Quasi Moro

Modeling and Controllability of
Two-Wheeled Quasiholonomic Robots

Alessio Salerno and Jorge Angeles
TR-CIM 05.06
Centre for Intelligent Machines
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Postal Address: 3480 University Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2A7
Telephone: (514) 398-6319 Telex: 05 268510 FAX: (514) 398-7348
Email: cim@cim.mcgill.ca
Modeling and Controllability of Two-Wheeled
Quasiholonomic Robots
Alessio Salerno and Jorge Angeles
TR-CIM 05.06
Abstract
This paper introduces a new family of two-wheeled mobile robots, its novelty lying in
the simplicity with which these robots can be controlled. This feature is achieved by
a) endowing these systems with a property that we have termed quasiholonomy and b)
locating their mass center below the wheel axis. We rst report some results from the
literature on two-wheeled mobile robots, along with a novel classication of the latter.
The mathematical model of the proposed robots is formulated in the framework of the
Lagrange formalism, by using a novel approach based on the holonomy matrix. One
challenge faced here is the control of the motion of the intermediate body, which will
tend to rotate about the wheel axis as the wheels are actuated. By a controllability
analysis we prove that it is possible to completely control these robots using only
the wheel motors, while tracking a desired trajectory. Therefore, two-wheeled mobile
robots can be underactuated, with apparent advantages in terms of cost, weight
and eciency. Finally, the design of a multivariable state feedback controller of the
proposed systems is introduced, along with simulation results, taking into account
the actuator dynamics.
Modeling and Controllability of Two-Wheeled Quasiholonomic Robots
Keywords: Controllability, multi-body system dynamics, nonholonomic robots,
simulation, state feedback, wheeled mobile robots.
List of Abbreviations:
IB Intermediate Body
NH Nonholonomic
QH Quasiholonomic
KRCC Kalman Rank Condition for Controllability
LA Locally Accessible
WMR Wheeled Mobile Robot
1. Introduction
During the last decade, at the research, industrial and hobby levels, the eort in de-
veloping two-wheeled mobile robots (2-WMRs), has increased dramatically. 2-WMRs
are characterized by two driving wheels connected to an intermediate body (IB) car-
rying actuation, transmission, sensor, control, and communication sub-systems.
After having conducted a survey of the literature on 2-WMR development, we
reviewed the latter according to a novel classication, leading to three classes, namely
i) robots without any stabilization of the IB;
ii) robots with mechanical stabilization of the IB;
iii) robots with electronic stabilization of the IB.
The oldest ancestor of modern 2-WMRs, Gyrauto, belongs to the rst class. This
is a vehicle, designed in 1935, which carried the driver between a pair of large, side-
by-side wheels [1]. Examples of robots belonging to the rst class can be found
in [2], [3], [4], [5]. Because only two points touch the ground, the IB of these robots
has the tendency to tip back and forth [6]. To cope with this problem, robot designers
have adopted several mechanical solutions which stabilize the IB by using: a) a long
handle attached to the robot maneuvered by the user herself [7]; and b) a sliding
supporting point [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. However, there are several important factors
to consider when designing a robot of class ii). Firstly, one wants the robot weight
balanced over the supporting points, i.e., driving wheels plus mechanical stabilizer,
from front to back; too much weight on the driving wheels leads to tip-over of the
IB, while too much weight on the mechanical stabilizer increases traction losses [13].
Second, these robots work ne on a at surface, but when going up and down inclined
surfaces they do not behave as well. When going uphill, robot weight shifts back
over the stabilizer, thereby causing the driving wheels to lose traction, which leads
to slippage; as the slope increases, eventually, the robot stops its forward motion
altogether and its wheels start turning idly [13]. Going downhill is perhaps worse, as
the mass center of the robot shifts forward and eventually causes the WMR to tip
on its nose as the slope increases [13].
To avoid the problems encountered with class ii), a few robot designers have de-
veloped 2-WMRs with electronic stabilization of the IB. With reference to the latter,
several sensor sub-systems have been used to stabilize the IB, namely: a) a rate
gyro [14], [15]; b) ve gyros and two tilt-sensors [16], [17]; c) a rate gyro and two
Proof version: June 2, 2005 1
orthogonal accelerometers [13]; and d) three encoders for detecting the conguration
of a three-revolute axis manipulator mounted on the two-wheeled unit [18]. However,
the open-loop dynamics of the foregoing robots is unstable at the equilibrium state,
which often results in damage to the hardware or drives the system into limit cy-
cles [19], thereby complicating the robot control. Therefore, in order to simplify the
control of 2-WMRs we locate the mass center of the robot below the wheel axis [20].
Moreover, with the same purpose, we endow the robot with the quasiholonomy prop-
erty [21], which is done by simply placing the mass center of the robot on the (vertical)
plane equidistant from the two wheel mid-planes. Hence, a novel family of 2-WMRs
arises, its novelty lying in the simplicity with which these robots can be controlled.
It is worth mentioning that although locating the mass center below the wheel axis
makes sense from a design standpoint, it is not a necessary assumption for the valid-
ity of the results provided in this work in terms of modeling and controllability. As
a matter of fact, these results hold in general for any quasiholonomic (QH) 2-WMR.
Applications envisioned are numerous. Suce it to mention that the system at
hand is ideally suited to operate as: i) an industrial robot for material handling;
ii) an assistive device for the mobility-challenged; iii) an entertainment robot; iv) a
rover for interplanetary surveying; and v) a service robot for domestic chores.
2. Background on Quasiholonomic Systems
Since dierential geometry was introduced in the study of nonholonomic (NH)
mechanical systems, many authors have investigated these systems from a geometric
perspective, sometimes called geometric mechanics. Following this idea, Bloch [22]
recently provided a unied treatment of control theory and geometric mechanics for
NH systems; Liu and Li [23], relying on a hybrid control strategy, set up a unied
geometric framework for modeling, analysis and control of constrained mechanical
systems; Lewis [24] laid out the foundations for the control of simple mechanical
systems subject to time-independent catastatic constraints. Furthermore, among
other issues, Cortes Monforte studied aspects of the numerical analysis of NH systems
from the geometric mechanics standpoint [25].
Although the geometric approach to the study of NH systems has gained more
and more interest in the past 30 years, these systems have continued to be investi-
gated from a more classic perspective too. In a review of NH systems in the classic
framework of analytical mechanics, QH systems were pointed out by Ostrovskaya
and Angeles [21]. These are NH systems whose dynamics is described by simple gov-
erning equations formally identical to those of their holonomic counterparts. Before
introducing QH systems and their advantages, we recall the concepts of orthogonal
complement and holonomy matrix, resorting to the basic terminology of analytical
mechanics [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30].
2.1. Orthogonal Complement. The dynamics formulation of generally constrained
mechanical systems includes two tasks: elimination of the constraint forces and re-
duction of the dimension of the system; both can be implemented by means of an
orthogonal complement, as rst proposed by Maggi [31]. Kinematic constraints are
representable as functions of the n-dimensional vector of generalized coordinates q,
the vector of generalized velocities q, and time t. Kinematic constraints being linear
in the generalized velocities, they can be expressed in the form
(1) A(q, t) q = b(q, t),
where the p n matrix A and the p-dimensional vector b are functions of the gen-
eralized coordinates and, possibly, time. Apparently, p < n in the above relations,
with n p m representing the number of independent generalized velocities of the
system.
Let u(t) be a m-dimensional vector of independent generalized velocities. Moreover,
we let N(q) be a nm matrix mapping vector u into a vector of feasible generalized
velocities q. What we mean by feasible is a vector q that obeys the kinematic
constraints, i.e.,
(2) q(t) = q
0
(t) +N(q)u(t),
with q
0
(t) being a particular solution of the constraint eq. (1). Hence, N turns out
to be an orthogonal complement [32] of A, i.e. AN = O
pm
, where O
pm
is the p m
zero matrix.
2.2. Holonomy Matrix. Let q be the n-dimensional vector of generalized coordi-
nates of a mechanical system M having n positional degrees of freedom, subject to
p < n kinematic constraints (1). Using a novel approach based on the holonomy
matrix [21], the constrained, a.k.a. reduced, Lagrange equations can be cast in the
form [21]:
(3)
d
dt
_
L
u
_
N
T

L
q
+H
T
p = ,
where: p = L/ q is the unconstrained generalized momentum of the system; =
N
T
S(q) is the m-dimensional vector of constrained generalized forces; S(q) is a full-
rank n m matrix mapping the m-dimensional vector of external inputs [33] into
the vector of unconstrained generalized forces; N is an orthogonal complement of the
constraint matrix A that obeys eq. (2); L is the system Lagrangian; u is the vector of
m-independent generalized velocities of the system; and

L = L|
qu
, i.e.,

L is obtained
by substituting q into L using eq. (2), and is termed the constrained Lagrangian of
the system. Note that

L as well as matrix N are, in general, functions of all n
components of q. The coecient H
T
of the unconstrained generalized momentum p
in (3) is the transpose of the holonomy matrix, as introduced in [21], i.e.,
H
(Nu)
q
N

N . (4)
2.3. Quasiholonomic Systems. If the third term of the left-hand side of eq. (3)
vanishes, the system of Lagrange equations (3) simplies to
(5)
d
dt
_
L
u
_
N
T

L
q
= .
It is now a simple matter to realize that a kinematically constrained mechanical
system M admits the simple representation (5) under two cases:
Case 1: H = O
nm
Case 2: H = O
nm
, but H
T
p = 0
m
.
where 0
m
is the m-dimensional zero vector. If, moreover, the vector of independent
generalized velocities u is chosen so that it is a total time-derivative u = s, then an
even simpler system of Lagranges equations of M can be written in the form
(6)
d
dt
_
L
s
_
L
s
= ,
which are formally identical to the Lagrange equations of an m-dof holonomic system;
we call this the virtual holonomic system of the given NH system [34].
Case 1 mentioned above leads to the integrability of the linear kinematic con-
straints, i.e., to the holonomy property of the corresponding mechanical system,
based on the Holonomy Theorem [21]:
Theorem 2.1 (Holonomy). Consider a mechanical system M and the holonomy
matrix dened in (4), the vector of independent generalized velocity u being the total
time-derivative of a m-dimensional vector s, i.e., u = s. Then, M is holonomic if
and only if its holonomy matrix vanishes.
For Case 2, we introduce the denition below [21]:
Denition 2.1. A system is quasiholonomic i H = O
nm
and H
T
p = 0
m
.
It is crucial to note that quasiholonomy is invariant with respect to changes of
independent generalized coordinates and independent generalized velocities [34], as
proven in [35]. A correct choice of variables q and u = s leading to QH is hence not
needed.
Quasiholonomic systems can be interpreted as nonholonomic system whose gener-
alized inertia force stemming from the kinematic contraints disappears. Moreover,
each entry of the holonomy matrix has the units of a generalized velocity [35].
3. Robot Description
Depicted in Fig. 1 is a sketch of Quasimoro (QUASIholonomic MObile RObot),
the rst prototype of a new family of 2-WMRs. This family is endowed with quasi-
holonomy, which is achieved by locating the mass center of the robot on the (vertical)
plane equidistant from the wheel midplanes. Moreover, in order to cope with insta-
bility, the mass center of the IB is placed below the above-mentioned line. Besides
endowing the robot with quasiholonomy, its architecture makes Quasimoro capable
of turning in place without colliding with a person or an object nearby. Moreover,
the use of hemispherical wheels, instead of conventional ones, will render the robot
immune to tilting, with apparent benets in applications on uneven terrain [36].
The main tasks of the control system are: i) positioning and orienting the pay-
load, supported by the IB, on a at surface (primary task); and ii) suppressing the
Figure 1. Simplied model of Quasimoro
oscillations of the IB (secondary task). Now, while apparently it is possible to ac-
complish the primary task using only the wheel motors, accomplishing the secondary
task needs an in-depth controllability analysis.
4. Mathematical Model
The mathematical model of Quasimoro is formulated in the framework of the La-
grange formalism based on the holonomy matrix [35]. We assume that: i) the robot
undergoes motion on a horizontal planar surface, which we will call B; ii) during mo-
tion, the robot wheels are always in contact with B, and undergo pure-rolling motion
over B; and iii) the robot is free from dissipative forces.
With reference to Fig. 1, A is the axis passing through the centers of the wheels,
while A
is the axis parallel to A and passing through the mass center C

3
of the IB.
The chassis of the IB is represented by a cylinder with axis of symmetry D, which is
normal to A.
We dene three orthonormal triads of vectors: {i, j, k}, {e, f , k} and {e, h, n}. The
rst {i, j, k}, denes an inertial frame attached to the ground with its origin O lying
in the horizontal plane of C, the midpoint of the segment between the wheel centers.
The frame dened by {e, f , k} has its origin at C; in particular, e is parallel to A,
while k is vertical. The frame dened by {e, h, n} is attached to the IB and centered
at C, while n lies on the D axis.
We indicate with
1
and
2
the angular displacements of the two wheels, while c
is the position vector of point C in the inertial frame. We also dene
3
as the angle
of rotation of the IB about A, as indicated in Fig. 1. Moreover, dening l as the
distance between the centers of the wheels and r as the wheel radius, while assuming
that the wheels roll without slipping on B, we have the constraints [20]
(7) c = P

a
,

= (
1
)
where = r/l,
a
= [
1

2
]
T
, P(
1
,
2
) = (r/2)[ f f ] and is the robot orienta-
tion angle, i.e., the angle between vectors i and e. Integrating the second relation in
eqs. (7) we obtain: = (
2

1
) where we have assumed = 0 when
1
=
2
.
Further, we dene q = [ c
T
1

2

3
]
T
as the vector of generalized coordinates.
Dening 1
k
as the k k identity matrix, the rst of eqs. (7) can be rewritten as
A q = 0
3
, where A = [ 1
3
P 0
3
] is the 3 6 constraint matrix. Looking at the
number of kinematic constraints and of generalized velocities we can conclude that the
robot has 6 3 = 3 independent generalized velocities. If we dene the independent
generalized velocity vector as u =
_

T
the orthogonal complement of A
is readily derived as
N =
_
_
P 0
3
1
2
0
2
0
T
2
1
_
_
.
The holonomy matrix can be readily computed as [20]:
H =
(Nu)
q
N

N = r
_

2
e
1
e 0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
_
,
i.e. Quasimoro is a nonholonomic robot (H = O), as one should have expected.
Without considering the constant terms, the Lagrangian of the system is given by
L = T V = m
w
c
2
+
m
w
r
2
4
(1 +
2
)(
1
)
2
+
m
w
r
2
4
(
2
1
+

2
2
) +
1
2
J
2
2
3
+
1
2
m
3
( c +d
3
h
(
1
)d sin
3
e)
2
c +m
3
dg cos
3
+
1
2
(J
3
sin
3
2
+J
1
cos
3
2
)(
1
)
2
2
.
where d is the distance between C and C
3
; g is the gravity acceleration; m
w
is the
mass of each augmented wheel, i.e. the wheel along with the shaft which actuates
it; m
3
is the augmented mass of the IB, i.e. taking into account the payload; J
2
is
the moment of inertia of the body about the A
axis;

1
; J
1
is the moment
of inertia of the IB about D; and J
3
is the moment of inertia of the body about the
axis passing through the unit vector h. Hence, the generalized momentum, obtained
computing L/ q and then substituting q into the latter using eq. (2), takes the
form:
p =
L
q
qu
=
_
_
MP
a
+m
3
d(
3
h
sin
3
e)
1/2(m
w
r
2
)
1
(H +m
3
2
d
2
sin
2
3
)
1/2(m
w
r
2
)
2
+ (H +m
3
2
d
2
sin
2
3
)
K cos
3

+
+J
2

3
_
_
,
where H 1/2[m
w
r
2
(1 +
2
) + 2
2
(J
1
cos
3
2
+ J
3
sin
3
2
)], J
2
= m
3
d
2
+ J
2
is the
moment of inertia of the IB about A, M = 2m
w
+m
3
is the overall mass of the robot,
K m
3
rd/2, and

1
+

2
. The nonholonomy term of the equations of motion
is given by
H
T
p = m
3
r
d sin
3
_

1
0
,
which becomes negligible w.r.t. the other terms of (3) when the robot controller
guarantees that
3
= 0 by keeping vector n vertical and upward. If this is indeed the
case, as we shall assume here, then the robot is QH, its mathematical model thus
reducing to (5). Any deviations from quasiholonomy will thus give rise to inertia
forces stemming from the constraints, that can be regarded as disturbances, which
will be rejected by the controller. However, for the sake of completeness we will
keep the complete model (3), where = [
1

2
]
T
, {
i
}
2
i=1
is the array of torques
transmitted to the wheels by the actuators (wheel motors), and
L =
3
4
m
w
r
2
(
2
1
+

2
2
) +
1
2
(
m
w
r
2
2
+J
1
cos
2
3
+J
3
sin
2
3
)(
1
)
2
2
+
r
2
8
m
3
(
1
+

2
)
2
+m
3
rd
2
3
(
1
+

2
) cos
3
+
1
2
(d
2
m
3
+J
2
)
2
3
c
+m
3
dg cos
3
+
m
3
2

2
(
1
)
2
d
2
sin
2
3
.
Thus, (5) becomes
(8) I()
+C(,

)

+g() = .
where [
T
0 ]
T
, [
1

2

3
]
T
, while I() is the generalized inertia
matrix, given by
I() =
_
_
B +C
(
3
) A C
(
3
) K cos
3
A C
(
3
) B +C
(
3
) K cos
3
K cos
3
K cos
3
J
2
_
_
with A [m
3
r
2
2m
w
r
2
2
]/4, B [6m
w
r
2
+ m
3
r
2
+ 2m
w
r
2
2
]/4 and C
(
3
)
2
(m
3
d
2
sin
2
3
+ J
1
cos
2
3
+J
3
sin
2
3
). Moreover, the 3-dimensional vector of qua-
dratic terms of inertia forces is given by
C(,

)

=
_
_
(m
3
d/2)r sin
3

2
3
G
(m
3
d/2)r sin
3

2
3
+G
m
3
d
2

d sin
3
cos
3
_
_
,
where G (m
3
dr
2

sin
3
+2m
3
d
2

3
sin
3
cos
3
+2 sin
3
cos
3
(J
3

J
1
)
3
), and g()=[0 0 m
3
g(sin
3
)d]
T
representing the gravity term.
5. Controllability Analysis
Controllability is a key issue in the design and control of underactuated robotic
mechanical systems, since it provides the minimum number of actuators needed to
control the system as well as their type and location. The robot at hand is underac-
tuated by design, since it has two control inputs, namely
1
and
2
, against a number
of three independent generalized velocities. One challenge to face here is the con-
trol of the motion of the IB, which will tend to rotate about the wheel axle as the
wheels are actuated. We prove below that it is possible to completely control the ro-
bot using only the wheel motors, while tracking a desired trajectory. To this end, we
show that every linearization of the robot mathematical model around an equilibrium
state veries the Kalman rank condition for controllability (KRCC) [37]. Therefore,
Quasimoro is small-time locally controllable (STLC) from every equilibrium state.
Moreover, applying the Lie algebra rank condition (LARC) [33] we show that Quasi-
moro is also locally accessible (LA) from any state other then those of equilibrium.
For details on the results from controllability of nonlinear systems recalled in this
section, the reader is referred to [3840].
The IB oscillations are kinematically decoupled from the robot motion on B, the
IB free being to rotate about the wheel axis by means of rolling bearings. Therefore,
the kinematic model, described by eq. (7), is not sucient to completely control
the robot without increasing the number of actuators. The robot conguration is
described in the joint space, the state vector thus being dened as
(9) x = [
1

2

3

3
]
T
,
In this light, the mathematical model of eq. (8), can be rewritten in the state-space
form [41] x(t) = k(x(t), (t)), with
(10) = [
1

2
]
T
, k(x, ) =
_
k
1
. . . k
6
T
,
where
k
1
= x
4
, k
2
= x
5
, k
3
= x
6
,
k
4
=
_
3
i=0
Q
4i
cos
i
x
3
+D
4
(
1
+
2
)
_
/C
4
k
5
= k
4
[(
1
+
2
+Q
50
)/C
5
]
k
6
= [D(
1
+
2
) +Q]/C,
while x
i
, for i = 1, 2 . . . 6, is the i-th component of x. Note that the foregoing
dierential equations are well-dened in the state space, since C
4
= 0, C
5
= 0 and
T = 0 x
3
.
5.0.1. Controllability from Equilibrium States. The set of equilibrium states X
e
of
the foregoing dynamics model is obtained by setting k(x, ) = 0
6
, with = 0
2
[42].
Hence,
X
e
={x = [ x
1
x
2
x
3
x
4
x
5
x
6
]
T
IR
6
|
x
3
= k, k ZZ and x
i
= 0 i 4}. (11)
From the structure of the vector eld k(x, u) it is apparent that every equilibrium
state is equivalent to the others for controllability test purposes. Linearizing around
a generic equilibrium state x
0
= [ x
1
x
2
x
3
0 0 0 ]
T
, we obtain x = Ax + B,
with
1
A =
k
x
x=x
0
=
_
O
32
0
3
1
3
O
32
a O
33
_
and (12)
B =
k
x=x
0
=
_
0
3
0
3
b
1
b
2
_
, (13)
where
a =
_
_
dgm
3
K/F
dgm
3
K/F
(1)
k
(A +B)m
3
gd/F
_
_
,
b
1
=
_
_
[(1)
k
(K
2
J
1
2
J
2
BJ
2
) +TK]/E
[(1)
k
(AJ
2
J
1
2
J
2
K
2
) +TK]/E
((1)
k
K +A +B)/F
_
_
,
b
2
=
_
_
[(1)
k
(AJ
2
J
1
2
J
2
K
2
) +TK]/E
[(1)
k
(K
2
J
1
2
J
2
BJ
2
) +TK]/E
((1)
k
K +A +B)/F
_
_
,
F = (2K
2
(A + B)J
2
), E = [F(B A) + 4J
1
2
K
2
2(A + B)J
2
J
1
2
] and T =
A 2
2
J
1
B. The 6 12 controllability matrix C = [ B AB A
2
B A
3
B
A
4
B A
5
B ], is of rank 6, and hence, the linearized system is controllable according
to the KRCC. A well-known theorem in control theory states that if the linearization
of a nonlinear system at an equilibrium state is controllable, then the nonlinear system
(8) is small-time locally controllable from the equilibrium state [38]. Hence,
Result 5.1. The mathematical model of Quasimoro is small-time locally controllable.
5.0.2. Controllability from Non-Equilibrium States. The verication of the KRCC
for the linearized system is not a conclusive result because the controllability of the
system has not been investigated for every point of the state-space. Using the KRCC
to test the controllability from the non-equilibrium points we have that C is of rank
6, and hence, the linearized system is controllable according to the KRCC. Hence,
Result 5.2. The mathematical model of Quasimoro is controllable according to the
KRCC from the non-equilibrium points.
Although a general sucient condition for a nonlinear system with drift to be
STLC exists [43], STLC is impossible from nonequilibrium states. Therefore, we
limit ourselves to analyzing the non-equilibrium states in terms of local accessibility,
which is the second-most-used structural characterization of a nonlinear system with
regard to the natural form of controllability [33]. To this end, the mathematical
model of the robot, described by eq. (8), can be rewritten in the ane state-space
form
(14) x(t) = f (x(t)) +
2
i=1
g
i
(x(t))u
i
(t),
1
A is not to be confused with the constraint matrix A of Section IV.
with x and dened as in (9) and (10), and [41]
f =
_
x
4
x
5
x
6
P
1
/S
1
P
2
/S
2
P
3
/S
3
T
, (15)
g
1
=
_
0 0 0 A
1
/C
1
A
2
/C
2
A
3
/C
3
T
, (16)
g
2
=
_
0 0 0 A
2
/C
2
A
1
/C
1
A
3
/C
3
T
. (17)
The distribution dened by the vector elds f , g
1
, and g
2
is
A
= span{f , g
1
, g
2
}.
Now we follow the procedure described in [33] in order to compute the involutive
closure of
A
, that will be indicated with
A
. The rst step is to compute the
dimension of the rst distribution
1
, dened as
(18)
1
=
A
= span{f , g
1
, g
2
}.
By looking at (15)(17) we infer that dim(
1
) = 3 x X
e
, where X
e
is the set of
equilibrium states dened in (11). The next step consists in computing
2
, namely,
2
=
1
+ [
1
,
1
] = span{f , g
1
, g
2
, [f , g
1
], [f , g
2
], [g
1
, g
2
]},
where, in the last simplication, we have applied the skew-commutativity prop-
erty. Computing the Lie brackets, we obtain that [g
1
, g
2
] = 0
6
, whence
2
=
span{f , g
1
, g
2
, [f , g
1
], [f , g
2
]}, dim(
2
) = 5 x X
e
. The distribution
3
=
2
+
[
1
,
2
] reduces to
3
= span{f , g
1
, g
2
, [f , g
1
], [f , g
2
], [g
1
, [f , g
1
]]} by applying the
skew-commutativity property, the Jacobi identity, and knowing that [g
1
, [f , g
1
]] =
[g
2
, [f , g
2
]] = [g
1
, [f , g
2
]] = [g
2
, [f , g
1
]] and that
[f , [f , g
1
]] = [f , [f , g
2
]] span{f , g
1
, g
2
, [f , g
1
], [f , g
2
], [g
1
, [f , g
1
]]}.
We thus obtain dim(
3
) = 6 x X
e
,
A
=
3
= span{f , g
1
, g
2
, [f , g
1
], [f , g
2
], [g
1
, [f , g
1
]]}, whence
Result 5.3. The mathematical model of Quasimoro is locally accessible also from
any state dierent from equilibrium.
6. Numerical Results on Robot Performance
As pointed out in Section IV, to render the robot quasiholonomic, its mass center
should lie on the vertical line passing through point C. However, due to payload vari-
tions, the position of the mass center of the augmented system (robot plus payload)
will change. Moreover, during the robot motion the IB will rotate about A [20], thus
changing the position of the foregoing mass center. In order to investigate on the
possible performance decay of the robot under payload variation and during motion,
a series of numerical analyses and simulations was conducted [44]. The results of
this study are plotted in Figs. 24, where
m
and n
m
are the motor torque and the
motor speed, respectively, while v c f and

are the driving velocity and the
steering velocity, respectively, and e
is the tracking error associated to .

Using a linear-quadratic regulator as controller we simulated the system, with
consideration of the drive-system dynamics and power-supply performance) under
rectilinear motion, starting from rest:
I) under maximum payload; and
0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
t[s]
3
[
r
a
d
]
I,II
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
t[s]
v

[
m
/
s
]
I,II
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Dynamic response under dierent loading conditions: (a)
3
vs. t; (b) v vs. t.
0 5 10 15
-2
-1
0
1
2
x 10
-6
t[s]
e

[
r
a
d
/
s
]
I,III
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
m
[Nm]
n
m

[
r
p
m
]
I
III
0 2 4 6 8
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
t[s]
v

[
m
/
s
]
I
III
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3. Unmodeled dynamics uncertainty: (a) e
vs. t; (b) Actua-

tor torque-speed curve; (c) v vs. t.
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
x 10
-3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
c
x
[m]
c
y

[
m
]
I,III
Figure 4. Unmodeled dynamics uncertainty Path of point C
II) under minimum payload.
Relying on the same controller, we also simulated the rectilinear motion of the robot
under maximum payload
I) starting from rest (stable equilibrium conguration); and
III) starting from an initial condition with:
3
(0) = 30
2
.
From the foregoing plots we can infer that robot performance was not aected by
payload variations. Moreover, the controller performance is not even aected by the
power-amplier saturation during the transient.
7. Summary
Some results from the literature on 2-WMR development were provided, along with
a novel classication of this kind of robots. Moreover, a novel family of 2-WMRs was
proposed. The mathematical model of the latter was formulated with the Lagrange
formalism by using a modern approach based on the holonomy matrix.
An in-depth analysis of the mathematical model of the WMR proposed showed that
the system is locally accessible from every state and small-time locally controllable
from any equilibrium state, thus proving that it is possible to control the robot by
using only the wheel motors. It is noteworthy that the controllability results reported
in this work along with the robot modeling apply in general to any QH 2-WMR.
Moreover, the controllability results can be readily extended to the controllability of
two-wheeled mobile inverted pendulums.
The design of a multivariable state feedback controller was also provided. Taking
into account the actuator dynamics as well, a few simulation runs for the validation
of the aforementioned design were conducted.
Finally, given the general controllability results of this paper, we plan, as future
work, to design a stabilizing controller in a constructive manner, i.e. relying di-
rectly on the controllability properties of the two-wheeled mobile robots outlined
here. Moreover, we intend also to fully exploit the advantages of QH 2-WMRs by
investigating their control via partial feedback linearization.
2
We used III) in order to distinguish it from II).
Appendix
State-space representation.
D
4
= (2m
3
d
2
2
K + 2J
3
2
K 2J
1
2
K) cos x
3
3
+(J
2
J
1
2
+J
2
J
3
2
+J
2
m
3
d
2
2
) cos x
3
2
+(2m
3
d
2
2
K +AK 2J
3
2
K KB) cos x
3
J
2
m
3
d
2
2
J
2
J
3
2
+ (A B)J
2
Q
43
= 4J
1
4
K sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
+2J
1
4
K sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
4K
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
1
+ 2m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
2
Kg
+2J
1
4
K sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
2J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
+4J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
4K
2
m
b
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
4
x
6
+ 4K
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
3
d
+2J
3
2
sin x
3
Km
3
gd 2J
1
2
Km
3
gd sin x
3
+4K
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
1
+ 4K
2
m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
5
x
6
2J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
4K
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
3
+4m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
Q
42
= m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rK
2
2J
1
2
J
2
K sin x
3
x
2
6
2J
3
4
sin x
3
J
2
m
3
dx
4
x
5
r + 2J
1
4
J
2
m
3
d sin x
3
x
4
x
5
r
+2J
3
2
sin x
3
J
2
Kx
2
6
K
2
m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
2
4
r
+m
2
3
4
d
3
sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
m
3
4
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
J
1
+2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
2
J
2
Kx
2
6
2m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
4
J
2
x
4
x
5
r
+mb
2
d
3
sin x
3
4
J
2
x
2
4
r J
1
4
J
2
m
3
d sin x
3
x
2
4
r
+m
3
4
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
J
3
+J
3
4
sin x
3
J
2
m
3
dx
2
4
r
Q
41
= K
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
B
2m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
2
Kg + 2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
+ 2J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
4J
1
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
+2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
2J
1
2
sin x
3
Km
3
gd + 2J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
4m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
+K
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
B +AKm
3
gd sin x
3
AK
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(J
3
+m
3
d
2
J
1
)x
2
4
AK
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
Km
3
bgd sin x
3
B + 2m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
4
x
6
J
2
B
2K
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
B
2 sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
1
J
2
B + 2 sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
3
J
2
B
+2AJ
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
3
2AJ
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
1
2AJ
2
m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
5
x
6
+2AK
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
+2 sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
1
J
2
B 2 sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
3
J
2
B
+2AJ
2
m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
4
x
6
2AJ
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
3
2m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
5
x
6
J
2
B + 2AJ
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
1
Q
40
= AJ
2
m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
2
4
r +m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
4
x
5
rJ
2
B
m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
B m
3
4
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
J
3
+2J
3
4
sin x
3
J
2
m
3
dx
4
x
5
r +AJ
2
K sin x
3
x
2
6
+2m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
4
J
2
x
4
x
5
r 2J
3
2
sin x
3
J
2
Kx
2
6
J
3
4
sin x
3
J
2
m
3
dx
2
4
r m
2
3
4
d
3
sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
2
J
2
Kx
2
6
m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
4
J
2
x
2
4
r
K sin x
3
x
2
6
J
2
B AJ
2
m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
4
x
5
r
C
4
= (2J
1
2
+ 2m
3
d
2
2
+ 2J
3
2
) cos(x
3
)
2
+A B
2m
b
d
2
2
2J
3
2
)(2K
2
cos x
3
2
+ (A +B)J
2
Q
50
= 4 sin x
3
cos x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
3
+ 4 sin x
3
cos x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
3
+m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
2
4
r d sin x
3
m
3
2
x
2
5
r
+4 sin x
3
cos x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
1
+ 4m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
4
x
6
cos x
3
4 sin x
3
cos x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
1
4m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
5
x
6
cos x
3
C
5
= A 2J
1
2
cos x
3
2
B 2m
3
d
2
2
2J
3
2
+2 cos x
3
2
m
3
d
2
2
+ 2 cos x
3
2
J
3
2
D = (B +K cos x
3
+A)
Q = (dm
b
g sin x
3
+ 2 sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
)A
+(dm
3
g sin x
3
+ 2 sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
)B
+d sin x
3
m
3
K cos x
3
2
x
2
4
r
+d sin x
3
m
3
K cos x
3
2
x
2
5
r
2d sin x
3
m
3
K cos x
3
2
x
4
x
5
r
+2K
2
cos x
3
sin(x3)x
2
6
C = 2K
2
cos x
3
2
+ (A +B)J
2
Ane state-space form.
P
i

3
j=0
P
ij
cos x
3
j
with, i = 1, 2, 3,
P
13
2J
1
4
K sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
4K
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
3
2J
1
2
Km
3
gd sin x
3
+2J
1
4
K sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
4J
1
4
K sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
2J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
+ 4 J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
+ 4K
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
3
4K
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
1
+2J
3
2
sin x
3
Km
3
gd 4K
2
m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
4
x
6
+4K
2
m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
5
x
6
+ 2m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
2
Kg
2J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
+4K
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
1
+ 4m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
P
12
m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
4
J
2
x
2
4
r
+m
3
4
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
J
3
+ 2J
3
2
sin x
3
J
2
Kx
2
6
J
1
4
J
2
m
3
d sin x
3
x
2
4
r +m
2
3
4
d
3
sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
+2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
2
J
2
Kx
2
6
m
3
4
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
J
1
+J
3
4
sin x
3
J
2
m
3
dx
2
4
r K
2
m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
2
4
r
2J
1
2
J
2
K sin x
3
x
2
6
2J
3
4
sin x
3
J
2
m
3
dx
4
x
5
r
+2J
1
4
J
2
m
3
d sin x
3
x
4
x
5
r +m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rK
2
2m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
4
J
2
x
4
x
5
r,
P
11
2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
+ 2J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
4J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
+2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
2J
3
2
sin x
3
Km
3
gd 2m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
2
Kg
+2J
3
4
sin x
3
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
4m
3
d
2
sin x
3
4
K cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
+K
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
B
+K
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
B
+AKm
3
gd sin x
3
Km
3
gd sin x
3
B
AK
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
AK
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
2K
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
B
2 sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
1
J
3
B + 2 sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
3
J
2
B
+2m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
4
x
6
J
2
B + 2AJ
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
1
+2 sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
1
J
2
B 2 sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
3
J
2
B
+2AJ
2
m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
4
x
6
2AJ
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
5
J
3
+2AJ
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
3
2m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
5
x
6
J
2
B
2AJ
2
sin x
3
2
x
6
x
4
J
1
2AJ
2
m
3
2
d
2
sin x
3
x
5
x
6
+2AK
2
sin x
3
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
,
P
10
m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
4
x
5
rJ
2
B
+2m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
4
J
2
x
4
x
5
r m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
B
m
3
4
d sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
J
3
m
2
3
d
3
sin x
3
4
J
2
x
2
4
r
J
3
4
sin x
3
J
2
m
3
dx
2
4
r mb
2
4
d
3
sin x
3
x
2
5
rJ
2
+AJ
2
m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
2
4
r +AJ
2
K sin x
3
x
2
6
AJ
2
m
3
2
d sin x
3
x
4
x
5
r + 2J
3
4
sin x
3
J
2
m
3
dx
4
x
5
r
K sin x
3
x
2
6
J
2
B 2m
3
d
2
sin x
3
2
J
2
Kx
2
6
2J
3
2
sin x
3
J
2
Kx
2
6
,
S
1
S
2
((2J
1
2
+ 2m
3
d
2
2
+2J
3
2
) cos x
3
2
+A B 2m
3
d
2
2
2J
3
2
)(2K
2
cos x
3
2
+BJ
2
+AJ
2
a),
P
2
(2K
2
cos x
3
2
+BJ
2
+AJ
2
)(4 cos x
3
x
6
x
4
J
3
4 cos x
3
x
6
x
4
J
1
+ 4 cos x
3
m
3
d
2
x
4
x
6
dm
3
x
2
5
r
4 cos x
3
x
6
x
5
J
3
4 cos x
3
m
3
d
2
x
5
x
6
+ 4 cos x
3
x
6
x
5
J
1
+m
3
dx
2
4
r)
2
sin x
3
,
P
3
(d sin x
3
m
3
K
2
x
2
4
r +d sin x
3
m
3
K
2
x
2
5
r
2d sin x
3
m
3
K
2
x
4
x
5
r + 2K
2
sin x
3
x
2
6
) cos x
3
+dAm
3
g sin x
3
sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
B
sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
5
A +d sin x
3
Bm
3
g
+2 sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
A
+2 sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
5
x
4
B
sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
B
sin x
3
2
cos x
3
(m
3
d
2
+J
3
J
1
)x
2
4
A,
S
3
2K
2
cos x
3
2
+BJ
2
+AJ
2
,
A
i

3
j=0
A
ij
cos x
3
j
with, i = 1, 2, 3,
A
13
A
23
2J
1
2
K + 2m
3
d
2
2
K + 2J
3
2
K,
A
12
J
2
J
1
2
+K
2
+J
2
J
3
2
+J
2
m
3
d
2
2
,
A
22
A
12
K
2
,
A
11
A
21
KB 2J
3
2
K 2m
3
d
2
2
K +AK,
A
10
(BJ
2
J
2
J
3
2
) J
2
m
3
d
2
2
,
A
20
A
10
+ (A +B)J
2
,
A
3
(K cos x
3
+B +A), C
1
C
2

((4J
1
2
K
2
4J
3
2
K
2
4m
3
d
2
2
K
2
) cos x
3
4
+(2m
3
d
2
2
AJ
2
2J
1
2
BJ
2
2AK
2
+ 2BK
2
+ 4J
3
2
K
2
+4m
3
d
2
2
K
2
2J
1
2
AJ
2
+ 2J
3
2
BJ
2
+ 2m
3
d
2
2
BJ
2
+2J
3
2
AJ
2
) cos x
3
2
2m
3
d
2
2
BJ
2
+A
2
J
2
B
2
J
2
2J
3
2
BJ
2
2J
3
2
AJ
2
2m
3
d
2
2
AJ
2
),
C
3
(BJ
2
+AJ
2
2K
2
cos(x3)
2
).
References
[1] Gyro-wheel car zooms along on giant tires at 116 mph, Modern Mechanix and Inventions,
vol. 14, p. 43, June 1935.
[2] S. Wood and N. Solomon, Gyrobot a robot warrior, October 2002. [Online]. Available
at: http://freespace.virgin.net/steve.wood4/index.htm
[3] A. Qaiyumi, Moebius, 1997. [Online]. Available at: http://mil.u.edu/aqaiyumi/projects
[4] D. DeGard and C. DeGard, PhotoBot : a phototropic mobile robot, May 1999. [Online].
Available at: http://www.seattlerobotics.org/encoder/jun99/degard
[5] P. H. Batavia and I. Nourbakhsh, Path planning for the Cye personal robot, in Proc.
IEEE/RSJ Intell. Robots Syst., vol. 1, 2000, pp. 1520.
[6] T. Willingham, Guide to building a RC robot, 2002. [Online]. Available at:
http://dc.cen.uiuc.edu/
[7] J. Borenstein and I. Ulrich, The GuideCane a computerized travel aid for the active guid-
ance of blind pedestrians, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., Albuquerque, New
Mexico, 1997.
[8] A. Drenner, I. Burt, T. Dahlin, B. Kratochvil, C. McMillen, B. Nelson, N. P. P. Rybski,
K. Stubbs, D. Waletzko, and K. Berk Yesin, Mobility enhancements to the Scout robot plat-
form, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., Washington D.C., 2002.
[9] P. M achler, Robot Positioning by Supervised and Unsupervised Odometry Correction.
Lausanne, Switzerland: Ph.D. Thesis, EPFL, 1998. [Online]. Available at: http:
//www.maechler.ch/philip/ep/pemex/
[10] C. Ballard, F. Ballard, and M. Ballard, Slugger and toe-crusher, 2000. [Online]. Available
at: http://www.coolrobots.com/robots/overkill.html
[11] Noetic Design, Inc., Lil PICcy, 2002. [Online]. Available at: http://www.noeticdesign.com/
robotics/lilpiccy.html
[12] D. Adams, ICAROS modular robotic platform. [Online]. Available at: http:
//www.doc.ic.ac.uk/dja/icarosoverview.htm
[13] D. P. Anderson, nBot balancing robot, 2002. [Online]. Available at: http://www.geology.
smu.edu/dpa-www/robo/nbot/index.html
[14] L. Barello, Gyrobot a balancing robotic platform, October 2002. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.barello.net/Robots/gyrobot/index.htm
[15] F. Grasser, A. DArrigo, S. Colombi, and A. C. Rufer, Joe: A mobile, inverted pendulum,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 107114, 2002.
[16] Segway LLC, Segway
TM
Human Transporter Data-Sheet. [Online]. Available at: http:
//www.segway.com/
[17] D. J. Kamen, R. R. Ambrogi, R. J. Duggan, D. J. Field, R. K. Heinzmann, B. Amsbury, and
C. C. Langenfeld, Personal mobility vehicles and methods, PCT/US00/15144, Patent, Oct.
26, 2000.
[18] ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication Laboratories, Robovie III, 2002. [Online].
Available at: http://www.irc.atr.co.jp/m-shiomi/Robovie/
[19] J. J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1991.
[20] A. Salerno, S. Ostrovskaya, and J. Angeles, The dynamics of a novel rolling robotanalysis
and simulation, in Proc. IFToMM 11
th
World Congress in Mechanism & Machine Science,
Tianjin, China, April 2004.
[21] S. Ostrovskaya and J. Angeles, Nonholonomic systems revisited within the framework of an-
alytical mechanics, Applied Mechanics Reviews, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 415433, 1998.
[22] A. M. Bloch, Nonholonomic Mechanics and Control. Springer, 2003, vol. 24, Interdisciplinary
Applied Mathematics Series.
[23] G. Liu and Z. Li, A unied geometric approach to modeling and control of constrained me-
chanical systems, IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 574587, 2002.
[24] A. D. Lewis, Simple mechanical control systems with constraints, IEEE Trans. Automat.
Contr., vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 14201436, 2000.
[25] J. Cortes Monforte, Geometric, Control and Numerical Aspects of Nonholonomic Systems.
New York, NY: Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 2002, vol. 1793.
[26] E. T. Whittaker, A Treatise on the Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies. Cam-
bridge University Press, 1937.
[27] J. I. Neimark and N. Fufaev, Dynamics of Nonholonomic Systems. Providence, Rhode Island:
American Mathematical Society, 1972, translations of Mathematical Monographs, 33 (originally
in Russian, 1967).
[28] R. M. Rosenberg, Analytical Dynamics of Discrete Systems. Plenum Press, 1977.
[29] L. A. Pars, A Treatise on Analytical Dynamics. OX BOW Press, 1979.
[30] H. Goldstein, C. Poole, and J. Safko, Classical Mechanics. Addison Wesley, 2002.
[31] G. Maggi, De alcune nuove forme delle equazioni della dinamica applicabli ai sistemi
anolonomi, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend Cl. Fis. Mat. Nat., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 287291,
1901, in Italian.
[32] G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press,
1996.
[33] A. De Luca and G. Oriolo, Modelling and control of nonholonomic mechanical systems, in
Kinematics and Dynamics of Multibody Systems. J. Angeles and A. Kecskemethy, (Eds.),
Springer-Verlag, Vienna, 1995.
[34] A. Salerno, S. Ostrovskaya, and J. Angeles, The development of quasiholonomic wheeled
robots, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., Washington D.C., 2002.
[35] S. Ostrovskaya, Dynamics of Quasiholonomic and Nonholonomic Recongurable Rolling Robots.
Montreal: Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, 2001.
[36] D. S. Nasrallah, J. Angeles, and H. Michalska, Modelling of an anti-tilting outdoor mobile
robot, McGill Centre for Intelligent Machines, Tech. Rep. TR-CIM 05.03, February 2005.
[37] C. T. Chen, Linear System Theory and Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
[38] H. Nijmeijer and A. J. van der Schaft, Nonlinear Dynamical Control Systems. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag, 1990.
[39] A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989.
[40] S. Sastry, Nonlinear Systems: Analysis, Stability, and Control. New York: Springer, 1999.
[41] A. Salerno and J. Angeles, On the nonlinear controllability of a quasiholonomic mobile robot,
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., Taipei, Taiwan, September 2003.
[42] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.
[43] H. J. Sussmann, A general theorem on local controllability, SIAM J. Control and Optimiza-
tion, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 158194, January 1987.
[44] A. Salerno and J. Angeles, The control of semi-autonomous two-wheeled robots undergoing
large payload-variations, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., New Orleans, LA, 2004.

Quasi Moro

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Quasi Moro

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Modeling and Controllability of

Two-Wheeled Quasiholonomic Robots

is the axis parallel to A and passing through the mass center C

is the tracking error associated to .

vs. t; (b) Actua-

Anda mungkin juga menyukai