Optimization-Based Design of Minimum Phase Underactuated Multibody Systems

Chapter
Part of the Computational Methods in Applied Sciences book series (COMPUTMETHODS, volume 23)

Abstract

An underactuated multibody system has less control inputs than degrees of freedom, e.g. due to passive joints or body flexibility. The analysis of the mechanical design of these kind of underactuated multibody systems might show that they are non-minimum phase, i.e. they have an internal dynamic which is not asymptotically stable. Therefore, feedback linearization is not possible, and also feed-forward control design for output trajectory tracking becomes a very challenging task. In this paper it is shown that through the use of an optimization procedure underactuated multibody systems can be designed in such a way that they are minimum phase. Thus feed-forward control design is significantly simplified and also feedback linearization of the underactuated multibody system is possible.

Keywords

Multibody System Feedback Linearization Internal Dynamic Trajectory Tracking Minimum Phase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. [1].
    Agrawal S, Sangwan V (2008) Differentially flat designs of underactuated open-chain planar robots. IEEE T Robot 24:1445–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2].
    Ast A, Eberhard P (2006) Flatness-based control of parallel kinematics using multibody systems - simulation and experimental results. Arch Appl Mech 76:181–197MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3].
    Blajer W, Kolodziejczyk K (2004) A geometric approach to solving problems of control constraints: theory and a DAE framework. Multibody Syst Dyn 11:343–364MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4].
    Brockett R (1978) Feedback invarianta for nonlinear systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th IFAC world congress, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  5. [5].
    De Luca A (1998) Trajectory control of flexible manipulators. In: Siciliano B, Valavanis K (eds) Control problems in robotics and automation. Springer, London, pp 83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6].
    Devasia S, Chen D, Paden B (1996) Nonlinear inversion-based output tracking. IEEE T Automat Contr 41:930–942MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7].
    Hirschorn R (1979) Invertibility of multivariable nonlinear control systems. IEEE T Automat Contr 24:855–865MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [8].
    Isidori A (1995) Nonlinear control systems. Springer, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9].
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the international conference on neural networks, Perth, Australia, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  10. [10].
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R (2001) Swarm intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  11. [11].
    Khalil H (2002) Nonlinear systems. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12].
    Moberg S, Hanssen S (2007) A DAE approach to feedforward control of flexible manipulators. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 3439–3444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13].
    Müller P C, Schiehlen W (1985) Linear vibrations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  14. [14].
    Sastry S (1999) Nonlinear systems: analysis, stability and control. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15].
    Sedlaczek K (2007) Zur Topologieoptimierung von Mechanismen und Mehrkörpersystemen (in German). Schriften aus dem Institut für Technische und Numerische Mechanik der Universität Stuttgart, Shaker Verlag, AachenGoogle Scholar
  16. [16].
    Sedlaczek K, Eberhard P (2006) Using augmented Lagrangian particle swarm optimization for constrained problems in engineering. Struct Multidiscip O 32:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17].
    Seifried R, Eberhard, P (2009) Design of feed-forward control for underactuated multibody systems with kinematic redundancy. In: Ulbrich H, Ginzinger L (eds) Motion and vibration control: selected papers from MOVIC 2008. Springer, pp 275–284Google Scholar
  18. [18].
    Soltine J-J, Li W (1991) Applied nonlinear control. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  19. [19].
    Skogestad S, Postlethwaite R (2005) Multivariable feedback control. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  20. [20].
    Spong M, Hutchinson S, Vidyasagar M (2006) Robot modeling and control. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  21. [21].
    Taylor D, Li S (2002) Stable inversion of continuous-time nonlinear systems by finite-difference methods. IEEE T Automat Contr 47:537–542CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Engineering and Computational MechanicsUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations