Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10846-015-0255-6
is regulated by adjusting the desired normal force in most practical friction cases a conventional regulator
order to remain within the friction cone [13]; if friction which is designed with the constrained model fails to
is unknown, touch sensors that identify imminent slip achieve rolling. The proposed controller is further val-
must be utilized in this case. The design of a control idated via experiments with a KUKA LWR4+ in the
law which drives the rolling error to zero is pro- kinematic level.
posed for the planar case [7]; however, as rolling error The remainder of this article is structured as fol-
convergence to zero is dependant on the appropriate lows. Section 2 is devoted to the modeling of a
choice of control parameters with respect to envi- robotic finger with soft semi spherical tip in contact
ronmental conditions, significant sliding may occur. with a rigid planar surface. Section 3 analyses the
Summarizing the current state of the art, achieving contact kinematics focusing on the contact relative
rolling motion has been disregarded as a control objec- velocity which determines the contact motion type.
tive and has in practice relied on favorable friction Section 4 presents the method for generating an ideal
conditions. rolling motion trajectory and the design of the pro-
In this work the problem of controlling the posed prescribed performance control law. Prescribed
rolling of a spherical tip towards a desired posi- performance preliminaries are given in Appendix A
tion is addressed by the planning and control of an and the stability proof of the proposed controller in
ideal rolling trajectory. The proposed control solution Appendix B. Simulation and experimental results ver-
employs the prescribed performance control method- ifying the approach are presented in Sections 5 and 6
ology initially proposed in [4] which guarantees a respectively and conclusions are drawn in Section 7.
preselected transient and steady state behavior of
the tracking error. Following the prescribed perfor-
mance approach, novel model-free controllers have 2 Problem Presentation and Preliminaries
been designed for both unconstrained and constrained
robot motion [3, 8, 9]. The current paper is an exten- Let us consider the system of an nq degrees of freedom
sion of the conference paper [6] where the basic idea robotic finger with revolute joints and soft semi-
of planning an ideal rolling trajectory is presented. spherical tip of radius r in compliant contact with a
Compared to [6], the current paper contains the design rigid planar surface as depicted in Fig. 1. Let q ∈ nq
of a novel control solution for motion/force tracking denote its joint position vector. The dynamic model of
that is structurally and computationally simpler and the system can be written as follows [14]:
its validation through both simulation and experimen-
M(q)q̈ + C(q, q̇)q̇ + G(q) + J T (q)F = u (1)
tal studies. Specifically, a five degrees of freedom
robot finger with a soft tip in contact with a planar where M(q) ∈ nq ×nq is the positive definite robot
surface is simulated to show the robustness of the inertia matrix satisfying 0 < m ≤ M(q) ≤ m for
proposed approach with respect to the contact fric- some positive constants m, m, C(q, q̇)q̇ ∈ nq is the
tion condition. Simulations further demonstrate that in vector of Coriolis and centripetal forces, G(q) ∈ nq
T
is the gravity vector, J (q) = JvT (q) JωT (q) ∈ The goal of this work is the robust control of
6×nq is the robot Jacobian, F ∈ 6 is the interaction Eq. 1 in such a way that guarantees a rolling contact
force arising at the contact and u ∈ nq is the vector motion towards a target location under any contact
of applied joint torques. friction conditions as well as tracking or regulation of
Throughout our analysis, we assume known robot a desired contact force.
kinematics. Let frame {t} be the frame attached at
the center of the soft semi-spherical tip. Let pt =
[xt yt zt ]T ∈ 3 and Rt = [nt ot at ] be the tip’s posi- 3 Contact Kinematic Analysis
tion and orientation with respect to the robot’s base
frame {B}. The tip’s rotational velocity ωt ∈ 3 is Let us define the contact point c of the robotic finger-
given by ω̂t S(ωt ) = Ṙt RtT with S(.) being the tip upon the surface {S} as the geometrical center of
skew-symmetric matrix of the vector argument. The the contact area (Fig. 1). Let frame {C} of same ori-
robot tip velocity Vt is related to the joint velocity q̇ entation as frame {S} be attached at contact point c
through the robot Jacobian J (q) as follows: with pc ∈ 3 and Rc = Rs defining its position and
orientation respectively. In the following analysis, left
ṗt
Vt = = J (q)q̇ (2) superscripts of vectors are used to denote the frame of
ωt reference unless this is the inertia frame {B}, in which
Moreover, the contacted surface is also assumed to be case they are omitted. Let ptc = (r − χ)n ∈ 3
of known position and orientation with respect to the and psc ∈ 3 denote the position of the contact point
robot’s base frame {B}. Let {S} be the fixed surface c in frames {t} and {S} respectively. The existence
frame (Fig. 1) with position ps ∈ 3 and rotation of a contact between the tip and the surface can be
matrix Rs = [t1 t2 n] with respect to {B}. mathematically expressed as follows:
The interaction force F that is assumed to be avail-
able for measurement consists of: (i) the force normal pt + ptc = ps + psc (7)
to the surface Nw F where Nw = nw nTw with nw =
T T T
n 03×1 the generalized normal vector to the sur- Clearly psc = Rs s psc and ptc = Rt t ptc . Differentia-
face and (ii) the tangential forces and torques due to tion of the latter equation yields:
friction and tangential deformations Qw F with Qw =
I6 − Nw the tangential projection matrix. Regarding ṗtc = ω̂t ptc + Rt t ṗtc (8)
the normal force magnitude f = nTw F , we shall adopt
the following nonlinear spring-like model for the sake Differentiating Eq. 7 using Eq. 8 and ṗsc = Rs s ṗsc
of the analysis: yields ṗt + ω̂t ptc = Rs s ṗsc − Rt t ṗtc which can be
written as follows:
f = f(χ) , ∀χ > 0 (3)
with f(·) being a positive strictly increasing and con- Jf χ Vt = Vrel (9)
tinuously differentiable nonlinear function and χ the
material deformation of the robot’s soft tip that is where Jf χ = [I3 − (r − χ)n̂] with I3 being the
apparently given by: identity matrix of dimension 3, is the Jacobian that
relates the generalized tip velocity Vt with the relative
χ = r + nT (pt − ps ) (4) translational velocity of c given by Vrel = Rs s ṗsc −
with Rt t ṗtc . Notice that relative velocity Vrel is defined
as the difference between the velocity of c on the
χ̇ = nT ṗt (5) contacted surface Rs s ṗsc and the robot tip surface
Rt t ṗtc respectively.
its derivative. Thus, the derivative of f is given by: Notice that multiplying Eq. 9 with nT using Eq. 5
f˙ = ∂f (χ) χ̇ (6) yields the velocity of the material deformation:
df(χ )
where ∂f (χ) dχ is strictly positive for all χ > 0. nT Vrel = χ̇ (10)
J Intell Robot Syst
that is zero in case of a rigid robotic fingertip. Addi- forces. Therefore it is imperative to consider the
tionally, multiplying Eq. 9 with t1T and t2T yields the rolling motion as one of the control objectives and
two coordinates of the relative translational velocity design the controller accordingly.
Vrel of c along t1 , t2 , which define the sliding velocity
Vsl : Remark 2 Apart from the rolling motion, the spin
motion is often modeled as a constraint. The spin
vsl1 t1T Vrel motion occurs when ωsp = nT ωt = 0 that is when ωt
Vsl (11)
vsl2 t2T Vrel has a component on the normal to the surface direction
expressing rotation of the fingertip around the nor-
mal n-axis. As this motion does not contribute to the
Utilizing −t1T n̂ = t2T and t2T n̂ = t1T , the sliding
translation of the contact point to another position on
velocity coordinates are related to the tip velocity as
the surface, the kinetic energy associated with it may
follows:
be considered wasted. If friction is considerable as it
is the case of soft fingertips, inducing a spin motion
vsl1 = t1T Vrel = [t1T (r − χ)t2T ]Vt (12) may also require excessive torques. Thus, spinning has
vsl2 = t2T Vrel = [t2T − (r − χ)t1T ]Vt (13) been treated as an undesirable feature and has been in
general modeled by a non-spin constraint. The spin-
Moreover, taking into consideration (2), Eqs. 12, 13 ning rotational velocity expressed in joint space is:
can be written compactly as follows:
ωsp = 01×3 nT J (q)q̇ (16)
A(q)q̇ = Vsl (14)
where φ̇d (t) is a desired rolling velocity and k ∈ 3 where Rt (0) is the initial orientation of the robot tip,
is a constant axis of rotation which is parallel to the while the desired tip position reference trajectory with
surface forming an orthogonal system with the path respect to the surface frame can be calculated by
vector p and n, i.e. k̂p = n; apparently, k T n = 0 and
k T p = 0. Notice that the axis of rotation k is uniquely t
b1 = t1T (pt − ps ) Let fd (t) ∈ denote the desired trajectory for the
b2 = t2T (pt − ps ) (20) normal force’s magnitude f that the robotic fingertip
must apply at the contact point. Trajectory bd (t) =
[bd1 (t) bd2 (t)]T with bd1 (t), bd2 (t) calculated from
we can alternatively write (18) and (19) as: Eq. 26 is the desired tip position trajectory upon the
contacted surface, while Rd (t) = [nd od ad ] derived
vsl1 = ḃ1 + t2T ωt (r − χ) (21) from Eq. 25 expresses its desired orientation with
respect to the inertia frame {B}.
vsl2 = ḃ2 − t1T ωt (r − χ) (22)
Consequently, we may define the following posi-
tion, force and orientation tracking errors:
In pure rolling motion the desired translational tip
velocity trajectories can then be calculated from ep = b − bd (t)
Eqs. 21 and 22 substituting ωt (t) by ωd (t) setting
ef = f − fd (t) (27)
vsl1 = vsl2 = 0:
eo = 0.5(nt × nd + ot × od + at × ad )
Our control design follows the prescribed perfor- Table 1 Robot parameters
mance methodology whose preliminaries are given
Links 1 2 3
in Appendix A. According to the prescribed perfor-
mance method and without loss of generality, we can Masses (Kg) 0.1 0.05 0.05
choose performance functions ρp (t), ρf (t), ρo (t) and Lengths (m) 0.4 0.3 0.2
overshoot parameters Mp , Mf , Mo for each error Inertias (Kg m2 )
component of ep , ef , eo respectively. Moreover, Mf Ix (×10−4 ) 1.44 0.8 0.48
and ρf (t) are selected so that contact maintenance can Iy (×10−6 ) 6.72 2.952 1.021
be guaranteed. In fact, we choose Mf , ρf (t) to sat- Iz (×10−6 ) 6.72 2.952 1.021
isfy either (a) inft≥0 {−Mf ρf (t) + fd (t)} > 0 in case
ef (0) ≥ 0 or (b) inft≥0 {−ρf (t) + fd (t)} > 0 in case
ef (0) ≤ 0. Then, satisfaction of Eq. 41 for the force and αp , αf , αo are positive design constants. We can
error ef further guarantees: map this signal in the joint space assuming a full rank
f >f >0 (29) Jacobian:
with f inft≥0 {−Mf ρf (t) + fd (t)} in case ef (0) ≥ q̇r = Js−1 (q)Vr , q̇r ∈ nq (34)
0 and f inft≥0 {−ρf (t) + fd (t)} in case ef (0) ≤ 0, where Js (q) is defined as follows:
that implies contact maintenance [3]. T
Taking into consideration (43), we define the fol- Rs 03×3
Js (q) = J (q) (35)
lowing modulated errors: 03×3 I3
ep ef
yp (t) = [yp1 (t) yp2 (t)]T = , yf (t) = Notice that in the redundant case, the Jacobian pseudo-
ρp (t) ρf (t)
eo
inverse can be used.
yo (t) = [yo1 (t) yo2 (t) yo3 (t)]T = (30) Let us define further the error:
ρo (t)
Consequently, we define the transformation errors for sq = q̇ − q̇r , sq ∈ nq (36)
position, force and orientation as follows:
and choose a performance function ρs (t) and an over-
εp = [εp1 εp2 ]T , εf ∈ shoot parameter Ms , common to each of its com-
εo = [εo1 εo2 εo3 ]T (31) ponents. Notice that this performance bound is not
associated with the output error performance which
where components εj i are calculated via the transfor-
is solely determined by the ρj (t), j ∈ {p, f, o}.
mation functions Tj i (·) utilizing (45), (48) with j ∈
{p, f, o}, i = 1, 2 for j = p, i = 1 for j = f ,
i = 1, 2, 3 for j = o . (a)
We propose the following intermediate control sig- 0
nal Vr ∈ 6 at the task space:
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ −0.02
vrp −αp (∂Tp−1 + ∂Tp )εp
Vr ≡ ⎣ vrf ⎦ ≡ ⎣ −αf (∂Tf−1 + ∂Tf )εf ⎦ (32) −0.04
1 dTf −0.06
∂Tf
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
ρf (t) d yf (t)
1 dToi Fig. 2 Position error. a Solid line - μf r = 10. Dashed line -
∂To diag i = 1, 2, 3 (33)
ρo (t) d (yoi (t)) constrained model. b μf r = 0.1
J Intell Robot Syst
(a) 1.8
−3
5 x 10
1.6 4
1.4 3
0 2
1.2
1
1
0
−5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.8 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
(b) 0.6
5
0.4
0.2
0
0
Similarly to Eq. 30, we define the modulated error The proposed control law is now given by:
for sq :
u = −β∂Ts εs (39)
sq
ys (t) = [ys1 (t) ... ysnq (t)]T = ρs (t) (37) where
1 dTsi
and subsequently the transformation error εs as fol- ∂Ts diag , i = 1, ..., nq (40)
ρs (t) d (ysi (t))
lows:
and β is a positive design constant. It is proven that the
εs = [εs1 ... εsnq ]T (38) controller (39), achieves the boundedness of εp , εf , εo
and εs thus guaranteeing prescribed performance for
the tracking errors ep , ef , eo as well as the errors sq
with its components calculated via the transformation while maintaining contact. The proof can be found in
functions Tsi (·), i = 1, ..., nq utilizing (45), (48). the Appendix B.
2
0.39
0.702
0.35 0.5
X: 0.3729
0.378 Y: 0.3729
0.34 0.374
X: 0.33 0.37
Y: 0.33 0
0.33
0.37 0.374 0.378
0.32 −0.5
0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Fig. 4 Path on surface. Black solid line - μf r = 10. Blue Fig. 6 Relative rotational angle φ. Dashed line - constrained
dashed line - constrained model. grey solid line - μf r = 0.1 model
J Intell Robot Syst
(a) (a)
0.4 10
0.3
X: 0.5 X: 2.5 5
0.2 Y: 0.2793 Y: 0.2793 5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.1
(b)
0 0.38
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.36
(b)
0.34 0.33
0.8 0 0.06
0.04 0.32
0.6 0.02 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
(c)
0.4 0 0.38
0 0.2 0.4
0.2 0.36
0.34 0.33
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.06
0.32
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.37
0.36
0.2 1
0 0.8
0.5
0.6
−0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
−5
x 10 0.4
10 −0.5
0.00006 0.2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
5 0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0
−0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
−5
x 10 −0.4
10
0.00008
5 −0.6
0
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
−0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 −1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Initially, we consider a regulator whose design is Figs. 5 and 6 reveal how the contact motion is sliding
based on the rolling constrained model and is given by more and more as the friction coefficient is reduced.
the following control law: u = frd Jv (q)T (ptd − pt ) − Using the axis k-angle φ parameterization for the fin-
C q̇ + G(q) [16]. Simulation results for different fric- gertip’s relative to Rt (0) orientation, Fig. 6 depicts
tion coefficients as well as for the constrained robot angle φ; k remains constant and is omitted. Clearly as
(15) are presented in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Notice that μf r takes lower values the fingertip’s rolling angle is
the required friction coefficient must be 10 or higher reduced and take even negative values at the lowest
in order to achieve the constrained model response. friction indicating an initial spin. Also notice that in
Although position and force error responses (Figs. 2 case of the lowest μf r , there is a small overshoot at the
and 3) show successful and fast target reaching follow- end of the path (Fig. 4 - grey solid line) also observed
ing a straight line path (Fig. 4) in most practical cases in the respective position error response (Fig. 2-b).
the contact is sliding. In particular the sliding velocity These results demonstrate the need to account rolling
and the relative orientation of the fingertip depicted in as an explicit control objective.
−4
x 10
2
0 0.1
0
−2 0.08
−0.0004
−4 0 0.15
0.06
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
−4
x 10 0.04
4 0.0004 0.02 X: 0.04998
2 0 Y: −0.0008689
0 0.15 0
0
−2 −0.02
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
−4 −0.04
x 10
2
−0.06
0 −0.08
−2 −0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Fig. 11 Orientation error responses. Red dashed lines - pre- Fig. 13 Contact sliding velocity coordinates at the beginning
scribed performance bounds of the motion
J Intell Robot Syst
0.4 0
0 0.1 0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
(a) (b)
Fig. 15 Initial and final configuration Fig. 16 Preplanned (grey line) and actual rotation angle
J Intell Robot Syst
−3
0.52 x 10
4
0.5
2
0 −3 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
x 10
5 0
0 −2
−5 −4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
−3
6 x 10
4
4 2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 −2
−4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Fig. 17 Desired (grey line) and actual position on the surface
and normal force
Fig. 19 Position error responses. Dashed lines - prescribed
performance bounds
−4
x 10
5 5
−5
0 −4 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0
x 10
5
−5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
−5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
e(t) Appendix B
y(t) = (43)
ρ(t)
Substituting q̇ from Eq. 2 and q̇r from Eq. 34 while
Its derivative is given by: utilizing ṗt = Rs s ṗt and Eq. 35, the error sq defined
in Eq. 36 can be written as follows:
s
1 ṗt
ẏ(t) = ė(t) − ρ̇(t)y(t) (44) sq = Js−1 (q) − Vr (49)
ρ(t) ωt
J Intell Robot Syst
Utilizing (4), (7) and (20), the robot tip’s position with where
respect to frame {S} is calculated as follows:
h(q, q̇) = M −1 (q) C(q, q̇)q̇ + G(q) + J T (q)F
s
pt = RsT (pt − ps ) = [bT − (r − χ)]T (50)
while q̈r can be calculated from Eq. 34:
Substituting the derivative of Eq. 50 in Eq. 49 yields:
⎡ ⎤ q̈r = J˙s−1 (q)Vr + Js−1 (q)V̇r
ḃ (55)
sq = Js−1 (q) ⎣ χ̇ ⎦ − Vr (51) Subtracting ρ̇p (t)yp (t) from both sides of the first
ωt equation in Eq. 54 and multiplying from left by ρp1(t)
Considering Vr from Eq. 32, we can write (51) as while taking into consideration (44) we obtain:
follows: 1
⎡ ⎤ ẏp (t) = evp + vrp − ḃd (t) − ρ̇p (t)yp (t) (56)
evp ρp (t)
sq = Js−1 (q) ⎣ evf ⎦ (52) Similarly for the rest of the equations in Eq. 54:
evo
where: 1
ẏf (t) = ∂f(χ )evf + ∂f(χ )vrf − f˙d (t) − ρ̇f (t)yf (t)
ρf (t)
1
evp = ḃ−vrp , evf = χ̇ −vrf , evo = ωt −vro ẏo (t) = Levo + Lvro − Lωd (t) − ρ̇o (t)yo (t) (57)
ρo (t)
(53)
1
ẏs (t) = − h(q, q̇) − βM −1 (q)∂Ts εs − q̈r − ρ̇s (t)ys (t)
ρs (t)
Differentiating task errors (27) and error sq (36)
utilizing (1),(6),(28),(39) and (53) yields:
Taking together (56) and (57) we can write compactly:
ėp = evp + vrp − ḃd (t) ẏ(t) = z(t, y(t)) (58)
ėf = ∂f(χ)evf + ∂f(χ)vrf − f˙d (t) (54) where
ėo = Levo + Lvro − Lωd (t) T
−1 y(t) = ypT (t)yf (t)yoT (t)ysT (t) ∈ (6+nq ) (59)
ṡq = −h(q, q̇) − βM (q)∂Ts εs − q̈r
where for k = p, i = 1, 2, for k = f , i = 1, for k = o, bounded as in Eq. 41 while the transformed errors
i = 1, 2, 3 and for k = s, i = 1, ..., nq . According to εp , εf , εo and εs are
well defined.
Multiplying (56)
the prescribed performance methodology (Appendix dT
from left by diag pi
, i = 1, 2, taking into
A), parameters ρk (0), k = p, f, o, s are selected so d ypi (t)
that y(0) ∈ Ω. Since z(t, y(t)) in Eq. 58 is locally consideration (47) and utilizing (33) we obtain:
Lipschitz in y(t) on the set Ω, continuous and locally
integrable on t for each y(t) ∈ Ω, there exist a unique ε̇p = ∂Tp evp + vrp − ḃd (t) − ρ̇p (t)yp (t) (61)
solution y(t): [0, τmax ) → Ω of Eq. 58 on the time
interval [0, τmax ) with τmax > 0 such that y(t) ∈ Ω,
∀t ∈ [0, τmax ) [15]. Similarly, regarding the equations in Eq. 57 we derive:
Since y(t) ∈ Ω, ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ) or equivalently
q̇, ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ) that leads to the boundedness of Vt Thus, Eq. 73 becomes:
(2). In addition, ε̇p , ε̇f and ε̇o are bounded because of
Eqs. 61, 62 leading to the boundedness of ėp , ėf , ėo γ −1 β T γm
V̇2 ≤ − εs ∂Ts 2 +
since Eq. 47 holds generally. After some minor cal- 2γ m 2β(γ − 1)
culations while taking into consideration that J˙(q, q̇), 2
√
J˙s (q, q̇) are bounded ∀y(t) ∈ Ω, ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ), it is h + q + nq sup{|ρ̇s (t)|} (74)
t≥0
easily shown that V̇r remains bounded as well, which
in turn yields the boundedness of q̈r from Eq. 55. or compactly:
Finally, we can deduce from Eq. 53 that ḃ and χ̇
remain also bounded ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ). V̇2 ≤ −c3 εsT ∂Ts 2 + c2 (75)
Step 2:
where c3 , c2 are positive constants defined as:
Consider the positive definite and radially unbounded
function: γ −1 β
c3
2γ m
1 2
V2 = εs 2 (71) γm √
2 c2 h + q + nq sup{|ρ̇s (t)|} (76)
2β(γ − 1) t≥0
The time derivative of Eq. 71 can be calculated using
the last equation of Eq. 62 as follows: Hence from Eq. 75, we can deduce the uniform ulti-
mate boundedness
of εsT ∂Ts with respect
to the set
V̇2 = −βεsT ∂Ts M −1 ∂Ts εs c2
E2 = εsT ∂Ts ∈ : εsT ∂Ts ≤ c3 . There-
−εsT ∂Ts h(q, q̇) + q̈r + ρ̇s (t)ys (t) (72)
fore since εsT ∂Ts ≤ τ with τ > 0 a constant
Taking into consideration sup{ysi (t)} = 1, i = upper bound, it is easy to conclude that |εsi ∂Tsi | =
1, ..., nq , ∀y(t) ∈ Ω, ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ) and q̈r ≤ q, |εsi ||∂Tsi | ≤ τ , ∀i = 1, ..., nq . Additionally, 0 <
h(q, q̇) ≤ h for some positive q, h since q, q̇ and ρs (∞) < ρs (t) < ρs (0)holds by definition and trans-
q̈r are already proven to be bounded in Step 1 , we can formation function Tsi ysi (t) is strictly increasing
upper bound (72) as follows: leading to dTsi
≥ τsi > 0 for a constant τsi ,
d ysi (t)
β i = 1, ..., nq . Thus, ∂Tsi = dTsi
1 ≥ τsi
ρs (0) ,
V̇2 ≤ − εsT ∂Ts 2 + εsT ∂Ts d ysi (t) ρs (t)
m i = 1, ..., nq which in terms gives:
√
h + q + nq sup{|ρ̇s (t)|} (73)
t≥0 τ ρs (0)
|εsi | ≤ (77)
β τsi
Term −m εsT ∂Ts 2 can be split as below:
The boundedness of εs is deduced from Eq. 77,
β 1β T ∀y(t) ∈ Ω, ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ) which combined with
− εsT ∂Ts 2 = − ε ∂Ts 2
m γm s the boundedness of ∂Ts (40), ∀y(t) ∈ Ω leads to
γ −1 β T γ −1 β T the fact that the control law u (39) is also bounded
− ε ∂Ts 2 − ε ∂Ts 2
2γ m s 2γ m s ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ).
with γ > 1 a constant. Subsequently, we can write Step 3
after completing the squares:
Concerning the solution y(t): [0, τmax ) → Ω of
Eq. 58 on the time interval [0, τmax ) with τmax > 0,
−
γ −1 β T √
εs ∂Ts 2 + εsT ∂Ts h + q + nq sup{|ρ̇s (t)|} if τmax < ∞ then for any compact set Ω
⊂ Ω there
2γ m t≥0 exists a time instant t
∈ [0, τmax ) such that y(t
) ∈
/ Ω
2
γm √ [15]. We will proceed to show that this supposition
≤ h + q + nq sup{|ρ̇s (t)|}
2β(γ − 1) t≥0 leads to contradiction.
J Intell Robot Syst
Suppose that τmax < ∞. We have proven the stated at the beginning of Step 3, that there exists a
boundedness of ε and εs , ∀y(t) ∈ Ω, ∀t ∈ time instant t
∈ [0, τmax ) such that y(t
) ∈
/ Ω
if
[0, τmax ), hence we can write: τmax < ∞. Hence, τmax = ∞ and thus y(t) ∈ Ω,
∀t ≥ 0, which completes the proof.
ε ≤ ε1
εs ≤ ε2 (78)
References
for some positive constant upper boundaries ε1 , ε2 .
Clearly, Eq. 78 yields:
1. Andrianesis, K., Tzes, A.: Development and control of
a multifunctional prosthetic hand with shape memory
−ε1 ≤ εj i ≤ ε1 j ∈ {p, f, o} (79) alloy actuators. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 78(2), 257–289
(2015)
with i = 1, 2 for j = p, i = 1 for j = f , i = 1, 2, 3 2. Arimoto, S.: Control theory of multi-fingered hands: a
for j = o and modelling and analytical–mechanics approach for dexterity
and intelligence. Springer (2008)
−ε2 ≤ εsi ≤ ε2 (80) 3. Bechlioulis, C., Doulgeri, Z., Rovithakis, G.: Guarantee-
ing prescribed performance and contact maintenance via an
approximation free robot force/position cotroller. Automat-
with i = 1, ..., nq . Taking into consideration the prop-
ica 48, 360–365 (2012)
erties of the inverse transformation function, it is easy 4. Bechlioulis, C., Rovithakis, G.: Robust adaptive control of
to derive from Eqs. 79, 80 that: feedback linearizable MIMO nonlinear systems with pre-
scribed performance. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 53(9),
Tj−1 −1
i (−ε1 ) < yj i (t) < Tj i (ε1 )
2090–2099 (2008)
5. Bicchi, A.: Hands for dexterous manipulation and robust
Tsi−1 (−ε2 ) < ysi (t) < Tsi−1 (ε2 ) ∀j, i (81) grasping: a difficult road toward simplicity. IEEE Trans.
Robot. Autom. 16(6), 652–662 (2000)
Thus from Eq. 81 it is deduced that y(t) ∈ Ω
Ωp
× 6. Doulgeri, Z., Droukas, L.: On rolling contact motion by
Ωf
× Ωo
× Ωs
, ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ) with: robotic fingers via prescribed performance control. In:
ICRA, pp. 3976–3981. IEEE (2013)
7. Fasoulas, J., Doulgeri, Z.: Active control of rolling manoeu-
vres of a robotic finger with hemispherical tip. Int. J.
Ωj
yj i (t) ∈ : M j i < yj i (t) < M j i j ∈ {p, f, o} Humanoid Robotics 7(1), 183–212 (2010)
(82) 8. Karayiannidis, Y., Doulgeri, Z.: Model-free robot joint
position regulation and tracking with prescribed perfor-
mance guarantees. Robot. Auton. Syst. 60(2), 214–226
(2012)
and
9. Karayiannidis, Y., Doulgeri, Z.: Regressor-free prescribed
performance robot tracking. Robotica 31, 1229–1238
Ωs
ysi (t) ∈ : M si < ysi (t) < M si (83) (2013)
10. Kawasaki, H., Komatsu, T., Uchiyama, K., Kurimoto,
where M j i = Tj−1 −1
i (−ε1 ), M j i = Tj i (ε1 ) and M si = T.: Dexterous anthropomorphic robot hand with dis-
Tsi−1 (−ε2 ), M si = Tsi−1 (ε2 ). It can be easily verified
tributed tactile sensor: Gifu hand II. IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 782–787
using (46) that for all j, i : (1999)
11. Lin, G., Li, Z., Liu, L., Su, H., Ye, W.: Development of
− Mj < M j i ≤ M j i < 1 in case ej i (0) ≥ 0 multi-fingered dexterous hand for grasping manipulation.
Sci. China Inf. Sci. 57(12), 1–10 (2014)
−1 < M j i ≤ M j i < Mj in case ej i (0) ≤ 0 12. Liu, H., Wu, K., Meusel, P., Seitz, N., Hirzinger, G., Jin,
M.H., Liu, Y., Fan, S., Lan, T., Chen, Z.P.: Multisensory
and five-finger dexterous hand: The dlr/hit hand ii. In: IROS,
pp. 3692–3697. IEEE (2008)
− Ms < M si ≤ M si < 1 in case esi (0) ≥ 0 13. Paljug, E., Yun, X., Kumar, V.: Control of rolling contacts
in multi-arm manipulation. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom.
−1 < M si ≤ M si < Ms in case esi (0) ≤ 0 10(4), 441–452 (1994)
14. Sciavicco, L., Siciliano, B.: Modelling and control
Thus, Ω
is a non empty compact set and additionally of robot manipulators. Springer-Verlag London Limited
y(t) ∈ Ω
⊂ Ω, ∀t[0, τmax ). This contradicts the fact (2000)
J Intell Robot Syst
15. Sontag, E.: Mathematical control theory: deterministic Leonidas Droukas was born in Drama on December 17, 1984.
finite dimensional systems. texts in applied mathematics. He graduated from the Department of Electrical and Com-
U.S. Government Printing Office (1998) puter Engineering of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
16. Tahara, K., Arimoto, S., Luo, Z., Yoshida, M.: On control in July 2008. He is currently a PhD candidate in the same
for ”blind touching” by human-like thumb robots. IEEE Department. His research interests include prescribed perfor-
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, mance robot control, rolling contact motion planning and
pp. 592–598 (2007) control and object grasping.
17. Tahara, K., Arimoto, S., Yoshida, M.: Dynamic object
manipulation using a virtual frame by a triple soft-fingerd Zoe Doulgeri is currently a Professor in Robotics and Control
robotic hand. IEEE International Conference on Robotics of Manufacturing Systems with the Department of Electrical
and Automation, pp. 4322–4327 (2010) and Computer Engineering of the Aristotle University of Thes-
18. Ueki, S., Kawasaki, H., Mouri, T., Kaneshige, A.: Object saloniki, Greece. She received a diploma in Electrical Engineer-
manipulation based on robust and adaptive control by hemi- ing in 1980 from the Aristotle University, an MSc in Control
spherical soft fingertips. IEEE International Federation of Systems in 1982, an MSc in Social and Economic Studies in
Automatic Control (IFAC), pp. 14,654–14,659 (2011) 1983 and a PhD in Mechanical Engineering in 1987 from Impe-
19. Zhao, D., Jiang, L., Huang, H., Jin, M., Cain, H., Liu, rial College, London, UK. Since 2012 she serves as an editor
H.: Development of a multi-dof anthropomorphic pros- in the Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems. Her current
thetic hand. IEEE International Conference on Robotics research interests include object grasping and manipulation by
and Biomimetrics, pp. 878–883 (2006) robot fingers, non-model based control of robotic systems with
20. Zribi, M., Chen, J., Mahmoud, M.: Coordination and con- prescribed performance guarantees, control of flexible joint
trol of multi-fingered robot hands with rolling and sliding robots, human like reaching motion for redundant manipulators
contacts. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 24(2), 125–149 (1999) and physical human-robot interaction.