A4. Then.244 Appendix Hence. and W is a matrix defined as ɶ = W − W . Tr (V T W) ≤ ∑∑ v i =1 j =1 w ij . where W is a matrix with proper dimension.

Appendix 245 Proof: ɶ ˆ ɶ ɶ ɶ Tr ( W T W ) = Tr ( W T W ) − Tr ( W T W) ≤ = ≤ ɶ ∑∑ ( w i =1 j =1 p p m ij ɶ w ij − w ij ) 2 ij 2 (by lemma A4 and A5) 1 2 1 2 ∑∑[ w i =1 j =1 p m m ɶ − w ij 2 ɶ − ( w ij − w ij ) 2 ] ∑∑ ( w i =1 j =1 2 ij ɶ − w ij ) (by lemma A4) 2 1 1 ɶ ɶ = Tr ( W T W) − Tr ( W T W ) 2 2 .

This page intentionally left blank .

24-30. 36. Oct.: Wiley. “Hybrid Impedance Control of Robotic Manipulators. N. Slotine. R. “Constrained Motion (Force/Position) Control of Flexible Joint Robots. Y. no. Man. 1991. Dawson. Shaw. Asada and J-J. pp. vol. 11. Dorato and M. Chen and A. Netherlands. Issues 4-5. April 2005a.Y. 23. Chen and A. pp. Kelly. Ahmad.” IEEE Control System Magazine. “An Adaptive Impedance Force Control for Robot Manipulators. 716-727. issue 3-5. C. W.” IEEE International Conference on Systems. S. no.” Journal of Sound and Vibration. 1986. C. vol. Hague. “Adaptive Sliding Control of Active Suspension Systems based on Function Approximation Technique. 302.” Journal of Sound and Vibration. P.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. 1993. 1988.References A. 2. C. Huang. pp. C. E. P. Anderson and M. “Adaptive Tracking Control for a Class of Nonautonomous Systems Containing Time-varying Uncertainties with Unknown Bounds. Jamishidi. D. P. 8. 4. pp. 549-556. Man and Cybernetics. 5. 5870-5875. vol. C. H. “Low-frequency Vibration Control of a Pan/tilt Platform with Vision Feedback. no. 1119-1135. May 2007. and Cybernetics. Huang. R. vol. pp.” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. J.” IEEE Transactions on System. “Survey of Robust Control for Rigid Robots. Robot Analysis and Control. vol. pp. 967-971. 282. vol. 247 . Abdallah. 1991. 2004. Spong. Carelli and R. Chang and J.

“Adaptive Compliant Motion Control of Flexible-joint Manipulators. 2006a. C. Chien and A. R. Huang. vol. Man and Cybernetics. no. M. Huang. pp. 5. Huang. April 2007a. pp. D. 1873-1878. C. 30. M. issue 04. Huang. Huang. vol.” IEEE International Conference on Systems. Glass and G. 395-403. “Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Using FAT. 357-368. C. Chien and A. “Adaptive Sliding Control of Active Suspension Systems with Uncertain Hydraulic Actuator Dynamics. Gallegos. K. E. M. W. E. no. C. R. New Mexico. Colbaugh. “Global Adaptive Partial State Feedback Tracking Control of Rigid-link Flexible-joint . July 2007b. “Adaptive control of flexible-joint electrically-driven robot with time-varying uncertainties. Chen and A. Dawson and M. “Direct Adaptive Impedance Control of Manipulators. Albuquerque.” Vehicle System Dynamics. M. C. August 2004. 22. 11.” Proceedings American Control Conference. “Adaptive Impedance Control of Robot Manipulators based on Function Approximation Technique. C. 2006b.” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. M. W. 5. Chien and A. pp.” American Control Conference. 855-862. Chen and A. P. no. 685-706. vol. “FAT-based adaptive control for flexible-joint robots without computation of the regressor matrix. 1991. Zergeroglu. Huang. 2410-2415. 1997. pp. Seraji and K. vol.248 References P. C. C. Colbaugh. H. C. Chien and A. May 2006. 2005b. M. 5.” Robotica. Chien and A. vol.” Journal of Chinese Institute of Engineers. “Adaptive control of electrically-driven robot without computation of Regressor matrix. 2.” Proceedings IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. “Adaptive Multiple-surface Sliding Control of Hydraulic Active Suspension Systems Based on Function Approximation Technique. no.” Journal of Vibration and Control. C. 54. 44. Hannan. pp. pp. 1032-1038. C. C. pp. Dixon. Glass. C. Huang. C.

1985. S. “A Force Commanded Impedance Control Scheme for Robots with Hard Nonlinearities. World Scientific Publishing. C. Ge.” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology. 2001. Measurement. 2004b. “Adaptive Sliding Control for Single-Link Flexible-Joint Robot with Mismatched Uncertainties. 1996. “Implementation of Force and Impedance Control in Robot Manipulators. Kuo. T. Sept. S. 2. no. Huang and Y. A. 398-408. Huang and Y. Hang. pp.” Automatica. 281-286. Part3-an Approach to Manipulation. 770-775. pp. 12. 1999.” Mechanism and Machine Theory. issue 11. Ge. Kluwer Academic. 3. vol. “Adaptive Controller Design for Flexible Joint Manipulators. Gonzalez and G.” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology. pp. T. “Position and Force Control of Flexible-joint Robots During Constrained Motion Tasks. A. Ge. vol. pp. C. J.” International Journal of Control. C. Sept. Chen. H. no. 1939-1945. USA. Vukovich. 1998. Lee and C. 853-871. 1988. Hogan. R. Hu and G. 1-24. J. 74. no. and Control. Widmann. Singapore.” Proceedings IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. vol. S. Lee and T. A. Boston. pp. 40. A. 1626-1632. Harris. Stable Adaptive Neural Network Control.References 249 Robots. vol. 32. N. 1995. Zang. C. R. S. 273-278. Nov.” Automatica. 36. C. no. 3. J.” ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems. Part2-Implementation. Atlanta. 252-264. “Sliding Control of Nonlinear Systems Containing Time-varying Uncertainties with Unknown Bounds. pp. “Adaptive Multiple-Surface Sliding Control for Non-Autonomous Systems with Mismatched Uncertainties.” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. S. Huang and Y. “Impedance Control: an Approach to Manipulation: Part1-Theory. S. 4. C. A. H. pp. Y. 5. Goldenberg. 2004a. 2001. vol. . vol. 2001. pp. Chen. 107. S. pp. C. Adaptive Neural Network Control of Robotic Manipulators. vol.

Kozlowski and P. K. H. A. Sauer. 7. pp. M. Sauer. pp. 1996. C. Kokotovic. issue 1-2. “Adaptive Force Control of Single-link Mechanism with Joint Flexibility.250 References A. “An Adaptive Impedance Control of Robot Manipulators. vol. “The Stability of the Adaptive Tracking Controller of Rigid and Flexible Joint Robots. H. . vol. vol. 205-210. 540-545. “An Efficient Algorithm for the Model-based Adaptive Control of Robotic Manipulators. Carelli. Lian. T. pp. Nov. Jankowski and H. Sacramento. Inc. F. Slovenia. S. 1995. “Nonlinear Decoupling for Position and Force Control of Constrained Robots with Flexible-joints. Ortega. 24. “An FAT-based Adaptive Controller for Robot Manipulators without Regressor Matrix: Theory and Experiments. C. Kanzaki.” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Ting. 3. vol. Kiekrz. John Wiley & Sons.” Proceedings IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation. Bito and K. pp. Ider. April 1991. R. 2006. Fu. Amestegui and R. Huang and K. K. C. 572-557. pp. 1991. Kelly.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. 85-93. vol. Kanellakopoulos and P. Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design. “Force and Motion Trajectory Tracking Control of Flexible-joint Robots. 12. Liao. J. 1153-1158. Krstic.” Robotica. R. Y. K. 3. M. I.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. June 1999a.” Proceedings on the First Workshop on Robot Motion and Control. Aug. Theory and Experiments. vol. 194-205. no.. K. Jean and L. 496-501.” Journal of Sound and Vibration. Bled. Poland.” Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics. 2006. pp. K. 363-378. “FAT-based Adaptive Sliding Control for Flexible Arms. A. “On Adaptive Control of Flexible Joint Manipulators: Theory and Experiments. pp. Kozlowski and P. K. July 1999b. Kawasaki. 1226-1231. pp. 35. S. 2000. P.” Mechanism and Machine Theory. Wu and W. 1987. California. C. Huang. ElMaraghy. 298.

T. Liang. Jun. Meng. pp. Mut.” Nonlinear Dynamics. 323-333.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. 408-415.” IEEE Conference on Communication. 15751584. 2008. T. Spong. A. vol. vol. pp.” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. W. S. S. vol. Lu and Q. Goldenberg. “Robotic Manipulator Impedance Control of Generalized Contact Force and Position.” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. J. Meng. W. S. 1991a. pp. “On Coordinated Control of Multiple Flexiblejoint Robots Holding a Constrained Object. 1490-1495. Cong and W. Ortega and M. pp. R. 1993. pp. Meng. 1996. 1988. Lu and Q. 3. no. 1229-1234. H. 1995. Kuchen. Goldenberg. T. R. pp. K Mills and G. 9. “Adaptive Motion Control of Rigid Robots: a Tutorial. Lin and A. O. “Recursive Computation of Manipulator Regressor and its Application to Adaptive Motion Control of Robots. V. “Robust Adaptive Control of Flexible Joint Robots with Joint Torque Feedback. 27th Conference on Decision and Control. 3. 54. W. Shang. A. 2000. 7. 369-374. 1991. “Tracking Adaptive Impedance Robot Control with Visual Feedback.” Proceeding of. pp. Nasisi.” IEEE/RSJ International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and System. 170173. no. pp. 3. no. pp. Lin and A. J. H. W. 1103-1108. vol. 1991b. Lin and A. pp. A. Nov. Carelli and B. Computation and Signal Processing.” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. . Lu and Q. Goldenberg. “Regressor Formulation of Robot Dynamics: Computation and Application. “A Unified Approach to Motion and Force Control of Flexible Joint Robots.References 251 Y. H. “Impedance Control with Adaptation for Robotic Manipulations.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. 223-230. 18. “Function Approximation-based Sliding Mode Adaptive Control.” Robotica. 1115-1120. Liu. S. 1997.

252

References

C. Ott, A. A. Schaffer and G. Hirzinger, “Comparison of Adaptive and Nonadaptive Tracking Control Laws for a Flexible Joint Manipulator,” Proceedings IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 2018-2024, Oct. 2000. A. Ott, A. A. Schaffer, A. Kugi and G. Hirzinger, “Decoupling Based Cartesian Impedance Control of Flexible-joint Robots,” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 3101-3107, Sept. 2003. S. Ozgoli and H. D. Taghirad, “A Survey on the Control of Flexible Joint Robots,” Asian Journal of Control, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1-15, Dec. 2006. P. R. Pagilla and M. Tomizuka, “An Adaptive Output Feedback Controller for Robot Arms: Stability and Experiments,” Automatica, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 983-995, July 2001. J. S. Park, Y. A. Jiang, T. Hesketh and D. J. Clements, “Trajectory Control of Manipulators Using Adaptive Sliding Mode Control,” Proceedings of IEEE SOUTHEASTCON, pp. 142-146, 1994. Z. Qu and J. Dorsey, “Robust Tracking Control of Robots by a Linear Feedback Law,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1081-1084, 1991. M. H. Raibert and J. J. Craig, “Hybrid Position/Force Control of Manipulators,” ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurements and Control, vol. 102, pp. 126-133, 1981. C. E. Rohrs, L. S. Valavani, M. Athans and G. Stein, “Robustness of Continuous-time Adaptive Control Algorithms in the Presence of Unmodeled Dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 30, pp. 881-889, 1985. N. Sadegh and R. Horowitz, “Stability and Robustness Analysis of a Class of Adaptive Controller for Robotic Manipulators,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 74-92, 1990.

References 253

A. Schaffer, C. Ott., U. Frese and G. Hirzinger, “Cartesian Impedance Control of Redundant Robots: Recent Results with the DLR-light-weight-arms,” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 3704-3709, Sept. 2003. J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, “Adaptive Strategy in Constrained Manipulators,” Proceeding IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 595-601, 1987. J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, “Adaptive Manipulator Control: a Case Study,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 995-1003, 1988. J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991. Y. D. Song, “Adaptive Motion Tracking Control of Robot Manipulators: Non-regressor Based Approach,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 4, pp. 3008-3013, 1994. M. W. Spong, “Adaptive Control of Flexible Joint Manipulators,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 13, pp. 15-21, 1989. M. W. Spong, “Adaptive Control of Flexible Joint Manipulators: Comments on Two Papers,” Automatica, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 585-590, 1995. M. W. Spong, “On the Force Control Problem for Flexible-joint Manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 34, pp. 107-111, 1989. M. W. Spong and M. Vidyasagar, Robot Dynamics and Control, Wiley, 1989. J. T. Spooner, M. Maggiore, R. Ordonez and K. M. Passino, Stable Adaptive Control and Estimation for Nonlinear Systems – Neural and Fuzzy Approximator Techniques, Wiley, New York, 2002. I. Stakgold, Green’s Functions and Boundary Value Problems, NY: Wiley, 1979.

254

References

C. Y. Su and Y. Stepanenko, “Adaptive Control for Constrained Robots Without Using Regressor,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 264-269, 1996. Y. C. Tsai and A. C. Huang, “FAT based adaptive control for pneumatic servo system with mismatched uncertainties,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1263-1273, Aug. 2008a. Y. C. Tsai and A. C. Huang, “Multiple-Surface Sliding Controller Design for Pneumatic Servo Systems,” Mechatronics, vol. 18, Issue 9, pp. 506-512, Nov. 2008b. F. Tyan and S. C. Lee, “An Adaptive Control of Rotating Stall and Surge of Jet Engines – A Function Approximation Approach,” 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and 2005 European Control Conference, pp. 5498-5503, Dec. 2005. D. Del Vecchio, R. Marino and P. Tomei, “Adaptive Learning Control for Robot Manipulators,” American Control Conference, pp. 641-645, 2001. J. H. Yang, “Adaptive Tracking Control for Manipulators with Only Position Feedback,” IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, pp. 1740-1745, 1999. W. Yim, “Adaptive Control of a Flexible Joint Manipulator,” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3441-3446, Seoul, Korea, May 2001. T. Yoshikawa, “Dynamic Hybrid Position/Force Control of Robot Manipulators, Description of Hand Constraints and Calculation of Joint Driving Force,” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1396-1398, April 1986. T. Yoshikawa, “Force Control of Robot Manipulators,” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 220-226, 2000.

References 255

J. Yuan and Y. Stepanenko, “Adaptive PD Control of Flexible Joint Robots without using the High-order Regressor,” Proceedings of the 36th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems, pp. 389-393, 1993. R. R. Y. Zhen and A. A. Goldenberg, “An Adaptive Approach to Constrained Robot Motion Control,” Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1833-1838, 1995.

This page intentionally left blank

j)-th element of matrix A : transpose of vector a : transpose of matrix A : inverse of matrix A 257 .Symbols. Definitions and Abbreviations Abbreviations RR RRE EDRR EDRRE FJR FJRE EDFJR EDFJRE PE FAT MRC MRAC SPR UUB : Rigid Robot : Rigid Robot interacting with Environment : Electrically-Driven Rigid Robot : Electrically-Driven Rigid Robot interacting with Environment : Flexible-Joint Robot : Flexible-Joint Robot interacting with Environment : Electrically-Driven Flexible-Joint Robot : Electrically-Driven FJR interacting with Environment : Persistent Excitation : Function Approximation Technique : Model Reference Control : Model Reference Adaptive Control : Strictly Positive Real : Uniformly Ultimately Bounded General Symbols and Definitions a a A In ai aij aT AT A-1 : scalar (unbold lower case) : vector (bold lower case) : matrix (bold upper case) : n × n identity matrix : i-th element of vector a : (i.

} sup(. Definitions and Abbreviations Tr(A) ˆ a ɶ a ˆ a ɶ a ˆ A ɶ A λi ( A ) λmin ( A ) λmax ( A ) a a A A min{.) diag{…} : trace of matrix A : estimation of scalar a ˆ : error between a and a : estimation of vector a ˆ : error between a and a : estimation of matrix A ˆ : error between A and A : i-th eigenvalue of matrix A : minimum eigenvalue of matrix A : maximum eigenvalue of matrix A : absolute value of scalar a : norm of vector a : determinant of matrix A : norm of matrix A : minimum operation : least upper bound : diagonal matrix Symbols and Definitions in Robot Model li mi Ii B Bi C Cx D Dx Fext g gx H i id J Ja : length of link i : mass of link i : moment of inertia of link i : actuator damping matrix : desired apparent damping : vector of centrifugal and Coriolis forces : C in the Cartesian space : inertia matrix : D in the Cartesian space : external force : gravitational force vector : g in the Cartesian space : electro-mechanical conversion matrix : armature current vector : desired current trajectory : actuator inertia matrix : Jacobian matrix .258 Symbols.

Symbols.) sgn(.) u u : disturbance : error signal : error vector : current error vector : output tracking error vector : torque tracking error vector : stiffness of the wall : gain matrix for velocity error : gain matrix for position error : conversion matrix : positive matrices : sliding surface variable : error vector : saturation function : signum function : control input signal : control input vector . Γ s s sat(. Q . Definitions and Abbreviations 259 K Kb Ki L Mi p px q qd R x xd Y θ τ τa τt : joint stiffness matrix : back-emf matrix : desired apparent stiffness : electrical inductance matrix : desired apparent inertia : parameter vector : parameter vector in the Cartesian space : generalized coordinate vector : desired trajectory for q : electrical resistance matrix : coordinate in the Cartesian space : desired trajectory for x : regressor matrix : actuator angle : control torque vector : actuator input torque vector : transmission torque Symbols and Definitions in Controller Design d e e ei em eτ kw Kd Kp Kτ P.

Definitions and Abbreviations v V w W z Z α β ε εi φ σ ϕ τ robust Λ : a known signal vector : Lyapunov function candidate : a vector of weightings : a matrix of weightings : a vector of basis functions : a matrix of basis functions : a constant : number of basis function : approximation error : approximation error : thickness of the boundary layer : sigma modification constant : known signal vector : robust term : diagonal gain matrix .260 Symbols.

2. 2 Flexible joint robot. 220 Barbalat’s lemma. 175 FJRE. 46 stability theorem. 61. 4. 35-37 Backstepping. 84. 104. 18. 35. 220 Approximation error. 76 Equilibrium point. 137. 201 FJR. 2. 4. 11. 31 Basis function. 31. 4. 37 stability theory. 101. 1. 16. 80 EDRR. 4. 4. 102. 182. 75. 105. 31 Fourier series. 89. 37. 77. 113 Current tracking loop. 183. 1 EDFJR. 87. 4. 2.Index Acceleration feedback. 162 Computed torque controller. 91. 128. 16-18. 16. 11. 35 . 11. 11. 61. 5. 133 Basis. 147. 3. 5 Hilbert space. 23. 35. 7. 8. 38 ED. 15. 57 FAT. 201 Inner product space. 117 Impedance control. 40 Joint flexibility. 201 Linearly parameterization. 55. 148 Actuator dynamics. 36. 8. 146. 56 Decrescent. 75. 149. 2. 69. 79. 23. 1. 37 Inversion-based controller. 129. 69. 44 Compliant motion. 192. 1. 3. 38. 63. 47. 221 Dead zone. 136 Feedback linearization. 106. 163. 137 Boundary layer. 16. 62. 164. 7. 8. 43. 97. 3. 3. 7. 9. 35. 87. 2. 231 EDFJRE. 38. 31. 154 261 EDRRE. 16. 32. 52. 71. 91. 193. 24. 5. 83 Conversion matrix. 78 Fourier coefficient. 12. 93. 209 Autonomous system. 181. 51. 30 Harmonic drive. 2. 103. 163. 15 Invariant set theorem. 97. 141 Function norms. 37. 15. 37 Lyapunov function. 37. 14. 91 LaSalle’s theorem.

46. 37. 37. 139. 50. 24 Hermite. 147. 2. 36. 102. 50 Real linear space. 3. 206 Transmission torque. 36. 204 Nonautonomous system. 36 Target impedance. 14. 210 . 167-169. 36-39 asymptotically. 63 Normed function space. 57. 39. 18. 152. 6-8 Uniformly ultimately bounded. 45 exponentially. 50-52 uniformly asymptotically. 40. 108. 2. 22. 49. 43. 17. 14. 1-8. 24. 47. 38. 88. 57. 52 uniformly. 212 Vector norms. 41-45. 56. 19. 131. 140 RRE. 18 Orthonormal function. 21. 106. 43. 38. 64 time-varying. 41. 58. 50. 48. 223 PE. 134. 87. 11. 29 Model reference adaptive control. 68. 165. 166. 39. 15 Orthogonal functions. 203 Torque tracking loop. 41. 12 Regressor matrix. 174. 50. 11. 58. 41. 45. 134 Sliding condition. 87 Persistent excitation. 24 Bessel. 60 Sliding control. 20. 168. 11. 62 MRC. 24 Radially unbounded. 36. 186. 54 RR. 31 Output tracking loop. 58. 4. 172. 24 Laguerre. 59-61 Stable. 89. 83. 54. 71. 30 Normed vector space. 11.262 Index Matrix norms. 11. 24 Chebyshev. 83-85. 61 multiplicative. 66 Singularity problem. 44. 24 Legendre. 206 Uncertainties additive. 46. 95. 2. 3-6. 85. 87. 8. 19. 164. 129 Robust adaptive control. 51. 41 general. 138. 15 σ-modification. 12. 20. 92. 129. 89. 84. 62. 11. 73 Saturation function. 110. 51 Polynomials Taylor. 207 Rigid robots. 35-38. 28 Vector spaces. 66. 66 Signum function. 45 MRAC. 1. 38.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful