Output Tracking of Underactuated Rotary Inverted Pendulum

by Nonlinear Controller
Qiguo Yan
FlyingTiger Technologies, Inc.
2123 W 7th St
Brooklyn, NY 11223, USA
qiguoyan@yahoo.com
Abstract A novel tracking control law is de-
veloped for underactuated nonminimum inverted
pendulum on a rotor arm by a combinated appli-
cation of nonlinear backstepping, dierential at-
ness, and small gain theorem. It has been shown
that through proper input transformation, the
whole system can be modied to be weak min-
imum phase with the external subsystem being
dierentially at, and be further modied into 2
exp-ISS subsystems. Simulation and experimen-
tal results for tracking a reference signal are pre-
sented to verify the eectiveness of the proposed
methodology.
1. Introduction
The stabilization and output tracking of underac-
tuated mechanical systems has been a challenging
task for many years [1, 2]. The diculty encoun-
tered in controlling this kind of system arised from
the nonminimum phase characteristics.
The Rotary Inverted Pendulum (RIP) is a non-
trivial simplied model unifying the pendulum on a
cart and Euler-Poincare system such as a satellite
with momentum wheels. Consisting of two rigid
link with an actuator at only the arm link, this RIP
system was rst described in [3]. A sliding-mode
controller for regulation was given in [4]. A smooth
stabilization controller was derived in [5] using the
controlled Lagrangian method, unfortunately, this
framework provided no basis for output tracking.
The current output tracking methods are mainly
based on the standard output regulation theory
[69] etc. The fundamental limitation of this ap-
proach is that it depends on a locally exponentially
stable nonlinear closed-loop system through linear
approximation theory and a reference signal gen-
erated by a neutral stable exosystem, and involves
solving a set of nonlinear PDEs. Inversion-based
output tracking schemes [10] for minimum and non-
minimum phase nonlinear systems still require lin-
ear approximation and local closed loop exponen-
tial stability. Output tracking by recursive back-
stepping method [11] depends on the assumption
if the system dynamics can be successfully trans-
formed into strict-feedback form, or pure-feedback
form, therefore, is not applicable to the class of non-
linear nonminimum systems for which such a trans-
formation is impossible.
The purpose of this paper is to overcome these
drawbacks by a combinated application of nonlinear
backstepping, the dierential atness [12], and non-
linear small gain theorem [16] to the output tracking
problem of the nonlinear underactuated nonmini-
mum system. In this paper, rst, a new output is
dened to transform the nonminimum system into a
weak minimum one. Next, an input transformation
is utilized to transform the external subsystem into
a dierentially at one while preserving the weak
minimum phase characteristics. Finally, the whole
system is further transformed into 2 exp-ISS sub-
systems [14, 16], and a controller is proposed which
guarantees uniformly ultimately bounded output
tracking errors within the domain of attraction.
2. the RIP Dynamics and Dynamics Transfor-
mation
2.1. the RIP Dynamics
A schematic representation of the RIP system is
given in Figure 1 where l
p
denotes the pendulum
length and m
p
the pendulum mass. Let be the
pendulum angle. The total eective moment of base
inertia is J
b
. The pivot arm O

A has a length of
r, and is mounted on the load shaft of the SRV-
02 DC-motor which applies a torque to drive the
arm rotate on the horizontal plane. The plane of
pendulum is orthogonal to the radial arm. The RIP
dynamics is governed by
(A +B sin
2
)

+ (C cos) (C sin)
2
+(2 B sincos)

= , (1)
B + (C cos)

(B sincos)

2
D sin = 0, (2)
where A

=
m
p
r
2
+ J
b
, B

=
1
3
m
p
l
2
p
, C

=
1
2
m
p
r l
p
,
D

=
1
2
m
p
g l
p
. The natural output is . For state-
ment convenience, we refer to (1) as the external
dynamics (subsystem), and (2) as the internal dy-
namics (subsystem).
Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control
Maui, Hawaii USA, December 2003 WeM12-3
0-7803-7924-1/03/$17.00 2003 IEEE 2395
Figure 1: Schematic representation of RIP system
The numerical values of the mechanical subsys-
tem parameters for a laboratory RIP-model are pro-
vided in Table 1.
Physical quantity Symbol value Units
Pivot arm length r 8.750.0254 m
Base inertia moment J
b
0.005 Kg-m
2
Pendulum length l
p
13.1250.0254 m
Pendulum mass m
p
0.126 Kg
Gravitational const g 9.8 m/sec
2
Table 1: Parameters of the experiment RIP System
We have A = 0.0112, B = 0.0047, C = 0.0047, and
D = 0.2058. Obviously, (2) is uncontrollable and
unstable when =

2
, so all considerations shall
be conned within the range || <

2
.
2.2. Dene New Output to Make the System
Weak Minimum Phase
In the sense of stability of the zero dynamics [17],
the (1)-(2) with as output is nonminimum. One
approach to circumvent this barrior is to redene
output to stabilize the internal dynamics [18]. Now,
imagine there is a massless pendulum with an arm
of r

, a pendulum length of h xed together with

the real pendulum so that two pendulum move with
the same and , and in the same radial direction.
We dene the new output Z as
Z

=
r

+ h sin, (3)
and then

Z as

Z = r

+h cos h
2
sin. (4)
With the new output variable Z, the internal dy-
namics (2) can be represented as

C
r

cos

Z+(
C h
r

cos
2
B) (
C h
r

sincos)
2
+B(

Z
r

h
r

cos)
2
sincos+Dsin = 0. (5)
Proposition 2.1. The system (1)-(2) is weak
minimum phase with Z as output if
Ch
r

cos
2
B > 0
|| < tan
1

C h Br

Br

<

2
. (6)
Proof. The new zero dynamics can be obtained
from (5) as
(
C h
r

cos
2
B) (
C h
r

sincos)
2
+B(
h
r

cos )
2
sincos +D sin = 0, (7)
A Lyapunov function candidate can be chosen as
V (, ) =
1
2
_
C h
r

cos
2
B
_

2
+B
_

0
_
h
r

a cos a
_
2
sina cos a da
+D( 1 cos ), (8)
The 1st term in Lyapunov candidate is positive
denite and radially unbounded in direction if
Ch
r

cos
2
B > 0 ; the 2nd term can be shown
to be positive denite and strictly increasing for
within the range || <

2
; the 3rd term is also
positive denite and strictly increasing within this
range. Also, V (0, 0) = 0. This proved that within
the range || < tan
1
_
C hBr

B r

<

2
, (8) which
is positive denite is a Lyapunov function having
arbitrarily small upper limit [19], and can be well
interpreted in the sense of energy. Next, dierenti-
ate (8), we obtain

V (, ) = (Eq.(7)) = 0. (9)
This concluded the proof.
It can be shown by (6) the stable range of ||

2
as
h
r

for the laborotary RIP. Figure 2 shows

a typical phase portrait of the zero dynamics (7) for
h
r

= 2.25 .
Denition 2.1. Domain of Stability The set
of all points (, ) in the periodic trajectories in the
phase portrait of the zero dynamics (7), e.g., as in
Figure 2, denoted as , is the domain of stability of
the RIP system for a specic
h
r

.
2396
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
800
600
400
200
0
200
400
600
800
a (deg)
D
e
riv
a
tiv
e
o
f a
(d
e
g
/s
e
c
)
Figure 2: Phase portrait for
h
r

= 2.25
2.3. RIP Dynamics Transformation
Dierential atness [12, 13] of systems has been
proven to be very useful and particularly easy for
output trajectory tracking. To exploit this prop-
erty, were going to transform the external subsys-
tem into such dierentially at one with Z as at
output.
Proposition 2.2. Suppose AB > C
2
, then
(, ) , the RIP dynamics can be transformed
into (15)-(16) which is weak minimum phase, and
the external dynamics (15) is dierentially at with
Z as the at output if the control input is chosen as
= [(M() h C) sin]
2
+(B sin2)


+
_
BG() sin cos
2

2
+DG() sin cos
K
1
M()

Z K
2
M() Z +M()v, (10)
where K
1
, K
2
> 0, M(), G() are determined by
(12) and (13) respectively.
Proof: we solve for from (5), and substituting ,

from (4) into (1) to obtain the Z dynamics as

M()

Z + [(M() h C) sin]
2
+(B sin2)

+
_
BG() sin cos
2

2
+DG() sincos = , (11)
where
M()

=
1
r

_
(A+Bsin
2
) G()C cos
2
)
_
, (12)
G()

=
(A +Bsin
2
) h C r

(C hcos
2
Br

)
. (13)
When cos
2
=
AB+B
2
B
2
+C
2
, M() = 0, (11) is con-
trollable. Specically, when
AB > C
2
, 0 > M() / 0. (14)
Then substitute (10) into (11), the new external dy-
namics becomes

Z +K
1

Z +K
2
Z = v, (15)
which is dierentially at with the at output y =
Z. Let (15)
C
r

cos + (5), the new internal dy-

namics becomes
(
C h
r

cos
2
B) (
C h
r

sincos)
2
+B(

Z
r

h
r

cos)
2
sincos+Dsin
+(
K
1
C
r

cos)

Z + (
K
2
C
r

cos) Z
= (
C
r

cos) v. (16)
The zero dynamics of (15)-(16) is (7), which is stable
at the origin (, ) .
3. Output Tracking Controller Design
Now the RIP system is weak minimum with the
external subsystem being dierentially at. Let Z
d
be the desired output trajectory. Our objective is
to design control input such that Z(t) Z
d
(t) as
t while ensuring internal stability on the basis
of the transformed dynamics (15)-(16).
3.1. Asymptotic Output Trajectory Tracking
Controller Design for Z
In this subsection, we are going to make use of dif-
ferential atness of (15) to design an output tracking
controller. First, we make one assumption.
Assumption 1. Suppose AB > C
2
, and
Z
d
,

Z
d
,

Z
d
are bounded such that the time response
of the dynamics
(
C h
r

cos
2
B) (
C h
r

sincos)
2
+B(

Z
d
r

h
r

cos)
2
sincos
+Dsin =
C
r

cos

Z
d
(17)
is within the domain .
This assumption sets up a uplimit for the RIP
system to resist a tracking acceleration impact.
Proposition 3.1. Suppose assumption1 holds,
then (, ) , the whole system is stable and
the output tracking error
lim
t
Z
e
(t),

Z
e
(t) = 0 (18)
where Z
e

=
Z Z
d
, the control input is given by
(10), and v is determined by
v =

Z
d
+K
1

Z
d
+K
2
Z
d
. (19)
2397
Proof: Substitute (19) into (15) to get the closed
loop external error dynamics and internal dynamics,
respectively, as

Z
e
+K
1

Z
e
+K
2
Z
e
= 0, (20)
(
C h
r

cos
2
B) (
C h
r

sincos)
2
+B(

Z
e
+

Z
d
r

h
r

cos)
2
sincos+D sin
+(
K
1
C
r

cos)

Z
e
+(
K
2
C
r

cos) Z
e
= (
C
r

cos)

Zd. (21)
With proposition2.1 and assumption1, the zero
dynamics of (20)-(21) is BIBO. According to [15],
an extension of nonlinear block backstepping theo-
rem in [11], we can conclude the proof.
3.2. Bounded Output Trajectory Tracking Con-
troller Design
The objective of this subsection to make both Z
e
and ultimately uniformly bounded around the ori-
gin.
It can be shown that even the time response of
of (17) or (21) is bounded within the domain ,
a small extra disturbance can easily drive out of
this domain. Therefore, further modication of the
internal dynamics (21) to make it exp-ISS by giving
up exact output tracking in (19) is essential for the
output tracking design. [10] did the similar thing
to remove the nonhyperbolicity of nonlinear system
with nonhyperbolic internal dynamics when apply-
ing stable inversion. The dierence between the pro-
posed technique and [10] is that our framework is
totally based on nonlinear approach.
To modify (21), an extra term K
3
, K
3
> 0 is
added to (19),
v =

Z
d
+K
1

Z
d
+K
2
Z
d
K
3
, (22)
accordingly,
= [(M() h C) sin]
2
+(B sin2)


+
_
BG() sin cos
2

2
+DG() sin cos
+M()

Z
d
K
1
M()

Z
e
K
2
M() Z
e
K
3
M() (23)
substitute (22) into (15) and (16) to obtain closed
loop tracking error external subsystem and internal
subsystem, respectively, as

Z
e
+K
1

Z
e
+K
2
Z
e
+ K
3
= 0,
y
1
= [Z
e
,

Z
e
]
T
, (24)
(
C h
r

cos
2
B) (
C h
r

sincos)
2
+B(

Z
e
+

Z
d
r

h
r

cos)
2
sincos+Dsin
+(
K
3
C
r

cos) + (
K
1
C
r

cos)

Z
e
+(
K
2
C
r

cos) Z
e
= (
C
r

cos)

Z
d
,
y
2
= [, ]
T
. (25)
Proposition 3.2. Suppose assumption1 holds,
then (, ) , the interconnection system (24)-
(25) is exp-ISS with

Z
d
as input, or the output tra-
jectory tracking errors Z
e
, are ultimately, uni-
formly bounded around the origin within this do-
main if K
1
, K
2
, K
3
> 0 and meet the small gain
constraint (29).
Regretfully we omitted the denition of exp-ISS
system as in [14, 16], and the small gain theorem for
2 exp-ISS subsystem [16], due to space limitation.
Now we prove proposition3.2.
Proof: Let

Z

=
[

Z
e
, Z
e
]
T
,

=
[ , ]
T
. First we
prove that (24) is exp-ISS. By treating = constant
as input, choose V
1
(

Z) =

Z
T

P

Z,

P =

P
T
> 0, such
that

P
_
0 1
K
2
K
1
_
+
_
0 1
K
2
K
1
_
T

P = Q,
Q = Q
T
> 0.
The derivative of V
1
with respect to time along so-
lution of (24), for any
z
> 0 satisfying
z
<
min
,
we have

V
1
(

Z)
min
(Q)|

Z|
2
+K
3

z
|

Z|
2

_
(
min

z
)|

Z|
2
K
3
| | |

Z|
_

z
|

Z|
2
,
whenever |

Z|
z

| |, where
z

=
K
3
(
min

z
)
, we
establish that, t > 0,
1
,

C
1
> 0,
|

Z|

C
1
e

1
t
|

Z(0)| +
z

. (26)
In other words, (24) is exp-ISS. Similarly, consider
(25), by treating

Z,

Z
d
,

Z
d
as constant, we choose
V
2
( ) =
1
2
(
C h
r

cos
2
B)
2
+B
_

0
(

Z
e
+

Z
d
r

h
r

a cos a)
2
sina cos a da
+D( 1 cos ). (27)
2398
Let K

=
K
3
C
r

cos||
max
,

K

=
C
r

(K
1
+ K
2
). The
derivative of V
2
with respect to time along solution
of (25), for any

Z
,

Z
d
>0 satisfying

Z
+

Z
d
<K

,

V
2
( )
K
3
C
r

cos||
max

2
+
C
r

(K
1
+K
2
) | | |

Z| +
C
r

| | |

Z
d
|

Z

2
[

Z
d

2

C
r

| | |

Z
d
|]
[(K

Z
d
)
2

K| | |

Z|]

Z

2
,
whenever | |

z
|

Z| +
C

Z
d
r

Z
d
|, where

z
=

K
(K

Z
d
)
, so V ( ) is bounded, is
bounded. By applying LaSalles invariant theorem,
we have, t > 0,
2
,

C
2
> 0,
| |

C
2
e

2
t
| (0)| +

z

Z +
C

Z
d
r

Z
d
. (28)
According to small gain theorem [16], if
z

z
<
1, that is,
K
3
(
min

z
)

C (K
1
+K
2
)
(
K
3
C
r

cos||
max

Z
d
)r

<1, (29)
then the whole system is exp-ISS with

Z
d
as input,

Z (1

z

z

)
1
[

C
1
e

1
t
|

Z(0)|
+

C
2

z

e

2
t
| (0)|+
C

Z
d
r

Z
d
], (30)
(1

z

z

)
1
[

C
2
e

2
t
| (0)|
+

C
1

z
e

1
t
|

Z(0)| +
C

Z
d
r

Z
d
]. (31)
The proof concluded.
Remark 3.1. If Z
e
, 0, (, ) , then
(
d
) 0 where
d

=
1
r

Z
d
; if Z
e
, are ultimately
uniformly bounded around the orign (, ) ,
then (
d
) is also ultimately uniformly bounded.
Remark 3.2. For the case

Z
d
= 0, Z
e
,

Z
e
, , ,
(
d
), (

d
) all approach to zero exponentially
as t .
4. Simulation and Experimental Verication
For laboratory implementation, the voltage input
for SRV-02 DC-motor is determined by
V
i
=
R
a
K
g
K
T
+ K
b
K
g

, (32)
where DC-motor constants R
a
= 2.6(ohm), K
b
=
0.00767(volt-sec/rad), K
T
= 0.00767(N-m/amp),
and gear ratio K
g
= 14 5. Optical encoders and
tachometers were mounted to pick up , , , and

. The constraint AB > C

2
is satised. The ob-
jectives were to make Z = (r

+ h sin) track
Z
d
= a
0
sinw(t +t
0
), where a
0
, w, t
0
are constants,
and track 0 (deg), simultaneously, would track

d
=
180

Z
d
r

(deg). The control input was deter-

mined by (23) and (32). The parameters for the
virtual point P were picked as r

= 1.6632 l
p
, h =
1.8125 l
p
. The stable range for was determined
by (6) as || < 16.6788
o
(deg).
For the experiment, Z
d
= 0.7sin{
2
10
(t + 0.18)}.
Gains were picked as K
1
= 5, K
2
= 6, and K
3
= 2.
The initial conditions were
0
= 13.64
o
(deg),
0
=
103.64
o
(deg), and
0
=

0
= 0.00 (deg/sec). In
Figure 3, the solid and dashed lines were the exper-
iment and simulation trajectories respectively for ,
and the dotted line for
d
. Figure 4 show the per-
formance for to track 0, the sawed and smooth
curves were for the experiment and simulation re-
sults respectively. Figure 5 showed the control in-
puts.
Except physical experiment with limitations by
the capacity of SRV-02 DC-motor, numerous nu-
merical simulation can be easily testied. Results
are omitted here.
5. Conclusion
A novel nonlinear approach was proposed such
that the nonminimum RIP system was modied to
be weak minimum phase with the external subsys-
tem being dierentially at, and an asymptotically
tracking controller for that at output was derived
rst while ensuring the internal pendulum dynam-
ics marginally stable at the origin (, ) . This
controller was then modied such that the RIP sys-
tem was further transformed into 2 exp-ISS sub-
systems and all tracking errors were uniformly ul-
timately bounded around the origin within this do-
main of stability. A new generalized strategy is pos-
sible for the output tracking designs of nonlinear
underactuated nonminimum systems.
References
[1] R. Gurumoorthy and S.R. Sanders (1993).
Controlling Nonminimum Phase Nonlinear
Systems- the Inverted Pendulum on a Cart
Example. In: Proc. of American Control Con-
ference, San Francisco, CA, pp. 680685.
[2] Ohsumi A., T., Izumikawa (1995). Nonlin-
ear Control of Swing-up and Stabilization of
2399
an Inverted Pendulum. In: Proc. of the 34th
CDC, New Orlean, LA, pp. 38733880.
[3] IWASHIRO M., K. FURUTA, and K. J.,

Astr om (1996). Energy Based Control of Pen-

dulum. In: Proc. of the 1996 IEEE on Control
Application, Dearborn, MI, pp. 715720.
[4] Wilfredo T. P., O. R. Gonzalez (1996). Nonlin-
ear Control of Swing-up Inverted Pendulum.
In: Proc. of the 1996 IEEE on Control Appli-
cation, Dearborn, MI, pp. 259264.
[5] Bloch A. M., N. E. Leonard, J. E. Marsden
(1999). Stabilization of the Pendulum on a
Rotor Arm by the Method of Controlled La-
grangians. In: Proc. of the 1999 IEEE, De-
troit, MI, pp. 500505.
[6] Isidori A., C. I., Byrnes (1990). Output Regu-
lation of Nonlinear Systems. IEEE TRANS-
ACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL,
35, pp. 131140.
[7] Isidori, A., (1997). A Remark On the Problem
of Semiglobal Nonlinear Output Regulation.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC
CONTROL, 42, pp. 17341738.
[8] Byrnes, C. I., A. Isidori (1998). Output Regu-
lation for Nonlinear Systems: an Overview.
In: Proc. of the 37th CDC, Tampa, FL,
pp. 500505.
[9] Huang, J. (1998). Asymptotic Tracking of a
Nonminimum Phase Nonlinear System with
Nonhyperbolic Zero Dynamics. In: Proc. of
the 37th CDC, Tampa, FL, pp. 30643068.
[10] Devasia, S. (1999). Approximated Stable In-
version for Nonlinear Systems with Nonhyper-
bolic Internal Dynamics. IEEE TRANSAC-
TIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, 44,
pp. 14191425.
[11] Krstic, M., I., Kanellakopoulos, and P., Koko-
tovic (1995). NONLINEAR AND ADAP-
TIVE CONTROL DESIGN, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc..
[12] Fliess, M., J., Levine, Ph. Martin, and P.
Rouchon (1995). Flatness and defect of non-
linear systems: Introductory theory and ex-
amples. International Journal of Control, 61,
pp. 1327-1361.
[13] Hebertt, Sira-Ramirez (1999). On the Con-
trol of the Underactuated Ship: A Trajec-
tory Planning Approach. In: Proc. of the 38th
CDC, Phoenix, AZ, pp. 21922197.
[14] Sontag, E. D.(1991). Input/output and state-
space stability. New Trends in Systems The-
ory, G. Conte et al. (Eds), Birkh auser,
pp. 684691.
[15] Jiang, Z.P., D. Hill, and A. L. Fradkov (1996).
A Passication Approach to Adaptive Non-
linear Stabilization, Systems and Control
Letters, 28, No. 2, pp. 73-84.
[16] Jiang, Z. P., and I. M. Y., Mareels (1995).
Linear Robust Control of a Class of Nonlin-
ear Systems with Dynamic Perturbation. In:
Proc. of the 34th CDC, New Orleans, LA,
pp. 22392244.
[17] Isidori A., C. I., Byrnes (1989). Nonlinear
feedback stabilization. Systems and Control
Letters, 12, pp. 443447.
[18] Mullhaupt, Ph., B., Srinivasan, and D.,
Bonvin. (1998). On the Nonminimum-phase
Characteristics of Two-link Underactuated
Mechanical Systems. In: Proc. of the 37th
CDC, Tempa, FL, pp. 45794583.
[19] Leipholz, H. (1970). STABILITY THEORY,
Academic Press.
0 5 10 15
150
100
50
0
50
100
150
time (sec)
q
(d
e
g
)
Figure 3: Tracking of to
180

Z
d
r

0 5 10 15
15
10
5
0
5
time (sec)
a
(d
e
g
)
Figure 4: Tracking of to 0 deg
0 5 10 15
15
10
5
0
5
time (sec)
V
i (v
o
lt)
Figure 5: Control input V
i
volts
2400