PERGAMON

Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

Dynamics of contact tasks in robotics. Part I: general

model of robot interacting with environment
Miomir K. Vukobratovic a, Veljko Potkonjak b
a

Robotics Laboratory, Mihajlo Pupin Institute, Volgina 15, PO Box 15, 11000 Belgrade, Yugoslavia
b
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, 1100 Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Received 22 January 1997

Abstract
Modelling the dynamics of contact tasks is carried out in a completely general way. Two dynamic
systems are brought into contact and the relevant dynamic eects analysed. The eects are: rigid-bodycontact force, elastodynamics in contact zone, friction in contact points, elastic deformation in torque
transmission, impact, etc. The general model is then applied to some more concrete problems in order to
discuss some eects in detail. The control strategy is considered for each concrete problem and the
simulation results are presented. The work is organized in two parts dedicated to rst the general model,
and second model application and simulation. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Contact problems in robot dynamics represent a very complex eld of research. They relate
to dierent areas of theoretical and applied mechanics, electromechanics, control theory etc.
From the standpoint of mechanics one has to consider the issues of multibody dynamics,
elasticity, friction and impact. Additional problems appear with the numerical approach to
contact dynamics. Interaction of dierent eects (elasticity, friction, impact etc.) makes a
simulation experiment rather complex. On the other hand, the theory derived to support
contact problems in robotics can be generalized, thus becoming applicable to nonrobotics
problems. For this reason it is useful to start the discussion from a general view and consider
the problem of interaction between two mechanical systems. The general model would then be
applied to more concrete problems.
Now it is useful to justify the research in robot contact dynamics. It is well known that
many robot tasks include some kind of contact with the environment. Some of them are simple
(like spot-welding), but a lot of them are rather complex (deburring or assembling). Control of
robots in such tasks could not be realized in the usual manner. Precise contact force appeared
0094-114X/99/$ - see front matter # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 9 4 - 1 1 4 X ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 9 1 - 8

924

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

to be of main importance for successful operation. This led to force control problems and they
still do not have denite answers. Mathematical models describing the dynamics oer the
possibility of examining dierent eects relevant to control. This leads to more appropriate
control algorithms. The mathematical models are also used to create simulation routines. The
next important role of dynamic analysis lies in the possibility of designing robots or some
robot tools so as to support specic requirements of contact tasks (e.g. design of redundancy,
compliance etc.).
The intention of this paper is to indicate the dynamic eects, to present a short overview of
the previous results in contact dynamics, then to derive the general dynamic model and nally
to apply it to specic problems in robotics.
The work is organized in two parts. Part 1 derives the general model which covers all the
relevant dynamic eects. Part 2 applies the model to some concrete problems, discusses some
issues of control and presents simulation results.

2. Robot dynamicsproblems, research and results

The role of this section is twofold. One intention is to review the problems which are
signicant in robot contact dynamics and to indicate the sources of particular dynamic eects.
Next, the previous research and results will be mentioned associated with each problem.
The rst research in robots dynamics dealt with robot represented by open kinematic chains.
Robot links as well as all transmission elements (shafts, gears, belts etc.) were considered as
innitely rigid (Problem 1 in Fig. 1). Many authors have worked in this eld and we mention a
few early results [16]. The idea of contact tasks was introduced for the rst time in refs [7, 8].
The robot environment was considered in the form of geometric constraints (Problem 2 in
Fig. 1). The stationary and nonstationary cases were discussed. The constraints imposed on
end-eector motion resulted in reaction forces. Dynamic models were derived for arbitrary
constraint (restricting one to 6 degrees of freedom). All robot elements were considered rigid.
The models derived enabled solution of motion along with computation of contact forces.
Friction between robot and environment was included (Problem 3). The collision problems
were discussed and the solution to nonelastic impact was found. Some practical examples
considered were the writing task and the assembly task.
After solving the dynamics of rigid robots the attention of researchers was turned to elastic
eects. The problem of exible links was considered rst (Problem 4 in Fig. 1). Some of the
initial research looked for a simplied but fast solution of a general exible chain [6, 8], while
others intended to nd a more exact model for some practical examples, single or two-link
exible arms [9, 10]. Almost all existing dynamic models for exible multi-link arms are found
in some specic discretization methods, such as lumped mass [6, 8], assumed models [11], or
nite elements [12]. A few researchers considered the computational eciency of proposed
procedures [13, 14]. Real time calculation has recently become signicant in the advanced
control algorithms for exible robots [15]. Most of the research considered the linear
deformation and neglected the coupling eects between components of deformation. New
research [16, 17] takes care of these problems producing more general models. The study of the
application of exible robots to contact tasks is still missing. Although this paper is intended

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

925

to cover most of dynamics eects in the contact task, the problem of exible links is still left
for future research.
The next source of elastic eects is the transmission of torque. It is known that with
electrical drives complex transmission between the motor and the joint shaft is usually needed.
It is necessary to reduce speed and multiply torque. Thus, some kind of gear-box is present.
Depending on the construction, gear-boxes introduce smaller or larger elastic deformation.
This deformation is especially expressed with harmonic-drive reducers, since the elasticity is the
essential property for its operation. If robot construction is such that gravitational load is
reduced by placing all motors close to the robot base, then some system is needed to transmit
torque and motion from the motor to the corresponding joint. This may be a chain, belt, shaft,
etc. Any of these systems introduces its elastic deformation (Problem 5 in Fig. 1). If
transmission is considered deformable, then the motion of the joint becomes independent of
motor motion and only the relatively high stiness makes these motions close to each other.
The number of degrees of freedom (DOF) is at least doubled. The initial results in this eld
were presented in refs [18, 19] making the foundation for further research. A mathematical
model was derived to describe dynamics of a robot with elastic transmissions. The torque
transmission included harmonic drive, gears and chains. The research [19] followed from
practical work in robot design. Special attention was paid to some practical problems in
forming the control loop: should one measure the position of joint or the position of motor?
Generally speaking, the presence of nonactuated DOFs represents the main problem with
control of such robots. Further works elaborated this subject in some detail. One way to solve
the tracking problem with such a robot is presented in ref. [20] and included the measurement
of torque for the formation of feedback. The next step in the research was to introduce the
constraints upon the motion of the end-eector and thus consider elastic joint robots in the
contact task. Several approaches to simultaneous contact force and position control in
constrained robot systems with joint exibility have been proposed in the literature [2125].
The elastic eects can be expressed with the robot support (Problem 6 in Fig. 1). If
connections of the robot arm and its support were considered deformable or if a robot was
placed on a platform with pneumatic wheels then oscillations would appear. However, these
eects can be included in existing models of a rigid system in form of passive DOFs with
stiness and damping. A similar problem may appear on the environment side. If an object
which should be grasped or processed in some other way is connected to its support by means
of deformable connections, then oscillations will arise (Problem 7). The dynamic model of
environment is then needed.
With contact tasks the most interesting deformation eects are expressed in the vicinity of
the contact point (Problems 8 and 9 in Fig. 1). Two bodies in contact produce a force upon
each other and the force depends strongly on elastic properties. For exact modelling of contact
the elastodynamics in the contact zone has to be taken into account. The problem of contact
between a robot and its environment is of special interest. In most previous research the
contact deformation was considered on the environment side only (Problem 8). The terminal
link of a robot was assumed nondeformable. Such an approach can be justied in many
industrial applications. It is due to the fact that tools are generally harder then objects they are
acting upon. The analysis of deformation was needed to develop the successful control of a
contact force. The general approach would require the analysis of deformation on both sides of

926

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

927

Fig. 1. Dierent eects in robot dynamics.

the contact, environment and robot (Problem 9). Such a discussion is not needed for purely
theoretical reasons. With some applications, such as peg-in-hole assembly, it is a real situation.
The material of the peg and of the object with a hole is the same and it is likely that both will
be deformed. Most eorts in the eld of contact deformation have been made with the aim of
creating control strategies for contact tasks [2630]. The main problem lies in the need to
simultaneously control motion and force. The intention of the present paper is not to elaborate
on issues of control, and hence we shall discuss dierent methods regarding the dynamic eects
they include. In the rst approach robot dynamics was considered in its rigid-body form and
the deformation in the contact zone was treated through stiness and damping [27]. Since a
massless spring and damper were in question, there was no dynamics of the environment.
From the standpoint of environment modelling, a more exact method was proposed in ref. [28].
The control strategy suggested was called the impedance control. The environment was
modelled by an appropriate impedance. Thus, dynamics of the environment took place, but
with the restriction to a linear model. The complete dynamics of the environment, including
nonlinear eects, represented a signicant contribution to solving contact task problems in
robotics [29, 30].
Special discussion should be given to collision (Problem 10). It is an ever-present eect since
no contact can be made so precisely as to avoid impact. The rst study of impact with a

928

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

robotic system was given in ref. [31]. The plastic impact between a robot and an object in
grasping was solved. In ref. [8] the collision of the end-eector and a geometric constraint was
elaborated. The impact was considered plastic. The eect of friction was included. Both of
these studies followed the classical approach based on the theorem of momentum. Another
early result is ref. [32]. The inuence of friction to body collision was discussed in detail in
refs [33, 34]. In ref. [35] a rigid body collision of planar kinematic chains with multiple contact
points was elaborated. A successful algorithm for the integration of a system subject to impacts
was presented in ref. [36]. Paper [37] formed the mathematic model of impulsive collision
dynamics through the use of Schwartz's distributions, then studied the relationships between
impulsive and continuous dynamic models, and analyzed the diculties associated with the
transition phase control. Paper [38] modelled the impact as a black box, without requiring
explicit observation of the compression and restitution phase. In order to achieve better
insight, the collision can be modelled through elastodynamics. One way to do this is by means
of the lumped mass approach [39]. Some general background for impact problems can be
found in refs [40, 41].
3. Mathematical formulation of rigid-body contact
The discussion on contact dynamics will start with two rigid-body systems. The systems are
assumed to be in the form of active chains (Fig. 2). The intention is to make the discussion
general, but we nd that for easier understanding it is useful to name the systems. Let one of
them be called the working system and the other the dynamic environment. In robotic
applications, by the term working system we usually understand some kind of a manipulator (a
simple manipulation system or a robot). What is meant by environment? It is a dynamic
system with active or passive degrees of freedom (DOFs) working in cooperation with a robot
or assisting it. In a practical problem it can represent a rotating or coordinate table, some
more complex positioner, conveyor, transport cart, CNC machine (e.g. lathe), another robot,
or it can be much simpler (e.g. a kind of support). The names introduced for the two systems
do not restrict the possibility of applying the following discussion to other sorts of mechanical
systems. At the beginning we consider the two chains geometrically and dynamically uncoupled
(Fig. 2a) and write the dynamic models. Let the working system have nr DOFs (index ``r''
follows from robot and the index will be used for all working system variables). The
environment has ne DOFs (index ``e'' will be used for all environment variables). The internal
position vectors are qr=(qr1, . . ., qrnr) and qe=(qe1, . . . , qene). They dene the motion of joints.
The position of the entire system may be expressed by united vector
q qe ; qr

of dimension n = ne+nr.
Now, the dynamics of the two chains can be described by means of models [6]
He qe 
qe he qe ; qe t e

Hr qr 
qr hr qr ; qr t r

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

929

Fig. 2. Two kinematic chains in free (a) and in contact (b) motion.

where t e and t r are joint torque vectors, He and Hr are inertial matrices, and he, hr take care of
gravity, Coriolis' forces, and other position-dependent and velocity-dependent forces if they are
present. There are reasons why the environment model is placed rst and the working system
model last. It will be explained when introducing the new set of coordinates.
For each chain, one may introduce a new set of coordinates describing position in the most
proper way for a particular problem. This set could generally be called the functional

930

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

coordinates and with a robotic system we usually use the term external coordinates. Let
se=(se1, . . . , sene) and sr=(sr1, . . . , srnr) be the functional coordinates for the two chains. The
relation between coordinates q and coordinates s represents the kinematic model. For
environment, s-coordinates are dened as absolute. This means that these coordinates describe
the environment position with respect to immobile (absolute) frame. Very often the set se
coincides with qe since it is not possible to nd a more suitable set of coordinates. In a general
case,
se se qe

represents a nonlinear function. The operation of working system usually understands some
prescribed relation with its environment. The relation includes kinematic behaviour and
sometimes dynamic eects, too. Hence, it is suitable to dene s-coordinates of a working
system as relative. They describe the position of a working system (its end-eector) with
respect to the environment (i.e. to a frame xed to the last link of chain (e)). Accordingly, the
transformation of coordinates has the form:
sr sr qe ; qr :

The functional coordinates for the entire system are

s se ; sr :

Let us now discuss the contact between the two chains (Fig. 2b). How to express this contact
mathematically? From the kinematic point of view, the contact means a geometric constraint
imposed on the motion. Since the relative coordinates sr are dened so as to support a given
task, it is justied to assume that contact can be expressed by zero-values of some of these
coordinates. If we suppose that a contact restricts m DOFs, then m coordinates from the set sr
reduce to zero. Now it is convenient to separate vector s into two subvectors but in a way
dierent from Eq. (6). If sf is the set of free coordinates of the entire system then it includes
the complete vector se and nrm elements of vector sr. Dimension of sf is ne+nrm = n m.
Set sc contains the coordinates constrained by the contact (all from sr) and has dimension m.
The new separation is
s sf ; sc :

The constraint (contact) is now expressed as

sc sc qe ; qr 0:

From the dynamic point of view, contact causes a reaction force (contact force). The number
of force components is equal to the number of restricted DOFs. Thus, the number of
independent unknown variables remains the same. In this case dynamic model (2), (3) should
include the contact force F of dimension m [8]:
qe he qe ; q_ e t e JcT
He qe 
e qe ; qr F

Hr qr 
qr hr qr ; q_ r t r JcT
r qe ; qr F

10

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

931

where Jce and Jcr are Jacobian matrices: Jce=@sc/@qe, Jcr=@sc/@qr, of dimensions m  ne and
m  nr, respectively.
Coordinates qe and qr appearing in Eqs. (9) and (10) are not independent due to constraint
(8). Accordingly, models (9) and (10) along with condition (8) describe the dynamics of the
entire system and represent the set of ne+nr+m scalar equations which could be solved for the
motion (qe, qr) and the contact force (F). In order to achieve the form suitable for numerical
integration procedure we make derivatives of Eq. (8) and write the constraint in dierential
form. The rst derivative of sc gives
s_ c

@sc
@sc
q_ e
q_ Jce q_ e Jcr q_ r
@qe
@qr r

11

and the second derivative

sc Jce qe Jcrqr Ac

12

where Jacobian matrices Jce and Jcr are the same ones introduced in Eqs. (9) and (10) and the
adjoint matrix is Ac=(@2sc)/@q2eq 2e+(@2sc)/(@qe@qr)q rq e+(@2sc)/(@qr@qe)q eq r+(@2sc)/@q2rq 2r. The
constraint (8), if written in dierential form, becomes
sc Jce qe Jcr qr Ac 0:

13

The dynamics is now described by Eqs. (9), (10) and (13). This set of ne+nr+m scalar and
linear equations could be solved for the same number of scalar unknowns: ne-component
acceleration qe, nr-component acceleration qr, and m-component force F.

4. Modelling friction eects

With the approach used, the contact inuenced a subset of functional coordinates: sc was
kept zero by means of reaction force F acting in the directions of coordinates sc. The
resting coordinates (subset sf) were free and there was no resistance in these directions.
However, in a real situation some kind of resistance always exists. We shall consider friction
force and include it in the dynamic model. Friction appears between two bodies in contact. Let
us separate sf as sf=(se, sfr) where sfr contains nrm free coordinates. The direction of friction
force is opposite to the relative velocity in the contact point. Accordingly, it can be expressed
in the form
Ff j Ff j
v0

14

where Ff is the (nrm)-component friction vector, vFfv is its absolute value, and v0 is the
(nrm)-component vector dening the direction of relative velocity (unit vector). The
absolute value vFfv depends on the contact force, quality of surface and on the relative
velocity. With a more complex contact it may depend on some other parameters, too (e.g.
geometric parameters like the area of contact). In the majority of practical problems it is
justied to assume vFfv = mvFv where m is a constant coecient. However, more exact modelling

932

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

Fig. 3. Friction-velocity dependence.

should introduce the dependance on velocity. Fig. 3 shows how friction depends on velocity of
contact point.
Direction vector v0 depends on the relative velocity sfr which can be expressed in the
Jacobian form:
s_ fr Jfre q_ e Jfrr q_ r

15

leading to the conclusion that v0 depends on position qe, qr and velocities q e, q r.

The discussion on friction force showed that it might be expressed generally as
Ff Ff F; qe ; qr ; q_ e ; q_ r :

16

The form of function depends on the concrete problem and should be discussed separately.
The presence of friction inuences the system dynamics. Friction force enters the
mathematical model and Eqs. (9) and (10) become
fT
He qe he e JcT
e F Jre Ff

17

fT
Hr qr hr r JcT
r F Jrr Ff :

18

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

933

The dynamics is now described by Eqs. (17), (18) and (13). Relation (16) shows that the
number of unknowns in the model is not increased. The model should still be solved for qe, qr
and F.
At this point it is necessary to notice that the entire consideration of friction was based
on relation (14), i.e. on the supposition that one body slides over the other. If this
motion stops, relation (14) does not hold any more. So, it is necessary to elaborate the case
when some of relative motions stop due to the action of friction; such situations could be
called ``jamming''. Without considerable loss of generality we assume that at some instant the
relative motion stops completely (s fr=0). At this instant the solution procedure switches to a
new form of model. Relation (14) and accordingly Eq. (16) does not hold any more.
Thus, friction force Ff in model (17), (18) becomes unknown. A new condition is needed to
compensate for the new unknown. From the fact that relative motion does not exist, it follows
that:
sfr Jfre qe Jfrr qr Af 0:

19

The dynamic model consists of Eqs. (17) and (18) along with Eq. (13) and Eq. (19). The model
could be solved for qe, qr, F and Ff. The system will behave in this manner until driving forces
are strong enough to overcome static friction. Hence, the value Ff calculated from the model is
compared against the static friction. When it become greater the relative motion starts again
and the solution procedure switches back to model (17), (18), (13) and (16).
5. Introducing contact elastodynamics
In the discussion above, it was assumed that both chains consisted of rigid bodies
(nondeformable bodies). This led to the conclusion that any contact representing a geometric
constraint reduces the possibilities of motion, i.e. reduces the number of DOFs. It was
expressed via relation (8). However, the assumption about innite rigidity does not hold for all
problems of interest. In the free motion phase this assumption is justied. With standard robot
constructions, the dimensions of links are large enough and deformation may be neglected. For
this reason we decided not to consider bending and torsion of robot links, but to leave them
for some future research. With the contact task the same conclusion may be applied, but a new
problem arises which requires serious discussion. At the contact point, strong reaction forces
appear. The eects of these forces should be examined carefully for two reasons. The presence
of these forces changes the entire dynamics considerably. If reaction forces are treated through
rigid body dynamics and geometric constraints one might come to results which are not
qualied for many applications. Too many eects could be lost. The problem is particularly
expressed if we are interested in control of motion and contact force. Since the force is of
elastic nature, deformation in the contact zone should be introduced and the dynamics of
deformation has to be solved. The second reason for the analysis of contact deformation lies in
the fact that very often the forces are so strong that deformation eect cannot be neglected.
This is especially the case during impact. Hence, in order to achieve qualied modelling of
contact dynamics we consider the last link of each chain as deformable in the contact zone and
introduces elastodynamics.

934

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

Let us remember the following. When the bodies were considered innitely rigid, the contact
was modelled by means of a geometric constraint. The impossibility of motion in some
directions was expressed by Eq. (8): directions sc were constrained. Since m DOF were
restricted, the m-component of the reaction the force (F) appeared acting along direction sc.
After introducing elastic deformation, the geometric constraints do not exist any more. All
motions are possible including sc. Vector sc now denes the m-component deformation. These
motions (sc) are subject to strong elastodynamic forces keeping the values of motion
magnitudes small. For this reason, it is said sometimes that geometric constraints are replaced
by ``soft constraints'' which are of elastodynamic nature. How to model these eects? The most
precise method would be based on nite elements theory. However we can hardly justify such a
complex approach and we rather search for a less exact but more applicable method.
Satisfactory results can be obtained if the impact involving elastic bodies and the latter
dynamics are modelled as a simple multi-mass lumped system. Fig. 4 shows the illustration of
this approach for the scalar coordinate scj from the set sc. The mutual dynamic inuence among
the directions from set sc will be neglected.
Lumped systems are introduced for the last links of the two chains. The inertia of a lumped
system is dened by means of equivalent masses: m'ej, m0ej at the environment side of contact,
and m'rj, m0rj at the robot side. The masses are interconnected by means of massless springs and
dampers representing the external and internal deformation. In this way a body achieves the
property that it does not transmit stress instantaneously to all points of body, thus coming
close to real behaviour. We now dene the coordinates corresponding to the elastic motions
(Fig. 5). Let the external deformation on the environment side be marked by x'ej and on the
robot side by x'rj. The entire external deformation is x'j=x'ej+x'rj. The internal deformation on
the environment side is marked by x0ej and on the robot side by x0rj. With all these coordinates
index ``j'' refers to direction scj .

Fig. 4. Model of contact: multibody lumped system.

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

935

Fig. 5. Forces in contact zone.

In the neutral position (zero-force contact) deformation does not exist. In that
case scj =0. For a nonzero force, deformation appears producing the motion scj =
x0ej+x'ej+x'rj+x0rj=x0ej+x'j+x0rj.
Now, for all components of vector sc:
sc x 00 e x 0e x 0r x 00 r

20

sc x 00 e x 0 x 00 r

21

or
where each addendum is an m-dimensional vector.
Since motion sc is expressed in terms of two external and two internal deformations (x), one
nds that m coordinates are replaced by 4 m (see Eq. (20). It should be noted that 4 m
coordinates x do not follow from 4 m DOFs. The two internal deformations x0ej, and x0rj,
represent 1 DOF each, but the entire external deformation (sum of both sides) represents 1
DOF only (the corresponding coordinate is x'j). Thus, the number of elastic DOFs is 3 m. It
might be logical to use one coordinate for each DOF and, hence, apply relation (21). However,
we nd that the entire discussion becomes more clear if performed in terms of 4 m deformation
coordinates. Eq. (20) is then applied.
The dynamic analysis starts with describing the elastic properties of bodies involved. They
can be considered as linear or nonlinear. Let the external deformation on environment side, in
direction scj , have stiness k'ej and damping constant b'ej. For the internal deformation on the
same side the constants are k0ej and b0ej. On the robot side the deformation is characterized by
k'rj, b'rj and k0rj, b0rj.
Let us now remember the fact that deformation appears in the vicinity of the contact points
only. This justies the assumption that masses m'ej and m'rj are much smaller than m0ej and m0rj.
In such case we conclude from Fig. 5 that the environment (chain(e)) is subject to m-

936

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

component force Fe and the working system (chain(r)) to m-component force Fr. The change in
chain inertia due to separation of mass m'e or m'r is neglected.
Now, the dynamics of the two chains can be modelled by Eqs. (17) and (18) modied in
such a way that force Fe acts upon chain (e) and Fr upon chain (r):
fT
He qe he te JcT
e Fe Jre Ff

22

fT
Hr qr hr tr JcT
r Fr Jrr Ff :

23

Eq. (13) which has represented geometric constraint describes now the relation between
deformation sc and joint motions (qe, qr). Applying Eq. (20), Eq. (13) becomes
x00e x0e x0r x00r Jce qe Jcr qr Ac :

24

Friction Ff is still modelled by expression (16). The set of Eqs. (22)(24) contains ne+nr+m
scalar equations with the following unknowns: accelerations qe (dimension = ne), qr(nr), x0e(m),

x'r(m), 
x0r(m), and forces Fe(m), Fr(m). The number of unknowns is ne+nr+6 m.
x'e(m), 
Accordingly, additional set of 5 m equations is needed. These are equations describing
elastodynamics. First, we express forces Fe and Fr in terms of position and speed. For direction
``j'' (i.e. scj ), the forces are
Fej Fej k00ej ; x 00ej ; b00ej ; x_ 00ej k00ej x 00ej b00ej x_ 00ej ;
Frj Frj k00rj ; x 00rj ; b00rj ; x_ 00rj k00rj x 00rj b00rj x_ 00rj ;

j 1; . . . ; m:
j 1; . . . ; m:

25
26

or in the matrix form

Fe Fe k00e ; x 00e ; b00e ; x_ 00e k00e x e b00e x_ 00e

27

Fr Fr k00r ; x 00r ; b00r ; x_ 00r k00r x 00c b00r x_ 00r

28

where k0e=diag[k0ej] and analogously for b0e, k0r and b0r. Obviously, the left forms cover nonlinear
cases while the right ones are intended for linear modelling. By means of Eqs. (27) and (28) the
number of equations is increased by 2 m. Additional 3 m are still needed.
The dynamics of masses m'ej and m'rj oscillating in direction scj can be described by Newton's
law (see Fig. 5)
m0ej wej Fej Fj

29

m0rj wrj Fj Frj :

30

Some discussion regarding forces and accelerations is needed here. Accelerations wej and wrj
should be absolute accelerations in direction scj . This means that they should include relative,
transport and Coriolis' components. On the right-hand side of Eqs. (29) and (30) there should
be the sum of all forces in the direction considered, including gravity. However, it was assumed
that in the absence of contact no deformation occurred. This meant that the transport and
Coriolis' inertia were in equilibrium with gravity and internal connection forces. The contact
force disturbs this equilibrium and produces relative motion in the direction of force, which we

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

937

call deformation. This is an approximation but we consider it justied. Accordingly, on the

right hand side of Eqs. (29) and (30) gravity is omitted as well as all the internal connection
forces, except those due to deformation. On the left-hand side the accelerations will contain the
relative term only. It follows that
m0ej x00ej Fej Fj

31

m0rj x00rj Fj Fr j

32

or in matrix form:
m0e x00e Fe F

33

m0r x00r F Fr

34

where m'e=diag[m'ej] and analogously for m'r. Note that s-coordinates are generalized and
accordingly x-coordinates, too. This means that x may represent a linear or an angular motion.
Generalization then must hold for forces Fej, Frj, Fj and inertial coecients m'ej, m'rj. The
Eqs. (33) and (34) augmented the set of equations by 2 m, but at the same time introduced the
new unknown, m-component force F. Hence, 2 m equations are still missing to dene the
dynamics completely. It is a matrix relation expressing force F in terms of position and speed.
From Fig. 5 it follows that the component along direction ``j'' is
Fj Fj k0ej ; x `ej ; b0ej ; x_ 0ej k0ej x `ej bej x_ 0ej

35

or, at the same time

Fj Fj k0rj ; x `rj ; b0rj ; x_ 0rj k0rj x `rj brj x_ 0rj :

36

The left expressions are intended for nonlinear and the right ones for linear modelling.
If relations (35) and (36) are written in matrix form (for all directions ``j'') then
F Fk0e ; x 0e ; b0e ; x_ 0e k0e x 0e b0e x_ 0e

37

F Fk0r ; x 0r ; b0r ; x_ 0r k0r x 0r b0r x_ 0r

38

and

where k'e=diag[k'ej] and analogously for b'e, k'r and b'r.

Expressions (37) and (38) introduce an additional 2 m scalar equations thus completing the
dynamic model. The model consists of the following parts: Eqs. (22) and (23) describe the
dynamics of rigid-link chains, Eq. (16) expresses friction, Eq. (24) introduces the coordinates
which correspond to elastic deformation and relates them to joint coordinates of the two
chains, Eqs. (27) and (28) express the internal-deformation forces, Eqs. (33) and (34) describe
elastodynamics, and nally Eqs. (37) and (38) express the force of external deformation. This
set of equations can be solved for joint accelerations (qe, qr), accelerations of deformation (x0e,
x'e, x'r, 
x0r), and deformation forces (Fe, Fr, F).

938

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

Fig. 6. Dierent complexity of contact model.

Let us now indicate some possible simplications of the model presented. Simplications
refer to the stages of deformation. In Figs. 4 and 5, two-stage-deformation was introduced on
each side of contact. The rst stage was the external deformation and the second stage the
internal one. (Fig. 6a). Some papers show examples with simplied treatment of deformation.
It is reduced to one stage as shown in Fig. 6b. Instead of 2-DOF deformation there is 1 DOF
only. The number of DOFs for the whole system is thus reduced and the model simplied.
This is justied if the surface is technologically treated so as to be very sti. The external
deformation can then be neglected. However, in a general case, problems could arise. The
simplication results in less qualied information on system behaviour. One frequency of
oscillation is lost and regarding the interaction of oscillations this loss can be of signicance.
However, the main problem with the simplied approach arises when collision of the two
chains is considered. Collision is always present in contact tasks. With the general model
described in this section (Figs. 46a) no additional discussion is needed to explain the impact.
The model covers the impact dynamics and the behaviour in the transition phase can be
solved. The two-stage-deformation approach guarantees the continuity of all state variables
and the nite value of impact force. In this way the dynamics can be integrated over the
impact interval (transition phase) and all the eects examined. With the simplied approach
(Fig. 6b), there is no external deformation which would make the impact ``soft''. Innite
impact forces appear resulting in discontinuity of velocity variables. Integration of the dynamic
model is not possible and special treatment of impact is needed. It is based on the law of
momentum which is used to calculate the change in velocity.
Let us now discuss shortly the inuence of collision on system control. It should be stressed
that the impact duration is short. With sti materials (e.g. metals) it is so short that no control
can be achieved (with the drives and control processors available). Control refers to the contact
motion after the impact. Hence, impact could be considered as perturbation that produces

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

939

errors in state variable. This means that for control purposes the exact analysis of impact is
not necessary. The model could be simplied. The duration of impact would then turn to zero
and the innite value of force would produce the error in velocity instantaneously. However,
some future control system might allow ecient control in the transition phase. For this reason
the general impact model is important.
Finally, we mention another possibility for simplication. It is shown in Fig. 6c. It is clear
that this approach neglects all elastodynamics. Elastic behaviour is reduced to a position and
velocity dependent force.

6. Model of drive and transmission system

In all the discussions from the previous sections the dynamics of the system was considered
as a relation between motion and input torques. In this way only one part of a real system was
described, the mechanism. The consideration should now be broadened. Torques are produced
by some actuators and these devices show their own dynamic behaviour, which is the relation
between actuator input and its output torque. The torque has to move a mechanism joint but
in a general case this does not operate directly. Some kind of transmission is present,
connecting the actuator shaft and the joint shaft. Transmission may sometimes be considered
as a pure linear (or nonlinear) relation between motor and joint position variables but we shall
nd that in a general case it introduces its own dynamics.
Our idea is to examine dierent eects in transmission system and their inuence on the
behaviour of the entire system. In this discussion, one kinematic chain with n DOF will be
considered and the results will be applicable to both the environment and the working system.
Let a joint ``j'' be driven by an actuator having position coordinate yj and output torque Mj.
If inertia, elastic deformation and friction in transmission system are neglected, then the
relation between actuator variables and joint variables is
qj yj =Nj

39

tj Mj
Nj :

40

Friction in transmission is usually considered through the energy lost. Thus, a coecient of
eciency, 0 EZjE1, is introduced in relation (40). Our intention is now to examine inertial and
elastic eects in transmission. In order to make the discussion a bit simpler but clearer and
without losing generality we adopt DC motors to drive the system. Transmission is modelled
as a series of elastic torsion elements and rigid gear pairs. Such a structure for joint qj is shown
in Fig. 7. Deformation is concentrated in torsion elements while inertia is concentrated in
gears. Longitudinal deformation with elements like chains and belts is modelled as equivalent
torsion.
Let pj be the number of transmission stages and let ynj denote the input angle for stage n. The
elastic properties are described by stiness cnj and damping constant dnj . Let the pair of gears
have ratio Nnj and moments of inertia I'nj and I0n
j . Such transmission increases the overall
n
number of DOF. For a joint ``j'', coordinates yj , n = 1, . . . , pj, are independent and thus pj

940

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

Fig. 7. Model of transmission.

new DOF are introduced. Accordingly, all transmissions increase the entire number of DOF by
Snj =1pj.
We now describe dynamics of the motor-transmission system. Let Mnj be the input torque for
be the output. Dynamics of stage n can be described by
stage n and Mn+1
j
Ijn Ij n =Nnj 
ynj Mnj Mn1
=Nnj ;
j
0

is

00

n 1; . . . ; pj :

41

For the rst stage, the dynamic model has to include motor dynamics and hence the torque
M1j

CMj
CMj CEj _ 1
uj
yj
Rj
Rj

42

'1
'n
and I'1
j in Eq. (41) is augmented for Jj, i.e. Ij +Jj is used instead of Ij . uj is the control voltage
and CMj, CEj and Jj are motor parameters (torque and e.m.f. constants, resistance, and rotor
inertia).
For other stages, the torques (input and output) are functions of elastic deformation:

n>1:

n1
n1
Mnj cn1
yn1
ynj dn1
y_ n1
y_ nj
j
j
j =Nj
j =Nj
Mn1 cn yn =Nn yn1 dn y_ n =Nn y_ n1 :
j

43

The output angle and the output torque of the last stage are
n pj :

p 1

yj j

qj ;

p 1

Mj j

tj

but they still have the form Eq. (43).

44

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

941

Fig. 8. Motor and transmission for the elbow joint.

Eqs. (41)(44) describe the dynamics of motor-and-transmission system. The model is

applied for joints where deformation eects are expected. For those which are certainly rigid
relations (39) and (40) are used. This approach could be justied by an example shown in
Fig. 8. A part of robot arm is presented and the drive for elbow joint discussed. The motor for
the elbow is placed near the robot base in order to reduce gravity load (and achieve some
gravity compensation around the shoulder). This concept is very common and requires a
system for torque transmission. Let the transmission consist of a harmonic drive reducer (HD),
a pair of gears, and a belt. According to the transmission model accepted, HD represents the
rst stage. It is assumed that all torsion deformation is concentrated in the tube part of HD
construction. The gear pair and the belt system form the second stage. The gears are
considered rigid and the belt is subject to elastic extension (treated as equivalent angular
deformation).
The model derived to describe the dynamics of motor and transmission can be applied to
both the environment system and the working system. Model (41)(44) is then coupled with
models (9) and (10) or (17) and (18), or (22) and (23).

7. Conclusion
A general approach to dynamics of contact motion was elaborated in this part. Eort was
made to locate all relevant dynamic eects and to derive the appropriate mathematical models.
The following problems were discussed: rigid-body contact, friction eects, elastodynamics in
the contact zone, and elasticity in transmission. The models derived could be united to cover
all the eects mentioned.

942

M.K. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak / Mechanism and Machine Theory 34 (1999) 923942

References
[1] M. Vukobratovic, Yu Stepanenko, Mathematics and Biosciences 17 (1973) 191.
[2] Yu Stepanenko, M. Vukobratovic, Mathematics and Biosciences 28 (1/2) (1976) 43.
[3] Popov, E. P., Vereschagin, A. P. and Zenkevich, S. A., Manipulation Robots: Dynamics and Algorithms, (in
Russian), Nauka, Moscow, 1978.
[4] M. Vukobratovic, V. Potkonjak, Journal of Applied Mechanics 46 (1) (1979) 87.
[5] J. M. Hollerbach, IEEE Transactions on SMC SMC-10 (11) (1980) 730.
[6] Vukobratovic, M. and Potkonjak, V., Dynamics of Manipulation Robots: Theory and Application, Springer,
Berlin, 1982.
[7] V. Potkonjak, M. Vukobratovic, Journal of Robotic Systems 3 (3) (1986) 321, 335.
[8] Vukobratovic, M. and Potkonjak, V., Applied Dynamics and CAD of Manipulation Robots, Springer, Berlin,
1985.
[9] R. H. Cannon, E. Schmitz, Journal of Robotics Research 3 (1984) 62.
[10] T. Fukuda, A. Arakawa, JSME 30 (1987) 1458.
[11] Truckenbrodt, A., in Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, Vol.
ASME, New York, 1981.
[12] Sunada, H. W., Dynamic analysis of exible spatial mechanisms and robotic manipulators. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of California, Los Angeles, 1981.
[13] W. J. Book, Journal of Robotics Research 3 (1984) 87.
[14] J. O. King, V. G. Gourishankar, R. E. Rink, IEEE Transactions on SMC 17 (1987) 1059.
[15] Uchiyama, M. and Conno, A., in Proceedings of the 5th ICAR, Pisa, 1991, p. 126.
[16] M. Surdilovic, M. Vukobratovic, Mechanism and Machine Theory 31 (3) (1996) 297.
[17] D. Surdilovic, M. Vukobratovic, Mechanism and Machine Theory 31 (3) (1996) 317.
[18] M. W. Spong, ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Contrtol 109 (1987) 309.
[19] V. Potkonjak, Robotica 6 (1988) 63.
[20] N. Kircanski, A. Timcenko, M. Vukobratovic, Journal of Robotic Systems 7 (4) (1990) 535.
[21] Krishnan, H. and McClamroch, N. H., in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, Cincinatti, OH, 1990, p. 1344.
[22] Ahmad, S., in Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Brighton, 1991, p. 1397.
[23] J. K. Mills, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 8 (1) (1992) 119.
[24] Brogliato, B. and Lozano-Leal, R., in Proceedings of American Control Conference, Boston, MA, 1992, p. 968.
[25] Krishnan, H., in Proceedings of 26th ISIR, Singapore, 1995, p. 185.
[26] M. H. Raibert, J. J. Craig, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and
Control 103 (1981) 126.
[27] O. Khatib, IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation 5 (3) (1987) 107.
[28] N. Hogan, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control 107 (1985) 1.
[29] Y. Ekalo, M. Vukobratovic, International Journal of Robotics and Automation 9 (3) (1994) 91.
[30] M. Vukobratovic, Y. Ekalo, Robotica 14 (1) (1996) 31.
[31] V. N. Chumenko, A. S. Yuschenko, Technical Cybernetics 4 (1981) 49 (in Russian).
[32] Y. F. Zheng, H. Hemami, Journal of Robotic Systems 2 (3) (1985) 289.
[33] J. B. Keller, Journal of Applied Mechanics 53 (2) (1986) 92.
[34] Stronge, W. J., in Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, Vol. 431, 1990, p. 169.
[35] Y. Hurmuzlu, D. B. Marghitu, International Journal of Robotic Research 13 (1) (1994) 82.
[36] V. Drenovac, V. Potkonjak, Robotica 11 (1993) 445.
[37] Brogliato, B. and Orhant, P., in Proceedings of IEEE, Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Diego, CA,
1994.
[38] Acaccia, G. M., Gagetti, P. C., Callegari, M., Michelini, R. C. and Molno, R. M., in Proceedings of 4th IFAC
Symposium on Robot Control, Capri, Italy, 1994, p. 559.
[39] Tornambe, A., in Proceedings of 3rd IEEE Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, Lymassol,
Cyprus, 1995.
[40] Goldsmith, W., Impact: The Theory and Physical Behaviour of Colliding Solids, Edward Arnold, London, 1960.
[41] Brach, R. M., Mechanical Impact Dynamics, Wiley, New York, 1991.