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

net/publication/220157840

Cartesian control of robots without dynamic model and observer design

Article in Automatica · March 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.automatica.2005.11.004 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

38 482

3 authors, including:

Marco Arteaga V. Parra-Vega

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute
112 PUBLICATIONS 1,269 CITATIONS 255 PUBLICATIONS 2,882 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by V. Parra-Vega on 22 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Automatica 42 (2006) 473 – 480
www.elsevier.com/locate/automatica

Brief paper
Cartesian control of robots without dynamic model and observer design夡
Marco A. Arteaga a, ∗ , Adrián Castillo-Sánchez a , Vicente Parra-Vega b
a Departamento de Control y Robótica, División de Ingeniería Eléctrica de la Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Apdo. Postal 70-256, México, D. F., 04510, México
b Sección de Mecatrónica, Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del I.P.N., Apdo. Postal 14-740,
México, D. F., 07360, México

Received 18 November 2004; received in revised form 6 April 2005; accepted 8 November 2005

Abstract
Most control algorithms for rigid robots are given in joint coordinates. However, since the task to be accomplished is expressed in Cartesian
coordinates, inverse kinematics has to be computed in order to implement the control law. Alternatively, one can develop the necessary theory
directly in workspace coordinates. This has the disadvantage of a more complex robot model. In this paper, a control-observer scheme is given
to achieve exact Cartesian tracking without the knowledge of the manipulator dynamics nor computing inverse kinematics. Also, only joint
measurements are used.
䉷 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tracking control; Observer design; Cartesian workspace

1. Introduction the unknown parameters to get exact tracking. More recently,

Robot manipulators are high nonlinear systems. To achieve
accurate tracking control, many schemes have been proposed
in the last decades. Among the main problems which have to
be solved, two of the most important are the lack of velocity
measurements and of an exact robot model. One of the earliest
schemes designed to work only with joint measurements is the
one by Nicosia and Tomei (1990). In that paper, a nonlinear
observer is presented which can be used to achieve tracking
control. On the other hand, to handle an inaccurate model, some
adaptive and robust schemes have been proposed (Slotine &
Li, 1987; Spong, 1992). When using a robust technique, an
extra term is introduced in the control law to achieve ultimately
boundedness of the trajectory errors. An adaptive algorithm
may be much more complex and is aimed at estimating on line
夡 This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was
recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Masaki
Yamakita under the direction of Editor Mituhiko Araki.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 55 56 22 30 13; fax: +52 55 56 16 10 73.
E-mail addresses: arteaga@verona.fi-p.unam.mx (M.A. Arteaga),
adrian@verona.fi-p.unam.mx (A. Castillo-Sánchez), vparra@cinvestav.mx
(V. Parra-Vega).
Parra-Vega, Arimoto, Liu, Hirzinger, and Akella (2003)
proposed a sliding PID control, which is able to achieve an
exact tracking without any knowledge of the model for
implementation.
Of course, it is not enough to solve these problems sepa-
rately. Thus, some robust control schemes have been proposed,
which need only position measurements for control and do
not require an accurate robot model. In Canudas de Wit and
Fixot (1991), a sliding observer is developed. In Berghuis and
Nijmeijer (1994), a quite simple control-observer scheme is
proposed which notably does not need any knowledge of the
robot model parameters nor of its structure to achieve uniform
ultimate boundedness of the tracking and observation errors.
Also, a robust estimator is presented in Qu, Dawson, Dorsey,
and Duffie (1995) which achieves uniform ultimate bounded-
ness as well. In Arteaga-Pérez and Kelly (2004) a quite sim-
ple linear observer is proposed together with a robust control
scheme. The experimental results suggest that numerical dif-
ferentiation may decrease the system performance, so that a
(digitalized) observer should be used whenever possible. There
are less adaptive laws in conjunction with observers. A result is
given in Arteaga-Pérez (2003), although only uniform ultimate
boundedness is achieved.

0005-1098/$ - see front matter 䉷 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2005.11.004
474 M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 – 480
All the algorithms for rigid robots mentioned before are given
in joint coordinates. However, since the task to be accomplished
is usually expressed in Cartesian coordinates, inverse kinemat-
ics has to be computed for implementation. Alternatively, one
can develop the necessary theory directly in workspace coor-
dinates (Murray, Li, & Sastry, 1994). Since the new model
owns basically the same properties than the original one, con-
trol schemes only have to be rewritten in task–space form to
be used. For instance, in Caccavale, Natale, and Villani (1999)
and Xian, de Queiroz, Dawson, and Walker (2004), control
approaches designed in task–space coordinates and which do
not require velocity measurements are proposed. Both schemes
use the unit quaternion to deal with the orientation tracking.
However, they also have the disadvantage of using the robot
model both for the controller and the (nonlinear) observer. On
the other hand, in Takegaki and Arimoto (1981), a PD control
approach is presented which does not require the robot model
nor inverse kinematics. However, it only guarantees position
control and velocity measurements are needed.
In this paper, a control scheme based on that given in
Parra-Vega et al. (2003) is presented. Thus, no robot model
is needed for implementation, while the design is carried out
directly in task–space coordinates. Furthermore, a linear ob-
server is employed to avoid velocity measurements. While
the control-observer scheme is quite simple, exact tracking
control is achieved. The orientation problem is dealt using the
analytical Jacobian instead of the geometric one. Experimental
results are given to support the theory.
The paper is organized as follows. The robot model is given in
Section 2. The tracking controller with linear observer scheme
is proposed in Section 3. Section 4 presents experimental re-
sults. The paper concludes in Section 5.
2. Robot model and some properties
The dynamics of a rigid robot arm with revolute joints can
adequately be described using the Euler–Lagrange equations of
motion (Sciavicco & Siciliano, 2000), resulting in
H(q)q̈ + C(q, q̇)q̇ + Dq̇ + g(q) =
, (1)
where q ∈ Rn is the vector of generalized joint coordinates,
H(q) ∈ Rn×n is the symmetric positive definite inertia matrix,
C(q, q̇)q̇ ∈ Rn is the vector of Coriolis and centrifugal torques,
g(q) ∈ Rn is the vector of gravitational torques, D ∈ Rn×n is
the positive semidefinite diagonal matrix accounting for joint
viscous friction coefficients, and
∈ Rn is the vector of torques
acting at the joints.
Let us denote the largest (smallest) eigenvalue of a ma-
trix by
max (·) (
min (·)). By recalling that revolute joints
are considered, the following properties can be established
(Arteaga-Pérez, 1998):
Property 1. It holds
h x2
xT H(q)x


H x2
∀q, x ∈
Rn , and 0 <
h

H < ∞, with
h min∀q∈Rn
min (H(q)),

H max∀q∈Rn
max (H(q)).
Property 2. By using the Christoffel symbols (of the first kind)
to compute C(q, q̇), Ḣ(q) − 2C(q, q̇) is skew symmetric.
Property 3. With a proper definition of the robot model
parameters, it holds
H(q)q̈ + C(q, q̇)q̇ + Dq̇ + g(q) =
= Y(q, q̇, q̈), (2)
where Y(q, q̇, q̈) ∈ Rn×p is the regressor and  ∈ Rp is a
constant vector of parameters.
3. Control-observer design
Consider the following well-known relationship


ṗ
ẋ = ˙ = J(q)q̇, (3)

where J(q) ∈ Rn×n is the analytical Jacobian, p ∈ R(n−m) is
the end-effector position and  ∈ Rm is a minimal representa-
tion of the orientation of the end-effector. Usually, n = 6 and
m = 3. Whenever the robot is not in a singularity, one has also
the following relationship:
q̇ = J−1 (q)ẋ. (4)
Assumption 1. The robot does not reach any singularity.
Assumption 1 is made to simplify the design of the control
law. It can be removed as explained in Remark 1. Suppose that
velocity measurements are not available. Then, an estimate of
x is given by x̂, and the observation error is
zx − x̂. (5)
Similar to q̇o in Arteaga-Pérez and Kelly (2004), it is defined
ẋo x̂˙ −
z z, (6)
where
z ∈ Rn×n is a diagonal positive definite matrix. We
propose the linear observer
x̂˙ = x̂˙ o +
z z + kd z, (7)
x̂¨ o = ẍd −
x (x̂˙ − ẋd ) − ksd + kd
z z, (8)
where xd is the desired bounded trajectory for x, with first and
second derivatives bounded and chosen not to pass through
or close to a singularity,
x ∈ Rn×n is a diagonal positive
definite matrix, k and kd are positive constants and sd ∈ Rn is
to be defined later, while an explanation of its meaning is given
in Appendix B. Even though it is not necessary for stability
purposes, it is convenient to set x̂˙ o (0) = −
z z(0) − kd z(0) to
˙
get x̂(0) = 0.
The tracking error in Cartesian coordinates is given by

xx − xd . (9)
To design the tracking controller, let us define
ẋr = ẋd −
x (x̂ − xd ) + sd − K , (10)
 M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 – 480
Fig. 1. Diagram of the control-observer scheme.
where K ∈ Rn×n is a diagonal positive definite matrix and
 ∈ Rn , with
s = x̂˙ − ẋd +
x (x̂ − xd )x̄˙ +
x x̄,
s1 = s − sd ,
sd = s(0)e ,−kt
 t
= {K s1 (ϑ) + sign(s1 (ϑ))} dϑ, (0) = 0,
0 which in turn means that x̂ = x and x̂˙ = ẋ. In this case, we can
where K ∈ Rn×n is a diagonal positive definite matrix and
sign(s1 )[sign(s11 ) · · · sign(s1n )] , T
with s1i element of s1 , i = 1, . . . , n. Alternatively to (14) one
can use
˙ = K s1 + sign(s1 ).
Finally, we define
so ẋo − ẋr .
To understand better how the control-observer approach works,
consider Fig. 1. As can be seen, after reading the joint angles
q, one can compute by means of direct kinematics the vector
x. This is the only information the observer needs. The rest of
the variables can be computed in the order shown.
Now, a theorem can be established.
Theorem 1. Consider a bounded continuous desired trajectory
xd , with bounded first and second derivatives, which is chosen
far away enough from any singularity. Then, for the control law

= −Kp J−1 (q)so ,
with Kp ∈ Rn×n a positive definite matrix, a proper combina-
tion of the gains k, kd ,
x ,
z , K , K and Kp can always be
found so that tracking and observation errors (
ẋ,
x, ż, z) are
bounded and tend to zero.
A detailed mathematical development of the proof, together
with the necessary conditions for the controller-observer gains,
are given in Appendix B.
475
Remark 1. The expression “far away enough from any
singularity” used in Theorem 1 is quite fuzzy. It is made to
validate Assumption 1. Note that one could remove it. The pro-
cedure consists in defining a subset of the dextrous workspace,
say Dx , free of singularities. Then, it is not enough to choose
xd ∈ Dx . In fact, since x =
x + xd , x could leave Dx during
the transient response. Thus, if one can compute a maximum
for
x, a subregion of Dx , say Ddx , can been chosen for xd so
that x never leaves Dx . In general, this may be very complex.
However, if one assumes that the initial velocity is zero, then
it is possible to have the bound for
x as function of the ini-
tial tracking and observation errors. (Because the initial state
(
ẋ(0),
x(0), ż(0), z(0)) is fully known now.)
3.1. Discussion
To get some insight about how gains can be properly tuned,
consider first of all kd . It should be set large enough, as it can
(11) be appreciated from the proof in Appendix B (see (B.38)). This
should not be surprising, since kd is the observer gain. Now,
(12) to understand better the rest of the variables, we proposed the
(13) following approach. In view of the fact that we do know how
to choose kd , suppose that, as guaranteed by Theorem 1, the
observation errors are zero for a large time t, i.e. z=0 and ż=0,
(14)
write the control law (18) as

= −Kp J−1 (q)(
ẋ +
x
x + K ), (19)
(15)
with sd ≈ 0 for a large time t. But, since we are in the case
when the observation errors are zero, then s1 in (12) becomes
s1 =
ẋ +
x
x. Thus, in view of  in (14), we can see that
we have in fact a nonlinear PID, which can be rewritten as
(16)

= − Kp J−1
x
x − Kp J−1 K  − Kp J−1
ẋ . (20)
        
P I D
(17)
In view of (20), one concludes that all gains should be small
but
x , which can be tuned large. Now, we have some simple
rules to tune the controller-observer scheme. As to
z , we can
choose it to be equal to
x , as a particular case of our approach.
Of course, trial and error can be used to improve performance.
4. Experimental results
In this section, the theory of Section 3 is tested. The test
bed consists of the rigid robot A465 of CRS Robotics (Fig. 2).
Although this manipulator has six degrees of freedom, for sim-
plicity, we use only joints 2, 3, and 5 to have a planar manip-
(18) ulator with three degrees of freedom. Furthermore, we rename
them as 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Note that, since the robot model is not needed for control
implementation, the motor dynamics of the actuators must not
be computed. As pointed out in Sciavicco and Siciliano (2000),
it is
 
px l1 c1 + l2 c12 + l3 c123
x = py = l1 s1 + l2 s12 + l3 s123 , (21)
 q1 + q 2 + q 3
476 M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 – 480

2 2
0 0

[mm]

[mm]
−2 −2
−4 −4
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
(a) t [s] (b) t [s]

2 2
0 0

[mm]

[mm]
−2 −2
−4 −4
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
(c) t [s] (d) t [s]

2 2
0 0

[º]

[º]
−2 −2
Fig. 2. Robot A465 of CRS Robotics.
−4 −4
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
(e) t [s] (f) t [s]
0.46
0.44 Fig. 4. Tracking and observation errors: (a)
x; (b) zx ; (c)
y; (d) zy ;
[m]

(e)
; (f) z .

0.42
0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
(a) t [s] 4

0.36 2
[V]

0.34 0
[m]

0.32 −2
0.3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 (a) t [s]
(b) t [s]
4
50 2
[V]

40
30 0
[º]

20
10 −2
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 (b) t [s]
(c) t [s]
4
Fig. 3. (a) px ; (b) py ; (c) . (—–) Actual trajectory; (- - -) desired trajectory.
2
[V]

0
where l1 = 0.305 m, l2 = 0.33 m, l3 = 0.076 m, c1 = cos(q1 ), −2
c12 = cos(q1 + q2 ), c123 = cos(q1 + q2 + q3 ), s1 = sin(q1 ), 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
s12 = sin(q1 + q2 ), s123 = sin(q1 + q2 + q3 ). To implement the (c) t [s]
control-observer scheme, we have to compute the analytical Fig. 5. Input voltages: (a) Joint 1; (b) Joint 2; (c) Joint 3.
Jacobian, given by

−l1 s1 − l2 s12 − l3 s123 −l2 s12 − l3 s123 −l3 s123
J = l1 c1 + l2 c12 + l3 c123 l2 c12 + l3 c123 l3 c123 . be computed for each variable to follow a soft trajectory. The
1 1 1 multiple gains are given by Kp = 8I
x =
z = diag{19 30 24},
K = diag{8 14 10}, K = 0.08 I, kd = 30, and k = 0.01. Fig. 3
x(0) = [0.4076 m 0.301 m − 0.5◦ ]T is the initial posi- shows the desired and real trajectories. As can be appreciated,
tion of the robot. Our goal is to take it to a final po- the results are pretty good. In Fig. 4, tracking and observation
sition x(tf ) = 0.45 m 0.35 m 45◦ , with the final time
T
errors are shown. They are smaller than 1 mm or 0.5◦ during
tf = 15 s. The initial condition for the desired trajectories are most of the motion. Finally, Fig. 5 shows the input voltages.
xd (0) = [0.406 m 0.305 m 0◦ ]T . Fifth order polynomial will Note that there are neither chattering nor saturation.
 M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 – 480 477

5. Conclusions If si 
s̄i < ∞ for all time, then  and s1 are bounded for all
time.
The tracking control problem for rigid robots without model
available nor velocity measurements has been studied in this Proof. One can use Theorem 2 to prove that  is bounded, with
paper. Furthermore, the proposed scheme is designed in Carte- D = Rn and V (t, ) = 21 T , so that
sian coordinates, so that inverse kinematics is not necessary to
carry out a given task. The observer computes the not measur- 1 () = 2 () = 21 2 . (A.7)
able velocities directly in Cartesian coordinates as well. It has
been shown that tracking and observation errors tend to zero, It is straightforward to get
under the condition that no singularity is reached. This assump-
V̇
− 21
min (K K )2
tion is made for simplicity, but a subregion of the dextrous √
workspace and proper gains can always be chosen to guarantee − [ 21
min (K K ) − (
max (K )s̄i + n)]. (A.8)
it. Experimental results show that the control-observer scheme
Then, if
works well, both for orientation and position. As future work,
√
the unit quaternion will be introduced to see its performance. 2(
max (K )s̄i + n)
  , (A.9)

min (K K )
Acknowledgements
one has
This work is based on research supported by the DGAPA-
UNAM under Grants IN119003 and IN116804 and by the V̇
− 21
min (K K )2  − W3 . (A.10)
CONACYT.
Since D = Rn , a positive value r can always be found to satisfy
Appendix A. Auxiliary theorem and lemma (A.3). Furthermore, since (0) = 0 as given in (14), it is easy to
show that 
max . Finally, since  is bounded, from (A.6)
In this appendix, we present an auxiliary theorem and lemma s1 must be bounded. 
for the proof of Theorem 1. First, consider the following well-
known theorem. Appendix B. Proof of Theorem 1

Theorem 2 (Khalil, 2002, pp. 172). Let D ⊂ Rn be a domain In this appendix, the proof of Theorem 1 is presented. Firstly,
that contains the origin and V : [0, ∞) × D → R be a con- define
tinuously differentiable function such that
rẋ − ẋo = ż +
z z, (B.1)
1 (x)
V (t, x)
2 (x), (A.1)
sx ẋ − ẋr =
ẋ +
x
x −
x z − sd + K , (B.2)
jV jV
+ f(t, x)
− W3 (x) ∀x  > 0, (A.2)
jt jx q̇r J−1 (q)ẋr , (B.3)
∀t 0 and ∀x ∈ D, where 1 and 2 are class K functions, sr q̇ − q̇r = J−1 (q)sx . (B.4)
W3 (x) is a continuous positive definite function and with f :
[0, ∞) × D → Rn piecewise continuous in t and locally Lip- Then, one can rewrite (1) as
schitz in x on [0, ∞) × D. Take r > 0 such that Br = {x ∈
Rn |x
r} ⊂ D and suppose that H(ṡr + q̈r ) + C(sr + q̇r ) + D(sr + q̇r ) + g =
(B.5)

 < −1
2 (1 (r)). (A.3) or

Then, there exits a class KL function  and for every initial state H(q)ṡr + C(q, q̇)sr + Dsr =
− Ya , (B.6)
x(t0 ), satisfying x(t0 )
−1
2 (1 (r)), there is T 0 (dependent
on x(t0 ) and ) such that the solution of ẋ = f(t, x) satisfies where

x
(x(t0 ), t − t0 ) ∀t0
t
t0 + T (A.4) Ya Y(q, q̇, q̇r , q̈r ) = H(q)q̈r + C(q, q̇)q̇r
+ Dq̇r + g(q). (B.7)
x
−1
1 (2 ()) ∀t t0 + T . (A.5)
By rewriting (18) as
Moreover, if D = Rn and 1 belongs to class K∞ , then
(A.4)–(A.5) hold for any initial state x(t0 ), with no restriction
= −Kp sr + Kp J−1 (q)r, (B.8)
on how large  is. 
Eq. (B.6) becomes
Lemma 1. Consider (14)–(16), and suppose you have the re-
lationship H(q)ṡr + C(q, q̇)sr + KDP sr = Kp J−1 r − Ya , (B.9)

si = s1 + K . (A.6) where KDP D + Kp .

478 M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 – 480

For the observer error dynamics, first of all we note that (7)
can be written as x̂¨ = x̂¨ o +
z ż + kd ż, so that by substituting in
(8) one gets after some manipulation
ṙ = ṡx − kd r − K .
˙ (B.10)
Note that (B.10) is equivalent to
But, since
x = x − xd , and xd and its derivatives are
bounded, one concludes that x and ẋ are also bounded.
Because q̇ = J(q)−1 ẋ, q̇ must be bounded. Furthermore,
in view of Assumption 1, q must be bounded since no
singularity has been reached. Consider now, q̇r = J−1 (q)ẋr ,
which is bounded. It can be written as

J−1 ṙ = − kd J−1 r + J−1 ṡx + J̇−1 sx − J̇−1 sx q̇r = J−1 (ẋd −
x
x +
x z + sd − K ). (B.21)
− J−1 K ,
˙ (B.11) This means that
where J̇−1 = (d/dt)(J−1 ). Since ṡr = J−1 ṡx + J̇−1 sx , by multi- q̈r = J−1 (ẍd −
x
ẋ +
x ż − ksd − K )
˙
plying both sides of (B.11) by J−T H(q) and taking into account + J̇−1 ẋr . (B.22)
(B.6) one gets after some manipulation
Since from (16) we know that ˙ is bounded, this means
Hr ṙ = − kd Hr r − Cr sx − Dr sx + J−T
that q̈r is also bounded. This, in turn, means that Ya  in
− J−TYa  − Hr K ,˙ (B.12) (B.7) is bounded. Thus, both ṡr in (B.9) and ṙ in (B.16)
are bounded. Finally, note that ṡi = ṡx − ṙ +
z ż is then
with
bounded, with ṡx = J̇(q)sr + J(q)ṡr .
Hr J−T H(q)J−1 , (B.13) (b) The next step is to show that, with a proper choice of gains,
one can actually achieve y
ymax , whenever xd and at
Cr J−T (C(q, q̇)J−1 + H(q)J̇−1 ), (B.14) least its first and second derivatives are bounded. So as to
simplify the discussion, let us think that ymax is a given
Dr J−T DJ−1 . (B.15)
value. Now define
It can be shown that Hr and Cr satisfy Property 2 (Murray
et al., 1994). Furthermore, since we are assuming that J−1 (q) V (y) = 1 T
2 y My, (B.23)
exists, both Hr and Dr (q) are positive definite and Property 1
with M block diag{H(q) Hr }. Clearly, it satisfies
holds. Since sx = so + r, by taking into account (B.8) and some
manipulation one finally gets
1 y2
V (y)

2 y2 , (B.24)
Hr ṙ + Cr r + HDR r = − Cr so − Dr so − J−T Kp J−1 so with
− J−TYa  − Hr K ,
˙ (B.16)

1  21 minn
min (M(q)), (B.25)
∀q∈R
with HDR kd Hr + Dr . Next, we choose
y[sTr rT ] (B.17)
2  21 maxn
max (M(q)). (B.26)
∀q∈R

as stated for (B.9) and (B.16). Note that so = J(q)sr − r. Now, Now we use V (y) in (B.23) and Theorem 2, with 1 =
we are able to prove the theorem. We do this in three steps.
1 y2 and 2 =
2 y2 . By using Property 2, the deriva-
tive of V along (B.9) and (B.16) is given by
(a) First of all, we show that if y is bounded by ymax , then any
other signal is bounded. This proceeds as follows. From V̇ = − sTr KDP sr + sTr KP J−1 (q)r − sTrYa 
(10) to (12) one gets − rT HDR r − rT Cr so
ẋr = x̂˙ − s1 − K . (B.18) − rT Dr so − rT J−T (q)Kp J−1 (q)so
− rT J−T (q)Ya  − rT Hr K .
˙ (B.27)
Hence
While V is positive definite for all y ∈ R2n , to apply
sx = ẋ − ẋr = r + s1 + K  −
z z. (B.19)
Theorem 2 it is necessary to find a region D for which
By defining si sx − r +
z z, one has an equation of the (A.2) be satisfied. We define
form (A.6). Since sx = J(q)sr , it must be bounded because
D{y ∈ R2n |y
ymax }. (B.28)
revolute joints are being considered. Also, in view of (B.1),
z is bounded. Thus, si is bounded and so are  and s1 , In this region, as shown in item (a), bounds can be found
according to Lemma 1. On the other hand, from (B.2) one so that one has
has
V̇
−
min (KP )sr 2 − kd
hr r2

ẋ +
x
x = sx +
x z + sd − K . (B.20) +
max (KP )c2 sr r
The dynamic equation for
x represents a stable linear filter + (c3 + cDr +
max (KP )c22 )r(c1 sr  + r)
with bounded input, so that
x and
ẋ must be bounded. + cya (sr  + c2 r) + cya c4 r, (B.29)
 M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 – 480 479

where where sipmax is a bound for ṡi and |s1 | = |s11 | + · · · + |s1n |,
with s1j element of s1 , j = 1, . . . , n. Since s1 
|s1 |, we
c1  maxn J(q), (B.30) get
∀q∈R
ds1 
c2  maxn J−1 (q), (B.31) s1 
− (
min (K ) − sipmax )s1 . (B.43)
∀q∈R dt

cDr 
max (D)c22 , (B.32) By defining 
min (K ) − sipmax > 0 with a proper choice
of
min (K ), we get
Cr 
c3 , (B.33)
ds1 

− . (B.44)
Ya 
cya , (B.34) dt


˙
pmax , (B.35) We have to show that s1 = 0 in a finite time tr . This can
be done by integrating to get tr
s1 (0)/, as usual in

Hr
max (K )pmax sliding mode theory.1 From t tr one has s1 (t) = 0, so
c4  . (B.36) that from (11) to (13) one gets
cya

hr and
Hr are defined for Hr likewise as
h and
H in s = x̄˙ +
x x̄ = sd = s(0)e−kt , (B.45)
Property 1 for H(q). c3 , cya and pmax are finite positive
constants. If the gains are chosen to satisfy with x̄ = x̂ − xd . Since e−kt tends to zero, we have that
s → 0. This in turn means that x̄ and x̄˙ will tend to zero.
cya (1 + c2 + c4 ) However, this only guarantees that x̂ → xd and x̂˙ → ẋd .

min (Kp )1 +  + , (B.37)
 Note that if x̄ = 0 and x̄˙ = 0, then
x = z and
ẋ = ż.
Hence, (B.2) becomes by computing its derivative
kd
hr (c3 + cDr +
max (KP )c22 ) + 
cya (1 + c2 + c4 ) 1 ṡx − ṙ = −
z ż + ksd + K .
˙ (B.46)
+ + (
max (Kp )c2
 4
But from (B.10) we get
+ c1 (c3 + cDr +
max (KP )c22 ))2 , (B.38)
ṡx − ṙ = kd r + K .
˙ (B.47)
one gets
Then, from (B.46) to (B.47) one has
V̇
− y2 − y
cya (1+ c2 + c4 )
× y −cya (1+ c2 + c4 ) . (B.39) (kd I +
z )ż + kd
z z = ksd . (B.48)

Eq. (B.48) represents a stable linear filter for z, so that z
 and  are positive constants. Then, if y  > 0 it is and ż tend to zero (see sd ). This in turn means that
x and

ẋ do tend to zero as well.
V̇
− y2  − W3 (y). (B.40)

Finally, to apply Theorem 2 we just have to be sure that a

constant r can be found so that (A.3) is satisfied. In fact,
since in this case  is a control parameter, this goal can al-
ways be achieved by setting it small enough. Furthermore,
one only has to assume that the condition on y(0) is ful-
filled.
(c) Till now we have shown that y is bounded. We still have
to prove that tracking and observation errors tend to zero.
First of all, from (16) and (B.19) one obtains
ṡ1 = −K K s1 − K sign(s1 ) + ṡi .
References
Arteaga-Pérez, M. A. (1998). On the properties of a dynamic model of flexible
robot manipulators. ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, 120, 8–14.
Arteaga-Pérez, M. A. (2003). Robot control and parameter estimation with
only joint position measurements. Automatica, 39, 67–73.
Arteaga-Pérez, M. A., & Kelly, R. (2004). Robot control without velocity
measurements: New theory and experimental results. IEEE Transactions
on Robotics and Automation, 20(2), 297–308.
(B.41)

Note that ṡi = ṡx − ṙ +
z ż, so that it must be bounded 1 s = s(0)e−kt makes that s (0) = s(0) − s = 0 at t = 0. In other
d 1 d
according to the discussion of Step (a). Then, if you have words, s1 (t) = 0 for all t. At this point, it is important to understand that
V1 = 21 sT1 s1 = 21 s1 2 , one can compute sd is aimed at improving transient response, since you have the soft signal
s(0)e−kt as input for x̄˙ +
x x̄ in (B.45). Note that sd is NOT necessary
for stability nor for the boundedness of the different signals in the control-
ds1 
s1 
−
min (K K )s1 2 observer approach. In fact, if it were not used, s1 would become s and would
dt be bounded for all time. At t = tr , one would have s = x̄˙ +
x x̄ = 0, so that
−
min (K )|s1 | + s1 sipmax , (B.42) ˙ x̄ would tend to zero anyway.
x̄,
480 M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 – 480

Berghuis, H., & Nijmeijer, H. (1994). Robust control of robots via linear Marco Antonio Arteaga-Pérez was born
estimated state feedback. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 39(10), in Huejutla de Reyes, Hidalgo, Mexico, on
2159–2162. September 9, 1967. He received the B.S. degree
in computer engineering and the M.S. degree in
Caccavale, F., Natale, C., & Villani, L., 1999. Task–space tracking control
electrical engineering from the Universidad Na-
without velocity measurements. In Proceedings of the IEEE international cional Autónoma de México (UNAM), in 1991,
conference on robotics and automation (pp. 512–517), Detroit, Michigan, and 1993, respectively. In 1998, he received
USA. the Dr.-Ing. degree from the Gerhard-Mercator
Canudas de Wit, C., & Fixot, N. (1991). Robot control via robust estimated University, Duisburg, Germany. Since 1998 he
state feedback. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 36(12), 1497– is a Professor at the Department of Electrical
1501. Engineering of the School of Engineering at
Khalil, H. K. (2002). Nonlinear systems. (3rd ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ, the National University of Mexico. His main
USA: Prentice-Hall. research interests are robotics and control.
Murray, R. M., Li, Z., & Sastry, S. S. (1994). A mathematical introduction
to robotic manipulation. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press. Adrián Castillo-Sánchez received the En-
Nicosia, S., & Tomei, P. (1990). Robot control by using only joint position gineer’s Mechanical-Electrician title and the
measurements. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 35(9), 1058– master degree in Electric Engineering with spe-
1061. cialty in Control in 2003 and 2004, respectively,
Parra-Vega, V., Arimoto, S., Liu, Y.-H., Hirzinger, G., & Akella, P. (2003). at the Faculty of Engineering of the Universi-
Dynamic sliding PID control for tracking of robot manipulators: Theory dad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).
and experiments. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 19(6), Since 2002, he is professor at the Faculty of
Engineering of the UNAM and since 2004 he
967–976.
is also professor at the Universidad Autónoma
Qu, Z., Dawson, D. M., Dorsey, J. F., & Duffie, J. D. (1995). Robust estimation de la Ciudad de México in Mexico City.
and control of robotic manipulators. Robotica, 13, 223–231.
Sciavicco, L., & Siciliano, B. (2000). Modeling and control of robot
manipulators. (2nd ed.), London, Great Britain: Springer. Vicente Parra-Vega carried out doctoral studies
Slotine, J. J. E., & Li, W. (1987). On the adaptive control of robot in the Tokyo University, Japan, in 1995 under the
manipulators. International Journal of Robotics Research, 6(3), 49–59. supervision of Prof. Suguru Arimoto; and a post-
Spong, M. W. (1992). On the robust control of robot manipulators. IEEE doctoral leave in the Institute of Robotics and
Transactions on Automatic Control, 37(11), 1782–1786. Mechatronics of the German Aerospace Agency
in 2000 under the supervision of Prof. Gerd
Takegaki, M., & Arimoto, S. (1981). A new feedback method for dynamic
Hirzinger. He has published more than 100 jour-
control of manipulators. ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, nal and conference articles in the areas of robot
and Control, 102(2), 119–125. control, haptic interfaces, visual servoing and
Xian, B., de Queiroz, M. S., Dawson, D., & Walker, I. (2004). Task–space mechatronics. Since 1995, he has been in the
tracking control of robot manipulators via quaternion feedback. IEEE Mechatronics Division of the Research Center
Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 20(1), 160–167. for Advanced Studies in Mexico City.

View publication stats