Proceedingsof 24th Conference
FA9 = 12:OO
NONLINEAR FEEDBACK CONTROL OF PUMA 5 6 0 ROBOT ARM BY COMPUTER
A. K. Bejczy',
'JPL, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA 91109
"Department of Systems Science and Mathematics,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO 6 3 1 3 0
"'Visiting Scholar at Washington University, St. Louis, MO,
from Nanjing Institute of Aeronautics. China
Summary
It is shown that nonlinear feedback with diffeo-
morphic state transformation isapplicable to dynamic
control of PUMA 560 robot arm. This new dynamic con-
trol method externally (or exactly) linearizes the
whole system and provides simultaneous outputdecou-
pling. To render the control robust, the nonlinear
feedback is augmentedwith optimal error correcting
controller which operates on the error in the task
space. A key feature of this dynamic control method
is that the nonlinear gains in the controller do not
need readjustment from task to task. In that sense
this controller is "intelligent" since it directly
responds to changing task commands. A complete
dynamic model in state equation form and withthe
necessary geometric and inertialparameters is also
presented for PUMA 5 6 0 restricted to motions at the
first three joints. This model is necessary to
specify the nonlinearfeedback and diffeomorphic
transformation.
1. Introduction
Robot arm dynamic control can be treated by sev-
eral conventional techniques. Since the dynamic
behavior of rigid body robotarms is described by
highly nonlinear and coupled ordinarydifferential
equations, the application of conventional techniques
requires system linearization throughTaylor series
expansion and the definition of nominal operating
regimes. A typical result is the derivation of a
variable gain system with appropriate gain scheduling
for a given control task.
The evolving differential geometriccontrol theo-
ries permit to takea new unconventional look at the
problem of dynamic control of robot arms. Within the
frame of differential geometriccontrol theories we
can approach the state feedback control problem with
the following questions: (i) For a nonlinear and cou-
pled system with certain tasks, does there exista
feedback which, by suitable changes ofcoordinates,
converts the original nonlinear and coupled system to
a linear and input/output decoupled system? (ii) How
to construct a nonlinear feedback with suitable
changes of coordinates which accomplishes overall sys-
tem linearization and input/output decoupling? (iii)
Is it possible toconstruct a nonlinear feedback for
dynamic model of rigid body robotarms which linear-
izes the overall system (original system with added
nonlinear feedback) and produces input/output decou-
pling after suitable changes of coordinates? The
answer to this lastquestion is affirmative.
The feasibility of compensating forcoupling and
for nonlinearities in robot arm dynamic control was
shown by several authors [1-8]. The methods presented
by Freund, Lentini, Nicolo, Nicosia and Vecettio are
restrictive and somewhat "ad hoc": they use formal
CH2245-918510000-1680 $1.00 C 1985 IEEE
on Decision and Control
Ft. Lauderdale. FLDecember 1985
T
T. J. Tarn", X. Yun", S. Hant++
restructuring of equations, and the number of inputs
must equal the number of outputs. Moreover, in
Freund's method, linearization is not in terms of the
state but in terms of theoutput, and only sufficient
and no necessary conditions are given for the exis-
tence of a suitable nonlinear feedback. In contrast
to methods of Freund, Lentini, Nicolo, Nicosia and
Vecettio, the method presented byTarn, Bejczy,
Isidori and Chen is general: (i) It provides both
necessary and sufficient conditions, the output can be
block decoupled, and each block can be a vector. (ii)
It provides a constructive algorithm for findingthe
required nonlinear feedback for systems in which the
dimension of output can be less than or equal to the
dimension of input. (iii) It provides output decou-
pling by nonlinear feedback in terms of thesystem's
state. (iv) Moreover, to render the control robust,
the nonlinear feedback is augmented with optimal error
correcting controller which operates on the error in
the task space.
The purpose of this paper is to extend the appli-
cation of our new general nonlinear feedback control
method, augmented with an optimal error correcting
controller, to the dynamiccontrol of PUMA 5 6 0 robot
arm. In order to keep the mathematical writing brief,
we here only consider the first threedegrees of free-
-
dom of the PUMA 5 6 0 robot arm, and omit without loss
of generality - the actuator drive model from the
equations. First, we state the full set of dynamic
equations for PUMA 5 6 0 when its motion is restricted
to the first three joints. W e also state a revised
set of inertial andgeometric parameters for PUMA
560. Then we show the content of the nonlinear feed-
back applied to thePUMA 560, including the optimal
error correcting feedback. A brief account is given
for a "backward" proof which shows that our general
nonlinear feedback with diffeomorphic state transfor-
mation is indeed applicable to the PUMA 5 6 0 robot arm,
assuring external linearization and output decou-
pling. We conclude with commenting on our new dynamic
control method.
2. Dynamic Model of PUMA 5 6 0
The mathematical model of a complete m-degree-of-
freedom rigid robot armsystem comprises the mechan-
ical part of thesystem and the actuators (including
the drive transmission components) that drive one
degree-of-freedom each. Using homogeneous coordinates
together with the Denavit-Hartenberg four-parameter
representation of robot arm kinematics, and using the
Lagrangian formulation of kinetics, the dynamic model
of PUMA 560 robot arm when its motion is restricted to
the first three joints (shoulderroll and elevation
and elbow pitch) is as follows:
i = 1,2,3.
1680
 We may d e n o t e t h e a b o v e e q u a t i o n a s +
D(q)q = p(q,{) + w. (2)
+ 2 a F s +
Here we h a v e f o r q ( j o i n t p o s i t i o n v e c t o r ) , f o r w 2 2 3
( g e n e r a l i z e dj o i n tf o r c e ) ,D ( q ) a n dp ( q , { ) : -
2 2 + 2a3x3 1
k3yy + a2 + a3

-
D 2 3 = m3[(a x + a a ) c + a Z s +
2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3

- L
2a3x3 + a3 + k L 1
3YY

D33 = rn ( k 2 + a' + 2a3X3)

3 3YY 3

3 3 2
D
112
= m ( k
2k2yy
2xx
- - a'
2
- 2 a x )c s +
2 2 2 2

3 3 ( c s+ c s - 2 s s s ) +
m3[k3xx 2 2 3 3 2 3 23

2
3 3 k3zz(2s2s3s23 - c2s2 - c3s3) +

-
~ ( - 2 a c +s 4 a s s s +
3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3
The e x p l i c i tf o r mo fd y n a m i cp r o j e c t i o nf u n c -
t i o n s , D i , D i j a n dD i ' k ,i n c l u d i n gt h ev a l u e so ft h e a s- 2 a c s- 2 a c s ) +
2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3
g e o m e t r i ca n di n e r t i a ?p a r a m e t e r si nt h e s ef u n c t i o n s
f o rt h e PUMA 560 a r el i s t e db e l o w .N o t et h a t D i -
i s t h ei n e r t i a ll o a dp r o j e c t i o nf u n c t i o nt oj o i n 2 z (a c c
3 2 2 23 - a2S2S23
+ 2a c 2
3 23
- a,) +
r e l a t e dt oa c c e l e r a t i o na tj o i n t "j", Dijk(q) i s
c e n t r i p e t a l( j = k )o rC o r i o l i s( j # k )f o r c ep r o j e c t i o n
f u n c t i o n t o j o i n t "i" r e l a t e d t o v e l o c i t i e s a n d j o i n t s a2a3s3 - 2a a c s
2 3 2 23 - 2
a2C2S2
+
I 1j l l and l l k l l , a n dD i ( q ) i s t h e g r a v i t y l o a d a t j o i n t
"i". The g e n e r a lf u n c t i o nd e f i n i t i o n so ft h e Di, Dij 2 2
and D i j k d y n a m i cp r o j e c t i o nf u n c t i o n sc a nb ef o u n d In 2a s s s
3 2 3 2 3
- a ( C s + c3s3)l
3 2 2
[ 9 and l o ] . The s p e c i f i cf o r mo ft h e s ef u n c t i o n sf o r
t h e PUMA 560 r o b o t arm w i t h i t s m o t i o n r e s t r i c t e d t o
t h ef i r s tt h r e ej o i n t s i s a sf o l l o w s ,q u o t e df r o m [11
a n d1 2 ] : * ) D = m [ k( 2c s + c s - 2 s s s ) +
113 3 3xx 2 2 3 3 2 3 23
D =mkL +
11 1 lyy k2 ( 2 s s s - c s - s c ) +
3zz 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 3
x -
m 2 ( k i x x s i + k;yyci + a i c i + 2a 2 2 c 2 + x ( 4 a3 s 2s 3s 2 3 - 2 a ~ - ~2 a c s
3 2 3 3 3 3
-
- 2
a c s ) + z3(2a3cZ3 + a c c
2 2 23 2 2 2 3
- a )
3
+

2 2 2
2 a a c c
2 3 2 2 3
+ 2 x ( a c c
3 2 2 2 3
+ a c 2 ) +
323 2a3s2s3sZ3 - a 2 a 3 c 2 s Z 3 - a3c2s2 - a c s 1
3 3 3

2Y3d3 + 2 z 3 ( a 3 c Z 3 s z 3 + a2c2sZ3)1
D122 = m a Z c +
2 2 2 2
- -
D12=maFs + m [d s + (d3x3 + a3y3 + a d ) c 1
2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 23

m [ ( d+ xa d ) s + -
3 3 3 + a3Y3 3 3 23 D = m [d s + (d3y3 + a3y3 + a3d3)cZ31
123 3 3 3 23
(a2y3 + a2d3)s2 - d3 z3 c2 3 1
-
d3z3sZ3 + (d3x3
- +
-
a3y3 + a d ) c 1
3 3 23
- *
- D133 = m3[
D13 = m3 [ (y3d3 + a3y3 a d )s
3 3 23 - Z3d3C231
DZl3 = 0 ( b e c a u s eo fg e n e r a l PUMA 560 geometry)

* ) N o t e t h a t we u s e t h e f o l l o w i n g s h o r t h a n d n o t a t i o n -
s i = sin ( q i ) , s ' . = sin ( q i + q j ) D223 = m3'
(-a2X3 - a2a3)s3 + a z c 1
2 3 3
c i = c o s ( q i ) , C f ! = c o s ':qi + q .)
11 3
1681
 -
D~~~ = m3[ (-a2x3- a2 a31 s3 + a2Z3 c 3 1 Table 1. PUMA 560 Geometric Parameters
(For first three joints/links.)
Dl = 0

1 1 1 I 1 r:) I
D2 = m g(x2 + a ) c
2 2 2
-
17.N 0.75 5.925 17.05
m 3 g(X c
3 23 323 + a3C23 + a2C2)
+ 43.18 1.91 15.05 43.31
-
D3 = -yg(x3cz3 + z3sZ3 + a3cZ3)

The following general reduction rules apply here

Dij = Dji (3)

Dijk = Dikj (4)

Dijk = -Dkji for i, k 1. j (5)

Diji = 0 for
i 1. j (6)

Consequently, we have here:

Figure 1. PUMA 560 Basic Geometry

(For first three joints/links.)

also have: DZll -D

112 D311 = -D113 D312 =
3. Dynamic Control of PUMA 560
-D = -D And Eq. (6) assures that
213 D322 223 * We introduce the following statevariable
definitions: x1 = ql,-x? = 9 2 , x3 = q3, q = i q = 41,
D313 = D323 = D Z l 2 = 0. x5 x2 = 92, x6 = x3 - 93, and rewrite Eq. ( 2 ) in the
state equation form by noting that f = (xl, x2,x,) and
The geometric and inertia parameters of PUMA 560
x = (xi, ...,
x2i), i = 1, 2, 3:

related to the first three joints and links are listed

in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. See also Figures 1 3
and 2. It is noted that the inertia parameterslisted k = f(x) + z gi(P)wi (7)
in Table 2, including the reflectedmotor inertias, i= 1
are computed from actual measurements and from given
design drawings and data in order to conform to the The content of the nonlinear functions f(x) and gi(ii)
strutural reality of PUMA 560 shown in Figure 2. For in the general equation, Eq. (7), becomes clear when
more details on these calculations, see [ll]. we write the equation in component form:

Table 2. PUMA 560 Inertia Parameters. (For first three joints/links.)

REFLECTED
MOTOR
CENTER OF M A S S MASS RADIUS OF GYRATION INERTIA
LINK - - -
i zi(cm) g.s2/cm xi(cm)
yi(cm) k2xx.(cm2) (cm2)
k2 k2zz.(cm2)
I YYi I Iai(g.cm.s21

1 0 3.89 30.88
13.21 1816.3 151.93 1811.13 7916.66

-32.89 2 0.5 20.38 595.7 22.8 1355.64 1513.63 24073.73

3 -2.04 0.37 -1.37 5.11 151.48 155.23 20.68 5939.97

1682
 x2

x3

x4
x5 a3c1c23 + d4c1s23 + a2C1C2 - d3S1
6' a s c+ d s s
3 1 23 4 1 23 + a2S1C2 + d3C1

-a3S23 + d4c23 - a2S2

n
This equation is the general forward kinematic solu-
tion for end effector position in the task space a s a
function of joint variables for the PUMA 560 robot
arm, as it is also shown in [ 9 1 .

Eqs. (7-8) is the dynamiccontrol model for PUMA

560 with task or output given by Eq. ( 9 ) .

4. Nonlinear Feedback for PUMA 560

Let us assume, following our theory outlined in

[5-81 that, for PUMA 560, there exist (i) a nonlinear
feedback w = a(x) + B(x)v where B(x) is invertible,
and (ii) a diffeomorphic transformation T(x) such
that, after the nonlinear feedback and diffeomorphic
transformation, the new system is linear in the
, 3 3 I Brunovsky canonical form and theoutputs are decoupled.

The required nonlinear feedback is:

~3 3 I w = a(x) + E(X)V

The specific forms o f Di, Di*and Di'k for

PUMA 560 restricted to motion of $he firs2 three
joints are given in the previous section.
The "general positioning task" or "trajectory
following task" equation which, in our case, is equiv-
alent to the "system output"y(%) is given by and the required diffeomorphic transformation is:

DRIVE TRAIN - JOINT 2 DRIVE TRAIN - JOINT 3 DRIVE TRAIN - JTS 4,5,6

JOINT 2 MOTOR INhER LINK

J O l h T 5 BEVEL

JOlhl615~1
J O I N T 515501

Figure 2. PUMA 560 Drive Mechanism

1653
 Next we show that this (a, 6, T) will convert the
original arm dynamics into the Brunovsky canonical form

- 1
where
1
~ 0 1 0 0 0 0
where Jh is theJacobian matrix of h(21,22,23), 0 0 0 0 0 0
D ( % ) and p(x) are defined previously, and where we
introduced the following notations: z3! 0 0 0 1 0 0
z =
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
z5

6
' I
' A =
~ 0 0 0 0 0
i 0

lX61
with
---
a J l l a J 1 2 aJ13
axi axi axi

-aJh
= ---
a J 2 1 a J 2 2 aJ23
i = 1, 2, 3
B =
axi

and Lf is the Lie derivative Lfh = If, h] =

af ah
ax
-
ax
f - - h with f and h definedin Eqs. ( 8 and 9).

Instead of verifying a set of complicatedcondi-

tions outlined in [61 to see that there indeed exist a
nonlinear feedback w = a(x) + B(x)v and a diffeo-
morphic transformation T(x) for the PUMA 560 robot arm
dynamic equations to be feedback-linearized and simul- -lIn other words, veri_fy that 7' T,(f + pa)
taneously output decoupled, we would like to present , = T,(gg) T and h = h 0 T.
0

here a more direct proof. We first find the required denotes the differential of the C" mapping T,
(a, 6, T) via the algorithm proposedin Chen's an; " o " denotes the composition of mappings.) The
dissertation [ 6 1 : verification is done by carrying out the following
straightforward computations:

and
dhl

dLfhl

dh2

dLfh2
dh3

dLfh 3
1684
 i2h
f l 1 L2h
f l 1 where r 1

This new linear and output decoupled system is

shown schematically as block BCLS in Figure 3. Note
L2h '
I
that linearization accomplished by nonlinear feedback
is an "external linearization" as opposed to the con-
ventional "internal linearization" (Taylor series
expansion). That is, the nonlinear character o f the
original system is not changed here by any approxima-
tion. Therefore, system linearization by nonlinear
-1
Thus, we have i' T
,
( f + pa) 0 T feedback can be called "exact linearization''in acon-
Similarly, trol sense. Note also that the exact overall system
linearization and output decoupling bynonlinear feed-
0 0 0 back and diffeomorphic transformationproduces an
overall linear system which is unstable since each
1 0 0 linear subsystem hasdouble poles at the origin.
/o 0 0
g . ~ = i = i10 1 0 5. Stabilization and Optimal Error Correction

As outlined in [ 5 - 8 1 , we first stabilize the new

open loop linear and decoupled system. Then, to
render the stabilized system robustrelative to deter-
ministic uncertainties in machine and task model
parameter values, we add an optimal error-correcting
control loop to each individual (linear and decoupled)
L L subsystem.
h2 -1 Stabilization
n
dLfh2 Stabilization is accomplished by addinga linear
feedback loop F (a PDcontroller) to the system and
dh3 assigning the poles arbitrarily. As l o n g as F is a
dL h constant block-diagonal matrix, the overall system
i
f 3 will remain an output decoupled linear system what we
call L 6 D Block in Figure 3. For the new feedback
loop we have 7 = v - Fz, and Eqs. (12, 13) become:

0 1 y = cz (17)
i o 0 Thus, the new system (L 6 D block in Figure 3 ) can be
1 considered to be three independent subsystems. Each
LO O has the following secondorder form:

Iz2i-11
,-. yi = [ 1 01 1 for i = 1,2,3
So both < = T,(gB) o T
-1
and h = h 0 T
-1
hold.
more details on this direct proof see [ 1 4 ] .
For Lz2i J
(19)

Thus, the nonlinear feedback and diffeomorphic It is noted that the damping ratio5 and natural fre-
transformation, Eqs. ( 1 0 and 111, apply to the PUMA quency % of this second order system are s o that
560 robot arm, and convert the nonlinear dynamic sys- ,'u = fil, 2cwn = fi2.
tem, Eq. ( 8 ) , with task, Eq. ( 9 1 , into the Brunovsky
canonical form, Eq. (12), with simultaneous output
decoupling, Eq. (13). We can consider Eqs. (18-19) as the new mathematical
model of the realsystem which is now externally (or
As a matter of fact, the system described by Eqs. exactly) linearized, output decoupled and stabilized. Let
(12 and 13) consists of three (i=1,2,3) independent the output errorei for each decoupled subsystem be
subsystems of the following form denoted as follows:

(14)
(20)
yi = [ 1 01 z i (15)

1685
 Figure 3 . New Dynamic Control Method: Nonlinear Feedback with Optimal Error
Correcting Loop

where superscript "d" indicates "desired"or model From the well-known optimal linear control theory
quantities; the same variables without superscript "d" the optimal correction is
are the real (or measured) variables.
-1
Avi = -R biP(t)ei(t), where
From Eqs. (18-20) we then have:
r -l

1 1 + f12 ($.-$.)
A(vi-vf) = (y.-yd) 1 d 1 + fil(yi-yi).
d
p 1 2 p221
That is is a positive solution of the Riccati equation:
v. = bi2 + Fi2ei2 + fileil P(t) = -P(t)Ai - AiP(t) + P(t)biR-'biP(t) - Q

or with P(T) = S.
We consiaer the steady state (t + m) solution o t
the Riccati equation. This gives:

Wvo = -R-'b!Pei(t) (23)

Aiei + biAvi. (21)

This last equation is the error stateequation f o r

each externally (or exactly) linearized, output where
decoupled and stabilized subsystem.
P12 = -R fi2 2 R&, + QllR-'
Error Optimization

We introduce an optimal error-correcting control Gl-Q22)R-1

loop by minimizing the followingcost function for
Avi defined in Eq. ( 2 1 ) :
Our new strategy for dynamic control of robot
T arms is summarized in block diagram form in Figure 3 .

J(AV~) = jo AviRbvidt +
It contains three major steps.

(i) Convert the original nonlinear robot arm

control dynamics into an externally l i n -
+ ei(T)'Sei(T) earized and simultaneously output decou-
pled system by using the required non-
linear feedback and diffeomorphic
where R = positive definite matrix transformations.
Q = positive semidefinite matrix (ii) Stabilize the externally linearized and
S = positive semidefinite matrix simultaneously output decoupled system by
T = terminal time. designing a linear error correction PD
controller for each individual (decoupled)
and the mark denotes transpose. subsystem.
 (iii) Render the control robust versus uncer-
tainties in machine and task model param-
eter values by adding an optimal error-
correcting loop to each individual (decou-
pled and linear) subsystem.
6. Computer Simulations
Extensive computer simulations are being car-
ried out to evaluate the performance of our new
dynamic control method schematically shown in Figure 3
for the PUMA 560 robot arm. The simulations are aimed
at answering the following question: how stable and
robust is the new dynamic control method versus model
imperfections and other causal uncertainties? It is
noted that the nonlinear feedback is essentially based
on robot arm and load (geometric and inertia) param-
eters the knowledge of which is typically approxima-
tive only.
The computer simulations are based on the fol-
lowing procedure: use of a nominal set of parameter
values in the nonlinear feedback law, and use of an
assigned set of parameter values(different from the
nominal set of values) in computing the "real" robot
arm dynamics. In particular, the initial conditions
are set away from the trajectory to betracked, the
load in the robot hand and dynamicprojection func-
tions are different from thenominal values by a given
percent, and the available control torque or force is
set lower than the assumed nominal value by a given
percent. This last difference was designed to compen-
sate for uncertainties in joint drive friction.
It is anticipated that thecomputer simulations
of PUMA 560 control will show results similar to the
ones described in [5-81 related to thecontrol of the
JPL-Stanford electric arm.
7. Conclusions
Nonlinear feedback with optimal error correct-
ing loop is basicallya computational scheme to be
implemented in the real-timecontroller by using digi-
tal computers in the real-time control loop. The com-
putational burden for a 3 DOF case does not seem to be
overwhelming; less than 300 multiplications and less
than 300 additions are required forour control method
applied to PUMA 560 when its motion is restricted to
the first three joints. When the real-time computa-
tional burden increases, e.g. for 6 DOF motion or for
the control of a dual-arm system, the use of parallel
computing hardware-software architectures can be
investigated.
A major new teature of our dynamic control method
is that theoptimal error correction loop directly
operates on the task level andnot on the joint servo
control level. The task level errors are then
decomposed by the nonlinear gain matrix B(x) into
joint force or torque drive commands as schematically
shown in Figure 3. Note also that the a(x) compensat-
ing vector and the B(x) gain matrix in the nonlinear
feedback equation, see Eq. ( l o ) , do not change from task
to task, unless the load carried by the robot end
effector is changing drasticallyrelative to a nominal
value assumed in the design. In that case the changes
in the a(x) vector and B(x) natrix can be carried
out by using straightforward analytic formulas which can
be found in [lo]. Consequently, the basic control
system parameters in our dynamic control method do not
need readjustment from task to task. In that sense our
control method is "intelligent" since it is capa- ble of
directly responding to changing task commands.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by theNational Science
Foundation under grants DMC-8309527-01, ECS-8017184-01
and INT-8201554.
References
[l] Freund, E. (1977). A Nonlinear Control Concept
For Computer Controlled Manipulators.
Proceedings of IFAC Symposium on
Multivariable Technological Systems,
Fredericton, Canada.
[2] Freund, E. (1982). Fast Nonlinear Control with
Arbitrary Pole Placement for Industrial
Robots and Manipulators, The International
Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 1, no. 1,
the MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[3] Lentini, D., Nicolo, F., Nicosia, S., Vecettio,
L. (1980). Decoupling and Nonlinearities
Compensation in Robot Control Systems,
Report 80-08, Institute of Automation,
University of Rome, Italy.
[4] Nicolo, F., Nicosia, S., Dynamic Control of
Industrial Robots. Proceedings of 5th
Polish-Italian Conference on Systems Theory,
Economics Man. Tech.
[5] Tarn, T.J., Bejczy, A.K., Isidori, A., Chen,
Y.L. (1984). Nonlinear Feedback in Robot
Arm Control, Proceedings of 23rd IEEE Con-
ference on Decision and Control, Las Vegas,
Nevada.
[6] Chen, Y.L. (1984). Nonlinear Feedback and
Computer Control of Robot Arms.
Dissertation, Department of Systems Science
and Mathematics, Washington University,
St. Louis, MO.
[7] Bejczy, A.K., Tarn, T.J., Chen, Y.L. (1985).
Proceedings, IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, St. Louis, MO.
[8[ Bejczy, A.K., Tarn, T.J., Yun, X. (1985).
Robust Robot Arm Control with Nonlinear
Feedback, Proceedings of IFAC Symposium o n
Robot Control (SYROCO '85), Barcelona, Spain.
[9] Paul, R.P.(1981). RoDot Manipulators:
Mathematics, Programming and Control. The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[lo] Bejczy, A.K. (1974). Robot Arm Dynamics and
Control, JPL TM 33-669.
[ll] Tarn, T.J., Bejczy, A.K., Han, S., Yun, X.,
Inertia Parameters of PUMA 560 Robot Arm,
Department of Systems Science and Mathema-
tics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
Robotics Laboratory Report, SSM-RL-85-01,
September, 1985.
[ 1 2 ] Tarn, T.J., Bejczy, A.K., Yun, X., Dynamic
Equations for PUMA 560 Robot Arm, Department
of Systems Science and Mathematics,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO.,
Robotics Laboratory Report, SSM-RL-85-02,
September 1985.
[131 Bejczy, A.K., Lee, S., Robot Arm Dynamic Model
Reduction for Control, Proceedings, IEEE
Control Decision Conference, San Antonio,
TX., December 1983.
[14] Tarn, T.J., Bejczy, A.K., Yun, X., Nonlinear
Feedback for PUMA 560 Robot Arm, Department
of Systems Science and Mathematics,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO.,
Robotics Laboratory ReportSSM-RL-85-03,
October 1985.

1688