INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.

153-168

OCTOBER 2009 / 153

DOI 10.1007/s12541-009-0084-2

Command Shaping for Flexible Systems: A

Review of the First 50 Years
William Singhose1,#
1 Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 30332
# Corresponding Author / E-mail: Singhose@gatech.edu, TEL: +1-404-385-0668
KEYWORDS: Command Shaping, Input Shaping, Vibration, Oscillation

The control of flexible systems is a large and important field of study. Unwanted transient deflection and residual
vibration are detrimental to many systems ranging from nano-positioning devices to large industrial cranes.
Thousands of researchers have worked diligently for decades to provide solutions to the challenging problems
posed by flexible dynamic systems. The work can roughly be broken into three categories:1) Hardware design, 2)
Feedback control, and 3) Command shaping. This paper provides a review of command-shaping research since it
was first proposed in the late 1950s. The important milestones of the research advancements, as well as
application examples, are used to illustrate the developments in this important research field.
Manuscript received: August 12, 2009 / Accepted: September 10, 2009

1. Introduction
Flexible dynamic systems suffer from unwanted transient
deflection and residual vibration. These detrimental effects cause
significant problems for positioning accuracy, throughput, fatigue,
and safety for many types of systems ranging from nanopositioning devices to large industrial cranes. Thousands of
researchers have diligently worked for decades to provide solutions
to the challenging problems posed by flexible dynamic systems.
The work can roughly be broken into three categories:1) Hardware
design, 2) Feedback control, and 3) Command shaping. This paper
provides a review of command-shaping research that has proven
useful since it was first proposed in the late 1950s. The important
milestones of the research advancements, as well as application
examples, are used to illustrate the developments in this important
research field.
In order to convey the impact of command shaping on the
performance of a flexible system, let us consider an illustrative
example a crane. Cranes are used to perform important and
challenging manipulation tasks such as construction of bridges,
dams, and high-rise towers. Tower cranes, like the ones shown in
Figure 1, are commonly used in construction to provide a large
workspace. Cranes used indoors often have the structure of the
bridge crane shown in Figure 2.
KSPE and Springer 2009

Fig. 1 Tower Cranes at la Sagrada Famlia in Barcelona

While the physical structure of cranes varies widely, one
essential element is constant an overhead support cable is used to
lift and transport the payload. This essential element provides the
fundamental usefulness of cranes. However, it also creates one of
the biggest problems: payload oscillation.
The 10-ton industrial bridge crane shown in Figure 2 is
equipped with an overhead vision system that can track the motion

154 / OCTOBER 2009

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

Unfortunately, at that time, digital computers were a rarity; so

implementing command-shaping methods was very challenging
(with digital computers, they are very easy to implement often
easier than feedback control).
Starting in the 1980s, microprocessors became widespread and
implementation of command shaping became straightforward.
However, that advancement was not the only requirement for
successful and widespread use of command shaping. Another
missing element was robustness to modeling errors, uncertainties,
and nonlinearities. All command-shaping methods require some
information about the system dynamics. This information will
always have some degree of inaccuracy. So, for command shaping
to be successful in real applications, it must have an adequate level
of robustness.
Researchers in the late 1980s provided a significant
breakthrough that created command-shaping methods with good
robustness properties. These advancements are reviewed in Section
3. Methods for applying command shaping to multi-mode systems
are reviewed in Section 4. Section 5 shows how command shaping
is related to time-optimal control. Example applications of
command shaping are given in Section 6. Concluding remarks are
then given at the end of the paper.

Trolley

Hook
Pendent
Payload
Fig. 2 10-Ton Bridge Crane at Georgia Tech
Obstacles
Typical Response

Goal

2. Early Command-Shaping Methods

Input-Shaped Response
Collisions

Start

Fig. 3 Typical Hook Response

of the hook. Figure 3 shows the response of the crane hook for a
typical maneuver under standard operation. The human operator
was attempting to drive the crane from the Start location to the Goal
location, while avoiding the obstacles in the workspace. The
oscillation of the crane made it very difficult to move through the
obstacle field. As a result, the crane hook collided with two of the
obstacles. The oscillations and collisions inhibited safe and efficient
operation.
Figure 3 also shows the response when the operator enabled
command shaping and attempted the task again. In the case with
command shaping, the operator was able to drive cleanly through
the obstacle field, without oscillation, and complete the task much
faster. The operator also experienced less stress and exerted less
effort because the crane dynamics were greatly simplified.1-3
The command shaping intercepts the operator commands to the
crane and modifies them in real time. The results in Figure 3 are
typical of what can be expected with command shaping control
the dynamic response of the flexible system is greatly simplified
without the use of added sensors and feedback control, or the need
to redesign the mechanical hardware.
Section 2 gives a brief overview of the early developments in
command shaping. These methods first appeared in the 1950s.

Perhaps the earliest work on systematic command shaping was

performed by OJM Smith in the late 1950s.4-6 (Elements of
command shaping ideas appear even earlier in works directed at
cam profile design,7-10 signal component control,11,12 and command
smoothing.13-17 However, OJM Smith was the first to provide a
systematic description that could be easily followed). Smiths
method, known as posicast control, took a baseline command and
delayed part of the command before giving it to the system. The
delayed portion of the command canceled out the vibration induced
by the portion of the baseline command that was not delayed.
As a first step to understanding how this approach can move
flexible systems without vibration, it is helpful to start with the
simplest command an impulse. Applying an impulse, A1, to a
flexible system will cause it to vibrate. The response of an
underdamped system to such an impulse is shown at the top of
Figure 4. If a second impulse, A2, is applied at a later time, as
shown in the middle of Figure 4, then the vibration induced by the
first impulse may be cancelled. This concept is demonstrated at the
bottom of Figure 4. Impulse A1 induces the vibration indicated by
the dashed line, while A2 induces the dotted response. Combining
the two responses results in zero residual vibration. The second
impulse must be applied at the correct time and must have the
appropriate magnitude for complete cancellation.
The posicast method proposed by OJM Smith effectively took
two impulses whose vibrations were self-canceling and convolved
them with the baseline reference command. This command-shaping
process, now usually called input shaping, is demonstrated in
Figure 5 using an S-curve as the initial command and two impulses

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

0.6

A1

OCTOBER 2009 / 155

f(t)

A1

Position

0.4
0.2
0

A2

An

c(t)

Gains Delays

-0.2

Fig. 6 Time-Delay Blocks Representing Input Shaping

-0.4

0.5

0.6

2.5

2.5

A2

0.4

Position

1.5

Time

0.2
0

-0.2
-0.4

0.6

1.5

Time

A1

0.4

Position

0.5

A1 Response
A2 Response
Total Response

A2

0.2
0

-0.2
-0.4

0.5

1.5

2.5

Time

Fig. 4 Vibration from Two Impulses Can Cancel

of the original function, one of which is shifted in time. The third,

and final, step adds the two functions together to obtain the
convolution product. The solid line in Figure 5 shows the
convolution product that results from summing the two replicas of
the original function.
The input-shaping process can be represented in several ways.
In addition to the convolution process shown in Figure 5, input
shaping can be accomplished by time-delay blocks. Such a block
diagram representation of the input-shaping process is shown in
Figure 6. The unshaped reference command, f(t), is fed into n gain
blocks that correspond to the impulse amplitudes, Ai. The scaled
functions are then sent through time delay blocks, i, that
correspond to the impulse time locations. Note that the first shaper
impulse, A1, is located at time zero, so it does not have an
associated time delay block. The shaped command signal, c(t), is
formed by summing the scaled and time-delayed functions.
The amplitudes and time locations of the impulses in an input
shaper can be determined by solving a set of constraint equations.
Most types of constraints can be categorized as residual vibration
constraints, robustness constraints, impulse amplitude constraints,
and the requirement of time optimality.
To constrain the residual vibration, we need an expression for
the residual vibration amplitude as a function of an impulse
sequence. If we assume the system can be modeled as a secondorder harmonic oscillator, then the system response from a single
impulse is:

y 0 (t ) = 0
e ( 0 ) sin 1 2 ( t t0 ) ,
2
1

(1)

where A0 is the amplitude of the impulse, t0 is the time the impulse

is applied, is the natural frequency, and is the damping ratio.
The response from a sequence of impulses is the superposition of
the response given in (1). Using the simplification:
d = 1 2 ,

(2)

the response to a sequence of impulses after the last impulse is:

Fig. 5 The Input-Shaping Process

A
t t
y (t ) = i
e ( ) sin ( d ( t ti ) ).
2
i =1 1

in the input shaper. Convolving a two-impulse sequence with a

continuous function is very easy. First, scale the initial command by
the amplitude of the first impulse, A1. Next, form a secondary
function by scaling the original command by the amplitude of the
second impulse, A2, and shift it to the time location of the second
impulse, as shown in Figure 5. There are now two, scaled replicas

(3)

Given (3), an expression for the amplitude of residual vibration can

be formed by using the trigonometric identity:
n

= B sin ( t + ) = A sin ( t + ) ,
i

(4)

156 / OCTOBER 2009

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

1
A 1 + K
=
t 0

where,
2

(5)

Given the expression in (3), the coefficients in the summation of (4)

are:
B =

1 2

( t t )
i

(6)

To calculate the residual vibration amplitude, we evaluate (5) at the

time of the last impulse, t = tn. Substituting (6) into (5) and bringing
the constant portion of the coefficients out of the square root term
gives:
A =

e n C ( , ) + S ( , ) ,
t

(7)

where,
n

C ( , ) = Ai e t cos ( d ti )
i

(8)

i =1
n

t
S ( , ) = Ae
sin ( d ti ).
i
i

(9)

i =1

The vibration amplitude can be expressed as a non-dimensional

function by dividing (7) by the amplitude of residual vibration from
a single impulse of unity magnitude. The resulting percentage
residual vibration expression gives us the ratio of vibration with
input shaping to that without input shaping. By expressing the
constraint in this way, we can set the residual vibration to a desired
percentage of the vibration that occurs without input shaping.
The amplitude of residual vibration from a single unitymagnitude impulse applied at time zero is:
A =

1 2

(10)

Dividing (7) by (10) yields the percentage vibration equation:

V ( , ) =

A
= e n [C ( , )]2 + [ S ( , )]2 .
A
t

(11)

If V(,) is set equal to zero at the modeling parameters, (m, m),

then a sequence of impulses that satisfies the equation is called a
Zero Vibration (ZV) shaper.
As with any filtering method, a constraint must be applied to
ensure that the shaped command produces the same rigid-body
motion as the unshaped command. To satisfy this requirement, the
impulse amplitudes must sum to one:
n

= A = 1.
i

(12)

Due to the transcendental nature of (11), there will be multiple

possible solutions. To make the solution time optimal, the time of
the final impulse must be minimized:

min ( tn ) ,

2
1

A = B cos ( ) + B sin ( ) .
=1
=1

K
1+ K

(13)

When the above constraints are solved for a two-impulse

sequence, the ZV shaper is obtained as:5,18

(14)

where,
K =e

1 2

(15)

The duration of the ZV shaper (the time location of its final

impulse) is equal to one half period of the damped vibration.
One of the initial challenges of implementing ZV shaping was
creating the correctly scaled and time-delayed component of the
shaped command. Given that analog computers were used during
this time period, the time delay was particularly challenging to
obtain. Therefore, many of the papers on ZV shaping that followed
OJM Smiths work concentrated on implementation issues.19-22
In practice, ZV shapers can be sensitive to modeling errors. To
demonstrate this effect, the amplitude of residual vibration can be
plotted as a function of modeling errors. Figure 7 shows such a
sensitivity curve for the ZV shaper. The vertical axis is the
percentage vibration given by (11), while the horizontal axis is the
normalized frequency formed by dividing the actual frequency of
the system, a, by the modeling frequency, m. Notice that the
residual vibration increases rapidly as the actual frequency deviates
from the modeling frequency. The robustness can be measured
quantitatively by measuring the width of the curve at some low
level of vibration. This non-dimensional robustness measure is
called the input shapers frequency insensitivity, I. The 5%
insensitivity of the ZV shaper is 0.06, as shown in Figure 7. This
means that the shaper can keep the residual vibration below the 5%
level for frequency changes of only 3 percent.
Given the sensitivity to modeling errors, parameter
uncertainties, and nonlinearities that is demonstrated by the ZV
sensitivity curve, the usefulness of the early command-shaping
methods was limited to applications where the frequencies were
well known and did not change significantly during operation. In
order to make command shaping widely applicable, this weakness
needed to be overcome. Luckily, many such methods have been
developed since the late 1980s.

3. Robust Command-Shaping Methods

At the 1988 IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation,
Singer and Seering presented a paper on acausal command-shaping
methods for controlling robot vibration.23 However, they gave only
a brief overview of the paper and then used their remaining time to
present a robust command-shaping method that they had recently
developed.18,24,25 This robust method was a significant leap forward,
as it greatly expanded the possible applications for command
shaping. In a very short time, several other research groups adopted
the idea and were making extensions and experimental verifications
of Singer and Seerings input-shaping method.26-31
In order to increase the robustness of the input-shaping process,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

Percentage Vibration

30

ZV Shaper
ZVD Shaper
EI Shaper

25
20
15

0.40

10

0.28
0.06

Vtol

0
0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Normalized Frequency ( a/ m)

Fig. 7 Input Shaper Sensitivity Curves

Singer and Seering used an additional constraint to design their
input shaper. Their constraint forced the derivative of the residual
vibration, with respect to frequency, to equal zero:

V ( , ) = 0.

(16)

When (11), (12), (13), and (16) are satisfied with V(,) = 0,
the result is a Zero Vibration and Derivative (ZVD) shaper
containing three impulses given by:

A 1 + 2 K + K 2
t =

K
1 + 2K + K 2

1 2

K2

1 + 2K + K 2
.
2

1 2

(17)

By comparing the 5% insensitivities shown in Figure 7, it is

obvious that the ZVD shaper is significantly more robust than the
ZV shaper. Its 5% insensitivity is 0.286 a 480% increase over the
ZV shaper. Note that the cost of this robustness is a lengthening of
the input shaper. The ZV shaper is 0.5 vibration periods in duration,
while the ZVD shaper is one full period. This means that when the
command is shaped, its rise time will be increased by one vibration
period. This increase in rise time is usually a small price to pay for
the robust vibration reduction.
Singer and Seering proposed an extension to this idea where
additional higher-order derivatives are formed and set equal to zero.
When these additional constraints are used, the resulting shapers get
more and more robust by further flattening the sensitivity curve at
the modeling frequency. The cost for each additional robustness
constraint is an additional lengthening of the input shaper by 0.5
vibration periods, and the need for one additional impulse in the
input shaper.
In his book5 that first described ZV shaping (posicast control),
OJM Smith demonstrated that the shaper was effectively placing
zeros over the flexible poles of the system thereby canceling their
vibratory effects. When derivative constraints are added to the
problem formulation, the input shaper places additional zeros over
the flexible poles of the plant.32,33
Soon after the development of the zero-derivative shapers,
many other researchers sought to extend the robustness idea. The
extensions can largely be categorized as: 1) Built-in robustness, or
2) Adaptive robustness. Built-in robustness seeks to make the input

OCTOBER 2009 / 157

shaper inherently robust, as for example the ZVD shaper. A

fundamental tradeoff in this approach is that obtaining more
robustness leads to an increase in rise time. A key challenge is to
obtain significant robustness with very little rise time penalty.
Adaptive input shaping seeks to use feedback measurements of
the system states to continually change the input shaper to improve
its effectiveness. For example, the ZV shaper given in (14) can be
continually changed during operation by updating the frequency, ,
that is used to calculate the shaper impulses. A significant cost of
adaptive input shaping is that sensors must be added to the control
system. Furthermore, these sensors must give indications of how
the oscillation frequencies change. Key challenges in adaptive
shaping are updating the shaper impulses rapidly and achieving
stable behavior.

3.1 Built-in Robustness

The zero derivative robustness constraints are only one possible
way to improve the inherent robustness of input shapers. Soon after
the ZVD shaper was disclosed, another approach was proposed in
which the constraint of zero vibration at the modeling frequency
was replaced with a constraint that merely limited the vibration to a
small value.34-36 This approach is called the Extra-Insensitive (EI)
approach because it provides extra robustness without increasing
the shaper duration it is the same duration as the ZVD shaper. The
sensitivity curve for the EI shaper is shown in Figure 7. The nonzero vibration at the hump in the sensitivity curve, as well as the
improved robustness, is readily apparent. Its 5% insensitivity is 0.4
a 670% increase over the ZV shaper and a 140% increase over the
ZVD shaper. As with the zero-derivative methods, the extrainsensitive method can be extended to higher levels of robustness
by adding constraints that create more humps in the sensitivity
curve.37
Another robust method, called Specified-Insensitivity (SI)
shaping, suppresses a specified range of frequencies.38-40 The most
straightforward method for generating a shaper with specified
insensitivity to frequency errors is the technique of frequency
sampling.38 This method requires repeated use of the vibration
amplitude equation, (11). In each case, V(,) is set less than or
equal to a tolerable level of vibration, Vtol:
V es n
t

tol

( C ( , ) ) + ( S ( , ) )
2

, s = 1,..., m

(18)

where, s represents the m unique frequencies at which the

vibration is limited.
For example, if a frequency insensitivity of 0.4 is desired
(20% allowable error), then the constraint equations limit the
vibration to below Vtol at frequencies between 0.8m and 1.2m.
This procedure is illustrated in Figure 8 for Vtol = 5%. Given that
the SI shapers can be designed to suppress any desired range of
frequencies, they often prove advantageous over the ZVD and EI
shapers. This flexibility in the robustness properties of the SI
shapers is demonstrated in Figure 9, where the sensitivity curves for
I = 0.5 and I = 0.7 are compared to that of the ZVD shaper. The
SI design method can be extended by weighting the importance of
the frequencies within the suppression range.41,42 (The method

Endpoint Vibration (%)

158 / OCTOBER 2009

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

35
30
25
Limit Vibration at
Specific Frequencies

20
15
10

Vtol

5
0

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Normalized Frequency, a/ m

Fig. 8 Frequency Sampling to Suppress a Range of Frequencies

35

ZVD
SI (I = 0.5)
SI (I = 0.7)

Percentage Vibration

30
25

0.7

20

0.5

15
10
5
0

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Normalized Frequency (/ m)

Fig. 9 Specified Insensitivity Shapers

0.16
0.15

0.14
0.12

0.1

Residual
Vibration

0.1

0.05

0.08
0.06

0
0.2

0.04
0.1

Damping
Ratio,

0.02
0

0.8

0.6

1.2

1.4

Frequency (Hz)

5% Insensitivity, I(5%)

Fig. 10 Sensitivity Curve of an SI Shaper Designed to Suppress a

Range of Frequencies and Damping Ratios
1

Three-Hump EI

0.8

Two-Hump EI

0.6

ZVD

SI Shapers
Other Shapers

ZV
0.5

ZVDDD

ZVDD

EI

0.4
0.2

shown in Figure 8 treats all frequencies with equal importance.) For

example, the lower frequencies within the suppression zone could
be weighted more and suppressed more because they are likely
to produce larger amplitude residual vibration than higher
frequencies.
The SI design method can easily be extended to obtain
robustness to modeling errors in the damping ratio. Constraints are
simply added to the formulation to limit the residual vibration over
a range of damping ratios. For example, Figure 10 shows the
sensitivity curve for an SI shaper that was designed to suppress
vibration over a range of frequencies from 0.7 Hz to 1.3 Hz, and
also over a range of damping ratios from 0 to 0.2.
Given the multiple choices of input shapers discussed here, (and
many others not discussed), how does one choose which type of
input shaper to use? A good approach is to analyze the properties of
the various shapers and then choose the shaper that best fits the
application in question. Input shapers have several properties of
importance: Duration, Robustness, Ease of Implementation, HighMode Excitation, etc. Here we will review two of the most
important properties: Robustness and Duration. Figure 11 shows the
relationship between robustness and duration for several input
shapers. The shaper duration is normalized by the vibration period.
The SI shaper is plotted as a line because it can have any
desired level of Insensitivity. The SI shaper has the minimum
duration for any given Insensitivity. Therefore, SI shapers will
provide the fastest rise time. One point of interest is that the EI
shapers correspond to nodes on the SI shaper curve. This indicates
that they offer the optimal insensitivity for their duration. It is also
of interest to note that the zero-derivative method produces input
shapers that provide substantially less Insensitivity than SI shapers.

1.5

Normalized Shaper Duration

Fig. 11 Input Shaper Robustness vs. Shaper Duration

3.2 Adaptive Robustness

Rather than construct an input shaper that has inherent
robustness properties, many researchers have developed methods to
use a non-robust shaper, but adapt its impulse amplitudes and time
locations to the changing dynamic properties of the system. This
approach can provide a faster rise time because the non-robust
shaper is shorter in duration than a comparable robust shaper.
Efforts on this approach appeared very soon after Singer and
Seerings ZVD shaper first appeared.
One of the earliest adaptive input-shaping methods used a
frequency-domain identification scheme to estimate the vibration
frequencies and then update the spacing between the shaper
impulses.28,29,43 The challenge with this approach is to perform the
identification in real-time without placing too large of a
computational burden on the control computer. Numerous
experimental results were obtained to demonstrate the effectiveness
of this approach.26,44,45 The approach can be modified to use other
types of frequency identification methods, such as the Empirical
Transfer Function Estimate approach.46
Given the time delay required to calculate the dominant mode
from sensor data, one adaptive approach measured the second
vibration mode and then used a known relationship between the
first and second modes to calculate the primary mode.47 This

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

OCTOBER 2009 / 159

method can be advantageous because the second mode can be

calculated from fewer sensor measurements; therefore, it can be
obtained faster than the first mode. The system identification can
also be accomplished in the time domain.48,49
In the indirect adaptive approaches discussed above, the system
parameters (natural frequency and damping ratio) are identified first
and then the appropriate input shaper is designed. Another approach
is to create a direct adaptation algorithm that never explicitly
utilizes the system parameters. Instead, direct methods adapt the
input shaper directly from the system output.50-52 In many cases,
this approach can have better convergence characteristics than
indirect approaches. Given the importance of the adaptation
algorithm to the overall success of this approach to command
shaping, it is important to compare the various methods and match
their capabilities and properties with the application at hand.48,52-55
In addition to the real-time computational burden, another
significant challenge for some applications is the effect of noise in
the system. Noise can erroneously indicate that the dynamic
properties are changing. This could lead to an incorrect change in
the input shaper. This issue has been studied and a method to
optimize solutions for systems with noise has been developed.56

against the period of the low mode. The horizontal axis shows the
ratio between the high and low modes, R. For every mode ratio, the
direct shapers have a smaller duration they produce faster motion.
Much of the work done in multi-mode command shaping has
been directed at specific applications because the number of modes
and their relative amplitudes and frequency ratios can significantly
affect the design procedure that should be used. A number of papers
devoted to multi-mode command shaping for specific applications
such as robots,26,54,62-66 spacecraft,67-75 and cranes2,3,40,76-78 have been
published.
Some methods for multi-mode command shaping have sought
to optimize, or satisfy, auxiliary constraints to improve certain
aspects of the system performance. For example, an approach was
developed to eliminate multiple modes with a minimum number of
impulses in the input shaper.79 Using only a small number of
impulses decreases the computational requirements during real-time
implementation. Methods have also been developed to optimize the
shaping process when multiple actuators are used to drive the
system.80-84 Additional methods have been developed to optimally
design command shaping to work in conjunction with feedback
control85,86 and damping elements.87,88

4. Multi-mode Input Shapers

5. Input Shaping for Time-Optimal Control

Although many systems have one dominant flexible mode that

causes most of the vibration problems, there are some systems
where two or more modes must be addressed by the commandshaping method. Fortunately, command shaping is easily applied to
multi-mode systems. Two basic approaches exist, 1) a convolution
method wherein shapers designed for each of the modes are
combined to create a multi-mode shaper and 2) a direct approach
wherein constraints on all of the system frequencies are generated
and then the full set of constraints are simultaneously solved to
directly obtain a multi-mode shaper.25,57-59
The convolution design approach is easier to perform, but the
direct, simultaneous approach can yield faster shapers with fewer
impulses. The tradeoff between these two approaches has been
thoroughly studied for two-mode systems.60,61 For example, Figure
12 compares the duration of convolved and direct ZVD shapers for
two modes. The vertical axis shows the shaper duration, normalized

Time-optimal control for flexible systems is a special type of

command shaping that seeks to create commands that will move a
system as fast as possible from one state to another. This endeavor
dates back to the 1960s in the work of Pontryagin, but many other
researchers followed on with contributions to this field.89-93 The
approach requires a good model of the system dynamics, as well as
knowledge of the actuator limits. The commands are then designed
to use the maximum actuator effort to move the system as fast as
possible.
While the mathematical constructs for analyzing time-optimal
commands for flexible systems were well developed, the actual
calculation of such commands and their practical implementation
lagged far behind. Such commands could only be generated for
very simple systems and they suffered from poor robustness to
modeling errors.94 These limitations were greatly reduced by the
robustness concept developed by Singer and Seering. Wie and Liu
were perhaps the first to see the possibility of using the zeroderivative robustness constraint in a time-optimal formulation that
greatly reduces the sensitivity of time-optimal commands.95-97
The equivalence between time-optimal commands and input
shaping occurs when the input shaper contains impulses whose
amplitudes are [1, -2, 2, -2, -2, 1]. Furthermore, this special type
of input shaper must be convolved with a step input whose
magnitude is equal to the maximum actuator force. This process is
demonstrated in Figure 13. Rather than use the convolution process
shown in Figure 13, Singh and Vadali demonstrated the timeoptimal input-shaping problem formulation and solution in the
frequency domain.98 The extra-insensitive constraints were also
formulated and solved for the special case of time-optimal control.99

Shaper Duration
(Periods of Low Mode)

1.5

ZVD Convolved
ZVD Direct

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1

Mode Ratio, R
Fig. 12 Duration of Two-Mode ZVD Shapers

10

160 / OCTOBER 2009

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

Max
0

Unshaped Input
Max

-2
-2
Input Shaper

Shaped Input
-Max

produce on/off commands that are known in closed form.107-110

With these methods, the designer only has to enter the system
dynamic properties (frequencies, actuator limits) and the desired
move parameters (distance, fuel usage) into given equations and the
switch times are immediately known. Such closed-form commands
are also available for cases where the transient deflection111,112 and
the fuel usage109,110 need to be limited. Another simple method for
command shaping with on/off actuators is an approach where
standard input-shaped commands are converted to an on/off
function by approximation,113,114 or pulse-width modulation.115,116

Fig. 13 Input-Shaping Process to Generate Time-Optimal

Commands

6. Example Applications

Max
0

Unshaped Input
Max

1 1

-1 -1 -1 -1
Input Shaper

Shaped Input
-Max
Fig. 14 Input Shaping Process to Generate Fuel-Efficient On/Off
Commands.
Given that the resulting time-optimal command is on/off, these
commands can be used for on/off actuators such as reaction jets on
spacecraft. Unfortunately, the time-optimal on/off commands are
not efficient they use a lot of actuator effort (fuel). This fact
motivated several research groups to search for methods to make
the commands more fuel efficient. Some of the methods start with
an inherently fuel-efficient command profile and solve for the times
at which it should switch on and off.100 Other methods use a
weighting function between move speed and fuel usage,101-104 or
simply allow the command designer to specify the amount of fuel
that is to be used for any particular move.105 All of these methods
can be formulated by simply changing the impulses magnitudes in
the input shaper. For example, Figure 14 shows how an input shaper
with amplitudes of 1 can generate a command profile that has
periods of coasting. This leads to a much more fuel-efficient
command profile.
The method shown in Figure 14 can produce on/off commands
that move systems in a fuel-efficient manner (or with a specified
amount of fuel); however, the transient deflection that the system
undergoes is not directly controlled. Therefore, the system could be
damaged during the motion by large internal deflection forces. This
could be especially damaging for spacecraft, so researchers have
modified the command-shaping process by adding additional
constraints to limit transient deflection during the motion.47,106
The methods discussed so far in this section require a numerical
optimization to solve the constraint equations and determine the
impulse times (command switch times). This can lead to large
computational burdens that hamper real-time implementation. To
alleviate this problem, researchers have developed methods that

Given the ease with which command shaping can be

implemented, and its robust effectiveness, it is not surprising that it
has been implemented on millions of machines throughout the
world. The responses of the bridge crane that were shown in Figure
3 demonstrate the benefit of command shaping crane commands. In
addition to the single-pendulum bridge crane shown in Figure 3,
command shaping has been implemented on tower cranes,117 boom
cranes,118,119 container cranes,78,120-123 double-pendulum cranes,40
and cranes whose payloads bounce when they are lowered.124
While crane oscillation is large-amplitude and low-frequency in
nature, command shaping also works well on high-frequency, lowamplitude vibration. Consider the moving-bridge coordinate
measuring machine (CMM) sketched in Figure 15. The machine is
composed of stiff components including a granite base and largecross-section structural members. The goal of the CMM is to move
a measurement probe throughout its workspace so that it can
contact manufactured parts that are being inspected. In this way, it
can accurately determine the dimensions of the part and ensure that
they meet specifications. The position of the probe is measured by
optical encoders that are attached to the granite base and the
moving bridge. However, the measured location of the probe will
differ from the actual location because the physical structure
deflects between the encoders and the probe endpoint.

Measured
Part

TouchTrigger
Probe

Fig. 15 Moving-Bridge Coordinate Measuring Machine

60

OCTOBER 2009 / 161

Unshaped Response
Shaped Response

40

Gimbal Position (degrees)

Deflection (Laser-Encoder,m)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

20
0.0
-20
Measurement

-40
-60
0.40

0.60

0.80
1.00
Time(sec)

1.20

Fig. 16 Comparison of Deflections During Shaped and Unshaped

Measurement Cycles
When command shaping is applied to the reference command
of a CMM, the deflection of the structure is reduced, both during
the gross motion and during the slow approach toward the part.125127
This effect is shown in Figure 16. The command shaping
reduced the measurement probe deflection from approximately 25
m to about 6 m during the critical measurement phase.
Successful applications of input shaping have also been
reported on the related problems of controlling XY stages,128-133
flexible robotic arms,18,28,51,62,65,66,68,134-156 and voice coil motors.157
Implementation on these types of industrial machines may require
the input-shaping algorithm to deal with friction,116,158,159
saturation,75,160 or rate limiting.81,161-165
Command shaping has also proven beneficial for
spacecraft.67,69-71,73-75,95,97,99,100,106,109,115,166-170 Input shapers were
tested in space using the Middeck Active Control Experiment
(MACE).37,171,172 The MACE hardware was designed to represent a
typical satellite with multiple pointing mechanisms. This
experimental apparatus first flew on board the Space Shuttle
Endeavor in March 1995, as shown in Figure 17. It was then
relaunched in September of 2000 to the International Space Station.
A goal of the experimental program was to develop control
algorithms that would allow gimbals on both ends of the structure
to simultaneously make accurate motions. This requires each
gimbal to be robust to disturbances caused by the motion of the
other gimbal.
Figure 18 shows the shaped and unshaped responses of the

1.5
1
0.5

Unshaped Step
Shaped Step

0
-0.5
-1
-1.5

Time (sec)

Fig. 18 MACE Step Responses

primary gimbal when it was moved approximately 3 degrees.
Command shaping eliminated virtually all of the residual vibration.
The very low frequency drift in the position was caused by the
umbilical that connected the free-floating hardware to the space
shuttle.

7. Conclusions
Methods that generate specially-shaped reference commands to
move flexible systems are an important part of control theory and
application over 700 papers on the subject have been published.
The major advantage of such commands is that they do not require
sensor measurements; although sensors can be used in adaptive
command-shaping methods to improve performance. Another
strength of command shaping is that it acts to suppress vibration in
a preemptive way that is faster than anything possible with
feedback control. Feedback control must wait for an error to arise
and be sensed before it starts to suppress it. Command shaping uses
a dynamic model to anticipate the occurrence of vibration, so it can
effectively start to act as soon as the system starts to move. A key
advancement in command shaping was the concept of robustness
commands can be designed to work well, even when large
modeling errors exist. Furthermore, the required dynamic model is
usually quite simple just estimates of the natural frequencies and
damping ratios. Command shaping is very versatile in that many
types of auxiliary constraints, such as actuator limits, fuel usage,
and transient deflection limits, can be integrated into the design of
the commands. These beneficial properties have enabled engineers
to harness the benefits of command shaping on millions of
machines around the world.

REFERENCES

Fig. 17 MACE Experiment Onboard the Space Shuttle. Photo

courtesy of NASA

1.

Khalid, A., Huey, J., Singhose, W., Lawrence, J. and Frakes,

D., Human Operator Performance Testing Using an InputShaped Bridge Crane, ASME J. of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement, and Control, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp. 835-841, 2006.

2.

Kim, D. and Singhose, W., Studies of Human Operators

162 / OCTOBER 2009

Manipulating Double-Pendulum Cranes, Proc. European

Control Conference, pp. WeC10.1, 2007.
3.

Manning, R., Kim, D. and Singhose, W., Reduction of

Distributed Payload Bridge Crane Oscillations, Proc.
WSEAS International Conference on Automatic Control,
Modeling, and Simulation, pp. 133-139, 2008.

4.

Smith, O. J. M., Posicast Control of Damped Oscillatory

Systems, Proc. the IRE, Vol. 45, No. 9, pp. 1249-1255, 1957.

5.

Smith, O. J. M., Feedback Control Systems, McGraw-Hill

Book Co., Inc., 1958.

6.

Tallman, G. H. and Smith, O. J. M., Analog Study of DeadBeat Posicast Control, IRE Transactions on Automatic
Control, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 14-21, 1958.

7.

Tesar, D. and Mathew, G. K., The Dynamic Synthesis,

Analysis, and Design of Modeling Cam Systems, Lexington
Books, 1935.

8.

Rothbart, H., Cams: Design, Dynamics, and Accuracy, John

Wiley & Sins, Inc., 1956.

9.

Kwakernaak, H. and Smith, J., Minimum Vibration Cam

Profiles, J. of Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 10, pp.
219-227, 1968.

10. Wiederrich, J. L. and Roth, B., Design of Low Vibration Cam

Profiles, Proc. Conference on Cams and Cam Mechanisms,
1974.
11. Gimpel, D. J. and Calvert, J. F., Signal Component Control,
AIEE Transactions, pp. 339-343, 1952.
12. Calvert, J. F. and Gimpel, D. J., Method and Apparatus for
Control of System Output Response to System Input, U.S.
Patent No. 2801351, 1957.
13. Aspinwall, D. M., Acceleration Profiles for Minimizing
Residual Response, ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement, and Control, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 3-6, 1980.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

Inputs to Reduce System Vibration, Journal of Dynamic

Systems, Measurement, & Control, Vol. 112, No. 1, pp. 76-82,
1990.
19. Ogata, K., Modern Control Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., p.
282, 1970.
20. Cook, G., An Application of Half-Cycle Posicast, IEEE
Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 556-559,
1966.
21. Shields, V. C. and Cook, G., Application of an Approximate
Time Delay to a Posicast Control System, International
Journal of Control, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 649-657, 1971.
22. Mee, D. H., A Feedback Implementation of Posicast Control
Using Sampling Circuits, Proc. of the Institute of Radio and
Electronics Engineering, pp. 11-15, 1974.
23. Singer, N. C. and Seering, W. P., Using Acausal Shaping
Techniques to Reduce Robot Vibration, Proc. of the IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3,
pp. 1434-1439, 1988.
24. Singer, N. and Seering, W. P., Experimental Verification of
Command Shaping Methods for Controlling Residual
Vibration in Flexible Robots, Proc. of the American Control
Conference, 1989.
25. Singer, N. C., Residual Vibration Reduction in Computer
Controlled Machines, Mechanical Engineering, Ph. D. thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.
26. Yurkovich, S., Tzes, A. P. and Hillsley, K. L., Controlling
Coupled Flexible Links Rotating in the Horizontal Plane,
Proc. of the American Control Conference, pp. 362-368, 1990.
27. Bhat, S. P. and Miu, D. K., Precise Point-to-Point Positioning
Control of Flexible Structures, ASME Winter Annual
Meeting, 1989.

14. Swigert, C. J., Shaped Torque Techniques, Journal of

Guidance and Control, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 460-467, 1980.

28. Tzes, A. P., Englehart, M. J. and Yurkovich, S., Input

Preshaping With Frequency Domain Information For FlexibleLink Manipulator Control, Proc. of the AIAA Guidance,
Navigation and Control Conference, pp. 1167-1175, 1989.

15. Turner, J. D. and Junkins, J. L., Optimal Large-Angle SingleAxis Rotational Maneuvers of Flexible Spacecraft, Journal of
Guidance and Control, Vol. 3, pp. 578-585, 1980.

29. Tzes, A. P. and Yurkovich, S., Adaptive Precompensators for

Flexible-Link Manipulator Control, 28th IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, Vol. 3, pp. 2083-2088, 1989.

16. Meckl, P. H. and Seering, W. P., Minimizing Residual

Vibration for Point-to-Point Motion, Journal of Vibration,
Acoustics, Stress and Reliability in Design, Vol. 107, No. 3,
pp. 378-382, 1985.

30. Bhat, S. P. and Miu, D. K., Precise Point-to-Point Positioning

Control of Flexible Structures, ASME Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 112, No. 4, pp. 667674, 1990.

17. Meckl, P. H. and Seering, W. P., Experimental Evaluation of

Shaped Inputs to Reduce Vibration for a Cartesian Robot, J.
of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 112, No.
2, pp. 159-165, 1990.

31. Bhat, S. P. and Miu, D. K., Solutions to Point-to-Point

Control Problems using Laplace Transform Technique, Proc.
American Control Conf., 1990.

18. Singer, N. C. and Seering, W. P., Preshaping Command

32. Singh, T. and Vadali, S. R., Robust Time-Delay Control,

ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

Control, Vol. 115, pp. 303-306, 1993.

33. Pao, L. Y. and Singhose, W. E., Robust Minimum Time
Control of Flexible Structures, Automatica, Vol. 34, pp. 229236, 1998.
34. Singhose, W. E., Seering, W. P. and Singer, N. C., Shaping
Inputs to Reduce Vibration: A Vector Diagram Approach,
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 922927, 1990.

OCTOBER 2009 / 163

flexible manipulators, Automatica, Vol. 31, pp. 83-97, 1995.

46. Khorrami, F., Jain, S. and Tzes, A., Adaptive Nonlinear
Control and Input Preshaping for Flexible-Link
Manipulators, Proc. American Control Conf., pp. 2705-2709,
1993.
47. Kojima, H. and Singhose, W., Adaptive Deflection Limiting
Control for Slewing Flexible Space Structures, AIAA J. of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 30, pp. 61-67, 2007.

35. Singhose, W., Seering, W. and Singer, N., Residual Vibration

Reduction Using Vector Diagrams to Generate Shaped
Inputs, J. of Mechanical Design, Vol. 116, pp. 654-659, 1994.

48. Bodson, M., An Adaptive Algorithm for the Tuning of Two

Input Shaping Methods, Automatica, Vol. 34, pp. 771-776,
1998.

36. Park, U. H., Lee, J. W., Lim, B. D. and Sung, Y. G., Design
and Sensitivity Analysis of an Input Shaping Filter in the ZPlane, J. of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 243, pp. 157-171, 2001.

49. Park, J. and Chang, P. H., Learning Input Shaping Technique

for Not-LTI Systems, Proc. American Control Conference,
1998.

37. Singhose, W. E., Porter, L. J., Tuttle, T. D. and Singer, N. C.,

Vibration Reduction Using Multi-Hump Input Shapers, J. of
Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 119, pp.
320-326, 1997.

50. Rhim, S. and Book, W., Adaptive Time-delay Command

Shaping Filter for Flexible Manipulator Control,
IEEE/ASME Trans. on Mechatronics, Vol. 9, pp. 619-626,
2004.

38. Singer, N. C. and Seering, W. P., An Extension of Command

Shaping Methods for Controlling Residual Vibration Using
Frequency Sampling, Proc. IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, pp. 800-805, 1992.

51. Park, J. and Rhim, S., Extraction of Optimal Time-delay in

Adaptive Command Shaping Filter for Flexible Manipulator
Control, J. of Inst. of Control, Robotics and System, Vol. 14,
pp. 564-572, 2008.

39. Singhose, W., Seering, W. and Singer, N., Input Shaping for
Vibration Reduction with Specified Insensitivity to Modeling
Errors, Proc. Japan-USA Sym. on Flexible Automation, pp.
307-313, 1996.

52. Rhim, S. and Book, W., Adaptive Command Shaping Using

Adaptive Filter Approach in Time Domain, Proc. American
Control Conference, pp. 81-85, 1999.

40. Singhose, W., Kim, D. and Kenison, M., Input Shaping

Control of Double-Pendulum Bridge Crane Oscillations,
ASME J. Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol.
130, p. 034504, 2008.
41. Pao, L. Y., Chang, T. N. and Hou, E., Input Shaper Designs
for Minimizing the Expected Level of Residual Vibration in
Flexible Structures, Proc. American Control Conf., pp. 35423546, 1997.
42. Pao, L. and Lau, M., Robust Input Shaper Control Design for
Parameter Variations in Flexible Structures, J. of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 122, pp. 63-70,
2000.
43. Tzes, A. and Yurkovich, S., An Adaptive Input Shaping
Control Scheme for Vibration Suppression in Slewing Flexible
Structures, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 114-121, 1993.
44. Khorrami, F., Jain, S. and Tzes, A., Experiments of RigidBody Based Controllers with Input Preshaping for a Two-Link
Flexible Manipulator, Proc. American Control Conf., pp.
2957-2961, 1992.
45. Khorrami, F., Jain, S. and Tzes, A., Experimental results on
adaptive nonlinear control and input preshaping for multi-link

53. Bodson, M., Experimental Comparison of Two Input

Shaping Methods for the Control of Resonant Systems, Proc.
IFAC World Congress, 1996.
54. Magee, D. P. and Book, W. J., Implementing Modified
Command Filtering to Eliminate Multiple Modes of
Vibration, Proc. American Controls Conference, pp. 27002704, 1993.
55. Magee, D. P. and Book, W. J., Experimental Verification of
Modified Command Shaping Using a Flexible Manipulator,
Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Motion and
Vibration Control, 1992.
56. Rhim, S. and Book, W., Noise Effect on Time-domain
Adaptive Command Shaping Methods for Flexible
Manipulator Control, IEEE Trans. of Control Systems
Technology, Vol. 9, pp. 84-92, 2001.
57. Cook, G., Control of Flexible Structures Via Posicast, Proc.
Eighteenth Southeastern Symp. on System Theory, pp. 31-35,
1986.
58. Hyde, J. M. and Seering, W. P., Inhibiting Multiple Mode
Vibration in Controlled Flexible Systems, Proc. American
Control Conf., 1991.
59. Hyde, J. M. and Seering, W. P., Using Input Command Pre-

164 / OCTOBER 2009

Shaping to Suppress Multiple Mode Vibration, Proc. IEEE

Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2604-2609, 1991.
60. Singhose, W. E., Crain, E. A. and Seering, W. P., Convolved
and Simultaneous Two-Mode Input Shapers, IEE Control
Theory and Applications, Vol. 144, pp. 515-520, 1997.
61. Sung, Y.-G. and Singhose, W., Robustness Analysis of Input
Shaping Commands for Two-mode Flexible Systems, IET
Control Theory and Applications, Vol. 3, pp. 722-730, 2009.
62. Hillsley, K. L. and Yurkovich, S., Vibration Control of a
Two-Link Flexible Robot Arm, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on
Robotics and Automation, pp. 2121-2126, 1991.
63. Magee, D. P. and Book, W. J., Filtering Schilling
Manipulator Commands to Prevent Flexible Structure
Vibration, Proc. American Control Conf., pp. 2538-2542,
1994.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

1996.
73. Banerjee, A., Pedreiro, N. and Singhose, W., Vibration
Reduction for Flexible Spacecraft Following Momentum
Dumping with/without Slewing, AIAA J. of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 24, pp. 417-428, 2001.
74. Robertson, M., Timm, A. and Singhose, W., Evaluation of
Command Generation Techniques for Tethered Satellite
Retrieval, Proc. AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics
Conference, 2005.
75. Hu, Q., Input shaping and variable structure control for
simultaneous precision positioning and vibration reduction of
flexible spacecraft with saturation compensation, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, Vol. 318, pp. 18-35, 2008.
76. Kim, D. and Singhose, W., Human Operator Learning On
Double-Pendulum Bridge Cranes, ASME IMECE, 2007.

64. Magee, D. P. and Book, W. J., Filtering Micro-Manipulator

Wrist Commands to Prevent Flexible Base Motion, Proc.
American Control Conf., pp. 924-928, 1995.

77. Sorensen, K. L., Danielson, J. and Singhose, W. E., AntiSway and Positioning Control For An Industrial Bridge Crane
With Multi-Mode Dynamics, Proc. ASME International
Symposium on Flexible Automation, 2008.

65. Magee, D. P. and Book, W. J., Eliminating Multiple Modes

of Vibration in a Flexible Manipulator, Proc. of the IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp.
474-479, 1993.

78. Hong, K.-T. and Hong, K.-S., Input Shaping and VSC of
Container Cranes, Proc. IEEE International Conference on
Control Applications, pp. 1570-1575, 2004.

66. Hillsley, K. L. and Yurkovich, S., Vibration Control of a

Two-Link Flexible Robot Arm, J. of Dynamics and Control,
Vol. 3, pp. 261-280, 1993.

79. Singh, T. and Heppler, G. R., Shaped Input Control of a

System with Multiple Modes, ASME Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 115, pp. 341-347,
1993.

67. Banerjee, A. K., Dynamics and Control of the WISP ShuttleAntennae System, J. of Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 41, pp.
73-90, 1993.
68. Banerjee, A. K. and Singhose, W. E., Command Shaping in
Tracking Control of a Two-Link Flexible Robot, J. of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 21, pp. 1012-1015,
1998.
69. Singh, T. and Vadali, S. R., Input-Shaped Control of ThreeDimensional Maneuvers of Flexible Spacecraft, J. of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 16, pp. 1061-1068,
1993.
70. Sung, Y. G. and Wander, J. P., Applications of Vibration
Reduction of Flexible Space Structure Using Input Shaping
Technique, Proc. Southeastern IEEE Conference, pp. 333336, 1993.

80. Lim, S. and How, J., Input Command Shaping Techniques for
Robust, High-Performance Control of Flexible Structures,
Proc. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conf., 1996.
81. Lim, S., Stevens, H. D. and How, J. P., Input Shaping Design
for Multi-input Flexible Systems, J. of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement and Control, Vol. 121, pp. 443-447, 1999.
82. Cutforth, C. F. and Pao, L. Y., A Modified Method for
Multiple Actuator Input Shaping, Proc. American Control
Conf., pp. 66-70, 1999.
83. Pao, L. Y., Multi-Input Shaping Design for Vibration
Reduction, Automatica, Vol. 35, pp. 81-89, 1999.
84. Vaughan, J. and Singhose, W., Reducing Vibration and
Providing Robustness with Multi-Input Shapers, Proc.
American Control Conference, 2009.

71. Tuttle, T. D. and Seering, W. P., Vibration Reduction in 0-g

Using Input Shaping on the MIT Middeck Active Control
Experiment, Proc. American Control Conf., pp. 919-923,
1995.

85. Kenison, M. and Singhose, W., Concurrent Design of Input

Shaping and Proportional Plus Derivative Feedback Control,
ASME J. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control,
Vol. 124, pp. 398-405, 2002.

72. Tuttle, T. D. and Seering, W. P., Vibration Reduction in

Flexible Space Structures Using Input Shaping on MACE:
Mission Results, Proc. IFAC World Congress, pp. 55-60,

86. Muenchhof, M. and Singh, T., Concurrent Feedforward/

Feedback Controller Design Using Time-Delay Filters, Proc.
AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, 2002.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

87. Fortgang, J. and Singhose, W., Concurrent Design of

Vibration Absorbers and Input Shapers, Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Controls, Vol. 127, pp. 329-335,
2005.
88. Magee, D. P., Cannon, D. W. and Book, W. J., Combined
Command Shaping and Inertial Damping for Flexure
Control, Proc. American Control Conf., Vol. 3, pp. 13301334, 1997.
89. Pontryagin, L. S., Boltyanskii, V. G., Gamkrelidze, R. V. and
Mishchenko, E. F., The Mathematical Theory of Optimal
Processes, John Wiley & Sons, 1962.
90. Athens, M. and Falb, P. L., Optimal Control, McGraw-Hill,
1966.
91. Hermes, H. and Lasalle, J. P., Functional Analysis and Time
Optimal Control, Academic Press, 1969.
92. Bryson, A. and Ho, Y.-C., Applied Optimal Control,
Hemisphere Publishing, 1975.
93. Ben-Asher, J., Burns, J. A. and Cliff, E. M., Time-Optimal
Slewing of Flexible Spacecraft, J. of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 15, pp. 360-367, 1992.
94. Vander Velde, W. and He, J., Design of Space Structure
Control Systems Using On-Off Thrusters, Journal Guidance,
Control and Dynamics, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 53-60, 1983.
95. Liu, Q. and Wie, B., Robust Time-Optimal Control of
Uncertain Flexible Spacecraft, Journal of Guidance, Control,
and Dynamics, Vol. 15, pp. 597-604, 1992.
96. Wie, B. and Liu, Q., Comparison Between Robustified
Feedforward and Feedback for Achieving Parameter
Robustness, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol. 15, pp. 935-943, 1992.
97. Wie, B., Sinha, R. and Liu, Q., Robust Time-Optimal Control
of Uncertain Structural Dynamic Systems, J. of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 15, pp. 980-983, 1993.
98. Singh, T. and Vadali, S. R., Robust Time-Optimal Control: A
Frequency Domain Approach, Journal of Guidance, Control
and Dynamics, Vol. 17, pp. 346-353, 1994.
99. Singhose, W., Derezinski, S. and Singer, N., ExtraInsensitive Input Shapers for Controlling Flexible Spacecraft,
J. of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 19, pp. 385-391,
1996.
100. Singhose, W., Bohlke, K. and Seering, W. Fuel-Efficient
Pulse Command Profiles for Flexible Spacecraft, J. of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 19, pp. 954-960, 1996.
101. Wie, B., Sinha, R., Sunkel, J. and Cox, K., Robust Fuel- and
Time-Optimal Control of Uncertain Flexible Space
Structures, Proc. Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference, pp. 939-948, 1993.

OCTOBER 2009 / 165

102. Singh, T., Fuel/Time Optimal Control of the Benchmark

Problem, J. of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 18, pp.
1225-1231, 1995.
103. Meyer, J. L. and Silverberg, L., Fuel Optimal Propulsive
Maneuver of an Experimental Structure Exhibiting Spacelike
Dynamics, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol.
19, pp. 141-149, 1996.
104. Driessen, B. J., On-off minimum-time control with limited
fuel usage: Near global optima via linear programming,
Optimal Control Applications & Methods, Vol. 27, pp. 161168, 2006.
105. Singhose, W., Singh, T. and Seering, W., On-Off Control
with Specified Fuel Usage, Journal Dynamic Systems,
Measurement, and Control, Vol. 121, pp. 206- 212, 1999.
106. Singhose, W., Banerjee, A. and Seering, W., Slewing Flexible
Spacecraft with Deflection-Limiting Input Shaping, J. of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, pp. 291-298, 1997.
107. Singhose, W., Mills, B. and Seering, W., Closed-Form
Methods for Generating On-Off Commands for Undamped
Flexible Structures, J. of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol. 22, pp. 378-382, 1999.
108. Dhanda, A. and Franklin, G., Vibration Control via
Preloading, Proc. American Control Conference, pp. 35743579, 2005.
109. Singhose, W., Biediger, E., Okada, H. and Matunaga, S.,
Closed-Form Specified-Fuel Commands for On-Off
Thrusters, AIAA J. of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol.
29, pp. 606-611, 2006.
110. Sung, Y.-G. and Singhose, W., Closed-Form Specified-Fuel
Commands for Two Flexible Modes, AIAA Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 30, pp. 1590-1596,
2007.
111. Robertson, M. J. and Singhose, W. E., Specified-Deflection
Command Shapers for Second-Order Position Input Systems,
ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and
Control, Vol. 129, pp. 856-859, 2007.
112. Sung, Y.-G. and Singhose, W., Deflection-Limiting
Commands for Systems with Velocity Limits, AIAA J.
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 31, pp. 472-478, 2008.
113. Singhose, W., Shaping Inputs to Reduce Vibration: A Vector
Diagram Approach, MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, Memo
No. 1223, 1990.
114. Rogers, K. and Seering, W. P., Input Shaping for Limiting
Loads and Vibration in Systems with On-Off Actuators, Proc.
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 1996.
115. Song, G., Buck, N. and Agrawal, B., Spacecraft Vibration
Reduction Using Pulse-Width Pulse-Frequency Modulated
Input Shaper, J. of Guidance, Control & Dynamics, Vol. 22,

166 / OCTOBER 2009

pp. 433-440, 1999.

116. Buffinton, K. W., Hoffman, K. L., Hekman, K. A. and Berg,
M. C., Optimal pulse-width control of flexible dynamic
systems, Proc. IASTED International Conference on
Robotics and Applications, 2007.
117. Vaughan, J., Singhose, W., Debenest, P., Fukushima, E. and
Hirose, S., Initial Experiments on the Control of a Mobile
Tower Crane, ASME IMECE, 2007.
118. Danielson, J., Vaughan, J., Singhose, W., Widler, L. and
Glauser, U., Design of a Mobile Boom Crane for Research
and Educational Applications, Proc. International Conference
on Motion and Vibration Control, 2008.
119. Parker, G. G., Groom, K., Hurtado, J. E., Feddema, J., Robinett,
R. D. and Leban, F., Experimental Verification of a
Command Shaping Boom Crane Control System, Proc.
American Control Conference, pp. 86-90, 1999.
120. Masoud, Z. N. and Daqaq, M. F., A Graphical Approach to
Input-Shaping Control Design for Container Cranes with
Hoist, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology,
Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 1070-1077, 2006.
121. Zrni, N., Petkovi, Z. and Bonjak, S., Automation of ShipTo-Shore Container Cranes: A Review of State-of-the-Art,
FME Transactions, Vol. 33, pp. 111-121, 2005.
122. Park, B. J., Hong, K.-S. and Huh, C. D., Time-Efficient Input
Shaping Control of Container Cranes, Proc. International
Conference on Control Applications, pp. 80-85, 2000.
123. Daqaq, M. F. and Masoud, Z. N., Nonlinear Input-Shaping
Controller for Quay-Side Container Cranes, Nonlinear
Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 1-2, pp. 149-170, 2006.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

130. deRoover, D., Motion Control of a Wafer Stage, Delft

University Press, 1997.
131. Park, S.-W., Hong, S.-W., Choi, H.-S. and Singhose, W.,
Discretization Effects of Real-Time Input Shaping in
Residual Vibration Reduction for Precise XY Stage, Trans. of
the Korean Society of Machine Tool Engineers, Vol. 16, pp.
71-78, 2007.
132. Vaughan, J., Yano, A. and Singhose, W., Comparison of
Robust Input Shapers, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol.
315, pp. 797-815, 2008.
133. Vaughan, J., Yano, A. and Singhose, W., Robust Negative
Input Shapers for Vibration Suppression, ASME J. Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 131, pp. 031014-1-9,
2009.
134. Starr, G. P., Swing-Free Transport of Suspended Objects with
a Path-Controlled Robot Manipulator, J. of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement and Control, Vol. 107, pp. 97-100, 1985.
135. Murphy, B. R. and Watanabe, I., Digital Shaping Filters for
Reducing Machine Vibration, IEEE Transactions on Robotics
and Automation, Vol. 8, pp. 285-289, 1992.
136. Feddema, J. T., Digital Filter Control of Remotely Operated
Flexible Robotic Structures, Proc. American Control Conf.,
pp. 2710-2715, 1993.
137. Yano, K. and Terashima, K., Sloshing suppression control of
liquid transfer systems considering a 3-D transfer path,
IEEE-ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 10, pp. 8-16,
2005.

124. Yoon, J., Singhose, W., Kim, M. D., Ramirez, G. and Tawde, S.
K., Dynamics and Control of Bouncing and Tilting Crane
Payloads, ASME IDETC, 2009.

138. Feddema, J., Dohrmann, C., Parker, G., Robinett, R., Romero,
V. and Schmitt, D., Control for Slosh-Free Motion of an
Open Container, IEEE Control Systems, Vol. 17, pp. 29-36,
1997.

125. Jones, S. and Ulsoy, A. G., An Approach to Control Input

Shaping with Application to Coordinate Measuring
Machines, J. of Dynamics, Measurement, and Control, Vol.
121, pp. 242-247, 1999.

139. Zou, K., Drapeau, V. and Wang, D., Closed Loop ShapedInput Strategies for Flexible Robots, Int. J. of Robotics
Research, Vol. 14, pp. 510-529, 1995.

126. Seth, N., Rattan, K. and Brandstetter, R., Vibration Control

of a Coordinate Measuring Machine, Proc. IEEE Conf. on
Control Apps., pp. 368-373, 1993.

140. Rappole, B. W., Singer, N. C. and Seering, W. P., MultipleMode Impulse Shaping Sequences for Reducing Residual
Vibrations, Proc. 23rd Biennial Mechanisms Conference, pp.
11-16, 1994.

127. Singhose, W., Singer, N. and Seering, W., Improving

Repeatability of Coordinate Measuring Machines with Shaped
Command Signals, Precision Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 138146, 1996.
128. Fortgang, J., Singhose, W. and Mrquez, J. d. J., Command
Shaping for Micro-Mills and CNC Controllers, Proc.
American Control Conference, 2005.
129. Singhose, W. and Singer, N., Effects of Input Shaping on
Two-Dimensional Trajectory Following, IEEE Trans. on
Robotics and Automation, Vol. 12, pp. 881-887, 1996.

141. Kwon, D.-S., Hwang, D.-H., Babcock, S. M. and Burks, B. L.,

Input Shaping Filter Methods for the Control of Structurally
Flexible, Long-Reach Manipulators, Proc. IEEE Conf. on
Robotics and Automation, pp. 3259-3264, 1994.
142. Chang, T., Godbole, K. and Hou, E., Optimal input shaper
design for high-speed robotic workcells, Journal of Vibration
and Control, Vol. 9, pp. 1359-1376, 2003.
143. Grosser, K. and Singhose, W., Command Generation for
Reducing Perceived Lag in Flexible Telerobotic Arms, JSME

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4

International Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 755-761, 2000.

144. Wilson, D. G., Stokes, D., Starr, G. and Robinett, R. D.,
Optimized Input Shaping for a Single Flexible Robot Link,
SPACE 96: 5th International Conf. and Expo. on Engineering,
Construction, and Operations in Space, 1996.
145. Singhose, W., Trajectory Planning for Flexible Robots: CRC
Robotics and Automation Handbook, T. Kurfess, Ed., CRC
Press, 2004.
146. Mohamed, Z. and Tokhi, M. O., Command Shaping
Techniques for Vibration Control of a Flexible Robot
Manipulator, Mechatronics, Vol. 14, pp. 69-90, 2004.
147. Alici, G. U., Kapucu, S. and Baysec, S., A Robust Motion
Design Technique for Flexible-Jointed Manipulation
Systems, Robotica, Vol. 24, pp. 95-103, 2006.
148. Chang, T., Jaroonsiriphan, P., Bernhardt, M. and Ludden, P.,
Web-based command shaping of cobra 600 robot with a
swinging load, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics,
Vol. 2, pp. 59-69, 2006.
149. Freese, M., Fukushima, E., Hirose, S. and Singhose, W.,
Endpoint Vibration Control of a Mobile Mine-Detecting
Robotic Manipulator, Proc. American Control Conference,
2007.
150. Gurleyuk, S. S., Optimal unity-magnitude input shaper
duration analysis, Archive of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 77, pp.
63-71, 2007.
151. Huey, J. R., Sorensen, K. L. and Singhose, W. E., Useful
Applications of Closed-Loop Signal Shaping Controllers,
Control Engineering Practice, Vol. 16, pp. 836-846, 2008.

OCTOBER 2009 / 167

157. Jung, J.-K., Youm, W.-S. and Park, K.-H., Vibration Reduction
Control of a Voice Coil Motor (VCM) Nano Scanner, IJPEM,
Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 167-170, 2009.
158. Rathbun, D. B., Berg, M. C. and Buffinton, K. W., Pulse
width control for precise positioning of structurally flexible
systems subject to stiction and coulomb friction, J. of
Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, Vol. 126, pp.
131-138, 2004.
159. Lawrence, J., Singhose, W. and Hekman, K., FrictionCompensating Input Shaping for Vibration Reduction, ASME
J. of Vibration and Acoustics, Vol. 127, pp. 307-314, 2005.
160. Robertson, M. J. and Erwin, R., Command Shapers for
Systems with Actuator Saturation, Proc. American Control
Conference, pp. 760-765, 2007.
161. Andersch, P., Sorensen, K. and Singhose, W., Effects of Rate
Limiting on Common Input Shaping Filters, Recent
Advances in Systems Engineering and Applied Mathematics,
pp. 33-38, 2008.
162. Meckl, P. H., Arestides, P. B. and Woods, M. C., Optimized
S-Curve Motion Profiles for Minimum Residual Vibration,
Proc. American Control Conference, pp. 2627-2631, 1998.
163. Singh, T., Jerk Limited Input Shapers, J. of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Controls, Vol. 126, pp. 215-219,
2004.
164. Danielson, J., Lawrence, J. and Singhose, W., Command
Shaping for Flexible Systems Subject to Constant
Acceleration Limits, ASME J. of Dynamic Systems, Meas.,
and Control, Vol. 130, pp. 0510111-0510118, 2008.

152. Kinceler, R. and Meckl, P. H., Corrective Input Shaping for a

Flexible-joint Manipulator, Proc. American Control
Conference, pp. 1335-1339, 1997.

165. Pao, L. Y. and La-Orpacharapan, C., Shaped Time-Optimal

Feedback Controllers for Flexible Structures, J. Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 126, pp. 173-186,
2004.

153. Kozak, K., Singhose, W. and Ebert-Uphoff, I., Performance

Measures For Input Shaping and Command Generation,
ASME J. Dynamic Systems, Meas., & Control, Vol. 128, pp.
731-736, 2006.

166. Banerjee, A., Singhose, W. and Blackburn, D., Orbit

Boosting of an Electrodynamic Tethered Satellite with InputShaped Current, Proc. AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist
Conference, 2005.

154. Parker, G. G., Eisler, G. R., Phelan, J. and Robinett, R. D.,

Input Shaping for Vibration-Damped Slewing of a Flexible
Beam Using a Heavy-Lift Hydraulic Robot, Proc. American
Control Conf., 1994.

167. Parman, S. and Koguchi, H., Controlling the attitude

maneuvers of flexible spacecraft by using time-optimal/fuelefficient shaped inputs, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol.
221, pp. 545-565, 1999.

155. Tokhi, M. O. and Mohamed, Z., Combined Input Shaping

and Feedback Control of a Flexible Manipulator, 10th
International Congress on Sound and Vibration, pp. 299-306,
2003.

168. Gorinevsky, D. and Vukovich, G., Nonlinear Input Shaping

Control of Flexible Spacecraft Reorientation Maneuver, J. of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 21, pp. 264-270, 1998.

156. Sung, Y.-G. and Lee, K.-T., An Adaptive Tracking Controller

for Vibration Reduction of Flexible Manipulator, IJPEM, Vol.
7, No. 3, pp. 51-55, 2006.

169. Biediger, E., Singhose, W., Okada, H. and Matunaga, S.,

Trajectory Planning for Coordinating Satellites using
Command Generation, Proc. 10th International Space
Conference of Pacific-basin Societies, 2003.

168 / OCTOBER 2009

170. Singhose, W., Biediger, E., Okada, H. and Matunaga, S.,

Experimental Verification of Real-Time Control for Flexible
Systems with On-Off Actuators, ASME J. of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Controls, Vol. 128, pp. 287-296,
2006.
171. Ninneman, R. and Denoyer, K., Middeck Active Control
Experiment Reflight (MACE II): Lessons learned and reflight
status, Proc. of SPIE - The International Society for Optical
Engineering, pp. 131-137, 2000.
172. Tuttle, T. and Seering, W., Experimental Verification of
Vibration Reduction in Flexible Spacecraft Using Input
Shaping, J. of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, pp.
658-664, 1997.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 10, No. 4