MEC 401

Advances in Robotics Lecture

7-8
By Dr.A Chandrashekhar
Department of Mechatronics
 Modeling of a Single-Link Flexible Robot

• Creating a dynamic model that accounts for link

flexibility adds additional challenges beyond the
standard rigid link robot dynamics.
• The most apparent complexity arises due to the
additional degree-of-freedom (DOF) associated
with link deformations.
• In practice only a finite number are used to
generate a model that is sufficiently accurate for
predictive simulation and control design.
 Robots with link flexibility — SSRMS

• Space Shuttle Remote Manipulation System (Canadarm) → telemanipulated by

astronauts
• link bending due to fast motion (not gravity!)
4
Robots with link flexibility — Sam II

• developed at Georgia Tech (W. Book)

• macro-micro concept for remote exploration
and manipulation of nuclear waste sites

5
 Robots with link flexibility — prototypes in Roma

• DMA harmonic steel beam (0.5 kg): DD-DC motor, encoder, 7 strain gauges
• DIS/DIA FLEXARM: planar two-link with flexible forearm (1.8 kg), DD-DC
motors, encoders, on-board optical sensor measuring deformation at three points
6
 Robots with link flexibility — prototype in Waterloo

• WATFLEX planar 2R with both link flexible (each with 2 strain gauges), moving
with air bearings on a glass table to support the weight of the second motor;
encoders, tachometers, overviewing CCD camera
7
 Robots with link flexibility — prototypes in Japan

• spatial 3R flexible arm at Kyoto • cooperating 6R flexible arms at Tohoku

8
 Frequency identification of a single flexible link
6000

110

4000
100

90
2000

80
deg/s2

0 70

60
−2000
50

−4000 40

30

−6000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
s

[ left ] frequency sweep joint acceleration signal: plant vs. model

[ right ] joint acceleration frequency response: plant vs. model (matching within 1% of
resonances at f1 = 14.4, f2 = 34.2, and f3 = 69.3 Hz)
9
 Dynamic modeling of a single flexible link
• one-link flexible arm modeled as a Euler-Bernoulli beam in rotation
Y mp Jp
x

y CoM

θt
J θc
θ
X

• length , uniform density ρ, Young modulus · cross-section inertia EI

• actuator inertia J0, payload mass mp and inertia Jp
• reference frames: (X, Y ) absolute; (x, y) moving with instantaneous CoM

10
 Assumptions and definitions

• Euler-Bernoulli theory applies to slender arm design (length vs. section)

• beam undergoes small deformations of pure bending type in the plane of motion
(no torsion or compression)
• bending deformation w(x, t), with x ∈ [0, ], is directed along the y direction
(no shear)
• rotational inertia of beam sections is neglected (→ Timoshenko theory) as well
as the isoperimetric constraint (‘extension’ of beam neutral axis is negligible)
• definition of other relevant angular variables:
– position θ(t) of the CoM (not measurable, but convenient)
– position θc(t) of the tangent to the link base (measured by motor encoder)
– position θt(t) of a line pointing to the beam tip (measurable in several ways)
11
• build the Lagrangian from kinetic and elastic potential energy of the beam
• using Hamilton principle and calculus of variations, the bending deformation
w(x, t) and angle θ(t) satisfy the linear differential equations

EIw(x, t) + ρ(ẅ(x, t) + xθ̈(t)) = 0 τ (t) − J θ̈(t) = 0

i.e., a PDE and an ODE (rigid motion), where J = J0 +(ρ3)/3+Jp +mp2
and τ = torque input
• geometric/dynamic boundary conditions associated to the PDE
w(0, t) = 0
EIw(0, t) = J0(θ̈(t) + ẅ(0, t)) − τ (t) (balance of moments at base)
EIw(, t) = −Jp(θ̈(t) + ẅ(, t)) (balance of moments at tip)
EIw(, t) = mp(θ̈(t) + ẅ(, t)) (balance of shear forces at tip)

12
• in free evolution (τ (t) ≡ 0 ⇒ θ̈(t) = 0), PDE solved by separation of variables
EI φ(x) δ̈(t) ∆ 2
w(x, t) = φ(x)δ(t) ⇒ =− =ω
ρ φ(x) δ(t)
for a positive constant ω 2 (self-adjoint problem) to be determined
• time solution
δ̈(t) = −ω 2δ(t) ⇒ δ(t) = c1 sin ωt + c2 cos ωt
with c1, c2 depending on the initial conditions δ(0) and δ̇(0)
• space solution (try it!)
ρω 2
φ(x) = β 4φ(x) 4
β =
EI
⇒ φ(x) = A sin βx + B cos βx + C sinh βx + D cosh βx
with A, B, C, D obtained from the geometric/dynamic b.c.’s on w(x, t)
13
• using w(x, t) = φ(x)δ(t) and δ̈ = −ω 2δ , and holding the b.c.’s for any δ(t),
these are rewritten in terms of φ(x) only
φ(0) = 0
EIφ(0) + J0 ω 2φ(0) = 0
EIφ() − Jp ω 2φ() = 0
EIφ() + mp ω 2φ() = 0
• using the general solution φ(x), a system of linear homogeneus equations follows
 
  A
 
  B 
 A(EI, ρ, , J0, mp, Jp, β)  =0 ()
 C 
D
to exclude the trivial solution, the determinant of matrix A should be zero
(eigenvalue problem)
14
• det A(β) = 0 at infinite (but countable!) positive increasing roots βi of the
trascendental characteristic equation
2m m 2J
(c sh − s ch) − ρ p βi s sh − ρ2p βi4(J0 + Jp)(c sh − s ch) − ρ p βi3 c ch
J J J J m
− Jρ0 βi3(1 + c ch) + ρ02 p βi6(c sh + s ch) − 0 ρp3 p βi7(1 − c ch) = 0

where s = sin βi, c = cos βi, sh = sinh βi, ch = cosh βi

• this is an exact result, that includes common physical approximations

– clamped-free model: mp = Jp = 0, J0 → ∞ ⇒ 1 + c ch = 0

– pinned-free model: mp = Jp = J0 = 0 ⇒ c sh − s ch = 0

15
• associated to each root βi we have:

– an eigenfrequency ωi = EIβi4/ρ, characterizing a system vibration
– an eigenvector φi(x) —a spatial deformation mode, defined up to a constant
– a deformation variable δi(t), oscillatory in time

• a finite-dimensional approximation of the distributed bending deformation is

obtained by truncation

∞ ne
 
w(x, t) = φi(x)δi(t) ≈ φi(x)δi(t)
i=1 i=1
where ne is the (arbitrary) number of orthogonal modes that we wish to include

• normalization of the modes can be chosen in different ways (some integral of

the φi(x) equal to 1, to m, . . . )
16
• resulting dynamic model is particularly simple (after fairly complex analysis . . . )

J θ̈ = τ
δ̈i + ωi2δi = φi(0)τ i = 1, . . . , ne

• remarkable properties:
– rigid motion θ(t) and each vibratory motion δi(t) are decoupled in free
evolution (τ (t) ≡ 0)
– all modes are excited by an input command τ (t) = 0, with a weighting that
depends on φi(0) —the tangent at the link base of each deformation mode
– arm ‘stiffness’ is summarized by the (squared) eigenfrequencies ωi
– each vibratory motion is persistent during free evolution, if initially excited
by δi(0) = 0 (absence of damping)
17
• modal damping can be easily included in the dynamic model

J θ̈ = τ
δ̈i +2ζiωiδ̇i + ωi2δi = φi(0)τ i = 1, . . . , ne
with coefficients ζi ∈ [0, 1)
• its matrix version, with generalized coordinates q = ( θ δ1 . . . δne )T ∈ IRne+1,
shows the classical mass-spring-damper form

M q̈ + Dq̇ + Kq = B τ
with
J 0 0 0 0 0 1
M = D= K= B=
0 I 0 2ZΩ 0 Ω2 Φ
Ω = diag {ω1, . . . , ωne }, Z = diag {ζ1, . . . , ζne }, Φ = ( φ1(0) . . . φne (0) )T
18
• a different (but equivalent) choice of generalized coordinates may let the input
τ appear in just one equation
(θ, δ) = (θ, δ1, . . . , δne )
⇓
(θc, δ) = (θ + δ T Φ, δ) = (θ + φi(0)δi , δ1, . . . , δne)
leads to
J −JΦT θ̈c 0 0 θ̇c 0 0 θc 1
+ + = τ
−JΦ I + J 2ΦΦT δ̈ 0 2ZΩ δ̇ 0 Ω2 δ 0
with same (diagonal) damping D and stiffness K matrices, but full inertia matrix

19
 Choice of the controlled output
• joint level angular output (clamped angle)
ne

θc = θ + φi(0) δi
i=1
!! is always minimum phase (zeros in left-hand side of complex plane)
• tip level angular output
ne
 φi()
θt = θ + δi
i=1 
!! is typically non-minimum phase (at least for no tip payload)
• output at a point x ∈ [0, ] along the link
ne
 φi(x)
θx = θ + δi
i=1 x
20
 Transfer functions
• torque τ → clamped joint angle θc
1 ne
 φi(0)2
Pc(s) = + 2
Js2 2
i=1 s + 2ζiωis + ωi
1 ne
(s 2 + 2ζ ω s + ω 2 ) + s2 ne φ (0)2 ne (s2 + 2ζ ω s + ω 2 )
J i=1 i i i i=1 i j =i j j j
=
s2 n e (s2 + 2ζ ω s + ω 2 )
i=1 i i i
• torque τ → tip angle θt

1 ne
 φi(0) φi()

Pt(s) = + 2 + 2ζ ω s + ω 2
Js2 i=1 s i i i
1 ne
(s 2 + 2ζ ω s + ω 2 ) + s2 ne φ (0) φi() ne (s2 + 2ζ ω s + ω 2 )
J i=1 i i i i=1 i  j =i j j j
=
s2 n e (s2 + 2ζ ω s + ω 2 )
i=1 i i i
21
 A numerical example
• physical data

J0 = 0.002,  = 1, ρ = 0.5, EI = 1 (mp = Jp = 0)

• by considering up to ne = 5 modes (and no damping), we obtain

Ω2 = diag {421.585, 3122.603, 10273.194, 31562.286, 82049.350}


Φ =
T
7.8259 14.6803 12.1284 6.4761 3.7648

ΦT
 = −2.6954 2.3268 −2.4970 2.7380 −2.7982

!! note the alternating signs of φi()’s . . .

22
 First four mode shapes
2 2.5

1.5 2

1
1.5

0.5
1
0
0.5
phi_1

phi_2
-0.5
0
-1
-0.5
-1.5

-1
-2

-2.5 -1.5

-3 -2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m] x [m]

2 3

1.5
2
1

0.5 1

0
phi_3

phi_4
0
-0.5

-1 -1

-1.5
-2
-2

-2.5 -3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x [m] x [m]

at f1 = 3.2678, f2 = 8.8936, f3 = 16.1314, and f4 = 28.2751 [Hz]

23
 Pole-zero patterns
poli-zeri FdT di giunto (2 modi) poli-zeri FdT di tip (2 modi) poli-zeri FdT di giunto (3 modi) poli-zeri FdT di tip (3 modi)
60 60 150 150

40 40 100 100

20 20 50 50
Imag Axis

Imag Axis

Imag Axis

Imag Axis
0 0 0 0

-20 -20 -50 -50

-40 -40 -100 -100

-60 -60 -150 -150

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -40 -20 0 20 40 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -100 -50 0 50 100
Real Axis Real Axis Real Axis Real Axis

two modes clamped joint and tip output three modes

24
 Frequency responses

100 100

50 50
Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)
0 0

-50 -50

-100 -1 0 1 2 3
-100 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)

0 0
Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)
-360
-90

-720

-180
-1 0 1 2 3 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)

clamped joint three modes tip

25
 Useful control-oriented remarks
• in pole-zero patterns of Pc(s), zeros precede and alternate with poles on the
imaginary axis ⇒ passivity property
• zero patterns of Pt(s) are symmetric w.r.t. the imaginary axis ⇒ non-minimum
phase property ⇒ no direct system inversion is feasible
• while moving the output along the link (Px(s)), zeros migrate along imaginary
axis and several phenomema occurr:
– total pole-zero cancellation when pointing at CoM (vibrations unobservable
from rigid motion variable θ)
– for a particular x∗ ∈ (0, ), all zeros vanishes together at infinity (Px∗ (s)
has maximum relative degree equal to 2(ne + 1))
– beyond x∗ (e.g., for x = ), all pairs of zeros reappear in Re+/Re−

26
• modal damping destroys perfect symmetry in zeros and poles (system is anyway
asymptotically stable), but not the non-minimum phase property of Pt(s)
• from the Bode plots, it follows that classical controller synthesis in the frequency
domain is harder for the tip output
– multiple crossing of 0dB axis of |Pt(jω)| —especially for high control gain
– increasing phase lag when adding modes

27
 Dynamic modeling of robots with multiple flexible links

• a convenient kinematic description should be used, both for rigid body motion
and flexible deformation
• recursive procedures can be set up for open chains with flexible links, similarly
to the rigid case
• differential kinematic relationships are needed for computing kinetic and poten-
tial energy, within a Lagrangian approach
• modeling results from the one-link case can be embedded (with caution) in the
description of each flexible link of the robot
• to limit complexity, we sketch here only the planar case (with gravity) of robots
with N flexible links undergoing small bending deformations

28
 Kinematics
X2 Y2 = Y3
X1
w2(x 2 )
θ
2 X2 = X3
Y2

Y1
Y1
Y0
w1(x 1)
X1

θ
1
X0

• link i: rigid motion by clamped angle θi(t); lateral bending wi(xi, t), xi ∈
[0, i] 
 ∂wi 
• position vectors and (rigid/flexible) rotation matrices (wie = ∂x  )
i xi=i

xi cos θi − sin θi 1 
−wie
ip (x ) = ir i
i i i+1 = pi(i) Ai = Ei = 
wi(xi) sin θi cos θi wie 1
29
• recursive equations for absolute quantities in (X̂0, Ŷ0)

pi = ri + Wiipi ri+1 = ri + Wiiri+1 Wi = Wi−1Ei−1Ai

• differential kinematics
– absolute angular velocity of frame (Xi, Yi)
i
 i−1

α̇i = θ̇j + 
ẇke
j=1 k=1

– absolute linear velocity of a point on link i

ṗi = ṙi + Ẇiipi + Wiiṗi

where iṗi = [ 0 ẇi(xi) ]T (link extension is neglected)

30
 Kinetic energy
N
 N

T = Thi + Ti + Tp
i=1 i=1

• hub i
1 1
Thi = mhiṙi ṙi + Jhiα̇2
T
i
2 2
• link i

1 i
Ti = ρi(xi)ṗi(xi)T ṗi(xi)dxi
2 0
• payload
1 T 1  )2
Tp = mpṙN +1 ṙ N +1 + J p ( α̇ N + ẇ N e
2 2
31
 Potential energy
N
 N
 N

U = Uei + Ughi + Ugi + Ugp
i=1 i=1 i=1
• elastic energy of link i
  2
1 i 2
d wi(xi)
Uei = (EI)i(xi) 2
dxi
2 0 dxi
• gravitational energy of hub i and of link i
 
i
Ughi = −mhig0T ri Ugi = −g0T ρi(xi)pi(xi)dxi
0
• gravitational energy of payload
Ugp = −mpg0T rN +1
where g0 is the gravity acceleration vector
32
 Euler-Lagrange equations
• introduce any finite-dimensional discretization for wi(xi, t)
nei

wi(xi, t) = ϕij (xi)δij (t) i = 1, . . . , N
j=1

• Lagrangian is in terms of N + M generalized coordinates, M = N n ,

i=1 ei
 
L = T − U = L {θi(t), δij (t), θ̇i(t), δ̇ij (t)}
and satifies to
 
d ∂L ∂L
− = τi i = 1, . . . , N
dt
 ∂ θ̇i ∂θi
d ∂L ∂L
− = 0 j = 1, . . . , nei i = 1, . . . , N
dt ∂ δ̇ij ∂δij
being τi the torque delivered by the actuator at joint i
33
 • the general dynamic model of flexible robots (including modal damping) is then

Mθθ (θ, δ) Mθδ (θ, δ) θ̈ cθ (θ, δ, θ̇, δ̇) gθ (θ, δ) 0 τ

T (θ, δ)
+ + + =
Mθδ Mδδ (θ, δ) δ̈ cδ (θ, δ, θ̇, δ̇) gδ (θ, δ) Dδ̇ + Kδ 0

with blocks of suitable dimensions (e.g., Mθδ in the inertia matrix is (N × M )),
or in the more compact form
0 τ
M (q)q̈ + c(q, q̇) + g(q) + =
Dδ̇ + Kδ 0
with q := (θ, δ) ∈ IRN +M
• vector of centrifugal/Coriolis terms can be factorized using Christoffel symbols
Cθθ (q, q̇) Cθδ (q, q̇) θ̇
c(q, q̇) = C(q, q̇)q̇ =
Cδθ (q, q̇) Cδδ (q, q̇) δ̇

34
 Model properties
• as usual, matrix Ṁ − 2C is skew-symmetric — also blockwise, e.g. Ṁδδ − 2Cδδ
• spatial dependence in the kinetic and potential energy of the links can be resolved
introducing a set of dynamic coefficients so that (De Luca, Siciliano, 1991)
τ
Y (θ, δ, θ̇, δ̇, θ̈, δ̈)a =
0
where constant vector a summarizes the mechanical (rigid + flexible) properties
of the links and can be computed off-line (or identified experimentally)
• choice of assumed modes —basis functions ϕij (xi) for bending deformation
− admissible functions satisfy only geometric b.c.’s
− comparison functions (FE method, Ritz-Kantorovich) satisfy also natural b.c.’s
− orthonormal eigenfunctions (links modeled as Euler-Bernoulli beams) leads to
simplifications in inertia submatrix Mδδ (block diagonal, constant)
35
• a common approximation evaluates total kinetic energy in the undeformed arm
configuration δ = 0
⇒ M = M (θ) and thus c = c(θ, θ̇, δ̇)
⇒ cδ loses quadratic dependence on δ̇
• moreover, if Mδδ is constant
⇒ cθ loses quadratic dependence on δ̇
⇒ cδ is a quadratic function of θ̇ only

• if also Mθδ is constant

⇒ cδ ≡ 0
⇒ cθ is a quadratic function of θ̇ only

• finally, small deformation of each link implies gδ = gδ (θ)

36
 Control problems
• regulation to a constant equilibrium configuration (θ, δ, θ̇, δ̇) = (θd, δd, 0, 0)
– only the desired joint position θd is assigned, while δd has to be determined
– θd may come from the kineto-static inversion of a desired cartesian pose xd,
but no closed-form solution exists (see De Luca, Panzieri, 1994)
– direct kinematics of FL robots is in fact a complete function of rigid and
flexible variables: x = kin(θ, δ)
• tracking of a joint trajectory θd(t) —the easy case
• tracking of a end-effector trajectory xd(t) —the difficult case
• rest-to-rest motion in given time T (a trajectory planning problem in first place)

∗ in tracking problems, controllers try to stiffen the flexible arm at a point in a

way or the other
37
 Sensing requirements
• full state feedback requires sensing of joint/motor variables (θ, θ̇), deflections
δ , and deflection rates δ̇ (no direct sensor available)
• at least encoder + tachometer on the motor axis (sometimes is enough . . . )
• a range of sensors for measuring δ (or deformation related quantities), each
with pros and cons: strain gauges, accelerometers, optical sensors, video camera
(on-board or fixed in workspace), piezoelectric actuating/sensing devices, . . .

38
• problems with camera: frame rate, field of view/accuracy

39
 Regulation with joint PD + feedforward

• for regulation tasks, consider the control law

τ = KP (θd − θ) − KD θ̇ + gθ (θd, δd)

with symmetric (diagonal) KP > 0, KD > 0, and the associated link deflection

δd := −K −1gδ (θd)
Theorem (De Luca, Siciliano, 1993) If
 
KP 0
λmin >α
0 K
then the closed-loop equilibrium state (θd, δd, 0, 0) is asymptotically stable

40
 Remarks
• Lyapunov-based proof similar to the joint elastic case (not repeated here)
• determination of α
– in view of small deformation

1 T 2Ue,max
Ue = δ Kδ ≤ Ue,max ⇒ δ ≤
2 λmax(K)
– bound on the gradient of the gravitational term
  
 ∂g  2Ue,max
 
  ≤ α0 + α1δ ≤ α0 + α1 =: α
 ∂q  λmax(K)
• in absence of modal damping D = 0, special care in LaSalle analysis
• for tip regulation, compute θd by solving via iterative techniques
 
kin −1
θ, −K gδ (θ) = xd

41
 Numerical results
• a two-link flexible arm with two bending modes for each link with f11 = 1.4,
f12 = 5.1, f21 = 5.2, f22 = 32.4 [Hz]
• point-to-point motion: θ(0) = (−90◦, 0) → θd = (−45◦, 0)
50 joint angles 20 joint torques

0 10

Nm
deg

-50 0

-100 -10
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec

0.1 1st link deflections 0.005 2nd link deflections

0 0
m

-0.1 m-0.005

-0.2 -0.01
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
sec sec

42
 Joint trajectory tracking

• given a desired θd(t) ∈ C 2, assuming that the state is measurable and the
dynamic model of FL robot is available, we proceed by system inversion from
the joint position output θ
• a nonlinear static state feedback is obtained that decouples and linearizes the
input-output behavior, leaving an unobservable internal (nonlinear) dynamics
• exponential stabilization of the output tracking error is performed on the linear
side of the problem
• some stability/boundedness of the internal system dynamics should be enforced

• original results in (De Luca, Siciliano, 1993b)

43
 System inversion

• from second set of M equations in the dynamic model, solve (globally) for δ̈
−1 T θ̈
δ̈ = −Mδδ (cδ + gδ + Kδ + Dδ̇ + Mθδ )
and plug in first set of N equations ⇒ effects of flexible dynamics onto rigid
dynamics
   
−1 T −1
Mθθ − Mθδ Mδδ Mθδ θ̈ + cθ + gθ − Mθδ Mδδ cδ + gδ + Kδ + Dδ̇ = τ
−1 T
• Matrix Mθθ − Mθδ Mδδ Mθδ has always full rank, since
−1 T
Mθθ Mθδ I 0 Mθθ − Mθδ Mδδ Mθδ Mθδ
T −1 T =
Mθδ Mδδ −Mδδ Mθδ I 0 Mδδ

44
• system output θ has uniform vector relative degree {2, 2, . . . , 2} (θ̈ depends on
τ in a nonsingular way)
• define the nonlinear control law
 
−1 T −1
τ = Mθθ − Mθδ Mδδ Mθδ a + cθ + gθ − Mθδ Mδδ (cδ + gδ + Kδ + Dδ̇)
−1
in which only the inversion inertia block Mδδ is required
• the closed-loop system is

θ̈ = a
 
−1 T
δ̈ = −Mδδ Mθδ a + cδ + gδ + Dδ̇ + Kδ

• for stabilizing the output tracking error e = θd − θ, choose

a = θ̈d + KD (θ̇d − θ̇) + KP (θd − θ)
with (diagonal) KP > 0, KD > 0
45
 Analysis of internal dynamics

• zero dynamics, when output θ(t) ≡ 0 (or constant):

 
−1
δ̈ = −Mδδ cδ + gδ + Dδ̇ + Kδ
asymptotically stable (via Lyapunov argument) ⇒ whole closed-loop system too
• clamped dynamics, when output θ(t) ≡ θd(t):
δ̈ = −A2(t)δ̇ − A1(t)δ + fδ (t)
where (in the case M independent of δ )
−1 T (θ )θ̈ + c (θ , θ̇ ) + g (θ ))
fδ (t) = −Mδδ (θd)(Mθδ d d δ d d δ d
−1
A1(t) = Mδδ (θd)K
−1
A2(t) = Mδδ (θd)D
all time-varying functions are bounded ⇒ closed-loop stability is ensured
46
 Remarks on joint trajectory tracking
• the input-output linearization result is the nonlinear/MIMO counterpart of the
transfer function τ → θc with minimum phase zeros (stable zero dynamics)
• the more ‘rigid’ is the tracking of a desired joint trajectory, the less vibration
energy is taken out from (or the more is injected into) the rest of flexible arm!!
• a nominal feedforward is computed by forward integration of flexible dynamics
−1 T (θ , δ)θ̈
δ̈ = −Mδδ (θd, δ)(cδ (θd, δ, θ̇d, δ̇) + gδ (θd) + Dδ̇ + Kδ + Mθδ d d)
from δ(0) = δ0, δ̇(0) = δ̇0 ⇒ nominal (and bounded) evolution δd(t), δ̇d(t)
• substitution of (θd(t), δd(t), θ̇d(t), δ̇d(t)) in the expression of the control law
(w/out feedback) yields τd(t) and the simple local tracking controller

τ = τd(t) + KP (θd − θ) + KD (θ̇d − θ̇)

47
 End-effector trajectory tracking
• accurate end-effector trajectory tracking is the toughest control problem for
flexible robots
• direct extension of inversion strategies to end-effector output ⇒ closed-loop
instabilities
– linear (single-link) case: non-minimum phase tip transfer function
– nonlinear (multilink) case: unstable zero dynamics for end-effector motion
• main ideas proposed in the literature:
– resort to suitable feedforward strategy (non-causal solutions)
– use feedback, but avoid cancellation (causal solutions)

∗ selection of suitable end-effector trajectories that induce smaller arm deflections

is of interest in any case

48
 Inversion in frequency domain
• idea: desired motion trajectory as being part of a periodic profile ⇒ use Fourier
transforms (Bayo, 1987)
• single-link flexible arm (with generic variables)
mθθ mT
δθ θ̈ 0 0 θ̇ 0 0 θ τ
+ + =
mδθ Mδδ δ̈ 0 D δ̇ 0 K δ 0
• tip position output
θ
y(t) = [ 1 cT
e ]
δ
• rewrite in terms of (y, δ)
mθθ mT T
δθ − mθθ ce ÿ 0 0 ẏ 0 0 y τ
+ + =
mδθ Mδδ − mδθ cT
e δ̈ 0 D δ̇ 0 K δ 0
49
• take bilateral Fourier transforms
 ∞  ∞
Ÿ (ω) = exp(jωt)ÿ(t)dt ¨
∆(ω) = exp(jωt)δ̈(t)dt
−∞ −∞
 ∞
T (ω) = exp(jωt)τ (t)dt
−∞
and obtain
 
mθθ mTδθ − m θθ c T
e Ÿ (ω) T (ω)
 1 1  =
mδθ T
Mδδ − mδθ ce + D− 2K ¨
∆(ω) 0
jω ω
• solve for accelerations
Ÿ (ω) g11(ω) T (ω)
g12 T (ω)
=
¨
∆(ω) g21(ω) G22(ω) 0

50
• torque is obtained through inversion (in the frequency domain)
1
T (ω) = Ÿ (ω) = r(ω)Ÿ (ω)
g11(ω)

• for a given zero-mean ÿd(t), with ÿd(t) = 0 for t ≤ −T /2 and t ≥ T /2, this
can be embedded into a periodic signal from (−∞, +∞)
• ÿd(t) → Ÿd(ω) → Td(ω) → τd(t) from finite inverse Fourier transform
 ∞  T /2
τd(t) = r(t − τ )ÿd(τ )dτ = r(t − τ )ÿd(τ )dτ
−∞ −T /2
expanding beyond [−T /2, T /2] (non-causal inverse system)

51
 Remarks
• outside the given interval T of output motion, the computed input torque has a
– precharging action, bringing internal flexible state from rest to a suitable
initial state at t = −T /2
– discharging action, bringing internal flexible state from the final state at
t = T /2 to rest

• obtained initial condition is the unique state from which inversion control does
lead to bounded internal evolution for the desired end-effector output trajectory!

• truncations (in time or frequency domain) inherent to actual computations (FFT)

• can be extended to the nonlinear (multilink flexible) setting, by repeated linear

approximations along nominal trajectory (starting from rigid body motion)

52
 Extension to nonlinear case: End-effector bang-bang trajectory

100 3
1.2
80
2
60 1

40 1
0.8

20
gradi / sec ^2

0 0.6

y (m)
Nm
0

-1 0.4
-20

-40 0.2
-2

-60 0
-3
-80
-0.2
-100 -4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
sec sec x (m)

acceleration profiles command torques FLEXARM motion

53
 Extension to nonlinear case: End-effector sinusoidal trajectory

150 2

0.5
1.5
100
0.4

1
50 0.3
gradi / sec ^2

0.5 0.2

y (m)
Nm
0

0 0.1

-50 0
-0.5

-0.1
-100
-1
-0.2

-150 -1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
sec sec x (m)

acceleration profiles command torques FLEXARM motion

54
 Regulation theory
• end-effector trajectory tracking in robots with flexible links is an instance of
asymptotic output tracking with internal state stability (regulation problem)
• well-established technique in linear case and, by now, also in nonlinear case

• idea: compute the (bounded!) state trajectory associated to the desired output
trajectory (generated by an autonomous antistable system, the exosystem)
• in linear case, write state-space equations (with x = (q, q̇)) for the flexible arm

ẋ = Ax + Bτ e = y − yd
and for the generator of desired output

ẇ = Sw yd = −Qw

55
• when (A, B) is stabilizable, the problem has a solution if and only if the following
regulator equations are solvable in Π and Γ

ΠS = AΠ + BΓ CΠ + Q = 0

• a state feedback + feedforward controller is then

τ = F (x − Πw) + Γw
with feedback matrix F such that (A + BF ) is Hurwitz
• the computed Πw is the desired state trajectory; xd(0) = Πw(0) is the unique
initial state from which inversion control does lead to bounded internal evolution!
• control solutions with dynamic output feedback are also available

56
 Numerical results for sinusoidal end-effector trajectory
autovalori in -10 (quattro) e -10 (quattro) autovalori in -10 (quattro) e -10 (quattro)
100 70

80
60

60
50
40

40

errore al tip (deg)

uscita tip (deg)

20

0 30

-20
20

-40
10
-60

0
-80

-100 -10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
sec sec

tip output tip error

57
 autovalori in -10 (quattro) e -10 (quattro) autovalori in -10 (quattro) e -10 (quattro)
0.03 1.5

0.02 1
variabili deformazione delta (m)

0.01 0.5

controllo (Nm)
0 0

-0.01 -0.5

-0.02 -1

-0.03 -1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
sec sec

deformation variables torque input

58
 autovalori in -10 (quattro) e -10 (quattro)
100

80

60

40

uscita al giunto (deg)

20

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
sec

clamped joint angle (and desired tip output)

59
 Rest-to-rest motion

• task: execute a slew motion with a FL robot arm between two undeformed
configurations in given time
• problem: fast transfers induce residual oscillations extending the actual task
completion time
• strategy: design a suitable output and plan output trajectories (and associated
torque profiles) inducing complete absence of vibrations at the desired final time
• solution: output with maximum relative degree (no zeros); closed-form algorithm
in the linear case; direct extension to MIMO nonlinear case (DFL or flat output,
no zero dynamics)

60
 Time-based algorithm for a single flexible link

• choose a parametric output y (unknown ci’s) (De Luca, Di Giovanni, 2001)

ne

y=θ+ c i δi = θ + c T δ
i=1
• impose τ -independence of (even) output derivatives
ne
 ne

1 
ÿ = ( + ciφi(0))τ − ciωi2δi ⇒ ciφi(0) = −1/J
J i=1 i=1

4y ne
 ne

d
y [4] =: 4 = − ciωi2φi(0) τ + ciωi4δi ⇒ ciωi2φi(0) = 0
dt i=1 i=1
and so on, until a set of ne equations are generated (torque τ appears in the
2(ne + 1)-th output derivative)
61
• solve for the coefficients c = (c1, . . . , cne )

V · diag{φ1(0), . . . , φne (0)} c = [ −1/J 0 . . . 0 ]T

with Vandermonde matrix V generated by (ω12, . . . , ωn2e )
• nominal torque τd(t) computed by inversion on highest derivative imposing
[2(ne +1)]
y [2(ne+1)] = yd
for a suitably planned output trajectory yd(t), t ∈ [0, T ] (given trasfer time)
• for the output trajectory yd(t), solve a simple interpolation problem
diyd diyd
yd(0) = θi yd(T ) = θf i
(0) = i
(T ) = 0 i = 1, . . . , 2ne + 1
dt dt
e.g., a polynomial of degree 4ne + 3 will be sufficient

62
 Laplace-based algorithm (only in the linear case)
• impose that the transfer function has no zeros
y(s) 1 ne
 ciφi(0) ∆ K
= + 2 + ω2
= 2 ne (s2 + ω 2 )
τ (s) Js2 i=1 s i s i=1 i
• partial fractions expansion yields closed-form expressions
1 ne
1 ne
 ωj2
K= ωi2 ci = −  (i = 1, . . . , ne)
J i=1 Jφi(0) ωj2 − ωi2
j=1
j =i

• set y = yd and invert in the transformed domain (then back to time → τd(t))
 
ne

J s2
τd(s) = ne 2
(s2 + ωi2) yd(s)
ω
i=1 i i=1

63
 Remarks
• method applies to any linear (controllable) model of a single-link flexible arm
• output structure for modal damping (De Luca, Caiano, Del Vescovo, 2003)
ne
 ne

y=θ+ ciδi + γ θ̇ + diδ̇i
i=1 i=1
• design output is (in the limit) a specific point x∗ on
the physical beam: for a
given ne, ci = φi(x∗ne )/x∗ne while limne→∞ x∗ne = x∗
• for improved torque/time performance, modified method generates smoothed
bang-bang/bang-coast-bang torque profiles, with polynomial interpolating phases
• trajectory planning (feedforward) combined with feedback control
τ = τd(t) + KP (θc,d(t) − θc) + KD (θ̇c,d(t) − θ̇c)
with clamped joint reference θc,d(t) computed from the algorithm
64
 Numerical results
• ne = 3 modes with f1 = 4.05, f2 = 12.34, f3 = 22.87 [Hz]
• θf − θi = 90◦ in T = 2 s
• 19th degree polynomial (continuous torque derivative)
100 3

90
2
80

70
1
60
deg

Nm
50 0

40
-1
30

20
-2
10

0 -3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
s s

output trajectory rest-to-rest torque

65
 100 0.025

0.6
90 0.02

80 0.015 0.4

70 0.01
0.2
60 0.005
deg

m
50 0 0

40 -0.005
-0.2
30 -0.01

20 -0.015 -0.4

10 -0.02
-0.6

0 -0.025
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
s s m

clamped (—), tip angle (- -) deformation variables arm motion

66
Experiment on DMA single flexible link

67
 Extension to nonlinear case: Rest-to-rest motion
• time-based algorithm for two-link with flexible forearm (De Luca, Di Giovanni,
2001b)
delta u1, u2
0.025 8 1

0.02 0.8
6

0.6
0.015
4
0.4
0.01
2
0.2
0.005

Nm

m
0 0
0
-0.2
-2
-0.005
-0.4
-4
-0.01
-0.6

-0.015 -6
-0.8

-0.02 -8 -1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
s s m

first deformation mode command torques FLEXARM motion

68
 Conclusions

• extra effort in dynamic modeling pays off

– model-based controllers for accurate trajectory tracking
– proof of stability for model-inpedendent regulation controllers

• conventional control strategies tend to suppress vibrations wherever they arise

– outcome of the analysis: controlled system should be brought to a vibratory
behavior compatible with the given output task
• EJ robots are similar to FL robots in mechanical modeling, but intrinsically
different from the control point of view

69
 What has been left out . . .

• singular perturbation modeling and control (for joint or link stiffness K → ∞),
including corrective and invariant manifold controllers
• iterative learning control that yields same accuracy (for all types of tasks) without
using a dynamic model but assuming repetitive tasks
• model uncertainties, disturbances, . . .

70
 References
(Bayo, 1987) “A finite-element approach to control the end-point motion of a single-link flexible
robot,” JRS, 4, 63–75
(De Luca, Caiano, Del Vescovo, 2003) “Experiments on rest-to-rest motion of a flexible arm,” in
Experimental Robotics VIII (Siciliano, Dario Eds), STAR 5, Springer, 338–349
(De Luca, Di Giovanni, 2001) “Rest-to-rest motion of a one-link flexible forearm,” IEEE/ASME
AIM 01, 923–928
(De Luca, Di Giovanni, 2001b) “Rest-to-rest motion of a two-link robot with a flexible forearm,”
IEEE/ASME AIM 01, 929–935
(De Luca, Lanari, Ulivi, 1991) “End-effector trajectory tracking in flexible arms: Comparison of
approaches based on regulation theory,” in Advanced Robot Control (Canudas de Wit Ed), LNCIS
162, Springer, 190–206
(De Luca, Panzieri, 1994) “An iterative scheme for learning gravity compensation in flexible robot
arms,” Automatica, 30(6), 993–1002
71
(De Luca, Panzieri, Ulivi, 1998) “Stable inversion control for flexible link manipulators,” IEEE
ICRA, 799–805

(De Luca, Siciliano, 1991) “Closed-form dynamic model of planar multi-link lightweight robots,”
IEEE SMC, 21(4), 826–839

(De Luca, Siciliano, 1993) “Regulation of flexible arms under gravity,” IEEE TRA, 9(4), 463–467

(De Luca, Siciliano, 1993b) “Inversion-based nonlinear control of robot arms with flexible links,”
AIAA JGCD, 16(6), 1169–1176

(De Luca, Siciliano, 1996) “Flexible links,” in Theory of Robot Control (Canudas de Wit, Siciliano,
Bastin Eds), Springer, 219–261

72