Control Synthesis for a Class of Light and Agile

Robotic Tensegrity Structures

J.B. Aldrich, R.E. Skelton

K. Kreutz-Delgado

Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

University of California, La Jolla, CA 920930411

Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of California, La Jolla, CA 920930407

Abstract

ing the heavy actuators at the base of the manipulator where

a pulley-tendon system transmits torque remotely [8], Fig.
(1a,b). Unfortunately, tendon compliance makes it difficult

For a new class of tendon-driven robotic systems that is generalized to include tensegrity structures, this paper focuses
on a method to determine the tendon force inputs from a set
of admissible, non-saturating inputs, that will move the rigidbody system from point A to point B along a prescribed path
in minimum time. The approach utilizes the existence conditions and solution of a linear algebra problem that describes
how the set of admissible tendon forces is mapped onto the
set of path-dependent torques. Since this mapping is not oneto-one, free parameters in the control law always exist. An
infinity-norm minimization with respect to these free parameters is responsible for saturation avoidance. Characterizing
and optimizing these free parameters is the new contribution. Feedback is introduced to attenuate disturbances arising from the tensegrity paradigm. Examples illustrate methods and validate tensegritys superior saturation avoidance
capability.

Figure 1: Proposed tensegrity robot evolution

1 Introduction
Robotic automation of repetitive assembly processes continues to gain more acceptance as an effective means to reduce labor costs and increase productivity in many manufacturing industries. This is especially true in pick-andplace applications where the objective is to move from one
position to another quickly and accurately. As a result of
driving the trajectories faster and faster, the inertial dynamics of typical robots become too large to be ignored, and
therefore must be compensated by a feedback controller.
Assuming that a sufficiently accurate plant model is available, the standard approach to this control problem is to implement a version of feedback linearization known as the
computed-torque controller, [79,12]. Theoretically, this approach allows arbitrarily large configuration changes within
the robots workspace to occur quickly. As a practical matter, however, reconfiguration in near-zero time is not possible
since the inertial forces to be carried by the actuators would
have excessive magnitude causing actuator saturation. One
way to circumvent this problem is to make the robot lose
weight. For instance, a lighter design is possible by plac-

0-7803-7896-2/03/$17.00 2003 IEEE

to transmit torque with sufficient bandwidth [5]. One approach that circumvents this problem is to design a mechanism that reduces tendon usage [13]. Alternatively, bandwidth can also be recovered by reducing system mass [4].
For instance, the tensegrity systems in Fig. (1c-h) can be
designed with exceptionally low system mass and superior
saturation avoidance capability since large bending moments
normally present in the links get absorbed in the tendon network [10]. The work herein suggests that tensegrity concepts will revolutionize the manner in which tendon-driven
systems are designed, controlled and utilized. We believe
this will become especially true in environments where agile
maneuvering and delicate object handling require a soft
touch.
In the sections that follow, we address the following questions: Given a set of admissible tendon forces, how should
the control law be designed? For a given robot, which tendon network sustains more torque? What is its minimumtime trajectory along a prescribed path? How can feedback
be used to keep it on track? Lastly, tensegrity model building
methods and control simulations are illustrated by example.

5245

Proceedings of the American Control Conference

Denver, Colorado June 4-6, 2003




D = diag 2/ fy1 2/ fy2 2/ fym

2 Admissible tendon forces

A necessary condition for a tendon-driven robotic system is
that all tendons be taut and unbroken. When this condition
holds, we say that the tendon actuation system is in a state of
unsaturation as follows.
Definition 1 An m-tendon actuation system is said to be unsaturated if t A where

A := {t Rm : 0 < ti < fyi , }

and ti is the tension in the ith tendon, and fyi is the yield force
(max allowable tension) for the ith tendon. A system that is
not unsaturated, is saturated. Set A is the set of admissible
tendon forces.

3 Control problem statement

Given a desired reference trajectory, qd , for a tendon-driven
rigid-body system modelled as
M(q)q +V (q, q )q + g(q) = G(q)t
(q Rn , t A Rm , M is square), we seek to answer the
question: Does there exist admissible tendon forces t to yield
the following closed loop system?

e = [ 1 1 ]T ,

t = [ t1 tm ]T

to establish a series of equivalent statements as follows.

Theorem 1 The following statements are equivalent:
(i) The m-tendon actuation system is unsaturated.
(ii) There exists a < 1 such that Dt e .
(iii) t + d A if d < (1 ) mini fyi /2.
Corollary 1 If the tendons are uniform, i.e. fyi = fy for i =
1:m, then D1 e = ( fy /2)e =: t d and the following statements
are equivalent:
(i) The m-tendon actuation system is unsaturated.
(ii) := fy /2 t t d  > 0
(iii) t + d A if and only if d <
Proof:
Thm.: t A holds iff (2/ fyi )ti + 1 <
1 and (2/ fyi )ti 1 < 1 for all i = 1, . . . , m, which
shows the m-tendon actuation system is unsaturated iff
max {|(2/ fy1 )t1 1|, . . . , |(2/ fym )tm 1|} 1. Cor.: (ii)
t t d  < fy /2 Dt e < 1 with fyi = fy for i =
1, . . . , m. If (ii) holds, the perturbation force of least
magnitude which causes either the onset of slackness or
yield for the ith tendon has magnitude: fy /2 |ti fy /2|.
The saturating perturbation of least magnitude among all
tendons has magnitude: mini { fy /2 |ti fy /2|} = fy /2
maxi {|ti fy /2|} = fy /2 t ( fy /2)e = .

z + K v z + K p z + K i v = 0
z = q qd = v
Yes, if and only if there exists t A to solve
Gt = M(qd K v z K p z K i ) +V q + g = .

(1)

There exists a t Rm solving (1) iff GL = 0 where GL G = 0

and GL GTL  0. If t Rm exists to solve (1), then all solutions
are given by
t = G+ + GR

(2)

where GGR = 0 and GTR GR  0.

It is important to recognize two facts. First, the dimension of
the nullspace of G is (G) = mrank(G). Hence, contains
(G) free parameters that have neither been characterized
nor optimized by the robotics community [1, 6, 8]. Second,
even if a solution t Rm exists there is no guarantee that
there exists a choice for such that t A . An approach that
resolves these facts is the main contribution of this paper.

In order to keep a tendon actuation system in a state of unsaturation that is robust to perturbations, d, we look to part
(iii) of the corollary to motivate the following robust control
objective.
Robust control objective: Maximize saturation margin, ,
w.r.t. free parameters in real-time.
An equivalent objective follows immediately from part (ii)
of the corollary: Minimize tendon force deviation from t d
(50%-yield) w.r.t. free parameters in real-time,
:= arg min t() t d 

= arg min s.t. 0,

,
e G + G+ t d e
where t() is defined by (2) with the G notation replacing
GR hereafter. Alternatively, the free parameters can be computed as
2 := arg min t() t d 2

4 How should free parameters be optimized?

In order to understand how to optimize the free parameters,
, a more suitable saturation definition is helpful. Toward
this end, we introduce

= arg min G + G+ t d 2 = GT t d

where G GT t d is the orthonormal projection of t d into

null(G). The least-squares minimizer, 2 , can be expressed

5246

Proceedings of the American Control Conference

Denver, Colorado June 4-6, 2003

analytically, and computed independent of the controller. In

contrast, the min-max minimizer, , requires a linear program, but is more effective for saturation avoidance.
How effective is at saturation avoidance? For a given
torque loading, , and robot geometry, q, the percent saturation, S, can be computed as a function of the free parameters,
, as
S() := (2/ fy )G (q) + G+ (q) t d 

The apparent leverage advantage of system two extends to

most tensegrity systems as follows. Let S1 denote S( ) for
pulley-based robots, Fig. (1a,b). Let S2 denote S( ) for
tensegrity-based robots, Fig. (1c-h). The upper bounds on
percent saturation,
S1 = (2/ fy )G+ 


 2

r
fy

(3)

S2 = (2/ fy )G t d + G+ 


 2
k1 (q) + k2 (q)
a
fy

In the example below, we illustrate how effective is at

saturation avoidance in the presence of torque loading and a
variable structure geometry.
Example. In Fig. (2) we are given two tendon actuation

validate tensegritys leverage advantage for most configurations where k1 0, k2 1 and the link lengths are sufficiently greater than the pulley radii, i.e. a r. Increasing
the sustainable torque means point-to-point maneuvering can
occur in less time.

5 Minimum-time control along a path

Figure 2: Benchmark comparison.

systems for a single link manipulator. The coupling matrices
that map t R2 into R1 for systems 1 and 2 are given
respectively by



G1 = r 1 1


G2 = a esinc1 esinc2
where c1 = 1+ e2 + 2e cos , c2 = c1 4e cos and e = b/a.
We let a = 3/2, b = 1/2, r = 1/10, and plot in Fig. (3)
the level curves of percent saturation, S(p ), where p is a
function of and . For instance,


 
 
0.5c2 c1
fy 
c


1
(e+e3 )sin
2 

= arg min 

f
0.5c
c


y
1
2

c2
2 
(e+e3 ) sin

yields tendon forces t = G+
2 + G2 for system 2. Figure
(3b,c) shows the least-squares minimizer is slightly inferior
to the minmax minimizer for saturation avoidance. Figure

(a)

(b)

40

, (Nm)

30

90

, (deg)

150

30

20 60 0
10

40

20
60 100

60 100
0 20
20
100 60

What admissible tendon force inputs will move plant from

point A to point B along a prescribed path in minimum time?
The solution is broken down into three tasks: First, convert
the free dynamics to the path-following dynamics. Second,
substitute the path-following dynamics into the tendon saturation constraint to get a path-acceleration constraint. Third,
construct the minimum-time solution by maximizing the path
velocity at each point on path [2].
Path-following dynamics. The rigid-body free dynamics
are expressed as, M(q)q + h(q, q ) = . For kinematicallyinvertible robots/tensegrities, the tip of the manipulator can
be written as an explicit function of the joint angles or the
distance along the path:
r(q) = r (s)

(c)
40

Differentiating w.r.t. time yields

0
10 0
6 20

40

0
10 60 20

40

Given a rigid-body system, a tendon network and a path, we

pose the following problem statement:

rq q = r s s
rq q + r q q = r s s + r ss s2

40
90

, (deg)

150

30

90

, (deg)

150

Figure 3: Level curves of percent saturation, S(p ), as a function

of torque and geometry, and . (a) system 1 with p =

, (b) system 2 with p = , (c) system 2 with p = 2.

where rq = r/q is the Jacobian. We now can compute

q = q(s), q = q (s, s),
q = q (s, s,
s)
and the path-following
dynamics as
(s, s,
s)
= u(s)s + v(s, s)

1
u(s) = M(q)rq r s

(3a,b) shows that system two is guaranteed to sustain greater

torque than system one.


(4)

v(s, s)
= M(q)r1
rss s2 rq q ) + h(q, q )
q (

5247

Proceedings of the American Control Conference

Denver, Colorado June 4-6, 2003

Path-acceleration constraint. Recall the linear algebra

problem: (s, s,
s)
= G(s)t whose solution t = G+ + G
exists iff [I GG+ ] = 0. Assuming solution exists (which is
true automatically when G is full row rank), substitute it into
the tendon saturation constraint of theorem 1, Dt e ,
to get

uncertainty are considered here, namely, the standard error, = , that occurs in all robotic systems, and two
tensegrity-based errors,
+
+ = G+ G
G

G = G G

a(s, s,
) + sc(s)

f (s, s,
) s g(s, s,
)
f = max ((sign(ci ) ai )/ci )
i

g = min ((sign(ci ) ai )/ci )

i

Minimum-time solution. The minimum-time solution is

obtained by choosing the acceleration s to make the velocity s as large as possible at every point s without violating
f (s, s,
) g(s, s,
). This follows by minimizing the cost,
 T
0

dt =

 B
1
A

s(s)

psuedoinverse error
nullspace error

Assuming q is measured exactly and G is full row rank, the

closed loop system becomes M(q)q +V (q, q )q + g(q) + dt =
+ +
+ Gur , where the total disturbance is d t = d w + GG
+ GG
+ .
GG

where a = DG + DG+ v e and c = DG+ u. Equivalently,

) + sc
i (s) for i = 1 to m. Rearwe get ai (s, s,
rangement yields path-acceleration constraint,

J=

ds

In [2], it was shown that J is minimized if and only if s always takes either its largest or its smallest admissible value.
In summary, it is easy to show the following.

Lyapunov design. Given time-optimal reference trajectories how do we stay on path using feedback? This can be
solved by using a Lyapunov function: V1 = 12 rT M(q)r where
r = z+ z. First, we can rewrite dynamics in terms of filtered
tracking error r as, M(q)r = Y () V (q, q )r d t + + Gur ,
where Y () = M(q)(z q d ) + V (q, q )(z q d ) g(q).
Then we choose nominal input as = Y () K r r with
+ sgn(r) can
The robust input, ur = kd G
error = Y ().
be implemented without error since we assume the state
is known exactly. The psuedoinverse error is bounded as
+ gI,
where 0 g 1. The time-derivative
gI
GG
of the Lyapunov function becomes,

V1 = rT M(q)r + rT M(q)r/2
T
= r (Y () d t + + Gur )

+ rT (M(q)/2
V (q, q ))r

Theorem 2 The path-following minimum time solution subject to t A is obtained by switching between maximum acceleration, s = g(s, s,
), and maximum deceleration s =
+ sc(s)

f (s, s,
) where = arg min A(s) + b(s, s)

+
+
and A = DG , b = DG v e, c = DG u.

= rT (Y () d t + + Gur )
= rT K r r rT d t + rT Gur
n

= rT K r r rT d t + (kd + g|k
d |) |ri |
i=1

The remaining task is to determine when to switch between

f and g. Techniques for locating switching points are described in [2, 11] and applied to an example at the end of
the paper. The minimum time solution yields the desired
open-loop trajectory, qd . Feedback can be used to reduce the
tracking error, z = q qd , as discussed next.

6 Model uncertainty and feedback control

For the uncertain plant, M(q)q +V (q, q )q + g(q) + d w = Gt,
+ G
+ + ur as the feedback law where
we compute t = G
ur is a robust control input, d w is an external disturbance
and G = G(q) is assumed. Three sources of parametric

rT K r r + |ri ||dti | + (kd + g|k

d |) |ri |

Corollary 2 The path-following minimum time solution

subject to t A and min Dt() e2 is obtained by
2 ) where
switching between s = g(s, s,
2 ) and s = f (s, s,
T
1

2 = G (s)D e.

i=1
n

i=1

r K r r + |ri | max |dti | + kd + g|k
d|
T

i=1

rT K r r

if kd = |kd |, |kd |

||d t ||
(1 g)

(5)

If the robust control gain requirement in (5) holds, then

V1 0 and a La Salles argument given in [7] can be used
to show that the tracking errors are asymptotically stable.
(The skew-symmetric property is used to simplify equality
+ sgn(r) =
2 above. For equality 4, use rT Gur = kd rT GG
+
sgn(r) (kd + g|k
kd rT sgn(r) kd rT GG
d |) ni=1 |ri | to simplify.)
The gain requirement on |kd | can be reduced with the adaptive inertial-related control [7]. Finite-bandwidth robust control is possible by replacing the sign function with a saturation function in ur [9]. For standard non-tensegrity robots,
(5) reduces to |kd | ||d w + || .

5248

Proceedings of the American Control Conference

Denver, Colorado June 4-6, 2003

7 Tensegrity Model
In this section, a family of dynamical system models is generated for a generalized class of tendon-driven robots that
includes tensegrity structures. First, the rigid body dynamic
models for serial-link and free-link systems are developed.
Second, tendon actuation model building is conveyed by an
illustrative example.




where I = diag
I 1 I 2 I b R nn , consists of inertial
2 mi 2
i
blocks, I i = diag m
12 (ai ci ) 12 ai . Notice how the kinetic
energy derivation yields the mass matrix as a freebee! The
potential energy for the rigid body system is
b

V = pTci f gi ,

T


f gi = 0 mi g 0

i=1

The kinetic and potential energies are differentiated in Lagranges equations of motion,
d K K V

+
=
dt q
q
q
and rearranged into the following matrix form [12],
M(q)q +V (q, q )q + g(q) =

Figure 4: (a) Free-link. (b) Serial-link.

Serial-link model. The geometry of a serial-link rigid-body

system with b bars (links) is shown in Fig. (4b) for the twobar case. For convenience, its n degrees of freedom are organized as
T


Rn ,
q = qT1 qT2 . . . qTb

T


qi = i i

The position of the ith bars tip, pi , and center of mass,

pci , are expressed in terms of q as follows
i

ci ci
i = si ci
si

pi = po + ak k
k=1
i1

pci = po + ak k + aci i
k=1

Specifically, if we denote the mass and coriolis/centripetal

matrices elementwise as M = [k j ] and V = [k j ], then V
can be completely determined from M using the following
Christoffel parameters [12],


1 n k j ki i j
k j =
+

(7)
qi
2 i=1 qi
q j
qk
The gravity-induced torque vector becomes

b 
b
pci T
V
=
f gi = Tci f gi
g(q) :=
q
q
i=1
i=1
T


Nodal forces, f = f T1 f T2 f Tb , in cartesian space,
f i R3 , are induced by the tendon actuation system. Using
the principle of virtual work [12], the mapping from nodal
forces, f R3b , to torques, Rn , is

where c() = cos(), s() = sin(), ai is the length of the ith

bar, and aci is the distance from node to center of mass.
Time-derivative of position yields velocities,
p i =
p ci =

ak

k=1
i1

k
q =: i (q)q
qk k

ak qkk q k + aci qii q i =: ci (q)q

Ti f i =


T1 T2 Tb f =: H(q) f

i=1

Free-link model. For tensegrity structures designed with

inertially-isolated rigid bars as depicted in Fig. (4a), a single
bar has five degrees of freedomthree translations of its mass
center, pc1 R3 , and two Euler angles, q1 R2 . Using (6)
with b = 1, the kinetic energy of a single free link is

k=1


where (3
n) matrices, i (q) = J 1 J 2 J i Oni and
ci (q) = J 1 J 2 J i1 J ci Oni , consist of Jacobians, J i =
ai i /qi and J ci = aci i /qi , and a matrix of zeros with
n 2i columns, Oni . The kinetic energy for the rigid body
system becomes

1
2



1
T T  m1 I 0
1
p c1
p c1 q 1
=
=: q T M(q)q
q 1
0 I 1 (q1 )
2
2

1 b
(6)
(mi p Tci p ci + q Ti I i (qi )qi )
2 i=1


1
1 T b
T
= q mi ci (q)ci (q) + I (q) q =: q T M(q)q
2
2
i=1

K =

K = (m1 p Tc1 p c1 + q T1 I 1 (q1 )q1 )

Notice that q is now a 5-vector, not a 2-vector as before.

Use (7) again to get V (q, q ) from M(q). The gravity vector,

T
g(q) = I 0 f g1 is trivial. Using the principle of virtual
work, this nodal force to torque mapping becomes

 
I
I
f1
=
=: H(q) f
f2
J Tc1 J Tc1

5249

Proceedings of the American Control Conference

Denver, Colorado June 4-6, 2003

8 Illustrative Examples

which is
used to compute the direction cosine matrix,

D = diag( d 1 d 2 d 3 d 4 d 5 d 6 ) where d i =
i (
Ti
i )1/2 .
The principle of virtual work yields f = CT D(q)t. The rigidbody and tendon-actuation systems are joined as

In this section, models for two different plants are generated

and a minimum-time control simulation is given to illustrate
the simplicity, scope, and potential of light and agile robotic
tensegrity structures.

M(q)q +V (q, q )q + g(q) = G(q)t,

G := HCT D

T
T
T
T
0 J 1 d 2 J 1 d 3 J 1 d 4 J 1 d 5 J T1 d 6

0
0
0 J T2 d 4
0 J T2 d 6

G=
T
T
T
T
J3 d1
0 J 3 d 3 J 3 d 4 J 3 d 5 J T3 d 6
0
0
0
0 J T4 d 5 J T4 d 6

Plant 1. Two inertially-isolated double-link manipulators interconnected with flexible tendons are shown in figure (5).
This system can be described by two copies of the serial-link

It is easy to see when G R46 drops rank, since J Ti d j = 0

if and only if tendon j is unattached or colinear to bar i.
Plant 2. A two-stage tensegrity-based manipulator shown in
figure (6). This system can be described by three copies of

p322

p221

p112

p211

p212

Figure 5: Tensegrity robot joining two workpieces.

p312

model where b = 2, n = 2 and i = 0 for each copy. Combining the copies yields
M(q)q +V (q, q )q + g(q) = H(q) f

T
T




and i j = j i , qi j = i j , f i j = f Ti f Tj , si =
sin i , ci = cos i . Gravity acts orthogonal to the plane of
motion, and therefore g = 0. The nodal points, pi , are computed using forward kinematics,




ci
ci+1
pi = poi + ai
, pi+1 = pi + ai+1
si
si+1
where i = 1 for the first 2-link arm and i = 3 for the second
2-link arm. The tendon orientation vectors,
i , are defined in
terms of the nodal points as

po1
I

1
I

2
po3
I I

3

I
I
=
p1 = Co po +Cp

4

I I p2

5
I
I p3

6
I I
p4

p321

p122

p111

Figure 6: 3D tensegrity robot fixed at p111 , p211 and p311 .

(8)

as the global model where





M = diag M 12 M 34 , V = diag V 12 V 34






H 12
q
f
H=
, q = 12 , f = 12
H 34
q34
f 34


2
2
mi aci + m j ac j + Ii m j ac j ai (ci j )
Mi j =
m j ac j ai (ci j )
m j a2c j + I j


0
m j ac j ai (si j ) j
Vij =
m j ac j ai (si j ) i
0
 T T



J J
H i j = i iT , J Ti = ai si ci
0 Jj

p311
p121

p222

the serial-link model with b = 1 and n = 2, and three copies

of the free-link model. Assuming zero-gravity yields g = 0
and the global model (8) as



M = diag M 11 M 21 M 31 M 12 M 22 M 32



V = diag V 11 V 21 V 31 V 12 V 22 V 32



H = diag H 11 H 21 H 31 H 12 H 22 H 32


T
q = qT11 qT21 qT31 qT12 qT22 qT32 , qi1 = i1
T


f = f T11 f T21 f T31 f T12 f T22 f T32 , f i1 = f i12
T
T




qi2 = pTci Ti2 , f i2 = f Ti21 f Ti22
M i1 = 4I i1 , V i1 = 4C i1 , H i1 = 2J i1






M i2 = diag mi j I I i2 , V i2 = diag 0 C i2




mi j a2i j (ci j )2 0
I
I
H i2 =
, Iij =
J i2 J i2
0 1
12


2
mi j ai j si j ci j i j i j
Cij =
i j 0
12


ai j si j ci j ci j ci j
0
J ij =
2 ci j ci j si j si j ci j
T


Euler-angles are denoted by i j = i j i j . Nodal force
f i jk R3 is applied to node pi jk R3 where
pi12 = pi11 + ai1 i1
pi21 = pci (ai2 /2)i2
pi22 = pci + (ai2 /2)i2

5250

ci j ci j
i j = si j ci j
si j

Proceedings of the American Control Conference

Denver, Colorado June 4-6, 2003

for i = 1, 2 and 3. The nodal points, tendon orientation

vectors, direction cosines and G are computed in the same
manner as in the previous example.

9 Conclusion
This paper describes a feedback linearization control law that
uses the parameters in the nullspace of the control distribution matrix, G, to minimize the norm of the tendon force
tracking error, t t d , while avoiding saturation of the control signals. This paper has also shown that when the free
parameters in the tendon control law are optimized in realtime, control synthesis for a generalized class of light and
agile robotic tensegrity structures is possible. Future work
will focus on integrating structure and control design so that
optimal candidates within this new robotics paradigm can be
identified on a task-by-task basis.

Simulation. The minimum-time tendon forces are designed

for the two-link serial manipulator pictured in (1a). The tendon forces illustrated in figure (7a) are designed to move the
manipulator tip along a specific path, i.e. x = 4(s 0.5)3 and
y = s + 5, in minimal time according to corollary 2. Four
tendons are used, but only two of them are illustrated in the
figure, since t2 = fy t1 and t4 = fy t3 due to symmetry in
the tendon network. The phase plane trajectory, i.e. s versus
100

90

4.5

t1

t3

80

50

40

t3

30

20

0.05

MVC

0.1

3.5

References

Switch
Point

2.5

1.5

[1] A. Bicchi and D. Prattichizzo. Analysis and optimization of tendinous actuation for biomorphically designed
robotic systems. Robotic systems, 2000-1.

Max Deceleration

Max
Accel.

t1
0

ds/dt, (m/sec)

tension, (N)

60

10

MVC

70

0.5

0.15

0.2

time, (seconds)

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

s, (m)

[2] J.E. Bobrow, S. Dubowsky, and J.S. Gibson. TimeOptimal Control of Robotic Manipulators Along Specified
Paths. Int J of Robot Res, 4(3), 1985.

Figure 7: (a) Time-optimal tendon force trajectories for 5 t

95N with switching point at 0.14 sec. (b) Maximum
Velocity Curve (MVC) and optimal path trajectory.

s, for this design is illustrated in figure (7b). Clearly, the control input is feasible since it is bounded above by the maximum velocity curve. The switching point indicates where on
the path the maximum path-acceleration, g, is switched to
the maximum path-deceleration, f. See [2, 11] for algorithm
details. This procedure can be repeated for plants 1 and 2 by
prescribing a feasible path for all degrees of freedom.
Tension rate constraint. Notice in figure (7a) the tendon forces are discontinuous at the switching point. Since
tendons have finite bandwidth, the control law must be
smoothened for implementation. Smooth minimum-time trajectories are computed by using the algorithm given in [3]
to ensure tension rates, t, instead of torque rates, , are
bounded. This substitution is straightforward once we express t in exactly the same form as as follows
...
s),

t = (s) s + (s, s,
...
= (s) s + (s, s,
s),

t R
Rn .
m

(9)

To derive , , and , we first define i as the ith column of

G+ Rmn , i as the ith column of G Rm , and note that
[3] shows how in (4) can be differentiated to get and

i
i

in (9). Then, = ni=1 (i

q q + i i ) + i=1 (i q q + i i )
n

and = i=1 i i , where the elements of , , , and are

...
denoted by subscript i. To keep independent of s , we use
the least-squares minimizer, = ( fy /2)GT e R , which

All
yields i = ( fy /2) mj=1 i j and i = ( fy /2) mj=1 qi j q.
trajectories are smooth because [3] uses cubic splines to parameterize s(s).

[3] D. Constantinescu and E.A. Croft. Smooth and

Time-Optimal Trajectory Planning for Industrial Manipulators along Specified Paths. J Robot Sys, 2000.
[4] V. Hayward and J. Cruz-Hernandez. Parameter sensitivity analysis for design and control of tendon transmission. Experimental Robotics, 1995.
[5] C. Johnstun and C. Smith. Modelling and design of
a mechanical tendon actuation system. ASME Trans J Dyn
Sys Meas Control, 1992.
[6] H. Kobayashi, K. Hyodo, and D. Ogane. On intellegent control of tendon-driven robotic mechanisms with redundant tendons. Int J Robot Res, 17(5):561571, 1998.
[7] F.L. Lewis, C.T. Abdallah, and D.M. Dawson. Control
of Robotic Manipulators. Macmillian, 1993.
[8] R. Murray, Z. Li, and S. Sastry. A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation. CRC Press, 1994.
[9] Z. Qu and D.M. Dawson. Robust Tracking Control of
Robot Manipulators. IEEE Press, 1996.
[10] R.E. Skelton, J.W. Helton, R. Adhikari, J. Pinaud, and
W. Chan. An introduction to the mechanics of tensegrity
structures. In Conference on Decision and Control, volume 5, pages 42549, 2001.
[11] J.-J. E. Slotine and H. Yang. Improving the Efficiency of Time-Optimal Path-Following Algorithms. IEEE
Trans Robot Automat, 5(1):118124, 1989.
[12] M. Spong and M. Vidyasagar. Robot Dynamics and
Control. Wiley, 1989.
[13] W.T. Townsend and J.A. Guertin. Teleoperator slave W.A.M. design methodology. Industrial Robot, 26(3):167
177, 1999.

5251

Proceedings of the American Control Conference

Denver, Colorado June 4-6, 2003