Comparison of Control Strategies For A Two Degrees of Freedom Robot Manipulator

Comparison of control strategies for
a two degrees of freedom

robot manipulator
Vendel-Szilamér Varró
June 27, 2016

Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Objectives and specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 MODELING OF THE ROBOT MANIPULATOR 6

2.1 Lagrangian dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Euler-Lagrange model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 LINEAR CONTROL 19
3.1 Linear model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 State feedback control with pole placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 State feedback control with Linear Quadratic Regulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4 Observer design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4 NONLINEAR CONTROL 34
4.1 Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2 Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model of the robot manipulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.3 Parallel distributed compensation controller design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.4 Performance guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.5 Observer design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5 TESTING AND VALIDATION 50

5.1 Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS 54
Appendices 55
A Nonlinear model 56
B Linear model and control 58
C Nonlinear control 62
1
List of Figures
1.1 A robot arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 KUKA robot manipulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Schematic representation of a two degree of freedom robot manipulator . . . . 8
2.3 Block diagram of the system given by (2.15) and (2.16) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 Block diagram of the system given by (2.22) and (2.23) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5 Simulation of the system given by (2.22) and (2.23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1 Observer based state feedback control [21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 Trajectories of the closed-loop system without observer using LQR . . . . . . . 29
3.3 Trajectories of the closed-loop system without observer using pole placement . 29
3.4 Trajectories of the closed-loop system with observer using LQR . . . . . . . . 30
3.5 Trajectories of the closed-loop system with observer using pole placement . . . 30
4.1 Global sector nonlinearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.2 Local sector nonlinearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.3 Trajectories of the closed-loop system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.1 KUKA industrial robot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.6 Trajectories of the closed-loop system without and with observer using TS
fuzzy control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
A.1 Models used in simulation of the nonlinear system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

A.2 Simscape model of the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
B.1 Models used in simulation of the linear system without observer . . . . . . . . 58

B.2 Models used in simulation of the linear system with observer . . . . . . . . . . 59
C.1 Models used in simulation of the TS fuzzy system without observer . . . . . . 62
2
C.2 Models used in simulation of the TS fuzzy system with observer . . . . . . . . 63
List of Tables
2.1 Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Parameter values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this thesis is to present and compare the effects of different control
strategies for a generic, two degree of freedom robotic arm. The presented control strategies
include two linear ones, i.e. pole placement and LQR, and a nonlinear one, i.e. Takagi-Sugeno
fuzzy control. The design of the control strategies presented in this thesis require the model
of the robot manipulator. In order to obtain the linear model of the manipulator, the nonlinear
model, which is obtained using Euler-Lagrange approach, is linearized. Observers are designed
for the linear and nonlinear cases. Simulations are performed for the designed controllers on
Matlab and Simulink models. The obtained results are analyzed and compared to each other. A
simulator is built, using the same parameters as the ones used in the nonlinear model. Finally,
simulations are performed, in order to compare the results, and validate the synthesis.
Robot manipulators, referred to as robotic arms, perform operations that require among
others high precision, high speed, continuous work, manipulating heavy payloads or working
in hazardous enviroments [2].
Figure 1.1: A robot arm
Robotic arms have a wide applicability, since they resemble a human arms in many functional
aspects. They are widely used in industrial manufacturing, performing tasks such as pick and
place, assembly operations, drilling, surface finishing, palletizing or welding [3]. The physical
assembly is made of rigid links connected by mobile joints. The type of joint used to connect
two links may be: revolute joint, prismatic joint, spherical joint, cylindrical joint [2]. The end
4
effector is usually a specialized tool, such spray nozzle, drill or gripper. Regarding the con-
troller implemented, usually position control is involved [3]. The most comonly used position
transducers (sensors) are encoders (rotary, longitudinal), limit switches, inductive sensors. The
actuation is usually done by AC or DC motors with speed reductor and speed control, or in
some cases torque control [3].
The structure of the thesis follows the same pattern throughout the main chapters of
the thesis. Each chapter first presents theoretical notions. Based on these, the corresponding
model or controller is implemented. Each chapter is finished with the results of the simulations
performed on the analytical model. The goal of the simulations is to verify, whether the theory
applied is correct. The Testing and validation chapter, gathers the analytical achievements, and
simulates on a model, that is a high-fidelity copy of the actual system, implemented in Sim-
scape.
In Chapter 2 we deduce and verify the dynamic model of the manipulator. Chapter 3
deals with linarization of the model, obtained in the previous chapter, as well as with the im-
plementation of the linear controllers and observers for the system. The obtained controllers
and observers are verified performing simulations. In Chapter 4 we implement the nonlinear
control and observer for the robot arm. Simulations are performed for verification. Chapter 5
contains the description and implementation of the robot arm in Simscape. The controllers and
observers obtained in the former two chapters are verified in this model performing simulations
for the same parameters.
1.1 Objectives and specifications

The objective of this thesis is to implement torque control for a two degree of free-
dom robot manipulator. For the torque control we will implement linear and nonlinear con-
trollers. The linear control strategies include pole placement and LQR, while the nonlinear one
includes Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model. Observers will also be designed for the implemented
control strategies. The parameters of the manipulator were adopted from [1] and are presented
in Table 2.2.
5
Chapter 2
MODELING OF THE ROBOT MANIPULATOR
In this chapter we obtain the Euler-Lagrange nonlinear dynamic model of the robot
arm. The model is then brought to the generic state-space form by compensating the affine
term. Finally, the behavior of the model is simulated for different values of the joint angle
positions.
2.1 Lagrangian dynamics

An essential part, as well as the very first step of controller design is creating a valid
approximation of the relevant aspects of the system’s behavior we are designing a controller
for. Models help better understand the behavior of the system, thus reducing design cost and
the required design time for a controller. By running simulations of the designed controller on a
model, rather than on the actual system, we do not assume the consequences of working outside
of the safe operating limits. As a direct consequence, models also help analyze the system’s
behavior in case of failure or under dangerous conditions.
The modeling phase is followed by the validation of the model with respect to the actual system,
providing a degree of confidence in the model. Validation is done by comparison of the actual
system’s response with the model’s response to certain inputs that excite the system enough to
acquire relevant information about its behavior.
Figure 2.1: KUKA robot manipulator
An industrial robot is presented in Figure 2.1. A manipulator’s movement depend on

a series of different factors, such as: applied torque, own mass of links, position of centers
6
of mass (centroids), length of links, gravitational force and moment of inertia. In order to
control the position of the robot manipulator, we must know its dynamic properties. Based
on this we calculate the right amount of torque (force) needed to be applied. There are two
wide spread ways of obtaining the analytical description of the system, namely the Newton-
Lagrange approach and the Euler-Lagrange approach [4]. The two approaches lead to equivalent
analytical descriptions of the system [5]. The main reason why in this thesis we consider the
Lagrangian (energy based) approach over the Newtonian (force/torque balance based) one is
its simplicity of formulation. This simplicity derives from the fundamental difference between
the two: the former considers all internal and external forces represented by vectors, acting on
the system in a specific coordinate frame, while the latter relies on the least action principle
in a generalized coordinate frame, i.e. between any two points the system follows a path that
minimizes the action [5]. The Euler-Lagrange model considers the multi-part robot body as a
whole, thus constraint forces (internal, conservative, non-dissipative forces) between the parts
are eliminated by default [4]. The Euler-Lagrange approach also provides compact, closed-form
equations, representing explicit input-output relation [4]. The Newton-Lagrange approach may
also be brought to this form, however, it requires recursive evaluation of separate equations and
elimination of internal forces by substitution.
The Lagrangian L(q, q̇) defines the difference between the kinetic energy K(q, q̇) and
the potential energy U (q) of the system with respect to the generalized coordinates and veloci-
ties (q, q̇) [4]:
L(q, q̇) = K(q, q̇) − U (q) (2.1)

The generalized coordinates (q) of an Euler-Lagrange model are the elements of the complete
and proper (independent) set of parameters that define the system configuration with respect to
a reference one [6]. Thus, in case of robot manipulators the generalized coordinates are usually
the joint angle positions. The generalized velocities (q̇ = dtd q) are the time derivatives of the
generalized coordinates. In case of manipulators generalized velocities are usually the angular
velocities. The Euler-Lagrange equation that provides a relation between the structure’s state
and the acting torques, is given by:

d ∂L(q, q̇) ∂L(q, q̇)
− =τ (2.2)
dt ∂ q̇ ∂q
where the joint torques τ are a set of proper inputs separated from constraint forces [6].
In this thesis we will consider the robot manipulator schematically represented in Figure 2.2.
2.2 Euler-Lagrange model

In what follows we will obtain the Euler-Lagrange model of the structure from
Figure 2.2. The notations used and their definitions are presented in Table 2.1.
7
Figure 2.2: Schematic representation of a two degree of freedom robot manipulator
Description Notation
Length of link 1 l1
Length of link 2 l2
Position of center of mass of L1 lc1
Position of center of mass of L2 lc2
Mass of L1 m1
Mass of L2 m2
Moment of inertia of L1 I1
Moment of inertia of L2 I2
Gravitational acceleration g
Angle of L1 q1
Angle of L2 q2
Table 2.1: Notations
Having two degrees of freedom, we have two generalized coordinates [7] chosen as the joint
8
positions (angles of the links): q1 and q2 . Our goal is to obtain the dynamic model of the
manipulator. We verify whether the motion is the one desired by measuring the joint positions.
We manipulate the link’s movement by changing the two input joint torques τ1 and τ2 .
The first step of model building is obtaining the forward kinematic model of the ma-
nipulator from Figure 2.2. The velocity of a point is defined as the distance traveled by the point
over a period of time [8]:
dS
v=
dt
Since the links of the manipulator are rigid bodies rotating around the joints, we are studying a
structure having circular motion. Each point in a link has a constant radius r relative to the axis
of rotation, thus the distance traveled by a point is given as:
S = rq
where q denotes the angle joint position.
The distance traveled by a point along a circular path over a period of time is called tangential
velocity, since its direction is tangent to the circular path of the point, and it is defined as [8]:
dS dq
v= = r = rω
dt dt
dq
ω=
dt
The angular velocity ω is equal in every point of a link (it does not depend on the radius), and
is given by the change of the angle q in time. However the tangential velocity of each point
depends also on its distance from the axis of rotation. If the axis of rotation of a link is not a
fixed one, the velocity of the axis of rotation is also added to the velocity of each point of the
link, like in case of the second link L2 . Another important remark is that the velocity is a vector
quantity (unlike speed, which is a scalar one), having both magnitude and direction. Because
of this, it may be decomposed as a vectorial sum of velocities along the axes:
v = vx + vy
The position (x,y) of the centroids of the two links, as well as their tangential velocities
are obtained as follows:
9
Position and velocity of the first link’s (L1 ) Position and velocity of the first link’s (L1 )
centroid along X-axis: centroid along Y-axis:
−x1 y1
sin(q1 ) = cos(q1 ) =
lc1 lc1
x1 = −lc1 · sin(q1 ) y1 = lc1 · cos(q1 )
vx1 = ẋ 1 = −lc1 · cos(q1 ) · q̇ 1 vy1 = ẏ 1 = −lc1 · sin(q1 ) · q̇ 1
Position and velocity of the second link’s (L2 ) Position and velocity of the second link’s (L2 )
centroid along X-axis measured from the end centroid along Y-axis measured from the end
of the first one: of the first one:
−x2 y2
sin(q1 + q2 ) = cos(q1 + q2 ) =
lc2 lc2
x2 = −lc2 · sin(q1 + q2 ) y2 = −lc2 · cos(q1 + q2 )
vx2 = ẋ 2 = −lc2 · cos(q1 + q2 )· vy2 = ẏ 2 = −lc2 · sin(q1 + q2 )·
· (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 ) · (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )
This is the forward kinematic model, and it can be summarized as:
Position and velocity of the second link’s cen- Position and velocity of the second link’s cen-
troid along X-axis measured from the base: troid along Y-axis measured from the base:
x = −l1 · sin(q1 ) − lc2 · sin(q1 + q2 ) y = l1 · cos q1 − lc2 · cos(q1 + q2 )

vx = ẋ = −l1 · cos(q1 ) · q̇ 1 − vy = ẏ = −l1 · sin(q1 ) · q̇ 1 −
− lc2 · cos(q1 + q2 ) · (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 ) − lc2 · sin(q1 + q2 ) · (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )
Starting from the forward kinematic model obtained above, we compute the kinetic
and potential energies needed in (2.1). The total kinetic energy (Ktotal ) of a link is defined as
the sum of the translational (Ktrans ) and rotational (Krot ) kinetic energies:
1
Ktrans = mv 2
2
1
Krot = Iω 2
2
1
Ktotal = Ktrans + Krot = (mv 2 + Iω 2 )
2
The kinetic energy of the first link (L1 ) is given as:
1 1 1
K1trans (q, q̇) = m1 (vx21 + vy21 ) = m1 lc1
2
(sin2 (q1 ) + cos2 (q1 ))q̇ 21 = m1 lc1
2 2
q̇ 1
2 2 2
1
K1rot (q, q̇) = I1 q̇ 21
2
10
1 2
K1total (q, q̇) = (m1 lc1 + I1 )q̇ 21
2
The kinetic energy of the second link (L2 ) is given as:
1
K2trans (q, q̇) = m2 (vx2 + vy2 ) (2.3)
2
where
2
vx2 = l12 cos2 (q1 )q̇ 21 + lc2 cos2 (q1 + q2 )(q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )2 +
+ 2l1 cos(q1 )q̇ 1 lc2 cos(q1 + q2 )(q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 ) (2.4)
vy = l12 sin2 (q1 )q̇ 21 + lc2
2 2
sin2 (q1 + q2 )(q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )2 +
+ 2l1 sin(q1 )q̇ 1 lc2 sin(q1 + q2 )(q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 ) (2.5)
We simplify (2.4) and (2.5) using the formulas (2.6) and (2.7):
1
cos(q1 + q2 ) cos(q1 ) = [cos(2q1 + q2 ) + cos(q2 )] (2.6)
2
1
sin(q1 + q2 ) sin(q1 ) = − [cos(2q1 + q2 ) − cos(q2 )] (2.7)
2
After simplification, (2.3) becomes:
1
K2trans (q, q̇) = m2 l12 q̇ 21 + lc22
(q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )2 + 2l1 lc2 cos(q2 )q̇ 1 (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )

2
1
K2rot (q, q̇) = I2 (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )2
2
1
K2total (q, q̇) = m2 l12 q̇ 21 + m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 )q̇ 1 (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )+
2
1 2
+ (m2 lc2 + I2 )(q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )2
2
The total kinetic energy of the structure is the sum of the kinetic energies of the links and it is
given as:
1 2
Ktotal (q, q̇) = K1total (q, q̇) + K2total (q, q̇) = (m1 lc1 + m2 l12 + I1 )q̇ 21 +
2
1 2
+ m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 )q̇ 1 (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 ) + (m2 lc2 + I2 )(q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )2
2
The potential energy (U ) of a link is given as:
U = mgh
11
where g represents the gravitational acceleration (9.8 sm2 ), while h represents the altitude of the
body with respect to the base of the structure. The potential energy of the manipulator is given
as the sum of the potential energies of the links:
U1 (q) = m1 glc1 cos(q1 )

U2 (q) = m2 gl1 cos(q1 ) + m2 glc2 cos(q1 + q2 )
Utotal (q) = U1 + U2 = (m1 lc1 + m2 l1 )g cos(q1 ) + m2 glc2 cos(q1 + q2 )
Next we calculate the Lagrangian (2.1) and its derivatives needed in the Euler-Lagrange equa-
tion (2.2).
L(q, q̇) = Ktotal (q, q̇) − Utotal (q) =

1 2
= (m1 lc1 + m2 l12 + I1 )q̇ 21 + m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 )q̇ 1 (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )+
2
1 2
+ (m2 lc2 + I2 )(q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 )2 − [(m1 lc1 + m2 l1 )g cos(q1 ) + m2 glc2 cos(q1 + q2 )]
2
∂L(q, q̇) 2
= (m1 lc1 + m2 l12 + I1 )q̇ 1 + (m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ))(2q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 ) + (m2 lc2
2
+ I2 )(q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 ) =
∂ q̇ 1
2
= (m1 lc1 + m2 l12 + I1 + 2m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 2
+ I2 )q̇ 1 +
2
+ (m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 + I2 )q̇ 2
∂L(q, q̇) 2 2
= (m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 + I2 )q̇ 1 + (m2 lc2 + I2 )q̇ 2
∂ q̇ 2

d ∂L(q, q̇) 2
+ I2 )q̈ 1 −
dt ∂ q̇ 1
2
− 2m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 1 q̇ 2 + (m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 + I2 )q̈ 2 −
2
− m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 2

d ∂L(q, q̇) 2
= (m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 + I2 )q̈ 1 − m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 1 q̇ 2 +
dt ∂ q̇ 2
2
+ (m2 lc2 + I2 )q̈ 2
∂L(q, q̇)
= (m1 lc1 + m2 l1 )g sin(q1 ) + m2 glc2 sin(q1 + q2 )
∂q1
∂L(q, q̇)
= −m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 1 (q̇ 1 + q̇ 2 ) + m2 glc2 sin(q1 + q2 )
∂q2
12
Based on (2.2) the applied torques are:

d ∂L(q, q̇) ∂L(q, q̇)
τ1 = − =
dt ∂ q̇ 1 ∂q1
2
+ I2 )q̈ 1 −
2
− 2m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 1 q̇ 2 + (m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 + I2 )q̈ 2 −
− m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 22 − (m1 lc1 + m2 l1 )g sin(q1 ) − m2 glc2 sin(q1 + q2 ) (2.8)

d ∂L(q, q̇) ∂L(q, q̇)
τ2 = − =
dt ∂ q̇ 2 ∂q2
2 2
= (m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 + I2 )q̈ 1 + (m2 lc2 + I2 )q̈ 2 +
2
+ m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 1 − m2 glc2 sin(q1 + q2 ) (2.9)
Equations (2.8) and (2.9) can be written in matrix form as:

τ1 m11 (q2 ) m12 (q2 ) q̈ 1 c11 (q2 , q̇ 2 ) c12 (q2 , q̇ 2 ) q̇ 1
= + +
τ2 m21 (q2 ) m22 q̈ 2 c21 (q2 , q̇ 1 ) c22 q̇ 2

d1 0 q̇ 1 g1 (q1 , q2 )
+ + (2.10)
0 d2 q̇ 2 g2 (q1 , q2 )
Equation (2.10) can also be represented in a compact form as:
τ = M (q)q̈ + Cr (q, q̇)q̇ + Dc q̇ + G(q) (2.11)
where τ = [τ1 τ2 ]T , q̈ = [q̈ 1 q̈ 2 ]T , q̇ = [q̇ 1 q̇ 2 ]T and q = [q1 q2 ]T .
Note that in (2.11) Dc represents the damping coefficient (friction force) matrix given by the
resistance to movement of the manipulator’s links. Also note that the elements of the matrices
from (2.11) are functions of the joint angle positions and joint angular velocities and are given
as:
2
m11 (q2 ) = m1 lc1 2
+ m2 l12 + I1 + 2m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 + I2
2
m12 (q2 ) = m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 + I2
2
m21 (q2 ) = m2 l1 lc2 cos(q2 ) + m2 lc2 + I2
2
m22 = m2 lc2 + I2
c11 (q2 , q̇ 2 ) = −2m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 2

c12 (q2 , q̇ 2 ) = −m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 2
13
c21 (q2 , q̇ 1 ) = m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 1
c22 = 0
d1 ∈ IR
d2 ∈ IR
g1 (q1 , q2 ) = −(m1 lc1 + m2 l1 )g sin(q1 ) − m2 glc2 sin(q1 + q2 )

g2 (q1 , q2 ) = −m2 glc2 sin(q1 + q2 )
We bring (2.11) to an explicit form of the highest order derivative (q̈):

q̈ 1
= q̈ = M −1 (q) [τ − Cr (q, q̇)q̇ − Dc q̇ − G(q)] (2.12)
q̈ 2
2.3 Simulation results

By choosing a proper set of state variables, complex systems may be brought to a more
convenient form (state-space form), which only requires solving first order ODE’s in matrix
form [9]. For a given system let p denote the number of inputs, q denote the number of outputs
and r denote the number of states. Linear systems have the following state-space model:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) (2.13)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) (2.14)
where (2.13) is the state equation, (2.14) is called the output equation, xr×1 represents the
state vector, up×1 denotes the input vector, y q×1 is the output vector, Ar×r is called the state
(transition) matrix, B r×p represents input (control) matrix, C q×r denotes the output matrix while
Dq×p is the feed forward (through) matrix.
In case of linear systems the matrices A, B, C and D are constants, i.e. they are not functions
of an independent variable (e.g.: torque, time). In case of our system (2.12) there are two inputs
(the torques τ1 and τ2 ), two outputs (the joint angles of the links q1 and q2 ). We choose a state
vector x containing the joint angle positions q1 and q2 and the joint angular velocities q̇ 1 and q̇ 2 .
Accordingly p = 2, q = 2 and r = 4.
The four element state vector x is given as:

   
x1 q1
 x2   q 2 
x= x3  = q̇ 1 
  
x4 q̇ 2
14
The time derivative of the state vector x can be rewritten as:
     
ẋ 1 q̇ 1 x3
ẋ 2  q̇ 2   x4 
ẋ = 
ẋ 3  = q̈ 1  = f1 (x, u)
    
ẋ 4 q̈ 2 f2 (x, u)
Based on (2.12), (2.13) and (2.14) we obtain:

     
0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1  x + 0 0  0
    
ẋ = 
0 u− 
0
−M −1 (q)(Cr (q̇) − Dc ) M −1 (q) M −1 (q)G(q)
    
0 0
(2.15)

1 0 0 0
y= x + O2 u (2.16)
0 1 0 0
 
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 
A(q, q̇) = 
0 0
 (2.17)
−M −1 (q)(Cr (q, q̇) − Dc )

0 0
 
0 0
0 0 
B(q) =   −1 
 (2.18)
M (q)

1 0 0 0
C= (2.19)
0 1 0 0
D = O2 (2.20)
 
0
 0 
Af f (q) = − 
 −1

 (2.21)
M (q)G(q)
Note that we are dealing with a nonlinear, time-invariant system (NLTI). This is easily justified
by the fact that the state matrix (2.17) and the input matrix (2.18) involved in the state equation
(2.15) are functions containing trigonometric functions of the state variables (elements of x)
defined in (2.12). On the other hand, time invariance is justified by the fact that these trigono-
metric functions depend on the state variables and not explicitly on time. Remark that the above
representation is slightly different from the general form (2.13) and (2.14) since an additional
(affine) term Af f (q) is added to the state equation. This type of system is called continous-time
affine system [10]. The block diagram of the system is presented in Figure 2.3.
15
Figure 2.3: Block diagram of the system given by (2.15) and (2.16)
We can compensate the effect of the affine term and get a linear representation of the system by
feeding its inverse −Af f (q) via the input u(t), so that the term B(q)u(t) + Af f (q) becomes
B(q)uctrl (t), where uctrl (t) is the control input (τ in the manipulator’s case). We achieve this
by introducing a compensator input ucmp (t), such that u(t) = uctrl (t) + ucmp (t). We have:
   
0 0 0
0 0 
  0 
 −1  ucmp −  −1
  =0

M (q) M (q)G(q)
ucmp = G
In what follows we will work with the linear model with compensated affine term. For simplic-
ity we will denote uctrl (t) simply by u(t).
   
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1  x + 0 0 
 
ẋ = 
0  −1  u
 (2.22)
0 −1

−M (q)(Cr (q̇) − Dc ) M (q)
0 0

1 0 0 0
y= x (2.23)
0 1 0 0
16
After compensation of the affine term the system given by (2.22) and (2.23) becomes:
Figure 2.4: Block diagram of the system given by (2.22) and (2.23)
Once we have obtained the white box model, we run simulations for three sets of initial
conditions of q1 and q2 , considering zero initial angular velocities, i.e. q̇ 1 = 0 and q̇ 2 = 0. The
initial conditions were selected in such a way that we acquire enough information about the
system’s behavior in order to justify its correctness. Namely, these are minimal (zero), close to
minimal and maximal offset with respect to the chosen equilibrium point x0 = [0 0 0 0]T of
the robot manipulator (vertical upright position or zero initial conditions). Another important
remark is that the inputs are considered zero, so we can get an uncontrolled, natural response of
the system. For simulation we used the parameters adopted from [1] and are presented in Table
2.2.
Description Notation Value Units

Length of link 1 l1 0.45 m
Length of link 2 l2 0.45 m
Center of mass of L1 lc1 0.091 m
Center of mass of L2 lc2 0.048 m
Mass of L1 m1 23.902 Kg
Mass of L2 m2 3.88 Kg
Moment of inertia of L1 I1 1.266 Kgm2
Moment of inertia of L2 I2 0.093 Kgm2
Gravitational acceleration g 9.81 m/s2
Angle of L1 q1 - rad
Angle of L2 q2 - rad
Damping ratio (coefficient) d1 = d2 5 -
Table 2.2: Parameter values
17
For zero initial conditions, i.e. x = [0 0 0 0]T the system is at rest (nothing happens), as
expected. Also according the expectations, for close to minimal, i.e. x = [0.1 0 0 0]T and
maximal, i.e. x = [0 π2 0 0]T offset initial conditions the system reaches the vertical downward
position slower, respectively faster. The results of the simulations are presented in Figure 2.5,
and intuitively yield a valid model of the robot manipulator.
Initial conditions: [ 0.1, 0, 0, 0 ] T Initial conditions: [ 0, π/2, 0, 0 ] T

6 6
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
5 x2 [rad] 5 x2 [rad]
ẋ1 [rad/s] ẋ1 [rad/s]
4 ẋ2 [rad/s] 4 ẋ2 [rad/s]
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time [s] Time [s]
T T
(a) Initial condition x0 = [0.1 0 0 0] (b) Initial condition x0 = [ π2 π
2 0 0]
Figure 2.5: Simulation of the system given by (2.22) and (2.23)
18
Chapter 3
LINEAR CONTROL
In this chapter we present the steps of linearization of the nonlinear model. The notions
of state feedback and linear quadratic control are presented. Controllers are designed for the
obtained linear model using pole placement and LQR methods. An observer is also designed
for the system. Simulation results are analyzed for different parameter values and are compared
to those obtained for the system with observer.
3.1 Linear model

Since our model is not linear, first we will obtain a linear approximation of it. Let us
recall the state-space representation of a linear, time invariant (LTI) system given by (2.13) and
(2.14), that is repeated here for convenience:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t)
Note that the elements of the matrices should be constants. Our goal is to obtain such a repre-
sentation of the system given by (2.22) and (2.23). This can be done by the linearization of the
system in an operating point. The linear approximation in a given point x0 of a function f (x)
is given by its first order Taylor series expansion around that point [11].
∞
X f n (x0 )
f (x) = (x − x0 )n = (3.1)
0
n!

∂f (x) 1 ∂ 2 f (x)
= f (x0 ) + (x − x0 ) + (x − x0 )2 (3.2)
∂x 2! ∂x2
x0 x0
Neglecting the quadratic and higher order terms, as well as the error introduced by not consid-
ering them, we obtain the linear approximation of f (x) around x0 :

∂f (x)
f (x) = f (x0 ) + (x − x0 ) (3.3)
∂x
x0
= f (x0 ) + fx (x0 ) 4 x (3.4)
where fx (x0 ) denotes the partial derivative of f (x) with respect to x calculated in point x0 and
4x denotes the small variation of x around x0 .
19
In case of multivariable functions f (x1 , ..., xn ) we have to consider the variation of the function
f (x1 , ..., xn ) around each variable x1 , ..., xn . Using the same notations as in (3.4), the linear
approximation of f (x1 , ..., xn ) around x01 , ..., x0n becomes:
f (x1 , ..., xn ) = f (x01 , ..., x0n ) + fx1 (x01 , ..., x0n ) 4 x1 +

+ ... + fxn (x01 , ..., x0n ) 4 xn
In order to linearize our model around an equilibrium point, we first compute them by
solving (2.12) for q̈ = 0. We obtain four equilibrium points, given as the solution of (2.12) for
zero inputs (u1 = 0 and u2 = 0):
• vertical upward position of the ends of L1 and L2 : x = [0 0 0 0]T
• vertical upward position of the end of L1 and vertical up- or downward position of the
end of L2 : x = [0 ± π 0 0]T
• vertical up- or downward position of the end of L1 and vertical upward position of the
end of L2 : x = [±π 0 0 0]T
• vertical up- or downward position of the ends of L1 and L2 : x = [±π ± π 0 0]T .
Note that except the last one, all the equilibrium points are unstable. For our implementation we
choose the first option (x0 = [0 0 0 0]T ), this one being the most difficult to stabilize. Since our
model can be decomposed as a system of two multivariable functions f1 (x1 , x2 , ẋ 1 , ẋ 2 , u1 , u2 )
and f2 (x1 , x2 , ẋ 1 , ẋ 2 , u1 , u2 ) we use the Jacobian (matrix of partial derivatives) to obtain the
first order Taylor-series expansion.
Let v = [x1 , x2 , ẋ 1 , ẋ 2 , u1 , u2 ]T denote the variables of the system, which can be written as:
h iT h
f (v) = f1 (v) f2 (v) = M −1 (x1 , x2 ) [u1 u2 ]T −
i
− Cr (x1 , x2 , ẋ 1 , ẋ 2 )[ẋ 1 ẋ 2 ]T − Dc [ẋ 1 ẋ 2 ]T − G(x1 , x2 )
 
∂f1 (v0 ) ∂f1 (v0 ) ∂f1 (v0 ) ∂f1 (v0 ) ∂f1 (v0 ) ∂f1 (v0 )
∂f (v) ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂ ẋ 1 ∂ ẋ 2 ∂u1 ∂u2
=
 
∂v

∂f2 (v0 ) ∂f2 (v0 ) ∂f2 (v0 ) ∂f2 (v0 ) ∂f2 (v0 ) ∂f2 (v0 )
v0
∂x1 ∂x2 ∂ ẋ 1 ∂ ẋ 2 ∂u1 ∂u2
 
f1x1 (v0 ) f1x2 (v0 ) f1ẋ 1 (v0 ) f1ẋ 1 (v0 ) f1u1 (v0 ) f1u2 (v0 )
= =
f2x1 (v0 ) f2x2 (v0 ) f2ẋ 1 (v0 ) f2ẋ 1 (v0 ) f2u1 (v0 ) f2u2 (v0 )
= Jpd
20
Let v0 = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]T denote the equilibrium point. The linear approximation of f (v) =
h iT
f1 (v) f2 (v) around v0 for small variation of v is given as:
f (v) = f (v0 ) + Jpd × [v − v0 ]
f1 (v) = f1 (v0 ) + Jpd (1, 1) 4 x1 + J(1, 2)pd 4 x2 + J(1, 3)pd 4 ẋ 1

+ J(1, 4)pd 4 ẋ 2 + J(1, 5)pd 4 u1 + J(1, 6)pd 4 u2 =
= J(1, 1)pd x1 + J(1, 2)pd x2 + J(1, 3)pd ẋ 1 +
+ J(1, 4)pd ẋ 2 + J(1, 5)pd u1 + J(1, 6)pd u2
f2 (v) = f2 (v0 ) + J(2, 1)pd 4 x1 + J(2, 2)pd 4 x2 + J(2, 3)pd 4 ẋ 1

+ J(2, 4)pd 4 ẋ 2 + J(2, 5)pd 4 u1 + J(2, 6)pd 4 u2 =
= J(2, 1)pd x1 + J(2, 2)pd x2 + J(2, 3)pd ẋ 1 +
+ J(2, 4)pd ẋ 2 + J(2, 5)pd u1 + J(2, 6)pd u2
Now, we can write the state matrix A and the input matrix B of the approximated system as:
 
0 0 1 0
 0 0 0 1 
A=
Jpd (1, 1)
=
Jpd (1, 2) Jpd (1, 3) Jpd (1, 4)
Jpd (2, 1) Jpd (2, 2) Jpd (2, 3) Jpd (2, 4)
 
0 0 1 0
 0 0 0 1 
=  (3.5)
 16.95 −0.69 −2.29 4.18 
−12.96 19.178 4.18 −56.66
   
0 0 0 0
 0 0  = 0 0 

B=
Jpd (1, 5) Jpd (1, 6)  0.46 −0.84
 (3.6)
Jpd (2, 5) Jpd (2, 6) −0.84 11.33
The output matrix C (2.19) and the feedforward matrix D (2.20) remain unchanged, since they
do not depend on the joint angle positions and joint angular velocities.

1 0 0 0
C= (3.7)
0 1 0 0
D = O2 (3.8)
21
The resulting LTI system is given as:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) (3.9)
y(t) = Cx(t) (3.10)
with A, B, C and D given in equations (3.5), (3.6), (3.7) and (3.8)
3.2 State feedback control with pole placement

Consider the linear closed-loop system described by equations (3.9) and (3.10). The
dynamics (behavior) of the system is characterized by the location of the closed-loop poles in
the complex s-plane (Laplace domain). The poles of the system are given by the eigenvalues λ
of A [12]. A system is stable if the real parts of all the eigenvalues are in the negative left half
plane, i.e. Re{λ} ≤ 0 [13]. By introducing the state feedback law u(t) = −Kx(t) we change
the dynamics of the system. By shifting (placing) to the left the real parts of the closed loop
(Ac = A − BK) poles in the complex s-plane, we increase the robustness of the system and
consequently the states decay faster to zero due to higher control effort. While by shifting the
poles towards the imaginary axis, we obtain larger state-variable values and implicitly decreased
robustness, yet a smaller control effort is needed.
For implementing state feedback control, let us consider a linear system given by:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)

y(t) = Cx(t)
The state feedback law u(t) = −Kx(t) changes the location of the poles by changing the state
matrix from A to Ac = A − BK. As a consequence we change the dynamics of the system to
a desired one, by selecting the gain vector K p×r .
ẋ(t) = (A − BK)x(t) = Ac x(t)
y(t) = Cx(t)
State feedback control requires the system to be (completely) state controllable [14], i.e. from
any initial state the system can be driven to any reachable, final state using the control input
in finite time [15]. A linear system is controllable if and only if the controllability matrix
Pcr×rp = [B AB A2 B Ar−1 B] has rank(Pc ) = r [15]. In case of the system given by (3.9)
and (3.10) the controllability condition is satisfied, i.e. Pc4×4·2 = [B AB A2 B A3 B], and
rank(Pc ) = 4, wehre
 
0 0 0.45 −0.83 −4.54 49.25 224.56 −2832.05
 0 0 −0.83 11.33 49.25 −645.58 −2832.05 37013.84 
Pc = 
 0.45 −0.83 −4.54 49.25
.
224.56 −2832.05 −12457.59 162409.67 
−0.83 11.33 49.25 −645.58 −2832.05 37013.84 162409.67 −2122100.47
22
The linear closed-loop system described by equations (3.9) and (3.10) is controllable. So we
can proceed to design a linear controller for it.
3.3 State feedback control with Linear Quadratic Regulator

The Linear-Quadratic Regulator (LQR) is an optimal control strategy for systems
whose dynamics are described by linear equations. LQR ensures that the system reaches the
desired state at minimum cost, i.e. both the deviations of state variables from desired values and
the control effort are minimized [16].
Consider the linear dynamic system given by the equations (3.9) and (3.10). The
quadratic cost function (performance index) to be minimized is defined as [16]:
Z ∞
J= xT (t)Qx(t) + uT (t)Ru(t) dt (3.11)
0
where the weighting functions are Qr×r ≥ 0, Q = QT (symmetric positive semidefinite matrix)
and Rp×p > 0, R = RT (symmetric positive definite matrix). The weighting functions represent
the importance of minimization of the controlled values (state variables) relative to each other
(Q), as well as the importance of the control inputs (R) [17]. We are looking for a state feedback
control law that minimizes J. This assumes that the control input is not an external signal to
the system, but its internal state, fed back. As a consequence, the system works in disturbance
rejection (stabilizing) regime and not in reference tracking one. Thus, we consider the control
law:
u(t) = −Kx(t) (3.12)
Using (3.12), the closed-loop system described by (3.9) and (3.10) becomes:
ẋ(t) = (A − BK)x(t) = Ac x(t) (3.13)

y(t) = Cx(t) (3.14)
By substituting (3.13) into (3.11) we obtain the performance index J as:

Z ∞
J= (xT (t)(Q + K T RK)x(t)) dt
0
The performance index J can be interpreted as an energy function, defining the total energy of
the closed-loop system [17]. Since J is given as an infinite integral (t → ∞) of the state vari-
ables, if the value of J is finite, the state variables will converge to zero [17]. Thus, minimizing
the total energy of the closed-loop yields stability of the system. Because the state variables and
the control input are weighted by Q and R, respectively, and these weights are chosen according
to the design needs, there is no unique LQR solution. Larger Q values result in smaller state
23
x(t) values to compensate for Q, thus penalizing the state-variables. The same is true for R,
which penalizes the control effort u(t) in order to compensate for the large values of R, thus
keeping J small. In terms of pole placement, larger Q values result in shifting to the left the
real parts of the closed loop (Ac ) poles in the complex s-plane, increasing the robustness of the
system and consequently the states decay faster to zero due to higher control effort. On the
other hand, larger R values provide a smaller control effort by shifting the poles towards the
imaginary axis, resulting in larger state-variable values and implicitly decreased robustness. An
explicit trade off can be remarked between the two weighting functions.
The weight matrices are usually diagonal matrices, with the maximum acceptance levels: qii ≤
1
x2i
and rii ≤ u12 [18], where xi and ui are the maximum (in absolute value) imposed values
i
for the ith state and input variable, respectively. In the case when these default values are too
restrictive, the following choice of weight matrices is commonly used: Q = Ir and R = ρIp ,
where ρ > 0 [18]. Remark that the weighting functions taken independently from each other
penalize intrinsic relations between state-variables (Q) or control efforts (R). By scaling the
two functions (ρ) the importance of state over control (or vice versa) is penalized.
To find K we have to find P n×n , which is the only positive definite solution of the follow-
ing Riccati algebraic equation, fulfilling P = P T [17]:
ATc P + P Ac + Q + K T RK = 0
AT P + P A + Q + K T RK − K T B T P − P BK = 0 (3.15)
The gain matrix K is then given as:
K = R−1 B T P (3.16)
3.4 Observer design

Full state feedback requires, beside controllability, that all the state variables are mea-
surable (available for feedback). However, often this is not the case, since some controlled
(state) variables cannot physically be accessed, have no physical meaning (there is no existing
measurement transducer), thus cannot be measured or measuring them would cost more than
designing an observer. If this is the case, an observer is needed to estimate the unmeasurable
variables, thus the system needs to be observable, i.e. the state variables can be determined
based on the input, output and the model of the system [18]. A linear system is observable if
and only if the observability matrix Qr×rq
o = [C CA CA2 CAr−1 ]T has rank(Qo ) = r [15].
In case of the system given by (3.9) and (3.10), the observability condition is satisfied, i.e.
Q4×4·2
o = [C CA CA2 CAr−1 ]T has rank(Qo ) = 4, where
24
 
1 0 0 0
 0 1 0 0 
 
 0 0 1 0 
 
 0 0 0 1 
Oo =  
 16.95
 −0.68 −2.29 4.17 
−12.96 19.17 4.17 −56.66 
 
−93.02 81.69 39.66 −246.98
805.31 −1089.50 −259.26 3247.12
The linear closed-loop system described by equations (3.9) and (3.10) is also observable. Con-
trollability and observability of LTI systems are dual notions [19]:
(A, B) controllable ↔ (AT , B T ) observable

(A, C) observable ↔ (AT , C T ) controllable
In order to be able to measure all the state variables (x), which are otherwise unaccessible, we
design and implement an observer. A Luenberger-observer is a copy of the system in parallel
with it.
The observer dynamics is given as:
˙
x̂(t) = (A − BK)x̂(t)
ŷ(t) = C x̂(t)
The estimation error dynamics is given as:
e(t) = x(t) − x̂(t)

ė(t) = (A − LC)e
The innovation is given as:
L(y(t) − ŷ(t)) = LC(x(t) − x̂(t)) = LCe(t)
where x̂ and ŷ are the estimated state and output, respectively.
The observer, similarly to the pole placement method with state feedback, adjusts the location
of poles of the error dynamics using the input feedback law u(t) = −Lŷ(t) = −LC x̂(t). We
need to accelerate the estimator’s dynamics over that of the estimated system, so it provides the
25
required states on time for the estimated system [20].
Thus, the observer gain Lr×q is usually
chosen such that |Re{λmin }| > α|Re{λmax }| , where theoretically α = 10, in practice

obs sys
α = 5 or 6 [20], i.e. the observer dynamics is chosen to be 5-6 times faster. Choosing higher
values is not advisable in order to prevent the estimator to generate noise. L is computed such
that, the estimation error dynamics is asymptotically stable, i.e. x − x̂ → 0 as t → ∞ [20].
This implies global asymptotic stability thus, the choice of the initial condition x0 can be made
arbitrary.
Figure 3.1: Observer based state feedback control [21]

As a first step we computed the observer gain L. Using the notion of duality, we can
also use the LQR method, modified accordingly, i.e. by taking the transpose of the matrices A
and C and of the weighting functions Q and R, we obtain the transpose of the observer gain
L. We found L by using the Matlab command [L0 , P, e] = lqr(A0 , C 0 , Q0 , R0 ). We considered
Q = 106 I4 and R = I2 , since the minimization of the states is equally important between the
state variables themselves (thus Q = αI4 ), as well as between the control variables themselves
(thus R = I2 ). The scaling by α of Q is due to the fact that we the importance of minimization
of the states is greater than that of the control variables. We determined the scaling factor α for
the nonlinear system, since the controller will be used on this one. We found α = 106 is the
highest value for which the nonlinear system is stable. It is important to mention that the linear
system, however, would be stable also for greater values of α. For these values of the weighting
functions, we obtained the observer gain as:
26
T
1000.25 0.01 253.99 5.27
L=
0.01 1000.02 16.86 27.78
As a next step we compute the feedback gains K for both the pole placement and LQR tech-
niques. In Matlab the gain matrix K for a given set A, B, p can be computed using the command
Kpp = place(A, B, p), where p denotes the new places of the poles. We computed two gain
matrices for two sets of poles:
p1 = −20 · [10 10 1 1]

670.08 48.26 133.55 10.21
Kpp1 =
48.26 27.31 10.21 0.6067
p2 = −5 · [10 10 1 1]

10117.04 744.81 549.22 40.86
Kpp2 =
744.81 409.58 40.86 17.42
Note that in both cases the first two elements of the vectors p1 and p2 are 10 times greater in
absolute value than the last two ones. As a direct consequence, the first two poles are 10 times
faster than the last two ones, thus they are more robust. This choice of the poles is induced by
the fact that we aim to stabilize the joint angle positions, i.e. x1 and x2 , rather than the joint
angular velocities, i.e. x3 and x4 .
We also compute the gain matrices using LQR technique, which in Matlab can be computed for
a given set A, B, Q, R using the command [Klqr , P, e] = lqr(A, B, Q, R). We computed two
gain matrices for different weighting functions.
In both cases we prioritized the joint angle positions over the joint angular velocities, as in the
previous case, thus the weighting function Q is of the same form in both cases:
 
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
Q = α
0
 (3.17)
0 β 0
0 0 0 β
where β is of several orders (5-6) of magnitude smaller than 1. We chose β = 10−6 . R has been
chosen as:

T 1 0
R = CC = (3.18)
0 1
27
The importance of minimizing the control effort is the same for both inputs (control signals),
given by R, thus R = I2 for both cases. For the case when we prioritize the states over the
control we choose the weighting function Q1 and obtain gain matrix Klqr1 as follows:
 
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 
Q1 = 109 
0 0 10 −6
 (3.19)
0 
0 0 0 10−6

31663.09 2.56 394.95 24.35
Klqr1 =
1.08 31624.6 24.34 77.94
For the case when we prioratize the control over the states we choose the weighting function
Q2 and obtain gain matrix Klqr2 as follows:
 
1 0 0 0
0 1 0
Q2 = 10−12 
 
0 −6
 (3.20)
0 10 0 
0 0 0 10−6
Note that in this case Q is effectively zero.

80.6 3.78 15.76 1.16
Klqr2 =
0.64 3.51 0.2 0.07
All simulations were performed for the initial condition that is the farthest away from
the robust equilibrium point ([0 0 0 0]T ), namely x0 = [ π2 π2 0 0]T . It is important to mention
that since due to the resulting control efforts, the joint angular velocities (ẋ 1 and ẋ 2 ) were of
different orders of magnitude (0-2). In order to be able to compare the results, we limited the
joint angular velocities of the closed-loop system in the range [-5 5] rad/s. Also note that there
are no such restrictions in the case of the observer, also the initial state of the observer. The
equilibrium point x0 = [0 0 0 0]T . The simulations were performed for all combination of
systems and control strategies, namely linear and nonlinear systems with or without observer
for both methods, pole placement and LQR.
28
The first set of simulations were performed for the linear system:
Initial conditions: [ π/2, π/2, 0, 0 ] T Initial conditions: [ π/2, π/2, 0, 0 ] T

5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) Gain vector: Klqr1 (b) Gain vector: Klqr2
Figure 3.2: Trajectories of the closed-loop system without observer using LQR
We can see in Figure 3.2, that in case of the system from subfigure (a) the decay rate is much
faster than in the case of the system from subfigure (b).

5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) Gain vector: Kpp1 (b) Gain vector: Kpp2
Figure 3.3: Trajectories of the closed-loop system without observer using pole placement
We can notice a similar behavior in case of the system from Figure 3.3, however, the difference
is not as remarkable as in the previous case.
29
5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 3.4: Trajectories of the closed-loop system with observer using LQR
In case of the system from Figure 3.4, beside the decay rate difference between the two subfig-
ures, similar as in case of the system from Figure 3.2, we can see how the observer slows the
dynamics of the system, while reducing the estimation error. This behavior is hard to remark in
the case of subfigure (b) since it’s dynamics is much slower than the system from subfigure (a),
even without an observer.

5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 3.5: Trajectories of the closed-loop system with observer using pole placement
Figure 3.5 shows, how the observer slows the dynamics of both systems, which can be clearly
seen by comparing the results with the ones from 3.3.
30
From the above results we can deduce that the system with direct access to the states performs
better than that with observer in terms of settling time and decay rate. We can also deduce that
in case of the LQR control, when the Klqr1 gain vector is used, the control effort is high due
to high values of Klqr1 , thus the system decays faster (has smaller settling time) than in the
case of the system where the Klqr2 gain was used, in both cases (with and without observer).
The system response in case of pole placement control is similar using either of the two gains
Kpp1 and Kpp2 when comparing alike systems (with or without observer). When we compare
the differences between LQR and pole placement, we can deduce that, unless we prioritize the
control effort in case of the LQR, both control techniques perform similarly well.
Let us compare the same feedback gains on the nonlinear system:

5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
We can see in Figure 3.6, that in case of the system from subfigure (a) the decay rate is slightly
faster than in the case of the system from subfigure (b).

5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
31
We can notice a similar behavior in case of the system from Figure 3.7, however, the difference
is not as remarkable as in the previous case.

5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
In case of the system from Figure 3.8, beside the decay rate difference between the two subfig-
ures, similar as in case of the system from Figure 3.6. The effect introduced by the observer is
not remarkable in terms of decay rate.

5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
Similarly to the case of the linear system, figure 3.9 shows, how the observer slows the dynamics
of both systems, which can be clearly seen by comparing the results with the ones from 3.7.
32
The similar behavior can be remarked as in the previous case, due to the fact that there are
imposed limitations in terms of control input (e.g.: given by the actual actuator). Both control
techniques, however, perform slightly better in terms of decay rate on the linear system than on
the nonlinear one, since they were designed for the linear system.
33
Chapter 4
NONLINEAR CONTROL
In this chapter we present the notions of nonlinear control using Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy
approach. The fuzzy model of the manipulator is built, as well as the TS fuzzy controller for
it, using performance guarantees. A fuzzy observer is also computed. Finally, simulations are
performed and results are presented.
4.1 Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy systems

Real life dynamical systems, such as the robot manipulator, are usually nonlinear. The
linear representation of such a system is only valid in the operating point it was linearized,
and with a certain acceptance level at operating points within small range around it. As a di-
rect consequence, when the system operates outside of this range, the closed-loop system’s
stability cannot be guaranteed, because the nonlinearities cannot be dealt with by the linear
controller [22], such as the LQR (3.13). Another drawback of linear control is given by the
assumption that the system has to be linearizable (smooth), assumption conditioned by the de-
gree of nonlinearity and the number of discontinuity points [22]. The accuracy of the system’s
model that is linearized highly affects the performance of the linear controller designed for it,
thus linearization performs best for white-box (mathematical) system models, where the model
parameters are well-known [22].
Fuzzy modeling of the system gives a solution to the above issues, by building submodels
valid in subdomains, which are basically partitions of the operating domain. The sub-models
are simple input-output relations [22]. The main feature of the TS fuzzy model is that it is
composed of linear sub-models (implications, rules or local linear input-output relations) of the
nonlinear system [23]. Blending these rules by nonlinear weighting functions we achieve the
overall fuzzy model of the system [24]. In other words the overall dynamics of the state space is
split into local regions described by linear models, which then are combined to cover the whole
state space using fuzzy interpolation (membership functions) [25].
Since each submodel is a linear one, linear control can be used. It is even possible to de-
sign a local state feedback controller for each model separately and to combine them, to obtain
a controller, valid in wider operating range [26]. Validity of a controller obtained this way, how-
ever, needs to be verified. The concept of designing a controller for each local model is called
parallel distributed compensation (PDC). By using quadratic Lyapunov functions to design the
fuzzy controller we can guarantee stability of the closed-loop system, as well as impose perfor-
mance guarantees using linear matrix inequalities (LMIs), which can be solved using convex
optimization techniques [27]. Such performance guarantees are decay rate (related to response
time) and constraints on control effort and state values.
34
To construct an exact fuzzy model of a nonlinear system of the form ẋ(t) = f (x(t)), with
f (0) = 0, we should find a global sector, for which the relation ax(t) ≤ f (x(t)) ≤ bx(t)
holds [23]. This method is called global sector nonlinearity, shown in (4.1). In the general
case it can be difficult to find such global sectors for the entire domain of x(t). Since real life
physical systems are bounded we can take a particular case for which local sector nonlinear-
ity fulfills the design needs. Figure 4.2 shows the exact fuzzy representation of the nonlinear
system between the bounds [−d d], i.e. −d ≤ x(t) ≤ d..
Figure 4.1: Global sector nonlinearity
Figure 4.2: Local sector nonlinearity
35
For the general case of modeling a continuous time nonlinear dynamical system let us consider
the generic subsystem (rule, implication) of the following form [28]:
Rule i:
IF z1 (q, q̇) is Mjk and ... and zj (t) is Mjk THEN
ẋ(t) = Ai x(t) + Bi u(t) (4.1)

y(t) = Ci x(t) (4.2)
for i = 1, ..., n, j = 1, ..., m and k = 1, 2.
The definition of notations is the following [29]: n is the number of fuzzy rules, z(t) =
{z1 (t), ..., zm (t)} represents the known premise variables that can be nonlinear functions of
the state variables obtained from the partitioning of the state space domain, i.e. z(t) = f (x(t));
they also can be functions of external disturbances or input variables; m denotes the number of
premise variables, k = 1, 2 is the number of weighting function, Mjk represents the k th fuzzy set
(weighting function) for the j th premise variable, (4.1) denotes state equation, (4.2) is the out-
put equation, xr×1 represents the state vector, up×1 denotes the input vector, y q×1 is the output
vector, Ar×ri represents the state (transition) matrix for rule i, Bir×p denotes the input (control)
matrix for rule i, while Ciq×r is the output matrix for rule i.
Blending of the rules is done as [22]:
n
P
ωi (z(t))[Ai x(t) + Bi u(t)]
i=1
ẋ(t) = n
P =
ωi (z(t))
i=1
n
X
= hi (z(t))[Ai x(t) + Bi u(t)] (4.3)
i=1
Pn
ωi (z(t))[Ci x(t) + Di u(t)]
i=1
y(t) = n
P =
ωi (z(t))
i=1
n
X
= hi (z(t))[Ci x(t) + Di u(t)] (4.4)
i=1
where the membership functions ωi (z(t)) are given as:

m
Y
ωi (z(t)) = Mjk (zj (t))
j=1
36
where Mjk (zj (t)) is the degree of membership of the premise variable zj (t) in the fuzzy set Mjk .
The membership functions ωi (z(t)) are implicitely normalized based on (4.3) and (4.4) as:
ωi (z(t))
hi (z(t)) = P
n
ωi (z(t))
i=1
Assuming that for any i = 1, ..., n

n
X
ωi (z(t)) ≥ 0 → ωi (z(t)) > 0
i=1
It follows that for any i = 1, ..., n
hi (z(t)) ≥ 0
n
X
hi (z(t)) = 1
i=1
4.2 Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model of the robot manipulator

We start building the TS fuzzy model of our system by recalling the nonlinear state-
space model of the robot manipulator given by (2.17), (2.18), (2.19) and (2.20):
ẋ(t) = A(q, q̇)x(t) + B(q)u(t)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t)
   
0 0 1 0 a11 a12 a13 a14
0 0 0 1  a21 a22 a23 a24 
A(q, q̇) = 
0 0
=
 a31

a32 a33 (q, q̇) a34 (q, q̇)
−M (q)−1 (Cr (q, q̇) − Dc )
0 0 a41 a42 a43 (q, q̇) a44 (q, q̇)
   
0 0 b11 b12
0 0   =  b21 b22 

B(q) =   b31 (q) b32 (q)

−1

M (q)
b41 (q) b42 (q)

1 0 0 0
C=
0 1 0 0
37
D = O2
The steps of fuzzy modeling the system are to define the sectors, the fuzzy (premise) vari-
ables and the fuzzy sets (weighting functions). Using the principle of local sector nonlinearity,
we impose bounds for the state variables as: x1 (t), x2 (t) ∈ [−0.5, 0.5], and x3 (t), x4 (t) ∈
[−3.5, 3.5], respectively. Since Ci = C and Di = D are constant matrices for any i =
1, ..., n no premise variables are needed to describe them. The same is valid for the elements
a11 , a12 , a13 , a14 , a21 , a22 , a23 , a24 , a31 , a32 , a41 , a42 , b11 , b12 , b21 and b22 . In order to further re-
duce the necessary computations, instead of taking all 8 premise variables left correspond-
ing to the positions a33 (q, q̇), a34 (q, q̇), a43 (q, q̇), a44 (q, q̇), b31 (q), b32 (q), b41 (q) and b42 (q), it is
enough to take those 5 that determine the minimal set of variables describing them. The expres-
sions of the elements a33 (q, q̇), a34 (q, q̇), a43 (q, q̇), a44 (q, q̇) are of the following forms:
a33 (q, q̇) = f (ẋ 1 sin(x2 ), ẋ 1 sin(x2 ) cos(x2 ), ẋ 2 sin(x2 ))

a34 (q, q̇) = f (cos(x2 ), ẋ 2 sin(x2 ))
a43 (q, q̇) = f (cos(x2 ), ẋ 1 sin(x2 ), ẋ 1 cos(x2 ), ẋ 2 sin(x2 ), ẋ 2 cos(x2 ) sin(x2 ))
a44 (q, q̇) = f (cos(x2 ), ẋ 2 sin(x2 ), ẋ 2 sin(x2 ) cos(x2 ))
It is not difficult to deduce that any factorization using any combination of the arguments of the
elements would only increase the number of necessary premise variables.
We take the first 4 premise variables as:
z1 (q, q̇) = a33 (q, q̇) (4.5)

z2 (q, q̇) = a34 (q, q̇) (4.6)
z3 (q, q̇) = a43 (q, q̇) (4.7)
z4 (q, q̇) = a44 (q, q̇) (4.8)
(4.9)
In case of elements b31 (t), b32 (t), b41 (t), b42 (t) we have the following form of the elements al-
lowing us to factorize:
b31 (q) = f (cos(x2 ))

b32 (q) = f (cos(x2 ), cos−2 (x2 ))
b41 (q) = f (cos(x2 ), cos−2 (x2 ))
b42 (q) = f (cos(x2 ), cos−2 (x2 ))
The reduction of the number of the premise variables is possible by taking z5 (q) = cos(x2 (t)
1
and z6 (t) = den , where den = f (cos−2 (x2 )) denotes the common denominator of elements
38
b31 (q), b32 (q), b41 (q), b42 (q). After the computations of minimum and maximum values of z6 (t)
it turns out that it’s value is of several order of magnitudes smaller than those of others’, and so
we will neglect this term.
The 5 premise variables are defined as:
z1 (q, q̇) = a33 (q, q̇) = f (cos(x2 )) (4.10)

z2 (q, q̇) = a34 (q, q̇) = f (cos(x2 ), cos−2 (x2 )) (4.11)
z5 (q) = cos(x2 (t)) (4.14)
The following step is to compute the minimum and maximum values of the remaining premise
variables on the chosen range of the state variables, i.e. x1 (t), x2 (t) ∈ [−0.5, 0.5], and x3 (t), x4 (t) ∈
[−3.5, 3.5], respectively:
z1 (q, q̇) ∈ [16.66, 17.14]

z2 (q, q̇) ∈ [0.99, 1.14]
z3 (q, q̇) ∈ [−31.45, −27.30]
z4 (q, q̇) ∈ [−15.27, −14.91]
z5 (q) ∈ [0.88, 1]
Note that each premise variable is a function of the state variables, which are all bounded.
Therefore the premise variables are also bounded, reaching their minimum and maximum value
on the corresponding interval, i.e. for x(t) ∈ [xmin , xmax ] → z(t) = f (x(t)) ∈ [zmin , zmax ].
Consequently they can be expressed as a convex combination of the membership functions
Mj1 (z(t)) and Mj2 (z(t)) [30]:
z(t) = Mj1 (z(t))zmin + Mj2 (z(t))zmax =

zmax − z(t) z(t) − zmin
= zmin − zmax
zmax + zmin zmax − zmin
Note that Mj1 (z(t)) + Mj2 (z(t)) = 1, with Mj1 (z(t)), Mj2 (z(t)) ∈ [0 1].
z1 (q, q̇) = M11 (z1 (q, q̇))z1min + M12 (z1 (q, q̇))z1max =
17.14 − z1 (q, q̇) z1 (q, q̇) − 16.66
= 16.66 + 17.14
0.48 0.48
39
1.14 − z2 (q, q̇) z2 (q, q̇) − 0.99
= 0.99 + 1.14
0.15 0.15
−27.30 − z3 (q, q̇) z3 (q, q̇) − (−31.45)
= (−31.45) + (−27.30)
4.15 4.15
(−14.91) − z4 (q, q̇) z4 (q, q̇) − (−15.27)
= (−15.27) + (−14.91)
0.36 0.36
z5 (q) = M51 (z5 (q))z5min + M52 (z5 (q))z5max =

1 − z5 (q) z5 (q) − 0.88
= 0.88 + 1
0.12 0.12
Our fuzzy model has 25 = 32 submodels (rules), which are the convex combinations of the 5
weighting functions:
Rule 1:
IF z1 (q, q̇) is M11 and z2 (q, q̇) is M21 and z3 (q, q̇) is M31 and z4 (q, q̇) is M41 and z5 (q) is M51
THEN
   
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1   0 0 
A1 = 
0
 B1 =  
0 z1min z2min  f1 (z5min ) f2 (z5min )
0 0 z3min z4min f2 (z5min ) f3 (z5min )
The membership function for rule 1 is: h1 (z(t)) = M11 M21 M31 M41 M51
Rule 2:
THEN
   
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1   0 0 
A1 = 
0
 B1 =  
0 z1min z2min  f1 (z5max ) f2 (z5max )
0 0 z3min z4min f2 (z5max ) f3 (z5max )
40
...
Rule 32:
THEN
   
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1   0 0 
A1 = 
0
 B1 =  
0 z1max z2max  f1 (z5max ) f2 (z5max )
0 0 z3max z4max f2 (z5max ) f3 (z5max )
4.3 Parallel distributed compensation controller design

Since a TS fuzzy model is a nonlinear system, for the analysis and synthesis Lya-
punov’s direct approach has to be used. Similarly to the way how the performance index J,
in case of the LQR, defines the total energy of the closed loop system, the Lyapunov function
V (x) can also be seen as the definition of the total energy of the closed loop system [28]. In
case of the LQR the intention is to minimize J ideally to zero (J = 0 at an equilibrium point).
Similarly to the LQR energy minimization analogy, we aim to minimize the total energy of
the closed-loop system (V (x) = 0 at an equilibrium point). This can be achieved by ensuring
asymptotic stability of the closed-loop system, so it reaches the equilibrium point which is as-
sumed to be at zero (x0 ). An asymptotically stable system converges to an equilibrium point
for any initial state, considering zero exteral input (u(t) = 0) [28]. Any asymptotically stable
system must have a positive total energy for a given initial state [28]:
V (x) > 0 (4.15)
except for the equilibrium point x0 , when V (x0 ) = 0.
In order to ensure asymptotic stability the derivative of the Lyapunov function has to be nega-
tive [28]:
d
V̇ (x) = V (x) < 0 (4.16)
dt
41
except for the equilibrium point x0 , when V (x0 ) = 0.
In other words we must ensure that the energy of the system dissipates over time, considering
zero external input.
The basic stability of a system is analyzed using the quadratic Lyapunov function [28]:
V (x) = xT P x
where P = P T > 0. For asymptotic stability, we should consider the derivative of the Lyapunov
function of the entire TS fuzzy system:
n
d X
V̇ (x) = V (x) = ẋ T P + P ẋ = hi (z(t))(ATi P + P Ai )x (4.17)
dt i=1
The equilibrium of a TS fuzzy system is globally asymptotically stable if there exists a common
symmetric, positive definite matrix P (P = P T > 0) for all the subsystems such that [28]:
ATi P + P Ai < 0 (4.18)
for i = 1, ..., n, where n is the number of rules (n = 1 for linear system stability analysis). The
common matrix P can be found using convex optimization techniques.
The above stability conditions will also be used to design a fuzzy controller based on state
feedback (2.2) using the idea of parallel distributed compensation. Similarly to the LQR case,
full state feedback requires the system to be (completely) state controllable [14], i.e. from any
initial state the system can be driven to any reachable final state using the control input in finite
time [15]. The PDC approach is based on the same fuzzy sets and premise variables as the fuzzy
model itself. For each fuzzy subsystem (rule) a linear state feedback control law is defined [28]:
IF z1 (q, q̇) is M1k1 and z2 (q, q̇) is M2k2 and z3 (q, q̇) is M3k3 and z4 (q, q̇) is M4k3 and z5 (q) is M5k5
THEN u(t) = −Fi x
where Fi notes the state feedback gain for subsystem i, i = 1, ..., n and [k1 , ..., k2 ] ∈ {1, 2}
The overall fuzzy controller is given as [31]:
n
X
u(t) = − hi (z(t))Fi x(t) (4.19)
i=1
42
By substituting (4.19) into (4.3) we obtain the equation of the closed-loop system:
n X
X n
ẋ(t) = hi (z(t))hj (z(t))(Ai − Bi Fj )x(t) (4.20)
i=1 j=1
The system can be rewritten in a more convenient relation [31]:

n
X
ẋ(t) = hi (z(t))hi (z(t))Gii x(t)+
i=1
Xn X
i nG + G o
ij ji
+2 hi (z(t))hj (z(t)) x(t) (4.21)
i=1 j=1
2
where
Gij = Ai − Bi Fj
The asymptotic stability of (4.21) is ensured by [31]:
GTii P + P Gii < 0 (4.22)

!T !
Gij + Gji Gij + Gji
P +P ≤0 (4.23)
2 2
where 1 ≤ j < i ≤ n.
An LMI has the form [23]:

n
X
F (x) = F0 + xi F i > 0
i=1
where xT = [x1 , ..., xn ] is the decision variable and the matrices Fi = FiT ∈ IRn×n are known,
F (x) > 0 meaning F (x) is positive definite. The inequalities (4.22) and (4.23), however, are
not LMIs, since they are neither linear, nor jointly convex in Fi and P [23]. To obtain a linear
relation we introduce Q = P −1 . Note that since P = P T > 0 it follows that also Q = QT > 0.
By pre- and post multiplying (4.22) and (4.23) with Q we obtain:
QGTii + Gii Q < 0 (4.24)

!T !
Gij + Gji Gij + Gji
Q + Q≤0 (4.25)
2 2
43
In order to solve the convexity problem we introduce Wi = Fi Q, it follows that the state
feedback gains are given as Fi = Wi Q−1 = Wi P . We can then rewrite (4.24) and (4.25)
as:
QATi + Ai Q − Bi Wi − WiT BiT < 0 (4.26)

QATi + Ai Q + QATj + Aj Q−
−Bi Wj − WjT BiT − Bj Wi − WiT BjT ≤ 0 (4.27)
where 1 ≤ j < i ≤ n.
4.4 Performance guarantees

Beside stability condition, performance requirements may also be considered. One of
them is the convergence speed of the states to the equilibrium point (x0 ), which can be adjusted
using constraints on the decay rate. The condition that constrains the decay rate (0 ≤ α ≤ 1) is
given as [29]:
V̇ (x) ≤ −2αV (x) (4.28)
Introducing (4.28) into (4.24), (4.25), (4.26) and (4.27) yields:
QGTii + Gii Q + 2αQ < 0

!T !
Gij + Gji Gij + Gji
Q + Q + 2αQ ≤ 0
2 2
QATi + Ai Q − Bi Wi − WiT BiT + 2αQ < 0
QATi + Ai Q + QATj + Aj Q−
−Bi Wj − WjT BiT − Bj Wi − WiT BjT + 4αQ ≤ 0
Constraints can also be set on the input and output, respectively [32].
Since every Lyapunov function is a positive monotonically decreasing function (see (4.15) and
(4.16)), he relation V (x) ≤ V (x0 ) holds. We assume that the initial condition (x0 ) is unknown,
but it is norm-bounded as ||x0 || = xT0 x0 ≤ σ 2 . The Lyapunov function of the initial state is
given as: V (x0 ) = xT0 P x0 = xT0 Q−1 x0 . Imposing
Q = P −1 ≥ σ 2 I (4.29)
44
leads to [30]:
1
P ≤ I
σ2
1
V (x0 ) = xT0 P x0 ≤ σ 2 2 ≤ 1
σ
V (x) ≤ V (x0 ) ≤ 1 (4.30)
After substituting P = Q−1 and rearranging we obtain:
1 − xT Q−1 x ≥ 0
Using the Schur complement we obtain the LMI form as:

1 xT
>0
x Q
For the case when the input (ui = −Fi x) is norm-bounded (||ui || = uTi ui ≤ µ2 ) we have:
uTi ui = xT FiT Fi x ≤ µ2
1 T T
x Fi Fi x ≤ 1
µ2
We impose that:
1 T T
x Fi Fi x ≤ V (x) ≤ 1
µ2
1 T T
x Fi Fi x ≤ xT Q−1 x
µ2
By rearanging we obtain:
!
1 T
xT F Fi − Q−1 x ≤ 0
µ2 i
1 T
2
Fi Fi − Q−1 ≤ 0
µ
By premultiplying and postmultiplying with Q we obtain:
1
Q− QFiT Fi Q ≥ 0
µ2
45
By applying Schur complement we obtain the LMI form:

Q QFiT Q WiT
= >0 (4.31)
Fi Q µ2 I W i µ2 I
For constraining the output (y = Ci x = Cx) to be norm-bounded as ||y|| = y T y ≤ α2 we have:
xT C T Cx ≤ α2
1 T T
x C Cx ≤ 1
α2
We impose that:
1 T T
x C Cx ≤ V (x) ≤ 1
α2
1 T T
x C Cx ≤ xT Q−1 x
α2
By rearanging we obtain:
!
1 T
xT C C − Q−1 x ≤ 0
α2
1 T
2
C C − Q−1 ≤ 0
α
By premultiplying and postmultiplying with Q we obtain:
1
Q− QC T CQ ≥ 0
α2
By applying Schur complement we obtain the LMI form:

Q QC T
>0
CQ α2 I
4.5 Observer design

The motivation of a fuzzy observer remains the same as in case of the linear (Luen-
berger) observer. In order to control the system, we must have access to the state variables, even
though some may be inaccessible.
Similarly to the Luenberger-observer, the estimation error of the fuzzy observer should converge
to zero over time, i.e. x(t) − x̂(t) → 0 when t → ∞, where x(t) denotes the actual state vector
of the system, while x̂(t) denotes the state vector estimated by the observer [31]. Given the
46
linear structure of the subsystems, a fuzzy observer can be seen as interpolated Luenberger
observers. The error dynamics is similar to the linear case, and is given as:
The observer dynamics is given as:
˙
x̂(t) = (Ai − Bi Fi )x̂(t)
ŷ(t) = C x̂(t)
The estimation error dynamics is given as:
e(t) = x(t) − x̂(t)

ė(t) = (Ai − Ki Ci )e
The innovation is given as:
Ki (y(t) − ŷ(t)) = Ki Ci (x(t) − x̂(t)) = Ki Ci e(t)
where x̂ and ŷ are the estimated state and output, respectively.
The observer, similarly to the pole placement method with state feedback, adjusts the location
of poles of the error dynamics. There are two approaches of fuzzy observer design depending on
whether or not the premise variables (z(t)) depend on the state variables (x̂(t)) estimated by the
fuzzy observer. Sharing the same premise variables (z(t)) and membership functions (h(z(t)))
the augmented system is described similarly to the actual fuzzy model of the system [33]:
Observer rule i:
k
IF z1 (q, q̇) is M1k and ... and zm (t) is Mm THEN
˙
x̂(t) = Ai x̂(t) + Bi u(t) + Ki (y(t) − ŷ(t))
ŷ(t) = Ci x̂(t)
for i = 1, ..., n and k = 1, 2.
The TS fuzzy observer is given as:
n
X
˙
x̂(t) = hi (z(t))[Ai x̂(t) + Bi u(t) + Ki (y(t) − ŷ(t))]
i=1
47
n
X
ŷ(t) = hi (z(t))Ci x̂(t)
i=1
We aim at computing the gain matrices (Ki ), which is done similarly to the computation of the
feedback gains (Fi ) [33]:
GTii Q + QGii + 2αQ < 0

!T !
Gij + Gji Gij + Gji
Q+Q + 4αQ ≤ 0
2 2
where Gij = Ai − Kj Ci and 1 ≤ j < i ≤ n, s.t. hi (z(t)) · hi (z(t)) > 0. Note that in our case
Ci = C.
ATi Q + QAi − C T NiT − Ni C + 2αQ < 0

ATi Q + QAi + ATj Q + QAj −
−C T NiT − Ni C − C T NjT − Nj C + 4αQ ≤ 0
where 1 ≤ j < i ≤ n, s.t. hi (z(t)) · hi (z(t)) > 0 and the observer gains are given as
Ki = Q−1 Ni .

We computed the controller feedback gains Fi for the closed-loop system (also used
in the observer’s closed-loop), respectively, the observer gains Ki (used in the error dynamics)
using the same performance guarantees on the states and different decay rates α. We were
not limiting the control effort, however, to avoid solving too restrictive systems of LMIs. The
bounds chosen for the state variables were the same as the ones chosen in the modeling phase
4.1, i.e.: x1 (t), x2 (t) ∈ [−0.5, 0.5], and x3 (t), x4 (t) ∈ [−3.5, 3.5]. For the chosen performance
guarantees on the states, we computed the feedback and observer gains for all decay rates α
in the range [0, 1], with steps of 0.01. The LMIs were solved using Matlab’s implicit solver
”lmilab”, with YALMIP interface for simplified formulation of the LMIs (conditions). The
obtained sets of feedback gains and observer gains were simulated for initial state [0.5 0.5 0 0]T .
In case of the system with observer all binary combinations of feedback gain sets and observer
gain sets were simulated. We performed simulations for the nonlinear systems, with or without
observer. In case of the simulations with observer, the initial state of the observer was [0 0 0 0]T .
The best results in terms of settling time were found for decay rate αcl = 0.51 of the closed-
loop. In case of the system with observer, the same closed-loop decay rate αcl = 0.51 was
chosen, with the observer decay rate αobs = 0.23.
48
Initial conditions: [ 0.5, 0.5, 0, 0 ] T Initial conditions: [ 0.5, 0.5, 0, 0 ] T
4 4
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
3 x2 [rad] 3 x2 [rad]
2 2
1 1
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 -4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) Without observer (b) With observer
Figure 4.3: Trajectories of the closed-loop system
Comparing the two subfigures we can remark that the settling time of the system without ob-
server is slightly less, than that of with observer.
49
Chapter 5
TESTING AND VALIDATION
In this chapter we present the Simscape simulation enviroment, where the manipulator
is recreated. Simulations are performed on the Simscape model using controllers and observers
obtained earlier. Simulation results are presented.
5.1 Simulator
For validation and testing purposes we implemented the robot manipulator in Sim-
scape within Simulink. Simscape is a multi-domain modeling tool designed for creating and
simulating models of physical systems assembled from the elementary components of the sys-
tem. These components are built from building blocks, which resemble elementary physical
elements. The interconnection between components is done by physical connections, which are
directly integrated by the component blocks of the model [34]. A Simscape model is capable of
recreating the actual system with high fidelity in several aspects. Simscape Multibody (SimMe-
chanics) is a tool specifically designated for multibody mechanical systems, such as our robot
manipulator.
We have built the Simscape model of our manipulator from 3 Solid Blocks, i.e. base,
upper arm and lower arm. The 3 Solid blocks were connected by 2 Rotary Joints Blocks. We
used parameters presented in Table 2.2. Depending on the type of system implemented, the
joints were disabled or enabled to provide the joint angle positions and joint angular velocities
in case of systems with or without observer. For visual purposes we imported the SolidWorks
model of the KUKA KR 6 R900 SIXX (KR AGILUS) industrial robot manipulator, which can
be seen in Figure 5.1. We adopted the model, i.e. the parameters are different from the actual
KUKA parameters.
50
(a) Actual robot (b) SolidWorks model in Simulink Simscape
Figure 5.1: KUKA industrial robot
The simulations were performed for the already computed controllers, with the same limitations
and the same initial states of both, the closed-loop system and the observer. We have made a
modification in the case of the TS fuzzy controller and observer. The only values of the decay
rates, for which the closed-loop system and the closed-loop system with observer were found
stable were αcl = 0.71 and αobs = 0.83, respectively. The trajectories (Simulink Scope plots)
of the Simscape model are presented below:

5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) Gain matrix: Klqr1 (b) Gain matrix: Klqr2
faster compared to the system from subfigure (b).
51
5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) Gain matrix: Klqr1 (b) Gain matrix: Klqr2
In case of the system from Figure 5.3, beside the decay rate difference between the two sub-
figures, similar as in case of Figure 5.2, we can see how the observer slows the dynamics of
the system, while reducing the estimation error. This behavior is hard to remark in the case
of subfigure (b) since it’s dynamics is much slower than the system from subfigure (a), even
without an observer.

5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) Gain matrix: Kpp1 (b) Gain matrix: Kpp2
faster compared to the system from subfigure (b).
52
5 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
0 0
-5 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) Gain matrix: Kpp1 (b) Gain matrix: Kpp2
In case of Figure 5.3, beside the decay rate difference between the two subfigures, similar as in
case of Figure 5.2. The effect introduced by the observer is remarkable in both cases.
Initial conditions: [ 0.5, 0.5, 0, 0 ] T Initial conditions: [ 0.5, 0.5, 0, 0 ] T

1 5
x1 [rad] x1 [rad]
0 x2 [rad] x2 [rad]
-1 ẋ2 [rad/s] ẋ2 [rad/s]
-2
-3
0
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8 -5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) Decay rate: αcl = 0.71 (b) Decay rates: αcl = 0.71, αobs = 0.83
Figure 5.6: Trajectories of the closed-loop system without and with observer using TS fuzzy
control
This is the only case, when the effect of the observer, which can be seen in subfigure (b), is
beneficial, providing no vibration, and smaller settling time. In the case of the system without
observer subfigure (a), even though stable, it presents vibrations.
We have obtained similar results as in case of the analytically obtained models. This
leads to the conclusion, that our models, controllers and observers are valid ones.
53
Chapter 6
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
The purpose of this thesis was to present different control strategies for a 2 degree of
freedom robot manipulator. The Euler-Lagrange modeling approach was used to deduce the
forward kinematic model of a generic robot manipulator. General notions of linear and nonlin-
ear systems were presented. The nonlinear, affine model, obtained at the modeling phase, was
brought to a linear time varying one by compensation of the affine term. The time varying form
was linearized to obtain the Linear Time Invariant form. General notions of controllability and
observability were presented. Two control strategies, namely pole placement and LQR, were
presented for the linear model. Two sets of controllers were designed in order to compare not
only the two strategies, but also the effects of parameters in each control strategy. An observer
was designed for the linear system. Simulations were performed for the computed controllers on
the linear and nonlinear system, with or without observer. The simulation results were analyzed
and compared. A nonlinear Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model was built using sector nonlinearity.
A TS fuzzy controller and observer were also computed using predefined performance guar-
antees. Simulations were performed for the computed TS fuzzy controllers on the nonlinear
model. Simulation results were analyzed and compared. A high fidelity simulator was built
using the same parameters as the ones used in the nonlinear model. The formerly computed
controllers and observers were installed on the simulator and simulations were performed, for
the same initial states. The obtained results were analyzed and compared.
Future work includes, among others, identification of an actual robot. Building the
model of the robot with the presented approaches, and designing controllers, and if necessary,
observers for it; comparing the actual results with the results presented in this thesis and de-
ducing conclusions. Another possible development is the extension of the presented controllers
and observers for a manipulator having more degrees of freedom. Further development may
be extending the scope of the thesis to a non-planar manipulator, i.e. the motion of joints are
not in the same planes. A final step of development may be tailoring controllers and observers
for a specific manipulator in a specific domain, such as military, medicine, spatial or industrial
domain.
54
Appendices
55
Appendix A
Nonlinear model
Below are briefly presented the Simulink and Simscape models, used in the modeling
phase, as well as important code snipplets:
(a) Simulink model (b) Simscape model
Figure A.1: Models used in simulation of the nonlinear system
(a) Structure of the links (b) Model with COM and reference frames
Figure A.2: Simscape model of the system
Matlab code implementing the nonlinear model is presented below:
function dx = Manipulator(x, u)
m1 = 23.902; m2 = 3.88; l1 = 0.45; l2 = 0.45; lc1 = 0.091; lc2 = 0.048;

i1 = 1.266; i2 = 0.093; g = 9.81;
h11 = m1*lc1ˆ2 + m2*l1ˆ2 + m2*lc2ˆ2 + 2*m2*l1*lc2*cos(x(2)) + i1 + i2;
56
h12 = m2*lc2ˆ2 + m2*l1*lc2*cos(x(2)) + i2;
h21 = m2*lc2ˆ2 + m2*l1*l2*cos(x(2)) + i2;
h22 = m2*lc2ˆ2 + i2;
c11 = -2*m2*l1*lc2*sin(x(2))*x(4);
c12 = -m2*l1*lc2*sin(x(2))*x(4);
c21 = m2*l1*lc2*sin(x(2))*x(3);
c22 = 0;
g1 = -((m1*lc1 + m2*l1)*g*sin(x(1)) + m2*g*lc2*sin(x(1)+x(2)));

g2 = -(m2*g*lc2*sin(x(1)+x(2)));
M = [h11 h12; h21 h22];
M1 = inv(M);
C = [c11 c12; c21 c22];

G = [g1; g2];
D = 5;
dx = [x(3:4); M1*(u - C*[x(3:4)] - D*[x(3:4)]) - M1*G];

% dx = [x(3:4); M1*(u - C*[x(3:4)] - D*[x(3:4)])];
57
Appendix B
Linear model and control
Below are briefly presented the Simulink and Simscape models, used in linear model-
ing and controller design phase, as well as important code snipplets:
Figure B.1: Models used in simulation of the linear system without observer
58
Figure B.2: Models used in simulation of the linear system with observer
Matlab code implementing the linearization of the nonlinear model and the computation of the
pole placement and LQR control is presented below:
close all; clear all; clc;
m1 = 23.902; m2 = 3.88; l1 = 0.45; l2 = 0.45; lc1 = 0.091; lc2 = 0.048;

i1 = 1.266; i2 = 0.093; g = 9.81;
syms x1 x2 x1d x2d x3d x4d u1 u2 %x1d = x3; x2d = x4;
v = [x1 x2 x1d x2d x3d x4d u1 u2];
IC = [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0];
h11 = m1*lc1ˆ2 + m2*l1ˆ2 + m2*lc2ˆ2 + 2*m2*l1*lc2*cos(x2) + i1 + i2;

h12 = m2*lc2ˆ2 + m2*l1*lc2*cos(x2) + i2;
h21 = m2*lc2ˆ2 + m2*l1*lc2*cos(x2) + i2;
59
h22 = m2*lc2ˆ2 + i2;
M = [h11 h12; h21 h22];
M1nl = inv(M);
M1j = jacobian([M1nl(1,1) M1nl(1,2) M1nl(2,1) M1nl(2,2)], v);
M10 = double(subs(M1nl, v, IC));
M1pd = double(subs(M1j, v, IC)); %0
M1l = M10;
c11 = -2*m2*l1*lc2*sin(x2)*x2d;
c12 = -m2*l1*lc2*sin(x2)*x2d;
c21 = m2*l1*lc2*sin(x2)*x1d;
c22 = 0;
Cnl = [c11 c12; c21 c22];
g1 = -((m1*lc1 + m2*l1)*g*sin(x1) + m2*g*lc2*sin(x1+x2));

g2 = -(m2*g*lc2*sin(x1+x2));
Gnl = [g1; g2];
Dnl = 5;
Fnl = M1nl*(-Gnl - Cnl*[x1d;x2d] - Dnl*[x1d;x2d] + [u1;u2]);

%Fnl = -M1nl*(Gnl + (Cnl+Dnl*eye(2))*[x1d;x2d] + [u1;u2]);
Fj = jacobian([Fnl(1,1) Fnl(2,1)], v);
Fo = double(subs(Fnl, v, IC));
Fpd = double(subs(Fj, v, IC));
Al = [0 0 1 0; 0 0 0 1; Fpd(:,1:4)];
Bl = [0 0; 0 0; Fpd(:,7:8)];
Cl = [1 0 0 0; 0 1 0 0];
60
Dl = [0 0;0 0];
%%STATE(x1,x2) PRIORITY****************1%%%
R = Cl*Cl’;
alfa = 1e9;
% tau
Q = diag(alfa*[1 1 1e-6 1e-6]);
%%%STATE(x3,x4) PRIORITY%%%
% R = Cl*Cl’;
% alfa = 1e3;
% %tau
% Q = diag(alfa*[1e-1 1e-1 1 1]);
%%CONTROL PRIORITY*****************2%%%
% alfa = 1e-12;%<=13
% R = (Cl*Cl’);
%
% Q = alfa*diag([1 1 1e-6 1e-6]);
%%CONTROL PRIORITY%%%
% alfa = 1e12;%<=13
% R = alfa*(Cl*Cl’);
%
% Q = diag([1 1 1 1]);
%
[K,S,e] = lqr(Al,Bl,Q,R);
R = Cl*Cl’;
alfa = 1e6;
Q = diag(alfa*[1 1 1 1]);
%%%%%%pp1
% K = place(Al,Bl,-5*[10 10 1 1])
%%%%%%pp2
% K = place(Al,Bl,-20*[10 10 1 1])
[Lp,S,e] = lqr(Al’,Cl’,Q’,R’);
Lp = Lp’;
61
Appendix C
Nonlinear control
Below are briefly presented the Simulink and Simscape models, used in linear model-
ing and controller design phase, as well as important code snipplets:
Figure C.1: Models used in simulation of the TS fuzzy system without observer
62
Figure C.2: Models used in simulation of the TS fuzzy system with observer
Matlab code implementing the computation of the feedback gains is presented below:
function k = fcn(x,Md,maxZ,minZ)
m1 = 23.902; m2 = 3.88; l1 = 0.45; lc1 = 0.091; lc2 = 0.048;

i1 = 1.266; i2 = 0.093;
%M1 = zeros(2,4);
K = zeros(2,4);
%M1(1:2,1:4) = Md(1:2,1:4,1);
f1 = m2*l1*lc2*cos(x(2));
m22 = m2*lc2ˆ2 + i2;

m21 = f1 + m22;
m12 = m21;
m11 = 2*f1 + m22 + m1*lc1ˆ2 + m2*l1ˆ2 + i1;
M = [m11 m12; m21 m22];

M1nl = 1/(m11*m22 - m12*m21).*[m22 -m12; -m21 m11];
c11 = -2*m2*l1*lc2*sin(x(2))*x(4);
c12 = -m2*l1*lc2*sin(x(2))*x(4);
c21 = m2*l1*lc2*sin(x(2))*x(3);
63
c22 = 0;
Cnl = [c11 c12; c21 c22];
D = 10;
Dnl = eye(2)*D;
Fanl = -M1nl*(Cnl+Dnl);
% Fbnl = M1nl;
%
% [n,d] = numden(Fbnl);
dec = uint64(0:2ˆ5 - 1);

bin = de2bi(dec);
w1 = [(maxZ(1) - Fanl(1,1))/(maxZ(1) - minZ(1)),

(Fanl(1,1) - minZ(1))/(maxZ(1) - minZ(1))];
w2 = [(maxZ(2) - Fanl(1,2))/(maxZ(2) -
minZ(2)), (Fanl(1,2) - minZ(2))/(maxZ(2) - minZ(2))];
w3 = [(maxZ(3) - Fanl(2,1))/(maxZ(3) -
w4 = [(maxZ(4) - Fanl(2,2))/(maxZ(4) -
w5 = [(maxZ(5) - cos(x(2)))/(maxZ(5) -
minZ(5)), (cos(x(2)) - minZ(5))/(maxZ(5) - minZ(5))];
% w6 = [(maxZ(6) - (1/d))/(maxZ(6) -
minZ(6)), (1/d - minZ(6))/(maxZ(6) - minZ(6))];
h = zeros(1,32);
for i = 1:1:length(bin)
h(i) = w1(bin(i,1)+1)*w2(bin(i,2)+1)*w3(bin(i,3)+1)*
w4(bin(i,4)+1)*w5(bin(i,5)+1);
K = K + h(i)*Md(:,:,i);
end;
k = K;
% w1(1)*w2(1)*w3(1)*w4(1)*w5(1)
% h
% pause
%k = ones(2,4);
Matlab code implementing the system of LMIs (for the closed-loop system and the observer),
as well as the way the solver was used is presented below:
64
load(’data2.mat’);
M = cell(1, length(bin));
for i = 1:length(bin)
M{i} = sdpvar(2,4);
end;
X = sdpvar(4);
G = cell(32,32);
gamma = 1e-25;
for j = 1:i
G{i,j} = X*(A(:,:,i) + A(:,:,j))’ - (B(:,:,i)*M{j} +
B(:,:,j)*M{i})’ + (A(:,:,i) + A(:,:,j))*X - (B(:,:,i)*M{j} + B(:,:,j)*M{
end;
end;
C = [1 0 0 0];
C1 = [0 1 0 0];
C2 = [0 0 1 0];
C3 = [0 0 0 1];
Ct = [C;C1];
Ct2 = [C2;C3];
Co = [ X >= gamma*eye(4), [X X*C’; C*X 0.5ˆ2] >= gamma*eye(5),

[X X*C1’; C1*X 0.5ˆ2] >= gamma*eye(5),
[X X*C2’; C2*X 3.5ˆ2] >= gamma*eye(5),
[X X*C3’; C3*X 3.5ˆ2] >= gamma*eye(5)];
alf = 0.71;
for j = 1:i
if (j == i)
Co = [Co, G{i,j} <= -4*alf*X - gamma*eye(4)];
else
Co = [Co, G{i,j} <= -4*alf*X];
end;
end;
65
end;
opt = sdpsettings(’solver’,’lmilab’);
sol = solvesdp(Co,[],opt);
P = inv(double(X));
Md = [];
Md(:,:,i) = double(M{i})*P;
end;
% load(’data2.mat’);
load(’lmi.mat’);
C = [1 0 0 0];
C1 = [0 1 0 0];
C2 = [0 0 1 0];
C3 = [0 0 0 1];
Ct = [C;C1];
Ct2 = [C2;C3];
% r = 4;
% for i = 1:length(bin)
% Qo = obsv(A(:,:,i),Ct);
% if (r ˜= rank(Qo))
% i
% end;
% zita = ctrb(A(:,:,i),B(:,:,i));
% if (r ˜= rank(zita))
% i
% end;
% end;
% Q = obsv(Al,Cl);
% rank(Q);
L = cell(1, length(bin));
L{i} = sdpvar(4,2);
end;
66
Q = sdpvar(4);
G = cell(32,32);
gaLLa = 1e-25;
for j = 1:i
G{i,j} = (A(:,:,i) + A(:,:,j))’*Q - (L{j}*Ct +
L{i}*Ct)’ + Q*(A(:,:,i) + A(:,:,j)) - (L{j}*Ct + L{i}*Ct);
end;
end;
Co = [ Q >= gaLLa*eye(4), [Q Q*C’; C*Q 0.5ˆ2] >= gaLLa*eye(5),

[Q Q*C1’; C1*Q 0.5ˆ2] >= gaLLa*eye(5),
[Q Q*C2’; C2*Q 3.5ˆ2] >= gaLLa*eye(5),
[Q Q*C3’; C3*Q 3.5ˆ2] >= gaLLa*eye(5)];
alf = 0.83;
for j = 1:i
%if ˜((h(i) == 0) || (h(j) == 0))
%Co = [Co, (G{i,j}+G{j,i})’/2*Q + Q*(G{i,j}+G{j,i})/2 <= 2*alf*Q];
%end
if (j == i)
Co = [Co, G{i,j} <= -4*alf*Q-gaLLa*eye(4)];
else
Co = [Co, G{i,j} <= -4*alf*Q];
end;
end;
end;
opt = sdpsettings(’solver’,’lmilab’);
sol = solvesdp(Co,[],opt);
P = inv(double(Q));
Ld = [];
Ld(:,:,i) = P*double(L{i});
end;
67
Bibliography
[1] Pablo Sánchez-Sánchez and Marco Antonio Arteaga-Pérez. Simplied Methodology for
Obtaining the Dynamic Model of Robot Manipulators. International Journal of Ad-
vanced Robotic Systems, 2012. Retrieved from: http://cdn.intechopen.com/
pdfs-wm/40783.pdf.
[2] MapleSoft. Robot Manipulators - Position, Orientation and Coordinate Transformations

[User guide]. Retrieved from: https://www.maplesoft.com/content/
EngineeringFundamentals/13/MapleDocument_13/Position,
%20Orientation%20and%20Coordinate%20Transformations.pdf.
[3] Frank L. Lewis, Darren M. Dawson, and Chaouki T. Abdallah. Robot Manipulator Con-
trol: Theory and Practice, chapter 1 - Comercial Robot Manipulators, pages 1–19. CRC
Press, 2003.
[4] Alessandro De Luca. Dynamic model of robots: Newton-Euler approach [Lecture

notes]. Retrieved from: http://www.diag.uniroma1.it/˜deluca/rob2_
en/06_NewtonEulerDynamics.pdf.
[5] David Tong. Lectures on Classical Dynamics [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from: http:
//www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/dynamics/two.pdf.
[6] H. Harry Asada. Introduction to Robotics [Lecture notes]. Retrieved

from: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/
2-12-introduction-to-robotics-fall-2005/lecture-notes/
chapter7.pdf.
[7] Hanno Essén. The Theory of Lagrange’s Method [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from: http:
//www.mech.kth.se/˜hanno/LagrangesEqs.pdf.
[8] Rodney L. Varley. Kinematics of Angular Motion. Retrieved from: http://

www.hunter.cuny.edu/physics/courses/physics110/repository/
files/section51/11KinematicsofAngularMotionRev.pdf, 2010.
[9] Derek Rowell. State-Space Representation of LTI Systems. Retrived from: http://
web.mit.edu/2.14/www/Handouts/StateSpace.pdf, October 2002.
[10] Pieter Collins, Luc Habets, Anton Kuut, Margreet Nool, Mihaly Petreczky, and Jan H.
van Schuppen. ConPAHS - A Software Package for Control of Piecewise-Affine Hy-
brid Systems. In 2006 IEEE Conference on Computer Aided Control System De-
sign, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, 2006 IEEE Inter-
national Symposium on Intelligent Control, pages 76 – 81. IEEE, October 2006. Re-
trieved from: http://msdl.cs.mcgill.ca/people/mosterman/campam/
cacsd06/collins.pdf.
68
[11] Eric Sullivan. Taylor Series Single Variable and Multi-Variable [Lecture notes]. Re-
trieved from: http://www.math.ucdenver.edu/˜esulliva/Calculus3/
Taylor.pdf.
[12] J.E. Ackermann. Control systems, robotics and automation, volume 8, chapter Chapter 13:
Control of Linear Multivariable Systems. EOLSS Publishers Co. Ltd., 2009. Retrieved
from: http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c18/e6-43.pdf.
[13] H. L. Trentelman. Stability, Pole Placement, Observers and Stabilization [Lecture

notes]. Retrieved from: http://www.math.rug.nl/˜trentelman/psfiles/
DISCweek2.pdf.
[14] Radhakant Padhi. Pole Placement Control Design [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from:
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/101108047/module9/Lecture%2021.
pdf.
[15] Gabriel Oliver Codina. Controllability and Observability [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from:
http://dmi.uib.es/˜goliver/SS/Teoria/T3_Controllability.pdf.
[16] Linear Control Systems [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from: https:

//www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=
568b60906307d93a818b456a&assetKey=AS%3A314419253317633%
401451974799341.
[17] F. L. Lewis. Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) State Feedback Design [Lecture notes].
Retrieved from: http://www.uta.edu/utari/acs/Lectures/lqr.pdf, Oc-
tober 2008.
[18] Radhakant Padhi. Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) Design [Lecture notes]. Retrieved
from: http://nptel.ac.in/courses/101108047/module11/Lecture%
2027.pdf.
[19] M. Sami Fadali. Contollability & Observability [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from: http:
//wolfweb.unr.edu/˜fadali/ee471/ContolObserve.pdf.
[20] Verica Radisavljevic-Gajic. Linear Observers Design and Implementation. In Con-

ference of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE Zone 1), 2014.
Retrieved from: http://www.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2014/
Professional/PDFs/36.pdf.
[21] Bill Messner, Carnegie Mellon, and Dawn Tilbury. Control tutorials for matlab and
simulink.
[22] Kamyar Mehran. Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Modeling for Process Control [Lecture notes].
Retrieved from: https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/damian.giaouris/pdf/
IA%20Automation/TS%20FL%20tutorial.pdf, 2008.
69
[23] Kazuo Tanaka and Hua O. Wang. Fuzzy Control Systems Design and Analysis: A Linear
Matrix Inequality Approach. John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
[24] Huaping Liu, Fuchun Sun, Zengqi Sun, and Chunwen Li. Partial-State-Feedback Con-
troller Design for Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Systems Using Homotopy Method . In Proceed-
ings of the 2004, American Control Conference Boston, Massachusetts, June 30 - July 2,
2004, volume 1, pages 447 – 452. IEEE, July 2004.
[25] Yongru Gu, H. O. Wang, K. Tanaka, and L. G. Bushnell. Fuzzy control of nonlinear time-
delay systems: stability and design issues. In American Control Conference, volume 6,
pages 4771 – 4776. IEEE, June 2001.
[26] F. Khaber, K. Zehar, and A. Hamzaoui. State Feedback Controller Design via Takagi-
Sugeno Fuzzy Model: LMI Approach. International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace,
Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing Engineering, 2(6), 2008.
[27] P. Korba and P.M. Frank. A model-based fuzzy control: LMI-based approach. Retrieved
from: http://www.rst.e-technik.tu-dortmund.de/cms/Medienpool/
Downloads/Veranstaltungen/GMA-Fachausschuss/Publikationen/
workshop99/Korba__Frank.pdf.
[28] Enric Trillas and Luka Eciolaza. Fuzzy Logic: An Introductory Course for Engineering
Students. Springer, 2015.
[29] Morteza Seidi, Marzieh Hajiaghamemar, and Bruce Segee. Fuzzy Controllers- Recent
Advances in Theory and Applications, chapter 18 - Fuzzy Control Systems: LMI-Based
Design, pages 441–464. InTech, 2012.
[30] Zsófia Lendek. Nonlinear control using Takagi-Sugeno models [Lecture notes]. UT Press,
2013.
[31] Kazuo Tanaka, Takayuki Ikeda, and Hua O. Wang. Fuzzy Regulators and Fuzzy Ob-
servers: Relaxed Stability Conditions and LMI-Based Designs. In IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems, volume 6, pages 250–265, May 1998.
[32] Miguel Bernal and Petr Hušek. Non–Quadratic Performance Design For Takagi–Sugeno
Fuzzy Systems. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science,
15(3):383–391, 2005.
[33] Enrique J. Herrera-López, Bernardino Castillo-Toledo, Jesús Ramı́rez-Córdova, and

Eugénio C. Ferreira. New Developments in Robotics Automation and Control, chapter
Chapter 8, pages 155–179. InTech, October 2008.
[34] Mathworks Manual. Retrieved from: http://o6uelearning.com/Uploads/

files/ad3efb30-4564-4052-a957-274cf34f0b6f.pdf.
70

Comparison of Control Strategies For A Two Degrees of Freedom Robot Manipulator

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Comparison of Control Strategies For A Two Degrees of Freedom Robot Manipulator

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Comparison of control strategies for

a two degrees of freedom

June 27, 2016

2 MODELING OF THE ROBOT MANIPULATOR 6

5 TESTING AND VALIDATION 50

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS 54

B Linear model and control 58

1.1 A robot arm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 KUKA robot manipulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1 Observer based state feedback control [21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.1 Global sector nonlinearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1 KUKA industrial robot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

A.1 Models used in simulation of the nonlinear system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

B.1 Models used in simulation of the linear system without observer . . . . . . . . 58

C.1 Models used in simulation of the TS fuzzy system without observer . . . . . . 62

Figure 1.1: A robot arm

1.1 Objectives and specifications

2.1 Lagrangian dynamics

Figure 2.1: KUKA robot manipulator

An industrial robot is presented in Figure 2.1. A manipulator’s movement depend on

L(q, q̇) = K(q, q̇) − U (q) (2.1)

2.2 Euler-Lagrange model

Table 2.1: Notations

where q denotes the angle joint position.

This is the forward kinematic model, and it can be summarized as:

x = −l1 · sin(q1 ) − lc2 · sin(q1 + q2 ) y = l1 · cos q1 − lc2 · cos(q1 + q2 )

The kinetic energy of the first link (L1 ) is given as:

The kinetic energy of the second link (L2 ) is given as:

After simplification, (2.3) becomes:

The potential energy (U ) of a link is given as:

U1 (q) = m1 glc1 cos(q1 )

L(q, q̇) = Ktotal (q, q̇) − Utotal (q) =

Equations (2.8) and (2.9) can be written in matrix form as:

Equation (2.10) can also be represented in a compact form as:

τ = M (q)q̈ + Cr (q, q̇)q̇ + Dc q̇ + G(q) (2.11)

where τ = [τ1 τ2 ]T , q̈ = [q̈ 1 q̈ 2 ]T , q̇ = [q̇ 1 q̇ 2 ]T and q = [q1 q2 ]T .

c11 (q2 , q̇ 2 ) = −2m2 l1 lc2 sin(q2 )q̇ 2

g1 (q1 , q2 ) = −(m1 lc1 + m2 l1 )g sin(q1 ) − m2 glc2 sin(q1 + q2 )

We bring (2.11) to an explicit form of the highest order derivative (q̈):

2.3 Simulation results

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) (2.13)

The four element state vector x is given as:

Based on (2.12), (2.13) and (2.14) we obtain:

Description Notation Value Units

Table 2.2: Parameter values

Initial conditions: [ 0.1, 0, 0, 0 ] T Initial conditions: [ 0, π/2, 0, 0 ] T

Figure 2.5: Simulation of the system given by (2.22) and (2.23)

3.1 Linear model

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)

f (x1 , ..., xn ) = f (x01 , ..., x0n ) + fx1 (x01 , ..., x0n ) 4 x1 +

• vertical upward position of the ends of L1 and L2 : x = [0 0 0 0]T

• vertical up- or downward position of the ends of L1 and L2 : x = [±π ± π 0 0]T .

f (v) = f (v0 ) + Jpd × [v − v0 ]

f1 (v) = f1 (v0 ) + Jpd (1, 1) 4 x1 + J(1, 2)pd 4 x2 + J(1, 3)pd 4 ẋ 1

f2 (v) = f2 (v0 ) + J(2, 1)pd 4 x1 + J(2, 2)pd 4 x2 + J(2, 3)pd 4 ẋ 1

3.2 State feedback control with pole placement

ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)

3.3 State feedback control with Linear Quadratic Regulator

u(t) = −Kx(t) (3.12)

ẋ(t) = (A − BK)x(t) = Ac x(t) (3.13)

By substituting (3.13) into (3.11) we obtain the performance index J as:

The gain matrix K is then given as:

3.4 Observer design