Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10015-019-00534-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Dynamic hybrid position/force control for the quadrotor

with a multi‑degree‑of‑freedom manipulator
Tiehua Wang1 · Kazuki Umemoto2 · Takahiro Endo1 · Fumitoshi Matsuno1

Received: 24 July 2018 / Accepted: 13 February 2019 / Published online: 28 February 2019
© International Society of Artificial Life and Robotics (ISAROB) 2019

Abstract
In the field of aerial robotics, physical interaction with the surrounding environment is currently receiving a considerable
attention. One of the key challenges is to control not only the position, but also the force exerted by the end-effector while
performing complex tasks such as object manipulation, inspection, and assembly/disassembly. To meet these demands, this
paper proposes a dynamic hybrid position/force controller for a quadrotor-borne multi-degree-of-freedom manipulator. The
system is modeled under the situation that the constraints on the end-effector are described by a set of hypersurfaces, and
system dynamics are then developed while taking into account the redundancy of the system. To verify the effectiveness of
the proposed hybrid controller, we carried out numerical simulations for two different application scenarios which include
(1) placement of a sensor unit on a vertical wall and (2) inspection with contact on a curved-shape wall. The results show
that the system is able to maintain the desired force and position simultaneously in both cases.

Keywords Position/force control · Dynamic hybrid control · Multi-degree-of-freedom manipulator · Aerial manipulator
system · Quadrotor-borne manipulator system

1 Introduction integral derivative (PID) and integral backstepping (IB) have

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have high moving ability,
and have been attracted to both research communities and
industries all around the world over the last decade. UAVs
are helpful in completing particular tasks, such as image data
acquisition, monitoring [1]. As one kind of UAVs, quadro-
tors have become popular among researchers all over the
world because of its various advantages such as small size,
high maneuverability, easy hovering, and vertical flight [2,
3]. Due to the underactuated nature, several control technol-
ogies such as classical hierarchical architecture proportional
* Tiehua Wang
wang.tiehua.23z@st.kyoto‑u.ac.jp
Kazuki Umemoto
umemoto@mech.nagaokaut.ac.jp
Takahiro Endo
endo@me.kyoto‑u.ac.jp
Fumitoshi Matsuno
matsuno@me.kyoto‑u.ac.jp
1
Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
2 weight against a vertical surface [13]. Due to the mechanical
Nagaoka University of Technology, Niigata, Japan
been implemented and proved stable for the attitude control
and position control of quadrotor [4–6]. Besides, extended
sliding mode control (SMC) methods have been proposed
for the robust flight [7, 8]. In Refs. [9, 10], inspired by avian
hunting at high speeds, grippers attached to the quadrotor
for capturing an object enabled extending the objective from
surveillance in the air to carrying a payload. To remain the
dexterity, multi-degree-of-freedom (DoF) articulated and
dual-arm manipulators have also been designed for grasping
and transporting objects along the desired trajectory [11].
In the meanwhile, UAVs are not only limited in motion-
tracking missions such as monitoring, grasping, and trans-
porting, but are also being expected to perform tasks with
physical interaction such as inspection with contact, mainte-
nance, and repairing at high altitude. All these applications,
unlike above-mentioned works, need not only motion track-
ing, but also applying appropriate force or momentum on the
contacting environment. A natural option is to develop an
aerial vehicle which can interact directly with the surround-
ing environment. A ducted-fan was designed for contact-
ing a vertical wall [12], and a quadrotor was also enabled
to exert a substantial and sustained force comparable to its

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389
limitation of aerial vehicle, there are not enough freedoms
available for the physical interactions involving in object
manipulation and assembly/disassembly.
In terms of the control, there are mainly two differences
between ground manipulator and aerial manipulator, and
both of them concern the setting of reference input. In this
work, we propose the dynamic hybrid position/force control
strategy based on the end-effector. For the end-effector of
aerial manipulator, there are six DoF in total including the
position and orientation, and will be not restricted to the
height from the ground. While the end-effector of ground
manipulator can only move to a certain height from the
ground, which will be resulted in the restrictions of tar-
get setting about its height and orientation. That is to say,
the desired value has to meet the restrictions of ground
manipulator.
The other point is restrictions for rotors of aerial manip-
ulator. The rotors of quadrotor cannot generate negative
thrust. Therefore, it results in the restrictions on the orien-
tation of end-effector and the force on the constraint sur-
face, but without the restriction on the height. The restriction
about aerial manipulator concerns the motion of the aerial
manipulator, so it is more complicated to control than the
height restriction.
Some of the existing studies, as discussed below, have
used a quadrotor fixed with an end-effector or a manipulator
arm to accomplish above physical interaction assignment.
For example, a fixed tool attached at the center of the quad-
rotor serves as the actuator for some rotating tool, such as
screw driver and vertical jack, which can track the desired
position and can output a normal force to a two dimensional
working surface through the internal dynamics of quadro-
tor’s motion [14, 15]. However, the application is limited
because of the non-DoF manipulator and disable to imple-
ment the physical interaction in a three-dimensional envi-
ronment. Another, a quadrotor endowed with a dual-arm
multi-DoF manipulator is applied for performing pick-and-
place, insertion, and valve turning [16, 17]. However, they
have mainly focused on position control. Another potential
application of quadrotor-based manipulator system can be
assembly/disassembly and physical high-attitude inspection.
In such application which requires physical contact, such
as attaching sensor units for high altitude steel bridge and
inspection with contact on curved-shape wall of the tunnel,
since that the unexpected forces probably damage the units
and influence the inspection if only the position of the end-
effector is under controlled, both the position and the force
at the end-effector needs to be robustly controlled.
As is well known, impedance control and hybrid position/
force control strategy can control both force and position
during the physical interaction. Impedance control consists
of passive impedance control and active impedance control.
As one hand of the impedance control, passive impedance
379
has been applied in quadrotor-borne manipulator system.
Relying on a particular part, the mechatronic design with a
delta structure, which plays the role of combining any com-
mercial quadrotor with an arm, supports the flying hand to
interact with the environment during contact operations [18],
and contributes to track a desired normal force while mov-
ing on a vertical wall [19, 20]. However, the additional par-
ticular structure which is necessary for passive impedance
control consumes the low-energy storage of battery when the
endurance is already one of the biggest restrictions at present
for industrial applications. On the other hand, active imped-
ance has also been discussed in quadrotor-borne manipula-
tor system. Based on the visual information, control laws
are presented and tested through simulations for physical
interaction of a dual-arm aerial manipulator [21]. Although
the active impedance control can be regarded as a program-
mable spring which do not need the additional structures,
it may have accuracy problems, because it is difficult to
decide exactly what impedance gains the environment will
see [22–24]. Moreover, active impedance control cannot
achieve time-varying forces during physical interaction at
the desired position, which needs to be exactly implemented
in industrial applications such as inspection and assembly/
disassembly.
Comparing with impedance control of robotic system,
hybrid position/force control can control time-varying force
directly and accurately [25, 26], and do not need the addi-
tional structure that consumes electric power. To the best of
our knowledge, there is no research about a quadrotor-borne
manipulator controlled through hybrid position/force dur-
ing a physical interaction with the surrounding three-dimen-
sional environment. In this paper, the quadrotor equipped
with a multi-DoF manipulator system is considered, and
the following contents will be discussed: (1) deriving the
dynamics model of this aerial manipulator system consider-
ing the constraint conditions described by a set of hypersur-
faces; (2) proposing the dynamic position/force controller
based on the end-effector status while taking into account
the redundancy of the system; and (3) showing this quadro-
tor-borne manipulator can exert the desired force while mov-
ing along a given hypersurface by numerical simulations.
2 System dynamics
2.1 Formulation
Figure 1 shows a controlled system consisting of a quadrotor
and a multi-DoF manipulator. The quadrotor has a general
symmetric structure, and the manipulator is n link ( n > 2)
manipulator having n revolute joints. The arm-tip touches an
environment given by a set of hypersurfaces. For the inter-
action with upper environment, top-side wall and tunnel, the
13
380 Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389

Table 1  Variable definitions

Terms Definition ( i = 1, 2, … , n)

q Generalized coordinates of system

𝜁 Position of the center of mass of quadrotor in IF
𝜁̇ Translational velocity of quadrotor in IF
𝜂 Orientation of quadrotor in IF
𝜂̇ Rotational velocity of quadrotor in IF
𝜃i Joint variable of the multi-DoF manipulator
𝜃̇ i Joint rotation velocity of the manipulator
I
𝜔B Angular velocity of BF in IF
Fig. 1  Aerial manipulator contacting an environment B
𝜔B Angular velocity of quadrotor in BF
I
𝜔i Angular velocity of i-th link in IF
i
𝜔i Angular velocity of i-th link in frame {i}
manipulator should be mounted on the upper side of the quad- I
vi Linear velocity of frame {i} in IF
rotor. However, we may also mention that the proposed control i
vi Linear velocity of frame {i} in frame {i}
strategy can address control problems for quadrotors not only I
vci Linear velocity of i-th link in IF
with a top-side manipulator but also bottom-side one. Hereaf- i
vci Linear velocity of i-th link in frame {i}
ter, the quadrotor equipped with the multi-DoF manipulator is I Rotation matrix from BF to frame IF
BR
called the aerial manipulator. To describe the system explicitly, i−1 Rotation matrix from frame {i} to frame {i − 1}
iR
some Cartesian frames are defined. Inertial frame (IF) denotes P Transformation matrix of rotational velocity in BF
the world-fixed inertial reference coordinate, and body frame i−1 Origin coordinate of frame {i} in {i − 1}
pi
(BF) is attached to the center of the symmetrical quadrotor, i
pci The center of mass of link {i} in {i}
as shown in Fig. 1. Frame {i}(i = 1, 2, … , n) is located at the
mB Mass of quadrotor
revolute joint of ith link and xi axis points towards the revolute
IB Inertia matrix of quadrotor
joint of (i + 1)th link of the manipulator, and frame {i}(i = 0)
mli Mass of i-th link
is particularly same with BF. The end-effector frame (EF) con-
Ili Inertia matrix of i-th link at the center of mass
tacts the interaction point of robot manipulator, where the xE
mmi Mass of i-th actuator
axis is extended along the nth link.
For dynamics calculation, velocities of aerial manipu-
lator system including quadrotor, links, and actuators is
described in the generalized coordinate. Generalized coor-
dinates of this aerial manipulator system are defined as ⎡ 1 0 0 ⎤
q = [𝜁 T , 𝜂 T , 𝜃1 , 𝜃2 , … , 𝜃n ]T , where position of the quadrotor P =⎢ 0 C𝜙 − S𝜙 ⎥ , (3)
⎢ ⎥
𝜁 = [xB , yB , zB ]T is the origin of BF in IF with the corre- ⎣− S𝜃 S𝜙 C𝜃 C𝜙 C𝜃 ⎦
sponding orientation defining Euler angles roll-pitch-yaw
given by 𝜂 = [𝜙, 𝜃, 𝜓]T , and 𝜃i denotes the ith joint angle where S∗ = sin(∗), C∗ = cos(∗). In this work, it is assumed
variable of the multi-DoF manipulator. Some related vari- that − 𝜋∕2 < {𝜙, 𝜃} < 𝜋∕2.
able definitions are listed in Table 1. According to the definition of frame {i}, the rotation
𝜂̇ denotes the rotational velocity of the quadrotor body in matrices i i−1 R(i = 2, 3, … , n) can be obtained using standard
IF, as shown in Eq. (1): DH parameters, as well as rotation matrix 1 B R(i = 1). The
I
𝜔B = B I R B 𝜔 B , B
𝜔B = PT 𝜂,
̇ (1) angular velocity and linear velocity of frame {i} in IF can
then be written as Eqs. (4) and (5):
where B 𝜔B and I 𝜔B denote the angular velocity of quadro-
tor in BF and in IF, respectively, B I R is a rotation matrix of I
𝜔i = B I Ri B R i 𝜔i , i
𝜔i = i−1 i R i−1 𝜔i−1 + 𝜃̇ i e3 , (4)
coordinate from BF to IF, and P is a transformation matrix
I
of velocity as follows: vi = B I Ri B R i vi , i
vi = i−1 i R( i−1 vi−1 + i−1 𝜔i−1 × i−1 pi ).
(5)
⎡C𝜃 C𝜓 S𝜙 S𝜃 C𝜓 −C𝜙 S𝜓 C𝜙 S𝜃 C𝜓 +S𝜙 S𝜓 ⎤ Similarly, we can obtain the translational velocity of the
I
R = ⎢ C 𝜃 S𝜓 S𝜙 S𝜃 S𝜓 +C𝜙 C𝜓 C𝜙 S𝜃 S𝜓 −S𝜙 C𝜓 ⎥ , (2) center of mass of each link in IF, as shown in Eq. (6):
B
⎢ ⎥
⎣ − S𝜃 S𝜙 C 𝜃 C𝜙 C𝜃 ⎦
I
vci = B I Ri B R i vci , i
vci = i vi + i 𝜔i × i pci . (6)

13
Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389 381

The total kinetic energy T can now be derived with con- [ ]T

Ep = 𝜖1 , 𝜖2 , … , 𝜖6−m , 𝜖j = 𝜕𝛩j (s)∕𝜕s, (13)
tributions from three parts: quadrotor body KB , links Kli
and motors Kmi attached on the manipulator. Here, we con-
sider the motors as point masses and then take translational ṙ p = Ep s,̇ r̈ p = Ep s̈ + Ė p s,̇ (14)
{ }
kinetic energy into account, while quadrotor and links are where j = 1, 2, … , 6 − m , i = 1, 2,{… , m . 𝜖1 , 𝜖2 , … , 𝜖 is
} 6
rigid bodies and then take translational kinetic energy and a linear independent vector and 𝜖1 , 𝜖2 , … , 𝜖6−m are the
rotational kinetic energy into account:
{directions in which } the end-effector can move free, while
∑
n
∑
n 𝜖7−m , 𝜖8−m , … , 𝜖6 are the directions in which the end-effec-
T = KB + Kli + Kmi , tor is{constrained by} surrounding environment. As basis vec-
i=1 i=1 tors, 𝜖1 , 𝜖2 , … , 𝜖6 can be used to define a transformation
1 1
m 𝜁̇ T 𝜁̇ + B 𝜔TB IB B 𝜔B ,
KB = from IF to CF.
2 B 2 (7) Besides, using the full-rank matrix E ∈ ℝ6×6 consisting of
1 1
Kli = mli I vTc I vci + i 𝜔Ti Ili i 𝜔i , Ef ∈ ℝm×6 and Ep ∈ ℝ(6−m)×6 shown in Eq. (15), and combin-
2 i 2 ing Eqs. (11) and (14), the relation Eq. (16) can be derived:
1 [ ]
Kmi = mmi I vTi I vi .
2 E
E= p , (15)
Ef
On the other hand, potential energy U only includes the
[ ] [ ]
gravitational potential energy in this aerial manipulator ṙ r̈
system. U is obtained, as shown in Eq. (8), combined with Eṡ = p , Ës = p − Ė s.̇ (16)
0 0
obvious relationships, as shown in Eq. (9):
2.3 Equation of motion
∑
n
∑
n
U = mB g𝜁e3 + mmi g I pi e3 + mli g I pci e3 , (8)
i=1 i=1
According to the Lagrange mechanics, the dynamics of aerial
manipulator system can be represented as follows:

I
pi = I pi−1 + i−1 I R i−1 pi , I
pci = I pi + i I R i pci ,
̇ + G(q) = D(q)u + A(q)T 𝜆,
M(q)q̈ + H(q, q) (17)
(9)
where M(q) ∈ ℝ is the inertia matrix, and
(6+n)×(6+n)

where e3 = [0, 0, 1]T is a element vector. ̇ ∈ ℝ(6+n)×1 and G(q) ∈ ℝ(6+n)×1 denote the non-
H(q, q)
linear term and gravity term, respectively. In addition,
2.2 Constraint condition D(q) ∈ ℝ(6+n)×(4+n) is the coefficient matrix resultant
from this underactuated aerial manipulator system, and
The aerial manipulator makes contact with an environment, A(q) ∈ ℝm×(6+n) is the constraint condition matrix. u denote
as shown in Fig. 1. Based on the procedures in Ref. [26], the the generalized force result from actuators of quadrotor and
constraint condition is given by a function of m-dimensional manipulator, respectively, where fl (l = 1, 2, 3, 4) are the four
independent vectors (m < 6) and can be written as thrust forces of quadrotor and 𝜏i (i = 1, 2, … , n) are torques
between the links. 𝜆 is the Lagrange multiplier. In particular,
𝛷i (s) = 0 (i = 1, 2, … , m), (10)
these terms are written as follows:
where s = [x, y, z, 𝛼, 𝛾, 𝛽]T is a combined vector representing
� �T � �T
the position and orientation of the end-effector in IF. Dif- 𝜕 𝜕T 𝜕 𝜕T 𝜕T
ferentiating (10) with respect to time, we obtain M(q) = , ̇ =
H(q, q) q̇ − ,
𝜕 q̇ 𝜕 q̇ 𝜕q 𝜕 q̇ 𝜕q
Ef ṡ =0, Ef s̈ + Ė f ṡ = 0, (11) G(q) = 𝜕U∕𝜕q, A(q) = Ef J,
⎡B I Re3 B I Re3 B I Re3 B I Re3 0(3×1) ⋯ 0(3×1) ⎤
[ ]T ⎢ P𝜎 P𝜎 P𝜎 P𝜎 0 ⎥
Ef = 𝜖7−m , 𝜖8−m , … , 𝜖6 , 𝜖6−m+i = 𝜕𝛷i (s)∕𝜕s. (12) ⎢ 1 2 3 4 (3×1) ⋯ 0(3×1)
⎥
D(q) = ⎢ 0 0 0 0 1 ⋯ 0 ⎥,
To simultaneously control the objective variables given, ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
respectively, by the position and force constrained by sur- ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 ⋯ 1 ⎦
rounding environment, a constraint frame (CF) should be � �T
built to describe the control strategy explicitly. Assume u = f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 , 𝜏1 , ⋯ , 𝜏n .
that there
[ is a set of (6 − m)-dimensional
]T vectors,
{ notated
} as J = 𝜕s∕𝜕q, Ef = 𝜕𝛷∕𝜕s,
rp = 𝛩1 (s), 𝛩2 (s), … , 𝛩6−m (s) , and let 𝛩j (s), 𝛷i (s) be � �T � �T
𝜎1 = d, −d, 𝜒 , 𝜎2 = d, d, −𝜒 ,
mutually independent. Equations (13) and (14) can then be � �T � �T
obtained: 𝜎3 = −d, d, 𝜒 , 𝜎4 = −d, −d, −𝜒 ,

13
382 Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389

where J ∈ ℝ6×(6+n) is the Jacobian matrix, and Ef is
described explicitly in Sect. 2.2. Besides, d denotes the dis-
tance from rotors to the center of the symmetric quadrotor,
and 𝜒 is the positive constant drag coefficient decided by
propeller aerodynamics.
Since Ef ∈ Rm×6 (m < 6) and J ∈ R6×(6+n) (6 < 6 + n) are full-
row-rank matrices, then Ef J is a full-row-rank matrix. In
addition, M is an invertible matrix, so Ef JM −1 J T EfT is invert-
ible. From the lower row of Eq.(21), we know that
∫ (22)
Kf (𝜆 − 𝜆d )dt + (𝜆 − 𝜆d ) = 0.

3 Controller design Then, we can further obtain Eq. (23) by combining Eqs.
(22) and (21):
The control objective is to output a specified force against
the constraint surface while moving along the desired tra-
r̈ p = r̈ pd − Kd (ṙ p − ṙ pd ) − Kp (rp − rpd ). (23)
jectory. According to hybrid position/force control strat- Thus, we can have the following relations:
egy, desired position and force trajectories can be specified rp → rpd , 𝜆 → 𝜆d . (24)
through a position-controlled loop and a force-controlled
loop which are separated by the constraint condition, and Besides, this aerial manipulator, a quadrotor equipped
their sum is the hybrid control input [27]. with n-DoF manipulator, has the redundant characteristic
The control input can be designed as follows: for n > 2 , which demands for motion flexibility of physi-
cal interaction performance. To make full of its ability, an
u =̃
J † E−1 (up + uf + un ) + (I − ̃
J †̃ effective algorithm needs to be developed. The measure of
J)k, (18)
manipulatability [28], a scalar value with respect to state
where k denotes an arbitrary (n + 4)-dimensional vector variables, is considered that can be used for redundant con-
resulted of this redundant aerial manipulator system, while trol by calibrating the arbitrary vector k of controller in Eq.
J † is the pseudo-inverse of ̃
̃ J = JM −1 D , and up , uf , un are as (18). The algorithm is shown in Eq. (25), where 𝜀 denotes
follows: the measure of manipulatability which would better be large,
[ ] q is the state vector excluding the x, y translational direc-
̃
up = pd
r̈ − Kd (ṙ p − ṙ pd ) − Kp (rp − rpd )
, tions of quadrotor body, and km is a positive constant system
0 parameter:
( )
(19)
∫
uf = EJM −1 AT Kf (𝜆 − 𝜆d )dt − 𝜆d , ( )T √
𝜕𝜀
k = 𝜉km , 𝜉= , 𝜀= det(̃
J̃
J T ). (25)
un = EJM −1 (H + G) − Ė ṡ − EJ̇ q. ̇ 𝜕̃
q

Although the pseudo-inverse matrix has been used for avoid-

Here, Kd , Kp, Kf are positive feedback gain matrices of con- ing the inherent singular points, it still make matters worse
troller. 𝜆d is the desired multiplier which is decided by the in the neighborhood of singular points such as the roll or
desired force exerted to surrounding environment, while rpd , pitch angle of quadrotor body goes to ± 𝜋2 . To improve the
ṙ pd and r̈ pd are the desired references concerning position of performance in a closing area of singular points, the singu-
end-effector. larity low-sensitive motion resolving matrix is adopted [29],
Substituting (18) into (17), and multiplying the obtained which calculates the pseudo-inverse matrix, ̃ J †, using fol-
equation by the full-row-rank matrix JM −1 from the left side, lowing relation, as shown in Eq. (26) instead of the regular
we can obtain Eq. (20) after combining with (19): situation, where 𝜀0 denotes the threshold value concerning
the range of singularity neighborhood and k0 is a positive
constant scalefactor:
∫
Ës + Ė ṡ = up + EJM −1 J T EfT Kf (𝜆 − 𝜆d )dt
(20) {
+ EJM −1 J T EfT (𝜆 − 𝜆d ). k0 (1 − 𝜀𝜀 ) 𝜀 < 𝜀0
𝜀 ≥ 𝜀0
�
J =�
†
J (�
T
J�T −1
J + ks I) , ks = 0 . (26)
0
Substituting (16) into (20), we can get following equation:
[ ] [ ]
r̈ p r̈ − Kd (ṙ p − ṙ pd ) − Kp (rp − rpd )
= pd 4 Numerical simulation
0 0
[ ] { }

∫
E
+ p JM −1 J T EfT Kf (𝜆 − 𝜆d )dt + (𝜆 − 𝜆d ) . A quadrotor equipped with a 3-DoF manipulator is controlled
Ef
under a constraint hypersurface. Parameters of the controlled
(21)
system are listed in Table 2. All the physical parameters are

13
Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389 383

Table 2  System parameters

x − a = 0, a = 8. (27)
Terms Description
Then, Ef is derived from Eq. (27) based on Eq. (12) as
diag(Ix , Iy , Iz ) Inertia matrix of quadrotor body, Ix = Iy = 0.005 kg follows:
m 2 , Iz = 0.009 kg m 2 [ ]
I1 , I2 , I3 Inertia moment of links, I1 = I2 = I3 = 0.002 kg m 2
Ef = 1 0 0 0 0 0 . (28)
l1 , l2 , l3 Half-length of links, 0.2 m Furthermore, rp is naturally chosen as in Eq. (29), which is
m1 Mass of quadrotor base, 2 kg independent of vector space defined by Eq. (10), and Ep is
m2 , m 3 , m 4 Mass of links, 0.04 kg given in Eq. (30) based on Eq. (13):
m5 , m 6 , m 7 Mass of actuator, 0.3 kg [ ]T
m8 Mass of end-effector actuator, 0.3 kg rp = y, z, 𝛼, 𝛾, 𝛽 , (29)

⎡0 1 0 0 0 0⎤
⎢0 0 1 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
Ep = ⎢0 0 0 1 0 0⎥ . (30)
⎢0 0 0 0 1 0⎥
⎢0 1⎥⎦
⎣ 0 0 0 0

To maintain attaching the sensor on the wall, the end-effec-

Fig. 2  Constrained by a vertical wall
determined based on our real quadrotor and manipulator arm
hardwares.
In this work, we determine the gain parameters based on
the following procedure. At first, we fix the parameters con-
cerning the redundancy, km , k0 and 𝜀0, to tuning the feedback
gains, Kf , Kp and Kd , one by one. Once we get satisfactory
performance then to get smoother control inputs, we adjust
the threshold value 𝜀0 and scalefactors km , k0 concerning the
range of singularity neighborhood. Finally, we repeat this
process if required.
tor needs to exert necessary force against the vertical surface
from bottom to top of the sensor units several times. This
can be considered as the desired reference of end-effector
concerning position directions rpd and time-varying force
direction Fd in CF, as shown in Eq. (31):
[ ]T
Fd = 5 − 5e−5t + sin t, rpd = yd , zd , 𝛼d , 𝛾d , 𝛽d , (31)
w h e r e yd = 0, zd = 1 + 0.1 sin(t), 𝛼d = 0, 𝛾d = 0, a n d
𝛽d = 𝜋∕4. Besides, there is a relation between output force
and multiplier, F = EfT 𝜆 , and Ef is a constant matrix, as
shown in Eq. (28). So that the desired value of reference
multiplier can be obtained as Eq. (32) according to Fd in
Eq. (31):

4.1 Case 1: planar constraint surface 𝜆d = 5 − 5e−5t + sin t. (32)

We suppose a building inspection by an UAV. In this task,
one important procedure is to attach data acquisition sensor
units on high altitude detection points. Compared with large
bridge maintenance machine which and more is mainly used
at present, the aerial manipulator is a higher safety and lower
cost solution. The end-effector carries the sensor units to
achieve the suitable place and to set it well on the structural
component, as shown in Fig. 2.
During the manipulation process of attaching sensor
units, there is a structural component constraint for the
position and orientation of end-effector, which is denoted
by s = [x, y, z, 𝛼, 𝛾, 𝛽]T in IF. The structural component can
be considered as the constraint hypersurface, in this case, a
vertical surface, shown in Eq. (27) according to the descrip-
tion in Eq. (10):
The control law equation (18) was applied in this case,
whose system parameters are set, as given in Table 3. The
simulation results are shown in Fig. 3, where red dash
lines are desired references and blue solid lines are simu-
lated outputs. The top one of left side shows the force
direction in CF, while rest of the plots are the position
directions. In addition, Fe is the error of force direction in
CF, while rpe = [ye , ze , 𝛼e , 𝛾e , 𝛽e ]T is the error of position
direction. The state variables’ errors Fe , ze , 𝛽e are shown
in Fig. 4, and rest three variables’ errors also converge
to zero. Both position and orientation as well as force of
end-effector converged to the desired values. Inputs of sys-
tem that quadrotor equipped with a 3-DoF manipulator are
shown in Fig. 5. The left four are inputs of quadrotor and
right three are inputs of arm actuators. All of the inputs
are realizable for real systems.

13
384 Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389

Table 3  Simulation parameters Terms Description

of case 1
q(0) [ ]T
Initial state variables, 6.81, 0, − 0.1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 𝜋∕12, − 𝜋∕12
Kp Proportional feedback gain in position-loop, diag(10, 21.8, 12, 12, 10)
Kd Derivative feedback gain in position-loop, diag(5, 3.4, 2, 2, 5)
Kf Feedback gain in force-loop, 1.9
km , k0 System parameters concerning redundancy control, km = 0.1, k0 = 0.01
𝜀0 Threshold value of singularity neighborhood, 0.11

40 20
Orientation α [rad]

10 0.5

τ 1[Nm]
F α

f1[N]
Force F [N]

Fd αd 20 10
5 0
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 -0.5
Time[s] Time[s]
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 4 10

τ 2[Nm]
Time[s] Time[s]

f2[N]
2 5
Orientation γ [rad]

0.5 0.5
Position y [m]

y γ 0 0
yd γd 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0 Time[s] Time[s]
20 4

τ 3[Nm]
f3[N]
-0.5 -0.5 10 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time[s] Time[s] 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Orientation β [rad]

1.5 1
Time[s] Time[s]
Position z [m]

1 β 10
z 0.5
f4[N]

βd
0.5 zd 5

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time[s] Time[s] Time[s]

Fig. 3  State variables of case 1 Fig. 5  Actuators’ input of case 1

1
when end-effector goes up and down along z-axis. Based
Fe on the previous analysis and simulation results, we believe
0.5 ze
that the aerial manipulator is controlled well and suitable
βe
for the physical interaction tasks.
Error

-0.5
4.2 Case 2: curved constraint surface
-1
0 5 10 15 20
Time[s]
25 30 35 40 45 50
In this case, we consider a scenario of infrastructure inspec-
tion with contact inside tunnel where the end-effector is con-
Fig. 4  State variables’ error of case 1 strained by a inner cylindrical surface, as shown in Fig. 7.
Similar to case 1, the tunnel wall can be considered as
the constraint hypersurface, which here is a curved surface,
To see the situation of the aerial manipulator during expressed by s = [x, y, z, 𝛼, 𝛾, 𝛽]T in IF as in Eq. (33) accord-
the tasks representatively, a series of figures in case 1 is ing to the description in Eq. (10):
captured and shown in Fig. 6. The grid denotes the con-
straint surface, and the blue lines indicate links of arm. x2 + z2 − b2 = 0, y = 0,
(33)
The red ball between grid and blue line is the mark of −1
tan (x∕z) − 𝛾 − 𝜋∕2 = 0, b = 12.
the end-effector, and the three black balls denote motors
between links. The left four big balls connected by two In the meanwhile, it is more natural to understand when
lines symbolize the quadrotor, and the four big balls repre- the curved constraint surface is expressed in the spherical
sent the rotating propeller. From 0(s) to 1.5(s), the figures coordinate. The relation between elements of end-effector
show the beginning period, which we can realize that the s = [x, y, z, 𝛼, 𝛾, 𝛽]T in IF and 𝜌 = [re , 𝜃e , 𝜑e , 𝛼, 𝛾, 𝛽]T in
orientation and position of end-effector keeps changing. spherical frame (SF) can be described as follows:
The last two figures show the representative points which
x = re sin 𝜃e cos 𝜑e , y = re sin 𝜃e sin 𝜑e , z = re cos 𝜃e ,
1.5𝜋(s) is the lowest point and 2.5𝜋(s) is the highest point
(34)

13
Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389 385

4 0.5

Orientation α [rad]
α

Force F [N]
1.2 1.2 Fr αd

r
1 1 2 Frd 0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0 -0.5
0.2 0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0 Time[s] Time[s]
0.5 2

Position θ +γ [rad]
-0.2 -0.2
Fθ

[N]
-0.4 -0.4
γ θ e+γ
Fθγ d 1

θ γ
0.5 0.5 (θ e+γ)d

e
8.5 8.5 0

Force F
0 0
8 8
-0.5 7.5 -0.5 7.5 0
7 7
-1 -1
-0.5 -1
t=0(s) t=0.5(s) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time[s] Time[s]
0.5 1

Orientation β [rad]
Fψ

Force F [N]
1.2 1.2 Fψd β

ψ
1 1 0 0.5 βd
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
-0.5 0
0.2 0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0 Time[s] Time[s]
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
0.5 0.5
0
8
8.5
0
8
8.5 Fig. 8  State variables of case 2
-0.5 7.5 -0.5 7.5
7 7
-1 -1

t=1(s) t=1.5(s)

where notations re , 𝜃e and 𝜑e denote the radial distance, azi-

1.2 1.2
muthal angle, and polar angle, respectively. The constraint
1
0.8
1
0.8
condition can then be rewritten as Eq. (35), by substituting
0.6 0.6 (34) into (10):
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
re − b = 0, 𝜑e = 0,
-0.2 -0.2 (35)
-0.4 -0.4 𝜃e − 𝛾 − 𝜋∕2 = 0, b = 12.
0.5 0.5
8.5 8.5
0 0
-0.5 7.5
8
-0.5 7.5
8
Then, Ef is derived from Eq. (35) based on Eq. (12), as
7 7
-1 -1
shown in the following equation:
t=1.5 π(s) t=2.5π(s)

⎡1 0 0 0 0 0⎤
Fig. 6  Image series of aerial manipulator in case 1. (Color figure
online) Ef = ⎢0 1 0 0 − 1 0⎥ . (36)
⎢ ⎥
⎣0 0 1 0 0 0⎦

Furthermore, rp is set as Eq. (37) in a way similar to the case

1, and Ep is then given as in Eq. (38) based on Eq. (13):
[ ]T
rp = 𝛼, 𝜃e + 𝛾, 𝛽 , (37)

⎡0 0 0 1 0 0⎤
Ep = ⎢0 1 0 0 1 0⎥ . (38)
Fig. 7  Constraint by a curved-shape wall ⎢ ⎥
⎣0 0 0 0 0 1⎦

Table 4  Simulation parameters Terms Description

of case 2
q(0) Initial state variables, [10.86, 0, − 0.3, 0, 0, 0, 𝜋∕12, 𝜋∕12, − 𝜋∕6]T
Kp Proportional feedback gain in position-loop, diag(12, 23.2, 10)
Kd Derivative feedback gain in position-loop, diag(5, 2, 2)
Kf Feedback gain in force-loop, diag(1.5, 2, 2)
km , k0 System parameters concerning redundancy control, km = 0.1, k0 = 0.01
𝜀0 Threshold value of singularity neighborhood, 0.15

13
386 Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389

During contact inspection, end-effector needs to exert suit- 40 10

τ 1[Nm]
f1[N]
able force in the radial direction while moving along the 20 5

curved surface. The desired reference of end-effector con- 0

0 10 20 30 40 50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
cerning position directions rpd and force directions Fd in CF, Time[s] Time[s]
5 5
can now be designed, as shown in Eq. (39):

τ 2[Nm]
f2[N]
[ ]T [ ]T 0 0
Fd = Frd , F𝜃𝛾d , F𝜑d , rpd = 𝛼d , (𝜃e + 𝛾)d , 𝛽d , (39) 0 10 20 30
Time[s]
40 50 0 10 20 30
Time[s]
40 50

15 2
where Frd = 3 − 3e−5t , F𝜃𝛾d = 0, F𝜑d = 0, 𝛼d = 0, (𝜃e + 𝛾)d

τ 3[Nm]
10

f3[N]
1
5
= e−t 𝜋∕2 − sin(t)𝜋∕9, and 𝛽d = 𝜋∕4 − e−t 𝜋∕4. According to 0 0
the relation between output force and multiplier, F = EfT 𝜆, 0 10 20 30
Time[s]
40 50 0 10 20 30
Time[s]
40 50

where Ef is a constant matrix given by Eq. (36), the desired 5

f4[N]
value of reference multiplier 𝜆d can be obtained as Eq. (40)
according to Fd in Eq. (39): 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time[s]
[ ]T
𝜆d = 𝜆rd , 𝜆𝜃𝛾d , 𝜆𝜑d , (40)
Fig. 10  Actuators’ input of case 2
where 𝜆rd = 3 − 3e , 𝜆𝜃𝛾d = 0, and 𝜆𝜑d = 0.
−5t

The control law designed in Eq. (18) was applied in this
case, whose system parameters are set, as given in Table 4.
The simulation results are shown in Fig. 8, where red dash
lines are desired reference and blue solid lines are simulated
outputs. The three of the left side shows force directions in
CF, while the rest of the plots are the position directions. In
addition, Fe = [Fre , F𝜃𝛾e , F𝜑e ]T is the error of force direction
in CF, while rpe = [𝛼e , (𝜃e + 𝛾)e , 𝛽e ]T is the error of posi-
tion direction. The state variables’ errors Fre , (𝜃e + 𝛾)e , 𝛽e
are shown in Fig. 9, and rest three variables’ errors also
converge to zero. Both position and orientation as well as
force of end-effector converge to the desired values. The
corresponding inputs of the quadrotor robot system equipped
with a 3-DoF manipulator are shown in Fig. 10. The left
four are inputs of quadrotor and right three are inputs of arm
actuators. All the inputs are achievable for a real system also.
4.3 Usage of the redundacy
The redundancy is applied, as described in Eqs. (25) and
(26), an attention should be paid to choosing suitable posi-
tive constant system parameters, km , ks , and 𝜀0 , which con-
sider the redundancy characteristic of this aerial manipulator
system. km , interrelated the arbitrary vector k of control law,
0.4
0.3
Fre
(θ e+γ) e
0.2 βe
Error
impacts the mechanical behavior of each generalized joints,
so that has a noticeable effect on actuator inputs, which is
investigated in reference [28]. ks , correlated with avoidance
of the singular points, ensures the range of the neighborhood
of singular points, so that improves the control performance,
which is introduced in reference [29].
From Eq. (26), we know that ks depends on the parame-
ters k0 and 𝜀0, where k0 is a positive constant scalefactor con-
cerning the amplitude of ks. 𝜀0, the threshold value concern-
ing the range of singularity neighborhood, plays the role of
dividing singularity neighborhood with the other area, which
should be set as small as possible. We would like to simulate
the performance of different threshold values to confirm the
effects of 𝜀0 in redundancy of system. Representatively, the
influence of 𝜀0 is simulated under the situation of case 2.
To see the periodic changes sufficiently, the simulation
time is extended up to 150s. Setting the threshold value 𝜀0
be 0, 0.1, and 0.15, the responding cost function and control
inputs are shown in Figs. 11, 12 and 13, respectively. The
bottom one of right side is the cost function, while the others
are control input.
The measure of manipulatability, 𝜀, is shown as the cost
function at the right bottom of Figs. 11, 12, and 13. Specifi-
cally, Figs. 12 and 13 show the control inputs with non-zero
threshold value 𝜀0 related to singularity neighborhood, in
contrast to Fig. 11 for 𝜀0 = 0 . Obviously, the value of 𝜀 in
Fig. 11 is the smallest among Figs. 11, 12 and 13. Since
the measure of manipulatability would better be large, it is
better when considering the threshold value 𝜀0 . In addition,

0.1
in Fig. 11, rotors of the quadrotor were required to generate
0 negative thrust, although the rotors usually cannot be gener-
-0.1 ated. Besides, although 𝜀0 should be set as small as possible,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time[s] by comparing the control inputs of Fig. 12 with Fig. 13, we
know that the inputs of actuator may oscillate irregularly and
Fig. 9  State variables’ error of case 2

13
Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389 387

40 8 10 0.5
F

τ 1[Nm]
α
f1[N]
30 6 Fd αd

α[rad]
F[N]
5 0
20 4
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Time[s] Time[s] 0 -0.5
2 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

τ 2[Nm]
Time[s] Time[s]
f2[N]

1.5 3
0.5 0.5
y γ
1 2 γd
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 yd

γ[rad]
y[m]
Time[s] Time[s] 0 0
-10 1.5

τ 3[Nm]
f3[N]

-15 1 -0.5 -0.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
-20 0.5 Time[s] Time[s]
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 1.5 1
Time[s] Time[s]
10 0.0575 1 β

β[rad]
z[m]
z 0.5 βd
f4[N]

5 0.057 0.5 zd

0 0.0565 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time[s] Time[s] Time[s] Time[s]

Fig. 11  Control inputs and cost function (𝜀0 = 0) of case 2 Fig. 14  State variables of case 1 under modeling error

40 10 frequently when 𝜀0 is too small. Thus, 𝜀0 set as 0.15 is best

τ 1[Nm]
f1[N]

20 5 here shown in Fig. 13.

0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Time[s] Time[s]
5 5
4.4 Robustness of controller
τ 2[Nm]
f2[N]

0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 There may be the modeling error and wind perturbation
Time[s] Time[s]
20 2 when we implement the aerial manipulator. We evaluate
τ 3[Nm]

sensitivity of the proposed dynamic hybrid position/force

f3[N]

10 1

0
0 50 100 150
0
0 50 100 150
control system against the disturbances, although the con-
Time[s] Time[s] troller does not suppose disturbances. The influences of the
5 0.12
modeling error and wind perturbation are simulated under
f4[N]

0.1
the situation of case 1, and the disturbances start from 0(s).
0 0.08
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 The modeling error, ΔM , is considered changing random
Time[s] Time[s]
between ±10 percent of nominal value of M, and simulate
the controller using M + ΔM instead of M in Eq. (19). Please
Fig. 12  Actuators’ input and cost function (𝜀0 = 0.1) of case 2
notice that the inertia matrix is still M in dynamic system,
because we do not change it as M + ΔM in modeling. The
40 10 simulation results are shown in Fig. 14, where red dash lines
τ 1[Nm]
f1[N]

20 5 are desired references and blue solid lines are simulated out-
0
0 50 100 150
0
0 50 100 150
puts. We can see that both position and orientation as well
Time[s] Time[s] as force of end-effector converged to the desired values even
5 5
exists the modeling error.
τ 2[Nm]
f2[N]

0 0
The wind perturbation, which is encountered frequently
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 for quadrotor-borne system in applications, involves in
Time[s] Time[s]
15 2 complicated fluid dynamics. Fluid dynamics describing the
τ 3[Nm]

10
natural wind is difficult to simulate in the proposed control
f3[N]

1
5
0 0 system. Thus, we suppose input disturbance as simplifi-
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Time[s] Time[s] cation of the natural wind in the quadrotor manipulator.
5 0.155
The input disturbance, Δu , is considered as force fi and
f4[N]

0.15
torque 𝜏i of input u changing between ± 0.02 and between
0 0.145
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 ± 0.01, respectively, and simulate the controller using
Time[s] Time[s]
u + Δu instead of u in Eq. (18). The simulation results are
shown in Fig. 15, where red dash lines are desired refer-
Fig. 13  Actuators’ input and cost function (𝜀0 = 0.15) of case 2
ences and blue solid lines are simulated outputs. We can

13
388 Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389

10
F
0.5
α
References
Fd
αd

α[rad]
F[N]

5 0
1. Lu Z, Nagata F, Watanabe K, Habib MK (2017) iOS application
0 -0.5 for quadrotor remote control. Artif Life Robot 22(3):374–379
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 2. Gupte S, Mohandas PIT, Conrad JM (2012) A survey of quadrotor
Time[s] Time[s]
unmanned aerial vehicles. In: 2012 Proceedings of IEEE South-
0.5 0.5
y γ eastcon, pp 1–6
yd γd
3. Norouzi GS, Aghli Y, Alimohammadi M, Akbari AA (2016)

γ[rad]
y[m]

0 0
Quadrotors unmanned aerial vehicles: a review. Int J Smart Sens
-0.5 -0.5
Intell Syst 9(1):309–333
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 4. Zain ZM, Watanabe K, Izumi K, Nagai I (2011) A nonholonomic
Time[s] Time[s]
control method for stabilizing an X4-AUV. Artif Life Robot
1.5 1
16(2):202–207
1 5. Bouabdallah S, Siegwart R (2007) Full control of a quadrotor. In:
β[rad]

β
z[m]

z 0.5
0.5 zd
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time[s]
Fig. 15  State variables of case 1 under input disturbance
see that both position and orientation as well as force of
end-effector converged to the desired values even exists
the input disturbance.
5 Conclusion
The aerial manipulator can improve the quality of the job
of many workers operating in the dangerous and hazard-
ous situation, where both the contact force and motion
trajectory are required. To meet these demands, the
dynamic model of the quadrotor equipped with a multi-
DoF manipulator system was derived, under the situation
that the constraints on the end-effector are described by a
set of hypersurfaces. Furthermore, dynamic hybrid posi-
tion/force control based on the end-effector status was then
proposed while taking into account the redundancy of the
aerial manipulator system. This hybrid control, different
with passive impedance control as widely used at present
which needs the extra structure, plays friendly with the
weight capacity and endurance. Comparing with active
impedance control which can exert force without mechani-
cal structure as well, proposed dynamic hybrid position/
force control can deal with the time-varying force directly
and accurately which plays the key role in contact inspec-
tion, as shown in simulation cases. Certainly, this dynamic
hybrid position/force control was verified by the numerical
simulations, and the field experiments need to be imple-
mented at the next step. Besides, the simulation results
show boundedness of the joint variables, but we do not
know the internal stability of system. The internal stabil-
ity of the aerial manipulator is also an interesting issue to
investigate in the future.
βd
Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent
robots and systems, pp 153–158
0 10 20 30 40 50 6. Kendoul F, Yu Z, Nonami K (2010) Guidance and nonlinear con-
Time[s]
trol system for autonomous flight of minirotorcraft unmanned
aerial vehicles. J Field Robot 27(3):311–334
7. Besnard L, Shtessel YB, Landrum B (2012) Quadrotor vehicle
control via sliding mode controller driven by sliding mode dis-
turbance observer. J Frankl Inst 349(2):658–684
8. Zheng EH, Xiong JJ, Luo JL (2014) Second order sliding mode
control for a quadrotor UAV. ISA Trans 53(4):1350–1356
9. Mellinger D, Lindsey Q, Shomin M, Kumar V (2011) Design,
modeling, estimation and control for aerial grasping and manipu-
lation. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on
intelligent robots and systems, pp 2668–2673
10. Thomas J, Polin J, Sreenath K, Kumar V (2013) Avian-inspired
grasping for quadrotor micro UAVs. In: ASME international
design engineering technical conference (IDETC), pp 1–9
11. Caccavale F, Giglio G, Muscio G, Pierri F (2014) Adaptive
control for UAVs equipped with a robotic arm. IFAC Proc Vol
47(3):11049–11054
12. Marconi L, Naldi R, Gentili L (2011) Modelling and control
of a flying robot interacting with the environment. Automatica
47(12):2571–2583
13. Wopereis HW, Hoekstra JJ, Post TH, Folkertsma GA, Strami-
gioli S, Fumagalli M (2017) Application of substantial and sus-
tained force to vertical surfaces using a quadrotor. In: 2017 IEEE
international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp
2704–2709
14. Nguyen HN, Ha C, Lee D (2015) Mechanics, control and internal
dynamics of quadrotor tool operation. Automatica 61:289–301
15. Nguyen HN, Lee D (2013) Hybrid force/motion control and inter-
nal dynamics of quadrotors for tool operation. In: Proceedings
of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and
systems, pp 3458–3646
16. Orsag M, Korpela C, Bogdan S, Oh P (2017) Dexterous aerial
robots—mobile manipulation using unmanned aerial systems.
IEEE Trans Robot 33(6):1453–1466
17. Suarez A, Soria PR, Heredia G, Arrue BC, Ollero A (2017)
Anthropomorphic, compliant and lightweight dual arm system
for aerial manipulation. In: 2017 IEEE/rsj international conference
on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 992–997
18. Fumagalli M, Stramigioli S, Carloni R (2016) Mechatronic design
of a robotic manipulator for unmanned aerial vehicles. In: Pro-
ceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent
robots and systems, pp 4843–4848
19. Fumagalli M, Naldi R, Macchelli A, Carloni R, Stramigioli S,
Marconi L (2012) Modeling and control of a flying robot for con-
tact inspection. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international confer-
ence on intelligent robots and systems, pp 3532–3537
20. Scholten JL, Fumagalli M, Stramigioli S, Carloni R (2013)
Interaction control of an UAV endowed with a manipulator. In:

13
Artificial Life and Robotics (2019) 24:378–389
2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation
(ICRA), pp 4910–4915
21. Lippiello V, Fontanelli GA, Ruggiero F (2018) Image-based
visual-impedance control of a dual-arm aerial manipulator. IEEE
Robot Autom Lett 3(3):1856–1863
22. Anderson RJ, Spong MW (1988) Hybrid impedance control of
robotic manipulators. IEEE J Robot Autom 4(5):549–556
23. An CH, Hollerbach JM (1989) The role of dynamic models in car-
tesian force control of manipulators. Int J Robot Res 8(4):51–72
24. Yoshikawa T (2000) Force control of robot manipulators. In: IEEE
international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA’00),
pp 220–226
25. Whitney DE (1987) Historical perspective and state of the art in
robot force control. Int J Robot Res 6(1):3–14
26. Yoshikawa T, Sugie T, Tanaka M (1988) Dynamic hybrid posi-
tion/force control of robot manipulators-controller design and
experiment. IEEE J Robot Autom 4(6):699–705
389
27. Yoshikawa T (1987) Dynamic hybrid position/force control of
robot manipulators-description of hand constraints and calculation
of joint driving force. IEEE J Robot Autom 3(5):386–392
28. Yoshikawa T (1984) Analysis and control of robot manipulators
with redundancy. In: Robotics research: the first international
symposium, pp 735–747
29. Nakamura Y, Hanafusa H (1984) Singularity low-sensitive motion
resolution of articulated robot arms. Trans Soc Inst Control Eng
20(5):453–459 (in Japanese)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13