Workspace-Based Model Predictive Control For Cable-Driven Robots

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 38, NO.
4, AUGUST 2022 2577
Workspace-Based Model Predictive Control

for Cable-Driven Robots
Chen Song and Darwin Lau , Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—The control of cable-driven robots is challenging due analysis [9], [10] and control of CDRs compared with bilaterally
to the system’s nonlinearity, actuation redundancy, and the uni- actuated robots [11]. Moreover, CDRs are often redundantly
laterally bounded actuation constraints. To solve this problem, actuated in order to be fully constrained. As a result, the control
a workspace-based model predictive control (W-MPC) scheme is
proposed, which combines the online model predictive control with problem to solve for the cable forces to track desired motions is
offline workspace analysis. Using the workspace, a set of convex challenging due to the system nonlinearity, actuation constraints,
constraints can be generated for a given reference trajectory. This and redundancy.
can then be used to formulate a convex optimization problem As it is difficult to simultaneously tackle these challenges,
for the online W-MPC. Meanwhile, strict recursive feasibility and a cascaded approach comprising two sequential steps is com-
stability are obtained by taking advantage of the predictive feature
of MPC. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed W-MPC, monly used in CDR control. First, the joint control effort is
simulation was performed on a 2-link planar cable-driven robot resolved assuming that the actuation is directly applied at the
and a spatial cable-driven parallel robot for both nominal and joints rather than through cables. This step handles the sys-
non-nominal scenarios. Hardware experiment was also carried out tem nonlinearities, uncertainties, and disturbances, but not the
using a 3 degree-of-freedom planar cable robot. The results show actuation redundancy and constraints. Traditional joint space
that the controller is efficient and effective to perform motion track-
ing with the cable force constraints satisfied despite the existence control methods, such as computed torque control (CTC) [12],
of various model uncertainties. [13], adaptive robust control [14], robust proportional–integral–
derivative (PID) control [15], and sliding-mode control [16],
Index Terms—Cable-driven robot, feedback linearization, model
predictive control, workspace analysis.
can be directly used. The second step resolves the cable forces
from the joint control effort using CDR inverse dynamics algo-
rithms [17]–[19] to ensure that the constraints are satisfied with
I. INTRODUCTION redundancy resolved.
ABLE-DRIVEN robots (CDRs) are systems that rely Although the cascaded scheme is straightforward to imple-
C on cables to provide actuating forces. Compared with
joint-driven robots, CDRs have significantly reduced weight and
ment, its primary drawback is the lack of guarantee such that
the control effort generated from the first step can be executed
inertia. This results in a large potential workspace, and increased by the inverse dynamics of the second step subject to cable
payload and speed capabilities, making it suitable for applica- force constraints (feasibility). One way to address this issue
tions such as large-scale telescopes [1], motion simulation [2], is to consider the cable force constraints in the control effort
heavy-lifting crane [3], building construction [4], and ultrafast generation strategy, hence coupling the two cascaded steps. In
manipulators [5]. Furthermore, multiple link CDRs are used as [20], a CTC with an adjustable force lower bound was studied,
hyperredundant manipulators [6], musculoskeletal robots [7], but only offered very limited benefit in ensuring feasibility. In
and in rehabilitation [8]. [21], a varying gain CTC was proposed, where the gains were
While the cable actuation brings advantages for CDRs, one solved through an optimization problem to ensure feasibility.
major limitation is that it can only provide bounded tensile forces However, the feasibility is achieved at the cost of lower tracking
(unilateral actuation). The lower bound on cable forces avoids performance and possible instability.
cable slackness and the upper bound exists due to the maximum The above works are all reactive control approaches where
capabilities of actuators as well as to avoid cable breakage. These only the tracking error and constraints at the current time in-
constraints on the cable forces create unique challenges in the stance are considered. As a result, there is no guarantee on the
feasibility of the future control steps (recursive feasibility). To
Manuscript received 5 June 2021; revised 30 September 2021; accepted 25 address this, the use of reference governors [22], [23] was pro-
December 2021. Date of publication 2 February 2022; date of current version 8 posed for CDRs [24], [25], where the control reference (setpoint)
August 2022. This work was supported by the Research Grants Council under
Grant 24200516. This paper was recommended for publication by Associate of an unconstrained stabilizing primal controller is modified to
Editor Q. Li and Editor E. Yoshida upon evaluation of the reviewers’ comments. guarantee the recursive feasibility. In practice, a fast feasible
(Corresponding author: Darwin Lau.) setpoint generation is essential to achieve reference tracking.
The authors are with the Department of Mechanical and Automation Engi-
neering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR 999077, China However, the generation of feasible setpoint requires a large
(e-mail: chensong@link.cuhk.edu.hk; darwinlau@cuhk.edu.hk). number of control input calculations and feasibility validations.
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at As such, this approach has only been applied to specific types of
https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2021.3139585.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TRO.2021.3139585 CDRs, such as suspended CDRs with translation motion [24],
1552-3098 © 2022 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Nevada Las Vegas. Downloaded on June 13,2023 at 14:35:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2578 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 38, NO. 4, AUGUST 2022
[25], where an analytical closed-form solution to the primal

controller exists. Hence, it is difficult to apply this method to
CDRs in general.
Given the CDR control requirements, including resolving
actuation redundancy and offering recursive feasibility, model
predictive control (MPC) [26], [27] is a highly suitable candidate
solution. Using MPC, the cable forces can be solved through a
constrained optimization problem to produce a desired tracking
motion within a finite horizon. Due to the nonlinearity of the
CDRs’ equation of motion (EoM), the resulting nonlinear MPC
(NMPC) will be a nonconvex optimization problem that is very
difficult to solve. In [27], a black-box optimizer was used to Fig. 1. Cable-driven robot models. (a) Spatial CDR example. (b) Multi-link
tackle the nonconvexity, where the resulting NMPC cannot be CDR example.
used for real-time control given the huge computational load. In
[28] and [29], a simplified MPC was applied on CDRs where
a constant dynamics model is used through out the horizon, virtual control input. To resolve the nonconvexity caused by the
resulting in a convex optimization problem. However, this sim- cable force constraints, workspace analysis is used to determine
plification relies on the assumption of slow system dynamics, a set of box constraints on the CDR acceleration, velocity
which is not always true. and pose such that the original input constraints can always
Alternatively, in [26] a more systematic approach of approxi- be satisfied. Using the workspace-derived convex sets that are
mating and solving the NMPC as a convex optimization problem computed offline, it is shown that the NMPC can be transformed
was adopted, where the convexification is achieved by linearizing into a linear MPC that can be solved online using quadratic
the EoM about the linearization points [30]. By selecting the programming (QP). The stability and recursive feasibility of
linearization points from the reference trajectory, the linearized W-MPC are also proven. Using CASPR [39], simulations and
MPC is easily derived. Unfortunately, linearized MPC disal- hardware experiment on different CDRs show the characteristics
lows large deviation from reference where large linearization and advantages of the proposed controller.
error may occur, leading to instability or infeasibility [31]. To To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first MPC for
mitigate this problem, sequential quadratic programming (SQP) robotic systems that uses workspace analysis in order to convex-
can be used to recursively solve the NMPC based on the latest ify the optimization problem. This approach brings four major
trajectory prediction [32]. To lower the computational cost, real- advantages. First, recursive feasibility and stability are strictly
time iteration MPC (RTI-MPC) [33] was also applied to CDR guaranteed in nominal case with some inherent robustness in
control [26], with only a single SQP iteration performed using non-nominal cases. Second, the proposed approach is computa-
the prediction from the previous control cycle. Nonetheless, the tionally efficient, requiring only one model evaluation and QP
computational load is still high at each control cycle as multiple solving in each control cycle. In contrast, RTI-MPC needs to
model linearizations and discretizations are required. solve one QP and N (prediction horizon) model discretizations
Feedback linearization (FL) is an alternative approach to con- and linearizations. Third, different types of workspace can be
vexify NMPC [34]. In FL, the feedback linearizable nonlinear incorporated, such as the interference-free workspace [40]. Fi-
system is converted into a linear time-invariant (LTI) system, nally, the proposed novel framework can be potentially applied
using the associated state diffeomorphism and nonlinear state on other types of robotic systems.
feedback. While FL is widely used in the unconstrained non- The remainder of the article is organized as follows. Section II
linear control problems, its application in constrained control, introduces the required background. The W-MPC framework
such as MPC, is still limited mainly due to the reintroduction is proposed in Section III, followed by detailed derivation of
of nonlinearity in some inequality constraints, such as the in- the workspace for W-MPC in Section IV. The effectiveness
put constraints, which often results in a nonconvex optimiza- of W-MPC is demonstrated through extensive simulations in
tion problem. In order to restore convexity, various constraint Section V as well as hardware validation in Section VI. Based
convexification approaches have been proposed, including the on the results, discussions on the performance and features of
prediction based convexification [35], [36] and the reachable W-MPC are given in Section VII. Section VIII concludes this
set-based convexification [37], [38]. The former is generally easy article. To offer theoretical completeness, proofs of stability and
to compute but lacks strict feasibility guarantee, especially when recursive feasibility of the proposed W-MPC are provided in
the actual trajectory deviates too much from the prediction, while Appendix A.
the latter guarantees strict feasibility but is computationally
prohibitive. Despite these, the combination of FL and MPC
offers valuable insights into the convexification of the NMPC II. BACKGROUND
for CDRs.
In this article, a new workspace-based MPC approach (W- A. Cable-Driven Robot Model
MPC) that uses CDR workspace to convexify the NMPC prob- CDRs are composed of a single or multiple rigid bodies, as
lem is proposed. First, the nonlinear system dynamics is con- illustrated in Fig. 1(a) and (b), respectively. The generalized
verted to become LTI by selecting the joint acceleration as the EoM for any CDR with n degrees-of-freedom (DoFs) and m
SONG AND LAU: WORKSPACE-BASED MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL FOR CABLE-DRIVEN ROBOTS 2579
actuating cables can be given in the following form [41]:

M (q) q̈ + c (q, q̇) + g (q) = −L (q) f (1)
where q = [q1 , . . . , qn ] ∈ Rn is the generalized coordinate
corresponding to the system DoFs and f = [f1 , . . . , fm ] ∈ Rm
is the cable force vector composed of forces on each actuating
cables. The terms M ∈ Rn×n , c ∈ Rn and g ∈ Rn are the inertia
matrix, the centrifugal/Coriolis wrench, and the gravitational
wrench, respectively. The Jacobian matrix L ∈ Rm×n defines
the mapping between the cable and joint spaces. The cable force
f is confined by a lower bound f and an upper bound f̄ Fig. 2. Structure of the proposed workspace-based MPC (X , Vc , and Ac define
the required state, joint velocity, and joint acceleration constraints while Pi
f ∈ F := f ∈ Rm | 0 ≤ f ≤ f ≤ f̄ . (2) defines the derived joint pose constraints for a given reference trajectory).
For CDR systems, the control input can be defined as the

For an N step horizon, the horizon prediction for state
cable force vector u = f , and the state as x = (q, q̇), with
and control input at time step k are denoted as Xk =
the parentheses representing vector concatenation1 . The CDR
(xk+1|k , . . . , xk+N |k ) and Uk = (uk|k , . . . , uk+N −1|k ), re-
dynamics can then be described in the state space form
spectively, where xj|k and uj|k are the state and control in-
ẋ = f (x) + G (x) u (3) put of time step j predicted at time step k, respectively. The
state reference for the horizon at time step k is expressed by
u∈F (4)
Xrk = (xrk+1 , . . . , xrk+N ).
x∈X (5) The goal of the MPC is to achieve a good tracking perfor-
mance while satisfying constraints (3), (4), and (5), which can
be formulated into the optimization problem
q̇ minimize Xk − Xrk 2Q + Uk − Urk 2R (7a)
f (x) = Uk
−M−1 (q) [c (q, q̇) + g (q)]
subject to Xk = FN (xk , Uk ) (7b)
0n×m
G (x) = Uk ∈ F N
(7c)
−M−1 (q) L (q)
with 0n×m being an n-by-m zero matrix. In general, the feasible Xk ∈ X N (7d)
state set X is nonconvex and with no closed-form expression. where FN and XN represent the Cartesian products of N constant
sets F and X, respectively, and Urk is the reference control input
B. Model Predictive Control for CDRs sequence and (7b) represents the discrete system dynamics over
MPC is a control method that optimizes the system behavior the horizon
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
within a finite horizon. The MPC optimization problem involves xk+1|k F xk , uk|k
several key components, including an objective function, con- ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ xk+2|k ⎥ ⎢ F xk+1|k , uk+1|k ⎥
straints on the system dynamics (EoM constraints) and cable ⎢ . ⎥=⎢ ⎥ := FN (xk , Uk ) .
⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ .. ⎥
forces (input constraints), and state constraints. From a compu- ⎣ . ⎦ ⎣ . ⎦
tational perspective, the system model should be discrete so that xk+N |k F xk+N −1|k , uk+N −1|k
the number of optimizing variables is tractable. Considering a
time interval Δt, the state at time step k (with the corresponding Problem (7) is classified as nonlinear MPC and is nonconvex
time tk = k · Δt) can be expressed as xk = (qk , q̇k ), where qk due to the nonlinear equality constraint (7b).
and q̇k are the joint pose and velocity, respectively. The input uk
corresponds to the cable force fk at time tk . Then, the discretized III. PROPOSED WORKSPACE-BASED MPC
version of (3) can be represented by The proposed W-MPC framework consists of two major com-
ponents (Fig. 2): 1) Online MPC that generates the command
xk+1 = F (xk , uk ) (6)
cable forces by solving a quadratic program; and 2) offline
where F is in general a nonlinear function that needs to be workspace analysis to generate a set of convex constraints for
numerically derived by solving the ordinary differential (3) for the online MPC.
the time interval [tk , tk + Δt]. For the control task, the reference
state that should be tracked by the controller at time step k is A. FL-Inspired MPC for CDRs
denoted as xrk = (qrk , q̇rk ). A major difficulty in solving the NMPC problem (7) is caused
by the nonlinear equality constraint (3). To work around this
1 Vectors are column vectors by default and parentheses denote vertical difficulty, an alternative MPC formulation, which is inspired by
concatenation: (q, q̇) := [q , q̇ ] . FL, can be derived with an LTI system dynamics being used. To
achieve this, a virtual input v is selected as the joint acceleration B. Precomputed Workspace-Based MPC Convexification
v = q̈. Using (1), the actuation mapping from control input f
Since the horizon virtual input constraint (12) is nonconvex
to virtual input v is defined as and the feasible state set X is potentially nonconvex, the con-
vexification process begins with replacing the sets AN (xk , Vk )
v = −M−1 (q) [c (q, q̇) + g (q)] + −M−1 (q) L (q) f .
and X N in (13) with convex sets where
s(x) T(x)
(8) Xk = Axk + BVk
Assuming a constant virtual input within the control interval
Δt, the dynamics becomes LTI, i.e., a discrete double integrator Vk ∈ Ak × · · · × Ak+N −1
Xk ∈ Xk+1 × · · · × Xk+N . (14)
In×n Δt · In×n 1
Δt2 · In×n
xk+1 = xk + 2 vk (9)
0n×n In×n Δt · In×n With sets Ai , Xi+1 , i = k, . . . , k + N − 1 being convex, the
constraints in (14) are convex. In particular, for a given xk , the
Ad Bd
feasible set for vk|k can be defined using (11) as
where vk is the virtual input at time step k. As such, for a given
initial state feedback xk , the state prediction Xk and the virtual Ak = {vk ∈ Rn | Mk vk + ck + gk = −Lk fk , fk ∈ F}
input prediction Vk = (vk|k , . . . , vk+N −1|k ) satisfy (15)
where Mk = M(qk ), ck = c(qk , q̇k ), gk = g(qk ), and Lk =
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
Ad Bd 0 ··· 0 L(qk ).
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ ⎥ However, the convex sets in (14) cannot be arbitrarily chosen,
⎢ Ad ⎥ ⎢ Ad Bd Bd ··· 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Xk = ⎢ . ⎥ x k + ⎢ ⎢ .. ⎥ as they need to be strictly feasible, i.e., all the accelerations in
.. .. .. ⎥ Vk .
⎣ .. ⎦ ⎣ . . . . ⎦ these sets can be feasibly generated using the available cable
ANd ANd
−1
Bd AN d
−2
Bd · · · Bd forces (2), to ensure convexification validity. This inevitably
makes the feasible region defined by (14) a subset of that in (13),
A B such that the convexified constraints are conservative, which
(10)
may result in poor control performance or even infeasibility.
Considering the actuation mapping (8), the cable force con-
To address this, Conditions 1, 2, and 3 are proposed for the
straint (2) becomes a constraint on the virtual input v ∈ A(x),
convexified constraint design.
where A(x) is defined as the virtual input constraint set
Condition 1 (Solution Safety): Solutions feasible to the con-
A (x) = {v ∈ Rn | v = s (x) + T (x) f , ∃f ∈ F} . (11) vexified constraints must also satisfy the original constraints
from (13), i.e., for i = k, . . . , k + N − 1, and Xk = {xk }, the
As such, the virtual input constraints over the entire horizon following holds:
at time step k can be expressed as
Xi+1 ⊂ X (16a)
Vk ∈ A (xk ) × · · · × A xk+N −1|k . (12)
∀x ∈ Xi : Ai ⊂ A (x) . (16b)
:=AN (xk ,Vk )
Condition 2 (Control Feasibility): For a given state feedback
Since by definition AN (xk , Vk ) is nonlinearly dependent on
xk that is close enough to the reference value xrk , the solution
the virtual input horizon Vk , the constraint Vk ∈ AN (xk , Vk )
set for the convexified constraints shall be nonempty.
is generally nonconvex. Finally, similar to the objective function
Condition 3 (Control Stability): For a starting state xk that is
(7a) and the constraints (10), (12), and (7d), the FL-inspired
close enough to the reference value xrk , it is possible to find a
MPC (FLIMPC) can be formulated as
stabilizing control law satisfying the convexified constraints.
minimize Xk − Xrk 2Q + Vk − Vkr 2R The design of the convex sets from (14) to satisfy conditions
Vk 1, 2, and 3 is generally intractable. First, the design of the state
subject to Xk = Axk + BVk constraint sets Xi+1 and virtual input constraint sets Ai are
coupled, see (16), hence requiring an iterative approach. Second,
Vk ∈ AN (xk , Vk ) the convexification needs to be performed online for the specific
Xk ∈ X N (13) feedback xk . Third, Condition 3 requires the consideration of
potential control performance of the convexified MPC in the
where Vkr = (q̈rk , . . . , q̈rk+N −1 ) is the reference virtual input for convexification set design.
the horizon. To address the challenges in designing the convex sets in (14),
Although both the optimization problems (7) and (13) are the following simplifications can be made.
nonconvex, the nonconvexity for the NMPC (7) is due to the 1) The virtual input constraint sets Ai , i ≥ k + 1 are identi-
nonlinear equality constraint, while for the FLIMPC (13), it cal convex sets Ac , i.e., Ai = Ac , i ≥ k + 1.
comes from the nonconvex virtual input set constraints. It will 2) The sets Xi , where (qi , q̇i ) ∈ Xi , will be considered as
be shown that the set constraint of FLIMPC can be easily the Cartesian product of two subspace convex sets Pi
convexified using the workspace of the CDR. and Vc , where qi ∈ Pi , q̇i ∈ Vc , and Xi = Pi × Vc ⊂ X .
Fig. 3. Workspace-based convexification. (a) Online convexification.

(b) Offline convexification.
As such Fig. 4. Feasible pose corridor.
qi ∈ Pi , q̇i ∈ Vc ⇒ (qi , q̇i ) ∈ X . (17)

defined in Definition 2 and illustrated in Fig. 4. Since each hyper-
It should be noted that both Vc and Ac shall be designed by the rectangle in the feasible pose corridor is a maximum workspace
user to represent the allowed motion capability in the prediction hyperrectangle, see Definition 1, centered at the reference point
horizon of MPC, while the pose sets Pi can be subsequently of a certain time step, the adjacent hyperrectangles will largely
derived using the workspace. Based on these simplifications, overlap.
the convexified constraints in (14) can be expressed as Definition 1 (Maximum Workspace Hyperrectangle): For a
Xk = Axk + BVk pose q, the maximum workspace hyperrectangle C(q) is the
largest hyperrectangle inside workspace P centred at q.
Vk ∈ A k × A N
c
−1
Definition 2 (Feasible Pose Corridor): The feasible pose
Xk ∈ Pk+1 × Vc × · · · × Pk+N × Vc . (18) corridor for a reference pose trajectory qri , ∀i ∈ I 2 refers to
the set of maximum hyperrectangles Pi corresponding to each
Similar to conditions (16a) to (16b), the following conditions reference pose qri for a given workspace P. Fig. 4 illustrates the
must be satisfied for the design of the convex sets Ac , Vc , and concept of the feasible pose corridor.
Pi , where i = k + 1, . . . , k + N in (18) Finally, with the feasible pose corridor being used, Condition
Pi × Vc ⊂ X (19a) 4 states the requirements in the design of the sets Vc and Ac to
ensure Conditions 1 to 3 (Theorem 1). It should be noted that
∀x ∈ Pi × Vc : Ac ⊂ A (x) . (19b) the larger the margins in Condition 4 are, the larger deviation
In fact, a largest set P exists satisfying is allowed from reference according to Theorem 1, indicating
a better robustness of the closed-loop system. Additionally, in
P × Vc ⊂ X (20a) Remark 1, a candidate design procedure to guarantee Condition
∀x ∈ P × Vc : Ac ⊂ A (x) . (20b) 4 is introduced.
Condition 4 (Reference Trajectory Safety): Consider a refer-
Set P is effectively a workspace (the W-MPC workspace) ence trajectory qri , q̇ri , q̈ri , i ∈ I, constant sets Vc and Ac , and a
which will be discussed more detailedly in Section IV. The corresponding feasible pose corridor Pi . Positive safety margins
problem of deriving the convexified constraints (19) becomes p, v, a shall exist such that (q̃i := qi − qri )
properly selecting a series of subsets of the W-MPC workspace
¨
Pi ⊂ P. (21) q̃i ∞ ≤ p, q̃˙ i ≤ v, q̃ i ≤ a ⇒ (qi , q̇i , q̈i )
∞ ∞
Principally, the above pose sets Pi , i = k + 1, . . . , k + N ∈ Pi × Vc × Ac

shall be dependent of each other as well as the state feedback xk .
More specifically, consider the initial state set as Xk = {xk } and i.e., the reference trajectory qri , q̇ri , q̈ri stays inside of Pi × Vc ×
the future state sets as Xi = Pi × Vc , i = k + 1, . . . , k + N , Ac with non-zero distance to its boundaries.
Xi shall be within the reachable set [42] of Xi−1 considering Theorem 1 (Workspace-Based Convexification): Let the con-
the linear system (9) and available virtual input set Ac . The vexified constraints take the form of (18) with the pose sets
convexification process is illustrated in Fig. 3(a). selected as the maximum hyperrectangles from the feasible
However, due to the extensive set operations involved in pose corridor. Given that Condition 4 is satisfied, there exists
deriving the reachable sets and the lack of a closed-form rep- a neighborhood xk − xrk ∞ ≤ with > 0 for the initial state
resentation of W-MPC workspace P, the computational load xk such that Conditions 1–3 are satisfied.
to compute Pi , i = k + 1, . . . , k + N is usually too large for Proof: Conditions 1–3 will be discussed separately.
online implementation. To resolve this problem, the concept of
the feasible pose corridor is proposed for the W-MPC, which 2 Set I is a finite integer set {1, 2, . . . , M } with M representing the maximum
is composed of a series of interconnected hyperrectangles, as time step index for a certain reference trajectory.
Condition 1: Since Pi is designed to be a subset of the these sets can be precomputed offline for a given reference
workspace P, (21) and (20) are satisfied, which leads to trajectory. Fig. 3(b) illustrates the schematic for such offline
workspace-based constraint convexification. As will be shown in
Pi × Vc ⊂ P × Vc ⊂ X
the following, the offline generated convex constraints allow the
∀x ∈ Pi × Vc ⊂ P × Vc : Ac ⊂ A (x) . FLIMPC (13) to be efficiently convexified and solved. Details
on the derivation of the workspace P and the convex subsets Pi
Hence, by setting Vi = Vc and Ai = Ac , Condition 1 is
for each time step are given in Section IV.
satisfied.
Condition 2: For state within the local neighborhood xk −
xrk ∞ ≤ , it can be expressed as xk = xrk + x̃k , where C. Workspace-Based MPC Formulation
x̃k ∞ ≤ . Assuming Vk = Vkr ∈ Ak × AN c
−1
, the predicted Theorem 1 and (18) provide a way to convexify the FLIMPC
state error over the horizon becomes problem from (13). By combining (15) and (18), the convexified
Xk − Xrk = A (xrk + x̃k ) + BVkr − Xrk = Ax̃k . constraints can be expressed as
From (9) and (10), A∞ = 1 + N Δt, hence Mk vk|k + ck + gk = −Lk fk , fk ∈ F

Xk − Xrk ∞ ≤ A∞ x̃k ∞ ≤ (1 + N Δt). Xk = Axk + BVk
As a result, Xk ∈ Pk+1 × Vc × · · · × Pk+N × Vc hold for Xk ∈ Pk+1 × Vc × · · · × Pk+N × Vc
a small under Condition 4, which guarantees Condition 2 to
Vk ∈ R n × A N
c
−1
. (23)
hold.
Condition 3: Consider a linear quadratic regulator (LQR) On the other hand, the objective function of the MPC can be
control gain K which defines a control law ṽk = −K · x̃k that constructed by three parts: 1) tracking of reference state over the
guarantees the infinite-horizon optimality [43]. Design horizon; 2) tracking of reference virtual input over the horizon;
Vk = Vkr + Ṽk = Vkr + −Kx̃k , 0, . . . , 0 (22) and 3) cable force effort at the first step of the horizon, resulting
in a convex and quadratic objective
then, the predicted horizon state error becomes
minimize Xk − Xrk 2Q + Vk − Vkr 2R + fk 2H (24)
Xk − Xrk = A (xrk + x̃k ) + B Vkr + Ṽk − Xrk Xk ,Vk ,fk
= Ax̃k − B1 Kx̃k = (A − B1 K) x̃k where Q 0 ∈ R2nN ×2nN is positive semi-definite, and R

0 ∈ RnN ×nN and H 0 ∈ Rm×m are positive definite weights.
where B1 = [(Bd ) (Ad Bd ) · · · (AN d
−1
Bd ) ] . Additionally, to offer recursive feasibility and stability guar-
Since all the elements of the LQR control gain K antee [44], the terminal constraint/cost can also be included in
are finite, ∃η, ξ > 0 : − K∞ ≤ η, A − B1 K∞ ≤ ξ. Con- W-MPC formulation to replace the corresponding terms in (23)
sequently, Vk − Vkr ∞ = − KΔxk ∞ ≤ η · and Xk − and (24), which can be represented by
Xrk ∞ ≤ ξ · , guaranteeing Vk ∈ Ak × AN c
−1
and Xk ∈
Pk+1 × Vc × · · · × Pk+N × Vc to hold for a small if Con- terminal cost: xk+N |k − xrk+N 2P
dition 4 is satisfied. As a result, (22) represents a feasible
terminal constraint: xk+N |k ∈ φk+N (25)
solution to the convexified constraints (18), and the existence
of the optimal control law vk = vkr − K(xk − xrk ) proves with P 0 ∈ R2n×2n being the terminal cost weight and
Condition 3. φk+N ⊂ Pk+N × Vc being the convex terminal constraint set.
Remark 1: To guarantee Condition 4, both the reference Section III-D describes the design of these terminal conditions
trajectory and the sets Vc and Ac need to be carefully designed, (constraints and cost) while Appendix A establishes the recur-
for which the following procedure can be considered. sive feasibility and stability using these conditions.
1) Set margins p, v, a > 0 based on robustness requirements. Finally, the W-MPC can be formulated using (23) and (24)
2) Design reference trajectory qri , q̇ri , q̈ri , i ∈ I with the ref-
erence poses qri safely inside the static workspace [10]. minimize Xk − Xrk 2Q + Vk − Vkr 2R + fk 2H
Xk ,Vk ,fk
3) Design hyperrectangular sets Vc and Ac , guaranteeing
subject to Mk vk|k + ck + gk = −Lk fk , fk ∈ F
˙ ¨
q̃i ≤ v, q̃ i ≤ a ⇒ (q̇i , q̈i ) ∈ Vc × Ac .
∞ ∞ Xk = A xk + B Vk
4) Derive the pose sets Pi and check if the following holds:
Xk ∈ Pk+1 × Vc × · · · × Pk+N −1 × Vc × φk+N
q̃i ∞ ≤ p ⇒ qi ∈ Pi .
Vk ∈ R n × A N
c
−1
If it does, then Condition 4 is satisfied, otherwise (26)

slow down the reference trajectory (to relax the veloc- where
ity/acceleration requirements) and go back to step 3).
It should be noted that the pose sets Pi in the feasible pose Q = diag(Q̃, . . . , Q̃, P), R = diag(R̃, . . . , R̃)

corridor are independent of each other and also of xk . As such, N −1 N
with Q̃ 0 ∈ R2n×2n and R̃ 0 ∈ Rn×n being the weights Ãφ (ρ) for the virtual input error ṽ = v − vr can be defined as
for state error and virtual input error at an individual time step.
While the workspace-based convexification only requires sets Ãφ (ρ) = ṽ ∈ Rn | ṽ = −Kx̃, x̃ ∈ X̃φ (ρ) (31)
Pi , Vc , and Ac to be convex, they are designed/derived as hy-
perrectangles in practice, resulting in linear inequality (bounded) such that once ṽ enters Ãφ (ρ), all the future virtual input errors
constraints, allowing (26) to be formulated as a QP. will remain inside.
Remark 2: Assume that the workspace-based convexification
D. Terminal Constraint/Cost Design in Theorem 1 is used, the terminal conditions (25) for the
proposed W-MPC can be derived as follows.
The design of terminal constraint/cost (25) corresponds to a
1) The weight matrix P in the terminal cost is a symmetric
terminal controller, which is assumed to take over the control
positive definite matrix derived by solving (27).
beyond the MPC horizon (i ≥ k + N ). A common choice for
2) The terminal constraint set φk+N is defined by
the terminal controller is a discrete LQR [45], [46], which is
designed in correspondence to a linear system and a quadratic φk+N = xrk+N ⊕ X̃φ (ρr )
stage cost. Consider the discrete linear system (9) and a stage
cost for any time step i > 0 where ⊕ represents the Minkowski sum and ρr > 0 is the
maximum scalar satisfying
li (xi , vi ) = xi − xri 2Q̃ + vi − vir 2R̃ .
xri ⊕ X̃φ (ρr ) ⊂ Pi × Vc
According to LQR control, a positive definite matrix P and
a feedback gain K can be computed by solving the discrete vir ⊕ Ãφ (ρr ) ⊂ Ac (32)
algebraic Riccati equation
for all time steps i on the trajectory reference. In practice,
−1
P = Ad PAd − (Ad PBd ) R̃ + Bd PBd (Bd PAd ) + Q̃ a convex inner polytope of φk+N can be used to derive
a linear constraint Aφ xk+N |k ≤ bφ to replace xk+N |k ∈
(27)
φk+N .
−1 Lemma 1 (Terminal Control Law Feasibility): By the terminal
K = R̃ + Bd PBd Bd PAd control law (28) and the terminal constraint from Remark 2, for
time step k, the future predictions beyond the horizon satisfy
with a corresponding feedback control law defined by (i ≥ k + N )
vi = κi (xi ) = vir − K (xi − xri ) . (28) xi|k ∈ φi ⊂ Pi × Vc , vi|k = κi xi|k ∈ Ac . (33)
Also considering the well-established properties of LQR Proof: Given that xk+N |k ∈ φk+N , the corresponding state
(Properties 1–3), the corresponding terminal constraint/cost can error at time step k + N satisfies
be derived, as summarized in Remark 2. Lemma 1 shows the
properties of the terminal constraint that are relevant to W-MPC, x̃k+N |k = xk+N |k − xrk+N ∈ X̃φ (ρr ) .
which are used to prove the controller’s recursive feasibility and Moreover, from Properties 2 and 3, for any steps i ≥ k + N
stability in Appendix A. It is worth noting that the terminal
constraint/cost design is closely related to the workspace-based xi|k − xri = x̃i|k ∈ X̃φ (ρr )
convexification with sets Pi , Vc , and Ac used.
Property 1 (LQR Optimality): Applying the control law (28) vi|k − vir = ṽi|k ∈ Ãφ (ρr ) .
to LTI system (9) results in the following relationship: Since (32) holds and the virtual input is assumed to be always
Vi (xi ) = Vi+1 (xi+1 ) + li (xi , vi ) determined by (28), then (33) is satisfied.
with xi+1 = Ad xi + Bd κi (xi ), vi = κi (xi ), and Vi (xi ) rep- IV. W-MPC WORKSPACE AND FEASIBLE POSE
resenting an infinite horizon cost at time step i CORRIDOR GENERATION
∞
For the W-MPC workspace P satisfying (20), it is possible to
Vi (xi ) = xi − xri 2P = lj (xj , vj ) . (29)
come up with conditions to check if a pose q is inside P
j=i
Property 2 (LQR Stability and Invariant Set): For LTI sys- conds (q) ∧ condi (q) ⇐⇒ q ∈ P
tem (9), the LQR (28) is asymptotically stable in tracking the with conds (q) and condi (q) being conditions related to the
reference trajectory. Moreover, there exists an invariant set state and virtual input constraints, respectively, and

X̃φ (ρ) = x̃ ∈ R2n | x̃2P ≤ ρ (30)
conds (q) ⇐⇒ ∀q̇ ∈ Vc : (q, q̇) ∈ X
for the tracking error x̃ = x − xr with ρ > 0 such that once x̃ condi (q) ⇐⇒ ∀q̇ ∈ Vc : Ac ⊂ A (q, q̇) = A (x) . (34)
enters X̃φ (ρ), it will remain inside.
Property 3 (LQR Input Boundedness): For a tracking error In practice, it can be computationally difficult to verify the
invariant set X̃φ (ρ) with ρ > 0, a corresponding invariant set above conditions due to the infinite number of possible q̇. Hence,
instead of using (34), easily verifiable forms of conds (q) and where wr (q, q̇, q̈) is the required wrench to produce q̈ at (q, q̇)
condi (q) can be designed to guarantee
wr (q, q̇, q̈) = M (q) q̈ + c (q, q̇) + g (q) .
conds (q) ⇒ ∀q̇ ∈ Vc : (q, q̇) ∈ X (35a)
For a given q, a required wrench set Wr (q) can be defined by
condi (q) ⇒ ∀q̇ ∈ Vc : Ac ⊂ A (q, q̇) . (35b)
Wr (q) = {w ∈ Rn | w = wr (q, q̇, q̈) , ∃ (q̇, q̈) ∈ Vc × Ac }
One consequence of using (35) is that the combined feasibility
condition will be conservative, which only guarantees covering the necessary wrenches for (36) to hold at pose q.
On the other hand, the actuation constraint f ∈ F results in an
conds (q) ∧ condi (q) ⇒ q ∈ P.
available wrench set
Although it is possible to derive an estimation of set P using
Wa (q) = {w ∈ Rn | w = −L (q) f , ∃f ∈ F} .
these conditions, the result is most likely nonconvex and will
not be directly used to formulate W-MPC. Alternatively, hyper- Consequently, (37) can be equivalently expressed as
rectangular subsets (Definition 1) are derived using a point-wise
method, which can be further combined into the feasible pose Wr (q) ⊂ Wa (q) . (38)
corridor (Definition 2) for a given trajectory. In general, verifying continuous set inclusion S1 ⊂ S2 is still
an intractable problem unless both S1 and S2 are convex. In
A. State Workspace Constraint (conds ) fact, for computational efficiency and algorithm generality, it is
The feasible state set X from (35a) is a state-space region desirable for S1 to be a convex polytope, in which case
confining both joint pose and velocity, and arises from vari-
S1 ⊂ S2 ⇐⇒ vertex (S1 ) ⊂ S2
ous state constraints as required by the specific problem. Two
common examples include the workspace considering no cable with vertex(·) representing the vertices of the given convex
interference and the satisfaction of cable velocity bounds. polytope. In this particular case, while Wa (q) is a convex
1) Cable Interference Avoidance: For CDRs, avoiding zonotope [48], [49], Wr (q) is typically nonconvex for non-zero
cable–cable collisions is important. As shown in [40], the cable centrifugal/Coriolis terms c(q, q̇) and hence condition (38) can-
interference-free condition can be formulated into a closed-form not be easily verified. However, by deriving a convex polytope
function of the joint pose and can be used to verify conds (q), Wro (q) that is a superset of Wr (q), an easily verifiable sufficient
where condition for (38) can be defined

1, no cable interference
conds (q) = Wro (q) ⊂ Wa (q) ⇐⇒ vertex (Wro (q)) ⊂ Wa (q) .
0, cable interference
(39)
2) Cable Velocity Bound: Since the actuating cables in CDRs In order to derive Wro (q), the following decomposition of
are typically driven by motors, cable velocity bounds exist, Wr (q) will be considered:
which can be denoted by l̇min and l̇max for the minimum
and maximum cable velocity vectors, respectively. Using the Wr (q) = WA (q) ⊕ WV (q) ⊕ g (q)
twist feasible condition proposed in [47], the satisfaction of the where
desired joint velocity set q̇ ∈ Vc can be computed by evaluating
WA (q) = {w ∈ Rn | w = M (q) q̈, ∃q̈ ∈ Ac }
1, Vc ⊂ T (q)
conds (q) =
0, otherwise WV (q) = {w ∈ Rn | w = c (q, q̇) , ∃q̇ ∈ Vc } .
Since Vc and Ac are convex polytopes, the only potentially
where T (q) = {q̇ ∈ Rn | l̇min ≤ L(q)q̇ ≤ l̇max }.
nonconvex set is WV (q), an image of a nonlinear mapping of
the set Vc . Hence, the key to finding Wro (q) is to obtain a convex
B. Dynamic Feasible Workspace Constraint (condi )
superset of WV (q). To achieve the goal, the special structure of
Assume that sets Vc and Ac are convex polytopes that are the centrifugal/Coriolis term c(q, q̇) is exploited, which can be
determined by the system capability and task requirement, refer written into a quadratic form [50]
to explanations in Section III-B and examples in Section V-A1, ⎡ ⎤
condi (q) should satisfy q̇ N1 (q) q̇
⎢ .. ⎥
∀q̇ ∈ Vc : Ac ⊂ A (q, q̇) . (36) c (q, q̇) = ⎢⎣ .
⎥.
⎦ (40)
As directly evaluating (36) is computationally intractable with q̇ Nn (q) q̇

infinitely many joint velocities existing in Vc , an easily verifiable Terms Ni (q), i = 1, . . . , n are square matrices computed by
sufficient condition for (36) will be used instead. applying second order algorithmic differentiation [51] to the re-
Considering the definition of A(q, q̇) in (11), (36) can be cursive Newton–Euler algorithm [52], which forms a subroutine
equivalently formulated into the form denoted as modifiedRNEA(). On the other hand, a minimum
volume enclosing ellipsoid of Vc can be defined as
∀ (q̇, q̈) ∈ Vc × Ac , ∃f ∈ F : wr (q, q̇, q̈) = −L (q) f
(37) EV = {y ∈ Rn | y = Ev r, ∃r ∈ Rn s.t. r ≤ 1} (41)
Algorithm 1: Centrifugal/Coriolis Force Bound Derivation. Algorithm 2: Maximum Workspace Hyperrectangle

Input:q, Ev Derivation:
Output:WVe (q) Input:q, , R, δq
n ← length(q) Output:C
N1 , N2 , · · · Nn ← modifiedRNEA(q) rmin ← 0, rmax ← R
for i = 1 to n do if not setFeasible(C(q, rmin , δq)) then
λmax , λmin ← eigenvalue(Ev (Ni + Ni )Ev /2) return∅
cmin (i) ← min(0, λmin ) else if setFeasible(C(q, rmax , δq)) then
cmax (i) ← max(0, λmax ) returnC(q, rmax , δq)
end for else
return [cmin , cmax ] while |rmin − rmax | > do
r ← (rmin + rmax )/2
if setFeasible(C(q, r, δq)) then
satisfying Vc ⊂ EV . In particular, the matrix Ev that defines the rmin ← r
ellipsoid (41) can be computed using [53]. Based on the velocity else
ellipsoid (41), a bounding set of (40) is derived as WVe using rmax ← r
Algorithm 1, satisfying WV (q) ⊂ WVe (q). end if
From WVe (q), a superset Wro (q) can be derived as the end while
following convex polytope: returnC(q, rmin , δq)
end if
Wro (q) = WA (q) ⊕ WVe (q) ⊕ g (q) . (42)
This allows (39) to be used as condi (q) Algorithm 3: Point-Wise Set Feasibility Evaluation:
// An implementation of subroutine setFeasible()
condi (q) ⇐⇒ vertex (Wro (q)) ⊂ Wa (q) (43)
Input:S
which guarantees (35b) to hold. For Wro (q) with p vertices, Output:{true, false}
only p linear programs need to be solved to verify (43). Sp ← sampling(S)
while Sp = ∅ do
C. Maximum Workspace Hyperrectangle Derivation randomly selectq ∈ Sp
if conds (q) ∧ condi (q) then
From Theorem 1, W-MPC involves the derivation of the Sp = Sp \ {q}
feasible pose corridor (Definition 2), composed of a series of else
maximum workspace hyperrectangles (Definition 1) centered at returnfalse
each reference pose. A generic hyperrectangular neighborhood end if
of point q can be defined as end while
r r return true
C (q, r, δq) = y ∈ Rn | q − δq ≤ y ≤ q + δq (44)
2 2
where δq determines the shape of C(q, r, δq) with min(δq) > is estimated using the feasibility of a sample set with a fi-
0, max(δq) = 1, and r > 0 is scaling parameter that adjusts nite number of elements. Using a uniform grid, the subroutine
the size of C(q, r, δq). In practice, each element of δq shall sampling(·) returns a set of grid points that are covered by the
be defined by the user based on the desired system behavior, input set. Combining the sampling subroutine sampling(·) and
e.g., smaller values shall be taken on DoFs that are expected the conservative feasibility condition conds (q) ∧ condi (q), a
to have relatively tight tracking. The derivation of the maxi- conservative feasibility estimation of a given continuous set can
mum workspace hyperrectangle then becomes finding the max- be derived using Algorithm 3.
imum scaling parameter r for a hyperrectangular neighborhood Combining Algorithms 1–3, a hyperrectangle centered at
C(q, r, δq) centered at a given pose q such that the hyperrectan- q inside the workspace P is generated. Repeating for every
gular neighborhood is completely inside the W-MPC workspace. pose qri on the reference trajectory, the feasible pose corridor
Algorithm 2 presents such a way to determine the maximum for the W-MPC can be determined. Note that parameter R in
workspace hyperrectangle through bisection. The inputs of Al- Algorithm 2 also affects the conservativeness of the resulting
gorithm 2 include a center point q, a small positive value as hyperrectangles, where a smaller R reduces the computational
the hyperrectangle size tolerance, and a large scalar R > 0 as load, together with the size of the resulting sets.
the largest possible hyperrectangle size.
Note that Algorithm 2 requires a setFeasible(·) subrou-
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
tine to check the feasibility of a continuous set. A point-wise
approach is commonly used in the CDR workspace studies The performance of the proposed W-MPC is illustrated by
to tackle such problem, where the continuous set’s feasibility the simulation of two different CDRs in this section, including
TABLE I
DYNAMIC FEASIBLE WORKSPACE PARAMETERS FOR 2-R PLANAR CABLE ROBOT
Fig. 6. Different dynamic feasible workspaces and reference trajectories.

(a) DFW1 with TR1 and TR2 . (b) DFW2 with TR3 and TR4 .
Fig. 5. 2-Link cable-driven robot.
a 2-DoF multilink robot and a 6-DoF spatial cable robot, for 1) W-MPC Workspace and Reference Trajectory Design:
both nominal and non-nominal cases. Simulations were per- As introduced in Section III-B, the design of the reference
formed using the CASPR software [39] on a computer with trajectories is intertwined with the W-MPC workspace design,
an Intel Core i7-7700 K processor with 16 GBs of memory where Condition 4 must be satisfied. Only the DFW constraint
and MATLAB version 2020a. The controller ran at 200 Hz, and (Section IV-B) was considered in this example, with two dif-
the QPs were solved with qpOASES [54]. Comparison with ferent DFW settings DFW1 and DFW2 (shown in Table I).
constant gain CTC was also made to show the advantages of In Fig. 6, the workspaces DFW1 and DFW2 are visualized
the proposed W-MPC. Although other more complex nonlinear as the shaded regions. The primary difference between the
control laws exist, such as the Slotine-Li controller [55], they two workspaces is that DFW2 has a larger range of allowable
are not fundamentally different from CTC in terms of input velocities and accelerations, and hence can support faster and
constraint handling. In fact, a shared drawback of these nonlinear more dynamic trajectories. However, due to the same cable force
control laws is the lack of constraint handling capability, which availability (Table I), only joint poses with larger wrench capa-
can be well illustrated by CTC. bility can support the velocity and acceleration requirements
of DFW2 . Consequently, DFW2 covers a smaller area in the
A. 2-DoF Multilink CDR joint space than DFW1 [as illustrated in Fig. 6(b)] and only
supports a more limited selection of paths for the CDR. While
A simple 2-DoF CDR (Fig. 5) is used to illustrate different
only DFW is considered in Fig. 6 for simplicity, the process of
aspects of the W-MPC, including 1) the design of the dynamic
adding state constraint workspaces can be quite straightforward,
feasible workspace (DFW) and the reference trajectories; 2) the
where a filter shall be added to remove the poses in DFW that
control performance under several non-nominal scenarios; and
violate the state constraints.
3) the performance impact of some key controller settings. The
In DFW1 and DFW2 , four trajectories were defined, as
example CDR has four actuating cables and two identical links,
shown in Fig. 6. Trajectories TR1 and TR3 are smooth trajecto-
each being 1 m in length with the following properties:
ries, while TR2 and TR4 are composed of several point-to-point
m1 = m2 = 0.1 kg, G1 = G2 = (0, 0, 0.5) m constant-velocity segments. Trajectories TR1 and TR3 have
almost identical paths, where TR1 finishes the whole motion in
I1 = I2 = diag(0.083, 0, 0.083) kg m2 10 s while TR3 has higher speed and completes the motion in 5.5
where G1 , G2 are the locations of each link’s center of mass s. As shown in Fig. 7(c) and (d), TR3 can only be supported by
defined in its local frame. The cable attachment locations are DFW2 due to the higher velocity/acceleration demands. On the
other hand, when trajectories have similar velocity/acceleration
A1 = −A3 = (0.5, 0.005, 0) A2 = −A4 = (1.5, 0.005, 0) requirements, e.g., TR2 and TR4 , a larger motion range is
allowed for reference trajectories in DFW1 , as long as the cor-
B1 = B2 = (0.1, 0.05, 0.3) B3 = B4 = (−0.1, −0.05, 0.3)
responding velocity/acceleration limitations are satisfied. The
where B1 , . . . , B4 are defined in the corresponding link’s local selection of sets Vc and Ac directly affects both the motion range
frame, and A1 , . . . , A4 are defined in the base frame. and the speed of the reference trajectory, hence a compromise
we = [1, −1] N m was applied during the TR3 tracking with

N = 10 and no terminal constraint/cost. Despite having a rela-
tively larger tracking error than the nominal case, the tracking
control was still feasible and stable.
Next, the impact of the horizon length N and the use of ter-
minal constraint/cost on W-MPC performance are investigated.
Table II summarizes the performance of the controller with
various settings for four different trajectory scenarios: 1) TR3
without initial pose error; 2) TR3 with an initial pose error of
[0.3, 0.3] rad; 3) TR4 with an initial pose error of [0.3, 0.3] rad;
and 4) TR3 subject to a constant disturbance wrench we =
[1, −1] N m. The W-MPC performance was quantified by the
average joint tracking error norm (tracking error) and the average
cable force vector norm (control effort).
From the results, when subject to an initial pose error and
velocity error, with the latter being caused by the discontinuity
of the reference velocity profile in TR4 , the horizon length N
must be sufficiently large such that the W-MPC is feasible with
Fig. 7. Joint velocities and accelerations of trajectories TR1 and TR3 . the terminal constraints. Similar observation can be made in
(a) Joint velocities of TR1 . (b) Joint accelerations of TR1 . (c) Joint velocities the presence of large disturbances. On the other hand, without
of TR3 . (d) Joint accelerations of TR3 . the terminal constraint/cost, the W-MPC performed similarly
compared to the case with terminal constraint/cost under long
needs to be made where trajectories requiring higher velocity horizon. Under short horizon, the absence of terminal con-
and acceleration capabilities shall be confined within a smaller straint/cost allowed W-MPC to remain practically feasible, and
set of poses. Moreover, based on Theorem 1, a larger margin presented a tighter tracking and better robustness. Computation-
between the boundaries of (Pi , Vc , Ac ) and reference trajectory wise, Table III shows a significant increase of time cost for
(qri , q̇ri , q̈ri ) is desirable for a better robustness; in fact, if the a larger N . As such, it is considered favorable in practice to
reference trajectory gets too close to the workspace boundary, employ W-MPC without the terminal constraint/cost under a
infeasibility can easily happen. For computational simplicity, relatively short horizon. For the remaining simulations, a horizon
sets (Pi ) are derived as hyperrectangles, forming bounds on length of N = 10 without the terminal constraint/cost was used.
each DoF, as illustrated by the unshaded area in Fig. 8 for TR3 3) Comparison With Constant Gain CTC: In CDR control,
and TR4. In particular, the unshaded area in Fig. 8(a) and (d) is the most common approach is to use a CTC scheme with constant
effectively the feasible pose corridor. gains. For the constant gain CTC, the desired joint acceleration
2) W-MPC Controller Performance: In this example, the can be expressed as
proposed controller was applied on TR3 and TR4 within q̈CTC = q̈r + Kd (q̇r − q̇) + Kp (qr − q)
DFW2 . For the W-MPC constraints (23), the allowed velocity
set Vc , acceleration set Ac , and force bounds F are shown where qr , q̇r , and q̈r are the reference pose, joint velocity,
in Table I. The allowed pose sets Pi for each time step i and acceleration vectors, respectively. The matrices Kp 0 and
were determined as the maximum workspace hyperrectangles Kd 0 are the proportional and differential gains, respectively.
(Definition 1) centered at the reference pose qri using Algorithm The corresponding cable forces satisfying the constraints can
2. For objective (24), the weight matrices for the state error (Q̃), then be computed with inverse dynamics algorithms if the de-
the virtual input error (R̃), and cable forces (H) were sired acceleration q̈CTC is feasible.
Despite the simplicity, CTC easily suffers from infeasibility
Q̃ = diag(1, 1, 0, 0), R̃ = 10−10 × I2×2 , H = 10−10 × I4×4 . when the tracking errors (q̇r − q̇) and (qr − q) become too
(45) large. This is mainly due to the lack of consideration of cable
With a horizon of N = 50, the results of the W-MPC perform- force bounds in determining the desired joint acceleration q̈CTC
ing reference tracking of TR3 and TR4 subject to an initial pose such that the inverse dynamics problem is infeasible. In contrast,
error [0.3, 0.3] rad are shown in Fig. 8. The results show that the the proposed W-MPC strictly follows the cable force constraints
W-MPC was able to stably track both reference trajectories while when selecting the joint acceleration to avoid infeasibility. To
satisfying all of the constraints. compare the performances of constant gain CTC and W-MPC,
It should be noted that the terminal constraint and cost were the tracking of TR3 and TR4 under both the nominal scenario
applied in the tracking of TR3 and TR4 (Fig. 8) to enforce and external disturbance were simulated.
the recursive feasibility and stability. However, in some non- In the comparison, DFW2 was used to generate the joint pose,
nominal scenarios, the terminal constraint may seem to be overly velocity, and acceleration constraints for the W-MPC. Two sets
strict and often cause control failure due to infeasibility. In of gains were selected for the constant gain CTC with the low
such cases, W-MPC without terminal constraint/cost can also be gain tuned to produce less aggressive control action to avoid
applied. For example, in Fig. 9, a constant wrench disturbance infeasibility and high gain tuned to provide tighter tracking with
Fig. 8. TR3 and TR4 tracking with initial pose error e0 = [0.3, 0.3] rad (N = 90, with terminal constraint/cost). (a) Joint pose tracking of TR3 . (b) Joint
velocity tracking of TR3 . (c) Cable forces of TR3 . (d) Joint pose tracking of TR4 . (e) Joint velocity tracking of TR4 . (f) Cable forces of TR4 .
Fig. 9. TR3 tracking under disturbance (we = [1, −1] N m) (N = 10, without terminal constraint/cost). (a) Joint pose tracking of TR3 . (b) Joint velocity
tracking of TR3 . (c) Cable forces of TR3 .
TABLE II
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF W-MPC WITH PARAMETER VARIATION
TABLE III
TIME COST COMPARISON
Fig. 12. Performance comparison: TR3 under disturbance

we = [1, −1] N m. (a) Tracking error norm. (b) Force vector norm.
Fig. 10. Performance comparison: TR3 nominal. (a) Tracking error norm. (b)
Force vector norm.
Fig. 13. Performance comparison: TR4 under disturbance

we = [1, −1] N m. (a) Tracking error norm. (b) Force vector norm.
Fig. 12(a) shows that both the W-MPC and CTC2 completed
the reference tracking under disturbance with a similar tracking
performance while CTC1 failed due to a weaker reference track-
ing capability from the smaller gains. As observed in Fig. 13(a),
W-MPC was able to complete the tracking, while both CTC1
and CTC2 failed to track TR4 with the former failing due to
Fig. 11. Performance comparison: TR4 nominal. (a) Tracking error norm. a weak tracking capability and the latter due to the reference
(b) Force vector norm. discontinuity.
Time Cost Comparison: Consider the tracking control of TR3
more aggressive control actions in nominal scenario using CTC1 and W-MPC with different
N ; the computational costs are summarized in Table III. As
CTC1 (low gain) : Kp = 202 × I2 , Kd = 20 × I2 expected, the W-MPC had a higher computational cost compared
with the CTC due to the larger optimization problem. Similarly,
CTC2 (high gain) : Kp = 902 × I2 , Kd = 90 × I2 .
longer horizon in W-MPC would result in longer computational
Nominal Case: For the nominal case, the tracking perfor- time. However, it can be observed that comparing with the
mance comparison between W-MPC, CTC1 , and CTC2 is given CTC, the computational cost increase of the W-MPC with a
in Figs. 10 and 11. For the smooth reference trajectory TR3 , short horizon N = 10 is insignificant with respect to the control
all the controllers successfully completed the tracking control frequency (200 Hz).
with the W-MPC and high-gain CTC having a similarly good In summary, the W-MPC achieved good tracking performance
performance, while the low-gain CTC having a larger error. On for both TR3 and TR4 without extensive parameter tuning
the other hand, for the nonsmooth reference trajectory TR4 , only in both nominal and non-nominal scenarios. In contrast, CTC
W-MPC and low-gain CTC were able to complete the tracking would require careful gain tuning to suit different scenarios,
task while the high-gain CTC failed due to the large tracking where a low-gain CTC is better at adapting to trajectory non-
error caused by the discontinuity in the reference joint velocities. smoothness while a high-gain CTC offers better robustness
Similar to TR3 , CTC1 had a larger tracking error compared with against model discrepancies. In the extreme case of nonsmooth
the W-MPC in TR4 tracking. trajectory TR4 under external disturbances, CTC with both gains
Under External Disturbance: In this scenario, the system was failed. On the other hand, the requirement for parameter-tuning
subject to a constant disturbance wrench we = [1, −1] N·m in W-MPC is much lower. In fact, W-MPC successfully com-
that is unknown to the controller. The simulation results are pleted the tracking control under all the presented scenarios with
shown in Figs. 12 and 13. Similar to the nominal case of TR3 , a single set of parameters. Moreover, the online computational
load of W-MPC is suitable for real-time control with a shorter

prediction horizon.
B. Spatial CDR
The cable robot simulator (CRS) with six DoFs and eight
cables, as modeled in [2], was simulated to show that the W-MPC
can be applied to more general spatial CDRs. DFW was used
as CRS’ W-MPC workspace, which was defined by
|q̇1,...,3 | ≤ 5 m/ sec, |q̇4,...,6 | ≤ 0.5 rad/s
|q̈1,...,3 | ≤ 14 m/ sec2 , |q̈4,...,6 | ≤ 0.5 rad/s2
103 N ≤ f1,...,8 ≤ 1.4 × 104 N

where q1 , q2 , and q3 represent three translational DoFs; q4 , q5 ,
and q6 represent three rotational DoFs (Euler angles), and fi
represents the force of the ith cable in the system. Other control
parameters for the W-MPC were
Q̃ = diag (I6×6 , 06×6 ) , R̃ = 10−12 × I6×6 , H = 10−11 × I8×8 .
The prediction horizon was set as N = 10 and the controller
ran at 200 Hz without terminal constraint and cost. The trajectory
was formed by a quintic interpolation of
2 sec 2 sec 2 sec 2 sec 2 sec 2 sec
q1 =⇒ q2 =⇒ q3 =⇒ q3 =⇒ q4 =⇒ q1 =⇒ q5 (46)
where
q1 = [6, 7.5, 4, 0, 0, 0] , q2 = [5.5, 8, 3, 0.2, 0, 0]
q3 = [6, 7.5, 4, −0.2, 0.2, 0] , q4 = [6.5, 7, 5, 0.2, 0.2, 0]
q5 = [6.5, 7, 5, 0, 0, 0] .
Furthermore, the following scenarios were considered:
r Scenario 1 (nominal): No model discrepancies.
r Scenario 2 (disturbed): An external disturbance wrench
we = [fex , fey , fez , τex , τey , τez ] was applied, with fex =
fey = 5000 N, fez = −104 N, and τex,ey,ez = 500 N·m.
r Scenario 3 (nonideal actuator): A first-order system was
considered to emulate the actuator’s dynamics
f = fprev + 0.2 (fcmd − fprev ) (47)
where fprev , fcmd , and f are the cable forces applied in the
previous control cycle, the force commands, and the actual
forces applied in the current control cycle, respectively. Fig. 14. Spatial CDR tracking under different scenarios. (a) Pose tracking.
(b) Velocity tracking. (c) Cable forces.
The tracking control results are given in Fig. 14, showing that
the proposed W-MPC can achieve good tracking performance
in all the tested scenarios. Computation-wise, each control com-
mand generation took ∼ 1.9 ms in average, which satisfies the within the horizontal plane and θ represents the rotation of the
200 Hz control frequency requirement. end-effector along the normal direction of the horizontal plane.
The cables were actuated by direct-drive motors (i.e., without
VI. HARDWARE VALIDATION gearbox) under the current control mode. For each motor, a linear
relationship between the input current and the output cable force
A. Hardware Experiment Setup
was calibrated and used to enable force control.
As shown in Fig. 15, the constructed cable robot is composed In terms of the control feedback, a forward kinematics (FK)
of four cables and an end-effector that moves on the horizontal module was used, which converted the cable length changes
plane. The robot has three DoFs, represented by [x, y, θ] . into a joint pose feedback. To validate the FK result, joint pose
In particular, x and y define the position of the end-effector data was also collected from a motion tracker (NDI Polaris).
shaded area, which were derived using the following constraints:
ẋ, ẏ ∈ [−100, 100] m/s, θ̇ ∈ [−50, 50] rad/s

ẍ, ÿ ∈ [−4, 4] m/s2 , θ̈ ∈ [−4, 4] rad/s2
f1 , f1 , f3 , f4 ∈ [3, 35] N. (48)
Using the DFW as the W-MPC workspace, the W-MPC can
be formulated and applied to control the planar cable robot, with
the control parameters set as follows:
Q̃ = diag(1, 1, 20, 10−8 , 10−8 , 2 × 10−8 )
R̃ = 10−8 · diag(1, 1, 0), H = 10−9 × I4×4 , N = 8. (49)
Each control command generation took ∼ 0.86 ms in average
Fig. 15. PlanarXY cable-driven robot. and a control frequency of 500 Hz was used in the experiment.
Due to the large discrepancy between the mathematical model
and the physical robot, terminal constraints and cost were not
applied in this hardware experiment. In fact, as discussed in
Sections VII-A and VII-B, the absence of terminal constraints
and the use of a relatively short horizon (N = 8) in this ex-
periment allowed a tighter tracking, offering better robustness
against model discrepancies.
B. Hardware Validation Results and Discussions

The joint pose tracking results as well as the corresponding
cable force commands are shown in Figs. 18 and 19, for TR6
and TR7, respectively. The unshaded areas in these result figures
represent the allowed regions for joint poses, joint velocities
and control inputs. In particular, the joint pose feasible regions
Fig. 16. DFW and TR6 reference trajectory of PlanarXY. (a) Top view. were derived using the DFW corresponding to the allowed joint
(b) 3-D view.
velocities, accelerations, and control inputs. As is shown in
Figs. 18 and 19, all the constraints in W-MPC were strictly
satisfied. It is worth noting that the joint feedback in the above
result figures were computed using FK. In Fig. 20(a) and (d),
the FK feedback, denoted as “X-FK,” “Y-FK,” and “θ-FK,” the
motion tracker feedback, denoted as “X-m,” “Y-m,” and “θ-m,”
together with the reference, denoted as “X-ref,” “Y-ref,” and
“θ-ref,” are given for TR6 and TR7, respectively. From the
presented results, it can be concluded that the proposed W-MPC
was able to provide good tracking performance on the prototype
planar cable robot. The FK feedback and the motion tracker
feedback also showed decent consistency, especially over the
two translational DoFs.
VII. DISCUSSIONS
Fig. 17. DFW and TR7 reference trajectory of PlanarXY. (a) Top view.
(b) 3-D view. A. Role of Terminal Conditions
From Table II, it can be observed that when W-MPC is feasible
with terminal conditions applied, the performance is similar to
the case without terminal conditions. In addition, under non-
It should be noted that although the motion tracker data was nominal scenarios the feasibility of terminal constraints can
collected through out the tracking task, it was not used in the only be achieved under long horizons. To understand this, it
control loop due to the low sampling rate of the former. should be noted that the terminal constraints (Section III-D)
For the control task, two reference trajectories were defined, assume a constant acceleration capability Ac for the terminal
as shown in Figs. 16 and 17. In these figures, together with the controller, which is also the assumed acceleration capability for
reference trajectories, the DFW is also illustrated, as the green any future steps over the prediction horizon. As a result, adding
Fig. 18. TR6 tracking of Planar XY. (a) Joint pose tracking. (b) Joint velocity tracking. (c) Control input.
Fig. 19. TR7 tracking of Planar XY. (a) Joint pose tracking. (b) Joint velocity tracking. (c) Control input.
B. Control Conservativeness
For a given reference tracking problem, W-MPC offers con-
servative solutions since it only uses a subset of the system’s
available control capability for the future time steps where only
accelerations from a subset Ac of the available acceleration
set [56] are allowed to be used. On the other hand, since the first
time step always uses the available acceleration set to confine the
corresponding acceleration, it is not conservative. As a result,
a conservativeness measure can be defined by (N − 1)/N , the
ratio between the number of conservative time steps and the
horizon length. In this sense, a smaller horizon length N will
produce a less conservative solution with a smaller tracking
error, which is consistent with observations from Table II. Com-
bining this with Section VII-A, it can be concluded that N is
a performance-sensitive parameter for W-MPC, which should
be smaller for a tighter tracking and larger for safer and less
aggressive control.
C. Inherent Robustness
The nominal stability and recursive feasibility of W-MPC
require Assumption 1 (in Appendix A) to hold. However, the
violation of Assumption 1 is somehow inevitable in practice
Fig. 20. Joint pose trajectories of Planar XY with external sensor. (a) TR6 due to the model discrepancies and discrete control implemen-
pose trajectory. (b) TR7 pose trajectory. tation, both causing small deviations between the actual and
predicted state. Despite this, the simulation and hardware results
terminal conditions with feasibility maintained is equivalent to showed that the W-MPC possesses inherent robustness such that
running a long horizon W-MPC without terminal conditions. In these deviations deteriorate the performance but will not cause
this sense, despite the theoretical value, the terminal conditions divergence or infeasibility, as long as the control frequency is
shall be omitted in practical implementations of W-MPC, whose sufficiently high (200 Hz for simulation and 500 Hz for hardware
functionalities can be fully replaced by choosing a long horizon. experiment).
D. Downsides of the Workspace-Based Convexification where (xk+1|k−1 , . . . , xk+N −1|k−1 ) and (vk|k−1 , . . . ,
While the use of workspace allows the convexification to be vk+N −2|k−1 ) are directly extracted from the previous prediction
strictly feasible, it also comes with several drawbacks. First, as Xk−1 and Vk−1 , while vk+N −1|k−1 and xk+N |k−1 are extended
the reference gets closer to the boundary of the workspace, the virtual input and state using the terminal control law κi (·) from
design needs to be extra careful since the corresponding pose (28)
sets Pi can be very small, resulting in a lower robustness, where vk+N −1|k−1 = κk+N −1 xk+N −1|k−1
infeasibility can happen even under very small model discrep-
ancy. On the other hand, since the workspace corresponding to a xk+N |k−1 = Ad xk+N −1|k−1 + Bd κk+N −1 xk+N −1|k−1 .
smaller Vc and Ac is generally larger, this drawback inspires Following Assumption 1 for the nominal case, Theorem 2
potential future works with the use of dynamically adjusted shows that for time step k, the initial guess from (50) is strictly
workspace, where the controller should switch to a workspace feasible, guaranteeing the nominal recursive feasibility.
with smaller capability sets as it gets closer to the boundary of the Assumption 1 (Nominal Case Assumption): In nominal case,
original workspace. Second, the use of workspace requires an the actual and predicted states are identical. Denote the actual
offline computation for each new reference trajectory, which can state and the predicted virtual input at time step k − 1 as xk−1
be computationally prohibitive for robots with higher DoFs due and vk−1|k−1 , respectively, the subsequent state prediction can
to the exponential computational complexity. Potential improve- be given as
ments can be achieved by investigating computational efficient
workspace derivation/representation approaches, such as that in xk|k−1 = Ad xk−1 + Bd vk−1|k−1 .
[57], [58]. Then, the actual executed virtual input and the subsequent
state are as predicted, i.e., vk−1 = vk−1|k−1 and xk = xk|k−1 .
VIII. CONCLUSION Theorem 2 (Nominal Recursive Feasibility): Without loss of
generality, consider the solution state horizon and virtual input
In this article, a W-MPC was proposed for the control of CDRs
horizon of the W-MPC (26) at time step k − 1 as
with nominal recursive feasibility and stability proven. The
W-MPC scheme combines online control and offline workspace Xk−1 = xk−1 , xk|k−1 , . . . , xk+N −1|k−1
analysis with the computational load of the former mitigated by
the latter. Through workspace analysis, a set of strictly feasible Vk−1 = vk−1|k−1 , vk|k−1 , . . . , vk+N −2|k−1 . (51)
constraints of the system’s joint pose, velocity, and accelera- For the nominal case, an initial guess (X̂k , V̂k , f̂k ) can be de-
tion were derived. These constraints allow the corresponding rived for step k based on previous predictions (51) and terminal
W-MPC optimization problem to be formulated into a quadratic control law (28) to strictly satisfy all of the constraints
program that can be efficiently solved. The control performance
was demonstrated using simulations on a 2-link CDR and a Mk vk|k−1 + ck + gk = −Lk f̂k , f̂k ∈ F (52a)
spatial CDR, as well as hardware experiment on a 3-DoF planar
X̂k = Axk + BV̂k (52b)
CDR. Future works will focus on developing the W-MPC to be
less conservative while maintaining its feasibility and stability. X̂k ∈ Pk+1 × Vc × · · · × Pk+N −1 × Vc × φk+N (52c)
APPENDIX A V̂k ∈ Rn × AN
c
−1
. (52d)
RECURSIVE FEASIBILITY AND STABILITY OF W-MPC Proof: Since (51) is a feasible solution of time step k − 1, the
The nominal recursive feasibility and stability of MPC is following is satisfied:
a well-developed topic [44], [46], [59]. Using similar tech- Xk−1 = Axk−1 + BVk−1
niques, these properties are established in this section, which
are specifically designed for W-MPC. In particular, the special Then, for the terminal virtual control input vk+N −1|k−1 =
terminal constraint/cost design from Section III-D is considered κk+N −1 (xk+N −1|k−1 ), the predicted state is formulated as
and the artificially introduced workspace-based constraints are xk+N |k−1 = Ad xk+N −1|k−1 + Bd vk+N −1|k−1 .
explicitly accounted for.
Hence, the relationship between X̂k and V̂k from (50) can be
A. Recursive Feasibility given as
Assume that the W-MPC can be feasibly solved at time X̂k = Axk|k−1 + BV̂k
step k − 1, then using the prediction from step k − 1 with the where xk|k−1 = Ad xk−1 + Bd vk−1|k−1 is the predicted state
terminal control law applied at the end of the horizon to extend for time step k. Following Assumption 1, xk = xk|k−1 in nom-
the prediction, an initial guess can be given as follows to hot-start inal case; hence, constraint (52b) is satisfied. Additionally, as a
the W-MPC (26) for time step k: feasible solution to (26), Xk−1 and Vk−1 in (51) also satisfy
X̂k = xk+1|k−1 , . . . , xk+N −1|k−1 , xk+N |k−1 Xk−1 ∈ Pk × Vc × · · · × Pk+N −2 × Vc × φk+N −1
V̂k = vk|k−1 , . . . , vk+N −2|k−1 , vk+N −1|k−1 (50) Vk−1 ∈ Ak−1 × AN
c
−1
.
Since xk+N −1|k−1 ∈ φk+N −1 holds, according to Lemma 1, cost Jk will be no larger than the initial guess cost Jˆk
the virtual input vk+N −1|k−1 and subsequent state xk+N |k−1
satisfy Jk − Jˆk = ηk − η̂k + fk 2H − f̂k 2H ≤ 0.
xk+N |k−1 ∈ φk+N Proposition 3 (W-MPC Lyapunov Candidate Function): For

time step k, a Lyapunov candidate function can be defined as
vk+N −1|k−1 ∈ Ac .
ηk = xk − xrk 2Q̃ + Axk + BVk − Xrk 2Q + Vk − Vkr 2R
Consequently, (50) satisfies the following constraint:
guaranteeing that
X̂k ∈ Pk+1 × Vc × · · · × Pk+N −2 × Vc × φk+N −1 × φk+N
ηk = 0 ⇐⇒ lk = 0 ⇐⇒ xk = xrk .
V̂k ∈ AN
c .
(53) Lemma 2 (Nominal Asymptotic Stability): The W-MPC is
Since ∀i > 0, the terminal sets φi are designed such that asymptotically stable under nominal conditions (Assumption 1)
φi ⊂ Pi × Vc , while the virtual input set Ac satisfies Ac ⊂ if all the singular values of H in (26) are zero.
A(x), ∀x ∈ Pi × Vc , constraints (52c) and (52d) are satisfied. Proof: If all the singular values of H are zero, fk 2H =
Additionally, since xk = xk|k−1 ∈ Pk × Vc , the virtual input f̂k 2H = 0. Hence, substitution of Proposition 1 into Proposition
constraint vk|k−1 ∈ Ac ⊂ Ak can be derived. Then, according 2 results in the relationship ηk − ηk−1 ≤ −lk−1 . Then, follow-
to (15), there exists a cable force vector f̂k satisfying the EoM ing Proposition 3, ηk − ηk−1 = 0 for ηk−1 = 0 and ηk − ηk−1 <
and cable force constraints (52a). As such, (X̂k , V̂k , f̂k ) satisfies 0 if ηk−1 > 0. As such, the system is asymptotically stable.
constraints (52), and hence can be used as a feasible initial guess Lemma 2 shows that the proposed W-MPC is asymptotically
for (26) at time step k, satisfying recursive feasibility. stable if the minimization of cable forces is not considered.
In practice, considering the actuation redundancy that usually
exists in CDRs, it is desirable to consider the cable force
B. Stability
minimization to avoid excessive cable tension. However, the
The following definitions and propositions will be used to consideration of cable forces will affect asymptotic stability as
show the proposed W-MPC’s nominal case (Assumption 1) sta- minimizing the cable forces may be in conflict with tracking
bility. Propositions 1 and 2 can be easily proven using Definitions performance. As shown in Theorem 3, the minimization of cable
3 and 4 while Proposition 3 is based on Definition 4 as well as forces in the W-MPC results in bounded stability.
the feasibility of the reference trajectory. Theorem 3 (Nominal Bounded Stability): The W-MPC is ul-
Definition 3 (Estimated Cost): The estimated optimization timately bounded stable under nominal conditions (Assumption
cost for the W-MPC at time step k using the predictions from 1) if H has a finite maximum singular value.
the previous time step (xk|k−1 , X̂k and V̂k ) can be defined as Proof: Considering the cable force constraint f ∈ F, all the
feasible cable forces are bounded by
Jˆk = η̂k + f̂k 2H
∀f ∈ F : fmin ≤ f 2 ≤ fmax
where
with fmax > fmin ≥ 0. Denote the maximum singular value of
η̂k = xk|k−1 − xrk 2Q̃ + Axk|k−1 + BV̂k − Xrk 2Q H as σ > 0, the following bound can then be derived:

+ V̂k − Vkr 2R
∀f̂k , fk ∈ F : fk 2H − f̂k 2H ≤ σfmax .
and f̂k is a feasible cable force vector corresponding to the Consequently from Proposition 2, ηk − ηk−1 ≤ σfmax −
predicted virtual input vk|k−1 . lk−1 , which further gives ηk − ηk−1 < 0 if lk−1 > σfmax . In
Definition 4 (Optimized Cost): The optimized cost for the other words, the Lyapunov function ηk−1 will decrease as long
W-MPC at time step k can be defined as as lk−1 > σfmax . On the other hand, by definition lk−1 ≤ ηk−1 ,
Jk = ηk + fk 2H hence lk−1 will decrease as ηk−1 does until lk−1 ≤ σfmax . Since
the above results hold for any time step k with the state error
where bounded by xk − xrk 2Q̃ ≤ lk , it can be concluded that the state
ηk = xk − xrk 2Q̃ + Axk + BVk − Xrk 2Q + Vk − Vkr 2R tracking error will eventually be bounded by set

and Xk , Vk , and fk can be determined by solving (26) with xk . Ωσ = xk − xrk ∈ R2n | xk − xrk 2Q̃ ≤ σfmax . (54)
Proposition 1: The relationship between ηk−1 and η̂k is
This shows the ultimate bounded stability of W-MPC.
ηk−1 = η̂k + lk−1 Corollary 1: The ultimate state tracking error bound (54) can
be arbitrarily small by designing the weight matrix H with a
with lk−1 = xk−1 − xrk−1 2Q̃ + vk−1|k−1 − vk−1
r
2R̃ .
small enough maximum singular value σ
Proposition 2: From Theorem 2, (X̂k , V̂k , f̂k ) can be used as
a feasible initial guess to solve (26). As a result, the optimized lim Ωσ = {0} .
σ→0
REFERENCES [25] S. R. Oh and S. K. Agrawal, “Generation of feasible set points and

control of a cable robot,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 551–558,
[1] H. Li, J. Sun, G. Pan, and Q. Yang, “Preliminary running and performance Jun. 2006.
test of the huge cable robot of FAST telescope,” in Mechanisms and [26] M. Katliar, J. Fischer, G. Frison, M. Diehl, H. Teufel, and H. H.
Machine Science. Berlin, Germany: Springer International Publishing, Bülthoff, “Nonlinear model predictive control of a cable-robot-based
2018, pp. 402–414. motion simulator,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 9833–9839,
[2] P. Miermeister et al., “The cable robot simulator large scale motion Jul. 2017.
platform based on cable robot technology,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. [27] A. Ghasemi, “Application of linear model predictive control and input-
Intell. Robot. Syst., Oct.–Nov. 2016, pp. 3024–3029. output linearization to constrained control of 3D cable robots,” Modern
[3] J. Albus, R. Bostelman, and N. Dagalakis, “The NIST SPIDER, A robot Mech. Eng., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 69–76, 2011.
crane,” J. Res. Nat. Inst. Standards Technol., vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 373–385, [28] J. C. Santos, A. Chemori, and M. Gouttefarde, “Model predictive control
May 1992. of large-dimension cable-driven parallel robots,” in Mechanisms and Ma-
[4] Y. Wu, H. H. Cheng, A. Fingrut, K. Crolla, Y. Yam, and D. Lau, “CU-brick chine Science. The Netherlands: Springer, Jun. 2019, vol. 74, pp. 221–232.
cable-driven robot for automated construction of complex brick structures: [29] J. C. Santos, A. Chemori, and M. Gouttefarde, “Redundancy resolution
From simulation to hardware realisation,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Simul., integrated model predictive control of CDPRs: Concept, implementation
Model. Program. Auton. Robot, 2018, pp. 166–173. and experiments,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., May 2020,
[5] R. Dekker, A. K. Jepour, and S. Behzadipour, “Design and testing of pp. 3889–3895.
an ultra-high-speed cable robot,” Int. J. Robot. Autom., vol. 21, no. 1, [30] S. Gros, M. Zanon, R. Quirynen, A. Bemporad, and M. Diehl, “From
pp. 25–34, 2006. linear to nonlinear MPC: Bridging the gap via the real-time iteration,” Int.
[6] R. Buckingham and A. Graham, “Nuclear snake-arm robots,” Ind. Robot. J. Control, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 62–80, Sep. 2020.
An. Int. J., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 6–11, Jan. 2012. [31] B. Houska, H. J. Ferreau, and M. Diehl, “An auto-generated real-time iter-
[7] Y. Asano et al., “Human mimetic musculoskeletal humanoid Kengoro ation algorithm for nonlinear MPC in the microsecond range,” Automatica,
toward real world physically interactive actions,” in Proc. IEEE-RAS 16th vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 2279–2285, Oct. 2011.
Int. Conf. Humanoid Robot., Nov. 2016, pp. 876–883. [32] L. T. Biegler, “Efficient solution of dynamic optimization and NMPC
[8] Y. Mao and S. K. Agrawal, “Design of a cable-driven arm exoskeleton problems,” in Nonlinear Model Predictive Control, F. Allgöwer and A.
(CAREX) for neural rehabilitation,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 28, no. 4, Zheng, Eds. Basel: Birküuser Basel, 2000, vol. 26, pp. 219–243.
pp. 922–931, Aug. 2012. [33] M. Diehl, H. G. Bock, J. P. Schlöder, R. Findeisen, Z. Nagy, and F.
[9] D. Lau, J. Eden, S. K. Halgamuge, and D. Oetomo, “Cable function Allgöwer, “Real-time optimization and nonlinear model predictive control
analysis for the musculoskeletal static workspace of a human shoulder,” of processes governed by differential-algebraic equations,” J. Process
Mech. Mach. Sci., vol. 32, pp. 263–274, Dec. 2015. Control, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 577–585, Jun. 2002.
[10] D. Lau, J. Eden, D. Oetomo, and S. K. Halgamuge, “Musculoskeletal [34] J. Lévine, “Static and dynamic state feedback linearization,” in Nonlinear
static workspace analysis of the human shoulder as a cable-driven robot,” System. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 1997, pp. 93–126.
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 978–984, Apr. 2015. [35] W. R. van Soest, Q. P. Chu, and J. a. Mulder, “Combined feedback
[11] R. Kurtz and V. Hayward, “Dexterity measures with unilateral actuation linearization and constrained model predictive control for entry flight,”
constraints: The n+1 case,” Adv. Robot., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 561–577, J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 427–434, Mar. 2006.
Jan. 1994. [36] F. Schnelle and P. Eberhard, “Constraint mapping in a feedback lin-
[12] T. Dallej, M. Gouttefarde, N. Andreff, M. Michelin, and P. Martinet, earization/MPC scheme for trajectory tracking of underactuated multi-
“Towards vision-based control of cable-driven parallel robots,” in Proc. body systems,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 23, pp. 446–451,
IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst., 2011, pp. 2855–2860. 2015.
[13] T. Dallej, M. Gouttefarde, N. Andreff, P.-E. Hervé, and P. Martinet, “Mod- [37] D. Simon, J. Lofberg, and T. Glad, “Nonlinear model predictive control
eling and vision-based control of large-dimension cable-driven parallel using feedback linearization and local inner convex constraint approxima-
robots using a multiple-camera setup,”Mechatronics, vol. 61, pp. 20–36, tions,” in Proc. Eur. Control Conf., 2013, pp. 2056–2061.
Aug. 2019. [38] Y. V. Pant, H. Abbas, and R. Mangharam, “Robust model predictive
[14] R. Babaghasabha, M. A. Khosravi, and H. D. Taghirad, “Adaptive robust control for non-linear systems with input and state constraints via feed-
control of fully-constrained cable driven parallel robots,” Mechatronics, back linearization,” in Proc. IEEE 55th Conf. Decis. Control, Dec. 2016,
vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 27–36, Feb. 2015. pp. 5694–5699.
[15] M. A. Khosravi and H. D. Taghirad, “Robust PID control of fully- [39] D. Lau, J. Eden, Y. Tan, and D. Oetomo, “CASPR: A comprehensive
constrained cable driven parallel robots,” Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 2, cable-robot analysis and simulation platform for the research of cable-
pp. 87–97, Mar. 2014. driven parallel robots,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst.,
[16] S.-R. Oh, J.-C. Ryu, and S. K. Agrawal, “Dynamics and control of a vol. 2016, Oct.–Nov. 2016, pp. 3004–3011.
helicopter carrying a payload using a cable-suspended robot,” J. Mech. [40] Z. Zhang, H. H. Cheng, and D. Lau, “Efficient wrench-closure and
Des., vol. 128, no. 5, 2006, Art. no. 1113. interference free conditions verification for cable-driven parallel robot
[17] S. R. Oh and S. K. Agrawal, “Cable suspended planar robots with re- trajectories using a ray-based method,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett., vol. 5,
dundant cables: Controllers with positive tensions,” IEEE Trans. Robot., no. 1, pp. 8–15, Jan. 2020.
vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 457–465, Jun. 2005. [41] D. Lau, D. Oetomo, and S. K. Halgamuge, “Generalized modeling of
[18] M. Hassan and A. Khajepour, “Optimization of actuator forces in cable- multilink cable-driven manipulators with arbitrary routing using the cable-
based parallel manipulators using convex analysis,” IEEE Trans. Robot., routing matrix,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1102–1113,
vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 736–740, Jun. 2008. Oct. 2013.
[19] H. D. Taghirad and Y. B. Bedoustani, “An analytic-iterative redundancy [42] J. M. Bravo, T. Alamo, and E. F. Camacho, “Robust MPC of constrained
resolution scheme for cable-driven redundant parallel manipulators,” IEEE discrete-time nonlinear systems based on approximated reachable sets,”
Trans. Robot., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1137–1143, Dec. 2011. Automatica, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1745–1751, Oct. 2006.
[20] S. Abdolshah and G. Rosati, “First experimental testing of a dynamic [43] E. Todorov, “Optimal control theory,” in Bayesian Brain. Cambridge, MA,
minimum tension control (DMTC) for cable driven parallel robots,” Mech. USA: MIT Press, Dec. 2006, pp. 268–298.
Mach. Sci., vol. 32, pp. 239–248, 2015. [44] D. Mayne, J. Rawlings, C. Rao, and P. Scokaert, “Constrained model
[21] A. Alp and S. Agrawal, “Cable suspended robots: Design, planning and predictive control: Stability and optimality,” Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6,
control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., Jun. 2002, vol. 4„ pp. 789–814, Jun. 2000.
pp. 4275–4280. [45] J. B. Rawlings and D. Q. Mayne, Model Predictive Control: Theory and
[22] A. Bemporad, “Reference governor for constrained nonlinear systems,” Design, 2nd ed. Madison, WI, USA: Nob Hill Publishing, 2009.
IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 415–419, Mar. 1998. [46] D. Mayne, “An apologia for stabilising terminal conditions in model
[23] E. Gilbert and I. Kolmanovsky, “Nonlinear tracking control in the pres- predictive control,” Int. J. Control, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 2090–2095,
ence of state and control constraints: A generalized reference governor,” Nov. 2013.
Automatica, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2063–2073, Dec. 2002. [47] S. Lessanibahri, M. Gouttefarde, S. Caro, and P. Cardou, “Twist feasi-
[24] S. R. Oh and S. K. Agrawal, “A reference governor-based controller for a bility analysis of cable-driven parallel robots,” in Cable-Driven Parallel
cable robot under input constraints,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., Robots, C. Gosselin, P. Cardou, T. Bruckmann, and A. Pott, Eds. Cham,
vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 639–645, Jul. 2005. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 128–139.
[48] S. Bouchard, C. Gosselin, and B. Moore, “On the ability of a cable-driven Chen Song received the B.Eng. and M.Eng. degrees
robot to generate a prescribed set of wrenches,” J. Mech. Robot., vol. 2, in aerospace engineering from Northwestern Poly-
no. 1, pp. 1–10, May 2010. technical University, Xi’an, China, in 2013 and 2016,
[49] M. Gouttefarde and S. Krut, “Characterization of parallel manipulator respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in robotics from
available wrench set facets,” Adv. Robot Kinemat. Motion Man Mach., the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong,
vol. 4, pp. 475–482, 2010. China, in 2021.
[50] L. Sciavicco and B. Siciliano, Modelling and Control of Robot Manipula- He is currently a Systems Analyst with Cornerstone
tors, 2nd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2001. Robotics, Hong Kong. His research interests include
[51] U. Naumann, “PAMM: Proceedings in applied mathematics and me- optimization-based control, analysis and control of
chanics,” Proc. Appl. Math. Mechanics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1140205– robotic systems subject to constraints and/or actua-
1140206, 2007. [Online.] Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ tion redundancy, and cable-driven mechanisms.
journal/16177061
[52] R. Featherstone, Rigid Body Dynamics Algorithms. Boston, MA, USA:
Springer, 2008.
[53] Y. Zhang and L. Gao, “On numerical solution of the maximum volume
ellipsoid problem,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 53–76, Jan. 2003.
[54] H. J. Ferreau, C. Kirches, A. Potschka, H. G. Bock, and M. Diehl,
“qpOASES: A parametric active-set algorithm for quadratic program-
ming,” Math. Program. Comput., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 327–363, Dec. 2014.
[55] J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, “On the adaptive control of robot manipulators,”
Int. J. Rob. Res., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 49–59, Sep. 1987. Darwin Lau (Senior Member, IEEE) received the
[56] J. Eden, D. Lau, Y. Tan, and D. Oetomo, “Available acceleration set for the B.Eng. (Hons) degree in mechatronics, B.CS. degree,
study of motion capabilities for cable-driven robots,” Mech. Mach. Theory, and the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering and
vol. 105, pp. 320–336, Nov. 2016. robotics from the University of Melbourne, Parkville,
[57] A. Pott, “Efficient computation of the workspace boundary, its properties VIC, Australia, in 2008 and 2014, respectively.
and derivatives for cable-driven parallel robots,” in Mechanisms and Ma- He was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow with Pierre
chine Science. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018, vol. 50, pp. 190–197. and Marie Curie University from 2014 to 2015. He is
[58] G. Abbasnejad, J. Eden, and D. Lau, “Generalized ray-based lattice gener- currently an Associate Professor with the Department
ation and graph representation of wrench-closure workspace for arbitrary of Mechanical and Automation Engineering, Chinese
cable-driven robots,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 147–161, Feb. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. His research
2019. interests include kinematics, dynamics and control of
[59] P. Scokaert, D. Mayne, and J. Rawlings, “Suboptimal model predictive redundantly actuated mechanisms, cable-driven parallel manipulators, construc-
control (feasibility implies stability),” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, tion and architectural robotics, and bioinspired robots.
vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 648–654, Mar. 1999.

Workspace-Based Model Predictive Control For Cable-Driven Robots

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Workspace-Based Model Predictive Control For Cable-Driven Robots

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

Workspace-Based Model Predictive Control For Cable-Driven Robots

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 38, NO.

4, AUGUST 2022 2577

Workspace-Based Model Predictive Control

[25], where an analytical closed-form solution to the primal

actuating cables can be given in the following form [41]:

For CDR systems, the control input can be defined as the

Fig. 3. Workspace-based convexification. (a) Online convexification.

As such Fig. 4. Feasible pose corridor.

qi ∈ Pi , q̇i ∈ Vc ⇒ (qi , q̇i ) ∈ X . (17)

Principally, the above pose sets Pi , i = k + 1, . . . , k + N ∈ Pi × Vc × Ac

From (9) and (10), A∞ = 1 + N Δt, hence Mk vk|k + ck + gk = −Lk fk , fk ∈ F

= Ax̃k − B1 Kx̃k = (A − B1 K) x̃k where Q 0 ∈ R2nN ×2nN is positive semi-definite, and R

If it does, then Condition 4 is satisfied, otherwise (26)

As directly evaluating (36) is computationally intractable with q̇ Nn (q) q̇

Algorithm 1: Centrifugal/Coriolis Force Bound Derivation. Algorithm 2: Maximum Workspace Hyperrectangle

Fig. 6. Different dynamic feasible workspaces and reference trajectories.

we = [1, −1] N m was applied during the TR3 tracking with

Fig. 12. Performance comparison: TR3 under disturbance

Fig. 13. Performance comparison: TR4 under disturbance

load of W-MPC is suitable for real-time control with a shorter

103 N ≤ f1,...,8 ≤ 1.4 × 104 N

shaded area, which were derived using the following constraints:

ẋ, ẏ ∈ [−100, 100] m/s, θ̇ ∈ [−50, 50] rad/s

B. Hardware Validation Results and Discussions

xk+N |k−1 ∈ φk+N Proposition 3 (W-MPC Lyapunov Candidate Function): For

REFERENCES [25] S. R. Oh and S. K. Agrawal, “Generation of feasible set points and

You might also like