Self Excited Periodic Motion in Underactuated Mechanical S - 2022 - Fuzzy Sets A

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 438 (2022) 25–45
www.elsevier.com/locate/fss
Self-excited periodic motion in underactuated mechanical systems

using two-fuzzy inference system ✩
Lisdan Herrera-Garcia a , Nohe R. Cazarez-Castro a , Selene L. Cardenas-Maciel a , Jorge
A. Lopez-Renteria b , Luis T. Aguilar c,∗
a Instituto Tecnológico de Tijuana, Tecnológico Nacional de México, Tijuana, 22414, Mexico
b CONACyT and Instituto Tecnológico de Tijuana, Tecnológico Nacional de México, Tijuana, 22414, Mexico
c Instituto Politécnico Nacional, CITEDI, Ave. Instituto Politécnico Nacional 1310 Col. Nueva Tijuana, Tijuana, B.C., 22435, Mexico
Received 20 November 2020; received in revised form 19 April 2021; accepted 21 April 2021
Available online 12 May 2021
Abstract
Dynamic systems with self-excited periodic motion have a wide range of applications in mechanical systems. For instance,
a class of non-minimum phase underactuated and nonprehensile systems require self-oscillations instead of tracking an external
reference signal. To solve this problem, we proposed a two fuzzy inference system, which is based on fuzzy logic theory, in order to
generate a periodic output. The idea is to enforce the conditions that ensure the orbital asymptotic stability of the periodic solution
of the closed-loop system. In this study, we considered Euler-Lagrange systems, with emphasis in underactuated systems. The
describing function method was used to design the fuzzy controller and set the desired frequency and amplitude of the periodic
output. Moreover, in accordance with Loeb’s criteria, we established sufficient conditions for orbital stability. Finally, we tested and
validated our proposal, via simulation and experiments on two laboratory platforms: a single-link pendulum and an underactuated
non-minimum-phase rotational inverted pendulum.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Describing function; Fuzzy control; Limit-cycles; Loeb criteria; Self-oscillations; Degree of underactuation one systems
1. Introduction
The generation of a periodic motion, such as orbits and limit cycles, is related to applications in which the natural
operation mode is oscillatory. Recent studies connect orbital stabilization to underactuated systems that are forced to
exhibit a limit cycle. Stable oscillations are the desired behavior in several engineering applications namely: buck-
boost converters [1], switching power supplies [2], cyclic walking patterns [3,4], walking mechanisms [5,6], inverted
pendulums [7,8], and complex underactuated systems as cranes [9]. Therefore, forcing the underactuated mechanical
✩
This work was supported by CONACYT under Grant 285279.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lisdan.herrera17@tectijuana.edu.mx (L. Herrera-Garcia), nohe@ieee.org (N.R. Cazarez-Castro), lilettecardenas@ieee.org
(S.L. Cardenas-Maciel), jorge.lopez@tectijuana.edu.mx (J.A. Lopez-Renteria), laguilarb@ipn.mx (L.T. Aguilar).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2021.04.017
0165-0114/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
L. Herrera-Garcia, N.R. Cazarez-Castro, S.L. Cardenas-Maciel et al. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 438 (2022) 25–45
systems to exhibit stable oscillations via feedback and the stability analysis of such systems are relevant research
topics.
Literature review. Regarding the self-oscillation problem (see, e.g., [10]), Shiriaev et al., [11] presented a strategy
for the generation and orbital stabilization of periodic solutions for underactuated nonlinear systems through the
virtual constraints approach. Aguilar et al., [12] introduced a different approach called two-relay control, in which
the describing function (DF) method was used not only to find the necessary conditions for the existence of self-
oscillations but also to tune the controller to attain the desired amplitude and frequency. Hakimi and Binazadeh [13]
addressed the design of a nonlinear control law through which a stable limit cycle is obtained in the nominal nonlinear
system. Specifically, an additional state feedback term is designed considering uncertain terms, such that the overall
state feedback controller guarantees the generation of a stable limit cycle in the actual closed-loop uncertain nonlinear
system. In addition to the abovementioned contributions, and to the best of our knowledge, there are no works based
on application of fuzzy logic control (FLC) to induce self-oscillation in underactuated nonlinear closed-loop systems.
Patra et al. [14] proposed an universal chart for generalized two-dimensional nonlinear systems in order to predict
self-oscillations.
Contribution. We propose a fuzzy logic controller to generate self-oscillations and discuss its application in under-
actuated systems. The idea is to obtain a simple harmonic motion with the required amplitude and frequency in a
mechanical system without tracking external trajectories. This investigation is inspired by Boiko [15] and Aguilar et
al. [12]. The former established an in-depth frequency-domain analysis of chattering phenomena inherited by variable
structure systems, and the latter proposed inducing the oscillations using two switching functions. However, in this
investigation, the design method for self-oscillations, which is based on fuzzy logic, and the corresponding analysis
are nontrivial.
The study of Kim et al., [16] use fuzzy logic to verify the existence of limit-cycles of the closed-loop system by
means of the describing function, where fuzzy basis functions were used to meet realistic assumptions. In contrast
to the problem addressed in this paper, Prieto et al., [17] designed and tuned a fuzzy control system to avoid the
chattering phenomenon in mechanical systems. In this paper, the describing function is used as a design method
instead of analysis. Alternatively, Wang, Yuan, and Yang [18] designed an adaptive fuzzy tracking controller for a
class of strict-feedback Markovian jumping systems.
Several relevant contributions obtained the describing function of the fuzzy controller experimentally by replacing
the fuzzy element with its equivalent single-input single-output nonlinear element ([19,20]). Another example is the
study conducted by Aracil and Gordillo [21] where a multiple-input single-output fuzzy system was designed to
detect limit cycles by using the harmonic balance method. However, the stability analysis and describing function of
the obtained fuzzy system were evaluated experimentally. Plata et al. [22] applied fuzzy-based sliding mode observer
to chaos synchronization. Jenkins and Passino [23] used experimental methods by varying the parameters of the
single-input single-output and multiple-inputs and multiple-outputs fuzzy systems to obtain graphical representations
of the describing functions to detect the corresponding limit cycles. Similarly, Kuljaca et al., [24] synthesized a
fuzzy Mamdani-type controller to avoid the resonance phenomenon, being the describing function of the nonlinearity
obtained experimentally. However, these studies lack mathematical analysis. Therefore, as an additional contribution,
we propose explicit analytical formulas for fuzzy logic control to obtain the desired limit cycles.
It is worth mentioning that the motion problem for a class of underactuated systems is also solved in this paper.
For example, the swing-up control is a strategy consisting of tracking a reference signal to drive a pendulum (Furuta
pendulum, acrobot, pendubot) from an asymptotical equilibrium point to an unstable equilibrium point [25]. Other
studies addressed the motion control of the actuated link [26]. In contrast, we show that under the proposed methodol-
ogy, it is possible to solve the motion problem of an underactuated link at the upper position, in which the equilibrium
point is unstable.
Organization. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the system and defines the problem statement.
Section 3 discusses the describing function method. Section 4 introduces the membership functions and the two-fuzzy
system design used to generate self-oscillations. In Section 5, we compute the describing function for a closed-loop
system with 2-FIS control. Additionally, we have specified the conditions for the asymptotic orbital stability of the
periodic solution using the Loeb criteria. Further, in Section 6, the methodology is illustrated and validated using
26
numerical and experimental results for generating a periodic motion in a single-link pendulum. Moreover, in Section 7,
the results are corroborated for the underactuated system Furuta pendulum. Finally, Section 8 provides the conclusions.
2. Dynamic model and problem statement
Let us consider the following n-degrees-of-freedom Euler-Lagrange system:
M(q(t))q̈(t) + h(q(t), q̇(t)) = Gu(t) (1)
where q(t) ∈ Rn is the angular position vector, q̇(t) ∈ Rn is the angular velocity vector, q̈(t) ∈ Rn is the angular accel-
eration vector, u(t) ∈ Rp is the input vector (n ≥ p), t ∈ R≥0 is the time, M(q(t)) ∈ Rn×n is the inertia matrix, which
is symmetrical positive-definite and continuously differentiable, h(q(t), q̇(t)) ∈ Rn is a Lipschitz continuous vector
representing the Coriolis, centrifugal, and gravitational forces, and G ∈ Rn×p is the input matrix, being rank{G} < n.
The state-space representation of (1) is
ẋ(t) = f (x(t)) + g(x(t))u(t) (2)
with

x2 (t)
f (x(t)) = ,
−M −1 (x1 (t))h(x1 (t), x2 (t))
(3)
0
g(x(t)) = ,
M −1 (x1 (t))G
where x(t) = [x1 (t), x2 (t)]T = [q(t), q̇(t)]T is the state vector. The inertia matrix M(x1 (t)) is nonsingular for all
x1 (t) ∈ Rn , therefore its inverse exists and it is also positive definite. We define the measurable variables vector of the
system (2)–(3) as z(t) = x(t) ∈ R2n , that is, we assume the state-feedback case.
2.1. Problem statement
The problem is formally stated as follows. Let
y(t) = ξ(x(t)) (4)
be a continuously differentiable scalar function called virtual output and let ψ(x(t)) be a memoryless time-invariant
nonlinearity.
We wish to design a nonlinear controller
u(t) = ψ(x(t)) (5)
such that the output y(t) = ξ(x(t)) : R2n → R converge to a closed and isolated path, with desired amplitude A1 and
frequency ω, that is
yss (t + T ) = yss (t), t ≥ 0, (6)
for some period T = 1/ω > 0 and initial conditions x(0) sufficiently close to the limit cycle, where yss (t) is the
evolution of y(t) in steady-state.
It is worth clarifying that the closed-loop system (2)–(5) does not consider an external reference signal for tracking.
Therefore ψ(x(t)) is not a tracking controller. Instead, a two-fuzzy inference system (2-FIS) as a block scheme
is proposed as the nonlinear element ψ(x(t)) to generate self-oscillations at the output y(t). For this purpose, the
describing function method—which is a well known strategy to investigate the existence of periodic solutions—will
be used as a design method. In other words, we need to find conditions or rules in ψ(x) such that the function (4),
which depends on the states of the closed-loop system (2)–(3), (5), be periodic.
27
Fig. 1. Nonlinear system where r(t) = 0 means that there is no exists an external signal to be tracked.
3. Describing function method
For convenience of the reader, the describing function method (DF) is briefly reviewed. Describing function is
a frequency-domain methodology to determine the existence of limit cycles in autonomous nonlinear closed-loop
systems [27].
Let us consider the linearized state-space representation (Taylor approximation) of the nonlinear system (2)–(3)
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)
(7)
y(t) = Cx(t),
being x(t) ∈ R2n the state vector, y(t) ∈ Rq represents the output vector, u(t) ∈ Rp denotes the input vector, and
∂f ∂ξ
A= (0), B = g(0), C = (0). (8)
∂x ∂x
We assume that A is Hurwitz and the pair (A, B) is controllable.
The forthcoming analysis considers the frequency-domain transfer function whose transformation can be obtained
from the state-space model (7) as follows:
G(s) = C(sI − A)−1 B (9)

√
where s = j ω is the complex variable (j = −1).
To obtain the describing function, the closed-loop system (5), (9) (see Fig. 1) has to satisfy the following condi-
tions [27]:
C1) A single nonlinear component ψ(x) exists.

C2) The nonlinearity is time-invariant.
C3) For the input y(t) = A sin(ωt), the fundamental component at the output u(t) is only considered.
C4) The non-linearity is odd, that is, (ψ(−x) = −ψ(x)).
The first condition implies that if there are two or more nonlinear components in a system one either has to lump them
together as a single nonlinearity or retain only the primary nonlinearity and neglect the others. The describing function
method only considers linear time-invariant systems in the frequency domain. Condition C3) assumes that the method
only considers the first harmonic. For this reason the describing function has been considered as an approximated
approach. Finally, the assumption C4) is made for simplicity, in which the nonlinearity ψ(x) between the input and
output is symmetric about the origin.
Recalling the definition taken from Slotine [27], the describing function of a nonlinearity is defined as the complex
ratio of fundamental component of the nonlinear element developed in a truncated Fourier series. By assumption C3),
the nonlinear component u(t) is periodic. Therefore, the expansion of u(t), using Fourier series, is given by
∞
a0
u(t) = + (an cos(nωt) + bn sin(nωt)), (10)
2
n=1
where
π
1
a0 = u(t)d(ωt) (11)
π
−π
28
Fig. 2. Nyquist and describing function intersection.
π
1
an = u(t) cos(nωt)d(ωt), (12)
π
−π
π
1
bn = u(t) sin(nωt)d(ωt). (13)
π
−π
By definition, the describing function only considers the fundamental harmonic component, that is
(b1 + j a1 )ej ωt 1
N(A, ω) = = (b1 + j a1 ) (14)
Aej ωt A
π
1
a1 = u(t) cos(nωt)d(ωt), (15)
π
−π
π
1
b1 = u(t) sin(nωt)d(ωt). (16)
π
−π
According to the extended Nyquist criterion, a self-oscillation occurs in a nonlinear system if and only if the solution
to the harmonic balance equation
1
G(j ω) = − (17)
N(A, ω)
exists.
Summarizing, the interception of the Nyquist plot of G(j ω) with the reciprocal of the describing function N (A, ω)
(see Fig. 2) defines the existence of a limit cycle with a desired amplitude and frequency [16,27].
In the following section we show how to design a fuzzy inference system satisfying the conditions C1)–C4) taking
into account that the desired amplitude and frequency must be independently chosen.
4. Two-fuzzy inference system design
Let us consider the fuzzy inference system
ψ(x(t)) = ψ1 (x1 (t)) + ψ2 (x2 (t)), (18)

where x1 (t) and x2 (t) are the fuzzy variables at the input. According to the above-mentioned problem statement, the
purpose of the nonlinear term ψ(x(t)) is provided a stable limit cycle to the output of the closed-loop system (5),
(9) with a desired frequency and amplitude without an external reference signal to be tracked. The variable ψ(x(t))
represents a fuzzy component, composed by a Two-Fuzzy Inference Systems (2-FIS), depicted in the diagram of
Fig. 3. In our analysis, ψ1 refers to FIS-1 in charge of manipulating the angular position and ψ2 referred to FIS-2,
which manipulates the angular velocity of the mechanism.
29
Fig. 3. Fuzzy feedback system.
The two-inference system (18) is inspired in the two-relay controller [12]. The adopted structure opens the possi-
bility to tune the controllers given the frequency and the amplitude as independent variables. In other words, we can
obtain two set of equations to solve for two unknown variables ψ1(x1 (t)) and ψ2 (x2 (t)).
Let us consider the linearized plant (2)–(3) in its state-space representation (7)–(8). Then, let us propose a 2-FIS
diagram with the IF-THEN fuzzy rule base as follows [16]:
Ri : If xl is Mi , then ψ is ψl , (19)
where M−1 , M0 , and M1 are the membership function at the input variable. The structure and operation of each FIS
remain similar considering only different parameters of the input and output variables. Therefore, each FIS is proposed
as a Mamdani-type fuzzy system considering a singleton membership function at output, the inference engine adopts
a product inference, and the defuzzifier is set as center average. Hence, the fuzzy system can be written as:

1
Mi (xl ) 1
ψl (xl ) = 1 U i = i (xl )Ui , (20)
i=−1 r=−1 Mr (xl ) i=−1
where U−i = −Ui is the output’s triggered crisp value with respect to xl . The function i (xl ) holds the following
assumptions:
• i (xl ) is globally Lipschitz continuous and bounded.

• i (0) = 0 (steady state).
• The odd conditions −i (xl ) = i (−xl ). p
• Since only the two rules are triggered simultaneously (see [16]) for an i−1 ≤ x ≤ i+1 , the −p Mr (x) turns
to be one, that is

p
Mr (x) = Mn (x) + Mn+1 (x)
−p
x − i+1 x − n
= + = 1.
i − i+1 n+1 − n
For x < i−1 or i+1 < x, the trapezoid-shaped membership function is only activated with membership degree
equal to one, that is Mn+1 (x) = 0. Therefore, i (xl ) turns to be one and (20)
results in ψl = Ui . As a consequence,
for any value of xl , the design of ψl (xl ) is a convex combination, that is, 1i=−1 i (xl ) = 1.
For the adopted fuzzy inference system, the whole discourse universe of xl is separated into subsets aiming at the
values that could take ψl according to the input state. We designate the fuzzy rules as input linguistic variables xl and
output linguistic variables ψl (xl ) (see Table 1).
We adopted triangular membership functions at center as fuzzy sets for the inputs xl , that is,
⎧ 1
⎨ i xl + 1, if −i ≤ xl < 0
⎪
M0 (xl ) = − 1 xl + 1, if 0 ≤ xl ≤ i (21)
⎪
⎩ i
0, elsewhere.
On sides, the fuzzy sets have trapezoidal-shaped membership functions, distributed completely, consistently, and
symmetrically with respect to origin, that is,
30
Table 1
Fuzzy rules base.
Input xl Output ψl
M−1 U−1
M0 U0
M1 U1
Fig. 4. Membership functions with variable x1 and x2 as inputs and ψ1 and ψ2 as outputs.
⎧
⎪
⎨ 1, if xl < −i
M−1 (xl ) = − i xl , if −i ≤ xl ≤ 0
1
(22)
⎪
⎩
0, if xl > 0,
⎧
⎪
⎨0, if xl < 0
M1 (xl ) = 1i xl , if 0 ≤ xl ≤ i (23)
⎪
⎩
1, if xl > i ,
where the symmetry −i = −i is considered. Fig. 4 illustrates the distribution of the membership functions for
i ∈ [−1, 0, 1].
Therefore, the FIS-1 action (20) is computed, according to [16] as follows:

Ui
x1 (t), if |x1 (t)| ≤ i
ψ1 (x1 (t)) = i (24)
Ui , if |x1 (t)| > i .
Since the output function (24) is equivalent to a saturation function, the term k1 = Ui /i refers to the slope of the
saturation for the proposed FIS.
The FIS structure for the velocity x2 (t) is similar to the position FIS structure, but with different inputs and outputs
values. For clarity, we define i and Qi as the inputs and outputs design parameters for FIS-2, respectively; resulting
in the following output function

Qi
x2 (t), if |x2 (t)| ≤ i
ψ2 (x2 (t)) = i (25)
Qi , if |x2 (t)| > i
where k2 = Qi / i is the corresponding slope of the latter saturation-like function. Finally, substituting (24)–(25) into
(18), we obtain the analytic expression for the 2-FIS as follows
31
⎧ ⎧
⎪
⎨ U1 , if x1 (t) > i ⎪
⎨ Q1 , if x2 (t) > i
ψ(x(t)) = k1 x1 , if |x1 (t)| ≤ i + k2 x2 , if |x2 (t)| ≤ i (26)
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎩
−U1 , if x1 (t) < −i −Q1 , if x2 (t) < − i .
The next question now arises: How obtain or compute the values of k1 and k2 in order to obtain a periodic solution
with a pre-specified frequency and amplitude at the output y(t) ∈ R of the closed-loop system (2)–(3), (26)?
5. 2-FIS describing function design
In this section, we provide formulas for the parameters k1 (A1 , ω) and k2 (A1 , ω), given the frequency and ampli-
tude, such that the harmonic balance equation (17) of the closed-loop system holds. In other words, the describing
function method will be used as a design method instead of analysis. The analytic expression of the describing function
of the 2-FIS is derived considering the transfer function G(s) (9) of the linearized dynamic systems (2)–(3).
5.1. Existence of limit cycles
The describing function N (A, ω) of the 2-FIS (26) is the first harmonic of the periodic control signal divided by
the amplitude of y(t) [28]. Therefore, the relation (26) can be analyzed as the parallel connection of the 2-FIS where
the input to the first fuzzy inference system (FIS-1) is the state variable x1 (t) and the input to FIS-2 is x2 (t). Then,
the resulting describing function of the 2-FIS is as follows:
N(A, ω) = N(A1 ) + sN(A2 ) (27)
where s = j ω, and A2 is the amplitude of dy/dt. Also, let us take into account the relationship between y(t) and
dy/dt in the Laplace domain, gives the relationship between the amplitudes A1 and A2 : A2 = A1 ω.
Relation (27) corresponds to the sum of the FIS-1 and FIS-2 (illustrated in Fig. (3)). Notice that the input to FIS-1
is the output of the plant y(t) while the input to FIS-2 is its time derivative ẏ(t). Following the harmonic balance
method, under ideal conditions, the output y(t) is a sinusoidal signal, that is, y(t) = A1 sin(ωt), therefore its time
derivative ẏ(t) = A1 ω cos(ωt) being A1 ω the amplitude of the derivative.
To obtain the describing function for the FIS actions (24) and (25), we consider that their outputs are symmetrical
for all the quadrants of the period. Therefore, the FIS-1 (24) for the first quadrant is

x1 (t), if 0 ≤ x1 (t) ≤ δp
ψ1 (x1 (t)) = k1 (28)
1 , if δp < x1 (t) ≤ π/2,
where δp is defined according to [27] as follows:
δ0 ≡ 0,

1
δp ≡ sin−1 , p = 1, . . . , n
A1
π
δp+1 ≡ ,
2
for all 1 ∈ (0, π/2].
The describing function for FIS-1 is computed considering (24) as the input u(t). The constant parameters a0 and
a1 , from (11) and (15), respectively; are equal to zero due to the odd function property [28]. The parameter b1 is
computed for all quadrants of the period considering y(t) = A sin(ωt), that is,
π
2
4
b1 = ψ1 (x1 )(t) sin(ωt)d(ωt)
π
0
π
δ 2
4 4
= k1 A1 sin2 (ωt)d(ωt) + k1 i sin(ωt)d(ωt)
π π
0 δ
32
⎡ ⎤
2
2k1 A1 ⎣ 1 1 ⎦
= δ+ 1− , (29)
π A1 A1
where k1 = U1 /1 and 1 = A1 sin(δ). Then, using the describing function (14), we can rewrite the latter equation
as follows:
⎡ ⎤
2
2k1 ⎣ −1 1 1 1 ⎦
N(A1 ) = sin + 1− . (30)
π A1 A1 A1
The analysis to obtain the describing function for FIS-2, provided A2 , Q1 , and 1 ∈ (0, π/2], is similar, therefore
⎡ ⎤
2
2k2 ⎣ −1 1 1 1 ⎦
N(A2 ) = sin + 1− , (31)
π A2 A2 A2
where k2 = Q1 / 1 .
Finally, considering (27), the describing function of the 2-FIS is expressed as follows:
⎡ ⎤
2
2k1 ⎣ −1 1 1 1 ⎦
N(A, ω) = sin + 1− +
π A1 A1 A1
⎡ ⎤ (32)
2
2k2 ⎣ −1 1 1 1 ⎦
jω sin + 1− ,
π A2 A2 A2
where i and i represent the design parameters of the fuzzy inference systems. The latter relation holds true pro-
vided that A1 1 and A2 1 holds. The parameter A1 is the desired amplitude of the oscillation. Similarly,
A2 contains the parameters to get for the FIS-2, which depends on the desired amplitude and frequency as follows
A2 = A1 ω.
Given 1 , 1 , A1 , and A2 based on the desired amplitude and frequency derived in k1 and k2 gains, those are tune
parameters for a desired frequency an amplitude as shown in Fig. 3, then (32) results as follows:
2
N(A, ω) = (k1 Re {N (A1 )} + j k2 ωIm {N (A2 )}). (33)
π
Then, using the harmonic balance equation (17) yields
Re {G(j ω)} + Im {G(j ω)} =

π −k1 Re {N (A, ω)} + j k2 Im {N (A, ω)} (34)
.
2 (k1 Re {N (A, ω)})2 + (k2 Im {N (A, ω)})2
The graphic representation of (34) is depicted in Fig. 2 where −1/N (A, ω) represents a straight line, where its
slope depends on the value of k1 and k2 . If a periodic solution exists, then (34) provides an approximate solution
with a desired frequency and amplitude. But, the idea in this paper is to enforce the periodic solution, that is, we look
for the values of k1 and k2 that enforces the intersection of the harmonic balance equation with the Nyquist plot. In
this sense, matching the real and imaginary parts of the left and right-hand side of the equality (34), we obtain the
following set of equations:
k1 Re {N (A, ω)}
Re {G(j ω)} = , (35)
(k1 Re {N (A, ω)})2 + (k2 Im {N (A, ω)})2
k2 Im {N (A, ω)}
Im {G(j ω)} = . (36)
(k1 Re {N (A, ω)})2 + (k2 Im {N (A, ω)})2
Solving (35) and (36), we get the following expressions for k1 and k2 :
33
Re {G(j ω)}
k1 = − , (37)
(Re {G(j ω)} + Im {G(j ω)}2 )Re {N (A, ω)}
2
Im {G(j ω)}
k2 = . (38)
(Re {G(j ω)} + Im {G(j ω)}2 )Im {N (A, ω)}
2
Finally, the result of the paper can be summarized in the following Proposition.
Proposition 1. The fuzzy controller (26) ensures the existence of a periodic orbit, with amplitude A1 and frequency
ω, at the output of the closed-loop system (2), (5) if and only if the solution to the equations (37) and (38), to find the
parameters k1 and k2 , exists.
Proof. If the output of the non-linearity (26) is periodic with frequency ω, there will be a Fourier series representation
(10) also satisfying the harmonic balance equation (17). Here, the gains k1 and k2 , which depends on the amplitude
and frequency, are solution, if exist, of the harmonic balance equation, thus enforcing the oscillation to a desired
frequency and amplitude.
Despite we established conditions for existence of periodic motion, we need to investigate if such orbit is a stable
limit cycle.
5.2. Limit cycle stability
The stability of oscillations depends on the geometrical relationship of G(j ω)N (A, ω) and key point (−1; j 0)
derived from harmonic balance equation (17). Then using the extended Nyquist stability criterion [27] and the method
of small perturbation in amplitude known as Loeb criterion [29] is possible to find the conditions that guarantee the
existence of a stable limit cycle in the system.
The criterion of Loeb based on the describing function is used for stability analysis of limit cycles. The Loeb
criterion, which is originally based on the method developed by Cohen [30] is as follows.
Loeb criteria. Let A1 and ω be the amplitude and frequency of a limit cycle, respectively. We have seen that the
following identity holds:
1 + N(A1 , ω)G (j ω) = 0. (39)
The explicit complex form of this equation can be obtained by expressing the quantities N (A1, ω) and G(j ω) in terms
of their real and imaginary parts, resulting in
U (A1 , ω) + j V (A1 , ω) = 0, (40)
where U and j V are the real and imaginary part of the complex equation (39), respectively. Let us consider small
perturbations in the limit cycle by introducing the following changes in (40), that is,
A1 →A1 + A1 ,
(41)
ω →ω + (ω + j σ ) ,
where A is the rate of change in amplitude and ω is the rate of change in frequency. Then, applying the expansion
Taylor series into (40) considering the changes introduced in (41) on the equilibrium state, and after some algebraic
operations (see for further details [29]) we get the following inequality:
∂U ∂V ∂U ∂V
− > 0, (42)
∂A1 ∂ω ∂ω ∂A1
which is the mathematical relation of the Loeb stability criterion. The latter expression can be rewritten in the vector
product form, in terms of the transfer function and the describing function, as follows:
dG(j ω) ∂N(A1 , j ω) ∂N (A1 , j ω) ∂N (A1 , j ω)
× > × . (43)
dω ∂A1 ∂ω ∂A1
The stability condition is summarized in the following Theorem.
34
Theorem 1. Assume that a limit cycle of the closed-loop system (2), (5), (26) exists under conditions given in Propo-
sition 1. If the Loeb stability criterion given by condition (43) or equivalently
dG(j ω) ∂N(A1 , j ω) 16k1 k2 1 1
× >− (44)
dω ∂A1 A31 π
holds, then the periodic orbit is asymptotically stable.
Proof. From (43), we have

dG(j ω) ∂N(A1 , j ω) ∂N(A1 , j ω) ∂N (A1 , j ω)
× > × . (45)
dω ∂A1 ∂ω ∂A1
The result of the cross product of the right hand side of the latter inequality yields

dG(j ω) ∂N(A1 , j ω) ∂ Re{N } ∂ Im{N } ∂ Re{N } ∂ Im{N }
× > − (46)
dω ∂A1 ∂ω ∂A1 ∂A1 ∂ω
where Re{N } = N(A1 ) and Im{N } = N (A2 ) are taken from (32). Since ∂ Re{N }/∂ω = 0,

dG(j ω) ∂N(A1 , j ω) ∂ Re{N } ∂ Im{N }
× >−
dω ∂A1 ∂A1 ∂ω

2 2
16k1 k2 1 1 1 1
>− 3
1− 1−
A1 πω A1 ωA1
16k1 k2 1 1
≥− . (47)
A31 πω
The interested reader may refer to [31] for details on derivation of inequality (43).
In the next section we provide simulation and experimental results, performed in an actuated and underactuated
systems, to corroborate the theoretical results.
6. Study case: a single link-pendulum
Consider the state-space representation of a linearized dynamic model of a simple pendulum

ẋ1 (t) 0 1 x1 (t) 0
= + KT u(t),
ẋ2 (t) − gl − ml fv
2 x2 (t) ml 2

x1 (t)
y(t) = 1 0 , (48)
x2 (t)

x (t)
z(t) = 1 ,
x2 (t)
where x1 (t) ∈ [−2π, 2π] is the angular position, x2 (t) ∈ R is the angular velocity, u(t) = ψ(x(t)) ∈ R is the control
input given in (26). The nominal parameter m > 0 is the load mass, l > 0 defines the pendulum length, fv > 0 is the
viscous friction coefficient, g is the gravitational constant acceleration. The schematic representation of the simple
pendulum with their components is depicted in Fig. 5. Using (9), the transformation of (48) into its corresponding
transfer function representation, with parameters given in Table 2, is
56.85
G(s) = . (49)
s 2 + 4.548s + 50.82
The system is controllable and it is internally asymptotically stable. The objective is to induce a periodic motion at
the angular position of the pendulum y(t) = x1 (t).
It should be pointed out that initial conditions in simulations do not matter since the global dynamics of the sys-
tem is composed of locally topologically equivalent limit cycles emerging from modularly (modulus a period T )
35
Fig. 5. Single-link pendulum physical diagram.
Table 2
Parameters of the simple pendulum.
Description Values Units
Friction coefficient (fv ) 0.02 N ×m×s
Gravity acceleration constant (g) 9.81 m/s2
Pendulum length (l) 0.193 m
Inertia momentum (ml 2 ) 4.39 × 10−3 kg.m2
Mass of the load (m) 0.118 kg
Torque constant (KT ) 0.25 N.m
for equivalent equilibrium points, and the solution tends to the nearest of these limit cycles. Namely, the dynam-
ics of experimental systems are one of these local behaviors, and without loss of generality, the principal dynamics
are considered around the origin. Consequently, initial conditions are locally modularly equivalents to the ones in a
neighborhood of the central dynamics.
6.1. Numerical verification
Let us consider the 2-FIS fuzzy logic control (26) tuned under formulas (37)–(38) to enforce the closed-loop
system (1), (26) to have an steady-state oscillation with A1 = 0.2 rad and ω = 3 rad/s as the desired amplitude and
frequency, respectively. To tune the controller to obtain this motion, we use (37) and (38) together with (49) leading to
k1 = −0.7456 and k2 = −0.0802. The parameters of the fuzzy inference systems FIS-1 were set such that 1 = 0.19
and U1 = 0.2. Similarly, for FIS-2 we set 1 = 0.59 and Q1 = 0.6. Two simulations were carried out starting at
different initial conditions.
Simulation 1. With initial conditions at x1 (t0 ) = 0.25 rad and x2 (t0 ) = 0 rad/s, being t0 = 0, we can see in Fig. 6(a)
that the trajectory (colored black) vanishes and tends to a periodic orbit.
Simulation 2. Similarly, under initial conditions at x1 (t0 ) = 0.18 rad and x2 (t0 ) = 0 rad/s, inside the periodic orbit,
the solution increases reaching the same orbit (colored red trajectory in Fig. 6(a)), thus corroborating that the limit
cycle is orbitally asymptotically stable. Fig. 6(b) summarizes this result in a (y, ẏ)-phase-portrait projection.
The numerical simulations show that trajectories, inside and outside the limit cycle, reach an oscillation with
amplitude A1 = 0.2059 rad and frequency ω = 3.0207 rad/s, which are close to the desired values. Fig. 6(c) shows
the control inputs for both initial conditions.
6.2. Experimental verification
To illustrate the theoretical results under a realistic environment, we carry out experiments in a rigid-link pendulum
attached a direct current motor built by Leadshine and the DS1103 control board developed by dSPACE (see Fig. 7).
The motor’s amplifier operates in a range of ±10 V.
36
Fig. 6. (a) Angular position respect the time, (b) Phase portrait of the pendulum system with initial conditions inside and outside the limit cycle,
and (c) Input signal from 2-FIS diagram. (For interpretation of the colors in the figure(s), the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
We ran two experiments setting A1 = 0.2 rad and ω = 3 rad/s for both experiments but starting at different initial
conditions.
Experiment 1. The initial conditions of the first experiment were x1 (t0 ) = −0.069 rad and x2 (t0 ) = 0.12 rad/s,
where t0 = 0. Fig. 8(a) shows the angular position respect to time (colored red) corroborating the behavior of the
trajectories and how these converge to a stable limit cycle when the initial conditions are outside the limit cycle.
Experiment 2. The initial conditions of the second experiment were x1 (t0 ) = −0.003 rad and x2 (t0 ) = 0 rad/s.
Fig. 8(a) also shows the phase portrait corroborating the behavior of the trajectory and how this converges to the limit
cycle when initial conditions are inside the limit cycle. Fig. 8(b) also illustrates these results in the (y, ẏ)-phase-portrait
projection.
In the experiments, the amplitude and frequency were 0.2236 rad and 2.7630 rad/s, respectively. There exists
a certain discrepancy between the real and desired values which may be due to friction, parametric uncertainties,
37
Fig. 7. Experimental setup showing the pendulum system and the dSPACE input/output system.
or external disturbances. The 2-FIS input signal needed to get self-oscillations in both experiments are depicted in
Fig. 8(c).
In order to prove the stability of the periodic motion with A1 = 0.2 rad and ω = 3 rad/s, it is necessary to fulfill
the condition (42) and thereby verify the existence of at least one stable limit cycle. To this end, the partial derivatives
were computed using Matlab yielding
∂U ∂V
= 0.6073, = 0.0495,
∂A ∂ω
∂U ∂V
= −0.1273, = −0.0785. (50)
∂ω ∂A
Finally, substituting the computed values in the inequality (42), we verify by simple inspection that the condition is
fulfilled, that is,
∂U ∂V ∂U ∂V
− = 0.0201,
∂A ∂ω ∂ω ∂A
thus concluding that the limit cycle is stable under the desired amplitude and frequency.
The results for amplitude and frequency obtained in simulation and experimentation shows values nearby to the
desired parameters at the output of the pendulum. As a conclusion, these results validate the proposed method to reach
a stable limit cycle.
7. Study case: a rotary inverted pendulum (Furuta pendulum)
Special attention deserves the underactuated systems where the generation of periodic motion is not a trivial task.
Here, we propose the Furuta pendulum (see Figs. 9 and 10) as a case of study, which besides is underactuated, it has
unstable equilibrium points. The parameters of the real Furuta pendulum are provided in Table 3.
The Furuta pendulum (Quanser Inc.) used in the experiments is a fully integrated system equipped with a vertical
bar (pendulum) and a horizontal L-shaped bar (arm). The experimental setup also has an actuator coupled to the arm
with a position sensor (encoder) to measure the angular position of the pendulum and another encoder to measure
the angular position of the arm. Therefore the system is under-actuated. The software application to implement the
controller was LabVIEW (National Instruments [32]).
38
Fig. 8. (a) Angular position respect the time, (b) phase portrait of the pendulum system with initial conditions inside and outside the limit cycle,
and (c) input signal from the 2-FIS.
The dynamic model of the Furuta pendulum linearized around the equilibrium point x ∗ = [π, 0, 0, 0]T ∈ R4 repre-
sented in the state-space form (7) is
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ẋ1 (t) 0 0 1 0 x1 (t) 0
⎢ ẋ2 (t) ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 1⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ x2 (t) ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎣ ẋ3 (t) ⎦ = ⎣ 0 22.3740 −0.2982 0 ⎦ ⎣ x3 (t) ⎦ + ⎣ 8.9578 ⎦ τ (t),
ẋ4 (t) 0 36.2091 −0.0765 0 x4 (t) 2.2981
⎡ ⎤ (51)
x1 (t)
⎢ x2 (t) ⎥
y(t) = 0 1 0 0 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ x3 (t) ⎦ .
x4 (t)
Since matrix A is not Hurwitz, it can be difficult to find initial conditions in which trajectories converge to the limit
cycle. To solve this problem, we added an stabilizing regulator, that is,
τ (t) = ψ(x(t)) + Kx(t) (52)
39
Fig. 9. Pendulum physical draw.
Fig. 10. Furuta pendulum experimental platform.
where ψ(x(t)) is the 2-FIS controller given in (26) and Kx(t) is a linear regulator where K = [−6.50, 80.0, −2.75,
11.2247] V/rad was obtained from the well-known linear quadratic regulator synthesis. The transfer function of the
open-loop system (51)–(52) from ψ(x(t)) to y(t) is
2.298s 2 − 6.687 × 10−07 s − 2.253 × 10−15
G(s) = . (53)
s 4 + 17s 3 + 104s 2 + 268s + 240
The control objective is that the trajectory at the pendulum (i.e., y(t) = x2 (t)) exhibits a stable periodic motion
around the equilibrium point with a desired amplitude A1 and frequency ω. It should be pointed out that we are
interested in the motion of the underactuated link.
7.1. Simulation results
A 2-FIS scheme is designed for a get an steady limit cycle with a desired amplitude A1 = 0.1 rad and frequency
ω = 7 rad/s. To this end, the gain parameters k1 = −22.6492 and k2 = −5.0280 were obtained from (37)–(38). The
parameters of the fuzzy inference systems FIS-1 were set to 1 = 0.09 and U1 = 0.1, while 1 = 0.69 and Q1 = 0.7
for FIS-2.
Two simulations for different initial conditions were performed to validate the effectiveness of the theoretical
results.
40
Table 3
Specifications of the Furuta pendulum.
Description Values
Pendulum mass (Mp ) 0.027 Kg

Gravitational acceleration constant (g) 9.810 m/s2
Length of pendulum center of mass from pivot (lp ) 0.153 m
Total length of pendulum (Lp ) 0.191 m
Length of arm pivot to pendulum pivot (r) 0.0826 m
Pendulum moment of inertia about its pivot axis (Jp ) 1.23 × 10−4 Kg-m2
Equivalent moment of inertia about motor shaft pivot axis (Jp ) 1.10 × 10−4 Kg-m2
Simulation 1. First, we consider initial condition [x1 (t0 ), x2 (t0 ), x3 (t0 ), x4 (t0 )]T = [0, 0.15, 0, 0]T outside the limit
cycle. Fig. 11(a) and Fig. 11(b) show that the solution (discontinuous path) asymptotically decreases its amplitude
and converges to a limit cycle.
Simulation 2. We repeat the experiment but with an initial condition [x1(t0 ), x2 (t0 ), x3 (t0 ), x4 (t0 )]T = [0, 0.08,
0, 0]T inside the limit cycle. Fig. 11(a) and Fig. 11(b) show that the trajectory (colored black) increases its amplitude
and asymptotically approaches to the desired periodic orbit.
Fig. 11(c) depicts the behavior of the 2-FIS signal for both simulations. Fig. 11 exhibits output simulations values
around 0.1005 rad for amplitude and 6.9968 rad/s for the frequency. These values are close to the desired limit cycle,
with a deviation of 0.05 percent in amplitude and 0.32 percent in frequency with respect the expected results.
7.2. Experimental results
We ran two experiments for different initial conditions to validate the effectiveness of the theoretical results.
Experiment 1. First, we set initial conditions on [x1 (t0 ), x2 (t0 ), x3 (t0 ), x4 (t0 )]T = [0, −0.050, 0, 1.95]T that are
outside the limit cycle. Fig. 12(a) and Fig. 12(b) show that the trajectory (colored black) converges to a limit cycle
corroborating the existence of a stable periodic motion for the selected initial condition.
Experiment 2. For the second experiment, the initial condition considered is [x1 (t0 ), x2 (t0 ), x3 (t0 ), x4 (t0 )]T =
[0, −0.27, 0, −6.12]T . As expected, Fig. 12(a) and Fig. 12(b) show the trajectory (colored red) of the angular po-
sition exhibits a self-oscillation where the trajectory converges to a stable limit cycle for the arbitrary initial condition
inside the limit cycle.
Fig. 12(c) shows the two fuzzy inference control signal for both experiments. The experimental results show a limit
cycle with amplitude and frequency around 0.2332 rad and 7.7570 rad/s, respectively.
The Loeb criterion is applied to prove the stability of the periodic motion with A1 = 0.1 rad and ω = 7 rad/s
where it is necessary to satisfy the condition (42) to verify the stability of the limit cycle. The partial derivatives were
computed using Matlab software resulting as follows:
∂U ∂V
= 0.9856, = 0.1778,
∂A ∂ω
∂U ∂V
= 0.0349, = −0.4933. (54)
∂ω ∂A
Finally, substituting the computed values in the inequality (42), we verify by simple inspection that the condition is
fulfilled, that is,
∂U ∂V ∂U ∂V
− = 0.1924,
∂A ∂ω ∂ω ∂A
thus corroborating that the limit cycle is stable under the desired amplitude and frequency.
41
Fig. 11. (a) Angular position respect to time, (b) experimental phase plane trajectories, and (c) input signal of 2-FIS system.
The resulting trajectories illustrated in the phase plane, depicted in Fig. 12, exhibit a remarkable distortion in
frequency. Several causes, as uncertainties or non-modeled parameters, may lead to this undesirable behavior affecting
the performance of the system.
8. Conclusions
Our study provides a methodology, based on two-fuzzy inference systems, to obtain self-excited oscillations in
mechanical systems. The fuzzy systems were tuned considering the describing function method. In other words, we
derived explicit formulas in terms of the frequency and amplitude to tune the universe of discourse of the membership
functions, thus forcing the output of the closed-loop system to have a desired frequency and amplitude. In addition,
it was observed that these results are applicable to both fully actuated and underactuated systems. Furthermore, we
conclude the stability of periodic motion using the Loeb criterion. The proposed controller and its analysis allow us
42
Fig. 12. (a) Angular position respect to time in experimental results, (b) phase plane experimental results, and (c) input signal from the 2-FIS.
attain the frequency and amplitude required to obtain a stable limit cycle. The results were numerically and exper-
imentally tested on a single-link pendulum and an underactuated rotary inverted pendulum. Experimental evidence
realizes the possibility of addressing challenging self-oscillation problems for systems with nonsmooth nonlinearities
such as friction, dead-zone, and backlash. One of the advantages of our proposal is that by just tuning one parameter
per fuzzy inference system, we can solve the periodic motion problem. The design of the fuzzy inference system re-
sults easiest compared with other techniques. It is important to remark that with our proposal, which is not a tracking
control problem approach, we can achieve desired amplitude, being this another advantage. In our future work, we
aim to use the Poincaré maps as design criteria to tune the fuzzy controller. The extension of these results to a class
multivariable system can be straightforwardly achieved by a normal form transformation as in [33]. It is important to
remark that with our proposal, which is not a tracking control problem approach, we can achieve desired amplitude,
being this another advantage.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
43
Acknowledgements
Lisdan Herrera-Garcia wishes to thank CONACyT for the support given under grant No. 467505 for his Ph.D.
studies in Engineering Sciences at the Technological Institute of Tijuana. Selene L. Cardenas-Maciel would like to
extend her gratitude to Tecnológico Nacional de México for supporting the research with grants 11122.21-P. Nohe
R. Cazarez-Castro would like to extend his deepest gratitude to Tecnológico Nacional de México for supporting the
research with grants 5564.19-P and 8085.20-P. CONACyT supports López-Rentería with the project number A1-S-
32341.
References
[1] A. El Aroudi, J. Huang, M.S. Al-Numay, Z. Li, On the coexistence of multiple limit cycles in H-bridge wireless power transfer systems with
zero current switching control, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Regul. Pap. 67 (5) (2020) 1729–1739.
[2] R. Inanlou, O. Shoaei, M. Tamaddon, An asynchronous pulse width modulator for DC-DC buck converter, Int. J. Circuit Theory Appl. 48 (2)
(2020) 231–253.
[3] M. Gordon, R. Blickhan, J. Dabiri, J. Videler, Animal Locomotion: Physical Principles and Adaptations, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2017.
[4] D. Sanchez-Valdes, G. Trivino, Computational perceptions of uninterpretable data. A case study on the linguistic modeling of human gait as
a quasi-periodic phenomenon, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 253 (2014) 101–121.
[5] O. Makarenkov, Existence and stability of limit cycles in the model of a planar passive biped walking down a slope, Proc. R. Soc. A 476 (2233)
(2020) 1–17.
[6] W.-L. Ma, N. Csomay-Shanklin, A.D. Ames, Coupled control systems: periodic orbit generation with application to quadrupedal locomotion,
IEEE Control Syst. Lett. 5 (3) (2021) 935–940.
[7] M. Reyhanoglu, A. van der Schaft, N. McClamroch, N. Kolmanovsky, Dynamics and control of a class of underactuated mechanical systems,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 44 (9) (1999) 1663–1671.
[8] M. Yue, C. An, Y. Du, J. Sun, Indirect adaptive fuzzy control for a nonholonomic/underactuated wheeled inverted pendulum vehicle based on
a data-driven trajectory planner, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 290 (2016) 158–177.
[9] F. López, O. Santos-Estudillo, G. Valencia-Palomo, S.G.-P. nate, C. Hernández-Gutierrez, Robust qLPV tracking fault-tolerant control of a 3
DOF mechanical crane, Math. Comput. Appl. 25 (48) (2020) 1–12.
[10] A. Alifov, K. Frolov, Interaction of Nonlinear Oscillatory Systems with Energy Sources, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York,
1990.
[11] A. Shiriaev, J.W. Perram, C. Canudas-de-Wit, Constructive tool for orbital stabilization of underactuated nonlinear systems: virtual constraints
approach, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 50 (8) (2005) 1164–1176.
[12] L.T. Aguilar, I. Boiko, L. Fridman, R. Iriarte, Self-Oscillations in Dynamic Systems: A New Methodology via Two-Relay Controllers,
Springer, 2015.
[13] A.R. Hakimi, T. Binazadeh, Stable limit cycles generating in a class of uncertain nonlinear systems: application in inertia pendulum, Modares
J. Electr. Eng. 12 (3) (2015) 1–6.
[14] K. Patra, B. Pati, A. Łozowicki, Structural formulation and self-oscillation prediction in multidimensional nonlinear closed-loop autonomous
systems, Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 9 (2) (1999) 327–346.
[15] I. Boiko, Discontinuous Control Systems: Frequency-Domain Analysis and Design, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2009.
[16] E. Kim, H. Lee, M. Park, Limit-cycle prediction of a fuzzy control system based on describing function method, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.
8 (1) (2000) 11–22.
[17] P.J. Prieto, N.R. Cazarez-Castro, L.T. Aguilar, S.L. Cardenas-Maciel, Chattering existence and attenuation in fuzzy-based sliding mode control,
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 61 (2017) 152–160.
[18] Z. Wang, Y. Yuan, H. Yang, Adaptive fuzzy tracking control for strict-feedback Markov jumping nonlinear systems with actuator failures and
unmodeled dynamics, IEEE Trans. Cybern. 50 (1) (2018) 126–139.
[19] O. Kuljača, S. Tešnjak, Z. Vukić, Describing function of Mamdani type fuzzy regulator with input signals derived from single system input
and singleton output membership functions, in: IEEE Hong Kong Symposium on Robotics and Control, 1999.
[20] Z. Vukic, Nonlinear Control Systems, CRC Press, 2003.
[21] J. Aracil, F. Gordillo, Describing function method for stability analysis of PD and PI fuzzy controllers, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 143 (2) (2004)
233–249.
[22] C. Plata, P. Prieto, R. Ramírez-Villalobos, L. Coria, Chaos synchronization for hyperchaotic Lorenz-type system via fuzzy-based sliding-mode
observer, Math. Comput. Appl. 25 (16) (2020) 1–12.
[23] D.F. Jenkins, K.M. Passino, An introduction to nonlinear analysis of fuzzy control systems, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 7 (1) (1999) 75–103.
[24] O. Kuljaca, L. Kuljaca, Z. Vukic, S. Bruno, Fuzzy controller for elimination of the nonlinear resonance phenomenon, in: Proceedings of 10th
Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation–MED2002, Lisbon, Portugal, 2002.
[25] I. Fantoni, R. Lozano, Nonlinear Control for Underactuated Mechanical Systems, Springer, London, 2012.
[26] C. Aguilar-Avelar, J. Moreno-Valenzuela, A composite controller for trajectory tracking applied to the Furuta pendulum, ISA Trans. 57 (2015)
286–294.
[27] J.-J. Slotine, W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1991.
[28] D. Atherton, D. Towill, Nonlinear control engineering-describing function analysis and design, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 7 (9) (1977)
678.
44
[29] W.E. Vander Velde, Multiple-Input Describing Functions and Nonlinear System Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
[30] G. Cahen, Perturbations des oscillateurs filtres, C. R. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 235 (25) (1952) 1614–1617.
[31] A. Murgan, A general stability criterion of the oscillations in nonlinear systems, Proc. IEEE 59 (1) (1971) 78–79.
[32] Quanser, Rotary Pendulum (ROTPEN) Inverted Pendulum Trainer, Quanser Inc., 119 Spy Court Markham, Ontario L3R 5H6, Canada, 2011.
[33] L. Aguilar, I. Boiko, L. Fridman, R. Iriarte, Output excitation via continuous sliding-modes to generate periodic motion in underactuated
systems, in: Conference on Decision and Control, San Diego, USA, 2006, pp. 1629–1634.
45

Self Excited Periodic Motion in Underactuated Mechanical S - 2022 - Fuzzy Sets A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self Excited Periodic Motion in Underactuated Mechanical S - 2022 - Fuzzy Sets A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Self-excited periodic motion in underactuated mechanical systems

2. Dynamic model and problem statement

Let us consider the following n-degrees-of-freedom Euler-Lagrange system:

M(q(t))q̈(t) + h(q(t), q̇(t)) = Gu(t) (1)

ẋ(t) = f (x(t)) + g(x(t))u(t) (2)

2.1. Problem statement

The problem is formally stated as follows. Let

y(t) = ξ(x(t)) (4)

u(t) = ψ(x(t)) (5)

yss (t + T ) = yss (t), t ≥ 0, (6)

3. Describing function method

G(s) = C(sI − A)−1 B (9)

C1) A single nonlinear component ψ(x) exists.

Fig. 2. Nyquist and describing function intersection.

4. Two-fuzzy inference system design

Let us consider the fuzzy inference system

ψ(x(t)) = ψ1 (x1 (t)) + ψ2 (x2 (t)), (18)

Fig. 3. Fuzzy feedback system.

• i (xl ) is globally Lipschitz continuous and bounded.

5. 2-FIS describing function design

5.1. Existence of limit cycles

Re {G(j ω)} + Im {G(j ω)} =

5.2. Limit cycle stability

Proof. From (43), we have

6. Study case: a single link-pendulum

Consider the state-space representation of a linearized dynamic model of a simple pendulum

Fig. 5. Single-link pendulum physical diagram.

6.1. Numerical verification

6.2. Experimental verification

7. Study case: a rotary inverted pendulum (Furuta pendulum)

τ (t) = ψ(x(t)) + Kx(t) (52)

Fig. 9. Pendulum physical draw.

Fig. 10. Furuta pendulum experimental platform.

7.1. Simulation results

Pendulum mass (Mp ) 0.027 Kg

7.2. Experimental results

Declaration of competing interest

You might also like

• i (xl ) is globally Lipschitz continuous and bounded.