Complexity

Complexity / 2018 / Article
Special Issue

Control Design for Systems Operating in Complex Environments

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 9573514 | 17 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9573514

A Review on the Control of Second Order Underactuated Mechanical Systems

Academic Editor: Xiaofeng Liu
Received11 Jul 2018
Revised27 Sep 2018
Accepted25 Oct 2018
Published02 Dec 2018

Abstract

This paper describes some important classes of two degrees of freedom of underactuated mechanical system and also surveys review of the recent state-of-the-art concerning the mathematical modeling of these systems, their classification, and all the control strategies (linear, nonlinear, and intelligent) that have been made so far (i.e., from the year 2000 to date) to control these systems. Future research and challenges concerning the improvement, the effectiveness, and robustness of the proposed controllers for underactuated mechanical systems are presented.

1. Introduction

Mechanical systems can be classified into three major classes according to their degree of actuation. A mechanical system can be fully actuated [13], in the case that each degree of freedom can be individually controlled because the system has as many actuators as degrees of freedom. When the system has more actuators than degrees of freedom, the system is said to be overactuated [4, 5]. Finally, the last class of mechanical systems is systems with fewer actuators than degrees of freedom that is called underactuated systems [6, 7]. This last class includes a lot of applications in different fields such as in robotics [8, 9], aeronautical [10] and spatial systems, marine and underwater systems [11], and flexible and mobile systems. Underactuated mechanical systems have several advantages: reduction of weight, reduction of the propensity to breakdown or energy cost of the reduced control.

The diversity and complexity of these systems have led researchers in the field to analyze, on a case-by-case, the examples of underactuated mechanical systems of small size (i.e., with few degrees of freedom) such as the pendulum systems, the Acrobot, the Pendubot [12], the TORA, and the ball and beam systems. These systems, although small in size, exhibit a non-zero degree of underactuation and a highly nonlinear dynamic. It is important to emphasize that none of the techniques proposed and developed for fully actuated robots by different authors can be applied directly to any underactuated mechanical system.

Indeed, the control inputs can only control part of the dynamics and the remaining part defines what is called the internal dynamics of the system. However, it is possible, using appropriate techniques, to indirectly control the coordinates of the internal dynamics. An overall stabilization of the system remains possible under certain conditions, which is why the underactuated mechanical systems are concretely used to benefit from their quality, by means of a complexification of the control methods.

Reference [13] has made a survey on controlling the Rotary Inverted Pendulum, starting with the determination of the system model using Newton-Euler, Lagrange-Euler, and Lagrange methods. After that, the authors have defined all the control objectives that are controlling the pendulum from downward stable position to an upward unstable position (swing-up control), regulating the pendulum to remain at the unstable position (stabilization control), switching between these two last (switching control) and controlling the system in such a way that the arm tracks the desired trajectory while the pendulum remains at an unstable position (trajectory tracking). Then, and based on each control objective defined, the authors have explained the control strategies that have been applied to control the system and that comprise the linear (PID, LQR, PP), nonlinear time-invariant (sliding mode, fuzzy logic control, and backstepping), self-learning, and adaptive nonlinear controllers. Finally, and in order to test the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed controllers, the authors have mentioned some other complex system that can be added to the system of Rotary Inverted Pendulum (Two Wheeled Rotary Inverted Pendulum) and have proposed other control strategies to apply in order to control it.

Paper [14] has presented a survey of illustrative academic books, survey and research papers on nonlinear control of the inverted pendulum. Starting with the description of motion of the pendulum using the Newton-Euler approach, after that, the author has mentioned the fact that many standard techniques in control theory fail to control the system of the inverted pendulum and has explained how other controls can give satisfactory results such as PID, LQR, the energy-based methods, the energy-shaping techniques, and the hybrid control approaches. In order to guarantee robustness performances, it is usually desirable to use the sliding mode control approach. For the purpose of reducing the complexity of controllers, it has been mentioned that it is desirable to use hybrid control approaches, such as fuzzy neural control approaches and genetic algorithms. Finally, they have presented possible future trends that can be considered such as delays, unstable internal dynamics, uncertainty conditions, saturation of actuators, and chaos dynamics.

Reference [15] has proposed a book for controlling underactuated mechanical systems. The authors start by describing and formalizing a MATLAB-based identification procedure of two underactuated mechanical systems [16]: the Furuta pendulum and the inertia wheel pendulum. In order to achieve this goal, the system model of the two systems was obtained using Euler-Lagrange form and has been expressed as a linear regression model. They have been then filtered in order to get the discrete form so they can be implemented to the real-time experimental platform where it has been mentioned that it can be easily extended to fully actuated mechanisms of a higher degree of freedom. In the next chapter [17], the authors have introduced a composed control scheme containing the input-output linearization methodology and the energy-based compensation derived from the energy function of the system, which have been applied for the trajectory tracking of the Furuta pendulum. The proposed method has been compared with the tracking controller methods reported in the literature, where it has been shown that the proposed control scheme shows better performance in the trajectory tracking. In the following chapter [18], the authors have proposed a new trajectory tracking controller based on the input-output feedback linearization technique applied to the Furuta pendulum. The proposed control strategy has been compared to two additional controllers, a PID controller and an output tracking controller, where it has been proved that the proposed controller exhibits better performance for both tracking of the arm and regulation of the pendulum than the PID controller and the output tracking controller. In the next chapter [19], the authors have introduced a novel adaptive neural network-based control scheme for the Furuta pendulum. The new control scheme was compared to other control strategies where simulations results of the experimental study have shown that the proposed method is able to guarantee to track a reference signal for the arm while the pendulum remains in the upright position better than the other methods. In the following chapter [20], and using the same methodology given for the Furuta pendulum which is the sum of a feedback-linearization based controller and an energy-based compensation, the authors have made a control scheme for the inertia wheel pendulum, where the control objective is the tracking of a desired trajectory in the actuated joint, while the unactuated link is regulated at the upward position. Finally, the proposed method has been compared with a linear controller for which the proposed algorithms show better performance in the tracking of the desired wheel trajectory at a low energetic cost. In the next chapter [21], a new control strategy has been proposed for the tracking control of the inertia wheel pendulum. The control algorithm is derived from the introduction of a new output function. This last is weighted by positive constants and switched control strategy is employed, in which a passivity-based controller is used in such a way that the wheel tracks a time-varying desired trajectory while the pendulum is regulated at the upward inverted position. The performance of the proposed method was compared to a state feedback controller designed using the linear quadratic regulator design approach based on the linearized model of the system where it shows the superior performance of the new algorithms.

In the chapter that follows the previous one [22], two new robust trajectory tracking controllers were proposed for the inertia wheel pendulum which is neural network-based and regressor based. Both methods have been implemented in an experimental platform where their performance has been compared to the classical linear PID controller. Finally, the last chapter [23] explores control methodologies for controlling underactuated mechanical systems. Among them is the feedback linearization control for linear time-invariant systems that have been applied after that to control a flexible joint robot.

In view of the advantage of impulse control of underactuated systems, which resides in the fact that it can be used to recover the stability of a balance from configurations outside their region of attraction, [24] has proposed an impulsive controller to control the underactuated mechanical system: the inertia wheel pendulum. The use of impulse inputs simplifies system dynamics and an implementation using high gain feedback has been used. The proposed method has been compared to the energy-based controller where the simulation results show similarities between the two methods.

In order to eliminate the phenomenon of the limit cycle which appears in systems under the effect of nonlinearity, [25] has designed a linear feedback regulator to stabilize the Furuta pendulum and the Pendubot. In order to achieve their objective, the authors applied the differential flatness approach to the approximate linear model of pendulums. The resulting systems are subsequently translated into the frequency domain. And a controller has been designed in such a way that the amplitude of the limit cycle is sufficiently reduced. The proposed method was verified by experimental tests.

The main goal of this article is to gather the various researches carried out in modeling, classifying, and controlling some important classes of two degrees of freedom of the underactuated mechanical system, in order to help the future researchers to detect what problems are studied and what are not. Adding to this survey will give the opportunity for future research and challenges concerning the improvement of the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed controllers for this class of underactuated mechanical systems.

The outline of this article is as follows. In Section 2, examples of two degrees of freedom underactuated mechanical system are presented. In Section 3, the dynamic model of each system is described. In Sections 4 and 5 a classification and control methods that have been made to control underactuated mechanical system are presented, respectively. Finally, a conclusion and a future work are given in Section 6.

2. Examples of Underactuated Mechanical Systems

This section presents some examples of underactuated mechanical systems [26, 27] that represent useful benchmarks for nonlinear control and complexity of their control design which are of great interest by researchers. These examples include the Acrobot, the Pendubot, the cart-pole system, the rotating pendulum, the inertia wheel pendulum, the beam and ball system, and the translational oscillator with rotational actuator (TORA) system. Each example will be treated briefly.

2.1. The Acrobot and the Pendubot

The Acrobot, short for ACRObat robot [12, 28, 29] and the Pendubot [3032] shown in Figures 1(a) and 1(b), respectively, are 2-link planar robots with a single actuator. They graphically seem to be very similar; however, the difference resides in the location of their single actuator that causes a major difference in their standard representation. Thus, the first link of the Acrobot is attached to a passive joint and, for the Pendubot, it is attached to an active joint with the joint between two links unactuated which allowed it to swing freely.

The inertia matrix for both systems is the same as shown in Table 1, where the control objective for both systems is to stabilize the two-link manipulators to their upright equilibrium point from any initial condition.


System

Acrobot
Pendubot
Inverted pendulum on cart
The crane system
Furuta Pendulum
Inertia Wheel Pendulum
Beam and ball
TORA

, , , .
2.2. The Inverted Pendulum and the Crane

The cart-pole system shown in Figure 2(a) consists of an inverted pendulum on a cart [3335] that is considered as one of the most popular laboratory experiments used for illustrating nonlinear control techniques. Its control objective is to swing up the pendulum from any initial condition to the upright unstable equilibrium position, while keeping the cart at its original position.

The convey crane system [36, 37] is presented in Figure 2(b), which is similar to the inverted pendulum on a cart, where its control objective is to move the load to the origin, keeping the oscillations of the suspended mass as small as possible.

2.3. The Rotational Pendulum

The rotational pendulum [38, 39] also known as the Furuta pendulum [40, 41] is an inverted pendulum on a rotating arm. It consists of an unactuated pendulum that is free to rotate in the vertical plane and is attached to the end of a horizontal rotating arm that is driven by a DC motor Figure 3.

Clearly, the only difference between the inertia matrices of these two mechanical systems is in the first element . Another similarity between the cart-pole system and the rotating pendulum is that both have the same form of the potential energy.

2.4. The Inertial Wheel Pendulum

The inertia or inertial wheel pendulum [34, 4244] is a two-degree of freedom robot as shown in Figure 4. The pendulum constitutes the first link that is unactuated, while the rotating wheel is the second one that is supposed to control the pendulum. The main goal is to stabilize the pendulum in its upright equilibrium point while the wheel stops rotating.

2.5. The Beam and Ball

The ball and beam system in Figure 5 [4549] consists of a beam and a ball on it. It is composed of a beam that can pivot in the vertical plane via a torque at the center of rotation and a ball whose aim is to reach the center of the beam.

2.6. TORA

The TORA (Translational Oscillator with Rotational Actuator) in Figure 6 consists of a translational oscillating platform with mass , that is controlled via a rotational eccentric mass [5054].

3. Dynamic Model of Underactuated Mechanical Systems

In order to determine the equation motions of the systems, the Lagrangian of the system is first calculated. The Lagrangian of a mechanical system [55] is the difference between its total kinetic energy and its potential energy. From this Lagrangian, the equations of the mechanical system are derived using the Euler-Lagrange equations below:In the case of a mechanical system consisting of solids connected by bonds, the kinetic energy is simply calculated as the sum of the kinetic energies of each solid. The kinetic energy decomposes for each solid in two terms, the first resulting from the translational movement of the mass center of the solid and the second resulting from the rotation of the solid around its center of inertia. Potential energy is generally reduced to a term derived from gravity. The latter depends only on the position of the center of mass of the solid. The application of the Euler-Lagrange equations (1) provides the equations describing the evolution of the generalized coordinates over time. For a mechanical system consisting of rigid solids, as is the case of the majority of robotic manipulators, these equations take the following general form [38, 56, 57]:The are the coefficients of the second derivatives of the generalized coordinates. The are those of quadratic terms of the first derivatives of the generalized coordinates. These are divided into two parts: the terms of the form with which are derived from the centrifugal forces, and those of the form with which are derived from the Coriolis forces. Finally, the terms depend only on the position of the generalized coordinates and are derived from the potential energy. These equations are often put in matrix form, becoming The symmetric and positive definite matrix is called the inertial matrix of the mechanical system. It depends, in the general case, on the configuration of the mechanical system. The matrix corresponds to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, depending on the configuration but also on the generalized coordinate velocities . The vector corresponds to gravity and depends only on the configuration . is the vector of actuator torques. The matrix is the distribution of the forces on the generalized coordinates. And is the actuator input vector. A mechanical system is said to be underactuated if , i.e., that it has fewer independent control inputs than degrees of freedom. It is assumed in the following that , where or and is the control action.

The development of the mathematical models for the examples treated in the previous section is given in the Appendices.

4. Classification of Underactuated Mechanical Systems

In the case of underactuated systems with two degrees of freedom, three classes are defined, namely, Class I, Class II, and Class III associated with strict feedback, nontriangular quadratic, and feedforward forms, respectively.

Some efforts of classification of the underactuated mechanical systems were carried out, in particular in [58, 59] where the classification is based on certain characteristics of the model of the studied system.

The general model for UMSs with two degrees of freedom is of the form [60]:where ’ denotes .

Class I are those for which is actuated . Class II are those for which is not actuated .

It is shown that every underactuated system of Class I can be transformed into a strict feedback form, Class II can be transformed into nontriangular quadratic form and Class III can be transformed into feedforward forms that are summarized in Figure 7.

The main advantage of the classification of underactuated mechanical systems is that it enables to define an adequate control according to the obtained class. For example, the systems that belong to Class I that can be transformed into a strict feedback form may be controlled by a backstepping controller, while the systems that belong to Class II that can be transformed into nontriangular quadratic form would be controlled via a forwarding scheme. On the other hand, for the systems that belong to Class III that can be transformed into feedforward form, their control problem is still an open issue.

5. Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems

Once the model of a mechanical system is established, it is possible to study its dynamics and to design a controller that allows controlling it. And because the control of underactuated mechanical systems is an active field of research in robotics and control system engineering, the main goal of this section is to highlight the contributions in controlling underactuated mechanical systems. Among the most recognized works, there are some that are based on linear controllers and nonlinear controllers given in following.

5.1. Linear Control

Linear controllers offer a simple control design for real-world systems. In the early days of the research, several linear control design techniques were proposed to solve the problem of control of underactuated systems.

Reference [61] has linearized the equations of motion of the rotary pendulum system about an operation point and used a robust LQR-based ANFIS to control the system. The addition of ANFIS is due to the fact that the LQR lacks the property of robustness. Furthermore, the proposed controller has been compared to LQR and showed that it has better robustness along with satisfactory performance as compared to the LQR controller.

Paper [62] used Jacobian linearization method to linearize the system of the ball and beam around operating point and used a linear quadratic regulator and hybrid PID with LQR as a combination to compare the performance of the proposed controllers.

Reference [63] has proposed a threefold step to control the two-link underactuated planar robot: the Pendubot using energy-based method. The authors started with defining necessary and sufficient conditions to provide parameter for a bigger region of controllability. After that, they demonstrated that the Pendubot can enter the region of attraction for any initial conditions except a set of Lebesgue measure zero. Finally, the simulations results are made to validate the proposed controller and have been compared to feedback linearization.

Reference [64] has proposed an energy-based controller with the combination of the neural network compensation to swing up the Pendubot. The idea behind this proposition is that because the energy-based method can successfully avoid the singularity and the neural network offset the bad effect of friction. It has been shown through the experimental studies that the proposed controller has better performance than other algorithms under the same conditions.

Paper [65] has made a combination of two controllers where one is derived from the input-output linearization and the other is derived from an energy function of the system based to control the well-known underactuated mechanical system with two degrees of freedom, the Rotary Inverted Pendulum or Furuta pendulum. The controller is made in such a way to make it possible to apply this procedure to address the trajectory tracking problem for other systems.

Although linear techniques are capable of providing a plausible solution for a particular application, even then the complicated nonlinear dynamics of such systems severely limits the generalized applications of control laws. In addition, a linear approximation of UMS often results in uncontrollable systems, which cannot be the subject of linear control algorithms for stabilization. In addition, the approximate linearization of a complicated nonlinear system provides only a precise linear approximation of the original system near the equilibrium points. It is also known that the linearization of the nonlinear system model often reduces the speed of response. The thing that motivates many researchers to design several nonlinear control algorithms for underactuated mechanical systems.

5.2. Nonlinear Control
5.2.1. Feedback Linearization

Lots of nonlinear controllers have been evolved in the last few years. Feedback linearization is one of the well-known nonlinear design tools for underactuated mechanical systems. The idea behind this method is that it can cancel nonlinearities through a feedback control and transform the nonlinear system into a (fully or partly) equivalent linear system.

Therefore, a particular form of feedback linearization, called partial feedback linearization, is used to solve the control problem for this class of underactuated mechanical systems.

Papers [18, 66] have derived a controller from the input-output feedback linearization technique to control a Furuta pendulum; the simulation results showed that the arm tracked the desired trajectory while the pendulum remained to the upright position.

A feedback linearization control has been proposed by [21] to control the inertia wheel pendulum and by [67] to control the TORA system.

5.2.2. Sliding Mode

However, the feedback linearization approach and the partial feedback linearization both have the problem of lack of robustness. And in order to get the robustness, another robust method which is based on the sliding mode approach could be considered a reasonable solution for controlling of such systems [68]. The behavior of the sliding mode depends on the switching surface. Thus, the sliding mode controller becomes insensitive to parameter variations and external disturbances. The basic idea of sliding mode design is to modify the dynamics of the system by applying a discontinuous feedback control input that forces the system to slide over a predefined state surface and the system produces the desired behavior by limiting its state on this surface. The sliding mode control finds its wide range of applications on several underactuated systems such as the TORA, the ball and the beam, and the robot and chattering, which in turn reduces the longevity of the actuators due to the wear of mechanical parts. Another disadvantage of the sliding mode is that most of the time the sliding mode controller takes a very high value of related perturbation. Therefore, most of the time, the sliding mode controller produces a too conservative design approach. In order to reduce the phenomenon of chattering, several modifications have already been proposed.

An advanced sliding mode control with integral sliding function was applied in [69] for swing-up and balancing the Pendubot to follow with various trajectories.

Reference [70] has proposed sliding mode controller to drive the Pendubot system towards the sliding surface. And in order to overcome the chattering phenomenon, a Lyapunov function with a sufficient condition was derived in terms of LMI with the sliding mode controller. The proposed method was compared to the classic feedback linearization technique and the LQR method. Simulation results show that the proposed sliding mode is a successful technique for controlling the Pendubot at the upright position, reducing the chattering and improving the robustness, better than feedback linearization technique and the LQR method.

Reference [71] designs a fuzzy-sliding control for this system. The concept of the proposed method is to use a fuzzy algorithm in order to change the sliding mode control parameter in such a way that it eliminates the chattering phenomenon. The results show that the fuzzy-sliding control is better than sliding mode control.

Paper [72] has proposed a control scheme based on the combination of a nonlinear optimal control with sliding modes for a class of nonlinear systems that have been applied to the Pendubot. The nonlinear and optimal controller was proposed in order to define the optimal sliding surface. After that, this last was used for synthesizing a super-twisting controller, which has resulted in a robust controller able to reject parametric uncertainties and external disturbances. The system [73] is presented in a cascade form using strict feedback technique, and a disturbance observer is designed to estimate the unknown external disturbances and model uncertainties of the underactuated system. Moreover, a sliding mode control is developed to control the system. The combination of the disturbance observer and the sliding mode control has been applied to the acrobat system and has proved the ability to compensate the disturbances and obtain more satisfactory control performance.

Paper [74] proposed a state feedback control based on sliding mode control scheme for the inertia wheel pendulum. The state feedback controller is extended to an output feedback control using a high gain observer. The analysis and simulation results indicate that the proposed feedback control technique gives good convergence and may be extended to other underactuated systems of similar class which includes systems like TORA and Acrobot.

Reference [75] proposed a sliding mode control for the inertia wheel pendulum. In order to achieve this goal, the dynamic equations were separated into two parts, i.e., an unactuated quasilinear part and an actuated nonlinear part. An appropriate manifold is then designed as well as a corresponding sliding mode controller that controlled the system.

In [76] a nonlinear disturbance observer was made to estimate the nonlinear terms in the model of Furuta, after that a sliding mode control was designed to control the system using the linear quadratic regulator (LQR) technique for the determination of the sliding coefficient.

Paper [77] has investigated the sliding mode control of the simplified and the full models of the ball on a beam system, where it has been proven that the controllers designed using the full model of the system gave better performance than the controllers designed using the simplified model of the system.

Reference [78] has proposed a fuzzy control and decoupled sliding mode controller for TORA system. The proposed controller employed the expert knowledge of the decoupled sliding mode to guarantee through simulation results a good stability and robustness. In the case of the cart-pole system, a review article has been proposed [79] which reviews all the control strategies that have been applied to control this system.

5.3. Passivity-Based Control

Another nonlinear control method has been proposed to control the underactuated systems like the inertia wheel pendulum, ball and beam system [80], and the cart-pole system [81] which is the passivity-based control approach. The main goal of this method is to passivate the system with a storage function, which has a minimum at the desired balance point.

5.4. Backstepping

Another energy-based method is commonly known as backstepping. Not necessarily using linearization, backstepping allows preserving useful nonlinearities that often help to retain finite values of the state vector. This technique assumes that one is able to find at least for a scalar system a control law u and a control function of Lyapunov which stabilize its origin. It also offers an efficient tool that allows, for nonlinear systems of any order, to build recursively, and in a systematic and direct way, the control law and the function of Lyapunov which ensure the stability of the loop. Although the backstepping theory has a fairly short history, many practical applications can be found in the literature. This fact indicates that the need for a nonlinear design methodology addressing a number of practical problems that used the backstepping controller.

Paper [82] proposed a book that presents a control law based on backstepping controller and had applied it to several classes of underactuated mechanical systems such as the inertia wheel pendulum [83], the TORA [84, 85], the Furuta pendulum [86], the Acrobot [87], the Pendubot [88], and the cart-pole system [89].

6. Intelligent Controller

6.1. Fuzzy Logic

Reference [90] has combined the sliding mode controller with the fuzzy controller (decoupled fuzzy sliding-mode controllers) to balance the ball and beam system. To get a good performance, the control parameters of the fuzzy sliding-mode controllers were optimized using ant colony optimization. Simulation and experimental results all indicate the superiority of the proposed scheme over others.

Paper [91] also used an intelligent controller for the ball and beam system, which is the fuzzy logic controller, where the type of membership functions their parameters and the fuzzy rules were optimized using ant colony optimization. The simulation results were compared to other related works, where it has been shown that the proposed algorithm achieves much better results.

Reference [92] has proposed a T-S fuzzy model-based adaptive dynamic surface controller to be applied to a real ball and beam system. First the system model was formulated as a strict feedback form. After that, an adaptive dynamic surface control was applied to achieve the goal of positioning the ball according to uncertainties about the parameters and the controller is applied in such a way to control the hall system with better performance.

6.2. Neural Network

An algorithm based on the neural network least squares method is applied in [93] to derive the optimal control with output feedback of discrete-time affine nonlinear systems. The resulting system is used to obtain the dynamic of the output feedback control law that has been applied to the TORA system.

Reference [94] has proposed an energy-based controller incorporated with fuzzy neural network compensation to swing up the Pendubot to the unstable nonequilibrium position. Numerical simulations and experimental results have shown the performance of the proposed controller over other algorithms.

Table 2 summarizes the various control strategies that have been made to control some class of two degrees of freedom underactuated mechanical systems. We can conclude that none of these single controllers presents the best required result. However a good combination of them can give fast response, robustness, adaptability, tracking the surface desired, and good rejection of disturbance.


The Acrobot The Pendubot The Cart-Pole system The crane system The Furuta Pendulum Inertia Wheel Pendulum The Ball and Beam The TORA

Linear PID[95]
LQR[96]
Pole Placement[97]
Energy[63, 64][65, 98]

NonlinearFeedback linearization[99][100][101][65, 96] [42][102]
Lyapunov [12][103, 104][105]
Sliding mode[106][107109][110, 111][107, 112, 113][77, 90][109]
Backstepping[88][114][86][114, 115]

IntelligentFuzzy[94][109][95][9092, 116][109, 117]
Neural Network[64, 94][118][93]

7. Conclusion and Future Work

A mechanical system is underactuated when the number of control inputs is less than the number of degrees of freedom to control. They constitute a rich class of systems both in terms of applications and control problems. This paper examines a state-of-the-art of some important classes of two degrees of freedom of the underactuated mechanical system on modeling, classification, and control.

In a future work, we will try to answer and analyze the following question: given an underactuated mechanical system with degree of freedom and input, what is the best number of inputs that can give a good stability performance? The idea behind the question is when the human tries to balance a pen or pendulum on their hand, they actually not only use horizontal but also vertical forces to stabilize the pendulum, not to let the pendulum fall. This idea was proved by the author of [119] who has made a study about controlling and stabilizing the inverted pendulum using the vertical force instead of the horizontal force. And after analyzing the control and stabilization of the two systems, the author has concluded that the vertical force has an excellent and fast stabilization effect than the horizontal one. After this conclusion, the author has proposed to combine both of the horizontal and vertical forces and applied them to the inverted pendulum system. The investigation of the theoretical analysis of this combination has proved the excellent properties of adding the vertical force to the horizontal force as regards the stabilization of the inverted pendulum. The author of [120] has also proposed an X–Z inverted pendulum that can move with the combination of the vertical and horizontal forces and has applied a sliding mode control and PID to compare the performance of the system. The same system has been proposed by [121] using the fuzzy control design methodology to stabilize the inverted pendulum via a vertical force, where it has been proved that the proposed hybrid fuzzy control scheme provides a more flexible and intuitive way to stabilize the system via a vertical force. The excellent stabilization effect of the added force made us think about the necessary and sufficient number of inputs that we can apply to an underactuated mechanical system to get a good performance in stability and a large region of stability.

Appendix

A. Development of the Mathematical Models

A.1. The Pendubot

In order to simplify the calculation, we introduce the following parameters:The kinetic and potential energies are given by The kinetic energy of link 2 is With the parameters given in (A.1), the total kinetic energy is The total potential energy is . The Lagrangian function is given by The corresponding equations of motion are derived using (1):

A.2. The Acrobot

As it has been mentioned in previous sections, the Acrobot and the Pendubot seem to be very similar graphically. However, the difference is in the location of their single actuator. This is why they share the same motion of equations where the difference is in the input matrix.

The corresponding equations of motion for the Acrobot are given by

A.3. The Cart-Pole System

The kinetic energy of the system is The potential energy is given by The Lagrangian function in given by The corresponding equations of motion are given using (1):

A.4. The Convey Crane

The system dynamics of the convey crane correspond exactly to the equations of motion of the inverted pendulum on a cart, but now the point of interest is a lower equilibrium point.

A.5. The Furuta Pendulum

is the sum of the kinetic energy of the arm and the pendulum, which are, respectively, defined as follows:where is the linear velocity of the pendulum center of mass. Hence, an analysis of the Furuta pendulum kinematics is required. Then, the location of the pendulum center of mass is determined by where , and are defined as follows: Thus, is given by with

After replacing (A.18) in (A.14) and reducing the resulting expression the following is found: Therefore, the Furuta pendulum kinetic energy, K, is given by

On the other hand, V is the sum of the potential energy of the arm and pendulum. Since the arm is moved on the horizontal plane, its potential energy is constant and is considered equal to zero. Hence, the Furuta pendulum potential energy V is reduced to the pendulum potential energy, that is, The dynamics of the Furuta pendulum is found using (1) as follows: where

A.6. The Reaction Wheel Pendulum

We introduce the parameter . The kinetic energy of the pendulum is and the kinetic energy of the wheel is Therefore, the total kinetic energy is given by

The potential energy of the system is . Finally, the Lagrangian is given by

Using (1), the dynamic equations of the system are given by

A.7. The Beam and Ball

The kinetic and the potential energy of the beam and ball system are given by The motion equations of the beam and ball system are determined as follows using (1):

A.8. The TORA

The kinetic and the potential energy are given by Using Euler-Lagrange formulation, the motion of equations is given by

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. G. Garofalo, C. Ott, and A. Albu-Schäffer, “Walking control of fully actuated robots based on the bipedal SLIP model,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1456–1463, Saint Paul, Minn, USA, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. M. Khadiv, S. A. A. Moosavian, and M. Sadedel, “Dynamics modeling of fully-actuated humanoids with general robot-environment interaction,” in Proceedings of the 2014 2nd RSI/ISM International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics, ICRoM 2014, pp. 233–238, Tehran, Iran, October 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  3. Y. Gu, B. Yao, and C. S. George Lee, “Exponential stabilization of fully actuated planar bipedal robotic walking with global position tracking capabilities,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 140, no. 5, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  4. J. A. Saglia, N. G. Tsagarakis, J. S. Dai, and D. G. Caldwell, “A high performance 2-dof over-actuated parallel mechanism for ankle rehabilitation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA '09), pp. 2180–2186, Kobe, Japan, May 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. M. Bjelonic, N. Kottege, and P. Beckerle, “Proprioceptive control of an over-actuated hexapod robot in unstructured terrain,” in Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2016, pp. 2042–2049, Daejeon, South Korea, October 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  6. R. Seifried, Dynamics of Underactuated Multibody Systems: Modeling, Control and Optimal Design, vol. 205 of Solid Mechanics and Its Applications, Springer International Publishing, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | MathSciNet
  7. A. Choukchou-Braham, B. Cherki, M. Djemaï, and K. Busawon, Analysis and Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | MathSciNet
  8. X. Xin and Y. Liu, Control Design and Analysis for Underactuated Robotic Systems, Springer, London, UK, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | MathSciNet
  9. C. G. Lionel Birglen and T. Laliberté, Underactuated Robotic Hands, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2008.
  10. P. Masarati, M. Morandini, and A. Fumagalli, “Control constraint of underactuated aerospace systems,” Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 9, no. 2, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  11. K. D. Do and J. Pan, Control of Ships and Underwater Vehicles: Design for Underactuated and Nonlinear Marine Systems, Advances in Industrial Control, Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 2009. View at: Publisher Site
  12. X. Lai, J. She, S. X. Yang, and M. Wu, “Comprehensive unified control strategy for underactuated two-link manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 389–398, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  13. M. F. Hamza, H. J. Yap, I. A. Choudhury, A. I. Isa, A. Y. Zimit, and T. Kumbasar, “Current development on using Rotary Inverted Pendulum as a benchmark for testing linear and nonlinear control algorithms,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 116, pp. 347–369, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. O. Boubaker, “The inverted pendulum benchmark in nonlinear control theory: A survey,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 10, no. 5, article 233, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  15. J. Moreno-Valenzuela and C. Aguilar-Avelar, Motion control of underactuated mechanical systems, vol. 88 of Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | MathSciNet
  16. J. Moreno-Valenzuela and C. Aguilar-Avelar, “Identification of Underactuated Mechanical Systems,” in Motion Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, vol. 88 of Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, pp. 27–49, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  17. J. Moreno-Valenzuela and C. Aguilar-Avelar, “Composite control of the furuta pendulum,” in Motion Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, vol. 88 of Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, pp. 51–68, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  18. J. Moreno-Valenzuela and C. Aguilar-Avelar, “Feedback linearization control of the furuta pendulum,” in Motion Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, vol. 88 of Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, pp. 69–92, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  19. J. Moreno-Valenzuela and C. Aguilar-Avelar, “Adaptive Neural Network Control of the Furuta Pendulum,” in Motion Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, vol. 88 of Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, pp. 93–118, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  20. J. Moreno-Valenzuela and C. Aguilar-Avelar, “Composite control of the IWP,” in Motion Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, vol. 88 of Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, pp. 119–140, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  21. J. Moreno-Valenzuela and C. Aguilar-Avelar, “Feedback linearization control of the IWP,” in Motion Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, vol. 88 of Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, pp. 141–158, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  22. J. Moreno-Valenzuela and C. Aguilar-Avelar, “Adaptive control of the IWP,” in Motion Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, vol. 88 of Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, pp. 159–176, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  23. J. Moreno-Valenzuela and C. Aguilar-Avelar, “Discussion on generalizations and further research,” in Motion Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, vol. 88 of Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, pp. 177–187, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  24. N. Kant and R. Mukherjee, “Impulsive Dynamics and Control of the Inertia-Wheel Pendulum,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3208–3215, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. M. Antonio-Cruz, V. M. Hernandez-Guzman, and R. Silva-Ortigoza, “Limit Cycle Elimination in Inverted Pendulums: Furuta Pendulum and Pendubot,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 30317–30332, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. R. Olfati-Saber, “Normal forms for underactuated mechanical systems with symmetry,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 305–308, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  27. D. E. Chang, “Stabilizability of controlled Lagrangian systems of two degrees of freedom and one degree of under-actuation by the energy-shaping method,” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1888–1893, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  28. T. Henmi, M. Deng, and A. Inoue, “Nonlinear control of the underactuated two-link manipulator using the sliding-mode type partial linearisation method,” International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, vol. 41, no. 3-4, pp. 230–235, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. L. T. Aguilar, “Output feedback nonlinear H-tracking control of a nonminimum-phase 2-DOF underactuated mechanical system,” Journal of Robotics, vol. 2009, Article ID 718728, 10 pages, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. A. Olivares and E. Staffetti, “Embedded Optimal Control of Robot Manipulators with Passive Joints,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2015, Article ID 348178, 21 pages, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  31. C. Knoll and K. Röbenack, “Sliding mode control of an underactuated two-link manipulator,” PAMM, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 615-616, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. J. H. Yang and K. S. Yang, “An adaptive variable structure control scheme for underactuated mechanical manipulators,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2012, Article ID 270649, 23 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  33. J. Ghommam, A. Chemori, and F. Mnif, “Finite-time stabilization of underactuated mechanical systems in the presence of uncertainties: application to the cart-pole system,” in The Inverted Pendulum in Control Theory and Robotics: from Theory to New Innovations, pp. 165–190, IET Digital Library, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. H. Ye, W. Gui, and Z.-P. Jiang, “Backstepping design for cascade systems with relaxed assumption on Lyapunov functions,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 700–712, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  35. J. Ramos and S. Kim, “Dynamic bilateral teleoperation of the cart-pole: a study toward the synchronization of human operator and legged robot,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3293–3299, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. H. Sira-Ramírez, E. W. Zurita-Bustamante, and E. Hernández-Flores, “On the ADRC of non-differentially flat, underactuated, nonlinear systems: an experimental case study,” in Proceedings of the ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 8 pages, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. A.-A. D. Papadopoulos, A. A. Rompokos, and A. T. Alexandridis, “Nonlinear and observer-based PD position and sway control of convey-crane systems,” in Proceedings of the 24th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, MED 2016, pp. 696–700, Athens, Greece, June 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. B. S. Cazzolato and Z. Prime, “On the dynamics of the furuta pendulum,” Journal of Control Science and Engineering, vol. 2011, Article ID 528341, 8 pages, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  39. I. Hassanzadeh and S. Mobayen, “Controller design for rotary inverted pendulum system using evolutionary algorithms,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2011, Article ID 572424, 17 pages, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. J. A. Acosta, “Furuta’s pendulum: a conservative nonlinear model for theory and practise,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2010, Article ID 742894, 29 pages, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. T. Ortega-Montiel, R. Villafuerte-Segura, C. Vázquez-Aguilera, and L. Freidovich, “Proportional retarded controller to stabilize underactuated systems with measurement delays: furuta pendulum case study,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2017, Article ID 2505086, 12 pages, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  42. C. Aguilar-Avelar, R. Rodríguez-Calderón, S. Puga-Guzmán, and J. Moreno-Valenzuela, “Effects of nonlinear friction compensation in the inertia wheel pendulum,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 4425–4433, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. M. W. Spong, P. Corke, and R. Lozano, “Nonlinear control of the Reaction Wheel Pendulum,” Automatica, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 1845–1851, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. S. Andary, A. Chemori, and S. Krut, “Control of the underactuated inertia wheel inverted pendulum for stable limit cycle generation,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 23, no. 15, pp. 1999–2014, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. B. Meenakshipriya and K. Kalpana, “Modelling and control of ball and beam system using coefficient diagram method (CDM) based PID controller,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 620–626, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. D. I. R. Almeida, C. Gamez, and R. Rascón, “Robust regulation and tracking control of a class of uncertain 2DOF underactuated mechanical systems,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2015, Article ID 429476, 11 pages, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  47. N. Muškinja and M. Rižnar, “Optimized PID position control of a nonlinear system based on correlating the velocity with position error,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2015, Article ID 429476, 11 pages, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. L. De La Torre, M. Guinaldo, R. Heradio, and S. Dormido, “The ball and beam system: A case study of virtual and remote lab enhancement with Moodle,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 934–945, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. D. J. S. Ruth, K. Dhanalakshmi, and S. S. Nakshatharan, “Interrogation of undersensing for an underactuated dynamical system,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 2203–2211, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. B. Gao, C. Liu, and H. Cheng, “Virtual constraints based control design of an inclined translational oscillator with rotational actuator system,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2015, Article ID 769151, 9 pages, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. Y. Wang and S. Li, “Adaptive control of the translational oscillator with a rotational actuator system,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, ICM 2017, pp. 43–47, Churchill, VIC, Australia, February 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. Q. Quan and K.-Y. Cai, “Repetitive control for TORA benchmark: An additive-state-decomposition-based approach,” International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 289–296, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. L. Greco, A. Chaillet, and E. Panteley, “Robustness of stochastic discrete-time switched linear systems with application to control with shared resources,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 3168–3179, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. M. Tavakoli, H. D. Taghirad, and M. Abrishamchian, “Identification and robust H∞ control of the rotational/translational actuator system,” International Journal of Control, Automation, and Systems, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 387–396, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  55. A. D. Lewis, Lagrangian Mechanics, Dynamics and Control, Wiley, 2000.
  56. L. Sciavicco and B. Siciliano, Modelling and Control of Robot Manipulators, Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal Processing, Springer, London, Uk, 2000. View at: Publisher Site
  57. A.-C. Huang, Y.-F. Chen, and C.-Y. Kai, “Pendubot,” in Adaptive Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems, pp. 189–200, World Scientific, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. R. Olfati-Saber, Nonlinear control of underactuated mechanical systems with application to robotics and aerospace vehicles [Ph.D. thesis], Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001.
  59. D. Maalouf, C. H. Moog, Y. Aoustin, and S. Li, “Classification of two-degree-of-freedom underactuated mechanical systems,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 1501–1510, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  60. J.-P. Aubin and H. Frankowska, Set-Valued Analysis, Modern Birkhäuser Classics, Birkhäuser Basel, Boston, Mass, USA, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | MathSciNet
  61. I. Chawla and A. Singla, “Real-time control of a rotary inverted pendulum using robust LQR-based ANFIS controller,” International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, vol. 19, no. 3-4, pp. 379–389, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  62. M. Keshmiri, A. F. Jahromi, A. Mohebbi, M. H. Amoozgar, and W.-F. Xie, “Modeling and control of ball and beam system using model based and non-model based control approaches,” International Journal On Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 14–35, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  63. X. Xin, S. Tanaka, J. She, and T. Yamasaki, “New analytical results of energy-based swing-up control for the Pendubot,” International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, vol. 52, pp. 110–118, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  64. D. Xia, L. Wang, and T. Chai, “Neural-network-friction compensation-based energy swing-up control of pendubot,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 1411–1423, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. C. Aguilar-Avelar and J. Moreno-Valenzuela, “A composite controller for trajectory tracking applied to the Furuta pendulum,” ISA Transactions, vol. 57, pp. 286–294, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. C. Aguilar-Avelar and J. Moreno-Valenzuela, “New feedback linearization-based control for arm trajectory tracking of the furuta pendulum,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 638–648, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. T. Taniguchi and M. Sugeno, “Piecewise multi-linear model based control for tora system via feedback linearization,” in Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, vol. II, Hong Kong, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  68. C. Cheng and C. Ho, “Design of adaptive sliding mode controllers for mismatched perturbed systems with application to underactuated systems,” in Proceedings of the 2017 36th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), pp. 1329–1336, Dalian, China, July 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. C. Kien, N. Son, and H. Huy Anh, “Swing Up and Balancing Implementation for the Pendubot Using Advanced Sliding Mode Control,” in Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Electrical, Automation and Mechanical Engineering, Phuket, Thailand, July 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. C. Van Kien, N. N. Son, and H. P. H. Anh, “A stable lyapunov approach of advanced sliding mode control for swing up and robust balancing implementation for the pendubot system,” in AETA 2015: Recent Advances in Electrical Engineering and Related Sciences, vol. 371 of Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, pp. 411–425, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. X. D. Huyn, D. K. L. Huynh, V. D. Dat, T. P. Nguyen, M. T. Nguyen, and V. D. H. Nguyen, “Application of fuzzy algorithm in optimizing hierarchical sliding mode control for pendubot system,” Robotica and Management, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 8–12, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  72. S. Ramos-Paz, F. Ornelas-Tellez, and A. G. Loukianov, “Nonlinear optimal tracking control in combination with sliding modes: Application to the Pendubot,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on Power, Electronics and Computing (ROPEC), pp. 1–6, Ixtapa, Mexico, November 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. F. Ding, J. Huang, Y. Wang, J. Zhang, and S. He, “Sliding mode control with an extended disturbance observer for a class of underactuated system in cascaded form,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 2571–2582, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  74. N. Khalid and A. Y. Memon, “Output feedback stabilization of an Inertia Wheel Pendulum using Sliding Mode Control,” in Proceedings of the 10th UKACC International Conference on Control, CONTROL 2014, pp. 157–162, Loughborough, UK, July 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  75. L. Biao, Y. Fang, and N. Sun, “Global stabilization of inertia wheel systems with a novel sliding mode-based strategy,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Variable Structure Systems, VSS 2016, pp. 200–205, Nanjing, China, June 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. K. Majumder and B. M. Patre, “Sliding mode control for underactuated mechanical systems via nonlinear disturbance observer: stabilization of the rotational pendulum,” International Journal of Dynamics and Control, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1663–1672, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  77. N. B. Almutairi and M. Zribi, “On the sliding mode control of a Ball on a Beam system,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 59, no. 1-2, pp. 222–239, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  78. L.-C. Hung, H.-P. Lin, and H.-Y. Chung, “Design of self-tuning fuzzy sliding mode control for TORA system,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 201–212, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. S. Krafes, Z. Chalh, and A. Saka, “Review: Linear, nonlinear and intelligent controllers for the inverted pendulum problem,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Electrical and Information Technologies, ICEIT 2016, pp. 136–141, Tangiers, Morocco, May 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. R. Ortega, M. W. Spong, F. Gómez-Estern, and G. Blankenstein, “Stabilization of a class of underactuated mechanical systems via interconnection and damping assignment,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1218–1233, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  81. A. Shiriaev, A. Pogromsky, H. Ludvigsen, and O. Egeland, “On global properties of passivity-based control of an inverted pendulum,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 283–300, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  82. S. Rudra, R. K. Barai, and M. Maitra, Block Backstepping Design of Nonlinear State Feedback Control Law for Underactuated Mechanical Systems, Springer, Singapore, Singapore, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | MathSciNet
  83. S. Rudra, R. K. Barai, M. Maitra et al., “Global stabilization of a flat underactuated inertia wheel: a block backstepping approach,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI '13), pp. 1–4, Coimbatore, India, January 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  84. S. Rudra, R. K. Barai, M. Maitra et al., “Design of nonlinear state feedback control law for underactuated TORA system: a block backstepping approach,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control (ISCO 2013), Coimbatore, India, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  85. D. Liu and W. Guo, “Nonlinear backstepping design for the underactuated TORA system,” Journal of Vibroengineering, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 552–559, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  86. S. Rudra, R. K. Barai, M. Maitra et al., “Stabilization of furuta pendulum: a backstepping based hierarchical sliding mode approach with disturbance estimation,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control, ISCO 2013, pp. 99–105, Coimbatore, India, January 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. S. Rudra, R. K. Barai, and M. Maitra, “Applications of the block backstepping algorithm on 2-DOF Underactuated mechanical systems: some case studies,” in Block Backstepping Design of Nonlinear State Feedback Control Law for Underactuated Mechanical Systems, pp. 53–108, Springer, Singapore, Singapore, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  88. S. Rudra and R. K. Barai, “Design of block backstepping based nonlinear state feedback controller for pendubot,” in Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Control, Measurement and Instrumentation, CMI 2016, pp. 479–483, Kolkata, India, January 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. S. Rudra, R. Kumar Barai, and M. Maitra, “Nonlinear state feedback controller design for underactuated mechanical system: a modified block backstepping approach,” ISA Transactions, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 317–326, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. Y.-H. Chang, C.-W. Chang, C.-W. Tao, H.-W. Lin, and J.-S. Taur, “Fuzzy sliding-mode control for ball and beam system with fuzzy ant colony optimization,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 3624–3633, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. O. Castillo, E. Liz\'Arraga, J. Soria, P. Melin, and F. Valdez, “New approach using ant colony optimization with ant set partition for fuzzy control design applied to the ball and beam system,” Information Sciences, vol. 294, pp. 203–215, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  92. Y.-H. Chang, W.-S. Chan, and C.-W. Chang, “T-S fuzzy model-based adaptive dynamic surface control for ball and beam system,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2251–2263, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. R. Bachir Bouiadjra, M. F. Khelfi, M. Salem, and M. Sedraoui, “Nonlinear H∞ control via measurement feedback using neural network,” Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1109–1118, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. D. Xia, T. Chai, and L. Wang, “Fuzzy Neural-network friction compensation-based singularity avoidance energy swing-up to nonequilibrium unstable position control of pendubot,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 690–705, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. S.-E. Oltean, “Swing-up and stabilization of the rotational inverted pendulum using PD and fuzzy-PD controllers,” Procedia Technology, vol. 12, pp. 57–64, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. G. Garcia-Chavez and E. Munoz-Panduro, “Global control for the Furuta Pendulum based on Partial Feedback Linearization and stabilization of the Zero Dynamics,” in Proceedings of the 2017 13th IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE 2017), pp. 334–339, Xi’an, China, August 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. V. Nath and R. Mitra, “Swing-up and control of Rotary Inverted Pendulum using pole placement with integrator,” in Proceedings of the Recent Advances in Engineering and Computational Sciences (RAECS '14), pp. 1–5, IEEE, Chandigarh, India, March 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. X. Xin and Y. Liu, “Rotational pendulum,” in Control Design and Analysis for Underactuated Robotic Systems, pp. 109–125, Springer, London, UK, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  99. K. Kozłowski, M. Michalski, and P. Parulski, “Stabilization of Acrobot after landing,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Climbing and Walking Robots and the Support Technologies for Mobile Machines, CLAWAR 2014, pp. 617–624, Poland, July 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  100. M. Zhang and T.-J. Tarn, “Hybrid control of the Pendubot,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. P. Liu, H. Yu, and S. Cang, “Modelling and control of an elastically joint-actuated cart-pole underactuated system,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automation and Computing, ICAC 2014, pp. 26–31, Cranfield, UK, September 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. Y. Wang, S. Li, and Q. Chen, “Stabilization of the translational oscillator with a rotational actuator,” Journal of Information and Computational Science, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 1439–1448, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  103. N. Sun and Y. Fang, “New energy analytical results for the regulation of underactuated overhead cranes: An end-effector motion-based approach,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 4723–4734, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. Y. Fang, B. Ma, P. Wang, and X. Zhang, “A motion planning-based adaptive control method for an underactuated crane system,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 241–248, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  105. M. T. Ravichandran and A. D. Mahindrakar, “Robust stabilization of a class of underactuated mechanical systems using time scaling and Lyapunov redesign,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 4299–4313, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. W. Wang, J.-Q. Yi, D.-B. Zhao, and X.-J. Liu, “Adaptive sliding mode controller for an underactuated manipulator,” in Proceedings of 2004 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, pp. 882–887, Shanghai, China, August 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. M. Lopez-Martinez, J. A. Acosta, and J. M. Cano, “Non-linear sliding mode surfaces for a class of underactuated mechanical systems,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 2195–2204, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  108. C. Aguilar-Ibáñez, J. Mendoza-Mendoza, and J. Dávila, “Stabilization of the cart pole system: by sliding mode control,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 2769–2777, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  109. M. M. Azimi, H. R. Koofigar, and M. Edrisi, “Stabilization of underactuated mechanical systems with time-varying uncertainty using adaptive fuzzy sliding mode,” Mediterranean Journal of Measurement and Control, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  110. M. Zhang, X. Ma, R. Song et al., “Adaptive proportional-derivative sliding mode control law with improved transient performance for underactuated overhead crane systems,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 683–690, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  111. J. Yi, W. Wang, D. Zhao, and X. Liu, “Cascade sliding-mode controller for large-scale underactuated systems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE IRS/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2005, pp. 3194–3199, Edmonton, Canada, August 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. R. Iriarte, L. T. Aguilar, and L. Fridman, “Second order sliding mode tracking controller for inertia wheel pendulum,” Journal of The Franklin Institute, vol. 350, no. 1, pp. 92–106, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  113. L. T. Aguilar, R. Iriarte, and Y. Orlov, “Variable structure tracking control-observer for a perturbed inertia wheel pendulum via position measurements,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 7151–7156, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. Y.-F. Chen and A.-C. Huang, “Controller design for a class of underactuated mechanical systems,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 103–110, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. A. Choukchou-Braham, B. Cherki, and M. Djemai, “A backstepping procedure for a class of underactuated system with tree structure,” in Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Communications, Computing and Control Applications, CCCA 2011, Hammamet, Tunisia, March 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. T.-L. Chien, C.-C. Chen, M.-C. Tsai, and Y.-C. Chen, “Control of AMIRA’s ball and beam system via improved fuzzy feedback linearization approach,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 3791–3804, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  117. C.-d. Liu, B.-t. Gao, G.-b. Zheng, and G.-b. Sun, “Fuzzy control design of oscillating trajectory tracking for underactuated tora,” Electric Machines and Control, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 117–122, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. X. Li and W. Yu, “Synchronization of ball and beam systems with neural compensation,” International Journal of Control, Automation, and Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 491–496, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. D. Maravall, “Control and stabilization of the inverted pendulum via vertical forces,” in Robotic Welding, Intelligence and Automation, vol. 299 of Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, pp. 190–211, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. J.-J. Wang, “Stabilization and tracking control of X-Z inverted pendulum with sliding-mode control,” ISA Transactions, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 763–770, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. D. Maravall, C. Zhou, and J. Alonso, “Hybrid fuzzy control of the inverted pendulum via vertical forces,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 195–211, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 Soukaina Krafes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

1751 Views | 867 Downloads | 5 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.