Advertisement

On Feedback Linearization of Robot Manipulators and Riemannian Curvature

  • Mark W. Spong
Part of the The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications book series (IMA, volume 104)

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the problem of feedback linearization of rigid robot manipulators. We have shown previously that a necessary and sufficient condition for exact linearization of such systems under a nonlinear coordinate transformation in the state and input space is that the Riemannian curvature tensor associated with the robot inertia matrix vanish identically [17]. Moreover the coordinate transformation is given as the solution of an easily characterized system of partial differential equations. We first review the result from [17] and then discuss the idea of approximate feedback linearization, i.e. feedback linearization of a simplified model. Approximate feedback linearization is useful in this context since the class of robots that satisfy the conditions for exact linearizability is limited. We will show a connection between approximate feedback linearization based on Riemannian curvature and both the imaginary robot concept of Gu and Loh [12] and thepassive computed torque of Anderson [3].

Keywords

Robot Manipulator Feedback Linearization Inertia Matrix Riemannian Curvature Christoffel Symbol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Abdallah, C. et. al., “Survey of Robust Control for Rigid Robots,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine,Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 24–30, Feb. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Anderson, R.J., “A Network Approach to Force Control in Robotics and Tele-operation,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Dec. 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Anderson, R.J., “Passive Computed Torque Algorithms for Robots,” Proc. IEEE Int’l Conf. on Decision and Control, Tampa, FL, pp. 1638–1644, Dec. 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Arnold, V., Mathematical Methods in Classical Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bedrossian, N.S., “Control Theory and Transformation Methods in Classical Mechanics,” Proc. 1990 ACC, San Diego, CA, pp. 1792–1797, May, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bedrossian, N.S., Nonlinear Control Using Linearizing Transformations, Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Bedrossian, N.S., “Linearizing Coordinate Transformations and Riemann Curvature,” Proc. 31st IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, Tucson, AZ, pp. 80–85, Dec. 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Bootuby, W., An Introduction to Differentiable Manifolds and Riemannian Geometry, Academic Press, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Bortoff, S.A., and Spong, M.W., “Pseudolinearization of the Acrobot Using Spline Functions,” Proc. 31st IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, pp. 593–598, Tucson, AZ, Dec. 1992.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Bortoff, S.A., Pseudolinearization Using Spline Functions with Application to the Acrobot, Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, rept. UILU-ENG-92–2249, December, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Gu and Lox, “Control System Modeling by Use of a Canonical Transformation,” Proc. IEEE Int’l Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Raleigh, NC, pp. 484–489, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Gu, Y.L., and Lox, N.K., “Dynamic Modeling and Control by Utilizing an Imaginary Robot Model,” IEEE J. Robotics and Automation, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 532–540, Oct. 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hauser, J., and Murray, R.M., “Nonlinear Controllers for Non-Integrable Systems: The Acrobot Example,” Proc. American Control Conference, pp. 669–671, San Diego, CA, May, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Hauser, J., Sastry, S., and Kokotovic, P.V., “Nonlinear Control via Approximate Input-Output Linearization: The Ball and Beam Example,” IEEE Trans. Aut. Cont., Vol. 37, pp. 392–398, March, 1992.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Koditschek, D., “Robot Kinematics and Coordinate Transformations”, Proc. IEEE Conf. On Dec. and Cont., pp. 1–4, Ft. Lauderdale, Dec. 1985.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Levi-Civita, The Absolute Differential Calculus, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Spong, M.W., “Remarks on Robot Dynamics: Canonical Transformations and Riemannian Geometry,” IEEE Int’l Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Nice, France, pp. 554–559, May, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Spong, M.W., and Vidyasagar, M., Robot Dynamics and Control, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark W. Spong
    • 1
  1. 1.Coordinated Science LaboratoryUniversity of Illinois at Urbana—ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations