SS symmetry

Article
Research on Nonlinear Coupling Anti-Swing Control
Method of Double Pendulum Gantry Crane Based on
Improved Energy
Huaitao Shi 1 , Gang Li 1, *, Xin Ma 2 and Jie Sun 3
1 School of Mechanical Engineering, Shenyang Jianzhu University, Shenyang 110168, China; [email protected]
2 School of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan 250061, China; [email protected]
3 The State Key Laboratory of Rolling and Automation, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-024-24692186




Received: 21 October 2019; Accepted: 10 December 2019; Published: 12 December 2019


Abstract: The double pendulum type gantry crane is a typical symmetry underactuated motion
system. It has control problems in that the swing of the payload is difficult to suppress and the
precise positioning of the trolley is not accurate. A new nonlinear coupling control method based on
improved energy is proposed in this paper. We define coupled control signal among trolley, hook and
payload. An improved energy storage function is established based on the new coupling control
signal. Consequently, a nonlinear anti-swing controller is constructed straightforwardly, and the
closed-loop system stability is subject to strict mathematics analysis by Lyapunov and LaSalle’ s
theorem. Moreover, the new energy function based on the coupling behaving between the trolley
motion and the payload swing leads to the improved control performance. Numerical simulation
results show that the proposed method has better performance than traditional controllers. It not only
effectively suppresses the swing of the load and the hook, but also precisely controls the displacement
of the trolley. It has strong robustness to the displacement of the payload, the change of the gantry
crane parameters and the external disturbance.

Keywords: symmetry underactuated gantry crane; double-pendulum; nonlinear control;

Lyapunov techniques

1. Introduction
The gantry crane is a kind of common engineering equipment used in construction, port logistics,
manufacturing and other fields [1,2]. The main goal of the gantry crane control system is not only
to move the payload from its initial position to the desired position accurately, but also to quickly
suppress and eliminate the swing of the payload throughout the process. In addition, the number of
system degrees of freedom greater than the number of control inputs is referred to as the symmetry
underactuated system [3]. Gantry cranes are typical representatives of symmetry underactuated
systems. Among different types of nonlinear underactuated control systems [4–7], there are many
unsolved challenges in gantry crane control.
Currently, most gantry cranes are operated manually. Therefore, work efficiency is heavily
dependent on the proficiency of the operator. We all know that manual manipulation is generally
inefficient and inaccurate. Inadvertent incorrect operation can even lead to serious accidents. Therefore,
it is very important to suppress the swing angles of the payload and improve the positioning errors
of the trolley. The safety and efficiency of the gantry crane system has attracted much attention
from researchers and has obtained many useful and constructive advanced control methods, such as

Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511; doi:10.3390/sym11121511 www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry

with double pendulum swing effect is still in its early days and has some unsolved problems.
Some proportional derivative (PD) controller and passivity-based controller are proposed in [35]
and [36] by analyzing the underactuated and passivity characteristics of the gantry crane. However,
these two controllers have very poor suppression performance of payload swing due to the lack of
feedback on the payload and hook motion. In order to improve the control performance of the double
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 2 of 20
pendulum gantry crane, conventional sliding mode control (CSMC) method [37] and fuzzy control
method [38] based on the single input-rule modules have been designed for the gantry crane with
double pendulum
trajectory effects. control
planning-based In addition, Sun
[8–10], N et al. control
inversion suggested[11],a adaptive
new quasi-proportional
control [12–14],integral
nested
derivative
control controller
[15], [39] and[16–18],
energy control a model-based nonlinear
intelligent controlanti-swing controllerlinearization
[19–22], feedback [40] to effectively control
control [23],
underactuated double-pendulum crane systems. However, these control methods
delay-based control [24,25], gain scheduled control [26], sliding mode control [27–29], prediction need to get the
system parameters of the double pendulum
control [30–32], advanced robust control [33,34] etc. gantry crane, such as the payload mass, cable length,
desiredThepositions et al. It mentioned
control method is obviously unrealistic.
above Because
treats the payload different
swing aspayloads
a swinghave different
of a single masses,
pendulum.
different cables lengths, and different desired positions. These system parameters
The hook and payload are roughly considered to be the same mass point, or the hook is directly ignored. cannot be known
before the this
However, transportation
is obviouslyprocess begins.because
unreasonable Moreover, the Zhang
payload Misetusually
al. proposed a novel
suspended energy
from coupling
the hook by a
based controller [41] and an enhanced coupling proportional derivative with sliding
long steel cable. The payload and hook cannot simply be considered the same mass point. This is the mode controller
[42] for pendulum
double the doublephenomenon
pendulum gantry crane.
in which theSome
hookrobust
swingsand online
around thetrajectory planning
trolley and methods
the payload are
swings
presented
around thein [43](See
hook andFigure
[44], respectively.
1). When theHowever,
gantry crane these feedback
exhibits controllers are proposed
the double-pendulum under
phenomenon,
complex structures and are difficult to use in actual double-pendulum gantry cranes.
it is very difficult to suppress or eliminate the hook swing and payload swing, even for experienced Therefore, the
above-mentioned controller has three main problems: weaker swing
operators. In addition, most control methods based on single-pendulum gantry cranes are not suitablesuppression control
performance,
for this situation.depending on precise
So far, research system control
on nonlinear parameters and complex
for gantry crane with structures that cannot
double pendulum swingbe
practically applied.
effect is still in its early days and has some unsolved problems.

Trolley

Hook
Cable
Gantry crane

Payload

Figure 1. Phenomenon of the gantry crane with double-pendulum.

Figure 1. Phenomenon of the gantry crane with double-pendulum.
Some proportional derivative (PD) controller and passivity-based controller are proposed in [35,36]
by analyzing
To solve the
the underactuated
above problems, andwepassivity
proposecharacteristics of the gantry
a nonlinear anti-swing crane.
control law However, thesecrane
for the gantry two
controllers have very poor
with double-pendulum suppression
swing performance
effects and uncertainofparameters,
payload swing duecan
which to the lack ofeffective
achieve feedbackcontrol
on the
payload and hook motion. In order to improve the control performance of the double pendulum
for both trolley position and swing suppression/elimination. Then, the origin of the closed-loop gantry
crane,
systemconventional slidingismode
stability analysis controlby(CSMC)
presented method
using the [37] and
Lyapunov fuzzy control
techniques andmethod [38]
LaSalle’s based on
invariance
the single input-rule modules have been designed for the gantry crane with double pendulum effects.
In addition, Sun N et al. suggested a new quasi-proportional integral derivative controller [39] and a
model-based nonlinear anti-swing controller [40] to effectively control underactuated double-pendulum
crane systems. However, these control methods need to get the system parameters of the double
pendulum gantry crane, such as the payload mass, cable length, desired positions et al. It is obviously
unrealistic. Because different payloads have different masses, different cables lengths, and different
desired positions. These system parameters cannot be known before the transportation process begins.
Moreover, Zhang M et al. proposed a novel energy coupling based controller [41] and an enhanced
coupling proportional derivative with sliding mode controller [42] for the double pendulum gantry
crane. Some robust and online trajectory planning methods are presented in [43,44], respectively.
However, these feedback controllers are proposed under complex structures and are difficult to use in
actual double-pendulum gantry cranes. Therefore, the above-mentioned controller has three main
problems: weaker swing suppression control performance, depending on precise system parameters
and complex structures that cannot be practically applied.
To solve the above problems, we propose a nonlinear anti-swing control law for the gantry crane
with double-pendulum swing effects and uncertain parameters, which can achieve effective control for
both trolley position and swing suppression/elimination. Then, the origin of the closed-loop system
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 3 of 20

stability analysis is presented by using the Lyapunov techniques and LaSalle’s invariance theorem.
Lastly, several groups of simulations are implemented to demonstrate the proposed controller’ actual
performance. Briefly, the main contributions of this paper are presented as follows:
(1). The proposed nonlinear anti-swing control law is designed based on shaped energy function
of double-pendulum gantry cranes. The defined generalized signals including trolley motion, hook
swing and payload swing increase the state coupling of the system, so the control performance is
improved compared to the traditional feedback controllers.
(2). There are no system parameters in the proposed control method. This means that even if
some physical parameters (for example, hook and payload masses and lengths of cable) are uncertain
or unknown, the control performance will not be seriously affected. For the proposed control method,
it is not necessary to know the system parameters of the gantry crane.
(3). The control method proposed in this paper is useful in the actual gantry crane system because
it has a simpler structure than the other traditional closed-loop feedback controllers.
(4). The proposed method controller is robust to uncertain transfer distances, uncertain model
parameters and various external disturbances.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the dynamic model of
underactuated double pendulum gantry crane. Then, the control law development and stability
analysis are carried out in Section 3. After that, Section 4 provides some numerical simulation results
that demonstrate the effectiveness of the control scheme. Lastly, the conclusion of this paper is
presented in Section 5.

2. Dynamics of Gantry Crane with Double-Pendulum

The schematic diagram of the gantry crane with double-pendulum is shown in Figure 2. In the
case of ignoring the air resistance, the Euler-Lagrange equation is used to establish the dynamic model
of the double pendulum gantry crane [39–42]:
.. . .
M(q)q + Vm (q, q)q + G(q) = U (1)

where q refers to the gantry crane system state vector; M(q) refers to the gantry crane system inertia
.
matrix; Vm (q, q) refers to the gantry crane system centripetal-Coriolis force matrix; G(q) refers to the
gantry crane system gravitational potential energy vector; U refers to the gantry crane system control
vector. The above parameters are specifically defined as follows:

T
q = [ x(t) θ1 (t) θ2 (t) ] (2)

(m1 + m2 )l1 cos θ1 m2 l2 cos θ2

 
 M + m1 + m2 
M(q) =  (m1 + m2 )l1 cos θ1 2 m2 l1 l2 cos(θ1 − θ2 )
 
 (m1 + m2 )l1 
 (3)
m2 l2 cos θ2 m2 l1 l2 cos(θ1 − θ2 ) m2 l22
 
. .
 0 −(m1 + m2 )l1 θ1 sin θ1 θ 2 sin θ2
 
−m 2 l 2 
.  . 
Vm (q, q) =  0 m2 l1 l2 θ2 sin(θ1 − θ2 ) 

0 (4)
.
0 −m2 l1 l2 θ2 sin(θ1 − θ2 )
 
0
h iT
G(q) = 0 (m1 + m2 ) gl1 sin θ1 m2 gl2 sin θ2 (5)
h iT
U= F 0 0 (6)

where M, m1 and m2 represent the trolley mass, the hook mass and the payload mass, respectively;
l1 and l2 denote the cable length and the distance of the payload point-mass from the hook point-mass;
x is the displacement of the trolley; θ1 refers to the swing angle of the hook; θ2 stands for the payload
 or unknown, the control performance will not be seriously affected. For the proposed control method,
it is not necessary to know the system parameters of the gantry crane.
3). The control method proposed in this paper is useful in the actual gantry crane system because
it has a simpler structure than the other traditional closed-loop feedback controllers.
4). 2019,
Symmetry The 11,
proposed
1511 method controller is robust to uncertain transfer distances, uncertain model
4 of 20
parameters and various external disturbances.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the dynamic model of
swing angle; g represents
underactuated the acceleration
double pendulum gantry of gravity;
crane. F stands
Then, for thelaw
the control resultant force applied
development to the
and stability
trolley, which consists of the following two parts:
analysis are carried out in Section 3. After that, Section 4 provides some numerical simulation results
that demonstrate the effectiveness of the control scheme. Lastly, the conclusion of this paper is
presented in Section 5. F = Fa − Fr (7)

where Fa denote
2. Dynamics the actuating
of Gantry Craneforce
withof the trolley; Nonlinear mechanical friction force Fr between the
Double-Pendulum
trolley and the rail can be described as [39–42]:
The schematic diagram of the gantry crane with double-pendulum is shown in Figure 2. In the
. .  .  .
case of ignoring the air resistance,Fthe
r ( x ) Euler-Lagrange
= fr0 tanh ( x/ξ ) equation
− k r  x  x is used to establish the dynamic
(8)
model of the double pendulum gantry crane [39−42]:
where fr0 and ξ represent static friction-related coefficients, and kr denotes a viscous
friction-related parameter. M(q)q +Vm (q, q)q + G(q) = U (1)

Trolley
M

Fr Fa

L1 Rail

θ1 Hook
x
m1 L2

θ2
m2 Payload

Figure2.2. Model
Figure Modelof
ofan
anunderactuated
underactuatedgantry
gantrycrane
cranewith
withdouble-pendulum.
double-pendulum.

q
Equation (1) is rewritten to facilitate the development of the following controllers:
where refers to the gantry crane system state vector; M (q ) refers to the gantry crane system inertia

(M Vm+(qm,1q+) refers
..
m2 )x +to(m 1 +gantry
..
θ1 cos system
m2 )l1 (crane
.2
θ1 − θ1 sin
..
θ1 ) + m2 l2 θ2 cos θ Gθ(q
2 l2 θ2 sin
2 − mmatrix; 2 =
.2
) refers
F (9)
matrix; the centripetal-Coriolis force to
vector; U refers to the gantry crane system
.. .. ..
the gantry crane system
(m1 +gravitational
m2 )l1 cos θ1 x potential
+ (m1 + menergy
2 )l1 θ1 + m2 l1 l2 cos(θ1 − θ2 )θ2
2
control vector. The above parameters are specifically defined. as 2 follows: (10)
+ m2 l1 l2 sin(θ1 − θ2 )θ2 + (m1 + m2 ) gl1 sin θ1 = 0
.. .. q = [x(t2).. θ1(t) θ2 (t)]T .2 (2)
m2 l2 cos θ2 x + m2 l1 l2 cos(θ1 − θ2 )θ1 + m2 l2 θ2 − m2 l1 l2 sin(θ1 − θ2 )θ1 + m2 gl2 sin θ2 = 0 (11)

As can be seen from Figure 1, xp (t) is the payload horizontal displacement:

xp = x + l1 sin θ1 + l2 sin θ2 (12)

Herein, we define the generalized payload horizontal displacement signal Xp based on the form
of (12):
Xp = x + ka1 sin θ1 + ka2 sin θ2 (13)

where ka1 , ka2 ∈ R+ are yet to be adjusted parameters. The generalized payload horizontal displacement
Xp is a natural coupling signal. It can help to increase the coupling behavior among trolley translation
x(t), the hook swing θ1 (t) and the payload swing θ2 (t). Therefore, Xp is the basis of the double
pendulum gantry crane nonlinear coupling anti-swing controller development. The following
assumptions are made without loss of generality.
where a1 a2 are yet to be adjusted parameters. The generalized payload horizontal
Xp
displacement is a natural coupling signal. It can help to increase the coupling behavior among
θ (t)
trolley translation x (t ) , the hook swing 1 and the payload swing 2 . Therefore, p θ (t )
is the
X
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 5 of 20
basis of the double pendulum gantry crane nonlinear coupling anti-swing controller development.
The following assumptions are made without loss of generality.
Assumption
Assumption Thecable
1. 1.The cableisismassless
massless and inflexible.
inflexible. In
Inaddition,
addition,the
thelength of the
length cable
of the remains
cable constant
remains during
constant
the transferring process and the twisting of the cable can be ignored.
during the transferring process and the twisting of the cable can be ignored.
Assumption
Assumption TheThe
2. 2. payload
payload is always
is always below
below thethe trolley
trolley during
during thethe overall
overall transferring
transferring process.
process.
The mathematical
The mathematicalexpression
expressionis as follows:
is as follows:
π π
− − π< <θ 1θ, θ,2θ<2 < π, ∀ t≥0 (14)
22 1 2 2 , ∀t ≥ 0 (14)

3. Main Results
3. Main Results
This section describes the controller design and the stability analysis. First, the nonlinear coupling
This section describes the controller design and the stability analysis. First, the nonlinear
anti-swing controller has been designed based on the improved energy storage function for gantry
coupling anti-swing controller has been designed based on the improved energy storage function for
crane with double-pendulum swing effects. Then, the stability of the closed-loop system is proven by
gantry crane with double-pendulum swing effects. Then, the stability of the closed-loop system is
Lyapunov techniques and LaSalle’s invariance theorem. The block diagram is provided in Figure 3 to
proven by Lyapunov techniques and LaSalle’s invariance theorem. The block diagram is provided in
make the controller design and stability analysis clear.
Figure 3 to make the controller design and stability analysis clear.

Controller design Stability analysis

Dynamics (1)
Lyapunov function
V (t ) (27)
Coupling control
signal X p (13)
Invariant set
analysis (34)
Energy-like storage
function Ed (t ) (19)
Control gains
limited (40)
Control objective
(24)

All signals bounded

Proposed controller
F (1)

Figure 3. Block
Figure diagram
3. Block forfor
diagram thethe
controller design
controller and
design analysis.
and analysis.

3.1.3.1. Controller
Controller Design
Design
After
After somephysical
some physicalanalysis,
analysis, the
the entire energyE(Et)(t(including
entire energy potential
) (including energy
potential and kinetic
energy energy)
and kinetic
of the double pendulum gantry crane can be calculated as follows [39,41]:
energy) of the double pendulum gantry crane can be calculated as follows [39,41]:
1 1 .T .
cos θ 2 (1 − cos θ2 )
E (Et )(t=) = q2TqMM((qq))qq +
+ ((m1
+m
m1 + m2))gl
2
gl1 ((1
1
1−− cos θ11 )) +
+m 2 gl 2 (1 − cos θ 2 )
m2 gl (15)
(15)
2
By taking the derivative of Equation (15) with respect to time, and substituting Equation (9) into
the result equation can be obtained as follows.
. .
E(t) = xF (16)

It shows that the double pendulum gantry crane system is passive and dissipative under the input
. . .
F(t) and output x(t). There are no terms related to θ1 , θ1 , θ2 and θ2 in Equation (15). In order to solve
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 6 of 20

this problem and improve transient control performance, we plan to construct an energy-like storage
function Ed (t) with the following expression along the time derivative of the system dynamics model
(1): . .
Ed (t) = Xp F (17)
.
where Xp can be derived from the derivative of Equation (13):
. . . .
Xp = x + ka1 θ1 cos θ1 + ka2 θ2 cos θ2 (18)

Integrating Equation (17) with time to get the Ed (t).

.T .
Ed (t) = 21 q H (q)q + [(m1 + m2 )l1 + ka1 (M + m1 + m2 )] g(1 − cos θ1 )
(19)
+ [m2 l2 + ka2 (M + m1 + m2 )] g(1 − cos θ2 )

where H (q) is a symmetrical matrix as shown below:

H (q) =
(m1 + m2 )l1 cos θ1 m2 l2 cos θ2
 
 M + m1 + m2 
 h i  (20)
 (m1 + m2 )l1 cos θ1 ka1 M + (m1 + m2 ) sin2 θ1 l1 + (m1 + m2 )l21 m2 l1 l2 cos(θ1 − θ2 )
 

 
m2 l2 cos θ2 m2 l1 l2 cos(θ1 − θ2 ) ka2 (M + m1 + m2 sin2 θ2 )l2 + m2 l22
 

In addition, we can derive the following properties of the matrix (20).

Property 1. H (q) is a positive definite symmetrical matrix, which has the flowing property:

h1 kξk2 ≤ ξT H (q)ξ ≤ h2 kξk2 ∀ξ ∈ R2 (21)

where k · k denote the Euclidean norm of vectors, h1 and h2 are shown as follows:

h1 = min{M, ka1 Ml1 , ka2 Ml2 } > 0 (22)

n o
h2 = max M + 2m1 + 2m2 , ka1 (M + m1 + m2 )l1 + 2(m1 + m2 )l21 , ka2 (M + m1 + m2 )l2 + 2m2 l22 (23)

Proof of this property can be done directly, so for the sake of brevity, it will be omitted. It can be
concluded from the Property 1 that the Ed (t) of formula (19) is also positive.
For the gantry crane control system with double-pendulum swing efforts, the basic control
objectives can be expressed as:
(1). Drive the trolley to the desired location pdx .
(2). Limit and eliminate the double-pendulum swing angles θ1 and θ2 .
Therefore, the control objectives can be shown as the following:

T T
lim [ x(t) θ1 (t) θ2 (t) ] = [ pdx 0 0 ] (24)
t→∞

To this end, the generalized payload position error σp (t) is defined as:

σp = Xp − pdx = e − ka1 sin θ1 − ka2 sin θ2 (25)

where e(t) ∈ R represents the positioning error of the trolley motion.

e = x − pdx (26)
 e = x − pdx (26)

A positive definite scalar function V (t ) is being designed based on the improved energy-like

storage function Ed (t) of (19):

Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 7 of 20

kp
σ p2
V (t ) = Ed (t ) +
A positive definite scalar function V (t) is being2designed based on the improved energy-like
(27)

storage function Ed (t) of (19):

k ∈ R+ kp 2
where p is a positive control gain.V (By
t) =taking
Ed (t) + σ
the time derivative of V (t ) along the system
(27)
2 p
dynamics (9), (10) and (11), one can derive
where kp ∈ R+ is a positive control gain. By taking the time derivative of V (t) along the system
V (t ) = (F + k pσ p )σ p
dynamics (9), (10) and (11), one can derive (28)
. .
Therefore, we designed a closed-loop
V (feedback kp σp )σp as shown below:
t) = (F + controller (28)

= −k pσ p we
FTherefore, dσ p = −kap (
− kdesigned
 e − ka1 sin θfeedback
closed-loop 1 − ka 2 sin θ2 ) − kd (as
controller ka1θ cos
e −shown θ1 − ka2θ cosθ2 )
below: (29)

p σp − kd σp = −kp (e − ka1 sinσ

+ . .
kdF∈=R−k .
(t)ka2 sin θ2 ) − kd (e − ka1 θ cos θ1 − ka2 θ cos θ2 )
θ1p −
.
(29)
where is a positive control gain. will be adjusted to 0. The system state will also be
drivenkby∈(29) toathe
R+ is desired state.gain.
Theseσ will be represented in the theorems described below. In the
where d positive control p (t) will be adjusted to 0. The system state will also be driven
overall double-pendulum gantry crane control
by (29) to the desired state. These will be representedsystem as theorems
in the shown indescribed
Figure 4,below.
the actuation force
In the overall
Fa (t) applied to trolley
double-pendulum F (tforce
gantry crane control system as shown in Figure 4, the actuation
is composed of the feed forward compensation term r
) andFthe
a (t) applied
feedback
to trolley is composed of the feed forward compensation term Fr (t) and the feedback force F(t).
force F (t ) .
Fr Friction model

+ x
pdx − e Gantry crane system
+ x
Controller with double- θ2
F Fa pendulum θ2
+
θ1
θ1

Figure 4. Block diagram for the overall control system.

Figure 4. Block diagram for the overall control system.

Remark
Remark 1. The friction
1: The friction model
model (8)
(8) is
is used
used as
as the
the feed
feed forward
forward assembly
assembly to
to compensate
compensate for
for friction
friction between
between the
the
trolley and the tracks. For the sake of conciseness, we will focus on the development of the resultant force F t) ,,
trolley and the tracks. For the sake of conciseness, we will focus on the development of the resultant force F (
because we can get the actuated force Fa (t) directly from (7).
because we can get the actuated force Fa (t) directly from (7).
.
Remark 2. This paper presents a simpler structure controller with σp (t) and σp (t) . The controller proposed in
.
this paper takes a simpler structure with respect to σp (t) and σp (t). It does not include gantry crane system
parameters. This means that the controller does not rely on an accurate system parameter model.

3.2. Stability Analysis

Theorem 1. The proposed controller (28) can drive the trolley to the desired target location pdx asymptotically
and eliminate the hook swing angle θ1 and the payload swing angle θ2 in the following manner:
h . . . iT h iT
lim x(t) x(t) θ1 (t) θ1 (t) θ2 (t) θ2 (t) = pdx 0 0 0 0 0 (30)
t→∞
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 8 of 20

Proof. The positive definite scalar function (28) is used as a Lyapunov candidate function. Substituting
controller (29) into (28) and getting the following formula:
. .2
V (t) = −kd σp ≤ 0 (31)

which indicates that the closed-loop system is Lyapunov stable at the origin [45]. The following
conclusions can be easily obtained:
V (t) ∈ L∞ (32)

And the state quantity of the gantry crane system is bounded. Therefore:
. . .
e(t), e(t), θ1 (t), θ2 (t), Fx ∈ L∞ (33)

To prove the asymptotic convergence of the close loop system state, we let Γ be the largest invariant
set in Ω, where 
. . .   . 
Ω = x, x, θ1 , θ1 , θ2 , θ2  V (t) = 0 (34)

Then, the conclusion can be obtained from (30) in Γ

. . . .
σp = x − ka1 θ1 cos θ1 − ka2 θ2 cos θ2 = 0 (35)

Therefore, the following conclusions can be drawn:

σp = e − ka1 sin θ1 − ka2 sin θ2 = α (36)

.. .. .2 .. .2 ..
σp = x + ka1 (θ1 sin θ1 − θ1 cos θ1 ) + ka2 (θ2 sin θ2 − θ2 cos θ2 ) = 0 (37)

where α ∈ R is a pending constant. Therefore, it can be derived directly from (29), (35) and (36) that

F = −kp α (38)

It can be obtained from Equation (37) that

.. .. .2 .. .2
x = ka1 (θ1 cos θ1 − θ1 sin θ1 ) + ka2 (θ2 cos θ2 − θ2 sin θ2 ) (39)

After some substitutions, Formula (9) can be rewritten as:

h .. i
F − ( M + m1 + m2 ) x .. .2 m2 l2 .. .2
= θ1 cos θ1 − θ1 sin θ1 + (θ2 cos θ2 − θ2 sin θ2 ) (40)
( m1 + m2 ) l 1 (m1 + m2 )l1

Therefore, the relationship between ka1 and ka2 is set with reference to the structures of Equations (39)
and (40).
ka1 (m1 + m2 )l1
= (41)
ka2 m2 l 2
Additionally, by substituting Equation (41) into the previous term (40), it can be concluded that
h .. i
ka1 F − (M + m1 + m2 )x .. .2 .. .2
= ka1 (θ1 cos θ1 − θ1 sin θ1 ) + ka2 (θ2 cos θ2 − θ2 sin θ2 ) (42)
(m1 + m2 )l1

Subsequently Equations (38) and (39) into Equation (42), it can be derived that

.. ka1 kp
x=− α (43)
ka1 (M + m1 + m2 ) + (m1 + m2 )l1
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 9 of 20

Suppose that α , 0, it is concluded that


. . +∞

 α<0
e(t) = x(t) =  as t→∞ (44)
−∞ α>0


which contradicts the conclusion in Equation (33), so the assumption of α , 0 does not hold, and in Γ

α=0 (45)

After substituting Equation (45) into Equations (38) and (43), we can get

F=0 (46)
..
x=0 (47)
. .
x=e=β (48)

It is obtained in the similar way that

. .
x=e=β=0 (49)

Further, the swing angle θ1 of hook and the swing angle θ2 of payload are usually kept within 10
degrees due to the acceleration of the trolley in practice. In this case, the swing angle θ1 of hook and
the swing angle θ2 of payload satisfy the following approximation [37,41,46,47]:

sin θ1 ≈ θ1




 cos θ1 ≈ 1



(50)
sin θ2 ≈ θ2




 cos θ2 ≈ 1



After combining Equations (9), (10), (11), (46), (47) and (50), the Equations (9)–(11) can be rewritten
as follows: .. ..
(m1 + m2 )l1 θ1 + m2 l2 θ2 = 0 (51)
.. ..
(m1 + m2 )l1 θ1 + m2 l2 θ2 + (m1 + m2 ) gθ1 = 0 (52)
.. ..
l1 θ1 + l2 θ2 + g sin θ2 = 0 (53)

Substituting Equation (51) into Equation (52), the following formula holds in Γ

θ1 = 0 (54)

It can be obtained from Equation (54) that

.
θ1 = 0 (55)
..
θ1 = 0 (56)

It can be concluded from Equations (51), (53) and (56) that

θ2 = 0 (57)
. ..
In the similar way, θ2 and θ2 can be derived as
.
θ2 = 0 (58)
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 10 of 20

..
θ2 = 0 (59)

Substituting Equations (45), (54) and (57) into Equation (36), we can get

e=0 (60)

Thus, it is easily obtained from Equation (26) that

x = pdx (61)

After the above analysis, it can be concluded that the maximum invariant set
h . . . iT
only contains the equilibrium point of lim x(t) x(t) θ1 (t) θ1 (t) θ2 ( t ) θ2 (t) =
t→∞
h iT
pdx 0 0 0 0 0 . The closed-loop system states asymptotically converge to the desired
ones according to LaSalle’s invariance theorem [45]. Therefore, Theorem 1 is proved. 

4. Simulation Results and Analysis

In this section, there are a series of simulations to validate the control performance of the proposed
control method. The numerical simulations are implemented in Matlab/Simulink. More precisely,
compared with the existing two traditional methods, the proposed method shows excellent control
performance. Then, the robustness of the proposed method to the crane control system is tested,
including different initial hook and payload swing disturbances, uncertain system parameters, and
external disturbances. The system parameters of the double pendulum gantry crane system are shown
in Table 1. The initial trolley position x(0), the hook swing angle θ1 (0) and the payload swing angle
θ2 (0) are determined as 0.

Table 1. Gantry crane system parameters.

Numerical
Name Symbol Unit
Value
Trolley mass M 12 kg
Hook mass m1 1.5 kg
Payload mass m2 1 kg
Gravity acceleration g 9.8 m/s2
Cable length 1 l1 1.2 m
Cable length 2 l2 0.5 m
Desired trolley location pdx 3 m
Static friction-related coefficient 1 fr0 8 NA
Static friction-related coefficient 2 ξ 0.01 NA
Viscous friction-related parameter kr −1.2 NA

4.1. Comparative Study

We present the following three traditional control methods, including PD controller [35],
passive-based controllers [36] and CSMC controllers [37]:
1. PD controller [35]:
.
F = Fr − kd x + kp (x − pdx ) (62)

where kd , kp ∈ R+ are control gains.

2. Passivity-based controller [36]:

−1 . . .
F = Fr − (ke I + kD ZM−1 (q)ZT ) × [kp (x − pd ) + kd x + kD ZM−1 (q)(C(q, q)q + G(q))] (63)

T
where ke , kd , kD and kp ∈ R+ are control gains and I denotes available identity matrix, Z = [ 1 0 0 ] .
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 11 of 20

3. CSMC controller [37]:

. . . . .2
F = Fr − (M + m1 + m2 )(λx + αθ1 + βθ2 ) − (m1 + m2 )l1 (cos θ1 θ1 − θ1 sin θ1 )
.. .. (64)
− m2 l2 θ2 cos θ2 − m2 l2 θ2 sin θ2 − Ktanh(s)

where λ, α ∈ R+ and β ∈ R− denote the control gains, K ∈ R+ stands for the SMC gain. s is the sliding
surface, and it is given as follows:
.
s = x + λ(x − pd ) + αθ1 + βθ2 (65)

We fully adjust the control gain of the proposed controller, passive controller and CSMC controller
to get the best control performance. The control gain results are shown in Table 2. The simulation
results and some quantitative indicators are shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Table 3.
Table 3 includes the following five performance indicators:

Table 2. Control gains for different controllers.

Controllers kp kd ka1 ka2 ke kD λ α β K

Proposed method 5 15 6 1 NANA NA NA NA NA NA
PD 6.8
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13 of 21
Passivity-based 6.5 20 NA NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA
CSMC NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.5 17 −11 30

Figure 5. Simulation results for the proposed method controller.

Figure 5. Simulation results for the proposed method controller.
 Figure 5. Simulation results for the proposed method controller.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 12 of 20

Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

Figure 6. Simulation results for the proportional derivative (PD) controller.

Figure 6. Simulation results for the proportional derivative (PD) controller.

Figure 7. Simulation results for the passivity-based controller.

Figure 7. Simulation results for the passivity-based controller.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 13 of 20

Symmetry 2019, 11, x Table

FOR PEER REVIEWperformances comparison for different controllers.
3. Control 14 of 21

θ1max θ2max θ1res θ2res pf ts Fmax

Controllers
(deg) (deg) (deg) (deg) (m) (s) (N)
Proposed method 3.47 4.29 0.03 0.02 3.005 7.46 21.27
PD 7.85 10.62 7.20 9.69 2.936 > 20 21.40
Passivity-based 6.94 9.95 1.69 2.37 2.989 > 20 25.40
CSMC 7.89 9.18 0.04 0.04 2.986 7.75 22.82

1. θ1max /θ2max denote the maximum hook/payload swing amplitude during the
transferring process.
2. θ1res /θ2res refer to the maximum hook/payload swing amplitude after the trolley stops.
3. p f is the trolley final position.  
 4. ts is defined as the time when θ1 (t) and θ2 (t) enter the ranges of θ1 (t) ≤ 0.5◦ ∀t ≥ ts and
θ2 (t) ≤ 0.5◦ ∀t ≥ ts .
5. Fmax is maximum actuating during the transferring process.
It could concluded from Table 3 and Figures 5–8 that with the similar trolley final position p f
and maximum actuating Fmax during the transferring process, the anti-swing control performance of
the designed controller in this paper is the best, as compared to other tradition controllers, such as
PD controller, passivity-based controller and CSMC controller. The proposed controller effectively
suppresses the hook swing angle and the payload swing angle during the transferring process.
Moreover, the residual swing angle of the hook and the residual swing angle of the payload are
eliminated in time after the trolley arrives at the desired positions. In particular, the proposed
control method has the smallest maximal hook swing θ1max ≈ 3.47 deg, the smallest maximal payload
swing θ2max ≈ 4.29 deg, the smallest residual hook swing θ1res ≈ 0.03 deg, the smallest residual
payload swing θ2res ≈ 0.02 deg, the smallest setting time ts ≈ 7.46 s, and the smallest maximum
Figure 7. Simulation results for the passivity-based controller.
actuating force Fmax ≈ 21.27 N. The anti-swing transient control performance of the gantry crane with
double-pendulum swing effects is increased by at least 50%.

Figure 8. Simulation results for the conventional sliding mode control (CSMC) controller.
Figure 8. Simulation results for the conventional sliding mode control (CSMC) controller.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 14 of 20
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21

2. l1 =1.2
4.2. Robustness m, l2 = 0.5m ;
Verification
The robustness of the proposed method controller is tested with respect to different desired
positions, =1.5payload
3. l1initial m, l2 = 0.8 m. payload masses, cable lengths and external disturbances. There are
swing,
five cases of numerical simulation tests in this section.
Figure
Case 1. In11this
shows
case,the
wesimulation results. From
check the proposed Figurerobustness
controller 12, it can beatconcluded that thelocations
different desired change in
cablekeeping
while length does not have
the control a significant
gain the same asimpact on 2.
in Table theTherefore,
position ofthethefollowing
cart, the hook
three swing and the
transferring
payload swing
distances are set: elimination. This indicates that the proposed controller is not sensitive to cable length
uncertainty.
1. pdx = 2 5.
Case m;There may be external disturbance such as wind resistance and collision during the
pdx = 3 m; process of the gantry crane. In this simulation, the disturbances are added to the hook
2. transportation
3. andpdx
payload
= 4 m.swing to simulate external disturbances throughout the transportation process. We add
a sine wave interference of 2 degrees between 10 s and 11 s.
The simulation
Figure 13 givesresults
the are recordedresults
simulation in Figure
of 9. The5.trolley
Case As canis accurately
be seen fromdriven to the12,
Figure destination
the trolley
fordisplacements,
different desired positions. The maximum hook swing is less than 6 degrees, and
the hook swing angles and the payload swing angles are disturbed between 11 s and the maximum
payload swing isthe
12 s. However, lessexternal
than 5 disturbances
degrees. Thereare issuppressed
no residual swing
and when the
eliminated withintrolley arrives
5 s. This at the
shows that
desired location. It can be seen that
the proposed control method is robust. the transferring distance has little effect on the amplitude of the
double pendulum.

Figure 9. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 1.
Figure 9. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 1.
Case 2. Next, we add the initial swing of hook and swing of payload to disturb the gantry crane
control system. The control gains are shown in Table 2. The three groups of initial swing of hook swing
and swing of payload are set as:

1. Initial θ1 = −3 deg, θ2 = −5 deg;

2. Initial θ1 = 0 deg, θ2 = deg;
3. Initial θ1 = 3 deg, θ2 = 5 deg.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 15 of 20

The simulation results are shown in Figure 10. The hook swing and payload swing are suppressed
and eliminated quickly.
Symmetry 2019, 11, In addition,
x FOR PEER REVIEW by comparing the three groups of simulations, we can conclude
17 of 21
that the initial hook swing and payload swing hardly affect the control performance of the gantry crane
with double pendulum.

Figure 10. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 2.
Figure 10. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 2.
Case 3. In this case, the control performance of the proposed controller will be tested for different
payload masses. At the same time, we use the same control gains in Table 2. There are three different
payload masses:

1. m2 = 0.5 kg;
2. m2 = 1 kg;
3. m2 = 1.5 kg.

The simulation results are shown in Figure 11. The trolley can accurately transfer all three
different mass payloads to the desired location. At the same time, hook swing and payload swing are
suppressed and eliminated quickly. Therefore, the proposed control method is robust against different
payload masses.
Case 4. In this case, we consider verifying the robustness of the gantry crane with double
pendulum control system to different cable lengths. Three groups of different rope lengths are set
as follows:

1. l1 = 1 m, l2 = 0.3 m;
2. l1 = 1.2 m, l2 = 0.5 m;
3. l1 = 1.5 m, l2 = 0.8 m.

Figure 11 shows the simulation results. From Figure 12, it can be concluded that the change
in cable length does not have a significant impact on the position of the cart, the hook swing and
the payload swing elimination. This indicates that the proposed controller is not sensitive to cable
length uncertainty.

Figure 11. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 3.
 Figure 10. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 2.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 16 of 20

Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21

Figure 11. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 3.
Figure 11. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 3.

Figure 12. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 4.
Figure 12. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 4.
Case 5. There may be external disturbance such as wind resistance and collision during the
transportation process of the gantry crane. In this simulation, the disturbances are added to the hook
and payload swing to simulate external disturbances throughout the transportation process. We add a
sine wave interference of 2 degrees between 10 s and 11 s.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 17 of 20

Figure 13 gives the simulation results of Case 5. As can be seen from Figure 12, the trolley
displacements, the hook
Figure swing angles
12. Simulation resultsand theproposed
for the payloadmethod
swing angles arewith
controller disturbed
respect between
to Case 4. 11 s and
12 s. However, the external disturbances are suppressed and eliminated within 5 s. This shows that the
proposed control method is robust.

Figure 13. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 5.
Figure 13. Simulation results for the proposed method controller with respect to Case 5.
5. Conclusions
This article has presented a nonlinear coupling anti-swing control method of double pendulum
gantry crane based on improved energy. First, a new energy-like storage function has been designed
for the double pendulum gantry crane based on the coupling signals among the trolley motion, hook
swing and payload swing. Then, a nonlinear coupling closed-loop feedback anti-swing controller
has been proposed. Lyapunov techniques and LaSalle’s invariance theorem help to support the
theoretical derivations. Lastly, the simulation results show the effectiveness of the proposed control
method. The main contribution of the article is that the proposed controller has a better control
performance than the other traditional controllers. The anti-swing suppression effect is increased by at
least 50%. The designed control law is robust enough to withstand different desired locations, different
initial swing angles, different payload masses and different cable lengths. The system can adjust the
return to steady state within 5 s when external disturbances occur. In future work, we will focus on
some experiments to test the proposed method and research the nonlinear control problems of other
underactuated systems.

Author Contributions: H.S. summarized the existing research contributions in this field. G.L. analyzed the
dynamic model of the double pendulum gantry crane and designed the nonlinear coupling control law. The author
X.M. established the simulation model and verified the effectiveness of the proposed controller. Author J.S. author
G.L. summarized the research conclusions and wrote the paper. All authors have read and approved the final
manuscript for this article.
Funding: This research was supported by the National Key Research and development Program of China under
the grant 2017YFC0703903 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the grant 51705341
&51905357.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 18 of 20

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Dr. Zhang Menghua from Shandong University for her
guidance on the section of simulation results and analysis in the article. In addition, the authors are grateful to the
editors and the reviewers for their suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors states that there is no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ramli, L.; Mohamed, Z.; Abdullahi, A.M.; Jaafar, H.I.; Lazim, I.M. Control Strategies for Crane Systems:
A Comprehensive Review. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2017, 95, 1–23. [CrossRef]
2. Sun, N.; Zhang, J.; Xin, X.; Yang, T.; Fang, Y. Nonlinear output feedback control of flexible rope crane systems
with state constraints. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 136193–136202. [CrossRef]
3. Shi, H.; Li, G.; Bai, X.; Huang, J. Research on Nonlinear Control Method of Underactuated Gantry Crane
Based on Machine Vision Positioning. Symmetry 2019, 11, 987. [CrossRef]
4. Thakar, P.S.; Bandyopadhyay, B.; Gandhi, P. Improved output-feedback second order sliding mode control
design with implementation for underactuated slosh-container system having confined track length.
IET Control Theory Appl. 2017, 11, 1316–1323.
5. Paliotta, C.; Lefeber, E.; Pettersen, K.Y.; Pinto, J.; Coast, M.; de Sousa, J.T.d.B. Trajectory Tracking and Path
Following for Underactuated Marine Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2019, 27, 1423–1437.
[CrossRef]
6. Yang, C.; Luo, J.; Pan, Y.; Liu, Z.; Su, C.-Y. Personalized Variable Gain Control With Tremor Attenuation for
Robot Teleoperation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 2018, 48, 1759–1770. [CrossRef]
7. Xu, B. Composite Learning Finite-Time Control with Application to Quadrotors. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man
Cybern. Syst. 2017, 48, 1–10. [CrossRef]
8. Li, F.; Zhang, C.; Sun, B. A Minimum-Time Motion Online Planning Method for Underactuated Overhead
Crane Systems. IEEE Access. 2019, 7, 54586–54594. [CrossRef]
9. Peng, H.; Shi, B.; Wang, X.; Li, C. Interval estimation and optimization for motion trajectory of overhead
crane under uncertainty. Nonlinear Dyn. 2019, 96, 1693–1715. [CrossRef]
10. Elharfi, A. Exponential stabilization and motion planning of an overhead crane system. IMA J. Math. Control
Inf. 2017, 34, 1299–1321. [CrossRef]
11. Blajer, W.; Kołodziejczyk, K. Control of underactuated mechanical systems with servo-constraints. Nonlinear
Dyn. 2007, 50, 781–791. [CrossRef]
12. Le, A.T.; Lee, S.G. 3D cooperative control of tower cranes using robust adaptive techniques. J. Frankl. Inst.
2017, 354, 8333–8357. [CrossRef]
13. Abdullahi, A.M.; Mohamed, Z.H.; Selamat, H.R. Adaptive output-based command shaping for sway control
of a 3D overhead crane with payload hoisting and wind disturbance. Mech. Syst. Signal. Process. 2018, 98,
157–172. [CrossRef]
14. Sun, N.; Yang, T.; Chen, H. Adaptive Anti-Swing and Positioning Control for 4-DOF Rotary Cranes Subject
to Uncertain/Unknown Parameters with Hardware Experiments. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 2019,
49, 1309–1321. [CrossRef]
15. Liu, R.; Li, S.; Ding, S. Nested saturation control for overhead crane systems. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 2012,
34, 862–875. [CrossRef]
16. Wu, X.; He, X. Nonlinear Energy-Based Regulation Control of Three-Dimensional Overhead Cranes.
IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2017, 14, 1297–1308. [CrossRef]
17. Wei, H.; Shuzhi, S. Cooperative control of a nonuniform gantry crane with constrained tension. Automatica
2016, 66, 146–154.
18. Sun, N.; Fang, Y.; Chen, H. Nonlinear Stabilizing Control for Ship-Mounted Cranes with Ship Roll and Heave
Movements: Design, Analysis, and Experiments. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 2018, 48, 1781–1793.
[CrossRef]
19. Kolar, B.; Rams, H.; Schlacher, K. Time-Optimal flatness based control of a gantry crane. Control. Eng. Pract.
2017, 60, 18–27. [CrossRef]
20. Golovin, I.; Palis, S. Robust control for active damping of elastic gantry crane vibrations. Mech. Syst. Signal.
Process. 2019, 121, 264–278. [CrossRef]
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 19 of 20

21. Cui, L.; Zheng, D. Visual Servoing of a Flexible Gantry Crane With a Sway Range Constraint. IEEE Control
Syst. Lett. 2019, 3, 138–143. [CrossRef]
22. Smoczek, J.; Szpytko, J. Particle Swarm Optimization-Based Multivariable Generalized Predictive Control
for an Overhead Crane. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2016, 22, 258–268. [CrossRef]
23. Mohamed, H.; Raafat, S.; Mostafa, S. A Hybrid Partial Feedback Linearization and Deadbeat Control Scheme
for a Nonlinear Gantry Crane. J. Frankl. Inst. 2018, 355, 6286–6299.
24. Zhou, Y.S.; Wang, Z.H. Robust motion control of a two-wheeled inverted pendulum with an input delay
based on optimal integral sliding mode manifold. Nonlinear Dyn. 2016, 85, 2065–2074. [CrossRef]
25. Vyhlidal, T.; Anderle, M.; Busek, J. Time delay algorithms for damping oscillations of suspended payload by
adjusting the cable length. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2017, 22, 2319–2329. [CrossRef]
26. Zavari, K.; Pipeleers, G.; Swevers, J. Gain-Scheduled Controller Design: Illustration on an Overhead Crane.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2014, 61, 3713–3718. [CrossRef]
27. Chwa, D. Sliding Mode Control-based Robust Finite-Time Anti-Sway Tracking Control of 3-D Overhead
Cranes. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 6775–6784. [CrossRef]
28. Lu, B.; Fang, Y.; Sun, N. Continuous Sliding Mode Control Strategy for a Class of Nonlinear Underactuated
Systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2018, 63, 3471–3478. [CrossRef]
29. Frikha, S.; Djemel, M.; Derbel, N. A New Adaptive Neuro-Sliding Mode Control for Gantry Crane. Int. J.
Control Autom. Syst. 2018, 16, 559–565. [CrossRef]
30. Bock, M.; Kugi, A. Real-Time Nonlinear Model Predictive Path-Following Control of a Laboratory Tower
Crane. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2014, 22, 1461–1473. [CrossRef]
31. Küchler, S.; Mahl, T.; Jörg, N. Active Control for an Offshore Crane Using Prediction of the Vessel’s Motion.
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2011, 16, 297–309. [CrossRef]
32. Wu, Z.; Xia, X.; Zhu, B. Model predictive control for improving operational efficiency of overhead cranes.
Nonlinear Dyn. 2015, 79, 2639–2657. [CrossRef]
33. Nakagawa, K.; Watanabe, T.; Seto, K. H infinity robust motion and vibration control of three dimensional
two link flexible robot arm taking account of variation of orientation. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. Ser. C 2012,
78, 1085–1096. [CrossRef]
34. Mystkowski, A.; Pawluszewicz, E. Remarks on some robust nonlinear observer and state-feedback zero-bias
control of AMB. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2015 16th International Carpathian Control. Conference (ICCC),
Szilvasvarad, Hungary, 2015; pp. 328–333.
35. Fang, Y. Nonlinear Coupling Control Laws for an Underactuated Overhead Crane System. IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatoronics 2003, 8, 418–423. [CrossRef]
36. Guo, W.; Liu, D.; Yi, J.; Zhao, D. Passivity-based control for double-pendulum-type overhead cranes.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10th Conference Analog and Digital Techniques in Electrical Engineering
TENCON, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 24 November 2004; pp. 546–549.
37. Tuan, L.A.; Lee, S.G. Sliding mode controls of double-pendulum crane systems. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2013,
27, 1863–1873. [CrossRef]
38. Qian, D.; Tong, S.; Yang, B. Design of simultaneous input-shaping-based SIRMs fuzzy control for
double-pendulum-type overhead cranes. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci. 2015, 63, 887–896. [CrossRef]
39. Sun, N.; Yang, T.; Fang, Y. Transportation Control of Double-Pendulum Cranes with a Nonlinear Quasi-PID
Scheme: Design and Experiments. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 2019, 49, 1408–1418. [CrossRef]
40. Sun, N.; Wu, Y.; Fang, Y. Nonlinear Antiswing Control for Crane Systems with Double-Pendulum Swing
Effects and Uncertain Parameters: Design and Experiments. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2018, 15, 1413–1422.
[CrossRef]
41. Zhang, M.; Ma, X.; Rong, X. A novel energy-coupling-based control method for double-pendulum overhead
cranes with initial control force constraint. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2018, 10, 1–13. [CrossRef]
42. Zhang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, X. An Enhanced Coupling PD with Sliding Mode Control Method for
Underactuated Double-pendulum Overhead Crane Systems. Int. J. Control Autom. Syst. 2019, 17, 1579–1588.
[CrossRef]
43. Zhang, M.; Ma, X.; Chai, H. A novel online motion planning method for double-pendulum overhead cranes.
Nonlinear Dyn. 2016, 85, 1079–1090. [CrossRef]
44. Boscariol, P.; Richiedei, D. Robust point-to-point trajectory planning for nonlinear underactuated systems:
Theory and experimental assessment. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2018, 50, 256–265. [CrossRef]
Symmetry 2019, 11, 1511 20 of 20

45. Khalil, H. Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed.; Englewood Cliffs NJ: Bergen, NJ, USA, 2002.
46. Maghsoudi, M.J.; Mohamed, Z.; Sudin, S. An improved input shaping design for an efficient sway control of
a nonlinear 3D overhead crane with friction. Mech. Syst. Signal. Process. 2017, 92, 364–378. [CrossRef]
47. Soon, C.; Ghazali, R.; Hazriq, I. Robustness Analysis of an Optimized Controller via Particle Swarm Algorithm.
Adv. Sci. Lett. 2017, 23, 11187–11191. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).