4.6 Article

Toward Position-Only Time-Delayed Control for Uncertain Euler-Lagrange Systems: Experiments on Wheeled Mobile Robots

期刊

IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 1925-1932

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LRA.2017.2715884

关键词

Robust/adaptive control of robotic systems; wheeled robots

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This letter addresses the various practical design issues of a continuous-time time-delayed control (TDC) and proposes a new controller to make the TDC more suitable and applicable for real-life systems. While TDC has been renowned for its robust performance and simplicity in form, it requires state-derivatives feedback which may not be available explicitly in practice; and multiple numerical differentiations of the noisy state data deteriorate performance by invoking measurement error. In this letter, position-only time-delayed control (POTDC) has been proposed for a class of Euler-Lagrange systems which encompasses a large class of practical systems such as robotic manipulators and unmanned mobile robots. Contrary to the conventional TDC, the proposed POTDC eliminates explicit requirement of velocity and acceleration feedbacks and uses only position information of present and past instances to estimate the velocity and acceleration terms. It thus alleviates the measurement error arising from a numerical computation of state-derivatives. Moreover, based on the Razumikhin theorem, continuous-time stability is rigorously analyzed with consideration of the time-delay element in POTDC, which indeed establishes a selection criterion for the sampling interval and provides the designer a range of sampling intervals for same choice of controller gains. This allows POTDC to be suitable for systemswhich specifically operate with high sampling intervals due to application requirement. Accordingly, experimental validations of POTDC are provided in comparison with TDC under various sampling intervals, using a wheeled mobile robot.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据