0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

31 просмотров9 страницOct 11, 2012

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

31 просмотров9 страницAttribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

645-653, 1996

Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All tights reserved 0967~0661/96 $15.00 + 0.00

PII:SO967-0661(96)00046-9

Chi-Cheng Cheng and Cheng-Yi Chen

Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen Universiry, Kaohsiung, 80424 Taiwan, Republic qf China (chengcc@cc.nsysu.edu.tw)

(Received

January

1995;

infinalfotm

December

1995)

Overhead crane systems are widely used for material transportation in many industrial fields. However, undesired oscillation can always be found during the moving process, especially at the end location of the transport. The swing may extend the carrying time and cause safety problems. In order to achieve small swing angles, and also to incorporate the potential uncertainty property of the system, a robust controller has to be developed. Here, a controller, which combines a feedback linearization approach and a time delay control scheme, is chosen. The time delay control is applied to complete the feedback linearization for a nonlinear system under the influence of uncertainty. By suitable definition of system outputs, input/output de-coupling presents a direct relationship between the system outputs and inputs. Thus, robust cancellation of the uncertainty, and insertion of the designated dynamics can be accomplished. Encouraging control performance is shown in the results of a computer simulation.

Abstract:

Keywords: Feedback linearization; nonlinear control; time delay; transportation control; uncertainty.

1. INTRODUCTION Overhead crane systems have been widely used for material transportation in many industrial fields, due to their low cost, easy assembly and maintenance. However, severely nonlinear properties bring about undesired swings, especially at take-off and arrival. Most overhead crane systems belong to the category of incomplete control systems, which only allow a limited number of inputs to control more outputs. Such uncontrolled oscillations cause both stability This drawback strongly and safety problems. constrains the operational efficiency and the application domain. Besides, an overhead crane system may experience a range of parameter variations. Different loading is the most common Therefore, a robust and delicate condition. controller, which is able to diminish these swing phenomena unfavorable and manage uncertainty problems, needs to be developed. A good control strategy will not only enhance both efficiency

64.5

and safety, but will also make the system more applicable to other engineering scopes. Recently, anti-swing control for overhead crane systems has become one of the most popular research topics. Basically, two control schemes, open-loop control and closed-loop control, have been investigated. The open-loop control method only suggests how the cart should move in order not to induce oscillations at the termination point (e.g., (Aspinwall, 1980; Starr, 1985; Strip, 1988; Meckel and Seering, 1985; Karnopp, et al., 1992)). However, some differences exist between the ideal model and the actual system, and an overhead crane system has to encounter disturbances from its environment in the real world. Inaccurate modeling always induces practical control problems. Therefore, satisfactory performance may not be achieved by applying these open-loop control strategies to an actual system. The closed-loop methods, given the control criteria, e.g., loading

646

conditions, position requirement, and swing angles, use feedback techniques to implement different control strategies. Several control structures have been studied. Sakawa and Nakazumi (1985), and Sato and Sakawa (1988) presented hybrid control algorithms for rotary crane systems. A completely controllable state feedback method was developed for an overhead crane with a fixed cable length by Moustefa and Ebeid (1988). Auernig and Troger (1987), and Hara, et al. (1989) looked at this problem from the optimal control point of view. All the control methods mentioned above ignore possible uncertainty problems. An adaptive control scheme using feedback linearization and parameter estimation was presented by Boustany and D'Andre'a-Novel (1992). However, control performance was greatly limited by the convergent speed of the estimation algorithm. Furthermore, reversed behavior was usually observed at the beginning stage of control. In order to overcome the strongly nonlinear properties and possible uncertainty problems in the system, feedback linearization with a time delay control algorithm is chosen in this paper. The feedback linearization transforms complicated nonlinear systems into simplified equivalent systems through coordinate transformation. Controller design is thus based on familiar linear control strategies by cancelling undesired nonlinear parts. Although the method is potentially applicable to most nonlinear systems, poor control performance ahvays results from uncertainties or unmodeled dynamics. The time delay control utilizes state information with a small time delay, to estimate the unknown dynamics. It has been shown (YoucefToumi and Ito, 1990) that this control scheme produces good disturbance rejection characteristics. The combination of feedback linearization and time delay control will be developed for an overhead crane system to achieve a swing-free response under the influence of uncertainty.

Xp

u~

/ / / /

~ - - - - - ~ ' - / / / ~\/ /

FA u

lwinch

/ / / / /

G

~mg Fig. 2. Cart-pendulum model with a variable pendulum length. system because it has a smaller number of actuators than the number of controlled variables. In order to simplify the modeling complexity, several assumptions have first to be made: (1) Plastic deformation in the system is ignored. (2) The cable is treated as a weightless rigid body. (3) The moment of inertia of the load is ignored and the load becomes a point mass. Therefore, the overhead crane system can be simplified to a cart-pendulum model with a variable pendulum length, as shown in Fig. 2. Ul is the force exerted by the horizontal actuator and u2 is the applied torque from a rotational actuator acting on a winch with a radius R. The masses of the cart and the load are denoted by M and m. xp is the horizontal displacement and 0 indicates the inclination swing angle. L represents the cable length and J stands for the moment of inertia of the winch. The kinetic energy and the potential energy can easily be obtained as follows:

"2 1 T = 1~MYCp+~-m[(x"r +/~sinO+LOcos 0) 2

2. DERIVATION OF THE DYNAMIC MODEL A two-dimensional overhead crane system, which has the capabilities of both traversing and hoisting, is considered in this research. Most crane systems used for loading and unloading at a dock or for assembly in a factory have similar structures.(Fig. 1) This kind of crane system has two actuators, responsible for horizontal and vertical motions, respectively. Nevertheless, three controlled variables, horizontal and vertical displacements as well as the swing angle, need to be equally considered. This system is an incomplete control

V = - m g L . cos 0.

(2)

Controller Design for an Overhead Crane System The dynamic equations can therefore be derived by applying the Lagrangian approach and are described by M P

J s i n O ~ _ u . sinO

647

R2

- 1+ 7

u2

msin 0J?p + (m +-~T)L = m(L0~+ gcos 0) - 1 us (3) cos 0p + L 0 = -2/~b - g . s i n 0. Define the state vector x as [xp L 0 fp L ~T and the input vector u as [u] U2] T. The dynamic equations can be converted to a nonlinear state-space representation, i.e.,

"~61 = f 6 l +G6lU2xl

(4)

Time delay control (TDC), presented by YoucefToumi and his colleagues (Youcef-Toumi and Ito, 1990; Youcef-Toumi and Wu, 1992), is designed for the control of systems with unknown dynamics and disturbances. This approach uses past observation of the system state and control input to calculate the current control action that can quickly cancel the unknown dynamics and the unexpected disturbance, simultaneously. Although the time delay control sacrifices a little gain margin caused by the inserted time delay, this method gains good immunity to uncertainties and disturbances. Hence, the time delay control technique can be used to achieve input/output linearization without knowing the exact model dynamics. The proposed method combines systematic design of feedback linearization for nonlinear systems with the fast convergent property of the time delay control for unmodeled dynamics. Consider a square nonlinear system (number of control inputs equal to the outputs) described by the following nonlinear differential equations y=h(x),

&=f(x)+G(x)u

where

p

f=

Q

mMR 2( LO ~+gcos 0)

(5)

QL 0 0 0 mR 2 + J Q - m R 2 sin 0 Q -(mR 2 + J)Lcos 0 L 0 0 0 mR sin O Q - ( m R sin 2 0+ MR) Q -LRmsinOcos O

where x is an n 1 state vector, u=[u~ u2 ... u,,]T is an m x 1 control input, y is an mx 1 output of interest, and G=[g~ g2 "" g,~],f h are, nm, nl, ml nonlinear functions of states in a smooth vector field, respectively. Now, the system output can be differentiated until control inputs appear.

v (')

G=

~i

(6)

as

Q = M ( m R 2 + J ) + m J s i n 2 @.

3. CONTROL LAW The feedback linearization technique has been described in detail in many books on nonlinear control (e.g. (Isidori, 1989; Slotine and Li, 1991)). The central idea of feedback linearization is to algebraically transform an original nonlinear system into an equivalent model of a simpler form, and cancel existing nonlinearities into a fully or partially linear one, so that linear control techniques can be applied. Although the method has systematic design procedures, an exact model of a nonlinear system is not always available, and the measurement of states is sometimes difficult, As the result, feedback linearization faces limitations in actual applications.

= a(x)+B(x)u.

L

(7)

It is considered that the value of a(x) in equation (7) at the present time t is very close to that at time t-2 in the past for a small time delay L,

a ( x , t ) = a ( x , t _ A) = (r) . ~ - B ( x ' t ) t - 2 " u t - x . -. t-

(8)

Thus, the time delay control law of the input/output linearization can be obtained as follows

/4 t ~. n - I t - Y'(r)t + j~ "/dr - ~ + [ - 3.

vr ] ,

(9)

648

Chi-Cheng Cheng and Cheng-Yi Chen linearization is straightforward. described below. The process is

where /~ is an m x m constant matrix to be ~,(r) determined, J,-~ is the rth derivative ofy at time t-2, and u, and u,.x indicate the control input at time t and t-2, respectively, v, is the reference input at time t. Since L is a small time delay, it can be assumed to be just one sampling interval. The above equation can be rewritten as a discrete form: l/(k)

-----/~-1 [ _ y ( r ) ( k -

The relative degree of the system is defined by differentiating the system output till the control input appears. After differentiating the system outputs twice, the following equation can be obtained.

F Jsin2O

- M R sin01

-OSO /'/2

where k denotes the time at the kth sampling instant. Therefore, by suitable selection of /~ and with a sufficiently small time delay, the nonlinear system (5) can be input/output linearized. The stabilization condition has also been investigated by the same researchers. They found that the choice o f / ~ for stability has to satisfy III - B ( k ) B -1 II- a _<1, where < k is less than a positive integer N.

JSiQ__COSO

-T

(12)

Hence, the relative degree of the system is 4. Because the rank of the control distribution matrix is one, the control inputs u~ and u2 will emerge dependently. Therefore, a new control input needsto be determined. Let U2 be the new control input of the system. Equation (12) then reduces to

4. CONTROLLER DESIGN In this section, the control law derived above will be used to solve the control problems of the overhead crane system. By a suitable definition of system outputs, input/output de-coupling presents the direct relationship between the system outputs and inputs. Thus, robust cancellation of the system uncertainty and insertion of the designated dynamics can be accomplished. At the same time, a control goal that accurately moves an object from one point to another, but without extending the carrying time by doing another process, can be achieved.

LL}h2(x)J-Lu= 2]

where U 2 = - J sinOul

MR bl _ M R si _____0 n and

b2 -

(13)

+U 2

_h//Rcos 0 O

A little cancellation is conducted to simplify the above representation by letting Y2 =w~ because of complexity of the L ~ h ( x ) . The equation (12) can thus easily be formulated as the following equation:

F 1 F- gsinol

L "i)2 ] =/

L 0

Fsinl

(14)

The control inputs of the overhead crane system shown in Fig. 2 are the force and the torque applied to the platform and the winch, respectively. The control goals concerned are positioning the suspended object along the horizontal and vertical directions, and suppressing its swing angle during the process of moving. Thus, the overhead crane system can be viewed as an MIMO system. In general, the input/output linearization method can be directly applied to decouple square systems into a direct relationship between system inputs and outputs. Examining the actual system, two output functions are defined by absolute horizontal position and vertical position of the load given by

J L 1 3

The equation above appears as the standard form of dynamic extension. It will be differentiated twice by defining w~, w 2 = ~ig, and ~i,2 as the states and control inputs of dynamic extension. The system dynamics can then be decoupled into the following representation:

y~4) I

where

[a'(x'w)l+B(x'w)Fu' ] 0

3

Lff 2

(15)

Y=

y,]=h(x)=Fxpcost~ ] +Lsin01 Y2 L L

I-(wl - g ) (11)

a(x, w) = /

sinO]

cos o

J

Since the output functions of the system have been selected, controller design using input/output

If B(x,w), the decoupling matrix, is nonsingular, then equation (15) is the standard form for

Controller Design for an Overhead Crane System input/output linearization. However, conditions exist for B(x,w) becoming invertible. They are L 0, 0 ~ x]2, and w~g. Fortunately, these conditions are always relevant to actual overhead cranes. The length of the rope, or the distance between the winch and center of the load, can never be zero. The swing angle of load is not expected to sway to 90 , and the value of w,, the vertical acceleration, is much smaller than gravity g. As a result of the above analysis, the original system has relative degree 4, and 6 states. By undergoing dynamic extensions twice, one has relative degree 8, and 8 states, where the relative degree of the system is equal to the number of the states. Therefore, the system can be input/output linearized and decoupled to a completely controllable form of linear system, i.e., the zero dynamics is never presented with the system. In controller design for an overhead crane system, the type of controller for asymptotic output tracking is adopted such that the suspended object can be controlled into a desired smooth trajectory. Now, let the desired trajectory for tracking be [Xd, Zd ]~, and define

649

Since system nonlinearities mainly appear in equations (13) and (17), the time delay technique is then applied to them. To estimate the control distribution b5 in equation (13), the swing angle of the load is assumed to be small so that it can be simplified to b2 =-R/(mR 2+ j ) , which is only related to the mass of the load. Thus, considering that the overheadcrane operates in known loading ranges, and the constraint of input/output linearization using time delay control is /~ >_b2/2, /~ can easily be selected. Moreover, the constraint of input/output linearization using time delay control in MIMO is B(x) in equation (15) is estimated by supposing that the swing angle of the load is very small and the maximum length of the rope is known. Hence, /~ can be chosen as a constant diagonal matrix, and its diagonal elements are expressed as (/~11, /~22) to satisfy the above criterion. Thus the controller for input/output linearization using time delay control can be concluded as follows, and its block diagram is depicted in Fig. 3.

IIBi~-~-lll<a<l.

tldd-----[XdZd d Xd Zd Zd Zd Z'd]T.

(16)

~b2(k)= *b2( k - l ) +/~;) [v 2 -y24)( k - l ) ] ~i'I (k) = w2(k) U2(k ) = U 2( k - 1)+/~ -1 x [-J)2 (k-1)+w, (k)] (19)

The tracking error, 9 , is defined as the difference between the desired trajectory Pa and the output, i.e., p-/ad. The controller for input/output linearization can be designed by letting equation (I 5) be equal to [v, v2 ]v. Therefore,

u: (k )=U2 ( k )+ flu~

where fl= ( X - x p ) J / ( M R Z ) .

(17) where

overhead

Combining equation (17) with the system dynamic equation (4), gives a stable system with the decoupled tracking error described by

~y,...,y'y

Fig. 3. Block diagram for an overhead crane control system using linearization and time delay control.

.."

/~l = 95

~/5

,,1."

/~2 = 93

l"/6

/~3 = 94

Z ]"/7

(18)

~-- 98 ~--"9 6 =

To maintain small swing angles during transport, the desired trajectory should be selected to be as smooth as possible. Thus, the overhead crane can

97

650

30

move smoothly to minimize the swing angle especially on departure and arrival. A desired trajectory using the time function can be established. The desired trajectory is defined as ( X d , Z d ) , such that the boundary conditions, "~'d=J(d=)(d = X~4~=0, 2'a =Za =2"~=Z<a =0, have to be fulfilled. In 4~ accordance with these conditions, Newton's interpolation method can be used to generate the difference table to find the desired time functions:

=1"( 6 t s / 12 420t6 540/7 315ts

- - ~

Z (m)

ed

10 [ ---Am_ .near~zedtim e _ -dalY J

10

time

20

30

70/9

(sec)

Xa(t)

- - ~ - -

ID T~

Ts

420t6

T7

TS --~ TS

T~

70t 9

)D O<_t<T t>_T

0.06

0,04

(a)

.... )L O<t<T T7 T9 t>T (20) where T is the final time when the overhead crane has reached the target point, and D and L are the total distances moved in horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.

Za(t)=r( 126t~j IL T~

--~-T6

540t 7 315t s

0,02

(rad)

0.00 t

-0.02 -- - ---,dkr----

linearlzed

I~ne arlz4~l ad Ikp IivQ

-0.04

-0.06

"l 10 time

t 20

J 30

(sec)

5. SIMULATION STUDIES Three types of the controller, namely input/output linearization, adaptive control using feedback linearization and estimation design (developed by Boustany and D'Andre'a-Novel (1992)), and the input/output linearization using time delay control proposed in this paper, were applied to an overhead crane using computer simulation. The simulation basically corresponds to a medium-sized crane that can be found in industry, and which is characterized by M = 5000 kg J = 50 kg.m z g = 9.81 m . s -2 m = 0-10000 kg R = 0.4 m L = 0.5-20 m

(b)

Fig. 4. Control performance with an actual loading of 8000kg: (a) vertical trajectory of the load, (b) the response of the swing angle. the dynamics of [ and 0 experience constant disturbances of 1 rnds z and 0.1 rad/s 2, respectively, when the simulation time was between 5 and 10 seconds. All three controllers achieved good trajectoryfollowing performance in the X-direction for the first two cases. This is not surprising, because of the perpendicular relationship between the horizontal motion and the load weight. However, the feedback linearization approach due to the inexact cancellation of system uncertainty corrupted and moved the suspended objected to the wrong positions (Figs 4a and 5a). Although the adaptive control using feedback linearization and parameter estimation could correctly accomplish the task, its efficiency was limited by bounded convergent rates. Nevertheless, the feedback linearization using time delay control perceived the outputs and the inputs of the system at one time step in the past, and determined the control action that should be commanded at the present time. This control technique appeared to be superior to the other two methods. As to the responses of the swing angle, the three controllers behaved similarly, as shown in Figs 4b and 5b. It seemed that the pure input-output linearization in Fig. 5b achieved better results, despite the failure of the trajectory control in the Zdirection. Since the vibration angles were kept small enough through the transport process, cancellation of

In the third controller, the control distribution parameters were estimated as /~ = 0.0017, /~, = 5x10 -~, /~22= 1.25. The controller design was based on the expected loading, 5000 kg. The desired trajectory moving from the starting position, (0, 0, 10 m) to the target point, (50 m, 0, 20 m), was given by two ninth-order time functions. During the simulation, the Runge-Kutta method was used to solve the model equations, and a uniform step size of 0.01 second was chosen. In order to verify the robust properties of the controller, three cases of system uncertainty were examined. They are (1) actual loading is 8000 kg which is heavier than the rated value (Fig. 4), (2) actual loading is 8000 kg and parameters o f f in equation (4) are increased by 100%, (Fig. 5), and (3)

80

.

651

50

P

4O

60

30 X~ Z (m)

40

...,,i=.~ ~nllrized+ldeptive

gnellrized *lime dqllm y

(m) 2o

lO

20_ 0 10

time

20

(sec)

30

lO

20

time (see)

I 30

(a)

0.03 2.0 -

(a)

- bne~rized ~ne=,,zed=daptJve

~eaflZed +~ 8 d~y

(red)

X-X d

-0.010'0

" "'"l

*

,,'

----

(m)

Itflelrize d

O.S

-- * -0.02 -0.03 11

time

~ + 20

(see) I

0.0, -05

o

310

lO

time

2" (b)

(sec)

3~

Fig. 5. Control performance with an actual loading of 8000kg and parameters o f f in equation (4) increased by lOON: (a) vertical trajectory of the load, (b) the response of the swing angle. the nonlinearities was almost achieved. The estimation algorithms of the other two control methods, trying to determine these unknown uncertainties and dynamics, degraded the angle responses due to coupling effects, and produced larger vibration amplitudes. Therefore, pleasing performance can be expected in the swing angle. In the third case, shown in Fig. 6, constant disturbances were directly embedded in the system within a specific time interval. The first two methods failed to maintain the overhead crane on the track when the system encountered such unknown disturbances. However, those unknown amounts could be quickly estimated by the time delay controller and exact nonlinearity cancellation was generally achieved. Hence, satisfactory control performance was found in both directions. Despite not adjusting the controller gains or identifying the system parameters, performance of this controller was almost independent of the unmodeled dynamics. Besides, equation (19) indicates simple structure of this controller, and the computational load appears extremely economical. Nevertheless, there was always a startup period where the error was relatively large. This is because the system adopted a backward difference estimator, and was initially at rest, such that the derivatives of the outputs changed rapidly when motion commenced.

(m)

,'

,i

~me l f ~zecl*=d&plive

knel~,zed+time detay

I 0

f~'

time

"~

.d 20

(see)

30

(c)

0.15 - 0.10 0.05 0

(red)

O.OOA

?

time

I,ne=r,zea

knesrlzed a dapt Ne Kneel;zeal+time delay

7 i

-0.05

-O10

2O

3O

(sec)

(d)

Fig. 6. Control performance with a constant disturbance within 5 and 10 seconds: (a) desired horizontal trajectory, (b) horizontal tracking error, (c) vertical tracking error, (d) the response of the swing angle.

652

0.01

Chi-Cheng Cheng and Cheng-Yi Chen process and overcome possible loading uncertainty. This control scheme combines the systematic design of feedback linearization for nonlinear systems, and the fast convergent property of time delay control for unknown dynamics. Simulation results indicate promising and robust control performance, even for different loading conditions and uncertain parameter problems. Compared with a pure feedback linearization method and feedback linearization with self-tuning control, the proposed approach also showed satisfactory transient responses and excellent steady-state properties. However, two limitations to using this approach exist. The first is that the decoupling matrix in feedback linearization has to satisfy the constraints of a finite, known relative degree of the system, and stable internal dynamics. The second is that measurement of state derivatives, which may be difficult in practice, will be a major obstacle to its use in the real world.

X-

(m)X'b.oo

-0.01 0

I 10

, time

I 20

30

(see)

(a)

0.2

0.1

Z-Z

(m)

O0

REFERENCES

-0.1 , [ , [ b I

10 time

20

30

(sec)

Aspinwall, D.M. (1980). Acceleration profiles for minimizing residual response. Journal of

Co)

Fig. 7. Control performance with a measurement noise: (a) horizontal tracking error, Co) vertical tracking error. Measurement noises usually exist in realistic applications. White Gaussian noises with a standard deviation or= 0.1 were added to the measurements of 2, X, and 2". Therefore, the noise in the estimation of the differential terms would be enlarged 100 times by the backward difference algorithm. Simulations were conducted by adding a low-pass filter, 300/(s+300), immediately after the measurements. Results shown in Fig. 7 still demonstrate a stable system, and maintain good control performance. The input/output linearization using time delay control successfully demonstrated a promising control technique for an overhead crane system with uncertainties.

102, 3-6. Auernig, J.W. and H. Troger (1987). The optimal control of overhead cranes with hoisting of the load. Automatica, 23, 437-447. Boustany, F. and B. D'Andre'a-Novel (1992). Adaptive control of non-completely controlled mechanical system using dynamic feedback linearization and estimation design. Interna-

Hara, K., T. Yamamoto, A. Kobayashi and M. Okamoto (1989). Jib crane control to suppress load swing. International Journal of Systems Science, 20, 715-731. Isidori, A., (1989). Nonlinear Control Systems. 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag. Karnopp, B.H., F.E. Fisher and B.O. Yoon (1992). A strategy for moving a mass from one point to another. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 329, 881-892. Meckel, P.H. and W.P. Seering (1985). Minimizing residual vibration for point-topoint motion. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 107, 378-382. Moustefa, K.A.F. and A.M. Ebeid (1988). Nonlinear modeling and control of overhead crane load sway. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 110, 266-271. Sakawa, Y. and A. Nakazumi (1985). Modeling and control of rotary crane. Journal of Dynamic

6. CONCLUSIONS Most overhead crane systems belong to the group of the incomplete control systems. Undesired oscillatory behavior may occur during the control process, due to a smaller number of control efforts than the number of specifications. A control algorithm using feedback linearization with time delay was applied to an overhead crane system, to reduce swing phenomena during the transport

653

Systems, Measurement, and Control, 107, 200206. Sato, K. and Y. Sakawa (1988). Modelling and control of a flexible rotary crane. International Journal of Control, 48, 2085-2105. Slotine, J-J.E. and W. Li (1991). Applied Nonlinear Control, 207-275. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Starr, G.P. (1985). Swing-free transport of suspended objects with a path-controlled robot manipulator. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 107, 97-107.

D.R. (1988). Swing-free transport of suspended objects: a general treatment. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 5, 234-236. Youcef-Toumi, K. and O. Ito (1990). A time delay controller for systems with unknown dynamics. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 112, 112-133. Youcef-Toumi, K. and S.T. Wu (1992). Input/output linearization using time delay control. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 114, 10-19.

Strip,