Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
N. Kant, R. Mukherjee, H. Khalil (2019)
Stabilization of Homoclinic Orbits of Two Degree-of-Freedom Underactuated Systems2019 American Control Conference (ACC)
L. Consolini, Alessandro Costalunga, M. Maggiore (2017)
A coordinate-free theory of virtual holonomic constraintsThe Journal of Geometric Mechanics, 10
M. Maggiore, L. Consolini (2013)
Virtual Holonomic Constraints for Euler–Lagrange SystemsIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58
Yingyang Lai (1994)
Controlling chaos, 8
P. Kokotovic, H. Khalil, J. O'Reilly (1986)
Singular perturbation methods in control : analysis and design
A. Mohammadi (2016)
Virtual Holonomic Constraints for Euler-Lagrange Control Systems
L. Flynn, Rouhollah Jafari, R. Mukherjee (2010)
Active Synthetic-Wheel Biped With TorsoIEEE Transactions on Robotics, 26
E. Ott (2006)
Controlling chaosPhysical review letters, 64 11
J. Grizzle, E. Westervelt, C. Canudas-de-Wit (2003)
Event-based PI control of an underactuated biped walker42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37475), 3
S. Strogatz (1995)
Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry and EngineeringPhysics Today, 48
A. Shiriaev, A. Robertsson, J. Perram, Anders Sandberg (2006)
Periodic motion planning for virtually constrained Euler-Lagrange systemsSyst. Control. Lett., 55
A. Shiriaev, L. Freidovich, A. Robertsson, Rolf Johansson, Anders Sandberg (2007)
Virtual-Holonomic-Constraints-Based Design of Stable Oscillations of Furuta Pendulum: Theory and ExperimentsIEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23
C. Chevallereau, G. Abba, Y. Aoustin, F. Plestan, E. Westervelt, C. Canudas-de-Wit, J. Grizzle (2003)
RABBIT: a testbed for advanced control theoryIEEE Control Systems Magazine, 23
N. Kant, R. Mukherjee, Dhrubajit Chowdhury, H. Khalil (2019)
Estimation of the Region of Attraction of Underactuated Systems and Its Enlargement Using Impulsive InputsIEEE Transactions on Robotics, 35
C. Canudas-de-Wit (2004)
On the concept of virtual constraints as a tool for walking robot control and balancingAnnu. Rev. Control., 28
A. Mohammadi, Ehsan Rezapour, M. Maggiore, K. Pettersen (2016)
Maneuvering Control of Planar Snake Robots Using Virtual Holonomic ConstraintsIEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 24
C. Canudas-de-Wit, B. Espiau, C. Urrea (2002)
ORBITAL STABILIZATION OF UNDERACTUATED MECHANICAL SYSTEMSIFAC Proceedings Volumes, 35
A. Shiriaev, J. Perram, C. Canudas-de-Wit (2005)
Constructive tool for orbital stabilization of underactuated nonlinear systems: virtual constraints approachIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 50
N. Nekhoroshev (1994)
The Poincaré—Lyapunov—Liouville—Arnol'd theoremFunctional Analysis and Its Applications, 28
A. Shiriaev, L. Freidovich, S. Gusev (2010)
Transverse Linearization for Controlled Mechanical Systems With Several Passive Degrees of FreedomIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 55
J. Grizzle, G. Abba, F. Plestan (2001)
Asymptotically stable walking for biped robots: analysis via systems with impulse effectsIEEE Trans. Autom. Control., 46
F. Mathis, Rouhollah Jafari, R. Mukherjee (2014)
Impulsive Actuation in Robot Manipulators: Experimental Verification of Pendubot Swing-UpIEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 19
N. Kant, R. Mukherjee (2018)
Impulsive Dynamics and Control of the Inertia-Wheel PendulumIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3
Guanrong Chen (2023)
Nonlinear Systems
A. Mohammadi, M. Maggiore, L. Consolini (2017)
Dynamic virtual holonomic constraints for stabilization of closed orbits in underactuated mechanical systemsAutom., 94
F. Mathis, R. Mukherjee (2016)
Apex height control of a two-mass robot hopping on a rigid foundationMechanism and Machine Theory, 105
J. Grizzle, C. Chevallereau, Ryan Sinnet, A. Ames (2014)
Models, feedback control, and open problems of 3D bipedal robotic walkingAutom., 50
E. Westervelt, J. Grizzle, D. Koditschek (2003)
Hybrid zero dynamics of planar biped walkersIEEE Trans. Autom. Control., 48
E. Westervelt, J. Grizzle, C. Chevallereau, J. Choi, B. Morris (2007)
Feedback Control of Dynamic Bipedal Robot Locomotion
Thamer Albahkali, R. Mukherjee, Tuhin Das (2009)
Swing-Up Control of the Pendubot: An Impulse–Momentum ApproachIEEE Transactions on Robotics, 25
L. Freidovich, A. Robertsson, A. Shiriaev, Rolf Johansson (2008)
Periodic motions of the Pendubot via virtual holonomic constraints: Theory and experimentsAutom., 44
C. Chevallereau, J. Grizzle, C. Shih (2009)
Asymptotically Stable Walking of a Five-Link Underactuated 3-D Bipedal RobotIEEE Transactions on Robotics, 25
Rouhollah Jafari, F. Mathis, R. Mukherjee, H. Khalil (2016)
Enlarging the Region of Attraction of Equilibria of Underactuated Systems Using Impulsive InputsIEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 24
The problem of orbital stabilization of underactuated mechanical systems with one passive degree-of-freedom (DOF) is revisited. Virtual holonomic constraints are enforced using a continuous controller; this results in a dense set of closed orbits on a constraint manifold. A desired orbit is selected on the manifold and a Poincare´ section is constructed at a fixed point on the orbit. The corresponding Poincare´ map is linearized about the fixed point; this results in a discrete linear time-invariant system. To stabilize the desired orbit, impulsive inputs are applied when the system trajectory crosses the Poincare´ section; these inputs can be designed using standard techniques such as LQR. The Impulse Controlled Poincare´ Map (ICPM) based control design has lower complexity and computational cost than control designs proposed earlier. The generality of the ICPM approach is demonstrated using the 2-DOF cart-pendulum and the 3-DOF tiptoebot. Key words: Impulsive control, orbital stabilization, Poincare´ map, underactuated system, virtual holonomic constraint 1 Introduction but do not enforce the VHC. A control scheme that enforces the VHC and simultaneously stabilizes the orbit was recently proposed in [17]. The key idea is that the VHC is made For underactuated systems, Virtual Holonomic Constraint time-varying using a scalar parameter which is controlled (VHC) based control designs have gained popularity due to via feedback. The stabilization problem involves solving a their conceptual simplicity and applicability to control of periodic Ricatti equation; however, unlike [5,20,23], where repetitive motion; they have been used for gait stabilization the dimension of the system is 2n−1, the dimension of the in bipeds [2,6,7,25] and trajectory control for systems with system in [17] is always three. For systems with more than open kinematic chains [3,5,14,17,18,20–23]. VHCs param- two DOF, the method in [17] reduces the computational eterize the active joint variables in terms of the passive joint complexity of control implementation. Also, by enforcing variables and confine system trajectories to a constraint man- the VHC, it improves control over transient characteristics ifold [14]. To enforce the VHC, the constraint manifold has of the trajectory [16]. Similar to [16,17], we propose a con- to be stabilized using feedback. Typically, a constraint man- trol design that enforces the VHC and stabilizes the desired ifold contains a dense set of periodic orbits and the choice orbit. The control design is comprised of continuous inputs of repetitive motion determines the specific orbit that has to that enforce the VHC and impulsive inputs that exponen- be stabilized. To stabilize biped gaits, for example, Grizzle tially stabilize the orbit. Impulsive inputs have been used for et.al [6, 25] enforced the VHC and periodic loss of energy control of underactuated systems [1,8–11,15] and it has been due to ground-foot interaction was exploited for orbital sta- established that such inputs can be implemented in standard bilization. hardware using high-gain feedback. A special class of underactuated systems are those with one passive DOF. For such systems, Shiriaev and collabora- This paper is organized as follows. The system dynamics is presented in section 2 and the results in [14] are utilized to tors [5, 20, 23] used VHC to select the desired orbit. For an n-DOF system, the 2n dimensional dynamics is linearized enforce VHC such that the resulting zero dynamics is Euler- Lagrange. A periodic orbit is selected on the constraint man- about the desired orbit; this results in a 2n−1 dimensional ifold and a method for orbital stabilization is presented in system. A periodic Ricatti equation is then solved to design a section 3. To stabilize the orbit, a Poincare´ section is defined time-varying controller that stabilizes the orbit. It should be at a point on the orbit and the return map is linearized about noted that the control designs in [5,20,23] stabilize the orbit the fixed point; this results in a 2n−1 dimensional discrete linear time-invariant (LTI) system. To control this system The authors acknowledge the support provided by the National and stabilize the orbit, impulsive inputs are applied when Science Foundation, Grant CMMI-1462118. the system trajectory crosses the Poincare´ section. The con- Corresponding author Ranjan Mukherjee. trollability of the orbit can be verified by simply checking Email addresses: kantnila@egr.msu.edu (Nilay Kant), mukherji@egr.msu.edu (Ranjan Mukherjee). the controllability of the linear system. This is simpler than 5 May 2020 arXiv:2005.00960v1 [eess.SY] 3 May 2020 the approach in [5, 20, 23] where controllability is verified Similar to [14], we make the following assumption: numerically along the orbit for most systems. Since the sys- tem is LTI, the control design involves constant gains that T T n Assumption 1 For some q¯ , [q¯ , q¯ ] ∈ Q , the mass can be computed off-line. Compared to the methods pro- matrix M(q) and the potential energy F(q) are even with posed earlier [5,17,20,23], where periodic Ricatti equations respect to q¯, i.e., have to be solved, our method has lower computational cost and complexity. Since impulsive inputs are used to control M(q¯ + q) = M(q¯− q), F(q¯ + q) = F(q¯− q) the Poincare´ map, the closed-loop system dynamics can be described by the Impulse Controlled Poincare´ Map (ICPM). 2.2 Imposing Virtual Holonomic Constraints (VHC) The simplicity and generality of the ICPM approach to or- bital stabilization is demonstrated using the examples of the 2-DOF cart-pendulum in section 4 and the 3-DOF tiptoebot A holonomic constraint enforced by feedback is referred to in section 5. Concluding remarks are presented in section 6. as VHC. The current and the next subsection summarizes relevant results from [14]. For a wide class of mechanical systems, a comprehensive discussion on VHC can be found 2 Problem Formulation in [14], [16]. 2.1 System Dynamics A VHC for (1) is described by the relation ρ(q) = 0 where, n n−1 ρ : Q → R is smooth and rank[J (ρ)] = n−1 for all Consider an n DOF underactuated system with one passive −1 q ∈ ρ (0). Here, J (ρ) is the Jacobian of ρ with respect to DOF, where the passive DOF is a revolute joint. Let q, q , q. The VHC is said to be stabilizable if there exists a smooth q q , denote the generalized coordinates, where q ∈ 2 1 1 feedback u (q, q˙) that asymptotically stabilizes the set n−1 R and q ∈ S, S = R modulo 2π, are the coordinates of the active and the passive DOFs. The configuration space C = {(q, q˙) : ρ(q) = 0, J (ρ)q˙ = 0} (4) n n n−1 of the system is denoted by Q , Q ∈ R × S. The Lagrangian of the system can be written as The set C, which is referred to as the constraint manifold, is controlled invariant [14]. For the system described by (1), C is an (n−1) dimensional manifold. L(q, q˙) = q˙ M(q) q˙ + F(q) An important goal of this paper is to generate repetitive mo- n×n In the equation above, M(q) ∈ R denotes the symmet- tion, which can be described by closed orbits. Consequently, ric, positive-definite mass matrix, partitioned as −1 ρ (0) must be a smooth and closed curve without any self- intersection. The VHC can be described as M (q) M (q) 11 12 M(q) = ρ(q) = q − Φ(q ) = 0 (5) 1 2 M (q) M (q) n−1 where Φ : S → R is a smooth vector-valued function. (n−1)×(n−1) where M ∈ R , M ∈ R and F(q) is the 11 22 The constraint manifold C in (4) can be expressed as: potential energy of the system. The Euler-Lagrange equation of motion can be written as follows ∂Φ C = (q, q˙) : q = Φ(q ), q˙ = q˙ (6) 1 2 1 2 M (q) q¨ + M (q) q¨ + h (q, q˙) = u (1a) ∂q 11 1 12 2 1 2 M (q) q¨ + M (q) q¨ + h (q, q˙) = 0 (1b) 12 1 22 2 2 It should be noted that since q ∈ S, Φ(q + 2π) = Φ(q ) 2 2 2 −1 n−1 T T and ρ (0) is closed. Following the notion of odd VHC [14], where u ∈ R is the control input, and [h , h ] is the we state another assumption. vector of Coriolis, centrifugal and gravity forces. In compact form, (1a) and (1b) can be rewritten as Assumption 2 For q¯ which satisfies Assumption 1, Φ(q ) is odd with respect to q¯ , i.e., q¨ = A(q, q˙) + B(q)u (2a) 2 q¨ = C(q, q˙) + D(q)u (2b) Φ(q¯ + q ) = −Φ(q¯ − q ) 2 2 2 2 where, To stabilize C, we investigate the dynamics of ρ(q); differ- −1 B(q) = M − (1/M )M M 11 22 12 entiating ρ(q) twice with respect to time, we get A(q, q˙) = (1/M )B(q) [M h − h M ] 22 12 2 1 22 (3) ∂Φ ∂ Φ D(q) = −(1/M )M B(q) ρ¨ = q¨ − q¨ − q˙ (7) 1 2 ∂q ∂q C(q, q˙) = −(1/M ) M A(q, q˙) + h 22 2 2 1 2 Substitution of q¨ and q¨ from (2a) and (2b) in (7) yields system with the Lagrangian equal to (1/2)M(q )q˙ − 1 2 2 P(q ). ∂ Φ ∂Φ ∂Φ ρ¨ = A − q˙ − C + B − D u (8) ∂q ∂q ∂q The zero dynamics in (12) is similar to the dynamics of a 2 2 simple pendulum and its qualitative properties can be de- scribed by the potential energy P(q ). Let P and P The following choice of linearizing control 2 min max denote the minimum and maximum values of P. If an energy −1 level set is denoted by E(q , q˙ ) = c, then c ∈ (P ,P ) 2 2 min max ∂Φ ∂ Φ corresponds to a periodic orbit where the sign of q˙ changes u = B − D −A + q˙ 2 ∂q ∂q periodically and c > P corresponds to an orbit where max (9) ∂Φ the sign of q˙ does not change [14]. + C − k ρ − k ρ˙ p d ∂q where k and k are positive definite matrices, results in 2.4 Problem Statement p d ρ¨ + k ρ˙ + k ρ = 0 (10) d p Since the zero dynamics in (12) has an Euler-Lagrange structure, there cannot exist any non-trivial isolated periodic This implies that lim ρ(t) → 0 exponentially and u t→∞ c orbit - this follows from the Poincare´-Lyapunov-Liouville- in (9) stabilizes the VHC in (5). If the initial conditions are Arnol’d theorem [14, 16, 19]. A direct implication of this chosen such that ρ(0) = ρ˙(0) = 0, u in (9) enforces the theorem is that the reduced dynamics possesses a dense set VHC and the constraint manifold C is controlled invariant. of closed orbits, that are unstable. For a desired repetitive motion, the corresponding orbit must be stabilized. Consider Remark 1 For u in (9) to be well-defined, the matrix the desired closed orbit O , defined as follows: [B − (∂Φ/∂q )D] must be invertible. It can be shown that [B − (∂Φ/∂q )D] is invertible iff M (∂Φ/∂q ) + M 6= 2 2 22 O = {q, q˙ ∈ C : E(q , q˙ ) = c }, c > P (14) d 2 2 d d min 0. This is also a necessary and sufficient condition for C to be stabilizable - see proposition 3.2 of [14]. T T T Let x, x , [q , q˙ ] , denote the states of the system in (1). We define an ǫ-neighborhood of O by 2.3 Zero Dynamics and Periodic Orbits d n n On the constraint manifold C, the dynamics of the system U = {x ∈ Q × R : dist(x,O ) < ǫ} ǫ d satisfies ρ(q) ≡ 0; this implies dist(x,O ) , inf kx − yk y∈O ∂Φ ∂ Φ ∂Φ q = Φ(q ), q˙ = q˙ , q¨ = q˙ + q¨ 1 2 1 2 1 2 ∂q ∂q ∂q We now define stability of the orbit O from [12]. 2 2 (11) Definition 1 The orbit O in (14) is Substitution of q , q˙ and q¨ from (11) in (1b) provides the 1 1 1 zero dynamics, which can be expressed in the following form • stable, if for every ǫ > 0, there is a δ > 0 such that x(0) ∈ U =⇒ x(t) ∈ U , ∀t ≥ 0. δ ǫ q¨ = α (q ) + α (q )q˙ (12) 2 1 2 2 2 • asymptotically stable if it is stable and δ can be chosen such that lim dist(x(t),O ) = 0. t→∞ d It was shown in [14, 20–22] that the equation above has an integral of motion of the form The control u in (9) stabilizes C but does not stabilize O . c d 2 If q, q˙ ∈ O , u enforces the VHC and trajectories stay on d c E(q , q˙ ) = (1/2)M(q )q˙ + P(q ) 2 2 2 2 Z O ; however, a perturbation of the states will cause the tra- jectories to converge to a different orbit on C. The objective M(q ) = exp −2 α (τ)dτ 2 2 (13) of this paper is to enforce the VHC and exponentially sta- bilize the desired orbit O on C. P(q ) = − α (τ)M(τ) dτ 2 1 where M(q ) is the mass and P(q ) is the potential energy 2 2 Assumptions 1 and 2 provide necessary and sufficient conditions of the reduced system in (12). Since Assumption 1 and 2 are for the reduced system to be Euler-Lagrange - the proof of this satisfied, the zero dynamics represents an Euler-Lagrange result can be found in [14, 16]. 3 3 Main Result: Stabilization of O 3.2 Impulse Controlled Poincare Map (ICPM) To stabilize the desired orbit O , our controller is modified 3.1 Poincare´ Map as follows u = u + u (21) c I The system in (1) with u = u defined in (9), has the state- where u is an impulsive input which is applied only when space representation I x(t) ∈ Σ. The dynamics of the system with u as the new input can be written as x˙ = f(x) (15) M (q) q¨ + M (q) q¨ + h (q, q˙) = u (22a) 11 1 12 2 1 I The stability characteristics of periodic orbits can be studied M (q) q¨ + M (q) q¨ + h (q, q˙) = 0 (22b) using Poincare´ maps [24]. To this end, we define the Poincare´ 1 22 2 2 section Σ of O as follows : where h , (h −u ). Impulsive inputs cause discontinuous 1 1 c n n ∗ Σ = {x ∈ Q × R : q = q , q˙ ≥ 0} (16) changes in the generalized velocities while there is no change 2 2 in the generalized coordinates. On the Poincare´ section Σ, ∗ T T T (2n−1) the jump in velocities can be computed by integrating (21) where q is a constant. Let z, z , [q , q˙ ] ∈ R , 2 1 as follows [4]: denote the states of the system on Σ. The Poincare´ map P : Σ → Σ is obtained by following trajectories of z from " # " # " # Δt M M Δq˙ I one intersection with Σ to the next. Let t , k = 1, 2,··· k 11 12 1 = , I , u dt (23) denote the time of the k-th intersection and z(k) = z(t ). k T M M Δq˙ 0 0 22 2 Then, z(k + 1) can be described with the help of the map P In the above equation, Δt is the infinitesimal interval of z(k + 1) = P[z(k)] (17) n−1 time for which u is active, I ∈ R is the impulse of the impulsive input, and Δq˙ and Δq˙ are defined as 1 2 The point of intersection of Σ and O is the fixed point of P denoted by z ; it satisfies the following relation + − + − Δq˙ , (q˙ − q˙ ), Δq˙ , (q˙ − q˙ ) (24) 1 2 1 1 2 2 ∗ ∗ z = P(z ) (18) − + where q˙ and q˙ are the velocities immediately before and after application of u . Since the system is underactuated, The stability characteristics of the orbit O can be studied the jump in the passive velocity q˙ is dependent on the jumps by investigating the stability properties of z , which is an in the active velocity q˙ ; this relationship is described by the equilibrium point of the discrete-time system in (17); this (n−1) dimensional impulse manifold [8,10], which can be can be done by linearizing the map P about z . For z(k) = obtained from (23): z + ν, where kνk is a small number, we can write + + I = {q˙ , q˙ | Δq˙ = −(1/M )M Δq˙ } (25) M 2 22 1 1 2 12 z(k + 1) = P(z + ν) (19) ∗ ∗ 2 Since impulsive inputs can cause the system states to move = P(z ) + [∇ P(z)] [z(k) − z ] + O(kνk ) z ∗ z=z on Σ, we exploit this property to design a feedback law that ∗ ∗ stabilizes z , i.e., stabilizes O . The control input applied Using P(z ) = z from (18) and neglecting higher-order at t is denoted by I(k) . The dynamics of the impulse terms in kνk, the above equation can be written as controlled system in (17) can be described by the map e(k + 1) = A e(k) z(k + 1) = P[z(k),I(k)] (26) e(k) , z(k) − z , A , [∇ P(z)] (20) z ∗ z=z where I(k) = 0 if z(k) = z . By linearizing the above map The stability properties of z is governed by the eigenvalues about the fixed point z and I = 0, we get of A, which are referred to as the Floquet multipliers of O . If the Floquet multipliers lie inside the unit circle, O e(k + 1) = A e(k) + B I(k) d d h i is exponentially stable - see Theorem 7.3 of [12]. From our A , ∇ P(z,I) discussion in section 2.4 we know that the desired orbit O (27) z=z ,I=0 h i is unstable, i.e., not all eigenvalues of A lie inside the unit B , ∇ P(z,I) circle. To stabilize the orbit, i.e., to stabilize z , we design I z=z ,I=0 an impulse controller in the next subsection. As long as Δt is sufficiently small, the effect of the impulsive In the definition of Σ in (16), q˙ ≥ 0 can be replaced with input u depends solely on the value of I - see (23). Thus I can 2 I q˙ ≤ 0 without any loss of generality. be viewed as the control input. 4 where 0 is a matrix of zeros of dimension i × j, and η , i×j i i = 1, 2,··· , n−1, denote the i-th column of ε Q, where PSfrag replacements ε is a small number. If B denotes the i-th column of B, 2 i then B can be numerically computed as follows: B = {[P(z + S)] − z } (30) i ∗ z=z The above expression has been obtained using (23). 3.3.2 Impulsive Input using High-Gain Feedback Fig. 1. Schematic of ICPM approach to orbital stabilization. Impulsive inputs are Dirac-delta functions and cannot be re- (2n−1)×(2n−1) (2n−1)×(n−1) where A ∈ R and B ∈ R can be alized in real physical systems. Using singular perturbation obtained numerically. Since A is not Hurwitz (see discussion theory [13], it was shown that continuous-time implemen- in the last sub-section), we make the following proposition tation of impulsive inputs can be carried out using high- to stabilize O : gain feedback [8]. To obtain the expression for the high-gain feedback, we substitute (28) in (23) to get Proposition 1 If the pair {A,B} is stabilizable, the orbit O can be stabilized using the discrete impulsive feedback Δq˙ (k) = B I(k) = BKe(k) (31) d 1 I(k) = K e(k) (28) where B is defined in (3) and is evaluated at t ; Δq˙ (k) is k 1 the jump in the active velocities generated by the input I(k). From (24) and (31), the desired active joint velocities at t is where the matrix K is chosen such that (A+BK) is Hurwitz. k des The above approach to stabilization, which we refer to as q˙ (k) = q˙ (k) + BKe(k) (32) the impulse controlled Poincare´ map (ICPM) approach, is explained with the help of the schematic in Fig.1. The de- where q˙ (k) = q˙ (t ). To reach the desired velocities in a 1 1 k sired orbit O is shown in red and it intersects the Poincare´ d very short period of time, we use the high-gain feedback [10] section Σ at the fixed point z . A trajectory starting from an arbitrary initial condition, shown by the point 1 , inter- −1 des u = B Λ q˙ (k) − q˙ − A (33) hg 1 sects Σ at 2 . The impulsive input in (28) moves the con- figuration of the system from 2 to 3 along the impulse des manifold I , where I ⊂ Σ. In other words, we impose M M which remains active for as along as kq˙ (k) − q˙ k ≥ ε , 1 3 des the restriction that 3 lies on Σ, i.e., q˙ ≥ 0. Hereafter, 2 where ε is a small number. In (33), q˙ is obtained the altered system trajectory evolves under the continuous ¯ from (32) and A is obtained from the expression for control u and 4 denotes its next intersection with Σ. A c ¯ A in (3) by replacing h with h . Furthermore, Λ , 1 1 series of ICPMs, similar to the map 2 → 4 exponentially diag[ ], where λ , i = 1, 2,··· , n−1 are λ λ ··· λ ∗ 1 2 n−1 i converge the intersection point of the trajectory on Σ to z . positive numbers, and µ > 0 is a small number. 3.3 Implementation of Control Design 4 Illustrative Example: Cart-Pendulum 3.3.1 Numerical Computation of A and B matrices 4.1 System Dynamics and VHC Let δ , i = 1, 2,··· , 2n−1, denote the i-th column of ε I , where ε is a small number and I is the 1 (2n−1) 1 (2n−1) Consider the frictionless cart-pendulum system in Fig.2. The identity matrix of size (2n−1). If A denotes the i-th column masses of the cart and pendulum are denoted by m and m , c p of A, then A can be numerically computed as follows: PSfrag replacements 1 mp ∗ ∗ A = [P(z + δ ) − z ] (29) i i n×(n−1) (n−1) Let Q ∈ R and S ∈ R be defined as follows: x c I 0 (n−1) (n−1)×1 Q , , S , −1 0 M(q) η Fig. 2. Inverted pendulum on a cart. 1×(n−1) i 5 ℓ denotes the length of the pendulum, and g is the acceler- The states of the system on Σ are ation due to gravity. The control input u is the horizontal force applied on the cart. The cart position is denoted by T z = [ ] x x˙ θ x and the angular displacement of the pendulum, measured clock-clockwise with respect to the vertical, is denoted by Since z lies on O , using (40) and (41) we get θ. We consider physical parameters of the system to be the same as those in [20]: m = m = ℓ = 1 . With the follow- p c ∗ T ing definition z = [ ] 0.0 −0.675 0.450 T T q = [ ] = [ ] (34) q q x θ The matrices A and B in (29) and (30) are obtained as 1 2 and the potential energy of the system, given by 0.115 0.435 0.600 −0.06 A = −0.510 −0.640 −2.465 , B = 1.80 F = cos θ (35) −0.145 0.215 1.325 −1.09 the equations of motion can be obtained as " # " # " # " # It can be verified that the eigenvalues of A do not lie inside 2 cos θ x ¨ sin θ θ u the unit circle but the pair {A,B} is controllable and satisfy − = (36) Proposition 1. Using LQR design, the gain matrix K in (28) cos θ 1 θ g sin θ 0 was obtained as which is of the form in (1). The VHC in (5) is chosen as K = [ ] (42) 0.163 0.288 1.198 ρ = x + 1.5 sin θ = 0 (37) The eigenvalues of (A+BK) are located at 0.13 and −0.06± 0.48i; this implies that the impulsive feedback exponentially which is identical to that considered in [20]. It can be verified stabilizes the desired orbit O . that the mass matrix in (36) and the choice of VHC in (37) satisfy Assumptions 1 and 2 for q¯ = (0, 0). For the VHC in (37) to be stabilizable, Remark 1 provides the following 4.3 Simulation Results condition that needs to be satisfied: The initial configuration of the system is taken from [20]: 1 − 1.5 cos θ 6= 0 ⇒ θ 6= ±0.61 rad (38) [x θ x˙ θ] = [0.1 0.4 −0.1 −0.2] To compare our control design with that presented in [20], we assume that θ ∈ (−0.61, 0.61) such that (38) is satisfied and the VHC in (37) is stabilizable. Simulation results will For the controller gains in (39) and (42), simulation results show that (38) is indeed satisfied. for the ICPM are shown in Fig.3; ρ is plotted with time in Fig.3 (a) and the phase portrait of the pendulum is shown in Fig.3 (b). It can be seen from Fig.3 (a) that the continuous 4.2 Stabilization of VHC and O controller u in (9) enforces the VHC in (37). To stabilize O , the impulsive controller in (28) is implemented using The ICPM approach relies on stabilization of both the con- the high-gain feedback in (33) with Λ = 1 and µ = 0.005. straint manifold C, and the orbit O on C. This is a distinctive It can be seen from the phase portrait in Fig.3 (b) that the difference between our approach and the approach in [20] pendulum trajectory converges exponentially to O , shown where O is stabilized without stabilizing C, i.e., without en- in red. The effect of discrete impulsive feedback can be forcing the VHC. To enforce the VHC, we choose the gains k and k in (9) as follows: p d (a) (b) 2.0 0.6 θ vs θ k = 2, k = 1 (39) p d We choose the desired orbit O to pass through the point: 0.0 0.0 PSfrag replacements (x, θ, x˙, θ) = (0.0, 0.0, −0.675, 0.450) (40) -2.0 -0.6 which is approximately the desired orbit in [20] - see Fig.2 0 10 -0.5 0.5 time (s) therein. To stabilize O , we define the Poinacare´ section Fig. 3. Orbital stabilization for the cart-pendulum system; the 2 2 Σ = {x ∈ Q × R : θ = 0, θ ≥ 0} (41) initial conditions were taken from [20]. 6 (a) (b) lower legs, and the hip joint connecting the torso and upper 0.09 0.5 leg are active; the torques applied by the actuators in these joints are assumed to be positive in the counter-clockwise direction and are denoted by τ and τ . The toe provides 2 3 0.0 a point of support and is a passive revolute joint. The joint angles of the links, θ , θ and θ , are measured positive in PSfrag replacements θ vs θ 1 2 3 the counter-clockwise direction; θ is measured relative to 0.00 the y-axis and θ and θ are measured relative to the first 2 3 -0.5 and second links. Using the following definition for the joint 0 time (s) 15 -0.15 0.0 0.15 angles and control inputs Fig. 4. Orbital stabilization for the cart-pendulum system for the T T T initial conditions in (43). q = [ θ θ ] , q = θ , u = [τ τ ] (44) 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 seen in Fig.3 (b) where θ jumps when trajectories cross the the dynamics of the tiptoebot can be expressed in the form Poincare´ section Σ defined in (41). The system trajectories given in (1), where the components of the mass matrix and reach a close neighborhood of O in approximately 10 sec; the potential energy are: this is comparable to the results in [20]. " # We now consider the following initial condition that lies far α +α +2α cos θ α +α cos θ 2 3 5 3 3 5 3 M = away from O : α +α cos θ α 3 5 3 3 " # α +α +α cos θ +2α cos θ +α cos(θ +θ ) [x θ x˙ θ] = [0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0] (43) 2 3 4 2 5 3 6 2 3 M = α +α cos θ +α cos(θ +θ ) 3 5 3 6 2 3 We used the same controller gains as that used in the previous M = α +α +α 22 1 2 3 simulation. It can be seen from the results shown in Fig.4 that + 2 [α cos θ + α cos θ +α cos(θ +θ )] 4 2 5 3 6 2 3 O is stabilized. For the initial conditions in (43), the control F = β cos θ + β cos(θ + θ ) + β cos(θ + θ + θ ) design in [20] fails to converge the pendulum trajectory to 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 (45) O ; this implies that O has a larger region of attraction d d where α , i = 1, 2,··· , 6, and β , i = 1, 2, 3 are lumped with the ICPM approach than with the control design in [20]. i i physical parameters; their values are given in Table 1. It can To demonstrate the generality of the ICPM approach, we be verified that Assumption 1 is satisfied for q¯ = (0 0 0) . consider the three DOF tiptoebot, which is presented next. Table 1: Tiptoebot lumped parameters in SI units 5 Illustrative Example - The Tiptoebot α 0.386 α 0.065 β 4.307 1 4 1 α 0.217 α 0.054 β 1.102 2 5 2 5.1 System Description α 0.247 α 0.104 β 1.764 3 6 3 Consider the three DOF tiptoebot [10] shown in Fig.5. The tiptoebot is a human-like underactuated system with one 5.2 Imposing VHC and Selection of O passive joint; the three links are analogous to the lower leg, upper leg and torso. The knee joint connecting the upper and The VHC in (5) is chosen as " # " # " # ρ θ − A θ 0 1 2 1 1 ρ = = = (46) PSfrag replacements ρ θ − A θ 0 2 3 2 1 where A = −2 and A = 0.1. It can be verified that the 1 2 τ 2 VHC in (46) satisfies Assumption 2 for q¯ = (0 0 0) ; also, it is stabilizable as it satisfies the condition in Remark 1. To enforce the VHC, the gain matrices in (9) were chosen as " # " # ℓℓ 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 k = , k = (47) p d 1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 The phase portrait of the zero dynamics in (12) is shown in Fig. 5. The three-link underactuated tiptoebot. Fig.6. It can be seen that the equilibrium (θ , θ ) = (0, 0) 1 1 7 (a) (b) is a center, surrounded by a dense set of closed orbits. We 0.60 0.45 choose the desired orbit O to be the one that passes through (θ , θ ) = (0.0, 3.0). 1 1 0.00 0.00 ρ ρ 5.3 Stabilization of O 1 2 -0.60 -0.45 (c) (d) The desired orbit O , shown in red in Fig.6, is symmetric 0.5 0.5 about θ = 0 and without loss of generality we define the 1 ρ˙ ρ˙ 1 2 Poincare´ section of O as follows 0.0 0.0 3 3 Σ = {x ∈ Q × R : θ = 0, θ ≥ 0} (48) 1 1 PSfrag replacements -0.5 -0.5 0 time (s) 100 0 time (s) 100 The states on Σ are (e) 3.5 ˙ ˙ ˙ z = [ ] θ θ θ θ θ 2 3 1 2 3 ke(k)k The fixed point z = z lies on O and satisfies the VHC 0.0 relationship ρ = ρ˙ = 0. Substituting (θ , θ ) = (0.0, 3.0) in 1 1 0 40 (46) and its derivative gives Fig. 7. Orbital stabilization for the tiptoebot using ICPM. ∗ T z = [ ] (49) 0.0 0.0 3.0 −6.0 0.3 The eigenvalues of (A + BK) are located at 0.14, −0.47 ± 0.73i and −0.12±0.56i; this implies thatO is exponentially The matrices A and B in (29) and (30) were obtained as stable. 5.4 Simulation Results −0.380 −0.080 1.530 0.800 0.050 0.000 −0.460 −0.080 −0.003 0.730 The initial configuration of the tiptoebot is taken as A = 1.230 1.890 6.120 2.770 4.050 ˙ ˙ ˙ −3.210 −3.770 −13.360 −6.090 −8.100 [ ] = [ ] θ θ θ θ θ θ −0.1 0.2 0.05 3.3 −6.0 0.4 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.120 −0.560 0.670 0.280 0.100 For the controller gains in (47) and (50), simulation results " #T of the ICPM approach are shown in Fig.7. The plots of ρ , 1.525 −3.700 −17.700 34.325 0.875 1 B = ρ , ρ˙ and ρ˙ with time are shown in Figs.7 (a)-(d); it can 2 1 2 4.875 −8.650 22.650 −43.850 −0.325 be seen that the continuous controller u in (9) enforces the VHC in (46) by stabilizing the constraint manifold C. To The eigenvalues of A do not lie inside the unit circle but the stabilize the desired orbit O , the impulsive controller in pair {A,B} is stabilizable and satisfy Proposition 1. Using (28) is implemented using the high-gain feedback in (33); LQR, the gain matrix K in (28) is obtained as Λ was chosen to be an identity matrix and µ was chosen as 0.0001. To show the convergence of system trajectories to " # O , ke(k)k is plotted with respect to k in Fig.7 (e). It can d 2 0.028 0.024 0.197 0.094 0.138 be seen that for large values of k, ke(k)k → 0; this implies K = (50) 2 −0.034 −0.051 0.116 −0.049 −0.055 that O is exponentially stable. d 6 Conclusion Repetitive motion in underactuated systems are typically de- signed using VHCs. A VHC results in a family of periodic orbits and stabilization of an orbit is an important problem PSfrag replacements in applications such as legged locomotion. A hybrid con- trol design was presented to stabilize a VHC-generated peri- -5 odic orbit for underactuated system with one passive DOF; -3 0 3 θ (rad) a continuous controller was used to enforce the VHC and impulsive inputs were periodically applied on a Poincare´ Fig. 6. Phase portrait of tiptoebot zero dynamics. section to stabilize the desired orbit. These impulsive inputs θ (rad/s) 1 alter the Poincare´ map and this impulse controlled Poincare´ [10] Nilay Kant, Ranjan Mukherjee, Dhrubajit Chowdhury, and Hassan K Khalil. Estimation of the region of attraction of underactuated map (ICPM) is described by a discrete time-invariant linear systems and its enlargement using impulsive inputs. IEEE Trans. on system. The problem of orbital stabilization problem is thus Robotics, 35(3):618–632, 2019. simplified to stabilization of the fixed point of the ICPM. [11] Nilay Kant, Ranjan Mukherjee, and Hassan K Khalil. Stabilization of The controllability of the system can be easily verified and homoclinic orbits of two degree-of-freedom underactuated systems. the control design can be easily carried out using standard In Proc. American Control Conference, 2019. techniques such as pole-placement and LQR. The identifica- [12] Hassan K Khalil. Nonlinear Systems. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle tion of the linear system and computation of the controller River, NJ, second edition, 1996. gains are performed off-line. The complexity and computa- [13] Petar Kokotovic, Hassan K Khalil, and John O’Reilly. Singular tional cost of the ICPM approach is less than existing meth- perturbation methods in control: Analysis and design, volume 25. ods in the literature as it eliminates the need for on-line so- Siam, 1999. lution of a periodic Ricatti equation. The ICPM approach is [14] Manfredi Maggiore and Luca Consolini. Virtual holonomic demonstrated using the standard cart-pendulum system; its constraints for Euler-Lagrange systems. IEEE Trans. on Automatic applicability to higher-dimensional systems is demonstrated Control, 58(4):1001–1008, 2012. using the three-DOF tiptoebot. Future work will focus on [15] Frank B Mathis, Rouhollah Jafari, and Ranjan Mukherjee. gait stabilization of legged robots undergoing ground-foot Impulsive actuation in robot manipulators: Experimental verification impacts and experimental validation. of pendubot swing-up. IEEE/ASME Trans. on Mechatronics, 19(4):1469–1474, 2014. [16] Alireza Mohammadi. Virtual holonomic constraints for Euler- References Lagrange control systems. PhD thesis, University of Toronto (Canada), 2016. [1] Thamer Albahkali, Ranjan Mukherjee, and Tuhin Das. Swing-up [17] Alireza Mohammadi, Manfredi Maggiore, and Luca Consolini. control of the pendubot: An impulse-momentum approach. IEEE Dynamic virtual holonomic constraints for stabilization of closed Trans. on Robotics, 25(4):975–982, 2009. orbits in underactuated mechanical systems. Automatica, 94:112– 124, 2018. [2] Carlos Canudas-de Wit. On the concept of virtual constraints as a tool for walking robot control and balancing. Annual Reviews in [18] Alireza Mohammadi, Ehsan Rezapour, Manfredi Maggiore, and Control, 28(2):157–166, 2004. Kristin Y Pettersen. Maneuvering control of planar snake robots [3] Carlos Canudas-de Wit, Bernard Espiau, and Claudio Urrea. Orbital using virtual holonomic constraints. IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, 24(3):884–899, 2015. stabilization of underactuated mechanical systems. In Proc. 15th IFAC World Congress, 2002. [19] N. Nekhoroshev. The Poincare´-Lyapunov-Liouville-Arnol’d theorem. Functional Analysis and Its Applications, 28:128–129, 04 1994. [4] Louis L Flynn, Rouhollah Jafari, and Ranjan Mukherjee. Active synthetic-wheel biped with torso. IEEE Trans. on Robotics, [20] Anton Shiriaev, John W Perram, and Carlos Canudas-de Wit. 26(5):816–826, 2010. Constructive tool for orbital stabilization of underactuated nonlinear systems: Virtual constraints approach. IEEE Trans. on Automatic [5] Leonid Freidovich, Anders Robertsson, Anton Shiriaev, and Rolf Control, 50(8):1164–1176, 2005. Johansson. Periodic motions of the pendubot via virtual holonomic constraints: Theory and experiments. Automatica, 44(3):785–791, [21] Anton Shiriaev, Anders Robertsson, John Perram, and Anders Sandberg. Periodic motion planning for virtually constrained Euler- Lagrange systems. Systems & Control Letters, 55(11):900–907, 2006. [6] Jessy W Grizzle, Gabriel Abba, and Franck Plestan. Asymptotically stable walking for biped robots: Analysis via systems with impulse [22] Anton S Shiriaev, Leonid B Freidovich, and Sergei V Gusev. effects. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 46(1):51–64, 2001. Transverse linearization for controlled mechanical systems with [7] Jessy W Grizzle, Christine Chevallereau, Ryan W Sinnet, and several passive degrees of freedom. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 55(4):893–906, 2010. Aaron D Ames. Models, feedback control, and open problems of 3d bipedal robotic walking. Automatica, 50(8):1955–1988, 2014. [23] Anton S Shiriaev, Leonid B Freidovich, Anders Robertsson, Rolf Johansson, and Anders Sandberg. Virtual-holonomic-constraints- [8] Rouhollah Jafari, Frank B Mathis, Ranjan Mukherjee, and Hassan Khalil. Enlarging the region of attraction of equilibria of based design of stable oscillations of Furuta pendulum: Theory and experiments. IEEE Trans. on Robotics, 23(4):827–832, 2007. underactuated systems using impulsive inputs. IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, 24(1):334–340, 2016. [24] Steven H Strogatz. Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: With applications [9] Nilay Kant and Ranjan Mukherjee. Impulsive dynamics and control to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering. CRC press, 2018. of the inertia-wheel pendulum. IEEE Robotics and Automation [25] Eric R Westervelt, Jessy W Grizzle, Christine Chevallereau, Jun Ho Letters, 3(4):3208–3215, 2018. Choi, and Benjamin Morris. Feedback control of dynamic bipedal robot locomotion. CRC press, 2018.
Electrical Engineering and Systems Science – arXiv (Cornell University)
Published: May 3, 2020
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.