Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Received: 19 October 2012 / Accepted: 20 February 2014 / Published online: 8 July 2014
The Institution of Engineers (India) 2014
Introduction
paper considers the problem of designing a class of stabilizing PD controllers for a robot manipulator. A major
obstacle of designing the best controller has been the difficulty in characterizing the entire set of stabilizing controllers. Very few papers are published [13] where a class
of stabilizing controllers is designed. An effective solution
to this problem was obtained in [1]. This is accomplished
by generalizing a classical stability result developed in the
last century, the Hermite Biehler theorem. The characterization of all feedback gain values is useful for carrying out
optimal designs with respect to various performance indices. In this communication, an attempt has been made to
obtain a class of PD controllers based on PD stabilization
theorem obtained from generalized Hermite Biehler theorem for each subsystem of MIMO nonlinear systems. The
significant results of Siljak and Stipanovic [4] demonstrate
how the linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) formulation can
be used to quadratically stabilize linear/nonlinear interconnected system via centralized/decentralized linear
constant feedback laws. Motivated by the work of Siljak
and Stipanovic [4], the method by which the designed set
of controllers for each subsystems can stabilize the MIMO
nonlinear systems has been established.
One of the simplest position controllers for robot manipulator is the proportional derivative (PD) control. This
G. Leena (&)
Department of Electrical and Electronics, Faculty of Engineering
and Technology, Manav Rachna International University,
Sector 43, Aravali Hills, Faridabad, India
e-mail: leenagjeevan@rediffmail.com
K. B. Datta G. Ray
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India
Cs Kp sKd
123
28
G(s) =
C(s)
pf x; Kp
N (s)
D( s)
qf x; Kd
ds; Kp ; Kd Ds Kp sKd Ns
1 x2 mn=2
;
:
i 1; 2; . . .; n;
yi Cni xi
where xi are the states; ui, the inputs; and hi(t, x) are the
nonlinear terms. The only information about the
nonlinearity is that it satisfies the quadratic constraint.
The transfer function of the ith decoupled system (without
interaction terms, i.e. hi t; x 0) is described by
i 1; 2; . . .; n
sDo s Ne s No s De s
Stability Analysis
Kd Ne s2 Ne s2 s2 No s2 No s2
123
1 x2 mn=2
qx; Kd
Cni sI Ai 1 Bi ;
ds; Kp ; Kd N s
px; Kp
x_i Ai xi Bi ui wi t; x
yi Cni xi ;
i 1; 2; . . .; n
i 1; 2; . . .; n
10
29
ith PD
Controller
Bi
xi
i C
w x
" XN
a2 W T Wi
i1 i i
yi
Ai
13
#"
x
wx
#
0
15
:
wx
A Lyapunov function candidate [6] is chosen for the
descriptor system (16) as
V zT FPz
P1
where P
P2
0
P3
17
is non-singular with P1
PT1
[0
where
Eni I Bi Kdi Cni ;
i 1; 2; . . .; n
P1 [ 0;
w
T xPz zT PT wx\0
zT AT P PT Az
18
14
P1 [ 0;
P1 [ 0;
2 T
A P2 PT2 An
T T T 6 nT
x x_ w x 4 P3 An P1 EnT P2
P2
ATn P3 P1 PT2 En
PT3 An P1 EnT P2
3
PT2
7
EnT P3 PT3 En PT3 5
P3
6
7
6 x_
7\0
4
5
wx
20
123
30
P
ATn P2 PT2 An b Ni1 a2i WiT Wi
4
PT3 An P1 EnT P2
P2
3
PT2
PT3 5\0
b I
ATn P3 P1 PT2 En
EnT P3 PT3 En
P3
ATn P2 PT2 An
6 PT An P 1 E T P 2
n
6 3
6
P2
6
6
W1
6
6
..
4
.
Wn
ATn P3 P1 PT2 En
EnT P3 PT3 En
P3
0
..
.
PT2
PT3
I
0
..
.
W1T
0
0
c1 I
..
.
..
.
123
WnT
0
0
0
..
.
7
7
7
7
7\0
7
7
5
22
cn I
where ci 1=a2i :
The matrices An and En of Eq. (22) are interval matrices
[obtained from Eq. (13)]. A sufficient condition for the
stability robustness of interval matrices, i.e., matrices
having the elements varying within given bounds, requires
that the Lyapunov equation be negative definite when
evaluated at the so-called corner matrices [8, 9]. The corner
matrices of an n 9 n interval matrix A is defined as
2
Ar = {arij}, r 1; 2; . . .; 2n with arij = alij or auij, i,
j = 1, 2,, n, where alij and auij are minimum and maximum values respectively of ijth element of interval matrix.
Hence Eq. (22) should be satisfied for all the corner
matrices of An and En to ensure that the composite system
(16) to be asymptotically stable. The matrix Wi is computed so that constraint (10) is satisfied and the bounding
parameter ai is to be maximized. Hence Eq. (22) can be
reformulated as an LMI optimization problem as stated
below
P
Minimize Ni1 ci ; subject to P1 [ 0, and
21
Simulation Results
The two-link manipulator has been considered as shown in
Fig. 3 and its dynamics can be described by the nonlinear
equation given below [10].
_ Gh
s Mhh Vh; h
24
PT2
PT3
I
0
..
.
W1T
0
0
c1 I
..
.
..
.
WnT
0
0
0
..
.
cn I
3
7
7
7
7
7\0
7
7
5
23
31
and
G
can in general be a function of all joint variables
h; h_ and M is a non-diagonal matrix, indicating inertial
coupling between joint accelerations.
For simplicity, it is denoted that
_ Vh; h
_ Gh
Nh; h
25
_ due to
There are uncertainties in M(h) and Nh; h
unknown loads on the manipulator and unmodelled frictions.
The following bounds are assumed on the uncertainties [11]:
1.
2.
26
Then x_1 h_ x2 ;
_
x_2 h Mh1 s Nh; h
_ Nh; h
_
Mh1 Mu hu Mh1 Nu h; h
Mx1 1 Mu x1 u Mx1 1 Nu x1 ; x2 Nx1 ; x2
27
The state space representation of Eq. (27) is represented by
x_ Ax Bu f xu Bhx
28
29
30
31
khxk Mx1 1 Nu x1 ; x2 Nx1 ; x2
Mx1 1 kNu x1 ; x2 Nx1 ; x2 k
32
1
kM l x1 k nmax x1 ; x2
In many cases, the largest feasible region of x can be
found out to determine a quadratic bound for khxk2 such
that
hxT hx xT Qx
33
y Cn x
34
;
a2 a3 cos h2
a2
2
3
2
35
a3 sin h2 h_ 2 2h_ 1 h_ 2
_ 4
5;
Vh; h
2
a3 sin h2 h_ 1
"
#
a4 cos h1 a5 cos h1 h2
Gh
a5 cos h1 h2
In the above expressions a1, a2, , a5 are constant
parameters obtained from mass (m1, m2) and length (l1, l2)
of robot links, that is, a1 m1 m2 l21 ; a2 m2 l22 ; a3
m2 l1 l2 ; a4 m1 m2 l1 g; a5 m2 l2 g: The parameters
are m1 = m2 = 1.0 kg, l1 = l2 = 1.0 m and g = 9.81 m/
s 2.
For the system (34), with the expressions (35) the following numerical values are obtained
"
#
0 1
A1 A2
;
0 0
"
#
0
Bn1 Bn2
;
5:8
" #
0
;
B1 B2
1
Cn1 Cn2 1
0;
and
123
32
"
hx
"
h1 x
m2
h2 x
36
l2
i 1; 2
m1
l1
37
38
Zt
39
Kd1
48:68
Kp2
221:12;
Kd2
48:89
40
123
Fig. 4 hd1 and h1 with optimal PD gains K*p1 = 466.28, K*d1 = 48.68,
K*p2 = 221.12, K*d2 = 48.89
(23) for all the corner matrices of An and En. The designed
ranges of An and En are calculated using Eq. (14) with the
controller gains (38) and are given by
An diagfAn1 ; An2 g;
41
En diagfEn1 ; En2 g
0
1
1
0
; En1
;
where An1
2900 5:22 0
5:22 580 1
0
1
1
0
and En2
:
An2
2900 5:22 0
5:22 580 1
As given by Eq. (10), the term wt; x; can be bounded
by a quadratic inequality and is constrained as
33
2
wT1 t; xw1 t; x 3:36x12 x22 1:72x212 1:68x222
17:07x12 x22 8:54x212 x222 xT a21 W1T W1 x;
29:44x12 x22 14:72x212 x222 xT a22 W2T W2 x 42
(since x12 and x22 are much less than unity and the terms
associated with the power of x12 and x22 equal to three or
more than three are neglected), where a1 ; a2 [ 0 and W1
and W22are found out as 3
0
0
0
0
6 0 2:92 0
0 7
6
7
W1 6
7
40
0
0
0 5
2
0
0
0
0
6 0 3:87
6
W2 6
40
0
0
0
0
0
2:92
3
0
0 7
7
7
0 5
3:87
43
Conclusions
Fig. 5 hd2 and h2 with optimal PD gains K*p1 = 466.28, K*d1 = 48.68,
K*p2 = 221.12, K*d2 = 48.89
Table 1 Corner matrices of An and En
A1n fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g
A2n
A3n
A4n
fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g
fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g
fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g
En2
En3
En4
a1
a2
a1
a2
a1
a2
a1
a2
A1n
0.0216
0.0188
0.0216
0.0188
0.0216
0.0188
0.2225
0.1933
A2n
0.0216
0.0188
0.0216
0.0188
0.1973
0.1714
0.2228
0.1953
A3n
0.1970
0.1712
0.1973
0.1714
0.1973
0.1714
0.2246
0.1950
A4n
0.0216
0.0188
0.1973
0.1714
0.0216
0.0188
0.2228
0.1935
44
123
34
xNjx2 [ 0 since N s does not have any zeros
on jx axis. Hence
(a)
q1 xj
\Kd
q2 xj
if
ij q2 xj [ 0
47
i0 sgnq1f 0
where q1f x
(c)
A Kp
2.
(b)
q1 x
1x2 mn=2
n m eveng
for n m oddg
45
Kd [ Kr
46
r1
where
0
B
B
Kr B
@
1
max Re
;
it 2Rs ;it [ 0
jxt Gjxt
1
min Re
it 2Rs ;it \0
jxt Gxt
1
C
C
C;
A
r 1; 2; . . .; s
sgnqf
where R fi0 ; i1 ; . . .g; i0
xj ; Kd and j = 1, 2, , (l - 1) or j = 1, 2, , l,
accordingly as (m ? n) is even or odd. Now consider two
different cases:
Case 1: N s does not have any zeros on the imaginary
axis: In this case for all stabilizing values of the gain
Kd ; ds; Kp ; Kd N s will also not have any zeros on the jx
axis so that ij 2 f1; 1g for j = 1, 2, , l. Two different
possibilities are considered below.
(a)
123
q1 xj
[ Kd
q2 xj
48
Ne s sNo s
Now, Gs Ns
Ds De s2 sDo s2 ; so that
1
De x2 j x Do x2
q2 x
Hence it follows that
q1 x
1
Re
q2 x
jxt Gjxt
50
h
i
1
Thus, from hEq. (49),i maxit 2R; it [ 0 Re jxt Gjx
t
1
\ minit 2R; it \0 Re jxt Gjx
:
t
References
1. S.P. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta, L.M. Keel, Linear Control Theory:
Structure, Robustness And Optimization, Automation and Control
Engineering Series (CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2009)
2. M.-T. Ho, C.-Y. Lin, PID controller design for robust performance. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 48(8), 14041409 (2003)
3. M.-T. Ho, S.-T. Huang, On the synthesis of robust PID controllers for plants with structured and unstructured uncertainty. Int.
J. Robust Nonlinear Control 15(6), 269285 (2005)
4. D.D. Siljak, D.M. Stipanovic, Robust stabilization of nonlinear
systems: the LMI approach. Math. Prob. Eng. 6, 461493 (2000)
5. S. Boyd, E. Feron, L.E. Ghaoui, V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix
Inequalities in System and Control Theory (SIAM, Philadelphia,
1994)
35
6. Y.Y. Cao, Z. Lin, A descriptor system approach to robust stability
analysis and controller synthesis. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
49(11), 20812084 (2004)
7. V.A. Yakubovich, The S-procedure in nonlinear control theory,
English Translation in Vestnik Leningrad Univ. Math., 4, 7393
(1977)
8. M. Mansour, Sufficient condition for the asymptotic stability of
interval matrices. Int. J. Control 47(6), 19731974 (1988)
9. F. Garofalo, G. Celentano, L. Glielmo, Stability robustness of
interval matrices via Lyapunov quadratic forms. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control 38(2), 281284 (1993)
10. M.W. Spong, M. Vidyasagar, Robot Dynamics and Control
(Wiley, New York, 1989)
11. Z. Qu, D.M. Dawson, Robust Tracking Control of Robot
Manipulators (IEEE Press, New York, 1996)
12. F. Lin, Robust Control Design: An Optimal Control Approach
(Wiley, New York, 2007)
13. F. Lin, R.D. Brandt, An optimal control approach to robust
control of robot manipulators. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 14(1),
6977 (1998)
14. D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and
Machine Learning (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1999)
15. P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A.J. Laub, M. Chilali, LMI Control
Toolbox for use with Matlab. (The Math Works Inc, 1995)
123