Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T12:54:36.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forces of reaction and neighbouring Hamilton's principle in the tracking control of manipulators via a sliding scheme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

Guy Jumarie
Guy Jumarie
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversité du Québec à MontréalP.O. Box 8888StA, Montreal, QUE, H3C 3P8 (Canada)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

It is shown that if one comes back to the formulation of the Hamilton's variational principle, it is then possible to obtain new viewpoints on the tracking control of robot manipulators. First, the Lagrange multiplier associated to the sliding surface can be interpretated in terms of control effort and/or forces of reaction of the mechanical system. Secondly, one can use the Taylor expansion of the mechanical Lagrangian, combined with a neighbour- ing Hamilton's principle, to obtain control schemes via sliding surfaces. Thirdly, a perturbation approach combined with the neighbouring Hamilton's principle provides results on the robustness of the control.

Keywords

Robot controlHamilton's principleNeighbouring controlSliding surfaceControl effortReaction forcePerturbation method.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , May 1993 , pp. 227 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Craig, J. J.Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control (Addison Wesley, Wokingham, 1986).Google Scholar
2.Dubowsky, S. and Desforges, D.T. “The application of model-reference adaptive control to robotic manipulator” ASMEJ. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 101, 193–200s (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Horowitz, R. and Tomizuka, M. “An adaptive control scheme for mechanical manipulator-compensation of nonlinearities and decoupling control” ASMEJ. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 108, 127–135 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Koivo, A. and Guo, T. “Adaptive linear controller for robotic manipulators” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 28, 162–171 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Lee, C.S.G. and Chung, M. J. “An adaptive control strategy for mechanical manipulators” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 29, 837–840 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Slotine, J. J. and Li, W. “Adaptive manipulator control: a case study” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 33, 995–1003 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Craig, J. J., Hsu, P. and Sastry, S. S. “Adaptive control of mechanical manipulators” Int. J. Robotics Research 6, 16–28 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Young, K. “Controller design for a manipulator using theory of variable structure systems” IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics 8, 101–109 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Utkin, V. “Variable, structure systems with sliding modes” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 22, 211–222 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.S-K, Tso, Y., Xu and H-Y, ShumVariable structure model reference adaptive control of robot manipulators J. Systems Engineering 1, No. 1, 22–30 (1991).Google Scholar
11.G., Jumarie “A new approach to control and filtering of mechanical systems by using the estimates of their Lagrangians” J. Optimization Theory and Applications 68, No. 2, 289–304 (1991).Google Scholar
12.Asada, H. and Slotine, J. J.Robot Analysis and Control (John Wiley, New York, 1986).Google Scholar
13.Stengeld, R. F.Stochastic Optimal Control (John Wiley, New York, 1986).Google Scholar
14.Bryson, A. E. and Ho, Y. C.Applied Optimal Control (John Wiley, 1975).Google Scholar