Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: In this paper a four-state kinematic model is proposed where the transformation
between the robot posture and the system state is bijective. Some nonlinear control laws are
constructed based on the kinematic model in the Lyapunov stability analysis framework. These
control laws achieve global asymptotic stability of the system based on the non-zero reference
velocities requirements.
Keywords: Mobile robot, Kinematic model, Nonholonomic models, Lyapunov stability, Error
model
v vr cos eθ + vb
u= = (6)
v w wr + wb
where uTb = [ vb wb ] is the feedback signal to be deter-
w q mined later. Inserting the control (6) into (5), the resulting
y model is given by:
ėx = wr ey − vb + ey wb
B ėy = −wr ex + vr sin eθ − ex wb (7)
ėθ = −wb
400
IFAC SYROCO 2012
September 5-7, 2012. Dubrovnik, Croatia
Rt
error in the orientation and should be driven to 1. This is Lemma 1. (Barbălat’s lemma). If limt→∞ 0 f (τ )dτ ex-
why a new error will be defined as ec = ecos − 1 and the ists and is finite, and f (t) is a uniformly continuous func-
final error model of the system is now: tion, then limt→∞ f (t) = 0.
ėx = wr ey − vb + ey wb
ėy = −wr ex + vr es − ex wb Lemma 2. If f, f˙ ∈ L∞ and f ∈ Lp for some p ∈ [1, ∞),
(12) then f (t) → 0 as t → ∞.
ės = −ec wb − wb
ėc = es wb In Lemma 2 the Lp norm of a function f (t) is used. It is
defined as:
4. LYAPUNOV-BASED CONTROL DESIGN Z ∞ 1/p
p
kf kp = |f (τ )| dτ (20)
A controller that achieves asymptotic stability of the 0
error model (12) will be developed based on a Lyapunov
where |·| denotes the vector (scalar) length. If the above
approach. A very straight-forward idea would be to use a
integral exists (is finite), the function f (t) is said to
Lyapunov function of the type
belong to Lp . Limiting p towards infinity provides a very
k 2 1 2
V0 = e + e2y + e + e2c (13) important class of functions L∞ – bounded functions.
2 x 2 s Theorem 3. If the control law (18) is applied to the system
however, a slightly more complex function will be proposed
(12) where k is a positive constant, a > 2 is a constant, kx
here, which also includes the function (13) as a special case.
and ks are positive bounded functions, and the reference
The following Lyapunov-function candidate is proposed to
velocities vr and wr are bounded, then the tracking errors
achieve the control goal:
ex , es , and ec converge to 0. The convergence of ey to
k 2 1
V = ex + e2y + ec
e2s + e2c (14) 0 is guaranteed, provided that at least one of the two
2 2 1+ a conditions is met:
where k > 0 and a > 2 are constants. Note that the range (1) vr is uniformly continuous and does not go to 0 as
of the function ec = cos(θr − θ) − 1 is [−2, 0], and therefore t → ∞, while ks is uniformly continuous,
a−2 ec (2) wr is uniformly continuous and does not go to 0 as
0< ≤1+ ≤1
a a t → ∞, while vr , kx , and ks are uniformly continuous.
1 a (15)
1≤ ec ≤ Proof. It follows from (19) that V̇ ≤ 0, and therefore
1+ a a−2
the Lyapunov function is non-increasing. Consequently,
Due to (15) the function V in (14) is lower-bounded by
the following can be concluded:
the function V0 in (13). Since the latter is of class K, V
fulfills the conditions for the Lyapunov function. The role ex , ey , es , ec ∈ L∞ (21)
of (1 + eac ) will be explained later on. The function V can Based on (21), it follows from (18) that the control signals
be simplified by using the following: are bounded, and from (12) that the derivatives of the
e2s + e2c = e2s + (ecos − 1)2 = 2 − 2ecos = −2ec (16) errors are bounded:
Taking into account the equations of the error model (12) vb , wb , ėx , ėy , ės , ėc ∈ L∞ (22)
and (16), the derivative of V in (14) is: where we also took into account that vr , wr , k, kx , ks , and
1 2n
V̇ = −kex vb + kvr ey es + (−2es wb )+ 1 + eac are bounded. It follows from Eqs. (21) and (22)
2 1 + eac that ex , ey , es , and ec are uniformly continuous (note that
! the easiest way to check the uniform continuity of f (t) on
− a1 es wb (−2ec ) wb
+ 2 = −kex vb + es kvr ey − 2 [0, ∞) is to see if f, f˙ ∈ L∞ ).
2 1 + eac 1 + eac
(17) In order to show the asymptotic stability of the system,
let us first calculate the following integral:
In order to make V̇ negative semi-definite, the following
Z∞
control law is proposed:
V̇ dt = V (∞) − V (0) =
vb = kx ex n
ec 2 ec 2 0
(18)
wb = kvr ey 1 + + ks es 1 + Z∞ Z∞ n−1
a a ec 2
=− kkx e2x dt − ks e2s 1+ dt (23)
where kx (t) and ks (t) are positive functions, while n ∈ Z. a
For practical reasons n is a small number (usually −2, −1, 0 0
0, 1 or 2 are good choices). By taking into account the where the notation V (t) is used although V does not
control law (18), the function V̇ becomes: depend on t explicitly. Since V is a positive definite
n−1
ec 2
function, the following inequality holds:
2 2
V̇ = −kkx ex − ks es 1 + (19) Z∞ Z∞ n−1
a 2 2 ec 2
V (0) ≥ kkx ex dt + ks es 1 + dt ≥
Two very well-known lemmas will be used in the proof of a a
0 0
theorem in this section. The first one is Barbălat’s lemma Z∞ Z∞
and the other one is a derivation of Barbălat’s lemma.
Both lemmas are taken from Ioannou and Sun (1996) and ≥ kk x e2x dt + ksL e2s dt (24)
are given below for the sake of completeness. 0 0
401
IFAC SYROCO 2012
September 5-7, 2012. Dubrovnik, Croatia
where the lower bounds of the functions kx (t), ks (t), and limt→∞ wb = 0 as shown before. Since ex and wb converge
2(n−1) to 0 while kx and ey are bounded, the last two terms in
1 + eca(t) are introduced Eq. (29) go to 0 as t goes to infinity. Consequently, the
0 < k x ≤ kx (t) t ∈ R product wr ey also goes to 0. Since wr does not go to 0, ey
0 < k s ≤ ks (t) t ∈ R has to go to 0.
2(n−1) (25)
ec (t) It is somehow more difficult to prove the convergence
0<L≤ 1+ t∈R of ec to 0. However, it has already been shown that ec
a
converges either to 0 or to −2, and it is easy to show
and two cases can be distinguished to determine the value
that ec will converge to 0 if the initial condition of the
of L due to (15):
error vector is in the vicinity of the origin or the design
1 n≤1 parameter a is sufficiently close to 2. The error ec converges
2(n−1) to 0 asymptotically if one of the following conditions is
L= a−2 (26)
n>1 satisfied:
a
• V (0) ≤ 2, or
It follows from (24) that ex , es ∈ L2 . Applying Lemma 2, • V (0) > 2 and a < 2V (0)
V (0)−2 .
the convergence of ex (t) and es (t) to 0 follows immediately.
When es is 0, ec can be either 0 or −2 since es and To prove this statement, let us calculate the value of the
(ec + 1) are the sine and the cosine, respectively, of the T
Lyapunov function V in e−2 = [ 0 0 0 −2 ] :
same argument. Due to es → 0, it follows from (12) that
ėc → 0 and consequently the limit limt→∞ ec (t) exists and 1
2 2a
V−2 = V |e=e−2 = e = > 2 (30)
is either 0 or −2. 2 1 + eac c a−2
ec =−2
Until now we only established the convergence of ex (t) and It is easy to show that V (0) < V−2 if one of the above two
es (t) to 0, while ec (t) was shown to converge either to 0 or conditions is satisfied. Among all the points that share the
to −2. To show the convergence of ey (t) to 0, at least one same ec = −2, e−2 is the point with the lowest V . Since
of the conditions 1 or 2 of Theorem 3 have to be fulfilled. V is a monotonically non-increasing function, the system
Let us first analyze the condition 1. Applying Lemma 1 to can never reach any point with ec = −2. Thus, it is only
ės (t) ensures that limt→∞ ės (t) = 0 if limt→∞ es (t) exists possible that ec converges to 0.
and is finite (which has already been proven) and ės (t) is
uniformly continuous. The latter is true (see (12)) if (ec + Now let us assume that ec is in the vicinity of −2. Upon
1)wb is uniformly continuous. It has already been shown inserting wb from Eq. (18), ėc in Eq. (12) becomes:
ec 2 ec 2n
that ec is uniformly continuous. The feedback control for
ėc = es wb = kvr ey es 1 + + ks e2s 1 + (31)
the angular velocity wb defined in (18) is uniformly con- a a
tinuous since ks and vr are uniformly continuous from the The second term in Eq. (31) is always positive. The error
assumption in condition 1 of the theorem. The statement ec will increase and thus be repelled from ec = −2 if the
limt→∞ ės (t) = 0, which is identical to product vr ey es is positive. If this is not satisfied, then ec
lim − (ec (t) + 1) wb (t) = 0 (27) will still increase if |vr ey | is small enough (the second term
t→∞ is dominant in Eq. (31)):
has therefore been proven. Since (ec (t) + 1) converges to 1 ks ec 2(n−1)
or to −1, the following can be concluded from (18): |vr ey | < |es | 1 + ⇒ ėc > 0 (32)
2 h 2 in k a
lim wb = lim kvr ey 1 + eac + ks es 1 + eac =0 Even if this is not the case, the analysis in the vicinity of
t→∞ t→∞ ec = −2 will show that this equilibrium point is repelling.
(28)
The errors ex and es always converge to 0 and we can
The factor (1 + eac ) can converge either to 1 or to (1 − a2 ),
say that after some time they belong to O(ε) where ε is
but is always strictly positive and bounded. Since the same
sufficiently small. It is easy to conclude from (12) that the
holds for ks , while it was shown that es converges to 0, the
derivatives of the errors then become:
whole second term of wb in Eq. (28) also converges to 0. In
ėy = O(ε)
the first term k is a finite constant, (1 + eac )2 is bounded ec 2 (33)
and strictly positive, while vr is also bounded and does not ės = (−ec − 1)kvr ey 1 + + O(ε)
diminish as t → ∞ due to the assumption in the condition a
1. Consequently, the convergence of ey to 0 follows. Now we are interested in the derivative of vr ey es :
d
For the second case (condition 2) the Barbălat’s lemma dt (vr ey es ) = v̇r ey es + vr ėy es + vr ey ės =
ec 2
(Lemma 1) is applied to ėx in Eq. (12) after inserting the = O(ε) + O(ε2 ) + (−ec − 1)kvr2 e2y 1 + + O(ε) a
control law for vb (18): (34)
ėx = wr ey − kx ex + ey wb (29) We can see that in the vicinity of ec = −2 the dominant
In order to show that limt→∞ ėx = 0 we again have to term in Eq. (34) is always positive and ėc in (31) also
guarantee that all the signals on the right-hand side of eventually becomes positive. Even if for a short time the
Eq. (29) are uniformly continuous. We have seen that ex error ec is approaching −2, it is always repelled after
and ey are uniformly continuous, wr and kx are uniformly that. Note that this happens when es and vr ey are of
continuous from the assumption of the condition 2, while the opposite sign (if they are of the same sign ec always
wb is uniformly continuous if ks and vr are uniformly increases). From (12) it can be concluded that es will then
continuous. The latter two conditions also guarantee that move in the direction of changing its sign. But it has to
402
IFAC SYROCO 2012
September 5-7, 2012. Dubrovnik, Croatia
y
0.2
law 3
0.05 0.1
y
−0.05 −0.1
The proposed method has been extensively tested and
−0.1 −0.2
compared to the existing methods from the literature. The
method shows promising tracking performance. Here it will 0 0.1 0.2
−0.3
0.3 −0.3
0.4
−0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
x
be compared to two similar and very well-known control x
laws. The first one is from Kanayama et al. (1990) and the
other one is inspired by Samson’s work (Samson, 1993). Fig. 2. The reference trajectory and three robot trajecto-
ries (initial pose is shown by the arrow)
These algorithms were chosen because they were both
designed using Lyapunov stability theory. The Lyapunov Kanayama’s control law (35), and Samson’s control
functions used therein have the same limit around the zero law (36), respectively. Among the three control laws
error in orientation (eθ = 0). The control law proposed by compared, gyk is always the highest. It is easy to show
Kanayama et al. (1990) is : that if a ≥ 6, gyp is always larger than gys . If 2 < a < 6,
vb = kx ex gys > gyp when eθ is small, and gys < gyp when eθ is large.
(35)
wb = kvr ey + ks sin eθ • Let us denote the “gain” from eθ to wb by gθ (t) ,
Sometimes, there is also a third factor vr in the second |wb (t)|/|eθ (t)||ey (t)=0 . The superscripts are the same
term of wb . Note that the control law (35) can be easily as above. If n > 0, gθp < gθk < gθs . If n = 0,
developed if the most straight-forward Lyapunov function gθp = gθk < gθs . If n is negative, then gθk is the lowest.
V0 from (13) is used in the controller design procedure. The comparison between Samson’s control law and
Note also that the control law (35) is a special case of (18) the proposed one depends on the choice of design
when a limits to infinity. parameters. If a ≤ 6|n|, gθp < gθs . If a > 6|n|, the
The control law due to Samson is: comparison also depends on the orientation error:
vb = kx ex gθp > gθs for small eθ and gθp < gθs for large eθ .
sin eθ (36) If we try to summarise the above analysis we can see that
wb = kvr ey + ks eθ
eθ for n > 0, the proposed control law always has the lowest
In our simulation experiments the orientation error eθ in gain gθ , while either Samson’s law or the proposed one
(36) was always mapped to the interval (−π, π] to make the have the lowest gy gain. This means that we can expect
comparison fair. It is easy to see that all three control laws lower control effort from these two laws, while Kanayama’s
given in Eqs. (18), (35), and (36) that will be compared law will exert more control action.
in the paper have the same limit around eθ = 0 and it is
therefore fair to use the same control gains – in our case 6. EXAMPLE
we shall use k = 10, kx = 10, and ks = 10.
The form of the control laws suggests that the role of vb is Some simulations were performed to test and compare
always the reduction of ex , while wb needs to cater for the all the approaches under the same circumstances. The
remaining two errors. A very simplified explanation is that reference trajectory is the same in all the studied cases:
the first term in wb takes care of the lateral error, while xr (t) = b(a + R cos(5ω0 t)) cos(ω0 t)
(37)
the second term is responsible for the orientation error. In yr (t) = b(a + R cos(5ω0 t)) sin(ω0 t)
reality, the problems are much more complicated, due to with a = 1, R = 0.7, b = 0.2, and ω0 = 2π/40. The
the nonholonomic nature of the system. Nevertheless, we simulation run always started at t = 0 and finished at
can still be sure of certain facts: t = 40. The control signals vb and wb were saturated to
• The feedback vb is the same in all three control laws ±10. Three algorithms were compared, the proposed one
that have been compared, and therefore we cannot given by Eq. (18) is shown in blue colour (the control law
expect any drastic differences in performance. design parameters are a = 30 and n = −1), the one given
• The control laws (18) and (35) are continuous with by Eq. (36) in red colour, and the one given by Eq. (35)
respect to the orientation error (at the orientation in magenta colour. The resulting trajectories are shown in
error of ±π) while the control law (36) does not share Fig. 2, the errors in Fig. 3, and feedback velocities in Fig.
this property. This is a problem of the latter approach 4.
since the implementation of the discontinuous control Some additional studies where performed to try to get
law on a dynamic model becomes questionable. some guidelines on choosing n and a. For low orientation
• Let us denote the “gain” from ey to wb by gy (t) , errors the high values of n are good, while for large initial
|wb (t)|/|ey (t)||eθ (t)=0 . Additionally, the superscripts orientation errors the negative values of n are better. The
p, k, and s denote the proposed control law (18), explanation is very simple. When n < 0 the second term in
403
IFAC SYROCO 2012
September 5-7, 2012. Dubrovnik, Croatia
−0.1 REFERENCES
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2 Brockett, R.W. (1983). Differential Geometric Control
Theory, chapter Asymptotic stability and feedback sta-
0
ey
law 2
law 3
Guechi, E.H., Lauber, J., Dambrine, M., Klančar, G., and
−2 Blažič, S. (2010). PDC control design for non-holonomic
0 1 2 3 4 5
t wheeled mobile robots with delayed outputs. Journal of
Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 60(3), 395–414.
Fig. 3. Four error states Ioannou, P.A. and Sun, J. (1996). Robust Adaptive Con-
trol. Prentice-Hall.
0.5 Jiang, Z.P. and Nijmeijer, H. (1997). Tracking control of
mobile robots: A case study in backstepping. Automat-
0 ica, 33(7), 1393–1399.
vb
404