Properties of Lateral-Pendulum-Controlled Unicycle Robot in States of

Balance and Motion

Yohanes Daud, Student Member, IEEE, Abdullah Al Mamun, Senior Member, IEEE
and Jian-Xin Xu, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract— We are constructing and studying a unicycle robot
which balances and steers itself by swinging its pendulum
sidewards. Our unicycle robot, automatic lateral-pendulum
unicycle (ALP Cycle), has three main parts: wheel, chassis
and pendulum. It is an underactuated robot with only two
control inputs and five degrees of freedom. Given the dynamic
model of ALP Cycle which we derived previously, we have
investigated several interesting properties of ALP Cycle, which
are the main topics of this paper. These properties include
the relationship between lean angle and pendulum angle for
balanced configuration, the relationship between forward and
turning speeds when ALP Cycle moves in circle, and the
behaviors of coupling disturbances in longitudinal and lateral
motions when in circling maneuver.
ALP Cycle prototype design is discussed. The second prop-
erty is the relationship between the forward speed and turning
speed of ALP Cycle when performing circling maneuver.
This relationship shows how turning speed is limited for a
certain forward speed if system’s stability is to be main-
tained. The third property is the behaviors of the coupling
disturbances in longitudinal and lateral motions when the
unicycle is undergoing circling maneuver.
II. NONLINEAR MODEL AND LINEAR MODEL OF
ALP CYCLE

I. INTRODUCTION
Unicycle robot is a type of single-wheeled mobile robot
which has attracted the attention of control research commu-
nity since 1980s. Unicycle robot’s upright posture is natu-
rally unstable and its nonholonomy poses constraint on its
motion control. In addition, depending on its design, unicycle
robot often has properties such as underactuation and non-
minimum phase, which make control design challenging
and even set some performance limitations. Due to these
properties, unicycle robot is often featured in the literature
as benchmark for newly proposed control design methods.
A variety of steering mechanisms for unicycle robots
have been proposed in the literature, including turntable [1],
reaction wheel [2] and lateral pendulum plus rugby-ball-
shaped wheel [3]. Different from the other mechanisms, ALP
Fig. 1. The Conceptual Design of ALP Cycle
Cycle uses a lateral pendulum, but it retains the use of slim
pneumatic wheel commonly found in bicycles.
In this paper, three properties of ALP Cycle are unraveled The ALP Cycle conceptual design is shown in Fig. 1
from its dynamic model developed in [4]. The first property where α, β, γ, δ and ω represent lateral lean angle, longitu-
is the presence of lateral-statics boundary and lateral-statics dinal lean angle, pendulum angle, turning angle and wheel
constant relating lean angle and pendulum angle in a non- angle respectively. In this paper, lean angle refers to lateral
upright balanced configurations when ALP Cycle is con- lean angle. The nonlinear dynamic model of ALP Cycle
strained to only lateral motion. The lateral-statics boundary was derived using Lagrange-Euler method and is given as
and constant are briefly analyzed and their implication for followed [4].

Manuscript received September 16, 2013 m11 β̈ + m12 γ̈ + m13 δ̈ + m14 ω̈ + c11 β̇ 2 + c12 γ̇ 2 + c13 δ̇ 2
Yohanes Daud is Graduate Student in Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, 4 En- + c14 α̇δ̇ + c15 β̇ γ̇ + c16 β̇ δ̇ + c17 γ̇ δ̇ = τw
gineering Drive 3, 117576, Singapore g0800557@nus.edu.sg, (1)
yohanesdaud86@gmail.com
Abdullah Al Mamun is Associate Professor in Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, 4 Engineering
Drive 3, 117576 Singapore eleaam@nus.edu.sg m21 α̈ + m22 β̈ + m23 δ̈ + m24 ω̈ + c21 α̇2 + c22 δ̇ 2
Jian-Xin Xu is Professor in Department of Electrical and Computer + c23 α̇γ̇ + c24 α̇δ̇ + c25 β̇ γ̇ + c26 γ̇ δ̇ + c27 δ̇ ω̇ + g21 (2)
Engineering, National University of Singapore, 4 Engineering Drive 3,
117576 Singapore elexujx@nus.edu.sg = −τw

978-1-4799-1201-8/13/$31.00 2013
c IEEE 162
 m31 α̈ + m32 β̈ + m33 γ̈ + m34 δ̈ + c31 β̇ 2 + c32 γ̇ 2 + c33 δ̇ 2
earized model is produced:
+ c34 α̇β̇ + c35 α̇γ̇ + c36 β̇ γ̇ + c37 β̇ δ̇ + c38 γ̇ δ̇ + c39 δ̇ ω̇ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
β̇ 0 1 0 β
+ g31 = 0 ⎣ β̈ ⎦ = ⎣ 0.95δ̇ 2 + 34.4 0 0 ⎦ ⎣ β̇ ⎦
(3)
ω̈ 0.05δ̇ 2 − 37.12 0 0 ω̇
⎡ ⎤
0
m41 α̈ + m42 γ̈ + m43 δ̈ + m44 ω̈ + c41 α̇2 + c42 β̇ 2 + c43 δ̇ 2 + ⎣ −4.74 ⎦ τw (7)
+ c44 α̇β̇ + c45 α̇δ̇ + c46 β̇ δ̇ + c47 δ̇ ω̇ + g41 = τp 9.80
⎡ ⎤
(4) 0
+ ⎣ −αδ̈ − 0.49γ δ̈ − 1.27α̇δ̇ − 0.98γ̇ δ̇ ⎦ ,
−αδ̈ + 0.28γ δ̈ − 2.69α̇δ̇ + 0.56γ̇ δ̇
m51 α̈ + m52 β̈ + m53 γ̈ + m54 δ̈ + m55 ω̈ + c51 α̇2 + c52 β̇ 2 ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
α̇ 0 0 1 0
+ c53 γ̇ 2 + c54 α̇β̇ + c55 α̇γ̇ + c56 α̇δ̇ + c57 α̇ω̇ + c58 β̇ γ̇
⎢ γ̇ ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
+ c59 β̇ δ̇ + c510 γ̇ δ̇ + c511 δ̇ ω̇ = 0 ⎣ α̈ ⎦ = ⎣ 0.83δ̇ 2 + 26.39 −3.66 0 0 ⎦
(5) γ̈ 0.32δ̇ 2 − 29.49 δ̇ 2 + 26.61 0 0
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
α 0
The dynamic model is highly complex and nonlinear with ⎢ γ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
the coefficients m11 - m55 , c11 - c511 and g21 - g41 being ⎣ α̇ ⎦ + ⎣ −2.31 ⎦ τp (8)
functions of the angles and the parameters in Table I. In
γ̇ 10.09
the dynamic model, τw and τp are the wheel and pendulum ⎡ ⎤
torques respectively. 0
⎢ 0 ⎥
+⎢⎣ 0.49β δ̈ + β̇ δ̇ + 0.43ω̇ δ̇
⎥,
⎦
TABLE I
P HYSICAL & E NVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS OF ALP C YCLE D ERIVED 0.66β δ̈ + 1.27β̇ δ̇ − 0.5ω̇ δ̇
FROM THE CAD M ODEL D EVELOPED IN S OLIDW ORKS
δ̈ = −2.55β ω̇ δ̇ − 0.22α̇ω̇ − 4.92αω̈ − 0.58γ ω̈. (9)
Symbol Quantity Value & Unit
mw wheel mass 1.42 kg The linearized model consists of three modes: longitudinal
mc chassis mass 6.34 kg (Eq. 7), lateral (Eq. 8) and turning (Eq. 9) modes. The
mp pendulum mass 0.85 kg longitudinal and lateral models are linear with respect to α,
Iw1 wheel x-dir. moment of inertia 0.01kgm2
Iw2 wheel y-dir. moment of inertia 0.02kgm2 β and γ, and their derivatives but they are not linear with
Iw3 wheel z-dir. moment of inertia 0.01kgm2 respect to δ and ω and their derivatives. This is because the
Ic1 chassis x-dir. moment of inertia 0.17kgm2 linearization point is the upright equilibrium state (6) and it
Ic2 chassis y-dir. moment of inertia 0.11kgm2
Ic3 chassis z-dir. moment of inertia 0.08kgm2
does not require δ and ω and their derivatives to be zero. As
Ip1 pendulum x-dir. moment of inertia 0.03kgm2 seen, the three linearized models are coupled to one another.
Ip2 pendulum y-dir. moment of inertia 0.03kgm2
Ip3 pendulum z-dir. moment of inertia 0.0003kgm2 III. LATERAL-STATICS BOUNDARY & CONSTANT
rw wheel radius 0.15 m
lc dist. bet. wheel c.m. and chassis c.m. 0.15 m Assuming that there is no longitudinal motion (β = 00 and
lcp
lp
dist. bet. chassis c.m. and pendulum pivot
dist. bet. pendulum pivot and c.m.
0.13 m
0.41 m
β̇ = ω̇ = 00 /s), the ALP Cycle can have six configurations
g gravitational acceleration 9.81m/s2 as shown in Figs. 2 - 3 below.
Based on analysis of statics, it is clear that the configu-
rations in Fig. 2 are stable because the system’s center of
The nonlinear dynamic model can be linearized with gravity is exactly above the wheel’s contact point with the
respect to the upright equilibrium state: ground. Hence, there is no unbalanced moment which can
cause the system to fall down. On the other hand, the con-
figurations in Fig. 3 are unstable because the system’s center
α = β = γ = 00 , α̇ = β̇ = γ̇ = 00 /s, (6)
of gravity is not exactly above the wheel’s contact point with
the ground. This causes the presence of unbalanced moment
by assuming the following relationships: which can make the robot fall down.
For the non-upright balanced configuration, we are inter-
sin α ≈ α, sin β ≈ β, sin γ ≈ γ, ested in finding how the lean angle and pendulum angle are
related so as to result in a balanced posture. Such balanced
posture is important in steering motion when ALP Cycle
cos α ≈ 1, cos β ≈ 1, cos γ ≈ 1. must lean sidewards in order to turn [5]. To derive the
relationship, we set β, ω, β̇, ω̇, β̈, ω̈, α̇, γ̇, α̈ and γ̈ to
Using the parameters given in Table 1, the following lin- zero in the nonlinear dynamic model (Eqs. 1 - 5). Eqs. 1, 2

2013 6th IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM) 163
 and 5 degenerate and we are left with Eqs. 3 and 4 which
are rewritten below.
(mw + mc + mp )rw sin(α) + mc lc sin(α) + mp [lc + lcp
+ lp cos(γ)]sin(α) + mp lp cos(α)sin(γ) = 0
(10)

− [mp lp cos(α)sin(γ) + mp lp sin(α)cos(γ)]g = τp (11)

Eq. 10 relates lean angle and pendulum angle when ALP

Fig. 2. Lateral Balanced Configurations with (a) Zero Pendulum Torque
and (b) Non-Zero Pendulum Torque
Fig. 3. Lateral Unbalanced Configurations (a) I, (b) II, (c) III and (d) IV
Cycle is balanced. It can be rewritten as:
−c1 sin(α)
γ = sin−1 ( )−α (12)
c2
where c1 = (mw + mc + mp )rw + mc lc + mp (lc + lcp ) and
c2 = mp lp . Successful lean-angle set-point control can be
achieved if and only if the pendulum angle is also regulated
to its corresponding set point, given by Eq. 12. The argument
of the inverse sine in Eq. 12 must always be less than or equal
to 1. Therefore, the magnitude of α must be bounded by:
c2
|α| ≤ sin−1 ( ) = Klsb . (13)
c1
Klsb is called lateral-statics boundary because it defines
the largest lean-angle set-point magnitude, below which
successful set-point control is physically possible.
If α and γ are small, Eq. 12 can be simplified to:
c1
γ = −(1 + )α = Kls α (14)
c2
Kls is named lateral-statics constant and can be rewritten in
a more insightful form as:
mw rw + mc (rw + lc ) rw + lc + lcp
Kls = −1 − − . (15)
mp l p lp
When balancing or steering of ALP Cycle using linear
controller is concerned, it is desirable to limit the posture
in the vicinity of upright posture (i.e. small α, β and γ).
However, Eq. 14 shows that γ is the product of α and Kls .
It means that small α does not guarantee γ to be small. It is
clearly desirable to have as small Kls magnitude as possible,
so that small α translates into small γ. From Eq. 15, it can
be seen that:
inf (|Kls |) = 1 (16)
and this happens when the second and third terms in Eq.
15 equal to zero. To achieve this, lp must be made as large
as possible in comparison with other ALP Cycle physical
parameters and mp should not be small (i.e. the pendulum
should be extremely long and must not be light).
Klsb and Kls put limitation on the maximum set-point
magnitude of lean angle that can be achieved and how

164 2013 6th IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM)
far the lean angle can be controlled using linear controller
respectively.
Eq. 11 gives the required pendulum torque, τp , for the
balanced configuration. It can be written as:
τp = −mp lp gsin(α + γ). (17)
The maximum value of the magnitude of the pendulum
torque is:
max(|τp |) = mp lp g. (18)
Relating Eq. 18 and the previous discussion, it is clear that
small Kls can only be achieved at the expense of large τp .
In practice, large τp is undesirable as it means that bigger
and more powerful motor is needed. Therefore, there is a
trade-off and as far as practical application is concerned, with
the available motor size and power in the market, Kls can
only be reduced to a certain value, but it will never reach 1 Fig. 4. Simulation Result of Lean-Angle Regulation with LQI and αref
of 30
and this means, as long as linear controller is used, practical
ALP Cycle prototype can only operate successfully at very
small range of angles in the vicinity of its upright balanced
configuration.
For ALP Cycle with the parameters given in Table I, the
lateral-statics boundary, Klsb is 8.08 deg while the lateral-
statics constant, Kls , is -8.12. The value of Klsb implies
that ALP Cycle can only successfully regulate its lean angle
to a set point with maximum magnitude of 8.08 deg. The
value of Kls implies that if 30 deg is the maximum angle
which can be considered to be small, then ALP Cycle can
successfully regulate its lean angle only to a set point, the
maximum magnitude of which is:
300
|αref | = = 3.690 .
| − 8.12|
Let us consider three cases of lateral set-point regulation.
Cases I, II and III involve set-point regulations with set points Fig. 5. Simulation Result of Lean-Angle Regulation with LQI and αref
of 30 , 50 and 100 respectively. Linear quadratic integral of 50
(LQI) controller, proposed in [5], is used in the simulation.
The simulation results are shown in Figs. 4 - 6 for cases I, II
|γref | = |Kls × αref | = | − 8.12 × 100 | = 81.20 ≥ 300 .
and III respectively. For the three cases, αref ’s are compared
(19)
with Klsb and |γref |’s are computed as shown below.
• Case I:
In Fig. 4, good set-point control is achieved. In Fig. 5, set-
αref = 30 ≤ Klsb = 8.080 point control is still successful, but there is an offset between
γ and γref . In Fig. 6, the system is unstable. These findings
|γref | = | − 8.12 × 30 | = 24.360 ≤ 300 can be explained by referring to the values of αref and |γref |
• Case II: for each case above.
αref = 50 ≤ Klsb = 8.080 IV. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORWARD SPEED
0 0 0 AND TURNING SPEED IN CIRCLING MOTION
|γref | = |Kls × αref | = | − 8.12 × 5 | = 40.6 ≥ 30
Arbitrary motion of mobile robots can be decomposed into
• Case III:
linear motion and circling motion to certain extent. In the
αref = 100 ≥ Klsb = 8.080 case of ALP Cycle, linear motion is pretty straightforward

2013 6th IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM) 165
 for a given forward speed, Vref , such that ALP Cycle
remains stable.
V. COUPLING DISTURBANCES
If we look at longitudinal and lateral dynamics in Eqs. 7
and 8 respectively, we can see that the two dynamics are
exposed to perturbations coming from the couplings among
the three dynamic models. Let us rewrite both equations into
the following state-space forms:
xlong = Along xlong + Blong τw + Dlong (24)
xlat = Alat xlat + Blat τp + Dlat (25)
 T
where xlong = β β̇ ω̇ and xlat =
 T
α γ α̇ γ̇ . It can be seen that Along and
Fig. 6. Simulation Result of Lean-Angle Regulation with LQI and αref Alat are perturbed by the terms containing δ̇ 2 . For small δ̇,
of 100 these perturbations may be ignored. This is supported by
the referring to Eq. 23 which shows that as long as forward
speed is not very fast, turning speed will be reasonably
and it only involves the actuation of wheel. On the other
small. Therefore, our focus will be solely on Dlong and
hand, circling motion of ALP Cycle is more complex and
Dlat , which we call coupling disturbances.
involves the cooperation of both wheel and pendulum motors
Let us rewrite Dlong and Dlat as:
[5].
⎡ ⎤
In circling motion, let us assume that the turning motion 0
begins after ALP Cycle has reached a constant desired Dlong = ⎣ −αδ̈ − 0.49γ δ̈ − 1.27α̇δ̇ − 0.98γ̇ δ̇ ⎦ , (26)
forward speed, Vref . It can be shown by Eqs. 1 and 2 that, −αδ̈ + 0.28γ δ̈ − 2.69α̇δ̇ + 0.56γ̇ δ̇
at constant forward speed, β ≈ 0. With this assumption, the ⎡ ⎤
turning dynamics (Eq. 5) becomes: 0
⎢ 0 ⎥
δ̈ = −
0.22Vref
α̇. (20) Dlat = ⎢⎣ 0.49β δ̈ + β̇ δ̇ + 0.43ω̇ δ̇ ⎦ .
⎥ (27)
rw
0.66β δ̈ + 1.27β̇ δ̇ − 0.5ω̇ δ̇
If Eq. 20 is integrated with the assumption that δ̇(0) = 0
and α̇(0) = 0, with the parameters in Table I, the following When ALP Cycle undergoes circling motion and has reached
equation is produced: steady state, δ̇, ω̇, α and
 γ will be
T constant. Therefore, at
steady state, Dlong = 0 0 0 , while:
δ̇(t) = −1.47Vref α(t) (21)
 T
Eq. 21 relates lean angle, α, to turning speed, δ̇, given a Dlat = 0 0 0.43ω̇ δ̇ −0.5ω̇ δ̇ . (28)
constant forward speed. So, if at a constant forward speed, Assuming that longitudinal controller is used to perfectly
faster turning speed is desired, then ALP Cycle must lean regulate ω̇ to ω̇ref and using Eq. 23, the relationship ω̇ref =
more. It must be noted, however, that how big lean angle Vref
rw and data in Table I, Dlat becomes:
can be is determined by lateral-statics boundary (Klsb )and
 2 2
T
lateral-statics constant (Kls ) as discussed in Section III. If Dlat = 0 0 0.26Vref −0.3Vref . (29)
we consider 30 deg to be the maximum value of an angle
which can be considered small, then, using Kls = −8.12, It is seen that while coupling disturbance for longitudinal dy-
we can compute the maximum allowable α as: namics degenerates to zero at steady state, the coupling dis-
turbance for lateral dynamis reaches constant value which is
max(|γ|) |300 |
max(|α|) = = = 3.690 = 0.06 rad. related quadratically to forward speed. Therefore, to achieve
|Kls | | − 8.12| good performance of circling motion, a lateral controller
(22)
with integral action is required. On the other hand, it is
Therefore, ALP Cycle’s turning speed is limited to:
not necessary for the longitudinal controller to have integral
max(|δ̇(t)|) = | − 1.47 × Vref × 0.06| = 0.09|Vref | (23) action.

166 2013 6th IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM)
 Let us consider a simple case study of circling motion
using linear controllers. ALP Cycle is required to start
moving forward until its speed reaches 1 m/s. Then, after
10 seconds, it is must turn left with speed of 2.5 deg/s and
keep this circling motion. The references for wheel angular
speed and lean angle for each step can be written as followed.
1m/s
t = 0s →ω̇ref = = 6.67rad/s = 381.970 /s
0.15m
αref = 00
t = 10s →ω̇ref = 381.970 /s
2.50 /s
αref = = −1.700
−1.47 × 1m/s
This scenario is simulated in MATLAB using the linear
quadratic integral controllers proposed in [5]. The simulation
results are shown in Figs 7 - 9. Fig. 8 shows that during Fig. 8. Coupling Disturbance for Longitudinal Dynamics (Dlong )

Fig. 7. Trajectory of ALP Cycle Fig. 9. Coupling Disturbance for Lateral Dynamics (Dlat )

the transient period, the coupling disturbance for longitudinal

dynamics increases and peaks up, but it slowly goes down
to zero as the circling motion becomes steady. Fig. 9 shows
that the coupling disturbance for lateral dynamics increases,
peaks up and slowly approaches constant values. The results
are in agreement with what we have explained earlier.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents three properties of lateral-pendulum
unicycle. They are the relationship between lean and pendu-
lum angles for non-upright balanced position, the relation-
ship between forward and turning speeds, and the behaviors
of coupling disturbances in circling maneuver. These prop-
erties are crucial for control and prototype designs.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Schoonwinkel, Design and Test of a Computer Stabilized Unicycle,
Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (1987).
[2] Y. Isomi and S. Majima, ”Tracking Control Method for an Underac-
tuated Unicycle Robot Using an Equilibrium State”, in Seventh IEEE
International Conference on Control and Automation, Christchurch,
New Zealand 2009.
[3] R. Nakajima, T. Tsubouchi, S. Yuta and E. Koyanagi, ”A Development
of a New Mechanism of an Autonomous Unicycle”, IEEE, 1997.
[4] J. X. Xu, A. A. Mamun, Y. Daud, ”Pendulum-Balanced Autonomous
Unicycle: Conceptual Design and Dynamics Model”, in Fifth IEEE
International Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics,
Qingdao, China 2009.
[5] Y. Daud, A. A. Mamun and J. X. Xu,”Steering Control of Automatic
Lateral-Pendulum Unicycle by Separate Set-Point Controls of Its Lon-
gitudinal and Lateral Modes”, in Tenth IEEE International Conference
on Control and Automation, Hangzhou, China 2013.

2013 6th IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM) 167