MM1.
APPLICATION OF H4WWTY THEORY TO ROBOT MANWLATOR CONTROL
WtrfmL. Stoa
Electrical Engitwering Departmod
Wkhita Stak University
Wichita, Kansas 67208
This paper investigates the feasibility of H-infinity control
theoly for robol manipulator control. Given a model of
manipulator dynamics, a control methodology is developed
which utilize an inner loop linearizing, decoupling feedback
control and an H-infinity outer loop compensator. A
methodology for handling model simplifications in the
linearizing feecback loop is also developed. An example
-
control design is presented along with simulation results.
Robust tracking of trajectories is shown given bounds on
model parameters.
Since the development of state space solutions to Hinfinity
control problems, Hinfinity has become a powerfultechnique
for multivariable control design. This power hinges on three
issues: 1) it is a multivariable technique, 2) both performance
and stability robustness can be addressed and 3) it is aMe to
drectly handle uncertainty. However for the practice of H-
infinity controller design to permeate into the practicing
control community's box of tools, more experience and
insight into the methodology is needed. This papec attempts
to address this issue by applying H-infinitycontrol theory to a
robot manipulator as well as demonstrate the feasibility of H-
infinity theory for manipulator control.
Control of robot manipulators is a challenging control task
because of the nonlinear, coupled nature within the
equations of motion. This leads to uncertainly in the robol
model. The ability to accurately assess these uncertainties
and to push the bandwidhs of controllers (while maintaining
stability w.r.1. the uncertainties) is very important for robol
performance. Because of H-infinity's ability to incorporate
uncertainty into the controller desi@, this is a good
framework to improve robot performance and to gain
experience with H-infinity techniques.
The contents of this paper are as follaws. Sedion 2
presents the structure of robot dynamic equations. Next, in
section 3, the equations of motion are linearized using
feedbadc linearization (or inverse dynamics). A technique for
representing uncertainty related to modeling errors in the
feedback linearization loop is also developed in this section.
CH3OOO-7/92/0000-0148$1.00*1992 IEEE
Y. EdwinSewan
-
%ion 4 then highlights the methodology behind H-infinily
control. Last an example control design is presented along
with simulation results in &ion 5.
The robol manipulator is modeled as a set of n rigid bodies
connected in series. The equations of motion in joint space
are gven by
M(q) 6 + qq,$ + G(q) = 7 (1 1
where t k !!?? n x 1 joint torque vector (supplied by actuators
at each joint) and q, q and q are the joint positions,velocities
and accelerations, respectively. Also, M(q) is the n x n
inertia matrix (symmetric, positive definite), C(q,$
represents the n x 1 centrifugal and Coridis terms vector and
G(q) is the gavity vector. Note (1) is a set of hi@ly coupled,
nonlinear equations. Given this set of n equations the
control problem is to determine the necessary joint torques
to follow a desired trajectory.
4lwzEmd-
Since Hinfinity control is a linear control technique the plant
equations of mdion must be linearizable over a reasonable
regon of the joint space or else a linearization scheme must
be applied to the plant in real time. Due to the nature of ( l ) ,
regional linearization of the EOM is nol possible so the well-
known technique of nonlinear feedback linearization is
utilized. As will become apparent later, the nonlinear
feedback forms an inner loop which produces linearized
behavior of the plant and inner loop combination [l]. The H-
infinity controller is then applied to this plant.
The linearizing feedback control essentially subtracts off the
nonlinear terms in (i)and thus takes the form
7 = m(q) uc + cced + 9(q) (2)
where U- becomes a new input and m(q), c(q,q) and as)
represent approximations to the adual manipulator EOM.
Inserting(2) into (1) yields
148
If
Given that

(4) h(q,$) t H(q,$)

there are several methods for bounding the uncertainty or
then Merence between these !WO functions. One method is lo
bound the matrii norm so that
9 =uc
and the system reduces to a set of n second order
decoupled eqations. Andher method is to bound the matri elements in the
following manner
However in reality, the equalities (4) never hold and so
uncertainty is introduced into the linearized model. To
represent the uncertainly, let
Wq,d = C ( q d + G(@
h(qi4) = c(qil) + g(q)
so that (3)becomes In either approach bounds may be determined using sane
search strategy OT by inspection of each element. In this
;i = Ws) -lI m(@uc + h(q,$) - H(q,$) I (6) paper, the latter approach is taken because it allows US to
or caflure uncertainty variations between each link. Nde that
uncertainly in each element is a function of link positions,
q = M(@-1 m(4 uC expected velocity range of each link, adjoining link crass-
+ [ h(q,$
M(q) -l - H(q,il) 1 (7) coupling configurations and also varialion in link masses.
For example, in a typical PUMA style robd application, the
Figures l a and l b show Modc &gam representationsof (6)
outer links move faster than links doser to the base. Also,
and (7), respectively. Note G(s) represents n 2nd order
positkm and velocity measurements are made with resped
integrators. to the parent link. Thus there will be considerable variation
in uncertainty between each link. Finally uncerlainty will vary
with frequency because d dynamic crosscoupling. In
praElie, simplifications in the linearizing feedback could be
based on processingtime limitations.

Uncertainly also exists in the multiplication of M(q)-l with

I I
(a) Nominal Represenlation
m(q). Recall that M is both symmelric and positive definite.
Since M is positive definite the inverse always exists. Also,
because M is symmetric the producl M(q)-l m(s) is a
dagonal matrix. Thus, the standardmethod for representing
the uncertainly associated with the above produd is
II M(q)-l 'm(s) II 5 dag( b ) (9)
Although it is not typically done, 6 could vary along the
dagonal.

In condusion, for a two link manipulator, the linearized model

A I with uncertainly is represented as shown in figure 2.

(b) Uncertainly Representation

fig. 1 Feedback Linearization Block Diagrams

figure 2 Linearized Model with Uncertainly

149
This forms the model used in the desi@ of the H-infinily
controller.
40 H-mHTY-IOGY
In this section the imporlant aspects of the H-infinily theory
and deslgn methodology are presented. No theory is
developed here as it is weH documented in the literature
(References [2], [3]and [4] are good places to start).
Technically, H-infinity encompasses 4 steps as follows:
slep 1: Develop an appropriate optimization format
(using the linear fractional interconnection
structure.
slep 2: Form weighting functions to meel desired
specifications (typically on S and T).
slep 3: Design an H-infinity controller using the Glover
/ Doyle algorithm that meets the design
constraints.
slep 1. Verify the design using non-linear simulation.
Kinfinity controller design requires converting the block
dagam in figure 3 to a linear fractional famat. The
pciblem formulation then becomes a l i a r system in the
form
x(t) = A ~ ( t+) 61 w(t) + 62 ~ ( t )
z(t) = C1 X(t) + D11 W(t) + D l 2 ~ ( t ) (1 0)
fit) = C2 X(t) + D21 W(t) + D22 U(t)
where
w(t) E p1 is the external inpuUdsturbancevector
u(t) E flis the contrd input vector'
z(t) E RP1 is the vector d all signals used to characterize
dosed loop system behavior
fit) E Fi@ is the measured (sensed) output vector
x(t) E R" is the state vector
The frequency dependent weights are included in this model.
A linear fractional representation Mock dagam is shown in
figure 4. In the figure,
Extmd Contrdld

These steps are discussed below.

The mod c m o n format for optimization is the mixed

performance and robustness objective. The popularity of
this format stems from its abiiity to obtain good low-
frequency disturbance rejedion while maintaining s t a b i i
w.r.1. unstructured mulliplicative uncertainty at the plant
Output [3].

Because of the nature of the H-infinity norm, plant weightings figure 4 Hinfinily Contrd Problem
must weight plant parameters that are desired to be kept
small. Wt= leads to weightings on the closed loop sensitivity
matrix, S, for low frequency weighting and on the dosed loop (1 1)
transfer function, T, for high frequency control. Figure 3
shows a generic block dagam set up for mixed performance With a linear controller K(s) connecting y to U, the closed
/ robustness oplimization. toop transfer fundion from w to z is @en by

with infhiy norm defined by

OD
a
II FI(P,K) llinf = SUP [ FI(P,K) ] (13)
The solution to minimizing the M nom in the above
equation requires sdving two algebak Rsccati equations,
each of &gee n [2]. l k fallowing assum@ions are
required on the plant, P
L =G(s) K(s)
e = I I(I+L)w = S w i) (A,Bl) and (A,=) are SlabilitaMe
y =( I - S)w;: L/(I+L) W E T w ii) (C1,A) and (C2,A)are detectable
Ws(r)rwsetrsarrpmasnnvlly IUMlCn. S iii) D12TD12 = I
W s ) =wa@WQdn c o n p ( a " t w y 9dnlnnPj hlndicn. T iv) M 1 MlT=I
In most designs, transformations on the plant are required in
figure 3 W-lnfinily Mixed Performance / Robustness Block order to meel assumptions fii an8 iv. These transformations
I3iagam are detailed in [q. The H-infinity algorithm involves solving
 ,
two Ricalti equations and is detailed in References[2], [3] or These values are based on rough estimates and, while
141. hopefully realistic, are not intended to represent adual
estimates of uncertainty for a PUMA 560 robot arm. The
mass matrix p r o b d is assumed to be known Within 1o%,ie.,
5 - m
In this section the H-infinity theory of Sedion 4.0 is applied to
a two-link manipulator. The linearized robot model is of the
form developed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0. For a block diagram of the plant with uncertainty refer to
figure 2.
For a two link manipulator,the equations of motion are
For design of the H-infinity controller, the steps in section 4.0
71 =M11 91 + M12Q+C1 +G1 will be fdlowed. The first step in the process is lo develop
9 = = 2 1 9 1 +M2292+C2+G2 the appropriate optimization strudure. As mentioned before
where the mixed performance / sensitivity format is utilized.
M i l = 3.82 +2.12 COS(^^)
M i 2 = M21 = 0.71 + 1.06 Cm(q2) Slep 2 requires determining appropriate weighting functions
M z = 0.71
on the closed loop sensitivity function, S and the closed loop
transfer fundion, T. In this design, desirable closed loop
frequency response was chosen as having a c r m v e r of
N1 =-2.12sin (q2) ( q t & + & / 2 )
25-30 radsec, integral action at low frequency and sharp
N2 = - 2.12 sin (92) $1 / 2
rolldf ( 4 0 dbldecade) above the crossover. This produced
weighting functions for bdh S and T as
G1 = 81.82 COS(q1)+ 24.06 COS(q1+ 92)
G2 = 24.06 coS(q1 + 92) s+30
ws = .001/30 s+.oo1
These etpations correspond to a PUMA 560 robot arm and
are taken from [5] for comparison purposes. Figure 5 shows 8+30
d picture of the manipulator. WT = 8OOMO * 9+800

Plots of WS and WT are shown in Figure 6. Note that II lWsl

+ lW$II c 1 for all frequencies as required. Plds of S and T
for the open loop plant are shwn in Figure 7.

Running thru the optimization routine and iterating on y

resulted in an optimal solution when y = .0083. Plds of S
and T for the closed loop system with contrdler are shown in

c' figures 8 and 9, respectively. Solving for the controller, K

figure 5 Two Link Manipulator Arm
yielded a controller of order 6 (the same as the plant and
weighting functions). For this design, very high gains and
eigenvalues exist in the controllers. This is because there
are more degees of freedom available than necessary lo
meet the specifications. Therefore a truncated reduced
order controller is advisable. In this report, the controller was
truncated and the two lowest frequency modes were kept.

The feedback linearization uncertainty matrix is given by With the reduced order controller, a simulation of the
= ma& = m12 "13
Ah
,'
m14
Ah'24 1 uncertain system to Ihe commandedinput
q l = 90 [ 3 exp(-V0.3) - 4 exp(-V0.4) 1 deg

=c 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2 0.2s 0.2s 1
A frequency bound is also applied to the Ah' function to
represent uncertainty variation with frequency. The transfer
function was the same on both outputs and is
= 90 [ 1 + 3 exp(40.3) - 4 exp(-t/OA) ] deg
is shown on figure 10. The input is typical of a trajectory
command output of a 1st order prefilter in the system. As
can be seen excellent tracking with very little error is
recorded.

s + 30
Ah'f = -
s+5m

151
-
H-infMy was shawn as a good framework for desigring
robot controllers. The ability to expliciUy model uncertainties
resuRing from feedback linearization make the procebre
especiatly usdul. Certainly some experimentation and
1.

2.

d-H
2
Craig, John J.,
aod,

. .& w e A.,
R
-
- Mechanff
Addson-Wesley Publishing Company, 1989.

Doyle, John C., Glover, Keilh, Khargonekar, Pramal

P.,and Francis,
, IEEE Transactions on
Momdic W r o l , Vol 34,No. 8, Augrst 1989.
experience is necessary to adequately bound uncertain
parameters, but this is true using any desigr technique. A b 3. MaciejowsY, J. M., ktUWuW& , -eF
the mixed performance / sensitivity formal pwed to be an Addson-Wesley Publishing Company, 1989.
adequate for manipulatingclosed loop frequency response.
Safonov, Michael G.,Limebeer, D. J. N. and Chiang, R.
4.
. . . . ..
However, more investigation is reqrired before an Hinfinily Y., S"Q the H - m W T h W
controller is fully understood. This investigation list would , - International Journal of
include better understandng of uncertainty bounds, better Control, 1989, Vol. 50, No.6, ~2467-2488.
hawledge of closed loop senSaivily to nmmodeled
. .
parameler variations and impad of re&& order 5. Seraji, H., AoAguacAmroach to
controllers. Controller implementation issues would indude m,Transactions of the ASME - Jcumal of
the above plus pccessing time reqrired to cmpute the non- Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, June 1937,
linear feedback loop, dfeds of loads and joint flexibiliy. p146-154.
-hough questions do exist, Hinfinlty prospects for robot
controllers appears pomising. 6. Spcmg, Mark W. and Vidyasagar, M., ~ i w
for 3 -;LE
Journal of Robotics and Automation, August 1987, ~345351.

100 I , I , , ,,,, , , , ,,/,, , I , ,<

--. . . .
.. . .. . . ....

I 0-a
10-1 10' 10'
Frequency
100
- Rad/Sec 103

Figure 6 hlof Weighting Fundims, Ws and WT (DashedLkre - Ws , Solid Line - WT)

k0

20
0

-eo
-100
-12ot
I__---_.-
' '''"b' ' " ""'
.
'
, .

" " " "

.
'
.
" " " "
..

'
.

".'''''' "

10-3 10- lo-' 100 101 loa 103

Freaucncy - Raa/Stc

Figwe 7 Plot of S and 7 for flan1 and Inner Loop (hshedklne - S, Solid Line - T)

152

.- . ..
.. . ..
 n

>

Frequency - Ra3/Sec ..

figure 8 Pld of Closed Loop S and W i l (Dashed Llne - W i l , Solid Line - S)

n -:0

f
-51
-151
'
. . . . . ....
. .
.....
. . . ..... . . . . .

........

-20r
-2s

-30
lo-' 10" 100 10' 10' 10'
Freauency -
Raa/Sec

figure 9 Plol of Closed Loop Syslem, T, and WT'' (Dashed Llne - WT-' , Solid Line - T)

Time (sec)

figure 10 T i e History d Closed Loop System

153