Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Robust Adaptive Controller For Robot Manipulators

    Uploaded by

    loc78vn
    10 views6 pages
    A robust adaptive controller for robot manipulators

    Original Title

    A Robust Adaptive Controller for Robot Manipulators

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    A robust adaptive controller for robot manipulators

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views6 pages

    A Robust Adaptive Controller For Robot Manipulators

    Uploaded by

    loc78vn
    A robust adaptive controller for robot manipulators

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    Pceting of 92 EE ‘Men e.My 52 ARobust Adaptive Controller for Robot Manipulators Harry Berghuis (*), Romeo Onega (***), Henk Nijmeijer (+*) * (*) Department of Electrical Engineering, (**) Department of Applied Mathematics University of Twente, PO. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, Netherlands. (##*) Department of Electrical Engineering McGill University, 3480 University Street, Montréal, Québec, H3A 2A7, Canada. ‘Abstract - In the present paper we propose a globally ‘convergent adaptive control scheme for robot motion con- ‘tol with the following features: Fist, the adaptation law possesses enhanced robustness with respect to noisy vel- city measurements. Secondly, the controller does not equie the inclusion of high gain loops that may excite the ‘unmodeled dynamics and amplify the noise level. Thirdly, Wwe derive forthe known parameter design relationship ‘between compensator gains and closed-loop convergence ‘ales which independent ofthe robot ask This helps the Aesigner to carry out the gain tuning with an eye on the robustness - performance tradeoff Keywords -Robot sysiems, Adaptive control, Robustness, Lyapunov stability, Introduction ‘The path tracking control problem of rigid robots wi ‘uncertain parameters that attracted the attention of robot ‘contro theorists in the lat few years has matured ia stage here theoretically satisfactory asymptotic results are now wellestblished, see eg. Onegaand Spong (1989).Inorder for these results to penetrate the realm of applications there are at least three basic requirements that shouldbe satis- fied. First, the adaptation law should not be sensitive to (unavoidable) velocity measurement noise, Secondly, high ‘ain designs, that excite the unmodeled torsional modes and aggravate the nose sensitivity problem (Nicosia and ‘Tomei, 1990), should be avoided. Thirdly, nonconservative measures to carry out the gain tuning taking into acount the closed-loop robustness-performance tradeoff should be rovided to the designer. Inparticular, tis desirable whave available relationships between controller gain ranges and ‘convergence rate bounds which to some extent are inde- pendent of the specific tsk. To the bet of our knowledge, all existing adaptive controllers for which global stability -a1862720.482 $300 61992 IEEE ofthe closed-loop can rigorously be proven fail to sai all of the requirements mentioned above. Some repre- senate examples ae briefly discussed below. Probably the mos elegant solution othe adaptive mo- tion control problem is provided by the so-called passivity ‘based methods, eg, Slotine and Li (1987) and Sadegh and Horowitz (1987). An important drawback ofthese schemes is that they are not robust to velocity measurement nose, ‘Specifically, in underexcited operation, eg. when perfor- ‘ming a regulation task where the desired trajectory has become constant the well known phenomenon of par- ameter drift (Sastry and Bodson, 1988) inthe adaptation law is prone to occur dve othe presence of quadratic terms inthe measured velocity. This phenomenon hasbeen ilus- trated in simulations (Sadegh and Horowitz, 1990; Schwarz et a, 1990; Berghuis et al, 1991) and actual ‘experimentation (Ghorbel etal, 1990; Leahy and Whalen, 1991). ‘Aznumber of adaptive schemes that do not suffer frm the velocity measurement problem were recently proposed by Bayard and Wen (1988). However, these schemes re- ‘uire high controler gains in order to both overcome the ‘uncertainty inte initial parameter errors and compensate for the dependency on the magnitude ofthe desired tajoc- tory velocity ‘An alemative approach to obiain enhanced robustness {or noise was presented by Sadegh and Horowitz (1990), who propose to replace the actual position and velocity in the regressorby the desired trajectory values. This moi cation beings along two new dificulies: the inclusion of ‘an addtional feedback proportional to the square of the tracking error, that may induce a high gain loop during the transients, and also a lower bound on the compensator ‘ins that is dependent on the magnitude ofthe desired Luajectory velocity. This bound translates again into a high sain requirement when tacking fast reference signals. Bexphuis etal. (1991) remove the latter restriction on the controler gains bu stil require the nonlinear proportional {feedback in order tobe able to show global convergence. “The clever inclusion of of @ normalization term inthe parameter adaptation law (as well as in the Lyapunov function) allows Whitcomb ctal. (1991) to establish global stability for an adaptive scheme without the parameter drift problem nor the need forthe nonlinear proportional foed- ‘bck term, but still requiring the controller gains to satisfy an inoguait that depends onthe desired wajectory veloc- ity, As we will show below, tis condition translates intoa task-dependent upper bound onthe attainable convergence rates. ‘The main contribution ofthis paper isto combine ideas ‘of Berghuis etal. (1991) and Whitcomb et al. (1991) to ‘come up with an adaptive controler that is robust with respect to velocity measurement noise, does not require high guin loops and to provide a relationship between convergence rates and compensator gains that is inde- pendent ofthe desired trajectory velocity magnitude. Fur- thermore the required additional computations are ‘basically negligible. “The remaining partof the paper is organized as follows. For larity we have separated into the known and unknown rameter case. Ourmain results conceming the non-adap- tive controller are presented in section 2. The adaptive case jispresented in ection 3 We will resent some conclusions in section. 2. Known Parameter Case A.Malin result Consider standard n-degreeof freedom rigid robot model ofthe form (Spong and Vidyasagar, 1989) MQi+ COG. da+G@=* ge R en where C(g, is defined using the Christoffel symbols. Let the control torque + be given as t= Mag + Cla, 4 Regt GQ) - Ke Kye (2.2) ‘with e = q—q.qq € R" represents a desired trajectory, and > 0, = Ki >0.Furhemore @) With Ay a positive constant, and I. is defined as the ‘Euclidean norm. ‘Assume the controller guns are chosen such that v7 Ken Mn) Gilg 2050" Rant Kan) where Kay On(Kah Kaye Ou(Ka Koma™ OnlKp> With Gg(0, Oy() the minimum and maximum singular ale respectively, nd May My and Cy sail (Cri, 1988) 0. My SIMS My, do< en 5a) CG, 20 Cyq tal forall x @5b) ‘Then we can prove the following result Proposition 2.1. Under the condition (2-4), the closed- loop system is global convergent, that is € and éasymp- totically converge to 2270 and all internal signals are ‘bounded. If besides (2.4) the condition ae co) holds, then the closed-loop system is globally exponen- tially stable, that is, there exist m>0, p> 0, independent ofthe desired trajectory velocity, such that Ue < me" Me(OI® forall 120 en where xt =[€F é], Proof, We will strongly rely onthe following well known properties of 1g.) Cq.xy=Ca.yix Ctq.x+ oy) = Cla.) + 0014.9) (28a) 2.80) forallx,y,q€ RO R. ‘Combining (2.1) and (2.2) and using 2.86) we obtain MGQiE-+ CQ, DE+ALG. Cat Kee+Kye=0 3) Consider the postive definite Lyapunov function candi- date Vee.e)= STM +LETKye 210) where saéehe ey With abase of notation we will write Ve, 2) everywhere although we may change the coordinates e,) into ther combinations ‘Taking the time-derivative of (2.10) along the trajectory of 2.9) ies Wee.2) = STL AM(gye + AMiaghe + 301g, ae ~2C0q. ay Kee Kye ]+e™K,e 2.12) ‘where we have used (28H) andthe skew-symaery of ‘M(q)~-2C(q, @) (Ortega and Spong, 1989). Now, (2.84) allows ws wo rewrite (2.12) as sq Ama] &+ AsTMCge + +2ITC(g eRe Ke 13) At this moment we introduce a new variable tht will simply ou further developments, namely sisévde aw In temsof s, we can rewrite (2.13) as Vee, 8) =~ STU AMU@))s,+ AsTMIQe + ASTCUG, le Gey UANK,— (Ky AMIE) 215) Inthe Appendix we establish the following bounds for the second and third term a the right hand side ITM(Qhe s2AgMy (lg? + he) ASFCCgd < Diy (lyP+ Hel?) (2.164) 2168) Replacing these bounds in (2.15) and rearranging terms we obiain Wte,8)$~%; ton He en where 15 Kaan SMe Moy @.18a) A= 423g Kay ZoMy— MgCy 2.186) Its easy to see that 24) ensures that x, > 0. Thus ‘V(e,é) i a non-increasin function bounded from below. This implies from (2.10) thats, € € £2, and consequently 651 € 12, Now, because 2 € L,, we conclude from (2.17) that sy, €€ 22, From square integrability and uniform a continuity of ¢ we conclude that it converges to zero. To complete the first part of the proof notice that we aso have Ge 15, ths it suffices to establish that 2¢ 18, which follows from the error dynamics (2.9). ‘To prove exponential stability let us write Ve 2) in ‘terms of the coordinates (,3 ¢) STMCQ)s, + ST MEQ) +1 Ee) ™MCaXe) +helkye 19) hich canbe bounded as Pils IP +1 Eyl el < VEE, 2) < SM yl? + LER em ‘where BM (OC My (2210) a2) aig and xis any postive number ‘Under assumption (2.6) we can find @'>0 such that 1.82 0.Ontheobherhand, boundedness of eensres that 21s bounded sway from zr, and consequently &3 <=. From 220) and (2.17) we conclude that there exist 1m.p>0sch hat, ys me (0) forall 120 2) ex) am ‘Tre poo is competed by noting that Ys veraargcrs (enue yt 225 and consequently Tand 7-1 are bounded matrices. B. Discussion 1. Notice that in contrat to Whitcomb etl (1991),Sadegh and Horowitz (1990) and Bayard and Wen (1988), the conditions (2.4) and 2.6) onthe controle gain No Ky and are independent ofthe desired tnjectory velocity. Con- sequently the convergence rate is also independent of i ‘This makes the tuning process task independent. 2. Ii worth remarking that in the stability proo ofthe scheme proposed by Whitcomb etal. (1991) aterm 2 (2.3) (denoted ¢ in their paper) is introduced in the Lyapunov function. The conditions for stability invoke an upper ‘bound on (denoted gin their paper) which depends on ag Even though 2s not used in the (known paramett) contol implementation, hy upperbounds the schemes con. vergence rte, sce (13) in Whitcomb ct al, (1991), and makes i dependent ofthe desired trajectory velocity. 3. The proposed contol law does not contain a nonlinear PD term as in Sadegh and Horowitz (1990) and Berghuis, tal (1991) which injects tothe lop a gun proportional to the squae of the tracking ero 4, Two key modifications are introduced inthe controler (2.2), The inclusion of an aditional term —2.C(g, edigand the use ofthe normalization factor’. The fistidea exploits the structural properties (28) of C(g,.) and was introduced in Beghuis et al. (1991), while the normalization factors being used in Whitcomb et a. (1991). The 2 factor is. ooded inthe cooler to be able to bound the cubic tem S¥vq, by quadratic terms as done in 2.16). Further. ‘more, the addtional term that appears in Ve, 2) due to, can be upper bounded by quadratic terms ins, and e, 25, shown in 2.160). 5.To motivate our choice of the Lyapunov function 2.10), which was inspired by Spong etal (1990), let ws consider the one proposed in Whitcomb et (1991) Vydesd)=feTMCge + AeTMge +4eTK,e (226) ‘This funtion is related 10 2.10) by Vyles€)=Vee.8)— $M eTMU@e em If we evaluate Vy(e, 2 we obtain an additional term in Tighe. Using the skew-symmetry property this amounts toan extra term in e™C(q e. This term can not be com- ‘pensated by the control and can only be bounded in terms ‘of e and é, with a bound on iy ws 3, Unknown Parameter Case ‘A. Main Result ‘Consider the sysiem (2.1) in closed-loop with Hgvig+ Casa Devint Gla) -Ke— Ke B-0) wher is asin (23) and Megas Ba.4-devig BQ = = Yad Aeviu iad 62) ‘with ¥(.)aregressor matrg tha is linear its second, third ‘and fourth argument, and 6 a vector of parameters adjusted by PMG §— Re, dards ea where sis given by (2.11). Propasition 3.1. Assume that (2.4) holds, Then the adap- tive system (2.1,31-3)is globally convergent, thats ¢ and £& asymprorically converge to zero and all internal signals are bounded, roof, Ping (31-2) ito 2.1) we obtain MQ + Cg. PE + ROG Ody Kee Kye = BMG Re dy dO co) where b-0 os) nd © are te ru parameters of the robot ‘Consider the Lyapunov function candidate Valesd.B)= e,d+464 5 Cr) with V(e,@) defined as in (2.10), The time-derivative of q(e, 8,8) along the error dynamics (3.4) with the choice of the adaptation law (3.3) yields (2.17). Global conver- ‘gence then follows from the arguments used in the proof (of Proposition 2.1, . B, Discussion 1. The rematks as given in section 2.B also hold forthe adaptive case 2. Lis well known (Sastxy and Bodson, 1988) that the equilibrium set of adaptive systems is unbounded. There- fore, in underexcited conditions and in the presence of ‘noise the instability mechanism of parameter drift appears in the adaptation law. Inthe present context, excitation is lost in the regulation part of the task, i.e, when 44 constant. In these circumstances the conrlle (3.1) reduces to @ PD plus adaptive gravitation compensation, ‘and the adaptation law (3:3) with velocity measurement ‘noise 1 Jooks like §--r1%q.0.0.0@+n+2) en On the other hand, the adaptation law of Slotine and Li (1987) in this situation becomes. B-TITG.d + Age Ad +) G++ Ae) 8) ‘Comparing (3.7) and (3.8) we notice that the later contains ‘quadratic terms in the measurement noise n, in contrast with @.7) which only contains linear tems in 1. The imegral ofthese quadratic terms introduces adrift which is proportional to the noise variance (cf. Berphuis etal. 991). 43. The adaptation laws presented in Bayard and Wen (1988), Berghuis et al. (1991), Sadegh and Horowitz (1990) and Whitcomb etal. (1991) are for gg constant also linear in the measurement nose 9, but these contol schemes have the drawbacks as mentioned inthe introduc- tion. 4, The extra computations needed in the implementation of the adaptive controller (3.1-3) due to the addtional term AC, i are negligible, Since Ne is already needed in ‘sve only require an extra addition, 5. The scalar gain isan important design parameter in the adaptation law 3.3). Inthisespect itis interesting to naice that i is possible to generalize the control schemes (2.2) and (31-3) in the sense that 2 can be chosen to be a siagonal matrix, i, De diag co) where feeegae ean For this choice propositions 2.1 and 3.1 hold if condition (2.4) is replaced by G10) and if itis assumed that Kis diagonal (de Vries, 1992). v8 4, Conclusions ‘We have presented a globally convergent adaptive control algorithm for robot motion control wih enhanced noise sensitivity properties. Moreover, the controller does not contain nonlinear proportional compensation gains and the controller gains and the convergence rat are independent ofthe desired reference velocity. ‘To attain this objective we propose a new controller structure which incorporates the normalization idea of ‘Whitcomb etal (1991) andthe additonal compensation term of Berghuis etal. (1991). From the analysis point of view, a Lyapunov function similar to the one proposed in Spong et al. (1990) is used to insure negative defniteness ofits time- derivative via a suitable change of coordinates. ‘In the non-adaptive cas this Lyapunov function allows us toconclude exponential stability witha convergence rate {independent of the robot task. ‘We would like to mention that in order to verify the performance and robusiness properties of the proposed control scheme, practical experiments such as the ones presented by Ghorbel etal. (1990) and Whitcomb etal (1991) need tobe performed. Currently we ae working oa this, Acknowledgements ‘The first author would like to thank the Netheriands Tech- ‘nology Foundation (STW) for supporting his work. The second author would like to thank Dan Koditschek for sending him a preprint ofthe interesting technical report bby Whitcomb etal. 1991), Wealso would ike to thank the Dutch Network on Systems and Control, that financed the stay ofthe second author atthe University of Twente, References Bayard, DS., and J.T. Wen (1988). New Class of Control Laws or Robotic Manipulators: Adaptive Case. Int. Jour- ‘nal of Control, VolA7, 1387-1406. ‘Berghuis,H., P. Lohnberg and H. Nijmeijer (1991). Adap- tive PD+ Control of Robot Manipulators. Proc. Symp.on Robot Control, Vienna, Aust, To appear. Craig, 1J. (1988). Adaptive Control of Robot Manipula- ‘ors. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Ghorbel, FA. Fitzmortis and M.W. Spong (1990). Ro- business of Adaptive Control of Robots: Theory and Ex- periment In Advanced Robot Conrol,C. Canudas de Wit (a1), Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, Vo. 162, Springer-Verlag, Bertin. Leahy, MB. J, and PY. Whalen (1991) Direct Adaptive Control for Industral Manipulators. Proc. IEEE Conf. on ‘Robotics and Automation, 1666-1672. ‘Nicosia, S., and P. Tomei (1990) Robot Control by Using nly Joint Position Measurements. IEEE Trans. AC, ‘VoL35, 1058-1061. ‘Omega, R., and M.W. Spong (1989). Adaptive Motion ‘Control of Rigid Robots: a Tutorial. Automatica, Vol25, 877-888, ‘Sadegh,N.,and R, Horowitz (1987) Stability Analysis of ‘an Adaptive Controller for Robotic Manipulators. Proc. IEEE Int, Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1223-1229. ‘Sadegh,N, and R. Horowitz (1990) Stability and Robust- ness Analysis of a Class of Adaptive Controllers for Ro- Doc Manipulators. nt. Journal on Robotics Research, Vot9, 74.92. Sastry, S., and M. Bodson (1988). Adaptive Control: Sta- biliy, Convergence and Robustness. Prentice-Hall, Engle- ‘wood Cliffs, NJ Schwartz, H.M., G, Warshaw and T,Janabi (1990). Isues ‘nRobot Adaptive Control. Proc. American Control Con- ference, 2197-2808. Slotine, JIE, and W. Li (1987).Onthe Adaptive Control ‘of Robot Manipulators. In Journal on Robotics Research, Vols, 49-59. Spong, M.W.,R. Ortega and R. Kelly (1990). Comments ‘on “Adaptive Manipulator Control: ACase Study”. JEEE Trans. AC, VOL35, 761-762. and M. Vidyasagar (1989), Robot Dynamics ley, New York. Vries, D. de (1992). Performance Evaluation of a New Adaptive Controller for Robot Manipulators. Internal Re~ ‘port $2RO14, University of Twente, Control Laboratory, Enschede, Netherlands. Whitcomb, LL., A.A. Rizzi and DE, Koditschek (1991). Comparative Experiments witha Now Adaptive Controller for Robot Arms. Technical Report 9101, Yale Univesity, Center for Systems Science, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Appendix ‘Upper bounds for last two right hand side terms in (2.15) are given by istmae CC) Te Tel) (+2 OTMQe a

    You might also like