Cop\Ti~hl © IF.

-\C IllIh Tril'lllli,tl \I'" rld COIl~rt·",

\llIllirh. FR(;, l'IHi

CARTESIAN CONTROL OF ROBOTIC

MANIPULATORS
H. Seraji
j et Propu/sio/l La/wm/tlll'. Califomia Iw/itu/t, of Tech 11 %g:•. .,800 Oak Gm,'!'
Dri,'I'. Pa,\ adma, CA 91109 , L'SA

Abstract . A new adaptive control scheme for direct control of manipulator end-effector to achieve
trajectory tracking in Cartesian space is developed in this paper. The control structure is obtained
from lin ear multi variable theory and is com posed of simple feedforward and feedb ack controllers a nd
an auxiliary input. The direct adaptation laws are derived from moclel reference adapt ive control
theory and are not based on parameter estimation of the robot model. The utili zation of adapti ve
feed forward control and the inclusion of auxiliary input are novel features of the present scheme
and result in improved dynamic performance over existing adaptive control schemes, The adaptive
controller does not require the complex mathematical model of the robot dynamics or any knowledge
of th e robot parameters or the payload; and is computationally fast for on-line impleme ntation with
high sampling rates,

Keywords. Adaptive control; feedback ; feedforward; Lyapunov methods ; multivari able control
systems; position control; robots; tracking systems.

1. Introduction control systems which can be implemented more efficiently for

Although end-effector control is the ultimate goal of any
robot control system, direct control of the end-effector motion
in Cartesian space has not attracted much attention. Conven-
tionally, task description is expressed in terms of a sequence
of end-effector coordinates in the Cartesian space. This infor·
mation is transformed through inverse kinematics to a series
of angular positions in the joint space. End-effector control
is then accomplished indirectly by controlling the joint angles
which are related to the end-effector coordinates through for-
ward kinematics. This indirect approach to end-effector con-
trol is both computationally inefficient and unduly complicated
due to degeneracy of joint angles corresponding to a given end-
effector condition. Furthermore, negligible errors in the joint
angles may result in noticeable errors in the end- effector co-
ordinates, depending on the manipulator geometry.
Most existing methods for robot control in the joint space
fall into the two major categories of ugloballinearization" and
"adaptive controL" In recent papers [1,2), Khatib has ex-
tended the global linearization method to the direct control
of end-effector motion in the Cartesian space, This method is
based on cancelling out the nonlinearities of the robot model
by means of a nonlinear feedback controller and requires exact
knowledge of the complex dynamic model of the robot . The
method also needs accurate values of the robot parameters and
the payload . When perfect cancellations of the robot nonlin-
earities is not achieved due to imperfect modeling or inaccurate
parameter values, dynamic performance of the robot may be
degraded and a complicated stability analysis is necessitated
and this situation may even lead to instability of the closed-
loop system [3 - 4).
Adaptive control offers an appealing solution to the robot
control problem, In adaptive robot control methods, neither
the complex mathematical model of the robot dynamics nor
any knowledge of the robot's dynamic parameters or the pay-
load are required in generating the control action. Adaptive
control methods in general fall into two distinct categories;
namely, indirect and direct . In indirect adaptive control meth·
ods such as [5 - 10), the paramters of the robot model are
estimated first and are then used for adjusting the controller
gains. In direct adaptive control methods such as [11 - 20),
the control action is generated directly, without prior param-
eter estimation. As a result, direct methods result in simpler
on·line controL
The objective of this paper is to extend the direct adap-
tive control approach presented in [20) to achieve trajectory
tracking of the end-effector directly in the Cartesian space.
The structure of the proposed control system is derived from
linear multivariable theory; while the direct adaptation laws
are developed using model reference adaptive control (MRAC)
theory based on the Lyapunov method.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, an incre-
mental model of end·effector motion is derived and a simple in-
cremental control scheme for trajectory tracking is developed.
The results are used in Section 3 to formulate the tracking
control problem in the MRAC framework and to derive the
adaptation laws. Section 4 discusses the results and draws
some conclusions.
2. Incremental Modeling and Control of the
End-Effector
In this sectioll, we shall first obtain an incremental dy-
namic model and t!en develop an incremental control scheme
for small movements of the end-effector in the neighborhood
of some nominal operating point .
Let us consider a general robotic manipulator having n
joints. Let 1:( t) be the nxl vector of torques applied to the
joints and S2.( t) be the nxl vector of the resulting joint angles.
The dynamic equations of motion of the robot links can be
represented by a set of coupled nonlinear differential equations
of the general form [21-23)
M(S2.)&2(t) + lY:(S2.,~) + Q(S2.) = 1:(t) (1)
where the matrices M, lY: and Q are highly complex nonlinear
functions of S2., ~, and the payload.
Consider now a fixed task-related Cartesian frame of ref-
erence and let the nxl vector X. represent the end- effector
position coordinates in this frame . For a general six degree·
of-freedom manipulator, X contains three position components

289
290 H. Seraji

(such as Cartesian coordinates z, y, z) and three orientation discussed separately:

components (such as Euler angles ~, .p, ~). The end-effector
position vector X is related to the joint angle vector ~ by the
forward kinematic relationship [22-23] 2. 1 Feedback Controller

X(t) = A(~) (2)
where the ru:l vector A(~) is a nonlinear function which em-
bodies the manipulator geometry. Equations (1)- (2) consti-
tute the nonlinear mathematical model of the end- effector
dynamics.
Suppose that the initial condition of the end-effector in
the Cartesian space is denoted by Xo and corresponds to the
joint angle vector ~o and the joint torque vector 'L0 . Let
the operating point representing this initial condition of the
manipulator be denoted by P. Now, suppose that the joint
torque vector is perturbed slightly by 1:(t), that is 'L(t) =
'L 0 +1:(t); and let the resulting perturbation in the joint angle
vector and the end-effector position vector be ~(t) and 3<.(t)
respectively, i.e. ~(t) = ~o + ~(t) and X(t) = Xo + 3<.(t). In
a recent study [20], it is shown that ~(t) is related to 1:(t) by
the linear differential equation
The role of the ru:n feedback controller K($) is to provide
a stable closed-loop system with poles at desired locations in
the complex plane. The feedback controller also ensures that
any error between 3<.(t) and r(t) is reduced to zero asymptoti-
cally.
For the purpose of stabilization and pole placement, it is
sufficient to apply feedback from the position vector 3<.(t) and
the velocity vector ~(t); since this corresponds to full state
feedback for the linear model (7) . Hence, an appropriate choice
for the feedback controller is
(9)
where Kp and K. are constant ru:n position and velocity feed-
back gain matrices respectively. The feedback control law is
therefore given by

M(t) + B~.(t) + 6~(t) = 1:(t) (3) in the frequency-domain; or by

Equation (3) is obtained by linearizing the nonlinear equation
(1) about the operating point P; and -4, B, and 6 are constant
ru:n matrices which depend on P. Now, consider the differen-
tial transformation from the joint space {~} to the Cartesian
space {X}. The joint angle perturbation ~(t) is related to the
end-effector perturbation 3<.(t) by [22-23]
(4)
where J o = J(S;l0) = [1l~~;U]p is the ru:n Jacobian matrix
evaluated at the operating point P. Assuming P is not a sin-
gular point of the Jacobian matrix, equation (4) can be solved
for ~ as
(5)
L1 (t) = Kp~(t) + K.§.(t) (11)
in the time-domain, where ~(t) = r(t) - 3<.(t) and ~(t) = i(t)-
~(t) are the nxl position and velocity tracking-error vectors
respectively. Note that no differentiation is involved in imple-
menting the feedback controller since i( t) and ~(t) [= Jo~( t)]
are directly available; and hence K($) is realizable.
2. 2 FeedCorward Controller
The function of the ru:n feedforward controller Q ($) is
to cause the position vector 3<.(t) track the reference trajectory
vector 1:(t) . From Refs. [24-25], the feedforward controller
Q(s) is chosen as the minimal-order inverse of the end-effector
model (8); that is

In formulating the end-effector dynamics in Cartesian

space, we consider the ru:l "virtual" force vector L acting on
the end-effector as the driving input. The end- effector force
L is related to the joint torque 'L through the J acobian matrix
The feedforward control law is therefore given by
[23]
'L(t) = J'(~)L(t)
where the superscript "I" denotes transposition. Hence, for an
incremental analysis
in the frequency-domain; or by
1:(t) = J~[(t) (6)
where the ru:l vector I denotes the perturbation in the end- L 2 (t) = Cr(t) + Bi(t) + Ai(t) (14)
effector force from the nominal value L'.
in the time-domain. It must be noted that since the desired
On substituting for ~ and 1: from equations (5)-(6) into velocity i(t) and acceleration i(t) are directly available, it is
equation (3), we obtain the incremental model of the end- not necessary to perform differentiation in implementing the
effector dynamics in Cartesian space as
feedforward control law; and hence Q($) is realizable.
Ai(t) + B~(t) + C3<.(t) = L(t) (7)
Based on the foregoing results, a simple "incremental"
where A = (J')-1 Aj-1 B = (J,)-1 BJ- 1 and C = robot control system can be formed by combining the feedback
(J~)-16J;;1 are °consta.x':t ~ matric:s . Eq~ation (7) rep-
and feedforward controllers as shown in Figure 1. It must be
resents a (2n)lh order linear multivariable system with the ru:l
input vector I(t) and the ru:l output vector 3<.(t) . The transfer- noted that since we cannot physically apply Cartesian forces to
function model relating 1($) to 3<.( $) is obtained from equation the end-effector, we instead compute the joint torques needed
(7) as - to effectively cause these forces. Thus, in order to implement
3<.($) = (A$2 + B$ + C)-1[($) (8) the controllers, the control law in joint space is given by

Now, let !:(t) denote the ru:l "incremental reference tra- 1:($) = J~ [[1($) + [2($)]
jectory vector" in Cartesian space, that is, the desired value (15)
of the end-effector position vector 3<.(t) . Then, in order for the = J~ [Kp + K.$]~($) + J~ [c + B$ + A$2] r($)
position vector 3<.( t) to track the reference trajectory vector
r( t), the control system must have two independent controllers in the frequency-domain; or by
[24] as shown in Figure 1; namely the feedback controller K($)
and the feedforward controller Q ($ ). Each controller is now 1:(t) = J~ [Kp~(t) + K.§.(t) + Cr(t) + Bi(t) + Ai(t)] (16)
 Cartl'si;1I1 Control oj Robotic \Llniplll ;ltors
in the time-domain. On applying the control law (16) to the
end-effector model (7). we obtain
Noting that ~ = f. - i;. and £: = t -~. we obtain the (2n)th order
error differential equation
A£:(t) + (B + K.)~(t) + (C + Kpk(t) = Q
Equation (17) describes the dynamic behavior of the position
tracking-error ~(t) in terms of the feedback gains Kp and K •.
It must be noted that by choosing the feedforward controller
as the minimal inverse of the robot. we have ensured that the
error differential equation (17) is homogeneous; i.e .• the right-
hand side of (17) is zero. The solution of equation (17) can be
expressed as
~(t) = [:f: G;e",p('1;t)] ~(O) + [:f: H;e",p('1;t)] ~(O)
,:;;::1 1::;:1
where ~(O) and ~(O) are the initial position and velocity errors.
G; and H; are some constant nxn matrices. and '1; is a root of
the (2n)th order error characteristic polynomial [24]
.le(s) = IAs2 + (B + K.)s + (C + Kp)1
It is noted that the feedforward controller Q(s) does not
affect the error characteristic polynomial .le( s) and hence the
dynamics of the tracking-error ~(t) is independent of Q(s) .
Since the gain matrices K p and K. can be chosen such that
'11 •.. ·.'12n have negative real parts [24]. the tracking-error vec-
tor ~(t) in equation (18) will tend to zero asymptotically; i.e .•
~(t) -> Q or ~(t) -> 1:(t) as t -> 00 for all ~(O) and ~(O). In
fact. by placing the roots '11 •.. .• '72n at desired locations. the
transient behavior of the tracking-error can be shaped at the
designer's discretion.
3. Direct Adaptive Control of the End-Effector
Motion
In Section 2. the structure of multi variable controllers to
control the incremental motion of the end-effector was devel-
oped. This control scheme works well for small movements of
the end- effector about the nominal operating point P. The
implementation of the incremental control law on the robot
manipulator is shown in Figure 2. It is seen that the "total"
control law is the sum of two components . The first compo-
nent is the value of the end-effector force vector at the nominal
operating point P; namely :£:'. The second component is the
contribution due to the incremental controllers K(s) and Q(s).
Thus. from Figure 2. the "total" control law is given by
£:(t) =£:0 + [(t) = :£:' + Kp [!:(t) - ~(t)]
+ K. [f.(t) - i;.(t)] + C!:(t) + Bf.(t) + Af(t)
Now. let the "total" reference trajectory vector be K(t) = K° +
1:(t) and the "total" position vector be X(t) = XO +~(t). where
in practice K° = XO . Substituting these in equation (20) gives
the "total" control law in terms of the "total" variables as
£:(t) =E + Kp [K(t) - X(t)] + K. [R(t) - K(t)]
+ CK(t) + BR(t) + A.k{t)
where £:" = £:0 _ CKo - BRo - Ajr. It is seen that in ad-
dition to the two terms due to the feedback and feedforward
controllers. a third term £:" reflecting the effect of the operat-
ing point P is present in the total control law. Note that the
operating point does not satisfy the incremental model; that
is. £:0 f. [CKo + BK + AK]. i .e. E f. Q.
In the direct adaptive control scheme developed in this
section. the gains of the controllers K (s) and Q (s) and the
operating point term £:" in the control law (21) are adapted
continuously on-line to cope with variations in coefficients of
the robot model (7) due to changes in the operating point . This
291
adaptation ensures that the robot control system is tuned on-
line such that a good dynamic performance is achieved despite
coefficient variations due to changes of the robot geometric
configuration. speed of motion or the payload.
Consider the nonlinear model of the end-effector dynam-
ics written as [1 .2.12]
(17) £:(t) = A"(X.K)X(t)+B"(X.K)K(t)+C"(X.K)X(t) (22)
where A". B". and C" are nxn matrices whose elements are
complex nonlinear functions of X.K. and the payload. Let us
now consider the linear time-varying robot control law
£:(t) =£.(t) + [Kp(t)g:(t) + K.(t)t(t)]
(23)
+ [C(t)K(t) + B(t)E.(t) + A(t)E(t)]
where g:(t) = K(t) - X(t) is the nx1 "total" position tracking-
(18) error vector. Equation (23) is a generalization of the "total"
control law (21) developed in Section 2 based on the incremen-
tal analysis . As in equation (21). this control law is composed
of three components; namely the "auxiliary input" £.(t). the
feedback term [Kp(t)g:(t) + K.(t)t(t)]. and the feedforward
(19) term [C(t)K(t) + B(t)R(t) + A(t)E(t)] . The time-varying sig-
nal £.(t) corresponds to the operating point term £:" in equa-
tion (21) and will be synthesized by the adaptive scheme. On
applying the total control law (23) to the nonlinear end-effector
model (22) as shown in Figure 3. we obtain the closed-loop
model
A"X(t) + B"K(t) + C"X(t) = £(t) + Kpg:(t) + K.t(t)
+ CK(t) + BR(t) + AE(t)
(24)
This equation can be written in terms of the total tracking-
error g:( t) as
A"t(t) + (B" + K.)t(t) + (C" + Kp)g:(t) = -£.(t)
(25)
+ (A" - A)E(t)+ (B" - B)R(t) + (C" - C)K(t)
It is seen that 1£( t) and £.( t) appear as forcing functions on the
right-hand side of the error differential equation (25) . There-
fore. if the gains of the feedforward controller Q(s) and the
auxiliary input £.(t) are fixed. the solution of equation (25)
for the tracking-error g:( t) will no longer tend to zero asym-
totically. and will depend on K(t) and £.(t). As a result. it
is essential to adapt the feedforward gains and the auxiliary
input to cope with variations of the operating point so as to
accomplish trajectory tracking. The feedback gains will also be
adapted to ensure closed-loop stability with desired transient
performance.
(20)
Now. let us define the 2nx1 position-velocity tracking-
error vector ;.(t) ~ (.i~g) and rewrite equation (25) in the
standard state-space format
(21)
i(t) = (_ [AT1 ~C" + Kp] _ Wr1~B" + K.]) ;.(t)
+ CA"r? [-£.]) + (wr 1
[~" - Cl) K(t)
+ ([A"r 1 [~" - B]) R(t) + (wr 1 [~" _ A]) E(t)
(26)
Equation (26) constitutes the "adjustable system" in the
MRAC framework .
We shall now define the "reference model" which em-
bodies the desired performance of the system in terms of the
tracking-error g:(t). For the end-effector. the ,Klost desirable
situation is that each tracking-error E;(t) = R;(t) - X;(t) is
decoupled from the others and satisfies a second-order homo-
geneous differential equation of the standard form
292 H. Snaji

E.(t) + 2{.w.E.(t) + wl E.(t) = 0;

i = 1 , . ,n
"
(27)
6(t) = "1!I.m(t)E'(t) + "2ft [!I.m(t)R'(t)] (35)
where {. and w.
are the damping factor and the undamped
natural frequency to be specified by the designer and reflect B(t) = 1'1!l.m(t)R'(t) + 1'2ft [!I.m(t)R'(t)] (36)
the desired dynamic behavior of E.(t) . Equation (27) can be
..1(t) = Al!l.m(t)E.'(t) + A2~ [!I.m(t)E.'(t)]
written in the vector form (37)

where
where Dl = diag.(wl) and D2 = diag.(2{.w.) are constant n.xn
diagonal matrices and the subscript 'm' denotes the reference
model. Equation (28) can be put in the standard state-space
format is an nx1 vector . Let us now consider the reference model state
(29) vector ~m(t) = ( t~g) . The solution ofthe homogeneous
reference model (29) can be expressed as

where ~m(t) = ( t~g) is the 2nxl vector of desired posi- (38)

tion and velocity errors . Since the reference model (29) is sta-
where ~m(O) is the initial state of the reference model. Since
ble, there exists a constant 2nx2n symmetric positive- definite
the initial values of the reference and actual trajectories are
matrix P = (~: ~:) which satisfies the Lyapunov equation often the same, i.e. EO = KO and .11,." = XO, the initial error
is usually zero; that is ~(O) = Q. Hence, from equation (38) ,
[see Reference 20] ~(t) ;: Q for all t. Therefore, the adaptation laws (32) - (37)
simplify to
PD+D'P= -Q
E.(t) = 51!I.(t) + 521.(t) (39)
where D is the 2nx2n system matrix in equation (29) and Q is . rn '(t)
]
a constant 2nx2n symmetric positive-definite matrix . We shall Kp(t) = 0I!I.(t).E, (t) + 02did t!l.(t).E (40)
now derive the adaptation laws which ensure that the position-
velocity error vector ~(t) tends to the desired value ~m(t) for k.(t) = (31'lJt)£.'(t) + (32ft [!I.(t)£.'(t)] (41)
any reference trajectory E( t). Applying the method described
in Reference 26, we obtain
6(t) = "1!I.(t)R'(t) + "2ft l!I.(t)E'(t)] (42)

( _ [A~-1 t) = Q;;1 P~ + Q:P~ B(t) = 1'1!I.(t)E'(t) + 1'2ft [!I.(t)R'(t)] (43)

(_ [A"~-1 k p _ [A"~-1 kJ = Qil P~~' (OI;n J

{310I ..1(t) = Al!I.(t)E.'(t) + A2ft [!I.(t)E.'(t)] (44)

+ Q1.pd(
di ~~
')(02In
0 {32In
0) where the nx1 vector 'l.(t) is defined as

( _ [A~-1 6) = Q2"1 P~E' + QiPft(~R')

[A~-1 B) P~R' + Q3Pft(~R')
using the results of Reference 20. Hence
( _ = Q3"1
!I.(t) = diag.(wpi).E(t) + diag.(w •• )£(t) (45)
( _ [A~-1 A) = Q.l p~jl + Q:pft(~jr)
where w p ' = (2{.wt)g. and w •• = (wl)h. are weighting factors
(30)
of E. and E. . The constants g. and h. are chosen by the
where ~(t) = ~m(t) - ~(t) is the 2=1 adaptation error vec-
designer to reflect the relative significance of the position and
tor, {01' {31} are positive scalars, {02' {32} are zero or posi-
velocity errors E. and E•. From equations (39) - (44) , the
tive scalars, Qo, ... ,Q4 are constant 2nx2n symmetric positive-
required auxiliary input and controller gains are given by
definite matrices, and Q;, ... , Q. are constant 2nx2n symmet-
ric positive semi-definite matrices. In deriving equation (30),
we have treated the robot parameters A·(K,X), B·(K,X),
and C·(K,X) as unknown and "quasi-time-invariant" in com-
£(t) = £(0) + 52'l(t) + 51 l' !I.(t)dt (46)

+ l'
parison with the adaptation scheme. In order to cancel out
A· in the adaptation laws, the matrices in equation (30) are Kp(t) = Kp(O) + 02'l.(t).E'(t) 01 'l.(t).E'(t)dt (47)
chosen as

K.(t) = K.(O) + (32!I.(t)£' (t) + l'

(31 !I.(t)£' (t)dt (48)

C(t) = C(O) + "2'l.(t)R'(t) +"1 l' !I.(t)R'(t)dt (49)

B(t) = B(O) + 1'2'l(t)R'(t) + l'

1'1 !I.(t)E'(t)dt (50)
where {51 ,"1 ,1'1 ,Ad are positive scalars, {52, "2,1'2, A2} are
zero or POSl·t·lve sc al ars, an dA.. = (A· A.0).
0 IS a 2nx2n
A(t) = A(O) + A2!I.(t)E.'(t) + l'Al !I.(t)E.'(t)dt (51)
positive-definite matrix. Substituting from equation (31) into
equation (30) and simplifying yields the adaptation laws The control scheme is extremely simple since the con-
troller gains are evaluated from equations (46-51) by sim-
(32) ple integration using, for instance, the trapezoidal rule.
Thus the computational time required to calculate the
.
Kp(t) = olim(t).E, (t) + 02did [im(t).E'(t)] (33) adaptive control law (equation 23) is extremely short . As
a result, the scheme can be implemented for on-line robot
k.(t) = (31!I.m(t)£'(t) + (32~ [~(t)£'(t)] (34)
control with high sampling rates; resulting in improved
dynamic performance.
 (:;tr(esiall COlltrol of Robotic \ialliplllatol"s
4. Conclusions
A simple model reference adaptive robot control scheme
using the Lyapunov method has been developed in this paper.
The control scheme achieves trajectory tracking for the robot
end-effector directly in the Cartesian space. The scheme is in-
sensitive to variations in the robot parameters and the payload,
has low on-line computational burden and very low memory re-
quirement. Furthermore, by proper definition of the "reference
model" as in Section 3, decoupled response for each degree-of-
freedom of the end-effector can be achieved . The adaptive
control scheme presented in this paper is "direct" and gen-
erates the control action without prior parameter estimation
of the robot model. These attributes make the present scheme
suitable for implementation in on-line control ofrobotic manip-
u1ators with high sampling rates. Furthermore, the indepen-
dence of adaptive control methods from the complex dynamic
model or the dynamic parameter values of the manipulator un-
der control makes such methods easily "portable" to different
manipu1ators.
5. Acknowledgement
The research described in this paper was performed at the
Jet Propu1~ion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ministration .
6. References
1. o. Khatib: "Dynamic control of manipulators in opera-
tional space," Proc. 6th IFTOMM Congress on Theory
of Machines and Mechanisms, pp. 1128-1131, New Delhi,
India, 1983 (Wiley, New Delhi).
2. O . Khatib : "The operational space formulation in the
analysis, design, and control of manipulators," Proc. 3rd
International Symposium of Robotics Researc.l, Paris,
France, 1985.
3. J .R. Rewit : "Decoupled control of robot movement,"
Electronics Letters (lEE), 15 (21), pp . 670-671, 1979.
4. O. Egeland: "On the robustness of the computed torque
technique in manipulator control," Proc. IEEE Intern.
Conf. Robotics and Automation, pp. 1203-1208, San
Francisco, 1986.
5. A.J. Koivo and T.R. Guo: "Adaptive linear controller
for robotic manipulators," IEEE Trans. Aut . Control,
AC28(2), pp. 162-170, 1983 .
6. C.S.G. Lee and M.J. Chung: "An adaptive control strat-
egy for mechanical manipulators," IEEE Trans . Aut .
Control, AC29(9), pp. 837-840, 1984.
7. T .H. Guo and A.J. Koivo : "On a linearized model and
adaptive controller implementation for manipulator mo-
tion," Journal of Robotic Systems, 1(2), pp . 141-156,
1984.
8. A.J. Koivo: "Self-tuning manipulator control in Carte-
sian base coordinate system," AS ME Jour. Dyn. Sys-
tems, Measurement and Control, Vol. 107, pp. 316-323,
1985.
9. C.S.G. Lee and B.H. Lee: "Resolved motion adaptive
control of mechanical manipulators," ASME J. Dyn. Sys-
tems, Measurement and Control, Vol. 106, pp . 134-142,
1984.
10 . C.S.G. Lee, M.J. Chung, and B.H. Lee: "An approach
of adaptive control for robot manipulators," Journal of
Robotic Systems, 1(1), pp. 27-57, 1984.
11. S. Dubowsky, and D.T. DesForges: "The application of
model-referenced adaptive control to robotic manipula-
tors," ASME J. Dyn. Systems, Measurement and Con-
trol, Vol. 101, pp. 193-200, 1979 .
12. A . Balestrino, G. DeMaria and L. Sciavicco: "An adap-
tive model following control for robotic manipulators,"
ASME J . Dyn. Systems, Measurement and Control, Vol.
105, pp. 143-151, 1983.
13. S. Nicosia and P . Tomei: "Model reference adaptive con-
trol algorithms for industrial robots," Automatica, 20(5),
pp. 635-644, 1984 .
14 . S.N . Singh: "Adaptive model following control of non-
linear robotic systems," IEEE Trans. Aut . Control,
AC30(11), pp. 1099-1100, 1985.
15. M. Takegaki and S. Arimoto: "An adaptive trajectory
control of manipulators," Int. J. Control, 34(2), pp. 219-
230, 1981.
16. R .P . Anex, Jr. and M. Hubbard: "Modeling and adap-
tive control of a mechanical manipulator," AS ME J. Dyn.
Systems, Measurement and Control, Vol. 106, pp. 211-
217, 1984.
17. M. Tomizuka and R . Horowitz: "Model reference adap-
tive control of mechanical manipulators," Proc. IFAC
Symp. Adaptive Systems in Control and Signal Proc.,
pp. 27-32, San Francisco, 1983.
18. K.Y . Lim and M . Eslami: "Adaptive controller designs
for robot manipulator systems using Lyapunov direct
method," IEEE Trans. Aut. Control, AC30(12), pp.
1229-1233, 1985.
19. M . Vukobratovic and N. Kircanski: "An approach to
adaptive control of robotic manipulators," Automatica,
21(6), pp. 639-647, 1985.
20. H. Seraji: "Adaptive control of robotic manipulators,"
Jet Propu1sion Laboratory, Engineering Memorandum
347-182, January 1986 (Internal Document).
21. A.K. Bejczy: "Robot arm dynamics and control," Jet
Propu1sion Laboratory, Technical Memorandum 33-669,
1974 (Internal Document).
22. R. Pau1: "Robot Manipulators: Mathematics, Program-
ming and Control," MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981.
23. J .J . Craig: "Robotics: Mechanics and Control,"
Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA,
1986.
24. H . Seraji: "Line"! multivariable control of robot manip-
ulators," Proc. IEEE Intern. Conf. Robotics and Au-
tomation, pp. 565-571, San Francisco, 1986.
25. H. Seraji: "In verses for multi-link robots with applica-
tion to trajectory tracking," Proc. 19th Asilomar Conf.
Circuits, Systems and Computers, pp. 139-143, Pacific
Grove, 1985.
26. H. Seraji: "A simple method for model reference adaptive
control," Submitted for publication, 1986.
294 H . Se raji

f2
Q(s) • C + Bs + As2

r-- ,..---
fl + f
r + -o-!. K(s) • K + K s
P ~()--!-. J' r!-.. MANIPULATOR
~ Jo x
,- v + 0
'---
DYNAMICS
-

Figure 1. Incremental Robot Control System

C + Bs + As 2

K +K s
P V

L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---1

Figure 2. Implementation of Robot Control System

R +

""0
.....
<
""..........z
~
:>
X
""
0
..... X
u
.....
< R
""
.....
z
<
V>
~
""
<
u

R +

Figure 3. Adaptive Robot Control Scheme