Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:17:13.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trajectory tracking control in workspace-defined tasks for nonholonomic mobile manipulators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2009

Alicja Mazur
Alicja Mazur*
Affiliation:
Institute of Computer Engineering, Control and Robotics, Wrocław University of Technology, ul. Janiszewskiego 11/17, 50-372 Wrocław, Poland
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper considers a problem of tracking control design for different types of nonholonomic mobile manipulators. The mobile platform is in form of a unicycle. In the first step, an input–output decoupling controller is developed. The proposed selection of output functions is in more general form than the output functions previously introduced by others [Yamamoto and Yun]. It makes possible to move simultaneously, the mobile platform and the manipulator built on it. Regularity conditions that guarantee the existence of the input–output decoupling control law are presented. In the second step, trajectory and path tracking controllers are formulated and presented. Theoretical considerations are illustrated with simulations for the mobile manipulator consisting of a vertical, three degree of freeedom (DOF) pendulum (with holonomic or nonholonomic drives) mounted atop of a unicycle.

Keywords

Nonholonomic constraintMobile manipulatorInput–output decoupling controller
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 57 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

References

1.Bayle, B., Fourquet, J. Y. and Renaud, M., “Manipulability of wheeled mobile manipulators: application to motion generation,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 22 (7), 565–581 (2003).Google Scholar
2.Canudas de Wit, C., Siciliano, B. and Bastin, G., Theory of Robot Control (Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 1996).Google Scholar
3.Caracciolo, L., De Luca, A. and Iannitti, S., “Trajectory tracking of a four-wheel differentially driven mobile robot,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Detroit, MI (1999) pp. 2632–2638.Google Scholar
4.Chung, J. H., Velinsky, S. A. and Hess, R. A., “Interaction control of a redundant mobile manipulator,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 17 (12), 1302–1309 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.d'Andrea Novel, B., Campion, G. and Bastin, G., “Control of wheeled mobile robots not satisfying ideal velocity constraints: a singular perturbation approach,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 5, 243–267 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.d'Andréa Novel, B., Bastin, G. and Campion, G., “Modelling and control of nonholonomic wheeled mobile robots,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA (1991) pp. 1130–1135.Google Scholar
7.Furuno, S., Yamamoto, M. and Mohri, A., “Trajectory planning of mobile manipulator with stability considerations,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Taipei, Taiwan (2003) pp. 3403–3408.Google Scholar
8.Hatano, M. and Obara, H., “Stability evaluation for mobile manipulators using criteria based on reaction,” Proceedings of the SICE Annual Conference, Fukui, Japan (2003) pp. 2050–2055.Google Scholar
9.Huang, Q., Sugano, S. and Tanie, K., “Motion planning for a mobile manipulator considering stability and task constraints,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Leuven, Belgium (1998) pp. 2192–2198.Google Scholar
10.Krstić, M., Kanellakopoulos, I. and Kokotović, P., Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design (J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1995).Google Scholar
11.Mazur, A., “Hybrid adaptive control laws solving a path following problem for nonholonomic mobile manipulators,” Int. J. Control 77 (15), 1297–1306 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Nakamura, Y., Chung, W. and Sørdalen, O. J., “Design and control of the nonholonomic manipulator,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 17 (1), 48–59 (2001).Google Scholar
13.Nijmeijer, H. and van der Schaft, A. J., Nonlinear dynamical control systems (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Spong, M. and Vidyasagar, M., Robot Dynamics and Control (J. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989).Google Scholar
15.Tchoń, K. and Jakubiak, J., “Acceleration-driven Kinematics of Mobile Manipulators: An Endogenous Configuration Space Approach,” In On Advances in Robot Kinematics (Lenarčič, J. and Galletti, C., eds.) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004) pp. 469–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Tchoń, K., Jakubiak, J. and Zadarnowska, K., “Doubly nonholonomic mobile manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, LA (2004) pp. 4590–4595.Google Scholar
17.Yamamoto, Y. and Yun, X., “Coordinating locomotion and manipulation of a mobile manipulator,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 39 (6), 1326–1332 (1994).Google Scholar
18.Yamamoto, Y. and Yun, X., “Effect of the dynamic interaction on coordinated control of mobile manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 12 (5), 816–824 (1996).Google Scholar
19.Yamamoto, Y. and Yun, X., “Task space analysis of multiple mobile manipulator system,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation CIRA'99, Monterey, CA (1999) pp. 338–344.Google Scholar