You are on page 1of 9

COORDINATED CONTROL OF FLYING ROBOTIC ARM

DongBin Lee, C. Nataraj


Dept of Mechanical Engineering and CENDAC
Villanova University
Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085
Email: dongbin.lee, nataraj@villanova.edu

ABSTRACT
In this paper, a flying vehicle with a robotic arm is addressed. The flying robotic arm, called UAVARM, is modeled as
an integrated system comprising a small-scale unmanned, underactuated aerial vehicle (UAV) and a revolute robotic manipulator
which can have a fast and flexible maneuverability in space. The
main concern for the combined system is to control the position
and orientation of the end-effector of the UAVARM while collaboratively stabilizing the UAV body so that it can follow and
track a desired trajectory. Success in solving the control design
problem will allow the system to be used in remote dextrous applications such as replacing bulbs on a radio tower. Many control
challenges exist due to the complexity of the system including
that the UAV is underactuated, inherently unstable, and the interaction of the arm and the UAV. The novelty of this system
is that UAVARM is the complete integration of the subsystem to
function as a single entity - the subsystems are cooperatively controlled in the sense that spatial states such as position, attitude,
and orientation are transferred or cumulated in an automated
manner using homogeneous matrices to the end-effector in order to exactly control the flying arm. The closed-loop controller
will control the trajectory-tracking of the end-effector while satisfying a Lyapunov-type stability of the integrated system, which
yields an asymptotically stable tracking result in a given angle
condition.

INTRODUCTION
In this research, control of a single integrated flying robotic
arm based on developed kinematics and dynamic models is presented. This flying arm, called UAVARM and depicted in Figure
1, consists of an underactuated unmanned aerial vehicle and a
Address

all correspondence to this author.

Timothy C. Burg
Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina 29634-0915
Email: tburg@clemson.edu

Figure 1: Working Flying Robotic Arm

revolute n-link robot manipulator. The quad-rotor UAV system


shown in Figure 2 has become important in applications due to
its advantages such as maneuverability. On the other hand, serial
robot manipulators [11] have played important roles in applications in industry, military, and civil areas. This researchfocuses
on extracting the strong points from each system and combining
them together, to synthesize a powerful new system [6]. This
paper describes a model and a control algorithm for the new system. There has been only a few research in this area. In [10], the
authors extended the scope of the UAV functionality to include
contacting, picking-up, and manipulating objects while stabilizing a hovering helicopter. The authors in [9] proved to guarantee
the stability of the aircraft during the contact with the environment. The goal of this paper is both to model and control the
end-effectors six degree-of-freedom (DOF) [4] via the position
and orientation, of the UAVARM while stabilizing each system.

Figure 2: UAV Model

Figure 4: Two-link Robot Manipulator

Figure 3: UAV Remodeling for the Integration

It is not just the integration of the two systems, but the true coordinated control of the combined system that is sought. To tackle
the modelling issue, the idea for the integration is shown in Figure 3 where (a) is the general UAV model and (b) is the three-axis
orthogonal joint related to roll, pitch, and yaw motion at the same
origin while having the same UAV thrust on the Z-axis. Then the
position and angles of the underactuated UAV are transferred cumulatively through the UAV rigid-body and the manipulator to
the end-effector of the flying robotic arm system [6]. Most UAV
systems with a camera system can claim their system is also a
single robot manipulator but actually each works separately or
the combined system is controlled in a limited space by assuming

it is a decoupled system. This may need two or more operators


or an operator with multiple control devices, which means it may
not really integrated or coordinated system, refer to [7].
The second challenge is to develop the control system in
a coordinated manner that the kinematics and dynamics for the
UAVARM system control the UAV and robot manipulator. In the
paper, the coordinated control approach is used for the control
of the end-effector as well as the stabilization of the UAV body
motion. As in the modeling equation, there are two cooperative
terms as follows: 1) Interactive terms of each system matrices
such as inertia, Coriolis, and damping terms are used to complement the other bodys motion. For instance, the robot manipulators interactive inertia term, Mc, exists on the UAV-body dynamics. Similarly, other terms are in the other matrices as well.
Thus, the control inputs of the force and torques of UAV and
the joint torques of robot manipulator are designed to collaboratively feed to obtain the objectives while stabilizing the uav body
and the end-effector system these terms. 2) Another important
one is that whatever the end-effector motion goes, the UAV body
provides the coordinated control input to make the end-effector
work as well as stabilizing the uav body itself. The forward kinematics from the rigid-body UAV to the end-effector has been derived using the Denavit-Hartenberg Convention [12]. The first
joint of the two-link manipulator provides roll motion and the
second joint provides tilt motion to the end effector. Compared
to the well known planar two-link robot manipulator, it is adequate for robotic arm like a wrist arm. However, unlike the wrist
arm we have developed the dynamics not only the tilt-roll revolute arm but also the total integrated dynamic system as shown
in Figure 5. Hence, for the dynamic equations of motion of the
flying arm, the EE position and orientation of six-DOF are expressed using cumulative homogeneous matrices from the UAV
coordinate through the robot manipulator relative to earth-fixed
inertial frame. Thirdly, although the EE of UAVARM system
is fully actuated; the total DOFs should be eight; 6-DOF UAV
with 2-DOF robot manipulator. The quadrotor-type UAV de-

and a more general compact form can be given by


M(q) +C(q, q,
) + D(q, q,
) + G(q, ) =

(2)

h
iT

T
T
where = , qT
R8 is the acceleration, = T , qT
R8 , q(t) R2 is the joint position, q(t)
R2 is the joint veloc8
ity, and (t) R is vector of a force and torque inputs. Note
that each dynamic modeling of the UAV and robot manipulator
and q(t)
with respect to (t)
except for interactive terms has been
already derived and used here. See the Appendices in [6]. The
system matrices M(q), C(q, q,
), D(q, q,
), G(q, ) are defined
below.
Forces and Torques: (t)
(t) = Bu u in (2) are the linear forces (thrusts), UAV body
torques and joint torques, and Bu is the actuator input configuration matrix as follows


= V
q
Figure 5: Combined UAV and robot manipulator (UAVARM)
Expressed in Body-fixed Frame

scribed here shown in Figure 2 is however underactuated system which has only four control inputs. Although the two-DOF
deficit comes from the underactuation of the UAV, when it combines with the two-DOF robot manipulator as shown in Figure 4,
then we can fully control the EE of UAVARM which needs only
six control inputs rather than having eight ones thus, we will design the underactuated controller for the coordinated unmanned
system. If we will add more links, the system can get surplus
redundancy as much. For example, if we add hyper-redundant
arm such as snake-like robot arm or elephant nose, it gives more
flexibility and versatility of the EE for a variety of applications.
Finally, the control objective of the UAVARM in this paper is to
perform a trajectory-tracking and the controller is designed via a
Lyapunov-type stability [5].

INTEGRATED SYSTEM MODELING


The dynamic model of the integrated vehicle system can be
defined [6] as
 
Mv + M1 (q) Mc (q)
+
T
 Mc (q)
M
 m   q

Cv +C1 C2

Gv + Ge (q)
+
+
Cm
q
Gm(q)  
 C3
Dv + D1 + D2 D3

= V ,
D4
Dm + D5
q
q

(1)

B
O62
=
O24 I2




uV
uq


= Bu u

(3)


B
O62
where Bu =
, Ir is a r r identity matrix, the force
O24 I2
and moment acting on the vehicle is defined as V (t) = B uV
R6 uses B R64 [8], a special thruster configuration matrix, to
distribute the inputs uV (t) R4 which has the following com
T
ponents uV = u1 , , , , R4 . The vector uq (t) is the

T
joint torque, uq = q1 , q2 R2 . Note that the UAV body is
under-actuated in the sense that there are four control inputs and
six degrees of freedom.


Inertia Matrix: M(q)


The inertia matrix is given by



Mv + M1 (q) Mc (q)
R88 ,
M(q) =
McT (q)
Mm (q)

(4)

in which the inertia of the vehicle can be defined as Mv = MUV +


MVA R66 where MVA is the added inertia due to the loading
of the media, and M1 (q) is the added inertia due to the manipulator. Mc R6n is the matrix related to the reaction forces and
moments between the UAV and manipulator, Mm Rnn (=22)
is the inertia matrix of the manipulator. The reader is referred to
the
revolute (RR) robotic arm [6]. MUV =
 modeling of two-link

mI3
mS(pG )
R66 is the inertia matrix of the UAV,
mS(pG ) Jc
T > 0 and M
UV = 0
which has the following property MUV = MUV
and pG is the distance from an arbitrary point of the body fixed
coordinate frame, expressed in B (or F), to the point of center of

gravity coordinate frame, denoted G, The origin of the quadrotor


body-fixed frame is considered to be coincident with the center
of mass and then the distancewill be pG = O31 which reduces
mI3 O33
MUV to MUV =
. The reader is referred to the ApO33 I
pendices in [6].

For n 1 (n = 2) vector for robot manipulator, the gravity



T
forces are defined as Gm = fgi , pii1 fgi
R2 and fgi =

T
0, 0, mi g
where i = 1, 2. Due to the assumption that the

T
body-fixed frame is at the center of gravity Gv = fGT , OT31
R6 .

Coriolis and Centripetal Matrix: C(q, )


The Coriolis and Centripetal matrix is given by

UAVARM End-Effector Kinematics


The combined system can be modeled as a single robotic
manipulator using the Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) table in Table
1 where i is the number of the link, is the angle, d is the offset,

C () +C1 (q, q,
) C2 (q, q)

C(q, ) = v
C3 (q, q,
)
Cm (q, q)


(5)

Table 1. Denavit-Hartenberg Convention for UAVARM


where C(q, ) R(6+n)(6+n) = R88 (n = 2), and =
 T T T
v ,
. Cv () R66 is the Coriolis-Centripetal matrix of
the UAV body. In the second row in (1), C1 (q, q,
) R66 is
the Coriolis-Centripetal matrix due to the interaction of the UAV
and the robot manipulator. C2 (q, q)
R62 is the effect of the
manipulator on the UAV body, C3 (q, q,
) R26 is the effect of
the UAV body on the manipulator, and Cm (q, q)
R22 CoriolisCentripetal terms of the robot manipulator.

Dv () + D1 (q) + D2 (q, q,
), D3 (q, q,
)
D4 (q, q,
), Dm (q) + D5 (q, q,
)

a or b

xziizi1

()+90

d1

+90

q1 +90

a2

+90

q2

b3

90


(6)

where Dv () is the aerodynamic damping and drag matrix.


D1 (q) is the damping and drag term due to the configuration of
the manipulator links. D2 (q, q,
) is the damping due to the interaction between body and manipulator. D3 (q, q,
) and D4 (q, q,
)
account for reaction forces and torques due to the coupled component. D5 (q, q,
) is the quadratic drag term on manipulator due
to UAV motion and Dm (q) is the linear aerodynamic skin friction
affecting the manipulator. The effect of aerodynamic forces on
the robot manipulator are assumed to be small.

Gravity Forces and Moments: G RFI , q
The gravity forces can be defined as follows: G =

T
(Gv + Ge )T , GTm R8 where Gv is the UAV gravitational
force and moment vector and Ge is the gravity force and moment vector due to the manipulator. Gm is the manipulator grav 
T
itational force. Gv is defined by Gv RT = fGT , (pG fG )T

T
where fG = mgRT Ez = RT 0 0 W , W = mg is a scalar, and

T
pG = xG yG zG is the position of the center of gravity. Gm (t)
can be determined from

x (yGW cs zGW cs)


pG fG = y (xGW cc zGW (s)) .
z (xGW cs yGW (s))

xi1
i xi1

a or b is the length, and is the twist. The Jocobian matrix for


the UAVARM expressed in the body-fixed frame to end-effector
frame can be found using

Damping Effects: D(q, )

D(q, ) =

Link (i)


J
Jq v1
J1

Jv2
J2

  
Jv3
J
= v

J3
J

(8)

where Jvi and Ji (i = 1, 2, and 3) are the Jacobian matrices related to the translation and rotational velocities from the UAV
body as the first link to third links, respectively. Now we need
to consider that the robot manipulator are attached on the UAV
as shown in Figure 6. The moving UAV rigid-body coordinate
frame is converted to the earth-fixed inertial frame so that the
body-fixed coordinates are translated and rotated relative to the
earth-fixed inertial frame as the UAV moves for the ground control station while being used as a reference frame relative to
the end-effector where the revolute two-link serial robot manipulator is assumed to be connected close to the UAV center of
gravity point for reducing the complexity of modeling. Then
the position, denoted as pE (t), and orientation, E (t), of the
end-effector expressed in earth-fixed frame can be written as

T
xE = pTE TE R6 . The position rate of the end-effector can
be described by separating the contributing velocity components
and rotational matrices, and can be decomposed into two terms
as vEIE (t) = vEIF + vEFE ; a velocity from the earth-fixed frame to
the UAV frame, vEIF (t), and a velocity from the body-fixed frame
to the end-effector frame, vEFE (t), and the velocities can also be
represented into new terms using rotation matrices as follows:

(7)
vEIF = REF vFIF = REF vF and vEFE = REF vFFE

(9)

where (t) = [, , ]T R3 are the Euler angles and c = cos()


and s = sin() are abbreviations. The body-fixed angular velocities are transformed by the angular orientation matrix TFI ()
R33 , into the earth-fixed inertial frame and is given [2] by

Tx ()
1 st ct
TFI () = Ty () = 0 c s
Tz ()
0 s/c c/c

(13)

where t = tan() is used. Next, the velocities, vFFE (t), FFE (t)
R3 , of the end-effector of the 2-link robot manipulator, before
attachment to the UAV-body, can be represented from the origin
O0 . Here we will assume that O0 is the UAV body-fixed frame
F using the end-effector velocity of the robot manipulator, that
is measured in E (or O3 ), refer to the dynamic modeling of the
two-link robot manipulator in [6]
vFFE = Jv q,
FFE = Jw q

(14)

where Jv (t), Jw (t) R32 are the Jacobian matrices, q(t)


R2 is
a vector of joint velocities. Utilizing (14) to rewrite the last term
in (10) yields

Figure 6: Transfer of EE States of UAVARM Through UAV


Body-frame to Earth-fixed Inertial Frame

where vE (t) = vEIF , v(t) = vF = vFIF , yields


pE = RIE vEIE = RIE (vEIF + vEFE )
=

RIE REF vFIF

+ RIE REF vFFE

= RIF vF

(10)
+ RIF vFFE .

pE = RIF vF + RIF Jv q.

(15)

In order to integrate the UAV and the robot manipulator, the


last term in the right side of (15) can be redefined by modeling the forward kinematics of the integrated form as RIF Jv q = Jv q
where Jv (t) represents the Jacobian transformation matrix of the
robot joint velocities through the UAV rotation, RIF , into the endeffector velocities in the earth-fixed intertial frame. Thus, (15)
yields

The kinematics of the UAV alone can be written in the body-fixed


frame for the linear velocity and angular velocity as [8]

pE = RIF vF + Jv q.

   I T
 
p
(RF ) O33
v
6
=
Dx R

O33 (TFI )1

In a similar manner, the angular rate of the end-effector can be


given [7] by

(11)

where (RIF )1 = (RIF )T R33 , v(t) and (t) R3 denote the


linear velocity and the angular velocity, respectively. The transformation matrix, RIF () = Rx, Ry, Rz, SO(3), which describes yaw, pitch, and roll rotation in order from the body-fixed
frame (denoted F) developed in the Euler-based spatial rotation matrix that translates a body-fixed frame referenced quantity
into earth-fixed inertial coordinates (denoted I) and is calculated from [2]

cc css sc ss + ccs
RIF () = sc cc + sss ssc cs
s
cs
cc

(16)

E = TFI FIE = TFI RFE EIE = TFI RFE (EIF + EFE )

= TFI F + TFI FFE

(17)

where (t) = F = FIF , FIE = RFE EIE in the second equality,


the end-effector angular velocity can be decomposed into two
terms in the third equality, and then EIF = REF FIF = REF F , and
RFE REF = I3 which leads to the final form of the right-hand side
of (17). By utilizing the second equation of (14), the last term in
(17) yields

(12)
TFI FFE = TFI RFE EFE = TFI J q = J q

(18)

where J (t) is the pure Jacobian matrix between the end-effector


of the 2-link robot manipulator and the origin of UAV bodyfixed frame (not the earth-fixed inertial frame) [6] and J (t) is
the transformation matrix of the joint velocities from earth-fixed
inertial frame to the end-effector coordinate frame. Substituting
(18) into (17) produces
E = TFI F + J q.

xE =

pE
E


=

RIF ()
O33

 vF

O33 Jv23 F

= DE
TFI () J23
q


ep =

(21)


e p =


Jv23
=

J23

sc(o3 -o1 )z +s(o3 -o1 )y z2y (o3 -o2 )z -z2z (o3 -o2 )y
-s(o3 -o1 )x -cc(o3 -o1 )z z2z (o3 -o2 )x -z2x (o3 -o2 )z

cc(o3 -o1 )y -sc(o3 -o1 )x z2x (o3 -o2 )y -z2y (o3 -o2 )x (22)

cc
z2x

sc
z2y
s
z2z
where o1 , o2 , o3 , and z2 vectors are given in [6] and
(23)

where DE is the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse given


1

DTE R86 .

(26)

(24)

COORDINATED TRACKING CONTROL


A closed-loop controller is designed based on the tracking
error dynamics of the end-effector of the UAVARM. State feedback control is assumed; that is, all the signals such as position
and orientation of the UAV and velocities are assumed to be measurable. It is also assumed that the desired trajectories of the
end-effector and up to their second derivatives are all bounded;
d (t), and
d (t) L .
i.e., pd (t), pd (t), and pd (t) L , d (t),


S(E ) O33
e p + ev
O33
O3

(27)

where

DE = DTE DE


T
RIE O33
(xE xD ).
O33 I3

Taking the time derivative of the e p (t) yields

are the last two columns of the first equation in (8) for the twolink manipulator except the UAV-link model as

= DE xE

(25)


T
Moreover, by defining the vectors xE (t) = pTE , TE R6 and
 T T T
xD (t) = pD , D R6 , (25) yields

(20)

where v = vF , = F are UAV velocities, DE R68 , and


Jv23 = [Jv2 , Jv3 ] R32 , J23 = [J2 , J3 ] R32


T
RIE (pE pD )
ep ,
E D

 

T
pE pD
RIE O33
=
R6 .
E D
O33 I3


(19)

Hence, the end-effector kinematics of the integrated system can


be defined as


The position and orientation tracking errors are combined to create the end-effector tracking error


T
R IE O33
(xE xD )
O33 I3


T
RIE O33
+
(xE xD ) .
O33 I3


e p =

(28)

The
first equation
on the right side of  (28) yields


T
I

S(E ) O33
RE O33
(xE xD ) =
e
where
O33
O33 p
O33 I3


T
T
R IE = S(e ) RIE
and the definition of (26) were used.
The velocitytracking errorin (27), ev (t) R6 , is defined from
T


RIE O33
T T,
(27) as ev
(xE xD ) where xE = pTE ,
E
O33 I3



T T and E = E + E = RE F + RF T J q
xD = pTD ,
IF
FE
F
E
D
where EIF = REF F is defined in the equation (17) and
T
EFE = RFE FFE is in (14). From the definition of ev (t),
differentiating yields

ev ,


 I T

-S(E ), O33
(RE ) , O33
ev +
(xE -xD ) .
O33 , O33
O33 , I3

(29)

Let V1 be the positive definite Lyapunov candidate function [5]


1
V1 = eTp e p .
2

(30)

Taking the time derivative of V1 yields


V1 = eTp e p = eTp



where



S(E ) O33
e + ev
O33
O33 p

(31)

V1 = eTp

(38)

in which r (t) is the reference attitude of the UAV. Taking the


time derivative of (37) yields

Thus, the function yields




e , IF r R3 ,


S(E ) O33
e + eTp ev = eTp ev
O33 O33 p

IF
r = TFI F
r
e =
(32)

r (t) will be designed later. Thus, differentiating V2


where
yields

where the skew-symmetric matrix property was applied. A filtered tracking error, rE (t) R6 , is defined as


T
1 O33
RIE O33
rE =
(xE xD )
O33 2
O33 I3


T
RIE O33
+
(xE xD )
O33 I3


1
V3 = rET rE .
2

(33)

(34)



1 O33
where is a constant gain matrix given

O33 2
66
3
R , 1 , and 2 R are constant diagonal control gain matrices. Utilizing the definition of (34), (32) yields
V1 = eTp (rE e p ) = eTp e p + eTp rE

r
V2 = eT e = eT TFI F

(40)

The third Lyapunov candidate function is selected by

by combining the position and the Euler angle errors and the velocity tracking errors as
rE e p + ev

(39)

(41)

Differentiating (41) and then substituting (29) and (27) in that


yields


S(e ) O33
V3 = rET rE = rET
r +
O33 O33 E


T
RIE O33
T
T
rE ev + rE
(xE xD )
O33 I3

(42)

where the definition of right terms are used for rE (t) was used.
Combining the three Lyapunov candidate functions, V1 , V2 with
V3 , yields

(35)
1
V = V1 +V2 +V3 = (eTp e p + eT e + rET rE ),
2

where

(43)

Differentiating (43) and summing up (36), (40), and (42) yields


eTp

= (xE xD )


RIE O33
.
O33 I3


r +
V = eTp e p + eTp rE + eT TFI F


T
RIE O33
T
T
(xE xD ) .
rE ev + rE
O33 I3

Then,
V1 = eTp e p + eTp rE .

(36)


RIF ()v + Jv q
where the position and oriTFI () + J q
E (t), are deentation rate of the end-effector vector, pE (t) and
fined in (16) and (19), respectively. From the kinematics and
the dynamic modeling equation, we can design the control input
as follows: rewrite (20) and taking the time derivative of xE (t)
yields


From (20), xE =

The last term on the right side in (36) will be designed to cancel
out by the term, rET e p as a scaler, in V3 when designing the closedloop feedback controller u(t). The second Lyapunov candidate
function is selected by
1
V2 = eT e
2

(44)

(37)

xE = DE and xE = D E + DE

(45)

where DE (t) was given in (20) and




dDE
S()RIF O33  S()RIF JV + dtd (Jv23 )
=
,
d
d
d
I
I
O33
dt
dt TF dt TF J + dt (J23 )

(46)

where is a positive gain constant, MDE R86 comes from


(4), (24), and D E R68 is given by (46). For stabilizing the
r (t) can be designed as
UAV,
r = e +
IF .

(53)

in which

From (3) the control input u(t) R6 is given as u(t) = Bu where

1 st ct

d
d
TFI = 0 c s ,
dt
dt
c
s
0 c
c

(47)

Bu = (BTu Bu )1 BTu R68 .


Substituting the right equations of (52) and (53) into (51) and
arranging yields

and
d
Jv2 Jv3
dt
i
(z1 (O3 O1 )) (z2 (O3 O2 ))
=
q,

,
q1
q2

 h z1 z2
d
d
J2 J3 = q , q
dt (J23 ) = dt
1
2
d
dt

(hJv23 ) =



(48)
i

where Jv23 , J23 are given from Jq (t) in (8) for the robot joint velocities. Note that the time derivative of Jacobian matrix can use
the second and third column vectors of (8) related to the robot
is obtained from the integrated modeling equamanipulator. (t)
tion in (2) as a single matrix form
= M 1 { (C + D) G}.

(49)

Substitute (49) into (45) then substitute (23) for (t) in xE (t) to
yield
h
i
xE = D E DE xE + DE M 1 (C + D)DE xE G .

(50)

Substituting the right side equations into the (44) for xE (t) yields
 E


O33
T
I F
T
T RI
T
T

V = e p e p + e p rE + e TF r + rE ev + rE
O33 I3
n
h
i
o
D E DE xE + DE M 1 (C + D)DE xE G xD
(51)
where REI

T
RIE

=
and a skew-symmetric property made the first
term zero in (44) and the inverse of M() is assumed to exist.
Design of (t) Based on Lyapunov Approach
Design of (t) R8 from (44)
h
i
= (C + D)DE xE + G + MDE {xD
 I


RE O33

DE DE xE
(rE + e p + ev )
O33 I3

(52)

V min {} ke p k2 min {} ke k2 min {} krE k2 . (54)



T
Note that rET e p is canceled as a scalar. Let z = eTp , eT , rET

R15 and 5 = min {min {}, min {}, min {}} , then V (t)
yields


V 5 ke p k2 + ke k2 + krE k2 5 kzk2 .

(55)

Therefore, the development of V (z) from (44) through (55) with


the positive definite function (43) and the closed-loop control
r (t) ensure that the tracking error z(t) goes
inputs, (t) and
asymptotically stable, kzk 0 as t while stabilizing the
UAV body attitude, provided that the and are within the 90
for satisfying the existence of the inverses of pseudo- and M matrices. Then, z(t) is bounded and thus its member e p (t), e (t),
and rE (t) are bounded. xE (t), E (t), and ev (t) L Owing to
the full rank of RIF () and the existence of (TFI )1 () as well
as D(t) L by the assumption that all desired trajectories are
bounded. xE (t) and e p (t) L due to ev (t) L . v(t), (t), and
q(t)
are bounded. DE (t) (t) are also bounded due to xE (t) L .
E (t), vE (t) are bounded due to e p (t), e p (t), ev (t) L . Hence,
all tracking errors are bounded.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK


The development of a controller for the unmanned aerialrobotic arm system was presented. A model of the combined
UAV and robot manipulator, which was not ever modeled before, was first proposed and a coordinated controller of the integrated, nonlinear system was developed using the model and a
Lyapunov-type analysis method. The design goal for this controller was to simultaneously control the two degree-of-freedom
revolute robot manipulator and the underactuated quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to create a one-body, six degreesof-freedom flying arm (UAVARM). Note that the two-link manipulator is the minimum degrees-of-freedom to fully control the

end-effector for position and orientation. The simulation result


will be shown later and the implementation of the controller for
tracking in various conditions will be tested in the near future. In
addition, force and torque control of the UAVARM end-effector
will follow.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is supported partially by Office of Naval Research (No. N00014-09-1-1195), which we gratefully acknowledge. Thanks are in particular due to Mr. Marc Steinberg.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Antonelli, Underwater Robots, 2nd edition, Springer,
2006
[2] T. I. Fossen, Marine Control Systems : Guidance, Navigation, and Control of Ships, Rigs and Underwater Vehicles,
Marine Cybernetics, 2002.
[3] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall,
NJ, 2002.
[4] F L. Lewis, D. M. Dawson, C.T. Abdallah, Robot Manipulator Control: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, Marcel
Dekker, Inc., NY, 2004.
[5] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. Kokotovic, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1995.
[6] DongBin Lee, Lyapunov-based Coordinated Control of an
Underactuated Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Robot Manipulator, Ph.D Dissertation, Clemson University, 2009.
[7] D. Lee, V..K. Chitrakaran, T. C. Burg,.D. M. Dawson,
and Bin Xian, Control of a Remotely Operated Quadrotor
Aerial Vehicle and Camera Unit Using a Fly-the-Camera
Perspective, Proc of the 46th IEEE Conf. on Decision and
Control, New Orleans, LA, Dec, 2007, pp. 6412 - 6417.
[8] D. Lee, T. C. Burg, Bin Xian, and D. M. Dawson, Output Feedback Tracking Control of an Underactuated QuadRotor UAV, Proc of the American Control Conference,
New York, NY, July, 2007, pp. 1775 - 1780.
[9] L. Gentili, R. Naldi, and L. Marconi, Modeling and Control of VTOL UAVs interacting with the environment,
Proc of 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 2008.
[10] P. E. I. Pounds and A. Dollar, Hovering Stability of Helicopters with Elastic Constraints, Proc of the ASME 2010
Dynamic Systems and Control Conference (DSCC20104166), Cambridge, Massachusetts, Sept. 2010.
[11] B. Siciliano, L. Sciavicco, L. Villani, and G. Oriolo,
Robotics: Modeling, Planning and Control, SpringerVerlag London Limited, 2009.
[12] M. W. Spong, S. Hutchinson, and M. Vidyasagar, Robot
Modeling and Control, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2006.
[13] J. J. Slotin and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control, PrenticeHall, NJ, 1991.

You might also like