Advertisement

Journal of Dynamical and Control Systems

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 129–168 | Cite as

A Unified Approach to Input-output Linearization and Concurrent Control of Underactuated Open-chain Multi-body Systems with Holonomic and Nonholonomic Constraints

  • Robin Chhabra
  • M. Reza EmamiEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a unified geometric framework to input-output linearization of open-chain multi-body systems with symmetry in their reduced phase space. This leads us to an output tracking controller for a class of underactuated open-chain multi-body systems with holonomic and nonholonomic constraints. We consider the systems with multi-degree-of-freedom joints and possibly with non-zero constant total momentum (in the holonomic case). The examples of these systems are free-base space manipulators and mobile manipulators. We first formalize the control problem, and rigorously state an output tracking problem for such systems. Then, we introduce a geometrical definition of the end-effector pose and velocity error. The main contribution of this paper is reported in Section 5, where we solve for the input-output linearization of the highly nonlinear problem of coupled manipulator and base dynamics subject to holonomic and nonholonomic constraints. This enables us to design a coordinate-independent controller, similar to a proportional-derivative with feed-forward, for concurrently controlling a free-base, multi-body system. Finally, by defining a Lyapunov function, we prove in Theorem 3 that the closed-loop system is exponentially stable. A detailed case study concludes this paper.

Keywords

Open-chain multi-body system Dynamical reduction Nonholonomic constraints Input-output linearization Nonlinear control 

Mathematical Subject Classifications (2010)

70E60 70H33 70Q05 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Professor Yael Karshon from the Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, for her useful insights throughout the work.

References

  1. 1.
    Aghili F. Coordination control of a free-flying manipulator and its base attitude to capture and detumble a noncooperative satellite. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS); 2009. p. 2365–2372.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashrafiuon H, Erwin R. Sliding mode control of underactuated multibody systems and its application to shape change control. Int J Control 2008;81(12): 1849–1858.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barcinski T, Lisowski J, Rybus T, Seweryn K. Controlled zero dynamics feedback linearization with application to free-floating redundant orbital manipulator. In: American control conference (ACC): IEEE; 2013, pp. 1834–1839.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloch A. Nonholonomic mechanics and control: Springer; 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bullo F. Nonlinear control of mechanical systems: a riemannian geometry approach. Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology; 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bullo F, Lewis AD, Vol. 49. Geometric control of mechanical systems. Texts in applied mathematics. New York-Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bullo F, Z̆efran M. On mechanical control systems with nonholonomic constraints and symmetries. Syst Control Lett. 2002;45 (2): 133–143.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen C. Nonholonomic control of coupled spatial multibody systems. Ph.D. thesis, Case Western Reserve University; 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chhabra R. A unified geometric framework for kinematics, dynamics and concurrent control of free-base, open-chain multi-body systems with holonomic and nonholonomic constraints. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies; 2014.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chhabra R, Emami M. A generalized exponential formula for forward and differential kinematics of open-chain multi-body systems. Mech Mach Theory 2014; 73: 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chhabra R, Emami M. Nonholonomic dynamical reduction of open-chain multi-body systems: a geometric approach. Mech Mach Theory 2014;82: 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubowsky S, Papadopoulos E. The kinematics, dynamics, and control of free-flying and free-floating space robotic systems. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 1993;9(5).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duindam V, Stramigioli S. Singularity-free dynamic equations of open-chain mechanisms with general holonomic and nonholonomic joints. IEEE Trans Robot. 2008; 24(3): 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grizzle J, Moog C, Chevallereau C. Nonlinear control of mechanical systems with an unactuated cyclic variable. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2005;50(5): 559–576.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hervé J. The lie group of rigid body displacements, a fundamental tool for mechanism design. Mech Mach Theory 1999;34(5): 719–730.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hussein I, Bloch A. Optimal control of underactuated nonholonomic mechanical systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2008;53(3): 668–682.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koiller J. Reduction of some classical non-holonomic systems with symmetry. Archive Ration Mech Anal. 1992;118(2): 113–148.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marsden J, Weinstein A. Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry. Reports Math Phys. 1974;5(1): 121–130.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mukherjee R, Chen D. Control of free-flying underactuated space manipulators to equilibrium manifolds. IEEE Trans Robot Autom. 1993;9(5).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nenchev D, Umetani Y, Yoshida K. Analysis of a redundant free-flying spacecraft/manipulator system. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 1992;8: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olfati-Saber R. Nonlinear control of underactuated mechanical systems with application to robotics and aerospace vehicles. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olfati-Saber R. Normal forms for underactuated mechanical systems with symmetry. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2002;47(2): 305–308.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parlaktuna O, Ozkan M. Adaptive control of free-floating space manipulators using dynamically equivalent manipulator model. Robot Auton Syst 2004; 46(3): 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pazelli T, Terra M, Siqueira A. Experimental investigation on adaptive robust controller designs applied to a free-floating space manipulator. Control Eng Pract 2011; 19(4): 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Selig J. Geometric fundamentals of robotics, 2nd edn. Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shen J. Nonlinear control of multibody systems with symmetries via shape change. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shen J, McClamroch N. Translational and rotational maneuvers of an underactuated space robot using prismatic actuators. Int J Robot Res 2002;21(5–6): 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shen J, McClamroch N, Bloch A. Local equilibrium controllability of multibody systems controlled via shape change. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2004;49(4): 506–520.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shen J, Schneider D, Bloch A. Controllability and motion planning of a multibody chaplygin’s sphere and chaplygin’s top. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control 2008; 18: 905–945.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sreenath N. Modeling and control of multibody systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park; 1987.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sreenath N. Nonlinear control of planar multibody systems in shape space. Math Control Signals Syst. 1992;5(4): 343–363.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tortopidis I, Papadopoulos E. On point-to-point motion planning for underactuated space manipulator systems. Robot Autonom Syst 2007;55(2): 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Umetani Y, Yoshida K. Resolved motion rate control of space manipulators with generalized jacobian matrix. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 1989;5(3).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vafa Z, Dubowsky S. On the dynamics of manipulators in space using the virtual manipulator approach. Proc IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom 1987: 579–585.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang H, Xie Y. Adaptive jacobian position/force tracking control of free-flying manipulators. Robot Autonom Syst 2009;57(2): 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang H, Xie Y. Passivity based adaptive jacobian tracking for free-floating space manipulators without using spacecraft acceleration. Automatica 2009;45(6): 1510–1517.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang H, Xie Y. On the recursive adaptive control for free-floating space manipulators. J Intell Robot Syst 2012;66(4): 443–461.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wee L, Walker M, McClamroch N. An articulated-body model for a free-flying robot and its use for adaptive motion control. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 1997;13(2).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd.BramptonCanada
  2. 2.Institute for Aerospace StudiesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Space Technology Division, Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space EngineeringLuleå University of TechnologyKirunaSweden

Personalised recommendations