Mnif, F. & Touati, F. / An Adaptive Control Scheme for Nonholonomic Mobile Robot with Parametric Uncertanity, pp.

059 - 063, International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, Volume 2, Number1 (2005), ISSN 1729-8806

An Adaptive Control Scheme for Nonholonomic Mobile Robot with

Parametric Uncertainty

Mnif, F. 1,2 & Touati, F.1

1
Sultan Qaboos University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Oman
2
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées et de Technologie,
Intelligent Control, Design and Optimization of Complex Systems Research Unit, Tunisia

Abstract: This paper addresses the problem of stabilizing the dynamic model of a nonholonomic mobile robot. A
discontinuous adaptive state feedback controller is derived to achieve global stability and convergence of the
trajectories of the of the closed loop system in the presence of parameter modeling uncertainty. This task is achieved by
a non smooth transformation in the original system followed by the derivation of a smooth time invariant control in the
new coordinates. The stability and convergence analysis is built on Lyapunov stability theory.
Keywords: nonholonomic system, adaptive control, car-like vehicle.

1. Introduction between two postures and following a given trajectory.

In the past few years, a considerable interest has
motivated researchers in the analysis and control design
of underactuated and nonholonomic systems. From a
theoretical point of view, this interest was sparked by the
fact that such system present challenges problem in
control theory. At same time, these systems do arise in a
number of very important practical applications in the
area of robotic vehicle control, namely in land, marine
and aerospace vehicles, for which the number of
actuators is smaller than the number of degrees of
freedom.
Wheeled mobile robots (WMRs) are increasingly present
in industrial and service robotics, particularly when
flexible motion capabilities are required on reasonably
smooth ground and surfaces [1]. Several mobility
configurations can be found in these applications. The
most common are the tricycle and the car-like drive.
Kinematics study of several configurations of WMRs
can be found in [2].
Beside the relevance in industrial applications, the
problem of autonomous motion planning and control of
WMRs has attracted the interest of researchers in view of
its theoretical challenges. In particular, these systems are
typically examples of nonholonomic mechanical systems
[3].
In the absence of workspace obstacles, the basic motion
tasks assigned to a WMR may be reduced to moving
From a control viewpoint, the peculiar nature of
nonholonomic kinematics makes the control problem
easier than the first; in fact, it is known [4], that feedback
stabilization at a given posture cannot be achieved via
smooth time invariant control.
This indicates that the problem is really nonlinear; linear
control is ineffective, even locally, and innovative design
is required.
The trajectory tracking problem of WMRs was globally
solved in [5] by using nonlinear feedback control, and
independently in [6] and [7] through the use of dynamic
feedback linearization. Recursive backstepping control
schemes for chained forms of WMRs have been also
addressed by several authors [8].
Despite the substantial research effort, some fundamental
problems still remain open. In particular, all the control
laws presented in the above mentioned papers are
nonrobust against parameter uncertainties. In this paper,
a new solution to the problem of regulating the dynamic
of a nonholonomic wheeled robot of the WMR.
A simple discontinuous adaptive state feedback
controller that yields global convergence of the closed
loop system in the presence of parametric modeling
uncertainty is derived. This is achieved by resorting to a
polar representation of the kinematic model of the
mobile robot in the original state space followed by the
derivation of a smooth time invariant control law in the
new coordinates.

059
2. Dynamic model of the WMR and Problem
formulation

The WMR is a unicycle type as shown in Figure 1. It has

two identical parallel rear wheels controlled by two
independent actuators and a steering front wheel. It is
assumed that the plane of each wheel is perpendicular to
the ground and the contact between the wheels and the
ground in non-slipping, i.e. the velocity of the center of
mass of the robot is orthogonal to the rear wheels axis.
By assuming this, a nonholonomic constraint on the
motion of the mobile robot of the form

x sin θ − y cos θ = 0 (1)

is imposed
Fig. 1. The WMR
It is also assumed that the masses of the wheels are
negligible and that the center of mass of the mobile robot Polar Transformation
is located in the middle of the rear wheels axis. The
torques developed by each actuator on the rear wheels Consider the following coordinate transformation
are τ 1, 2 i=1,2.
The kinematics and dynamics of the mobile robot are e = x2 + y2
modeled by the equations:
x = −e cos(θ + β )
x = v cos θ (5)
y = −e sin(θ + β )
y = v sin θ
−1
x
θ = ω (2) θ + β = tan
y
mv = F
where e is the length of the vector O B Ou and
Iω = N β denotes the angle measured from x B to d.
Differentiating (5) with respect to time, the dynamics of
where v and ω denote the linear and angular velocity of the WMR in the new coordinate system can be written as
the body reference frame {B} with respect to the inertial
reference frame {U }. the control inputs are the force F e = −v cos β
along the vehicle axis x B and the torque N about its sin β
β = v −ω
vertical axes z B . It is easy to see that e
θ = ω (6)
1 mv = F
F = (τ 1 + τ 2 ) (3)
R
Iω = N
Note that the coordinate transformation is valid only for
L
N= (τ 1 + τ 2 ) (4) non zero value of e. This will introduce a discontinuity
R in the control law that will be derived later and which
will obviate the basic limitations imposed by Brockett.
where R is the radius of the rear wheels and 2L is the
length of the axis between them. m and I are the mass 3 Nonlinear Controller Design
and moment of inertia of the robot respectively. With
the above notation, the control problem is to derive the Step 1: Define the variables
controls for τ 1 and τ 2 to regulate {B} to is the goal
inertial frame {G} = {U } , in the presence of uncertainty ρ=
v
, σ = β +θ
in parameters m, I, R, and L. e

060
and rewrite the equations of motion (6) sin β β cos β − sin β
= k1 k σ σ + k1 k σ σβ
β β 2
e = ρ sin β
β = ρ sin β − ω (7)
+ k1 β cos β + k 2 β + β
N
ω =
I sin β β cos β − sin β
and Note that the terms and are
β β2
e = − ρ cos βe (8)
well defined according to the l’Hôpital rule.
F
ρ = + ρ 2 cos β Let the control for N as
me
where the system has been divided into two subsystems N = If (σ , β , z1 , ρ ) − k 3 z1 , k 3 > 0
that will henceforth be referred to as the heading and
k
distance subsystems (7) and (8). Consider the heading Then V2 = − k 2 β 2 − 3 z12 ≤ 0
system (7) and suppose at this stage that ρ = k1 > 0 . I
Define the Lyapunov function which negative semi-definite.

Step 3: Distance regulation

V1 = 12 kσ σ 2 + 12 β 2 (9) Consider the distance subsystem (8) and define a new
error variable z 2 = ρ − k1 and the Lyapunov function
Differentiating (9) along the trajectories of (7), we obtain candidate as
V3 = V2 + 12 z 22
⎡ sin β ⎤
V1 = β ⎢k1 kσ σ + k1 sin β − ω ⎥ (10) Differentiating V3 yields to
⎣ β ⎦
Following the nomenclature in [8] and let w be a virtual
k ⎡F ⎤
control input and V3 = − k 2 β 2 − 3 z12 + z 2 ⎢ + g (σ , β , ρ )⎥
sin β I ⎣ me ⎦
α 1 (σ , β ) = k1 kσ σ + k1 sin β + k 2 β
β
The last two terms of g are due to the fact that ρ in not
k2 > 0 (11)
constant, but ρ = k1 + z 2 instead. They are computed
virtual control law.
Introduce the error variable by replacing ρ by k1 + z1 in the expression for V1 and
propagating the corresponding terms down to V3 .
z1 = ω − α 1 (12) Choosing the control input as
and compute V1 to obtain
F = − mg (σ , β , ρ )e − k 4 z 2 e
V1 = −k 2 β 2 − βz1
then the time derivative of V3 becomes

Step2: (Backstepping) The function V1 is now

k k
augmented with a quadratic term in z1 to obtain the new V3 = − k 2 β 2 − 3 z12 − 4 z 22
I m
candidate Lyapunov function
which is negative semi-definite.
V2 = V1 + 12 z12
Step 4: Parameter adaptation
The time derivative of V2 can be written as
Suppose that the values of the system parameters m, I, L,
⎡N ⎤ and R are not known precisely. Define the control
V2 = − k 2 β + z1 ⎢ − f (σ , β , z1 , ρ )⎥
2
⎣I ⎦ inputs u i , i =1, 2 as u1 = τ 1 − τ 2 and u 2 = τ 1 + τ 2 .
From (3) and (4) the dynamic equations of the mobile
∂α ∂α robot become
where f (σ , β , z1 , ρ ) = σ + β −β u1 u
∂σ ∂β ω = , v = 2
c1 c2

061
where c1 = IR
L
and c 2 = mR are the unknown The complete control law is thus given by
parameters of the system. Let the augmented candidate
Lyapunov function ⎡ u1 ⎤ ⎧ cˆ1 f (.) − k 3 z1 for e≠0
⎢ ⎥ ⎪ − k θ − k θ for e=0
⎪
u=⎢ ⎥=⎨ θ θ
1 ~2 1 ~2 ⎢u 2 ⎥ ⎪− cˆ 2 g (.) e − k 4 z 2 e for e≠0
V 4 = V3 + c1 + c2 ⎢ ⎥ ⎪
2c1γ 1 2c 2 γ 2 ⎣ ⎦ ⎩ 0 for e=0

where c~i , i =1,2 are parameter estimation error such

with the adaptation laws
that c~i = ci − cˆi where ĉi , i =1,2 are the nominal values cˆ1 = −γ 1 z1 f (.)
of ci .
The time derivative of V 4 can be computed to give cˆ2 = γ 2 z2 g (.)
⎡u ⎤ ⎡u ⎤ c~ c~
V4 = −k2 β 2 + z1 ⎢ 1 − f (.)⎥ + z1 ⎢ 2 − g (.)⎥ − 1 c1 − 2 c2 4. Simulation Results
⎣ c1 ⎦ ⎣ c2e ⎦ c1γ 1 c2γ 2

To illustrate the performance of the proposed control

and choose the control laws as scheme, consider a WMR with the following

u1 = cˆ1 f (.) − k 3 z1 parameters: m = 12kg , I = 1.5kgm 2 , L = 0.5m ,

R = 0.05m . The control parameters are chosen as
u 2 = −cˆ 2 g (.)e − k 4 z 2 e k1 = 0.7 , k 2 = 0.1 , k 2 = 0.1 , k 4 = 0.7 ,
to obtain γ 1 = 0.1 , γ 2 = 6 , kσ = 3 , kθ = 0.9 and kθ = 0.4 .
The initial estimates for the vehicle
k k c~ cˆ ˆ = 20kg , Iˆ = 2kgm 2 , Lˆ = 0.6m and Rˆ = 0.1m .
were m
V4 = −k 2 β 2 − 3 z12 − 4 z 22 − 1 [ z1 f (.) + 1 ]
c1 c2 c1 γ1 Figure 2 shows the time responses of the relevant WMR
c~ cˆ variables for the initial conditions
+ 2 [ z 2 g (.) − 2 ] ( x 0 , y 0 , θ 0 , v 0 , ω 0 ) = (−4,2,0.8,0,0) .
c2 γ2
5. Conclusions
Choose the adaptation laws as
cˆ1 = −γ 1 z1 f (.) This paper proposed a new adaptive control law for an
example of uncertain nonholonomic systems, the
cˆ 2 = γ 2 z 2 g (.) wheeled mobile robot. A discontinuous time invariant
nonlinear adaptive control was derived to yield
to yield
convergence of the states of the system under parameter
uncertainties. The Lyapunov theory was used to derive
k k
V4 = − k 2 β 2 − 3 z12 − 4 z 22 the control approach and simulation results were
c1 c2 presented to illustrate the approach.

which is negative semi-definite. 0

Step 5: Switching control law -0.5

-1
It has been assumed that the WMR will never start or
reach the position x = y = 0 because of the non- -1.5

definition of (6) at e = 0. To avoid this problem we

x (m)

-2

introduce a switching control law. Define the following -2.5

control law for e = 0 as
-3

u1 = − kθθ − kθ θ -3.5

u2 = 0 -4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
where kθ and kθ are positive constants. t (sec)

(a)

062
 2 0.8

1.8
0.6
1.6
0.4
1.4

1.2 0.2
y (m )

c 2 hat
1 0

0.8
-0.2
0.6
-0.4
0.4

0.2 -0.6

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
t (sec)
time (sec)
(b) (b)

1.4
Figure 3: Time evolution of parameter estimation
a: ĉ1 , b: ĉ 2
1.2

1 6. References

0.8 Schraft, R.D. and Schmierer, G. Serviceroboter. Springer

theta (rad)

Verlag, 1998.
0.6 Alexander, J.C., and Maddocks, J.H.,On the Kinematics
of wheeled mobile robot, International Journal of
0.4 Robotics Research. 8, 5, pp. 15-27. 1989.
Neimark,, J.I., and Fufaev, F.A., Dynamics of
0.2 Nonholonomic Systems. American mathematical
Society, Providence, RI. 1972
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Campion, G., d’Andrea-Novel, B, and Bastin, G.
t (sec) Modeling and state feedback control of
(c) nonholonomic mechanical systems. Proc. of the 30th
IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, Brighton, UK,
Figure 2: Time responses of a: x(t), b:y(t) and c: θ (t )
1184-1189. 1991
2
Samson, C., and Ait-Abderrahim K,. Feedback control of
a nonholonomic wheeled cart in Cartesian space,
Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on
1.5 Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, pp.
1136-1141. 1991
1
De Luca, A. and Di Benedetto, M.D. Control of
nonholonomic systems via dynamic compensation.
Kybernetica, 29, 6. 1993
c 1 hat

0.5 d’Andrea-Novel, B., Bastin, Campion, G.: Control of

nonholonomic wheeled mobile robots by state
0
feedback linearization. International Journal of
Robotics Research, 14, 6, pp. 543-559, 1995.
Jiang, Z-P, Nijimer, H.,: A recursive technique for
-0.5 tracking control of nonholonomic systems in chained
form. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 44,
-1
2, pp. 265-279, 1999.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Brockett, R.W., Asymptotic stability and feedback
time (sec)
stabilization. Progress in Math., vol. 27, Birkhauser,
(a) pp. 181-208, 1993.

063