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 .

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

Ming-Chih Chien Mechanical Engineering Department National Taiwan University of Science and Technology . The book has been written as a text suitable for postgraduate students in the advanced course for the control of robot manipulators. Without them. 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. 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. The authors are grateful for their support. 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. 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. An-Chyau Huang. many issues would never have been clarified. In addition.viii Preface the robot control in the compliant motion environment.

........................................3 Function norms and normed function spaces............1 Vector norms........... 2............................... 2.................................................................7 Representations for Approximation . 2............................2 Vector Spaces ...........................................................10..1 Metric space ......... 2..........................2.....................5...........................10...................................................................2 MRAC of LTI systems: vector case.............. 2.................. Preliminaries ...........8 Lyapunov Stability Theory ................4 Robust adaptive control ................................................................. 2........................... 2......................................................... 2......2 Differential calculus of vectors and matrices ................. 2..............................10.......3 Persistent excitation .............. 2...............10.................. 2....5 Vector and Matrix Analysis ....................................................................... 2.........6 Various Norms...... 2.....................5......... 1 2 Introduction.........................................10 Model Reference Adaptive Control ...8..........................................................1 MRAC of LTI scalar systems .................1 Concepts of stability...........2 Matrix norms.....1 Introduction.......................... 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 ............... 2......................................................1 Properties of matrices.................... 2....... 2.......................3 Best Approximation Problem in Hilbert Space..................... 2.........4 Orthogonal Functions..................... 2...................Contents Preface .................. 2.................................8....................... 2.........................................................2 Normed vector space...............................9 Sliding Control.............................6.............. 2......... 2................................2.......2 Lyapunov stability theorem..............................6................................................................................. 2................................................................6.

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

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

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

it is not appropriate to derive a controller for the system in 8 directly. the regressor-free algorithm also effectively simplified the programming complexity. Let us consider the tracking problem of a rigid robot in the free space first.2 Introduction computation of the regressor matrix. because starting from the simple ones can give us more insight into the unified approach to be introduced. The regressor-free strategy greatly simplified the controller design process. Derivation of the regressor matrix is wellknown to be very tedious for a robot manipulator with more than four joints. We will start with the case when all system parameters are precisely known. the complex regressor matrix has to be updated in every control cycle in the real-time implementation. Table 1. When the robot end-effector contacts with the environment. In this book. for the traditional robot adaptive control. the controllers designed for performing the free space tracking tasks cannot provide appropriate control performance. Table 1. However. 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. Afterwards.1 presents the systems considered in this book. The abbreviations listed will be used throughout this book to simplify the presentation.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. we assume that most parameters in the robot model are not known . and a feedback linearization based controller is constructed to give proper performance. To have a better understanding of the problems we are going to deal with. Because. It is the simplest case in this book and several control strategies can also be found in robotics textbooks under various conditions.

4. and closed loop stability can also be proved easily. Compliant motion control of a rigid robot Item 2. the weight. What is worse is that the estimation in the inertia matrix might suffer the singularity problem. Finally. Update laws for the weighting matrices can be obtained by the Lyapunov-like design. but depending on the selection of the parameter vector. Among them. 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. The uncertain matrices and vectors in the robot model will be represented as finite combinations of basis functions. Many control strategies are available for rigid robots to give closed loop stability in the compliant motion applications. In the above designs. The output error can thus be proved to be uniformly ultimately bounded. these parameters are mostly easier to be found than the derivation of the regressor matrix. However. implementation of this scheme requires the information of joint accelerations which is impractical in most industrial applications.Introduction 3 but a regressor can be derived such that all uncertain parameters are collected into an unknown vector. 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. length. both the transient performance and the steady state error can be modified. Motivated by this reasoning. With proper adjustment of controller parameters. The effect of the approximation error is investigated with rigorous mathematical justifications. For example. the impedance control employed in this book is the most widely used one which is a unified approach for controlling robot manipulators in both . 6 and 8 in Table 1.1 relate to the compliant motion control of robot manipulators whose dynamic model include the effect of the external force vector exerted by the environment. However. 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. the robot dynamics should be linearly parameterized into a known regressor matrix multiplied by an unknown parameter vector. the trajectory of the output error is bounded by a weighted exponential function plus some constant. the regressor-free adaptive control approach is developed. 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. Conventional adaptive strategies can thus be applied to give update laws to this unknown parameter vector. The regressor matrix is not unique for a given robot.

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

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

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

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

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

but it requires some impractical knowledge in the real-time implementation. The last chapter deals with the problem of the adaptive impedance control for FJR. Consideration of the actuator dynamics further complicated the problem. The regressor-free adaptive controller is derived without any requirements on additional information. The regressor-based adaptive controller is then designed. and the regressor-free adaptive design is still able to give good performance to the closed loop system. We review the control of a known robot first to have some basic understanding of this problem. .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.

This page intentionally left blank .

and some normed spaces are also introduced. They can be found in most elementary mathematics books.10 gives the basics of the model reference adaptive control to linear time-invariant systems. The concept of sliding control is provided in Section 2.8. Various orthogonal functions are collected in Section 2. On the other hand. vectors and matrices.7 illustrates the approximation representations of functions.1 Introduction Some mathematical backgrounds are reviewed in this chapter. vectors and matrices are summarized in Section 2. most results are provided without proof. Some best approximation problems in the Hilbert space will be mentioned in Section 2. The limitations for traditional MRAC and robust designs will also be discussed. some modifications of the adaptive designs are also presented in Section 2. Section 2. The Lyapunov stability theory is reviewed in Section 2. therefore.5 which includes their differential calculus operations.4 to facilitate the selection of basis functions in FAT applications.9 as an introduction to the robust design for a system containing uncertainties defined in compact sets. Norms for functions.12 to cover the general uncertainties.11.Chapter 2 Preliminaries 2. some notions of vector spaces are introduced.3. Finally. To robustify the adaptive control loop. In Section 2. 11 . In this section we review some concepts and results useful in this book. The vector and matrix analysis is reviewed in Section 2.10. Section 2.6. The concept of general uncertainties is clarified in Section 2. some preliminaries in control theories will also be presented in this chapter as the background for the theoretical development introduced in the later chapters. 2.2 Vector Spaces Vector spaces provide an appropriate framework for the study of approximation techniques.2. the FAT-based adaptive controller is introduced in Section 2.

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

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

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

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

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

i. the coefficients i→∞ of the Fourier series vanish as i → ∞ .. an arbitrary function f ( x) can be represented in terms of φ i ( x) by a series . e i 2 is monotonically increasing and is bounded above by x . it is easy to prove that lim x.4 Orthogonal Functions 17 x 2 = ∑ i =1 ∞ x. b] . we would like to restrict the scope to the function approximation problem using orthogonal functions.4 Orthogonal Functions In the previous section we have reviewed the general framework for the best approximation problem in the Hilbert space. 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.e.2. 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. e i 2 (3) which is known as the Parseval’s identity. e i = 0 . Consequently. The set of real-valued functions {φ i ( x)} defined over some interval [a. 2. In this section. b] . The set of real-valued functions {φ i ( x)} defined over some interval [ a. b] having the property ∫ b a φ i2 ( x)dx = 1 for all i is called an orthonormal set on [a. 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. For any set of orthonormal functions {φ i ( x)} on [ a.

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 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). it is not sufficient to conclude convergence of the series. g ( x) is called a null function on [ a. b] . b] satisfying that if {φ i ( x)} is a complete orthonormal set on [ a. then the sum of the series differs from f ( x) by at most a null function. the series becomes ∫ b a f ( x)φ n ( x)dx = cn ∫ b a φ n2 ( x)dx (4) Hence. Here. An orthogonal set {φ i ( x)} on [ a. 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. Multiplying by φ n ( x) and integrating over the interval [ a. It is easy to prove . b] and using the orthogonality property. ∫ b a g 2 ( x)dx = 0 . In this section. Examples of orthonormal functions Since there are many areas of applications of orthonormal functions. 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.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)} . the orthogonal set should be complete. a sizable body of literature can be easily found.

it is well known that given a function f ( x) and a point c in the domain of f.4 Orthogonal Functions 19 1. Taylor polynomials In the calculus courses. The Taylor polynomial is not well suited to approximate a function f ( x) over an interval [ a. 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 . can give a more uniform approximation error over the specified interval. and the remaining polynomials can be determined by the recurrence relation Tn +1 ( x) = 2 xTn ( x) − Tn −1 ( x) for all n = 1. Chebyshev polynomials The set of Chebyshev polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight −1 function (1 − x 2 ) 2 on the interval [-1. For convenience. suppose the function is n-times differentiable at c. 2. Taylor polynomial approximation is known to yield very small error near a given point. 2.2. The following orthogonal polynomials.1].. b] if the approximation is to be uniformly accurate over the entire domain. The first two polynomials are T0 ( x) = 1 and T1 ( x) = x ... but the error increases in a considerable amount as we move away from that point. 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. however.

The first two polynomials are L0 ( x) = 1 and L1 ( x) = x . 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. Here... 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 . Hermite polynomials The set of Hermite polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight 2 function p( x) = e − x on the interval ( −∞. 2. 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..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. ∞) .1]. Legendre polynomials The set of Legendre polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight function p( x) = 1 on the interval [-1.

4 Orthogonal Functions 21 H 0 ( x) = 1 and H 1 ( x) = 2 x .. 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. 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 .. 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. 2.. Laguerre polynomials The set of Laguerre polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight function p( x) = e − x on the interval [0... ∞) .2. 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. 2. Here.

b] in the form ∫ b 0 xJ n (k i x) J n ( k j x)dx = 0 (11) for all i ≠ j . 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. Bessel polynomials The set of Bessel polynomials is orthogonal with respect to the weight function p( x) = x on the interval [0. 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. 1. The recurrence relation below can also be used to find other Bessel polynomials based on J 0 ( x) and J 1 ( x) given above. . for n =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. These roots for n =0. 5. 11. a n and bn .931.654. When using these functions in approximation applications. 3. and the value 2T is the period of f ( x) . … Having the orthogonality property in (11). 14. .832.4 Orthogonal Functions 23 J n +1 ( x) = − J n −1 ( x) + 2n J n ( x) x (13) It should be noted that k i .2. n =1.520.173. i =1. The constants a0 .1 summarizes the orthonormal functions introduced in this section. 13. they are distinct roots of J n = 0 . (15) is called the Fourier series of function f ( x) . 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. 10. 1 are listed here for reference J 0 ( x) = 0 for x=2. 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. i.e. we can represent a given function f ( x) in a series of the form in [0.792. 7.. … J 1 ( x) = 0 for x=0.324.2. Table 2.405.2.… in (11) are real numbers so that J n (k i b) = 0 . it is very important that the valid range for the functions to be orthonormal is ensured. 7.016.and left-hand limits of f ( x) at each point where it is discontinuous.3.… are called Fourier coefficients. 8.

1 Properties of matrices Let A ∈ℜ n × m be a matrix with n rows and m columns.1 Some useful orthonormal functions Polynomial Taylor Valid Interval Forms [a. ∞) Laguerre [0.5.24 Chapter 2 Preliminaries Table 2. j )th element of A. If the rows and columns are interchanged.1] T0 ( x) = 1 T1 ( x) = x Tn +1 ( x) = 2 xTn ( x) − Tn −1 ( x) Legendre [-1. then the resulting m × n matrix is called the . ∞) Bessel [0.1] 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 (−∞.5 Vector and Matrix Analysis 2.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. Matrix A can also be represented as [ aij ] . and aij ∈ℜ be the (i.b] Pn ( x) = f (c) + f '(c)( x − c) + +⋯ + f ( n ) (c) ( x − c) n n! f ′′ (c ) ( x − c) 2 2! Chebyshev [-1.

An identity matrix is a diagonal matrix with a11 = ⋯ = a nn = 1.2. a nn ) .. A + A T is symmetric and A − A T is skew-symmetric. It is negative (semi-)definite if − A is positive (semi-)definite. then it is known as the inverse of A and is denoted by A −1 . x ≠ 0 . then the trace of A is defined as Tr ( A ) = ∑a i =1 n ii (3) .5 Vector and Matrix Analysis 25 transpose of A.. 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 . If A is a m × n matrix. 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 . If B exists. and is skew-symmetric if A = − A T .. and is denoted by A . then A T A is symmetric. ∀i ≠ j . 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. A diagonal matrix A can be written as diag ( a11 . For any matrix A ∈ℜ n × n . A matrix A ∈ℜ n × n is diagonal if aij = 0 . Let A ∈ℜ n × n . 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.. It is positive definite (denoted by A > 0 ) if x T Ax > 0 ∀x ∈ℜ n . A time-varying matrix A (t ) is uniformly positive definite if ∃α > 0 such that A(t ) ≥ α I .

j)th element of matrix A( x) ∈ℜ n × m with x ∈ℜ . 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 .2 Differential calculus of vectors and matrices Suppose f ( x) : ℜ n → ℜ is a differentiable function. then the gradient vector is defined as ∂ ∂f   ∂f f ( x) =  ⋯ ∂x ∂x n   ∂x1  T (5) and if f is twice differentiable.26 Chapter 2 Preliminaries where aii is the ith diagonal element of A. 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.5. B ∈ℜ m × n x T y = Tr (xy T ) = Tr (yx T ) = y T x ∀x. 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) .

x ∈ℜ n ∀A ∈ℜ n × n . 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 . (8) d dA dB ( A + B) = + ∀A.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. y ∈ℜ n ∂y (9i) (9j) . y ∈ℜ n ∂y ∂ ( Ax) = A T ∂x ∂ T (x Ax) = xx T ∂A ∀A ∈ℜ n × m . 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.2.) : ℜ n × m → ℜ be a real-valued mapping. y ∈ℜ n ∂x ∂ T (x y ) = x ∀x. x ∈ℜ n ∂x ∂ T (y Ax) = Ax ∀A ∈ℜ n × m . B ∈ℜ n × m dx dx dx d dA dB ( AB) = B+A ∀A ∈ℜ n × m . x ∈ℜ m ∀A ∈ℜ n × n . x ∈ℜ m .

28 Chapter 2 Preliminaries ∂ T (y Ax) = A T y ∀A ∈ℜ n × m . then the p-norm of x can be defined as p  n p = xi   i =1  1 x p ∑ (1) for 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ . B .1 Vector norms Let x ∈ℜ n . x ∈ℜ m . which is also an inner product norm. 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 . 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 . 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 .6 Various Norms (9l) (9m) 2.6.C ∈ℜ n × n = ∂A 2.

2. 2 2 (3) 2. For A ∈ℜ n × n . 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. α 2 ∈ℜ + such that α 1 x p ≤ x p ≤ α 2 x p for all x ∈ℜ n . then there exist α 1 . In particular.2. Let λmin ( A ) and λmax ( A ) be the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of A ∈ℜ n × n . 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 ≤ ∞ .6 Various Norms 29 ⋅ p1 and ⋅ p2 are two different norms. respectively. 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) . ∞ . 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. when p = 1.2 Matrix norms Let A ∈ℜ n × n .

30 Chapter 2 Preliminaries 2. ∞ 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 ∈[0.3 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. 2.6. 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) . then its p-norm is defined as ∞ p  =  ⌠0 f (t ) dt  p for p ∈[1. ∞) ⌡     1 f p (7a) (7b) f ∞ = sup f (t ) for p = ∞ t ∈[0. ∞ )  (8c) Let f : ℜ + → ℜ with f (t ) = [ f1 (t ) ⋯ f n (t )]T be a measurable vector function. Let f (t ) : ℜ + → ℜ be a measurable function. ∞ ) The normed function spaces with p = 1.

f > . t2] such that ∫ t2 t1 0. 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 .2.. Let us consider a set of real-valued functions {zi(t)} that are orthonormal in [t1. z i > is the Fourier coefficient. the space of functions for which f exists and is finite is a Hilbert space. i = j (1) With the definition of the inner product < f .e. (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 ) . f (t ) ≈ w T z (t ) (4b) . 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 . i ≠ j z i (t ) z j (t )dt =  1. 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 .7 Representations for Approximation 31 2. i. vectors and matrices using finite-term orthonormal functions are reviews. g >= ∫ t2 f (t ) g (t )dt and its t1 corresponding norm f = < f .7 Representations for Approximation In this section some representations for approximation of scalar functions.

By letting q=1. three representations are introduced for approximating a matrix M (t ) ∈ℜ p × q . In this book. Let w ij . the estimation of the unknown timevarying function f(t) is reduced to the estimation of a vector of unknown constants w. the same technique can be used to approximate vectors. The time-varying vector z(t) is known while w is an unknown constant vector. z ij ∈ℜ k for all i.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. 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  . Representation 1: We may use the technique in (4) to represent individual matrix elements. In the following. With this approximation. equation (4) is used to represent time-varying parameters in the system dynamic equation. j.

Here.7 Representations for Approximation 33 Or. 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.2. 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. say β. we use the usual matrix operation to represent M. dimensions of all involved matrices do T not follow the rule for matrix multiplication. This notation can be used to facilitate the derivation of update laws. of orthonormal functions. and then the matrix M (t ) ∈ℜ p × q can be represented in the conventional form for matrix multiplications M = WT Z where M . but the sizes of W and Z are apparently much larger than those in the representation 1. 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. 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.

. Hence. z fi ∈ℜ pi ×1 and pi is the number of terms of the basis functions selected to approximate fi. (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.. z i = [ z1i ⋱ ⋮   ⋯ wmi  z 2i ⋯ z mi ]T .. (13) . m (11) Define p max = max pi and let wij = 0 for all i=1.m as f i (x) = w Tf i z f i (10) where w fi . Representation 3: In the above representations. In many applications.m and j > pi .. it is used in this book for representing functions. 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   . all matrix elements are approximated by the same number of orthonormal functions. it may be desirable to use different number of orthonormal functions for different matrix elements. vectors and matrices..... however. 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) .34 Chapter 2 Preliminaries Since this representation is compatible to all conventional matrix operations.⋯. i =1.

a Lypunov-like technique summarized in Barbalat’s lemma will also be reviewed.8 Lyapunov Stability Theory 35 where i=1.. all controllers derived in this book will be based on the rigorous mathematical proof via the Lyapunov or Lyapunov-like theories. 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. 2..8.e. the system is in the form . On the other hand. It is going to be used for almost every controller designed in this book. we may rewrite it into a row p vector as M = [m1 ⋯ m q ] where m i ∈ℜ .2. If the function f dose not explicitly depend on time t.. t ) n n (1) where x ∈ℜ n and f : ℜ × ℜ + → ℜ .pmax.1 Concepts of stability Let us consider a nonlinear dynamic system described by the differential equation ɺ x = f ( x. 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. 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 The Lyapunov stability theory is widely used in the analysis and design of control systems.. Therefore. To ensure closed loop stability and boundedness of internal signals. 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 ..

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

The result is global if the properties hold for the entire state space and V ( x) is radially unbounded. V (x) < 0 and V (x) is radially unbounded. and let N be a neighborhood of the origin. (ii) asymptotic ɺ (x) < 0 . t ) : ℜ n × ℜ + → ℜ is locally decrescent if there exists a class K function β (⋅) such that V ( x. t ) is locally positive definite and has continuous partial derivatives. t ) ≥ α ( x ) for all t ≥ 0 in the neighborhood N of the origin of ℜ n . 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. A continuous function V ( x. then the origin is (i) stable if .2. t ) ≤ β ( x ) for all t ≥ 0 in the neighborhood N of the origin of ℜ n . A continuous function V ( x. t ) : ℜ n × ℜ + → ℜ is radially unbounded if V ( x. t ) → ∞ uniformly in time as x → ∞ . and if its time derivative along the trajectory of (1) is negative semi-definite then it is called a Lyapunov function for system (1). It is positive definite if N = ℜ n . Lyapunov stability theorem for autonomous systems Given the autonomous system (2) with an equilibrium point at the origin. A continuous function V ( x. Then (2) is asymptotically stable if V identically along any trajectory of (2) other than the trivial solution x = 0 . Lyapunov stability theorem for non-autonomous systems Given the non-autonomous system (1) with an equilibrium point at the origin.8 Lyapunov Stability Theory 37 2. If function V ( x.8. (iii) globally asymptotically stable if stable if V ( x) > 0 and V ɺ V (x) > 0 . then the origin is (i) stable if there ɺ exists a scalar function V ( x) > 0 ∀x ∈ N such that V ( x) ≤ 0 . t ) : ℜ n × ℜ + → ℜ is locally positive definite if there exists a class K function α (⋅) such that V ( x. and let N be a neighborhood of the origin.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 . It is decrescent if N = ℜ n .

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

x∈ℜ the output of interest.9 Sliding Control 39 2. Let us assume that f (x.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. we would like to design a sliding controller with the knowledge of g(x.t) first. and u(t)∈ℜ the control input. t ) > 0 and β (x. For nonlinear systems. t ) ∆d ≤ β (x. In the sliding control.t). t ) > 0 . 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 and the disturbance d(t)∈ℜ are both unknown functions of time.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. t )u + d (t ) T n (1) ɺ where x = [ x x ⋯ x ( n −1) ] ∈ℜ is the state vector. as ∆f ≤ α (x. but bounds of their variations should be available. t ) + g (x.2. the sliding control is perhaps the most popular approach to achieve the robust performance requirement. 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. Once on the surface. t ) (3a) (3b) . respectively. Let us consider a non-autonomous system x ( n ) = f (x. In this section. Convergence of the output error is then easily achieved. and then a controller is constructed with unknown g(x. In the following derivation. The control gain function g(x.t)∈ℜ is assumed to be nonsingular for all admissible x and for all time t. we are going to review the sliding controller design including two smoothing techniques to eliminate the chattering activity in the control effort. The function f (x. respectively. unmodeled dynamics excitation and external disturbances. The uncertain terms ∆f and ∆d are assumed to be bounded by some known functions α (x.

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

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.. and the tracking error converges asymptotically regardless of the uncertainties in f and d.9 Sliding Control 41 (n − 1)!λ n − k . a multiplicative model is chosen for g as g = g m ∆g (13) .2.. t ) is not available. so that (8) becomes ɺ s = ∆f + ∆d − η1 sgn( s ) (10) To satisfy the sliding condition (6)..n-1. let us consider the case when g (x. k=1. the above inequality becomes (11) ɺ ss ≤ −η s (12) Therefore. once the sliding surface is reached. with the controller (9). 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 .. In stead of the additive uncertainty model we used for f and d. Now. the sliding surface (7) is attractive. but we do know that it is non-singular for all admissible state and time t. and its variation bound is known with 0 < g min ≤ g ≤ g max . and cn =1.

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). 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. 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. Consequently. and the high-frequency unmodeled dynamics may be excited. In practical implementation. the switching controller has to be modified with a continuous . the switching induced from this function will sometimes result in control chattering.42 Chapter 2 Preliminaries where ∆g satisfies the relation 0 ≤ γ min ≡ g min g ≤ ∆g ≤ max ≡ γ max . Therefore. we can also have the result in (12). Smoothed sliding control law Both controllers (9) and (15) contain the switching function sgn(s). In some cases. gm gm (14) In this case.

because the robust term is linear in the signal s. (10) can be rewritten in the form ɺ s = ∆f + ∆d − η1 s φ (22) . When s is outside the boundary layer. σ if σ ≤ φ sat(σ ) =  sgn(σ ) if σ > φ (19) where φ > 0 is called the boundary layer of the sliding surface. This selection is very easy in implementation. Hence. When s is inside the boundary layer. the boundary layer is also s φ attractive. 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.9 Sliding Control 43 approximation. 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. i. we may also use s φ to have a smoothed version of the sliding controller. One drawback of this smoothed sliding controller is the degradation of the tracking accuracy. Thus. For example.e.. One approach is to use the saturation function sat(σ ) defined below instead of the signum function sgn( s ) .2. Instead of the saturation function. the output tracking error is bounded by the value φ . At best we can say that once the signal s converges to the boundary layer. s > 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. the sliding controller with sgn(s) is exactly the same as the one with sat( ) . When s is outside the boundary layer.

can only be concluded to be uniformly bounded.e. 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 .e. when outside the boundary layer. the initial control .. equation (20) can be obtained. Hence. i. the chattering activity can be effectively eliminated.44 Chapter 2 Preliminaries With the selection of η1 = α + β + η . There is one more drawback for the smoothing using s φ . we may have the result ɺ ss ≤ −η s2 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 . however. Since inside the boundary layer there is also an equivalent first order filter dynamics. (25) implies ss ≤ −η s2 (25) φ .. 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..e. The output tracking error. effective chattering elimination can be achieved. therefore. all trajectories will eventually converge to the boundary layer even though the system contains uncertainties. i. By selecting η1 according to (18). i. the boundary layer is still attractive. When s is inside the boundary layer. Let us now consider the case when g ( x.

If plant parameters ap and bp are available. To overcome this problem.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. The sliding control introduced in the previous section is one of the robust designs widely used in the literature. where am and bm are known constants with a m < 0. and r is a bounded reference signal. followed by the design for the vector case. The pair (ap.10 Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) Adaptive control and robust control are two main approaches for controlling systems containing uncertainties and disturbances.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. 2. 2. In this section. desired trajectory and initial conditions should be carefully selected.2. Two modifications to the update law are introduced to robustify the adaptive loop when the system contains unmodeled dynamics or external disturbances. the MRAC for a linear time-invariant scalar system is introduced first. the model reference control (MRC) rule can be designed as . 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.10. The persistent excitation condition is investigated for the convergence of estimated parameters. bp) is controllable. 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. In this section. The parameters ap and bp are unknown constants. but sgn(bp) is available. 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. if update laws are found to have convergence of these parameter errors. respectively. To ˆ ˆ find these update laws for a and b . convergence of the output error is then ensured. 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) . a. let us define a Lyapunov function candidate 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ V (e. 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. and proper update laws ˆ ˆ are to be selected to give a → a and b → b . b ) = e 2 + b p (a 2 + b 2 ) 2 2 Taking the time derivative of V along the trajectory of (7). 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 . Therefore. which is a stable linear system driven by the parameter errors. Since the values of ap and bp are not given.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).

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

equation (17) implies θ = 0 .e. 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) . i. update laws in (10) imply θ → 0. and A p ∈ℜ n × n and B p ∈ℜ n × m are unknown constant matrices. t + T ] is ∫ ∫ t +T t T vv θɶdt = 0 (16) ɺ ɶ When t → ∞ . 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.10. 2. and equation (12) is able to be ɶ a r]   = 0 ɶ b  (15) ɶ Since vv T θ = 0 . A more general treatment of the PE condition will be presented in Section 2. (16) becomes t +T t ɶ vv dtθ = 0 T (17) ɶ Hence.3.10. if v is PE.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 . therefore. its integration in [t . parameter convergence when t → ∞ . Bp) is controllable. u ∈ℜ m is the control vector.

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

z.sup ɺ (t ) } . For practical control systems. we have ɺ φ T ≤ k λmin (P )ε 2 − k λmin (P )ε 2 = − k λmin (P )ε 2 < 0 Hence. (1985) showed that in the presence of a small amount of measurement noise and high-frequency unmodeled dynamics.10. In the following. x and z such t = max{sup t (t ) . Ω and ɺ are all uniformly bounded. Rohrs et. al. 1 2 1 2 2.2 are developed for LTI systems without external disturbances or unmodeled dynamics.10. a technique called dead-zone is introduced followed by the review of the well-known σ-modification. an adaptive control system should be designed to withstand all kinds of non-parametric uncertainties. 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 → ∞ . For practical implementation.54 Chapter 2 Preliminaries Since x. x = sup x(t ) and z = sup z (t ) .10. 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 . 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. which is a contradiction to the assumption in (40). we have proved the claim. t 2 } . there exist that . Therefore. Some modifications of the adaptive laws have been developed to deal with these problems. .1 and 2. uncertain parameters may vary with time and the system may contain some non-parametric uncertainties.4 Robust adaptive control The adaptive controllers presented in Section 2.

Let e = x p − xm and a = a − a . 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.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.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. 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) . The disturbance d(t) is assumed to be bounded by some δ > 0 . Let a = (46) am − a p and b = 1 be ideal feedback bp gains for the MRAC law (4). A reference model is designed as ɺ xm = a m xm + bm r where a m < 0 and bm = b p . Since ap is not given.

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

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

we are going to have some investigation on the difficulties for the design of adaptive controllers when the system has timevarying parameters.2. One the other hand. We would like to call this kind of uncertainties the general uncertainties. Because the variation bounds are not given.11. This is also almost true for most adaptive control schemes. there is a common assumption that the unknown parameters to be updated should be time-invariant.11. we know from Section 2. 2. In Section 2. 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 . In Section 2.10. 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. Since ap(t) is not given. This is because the robust controllers need to cover system uncertainties even for the worst case.10 that for the adaptive controller to be feasible the unknown parameters should be time-invariant. a practical ˆ( u = a t ) x p + br (3) feedback law based on the MRAC is designed . 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 . the robust strategies fail. Let us now consider the case when a system contains timevarying uncertainties whose variation bounds are not known. we will look at the problem in designing robust controllers for systems containing uncertain parameters without knowing their bounds. It is challenging to design controllers for systems containing general uncertainties.11.1.1 MRAC of LTV systems In the conventional design of adaptive control systems such as the one introduced in Section 2. traditional adaptive design is not feasible.58 Chapter 2 Preliminaries the knowledge of the uncertainty variation bounds is a must for almost all robust control strategies. Since it is timevarying.

t )u (9) where f(x. .11. Therefore. the definiteness of V can not be determined. It is equivalent to say that the traditional MRAC fails in controlling systems with time-varying uncertainties. t ) + g ( x.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. From here. 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.t) is modeled as the summation of the known nominal value fm and the unknown variation ∆f . 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. 2.2.t) is a known nonsingular function. 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. The uncertainty f(x. we are not able to conclude anything about the properties of the signals in the closed loop system. Let e = x p − xm and ɶ ˆ a (t ) = a (t ) − a (t ) . a ) = e 2 + b p a 2 2 2 along the trajectory of (4).t) is a bounded uncertainty and g(x.2 Sliding control for systems with unknown variation bounds Consider a first order uncertain nonlinear system ɺ x = f ( x.11 General Uncertainties 59 ˆ( where a t ) is an adjustable parameter of the controller.

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 ⋮

In addition.2. 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. 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. To find the update law. P satisfies the T Lyapunov equation A P + PA = −Q where Q is some positive definite matrix. we have . 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 . 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. Since f is a general uncertainty. With the controller (10).

With (14). Some modifications can be used to smooth out the control law.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 ). 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 . 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. 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.

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 .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.2.

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  . but in practical applications the transient performance is also of great importance. σ. and Q. this parameter adjustment is not always unlimited.  . 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. because it might induce controller saturation in implementation. Smaller size of E implies more accurate in output tracking. The above derivation only demonstrates the boundedness of the closed loop system. α λmin (Q) τ ≥ t0     ɶ This implies that (e. Note that the size of the set E is adjustable by proper selection of α. 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). w ) ∈ E ≡ (e. P. For further development. However. 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 ) . V < 0 whenever 2   1 2 λmax (P)   2 ɶ ɶ (e. w ) is uniformly ultimately bounded. w ) V > σ w + sup ε 2 (τ )  .

we may also have asymptotical convergence of the output error by using Barbalat’s lemma. i. 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. we have proved that the tracking error is bounded by a weighted exponential function plus a constant.e. 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 . 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. it might also induce controller saturation problem in practice. 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. . However.12 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 69 Taking the square root and using (19). This also implies that by adjusting controller parameters.2.

This page intentionally left blank .

In Section 3. With consideration of the motor dynamics in each joint of the flexible joint robot. the external force is added into the dynamics equation in Section 3. a set of 2n coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations are used to describe the dynamics of an n-link rigid robot.7. When interacting with the environment.1 Introduction In this chapter.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.2.4. The actuator dynamics is considered in Section 3.e. q )q + g(q) = τ (1) 71 . For their detailed derivation. and a motor model is coupled to each joint dynamics. In Section 3.5. resulting in a set of 3n differential equations in its dynamics.Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators 3. Finally. please refer to any robotics textbooks. we review the mathematical models for the robot manipulators considered in this book.. the external force is included into the dynamics equation which is presented in Section 3.9 to have the most complex dynamics considered in this book. the dynamics for an electrically driven flexible joint robot interacting with the environment.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.3.8. its model becomes a set of 5n differential equations in Section 3. To investigate the effect when interacting with the environment. 3. It is composed of 3n differential equations with the inclusion of the external force. i. Section 3. the dynamics for an electrically driven rigid robot interacting with the environment is presented. we include the external force in Section 3.

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

During the free space tracking phase.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. 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. while property 3 will further be investigated in Chapter 4. 3. then equation (3.2-1). it is sometimes more convenient to represent (1) in the Cartesian space as ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x. 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. n and Fext ∈ℜ is the external force vector at the end-effector. there will be no external force and equation (1) degenerates to (3. To facilitate controller derivation.3.2-1) is modified to ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.

but with a constraint surface as shown in Figure 3.2.2: A 2-D planar robot interacting with the environment Let us consider the 2-D robot in Example 3. x) = J a T (q)[C(q.74 Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators where x ∈ℜ n is the coordinate in the Cartesian space. 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. 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 . 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.1 again.

4 Electrically-Driven Rigid Robot (EDRR) 75 Figure 3. . and K b ∈ℜ n × n is a constant matrix for the motor back-emf effect. when the system contains uncertainties and disturbances.3. u ∈ℜ n is the control input voltage. especially.4 Electrically-Driven Rigid Robot (EDRR) Let us consider the electrically-driven rigid robot. The dynamic equation of a rigid robot with consideration of motor dynamics is described as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. H ∈ℜ n × n is an invertible constant diagonal matrix characterizing the electro-mechanical conversion between the current vector and the torque vector. R ∈ℜ n × n represents the electrical resistance matrix. 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. 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.

3-3) to transform (1) to the Cartesian space (1a) (1b) ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x.4: The robot in Example 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) . x)x + g x (x) = J −T (q)Hi − Fext x a ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u (2a) (2b) Example 3.5 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. the 2-D robot introduced in Example 3.3: With the consideration of the motor dynamics. q)q + g(q) = Hi − J T (q)Fext a ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u We may also use equation (3.1 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) 3.76 Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators Example 3.

Its dynamic equation is in the form of (1) and can be represented in the state space as Figure 3.3 A single-link flexible-joint robot . Consideration of the joint flexibility in the controller design is one of the approaches to increase the control performance.5: A single-link flexible-joint robot Let us consider a single-link flexible-joint robot as shown in Figure 3. The dynamics of an n-rigid link flexible-joint robot can be described by ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. Example 3.6 Flexible Joint Robot (FJR) 77 3. τ a ∈ℜ is the vector of actuator input torques. Therefore.6 Flexible Joint Robot (FJR) The transmission mechanism in many industrial robots contains flexible components. and the viscous damping is neglected.3. respectively.3. the modeling of the flexible joint robot is far more complex than that of the rigid robot. 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. θ ∈ℜ n is the vector of actuator n angles. For a robot with n links. B and K are n × n constant diagonal matrices of actuator inertias. J. damping and joint stiffness. the link is rigid. we need to use 2n generalized coordinates to describe its whole dynamic behavior when taking the joint flexibility into account. such as the harmonic drives. It can rotate in a vertical plane with the assumptions that its joint can only deform in the direction of joint rotation.

6: A 2-D rigid-link flexible-joint robot The equation of motion for the robot introduced in Example 3.e. 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.. i=1. the link mass M.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. the rotor inertia J. and the center of mass L are positive numbers. The link inertial I. the stiffness K. Example 3.1 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. θ 2 in the figure. i. the gravity constant g.…. and the output y=x1 is the link angular displacement.4 are state variables. The control u is the torque delivered by the motor.7: A 2-D rigid-link flexible-joint robot interacting with environment .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.

the robot in Example 3.6 performs compliant motion control.8: A 2-D electrically-driven flexible-joint robot (1a) (1b) (1c) When considering the actuator dynamics. 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) 3.3.8 Electrically-Driven Flexible Joint Robot (EDFJR) 79 When the robot in Example 3.6-1) as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. q)q + g(q) = K (θ − q) ɺɺ ɺ Jθ + Bθ + K (θ − q) = Hi ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K b q = u Example 3.6 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 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.

and some allow the robot to interact with the environment. eight robot models have been introduced. some take the joint flexibility into account. For each joint. 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. Example 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. 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.10 Conclusions In this chapter. In the following chapters. a 5th order differential equation is needed to model its dynamics. These robot models are summarized in Table 3-1 for comparison.80 Chapter 3 Dynamic Equations for Robot Manipulators 3.9: A 2-D electrically-driven flexible-joint robot interacting with environment When considering the actuator dynamics. controllers .

1 Robot models considered in this book Systems RR RRE EDRR Dynamics Models Equation Numbers (3.9-1) .7-1) EDFJR ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.8-1) EDFJRE (3. q )q + g (q ) = Hi ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u − ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x.2-1) (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.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. 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.3-2) (3.3.4-1) 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. 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. x)x + g x (x) = J a T (q) τ − Fext x ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q )q + C(q. x)x + g x (x) x − = J aT (q)K(θ − q) − Fext ɺɺ ɺ Jθ + Bθ + K (θ − q) = τ a (3. q)q + g (q) = τ − ɺ ɺ D x (x)ɺɺ + C x (x. Table 3.5-2) FJR ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D (q )q + C (q .

This page intentionally left blank .

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

2 whose regressor matrix depends on the joint position. (2006) proposed an adaptive controller for robot manipulators without computation of the regressor matrix.6. The famous Slotine and Li approach reviewed in Section 4. the regressor-free design is extended to the system considering the actuator dynamics. In his design.84 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots Some regressor-free approaches for the adaptive control of robot manipulators are available.3 eliminates the requirement for the acceleration feedback and avoids the singularity problem. Su and Stepanenko (1996) designed a robust adaptive controller for constrained robots without using the regressor matrix. it is still based on the regressor matrix.4. In Section 4. we are going to study the regressor-free adaptive control strategies for rigid robot manipulators. Significant performance improvement can be seen in the simulation results to verify the efficacy of the regressor-free design. in the process of updating the inertia matrix. there might be some singularity problem which greatly limits the effectiveness of the approach. but the usual regressor is still needed. velocity and acceleration which is inconvenient in real-time implementation. (1994) designed an adaptive sliding controller which does not require computation of the regressor matrix. one of their controller parameters should be determined based on variation bounds of some complex system dynamics. Park et al. but some critical bounded time functions are to be determined to have bounded tracking error performance. However. and the tracking error can not be driven to arbitrary small in the steady state. Huang et al. We firstly review the conventional adaptive control laws for rigid robots in Section 4. In addition.5 based on the function approximation technique. In Qu and Dorsey (1991). However. we investigate the entries in the regressor matrix and the parameter vector to justify the necessity for the regressor-free approach. Yuan and Stepanenko (1993) suggested an adaptive PD controller for flexible joint robots without using the high-order regressor. some bounds of the system dynamics should be found. To confirm robust stability of the closed loop system. Chien and Huang (2007b) designed a regressor-free adaptive controller for electrically driven robots. Song (1994) suggested an adaptive controller for robot motion control without using the regressor. In Section 4. . it is generally not easy to find such a parameter for robots with more than 3 DOF. The regressor-free adaptive control strategy is then designed in Section 4. a non-regressor based controller was proposed using linear state feedback. In this chapter. but bounds of some system dynamics should be available.

q) ∈ℜ n × r multiplied by an unknown parameter vector p ∈ℜ r . ɺɺ ɺ ɺ ɺ ɺɺ D(q )q + C(q.e. C and g. As indicated in (3.2 Review of Conventional Adaptive Control for Rigid Robots 85 4. e = q − q d ɺ e (3) is asymptotically stable. and g = g − g are estimation errors. 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. q )q + g(q) = τ If all parameters are available. 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. i. q)p ɺ ɺ ɺɺ ɶ e (7) .. and gain matrices K d . C and g are estimates of D. 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 .2 Review of Conventional Adaptive Control for Rigid Robots Let us consider the rigid robot described in (3. K p ∈ℜ n × n are selected such that the closed loop dynamics ɺɺ + K d e + K p e = 0. 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. q)q + g(q ) = Y (q. It is obvious that realization of controller (2) needs the knowledge of the system model. q. the left hand side of equation (1) can be linearly ɺ ɺɺ parameterized as a known regressor matrix Y (q. q. Now.4. equation (6) can be further written to be ˆ ɺɺ + K d e + K p e = − D −1Y (q.2-1) ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. let us consider the case when some of the parameters are not available and an adaptive controller is to be designed. respectively.2-2). With the controller defined in (5). C = C − C. q.

asymptotic convergence . then (7) converges to (3) as t → ∞. equation (8) ˆ ɺ gives boundedness of x if D is nonsingular. 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 (∞)] < ∞. Because A is Hurwitz and x is bounded. q)]T B T Px equation (10) becomes (11) 1 ɺ V = − x T Qx ≤ 0 2 ɶ Hence. we have proved that x ∈ L∞ and p ∈ Lr . Along the trajectory of (8). 0 we may conclude x ∈ L2 . we may have convergence of the output tracking error. 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. q. 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 . To this end. To design an  ∈ℜ −K d  I n  ˆ update law for p to ensure closed loop stability. Therefore. a Lyapunov-like function candidate can be selected as ɶ V ( x. 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.

. a well-known strategy proposed by Slotine and Li (1988.2-1) 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. ˆ Hence. convergence of s implies convergence of the output error e. To solve these problems. 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. Slotine and Li proposed ɺ the following design strategy. Rewrite the robot model (4... By this definition. although the inertia matrix D ˆ is nonsingular for all t >0. Hence. λn ) with λi > 0 for all i =1. its estimate D is not guaranteed to be invertible. This further implies asymptotic convergence of the output tracking error e. n.4. Its time derivative along the trajectory of (3) 2 1 ɺ ɺ V = −s T K d s + s T (D − 2C)s 2 . Define an error vector s = e + Λe where Λ = diag ( λ1 . 1991) based on the passivity design for rigid robots will be introduced in next section. In addition. the joint accelerations are required to be available.. (11) might suffer the singularity problem when the determinant of D gets very close to 0. 4.3 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. λ2 . It can also be proved that convergence of the parameter vector is dependent to the PE condition of the reference input signal.…. their measurements are generally costly and subject to noise.3 Slotine and Li’s Approach 87 of x can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. and some projection modification should be applied. let us define a Lyapunov-like function candidate as V = can be computed as 1 T s Ds. the closed loop system becomes ɺ Ds + Cs + K d s = 0 (3) To justify the feasibility of the controller (2). To realize the control law (5) and update law (11). However.

then (8) converges to (3) asymptotically. C and g in (1) are not available. and controller (2) cannot be realized. the ɺ ɺ regressor matrix Y (q.2-7). let us define a Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ V (x. 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. 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) . 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. With this control law. 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. if we may find an appropriate update law for p such that ɶ → 0 as t → ∞. 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. ˆ On the other hand. v) in (8) is independent to the joint accelerations. v)p (8) ɺ ɺɺ It is worth to mention that unlike the regressor matrix Y (q. Now let us consider the case when D. q. C and g can be properly designed. It is noted that the above design is valid if all robot parameters are known. v. or we may conclude that the tracking error e converges asymptotically. q) in (4. q. and the closed loop p stability can be ensured. q. v.88 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots ɺ Since D − 2C can be proved to be skew-symmetric. Hence. and s is also uniformly bounded. To find the update law. s → 0 as t → ∞ .

For example. the regressor matrix has to be computed in every control cycle. the 2-D robot in (3. To implement the control law (6) and update law (11). Besides. 4.4. (12) This is the same result we have in (4) and same convergence performance can thus be concluded for the tracking error.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) . q. In the realtime realization. v. and its complexity results in a considerable burden to the control computer. v)s and (10) becomes (11) ɺ V = −s T K d s ≤ 0. However.4 The Regressor Matrix 89 Hence.2-3) can be represented into a linear parameterization form in (4. the robot model has to be represented as a linear parametric form so that an adaptive controller can be designed. all time varying terms in the robot dynamics are collected inside the regressor matrix. to satisfy the limitation of the traditional adaptive design that the uncertainties should be time-invariant. derivation of the regressor matrix for a high-DOF robot is tedious. 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. the update law can be picked as ɺ ˆ ɺ ɺ p = − Γ −1Y T (q.4 The Regressor Matrix In the above development.

these quantities are relatively easy to measure in practical applications compared to the derivation of the regressor matrix. However. q. 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 . Obviously. the entries are some combinations of system parameters such as link lengths. To ease the controller design and implementation. v.…. 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). masses. but update the easy-to-obtain parameter vector. we are required to know the complex regressor matrix. one realization can be given as ɺ ɺ v2  v1 ɺ ɺ Y (q.90 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots and the regressor matrix is in the form ɺɺ ɺɺ  q1 q2 ɺ ɺɺ Y (q. it is suggested to consider the regressor-free adaptive control .3-8). in traditional robot adaptive control designs. etc. q. and moments of inertia. For the acceleration-free regressor used in (4.

we would like to use FAT to representation D. conventional robust designs do not work either. Z C ∈ℜ and z g ∈ℜ are matrices of basis functions.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 91 strategies. Here. Since D. If some proper update laws can be ˆ ˆ ˆ found so that D → D . a FAT-based adaptive controller is designed for a rigid robot without the need for the regressor matrix. In next section. traditional adaptive controllers are not applicable to give proper update laws except that the linearly parameterization assumption as shown in (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) . Using the same set of basis functions. then e → 0 can be concluded from (1b). 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 .4.3-8) is feasible. On the other hand.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. C and g are functions of states and hence functions of time. C → C and g → g . 4.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design The same controller (4.2 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 . The number β (⋅) represents the number of basis functions used. since their variation bounds are not given.

their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of a Lyapunov-like function. ε g . WC . 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 . 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. Since W(⋅) are constant vectors. WD . Q C ∈ℜ n β C × n β C and Q g ∈ℜ g are positive definite weighting matrices. 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 . Let us consider a candidate 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s. ε C . q d ) ∈ℜ n is a lumped approximation error vector.92 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots Therefore. 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) . s.

but we can find a positive number δ such that ε 1 ≤ δ . Together with the relationship .3-12). then we may have V ≤ −s T K d s ≤ 0 which is similar to the result of (4. 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. where si.3-12).5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 93 where σ (⋅) are positive numbers. then it is not necessary to include the σmodification terms in (7).…. 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 . This will further give convergence of the output error by Barbalat’s lemma. and the update law (7) without σ-modification. ɺ i =1. and the proof for the second one can be found in the Appendix.4. n is the i-th entry in s. Hence. Hence. (8) can be reduced to (4. 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. 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. With the existence of the approximation error ε1 and the σ-modification terms. Remark 2: If the approximation error cannot be ignored. equation (8) may not conclude its definiteness as the one we have in (4. and convergence of s can be further proved by Barbalat’s lemma.3-12).

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 )] .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 )  . σC . σD .

2. WD . we have proved that s. However. we are going to use similar treatment in (14) in later chapters to simplify the derivation. In addition.    λmax (Q D ) λmax (Q C ) λmax (Q g )   σD .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. according to Property 1 in Section 3. 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) ≤ . σC . Hence.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 . By ɺ proper selection of the parameters there. WC and Wg are uniformly ultimately bounded. σg Since α will not be used in the realization of the control law or the update law.4. It can be seen that all terms in the right side of (16) are constants. it is easy to prove that ∃ η D . we may adjust the set where V ≥ 0 to ɶ ɶ ɶ be sufficiently small.

q. and implementation issues.96 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots With (17). Table 4.3-6) 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 Summary of the adaptive control for RR ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. v. update laws. Two columns are arranged to present the regressor-based and regressor-free designs respectively according to their controller forms. v )p − K d s (4. This completes the transient performance analysis.5-1) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1Y T s (4.5-7) Does not need regressor matrix Realization Issue Need regressor matrix . q)q + g (q) = τ (4. 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.1 summarizes the adaptive control laws derived in this section.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. Table 4.3-11) 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.

the endpoint is initially at (0.75m). and I1 =I2 =0. Since it is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0. some significant transient response can be observed.5-1a) is applied with the gain matrices  20 0  10 0  Kd =   .1: Consider a 2-DOF planar robot represented in example 3.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C11 (0) = [0. Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1 =m2 =0.e. D . C and g are all unavailable.2m radius circle centered at (0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C22 (0) = [0. Therefore.8m). lc1 =lc2 =0.0234(kg-m2). and Λ =  0 10 .375(m). and we are going to verify the control strategy developed in this section by using computer simulations.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 (4.8m. Q C1 = I 44 and Q g 1 = 100I 22 .1.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w D22 (0) = [0.5-7) are selected as − − Q −1 = I 44 . WD and WC are in ℜ 44 × 2 .8m. l1 =l2 =0. 1. and ˆ g is in ℜ 22 × 2 . We would like the endpoint to track a 0. The initial condition of the generalized coordinate vector is set to be q(0) = [0.4.5(kg). The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis ˆ ˆ function for the approximation. The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be W ˆ w D11 (0) = [0. and their variation bounds are not known. 0.75(m). The controller in (4. 0.0022 1.0m) in 10 seconds without knowing its precise model.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 97 Example 4.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C12 (0) = w C21 (0) = [−0.5019 0 0]T ..8m. we employ the FAT to have the representations in (2).  0 20   Since we have assumed that the entries of D.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w D12 (0) = w D21 (0) = [−0. i.

6 are the performance of function approximation. The transient states converge very fast without unwanted oscillations.75 0.2 1.1 to 4.4 to 4. After the transient state. and hence the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 . --.8 X 0. The simulation results are shown in Figure 4.9 0.3. the tracking error is small regardless of the time-varying uncertainties in D.95 0.65 0.85 0. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 4.85 0.95 1 Figure 4.7 0. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values.75 0.1 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space. they still remain bounded as desired.9 0. Figure 4.desired trajectory) - .05 1 Y 0.1 Tracking performance in the Cartesian space ( actual trajectory.8 0. although the initial position error is quite large.6. C and g. 1. Figure 4. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law. we assume that the approximation error can be neglected. It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges nicely to the desired trajectory. Figure 4.15 1.6 0.2 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance.1 1.98 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots In this simulation.

3 The control efforts for both joints are all reasonable - 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 .2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 4.6 1.6 0. --.4 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 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 0.4.desired trajectory) 14 12 control input 1 (N.2 1 0.m) 0 −5 −10 −15 −20 0 1 Figure 4.5 FAT-Based Adaptive Controller Design 99 0.2 Joint space tracking performance ( actual trajectory.8 0.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1.

3 0.05 0.35 0.1 −0.1 0.6 0.15 0.2 −0.actual value) 0.1 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 D(22) 0.5 0.15 0.4 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 D(12) 0.3 −0.4 0.3 D(21) 0.2 0 −0.1 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.15 0.2 −0.2 0.05 −0.05 0 −0.1 0.8 0.05 C(12) 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0 −0.05 0 −0.5 Approximation of C ( estimate.25 0.1 D(11) 0.4 Approximation of D ( estimate.2 0.4 0 −0.1 0.1 C(11) 0.6 0.15 C(21) C(22) 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) Figure 4.actual value) - - 0.2 0. --.3 0.1 0 −0.05 −0. --.05 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 4.1 −0.1 0.4 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.100 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 1 0.2 0.05 0 8 10 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 .4 0.

4-1) as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. --. a regressor-free adaptive controller is introduced.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics In this section.2. Finally.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. Several simulation results will be presented to justify the necessity for the consideration of the actuator dynamics.4. With the definitions of s and v in Section 4. and to evaluate the performance of the controllers designed here.6 Approximation of g ( estimate. q)q + g (q) = Hi We firstly consider the case when all robot parameters are known.actual value) 4. and then the regressor-based adaptive controller is derived if the robot parameters are not available. we are going to derive adaptive controllers for the rigid-link electrically-driven robot described in (3. 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) .

Substituting (3) into (2). the closed ɺ loop dynamics becomes Ds + Cs + K d s = 0.102 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots Suppose all of the robot parameters are known. the dynamics for the current tracking loop becomes ɺ Le i + K c e i = 0 On the other hand. 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. Since all parameters are assumed to be known at the present stage. ei ) = sT Ds + eT Lei i 2 2 (8) . and hence convergence of s follows. Substituting (4) into (1b). The gain matrix Kc is selected to be positive definite. 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. It is exactly the same as the one in (4. and id is the desired current trajectory which is equivalent to the perfect current in (3). we have to design a control input u in (1b) to ensure that the actual current can converge to the perfect one. let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 1 V (s.3-3). 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. To realize the perfect current vector in (3).

and Kb are not available. by Barbalat’s lemma. In next step. C. It is easy to further prove that s and ei are also square integrable.6. we may conclude asymptotic convergence of s and ei. Remark 1: It has to be noted that in controller (4). the controller (4) with the perfect current trajectory (6) can give asymptotic convergence of the output error. if all parameters in the EDRR (1) are available. In summary.6.6. let us consider the desired current trajectory . The regressor-free design will be developed in section 4.2. and their time derivatives are uniformly bounded. 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.2.1 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. Hence. and we may not realize the control laws in (4) and (6). L. we would like to derive a regressor-based adaptive controller for EDRR.4. 4. g.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 103 Along the trajectory of (5) and (7). R. This necessity will be eliminated in the following design of the FAT-based regressor-free adaptive controller in section 4. 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. Instead.

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 . To proof the closed loop stability and to find appropriate update laws. the controller (13) becomes ˆi u = p T φ − K ce i (14) Substituting (14) into (10b). q. 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 . then (12) implies controller u and an update law such that i → i d and p convergence of the output error vector. let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 1 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶi ɶ V (s. C. p. respectively.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 . R and Kb. respectively. 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. v. C . g and p the estimates of D. If we may design a ˆ → p. v . v )p − K d s ] (11) ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ which is a modification of (6) with D . 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. ei . q . v )p + H (i − i d ) (12) ˆ ɶ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ where D = D − D . For convenience. pi ) = sT Ds + eT Lei + pT Γp + Tr(pT Γipi ) i 2 2 2 2 (16) . g = g − g and p = p − p . With this desired current trajectory. C = C − C . g and p. R and K b are estimates of L.

6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 3n × 3n 105 are positive definite matrices. C. 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. All of these requirements will be eliminated in the following design of the FAT-based regressor-free adaptive controller. Their time derivatives can also be proved to be bounded.2 Regressor-free adaptive control Now. Along the where Γ ∈ℜ r × r and Γ i ∈ℜ trajectories of (12) and (15). we would like to design a desired current i d so that a FAT-based adaptive controller u can be constructed without . 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. Hence. 4.6. L. (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 . R and Kb are not ɺɺ available. Equation (19) implies that s and ei are uniformly bounded and square integrable. g. and q is not easy to measure. asymptotic convergence of s and ei can be obtained by the Barbalat’s lemma.4. This further implies q → q d and i → i d as t → ∞ . let us consider the case when D.

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 . and Wf ∈ℜ f 2 2 Z C ∈ℜ n β C × n . ZD ∈ℜn β D ×n . we may ensure i → i d as t → ∞ . i. 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 . i Substituting (22) into (1b). z g ∈ℜ n β g ×1 . we ˆ ˆ → D. q ) = Li d + Ri + K bq . according to (4). 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 .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. weighting matrices. C and g. Let us apply the function approximation representation for 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 can be designed. Here. 2 2 nβ × n nβ × n are and . 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. Wg ∈ℜ g . C → C and g → g so that (21) can give desired ˆ may have i → i d . C and g are respectively estimates of D. D performance. WC ∈ℜ n β C × n . Instead of (6). C.

6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 107 are matrices of basis functions.ε g . Using respectively the same set of basis functions. ei . and ε (⋅) are approximation error matrices. The number β (⋅) represents the number of basis functions used. Wg . Q C ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of the Lyapunov-like function. 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 . s. 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. WD . Since W(⋅) are constant matrices. q d ) and ε 2 = ε 2 (ε f . WC . e i ) are lumped approximation errors.ε C .4. and nβ f × nβ f Q f ∈ℜ are all positive definite. Q g ∈ℜ g . 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) .

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

Now. the control effort would become impractically huge. be unsatisfactory which will be presented in case 2. the controllers designed for RR are in the torque level.4... In the last case. the performance would. some modification is needed so that the robot and the controller are compatible. The input for the EDRR is in the voltage level implying that its controller must be with output in voltage The adaptive controller in (4.3 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. i. Hence. the robot models are in the voltage level.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 113 EDRR with the same set of controller parameters.3 summarizes the configuration of the simulation cases.7). their outputs are torque. in case 2 and 3.e. 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. However. i. we consider the same configuration in case 2.7 The input signal for a RR is in the torque level and its controller should also be in the torque level.5-1a) is designed for the rigid robot in the torque level. we may arrive at a conclusion later that consideration of the actuator dynamics is very important if good performance is required. of course. It is seen that although the tracking error can be limited to some range. the input to the joint is voltage (Figure 4. Table 4.e. Table 4. Torque RR q Voltage EDRR q Figure 4. Hence.

Λ =  0 10 and K c =  0 50 .6-40) .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 (4.6-29) − 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 (4.6-1) (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 ) (4.6-20). (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 4.6-40) ˆT + Wg z g − K d s) (4.4.6-39) Case 3 EDRR (4.4 Realization details in simulation cases Plant Case 1 EDRR (4. some more detail in the simulation cases can be summarized as shown in Table 4.6-22) (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) − 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.

Figure 4.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w D12 (0) = w D21 (0) = [−0.4.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w D22 (0) = [0.8 to 4.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C11 (0) = [0. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values.12 to 4. 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 .5498 −3. The simulation results are shown in Figure 4.10.15.11. and Q f 1 = 100I 22 . Figure 4.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C22 (0) = [0. .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) = [1.8 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space. Q C1 = I 44 .15 are the performance of function approximation. and the σ-modification parameters are all zero.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C12 (0) = w C21 (0) = [−0. This justifies the effectiveness of the consideration of the actuator dynamics when high performance control is required. The initial weighting vectors for the entries while Wg and Wf are in ℜ are assigned to be ˆ w D11 (0) = [0. The performance in the current tracking loop is quite good as shown in Figure 4. It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges smoothly to the desired trajectory.3 seconds which can be justified from the joint space tracking history in Figure 4.3570]T . D The approximation error is assumed to be neglected. The transient state takes only about 0. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that are presented in Figure 4. Q g 1 = 100I 22 . they still remain bounded as desired. although the initial position error is quite large and most plant parameters are uncertain.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 .9. 22 × 2 ˆ ˆ .

8 0.6 0.116 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 1.65 0.85 0.1 1.05 1 Y 0.6 1. --.2 0 0 0.2 1.8 2 Figure 4.desired trajectory) 0.2 1 0.9 Joint space tracking performance ( actual trajectory.4 1.6 0.6 1.2 0 0.15 1.8 X 0.6 0.desired trajectory) - - 0.4 1.4 0.95 1 Figure 4.7 0.4 0.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.75 0.85 0.6 1.75 0.2 0.8 0.2 1.2 1.9 0. --.4 1.95 0.8 2 .2 0.8 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space ( actual trajectory.6 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.9 0.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.

4 1.desired trajectory) 1 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.2 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 - 0.5 control input 1 (vol) Figure 4.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 0 0.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 −1 −1.11 Control efforts .4.4 1.6 0.2 1.2 1.5 0 −0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.4 1.6 0.2 0.6 1.4 0. --.8 2 ( 2 1.6 0.2 resl desired 117 i(1) 1 0.8 2 1 0 −1 i(2) −2 −3 −4 0 0.2 0.8 2 Figure 4.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 0.2 1.8 2 2 control input 2 (vol) 1 0 −1 −2 0 0.6 1.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 1.10 Tracking in the current loop actual trajectory.4 0.8 0.

2 0.2 0.5 2 .13 Approximation of C ( estimate.15 0 0.4 0.1 0 D(21) 0 0.15 0.2 0.5 2 0.3 0.2 0.1 −0.5 0.5 2 C(12) 0 0.2 0. --.15 0.actual value) - - 0.1 C(11) −0.3 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 Figure 4.4 0 0.5 2 0.1 0 −0.actual value) 0.05 C(21) C(22) 0 −0.2 0.1 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 −0.1 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.1 −0.1 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.12 Approximation of D ( estimate.3 0.5 2 0 0.6 D(11) D(12) 0. --.05 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.05 −0.5 1 Time(sec) Figure 4.5 2 D(22) 0 0.3 0.2 0 0.05 0 −0.15 −0.15 0.05 0 1.1 0 −0.1 −0.3 0.8 0.118 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.5 2 0 0.1 0.

5 −1 0 0.2 0.5 1 0.6 0.15 Approximation of f ( estimate.4 1.4 Figure 4.actual value) - - 0.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.4 0. --.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 1.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 10 8 6 g(1) 119 4 2 0 0 0.5 f(1) 0 −0.8 2 .6 1.4 2 1 f(2) 0 −1 −2 0 0.6 1.4.8 1 Time(sec) 1.14 Approximation of g ( estimate.4 1.2 1.8 2 2 1 0 g(2) −1 −2 −3 −4 0 0. --.2 0.8 2 Figure 4.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.8 2 0.2 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.actual value) 1.

9 0.2 1. The purpose of using the same set of parameters is to have an effective comparison.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). 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 . and impractically large values can be seen in both curves.8 0. Function approximation results shown in Figure 20 to 22 are not satisfactory either.6 0.4 1.5 0. Figure 4.8 X 0.22.17 indicates that the joint space motion deviates from the desired trajectory after 0.6 0.16 Tracking performance in the Cartesian space. Figure 4.1 1 Y 0. 1.9 1 1. Figure 4.16 shows that the endpoint motion does not converge to the desired trajectory. All other required  0 10 parameters for the controller and update law (40) are the same as those in the previous case.16 to 4. 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.7 0.3 1.18 and 19 presents the motor current and the control effort respectively.6 seconds. The simulation results are presented in Figure 4.2 Figure 4.7 0.1 1.

8 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.4.4 0.8 0.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.8 2 Figure 4.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.8 2 1.8 2 Figure 4.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 0.2 0 −0.4 1.4 0.6 1.8 2 500 i(2) 0 −500 0 0.18 Motor currents go to impractically large values after 1.2 1.2 121 angle of link 1 (rad) 0 0.2 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 0.6 1.4 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.2 0.2 1 0.6 1.6 1.6 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.8 seconds .6 0.2 0 0.17 The joint space motion trajectory 600 400 200 i(1) 0 −200 −400 −600 0 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.

6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 −1 0 0.19 The control efforts become very large after 1.2 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.20 Approximation of D .8 2 Figure 4.2 1.5 1 0.4 1.5 2 Figure 4.5 0 −0.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 0 −0.6 1.5 2 −40 −60 −80 −100 −120 150 100 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 0.6 0.8 seconds 150 150 100 100 D(11) D(12) 50 0 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 −1 x 10 5 control input 2 (vol) 0 0.2 1.5 2 50 0 −50 0 0.122 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots x 10 5 1 control input 1 (vol) 0.

5 2 C(22) 0 0.4 1.6 1.4 0.2 1.4 1.8 2 1500 1000 500 g(2) 0 −500 −1000 0 0.2 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.8 2 Figure 4.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 20 15 10 5 0 −5 5 0 −5 123 C(11) C(12) 0 0.6 0.2 0.22 The estimate of vector g diverges very fast .6 0.4 0.5 2 Figure 4.4.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.21 Approximation of C 600 400 200 g(1) 0 −200 −400 0 0.5 2 −10 −15 −20 −25 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 80 60 40 20 0 −20 C(21) 0 0.

The estimated parameters in Figure 4.8 X 0.16). Q C1 = 0. the tracking error is still unacceptable .9 0.6 0. However.95 1 Figure 4.27 to 29 are bounded as desired.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 .1 1.2 1. The joint space tracking performance is shown in Figure 4.05 1 Y 0.8 0. The Cartesian space tracking performance in Figure 4.23 shows significant improvement (compared with Figure 4.9 0.85 0. and Q g 1 = I 22 .75 0.75 0. The motor currents and control efforts shown in Figure 4. D The simulation results are shown in Figure 4.01I 44 .  0 200   The gain matrices in the update laws are selected as − − Q −1 = 0. significant improvement in the tracking performance can be observed. but the tracking error is still large (compared with Figure 4.24.25 and 26 respectively are still unacceptably large.8).01I 44 .23 to 29.95 0.15 1.65 0.85 0. 1.7 0. After proper gain adjustment.23 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space.

6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.6 1.4 0.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 0.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 0.6 1.2 1.25 Motor currents go to impractically large values .6 1.4.8 125 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.8 2 Figure 4.2 0.2 0 0.8 2 1.4 1.6 0.8 2 4000 2000 i(2) 0 −2000 −4000 0 0.2 0.4 1.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.24 The joint space tracking performance 5000 i(1) 0 −5000 0 0.4 0.2 1.8 2 Figure 4.6 0.8 0.6 1.4 1.6 0.4 0.2 1.2 0.2 1 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.

6 1.5 0 −0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.27 Approximation of D .4 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.5 2 0 0.5 1 control input 1 (vol) 0.5 2 Figure 4.6 0.126 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots x 10 6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 Figure 4.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 5 0 −5 150 100 D(21) −10 −15 −20 −25 D(22) 50 0 0 0.2 1.4 0.26 The control efforts become very large 80 60 5 0 −5 D(11) 40 20 0 0 0.5 2 D(12) −10 −15 −20 −25 0 0.5 0 0.8 2 3 2 1 0 −1 −2 x 10 6 control input 2 (vol) 0 0.6 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 −1 −1.

28 Approximation of C 8 6 4 g(1) 2 0 −2 0 0.29 Approximation of g .2 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.4.5 1 Time(sec) 1.6 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 4 5 127 2 C(11) 0 C(12) 0 0.4 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 Figure 4.1 0 0.1 C(21) 0 −1 −2 −3 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 C(22) 0.05 −0.8 2 Figure 4.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.2 0.05 0 −0.5 2 3 2 1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.6 0.6 0.2 1.4 1.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 0 −2 −4 −5 0 0.15 0.8 2 5 0 −5 g(2) −10 −15 −20 0 0.

2.1 for a EDRR.6.7 Conclusions In this chapter.2 investigates the necessity for the consideration of the actuator dynamics in three cases. the actuator dynamics should be carefully considered to give better control performance. under the fast motion condition. In some operation conditions. the estimate of the inertia matrix is required to be nonsingular and the joint accelerations should be known. we consider the adaptive control of rigid robots in the free space. A regressor-based adaptive controller is derived in Section 4. it not only needs the joint acceleration feedback but also the calculation of the time derivative of the regressor matrix. a regressor based adaptive controller is derived. In Section 4.6.5 based on the FAT. whose implementation is similar to those in Section 4. To implement the update law.2. example 4. The simulation results show that. We have seen in Section 4.3 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. A regressor-free adaptive controller for EDRR is then introduced in Section 4. However. Finally.4.4 that computation of the regressor matrix is tedious in general. Slotine and Li’s approach derived in Section 4.128 Chapter 4 Adaptive Control of Rigid Robots 4. and its realization does not need the information of the joint accelerations. a regressor-free adaptive controller is derived in Section 4. . only the controller designed with consideration of actuator dynamics can give good performance with reasonable control efforts for a EDRR.

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

Simulation cases are also presented for verifying the effectiveness of the scheme introduced. Most of the existing adaptive impedance designs require computation of the regressor matrix. It is often more convenient to describe the dynamics of the robot in the Cartesian space when interacting with the environment. Mut et.4 gives the regressor–free adaptive impedance controller based on FAT with rigorous proof of closed loop stability. (2000) proposed an adaptive impedance tracking controller with visual feedback. 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. In this chapter. Section 5. 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. we would like to introduce an adaptive impedance controller based on FAT without using the regressor matrix (Chien and Huang 2004). Section 5.3 presents regressor-based adaptive impedance control designs. This chapter is organized as following: Section 5. x) = J a T [C(q. 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. which is assumed to be n nonsingular. al. 5. q) − D(q)J a 1J a ]J a 1 (2a) (2b) g x (x) = − J a T g (q) . Using the camera-in-hand. q)q + g (q) = τ −J T Fext a (1) where J a (q) ∈ℜ n × n is the Jacobian matrix.5 considers the case of inclusion of actuator dynamics. Section 5.2 reviews the traditional impedance control and adaptive impedance control strategies. Since joint acceleration is difficult to measure precisely.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. Zhen and Goldenberg (1995) designed an adaptive impedance controller without requiring measurements or estimates of acceleration.3-1) as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q.2 Impedance Control and Adaptive Impedance Control The dynamics of an n-link rigid robot interacting with the environment can be described by (3.

It is obvious that by plugging (4) into (2). and M i ∈ℜ . we may regard the impedance controller as a model reference controller and the target impedance plays the role of the reference model.2 Impedance Control and Adaptive Impedance Control 131 In the traditional impedance control. and K i ∈ℜ n × n are diagonal matrices representing the desired apparent inertia. Equation (3) implies that.5. i. the closed loop system becomes exactly the target impedance (3). while the rest of the terms are for completing the target impedance in (3). we may have .e. respectively. Conceptually. in the constrained motion phase. B i ∈ℜ . Fext = 0. equation (3) represents a stable 2nd order LTI system driven by the external force. Suppose some of the system parameters are not available and the above impedance controller cannot be realized. Substituting (5) into (2) and after some straightforward manipulations. the system trajectory converges to the desired trajectory asymptotically. 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. 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. On the other hand. damping. 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. and stiffness. Since all quantities in equation (2) are known. 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. in the free space tracking phase of the operation.

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 . the external force is zero. To In    ˆ design an update law for p x to ensure closed loop stability. Along the trajectory of (9). i.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. and the selection of the update law ɺ ˆx ˆ p x = − Γ −1 (D −1Y ) T B T Px x (12) . C x = C x − C x and g x = g x − g x . 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. a Lyapunov-like function candidate can be selected as ɶ V ( x.e. 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. Fext = 0 . 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 .

2 Impedance Control and Adaptive Impedance Control 133 gives the result 1 ɺ V = − x T Qx ≤ 0 .e. 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. i. 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). This further implies asymptotic convergence of the tracking error e in the free space tracking phase. 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. 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) . 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 . in the constrained motion phase. we have x ∈ L∞ and p x ∈ Lr . Fext ≠ 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. It is also very easy to have x ∈ L2 . therefore. However. 2 2n (13) 2n ɶ Hence. ∞ 2n ɺ and x ∈ L∞ . ɺɺ)p x Similar to (9).5. we may not conclude any stability property for the system states.

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

x.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 . v)s and (7) becomes (8) ɺ V = −s T K d s ≤ 0.. λn ) with λi > 0 for all i =1. the update law is selected as (7) ɺ ˆ ɺ ɺ p x = − Γ −1Y T (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... x. and hence x → x i as t → ∞ . define the Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 1 ɶ ɶx ɶ V ( x. v )p x (5) It is noted that the regressor matrix here is not a function of Cartesian space accelerations. To find the update law. v..…. n. This further implies the dynamics of x will converge to the . v.5. λ2 . (9) It is very easy to prove by Barbalat’s lemma that s → 0 as t → ∞ .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. 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. Rewrite the robot model (5.

ZDx ∈ℜn β D ×n . Z C x ∈ℜ n β C × n and z g x ∈ℜ g are matrices of 2 2 nβ × n .4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design In this section.3-3). This solves one of the difficulties encountered in previous section. Remark 2: To implement the control (3) and update law (8). However. 5. we do not need the information of Cartesian space accelerations and there is no singularity problem in the inertia matrix estimation. 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. and ˆ g x → g x . and hence the closed loop system will converge to the target impedance in (5.136 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots reference model in (1b).2-3). the regressor matrix is still needed in the update law.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 . To design the update laws without utilizing the regressor matrix. C x → C x . Let us consider the controller (5. 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. 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 . WC x ∈ℜ n 2β C × n and Wg x ∈ℜ g are weighting 2 n β ×1 matrices. a FAT-based adaptive impedance controller is designed without requiring the knowledge of the regressor.

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 . Let us consider a candidate 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s. The number β (⋅) represents the number of basis functions used. 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 . 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 . WC x . WC x and Wg x are respectively the estimates of WD x . Q C x ∈ℜ n β C × n β C and Q g x ∈ℜ g are positive definite weighting matrices. and ε (⋅) are approximation error matrices. ɺɺ i ) ∈ℜ n is a lumped vector of approximation errors. 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 . With these representations. WD x . WC x and Wg x . Using the same set of basis functions. their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of the Lyapunov-like function. s. Since W(⋅) are constant vectors.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 137 basis functions. ε C x .5.

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. 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 . On the other hand.138 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots where σ (⋅) are positive constants.  λmax (D x ) λmax (Q D x ) λmax (Q C x ) λmax (Q g x )  . 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 . WC x and Wg x are uniformly ultimately bounded. WD x . σ Dx .

and hence convergence of s can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. i =1. and asymptotic convergence of s can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. 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 . instead of (1).5. 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 . where si. 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. we may have V ≤ 0 . . Remark 4: Suppose ε1 cannot be ignored and there exist a positive number δ such that ε 1 ≤ δ for all t ≥ 0 . It is ɺ straightforward to prove s to be uniformly bounded. Let us consider the Lyapunov function candidate (7) and the update law (9) again but with σ (⋅) = 0 .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 . n are the ɺ i-th element of the vector s. then.….

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. 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. the closed loop system will converge to the actual target impedance provided all parameters are properly estimated. l1 =l2 =0.1. Actual values of system parameters are the same as those in example 4. i.1 Summary of adaptive impedance control for RR Rigid robot interacting with environment − ɺ ɺ D x ( x)ɺɺ + C x ( x. different phases of . v ) s (5. Since the surface is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0. v .2-2a) x Regressor-based Regressor-free τ= Controller JT a ˆ ɺ ˆ ˆ (g x + D x v + C x v (5. x .4-9) Does not need regressor matrix Realization Need regressor matrix Example 5. kw =5000N/m is the environmental stiffness.3-4) is considered in this example to verify the efficacy of the strategy developed in this section by computer simulation. the external force vector becomes Fext = [ f ext 0]T .2m radius circle centered at (0. m1 =m2 =0.8m. and xw =0. 1.95m is the position of the surface.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.0234(kg-m2).75(m). Hence.8m).e.8m 0. and I1 =I2 =0. In addition. The endpoint starts from x(0) = x i (0) = [0. 0.1: The 2-DOF planar robot (3. adaptive laws and implementation issues. Two columns are arranged to present the regressor based and regressorfree designs respectively according to their controller forms. lc1 =lc2 =0. Table 5.4-1) + Fext − K d s) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ ɺ ɺ p x = − Γ −1 Y T ( x .8m.3-3) ˆ ɺ ˆ τ = J T (g x + D x v + C x v a ˆ + Fext − K d s) (5.0m) in 10 seconds without knowing its precise model. Table 5.5(kg).375(m).1 summarizes the adaptive impedance control laws derived in this section.75m 0 0]T to track a 0. x) x + g x ( x) = J a T τ − Fext (5. x is the coordinate of the end-point in the X direction.

05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x 22 (0) = [0.  0 50   Parameter matrices in the target impedance are selected as 0   0. The controller in (1) is applied with the gain matrices 50 0   20 0  Kd =   . Therefore.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C x12 (0) = w C x 21 (0) = [−0.5. and Λ =  0 20 .1I 44 and Q g 1 = 50I 22 .7.5 0  100 0  1500 . we assume that the approximation error can be neglected. B i =  0 100 and K i =  0 1500  0 0. and Wg 22 × 2 is in ℜ .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w Dx12 (0) = w Dx 21 (0) = [−0. The gain matrices in the update laws (9) are designed as − − Q −1x = 0. and hence the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 . WD and WC are in ℜ 44 × 2 .4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 141 operations can be observed. D x In this simulation.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w Dx 22 (0) = [0. Mi =   .1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w g x1 (0) = w g x 2 (0) = [0 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 . Figure 5. The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be ˆ w Dx11 (0) = [0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x11 (0) = [0. C x and g x .1 shows the robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space. Q C1x = 0.1 to 5. It can be seen that after some transient response the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory in the free . The simulation results are shown in Figure 5.1I 44 .5     The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the approximation ˆ ˆ ˆ of entries in D x .

4. Afterwards. they still remain bounded as desired.05 1 Y 0.8 X 0.142 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots space nicely. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 5.75 0.6 0.2 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance. the endpoint contacts with the constraint surface at xw =0. 1. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values. the endpoint follows the desired trajectory with very small tracking error regardless of the system uncertainties.9 0.95(m) compliantly. Figure 5. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law. The joint space trajectory in the constraint motion phase is smooth. When entering the free space again.75 0.85 0.95 0. The transient states converge very fast without unwanted oscillations. Afterwards. When entering the free space again.95 1 Figure 5. Figure 5. the endpoint contacts with the constraint surface compliantly. the endpoint follows the desired trajectory with very small tracking error regardless of the system uncertainties .65 0. The external forces exerted on the endpoint during the constraint motion phase are shown in Figure 5.1 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space.8 0.7 are the performance of function approximation.1 1.85 0.3.2 1.15 1.7 0. After some transient the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory in the free space nicely.5 to 5.9 0.

4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 143 0.6 0.2 The joint space tracking performance.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.4 0.m) −10 −20 −30 −40 −50 −60 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 5.4 0.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 5.5. The transient is very fast and the constraint motion phase is smooth 20 control input 1 (N.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1.6 1.3 The control efforts for both joints are all reasonable .8 0.2 1 0.6 0.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.

2 0 0 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 −0.5 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 5.5 0 −0.5 0.5 0.6 Dx(11) Dx(12) 1 0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 5.144 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) 0.5 0 −0.5 3.5 0.4 0.4 Time histories of the external forces in the Cartesian space 0.5 Approximation of Dx .8 1.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 1.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 3 1 Dx(21) Dx(22) 2.

7 Approximation of gx .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 5.5 −1 −1.6 0.2 0 −0.5 Cx(12) 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 5.4 −0.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Impedance Controller Design 145 0.6 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0 −0.5 0 −0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 2 1.4 Cx(11) 1 0.2 −0.5.5 1 Cx(21) 3 2 Cx(22) 0.

C x and g x are known. a regressor-based adaptive controller is designed for (1) under the assumption that the system parameters contain uncertainties. we may have asymptotic convergence of s which further implies convergence of the closed loop system to the target impedance. q)q + g(q) = Hi − J T Fext a ɺ ɺ Li + Ri + K bq = u (1a) (1b) In this section. Then the closed loop dynamics becomes ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = 0. we may have Le i + K ce i = 0. equation (5. .2-1) has to be modified to ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. i d ∈ℜ is the desired current which is n× n equivalent to the perfect current trajectory (3). 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 . it is easy to prove that i → i d as t → ∞ with proper selection of gain matrix K c . Therefore. we will derive a regressor-free adaptive controller for the impedance control of system (1). With the same definitions of s and v in (5.146 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 5. 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. Substituting (4) into (1b). 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. and K c ∈ℜ is a positive ɺ definite matrix. 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. To make the actual current i converge to the perfect current in (3).5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics When the actuator dynamics is included.2-3).3-2). With proper selection of Kd. Finally. Then.

5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 147 In summary. v. and regressor matrix Y is defined similarly to the one in (5. 5. v )p x + J a T H(i − i d ) (6) If controller u can be designed such that i → i d . v. Therefore.1 Regressor-based adaptive controller Consider the robot model in (2) and (1b). p x . C x . A Lyapunov-like function candidate can be found as 1 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶx ɶ ɶi ɶ V (s.2-8). 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 convergence of the system dynamics to the target impedance can be obtained. g x . R and K b are uncertain matrices. v )p x − K d s + Fext ] a (5) where quantities with hats are respectively the estimated values. x. then (6) reduces to D xs + C x s + K d s = 0. x. and update law is selected to ɺ ˆ have p x → p x . 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. controller (4) and perfect current trajectory (3) are not realizable. 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 . the controller (4) can give asymptotic convergence of the closed loop system behavior to the target impedance. L. 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. if all parameters in the rigid-link electrically-driven robot (1) are available. e i . and assume that D x .5.5.

g x . C x .5. . Equation (12) implies that s and ei are uniformly bounded and ɺ ɺ square integrable. some more feasible controllers are to be developed. realization of the controller designed in this section has to be independent to the acceleration feedback and time derivatives of the external force. therefore. 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. Besides. It can also be proved that s and e i are uniformly bounded. L. and we would like to design a regressor-free adaptive controller so that the closed-loop dynamics converges to the target impedance. 5. asymptotic convergence in the current tracking loop and output tracking loop can be concluded from Barbalat’s lemma. R and Kb are not available. 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 . Availability x ɺ of all of these quantities is impractical in general. Fext and Y .2 Regressor-free adaptive controller Suppose D x . Along the where Γ ∈ℜ r × r and Γ i ∈ℜ trajectories of (6) and (8). Hence.148 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 3n × 3n are positive definite matrices.

and ε (⋅) are approximation error . WC x ∈ℜ2 n β C × n . C x → C x and g x → g x . g x and f are functions of time. traditional adaptive controllers are not directly applicable. Since D x . and convergence of the system dynamics to the target impedance can be obtained. and there are some update ˆ ˆ ˆ laws to have D x → D x . 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 . Since most robot parameters are unavailable. Wg x ∈ℜ g and Wf ∈ℜ f 2 n β ×1 are weighting matrices. 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). q ) = Li d + Ri + K bq . 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. Substituting this control i law into (1b). z g x ∈ℜ g and n β ×1 z f ∈ℜ f are matrices of basis functions. i.5. C x . According to (7). To design the update laws. then (14) reduces to ɺ D xs + C x s + K d s = 0. 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 . 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. 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 . Z C x ∈ℜ n β C × n . ZDx ∈ℜn β D ×n . we may have i → i d .

e i ) are lumped approximation errors.150 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots matrices. Q C x ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . Q g x ∈ℜ g and nβ f × nβ f Q f ∈ℜ are all positive definite. Using the same set of basis functions. ε C . Wg x . The number β (⋅) represents the number of basis functions used. ε g . 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 . Since W(⋅) are constant matrices. ɺɺ i ) and ε 2 = ε 2 (ε f . 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) . s. 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(⋅) . WC x . e i . WD x . their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of the Lyapunov-like function. Let us consider a candidate 1 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶT ɶ V (s. 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 .

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. definiteness of V cannot be determined.5. 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 . 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     .

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. (23) also implies . σ Cx . σf With this selection. e i . On the other hand. WD x . 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. we have proved that s. σ gx . σ Dx . Wg x and Wf are uniformly ultimately bounded.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)  . WC x .  λmax ( A) λmax (Q D x ) λmax (Q C x ) λmax (Q g x ) λmax (Q f )  .

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 . Together with (25). 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. asymptotic .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 . as a result. It is also ɺ ɺ easy to prove that s and e i are uniformly bounded.

and asymptotic convergence of the state error can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma.e. or time derivatives of the external force.154 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots convergence of s and ei can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. the desired current (13).….…. i. and the knowledge of the joint acceleration as well as the time derivative of the external force. ɺ where eik .n is the k-th element of the vector ei. Both the regressor-based and regressor-free approaches are listed for comparison. there exists positive constants δ 1 . i=1. Let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate (19) and the update law (21) without σ-modification again. joint accelerations. It should be noted that. in the actual implementation. Remark 8: Suppose ε1 and ε 2 cannot be ignored but their variation bounds are available. The adaptive impedance control of EDRR is summarized in Table 5. . the former needs to know the regressor and its derivative. we may have V ≤ 0 . where si . 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. k=1.2. To cover the effect of these bounded approximation errors. control law (15) and update laws (21) does not need the information of the regressor matrix. δ 2 > 0 such that ε1 ≤ δ 1 and ε 2 ≤ δ 2 for all t ≥ 0 . 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 . which largely simplified the implementation. Remark 9: Realization of the desired current (13). even though the robot model contains uncertainties. This further implies that i → i d and q → q d .n is the i-th element of the vector s and τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(ei1 ) ⋯ sgn(ein )]T .

and the derivative of the external force. (5.025(H). L1 = L2 =0.2 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. Realization Issue Need to know the regressor matrix. the endpoint is required to track a 0. Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1 =m2 =0.5. the joint accelerations. 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).5-13).5-15) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p x = − Γ −1Y T s ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1φe T i i i (5. l1 =l2 =0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics Table 5.1 with the inclusion of the actuator dynamics.0234(kg-m2).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 (5.375(m). x.5-5).5-1). and kb1 =kb2 =1(Vol/rad/sec). the derivative of the regressor matrix. (5. v . (5.2m radius circle centered at . 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. In order to observe the effect of the actuator dynamics. its derivative.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. or the derivative of the external force. r1 =r2 =1(Ω). lc1 =lc2 =0.5-21) Does not need the information for the regressor matrix. the joint accelerations.75(m). and we would like to verify the controller developed in this section by computer simulations. Example 5. and I1 =I2 =0.2: Consider the same 2-DOF planar robot in example 5.5(kg).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.

The matrices in the target impedance are picked as 0   0. The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be in ℜ ˆ w Dx11 (0) = [0. Mi =   . 1.0022 1.5 0  100 0  1500 .0m) in 2 seconds which is much faster than the case in example 5. the endpoint is still at (0. 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) = [0.5     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 C x12 (0) = w C x 21 (0) = [−0..05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w Dx12 (0) = w Dx 21 (0) = [−0.8m. i.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 .156 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots (0.1]T .1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x11 (0) = [0.8 0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x 22 (0) = [0. Λ =  0 20 and K c =  0 100 . 0.8m.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w Dx 22 (0) = [0. The initial conditions of the generalized coordinate vector is q(0) = [0.5019 0 0]T . while Wg x and Wf are 22 × 2 .1.75m) initially.e. The controller gain matrices are selected as 50 0   20 0  100 0  Kd =   .

The performance in the current tracking loop is very good as shown in Figure 5.16.85 0.9 0.11.75 0. and the σ-modification parameters are all zero.8 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 157 The gain matrices in the update laws are selected as − − − Q −1x = 0.95 1 Figure 5.85 0.8 0. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that are presented in Figure 5.13 to 4.1 1. the transient state takes only about 0.6 0.75 0.8 X 0. Figure 4. The simulation results are shown in Figure 5. 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. Figure 5.05 1 Y 0.8 to 5.16 are the performance of function approximation.2 seconds which can be justified from the joint space tracking history in Figure 5.8 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space . they still remain bounded as desired.1I 44 . Figure 4.9 0.1I 44 . 1.10. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values. Q C1x = 0. D x The approximation error is also assumed to be neglected. Although the initial error is quite large.95 0.5. Q g 1 = 50I 22 and Q f 1 = 10000I 22 .7 0.65 0.2 1.15 1.9.12 shows the time histories of the external forces.

2 0 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.6 0.8 2 Figure 5.2 0.4 1.4 0.8 2 Figure 5.4 0.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.2 0 0 0.8 2 1.9 Joint space tracking performance 2 actuator current 1 (A) 0 −2 −4 −6 −8 0 0.4 0.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.6 0.6 1.158 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 0.4 1.2 1 0.4 1.6 1.4 0.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.10 Tracking in the current tracking loop .2 0.2 1.6 0.8 2 1 actuator current 1 (A) 0 −1 −2 −3 −4 −5 −6 0 0.6 1.6 0.6 1.4 1.2 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.

11 Control efforts 80 external force fx (N) 60 40 20 0 0 0.4 1.8 2 1 external force fy (N) 0.4 0.8 2 Figure 5.2 1.4 0.4 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 2 6 4 control input 2 (vol) 2 0 −2 −4 −6 0 0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.2 0.6 0.8 2 Figure 5.5 0 −0.2 1.4 0.5 −1 0 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 10 8 159 control input 1 (vol) 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 0 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 1.5.12 External force trajectories .8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.

5 0.5 1 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 1.5 2 Figure 5.5 0 0 0.5 2 2 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.4 Dx(12) 0 0.5 0 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 Cx(12) 0 −1 −2 −3 0 0.5 0.5 2 6 4 10 5 2 Cx(21) 0 −2 Cx(22) 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 0.13 Approximation of Dx 3 2 1 3 2 1 Cx(11) 0 −1 −2 −3 0 0.5 3 1 2.5 1 Time(sec) 1.14 Approximation of Cx .5 0.5 Dx(21) Dx(22) 0 0.5 2 0 −5 −4 −6 −10 0 0.2 0 0 −0.160 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 0.5 3.8 1.6 1 Dx(11) 0.5 2 Figure 5.5 1 Time(sec) 1.

6 0.8 2 Figure 5.4 0.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.2 1.5.4 1.2 0.2 0.4 1.4 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 6 5 4 161 gx(1) 3 2 1 0 −1 0 0.15 Approximation of gx 5 4 3 f(1) 2 1 0 −1 −2 0 0.6 1.4 1.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.16 Approximation of f .8 2 Figure 5.8 2 3 2 1 f(2) 0 −1 −2 −3 −4 0 0.6 0.4 1.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.6 1.2 0.6 0.8 2 14 12 10 gx(2) 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.6 1.

3. implementation of this controller requires the knowledge of not only the regressor matrix and its time derivative. Finally. A regressor-free adaptive impedance controller is thus designed in Section 5.3. the actuator dynamics is considered in Section 5.6 Conclusions Compliant interaction between the robot and environment is very important in the industrial applications. a regressorbased impedance controller is derived. an adaptive impedance control is constructed by following the design introduced in Section 4.4 which does not need the availability of the additional information required in the previous section. it is not feasible for practical applications. In Section 5. Therefore. 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.5. In Section 5. In this chapter. .162 Chapter 5 Adaptive Impedance Control of Rigid Robots 5. but the closed loop system may not converge to the target impedance even when all parameters converge to their actual values.2. However. but also the joint accelerations and time derivative of the external force. 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.

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

we would like to study the FAT-based adaptive controller designs for n-link flexible-joint robots. 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. the uncertain parameters are required to be time-invariant and capable of being collected to form a parameter vector.q) (Spong 1987.4 presents regressor-free adaptive controller. 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 . Kozlowski and Sauer (1999a. Similar to most backstepping designs. Section 6. Chien and Huang (2007a) included the actuator into consideration in the design of an adaptive controller for flexible-joint robots. Huang and Chen (2004a) proposed an adaptive backsteppinglike controller based on FAT for single-link flexible-joint robots with mismatched uncertainties. 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. A backstepping design based output feedback adaptive controller for flexible joint robot was suggested in Yim (2001). q) τ (2a) (2b) .2 Control of Known Flexible-Joint Robots The rigid-link flexible-joint robot considered in this chapter is shown in (3. In this chapter.2.6-1) as ɺɺ ɺ ɺ D(q)q + C(q. Lin and Goldenberg 1995).164 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots based on the backstepping design with the knowledge of the regression matrix.3 derives the regressor-based adaptive controller and Section 6. 6. Chien and Huang (2006b) suggested a FAT-based adaptive controller for general flexible-joint robots without requiring the computation of the regressor matrix. The tedious computation of the regressor matrix is avoided. we consider the control of a known flexible-joint robot. Like other adaptive strategies. Section 6. 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. This chapter is organized as following: in Section 6.5 considers the actuator dynamics. the derivation is too complex to robots with more joints.

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

q ) = Φτ td + q ∈ℜ n . 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. C m ) is observable. and B p =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n and J t   0  B m =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n are augmented input gain 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 . and the transfer function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is strictly positive real. Along the trajectory (5a) and (10). 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. 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). respectively. According to the MRC rule. 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).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. the time derivative of V is computed as . a Lyapunov-like function candidate is designed as 1 V (s. B m ) is controllable. where C p = C m = [I n × n 0] ∈ℜ n × 2 n are augmented output signal matrices. the control torque τ a is selected as τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td . It is noted that ( A m . ( A m . and h( τ td . 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 .

a regressor-free adaptive control is developed in section 6. (6. q . This greatly restricts the application of the strategy presented here.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. Hence. therefore. we may conclude q → q d and τt →τtd as t → ∞ by Barbalat’s lemma.2-3) and (6. 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 . q ) in (8) implies the requirements for the knowledge of joint accelerations or even their higher time derivatives. 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.6. I n×n    Equation (12) implies uniform boundedness and square integrability of s and eτ .2-8) are not feasible.2-4) and (6. a regressor-based adaptive controller will be derived. C and g are assumed to be unavailable here. ɺ ɺ Uniform boundedness of s and eτ can also be proved easily. v )p + ( τ t − τ td ) (3) . 6. v. q. q) τ where D. Remark 1: Dependence of h( τ td .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. However. v . Finally. its realization will still be limited due to its dependence on high-order state variable feedbacks.4 to ease its realization.3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Let us consider the system described in (6. In next section.

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

2. To this end. A new one is constructed as ˆ τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h (6) . C ˆ ˆ ˆ D → D.2 is employed here.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 . B p . where Cm is also defined in Section 6. ( A m . Since the adaptive control of flexible-joint robots is much more difficult than that for its rigid-joint counterpart. respectively. C and g are estimates of D(q). we would like to derive the dynamics for the torque tracking loop next. the control torque in (6. q) and g(q). ɺɺ td ) = K r 1 (B r τ td + J r ɺɺ td ) . and the transfer function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is SPR. and B m are defined in Section 6. the same MRC scheme used in Section 6. C = C − C .4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 169 the traditional adaptive control and robust control are not easy to be applied here. ˆ ˆ update laws for D . 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 . A m . The pair ( A m . If a proper controller τ a and ˆ and g can be designed. and g = g − g . x m . Since system (1) contains uncertainties. C(q.2. we may have τ t → τ td .2-8) is not feasible. C → C and g → g so that (3) can give desired performance. Substituting (2) into (1a). 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 . 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. A p . Hence. In the following.6. B m ) is controllable. avoidance of the regressor computation in the FAT-based design largely simplifies the implementation in the real-time environment. Consider the reference model in (6. C m ) is observable. 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 .

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 . q ) = Φτ td + q . then the output error tracking dynamics (3) and the torque tracking dynamics (8a) become (10) . Using the same set of basis functions. z g ∈ℜ n β g ×1 . and Wh ∈ℜ h are 2 weighting matrices. 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 . ZD ∈ℜn β D ×n . WC ∈ℜ n β C × n . Plugging (6) into (5a). Wg ∈ℜ 2 g . 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 . and ε (⋅) are approximation error matrices. Z C ∈ℜ n β C × n . To proceed further. and z h ∈ℜ n β h ×1 are matrices of basis functions. 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(⋅) .170 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ˆ where h is the estimate of h( τ td .

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 . WC . ε g . The matrices Q D ∈ℜ n β D × n β D . s. WD . 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 . 2 2 Q C ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . ε C . Q g ∈ℜ n β g × n β g and Q h ∈ℜ n β h × n β h are positive definite.6. e m . e m ) are lumped where approximation errors. 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) . Since W(⋅) are constant vectors. q d ) and ε 2 = ε 2 (ε h . Wg . Let us consider a candidate 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶT ɶ V (s. their update laws can be easily found by proper selection of the Lyapunov-like function.

To cover the effect of these bounded approximation errors. 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 . as a result. 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.e. C. The time derivative of V can be computed as . there exists positive constants δ 1 . Furthermore. 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. δ 2 > 0 such that ε1 ≤ δ 1 and ε 2 ≤ δ 2 . g and h are all unknown. Let us consider the Lyapunov-like function candidate (12) and update laws (14) without the σ-modification terms again. This further implies that τ →τd and q → q d as t → ∞ even though D.172 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots where σ (⋅) are positive constants. asymptotic convergence of eτ and s can easily be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. Remark 4: Suppose ε1 and ε 2 cannot be ignored but their variation bounds are available i. eτ and s can be shown to be uniformly bounded. 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.

σC . where si . n is the i-th element of the vector s. the definiteness of V cannot be determined. 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 (4.6. σg . 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 )] . i =1. ɺ Owing to the existence of ε1 and ε 2 in (15).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 )] .…. i =1. and τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(eτ 1 ) ⋯ sgn(eτ 2 n )]T where eτ i .2n is the i-th element of the vector eτ .…. σD .6-31). we may have ɺ V ≤ 0 and asymptotic convergence of the state error can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma.

WC .174 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ɺ Therefore. 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). WD . eτ . the bound is a weighted exponential function shifted with a constant. 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. 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. Wg . and Wh are uniformly ultimately bounded. .

Table 6. and we are going to verify the regressor-free adaptive control strategy developed in this section by computer simulations.02(kg-m2). Therefore. b1 =5(N-m-sec/rad).5(kg).4-2).4-14) Does not need joint accelerations.6.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 175 Remark 5: To implement the desired transmission torque (2). Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1 =m2 =0. and k1 =k2 =100(N-m/rad). I1 =I2 =0. j2 =0. lc1 =lc2 =0. we do not need the regressor matrix.375(m). update laws and implementation issues. q ) τ Regressor-based (6. q ) (6. Need to compute the regressor matrix and its time derivatives.1 summarizes the adaptive control laws derived in this section based on their controller forms.75(m). Example 6. (6.3-2). Parameters for the actuator part are chosen as j1 =0.3-1) Regressor-free Controller ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s ɺ ɺ ˆ = Y (q. v. (6.0m) in .01(kg-m2). 1. l1 =l2 =0. actuator input (6) and update law (14). or their derivatives. and b2 =4(N-m-sec/rad)(Chien and Huang 2007a). q. it is feasible for realization.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 .0234(kg-m2). the knowledge of joint accelerations. We would like the endpoint to track a 0.6-3).1: Consider the flexible-joint robot in (3. v )p − K d s τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h ( τ td . Does not need to compute the regressor matrix.4-6) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1 Y T s (6.2m radius circle centered at (0.2-8) ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s ˆ τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h (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 ) (6.8m. Realization Issue Need information of joint accelerations and their higher derivatives. Table 6.

05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w D22 (0) = [0. and Λ =  0 5 . The controller in (6) is applied with the gain matrices 5 0 5 0 Kd =   . The initial state for the reference model is τ r (0) = [1. Therefore. It is away form the desired initial endpoint position (0. the endpoint is initially at (0.8 0 0]T . Q g 1 = 10I 22 . and Q h1 = 10000I 22 D The approximation error is assumed to be neglected in this simulation.5019 0 0]T . and the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 .0022 1. i.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C11 (0) = [0. which is the same as the initial state for the desired torque. while Wg and Wh are 22 × 2 in ℜ .176 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 10 seconds without knowing its precise model.8 −2. 0.8m. The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be ˆ w D11 (0) = [0. . WD and WC are in ℜ 44 × 2 .8m.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C22 (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 The gain matrices in the update law (14) are selected as − − − Q −1 = 2I 44 .e. The initial condition for the generalized coordinate is at q(0) = θ(0) = [0.75m).8m) for observation of the transient.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w D12 (0) = w D21 (0) = [−0.. 0 5   The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ approximation.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C12 (0) = w C21 (0) = [−0. 0. Q C1 = 2I 44 .

9 0.7 0. Figure 6.2 1.8 X 0.05 1 Y 0.5 to 6.85 0. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values. It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges nicely to the desired trajectory.7 0.2 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance.75 0. The transient states converge very fast and the tracking errors are small.1 Tracking performance in the Cartesian space .75 0. the tracking error is small regardless of the time-varying uncertainties in D.4. Figure 6. 1.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 177 The simulation results are shown in Figure 6.95 1 Figure 6. although the initial position error is quite large.9 0. they still remain bounded as desired.1 to 6. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law. Figure 6. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 6. The control torque for both joints can be seen in Figure 6.6.8.8 are the performance of function approximation. After the transient state.95 0.6 0.8 0.1 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space.15 1. C and g.65 0.3.1 1.85 0.

6 0.4 0.2 1 0. It can be seen that the torque errors for both joints are small .2 0 −0. and the tracking error is very small 10 torque output 1 (N.m) 0 −1 −2 −3 −4 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 6.2 Joint space tracking performance.2 angle of link 1 (red) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1.6 0.8 0.178 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.4 0.8 0. It can be seen that the transient is fast.4 angle of link 2 (red) 1.6 1.3 Torque tracking performance.m) 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1 torque output 2 (N.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 6.

6.8 0.5 D(21) 1.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 6.4 FAT-Based Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 80 179 control input 1 (N.8 0.2 1 0.2 0 −0.5 2 1.4 0.6 0.2 0 2.4 −0.2 −0.8 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.2 1 D(22) 0.2 1 D(11) D(12) 0.5 Approximation of D .6 0.4 0.6 0.4 The control torques for both joints are reasonable 1.4 0.m) −10 −20 −30 −40 −50 −60 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 6.5 0 −0.4 1.m) 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 10 0 control input 2 (N.6 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 −0.4 1.

8 0.05 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 −0.6 0.05 0 −0.4 0.180 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.7 Approximation of g .05 0 −0.2 0.4 −0.1 C(11) C(12) 0.15 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.15 C(21) C(22) 0.1 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 −0.2 0 −0.8 0.1 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 6.1 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.6 −0.05 −0.2 0 −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 6.2 −0.2 0.

9 Cascade structure in equation (1) .4-1) and (3.8 Approximation of h 6. 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 6.8-1). 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.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 6.9.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics According to (6.

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. B m ) is controllable. where C p = C m = [I n × n 0] ∈ℜ n × 2 n are augmented output signal matrices. B r ∈ℜ n × n . A desired current trajectory id can then be found to ensure τ t → τ td in (1b). and the transfer . ɺɺ td ) = K −1 (B r τ td + J r ɺɺ td ) . ( A m . C m ) is observable. and K r ∈ℜ n × n are selected to give convergence of τ r to τ td . 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). ɺ τ ɺ With the definition of τ td ( τ td . and B p =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n and J t   0  B m =  −1  ∈ℜ 2 n × n are augmented input gain matrices. 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 pair ( A m . Finally.182 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Therefore. 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). the control effort u is constructed to have convergence of i to id. and J r ∈ℜ . 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. 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.

and h is defined as h( τ td . To this end. e m . Along the trajectories of (3).5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 183 function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is SPR. According to the MRC design. q )] (6) where Θ and Φ are matrices satisfying A p + B p Θ = A m and B p Φ = B m . the dynamics of the torque tracking loop in (8) and the dynamics of the current tracking loop in (10). 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. q ) = Φτ td + q . 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 . Plugging. let us consider a Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 1 V (s. We have to ensure that all of these dynamics be stable. we may have the dynamics for the current tracking loop ɺ Le i + K c e i = 0 (10) At this stage. 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 . the time derivative of V can be computed as . we have the output error dynamics in (3). Using (6) and (5a). 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 .6. the desired current id is selected as i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td . (9) into (1c). (8) and (10). and Kc is a positive definite matrix. respectively.

Remark 6: To implement the control strategy. ɺ ɺ ɺ Furthermore. τ t → τ td . and i → i d follow by Barbalat’s lemma. Therefore. and hence. The desired torque trajectory in (2) is not feasible.5. 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 . g. Therefore. and their square integrability can also be proved from (13). q → q d .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. and we need to feedback q and its higher order derivatives. 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. all system parameters are ɺɺ required to be available. we have proved that s. v . eτ and e i are uniformly bounded. q . L. uniformly boundedness of s . 6. eτ . the design introduced in this section is not feasible for practical applications. C.1 Regressor-based adaptive controller design Consider the system in (1) again. and e i are also easy to be proved. R and Kb are unavailable. but D.

Therefore. e i . C = C − C . we select the Lyapunov-like function candidate ɶ ɶ V (s. we have (19) . C. Plugging (14) into (1a). v. C and g are estimates of D. g = g − g . (15) and (17). and g. To this end. 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 . The desired current trajectory is designed as the one in (6) to have the dynamics for the torque tracking loop as in (8).6. v )p + ( τ t − τ td ) (15) ˆ ɶ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ where D = D − D . Instead of the controller in (9). To prove stability. 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. then (15) implies convergence of the output error.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 185 ˆ ˆ ˆ where D . 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 p = p − p . p i = [LT R T K T ]T ∈ℜ 3n × n . we would like to use the MRC rule with the reference model in (4) and the state space representation in (5). e m . if we ˆ may find a control law to drive τ t → τ td and an update law to have p → p . respectively. 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 . q. p.

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

C. then we may have convergence of the torque tracking loop. Wh ∈ℜ h . q ) and ɺ d . 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 . and f. 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 . Since D(q) . i. Wg ∈ℜ g . g (q) . With this control law. (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 . C(q. z h ∈ℜ n β h ×1 . h( τ td . q ) = Li d + Ri + K bq .6. i. Kc is a positive definite matrix and f is ɺ d . Likewise. respectively. WC ∈ℜ n β C × n . we have the representations for the estimates as ˆ ˆT D = WD Z D ˆ ˆT C = WC Z C (27f) (27g) . z g ∈ℜ n β g ×1 . and nβ × n Wf ∈ℜ2 f are weighting matrices for D.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. 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. h. and z f ∈ℜ f are basis function matrices. while 2 n β ×1 ZD ∈ℜn β D × n . Z C ∈ℜ n β C × n . q) are time-varying functions and their variation bounds are not given. q) . g.

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 . 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 2 = ε 2 (ε h . e m ) . WC . s. Wh . and Q f ∈ℜ are positive definite. e i ) are lumped approximation error vectors. ei . nβ f × nβ f nβ h × n β h Q h ∈ℜ . ε C . Q g ∈ℜ g . q d ) .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). torque tracking error dynamics (24a). and ε 3 = ε 3 (ε f . Along the trajectory of (28). Q C ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . 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 . Wg . Define the Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s. e m . ε g .

6. Remark 8: Realization of the control law (25) and update laws (31) does not need the information of joint accelerations. then it is not necessary to include the .5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 189 T If we select B m = B p so that eT Pt B p = eτ . which largely simplified its implementation. or their higher order derivatives. Remark 9: Suppose a sufficient number of basis functions are used and the approximation error can be ignored. 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. regressor matrix.

but we can find positive numbers δ1. (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. j=1. i=1.…. eτ and ei can be further proved by Barbalat’s lemma. then we may have (13) again. This will further give convergence of the output error by Barbalat’s lemma.190 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots σ-modification terms in (31).n is the k-th element in ei. and the update law (31) without σ-modification. τrobust 2 and τrobust 3 can be included into (21).2. Remark 10: If the approximation error cannot be ignored. and convergence of s.3. and τ robust 3 = −δ 3[sgn(ei1 ) ⋯ sgn(ein )]T where eik . 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. the definiteness of V cannot be determined.n is the i-th entry in s.n is the j-th eτ . k=1.…. (32) can be reduced to (13). then robust terms τrobust 1. δ2 and δ3 such that ε i ≤ δ i . Hence. 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 . i=1. τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(eτ 1 ) ⋯ sgn(eτ 2 n )]T where entry in eτ j .

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. 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 )  . σD . 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 .6. σg . σC .5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 191 0 D  T where A =  0 2C m Pt C m 0 0  0  0  .

eτ .2 summarizes the adaptive control for EDFJR derived in this chapter in terms of the controller forms. WC . WD . (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. e i ..192 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ i. Wh . Wg . and Wf are uniformly ultimately bounded.e. . In addition. update laws and implementation issues. s.

b1 =5(N-m-sec/rad). The initial condition for the generalized coordinate vector is at q(0) = θ(0) = [0.75(m). r1 = r2 =1(Ω). and h1 =h2 =10(N-m/A).5-6).1. kb1 =kb2 =1 (Vol/rad/sec) (Chien and Huang 2007a).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.375(m). the endpoint is initially at .8m. joint accelerations. Realization Issue Need to know the regressor matrix.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. (6. Electrical parameter for the actuator are L1 =L2 =0.5(kg). v.5019 0 0]T .5-31) Does not need the information for the regressor matrix. or their derivatives. lc1=lc2 =0.01(kg-m2). q ) τ ɺ + Ri + K b q = u ɺ Li Regressor-based Controller (6. In order to observe the effect of the actuator dynamics. b2 =4(N-m-sec/rad).2: Consider the flexible-joint robot in example 6. (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.. Parameters for the actuator part are chosen as j1 =0. j2 =0.5-23). 1.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics Table 6. I1=I2 =0. and k1=k2=100(N-m/rad). the endpoint is required to track a 0. (6. l1=l2=0. joint accelerations and their higher derivatives. Example 6.0022 1.0234(kg-m2). 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 .5-25) ɺ ˆ p = −Γ Y s ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1φe T T i i i −1 (6.02(kg-m2). q. Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1 =m2 =0. i.2m radius circle centered at (0.1 but with consideration of the motor dynamics.5-16) Adaptive Law ˆ u = f − K ce i (6.5-1) Regressor-free ˆ ˆɺ ˆ τ td = g + Dv + Cv − K d s ɺ ɺ ˆ = Y(q.025(H).5-21).6.5-14).0m) in 2 seconds which is much faster than the case in example 6.e. (6.

It is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0. Q h1 = 1000I 22 .5 −33. and Wf are in 22 × 2 ℜ . 0.8m) for observation of the transient.194 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots (0. Q g 1 = 50I 22 .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w D22 (0) = [0.8m.5 −83. 0. Wh .6 0 0]T .9]T .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C12 (0) = w C21 (0) = [−0. The initial state for the reference model is τ r (0) = [15. The approximation error is assumed to be neglected in this simulation. and Q f 1 = 10000I 22 . while Wg . WD and WC are in ℜ 44 × 2 . The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the approximation.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w D12 (0) = w D21 (0) = [−0. which is the same as the initial state for the desired torque. and the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 . − − − − Q C1 = 0.1I 44 . The controller gain matrices are selected as  20 0  10 0  50 0  Kd =   . and K c =  0 50 .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C22 (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 = 0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C11 (0) = [0.8m.  0 20     The initial value for the desired current can be found by calculation as i(0) = [77. −1 . Λ =  0 10 .75m). ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Therefore.1I 44 . The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be ˆ w D11 (0) = [0.

Figure 6. After some transient.65 0. Figure 6. The control voltages to the two motors are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 6. although the initial position error is quite large.95 0.15 to 6. the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory nicely regardless of the uncertainties in the robot model . Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values.10 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space.2 1. It is observed that the strategy can give very small current error.10 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space.6 0. the tracking error is small regardless of the time-varying uncertainties in D.12. C.14. Figure 6.1 1.85 0. they still remain bounded as desired.85 0. It can be seen that the torque errors for both joints are small. g.95 1 Figure 6. The torque tracking performance is shown in Figure 6.11 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance.15 1.8 X 0. h.75 0.13 presents the current tracking performance. It is observed that the endpoint trajectory converges nicely to the desired trajectory.9 0.75 0.9 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 195 The simulation results are shown in Figure 6. Figure 6.10 to 6. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law.8 0.7 0. After the transient state. 1.6.05 1 Y 0.19 are the performance of function approximation. and f.19.

6 0.196 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.4 0.8 2 20 torque output 2 (N.6 1.2 1.2 0 0.M) 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 1.4 1.6 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.8 0.6 1.M) 10 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 0 0.6 0.6 0.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.11 Joint space tracking performance.2 0 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 1.2 1 0.6 0.2 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.4 1.4 0. and the tracking error is very small 20 torque output 1 (N.8 2 1.4 0.8 2 Figure 6.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.2 1.8 2 Figure 6.4 1.4 0.6 1. It can be seen that the transient is fast.6 1.2 0.6 0.12 Torque tracking performance.8 1 Time(sec) 1. It can be seen that the torque errors for both joints are small .4 0.2 0.4 0.

It can be seen that the current errors for both joints are small 60 40 20 0 −20 0 0.6 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.6.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 80 actuator current 1 (A) 197 60 40 20 0 −20 0 0.4 1.8 2 40 actuator current 2 (A) 20 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 −100 0 0.6 0.8 2 control input 1 (vol) control input 2 (vol) 40 20 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 0 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.13 Current tracking performance.14 The control voltages for both joints are reasonable .8 2 Figure 6.4 0.8 2 Figure 6.2 0.4 1.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.

5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 C(12) 0.4 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0 −0.2 0.1 0.05 −0.5 2 Figure 6.6 D(11) D(12) 0.5 2 0.2 C(11) 0 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.5 2 D(22) 0 0.1 0 0.15 C(21) C(22) 0 0.15 0.1 −0.05 0 −0.1 0 −0.15 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.8 0.1 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.3 0.5 2 −0.2 −0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.05 D(21) 0 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.25 0.1 0.2 0.1 −0.3 0 0.15 0.5 2 0 −0.2 0.05 0 0 0.15 Approximation of D 0.3 0.1 −0.2 0.1 0.16 Approximation of C .5 2 Figure 6.198 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.3 0.4 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0 0 0.25 0.15 −0.1 −0.5 2 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.3 0.

4 1.4 0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.8 2 10 5 0 h(2) −5 −10 −15 −20 −25 0 0.6 0.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 8 199 6 g(1) 4 2 0 0 0.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 0.8 2 2 1 0 g(2) −1 −2 −3 −4 0 0.4 0.6 1.17 Approximation of g 8 6 4 h(1) 2 0 −2 −4 −6 0 0.8 2 Figure 6.4 0.6 0.4 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.18 Approximation of h .8 2 Figure 6.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.6 1.2 0.

and their derivatives. its realization still needs the joint accelerations. However. the control strategy is not practical. A regreesor-free adaptive controller for EDFJR is then introduced in Section 6.19 Approximation of f 6.8 2 60 40 20 f(2) 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 0 0.2 0.8 2 Figure 6.1. the regressor matrix.5. The MRC rule is utilized in Section 6. . or their higher order derivatives.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.6 1.5.6 1.3.2 1. In Section 6.2 0. a regressor based adaptive controller is derived.200 Chapter 6 Adaptive Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 50 40 30 f(1) 20 10 0 −10 −20 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1. and their higher order derivatives. A regreesor-based adaptive controller is developed for EDFJR in Section 6.4 1. Therefore.6 0.6 Conclusions Adaptive controllers for flexible-joint robots in the free space are derived in this chapter. The regressor-free adaptive controller based on FAT is designed in Section 6.4 1. The actuator dynamics is considered in Section 6.4 whose realization do not need the joint accelerations.2 and it is free from the information for joint accelerations or the regressor matrix.2 for the control of a known FJR. the regressor matrix. regressor matrix. However.5. its implementation requires the knowledge of joint accelerations.4 0.4 0.6 0.

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

4. resulting in the most complex case in this book. Hence. an adaptive compliant control strategy for flexible joint robot without requiring the time rate of the force feedback is imperative. and that the ultimate size of the system errors can be made arbitrarily small. 7. internal force. Finally.7-1) which can be transformed in the form below by using the same technique in (6. Lin and Goldenberg (1995. In addition. 1996. However. contact force and joint torque simultaneously. Therefore.2-2) . al. the uncertainties should be linearly parameterizable into the regressor form. For the flexible-joint robot. the actuator dynamics is include in the system equation of a flexible-joint robot. in Section 7. 1997) proposed a combined adaptive and robust control approach to control the motion. a regressor-free impedance controller is constructed with consideration of the joint flexibility. in most adaptive control strategies for robot manipulators. an impedance controller is designed for a known flexible-joint robot.3. In Section 7.5. the computation of the regressor matrix becomes extremely difficult. Moreover. Lian et. It is well-known that derivation of the regressor matrix of a high DOF rigid robot is generally tedious. Chien and Huang (2006a) proposed a regressor-free adaptive controller for the impedance control of a flexible-joint robot. any practical design should consider their effects. we would like to consider the impedance control problem for a flexible-joint robot.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. al. In this chapter. it was shown that the schemes ensure semiglobal uniform boundedness of all signals.2. Hu and Vukovich (2001) developed a position and force control scheme for flexiblejoint robots based on the concept of the integral manifold. Colbaugh et. In Section 7. (1997) presented two adaptive schemes for flexible-joint robots based on impedance control and position/force control. A regressor-based adaptive impedance controller for a flexible-joint robot is derived in Section 7.202 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Because these inaccuracies may degrade the performance of the closed-loop system. its dynamics is much more complex than that of its rigid-joint counterpart. (1991) presented an adaptive force tracking control scheme for a single-link mechanism with flexible joint based on a two-stage controller. 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.

This further implies convergence of the .7. s = e + Λe . and stiffness. 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). q ) = Jq + Bq and τ t = K (θ . B i ∈ℜ . 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). If we can design a controller such that x converges asymptotically to xi then the two target impedances are equivalent. q) τ −1 −1 ɺ ɺɺ ɺɺ ɺ where x ∈ℜ n . damping. J t = JK . then (6) implies convergence of x to xi. q (q. 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. and M i ∈ℜ . and v = x i − Λe . respectively. ɺ ɺ Define e = x − x i . and the target impedance in (2) plays the role of the reference model. 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. B t = BK . Instead of direct utilization of (2).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.q) . 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. The strategy is to regard the impedance controller as a model reference controller. and K i ∈ℜ n × n are diagonal matrices representing the desired apparent inertia. if we may construct a proper controller τ a in (1b) to have τ t → 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 . The pair J r K r  ( A m . B r ∈ℜ n × n . Substituting (9) into (8a). and K r ∈ℜ n × n are selected for the convergence of τ r to τ td . 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 . B m ) is controllable. − ɺ τ ɺ τ Define τ td ( τ td . and ( A m . 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. q ) = Φτ td + q . we may have the dynamics after some manipulation ɺ x p = A m x p + B m ( τ td + τ td ) (10) . respectively. The transfer function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is SPR due to proper selection of the matrices Jr. The vector h ∈ℜ n is defined as h( 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.204 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots closed-loop system dynamics to the target impedance. To this end. 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 m ) is observable. ɺɺ td ) = K r 1 (B r τ td + J r ɺɺ td ) . Matrices J r ∈ℜ . 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 MRC rule can thus be designed as τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td . Br and Kr.

Consider the system equation (7. Remark 1: This strategy is feasible only when all system parameters are available. we need to feedback accelerations and external forces as well as their higher order derivatives that largely restrict the practical applications.3 Regressor-Based Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots In this section. convergence of s and em can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. 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 .7. 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. It ɺ ɺ is also easy to prove that s and eτ are uniformly bounded.2-4) and (7. 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. In addition. Hence. we are concerned with the case when the system parameters are not available. 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 . Along the trajectory of (6) and (11). 7. s and em are uniformly bounded and square integrable.2-1b) again . This implies that the closed loop system converges asymptotically to the target impedance.

i.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 . C x = C x − C x .2-7) and the state space representation (7. C x . the MRC rule is going to be used again to complete the design. 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 . and p x = p x − p x . g x . q) τ We would like to design a control torque τ a such that the closed-loop system converges to the target impedance (7.2-11) 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. v. C 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. then (4) implies convergence of s. respectively. if a proper control torque τ a can be constructed such that τ t → τ td . g x = g x − g x . ˆ and an update law can be designed to have p x → p x . Here. desired transmission torque τ td in (7. With this new desired transmission torque.2-9) to have the torque tracking loop dynamics (7. Let us consider the reference model (7..2-8). Hence. and p x are estimates of D x . p x ) = s T D x s + eT Pt e m + p T Γp x m 2 2 (6) . 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. C x . The control torque is selected as (7. x. and g x are not known.e. x. v.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. g x . v )p x − K d s ] a (3) ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ where D x . and p x . e m . the closed-loop system behaves like the target impedance.2-5) is not realizable.

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) . Again.4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Let us consider the uncertain system equation (7. Therefore.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. Along the trajectories of (4) and (5). 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. and the reference model in (7. we do not need to know the system parameters.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.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 . q) τ The same transmission torque in (7. 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. but the regressor matrix should be known. and Γ ∈ℜ r × r is positive definite. and same performance can be concluded. this strategy is not practical either. we would like to employ the MRC rule to have τ t → τ td . in realization of the control torque τ a . 7. (8) Remark 2: In this design. we need to feedback the accelerations and external forces as well as their higher order derivatives.7.2-13).

q ) = Φτ td + q . 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 . then the torque tracking can be achieved. let us consider the function approximation representations of D x . ˆ respectively.2-8). To proceed.208 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots Similar to (7. if we may find a proper update law to have h → h. 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) . 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. C x . g x .

WDx . (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 . 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 ) . 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. the time derivative of (11) can be found as nβ h × n β h Q D x ∈ℜ n 2 βD ×n2 βD . and T Pt ∈ℜ 2 n × 2 n is a positive A T Pt + Pt A m = −CT C m .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. ɺɺ i ) and ε 2 = ε 2 (ε h . s. Pt = definite matrix satisfying the Lyapunov equation Along the trajectory of (10). e m . ε C x . ε g x . 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 . WCx .7. e m ) are lumped approximation x errors. Q C x ∈ℜ n 2 βC ×n2 βC . Q g x ∈ℜ n β g × n β g . Select the Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶT ɶ V (s. Wg x .

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 . 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. i. the closed-loop system converges to the target impedance.e. instead of (2) and (6). then. and hence convergence of s and eτ can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. 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.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. 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 .. 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   . Let us consider the Lyapunov function candidate (11) and the update law (13) again but with σ (⋅) = 0 . It is ɺ ɺ straightforward to prove s and eτ to be uniformly bounded.

ɺ where eτ k . n is the i-th element of the vector s. where si. 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  . σ Cx . ɺ Due to existence of ε1 and ε 2 .2n is the k-th entry of eτ . and asymptotic convergence of s and eτ can be concluded by Barbalat’s lemma. σh Hence. we may not determine definiteness of V .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. 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 )] .….  λmax ( A ) λmax (Q D x ) λmax (Q C x ) λmax (Q g x ) λmax (Q h )  . σ gx .7. and τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(eτ 1 ) ⋯ sgn(eτ 2 n )]T . 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)  . we may have V ≤ 0 . i =1. σ Dx .

accelerations.e. eτ . which largely simplifies the implementation. and Wh are uniformly ultimately bounded.. s. WC 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.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. Wg x . or time derivatives of the external force. WD x . .

01(kg-m2). q) (7. Realization Issue Need to feedback joint accelerations.2m radius circle centered at (0.8 3.75m 0 0]T and θ(0) = [0. and b2=4(N-m-sec/rad). The endpoint and the motor angle start from the initial value x(0) = [0.4-13) Does not need the information for the joint accelerations. (7.75(m). v .7.0m) in 10 seconds without knowing its precise model. Table 7.3-1) 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. which is the same as the initial value for the . q ) τ (7. Example 7.02(kg-m2).1 summarizes the adaptive impedance control designs for FJR in this chapter in terms of the controller forms.4-6) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p x = − Γ −1Y T s (7. lc1 =lc2 =0. (7. Parameters at the motor side are j1 =0. external force.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 ) (7.1 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 . Actual values of the system parameters are m1 =m2 =0. l1 =l2 =0.4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 213 Table 7.5019 0 0]T respectively to track a 0.6-3).0234(kg-m2). and we would like to verify the efficacy of the strategy developed in this section by computer simulation. The initial state for the reference model is τ r (0) = [9. v )p x a − K d s] τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td .1: Consider the flexible-joint robot (3.8m.0022 1. adaptive laws and implementation issues. b1 =5(N-m-sec/rad). I1 =I2 =0.2 0 0]T .3-3).8m 0. Does not need to know the higher derivatives of the joint accelerations or external force. x. 1. and k1 =k2 =100(N-m/rad).2-9) ˆ + C x v − K d s) ˆ τ a = Θx p + Φτ td + h (7.375(m).4-2). j2 =0. and their higher derivatives.5(kg).

8m). Therefore. and K i =  0 1000  0 0. different phases of operations can be observed. Q g 1 = 50I 22 . The initial weighting vectors for the in ℜ .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w Dx 22 (0) = [0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x 22 (0) = [0. kw =5000N/m is the environmental stiffness. and h. The controller is applied with the gain matrices  20 0  10 0  Kd =   .214 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots desired transmission torque.01I 44 . Mi =   . C x . B i =  0 100 .5 0  100 0  1000 . and Q h1 = 10I 22 . and Λ =  0 10 . and W entries are assigned to be ˆ w Dx11 (0) = [0. D x .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 20   Parameter matrices in the target impedance are selected as 0   0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w Dx12 (0) = w Dx 21 (0) = [−0.01I 44 . and xw =0.1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x11 (0) = [0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C x12 (0) = w C x 21 (0) = [−0. WD and WC are 44 × 2 ˆ ˆ g and Wh are in ℜ 22 × 2 . 0. Since the surface is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0. Q C1x = 0. 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. x is the coordinate of the end-point in the X direction.95m is the position of the surface. g x .5     The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the ˆ ˆ approximation of entries in D x .8m.

7 0.05 1 Y 0.9 0. The transient states converge very fast without unwanted oscillations. Figure 7. When entering the free space again. the endpoint contacts with the constraint surface at xw =0. the endpoint follows the desired trajectory with very small tracking error regardless of the system uncertainties . 1.4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 215 We assume in the simulation that the approximation error can be neglected. and hence the σ-modification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 . The joint space trajectory in the constraint motion phase is smooth.4.75 0.9.95 0.5.1 1. Figure 7. Although most parameters do not converge to their actual values. they still remain bounded as desired.95 1 Figure 7.75 0.6 to 7.65 0.15 1.8 0.85 0.9 0. It can be seen that after some transient response the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory in the free space nicely. The control efforts to the two joints are reasonable that can be verified in Figure 7.1 to 7. the endpoint follows the desired trajectory with very small tracking error regardless of the system uncertainties. Afterwards.7.6 0.8 X 0.95(m) compliantly.1 shows the robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space. Figure 7. After some transient the endpoint converges to the desired trajectory in the free space nicely.1 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space.85 0.9 are the performance of function approximation.3 gives the torque tracking performance. The simulation results are shown in Figure 7.2 1.2 presents the time history of the joint space tracking performance. the endpoint contacts with the constraint surface compliantly. When entering the free space again. Afterwards. Figure 7. The external forces exerted on the endpoint during the constraint motion phase are shown in 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.8 0.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.2 The joint space tracking performance.4 0.6 0.2 1 0.6 0.6 1. The transient is very fast and the constraint motion phase is smooth 20 10 output torqut 1 (N.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 7.3 Torque tracking performance .m) 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 7.216 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.4 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 1.

m) 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 7.7.4 Regressor-Free Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 217 60 control input 1 (N.5 0 −0.m) 40 20 0 −20 −40 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(sec) 6 7 8 9 10 10 control input 2 (N.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 7.5 Time histories of the external forces in the Cartesian space .

4 0.7 Approximation of Cx .5 0 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 7.5 1 Cx(21) 3 2 Cx(22) 0.5 0 −0.6 Approximation of Dx 1 0.8 0.2 0 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 1.218 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 1 0.5 3.5 0 −0.5 0 −0.5 1 Dx(11) Dx(12) 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.5 −1 −1.2 0 −0.4 0.6 Cx(11) 1 0.6 0.8 1.2 −0.5 3 1 2.8 0.5 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 1 0 −1 −2 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 Figure 7.2 0 −0.4 0.2 −0.6 Cx(12) 0.4 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 0.4 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 2 1.5 Dx(21) Dx(22) 0 2 4 6 Time(sec) 8 10 2 1.

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 7.7.8 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 .

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. 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 J r ∈ℜ .5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics According to (3. 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. and hence the backstepping-like procedure can be applied here. A desired torque trajectory τ td is firstly designed for convergence of s in (1a). Finally. and K r ∈ℜ n × n are selected to give convergence of τ r to τ td . B r ∈ℜ n × n . 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) . the control effort u in (1c) is constructed to have convergence of i to id. 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. ɺɺ td ) = K −1 (B r τ td + J r ɺɺ td ) .220 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 7.9-1) and (7.9.2-4). 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 desired current trajectory id can then be found to ensure τ t → τ td in (1b).

respectively. The pair ( A m . 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 . 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 may have the dynamics for the current tracking loop ɺ Le i + K c e i = 0 (10) . q ) = Φτ td + q . 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 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 Kc is a positive definite matrix. 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). q )] (6) where Θ and Φ are matrices satisfying A p + B p Θ = A m and B p Φ = B m . Substituting (6) into (5a). and the transfer function C m ( sI − A m ) −1 B m is SPR. (9) into (1c). C m ) is observable.7. ( A m . 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 . B m ) is controllable. the desired current id is selected as i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td . Plugging. According to the MRC design.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. and h is defined as h( τ td .

and q → q d . 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. uniformly boundedness of s . e m . eτ . the closed-loop system behaves like the target impedance. ɺ ɺ ɺ Furthermore. Remark 6: To implement the control strategy. and e i are also easy to be proved. (8) and (10). let us consider a Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 1 V (s. τt →τtd .222 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots To prove the closed loop stability of the whole system. and their square integrability can also be proved from (13). Therefore. eτ and e i are uniformly bounded. 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 . Hence. . Therefore. the design introduced in this section is not feasible for practical applications. Along the trajectories of (3). 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 . 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.

To prove stability. C x = C x − C x . L. if we may find a controller so that τ t → τ td and an update law to ˆ have p → p. and p x are estimates of D x . g x . 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 . 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 . p x . g x .5. respectively. we select the Lyapunov-like function candidate 1 ɶ ɶ V (s. C x . v )p x − K d s ] a (14) ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ where D x . Plugging (14) into (1a).5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 223 7.1 Regressor-based adaptive controller design Consider the system in (1) again. 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 + J −T ( τ t − τ td ) a (15) ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ ɶ ˆ where D x = D x − D x . and p x . Cx. we would like to use the MRC rule with the reference model in (4) and the state space representation in (5). g x = g x − g x . p i = [LT R T K T ]T ∈ℜ 3n × n . Instead of (9).7. v. C x . then (15) implies asymptotic convergence of the output error. e m . and p x = p x − p x . The desired current trajectory is designed as the one in (6) to have the dynamics for the torque tracking loop as in (8). 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 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. e i . x. but Dx. R and Kb are unavailable. The desired torque trajectory in (2) is not feasible. gx. To this end. Therefore. v.

therefore.2 Regressor-free adaptive controller design Consider the system in (1) again. eτ and e i are uniformly bounded. 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.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 . but Dx. and g x → g x . Consequently. C x → C x . R and Kb are unavailable. Cx. q → q d .5. (15) and (17). the design introduced in this section is not feasible for practical applications. and e i are also easy to be proved. gx. ɺ ɺ ɺ Furthermore. we do not need to have the ɺɺ knowledge of most system parameters. we have (19) T Pick B m = B p to have eT Pt B p = eτ . we may conclude that the closed-loop system will behave like the target impedance regardless of the system uncertainties. 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 . (19) becomes (13). L. eτ . τ t → τ td . and i → i d follow by Barbalat’s lemma. we have proved that s. then (22) implies convergence of . but we have to feedback q and calculate the regressor matrix and their higher order derivatives. uniformly boundedness of s . and their square integrability can also be proved from (13). Therefore. 7. 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). 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. and hence. either.

q ) = Φτ td + q . i. Kc is a positive definite matrix and f ɺ d . i. (26) ensures convergence ɺ in the current tracking loop. 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 would like to use the MRC rule again with the reference model in (4) and the state space representation in (5). With this control law. To this end. Consequently. gx.7. Cx. if we may design a control law to ensure i → i d and an update law to ˆ have h → h . 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 . q ) = Li d + Ri + K bq . h( τ td . q) are i time-varying functions and their variation bounds are not given. 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 .5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 225 the output error. 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. then we may have convergence of the torque tracking loop. q ) and f (ɺ d . Since Dx. 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.

ei . and ε 3 = ε 3 (ε f . WC x ∈ℜ n β C × n . h.226 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 2 2 where WD x ∈ℜ n β D × n . gx. nβ f × nβ f nβ h × nβ h Q h ∈ℜ . e i ) are x lumped approximation error vectors. z h ∈ℜ h . z g x ∈ℜ g . nβ × n and Wf ∈ℜ f 2 are weighting matrices for Dx. the output error dynamics (22). 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. Wg x ∈ℜ g . WDx . Likewise. e m . Wg x . e m ) . Wh . Define the Lyapunov-like function candidate as 1 ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ V (s. ε C x . ε g x . Along the trajectory of (28). Cx. respectively. and f. s. ɺɺ i ) . 2 n β ×1 n β ×1 while ZDx ∈ℜn β D ×n . 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 . 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 . Q g x ∈ℜ g . and n β f ×1 z f ∈ℜ are basis function matrices. and Q f ∈ℜ are positive definite. WCx . Q C x ∈ℜ n β C × n β C . we may compute the time derivative of V as . Wh ∈ℜ h . torque tracking error dynamics (24a). Z C x ∈ℜ n β C × n . ε 2 = ε 2 (ε h .

(32)  0   1  − H is positive definite due to proper 2   Kc    .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. 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.

…. τrobust 2 and τrobust 3 can be included into (21). (32) can be reduced to (13). 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.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.2. and τ robust 3 = −δ 3[sgn(ei1 ) ⋯ sgn(ein )]T where eik . k=1. ɺ Owing to the existence of the approximation errors. then robust terms τrobust 1. and convergence of s. which largely simplified their implementation. τ robust 2 = −δ 2 [sgn(eτ 1 ) ⋯ sgn(eτ 2 n )]T where entry in eτ j . Remark 9: Suppose a sufficient number of basis functions are used and the approximation error can be ignored. the closed loop system behaves like the target impedance. This will further give convergence of the output error by Barbalat’s lemma. or their higher order derivatives.3. eτ and ei can be further proved by Barbalat’s lemma. Therefore. then we may have (13) again. but we can find positive numbers δ1. j=1. (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. Hence. δ2 and δ3 such that ε i ≤ δ i . By considering the inequality . regressor matrix.n is the k-th element in ei.…. Remark 10: If the approximation error cannot be ignored. i=1. i=1. and the update law (31) without σ-modification.…. the definiteness of V cannot be determined.n is the j-th eτ .n is the i-th entry in s. then it is not necessary to include the σ-modification terms in (31).

σ gx . σh . 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 )  . σ Cx .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. σ Dx . 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) .

In addition. WD x . (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 . e i . 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. WC x . Wg x . s. eτ .e. and Wf are uniformly ultimately bounded. Wh ..230 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots ɺ Therefore.

the error signal is bounded by an exponential function. joint accelerations and their higher derivatives.75(m).5-14). Actual values of link parameters are selected as m1= m2= 0. The stiffness of the constrained surface . Parameters for the actuator part are chosen as j1= 0. Electrical parameter for the actuator are L1= L2= 0. Example 7. I1= I2=0.5-1) ɺ ɺɺ ɺ J t ɺɺ t + B t τ t + τ t = Hi − q (q. lc1= lc2=0.7.5-31) Does not need the information for the regressor matrix.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 231 Therefore.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. l1= l2= 0.375(m). v . adaptive laws and implementation issues. (7.025(H). b2= 4(N-m-sec/rad). j2= 0. (7.2 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. x.1 but with consideration of the motor dynamics. (7.5-23). v )p x a − K d s] JT a i d = H −1[Θx p + Φτ td + h( τ td . or their derivatives.02(kg-m2). Table 7. r1= r2= 1(Ω).5(kg). and k1= k2=100(N-m/rad).0234(kg-m2).01(kg-m2). q )] (7.5-20) 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 (7.5-21). b1= 5(N-m-sec/rad). 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.2 summarizes the adaptive impedance control of EDFJR in terms of their controller forms.2: Consider flexible-joint robot in example 7. kb1= kb2= 1 (Vol/rad/sec) (Chien and Huang 2007a).5-16) Adaptive Law ɺ ˆ p x = − Γ −1Y T s ɺ ˆ p = − Γ −1φeT i i i (7. Realization Issue Need to know the regressor matrix. joint accelerations. (7. Table 7. and h1= h2= 10(N-m/A).5-6).

and K c =  0 200 .0m) in 2 seconds which is The initial condition for the order to observe the effect of the actuator to track a 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 .4]T .75m). i. while Wg x .1 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x11 (0) = [0. generalized coordinate vector is at q(0) = θ(0) = [0.8m) for observation of the transient. It is away from the desired initial endpoint position (0. In dynamics.2 1.. B i =  0 100 . The initial weighting vectors for the entries are assigned to be ˆ w Dx11 (0) = [0.8m. 1. The matrices in the target impedance are picked as 0   0.4 0 0]T . 0.5 0  100 0  1500 . ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Therefore. and Wf are in 22 × 2 ℜ .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w C x12 (0) = w C x 21 (0) = [−0.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w C x 22 (0) = [0.2m radius circle centered at much faster than the case in example 7. Λ =  0 20 .e.05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ w Dx 22 (0) = [0. and K i =  0 1500  0 0. which is the same as the initial state for the desired torque.1. 0.8m.0022 1. Wh .8m.5     The 11-term Fourier series is selected as the basis function for the approximation. the endpoint is required (0.  0 50     The initial value for the desired current can be found by calculation as i d (0) = i(0) = [16. The controller gain matrices are selected as 50 0   20 0   200 0  Kd =   .05 0 ⋯ 0]T ∈ℜ11×1 ˆ ˆ w Dx12 (0) = w Dx 21 (0) = [−0. the endpoint is initially at (0.5019 0 0]T . The initial state for the reference model is τ r (0) = [8. Mi =   .232 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots is assumed to be kw= 5000(N/m). WD x and WC x are in ℜ 44 × 2 .1 1.

9 0.7. the transient state takes only about 0.85 0. It can be seen that the torque errors for both joints are small.001I 44 .11. Figure 7.14. It is observed that the strategy can give very small current error. 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.20. Q h1 = 10I 22 . Figure 7.12.8 0.75 0.15 1.8 X 0.2 1. the approximation error is assumed to be neglected.05 1 Y 0.85 0.13 presents the current tracking performance. and Q f 1 = 10000I 22 .2 seconds which can be justified from the joint space tracking history in Figure 7. Figure 7. they still remain bounded as desired. and the σmodification parameters are chosen as σ (⋅) = 0 .10 to 7.15 to 7. Although the initial error is quite large. The torque tracking performance is shown in Figure 7. 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.001I 44 .65 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 233 The gain matrices in the update law (31) are selected as Q −1x = 0.95 0.10 shows the tracking performance of the robot endpoint and its desired trajectory in the Cartesian space. D − − − − Q C1x = 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.1 1. Q g 1 = 100I 22 .95 1 Figure 7. 1. The simulation results are shown in Figure 7.20 are the performance of function approximation. Computation of the complex regressor is avoided in this strategy which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of the control law.75 0.10 Robot endpoint tracking performance in the Cartesian space . In this x simulation.

2 0 0 0.2 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 Figure 7.6 1.2 0 0.6 0.2 1.4 0.11 Joint space tracking performance 60 output torque 1 (N.8 2 10 output torque 2 (N.6 0.4 1.4 1.6 0.6 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 2 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.6 1.4 angle of link 2 (rad) 1.234 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 0.2 0.m) 40 20 0 −20 −40 −60 −80 0 0.4 0.2 1.8 2 Figure 7.8 angle of link 1 (rad) 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.4 0.m) 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 −50 −60 0 0.12 Tracking in the torque tracking loop .

2 1.2 1.8 2 80 60 control input 2 (vol) 40 20 0 −20 −40 0 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.8 2 10 actuator current 2 (A) 5 0 −5 −10 0 0.4 0.8 2 Figure 7.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 0.2 0.4 1.4 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 0.6 1.13 Tracking in the current tracking loop 200 150 100 50 0 −50 control input 1 (vol) 0 0.6 1.14 Control efforts .6 0.2 0.6 1.7.6 0.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 20 235 actuator current 1 (A) 15 10 5 0 −5 −10 −15 0 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.6 1.8 2 Figure 7.

6 1 Dx(11) 0.6 1.5 2 Figure 7.236 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 80 external force fx (N) 60 40 20 0 0 0.4 1.5 0 −0.2 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.15 External force trajectories 0.4 Dx(12) 0 0.5 −1 0 0.2 0 0 −0.5 0 0.5 2 1.2 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 3.4 0.16 Approximation of Dx .4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 0.2 0.6 0.5 Dx(21) Dx(22) 0 0.6 1.5 1 0.8 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 2 1.2 1.5 0.8 2 Figure 7.5 3 1 2.8 2 1 external force fy (N) 0.5 0 −0.6 0.5 2 0.5 0 0 0.4 1.5 0.

6 1.4 1.18 Approximation of gx .7.2 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 Figure 7.8 2 Figure 7.4 1.2 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.8 1 Time(sec) 1.5 2 −3 0 0.2 1.5 Consideration of Actuator Dynamics 3 2 1 Cx(11) Cx(12) 237 4 3 2 1 0 −1 −2 0 0.6 0.8 2 20 15 gx(2) 10 5 0 0 0.4 0.5 2 0 −1 −2 −3 6 4 10 5 2 Cx(21) Cx(22) 0 −2 0 −5 −4 −6 0 0.6 0.4 0.17 Approximation of Cx 12 10 8 gx(1) 6 4 2 0 −2 0 0.5 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.5 2 −10 0 0.2 0.

238 Chapter 7 Adaptive Impedance Control of Flexible-Joint Robots 8 6 4 h(1) 2 0 −2 −4 −6 0 0.4 1.4 0.4 1.8 2 Figure 7.2 1.6 1.6 0.2 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.4 1.8 2 100 80 60 f(2) 40 20 0 −20 −40 0 0.8 2 10 5 0 h(2) −5 −10 −15 0 0.2 0.6 1.6 0.2 0.2 1.19 Approximation of h 200 150 100 f(1) 50 0 −50 −100 0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.2 0.8 2 Figure 7.8 1 Time(sec) 1.20 Approximation of f .8 1 Time(sec) 1.6 0.

. its implementation requires the knowledge of joint accelerations. The adaptive impedance controllers are derived to give good performance in both free space tracking and constraint motion phase. However. and their higher order derivatives.2 and it is free from the information for joint accelerations or the regressor matrix. the MRC rule is utilized in Section 7. Several simulation results show that the regressor-free design can give good performance to an EDFJR operating in a compliant motion environment.4 whose realization do not need the joint accelerations.3. the regressor matrix.6 Conclusions In this chapter.7. A regreesor-based adaptive impedance controller is then developed for EDFJR in Section 7. the regressor matrix. a regressor based adaptive controller is derived in Section 7. To deal with the uncertainties. its realization still needs the joint accelerations. we consider the case when the flexible-joint robot contacts with the environment. regressor matrix.6 Conclusions 239 7.5.5. The actuator dynamics is included in the system equation in Section 7. or their higher order derivatives. The regressor-free adaptive impedance controller is developed in Section 7. A regreesor-free adaptive impedance controller for EDFJR is then introduced in Section 7.1. and their derivatives. the control strategy is not practical. However.5. Firstly. Therefore.2 for the impedance control of a known FJR.

This page intentionally left blank .

Appendix Lemma A1: Let w T = [ wi1 wi 2 ⋯ win ] ∈ℜ1× n . i=1.…. we have Tr ( W T W) = ∑w i =1 . w 2 . w m } ∈ℜ mn × m . 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. Tr ( W T W) = ∑w i =1 m 2 i .m and W is a block i diagonal matrix defined as W = diag{w 1 . 241 .⋯ . Then.

v m } ∈ℜ mn × m . 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 2 .⋯ . + v m w m = ∑v i =1 m i wi .... i=1.m. Tr ( V T W ) ≤ ∑v i =1 m i wi . where W is a matrix with proper dimension. Let W and V be block diagonal matrices that are defined as W = diag{w 1 ..⋯ . T Tr (V T W ) = v1 w 1 + v T w 2 + . w m } ∈ℜ mn × m and Suppose vT i V = diag{v 1 . w 2 . 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. Lemma A3: ɶ Let W be defined as in lemma A1. Then.…. respectively.242 Appendix Lemma A2: w T = [ wi1 wi 2 ⋯ win ] ∈ℜ1× n and i 1× n = [vi1 vi 2 ⋯ vin ] ∈ℜ . + v T w m 2 m ≤ v1 w 1 + v 2 w 2 + . and W is a matrix defined as ɶ = W − W .

i =1. are block diagonal T matrices with the entries of vectors w ij = [ wij1 wij 2 ⋯ wijn ] ∈ℜ1× n . p. we would like to extend the analysis to a class of more general matrices.…. we may have Tr ( W W) = T ∑∑ w i =1 j =1 p m 2 ij .m. w im } ∈ℜ . w i 2 . 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 .….⋯ . Then. we consider properties of a block diagonal matrix. j=1.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. Proof: W W T = [ W1T ⋯ T Wp  W1    ] ⋮  Wp    T = W1T W1 + ⋯ + W p W p . In the following.

Then. 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. where W is a matrix with proper dimension. Then ˆ ˆ W 1 1 ɶ ˆ ɶ ɶ Tr ( W T W) ≤ Tr ( W T W) − Tr ( W T W) 2 2 .244 Appendix Hence. Tr (V T W) ≤ ∑∑ v i =1 j =1 w ij . and W is a matrix defined as ɶ = W − W . 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.

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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.Symbols.j)-th element of matrix A : transpose of vector a : transpose of matrix A : inverse of matrix A 257 .

} 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{.258 Symbols.) 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 .

) 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 .) sgn(.Symbols. 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. Γ s s sat(.

260 Symbols. 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 .

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

1-8. 17. 204 Nonautonomous system. 147. 88. 52 uniformly. 210 . 66. 57. 36. 51 Polynomials Taylor. 29 Model reference adaptive control. 43. 21. 24 Radially unbounded. 31 Output tracking loop. 50. 2. 47. 4. 66 Singularity problem. 39. 139. 36 Target impedance. 106. 58. 87. 223 PE. 12 Regressor matrix. 62 MRC. 36. 59-61 Stable. 22. 20. 50-52 uniformly asymptotically. 212 Vector norms. 110. 174. 38. 40. 41. 18. 89. 19. 11. 60 Sliding control. 71. 84. 11. 49. 44. 45. 206 Uncertainties additive. 36. 11. 64 time-varying. 48. 15 σ-modification. 87. 38. 102. 11. 14. 28 Vector spaces. 39. 57. 2. 73 Saturation function. 54 RR. 35-38. 172. 95. 58. 68. 41.262 Index Matrix norms. 45 MRAC. 165. 3-6. 2. 87 Persistent excitation. 206 Transmission torque. 24 Bessel. 108. 167-169. 50 Real linear space. 12. 43. 164. 62. 89. 24 Chebyshev. 131. 58. 11. 134 Sliding condition. 50. 15 Orthogonal functions. 83. 83-85. 66 Signum function. 24 Hermite. 14. 85. 41. 41 general. 46. 63 Normed function space. 11. 37. 129 Robust adaptive control. 207 Rigid robots. 51. 3. 18 Orthonormal function. 24 Legendre. 129. 19. 36-39 asymptotically. 46. 24 Laguerre. 56. 61 multiplicative. 166. 1. 20. 8. 50. 37. 54. 41-45. 138. 186. 45 exponentially. 24. 152. 168. 92. 38. 30 Normed vector space. 134. 140 RRE. 6-8 Uniformly ultimately bounded. 203 Torque tracking loop.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful