This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

### Publishers

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

rjesenje drugog|Views: 0|Likes: 0

Published by Ivan Osman

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/120109489/rjesenje-drugog

01/13/2013

text

original

David R. Tyner† 22/09/2002

Abstract A simple mechanical system is a triple (Q, g, V ) where Q is a conﬁguration space, g is a Riemannian metric on Q, and V is the potential energy. The Lagrangian associated with a simple mechanical system is deﬁned by the kinetic energy minus the potential energy. The equations of motion given by the Euler-Lagrange equations for a simple mechanical system without potential energy can be formulated as an aﬃne connection control system. If these systems are underactuated then they do not provide a controllable linearization about their equilibrium points. Without a controllable linearization it is not entirely clear how one should deriving a set of controls for such systems. There are recent results that deﬁne the notion of kinematic controllability and its required set of conditions for underactuated systems. If the underactuated system in question satisﬁes these conditions, then a set of open-loop controls can be obtained for speciﬁc trajectories. These open-loop controls are susceptible to unmodeled environmental and dynamic eﬀects. Without a controllable linearization a feedback control is not readily available to compensate for these eﬀects. This report considers linearizing aﬃne connection control systems with zero potential energy along a reference trajectory. This linearization yields a linear second-order diﬀerential equation from the properties of its integral curves. The solution of this diﬀerential equation measures the variations of the system from the desired reference trajectory. This second-order diﬀerential equation is then written as a control system. If it is controllable then it provides a method for adding a feedback law. An example is provided where a feedback control is implemented.

Contents

1. Introduction 2. Linear systems 2.1 Linearization of a general system about a trajectory. 2.2 Time varying systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Controllability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The linear quadratic regulator. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Numerical integration of the Riccati equation. . . . .

∗ †

2 3 3 4 5 5 6

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Report for project in fulﬁlment of requirements for MSc Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada Email: drtyner@gmail.com Work performed while a graduate student at Queen’s University. Research supported in part by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

1

2

D. R. Tyner 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 15 15 16 18 19 23 24 27 27 29 29 29

3. Diﬀerential geometry 3.1 Riemannian metrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Aﬃne connections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levi-Civita connection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geodesics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Torsion and Curvature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Tangent bundles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The canonical involution T T Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tangent lift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The almost tangent structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The canonical almost tangent structure. . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Ehresmann connections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ehresmann connection associated with a second-order 3.6 The Jacobi equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vector . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ﬁeld. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Aﬃne connection control systems 4.1 Relationships of aﬃne connection control systems with driftless systems. Driftless systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reducibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kinematic controllability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 The linearized aﬃne control system and properties of its integral curves.

. . . . .

. . . . .

5. Planar rigid body - The hovercraft 5.1 The hovercraft system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Linearization of the hovercraft system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Adding a feedback control to the hovercraft system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusions 6.1 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Future Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction

In this report we investigate linearizing aﬃne connection control systems with zero potential energy along a reference trajectory. We begin with two chapters of background material in attempt to make this report as self-contained as possible. A reader with a background in diﬀerential geometry and knowledge of linear systems may wish to skip to section 4.2, where the main results of the report are stated. The objective of this report is to develop a linear equation which measures the variations of an underactuated mechanical system along a speciﬁed trajectory. The strategy taken consists of writing the aﬃne connection control system as a ﬁrst-order system on T Q. Then, employing the tangent lift, we form the linearization of the system on T T Q. We continue to use our geometry toolbox by employing an Ehersmann connection presented in [Lewis 2000] to provide a splitting of each tangent space TXvx T T Q. This allows us to develop a second-order linear diﬀerential equation that is satisﬁed by the horizontal part of the integral curves corresponding to the system’s linearization.

Linearization of affine connection control system

3

This second-order linear equation is used to form a linear control system along trajectories of an underactuated kinematically controllable planar rigid body. We will refer to this system as the hovercraft. The second-order linear diﬀerential equation for the hovercraft yields a time-varying system which is controllable. For this time-varying system, an optimal control problem can be stated in a linear quadratic regulator formulation. The derived optimal control will then provide a feedback law. The feedback control is incorporated with the origin open-loop reference controls. Simulations of the system with deviations in initial conditions are run. The simulations show the feedback control rejecting the initial conditions disturbances. The hovercraft is an ongoing project at Queen’s University and is a driving force behind the results presented in this report. The current implementation uses a set of open-loop controls. The open-loop controls as mentioned above are very susceptible to environmental and dynamic modeling errors. This is quite evident when observing the behavior of the hovercraft during a commanded run. We regards the results presented here as a step towards adding a possible feedback to the physical model and thus improving the current controller’s performance.

2. Linear systems

Linear systems have been widely studied and are well understood compared to nonlinear systems. Since the main objective of this report is to develop a linear control equation for the deviations along system trajectories we oﬀer a brief review of the necessary linear theory background.Note that within this section bold characters will denote vectors and matrices. 2.1. Linearization of a general system about a trajectory. In this report we will be talking about the linearization of mechanical systems. This section is quick reminder of the details of the linearization process for a general nonlinear system. A general nonlinear system can be written as a vector diﬀerential equation ˙ x = f (x, u) (2.1)

where f (x, u) = (f1 (x, u), . . . , fn (x, u)) is a vector of smooth functions. To linearize equation (2.1) along a trajectory, (xref (t), uref ), we take the Jacobian of f with respect to the state ,x(t), and the control, u(t). Then, both are evaluated along (xref (t), uref ). Thus, the coeﬃcient matrices of the linear system are

A(t) =

∂f1 ∂x1 (xref (t), uref ) ∂f2 ∂x1 (xref (t), uref )

. . . ∂fn (xref (t), uref ) ∂x1

... ... . .. . . . ∂fn (xref (t), uref ) . . . ∂x2

∂f1 ∂x2 (xref (t), uref ) ∂f2 ∂x2 (xref (t), uref )

∂f1 ∂xn (xref (t), uref ) ∂f2 ∂xn (xref (t), uref )

. . . ∂fn (xref (t), uref ) ∂xn

and

B(t) =

∂f1 ∂u1 (xref (t), uref ) ∂f2 ∂u1 (xref (t), uref )

. . . ∂fn (xref (t), uref ) ∂u1

... ... . .. . . . ∂fn ∂u2 (xref (t), uref ) . . .

∂f1 ∂u2 (xref (t), uref ) ∂f2 ∂u2 (xref (t), uref )

∂f1 ∂um (xref (t), uref ) ∂f2 ∂um (xref (t), uref )

.

. . . ∂fn (xref (t), uref ) ∂um

(2. t x(t) = Φ(t. σ)B(σ)u(σ)dσ. We will consider time-varying systems of the form d x(t) = A(t)x(t) + B(t)u(t) dt y(t) = C(t)x(t). R. = A(t)Φ(t. The solution of the inhomogeneous system is know as the variation of constants and has the form. t0 ) 3. t0 )=I n×n . t0 ) = eA(t−t0 ) It should be noted that in the the time varying case. d x(t) = A(t)x(t). τ )Φ(τ. The general equations for a continuous time linear timevarying system is a set of linear diﬀerential equations. The state transition matrix Φ(t. where n=dimension 2. as x(t) = Φ(t. t0 )= Φ(t. The reader may notice that if A(t) is replaced with the time invariant coeﬃcient matrix A the above expression amounts to the power series expansion for an exponential.4 D. Φ(t. dt x(t0 ) = x0 . . t0 )x0 + t0 Φ(t. Φ(t. It is sometimes useful to know the following properties the transition matrix: 1.2) 2. d dt Φ(t. Tyner The linearation is then a linear vector diﬀerential equation ˙ ξ(t) = A(t)ξ(t) + B(t)u(t).3) + t0 A(σ1 ) t0 A(σ2 ) t0 A(σ3 )dσ3 dσ2 dσ1 + . t) The transition matrix is calculated from the following expression: t t σ1 Φ(t. t0 ) is deﬁned by it having the property that it gives the solution to the homogeneous equation. t0 ) of the state space. t0 )x0 . (Φ(t. .2. Time varying systems. t0 ). . it may not be possible to ﬁnd an exact expression for Φ(t. τ ))−1 =Φ(τ. t0 ) with initial condition Φ(t0 . t0 ) = I n×n + t0 t A(σ1 )dσ1 + σ1 A(σ1 ) t0 σ2 t0 A(σ2 )dσ2 dσ1 (2.

Then. The form of the optimal control can be derived based on a simple but algebraically messy completing the square exercise [Davis 2002]. 2. σ)dσ. 2. To rule this out. it will be important to check the linearization’s controllability.4 ) with ﬁnal conditions K(T ) = C ∗ (T )F C(T ). d x(t) = A(t)x(t) + B(t)u(t) dt y(t) = C(t)x(t) an optimal control. In particular. minimizing η.Q. η = x∗ (T )F x(T ) + 0 T (Cx(t))∗ Q(Cx(t)) + u(t)∗ Ru(t)dt subject to the following constraints.3 Theorem: Given that the solution of the diﬀerential Riccati equation.1 Deﬁnition: A system is controllable if for each x0 . t1 ) is full rank. The optimal control satisﬁes: u(t) + R−1 B ∗ (t)K(t)x(t) = 0. − d K(t) = A∗ (t)K(t) + K(t)A(t) − K(t)B(t)R−1 B ∗ (t)K(t) + C ∗ (t)QC(t) dt (2. t1 )x1 belongs to the range space of the controllability Gramian.3. exists on the interval [0. the system is controllable if W (t0 .Linearization of affine connection control system 5 Controllability.x1 ∈ Rn there exists a suitable d control u(t) which moves dt x(t) = A(t)x(t) + B(t)u(t) from state x0 at time t = t0 to x1 at t = t1 > t0 . Let F . t1 W (t0 . and R be the cost matrices for the terminal state. The linear quadratic regulator (LQR) arises from solving an optimization problem. and the control eﬀort respectivitly. u(t). 2. once we have a linear control system in hand. The solutions of the Riccati equation can become unbound in ﬁnite time. T ]. the system output. t1 ) = t0 Φ(t0 . The linear quadratic regulator. (2. σ)B(σ)B ∗ (σ)Φ∗ (t0 . . 2.2 Theorem: A linear time-varying system is controllable if and only if x0 − Φ(t0 . η = x∗ (T )F x(T ) + 0 T (Cx(t))∗ Q(Cx(t)) + u(t)∗ Ru(t)dt. For a full derivation of the following statements on controllability the reader is referred to [Brockett 1970].5 ) The existence of the optimal control rests solely on whether the solution to the Riccati equation exists on the desired time interval. that minimizes the output of the system is obtained. then there exists a control minimizing. Later. the cost matrix Q must be chosen such that it is positive-deﬁnite.

we may represent a Riemannian metric in coordinates. A Riemannian metric. The geometric objects presented here will be used later to deﬁne the linearized control equations. gij (q). Tyner 2. This is not so straightforward because the Riccati equation solution is speciﬁed by ﬁnal conditions. the solution at the ﬁnal time t = T is the initial conditions for the forwards integration of equation (2. as it is brief and will cover only the necessary material for the subsequent sections. We will assume all manifolds are C ∞ and ﬁnite-dimensional. To rewrite this as an initial value problem we make a change of variables τ = T − t. gij (q) = g(q) ∂ ∂ . t ∈ [0. t ∈ [0. . by giving the metric two basis vectors from the set of basis vectors for Tq Q. This direction conﬂict can be rectiﬁed by another integration. Riemannian metrics.4). With these initial condition (2.6) with initial conditions K(0) = C ∗ (0)F C(0). this report uses a repeated index summation convention. T ]. whereas the desired optimal control will be evolving in the forward direction. q n ) for the chart (U. it requires the diﬀerential Riccati equation to be numerically integrated. Equation (2. 3. We use g to deﬁne the kinetic energy.6 D. .1. a function on T Q given by 1 K(vq ) = g(vq . R. It should be noted that a superscript in a denominator is a subscript. The summation sign Σ is replaced by a repeated index.. on a manifold Q is a smooth assignment of an inner product to each tangent space Tq Q. ∂q i q ∂q j q The Riemannian metric is a map. Diﬀerential geometry This chapter assumes the reader has some understanding of diﬀerential geometry.. For a more in depth coverage the reader is referred to [Kobayashi and Nomizu 1963]. Once the Riccati equation is integrated backwards with the change of variables τ = T − t. T ] to obtain d K(T − t) = A∗ (T − t)K(T − t) + K(T − t)A(T − t) dt −K(T − t)B(T − t)R−1 B ∗ (T − t)K(T − t) +C ∗ (T − t)QC(T − t) (2. vq ).6) will be solved backwards in time.4. ψ) we deﬁne n2 numbers. Given a set of coordinates (q 1 . 3. Also. Notice that (2. Numerical integration of the Riccati equation.6) can now be solved using a standard numerical integrator. ψ) where U ⊂ Q is an open subset and ψ : U → ψ(U ) ⊂ Rn is a bijection. one being a superscript and the other being a subscript. 2 If we pick a chart (U. To implement an optimal control for a linear time-varying system. g(q) : Tq Q × Tq Q → R and in coordinates using the repeated index summation convention we have: g(q) = gij (q)(dq i q ⊗ dq j q ).4) will integrate forwards in time with the control as needed.. g.

3. we may write their covariant derivative as a linear combination of the basis vector ﬁelds on Q. ψ) be ∂ a chart for Q with coordinates (q 1 . The map (X. An aﬃne connection has the following properties: 1. and let S be a vector ﬁeld along c.2... and Y (c(t)) = S(t) for t ∈ I. g : T Q → T ∗Q g : T ∗ Q → T Q. g ∂ ∂q i = gij dq j . . Choosing a pair of coordinate vector ﬁelds. the Christoﬀel symbols by ∂ ∂q i ∂ ∂ = Γk k . Aﬃne connections.1) It is then easily veriﬁed using the properties of the aﬃne connection and equation (3. =f )=f XY . X Y . In coordinates. An aﬃne connection is an assignment of each pair of vector ﬁelds to a new vector ﬁeld X Y . ∂qi ∂ and ∂qj . let (U. Y ) → 2. to deﬁne the input vector ﬁelds of our control system we will need two maps: the sharp and the ﬂat maps that are associated with the Riemannian metric. This vector ﬁeld. This deﬁnes n3 functions. This can be done as follows. and X and Y be a pair of vector ﬁelds on Q. Then we deﬁne the covariant derivative of S along c to be the vector ﬁeld along c as c (t) S(t) = XY (c(t)). For computational purposes it is sometimes useful to work with coordinate expressions.Linearization of affine connection control system 7 Later. Let c : I → Q be a curve on Q.1) that for any two vector ﬁelds X and Y on Q we have XY = ∂Y k j ∂ X + Γk Y i X j . ∂ . To obtain the covariant derivative of two vector ﬁelds on Q. ∂q j g (dq i ) = g ij 3. q n ). ij j ∂q ∂q (3. Let X and Y be vector ﬁelds such that the curve c is a integral curve of X. is called the covariant derivative of Y with respect to X. fXY XY is R-bilinear. X (f Y XY where f is a C ∞ function on Q and where LX f is the Lie derivative with respect to ∂f X: LX f = X i ∂qi . .. + (LX f )Y . Let Q be a manifold. ij j ∂q ∂q k Later on it will be necessary to diﬀerentiate vector ﬁelds along curves.

.j.. g Z g 2. The Christoﬀel symbols for in a set of coordinates (q 1 .. Y+ Y X = [X. Z) + g(Y. ∂q j Z= ∂ ∂q k Then they are cyclicly permuted to obtain. Z). g Z X g Y Y ). Now by adding 2 and 3. 3. q n (t)) satisﬁes the Euler-Lagrange equations for the Lagrangian L. To derive the Christoﬀel symbols. Z. LX (g(Y. ij The Levi-Civita connection is important in that it provides a link between Lagrangian mechanics and aﬃne connection control systems. LZ (g(X. (ii) t → (q 1 (t). LY (g(Z. there is a unique aﬃne cong nection g called the Levi-Civita connection. Z)) = g( 3. Γi = g il jk 2 ∂q j ∂q k ∂q l .Y .. −(gradV ) where Γi . X)) = g( g Z g X g Y g X. Tyner Levi-Civita connection. Y ] for all vector ﬁelds X and Y on Q. X).n. Y )) = g( 2. + ∂gik ∂q j − ∂gij ∂q k ∂ ∂ = 2g(Γl ∂ql . Z). Given a Reimannian metric g on Q. Y ) + g(X.. LZ (g(X. g Z Y ).. ∂q i Y = ∂ .. X= ∂ ... 1. Y )) = 2g( By substituting for X. X)) − LZ (g(X. q n (t)) in a coordinate chart (U. having the following properties: g X 1. q n (t)) satisﬁes the second-order diﬀerential equation q i + Γi q j q k = ¨ jk ˙ ˙ i..k=1. are functions of q deﬁned by jk g ∂gkl ∂gjl ∂gjk 1 + − .g. then subtracting the result from 1 and noting that the Riemannian metric is symmetric we get. q n ) are given by 1 il ∂gkl ∂gjl ∂gjk + . .V) be a simple mechanical system with associated Lagrangian L. ∂qk ) ij = 2glk Γl . X) + g(Z. . and Z we obtain the desired result ∂gjk ∂q i g X Y. let the vector ﬁelds in property 2 be coordinate vector ﬁelds. g − 2 ∂q j ∂q k ∂q l g Γi = jk It is not so obvious from the above how the Christoﬀel symbols come about. Y ) + g(X. LX (g(Y. Z)) + LY (g(Z.... The following are equivalent: (i) t → (q 1 (t). Let c : I → Q be a curve which is represent by t → (q 1 (t)..1 Proposition: Let (Q. Y )) = g( X. i.. Y. R..8 D. . . ψ).

Torsion and Curvature.. glj q j + ¨ d dL dt dv i 9 − dL dq i = 0.2)-tensor ﬁeld given by T (X. T . .j . 1 L = gjk v k v j − V (q). 2 2 ∂q k ∂q j ∂q l And now multiplying through by g il we obtain the desired result. Y ].k . ˙ ˙ j k l 2 ∂q ∂q ∂q ∂q Geodesics.3. It will be seen later that the geodesic spray is an important vector ﬁeld in this report. Geodesics of an aﬃne connection are curves c : I → Q which satisfy c (t) c (t) = 0.Linearization of affine connection control system Proof: In coordinates the Lagrangian is. Y ) = In coordinates the components of T are i Tjk = Γi − Γi . jk kj XY − YX − [X. in coordinates a geodesic satisﬁes the second-order diﬀerential equation . are ∂glj 1 ∂gjk j k ∂V q q + l = 0. the torsion and curvature. ˙ ˙ − k 2 ∂q l ∂q ∂q Then noticing that q j q k is symmetric with respect to transposing the j and k indices. ˙ ˙ k 2 ∂q l ∂q The symmetric part is 1 1 ∂gkl ∂gjl ∂gjk (Aljk + Alkj ) = + − . ∂gkl ∂gjl ∂gjk j k 1 ∂V − q j + g il ¨ + q q = −g il l . We now deﬁne two tensor ﬁelds. the Euler-Lagrange equations. both of which are important in obtaining our linear control system. 2 Then. Thus. In coordinates we have Z = vi ∂ ∂ − Γi v j v k i .i q +Γi q q = 0. jk ∂q i ∂v 3. of an aﬃne connection is the (1. The torsion. jk This second-order diﬀerential equation deﬁnes a second-order vector ﬁeld Zon T Q called the geodesic spray of . we ˙ ˙ ∂g ∂gjk see that only the symmetric part of Aljk = ∂qlj − 1 ∂ql will contribute to the expression k 2 ∂glj 1 ∂gjk j k − q q .

Y ]. ∂ρ1 ∂x1 (0. That is. 0). 0) XY XY + (LX g)Y ) − g(f YX + (LY f )X) − [f X. ρ1 (0. but the same arguments also work for the curvature. the mapping (X. Y ] + f (LX g)Y − g(LY f )X we have our result.3)-tensor ﬁeld given by − Y Xξ − [X. gY ) = f X gY − gY f X − [f X. 0) ∂ρ1 ∂x2 (0. 3. To shed some light on this we will consider the torsion. This can be expanded using the properties of an aﬃne connection and the Lie bracket: T (f X. The derivation is simple but a little messy. 4. gY ]. T (f X. Y ) is C ∞ -linear. = = ∂ρ2 ∂x1 (0. Then let ρ1 : B → Q and ρ2 : B → Q be maps that are at least C 2 . the only tools required are the chain rule and the deﬁnition of an aﬃne connection. gY ) = f g 3. To start we use the above deﬁnition of the torsion. R. ∂ 2 ρ1 ∂x1 ∂x2 (0. 0) = ρ2 (0. Tangent bundles.Y ] ξ. ∂ρ2 ∂x2 (0. Y )ξ = X Yξ is the (1. gY ) = f (g Since [f X. gY ] = f g[X. Y ) → T (X. x2 ) for R2 we say two maps are equivalent if: 1. The ﬁrst is to show the torsion changes coordinates in the right way. In coordinates the components of R are i Rjkl = ∂Γi lj ∂q k − ∂Γi kj ∂q l + Γi Γm − Γi Γm .10 D. gY ) = f gT (X.4. 0). . T (f X. Tyner The curvature R of an aﬃne connection R(X. The canonical involution T T Q. 2. gY ]. 0). 0) ∈ R2 . We show that given two C ∞ functions f and g. km lj lm kj The deﬁnitions do not make it apparent that these objects are tensors at all. To avoid the messiness we take a diﬀerent approach. − fg YX − f g[X. T (f X. 0). To show that the torsion is a tensor there are at least two approaches. Y ). 0) = ∂ 2 ρ2 ∂x1 ∂x2 (0. Let B be a neighbourhood of (0. Choosing a set of coordinates (x1 .

the Nijenhuis tensor. s).Linearization of affine connection control system 11 We then may deﬁne an equivalence class [ρ] and associate to it points in local T T Q coordinates. This is shown in the following way. 0). AY ]. s) is the integral curve of X through σ(a. 0) . w)) = ((q. (0. Y ) = [AX. In coordinates. ∂ρ ∂ρ ∂2ρ ρ(0. x2 ) = ρ(x2 . We deﬁne a vector ﬁeld on T M . Choose a smooth one-parameter family of deformations σ : I × [− . M . ∂xi ∂xj ∂v i The tangent lift of a vector ﬁeld X is the linearization of X in sense that X T (vx ) measures the deviations in the integral curves of X in the direction of vx . x1 ). 0). d vlft X(t. s → σ(t. 2) tensor. ] → M of c with the following properties: 1. . 3. 0) = c(t) for t ∈ I. 1) tensor ﬁeld on a manifold. (0.2 Deﬁnition: Let A be a (1. 4. This vector ﬁeld is given by. In coordinates. v). which is given by IQ ([ρ]) = [¯]. XT = Xi ∂ ∂X i j ∂ + v . The almost tangent structure. Then the Nijenhuis tensor associated with A is a (1. s) is diﬀerentiable for t ∈ I. u). (v. for s ∈ [− . 2. s). (u. 0). Let c : I → M be a integral curve of X through x ∈ M at time t = a and let cT : I → T M be an integral curve of X T with initial conditions vx ∈ Tx M at time t = a. To deﬁne an almost tangent structure we ﬁrst must deﬁne a (1. vx = d ds s=0 σ(0. Y ] − A[AX. IQ : T T Q → T T Q. on T M . 3. We then have cT (t) = Also. Y ] − A[X. ds s=0 ∂ By picking a set of local coordinates for M and a vector ﬁeld X = X i ∂xi on M . σ(t. then ∂ vlft (X) = X i ∂vi on T M . ρ where ρ : B → Q is deﬁned by ρ(x1 . x)). s) at time t = a. 2) tensor ﬁeld NA such that: NA (X. ]. ¯ ¯ IQ ((q. X T : T M → T T M as the tangent lift of X. AY ] + A2 [X. Tangent lift. denoted by vlft (X). w)). (0. d ds s=0 σ(t. Let X : M → T M be a vector ﬁeld on M . later we will need the vertical lift of X. t → σ(t. vx ) = (vx + sX(t. ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂x1 ∂x2 From this assoication we deﬁne the canonical involution.

NA = 0. 1) tensor ﬁeld on a manifold M having the following properties: 1. In coordinates (x. Tyner where X and Y are vector ﬁelds on M . . . Let JM be a (1. In doing so we obtain the constant matrix JM = 0 IdT M 0 0 . .4 Proposition: Given the (1. image(S)=ker(S). i ∂x ∂v Feeding this to our (1. . . ∂vi JM is called the canonical almost tangent structure. . Let (T U. . Using the coordinate version of the Nijenhuis tensor of deﬁnition 3. 2. 3. In local coordinates.3 Deﬁnition: An almost tangent structure S is a (1. The canonical almost tangent structure. . To ﬁnish the proof we write JM in matrix form using the basis ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ( ∂x1 . j l l ∂x ∂x ∂xl ∂xl To verify this is a actually tensor. ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ Now we notice that ker(JM )=span ∂v1 . (NA )k = Al ij i ∂Al ∂Ak ∂Ak ∂Al j j i − Al + Ak ji − Ak i . .1)-tensor ﬁeld JM on T M . JM = 3. It can be checked that JM satisﬁes the properties of an almost tangent structure. ∂vn is coordinate basis of the vertical subbundle V T M . Proof: To prove this we shall ﬁrst pick a set of coordinates on T M . ker(S) is a subbundle of T M . The set ∂v1 . ∂v1 . . NJM vanishes and 3 is satisﬁed. R.12 D. . ∂ ⊗ dxi . ∂vn ). We choose a vector ﬁeld Xvx ∈ Tvx T M . JM (Xvx ) = vlftvx (Tvx τM (Xvx )). its linearity with respect to multiplication by C ∞ functions can be checked as was done for the torsion. . .1) tensor ﬁeld yields j ∂ ∂ i ∂ JM (X) = ∂vi ⊗ dxi (f1 ∂xi + f2 ∂vj ) i ∂ = f1 ∂vi We see immediately that JM (JM (X)) = 0. This satisﬁes 1. . with i X = f1 ∂ j ∂ + f2 j . ∂vn . JM provides an almost tangent structure on T M . . v) for T M . thus image(JM )=ker(JM ) and 2 is satisﬁed. ∂xn . . T ψ) be chart for T M such that vx ∈ T M .2. 3.1)-tensor ﬁeld on T M deﬁned by. .

5. 2 ∂xm 1 ∂ ∂S j ∂ + Y2j − m Y1m . . Y2j ) = (−Y1i . 13 The Ehresmann connection associated with a second-order vector ﬁeld. Y2j − ∂xm Y1m )} = {Yvx ∈ Tvx T M |Y1i = 0 ∀ i ∈ {1. Dvx = {w ∈ Tvx T M |LS JM (w) = −w}. This can be shown to be Dvx = {Yvx ∈ Tvx T M |Y2j = 1 ∂S j m Y }. Let S be a second-order vector ﬁeld on T M and (x. . JM (Y )]−JM ([S. Y ]) using the properties of the Lie derivative. i ∂x ∂v We now write LS JM (Y ) = [S. This distribution is a subbundle complementary to Vvx T M = {w ∈ Tvx T M |LS JM (w) = w} and is denoted as Hvx T M . Proof: Let Yvx ∈ Tvx T M and write Y = Y1i ∂ ∂ + Y2j j . LS JM (Y ) = −Y1i Now consider the distribution. . . Ehresmann connections. Now recall the canonical almost tangent structure JM . This provides a splitting of Tvx T M and thus is an Ehresmann connection.Linearization of affine connection control system 3. v) be the natural coordinates for T M . ∂x ∂v which has the property that T τM ◦ S = IdT M . ∂xi ∂x ∂v j We are now left to check it is complementary to V Tv M Vvx T M = {w ∈ Tvx T M |LS JM (w) = w} ∂S j = {Yvx ∈ Tvx T M |(Y1i . In coordinates we have.5 Proposition: Given a second-order vector ﬁeld S on T M we are provided with an Ehresmann connection which splits Tvx T M . 1) tensor LS JM . ∂ ∂ S = v i i + S i (x. v) i . . n} One sees that Dvx ∩ Vvx T M = {0}. 3. Dvx = {Yvx ∈ Tvx T M |LS JM (Yvx ) = −Yvx }. By taking its Lie derivative with respect to a second-order vector ﬁeld S we obtain a new (1. An additional structure can be given to each tangent space Tvx T M by a second-order vector ﬁeld on T M . We then deﬁne a distribution. We write S as.

s +Γi ∂ξ l q q +Γi Γj ξ m q q sj ∂q sj lm q . X is a Jacobi ﬁeld if it satisﬁes 2 c (t) X(t) + c (t) (T (X.k . 3. and 3. .l j . (3. .l . 2.s .6.2) Equation (3. R. c (t))) + R(X.j ∂Γi k . Tyner 3.l l l +Γi ξ j ∂ q l q −Γi ξ j ∂ q l q +Γi Γm ξ j q q jk kj lm jk ∂q ∂q . q n ) be a set of local coordinates.6 Deﬁnition: A variation along a geodesic c(t) is a one-parameter family of geodesics σ : I × [− . measures Proof: Let ξ be a Jacobi ﬁeld along the geodesic c : I → Q and (q 1 .j −Γm Γi ξ k q q kj lm R(ξ. l .l .k . 3. .i = +Γm Γi ξ k q q lj km .k .l −Γi Γm ξ j q q lm kj .l . s) is a geodesic.l j . .l .l . .s q T (ξ.l .k .14 D.k . . for s ∈ [− . .l j .k .l ∂ m i (Tjk ξ j q ) q +Γi (Tjk ξ j q ) q lm ∂q l . t → σ(t.2) is a linear second-order diﬀerential equation call the Jacobi equation. σ(t.j . ] → Q such that.s j .k .l ∂ ∂ξ i q l +Γi ξ m q q +Γi ∂ξ l q +Γj ξ m q sj ∂q lm lm ∂q s ∂q l . let T and R be the torsion and curvature tensor ﬁelds.l ∂Γi j . c (t))c (t) = 0. qξ . 3.9 Proposition: The linearization of the system. . q )i = = . respectively. . 1. s) ∈ Tc(t) Q.s s ∂Γi ∂2ξ ∂q lm m q q +Γi ∂ξ s q q +Γi ξ m ∂qs q 2 + ∂q s ξ lm lm ∂q ∂t .l .s m . ]. before stating the theorem we make some deﬁnitions. 0)=c(t) for t ∈ I. q ) q . . .8 Theorem: A vector ﬁeld X along a geodesic c : I → Q is a Jacobi ﬁeld if and only if it is an inﬁnitesimal variation of c. the variations of the system along that geodesic. However.k . c (t) c (t) = 0 along a geodesic.7 Deﬁnition: An inﬁnitesimal variation is a vector ﬁeld along c(t) deﬁned by X(t) = d ds σ(t. Let X be a vector ﬁeld along a geodesic c : I → Q. l ∂Γi jk ξ q q − ∂qkj ξ j q q +Γi ∂ξ l q q −Γi ∂ξ l q q l jk ∂q kj ∂q ∂q l .k . For an aﬃne connection . k .l . s → σ(t. The Jacobi equation. A geometric interpretation of a Jacobi ﬁeld is oﬀered by [Kobayashi and Nomizu 1963]. s) is diﬀerentiable for t ∈ I. = = q . . We shall see that the Jacobi equation emerges during the linearization of the aﬃne connection control system. s=0 3. j ∂Γi lj ξ q q − ∂qkj ξ k q q l ∂q k .l .l .

The control system equations are given by c (t) = uα (t)Xα (c(t)). To do this we ﬁrst need to deﬁne a driftless system and its properties.Linearization of affine connection control system 15 Now by using the chain rule and combining the above to obtain the Jacobi Equation we have ∂ 2 ξ ∂Γi k .1 Deﬁnition: A controlled trajectory for an aﬃne connection control system is a pair (c. Aﬃne connection control systems Let Q be a manifold (the conﬁguration space) and Y = {Y1 . {Z. Thus the linearization measures variations along geodesics of c (t) c (t) = 0. Then linearizing this in the usual way using the Jacobian it is veriﬁable we obtain equation (3. Driftless systems. vlft(Y1 ). . Before this theorem can be stated we make the necessary deﬁnitions. It is veriﬁable in coordinates that the ﬁrst-order equation on T Q is v (t) = Z(v(t)) + uα (t) vlft (Yα )(v(t)) where Z is the geodesic spray of (T Q. . 4.8. ξ is also a solution to the linearization of c (t) c (t) = 0 along a geodesic.k 4. The solutions ξ of (3.3).j . . X) where X = {X1 . reducibility and kinematic controllability. T ] → Q is a absolutely continuous curve such g that c (t) c (t) = uα (t)Yα (c(t)) is satisﬁed. . m ∂ξ l . Relationships of aﬃne connection control systems with driftless systems. Y). m ∂ξ m .1) There are easily checked conditions that determine controllability of a driftless system. . We will denote this system by ΣT aﬀ = .1. .. A driftless control system is a pair Σ = (Q. . 4. We denote an aﬃne connection control system as a triple Σaﬀ = (Q. It will be desirable to talk about controlled trajectories of an aﬃne connection control systems. . . Ym } be a set of input vector ﬁelds on Q. This section presents two possible methods. (4.3) measure variations along the geodesic c by theorem 3. u) where u : [0. . . . l lm q +Γi q = 0. To do so we make the following deﬁnition. Xs } is a set of vector ﬁelds on Q. + ξ q q +Γi (3.3) lm lm ∂t2 ∂t ∂t ∂q k Given the geodesic equation in coordinates q +Γi q q = 0 jk we may write it as a matrix ﬁrst-order system on T Q. T ] → Rm is measurable and c : [0.i . vlft(Ym )}) . The governing equation for Σaﬀ is c (t) c (t) = uα (t)Yα (c(t)). For the linearization we will need to state the control equation on T Q. . . l . . for dealing with underactuated simple mechanical with zero potential energy.

. Σaﬀ is reducible to Σ if the following two conditions hold: 1. We now deﬁne at each q ∈ Q. u) is a controlled trajectory for Σ. . . . . Tyner 4. X) is controllable if Lie(X)q = Tq Q for each q ∈ Q.16 D. . Y) be an aﬃne connection control system and let Σ = (Q. Xs } = span{Y1 . Ym } f or every vector f ield X having the property that X(q) ∈ span{Y1 . X) be a driftless system. 4. . We use “easier” in the sense that there are no uncontrolled dynamics. To test controllability conditions we need to deﬁne a subspace. Xs }. The motivation is the thought that ﬁnding controls for the driftless (ﬁrst-order) system may prove to be easier. [X. . Ym }. T ] → Rm so that (c. If the vector ﬁelds in X are real analytic. there exists a piecewise diﬀerential map u : [0. 4. Lie(X)q . X X(q) . Lie(X)q = {X(q)|X ∈ L(X)}. u) is a controlled trajectory for Σaﬀ . ˜ The conditions for when an aﬃne connection control system is reducible to a driftless is a result of [Lewis 1999]. . . . span{X1 .4 Theorem: (Chow 1939) A driftless system Σ = (Q. 2. of Tq Q. u) for Σ deﬁned on [0. .1) is satisﬁed. then this condition is also necessary. . Reducibility. for each controlled trajectory (c. Y ] ⊂ L(X) ∀ X. X) is controllable if for q1 . q2 ∈ Q there exist a controlled trajectory (c.5 Deﬁnition: Let Σaﬀ = (Q. 4. 2. u) where u : I → Rm is measurable and c : I → Q is a absolutely continuous curve such that equation (4. The idea of reducibility is to ﬁnd an associated driftless system of the aﬃne connection control system. T ] with u diﬀerentiable and ˜ ˜ piecewise C ∞ . X) if and only if the following conditions hold: 1. u) deﬁned on [0.6 Theorem: (Lewis [1999]) An aﬃne connection control system Σaﬀ = (Q. for each controlled trajectory (c. Unfortunately only a small number of underactuated systems with zero potential actually satisfy the required conditions for reducibility.2 Deﬁnition: A controlled trajectory for a driftless control system is a pair (c. R. Once the controls for Σ are obtained they maybe mapped to controls for Σaﬀ . To do this let L(X) be the smallest subalgebra of vector ﬁelds on Q such that 1. 4. . Y ∈ X. if u = 0 the velocities of the system are zero. T ] such that c(0) = q1 and c(T ) = q2 . 2.3 Deﬁnition: A driftless system Σ = (Q. there exists a diﬀerentiable and piecewise C ∞ map u : [0. T ] and with c (0) ∈ span{X1 . . Ym } f or every q ∈ Q. . X ⊂ L(X). T ] → Rs ˜ so that (c. . . . u) for Σaﬀ deﬁned on [0. . . ∈ span{Y1 . . Y) is reducible to a driftless system Σ = (Q.

. Y). . d ∈ {1. u) is a controlled trajectory for the ˜ driftless system Σ then. u) is a controlled trajectory for the aﬃne connection control system Σaﬀ . Proof: Since (c. Ym } are d linearly independent and deﬁne γab : Q → R a. This is especially true in the case of adding a stabilizing feedback control.1) ﬁnding controls may not be all that easy. .1) has q0 as an asymptotically stable ﬁxed point. c (t) c (t) = ub c (t) (˜ (t)Yb (c(t)) c (t) Yb (c(t)) = ub (t) ˜ ˙b + ˜u(t)Yb (c(t)) ˙b = ub (t) ua (t)Ya (c(t)) Yb (c(t)) + ˜u(t)Yb (c(t)) ˜ ˜ = ub (t)˜a (t) ˜ u Y (c(t)) + ˜˙b u(t)Y (c(t)) Ya (c(t)) b b 1 ˙b = ub (t)˜a (t) ( Ya (c(t)) Yb (c(t)) + Yb (c(t)) Ya (c(t))) + ˜u(t)Yb (c(t)) ˜ u 2 1 d ˙ = ub (t)˜a (t)(ud (t) + γab (c(t)))Yd (t).6.8 Theorem: Let q0 ∈ Q. . 4.7 Proposition: Let Σaﬀ = (Q. . u) is a controlled trajectory for the driftless system Σ it must satisfy ˜ c (t) = uα (t)Yα (c(t)). It is not possible to deﬁne a continuous function u : Q → Rm with the property that the closed-loop system for (4. . (c. If (c. ˜ It should be noted that for driftless control systems (4. . . let ud (t) = ub (t)˜a (t)(ud (t) + 2 γab (c(t))) and we have ˜ u ˜ c (t) c (t) = ud (t)Yd (c(t)). 4. This correspondence is made more precise in the follow proposition. ˜ u ˜ 2 1 d ˙ To complete the proof. b. Y) be an aﬃne connection control system which is reducible to the driftless system (Q. . . . ˜ So we have. . . m} by d < Ya : Yb >= γab Yd which is possible by condition 2 of Theorem 4. ˜ u ˜ 2 d ∈ {1. if we deﬁne the control u by 1 d ˙ ud (t) = ua (t)˜b (t)(ud (t) + γab (c(t))). m}.5. Suppose that the vector ﬁelds Y = {Y1 . .Linearization of affine connection control system 17 If the aﬃne connection control system in question is reducible then a correspondence between controlled trajectories of Σ and Σaﬀ is available by Deﬁnition 4.

10 Deﬁnition: Σaﬀ is kinematically controllable if there exist a set of decoupling vector ﬁelds. c (t) = X(c(t)). These vector ﬁelds are called decoupling vector ﬁelds. In [Bullo and Lynch 2001] conditions are provided for checking whether a vector ﬁeld X on Q is a decoupling vector ﬁeld for Σaﬀ .10 we may ﬁnd controlled trajectories of the system. let t → c(t) be an integral curve of X and let t → τ (t) be a reparamterization for c. R. Unfortunately. it is not known how to compute a set of decoupling vector ﬁelds for a generalized system. 4. 4. . Xs } so that Lie(X)q = Tq Q for each q ∈ Q.18 D. 4.9 Deﬁnition: A vector ﬁeld X : Q → T Q is a decoupling vector ﬁeld for Σaﬀ if for every integral curve c and for every reparameterization t → τ (t) of c of X there exists a controlled trajectory t → u(t) with the property that (c ◦ τ. In [Bullo and Lynch 2001] some insights are oﬀered when dealing with a speciﬁc aﬃne connection control system. .11 Proposition: (Bullo and Lynch 2001)space A vector ﬁeld is a decoupling vector ﬁeld for Σaﬀ if and only if: 1. c (t) c (t) = uα (t)Yα (c(t)). u) is a controlled trajectory for Σaﬀ . X(q) ∈ Yq = spanR (Y1 (q). X = {X1 .12 Proposition: (Lewis 2002)space Let X be a decoupling vector ﬁeld for Σaﬀ . The idea is to ﬁnd vector ﬁelds on Q with integral curves that can be followed by the system up to arbitrary parameterization. In [Lewis 2002] results are given to calculate controls laws that move Σaﬀ along decoupling trajectories. The second strategy is to determine whether the system is kinematically controllable. . . . Proof: We need to show the curve c ◦ τ (t) satisﬁes. If t → u(t) ∈ Rm is deﬁned by uα (t)Yα (c ◦ τ (t)) = (τ (t))2 X X(c ◦ τ (t)) + τ (t)X(c ◦ τ (t)) then (c ◦ τ. . . Tyner Kinematic controllability. it is not clear how to compute with these vector ﬁelds. . 4. u) is a control trajectory. Since c is an integral curve of X we have by deﬁnition. It should be made clear that a system that is kinematically controllable can only move along decoupling vector ﬁelds and not tangent vector ﬁelds that are in their span. In fact. X X(q) ∈ Yq for every q ∈ Q Once a set of decoupling vector ﬁeld for the aﬃne connection control system are found and it is veriﬁed that they satisfy Deﬁnition 4. Now using the properties of an aﬃne connection: (c◦τ ) (t) (c ◦ τ ) (t) = c (τ (t))τ (t) c (τ (t))τ (t) = τ (t)(τ (t) c (τ (t)) c (τ (t)) + (Lc (t) τ (t))c (t) = (τ (t))2 X X(c ◦ τ (t)) + τ (t)X(c ◦ τ (t)) Since X is a decoupling vector ﬁeld. . Ym (q)) for every q ∈ Q 2.

jk kj l ∂wi ∂q Since Z T can be used to produce a second-order equation on T T Q. This provides a splitting. we have a connection which assigns a horizontal subspace.Linearization of affine connection control system 1. thus (τ (t))2 X X(c 4. Since IQ is a diﬀeomorphism we use its pullback to obtain a second-order equation ∗ IQ Z T = ui ∂ ∂ ∂ + wi i − Γi uj uk i jk i ∂q ∂v ∂u i ∂Γjk j k l ∂ − u u v + Γi wj uk + Γi wj uk . with results from [Lewis 2000]. We saw earlier in Section 3. Note that the order of the splitting has the horizontal piece ﬁrst. TXvq T T Q Tvq T Q ⊕ Tvq T Q for Xvq ∈ Tvq T Q. [Lewis 2000]. The linearized aﬃne control system and properties of its integral curves. the linearized forcing terms will be familiar geometric objects. As one might expect.4 that the tangent lift of a vector ﬁeld X was its linearization. With this in mind the strategy here is to tangent lift the control equation on T Q to T T Q.2) v(t)T = Z T (Xvq (t)) + (uα (t) vlft (Yα )(Xvq (t)))T . ˙ We make a change of notation for the control u to u to prevent confusion in local coordinate ¯ expressions. As in Section 4 the control equation on T Q is v(t) = Z(v(t)) + uα (t) vlft (Yα )(v(t)) ˙ where Z is the geodesic spray for . we recover the Jacobi equation plus the linearized forcing terms that will make up a linear second-order diﬀerential equation. Then. v v u + Γi w j v k + Γi w j v k kj jk l ∂wi ∂q The tangent lift of the geodesic spray Z T can be used to produce a second-order equation on T T Q using IQ the canonical involution. With the control system on T T Q we employ the Ehresmann connection to provided a splitting of TXvx T T Q. Then in coordinates we have i (¯α (t) vlft (Yα )(Xvq (t)))T = uα (t) Yα u ¯ ∂ ∂Y i ∂ + α ul i .2. X(q) ∈ Yq f or every q ∈ Q 2. HT T Q on τT Q : T T Q → T Q. The linearization is obtained using the tangent lift (4. . i l ∂v ∂w ∂q Z T = vi ∂ ∂ ∂ − Γi v j v k i + wi i jk i ∂q ∂v ∂u i ∂Γjk j k l ∂ − . X X(q) 19 ∈ Yq f or every q ∈ Q ◦ τ (t)) + τ (t)X(c ◦ τ (t)) ∈ Yc◦τ (t) and we are done.

n}. . . . Similarly V T T Q has 2n basis vector that can be expressed in coordinates as vlftT ∂ ∂ 1 − (Γj + Γj )v k j ki ik i ∂q 2 ∂v 1 ∂ ∂ = − (Γj + Γj )v k ik ki i ∂u 2 ∂wj vlftT ∂ ∂v i ∂ ∂wi i ∈ {1 . Thus splitting the horizontal and vertical components of the previous splitting we obtain TXvq T T Q Tq Q ⊕ Tq Q ⊕ Tq Q ⊕ Tq Q. li il mk km 2 ∂wj − hlftT ∂ ∂v i = ∂ 1 ∂ − (Γj + Γj )uk ik ki i ∂v 2 ∂wj i ∈ {1 . = i ∈ {1 . . . . The horizontal subspace HT T Q has 2n basis vectors. For the main result of this report it is useful to write the linearization in a basis of the above splitting. n}. And the second two summands are the horizontal and vertical subspaces of the vertical subspace respectively.13 Proposition: (¯α (t) vlft (Yα )(Xvx (t)))T written in terms of the basis vectors for u HT T Q and V T T Q is given by i (¯α (t) vlft(Yα )(Xvq (t)))T = uα (t) Yα hlftT u ¯ ∂ ∂v i j u Yα ] 1 + [ T (Yα . Again. .20 D. Tyner Now. n}. Thus. n}. u) + 2 vlftT ∂ ∂v j . for the order of the splitting we have the horizontal subspace ﬁrst then the vertical. 4. using the geodesic spray as a second-order equation on T Q. R. we have a connection HT Q on τQ : T Q → Q and a splitting Tvq T Q Tq Q ⊕ Tq Q. . the ﬁrst two summands are the horizontal and vertical subspaces of the horizontal subspace of the ﬁrst splitting respectively. There are n horizontal and n vertical which and can be written respectively in coordinates as hlftT ∂ ∂ 1 − (Γj +Γj )v k j ik ki i ∂q 2 ∂v ∂ 1 ∂ 1 ∂ = i − (Γj + Γj )v k j − (Γj + Γj )uk j ik ki ik ki ∂q 2 ∂v 2 ∂u j j 1 ∂Γil l k ∂Γli l k uv + u v + (Γj + Γj )wk ki ik 2 ∂q k ∂q k ∂ 1 − (Γk + Γk )(Γj + Γj )um v l i ∈ {1 .

c (t)). vq ) 2 4 − T (T (vq .Linearization of affine connection control system Proof: Using the basis vectors for HT T Q and V T T Q we may write i ¯ (¯α (t) vlft(Yα )(Xvq (t)))T = uα (t) Yα hlftT u 21 ∂ ∂v i + 1 i + (Γj + Γj )uk Yα vlftT ki 2 ik Now by re-writing j ∂Yα l u vlftT ∂q l ∂ .e. Let X : I → T T Q be vector ﬁeld along σ.15 Lemma: (Lewis 2000)space Let Y be a time dependent vector ﬁeld on Q and suppose that c : I → Q is a curve satisfying c (t) c (t) = Y (t. vq )vq − ( uq T )(vq . ∂v j ∂ ∂v j 1 1 j i ∂ i ∂ i ∂ (Γik + Γj )uk Yα j = (Γj + Γj )uk Yα j − (Γj + Γj )uk Yα j ki ik ki ik ki 2 ∂w ∂w 2 ∂w we have in coordinates (¯α (t) vlft (Yα )(Xvq (t)))T u j ∂ 1 ∂Yα l ∂ i ∂ − (Γj + Γj )uk Yα j + u ki ∂v i 2 ik ∂w ∂q l ∂wj 1 i ∂ i ∂ + (Γj + Γj )uk Yα j − (Γj + Γj )uk Yα j . Then the tangent ˜ 1 (t) ⊕ X2 (t) where X1 (t) = ˜ ˜ vector to the curve t → X(t) is give by c (t) ⊕ Y (t. vq ) 2 1 1 + ( vq T )(uq . c(t)).14 Proposition: The linearization of an aﬃne connection control system written as the direct sum of its horizontal and vertical parts is. . uvq ) + uvq Yα − 2 1 vlftvq (R(uq . 4. c (t) = σ(t)). c (t)) and X2 (t) = c (t) X2 (t) + 2 T (X2 (t). Z T + (¯α (t) vlft (Yα ))T )(uvq ⊕ wvq ) u 1 = vq ⊕ Yα ⊕ wvq ⊕ T (Yα . vq ). vq ) − T (T (uq . i (¯α (t) vlft (Yα )(Xvq (t)))T = uα (t) Yα u ¯ 1 ∂ i ∂ − (Γj + Γj )uk Yα j ki ∂v i 2 ik ∂w j ∂Yα l 1 i m ∂ + [ (Γj − Γj )uk Yα + u + Γj ul Yα ] j ki ik lm l 2 ∂w ∂q and we have our desired result. vq ). 4. uq )). c(t)) ⊕ X 1 1 ˜ c (t) X1 (t) + 2 T (X1 (t). ik ki ik ki ∂w 2 ∂w i = uα (t) Yα ¯ With a little rearrangement of the Christoﬀel symbols. and denote by σ : I → T Q the tangent vector ﬁeld of c (i. and denote X(t) = X1 (t) ⊕ X2 (t) ∈ Tc(t) Q ⊕ Tc(t) Q Tσ(t) T Q.

X2 (t) − (Γj + Γj )q l X1 (t)).e. R. kj ˙ 2 ∂wi Now by using the 2n basis vectors for HT T Q and the 2n basis vectors for V T T Q we have: c (t) ⊕ Y (t.6 of [Lewis 2000]. X1 (t). w ∈ Tc(a) Q. ζ = c (t) ξ 1 + 2 T (ξ.16 Proposition: Let Z be the geodesic spray for . ˙ lk ˙ 2 kl Then the tangent curve to this is given a. Deﬁne vector ﬁelds ξ and ζ along c with ¯ t → ξ(t) ⊕ ζ(t) ∈ Tc(t) Q ⊕ Tc(t) Q Tσ(t) T Q an integral curve of Z T + (¯α (t) vlft (Yα ))T with u initial conditions u ⊕ w ∈ Tc(a) Q ⊕ Tc(a) Q Tσ(a) T Q. c (t)). Let c : I → Q be a geodesic and σ : I → T Q such that c (t) = σ(t) is the integral curve of Z + uα (t) vlft (Yα ). ξ satisﬁes 2 c (t) ξ + R(ξ. 1 − T (¯α Yα . by q i (t) ˙ ∂ ∂ ∂ ˙i ˙i + (Y i − Γi q j q k ) i + X1 (t) i + X2 (t) jk ˙ ˙ ∂q i ∂v ∂u i i 1 ∂Γjk k l j 1 ∂Γkj k l j 1 i j − q q X1 − ˙ ˙ q q X1 − (Γjk + Γi )(Y k − Γk q l q m )X1 ˙ ˙ lm ˙ ˙ kj l l 2 ∂q 2 ∂q 2 1 i ∂ ˙k − (Γjk + Γi )q k X1 . . c (t))c (t)+ c (t) T (ξ. It is a modiﬁcation of Theorem 5. c (t))). q m (t). c (t)) uα ξ (¯ Yα ) = 0. Let a ∈ I and u. kl lk ˙ ∂v 2 ∂v ∂q This gives the curve t → X(t) in coordinates of the form: 1 j k k (q n (t). c(t)) ⊕ ( c (t) X1 (t)+ 1 T (X1 (t). X(t) = X1 (t) hlft ∂ ∂ + X2 (t) vlft k ∂q j ∂q ∂ ∂ 1 ∂ j k = X1 (t) k − (Γj + Γj )q l j + X2 (t) j . Tyner Proof: Given the curve X(t) = X1 (t) ⊕ X2 (t) we can re-write it with the induced basis vectors for the vertical and horizontal parts. 2 We are now ready to state the main result of this paper. c (t))) 2 ⊕( c (t) X2 (t) 1 + T (X2 (t). ξ) − u 2 2.22 D. Then ξ and ζ have the following properties: 1. 4. an aﬃne connection on Q.

which in turn will allow us to add feedback to the system.4). We want a stabilizing feedback control that will drive the solutions of (4. c (t))c (t) + c (t) T (ξ. To obtain this stabilizing feedback control. c (t))c (t) − 2 ( c (t) T )(ξ. 4 Now writing the expression in terms of ξ and bring everything to the left hand side 2 c (t) ξ + R(ξ.3) towards zero. Thus its linearization about the system’s equilibrium points will not be controllable. ξ) + ξ (¯α Yα ) u u 2 1 −R(ξ.3) is required.The hovercraft The hovercraft is an underactuated simple mechanical system with zero potential energy. ξ) − 2 uα ξ (¯ Yα ) =0 (4.3) as desired. equation (2. With the initial conditions in hand the Riccati equation is integrated in the forwards direction to give uopt (t) at each t ∈ [0. c (t))c (t) − 2 ( c (t) T )(ξ. However.4) Before ﬁnding a control u(t) that will force the variations of a given aﬃne connection control system towards zero.Linearization of affine connection control system 23 Proof: The tangent vector to the curve t → ξ(t) ⊕ ζ(t) must be equal to (Z T + (U α (t) vlft (Yα ))T )(ξ(t) ⊕ ζ(t)) at time t by deﬁnition of an integral curve. c (t)).4). c (t)) + 1 T (T (ξ. To ﬁnish the proof we take the covariant derivative of (2) and substitute it into equation (1). To do this we state (4. c 1 u (t)) − T (¯α Yα . ξ) − ξ (¯α Yα ) = uα (t)Yα (c(t)) u u 2 (4.3) measures the variations of an aﬃne connection control system with zero potential energy along its reference trajectories. ξ) + ξ (¯ Yα ) c (t) ξ 1 + 2 T (ξ. 5.equation (2. Planar rigid body . the transition matrix .15) we have 1. 2 c (t) ξ + R(ξ. perhaps the hovercraft is controllable about a nontrivial reference trajectory. Figure 1. c (t)) + 2 T (¯ Yα . c (t)). Then by Lemma (4. a linear quadratic regulator formulation of Section 2. c (t)) = −R(ξ. Equation (2) proves 2. (t)) + 2.4. 1 1 c (t) ζ + 2 T (ζ. Once the systems controllability is veriﬁed then a feedback control can be designed. c (t)). After using the main . The Riccati equation is solved backwards from speciﬁed ﬁnal conditions to obtain the initial conditions as described in Section 2. c (t)) + 2 T (¯α Yα . T ].4). c (t)) = ζ. c (t)) 1 − T (¯α Yα . c (t))c (t) + c (t) T (ξ. c 1 (t)) = − 1 T (ζ. We can use this as a means to adding feedback for these systems. The transition matrix for the linear system is needed to check its controllability using Deﬁnition (4. c 1 1 uα uα 4 T (T (ξ.5).3) as a linear time varying control system (4. The solutions of the linear second-order diﬀerential equation (4.3 is applied to (4. 2 c (t) ξ + 1 c (t) 2 T (ξ.

We may write the kinetic energy using the Riemannian metric g and choosing coordinates (x. In the second the linear second-order diﬀerential equation (4. The hovercraft 5. The hovercraft system. the equations of motion are determined to be: x= ¨ f1 cos(θ) f2 sin(θ) − . 2. V = 0.V ) with: 1. θ) as 1 1 1 2 2 2 KE = g(v. This chapter is divided in two parts. These are then written as one-forms on Q.1. y. J From Figure 1 we split the force F into components f1 and f2 along the body axis of the hovercraft. f2 = − sin(θ)dx + cos(θ)dy − hdθ . m m f1 sin(θ) f2 cos(θ) y= ¨ + . In the ﬁrst we cover background deﬁnitions and the open-loop controller results for the hovercraft. The hovercraft is a simple mechanical system (Q. 2 2 2 In this case the potential energy is zero and thus the Lagrangian is just the kinetic energy. v) = m(vx + vy ) + Jvθ . 3. Tyner results from Section 4. Q = R2 × S1 . R. f1 = cos(θ)dx + sin(θ)dy. g = m(dx ⊗ dx) + m(dy ⊗ dy) + J(dθ ⊗ dθ).3) is calculated for the two types of attainable trajectories of the hovercraft. By employing the Euler-Lagrange equations. F f2 f1 θ h y x Figure 1.g. m m f2 h ¨ θ=− .24 D. The controllability of the two formed linear systems is veriﬁed and a feedback control is simulated.2 we shall see it is indeed controllable.

We compute L(X) by taking iterative Lie brackets until we stop producing new directions. and [X1 .Linearization of affine connection control system 25 Now that we have deﬁned our system. Y) with c (t) = uα (t)Yα (c(t)). 5. Lie(X)q = Tq Q. X1 = cos(θ) ∂ ∂ + sin(θ) ∂x ∂y ∂ ∂ hm ∂ X2 = − sin(θ) + cos(θ) − ∂x ∂y J ∂θ Proof: To show that X1 and X2 are decoupling vector ﬁelds for the hovercraft system we verify they satisfy Proposition 4. X2 . ΣHC = (R2 × S1 . m ∂x m ∂y J ∂θ Y1 = The hovercraft also has two decoupling vector ﬁelds.1 lemma: X1 and X2 are decoupling vector ﬁelds for ΣHC . mh ∂ mh ∂ sin(θ) − cos(θ) J ∂x J ∂y . Lie(X)q = Tq Q f or each q ∈ Q. Property one is satisﬁed by inspection. By verifying the spanning condition. [X1 .11. X2 ] are linearly independent. X2 = mY2 ∈ Yq Property two may be satisﬁed by a simple calculation. X1 = mY1 ∈ Yq . where Yα = g (fα ). for each q ∈ Q the hovercraft is indeed kinematically controllable. X2 ] = Since X1 . L(X) = {X1 . Proof: Again the proof is purely computational. The existence of these decoupling vector ﬁelds allows us to check the kinematic controllability of the system. governing equations g c (t) g . X2 ]}. we will rewrite it as a aﬃne connection control system.2 Proposition: ΣHC is kinematically controllable. X1 X1 (q) = 0 ∈ Yq . In this case we require only one ﬁrst-order bracket. where [X1 . X2 . ¯ Thus cos(θ) ∂ sin(θ) ∂ + m ∂x m ∂y − sin(θ) ∂ cos(θ) ∂ h ∂ Y2 = + − . The hovercraft is an aﬃne connection control system. X2 X2 (q) = mh Y1 ∈ Yq J 5.

T (5. An instantaneous velocity jump would correspond to a inﬁnite acceleration. When piecing these curves together it is necessary to start and end at zero velocity. Tyner With the hovercraft being kinematically controllable we may follow concatenation of integrals corresponding to the decoupling vector ﬁelds. y0 .12. (B)An arc movement along the integral curve of decoupling vector ﬁeld X2 . . θ0 ) cX2 (t) = x0 + J mh cos(θ0 ) − cos θ0 − t . mh J mh mh J sin(θ0 ) + sin . The controls to accomplish this can be computed using Proposition 4. θ0 − t − θ0 t y0 + mh J J Then choosing τ (t) = T (1 − cos( 2πt )) as a reparameterization to make sure we start and 2 T stop at zero velocity the controls to move along vector ﬁeld X1 and X2 respectively are: u11 = u12 u21 u22 2mπ 2 cos( 2πt ) T .4) The controls (5. θ0 ) are respectively: cX1 (t) =(t cos(θ0 ) + x0 . The corresponding integral curves to X1 and X2 with initial condition (x(0). J 2mπ 2 cos( 2πt ) T = . (A)A straight line movement along the integral curve of decoupling vector ﬁeld X1 . y(0). t sin(θ0 ) + y0 .2) (5. These moves are depicted in Figure 2. θ(0)) = (x0 .4) and J (5.1) (5.26 D. T = 0. hm2 π 2 sin2 ( 2πt ) T = .2) and (5.4) give the hovercraft a circular motion about a point mh from the center of mass.2) correspond to a straight line movement.3) (5. whereas (5. R. Figure 2.

It is however. y.Linearization of affine connection control system 27 5.16. u ∂q l We write this in matrix form so that we may apply deﬁnitions from Section 2. σ)B(σ)B ∗ (σ)Φ∗ (t0 . θ). Adding a feedback control to the hovercraft system. ξ(t). 5. We will ﬁrst consider the straight line movement of decoupling vector ﬁeld X1 . To linearize the hovercraft along its decoupling trajectories we will use Proposition 4. The transition matrix for the system is computed as 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 sin(θ ) cos(πt) + 1 sin(θ ) 0 0 2 2 − 1 cos(θ0 ) cos(πt) + 1 cos(θ0 ) 2 2 1 1 sin θ )π sin(πt)t 0 2 1 cos(θ )π sin(πt) 0 2 0 Φ(t. The system’s coeﬃecent matrices are 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 − 2 π 2 sin(θ0 ) cos(πt) 1 π 2 cos(θ ) cos(πt) 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 A(t) = and B(t) = 0 0 0 cos(θ ) 0 sin(θ ) 0 0 0 0 0 − sin(θ0 ) cos(θ0 ) − mh J . too large to include here. xref . θ. The desired path. The states of the system correspond to (x. Nevertheless. to the linear equations derived for the hovercraft measure the deviations from the desired reference trajectory. Thus we wish to ﬁnd a control that minimizes ξ(t) = xactual − xref . for completeness sake we will include the system coeﬃcients 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 − 4J hm2 π 2 sin2 (πt) sin(−θ0 + mht ) − 1 mπ 2 cos(πt) cos(−θ0 + mht ) J 2 J 1 hm2 π 2 sin2 (πt) cos(−θ + mht ) + 1 mπ 2 cos(πt) sin(−θ + mht ) 0 0 4J J 2 J 0 A(t) = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 and B(t) = 0 0 0 cos(−θ0 + mht ) J sin(−θ0 + mht ) J 0 0 0 0 − sin(−θ0 + mht ) J cos(−θ0 + mht ) J mh − J . t0 ) = t 0 0 1 0 0 0 t 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 − 2π sin(θ0 )(−2 sin(πt) + cos(πt)πt + πt) 1 − 2π cos(θ0 )(−2 sin(πt) + cos(πt)πt + πt) t sin(θ0 ) cos(πt) + 1 sin(θ0 )πt sin(πt) − 1 sin(θ0 ) 2 2 1 cos(θ )πt sin(πt) − 1 cos(θ cos(θ0 ) cos(πt) + 2 0 0 2 1 . is the integral curve of the decoupling vector ﬁeld that we wish the system to . However.2. In coordinates the linear equation becomes: ∂2ξi − ∂t2 ∂ α [¯ Yα ](cXβ (t)) ξ l = uα Yα (cXβ (t)). Similar calculations can be done along the arc motion of decoupling vector ﬁeld X2 but the expressions are too lengthy to display here. The solutions. Linearization of the hovercraft system. y. t1 W (t0 . one veriﬁes the resulting matrix is of full rank and thus the linear time varying system is controllable. σ)dσ which is computed using MapleV. The transition matrix then deﬁnes the controllability Gramian. With the system formed we would ˙ ˙ ˙ like to check its controllability. x. Notice that for the hovercraft all the Christoﬀel symbols are zero. t1 ) = t0 Φ(t0 .3.

For the simulation plotted in ﬁgure 3 the hovercraft starts at an initial condition (0.1302430086 + .09176381517tπ))/J − θ0 ) ∗ sin(. The hovercraft can move to any position in at most three moves.1302430086 cos(.885844 14.70255 4.09176381517tπ))/J − θ0 ))/(mh) y0 + J(sin(θ0 ) + sin(mh(−.481588 2.576.09176381517tπ))/J −.261 seconds.2882845276t) xref = x0 + J(cos(θ0 ) − cos(mh(−. u2 = u2.05274.642845 4.09176381517tπ))/J − θ0 ) sin(.642845 11.0.1195159537e − 1 sin(mh(−.01705898949 cos(.7) along the trajectory (5. This is the ﬁrst move of three 2 required to get from (0.1302430086 + . π). Q = .09176381517tπ))/J − θ0 ))/(mh) θ0 − mh(−.810858 0.152089 2.1302430086 + .09176381517tπ)π .950904 0. 1.28 D.833569 0. (5.1302430086 + . where T is calculated to be 0. The optimal control is used in conjunction with the reference controls (open-loop controls) for the hovercraft to give: u1 = u1. 0) and moves to (.550763 206.200179 0.opt + u2.950904 0. and length h set to (0. 0) to (1.635275 12.702559 12.1302430086 cos(.729445 3.09176381517tπ)π −.1302430086 cos(. uopt (t) = −R−1 B ∗ (t)K(t)(xactual − xref ).212. The MapleV code lengthens the time for the hovercraft to traverse the curve.635275 0.1302430086 + .991678 .ref .55076 3.8). Tyner follow.219701 0.opt + u1. The simulation is run using Dlxsim.960709 0.128.7) and (5.057152 0.009295052447 sin(.ref 10mhT J T 1 − cos 2 πJt 10mhT .23323 0.ref .452372 17.452372 49. .01195159537mh sin(.01195159537 cos(mh(−.78614 49.09176381517tπ)π/J (5. It does this by is picking a new reparameterization τ (t) = This gives a new ﬁnal time of u1.001413 0. The following cost matrices are used to compute the optimal control. 0. R. (5. mass. This is done to keep the required forces small enough so that the they are in the range of the current fans on the hovercraft model.8) To construct the optimal control we assume we have knowledge of all the states. Dlxsim numerically integrates the equations of motions with the controls (5.5) to produce plots of position.960709 14. The controls and curves were computed using a MapleV code generated by [Mitchell 2002] with the inertia. To accomplish this we use a linear quadratic regulator formulation of the problem and minimize the error by ﬁnding the optimal control.200179 0. The reference controls to do this are equations (5. −.ref u2.0018 ∗ I 6×6 F = 1000 ∗ I 6×6 R = I 2×2 When producing the forward time solution of the Riccati Equation the initial conditions are K(0) = 1.6) (5.744453 0. π ).152089 2. 0. The total trajectory consists of an arc movement followed by a straight line movement and ﬁnish with another arc movement.233238 3.7) = .729445 1.5) which are the controls used in the simulations.1.48158 3.1302430086 cos(.1302430086 cos(.810858 17.14) respectively.219701 1.2882845276t)2 = −.001413 0.

6. Conclusions 6. Stemming from this project are several areas of future work. Future Work. at trade oﬀ between optimality and computation time can be made. A second-order linear diﬀerential equation is developed that measures the variations of the aﬃne connection control system along the speciﬁed trajectory.1. Conclusion. A optimal feedback control is computed using a LQR formulation. The feedback control rejecting an initial condition disturbance during a movement along the integral curve of decoupling vector ﬁeld X2 . This optimal control drives the error. It is shown that for the planar rigid body this set of equations formed a controllable time varying system and thus gave us a means for constructing a feedback control. Perhaps. As well. computing the solution to the diﬀerential Riccati equation in real time for use with the actual Hovercraft system does not appear to be possible. The theory is illustrated in simulation and produced the expected results of rejecting small disturbances. Another area of future work includes ﬁnding a geometric formulation for a linear .Linearization of affine connection control system 29 These initial conditions are obtained from solving the Riccati equation backwards in time from K(T ) = 1000 ∗ I 6×6 Figure 3. e(t) = xactual − xref . Before we can implement a feedback control on the Hovercraft we need to address this issue. 6. the solution would become unbound. towards zero.2. The problems we encountered solving the Riccati brings into question the practicality of implementing a LQR optimal control for a continue time. It took may iterations of the initial condition to obtain the solution used in the simulation. time-varying system. The solution of the Riccati equation was not always attainable from the numerical integration. In this report the linearization of underactuated aﬃne connection control systems with zero potential energy is investigated along system trajectories. The solving of the diﬀerential Riccati equation using a numerical scheme does not seem to be as well behaved as the algebraic version and was sensitive to initial condition changes.

— [2000] The geometry of the maximum principle for aﬃne connection control systems. K. I thank Dr. and control. New York. If the conditions are related to the geometry of the aﬃne connection control system then perhaps this would eliminate the need to ﬁnd the controllability Gramian for the linear system. available online at http://penelope. number 15 in Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics. It is also desirable to ﬁnd a set of condition for an aﬃne connection control system with zero potential energy that will imply its associated time varying linear system will be controllable. and Lynch. Boston/Basel/Stuttgart. References Brockett. 17(4). Volumes I and II. A. New York. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. department of Mathematics & Statistics. M. J. Tyner quadratic regulator along a reference trajectory. Andrew Lewis my supervisor for his constant help and patience throughout the term. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. F. Queen’s University. Queen’s University. R. Math 439 course notes. a Kobayashi. Birkh¨user.queensu.ca/~andrew/. P. Preprint. Mitchell. Bullo. R. K.30 D. Davis. [2001] Kinematic controllability and decoupled trajectory planning for underactuated mechanical systems. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Math 493 project. . pages 1162–1167. in Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. S. Interscience Publishers. Canada. As well. [1970] Finite Dimensional Linear Systems. AZ. This is not for reasons of better implementation but for an improved understanding of the topic. Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications. — [2002] Lagrangian mechanics. Transactions on Robotics and Automation. Lewis. ON K7L 3N6. New York. [2002] Control and trajectory planning for a single thruster hovercraft. and Nomizu. [1999] When is a mechanical control system kinematic?. Kingston. 402–412. Phoenix. W. [2002] Foundations of Deterministic and Stochastic Control.mast. H. ISBN 0-8176-4104-9. John Wiley and Sons. D. Ron Hirschorn for clarifying aspects of LQR design. dynamics. [1963] Foundations of Diﬀerential Geometry.

asasas

Str 2sds

5dce86178f808f766c4dbcdbf55abe96

dsdsa

Prae Positional

asaaaa

asasas

dsdsad

ftf

Torsion

ASP Red

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->