TuB07.

43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control

December 14-17, 2004
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas

New Analytical Results of the Energy Based

Swinging up Control of the Acrobot
Xin Xin

and

Masahiro Kaneda

Abstract This paper addresses the energy based swinging

up control problem of the Acrobot, which is a typical example
of underactuated mechanical systems. This paper provides
a complete analysis of the convergence of the energy and
the motion of the Acrobot, and illustrates clearly several
unique characteristics of the closed-loop system of the Acrobot
under the energy based control. Specically, this paper shows
clearly how to choose the control parameters such that starting
from any initial state, the Acrobot will eventually either be
swung up to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the upright
equilibrium point, or remain at the downward equilibrium
point which is shown to be unstable for the closed-loop system.
This proves theoretically that the energy based control is
effective for swinging up the Acrobot.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The Acrobot, which is a two link planar robot with single
actuator at the joint of two links, has been studied as a
typical example of underactuated mechanical systems, see
e.g., [1], [2], [5], [8], [10]. Many research results have been
reported on the swing up control problem for the Acrobot,
i.e., to swing the Acrobot from the downward equilibrium
point to the upright equilibrium point and balance it about
the vertical [10]. For solving such problem, the approach of
combining the partial linearization control for the swinging
up phase and the LQR controller for the balancing phase
was proposed in [10]. An energy based swing up algorithm
was also proposed for the swinging up phase in [10];
however, strict analysis of the energy or the motion of the
Acrobot was not provided there. A difculty as indicated
in [10] is to tune the control parameters to accomplish the
capture and balancing phase successfully.
To overcome such difculty motivated us to study
whether there exists a controller under which the Acrobot
can be swung up to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the
upright equilibrium point; this guarantees that the capture
and balancing phase can be easily accomplished.
On the other hand, [3] and [7] reported interesting energy
based control solutions to the swing up control problem
of the Pendubot, which is a two link planar robot with
single actuator at the shoulder (link 1) [9]. The solution
provided in [3] requires that the initial state of the Pendubot
This work is supported in part by Grant-in-aid for Encouragement of
Young Scientists.
Xin Xin and Masahiro Kaneda are with Department of
Communication Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and
System Engineering, Okayama Prefectural University, 111 Kuboki,
Soja, Okayama 719-1197, JAPAN. xxin@c.oka-pu.ac.jp,

kaneda@c.oka-pu.ac.jp.

0-7803-8682-5/04/$20.00 2004 IEEE

should satised some conditions, while the solution given

in [7] is free of conditions on the initial state. These results
stimulated our endeavor starting in [12] to extend the energy
based control results of the Pendubot to the Acrobot. Note
that the applications of the energy based control approach
to the cart-pole system, the Furuta pendulum, the reaction
wheel pendulum, the ball and beam system etc. can be found
in [4]; however, the application to the Acrobot remained
open. As shown in [12] and in this paper, the application is
by no means trivial. Indeed, the difculty is not to nd the
energy based control law, but to analyze the convergence
of the energy and the motion of the Acrobot due to its
unique structure of actuation. Under the assumption on the
mechanical parameters of the Acrobot, [12] proposed the
condition on the control parameters such that the Acrobot
can be swung up to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the
upright equilibrium point. Note that there is no corresponding assumption needed in the case of the Pendubot. It is
remained open whether the assumption on the mechanical
parameters is necessary. Moreover, the condition on the
control parameters in [12] is somewhat complicated.
This paper provides a complete analysis of the convergence of the energy and the motion of the Acrobot
under the energy based control. This paper shows clearly
how to choose the control parameters such that starting
from any initial state, the Acrobot will eventually either
be swung up to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the
upright equilibrium point, or remain at the downward equilibrium point which is shown to be unstable for the closedloop system. This proves that the energy based control is
effective for swinging up the Acrobot. Note that in this
paper the assumption on the mechanical parameters in [12]
is not needed and the condition on the control parameters
is weaker and much simpler than the corresponding one
provided in [12].
II. P RELIMINARIES
With notations shown in Fig. 1, the motion equations of
the two-link planar robot [10] are:
D(q)
q + C(q, q)
q + G(q) = ,
T
T




, = 1 2
, and
where q = q1 q2


d11 d12
D(q) =
d21 d22

704

(1)


c1 + c2 + 2c3 cos q2 c2 + c3 cos q2
,
(2)
c2 + c3 cos q2
c2




h1
2q1 q2 q22
C(q, q)
q =
= c3
sin q2 , (3)
h2
q12


 
1
c4 g cos q1 + c5 g cos(q1 + q2 )
G(q) =
, (4)
=
2
c5 g cos(q1 + q2 )
=

where ci (i = 1, , 5) determined by the mechanical

parameters of the Acrobot are

2
2
+ m2 l12 + I1 , c2 = m2 lc2
+ I2 ,
c1 = m1 lc1
,
c3 = m2 l1 lc2 , c4 = m1 lc1 + m2 l1 , c5 = m2 lc2
(5)
and g is the acceleration of the gravity.

Taking the time derivative of V along (1) yields V =

q2 (kE E2 + kD q2 + kP q2 ). If we can choose 2 such that
kE E2 + kD q2 + kP q2 = kV q2 ,
where kV is a positive constant, then
V = kV q22 0.

l c1

l2

Fig. 1.

(11)

d11
 0
=
(12)

holds for all t 0. To begin with, from (7), we obtain

kE E + kD

I1 , m1

q1

d21 (h1 + 1 ) d11 (h2 + 2 )

,

where = d11 d22 d212 > 0 owing to D(q) > 0. To derive

2 from (11), we study when

I2 , m2
q2

(10)

In what follows, we study when (9) is solvable with

respect to 2 . To this end, obtaining q2 from (1) and putting
it into (9), we have


d11
kE E + kD
2 = kV q2 kP q2

kD

lc2

(9)

l1

E 2(c4 + c5 )g.

(13)

d11
c1 + c2 + 2c3 cos q2
min
:= .
2

q2 [0, 2] c1 c2 c3 cos2 q2

(14)

Next, we have

The Acrobot.

The robot is called the Acrobot if 1 0 in [5], and is

called the Pendubot if 2 0 in [9].
III. T HE ENERGY BASED CONTROL LAW FOR THE
ACROBOT
This paper studies whether there exists the controller
under which the Acrobot can be swung up to an arbitrarily
small neighborhood of the following upright equilibrium
point:

Note that the equalities in (13) and (14) are not satised
simultaneously. Therefore, we obtain kE E + kD d11 / >
2kE (c4 + c5 )g + kD . This gives that if
kD
2(c4 + c5 )g/
kE

(15)

holds, then kE E + kD d11 / > 0 holds, and 2 from (11)

can be obtained as follows:
2

(kV q2 + kP q2 )
kE E + kD d11
kD (d21 (h1 + 1 ) + d11 (h2 + 2 ))

. (16)
kE E + kD d11

q1 = /2 (mod 2), q2 = 0 (mod 2), q1 = 0, q2 = 0.

(6)
To this end, rst by setting the potential energy of the
We are ready to present the following result.
Acrobot at the upright equilibrium point to be 0, the total
LEMMA 1: Consider the Acrobot system (1). Suppose
energy of the Acrobot is given by
that kE > 0, kD > 0 satisfy (15), where is dened in
(14). Then the control law (16) with kP > 0, kV > 0 has
1
E = qT D(q)q + c4 g(sin(q1 ) 1) + c5 g(sin(q1 + q2 ) 1). no singular point, and the solution of the closed-loop system
2
(7) converges to the invariant set M described by
Next, by observing E = qT = q2 2 , we dene the
2g (c4 (1 sin q1 ) + c5 (1 sin(q1 + q2 ))) + 2E
2
following Lyapunov function candidate:
q1 =
c1 + c2 + 2c3 cos q2

1
1
1

2
2
2
q

q
2
2
(8)
V = kE E + kD q2 + kP q2 ,
2
2
2
(17)
where kE , kD , and kP are positive constants. If we can where q2 and E are constants and are convergent values
nd 2 such that limt E = 0 and limt q2 = 0 hold, of q2 and E, respectively.
Proof: From (10), let M be the largest invariant set in
then it is easy to see the Acrobot can be swung up to an
arbitrarily small neighborhood of the upright equilibrium the set of all points (q1 , q1 , q2 , q2 ) satisfying V = 0. Then
using LaSalles theorem [6], we know that every solution
point.

705

(q1 , q1 , q2 , q2 ) of the closed-loop system consisted of (1)

and (16) approaches M as t .
From V (t) = 0, we obtain q2 (t) = 0. This follows that
V and q2 will converge to some constants denoted as V
and q2 , respectively. Then using (8), we know that E will
converge to the constant denoted as E . Finally, (17) can
be obtained directly from (7) with q2 q2 .
To investigate whether the Acrobot can be swung up
under the energy control law (16), we will analyze the
invariant set M by considering the cases E = 0 and
E = 0, separately.
IV. T HE CONVERGENT VALUES OF THE ENERGY AND
THE MOTION OF THE ACROBOT

Putting (25) into (26) and performing a straightforward

calculation yields q1 (A(q2 ) sin q1 + B(q2 ) cos q1 ) = 0, that
is,

q1 A2 (q2 ) + B 2 (q2 ) sin(q1 + (q2 )) = 0,
(27)
where
A(q2 )

B(q2 )

(c2 c4 + 2c3 c5 ),
(28)

= (3c3 c5 cos q2 + 2c3 c4 + c1 c5 ) sin q2 , (29)

and (q2 ) is a constant determined by A(q2 ) and B(q2 ).

Now we will show q1 0. On the contrary, we assume
q1 = 0, then
A(q2 ) = 0

A. On nonzero convergence of the energy of the Acrobot

We will analyze the case of E = 0. We give the

following proposition.
Proposition 1: Consider the Acrobot system (1). Under
the control law (16) with kE > 0, kD > 0 satisfying (15)
and kP > 0, kV > 0, when E = 0 holds, then the Acrobot
stay at the following equilibrium point:
q1 q1 ,

q2 q2 ,

c4 g cos q1 + c5 g cos(q1 + q2 ) = 0,
(q1 , q2 ) = (/2, 0)

(19)

(mod 2).

(20)

In this case, E and 2 (the convergent value of 2 ) satisfy


E = c4 g(sin q1 1) + c5 g(sin(q1 + q2 ) 1)
. (21)
2 = c4 g cos q1
Proof: Since E = 0, it follows from (9) that 2
converges to constant 2 satisfying
kE E 2 + kP q2 = 0.

(22)

Let us analyze the motion of link 1. To this end, using

q2 = q2 and (1), we have
d11 q1 + c4 g cos q1 + c5 g cos(q1 + q2 ) = 0,

(23)

d21 q1 +

(24)

c3 q12

sin q2

+ c5 g cos(q1 +

q2 )

2 .

It is worth mentioning that d11 (q2 ) and d21 (q2 ) are constant. Obtaining q1 follows from (23) as
q1 = [c4 g cos q1 + c5 g cos(q1 + q2 )]/d11 ,

(25)

Taking time derivative of (24) after having put q1 given in

(25), we obtain

d21
q1
[c4 g sin q1 + c5 g sin(q1 + q2 )]
d11


(26)
+2c3 q1 sin q2 c5 g sin(q1 + q2 ) = 0.

and

B(q2 ) = 0

(30)

holds due to (27). From Lemma A1 in Appendix A, there

exists q2 satisfying (30) if and only if
(c1 c3 )c5 = (c3 c2 )c4 ,

(31)

holds; in this case,

q2 =

(18)

where q1 and q2 are constants satisfying

3c3 c5 cos2 q2 (c3 c4 c1 c5 ) cos q2

(mod 2)

(32)

holds. Therefore, for the Acrobot whose parameters do not

satisfy (31), we know (30) does not hold; this gives a
contradiction. On the other hand, for the Acrobot whose
parameters do satisfy (31), it follows that (31) and (32)
together with (24) and (25) give
2 =

(c3 c2 )c4 (c1 c3 )c5

g cos q1 = 0.
c1 + c2 2c3

(33)

which yields q2 = 0 from (22). This contradicts (32).

Therefore, q1 0 holds, this yields that q1 converges
to a constant denoted as q1 . This means that the Acrobot
will stay at an equilibrium point. (19) holds due to (23),
and (20) holds due to E = 0. Finally, 2 in (21) can be
derived via (19) and (24).
Remark 1: The exposed properties of the mechanical
parameters in Appendix A are vital to accomplishing the
proof of Proposition 1. The analysis of the motion of the
Acrobot for E = 0 is much more difcult than the related
analysis for the Pendubot given in [3] or [7]. This is due
to the different actuation of the two robots.
B. The effectiveness of the energy based control of the
Acrobot
We present a condition on kE and kP in (34) such that
E takes a value of either 0 or its minimum given in (13).
Now we give the following results.
Proposition 2: Consider the Acrobot system (1). Under
the control law (16) with positive parameters kE , kD , kP
satisfying (15) and
kP
2c4 c5 g 2 ,
kE

(34)

and kV > 0, then either of the following statements holds:

706

i). The solution of the closed-loop system converges to

the invariant set M0 described by
q12 =

2(c4 + c5 )g
(1 sin q1 ),
c1 + c2 + 2c3

q2 0,

(35)

and
2

(c2 c4 + c3 c4 c1 c5 c3 c5 )g cos q1
,
c1 + c2 + 2c3

as t .

If (46) holds, we can show that (43) has no solution. Indeed,

(43) is now reduced to q2 +2 cos q1 = 0. This is impossible
when 2 and cos q2 = 1 hold.
Therefore, we will only need to consider the case when
(46) does not hold; this guarantees > 0. From (44), we
need to treat the cases Gy = and Gy = separately.
Case i. Gy =

(36)
ii). The solution of the closed-loop system converges
to the downward equilibrium point (q1 , q1 , q2 , q2 ) =
(/2, 0, 0, 0), which is an unstable equilibrium point of
the closed-loop system.
Proof: Under the control law (16), from Lemma 1, E
is convergent to E .
i). For the case of E = 0, we obtain q2 = 0 from (9).
We can obtain (35) and (36) by putting E = E = 0 and
q2 = q2 = 0 into (17) and (16), respectively. This shows
the statement i).
ii). Consider the case E = 0. It follows from Lemma
1 and Proposition 1 that q1 , q2 are convergent to some
constants q1 and q2 , respectively. In what follows is
dropped for simplicity.
We shall investigate the solutions of (19) and (22). Dene

Since the Y -axis coordinate of the center of mass (CM)

of the Acrobot is c5 Gy /(m1 + m2 ), then Gy < 0 implies
that the CM of the Acrobot is below the horizontal. From
(42), we have

c4
kP
, =
.
c5
c4 c5 g 2 kE
We rewrite (19) and (22) as

Note that (q2 ) is well dened for all q2 . Moreover, we can

show in Appendix B that

cos q1 + cos(q1 + q2 ) = 0,
q2 + ( + 1 Gy ) cos q1 = 0,

(37)

(38)
(39)

Note that (34) is equivalent to 2. Under such

condition, we will show that (38) and (39) have only the
solution
(41)
q1 = /2 (mod 2), q2 = 0.
To start with, we try to delete q1 from (38) and (39). From
(38), we have (+cos q2 ) cos q1 = sin q2 sin q1 , which gives
(42)

This yields that (39) is equivalent to

q2 + ( + 1) cos q1 sin q2 = 0.

G2y = 2 ,
where
(q2 ) =

1 + 2 + 2 cos q2 0.

q2 ((q2 ) + + 1) sin(q2 )/(q2 ) = 0,

which can be rewritten as
q2 ( (q2 )) = 0,
where
(q2 ) =

((q2 ) + + 1) sin q2
.
(q2 )q2

q2 =0

(44)

(49)

(50)

Case ii. Gy =
In this case, the CM of the Acrobot is above the horizontal. From (42), we obtain
cos q1 = sin(q2 )/(q2 ).

(51)

Putting it into (43) gives

q2 ((q2 ) 1) sin(q2 )/(q2 ) = 0,
which can be rewritten as
q2 ( (q2 )) = 0,
where
(q2 ) =

((q2 ) 1) sin q2
.
(q2 )q2

(52)
(53)

Note that (q2 ) is well dened for all q2 . Since we can

show in Appendix C that

(45)

When (q2 ) = 0, we can obtain cos q1 as a function of

q2 by using (42) and (44). Note that (q2 ) = 0 holds only
at
(46)
= 1 and cos q2 = 1.

(q2 ) < 2, for q2 = 0,

(48)

which is free of . Therefore, when 2 holds, (48) has

only solution q2 = 0. Moreover, from (47) and Gy < 0, we
obtain cos q1 = 0 and sin q1 < 0. Therefore, q1 = /2
(mod 2).

(43)

Adding the square of the left hand of (38) to the square of

the right hand of (40) yields

(47)

This yields with (43) that

sup (q2 ) = 2;

respectively, where (21) has been used in obtaining (39),

and
(40)
Gy = sin q1 + sin(q1 + q2 ).

Gy cos q1 = sin q2 .

cos q1 = sin(q2 )/(q2 ).

sup (q2 ) <

q2

4
4
< <2
( + 1)

(54)

holds, therefore, (52) has only solution q2 = 0 when 2.

From (51), we have cos q1 = 0. Since sin q1 > 0 holds
owing to Gy > 0, we obtain q1 = /2 (mod 2). It yields

707

-5

-10

50

100

150

200

250

300

-1
0
5

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

q 1 dot

E

q 1 - /2

from (21) that E = 0 which contradicts the assumption

E = 0. Therefore, Gy = will not occur at all.
Finally, to show the downward equilibrium point (DEP)
is unstable, consider the state (q1 , q2 , q1 , q2 ) = (/2 +

1 , 0,
2 , 0) near the DEP, where
21 +
22 > 0. Let E and
Edown be the energies of the Acrobot at the above state and
at the DEP, respectively. From (7), we have
(c1 + c2 + 2c3 )
22 /2 (c4 + c5 )g(cos
1 + 1)

> 2(c4 + c5 )g = Edown

V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
The validity of the developed theoretical results is veried
via numerical simulation investigation to three types of the
Acrobot described in [1], [5], [10]. Here we only introduce
our numerical simulation results for the Acrobot in [10],
where m1 = 1[kg], m2 = 1[kg], l1 = 1[m], l2 = 2[m],
lc1 = 0.5[m], lc2 = 1[m], I1 = 0.083[kgm2 ], I2 =
0.33[kgm2 ] and g = 9.8[m/s2 ].
Numerical computation of in (14) yields = 0.8578.
For an initial condition q1 (0) = 8/9, q2 (0) = 0, q1 (0) =
0, q2 (0) = 0, we choose kE = 0.5, kV = 45, and according
to (15) and (34), we choose kD = 2(c4 + c5 )kE / =
14.2804, kP = 2c4 c5 g 2 kE = 144.0600.
The simulation results under controller (16) with the
above control parameters are depicted in Figs. 2 and 3.
From Fig. 2, we know that q2 converges to 0, and link

q 2 dot

-2

Fig. 2.

Time responses of states of the Acrobot.

0
-20
-40

50

50

100

150

200

250

300

10
5
0
-5
-10

5
q 1 dot

Since there exists

> 0 such that E < 0 holds for any
(
1 ,
2 ) satisfying 0 <
21 +
22 <
2 , therefore, V (/2 +

1 , 0,
2 , 0) < V (/2, 0, 0, 0) holds no matter how small
the
is. Note V is non-increasing under the control law (16),
then starting from (q1 , q2 , q1 , q2 ) = (/2 +
1 , 0,
2 , 0),
the motion of the Acrobot will not converge to the DEP,
but converge to the set M0 described in (35). This shows
the DEP is unstable.
According to Proposition 2, since the Acrobot can not be
maintained at the DEP in practice, and from the homoclinic
orbit (35), then the Acrobot starting from any initial state,
will eventually be swung up to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the upright equilibrium point, where the controller
can be switched to any locally stabilizing one. Therefore,
the objective of the swing up control for the Acrobot can
be achieved under the conditions shown in Proposition 2.
Finally, we present the following remarks.
Remark 2: The key point in the proof of Proposition 2
is to show that if 2 holds, then (38) (describing the
equilibrium points of the Acrobot) and (39) have only the
solution given by (41), where the elucidation of Cases i and
ii is interesting.
Remark 3: Note that the assumption on the mechanical
parameters needed in [12] is that none of (A4), (A5) and
(31) holds. Such assumption is not needed here. Also,
the condition 2 in this paper is weaker and much
simpler than the corresponding one provided in [12],
where > max{supq2 (0,) (q2 ), supq2 (,2) (q2 )} was
expressed, and the numerical computation was suggested.

-5
0
2

100

150

250

200

300

-5
-8

Fig. 3.

-6

-4

q 1 - /2

-2

Time responses of E, 2 , and phase plot related to q1 .

1 remains swinging while approaching closer and closer to

the vertical. From Fig. 3, we can observe that E converges
to zero, and (q1 , q1 ) converges to homoclinic orbit (35).
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper has provided the complete analysis of the convergence of the energy and the motion of the Acrobot, and
has illustrated clearly several unique characteristics of the
closed-loop system for the Acrobot under the energy based
control. This paper has showed clearly and elegantly how to
choose the control parameters to swing up the Acrobot. This
paper has proved that the energy based control is effective
for swinging up the Acrobot. The simulation results have
also provided to demonstrate the validity of the theoretical
results. Finally, it is expected that the results attained here
will fuel the further studies of the energy based control for
more complicated underactuated mechanical systems.

708

R EFERENCES
[1] M. D. Berkemeier and R. S. Fearing, Tracking fast inverted trajectories of the underactuated Acrobot, IEEE Transactions on Robotics
and Automation, vol. 15, pp. 740-750, 1999.

[2] S. C. Brown and K. M. Passino, Intelligent control for an acrobot,

Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 18, pp. 209-248, 1997.
[3] I. Fantoni and R. Lozano and M. W. Spong, Energy based control
of the Pendubot, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 45,
pp. 725-729, 2000.
[4] I. Fantoni and R. Lozano, Non-linear Control for Underactuated
Mechanical Systems, Springe, Berlin, 2002.
[5] J. Hauser and R. M. Murray, Nonlinear controllers for non-integrable
systems: the Acrobot example, Proceedings of American Control
Conference, pp. 669-670, 1990.
[6] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, third edition, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, 2002.
[7] O. Kolesnichenko and A. S. Shiriaev, Partial stabilization of underactuated Euler-Lagrange systems via a class of feedback transformations, Systems & Controller Letters, vol. 45, pp. 121-132, 2002.
[8] R. Olfati-Saber and A. Megretski, Controller design for a class
of underactuated nonlinear systems, Proceedings of the 37th IEEE
Conference of Decision and Control, pp. 4182-4187, 1998.
[9] M. W. Spong and D. J. Block, The Pendubot: a mechatronic system
for control research and education, Proceedings of the 34th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 555-556, 1995.
[10] M. W. Spong, The swing up control problem for the Acrobot, IEEE
Control Systems Magazine, vol. 15, pp. 49-55, 1995.
[11] M. W. Spong and M. Vidyasagar, Robot Dynamics and Control, New
York, Wiley, 1989.
[12] X. Xin and M. Kaneda, The swing up control for the Acrobot based
on energy control approach, Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, pp. 3261-3266, 2002.

A PPENDIX A. O N SOLVABILITY OF (30) WITH RESPECT

Finally, observe that

 q2 satisfying (A3) is a solution of
(30) if and only if A cos q2 =1 = 0, which is equivalent to
(31). This completes the proof of Lemma A1.
Here we give an example showing that there do exist ci
(i = 1, , 5) satisfying (31). Consider the Acrobot with
lc1 = l1 /2, I1 = m1 l12 /12, lc2 = l2 /2, I2 = m2 l22 /12.
From (c1 c3 )c5 (c3 c2 )c4 = m1 m2 l1 l2 (l1 (2 +
m2 /m1 )l2 )/12, we know that (31) holds if and only if l1 =
(2 + m2 /m1 )l2 holds.

A PPENDIX B. P ROOF OF (50)

Note that (q2 ) is an even function; and (q2 ) 0 for
q2 [(2n 1), 2n] due to sin q2 0, where n is a
positive integer. Therefore, we obtain


sup (q2 ) = sup

cos q2 = 0 ,

(A1)

cos q2 = 1,

(A2)

cos q2 = 1,

(A3)

where 0 = (2c3 c4 + c1 c5 )/(3c3 c5 ). We will show: if (A1)

or (A2) holds, then A(q2 ) = 0 holds for any ci in (5); if
(A3) holds, then A(q2 ) = 0 holds if and only if (31) holds.
First, note that q2 satisfying
 (A1) is a solution of (30)
if and only if 0 1 and A cos q2 =0 = 0. Via a direct
calculation, this is equivalent to

c1 + 2l1 c4 3l1 c5
.
(A4)
c2 c4 + 2l1 c25 = (c1 + 2l1 c4 )c4
However, (A4) does not hold. The detail of proving this fact
is omitted here.
Second, note that q2 satisfying (A2) is a solution of (30)
if and only if

A cos q2 =1 = c3 c5 + c1 c5 c2 c4 c3 c4 = 0
(A5)

4q2 (q2 sin q2 ) > (1 cos q2 )2 ,

c1 c5 c3 c4 ,

(A6)

(q2 )

> 0.

q2 > 0.

(B1)

Multiplying 2(1 + cos q2 ) to the both sides of (B1) gives

4(2 + 2 cos q2 )q2 (q2 sin q2 ) > 2(1 cos q2 ) sin2 q2 ,
which yields together with the fact 1 + 2 2 that
4 2 q2 (q2 sin q2 ) > 2(1 cos q2 ) sin2 q2 .
By adding 2 sin2 q2 to the above inequality to complete the
square, we obtain 2 (2q2 sin q2 )2 > (+1)2 sin2 q2 . Since
q2 > sin q2 > 0 holds for q2 (0, ), then (2q2 sin q2 ) >
( +1) sin q2 . This gives 2q2 ( + +1) sin q2 > 0 which
shows (q2 ) < 2. This completes the proof of (50).
A PPENDIX C. P ROOF OF (54)
Note that (q2 ) is an even function. Since + 1, we
obtain (q2 ) 0 for q2 [2(n 1), (2n 1)] due to
sin q2 0, where n is a positive integer. Therefore,


sup (q2 )
q2

=
=

sup
n

sup

q2 ((2n1),2n)

sup

q2 (,2)

(q2 )

(q2 ).

Using (q2 ) = 2(cos q2 1) sin(q2 )/(( + 1 + )q2 )

and (51), we obtain
sup

q2 (,2)

However, c3 c5 + c1 c5 c2 c4 c3 c4 < 0 follows from the

following inequalities:
c3 c5 < c2 c4 ,

sup

q2 (2(n1),(2n1))

Since supq2 (2(n1),(2n1)) (q2 ) is a strictly decreasing

function of n, then supq2 =0 (q2 ) = supq2 (0,) (q2 ).
Since limq2 0 (q2 ) = 2, it sufces to show (q2 ) < 2
for q2 (0, ).
Next, we establish the following inequality, whose proof
is omitted.

TO THE MECHANICAL PARAMETERS

LEMMA A1: There exists q2 satisfying (30) if and only

if (31) holds. In this case, q2 = (mod 2).
Proof: From B(q2 ) = 0, the possible solutions of (30)
are q2 satisfying one of

q2 =0

(q2 )

2(1 cos q2 )
1
| cos q1 | sup
.
q2 (,2) ( + 1 + )
q2 (,2) q2
sup

This completes the proof of (54).

whose proof is omitted here.

709