Robotica: page 1 of 18.


C Cambridge University Press 2019
doi:10.1017/S0263574719000225

Trajectory Tracking and Stability

Analysis for Mobile Manipulators Based
on Decentralized Control
Raouf Fareh†∗, Mohamad R. Saad‡, Maarouf Saad§,
Abdelkrim Brahmi§ and Maamar Bettayeb†,¶
†Department of Electrical and Computer Eng., University of Sharjah, P.O.Box 27272, Sharjah, UAE
‡School of Engineering, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 445, boul. de l’Université,
Rouyn-Noranda (Québec), J9X 5E4, Canada
E-mail: mohamad.saad@uqat.ca
§Electrical Engineering Department, Université du Québec, École de technologie supérieure, 1100,
rue Notre-Dame ouest, Montréal (Québec), H3C 1K3, Canada
E-mails: maarouf.saad@etsmtl.ca, abdelkrim.brahmi.1@ens.etsmtl.ca
¶Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Sharjah, P.O.Box 27272,
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates and CEIES, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, KSA
E-mail: maamar@sharjah.ac.ae
(Accepted January 29, 2019)

SUMMARY
Trajectory tracking of a mobile manipulator in the Cartesian space based on decentralized control
is considered in this paper. The dynamic model is first rearranged to take the form of two intercon-
nected subsystems with constraint flow, namely, a nonholonomic mobile platform subsystem and a
holonomic manipulator subsystem. Secondly, using the inverse kinematics, the workspace desired
trajectory of the mobile manipulator is transformed to the manipulator joint space as well as the
platform desired trajectory. The kinematic control is developed from the desired trajectory of the
platform. Then, the desired velocity is derived using the kinematic controller of the mobile platform,
after which the velocity is used to obtain the control law of the mobile platform subsystem. Thirdly,
the control law of the manipulator subsystem is developed based on the desired and real values of the
manipulator, as well as the desired velocity. According to the Lyapunov stability theory, the proposed
decentralized control strategy guarantees the global stability of the closed-loop system, and the track-
ing errors are bounded. Experimental results obtained on a 3-DOF manipulator mounted on a mobile
platform are given to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed approach. This is
confirmed by a comparison with the computed torque approach.

KEYWORDS: Mobile manipulator; Trajectory tracking; Decentralized control; Stability.

1. Introduction
The term mobile manipulator is commonly used to refer to a rigid manipulator arm mounted on a
moving platform. Compared to fixed-base manipulators, this combined system extends the opera-
tional range and functionality to wide spaces and/or dangerous environments due to the mobility
of the moving platform. Therefore, it is present in many applications, including space exploration,
military operations, home care, health care, etc. While the combined system carries with it many
new issues, it, however, takes advantage of mobile platforms and robotic arms and reduces their
drawbacks versus when each subsystem is considered separately. For instance, the mobile platform

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail: rfareh@sharjah.ac.ae

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 2 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM

extends the workspace, while the arm offers many operational functionalities. Usually, mobile manip-
ulators are used for tasks requiring contact with the environment. In those cases, the trajectory
tracking control and the convergence to the desired values are considered.
Due to the complexity and strongly coupled dynamics of the mobile platform and the robotic arm,
tracking control is still a challenging problem. In recent years, many powerful control strategies have
been developed for mobile manipulator systems in a bid to achieve good tracking performances. Two
categories of the control schemes are usually used for such systems. First, the whole mobile manip-
ulator system is viewed as two interconnected subsystems: the mobile platform subsystem and the
manipulator arm subsystem. Here, decentralized control strategies are used. The controllers of these
subsystems are constructed separately, and interactions between the platform and the manipulator
can either be taken into account or neglected. Secondly, the mobile manipulator is viewed as a single
system in which unified controllers are developed for the whole system. Many powerful methodolo-
gies have been applied to mobile manipulators using this second configuration. The position control
problem of mobile manipulators operating in the task space with state constraints was proposed in
ref. [1]. A visual dynamic control based on passivity is developed in ref. [2] to solve the target track-
ing problem of mobile manipulators. An active damping controller for a 2-degrees of freedom (DOF)
mobile manipulator was proposed in ref. [3]. This robust control strategy is used to reduce mechani-
cal vibrations and to enable better tip positioning. A planning and control algorithm for coordinating
the motion of a mobile manipulator is presented in ref. [4]. The authors present a control algorithm
which forces the manipulator to be constantly positioned at the preferred configuration measured by
its manipulability. In order to simplify the nonlinear model and to design a controller, output feed-
back linearization is used. A model-based PD-like controller was also used in ref. [5] to eliminate
the tracking errors of the mobile manipulator. Proportional Derivative (PD) and neural network con-
trollers were proposed for the overall mobile manipulator in ref. [6]. A differential-flatness-based
integrated point-to-point trajectory planning and control method for a mobile manipulator is pre-
sented in ref. [7]. A feedback-linearization control was proposed to control all the system’s states. A
neural network was used to approximate a nonlinear function in the proof of the Lyapunov approach,
and an adaptive technique was used for the weight tuning. An adaptive controller was proposed in
ref. [8] to ensure that the state of the whole system could track the desired trajectories in the pres-
ence of system coupling. A trajectory planning optimization and real-time control of a special mobile
robot were presented in ref. [9]. Design and implementation of model-predictive control with fric-
tion compensation on an omnidirectional mobile robot is presented in ref. [10]. In refs. [11, 12], an
Input–Output feedback linearization was applied to a mobile manipulator to track a desired trajec-
tory in the Cartesian space. The effect of the dynamic interaction between the manipulator and the
mobile platform on the task performance was examined for four different cases: with full compensa-
tion of the dynamic interaction with each other; with the mobile platform compensating the dynamic
interaction caused by the manipulator; with the manipulator compensating the dynamic interaction
caused by the mobile platform; and without any compensation of the dynamic interaction at all.
All the previous techniques use the mobile manipulator as one multivariable system. In this
case, the overall dynamic system contains ( p + m) DOF, where p and m are the number of DOF
of the mobile platform and the manipulator, respectively. While this may be an acceptable choice
when ( p + m) is small, the complexity of the computations, however, increases geometrically with
( p + m).13 To overcome this problem, the whole system can be divided into two interconnected
subsystems. Many control strategies have been proposed for the mobile manipulators using this con-
figuration. A stable motion control of a mobile manipulator taking the external force into account is
proposed in ref. [14]. The whole system is divided into two parts, and the external force is imposed
on the end-effector of the manipulator part. Decentralized robust controllers for mobile manipulators
were proposed in ref [15] to track a desired trajectory in the workspace. The dynamical models of
the two subsystems included the reaction forces. However, the angular motion was excluded, and
only a translation of the mobile platform was considered. In ref. [16], two interaction controllers
were developed. The first control law here consisted of a robust adaptive controller for the manipu-
lator subsystem, and the second was an input–output linearizing controller for the mobile platform
subsystem. The control strategy was employed to minimize the adverse effect of wheel slip on track
performances. In ref. [17], the authors developed a dynamic level redundancy resolution strategy for
such wheeled mobile manipulators, and an independent controller, developed within each decoupled
space, is proposed. Two neural network controllers were proposed in ref. [18] to independently con-
trol the arm and the platform of a mobile manipulator. Screw theory and a robust adaptive fuzzy

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM 3

controller were applied in ref. [19] on a mobile manipulator. A kinematic controller of a mobile
manipulator with uncertainties was proposed in ref. [20]. The dynamic surface control technique
was applied in ref. [21] for mobile manipulators. The control of multiple working modes of a class
of mobile manipulators is proposed in ref. [22]. The control design is significantly simplified by
switching selected joints of the mobile manipulator to work in passive mode during door-opening
operations. A whole-body impedance controller was used in ref. [23] for wheeled mobile manipu-
lators like humanoid robot Rollin’ Justin. A kinematic controller was used for the mobile platform.
A passive closed loop is obtained from the compensation of dynamic couplings between both sub-
systems, the upper body impedance control law and the platform admittance interface. In ref. [24],
a mobile manipulator with skid-steering mobile platform was considered as an under-actuated sys-
tem with rectangular input matrix. The problem of inverting the input matrix was solved with the
so-called idea “virtual forces” that are equal to zero and where the controlled system was assumed
to have full number of input signals, and therefore, the input matrix is made invertible. In ref. [25],
the states and parameters of an agricultural tractor including the wheel slip and side-slip were esti-
mated with nonlinear moving horizon estimation (NMHE) and fed to a nonlinear model predictive
control (MPC). Based on a model-based kinematic tractor, which does not include the dynamics of
the tractor, the MPC was applied for trajectory tracking of a skid steering of the tractor.
This paper takes advantage of the decentralized configuration, which uses the mobile manipulator
as two interconnected subsystems: the mobile platform subsystem and the manipulator subsystem.
The considered system is a three-link manipulator mounted on a mobile platform. First, the kinematic
controller of the mobile platform is developed to derive the desired velocity. This velocity control is
only designed based on the kinematic model. In this case, the desired velocity cannot be generated
directly by the motors. To overcome this problem, the torques for the mobile platform are designed as
a function of the dynamic model since the motors provide a control torque to the wheels, which will
result in an actual desired velocity. Secondly, a decentralized control technique for the manipulator
subsystem is developed based on the Lyapunov approach. Considering the dynamic model, Lyapunov
functions of the two subsystems are derived, and the couplings between the two subsystems are
considered in the development and global stability is proved. Experimental results show that the
proposed decentralized control strategy is effective for controlling the mobile manipulator.
The main contributions of this paper are the derivation of decentralized control laws for “nonholo-
nomic platform” and “holonomic manipulator” subsystems, the demonstration of the global stability
of the combined closed-loop system according to Lyapunov stability theory, and the experimental
validation of the proposed control approach applied to a nonholonomic mobile manipulator.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the models of the nonholonomic
mobile platform and the holonomic manipulator are addressed, respectively. The control designs
for the mobile platform subsystem and the manipulator subsystem are, respectively, developed in
Section 3. Stability analysis is presented in Section 4 using Lyapunov theory. Experimental results
are given in Section 5, and the conclusion is presented in Section 6.

2. Modeling of Mobile Manipulators

The mobile manipulator considered in this paper is composed of a wheeled mobile platform and a
three-link manipulator, as shown in Fig. 1. The mobile platform moves by driving the two indepen-
dent front wheels. The manipulator is mounted on the center C of the mobile platform. The three
links of the manipulator are also driven by motors independently.
The manipulator is generally considered to be a holonomic system, while the mobile platform is
subjected to a nonholonomic constraint. The mathematical model of the mobile manipulator can be
expressed as26
M(q)q̈ + C(q, q̇)q̇ + G(q) = B(q)τ − AT (q)λ (1)
The nonholonomic constraint can be expressed as
A(q)q̇ = 0 (2)
where M(q) ∈ Rn×n is the inertia and mass matrix, C(q, q̇)q̇ is the Coriolis and centripetal force
vector, and G(q) ∈ Rn is a vector of gravity terms. q ∈ Rn denotes the vector of the generalized
positions in the joint space, and q̇ and q̈ are the velocity and the acceleration vectors, respec-
tively. Let q = [ qTv qTr ]T , where qv ∈ Rp represents the position and the orientation of the mobile

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 4 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM

Fig. 1. Mobile manipulator: Mobile platform with 3R manipulator.

platform subsystem, qr ∈ Rm represents the links’ joint positions of the manipulator subsystem, and
n = p + m. A(q) ∈ Rnv ×n is the constraint matrix and λ ∈ Rnv is the Lagrange multiplier that corre-
sponds to the constraint force such that AT (q)λ is the generalized constraint force. B(q) ∈ Rn×(n−nv )
is the input transformation matrix and τ ∈ Rn−nv is the input torque.
Since the nonholonomic characteristic of the mobile manipulator is caused by the movement of
the mobile platform, Eq. (2) can be simplified as follows:
Av (qv )q̇v = 0 (3)

where Av (qv ) ∈ Rnv ×p is the constraint matrix of the mobile platform.

The dynamic model of the mobile manipulator given in Eq. (1) can be written as follows:
           T 
M11 M12 q̈v C11 C12 q̇v G1 Bv (qv )τv A (qv )λ
+ + = − v (4)
M21 M22 q̈r C21 C22 q̇r G2 τr 0
where τv ∈ Rp−nv is the control torque of the mobile platform, τr ∈ Rm is the control torque of the
manipulator, M11 and M22 represent the inertia matrices of the mobile platform and the manipulator,
respectively, M12 q̈r and M21 q̈v represent the coupling inertia between the manipulator and the mobile
platform, and C12 q̇r and C21 q̇v also represent the interaction centripetal and Coriolis forces between
the two subsystems. The model has the following properties, which will be used in the stability
analysis of the developed control law:
P1. The inertia–mass matrix M(q) is symmetric positive definite.
P2. The inertia–mass matrix M(q) and the Coriolis matrix C(q, q̇) satisfy the following skew-
symmetric property:
 
X T Ṁ(q) − 2C(q, q̇) X = 0, ∀X ∈ Rn (5)

3. Control Design
This section presents the control law development for both subsystems: the mobile platform and the
manipulator.
The control design consists of two main blocks. First, the desired trajectory of the end-effector
is defined in the workspace. Using inverse kinematics, the desired trajectory of the platform and the
joint space trajectory of the manipulator are derived. The second block consists of the control law of
both subsystems. The desired velocity is obtained using kinematic control, which utilizes the desired
trajectory of the platform as input. This desired velocity is used with the joint space desired trajectory
of the manipulator subsystem to compute the input torque τv for the platform subsystem. Figure 2
shows the control design strategy.

3.1. Mobile platform subsystem

In this section, the control torque of the mobile platform subsystem is developed based on the
dynamic model. First, based on the kinematic model, the velocity control is designed to develop the

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM 5

Fig. 2. Control design: Platform and manipulator desired generated trajectories (Reference bloc) and their
calculated controllers (Controllers bloc).

desired velocity. Next, the torques for the mobile platform are developed using this desired velocity.
For consistency, in particular, in relation to matrices dimensions, the following equations refer to the
mobile platform shown in Fig. 1.
The dynamic equation of the mobile platform subsystem is derived from Eq. (4) as follows:
M11 q̈v + M12 q̈r + C11 q̇v + C12 q̇r + G1 = Bv (qv )τv − ATv (qv )λ (6)
As mentioned earlier, Av is the constraint matrix. When selecting a full rank matrix S(qv ) ∈
Rp×(p−nv ) as the basis of the null space of Av (qv ), the constraint equation can be expressed as follows:
ST (qv )ATv (qv ) = 0 (7)
An auxiliary input vector V(t) ∈ Rp−nv exists that satisfies
q̇v = S(qv )V(t) (8)
where qv = [ x y Ø ]T , q̇v is its derivative, q̇v = [ ẋ ẏ Ø̇ ]T , and V = [ v w ]T , v and w are the linear and
the angular velocities.
When multiplying Eq. (6) by ST , the constraint force term ATv (qv )λ can be eliminated. Thus
ST M11 q̈v + ST M12 q̈r + ST C11 q̇v + ST C12 q̇r + ST G1 = ST Bv τv (9)
Introducing Eq. (8), Eq. (9) becomes
M̄ 11 V̇ + C̄11 V + f1 = τ̄v (10)
where M̄ 11 = ST M11 S; C̄11 = ST M11 Ṡ + ST C11 S; and τ̄v = ST Bv τv .
The dynamic coupling term that is caused by the manipulator subsystem and the gravity is given
as follows:
 
f1 = ST M12 q̈r + C12 q̇r + G1 (11)

The modified model has the following properties, which will be used in the stability analysis.26

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 6 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM

P3. The inertia–mass matrices M11 , M̄ 11 and the Coriolis matrices C11 , C̄11 satisfy the following
skew-symmetric property:
X T (Ṁ 11 − 2C11 )X = 0, ∀ X ∈ Rp (12)
˙ 
X T M̄ 11 − 2C̄ 11 X = 0 ∀ X ∈ R
p−nv
(13)
The kinematic model of the two-wheel-driven mobile platform can be expressed as15
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ẋ cosφ −dsinφ  
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ v
q̇v = ⎣ ẏ ⎦ = ⎣ sinφ dcosφ ⎦ (14)
ω
φ̇ 0 1
where (x, y) is the coordinate of the point C of the mobile platform in the coordinate system
(X 0 , Y 0 ) (Fig. 1); Ø is the direction angle when the mobile platform rotates around the Z-axis;
and d is the distance between point C and the axis mid-points G of the two driven wheels.
Note that the objective is to track a reference trajectory by the mobile platform. Then, the desired
T
position is qvd = [ xd yd φd ]T and the desired velocity is Vd = [ vd ωd ] . Therefore, the tracking errors
are obtained using the Kanayama transformation27 as follows:
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
x̃ cosφ sinφ 0 xd − x
⎢ ỹ ⎥ ⎣
⎣ ⎦ = −sinφ cosφ 0 ⎦ ⎣ yd − y ⎦ (15)
φ̃ 0 0 1 φd − φ
Proposition 1. Using Eqs. (15) and (3), the error dynamics can be given by
x̃˙ = ωỹ − v + vd cosφ̃
ỹ˙ = −ωx̃ + vd sinφ̃ (16)
φ̃˙ = ωd − ω
Proof. See Appendix.
With the assumption that the reference linear velocity is nonzero and bounded, vd > 0 for all t, the
error dynamics (16) is asymptotically stable when using the following velocity control law:
  
v kx x̃ + vd cosφ̃
V(t) = = (17)
ω ωd + k1 vd ỹ + k2 vd sinφ̃
where k1 > 0, k2 > 0, and kx > 0 are the controller gains.
To prove the stability of the error dynamics, let us consider the following positive Lyapunov
function:
1 1 1 − cosφ̃
W = x̃2 + ỹ2 + (18)
2 2 k1
The time derivative of W(t) is given as follows:
sinφ̃
Ẇ(t) = x̃x̃˙ + ỹỹ˙ + φ̃˙
k1
    sinφ̃
= x̃ ωỹ − v + vd cosφ̃ + ỹ −ωx̃ + vd sinφ̃ + (ωd − ω)
k1
sinφ̃ sinφ̃
= −vx̃ − ω + x̃vd cosφ̃ + ỹvd sinφ̃ + ωd
k1 k1
Using the control law (17), the time derivative of the Lyapunov function is given as follows:
k2
Ẇ(t) = −kx x̃2 − vd sin2 φ̃ ≤ 0 (19)
k1

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM 7

This implies that W(t) ≤ W0 , and hence x̃, ỹ, and φ̃ are bounded. Then from Eq. (17), v and ω
˙ and φ̃˙ are then bounded, and hence x̃, ỹ, and φ̃ are uniformly continuous.
˙ ỹ,
are also bounded. x̃,
Combining these with the fact that −Ẇ = kx x̃2 + kk21 vd sin2 φ̃ = N(x̃, φ̃) is continuous, positive def-
inite, and radially unbounded, then x̃ and φ̃ → 0 as t → ∞28 (Corollary 2). From Eq. (15),
ỹ → 0 as t → ∞. Hence, the error dynamics is asymptotically stable.
The above velocity control law, Eq. (17),29, 30 is based on the kinematic model. However, the
motors generate control torques and cannot directly generate the velocity controls. Therefore, it is
necessary to design the torques for the mobile platform based on the dynamic model, and then the
control torque will result in an actual velocity.
Using the actual and desired velocities, the velocity tracking error can be expressed as
z = V − Vd (20)
where V and Vd are the actual and desired velocities of the mobile platform, respectively. The
dynamic equation of the mobile platform is given in Eq. (10) and rewritten here:
M̄ 11 V̇ + C̄11 V + f1 = τ̄v (21)
 
where f1 = ST M12 q̈r + C12 q̇r + G1 contains the acceleration term q̈r , that is, the coupling term
caused by the manipulator subsystem. In order to avoid this acceleration, we define the sliding surface
of the manipulator subsystem as follows:
r = ė + Ke (22)
where e = qrd − qr is the position error. The generalized coordinates q̇r and q̈r can be written as
follows:
q̇r = q̇rd − ė = q̇rd − r + Ke q̈r = q̈rd − ë = q̈rd − ṙ + K ė (23)
Using Eq. (23), the term f1 can be rearranged to be expressed in terms of the error and the desired
values as follows:
 
f1 = ST M12 q̈r + C12 q̇r + G1
     
= ST M12 q̈rd − ṙ + K ė + C12 q̇rd − r + Ke + G1
   
= ST −M12 ṙ + M12 K − C12 (r − Ke) + M12 q̈rd + C12 q̇rd + G1

Finally, f1 can be written as

   
f1 = ST −M12 ṙ + M12 K − C12 (r − Ke) + f̄1 (24)
 
where f̄1 = ST M12 q̈rd + C12 q̇rd + G1
Let us propose the following control law for the mobile platform subsystem:
 
τ̄v = ST C12 Ke + M12 K(r − Ke) + M̄ 11 V̇ d + C̄11 Vd + f̄1 − Kdv z (25)

where Kdv is a positive gain.

Using Eq. (20), the dynamic equation (21) is equivalent to the following equation:
M̄ 11 ż + C̄11 z + M̄ 11 V̇ d + C̄11 Vd + f1 = τ̄v (26)
Inserting the platform controller (25) in the dynamic equation (26), the error dynamics can be
expressed as follows:
 
M̄ 11 ż + C̄11 z + M̄ 11 V̇ d + C̄11 Vd + ST −M12 ṙ + (M12 K − C12 )(r − Ke) + f̄1
 
= ST C12 Ke + M12 K(r − Ke) + M̄ 11 V̇ d + C̄11 Vd + f̄1
−Kdv zM̄ 11 ż + C̄11 z − ST (M12 ṙ + C12 r) + Kdv z = 0

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 8 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM

The simplified version of the error dynamics can be expressed as follows:

M̄ 11 ż + C̄11 z − ST (M12 ṙ + C12 r) + Kdv z = 0 (27)

3.2. Manipulator subsystem

This section presents the control strategy for the manipulator subsystem. From Eq. (4), the dynamic
equation of the manipulator subsystem is expressed as
M21 q̈v + M22 q̈r + C21 q̇v + C22 q̇r + G2 = τr (28)
This dynamic equation contains the acceleration term q̈r . To avoid this problem, Eq. (23) can be
used. The dynamic equation can be rearranged as follows:
M21 q̈v + M22 (q̈rd − ṙ + K ė) + C21 q̇v + C22 (q̇rd − r + Ke) + G2 = τr
−M22 ṙ + M21 q̈v + M22 K ė + C21 q̇v − C22 (r − Ke) + C22 q̇rd + M22 q̈rd + G2 = τr
−M22 ṙ + M21 q̈v + M22 K(r − Ke) + C21 q̇v − C22 (r − Ke) + C22 q̇rd + M22 q̈rd + G2 = τr
−M22 ṙ + M21 q̈v + C21 q̇v + (M22 K − C22 )(r − Ke) + C22 q̇rd + M22 q̈rd + G2 = τr
Thus, Eq. (28) is equivalent to the following expression:
− M22 ṙ + (M22 K − C22 )(r − Ke) + f2 = τr (29)
where
f2 = M21 q̈v + C21 q̇v + C22 q̇rd + M22 q̈rd + G2 (30)
Using Eq. (8), f2 can be written as
f2 = M21 SV̇ + (M21 Ṡ + C21 S)V + C22 q̇rd + M22 q̈rd + G2
Using Eq. (20), f2 can be rearranged as follows:
f2 = M21 S(ż + V̇ d ) + (M21 Ṡ + C21 S)(z + Vd ) + f̄2 (31)
where f¯2 = C22 q̇rd + M22 q̈rd + G2
Let us propose the following control law for the manipulator subsystem:
τr = M22 Kr + (C22 − M22 K)Ke + f̄2 + M21 SV̇ d + M21 ṠVd + C21 SVd + Kdr r (32)
The error dynamics can be determined by inserting the control law (32) in the dynamic Eq. (29)
as follows:
− M22 ṙ + (M22 K − C22 )(r − Ke) + f2 = M22 Kr − (C22 − M22 K)Ke + f̄2 + M21 SV̇ d (33)
+ M21 ṠVd + C21 SVd + Kdr r
After simplification, the error dynamics can be expressed as
M22 ṙ + C22 r − M21 (Sż + Ṡz) − C21 Sz + Kdr r = 0 (34)

4. Stability Analysis
In this section, we study the global stability of the closed-loop system using the error dynamics. First,
the original dynamical model is rearranged to take the appropriate form. The dynamic model of the
two interconnected subsystems is rewritten here:
           T 
M11 M12 q̈v C11 C12 q̇v G1 Bv (qv )τv A (qv )λ
+ + = − v (35)
M21 M22 q̈r C21 C22 q̇r G2 τr 0
As shown in the previous section, the dynamic model (35) is equivalent to Eqs. (26) and (29) as
ST M11 Sż + ST C11 Sz + ST M11 SV̇ d + ST C11 SVd + f1 = τ̄v
− M22 ṙ + (M22 K − C22 )(r − Ke) + f2 = τr (36)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM 9

In a compact form, the new form of the dynamic model can be written as
        
M̄ 11 0 ż C̄11 0 z ST M11 SV̇ d + ST C11 SVd + f1 τ̄v
+ + =
0 −M22 ṙ 0 M22 K − C22 r −(M 22 K − C 22 )Ke + f2 τr
(37)
To prove the stability of the closed-loop system, we propose the following positive Lyapunov
function:
 T   
1 Sz M11 M12 Sz
V3 = (38)
2 −r M21 M22 −r
The Lyxapunov function V 3 can be written as
 
1 T T  Sz
V3 = z S M 11 − r T
M 21 zT T
S M12 − r T
M22
2 −r
1
= zT M̄ 11 z + rT M22 r − rT M12
T
Sz
2
So, the positive Lyapunov function (38) is equivalent to the following expression:
V3 = V1 + V2 − rT M21 Sz (39)
where V1 = 12 zT M̄ 11 z and V2 = 12 rT M22 r are two positive Lyapunov functions for the mobile platform
and the manipulator subsystem, respectively. rT M21 Sz is a coupling term.
To prove the stability of the closed-loop system dynamics when using the proposed controllers
(25) and (32), let us start with the time derivative of the positive Lyapunov function V3 :
d(rT M21 Sz)
V̇ 3 = V̇ 1 + V̇ 2 − (40)
dt
The first element of V̇ 3 is given as follows:
1 ˙
V̇ 1 = zT M̄ 11 ż + zT M̄ 11 z
2
Using the error dynamics Eq. (27), we get
  1 ˙
V̇ 1 = zT −C̄11 z + ST (M12 ṙ + C12 r) − Kdv z + zT M̄ 11 z
2
Using the property given in Eq. (13), V̇ 1 becomes
 
V̇ 1 = zT ST (M12 ṙ + C12 r) − zT Kdv z (41)

For the second element of V̇ 3

1
V̇ 2 = rT M22 ṙ + rT Ṁ 22 r
2
Using the error dynamics of the manipulator subsystem Eq. (34), V̇ 2 becomes
  1
V̇ 2 = rT −C22 r + M21 (Sż + Ṡz) + C21 Sz − Kdr r + rT Ṁ 22 r
2
Using the property given in Eq. (12), V̇ 2 becomes
 
V̇ 2 = rT M21 (Sż + Ṡz) + rT C21 Sz − rT Kdr r (42)

The third element of V̇ 3 is given as follows:

d(rT M21 Sz)
= ṙT M21 (Sz) + rT Ṁ 21 Sz + rT M21 (Ṡz + Sż) (43)
dt

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 10 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM
Table I. System parameters.

Parameters Value

Mass of platform: mv 2.0 kg

Mass of link 1: m1 0.5 kg
Mass of link 2: m2 0.5 kg
Mass of link 3: m3 0.2 kg
Length of radius: r 0.05 m
Length of platform: 2L 0.27 m
Length of link 1: L1 0.16 m
Length of link 2: L2 0.2 m
Length of link 3: L3 0.12 m
Moment inertia of platform: Iv 0.0122 Kg. m2
Moment inertia of link 1: I1 2.66 10−4 Kg. m2
Moment inertia of link 2: I2 4.16 10−4 Kg. m2
Moment inertia of link 2: I3 6.0 10−5 Kg. m2

Fig. 3. 3R Mobile manipulator.

Using Eq. (41–43), the time derivative of V3 , V̇ 3 , becomes

   
V̇ 3 = zT ST (M12 ṙ + C12 r) − zT Kdv z + rT M21 (Sż + Ṡz) + rT C21 Sz − rT Kdr r − ṙT M21 (Sz)
− rT Ṁ 21 Sz − rT M21 (Ṡz + Sż)
= −zT Kdv z − rT Kdr r + zT ST (M12 ṙ + C12 r) − ṙT M21 (Sz) + rT C21 Sz − rT Ṁ 21 Sz
 
= −zT Kdv z − rT Kdr r + (Sz)T M12 ṙ − ṙT M21 (Sz) − rT Ṁ 21 − C21 − C12 T
Sz

Using the property given in Eq. (5), where the property Ṁ 21 − C21 − C12 T
= 0 was used, then after
simplification, V̇ 3 becomes
 T   
z Kdv 0 z
V̇ 3 = −z Kdv z − r Kdr r = −
T T
(44)
r 0 Kdr r
 T
From Eq. (38), V3 = 1/2xT M(q)x, x = (Sz)T −rT . Since the mass matrix M(q) is positive def-
inite, then V 3 is positive definite, decrescent, and radially unbounded. Since Kdv and Kdr are positive
definite matrices, the time derivative V̇ 3 is negative definite. Then the origin (z = 0, r = 0) is globally
exponentially stable31 (Corollary 3.4).

5. Experimental Results
In this section, the proposed control strategy is experimented on a 3-DOF mobile manipulator (Fig. 3,
Table I). In this experiment, Simulink with Real-Time Workshop (RTW) of MathWorks is used for
real-time implementation of the Decentralized controllers presented in the previous section. Figure 4
presents the real-time setup. A Zigbee technology communication is used between the application
program implemented in Simulink and the mobile manipulator. The two wheels of the mobile manip-
ulator robot platform are actuated by two HN-GH12-2217Y DC motors (DC-12V-200RPM 30:1),

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM 11

Fig. 4. Real-time setup using Matlab/Simulink, Zigbee communication, and Microcontrollers AT Mega32.

and the angular positions are given using encoder sensors (E4P-100-079-D-H-T-B). All joints of the
manipulator arm are actuated by Dynamixel motors (MX-64T).
First, the desired trajectories of the mobile manipulator are defined in the workspace using Matlab
and Simulink. Using inverse kinematics and Jacobian, the desired trajectories of the mobile platform
T T
subsystem qvd = [ xd yd φd ] and the manipulator subsystem qrd = [ qd1 qd2 qd3 ] are obtained to be
used as references. These desired trajectories with the real values received from the microcontroller
are used to get the control laws τv and τr for the two subsystems. The input torques provided by
the control algorithm are sent via Zigbee communication to the microcontrollers, which translate the
control signal into a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal. The latter is connected to the power
supply 12V in order to drive the mobile manipulator. The digital information received from the
actuators’ encoders is used as input for the microcontrollers, which translate this information into a
position/orientation of the platform and angle positions of the manipulator. These latter are sent to
Simulink through Zigbee communication (Fig. 4).
For this implementation, the trial-and-error method is used to select the appropriate controller
gains. For the platform, the selected gains used in Eq. (17) are: kx = 1.5, k1 = 6.5, and k2 = 1.2. The
chosen gain used for τv is: Kdv = [3.9 0; 0 0.09]. For the manipulator subsystem, the selected gains
are: K = [17.5 0 0; 0 25.0 0; 0 0 15.2] and Kdr = [0.5 0 0; 0 0.1 0; 0 0 0.1].
The experimental results of the decentralized control strategy are given in Figs. 5–8. In these
figures, the green curves are the reference trajectories and the blue ones are the experimental
trajectories.
To illustrate the effectiveness of the previous control strategy, the computed torque approach32, 33
is applied to the same mobile manipulator. The computed torque controller is based on the
feedback linearization principle which is an approach that maps a nonlinear model into a linear
one. Then, a linear controller such as PD and Proportional Integral Derivative controllers can
be used to ensure the tracking of the references trajectory. Using the same desired trajectories,
Figs. 9 and 10 show the experimental results for the computed torque approach, where the green
plots are the reference trajectories and the blue ones are the experimental results. The gains used
in the computed torque approach for the whole system are Kp = diag(15, 15, 3, 50, 105, 85) and
Kd = diag(0.01, 0.01, 0.03, 15, 0.06, 0.105).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 12 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM
0.3

0.25
real trajectory
desired trajectory
0.2

y (m)
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
x (m)

Fig. 5. Decentralized control: Tracking trajectory of the platform in (X, Y) plane.

0.48

0.47

0.46

0.45

0.44
z(m)

0.43
Desired
0.42 Real

0.41

0.4

0.39
0
1
x (m) 2
0.2 0.25 0.3
3 –0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
–0.15 –0.1 y (m)

Fig. 6. Decentralized control for the manipulator subsystem: Tracking trajectory in the workspace.

For the decentralized control strategy, Fig. 5 shows a good tracking on the x–y plane of the mobile
platform. Figures 7 and 8 confirm this good tracking. Indeed, the tracking trajectory in the x, y, and
φ directions of the mobile platform is shown in Fig. 7 (a–c) and the associated tracking error is given
in Fig. 8(a–c). The tracking errors do not exceed 2.5 cm in the x-direction, 0.35 cm in the y-direction,
and 0.13 rad in the φ-direction. For the manipulator subsystem, the tracking trajectories of the first,
second, and third links are shown in Fig. 9 (a–c), and the corresponding tracking errors are given in
Fig. 10 (d–f). These figures show a good tracking of the desired trajectories in the joint space of the
manipulator. Indeed, despite the different initial conditions, the errors converge to 0 and 3 deg, as
shown in the zoom-in figures. In addition, using direct kinematics, a good tracking was obtained in
the manipulator’s workspace, as shown in Fig. 6, with different initial conditions.
Secondly, the mobile manipulator is controlled by the computed torque approach. The tracking
trajectories of the platform subsystem are shown in Fig. 11 (a–c) while the tracking errors are shown
in Fig. 11 (d–f). From these figures, it can be seen that steady-state errors are present and are bigger
than the one obtained by the decentralized control. For the manipulator subsystem, Fig. 12 (a–c)
shows the tracking trajectories when using the same desired trajectories, and the tracking errors are

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM 13
(a)
3

2.5
x-position (m)
2

1.5 Real
Desired
1

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec)
(b) 0.3

0.2
y-position (m)

0.1
Real
Desired
0

–0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (sec)
(c) 0.2

0.15
phi-position (rad)

0.1
Real
0.05 Desired

–0.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec)

Fig. 7. Decentralized control of the platform subsystem: (a) Tracking trajectory of x-position, (b) Tracking
trajectory of y-position, and (c) Tracking trajectory of φ-direction.

(a)
0.05
error-x (m)

–0.05
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b) # 10–3
5
error-y (m)

–5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c)
error phi (rad)

0.2

–0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec)

Fig. 8. Decentralized control of the platform subsystem: (a) Tracking error of x-position, (b) Tracking error of
y-position, and (c) Tracking error of ϕ-direction.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 14 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM
(a)
60

q1 (deg)
50
Real
40 Desired

30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b)
100
q2 (deg)

50 Real
Desired

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c)
80
q3 (deg)

60
Real
Desired
40

20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec)

Fig. 9. Decentralized control for the manipulator subsystem: (a) Tracking trajectory of link 1 (b) Tracking
trajectory of link 2, and (c) Tracking trajectory of link 3.

(a)
5
0.4
error-q1 (deg)

0.2
0
0 –0.2
–0.4
–0.6
–5 28 30 32

–10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(b)
5
error-q2 (deg)

1
0.5
0 0
–0.5
28 30
–5
–10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c)
10
error-q3 (deg)

1.5
1
0 0.5
0
–0.5
–10 28 30 32

–20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (sec)

Fig. 10. Decentralized control for the manipulator subsystem: (a) Tracking error of link 1, (b) Tracking error of
link 2, and (c) Tracking error of link 3.

shown in Fig. 12 (d–f). The steady-state error is bigger when using the computed torque approach and
can reach 5 deg. Finally, from these experimental results, the tracking errors decrease significantly
using the proposed decentralized control strategy in comparison to the computed torque approach,
which shows an effective control performance on mobile manipulators. According to Table II, the
root mean square tracking error (RMSE) of the platform subsystem obtained using the proposed
decentralized controller is around 10% of those given by the computed torque approach. Table III
shows the RMSE of the manipulator subsystem in the steady-state stage. The value of the RMSE
confirms the good tracking of the desired trajectories using the decentralized controller. Indeed,
the RMSE obtained from the proposed decentralized controller is around 50% of those given by
computed torque approach.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM 15
Table II. Root mean square tracking error of the platform subsystem.

Decentralized control Computed torque control

x (m) 0.0096 0.0127

y (m) 0.0027 0.0331
∅ (rad) 0.0112 0.0361

Table III. Root mean square tracking error of the manipulator subsystem.

Decentralized control Computed torque control

q1 (deg) 0.3416 0.7498

q2 (deg) 0.4963 0.8393
q3 (deg) 0. 574 0.9379

4 1
x-position (m)

2 error-x (m) 0

0 –1

–2 –2
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
a d

0.2 0.2
y-position (m)

error-y (m)

0.1
0
0

–0.1 –0.2
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
b e

0.2 2
phi-position (rad)

error phi(rad)

0 0

–0.2 –2
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
c f
time (sec) time (sec)

Fig. 11. Computed torque control of the platform subsystem: (a) Tracking trajectory of x-position, (b) Tracking
trajectory of y-position (c) Tracking trajectory of φ-direction, (d) Tracking error of x-position, (e) Tracking
error of y-position, and (f) Tracking error of φ-direction.

The advantage of this decentralized method, as mentioned previously, is to take advantage of each
subsystem and to propose a control law for each one separately. Despite the challenges faced in the
communication between Matlab/Simulink and the mobile manipulator as well as the selection of the
controller’s parameters, this control strategy ensures a good tracking for both subsystems. However,
this approach is a model-based method, that is, it assumes that the parameters of the system are all
known.

6. Conclusion
This paper presents a decentralized controller for a mobile manipulator. First, the mobile manipulator
is divided into a nonholonomic mobile platform subsystem and a holonomic manipulator subsystem.
By using the kinematic controller of the mobile platform, the desired velocity is obtained to be used

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 16 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM
60 20
–1.5

error-q1 (deg)
50 0 –2

q1 (deg)
–2.5
40 –3
–20 28 28.5 29

30
–40
20
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
a d

100 40
10
20

error-q2 (deg)
80 5
q2 (deg)

0 0
60
–20 24 26 28

40 –40
20 –60
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
b e

80 40
10
20
60 error-q3 (deg) 5
q3 (deg)

0 0

–20 2728293031
40
–40
20 –60
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
c f
time (sec) time (sec)

Fig. 12. Computed torque control for the manipulator subsystem: (a) Tracking trajectory of link 1 (b) Tracking
trajectory of link 2 (c) Tracking trajectory of link 3, (d) Tracking error of link 1, (e) Tracking error of link 2,
and (f) Tracking error of link 3.

for the development of the control law of the platform subsystem. Next, the manipulator’s controller
is developed based on the Lyapunov approach. By considering the coupling between the two subsys-
tems, the global stability of the closed loop system was proved using the Lyapunov approach. This
controller is tested and compared with the computed torque approach on a 3-DOF mobile manipu-
lator to track desired trajectories. The effectiveness of the proposed decentralized control strategy is
shown by the experimental results, which demonstrate good tracking of the desired trajectories.

References
1. M. Galicki, “An adaptive non-linear constraint control of mobile manipulators,” Mech. Mach. Theory 88,
63–85 (2015).
2. V. H. Andaluz, F. Roberti, L. Salinas, J. M. Toibero and R. Carelli, “Passivity-based visual feedback control
with dynamic compensation of mobile manipulators: stability and L2-gain performance analysis,” Robot.
Auton. Syst. 66, 64–74 (2015).
3. L. Jae Young and S. M. Moon, “A simple active damping control for compliant base manipulators,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 6(3), 305–310 (2001).
4. Y. Yamamoto and X. Yun, “Coordinating Locomotion and Manipulation of a Mobile Manipulator,”
Proceedings of the 31st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 1992 (1992) pp. 2643–2648: IEEE.
5. E. Papadopoulos and J. Poulakakis, “Planning and Model-Based Control for Mobile Manipulators,”
Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2000.
(IROS 2000), IEEE (2000), 3, pp. 1810–1815.
6. C.-Y. Lee, I.-K. Jeong, I.-H. Lee and J.-J. Lee, “Motion Control of Mobile Manipulator Based on Neural
Networks and Error Compensation,” Proceedings of the ICRA’04. 2004 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, 2004, IEEE (2004), 5, pp. 4627–4632.
7. T. Chin Pei, P. T. Miller, V. N. Krovi, R. Ji-Chul and S. K. Agrawal, “Differential-flatness-based planning
and control of a wheeled mobile manipulator-theory and experiment,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.
16(4), 768–773, (2011).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM 17

8. M. Minami, T. Kotsuru and T. Asakura, “Tracking Control of Non-Holonomic Mobile Manipulators,”

In: 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Control and Measurement, Guilin, China (2000) pp. 361–366.
9. F. Bourbonnais, P. Bigras and I. A. Bonev, “Minimum-time trajectory planning and control of a pick-and-
place five-bar parallel robot,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 20(2), 740–749 (2015).
10. J. C. Lins Barreto, S. A. G. Scolari Conceicao, C. E. T. Dorea, L. Martinez and E. R. de Pieri, “Design
and implementation of model-predictive control with friction compensation on an omnidirectional mobile
robot,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 19(2), 467–476 (2014).
11. Y. Yamamoto and X. Yun, “Effect of the dynamic interaction on coordinated control of mobile manipula-
tors,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat. 12(5), 816–824 (1996).
12. Y. Yamamoto and X. Yun, “Modeling and Compensation of the Dynamic Interaction of a Mobile
Manipulator,” Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1994,
IEEE (1994) pp. 2187–2192.
13. K. Liu and F. L. Lewis, “Decentralized Continuous Robust Controller for Mobile Robots,” In: 1990 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 13–18 May 1990, IEEE Comput. Soc. Press: Los
Alamitos, CA, USA (1990) pp. 1822–1827.
14. F. Inoue, T. Murakami and K. Ohnishi, “A motion control of mobile manipulator with external force,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 6(2), 137–142 (2001).
15. K. Liu and F. L. Lewis, “Decentralized Continuous Robust Controller for Mobile Robots,” Proceedings of
the 1990 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1990, IEEE (1990) pp. 1822–1827.
16. J. H. Chung, S. A. Velinsky and R. A. Hess, “Interaction control of a redundant mobile manipulator,” Int.
J. Robot. Res. 17(12), 1302–1309 (1998).
17. G. D. White, R. M. Bhatt, C. P. Tang and V. N. Krovi, “Experimental evaluation of dynamic redun-
dancy resolution in a nonholonomic wheeled mobile manipulator,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 14(3),
349–357, (2009).
18. S. Lin and A. A. Goldenberg, “Neural-network control of mobile manipulators,” Neur. Netw. IEEE Trans.
12(5), 1121–1133, (2001).
19. H. Wang and Q. Wang, “Robust and adaptive fuzzy control for mobile manipulator,” Cont. Decis. 25(3),
461–465 (2010).
20. V. Andaluz, F. Roberti, J. M. Toibero and R. Carelli, “Adaptive unified motion control of mobile
manipulators,” Cont. Eng. Pract. 20(12), 1337–1352 (2012).
21. K. Shojaei and A. M. Shahri, “Output feedback tracking control of uncertain non-holonomic wheeled
mobile robots: A dynamic surface control approach,” Cont. Theory Appl. IET 6(2), 216–228 (2012).
22. S. Ahmad, H. Zhang and G. Liu, “Multiple working mode control of door-opening with a mobile modular
and reconfigurable robot,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 18(3), 833–844 (2013).
23. A. Dietrich, K. Bussmann, F. Petit, P. Kotyczka, C. Ott, B. Lohmann and A. Albu-Schäffer, “Whole-body
impedance control of wheeled mobile manipulators,” Auton. Robots 40(3), 505–517 (2016).
24. A. Mazur and M. Cholewiński, “Virtual force concept in steering mobile manipulators with skid-steering
platform moving in unknown environment,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 77(3–4), 433–443 (2015).
25. T. Kraus, H. J. Ferreau, E. Kayacan, H. Ramon, J. De Baerdemaeker, M. Diehl and W. Saeys, “Moving
horizon estimation and nonlinear model predictive control for autonomous agricultural vehicles,” Comput.
Electron. Agric. 98, 25–33 (2013).
26. Z. Li and S. S. Ge, Fundamentals in Modeling and Control of Mobile Manipulators (CRC Press, Boca
Raton, USA, 2013).
27. Y. Kanayama, Y. Kimura, F. Miyazaki and T. Noguchi, “A Stable Tracking Control Method for an
Autonomous Mobile Robot,” Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, 1990, IEEE (1990) pp. 384–389.
28. M. Hou, G. Duan and M. Guo, “New versions of Barbalat’s lemma with applications,” J. Cont. Theory
Appl. 8(4), 545–547 (2010).
29. C. Samson and K. Ait-Abderrahim, “Feedback Control of a Nonholonomic Wheeled Cart in Cartesian
Space,” Proceedings of the 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1991, IEEE
(1991) pp. 1136–1141.
30. H. Mehrjerdi, J. Ghommam and M. Saad, “Nonlinear coordination control for a group of mobile robots
using a virtual structure,” Mechatronics 21(7), 1147–1155, (2011).
31. K. Hassan, “Khalil, Nonlinear Systems,” (Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1996).
32. K. Watanabe, K. Sato, K. Izumi and Y. Kunitake, “Analysis and control for an omnidirectional mobile
manipulator,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 27(1–2), 3–20 (2000).
33. J. J. Craig, Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control (Pearson, Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA, 2005).

Appendix
Proof of proposition 1:
In this section, we prove the error dynamics given by Eq. (16). From the nonholonomic constraint
given by Eq. (2) and Av = [ −sin(φ) cos(φ) 0 ], we can write
ẋsinφ − ẏcosφ = 0 ⇒ ẋd sinφd − ẏd cosφd = 0 (45)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225
 18 Trajectory tracking and stability analysis for MM

From the kinematic model given in Eq. (14), we can write

⎡ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤
cosφ 0 ẋ cosφ 0 cosφ −dsinφ     
v 1 0 v
⎣ sinφ 0 ⎦ ⎣ ẏ ⎦ = ⎣ sinφ 0 ⎦ ⎣ sinφ dcosφ ⎦ = (46)
ω 0 1 ω
0 1 φ̇ 0 1 0 1
Thus
⎡ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤
  cosφ 0 ẋ
v
= ⎣ sinφ 0 ⎦ ⎣ ẏ ⎦ (47)
ω
0 1 φ̇
We can now write
v = ẋ cosφ + ẏ sinφ
vd = ẋd cosφd + ẏd sinφd (48)
Taking the first time derivative of Eq. (15), we get

x̃˙ = (ẋd − ẋ)cosφ + ( ẏd − ẏ)sinφ − φ̇(xd − x)sinφ + φ̇(yd − y)cosφ

= ỹω − v + ẋd cosφ + ẏd sinφ
= ỹω − v + ẋd cos(φd − φ̃) + ẏd sin(φd − φ̃)
   
= ỹω − v + ẋd cos(φd )cos(φ̃) + sin(φd )sin(φ̃) + ẏd sin(φd )cos(φ̃) − cos(φd )sin(φ̃)
   
= ỹω − v + ẋd cos(φd ) + ẏd sin(φd ) cos(φ̃) + ẋd sinφd − ẏd cosφd sin(φ̃)
The last element is equal to zero, then

x̃˙ = ỹω − v + vd cos(φ̃) (49)

ỹ˙ = −(ẋd − ẋ)sinφ + ( ẏd − ẏ)cosφ − φ̇(xd − x)cosφ − φ̇(yd − y)sinφ
= −x̃ω + ẋ sinφ − ẏ cosφ − ẋd sinφ + ẏd cosφ
= −x̃ω − ẋd sin(φd − φ̃) + ẏd cos(φd − φ̃)
   
= −x̃ω − ẋd sin(φd )cos(φ̃) − cos(φd )sin(φ̃) + ẏd cos(φd )cos(φ̃) + sin(φd )sin(φ̃)
   
= −x̃ω − ẋd sin(φd ) − ẏd cos(φd ) cos(φ̃) + ẋd cos(φd ) + ẏd sin(φd ) sin(φ̃)
After simplification, we can write

ỹ˙ = −x̃ω + vd sin(φ̃) (50)

And the third term is given as follows:

φ̃˙ = φ̇d − φ̇ = ωd − ω (51)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. East Carolina University, on 09 Mar 2019 at 11:59:32, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574719000225