Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CONSTRAINED
MOTIONTASKS
+ hq(q, d + g q k ) = pq - J T ( d. F
13
ROBOTICS
(1)
CONSTRAWED MOTIONCONTROL
The methods for control of manipulation robots in the constrained motion tasks can be classified according to different
criteria. Considering the kind of the compliance, two basic
groups are distinguished 141, [51.
1) The methods of passive compliance, whereby the real
robots position is approaching the desired position only by
influence of the contact forces themselves.
2) The methods of active compliance, whereby the compliance is provided by using force feedback in order to
achieve either control of the interaction force, or a task-specific
compliance of the robots end-effector.
According to the dominant sources of compliance, the
methods of passive compliance can be classified into the
( 2 ) following two groups.
Xi = Aizi biN(ui) f i P q ; ,
i = 1, 2 , . . . ,n
1) Nonadaptable methods: a) methods based on the inherent
where xi is the (ni x 1) state vector of the ith actuators compliance of the robot mechanical structure, b) methods
model; Ai is the (ni x ni) actuator matrix; bi and f i are which use specially constructed passive deformable devices
the (n; x 1) input distribution and load distribution vectors, (adaptors) attached near the robots end-effectors.
2) Adaptable methods: a) methods based on devices with
respectively; uiis the scalar input to the ith actuator; N ( u i )
is the nonlinearity of the amplitude saturation type; Pqi is the tunable compliance, 2 ) methods based on compliance achieved
load (driving force) acting upon the ith actuator; and ni is by the adjustment of the joint servo gains 161.
Active control force methods may be classified into the folthe order of the actuators state model. The actuator model is
usually of third or second order, where 22 = (42, $, i,T, or lowing two groups: 1) hybrid positiodforce control, whereby
both position and force are controlled in a nonconflicting way
x i = (qa, q i ) T , respectively, and
is the ith rotor current.
In general, the reaction force can be modeled as a complex in two orthogonal subspaces defined in a task specific frame;
fyction of the end-effectors position and motion F = and 2) impedance control, which is in essence based only on
F ( p , 6, j). An accurate environment model, very important the position control and uses different relationships between
for the correct solution of contact tasks in robotics, is usually the acting forces and manipulators position [7].
Taking into account the way in which the force information
difficult to obtain in an analytical form.
is
included in the forward control path, hybrid positiodforce
The first general environment model was proposed in 131.
However, in some practical cases, it is sufficiently accurate to control methods can be classified into the following two
adopt a simplified linearized environment model taking into groups: 1) explicit or force-based methods where force signals
are used to generate the torque inputs for the actuators in
account only the dominant effects:
the robots joints [8]-[10]; and 2) implicit or position-based
algorithms, whereby the force control error is first converted
to an appropriate robots motion adjustment in the forcewhere p is the ( n x 1) vector of the robot external coordinates, controlled directions and then that position is used as input
P E is the ( n x 1) vector of coordinates of the point of in the position controller [11]-[13].
impact between the end-effector (tool) and the environment,
Impedance control methods can be classified into the foland g E ( s ) is the environment model which establishes a linear lowing two groups [14]: 1) position-mode or outer loop
) F . This model may take on control, whereby a target impedance control block relating the
mapping between ( p - p ~ and
one of the following forms:
force exerted on the end-effector and its relative position is
added within an outer control loop for the position controlled
manipulator [12], [15]; and 2 ) force-mode or inner loop
control, where position is measured and force commands are
computed to satisfy target impedance objectives [ 141.
where q is the ( n x 1) vector of the robot joint angles, H , ( q )
is the ( n x n ) inertia matrix, hq(q, 4) is the (n x 1) vector
of centrifugal and Coriolis moments, gn is the ( n x 1) vector
of gravitational moments, Pq is the ( n x 1) vector of driving
forces in joint space, F is the m-dimensional vector of the
generalized forces or of the generalized forces and moments
acting on the end-effector from the environment, and J T ( q )
is the ( n x m ) Jacobian matrix connecting the velocities
of the robots end-effector and the velocities of the robots
generalized coordinates.
In the case of electric dc motors, it is sufficiently accurate
to adopt their dynamic models in the form
ik
14
I
I
passive
(methods based on the
passive compliance of
the manipulators
structure)
J
Fig. 1.
active
lmethods where the
compliance is provided
by using force feedback
1 ) Adjustable Mechanical Compliance Devices: Further development of RCC has led to adjustable compliance devices
[25], which enable the location of the center of compliance
Position-based
Force-based
to be mechanically controlled in some prescribed manner,
irpeaance control
inpeaance control
in accordance with parts of different lengths and weights.
Similar to the IRCC, these devices are equipped with sensors
which provide information about endpoint deflections for robot
control.
2) Controller Gain Adjustment: This method is based on
a relatively simple adjustment of position feedback gains in
Fig. 3. Active compliance classification (after [4], [5]).
order to adjust the robots joint stiffness, i.e., in order to get
a desired distribution of the stiffness in different directions
Regarding the force-motion relationship, impedance control of the end-effectors motion. Such adjustment is possible
schemes can be further categorized into: 1) stiffness control
because the end-effectors stiffness depends upon the joint
(F = -KEAz)E)1161, 2) damping control (F = - D E A ~ E ) stiffness, and so it is feasible to calculate the necessary joint
[17]), and 3) general impedance control (F = - ( M E A ~ E
stiffness in order to get the desired end-effectors stiffness. The
DE&E
K E A P E ) )1151, [181-1211.
joint stiffness is determined by the selected position feedback
The above classifications are broadly summarized in Figs.
gain. Therefore, by an appropriate adjustment of the position
1-3. These figures do not include all the known concepts.
feedback gains, we may ensure maximum stiffness in the
In particular, some of the elaborated approaches combine
position-controlled directions and minimum stiffness in the
two or more different methods categorized in distinct groups:
force-controlled directions.
for instance, implicit/explicit control [22], direct compliance
Passive gain adjustment is efficient if the following condicontrol [23], hybrid impedance control [l I], etc.
tions are satisfied: 1) if the static effects (gravitational forces)
are perfectly compensated: 2) if the dynamics of the robotic
IV. PASSIVECOMPLIANCE
METHODS
system can be neglected, i.e., if the robots velocity is low;
3) if the robots tasks are simple, sufficiently specified, and
A. Nonadaptable Methods
previously tested; 4) if the characteristics of the contacted
I ) Structural Compliance: The structural compliance environment are precisely defined; and 5) if this method is
method is based on the inherent robots structural elasticity applied to specific robotic constructions (direct drive robots or
(for example, elasticity of the robots end-effector, elasticity of multifingered hands).
the joints). This method is more important from a theoretical
In reality, application of this method is complicated by
point of view because commercial robotic systems must have the following problems: 1) nonlinear effects such as friction
high positioning accuracy which is achieved by decreasing and backlash in the mechanical transmission, or process phethe inherent robots elasticity properties, i.e., by increasing nomena like jamming, can destroy the stiffness positiodforce
the stiffness of the robots arms.
causality to a great degree; 2) by setting the control gains in
15
Cartesian space as
U
= - K p S ( p - p) - K,S(1, - $) - KFPS(F- F)
-1
+ K F ~ S ( F - F)Dt
V. ACTIVECOMPLIANCE
METHODS
+ F
(6)
(UI, UZ,.
Pq = HqJ-l[Sp*- jq]
+ h, + gq + J T T f *
(7)
i;
+ K p ( p o - p ) + K,($
-p)
(8)
16
KP
PO
Fig. 5.
Finally, the main problem with the explicit hybrid positiodforce control scheme lies in the fact that it requires a
nonstandard and completely
. new controller. It is not possible
to preserve the classical positional robot controllers which are
very robust and reliable.
The phenomenon called kinematic instability related to
the explicit hybrid positiodforce control scheme will be mentioned in Section VI.
2) Implicit Force Control: The implicit force control scheme
is shown in Fig. 6. This control concept is based on the
identification of the contact stiffness (damping) using the
force-sensor information, and on the computation of the
position (velocity) equivalent to the desired force. The input
to the force controller with transfer function QF (Fig. 6) is
the force error, i.e., the difference between the desired and
the actual contact force in the task frame. The output from
the force controller is an equivalent position ~ E in
Q the forcecontrolled directions which is superimposed on the nominal
position p ( t ) in the position-controlled directions. The sum
( ~ E Q p ( t ) ) is used as a reference input to the position
controller, which remains unchanged. Since the positional
controller provides a basis for realization of the force control,
this concept is referred to as implicit or position-based force
control [12], or external force control [35].
The implicit control law in the Cartesian space can be
written as
= U0 - K,S(p
- p ) - K,S($
17
COMPUTATION OF
gF AND
KF
IDENTIFICATION
OF 9,
-Kps(p -~
p")
+ KFS(F
E Q )
F " ) (10)
18
IDENTIFICATION
OF
a,
Dynamic
Compensation
%E
Fig. 8.
gF :
F, = (ME.?
+ BES+ K E )Ap =
Ap.
(1 1)
19
VI. STABILITY
ANALYSISOF ROBOTIC
MANIPULATORS
IN CONSTRAINED
MOTIONTASKS
TESTS OF
To verify hybrid and impedance control modeling, theoretical considerations, and performance analysis, two simulations
and experimental tests have been done. Due to limited space,
only some specific results are presented and briefly discussed.
For the tests, the Manutec R-3 industrial robot was used.
Parameters of the robot and dc actuators which are driving
the joints are given in [49].
A. Implicit Hybrid Control
The force sensor is mounted in the wrist joint measuring
all six components of the force and moment acting upon the
end-effector. The tool for debumng has been attached to the
robot gripper. The parameters of the tool and of the burr are
given in Table I.
The implicit hybrid scheme (Fig. 6) was implemented in
the Advanced Robot Control System ARCOS, which is used
as a control development and test environment at Fraunhofer
Institute, IPK, Berlin, Germany.
The experimental environment is shown in Fig. 10 [50].
The desired cutting force of debumng was 5 [NI. In Fig.
11, real system behavior is presented.
20
Time
Fig. 11.
TABLE I
PARAMETFRS OF DEBURR~NG
PROCESS
Stiffness of workpiece
10000
I Nominal width
2000
I"[
I]./.[
of burr
1 Specific cutting
[qm]
0.51cml
0.3[cm]
1500
[N/an]\
Fig. 13.
0.50
0.00.
0.70
Experimental system.
0.90
simulation results
-6.67
(b)
. . .
21
r-----1
------- -' I
Force threshold C
W
60
9234
50
40
30
4467
20
10
0
-10
10
-300
5.00
.-.
9.99
The results of the measured force during motion are presented in Fig. 16. There is a satisfactory match between
VIII. CONCLUDING
DISCUSSION
During the past several years, compliant motion control has
emerged as one of the most attractive and fruitful research
areas in robotics. The control of the constrained motion
of robots is a challenging research area whose successful
solution will considerably affect further application of robots
in industry and increase their efficiency and productivity.
In this paper, we have attempted to present the status in the
area based on work reported in the literature. Although several
control strategies and schemes have recently been proposed
and elaborated, the number of advanced robotic applications
for a complex contact task remain insignificant. The reason
for this is that the majority of new concepts are still in the
laboratory investigation stage, and their implementation into
22
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors have the special pleasure to express their
gratitude to esteemed colleagues, Dr. D. Surdilovic and Dr.
J. Timm, associates of the Fraunhofer Institute-IPK, Berlin,
who in the scope of their successful activity on problems of
contact tasks and their control, have written an excellent survey
report cited in this paper, which has been used by the authors
in parts of the particular formulations and evaluation of the
subject problem, too.
REFERENCES
[I] M. Vukobratovit and V. Potkonjak, Applied Dynamics and CAD of
Manipulation Robots, Scientific Fundamentals of Robotics 6. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag. 1985.
[2] H. Asada and J. Slotine,Robot Analysis and Control. New York Wiley.
1986.
[3] A. De Luca and C. Manes, On the modeling of robots in contact with
a dynamic environment, in Proc. 5th Int. Con$ Adv. Robotics, Fisa,
Italy. 1991, pp. 568-574.
[4] D. Surdilovit and J. Timm, Review of contact control concepts, ESA
Contract 9181/9O/NLIJG(SC), Working Rep. WP 2400, 1991.
[5] M. Vukobratovit and D. Surdilovit, Control of robotic systems in
contact tasks-An overview, Tutorial S5: Force and Contact Control
in Robotic Systems: A Historical Perspective and Current Tec,$nologies,
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf Robotics Automation, Atlanta, GA, 1993, pp.
13-32.
[6] J. Simons and H. Van Brussel, Force control schemes for robot
assembly, in Int. Trends in Manufacturing Technol.: Robotic Assembly,
IFS Public. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 253-267.
[7] D. E. Whitney, Historical perspective and state of the art in robot force
control, Inr. J. Robotic Res., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 3-7, 1987.
[8] M. H. Raibert and J. J. Craig, Hybrid positiodforce control of manipulators, ASME J. Dynamic Syst.. Meas., Contr., vol. 102, pp. 126-133,
1981.
[9] D. L. Wedel and G. N. Saridis, An experiment in hybrid positiodforce
control of a six DOF revolute manipulator, in Proc. IEEE Int. Con$
Robotics Automation, 1988, pp. 1638-1642.
101 T. Yoshikava, T. Sugie, and M. Tanaka, Dynamic hybrid positiodforce
control of robot manipulators-Controller design and experiment, IEEE
Trans. Robotics Automation, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 699-705, 1988.
111 R. J. Anderson and M. W. Spong, Hybrid impedance control of robotic
manipulators, in Proc. IEEE Int. Con$ Robotics Automation, Raleigh,
NC, 1987, pp. 1073-1080.
121 J. A. Maples and J. J. Becker, Experiments in force control of robotic
manipulators, in Proc. IEEE Int. Con$ Robotics Automation, 1986, pp.
695-703.
131 J. De Schutter and H. Van Brussel, Compliant robot motion I Formalism for specifying compliant motion tasks, Int. J. Robotic Res., vol. 7,
no. 4, pp. 3-17, 1988.
141 D. A. Lawrence, Impedance control stability properties in common
implementations, in Proc. IEEE Inr. Con$ Robotics Automation, 1988,
pp. 1185-1190.
151 K. H. Kazerooni and B. J. Waibel, Theory and experiment on the
stability of robot compliance control, in Proc. IEEE Inr. Con$ Robotics
Automation, 1988, pp. 71-87.
23
J. K. Salisbury, Active stiffness control of a manipulator in Cartesian [44] G. Stepan, A. Steven, and L. Maunder, Theoretical and experimental stability analysis of a hybrid position-force controlled robot, in
coordinates, presented at the 19th IEEE Conf. Decision Contr., Dec.
Proc. 8th CISM-IFIOMM Symp. Theory and Practice of Robots and
1980.
Manipulators, Cracow, Poland, 1990, pp. 53-60.
D. E. Whitney, Force feedback control of manipulator fine motions,
[45] -,
Force control stability and environment compliance in robotics,
ASME J. Dynamic Syst., Meas., Contr., pp. 91-97, 1977.
in Pmc. 8th World Congr. Theory of Machines and Mechanisms,Prague,
N. Hogan, Impedance control: An approach to manipulation, Part
Czechoslovakia, 1991, pp. 503-506.
I-Theory, J, Dynamic Syst., Meus., Contr., vol. 107, pp. 1-7, 1985.
[46] S. Chiaverini and B. Siciliano, On the stability of a fordposition
-,
Impedance control: An approach to manipulation, Part II-Imcontrol scheme for robot manipulators, in Proc. SYROCO Symp., Wien,
plementation, J. Dynamic Syst., Meas., Contr., vol. 107, pp. 8-16,
Germany, 1991, pp. 371-376.
1985.
-,
Impedance control: An approach to manipulation, Part
[47] B. X, I. Walker, D. Tesar, and R. Freeman, Geometric stability in force
control, in Proc. IEEE Znt. Con$ Robotics Automation, San Francisco,
Ill-Application, J. Dynamic Syst., Meas., Contr., vol. 107, pp. 17-24,
CA, 1991, pp, 281-287.
1985.
[48] M. Vukobratovi6 and A. Tuneski, Contributionto the stability analysis
A. A. Goldenberg,Force and impedance control of robot manipulators,
of robotic manipulatorsin contact with environment,Tech. Cybern. (in
IEEE Trans. Robotics Automation, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 653460, 1987.
D. M. Stokic and D. T. Surdilovic, Simulation and control of robotic
Russian), 1994, to be published.
deburring, Int. J. Robotics Automation, vol. 5 , no. 3, pp. 107-1 15, 1990. [49] M. Otter and S. Turk, The DFVLR models 1 and 2 of the Manutec
Y. Xu, R. P. Paul, and P. I. Corke, Hybrid positiodforce control of
R-3 robot, Rep. DFVLR Inst., Oberpfaffenhofen,Germany, 1988.
robot manipulator with an instrumented compliant wrist, in Proc. 1st
[50] G. Duelen, H. Munch, D. Surdilovic, and J. Timm, Automated force
Int. Symp. Exp. Robotics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 244-271.
control schemes for robotics development and experimentalevaluation,
D. L. Whitney and J. L. Nevins, What is remote centre compliance
in Proc. ZECON 92, San Diego, CA, 1992, pp. 912-918.
D. SurdiloviC and M. VukobratoviC, Impact of target impedance on
(RCC) and what it can do?, Robot Sensors, Vol. 2-Tactile and Noncontact stability, presented at the Int. Conf. Adv. Robotics ICAR93,
Vision, IFS Publ. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1986, pp. 3-17.
M. R. Cutkoski and P. K. Wright, Active control of a compliant wrist
Tokyo, Japan.
D. SurdiloviC, S. Anton, and A. AI-Keshmery, Compliant motion
in manufacturing tasks, Robot Sensors, Vol. 2-Tactile and Non-Vision,
control concept for space robotics for upgrading of the ESTEC Robotic
IFS Publ. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 17-33.
M. T. Mason and J. K. Salisbury, Robot Hands and the Mechanics of
Laboratory Controller, Study Rep., ESA Contract 103929, Fraunhofer
Manipulation. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1985.
Institute, Berlin, Germany, 1992.
M. T. Mason, Compliance and force control for computer controlled
M. VukobratoviC and Yu. Ekalo, Unified approach to control laws synmanipulators, ZEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. SMC-11, pp.
thesis for robotic manipulators in contact with dynamic environments,
418432, 1981.
Tutorial S5: Force and Contact Control in Robotic Systems: A Historical
R. P. Paul and B. Shimano, Compliance and control, in Proc. Joint
Perspective and Current Technologies, in Pmc. IEEE Con$ Robotics
Automat. Contr. Con$, San Francisco, CA, 1976, pp. 694-699.
Automation, Atlanta, GA, 1993, pp. 213-229.
0. Khatib, A unified approach for motion and force control of robot
-,
Unified approach to control laws synthesis for robotic manipmanipulators: The operational space formulation,IEEE Trans. Robotics
ulators in contact with dynamic environments, submitted to ASME J.
Automation, vol. RA-3, no. 1, pp. 43-53, 1987.
Dynamic Syst., Meas., Contr.
K. G. Shin and C. P. Lee, Compliant control of robotic manipulators
Yu. Ekalo and M. VukobratoviC, Robust and adaptive positiodforce
with resolved acceleration, in Proc. 24th ZEEE Con$ Decision Contr.,
stabilization of robotic manipulators in contact tasks, Robotica, vol.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Dec. 1985, pp. 350-357.
11, no. 4, pp. 373-386, 1993.
R. C. Paul, Modelling, trajectory calculation and servoing of a computer
-,
Stabilizationconditions of robotic manipulators in contact with
controlled arm, A. I. Memo 177, Stanford Art. Intell. Lab., Stanford
dynamic environments,J. Intell. Robotic Syst., 1993.
Univ., 1972.
J. Duffy, The fallacy of modem hybrid control theory that is based on
orthogonal complementsof twist and wrench spaces, J. Robotic Syst.,
vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 139-144, 1990.
H. West and H. Asada, A method for the design of hybrid positiodforce
Miomir Vukobratovit (SM93) was born in Zrencontrollers for manipulators constrained by contact with the environjanin, Yugoslavia, in 1931. He received the B.Sc.
ment, in Proc. IEEE Int. Con$ Robotics Automation, St. Louis, MO,
and PhD. degrees in mechanical engineering from
1985, pp. 251-259.
the University of Belgrade in 1957 and 1964, reC. H. An and J. Hollerbach,Dynamic stability issues in force control of
spectively, and the D.Sc. degree from the Institute
manipulators, in Proc. IEEE Int. Con$ Robotics Automation, Raleigh,
Mashinivedenya, Moscow, in 1972.
NC, 1987, pp. 890-896.
He is presently Director of the Robotics Centre
J. De Schutter and H. Van Brussel, Compliant robot motion 11: A
at Mihailo Pupin Institute, Belgrade, and a Visiting
control approach based on external control loops, J. Robotics Res., vol.
Professor teaching postgraduate courses in robotics
7, no. 4, pp. 17-25, 1988.
at several universities in Yugoslavia and abroad.
D. StokiC, M. VukobratoviC, and D. SurdikoviC, An adaptive hybrid
His interest is in the development of efficient robot
control scheme for manipulation robots with implicit force control, in
modeling and control law synthesis of robotic systems. His special interest
Proc. ICAR 91 5th Int. Con$ Adv. Robotics, vol. 2, Pisa, Italy, 1991,
is dynamic nonadaptive and adaptive control of noncontact and contact tasks
pp. 1505-1508.
in robotics. He is the author or coauthor of 160 scientific papers in the field
D. StokiC, Constrained motion control of manipulation robots-A
of robotics published in leading international journals, and is the author or
contribution, Robotica, vol. 9, pp. 157-163, 1991.
C. H. An and J. Hollerbach, Kinematic stability issues in force control coauthor of 16 monographs published in English, Japanese, Russian, Chinese,
of manipulators,in Proc. IEEE Int. Con$ Robotics Automation, Raleigh, and Serbian.
Dr. VukobratovK is Chairman of the Robotics Section, Yugoslav Society
NC, 1987, pp. 897-903.
H. Zhang, Kinematic stability of robot manipulators under force for Electronics, Telecommunications, Automation, and Nuclear Engineering.
He
is a scientific leader of the national program in robotics, as well as
control, in Proc. IEEE Znt. Con5 Robotics Automation, Scottsdale, AZ,
the principal investigator of three international robotics projects (EC, NSF,
1989, pp. 80-85.
D. W. Fisher and S. M. Mujtaba, Hybrid positiodforce control: A UNIDO). He is also a permanent member of international committees of
several PAC, IFAC/IFIP, and IFToMM symposia, and has for many years
correct formulation, Int. J. Robotic Res., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 299-311,
been a member of the editorial boards of several leading scientific journals in
1992.
H. Lipkin and J. Duffy, Hybrid twist and wrench control of a robotic robotics, manufacturing,and artificial intelligence. He is a member of ASME
manipulator, Trans. ASME, J. Mechanisms, Transmissions, Automation and the Scientific Society of Serbia, a corresponding member of the Serbian
Academy of Sciences and Arts,and a foreign member of the Soviet Academy
in Design, vol. 110, pp. 138-144, 1988.
S. Eppinger and W. Seering, On dynamic models of robot force of Sciences (now the Russian Academy of Sciences). He was the winner of
control, in Proc. IEEE Int. Con$ Robotics Automation, San Francisco, the highest Yugoslav state award in 1982 for his outstanding achievements in
robotics and technicalcybernetics.He also won, with his coauthors,the highest
CA, 1986, pp. 29-34.
D. Stoki6, Positiodforce control of industrial robots: Implementation scientific Yugoslav award Nikola Tesla in 1986, for their world-recognized
problems, Rep. for Fraunhofer Institute, IPK, Berlin, 1990.
research monograph series published by Springer-Verlag.
.-. .
24