WP-4-1 - 2:OO
on Decision and Control
Model ing, Design, a n d Control o f
Flexible Manipulator Arms-.
A Tutorial Review
Wayne J. Book
The George W. Woodruff School
of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
ABSTRACT
The desire for higher performance manipulators has
lead to dynamic behavior in which the flexibility is
an essential aspect. This paper first examines the
mathematical representations commonly used in modeling
flexible arms and arms with flexible drives. Then
design considerations directly arising from the
flexible nature of the arm are discussed. Finally,
controls of joints for general and tip motion are
di scussed.
- --
MODELING FLEXIBLE ARMS
Models are used for simulation, analysis, and
synthesis. In robotics, models may be used directly
in the control algorithm with the computed torque
technique. We will first look at the representation
of the flexible behavior. Then, the incorporation of
this flexible behavior into an overall arm model will
be considered.
Modeling the Flexible Behavior
Examination of the energy storage characteristics of a
component is helpful in assessing the modeling
requirements of a system. Rigid arms store kinetic
energy by virtue of their moving inertia and store
potential energy by virtue of their position in the
gravitational field. The flexible arm also stores
potential energy by virtue of the deflection of its
links, joints, or drives. Joints have concentrated
compliance which is well modeled as a pure spring
storing only potential energy. Drive components such
as shafts or belts may appear distributed but store
little kinetic energy due to their low inertia, and a
lumped parameter spring model succeeds well for them
also. Links are subject to torsion, bending, and
compression. Torsion of a link stores potential
energy but little kinetic energy due to low mass
moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis of the
beam and is thus well represented as a massless
spring. Compression stores little potential energy
due to the high compressional stiffness and dynamics
along this axis is well described by a rigid mass.
Links subject to bending store potential energy by
virtue of their deflection as well as kinetic energy
by virtue of their deflection rates and a good model
must include this distributed nature. Partial
differential equations result from an analysis of this
type of problem, with time and one independent spatial
variable usually adequate to represent the dynamic
solution o f the generally slender links. The dynamics
of the link itself may be represented by the
Bernoulli-Euler beam equation:
CH2917-3/90/0000-0500$1 .OO 0 1990 IEEE
Proceedings ot the 29th Conlnsnce
Honolulu, Hawaii December 1990
which ignores shearing of the beam and the mass moment
of inertia of a differential element along the length.
The Timoshenko beam equation includes these two
effects and should be used if the beam is short
relative to its diameter. Such "stubby" links are
likely to be essentially rigid anyway. The Bernoulli-
Euler beam may have a varying cross section, but
analytical solutions are not available except for the
simplest variations. Thus the partial differential
equation is useful to accurately model only very
simple real links, or to study the general nature of
the problem. This is not a great limitation since
most time domain analysis is performed on a finite
dimensional approximation of the distributed parameter
system anyway.
Other assumptions are usually made when the partial
differential equation is employed. While body forces
may be included on the right side of ( l ) , these forces
due to translation and rotation of the link are quite
complex and are only represented in simple cases not
representative of telerobotics, such as a constant
spinning satellite with an antenna. As discussed
below, PDE's with simple boundary conditions are also
used to obtain a set of basis functions. These .
spatially discretized equations may include body
forces in at least an approximate way.
If we treat time as a continuous variable, an ordinary
differential equation can be obtained by representing
the beam shape as an infinite sum over a set of basis
functions, each multiplied by its own time varying
amplitude. Suitable approximations result from
discarding all but a finite number of these functions
as in (2). For arms with only rotational joints this
procedure is quite natural.
m
y(x,t) = c a(t) @(x) (2)
i=l
Prismatic joints on flexible links are another
problem. As a flexible link moves in and out of a
fixed prismatic joint its length effectively changes.
Physically viewed, the energy stored in the link
deflection must be transferred to another part of the
beam. This is easily illustrated by a vibrating hack
saw blade retracted over the edge of a table. The
peak strain in the blade during the vibration must
increase to store the same energy in a shorter blade
and the frequency of the blade increases due to its
500
h i g h e r n a t u r a l frequency. Real manipulators w i l l have
r e a l j o i n t s which are n o t i d e a l l y constrained, and
must be examined f o r t h e degree t o which t h e y a r e a b l e
t o c o n s t r a i n the t r a n s l a t i o n , r o t a t i o n and c u r v a t u r e
of t h e l i n k . These j o i n t s w i l l d i s s i p a t e v i b r a t i o n a l
energy as w e l l , i n f a c t t h i s may be t h e i r most
d e s i r a b l e f e a t u r e . Research on modeling p r i s m a t i c
j o i n t e d f l e x i b l e manipulators i s 1 i m i ted. [ 11, [Z]
V a r i a t i o n o f t h e mode shapes i s one approach t o t h e
problem, b u t i t w i l l n o t be discussed i n d e t a i l i n t h e
remainder of t h e paper.
I n s p i t e o f t h e l o n g standing use of a t r u n c a t e d
s e r i e s o f shapes t o represent t h e kinematics o f a
f l e x i b l e beam, no unimpeachable r u l e has evolved on
t h e s e l e c t i o n o f these shapes t o o b t a i n t h e needed
combination o f model s i m p l i c i t y and accuracy. Popular
choices a r e
1. Simple polynomials
2. Eigenfunction s o l u t i o n s t o simple eigenvalue
problems
3. Eigenvector s o l u t i o n s t o f i n i t e element problems
4. Modal t e s t r e s u l t s on t h e a c t u a l components.
Q u a l i t a t i v e l y speaking, t h e b e s t r e s u l t s seem t o come
from shapes which a l l o w t h e n a t u r a l shape o f t h e l i n k
when i n t h e t o t a l system t o be a c c u r a t e l y described.
Thus an "augmented body" which has t h e mass and/or
i n e r t i a o f t h e o t h e r l i n k s represented as a r i g i d
appendage on t h e end o f a given f l e x i b l e l i n k can be
used t o g e t t h e shape f u n c t i o n s f o r t h a t given l i n k .
T h i s has given r i s e t o endless t i n k e r i n g w i t h t h e l i n k
boundary condi;ions i n an attempt t o f i n d t h e " p e r f e c t
approximation. Some o f these a r e described by
CraigC31. For manipulator arms t h i s i n c o r p o r a t e s a
wide range o f e f f e c t s v a r y i n g w i t h
1. Payload
2. Contact w i t h t h e environment
3. Joint position
4. A c c e l e r a t i o n s due t o j o i n t motion
5. Feedback c o n t r o l law and gains
6. Actuator and gear reducers i n t h e d r i v e .
With so much u n c e r t a i n t y we must accept e i t h e r a)
models o f h i g h order, b ) models o f low accuracy, o r c )
models n o t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e f u l l range of
operation. I n P a r t i c u l a r , d e c i s i o n s made on t h e b a s i s
of these models should recognize t h e i r approximate and
s p e c i a l i z e d nature.
The choice o f mode shapes m o d i f i e s t h e " r i g i d " motion
v a r i a b l e s . D i f f e r e n t choices have d i f f e r e n t
advantages. A clamped boundary c o n d i t i o n leads t o a
p h y s i c a l l y measureable j o i n t v a r i a b l e and s i m p l e r
c o e f f i c i e n t s of t h e j o i n t torques.[4] Pinned-pinned
boundary c o n d i t i o n s i e a d t o ease i n s p e c i f y i n g t h e
l o c a t i o n o f t h e j o i n t t i p and have been used t o
advantage i n computed torque c o n t r o l s i n c e t h e t i p
p o s i t i o n i s s p e c i f i e d by one v a r i a b l e per link.[5],[6]
Others have used f r e e - f r e e boundary c o n d i t i o n s and
described t h e l i n k c.g. w i t h " r i g i d " motion
v a r i a b l e s . [7]
501
Large Motion Equations
I m p l i c i t i n t h e above d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e arm f l e x i b l e
components i s t h e assumption o f small excursions from
a nominal p o s i t i o n . T h i s assumption c o u l d be v i o l a t e d
i n several ways. Nonlinear m a t e r i a l behavior would
r e s u l t from s t r a i n s beyond t h e e l a s t i c l i m i t , f o r
example. Even w i t h l i n e a r e l a s t i c m a t e r i a l behavior,
one end o f a s u f f i c i e n t l y l o n g beam can r o t a t e through
m u l t i p l e r e v o l u t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o t h e r end i n
v i o l a t i o n o f t h e small motion assumptions o f t h e
d e r i v a t i o n . A s t r a i g h t beam o f l e n g t h L p r o j e c t s a
d i s t a n c e L onto an a x i s x. When one end a f t h e beam
i s d e f l e c t e d from t h a t a x i s and t h e o t h e r end i s k e p t
tangent t o t h e x a x i s , t h e P r o j e c t e d d i s t a n c e i s no
l o n g e r L, b u t must be l e s s . The l e n g t h o f t h e beam
remains constant a t L, assuming no a x i a l extension.
The s h o r t e r p r o j e c t i o n on x i s ignored as a standard
procedure, b u t has been shown by Ryan and Kane[B] t o
l e a d t o obvious e r r o r s under reasonable c o n d i t i o n s o f
r o t a t i o n . Likewise, c e n t r i f u g a l s t i f f e n i n g , o f t e n
ignored, c r e a t e s terms t h a t a f f e c t t h e system
dynamics. While t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f r o t a t i o n o f t h e i r
example i s u n l i k e l y f o r most robots, t h e p o i n t a t
which these phenomena become important i s n o t c l e a r l y
known and a p o i n t f o r f u t u r e research.
Given t h e d i s t r i b u t e d behavior o f a f l e x i b l e l i n k and
t h e lumped behavior o f j o i n t s and d r i v e s , o v e r a l l
equations o f motion can be d e r i v e d by several methods.
A f i n i t e dimensional model w i l l be assumed here.
Lagrange's equations and several V a r i a t i o n s thereon
a r e r e a d i l y a p p l i e d . Kane has formulated equations i n
a manner o f some d i s t i n c t i o n . [ 9 ] Newton's laws a r e
l e s s popular because o f t h e d i s t r i b u t e d n a t u r e o f t h e
f l e x i b l e l i n k s . Only t h e f i r s t , Lagrange's equations,
a r e discussed a t a l l here. Lagrangels equation f o r
f l e x i b l e l i n k s d i f f e r from r i g i d l i n k s because t h e
f l e x i b l e degrees o f freedom appear p r i n c i p a l l y as a
sum r a t h e r than as a product due t o t h e p a r a l l e l
c o n t r i b u t i o n o f each o f t h e assumed shape f u n c t i o n s .
T h i s i s e a s i l y i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h t h e homogeneous 4x4
m a t r i x f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e forward kinematics. For a
r i g i d arm, t h e end p o i n t c o o r d i n a t e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s :
(3)
where A i i s t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e j o i n t
and l i n k . For t h e f l e x i b l e arm t h e end p o i n t
coordinate i s
mi
Ei = Hi L 6 ijM i j
j=1
where H i transforms along t h e l e n g t h o f t h e undpformed
i - t h beam and M i ' adds t h e e f f e c t o f mode j . A i
transforms f o r t i e j o i n t o n l y .
When an i n t e g r a t i o n over t h e l e n g t h o f t h e f l e x i b l e
beam i s used t o i n c o r p o r a t e a l l t h e k i n e t i c and
p o t e n t i a l energy c o n t r i b u t i o n s , t h t assumed shapes a r e
i n t e g r a t e d t o y i e l d , f o r example, modal masses",
"modal s t i f f n e s s e s " , and "modal i n p u t m a t r i x
elements". These become c o e f f i c i e n t s i n t h e f i n a l
dynamic equations and a r e one way t h e choice o f shape
i n f l u e n c e s t h e f i n a l r e s u l t . The choice o f shape a l s o
w i l l a f f e c t t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f o u t p u t s f r o m t h e model,
such as end p o i n t p o s i t i o n o r s t r a i n i n t h e l i n k s . I f
a f i n i t e element o r e x p e r i m e n t a l l y generated shape i s
used, e q u i v a l e n t i n t e g r a l s a r e aDDroximated from t h e
nodal p o i n t s i n t h e model.

The coefficients described above involve cross
products of the various shape functions. The choice
of orthogonal shape functions eliminates a number of
terms from the final equations of motion, since for
orthogonal functions
II
{ @ i(x) @ j(x) dx = 0, i#j (5)
The orthogonality condition is automatically obeyed by
the eigenfunctions of components. If boundary
conditions are chosen to represent, for example, the
mass of an augmented body the orthogonality condition
will incorporate terms outside the integral. The true
net value of this simplification is not clear.
Ooerations such as inversion of the inertia matrix and
multiplication by the inverse eliminate the zero
coefficients. In simulation the coefficients may be
recalculated relatively infrequently. Some
researchers support the use of polynomials because
they are able to represent more general conditions on
the flexible link. Even though a polynomial is not
orthogonal it is simple to compute. Incorporating the
orthogonality condition correctly complicates the
derivation procedure with the hope of ultimately
reducing the complexity of the final equations. Since
the equations are so complex already for practical
cases, either symbolically generated equations or
general multi body codes are the only practical way to
generate reliable equations. A final judgment on the
use of orthogonal shapes should be made in the context
of that implementation.
Lagrange's equations applied by brute force to the
appropriate energy functions will generate a complex
dynamic model. Simplification can be achieved by
simplification of the resulting complex equations can
be pursued as described by Book[4]. Remarkable
success has recently been achieved by prior
simplification, using the specific form of the
equations and the relation between the coefficients
ultimately sought for the equations of
motion.[lO],[ll],[12] Kinetic energy, for example,
can be written as the integral over the link, but also
as a quadratic product with the rate variables with
the mass matrix.
The nonlinear dynamic terms can be related to the
changes of the mass matrix. Various relations like
this have been used to represent rigid arm
dynamics[13] and their analogies are now being found
for flexible arms.
Non-serial arm^
Very few of the thousands of manipulators constructed
in the world qualify exactly as serial link
manipulators. Only a pure direct drive arm can meet
the qualification since all speed reductions involve
parallel structural and drive elements. Incorporating
parallel flexible links is difficult but
manageable.[l4] Differential equations can be
formulated for each parallel path along the structure
up to a point where they must connect. Algebraic
constraint equations prescribing the meeting of the
para1 le1 paths must accompany the differential
equations and their constraint forces. Several
numerical techniques are then available to jointly
solve these two types of equations and eliminate the
extra degrees of freedom from the differential
equations. Among the numerical procedures relevant
are Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), QR
decomposition, LU partitioning and Gaussian
elimination.Cl41 SVD is attractive for flexible
502
rranipulators because the reduced variables resulting
are tangent to the constraint surface, and errors in
satisfying the constraint equation have less effect on
the overall dynamic simulation.
Symbolic Derivation and Multi Body Codes
Hand derivation of dynamic equations for multi-link
flexible arms is not recommended for producing the
final equations of motion. It does give a student of
the subject a healthy appreciation fir the complexity
of the problem and perhaps ideas for simplifying the
result. Two alternatives are symbolic derivation and
the use Of genera' purpose multi-body 'Odes.
General purpose symbolic manipulation programs include
MACSYMA, Mathematica SMP, REDUCE, and MAPLE. These
were originally developed for main frame and mini
computers but similar programs are now available on
work stations and even personal computers. Special
purpose symbolic codes are available for rigid arms
(SDExact and SDFast) and are under development for
similar flexible systems[l5]. The general purpose
symbolic codes allow one to approach research on more
complex configurations with confidence. They cannot
be viewed as an automatic means to turn theory into
simulation code. Problems of practical complexity can
swamp even large memories with "intermediate
expression swell ," especially when an expression is
expanded in preparation to simplification.
Pathological cases continue to be found on these
systems which give incorrect results without even
warning the user. They are extremely complex programs
in general, and some have evolved over many years
leading to both good and bad characteristics. While
not a panacea, they are an invaluable, almost
essential to one who would develop equations of motion
for a flexible arm.
Guidance on the use of general purpose manipulation
programs for rigid[16] and flexible manipulators using
Lagrange's equations[l7] is available in the
literature. The special nature of kinematic chains
leading to symmetry and zero terms can be exploited
well with symbolic manipulation as shown in recent
research.[10,12] for both serial and non serial arms.
Multi-body simulation codes are capable of handling
unconstrained and in some cases constrained flexible
chains. Well known codes include DISCOS, TREETOPS,
DADS, ADAMS and others.[18] These codes insert the
specifics of the model in numerical form early in the
equation generation process. The disadvantage is more
computational burden at each simulation time step.
The adventage is a very general formulation suitable
for components connected in a tree topology by various
joints. They generally accept assumed shape data
directly from finite element analysis modal results.
Simplified linear models can be generated for more
intensive design tradeoff studies on control, for
example. In our research with flexible arms we have
begun to look to these codes for independent
verification of the accuracy of symbolically generated
model s.
---
Model order reduction
Discretization of the partial differential equations
reduces the order of the flexible arm model from
infinity to n. The value of n and the flexible
degrees of freedom to be included can be determined
from modal cost analysis techniques[19] that are most
relevant to structures without feedback controls or to
structures with the feedback controls already
included. Tsujisawa[PO] has applied this analysis to
planar motion of a large arm with parallel actuated
second link and found that one or two modes per
flexible link were adequate for his case. Large space
 s t r u c t u r e s may r e q u i r e dozens o r hundreds o f moaes.
The d i f f e r e n c e i s t h e r e l a t i v e l y clean, simple n a t u r e
o f the s t r u c t u r e t h a t Tsujisawa examined and t h a t arms
i n general e x h i b i t . Modal c o s t a n a l y s i s does n o t
i n s u r e t h a t some h i g h e r mode w i l l n o t cause
i n s t a b i l i t y i . e . t h a t t h e e f f e c t s o f observation s p i l l
over w i l l be small. T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y p r o b l e m a t i c a l
when t h e passive damping o f t h e s t r u c t u r e i s small.
Alberts[21] has shown t h e pronounced e f f e c t s on
s t a b i l i t y o f enhancing t h e passive damping through
surface treatments. No general guarantee t h a t a model
i n c l u d e s t h e r i g h t degrees o f freedom e x i s t s . A h i g h
order " t r u t h model" f o r u l t i m a t e v e r i f i c a t i o n i s
perhaps t h e o n l y insurance s h o r t o f experiments.
Frequency Domain A n a l y s i s
It should be mentioned t h a t i f PDE d e s c r i p t i o n s o f
f l e x i b l e elements are accurate and l a r g e motion
behavior i s n o t o f i n t e r e s t , A very a t t r a c t i v e
a l t e r n a t i v e i s frequency domain a n a l y s i s . Models can
be composed o f elements which are f l e x i b l e o r r i g i d ,
s e r i a l o r p a r a l l e l , w i t h up t o s i x axes o f freedom.
S e r i a l connection of components i s much more r e a d i l y
i n c o r p o r a t e d using t h e t r a n s f e r m a t r i x approach. With
t h e t r a n s f e r m a t r i x aDoroach f a c i l i t a t e s c r e a t i o n o f
t h e model from a l i b r a r y o f elements as described i n
Book and Majette.[Z2] The p r i n c i p a l p r i c e p a i d i s a
r e s t r i c t i o n t o l i n e a r behaviors. While t h e powerful
t i m e domain synthesis techniques a r e n o t d i r e c t l y
a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e frequency domain model, i t e r a t i v e
techniques f o r p o l e placement were used by Book and
M a j e t t e which converted between frequency domain and
simple time domain models. Readily a v a i l a b l e are
frequency response, n a t u r a l frequency, t r u e mode
shapes, and, v i a t h e i n v e r s e FFT t i m e response. The
models have been a p p l i e d t o t h e Space S h u t t l e
Manipulator A r m and a complex payload w i t h general
s p a t i a l motion. Numerical accuracy l i m i t e d t h e
approach as M a j e t t e used it, even w i t h a 60 b i t word
l e n g t h . More r o b u s t numerical techniques have been
used i n a n a l y s i s o f s p i n n i n g spacecraft.[23] This
approach i s perhaps under u t i l i z e d i n t h e dynamics and
c o n t r o l community. The powerful f i n i t e element
techniques have dominated and seem more r e l e v a n t t o
"messy problems" w i t h many appendages and para1 1e l
connections.
2. DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE ARMS
T h i s s e c t i o n i s about t h e design o f arms which behave
w e l l even though t h e y are f l e x i b l e . Designing arms t o
be f l e x i b l e i s n o t o f p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t .
Material properties p r i n c i p a l l y a f f e c t strength,
s t i f f n e s s and damping. High s t r e n g t h m a t e r i a l s a l l o w
l i g h t e r cross s e c t i o n s , consequently more f l e x i b i l i t y .
For many h i g h performance m a t e r i a l s , s t r e n g t h and
s t i f f n e s s increase together. While s t i f f n e s s
determines t h e need f o r f l e x i b l e arm c o n t r o l
algorithms, damping determines t h e ease i n
implementing such a c o n t r o l a l g o r i t h m . Composite
m a t e r i a l s t y p i c a l l y have more damping than homogeneous
metals. Cost and ease of working w i t h metals i s a
s t r o n g i n c e n t i v e f o r a l t e r n a t i v e means o f damping
enhancement.
The constrained l a y e r damping treatment i s a v e r y
e f f e c t i v e means o f enhancing damping f o r f l e x u r a l
vibrations.[Zl] One can achieve an increase i n
damping by a f a c t o r o f 10. The treatment c o n s i s t s o f
a t h i n v i s c o - e l a s t i c l a y e r placed on t h e beam's
surface and covered by a very s t i f f c o n s t r a i n i n g
l a y e r . Bending o f t h e beam r e s u l t s i n shearing o f t h e
v i s c o - e l a s t i c m a t e r i a l and consequent d i s s i p a t i o n o f
energy. T h i s d i s s i p a t i o n can be maximized f o r a given
wavelength o f v i b r a t i o n by s e c t i o n i n g t h e c o n s t r a i n i n g
503
l a y e r . The d i s s i p a t i o n can be l a r g e f o r a wide range
o f wavelengths and t h e i r a t t e n d a n t frequencies,
however. T o r s i o n a l v i b r a t i o n s a r e n o t so r e a d i l y
c o w l e d t o t h e constrained l a v e r treatment. A s p i r a l
wrap o f a s t r i p o f c o n s t r a i n i n g m a t e r i a l has been
examined by Dickerson[24] and was e f f e c t i v e f o r t h i s
purpose. V i b r a t i o n s w i t h t o r s i o n a l compliance o f a
l i n k depends on o t h e r l i n k s o r t h e payload f o r
i n e r t i a . These l i n k s would be a t an angle t o t h e l i n k
i n t o r s i o n and hence undergo some f l e x u r e . T h i s
f l e x u r e c o u l d be e f f e c t i v e l y damped as mentioned
before.
An a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e t o passive damping i s a c t i v e
damping u s i n g p i e z o e l e c t r i c f i l m s o r ceramics.[25]
By c l o s i n g t h e loop w i t h l o c a l measurements o f t h e
s t r a i n , much t h e same e f f e c t o f passive damping i s
obtained. One advantage o f t h e a c t i v e approach i s t h e
e l i m i n a t i o n o f temperature s e n s i t i v i t y which i s q u i t e
pronounced i n t h e v i s c o - e l a s t i c m a t e r i a1 s . Another
advantage i s a small amount o f s t a t i c d e f l e c t i o n t h a t
can be obtained t o c o n t r o l t h e shape o f s t r u c t u r e s i f
t h a t i s important. The disadvantage i s t h e complexity
o f an a d d i t i o n a l c o n t r o l loop and a h i g h e x c i t a t i o n
v o l t a g e o f several hundred v o l t s .
Designs t o minimize t h e f l e x i b i l i t y o f an arm a r e a l s o
important. P a r a l l e l l i n k mechanisms such as S t u a r t ' s
p l a t f o r m a r e more r i g i d than a s e r i a l i i n k mechanisms
o f e q u i v a l e n t weight. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e range o f
t r a v e l i s t y p i c a l l y smaller too. A p a r a l l e l a c t u a t i o n
l i n k can have t h e dual b e n e f i t s o f p l a c i n g motor mass
near t h e base and p r o v i d i n g a l a r g e r cross s e c t i o n
area moment o f i n e r t i a when t h e two p a r a l l e l l i n k s a r e
bent. M u l t i p l e connections between t h e p a r a l l e l l i n k s
a c t i n g t o keep t h e l i n k s equal d i s t a n c e a p a r t work t o
f u r t h e r s t i f f e n t h e p a i r by a l l o w i n g b o t h t o support
t h e l o a d i n bending. The added a t t r a c t i o n o f t h i s
arrangement i s t h a t t h e b u c k l i n g l o a d f o r t h e
a c t u a t i o n l i n k i s increased.
Design should be i n t e r p r e t e d b r o a d l y t o i n c l u d e
completely new concepts o f arm operation. A d d i t i o n a l
degrees o f freedom, e.g. a small arm, on t h e end o f a
l o n g f l e x i b l e arm a r e one way t o change t h e n a t u r e o f
t r a d e o f f s t h a t must be made i n arm design. The
t r a d e o f f between arm r i g i d i t y and low i n e r t i a can be
couched i n terms o f gross and f i n e motion speeds. The
e x t r a degrees o f freedom can be used t o have l i g h t
weight f o r gross motion o f a l a r g e arm and h i g h
bandwidth r i g i d motion o f a small arm i t c a r r i e s .
These e x t r a degrees o f freedom can a l s o be used t o
generate i n e r t i a l f o r c e s t h a t a c t t o reduce v i b r a t i o n
much as a dynamic v i b r a t i o n absorber would. They can
a l s o be used t o compensate f o r the r e l a t i v e l y slow
v i b r a t i o n s o f a l a r g e arm, keeping t h e end p o i n t
s t a t i o n a r y . These t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s are discussed i n
t h e 1 it e r a t u r e . [26], E271
3. CONTROL FOR JOINTS OF FLEXIBLE ARMS
T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l discuss t h e l i m i t s f o r performance
w i t h r i g i d arm c o n t r o l s and t h e use o f advanced
c o n t r o l a l g o r i t h m s o f v a r i o u s types. The c o n t r o l o f
o n l y t h e e x i s t i n g j o i n t s w i l l be discussed, n o t t h e
addition o f additional actuators s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r
c o n t r o l 1 i n g v i b r a t i o n s , such as p r o o f masses, r e a c t i o n
wheels, o r "smart m a t e r i a l s . " Such a c o n t r o l problem
f o r r o b o t s i s t y p i c a l l y broken down i n t o p a t h
planning, t r a j e c t o r y planning, and t r a j e c t o r y
following. L i t t l e i f any work on path p l a n n i n g
s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r f l e x i b l e arm r o b o t s has been
presented. The c o n c e n t r a t i o n w i l l t h e r e f o r e be on t h e
o t h e r two phases. For f l e x i b l e r o b o t s c o n t r o l might
a l s o have t h e o b j e c t i v e o f v i b r a t i o n damping.
Trajectory Planning
Trajectory planning for the joint and the end point of
a flexible arm are not equivalent problems as they are
for the rigid arm. Three perspectives on the problem
can be identified:
1. Generate an "optimal" trajectory
2. Control the arm's tip to follow a specified
trajectory
3. Control the joints to account for rigid link
motion plus static deflection and suppress arm
vibrations with feedback control.
Sangveraphunsiri[28] numerically determined the
minimum time trajectory for a single link arm but
recommended a near optimum based on rigid behavior and
a feedback control near the final position due to the
sensitivity of the true optimum to parameter
variations. Meckl and Seering[29] solved a similar
linearized problem in modal coordinates which yielded
a simpler solution format applicable to the complete
class of linear problems. Book and Cetinkunt[30]
looked at trajectory optimization for rigid arms and
extended it in an approximate way to flexible arms.
Singer and Seering[3l] examined shaping techniques for
trajectories in terms of their vibrational
consequences. Work by Oosting and Dickerson[32]
sought to choose tip trajectories to make the joint
torques realizable without preview. A type of inverse
dynamics model was used. Bayo[33] used a more
elaborate model to obtain joint torque histories to
track a Gaussian tip trajectory. Bayo's model was
based on finite element and his original solution
involved freauencv domain techniques with substantial
computational burden. He has extended his results to
the two link case.L-341 These inverse dynamics
approaches must simultaneously incorporate inverse
kinematics, since the flexible degrees of freedom
cannot be decoupled from the joint degrees of freedom.
Asada also studied the inverse dynamics/kinematics
problem and found that it was possible to produce a
well behaved tip motion that resulted in unstable
joint motion.[5] This was not observed by Bayo or
Dickerson and may involve the choice of trajectories
to be followed. Kwon and Book 6 sought to reduce the
computational burden of the inverse dynamics approach
snd significantly did for linearized cases. That work
has been extended to non-zero initial conditions,
useful as explained later. Kwon's method also
provided trajectories for the flexible states which
are important in tracking algorithms.
Several authors have planned the trajectory based on a
static correction to the tip position based on rigid
arm motion. Since this is not a dynamic correction it
is easily implemented. Joint position adjustments
assume instantaneous wind up of the arm "spring"
predicted by acceleration forces. The method is shown
to be very successful. It would seem that a good
choice of trajectory to track is critical to the
success of this method.
It should also be mentioned that if the tip position
is not crucial except near the end of a motion, it is
quite reasonable for the flexible arm to track joint
motions based on rigid kinematics and use a final
feedback control to produce acceptable vi bration
characteristics. When a flexible manipulator is used
as a teleoperator, trajectories are at the disposal of
the human operator, and can be at most minimally
filtered tb condition the reference signal.
Supervisory control of teleoperators will a1 low for
the final segment of a motion to be planned via Kwon's
algorithm discussed above, bringing the tip to rest
near its target.
504
Trajectory Trackinq
As an arm is made lighter (more flexible) a point will
be reached when it can no longer be considered rigid.
Alternatively, if the arm servo bandwidth, wS is
increased sufficiently, interaction of the dominant
poles with the lowest poles ignored (in the rigid
model) will eventually occur. For simple beams
connected by rotary joints this lowest pole will be
the first structural frequency with joints clamped,
wc. The proximity of the closed loop bandwidth to w c
gives one a valuable measure of the difficulty in
achieving that bandwidth with simole riaid arm
controllers. For example < wC/2 has been proposed
as a practical limit for simple P.D. joint
control.[35] Other rigid control schemes (adaptive
model following control and decoupling joint feedback
control ) have been similarly characterized by
Cet i nkunt . [361
Imperfections in the system's behavior result in poor
performance even for much stiffer systems. Coulomb
friction in the joints, for example, will result in
the link not back driving the actuator for small
vibrations. These oscillations cannot be damped by
the actuator motion, i.e. energy cannot be removed
from the vibration. With greater frictional break
away torque, larger amplitude vibrations will be
allowed to exist with only structural damping slowly
reducing their amplitude. With link strain included
in the joint control, even low amplitude structural
vibrations can be damped. For arms with speed
reducers this is especially valuable, since some high
ratio reducers are not back driveable under any
circumstances. The strain feedback can be viewed
either as a damping enhancement or as a inner torque
control loop. Modeling the friction and appropriately
modifying the control is another effective
approach. [2][6]
In order to account for a limited number o f additional
states in a flexible arm, a higher order model can be
used in the control synthesis. Linear regulators or
tracking controls optimized based on a quadratic
performance index with a guaranteed margin of
stability have been employed for end point[37] and
strain measurements[38] for one link arms and also for
multi link arms[39][10] Measurements involving link
flexure can introduce non-minimal phase behavior.
This is most apparent with tip position measurements
of a one link arm. The tip initially moves in the
opposite direction of the applied torque. The linear
transfer function of such a system has zeros in the
right half plane. The poles of an output feedback
controller will move toward these zeros as gains
increase, leading to instabilities. Viewed from a
state space perspective, some optimization techniques
for linear systems effectively cancel unwanted zeros
with poles, leading to instability when the
cancellation is inexact. Other measurements are less
vulnerable to non minimum phase difficulties. Strain
gages at the base of a one link arm with motor inertia
has no non minimum phase zeros, and yet can be used to
observe all system states.[40] The price paid is the
lack of direct knowledge about end point position in
the uncertain work environment. For higher modes it
is desirable to make more measurements instead of
having a high order observer, with the attendant
computational requirements. These additional sensors
can introduce the non minimum phase zeros and
instability. Multi link arms introduce an even
greater need for additional measurements.
Understanding more thoroughly the role of non minimum
phase dynamics in both the linear and nonlinear cases
is a very challenging and potentially useful research
area. How can one combine strain and tip position
sensors to achieve a robust and accurate controller?
The system l i n e a r i t y assumed i n standard LQR c o n t r o l
design i s h i g h l y questionable i n r o b o t i c a p p l i c a t i o n s .
R i g i d arm c o n t r o l has been a b l e t o circumvent t h i s
through v a r i o u s means, i n c l u d i n g computed torque
techniques, l i n e a r i z i n g c o n t r o l l e r s , n o n l i n e a r
c o n t r o l s (e.g. v a r i a b l e s t r u c t u r e c o n t r o l ) , and
adaptive c o n t r o l s . When t h e number o f degrees o f
freedom exceeds t h e number o f a c t u a t o r s , as f o r
f l e x i b l e arms, t h i s approach must be m o d i f i e d .
Adaptive c o n t r o l has a l s o been a p p l i e d t o t h e r i g i d
case. A p p l i c a t i o n o f r i g i d arm model r e f e r e n c e
adaptive c o n t r o l t o a f l e x i b l e arm can overcome t h e
adverse nonl i n e a r f o r c e s a t h i g h v e l o c i t i e s , b u t
cannot overcome t h e bandwidth l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by
v i b r a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r a l modes.[36] For a f l e x i b l e MRAC
t o be designed u s i n g t h e s t a b i l i t y methods a p p l i e d t o
r i g i d arms, t h e "model matching" c o n d i t i o n must be
s a t i s f i e d . The r i g i d arm development uses t h e equal
numbers of a c t u a t o r s and degrees o f freedom. The near
l i n e a r i t y of t h e one l i n k f l e x i b l e case has allowed
S i c i l i a n o , et.a1.[41] t o accomplish model matching t o
a reference model which, i n s t e a d o f decoupling t h e
r i g i d degrees o f freedom, i s a l i n e a r i z e d model o f t h e
f l e x i b l e arm. T h i s a l s o p r o v i d e s values o f t h e
f l e x i b l e s t a t e s f o r t r a c k i n g d u r i n g t h e motion.
Others have proposed i n d i r e c t adaptive c o n t r o l
approaches such as t h e e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e payload
mass. [42]
An e x p l i c i t means o f i n c o r p o r a t i n g model u n c e r t a i n t y
and simp1 i f y i n g assumptions i s p r o v i d e d by t h e bounded
u n c e r t a i n t y approach. Robustness can be enhanced by
adding t o t h e l i n e a r c o n t r o l a d a p t a t i o n and a
s a t u r a t i o n term s i m i l a r t o v a r i a b l e s t r u c t u r e
c o n t r o l s . T h i s technique has been used t o d e r i v e a
d e c e n t r a l i z e d c o n t r o l l e r f o r a two j o i n t f l e x i b l e arm
w i t h very good success r e l a t i v e t o b o t h a r i g i d
c o n t r o l l e r and t o a pure l i n e a r f l e x i b l e feedback
controller.[10][11]
The complexity o f t h e n o n l i n e a r , f l e x i b l e problem has
lead researchers t o seek v a r i o u s ways t o s i m p l i f y t h e
problem. Rigid-non1 i n e a r approximations a r e usual.
F l e x i b l e - l i n e a r approaches are a l s o common. When
l i m i t e d t o small motions and inconsequential nonl i n e a r
v e l o c i t y f o r c e s t h i s i s s t r a i g h t forward. Since t h e
e l a s t i c d e f l e c t i o n s a r e u s u a l l y r a t h e r small,
l i n e a r i z a t i o n along a s p e c i f i e d motion p a t h i s a l s o
e f f e c t i v e . I t i s n o t accurate t o assume t h e gross
motions o n l y f o r c e t h e f l e x i b l e motions, s i n c e t h e
damping o f t h e v i b r a t i o n s i s increased by t h e i r
i n f l u e n c e on t h e moving j o i n t . One w e l l developed
approach f o r separating r i g i d and f l e x i b l e motions i s
by e x p l o i t i n g t h e i r t i m e s c a l e s e p a r a t i o n w i t h
Singular P e r t u r b a t i o n Analysis. T h i s has been s t u d i e d
f o r arms w i t h compliant drives[43], w i t h f l e x i b l e
links[44], and f o r i n e r t i a l f o r c e s generated by
a d d i t i o n a l r i g i d l i n k s a t t h e t i p o f t h e arm[261. If
f l e x i b l e frequencies are t o r e t a i n t h e broad
separation from t h e " r i g i d body" frequencies needed
f o r t h e s i n g u l a r p e r t u r b a t i o n t h e o r y t o hold, h i g h
performance l i g h t weight arms w i l l be a u t o m a t i c a l l y
excluded. An a l t e r n a t i v e t o i n c l u d i n g a l l f l e x i b l e
degrees o f freedom i n t h e f a s t system i s t o p l a c e t h e
lowest mode i n t h e slow system w i t h t h e r i g i d body
modes. T h i s enables t h e dominant dynamics t o remain
i n t h e slow system. It appears f e a s i b l e f o r l i g h t
arms w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t payloads. For example, as t h e
payload o f a beam g e t s b i g g e r and heavier, i t s f i r s t
bending frequency approaches zero. The second bending
frequency approaches t h e f i r s t c l amped-cl amped bending
frequency. On a percentage b a s i s , t h e s e p a r a t i o n of
t h e two modes increases as t h e payload increases.
505
P r a c t i c a l advantage seems t o be gained when t h e
decoupling o f r i g i d and f l e x i b l e motion combines a
l i n e a r i z i n g feedback c o n t r o l f o r t h e r i g i d motion and
a l i n e a r c o n t r o l on t h e f l e x i b l e subsystem l i n e a r i z e d
about t h e r i g i d motion. A s t a t i c d e f l e c t i o n
c o r r e c t i o n t o t h e s p e c i f i e d j o i n t motion can a l s o be
incorporated t o place the t i p closer t o i t s s p e c i f i e d
t r a j e c t o r y . [451
4. CONCLUSIONS
The c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f f l e x i b i l i t y i n manipulator arms
i s i n a r a p i d s t a t e o f progress r e l a t i v e t o a few
years ago, b u t much remains t o be done. Many new
approaches i n modeling, design and c o n t r o l a r e being
explored. It i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t experimentation
accompany t h e t h e o r e t i c a l and s i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t s t o
keep r e a l i s m i n t h e research. Even s i n g l e l i n k
experiments a r e much b e t t e r than no experiments. It
i s i m p o r t a n t t o move i n t o r e a l i s t i c 2 and 3 j o i n t
experiments where f l e x i b i l i t y i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f
r e a l a p p l i c a t i o n s o r a t l e a s t scaled t o those
a p p l i c a t i o n s . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t e a r l i e r work on
r i g i d arms w i l l f i n d more a p p l i c a t i o n when t h e r o l e o f
f l e x i b i l i t y i s more f u l l y understood.
REFERENCES
1. Chalhoub, N a b i l G. and A. G a l i p Ulsoy, "Dynamic
S i m u l a t i o n o f a Leadscrew Driven F l e x i b l e Robot A r m
and C o n t r o l l e r , " J- o f Dynamic Systems,
Measurement and Control , v o l . 108, June, 1986, pp.
_119-126.
__ __
2 . M u l l e r , P.C., J. Ackermann, and M. Gurgoze,
"Modelling and c o n t r o l o f an e l a s t i c r o b o t arm w i t h
r o t a r y and p r i s m a t i c j o i n t s , " 11-th IFAC World
Congress, T a l l i n n , Estonia, U.S.S.R, August 13-17,
1990, v.9, pp. 244-248.
3. Craig, R.R., J r . and Bampton, M.C.C., "Coupling
o f Substructures f o r Dynamic Analysis,"
Journal, Vol 6, No. 7, 1968, pp. 1313-1319
4. Book, W.J., "Recursive Lagrangian Dynamics o f
F l e x i b l e Manipulators," The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Journal
---
o f Robotics Research,vol., no. 3, pp.87-106,
1984.
5. Asada, H. and Z.-D. Ma, "Inverse Dynamics o f
F l e x i b l e Robot Arms," ASME Special P u b l i c a t i o n No.
600461, 1988.
6. Kwon, Dong-Soo and Wayne J. Book, "An i n v e r s e
dynamic method y i e l d i n g f l e x i l b e manipulator s t a t e
t i a j e c t o r i es ,'I Proceedings, 1990 American Control
Conference, San Diego, CA, May 23-2:, 1990.
7. Baruh, H. and S.S.K. Tadikonda, Issues i n t h e
Dynamics and Control o f F l e x i b l e Robot
Manipulators," t o appear i n J- of Guidance,
Control and D namics.
8. Kane: m. i n d R.R. Ryan, "Dynamics o f a
C a n t i l e v e r Beam Attached t o a Moving Base," Journal
-
o f Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 10, 1987,
K I D . 139-151.
r P - -- - -
9. Kane, T.R. and D.A. Levinson, "Formulation o f
Equations o f Motion f o r Complex Spacecraft," J.
---
Guidance and C o n t r o l , vol.3, no.2, pp. 99-112,
1980.
10. Yuan, 8 . 5 . "Adaptive S t r a t e g i e s f o r P o s i t i o n
and Force C o n t r o l s o f F l e x i b l e Arms" Ph.D. Thesis,
School o f Mechanical Engineering, Georgia I n s t i t u t e
o f Technology, A t l a n t a , GA., A p r i l , 1989.
11. Yuan, 6.-S., W. Book, and J.D. Huggins,
"Control o f a m u l t i - l i n k f l e x i b l e manipulator w i t h
a d e c e n t r a l i z e d approach," Proceedings, 11-th IFAC
World Congress, T a l l i n n , Estonia, U.S.S.R., August
13-17, 1990, pp 255-261.
12. Lee, J.-W., "Dynamic Analysis and Control of
Lightweight ManiEulators with Flexible Parallel
Link Mechanisms, Ph.D. Thesis, School of
Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute o f
Technology, Atlanta, GA., August, 1990.
13. Asada, H. and J-J.E. Slotine, Robot Analysis
--
and Contro1,John Wiley & Sons, 1 9 8 6 .
14. Lee, Jae-Won, J.D. Huggins and W.J. Book,
"Experimental Verification of a Large Flexible
Manipulator,' Proceedings, 1988 American Control
Conference, June 15-17, 1988, Atlanta, GA, pp.
102-107.
15. Gluck, R., "Explicit Modeling and Concurrent
Processing in the Simulation of Multibody Dynamic
Systems," Proceedings of the Workshop Multibody
Simulation, G. Man and R. Laskin (eds.), April 15,
1988, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL D-5190, p p .
983-1017
16. Koplik, J. and M.C. Leu, "Computer Generation
of Robotic Dynamics Equations and Related Issues,"
---
J. of Robotic Systems, vo1.3 no.3, 1986, pp.
301-319.
17. Cetinkunt, S. and Book, W. "Symbolic Modelinq
of Flexible Manipulators,"-Proceedings of the 1987
-
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, Raleigh, NC, April, 1987, pp.
2074-2080.
~. ~ ~.
18. Man, G. and R. Laskin (eds.), Proceedings of
-
the Workshop g r ~Multibody
Simulation, April 15,
1988, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL 0-5190, pp.
478-690.
19. Skelton, R.E., R. Singh, and J Ramakrishnan,
"Component Model Reduction by Component Cost
Analysis ,I' Proceedings AIAA-Guidance and Control
Conf.,Minneapolis, MN, Aug., 1988.
20. Tsujisawa, Takahiko and W.J. Book, "A Reduced
Order Model Derivation for Lightweight Arms with a
Parallel Mechanism", Proc., International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, Scottsdale,
AZ, May 14-19, 1989, pp 728-735.
21. Alberts, T., S . Dickerson and W. Book,
"Modeling and Control of Flexible Manipulators,"
Proc., ROBOTS 9 Exposition and Conference, Detroit,
MI, June 2, 1985, pp. 1/59-1/73.
22. Book, W.J. and M. Majette, "Controller Design
for Flexible Distributed Parameter Mechanical Arms
via Combined State Space and Frequency Domain
Techniques," J- of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and
Control, Dec. 1983, pp. 245-249.
23. Poelaert, D., "Impedance Representation of
Flexible Substructures," Proceedings o f the
Workshop E Multibody Simulation, G. Man and R.
Laskin (eds.), April 15, 1988, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, JPL D-5190, pp. 318-353.
24. Dickerson, S.L. unpublished report on torsional
constrained layer damping.
25. Bailey, T. and J.E. Hubbard, Jr., "Distributed
Piezoelectric-Polymer Active Vibration Control of a
Cantilever Beam," J- of Guidance Control and
Dynamics, Vol. 8, No. 5 , pp. 605-L611i 1985-
26. Lee, Soo-Han and Wayne J. Book, Robot
vibration control using-inertial dampinq forces."
presented at vrIr CISM-IFToMM Symposium on the
Theory and Practice of Robots and Manipulators,
July 2-6, 1990, Cracow, Poland.
27. Book, Wayne J and 3 . 4 . Wang, "Technology and
task parameters relating to the effectiveness of
the bracing strategy," Proceedings o f the NASA
Conference on Space Telerobotics, Jan. 31-Feb. 2,
1989, Pasadena, CA.
28. Book, W . and V. Sangveraphunsiri, "An -Approach
, 0
to the Minimum Time Control of a Simple Flexible
Arm," Control of Manufacturing Processes and
Robotics, W. Book, D. Hardt (ed.), ASME, December,
1983.
29. Meckl, P. and W. Seering, "Active Damping in a
Three-Axis Robotic Manipulator," J- of Vibration,
506
Acoustics, Stress, and Reliability in Design, Vol.
107, NO. 4, Oct. 1985, pp. 38-46.
30. Book, W.J. and S. Cetinkunt, "Near Optimum
Control of Flexible Robot Arms on Fixed Paths,"
--
1985 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, F t .
Lauderdale, FL, Dec 11-13, 1985.
31. Singer, N.C. and W.P. Seering, "Using Acausal
Shaping Techniques to Reduce Robot Vibration,"
---
Proc. 1988 IEEE International Conference g r ~
--
Robotics and Automation, Philadelphia, PA, April
24-29, 1988, pp. 1434-1439.
32. Oostina. K. and S.L. Dickerson. "Simulation of
33. Bayo, E., R. Movaghar and M. Medus, "Inverse
Dynamics of a Single-Link Flexible Robot.
Analytical and Experimental Results," International
----
J. of Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, No. 3, Fall,
1988.
34. Bayo, Eduardo, P. Papadopoulos, J. Stubbe and
M. Serna, "Inverse Dynamics and Kinematics of
Multi-Link Elastic Robots: An Iterative Frequency
Domain Approach," The International Journal o f
--
Robotics Research, v.8, n.6, pp 49-62, Dec. 1989.
35. Book, W.J., 0. Maizza-Net0 and D.E. Whitney,
"Feedback Control of Two Beam. Two Joint Systems
with Distributed Flexibility," J. Dynamic Systems,
Measurement and Control, vol. 97G, no. 4., pp.
424-431. Dec. 1975.
36. Cetinkunt, S. and W.J. Book, "Performance
limitations o f joint variable-feedback controllers
due to manipulator structural flexibility,"
Transactions on Robotics and Automation, v.6, n.2,
pp. 219-231, Apri 1 , 1990.
37. Cannon, R.H. and E. Schmitz, "Initial
Experiments on the End-Point Control of a Flexible
One-Link Robot," The International J- of Robotics
Research, vo1.3, no. 3 , 1984, pp. 62-75.
38. Hastings, G. and W. Book, "Experiments in
Optimal Control of a Flexible Arm," Proceedings of
---
the American Control Conference, June 1985, pp.
728-729.
39. Henrichfreise, H. W. Moritz and H.
Siemensmeyer, "Control of a Light, Elastic
Manipulation Device," Proceedings, Conference g r ~
Applied Motion Control 1987, Minneapolis, MN,
June16- 1 7 , 7 3 7 5 7 - 6 6 .
40. Hastings, G. and W. Book, "Reconstruction and
Robust Reduced-Order Observation of Flexible
Variables," presented at the 1986 ASME Winter
Annual Meeting, Annaheim, CA, Dec. 1986.
41. Yuan, Eau-San, W . Book, and B. Siciliano,
"Direct Adaptive Control of a One-Link Flexible Arm
with Tracking," The Journal of Robotic Systems,
v.6, n.6, pp. 663-680,.--
42. de Wit, C.C., and E. Van den Bossche, "Adaptive
Control of a flexible arm with explicit estimation
of the payload mass and friction.' Pre rints o f
- i.
the IFAC IFIP/IMACS
ROBOTS, Kopacek, nTroch,KTesoyer(&. Or
INT. SYMPOSIUM ON TEEORY ),
Vienna, Austria, Dec. 3-5, 1985, pp. 315-320.
43. Spong, M.W., K. Khorasani and P.V. Kokotovic,
"An Integral Manifold Approach to the Feedback
Control of Flexible Joint Robots," IEEE J. Robotics
-
and
44. Automation, and 3,W. No.
Siciliano, B.Vol. 4, pp
Book, 2 G O K-
"A Singular
Perturbation Approach to Control of Lightweight
Flexible Manipulators," Internation Journal of
--
Robotics
9 -Research, 7 7, no.
9 vol. ~ 4, ~
August, 1988.
45. Pfeiffer, F., B. Gebler, and U. Kleemann, "On
Dynamics and Contro! of Elastic Robots,"
Proceedings of Robot Control 1988 (SYROCO ' 8 8 ) an
IFAC symposium, Karlsruhe, Fed. Rep. of Germany,
Oct. 5-7, 1988.