Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791
DOI 10.1007/s11071-007-9231-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Control of underactuated mechanical systems
with servo-constraints
Wojciech Blajer · Krzysztof Kolodziejczyk
Received: 19 January 2006 / Accepted: 17 July 2006 / Published online: 14 February 2007

C Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract This paper deals with a class of controlled
mechanical systems in which the number of control
inputs, equal to the number of desired system out-
puts, is smaller than the number of degrees of freedom.
The related inverse dynamics control problem, i.e., the
determination of control input strategy that force the
underactuated system to complete the partly specified
motion, is a challenging task. In the present formula-
tion, the desired system outputs, expressed in terms of
the system states, are treated as servo-constraints on
the system, and the problem is viewed from the con-
strained motion perspective. Mixed orthogonal-tangent
realization of the constraints by the available con-
trol reactions is stated, and a specialized methodology
for solving the “singular” control problem is devel-
oped. The governing equations are manipulated to in-
dex three differential-algebraic equations, and a sim-
ple numerical code for solving the equations is pro-
posed. The feedforward control law obtained as a so-
lution to these equations can then be enhanced by a
closed-loop control strategy with feedback of the ac-
tual servo-constraint violations to provide stable track-
ing of the reference motion in the presence of perturba-
tions and modeling uncertainties. An overhead trolley
crane executing a load-prescribed motion serves as an
illustration. Some results of numerical simulations are
reported.
W. Blajer (
) · K. Kolodziejczyk
Institute of Applied Mechanics, Technical University of
Radom ul. Krasickiego 54, 26-600 Radom, Poland
e-mail: w.blajer@pr.radom.pl
Keywords Inverse dynamics control . Underactuated
systems . Servo-constraints . Crane control
1 Introduction and motivation
The inverse dynamics control problem studied in this
paper is the following: given a desired or prescribed
motion of a mechanical system, determine the control
inputs that force the system to complete this specified
motion, and the determination is based on the dynamic
model of the controlled mechanical system. Typically,
fully actuated systems are considered, and their
motion is fully specified by the task requirements.
More specifically, the number of degrees of freedom
of the system, the number of motion specifications,
and the number of control inputs are all equal to
each other. The inverse methods of this type have
been extensively used to generate manipulator control
torques [1–3], and were applied for the design of
control schemes of satellites in specified attitude ma-
neuvers [4]. The determination of such model-based
feedforward control laws (for fully actuated systems
subject to satisfying fully specified motions) is thus
well recognized and mathematically straightforward.
As motivated hereafter, the solution is much more
challenging when one deals with an underactuated
system required to satisfy a partly specified motion.
In this contribution, we study a class of controlled
mechanical systems in which the number m of control
inputs, equal to the number of control outputs (desired
Springer
782
s( t )
k s1
F m1 m2
Fig. 1 The two-mass system
transmission
qi
i ki
i
link "i"
motor "i"
Fig. 2 A pictorial sketch of a flexible joint
performance goals of a dynamical system), is smaller
than the number n of degrees of freedom, m < n. A
simple representative of such systems is the two-mass
system shown in Fig. 1, in which the actuating force
F is applied to mass m 1 , and the motion specification
is a desired position s(t) of mass m 2 . This is a two-
degree-of-freedom system, n = 2, and the number of
control inputs/outputs is equal to one, i.e., m = 1. We
deal thus with an underactuated system subject to exe-
cute a partly specified motion (here m = n/2). Quali-
tatively equivalent is the problem of position control of
robots with elastic joints, referenced, e.g., in [5–8]. For
the robot models with compliance lumped between the
rigid links and actuators (Fig. 2), the number of degrees
of freedom is n = 2m, related to m links and m actu-
ator rotors, q = [q1 . . . qm ]T and  = [θ1 . . . θm ]T . The
inverse dynamics control lies then in the determination
of motor torques τ = [τ1 . . . τm ]T that force the robot to
complete the desired (specified in time) link trajectories
γd (t) = [q1d (t) . . . qmd (t)]T . Again, one deals with an
underactuated system subject to execute a partly spec-
ified motion, and as in the previous example m = n/2.
Another relevant technical example is the control of
cranes executing a load-prescribed motion [9–11]. The
overhead gantry crane seen in Fig. 3 is a five-degree-of-
freedom system, n = 5, and its generalized coordinates
are q = [s1 s2 l θ1 θ2 ]T , where s1 and s2 describe the
trolley position, l is the hoisting rope length, and θ1
and θ2 are the swing angles as defined in the figure.
The three (m = 3) desired outputs are specified in time
load coordinates γd (t) = [xd (t) yd (t) z d (t)]T , and the
three control inputs are u = [F1 F2 Mw ]T , where F1
and F2 are forces actuating the trolley position, and Mw
is the winch torque changing the rope length. We deal
Springer
Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791
z
y
s2 F1
mb
mt
F2
x Mw
l
1
prescribed
2 trajectory
ml
Fig. 3 An overhead trolley crane model
r
e
T
a
prescribed trajectory
Fig. 4 Aircraft-prescribed trajectory flight
thus with an underactuated system in partly specified
motion, m < n. This problem will be given a more
detailed consideration in Section 4.
The final relevant technical example reported in this
paper is the aircraft control problem in prescribed tra-
jectory flight [12–14], illustrated in Fig. 4. The mo-
tion of the six-degree-of-freedom system, n = 6, can
be prescribed by m = 4 desired outputs: a requested
trajectory (two specifications), a condition on airframe
attitude with respect to the trajectory, and a desired
flight velocity variation in time. The four control in-
puts are then the aileron, elevator, and rudder deflec-
tions, and the thrust force, u = [ δa δe δr T ]T . Again,
we deal with an underactuated system in a partly spec-
ified motion, m < n.
As motivated earlier, the control outputs are some
desired performance goals of the dynamical systems.
The assumption of this study is that the outputs can be
expressed in terms of the system states and modeled as
constraints on the system, called servo-constraints [15,
16] (also called program constraints [17] and control
constraints [18]) as distinct from contact (or passive)
constraints caused by hard surfaces, rigid links,
slip-less rolling contacts, etc. The problem of control
of underactuated systems in partly specified motion
can then be viewed from the perspective of constrained
motion. It is noticed, however, that servo-constraints
Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791
differ from contact constraints in several aspects.
Mainly, they are enforced by means of control forces
which may have any direction with respect to the
servo-constraint manifold, and in the extreme may be
tangent. In the latter case, the control forces cannot
directly regulate the constraint conditions, and a
specific methodology must be developed to solve the
“singular” inverse dynamics problem.
The problem of control of underactuated systems is
a challenging task which has been investigated for a
long time [19]. The control designs for nonlinear sys-
tems are usually very complex, and each nonlinear sys-
tem must generally be considered as a separate design
problem. Though the problem is solved using different
techniques such as singular perturbation design [20]
and flatness-based design [21, 22], it still calls for new
developments and considerable design insight.
In this contribution, a theoretical background for
the modeling of partly specified motion of underac-
tuated systems is given. The initial governing equa-
tions arise as index-five differential algebraic equations
(DAEs). The dynamic equations are then projected into
the constrained and unconstrained directions relative
to the manifold of servo-constraints. A deficient rep-
resentation of control reactions in the constrained di-
rections is observed, yielding additional conditions on
the system states, supplementary to the initial servo-
constraints so that the system motion is fully specified.
The governing equations are then transformed to an
index-three DAE form, and a simple numerical code
for solving the resultant DAEs is proposed. The feed-
forward control law obtained this way is then enhanced
by a closed-loop control strategy with feedback of the
actual servo-constraint violations to provide their stable
tracking in the presence of perturbations and modeling
uncertainties. An overhead gantry crane executing a
load-prescribed motion serves as an illustration. Some
results of numerical simulations are reported.
2 Formulation of the problem
With reference to the dynamical systems mentioned
in Section 1, let us consider an n-degree-of-freedom
system described by n generalized coordinates q =
[q1 . . . qn ]T and enforced, in addition to the applied
forces, by the actuator forces governed by m control
inputs u = [u 1 . . . u m ]T , where m < n (the system is
underactuated). The dynamic equations of the system
783
can then written in the following generic matrix form
M(q)q̈ + d(q, q̇) = f(q, q̇) − BT (q)u (1)
where M is the n × n generalized mass matrix related
to q̇, the n-vectors d and f contain the generalized dy-
namic and applied forces, respectively, and BT is the
n × m matrix of influence of control inputs u on the
generalized actuating force vector fu = −BT u.
The desired performance goals of the dynamical
system defined in (1) are specified in time m outputs
γd (t) = [γd1 (t) . . . γdm (t)]T . These, expressed in terms
of coordinates q, lead to m servo-constraints in the fol-
lowing form
c(q, t) ≡ Φ(q) − γd (t) = 0 (2)
After twice differentiating the initial constraint equa-
tions with respect to time, the constraint conditions at
the acceleration level arise as
c̈ ≡ C(q)q̈ − ξ(q, q̇, t) = 0 (3)
where C = ∂Φ/∂q is the m × n matrix of servo-
constraints, and ξ = γ̈d − Ċq̇ is the m-vector of
constraint-induced accelerations.
Equation (2) is mathematically equivalent to m rheo-
nomic holonomic constraints on the system, c(q, t) =
0, and γd (t) can be interpreted as drift in time of man-
ifold Φ(q) = 0 in the system configuration space [23].
Following the equivalence of servo-constraint equa-
tions and contact constraint equations, the generalized
actuating force vector fu = −BT u of the dynamical
system can be interpreted as the generalized reaction
force of servo-constraints. This apparent resemblance
between the considered control problem of underactu-
ated systems subject to servo-constraints and the con-
strained motion case is, however, misleading.
Assumed Equation (2) represents passive con-
straints, the generalized actuating force fu = −BT u
in Equation (1) would be replaced by the general-
ized constraint reaction force fc = −CT λ, where C is
the constraint matrix defined in Equation (3). While
the reaction fc of (ideal) passive constraints is by
assumption orthogonal to the instantaneous manifold
of passive constraints, the actuating force fu may have
arbitrary directions with respect to the instantaneous
servo-constraint manifold, and in the extreme (some of
them) may be tangent [17]; see Fig. 5 for illustration.
Springer
784
Fig. 5 The reaction fc of
passive constraints and the
actuation force fu with
respect to constraint constraint
manifold manifold
In the latter case, qualitatively, not all of the desired
outputs can directly be actuated by the available con-
trol inputs. A measure of the “control singularity” is the
deficiency in rank of the m × m matrix P = CM−1 BT ,
rank(CM−1 BT ) = p (4)
which appears naturally after substituting q̈ from
Equation (1) into Equation (3), yielding b(q, q̇, u, t) =
CM−1 (f − d) − CM−1 BT u − ξ = 0. Assumed the
m × n matrices C and B are both of maximal row-
rank, their rows define two sets of m vectors that span,
respectively, the constrained (specified) and controlled
m-dimensional subspaces in the linear n-space related
to the system velocities q̇, and the matrix P represents
the inner product of the subspaces [23]. Explicit de-
termination of control u from b(q, q̇, u, t) = 0 is then
conditioned upon P is invertible ( p = m), which is not
the case for the class of control problems considered in
this paper. Namely, for the case studies mentioned in
Section 1, we have 0 ≤ p < m and also
k = m − p = n − m. (5)
In particular, for the aforementioned control problems
of both the two-mass system (Fig. 1) and the flex-
ible joint robot (Fig. 2) we have p = 0, and then
k = 1 (n = 2 and m = 1) and k = m (n = 2m), re-
spectively. For the overhead trolley crane executing a
load-prescribed motion (Fig. 3), these values are p = 1
and k = 2 (n = 5 and m = 3); see also Section 4 for
more details. Finally, for the aircraft-prescribed trajec-
tory control problem (Fig. 4), we have p = 2 and k = 2
(n = 6 and m = 4) [14].
The issue rank(P) = p < m denotes that only p
servo-constraints (task requirements) can be directly
(in the orthogonal way) actuated by the available
control. The realization of the remaining k = m − p
requirements must be tangent. For 0 < p < m and
p = 0 we deal thus with mixed orthogonal-tangent
and pure tangent realizations of servo-constraints,
respectively [17]. In these cases, the determination
Springer
Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791
orthogonal orthogonal
fc fu
constraint
manifold
tangent tangent
of control input strategy that force the underactuated
systems to complete the partly specified motions is a
challenging problem.
3 Governing equations and the solution code
The initial governing equations, for the dynamical
system defined in Equation (1) and subject to servo-
constraints introduced in Equation (2), are formed by
n kinematic relations q̇ = v, n dynamic equations rear-
ranged to M(q)v̇ + d(q, v) = f(q, v) − BT (q)u, and m
servo-constraint equations c(q, t) = 0, which form to-
gether 2n + m differential-algebraic equations (DAEs)
in the same number of 2n state variables q and v (dif-
ferential variables) and m control variables u (algebraic
variables). The problem with the DAEs formulated this
way is that their index [24, 25] is equal to five, which
is a measure of singularity of a DAE system and de-
termines difficulty in its numerical treatment. In the
following, a scheme for transforming the initial DAEs
to numerically more tractable index-three DAE form is
developed.
Following the projection method [23], the dynamic
equations can be projected into two complementary
subspaces in the system velocity space, the constrained
(specified) and unconstrained (unspecified) ones, de-
fined, respectively, by the m × n constraint matrix C
introduced in Equation (3) and its orthogonal com-
plement, an n × k (k = n − m) matrix D such that
CD = 0 and DT CT = 0. For a given matrix C of full
row-rank, its orthogonal complement D can some-
times be guessed (usually for simple systems only) or
determined following a numerically oriented code like
the scheme patterned after the coordinate partitioning
.
method [26]. Namely, after factorizing C = [U .. W]
so that U and W are the m × k and m × m matrices,
respectively,
. and det(W) = 0, one can deduce that
D = [I .. (−W−1 U)T ]T , where I is the k × k identity
matrix.
The formula for projection of the dynamic equations
into the constrained and unconstrained subspaces is the
Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791
following [23]
 
CM−1
(Mv̇ + d − f + BT u) = 0. (6)
DT
The projection into the constrained subspace, af-
ter using Equation (3) of servo-constraint condi-
tions at the acceleration level, leads to CM−1 (f −
d) − CM−1 BT u − ξ = 0, which represents m alge-
braic equations in the system states q and v, and m con-
trol inputs u. Since rank(CM−1 BT ) = p < m, these m
algebraic equations impose only p independent condi-
tions on u, and thus k = m − p additional restrictions
on the system motion, supplementary to the m origi-
nal requirements introduced in Equation (2). In other
words, due to k = n − m as stated in Equation (5), the
total number of the original and supplementary motion
specifications is m + k = n, and thus, in this indirect
way, the motion of the system in the partly specified
motion is in fact fully specified – can explicitly be de-
termined in terms of the outputs γd (t) and their time
derivatives, i.e., the system is flat [21, 22]. The con-
trol inputs can then be explicitly determined from the
p independent conditions imposed on u by the alge-
braic equations CM−1 (f − d) − CM−1 BT u − ξ = 0,
and k differential equations obtained from the projec-
tion of the dynamic equations into the unconstrained
subspace, DT Mv̇ + DT d = DT f − DT BT u, altogether
p + k = m conditions on m controls u.
Using the projection results, the governing equations
for the system in the prescribed motion can be formed
as the following n + k + m + m = 2n + m DAEs in
n + n + m = 2n + m variables q, v, and u:
q̇ = v
D Mv̇ = DT (f − d) − DT BT u
T in particular, on its position q. The m + m algebraic
0 = CM−1 (f − d) − CM−1 BT u − ξ
0 = Φ(q) − γd
 (7)
q̇ = v
H(q)v̇ = h(q, q̇, u, t)
0 = b(q, q̇, u, t)
0 = c(q, t)
The index of the DAEs is equal to three, and their solu-
tion are variations in time of state variables of the sys-
785
tem executing the prescribed motion, qd (t) and vd (t),
and the control ud (t) that ensures the motion realiza-
tion. The solution encompasses thus both the dynamic
analysis and the synthesis of control of the underactu-
ated system in the partly specified motion.
A range of methods can be used to solve DAEs [24,
25, 27–29]. For the DAEs obtained in Equation (7),
the simplest possible algorithm, based on Euler back-
ward differentiation approximation method, can be
proposed. In this method, the derivatives q̇ and v̇ at time
tn+1 = tn + t are approximated by their backward
differences, respectively (qn+1 − qn )/t and (vn+1 −
vn )/t, where t is the integration time step. Then,
given qn and vn at time tn (note that un need not
be involved), the values qn+1 , vn+1 , and un+1 at time
tn+1 = tn + t can be found as a solution to the fol-
lowing nonlinear algebraic equations:
qn+1 − qn
− vn+1 = 0
t
vn+1 − vn
H(qn+1 ) − h(vn+1 , qn+1 , un+1 , tn+1 ) = 0
t
b(vn+1 , qn+1 , un+1 , tn+1 ) = 0
c(qn+1 , tn+1 ) = 0.
(8)
In this way, the solution can be advanced from time tn
to tn+1 = tn + t.
It is worth noting that, due to the original servo-
constraint conditions c(q, t) = 0 being involved in
DAEs (7), the solution obtained according to the
scheme of Equation (8) is free from violation of the
original servo-constraint equations. More strictly, as
said before, m algebraic equations b(v, q, u, t) = 0 im-
pose k = m − p conditions on the system motion, and,
equations b(v, q, u, t) = 0 and c(q, t) = 0 represent
thus k + m = n explicit conditions on n coordinates
q, the solution qd (t) is then determined with a numer-
ical accuracy of solving the algebraic equations, and
the truncation errors do not accumulate in time. Only
vd (t) and ud (t) are determined with an error followed
from the rough backward difference method. However,
the error does not accumulate as the approximation is
based on the numerically exact solution qd (t). The pro-
posed simple code leads thus to reasonable and stable
solutions.
The solutions qd (t), vd (t), and ud (t) to DAEs (7)
can be helpful for studying the dynamics and control
Springer
786 Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791

of the considered class of systems in user-specified t

motions, checking realizability/controllability of the Inverse

Desired
d , d, d dynamics u q, q
outputs
solver SYSTEM
desired task requirements, and optimizing the motion generator
stabilized DAEs
specifications. The inverse simulation control ud (t) can
also be used as a feedforward control law for the sys- c+ c+ c dt
tems executing the prescribed motions. In applications,
Fig. 6 The hybrid control block diagram
it should then be enhanced by including a feedback con-
trol in order to provide stable tracking of the outputs in
with the use of the hybrid scheme is shown in
the presence of possible external perturbations and/or
Fig. 6.
modeling uncertainties. One possibility is to introduce,
instead of the servo-constraint conditions at the acceler-
4 Illustration: An overhead trolley crane
ation level, c̈ = 0,its stabilized form as a PID scheme,
c̈ + αċ + βc + χ c dt = 0, where α, β, and χ are the
Let us consider in more detail the five-degree-of-
diagonal matrices of gain values. Then, after replacing
freedom (n = 5) overhead crane model seen in Fig. 3,
the requirement 0 = b(q, v, u, t) in Equation (7) by its
briefly described in Section 1. As said, the system-
stabilized form
generalized coordinates are q = [ s1 s2 l θ1 θ2 ]T , and
the three (m = 3) control inputs are u = [ F1 F2 Mw ]T ,
0 = CM−1 (f − d) − CM−1 BT u − ξ + αċ + βc
 which actuate respectively s1 , s2 , and l, while θ1 and θ2
+ χ c dt = bstab (v, q, u, t) (9) remain uncontrolled (in the direct way). Assumed the
hoisting rope is massless, inextensible, and flexible, and
a hybrid control, merging together the feedforward neglecting for simplicity all the forces associated with
and feedback control laws, can be synthesized from s1 , s2 , and l motions apart from the control inputs F1 ,
such modified DAEs using the same solution code F2 , and Mw , the dynamic equations of the system in
as in Equation (8). The idea of the system control the matrix form of Equation (1) are defined by:
⎡ ⎤
m b + m t + ml 0 m l sin θ1 cos θ2 m l l cos θ1 cos θ2 −m l l sin θ1 sin θ2
⎢ × m t + ml m l sin θ2 0 m l l cos θ2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
M=⎢ × × m l + J/r 2 0 0 ⎥ (10)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ × × × m l l 2 cos2 θ2 0 ⎦
× × × × ml l 2
⎡   ⎤
2m l θ̇1 cos θ1 (l˙ cos θ2 − l θ̇2 sin θ2 ) − m l sin θ1 2l˙θ̇2 sin θ2 + l θ̇12 + θ̇22 cos θ2
⎢ m l θ̇2 (2l˙ cos θ2 − l θ̇2 sin θ2 ) ⎥
⎢ 2  ⎥
⎢ ⎥
d=⎢ −m l l θ̇1 cos θ2 + θ̇2
2 2
⎥ (11)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 2m l l θ̇1 cos θ2 (l cos θ2 − l θ̇2 sin θ2 )
˙ ⎦
2 
m l l l θ̇2 sin θ2 cos θ2 + 2l θ̇2˙
⎡ ⎤
0
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
f = ⎢ m l g cos θ1 cos θ2 ⎥ , (12)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ −m l gl sin θ1 cos θ2 ⎦
−m l gl cos θ1 sin θ2
⎡ ⎤
1 0 0
⎢0 1 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
−B = ⎢ 0
T
0 1/r ⎥ (13)
⎢ ⎥
⎣0 0 0 ⎦
0 0 0

Springer
Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791 787

where m b , m t , and m l are the bridge, trolley, and load proposed as

masses, J and r are the moment of inertia and radius of  
θ1 sin θ1 sin θ2
the winch, g is the gravitational acceleration, and × in 1 0 − sin θ1 cos θ2 − l cos
cos θ2
D =
T l
the mass matrix M denotes a symmetrical entry. 0 1 − sin θ2 0 − cosl θ2
The performance goal is a desired load trajec-
tory, i.e., the m = 3 outputs are time-specified load (17)
coordinates, γd (t) = [xd (t) yd (t) z d (t)]T . The servo-
constraint equations introduced in Equation (2) are then and one can ascertain that CD = 0 and DT CT = 0. This
form of D was obtained from C defined in Equation
. (15)
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ after introducing the factorization C = [U..W] so that
s1 + l sin θ1 cos θ2 xd (t) U contains the first two columns of C, while W are the
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
c(q, t) ≡ ⎣ s2 + l sin θ2 ⎦ − ⎣ yd (t) ⎦ = 0. remaining three columns, and det(W) = −l 2 cos θ2 .
.. −1
−l cos θ1 cos θ2 z d (t) Then, D was derived as D = [I . (−W U)T ]T , where
I is the 2 × 2 identity matrix.
(14)
The control task was to move the load from its
initial position γ0 = [ x0 y0 z 0 ]T to the desired fi-
The constraint matrix C and the constraint-induced ac- nal position γ f = [ x f y f z f ]T , following a straight
celeration ξ defined in Equation (3) are:

⎡ ⎤
1 0 sin θ1 cos θ2 l cos θ1 cos θ2 −l sin θ1 sin θ2
⎢ ⎥
C = ⎣0 1 sin θ2 0 l cos θ2 ⎦ (15)
0 0 − cos θ1 cos θ2 l sin θ1 cos θ2 l cos θ1 sin θ2
⎡  2   ⎤
ẍd + l θ̇1 + θ̇2 sin θ1 cos θ2 − 2θ̇1 θ̇2 cos θ1 sin θ2 − 2l(
2 ˙ θ̇1 cos θ1 cos θ2 − θ̇2 sin θ1 sin θ2 )
⎢ ⎥
ξ =⎣ ÿd + l θ̇22 sin θ2 − 2l˙θ̇2 cos θ2 ⎦. (16)
 2  
z̈ d − l θ̇1 + θ̇2 cos θ1 cos θ2 − 2θ̇1 θ̇2 sin θ1 sin θ2 − 2l(
2 ˙ θ̇1 sin θ1 cos θ2 + θ̇2 cos θ1 sin θ2 )

It can be proved (rather computationally) that

rank(CM−1 BT ) = p = 1. The physical interpretation
of the result is that the desired load motion (in all three
directions) is directly regulated only by the tension line and assuming a rest-to-rest maneuver in which
force in the rope, whose value and space orientation γ̇d (t0 ) = γ̇d (t f ) = 0 and γ̈d (t0 ) = γ̈d (t f ) = 0 are re-
must change appropriately. Only the force value can quired. The outputs γd (t) = [ xd (t) yd (t) z d (t) ]T were
directly be actuated by the available control (mainly synchronized using an appropriately smooth reference
by the winch torque Mw ), which is mathematically function s(t), i.e.:
stated by the fact that the rank of the 3 × 3 matrix
P = CM−1 BT is reduced to one. Due to the rope flexi- γd (t) = γ0 + (γ f − γ0 )s(t) (18)
bility, the required space orientation of the tension force
cannot be directly actuated by the crane control inputs. 0.3 0.5 1
It can be actuated only indirectly by adjusting the lo- .. . ..
s s s s s
cation of the rope suspension point with respect to the [s-2] [s-1] [1]
load location γd (t), which can be achieved by appro- 0 0.25 0.5
.
priate changes in s1 and s2 values actuated by F1 and s
F2 , respectively.
The 5 × 2 orthogonal complement matrix D to the -0.3 0 0
t [s]
3 × 5 constraint matrix C, used in the projection for- 0 2 4 6

mula of Equation (6) and then in DAEs (7), can be Fig. 7 The reference function and its time derivatives

Springer
788 Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791

8 200 F1,F2
s1,s2 [N]
[m] s2
F1
4 0

s1 F2
0 -200
0 2 4 t [s] 6 0 2 4 t [s] 6

5
l Mn
-90
[m] [Nm]

2.5 -100

-110
0
0 2 4 t [s] 6 0 2 4 t [s] 6

10
θ1 ,θ2
[deg]
0
θ1
θ2
-10
0 2 4 t [s] 6
Fig. 8 Crane coordinates and control in the load-specified motion

0 6
Mn [N] reference
perturbed
4 l
[m]
-200
2
reference
perturbed
-400 0
0 2 4 t [s] 6 t [s]
0 2 4 6

200 F1, F2 [m] Δx,Δy

[N] F2 reference 0
100 perturbed
F1 Δz
0 -0.2

-100
-0.4
-200
0 2 4 t [s] 6 0 2 4 t [s] 6

Fig. 9 The hybrid motion commands in motion perturbed by inconsistent initial load position

Springer
Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791 789

300 5
F1 [N] reference reference
perturbed l perturbed
[m]
0 2.5

-300 0
0 2 4 6 t [s] 8 0 2 4 6 t [s] 8

400 8
F2 [N] reference s1,s2
perturbed
[m]
s1
0 4

s2
-400 0
0 2 4 6 t [s] 8 0 2 4 6 t [s] 8

10
-90 Mn [Nm] θ1 [deg]

-105
0

-120 reference reference

perturbed perturbed
-10
0 2 4 6 t [s] 8 t [s] 8
0 2 4 6

0
Δx 10
[m] θ2 [deg]
Δz
-0.08 0
Δy
reference
perturbed
-0.16 -10
0 2 4 6 t [s] 8 0 2 4 6 t [s] 8

Fig. 10 The hybrid control command in the motion perturbed by inconsistency in the crane model

Having s(t) and its time derivatives, γ̈d (t) used in The crane data used in computations were the fol-
the mathematical model can then be found as γ̈d (t) = lowing: m b = 20 kg, m t = 10 kg, m l = 100 kg, r =
(γ f − γ0 )s̈(t). A reasonable proposition for s(t) is 0.1 m, and J = 0.1 kg m2 , and for the load trajec-
tory construction we used x0 = 0 m, x f = 5 m, y0 =
 5  6  7 1 m, y f = 8 m, z 0 = −5 m, z f = −1 m, t0 = 0 s, and
t t t t f = 6 s. The results of inverse dynamics simula-
s(t) = 126 − 420 + 540
τ τ τ tion, i.e., the solution to the governing Equations (7)
 8  9 by using the code described in Equation (8), ob-
t t
−315 + 70 (19) tained for t = 0.01 s, are shown in Fig. 8. The
τ τ
(nominal) control rated this way was then used as a
feedforward control in the direct dynamics simula-
where t ∈ t0 , t f , and τ = t f − t0 is the maneuver du- tion. The motion pattern of the crane and the exe-
ration. The functions s(t), ṡ(t), and s̈(t) are illustrated cuted load trajectory were repeated with a numerical
in Fig. 7. accuracy.

Springer
790
The robustness of the hybrid control described in
Equation (9) and illustrated in Fig. 2, was first tested
by applying the inconsistent rest position at t0 –the
load was placed 0.5 m below its reference position,
l0 = 5.5 m. The gain values involved in Equation (9)
were taken so as to assure the critical damping for the
PID scheme, i.e., [30]
α 2 = 8β, 32χ = αβ (20)
and a good choice for the integration time step t =
0.01 s was β = 10. The results of numerical simula-
tions are shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen that the system
has a damped response about the reference trajectory.
The other experiment consisted in checking the
influence of modeling uncertainties. In the dynamic
model used for the direct dynamic simulation, addi-
tional damping forces related to s1 , s2 , and l motions
have been involved, not considered in the model used
for the determination of hybrid control. The additional
forces were −k1 ṡ1 , −k2 ṡ2 , and −k3l, ˙ added, respec-
tively, to the first, second, and third entry of f described
in Equation (12), and the damping coefficient used
were k1 = k2 = 35 [N s m−1 ] and k3 = 75 [N s m−1 ].
The motion disturbed this way was then stabilized
along the reference motion by using the hybrid con-
trol. Some results of numerical simulations are shown
in Fig. 10. While the control characteristics are now
decidedly different from the reference control (with no
model inconsistencies), the motion of the load as well
as the actual motion of the crane are very close to the
reference motion characteristics. The simulation was
extended over the end of the transfer maneuver (6 s) up
to 8 s, to show that the residual oscillations of the load
are damped to the rest position.
5 Summary and conclusions
This work presents a mathematical background for the
dynamic analysis and control synthesis of a class of un-
deractuated mechanical systems executing partly speci-
fied motions, n-degree-of-freedom mechanical systems
actuated by m control inputs and subject to m motion
specifications, m < n. The imposed m system outputs
are expressible in terms of the system coordinates, and
are treated as servo-constraints on the system. The
problem of realization of the prescribed motion can
then be viewed from the perspective of constrained mo-
Springer
Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791
tion. Mixed orthogonal-tangent realization of n − m
servo-constraints is observed, and the tangent realiza-
tion leads to additional n − m requirements on the sys-
tem motion. In this sense, the motion of the considered
systems is explicitly prescribed by m outputs, and can
be explicitly controlled by m control inputs.
The governing equations for the dynamics and con-
trol of the systems executing the prescribed motions
are formulated as index-three DAEs in the system state
variables and control variables. A simple, effective, and
numerically stable scheme for solving the governing
DAEs was proposed and tested through numerical ex-
periments.
The solution to the governing DAEs are motion char-
acteristics of the underactuated systems in partly spec-
ified motion and the control commands ensuring the
motion realization. The obtained feedforward control
law was then enhanced by a closed-loop control strat-
egy with feedback of the actual errors in the system
position. The arising hybrid control law is determined
using the governing DAEs modified slightly to the sta-
bilized form involving a PID scheme for the load posi-
tion errors. The control robustness was verified through
numerical experiments.
Acknowledgements The research was supported by the Min-
istry of Science and Higher Education under the Project No. 4
T12C 062 30.
References
1. Paul, R.P.: Robot Manipulators: Mathematics, Program-
ming, and Control. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1981)
2. Vukobratović, M., Stokić, R.: Applied Control of Manipu-
lation Robots: Analysis, Synthesis and Exercises. Springer,
Berlin (1989)
3. Canudas de Wit, C., Siciliano, B., Bastin, G. (eds.): Theory
of Robot Control. Springer, Berlin (1997)
4. McInnes, C.R.: Satellite attitude slew manoeuvres using in-
verse control. Aeronaut. J. 102, 259–265 (May 1998)
5. Forrest-Barlach, M.G., Babcock, S.M.: Inverse dynamics po-
sition control of a compliant manipulator. IEEE J. Robot.
Autom. RA-3, 75–83 (1987)
6. Spong, M.W.: Modeling and control of elastic joint robot. J.
Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 109, 310–319 (1987)
7. De Luca, A.: Dynamic control of robots with joint elasticity.
In: Proceedings of the 1988 IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, pp. 152–158. Philadelphia, PA,
April 24–28 (1988)
8. Jankowski, K.P., Van Brussel, H.: An approach to discrete in-
verse dynamics control of flexible-joint robots. IEEE Trans.
Robot. Autom. 8, 651–658 (1992)
Nonlinear Dyn (2007) 50:781–791
9. Lee, H.-H.: Modeling and control of a three-dimensional
overhead crane. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 120, 471–476
(1998)
10. Savodny, O., Aschemann, H., Lahres, S.: An automated
gantry crane as a large workspace robot. Control Eng. Pract.
10, 1323–1338 (2002)
11. Abdel-Rahman, E.M., Nayfeh, A.H., Masoud, Z.: Dynamics
and control of cranes: A review. J. Vib. Control 9, 863–908
(2003)
12. Kato, O., Sugiura, I.: An interpretation of airplane general
motion and control as inverse problem. J. Guid. Control Dyn.
9, 198–204 (1986)
13. Azam, M., Singh, S.N.: Invertibility and trajectory control
for nonlinear maneuvers of aircraft. J. Guid. Control Dyn.
17, 192–200 (1994)
14. Blajer, W., Graffstein, J., Krawczyk, M.: Prediction of the
dynamic characteristics and control of aircraft in prescribed
trajectory flight. J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 39, 79–103 (2001)
15. Kirgetov, V.I.: The motion of controlled mechanical sys-
tems with prescribed constraints (servo-constraints). J. Appl.
Math. Mech. 31, 465–477 (1967)
16. Bajodah, A.H., Hodges, D.H., Chen, Y.-H.: Inverse dynam-
ics of servo-constraints based on the generalized inverse.
Nonlinear Dyn. 39, 179–196 (2005)
17. Blajer, W.: Dynamics and control of mechanical systems
in partly specified motion. J. Franklin Inst. 334B, 407–426
(1997)
18. Rosen, A.: Applying the Lagrange method to solve problems
of control constraints. J. Appl. Mech. 66, 1013–1015 (1999)
19. Spong, M.W.: Underactuated mechanical systems. In: Con-
trol Problems in Robotics and Automation, Lecture Notes in
Control and Information Sciences, Siciliano, B., Valavanis,
K.P. (eds.), vol. 230. Springer-Verlag, London (1997)
20. Naidu, D.S.: Singular perturbations and time scales in con-
trol theory and applications: an overview. Dyn. Contin., Dis-
crete Impulsive Syst., Ser. B: Appl. Algorithms 9, 233–278
(2002)
791
21. Fliess, M., Lévine, J., Martin, P., Rouchon, P.: Flatness and
defect of nonlinear systems: introductory theory and exam-
ples. Int. J. Control 61, 1327–1361 (1995)
22. Maier, T., Woernle, Ch.: Flatness-based control of under-
constrained cable suspension manipulators. In: Proceedings
of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences. Las
Vegas, NV, DETC99/VIB-8223, September 12–15 (1999)
23. Blajer, W.: A geometrical interpretation and uniform ma-
trix formulation of multibody system dynamics. ZAMM 81,
247–259 (2001)
24. Brenan, K.E., Campbell, S.L., Petzold, L.R.: Numerical So-
lution of Initial-Value Problems in Differential-Algebraic
Equations. Elsevier, New York (1989)
25. Ascher, U.M., Petzold, L.R.: Computer Methods for Or-
dinary Differential Equations and Differential-Algebraic
Equations. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA (1998)
26. Wehage, R.A., Haug, E.J.: Generalized coordinate partition-
ing for dimension reduction in analysis of constrained dy-
namic systems. J. Mech. Des. 116, 1058–1064 (1982)
27. Gear, C.W., Petzold, L.R.: ODE methods for the solution of
differential/algebraic equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 21,
716–728 (1984)
28. Gear, C.W.: An introduction to numerical methods of ODEs
and DAEs. In: Real-Time Integration Methods for Mechan-
ical System Simulations, NATO ASI Series, Haug, E.J.,
Deyo, R.C. (eds.), vol. F69, pp. 115–126. Springer, Berlin
(1990)
29. Petzold, L.R.: Methods and software for differential-
algebraic systems. In: Real-Time Integration Methods for
Mechanical System Simulations, NATO ASI Series, Haug,
E.J., Deyo, R.C. (eds.), vol. F69, pp. 127–140. Springer,
Berlin (1990)
30. Ostermayer, G.-P.: On Baugarte stabilization for differential
algebraic equations. In: Real-Time Integration Methods for
Mechanical System Simulations, NATO ASI Series, Haug,
E.J., Deyo, R.C. (eds.), vol. F69, pp. 193–207. Springer,
Berlin (1990)
Springer