Automatica 42 (2006) 473 480

www.elsevier.com/locate/automatica

Brief paper

Cartesian control of robots without dynamic model and observer design

Marco A. Arteaga a, , Adrin Castillo-Snchez a , Vicente Parra-Vega b
a Departamento de Control y Robtica, Divisin de Ingeniera Elctrica de la Facultad de Ingeniera, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico,

Apdo. Postal 70-256, Mxico, D. F., 04510, Mxico

b Seccin de Mecatrnica, Departamento de Ingeniera Elctrica, Centro de Investigacin y de Estudios Avanzados del I.P.N., Apdo. Postal 14-740,

Mxico, D. F., 07360, Mxico

Received 18 November 2004; received in revised form 6 April 2005; accepted 8 November 2005

Abstract
Most control algorithms for rigid robots are given in joint coordinates. However, since the task to be accomplished is expressed in Cartesian
coordinates, inverse kinematics has to be computed in order to implement the control law. Alternatively, one can develop the necessary theory
directly in workspace coordinates. This has the disadvantage of a more complex robot model. In this paper, a control-observer scheme is given
to achieve exact Cartesian tracking without the knowledge of the manipulator dynamics nor computing inverse kinematics. Also, only joint
measurements are used.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tracking control; Observer design; Cartesian workspace

1. Introduction
Robot manipulators are high nonlinear systems. To achieve
accurate tracking control, many schemes have been proposed
in the last decades. Among the main problems which have to
be solved, two of the most important are the lack of velocity
measurements and of an exact robot model. One of the earliest
schemes designed to work only with joint measurements is the
one by Nicosia and Tomei (1990). In that paper, a nonlinear
observer is presented which can be used to achieve tracking
control. On the other hand, to handle an inaccurate model, some
adaptive and robust schemes have been proposed (Slotine &
Li, 1987; Spong, 1992). When using a robust technique, an
extra term is introduced in the control law to achieve ultimately
boundedness of the trajectory errors. An adaptive algorithm
may be much more complex and is aimed at estimating on line

This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was
recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Masaki
Yamakita under the direction of Editor Mituhiko Araki.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 55 56 22 30 13; fax: +52 55 56 16 10 73.
E-mail addresses: arteaga@verona.-p.unam.mx (M.A. Arteaga),
adrian@verona.-p.unam.mx (A. Castillo-Snchez), vparra@cinvestav.mx
(V. Parra-Vega).

0005-1098/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2005.11.004

the unknown parameters to get exact tracking. More recently,

Parra-Vega, Arimoto, Liu, Hirzinger, and Akella (2003)
proposed a sliding PID control, which is able to achieve an
exact tracking without any knowledge of the model for
implementation.
Of course, it is not enough to solve these problems separately. Thus, some robust control schemes have been proposed,
which need only position measurements for control and do
not require an accurate robot model. In Canudas de Wit and
Fixot (1991), a sliding observer is developed. In Berghuis and
Nijmeijer (1994), a quite simple control-observer scheme is
proposed which notably does not need any knowledge of the
robot model parameters nor of its structure to achieve uniform
ultimate boundedness of the tracking and observation errors.
Also, a robust estimator is presented in Qu, Dawson, Dorsey,
and Dufe (1995) which achieves uniform ultimate boundedness as well. In Arteaga-Prez and Kelly (2004) a quite simple linear observer is proposed together with a robust control
scheme. The experimental results suggest that numerical differentiation may decrease the system performance, so that a
(digitalized) observer should be used whenever possible. There
are less adaptive laws in conjunction with observers. A result is
given in Arteaga-Prez (2003), although only uniform ultimate
boundedness is achieved.

474

M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 480

All the algorithms for rigid robots mentioned before are given
in joint coordinates. However, since the task to be accomplished
is usually expressed in Cartesian coordinates, inverse kinematics has to be computed for implementation. Alternatively, one
can develop the necessary theory directly in workspace coordinates (Murray, Li, & Sastry, 1994). Since the new model
owns basically the same properties than the original one, control schemes only have to be rewritten in taskspace form to
be used. For instance, in Caccavale, Natale, and Villani (1999)
and Xian, de Queiroz, Dawson, and Walker (2004), control
approaches designed in taskspace coordinates and which do
not require velocity measurements are proposed. Both schemes
use the unit quaternion to deal with the orientation tracking.
However, they also have the disadvantage of using the robot
model both for the controller and the (nonlinear) observer. On
the other hand, in Takegaki and Arimoto (1981), a PD control
approach is presented which does not require the robot model
nor inverse kinematics. However, it only guarantees position
control and velocity measurements are needed.
In this paper, a control scheme based on that given in
Parra-Vega et al. (2003) is presented. Thus, no robot model
is needed for implementation, while the design is carried out
directly in taskspace coordinates. Furthermore, a linear observer is employed to avoid velocity measurements. While
the control-observer scheme is quite simple, exact tracking
control is achieved. The orientation problem is dealt using the
analytical Jacobian instead of the geometric one. Experimental
results are given to support the theory.
The paper is organized as follows. The robot model is given in
Section 2. The tracking controller with linear observer scheme
is proposed in Section 3. Section 4 presents experimental results. The paper concludes in Section 5.

Property 2. By using the Christoffel symbols (of the rst kind)

to compute C(q, q ), H(q)

2C(q, q ) is skew symmetric.
Property 3. With a proper denition of the robot model
parameters, it holds
H(q)q + C(q, q )q + Dq + g(q) =
= Y(q, q , q ),

(2)

where Y(q, q , q ) Rnp is the regressor and  Rp is a

constant vector of parameters.
3. Control-observer design
Consider the following well-known relationship


p
x = = J(q)q,


(3)

where J(q) Rnn is the analytical Jacobian, p R(nm) is

the end-effector position and  Rm is a minimal representation of the orientation of the end-effector. Usually, n = 6 and
m = 3. Whenever the robot is not in a singularity, one has also
the following relationship:
q = J1 (q)x.

(4)

Assumption 1. The robot does not reach any singularity.

Assumption 1 is made to simplify the design of the control
law. It can be removed as explained in Remark 1. Suppose that
velocity measurements are not available. Then, an estimate of
x is given by x , and the observation error is
zx x .

(5)

Similar to q o in Arteaga-Prez and Kelly (2004), it is dened

2. Robot model and some properties

x o x
z z,

(6)

The dynamics of a rigid robot arm with revolute joints can

adequately be described using the EulerLagrange equations of
motion (Sciavicco & Siciliano, 2000), resulting in

where
z Rnn is a diagonal positive denite matrix. We

propose the linear observer

H(q)q + C(q, q )q + Dq + g(q) =
,

x = x o +
z z + kd z,

(7)

x o = x d
x (x x d ) ksd + kd
z z,

(8)

(1)

where q Rn is the vector of generalized joint coordinates,

H(q) Rnn is the symmetric positive denite inertia matrix,
C(q, q )q Rn is the vector of Coriolis and centrifugal torques,
g(q) Rn is the vector of gravitational torques, D Rnn is
the positive semidenite diagonal matrix accounting for joint
viscous friction coefcients, and
Rn is the vector of torques
acting at the joints.
Let us denote the largest (smallest) eigenvalue of a matrix by
max () (
min ()). By recalling that revolute joints
are considered, the following properties can be established
(Arteaga-Prez, 1998):
Property 1. It holds
h
q, x
H
Rn , and 0 <
h

H < , with
h minqRn
min (H(q)),

H maxqRn
max (H(q)).
x2
xT H(q)x

x2

where xd is the desired bounded trajectory for x, with rst and

second derivatives bounded and chosen not to pass through
or close to a singularity,
x Rnn is a diagonal positive
denite matrix, k and kd are positive constants and sd Rn is
to be dened later, while an explanation of its meaning is given
in Appendix B. Even though it is not necessary for stability
purposes, it is convenient to set x o (0) =
z z(0) kd z(0) to
get x (0) = 0.
The tracking error in Cartesian coordinates is given by

xx xd .

(9)

To design the tracking controller, let us dene

x r = x d
x (x xd ) + sd K ,

(10)

M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 480

475

Remark 1. The expression far away enough from any

singularity used in Theorem 1 is quite fuzzy. It is made to
validate Assumption 1. Note that one could remove it. The procedure consists in dening a subset of the dextrous workspace,
say Dx , free of singularities. Then, it is not enough to choose
xd Dx . In fact, since x =
x + xd , x could leave Dx during
the transient response. Thus, if one can compute a maximum
for
x, a subregion of Dx , say Ddx , can been chosen for xd so
that x never leaves Dx . In general, this may be very complex.
However, if one assumes that the initial velocity is zero, then
it is possible to have the bound for
x as function of the initial tracking and observation errors. (Because the initial state
(
x(0),
x(0), z(0), z(0)) is fully known now.)
Fig. 1. Diagram of the control-observer scheme.

3.1. Discussion
where K Rnn is a diagonal positive denite matrix and
 Rn , with
s = x x d +
x (x xd )x +
x x ,

(11)

s1 = s sd ,

(12)

kt

sd = s(0)e ,
 t
=
{K s1 () + sign(s1 ())} d,

(13)
(0) = 0,

(14)

where K Rnn is a diagonal positive denite matrix and

sign(s1 )[sign(s11 ) sign(s1n )] ,
T

(15)

with s1i element of s1 , i = 1, . . . , n. Alternatively to (14) one

can use
 = K s1 + sign(s1 ).

(16)

Finally, we dene
so xo x r .

= Kp J1 (q)(
x +
x
x + K ),

Theorem 1. Consider a bounded continuous desired trajectory

xd , with bounded rst and second derivatives, which is chosen
far away enough from any singularity. Then, for the control law
(18)

with Kp Rnn a positive denite matrix, a proper combination of the gains k, kd ,
x ,
z , K , K and Kp can always be
found so that tracking and observation errors (
x,
x, z, z) are
bounded and tend to zero.
A detailed mathematical development of the proof, together
with the necessary conditions for the controller-observer gains,
are given in Appendix B.

(19)

with sd 0 for a large time t. But, since we are in the case

when the observation errors are zero, then s1 in (12) becomes
s1 =
x +
x
x. Thus, in view of  in (14), we can see that
we have in fact a nonlinear PID, which can be rewritten as

= Kp J1
x
x Kp J1 K  Kp J1
x .


      
P

(17)

To understand better how the control-observer approach works,

consider Fig. 1. As can be seen, after reading the joint angles
q, one can compute by means of direct kinematics the vector
x. This is the only information the observer needs. The rest of
the variables can be computed in the order shown.
Now, a theorem can be established.

= Kp J1 (q)so ,

To get some insight about how gains can be properly tuned,

consider rst of all kd . It should be set large enough, as it can
be appreciated from the proof in Appendix B (see (B.38)). This
should not be surprising, since kd is the observer gain. Now,
to understand better the rest of the variables, we proposed the
following approach. In view of the fact that we do know how
to choose kd , suppose that, as guaranteed by Theorem 1, the
observation errors are zero for a large time t, i.e. z=0 and z =0,
which in turn means that x = x and x = x . In this case, we can
write the control law (18) as

(20)

In view of (20), one concludes that all gains should be small

but
x , which can be tuned large. Now, we have some simple
rules to tune the controller-observer scheme. As to
z , we can
choose it to be equal to
x , as a particular case of our approach.
Of course, trial and error can be used to improve performance.
4. Experimental results
In this section, the theory of Section 3 is tested. The test
bed consists of the rigid robot A465 of CRS Robotics (Fig. 2).
Although this manipulator has six degrees of freedom, for simplicity, we use only joints 2, 3, and 5 to have a planar manipulator with three degrees of freedom. Furthermore, we rename
them as 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Note that, since the robot model is not needed for control
implementation, the motor dynamics of the actuators must not
be computed. As pointed out in Sciavicco and Siciliano (2000),
it is
 

px
l1 c1 + l2 c12 + l3 c123
x = py = l1 s1 + l2 s12 + l3 s123 ,
(21)

q1 + q 2 + q 3

M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 480

[mm]

[mm]

476

2
4

2
0

[m]

0.42
0

8
t [s]

10

12

14

[m]

10
t [s]

15

10
t [s]

15

2
4

15
(f)

16
4
[V]

0.36
0.34
0.32

2
0
2

0.3
0

(b)

[]

10
t [s]

15

Fig. 4. Tracking and observation errors: (a)
x; (b) zx ; (c)
y; (d) zy ;
(e)
; (f) z .

0.44

(a)

8
t [s]

10

12

14

16

10

12

14

16

10

12

14

16

10

12

14

16

t [s]

(a)
4
[V]

50
40
30
20
10
0

2
0
2

0
(c)

(e)

0.46

0.4

10
t [s]

(d)

2
4

15

[]

[]

(c)

10
t [s]

(b)

Fig. 2. Robot A465 of CRS Robotics.

15

[mm]

[mm]

(a)

10
t [s]

8
t [s]

10

12

14

16

8
t [s]

(b)
4
[V]

Fig. 3. (a) px ; (b) py ; (c) . () Actual trajectory; (- - -) desired trajectory.

where l1 = 0.305 m, l2 = 0.33 m, l3 = 0.076 m, c1 = cos(q1 ),

c12 = cos(q1 + q2 ), c123 = cos(q1 + q2 + q3 ), s1 = sin(q1 ),
s12 = sin(q1 + q2 ), s123 = sin(q1 + q2 + q3 ). To implement the
control-observer scheme, we have to compute the analytical
Jacobian, given by


l1 s1 l2 s12 l3 s123 l2 s12 l3 s123 l3 s123
J = l1 c1 + l2 c12 + l3 c123
l2 c12 + l3 c123
l3 c123 .
1
1
1
x(0) = [0.4076 m 0.301 m 0.5 ]T is the initial position of the robot. Our goal is to take it to a nal po

T
sition x(tf ) = 0.45 m 0.35 m 45 , with the nal time
tf = 15 s. The initial condition for the desired trajectories are
xd (0) = [0.406 m 0.305 m 0 ]T . Fifth order polynomial will

2
0
2

(c)

8
t [s]

Fig. 5. Input voltages: (a) Joint 1; (b) Joint 2; (c) Joint 3.

be computed for each variable to follow a soft trajectory. The

multiple gains are given by Kp = 8I
x =
z = diag{19 30 24},
K = diag{8 14 10}, K = 0.08 I, kd = 30, and k = 0.01. Fig. 3
shows the desired and real trajectories. As can be appreciated,
the results are pretty good. In Fig. 4, tracking and observation
errors are shown. They are smaller than 1 mm or 0.5 during
most of the motion. Finally, Fig. 5 shows the input voltages.
Note that there are neither chattering nor saturation.

M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 480

477

If si 
si < for all time, then  and s1 are bounded for all
time.

5. Conclusions
The tracking control problem for rigid robots without model
available nor velocity measurements has been studied in this
paper. Furthermore, the proposed scheme is designed in Cartesian coordinates, so that inverse kinematics is not necessary to
carry out a given task. The observer computes the not measurable velocities directly in Cartesian coordinates as well. It has
been shown that tracking and observation errors tend to zero,
under the condition that no singularity is reached. This assumption is made for simplicity, but a subregion of the dextrous
workspace and proper gains can always be chosen to guarantee
it. Experimental results show that the control-observer scheme
works well, both for orientation and position. As future work,
the unit quaternion will be introduced to see its performance.
Acknowledgements

Proof. One can use Theorem 2 to prove that  is bounded, with

D = Rn and V (t, ) = 21 T , so that
1 () = 2 () = 21 2 .

(A.7)

It is straightforward to get
V
21
min (K K )2
[ 21
min (K K ) (
max (K )si +

n)].

(A.8)

Then, if

2(
max (K )si + n)

 
,

min (K K )

(A.9)

one has
This work is based on research supported by the DGAPAUNAM under Grants IN119003 and IN116804 and by the
CONACYT.
Appendix A. Auxiliary theorem and lemma
In this appendix, we present an auxiliary theorem and lemma
for the proof of Theorem 1. First, consider the following wellknown theorem.
Theorem 2 (Khalil, 2002, pp. 172). Let D Rn be a domain
that contains the origin and V : [0, ) D R be a continuously differentiable function such that

V
21
min (K K )2  W3 .

(A.10)

Since D = Rn , a positive value r can always be found to satisfy

(A.3). Furthermore, since (0) = 0 as given in (14), it is easy to
show that 
max . Finally, since  is bounded, from (A.6)
s1 must be bounded. 
Appendix B. Proof of Theorem 1
In this appendix, the proof of Theorem 1 is presented. Firstly,
dene
rx x o = z +
z z,

(B.1)

1 (x)
V (t, x)
2 (x),

(A.1)

jV
jV
+
f(t, x)
W3 (x) x  > 0,
jt
jx

sx x x r =
x +
x
x
x z sd + K ,

(B.2)

(A.2)

q r J1 (q)xr ,

(B.3)

sr q q r = J1 (q)sx .

(B.4)

t 0 and x D, where 1 and 2 are class K functions,

W3 (x) is a continuous positive denite function and with f :
[0, ) D Rn piecewise continuous in t and locally Lipschitz in x on [0, ) D. Take r > 0 such that Br = {x
Rn |x
r} D and suppose that

Then, one can rewrite (1) as

 < 1
2 (1 (r)).

or

(A.3)

H(sr + q r ) + C(sr + q r ) + D(sr + q r ) + g =

Then, there exits a class KL function  and for every initial state
x(t0 ), satisfying x(t0 )
1
2 (1 (r)), there is T 0 (dependent
on x(t0 ) and ) such that the solution of x = f(t, x) satises

H(q)sr + C(q, q )sr + Dsr =
Ya ,

x
(x(t0 ), t t0 ) t0
t
t0 + T

(A.4)

x
1
1 (2 ())

(A.5)

Ya Y(q, q , q r , q r ) = H(q)qr + C(q, q )qr

+ Dqr + g(q).

t t0 + T .

Moreover, if D = Rn and 1 belongs to class K , then

(A.4)(A.5) hold for any initial state x(t0 ), with no restriction
on how large  is. 

(B.5)

(B.6)

where
(B.7)

By rewriting (18) as

= Kp sr + Kp J1 (q)r,

(B.8)

Eq. (B.6) becomes

Lemma 1. Consider (14)(16), and suppose you have the relationship

H(q)sr + C(q, q )sr + KDP sr = Kp J1 r Ya ,

si = s1 + K .

where KDP D + Kp .

(A.6)

(B.9)

478

M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 480

For the observer error dynamics, rst of all we note that (7)
can be written as x = x o +
z z + kd z, so that by substituting in
(8) one gets after some manipulation
r = sx kd r K .

(B.10)

Note that (B.10) is equivalent to

J1 r = kd J1 r + J1 sx + J 1 sx J 1 sx
J1 K ,

q r = J1 (xd
x
x +
x z + sd K ).
(B.11)

where J 1 = (d/dt)(J1 ). Since sr = J1 sx + J 1 sx , by multiplying both sides of (B.11) by JT H(q) and taking into account
(B.6) one gets after some manipulation
Hr r = kd Hr r Cr sx Dr sx + JT

JTYa  Hr K ,

(B.12)

with
Hr JT H(q)J1 ,

(B.13)

Cr JT (C(q, q )J1 + H(q)J 1 ),

(B.14)

Dr JT DJ1 .

(B.15)

It can be shown that Hr and Cr satisfy Property 2 (Murray

et al., 1994). Furthermore, since we are assuming that J1 (q)
exists, both Hr and Dr (q) are positive denite and Property 1
holds. Since sx = so + r, by taking into account (B.8) and some
manipulation one nally gets
Hr r + Cr r + HDR r = Cr so Dr so JT Kp J1 so
JTYa  Hr K ,

(B.17)

(a) First of all, we show that if y is bounded by ymax , then any

other signal is bounded. This proceeds as follows. From
(10) to (12) one gets
(B.18)

Hence
sx = x x r = r + s1 + K 
z z.

(B.19)

By dening si sx r +
z z, one has an equation of the

form (A.6). Since sx = J(q)sr , it must be bounded because
revolute joints are being considered. Also, in view of (B.1),
z is bounded. Thus, si is bounded and so are  and s1 ,
according to Lemma 1. On the other hand, from (B.2) one
has

x +
x
x = sx +
x z + sd K .

This means that

q r = J1 (xd
x
x +
x z ksd K )

+ J x r .

(B.22)

Since from (16) we know that  is bounded, this means

that q r is also bounded. This, in turn, means that Ya  in
(B.7) is bounded. Thus, both sr in (B.9) and r in (B.16)
are bounded. Finally, note that si = sx r +
z z is then

bounded, with sx = J(q)s

r + J(q)sr .
(b) The next step is to show that, with a proper choice of gains,
one can actually achieve y
ymax , whenever xd and at
least its rst and second derivatives are bounded. So as to
simplify the discussion, let us think that ymax is a given
value. Now dene
V (y) =

1 T
2 y My,

(B.23)

with M block diag{H(q) Hr }. Clearly, it satises

1 y2
V (y)

2 y2 ,

(B.24)

1  21 minn
min (M(q)),

(B.25)

2  21 maxn
max (M(q)).

(B.26)

qR

as stated for (B.9) and (B.16). Note that so = J(q)sr r. Now,

we are able to prove the theorem. We do this in three steps.

x r = x s1 K .

(B.21)

with
(B.16)

with HDR kd Hr + Dr . Next, we choose

y[sTr rT ]

But, since
x = x xd , and xd and its derivatives are

bounded, one concludes that x and x are also bounded.
Because q = J(q)1 x , q must be bounded. Furthermore,
in view of Assumption 1, q must be bounded since no
singularity has been reached. Consider now, q r = J1 (q)xr ,
which is bounded. It can be written as

(B.20)

The dynamic equation for
x represents a stable linear lter

with bounded input, so that
x and
x must be bounded.

qR

Now we use V (y) in (B.23) and Theorem 2, with 1 =

1 y2 and 2 =
2 y2 . By using Property 2, the derivative of V along (B.9) and (B.16) is given by
V = sTr KDP sr + sTr KP J1 (q)r sTrYa 
rT HDR r rT Cr so
rT Dr so rT JT (q)Kp J1 (q)so
rT JT (q)Ya  rT Hr K .

(B.27)

While V is positive denite for all y R2n , to apply

Theorem 2 it is necessary to nd a region D for which
(A.2) be satised. We dene
D{y R2n |y
ymax }.

(B.28)

In this region, as shown in item (a), bounds can be found

so that one has
V

min (KP )sr 2 kd
hr r2
+
max (KP )c2 sr r
+ (c3 + cDr +
max (KP )c22 )r(c1 sr  + r)
+ cya (sr  + c2 r) + cya c4 r,
(B.29)

M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 480

479

c1  maxn J(q),

(B.30)

where sipmax is a bound for si and |s1 | = |s11 | + + |s1n |,

with s1j element of s1 , j = 1, . . . , n. Since s1 
|s1 |, we
get

c2  maxn J1 (q),

(B.31)

s1 

cDr 
max (D)c22 ,

(B.32)

By dening 
min (K ) sipmax > 0 with a proper choice

of
min (K ), we get

Cr 
c3 ,

(B.33)

Ya 
cya ,

(B.34)



pmax ,

(B.35)

where
qR

qR

c4 

Hr
max (K )pmax

.
cya

(B.36)

hr and
Hr are dened for Hr likewise as
h and
H in

Property 1 for H(q). c3 , cya and pmax are nite positive
constants. If the gains are chosen to satisfy

min (Kp )1 +  +

cya (1 + c2 + c4 )
,


kd
hr (c3 + cDr +
max (KP )c22 ) + 

cya (1 + c2 + c4 ) 1
+
+ (
max (Kp )c2

4
+ c1 (c3 + cDr +
max (KP )c22 ))2 ,

(B.37)

(B.38)

(B.39)

(B.40)

(B.41)

Note that si = sx r +
z z, so that it must be bounded

according to the discussion of Step (a). Then, if you have
V1 = 21 sT1 s1 = 21 s1 2 , one can compute
s1 

ds1 


min (K K )s1 2
dt

min (K )|s1 | + s1 sipmax ,

(B.44)

s = x +
x x = sd = s(0)ekt ,

(B.45)

with x = x xd . Since ekt tends to zero, we have that

s 0. This in turn means that x and x will tend to zero.
However, this only guarantees that x xd and x x d .
Note that if x = 0 and x = 0, then
x = z and
x = z.
Hence, (B.2) becomes by computing its derivative
(B.46)

But from (B.10) we get

(B.47)

Then, from (B.46) to (B.47) one has

Finally, to apply Theorem 2 we just have to be sure that a

constant r can be found so that (A.3) is satised. In fact,
since in this case  is a control parameter, this goal can always be achieved by setting it small enough. Furthermore,
one only has to assume that the condition on y(0) is fullled.
(c) Till now we have shown that y is bounded. We still have
to prove that tracking and observation errors tend to zero.
First of all, from (16) and (B.19) one obtains
s1 = K K s1 K sign(s1 ) + si .

(B.43)

We have to show that s1 = 0 in a nite time tr . This can

be done by integrating to get tr
s1 (0)/, as usual in
sliding mode theory.1 From t tr one has s1 (t) = 0, so
that from (11) to (13) one gets

sx r = kd r + K .

 and  are positive constants. Then, if y  > 0 it is

V
y2  W3 (y).

ds1 

.
dt

sx r =
z z + ksd + K .

one gets
V
y2 y


cya (1+ c2 + c4 )
y
cya (1+ c2 + c4 ) .


ds1 

(
min (K ) sipmax )s1 .
dt

(B.42)

(kd I +
z )z + kd
z z = ksd .

(B.48)

Eq. (B.48) represents a stable linear lter for z, so that z

and z tend to zero (see sd ). This in turn means that
x and

x do tend to zero as well.

References
Arteaga-Prez, M. A. (1998). On the properties of a dynamic model of exible
robot manipulators. ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, 120, 814.
Arteaga-Prez, M. A. (2003). Robot control and parameter estimation with
only joint position measurements. Automatica, 39, 6773.
Arteaga-Prez, M. A., & Kelly, R. (2004). Robot control without velocity
measurements: New theory and experimental results. IEEE Transactions
on Robotics and Automation, 20(2), 297308.

1 s = s(0)ekt makes that s (0) = s(0) s = 0 at t = 0. In other

d
1
d
words, s1 (t) = 0 for all t. At this point, it is important to understand that
sd is aimed at improving transient response, since you have the soft signal
s(0)ekt as input for x +
x x in (B.45). Note that sd is NOT necessary
for stability nor for the boundedness of the different signals in the controlobserver approach. In fact, if it were not used, s1 would become s and would
be bounded for all time. At t = tr , one would have s = x +
x x = 0, so that
x , x would tend to zero anyway.

480

M.A. Arteaga et al. / Automatica 42 (2006) 473 480

Berghuis, H., & Nijmeijer, H. (1994). Robust control of robots via linear
estimated state feedback. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 39(10),
21592162.
Caccavale, F., Natale, C., & Villani, L., 1999. Taskspace tracking control
without velocity measurements. In Proceedings of the IEEE international
conference on robotics and automation (pp. 512517), Detroit, Michigan,
USA.
Canudas de Wit, C., & Fixot, N. (1991). Robot control via robust estimated
state feedback. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 36(12), 1497
1501.
Khalil, H. K. (2002). Nonlinear systems. (3rd ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice-Hall.
Murray, R. M., Li, Z., & Sastry, S. S. (1994). A mathematical introduction
to robotic manipulation. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Nicosia, S., & Tomei, P. (1990). Robot control by using only joint position
measurements. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 35(9), 1058
1061.
Parra-Vega, V., Arimoto, S., Liu, Y.-H., Hirzinger, G., & Akella, P. (2003).
Dynamic sliding PID control for tracking of robot manipulators: Theory
and experiments. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 19(6),
967976.
Qu, Z., Dawson, D. M., Dorsey, J. F., & Dufe, J. D. (1995). Robust estimation
and control of robotic manipulators. Robotica, 13, 223231.
Sciavicco, L., & Siciliano, B. (2000). Modeling and control of robot
manipulators. (2nd ed.), London, Great Britain: Springer.
Slotine, J. J. E., & Li, W. (1987). On the adaptive control of robot
manipulators. International Journal of Robotics Research, 6(3), 4959.
Spong, M. W. (1992). On the robust control of robot manipulators. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 37(11), 17821786.
Takegaki, M., & Arimoto, S. (1981). A new feedback method for dynamic
control of manipulators. ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, 102(2), 119125.
Xian, B., de Queiroz, M. S., Dawson, D., & Walker, I. (2004). Taskspace
tracking control of robot manipulators via quaternion feedback. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 20(1), 160167.

Marco Antonio Arteaga-Prez was born

in Huejutla de Reyes, Hidalgo, Mexico, on
September 9, 1967. He received the B.S. degree
in computer engineering and the M.S. degree in
electrical engineering from the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico (UNAM), in 1991,
and 1993, respectively. In 1998, he received
the Dr.-Ing. degree from the Gerhard-Mercator
University, Duisburg, Germany. Since 1998 he
is a Professor at the Department of Electrical
Engineering of the School of Engineering at
the National University of Mexico. His main
research interests are robotics and control.
Adrin Castillo-Snchez received the Engineers Mechanical-Electrician title and the
master degree in Electric Engineering with specialty in Control in 2003 and 2004, respectively,
at the Faculty of Engineering of the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico (UNAM).
Since 2002, he is professor at the Faculty of
Engineering of the UNAM and since 2004 he
is also professor at the Universidad Autnoma
de la Ciudad de Mxico in Mexico City.

Vicente Parra-Vega carried out doctoral studies

in the Tokyo University, Japan, in 1995 under the
supervision of Prof. Suguru Arimoto; and a postdoctoral leave in the Institute of Robotics and
Mechatronics of the German Aerospace Agency
in 2000 under the supervision of Prof. Gerd
Hirzinger. He has published more than 100 journal and conference articles in the areas of robot
control, haptic interfaces, visual servoing and
mechatronics. Since 1995, he has been in the
Mechatronics Division of the Research Center
for Advanced Studies in Mexico City.