See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228661742

Review of modelling and remote control for excavators

Article in International Journal of Advanced Mechatronic Systems · January 2010

DOI: 10.1504/IJAMECHS.2010.030850

CITATIONS READS

47 5,675

3 authors:

Hongnian Yu Yang Liu

Edniburgh Napier University University of Exeter
387 PUBLICATIONS 6,924 CITATIONS 155 PUBLICATIONS 2,375 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammad Shahidul Hasan

Staffordshire University
45 PUBLICATIONS 606 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hongnian Yu on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

68 Int. J. Advanced Mechatronic Systems, Vol. 2, Nos. 1/2, 2010

Review of modelling and remote control for

excavators

Hongnian Yu*, Yang Liu and

Mohammad Shahidul Hasan
Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Technology,
Staffordshire University, Stafford, ST18 0AD UK,
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Abstract: An excavator is a typical hydraulic heavy-duty human-operated machine used in

general versatile construction operations, such as digging, ground levelling, carrying loads,
dumping loads and straight traction. However, there are many tasks, such as hazard environment
(nuclear decomposition, earthquake, etc.) which is not suitable for human to work on site. The
remotely controllable excavators are required to work in such environment. In this paper, we
report the current progress of the ongoing project. We investigate modelling and remote control
issues of industry excavators. After reviewing the literature on the related work, architecture for
remotely controllable excavators is proposed. The architecture covers actuators, modelling,
sensors, image signal processing, communication networks, controllers, task and path planning,
human computer interaction, optimal design, co-simulation and virtual training environment. The
details of modelling, communication and control of a remotely controllable excavator are
provided.

Keywords: excavator; remote control; mechatronics; modelling.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Yu, H., Liu, Y. and Hasan, M.S. (2010)
‘Review of modelling and remote control for excavators’, Int. J. Advanced Mechatronic Systems,
Vol. 2, Nos. 1/2, pp.68–80.

Biographical notes: Hongnian Yu has held academic positions at the Universities of Yanshan,
Sussex, Liverpool John Moor, Exeter, Bradford and Staffordshire. He is currently a Professor of
Computer Science and the Director of Mobile Fusion Applied Research Centre at Staffordshire
University. He has extensive research experience in modelling and control of robots and
mechatronics devices and neural networks, mobile computing, modelling, scheduling, planning
and simulations of large discrete event dynamic systems, RFID with applications to
manufacturing systems, supply chains, transportation networks and computer networks. He has
published over 160 journal and conference research papers. He is serving on various conferences
and academic societies.

Yang Liu received his BEng in Automation from the Hunan University, China, in 2003 and his
MSc in Control Systems from the University of Sheffield, UK, in 2005. He is currently a PhD
student at the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Technology, Staffordshire University, UK.
His research interests include control of underactuated mechanical systems, ground mobile robots
and robotics for medical applications.

Mohammad Shahidul Hasan received his BSc and first MSc in Computer Science from the
University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. He obtained his second MSc in Computer and Network
Engineering from Sheffield Hallam University, UK. He is currently pursuing his PhD at
Staffordshire University, UK in Networked Control Systems over Mobile Ad-hoc Network
(MANET). He has worked as full time Lecturer of Computer Science and Engineering in
Bangladesh and is engaged in part time teaching at Staffordshire University. His research
interests include computer networks, networked control systems, remotely controllable mobile
robot systems, etc.

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Review of modelling and remote control for excavators 69

1 Introduction The idea of teleoperated excavator was studied by

Parker et al. (1993), Lawrence et al. (1995) and Kim et al.
Earthmoving machines, such as bulldozers, wheel loaders,
(2008) based on the force-feedback control. In a
excavators, scrapers and graders are common in
teleoperated excavator system, if the operator cannot sense
construction. An excavator is a typical hydraulic heavy-duty
the condition of contact, the work efficiency will decrease
human-operated machine used in general versatile
compared to a direct control by the human operator. So,
construction operations, such as digging, ground levelling,
design of the joystick with proper force feedback can make
carrying loads, dumping loads and straight traction.
skilful operators adapt their operation to the excavating
However, there are many tasks, such as hazard environment
environment based on their empirical knowledge and can
(nuclear decomposition, earthquake, etc.) which is not
realise efficient excavation. In Lawrence et al. (1995), it has
suitable for human to work on site. The remotely
proposed the single joystick endpoint velocity control,
controllable excavators are required to work in such
which is controlling joystick stiffness as a function of
environment. We will make a brief review from the two
endpoint force. It was found to be both a stable and
aspects:
effective form of feedback for a system where joystick
1 modelling of excavators position maps to endpoint velocity. Different from
controlling a real hydraulic excavator, there are many
2 remote control of excavators.
studies which implement their work on the virtual excavator
On the modelling aspect, early research work on the including development and evaluation of the controller
dynamic model of excavators has been done by Vaha and (Dimaio et al., 1998), operator training (Tao et al., 2008),
Skibniewski (1993). Based on Vaha and Skibniewski and investigation of remote control issues (Yang et al.,
(1993), Koivo et al. (1996) did further studies on the 2008). Apparently, the virtual excavator system is a low-
modelling of excavator dynamics during digging operations. cost, safe and reliable system that can both test the system
Later on, a number of researchers investigated the feasibility and the control strategy in virtual environment.
of autonomous excavation. Many of these studies have As discussed above, many research studies have focused
addressed the possible use of an autonomous excavator (Le on modelling and controller development stages, but few
et al., 1998; Bradley and Seward, 1998). literature studies the remote operation from a network
Based on the earlier research work, implementation of communication point of view. Furthermore, it is found that
an autonomous teleoperated excavator mainly focused on efficiency of excavation by human operator (Sakaida et al.,
three parts: modelling, parameter identification and control 2008) is a notable issue that has potential commercial value.
strategy. The key reason for modelling and parameter On the other hand, a teleoperated excavator has always been
identification during the digging operation is to provide desired by industry and manufacturing during the past two
online parameters for the development of an autonomous decades. Much of the work on terrestrial excavation has
strategy. In Tafazoli et al. (1999), an experimental focused on teleoperation, rather than on the system
determination approach of the link parameters and friction requirements for autonomous operation (Ha et al., 2002).
coefficients was developed on the excavator arm. Zweiri et However, although remarkable and valuable progress has
al. (2004) presented another robust, fast and simple been made on automated excavation, teleoperation of a
technique for the experimental identification of the link full-scale excavator has not been commercially
parameters and friction coefficients of a full-scale excavator demonstrated.
arm. Furthermore, in order to carry out autonomous This paper identifies the issues on designing a remotely
excavation, an online soil parameter estimation scheme was controllable excavator. Section 2 identifies the requirements
proposed by Tan et al. (2005). At the earlier stage of study of remotely controllable excavators and proposes remote
on excavation, impedance control was considered as a control architecture of excavators. Section 3 provides the
popular robust control approach to achieve compliant forward kinematics, inverse kinematics and dynamics of
motion in contact tasks. Details of robust impedance control excavators. Those models will provide the basis for the
for a hydraulic excavator have been presented by Lu and system design, development of the controllers, task/path
Goldenberg (1995) and Ha et al. (2000). In Tafazoli et al. planning, simulation, validation etc. Section 4 presents
(2002), a position-based impedance controller was several control schemes for controlling excavators. Some of
presented on various contact experiments by using an those control schemes are based on the authors’ previous
instrumented mini-excavator. Rather than excavation work conducted in robotics context. Section 5 proposes a
control strategy, motion and path planning for autonomous wireless networked control scheme for excavators. Finally
excavation have also been studied in a number of research the conclusions and future works are given in Section 6.
papers by Bernold (1993) and Singh (1995). In Saeedi et al.
(2005), a vision-based control system for a tracked
excavator was presented. The system includes several 2 Requirements of remotely controllable
controllers that collaborate to move the excavator from a excavators
starting position to a goal position. In the paper, both path-
Remotely controllable robots or excavators using wired
tracking accuracy and slippage control problems have been
networks restrict the coverage area and offer very limited
addressed.
flexibility. On the other hand, wirelessly controlled mobile
70 H. Yu et al.

robots or excavators provide the freedom from wired 2.1 Modelling of excavators
networks and support a higher degree of movement and
During the digging operation, it will require not only the
hence are preferable to wired versions. Researchers and
bucket trajectory but also the forces exerted by the bucket
many industries are concentrating more and more on such
on the soil. Therefore, the modelling of the excavator will
systems as they are suitable for various applications e.g.,
involve (Koivo 1994; Koivo et al., 1996):
nuclear plant decommissioning, disaster rescue, military
operation, etc. The proposed overall system is shown in 1 the kinematics which give the trajectory of the
Figure 1. The excavator is equipped with the necessary excavator bucket based on the trajectory of the
sensors and camera for gathering data (signal), actuators for excavator arm joints
moving it and a wireless communication module to transmit
the signals, etc. The sensor and camera data are transmitted 2 the inverse kinematics which give the desired joint
to the control (decision making) centre through the wireless variables corresponding to the desired bucket trajectory
network which is composed of multiple mobile robots. The
3 the dynamics which describe the behaviour of the
primary responsibility of these robots is to relay the data to
excavator system
and from the excavator. These robot nodes can also have a
camera mounted on them to provide additional visual 4 modelling of the interaction between the excavator
feedback of the excavator to the control centre. The sensor bucket and the environment which is necessary for the
and camera data are monitored and analysed at the control remote control during the digging task.
and decision making centre to make the right decision and
to send the necessary action or command to the excavator
over the wireless network. 2.2 Sensors and camera
Remote or autonomous controls for the excavators can
Figure 1 The overall system design (see online version for
potentially improve the operational safety and efficiency.
colours)
Sensors are crucial to this requirement, since feedback
signals are necessary to carry out an unmanned or indirect
controlled task. The sensors used in remote control will
include position/velocity sensors that monitor the joint
angles/velocities, force sensors that detect the interactive
force between the excavator bucket and the environment
and the vibration sensors that measure the vibration
status of excavators. In addition, the camera is another key
sensor which can be used for the vision-based control
system (Saeedi et al., 2000, 2005). From the vision
information, the operator can better operate the excavator
remotely.

2.3 Actuators
There are a number of non-linearities affecting the
dynamics of hydraulic actuators, such as the basic flow
equation through an orifice, flow forces on valve spools and
friction (Tafazoli, 1997). To overcome these non-linear
effects, investigation of the hydraulic actuator is necessary
Staffordshire University with a UK based excavator (Tafazoli et al., 2002).
developer presented a physical demonstration in an
exhibition hosted by a UK based nuclear decommissioning 2.4 Communication systems between excavators and
company, where ten universities and 14 companies in remote controllers (decision-making)
robotics made the presentations. The demonstration system
made by the Staffordshire University team involved a With the development of high-speed networks capable of
dummy excavator, an observer robot being controlled over a carrying real-time traffic and a network interface with
Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET). This paper presents the built-in sensor/actuator, control systems over network have
system design for a remotely controllable excavator based become an interesting area of research (Cervin, 2003;
on the experience and the requirements for such Cervin et al., 2002). Nowadays a low cost and easily
applications. deployable remotely controllable excavator system can be
In order to develop the remotely controllable implemented using IEEE 802.11 standards as shown in
autonomous excavators, the following issues and Figure 2.
requirements should be investigated.
 Review of modelling and remote control for excavators 71

Figure 2 Block diagram of remotely controlled excavator controller was used by Tafazoli et al. (2002) on a
systems (see online version for colours) teleoperated excavator. In addition, excavators often
conduct respective tasks; therefore iterative control
approaches can be applied.

2.7 Path planning and task planning

Remote control of the excavator in natural environments
2.5 Signal and image signal processing requires planning every movement in order to avoid any
obstacle and to locate the machine at each time with respect
The data (signal) measured from the sensors and cameras to a global coordinate system (Saeedi et al., 2005). With the
will be unavoidably contaminated by all sort of noise. To application of an effective path planning, human steering of
extract the required valid signal and data for the purposes of the excavator can be removed. Task panning (Singh, 1995)
control and 2D/3D virtual view, the certain type of filters is to design an operation sequence based on the tasks to be
and data processing meads are needed (Fua, 1993; Schmid done. Human operative error can be minimised or
and Bauckhage, 1998). The data captured by multiple completely removed and more consistent operation of the
cameras mounted on the excavator and the observer robots machine can be achieved to increase efficiency.
shown in Figure 3 can be processed and combined to
produce a complete 3D virtual view of the excavator
2.8 Human computer interaction
surroundings (Shapiro et al., 1995). However, this process
will consume valuable wireless network bandwidth to The system can have two modes of operation: manual and
transfer video stream and involves heavy computation of autonomous. In manual mode, an operator can observe
image processing. different views i.e., excavator and observer robot views on
screen and move the excavator manually using a joystick
Figure 3 The overall excavator design (see online version for (Kim et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2008) attached to the control
colours) centre computer. In the autonomous mode, the intelligent
control centre can move the excavator autonomously based
on the sensor and camera data.

2.9 Optimum overall design

The overall design of the excavator is shown in Figure 3. It
is equipped with an adjustable overhead camera, IEEE
802.11 wireless communication module and several
electromagnetic and ultrasonic sensors around it. The
overhead camera produces the operator’s view (Saeedi et
al., 2005). Two mobile observer robots carrying a remotely
adjustable camera on both sides of the excavator will
provide the left and right views at the controller end.

2.10 Simulation environment: co-simulation

This paper adopts the co-simulation framework developed
in (Hasan et al., 2009) utilising MATLAB-SIMULINK to
model the plant-controller and OPNET to simulate the
network to accelerate the remotely controllable excavator
system research by producing more realistic simulation
results.

2.11 Virtual training environment

2.6 Intelligent control
Providing training for new operators on actual systems can
To achieve the goal of remote control, adaptive and robust be expensive in terms of time and money. A virtual training
control law is required to compensate for the non-linear environment (Dimaio et al., 1998) shown in Figure 4 can
dynamics of the excavator system. For example, Vossoughi reduce the cost dramatically. The trainee operator interacts
and Salcudean (2000) used the feedback linearisation with the system through the joysticks. The excavator’s
technique, and in Heinrichs et al. (1997), a non-linear dynamics are simulated on a computer (Makkonen et al.,
proportional-integral controller was used. An impedance 2006).
72 H. Yu et al.

Figure 4 Virtual training environment (see online version for

P0Oi  A0i PiOi (2)
colours)

where vector PiOi  <0 0 0 1> specifies point Oi in the

T

ith coordinate frame. So, by using equation (2), we can

describe the origin of each coordinate frame Oi in the base
coordinate frame as follows:

P0O1  A01 P1O1  < a1c1 a1s1 0 1>

T
(3)

P0O2  A01 A12 P2O2

(4)
 < a2 c1c2 a2 s2 1>
T
a1c1 a2 c2 s1 a1s1

c (a c a2 c2 a1 )¯
¡ 1 3 23 °
¡ s1 (a3c23 a2 c2 a1 )°
3 Modelling of excavators P0O3  A01 A12 A23 P3O3 ¡
¡ ° (5)
a s a s °
¡ 3 23 2 2 °
3.1 Kinematics ¡ °
¢¡ 1 °±
The excavator schematic diagram is shown in Figure 5. The
coordinate systems are assigned systematically by applying
the Denavit-Hartenberg convention in Koivo (1994). To P0O4  A01 A12 A23 A34 P4O4
describe the positions of the points on the excavator, the c (a c a3c23 a2 c2 a1 )¯
¡ 1 4 234 °
Cartesian coordinate systems are defined to attach to the ¡ s1 (a4 c234 a3c23 a2 c2 a1 )° (6)
links, which include a fixed Cartesian coordinate system  ¡¡ °
°
¡ a4 s234 a3 s23 a2 s2 °
with the origin on the body of the excavator. It is noticed
¡ °
that the rotational axis for the first link (i.e., the base) is ¢¡ 1 °±
vertical, whereas the rotational axes for the other links are
horizontal. where ci = cos
i, si = sin
i,
23 =
2+
3 and
234 =
2+
3+
4.
The forward kinematics is used to describe the positions
and orientations of the points on the excavator in the
Cartesian coordinate for the given joint positions during the 3.2 Inverse kinematics
digging operation. The problem can be summarised as The inverse kinematics (or backward kinematic relations) is
below: used to determine the joint positions for the given desired
For the given
= [
2
3
4]T, find the coordinate coordinate points in the Cartesian coordinate. The problem
P = [X Y Z]T = [fx(
) fy(
) fz(
)]T. of inverse kinematics can be summarised as below:
To determine the positions of the points on the For the given P = [X Y Z]T, find the joint angles
= [
2
excavator in the base Cartesian coordinate frame, the
3
4]T = [g2(P) g3(P) g4(P)]T=[fx-1(
) fy-1(
) fz-1(
)]T
relations between the fixed coordinate system and other According to Tafazoli (1997), the inverse kinematic
coordinate systems is necessary. Therefore, the model of the excavator is given as follows:
transformation matrix relating two adjacent coordinate
frames was studied by Koivo et al. (1996) as follows:
R1  Rb
l1  (rb  a1 ) 2 zb2
cos Ri  cos Bi sin Ri sin Bi sin Ri ai cos Ri ¯
¡ °
¡ sin Ri cos Bi cos Ri  sin Bi cos Ri ai sin Ri °° Y1  a tan[ zb (rb  a1 )]
Aii1  ¡¡ (1)
¡ 0 sin Ri cos Bi di °° l  l12 a42  2l1a4 cos(Y1  B )
¡ 0 (7)
¡¢ 0 0 1 °°± Y2  a sin[( zb  a4 sin B ) l ]
R2  Y2 a cos[(a22 l 2  a32 ) (2a2 l )]
where i is the twist angle of link i, ai is the length of link i,
R3  Q a cos[(a22 a32  l 2 ) (2a2 a3 )]
and di is the offset distance in link i, i = 1, 2, 3 and 4.
By the given coordinates of the origin in each coordinate R4  B  R23
frame Oi, the coordinates of points Oi in the base coordinate
frame can be described as follows using the equation (1):
 Review of modelling and remote control for excavators 73

Figure 5 Schematic diagram of the excavator

3.3 Dynamics D23  D24 I st M st [r32 a2 r3 cos(R3 B3 )]

The dynamic model will describe the relationships among M bu [a32 a2 a3c3 a3 r4 cos(R4 B4 )]
the joint angles. The dynamic model of the excavator can be
C C12 C13 C14 ¯
expressed concisely using the form of the well-known ¡ 11 °
¡C21 C22 C23 C24 °°
rigid-link manipulator equations of motion (Yu, 1998): C (R, R)  ¡¡ (10)
¡C31 C32 C33 C34 °°
D (R )R C (R , R)R G (R ) B (R)  (U  U L (8) ¡C
¢¡ 41 C42 C43 C44 °±°
where R  <R1 R2 R4 >
T
R3 is the vector of measured where
joint angles as defined in Figure 5; D(
) represents inertia;
C22  M st a2 r3R23 sin(R3 B3 )  M bu a2 a3R23 s3
C (R, R) represents Coriolis and centripetal effects; G(
)
 M a r R sin(R B4 )
represent gravity forces; B (R) represent frictions;  is the bu 2 4 234 34

corresponding input matrix; vector  = [ 1  2  3  4]T C23  M st a2 r3R23 sin(R3 B3 )  M bu a2 a3R23 s3

specifies the torques acting on the joint shafts; L represents
 M a r R sin(R
bu 2 4 234 34 B4 )
the interactive torques between the bucket and the
environment during the digging operation. C24  M bu a2 r4 R234 sin(R34 B4 )
According to Koivo et al. (1996), D(
), C (R , R) , G(
),
(
) and FL are given by the following expression: C32  a2R2 [ M bu a3 s3 M st r3 sin(R3 B3 )]

D D12 D13 D14 ¯  M a r R sin(R B )

bu 3 4 234 4 4
¡ 11 °
¡D D22 D23 D24 °° C33  M bu a3 r4R234 sin(R4 B4 )
D(R )  ¡¡ 21 (9)
¡ D31 D32 D33 D34 °°
¡D D44 °±° C34  M bu a3 r4 R234 sin(R4 B4 )
¢¡ 41 D42 D43

where C42  M bu r4 R2 [a2 sin(R34 B4 ) a3 sin(R4 B4 )]

M bu a3 r4R3 sin(R4 B4 )
D44  I bu M bu r42
C43  M bu a3 r4 sin(R4 B4 )
D33  D44 I st M st r32 M bu [a32 2a3 r4 cos(R4 B4 )]
C44  0
D22  D33 I bo M bo r22 M st [a22 2a2 r3 cos(R3 B3 )]
G (R )  <G1 G2 G4 >
T
M bu [a22 2a2 a3c3 2a2 r4 cos(R34 B4 )] G3 (11)

D34  D44 M bu a3 r4 cos(R4 B4 ) where

G2  ( M bu M st ) ga2 c2 M bo gr2 cos(R2 B2 )
D24  D34 M bu a2 r4 cos(R34 B4 )
74 H. Yu et al.

G3  M bu ga3c23 M st gr3 cos(R23 B3 ) 4 Intelligent control of excavators

G4  M bu gr4 cos(R234 B4 ) Usually, the excavator is always required to carry out tasks
involving contact with its environment, such as levelling
B (R)  ¡ Bba R1 Bbo R2 Bst R3 Bbu R4 ¯°
T and digging. In moving towards autonomous excavation, it
(12)
¢ ± is necessary to develop the controller that is robust to
uncertainties associated with such tasks.
( (12 (13 (14 ¯
¡ 11 ° Although there are some pronounced differences
¡ ( 21 1 1 0 °°
(  ¡¡ (13) between the classical robot manipulator and the robotic
¡ (31 0 1 1 °° excavation (Ha et al., 2002), but there are also some
¡( 1 °±° parallels. Therefore, there are many control approaches
¢¡ 41 0 0
which have been developed for the robot manipulator that
The interaction between the excavator bucket and the can be adopted by the robotic excavation. In this section, we
environment is presented in Figure 6. will firstly review the conventional control approaches:
According to Alekseeva et al. (1986), Ft and Fn are the computed torque and PID and then introduce three control
tangential and normal components of the soil reaction force approaches: adaptive control, robust control and iterative
at the bucket, respectively. The tangential component can be learning control which have been developed on the fully
calculated as actuated robot manipulator.
Ft  k1bh (14)
4.1 Computed torque control
2
where k1 is the specific digging force in N/m , and h and b
Using the dynamic model of excavators in (7), the
are the thickness and width of the cut slice of soil. The
conventional computed torque control law is given as:
normal component Fn is calculated as:
Fn  :Ft (15) U d  Dˆ (R )Rv Cˆ (R, R)R Gˆ (R ) Bˆ (R) (17)

where < = 0.1–0.45 is a dimensionless factor that depends where Rv  Rd  kv e  k p e, e  R  Rd , is the tracking error,
on the digging angle, digging conditions and the wear of the kv and kp are linear gains to be designed, Dˆ (R ) is the
cutting edge.
So according to Figure 6, the loading torque is given as estimated inertia; Cˆ (R , R) is the estimated Coriolis and
below: centripetal effects; Gˆ (R ) is the estimated gravity forces;
Ub ¯ Bˆ (R) is the estimated friction effects, Ud is the desired
¡ °
¡ a2 [ Ft sin(R2  Rdg )  Fn cos(R2  Rdg )] ° torques applied to the system, R , R , R are the desired joint
¡
UL  ¡ ° d d d
R R  R R ° (16)
¡ 3 t
a [ F sin( 23 dg ) Fn cos( 23 dg °
)] link angle, angular velocity and angular acceleration,
¡ ° respectively.
¡¢ a4 ( Ft sin Rb Fn cos Rb ) °±
It is found that the computed torque control approach is
Since during the digging operation, the joint variable
1 is specified by the inverse dynamics of the excavator (7). The
not changed. So, the elements D1i, Di1, C1i, Ci1, 1i, i1 controller (17) generates the generalised torques to be
(i = 1, 2, 3, and 4), G1, Bba, 1 and  b are not specified here. applied to the excavator producing the desired motion under
ideal condition. The simulation results of tracking a desired
Figure 6 The interaction between the excavator bucket and the motion are presented in Figure 7 and the computed torques
environment for the boom, stick and bucket are presented in Figures 8, 9
and 10, respectively. The numerical parameters used in the
simulation are given in Appendix.

4.2 PD control
Due to the uncertainties in real environment, only the
computed torque control approach is not sufficient to
control the motion of the excavator. So, according to Koivo
et al. (1996), the PD controller is used as a secondary
controller associated with the computed torque controller.
The control architecture is presented in Figure 11.
Based on Figure 11, the PD controller is given as below:

U PD  K P e(t ) K D e(t ) K f [U L (t )  U Ld (t )] (18)

 Review of modelling and remote control for excavators 75

where e(t )  R (t )  Rd (t ), U Ld (t ) is the desired torque exerted Figure 10 The bucket torque (see online version for colours)

by the bucket on the ground and KP, KD are the gains of the
PD controller, Kf is the proportional gain on the torque
error.

Figure 7 The bucket trajectory (see online version for colours)

Figure 11 Control architecture

Figure 8 The boom torque (see online version for colours)

4.3 Adaptive control

Due to the uncertainties in real environment, only the
computed torque control approach is not sufficient to
control the motion of the excavator. Therefore adaptive,
robust and iterative learning is considered. Currently, there
are many adaptive control approaches that have been
developed on robot manipulators (Slotine and Li, 1998;
Johansson, 1990; Yu, 1998). The main issues of adaptive
control for robot manipulators are to adapt to uncertainties
(e.g., uncertain parameters, payload changes and
unmodelled dynamics), and to avoid the use of the inverse
of the estimated inertia matrix and the joint accelerations.
So, these issues should be considered when developing
adaptive control approaches for the excavator.
According to Theorem 2 in Yu (1998), the following
Figure 9 The stick torque (see online version for colours)
adaptive control law is defined.
U (t )  U n (t ) Ul (t ) (19)

where l(t) is a linear feedback control part which is given in

the following form,

Ul  ( Pll Pcc (1 Pcc )q  Pll Pcc1(q (20)

and n(t) is a non-linear feedforward term which is given

below,

U n  Dˆ (q )(v  N s ) Cˆ (q, q )v Gˆ (q ) (21)

Pll is a symmetric positive definite matrix, Pcc = PccT,  = T

and P12 = Pcc–1 are the constant positive matrices,
q  q  qd is the tracking error and v  q d  P12 q,
s  q P q.
12
76 H. Yu et al.

Since Figure 12 The iterative learning control scheme for the

excavator
ˆ W (t )  Dˆ (q)(v  N s )
W (t )2 Cˆ (q, q )v Gˆ (q) (22)
0

  22
where 2 ˆ , so, the updating law is chosen as

ˆ  2
2   K W T (t ) s (23)
d

where Kd is a symmetric positive definite matrix.

4.4 Robust control

Define the state errors as

q ¯ q  q d ¯°
x  ¡¡ °°  ¡ (24)
¡ °
¢ q± ¢ q  qd ± 5 Remote control of excavators
According to Yu et al. (1994), if the dynamic model (7) Research on Wireless Networked Control Systems (WNCS)
with constant but unknown parameters
, the robust control or wireless networks, e.g., MANET mostly relies on
law is given as below: computer simulation studies since launching real
experiments are expensive and time consuming
W (t )2(t ) W0 (t ) (Kotz et al., 2004; Conti and Giordano, 2007). Models for
(25) the plant, controller and the network can be simulated
 D(q ){v  N(q P12 q)} C (q, q )v G (q )
using a mathematical simulation package e.g.,
MATLAB-SIMULINK, or network simulators e.g.,
U(t)  Tf (t) Tl (t) (26) Optimised Network Engineering Tool (OPNET) (Chang,
1999), Network Simulator version 2 (NS2) (Fall and
Tl (t)  -(Pll Pcc (-1Pcc )P1 x(t ) Pcc q(t ) (27) Varadhan, 2006). MATLAB-SIMULINK is well accepted
in the research community as a powerful tool for modelling
Tf (t)  W (t )2v (t ) W0 (t ) (28) systems and implementing control algorithms. However, it
has limitations in simulating computer networks. Toolboxes
2v (t )  F1 (t )2Ri p R i (29) for MATLAB e.g., TrueTime (Cervin et al., 2002; 2003;
2007; Henriksson et al., 2002; Eker and Cervin, 1999) from
the Lund institute in Sweden, allow wireless networked
F1 (t )  diag \ sgn( f1 ),sgn( f 2 ),...,sgn( f p )^ (30)
control systems simulation. However, they do NOT have
the flexibility to set many vital MANET parameters e.g.,
F (t )  xT P1T W (t )  ¡ f1 (t ), f 2 (t ),..., f p (t )¯° (31) node movement model, wireless signal propagation model,
¢ ±
etc. On the other hand, OPNET is an advanced simulation
where
v(t) is a switching-function vector designed package that allows detailed communication network
according to the robust control approach, and P1 = [Inxn P12]. simulation (Chang, 1999). Many aspects of the network
such as network type and technology, network data rate,
4.5 Iterative learning control node movement, wireless signal propagation model, etc. can
be specified in OPNET. However, it is a tedious task to
Iterative learning control is a method of tracking control for implement dynamic system models and control algorithms
systems that work in a repetitive mode (Bristow et al., using the Proto-C language of OPNET. Therefore, a
2006). During each repetition, the system is required to co-simulation framework utilising MATLAB-SIMULINK
perform the same action over and over again with high to model the plant-controller and OPNET to simulate the
precision. By using information from previous repetitions, a network has been developed as shown in Figure 13 to
suitable control action which is given as below can be found accelerate the WNCS research by producing more realistic
iteratively: simulation results (Hasan et al., 2009; 2008; 2007).
Uk  Uk K ¸ ek (32) The system can be launched in diverse situations e.g.,
1
indoor (nuclear plant), outdoor (in a desert for military
where Uk is the input to the system during the kth repetition, operation). Therefore, the terrain and the environment will
ek =
d–
k is the tracking error during the kth repetition and affect the excavator movement and the wireless
K is a design parameter. Based on (32), the iterative communication performance, respectively. Depending on
learning control scheme (Yu et al., 2003) presented in the terrain, either wheeled (JCB, 2009b) or tracked (JCB,
Figure 12 can be designed for the excavator. 2009a) excavator can be used.
 Review of modelling and remote control for excavators 77

Figure 13 Interactive SIMULINK-OPNET co-simulation (see protocol (Pellegrini et al., 2006). The MAC protocol
online version for colours) determines how the nodes access the shared network
medium and it is responsible for satisfying the time-critical
requirements (Lian et al., 2001).

Figure 14 Comparison of three simulation models with real

world experiment (see online version for colours)

The modelling or simulation results might vary depending

on the environment of the wireless network, e.g., office
area, open field, etc. (Kotz et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2004) and
efforts should be focused on more realistic settings
(Tschudin et al., 2005). Therefore, the co-simulation
framework should allow the researchers to specify the
environment where the investigation is being carried out.
Real radio signals are more complicated than the simple
Source: Kotz et al. (2004)
models used in many simulation studies. Simpler
propagation models can assume symmetric wireless links, Implementing control networks using IEEE 802.11
independence from ground height, etc. that might produce standards will allow low-cost and easily deployable WNCS.
impractical results. Moreover, the characteristics of the Unfortunately, CSMA networks are generally considered
radio signal also change depending on the environment, non-deterministic. However, if the network protocol
e.g., indoor, outdoor, etc. It can be noted that wireless supports prioritising of messages, then high priority
networks have a smaller transmission range in the office messages will have higher chance of timely transmission
than in an open field because of less interference from other and collision avoidance (Zhang et al., 2001; Ploplys et al.,
electrical equipments, walls, etc. Furthermore, simulation of 2004). Contention based protocols e.g., CSMA are not
the same network in different simulation packages might appropriate for real-time communication as they require
produce different results. This can be explained by the handshaking which increases the delay (Akyildiz and
physical layer considered in the simulation package (Conti Kasimoglu, 2004).
and Giordano, 2007). In case of WNCS over MANET, the Wireless networks inherently suffer from security
environment model, i.e., experiment area, number of nodes, problems as signals are broadcast to all receivers. Two types
movement model of the nodes, etc. are major design issues. of security issues can be identified: signal integrity and
A comparison between computer simulation and real authentication. The concern of signal integrity comes from
world wireless network experiments can be found in (Kotz the interference from other radio transmitters e.g.,
et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2004; Newport, 2004). The three microwave ovens, cordless phones, etc. (Ploplys et al.,
radio signal propagation models have been investigated in 2004). This problem can be crucial for IEEE 802.11 as it
(Kotz et al., 2004) as shown in Figure 14. Model 1 involves uses the ISM 2.4 GHz band. However, the spread spectrum
two components: path loss and fading. Model 2 is the techniques implemented by the standards can mitigate the
two-ray-ground reflection model that uses only the path loss interference in most cases (Pellegrini et al., 2006). The
component. Finally, Model 3 represents the ideal IEEE 802.11 standard offers a (wireless local area network
propagation model. The comparison, shown in Figure 14, (WLAN) authentication mechanism called Wired Equivalent
revealed that Model 1 exhibits the closest behaviour to the Privacy (WEP) from the MAC layer. However, the security
real world experiment (Kotz et al., 2004). provided is not adequate (Pellegrini et al., 2006).
Many WNCS researches e.g., (Ploplys et al., 2004; TCP/IP is not appropriate for MANET as it uses
Ploplys, 2003; Colandairaj et al., 2005; 2007; 2006; connection oriented packet transfer (Conti and Giordano,
Andersson et al., 2005; Willig et al., 2002; Walsh and Ye, 2007). For real-time applications, the UDP protocol is
2001) are based on mainly IEEE 802.11 standards. Various shown more suitable than the TCP in terms of delay and
versions of the IEEE 802.11 standards, namely a, b, g, e, delay jitter (Liu et al., 2002) as shown in Figure 15.
carry the difference at the physical layer. They utilise the Retransmission for TCP will simply produce unwanted
free industrial scientific medical (ISM) 2.4 GHz band and network traffic as WNCS carries real-time data. On the
support data rates 1, 2, 11, 54 Mbps. IEEE 802.11 defines other hand, UDP offers low overheads as it does not
pure ad-hoc mode as distributed coordination function maintain connections and discards obsolete lost packets by
(DCF) and uses carrier sense multiple access with collision avoiding retransmissions. Therefore, it is preferable for
avoidance (CSMA/CA) as the medium access control (MAC) networked control applications (Ploplys et al., 2004). UDP
78 H. Yu et al.

is also often chosen to validate the simulation results for Bristow, D.A., Tharayil, M. and Alleyne, A.G. (2006) ‘A survey of
wireless networks (Liu et al., 2004). iterative learning control’, IEEE Control Systems Magazine,
June, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.96-114.
Figure 15 Comparison of delay and jitter between TCP and Cervin, A. (2003) ‘Integrated control and real time scheduling’,
UDP (see online version for colours) PhD thesis, Lund Institute of Technology.
Cervin, A., Henriksson, D., Lincoln, B., Eker, J. and Årzén, K.E.
(2002) ‘Jitterbug and TrueTime: analysis tools for real-time
control systems’, Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Real-Time
Tools, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Cervin, A., Hanriksson, D., Lincoln, B., Eker, J. and Årzén, K.E.
(2003) ‘How does control timing affect performance?
Analysis and simulation of timing using Jitterbug and
TrueTime’, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Vol. 23, No. 3,
pp.16–30.
Cervin, A., Ohlin, M. and Henriksson, D. (2007) ‘Simulation of
networked control systems using TrueTime’, Proc. of the 3rd
International Workshop on Networked Control Systems:
Tolerant to Faults, Nancy, France.
Chang, X. (1999) ‘Network simulations with OPNET’, Proc. of
the 31st Conference on Winter Simulation: Simulation – A
Bridge to the Future, Arizona, USA, pp.307–314.
Colandairaj, J., Irwin, G.W. and Scanlon, W.G. (2005) ‘Analysis
Source: Liu et al. (2002, 2005) and co-simulation of an IEEE 802.11B wireless networked
control system’, Proc. of the 16th IFAC World Congress,
Prague, Czech Republic.
6 Conclusions and future work Colandairaj, J., Irwin, G.W. and Scanlon, W.G. (2006) ‘An
integrated approach to wireless feedback control’, Proc. of the
The paper has reported the work conducted in an ongoing UKACC International Control Conference, Glasgow, UK.
project. The key issues in remotely controllable excavators Colandairaj, J., Irwin, G.W. and Scanlon, W.G. (2007)
have been identified. An overall architecture has been ‘A co-design solution for wireless feedback control’, Proc. of
proposed and functions of each block of the architecture the IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing
have been discussed. Some simulation work has been and Control, London, UK, pp.404–409.
conducted to demonstrate the proposed system. Conti, M. and Giordano, S. (2007) ‘Multihop ad hoc networking:
We will conduct the further simulation on the whole the theory’, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 45, No. 4,
pp.76–86.
system. The experimental study will be investigated as well.
Dimaio, S.P., Salcudean, S.E., Reboulet, C., Tafazoli, S. and Zaad,
K.H. (1998) ‘A virtual excavator for controller development
and evaluation’, Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and
Acknowledgements Automation, May.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Sam Wane for the Eker, J. and Cervin, A. (1999) ‘A Matlab toolbox for real-time and
control systems co-design’, Proc. of the 6th International
useful discussion and JCB, Sellafield for initiating this
Conference on Real-Time Computing Systems and
work. Applications, Hong Kong, P.R. China, pp.320–327.
Fall, K. and Varadhan, K. (2006) The Ns Manual (formerly ns
Notes and Documentation), The VINT Project [online],
References available at <http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/doc/ns_doc.pdf>
(accessed Mar 2006).
Akyildiz, I.F. and Kasimoglu, I.H. (2004) ‘Wireless sensor and
actor networks: research challenges’, Ad Hoc Networks Fua, P. (1993) ‘A parallel stereo algorithm that produces dense
Journal (Elsevier), Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.351–367. depth maps and preserves image features’, in Machine Vision
and Application, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Alekseeva, T.V., Artem’ev, K.A., Bromberg, A.A. and
Voitsekhovskii, R.L. (1986) Machines for Earthmoving Ha, Q., Santos, M., Nguyen, Q., Rye, D. and Durrant-Whyte, H.
Work: Theory and Calculations, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. (2002) ‘Robotic excavation in construction automation’,
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, March, Vol. 9, No.
Andersson, M., Henriksson, D., Cervin, A. and Årzén, K.E. (2005)
1, pp.20–28.
‘Simulation of wireless networked control systems’, Proc. of
the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and Ha, Q.P., Nguyen, Q.H., Rye, D.C. and Durrant-Whyte, H.F.
European Control Conference (ECC), pp.476–481. (2000) ‘Impedance control of a hydraulically-actuated robotic
excavator’, Automat. Construction, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp.421–
Bernold, L.E. (1993) ‘Motion and path control for robotic
435.
excavation’, J. Aerosp. Eng., Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.1–18.
Hasan, M.S., Yu, H., Carrington, A. and Yang, T.C. (2009)
Bradley, D.V. and Seward, D.W. (1998) ‘The development,
‘Co-simulation of wireless networked control systems over
control and operation of an autonomous robotic excavator’, J.
mobile ad hoc network using SIMULINK and OPNET’, The
Intelligent Robot. Syst., Vol. 21, pp.73–97.
Journal of IET Communications (accepted for publication).
 Review of modelling and remote control for excavators 79

Hasan, M.S., Yu, H., Griffiths, A. and Yang, T.C. (2007) Liu, P.X., Meng, M., Ye, X. and Gu, J. (2002) ‘An UDP-based
‘Interactive co-simulation of MATLAB and OPNET for protocol for internet robots’, Proc. of the 4th World Congress
networked control systems’, Proc. of the 13th International on Intelligent Control and Automation, China, pp.59–65.
Conference on Automation and Computing, Stafford, UK, Liu, P.X., Meng, M.Q.H., Liu, P.R. and Yang, S.X. (2005) ‘An
pp.237–242. end-to-end transmission architecture for the remote control of
Hasan, M.S., Yu, H., Griffiths, A. and Yang, T.C. (2008) robots over IP networks’, IEEE/ASME Transactions on
‘Co-simulation framework for networked control systems Mechatronics, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.560–570.
over multi-hop mobile ad-hoc networks’, Proc. of the 17th Lu, Z. and Goldenberg, A.A. (1995) ‘Robust impedance control
IFAC World Congress, the International Federation of and force regulation: theory and experiment’, Int. J. Robotic.
Automatic Control, Seoul, Korea, pp.12552–12557. Res., Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.225–254.
Heinrichs, B., Sepehri, N. and Thornton-Trump, A.B. (1997) Makkonen, T., Nevala, K. and Heikkila, R. (2006) ‘A 3D model
‘Position-based impedance control of an industrial hydraulic based control of an excavator’, Automation in Construction,
manipulator’, IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag., February, Vol. 17, Vol. 15, pp.571–577.
pp.46–52.
Newport, C. (2004) ‘Simulating mobile ad hoc networks: a
Henriksson, D., Cervin, A. and Årzén, K.E. (2002) ‘TrueTime: quantitative evaluation of common MANET simulation
simulation of control loops under shared computer resources’, models’, Dartmouth College Science, available at
Proc. of the 15th IFAC World Congress on Automatic http://cmc.cs.dartmouth.edu/cmc/papers/newport:thesis.pdf.
Control, Barcelona, Spain.
Parker, N.R., Salcudean, S.E. and Lawrence, P.D. (1993)
JCB (2009a) Tracked Excavators [online], available at ‘Application of force feedback to heavy duty hydraulic
<http://www.jcb.com/products/MachineOverview.aspx?RID= machines’, Proc. IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation,
2> (Accessed 06 May 2009). May, Atlanta, USA.
JCB (2009b) Wheeled Ecavators [online], available at Pellegrini, F.D., Miorandi, D., Vitturi, S. and Zanella, A. (2006)
<http://www.jcb.com/products/MachineOverview.aspx?RID= ‘On the use of wireless networks at low level of factory
3>. automation systems’, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Johansson, R. (1990) ‘Adaptive control of robot manipulator Informatics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.129–143.
motion’, IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 6, Ploplys, N.J. (2003) ‘Wireless feedback control of mechanical
pp.483–490. systems’, MSc thesis, University of Illinois.
Kim, D., Oh, K.W., Hong, D., Park, J. and Hong, S. (2008) Ploplys, N.J., Kawka, P.A. and Alleyne, A.G. (2004) ‘Closed-loop
‘Remote control of excavator with designed haptic device’, control over wireless networks’, IEEE Control Systems
Proc. of Int. Conf. on Control, Automation and Systems, Magazine, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.58–71.
October, Seoul, Korea.
Saeedi, P., Lawrence, P. and Lowe, D. (2000) ‘3-D motion
Koivo, A.J. (1994) ‘Kinematics of excavators (backhoes) for tracking of a mobile robot in a natural environment’, Proc. of
transferring surface material’, J. Aerosp. Eng., Vol. 7, No. 1, IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, 2000,
pp.17–32. pp.1682–1687.
Koivo, A.J., Thoma, M., Kocaoglan, E. and Andrade-Cetto, J. Saeedi, P., Lawrence, P.D., Lowe, D.G., Jacobsen. P., Kusalovic,
(1996) ‘Modelling and control of excavator dynamics during D., Ardron, K. and Sorensen, P.H. (2005) ‘An autonomous
digging operation’, J. Aerosp. Eng., January, Vol. 9, No. 1, excavator with vision-based track-slippage control’, IEEE
pp.10–18. Trans. on Control Systems Technology, January, Vol. 13, No.
Kotz, D., Newport, C., Gray, R.S., Liu, J., Yuan, Y. and Elliott, C. 1, pp.67–84.
(2004) ‘Experimental evaluation of wireless simulation Sakaida, Y., Chugo, D., Yamamoto, H. and Asama, H. (2008) ‘The
assumptions’, Proc. of the ACM/IEEE International analysis of excavator operation by skilful operator’, SICE
Symposium on Modelling, Analysis and Simulation of Annual Conf., August, Japan.
Wireless and Mobile Systems (MSWiM), pp.78–82.
Schmid, R.M.C. and Bauckhage, C. (1998) ‘Comparing and
Lawrence, P.D., Salcudean, S.E., Sepehri, N., Chan, D., evaluating interest points’, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Computer
Bachmann, S., Parker, N., Zhu, M. and Frenette, R. (1995) Vision, 1998, pp.230–235.
‘Coordinated and force-feedback control of hydraulic
excavators’, Proc. of the 4th Int. Symp. on Experimental Shapiro, L., Zisserman, A. and Brady, M. (1995) ‘3-D motion
Robotics, June, Stanford, California. recovery via affine epipolar geometry’, Int. J. Comput. Vis.,
Vol. 16, pp.147–182.
Le, A.T., Nguyen, Q.H., Ha, Q.P., Rye, D.C., Durrant-Whyte,
H.F., Stevens, M. and Boget, V. (1998) ‘Towards Singh, S. (1995) ‘Synthesis of tactical plans for robotic
autonomous excavation’, in A. Zelinsky (Ed.): Field and excavation’, PhD dissertation, Robot. Inst., Carnegie Mellon
Service Robotics, Springer-Verlag, New York. Univ., Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Lian, F.L., Moyne, J.R. and Tilbury, D.M. (2001) ‘Performance Slotine, J.J.E. and Li, W. (1998) ‘Adaptive manipulator control: a
evaluation of control networks: Ethernet, ControlNet and case study’, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. 33,
DeviceNet’, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.995–1003.
pp.66–83. Tafazoli, S. (1997) ‘Identification of frictional effects and
Liu, J., Yuan, Y., Nicol, D.M., Gray, R.S., Newport, C.C., structural dynamics for improved control of hydraulic
Kotz, D.F. and Perrone, L.F. (2004) ‘Simulation validation manipulators’, PhD dissertation, Dept. Elect. Comput. Eng.,
using direct execution of wireless ad-hoc routing protocols’, Univ. British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Proc. of the 18th Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Tafazoli, S., Lawrence, P.D. and Salcudean, S.E. (1999)
Simulation (PADS’04), Austria, pp.7–16. ‘Identification of inertial and friction parameters for
excavator arms’, IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation,
October, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp.966–971.
80 H. Yu et al.

Tafazoli, S., Salcudean, S.E., Hashtrudi-Zaad, K. and Appendix

Lawrence, P.D. (2002) ‘Impedance control of a teleoperated
excavator’, IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, Some symbol definitions used in Section 3:
May, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.355–367.
Tan, C.P., Zweiri, Y.H., Althoefer, K. and Seneviratne, L.D. Mbo = 1566 kg mass of boom
(2005) ‘Online soil parameter estimation scheme based on
Newton-raphson method for autonomous excavation’, Mst = 735 kg mass of stick
IEEE/ASME Trans. on Mechatronics, April, Vol. 10, No. 2, Mbu = 432 kg mass of bucket
pp.221–229.
Ibo = 14250.6 moment of inertia of boom
Tao, N., Zhao, D., Yamada, H. and Shui, N. (2008) ‘A low-cost kg·m2
solution for excavator simulation with realistic visual effect’,
Proc. of the IEEE Conf. on Robotics, Automation and Ist = 727.7 kg·m2 moment of inertia of stick
2
Mechatronics, September. Ibu = 224.6 kg·m moment of inertia of bucket
Tschudin, C., Gunningberg, P., Lundgren, H. and Nordstrom, E.
1 angle of base
(2005) ‘Lessons from experimental MANET research’, Ad

2 angle of boom
Hoc Networks Journal (Elsevier), Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.221–233.
Vaha, P.K. and Skibniewski, M.J. (1993) ‘Dynamic model of
3 angle of stick
excavator’, J. Aerosp. Eng., April, Vol. 6, pp.148–158.
4 angle of bucket
Vossoughi, G. and Salcudean, S.E. (2000) ‘On the nonlinear
b angle between bucket bottom and X4-axis
control of hydraulic servo-systems’, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
dg angle between bucket edge and horizontal
Robot, April, Automat, San Francisco, CA. pp.1276–1282. line
Walsh, G.C. and Ye, H. (2001) ‘Scheduling of networked control
a1 = 0.05 m O0O1
systems’, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp.57–65. a2 = 5.16 m O1O2
Willig, A., Kubisch, M., Hoene, C. and Wolisz, A. (2002) a3 = 2.59 m O2O3
‘Measurements of a Wireless link in an industrial a4 = 1.33 m O3O4
environment using an IEEE 802.11-compliant physical layer’,
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 49, No. 6, r2 = 2.71 m O1G2
pp.1265–1282. r3 = 0.64 m O2G3
Yang, S., Jin, S. and Kwon, S. (2008) ‘Remote control system of r4 = 0.65 m O3G4
industrial field robot’, Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on
Industrial Informatics, July, Daejeon, Korea. 2 = 0.2566 rad ‘ G2O1O2
Yu, H. (1998) ‘Robust combined adaptive and variable structure 3 = 0.3316 rad ‘ G3O2O3
adaptive control of robot manipulators’, Robotica, Vol. 16, 4 = 0.3944 rad ‘ G4O3O4
pp.623–650.
Bbo viscous friction coefficient of boom
Yu, H., Seneviratne, L.D. and Earles, S.W.E. (1994)
‘Exponentially stable robust control law for robot Bst viscous friction coefficient of stick
manipulators’, IEE Proc. Control Theory Application, Bbu viscous friction coefficient of bucket
November, Vol. 141, No. 6, pp.389–395. g = 9.81 N/kg acceleration due to gravity
Yu, H., Yang, T.C. and Rigas, D. (2003) ‘On iterative learning
Ts = 10 ms sampling time
control’, Proc. of the 22nd Chinese Control Conference,
11–14 August, Yichang, China.
Zhang, W., Branicky, M.S. and Phillips, S.M. (2001) ‘Stability of
networked control systems’, IEEE Control Systems Magazine,
Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.84–99.
Zweiri, Y.H., Seneviratne, L.D. and Althoefer, K. (2004)
‘Parameter estimation for excavator arm using generalized
Newton method’, IEEE Trans. on Robotics, August, Vol. 20,
No. 4, pp. 762–767.

View publication stats