Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197

www.elsevier.com/locate/na
Dynamics modeling of nonholonomic mechanical
systems: Theory and applications
El zbieta JarzeRbowska

Institute of Aircraft Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-665 Warsaw,
Nowowiejska 24 Street, Poland
Abstract
The paper presents a dynamics modeling method that enables generation of motion equations for
mechanical systems subjected to nonholonomic constraints of arbitrary order. The method referred
to as generalized program motion equations (GPME) method includes, as special cases, modeling
methods based on Lagranges equations with multipliers, Appells, Maggis, or Nielsens equations.
The theoretical framework we present is illustrated with an example from a control eld. We selected
the control application, since the dynamic models are directly applicable in control algorithmdesigns.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nonholonomic constraints; Program constraints; Constrained dynamics
1. Introduction
Nonholonomic mechanical systems have been studied in classical mechanics for a long
time but they still receive much attention, since numerous applications of nonholonomic
systems make the research topic active. There is still a need for a theoretical base for
research applications, for example these associated with wheeled vehicles and spacecrafts,
or underactuated ground or underwater vehicles, which are all nonholonomic systems.
Dynamics modeling of nonholonomic systems is not only a research topic itself but also it
is an input to other areas, for example to nonlinear control.

Tel.: +48 22 6607128; fax: +48 22 6282587.

E-mail address: elajarz@meil.pw.edu.pl.
0362-546X/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.na.2005.02.092
e186 E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197
The history of development of mechanics of constrained systems is extraordinarily rich.
Some nice overviews of main results can be found, for example in [2,3,5,12,15,16,18,19].
At the beginning of the XXth century it was observed that for some systems, like electro-
mechanical systems, motion equations do not have the formof Lagranges equations [15]. A
newtrend has been noticed since then, i.e. a trend of leaving Lagranges equations approach.
In the paper, we follow that trend and pay special attention to results by Nielsen, Tzenoff,
Mangeron and Deleanu [13,17]. Their works were the basis for the author to develop some
extensions of their results. Classical analytical methods can be applied to systems with
nonholonomic constraints of the rst order and Appell equations can deal with systems
subjected to second-order constraints. In the paper we consider systems with constraints
that can be of high order. They can be of a non-material type, i.e. not given by the Nature
and we refer to them as program constraints. Robotics is an example of the area where a
non-material constraint concept becomes evident [811,14,18,19]. Robots are designed to
perform work and many requirements on their performance may be specied by program
constraint equations, which can be algebraic or high-order differential equations. Hence,
we go beyond the scope of classical analytical mechanics.
Control theory, to which we apply our theoretical results, has had a fruitful association
with analytical mechanics from its birth. This historical relationship was conrmed during
the two past decades with the emergence of a geometric theory for nonlinear control systems
closely linked to the modern geometric formulation of analytical mechanics. The shared
evolution of these elds has reected the needs of solving practical problems and it resulted
in development of both domains. Now, engineers face interdisciplinary problems, which
require a kind of integrated approach. This approach, in the authors opinion, provides a rich
set of models and control design algorithms of a practical interest. The paper proposes an
idea of such an integrated approach to constrained systems modeling and tracking control.
For the rst time we introduce dynamic models of systems with arbitrary order constraints
to control theory to benet in increasing the scope of tracking possible motions.
The objective of the paper is to present latest results in dynamics modeling of mechanical
systems subjected to nonholonomic constraints of arbitrary order. We also demonstrate
some control applications of these theoretical results. The selection of control applications
is not coincidental. One central concern of the nonlinear control theory is the formulation
of models for nonholonomic systems and their generalizations. The modeling methods
that have been used in the control theory so far were classical dynamics methods. The
consequence was that the scope of the constraint representation was limited to the scope
of constraint equations the classical method could deal with. In the paper we present some
modeling methods control theory does not take advantage of and which could extend control
applications. The presentation is based mostly on authors research and it demonstrates the
progress that has been made in nonlinear dynamics methods.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present constraint classications
and an overview of constraint sources listed in classical analytical mechanics and used in
control applications. A program constraint concept and a unied constraint representation
are presented based on numerous examples of nonmaterial constraints that can specify tasks
mechanical systems are to perform. In Section 3 we present classical dynamics methods
for modeling of constrained systems. The presentation is focused on equations, from which
control applications would benet more than from Lagranges equations with multipliers,
E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197 e187
for instance. In Section 4 we present the generalized program motion equations (GPME)
method. Section 5 is devoted to application of constrained dynamics models. Specically,
we develop a constrained dynamics model for a two-wheeled robot and apply it to a program
motion tracking. Section 6 concludes the paper and presents some future research prospects.
2. A unied representation of constraint equations
The concept of constraints in classical mechanics, i.e. mechanics based on the
EulerLagrange or Hamilton approaches and their modications, is based on the assump-
tion that constraints are given a priori and they are put upon a mechanical system through
other bodies or physical systems. These constraints, position and kinematic, are referred
to as material constraints and are known and given by the Nature. This understanding
of the constraint concept and its nature are also reected in the common assumption that
there are two kinds of situations when nonholonomic constraints arise: when bodies are
in contact with each other and roll without slipping or at angular momentum conserva-
tion in a multibody system [2,3,6,12,14,18,19]. Material constraints are a signicant class
of engineering motion restrictions but looking at some problems it is not enough to limit
constraints to this class. For example, design or operation problems are formulated in a
different order, i.e. before a system is designed we specify requirements, i.e. constraints
on its performance. Tasks to do are excellent examples of such constraints. The constraints
are formulated rst and then we look for modeling methods to describe the system motion
according to the constraints or to control the system. Generally, these constraint sources are
not in other bodies. Many such non-material constraints may arise as performance, design,
operation or safety requirements and be specied analytically by algebraic or differential
equations. Other example is a constraint on a free robot link that has been shown to be a
second order nonholonomic and an underactuated system is also the example of the second
order nonholonomic system. In navigation of wheeled mobile robots, to avoid wheel slip-
page and mechanical shock during motion, dynamic constraints such as acceleration limits
have to be taken into account. In path planning problems, for car-like robots, to secure
motion smoothness two additional constraints are added. They are put upon a trajectory
curvature and its time derivative so the constraint equations are of the second and third
orders, respectively. Driving and task constraints are other examples of the non-material
constraints. The earliest formulation of the non-material constraint known to the author is
that by Appell [1] who described such constraints as those that can be realized not through
a direct contact. Another one is by Grioli [4], where a condition for some rigid body mo-
tion has been formulated in the form of a second order nonholonomic constraint equation.
These new constraint sources were the motivation to formulate the extended concept of the
constraint representation at the beginning of the XXth century and to call constraints any
analytical formulations like

[
(t, q
1
, . . . , q
o
, q
1
, . . . , q
o
) = 0, [ = 1, . . . , b, b <n, (1)
where q is an n-dimensional coordinate vector. The constraint classication that exists in
classical analytical mechanics does not go beyond (1) and includes material constraints only
[3,5,15]. They are position constraints represented by algebraic equations

:
(q
1
, . . . , q
n
) = 0, : = 1, . . . , a, a <n, (2)
e188 E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197
where we assume that functions
:
are dened on n-dimensional manifold and have con-
tinuous derivatives up to the second order at least, and velocity constraints

[
(q
1
, . . . , q
n
, q
1
, . . . , q
n
) = 0, [ = 1, . . . , b, b <n, (3)
where we assume that functions
[
are dened on 2n-dimensional manifold and have
continuous derivatives. The most common case of (3) are constraint equations linear in
velocities. If the constraint equations (3) cannot be integrated, the constraints are called
nonholonomic.
Non-material constraints are not mergedintoconstraineddynamics models [12,14,18,19].
However, the overview of constraint kinds reported in the classical mechanics literature
does not seem to include the following: many problems are formulated as synthesis prob-
lems and constraints are put upon a system performance before it is designed and put into
operation. These constraints can be non-material. The observations above lead to the idea
of the extension of the constraint concept. We propose the following denitions [7].
Denition 1. A program constraint is any demand or limitation put upon kinematic, dy-
namic or performance characteristics of a physical system.
Denition 2. Asystemmotion according to a programconstraint is referred to as a program
motion.
Based on Denitions 1 and 2 we can introduce the following program constraint classi-
cation:
1. Position program constraints:
f
:
(t, q
1
, . . . , q
n
) = 0, : = 1, . . . , m, m<n, (4)
where q is an n-dimensional coordinate vector and m is the number of the constraint
equations.
2. Kinematic program constraints:
g
[
(t, q
1
, . . . , q
n
, q
1
, . . . , q
n
) = 0, [ = 1, . . . , k, k <n (5)
and k is the number of the constraint equations.
2. We can see that mathematical relations (4) and (5) are the same as for the material con-
straints, i.e. (2) and (3) but their interpretation is absolutely different. These constraints
are put upon a system in order to specify its motion.
3. High-order program constraints:
G
[
(t, q
o
, q
o
, . . . , q
(p)
o
) = 0, [ = 1, . . . , k, k <n, o = 1, . . . , n (6)
which can be nonlinear in q
(p)
and p is a constraint order. By differentiating (6) with
respect to time we obtain constraints of a higher order but linear in at least one p-order
coordinate derivative. From now on, for simpler notation and without loss of generality,
we assume that our p-order constraints are linear in at least one p-order coordinate
derivative. Hence, (6) takes the form
B(t, q, q, . . . , q
(p1)
)q
(p)
= s(t, q, q, . . . , q
(p1)
), (7)
E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197 e189
where B is a (k n)-dimensional matrix and it is assumed to have full rank and s is a
(k 1)-vector.
3. According to Denitions 1 and 2 and Eqs. (4), (5) and (7) driving and task constraints,
performance goals or other requirements on a system motion to obtain its specied
performance as discussed earlier may be included into the program constraints class.
They can get the unied name as they play the same rolethey program the motion.
3. Motion equations for constrained systems
Historically, a problemof elimination of unknown constraint reaction forces frommotion
equations was solved by Chaplygin in 1897 for the rst time, for the so-called Chaplygin
systems. In 1901Voronetz obtained equations for nonholonomic systems for a more general
case. In 1908 Volterra proposed equations of motion in the so-called kinematic parameters,
later called quasi-velocities. In 1901 Maggi derived equations of motion with no constraint
reaction forces in a form that yields Volterras equations. Appells equations were derived
in 1899 and Boltzmann in 1902, and Hamel in 1904 derived a form of equations in quasi-
coordinates, which coincide for holonomic systems. Other equations were developed by
Tzenoff in 1923, Vranceanu in 1926, and Schouten in 1929. For more details see [3,5,15,16]
and references there. Between 1910 and 1930 dynamics of nonlinear nonholonomic systems
made a signicant progress. Appell, Chetaev and Hamel derived equations for mechanical
systems subjected to constraint equations nonlinear in velocities. Some other efforts to leave
the Lagrange equations approachresultedinequations obtainedbyNielsenandTzenoff [17].
Nielsens equations can be derived from Lagranges equations [7] and they are for systems
with nonholonomic constraints like (3) or (5) and have the form
j

T
j q
o
2
jT
jq
o
= Q
o
, o = 1, . . . , k, k = n k. (8)
Tzenoff derived new equations from the Gauss principle. They are referred to as Tzenoffs
equations of the second kind and can be applied to systems with second-order constraints
1
2
_
j

T
j q
o
3
jT
jq
o
_
= Q
o
. (9)
Another equations byTzenoff for systems withthird-order constraints referredtoas Tzenoffs
equations of the third kind have the form
1
3
_
j
...
T
j
...
q
o
4
jT
jq
o
_
= Q
o
, o = 1, . . . , k. (10)
For the newEqs. (8)(10) the virtual displacement concept had to be redened comparing to
its formulationinclassical analytical mechanics [3,5,15]. Ageneralizedvirtual displacement
concept is an extension of the virtual displacement in the AppellChetaev meaning. For
ideal, arbitrary order constraint equations (6), Mangeron and Deleanu have postulated the
e190 E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197
generalized virtual displacement denition [13] as
n

o=1
jG
[
jq
(p)
o
oq
o
= 0. (11)
They have also postulated the generalized variational principle for ideal constraints as
N

v=1
(F
v
m
v
r
v
)or
(p)
v
= 0,
ot = 0, or
v
= o r
v
= = or
(p1)
v
= 0, o r
p
v
= 0.
(12)
For the AppellChetaev systems, for p = 1, 2 principle (12) coincides with the classical
mechanics variational principles. The proof and comments to the principle can be found in
[7].
To the best of the authors knowledge, principle (12) and equations obtained on its basis,
in a vector form, by Mangeron and Deleanu [13] were the limits of analytical mechanics
results as far as generation of equations of motion for constrained systems was concerned.
4. Generalized program motion equations (GPME)
The purpose of this section is to present a general analytical method to derive equations
of motion for systems with arbitrary order nonholonomic constraints. Equations that we
present are referred to as generalized program motion equations (GPME) [7]. They provide
one unied theoretical framework such that equations of classical mechanics arise as its
peculiar cases. To develop the GPME we formulate a theorem.
Theorem 1. Assume that a function F = F(t, q
1
, . . . , q
n
, q
1
, . . . , q
n
) is regular enough,
i.e. all derivatives up to certain order p can be computed. Then the following identity holds
for F:
d
dt
_
jF
j q
o
_

1
p
_
jF
(p)
jq
(p)
o

jF
jq
o
_
, o = 1, . . . , n, p = 1, 2, 3, . . . . (13)
Proof. The proof is based on the mathematical induction. If to compute total derivatives
of orders p = 1, 2, 3, . . . for the function F = F(t, q
1
, . . . , q
n
, q
1
, . . . , q
n
) one can verify
that F
(p)
has the form
F
(p)
= p
_
n

o=1
j
2
F
j q
o
jt
q
(p)
o
+
n

o=1
n

:=1
j
2
F
j q
o
jq
:
q
:
q
(p)
o
+
n

o=1
n

:=1
j
2
F
j q
o
jq
:
q
:
q
(p)
o
_
+
n

o=1
jF
jq
o
q
(p)
o
+
n

o=1
jF
j q
o
q
(p+1)
o
+ I, p >2, (14)
E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197 e191
where the function I does not contain derivatives q
(p)
o
and q
(p+1)
o
, o =1, . . . , n. Hence we
have
jF
(p)
jq
(p)
o
= p
_
j
2
F
j q
o
jt
+
n

:=1
j
2
F
j q
o
jq
:
q
:
+
n

:=1
j
2
F
j q
o
j q
:
q
:
_
+
jF
jq
o
. (15)
Relation (15) holds for p = 1, 2, . . . and o = 1, . . . , n. Next, we compute
d
dt
_
jF
j q
o
_
=
j
2
F
jt j q
o
+
n

:=1
j
2
F
jq
:
j q
o
q
:
+
n

:=1
j
2
F
j q
:
j q
o
q
:
, o = 1, . . . , n. (16)
From (15) and (16) we get
d
dt
_
jF
j q
o
_
=
1
p
_
jF
(p)
jq
(p)
o

jF
jq
o
_
, p = 1, 2, 3, . . . . (17)
Now, if to replace F with T = T (t, q
1
, . . . , q
n
, q
1
, . . . , q
n
) in (17) and insert it into La-
granges equations we obtain
1
p
_
jT
(p)
jq
(p)
o
(p + 1)
jT
jq
o
_
= Q
o
, o = 1, . . . , n, p = 1, 2, . . . . (18)
Eqs. (18) are the generalized program motion equations (GPME). They become Nielsens
equations (8) for p = 1 and Tzenoffs equations of the second kind (9) for p = 2.
Now, consider a case of a systemwithhigh-order nonholonomic constraints (7). Assuming
that the rst k out of p-order derivatives of coordinates in (7) are dependent, the coordinate
vector q can be partitioned into q=(q
[
, q
:
), q
[
R
k
, q
:
R
nk
and (7) can be transformed
to the form
q
(p)
[
= g
(p)
[
(t, q
1
, . . . , q
n
, q
1
, . . . , q
n
, . . . , q
(p)
k+1
, . . . , q
(p)
n
), [ = 1, . . . , k. (19)
By differentiating (19) with respect to time we obtain
q
(p+1)
[
=
(p+1)
[
(t, q
1
, . . . , q
n
, q
1
, . . . , q
n
, . . . , q
(p)
k+1
, . . . , q
(p)
n
, q
(p+1)
k+1
, . . . , q
(p+1)
n
).
(20)
Now we rewrite (18) as
n

o=1
_
1
p
_
jT
(p)
jq
(p)
o
(p + 1)
jT
jq
o
_
Q
o
_
oq
o
= 0 (21)
and hence
k

[=1

1
p

jT
(p)
jq
(p)
[
(p + 1)
jT
jq
[

Q
[

oq
[
+
n

j=k+1
_
1
p
_
jT
(p)
jq
(p)
j
(p + 1)
jT
jq
j
_
Q
j
_
oq
j
= 0. (22)
e192 E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197
Based on (11) and (19) we also have
oq
[
=
n

j=k+1
jg
(p)
[
jq
(p)
j
oq
j
, [ = 1, . . . , k. (23)
so (22) takes the form
n

j=k+1
_
1
p
_
jT
(p)
jq
(p)
j
(p + 1)
jT
jq
j
_
Q
j
+
k

[=1

1
p

jT
(p)
jq
(p)
[
(p + 1)
jT
jq
[

Q
[

jg
(p)
[
jq
(p)
j

oq
j
= 0. (24)
Variations oq
j
, j =k +1, . . . , n, are independent so we obtain equations of motion in the
form
1
p
_
jT
(p)
jq
(p)
j
(p + 1)
jT
jq
j
_
Q
j
+
k

[=1

1
p

jT
(p)
jq
(p)
[
(p + 1)
jT
jq
[

Q
[

jg
(p)
[
jq
(p)
j
= 0, j = k + 1, . . . , n.
(25)
These are the GPMEs for a system with the high-order nonholonomic constraints (7). The
GPME in forms (18) or (25) are not suitable for direct applications. To develop an algorithm
to generate the GPME easily we proceed as follows. Assume that the constraints are linear
in highest derivatives of coordinates so (7) takes the form
q
(p)
[
=
n

j=k+1
a
[j
q
(p)
j
+ a
[0
, [ = 1, . . . , k, (26)
where a
[j
= a
[j
(t, q
o
, q
o
, . . . , q
(p1)
o
), a
[0
= a
[0
(t, q
o
, q
o
, . . . , q
(p1)
o
). Now, generate
the following functions:
P
p
=
1
p
[T
(p)
(p + 1)T
(p)
0
] (27)
and T
(p)
0
is dened as
T
(p)
0
=
n

o=1
jT
jq
o
q
(p)
o
,
R
p
= P
p

n

o=1
q
(p)
o
Q
o
= R
p
(t, q
o
, q
o
, . . . , q
(p)
j
, q
(p)
[
, q
(p+1)
o
), (28)
E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197 e193
R

p
= R

t, q
o
, q
o
, . . . , q
(p)
j
,
n

j=k+1
a
[j
q
(p)
j
+ a
[0
, q
(p+1)
o

=R

p
(t, q
o
, q
o
, . . . , q
(p)
j
, q
(p+1)
o
). (29)
Assuming that jQ
o
/jq
(p)
o
= 0, the GPME for a system with pth-order constraints (26) are
jR

p
jq
(p)
j
=
jR
p
jq
(p)
j
+
k

[=1
jR
p
jq
(p)
[
jq
(p)
[
jq
(p)
j
=
jR
p
jq
(p)
j
+
k

[=1
jR
p
jq
(p)
[
a
[j
=0, j = k + 1, . . . , n.
(30)
The GPME (30) are (nk) second-order equations of motion and together with k constraint
equations (26) can be presented in the form
M(q) q + V(q, q) + D(q) = Q(t, q, q),
B(t, q, q, . . . , q
(p1)
)q
(p)
= s(t, q, q, . . . , q
(p1)
), (31)
where Mis a (nk)n matrix, V is a (nk)-dimensional velocity-dependent vector, Dis a
(nk)-dimensional vector of gravity forces, and Qis a (nk) 1 vector of external forces
applied to a system. The most important feature of (31) is that they are free of constraint
reaction forces. This makes them suitable for control applications. Note that for p = 1
and material constraints, (31) are equivalent to Lagranges equations with multipliers after
application of the reduction procedure to them [14]. Eqs. (31) are referred to as a unied
dynamics model for a constrained system. Models presented in, for example [18,19], are
peculiar cases of (31) for p = 1.
5. The GPME application to tracking control
The rst contribution of the generation of the unied dynamics model for a constrained
system relies on the extension of the constraint classes that can be merged into the con-
strained dynamics models; see for example [18,19]. The essential difference between our
constrained dynamics model and models from the works cited above is that in the latter
models only material position and velocity constraints can be included. Secondly, our con-
strained dynamics model (31) is free of constraint reaction forces. The third contribution,
which enters the area of control, is that we propose the unied representation of constraints
(6), which was motivated by the fact that many tasks robots perform could be viewed as
constraints on them, and specied by program constraint equations. Robotic systems are
also subjected to material constraints, which can be nonholonomic. Thus, if we would like
to specify tasks by program constraints and view robots as constrained systems, we have to
introduce the unied representation of constraints (6). Finally, one more paper contribution
can be appreciated from the point of view of control theory, i.e. the constrained dynamics
model (31) with the control inputs added to its right-hand sides becomes a dynamic control
model. It can be viewed as a different, competitive dynamic control model. This is the basic
difference between our control model [811] and the control models nonlinear theory uses,
which are mostly Lagranges equations-based models.
e194 E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197
Fig. 1. Model reference program motion tracking control formulation.
As a consequence of the generation of a dynamics model for a systemwith arbitrary order
constraints and a dynamic control model free of constraint reaction forces, we present an
idea of a model reference program motion tracking control formulation. First, we introduce
the following denition:
Denition 3. The reference dynamic program motion model is a dynamics model of a
system with both material and program constraints (31).
The reference dynamic program motion model can be viewed as a motion planner but
the motion planning in our approach is understood in a different way than usually in control
references. We formulate the problem of program motion planning as follows:
Given a programmotion to be followed by an end-effector or other tool, or a whole system,
nd the time history of positions and their time derivatives along the program motion.
The program motion position time histories as well as their time derivatives are obtained
from the constrained dynamics model (31). The program motion planner and its outputs are
inputs to a tracking controller we shall design. We will employ the reference dynamics (31)
to design a control strategy for tracking a program motion with trajectory tracking being a
peculiar case. The problem of program motion tracking in our approach is formulated as
follows:
Given a program motion and a description of a system as nonlinear dynamic equations,
design a feedback controller that can track the given program motion accurately.
The idea of the program motion tracking can be stated by the following proposition.
Proposition 1. Let a mechanical system be subjected to material and program constraints
both presented in the equation form (6). The system can be modeled and controlled by
the model reference program motion tracking control formulation, which is based on two
dynamic models: the reference dynamic programmotion model (31) and the dynamic control
model, which is (31) with control forces added and p = 1.
The motivation to synthesize the tracking controller based on the two models is that a
variety of programconstraint equations disables a design of a general scheme of a nonlinear
controller. Instead, an idea of separation of program constraints from material constraints
is employed. The model reference tracking control strategy is presented in Fig. 1. We can
summarize the introduction of the reference dynamics (31) to control applications as the
application of latest theoretical results from analytical dynamics to control.
E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197 e195
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Fig. 2. Trajectory tracking for the robot. Reference motionthin solid, controldotted line.
Let us illustrate the theory with an example of a two-wheeled robot model [12]. The robot
conguration is described by a vector q = (x
c
, y
c
, ,
r
,
l
), where
r
and
l
denote the
angles due to rolling of the right and left wheels, respectively, is the heading angle and
(x
c
, y
c
) are the coordinates of the robot mass center in the world coordinate system. The
distance fromthe geometric center of the robot platformto the mass center is d. The distance
between wheels is 2b, and the wheel radius is r. The robot is a nonholonomic system with
the material constraint equations
y
c
cos x
c
sin d = 0,
x
c
cos + y
c
sin + b = r
r
,
x
c
cos + y
c
sin b = r
l
. (32)
Among the three constraint equations (32) two are nonholonomic and one is holonomic.
Additionally, we specify a program constraint equation for the robot motion i.e. we want it
to move along a trajectory described by the equation
x
2
c
+ y
2
c
= R
2
p
and R
p
= 0.01t + 0.2. (33a)
The set of constraints on robot motion is specied by (32) and (33a). Taking advantage of
the reference dynamics (31) and a control law of Wen and Bayard, the program motion
(33a) tracking is presented in Fig. 2. To illustrate the GPME possibilities select another
trajectory, for which a curvature changes in some predened fashion. As described in [7,11]
the program constraint put on the rate of change of the trajectory curvature yields the
constraint equation of the third order that can be nonholonomic depending on the specied
e196 E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Fig. 3. Program motion tracking for the curvature prole change 1
1
. Reference motionsolid line,
controlledsquared line.
change of the curvature. For simulation purposes, select the change of the curvature to be
1
1
= 2 sin t + 1 and the program constraint equation is
1
1
= F
0
+
x
...
y

...
x y
( x
2
+ y
2
)
3/2
(33b)
and F
0
does not contain third-order coordinate derivatives. We assumed there were no ex-
ternal forces acting on the robot. Employing (31) and the control dynamics with a controller
being the computed torque controller, the program motion (33b) tracking is presented in
Fig. 3.
6. Conclusions
The paper presents a uniedframeworkfor dynamics modelingof constrainedmechanical
systems, which is the GPME method. It provides a modeler with the unied modeling
capability, i.e. the dynamics of a system with constraints of any order can be generated.
Lagranges equations with multipliers are the peculiar case of the GPME. This constrained
dynamics is our contribution to the area of mechanical systems modeling. We have shown
the application of the GPME for control purposes within the model reference program
motion tracking control formulation. It has been developed for tracking tasks specied by
program constraint equations. It provides, in turn, a unied approach to motion tracking
of both holonomic and nonholonomic systems. It relies on two dynamics models. One is
E. JarzeRbowska / Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e185e197 e197
the reference model, which is the constrained dynamics model of a system with material
and program constraints and the second is a dynamics control model, also developed by the
GPME method. Both models are free of constraint reaction forces, i.e. the dynamics control
model is already in the reduced state form.
References
[1] P. Appell, Exemple de Mouvement dun Point Assujeti a une Liason Exprimee par une Relation Non Lineaire
Entre les Composantes de la Vitesse, Comptes Renduss (1911) 4850.
[2] A.M. Bloch, Nonholonomic Mechanics and Control, Springer, NewYork, 2003.
[3] V.V. Dobronravov, Foundations of Mechanics of Non-Holonomic Systems, Moscow, 1970.
[4] G. Grioli, Particular solutions in stereodynamics, in: Stereodynamics, Centro Internazionale Matematico
Estivo, Roma, 1972, pp. 165 (in Italian).
[5] R. Gutowski, Analytical Mechanics, PWN, Warsaw, 1972 (in Polish).
[6] E. JarzeRbowska, N.H. McClamroch, On nonlinear control of the Ishlinsky problem as an example of a
nonholonomic non-chaplygin system, in: Proceedings of American Control Conference, Chicago, August,
2000, pp. 32493253.
[7] E. JarzeRbowska, On derivation of motion equations for systems with nonholonomic high-order program
constraints, Multibody System Dyn. 7 (3) (2002) 307329.
[8] E. JarzeRbowska, On some applications of recent developments in dynamics to control problems of
nonholonomic systems, in: Proceedings of Seventh IEEE International Conference on Methods and Models
in Automation and Robotics, Miedzyzdroje, Poland, 2002, pp. 965970.
[9] E. JarzeRbowska, Model reference tracking control for constrained robotic systems, in: Proceedings of Third
International Workshop on Robot Motion and Control, Bukowy Dworek, Poland, 2002, pp. 153159.
[10] E. JarzeRbowska, Robot Motion Planning in the Presence of Program Constraints, in: Robot Control 2003,
Proc. Volume from the 7th IFAC Symp., Wroclaw, Poland, vol. 1, Elsevier, 2004, pp. 117122.
[11] E. JarzeRbowska, Control oriented dynamic formulation of robotic systems with programconstraints, Robotica,
in press.
[12] H.G. Kwatny, G.L. Blankenship, Nonlinear Control and Analytical Mechanics, A Computational Approach,
Birkhauser, Boston, 2000.
[13] D. Mangeron, S. Deleanu, Sur une classe dequations de la mecanique analytique ou sens de Tzenoff, C. R.
Acad. Bulgare Sci. 15 (1962) 19.
[14] R.M. Murray, Z. Li, S.S. Sastry, A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation, CRS Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 1994.
[15] J.I. Nejmark, N.A. Fufaev, Dynamics of Nonholonomic Systems, Am. Math. Society, Providence, RI, 1972.
[16] J.G. Papastavridis, A panoramic overview of the principles and equations of motion of advanced engineering
dynamics, Appl. Mech. Rev. 51 (4) (April 1998) 239265.
[17] J. Tzenoff, Sur les Equations du Mouvement des Systemes Mecanique Nonholonomes, Mat. Ann. 91 (1924).
[18] L.-S. You, B.-S. Chen, Tracking control designs for both holonomic and nonholonomic constrained
mechanical systems: A unied viewpoint, Int. J. Control 58 (3) (1993) 587612.
[19] X. Yun, N. Sarkar, Unied formulation of robotic systems with holonomic and nonholonomic constraints,
IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat. 14 (4) (1998) 640650.