Procdinp of ths 1992 IEEE

Ldcmurimll Womncc QL Robotia urd Autanatim

Nica, WCU - M.y 1992
A New Parallelogram Linkage Configuration for Gravity
Compensation Using Torsional Springs
Ajay Gopalswamy, Pramod Gupta and M.Vidyasagar
Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR)
Raj Bhavan Circle, Bangalore 560 001 INDIA
Abstract
A11 articulated robots sufler from the adverse eflects
of gravity loading, namely increased actuator size and
degraded performance. Parallelogmm linkage manip-
ulators are uniquely suited for counterbalancing tech-
niques due to the decoupled nature of gravity terms in
their dynamic equations. I n this paper, we present a
new parallelogram linkage configuration where the two
actuated degrees-of-freedom in the vertical plane are
gravity compensated using torsional springs. We show
that the robot design is thus improved in two ways:
(i) the peak torques required to be output by the QC-
tuators are reduced, ihereby allowing smaller motors
to be selected and (ii) by ensuring that the equilibrium
position for all robot joints assume a safe configura-
tion on power-off i.e. a position where the robot links
do not collide with one another or with other objects,
the need for fail-safe brakes is eliminated. A three
degree-of-freedom direct drive robot using the proposed
new configuration is under development at CAIR to
demonstmte the feasibility of these concepts.
1 Introduction
Closed loop linkages have been widely adopted in
industrial robots to enable the drive motors to be 10-
cated near the robot base. The most popular of the
closed loop linkages is the parallelogram mechanism
because its kinematics and dynamics are easy to ana-
lyze. The line diagram of the three degree-of-freedom
( d o f ) parallelogram linkage manipulator (character-
ized by the MIT Direct Drive Arm I1 11) is shown in
are presented below to provide insight into the relative
effects of the inertial, centrifugal, Coriolis and gravita-
tional torques (the manipulator dynamics is derived
based on the assumptions that - the robot links are
rigid, friction at the joints is negligible, gyroscopic ef-
fects due to motor rotations are negligible, there are
no link offsets, and that the wrist-gripper-workpiece
entity is a point mass).
Figure 1. The dynamic equations of t I, e manipulator
Figure 1: Line Diagram of Parallelogram Linkage Ma-
nipulator
(3)
where dij are the elements of the inertia matrix (Ci
refers to cosqi, Si to sinqi and Ci-j to cos(qi - q j ) ).
dii =
dl2 =
d22 =
dm =
+
+
+
d13 =
and 4is are given by
0-8186-27#)-4/92 $3.00 91992 I E E
664
Examining the manipulator dynamic equations for
71and Q, one can conclude that gravitational torques
41and 4 2 comprise a significant portion of the torque
which must be output by the motors. Elimination or
reduction of the gravitational torques through coun-
terbalancing can lead to a more efficient robot design
due to the following reasons:
Smaller motors can be used with counterbalanced
designs, leading to lighter robots.
Counterbalancing can lead to statically balanced
robots, eliminating or reducing the size of brakes
required. This is an important aspect of coun-
terbalancing for two reasons. First, reduction in
brake size leads to substantial weight saving, es-
pecially in direct drive robots, since in the absence
of any friction in the joints, the entire gravity load
has t o be supported by the brakes themselves.
Secondly, fail-safe brakes are 'normally closed'
in operation, implying that brakes are functional
when power is off. During normal robot opera-
tion, power supplied to the brakes acts to disen-
age them. Thus large amounts of power must be
iissipated by the brakes leading to overheating at
the joints and degrading performance.
Due to static balancing, torque required by the
motors to maintain a commanded position at
standstill. is reduced. Subsequently, heat dissi-
pation in the motors is reduced.
In the event that the robot is perfectly coun-
terbalanced, gravity terms in the dynamic equa-
tions of the manipulator can be ignored, reducing
the computational burden for implementation of
model-based control systems.
Reference [2] cites various techniques to counter
gravity torques: (i) Mass counterbalancing (ii) Spring
counterbalancing and (iii) Controlled force counter-
balancing. Mass and spring counterbalancing are by
far the most popular means of gravity compensation
in manipulators, being passive in action. In contrast,
force counterbalanced systems make use of actuated
mechanisms to compensate gravity torques and are
usually restricted to massive robots which handle large
payloads. Spring counterbalancing has the advantage
over mass counterbancing in that a different payload
will simply result in a changed manipulator equilib-
rium position. With mass counterbalancing, the ma-
nipulator links will collapse when a different payload
from the designed value is used; direct-drive robots
will collapse rapidly, while geared robots will collapse
yore slowly due to friction present in the transmis-
sion. Another disadvantage of mass counterbalanc-
ing is that it requires either a heavy counterweight
or a large moment arm. The former results in in-
creased robot weight whereas the latter causes the us-
able robot workspace to be reduced.
2 Theory of Gravity Compensation us-
ing Torsional Springs
Originally, the idea of using spring counterbalanc-
ing for a five-bar linkage manipulator was suggested
in [3]. The unique property of the parallelogram link-
age manipulator which makes counterbalancing conve-
nient is that the gravity term for joint 1 (41 is inde-
terbalancing technique is to affix a torsional sprin
between the frame of motor 1 and link 1, as depict2
in Figure 2, such that the spring is in its undeformed
state when q1 is 90" (i.e. link 1 is vertical). At this p e
pendent of joint 2 position and vice versa. I, he coun-
Figure 2: Torsional Spring Affixed to Link 1
sition (where q1 is go" ), the gravity torque experienced
by joint 1 is zero. Any deviation from this position
results in a torque that tends to pull the joint away
from its 90" position, causing the spring to deform by
coiling or uncoiling and exert a restoring torsional me
ment. The spring can be designed in such a way that
this torsional moment cancels out the gravity torque,
resulting in a statically balanced design about joint 1.
However, since the spring characteristic is linear, and
the gravitational torque is non-linear, being a function
of the cosine of the angle q1, the two cannot exactly
cancel each other out. By restricting the range of q1
such that the difference between the slope of the ap-
plied torque versus spring deflection (assumed to be
linear) and the gravitational torque is substantially
reduced, the peak torque required by the motor can
be reduced. Other techniques have been proposed in
the literature [4,5,6], where linear springs are used to
obtain exact gravity compensation over the complete
range of motion of the joint. However, all three meth-
ods make use of additional components like gears, belt
drives or linkage mechanisms, increasing both system
cost and complexity. Torsional spring counterbalanc-
ing seems to be superior to the above mentioned linear
spring counterbalancing methods because of its sim-
plicity. The modified gravitational term for joint 1
with the torsional spring affixed to the manipulator
is:
41 = (m11c1+m31c3+m4h
(6)
?r
+mpll)gCl +h(q1 - $,
where tl is the torsional spring constant. In order to
determine kl , the following procedure is adopted:
1. The motion of joint 1 is restricted to the range
where the profile of the cosine function of q1 ap-
665
2.
proaches a straight line. The range of motion,
however, must not be so restrictive as to reduce
the useful workspace of the manipulator.
kl is expressed as 7lg(mll,l+m31,3+m411+mpll>
so that Equation (6) may be rewritten as
41 = (mllcl +m3lc3 +m411
( 7)
17
+mph)g[C1 +7lb1 - $3
where, 71 is a non-dimensional constant whose
value lies between 0.6 and 1.0 for practical mo-
tion ranges of q1. The torsional spring is designed
for the maximum rated payload of the manipula-
tor, since the peak torque to be exerted by joint 1
occurs when payload is maximum. Then, by min-
imizing the expression C1 +-yl(q1 - t) between
the specified joint limits the gravitational torque
is minimized.
While joint 1 is counterbalanced using the above
technique, a valid question is: Can joint 2 also be
gravity compensated using a similar technique or oth-
erwise? Rewriting 4 2 with the torsional spring term,
and employing the same technique for expressing kz
as before in Equation (7) for AI , weget
4 2 = g[m2lc2 +m312 - m41c4
- mpQ4 - 12)1[C2 +YZ(P2 - 31
(8)
It is clear that for m41,4 +mp(14 - 12) >m2lC2 +m3l2,
the procedure outlined above would yield a negative
spring constant. With existing manufacturing tech-
nology, it is not possible to realize a negative spring
constant torsional spring. In [3], joint 2 is mass coun-
terbalanced by assuming that the parallelogram link-
age manipulator is used in applications where varia-
tions in payload are negligible and by satisfying the
following equation (obtained by substituting mp =0
in Equation (5) and equating 952 to zero):
m21c2 -k m312 =m41c4
However, there is no reason to exclude parallelogram
linkage manipulators from pick-and-place operations
which form an important class of robot applications.
We have come across at least one citation in the lit-
erature 71 where a parallelogram linkage manipulator
As robot links become lighter through use of advanced
materials (e. g. carbon fibre composites) and thrdugh
improved optimisation methods (e. g. finite element
analysis), the load that a robot is capable of han-
dling will comprise a significant percentage of its own
weight. Hence, the mass counterbalancing technique
can be applied on1 for a particular payload (maxi-
mum rated payload$, leaving the joint unbalanced for
other payloads.
3
(9)
is used tI or machine loading and unloading operations.
Gravity Compensation for Joint 2 -
A New Configuration
Wepropose a new configuration for the parallelo-
gram linkage manipulator to enable gravity compen-
sation for both joints 1 and 2. The line diagram of
the proposed new configuration is shown in Figure 3.
With reference to Figure 1, this configuration is ob-
Figure 3: The New Parallelogram Linkage Configura-
tion
tained by moving the motors from the common axis
of links 1 and 2 to the common axis of links 3 and 2.
The structure of the dynamic equations of the new
configuration is exactly the same as in Equations (1) -
(3); however, some elements of the inertia matrix and
the gravity term, 4 2 are changed and are presented
below (all symbols refer to Figure 3):
dl2 =
d22 =
d a =
+
+
+
and
Since 4 2 is now positive for all possible values of robot
link parameters, it is possible to design a torsional
spring using the method outlined in Section 2 for
joint 2 also. Peak torques for motor 2 is consequently
reduced and the need for a fail-safe brake is eliminated.
An immediate observation can be made about the new
configuration by observing the dlz term of the iner-
tia matrix - it is not possible t o decouple the inertia
matriz using the technique originally suggested in 11
technique (applicable only for negligible payload vari-
aiions) is to design the robot links such that dl2 .re-
duces to zero. However, consequent to our contention
(in Section 2) that a parallelogram linkage manipula-
tor need not be restricted to applications where the
payload variations are negligible, by examining the
expression for d12 in Section 1, it can be concluded
that it is not possible t o decouple the inertia matriz of
for the conventional parallelogram configuration. T i e
666
the conventional pamllelogmm configuration itself for
pick-and-place opemiions. Other issues, as identified
below, need to be resolved before the new configura-
tion can be practically realized.
0 I t must be verified that the greater moment arm
of link 4 as seen by joint 2 in the new configuration
does not cause an increase in inertia, centrifugal
and Coriolis torques, offsetting the advantages of
compensating the gravity torque on joint 2.
0 The theory of torsional spring counterbalancing
assumes that the range of motion of joints 1 and 2
is restricted between a range where the cosine
function approaches linearity. However, if the
robot links are coplanar, and not offset (as in the
MIT direct Drive Arm II), q1 and q2 must satisfy
the following identity to avoid collisions between
the links:
where 8 is the smallest included angle at the
vertices of the parallelogram linkage before the
links collide. The range of motion of joint 2 will
have to be different from the range of motion of
joint 1; the cosine of 42 will therefore deviate
significantly from a straight line. J oint motions
for the robot must be designed to satisfy oppos-
in requirements - (i) maximum workspace and
(iif constrained joint motions for spring counter-
balancing.
0 One of the advantages being mooted of the new
configuration is that the need for fail-safe brakes
is eliminated. The springs must be designed in
such a way that on power-off, the manipulator
assumes a 'safe' configuration i.e. the robot links
do not collide with objects in its environment as
well as with one another.
To examine these issues, a parallelogram linkage
robot incorporating the propoeed ideas is being devel-
oped at CAIR.
4 Design of CAIR Direct Drive Robot
A computer generated schematic of the CAIR robot
is illustrated in Fi ure 4. The robot joints are to be ac-
tuated by direct frive motors in anticipation of using
model-based schemes for the control of the manipu-
lator; absence of friction and backlash in direct-drive
robots results in better correlation between the mod-
elled and actual robot dynamics. It should however be
noted that the theory developed above is equally valid
for geared robots. J oints 1 and 2 are to be actuated
by 60 N-mmotors, while joint 3 is to be actuated by a
100 N-mmotor. All three motors are of the shaflless,
ouiside-rotor, hollow-stator construction. The maxi-
mumrated payload of the CAIR robot is 7.5 kgs.
The link parameters of the CAIR robot are listed
in the following table:
Figure 4: Schematic of the CAIR Direct Drive Robot
4.1 Equilibrium Position
As mentioned in Section 3, the equilibrium posi-
tions of joints 1 and 2 must satisfy Equation (11) to
prevent the links from colliding with one another (for
the CAIR robot, 8 =30"). If the undeformed posi-
tions of the torsional springs of joints 1 and 2 are 90,
the equilibrium position of both the joints are identi-
cal at 90" over a range of payloads. This leads to a
physically invalid manipulator configuration. In order
to prevent such an eventuality, the unstrained position
of the joint 2 spring is ked at 60" . This particular
value of the undeformed spring position for joint 2 en-
sures that Equation (11)is satisfied without diminish-
ing the advantages of gravitational torque reduction.
Figure 5 shows variation of the equilibrium position
for joint 1 for different payloads. The stable equilib-
Figure 5: Equilibrium Positions of J oint 1 for Varying
Payloads
rium positions are the points at which the 41 versus
q1 graph croeses the x-axis with a negative slope. As
the payload is increased from 0 kgs, the equilibrium
position remains unchanged at 90, till a certain 'crit-
ical' payload value is reached. At the critical payload,
the 41 versus q1 graph exhibits an inflection, when
the tangent to the curve at q1 =90" coincides with
the abscissa of the graph, i . e.
Beyond the critical payload (analytically determined
to be 4.72 kgs by solving Equation (12)), the equi-
librium position trifvrcates into two stable and one
unstable equilibrium position.
J oint 2 exhibits a single equilibrium point which
varies continuously as the payload increases from 0 to
7.5 kgs (Figure 6). The equilibrium position(s) of
E z
I
.IO 422 -IO 0 10 20 10 U) H)
qz
Figure 6: Equilibrium Positions of J oint 2 for Varying
Payloads
joint 1 is plotted against that ofjoint 2 in Figure 7 for
payloads in the range 0 - 7.5 kgs. The graph trifur-
Figure 7: Equilibrium Positions of J oint 1 and J oint 2
for Varying Payload
cates at the critical payload value of joint 1 indicating
existence of one unstable and two stable equilibrium
positions for joint 1 when the payload at the manipula-
tor tip exceeds the critical payload value. The equilib-
rium position that the manipulator actually assumes
depends on the initial position of joint 1. However,
both equilibrium positions satisfy Equation (1 1).
4.2 Workspace
The workspaces of the new and conventional par-
allelogram configurations is plotted in Figures 8 (a)
and (b) respectively to compare their reach and acces-
sible regions. The workspace of the new configuration
Figure 8: Workspace of New and Conventional Paral-
lelogram Manipulator Configurations
is obtained by plotting the position of the manipula-
tor tip for q1 and 42 varying between their joint limits
(15" 2 q1 5 150" and -30" 5 42 5 105' respectively)
and ensuring that Equation (11) is satisfied. Since the
base motor (joint 3) simply rotates the vertical plane
containing the parallelogram structure about a verti-
cal axis, the effect of 43 on the workspace is ignored.
The workspace of the conventional parallelogram con-
figuration is plotted by constraining joint 1 (which is
spring counterbalanced as in the new configuration)
to movebetween 15" and 150, and allowing joint 2 to
movefreely without any counterbalancing constraint?.
For the conventional configuration, Equation 611) is
modified as follows to ensure that the links o not
collide with one another.
Fromthe workspace plots, it can be clearly seen that
with the new configuration the maximum reach is in-
creased by almost 20%. However, the conventional
manipulator is able to better access regions closer to
the robot base.
4.3 Joint Torques
In the new parallelogram configuration, link 4 piv-
ots at the far joint for joint 2 motions, whereas in
the conventional configuration, link 4 is pivoted at the
near joint. Consequently, the inertia seen by motor 2
is numerically greater in the new configuration. In or-
der to verify if the new configuration actually results in
lesser joint torques because of both joints in the ver-
tical plane being counterbalanced, the joint torques
are enumerated by simulating the dynamic behavior
of the two configurations for the same pick-and-place
task. The pick-and-place task is specified in world
space with data points being specified with respect
668
to the ori ins of the 2-y-z coordinate frames in Fig-
ures 1 an8 3. The operation involves starting from
rest at ( ~ ~ 0 . 0 m, y=0.25 m, z=1.0 m} with the mm-
imum rated payload,.passing through (0 m,1.25 m,O
m} apd ending the pick-and-place task by Coming to
rest at (0 m,0.25 mi-1.0 m} (all goal points are ac-
cesible to both configurations). The joint anglea cor-
respohding to these tip positions are (41 =80.19',
and {80.19,-29.280,180.00} for the new configura-
tion and =60.63', 92 =147.45', q3 =0.07,
{123.56",2 6.44,90.00} and {60.63,147.450,180.0 }
for the conventional configuration respectively, deter-
mined by solving the respective kinematic equations.
Cubic trajectories are specified between the various
goal points according to standard trajectory planning
schemes ( 1). The task is specified to be completed in
2.5 secon P s for which the mmcimumtip velocity and
tip acceleration are 2.1 m/ s and 0.65 g respectively.
Figures 9 and 10 show the joint torquea for the new
and conventional parallelogram manipulators respec-
tively for the pick-and-place task. It is seen that in the
new configuration, joints 1 and 2 exhibit a reduction
in torques; joint 3 torque is almost identical for both
configurations for this particular motion trajec!ory.
42
=-29.28', 43 =O.Oo), {143.13",53.13",90.0'}
I z
g
!!
O J I \J 1 Y
l64-
Figure 9: J oint Torques for the New Parallelogram
Manipulator Configuration
5 Discussion
A new parallelogram manipulator configuration has
been presented in the paper which enables both joints
actuated in the vertical plane to be gravity compen-
sated using torsional springs. Simulations of the CAIR
robot indicate that the new Configuration has many
advantages over the conventional parallelogram con-
figuration including - reduced joint torques, increased
reach and elimination of fail-safe brakes by ensuring
'equilibrium pasitions for joints 1 and 2 such that the
robot links do not interfere with one another.
One aspect of the CAIR robot design is its modu-
lariiy. Referring to Figure 4, link 4 is composed of a
hollow square section module and a detachable hollow
circular section module. The detachable module can
be interchanged with replacement modules of different
lengths, crass sections or materials. A consequence of
O J 1 1J 2 U
'i I
O J 1 1J 2 U
Figure 10: J oint Torques fdr Conventional Parallele
gram Manipulator Configuration
this modularity is that the manipulator can be made
mconfigumble. By affixing the detachable cylindrical
portion of link 4 to the rear of the rismatic mod-
ration is obtained! An automatic implementation of
the reconfiguration process can also be coqceptualized.
The CAIR robot is undergoing fabrication h d current
,work is focusing on its real-time control using model-
baaed and adaptive approaches.
References
[l] Asada, H., and Youcef-Toumi, K., Di wct Drive
Robots: Theory and Pmci i ce, MIT Press, 1987.
[2] Rivin, E., Mechanical Design of Robots, McGraw-
Hill, 1987.
[3] Huissoon, J. P., and Wang, D., On the Design of
a Direct Drive 5-Bar-Linkage Manipulator, Robot-
ica, 1991, t o be published.
[4] Petrov, B.A., Mani pul dors, Mashinostroenie Pub-
lishing House, Leningrad, cited i n [2].
[5] Herve, J .M., Design of Spring Mechanisms for Bal-
ancing the Wei ht of Robots, Proceedings of the
Sixth CISM-IF#OMM Symposium on Theory and
Practice d Robots and Manipulators, RoManSy
6, Cracow, Poland, 1986, edited by Morecki, A.,
Bianchi, G., and Kedzior, K., pp 564 - 567.
[6] Mahalingam,S., and Sharan,A.M., The Optimal
Balancing of the Robotic Manipulators, IEEE In-
ternational Conference on Robotics and Automa-
tion, 1986, pp 828 - 835.
[A Meyer, J .D.,-An Overview of Fabrication and Pro-
cessing Applications, in Handbook of Industrial
Robotics; ediied by Shimon Y. Nof, J ohn Wiley
and Sons, 1985.
[8] Craig, J .J ., Introduction t o Roboiics: Mechanics
and Conirol, Addison-Wesley, 2nd Edition, 1989.
ule of link 4, the conventional paralle f ogram configu-
- - ~
'-*-..-- -
.
,
669
.