CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 26, No. 5, 2013 ·839·

DOI: 10.3901/CJME.2013.05.839, available online at www.springerlink.com; www.cjmenet.com; www.cjmenet.com.cn

Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Multi-body Systems

Using the Udwadia-Kalaba Theory

ZHAO Han1, ZHEN Shengchao1, 2, *, and CHEN Ye-Hwa2

1 School of Mechanical Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China
2 School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta 30332, USA

Received December 20, 2012; revised March 20, 2013; accepted March 27, 2013

Abstract: Laboratory experiments were conducted for falling U-chain, but explicit analytic form of the general equations of motion was
not presented. Several modeling methods were developed for fish robots, however they just focused on the whole fish’s locomotion
which does little favor to understand the detailed swimming behavior of fish. Udwadia-Kalaba theory is used to model these two
multi-body systems and obtain explicit analytic equations of motion. For falling U-chain, the mass matrix is non-singular. Second-order
constraints are used to get the constraint force and equations of motion and the numerical simulation is conducted. Simulation results
show that the chain tip falls faster than the freely falling body. For fish robot, two-joint Carangiform fish robot is focused on.
Quasi-steady wing theory is used to approximately calculate fluid lift force acting on the caudal fin. Based on the obtained explicit
analytic equations of motion (the mass matrix is singular), propulsive characteristics of each part of the fish robot are obtained. Through
these two cases of U chain and fish robot, how to use Udwadia-Kalaba equation to obtain the dynamical model is shown and the
modeling methodology for multi-body systems is presented. It is also shown that Udwadia-Kalaba theory is applicable to systems
whether or not their mass matrices are singular. In the whole process of applying Udwadia-Kalaba equation, Lagrangian multipliers and
quasi-coordinates are not used. Udwadia-Kalaba theory is creatively applied to dynamical modeling of falling U-chain and fish robot
problems and explicit analytic equations of motion are obtained.

Key words: Udwadia-Kalaba equation, multi-body systems, falling U-chain, fish robot

developed equations of constrained motion when the

1 Introduction ∗ constraints satisfy D’ Alember’ s principle. In the treatise
The general problem of obtaining equations of motion
for constrained discrete mechanical systems has been an
area of considerable interest among scientists and engineers.
It is also one of the central issues in multi-body dynamics.
The problem has been aggressively and continuously
pursued by many scientists, engineers and mathematicians
since constrained motion was initially described by
LAGRANGE[1]. He invented the special Lagrange
multiplier method to deal with constrained motion.
However, the Lagrange multiplier method relies on
problem-specific approaches to determine the multipliers; it
is often very difficult to find the multipliers to obtain the
explicit equations of motion for systems with large
numbers of degrees of freedom and a mass of
non-integrable constraints. GAUSS[2] introduced a new
general principle of mechanics for handling constrained
motion. Gauss’s Principle gives a clear description of the
general nature of constrained motion through minimization
of a function of the accelerations of the particles of a
system. GIBBS[3] and APPELL[4] have independently
* Corresponding author. E-mail: zhenshengchao@gmail.com
© Chinese Mechanical Engineering Society and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
on the analytical dynamics, PARS[5] refers to the
Gibbs-Appell equations as “probably the most
comprehensive equations of motion so far discovered”. But
the Gibbs-Appell equations require a “lucky” choice of
problem-specific quasi-coordinates and they suffer from
similar problems when dealing with systems with a large
number of degrees of freedom and many non- integrable
constraints. DIRAC[6] used Poisson brackets, a recursive
scheme for determining the Lagrange multipliers, for
singular Hamiltonian systems where the constraints do not
exactly depend on time.
On the other hand, UDWADIA, et al[7–8], obtained a
concise, explicit set of equations of motion for constrained
discrete dynamic systems which lead to a simple and new
fundamental view of Lagrangian mechanics. They derived
the fundamental equation of motion that describes the
dynamics of constrained systems from Gauss’ s principle
which seems somewhat less popular than the principles of
Lagrange, Hamilton, Gibbs and Appell. The equations can
deal with holonomic and also non-holonomic constraints.
UDWADIA, et al[9–10], observed that all the research above
has used D’ Alember’ s principle as their starting point. D’
Alember’ s principle assumes that the forces of constraints
are considered to be ideal and the total work done by the
 ZHAO Han, et al: Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Multi-body Systems
·840· Using the Udwadia-Kalaba Theory
forces of constraints under virtual displacement is always
zero. This assumption works well in many situations and is
regarded as the core of classical analytical dynamics, but it
is not applicable when the constraints are nonideal. Thus,
UDWADIA and KALABA generalized their previous
equations to constrained mechanical systems that may not
satisfy D’ Alember’ s principle. Systems with singular
mass matrices are not common in classical dynamics when
dealing with unconstrained motion. PARS[5] proposed that
when the minimum number of coordinates is employed for
describing the unconstrained motion of mechanical systems,
the corresponding Lagrange equations usually yield
non-singular, symmetric and positive definite mass
matrices. However, singular mass matrices can arise when
one wants greater flexibility in modeling complex
mechanical systems by using more than the minimum
number of required generalized coordinates. Thus,
UDWADIA, et al[11], developed general and explicit
equations of motion to handle systems whether or not their
mass matrices are singular. We call these discoveries the
Udwadia-Kalaba theory. About 20 years has passed, we
seldom realize its importance only because it is abstract. In
fact, the Udwadia-Kalaba theory can be applied to
constrained discrete mechanical systems with unmatched
ease, clarity and elegance, especially to multi-body systems
such as mechanical manipulators, space vehicles, robots
and similar systems.
As we know, the principles of mechanics[12–16] are so
perfect that it is impossible to create a totally new
fundamental principal for the theory of motion and
equilibrium of discrete, dynamical systems. However, an
additional perspective has been proposed by Udwadia and
Kalaba which is useful to help us understand nature’ s law
from new points of view[7–11].
Using Udwadia and Kalaba’ s marvelous theory, we can
formulate the explicit, general equations of motion for
constrained discrete dynamic systems in three steps：First,
in terms of the generalized coordinates, we consider the
unconstrained discrete dynamic system whose equations of
motion can be written using Newtonian or Lagrangian
mechanics. Then we form the constraint equations which
could include the usual holonomic, non-holonomic,
scleronomic, rheonomic, catastatic and acataetatic variaties
of constraints or even combinations of such constraints.
Finally, we impose the additional generalized forces of
constraint on the system. That is to say, we add the force
resulting from the presence of constraints to the
unconstrained system’ s force.
The advantage of determining the explicit equations of
motion for constrained discrete dynamical system through
this new theory is obvious. Compared to the Lagrange
multiplier method, there is no need for this new approach to
determine the multiplier which is often very difficult to
obtain for systems having a large number of degrees of
freedom and many non-integrable constraints. Unlike the
formulations offered by Gibbs, Volterra, Appell and
Boltzmann, we are not required to develop a system of
proper quasi-coordinates.
The significant advantages of Udwadia and Kalaba’ s
new theory are threefold. First, it allows descriptions of
mechanical systems that use more than the minimum
number of required coordinates which speeds and eases the
setup of the equations of motion of complex systems.
Second, it applies to systems whether or not their mass
matrices are singular, is applicable to systems with
holonomic and/or nonholonomic constraints and to systems
whose constraint forces may or may not be ideal. Third, the
new theory opens up a new way of modeling complex
multi-body systems. It permits decomposition of such
systems into sub-systems whose equations of motion are
known, and then combine the sub-system equations to get
the composite system’ s equations of motion in a
straightforward and simple manner.
2 Explicit General Equations of Motion
for Multi-body System
Using Udwadia and Kalaba’ s approach, we first
consider an unconstrained discrete dynamical system
whose configuration is described by the n generalized
coordinates q : [q1 ,q2 , ,qn ]T . Its equation of motion
can be obtained, using Newtonian or Lagrangian mechanics,
by the relation:
M (q, t )q  Q (q, q , t ), (1)
where M (q, t )  R nn is symmetric and positive definite
inertia matrix, q  R n is the velocity and q  R n is the
acceleration, and Q (q, q , t )  R n is the force imposed on
the system whose constraints are released. The imposed
forces could include centrifugal force, gravitational force
and control input. The generalized acceleration of the
unconstrained system, which we denote by a (q, q , t ) is
thus given by
q  M 1 (q, t )Q (q, q , t )  a (q, q , t ). (2)
Second, constraints present in the system should be
considered. We shall assume that the system is subjected to
h holonomic constraints and m  h nonholonomic
constraints of the form:
ϕi (q, t )  0, i  1, 2, , h, (3)
ϕi (q, q , t )  0, i  h  1, h  2,  , m. (4)
We can differentiate standard constraint equations in
Lagrangian mechanics which are usually in pfaffian form.
Under the assumption of sufficient smoothness, we take the
time derivative once on nonholonomic constraints and
twice on holonomic constraints, to derive the constraint
equations of the matrix form:
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ·841·

UDWADIA and KALABA have proved that the ideal

A(q, q , t )q  b(q, q , t ), (5) constraint force takes the form

where A(q, q , t ) is referred to as constraint matrix and
b(q, q , t ) is a m-vector.
The final step is to form the explicit equations of motion
with constraints. Due to the presence of constraints,
additional “generalized forces of constraints” should be
imposed on the system. So, the actual explicit equation of
motion of the constrained system could be assumed to take
the form:
M (q, t )q  Q (q, q , t )  Q c (q, q , t ),
where Q (q, q , t ) , arising by virtue of the holonomic and
nonholonomic constraints, is the additional term of forces
imposed on the system. In Lagrangian mechanics,
Q c (q, q , t ) is considered to be ideal and it is governed by
D’ Alember’ s Principle which indicates that forces of
constraint do zero work under virtual displacements.
However, the constraints can also be non-ideal. Ideal
constraints generate ideal constraint forces subject to D’
Alember’ s Principle, while non-ideal constraints generate
non-ideal constraint forces such as friction force,
electro-magnetic force, etc. If there exist both ideal and
non-ideal constraints in the system, Udwadia put
Q c (q, q , t ) in the form of
Q c (q, q , t )  Qidc (q, q , t )  Qnid
c
(q, q , t ),
Qidc  M 1/2 B  (b  AM 1Q ), (11)
and the non-ideal constraint force takes the form
c
Qnid  M 1/2 (I  B + B )M 1/2 c, (12)
where B  AM 1/2 and the superscript “” denotes the
Moore-Penrose generalized inverse [17–18].
From Eqs. (6), (7), (11), and (12), the explicit equation
(6) of motion that governs the evolution of the constrained
system (including both ideal and non-ideal constraints) is
Mq  Q +M 1/2 B + (b  AM 1Q ) + M 1/ 2 (I  B + B )M 1/2 c,
(13)
where vector c is determined by the mechanician and could
be obtained by experimentation and/or observation.
When c is always zero, Eq. (13) reduces to D’
Alember’ s Principle, which means the total work done
under virtual displacement is zero, the constraints are ideal,
the constraint force is
Q c  Qidc  M 1/2 B + (b  AM 1Q ), (14)
and the explicit equation of motion of the constrained
(7)
system (only including ideal constraints) is

where Qidc (q, q , t ) is the ideal constraint force and

c Mq  Q  M 1/ 2 B + (b  AM 1Q ). (15)
Qnid (q, q , t ) is the non-ideal constraint force.
Udwadia generalizes D’ Alember’ s Principle to include
forces of constraint that may do positive, negative, or zero Thus, at each instant of time t, the constrained system is
work under virtual displacement at any instant time during subjected to an additional constraint force F c (t ) given by
the motion of the constrained system. That is, he extends
Lagrange’ s form of D’ Alember’ s Principle to include F c (t )  M 1/2 B + (b  AM 1Q ). (16)
non-ideal constraints. We denote constraint force as
c (q, q , t )  R n . The constraint force does the work When matrix M is a constant diagonal matrix so that
W  v T c (the same as the work done by Q c (q, q , t ) in M  mI, then Eq. (16) simplifies to
any displacement v which is subject to A(q, q , t )v  0.
So we write these equations in the form of F c (t )  MA+ (b  AM 1Q ). (17)

W  v T Q c  v T c, (8) When M 1Q is zero, Eq. (17) becomes

which is the extended Lagrange’ s form of D’ Alembert’ s F c (t )  MA+ b. (18)

Principle (We henceforth omit the arguments of functions
where there is no confusion in our notations). The work
done by the ideal constraint force Qidc under virtual
displacements is
v T Qidc  0,
For Eq. (13), if the mass matrix M is singular, we should
use the Udwadia-Phohomsiri equation[11] instead of
Udwadia-Kalaba equation[7–10] to get the equation of
motion for the constrained system. Hence, the equation of
(9) motion is

while the work done by non-ideal constraint force is   I  A+ A M + Q 

    .
q   
    (19)
v T Qnid
c
 0. (10)  A   b 
 ZHAO Han, et al: Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Multi-body Systems
·842· Using the Udwadia-Kalaba Theory

The above equation is valid when the matrix
T
 M | A has full rank[11]. This full rank condition can serve
as a check on whether we have obtained a correct model,
because it is also the condition required for the equation of
motion of the constrained system to be unique.
Remark. UDWADIA and KALABA have provided
explicit general equations of motion for constrained
discrete dynamical systems with their newly initiated
approach which is applicable to all holonomical and non-
holonomical constrained systems no matter whether they
satisfy D’ Alember’ s Principle. They generalize
Lagrangian mechanics to include both ideal and non-ideal
constraint forces by using a new fundamental principle
governing the motion of constrained systems. The equation
of motion obtained by using Udwadia and Kalaba’ s theory
is general, simple and understandable.
3 Case 1: Falling U-chain
dependence of the velocity and the acceleration of the chain
tip for several initial conformations of the chain and also
give us a simple analytical model of the system.
As seen above, research on falling U-chain problem has
seemingly been conducted well for years. However, they all
focus their attention on whether the system is energy
conservative or non-conservative, results of laboratory
experiments and numerical simulations based on a simple
analytical model and arguments with each other. None of
them attempt to present the explicit analytic form of the
general equations of motion for the falling U-chain system.
In this paper, we creatively apply the Udwadia-Kalaba
theory to solve the falling U-chain problem and to get its
explicit analytic form of the general equations of motion.
4 Analytical-form Equations of Motion
of the Falling U-chain

The falling U-chain (Fig. 1) is a folded flexible heavy
chain with one end suspended from a rigid support and the
other end lifted up to form a U-shaped fold at the bottom,
then the lifted end is released to move down in the manner
of a bungee fall[19]. The whole chain is in the gravitational
field while falling. This U-chain case is actually so old that
it has been studied frequently by many dissertations[20–25].
We are interested in it because it is an ideal constrained
dynamic system. Also, compared to the bottom-pile chain
and top-pile chain, the U-chain is conceptually easier to
model because there are no actual collisions, no made or
broken contacts and thus no explicit collisions even in a
discrete chain. This model provides ease and reliability for
numerical simulation[19].
We apply Udwadia and Kalaba’ s theory to the falling
U-chain problem to formulate the analytical-form equation
of motion. We do not focus on the inclined angle of each
link. Therefore, to simplify, we assume the U-chain
consists of n particles which are connected with n–1
massless links. The length of each link is 1, and the mass of
each particle is mi. Through this simplification, we can
describe the position of each particle with two degrees of
freedom, thus it will make the process of obtaining the
analytical-form equation of motion easier and speed up the
simulation. The chain is constrained to move only in the
vertical plane with each particle denoted by (xi, yi), i1, 2,
 , n. All links are considered to be rigid and cannot be
deformed. Consecutive particles are connected by massless
links regardless of the friction, since the friction in the
falling U-chain system is small and makes no difference to
the performance of the dynamic system.

4.1 Falling U-chain: unconstrained equation of motion

If there are no constraints placed on the links,
connections between links are removed and the last link is
Fig. 1. Falling U-chain not attached to the fixed support. The unconstrained
U-chain’ s equation of motion can be obtained easily as
WONG, et al[19], have given us a detailed and critical
review of the history of falling U-chain problems which Mq  Q (q, q , t ), i  1, 2,  , n, (20)
mainly include some erroneous approaches. They identify
 0 
the source of error and propose a fool-proof Lagrangian m1 0 0 0  0


approach to the falling U-chain problem. They imply that  0 m1 0 0  0 0 
the method of SOUSA, et al[23], is not reliable because its  
 0 0 m2 0  0 0 
solution is an erroneous for the falling U-chain and they  
also conclude that Lagrange’ s method gives definitive M   0 0 0 m2  0 0  ,
 
answers which are better and more easily developed.  
     0 0 

TOMASZEWSKI, et al[24], analyze the dynamics of the tip 
 0 0 0 0 0 mn 0 
of the falling U-chain with laboratory experiments and  
numerical simulations. They have determined the time 0 0 0 0 0 0 mn 
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ·843·

    0 
 x1     2x1 x2 − x12 − x22 +2 y1 y 2 − y12 − y 22 
     
  y1   1  m g 2 2 2 2
 2x2 x3 − x − x +2 y 2 y3 − y − y 
    2 3 2 3
  x2   0  
b 2x3 x4 − x32 − x42 +2 y3 y 4 − y32 − y 42

     . (27)
q    y  , Q  m2 g , (21)   
 2     
      2 2 2 2 2 2 
     2xn1 xn − xn1 − xn +2 y n1 y n − y n1 − y n − xn − y n 
    
 xn   0 
   
yn 
  mn g 4.3 Udwadia-Kalaba equation
Considering Eq. (15), detailed Udwadia and Kalaba
where m1, m2,  , mn are the mass of each link, x1, x2,  , eqution of the whole U-chain can be rewritten as
xn, y1, y2,  , yn are coordinates, Q is the external force.
Mq  Q  M 1/2 (AM −1/2 ) + (b − AM −1Q ), (28)
4.2 Falling U-chain: constraint equation
For i  1, 2,  , n 1 , the constraint between i and i1 is
where M , q, Q can be found in equation (21), A in equation
2 2 2
(xi+1  xi ) +(yi+1  yi )  l . (22) (26) and b in Eq. (27). This is the explicit analytical-form
equation of motion for the whole falling U-chain.
Taking the time derivative twice, we get To summarize, we can derive the analytical-form
equation of motion of the whole U-chain: form the
(xi  xi+1 )
xi +(yi  yi+1 )
yi +(xi+1  xi )
xi +1 +(yi+1  yi )
yi +1  unconstrained equation of motion at first, then write the
constraint equation so that the additional imposed
 y i2  y i2+1 +2yi+1 yi  x i2  x i2+1 +2xi+1 xi (23)
constrained force can be derived, and finally add the
constrained force to the equation of motion of the
For in, there is constraint from the n–1 link and the other unconstrained system.
constraint is

xn2 + yn2  l 2 . (24)

5 Numerical Simulation of the Falling
U-chain and analysis

Taking the time derivative twice, we get

Through simulations, insights into the dynamics of the
falling U-chain can be developed. To simplify, we assume
xn  yn  xn2  y n2 .
xn + yn  (25) li 1, g9.8, mi 1 for i1, 2,  , n and n17. We choose
n17 through trial and analysis. n17 is large enough to
simulate the dynamics and can get good results. Since we
Considering all the constraints which have been
know the whole U-chain’ s unconstrained equation of
described above, the whole U-chain’s constraint equation
motion and the constraint equation, we now know how to
Aq  b can be derived as follows:
calculate the constrained force, and we can simulate the
falling U-chain system in Matlab. We select the ode15i
A algorithm to implement the numerical simulation. It is a
 x1  x2 y1  y2 x2  x1 y2  y1
 0 0 0 0 variable order method that can solve fully implicit
 0 0 x2  x3 y2  y3 x3  x2 y3  y2 0 0 differential equations.

 0 0 0 0 x3  x4 y3  y4 x4  x3 y4  y3 We give five different initial separations xD between two
 ends of the chain: (a) x012, (b) x013, (c) x014 (d)
        
 x015, (e) x016.
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Table 1 provides the maximum vertical fall distance hmax
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 of the falling chain tip and the time it takes of each case, also,
it provides the vertical fall distance h of the freely falling
 0 0 0 0  body. From Table 1, we can determine if two ends of the

 0 0 0 0  chain get closer, the maximum vertical fall distance of the
 0 0 0 0  chain tip is reduced, and the time it takes gets less. In cases
, (26) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), the vertical fall distance of the chain tip,
     
 xn -1 − xn yn -1 − yn xn − xn -1 yn − yn -1  up to the time tmax at which the vertical fall distance of the
 chain tip reaches its maximum value hmax, is seen to always
 0 0 xn yn 
be ahead of the vertical fall distance h of the freely falling
 ZHAO Han, et al: Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Multi-body Systems
·844· Using the Udwadia-Kalaba Theory

body. This can be summarized by the general statement that

the chain falls faster than a freely falling body.

Table 1. Chain tip’s five cases

Initial Maximum fall Corresponding Fall
Case separation distance time distance
x0mm hmaxmm tmaxmm hmm
a 12 15.943 1.635 13.099
b 13 15.990 1.685 13.912
c 14 16.070 1.749 14.989
d 15 16.323 1.802 15.911 Fig. 3. Vertical force Fy1 on the chain tip of case (b)
e 16 16.671 1.842 16.625

In the simulation, we also find that the vertical distance

of a freely falling ball is always less than that of the falling
U-chain tip before the time tmax in all the five cases which
reconfirm the conclusion above.
To further understand this behavior, we analyze the time
dependence of the vertical acceleration ay1 of the chain tip
(horizontal acceleration is not so important for the analysis).
Downward is the positive direction and Fy1 denotes the
vertical force imposed on the falling chain tip. We know
m1, so Fy1 is numerically equal to ay1. We performed Fig. 4. Vertical force Fy1 on the chain tip of case (c)
simulations also with five initial separations between the
ends of the chain (a) x012, (b) x013, (c) x014, (d) x0
15, (e) x016. Figs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 show that as the initial
separation between the chain ends is reduced, the time of
the chain tip’s vertical acceleration larger than g (vertical
acceleration of the freely falling body, equal to 9.8) gets
more, and the value(about from 10 to 25) of chain tip’s
vertical acceleration ay1 larger than g generally gets bigger.
In other words, as the initial separation between chain ends
is reduced, Fy1 and ay1 grow and the vertical velocity of the
falling chain tip grows.
Fig. 5. Vertical force Fy1 on the chain tip of case (d)
Furthermore, two other characteristic features in Figs. 2
–6 are the negative peak heights of the vertical acceleration
and the time at which these maxima occur. As the initial
separation lessens, the negative peak heights lessen and the
time lessens. Next, we examine the values of the negative
peak heights of the vertical acceleration of the falling chain
tip as shown in Figs. 2–6. They are all large between –200
and –350 (far more than g). This means the tip is subjected
to a great pulling force when hitting the lowest position.

Fig. 6. Vertical force Fy1 on the chain tip of case (e)

6 Case 2: Fish Robot

Fig. 2. Vertical force Fy1 on the chain tip of case (a)
There are over 28 000 species of fish and a wide variety
of propulsive systems used by fish for maneuvering in the
aquatic environment. Fish have numerous fins which act to
transfer momentum to the surrounding water and shed
reverse Karman vortex street in the wake. The undulating
motion of fish can generate forward thrust as well as
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
receive drag from the water[26]. They exhibit amazing
swimming capabilities: high propulsive efficiency,
extraordinary maneuverability, long duration and station
keeping ability[27]. Fish’ s excellent locomotion ability
under water has stimulated growing interests in biomimetic
robot fish. Many researchers have attempted to study the
mechanism of fish swimming and have developed
underwater fish robots which can be prospectively applied
in military detection, undersea operation, reconnaissance
de-mining and so on[28].
We review briefly related research work on the fish’ s
swimming mechanism. Most of the early research focused
on building hydrodynamic models. TAYLOR[29] employed
steady-state flow theory to calculate the fluid force.
LIGHTHILL[30] developed the elongated-body theory to
study the swimming of slender fish. A two-dimensional
waving plate theory was originally proposed by WU[31]. He
advised to study the swimming fish as an elastic plate.
Thereafter, a large-amplitude elongated-body theory was
developed to analyze rapid acceleration and steady
swimming. An overview of fish swimming modes for
aquatic locomotion was presented by SFAKIOTAKIS, et
al[32]. TRIANTAFYLLOU, et al[33], initiated significant
work to develop an artificial robot fish. They developed an
eight-link, foil-flapping robotic fish mechanism(RoboTuna)
and investigated drag forces experimentally. Subsequently,
more fish robots have been developed, e.g., the well-known
Mitsubishi robotic fish, the lamprey robot, the ISRobotics
Ariel Robot, the robotic Blackbass, etc.
As seen above, research on swimming fish has
seemingly been conducted well for years. But they all focus
on the whole fish’ s locomotion which does little to aid in
understanding the detailed swimming behavior of fish.
They do not present the explicit analytic form of the
general equations of motion for the swimming fish system.
In this paper, we show the detailed locomotion of each part
of the fish robot and the explicit analytic form of the
general equations of motion and its derivation.
The fish robot can be regarded as a multi-body system
or a constrained discrete mechanical system. In order to
obtain explicit equations of motion of the fish robot system
and get the propulsive characteristics of each part, we
choose Udwadia-Kalaba theory to model the multi-body
system. Compared with former simple model, the model
built by applying Udwadia-Kalaba theory is more
reasonable and can clearly describe the detailed locomotion
of each part of the fish robot, not only the whole fish
robot’s locomotion described in the former simple model.
7 Fish Robot Model
The fish’ s nervous system controls muscle contraction
making the fish’ s body and fins undulate. These motions
generate thrust by transferring momentum to the
surrounding water. Of all the fishes’ swimming modes,
carangiform fish maintain high-speed swimming in calm
·845·
waters, while anguilliform fish exhibit remarkable
maneuverability. We focus on the robot model of
carangiform fish which typically have large, high-aspect-
ratio tails. They swim primarily using the rear and tail,
while the front body remains moving forward and
swinging.
We can idealize the main body of the fish as a rigid
body. The body is connected to the tail by a peduncle (a
slender region of generally negligible hydrodynamic
influence). Fish tails are usually flexible, but the caudal fins
of carangiform fish are very stiff. So, we treat the tail as a
rigid lifting surface. For simplicity, we analyze the
motion of the robotic fish only in two dimensions of the
horizontal plane. The fish-like mechanism can be modeled
as a three link system as shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. Fish-like mechanism model
To conduct a hydrodynamic analysis in a relatively
simple way, we model the three-link fish robot using
carangiform propulsion in which the fish oscillates the
caudal fin and peduncle. The drag acts on all the three
links, but mainly on the body. We assume the flow is
inviscid and calm. The second link(peduncle) is usually
hydrodynamically negligible, but here we only consider the
drag in the lateral direction. The third link(caudal fin) is
regarded as a thin flat plate generating lift and lateral drag
according to quasi-static two-dimensional wing theory
which is often used to approximately calculate fluid forces
acting on a high-aspect-ratio wing. Because z-component is
usually not considered in steady swimming, the robotic
fish’ s locomotion is analyzed only in two dimensions of
the horizontal plane. Thus, we refer to the direction of
intended locomotion longitudinal to the fish body as the x
direction and the lateral direction as the y direction. Fig. 8
illustrates an analytical model of the fish robot’s dynamics.
Fig. 8. Analytical model of fish robot dynamics
We introduce the following coordinate system,
 ZHAO Han, et al: Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Multi-body Systems
·846· Using the Udwadia-Kalaba Theory

coordinates, variables and symbols.
x axis: longitudinal to the fish body; y axis: lateral
direction; x1, y1, x2, y2, x3, y3: coordinates of the mass center;
θ1 ,θ 2 ,θ3 : undulating angles of the three links; l2: length of
the second link; FD1x: longitudinal drag acting on the first
link; FD1y, FD2y, FD3y: lateral drag acting on the three links;
Fx, Fy: x, y component of the lift force; T2, T3: input torques
exerted on the two joints; a: length from mass center of
first link to first joint; b: length from mass center of third
link to second joint.
8 Drag and Lift Force
The drag acting on the fish is empirically measured by
towing the fish through the water and is found to be
approximately quadratic with velocity[34]. It can be
calculated by
We take the quasi-steady wing theory to approximately
calculate the lift force because the caudal fin can be
regarded as a high-aspect-ratio thin plate. Although this
model of calculating forces acting on the fish body is
substantially simplified, it does a very good job of
describing the qualitative behavior of the system.
9 Constrained Equation of Motion of Fish
Robot System
We begin to derive the constrained equation of motion
from this point by applying Udwadia-Kalaba theory. The
fish robot system has three links and two joints. It can be
regarded as a common multi-body system. So, the
constrained equation of motion can be obtained through
Udwadia-Kalaba equation which has been introduced in
detail.

FD 0.5ρ CDV 2 S , (29) 9.1 Equations of Motion of Unconstrained fish robot

If there are no constraints exerted on the three links, in
other words, connections between links are removed.
where ρ is the mass density of water, V is the velocity of
Referring to the analytical model of the fish robot’ s
the link of fish robot relative to the water flow, it can be in
dynamics (Fig. 8), we can get equations of each link as
the direction of x axis or y axis. CD is the drag coefficient, S
is the projection area of the link of the fish robot on the
plane perpendicular to the velocity. m1  y1 FD1y , I1θ1 0,
x1 FD1x , m1  (35)
We assume that the caudal fin is in a quasi-steady
m2  y2 FD2y , I 2θ2 T2 ,
x2 0, m2  (36)
uniform flow. Following the notations of MASON[35] and
YU[28], lift force acting on the caudal fin is represented as m3  y3 Fy +FD3x , I 3θ3 T3 ,
x3 Fx , m3  (37)

L 2πρ lC (v3  le )  v3 , (30)

where m1, m2, m3 are the mass of each link and I1, I2, I3 are
the moment of inertia. Because we will constrain θ2 and θ3
where l is the span and C is half of the chord length, ρ is
respectively to a definite function later in the constraint
the water density. le is a unit vector pointing in the direction
of the leading edge of the caudal fin which can be equation, here equation I 2θ2 T2 and I 3θ3 T3 should be
represented as removed. After mathematical manipulation, the
unconstrained equation of motion for the robot system can
le  cosθ3 i  sinθ3 j , (31) be written in matrix form as

M (q, t )q Q (q, q , t ), (38)

where i is the unit vector along x axis and j is the unit
vector along y axis. v3 is the relative velocity at the center
of the caudal fin, which can be represented as M : M (q, t ) 
m1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
v3  x3 i  y3 j , (32) 
 0 m1 0 
 
 0 I1 0 0 
where x3 is x component velocity and y3 is y component  
velocity at the center of the caudal fin. Substituting Eqs. (31),  0 m2 0 
 
(32) into Eq. (30), we can derive x component lift force  0
 m2 0  ,


 0 0 I2 0 
Fx 2πρ lC (x3 y3sinθ3  y32 cosθ3 ), (33)  
 0 m3 0 
 
and y component lift force
 0 m3 0 
 
 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 3 
Fy 2πρ lC (  x32 sinθ3   x3 y3cosθ3 ). (34)
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ·847·

 x1   FD1x  Aq b, (50)

    
   
 1  y
   F D1y

 1 0 asinθ1 1 0
l
 2 sin θ 2 0 0 0
      2 
θ1    0   
   
   l2
  x2   0  0 1 a cos θ1 0 1 cos θ 2 0 0 0 
     2 
   
q  y2  , Q :Q (q, q, t )  FD2y .
      (39)  l 
   1 0 b sin θ3  ,
    A  0 0 0 1 0  2 sin θ 2
θ2   0   2 
 

  
l2 
  
x
 3 
  Fx  0
 0 0 0 1 cos θ 2 0 1 b cos θ3 
   2 
 
 y3   Fy + FD3x   
  0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 
     
θ3   0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
9.2 Constraint Equations
 aθ 2 cosθ  (l  2)θ 2 cosθ 
For fish robot system, we get three links with two joints  1 1 2 2 2 
  2 
which generate four constraint equations. Also two more  1 aθ sin θ  (l  2)θ 2
sin θ 2


1 2 2 
constraint equations are used to constrain θ2 and θ3 .  (l2  2)θ2 2 cosθ 2  bθ32 cosθ3 
For the first joint, the constraint equations are b   . (51)
(l  2)θ 2 sin θ  bθ 2 sin θ 
 2 2 2 3 3
 
x1 +acosθ1  x2  (l22)cosθ 2 , (40)  0.3(2 π ) 2
sin(2π t )  
 
y1 asinθ1  y2  (l22)sinθ 2 . (41) 
 0.6(2π) 2 sin(2πt  0.25) 

Taking the time derivative twice, we get

9.3 Constrained equation of motion
l l
x1  x2  asinθ1θ1  2 sinθ 2θ2 aθ12 cosθ1  2 θ2 2 cosθ 2 , (42) Eq. (38) constitutes the unconstrained equation of
2 2
motion of the fish robot system, and Ep. (50) specifies the
l l
y1  y2 +acosθ1θ1  cosθ 2θ2 aθ1 sin θ1  θ2 2 sin θ 2 . (43)
2 2 2
constraints. Since matrix M is singular, we should use the
2 2 Udwadia-Phohomsiri equation to get the equation of
For the second joint, the constraint equations are motion for the constrained system. We have checked the
full rank condition and it is fulfilled: the rank of
x2  (l22)cosθ 2  x3  bcosθ3 , (44) [M | A]T is 9 (full rank). Hence, the acceleration of the fish
y2 (l22)sinθ 2  y3  bsinθ3 . (45) robot system is

Taking the time derivative twice, we get   I  A+ A M + Q 

    .
q  
    (52)
 A   b 
l l
x2  
 x3  2 sinθ 2θ2  bsinθ3θ3  2 θ2 2 cosθ 2 +bθ32 cosθ3 ,
2 2
(46) For this fish robot system, we can explicitly find closed
l2 l form expressions for M and Q in (39), A and b in (51).
y2  y3  cosθ 2θ2  bcosθ3θ3  2 θ2 2 sin θ 2  bθ32 sin θ3 .
2 2 Having thus obtained the matrices M, Q, A and b, the
(47) equations of motion of the system can be simply generated
There are two additional constraint equations: by substitution in the right-hand side of Eq. (52). We get
nine coupled equations which describe the motion of the
θ 2 0.3sin(2πt ), (48) constrained fish robot system. Using the explicit
expressions for M, Q, A and b, the nine coupled equations
θ3 0.6sin(2πt  0.25).
can be obtained directly in Maple. The results cover several
pages. The complexity of the results precludes explanation
Taking the time derivative twice, we get in this paper. However, through simulation, an insight into
the dynamics of the fish robot system can be obtained.
θ2  0.3(2π) 2 sin(2πt ), (49)
2 10 Numerical Simulation
θ3  0.6(2π) sin(2πt  0.25).

It is necessary to first verify the model we have

After mathematical manipulation, the constraint equations constructed. Therefore, numerical simulations have been
can be written in matrix form as made and the results detailed. Through a series of
 ZHAO Han, et al: Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Multi-body Systems
·848· Using the Udwadia-Kalaba Theory

manipulations, Eq. (52) is obtained which include nine fish’ s swimming behavior. The fish’ s main propulsive
coupled equations. The solution of the equations can be characteristics include forward velocity, acceleration and
obtained by solving the initial value problems for ODE swing angle of the body. We change the amplitude,
through ode15i function in Matlab. frequency and phase difference to get the different
simulation results and then compare them to draw some
10.1 Parameters and initial condition conclusions. Of course, if we change the amplitude,
We assume that the fish robot is one kind of the frequency and phase difference, initial condition should
carangiform fishes and that it is a fish of small size in a
also be changed accordingly.
calm water. Table 2 shows the parameter values used in the
The influence of the amplitude of caudal fin's oscillating
simulation. The initial conditions including initial
on forward velocity, acceleration and swing angle of fish’s
coordinate, velocity and acceleration of each link are
presented in Table 3. main body: We keep A2  0.3, ω  2π, φ  15o , but
A3 varies with the number of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6. Figs. 9–12
show that the forward velocity increases very quickly in the
Table 2. Parameters in simulation beginning, but as the fish speeds up, the drag force
Object Variable Value increases. The velocity tends to become fixed velocity in
Moment of inertia I1  (kg  m 2 ) 1.23×10–3
the end. The forward velocity fluctuates slightly around a
Mass of 1st link m1kg 0.409
1st link Length of link 2am 0.1875 mean value. This phenomenon is caused by the unsteady
Projected area to vertical plane Sm 2 7.069×10–3 thrust force coming from inherent oscillations in fish itself.
Projected area to horizontal plane S1m 2 0.19 When the oscillating amplitude of caudal fin increases, the
Moment of inertia I 2  (kg  m 2 ) 3.7×10–5 forward velocity of fish robot increases accordingly which
2nd Mass of 2nd link m2kg 0.104
link Length of link l2m 0.062 5
are consistent with the swimming performance of this type
Projected area to horizontal plane S 2m 2 0.04 of fish. Figs. 13–16 show that the starting acceleration (i.e.
Moment of inertia I 3  (kg  m 2 ) 6.75×10–7 propulsive force) increases along with oscillating amplitude
3rd Mass of 3rd link m3kg 9.0×10–3 and tends to zero because of the increasing drag force. The
link Length of link 2bm 0.03
fluctuation around zero can be explained by the unsteady
Projected area to horizontal plane S3m 2 0.008
Density of water ρ  (kg  m3 ) 998
thrust force. The frequency of the oscillating swing angle of
Fluid Drag coefficient CD 0.5 the fish's main body is the same as that of caudal fin and
force Fin span lm 0.075 the amplitude of the oscillating swing angle increases
Fin chord length 2Cm 0.03
slightly as the caudal fin's oscillating amplitude increases.

Table 3. Initial condition of each link

Object Variable Value
(x1 , y1 , θ1 ) (0, 0, 0)
1st
(x1 , y1 , θ1 ) (0, 0, 0)
link
y1 , θ1 )
x1 , 
( (0, 0, 0)
(x2 , y2 , θ 2 ) (a l2 /2 , 0, 0)

2nd (  l2θ2 2  bsinθ3θ3  bθ32cosθ3 , bcosθ3θ3 

(x2 , y 2 , θ2 )
link bθ32sinθ3 ,  A3ω 2sin(  φ ))
y2 , θ2 )
x2 , 
( (  l22θ2 , 0,0)
(x3 , y3 , θ3 ) (a +l2 +bcosθ3 , bsinθ3 , A 3 sin(  φ ))
3rd (x3 , y3 , θ3 ) (  bθ3sinθ3 , l2θ2 +bcosθ3θ3 , A3ω cos(  φ )) Fig. 9. Forward velocity of amplitude 0.1
link (  l2θ2 2  bsinθ3θ3  bθ32cosθ3 , bcosθ3θ3 
y3 , θ3 )
x3 , 
(
bθ32sinθ3 ,  A3ω 2sin(  φ ))

10.2 Results and discussions

In this simulation, we assume the peduncle and caudal
fin’ s oscillating functions are θ 2  A2 sin(ωt ), θ3 
A3sin(ω t  φ ). The peduncle and caudal fin oscillate with
the same frequency but different amplitudes and there
exists a phase difference between the two oscillations. We
investigate the influence of caudal fin’ s oscillating on the Fig. 10. Forward velocity of amplitude 0.2
 CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING ·849·

Fig. 11. Forward velocity of amplitude 0.4 Fig. 16. Acceleration of amplitude 0.6

The influence of the frequency of caudal fin’s oscillating

on forward velocity, acceleration and swing angle of fish’s
main body: in this simulation, A2  0.3, A3  0.6, φ  15o ,
but the oscillating frequency of the peduncle and caudal fin
ω changes with 2π, 2.5π, 3π, 3.5π . We find that the final
forward velocity and the oscillating frequency of the final
forward velocity increase with the frequency of the caudal
fin's oscillating increasing (figures omitted). Starting
acceleration increases significantly when ω increases and
Fig. 12. Forward velocity of amplitude 0.6 the frequency of final acceleration’ s oscillation around
zero also increases (figures omitted). ω has little influence
on the oscillating amplitude of swing angle. The oscillating
frequencies of peduncle, caudal fin and the main body are
the same.
The influence of phase difference of caudal fin’ s
oscillating on forward velocity, acceleration and swing
angle of fish’ s main body: the influence of phase
difference φ on the swimming behavior is not very
obvious as is the influence of oscillating amplitude and
frequency of caudal fin. The final forward velocity (figures
Fig. 13. Acceleration of amplitude 0.1 omitted), starting acceleration and oscillating amplitude of
swing angle of the fish’ s main body decreases as the phase
difference increasing.

11 Conclusions

Udwadia-Kalaba theory is applied to analyze the

dynamics of the falling U-chain tip and 2-joint Carangiform
fish robot.
(1) The explicit analytical form of general equations of
motion of the whole U-chain system is obtained.
Fig. 14. Acceleration of amplitude 0.2 (2) Through numerical simulation, ideal and interesting
insights are obtained: as the chain ends are moved closer
together, the maximum vertical fall distance of the chain tip
and the falling time decrease. The chain will fall faster than
freely falling body and the vertical acceleration will always
be higher than g9.8. As the separation becomes less, the
chain tip will fall faster. The chain tip is subjected to a
greater pulling force which may be up to 40 times larger
than one link's gravitational force when it hits the lowest
position.
(3) The explicit analytical form of general equations of
Fig. 15. Acceleration of amplitude 0.4 motion of the 2-joint Carangiform fish robot is obtained.
 ZHAO Han, et al: Dynamic Modeling and Simulation of Multi-body Systems
·850· Using the Udwadia-Kalaba Theory
The dynamic model including the forward velocity,
acceleration and also the swing angle of fish body is
derived which is a characteristic difference between this
dynamic analysis and other conventional analysis of the
dynamics of Carangiform fish robot.
(4) By solving Udwadia-Kalaba equation, the swimming
performance of the fish robot is obtained. The phenomenon
that fish gain burst propulsive force, acceleration and a high
velocity through raising oscillating amplitude and
frequency of caudal fin agrees with the simulation. Raising
the oscillating amplitude and frequency of the caudal fin
will result in an increasing of the main body’s swing angle.
References
[1] LAGRANGE J L. Mechanique analytique[M]. Paris: Mme ve
Courcier, 1787.
[2] GAUSS C F. Uber ein neues allgemeines Grundgsetz der
Mechanik[J]. Journal of die reine und angewandte Mathematik,
1829, 4: 232–235.
[3] GIBBS J W. On the fundamental formulae of dynamics[J]. The
American Journal of Mathematics, 1879, 2(1): 49–64.
[4] APPELL P. Sur une Forme Generale des Equations de la
Dynamique[J]. Comptes rendus de l'Academie des sciences, 1899,
129(1): 459–460.
[5] PARS L A. A treatise on analytical dynamics[M]. Connecticut: Ox
Bow Press, 1965.
[6] DIRAC P A M. Lectures in quantum mechanics[M]. New York:
Yeshiva University, 1964.
[7] UDWADIA F E, KALABA R E. A new perspective on constrained
motion[J]. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1992, 439(1 906):
407–410.
[8] UDWADIA F E, KALABA R E. Analytical dynamics: A new
approach[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
[9] UDWADIA F E, KALABA R E. Explicit equations of motion for
mechanical systems with nonideal constraints[J]. Journal of Applied
Mechanics, 2001, 68(3): 462–467.
[10] UDWADIA F E, KALABA R E. On constrained motion[J]. Applied
Mathematics and Computation, 2005, 164(2): 313–320.
[11] UDWADIA F E, PHOHOMSIRI P A. Explicit equations of motion
for constrained mechanical systems with singular mass matrices and
applications to multi-body dynamics[J]. Proceedings of the Royal
Society, 2006, 462(2 071): 2 097–2 117.
[12] ROUSEBALL W W. A short account of the history of
mechanics[M]. New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1960.
[13] SHAMES I H. Engineering mechanics: dynamics[M]. New Jersey,
NJ: Englewood Cliffs, 1960.
[14] SALETAN E J, CROMER A H. Theoretical mechanics[M]. New
York, NY: Wiley Press, 1971.
[15] ROSENBERG R M. Analytic Mechanics of discrete systems[M].
New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1977.
[16] IRSCHIK H, HOLL H J. The equations of Lagrange written for a
non-material volume[J]. Acta Mechanica, 2002, 153(3–4): 231–248.
[17] MOORE E H. On the reciprocal of the general algebraic matrix[J].
Bulletin of American Mathematical Society, 1920, 26(5): 394–395.
[18] PENROSE R. A generalized inverse for matrices[J]. Proceedings
of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1955, 51(3): 406–413.
[19] WONG C W, YASUI K. Falling chains[J]. American Association of
Physics Teachers, 2006, 74(7): 490.
[20] CALKIN M G. The dynamics of a falling chain:II[J]. American
Journal of Physics, 1989, 57(2): 157–159.
[21] CALKIN M G, MARCH R H. The dynamics of a falling chain: I[J].
American Journal of Physics, 1989, 57(2): 154–157.
[22] SCHAGERL M, STEINDL A, STEINER W, et al. On the paradox
of the free falling folded chain[J]. Acta Mechanica, 1997, 125(1-4):
155–168.
[23] SOUSA C A, RODRIGUES V H. Mass redistribution in variable
mass systems[J]. European Journal Physics, 2004, 25(1): 41–49.
[24] TOMASZEWSKI W, PIERANSKI P, GEMINARD J C. The motion
of a freely falling chain tip[J]. American Association of Physics
Teachers, 2006, 74(5): 776.
[25] GREWAL A, JOHNSON P. A chain that speeds up, rather than
slows, due to collisions: How compression can cause tension[J].
American Association of Physics Teachers, 2011, 79(7): 723.
[26] CHEN H, ZHU C A. Modeling the dynamics of biomimetic
underwater robot fish [C]//IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Biomimetics, Hong Kong, July 5–9, 2005: 478–483.
[27] LIU L Z, YU J Z, WANG L. Dynamic modeling of
three-dimensional swimming for biomimetic robotic fish[C]//
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Beijing,
October 9–15, 2006: 3 916–3 921.
[28] YU J Z, LIU L Z, WANG L. Dynamic modeling and experimental
validation of biomimetic robotic fish[C]//Proceedings of the 2006
American Control Conference, Minnesota, June 14–16, 2006:
4 129–4 134.
[29] TAYLOR G. Analysis of the swimming of long narrow animals[J].
Proceedings of the Loyal Society A: Mathematical, Physical &
Engineering Science, 1952, 214(1 117): 158–183.
[30] LIGHTHILL M J. Note on the swimming of slender fish[J]. The
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1960, 9(2): 305–317.
[31] WU T Y. Swimming of a waving plate[J]. The Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 1961, 10(3): 321–344.
[32] SFAKIOTAKIS M, LANE D M, DAVIES J B C. Review of fish
swimming modes for aquatic locomotion[J]. IEEE Journal of
Oceanic Engineering, 1999, 24(2): 237–252.
[33] TRIANTAFYLLOU M S, TRIANTAFYLLOU G S. An efficient
swimming machine[J]. Scientific American, 1995, 272(3): 64–70.
[34] CHAN W L, KANG T. Simultaneous determination of drag
coefficient and added mass[J]. IEEE Journal of Oceanic
Engineering, 2011, 36(3): 422–429.
[35] MASON R. Fluid locomotion and trajectory planning for
shape-changing robots[D]. California Institute of Technology, 2003.
Biographical notes
ZHAO Han, born in 1957, is currently a vice-president and a
doctoral supervisor at Hefei University of Technology, China. He
is a committee member of International IFToMM Education
Commission and also a member of Editorial Board of Chinese
Journal of Mechanical Engineering. His research interests include
mechanical transmission, magnetic machine, vehicles, digital
design and manufacturing, information system, dynamics and
control.
Tel: 86-13805697995; E-mail: hanzhaoff@qq.com
ZHEN Shengchao, born in 1988, is currently a PhD candidate at
Hefei University of Technology, China and a visiting scholar at
Georgia Institute of Technology, USA. His research interests
include analytic mechanics, dynamics of multi-body systems,
optimal control, robust control, adaptive control, fuzzy
engineering, uncertainty management.
Tel: 1-404-9531295; E-mail: zhenshengchao@gmail.com
Chen Ye-Hwa, got his PhD degree at the University of California,
Berkely in 1985, is currently a professor at Georgia Institute of
Technology, USA. He is a member of IEEE, ASME and Sigma Xi.
He is also a regional editor(North America) of Nonlinear
Dynamics and System Theory, and an associate editor of
International Journal of Intelligent Automation and Soft
Computing. His research interests include advanced control
methods for mechanical manipulators, neural networks and fuzzy
engineering, adaptive robust control of uncertain systems,
uncertainty management.
Tel: 1-404-894-3210; E-mail: yehwa.chen@me.gatech.edu