See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325551554

Intrinsic PID controller for a segway type mobile robot

Conference Paper · December 2017

DOI: 10.1109/ICIINFS.2017.8300402

CITATIONS READS
2 638

3 authors:

Isuru Dushmantha Basnayake Udari Madhushani

New Mexico State University Princeton University
1 PUBLICATION   2 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

D. H. S. Maithripala
University of Peradeniya
74 PUBLICATIONS   831 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geometric PID controls for Biped robots View project

Decentralized formation control View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Isuru Dushmantha Basnayake on 20 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Intrinsic PID Controller
For a Segway Type Mobile Robot
Abstract—This paper illustrates a intrinsic geometric PID
controller applied to a self balancing Segway type mobile robot
with parameter uncertainties.The Segway is constrained to move
in the direction of the wheels with the no slip condition and
restricted to the motion on the plane. The system is highly non-
linear and the geometric PID controller which is applied in this
paper allowed the system a local exponential convergence while
being almost global and robust to the uncertain parameters.
Key words - PID, Lie groups,Intrinsic PID, Segway
I. INTRODUCTION
Segway is a self balancing, personal transportation vehicle,
which has attracted significant interest from both industry
and academia. Basically it is driven by two control torques
that are applied separately on each of the wheels and
can be approximated to an inverted pendulum on a cart.
As the system is made to maintain the vertically upright
configuration of the pendulum, where the system gains the
highest potential energy, the equilibrium is naturally unstable.
In a theoretical point of view this makes the Segway a
challenging and interesting control problem. In addition, the
system is described by its characteristic non-linear dynamics
and became popular among many researchers. It has been a
better system to authenticate the proficiency of the proposed
controllers. Interestingly, the system it self defines a space that
is unique to rigid bodies all along with its an under actuation
with non-holonomic constrains and the lager maneuverability.
Such systems are controlled in different means such as linear
controllers, nonlinear controllers and geometric controllers.
The objective of this paper is to extend the concept of integral
action in general setting to a under actuated mechanical
system , namely Segway type mobile robot and to show that
it perfectly address aspects of the controlling goals
In control theory, PID and LQR are often found as a linear
controllers . However, Proportional,Integral,Derivative PID
controller can be implemented on a linear systems as well
as on a non-linear systems.The most significance of PID
controllers is that the PID controller is robust even when
the parameters of the system are uncertain and possess the
ability to achieve the set point [1]. The system is required
to linearize in order for a PID to function as a controller
in the non-linear systems and more frequently system is
linearized around the desired set point [2], [3]. Linear
quadratic regulator (LQR) is a state space method employed
to control the linear systems[4].Basically LQR which is a
modern controller method, computes the optimal solution
for the multi variable systems and the performance of the
controller is better than the PID controller but with bounded
uncertainty [5], [6]. Since the inverted pendulum is non-linear
system PID controllers are employed to balance the inverted
pendulum robots after the linearizion [7], [8] . The systems
are perfectly controlled around the equilibrium point and the
controlling function is not effectively executed at domains
beyond the equilibrium.
However, nonlinear controllers such as fuzzy logic
controllers and adaptive neural network control have been
employed to sustain throughout the controlling domain.For
position controlling and balancing fuzzy logic controllers has
been implemented on the self balancing inverted pendulums
[9], [10]. However, developing a non-linear controller for a
non-linear system seemed to address the issue while meeting
the requirements but in practice the response to a bounded
parameter uncertainties is quiet poor than a PID controller.
There are occasions where the working region can’t be
defined in advanced the operation or the initial conditions
can’t be predefined. In such instances coordinates become
less significant. However, coordinates are assigned to describe
the mechanical system and there is always a space that the
system itself describes over the time which is also well known
as a manifold. Describing controllers without the inference of
any coordinate system and only within the manifold is called
the intrinsic controllers.The significance in utilizing smooth
feedback in non-Euclidean space is that the system can attain
almost global stability.When single coordinate system is
considered, characteristic global topological constraints can’t
be seen as in a developed smooth manifold . In addition
one can clearly ensure that a controller, which stabilizes the
entire manifold, where a large amount of charts that span
the entire dynamic geometry, are included, is almost globally
stable. Thus extending the intrinsic PID controller for the self
balancing Segway type mobile robot allow the system to be
stabilized almost globally. The geometric controller has been
implemented on fully actuated unconstrained mechanical
system [11]. Here the geometric controller is extended to
constrained under actuated system
In this paper, the developed intrinsic PID controller for the
general manifold is extended to the self balancing segway
type mobile robot integrating with the the non-holonomic
constraints which are namely ; i) the system doesn’t slip side
ways ii)robot remain in a plane iii) the system isn’t allowed
to rotate laterally.

In section II , it is briefly described the PID controller
for a simple unconstrained mechanical system on general Lie
groups and extend it for Constraint mechanical system.In the
section III, The extension of the intrinsic PID controller for
the mobile robot and the dynamics of the system is explained
with the in-cooperation of the non-holonomic constraints of
the system .Finally in the section IV basing the dynamics the
system a numerically model was simulated integrating the PID
controller .
II. I NTRINSIC PID CONTROLLER
A mechanical system can be described in terms of
configuration space, the kinetic energy, the generalized
forces, and the holonomic and non-holonomic constraints
acting on the system [12].The generalized velocities and the
generalized forces are the elements of the tangent bundle and
the cotangent bundle. The kinetic energy creates the structure
of a Riemannian manifold on the configuration space.Then it
is seen that the Euler-Lagrange equations take the form of a
nonlinear double integrator. The holonomic or nonholonomic
constraints of system make sure that the constraints do no
work. Thus there is a reduction in the dimension of the
double integrator system. In the following we briefly review
some of the basic notions of differential geometry that allows
us to formalize these statements
Let’s assume configuration space G of a mechanical system
will be a smooth n-dimensional manifold. The tangent vector
to a curve through g is vg = ġ, while Tg G is the space of
all such tangent vectors to G at g ∈ G. The collection of all
such tangent spaces to G is referred to as the tangent bundle
[13],T G. The space dual to Tg G is denoted by Tg∗ G and is
referred to as the cotangent space[14]and the collection of all
such cotangent spaces to G is referred to as the cotangent
bundle, T ∗ G . The action of a covector γg ∈ Tg∗ G on a
vector vg ∈ Tg G can be denote by < γg , vg > [12].Let
g(t) be the smooth curve describing the evolution of the
mechanical system over time , on the configuration space G.
The generalized velocity of the system is the tangent to this
curve vg = g ∈ Tg G , while γg , which is an elements of the
cotangent space Tg∗ G , is the generalized force acting on the
system . Thus < γg , vg > is the rate of change of energy of
the mechanical system.
A structure of a singular Riemannian manifold is created
on G from a singular Riemannian metric which assigns
the inner product ,< ·, · >: Tg G × Tg G 7→ R on each
of the tangent spaces Tg G on G [15]. For mechanical
systems the kinetic energy of the system defines such a
metric so that the kinetic energy of the mechanical system
is given byKE = hhġ, ġii/2. The singular Riemannian
metric allows one to define a mapIg : Tg G 7→ Tg∗ G by the
M
relationship < Ig vg , ug > = hhvg , ug iifor all vg , ug ∈ Tg G.
For Riemannian metrics the above defined map Ig is an
isomorphism and in this case one can uniquely identify a
vector with a given covector in an intrinsic fashion. The
smooth tensor field I : T G 7→ T ∗ G that is point wise defined
above is usually referred to as the inertia tensor.
For any vectorfields X, Y, Z ∈ T G the derivative of
hhX, Y ii along solutions of Z is denoted by LZ hhX, Y ii.
For a Riemannian or singular Riemannian metric one can
show that there exists a unique 1-form field, I∇X Y ∈ T ∗ G
that satisfies the following properties [15]
LZ hhX, Y ii = < I∇Z X, Y > + < I∇Z Y, X > (1)
I∇X Y − I∇Y X = I[X, Y ] (2)
For a given X, Y ∈ T G this 1-form field is explicitly given
by the Koszul formula:
1
< I∇X Y, Z >= (LX hhY, Zii + LY hhZ, Xii
2
− LZ hhX, Y ii − hhX, [Y, Z]ii
+ hhY, [Z, X]ii + hhZ, [X, Y ]ii)
It can be shown that this allows one to define a covariant
derivative called the lower derivative , I∇ : T G×T G 7→ T ∗ G,
that takes values in T ∗ G. Condition (1) states that the lower
derivative is metric and (2) states that the lower derivative is
symmetric or torsion free. From a mechanical system point
of view what turns out to be more crucial is the property of
metricity given by (1). If the metric is Riemannian then I is an
M
isomorphism and then ∇X Y = I−1 (I∇X Y ) defines a unique
covariant derivative, called the Levi − Civita connection.
Using the above notations one can write down Euler-
Lagrange equations for an unconstrained mechanical system
in the intrinsic fashion
I∇ġ ġ = γg (3)
where γg ∈ Tg∗ G is the generalized force acting on the
system. This expression is valid for both Riemannian metrics
as well as singular Riemannian metrics. Since I is an isomor-
phism for Riemannian (non-singular) metrics the mechanical
system can be alternatively written as ∇ġ ġ = I− 1γg = Γg .
Whereas for singular Riemannian metrics the corresponding
mechanical system can not be written in this fashion. In the
Riemannian case ∇ġ ġ has the notion of intrinsic acceleration.
When the configuration space is Rn and the kinetic energy
metric is constant equation (3) reduces to mẍ = f . Thus
equation (3) can be considered as the nonlinear equivalent of
the linear double integrator.
If the system is subjected to holonomic or non-holonomic
constraints the Lagrange-dAlembert principle states that the
forces that ensure the constraints do no work. This observation
allows a reduction in dimension of the representation of the
double integrator system (3). At each g ∈ G consider the
collection of subspacesDg ⊂ Tg G. If the assignment of these
subspaces is smooth over g the collection of all such subsaces,
denoted by D ⊂ T G, is called a smooth distribution. The
holonomic and non-holonomic constraints of a mechanical
system are typically of the formġ(t) ∈ Dg(t) for all t for
some such smooth D of dimension m. Let Dc∗ ⊂ T ∗ Gbe the
annihilating co-distribution of D or simply the constraint co-
distribution. That is let
M where the lower covariant derivative of P D∗ c along X ∈ T G
Dc∗ = ∗
{γ ∈ T G | < γ, v >= 0, ∀v ∈ D}
The dimension of D∗ c is (nm). We will assume that I
restricted to D is one-to-one and onto its image D∗ , I(D).
Thus dim(D) = dim(D∗ ) = m. Since if ġ ∈ D then
/ Dc∗ it follows that T ∗ G = D∗ ⊕ Dc∗ .
Iġ ∈
Let PD∗ : T ∗ G 7→ D∗ be the smooth projection ontoD∗ .
M gyroscopic forces along the constraint co-distribution. Com-
Thus P Dc∗ = (I − P D∗ ) is the complementary projection that
projects onto Dc∗ . Let us summarize some of the consequences
of this decomposition of T ∗ G.
(a) P D∗ (IX) = IX if and only if X ∈ D.
Fig. 1: Projection
(b) For any X ∈ D the inner product hhX, Y ii = 0 if and
only if Y ∈
/D
Let γ(g) ∈ Tg∗ G be the resultant generalized external force
acting on the system and γλ (g) ∈ Tg∗ G be the generalized
constraint force that maintains the constraint g(t) ∈ Dg (t).
For brevity of notation we will omit the g dependence of the
above forces. The Lagrange-dAlembert principle says that
the generalized constraint forces do no work and hence that
γλ ∈ Dc∗ . Thus the Lagrange-dAlembert principle implies
that P D∗ (γλ) ≡ 0. The constraint that ġ ∈ Dg (t) implies
/ Dc∗ and hence that PDc∗ (Iġ ) ≡ 0 and PDc∗ (Iġ ) = Iġ .
that Ig ∈
For a mechanical system corresponding to a singular-
Riemannian metric, the intrinsic Newtons equations (3) can
be split along the constraint co-distribution Dc∗ and its com-
plement D∗ . Using this decomposition it follows that the
constrained equations of motion, of a mechanical system cor-
responding to a singular-Riemannian metric, have the intrinsic
representation
PD∗ (I∇ġġ ) = PD∗ (γ)
PDc∗ (Iġ) = 0
The condition γλ ∈ Dc∗ also implies that
γλ = PDc∗ (I∇ġ ġ) − PDc∗ (γ) = −(∇ġ PDc∗ )(Iġ) − PDC∗ (γ)
(4)
is defined by
M
(∇X PDC∗ )(IY ) = LX (PDc∗ (IY )) − PDc∗ (I∇X Y ) (5)
Note that if IY ∈ D∗ then (∇X PDc∗ )(IY ) ∈ Dc∗
Basically what expression (4) implies is that the constraint
force should be equal and opposite to the projection of the
external forces along the constraint co-distribution plus the
bining the above three equations we have that the constrained
mechanical system on the Lie group G takes the form
Iġ ġ = −(∇ġ PDc∗ )(Iġ) + PDc∗ (γ) (6)
Below we will briefly show how one may proceed to construct
the projections PD∗ and PDc∗ . Let A(g) be the matrix that
describes the (n − m)-constraints in some convenient frame-
field for Tg∗ G in the form Aġ = 0. Denote by σ this choice
of basis for Tg∗ G. Let K be such that D =span(K). That is,
K is the maximal rank matrix such that AK = 0. Define the
new basis σD such that σD = σT where T (g) = [IKAT ].
The representations of the projections in the original basis σ
then take the form
 
Im×m 0m×(n−m)
PD∗ = T (g) T (g)−1
0(n−m)×m 0(n−m)×(n−m)
 
0m×m 0m×(n−m)
P Dc∗ = T (g) T (g)−1
0(n−m)×m I(n−m)×(n−m)
III. S EGWAY AS A CONTRAINT MECHNICAL SYSTEM
In this section a mobile robot type segway is considered.The
figure 2 which is the schematics of the system,clearly illustrate
inertial frame,body frame and an auxiliary frame with the
notation e, b and a respectively.The gravity acts along the
opposite direction of e3 and the frame b is fixed on the
segway such thatb3 is set along the axis of the robot.
It is a constrained system on SE(3) ≡ SO(3) × R3 .
Considering the left-invariant Kinetic energy matric, it can be
expressed that,
M 1
hhζ, ηii = (M V · U + Ib Ω· Φ)
2
Where M is the mass of the system , Π is the inertia tensor
with respect to the body frame and ζ = (V, Ω), η = (U, Φ) ∈
SE(3) ≡ SO(3) × R3 .The overall inertia tensor, Π is defined
as follows.
 
M 0
I=
0 Ib
 This implies that,
φ̇ = Ω1
θ̇ = Ω3 sin(φ) + Ω3 cos(φ)
In here the sideway motion of the segway is considered
as restricted.Further more, the robot can move only on the
plane and rotation about a2 is denied.When considering these
constrains,following expressions can be written.

a · ȯ = e1 · V = 0
e3 · ȯ = e3 · R1 V = 0
a2 · ω = e2 R1 Ω = 0
Therefore,
V1 = 0
V2 sin(φ) + V3 cos(φ) = 0
Ω2 cos(φ) − Ω3 sin(φ) = 0
This can also represented as,
 
 Vc
−eˆ2 2

e2 eT2 =0
Ωc
M M
Where Ωc = R1 (φ)Ω = 0 and Vc = R1 (φ)V are the linear
velocities and angular velocities in the c-frame.Thus the three
dimensional distribution is give as follows.
D = ker −eˆ2 2 e2 eT2
 

Let K be the maximal rank matrix such that D = ker(K).

Let
 T    
R1 03×3 M I( 3 × 3) 03×3 T
T = K A
03×3 R1 Ib R1T 03×3 R1 Ib R1T
∗
Fig. 2: Schematics of the segway type mobile robot Therefore we have that projection, PD , on to co-distribution
∗
D is found to be given by
 
I3×3 03×3 −1
M
Considering as γ = (F, τ ) and following the results from PD ∗ = T T
03×3 03×3
I 5ġ ġ = γg , the equations of the motion is described by the
expression below. Noting that the projections are given with respect to b-frame
and the covariant derivative of this operator along ζ as defined
I 5ġ ġ = −(∇ġ PDc∗ )(Iġ ) + PD∗ (γ) by ? and expressed with respect to the b-frame is found to be
explicitly given by
The frames, a and b can be explicitly defined from the natural
(5ζ PDc∗ )(Iη) = − PDc∗ 21 (Ib (Ω × Φ)) − Ib Φ × Ω − Ib Ω × Φ
 

co-ordinates, (θ,φ), as shown in the figure 2 .  

+ (Lζ PDc∗ ) Ib φ
a = eR3 (θ)
Therefore the constrained system IOζ ζ =
b = aR1 (φ)

− Oġ PDc∗ (Iζ) + PD∗ (γ) explicitly at angle of β along e2
R = R3 R1 (φ̇eˆ1 + θ̇R1T eˆ3 R1 )
M V˙1 =0
Thus it can be shown, (τR + τL )
M V˙2 =M Ω1 V3 + cos(φ)
  r
φ̇ (τR + τL )
Ω =  θ̇ sin(φ)  M V˙3 = − M Ω1 V2 − sin(φ)
r
θ̇ cos(φ) I1 Ω̇1 =(I2 − I3 )Ω2 Ω3 + (τR + τL )
 I2 (I2 − I3 ) sin2 (φ) − I3 Ω1 Ω3


I2 Ω̇2 = − Basically the mechanical system was simulated to an unity
(I2 sin2 (φ) + I3 cos2 (φ)) system and the nominal system parameters are as follows.
I2 sin(φ)(τR − τL )bd mass M = 1,principle moment of inertia I = diag[1, 1, 1], the
+ center of gravity along main axis of Lcentreof gravity = 0.5,
2(I2 sin2 (φ) + I3 cos2 (φ))r

wheel diameter rwheel = 1,breadth of the system Lbreadth=1
I3 (I2 − I3 ) cos2 (φ) + I2 Ω1 Ω2
I3 Ω̇3 = − , gravitational acceleration g = 1.The controller gains
(I2 sin2 (φ) + I3 cos2 (φ)) for the PID controller used for nominal parameters was
I3 cos(φ)(τR − τL )bd kp = 2, kd = 1 and kI = 0.1 .Then for an uncertainty of 50%
+
2(I2 sin2 (φ) + I3 cos2 (φ))r of sytem parameters the systems controller gains were set to
kp = 5, kd = 2 and kI = 0.92 .The results were obtained
for zero initial body velocities and angular velocities and
Let y : SE(3) 7→ S2 be y(o, R) = Re3 and for initial Π4 tilting angle and P12i lateral rotating angles the
Vy (R) = (1 − Re3 · e3 ) + (1 − (R3 (θ)e1 ) · e1 ) Then system converged to the balancing position.
dVy = −eˆ3 RT e3 − eˆ1 R3T e1
 
The system converged to it’s balancing state successfully
Therefore PID controller can be expressed as; demonstrating the potential of the geometric controller. fig3.
h T
i
(τR + τL )e1 + bd(τR −τL2r)R1 (φ) e3 = − kp −ê3 R e3 − ê1 R3 e1
T T
 
V. C ONCLUSIONS

− kd Ib Ω
 The system has the potential to attain the stability with
  almost given initial conditions. However the system tends
− kI Ib ΩI
to keep a very small lateral linear velocity. Apart from that
Since a potential energy assignment is not shown in the the system exponentially attain the equilibrium tilt angle and
translation degree of freedom and from the expression for the body angular velocities. Furthermore, the system has the
covariant derivative of PDc∗ , V˙I = 0.Thus VI ≡ 0. Therefore ability to attain the stability even with parameter uncertainty
the PID controller can br written explicitly as follows. of 50% with the corrected controller gains

Although the self balancing segway type mobile robot is

1 highly
Ib Ω̇ = − R1 (φ)eˆ2 2 R1 (φ)T (−Ω × ΩI + Ib ΩI n × Ω
2
+ Ib Ω × ΩI ) − eˆ3 RT e3 − eˆ1 R3T e1
 
2r
τR = − kp sin(φ) + cos(φ) sin(θ)
bd
  successfully implemented
2r
− kd I1 (Ω1 + ΩI1 ) + (I2 Ω2 sin(φ) + I3 Ω3 cos(φ))
bd
− kI [I2 ΩI2 sin(φ) + I3 ΩI3 cos(φ)]
 
2r
τL = − kp sin(φ) − cos(φ) sin(φ)
bd
 
2r
− kd I1 (Ω1 + ΩI1 ) − (I2 Ω2 sin(phi) + I3 Ω3 cos(φ))
bd
+ kI [I2 ΩI2 sin(φ) + I3 ΩI3 cos(φ)]
IV. S IMULATION RESULTS
The simulation results are presented here showing the
significance of the intrinsic PID controller for the segway type
mobile robot.In order to show the robustness of the controller
system parameters in the simulation model was altered by
50% from the nominal system parameters that described
the A Segway type mechanical system was numerically
simulated using the dynamics of the system with particular
physical parameters and the above presented controller was
implemented in it. Against various conditions the system was
simulated and the behavior of the system was observed.
non-linear the intrinsic PID controller converges the
system to the stability with the parameter uncertainties.The
system’s convergence is considered to be almost global and
locally exponential.The extension of the the geometric con-
troller for the under actuated contained mechanical system is
R EFERENCES
[1] R. P. Sree, M. Srinivas, and M. Chidambaram, “A simple
method of tuning pid controllers for stable and unstable
foptd systems,” Computers and Chemical Engineering, vol. 28,
no. 11, pp. 2201 – 2218, 2004. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135404001097
[2] W. J. Rugh, “Design of nonlinear pid controllers,” AIChE Journal,
vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1738–1742, 1987. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690331019
[3] N. S. Nise, Control Systems Engineering, 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000.
[4] B. Anderson and J. Moore, Optimal Control: Linear Quadratic Methods,
ser. Dover Books on Engineering. Dover Publications, 2007. [Online].
Available: https://books.google.lk/books?id=fW6TAwAAQBAJ
[5] H. Liu, G. Lu, and Y. Zhong, “Robust lqr attitude control of a 3-dof
laboratory helicopter for aggressive maneuvers,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 4627–4636, Oct 2013.
[6] A. N. K. Nasir, M. A. Ahmad, and M. F. Rahmat,
“Performance comparison between lqr and pid controllers for
an inverted pendulum system,” AIP Conference Proceedings,
vol. 1052, no. 1, pp. 124–128, 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.3008655
[7] H. Lee and J. Lee, “Driving control of mobile inverted pendulum,” in
2012 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient
Intelligence (URAI), Nov 2012, pp. 449–453.
[8] R. Grepl, “Balancing wheeled robot: Effective modelling,
sensory processing and simplified control,” Engineering Mechanics,
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 141–154, May 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://dlib.lib.cas.cz/5310/
 [13] L. W. Tu, An Introduction to Manifolds. BSpringer Science and
Business Mediar, 2010.
[14] V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. BSpringer
Science and Business Mediar, 2013.
[15] L. Godinho and J. Natrio, An Introduction to Riemannian Geometry:
With Applicatihangons to Mechanics and Relativity. Springer, 2014.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 3: The numerical simulation results of the Segway type
mobile robot with the parameter uncertainty of 50% and for
the Kp = 5,Kd = 2 and Kp = 0.92 .The system converges
to the stable balanced position.The system converge to a state
that has very smaller lateral velocity with the pendulum held
right upwards(a) Variation of the linear velocity along the b2
direction with time is a convergence of the velocity to smaller
value (b) Variation of angular velocity along b1 direction is
convergence to zero (c) Variation of the Tilting angle with the
time is a convergence to zero

[9] S. Kwak and B.-J. Choi, “Fuzzy logic control system for segway type
mobile robots,” International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent
Systems, pp. 126–131, Feb 2015.
[10] S. C. Lin, C. C. Tsai, and W. L. Luo, “Adaptive neural network control
of a self-balancing two-wheeled scooter,” in IECON 2007 - 33rd Annual
Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Nov 2007, pp.
868–873.
[11] D. Maithripala and J. M. Berg, “An intrinsic pid
controller for mechanical systems on lie groups,” Automatica,
vol. 54, pp. 189 – 200, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005109815000060
[12] W. M. Boothby, An Introduction to Differentiable Manifolds and Rie-
mannian Geometry. Academic Press, 1986.

View publication stats