Dynamic model and disturbance

observer based nonlinear position

tracking control of a new XYz motion
platform
M.Santhakumar , Ramavatar Meena, Jayant Kr. Mohanta and Sandip patidar
Center for robotics and control ,Indian Institute of Technology ,Indore

Introduction
What are XYz motion platforms?
Difference between serial and parallel motion
platforms
Need(s) of a proposed platform
Advantages and limitations of the proposed
platform

Santhakumar

Conceptual and frame diagram

Guide ways for
prismatic joints

Passive joint

Number of links = 6
Number of joints
=6
Degrees of freedom = 3 (6-1) 2 (6) = 3

Rotary
joints
Prismatic
joint 2

Prismatic
joint 2

Work
table
Inertial
frame

Fixed
base

endeffector
frame

P(x,y)

r3
r2
O(0,0)

Prismatic joint Guide ways for

prismatic joints
1

r1
s

Santhakumar

Kinematic model
Forward kinematic model
x r1

r1 r3 r2
y r2
s
1 r3 r2
z tan

where,
r1 , r2 and r3 are prismatic joint
displacements (joint parameters)
s is the fixed distance (horizontal span
of the platform)
x and y are the endeffector (work table
/ tool) positions

Inverse kinematic model is the yaw angle of the endeffector

z

r1 x

from the inertial frame

r2 y x tan z

x , y and z are the task space

parameters

r3 y s x tan z

Santhakumar

Dynamic model
Euler-Lagrangian formulation method
It is an energy based approach.
Since, it is planar platform potential energy of the
robotic platform considered to be zero.
Total kinetic energy (KE) of the robotic platform is
sum of individual prismatic (slider) joint kinematic
energies and work table kinetic energy.
x
1
1
1
1
KE ms1r12 ms1r12 ms1r12 y
2
2
2
2
z

Santhakumar

mw
0

0
mw
0

0 x
0 y
I zzw z
5

Dynamic model continued...

Jacobian (velocity mapping) matrix
Joint space velocities to task space velocities

x

y r3 r2
s
z
0

0
r1
1
s
cos2 z

0 r1
r1
r2
s
cos2 z r3
s

Use this relation for deriving kinetic energy of the robotic

platform. Therefore, total kinetic energy is in terms of joint
space variables
Santhakumar

Dynamic model continued...

Euler-Lagrangian formulation method continued...
Joint space input variables (joint forces) can be derived from the
following relation as given below:

d KE KE

fi
dt ri ri
By combining all input variables and formulating the equations
of motion of the platform in state space form as follows:

M C , dis
where,
M is the inertia matrix
r1
C , is the Coriolis and centripetal matrix f
1

r2
f2

r3 T , r1 r2
f3

T
r3 , r1 r2

r3

Disturbanc
e vector dis idis edis
Santhakumar

Disturbance observer based nonlinear

position tracking controller
Proposed control law based on disturbance
observer as given below:

M d KD~ KP~ C , dis

Disturbance observer scheme as follows:

dis z ,

z , z , C , , M 1 ~ ~
~ , ~ M 1 ~ ~ , 0
dis

dis

dis

dis

dis

d
, , M , z is an arbitary vector, , is an observer gain matrix,
dt
for simplicity , M 1 , ,
and are positive constants,i.e., 0, Santhakumar
0

Block diagram of the proposed

controller
x(t),
y(t),
z(t)

Trajectory
planner

~
-

dis

Robotic
platform

Disturbance
observer

User input block

KD

dis

C ,

d
Inverse
kinematic
model

Disturbances

EKF

Sensor
systems

s
xs , y s , zs

KP

Proposed controller block

Santhakumar

Robotic System
9

Stability proof of the proposed

controller

Applying the proposed nonlinear disturbance

observer-based control law to the robot platform
described by its equations of motion results in the
following closed-loop equation:

~ K ~ K ~ M 1 ~
D
P
dis
We can show that all the tracking errors will be
converged to zero asymptotically by the Lyapunovs
direct method. i.e., The proposed controller stability
(closed loop) can be proved using the Lyapunovs
direct method.
Santhakumar

10

Stability proof continued...

Consider the following positive Lyapunovs candidate function as given
below:

T
1 ~
1 ~T
1 ~T ~
2 ~
~
~
~
~
~
~

V , , dis K P K D I dis dis

2
2
2

K P and K D are constantsymmetic and positive definite matrices,

i.e., K P 0, K D 0, and K D is satisfying that K D I
The rate of change of the disturbance acting on the robotic platform is negligible
in comparision with theestimation error dynamics,i.e., dis 0

Time derivative of the above function along with its state variable
trajectories, and using closed-loop equation and time derivative of
disturbance error dynamics, we get
T
V ~ T KD I ~ ~T KP~ ~dis
M 1 ~dis

M 1 is a positive definite matrix bySanthakumar

property, i.e., M 1 0

11

Stability proof continued...

Lyapunovs function is positive definite and its time derivative is
negative definite in the entire state space.
It is assumed that, the estimated state vectors based on extend
Kalman filter (EKF) are converged to their true state vector values.
In this research, the EKF convergence is not discussed.
Therefore, based on LaSalles invariance theorem and Lyapunovs
direct method the closed-loop equation is globally asymptotically
stable. i.e., the velocity, position and disturbance tracking errors
converge to zero.

if t , then ~ 0,

~ 0 and ~dis 0
Santhakumar

12

Numerical Simulations
Robotic platform details

Slider displacements, work table

positions and turning angle can be
measure using linear encoders (or
potentiometers) and vision system
No velocity and acceleration
feedback
Slowly varying Gaussian noises and
internal disturbances are considered

Joint limits
0 cm r1 20 cm
0 cm r2 20 cm
0 cm r3 20 cm

Horizontal span (s) = 20 cm

Controller details

EKF details

Simulation cases

Controller gains

K D kd I 33 , kd 5
K P k p I 33 , k p 5

Observer details
Observer constants
2, 2

Case 1: without any disturbances and no

sliding friction forces
Case 2: with disturbances, parameter
uncertainties and sliding friction forces
Task 1: Rectangular trajectory
following
Task 2: Circular trajectory
following

Comparisons

With disturbance compensation and

without disturbance compensation

Santhakumar

13

Simulation Case 1: without any disturbances and no sliding friction

forces
Simple rectangle trajectory has
considered for the analysis with
four straight line segments.
Results are in satisfactory level and
the system behaviors are almost
equal for both controllers.

Proposed controller without

disturbance compensation

Proposed controller with

disturbance compensation

Trajectories of joint space tracking errors

Trajectories of joint space tracking errors

Trajectories of task space tracking

errors

Trajectories of task space tracking

errors

XY task space motion of the robotic

platform

Santhakumar

14

Simulation case 2: with disturbances, parameter uncertainties and sliding friction

forces
Simple rectangular trajectory with constant joint disturbances and sliding
friction forces on their prismatic joints.

Desired task space trajectory details:

x(t) 5 0.0096t 2 1.28 104 t 3 cm

y(t) 5
cm0 t 50 seconds
z(t) 0.012t 2 1.6 104 t 3

x(t) 13
cm

y(t) 5 0.0096t 2 1.28 104 t 3 cm50 t 100 seconds

z(t) 10 0.024t 2 3.2 104 t 3
x(t) 13 0.0096t 2 1.28 104 t 3 cm

y(t) 13
cm100 t 150 seconds
z(t) 10 0.024t 2 3.2 104 t 3
x(t) 5
cm

y(t) 13 0.0096t 2 1.28 10 4 t 3 cm150 t 200 seconds

z(t) 10 0.012t 2 1.6 10 4 t 3

XY task space motion trajectories of the robotic platform for

a given rectangular trajectory in the presence of disturbances

Santhakumar

15

Simulation Case 2: with disturbances, parameter uncertainties and sliding friction

forces continued

Time trajectories of the joint space position tracking errors

(without disturbance compensation)

Time trajectories of the joint space position tracking errors (with

disturbance compensation)

Santhakumar

16

Simulation Case 2: with disturbances, parameter uncertainties and sliding friction

forces continued

Time trajectories of the task space position tracking errors

(without disturbance compensation)

Time trajectories of the task space position tracking errors (with

disturbance compensation)

Santhakumar

17

Simulation Case 2: with disturbances, parameter uncertainties and sliding friction

forces continued

Time trajectories of the estimated joint disturbances for the given rectangular
trajectory

Santhakumar

18

Simulation Case 2: with disturbances, parameter uncertainties and sliding

friction forces
Simple rectangular trajectory with constant
joint disturbances and sliding friction forces
on their prismatic joints.

Desired task space trajectory details:

x(t) 10 5 cos 2t cm
y(t) 10 5 sin 2t cm
z(t) 10 cos 4t

XY task space motion trajectories of the robotic platform for a given

circular trajectory in the presence of disturbances

Santhakumar

19

Simulation Case 2: with disturbances, parameter uncertainties and sliding friction

forces continued

Time trajectories of the joint space position tracking errors

(without disturbance compensation)

Time trajectories of the joint space position tracking errors (with

disturbance compensation)

Santhakumar

20

Simulation Case 2: with disturbances, parameter uncertainties and sliding friction

forces continued

Time trajectories of the task space position tracking errors

(without disturbance compensation)

Time trajectories of the task space position tracking errors (with

disturbance compensation)

Santhakumar

21

Simulation Case 2: with disturbances, parameter uncertainties and sliding friction

forces continued

Time trajectories of the estimated joint disturbances for the given circular
trajectory

Santhakumar

22

Conclusions and future work

The effectiveness of the proposed scheme was
demonstrated using extensive numerical simulations with
suitable manipulation tasks.
The results confirmed the effectiveness and robustness of
the proposed scheme in terms of tracking errors in the
presence of unknown external disturbances and parameter
uncertainties.
The proposed controller is simple structure, ease of
computation and positional feedback inputs are sufficient.
Therefore, it can be implemented easily and extended to
spatial platforms as well.
Santhakumar

23

Santhakumar

24