Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference
DSCC2011
October 31 - November 2, 2011, Arlington, VA, USA
INTEGRATED PLANT AND CONTROLLER DESIGN OF A COMBINE HARVESTER SYSTEM
Yangmin Xie
Mechanical Science and Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL 61801
xie3@illinois.edu
ABSTRACT
This article proposes a plant and controller design method
based on performance analysis of a header height control
problem on a combine harvester. The achievable bandwidth
was found to be limited by the under-actuated and non-
collocated features of the mechanical structure, and a
parameter optimization is then applied to solve this problem by
improving the property of open loop zeros and poles. H∞
controller design is used to achieve the best performance with
the considerations of tracking bandwidth, disturbance rejection
and control energy. The simulation results show that this
approach can obtain relatively high closed loop bandwidth
which surpasses the bandwidth limitation of the original plant.
The simulation of tracking comparison also shows that the
integrated plant and controller design generate a superior
system response.
NOMENCLATURE
mcom combine body mass.
mh header mass.
dw wheel distance between front and rear tires.
t damping ratio of front and rear tires.
k spr _ t ratio of tire spring constant to the initial value
h header height.
lc hydraulic cylinder length
I. INTRODUCTION
The closed loop system performance of mechanical
systems is influenced by the plant dynamics which are
determined by the topology of the mechanical structure, the
parameters of the components, the placement of sensors and
actuators, the choice of the materials, and other design features
[1]. However, many agriculture machines were designed
1 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
DSCC2011-5959
Andrew Alleyne
Mechanical Science and Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL 61801
alleyne@illinois.edu
decades ago, when the requirements from automation were not
considered. Therefore, when automatic technologies are applied
to improve the efficiency and accuracy on such legacy designs,
the plant dynamics can place obstacles to achieving a desired
performance. The header height control discussed in this paper
is an example of such a problem.
Combine body
Hydraulic actuator
Header
Sensor
Header height
FIGURE 1 COMBINE SYSTEM
The header height control problem is a long standing issue
in the combine harvester industry. It has been estimated that
approximately 75% of the crop loss occurs at the header [2],
and a significant portion of the header loss is caused by
improper setting of the header height. Figure 1 shows a
schematic of a combine harvester system operating in the
vertical plane. The header height is defined as the distance
between the header tip and ground. If the header height is too
large, there is a reduction in harvest yield since much of the
grains will be left un-harvested. Conversely, if the header is
positioned too low, equipment damage or operator fatigue will
result due to the impact with the ground. By raising or lowering
the header with an actuator, usually hydraulic, the header height
can be adjusted.
 Although some feedback controllers have been studied to gravity). The corresponding three generalized coordinates are
improve the header height control performance [3] [4], the denoted as qT   q1T , q2T  , where q1  R1 and q2  R 2 [11].
inherent properties of the plant dynamics limit the achievable
performance [5]. The general optimal controllers – such as the The dynamic equations of the 3 DOF system can be written as
LQR (linear quadratic regulation) controller, H∞/H2 robust Eq. (1) and (2) [12]. The output sensor is installed on the header
controller, MPC (model predictive controller) – can offer the tip to measure the header height with respect to the ground.
best solution for the problem under certain constraints and Therefore the sensor is non-collocated with the actuator, yet is
criteria, but the optimized performance may still not satisfy the influenced by all 3 DOFs.
requirements in tasks due to the undesirable properties of the M1 1q 
1 M 1 2q2 h1 0 1 (1)
plant [6]. To understand how the performance is restricted by M 21q1  M 22 q2  h2  2   (2)
the plant dynamics, relationships between the plant features and
the achievable performance need to be studied, which has been
called achievable performance analysis [7] or controllability
analysis [8]. According to [5], the plant transfer function in z
header height control has lightly damped and low frequency x A
zeros and poles due to the under-actuated and non-collocated mcomg
properties of its mechanical structure, which causes an upper dw
lc
limitation to the closed loop bandwidth. To eliminate this
problem, a significant change of the mechanical structure is ζt Kspr_t
mhg
desired, but realistically, it might not be practical or economic h
to make major changes to the current system design.
Therefore, parameter design for the plant, which preserves FIGURE 2 SCHEMATIC OF THE COMBINE SYSTEM
the topology of the mechanical system and improves the plant
dynamics by adjusting some parameters of mechanical For details of the modeling and linearization of the
components, is pursued in this paper to mediate the problem mechanical system, the reader is referred to [5]. If a force input
with minor changes. During the parameter design process, a
to the plant is assumed, the general transfer function for such an
fixed controller will be used to evaluate how the parameters
under-actuated and non-collocated multi-body system is given
influence the closed loop performance and to optimize the
in [5] as Eq. (3).
design. Then a robust controller is designed for this new plant m
to illustrate the improvement in achievable bandwidth by the k   s  zi  s  zi 
(3)
parameter design. The mixed sensitivity optimization has been P  s   n
i=1

proven to be a practical way to design a robust controller, and   s  p  s  p 

j=1
j j

has been used in multiple fields such as vehicle control [9] and
aircraft [10], so it is adopted in this paper for the robust
controller design.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
briefly introduces the model of the system and discusses the
limitation caused by mechanical structure. Section III presents
the parameter design process. Section IV introduces the
controller design and the comparison of the closed loop
performance between the original plant and the plant obtained
in section III. Section V gives the conclusions.
II. MODELING AND LIMITATION ANALYSIS
The combine system is simplified as a planar multi-body
system shown in Figure 2, which contains two rigid bodies: the
combine body and the header. The tires connecting the body to
the ground are modeled as spring-damper systems, and the only
actuator is installed between the header and combine body. This
where n is the number of the total DOF, m is the number of
passive DOF, zi , zi are zeros, p j , p j are the poles corresponding
to the natural frequency and damping ratio of the n DOF.
After linearizing the equations at a certain equilibrium point,
the open-loop transfer function from cylinder velocity input to
output height is given by Eq. (4) [5]. It has an order of 5 instead
of 6 by Eq. (3). The reason is that in Eq. (3) we assumed the
input to the plant is a force corresponding to a pressure control
valve in the electro-hydraulic system; however, in the
experimental combine system, the hydraulic actuator outputs a
velocity by flow control valves. Since there were two
integrators in the denominator with a force input [4], one of
them is cancelled by the derivative relationship between a
force input and a velocity input, which results a 5th order
system in this specific case.
2
k   s  zi  s  zi 
 h (t )  (4)
Pcom  s   L   2
i=1

gives an under-actuated system with three degrees of freedom  lc  s  s  p  s  p 

 j j
(DOF): one active DOF (rotation joint between header and j=1

combine body) and two passive ones (the combine body Using the data from a test combine in [5], the zeros and poles
rotation and vertical translation relative to the center of locations can be obtained in Figure 3. The transfer function

2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 represents a minimum phase system, but the zeros and poles perfect tracking using large gain is therefore not feasible in the
have low frequencies and small damping ratios (Table 1). When feedback controller design.
an output feedback control as Figure 4 is applied, such zeros
and poles could cause performance limitation as will be Terrain Controller Compensator Plant Header
Shape Gain
discussed below. C ( s) is the compensator with the form of Eq. Height

r + Kc y
(5) , and K c is the controller gain. - C ( s) Pcom ( s )

TABLE 1. ZEROS AND POLES PROPERTIES FOR CURRENT

PRODUCT
Damping FIGURE 4 OUTPUT FEEDBACK SCHEMATIC
Zeros/Poles Natural frequency
ratio
i  nzc
z1 , z1 2 0.115   s  zc,i  (5)
i 1
C ( s)  j  n pc
z2 , z2 1.84 0.0891
  s  pc,i 
j 1
p1 , p1 2 0.11 The relationship between the controller gain and the
p2 , p2 achievable bandwidth of an open loop system was studied in
1.5 0.067
[1], which is shown in Eq. (6). The equation implies that the
only requirement for C ( s) is to satisfy the phase margin  m ,
and required controller gain K c is only associated with the
15 plant dynamics. Consider the open loop system in Eq. (4) with
zeros zeros and poles located as in Figure 3. With   1 and
poles
10
m  45 , the achievable crossover frequency for the test
combine has the relationship with K c as Figure 5.
Imaginary axis

e

  m arg P igc  
0 Kc  (6)

P igc 
-5
where  is a coefficient close to 1,  m is the desired phase
-10 margin, gc is the gain crossover frequency, and P is the plant
transfer function.
-15
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5
50
Real axis
required controller gain

FIGURE 3 INTITIAL ZEROS POLES DISTRIBUTION 40 Due to the four zeros

and the non-trivial
poles
In an output feedback approach as in Figure 4, it is well 30
known that non-minimum phase system can cause fundamental
20
limitations for closed loop performance [13] [14]; However,
zeros and poles in the left half plane may also cause control 10
problems when some practical factors are taken into account. If
there are not any constraints in a minimum phase system, 0
-1 0 1 2
meaning no actuator limitation, model uncertainty, 10 10 10 10
measurement noise nor disturbance, the perfect tracking can be Achievable crossover frequency (rad/s)
obtained by plant inversion using large gain feedback FIGURE 5 ACHIEVALBE BANDWIDTH ANALYSIS FOR
CURRENT SYSTEM
controller. However, the ability of actuators in real machine is
It is shown in Figure 5 that if we want to achieve a
always limited, especially for heavy loading tasks such as the
bandwidth higher than the natural frequency of the zeros and
header height control. During the header height control, the
non-trivial poles, the controller gain K c needs to be more than
hydraulic actuator needs to operate a header with a mass over
5000 kg, and thus high speed of the hydraulic cylinder is not one order larger compared to those with bandwidth below this
achievable due to such a large load. The ideal way to get a frequency. This phenomenon is caused by the lightly damping
properties of the zeros and poles because the magnitude and

3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 phase plots have large sharp spikes and notches at the Fixed controller

frequencies corresponding to those zeros and poles. With the r + Kc0 C0 ( s )

y
Pcom ( s )
constraints imposed by the hydraulic actuator, such a large gain -
can cause serious input saturation, which could significantly
deteriorate performance and even induce instability. Therefore,
in the header height control problem the position of zeros and FIGURE 6 PARAMETER DESIGN FOR PLANT
poles place an upper limitation on the achievable bandwidth of
feedback control at 1.5 Hz, no matter how the compensator TABLE 2. PARAMETERS TO BE DESIGNED
C ( s ) is designed.
Lower Upper Initial Final Variation
Parameters
bound bound value value (%)
III. CONTROL OBJECTIVE PARAMETER DESIGN
By the discussion in previous section, the plant dynamics mh (kg) 4500 10000 5000 4500 -10%
limits the achievable bandwidth, which can only be improved
by redesigning the system in some way. The most common d w (m) 2.8 4.2 3.5 2.8 -20%
approaches are to change the mechanical topology, the sensor
and actuator placement, or the parameters of some components t 0.05 1 0.1 0.6155 515.5%
in the current system. Since the undesirable locations of the
kspr _ t 0.1 20 1 0.5043 -49.57%
zeros and poles are inherently caused by the mechanical
structure features, the first two solutions may be more capable
of eliminating the performance limitation. However, the latter In order to formalize the design criterion, we can consider a
one causes the smallest change to the current product and thus tracking problem where the setpoint of the reference is a unit
may require the least cost. If by this way the achievable step. There will be no steady state error due to the integrator in
bandwidth can satisfy the task requirements, parameter the plant. Then the cost function is given by Eq. (8). Because
redesign is then a relatively economical way to solve the we care primarily about how the parameters  influence the
problem, and thus it is pursued in this paper. positions of transmission zeros and poles in the parameter
There are two main principles for choosing the design design process, a cheap control is assumed when choosing the
parameters: they should have considerable influence on the cost function.
plant dynamics, and the corresponding physical change of the 
J 1     e  , t  dt
2
parameters in the current product should be achievable. As it is (8)
discussed in [5] the most influential factor to the position of 0

where   mh d w  t kspr _ t  and e  , t  is the simulated

zeros and poles in the header height control problem is the
dynamics of the combine body, which is closely related to the
wheel distance ( d w ), damping (  t )and rigidity ( kspr _ t )of the
tires (Figure 2). On the other hand, head mass mh affects mass
ratio between the header and the combine body, which also
influence the interactive dynamics between the two bodies.
These give us four parameters to design as shown in Table 2.
All four parameters can be physically adjusted by relatively
“minor change”. For example, one can tune the damping and
spring rigidity of the combine body dynamics by adding an
extra suspension or shock absorber system between the
combine body and tires.
The plant is designed by optimizing closed loop performance
with a fixed controller (Figure 6). By observing the form of the
plant transfer function Eq. (4), it is a „lag‟ system due to the
integrator; hence a lead compensator can be used to improve
the closed loop stability. The fixed controller in Figure 6 is
chosen as a simple PD controller in Eq. (7) to offer some phase
lead to the loop transfer function.
Kc 0  1, C0 ( s)  s  1 (7)
T
tracking error when the plant is with the parameter  .
The relationship between design parameters  and the cost
function is highly nonlinear and the value of  is constrained
(Table 2). Therefore, we use the numerical optimization
function „fmincon‟ in Matlab, which is a solver for constrained
nonlinear multivariable optimization problems, to obtain a local
minimum for J 1 . The convergence of J 1 is shown in Figure 7 ,
where it decreases to half of the original value. The optimal
solution for the parameters is shown in Table 2, which implies
shorter wheel distance, lighter header and more damped
suspension system can help to improve the closed loop
performance even if the same controller is used.
The plant transfer function Pcom*
 s  corresponding to  * is
shown in Eq. (9); the zero and pole positions are compared to
the original ones in Figure 8. The result shows that the damping
ratios increase significantly with respect to the original plant
(Table 3). The achievable bandwidth is analyzed again in
Figure 9. Compared to Figure 5, the zeros and poles do not
cause a sharp increase in the required gain, and thus the same
actuator can achieve higher bandwidth on this new plant.

4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 3.6  s  10.59  5.58i  s  3.84  6.26i  (9)
*
Pcom s  50
s  s  8.16  6.13i  s  2.2  5.47i 

required controller gain

40
500

30
450
20
400
cost function J1

10
350
0
-1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
300
Achievable crossover frequency (rad/s)
FIGURE 9 ACHIEVALBE BANDWIDTH ANALYSIS FOR
250
DESIGNED SYSTEM
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 IV. CONTROL DESIGN AND PERFORAMANCE
iteration COMPARISON
FIGURE 7 CONVERGENCE OF J1 The controller used in previous section is chosen by simple
analysis; therefore, a robust controller will be designed in this
TABLE 3. ZEROS AND POLES PROPERTIES FOR section to further improve the closed loop performance. The
DESIGNED PRODUCT *
plant is fixed to be the optimal transfer function Pcom  s  in Eq.
Undamped natural Damping (9), while the controller Gc is to be designed (Figure 10).
Zeros/Poles
frequency ratio
Fixed plant

z1 , z1 3.6 0.47 r + y
Gc (s)
*
Pcom  s
-
z2 , z2 1.2 0.52

p1 , p1 1.63 0.8
FIGURE 10 PARAMETER DESIGN FOR PLANT
p2 , p2 1 0.37
The model uncertainty can be estimated by experiments
and system identifications under different operating conditions.
In this paper, we assume a normalized model uncertainty with
its infinite norm smaller than 1. Then an H  controller can be
15 original zeros
original poles used to balance the tradeoff among three frequency domain
zeros after design criteria: robustness, performance and control effort [15]. These
10 poles after design
three design goals can be achieved by a mixed sensitivity
method by evaluating the three key terms in Eq. (10): weighted
5
complementary sensitivity function WI T , weighted sensitivity
Imaginary axis

0
function WP S and control effort constraint Wu Gc S .

WP S
-5
N  Wu Gc S (10)


-10 WI T 

The three weight transfer functions can be defined to

-15
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
specify the performance requirements. To achieve good
Real axis tracking performance, 1/ WI needs to have magnitude close to 1
in low frequency, and its bandwidth is slightly higher than the
FIGURE 8 ZEROS AND POLES POSITION COMPARISON
tracking bandwidth. By such consideration, WI is chosen to be
as Eq. (11) with bandwidth 3.6 Hz. To achieve disturbance
rejection, WP needs to have high magnitude in low frequency,
and its crossover frequency gives the disturbance rejection
bandwidth needed. WP is thus chosen as Eq. (12) . 1/ Wu

5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 gives an upper limit for the magnitude of Gc S (transfer
function from the reference to the input); here Wu is chosen to
be 0.1, which means the magnitude of Gc S is required to be
lower than 20dB in all frequency ranges.
To evaluate the improvement by the parameter design, the
same procedure of robust controller design is applied on the
original system Pcom 0
 s  for comparison purpose. The
controller design results are shown in Figure 12. S0* and T0*

 0.04s  1 still satisfy the design requirements, but Gc0 S0* slightly violates
WI  (11)
 0.01s  0.95 the constraint of 20dB. The magnitude plot of T0* has a sharp
 s  10  drop at 1.5Hz, which is caused by the lightly damped zeros and
WP  (12)
 3.3s  1.2 
0
poles in Pcom  s  as discussed in Section II. Consequently, the
According to the small gain theorem, the minimized H  tracking bandwidth is limited to be 1.5Hz.
norm of Eq. (10) needs to be smaller than 1 to satisfy the three
design goals; otherwise it implies that one or more of the three 20
terms are violated. Since the trivial poles cause numerical
problem during the optimization process, the integrator in 0
*
Pcom  s  is replaced by a pole equal to 0.1. A solution Gc (Eq.

Magnitude(dB)
-20
(13)) is then obtained by standard robust synthesis which seeks
to find the smallest norm of Eq. (10). The resulting S  , T  , -40
T0*
GcS  and their relationships with the design constraints are -60 1 / WI
shown in Figure 11. It can be seen that they all satisfy the Gc0*S*
design requirement and the tracking bandwidth is 2.18Hz, -80
which is higher than the frequency limitation of the original S0*
-100
system. 1 / WP

s 7  a6 s 6   a1s  a0 -120
Gc  (13) 10
-2
10
0
10
2
10
4
s 7  b6 s 6   b1s  b0
Frequency(rad/sec)
where
[ a6 a5 a4 a3 a2 a1 a0 ]
 [4.8e3 6.8e4 1.4e6 1.4e7 8.6e7 6.5e8 3.2e7]
FIGURE 12 ROBUST CONTROL DESIGN FOR Pcom  s 
0
[b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0 ]
 [1.6e3 3e4 6.3e5 8.2e6 6.2e7 5.3e8 4.7e8]

1.4
20
Step response of T*
0 1.2 Step response of T* 0

-20
Magnitude(dB)

1
Header height (m)

1.4
-40 T1_real
T2_real
0.8 1.2

-60 T*
1 / WI 1
Header height (m)

-80 G*c S* 0.6 0.8

S* 0.6
-100 1 / WP 0.4
0.4

-120
-2 0 2 4 0.2
10 10 10 10 0.2
Frequency(rad/sec) 0
0 1 2 3
Time (sec)
4 5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
FIGURE 11 ROBUST CONTROL DESIGN FOR P
*
com s Time (sec)
FIGURE 13 STEP RESPONSES COMPARISION

6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 To compare the „best‟ performances of robust controller
design for the original plant and the plant designed in Section
III, time domain responses of the two closed loop transfer
functions T  and T0* are shown in Figure 13. It is obvious that
the designed plant responds to the references much faster and
the vibration is eliminated compared to the response of original
plant. It is vital for the controller to be capable of quickly
response to fast changing signals because it implies the system
is able to work on complex terrain shape and drive fast.
V. CONLCUSION
The header height control performance is restricted by the
mechanical structural properties. The lightly damped and low
frequency zeros and poles in the plant transfer function places
an upper limitation to the achievable closed loop bandwidth at
1.5 Hz. To alleviate this problem, some parameters in the
mechanical system are selected and optimized based on closed
loop performance evaluation. The parameters are calculated to
minimize the RMS of the tracking error in a step response.
Through such parameter redesign, the zeros and poles of the
new plant move away from the imaginary axis and obtain much
larger damping ratio than the original plant.
A H  controller is then used for the new plant to further
improve the performance. By a mixed sensitivity optimization
approach, the tracking performance, disturbance rejection and
control effort are balanced to achieve the best performance in
frequency domain. The corresponding closed loop system has a
bandwidth of 2.18 Hz, which proves that the potential for
automatic control to achieve higher bandwidth was improved
by optimizing the parameters of the mechanical system. The
increase of the closed loop bandwidth means that the header
height control can track faster signals and reject disturbances in
higher frequency; as a result, the combine can harvest the crops
at a higher speed yet with less grain loss in the field.
In this paper the plant and controller designs are sequentially
obtained by optimization in separate steps. There is still
improvement space for the closed loop performance. One
potential way is to do iterative design following the same
procedure we proposed in this paper. The controller designed in
one iteration is used as the fixed controller for the plant design
in the next iteration, which cycles the process of plant and
controller design until the requirements are satisfied. Another
way is to combine both the plant and controller design in one
single step, in which case the increased dimension of
optimization variables could provide more ability to further
decrease the cost function. Both ways should be able to achieve
an even better tracking and disturbance rejection performance
for the header height control problem.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the technical and financial support
of Deere & Company.
7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/13/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
REFERENCES
[1] K. J. Astrom, "Assessment of Achievable Performance of
Simple Feedback Loops," International Journal of
Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, vol. 5, pp. 3-19,
1991.
[2] J. L. Glancey, "Analysis of Header Loss from Pod Stripper
Combines in Green Peas," Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research, vol. 68, pp. 1-10, 1997.
[3] G. T. Lopes, P. S.G. Magalhases, and E. G.O. Nobrega,
"Optimal Header Height Control System for Combine
Harvesters," Biosystems Engineering, vol. 81, no. 3, pp.
261-272, 2002.
[4] Y. Xie, A. Alleyne, A. Greer, and D. Dustin, "Header
Height Control of A Combine Harvester System," in
Proceeding of ASME DSCC Dynamic Systems and Control
Conference, Boston, 2010.
[5] Y. Xie, A. Alleyne, A. Greer, and D. Dustin, "Header
height control challenges in a combine harvester system,"
in Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference,
San Diego, 2011.
[6] K. J. Astrom, "Fundamental Limitations of Control System
Performance," in Communications, computation, control
and signal processing, Norwell, MA, 1997, pp. 355-363.
[7] K. Youcef-Toumi, "Modeling, Design, and Control
Integration: A Necessary Step in Mechatronics,"
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 1, no. 1,
pp. 29-38, 1996.
[8] S. Skogestad and I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable Feedback
Control Analysis and Design. West Sussex: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, 2005.
[9] S. Brennan and A. Alleyne, "Dimensionless Robust
Control With Application to Vehicles," IEEE Transactions
on Control Systems Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 624-
630, July 2005.
[10] I. Postlethwaite et al., "Design and Flight Testing of
Various H∞ controllers for the Bell 205 Helicopter,"
Control Engineering Practice, vol. 13, pp. 383-398, 2005.
[11] H. Arai and S. Tachi, "Position Control of a Manipulator
with Passive Joints Using Dynamic Coupling," IEEE
Transitions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 7, no. 4,
Aug. 1991.
[12] M.W. Spong and M. Vidyasagar, Robot Dynamics and
Control. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1989.
[13] J. Freudenberg and D. Looze, "Right half plane poles and
zeros and design tradeoffs in feedback systems," IEEE
Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-30, pp. 555-565, 1985.
[14] J. Chen, L. Qiu, and O. Toker, "Limitations in maximal
tracking accuracy," IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 45,
pp. 326-331, Feb. 2000.
[15] H. Kwakernaak, "Robust control and H∞ - optimization --
Tutorial Paper," Automatica, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 255-273,
1993.