arXiv:1607.07543v1 [cs.SY] 26 Jul 2016

Task-space coordinated tracking of multiple
heterogeneous manipulators via
controller-estimator approaches
Ming-Feng Gea , Zhi-Hong Guana , Chao Yanga , Chao-Yang Chenb , Ding-Fu
Zhenga , Ming Chia
a

College of Automation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, 430074, China
b
School of Information and Electrical Engineering, Hunan University of Sience and
Technology Xiangtan, Hunan, 411201, China

Abstract
This paper studies the task-space coordinated tracking of a time-varying
leader for multiple heterogeneous manipulators (MHMs), containing redundant manipulators and nonredundant ones. Different from the traditional coordinated control, distributed controller-estimator algorithms (DCEA), which
consist of local algorithms and networked algorithms, are developed for MHMs
with parametric uncertainties and input disturbances. By invoking differential inclusions, nonsmooth analysis, and input-to-state stability, some conditions (including sufficient conditions, necessary and sufficient conditions)
on the asymptotic stability of the task-space tracking errors and the subtask
errors are developed. Simulation results are given to show the effectiveness
of the presented DCEA.
Keywords: task-space coordinated tracking, multiple heterogeneous
manipulators (MHMs), redundant manipulator, distributed
controller-estimator algorithm (DCEA).

Email addresses: fmgabc@163.com (Ming-Feng Gea ), zhguan@mail.hust.edu.cn
(Zhi-Hong Guana )

Citation: Journal of The Franklin Institute, 2016, DOI: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2016.06.025

1. Introduction
Coordinated control has been diffusely invoked in many practical applications of multiple manipulators, including coordination of bilateral humanswarm systems [1], single-master-multiple-slaves teleoperation [2], dual-user
shared teleoperation [3]-[6], multi-robot teleoperation [7]-[10], multi-fingered
grasping and manipulation [11, 12], due to their prominent superiority comparing with traditional centralized control, such as stronger stability, less
energy consumption, greater operational efficiency [13]-[24].
Existing works focused on joint-space synchronization of two manipulators, namely, master-slave bilateral teleoperators, using various control
technologies, such as adaptive control, passivity-based control, proportionalderivative control [25]-[28]. However, the single-master-single-slave framework containing two manipulators is already too simple for some complicated
practical tasks. By invoking cooperative concurrent control, synchronization
of interconnected Lagrangian systems had been investigated [29]. Distributed
containment control had been developed for nonlinear multi-agent systems
in the presence of dynamical uncertainties and external disturbances and
applied to Lagrangian networks [30]. However, the kinematics of robotic manipulators had not been taken into consideration in the above literatures.
In reality, task-space algorithms considering kinematics of manipulators are
more practical and applicative comparing with joint-space algorithms. It
thus motivates a group of researches on task-space algorithms. In presence of
kinematic and dynamic uncertainties, task-space synchronization had been
addressed for multiple manipulators under strong connected graphs by invoking passivity control [31] and adaptive control [32]. Note that the above
literatures mainly focuses on motion control of kinematically identical and
nonredundant robotic manipulators with parametric uncertainties.
Redundant manipulators can achieve more performance benefits in contrast to nonredundant ones [33, 34]. On the other hand, multiple manipulators containing both redundant and nonredundant individuals, namely, multiple heterogeneous manipulators (MHMs), are necessary and inevitable in
some natural and man-made systems, e.g., human hands and multi-fingered
hands [11, 12]. Inspired by conceivable performance benefits of MHMs, taskspace synchronization of MHMs under balanced connected topologies had
been achieved via the passivity control technology in [35], which can synchronize the combination signals of task-space position/velocity tracking errors
to zero.
2

In this paper, we present some novel DCEA to achieve the task-space
coordinated tracking of a time-varying leader for MHMs with parametric uncertainties and input disturbances, and the interaction topology of the MHMs
are assumed to contain a spanning tree. The main contributions are summarised as follows. 1) Different from the coordination algorithms considering
dynamics of Euler-Lagrange systems [29, 30], both the dynamics and kinematics are considered, which is more practical and challenging. 2) Different
from the coordination algorithms for identical manipulators with a constant
agreement value [31, 32], the tracking of a time-varying leader for MHMs
is studied. 3) Different from balanced interaction topologies studied in [35],
digraphs containing a spanning tree are invoked to describe the interaction
topology. 4) The novel controller-estimator structure provides a theoretical
guidance for coordinated control of various networked multi-agent systems,
whose dynamics are complex and strong nonlinear.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, the preliminaries are presented. In Section 3, the main results are presented. In Section
4, the simulations are given. In Section 5, the conclusion is proposed.
Notation: Rn represents the n-dimensional Euclidean space, In denotes
the n × n identity matrix, 1n = [1, · · · , 1]T represents the n-dimensional column vector, k·k represents the Euclidean norm, λmin (·) denotes the minimum
eigenvalue of the corresponding matrix.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Dynamics and Kinematics
The dynamics and kinematics of the ith individual in the MHMs with
input disturbances are given as follows [33]:

 Hi (qi )q̈i + Ci (qi , q̇i )q̇i + gi (qi ) + di (t) = ui ,
(1)

xi = ψi (qi ), ẋi = Ji (qi )q̇i ,

where i ∈ V = {1, . . . , n}, t ∈ Q = [t0 , ∞), t0 ≥ 0 is the initial time,
qi ∈ Rpi denotes the position in the joint space, pi ≥ 2 represents the
degrees-of-freedom (DOF) of the ith manipulator, Hi (qi ) ∈ Rpi ×pi is the
inertia matrix, Ci (qi , q̇i ) ∈ Rpi ×pi represents the centripetal-Coriolis matrix,
gi (qi ) ∈ Rpi denotes the gravity vector, di (t) ∈ Rpi represents the input disturbance, ui ∈ Rpi stands for the torque input, xi ∈ Ωix ⊆ Rm denotes the
3

task-space position, Ωix represents the work space, ψi (qi ) ∈ Rm denotes the
forward kinematics, m ≥ 2 denotes the task-space dimension and is thus
the minimum number of DOF required to perform a given end-effector task,
Ji (qi ) = ∂ψi (qi )/∂qi ∈ Rm×pi stands for the Jacobian matrix.
The MHMs contain redundant manipulators and nonredundant ones,
which means V consists of two subsets E = {i ∈ V | pi = m} and F =
{i ∈ V | pi > m}, i.e., the manipulators in E are nonredundant and the ones
in F are redundant. It is worthy to point out that a nonredundant manipulator has just a necessary number of DOF to perform a given end-effector task
(i.e., maintask) and a redundant manipulator has more DOF than the necessary number, which results in an infinite number of joint configurations to the
inverse-kinematics problem. The redundancy can improve the functionality
and flexibility of robotic manipulators and many subtasks (including manipulability enhancement, mechanical limit avoidance, and obstacle avoidance)
can be obtained by choosing appropriate joint configurations. Then the following algebraic operation, that will be invoked hereinafter, is given by
 −1
 Ji , i ∈ E,
♯
Ji =
 †
Ji , i ∈ F ,

where for i ∈ E, Ji♯ = Ji−1 ∈ Rm×m denotes the normal inverse of Ji (qi ); for
i ∈ F , Ji♯ = Ji† = JiT (Ji JiT )−1 ∈ Rpi ×m represents the pseudoinverse of Ji (qi )
and satisfies the well-known Moore-Penrose conditions [36]. The following
lemma that will be used hereinafter is given.
Lemma 1. For i ∈ F , the algebraic operation Ji♯ satisfies
Ji (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji ) = 0, (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )Ji♯ = 0,
(Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )(Ipi − Ji♯ Ji ) = Ipi − Ji♯ Ji .

For any i ∈ V, the properties of system (1) are given as follows [35, 37].
(P1) Hi (qi ) is positive definite. Ḣi (qi ) − 2Ci (qi , q̇i ) is skew symmetric;
(P2) The dynamic terms Hi (qi ), gi (qi ), di (t) are bounded for all possible qi ,
and kCi (qi , q̇i )k ≤ c̄i kq̇i k, where c̄i > 0 is a positive constant;
(P3) The dynamic terms can be parameterized, i.e., Hi (qi )x + Ci (qi , q̇i )y +
gi (qi ) = Yi (qi , q̇i , y, x)ϑi , where x, y are any proper vectors, Yi (qi , q̇i , y, x) is
the regressor and ϑi is a set of constant dynamic parameters.
4

Remark 1. By the actual characteristics of MHMs, we assume that the
kinematic terms Ji (qi ) and Ji♯ (qi ) are bounded; the kinematic singularities
are avoided, i.e., rank(Ji♯ (qi )) = m, for i ∈ V. The above assumptions are
the general properties of multiple manipulators, see [33, 37] for details.
2.2. Graph Theory
The interaction of the MHMs is denoted by a digraph G = {V, ξ, A},
where V is the node set, ξ ⊆ V × V is the edge set, A = [εij ]n×n is the
weighted adjacency matrix with nonnegative adjacency elements. An edge
in G is denoted by an ordered pair (vi , vj ). (vi , vj ) ∈ ξ if and only if node
j (i.e., the jth manipulator) can directly access the information of node
i. Nj = {i ∈ V | (vi , vj ) ∈ ξ} denotes the neighbor set of node j. A is
defined as i ∈ Nj ⇔ εji > 0, otherwise εji = 0, and εiiP= 0, ∀i, j ∈
V. D = diag{d1, . . . , dn } is the degree matrix, where di = j∈Ni εij . The
Laplacian matrix is defined as L = D − A. A directed path is an ordered
sequence v1 , v2 , · · · , vω satisfying that any ordered pair of vertices appearing
consecutively in the sequence is an edge of the digraph G. A digraph contains
a spanning tree if there exists a root node that has a directed path to all the
other nodes. B = [b1 , . . . , bn ]T is the weight vector between the n nodes and
the leader, where bi > 0 if the states of the leader is available to node i,
namely, node i is pinned; bi = 0 otherwise. The states of the leader (node 0)
x0 , v0 and a0 ∈ Rm satisfy ẋ0 = v0 , v̇0 = a0 . The following assumptions that
will be used hereinafter are given.
(A1) The leader has a directed path to all the nodes in G under B;
(A2) kv0 k∞ < β1 , ka0 k∞ < β2 and kȧ0 k∞ < β3 , where β1 , β2 and β3 are
positive constants.
Remark 2. By Assumption A2, the derivatives of the states of the leader x0 ,
v0 and a0 are bounded, which happens to be the actual characteristics of the
trajectories that can be reachable by the real-world manipulators described by
Euler-Lagrange equations [38].
2.3. Problem Statement
The control tasks of this paper are presented in this section. It can be seen
that for given ẋi , ẋi = Ji (qi )q̇i admits an infinite number of q̇i when i ∈ F
and only a single solution when i ∈ E. Thus, to accomplish a given endeffector task, there exist only a single joint configuration for nonredundant
manipulators and an infinite number of joint configurations for redundant
5

manipulators. Let the given end-effector task be called maintask and the
tracking of a class of special joint configuration be called subtasks. Then
the control tasks in this paper can be divided into the maintask and the
subtask. Moreover, note that the nonredundant manipulators which have
only one joint configuration for a given end-effector task (i.e., maintask)
cannot accomplish the subtasks.
Maintask: The maintask is to design distributed input ui with the states
of node i (the ith manipulator) and its neighbour set such that the taskspace coordinated tracking can be accomplished, i.e., xi → x0 and ẋi → v0
as t → ∞, ∀i ∈ V.
Subtask: The subtask, e.g., manipulability enhancement, mechanical
limit avoidance, and obstacle avoidance, can only be accomplished by redundant manipulators. For different subtasks with respect to different redundant manipulators, we can construct a corresponding auxiliary vector
ϕi (t) to denote the gradients of some performance indices with respect to the
corresponding subtask. Then the subtask for the ith manipulator is said to
be achieved if esi → 0 as t → ∞, where i ∈ F , esi = (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )(q̇i − ϕi )
denotes the subtask tracking error [39].
Remark 3. The subtasks give more functional constraints on joint configurations and thus cannot be accomplished by nonredundant manipulators because
they have only one joint configuration for their inverse-kinematics. Redundant manipulators have an additional DOF to accomplish the subtasks, which
gives higher robustness and wider operational space comparing with nonredundant ones. However, the control design for redundant manipulators is
more complex and challenging. Human arms, elephant trunks, and snakes
are some examples of this kind of redundant system. The redundant is applicable in many practical applications and tough challenging in theoretical
analysis [11, 12, 31].
3. Task-space Coordinated Tracking of Multiple Heterogeneous Manipulators
This section studies the task-space coordinated tracking for MHMs with
a time-varying leader, in which the position vector of the leader in the generalized coordinate is assumed to be bounded up to its third derivative, which
is also invoked in [38].

6

3.1. Distributed Controller-Estimator Algorithms
In this section, DCEA for task-space coordinated tracking of MHMs are
developed. Let x̂i , v̂i and âi ∈ Rm be, respectively, the estimated value of
x0 , v0 and a0 for the ith manipulator. Considering the heterogeneity of the
MHMs, a joint-space auxiliary velocity q̂˙ri ∈ Rpi is given by
q̂˙ri = Ji♯ (v̂i − αi (xi − x̂i )) + (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )ϕi ,

(2)

where αi is a positive constant, ϕi ∈ Rpi is the gradients of some performance
indices with respect to the redundant manipulators. Then the joint-space
auxiliary acceleration q̂¨ri is defined as
d
q̂¨ri = J˙i♯ (v̂i − αi (xi − x̂i )) + Ji♯ (âi − αi (ẋi − v̂i )) + [(Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )ϕi ].
dt

(3)

Let ζi = col(x̂i , v̂i , âi ) ∈ R3m . Then for i, j ∈ V, we define
σij = ζi − ζj ,

(4)

especially, σi = ζi − col(x0 , v0 , a0 ).
Let ŝi = q̇i − q̂˙ri . In the presence of uncertain dynamics and input disturbance, the DCEA for MHMs consist of the control law
ui = Yi (qi , q̇i , q̂˙ri , q̂¨ri )ϑ̂i − JiT Kxi Ji ŝi − Ksi ŝi − Kri sgn(ŝi ),
and the distributed adaptive estimators

˙

ϑ̂i = −Ti YiT (qi , q̇i , q̂˙ri , q̂¨ri )ŝi ,








β1



 ⊗ Im  sgn
β2
ζ̇i = − 



β3

(5)

(6a)

X

j∈Ni

εij σij + bi σi

!

,

(6b)

where β1 , β2 and β3 are given in Assumption A2, ⊗ denotes the Kronecker
product, σij is given in (4), ϑ̂i is the estimated value of ϑi , Yi (qi , q̇i , q̂˙ri , q̂¨ri )ϑ̂i =
Ĥi (qi )q̂¨ri + Ĉi (qi , q̇i )q̂˙ri + ĝi (qi ), Ĥi (qi ), Ĉi (qi , q̇i ), and ĝi (qi ) are the estimates
of Hi (qi ), Ci (qi , q̇i ), and gi (qi ) respectively, Ksi , Kri ∈ Rpi×pi and Kxi ∈
Rm×m are positive definite matrices, Ti is a designed diagonal positive definite
matrix with an appropriate dimension.
7

Remark 4. It can be seen from the definition of Ji♯ that Ipi −Ji♯ Ji = 0 for i ∈
E. Therefore, (2) implies that for redundant manipulators and nonredundant
ones, q̂˙ri is distinguishing, namely,
 −1
i ∈ E,
 Ji (v̂i − αi (xi − x̂i )),
˙q̂ri =
 †
Ji (v̂i − αi (xi − x̂i )) + (Ipi − Ji† Ji )ϕi , i ∈ F .

Besides, q̂¨ri is distinguishing with respect to redundant manipulators and
nonredundant ones. It follows that the control law (5) is distinguishingly
designed with respect to different sets of manipulators.
3.2. Boundedness Analysis
In this section, by analyzing the boundedness of the system states, the
simplification of the close-loop dynamics is given.
The normal variables q̇ri , q̈ri and si with respect to the auxiliary variables
˙q̂ri , q̂¨ri and ŝi , containing estimated states, are defined as
q̇ri = Ji♯ (v0 − αi (xi − x0 )) + (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )ϕi ,
q̈ri = J˙i♯ (v0 − αi (xi − x0 )) + Ji♯ (a0 − αi (ẋi − v0 )) +

d
[(Ipi
dt

− Ji♯ Ji )ϕi ],

(7)

si = q̇i − q̇ri ,
where the normal variables are formed based on the estimated variables by
replacing x̂i , v̂i and âi with x0 , v0 and a0 respectively. Then we define
q̃˙ri = q̂˙ri − q̇ri
(8)
=

Ji♯ (v̂i

− v0 + αi (x̂i − x0 )),

and
q̃¨ri = q̂¨ri − q̈ri
(9)
= J˙i♯ (v̂i − v0 + αi (x̂i − x0 )) + Ji♯ (âi − a0 + αi (v̂i − v0 )).
Let s̃i = ŝi − si = −q̃˙ri . Substituting (5) into (1) yields the following

8

close-loop dynamics
Hi (qi )ṡi + Ci (qi , q̇i )si + di (t) + JiT Kxi Ji si + Ksi si + Kri sgn(si )
(10)

= Yi (qi , q̇i , q̇ri , q̈ri )ϑ̃i + f˜i (t),

where ϑ̃i = ϑ̂i − ϑi and f˜i (t) = Ĥi (qi )q̃¨ri + Ĉi (qi , q̇i )q̃˙ri − JiT Kxi Ji s̃i − Ksi s̃i −
Kri [sgn(ŝi ) − sgn(si )]. The boundedness of the states qi (t), q̇i (t), si (t), and
f˜i (t), which will be used hereinafter, is analyzed in the following theorem.
Theorem 1. Suppose that Assumptions A1 and A2 hold. The distributed
sliding-mode estimator (6b) guarantees that there exists a settle time tf ∈
(t0 , ∞) such that f˜i (t) = 0 when t ≥ tf , ∀i ∈ V. Moreover, using the DCEA
(5) and (6) for (1), the states qi (t), q̇i (t), and si (t) will remain bounded for
bounded initial values when t ∈ Qf = [t0 , tf ).
Proof. For the first presentation, we prove that there exists a finite time
tf ∈ (t0 , ∞) such that f˜i (t) = 0 when t ≥ tf . Because the right-hand side of
(6b) is discontinuous, the differential inclusions and nonsmooth analysis are
invoked for convergence analysis of (6b) [40, 41]. The error dynamics of (6b)
can be rewritten as
 


!  ẋ 
β1


0
X
a.e.






β2
σ̇i ∈ K −
⊗ Im sgn
εij σij + bi σi − v̇0
,


j∈Ni
β3
ȧ0

where a.e. stands for “almost everywhere” refer to almost all t ∈ Q, and
K{·} denotes the differential inclusion [41]. By Theorem 3.1 in [14], under
Assumptions A1 and A2, it can be obtained that σi = 0 when t ≥ tf and tf
is bounded by
tf ≤ tf max := max(tf 1 , tf 2 , tf 3 ) < ∞,
tf 1 = t0 +

maxi∈V kx̂i (t0 )−x0 (t0 )k∞
,
β1 −supt∈Q kv0 k∞

tf 2 = t0 +

maxi∈V kv̂i (t0 )−v0 (t0 )k∞
,
β2 −supt∈Q ka0 k∞

tf 3 = t0 +

maxi∈V kâi (t0 )−a0 (t0 )k∞
,
β3 −supt∈Q kȧ0 k∞

where max(·) and sup(·) denote the maximal value and the supremum respectively. It follows from (8) and (9) that q̃˙ri = 0 and q̃¨ri = 0 when t ≥ tf .
9

Therefore, f˜i (t) = 0 when t ≥ tf , ∀i ∈ V.
For the second presentation, using the DCEA (5) and (6) for (1), it is
shown that the states qi (t), q̇i (t), and si (t) will remain bounded for bounded
initial values when t ∈ Qf . Note that


β1

 ⊗ Im
β2
≤ max(β1 , β2 , β3 ),
β3
∞
and

sgn

X

εij σij + bi σi

j∈Ni

!

≤ 1.
∞

It thus follows from (6b) that
ζ̇i

∞

≤ max(β1 , β2 , β3 ), ∀i ∈ V,

which means
sup kζi (t)k∞ ≤ max(β1 , β2 , β3 )(tf − t0 ) < ∞, ∀i ∈ V.

t∈Qf

It follows that x̂i (t), v̂i (t), and âi (t) remain bounded for bounded initial
values x̂i (t0 ), v̂i (t0 ), and âi (t0 ) when t ∈ Qf . For bounded qi and q̇i , the
kinematics in (1) implies that xi and ẋi remain bounded. Then (2) and (3)
implies that q̂˙ri , q̂¨ri and ŝi remain bounded for bounded qi and q̇i . By (7)(9), q̇ri , q̈ri , si , q̃˙ri , q̃¨ri , and s̃i remain bounded for bounded qi and q̇i . By
Property P2 and Remark 1, Yi (qi , q̇i , q̂˙ri , q̂¨ri ) are bounded for bounded qi and
q̇i . Then (6a) implies ϑ̂i (t) remain bounded when t ∈ Qf for bounded initial
value ϑ̂i (t0 ). It follows that f˜i (t) remain bounded for bounded qi and q̇i . By
(10), ṡi remains bounded for bounded qi and q̇i . Therefore, we can get that
for bounded initial values qi (t0 ) and q̇i (t0 ), the states qi (t), q̇i (t), and si (t)
remain bounded when t ∈ Qf . This completes the proof.
3.3. Convergence Analysis
In this section, based on Theorem 1, the convergence of the close-loop
dynamics is analyzed. Differential inclusion and Filippov solution [41] are
invoked because the presented DCEA are nonsmooth.

10

By Theorem 1, ŝi = si and f˜i (t) = 0 when t ∈ Q̄f = [tf , ∞). Then when
t ∈ Q̄f , the combination of (6) and (10) yields the following cascade system

ṡi = Hi−1 (qi )[−Ci (qi , q̇i )si − JiT Kxi Ji si − Ksi si





+ Yi (qi , q̇i , q̇ri , q̈ri )ϑ̃i + h̃i (t)],



(11)
xi = ψi (qi ), ẋi = Ji q̇i ,







 ϑ̂˙ = −T Y T (q , q̇ , q̇ , q̈ )s ,
i
i i
i i ri ri i

where qi (tf ), q̇i (tf ), xi (tf ), ẋi (tf ), and si (tf ) are bounded, h̃i (t) = −di (t) −
Kri sgn(si ) denotes the combination of the nonsmooth and uncertain terms
in the system dynamics. Then the following theorem is given.

Theorem 2. Suppose that Assumptions A1 and A2 hold. Using the DCEA
(5) and (6) for (1), if λmin(Kxi ) > 0, λmin(Ksi ) > 0, λmin (Kri ) ≥ supt∈Q kdi (t)k,
and λmin (Ti ) > 0, then the control tasks in this paper can be achieved, namely,
xi → x0 and ẋi → v0 as t → ∞, ∀i ∈ V; esi → 0 as t → ∞, ∀i ∈ F .
Proof. The proof proceeds in three steps. First, the passivity of the closeloop dynamics (11) is analyzed. Second, the convergence of si and Ji si is
obtained using differential inclusions and nonsmooth analysis. Finally, the
stability of xi and esi is shown invoking kinematic analysis of nonredundant
and redundant manipulators.
The first presentation presents the passivity of the close-loop dynamics.
For system (11), consider the following storage function
1
Vi1 = (sTi Hi (qi )si + ϑ̃Ti Ti−1 ϑ̃i ).
2
Differentiating the storage function along (11) gives
V̇i1 =

1 T
s Ḣi (qi )si
2 i

˙
+ sTi Hi (qi )ṡi + ϑ̃Ti Ti−1 ϑ̂i

= −sTi Ksi si − sTi JiT (qi )Kxi Ji (qi )si + sTi h̃i
≤ sTi h̃i ,
where Property P1 is invoked to obtain the second equation. Integrating
11

both sides of the above inequality with respect to time t ∈ Q̄f provides
Vi1 (t) − Vi1 (tf ) ≤

Z

t

sTi (ω)h̃i (ω)dω.

(12)

tf

It thus follows that system (11) is passive with the mapping from the input
h̃i (t) to the state si , ∀i ∈ V, t ∈ Q̄f [42].
The second presentation analyze the convergence of si and Ji si using
nonsmooth analysis and the passivity property given in the first presentation.
Let ηi ∈ (0, λmin(Kxi )) be a positive scalar. Then when t ∈ Q̄f , consider the
Lyapunov function candidate for system (11) as
Z t
Vi = Vi1 + ηi
sTi (ω)JiT (qi (ω))Ji (qi (ω))si (ω)dω.
tf

Considering that h̃i (t) is nonsmooth and uncertain, the generalized time
derivative is invoked to carry out more formal mathematical analysis; additionally, considering that the signum function is measurable and locally
essentially bounded, the Filippov solution exists for (11) [40, 41]. Taking the
generalized time derivative of Vi along (11) gives that
Ṽ˙ i = K{ 21 sTi Ḣi (qi )si + sTi [−Ci (qi , q̇i )si − JiT Kxi Ji si − Ksi si
+ Yi (qi , q̇i , q̇ri , q̈ri )ϑ̃i + h̃i (t)] − ϑ̃Ti YiT (qi , q̇i , q̇ri , q̈ri )si
+ ηi sTi JiT Ji si }
= K{−sTi Ksi si − sTi JiT (Kxi − ηi Im )Ji si − sTi Kri sgn(si ) − sTi di }
≤ −sTi Ksi si − sTi JiT (Kxi − ηi Im )Ji si − ksi k(λmin (Kri ) − kdi k)
≤ −sTi Ksi si − sTi JiT (Kxi − ηi Im )Ji si − ksi k(λmin (Kri ) − supt∈Q kdi (t)k)
≤ −sTi Ksi si − sTi JiT (Kxi − ηi Im )Ji si ,
where (12), λmin (Kri ) ≥ supt∈Q kdi (t)k, Property P1-P3, and the fact that
K{f } ≡ {f } if f is continuous [41] are invoked to obtain the above inequalities. Provided λmin (Kxi ) > 0 and λmin (Ksi ) > 0, Ṽ˙ i is negative definite,
∀i ∈ V. It follows that Vi ∈ L∞ ; then si , Ji si , ϑ̃i ∈ L∞ , ∀i ∈ V. ϑ̃i ∈ L∞
implies that ϑ̂i ∈ L∞ because ϑi is a vector of constant dynamic parameters,
12

∀i ∈ V. si , Ji si ∈ L∞ gives that Yi (qi , q̇i , q̇ri , q̈ri ) ∈ L∞ , ∀i ∈ V. Then (5)
and (6) imply that the control input ui is bounded. Thus, the closed-loop
dynamics (11) implies that ṡi ∈ L∞ ; then si is uniformly continuous, ∀i ∈ V.
Then invoking Corollary 2 in [41], si → 0 and Ji si → 0 as t → ∞, ∀i ∈ V.
The third presentation shows that esi → 0 (∀i ∈ F ) as t → ∞ under the
DCEA. Let ei = xi − x0 . (7) gives that
ėi = −αi ei + Ji si .

(13)

It thus follows from [42] that (13) is input-to-state stable with respect to the
input Ji (qi )si and the state ei ; hence, Ji si → 0 as t → ∞ implies that ei → 0
as t → ∞, which means xi → x0 and ẋi → v0 as t → ∞, ∀i ∈ V, i.e., the
maintask is addressed. Additionally, by (7) and Lemma 1, for the redundant
manipulators, namely, for i ∈ F ,
esi = (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )(q̇i − ϕi )
= (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )[q̇i − Ji♯ (v0 − αi (xi − x0 )) − (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )ϕi ]
= (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )(q̇i − q̇ri )
= (Ipi − Ji♯ Ji )si .
Therefore, si → 0 as t → ∞ implies that esi → 0 as t → ∞, ∀i ∈ F , i.e., the
subtask is addressed. This completes the proof.
Note that the necessary and sufficient condition can be obtained by some
simple transformation for Theorem 2. The proof of Corollary 1 can be easily
obtained by contradiction and is omitted here.
Corollary 1. Suppose that λmin (Kxi ) > 0, λmin (Ksi ) > 0, λmin(Kri ) ≥
supt∈Q kdi (t)k, λmin (Ti ) > 0, and Assumption A2 holds. Using (5) and (6)
for (1), the control tasks are achieved, namely, xi → x0 and ẋi → v0 as
t → ∞, ∀i ∈ V; esi → 0 as t → ∞, ∀i ∈ F , if and only if Assumption A1
holds.
It is worthy to point out that the DCEA (5) and (6) can also deal with
the consensus problem, namely, leaderless coordination, presented in [20] by
some simple changes.
13

Corollary 2. Suppose that G contains a spanning tree and Assumption A2
holds. Let estimators (6b) be replaced by



!
β1
X
 ⊗ Im  sgn
β2
ζ̇i = − 
εij σij .
j∈Ni
β3

Using (5), (6a) and the above estimators for the MHMs (1), if λmin (Kxi ) > 0,
λmin(Ksi ) > 0, λmin (Kri ) ≥ supt∈Q kdi (t)k, and λmin (Ti ) > 0, then consensus
in [20] is achieved, meanwhile, the subtasks are obtained for i ∈ F .
Let a switching topology G(t) = {V, ξ(t), A(t)} be the system interaction.
A(t) = [εij (t)]n×n is the weighted adjacency matrix. B(t) = [b1 (t), . . . , bn (t)]T
is the time-varying nonnegative weight vector between the n nodes and the
leader. We can obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 3. Suppose that Assumption A2 holds and the leader is reachable
to the MHMs under G(t) and B(t). Let (6b) be replaced by



!
β1
X
 ⊗ Im  sgn
β2
ζ̇i = − 
εij (t)σij + bi (t)σi .
j∈Ni
β3

Using (5), (6a) and the above estimators for the MHMs (1), if λmin (Kxi ) > 0,
λmin(Ksi ) > 0, λmin(Kri ) ≥ supt∈Q kdi (t)k, and λmin (Ti ) > 0, then xi → x0
and ẋi → v0 as t → ∞, ∀i ∈ V; esi → 0 as t → ∞, ∀i ∈ F .
Proof. The proof can be easily developed by the combination of Lemma 6 in
[43] and Theorem 2, and is omitted here.

Assuming that G is balanced connected or detail balanced, other conditions are identical, the above results still hold, meanwhile, the subtasks are
obtained for all i ∈ F .
Remark 5. The DCEA (5) and (6) provide a distributed control framework for various multi-agent networks. Note that (5) and (6a) deal with the
tracking of the estimated value of the ith manipulator using its states (local
states), and are called local algorithms, while (6b) deals with the estimation
of the states of the leader using both the states of the ith manipulator and
its neighbour set, and is called networked algorithms. Thus, the DCEA consists of local algorithms and networked algorithms, which can be easily applied
14

to various nonlinear multi-agent networks by designing local algorithms and
networked algorithms separately.
Remark 6. Note that Assumption A1 is less conservative than many other
assumptions in recent works. For details, let Ḡ be the augmentation digraph
by adding the leader and the weight vector B to G, Assumption A1 means
that Ḡ contains a spanning tree, which is less conservative than the following
assumptions for graphs, including strong connected [7, 31, 32], balanced connected [35], detail balanced [44], which means, less consumption is required
to establish and maintain Assumption A1.
Remark 7. Assumption A1 implies that the presented DCEA have the following advantages. (1) If G contains one or more edges, then only partial
nodes are required to be pinned, which reflects the superiority of networked
control. (2) By weighing the cost of maintaining interaction and pinning
nodes, the interaction topology can be optimized.
Remark 8. It is worthy to point out that the leader considered in Theorem 2 is a bounded time-varying signal, which is necessary and inevitable
in some natural and man-made systems, e.g., humanoid hands and multifingered hands [11, 12].
4. Simulations
In this section, simulations are performed to show the effectiveness of
the presented DCEA. The MHMs contain five two-DOF and two three-DOF
planar manipulators, as shown in Fig.1, and the physical parameters are
given in Tab.1. The dynamics and kinematics of the MHMs are adopted
from [31]. The input disturbance di (t) is a stochastic signal, whose ∞-norm
is bounded by 40. The maintask is to obtain the tracking of the leader


1.2 + 0.5 sin(πt)
x0 (t) =
(14)
1.3 + 0.3 cos(πt)
for the end-effectors in the XY plane. The MHMs are interacted invoking
the digraph G shown in Fig.2, where node 0 is the leader, nodes 1-5 are twoDOF nonredundant manipulators, nodes 6 and 7 are three-DOF redundant
manipulators, and nodes 1, 3, 5, and 7 can access the information of the leader
directly. For simplification, if node i can access the information of node j
15

directly, εij = 1; otherwise εij = 0, ∀i, j = 1, . . . , 7. B = col(1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1).
The Laplacian matrix with respect to the digraph G is given by


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 −1
2
−1
0
0
0
0 


 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 


.
−1
0
−1
2
0
0
0
L=


 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 


 0
0
0
0
−1
1
0 
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The elements of qi (0), q̇i (0), and ζi (0) are randomly chosen from [−5, 5].
The elements of ϑ̂i (0) are randomly selected from [0, 5]. The control parameters for the DCEA (5) and (6) are given by
β1 = 4, β2 = 7, β3 = 21;
αi = 3, Ti = 0.1I, Kxi = diag{50, 50}, ∀i = 1, . . . , 7;
Ksi = diag{100, 100}, Kri = diag{60, 60}, ∀i = 1, . . . , 5;
Ksi = diag{150, 150, 150}, Kri = diag{60, 60, 60}, ∀i = 6, 7,
where I denotes the identity matrices of appropriate orders. The sampling
period is selected as 10 ms.
i-th node
i=1
i=2
i=3
i=4
i=5
i=6
i=7

mi (kg)
0.8, 0.6
1, 0.8
0.5, 0.8
1.5, 0.8
2.3, 0.8
0.8, 1.2, 1.4
1.8, 1.2, 1.4

li (m)
1.4, 0.9
1.2, 1.1
1.1, 1.3
1.1, 1.2
1.0, 1.2
0.8, 1.1, 1.4
1, 1.1, 1.2

ri (m)
0.8, 0.45
0.7, 0.5
0.4, 0.6
0.6, 0.6
0.4, 0.7
0.4, 0.5, 0.7
0.6, 0.6, 0.6

Ii (kg · m2 )
6, 3
2, 3
5, 3
5, 4
5, 3
4, 6, 5
5, 6, 5

Table 1: The physical parameters of the MHMs.

16

Figure 1: The mechanical structure of the individuals in the MHMs.

Figure 2: The interaction of MHMs G .

Simulation results of the presented DCEA are shown in Fig.3-7. (14)
implies that kv0 k∞ ≤ 1.571, ka0 k∞ ≤ 4.935, and kȧ0 k∞ ≤ 15.504. It thus
follows from Fig.2 that Assumptions A1 and A2 holds in this simulation.
Then the estimated states x̂i , v̂i and âi follows the states of the leader in
finite time, as shown in Fig.3. It gives that f˜i (t) converges to the origin in
finite time and Theorem 1 holds, which means the distributed sliding-mode
estimator (6b) can drive the system dynamics into the cascade form (11).
Moreover, the end-effectors of the manipulators follows the leader asymptotically because λmin (Kxi ) > 0, λmin (Ksi ) > 0 and λmin (Kri ) ≥ supt∈Q kdi (t)k,
as shown in Fig.4 (the trajectories of the states in time-domain) and Fig.5
(the trajectories of the states in XY plane). It means that the maintask can
be accomplished under the DCEA in the simulations. The subtask function
for the sixth manipulator (node 6) is selected as ϕ6 = col[0, 9(1 − q2 ), 0] with
respect to the performance indices 4.5(q2 − 1)2 , where q2 denotes the second joint angle of the sixth manipulator. This subtask function forces the
17

second joint of the sixth manipulator toward 1 rad. For Fig.6, in the left
picture, the second joint of the sixth manipulator is forced toward 1 rad with
subtask control; in the right picture, the subtask cannot be accomplished
without subtask control.
 The subtask function for the seventh manipulator
∂
is ϕ7 = ∂q
det(J7 J7T ) , where q denotes the joint position of the seventh
manipulator. This subtask function increases the manipulability of the seventh manipulator, as shown in [39]. It can be observed in Fig.7 that the
manipulability of the seventh manipulator is enhanced with subtask control.
It means that the subtask can also be accomplished under the DCEA in the
simulations.
5

5
robot 1
robot 2
robot 3 0
robot 4
robot 5
robot 6 −5
robot 7 0
leader
5

x̂i (1)(m)

0

−5
0
5

t(s)
1

2

3

4

5

6

v̂i (1)(m/s)

0

−5
0
10

t(s)
1

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

6

v̂i (2)(m/s)

0
t(s)
1

2

3

4

5

−5
0

6

10

2

âi (1)(m/s )

0

−10
0

x̂i (2)(m)

t(s)
1

6

âi (2)(m/s2 )

0
t(s)
1

2

3

4

5

−10
0

6

t(s)
1

Figure 3: The estimated value x̂i , v̂i and âi for the ith manipulator.

18

6

3

robot 1
robot 2
robot 3
robot 4
robot 5
robot 6
robot 7
leader

xi (1)

2
1
0

10

2

4

6

8

xi (2)

2
1
0

t(s)

t(s)

−1
0

3

−1
0

10

10

ẋi (1)

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

10

ẋi (2)

5

5

0
0
−5
−5

−10

t(s)
−10
0

2

4

6

8

t(s)
−15
0

10

10

Figure 4: The task-space states xi and ẋi for the ith manipulator.

2.5

8
robot 1
robot 2
robot 3 6
robot 4
robot 5 4
robot 6
robot 7 2
leader

xi (2)(m)

2

1.5

ẋi (2)(m)

0
1

−2
−4

0.5
−6
−8
0
−10
−0.5
−1

xi (1)(m)
0

1

2

−12
−15

3

ẋi (1)(m)
−10

−5

0

5

Figure 5: Position (the left picture) and velocity (the right picture) of the end-effectors of
MHMs in the XY plane.

19

Joint−space Postion with subtask control

Joint−space Postion without subtask control

3.5

2

q6 (1)

q6 (1)
3

1.5

2.5
1
2

q6 (3)

0.5

q6 (2)

1.5
1

0

0.5

q6 (2)

q6 (3)

−0.5

0
−1

−0.5
−1
0

t(s)
2

4

6

8

t(s)

−1.5
0

10

2

4

6

8

10

Figure 6: Joint-space position of the sixth manipulator with and without subtask control.

Manipulability denoted by det(J7 J7T ) with and without subtask control
2
With subtask control
Without subtask control
1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

t(s)

Figure 7: Manipulability of the seventh manipulator with and without subtask control.

5. Conclusion
This paper focus on the task-space coordinated tracking problem of MHMs
with parametric uncertainties and input disturbances under digraphs. Especially, maintask and subtask for MHMs are designed and addressed simultaneously. Several conditions (including necessary and sufficient conditions,
20

sufficient conditions) for driving both the task-space tracking error and the
subtask tracking error of MHMs to zero have been derived. The simulations
for the DCEA have shown satisfactory performance in the MHMs containing
two-DOF and three-DOF manipulators.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61272069.
References
[1] Y.C. Liu, Task-space coordination control of bilateral human-swarm systems, J. Frankl. Inst. 352 (1) (2015) 311-331.
[2] Z. Li, C.Y. Su, Neural-adaptive control of single-master-multiple-slaves
teleoperation for coordinated multiple mobile manipulators with timevarying communication delays and input uncertainties, IEEE Trans.
Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 24 (9) (2013) 1400-1413.
[3] Y. Yang, C. Hua, X. Guan, Adaptive fuzzy finite-time coordination
control for networked nonlinear bilateral teleoperation system, IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 22 (3) (2014) 631-641.
[4] Z. Lu, P. Huang, Z. Liu, Z. Meng, Stability conditions for asymmetric
dual-user shared control method with uncertain time delay, IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, 2015, pp. 19972002.
[5] Z. Lu, P. Huang, Kinesthetic performance analysis of asymmetric dualuser shared teleoperation system, 12th International Conference on
Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI), 2015, pp. 273278.
[6] P. Huang, Z. Lu, Auxiliary asymmetric dual-user shared control method
for teleoperation, 12th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots
and Ambient Intelligence (URAI), 2015, pp. 267-272.

21

[7] Y.C. Liu, Robust synchronisation of networked Lagrangian systems and
its applications to multi-robot teleoperation, IET Control Theory Appl.
9 (1) (2015) 129-139.
[8] C. Hua, Y. Yang, P. X. Liu, Output-feedback adaptive control of networked teleoperation system with time-varying delay and bounded inputs, IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 20 (5) (2015) 2009-2020.
[9] Z. Li, L. Ding, H. Gao, G. Duan, C.Y. Su, Trilateral teleoperation
of adaptive fuzzy force/motion control for nonlinear teleoperators with
communication random delays. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 21 (4) (2013)
610-624.
[10] Z. Li, Y. Xia, F. Sun, Adaptive fuzzy control for multilateral cooperative
teleoperation for multiple robotic manipulators under random networkinduced delays. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 22 (2) (2014) 437-450.
[11] M.F. Ge, Z.H. Guan, T.Li, D.X. Zhang, R.Q. Liao, Robust mode-free
sliding mode control of multi-fingered hand with position synchronization in the task space, Intelligent Robotics and Applications, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 571-580.
[12] W. Gueaieb, S. Al-Sharhan, M. Bolic, Robust computationally efficient
control of cooperative closed-chain manipulators with uncertain dynamics, Automatica 43 (5) (2007) 842-851.
[13] R. Olfati-Saber, R.M. Murray, Consensus problems in networks of agents
with switching topology and time-delays, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
49 (9) (2004) 1520-1533.
[14] Y.C. Cao, W. Ren, Z.Y. Meng, Decentralized finite-time sliding mode
estimators and their applications in decentralized finite-time formation
tracking, Syst. Contr. Lett. 59 (9) (2010) 522-529.
[15] J. Li, D.W.C. Ho, J. Li, Distributed adaptive repetitive consensus control framework for uncertain nonlinear leader-follower multi-agent systems, J. Frankl. Inst. 352 (11) (2015) 5342-5360.
[16] H. Zhang, R. Yang, H. Yan, Q. Chen, Distributed event-triggered control
for consensus of multi-agent systems, J. Frankl. Inst. 352 (9) (2015)
3467-3488.
22

[17] M.F. Ge, Z.H. Guan, B. Hu, D.X. He, R.Q. Liao, Distributed controllerestimator for target tracking of networked robotic systems under sampled interaction, Automatica 69 (2016) 410-417.
[18] M.F. Ge, Z.H. Guan, C. Yang, T. Li, Y.W. Wang. Time-varying formation tracking of multiple manipulators via distributed finite-time control.
Neurocomputing 202 (2016) 20-26.
[19] Z. Li, Z. Chen, J. Fu, C. Sun, Direct adaptive controller for uncertain
MIMO dynamic systems with time-varying delay and dead-zone inputs,
Automatica 63 (2016) 287-291.
[20] Z.H. Guan, Z.W. Liu, G. Feng, M. Jian, Impulsive consensus algorithms
for second-order multi-agent networks with sampled information, Automatica 48 (7) (2012) 1397-1404.
[21] Z.W. Liu, Z.H. Guan, X.M. Shen, G. Feng, Consensus of multi-agent networks with aperiodic sampled communication via impulsive algorithms
using position-only measurements, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 57 (10)
(2012) 2639-2643.
[22] Z.H. Guan, B. Hu, M. Chi, D.X. He, X.M. Cheng, Guaranteed performance consensus in second-order multi-agent systems with hybrid
impulsive control, Automatica 50 (9) (2014) 2415-2418.
[23] Z.W. Liu, X. Yu, Z.H. Guan, B. Hu, C. Li. Pulse-modulated intermittent
control in consensus of multi-agent systems, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man,
Cybern., Syst. (2016) DOI:10.1109/TSMC.2016.2524063.
[24] L. Ding, P. Yu, Z.W. Liu, Z.H. Guan, G. Feng. Consensus of secondorder multi-agent systems via impulsive control using sampled heteroinformation, Automatica 49 (9) (2013) 2881-2886.
[25] T. Imaida, K. Senda, Performance improvement of the PD-based bilateral teleoperators with time delay by introducing relative D-control,
Advanced Robotics 29 (6) (2015) 385-400.
[26] N. Chopra, M.W. Spong, R. Lozano, Synchronization of bilateral teleoperators with time delay, Automatica 44 (8) (2008) 2142-2148.

23

[27] Y. Yang, C. Ge, H. Wang, X. Li, C. Hua, Adaptive neural network
based prescribed performance control for teleoperation system under
input saturation, J. Frankl. Inst. 352 (5) (2015) 1850-1866.
[28] S. Islam, P.X. Liu, A. El Saddik, Y.B. Yang, Bilateral control of teleoperation systems with time delay, IEEE-ASME Trans. Mechatronics 20
(1) (2015) 1-12.
[29] S.J. Chung, J.J.E. Slotine, Cooperative robot control and concurrent
synchronization of Lagrangian systems, IEEE Trans. Robot. 25 (3)
(2009) 686-700.
[30] J. Mei, W. Ren, B. Li, G. Ma, Distributed containment control for
multiple unknown second-order nonlinear systems with application to
networked Lagrangian systems, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst.
26 (9) (2015) 1885-1899.
[31] H.L. Wang, Passivity based synchronization for networked robotic systems with uncertain kinematics and dynamics, Automatica 49 (3) (2013)
755-761.
[32] H.L. Wang, Task-space synchronization of networked robotic systems
with uncertain kinematics and dynamics, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
58 (12) (2013) 3169-3174.
[33] E. Zergeroglu, D.D. Dawson, I.W. Walker, P. Setlur, Nonlinear tracking
control of kinematically redundant robot manipulators, IEEE-ASME
Trans. Mechatronics 9 (1) (2004) 129-132.
[34] W. Xu, J. Zhang, B. Liang, B. Li. Singularity analysis and avoidance
for robot manipulators with non-spherical wrists, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 63 (1) (2016) 277-290.
[35] Y.C. Liu, N. Chopra, Controlled synchronization of heterogeneous
robotic manipulators in the task space, IEEE Trans. Robot. 28 (1) (2012)
268-275.
[36] Y. Nakamura, Advanced Robotics Redundancy and Optimization,
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.

24

[37] R. Kelly, V. Santibanez, A. Loria, Control of robot manipulators in joint
space, London: Springer, 2005.
[38] Z. Meng, D.V. Dimarogonas, K.H. Johansson, Leader-follower coordinated tracking of multiple heterogeneous Lagrange systems using continuous control, IEEE Trans. Robot. 30 (3) (2014) 739-745.
[39] P. Hsu, J. Hauser, S. Sastry, Dynamic control of redundant manipulators, J. Robot. Syst. 6 (1989) 133-148.
[40] B. Paden, S. Sastry, A calculus for computing Filippov’s differential
inclusion with application to the variable structure control of robot manipulators, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. CAS-34 (1) (1987) 73-82.
[41] N. Fischer, R. Kamalapurkar, W.E. Dixon, LaSalle-Yoshizawa corollaries for nonsmooth systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 58 (9) (2013)
2333-2338.
[42] H.K. Khalil, J.W. Grizzle, Nonlinear systems, New Jersey: Prentice hall,
1996.
[43] X. Wang, Y. Hong, Distributed finite-time χ-consensus algorithms for
multi-agent systems with variable coupling topology, J. Syst. Sci. Complex 23 (2010) 209-218.
[44] X. Liu, J. Lam, W. Yu, G. Chen, Finite-time consensus of multiagent
systems with a switching protocol, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn.
Syst. 27 (4) (2016) 853-862.

25

