Control of a Nonafne Double-Pendulum System via Dynamic

Inversion and Time-Scale Separation

Amanda Young, Chengyu Cao, Naira Hovakimyan and Eugene Lavretsky
Abstract. A new method is presented for control
of nonafne double pendulum system via dynamic
inversion and time-scale separation. The control signal
is dened as a solution of fast dynamics, and the cou-
pled system is shown to be stable using the framework
of Tikhonovs theorem from singular perturbations the-
ory. Simulations illustrate the theoretical results.
I. INTRODUCTION
Stabilization of the inverted pendulum is considered to
be one of the benchmark problems in nonlinear control [1]
[5]. This model is mainly used for demonstration of various
new control methodologies, like genetic algorithms in [1],
partial feedback linearization and integrator backstepping
in [5], energy based approach in [6], to name a few. The
problem of stabilization becomes more challenging, when
the pendulum is comprised of more than one rod [7][13].
Practical signicance of these studies is apparent in a variety
of realistic applications, like control of manipulators or
crane control [14][16]. In this particular paper, we are
interested in using the double-pendulum as an academic
example to demonstrate a novel control methodology for
nonafne nonlinear systems. Control of nonafne-in-input
pendulum has been considered in [4]. The signicance of
nonafne-in-control methods is apparent when considering
applications, in which the systems control effectiveness
depends nonlinearly upon the control input [17].
In this paper, we use the control methodology from
[18] to solve the tracking problem for a nonafne double
inverted pendulum. The method relies on time-scale sep-
aration between the system dynamics and the controller
dynamics. The control signal is sought as solution of fast
dynamics, which is shown to satisfy the sufcient conditions
of Tikhonovs theorem from singular perturbations theory.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we
describe the dynamics and give the problem formulation.
Section III details the control design, which is further
analyzed in Section IV. Simulation results are given in
Section V.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Consider the two degree-of-freedom double pendulum in
Figure 1. The two rods may rotate in the vertical plane.
Research is supported by AFOSR under Contract No. FA9550-05-1-
0157.
A. Young, C. Cao and N. Hovakimyan are with Virginia Polytech-
nic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0203, e-mail:
{ayoung83, chengyu, nhovakim}@vt.edu
E. Lavretsky is with The Boeing Company - Phantom Works, Hunting-
ton Beach, CA 92647-2099, email: eugene.lavretsky@boeing.com
Fig. 1. Double Pendulum System
Torque control is applied at the two connecting joints. The
rods are treated as rigid bodies, and all frictional forces are
ignored. The following equations of motion can be derived
via Lagranges equations [19]:
M
1
(t) M
2
(t) =
1
3
l
2
1
(m
1
+ 3m
2
)

(t)+
1
2
gl
1
(m
1
+ 2m
2
) sin ()(t)+
1
2
l
1
l
2
m
2
cos ((t) (t))

(t)
1
2
l
1
l
2
m
2

2
(t) sin ((t) (t))
(1)
M
2
(t) =
1
2
l
1
l
2
m
2
cos ((t) (t))

(t)+
1
3
m
2
l
2
2

(t) +
1
2
gl
2
m
2
sin ()(t)
1
2
l
1
l
2
m
2

2
(t) sin ((t) (t)),
where (t) and (t) are the generalized coordinates, and
M
1
(t) and M
2
(t) are the torques acting on the connecting
joints of rod 1 and rod 2. In general, torque is produced
via an actuator that can nonlinearly depend upon the sys-
tem states and the actual control input, so that M
i
(t) =
M
i
((t), (t), u
i
(t)). With the following notations
f
11
(, ) =
12
l
2
1
[4m
1
+ 12m
2
9m
2
cos
2
( )]
,
f
12
(, ) =
12l
2
+ 18l
1
cos ( )
l
2
1
l
2
[9m
2
cos
2
( ) 4m
1
12m
2
]
,
f
21
(, ) =
18 cos ( )
l
1
l
2
[9m
2
cos
2
( ) 4m
1
12m
2
]
,
Proceedings of the 2006 American Control Conference
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, June 14-16, 2006
WeC12.4
1-4244-0210-7/06/$20.00 2006 IEEE 1820
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT. Downloaded on February 12, 2009 at 09:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
f
22
(, ) =
12m
1
+ 36m
2
l
2
2
m
2
[4m
1
+ 12m
2
9m
2
cos
2
( )]
+
18l
2
cos ( )
l
1
l
2
2
[4m
1
+ 12m
2
9m
2
cos
2
( )]
,
f
13
(,

, ,

) =
9gm
2
sin (2 )
l
1
[15m
2
+ 8m
1
9m
2
cos (2 2)]

9l
1
m
2

2
sin (2 2)
l
1
[15m
2
+ 8m
1
9m
2
cos (2 2)]
+
12l
2
m
2

2
sin ( )
l
1
[15m
2
+ 8m
1
9m
2
cos (2 2)]

(15gm
2
+ 12gm
1
) sin ()
l
1
[15m
2
+ 8m
1
9m
2
cos (2 2)]
,
f
23
(,

, ,

) =
12l
1

2
sin ( )(m
1
+ 3m
2
)
l
2
[15m
2
+ 8m
1
9m
2
cos (2 2)]

9l
2
m
2

2
sin (2 2)
l
2
[15m
2
+ 8m
1
9m
2
cos (2 2)]

9g sin ( 2)(m
1
+ 2m
2
)
l
2
[15m
2
+ 8m
1
9m
2
cos (2 2)]
+
3g sin ()(m
1
+ 6m
2
)
l
2
[15m
2
+ 8m
1
9m
2
cos (2 2)]
.
The equations in (1) can be solved with respect to

(t) and

(t):

(t) = f
11
(, ) M
1
((t), (t), u
1
(t))+
f
12
(, ) M
2
((t), (t), u
2
(t))+
f
13
(,

, ,

)
(2)

(t) = f
21
(, ) M
1
((t), (t), u
1
(t))+
f
22
(, ) M
2
((t), (t), u
2
(t))+
f
23
(,

, ,

),
(0) =
0
,

(0) =

0
, (0) =
0
,

(0) =

0
,
where
0
,

0
,
0
,

0
are initial conditions. Letting
x
1
(t) = (t), x
2
(t) =

(t), x
3
(t) = (t), x
4
(t) =

(t),
the double pendulum system in (1) can be written in state-
space form:
_

_
x
1
(t)
x
2
(t)
x
3
(t)
x
4
(t)
_

_
=
_

_
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
_

_
_

_
x
1
(t)
x
2
(t)
x
3
(t)
x
4
(t)
_

_
+
_

_
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
_

_
_
f
1
(x(t), u(t))
f
2
(x(t), u(t))
_
,
y(t) =
_
1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
_
x(t), x(0) = x
0
,
where x(t) =
_
x
1
(t) x
2
(t) x
3
(t) x
4
(t)

is the
vector of measurable states, y(t) =
_
y
1
(t) y
2
(t)

is
the vector of regulated outputs, u(t) =
_
u
1
(t) u
2
(t)

is the vector of control inputs, and

f
1
(x, u) = f
11
(x)M
1
(x, u
1
) + f
12
(x)M
2
(x, u
2
)+
f
13
(x)
f
2
(x, u) = f
21
(x)M
1
(x, u
1
) + f
22
(x)M
2
(x, u
2
)+
f
23
(x).
(3)
It is straightforward to verify that f
11
, f
12
, f
13
, f
21
, f
22
,
f
23
are well-dened for all x R
4
. We notice that the
system has full relative degree with respect to the regulated
outputs so that there are no internal dynamics present in
the system. To ensure controllability, we assume that the
nonlinear functions of control input satisfy:

M
i
(x, u
i
)
u
i

i
> 0 (4)
for some
i
> 0 and i = 1, 2. The control objective is to
design control input u(t) so that the output y(t) tracks a
desired bounded reference trajectory r
d
(t) asymptotically.
III. CONTROL DESIGN FOR THE PENDULUM SYSTEM
A. Reference Model
Consider a reference system given by:
x
r
(t) = A
r
x
r
(t) + B
r
r(t), t 0, x
r
(0) = x
r,0
y
r
(t) = C
r
x
r
(t),
(5)
where the matrices A
r
, B
r
, and C
r
are dened as
A
r
=
_

_
0 1 0 0
a
r
21
a
r
22
0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 a
r
43
a
r
44
_

_
,
B
r
=
_

_
0 0
b
r
21
0
0 0
0 b
r
42
_

_
, C
r
=
_
1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
_
,
x
r
(t) =
_
x
r
1
(t) x
r
2
(t) x
r
3
(t) x
r
4
(t)

denotes the
state vector of the reference system, a
r
21
, a
r
22
, a
r
43
, a
r
44
are
such that A
r
is Hurwitz. Let r
d
(t) =
_
r
d1
(t) r
d2
(t)

be the vector of desired smooth bounded reference trajec-

tories. Due to the time-varying nature of r
d
(t) and the
denition of the reference model, if one sets r(t) = r
d
(t),
then y
r
(t) will track r
d
(t) with bounded errors. To force
y
r
(t) track the desired signal r
d
(t) asymptotically and
guarantee zero steady state tracking error, we introduce the
following reference input:
r(t) =
_
a
r
21
b
r
21
0
0
a
r
43
b
r
42
_
r
d
(t) +
_
a
r
22
b
r
21
0
0
a
r
44
b
r
42
_
r
d
(t) +
_
1
b
r
21
0
0
1
b
r
42
_
r
d
(t). (6)
1821
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT. Downloaded on February 12, 2009 at 09:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
It is straightforward to verify that lim
t
(y
r
(t) r
d
(t)) = 0,
where y
r
(t) has been dened in (5).
B. Control Law
Let e(t) = x(t) x
r
(t) be the tracking error. Then the
open-loop tracking error dynamics are given by:
e(t) = F(e(t) + x
r
(t), u(t)) A
r
x
r
(t) B
r
r(t), (7)
with e(0) = e
0
and
F(x, u) =
_
x
2
f
1
(x, u) x
4
f
2
(x, u)
_

,
where f
i
(x, u) have been dened in (3). Dynamic inversion
based control is to be determined from the solution of the
following system of equations
_
f
1
(x, u)
f
2
(x, u)
_
=
_
a
r
21
x
1
a
r
22
x
2
+ b
r
21
r
1
a
r
43
x
3
a
r
44
x
4
+ b
r
42
r
2
_
, (8)
yielding the following asymptotically stable error dynamics:
e(t) = A
r
e(t), e(0) = e
0
.
However, due to the nonlinear expressions in (3), an explicit
expression for u from (8) cannot be obtained, in general.
Following [18], introduce the following fast dynamics to
approximate its solution:
u(t) = (t, e(t), u(t))Q
1
(t, e(t))f (t, e(t), u(t)), (9)
u(0) = u
0
, 0 < 1,
where
f (t, e, u) =
_

_
f
1
(e + x
r
(t), u) + a
r
21
(x
r
1
(t) + e
1
)+
a
r
22
(x
r
2
(t) + e
2
) b
r
21
r
1
(t)
f
2
(e + x
r
(t), u) + a
r
43
(x
r
3
(t) + e
3
)+
a
r
44
(x
r
4
(t) + e
4
) b
r
42
r
2
(t)
_

_
, (10)
Q(t, e) =
_
f
11
(e + x
r
(t)) f
12
(e + x
r
(t))
f
21
(e + x
r
(t)) f
22
(e + x
r
(t))
_
, (11)
and
(t, e, u) =
_
M
1
(e+x
r
(t),u
1
)
u1
0
0
M
2
(e+x
r
(t),u
2
)
u2
_
. (12)
We note that Q(t, e)(t, e, u) is the 2 x 2 Jacobian matrix
_
f1
u
1
(e + x
r
(t), u
1
)
f1
u
2
(e + x
r
(t), u
2
)
f
2
u
1
(e + x
r
(t), u
1
)
f
2
u
2
(e + x
r
(t), u
2
)
_
,
where
f
1
u
1
(e + x
r
(t), u
1
) = f
11
(e + x
r
(t))
M
1
(e + x
r
(t), u
1
)
u
1
f
1
u
2
(e + x
r
(t), u
2
) = f
12
(e + x
r
(t))
M
2
(e + x
r
(t), u
2
)
u
2
f
2
u
1
(e + x
r
(t), u
1
) = f
21
(e + x
r
(t))
M
1
(e + x
r
(t), u
1
)
u
1
f
2
u
2
(e + x
r
(t), u
2
) = f
22
(e + x
r
(t))
M
2
(e + x
r
(t), u
2
)
u
2
.
We also notice that the matrix Q(x) can be row reduced us-
ing the explicit forms of f
11
(x), f
12
(x), f
21
(x) and f
22
(x)
and rewritten as
_
1 q
1
(x)
0 q
2
(x)
_
, (13)
in which
q
2
(x) =
4l
1
m
1
+ 12l
1
m
2
9l
1
m
2
cos
2
(x
3
x
1
)
2l
2
m
2
,= 0
for any x R
4
, which implies that Q(x) is full rank, so
that its inverse, used in (9), is well-dened. We argue that
the solution of the singularly perturbed system (7), (9) will
solve the tracking problem. Towards that end, we recall
Tikhonovs theorem from singular perturbations theory.
IV. CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS OF THE NONAFFINE
CONTROL LAW
A. Tikhonovs Theorem
Consider the problem of solving the following singularly
perturbed system

0
:
_
x(t) = f(t, x(t), u(t), ), x(0) = ()
u(t) = g(t, x(t), u(t), ), u(0) = ()
_
, (14)
where : () and : () are smooth, f
and g are continuously differentiable in their arguments for
(t, x, u, ) [0, ] D
x
D
u
[0,
0
], where D
x
R
n
and D
u
R
m
are domains, and
0
> 0. Let
0
be in
standard form, that is,
0 = g(t, x, u, 0) (15)
has k 1 isolated real roots u = h
i
(t, x), i 1, ..., k
for any (t, x) [0, ] D
x
. Choose one particular i and
drop the subscript henceforth. Let (t, x) = u h(t, x).
Then the system given by

00
: x(t) = f(t, x(t), h(t, x(t), 0), x(0) = (0), (16)
is called the reduced system, and the system given by

b
:
d
d
= g(t, x, + h(t, x), 0), (0) =
0
h(t,
0
) (17)
is called the boundary layer system, where
0
= (0) and

0
= (0) are xed initial parameters, and (t, x) [0, )
D
x
. The new time scale is related to the original one via
=
t

. The next theorem is due to Tikhonov.

Theorem 4.1: Consider the singular perturbation system

0
given in (14) and let u = h(t, x) be an isolated root
of (15). Assume that the following conditions are satised
for all [t, x, u h(t, x), ] [0, ) D
x
D
v
[0,
0
]
for some domains D
x
R
n
and D
v
R
m
, which contain
their respective origins:
A1. On any compact subset of D
x
D
v
, the functions f,
g, their rst partial derivatives with respect to (x, u, ),
and the rst partial derivative of g with respect to t are
continuous and bounded, h(t, x) and
_
g
u
(t, x, u, 0)
_
have bounded rst derivatives with respect to their
1822
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT. Downloaded on February 12, 2009 at 09:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
arguments,
_
f
x
(t, x, h(t, x))
_
is Lipschitz in x, uni-
formly in t, and the initial data given by and are
smooth functions of .
A2. The origin is an exponentially stable equilibrium point
of the reduced system
00
given by equation (16).
There exists a Lyapunov function V : [0, ) D
x

[0, ) that satises
W
1
(x) V (t, x) W
2
(x)
V
t
(t, x) +
V
x
(t, x)f(t, x, h(t, x), 0) W
3
(x)
for all (t, x) [0, ) D
x
, where W
1
, W
2
, W
3
are continuous positive denite functions on D
x
,
and let c be a nonnegative number such that x
D
x
[ W
1
(x) c is a compact subset of D
x
.
A3. The origin is an equilibrium point of the boundary
layer system
b
given by equation (17), which is
exponentially stable uniformly in (t, x).
Let R
v
D
v
denote the region of attraction of the
autonomous system
dv
d
= g(0,
0
, v + h(0,
0
), 0), and let

v
be a compact subset of R
v
. Then for each compact set

x
x D
x
[ W
2
(x) c, 0 < < 1, there exists
a positive constant

such that for all t 0,

0

x
,

0
h(0,
0
)
v
and 0 < <

,
0
has a unique
solution x

on [0, ) and
x

(t) x
00
(t) = O()
holds uniformly for t [0, ), where x
00
(t) denotes the
solution of the reduced system
00
in (16).
We will refer to the following Remark which will be used
to prove exponential stability of the boundary layer system.
Remark 1: Verication of Assumption A3 can be done
via a Lyapunov argument: if there is a Lyapunov function
V : [0, ) D
x
D
v
that satises
c
1
|v|
2
V (t, x, v) c
2
|v|
2
(18)
V
v
g(t, x, v + h(t, x)) c
3
|v|
2
, (19)
for all (t, x, v) [0, ) D
x
D
v
, then Assumption A3
is satised.
B. Convergence Result
The condition in (4) implies existence of an isolated root
for f (t, e, u) = 0. Let u = h(t, e) denote this isolated root.
Following Theorem 4.1, the reduced system for (7), (9) is
given by
e(t) = A
r
e(t), e(0) = e
0
, (20)
and the boundary layer system is given by
d
d
= (t, e, + h(t, e))Q
1
(t, e)f (t, e, + h(t, e)), (21)
with (0) =
0
.
The main theorem of this paper is stated as follows:
Theorem 4.2: Subject to the condition in (4), the origin
of (21) is exponentially stable. Moreover, there exists an

> 0 and a T > 0, such that for all t T and 0 < <

,
the system given by (3), (9) has a unique solution on [0, ),
x

(t) = x
r
(t) + O() holds uniformly for t [T, ).
Proof. We will verify that the assumptions in Tikhonovs
theorem are satised. Verication of A1 is straightforward,
since the condition in (4) implies that for any compact
subset, the function f and its rst partial derivatives with
respect to t are continuous and bounded, h(t, e) and
f
u
(t, e, + h(t, e)) have bounded rst derivatives with
respect to their arguments, and
f
e
(t, e, + h(t, e)) is
Lipschitz in e, uniformly in t. Since A
r
is Hurwitz by
denition, the origin is an exponentially stable equilibrium
point for the reduced system given in (20), and, hence, A2
is satised.
For verication of A3, consider the following Lyapunov
function candidate for the boundary layer system (21):
V (t, e, ()) =
_
Q
1
(t, e)f (t, e, () + h(t, e))
_

_
Q
1
(t, e)f (t, e, () + h(t, e))
_
. (22)
Since f (t, e, h(t, e)) = 0, then Q
1
(t, e)f (t, e, h(t, e)) = 0,
and hence V (t, e, 0) = 0. Therefore
V (t, e, ) =
_
L
V (t, e, s)ds, (23)
where
_
L
assumes integration along the
pass L from zero to , and V (t, e, ) =
_
Q
1
(t, e)f (t, e, + h(t, e))
_

(t, e, + h(t, e)).

Since
f (t, e, + h(t, e))

= Q(t, e)(t, e, + h(t, e)), (24)

then f (t, e, + h(t, e)) =
_
L
Q(t, e)(t, e, s + h(t, e))ds.
Hence, it follows from (23) that
V (t, e, ) =
_
L
__
L1
Q(t, e)(t, e, s
1
+ h(t, e))ds
1
_

(Q
1
(t, e))

(t, e, s + h(t, e))ds,

and consequently,
V (t, e, ) =
_
L
_
L
1
(ds
1
)

(t, e, s
1
+ h(t, e))
(t, e, s + h(t, e))ds, (25)
where
_
L
,
_
L
1
assume integration along the pass L and L
1
from zero to , s, respectively. From (4), (12), one can de-
rive that
min
_

(t, e, s
1
+ h(t, e))(t, e, s + h(t, e))
_

min(
2
1
,
2
2
), where
min
() denotes the minimum eigen-
value. Consequently,
V (t, e, )
_
L
_
L
1

min
_

(t, e, s
1
+ h(t, e))
_
(t, e, s + h(t, e)))(ds
1
)

ds
=
_
||||
0
_

0

min
_

(t, e, s
1
+ h(t, e))
_
(t, e, s + h(t, e))) dd. (26)
Therefore,
V (t, e, ) c
1
[[[[
2
. (27)
1823
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT. Downloaded on February 12, 2009 at 09:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Condition A1 implies that there exists c
2
such that
V (t, e, ) c
2
[[[[
2
, which veries (18). Using the rela-
tionships in (21) and (22), one obtains

V (t, e, ) = (Q
1
(t, e)f (t, e, + h(t, e)))

(t, e, + h(t, e))

(t, e, + h(t, e))

Q
1
(t, e)f (t, e, + h(t, e))
(28)
= f

(t, e, + h(t, e))(Q

1
(t, e))

(t, e, + h(t, e))

(t, e, + h(t, e))

Q
1
(t, e)f (t, e, + h(t, e)),
which implies that

V (t, e, ) 2c
1
V (t, e, ). Con-
sequently, the inequality in (27) leads to

V (t, e, )
2c
2
1
[[[[
2
, and this proves that (19) holds with c
3
=
2c
2
1
. Hence, A3 holds, and the boundary layer (21) has
exponentially stable origin. Following Tikhonovs theorem,
there exists an

> 0 and a T > 0, such that for all t T

and 0 < <

, the system given by (3), (9) has a unique

solution, x

(t) on [0, ), and x

(t) = x
r
(t) + O() holds
uniformly for t [T, ).
V. SIMULATIONS
For simplicity, let m
1
= m
2
= 1 kg, l
1
= l
2
= 1 m,
and let g = 9.81 m/s
2
. Since actuator models are often
represented by hyperbolic tangent functions of control input
u, we assume that M
1
and M
2
are given as
M
1
(u
1
) = tanh(u
1
) + 0.35u
1
M
2
(u
2
) = tanh(u
2
) + 0.25u
2
,
so that
M
1
(u
1
)
u
1
0.35 > 0,
M
2
(u
2
)
u
2
0.25 > 0.
From (13) it follows that the matrices Q(t, x) and (u) are
given by
Q(x) =
_
f
11
(x) f
12
(x)
f
21
(x) f
22
(x)
_
,
(u) =
_
1.35 tanh
2
(u
1
) 0
0 1.25 tanh
2
(u
2
)
_
.
We consider the following reference input:
r
d
(t) =
_
sin (t) + e
t
sin (2t) + e
t
.
(29)
This parametrization ensures that as the exponential term
decays, x
1
and x
3
follow a gure pattern as described
in [20]. Let
A
r
=
_

_
0 1 0 0
20 9 0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 6 5
_

_
, B
r
=
_

_
0 0
20 0
0 0
0 6
_

_
.
In order to ensure asymptotic convergence of the states
x
1
(t) and x
3
(t) to the reference input, we dene r(t) as
r(t) =
_
1 0
0 1
_
r
d
(t) +
_
9
20
0
0
5
6
_
r
d
(t) +
_
1
20
0
0
1
6
_
r
d
(t).
The fast dynamics are designed as:
0.003 u(t) = (u(t))(Q
1
(t, e))

f (t, e, u(t)),
u
0
=
_
0 0

,

where
f (t, e, u) =
_

_
f
1
(e + x
r
(t), u) + 20(e
1
+ x
r
1
(t))+
9(e
2
+ x
r
2
(t)) 20
_
r
d1
(t) +
9
20
r
d1
(t)
_

r
d1
(t)
f
2
(e + x
r
(t), u) + 6(e
3
+ x
r
3
(t))+
5(e
4
+ x
r
4
(t)) 6
_
r
d2
(t) +
5
6
r
d2
(t)
_

r
d2
(t)
_

_
.
The initial values used for this numerical simulation are:
x
0
= [0 0 0 0]

and x
r
0
= [0 0 0 0]

. The plots in Figures

2, 3 show the simulation results. Figure 2 shows the closed-
loop tracking performance of the reference state x
r
(t) to
the desired reference trajectory r
d
(t) and the closed-loop
tracking performance of the reference state x
r
(t) by system
state x(t), while Figure 3 shows the phase plot of the states
x
1
(t) and x
2
(t) and the control effort u(t). Note that all
signals are bounded and x(t) tracks r
d
(t).
0 5 10 15 20
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
Reference State Tracking of Reference Input
time, t in sec
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
0 5 10 15 20
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
System State Tracking of Reference State
time,t in sec
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
Fig. 2. (top) Output y(t) (dashed lines) and reference input r
d
(t) (solid
lines), (bottom) system output y(t) (dashed lines) and reference output
y
r
(t) (solid lines).
1824
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT. Downloaded on February 12, 2009 at 09:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
60 40 20 0 20 40 60
100
50
0
50
100
Phase Plot
state x
1
s
t
a
t
e

x
3
0 5 10 15 20
40
20
0
20
40
Control Effort, u
time,t in sec
m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Fig. 3. (top) Phase plot of system states x
1
versus x
3
, and (bottom)
control input u(t) (u
1
solid line, u
2
dashed line).
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, using tools from singular perturbations the-
ory, we have solved the tracking problem for the nonafne
pendulum dynamics. An approximate dynamic inversion
control method was developed that achieved time-scale
separation between the system dynamics and the controller
dynamics. This was veried using Tikhonovs theorem from
singular perturbations theory.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Omatu and S. Deris. Stabilization of inverted pendulum by the
genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Emerging
Technologies and Factory Automation, 1:282287, 1996.
[2] M. Uchida and K. Nakano. Swing up of an inverted pendulum by
simulator-based foresight control. In Proceeding of IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Control Applications, 2:12551259.
[3] O. Gonz alez and W. Pomales. Nonlinear control of swing-up inverted
pendulum. In Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on
Control Applications, 18:259264, 1996.
[4] O. Egeland, A.S. Shiriaev, H. Ludvigsen and A.L. Fradkov. Swinging
up of non-afne in control pendulum. In Proceedings of American
Control Conference, 6:40394044, 1999.
[5] M. Spong. The swing up control problem for the Acrobot. IEEE
Control Systems Magazine, 15(1):4955, 1995.
[6] R. Lozano, I. Fantoni and M. Spong. Energy based control of the
pendubot. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(4):725729,
2000.
[7] W. Sturgeon and J. Ridgecrest. Physical reasons for the uncontrol-
lability of a double inverted pendulum. In Proceedings of AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Austin, TX, AIAA
2003-5565, 2003.
[8] A. Rubio, J. Rubi and A. Avello. Swing-up control problem for
a self-erecting double inverted pendulum. In Proceedings of IEE
Control Theory and Applications, 149(2):169175, 2002.
[9] D. Block and M. Spong. Mechanical design and control of the
pendubot. In Proceedings of SAE International Technical Paper
Series, Preoria, IL, 1995.
[10] Z. Tan, H. Zhang, Z. Li, Y. Wang and Y. Wen. Swinging-up and
handstand-control of cart-double-pendulum system and experiment
analysis. 5th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation,
3:2360-2364, 2004.
[11] X. Li, Z. Li, Q. Chen and H. Inooka. Human simulating intelligent
control and its application to swinging-up of cart-pendulum. 5th
World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, 3:2423-2427,
2004.
[12] T. Narukawa, M. Takahashi and K. Yoshida. Intelligent stabilization
control to an arbitrary equilibrium point of double pendulum. In
Proceedings of American Control Conference, pp. 57725777, 2004.
[13] T. Hoshina, M. Yamakita and K. Furuta. Control practice using
pendulum. In Proceedings of American Control Conference, pp. 490
494, 1999.
[14] Y. Jianqiang, G. Weiping, L. Diantong and Z. Dongbin. Passivity-
based-control for double-pendulum-type overhead cranes. In Pro-
ceedings of IEEE Region 10 Conference, D(4):546549, 2004.
[15] W.E. Singhose and S.T. Towell. Double-pendulum gantry crane dy-
namics and control. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference
on Control Applications, 2:1205 1209, 1998.
[16] A. Mazzoleni and S. Smith. Modeling and stability of a rotating
double pendulum with cubic nonlinearities. In Proceedings of AIAA
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, New
Orleans, Lousiana, AIAA-1995-1187, 1995.
[17] L. Chen, J. Bo skovi c and R. Mehra. Adaptive control design for
nonafne models arising in ight control. Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, 27(2):209217, 2004.
[18] N. Hovakimyan, E. Lavretsky and C. Cao. Dynamic inversion of
multi-input nonafne systems via time-scale separation. In Proceed-
ings of American Control Conference, Minneapolis, MN, 2006.
[19] D.T. Greenwood. Principles of dynamics. Prentice Hall, 1988.
[20] L. Schenato. Analysis and control of apping ight: from biological
to robotic insects. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley,
2003.
1825
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT. Downloaded on February 12, 2009 at 09:58 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.