Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 147




A thesis submirted ro the Depi~rtmenrof Mechanical Engineering in conjonnity with the requiremenrsfor the degrw of Master of Science (Engineering)

Queen's University Kingston, Ontario Canada KX 3N6

October 2001

copyright O Aditya Garg, 2001

I*I ofCa"&

National übraiy

Acquisitions and

Bibliographie Services



Ottawa ON KlA ONiI


Bibliothèque nationale



Acquisitions et

senrices bibliographiques

395. tue Wellington



The author has grantecl a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or seii copies of this thesis in microform, paper or elecîronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in thisthesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or othenivise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive peunettant a la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la fome de microfiche/fïlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.










Servosystems. M.Sc. Thesis, Queeti 's Utiiversiiy a Kirigstot i. October, 2O0 1

Adaptive control is an appealing control approach when a system requires variable

controller gains to compensate for unknown operating parameters. Similarly, optimal

control has drawn a fair degree of attention for trajectory tracking tasks. Optimal control

is an example of a model-based linear controller that provides a tigorous anaiyticai

approach to obtaining a set of fixed gains for a state feedback controller. The objective

of this thesis is to compare the performance of these approaches for trajectory tracking.

This thesis evaluates Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) as compared with 1)

conventional Proportional-Velocity (PV) control and 2) Linear Quadratic Regulator

Tracking (LQRT)control. Simulation studies were conducted on two electromechanical

servosystems, a DC servomotor and a two-link robotic manipulator. Experimentai

studies were conducted with a single DC servomotor apparatus. Tests evaluated the

ability of each system to track step, ramp, sinusoidal and circular trajectories. The effect

of parameter changes on systern tracking performance was also exarnined.

MRAC and LQRT were first validated on an ideal second order system. Simulation

results for the robotic manipuiator showed that MRAC gave robust performance while

PV control failed to keep tracking errors within desired limits when the system was

subjected to inertia changes. Experimentd P-only and PV control results for the DC

servomotor were obtained to validate the control and data acquisition system. The LQRT

aigorithm achieved good tracking performance for al1 trajettories under conditions of

constant parameters. Simulation results for the DC servomotor showed that MRAC

could satisb design requirements with only partid knowledge of the system and under

conditions of changing systeni parameters. Implementation difficulties prcvented

experimental evaluztion of the MRAC aigorithm. It was apparent from inertia change

tests that LQRT is not suitable for systems which undergo significant parameter

variations. On the other hand, LQRT is simpler to implement than MRAC, which makes

it a good choice for those applications with comant and nearly constant parameters.


1 would like to extend my gratitude to rny supervisor Dr. Bnan Surgenor for his continuous guidance and support throughout my program at the University.

The financial support provided by the School of Graduate Studies and the Department of Mechanical Engineering is greatly acknowledged.

1 appreciate my lab mate Yang Xia, who through his sense of humour helped me get through occasional hard tirnes.

1 would also like to thank my fiiend Abhinandan Jain at University of British Columbia for his kind words and encouragement every now and then.

1 must express my gratitude for rny parents, my sisters and my girlfriend Elizabeth (soon to be my fiance), without whose suppon I would not have been able to reach this important moment in my life. Finally, 1 thank Queen's on the whole for making my two- year stay here a most enjoyable and fruithl the of my life - not just acadernically, but also in the cordial, carefiee environment and opponunities it provided for doing things, which 1had never done before.









1. I

Problem Overview


Thesis Objectives


Thesis Outline





Adaptive Controt



Mode[ Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC)


SelfTuning Control (STC)


Design of MIWC Systems



Adaptive Control of Robotic Servosystems


Optimal Tracking Control



Integrator Exampie






3.1 Adaptive Control of a Second-Order System

Modified MIT RuIe

3.1. i

3.1.2 MRAC for Generd Linear Systems


MRAC and PV for a 2-Iink Robotic Manipulator


Cosine Trajectory


Response to Parameter Changes

3.Z.3 Straight Line Trajectory with MRAC


P and PV ControI for DC Servomotor


Step and Trapezoidal Trajectories


Response to Parameter Changes


Cucle Trajectory with PV










Control Software


Open Loop Validation


Closed Loop Validation


LQRT for DC Servomotor


Optimal Replator Design


Ramp and Sine Tracking Design


Ramp and Sine Trajectories with LQRT


Circle Trajectory with LQRT


MRAC for DC Servomotor

4.3.1 Discrete Model for MRAC

4.3.2 Controller and Observer Design

4.3.3 Recursive Least Squares (RLS) Estimation

4.3.4 Square Wave Trajectories with MRAC


Circle Trajectory with MRAC


Cornparison of LQRT and MRAC


























Figure 2.1:

Essential components of an adaptive control system

Figure 2.2:

Model Reference Adaptive Control system (parameter adaptation)

Figure 2.3:

Model Reference Adaptive Control system (signal synthesis)

Figure 2.4:

SelfTuning Control system

Figure 2.5:

Block diagram of a simple feedback loop

Figure 2.6:

Integrator tracking example, cornparison of approximate Solutionand exact solution for a ramp reference signal

Figure 3.1:

Simulation of adaptive contrai for a 2nd-order system with MIT nile, showing trajectory and process output for 3 different adaptation gains and comparison of response to square wave command with three different amplitudes

Figure 3.2:

Simulation of adaptive controi for a 2" -order system with modified MT nile, showing trajectory and process output and comparison of response to square wave cornmand with three different amplitudes

Figure 3.3:

WC for a second-order system using Lyapunov stability theory showing 2"d-orderreference trajectory and process output

Figure 3.4:

Schematic of a two-Iink manipulator carrying an unknown load

Figure 3.5:

Cornparison of simulation of PV control and MRAC of a 2-link robotic manipulator for a desired cosine trajectory

Figure 3.6:

Parameter estimates for MRAC of a 2-link robotic manipulator for a desired cosine trajectory

Figure 3.7:

Cornparison of simulation of PV control and MRAC of a 2-link manipulator for a desired cosine trajectory with inertia change

Figure 3.8:

Parameter estimates for MRAC of a 2-link robotic manipulator for a desired cosine trajectoty with inertia change

Figure 3.9:

Cornparison of simulation results for MRAC of a t-link robotic manipuIatorfor a desired straight-linetrajectory for two sets of gains

Figure 3.IO:

Position and velocity open loop remit for DC motor

Figure 3.1 1:

Trapezoidaivelocity profile

Figure 3.12:

Cornparison of simulation resu1ts for P-only control of step test for DC motor for two different percent overshoots

Figure 3.13:

Comparison of simulation results for P-only control of ramp ifiput test for DC motor for two different percent overshoots

Figure 3.14:

Comparison of simulation results for PV control of step test for DC motor for two dEerent percent overshoots and a fixed

settling time

Figure 3.15:

Comparison of simulation results for PV control of ramp input test for DC motor for two different percent overshoots and a fixed settling time

Figure 3.16:

Cornpanson of performance degradation for P-only control of step test for DC motor for two different percent overshoots

Figure 3.17:

Comparison of performance degradation for PV control of step test for DC motor for two different percent overshoots

Figure 3.18:

Camparison of performance degradation for PV


control of DC motor for two different velocity gains

Figure 3.19:

Simulation oPPV control for two DC

motors in response

to sinusoidal reference signal to track a circuiar erajectory

Figure 4.1:

Experimental Apparatus

Figure 4.2:

PMDI MotionTools Main GUI

Figure 4.3:

Simulation vs. experimental open loop test showing comparison of responses tvith 5 volt and 8 volt step inputs

Figure 4.4:

Simulationvs. experimental open loop test showing comparison of responses with change in inertia (5 wfr step input)

Figure 4.5:

Simulation vs. experimental P-only closed loop test for a step reference signal

Figure 4.6:

Simulation vs. experimental PV closed short response time

Ioop step test for

Figure 4.7:

Simulation vs. experimental PV closed Ioop step test for long response time

Figure 4.8:

Comparison of simulation results for closed loop step test with 3 sets of gains

Figure 4.9:

Comparison of experimental results for DC motoi in response to a step input of 1 rot for j sec for three sets of gains

Figure 4.10:

Simulationresponse for approximate vs. exact tracking solution for 5 rot'sec ramp reference

Figure 4.11:

Simulation response for approximate vs. exact tracking solution for 0.5 Hz sùiusoidai reference

Figure 1.13:

Optimal tracking test showi.ngcomparison of simulation and experimental result of approximate solution for a 5 rotj'sec ramp reference signal

Figure 4.14:

Optimal tracking test, comparison of simulation and experimental result of exact solution for a 5 rok'sec ramp reference signal


Figure 4.15:

Optimal tracking test showing comparison of simulation and experimental result of approximate solution for a 0.5 Hz sinusoidai reference signal

Figure 4.16:

Optimal tracking test showing comparison of simulation and experimentai result of exact solution for a 0.5 Hz sinusoidal reference signal

Figure 4.17:

Simulation of LQRT control for two DC motors in response to sinusoidal reference signal to track a circular trajectory

Figure 4.18:

Simulation result for MRAC controller showing the actual response adapting after a few transients of square wave reference signal with initiai low estimate of initial parameters

Figure 4.19:

Simulation result for MRAC controller showing the actual response adaptingafter a few transientsof square wave reference signal with initiai high estimate of initial parameters

Figure 4.20:

Simulation result for MRAC controller vs. PV controller for a square wave reference signal with inertia change

Figure 4.2 1:

Simulation of MRAC for two DC motors in response to sinusoidal reference signal to track a circular trajectory

Figure 4.22:

Comparison of simulation of LQRT and MRAC for two motors for tracking a circular trajectory with inertia change

Figure B. 1:

Optimal tracking experimental test for exact solution for a 5 roosec ramp reference signal, comparison of results for different sampling times

Figure B.2:

Optimal tracking experimental test with expanded scaies for exact solution for a 5 rorsec ramp reference signal, comparison of results for different sampling times

Figure C. 1:

Comparison of adaptive control for l'order

system with

trajectory and process output for 2 different adaptationgains


Figure D.1:

First-order system optimal tracking example with cornparison of simulation of approximate and exact solution in response to a rarnp reference signal

Figure D.2:

First-order system optimal tracking example with cornparison of simulation of approximate and exact solution in response to a sinusoidal reference signal



unknown parameter vector of 2-link manipulator

mode1 coefficients

siope of ramp or amplitude of sine reference input

accelerationof trapezoida1move profile

state space matrices of the DC motor observer polynomial

unknown parameters of discrete-time motor model

polynomial gains of mode1

extemal optimal control vector

instantaneous gain

steady-state approxirnate solution for LQR

coefficient for 1' order and 2* order system

cosines ofjoint angles

coriolis matrix

constants in optimal control Iaw

coefficient for 1" order and 2"dorder system

components of parameter vector for RLS algorithm

total move the of trapezoidal move profile error between model and process outputs

filtered error

output matrix of filtered error equation of manipulator

uansfer hnction for a general system

state-space matnx for a general system

gravitational constant state-space matrix for a general system

transfer fhction for a ~eneralsystem

Il, ,Ir2


Nr* Nu



mode! transfer hnction

gravity mate

sampling time state-space matrix for a general system

a combination matrix of system matrices and controller gains

identity matrix

unknown parameter - moment of inenia

minimum-error criterion

controller gain vector

optimal controller gain vector system gain

manipuiator control gain

motor gain

proportional gain

velocity gain

lengths of manipulator links

unknown distance of 2"d link mass center fiom 2&joint

ratio of sampling time, Tm and motor cime constant, r,

manipuiator mass math percent overshoot for dc rnotor

point masses of 2 linksof manipulator

unknown parameter - mas

components of parameter vector for RLS algorithm

combined manipulator gravity and coriolis matrix

variables used in controller design


differential operator

of MRAC for motor

polynomid or matrix for filtered error

factors of polynomial P

vector of n-joint manipulator system parameters

solution of Riccati equation

joint angles

desired joint angle trajectory

reference velocity

polynomiai or matrix for filtered enor

nonnegativedefinite weighting matrix

step reference signal

controller polynomiai gain

positive detinite weighting matrix


sine of joint angles

reference velocity error

controller polynomiai gain time

controller parameters

acceleration time of trapezoidal

deceIeration time of trapezoidal move profile

move prof le

total move time of trapezoidai move profle

constant velocity time of trapezoidai move profile

controllerpolynomiai gain

extemal disturbancevector

settling tirne

control input signal

optirnai control

command signai

additionai control signal term in LQR tracking algorithm

open loop step reference input voltage

average velocity of trapezoidal move profile

maximum velocity of trapezoidal move profile

speed of the rnotor

open Ioop steady state velocity of rnotor

matrix of tùnctions ofjoint variables controllability rnatrix

state vector reference or desired trajectory vector

process output or position

trajectory output

known rnatrix, fùnction of q, q, q,, q,

a vector used in RLS algorithm

Greek letters

parameter introduced to avoid division by zero saturationtùnction parameter

unknown parameter - angle relative to original 2"dlink


error augmentation

controI torques

6rst order system constant

motor the constant

discrete state space matrices

non-negative rnatrix symrnetric positive definite matrix

parameter vector vector of negative value of gradient of loss hnction

vector ofjoint positions natural Frequency

damping factor

polynomial used in controller design of MRAC

parameter vector for estimation in RLS algorithm

vector of rnotor output and control signal

forgetting factor

symrnetric positive detinite rnatrix



Direct Current


Degree of Freedorn


Digital Signal Processing


Graphical User Interface


Index of Performance


Linear Quadratic


Linear Quadratic Reguiator


Linear Quadratic Regulator Tracking


Model Reference Adaptive ControI


Proportional only feedback controt






Recursive Least Squares


SelfTuning Control



Automatic control systems exist in a virtually idnite variety, both in type of application and level of sophistication. Control engineering can be surnrned up as the design and irnplementation of control systems to achieve specified objectives under given constraints. For a complex system, the overall objectives and constraints need to be

translated into performance specifications for the various individual subsystems that

make up the complete system. Control engineering practice includes the use of better and fister control design strategies for increasing quality levels in manufacturing processes, improving the energy efficiency of power production facilities, advancing the state of flight control for aerospace applications, among others. System models are becoming

more and more important for the design of modem control system. The challenge to control engineers can be stated as the need to model and control increasingly complex and highly interrelated systems.

The importance of controllers in al1 technological areas is well known and documented. For exarnple, without good process control, as in the case of a manufacturing plant. issues such as product quality, production rates, material management, reliability and even personnel safety would be in jeopardy. Controllers are there to maintain the process or plant parameters within their prescribed limits, to track pre-designed trajectones to perform certain tasks. And they rnust do so despite system disturbances, plant uncenainties, model errors and so forth. Therefore, they have to be robust and able to ' ensure stability and maintain good system performance under adverse operating conditions. In the context of this thesis, a robust controller is one that can maintain performance in the face of changing operating conditions and system parameters, and yet require a minimum of controller gain tuning.

PD is the acronym for the classicaI and most heavily used controI algorithm. Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PD) controllers are sufficient for many control problems, pmicularIy where there are benign process dynamics and modest performance requirements. However, there are numerous control situations in which PID control with constant gains fails to meet the requirements. For example, systems with large parameter variations are candidates for more sophisticated contra[structures.

When knowledge of the system is limited, the issue of adaptive control becomes important. Adaptive control can rapidly modiQ an initially "imprecise" set of controller gains as the controller seeks to adjust :O an unknown system state. Adaptive control with its variabIe gain structure is also of value for those systems where operating parameters Vary with time. Adaptive techniques are increasingiy being used in industrial controi systems. Adaptive control is not a new subject. In the early 1950s extensive research was done on adaptive control for the design of autopilots for high performance aircraft. In sumrnary, adaptive controI can cope with increasingiy cornplex systems in the presence ofextreme changes in systern pararneters and input sigals.

There are two main approaches for constructing adaptive controllers. One is the Mode1 Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC)rnethod and the other is the so-ca1Ied Self Tuning Control (STC)method. This thesis will only apply the MRAC method. In a MRAC system, the desired performance is expressed in ternis of a reference model, which gives the desired response to a command signai. The regulator's pararneters are changed based on the error as given by the difference between the outputs of the systern and the reference model. In the context of widely usai comrol algorithms. an alternative to adaptive control is optimai control.

Optimal control has drawn a fair degree of attention in particular for trajectory tracking tasks. Optimal controt is a particdar branch of modem control, as opposed to classical control, that aims at providing especiaily appeding adyticai designs. The system that

results from applying optimal control design methodology is not merely stable or satisfies classicd requirements, but is also supposed to be the best possible or "optimal" system.

Linear optimal control is a special type of optimal control. Linear optimal control is an example of a model-based linear controller that provides a ngorous analyticai approach to obtaining a set of fixed gains for a state feedback cantroller. There are several justifications for applying linear optimal control to a large number of systems as opposed simply to optimal control. For example, a linear controller is simple to implement and will often be sufficient for plants which are linear prior to addition of a controller. Most linear optimal control problems are computationally inexpensive. Linear optima1 control results may also be applied to nonlinear systems on a small signal basis. Through linear optimal control, the class of systems for which control designs may be achieved can be vastly extended.

Optimal control using linear quadratic methods aims at providing a system input that will either 1) take the plant from a nonzero state to the zero state, or 2) cause the system output to track some prescnbed function. This thesis will concentrate on the second objective, namely tracking of a desired trajectory, by studying a Linear Quadratic Regulator Tracking (LQRT) algorithm. A common situation where this objective is to be

achieved is trajectory-controllable systems such as electromechanical servosystems that have to track a continuous path to do certain tasks like welding, cutting or painting in an industrial environment.

1.2 Thesis Objectives

The objective of this thesis is to compare the performance of MRAC and LQRT

approaches for trajectory tracking as applied to representative elecuomechanical servosystems. Servosystems in generaI are required to maintain a prescribed motion dong a desired time-based trajectory with the controller applying corrective

compensating torques to adjust for any deviations fiom the trajectory and achieve fastest response tirnes with minimal errors.

Specifically, the following issues wilI be addressed in this thesis:

What is the relative performance of Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) (MRAC)

and Linear Quadratic ReguIator Tracking (LQRT)as applied to representative electromechanicalservosystems?

Under what conditions can MRAC and LQRT be applied and when is their MRAC and LQRT be applied and when istheir

application not advisable?

1s MRAC harder or easier to implement than LQRT? What are the difficulties to implement than LQRT? What are the difficulties

encountered in their irnplementation ?

Are there ways that MRAC and LQRT cm be improved in the context of thethe difficulties encountered in their irnplementation ? algorithms as irnplernented for this thesis ? 1.3 Thesis

algorithms as irnplernented for this thesis ?

1.3 Thesis Outline

The organization of this thesis is as follows:

Chapter 2 is a literature review. It gives background theory on adaptive controi, 2 is a literature review. It gives background theory on adaptive controi,

specifically on mC, and linear quadratic (LQ) control theory. A review of difftrent adaptive control aiprirhmr For robotic rervosystems and optimal tracking algonthms is aIso presented.

Chapter 3 presents simulation results for representative electromechanicai servosysterns. Application of MRAC is made to three 3 presents simulation results for representative electromechanicai servosysterns. Application of MRAC is made to three systerns: an ided second


comparative purposes, application of P and PV control is aiso made.


a 2-link robotic

manipulator and a

DC servomotor.


Chapter 4 contains experimental results of open and closed loop tests conducted on a DC servomotor. 4 contains experimental results of open and closed loop tests conducted on a DC servomotor. MRAC is applied to the servomotor and verification of

The performance of LQRT is compared

LQRT is made for various trajectories.

directly with that of MRAC, includins the case of an inertia change.

Chapter 5 summaizes findings and conclusions on the adaptive and optimal 5 summaizes findings and conclusions on the adaptive and optimal

tracking control of electromechanical servosysterns. Recommendations for hmre work are aiso given.



Chapter 2 gives a review of the literature and theory on the subject of adaptive and optimal control in the context of tracking control of electromechanical servosystems. Particular attention is paid to MRAC as an adaptive algorithm, application to robotic manipulator servosystems and LQ as an optimal control algonthm.

2.1 Adaptive Control

My dynamic systems to be controlled have constant or slowly varying wlcertatn paramefers. For instance, robot manipulators may carry large objects with unknown inertial parameters. Power systems may be subjected to large variations in loading conditions. Adaptive control is a popular approach to the control of such systems.

There does not seem to be a universally accepted definition of what is an adaptive controller. However, according to Landau (1979), an adaptive system measures a certain index OF performance (IP)using the inputs, the States and the outputs of the adjustable system. From the companson of the measured IP values and a set of given iP values, the adaptation mechanism modifies the parameters of the adjustable system or generates an auxiliay input in order to maintain the measured iP values close to the set of given ones. This definition is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

The basic idea in adaptive control is to estimate the uncertain plant parameters (or equivalently, the corresponding controller parameters) on-line as based on the measured system sipais, and use the estimated parameters in the control input computation. An adaptive system cm thus be regarded as a control system with on-line parameter estimation (Slotine and Li, 1991). Pragmatically speaking, it is a specid type of

nonlinear feedback control in which the states of the process cm be separated into two

categories, which change at différent rates. The sIowly changing states are viewed as

parameters. An adaptive controller has two loops: one for ordinary feedback and the

second For updating regulator parameters. Adaptive control systems, whether developed

for Iinear or for nonlinear plants, are inherently nodinear, and their analysis and design is

intimately connected with the theory of nonlinear control. and in particular with

Lyapunov theory.




, perturbations






Known , perturbations ---r--- * ADJUSTABLE SY STEM t Figure 2. I: Essential cornponents of an

Figure 2. I:

Essential cornponents of an adaptive controt system (Chalam, 1987)

An adaptive controller differs fiom an ordinary controller in that the controller

parameters are variable, and there is a mechanisrn for adjusting these parameters on-line

based on signais in the system. Adaptive controt systems may be classified by rnany

cnteria. For example, they can be parameter-adaptive or signai synthesis adaptive

systems, direct or indirect adaptive systems, or determïnistic, stochastic or leamhg

systems. Landau (1993) diicusses the evolution of adaptive control algorithms driven by

the results obtained in the application of fim generation of adaptive controllers.

One is Model

Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC)method, and the other is Self-Tuning Control

There are two main approaches For consuucting adaptive controllers.

(STC). This thesis shall deal ody with bMC.

2.1.1 Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC)

The problem of self-adjusting the parameters of a controller in order to stabilize the dynamic characteristics of a feedback controi system when drift variations in the plant parameter occur, was the origin of MRAC systems (Whitaker, Yamon and Kezer, 1958).

The two basic schemes of MRAC are given in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3. A MRAC system is composed of four parts: a plant containing unknown parameters, a refirence model for compactly specifjmg the desired output of the control system, a feedback cot~trollm containing adjunable parameters, and an adapm[otr mechanism for updating the adjustable parameters (Slotine and Li, 1991). The reference modei gives the desired response of the adjustable system and the task of the adaptation is to minimize a hnction of the difference between the outputs, or the states, of the adjustable system and those of the reference model. This is done &y the adaptation mechanism that modifies the

parameters of the adjustable systems or generates an auxiliary input signai. The disturbances represented in Figure 2.2 are parameter disturbances modifying either the reference model or the adjustable system. One of the most important advantages of this type of adaptive system is its high speed of adaptation. This is because a measure of the difference between the given iP specified by the reference model and the iP of the adjustable system, is obtained directly tiy the cornparison of the outputs, or the states, of the model with those of the adjustable system.

The plant is assurned to have a known structure, although the parameters are unknown. This means that either the number of poies and zeros or the structure of noniinear dynamic equations is known.

A refirence mode1 is used to specifj the ide* response of the adaptive control system. The choice of reference model is part of adaptive system design. This choice should reflect the performance specification in control tasks, and also this ideai behavior should be achievable for the adaptive control system, Le., there are some inherent constraints on the structure of the reference model given the assumed structure of the plant model.

The cottrrofler is usually parameeerized by a number of adjustable parameters. The controller should have perfect tracking capacity in order to allow the possibility of

tracking convergence. if the control law is linear in terms of the adjustable parameters, it is said to be li~iearlyparumeferized. Existing adaptive control designs nonally require linear parameterization of the controller in order to obtain adaptation mechanisms with

guaranteed stabiiity and tracking convergence.

The objective of adapmtioti law is to make the tracking error converge to zero. The main issue in adaptation desi~nis io synthesize an adaptation mechanism that wiil guarantee

that the control system rernains stable and the cracking error converges to zero as the parameters are varied. Many formalisms can be used to this end. such as Lyapunov theory, hyperstability theory, and passivity theory.

Figure 2.2:


Mode1Reference Adaptive Controi system (parameteradaptation)










Figure 2.3: Mode1 Reference Adaptive Control system (signal synthesis)

2.1.2 Self Tuning Control (STC)

The self-tuning controller was originally introduced by Astrom and Wittenrnark in 1973. In STC, a design procedure for known plant parameters is chosen first. This is applied to the unknown plant parameten using recursively estimated values of the parameters. A STC system is shown in Figure 2.4.









Figure 2.4:Self Tuning Conuol systern

There are strong relations between WC and STC design methodologies. Both kinds of systems have an inner loop for control and an outer loop for parameter estimation. es rom a theoretical point of view, MRAC and STC can be put under a unified hework. However, two methods can be quite different in tems of analysis and implementation.

2.1.3 Design of MRAC Systems

There are essentially three basic approaches to the analysis and design of a MRAC:

1. The gradient approach

2. Lyapunov functions

3. Passivity theory

The gradient method was used by Whitaker et al in 1958 in the original work on the MRAC. This approach is based on the assumption that the parameters change more slowly than the other variables in the system. Lyapunov's stability theory (Parks 1966, Popov 1973, Vidyasagar 1986) and passivity theory (Vidyasagar, 1978) have been aIso used to modify the adaptation mechanism to yield stable adaptive systems

The gradient approach is a fundamental idea in MRAC approach. The parameter adjusment scheme is usually called the MIT nile. Assume that an attempt is made to change the parameters of the regulator so that the error e between the output of the process and the reference model is driven to zero. The following criterion is introduced:




minimum error criterion or index



parameter vector


= error between mode1and process outputs

To make J smail, it is rettsonable ro change the parameters in the direction of the negative

gradient ofJ, that is,




1 - -



The derivative &/28 is the sensitivity derivative of the system. The adjustrnent mie of

Equation 2.2 is cornmonly referred to as the MIT rule. It also applies to the case of many

adjustable parameters. The variable B should then be interpreted as a vector and &/a@

as the gradient of the error with respect to the parameters. The parameter adjustrnent

mechanism described in Equation 2.7 can be regarded as composed of an element for

computinç the sensitivity denvatives from process inputs and outputs, a multiplier, and

an integrator. The parameters are then introduced in the control law using a multiplier.

This is a generic part of many adaptive schemes.

Stability is a basic requirement in a control system. Much effort has been devoted to

analysis of stability of adaptive systems. Stability theory has been the major source of

inspiration for the development of MRAC systems. Assuming that ail the state variables

of a system are measured, the Lyapunov stabiiity theory can be used to design adaptive

control laws that guarantee the stability ofclosed-loop system. This approach is based on

Ftnding suitablecandidatesfor Lyapunov ttnctions.

If we divide the system into two blocks, as show below in Figure 2.5, where H and G

are general noniinear tirne-varyin3 systerns, we can establish properties for each bIock

and then use thern to conclude the stabiiity of the closed-loop system. By using the enor

rnodel below, it is possible to use passivity theorem if system H is passive (Astrom and

Wittenmark, 1989). The strictty positive reai condition of G is an important condition in

the design.

Augmented error cm be introduced to avoid hrther problems.

method gives conversence.

The augmented error

Figure 2.5: Block dia-

of a sim.$e téedback loop

The method for a direct MRAC can be described in the following steps:

1. Find a regulator structure that admits perfect model-following for the plant.

2. Derive an enar mode1 of the form




P =

P =

transfer function

differential operator

vector of negative value of gradient of loss ftnction

3. Use the parameter adjustrnent law (a is a parameter to avoiding division by zero)

The error model of Equation 2.3 is linear in the parameters.

manipulationsused to derive the emr model include filteringand error augmentation.

The mathematical

The details of complete derivation wiil not be discussed here. implement the general MRAC are:

The equations needed to


Filtered error:

Errer augmentation:

Augmented error:

Adjustment rate:

Control input:


Ym -- -




= =e




= =(y


q = -





e = t., + -


$ = y@

tr = -0'



- y,)




process output



trajectory (ideai output fory)


B, =

polynomiai gains of model



controi input signal



command signai



tiItered error

P, 0





error augmentation



factor of polynomid P



observer polynomiai




A. and A,

are related by Diophantine's equation. Q is a polynomial wbose degree is not

greater than deg Ad,,,.The controller is given by

ir = R-' (Tir,

- Sy)


where R.S and Tare polynomials. P=PIPI where P? is a stable monic polynomial of the

sarne degree as R. P,p and p are generated by filter from signals u, II. and y. complete derivation of this set of equations, see Astrom and Wittenmark (1989).


2.2 Adaptive Control of Robotic Servosystems

Robotic servosystems are familiar examples of trajectory-controllable mechanical systems. With increased demands on manipulator performance comes the need for improved servo control techniques. However, their nonlinear dynamics present a challenging control problem, since traditional Iinear control approaches do not apply. The dynamic equations of a manipulator are of great importance in the design of its control scheme. One of the major problems in applying sophisticated control atgorithms is that of imprecise dynamic models. Extensive research has ben done on control of mechanical manipulators in cases where the physicai modeis that describe the maniputators are not well known. Incorrectness or uncertainty in a dynamic mode! can be spiit into two portions (Craig, 1988, Chapter 1). S~ructureduncerrainry is the case of correct structurai mode1 with al1 uncertainty due to incorrect parameter vdues, Le. there exists a correct (but unknown) set of vaiues for the parameters such that the mode1 will match the actual system. Utrstr~ict~rredrrticertainty means unrnodeled effects, some of which may be state-dependent and others are external disturbances. This thesis addresses the case where modeling error is largely due to structured uncertainty.

The dynamic equation of a generaI serial manipulator rnodeted as a set of ri moving

jointed rigid bodies can be wiitten in the form:



11 x 1 vector of joint torques

= ti x I, manipulator mass matrix

= vector of torques from coriolis & centrifbgal forces

= vector of torques due to gravity

= vector of unmodeled dynamics and extemal disturbances

= vector of joint positions

Using Lyapunov theory, following adaptation law can be denved for the manipulator

(Craig, 1988):













vector of systern parameters

estimate of P,

a non-negative matnx

matrix of functions of O,0,O

output matrix of filtered error equation

The stability, parameter error convergence and robustness to bounded disturbances for

the adaptive algorithm can be proved by using appropriate mathematicid tools. Any

adaptive aigorithm must possess these properties before it can quaiijl for


Considerable research has been done on adaptive control of robotic manipulators in recent years. Researchers have studied a variety of robots, a major proportion of them being simple two- or three-link manipuiators. under different adaptive algoriths. There has also been some research done on parallel manipulators though for most part, it has dealt with kinematicsand dynaniics.

One of the most notable initiai works on the application of MRAC to robotic manipulators was done by Dubowsky and DesForges (1979). They justified MRAC by pointing out that this procedure requires only a relatively simple, linear uncoupled model of the system instead of cornplex nonlinear system dynamic equations of the actud robot, leading to less burden on control compter. FolIowing the work of Donalson and Leondes (1963). they developed the compensation network and parameter adjustment algorithm for a six degree-of-&dom serial manipulator.

The technique used in the research of Dubowsky and DesForges was not systematized and needed a difficult stability analysis. Horovitz and Tomizuka (1986) overcame this shortcoming and presented an adaptive control scheme using the Popov hyperstability theory. Baiestrino, Maria and Sciavicco (1983) designed an adaptive mode] following control technique by doing away with assurnptionof a constant linear model.

Slotine and Li (1987) did some signifiant research on adaptive control of industrial robots using Lyapunov Theory for stability anaiysis. Craig (1988) in his book gave a detailed account of the relative disadvantages of conventional dynamic control of the manipulators and designed a MRAC aigorithm that maintains the structure of computed torque servo but in addition has an adaptive elernent. Johansson (1990) presented algonthms for continuous-time discrete adaptive control of robot manipulators using detaiied Lyapunov Theory.

Gourdeau and Schwartz (1991)

trajectory tracking results of experimentation on a robot having same configuration as the

presented a motion control adaptive scheme with

MIT Direct Drive robot. The MiT robot has been used as a benchmark by a number of researchers (Asada and Youcef-Toumi, 1987).

In the previous decade to this century, severd researchers have attempted to design more general and efficient MRAC algorithms for robotic manipulators using a variety of simulation tools and also experimenting on the actual hardware. They have exploited the special structure of rnanipulator dynarnics (Irnura, Sugie and Yoshikawa, 1994) and eliminated the need for any a priori information on the robot uncertainty to design sirnpler controllers. Self Tuninç Control and Variable Structure Systems methodology has also been explored in designing more sophisticated controllers for manipulators. Young (1978) did pioneering research on controller design for a manipulator using theory of variable structure systems. Yu (1998) proposed a new combined adaptive and variable structure adaptive control approach for manipulators. Yu. Zhihong, Chonç and Fei (1999) developed a robust adaptive stiding mode controller (which is a special case of variable structure systems) for trajectory trackins.

Nguyen, Antrazi, Zhou, and Campbell (1993) presented the irnplementation of a joint- space MRAC scheme to control the noncompliant motion of a Stewan platform-based manipulator (SPBM). Numerous adaptive control schemes were developed for open- kinematic chah maniputators but oniy a few for SPBMs.

Most industrial robots use electric actuators, for exarnple DC servornotors, for actuation

of their joints.

servosystems from another perspective; that is from the perspective of Optimal Control.

The next section Iooks at the tracking control of electromechanical


Optimal Tracking Control

The Optimal control problern can be stated as the need to determine the control u which minimizes a given petformance tiinctionalJ. Given the system

and a quadratic performance index





F,G,H =

state vector

state space matrices for a general system

minimùation pmblem is to find an optimal control ri'(t) for al1 t E [tu,T] that Mnirnizes

J. The solution of this problem is given by following control law:




optimal control



positive definite weighting




positive definite weighting




solution of Riccati equation

is given by the solution of the following Riccati equation, with initial condition P(T)=O

For details of the derivation of the above solution, one can refer to Anderson and Moore (1990, Chapter 2).

For a conventional regulator, the objective is to arrive at the zero state and the path that the system takes to reach that state is typicaliy ignored. The path is known as the trajectory. This optimal regulator problem is in fact a special case of a wider class of

problems where it is required that the system States follow or track a desired trajectory in

some optimal sense. This type of problem is Frequently encountered in case of trajectory- controllable systems such as robotic manipulators that have to track a continuous path to do certain tasks. Another example is for altitude control of a terrain following aircrafl, where there is knowledge of fiiture terrain. The approach to optimal tracking taken in

this thesis follows that of Anderson and Moore (1990, Chapter 4).

For the system given by Equations 2.15 and 2.16, a performance index can be given of the form:






reference signal or desired trajectory vector

the optimal control II* is given by:

where K' is the optimal gain and 60) is the exact solution to the infinite time tracking

problern as given by following:

In order to make the notation consistent with wider practice, K*is replaced with K for the

remainder of this thesis, where K = - KT .

for this particular case, H = 1, and therefore F = y = x, .

The notation for .? is also changed because


The following equations summarizethe Optimal Tracking control algorithm:




reference trajectory vector

Various approximately optimal trackers can be designed from above algorithm. Setting Equation 2.27 to zero, and solving for b to get the steady state solution for the compensator provides:




(GK- F)'



steady state approximatesolution for LQR

A review of the (steady-state) Riccati equation reveaIs that

and Equation 2.26 with b, substituted for 6 reduces tu the standard form of the LQR control law:


Integrator Example

To illustrate above tracking theory, consider a simple scalar example where the plant to be controlled is a pure integrator and reference input is a ramp signal (Anderson and Moore, Chapter 4, 1990).

We have







= a,[




siope of the ramp

reference input

Substitutingthe above values in Equations 2.25 to 7.27 gives:

The exact solution for b can be derived using standard differential equation theory, for exarnple by finding the complementary but not the particular solution to Equation 2.33 Wce and Strange, 1994). In the case of a ramp reference signal, this becomes:

For a sep reference signal withx, = a, th.e exact solution for b becomes:


For a sinusoidal reference signal with x, = 'sin


(af - -) + -, a,



the exact solution for

b becornes:




frequency of sinusoidai reference signai

The "approximate solution" is the terminology used by Anderson and Moore. This terminology can be considered somewhat misleading. The tracking result for a process modeled as a pure integrator is given as Figure 2.6, with a companson of the approximate and exact solutions, in response to a ramp reference signai. According to Anderson and

Moore, the "approximate solution" is obtained by setting b = O in Equation 2.33. In the case of the integrator example, this will reduce the control law of Equation 2.32 to 21 = - K. It can be shown, for example by using the Final Value Theorem, that for pure

proponional state feedback, there will be a constant and non-zero steady state error for a ramp input. This is confirmed in Figure 2.6 for the approximate solution result, with a steady state error on the order of O.1.

Figure 2.6 also shows that the feedforward nature of the exact solution significantly reduces the steady state tracking error, with control action starting before the initiation of the ramp reference sipal at 0.1 sec. This result matches that given in Anderson and Moore (1990, Ch. 4, Fig. 4.3-1). AIthough Anderson and Moore outline the theory of optima1 control for tracking applications, they do not provide the exact solutions for processes beyond that of an integrator. Extension to first order and second order processes will be given in Appendix A and Chapter 4, respectively.


Tirne (sec)


Figure 2.6: Integrator tracking e~ample.cornparison of approximate solution (dot-dashed line) and exact solution (sotid Iine) for a ramp reference signal (dotted line).



The key observations frorn the theory and Iiterature survey docurnented in this chapter

can be surnmarized as follows:

Adaptive control is a very eEective control technique in the case of dynarnic

systernsthat have slowly varying uncertain parameters or that are subjected to

unknown but bounded extemal disturbances.

Model Reference Adaptive Control (MRAC) finds a usehl application in robotic servosystems. as robots are fiequently required to perform a variety of tasks dong a set of desired trajectories and in an uncertain environment.

Although there is an abundance of literature on optimal control, there is Iittle on optimal contour tracking control for servosystems.

Iittle on optimal contour tracking control for servosystems. Optimal Control can be an appealing approach for

Optimal Control can be an appealing approach for tracking control systems with

known and constant parameters, in which case a complex algorithm like MRAC may not be desirable.



Modeling inaccuracies cm have strong adverse eRects on nonlinear control systems. Therefore, a good design must take them into account explicitly. As mentioned in Chapter 2, adaptive control is a robust control methodology; one that is able to maintain good performance characteristics despite mode1 enors and parameter uncertainties. In this chapter, we present simulation of various systems under adaptive control and also servo system tracking simulation. The simulation code for al1 the applications in this chapter is given in Appendix A.

3.1 Adaptive Control of a Second-order System

The design of an adaptive controller for an ideal second order system is given in this section. For reference purposes, the design of a controller for a first-order system is given in Appendix C.

Consider a second-order system with transfer hnction given by (Astrom and Wittenmark.


The objective of the MRAC control system is to adjust a feedforward gain 8 to the value

Applying the MIT rule for parameter adjustment

(Equation 2.2), the adaptive system cm be represented by the following set of equations:


for system coefficients c and d.



dt '

+c-+dy dy



The fact that the parameter adjustment rate depends on the magnitude of the command

signal u, can also lead to instability.

Figure 3.1 shows the comparison of simulation results for adaptive control of a second

order system with trajectory, y,

and process output, y for two different adaptation gains

y and three different square wave command signal u, amplitudes. For the three grids

piotted, the amplitudes of the command signal were: 0.1 (top), 1 (middle) and 3.5

(bottom). The remaining control parameters used in the simulation were c=d =Bo =1.

It is apparent fiom Figure 3.1 that the response can be unstable if the adaptation gain y is

set too large. Specifically, the response is unstable if y is 1.5. It is dso seen that

instability can result if the command signal u, is too large The figure also shows that the

convergence rate depends on the magnitude of the command signal.

response is unstable when the amplitude of u, is 3.5; and the convergence is too slow

SpecificaIly, the

when the amplitude of u, is 0.1. The next section will illustrate how to avoid the problem

of instability and to rernove the dependency of the parameter adjusment rate on the

magnitude of the control signai.

Figure 3.1 :

fime (sec)

Simulation of adaptive control for a 2" order qstem with MIT rule, trajectory,~, (dotted line) and process output, y for 2 different adaptation gains, y = [O.1 (dash-dotted line) 1.5(solid line)]. Response to square wave

command, u, with amplitudes OF: O. 1 (top),

1 (rniddle) and 3.5 (bottom).

3.1.1 Modified MIT Rule

As explained in the last section, it would be desirable to modi@ the MIT mle so that the

adjustment rate does not depend on the magnitude of the cornmand signal. One way is to

rnake normalization (Astrom and Wittenmark 1989), invoduce a saturation to Quarantee

that the pararneter adjustment rate is always below a given lirnit, and replace the MIT mle in Equation 2.2 with


snt (x.p) = [.ip

x c-p


The algorithm of Equation 3.5 is sometimes referred to as the Modified Parameter Adjustment Rule (Astrom and Wittenrnark, 1989). For the purposes of this thesis, it wilt be tenned the Modifled MIT mie. The parameter a > O eliminates the possibility of

division by zero. In Figure 3.2 the second-order system was again sirnulated but with the modified rule of Equation 3.5 in place of the original rute of Equation 2.2. In this

particular case Equation 3.5 simplifies to:

It should be noted that in some situations it rnight be desirable to have adjustnxnt rates depend on the magnitude of the command signa1 for smail levels, as measurement noise may be present. Comparing Figure 3.2 with Figure 3.1, it is clear that the Modified MIT rule performs better, 1) elimination of the instability and 2) improved pararneter convergence rate for the given range of command signa1 amplitudes. It is in fact possible to make the Modified MIT rule work very well over a large range of command signai amplitudes. However, it should be noted that instabïii is ail1 possible with the modified rute if the adaptation gain is too large.

-2 ,








1 20



Time (sec)

Figure 3.2:

Simulation of adaptive controi for 2&-order system with Modified MIT nile,


response to square wave cornmand, JI, with amplitudes of O. 1 (top), 1 (middle) and 3.5 (bottom).

(dotted line) and process output, y (solid line). Comparison of

3.1.2 MRAC for General Linear Systems

Lyapunov stability theory can be used ta design adaptive control laws that sarantee the

Such an approach is based on finding suitable

candidates for the Lyapunov fiinction Equations 2.6 to 2.12 gave the design for one such

approach to the probiem.

stability of a closed-loop system.

The performance of this system is illustrated by simulation of a second-order systern in Figure 3.3. The systern is given by

and the standard second-order model is given by

where< is the damping factor, G,

the model transfer hnction and K, is system gain.

It is apparent fiorn Figure 3.3 chat by using a control design based on Lyapunov Theory,

systerns with stable performance can be obtained.

give rapid convergence of y to y,, and the error between the actual and the ideai model

reduces to near zero as the simulation progresses. Spikes in the plot of the control signal,

ri, are seen whenever there is a step change in the input signal.

largely to the proportionai component of the control law of Equation 2.12 in response to the step change in the error signal. The bottom two grids of Figure 3.3 show the parameter estirnates, which are seen to converge to near steady values.

These spikes are due

The adopted filter design is seen to

3.2 MRAC and PV for a 2-link Robotic Manipulator

As mentioned in Chapter 2. adaptive control has been considered as an effective mechanism for robot controller design due to the presence of nonlinearities and uncertainties in robot dynamic models. MRAC was one of the first adaptive aigorithms in practice and consequently has been more extensiveIy considered for robot rnanipulator

Figure 3.3:



Time (sec)

MRAC for a second-order system using Lyapunov stability theory, with model reference that of standard second-order model, second-order trajectory, ym, (dotted line) and process output,y (solid Sie).

The robot control probiem can be senerally stated as that of designing the joint torques so

that the joint

motion variables track a desired trajectory.

The efficacy of MRAC as applied to robot manipulators will be illustrated by means of a simulation of a two degrees-of-freedom (DOF)maniputator (Slotine and Li 1991). The manipulator is modeled as two rigid, revolute links of lengths 11 and k with second link carrying a large unknown mass. The two joint variables are joint angles (1, (angle of link 1 From horizontal) and q: (angle of link 2 with respect to link 1) as in Figure 3.4. The control problem lies in determining the joint inputs required to cause the joints execute the desired trajectory. The secoqd link, with the payload attached, can be regarded as an augmented link with four unknown parameters, namely, mass nt,, moment of inertia I,,

the distance I,, of its mass center to the second joint, and the angle S relative to the original second link.

Figure 3.4:

Schematic of a two-[ink manipulatorc-ng

(Slotine and Li, 1991)

a large unknownload

The dynamic equations ofmotion of a 2-link revolute-joint rnanipulator are given by

(vidYasagar; 1989):


control torques

Iengths of rnanipulator links

point masses of 2 links of manipulator

joint angles

cosines of joint angles

cosine of sum of joint angles

sine ofjoint angles

gravitational constant

friction tems

These equations can be rearranged to arrive at Following standard matrix fom,




controI torque vector



manipufator mass matrix



vector of torques uïsing fiom centrifùgal, corioiis and gravity forces

The dynamics of the manipulator with payload cm then be wntten as


Hl, = a, + 20, cosqz + 2a, sin qz

H,z = HII

HE =al

h, = n3sin y,

= a, + aj cosq, + a, smq2

- a, cos q.

CI, =I,im,ic; +nt/,' +m,l,"

4- = f, + meice' 4, = m,Z,le=cos6,

a3 = m, il ,f sin Je

We consider the case when the manipulator is required to follow a desired trajectory. The

adaptive controller design problem is to derive a control Iaw for the actuator torques, and an estimation law for the unknown parameters. Applying Lyapunov theory gives

following result (for complete derivation, see Slotine (1991,

pg. 404 and 405):

Control law:

Parameter adaptation Iaw:

r=Yi- K,s,

G = - RYr s,.



where R is a syrnrnernc positive definite mat*

K, is gain and Yis a known matrix

such that

The rnatrix Y has been derived by using an additionai physical property of the system, namely that, given a proper definition of the unknown parameter vector a describing the rnanipulator's mass properties, the terms H(q), C(q,q) and G(q), al1 depend linearly on

4. S, can be interpreted as a "velocity error" term


The "reference velocity" vector

according to the position error rj . 4) is a symrnetric positive definite matrix.

q, is fonned by shifting the desired velocities

3.2.1 Cosine Trajectory


With reference to the 2-link manipulator in Figure 3.4, the following is obtained:

The components of rnatrix Y as given in Equarion 3.24 can be written as

Figure 3.5 shows a cornparison of simulation of the manipulator with conventional Proportional-Velocity (PV) type control and Mode1 Reference Adaptive Control with regard to tracking errors and control [orques. The PV control Iaw in this case is given by:


?, is the position error, q, is the velocity, K, and K,. are the controller gains.

It is evident from Figure 3.5 that PV control is not suitable for trajectory control as it has larger initial position errors and more imponantly, position errors continue to oscillate between large maximum and minimum values. On the other hand, WC gives much better performance with srnaller initial position errors and fier 1 sec the maximum error settles to within 2 0.5deg.

In the case of WC, we start without any a priori information ($0) = 0) for the

desired cosine trajectory.

Figure 3.5 confirms the results given in Slotine and Li (1991,

Figures 9.4 and 9.5, pg 408 and 410).

MRACManipulatorl: Kp=2000,Kv=100

Cosine destred trajectory

Figure 53:

Time (sec)

Time (sec)

Cornparison of simulation of PV control (dotted line) and MRAC (soiid line) of a 2-link robotic manipulatorfor a desired cosine trajectory.

Figure 3.6 shows the parameter estirnates for the WC resuit of Figure 3 5, except with

the time scale increased from 3 to 5 sec. The parameters shown in the top two grids

exhibit a stigfx drift but they are not unstable and show a trend towards convergence COa

steady value. The parameters shown in the bottom two grids show an oscillation, but

again they are not unstabte as the amplitudes of their osciIlations are not growing.

MRACManipulatorZ: Kp=2001).Ki~c100



Cosine desired trajectory

Figure 3.6:

Time (sec)

Time (sec)

Parameter estimates for MRAC of a 2-link robotic manipulator for a desired cosine trajectory. Note the convergence pattern of ail the parameters which start without anya prion information


Response to Parameter Changes

In order to show the robustness of the MRAC scherne as applied to the robotic rnanipuIator problem, Figure 3.7 gives a cornparison of the simulation result for PV control and bIEWC for a desired cosine trajectory with a step doubling of the inertia of the second link at f = 2 sec. MIWC gives superior performance in the face of this sudden load change with the system recoverinç dmost immediately afier an initia1 increase of errors and control toques at r = 2 sec. The two top grids in the figure show that position errors for PV control are significantly Iarger as compared to those for MRAC. The PV control performance degrades significantly after the inertia change and never recovers.

MRACManipulator4: Kp=20.00,K\~100

Cosine desired trajectory

-600 .

-200 1











Time (sec)

iÏme (sec)

Figure 3.7: Cornparison of simulation of PV control (dotted line) and MRAC (solid hé) of a 2-Iink robotic manipulator for a desired cosine trajectory with

doublingof inertia at t=-l sec.

Figure 3.8 shows the adaptation of the unknown parameters. The parameters show a

sudden increase in values at the time of the inenia change at t = 2 sec but they still

converge to their final values. It should be noted that because none of the four mode1

parameters relate directly to the physical inertia, this approach does not necessarily

estimate the unknown parameters exactly, but simply generates values that allow the

desired task to be achieved.

MRACManipulatorS: Kp=2000,Kv=100

Cosine desired trajectory









Figure 3.8:

Time (sec)




Time (sec)



Parameter estimates for MRAC of a 2-link robotic manipulator for a desired cosine trajectory with change in load inertia at t=2 sec.


Straight-Line Trajectory with MRAC

After applying the MRAC scheme to a cosine desired trajectory, the contro! method was applied to a straight-line trajectory. The end effector of the 2-link robotic manipulator was required to track a straight-line trajectory in the X-Y plane of the manipulator. Since the desired trajectory was defined in end effector plane, inverse kinematics was used to determine the required joint trajectories, which would accomplish the tracking task. Figure 3.9 gives a simulation result for the manipulator given the task of tracking a straight line, with the X-coordinate remaining constant and Y-coordinate varying with time. Initially. the rnanipulator is located to the right of the desired stan point for the straight line. Note thar the large top grid gives the end effector position in Canesian

coordinates as generated by the

angular positions of the joints of the manipulator.

It is apparent from Figure 3.9 that even though MRAC starts from an initially arbitrary

position, it is still able to reach the desired trajectory and maintain a small tracking error

thereafter. This shows that MRAC is capable of giving a satisfactory performance for a range of trajectories with incornplete knowledge of the systern.

A different set of gains was used to study the effect of a change in gains used for the

control law. The resultant response was plotted as a dash-dotted line in Figure 3.9. It is apparent that gains needed to be tuned before a good tracking performance can be achieved. It is also noted that near the full-extension position of the manipulator, small enors in the joint anges result in a very visible error in the end effector position. The

hard limit to the manipulator extension is rl.8 on the y-axis (as marked in Figure 3.9).

The trajectory task of Figure 3.9 was repeated for the condition of a step doubling of the


Due to the reIatively slow tracking speed, there was no detectible effect on the

tracking error as MRAC was able to rapidly correct for the change.

The trajectory task was aIso dane for PV control for the sake of cornparison. However, there was no significant difference between the PV and MRAC response for this test.

MRACManipulatoiB: MRAC Ibr manipulator. stnight line tnjectory


1.4 i




Full extension of the manipulator (small errors in joint

angles result in a visible enor in end eiiector position)

angles result in a visible enor in end eiiector position) 1 4 Hard bit End eiiector





End eiiector position, x-axis






g 'j





g 0-




Joint 1
















Joint 2



Figure 3.9:

Time (sec)

Time (sec)

Cornparison of simulation results for MRAC of a 2-link robotic manipulator for a desired straight-line trajectory with two sets of gains: [K, K,] = il500 601(dotted line)and [20003001(solid line).


P and PV Control for DC Servomotors

There are two open-1oop parameters for the SIS0 system (position control of a servo motor). the motor gain, Km.and the motor time constant, r, . The value of the motor

gain is fied for a servomotor. The value of the time constant is a fiinction of the load on the motor. The fügher the rotational inertia of the load, the larger the time constant of the motor.

The measured speed of the DC motor, v, , can be given as a first order response with the

applied control signal. u, as the input (Kuo, 1991):

The position of the load, y,, can be obtained by integration of the speed signal, v, . Both

and ir are measured in volrs. The above mode! cm be convened to a second order

continuous state space form:



- = AX + Bri





state space matrices of the motor



motor position



motor speed

The correspondingstate space matrices A and B are given as:

The following values of the two parameters, r, and Km,were obtained by performing

an open loop test (the plot for which will be shown in Chapter 4). The actual response of the motor to a step change on the control signal will also be given in Chapter 4.

Figure 3. IO shows open loop simulation for the above DC motor for a step reference input. The figure compares the open loop response for different arbitrary values of motor time constants and true motor time constant.

Bmotor: Open Loop test: Um=lO, Km=5.6, Ustep=5.00

-10 i














Time (sec)

Figure 3.10: Position and velocity open Ioop remit, with Km = 5.6 and rm = L0.0625 (dotted),0.125 (dashed),and 0.28(solid)]

3.3.1 Step and Trapezoidal Trajectories

Figure 3. Il shows a trapezoidal move profile with given distance and rnove tirne

parameters. Equations 3.42 to 3.44 give the starting points for determining a