FACULTEIT TOEGEPASTE WETENSCHAPPEN
DEPARTEMENT WERKTUIGKUNDE
AFDELING PRODUCTIETECHNIEKEN,
MACHINEBOUW EN AUTOMATISERING
Celestijnenlaan 300B, B3001 Leuven (Heverlee), Belgi¨e
Experimental robot and payload
identiﬁcation with application
to dynamic trajectory compensation
Promotoren:
Prof. dr. ir. J. Swevers
Prof. dr. ir. J. De Schutter
Proefschrift voorgedragen tot
het behalen van het doctoraat
in de toegepaste wetenschappen
door
Walter VERDONCK
2004D02
April 2004
2
KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN
FACULTEIT TOEGEPASTE WETENSCHAPPEN
DEPARTEMENT WERKTUIGKUNDE
AFDELING PRODUCTIETECHNIEKEN,
MACHINEBOUW EN AUTOMATISERING
Celestijnenlaan 300B, B3001 Leuven (Heverlee), Belgi¨e
Experimental robot and payload
identiﬁcation with application
to dynamic trajectory compensation
Jury:
Voorzitter:
Prof. dr. ir. J. Berlamont
Leden:
Prof. dr. ir. J. Swevers, promotor
Prof. dr. ir. J. De Schutter, promotor
Prof. dr. ir. S. Van Huﬀel
Prof. dr. ir. J.C. Samin (UCL–PRM)
Prof. dr. ir. H. Bruyninckx
Prof. dr. ir. W. Desmet
Proefschrift voorgedragen tot
het behalen van het doctoraat
in de toegepaste wetenschappen
door
Walter VERDONCK
UDC 681.3*I29
April 2004
c Katholieke Universiteit Leuven – Faculteit Toegepaste Wetenschappen
Arenbergkasteel, B3001 Heverlee (Belgium)
Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden vermenig
vuldigd en/of openbaar gemaakt worden door middel van druk, fotokopie,
microﬁlm, elektronisch of op welke andere wijze ook zonder voorafgaandelijke
schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever.
All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced in any form
by print, photoprint, microﬁlm or any other means without written permission
from the publisher.
D/2004/7515/14
ISBN 9056824767
Voorwoord
Vier en een half jaar lang heb ik me een langeafstandsloper gevoeld. In
formatie opzoeken, idee¨en bestuderen, formules aﬂeiden, experimenten
uitvoeren, studenten begeleiden, verslagen en papers schrijven, presen
taties voorbereiden, . . . , er leek geen eind te komen. Uithouding en
doorzetting zijn dan ook cruciaal gebleken. Met het voltooien van dit
boek ben ik in de laatste rechte lijn gekomen en is de eindmeet in zicht.
Hoewel ‘lopen’ noch ‘doctoreren’ een teamsport zijn, kan je het niet
in je eentje tot een goed einde brengen. Een heleboel mensen hebben al
die jaren vertrouwen in mij gehad en mij van op de zijlijn aanmoedigin
gen toegeschreeuwd. Al die trouwe supporters wil ik oprecht bedanken
voor hun interesse en steun die me steeds deden ‘voortlopen’.
In de eerste plaats wens ik mijn beide promotoren te danken voor de
kans die ze mij gaven dit doctoraat te beginnen. Professor Jan Swevers
stippelde als dagelijkse trainer mee de weg uit, sprong met raad en
daad bij waar nodig, maar gaf mij tevens voldoende vrijheid om zelf
keuzes te maken. Mijn tweede promotor professor Joris De Schutter
volgde als sportief manager vanop enige afstand mijn vorderingen en
gaf mij het vertrouwen om deze vier jaren zijn oefenzittingen mee te
verzorgen.
Ik dank ook de leden van mijn begeleidingscommissie, professor
S. Van Huﬀel en professor J.C. Samin, voor het kritisch nalezen en
beoordelen van de tekst. Verder apprecieer ik ten zeerste de spontane
bereidheid van de professoren Herman Bruyninckx en Wim Desmet om
deel uit te maken van de jury en van professor Berlamont om de jury
voor te zitten.
Ik dank het IWT voor de ﬁnanci¨ele steun gedurende vier jaren.
GOA/99/04 en IUAP–AMS (‘Intelligent Mechatronic Systems’) gaven
i
ii
mij mee de kans dit werk voor te stellen op workshops en internatio
nale conferenties. Dans le contexte de l’IUAP, je tiens `a remercier le
professeur Samin et ses coll`egues de la division Production m´ecanique
et machines de l’UCL pour la coop´eration agr´eable.
Graag vermeld ik de inbreng van enkele industri¨ele partners. Ik
dank de ﬁrma Krypton voor het uitvoeren van een kinematische kali
bratie van onze robot en hun hulp bij de zoektocht naar een geschikte
opstelling voor de trajectcompensatie. De ﬁrma’s KUKA en St¨aubli
hebben een bijgedrage geleverd door het opzoeken van speciﬁcatiege
gevens over onze robots. I am grateful to the Amatec company for
providing me a software module for the payload identiﬁcation.
Ook binnen het departement zal ik vele mensen nog lang herinneren.
Herman Bruyninckx toonde in de voorbije jaren regelmatig belangstel
ling in mijn onderzoek en begreep als geen ander mijn nood aan open
robotsturingen. Voor praktische problemen met onze ‘goeie ouwe’ ont
wikkelomgeving Comrade kon ik steeds terecht bij Johan Baeten en
Erwin Aertbeli¨en. De thesisstudenten Sven en Sabine en daarna Kris
en Peter bedank ik voor hun inzet en het uitvoeren van talrijke expe
rimenten. Zij hebben dit werk mee vorm gegeven.
Mijn bureaugenoten waren steeds opgewekt en wisten problemen te
relativeren met een portie humor. Drie jaren heb ik een klein, maar
ﬁjn, bureau gedeeld met Wim S. en Christophe. Het laatste anderhal
ve jaar heb ik doorgebracht in het gezelschap van Bob en een bende
jonge assistenten Peter, Johan, Wim M. en Brecht. Ook Tine, Bram,
Vincent, Ren´e, Klaas, Dries, en andere collega’s van de robotgroep, de
afdeling en het departement hebben elk op hun wijze bijgedragen aan
de aangename werksfeer.
De mensen van het secretariaat, de werkplaats, de diensten meet
systemen, elektronica en informatica verdienen eveneens een woord van
dank. Hoewel zij meestal in de schaduw staan van de uiteindelijke on
derzoeksresultaten, was hun hulp onontbeerlijk.
Buiten de werkuren kon ik voor ontspanning rekenen op mijn vrien
den die af en toe naar Leuven centrum afzakten voor een kaartavond
of een hapje en een drankje. Ook de vele (ex)kotgenoten wens ik te
vermelden. Ik denk hier in het bijzonder aan mijn buren Els, Goele
en Nathalie, die een aangenaam gezelschap waren na een soms zware
iii
dagtaak.
Tenslotte dank ik ook mijn ouders voor de kansen die ze mij geboden
hebben en voor de praktische en morele steun die ze mij gaven. In hun
rotsvast vertrouwen dat dit proefschrift tot een goed einde zou worden
gebracht, hebben ze tijd noch moeite gespaard om mij te omringen met
de beste zorgen. Dankzij hen was elk weekend voor mij het moment
waarop ik me thuis voelde en tot rust kon komen.
Walter Verdonck
Maart 2004
iv
Abstract
Industrial robot manipulators have become an indispensable means of
automation to increase ﬂexibility and productivity. The ever increasing
quality standards and new applications impose higher requirements on
accuracy, reliability and performance. Due to the complex nonlinear
robot dynamics, the design of robot controllers should include accurate
dynamic robot models. Robot identiﬁcation is an experimental tech
nique to estimate realistic and accurate dynamic robot models from
motion data and actuator torques measured during ‘welldesigned’ ex
periments.
This research improves and extends the existing experimental iden
tiﬁcation methods and applies the obtained dynamic models to im
proving path tracking control. The inﬂuence of a kinematic calibration
and more appropriate model descriptions for some additional eﬀects on
the obtained model accuracy has been investigated. Further, this work
presents the experimental validation of an identiﬁcation approach us
ing both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ (i.e. a force/torque platform) sensors.
The use of diﬀerent types of sensors into one combined identiﬁcation
problem provides more information on the robot dynamics, yielding
improved parameter estimation accuracy and actuator torque predic
tion.
Due to the growing importance of the robot payload, the robot
identiﬁcation method is extended to the estimation of the inertial pa
rameters of the robot payload. In this application not only the actu
ator torque prediction accuracy is important, but special attention is
paid to the accuracy of the individual parameter estimates. This work
presents a payload identiﬁcation approach which does not require a full
identiﬁcation of the manipulator, but compensates for all known robot
dynamics based on available a priori information. A sensitivity analysis
v
vi
is performed to investigate the inﬂuence of the quality of the a priori
information on the ﬁnal accuracy of the payload parameter estimates.
In view of industrial relevance, the obtained dynamic robot model
is used to improve the path tracking accuracy of robots without large
adaptations to the present hardware. This is realized by ﬁltering the
desired trajectory with the inverse model of the robot and its controller,
which calculates oﬀline a correction to the robot trajectory using the
dynamic model. Feeding this precompensated trajectory to the robot
controller, the resulting executed trajectory is much closer to the de
sired one. The improvement of the dynamic accuracy is experimentally
evaluated.
Beknopte samenvatting
Industri¨ele manipulatoren zijn een onontbeerlijk automatiseringsmid
del geworden om de ﬂexibiliteit en productiviteit te verhogen. Steeds
toenemende kwaliteitsnormen en nieuwe toepassingen leggen hogere ei
sen op aan nauwkeurigheid, betrouwbaarheid en prestaties. Omwille
van de complexe nietlineaire robotdynamica moet bij het ontwerpen
van regelaars gebruik gemaakt worden van nauwkeurige dynamische
robotmodellen. Robotidentiﬁcatie is een experimentele techniek die
toelaat om op een eﬃci¨ente wijze realistische en nauwkeurige dyna
mische modellen te bekomen uit bewegingsdata en de aandrijfkoppels
gemeten tijdens speciaal ontworpen experimenten.
Dit onderzoek heeft tot doel de bestaande identiﬁcatiemethoden te
verbeteren en toe te passen om de trajectnauwkeurigheid van robots te
verbeteren. De invloed van een kinematische kalibratie en geschikte
re modelbeschrijvingen voor enkele bijkomende eﬀecten op de bereikte
modelnauwkeurigheid is onderzocht. Verder presenteert dit werk de
experimentele validatie van een identiﬁcatiebenadering die zowel ‘in
terne’ als ‘externe’ sensoren gebruikt. Het gebruik van verschillende
types sensoren in ´e´en gecombineerd identiﬁcatieprobleem levert meer
informatie over de robotdynamica. Dit resulteert in een verbeterde
nauwkeurigheid van parameterschatting en voorspelling van het actu
atorkoppel.
Vanwege het groeiend belang van de robotlast, is de robotidenti
ﬁcatiemethode uitgebreid naar het schatten van de inertieparameters
van de robotlast. Voor deze toepassing is niet enkel de nauwkeurig
heid van de koppelvoorspelling van belang, maar wordt speciale aan
dacht geschonken aan de nauwkeurigheid van de afzonderlijke parame
terwaarden. Dit werk presenteert een lastschattingsmethode die geen
volledige identiﬁcatie van de robot vereist, maar alle gekende robot
vii
viii
dynamica compenseert op basis van a priori gekende informatie. Een
sensitiviteitsanalyse is uitgevoerd om de invloed van de kwaliteit van
deze informatie op de uiteindelijke nauwkeurigheid van de parameter
schattingen van de robotlast te onderzoeken.
Met het oog op industri¨ele relevantie is het bekomen dynamisch
robotmodel gebruikt om de trajectnauwkeurigheid van robots te ver
beteren zonder ingrijpende wijzigingen in de aanwezige hardware. Dit
is gerealiseerd door het gewenste traject te ﬁlteren met een invers model
van de robot en zijn regelaar. Deze ﬁlter berekent oﬀ line een correctie
op het robottraject op basis van het dynamisch model. Wanneer dit
gecompenseerde traject naar de robotregelaar wordt gestuurd, ligt het
uitgevoerde traject dichter bij het gewenste traject. Deze verbetering
van de dynamische nauwkeurigheid is experimenteel ge¨evalueerd.
Contents
Voorwoord i
Abstract v
Beknopte samenvatting vii
Contents ix
Notation xv
Nederlandse samenvatting xix
1 Inleiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
1.1 Motivatie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
1.2 Belangrijkste bijdragen van dit werk . . . . . . . . . xx
2 Literatuuroverzicht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
3 Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering . . . . . . . . . . xxv
3.1 Procedure voor experimentele robotidentiﬁcatie . . . xxv
3.2 Experimentele resultaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii
3.3 Besluit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxx
4 Combineren van intern en extern model . . . . . . . . . . . xxx
4.1 Modelgeneratie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxi
4.2 Experimentele resultaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxii
4.3 Besluit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiv
5 Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de robotlast . . . . . xxxv
5.1 Modelgeneratie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxv
5.2 Compensatie van a priori gekende dynamica . . . . . xxxvii
5.3 Sensitiviteitsanalyse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxviii
5.4 Experimentele resultaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxviii
5.5 Besluit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xl
6 Dynamische compensatie door trajectaanpassing . . . . . . xli
6.1 Nietlineaire trajectprecompensatie . . . . . . . . . . xlii
6.2 Experimentele resultaten voor de KUKA IR 361 . . . xliii
6.3 Praktische beperkingen voor implementatie . . . . . xlv
ix
x Contents
6.4 Besluit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xlv
7 Algemeen besluit en toekomstig werk . . . . . . . . . . . . . xlvi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background and motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Serial robot manipulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4 Main contributions of this research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 Chapter by chapter overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 Literature Survey 11
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Introduction to identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Approaches to modelling and identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4 Procedure for experimental identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5 Model generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5.1 Derivation of the dynamic equations . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5.2 Models including joint ﬂexibility . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5.3 Friction modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5.4 Rotor inertia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6 The parameters of the identiﬁcation model . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6.1 Linearity in the parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.6.2 Identiﬁability and minimal set of parameters . . . . 31
2.7 Experiment design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.7.1 Separation of experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.7.2 Optimization criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.7.3 Parameterization for the excitation trajectory . . . . 35
2.8 Parameter estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.9 Optimization techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.10 Applications of dynamics models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.11 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues 51
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2 Model generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.1 General manipulator structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.2 The rigid body dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.3 Additional eﬀects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3 Experiment design using periodic robot excitation . . . . . 58
3.3.1 Trajectory parameterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.2 Properties of periodic excitation . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.4 Generation of the excitation trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4.1 General problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Contents xi
3.4.2 Solution by optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.4.3 Heuristic solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.4.4 Limitations for obtaining the optimal excitation trajec
tory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.5 Parameter estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.6 Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.7 Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.7.1 Description of the setup and the experiments . . . . 77
3.7.2 Kinematic calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.7.3 Rotor inertia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.7.4 Gravity compensation spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.7.5 Friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.7.6 Advantages of using periodic excitation . . . . . . . 93
3.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4 Combining internal and external model 97
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.2 Generation of dynamic robot models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.2.1 Combining internal and external robot models . . . 99
4.2.2 Eﬀect of rotor inertia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.2.3 Advantages of combining internal and external robot
models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.3 Experimental identiﬁcation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.3.1 Description of test case and robot model . . . . . . . 104
4.3.2 Description of the experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.3.3 Discussion of the experimental results . . . . . . . . 106
4.4 Practical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5 Robot payload identiﬁcation 119
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5.2 Robot payload identiﬁcation approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.2.1 Dynamic robot model for payload identiﬁcation . . . 121
5.2.2 Parameter estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.3 Approach to payload identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.3.1 Compensation based on parameter estimates . . . . 128
5.3.2 Torque compensation by measurement . . . . . . . . 129
5.3.3 Torque compensation by modelling . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.4 Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors . . . . . . . . . . 132
5.4.1 Simulation model of the KUKA KR15 . . . . . . . . . 132
5.4.2 Approach used in the sensitivity analysis . . . . . . 133
5.4.3 Results of the analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.4.4 Actuator torque prediction accuracy . . . . . . . . . 140
xii Contents
5.4.5 Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.5 The experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.5.1 The industrial robot KUKA KR15 . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.5.2 The reference payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
5.6 Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.6.1 Identiﬁcation with compensation by measurements . 147
5.6.2 Identiﬁcation with compensation using modelling . . 150
5.6.3 Eﬀect of the warmup on the accuracy of the parameter
estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
5.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6 Trajectory compensation 161
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
6.2 Trajectory precompensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
6.2.1 The dynamic robot model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6.2.2 Controller dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6.2.3 The trajectory precompensation . . . . . . . . . . . 165
6.3 Experimental veriﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
6.3.1 Description of test case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
6.3.2 Description of the robot controller model . . . . . . 168
6.3.3 Reference and validation trajectories . . . . . . . . . 169
6.3.4 Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
6.4 Practical limitations for implementation . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
7 Conclusions 177
7.1 Summary of the conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
7.2 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Bibliography 183
List of Publications 197
Biography 199
A Kinematics 201
A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
A.2 Forward position kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
A.2.1 DenavitHartenberg representation . . . . . . . . . . 202
A.3 Forward velocity and acceleration kinematics . . . . . . . . 204
B Dynamics of serial manipulators 205
B.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Contents xiii
B.2 Mass properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
B.3 Inverse dynamic equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
B.3.1 Recursive NewtonEuler formulation . . . . . . . . . 208
B.3.2 Linearity in the inertial parameters . . . . . . . . . . 210
B.3.3 Calculation the identiﬁcation matrix . . . . . . . . . 211
B.3.4 Base reaction model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
C Robot models 213
C.1 KUKA IR 361 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
C.2 KUKA KR15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
D Contribution of the rotor inertia 217
D.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
D.2 Forward kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
D.3 Inverse dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
D.3.1 The actuator torques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
D.3.2 The base reaction torques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
xiv Contents
Notation
Symbols
b : Barycentric moment [kgm]
c : Position of center of mass of rigid body [m]
c =
c
x
c
y
c
z
e : Unit vector
f : Reaction force [N]
f
v
: Viscous friction coeﬃcient [Nms]
f
C
: Coulomb friction coeﬃcient [Nm]
g : Vector of gravitational forces or torques
i
m
: Actuator current [A]
k : Spring stiﬀness [N/m]
m : Reaction moment [Nm]
m : Mass of a rigid body [kg]
m : Barycentric mass [kg]
n : Number of degrees of freedom of a manipulator
q : Joint position [rad]
˙ q : Joint velocity [rad/s]
¨ q : Joint acceleration [rad/s
2
]
s : First order moment of rigid body s = mc [kgm]
t : Reaction torque [Nm]
t : Time [s]
v : 3 ×1 velocity vector [m/s]
xv
xvi Notation
w : Wrench
w =
¸
f
t
z : Extended state variable
C : Matrix containing Coriolis and centrifugal eﬀects
C : Covariance matrix
E : Energy
G(s) : Transfer function
G
contr
: Controller model
I
R
: Tensor of second order moment with respect to
frame R
I : Inertia tensor containing the moments and prod
ucts of inertia
I =
I
xx
I
xy
I
xz
I
xy
I
yy
I
yz
I
xz
I
yz
I
zz
¸
¸
I
xx
, I
yy
, I
zz
: Principal moment of inertia of a rigid body about
the coordinate axes of a ﬁxed frame [kg m
2
]
I
xy
, I
yz
, I
zx
: Product of inertia of a rigid body about the coor
dinate axes of a ﬁxed frame [kg m
2
]
I
m
: Rotor inertia [kg m
2
]
J : Jacobian matrix
K : Barycentric tensor
K
m
: Actuator torque constant
M : Mass or inertia matrix
T : Period [s]
T
s
: Sampling period [s]
V : Coupling matrix
β : Vector of trajectory parameters
δ : Parameter vector
η : Transmission eﬃciency
µ : Transmission ratio
Notation xvii
ω : 3 ×1 angular velocity vector [rad/s]
ω
f
: Fundamental pulsation [rad/s]
σ : Standard deviation
τ : Torque (or force)
θ : Parameter vector
Φ : The identiﬁcation matrix, which is function of
position, velocity, and acceleration
Ψ : Identiﬁcation matrix
Σ : Weighing matrix
L : Lagrangian
K : Kinetic energy
P : Potential energy
C : Convex set
Functions
˙ x : Derivative of variable x
¨ x : Second derivative of variable x
cond(·) : Condition number
det : Determinant of a matrix
sign(·) : Sign function
σ(·) : singular value of ·
·
T
: Transpose of a matrix or vector
Indices
·
min
: Minimal value
·
max
: Maximal value
·
mean
: Mean value
xviii
Acronyms and abbreviations
ARX : AutoRegressive with eXogenous input
ARMAX : AutoRegressive Moving Average models with
eXogenous inputs
BJ : BoxJenkins
CAD : Computer Aided Design
COG : Center of gravity
CSA : Canadian Space Agency
DLR : Deutsches Zentrum f¨ ur Luft und Raumfahrt
DOF : degree of freedom
EE : End eﬀector
EKF : Extended Kalman ﬁlter
ETFE : Experimental transfer function estimate
GA : Genetic Algorithm
LED : Light Emitting Diode
LMI : Linear Matrix Inequality
LP : Linear programming
LS : Least squares
MDH : Modiﬁed DenavitHartenberg
MLE : Maximum likelihood estimator
PID : Proportional, Integral, Derivative
PTP : Pointtopoint
QP : Quadratic programming
RLS : Recursive least squares
RML : Robust maximum likelihood
RMS : Root Mean Square
RNE : Recursive NewtonEuler
RRS : Realistic robot simulation
SDP : Semi deﬁnite programming
SQP : Sequential Quadratic Programming
SVD : Singular Value Decomposition
TCP : Tool center point
WLS : Weighted least squares
Nederlandse samenvatting
Experimentele identiﬁcatie
van robot en last, met toepassing op
dynamische trajectcompensatie
1 Inleiding
1.1 Motivatie
Industri¨ele robots zijn een onontbeerlijk automatiseringsmiddel gewor
den om de productiviteit en ﬂexibiliteit van productieeenheden te ver
hogen. Ook de alsmaar stijgende kwaliteitseisen en internationale con
currentie leggen steeds hogere verwachtingen op aan betrouwbaarheid
en nauwkeurigheid van industri¨ele robots. Bovendien dient stilstand
zoveel mogelijk ge¨elimineerd te worden door gebruik van simulatie en
oﬀ line programmering.
Door de stijgende druk op snelheid en productiviteit worden heel
wat robots systematisch overbelast, wat de levensduur en de betrouw
baarheid aanzienlijk verkleint. Om betrouwbare programmering van
snelle bewegingen toe te laten, zijn gevalideerde dynamische robotmo
dellen nodig, die ook rekening houden met de last of het gereedschap
dat de robot voor zijn taken gebruikt. De inertieparameters van deze
last maken eveneens deel uit van een dynamisch model van de robot.
Daarom dient de identiﬁcatieprocedure uitgebreid te worden om de
ware inerti¨ele en fysisch interpreteerbare parameters te bepalen. Dit
xix
xx
laatste is belangrijk voor een vlotte integratie en aanvaarding van de
methode op de werkvloer.
Hoewel de hedendaags bereikte nauwkeurigheid voldoende is voor
relatief trage assemblagebewegingen, zijn de resulterende trajecten
minder nauwkeurig bij hoge snelheidsmaneuvers. In moderne toepas
singen zoals laserlassen en snijden wordt toenemend belang gehecht
aan de trajectnauwkeurigheid. Standaard industri¨ele regelaars nege
ren echter de nietlineariteiten in de robotdynamica zoals centrifuga
le, gravitatie en Corioliskrachten, wrijving, motordynamica en dyna
mische koppeling tussen de verschillende assen. Deze complexe niet
lineaire eﬀecten overwegen echter bij erg snelle bewegingen. Dit re
sulteert in afwijkingen van de gewenste beweging en vereist bijgevolg
manuele correcties, die tijdrovend en kostelijk zijn omdat de robot
uit productie moet genomen worden. Deze nietlineariteiten kunnen
gecompenseerd worden door nieuwe modelgebaseerde besturingen die
meer a priori kennis van de robot gebruiken, o.a. ‘computedtorque’.
De implementatie van deze geavanceerde regelalgoritmes vereist een
goede kennis van het dynamisch gedrag van de robot.
1.2 Belangrijkste bijdragen van dit werk
Dit werk concentreert zich op industri¨ele seri¨ele robots. Dit type robot
wordt in de industrie frequent gebruikt en bestaat uit een seri¨ele ketting
van gelederen die zijn verbonden door middel van rotatie of transla
tiegewrichten. In dit werk werden de methodes voor het modelleren
en experimenteel identiﬁceren van de dynamica van industri¨ele robots
verder ontwikkeld. De identiﬁcatieprocedure maakt gebruik van peri
odische excitatie en de meest waarschijnlijke parameterschatter. Het
bekomen dynamisch model is gebruikt om een trajectcompensatie voor
de standaard robotregelaar te berekenen. De identiﬁcatie en compen
satiemethodes zijn experimenteel ge¨ımplementeerd en gevalideerd op
industri¨ele seri¨ele robots.
• Er werd nagegaan wat de invloed is op de modelnauwkeurigheid
van een kinematische kalibratie en het in rekening brengen van de
motorinerties. Een fysisch model werd afgeleid voor de gravitatie
compensatieveer. De geschatte parameterwaarden zijn vergeleken
2. Literatuuroverzicht xxi
met de speciﬁcaties van de constructeur (paragraaf 3).
• Metingen van de motorkoppels (intern model) en van de reactie
krachten en momenten aan de basis van de robot (extern model)
zijn gecombineerd in ´e´en identiﬁcatieschema om de nauwkeurig
heid van de inertieparameters te verbeteren. De experimentele
veriﬁcatie van deze benadering is in dit werk uitgevoerd (para
graaf 4).
• De identiﬁcatiemethode is toegepast om de inertieparameters van
de robotlast te bepalen. Hierbij was het nodig om de robotpols
nauwkeurig te modelleren en bijkomende eﬀecten in rekening te
brengen. Een sensitiviteitsanalyse is uitgevoerd om de invloed
van a priori kennis op de parameternauwkeurigheid na te gaan.
Een gekalibreerde referentielast is ontwikkeld en de methode is
experimenteel gevalideerd op een industri¨ele robot. Deze bevesti
gen dat de methode nauwkeurige schattingen levert van de para
meterwaarden voor verschillende conﬁguraties van de robotlast,
en de vereiste motorkoppels nauwkeurig voorspelt (paragraaf 5).
• Het bekomen dynamische model van robot met last is gebruikt om
een geschikte trajectcompensatie te berekenen die als voorwaartse
snelheidskoppeling in de bestaande regelaar toegevoegd wordt.
Experimenten tonen aan dat het gewenste traject nauwkeuriger
uitgevoerd wordt (paragraaf 6).
2 Literatuuroverzicht
Wiskundige modellen worden veelvuldig gebruikt bij ontwerp of simu
latie van mechatronische systemen. De modelvergelijkingen worden
vaak afgeleid uit gekende fysische wetmatigheden, terwijl experimen
tele identiﬁcatie de modelparameters bepaalt uit metingen van ingang
en uitgang van het systeem.
Voor de identiﬁcatie van inertieparameters zijn verschillende be
naderingen voorgesteld in de literatuur, samengevat in ﬁguur 1. De
klassieke benadering schat de parameters uit bewegingsdata (motor
encoders) en motorkrachten en koppels (stroommetingen), beide ge
meten met ‘interne’ sensoren (Gautier, 1986; Swevers et al., 1996). Het
xxii
motorstroom
kracht/koppel
platform
onderbasis
motorstroom
krachtsensor
aaneindeffector
last
robot
internmodel externmodel
paragraaf4
paragraaf5
paragraaf3
Figuur 1: Mogelijke identiﬁcatiebenaderingen
bijhorende dynamisch model krijgt dan de naam intern model. Een al
ternatieve benadering gebruikt een zogenaamd extern model (Raucent
and Samin, 1993; Liu et al., 1998). Dit model relateert de beweging van
de robot tot de reactiekrachten en koppels aan de basis van de robot,
gemeten door een extern krachtplatform. Chenut (Chenut et al., 2000)
toonde aan dat beide benaderingen gecombineerd kunnen worden. Dit
is experimenteel gevalideerd in paragraaf 4.
Analoge benaderingen kunnen gedeﬁnieerd worden voor de iden
tiﬁcatie van de inertieparameters van de robotlast. De meest direc
te manier is een krachtsensor te monteren tussen last en eindeﬀector
die de reactiekrachten meet (Atkeson et al., 1986; Olsen and Bekey,
1986; Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz, 1996). De andere benadering maakt
opnieuw gebruik van de gemeten motorkoppels (Raucent and Samin,
1993; Gautier et al., 1995; Zeng and Unbehauen, 1999). Deze benade
ring vormt het uitgangspunt van paragraaf 5.
De procedure om experimentele identiﬁcatie te doen is algemeen
aanvaard (Atkeson et al., 1986; Gautier, 1986; Mukerjee and Ballard,
1985). De volgende paragrafen bespreken kort de verschillende stappen
in een identiﬁcatieprocedure.
2. Literatuuroverzicht xxiii
Modelgeneratie De eerste stap in een identiﬁcatieprocedure is het
opstellen van een model op basis van een fysische beschrijving. Er
bestaan twee verschillende methodes om de modelvergelijkingen af te
leiden. De eerste methode gebruikt de totale energie E
total
van het
systeem (Gautier and Khalil, 1989; Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz, 1996)
E
total
=
t
2
t
1
τ
T
˙ q dt (1)
met t
1
en t
2
begin en eindtijdstip van het experiment, τ de vector
van de motorkoppels en ˙ q de snelheidsvector. Deze methode heeft als
voordeel dat de versnelling van de assen niet berekend moet worden.
Het nadeel is dat de wrijving moeilijker in rekening te brengen is en
dat het model niet bruikbaar is om het motorkoppel te voorspellen.
Een tweede methode start vanuit de bewegingsvergelijkingen (At
keson et al., 1986; Khosla and Kanade, 1987; Olsen and Bekey, 1986).
Dit model relateert de beweging van de gelederen tot de benodigde
motorkoppels τ
τ = M(q)¨ q +C(q, ˙ q) ˙ q +g(q). (2)
M(q) is de inertiematrix afhankelijk van de set van gewrichtsposities
q en bevat de inert¨ıele parameters (massa, positie van het zwaar
tepunt, inertieproducten en inertiemomenten), C(q, ˙ q) modelleert de
centrifugaal en Corioliskrachten, g(q) modelleert de gravitatiekrach
ten. Verschillende algoritmes zijn voorgesteld om de vergelijkingen te
genereren. De meest bekende zijn het recursieve NewtonEuler algorit
me (Atkeson et al., 1986) en de EulerLagrange energiemethode (Sheu
and Walker, 1989).
Parameterreductie Het identiﬁcatiemodel is over het algemeen niet
lineair in de parameters. Een gepaste combinatie van de inertieparame
ters, bijvoorbeeld in barycentrische co¨ordinaten (Raucent and Samin,
1994) of de gewijzigde NewtonEuler co¨ordinaten (Atkeson et al., 1986),
laat toe om de dynamische vergelijkingen lineair in de onbekende para
meters te maken τ = Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)θ. Deze eigenschap vereenvoudigt sterk
de parameterschatting.
xxiv
Ten gevolge van de bewegingsbeperkingen komen niet alle inert¨ıele
parameters onafhankelijk voor in de dynamische vergelijkingen. Om te
garanderen dat alle parameters afzonderlijk identiﬁceerbaar zijn, wor
den sommige parameters ge¨elimineerd of gecombineerd totdat een mini
male basisset van parameters bekomen wordt. Een procedure om deze
basisset te bepalen kan gebaseerd zijn op symbolische manipulatie van
de vergelijkingen (Gautier and Khalil, 1990) of op een numerieke me
thode zoals een singuliere waardenontbinding (Sheu and Walker, 1989;
Gautier, 1990).
Experimentontwerp De bewegingsdata en de aandrijfdata worden
opgemeten tijdens speciaal ontworpen testbewegingen. Om een goe
de excitatie te bekomen zijn verscheidene optimalisatiecriteria gedeﬁ
nieerd, o.a. het conditiegetal van de identiﬁcatiematrix (Armstrong,
1989) of de determinant van de parametercovariantiematrix (Swevers
et al., 1997). Ook de keuze van de trajectparametrisatie is belangrijk.
Gautier (Gautier and Poignet, 2001) gebruikt vijfde orde polynomen,
terwijl Daemi (Daemi and Heimann, 1998) heenenweer bewegingen
rond een werkingspunt voorstelt met een trapezoidaal snelheidsproﬁel.
Swevers (Swevers et al., 1996) introduceert het concept van periodische
excitatie. Het excitatietraject bestaat uit een som van harmonische
functies.
Parameter estimation De klassieke kleinste kwadratenschatter is
vanwege zijn eenvoud een veelgebruikte methode om een overgedeter
mineerd stelsel van lineaire vergelijkingen op te lossen (Atkeson et al.,
1986; Canudas de Wit et al., 1996). Swevers (Swevers et al., 1997)
stelt het gebruik van de meest waarschijnlijke schatter voor, omdat
deze gebaseerd is op een statistisch kader dat de parameters met mi
nimale onzekerheid wenst te schatten. Wanneer de positiemetingen
ruisvrij zijn, vereenvoudigt het probleem zich tot een gewogen kleinste
kwadratenschatting. Verder zijn een Bayesiaanse benadering (Press´e
and Gautier, 1992) en een robuuste schatter (Calaﬁore and El Ghaoui,
2001) toegepast op robotidentiﬁcatie. Voor on line parameterschatting
bestaan technieken zoals recursieve kleinste kwadraten (Gautier, 1986;
¨
Ostring and Gunnarsson, 2002) en uitgebreide Kalmanﬁlter (Gautier
and Poignet, 2001)
3. Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering xxv
3 Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering
Bij het toepassen van experimentele robotidentiﬁcatie moeten deﬁni
tieve keuzes gemaakt worden. De modelbeschrijving wordt vastgelegd,
evenals het optimale excitatietraject, de schattingsmethode en de vali
datiecriteria.
3.1 Procedure voor experimentele robotidentiﬁcatie
Modelgeneratie
Een robot bestaat uit verschillende componenten die samen de model
structuur bepalen. Centraal in deze structuur staat de seri¨ele kine
matische ketting van starre lichamen, beschreven door de dynamische
vergelijking (2) en afgeleid m.b.v. het recursieve NewtonEuler algorit
me. Aan deze vergelijkingen worden voor elk gelid termen toegevoegd
om de aandrijving te modelleren. Deze bestaat uit de overbrenging
en de motor, gekenmerkt door een inertie en wrijvingsverliezen. Vaak
wordt verondersteld dat de wrijving bestaat uit Coulomb en viskeuze
wrijving: τ
wrijving
= f
C
sign( ˙ q) +f
v
˙ q.
Na de modelreductie bekomt men een identiﬁceerbare set van para
meters en een minimale set van vergelijkingen (d.i. een identiﬁceerbaar
model) die lineair in de onbekende parameters is:
τ = Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)θ, (3)
met Φ de bewegingsmatrix en θ de gereduceerde set van te identiﬁceren
parameters.
Experimentontwerp
Voor de excitatie is gekozen voor een traject dat bestaat uit een eindige
som van harmonische functies, d.i. een beperkte Fourierreeks. De
positie q
i
van gewricht i van een robot:
q
i
(t) = q
i,0
+
N
¸
k=1
(a
i,k
sin(kω
f
t) +b
i,k
cos(kω
f
t)) (4)
xxvi
met ω
f
de fundamentele pulsatie van de Fourierreeks en N het aan
tal harmonische termen. Deze periodische trajectparametrisatie heeft
volgende voordelen:
• middeling in het tijdsdomein verbetert de signaaltotruisverhou
ding van de experimentele data.
• de periodiciteit laat toe om de ruiskarakteristieken te schatten.
Deze gegevens zijn nodig voor de schatting volgens de methode
van de maximale waarschijnlijkheid.
• de periodiciteit van de trajecten laat de analytische berekening
van de gewrichtssnelheden en versnellingen toe op basis van de
gemeten gewrichtsposities.
De trajectparameters worden gekozen zodat alle modelparameters
kunnen worden geschat en de invloed van meetruis op de geschatte
waarden van de dynamische parameters minimaal is. Hierbij moet re
kening gehouden worden met beperkingen zoals de toegelaten maximale
en minimale posities, snelheden en versnellingen van de gelederen, de
motorbeperkingen en de beschikbare of toelaatbare werkruimte van de
robot. De keuze van de trajectparameters kan gebeuren door middel
van optimalisatie of op basis van heuristische regels. Bij optimalisatie
zijn a
i,k
, b
i,k
en q
i,0
de te bepalen trajectparameters. Het optimalisa
tieprobleem met beperkingen is echter sterk nietlineair zodat slechts
een lokaal optimum gevonden wordt De keuze van de startwaarden
is daarom cruciaal voor een goede excitatie. Bij een heuristische op
lossing worden ook ω
f
en N vrijheidsgraden. Een aantal eenvoudige
regels laat toe om reeds goede waarden voor de trajectparameters te
bekomen, waarbij de beperkingen optimaal benut worden. Toch moet
bij het bepalen van het optimaal excitatietraject opgelet worden dat
geen nietgemodelleerde dynamica, zoals ﬂexibiliteiten of nietlineaire
eﬀecten, wordt ge¨exciteerd.
Parameterschatting
Voor de parameterschatting is de methode van de maximale waarschijn
lijkheid (ML) toegepast. In het algemene geval veronderstelt deze me
thode dat de gemeten posities en de motorkoppels beide verstoord zijn
3. Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering xxvii
door witte ruis en levert dit een nietlineair kleinste kwadratenpro
bleem. De vereenvoudiging tot een gewogen kleinste kwadratenschat
ting (WLS) is toegelaten aangezien het ruisniveau op de positieme
tingen veel kleiner is dan het ruisniveau op de koppelmetingen en het
model lineair is in de onbekende parameters.
Validatie
De validatiestap evalueert de kwaliteit van de bekomen resultaten.
Twee categori¨en van validatiecriteria worden gedeﬁnieerd. De eerste
categorie van criteria beoordeelt de nauwkeurigheid van de voorspel
de motorkoppels door te vergelijken met de gemeten koppels of door
de predictiefout te bekijken. De tweede categorie kijkt direct naar de
nauwkeurigheid van de geschatte parameterwaarden.
3.2 Experimentele resultaten
De besproken methode is toegepast op de eerste drie assen van de
KUKA IR 361 robot. Deze paragraaf gaat na in welke mate een aantal
bijkomende eﬀecten en modelwijzigingen bijdragen tot de parameter
nauwkeurigheid.
Beschrijving van optimale resultaten
Om het belang van bijkomende eﬀecten te kunnen beoordelen, is een
referentiemodel opgesteld dat optimale resultaten geeft. Dit optimale
referentiemodel bevat een viskeus en Coulombwrijvingsmodel en houdt
rekening met de rotorinertie, maar niet met een kinematische kalibratie.
Figuur 2 vergelijkt het gemeten en voorspelde koppel en de pre
dictiefout voor het excitatietraject. Hierin is duidelijk te zien dat het
ge¨ıdentiﬁceerde model de metingen zeer goed verklaart. Tabel 1 geeft
de RMS waarden van de predictiefout voor de verschillende modellen
die hieronder besproken worden.
xxviii
0 2 4 6 8 10
−100
−50
0
50
Predictiefout van het motorkoppel
0 2 4 6 8 10
−50
0
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
−20
0
20
40
Tijd (s)
0 2 4 6 8 10
−200
−100
0
100
200
Gemeten en voorspeld motorkoppel
K
o
p
p
e
l
a
s
1
(
N
m
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
−400
−200
0
200
400
K
o
p
p
e
l
a
s
2
(
N
m
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
−100
−50
0
50
100
K
o
p
p
e
l
a
s
3
(
N
m
)
Tijd (s)
Figuur 2: Gemeten en voorspelde motorkoppel en de predictiefout
voor het excitatietraject
Invloed van bijkomende eﬀecten
Kinematische kalibratie Elke mechanische structuur vertoont ki
nematische en geometrische fouten door afwijkingen tijdens de fabri
cage of assemblage. Om de invloed van kinematische fouten op de
nauwkeurigheid van het dynamisch model na te gaan, werden de eerste
drie assen van de KUKA IR 361 robot kinematisch gekalibreerd. De
kinematische fouten zeer echter klein, waardoor de verbetering van de
nauwkeurigheid van het dynamisch model verwaarloosbaar is. Bijge
RMS predictiefout as 1 as 2 as 3
optimale referentie 6.101 6.277 2.850 Nm
geen rotorinertie 6.282 6.271 3.339 Nm
met kinematische kalibratie 6.104 6.281 2.849 Nm
Tabel 1: RMS van de predictiefout voor het excitatietraject
3. Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering xxix
volg geeft het inrekenen van de kinematische fouten geen signiﬁcant
betere voorspelling van de nodige motorkoppels en valt de bijdrage
van de extra parameters tot het koppel binnen de onzekerheidsmarges
op o.a. de wrijving. Daarom kan de toegenomen complexiteit niet
gerechtvaardigd worden. De kinematische kalibratie blijft echter wel
noodzakelijk om een goede positienauwkeurigheid te garanderen.
Rotorinertie Commerci¨ele industri¨ele robots worden vaak aangedre
ven met overbrengingsverhoudingen tussen 50 en 200. De rotorinertie
kan dan een belangrijke factor worden in de robotdynamica. Vaak
wordt de rotorinertie toegevoegd aan de gelidinertie. Deze werkwij
ze is enkel verantwoord als aan de voorwaarde e
T
m
i+1
ω
i
= 0 voldaan
is (Sciavicco et al., 1996), d.w.z. de rotoras moet loodrecht staan op de
hoeksnelheid van het gelid waarop de motor gemonteerd is. Indien niet,
kan de rotorinertie onafhankelijk van de gelidinertie bepaald worden.
Experimentele resultaten tonen aan dat de geschatte parameterwaarde
van de rotorinertie goed overeenkomt met de speciﬁcatie van de fabri
kant.
Gravitatiecompensatieveer Veel robots zijn uitgerust met een
veer om het eﬀect van de zwaartekracht op de tweede as te compense
ren. De wiskundige beschrijving
τ
veer
= l r sin(q
2
)k −
l r sin(q
2
)
l
2
+r
2
−2l r cos(q
2
)
P
0
(5)
is afgeleid op basis van fysische eigenschappen waardoor het model
veel dichter aansluit bij het werkelijke gedrag van de veer. Door het
gebruik van a priori kennis van enkele afmetingen, is de bestaande
modelbeschrijving lineair in de onbekende parameters k en P
0
gemaakt.
De experimenteel bekomen waarden voor de veerparameters vertonen
een sterke overeenkomst met de speciﬁcaties van de fabrikant.
Wrijving De wrijvingskarakteristiek (snelheid vs. wrijvingskracht) is
experimenteel opgemeten en vergeleken met het gebruikte Coulomb en
viskeus wrijvingsmodel. De grootste afwijkingen treden op bij lage snel
heden. Daarom zijn wrijvingsmodellen voorgesteld die beter aansluiten
xxx
bij de experimenteel gemeten karakteristiek. Daarbij is vastgesteld dat
de wrijving afneemt met de opwarming van de robot, en toeneemt bij
gebruik van een zwaardere robotlast. Het is daarom belangrijk om elk
experiment in zoveel mogelijk constante omstandigheden uit te voeren.
Opmerking: Kalibratie van de meetsignalen is zeer belangrijk bij
parameteridentiﬁcatie. Meestal worden de motorkoppels indirect ge
meten via de motorstroom en geeft de koppelconstante het verband
tussen beide. In de praktijk kan deze constante aanzienlijk afwijken
van de speciﬁcatie van de fabrikant. Om goede experimentele resulta
ten te behalen, is het noodzakelijk om regelmatig de actuele waarden
van de koppelconstante voor elke motor te bepalen.
3.3 Besluit
Het identiﬁcatiemodel is lineair in de onbekende parameters en brengt
wrijving en rotorinertie in rekening. Het experimentontwerp is geba
seerd op periodische excitatie, wat enkele belangrijke voordelen biedt.
De keuze van de trajectparameters blijft echter een probleem. Naast
een optimalisatie, is een heuristische oplossing besproken vanuit prak
tisch oogpunt. De parameterschatting is gebaseerd op de methode van
de maximale waarschijnlijkheid.
De experimentele resultaten tonen aan dat een kinematische kali
bratie geen signiﬁcant eﬀect heeft op de modelnauwkeurigheid, terwijl
de rotorinertie wel een belangrijke rol speelt. Verder is de wrijvingska
rakteristiek experimenteel opgemeten en is een geschikter model voor
de gravitatiecompensatieveer voorgesteld. Een goede overeenkomst
tussen de geschatte parameterwaarden en de speciﬁcatie valideren de
voorgestelde werkwijze.
4 Combineren van intern en extern model
In de klassieke identiﬁcatiebenadering worden de parameters geschat
uitgaande van metingen van bewegingsdata en aandrijfkoppels, geme
ten door ‘interne’ sensoren. Het dynamisch model dat deze in en uit
gangen relateert noemt men het intern model. De klassieke benadering
4. Combineren van intern en extern model xxxi
vertoont een aantal gebreken: de krachten die aangelegd worden in de
gewrichten zijn niet direct meetbaar zodat ze be¨ınvloed zijn door mo
delleringsfouten op het wrijvingskoppel en door de gebrekkige kennis
van de koppelconstanten van de motoren.
Een alternatieve benadering maakt gebruik van het extern model
van de robot (Raucent and Samin, 1993). Dit model relateert de bewe
ging van de robot aan de reactiekrachten en momenten op de grond
plaat van de robot. De reactiekrachten worden gemeten met een extern
krachtplatform dat geplaatst is onder de robot. Deze benadering laat
toe de inertieparameters nauwkeuriger te schatten omdat het model
volledig onafhankelijk is van interne koppels zoals wrijving. De pa
rameters van de wrijving zijn echter belangrijk voor een nauwkeurige
voorspelling van de motorkoppels bij modelgebaseerde controle.
Beide modellen samenvoegen geeft een gecombineerd model dat alle
inertieparameters bevat, evenals de wrijvingsparameters. Zowel de mo
torkoppels, de beweging van de gewrichten als externe reactiekrachten
worden dan gebruikt als meetdata. Deze gecombineerde benadering is
in dit werk experimenteel gevalideerd.
4.1 Modelgeneratie
Het intern model (vergelijking (3)) is herschreven in een vorm die lineair
is in de barycentrische parameters:
τ
i
= Ψ
i
(q, ˙ q, ¨ q) δ
i
. (6)
δ
i
bevat barycentrische parameters en Ψ
i
is de bijhorende identiﬁcatie
matrix. Dit model wordt uitgebreid met de parameters die het wrij
vingkoppel en het systeem voor gravitatiecompensatie modelleren. Het
extern model bestaat uit een herformulering van de dynamica die de
beweging van de robot relateert tot de reactiekrachten en momenten
op de grondplaat. Bovendien heeft de vergelijking van het extern model
een analoge lineaire vorm als vergelijking (6) :
τ
e
= Ψ
e
(q, ˙ q, ¨ q) δ
e
(7)
waarbij δ
e
de barycentrische parameters in het extern model bevat,
Ψ
e
is de overeenkomstige identiﬁcatiematrix, en τ
e
is de vector met
reactiekrachten en momenten op de grondplaat van de robot.
xxxii
De set van parameters in het gecombineerd model τ = Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q) θ
kan onderverdeeld worden in drie subsets: (1) de set van barycentrische
parameters δ
i
die zowel in intern als extern model verschijnen, (2) de
set overige barycentrische parameters δ
e
\δ
i
die enkel voorkomen in het
extern model, en (3) parameters gerelateerd aan gravitatiecompensatie
en wrijving δ
fg
die enkel voorkomen in het intern model.
Het totale gecombineerde robotmodel kan geformuleerd worden als:
¸
τ
i
τ
e
=
¸
Ψ
i
Ψ
fg
0
Ψ
e1
0 Ψ
e2
δ
i
δ
fg
δ
e
\ δ
i
¸
¸
(8)
Ψ
i
en Ψ
fg
komen respectievelijk overeen met het deel van de matrix Φ
i
(vergelijking (6)) dat samenhangt met de barycentrische parameters δ
i
en δ
fg
. De kolommen van Ψ
e1
en Ψ
e2
komen overeen met die kolommen
van matrix Ψ
e
(vergelijking (7)) die gerelateerd zijn tot de elementen
van δ
i
en δ
e
\ δ
i
respectievelijk.
Rotorinertie
De inerties van de motor en de overbrenging worden vaak vervangen
door een equivalente inertie die toegevoegd wordt aan de gelidinertie.
Wanneer intern en extern model echter gecombineerd worden, levert
de rotorinertie een andere koppelbijdrage tot het intern model dan tot
het extern model. Voor de rotorinertie van de eerste robotas, zijn de
koppelbijdrages tot het intern en extern model respectievelijk
τ
1
= µ
2
1
¨ q
1
I
m
1
, (9)
m
Z
= µ
1
¨ q
1
I
m
1
, (10)
waarbij µ
1
de overbrengingsverhouding is en I
m
1
de rotorinertie. Wan
neer de rotorinertie gekend is kan deze a priori in rekening gebracht
worden, anders dient ze als een aparte parameter geschat te worden.
4.2 Experimentele resultaten
Beschrijving van de testopstelling en het experiment
De beschouwde testopstelling bestaat uit een KUKA IR 361 robot ge
plaatst op een KISTLER 9281 krachtplatform. Het excitatietraject be
4. Combineren van intern en extern model xxxiii
staat uit een Fourierreeks met 5 harmonischen met een periode van 10
seconden.
Om te onderzoeken hoe de nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschat
ting en de motorkoppelvoorspelling verbetert door intern en extern mo
del te combineren, werden drie verschillende identiﬁcatieexperimenten
beschouwd: (1) identiﬁcatie met het intern model, (2) identiﬁcatie met
het extern model, en (3) identiﬁcatie met het gecombineerde model.
Parameternauwkeurigheid
Op basis van de variantie van de ruis op de krachtmetingen kan de
variantie op de geschatte parameters expliciet berekend worden. Ta
bel 2 geeft deze resultaten weer. Vergelijken van de varianties toont
dat het combineren van interne en externe modellen en metingen een
signiﬁcante verbetering levert van de nauwkeurigheid van de parame
ters: de nauwkeurigheid van de parameters in δ
i
wordt sterk verbeterd
doordat er meer meetdata wordt gebruikt in ´e´en parameterschattings
probleem. Bovendien levert het gecombineerd model de beste nauw
keurigheid voor elke parameter in vergelijking met het intern en extern
model.
Voorspelling van de motorkoppels
De onzekerheid op de voorspelde motorkoppels hangt rechtstreeks af
van de nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschattingen in δ
i
en δ
fg
, om
wille van de lineaire afhankelijkheid van de koppelpredictie van de
modelparameters. Aangezien de onzekerheid op de parameters die
ge¨ıdentiﬁceerd zijn met het gecombineerde model kleiner is, is bijge
volg de onzekerheid op de voorspelde motorkoppels kleiner.
Tabel 3 toont de RMS waarde van fout op de motorkoppelpredictie
bij het validatietraject voor de verschillende sets van parameters. De
RMS predictiefout voor assen 1, 2 en 3 bij het gecombineerd model zijn
minder dan 1% lager dan bij het intern model. Deze verbetering komt
niet overeen met de opmerkelijke verbetering uit de simulatie (Chenut
et al., 2000) wegens het veel hogere ruisniveau bij de re¨ele metingen.
xxxiv
gecombineerd intern extern
schatting σ
c
schatting σ
i
schatting σ
e
Kr
1,zz
18.6808 0.0787 18.7188 0.0973 18.7301 0.0930
Kd
2
10.8183 0.0906 10.8792 0.1129 10.8471 0.1053
b
3,x
2.9993 0.1512 3.0249 0.1605 2.7889 0.2739
K
2,yy
23.2883 0.2234 23.5007 0.2372 23.5102 0.4576
f
v
2
17.1865 0.2724 17.2849 0.2740 − −
f
c
2
39.1988 0.2812 39.1899 0.2816 − −
f
v
3
5.2598 0.1620 5.2412 0.1630 − −
f
c
3
16.0939 0.1355 16.1230 0.1360 − −
b
2,z
16.6222 0.0880 − − 16.8236 0.1039
b
1,x
0.4053 0.0922 − − 0.4325 0.0997
br
1,y
19.4197 0.1099 − − 19.2940 0.1151
K
1,xz
0.8316 0.1874 − − 0.9307 0.1891
Tabel 2: Set geschatte parameterwaarden en bijhorende standaard
deviatie voor gecombineerd, intern en extern model
RMS predictiefout as 1 as 2 as 3
intern model 8.950 Nm 11.824 Nm 4.446 Nm
gecombineerd model 8.949 Nm 11.811 Nm 4.419 Nm
Tabel 3: RMS predictiefout voor het validatietraject
4.3 Besluit
We kunnen besluiten dat het combineren van interne en externe metin
gen (1) de nauwkeurigheid op de parameters die zowel in het interne als
het externe model voorkomen, sterk verbetert en (2) de nauwkeurig
heid op de parameters die enkel in het interne model model voorkomen
in beperkte mate verbetert. De waarde van de verbetering hangt af
van het aantal gemeten perioden en de kwaliteit van de metingen.
Bovendien laat het gecombineerd model toe om zowel de motor
koppels als de reactiekrachten en momenten op de grondplaat nauw
keurig te voorspellen. Beide zijn belangrijk voor trajectplanning en
optimalisatie, vooral in ruimtetoepassingen. Het kan dus overwogen
worden om krachtplatformmetingen te gebruiken om de dynamische
identiﬁcatie van robots te verbeteren.
5. Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de robotlast xxxv
5 Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de ro
botlast
Om zijn taken uit te voeren, beschikt elke robot over een gereedschap
of last die bevestigd is aan het polsgewricht. Identiﬁcatie maakt het
mogelijk om ook de inerti¨ele parameters van deze robotlast te bepa
len. Deze informatie kan dan gebruikt worden om de bewegingen te
optimaliseren zonder overbelasting van de motoren. Hiervoor dient het
dynamisch model voor robot met last in staat te zijn een nauwkeurige
voorspelling te leveren voor het koppel dat nodig is om een gewenste
beweging uit te voeren. Voor een vlotte integratie in de werkomge
ving is het tevens noodzakelijk dat de bekomen schattingen voor de
lastinerties fysisch interpreteerbaar zijn naar nauwkeurigheid toe.
Een veelgebruikte methode om de inertieparameters van de robot
last te bepalen meet via een krachtsensor de reactiekrachten op de eind
eﬀector van de robot (Atkeson et al., 1986). In dit onderzoek gebruiken
we de methodes van robotidentiﬁcatie gebaseerd op de gemeten motor
stromen. Toepassingen in de literatuur beschouwen de last als een extra
gelid en identiﬁceren telkens opnieuw de ganse robot (Gautier et al.,
1995). In dit onderzoek gaan we een stap verder door de dynamica van
de robot reeds op voorhand te bepalen, o.a. door middel van identiﬁ
catie, en als a priori kennis in rekening te brengen bij de identiﬁcatie
van de inertieparameters van de robotlast.
5.1 Modelgeneratie
Dynamisch model van de last
Zoals bij elke identiﬁcatieprocedure is de eerste stap het opstellen van
een dynamisch model van de robot met last. De robotlast oefent een
‘wrench’ w (d.w.z. kracht en moment) uit op de eindeﬀector. Dit
resulteert in een bijkomend motorkoppel
τ
robotlast
= J
T
(q
G
) w, (11)
waarbij J(q
G
) de Jacobiaanmatrix is van de robot. Mathematisch kan
nagegaan worden dat het dynamisch model van de robot met last op
xxxvi
gesplitst kunnen worden in twee afzonderlijke modellen,
τ
G
= M(q
G
)¨ q
G
+C(q
G
, ˙ q
G
) ˙ q
G
+g(q
G
) +J
T
(q) w (12)
= τ
robotgelederen
+τ
robotlast
, (13)
d.w.z. de robotgelederen en de robotlast leveren elk een additieve bij
drage tot de motorkoppels. Bijgevolg kan de bijdrage van de robotge
lederen in rekening worden gebracht op basis van een a priori bepaald
dynamisch robotmodel, en dienen enkel de inertieparameters van de
last opnieuw bepaald te worden bij het wijzigen van de robotlast.
Om een dynamisch model te bekomen dat lineair is in de inertie
parameters stellen Atkeson e.a. (Atkeson et al., 1986) voor om de in
ertieparameters uit te drukken ten opzichte van de rotatieas in plaats
van het massacentrum. Deze werkwijze levert een set gewijzigde iner
tieparameters die rechtstreeks gerelateerd zijn tot de tien ‘ware’ iner
tieparameters van de last (de massa m, de drie co¨ordinaten van het
massacentrum (c
x
, c
y
, c
z
), drie inertiemomenten (I
xx
, I
yy
, I
zz
) en drie
inertieproducten (I
xy
, I
xz
, I
yz
)) .
Bijkomende eﬀecten
Voor robotlastidentiﬁcatie is het van uiterst belang rekening te hou
den met bijkomende eﬀecten, o.a. de koppeling die bestaat tussen de
verschillende assen en verliezen in de motor en de overbrenging.
Verband tussen motorstroom en motorkoppel Vele robots zijn
uitgerust met permanent magneet synchrone motoren. Het lichtjes
nietlineaire stroomkoppelverband bij hoge motorstromen kan beschre
ven worden met een derdeorde veelterm.
Dynamica van de motor Een aanzienlijk deel van het motorkoppel
wordt gebruikt om de rotorinertie te versnellen of af te remmen. Dit
koppel bedraagt τ
I
= I
m
¨ q
M
, met ¨ q
M
de hoekversnelling van de motor
en I
m
de inertie van de rotor. Verliezen ten gevolge van wrijving in de
motor en de overbrenging worden beschreven met een Coulomb en een
viskeus wrijvingsmodel.
5. Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de robotlast xxxvii
Rendement van de overbrenging De robotmotoren drijven de ge
lederen aan via een overbrenging waarin vele onderdelen met verschil
lende hoeksnelheden bewegen. De verliezen in de overbrenging kunnen
worden beschreven door een zeker rendement η. Dit model zorgt er ech
ter voor dat het identiﬁcatiemodel nietlineair wordt in de onbekende
parameters, zodat iteratieve schattingsmethoden vereist zijn.
Koppeling tussen de motorkoppels Bij heel wat industri¨ele ro
bots zijn de bewegingen van meerdere assen van de robotpols mecha
nisch gekoppeld. Deze koppeling wordt beschreven door een vaste line
aire transformatie q
G
= V q
M
tussen motorruimte (E: actuator space)
en gewrichtsruimte (E: joint space).
5.2 Compensatie van a priori gekende dynamica
Zoals hoger opgemerkt, kan de koppelbijdrage van de robotgelederen
gescheiden worden van deze van de robotlast. Drie mogelijke benade
ringen om de a priori kennis in rekening te brengen worden hier kort
beschreven.
Door gekende parameterwaarden: Hierbij wordt een identiﬁcatie
gedaan van de volledige robot. De inertieparameters van de last
worden dan berekend uit het verschil tussen de geschatte para
meters en de gekende parameterwaarden voor de robotinertie.
Door meting: Deze benadering doet twee experimenten met hetzelf
de excitatietraject: ´e´en met last en een ander zonder last. Het
verschil tussen beide metingen geeft het motorkoppel ten gevolge
van de robotlast, en eventueel de variatie van de wrijving.
Door modellering: Hierbij wordt het koppel ten gevolge van de ge
lederen berekend uit het dynamisch model en a priori gekende
parameterwaarden. De metingen worden gecompenseerd voor dit
berekende koppel.
De derde benadering geeft de meeste ﬂexibiliteit aangezien niet tel
kens hetzelfde excitatietraject moet worden gebruikt en geen volledige
identiﬁcatie van de robot vereist is.
xxxviii
5.3 Sensitiviteitsanalyse
Goede resultaten behalen is niet vanzelfsprekend. Ruis op de metingen
introduceert onzekerheid die kan gereduceerd worden door uitmiddelen
van periodische metingen. Deterministische fouten, zoals een onvolle
dig model of onnauwkeurige a priori informatie, geven systematische
afwijkingen op de resultaten. Een sensitiviteitsanalyse gebaseerd op
simulatie is uitgevoerd om de invloed na te gaan van deze fouten op
de uiteindelijke nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschattingen van de
robotlast.
De analyse toont dat de kwaliteit van de a priori informatie erg be
langrijk is. De identiﬁcatie is vooral gevoelig voor de nauwkeurigheid
van de koppelconstanten en van de inertieparameters van de robotge
lederen en rotorinerties.
De parameterschattingen zijn minder gevoelig voor het model dat
gebruikt wordt om de verliezen te beschrijven. Het in rekening brengen
van het overbrengingsrendement geeft geen merkbare verbetering ten
opzichte van de resultaten uit de lineaire schatting waarbij deze rende
menten verwaarloosd worden en de verliezen opgenomen worden in de
viskeuze en Coulombwrijving. Een complexer nietlineair identiﬁcatie
model is daarom niet verdedigbaar.
Terwijl de ge¨ıntroduceerde fouten de parameterwaarden duidelijk
be¨ınvloeden, is vastgesteld dat de motorkoppelvoorspelling nagenoeg
ongevoelig is. Een nauwkeurige koppelvoorspelling is daarom geen ga
rantie voor nauwkeurige parameterwaarden.
5.4 Experimentele resultaten
De voorgestelde identiﬁcatieprocedure is toegepast op een KUKA KR15
industri¨ele robot. Om de juistheid van de inerti¨ele parameters te valide
ren is een gekalibreerde referentielast ontwikkeld waarvan alle inerti¨ele
parameters gekend zijn. Figuur 3 toont een mogelijke conﬁguratie van
de referentielast. Om alle inertieparameters van de last eenduidig te
kunnen bepalen, volstaat het de assen drie tot zes van de robot te ex
citeren. Indien de massa van de last a priori gekend is, zijn de laatste
drie assen voldoende.
5. Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de robotlast xxxix
Figuur 3: E´en mogelijke conﬁguratie voor de referentielast
Bij de experimentele resultaten maken we een onderscheid tussen
de koppelpredictie en de inertieparameters van de last. Figuur 4 toont
het gemeten motorkoppel voor een validatietraject en vergelijkt dat met
het koppel dat voorspeld wordt op basis van het ge¨ıdentiﬁceerde model
van robot en last. Beide koppels komen goed overeen, zodat we mogen
stellen dat het bekomen model in staat is een nauwkeurige voorspelling
te maken van het koppel dat nodig is om een gegeven beweging uit te
voeren.
Voor een goede aanvaarding op de werkvloer moet de identiﬁcatie
ook in staat zijn om de inertieparameters van de last nauwkeurig te be
palen, d.w.z. dat de geschatte waarden de werkelijke zo goed mogelijk
moeten benaderen. Tabel 4 geeft de resultaten voor de gebruikte conﬁ
guratie van de referentielast. Het gemiddelde en de standaarddeviatie
zijn berekend uit de resultaten van tien verschillende lastidentiﬁcatie
experimenten. De geschatte parameterwaarden komen goed overeen
met de werkelijke waarden; de afwijkingen zijn beperkt tot minder dan
´e´en standaarddeviatie.
Ook experimenteel werd vastgesteld dat de resultaten erg gevoelig
zijn aan een schaalfactor die gebruikt wordt om het gemeten stroom
signaal om te zetten naar het motorkoppel. Bij een te kleine koppel
constante zijn de parameterschattingen stelselmatig te klein, en vice
versa.
Bovendien heeft de opwarming van de robot een belangrijke invloed
op de resultaten. Niet enkel de wrijving varieert, maar ook de geschatte
inertieparameters veranderen. Dit wijst erop dat de koppelconstante
xl
0 10 20 30
−600
−400
−200
0
200
Gemeten en voorspeld motorkoppel
A
s
3
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−600
−400
−200
0
200
Predictiefout van het motorkoppel
0 10 20 30
−200
0
200
A
s
4
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−200
0
200
0 10 20 30
−200
0
200
A
s
5
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−200
0
200
0 10 20 30
−100
0
100
Tijd (s)
A
s
6
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−100
0
100
Tijd (s)
Figuur 4: Gemeten en voorspelde koppel voor validatietraject
wijzigt met de opwarming. Hierdoor wordt het zeer moeilijk om in alle
omstandigheden dezelfde nauwkeurigheid te garanderen.
5.5 Besluit
Voor de lastidentiﬁcatie is het mogelijk de inertieparameters van de ro
bot a priori in rekening te brengen. Hierdoor is het niet meer nodig om
de ganse robot opnieuw te identiﬁceren wanneer de robotlast gewijzigd
wordt. Experimentele resultaten tonen aan dat het bekomen model in
staat is om het vereiste motorkoppel voor een gewenste beweging nauw
keurig te voorspellen. Ook de schattingen van de inertieparameters van
de last voldoen aan de door industri¨ele gebruikers vereiste nauwkeurig
heid. Er is echter vastgesteld dat de koppelconstanten van de motoren
veranderen met de opwarming van de robot. Dit heeft een negatieve
invloed op de nauwkeurigheid van de lastidentiﬁcatie.
6. Dynamische compensatie door trajectaanpassing xli
Inertie Gekalibreerde Geschatte Standaard
parameter waarde waarde deviatie
m [kg] 9.579 9.6179 0.1735
c
x
[m] 0.024 0.0246 0.0010
c
y
[m] 0.090 0.0930 0.0016
c
z
[m] 0.202 0.2065 0.0064
I
xx
[kgm
2
] 0.612 0.6770 0.0765
I
yy
[kgm
2
] 0.063 0.1210 0.0773
I
zz
[kgm
2
] 0.637 0.6211 0.0204
I
xy
[kgm
2
] 0.158 0.1642 0.0105
I
xz
[kgm
2
] 0.002 0.0038 0.0097
I
yz
[kgm
2
] 0.008 0.0105 0.0156
Tabel 4: Gekalibreerde en geschatte inertieparameters van de
referentielast
6 Dynamische compensatie door trajectaan
passing
Er is een groeiende vraag vanuit de industrie om de performantie en
de trajectnauwkeurigheid bij de huidige generatie robots te verbeteren
door rekening te houden met de nietlineaire dynamische eﬀecten. Hoe
wel de klassieke lineaire regelaars voldoen voor toepassingen waarbij
hoge positienauwkeurigheid en lage snelheid vereist zijn, geven ze aan
leiding tot niet verwaarloosbare trajectafwijkingen bij hoge snelheid.
Krachtige modelgebaseerde regelalgoritmen, zoals ‘computedtorque’
en adaptieve methoden (Craig, 1986; Sciavicco and Siciliano, 1996),
vormen een alternatief, maar worden omwille van hun complexiteit niet
gebruikt in de industrie. Bovendien vereisen ze een interface waarlangs
het gewenste motorkoppel kan opgegeven worden.
Om de nietlineaire dynamica te kunnen compenseren met behoud
van de bestaande standaard industri¨ele regelaar, is een compensatiemo
dule voorgesteld die op basis van een dynamisch model een aanpassing
op het gewenste robottraject berekent zodat bij uitvoering de eindef
fector het gewenste traject volgt.
xlii
6.1 Nietlineaire trajectprecompensatie
Figuur 5 geeft het algemene idee van de precompensatie weer. Het
gewenste traject q
d
wordt eerst gecompenseerd door het te ﬁlteren met
het invers model van het robotsysteem met regelaar. Het gecompen
seerde traject q
d,comp
wordt dan aangelegd aan het echte systeem. Dit
resulteert in perfect trajectvolgen als er gen verstoringen of modelfou
ten zijn.
Systeem
Robot
+
Regelaar
Invers
systeem
q q
d act
q q
q
d
d,comp
act
q q
q
d
d,comp
act
Figuur 5: Algemeen idee van precompensatie
Nietlineaire precompensatie gebruikt een invers model van het ge
sloten lus systeem om het gewenste traject te ‘ﬁlteren’. Dit invers
model bestaat uit het inverse dynamisch robotmodel, dat de ‘rigid bo
dy’ dynamica en de wrijving bevat, en een invers model van de analoge
snelheids en stroomregelaar van de robot.
Figuur 6 toont de globale structuur van het precompensatieschema.
De nodige motorkoppels τ
d
voor een gewenst traject q
d
worden in een
Analoog Digitaal
Offline
Snelheidsregelaar
Robot
+

+
q
q
d q
act
Inversdynamischmodel
+ G
G
1
PI
t
d
f( , , ) qqq
d d d
q
contr
contr
d,comp
Positieregelaar

+ t
q
act
ò
d
dt
+
+
q
d
Figuur 6: Structuur van de robot opstelling met de nietlineaire
precompensatie
6. Dynamische compensatie door trajectaanpassing xliii
eerste stap bepaald uit vergelijking (3):
τ
d
= M(q
d
)¨ q
d
+C(q
d
, ˙ q
d
) ˙ q
d
+g(q
d
) +τ
f
( ˙ q
d
)
= Φ(q
d
, ˙ q
d
, ¨ q
d
) θ (14)
Een model G
contr
van de analoge regelaar wordt bepaald door identiﬁ
catie op basis van multisinusexcitatie. In een tweede stap, converteert
de inverse regelaar de motorkoppels naar gecompenseerde gewenste
snelheden ˙ q
d,comp
= G
−1
contr
τ
d
+ ˙ q
d
, die worden aangelegd aan de voor
waarts gekoppelde snelheid.
Het is noodzakelijk een positieterugkoppeling te behouden om af
wijkingen van het nominaal traject weg te regelen, bijvoorbeeld door
onnauwkeurigheden in het dynamisch model of verstoringen van bui
tenaf. Als gewenste positie blijft q
d
behouden.
6.2 Experimentele resultaten voor de KUKA IR 361
Om de prestaties en toepasbaarheid te evalueren, is de voorgestelde
methode toegepast op de KUKA IR 361 robot. Voor de identiﬁcatie van
een model van de analoge snelheidsregelaars is gebruik gemaakt van
multisinusexcitatie met een bandbreedte van 5 Hz. Als model werd
een PIregelaar met tachoterugkoppeling vooropgesteld. Dit geeft een
aanvaardbare kwaliteit voor het bekomen model.
Aan de hand van het aﬂeggen van validatietrajecten is nagegaan
wat de verbetering van de dynamische nauwkeurigheid is. Als vali
datietraject is een cirkel in het horizontale vlak gekozen. De cirkel
heeft een diameter van 40 cm en wordt gevolgd met een (Cartesische)
baansnelheid van 0.6 m/s. Dit traject heeft een eenvoudige analytische
beschrijving met als voordeel dat de gewenste hoeksnelheden en ver
snellingen kunnen berekend worden zonder fazeverschuiving. Een oﬀ
line berekening bepaalt de gewenste hoekposities q
d
van de assen en de
gecompenseerde snelheden ˙ q
d,comp
.
Figuur 7 toont de volgfout q
d
− q
act
met en zonder compensatie
van de nietlineaire dynamica. In beide gevallen werd de voorwaartse
koppeling van de snelheid gebruikt.
De afstand tussen het gemeten punt (x, y, z) op het traject en het
dichtstbijgelegen punt (x
d
, y
d
, z
d
) op het gewenst traject in Cartesische
xliv
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
x 10
−3 Zonder precompensatie
Tijd (s)
P
o
s
i
t
i
e
v
o
l
g
f
o
u
t
(
r
a
d
)
As 1
As 2
As 3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
x 10
−3 Met precompensatie
Tijd (s)
P
o
s
i
t
i
e
v
o
l
g
f
o
u
t
(
r
a
d
)
As 1
As 2
As 3
Figuur 7: Volgfout bij een cirkel (diameter 40 cm, snelheid 0.6 m/s)
in een horizontaal vlak zonder compensatie (boven) en
met compensatie (onder) van de nietlineaire dynamica
6. Dynamische compensatie door trajectaanpassing xlv
co¨ordinaten wordt gegeven door:
d
i
=
(x
d
(i) −x(i))
2
+ (y
d
(i) −y(i))
2
+ (z
d
(i) −z(i))
2
. (15)
In tabel 5 zijn enkele performantiecriteria opgenomen. d
max
= max
i
d
i

geeft de maximale afwijking en d
mean
=
1
N
¸
N
i=1
d
i
geeft de gemiddelde
waarde van de afwijkingen, waarbij N het aantal gemeten punten is op
het traject.
d
mean
d
max
zonder compensatie 1.42 mm 2.01 mm
met compensatie 0.25 mm 0.45 mm
Tabel 5: Performantiecriteria bij diameter 40 cm en snelheid
0.6 m/s
De experimenten werden herhaald voor andere diameters van de
cirkel, voor verschillende snelheden en voor een andere ligging en
ori¨entatie van de cirkel. Telkens werd een gelijkaardige verbetering
bekomen.
6.3 Praktische beperkingen voor implementatie
Bij de beschikbare experimentele opstelling werd de oorspronkelijke
trajectgenerator en positieregelaar vervangen werden door eigen ont
wikkelde software. Dit beperkt sterk de industri¨ele relevantie en over
tuigingskracht van de compensatiemethode en laat niet toe om een
meer diepgaande validatie uit te voeren.
Toch is de implementatie op een standaard industri¨ele robot niet
vanzelfsprekend. Meestal laat de regelaar niet toe om in realtime cor
recties toe te voegen aan het gewenste traject. Voor verdere implemen
tatie is daarom een samenwerking vereist is met een industri¨ele partner
die een open interface cre¨eert en de nodige informatie over de structuur
van het regelschema ter beschikking stelt.
6.4 Besluit
Een trajectcompensatiemethode is ontwikkeld om een verbeterde voor
waartse snelheidskoppeling te berekenen die rekening houdt met de
xlvi
nietlineaire robotdynamica. De berekening van de trajectprecompen
satie is gebaseerd op een ge¨ınverteerd dynamisch model van de robot en
de snelheidsregelaar. De behaalde experimentele resultaten tonen aan
dat een opmerkelijke verbetering van de trajectnauwkeurigheid moge
lijk is.
7 Algemeen besluit en toekomstig werk
Dit werk vertrok van een bestaande robotidentiﬁcatieprocedure. Het
identiﬁcatiemodel is lineair in de onbekende parameters en is afgeleid
vanuit fysische eigenschappen. Het experimentontwerp gebruikt peri
odische excitatie, waardoor analytisch aﬂeiden en berekenen van het
ruisniveau mogelijk zijn. Deze statistische informatie wordt gebruikt
bij de meest waarschijnlijke parameterschatter.
Deze procedure is toegepast om het dynamisch model van een indu
stri¨ele seri¨ele manipulator te identiﬁceren. De experimentele resultaten
tonen aan dat het bekomen dynamisch model in staat is om het vereiste
motorkoppel voor elke gewenste beweging nauwkeurig te voorspellen.
Bovendien komen de geschatte parameterwaarden goed overeen met de
gegevens van de fabrikant.
Om de nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschattingen verder te ver
beteren is een externe krachtsensor toegevoegd aan de opstelling om de
reactiekrachten en momenten van de robot op de basis te meten. Het
bij deze metingen horende extern identiﬁcatiemodel is gecombineerd
met het klassieke interne model tot ´e´en globaal identiﬁcatiemodel. Het
is experimenteel gevalideerd dat dit gecombineerd model parameter
schattingen geeft met kleinere onzekerheidsmarges. Om consistente
resultaten te bekomen voor beide benaderingen is het noodzakelijk om
het eﬀect van de rotorinertie expliciet in rekening te brengen en om
een goede kalibratie te hebben van de meetsignalen. Het belang van de
nauwkeurigheidsverbetering hangt hoofdzakelijk af van het ruisniveau
op de verschillende meetsignalen. Het resulterende gecombineerd mo
del laat toe om de motorkoppels en de reactiekrachten en momenten
op de grondplaat nauwkeurig te voorspellen.
In een volgende stap is de klassieke identiﬁcatieprocedure toegepast
op het identiﬁcatieprobleem van de inertieparameters van de robotlast.
7. Algemeen besluit en toekomstig werk xlvii
Bij deze toepassing wordt de koppelbijdrage van de robotgelederen ge
compenseerd op basis van zoveel mogelijk a priori gekende informatie.
Een sensitiviteitsanalyse heeft aangetoond dat de nauwkeurigheid van
de parameterschattingen in directe verhouding staat met de kwaliteit
van de a priori informatie, terwijl de koppelvoorspelling hiervoor veel
minder gevoelig is. De experimenteel behaalde nauwkeurigheid voldoet
aan de vereisten voor de industrie. Enkel de opwarming die een wijzi
ging in de koppelconstanten veroorzaakt, maakt het moeilijk om deze
nauwkeurigheid in alle gevallen te garanderen.
De laatste stap stelde een trajectcompensatiemethode voor om oﬀ
line de nietlineaire robotdynamica te compenseren. Een belangrijk
voordeel van deze methode is dat er geen koppelinterface vereist is.
Het gewenste traject is geﬁlterd met een invers model van de robotdy
namica en de dynamica van de regelaar resulterend in een voorwaartse
koppeling op de snelheid. De experimentele resultaten tonen een signi
ﬁcante verbetering van de trajectnauwkeurigheid.
Experimenteel werk is nooit gedaan, en dit geldt evenmin voor dit
werk. Hoewel het theoretisch kader reeds een stevige basis vormt, blij
ven sommige vragen onbeantwoord.
Om te beginnen dienen alle methoden, zoals gecombineerd model,
lastidentiﬁcatie en trajectcompensatie, ge¨ımplementeerd en gevalideerd
te worden op eenzelfde experimentele opstelling. Deze synthese laat toe
de nauwkeurigheid en consistentie van de resultaten voor elke toepas
sing te evalueren.
Een belangrijke vereiste voor consistentie is te beschikken over een
nauwkeurige schatting van de motorkoppelconstanten en het in reke
ning brengen van de temperatuur en lastafhankelijkheid van de wrij
ving. Een goed inzicht in hoe de koppelconstanten en de wrijving va
ri¨eren met de opwarming van de manipulator kan zorgen voor betere
parameterschattingen en biedt de mogelijkheid om de robotdynamica
ook over een lange tijdspanne beter te compenseren.
Het ontwerp van het excitatietraject moet bekeken worden vanuit
een praktisch standpunt. Verschillende vrijheidsgraden in de trajectpa
rametrisatie laten toe om de kwaliteit van de excitatie te be¨ınvloeden.
Een eﬃci¨ent optimalisatiealgoritme moet gezocht worden om het opti
malisatiecriterium te minimaliseren zodat een minimaal vereist niveau
xlviii
van excitatie gegarandeerd is. Om te beslissen of het verschil in para
meterschatting van praktisch belang is, kunnen de resultaten bekomen
met verschillende excitatietrajecten vergeleken worden.
Onderzoeksresultaten worden meestal enkel gevalideerd op ´e´en op
stelling waardoor de toepasbaarheid vaak niet vanzelf ge¨extrapoleerd
kan worden. Toepassing in de industrie kan daarom een waardevolle
feedback opleveren. Bovendien zal de implementatie ook de industrie
ten goede komen, omdat de robots nauwkeuriger worden. Een eerste
stap hiernaar is gezet in dit werk met de ontwikkeling van de traject
compensatie. Deze methode moet echter nog ge¨ımplementeerd worden
op een commercieel beschikbare robotregelaar. Een extern meetsys
teem moet de bekomen verbetering van de trajectnauwkeurigheid nog
valideren.
In verdere stappen dient het dynamisch model ge¨ıntegreerd te wor
den in de regelalgoritmes en de trajectgenerator van industri¨ele robots
teneinde hun nauwkeurigheid te verhogen. Het is echter geweten dat
de ontwikkelaars van standaard robotregelaars grote moeite hebben om
deze behoefte voor integratie te ondersteunen. Meer bepaald, een open
realtime interface naar de commerci¨ele regelaar is niet beschikbaar.
Door het ontwikkelen van een modulaire en open systeemarchitectuur
kan de controleingenieur elke gewenste uitbreiding toevoegen zonder
veel aan eﬃci¨entie en veiligheid in te boeten.
Om de integratie in de industrie te vereenvoudigen is er nood aan
kantenklare software voor dynamische modellering en identiﬁcatie van
robots, ontwikkeld in nauwe samenwerking met robotconstructeurs.
Dit moet evolueren tot een software concept dat gebaseerd is op een bi
bliotheek van modulaire componenten, die geconﬁgureerd kunnen wor
den voor de speciﬁeke toepassing van de gebruiker. Het vinden van
relevante en aantrekkelijke toepassingen zal robotidentiﬁcatie maken
tot een noodzakelijk hulpmiddel.
1
Introduction
The whole of science is nothing more
than a reﬁnement of everyday thinking.
Albert Einstein
1.1 Background and motivation
Ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the industrial
world has been confronted with better technologies and changing ex
pectations of customers. The ever increasing quality standards, inter
national competition and economic reasons put higher requirements
on reliability and accuracy, and especially on speed of production pro
cesses. Improvement of the output is the major motivation behind the
development of new techniques. This evolution still continues nowadays
and new upcoming challenges have to be taken up.
1
2 Introduction
More recently, the term ﬂexibility has reached the work ﬂoor and
changed the production concept fundamentally. Previously, the em
phasis was put on producing high volumes for a mass market. These
standard products had to be made at the lowest cost and with a short
lead time. As marketeers know for years already, proﬁt margins can be
increased by product diﬀerentiation and customization. Such custom
tailored products try to fulﬁll the customer’s wishes as close as possi
ble. This involves that products must be assembled or even completely
built to order. Implementing such strategy requires more ﬂexibility in
the production lines because every product is diﬀerent. The justin
time philosophy enhances this evolution towards increased ﬂexibility:
batch sizes are reduced, machine setup requires less time, etc. Flexi
bility should however not go to the detriment of precision, quality or
productivity. On the contrary, all these aspects must go hand in hand.
In this context, industrial robot manipulators have become an indis
pensable means of automation to increase productivity and ﬂexibility
of production units. They can be employed for tasks which cannot be
executed by human beings, or only with limited accuracy and speed.
Furthermore, robots are able to work in hazardous environments and
are more reliable. Robot manipulators are commonly used in fully au
tomated production lines in car factories. Typical tasks executed by
these manipulators go from palletizing, transportation and assembly
tasks to cutting, welding, gluing or painting.
Robots are programmed by teaching the sequence of positions and
orientations which are necessary to execute the desired task. To reach
a suﬃcient accuracy, this teaching is mostly done onsite and relies
on a good repeatability, rather than on a good absolute accuracy. To
improve position accuracy, the manipulator and its environment need
to be calibrated. A kinematic calibration procedure estimates the ge
ometric properties and the compliance of the manipulator. The ob
tained kinematic model is used to calculate position corrections. A cal
ibrated kinematic model is essential for accurate oﬀline programming
and makes it easier to exchange manipulators without reprogramming.
In modern applications like laser welding and laser cutting increas
ing importance is attached to path accuracy. Standard industrial con
trollers neglect however all nonlinearities in robot dynamics, like cen
trifugal, gravitational, and Coriolis forces, friction, motor dynamics,
1.1. Background and motivation 3
and dynamic couplings between the diﬀerent joint axes. This results in
deviations from the desired motion. These nonlinearities can be com
pensated for with new advanced controllers that include more a priori
knowledge of the robot manipulator, e.g. computed torque controllers.
The implementation of these advanced control algorithms requires a
good knowledge of the dynamic behavior of the robot manipulator.
For many years, these control techniques have only been adopted in
specialized robotic labs. Since computers have become more powerful
nowadays, it is possible to calculate the dynamic model within the
realtime constraints of the controller. This evolution created a renewed
interest in these control algorithms and stimulated the need for accurate
dynamic models of robot manipulators.
A practical diﬃculty is that the physical values in the manipula
tor dynamic model are often not known accurately. These parameter
values, for example, may change as the robot ages. Picking up of var
ious parts and tools also inﬂuences the dynamic characteristics of the
manipulator. Moreover, in many situations, the mass and inertia prop
erties of the links, and those of the objects that the manipulator picks
up, are not precisely known. Therefore, having an accurate dynamic
model is impossible. Accordingly, when we have a poor knowledge of
the parameters, the control law may not decouple and linearize the
closedloop system errors, and may in fact cause the system to be un
stable.
The gap between the desired accuracy of the production process and
the intrinsic accuracy of the robot manipulator can be also bridged by
means of calibration. Static or kinematic calibration already proved its
usefulness for improving the position accuracy, and dynamic calibration
oﬀers a possibility to reduce path deviations.
The productivity in industrial situations is aﬀected by the speed
of operation. Considerable gains in productivity can be achieved by
minimizing the cycle time. In order to maximize the operational speed
it is necessary to minimize the total travelling time for the robot, but
at the same time guarantee constant accuracy. As soon as reliable dy
namic models are available, trajectory optimization algorithms can be
applied. They take into account physical limits of the robot such as:
the workspace of the robot, limits on the actuator power and torques,
4 Introduction
and on the reaction forces/torques of the robot on the base plate. These
algorithms allow to distribute the load eﬃciently over the diﬀerent ac
tuators. This prevents the manipulator from being dynamically over
loaded resulting in a better reliability.
Competition creates an increasing demand to further improve both
the ﬂexibility and the accuracy by oﬀline programming. Standstill is
economically not acceptable and should be eliminated as much as pos
sible. Oﬀline programming and simulation programs make it possible
to program robot motions on an external computer without the need
to interrupt the production. In practice, this leads to a signiﬁcant im
provement of ﬂexibility and productivity. Oﬀline programming gives
the opportunity to produce small series in a ﬂexible way.
Modern oﬀline programming processes assume a certain basic po
sitioning accuracy of the robot manipulator. Although the achieved
accuracy is suﬃcient for relatively slow assembly motions, the result
ing trajectories are rather inaccurate at high speed. The reason lies
in the factor that commercial systems for oﬀline programming use,
mostly uncalibrated, kinematic models which take into account only
robot geometry and constraints on position and velocities. These mod
els do not include the complex nonlinear dynamics of fast motions.
This leads to large tracking errors and consequently requires manual
teachin corrections, which are time consuming and costly because the
robot manipulator has to be taken out of production. To allow relia
bility in oﬀline programming of fast motions, validated and accurate
dynamic robot models are required.
The accuracy of the robot is also aﬀected by the robot payload
or tool. Nevertheless, the inertial parameters of this payload are only
roughly known. This causes a lot of robots to be systematically over
loaded, which signiﬁcantly reduces lifetime and reliability. The payload
will certainly attract more attention in the near future. In order to re
duce the price, manufacturers tend to make the robot structure lighter
weight. As a result, a relatively larger part of the actuator torques is
required to move the payload.
Last but not least, space applications make intensive use of dy
namic models of both the manipulator and its payload. These models
facilitate the testing and control design on the ground of space robots
1.2. Serial robot manipulators 5
and satellites.
This section motivated the search for experimental identiﬁcation
methods for robot manipulators. There clearly exists a need for accu
rate dynamic models and the range of applications keeps growing.
1.2 Serial robot manipulators
A robot is a machine designed to execute one or more tasks repeat
edly, with speed and precision. These machines contain sensors and
programmable controllers, and can also be equipped with speech recog
nition, and other advanced features. There may be as many diﬀerent
types of robots as there are tasks for them to perform. The most tra
ditional types are serial manipulators and Cartesian or gantry robots.
These robot types are frequently used in industry. The Stewart plat
form is an example of a parallel manipulator. This manipulator has
six joints in parallel which oﬀers excellent stability and high stiﬀ
ness. Other types of robotic systems are humanoids, walking machines,
robotic hands, and nonholonomic mobile robots.
It would be impossible to derive detailed identiﬁcation techniques
which are applicable to all of these types of robots. This section deﬁnes
which type of manipulator is considered in this work and introduces
some commonly used concepts and terminology.
We limit the discussion to industrial serial robot manipulators.
Throughout this work we will simply use the terms robot or manip
ulator. The serial manipulator is an openended structure consisting
of several links connected in series. The human arm is a good exam
ple of a serial manipulator. The robot links are assumed to be rigid
bodies connected by revolute or prismatic joints with a single degree
of freedom each. They form a multibody system with the topological
structure of a kinematic chain.
The joint axes of a six degrees of freedom industrial robot can be
divided into two main categories: the base axes and the wrist axes.
The ﬁrst three joint axes are the base axes which are mainly used for
positioning the end eﬀector. The last three joint axes are the wrist axes
which realize the orientation of the end eﬀector. A tool or payload may
6 Introduction
be mounted on the end eﬀector, i.e. on the mounting plate of the last
link.
In applied robot research, it is important to use robot manipulators
that are commonly used in industry. In this work industrial robots with
electric drives are considered. Simpliﬁed or special purpose research
robots do not have realistic dynamic properties. The mechanical design
done by major robot manufacturers has been worked out considering
many application, quality, and maintenance demands. Research appli
cations on such robots remain very relevant from an industrial point of
view.
The restriction to industrial serial manipulators does not limit the
applicability of the methods presented in this work. Most of these
methods can be extended for application to other robotic systems after
some modiﬁcations.
1.3 Approach
This research presents identiﬁcation methods to experimentally obtain
a model describing the dynamics of both robot and its payload. The
experimental identiﬁcation procedure consists of the following typical
steps: (1) the generation of an identiﬁable dynamic model, (2) the
generation of optimized excitation trajectories, (3) the estimation of
the model parameters, and ﬁnally (4) the validation of the obtained
model.
The model equations consider the rigid body dynamics and are
derived based on physical properties. As a result, the model param
eter values have a physical interpretation and their estimates can be
compared to the true values, if available. This is an advantage over
blackbox methods where only the goodness of ﬁt for the output pre
diction can be evaluated. The physical modelling approach gives the
opportunity to introduce two extensions. On the one hand, an external
sensor can be added to the setup, providing additional measurements
that can improve the parameter accuracy. The sensor provides mea
sures of the reaction wrenches at the base of the robot. On the other
hand, the developed robot identiﬁcation method can be extended to
identifying the robot payload parameters.
1.4. Main contributions of this research 7
Distinct in our identiﬁcation approach with respect to literature is
the use of periodic trajectories for the excitation of the system, which
allows data reduction by data averaging which improves the signalto
noise ratio. The parameter estimation is based on the maximum likeli
hood estimator. Due to an appropriate parameterization, the identiﬁ
cation model becomes linear in the inertial parameters, which facilitates
the parameter estimation. As a ﬁnal validation the obtained dynamic
model is used to improve the robot accuracy. This step is realized
without major modiﬁcations to the existing industrial controller.
1.4 Main contributions of this research
This thesis deals with the dynamic robot identiﬁcation problem and the
compensation of the nonlinear dynamics. The inertial parameters of a
rigid body manipulator are estimated from measurements taken dur
ing an excitation experiment. The resulting dynamic model is used to
calculate a trajectory compensation for the robot controller. The iden
tiﬁcation and compensation methods are experimentally implemented
and validated on industrial serial robot manipulators.
The main contributions of this thesis are as follows:
• Experimental validation of the identiﬁcation approach
using both internal and external sensors. The use of dif
ferent types of sensors into one combined identiﬁcation problem
provides more information on the robot dynamics. This allows
to improve the accuracy of the parameter estimation and the
actuator torque prediction. With control and simulation appli
cations in mind, accurate torque prediction is the ﬁrst objective.
This thesis presents the experimental validation of this combined
approach. Since the rotor inertias have a diﬀerent torque contri
bution to the internal and the external model, the link and rotor
inertias are considered separately in the identiﬁcation model. The
experimental results conﬁrm the reduced uncertainty on the iner
tial parameter estimates; not only the standard deviation on the
parameters appearing in both models is smaller, also the other
parameters in the internal or external model take advantage of
8 Introduction
the combined approach. An improvement of the actuator torque
prediction is however not conﬁrmed by the experimental results.
• Extension of the robot identiﬁcation method to the esti
mation of the inertial parameters of the robot payload.
In this application not only the actuator torque prediction accu
racy is important, but special attention is paid to the accuracy of
the individual parameter estimates. Therefore, the ﬁrst evalua
tion objective becomes the accuracy of the individual parameter
estimates. This work presents a payload identiﬁcation approach
which does not require a full identiﬁcation of the manipulator, but
compensates for all known robot dynamics based on available a
priori information. A sensitivity analysis is performed to inves
tigate the inﬂuence of the quality of the a priori information on
the ﬁnal accuracy of the payload parameter estimates. To exper
imentally validate the approach, a calibrated reference payload is
designed of which all inertial parameters are accurately known.
The experimental results show that the presented payload identi
ﬁcation approach is able to provide accurate parameter estimates
for diﬀerent payload conﬁgurations, and to predict accurately the
required actuator torques.
• Improvement of the path tracking accuracy by trajec
tory precompensation. The obtained dynamic robot model
with payload is used to improve the path tracking accuracy of
industrial robots. Based on a dynamic model of the robot ma
nipulator and the controller, a dynamic correction is calculated
which is introduced in the standard industrial controller as a tra
jectory compensation. This precompensation method is imple
mented on an experimental setup. The experimental results show
a signiﬁcant improvement of the path tracking accuracy.
During this research three diﬀerent industrial manipulators have
been used for the experimental validation of the methods. These in
clude the older generation KUKA IR 361 manipulator, and the current
generation KUKA KR15 and St¨aubli RX130. This experience enlarges
the industrial relevance of the presented methods.
1.5. Chapter by chapter overview 9
1.5 Chapter by chapter overview
First, chapter 2 brieﬂy surveys the wide range of literature related to
this research domain.
Chapter 3 explains in more detail the elements of the identiﬁcation
approach and the elements which are taken into account in the dynamic
robot model.
In chapter 4 internal and external models are combined into one
identiﬁcation scheme. The experimental validation shows the improved
parameters accuracy and torque prediction.
Chapter 5 presents an approach to identify the inertial parameters
of the robot payload. The sensitivity of the diﬀerent elements in the
model is discussed.
Chapter 6 uses the dynamic robot model, obtained by applying
above mentioned methods, to calculate oﬀline an appropriate feedfor
ward signal for the robot controller. The feedforward signal compen
sates for the nonlinear robot dynamics, resulting in an improvement of
the path tracking accuracy of industrial manipulators.
Finally, chapter 7 concludes this work and gives some suggestions
for future work.
The appendices give the kinematic and dynamic equations used, the
derivation of the contribution of the rotor inertias, and other relevant
information about the industrial manipulators.
10 Introduction
2
Literature Survey
If I have been able to see further,
it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants
Isaac Newton
2.1 Introduction
Since the ﬁrst generation of robots in the 1970s, the application area
of robotics has expanded over the years. Manipulators have become
more intelligent, more powerful and more accurate. The literature
of the robotics world is accordingly very extensive. Even the ﬁeld
of modelling, identiﬁcation and control of robot manipulators went
through an important evolution. The ﬁrst papers dealt mainly with
the kinematic aspects of robots. As dynamics became more important
to increase speed also more elaborate methods have been presented
11
12 Literature Survey
about this aspect. Initially rather theoretical methods were developed
to describe and to control the robot dynamics. Due to the increasing
computing power, especially in the last decade, most of these methods
have been implemented and tested experimentally.
It is impossible to describe the full literature on robot dynamics
within the scope of this chapter. This chapter presents a survey of the
research in the ﬁeld of experimental identiﬁcation, particularly applied
to serial robot manipulators. The most relevant techniques and appli
cations found in literature are summarized. After a short introduction
to identiﬁcation in section 2.2, the diﬀerent modelling approaches for
robot and payload identiﬁcation are given in section 2.3. Section 2.4
presents the general identiﬁcation procedure. The diﬀerent steps are
discussed in the following sections: model generation (section 2.5), the
model parameters (section 2.6), experiment design (section 2.7), and
parameter estimation (section 2.8). Section 2.9 gives an overview of
optimization techniques for nonlinear problems. To illustrate the use
fulness of experimental identiﬁcation, section 2.10 shows applications of
dynamic models in path planning, modelbased control and simulation.
2.2 Introduction to identiﬁcation
Mathematical models are required for various steps in the design, sim
ulation or control design of mechatronic systems. There are mainly
two ways to obtain these models, the theoretical modelling based on
physical principles and design data, and the experimental modelling
(or identiﬁcation) which builds a model based on measured input and
output variables. In many cases the basic model structure is known
from theoretical modelling, however, some parameters are not known
precisely or change with time. The easiest method would be to use
CAD data. However, these data are mostly not very accurate, because
wiring, internal electronic components, etc. are not included in the
CAD model. A better alternative would be to dismantle the robot ma
nipulator and experimentally determine all inertial parameters. This
method suﬀers from the drawback that not all parameters can be mea
sured, e.g. friction. Moreover, dismantling is a time consuming activity
and not convenient for use in an industrial environment. Hence, for ob
2.2. Introduction to identiﬁcation 13
Figure 2.1: Nonlinear models
taining precise mathematical models generally identiﬁcation methods
have to be applied. They ﬁt models developed by theoretical modelling
to the measurements. The ideal solution would be a combination of
these methods as was done for the light weight robot (LWR) of the
German Aerospace Center (DLR). This allows the identiﬁcation meth
ods to be validated by comparing the estimated parameter values to
the real values.
Identiﬁcation methods can be classiﬁed in various categories ac
cording to the models they use: linear and nonlinear models, contin
uous time and discrete time models, parametric and nonparametric
models (Isermann, 1999). In this work, only the nonlinear models are
relevant because of the nonlinearity of the robot dynamics. Figure 2.1
shows a classiﬁcation for nonlinear models.
When a priori knowledge is available about the system, parametric
models can be used. The model is derived based on the laws of physics
and mechanics resulting in a set of nonlinear diﬀerential equations.
The unknown model parameters have a physical meaning and can be
identiﬁed from measurements. The parametric modelling approach is
widely used for robot identiﬁcation.
Nonparametric models are a practical alternative when no knowl
edge is available about the structure of the nonlinear system. Lookup
tables contain the response values for diﬀerent combinations of the in
put variables. For systems with a large number of variables polynomial
models provide an alternative, e.g. Volterra series describe the output
of a nonlinear system as the sum of the responses of a ﬁrst order, sec
14 Literature Survey
ond order, third order operator and so on. Other popular blackbox
models are neural networks and fuzzy models. An overview of soft
computing methodologies for identiﬁcation of robotic manipulators is
given in (Onder Efe and Kaynak, 2000).
Sometimes identiﬁcation is done online and integrated in the con
trol law. Learning and adaptive techniques have the advantage that
they do not require special excitation experiments, because they are
used online (Lange and Hirzinger, 1996). Adaptive control of robots
has received considerable attention over the last decades. An impor
tant number of globally stable algorithms have been developed that
result in zero tracking error in the steady state (Canudas de Wit et al.,
1996; Zhu and De Schutter, 1999).
In this work, nonlinear parametric models are used. The equations
are derived according to physical properties which allows to take into
account all a priori available information and to interpret the estimated
parameter values.
2.3 Approaches to modelling and identiﬁcation
With respect to the identiﬁcation of inertial parameters, several ap
proaches have been developed in the last decade. They can be divided
into two categories according to the models and the type of sensors they
use. In the classical and most widely used identiﬁcation approach (Gau
tier, 1986; Swevers et al., 1996; Tafazoli et al., 1999), the parameters
are estimated from motion data and actuator torques or forces, both
measured by ‘internal’ measurement devices. The builtin encoders of
the actuators are used to measure the motion, and the actuator torque
data are obtained through actuator current measurements, i.e. no ad
ditional sensors are required. The dynamic model relating these inputs
and outputs is called internal model.
An alternative approach to identify the inertial parameters makes
use of the socalled reaction or external model of the robot (Liu et al.,
1998; Raucent and Samin, 1993). This model relates the motion of
the robot to the reaction forces and torques on its base plate and is,
therefore, totally independent from internal torques such as joint fric
tion torques. The robot motion can be measured by means of joint
2.3. Approaches to modelling and identiﬁcation 15
encoders (internal sensors) or by means of a highprecision visual po
sition sensor (external sensor). The reaction forces and torques are
measured by means of an external sensor: a force/torque platform.
West et al. (West et al., 1989) use a basemounted force/torque sensor
to estimate the mass properties of a manipulator statically. The ma
nipulator is mounted on a sixdegreesoffreedom force sensor and the
reaction forces and torques are measured for diﬀerent positions of the
manipulator joints and diﬀerent orientations of the base. This method
does not yield all inertial parameters and the parameters are therefore
only applicable for gravity compensation. Further, it requires the reori
entation of the base of the robot, which is not very practical. Raucent
et al. (Raucent et al., 1992) introduced a method based on barycentric
parameters to estimate the inertial properties from external measure
ments without requiring base reorientation. The position of each link is
measured by a highprecision visual position sensor. This is very advan
tageous because it avoids the need for a robot controller interface which
provides encoder readings. Liu et al. (Liu et al., 1998) presented an
estimation algorithm derived from the NewtonEuler algorithm, which
uses the base force sensor measurements and the manipulator joint
positions and velocities. A lowpass ﬁlter technique eliminates the re
quirement for joint accelerations. Based on this approach, (Morel et al.,
2000) presents a measurementbased method to compensate for joint
friction using a sixaxis force/torque sensor mounted under the base of
the robot. Recently, Grotjahn (Grotjahn and Heimann, 2000) derived
analytical simpliﬁcation and regrouping rules which lead to a formula
tion of the base force/torque equations of serial robots which is linear
with respect to the dynamic parameter vector. From an experimental
application he concludes that the reaction method yields much better
results than the identiﬁcation by motor current measurements. Espe
cially for the small parameters of the hand axes large improvements
are obtained due to the absence of friction.
Chenut (Chenut et al., 2000) showed that the internal model and
the external reaction model can be combined into one identiﬁcation
scheme. This approach allows to improve the accuracy of the param
eter estimates and obtain more accurate actuator torque prediction.
The presentation was however based on simulation results and did not
include an experimental validation. In chapter 4 of this work this com
16 Literature Survey
bined approach will be applied to the identiﬁcation of an industrial
robot and experimentally validated.
When a tool is attached to the robot end eﬀector or an object is
picked up, this payload becomes a part of the manipulator dynamics
and its inertial parameters have to be identiﬁed and taken into account
in the dynamic model. Identiﬁcation of the inertial parameters of the
robot payload is complementary to dynamic robot identiﬁcation. Sim
ilar to above, two approaches can be distinguished based on external
and internal sensors respectively.
A ﬁrst approach uses a force/torque sensor to measure the reaction
wrench exerted by the payload on the robot end eﬀector (Atkeson et al.,
1986; Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz, 1996; Olsen and Bekey, 1986). This
sensor is mounted between end eﬀector and payload. This approach
has the advantage that it is easy to implement since only kinematic
data is required to calculate the payload inertial parameters and no
dynamic information of the manipulator itself. However, this approach
is not applied in this work, because a wristmounted force sensor is
not always present and its allowed force range might be too small for
a persistent excitation.
The other approach uses the motor currents as a measure of the
actuator torques. In this case, not only the torque contribution of the
payload is measured, but also the rigid body dynamics of the robot
links. In (Gautier et al., 1995), the parameters identiﬁed without pay
load plus the known payload parameters are compared to the values
identiﬁed with the payload in order to validate the robot identiﬁcation
results. Raucent (Raucent and Samin, 1993) modiﬁes the system by
adding a known mass to the last link and the change in the correspond
ing barycentric parameters are compared to the exact values. A similar
approach was used by (Zeng and Unbehauen, 1999). Diﬀerent payloads
are attached to the robot and the estimated parameters are compared.
From the change in the robot parameters the payload parameters are
estimated. Murotsu (Murotsu et al., 1994) identiﬁes the parameters of
an unknown object handled by a space robot. The last robot link and
the object are considered as one body in the identiﬁcation. Afterwards,
it is split up in two body subsystems and the inertial parameters of the
object are calculated.
2.4. Procedure for experimental identiﬁcation 17
motorcurrent
force/torque
platform
atbase
motorcurrent
wristmounted
forcesensor
atendeffector
payload
robot
internalmodel externalmodel
chapter4
chapter5
chapter3
Figure 2.2: Identiﬁcation possibilities framework
Figure 2.2 summarizes the diﬀerent approaches to robot and pay
load identiﬁcation and shows the coherence of the chapters in this the
sis. For both applications internal or external sensors can be used.
Chapter 3 illustrates the general robot identiﬁcation procedure using
the internal model. The following chapter 4 combines the internal and
external model approach for the robot identiﬁcation. In chapter 5 a
payload identiﬁcation approach will be presented which is based on
motor current measurements.
2.4 Procedure for experimental identiﬁcation
of dynamic parameters
The procedure to experimentally identify parameter values of a real
robot system is generally accepted in literature (Antonelli et al., 1999;
Atkeson et al., 1986; Gautier, 1986; Khalil and Dombre, 2002; Mukerjee
and Ballard, 1985). Most of the alternatives presented are variations
of the same scheme. Roughly, the identiﬁcation procedure can be for
mulated as follows:
• First, the dynamic identiﬁcation model of the manipulator is de
18 Literature Survey
rived, e.g. in symbolic form. This modelling is mostly based on
physical principles.
• The minimal set of dynamic parameters to be identiﬁed, i.e. the
set of base parameters, is computed. It is possible to simplify
the dynamic model by neglecting the contribution of certain pa
rameters to the joint torques, or by considering the kinematic or
geometric structure of the manipulator.
• Excitation trajectories have to be designed in order to guarantee
good quality of the measured data. This includes the choice of a
trajectory parameterization and an optimality criterion.
• The identiﬁcation experiment is executed, during which the mo
tion and the required forces and torques are measured.
• Estimates of the unknown dynamic parameters are obtained by
applying a suitable estimation algorithm.
• The identiﬁed dynamic model is experimentally validated. In
most cases, this is realized by comparing the predicted and the
measured torques for a trajectory which is diﬀerent from the tra
jectory used in the excitation.
In the following sections, the diﬀerent steps in this procedure are dis
cussed in more detail.
2.5 Model generation
A robot manipulator is constructed with mechanical bodies that are
interconnected by joints. Usually, the robotic multibody system has a
tree structure. With some small modiﬁcation, the methods presented
in this section can also be applied to closed loop robots (Gautier et al.,
1995).
2.5.1 Derivation of the dynamic equations
Literature presents two methods to obtain an identiﬁcation model of
the rigidbody dynamics of the manipulator. One method uses the
2.5. Model generation 19
total energy of the system, while the other method is based on the
equations of motion.
The integral formulation or the energy approach
A ﬁrst method to derive a full model uses the total energy of the system.
In (Gautier and Khalil, 1989; Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz, 1996), the
model is obtained by applying the energy theorem. The total energy
E
total
is expressed as
E
total
=
t
2
t
1
τ
T
˙ q dt
= Φ(q, ˙ q)θ (2.1)
where t
1
and t
2
represent respectively the begin time and end time of
the experiment, τ is the vector of actuator torques, and ˙ q the velocity
vector. A suitable parameterization gives a model which is linear in
the parameters: Φ is the identiﬁcation matrix and θ are the unknown
inertial parameters.
The identiﬁcation model based on the energy theorem is function
of the joint positions and velocities, and does not require estimates
or measurements of the accelerations. To obtain a set of equations
from which the parameters can be estimated, the integral in equa
tion 2.1 should be evaluated between two diﬀerent time instants. Ko
zlowski (Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz, 1996) provides us with two possi
bilities. One possibility is to divide the total experiment time into k
intervals. For each interval (t
1
, t
2
) the integral should be evaluated.
Another possibility is to apply the socalled long time integral. In this
approach we always start from a ﬁxed start time t
0
(i.e. t
1
= t
0
) and
for t
2
, m diﬀerent times in the experiment are chosen. This results
in a number of equations which constitute an overdetermined set of
equations in the unknown parameters. This system is solved using a
parameters estimation algorithm.
To include friction in the model, Kozlowski proposes the following.
The total energy E
tot
is used on the one hand to move the robot from
one position to an other position. On the other hand, a part of the
20 Literature Survey
energy will get lost due to friction losses. This dissipation can be
calculated a priori using equation (2.1) which is reformulated to
E
total
=
t2
t1
τ
T
˙ q dt
= H(t
2
) −H(t
1
) +
t2
t1
τ
T
f
˙ q dt (2.2)
where τ
f
represents the total friction torque and H(t
i
) the sum of
kinetic and potential energy at time t
i
.
A procedure in which each link is moved separately around an equi
librium position allows to compensate for friction. The link is moved
with constant velocity which is increased incrementally in successive ex
periments. An appropriate choice for the equilibrium positions cause
the term H(t
2
) −H(t
1
) to become negligibly small with respect to the
friction term. Using equation (2.3) τ
f
can be determined. This infor
mation can be used as a priori knowledge in the ﬁnal estimation using
equation (2.2).
τ
f

˙ q=const
=
t
1
t
2
τ dt
t
2
−t
1
(2.3)
An alternative method to take into account friction in the integral
formulation is presented in (Gautier et al., 1995). The authors propose
a friction model including Coulomb and viscous friction
τ
f
= f
c
sign( ˙ q) +f
v
˙ q. (2.4)
Including this model in the integral formulation gives:
t
1
t
2
τ
T
f
˙ q dt = f
C
t
1
t
2
 ˙ qdt +f
v
t
1
t
2
˙ q
2
dt. (2.5)
Since the friction characteristic is usually not constant, but varies in
time, friction has to be identiﬁed for each experiment. Equation (2.5)
allows to estimate the friction coeﬃcients together with the other in
ertial parameter values.
2.5. Model generation 21
The diﬀerential formulation or dynamic model approach
A second method to derive a complete model starts from the equations
of motion which can be formulated as a system of second order diﬀer
ential equations (Atkeson et al., 1986; Khosla and Kanade, 1987; Olsen
and Bekey, 1986). This model serves for control and relates the joint
motion to the joint torques.
The dynamics of a rigid body robot with revolute joints can be
described adequately using the equations of motion (Canudas de Wit
et al., 1996; Sciavicco and Siciliano, 1996), resulting in
M(q)¨ q +C(q, ˙ q) ˙ q +g(q) = τ, (2.6)
where q is the vector of generalized joint coordinates, M(q) is the sym
metric positive deﬁnite inertia matrix, C(q, ˙ q) ˙ q is the vector containing
all velocity dependent coupling terms arising from Coriolis and centrifu
gal forces, g(q) represents the vector of gravitational torques, and τ is
the vector of torques acting at the joints.
A number of algorithms have been proposed for generating the dy
namic equations of motion for a robot manipulator in terms of the
speciﬁed kinematic and inertial parameters of the links, such as the
recursive NewtonEuler method (Atkeson et al., 1986), Lagrange en
ergy method (Sheu and Walker, 1989), Kane’s method based on vir
tual power, etc. In one form or another, the models are obtained from
known Newtonian physical laws. These methods are equivalent to each
other in the sense that they describe the dynamic behavior of the same
physical robot manipulator. However, the structure of these equations
and, particularly, the computational eﬃciency of the equations may
diﬀer, as they are obtained for various reasons and purposes, such as
suitability for simulation, realtime control, parameter estimation, con
troller design, etc.
Among these methods, the Lagrange and the NewtonEuler for
mulation have been generally used. These methods have their own
advantages and disadvantages. Atkeson (Atkeson et al., 1986) starts
from the NewtonEuler equation to derive the set of equations. The
advantage of the NewtonEuler method is that the amount of compu
tation necessary to obtain the joint torques is quite small. In order
to design control strategies and to perform dynamic simulations, an
22 Literature Survey
explicit set of closed form diﬀerential equations in statespace form is
often useful.
An alternative method uses the equations of Lagrange and is based
on energy considerations. The dynamic model of a manipulator is
obtained from the Lagrange equations
d
dt
∂L
∂ ˙ q
j
−
∂L
∂q
j
= τ
j
, j = 1, . . . , n (2.7)
where L = K − P is the Lagrangian, K is the kinetic energy, and
P is the potential energy of the system. τ
j
represent the generalized
forces, i.e. a torque or force applied to the system, e.g. caused by an
actuator. The Lagrange formulation for the dynamics is a relatively
simple, elegant approach which yields a set of diﬀerential equations in
which the physical meaning of each term in the equations is clear. For
this reason, this approach is widely used in theoretical derivations. The
most signiﬁcant drawback of the Lagrange formulation arises from the
computational ineﬃciency of its general form, which has traditionally
been a bottleneck for modelbased control (Khosla and Ramos, 1988).
Both approaches lead to a model τ = f(q, ˙ q, ¨ q, θ) that is mostly
nonlinear in the physical inertial parameters. Using an appropriate
combination of the inertial parameters, e.g. using barycentric coordi
nates (Raucent and Samin, 1994) or the modiﬁed NewtonEuler formu
lation (Atkeson et al., 1986), the set of equations can be reformulated
to become linear in the inertial parameters τ = Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)θ. This will
be addressed in more detail in section 2.6. Linearity in the parameters
is a very interesting property because it allows to use linear parameter
estimation algorithms.
Friction and other eﬀects can easily be introduced in the dynamic
model. This can be done by adding extra terms to the model equation,
as indicated in the following sections.
The integral versus diﬀerential formulation
In (Gautier et al., 1995), (Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz, 1996) and (Pr¨ ufer
et al., 1994), both formulations have been compared. Their conclusions
are brieﬂy summarized.
2.5. Model generation 23
• The integral formulation does not require to calculate or measure
accelerations. As a consequence, this formulation is less rich in
information.
• Following from the previous point, it is important to apply a good
excitation trajectory. This trajectory should be able to excite as
good as possible all information which is present in the model
equations.
• If the trajectory measurements do not ﬁt an analytical descrip
tion, analytical diﬀerentiation cannot be applied, and numerical
diﬀerentiation techniques have to be used in order to calculate
velocity and acceleration. This introduces additional (numeri
cal) errors. The integral formulation has the advantage that the
information about the acceleration is not required.
In this work, we apply the diﬀerential formulation to derive the
model equations. This choice is motivated by the fact that the dynamic
model will be used for control purposes, which immediately leads to the
diﬀerential formulation.
2.5.2 Models including joint ﬂexibility
The abovementioned dynamic model considers all robot links as rigid
body elements. Neglecting ﬂexibilities is an appropriate approxima
tion for the dynamics of industrial robots which are constructed to be
very stiﬀ. The constant pressure to reduce prices and increase perfor
mance make that manufacturers reduce the weight of new generation
manipulators at the cost of an increased ﬂexibility. Taking into account
ﬂexibility will therefore gain importance in the future. In literature two
extensions to the classical rigid body approach are found: (1) a robot
with elastic joints, and (2) a robot with elastic bodies. The latter type
of ﬂexibility is of less importance than the ﬁrst one. Joint elasticity is
the major source of ﬂexibility in many applications. Especially if the
robot is moving fast, we cannot assume the robot joint to be stiﬀ. In the
last years, new eﬀorts have been done to identify this stiﬀness of indus
trial manipulators. However, most (experimental) results are restricted
to one joint axis and neglect the nonlinear dynamic coupling (Norrl¨of
24 Literature Survey
et al., 2002; Pham et al., 2001). Frequency response methods and other
linear identiﬁcation models provide good results for systems that are
approximately linear.
In their paper, Norrl¨of et al. (Norrl¨of et al., 2002) motivate the use
of a linear model for the ﬁrst joint of a manipulator using a special
odd multisine excitation (Pintelon and Schoukens, 2001). They con
clude that most nonlinearities are actually negligible.
¨
Ostring (
¨
Ostring
et al., 2001) makes a derivation of a physical model of one joint axis
using three inertias, i.e. actuator, gear and link inertia, with ﬂexibil
ity and damping in between them. Such model corresponds better to
the physical structure. The system is excited using a chirp signal with
constant amplitude as the reference signal. The identiﬁcation results
performed using a blackbox BoxJenkins model are compared to the
results from the physically parameterized model. He concludes that the
Bode plot of both models have the same characteristics. The analysis
is however restricted to only one joint. Moreover, introduction of non
linearities such as friction or backlash aﬀects the Bode plot (Aberger,
2000).
AlbuSch¨aﬀer (AlbuSch¨aﬀer and Hirzinger, 2001) addresses the
problem of identifying the parameters of a ﬂexible joint robot. In ad
dition to motor position sensors, the joints are equipped with torque
sensors as well as link position sensors. To avoid complex nonlinear
optimization problems which result in local minima and unreliable pa
rameter values, each joint and its successive link are identiﬁed sepa
rately before the assembly of the robot. Experimental results show a
good correspondence with the design data from the CAD program.
In (Khalil and Gautier, 2000) a method is presented for the mod
elling of mechanical systems with lumped elasticity. Pham (Pham
et al., 2001) identiﬁes ﬂexibilities of robot joint moving one axis at
a time. The dynamic model reduces to a dynamic model which is lin
ear in the inertial parameters. If no joint position measurements are
available, this method requires to calculate the fourth derivative of the
measured motor position.
Linear models for ﬂexible robot joints are well studied in literature,
but dynamic coupling between the joint axes, nonlinear friction, and
the nonlinear compliant behavior in real harmonic and cycloidal drives
2.5. Model generation 25
are mostly not included. Although ﬂexibilities will have an increasing
importance in the near future, literature brings no full solution for the
identiﬁcation of a sixdegreesoffreedom ﬂexible manipulator. This
requires more builtin sensors, e.g. joint torque and position sensors,
and a more extended identiﬁcation model to estimate the pronounced
nonlinearities.
In this work we consider no ﬂexibility of the bodies and joints and
only look at the rigid body dynamics. This approach is allowed because
industrial manipulators are constructed for being stiﬀ. Furthermore, it
is shown that compensation for the nonlinear rigid body dynamics in
the controller already gives a signiﬁcant improvement of the dynamic
behavior.
2.5.3 Friction modelling
It is well known that friction is a major source of disturbances aﬀecting
motion quality. Therefore, it must be included as an additional com
ponent in robot modelling. The classical approach describes friction
as a nonlinear and discontinuous function of the relative velocity be
tween the contacting surfaces. This model often includes the following
components
Coulomb friction is described as
τ
C
= f
C
sign( ˙ q
i
) (2.8)
which results in a discontinuity at zero velocity.
Viscous friction gives a linear relation with the velocity
τ
visc
= f
v
˙ q
i
(2.9)
with f
v
the viscous friction coeﬃcient.
Stribeck friction model includes the eﬀect that for low velocities
the friction takes a higher value that decreases with increasing
velocity. An exponential function is used in the modelling.
τ
S
= f
S
e
−
˙ q
˙ q
s
sign( ˙ q
i
) (2.10)
26 Literature Survey
where f
S
is the stiction force at zero velocity, and ˙ q
s
is the critical
Stribeck velocity.
In robot identiﬁcation applications, a model including viscous and
Coulomb friction is frequently applied (ArmstrongH´elouvry et al.,
1994; Canudas de Wit et al., 1991; Gautier et al., 1995; Pfeiﬀer and
H¨olzl, 1995). Such model is linear in the parameters which signiﬁcantly
simpliﬁes the parameter estimation. Since it is diﬃcult to derive a sim
ple model for the stiction eﬀects at low velocity, the friction model can
be explicitly restricted to a certain velocity range (Antonelli et al.,
1999; Caccavale and Chiacchio, 1994)
τ
f
= f
C
sign( ˙ q) +f
v
˙ q,  ˙ q ≥ ˙ q
min
(2.11)
= 0  ˙ q < ˙ q
min
where ˙ q
min
is a suitable velocity threshold.
This simple model is, however, not capable of fully describing the
experimentally measured friction characteristic. Daemi and Heimann
(Daemi and Heimann, 1996) propose better descriptions of the mea
sured friction characteristics:
τ
f
= f
0
+f
1
sign( ˙ q) +f
2
˙ q +f
3
˙ q
1
3
(2.12)
τ
f
= f
0
+f
1
sign( ˙ q) +f
2
˙ q +f
3
arctan(f
4
˙ q). (2.13)
These models provide better results than the classical approach. It
should be noted that model parameters in (2.12) and (2.13) no longer
represent physical properties. In addition, these models have a dis
continuity at zero velocity. This can be smoothed by replacing the
Coulomb friction term with an appropriate approximation, e.g. the
term f
i
arctan(c
i
˙ q) with a suitable constant c
i
(Heim and von Stryk,
2000)
In (Sch¨afer and da Silva, 2000), some models are presented to model
the friction torques inside an harmonic drive gear. The viscous friction
model is extended with a nonlinear cubic term, yielding:
τ
visc
= f
1
˙ q +f
2
˙ q
3
. (2.14)
For the dry friction, a modiﬁed classical Coulomb friction model is
taken, that accounts for the Stribeck eﬀects. These models are mainly
2.5. Model generation 27
combinations of the abovementioned components.
τ
dry1
=
f
C
+f
S
e
−
˙ q
˙ q
s

δ
s
sign( ˙ q) (2.15)
τ
dry2
= f
C
arctan
˙ q
˙ q
1
+f
S
˙ q
˙ q
1
e
−
˙ q
˙ q
s

δ
s
(2.16)
The subscript ·
C
indicates the Coulomb friction and the subscript ·
S
is
related to the part modelling the Stribeck eﬀect. The constants f
S
, ˙ q
s
,
˙ q
1
and ˙ q
2
have to be determined experimentally. The last model avoids
discontinuities at zero velocity.
Daemi et al. (Daemi and Heimann, 1998) show the time variation of
the friction characteristics. Typically in robot identiﬁcation, the robot
is warmed up for some time in order to reach stationary temperature
and lubrication. Measurements show that this is not generally pos
sible for industrial robots. After a short break in the measurements,
the friction becomes signiﬁcantly larger. This makes it impossible to
guarantee always the same measurement conditions. Furthermore, the
paper mentions that the friction model depends on the driving torque.
These are unmodelled eﬀects leading to systematic errors in the iden
tiﬁcation, even with a good excitation.
The temperature dependence of friction was already mentioned
in (Pr¨ ufer and Wahl, 1994). Since friction varies almost linearly with
temperature, orthogonal polynomials were used to describe friction as
a function of velocity and temperature. The resulting model is applied
in robot control to overcome the friction eﬀects.
AlbuSch¨aﬀer (AlbuSch¨aﬀer, 2001) reports a load dependency of
the friction parameters.
(f
C
+ν
1
τ +ν
2
τ
2
)(1 +f
S
e
−
˙ q
˙ q
s
) sign( ˙ q) +f
v
˙ q (2.17)
where τ is the driving torque, and ν
1
and ν
2
are the corresponding
coeﬃcients.
More detailed microscopic and stochastic friction models are pre
sented in literature (ArmstrongH´elouvry et al., 1994; Canudas de Wit
et al., 1995; Dahl, 1977; Lampaert et al., 2002; Lampaert et al., 2003;
Swevers et al., 2000). These models account for the microsliding dis
placements observed at motion start or reversal resulting in hysteresis.
28 Literature Survey
Two diﬀerent friction regimes can be therefore distinguished (Swevers
et al., 2000): the presliding regime, where the friction force appears
to be a function of displacement rather than velocity, and the gross
sliding regime, where the friction force is a function of the sliding ve
locity. Hence, these advanced friction models combine a simple friction
model for faster motions with a complex model for the small displace
ments. In practical robot applications, however, very slow motions
and small displacements do not frequently appear such that a simpler
friction model will give suﬃciently good results. In addition, complex
friction identiﬁcation mostly requires the inertia to be known a priori
and the advanced friction models are nonlinear in the unknown param
eters. This makes them inconvenient for inclusion in a dynamic robot
identiﬁcation procedure.
2.5.4 Rotor inertia
Each joint in a serial manipulator is driven by a motor through a gear
unit. These units use typically reduction ratios µ
i
between 50 and 100,
and in the case of harmonic drives even up to 200. When the rotor
inertias are relatively small, it is common practice to add the rotor
inertia to the inertia of the corresponding link in the dynamic model.
Nevertheless, it has been shown that the inertial eﬀect of fast spin
ning rotors may have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the dynamic behav
ior (Chen, 1989; Sciavicco et al., 1996; Tsai, 1999). This is because
the rotor inertia is multiplied with the square of the transmission ra
tios. Additional contributions have to be introduced in the oﬀdiagonal
elements of the inertia matrix to account for Coriolis and centrifugal
eﬀects of the relative rotor motion.
Raucent (Raucent, 1990) and Sciavicco et al. (Sciavicco et al., 1996)
consider the link and rotor contributions separately in the derivation
of the dynamic model. In their paper, Sciavicco et al. quantify the
error made by simply adding the reduced rotor inertia µ
2
i
I
m
to the
inertia of the corresponding link. From the derivation, it follows that
this approximation is only exact when
e
T
m
i+1
ω
i
= 0. (2.18)
2.6. The parameters of the identiﬁcation model 29
Here, ω
i
is the angular velocity of the link i on which the motor is
mounted, and e
m
i+1
is the unit vector lying along the rotation axis of
the rotor. It is implicitly assumed that the joint axis i + 1 is paral
lel to the rotation axis of actuator i + 1. Equation (2.18) expresses
that the simpliﬁcation is allowed for motors mounted on links with an
angular velocity which is zero or orthogonal to the rotor axis for any
conﬁguration of the manipulator.
2.6 The parameters of the identiﬁcation model
The previous section derived the dynamic equations and presented
models for additional eﬀects such as friction. In this section these
equations are reformulated in a form that is suitable for identiﬁcation.
The unknown parameters to be identiﬁed are selected and added to the
parameter vector. A suitable transformation of these parameters allows
to rephrase the equations into a form which is linear in the transformed
parameters. Finally, a reduction of the parameter vector gives the base
set of parameters.
Each link i is characterized by ten inertial parameters:
• the mass m
i
,
• the position of the center of gravity c
i
= [c
x,i
c
y,i
c
z,i
]
T
expressed
in the link frame R (see ﬁgure 2.3), and
x
y
z
R
COG
c
i
body
i1
body
i
Figure 2.3: The link body frame R and the center of gravity
30 Literature Survey
• the six components of the inertia tensor I expressed with respect
to the center of gravity:
I
xx,i
I
yy,i
I
zz,i
I
xy,i
I
xz,i
I
yz,i
T
. (2.19)
To this set of inertial parameters, the actuator inertia and the friction
coeﬃcients are added. This results in a parameter vector p
i
for each
link, mostly containing 13 parameters when a Coulomb and viscous
friction model is used. For the full manipulator structure with n
dof
degrees of freedom, this leads to the parameter vector
θ
full
=
p
T
1
p
T
2
· · · p
T
n
T
(2.20)
containing 13n
dof
parameters.
2.6.1 Linearity in the parameters
The dynamic equations (2.6) are mostly a nonlinear function F of the
elements of θ
full
as they are deﬁned above.
τ = M(q)¨ q +C(q, ˙ q) ˙ q +g(q) (2.21)
= F(q, ˙ q, ¨ q, θ
full
) (2.22)
Fortunately, other parameterizations and parameter transformations
have been presented which allow to rewrite the equations as a linear
relation of the set of dynamic parameters
τ = Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q) θ
linear
(2.23)
with Φ the observation or identiﬁcation matrix. θ
linear
is the vector
of transformed parameters. The dynamic model is already linear with
respect to the inertia moment of the rotor and the friction coeﬃcients, if
a friction model was selected that is linear in the unknown parameters
(cfr. section 2.5.3). Consequently, the corresponding parameters do
not need any transformation. The property of linearity is interesting
because it allows a much simpler parameter estimation.
A commonly used transformation to achieve linearity results in the
use of ﬁrst and second order moments of inertia (Atkeson et al., 1986;
Khosla, 1989; Mayeda et al., 1990; Sciavicco et al., 1996)
p
linear,i
= [ms
x
s
y
s
z
I
R
xx
I
R
yy
I
R
zz
I
R
xy
I
R
xz
I
R
yz
I
m
f
C
f
v
]
T
. (2.24)
2.6. The parameters of the identiﬁcation model 31
The ﬁrst order moments s
i
equal m
i
c
i
. The second order moments pro
duce the inertia tensor expressed relative to the origin of the link frame.
The reformulation of the recursive NewtonEuler equations using the
transformed parameters are given in appendix B.
Other parameterizations like the barycentric parameters (Raucent
and Samin, 1994) immediately result in a model which is linear and
minimal in the parameters.
2.6.2 Identiﬁability and minimal set of parameters
Generally, the dynamic model parameters cannot all uniquely be iden
tiﬁed. Unidentiﬁability results from the fact that the kinematic con
struction limits the relative motion between the links. In order to be
able to estimate uniquely all inertial parameters, the Jacobian of the
identiﬁcation model with respect to the unknown parameters must be
of full column rank (Schoukens and Pintelon, 1991). The matrix Φ in
equation (2.23) is generally not of full rank. The dynamic parameters
can be divided in three categories: completely identiﬁable, identiﬁable
in linear combinations, and unidentiﬁable (Atkeson et al., 1986).
The set of standard dynamic parameters can be simpliﬁed to ob
tain the set of base inertial parameters (Mayeda et al., 1990; Sheu and
Walker, 1989). The base set is deﬁned as the minimal set of parame
ters needed to describe the dynamic model. These parameters can be
obtained from the standard inertial parameters by eliminating those
which have no eﬀect on the dynamic model and by regrouping some
others in linear combinations. Some authors have introduced extra
simpliﬁcations in their models, neglecting second order terms such as
Coriolis and centrifugal terms. Such strategy improves the condition
number of the identiﬁcation matrix since less signiﬁcant parameters
are omitted. At high speed however, the neglected terms may become
signiﬁcant, making accurate position control of the manipulator impos
sible.
The base set can be found by considering the rank of the identiﬁca
tion matrix Φ. A procedure to obtain the set of base parameters based
on symbolic manipulation of equation (2.23) is proposed in (Gautier
and Khalil, 1990). Similar rules to obtain the minimal set of barycentric
32 Literature Survey
parameters was presented in (Fisette et al., 1996). This is a complex
procedure, especially when the number of links is large. An auto
matic procedure to determine a set of base parameters is a numerical
method based on the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) (Gautier,
1990; Pfeiﬀer and H¨olzl, 1995; Sheu and Walker, 1989). The disadvan
tage of this procedure is, however, that the linear combinations in the
base set may change when another trajectory is used. This makes it
diﬃcult to compare the identiﬁcation results and it does not simplify
the physical interpretation of the estimated parameters. Therefore, it
is better to ﬁnd once a unique minimal set of parameters which is valid
for all possible motions.
2.7 Experiment design
A critical issue for identiﬁcation of dynamic parameters is the choice
of the excitation trajectory. It should suﬃciently excite the system in
order to estimate all unknown parameters in the model unambiguously.
If this condition is not satisﬁed, some parameters may become uniden
tiﬁable or very sensitive to noise on the measured data. The quality of
the resulting parameter estimates depends on the quality of the avail
able input and output signal, i.e. is directly related to the choice of the
excitation trajectory.
The ﬁrst considerations on ﬁnding excitation trajectories for the
identiﬁcation of dynamic robot parameters were presented by Arm
strong (Armstrong, 1989). Many researchers recognize the importance
of a good excitation experiment design (Armstrong, 1989; Calaﬁore
and Indri, 1998; Gautier and Khalil, 1992; Vandanjon et al., 1995).
The quality of the measured signals can be enhanced slightly by ﬁlter
ing or the use of an observer, but cannot replace a suitable trajectory
optimization.
The design of a good excitation trajectory includes the decision
which joint axes have to be excited, the choice of a trajectory parame
terization and an optimization criterium, and solving the optimization
problem.
2.7. Experiment design 33
2.7.1 Separation of experiments
First, one has to decide if all parameters will be identiﬁed in only one
experiment or in separate experiments, and which joint axes will be
used in each experiment.
The identiﬁcation matrix has a triangular structure due to the serial
chain construction of a manipulator; the torques of the last actuator
are determined by only the inertial parameters of the last body (and
the payload), while the ﬁrst actuator torque is inﬂuenced by all inertial
parameters. The triangular structure makes it possible to estimate the
parameters in a sequential procedure (Atkeson et al., 1986; Olsen and
Bekey, 1986). These approaches use diﬀerent trajectories, which each
excite some parameters. This simpliﬁes the estimation procedure.
Due to the large diﬀerence between the values of the inertial param
eters of the wrist with respect to those of the base, Gautier (Gautier
et al., 1995) proposes to carry out the identiﬁcation in two experiments.
First, all joints are moved and the inertial parameters of the wrist axis
are identiﬁed. In a second experiment, only the base axes are excited
and the remaining dynamic parameters are identiﬁed.
Daemi et al. (Daemi and Heimann, 1996) propose to identify the
friction model for each link separately, and to compensate for its inﬂu
ence on the measured torques before starting the robot identiﬁcation.
This way, the parameter set for a 6dof robot is reduced by 12 ele
ments. To collect measurements for the friction model, each axis is
moved separately and constant velocity trajectories are applied. It is
clear that repeating this procedure for diﬀerent velocities is very time
consuming. In (Daemi and Heimann, 1998; Grotjahn et al., 2001), this
method is extended to the inertial parameters which are separated in
three groups. Each group is estimated in diﬀerent sets of experiments.
Measurements are carried out with simple motions in the neighbor
hood of especially selected joint conﬁgurations. First, the gravitational
torque is measured at diﬀerent conﬁgurations and the corresponding
inertial parameters are identiﬁed. Next, respectively the diagonal and
oﬀdiagonal elements of the mass/inertia matrix are identiﬁed. The
contribution of the already known gravitational parameters is compen
sated for. Finally, all identiﬁed parameter sets are combined to yield
the overall base parameter vector.
34 Literature Survey
Kozlowski (Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz, 1996) only uses movements
of single joints and simultaneous movements of two joints. A shortcom
ing of axis by axis excitation is the risk of accumulating errors since
the values of the already identiﬁed parameters will be used as a pri
ori knowledge in the identiﬁcation of the remaining parameters (Khalil
and Dombre, 2002). Some parameters, e.g. the oﬀdiagonal elements
of the inertia matrix, are only identiﬁable when more than one axis is
moved during the excitation.
In this work we will identify all parameters in one identiﬁcation
experiment using one optimized excitation trajectory. We recognize
that this approach might not be appropriate in all cases. For slow
moving robots, such as hydraulic manipulators, this approach may lead
to a badly conditioned estimation problem.
2.7.2 Optimization criteria
A proper choice of trajectory should ensure the excitation of the full
system in a suﬃcient way such that all parameters can accurately be
identiﬁed. Therefore, optimization techniques are used. This section
discusses some commonly used optimization criteria which should guar
antee the trajectory to be persistently exciting.
Armstrong suggested to minimize the condition number or the in
verse of the smallest singular value of the observation matrix (Arm
strong, 1989). The condition number of a matrix Φ is deﬁned as
cond(Φ) =
σ
max
(Φ)
σ
min
(Φ)
(2.25)
with σ
max
(Φ) and σ
min
(Φ) the largest and smallest singular value of Φ.
A small condition number decreases the sensitivity of the least squares
solution to errors in the measured torques τ or in the identiﬁcation
matrix Φ (Armstrong, 1989; Golub and Van Loan, 1989). This min
imizes the bias of the estimate due to unmodelled dynamics. Most
papers related to experimental robot identiﬁcation still use the condi
tion number of the identiﬁcation matrix as a measure of inﬂuence of
the disturbance on the parameter estimates (Gautier and Khalil, 1992;
Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz, 1996).
2.7. Experiment design 35
If good a priori knowledge
˜
θ about the unknown parameters θ is
available, the identiﬁcation matrix can be weighted by
˜
θ (Press´e and
Gautier, 1993).
Φ
w
= Φdiag(
˜
θ). (2.26)
A condition number of this weighted identiﬁcation matrix equal to one
then means that all parameters are estimated with the same relative
accuracy.
Other optimization criteria have been proposed (Antonelli et al.,
1999; Armstrong, 1989; Press´e and Gautier, 1993; Khalil and Dom
bre, 2002), e.g. maximization of the smallest singular value. Large
singular values ensure a small standard deviation on each parameter.
Combining this criterion with the condition number gives
cond(Φ) +λ
1
σ
min
(Φ)
. (2.27)
The variable λ indicates the relative importance of the two criteria.
Instead, another popular criterion is based on a scalar measure of
the covariance matrix. The doptimal criterion is the most appealing
because it guarantees minimal uncertainty on the parameter estimates
when only the torque measurements are corrupted by noise and the
identiﬁcation matrix is free of noise (Ljung, 1987; Swevers et al., 1997).
It minimizes
−log det(Φ
T
Σ
−1
Φ). (2.28)
Σ is the diagonal covariance matrix of the actuator torques.
We remark that excitation trajectories should not excite any un
modelled dynamics, like joint ﬂexibilities. All presented optimization
criteria fail to include this requirement.
2.7.3 Parameterization for the excitation trajectory
The choice of parameterization for the excitation trajectory is a very
important issue. It directly determines the number of parameters in
the optimization problem, and the eﬀort needed to calculate velocity
and accelerations from the position measurements.
36 Literature Survey
Gautier et al. (Gautier and Poignet, 2001) use ﬁfth order polyno
mials. The coeﬃcients can be optimized using some nonlinear opti
mization algorithm. In the identiﬁcation step, the joint velocities and
accelerations are estimated with bandpass ﬁltering of the position us
ing a low pass butterworth ﬁlter in both forward and reverse direction
and the central diﬀerence algorithm for derivatives because it is very
important to avoid distortion of the identiﬁcation matrix Φ.
Daemi et al. (Daemi and Heimann, 1996) use a method with only
a few parameters in order to reduce convergence problems and keep
computation time low. Therefore, initial points q
t
0
, ﬁnal points q
t
2
and one intermediate point q
t
1
are deﬁned for each axis and seventh
order polynomial trajectories are calculated to connect them. Velocities
and acceleration are set to zero at the initial and ﬁnal points. The
interpolated trajectories for each axis consist of two parts
q(t) =
6
¸
i=0
a
i
t
i
. .. .
A
+(d
1
+d
2
t)
6
¸
i=1
b
i
t
i
. .. .
B
(2.29)
where a
i
and b
i
are deﬁned such that part A solves the given boundary
conditions, and part B solves the homogeneous boundary conditions.
By varying d
1
and d
2
a number of diﬀerent trajectories can be gener
ated. The use of seventh order polynomials ensures shock and jerkless
trajectories such that the elasticities of the joints are not excited by
the driving torques.
In more recent work (Daemi and Heimann, 1998), the same authors
move the axes along some trapezoidal velocity proﬁle about the operat
ing point in a ‘backandforth’ movement. These trajectories have the
advantage that they can be realized easily in typical industrial robot
controllers.
Antonelli et al. (Antonelli et al., 1999) use a diﬀerent approach.
They ﬁrst solve the optimization problem to ﬁnd a set of optimal mea
surement points. Next, these optimal points are interpolated to obtain
smooth joint trajectories to be executed by the manipulator, e.g. by
using ﬁfth order polynomials or splines. The polynomial coeﬃcients
are ﬁxed by imposing continuity constraints between the trajectory
segments. Instead of constructing the identiﬁcation matrix only with
2.8. Parameter estimation 37
the optimized points, additional points along the trajectory are added
because this improves the optimization criterion. The authors propose
that these additional samples to be taken along the trajectory are se
lected via the following criterion. A sample is removed if the inclusion
increases the optimization criterion (which is the condition number)
with at least η, a suitably selected threshold.
In (Swevers et al., 1996), Swevers et al. introduce the concept
of periodic excitation. The excitation trajectory consists of a sum of
harmonic functions, i.e. a ﬁnite fourier series
q
i
(t) = q
i0
+
N
¸
k=1
a
i
k
sin(kω
f
t) +b
i
k
cos(kω
f
t)
. (2.30)
Although these trajectories are more diﬃcult to implement on an in
dustrial setup, this parameterization has several advantages. It is e.g.
possible to calculate the velocities and accelerations in the frequency
domain, which avoids phase distortions. The properties and advantages
of periodic excitation will be discussed in more detail in section 3.3 of
the next chapter.
The actual optimization of the excitation trajectory generally in
volves a high number of optimization variables. Solving such problem
requires a lot of computation time and may result in a local minimum.
Calaﬁore (Calaﬁore et al., 2001) presents a method based on a pa
rameterization using harmonic functions. The optimization problem is
solved using a Genetic Algorithm (GA). In practice, such optimization
algorithms have proven to be particularly eﬃcient and robust in the
global search of solutions of nonlinear optimization problems.
2.8 Parameter estimation
When the dynamic model has been derived and the excitation trajec
tory is optimized, the actual experiment can be carried out. During this
experiment the required signals are measured. Based on the collected
data, the unknown model parameters are estimated.
Two classes of estimation methods exist. On the one hand, oﬀline
estimation methods use a batch of measurement data and calculate
38 Literature Survey
the unknown parameter values in one calculation. In the online es
timation methods the parameter estimates are updated every time a
new measurement is available. Oﬀline estimation methods are more
frequently used because they are easier to implement, do not require
starting values and have no calculation time constraint.
Oﬀline parameter estimation
The classical leastsquares method is a wellknown method to solve an
overdetermined set of linear equations (equation (2.31)). Other more
complex methods exist that allow to take into account information
about the noise on input and output. More available a priori knowledge
generally yields better properties of the estimators.
As indicated in section 2.6.1, the dynamic model is in most cases
linear in the inertial parameters
τ = Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)θ. (2.31)
The easiest way to estimate θ is the least squares (LS) solution of an
overdetermined linear system (Canudas de Wit et al., 1996). The LS
estimator assumes the the identiﬁcation matrix Φ is of full column rank,
i.e. the set of parameters is minimal. The least squares solution is
ˆ
θ
LS
= (Φ
T
Φ)
−1
Φ
T
τ, (2.32)
where (Φ
T
Φ)
−1
Φ
T
is the pseudoinverse of the matrix Φ. This LS es
timator supposes that the torque measurements are corrupted with
Gaussian white noise and that the standard deviation is equal for all
actuators. In practice, this condition is not satisﬁed which leads to a
bias on the parameter estimates (Schoukens and Pintelon, 1991). How
ever, due to its simplicity, the least squares estimator is often used in
literature (Atkeson et al., 1986; Canudas de Wit et al., 1996; Grotjahn
et al., 2001).
An improvement over the classical LS estimator is the use of a
weighted least squares (WLS) estimator (Gautier, 1997; Khalil and
Dombre, 2002). In this estimator, the error is weighted with a weighting
matrix Σ, and the solution becomes
ˆ
θ
WLS
= arg min
θ
(τ −Φθ)
T
Σ
−1
(τ −Φθ). (2.33)
2.8. Parameter estimation 39
When the covariance matrix of the noise on τ is used as the weighting
matrix Σ, this WLS estimator is called the Markov estimator. In (Grot
jahn et al., 2001), the maximum torque of each axis is used as the
weighting factor.
Swevers (Swevers et al., 1997) proposed an approach based on the
maximum likelihood estimator (MLE). The maximum likelihood esti
mate θ
ML
is given by the value of θ which maximizes the likelihood.
Literature shows that this estimator is consistent, asymptotically unbi
ased and eﬃcient. In practical cases, the parameter estimation assumes
that the measured actuator torques are corrupted by independent zero
mean Gaussian noise, and that the joint angle measurements, and con
sequently also the joint velocities and accelerations, are free of noise.
Under these assumptions, the identiﬁcation matrix is considered to be
free of noise and the maximum likelihood parameter estimation corre
sponds to a Markov (or WLS) estimation problem. The weights are
the variance estimates of the actuator torques.
Olsen (Olsen and Petersen, 2001) implemented the full maximum
likelihood estimator which considers both noise on the torque mea
surements and on the joint position measurements and the derivatives
velocity and acceleration. Finding the solution of this estimation prob
lem is computationally expensive and requires a good initial guess of
the parameter values. Experimental results show that this maximum
likelihood estimator performs as well as the weighted least squares es
timator. The reason for this is that the variances of the noise on the
torque measurements are dominant compared to the noise on the joint
position measurements.
To further improve the estimation method, (Press´e and Gautier,
1992) proposes to take into account statistical a priori information
about the inertial parameters. This information can be obtained from
CAD data of the manufacturer or from the previous step in an itera
tive identiﬁcation process. Simulation results show that this Bayesian
approach results in smaller conﬁdence intervals on the parameter esti
mates.
The maximum likelihood principle assumes that the true parametric
model is known exactly. This assumption is, however, seldom veriﬁed
in practice, where models only approximate reality. A robust version
40 Literature Survey
of maximum likelihood takes the uncertainty in the underlying statis
tical model explicitly into account. In particular, the lower bound on
the worstcase value of the likelihood function is maximized. Calaﬁore
and El Ghaoui (Calaﬁore and El Ghaoui, 2001) show that the robust
maximum likelihood (RML) estimation problem with uncertainty in
the regression matrix and in the observations covariance can be solved
as a semideﬁnite optimization problem (SDP) using convex program
ming. The estimate maximizes the worstcase likelihood of the mea
sured sample. The method takes into account both uncertainty on the
measurements and uncertainty in the regression matrix. The proposed
methodology computes an ellipsoid of conﬁdence for the unknown pa
rameters. This information is directly used in the expression of the
robust control law. In (Bona et al., 2000), robust linear estimation
is applied to the problem of manipulator parameter estimation and
experimentally validated.
When the dynamic model is nonlinear in the unknown parameters,
a nonlinear iterative estimation procedure is required and the methods
of GaussNewton or LevenbergMarquardt can be used.
Online parameter updating
Some critical parameter values might change due to diﬀerent operation
conditions. For instance, the behavior of a satellite can be diﬀerent
in space or on earth due to modiﬁed temperature conditions and the
absence of gravity. Parameters may show variation with temperature
or with time, e.g. due to wear and tear. A monitoring system can
be used to detect the breakdown of a machine or a possible critical
situation by looking at the parameter values.
In these situations, it can be considered to estimate the parameters
online in order to cover time variations of parameters. This applica
tion, however, faces two diﬃculties (AlbuSch¨aﬀer, 2001):
1. To achieve convergence of the parameters the applied motion
must be persistently exciting the system, i.e. the measured sig
nals should include all necessary information. This is especially
the case if the estimation is done during normal operation and
no optimized excitation trajectory is used.
2.8. Parameter estimation 41
2. If the identiﬁed parameters are simultaneously used in the control
algorithm, measures should be taken to assure stability of the
system.
For the timedependent behavior of the physical parameters, an on
line estimation algorithm can be applied, such a the Recursive Least
Squares (RLS) (Gautier, 1986;
¨
Ostring and Gunnarsson, 2002). The
recursive version of the classical least squares does not require remem
bering all the past measurements. The resulting estimate is the same
as if we had solved one large estimation problem using all the data at
once. In (da Silva et al., 2000; Sch¨afer and da Silva, 2000), a modi
ﬁed Recursive Least Squares (RLS) algorithm with variable gain has
been derived. The gain is adjusted considering how good the previous
estimate has been.
An alternative method that takes into account uncertainty, is the
use of Kalman ﬁltering (Guglielmi et al., 1987). Based on the direct
dynamic model an extended state z is deﬁned. The extended state
includes both position and velocity and the model parameters. The
dynamic model
˙ z =
¨ q
˙ q
˙
θ
¸
¸
=
M
−1
[τ −C( ˙ q, q) ˙ q −g(q)]
˙ q
0
¸
¸
(2.34)
is nonlinear in the state parameters. A ﬁrst order discretization of the
dynamic equations (equation (2.34)) leads to the model equations for
the extended Kalman ﬁlter (EKF). The EKF is suitable as an online
state estimator which is also useful for control. Gautier (Gautier et al.,
1993; Gautier and Poignet, 2001) observes that the identiﬁcation re
sults for the EKF are very sensitive with respect to the a priori knowl
edge of initial values and convergence speed is lower than for WLS.
The EKF algorithm estimates both the velocities and the parameters
while WLS estimation needs the joint velocity and acceleration to be
calculated separately using bandpass ﬁlters. It does not appear to be
an advantage for the EKF because the oﬀline ﬁltering for the WLS
can take special care to avoid introducing phase distortion on the cal
culation of velocity and acceleration.
42 Literature Survey
Recently, a NonMinimal State Kalman Filter (Lefebvre et al.,
2003) is presented. It is a ﬁnitedimensional Bayesian ﬁlter that lin
earizes any kind of nonlinear measurement equation in a higher dimen
sional state space. A Kalman ﬁlter solves the linear estimation problem
in this higher dimensional space. However, this ﬁlter cannot be applied
because also the process model is nonlinear.
Honegger and Corke (Honegger and Corke, 2001) present an appli
cation to a hydraulic manipulator where the dynamic parameters, that
are required in the calculation of the feedforward torque, are identi
ﬁed online using adaptation algorithms. A gradient descent algorithm
is used to adapt the dynamic parameters. Experimental results show
that this parameter adaptation leads to an improved performance of
the feedforward controller.
In this work we will use an oﬀline estimator based on the maximum
likelihood framework. Due to the properties of the dynamic model, such
as linearity in the parameters and no uncertainty on the identiﬁcation
matrix, the estimator becomes in practice a weighted least squares
estimator.
2.9 Optimization techniques
Optimization is an important tool in science and engineering. In many
design applications, the decision maker has to choose the option that
is optimal in a certain sense. A lot of real world problems can be ex
pressed as optimization problems, usually with equality or inequality
constraints. An objective function or cost function quantiﬁes the per
formance of a design option as a function of the design variables. The
goal is to ﬁnd the values of these design variables that optimize the ob
jective function and satisfy the constraints. This section gives a short
overview of optimization theory for constrained nonlinear optimization
problems. A more theoretical discussion can be found in literature, e.g.
in (Nocedal and Wright, 1999).
There exists no universal optimization algorithm. Numerous pow
erful algorithms are available which are each appropriate for a spe
ciﬁc application, starting from linear programming (LP), linear least
squares (LLS) and quadratic programming (QP) methods. In practice,
2.9. Optimization techniques 43
the objective function becomes frequently a more complex nonlinear
function and constraints are added to satisfy physical properties or
design requirements. This results in using constrained and nonlinear
programming methods. Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) is
one of the most eﬀective and a widely used algorithms. In each itera
tion step, the objective function is locally approximated by a quadratic
function and the minimum of this approximation become the new guess
for the minimum of the objective function (Nocedal and Wright, 1999).
This process is repeated iteratively until convergence.
Ideally, every optimization should return the global optimum. Un
fortunately, this approach is not feasible in practice. The diﬃculty that
arises is that the objective function may have several local minima in
the region of interest. Standard nonlinear programming techniques
have not been successful for solving these problems with multiple local
minima, because they suﬀer from the drawback that they are not guar
anteed to reach the global optimum. In many practical engineering
applications, it is sometimes essential or at least desirable to determine
the global optimum of the objective function. Therefore, methods de
signed for global optimization are required. There are two alternatives:
exploit the structure of the problem, or give up the guarantee to ﬁnd
the global minimum. The ﬁrst alternative may lead to convex opti
mization, while the latter is mostly based on random search strategies.
Convex optimization
A special class of optimization problems where the global optimum is
found, are the convex optimization problems. They are characterized
by a convex objective function and a convex feasible set. An additional
requirement is that the equality constraints should be linear and the
inequality constraints concave. The term convex is applicable to both
set and function. A set C is a convex set if the line segment connecting
any two points in C lies completely in C, i.e. for any x, y ∈ C,
αx + (1 −α)y ∈ C for all α ∈ [0, 1]. (2.35)
A function f is convex if its domain is a convex set and if for all x and
y in this convex set, we have
f(αx + (1 −α)y) ≤ αf(x) + (1 −α)f(y) for all α ∈ [0, 1]. (2.36)
44 Literature Survey
Convex problems have interesting properties. These problems can be
solved numerically with great eﬃciency. If the algorithm converges, the
solution attained is guaranteed to be the global optimum. A detailed
discussion on convex optimization theory is given by Vandenberghe and
Boyd (Vandenberghe and Boyd, 1996).
The belief exists that many convex problems occur in engineering
problems, but they are not recognized as such. The major drawback
lies in the fact that recognizing a convex problem and ﬁnding an appro
priate reformulation towards a convex optimization problem requires
training and relies a lot on experience (and luck).
Global optimization
Unfortunately, not all optimization problems can be formulated as a
convex programming problem. In that case we face nonconvex opti
mization problems which may have many local minima. Therefore,
standard nonlinear optimization methods may fail to locate the global
minimum and other more general global optimization methods can be
used (T¨orn and
˘
Zilinskas, 1989; Horst and Pardalos, 1995). In contrast
to local optimization for which a gradient equal to zero and a condi
tion for the Hessian indicate a local minimum, no such criterion exists
in global optimization for asserting that the global minimum has been
reached.
As a consequence, the guarantee to ﬁnd the global optimum has
often to be given up and the full workspace has to be searched. The
research in this ﬁeld is basically divided in two branches, which may be
classiﬁed as follows. On the one hand, the stochastic approach uses the
idea of random search in constructing global optimization algorithms.
This is a widely used solution strategy. In the absence of a priori
information it seems rational to collect information about the problem
by taking a number of points uniformly distributed over the whole
region and evaluate the objective function in these points. The cost is
proportional to the number of function evaluations performed and will
be higher if the grid is made ﬁner.
The three simplest random search algorithms are pure random
search, singlestart, and multistart. Pure random search does not in
clude local reﬁnement at all. In singlestart a single local search is
2.9. Optimization techniques 45
performed starting from the best point in the sample. In multistart
each random point is taken as a starting point for local optimization.
These algorithms are very simple and will obviously ﬁnd the global
minimum as the number of function evaluations approaches inﬁnity,
but they are rather ineﬃcient. In order to improve their eﬃciency
these methods have been modiﬁed in diﬀerent ways. One class of mod
iﬁed methods are the clustering methods. In these a cluster analysis
algorithm is used to group points which lie around a local minimum.
The idea is to start just one local search for each local minimum.
Other stochastic methods like simulated annealing and genetic al
gorithms which use only function values are very popular among users,
although their rate of convergence is rather slow.
Deterministic methods on the other hand are guaranteed to ﬁnd the
global minimum. This solution implicitly searches all of the domain.
The BranchandBound concept is the main idea here. A Branchand
Bound method employs branching and bounding steps. Branching is
done by splitting a problem into several disjoint subproblems. Bound
ing is carried out by determining a lower and an upper bound on the
optimal value of the objective function for each of these subproblems.
These bounds are used to discard subproblems. If the lower bound
of a subproblem is larger than the function value at a known feasible
point, further reﬁnement will not produce the global minimum and the
subproblem can be cut oﬀ. This feature of BranchandBound methods
make them very powerful if it is possible to cut oﬀ subproblems early
in the process. The drawback of these methods is that possibly none of
the subsets can be cut oﬀ if the lower bounds are not suﬃciently tight.
In this case, the algorithm has to explore every subset and becomes
very ineﬃcient.
Interval analysis (Hansen, 1992; Jaulin et al., 2001) applies this con
cept to objective functions that are composed of simple onedimensional
functions and the four arithmetic operations addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division. A function is considered as simple if its
bound on every interval can be computed accurately and easily. A lower
bound on the optimal value can be determined by calculating the func
tion interval for the optimization domain. In every iteration, some part
of the domain is bisected into subregions and the lower bounds on the
46 Literature Survey
objective function in all regions is evaluated. Typically, the region with
the least lower bound is split.
At present, deterministic methods are useful only for well
structured problems with a very restrictive class of objective functions
and the required computational eﬀort increases exponentially with the
dimension of the problem.
2.10 Applications of dynamics models
The ﬁnal purpose of applying experimental robot identiﬁcation tech
niques is improving the accuracy of industrial robots. This requires
more than only an accurate dynamic model. A close interaction be
tween all elements is needed, as illustrated in ﬁgure 2.4. Mathematical
Parameterestimation Modelling
Pathplanning Modelbasedcontrol
Simulationand
offlineprogramming
Figure 2.4: Problem interaction for accurate industrial robots
models describe the kinematics, which are used to calculate the motion
of the endeﬀector, and the dynamics, used to calculate the required
actuator torques for that motion. To describe both kinematics and
dynamics in a suﬃciently accurate way, the geometrical, kinematical
and inertial parameters should be identiﬁed. Based upon these models
the path planner can generate an optimal trajectory which realizes the
desired motion within the workspace constraints and maximal velocity,
acceleration and actuator torque. Finally, the robot controller should
execute the trajectory with minimal tracking error. To perform this,
both path planner and robot controller should use an accurate dynamic
2.10. Applications of dynamics models 47
model. A logical following step is to incorporate all these elements in
a simulation program, facilitating oﬀline programming.
Optimal path planning
As soon as reliable dynamic models are available, optimization algo
rithms can be applied to minimize the cycle time of certain maneuvers.
Research on robot trajectory optimization began in the early sixties.
During the last decade the topic has received great interest and various
approaches have been proposed based on diﬀerent problem formulations
and diﬀerent types of robot models.
The two major types of trajectory optimization problems are the
prescribed path problem and the pointtopoint (PTP) problem. In
the prescribed path problem, the tool center point (TCP) is required
to move along a predeﬁned trajectory with given orientation. These
data uniquely deﬁne the joint positions, so that only the velocity proﬁle
along the path remains to be optimized. In the pointtopoint problem,
only the initial and ﬁnal point are speciﬁed. In this case, the shape of
the trajectory is subject to optimization.
Steinbach et al. (Steinbach et al., 1998) present an optimization
method for timeoptimal motion planning using the inverse dynamic
model, which eliminates the need for numerical integration of diﬀer
ential equations. A sensitivity analysis reveals that a reduction of the
speed limit increases the time required for the motion, while reducing
the actuator torque limits does not degrade performance much.
Heim et al. (Heim et al., 1997; Heim and von Stryk, 2000) present
a method for solving the constraint trajectory optimization problem
by using full dynamic robot models. The authors remark that time
optimal trajectories are very aggressive, reaching the performance lim
its for at least one actuator. This puts extremely high loads on the
joints. Small deviations from the desired trajectory may lead to in
stabilities. Optimizing a trajectory with minimal energy consumption
results in a trajectory that is only 10% slower, but with considerably
lower forces and torques on the joints. This reduces the wear of the
robot and proves to be more robust in practice. In (Saramago and
Steﬀen, 1998), optimal travelling time and minimum mechanical en
ergy of the actuators are considered together to build a multiobjective
48 Literature Survey
function. The optimization problem takes into account kinematic and
dynamic constraints and uses a dynamic model.
Modelbased control
Industrial manipulators are usually controlled by conventional PID
type independent joint controllers. They are designed under the as
sumption that the dynamics of the links are uncoupled and linear.
To improve the performance of the PID controllers, the modelbased
manipulator control problem has been studied extensively in robotics
literature and many control schemes have been proposed (Luh et al.,
1980; An et al., 1986; Canudas de Wit et al., 1996; Craig, 1988; Slotine,
1985). One of the modelbased techniques is the feedforward dynam
ics compensation method which computes the desired torques from the
given trajectory and injects these torques as feedforward control sig
nals. Khosla and Kanade (Khosla and Kanade, 1988) reported that this
scheme with the feedforward signal eﬀectively linearizes the manipu
lator system about a given trajectory. However, it does not achieve
exact decoupling. In contrast, the computedtorque scheme in which
the dynamic model is included in the feedback loop achieves both the
linearization as well as decoupling. Craig (Craig, 1986) emphasized
that the control algorithm synthesis problem of this feedback control
algorithm is more diﬃcult compared to other control schemes. He also
reported in (Craig, 1988) that the computedtorque servo scheme is an
excellent way to use a dynamic model of a manipulator (if it were exact)
in the controller. Despite the fact that industrial experiment conditions
are far from those provided by research setups, the results obtained on
an industrial setup have conﬁrmed that it is worth using feedforward
compensation control (Caccavale and Chiacchio, 1994). Even partial
compensation of the dynamics still gives good performance.
Although theoretical and experimental results have shown that
modelbased control techniques outperform the conventional PID con
troller, they are not widely used in industry. The main reasons for this
are the dominant friction, the lack of accurate model parameters (Craig,
1986), and the time required to compute the model online. The avail
able computation power nowadays removes the latter practical objec
tion to implementing modelbased control. Experimental identiﬁcation
2.10. Applications of dynamics models 49
is an eﬃcient way to obtain good parameter estimates.
To circumvent the problem of ﬁnding an accurate dynamic model,
learning control techniques have been presented. The adaptive version
of the inverse dynamics control scheme was studied in (Craig, 1988).
Norrl¨of (Norrl¨of, 2002) applied Iterative Learning Control to industrial
robots.
A more practical objection to using modelbased control is the ab
sence of a torque interface to apply the feedforward signal. The only
remaining possibility is to add a correction to the reference position
signal. Lange (Lange and Hirzinger, 1996; Lange and Hirzinger, 1999)
proposed the use of linear decoupled impulse response models for each
joint controller in order to reduce path deviations. This method does
not take into account the nonlinear eﬀects. Grotjahn (Grotjahn and
Heimann, 2002) presents a method which reduces path deviations by
precorrection of the desired trajectory. The corrections are calculated
based on a nonlinear dynamic model of the robot. The method is appli
cable to industrial robots if an interface for path corrections is available,
and if joint angles and torques are measurable. The calculated desired
torques are transferred into trajectory corrections using the inverted
controller model. A similar trajectory compensation approach which
was developed almost simultaneously, will be presented in chapter 6.
Simulation and oﬀline programming
Today onsite teaching is still common practice. Depending on the ex
perience and intuition of the personnel, this method results in accurate,
collisionfree trajectories. Advanced oﬀline programming and simula
tion tools using a dynamic robot model make it possible to design and
simulate oﬀline robot motions, accurately predicting the robot behav
ior. This reduces the need for costly and time consuming reteaching.
In the beginning of the 1990’s, the precise simulation of robot mo
tion behavior was a major obstacle for successful oﬀline programming
of industrial robots. Although considerable eﬀorts were done, simulated
trajectories deviated from real ones due to diﬀerences between the sim
ulation model and the real robot motion planner and controller. The
situation was signiﬁcantly improved by the project ‘Realistic Robot
50 Literature Survey
Simulation’ (RRS) (Bernhardt et al., 1995). The approach was to inte
grate the motion software of robot controllers into simulation systems.
A standard interface was deﬁned to allow the coupling of any robot
software with any simulation system software. Although the aim of
the project was very attractive, robot manufacturers only oﬀer speciﬁc
commercial software tools for oﬀline programming and simulation of
their robots. Unfortunately, no dynamic model is included in these
tools.
2.11 Conclusions
This chapter presented an overview of the literature on experimental
robot identiﬁcation. Diﬀerent identiﬁcation approaches using internal
and external models were introduced. Both approaches follow a sim
ilar identiﬁcation procedure. The model generation of the rigid body
dynamics is based on the integral formulation or on the diﬀerential
formulation. The latter is more appropriate for control purposes. The
obtained rigid body model is extended to account for additional ef
fects, like friction. To ensure persistent excitation of the robot system,
several parameterizations for the excitation trajectories were presented
in literature which are optimized according to an appropriate criteria.
The most frequently used optimization criteria are the condition num
ber of the identiﬁcation matrix and the determinant of the covariance
matrix. In order to ﬁnd the globally optimal excitation trajectory, a
short overview of convex and global optimization techniques was given.
The parameter estimation step of the identiﬁcation procedure can be
done oﬀline or online. The most widely known oﬀline estimation
techniques are the least squares estimator, the weighted least squares
estimator and the maximum likelihood estimator. When the estimation
is done online, the recursive least squares estimator and the extended
Kalman ﬁlter are frequently used. Finally, some applications for dy
namic models in the domain of optimal path planning, modelbased
control, and simulation and oﬀline programming were presented.
3
Experimental robot identiﬁcation:
practical issues
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.
Albert Einstein
3.1 Introduction
Literature has presented several approaches to experimental robot iden
tiﬁcation, which all have their speciﬁc advantages. When we proceed
from theory to a practical application, ﬁnal choices have to be made
to ﬁll in the diﬀerent elements of the identiﬁcation procedure. They
should be integrated in order to become a coherent procedure.
This chapter works out the identiﬁcation procedure in more de
tail and applies it to the identiﬁcation of an industrial manipulator.
51
52 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
Section 3.2 describes the manipulator model structure and derives a
dynamic model which is linear in the inertial parameters. The use of
periodic excitation and the design of an optimal excitation trajectory
are discussed in sections 3.3 and 3.4. In section 3.5, the maximum like
lihood parameter estimation framework and its statistical properties
are brieﬂy introduced. The validation step of the identiﬁcation proce
dure is the subject of section 3.6. Finally, the inﬂuence of considering
additional eﬀects is illustrated using experimental results presented in
section 3.7.
3.2 Model generation
The dynamic robot model is certainly the most important part for the
identiﬁcation procedure. A good model has to satisfy two conﬂicting
objectives. It must include enough detail to describe the real behavior
of the manipulator with suﬃcient accuracy and detail. On the other
hand, it should permit a wellconditioned parameter estimation. The
necessary degree of detail may depend on the actual application and
on the required accuracy.
This section discusses the components to be taken into account for
the model generation. For each component it is important to ﬁnd a
suitable mathematical description which allows accurate and simple,
i.e. linear, parameter estimation. To preserve linearity in the unknown
parameters, an adequate parameterization must be chosen and the re
quired a priori information should be collected.
3.2.1 General manipulator structure
A robot manipulator consists of several components which are con
nected and interact in order to execute the task. Before going into
more detail on the individual components, it is important to describe
the general manipulator structure. Figure 3.1 gives a schematic repre
sentation of a robot manipulator.
The robot structure can be divided into a vertical and a horizontal
direction. The vertical direction represents the serial robot construc
tion where all robot links are interconnected in a chain. This subsystem
3.2. Model generation 53
link4
link3
link2
link5
link6
link1
actuator4 transmission friction
actuator3 transmission friction
actuator2 transmission friction
actuator5 transmission friction
actuator6 transmission friction
actuator1 transmission friction
payload
robotbase r
i
g
i
d
b
o
d
y
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
o
f
s
e
r
i
a
l
m
a
n
i
p
u
l
a
t
o
r
Figure 3.1: Schematic representation of manipulator
is described by the rigid body dynamics and introduces the nonlinear
coupling eﬀects between the axes. Models describing the rigid body
dynamics are well studied in literature (see the discussion of integral
and diﬀerential formulation in section 2.5.1). Many algorithms were
presented, such as the recursive NewtonEuler equations.
In the horizontal direction of the manipulator structure, we ﬁnd the
drive train of each joint axis consisting of the actuator, the gear trans
mission, friction and the robot link. The actuators generate the torques
which drive the motion of the manipulator. Although servo drives have
a small rotor inertia, accelerating and decelerating the rotor inertia re
quires a considerable part of the generated actuator torque. This is due
to the high transmission ratios which result in a fast spinning actuator
rotor. To simplify the model generation, the dynamic parameters are
often expressed at the reduction or joint side, instead of the actuator
side. This requires the measured torques and encoder positions to be
transformed to the joint side. The rotor inertia is transformed by mul
tiplication with the square of the transmission ratio. The inertia of the
gear transmission is usually neglected and added to the rotor inertia or
the link inertia. Friction should be added to these components since it
consumes a part of the actuator torque. Mostly, friction losses are as
54 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
sumed to be spread over the actuator and the gears. In identiﬁcation,
however, it is impossible to distinguish the diﬀerent friction sources.
Therefore, friction is arbitrarily introduced in the scheme as a separate
block.
The robot payload is connected to the end eﬀector of the last link.
In this chapter, the payload will be discarded. Its identiﬁcation will be
the subject of chapter 5.
3.2.2 The rigid body dynamics
The rigid body dynamics are the central part of the manipulator struc
ture. The inverse dynamics equation
τ = M(q)¨ q +C(q, ˙ q) ˙ q +g(q) (3.1)
gives the required torque for a desired motion of the robot links. The
equations can be derived according to the recursive NewtonEuler for
mulation or the Lagrange formulation. To obtain linearity in the un
known parameters, an appropriate parameterization must be chosen
instead of the classical parameters (m
i
, c
i
and I
C
i
). In this work, the
barycentric parameters and the NewtonEuler parameters are used.
Barycentric parameters
One way to obtain the abovementioned linear identiﬁcation model is
based on the socalled barycentric parameters (Maes et al., 1989), which
are combinations of the inertial parameters of the diﬀerent bodies. The
barycentric parameters for link body i (ﬁgure 3.2) are deﬁned as follows:
• The barycentric mass
¯ m
i
= m
i
+
¸
j>i
m
j
, (3.2)
which is deﬁned as the mass of the link body, augmented by the
total mass of all descendants (j > i) in the treelike structure.
For a serial manipulator, the descendants are the following links
in the chain up to the end eﬀector and the payload.
3.2. Model generation 55
O
i
C
i
c
i
l
ij
j
k
l
Linkbody i
l
il
Figure 3.2: Geometric parameters for link body i
• The barycentric moment
b
i
= m
i
c
i
+
¸
j>i
m
j
l
ij
, (3.3)
with l
ij
the joint vector which locates the connection point of body
j on link body i. Since this vector is only deﬁned for consecutive
bodies, the notation is extended to all the indices k, deﬁning
l
ik
= l
ij
for i < j ≤ k.
• The barycentric tensor
K
i
= I
C
i
−m
i
˜ c
i
˜ c
i
−
¸
j>i
m
j
˜
l
ij
˜
l
ij
, (3.4)
where ˜· denotes the skewsymmetric tensor associated with the
cross product, e.g.:
˜ c
i
=
0 −c
z,i
c
y,i
c
z,i
0 −c
x,i
−c
y,i
c
x,i
0
¸
¸
. (3.5)
The use of these barycentric parameters provides a model for the
robot dynamics which is linear in a combination of the inertial pa
rameters of both robot links and payload. In addition, rules are es
tablished to deﬁne the minimal set of dynamical parameters (Fisette
56 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
et al., 1996). A side eﬀect of the barycentric parameters appears when
it comes to payload identiﬁcation. The payload is the last link body in
the robot tree structure, e.g. link body k in ﬁgure 3.2. The barycentric
parameters of the last link are exactly the same as the NewtonEuler
parameters, which will be discussed next. However, all barycentric
parameters contain a contribution of the inertial parameters of the de
scendent link bodies, and therefore also those of the robot payload.
This means that most barycentric parameters change when the robot
payload is changed. A disadvantage of barycentric parameters is the
more diﬃcult physical interpretation of the parameter values.
NewtonEuler parameters
Another way towards linearity uses the NewtonEuler parameters. This
parameterization is widely used in literature and contains the following
parameters
• The mass m
i
• The ﬁrst order moment s
i
= m
i
c
i
, with c
i
the position of the
center of gravity expressed in the link frame.
• The second order moments and products of inertia I, i.e. the
inertia tensor is expressed about the axes of the link frame instead
of the frame in the center of gravity. The parallel axis theorem
is used for the recalculation between the two frames.
This parameterization has the same advantages as the barycentric pa
rameters. The resulting models are linear in the unknown parameters,
which simpliﬁes signiﬁcantly their estimation. In addition, the physical
interpretation of the NewtonEuler parameters is much easier. These
parameters will be used for the payload identiﬁcation in chapter 5.
3.2.3 Additional eﬀects
As depicted in ﬁgure 3.1, the dynamic robot model includes more com
ponents than only the link inertias. The rigid body dynamics are cer
tainly the most complex component which is extensively discussed in
3.2. Model generation 57
the robot literature. Nevertheless, the additional eﬀects, like friction
and rotor inertia, are indispensable to obtain an accurate dynamic
model.
The following eﬀects aﬀect the accuracy of the dynamic model and
should be taken into account:
Kinematic calibration. Every mechanical construction contains
some small deviations from the original speciﬁcation which af
fect the position accuracy of the manipulator. A calibration
procedure can identify more accurate geometric and kinematic
information. This information must be used for the derivation of
the rigid body dynamics model.
Inclusion of rotor inertia. The fast spinning rotor inertias of some
actuators introduce an additional dynamic coupling between the
diﬀerent joint axes. Especially for fast motions this eﬀect becomes
important.
Gravity compensation device. Some manipulators are equipped
with a spring which partly compensates the gravitational torque
on one joint axis. This torque can be modelled and included in
the identiﬁcation model.
Friction. This phenomenon is present in each mechanical manipula
tor and consumes a signiﬁcant part of the actuator torque. An
accurate model describing the real physical behavior is therefore
required.
The results from the literature survey will not revisited here, but ap
propriate model extensions for these eﬀects will be given in section 3.7.
The discussion will be based on measurement results. This makes it
possible to compare diﬀerent alternatives and draw conclusions on the
performance of a individual model description. Linearity in the un
known parameters will be a very important criteria.
58 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
3.3 Experiment design using periodic robot
excitation
The second step in the identiﬁcation procedure is the design and exe
cution of a robot excitation experiment. Accurate robot identiﬁcation
requires specially designed experiments. Experiment design includes
choosing a trajectory parameterization and ﬁxing the corresponding
optimal trajectory parameters. In the design of an identiﬁcation exper
iment, it is essential to consider whether (1) the excitation is suﬃcient
to provide accurate and fast parameter estimation in the presence of
disturbances, and (2) whether the processing of the resulting data is
simple and yields consistent and accurate results. This section discusses
the approach used in this work and shows how both requirements are
satisﬁed if the robot excitation is periodic. The ﬁxing of the optimal
trajectory parameters is the subject of the following section.
3.3.1 Trajectory parameterization
Several approaches to robot excitation have been presented in litera
ture (section 2.7). They all use a diﬀerent trajectory parameterization,
most of them not resulting in periodic trajectories. Swevers et al. (Sw
evers et al., 1997) propose a robot excitation which is periodic. This is
one of the key elements of the presented robot identiﬁcation method.
The excitation trajectory is a ﬁnite Fourier series, yielding a periodic
response, i.e. all measured signals are periodic, after the transient robot
response has died out. This approach is adopted and the advantages
related to the periodicity of the excitation are discussed here and il
lustrated in section 3.7.6. The excitation trajectory for each joint is
a ﬁnite Fourier series, i.e. the angular position q
i
for each joint i is
written as a ﬁnite sum of harmonic sine and cosine functions:
q
i
(t) = q
i,0
+
N
¸
k=1
(a
i,k
sin(kω
f
t) +b
i,k
cos(kω
f
t)) (3.6)
with ω
f
the fundamental pulsation of the ﬁnite Fourier series, and t is
the time. This Fourier series speciﬁes a periodic function with period
T
f
= 2π/ω
f
. Each Fourier series contains 2N+1 parameters, which are
3.3. Experiment design using periodic robot excitation 59
the degrees of freedom for the optimization problem: the amplitudes
a
i,k
and b
i,k
of the sine and cosine functions, for k = 1 to N, and q
i,0
which is the oﬀset on the position trajectory. Appropriate values for
these trajectory parameters can be selected by means of trial and error,
as it is done in industry, or by solving a complex nonlinear optimiza
tion problem with motion constraints. This problem is addressed in
section 3.4.
The fundamental pulsation is common for all joints, resulting in a
periodic robot excitation. This is advantageous because it allows:
• timedomain data averaging, which yields data reduction and im
proves the signaltonoise ratio of the experimental data,
• estimation of the variance of the measurement noise by calculat
ing the sample variance,
• analytic calculation of the joint velocities and accelerations from
the measured joint angles,
• to specify the bandwidth of the excitation trajectory,
• continuous derivatives up to higher order,
• to reduce the experiment time.
3.3.2 Properties of periodic excitation
The advantages of using periodic excitation are discussed in more
detail now, and will be illustrated in section 3.7.6 based on experimental
results.
The signaltonoise ratio of the measured signals can be improved
by data averaging, which is possible because of the periodicity of the
data. The averaged trajectory ¯ q and torque ¯ τ are obtained from
¯ q =
1
M
M
¸
m=1
q
m
(3.7)
¯ τ =
1
M
M
¸
m=1
τ
m
(3.8)
60 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
where M is the number of measured periods, and q
m
and τ
m
the m
th period of the trajectory and the measured torque. Improving the
signaltonoise ratio is extremely important since motor current mea
surements are usually very noisy. This technique is preferable to low
pass noise ﬁltering because ﬁltering colors the noise, and consequently
complicates a consistent and eﬃcient, e.g. maximum likelihood, pa
rameter estimation (Schoukens and Pintelon, 1991).
The variance of the noise on the measured signals can be calcu
lated by means of the sample variance, without performing additional
measurement:
σ
2
q
=
1
(MK −1)
K
¸
k=1
M
¸
m=1
(q
m
(k) − ¯ q(k))
2
, (3.9)
σ
2
τ
=
1
(MK −1)
K
¸
k=1
M
¸
m=1
(τ
m
(k) − ¯ τ(k))
2
, (3.10)
where K is the number of samples per period, the index k and the
subscript m indicate the kth sample of the mth period. Knowing
the noise variance is valuable information for the maximum likelihood
parameter estimation discussed below. The variance of the noise on
the averaged joint position and actuator torque measurements is esti
mated by dividing the equations (3.9) and (3.10) by M. Noise results
in a nonsystematic error that can be reduced as much as desired by
measuring for a longer time and averaging the measured position and
torque signals over more periods.
The calculation of the joint velocities and accelerations can be per
formed by analytical diﬀerentiation of the measured joint angles. This
is possible because these signals are periodic, ﬁnite Fourier series.
˙ q
i
(t) =
N
¸
k=1
(a
i,k
kω
f
cos(kω
f
t) −b
i,k
kω
f
sin(kω
f
t)) (3.11)
¨ q
i
(t) =
N
¸
k=1
−a
i,k
k
2
ω
2
f
sin(kω
f
t) −b
i,k
k
2
ω
2
f
cos(kω
f
t)
(3.12)
For the analytical diﬀerentiation, the measured encoder readings are
ﬁrst approximated in a least squares sense, as a ﬁnite sum of sine and
3.4. Generation of the excitation trajectory 61
cosine functions. This approximation is done to avoid a systematic
errors due to a tracking error which give a deviation from the desired
excitation trajectory. The resulting sum, which corresponds to equa
tion (3.6), is then analytically diﬀerentiated once or twice to obtain
velocity and acceleration, respectively. This approach corresponds to
frequency domain diﬀerentiation combined with frequency domain win
dowing. First, the discrete Fourier transform of the averaged encoder
readings is calculated and the excited frequency lines are selected by fre
quency domain windowing (using a rectangular window). The selected
frequency lines are then multiplied with the frequency response of a
pure single and double diﬀerentiator, i.e. multiplied with jω and −ω
2
,
with ω the frequency in radians per second. The obtained frequency
spectra are then transformed back into time domain using the inverse
discrete Fourier transform, yielding joint velocities and accelerations.
The choice of the base frequency and the harmonics immediately
makes it possible to specify the bandwidth of the excitation signal.
The highest frequency can be chosen to be lower than the resonance
frequency of the manipulator. This design criterion is not available
with random pointtopoint motions.
The use of a Fourier series gives a trajectory which is continuously
diﬀerentiable up to any order. This is an interesting property since it
avoids the excitation of unwanted dynamic eﬀects. The frequently used
polynomial trajectories do not have this property, e.g. the 5th order
polynomial has a discontinuity in the jerk.
The global approach to trajectory design allows to excite all joint
axes in only one experiment. This eliminates the need for special sets
of motions to achieve accurate estimates of the dynamic parameters.
It is clear that periodic excitation has several advantages over the
classical excitation trajectories. Therefore, this approach is used in this
thesis and its advantages are maximally exploited.
3.4 Generation of the excitation trajectory
Although the advantages of a periodic excitation trajectory are easy
to understand, the problem of ﬁnding the parameters of the optimal
62 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
trajectory is much more diﬃcult. In this section, this problem is for
mulated and diﬀerent solution approaches are discussed.
3.4.1 General problem formulation
Once the trajectory parameterization has been chosen, the trajectory
parameters should be chosen to obtain a persistent excitation. This
means that it is essential to consider whether the excitation gives an
acceptable signaltonoise ratio, is suﬃcient to provide accurate param
eter estimation in the presence of disturbances, and yields consistent
and accurate results. In literature, some criteria have been deﬁned to
express the exciting performance, e.g. the condition number of the
observation matrix, or the determinant of the parameter covariance
matrix, etc.
In practice, the optimal trajectory will cover the workspace as much
as possible and use the maximum speed and acceleration. This follows
from the equation of the robot dynamics (3.1). To excite the inertia, the
acceleration should be high, for the centrifugal and Coriolis terms the
velocity should be high, and ﬁnally for the gravitational parameters the
joint positions should be chosen such that gravity generates the largest
torque diﬀerences at the actuators.
Example 3.1
Optimal use of the acceleration is illustrated with an example. As
sume the simple identiﬁcation model
τ = I ¨ q (3.13)
where I is the only unknown parameter. Figure 3.3 shows two ap
proaches for the excitation. If the sample points are spread over the
full acceleration range, the situation on the left is obtained. The es
timated response (solid line) deviates from the true response (dashed
line) due to the noise on the individual sample points. A better al
ternative is shown on the right side of the ﬁgure. The sample points
are chosen close to the extreme values of the acceleration ¨ q
min
and
¨ q
max
. The repetition of the sample points, also realized by peri
odic excitation, reduces the noise level. As a result, the estimated
response is less sensitive to the noise.
3.4. Generation of the excitation trajectory 63
t
o
r
q
u
e
t
o
r
q
u
e
acceleration acceleration
q
min
:
q
max
:
Figure 3.3: Choice of the sample points: randomly distributed
(left), close to the extreme values (right). Estimated
response in solid line and true response in dashed line
The trajectories should however be feasible, i.e. the robot should be
able to execute them. The consideration of the actual robot kinematics
and dynamics imposes a number of constraints:
• maximum and minimum joint angles q
max
and q
min
, imposed by
the robot construction,
• maximum velocity ˙ q
max
and maximum acceleration ¨ q
max
, im
posed by the robot manufacturer to prevent wearing of the robot
or by the maximal forces and torques allowed,
• constraints imposed by the environment of the robot to avoid
collision. This region is frequently approximated by a cilinder,
speciﬁed by a minimum and maximum radius r
ee
and height h
ee
,
in which the robot end eﬀector should stay. These constraints
involve forward kinematics calculations,
• maximum actuator torque τ
max
, imposed by the maximum cur
rent in the armature windings. The evaluation of this constraint
poses diﬃculties because it requires the inertial parameters to be
known,
64 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
• maximum forces in the transmission gears. Exceeding these limits
can cause the gear teeth to break, for instance.
• avoid excitation of ﬂexibilities, backlash and nonlinearities which
are not taken into account in the identiﬁcation model.
The actuator torque and velocity are limited by physical and tech
nical characteristics of the motor and the reduction. Some of the limits
ensure a certain lifetime of the drive under normal operation, other
prevent the motor and gear from destruction.
The last constraint concerning the ﬂexibilities is impossible to quan
tify and include since we only consider rigid body dynamics in this
work. It is however very important to have measurements which are
consistent with the used model. Otherwise, the unmodelled but ex
cited dynamics will result in large estimation residuals. Therefore, we
should be very careful when designing the excitation experiment. This
remark imposes an important restriction on the meaning of optimality.
A trajectory which is optimal according to the optimization cost func
tion and satisﬁes the ﬁrst constraints, will probably not be optimal for
the last constraint.
Now that the requirement of persistent excitation is explained and
the constraints deﬁned, the problem of ﬁnding the trajectory param
eters can be tackled. The trajectory parameters can be ﬁxed through
optimization (Swevers et al., 1997), or by means of a heuristic solution.
Both alternatives are discussed in the following two sections.
3.4.2 Solution by optimization
The ﬁrst alternative describes the problem of ﬁnding the optimal ex
citation trajectories as an optimization problem. A cost function or
optimization criterion is deﬁned which is a measure of the goodness of
the trajectory as a function of the trajectory parameters. Constraints
are added which express the physical limitations of the manipulator.
Finally, optimization techniques solve the problem by optimizing the
cost function but also satisfying the constraints.
In this work, the covariance matrix C of the parameter estimates is
optimized. Since this matrix cannot be used directly as an optimization
3.4. Generation of the excitation trajectory 65
criterion, it is replaced by a scalar measure log det(·) of the parameter
covariance matrix, yielding the socalled doptimality criterion (Ljung,
1987). The doptimality criterion has an interesting physical inter
pretation: the determinant of the covariance matrix is related to the
volume of the uncertainty ellipsoid for the parameters. Minimizing this
criterion also minimizes the uncertainty on the parameter estimates. In
the case of the Markov estimate (Swevers et al., 1996) estimate, the pa
rameter covariance matrix equals C = (Φ
T
Σ
−1
Φ)
−1
(equation (3.29))
and depends only on the robot trajectory via the identiﬁcation matrix
Φ and the variance of the noise on the torque measurements. It does
not depend on the model parameters θ.
The optimization problem can be formulated as:
minimize log det C (3.14)
subject to
q
min
≤ q(β) ≤ q
max
(3.15)
˙ q
min
≤ ˙ q(β) ≤ ˙ q
max
(3.16)
¨ q
min
≤ ¨ q(β) ≤ ¨ q
max
(3.17)
r
min
≤ r
ee
(q(β)) ≤ r
max
(3.18)
h
min
≤ h
ee
(q(β)) ≤ h
max
(3.19)
τ
min
≤ Φ(q(β), ˙ q(β), ¨ q(β)) θ ≤ τ
max
. (3.20)
The optimization algorithm returns the trajectory parameter vector β
which solves this problem. To simplify the optimization, the vector
β includes only the trajectory parameters q
i,0
, a
i,k
and b
i,k
of equa
tion (3.6) for all joints. The fundamental pulsation ω
f
and the number
of harmonics are ﬁxed in advance.
The constraint equations are all function of the trajectory param
eters β. Equations (3.15) to (3.17) are respectively the motion con
straints on the joint angles, velocities, and accelerations which are im
posed by physical limitations. In most cases, they are speciﬁed by the
robot manufacturer. Due to the use of Fourier series for the trajectory,
these constraints are linear in the parameters of β. Therefore, the mo
tion constraints are easy to handle and rather cheap to evaluate. In
addition, this is an advantageous property when formulating a convex
optimization problem.
66 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
In a concrete working environment, the motion of the robot end
eﬀector position in the cartesian space is limited in order to avoid col
lision of the robot with the environment and with itself. This type
of constraint involves forward kinematics calculations. To simplify the
equations, the allowed workspace for the end eﬀector is approximated
by a cylinder. A constraint is then imposed on the radius r
ee
(equa
tion (3.18)) and on the height h
ee
(equation (3.19)). For a standard
industrial manipulator, these equations are mainly function of the po
sitions of the second and third joint axes. The constraint on the end
eﬀector motion is nonlinear in the trajectory parameters, but it may
easily be approximated by some linear constraints.
Equation (3.20) expresses the constraint on the maximum actuator
torque which prevents the actuator from being overloaded. This dy
namic constraint requires the evaluation of the inverse dynamics. Since
the dynamic parameter values are not known for the ﬁrst experiment
design, this dynamic constraint can only be taken into account if a
priori knowledge about the parameter values is available, e.g. from
CAD or a previous identiﬁcation experiment. This suggests an iter
ative experiment design. First, an excitation trajectory is designed
without taking into account the dynamic constraint. This experiment
is aimed at obtaining initial estimates of the dynamic parameters. In
a second design, an optimal excitation trajectory is found which takes
into account all constraints. The dynamic constraint remains however
nonlinear in the trajectory parameters β. Therefore, this constraint is
frequently replaced with a tighter constraint on the maximal acceler
ation. Although this approximation is not equivalent, the constraint
becomes linear in β and no a priori knowledge is required.
In general the constraints are almost linear in the trajectory pa
rameters β, or they can be approximated by a linear function, making
them easy to evaluate. The cost function (equation (3.14)) is however
a complex nonlinear function of the trajectory parameters β, which
cannot easily be reformulated in a convex form. As a consequence,
the global optimum is not guaranteed to be found, and iterative search
algorithms, like sequential quadratic programming (SQP), have to be
used. They locally approximate the cost function converging to a local
minimum. Repeating the optimization using many diﬀerent starting
values increases the chance of ﬁnding a better excitation trajectory.
3.4. Generation of the excitation trajectory 67
This is however a very time consuming solution.
Concerning the solution of the trajectory design by optimization,
the following remarks can be made. First, a good excitation requires a
high number of harmonics for each joint trajectory, i.e. many optimiza
tion parameters in the trajectory parameter vector β. Since the more
degrees of freedom there are in the optimization problem, the more
local minima exist, it is impossible to ﬁnd an appropriate excitation
trajectory within an acceptable time. Second, it should experimen
tally be veriﬁed if the diﬀerence between an optimal and a suboptimal
excitation trajectory results in a practical signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the
accuracy of the dynamic parameter estimates. If not, a minimal level
of optimality may be deﬁned such that we should not worry about
reaching only a local optimum.
3.4.3 Heuristic solution
Using the optimization approach requires a lot of calculation time to
ﬁnd a (satisfying) solution. Although eﬃcient optimization algorithms
are used, it is not guaranteed that the global optimum is found. As
an alternative the trajectory parameters can be selected by means of
trial and error, as is frequently done in industry. By observing the op
timization problem, some heuristic rules of thumb can be found which
might give insight in the parameter selection. This section summarizes
the experiences gained in this work in a qualitative way.
The optimization considers only the coeﬃcients of the sine and
cosine functions as the degrees of freedom, yielding an optimization
problem which is hard to solve. In practice however, more degrees of
freedom are available to set up the excitation experiment. Beside the
coeﬃcients, also the fundamental pulsation ω
f
, the number of periods
measured, the number of harmonic terms, and the number of joints
axes excited during the identiﬁcation experiment should be chosen.
The coeﬃcients a
i
and b
i
are related to the amplitude and phase
of one frequency by the goniometric equation
a
i
cos θ +b
i
sin θ = Acos(θ −ϕ) (3.21)
where A is the amplitude and the angle ϕ represents the phase.
68 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
The amplitudes are limited by the motion constraints in equa
tions (3.15) to (3.17). For a trajectory which only contains the k
th harmonic q(t) = A
k
sin(kω
f
t), the amplitude A
k
is constrained
by
A
k
 ≤ min
q
max
,
˙ q
max
kω
f
,
¨ q
max
k
2
ω
2
f
¸
. (3.22)
This means that the higher k is, the smaller the amplitude A
k
will be for a given maximal velocity and acceleration. An optimal
harmonic k can be found which maximizes the use of both the
velocity and acceleration range.
On the other hand, the amplitude of a harmonic term should
have a minimal value. A small amplitude only introduces ad
ditional velocity reversals and excites the system in the range
where backlash and stiction forces have a negative inﬂuence on
the accuracy.
The phase angle determines the time shift between the diﬀerent
harmonic terms. An appropriate choice of the phase angles allows
to obtain an optimal distribution of the minima and maxima over
the measurement period.
The number of harmonic terms speciﬁes the bandwidth of the ex
citation trajectory. The lowest frequency is ﬁxed by the funda
mental pulsation. Higher frequencies can be selected based upon
the discussion of the coeﬃcients above. It is not necessary to
include all frequency terms. The more terms that are taken into
account, the more local minima appear in the optimization prob
lem and hence the more diﬃcult it becomes to ﬁnd an optimal set
of coeﬃcients. In addition, every additional term introduces ad
ditional velocity reversals which increases the number of sample
points in the low velocity range. Section 3.7.5 will note that the
friction model is not very accurate at low velocities. Too many
harmonic terms is therefore not a good idea.
3.4. Generation of the excitation trajectory 69
The fundamental pulsation ω
f
has inﬂuence on the duration of
one period. The duration of one measured period equals
T =
2π
ω
f
. (3.23)
Here, a tradeoﬀ should be made between noise sensitivity and
more measurement data. On the one hand, a higher fundamental
pulsation results in a shorter period. Given a limited measure
ment time, this allows to measure more periods, and hence aver
aging improves the signaltonoise ratio. We should keep in mind
that this eﬀect decreases as more periods are taken into account.
A longer measurement period with the same sampling frequency,
on the other hand, gives more measurement data and hence more
information is available for the parameter estimation. In addi
tion, it allows us to excite in a wider workspace given the same
maximal joint velocity and acceleration. This aspect is closely
related with the discussion of the coeﬃcients.
Example 3.2
A trajectory is described by q(t) = Acos(ωt). The corre
sponding acceleration is ¨ q(t) = −Aω
2
cos(ωt). Suppose that
the maximal acceleration ¨ q
max
is the limiting factor to increase
the amplitude. Dividing ω
f
by a factor two and holding the
same ¨ q
max
, the amplitude A may be increased by a factor
four. The discussion is similar if the velocity were the limiting
constraint.
This discussion shows that for a manipulator with relatively small
allowable maximal velocity or acceleration, it might be appropri
ate to choose a longer measurement time and a lower fundamental
frequency.
The number of periods measured in combination with the duration
of one period determines the total experiment time. This vari
able should be chosen such that averaging suﬃciently reduces the
remaining noise level. If the maximal experiment time is limited,
the number of periods cannot be chosen independently anymore,
but follows from the given experiment time and the fundamental
pulsation.
70 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
time time
q q
original reversed
Figure 3.4: Reverse the excitation trajectory
Every excitation trajectory that is obtained immediately gives rise
to an alternative trajectory design. The periodic trajectory can be
executed in the reverse order as illustrated in ﬁgure 3.4. Since this
alternative trajectory includes the same joint positions, no problem
with collisions are introduced. The maximal velocities and acceler
ations don’t change either. In the reversed trajectory all points are
approached from the opposite direction compared to the original tra
jectory. This is advantageous because the nonlinearities, e.g. backlash
which is present in the transmission, are excited from both sides result
ing in a compensation. Including the original and reversed trajectory
in the estimation problem will therefore result in more consistent pa
rameter estimates.
A trajectory design based on rules of thumb and experience will
not produce the optimal trajectory. Therefore, the heuristic trajectory
design may be followed by a local optimization. Better starting val
ues are available from the heuristic approach and convergence is faster
because the optimization starts closer to a minimum. This way, the
advantages of both approaches are combined.
3.4.4 Limitations for obtaining the optimal excitation
trajectory
The discussion shows that it is not straightforward to ﬁnd the best ex
citation trajectory. The most important limitations for the experiment
design are summarized here.
3.4. Generation of the excitation trajectory 71
In the ﬁrst place, the quality of the excitation is limited by the
constraints that are taken into account in the optimization. These
constraints are necessary to avoid a collision of the robot with the
environment or with itself or overloading the robot manipulator. En
larging the range of an active constraint makes it possible to obtain
a better trajectory. However, care should be taken not to excite too
many unmodelled dynamics, since this would only lead to systematic
errors. A trade oﬀ must be made between enlarging the range and
avoiding systematic errors. As a consequence, we must accept to ﬁnd
only a suboptimal excitation trajectory. Therefore, it is questionable
whether the use of sophisticated optimization algorithms can still be
justiﬁed.
Due to the complex nature of the objective function, no fast opti
mization algorithm exists that guarantees global convergence. There
fore, we should accept that only a local minimum is reached. By choos
ing appropriate starting values for the optimization, an excitation tra
jectory can be found which approaches the performance of the global
optimal trajectory.
The industrial controller may also become an additional constraint.
Implementing periodic multisine trajectories requires the possibility to
apply user deﬁned trajectory setpoints to the controller input. Unfor
tunately, most industrial controllers only allow users to generate very
simple trajectories like lines, pointtopoint motions and circles. In
the worst case, excitation trajectories have to be implemented using
standard builtin pointtopoint motions, specifying ﬂyby or precision
points. In that case, the trajectory period is mostly no multiple of
the sampling period, and an approximation of the trajectory with a
limited number of harmonic terms in the Fourier series is rather inac
curate. Then, periodicity and its nice properties have to be given up
and other ﬁltering methods are required to calculate the velocity and
acceleration.
Sometimes, however, the manufacturer provides a module which
allows us to apply some feedforward or compensation signal to the
(servo) controller. If this signal is added in joint space, periodic ex
citation is possible without limitations. As soon as a Cartesian space
compensation is used, it becomes important to avoid all singularities.
In practice, this puts additional constraints on the joint positions and
72 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
considerably limits the allowed workspace. Consequently, the quality
of the excitation will be worse. It is optimal to have an open interface
to the robot controller which allows to specify the trajectory in joint
space.
3.5 Parameter estimation
The following step in the identiﬁcation procedure is the estimation of
the robot parameters from the measured data (Gautier and Khalil,
1992; Swevers et al., 1997). The selection of an appropriate parameter
estimation method is a compromise between accuracy and complexity
of implementation.
The maximum likelihood parameter estimation method presented
by Swevers et al. (Swevers et al., 1997) will be applied, since this ap
proach is based on a statistical framework aiming at estimating the
robot model parameters with minimal uncertainty. The maximum like
lihood estimate of the parameter vector θ is given by the value of θ
that maximizes the likelihood of the measurement. The minimization
of such a likelihood function is a nonlinear least squares minimization
problem. In general, this method assumes that the measured joint po
sitions and actuator torques are both corrupted by independent zero
mean Gaussian noise. If the measured joint angles are free of noise
and the model is linear in the parameters, which is the case if barycen
tric parameters are used, this minimization problem simpliﬁes to the
Markov estimate, i.e. a weighted linear least squares estimate. This
simpliﬁcation is justiﬁed since in almost all practical cases the noise
level on the joint position measurements is much smaller than the noise
level on the force/torque measurements (Swevers et al., 1997).
The dynamic model is evaluated for a number of time steps t
k
,
k = 1, . . . , K, and combined in the global observation matrix
Φ =
φ(q
t
1
, ˙ q
t
1
, ¨ q
t
1
)
φ(q
t
2
, ˙ q
t
2
, ¨ q
t
2
)
.
.
.
φ(q
t
K
, ˙ q
t
K
, ¨ q
t
K
)
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
, (3.24)
3.6. Validation 73
and the corresponding measured torques in
τ =
τ
t
1
τ
t
2
.
.
.
τ
t
K
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
. (3.25)
This leads to the overdetermined set of linear equations
τ = Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)θ +ε (3.26)
where ε represents the error due to measurement noise. The error is
assumed to have a normal distribution with zero mean.
The weighted leastsquares solution of (3.26) is given by
ˆ
θ
WLS
= (Φ
T
Σ
−1
Φ)
−1
Φ
T
Σ
−1
τ (3.27)
= (Σ
−0.5
Φ)
+
Σ
−0.5
τ. (3.28)
Σ is the diagonal covariance matrix containing the standard deviation
of the noise on the measured torque data. A consistent estimate of the
noise variance is provided by the sample variance (Swevers et al., 1996),
which can be calculated without additional measurements if the robot
excitation, and therefore also the measured joint torques, are periodic
(see section 3.3.2).
The use of a statistical framework allows to calculate uncertainty
bounds on the estimated parameter vector. The covariance matrix C
of
ˆ
θ
WLS
is given by
C = (Φ
T
Σ
−1
Φ)
−1
. (3.29)
The standard deviation of the parameters are the square root of the
variances found on the diagonal of this covariance matrix.
3.6 Validation
Validation is a very important aspect to check the general applicability
of a developed identiﬁcation procedure. It is however not frequently dis
cussed in literature. Although validation doesn’t inﬂuence or improve
74 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
the identiﬁcation results, it is an indispensable step in the identiﬁca
tion procedure. An unsatisfactory validation will lead to reconsidering
some previous steps of the identiﬁcation procedure.
This section proposes some methods to validate the accuracy of an
identiﬁcation experiment. Two main methods exist: (1) evaluate the
torque prediction accuracy, or (2) check the accuracy of the parameter
estimates. The ﬁrst validation method is important for modelbased
control, while the latter is applied for payload identiﬁcation in chap
ter 5.
The ﬁrst validation method simulates the system using the esti
mated parameter values. In particular, the inverse dynamic equations
are evaluated and the actuator torques for the desired motion are cal
culated. A good validation requires the validation trajectory to be dif
ferent from the excitation trajectory. Considering the actuator torques
is an appropriate validation method when the identiﬁed model will be
used for control. The following criteria can be used to evaluate the
quality of the predicted torques.
Compare predicted and measured torques. Plotting both the
predicted and measured torques on the same ﬁgure allows us to
do a visual inspection. Both curves are compared and it can
easily be evaluated if both curves are similar.
Prediction error. An alternative uses the diﬀerence between pre
dicted and measured torque, i.e. the prediction error or prediction
residue ε = τ −Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)θ. The prediction error should be small
in comparison to the torque signal.
These graphical techniques are very easy to use because they give
a direct impression of the result. An experienced user might be
able to ﬁnd an indication of what possibly went wrong during the
identiﬁcation. The drawback of these techniques is their subjec
tivity. Not every user might have the same expectation towards
good accuracy.
RMS value of the prediction error. To improve the objectivity of
the validation some measure of goodness is needed to evaluate
how accurate a particular identiﬁcation experiment is. The value
3.6. Validation 75
used for this purpose is the total root mean squared (RMS) pre
diction error and is calculated in the following way:
∆τ
RMS
=
1
K
K
¸
k=1
ε
2
k
(3.30)
=
1
K
(τ −Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)θ)
T
(τ −Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)θ). (3.31)
K is the number of sample points in the trajectory. The RMS
prediction error for each torque signal gives an idea of the un
certainty on the torque prediction. The criterion value should be
compared to the noise level on the actuator torques which can be
estimated using equation (3.10). The closer the two values are to
each other, the better the measured dynamics are explained by
the model.
An alternative method to validate the goodness of the estimation
checks the accuracy of the estimated parameter values. This method
is more appropriate when the physical interpretation of the estimated
values is important. Therefore, it will be used to evaluate the pay
load identiﬁcation in chapter 5. Diﬀerent criteria are available for this
validation method.
Parameter values estimated from diﬀerent trajectories. To
verify the quality of the identiﬁed model a number of diﬀerent
excitation trajectories can be used. All parameter sets obtained
from these experiments are estimates of the same parameters.
Comparing the corresponding values gives an idea about their
accuracy. According to the central limit theorem the averaged
parameter set
¯
θ should be a better estimator for the parameter
values.
The spreading of the estimated parameter sets can be expressed
mathematically by calculating the root mean squared deviation
from the averaged parameter set.
∆θ
RMS
=
1
J
J
¸
j=1
(θ
j
−
¯
θ)
2
(3.32)
76 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
J is the number of diﬀerent excitation trajectories used. ∆θ
RMS
gives a measure of the true uncertainty on the parameter esti
mates. This value can be compared to the estimated parameter
uncertainty calculated by means of the parameter covariance ma
trix.
Conﬁdence intervals. This method is based on statistical proper
ties of the estimator discussed in the previous section. Starting
from the covariance matrix it is possible to calculate the stan
dard deviation for every parameter. The conﬁdence interval is
then determined by taking a multiple of the standard deviation
above and below the parameter value. The multiple is found in
tables of a statistical distribution for a desired conﬁdence level.
The conﬁdence interval is used to decide if a parameter is statis
tically signiﬁcant. If zero is included in the conﬁdence interval,
there is no statistical evidence that the parameter values signiﬁ
cantly diﬀers from zero and the parameter may be discarded from
the model. A more formal way to decide about signiﬁcance is to
set up a hypothesis test.
Addition of a known load. In this method a known load is added
to the robot end eﬀector and the identiﬁcation experiment is re
peated. The change in the parameter vector should correspond
to the contribution of the inertial parameters of the additional
load. Some parameters are not inﬂuenced by the additional load
and consequently their parameter values should not change. This
validation allows us to test if the identiﬁcation model is complete,
i.e. gives a full description of the dynamics, and if the calibration
factors of the measurement signal are correct. This information
comes at the cost of doing an extra identiﬁcation experiment.
Using a priori information. The estimated parameter values can
be evaluated based on their physical interpretation. It is known
that moments of inertia should be positive and that the center of
mass should lie within the physical dimensions of a link body.
If values for the parameters are available, e.g. from CAD, they
can be used for comparison. We should however keep in mind
that CAD data are mostly not very accurate. This approach
3.7. Experimental results 77
is suitable for the evaluation of a payload identiﬁcation using a
calibrated reference load.
Unfortunately, there exists no best way to perform the validation.
The value of a validation method depends largely on the application,
on available information, and on the assumptions that were made in
the modelling and estimation step.
3.7 Experimental results
In this section experimental result are presented which are obtained on
a real industrial robot manipulator. First, the experimental setup and
the excitation and validation trajectories are presented. Then, some
additional eﬀects are introduced in the model: a kinematic calibration,
the rotor inertia, a gravity compensation spring, and alternative fric
tion models. Their inﬂuence on the parameter and torque prediction
accuracy is discussed. Finally, the advantages of periodic excitation
over the classical approach using numerical diﬀerentiation are shown
experimentally.
3.7.1 Description of the setup and the experiments
The industrial manipulator KUKA IR 361 is used to carry out the ex
periments. This is a six degreeoffreedom manipulator with a payload
capacity of 8 kg. Only the ﬁrst three robot axes are considered in
the experiments. The robot is equipped with an internal spring which
compensates the gravitation for the second link.
The excitation experiment
The fundamental frequency of the trajectories is 0.1 Hz, yielding a
period of 10 seconds. The excitation trajectory consists of ﬁveterm
Fourier series, yielding 11 trajectory parameters for each joint, and a
0.5 Hz bandwidth for the excitation signal. The optimization of the
trajectories is based on the doptimality criterion. Figure 3.5 shows
the optimized trajectory for the three robot axes. The trajectories are
78 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
implemented on the COMRADE
1
(Van de Poel et al., 1993) software
platform and runs at a sampling rate of 150 Hz. After the transients
have died out, 16 periods are measured and used for the identiﬁcation.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Time (s)
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
(
r
a
d
)
Excitation trajectory KUKA IR 361
axis 1
axis 2
axis 3
Figure 3.5: Optimized robot excitation trajectory: axis 1 (full
line), axis 2 (dashed line) and axis 3 (dashdotted line)
During the experiment the encoder positions and the motor cur
rents are measured. The motor currents are analog signals. In order to
avoid aliasing, they are ﬁltered using 8thorder analog lowpass But
terworth ﬁlters with a cutoﬀ frequency of 40 Hz, before their A/D
conversion. The phase shift introduced by these ﬁlters is compensated
for digitally (Swevers et al., 1997).
1
Compliant Motion Research And Development Environment
3.7. Experimental results 79
The validation experiment
To validate the accuracy of the results, the identiﬁed model is used to
predict the torque of a validation trajectory which is diﬀerent from the
excitation trajectory.
Figure 3.6 shows the validation trajectory. It goes through 20 points
randomly chosen in the workspace of the robot. The robot moves
with maximum acceleration and deceleration between these points, and
comes to a full stop at each point. This results in a trapezoidal velocity
proﬁle between two successive points.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
−2.5
−2
−1.5
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Validation trajectory KUKA IR 361
Time (s)
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
(
r
a
d
)
Figure 3.6: Joint angular position for the validation trajectory:
axis 1 (full line), axis 2 (dashed line) and axis 3 (dash
dotted line)
80 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
RMS prediction error axis 1 axis 2 axis 3
optimal reference 6.101 6.277 2.850 Nm
no rotor inertia 6.282 6.271 3.339 Nm
with kinematic calibration 6.104 6.281 2.849 Nm
Table 3.1: RMS of the actuator torque prediction errors for the
excitation trajectory
RMS prediction error axis 1 axis 2 axis 3
optimal reference 8.971 11.806 4.395 Nm
no rotor inertia 9.262 12.289 4.756 Nm
with kinematic calibration 8.970 11.806 4.395 Nm
Table 3.2: RMS of the actuator torque prediction errors for the
validation trajectory
The optimal reference model
In order to be able to evaluate the importance of an additional eﬀect, a
reference model is deﬁned which gives optimal accuracy. This dynamic
model includes the rigid body dynamics and Coulomb and viscous fric
tion. The rotor inertia of the third actuator is included as a separately
identiﬁable parameter. Kinematic imperfections are neglected.
In the following sections, several models will be discussed which
each take into account an additional eﬀect. The root mean squared pre
diction errors obtained for the diﬀerent models are given in table 3.1 for
the excitation trajectory and in table 3.2 for the validation trajectory.
Table 3.3
2
gives the estimated parameter values. The physical mean
ing of the diﬀerent parameters is given in table C.1 of appendix C. The
parameter estimates are obtained with diﬀerent models: the optimal
reference model, the model including the rotor inertia (section 3.7.3),
and using numerical diﬀerentiation of the position measurements to
calculate joint velocity and acceleration (section 3.7.6).
2
The parameters indicated with a
∗
include a contribution of the actuator rotor
inertias
3.7. Experimental results 81
optimal no rotor numerical units
reference inertia diﬀerentiation
Kr
∗
1,zz
29.013 29.352 25.099 kgm
2
Kd
2
10.909 11.075 10.114 kgm
2
K
2,xz
0.263 0.450 0.157 kgm
2
Kr
2,yz
2.640 4.050 6.990 kgm
2
K
2,xy
0.0421 0.282 0.670 kgm
2
b
3,z
0.0509 0.0057 0.358 kgm
b
3,x
3.022 3.006 3.841 kgm
Kd
3
2.443 2.593 2.515 kgm
2
K
3,xz
0.0531 0.159 1.113 kgm
2
K
3,yz
0.258 0.762 0.498 kgm
2
K
3,xy
0.263 0.937 0.020 kgm
2
K
∗
2,yy
35.467 32.110 23.581 kgm
2
K
3,yy
5.632 7.364 3.237 kgm
2
b
2,x
0.265 0.502 0.599 kgm
grav
1
346.782 297.398 221.734 Nm
grav
2
3.219 2.784 2.182 N
f
v
1
10.782 11.978 15.259 Nms
f
C
1
34.260 33.790 33.601 Nm
f
v
2
16.990 15.311 16.705 Nms
f
C
2
39.159 38.986 36.147 Nm
f
v
3
5.450 6.640 6.739 Nms
f
C
3
16.139 16.231 15.184 Nm
o
1
12.724 12.729 12.616 Nm
o
2
6.109 7.757 8.931 Nm
o
3
1.959 2.159 2.856 Nm
I
m
3
9.935 − 9.379 kgm
2
Table 3.3: Set of estimated parameter values for diﬀerent ap
proaches: the optimal reference model, a model neglect
ing the eﬀect of the rotor inertia, and an approach using
numerical diﬀerentiation of the position measurements
to calculate joint velocity and acceleration
82 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
3.7.2 Kinematic calibration
Every mechanical structure contains kinematic and geometric errors
due to imperfections in the manufacturing and assembly process. These
errors inﬂuence the static position accuracy of the robot (Bernhardt
and Albright, 1993). A kinematic calibration procedure determines the
actual properties, such as the dimensions of the links, the orientations of
the joint axes, oﬀsets on the encoder reading, etc. This information can
be used in a kinematic compensation module to improve the position
accuracy.
This section investigates the inﬂuence of kinematic errors on the ac
curacy of the dynamic model. For this purpose the Krypton RODYM6D
dynamic measurement system (Krypton, 1998) is used to perform a
kinematic calibration procedure which identiﬁes the kinematic vari
ables of the ﬁrst three axes of the KUKA IR 361.
The identiﬁed kinematic variables can be divided into two cate
gories. A ﬁrst category includes the lengths of the diﬀerent links, which
determine the distance between successive joint axes, and the oﬀset on
the actuator encoders (table 3.4). These variables can directly be taken
into account without deriving a new dynamic model.
speciﬁcation measured value
length link 2 480 mm 480.123 mm
encoder oﬀset axis 2 0 degrees 0.008465 degrees
Table 3.4: Kinematic calibration: results for joint axis 2
The second category includes variables expressing position and ori
entation error of the joint axes. Table 3.5 gives the extended set of
DenavitHartenberg parameters for the KUKA IR 361. The values are
very close to the values of the non calibrated kinematic model where
all joint axes are considered to be perfectly orthogonal or parallel. To
include these deviations with respect to the non calibrated model in
the dynamic identiﬁcation procedure, a new dynamic model must be
derived. In the case of the KUKA IR 361 this results in four additional
barycentric parameters to be estimated. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show no
improvement in the accuracy of the dynamic model with respect to
3.7. Experimental results 83
Frame α β θ a d
joint 1 3.141593 0 0 0 1.020
joint 2 1.571636 0 0 0.000207 0
joint 3 0.000052 0.000209 1.570796 0.480123 0
Table 3.5: Extended set of DenavitHartenberg parameters for
KUKA IR 361
(angles are expressed in radians, and lengths in meter)
the reference model, which does not take into account the kinematic
calibration. This result can be explained by the fact that in our case
the kinematic errors are relatively small. Therefore the increased com
plexity cannot be justiﬁed. Moreover, the identiﬁcation matrix has
become very badly conditioned. A closer look reveals that the four ad
ditional barycentric parameters are not very well excited, resulting in
an identiﬁcation matrix which is close to singularity. Since the torque
contribution of the additional parameters will be very small anyway,
it makes no sense to extend the dynamic model with these additional
parameters.
Consequently, we cannot conclude that taking into account the
kinematic errors results in a signiﬁcant improvement of the dynamic
model, i.e. no better prediction of the required actuator torques for
a given trajectory is obtained. It is important to emphasize that a
kinematic calibration remains necessary to guarantee a good position
accuracy. In this respect, a dynamic calibration is complementary to
the kinematic calibration.
3.7.3 Rotor inertia
Commercial industrial robots often have gears or harmonic drives with
typical transmission ratios between 50 and 200. Hence, the motors
may perform several thousands of rotations per minute which makes
the rotor inertia a signiﬁcant factor in robot dynamics. Nevertheless the
rotors are frequently considered as rigid bodies joined with the links on
which they are located. As we know from literature, this simpliﬁcation
84 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
is only permitted when the condition of equation (2.18) is satisﬁed, i.e.
e
T
m
i+1
ω
i
= 0 (3.33)
for any conﬁguration of the robot, and for parallel rotation axes of link
and rotor.
For a common industrial manipulator, the rotor of the ﬁrst actu
ator moves with respect to the ﬁxed base, such that ω
0
= 0. The
rotor inertia cannot be distinguished from the link inertia and has to
be considered as one body. The rotation axis e
m
2
of the second ac
tuator is perpendicular to the motion axis of the ﬁrst joint, such that
equation (3.33) holds. For the third actuator, however, both axes are
parallel and the rotor inertia can be estimated as a separate parameter.
Example 3.3
The third actuator of the KUKA IR 361 is mounted on the second
link and its rotor inertia can be estimated. From the manufacturer’s
speciﬁcation, we know that the moment of inertia of the rotor, tacho
generator and brake together equals 10.1 kgcm
2
or 0.00101 kgm
2
.
Table 3.3 gives an estimated value for the rotor inertia I
m
3
of the
third actuator of 9.935 kgcm
2
, which is close to the speciﬁed value.
The parameters Kr
∗
1,zz
and K
∗
2,yy
contain the contribution of
the rotor inertia of the ﬁrst two actuators. Their contributions are,
respectively,
I
m
1
µ
2
1
= 0.00101 · 94.147
2
= 8.952 kgm
2
(3.34)
I
m
2
µ
2
2
= 0.00101 · 103.235
2
= 10.764 kgm
2
, (3.35)
with µ
1
and µ
2
the transmission ratios of the ﬁrst and second joint.
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 prove that failing to include the rotor inertia as a
separate parameter increases the actuator torque prediction error. The
torque prediction and the corresponding prediction error are shown in
ﬁgure 3.7. The eﬀect is clearly visible in the prediction error for axis
three.
3.7.4 Gravity compensation spring
Some industrial manipulators are equipped with a gravity compensa
tion device on the second joint axis in order to reduce the torque needed
3.7. Experimental results 85
0 2 4 6 8 10
−100
−50
0
50
Prediction error
0 2 4 6 8 10
−50
0
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
−20
0
20
40
Time (s)
0 2 4 6 8 10
−200
−100
0
100
200
Measured and predicted torque
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
1
(
N
m
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
−400
−200
0
200
400
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
2
(
N
m
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
−100
−50
0
50
100
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
3
(
N
m
)
Time (s)
Model without rotor inertia
0 2 4 6 8 10
−100
−50
0
50
Prediction error
0 2 4 6 8 10
−50
0
50
0 2 4 6 8 10
−20
0
20
40
Time (s)
0 2 4 6 8 10
−200
−100
0
100
200
Measured and predicted torque
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
1
(
N
m
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
−400
−200
0
200
400
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
2
(
N
m
)
0 2 4 6 8 10
−100
−50
0
50
100
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
3
(
N
m
)
Time (s)
Model with rotor inertia
Figure 3.7: Prediction error for the excitation trajectory without
(upper ﬁgure) and with (lower ﬁgure) inclusion of rotor
inertia
86 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
l
r
q
2
gravity
compensation
spring
rotation axis
second link
Figure 3.8: Gravity compensation spring
by the actuator of the second link (ﬁgure 3.8). For robots which are
designed to handle heavy loads, a passive pneumatic weight compen
sation system is often used to support the upper arm motor when the
arm is inclined. In the case of small industrial robots, as is the case in
this work, mostly a gravity compensation spring is used.
In the case of rotational joints, the torque generated by the gravity
compensation spring is a complex nonlinear function of the angular
position of the second joint q
2
and the spring parameters:
τ
spring
=
k(
l
2
+r
2
−2 l r cos(q
2
) −l
0
)l r sin(q
2
)
l
2
+r
2
−2 l r cos(q
2
)
(3.36)
where k is the stiﬀness of the spring, l
0
is the initial length when the
spring is unloaded, r is the radius of the lever, and l the distance
between the joint axis and the mounting point of the spring. This
nonlinear function and the low sensitivity of spring force for changes in
its parameters make the estimation of the real spring parameters from
noisy data cumbersome.
Ganseman (Ganseman, 1998) presented a diﬀerent modelling ap
3.7. Experimental results 87
proach. The torque resulting from the combined eﬀect of gravity and
a gravity compensation spring can be approximated by means of a se
ries of N
s
harmonically related sine and cosine functions of q
2
. The
resulting torque on the second joint can then be modelled as:
τ
spring
=
N
s
¸
n=1
A
n
2
cos(nq
2
) +B
n
2
sin(nq
2
) (3.37)
Example 3.4
In the case of the KUKA IR 361 robot, only the fundamental sine
and cosine functions and their ﬁrst and second harmonics have to be
considered (i.e. N
s
= 3 in equation (3.37)) for accurate modelling,
yielding 6 additional parameters: A
n
2
, B
n
2
for n = 1, 2, 3.
This modelling approach suﬀers from the fact that it does not give con
sistent parameter estimates for diﬀerent excitation trajectories. This is
an indication that equation (3.37) models not only the compensation
spring torque, but also some unmodelled dynamic eﬀects.
The model description can be improved if more a priori knowledge
is available. When the lengths r and l are known, equation (3.36) can
be rewritten to
τ
spring
= l r sin(q
2
)k −
l r sin(q
2
)
l
2
+r
2
−2l r cos(q
2
)
P
0
(3.38)
where P
0
= k l
0
. This equation is linear in the unknown parameters k
and P
0
. This physical parameterization is much more interesting be
cause it is linear in the unknown parameters and it ﬁts closer to the real
behavior of the spring. Furthermore, the estimated parameters of the
model can be compared to a priori information. The model reduction
step reveals that the ﬁrst term in equation (3.38) is linearly related
with the torque contribution of the barycentric inertial parameter b
2,z
related to the center of gravity of the link on which τ
spring
is working.
In order to obtain a minimal parameter set, the coeﬃcients of sin(q
2
)
are combined resulting in a new model parameter grav
1
= l r k−g b
2,z
.
Example 3.5
For the KUKA IR 361 the following a priori information is avail
able: l = 488 mm and r = 100 mm. The parameters k and l
0
of
88 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
the model can be calculated from the manufacturer’s speciﬁcations.
For a stroke of 162 mm the spring force increases from 729.4 N to
2495.8 N. This gives a spring stiﬀness of
k =
2495.8 N−729.4 N
0.162 m
= 10904 N/m. (3.39)
Knowing that the force of 729.4 N is found for a total spring length
of 387 mm, we can calculate the length l
0
where the spring force is
zero.
l
0
= 0.387 m−
729.4 N
10904 N/m
= 0.3201 m (3.40)
The parameters k and l
0
can be calculated from the identiﬁed
parameter values grav
1
and grav
2
(see table 4.1 in chapter 4), yield
ing following results
k =
grav
1
+g b
2,z
l r
= 10588 N/m (3.41)
l
0
= 1000
grav
2
k
= 0.310 m. (3.42)
Comparing these estimated values with the abovementioned a pri
ori information shows a good correspondence. This validated the
presented approach.
3.7.5 Friction
Experiments show that friction consumes up to thirty percent of the
actuator torque. Since friction has such a large inﬂuence, an accurate
friction model is necessary. This section experimentally measures the
friction characteristic, and looks for a suitable friction model.
The friction characteristic
To have a good idea of the friction characteristic, the friction torque
is measured as a function of joint velocity. Every robot joint is moved
separately with constant velocity while the actuator torque is measured
(indirectly through the actuator current). When possible, the joint axis
3.7. Experimental results 89
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
−500
−400
−300
−200
−100
0
100
200
300
400
Joint velocity (rad/s)
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
r
q
u
e
τ
f
,
1
(
N
m
)
Figure 3.9: Measured friction characteristic for joint 1 of KUKA
KR15
orientation is chosen such that inﬂuence of gravity is eliminated. The
velocity is stepwise increased to cover the full velocity range. To obtain
the friction characteristic the measured actuator torques are averaged
and plotted against the corresponding velocity.
Figure 3.9 shows the resulting friction characteristic for the ﬁrst
joint axis of the KUKA KR15. At high velocities the friction torque
increases linearly with joint velocity, as predicted by the viscous friction
model in literature. The Stribeck friction can be observed for very low
velocities (smaller than 0.025 rad/s). For the wrist axes, measurements
at low velocities (down to 0.01 rad/s) did not show the presence of
Stribeck friction. Anyway, we claim that these low velocities do not
appear frequently in trajectories, so Stribeck friction will be neglected
further on.
The friction characteristics for the other axes are similar. The
shape of the friction characteristic is conﬁrmed by the results presented
by (Daemi and Heimann, 1996) and by experiments on a KUKA IR 361.
So all conclusions are expected to be generally valid and applicable to
90 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
other industrial manipulators.
Friction modelling
Literature frequently presents the classical model for the friction term
τ
f
( ˙ q) which consists of Coulomb and viscous friction:
τ
f
( ˙ q) = f
C
sign( ˙ q) +f
v
˙ q. (3.43)
This is a simple, but appropriate friction model with f
C
and f
v
the
Coulomb and viscous friction coeﬃcient respectively. Equation (3.43)
assumes a symmetric friction characteristic, i.e. the model holds for
both positive and negative velocity. Fortunately, this condition is sat
isﬁed for most industrial robots (Grotjahn et al., 2001). An asymmetric
Coulomb friction can be modelled by introducing an oﬀset parameter.
One should be very careful when interpreting this parameter. An oﬀ
set may also model a bias on the measurements or other unmodelled
dynamics.
Figure 3.10 shows the ﬁt of the classical model of equation (3.43) to
the measurements. Compare the dashed line with the black dots. It is
clear that this friction model shows signiﬁcant deviations, especially at
low velocities. Hence, we introduce a systematic model error by using
the classical friction model. This could be avoided by eliminating all
measurements with low velocity from the estimation, but this would
reduce too much of the available information.
A signiﬁcant improvement is obtained by replacing the Coulomb
friction term with a smoother term
τ
f
= f
1
˙ q +f
2
˙ q
1
3
. (3.44)
The ﬁgure 3.10 conﬁrms that this gives a better approximation (dash
dotted curve). More model extensions are presented in literature (sec
tion 2.5.3) which give a better approximation of the friction charac
teristic. However, the creation of a comprehensive model is rather
complicated. Friction coeﬃcients are very diﬃcult to measure. In ad
dition, they depend on the temperature, lubrication and wearout of
gears and hence change with time.
3.7. Experimental results 91
−10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10
−40
−30
−20
−10
0
10
20
30
40
Joint velocity (rad/s)
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
r
q
u
e
(
N
m
)
measured
Coulomb + viscous
viscous + velocity
1/3
Figure 3.10: Approximation with friction models
Inﬂuence of temperature and load
Besides the dependency on the velocity, the friction torque also depends
on the motor temperature and on the load. Figure 3.11 shows that
robot warmup decreases the friction torque. It is therefore important
to guarantee a good warmup of the robot manipulator and to ensure
that the temperature remains constant during the measurement. The
inﬂuence of adding a payload is shown in ﬁgure 3.12. A higher payload
increases the friction torque.
Both ﬁgures conﬁrm that the general shape of the friction charac
teristic remains similar, but that the friction coeﬃcients change. It is
therefore not a good idea to use a measured friction characteristic as
a priori knowledge. On the contrary, it is necessary to estimate the
friction parameters in each identiﬁcation experiment in order to obtain
accurate results.
92 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5
−150
−100
−50
0
50
100
150
Joint velocity (rad/s)
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
r
q
u
e
τ
f
,
4
(
N
m
)
cold robot
after warm−up
Figure 3.11: Inﬂuence on friction torque of temperature for joint
4 of KUKA KR15
−10 −5 0 5 10
−40
−30
−20
−10
0
10
20
30
40
Joint velocity (rad/s)
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
r
q
u
e
τ
f
,
6
(
N
m
)
without payload
with payload
Figure 3.12: Inﬂuence on friction torque of adding a payload for
joint 6 of KUKA KR15
3.7. Experimental results 93
3.7.6 Advantages of using periodic excitation for robot
excitation
The advantages of periodic excitation in robot identiﬁcation have been
brieﬂy mentioned in (Swevers et al., 1997), but have never been demon
strated experimentally. This is the purpose of this section. The dis
cussion is based on the experimental data presented in this chapter.
Analytic diﬀerentiation of the ﬁnite Fourier series allows us to cal
culate accurate and noisefree estimates of the joint velocities and ac
celerations, which are required to calculated the identiﬁcation matrix
Φ (equation (3.24)). This approach can only be applied for periodic
signals. The Fourier transform of nonperiodic signal would introduce
leakage errors, which are systematic errors. The frequency domain win
dowing mentioned corresponds to ideal noise ﬁltering, providing noise
free velocity and acceleration data. Figure 3.13 compares the joint
accelerations obtained by analytical and numerical diﬀerentiation (us
ing Tustin’s bilinear diﬀerentiation rule) of the joint angles measured
during the experiment discussed in section 3.7.1.
The noise on the velocity and acceleration data inﬂuences the ac
curacy of the robot identiﬁcation. Noise on the elements of the iden
tiﬁcation matrix Φ introduces systematic estimation errors if it is not
considered appropriately in the parameter estimation, which is the case
for the linear least squares or Markov estimation. The maximum like
lihood estimation method presented in (Olsen and Petersen, 2001) is
capable of handling this situation. However, this estimation method
is complex, because of the used iterative optimization scheme, which
requires a good initial parameter estimate to avoid local minima. In
addition, this method did not show any improvement in a practical
robot identiﬁcation experiment (Olsen et al., 2002). This result can
mainly be explained by the small noise level on the joint position mea
surements, yielding a small uncertainty on the identiﬁcation matrix.
Periodic trajectories allow us to estimate the noise level by cal
culating the sample variance using equations (3.9) and (3.10). The
corresponding standard deviations are presented in table 3.6.
In order to show the mentioned loss of accuracy, the Markov param
eter estimation method discussed in section 3.5, has been applied to
the experimental data. Joint velocities and accelerations are obtained
94 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
−5
0
5
Analytical calculation of acceleration
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
r
a
d
/
s
2
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
−5
0
5
Numerical calculation of acceleration
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
r
a
d
/
s
2
)
Figure 3.13: Accelerations obtained by analytical and numerical
diﬀerentiation (using Tustin’s bilinear diﬀerentiation
rule) of joint angle measurements: axis 1 (full line),
axis 2 (dashed line) and axis 3 (dashdotted line)
standard deviation of noise
axis 1 axis 2 axis 3
joint position 9.4 10
−5
rad 11.2 10
−5
rad 6.9 10
−5
rad
actuator torque 3.3 Nm 4.6 Nm 1.5 Nm
Table 3.6: Estimated standard deviations of the noise on position
and torque measurements
by means of the numerical diﬀerentiation rule mentioned above. Ta
ble 3.7 compares the accuracy of the models obtained using analytical
and numerical diﬀerentiation of the joint angle data. The comparison is
based on the RMS actuator torque prediction errors for the validation
3.7. Experimental results 95
diﬀerentiation method axis 1 axis 2 axis 3
analytical 8.971 Nm 11.806 Nm 4.395 Nm
numerical 10.643 Nm 17.471 Nm 7.781 Nm
Table 3.7: Comparison of RMS actuator torque prediction errors
using analytical and numerical diﬀerentiation for the
validation trajectory
trajectory (ﬁgure 3.6). A decrease of the accuracy up to 75% shows the
importance of analytical diﬀerentiation, and consequently of periodic
excitation.
Remark that numerical diﬀerentiation combined with lowpass ﬁl
tering reduces the noise level on the estimated velocities and accel
erations. However, an appropriate choice of the cutoﬀ frequency is
crucial. This choice is quite diﬃcult if the bandwidth of the excitation
signal is not clearly speciﬁed, as it is the case for the nonperiodic exci
tation trajectories presented in (Armstrong, 1989; Gautier and Khalil,
1992). The selection of the ﬁlter cutoﬀ frequency is then a compromise
between eliminating as much noise as possible without eliminating too
much of the original useful signal. In addition, forward and backward
ﬁltering is required in order to avoid phase distortions.
Conclusion on periodic excitation
Periodic excitation is a key element for accurate experimental robot
identiﬁcation, mainly because it allows us to calculate noisefree joint
velocities and accelerations from joint angle measurements. Experi
mental results show that this approach yields robot models that are
more accurate in predicting actuator torques than models resulting
from robot identiﬁcation that do not take advantage of this periodicity,
or that use nonperiodic excitation, therefore requiring the application
of numerical diﬀerentiation techniques.
96 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
3.8 Conclusions
This chapter discussed the experimental identiﬁcation procedure in
more detail. The use of barycentric parameters and NewtonEuler
parameters gives a rigid body model that is linear in the unknown
parameters. The experiment design is based on periodic excitation
which has several advantages over the use of traditional polynomial
trajectories. Finding a set of optimal trajectory parameters remains
the main problem. Both a solution by optimization and a heuristic
solution were discussed from a practical point of view. The parameter
estimation is based on the maximum likelihood estimator which allows
us to calculate statistical properties. Since the dynamic model is lin
ear in the unknown parameters, the estimation simpliﬁes to a weighted
least squares estimation. Finally, validation criteria were deﬁned to ex
press the torque prediction accuracy and the parameter value accuracy.
The presented identiﬁcation procedure was applied experimentally
to an industrial manipulator. The experimental results show that
a kinematic calibration does not aﬀect the accuracy of the dynamic
model. On the other hand, the inclusion of the rotor inertia as a
separate parameter gives an improvement. Furthermore, the friction
characteristic was experimentally measured and a more suitable model
for the gravity compensation spring was presented. Wherever possible,
the obtained parameter estimates are compared to the available a pri
ori information. A good correspondence was found, which proves the
validity of the identiﬁcation approach.
4
Combining internal and external model
Knowing is not enough; we must apply.
Willing is not enough; we must do
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
4.1 Introduction
The previous chapter discussed the classical approach to robot identiﬁ
cation where the robot inertial parameters are estimated from motion
data and actuator torque measurements. Both signals are measured
by ‘internal’ sensors. The torques are not measured directly, but es
timated from the actuator currents. A diﬃculty with this method is
that the actuator torque constants are only approximately known and
that the torque estimation is corrupted by joint friction. Since the sig
nals are measured at the actuator side, the full drive train including
97
98 Combining internal and external model
the rotor inertia and the gear transmissions have to be included in the
dynamic model. All ﬂexibilities and nonlinearities that appear between
the actuator and the link bodies negatively aﬀect the accuracy of the
manipulator.
In order to improve the accuracy of the parameter estimates, al
ternative approaches were investigated. One approach uses an ‘exter
nal’ sensor (Raucent and Samin, 1993; Liu et al., 1998) to measure
the reaction forces and torques at the base of the robot. From these
measurements, estimates of the robot inertial parameters are obtained.
Its main advantage compared to identiﬁcation by motor measurements
is that the identiﬁcation model is totally independent from internal
torques such as joint friction torques. Since the sensor is external to
the manipulator, the same sensor can be used for a number of diﬀerent
systems.
Based on these approaches two identiﬁcation models can be de
ﬁned. The classical internal model is used to predict the required ac
tuator torques for a given desired motion of the robot. The socalled
reaction or external model relates the motion of the robot to the re
action forces and torques on its base plate. Both models have their
own speciﬁc relevance. In robotics, optimization of robot trajectories
with respect to cycle time is an important issue. Hereby physical con
straints of the robot have to be taken into account: the workspace of
the robot, limits on the actuator power and torques, and on the reac
tion forces/torques of the robot on the base plate. For industrial robots
these limits are speciﬁed by the robot manufacturer. The limits on the
base plate reaction forces/torques are extremely important and often
very tight for robots that will be used on space stations. Too high
reaction forces/torques may disturb the often very sensitive laboratory
equipment present in these space stations. As a result, the most impor
tant aspect of the robot models for these applications is their ability
to accurately predict the required actuator torques and the resulting
base plate reaction forces/torques based on the desired robot motion.
In this chapter both models are combined into one identiﬁcation
model (Chenut et al., 2000). This approach allows combining the ad
vantages of both models and improving the accuracy of the parameter
estimates.
4.2. Generation of dynamic robot models 99
Section 4.2 describes the generation of dynamic robot models (in
ternal and external models), brieﬂy discusses how both models can be
combined, and the advantages associated with this. The use of this
combined model approach in robot identiﬁcation was ﬁrst presented
in (Chenut et al., 2000), however without any experimental validation.
The experiment design resulting in optimal periodic robot excitation
and the parameter estimation have been discussed in chapter 3.
The main part of this chapter is section 4.3, which presents the
experimental identiﬁcation results obtained on a KUKA IR 361 indus
trial robot and discusses the advantages of using a combined internal
external robot model. The results presented in section 4.3 are the ﬁrst
experimental results ever obtained with this combination of external
and internal measurements.
4.2 Generation of dynamic robot models
This section deﬁnes the internal and external models, and explains
how both models can be combined into one identiﬁcation scheme. The
inertial parameter set is split up into diﬀerent subsets and the eﬀect of
the rotor inertia in the diﬀerent approaches is worked out. Finally, the
advantages of combining internal and external robot models are given.
4.2.1 Combining internal and external robot models
Based on the type of measured inputs and outputs, two diﬀerent models
can be deﬁned: external and internal models. Internal models relate
actuator torques or forces (outputs) to the robot motion (inputs):
τ
i
= Ψ
i
(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)δ
i
. (4.1)
The external model relates robot motion (inputs) to reaction forces
and torques measured at the base of the robot (outputs). It can be
easily obtained by projecting the force and torque vectors at the ﬁrst
joint on the axes of the inertial reference frame attached to the base
plate. As a result, the external model equations have a form similar to
equation (4.1) :
τ
e
= Ψ
e
(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)δ
e
. (4.2)
100 Combining internal and external model
Equations (4.1) and (4.2) describe the forces and torques due to the
motion of the rigid bodies. They are linear and minimal in the para
meters, due to the use of barycentric parameters (Fisette et al., 1996).
The internal model has to be extended with some additional eﬀects.
It is common to include a friction model which consists of Coulomb
and viscous friction (see equation (3.43) in chapter 3). If the robot
manipulator is equipped with a gravity compensation device, an ap
propriate parameterization has to be used in the internal model. This
has been discussed in detail in section 3.7.4. We assume that the vector
δ
fg
contains the additional parameters for the friction and the gravity
compensation spring.
Chenut et al. (Chenut et al., 2000) show that a dynamic robot
model based on barycentric parameters, and combining internal mea
surements (actuator torques and forces) and external measurements
(reaction forces and torques of the robot to its base plate measured by
a external base force/torque sensor) can be formulated as the following
set of linear equations:
τ = Φ(q, ˙ q, ¨ q)θ
c
, (4.3)
with
τ =
¸
τ
i
τ
e
, (4.4)
a column vector containing actuator torque measurements τ
i
and base
sensor force/torque data τ
e
. The parameter vector θ
c
appearing in the
combined model
θ
c
=
δ
i
δ
fg
δ
e
\ δ
i
¸
¸
(4.5)
contains all inertial parameters, all friction parameters and gravity
compensation parameters, and can be divided in three subsets:
• a minimal set of barycentric parameters of the internal model:
δ
i
. They appear in both internal and external model and are a
subset of barycentric parameters of the external model δ
e
.
• the remaining set of barycentric parameters of the external model:
δ
e
\ δ
i
. They appear only in the external model.
4.2. Generation of dynamic robot models 101
• the parameters related to gravity compensation devices and joint
friction: δ
fg
. When we consider the robot as the system, these
forces are internal and have no eﬀect at the base plate. Therefore,
these parameters only appear in the internal model.
All parameter sets are assumed to be minimal, i.e. redundant parame
ters are removed (Fisette et al., 1996; Maes et al., 1989).
The identiﬁcation matrix Φ of the combined model consists of fol
lowing submatrices:
Φ =
¸
Ψ
i
Ψ
fg
0
Ψ
e1
0 Ψ
e2
. (4.6)
The matrix Ψ
i
is the rigid body regression matrix of the internal model
deﬁned in equation (4.1). The columns of Ψ
e1
and Ψ
e2
correspond to
the columns of the regression matrix Ψ
e
of the external model (equa
tion (4.2)) related to the elements of δ
i
and δ
e
\ δ
i
respectively. Ψ
fg
models the friction torques and gravity compensation devices.
4.2.2 Eﬀect of rotor inertia
The model reduction removes unidentiﬁable parameters and combines
parameters that can only be estimated in combination. Within the
robotics research ﬁeld, the following simpliﬁcation strategy is frequently
applied (see also section 3.7.3). The rotor inertia, including the inertia
of the transmission and that of the brake, is replaced by an equivalent
inertia which is added to the link inertia. As a result, the reduced
dynamic equations correspond to dynamic equations of the link only
and rotor and transmission dynamics are not identiﬁed separately.
When combining internal and external models into a combined
model, however, this simpliﬁcation cannot be applied anymore because
the rotor inertia has a diﬀerent contribution to the internal model than
to the external model. If the inﬂuence of these rotor inertias is sig
niﬁcant, the mentioned simpliﬁcation would yield that the combined
inertial parameters of the internal model δ
i
is no subset anymore of the
external model parameters δ
e
. To avoid this, the rotor inertias have
to be included and estimated as separate parameters in the combined
model. However, knowledge of the values of the rotor inertias, usually
102 Combining internal and external model
provided by the manufacturers, simpliﬁes this problem, simply by sub
tracting the torque contributions of these inertias from the actuator
torque measurements.
Example 4.1
For the ﬁrst three axes of the KUKA IR 361 robot, the torque con
tribution of the rotor inertia to the internal model is respectively:
τ
1,I
= µ
2
1
¨ q
1
I
m
1
(4.7)
τ
2,I
= (1 +µ
2
)
2
¨ q
2
I
m
2
+ (¨ q
2
−µ
3
¨ q
3
)I
m
3
(4.8)
τ
3,I
= (µ
3
¨ q
2
−µ
2
3
¨ q
3
)I
m
3
. (4.9)
For the external model, the following torques have to be subtracted
from the measured robot reaction torques on the base plate in X,
Y , and Zdirection respectively:
m
X,I
=(¨ q
2
(1 +µ
2
) sin q
1
+ ˙ q
1
˙ q
2
(1 +µ
2
) cos q
1
)I
m
2
+ ((¨ q
2
−µ
3
¨ q
3
) sin q
1
+ ˙ q
1
( ˙ q
2
−µ
3
˙ q
3
) cos q
1
)I
m
3
(4.10)
m
Y,I
=(¨ q
2
(1 +µ
2
) cos q
1
− ˙ q
1
˙ q
2
(1 +µ
2
) sin q
1
)I
m
2
+ ((¨ q
2
−µ
3
¨ q
3
) cos q
1
− ˙ q
1
( ˙ q
2
−µ
3
˙ q
3
) sin q
1
)I
m
3
(4.11)
m
Z,I
=−µ
1
¨ q
1
I
m
1
(4.12)
with µ
i
the transmission ratios of joint i (µ
1
= 94.147, µ
2
= 103.235,
µ
3
= 51.441). I
m
i
is the inertia of the actuator of joint i. The inertia
includes the inertia of the rotor, the brake and the tachometer. The
derivation of these equations can be found is appendix D.
4.2.3 Advantages of combining internal and external
robot models
The classical robot identiﬁcation approach using the internal model
suﬀers from an important drawback: the torques applied to the links
are not directly measurable, so the accuracy of their estimates depends
on friction torque modelling errors and the precision of the actuator
torque constants.
The external model is totally independent of internal torques such
as joint friction torques. The reaction forces and torques are measured
4.2. Generation of dynamic robot models 103
by means of an external sensor: a force/torque platform. This ap
proach, however, suﬀers from the fact that joint friction parameters
cannot be estimated. These parameters are important for accurate ac
tuator torque prediction which is used in advanced control algorithms
and path optimization. Another drawback is that a force/torque plat
form is required and that for each identiﬁcation experiment the manip
ulator has to be placed on the platform.
Experimental robot identiﬁcation beneﬁts from combining internal
and external robot models. The combined model allows us to take
into account more measurement data, i.e. joint torque data with base
reaction force and torque data, in one parameter estimation problem,
yielding more accurate robot model parameter estimates. Since the
base sensor method is not inﬂuenced by friction, this method results
in a more accurate estimation of the inertial parameters. By includ
ing the actuator torque measurements, however, this method is able
to provide an estimation of the friction torque as well. The improved
robot model parameter accuracy yields more accurate actuator torque
predictions, as it is shown in (Chenut et al., 2000) by means of sim
ulations. Chenut reported that the RMS actuator torque prediction
errors resulting from the combined model are between 20% and 50%
smaller than those resulting from the internal model only. This is quite
interesting, because the design of an advanced robot controller, such
as a computed torque controller, is based on the robot model, and its
performance depends directly on the model accuracy. This also holds
for trajectory optimization taking into account the physical limits of
the robot. In addition, the combined model provides estimates of the
base plate reaction forces and torques, which is important for the path
planning of e.g. space robots, as explained in the introduction.
Furthermore, the combined model allows us to estimate more para
meters separately than would be possible with the internal or external
model alone. It is e.g. possible to estimate the rotor inertias of the ac
tuators (section 4.2.2) and the parameters of the gravity compensation
device (section 3.7.4) separately from inertial parameters of the links.
104 Combining internal and external model
4.3 Experimental identiﬁcation results using a
combined internal/external model
This section discusses the application of the abovementioned identiﬁ
cation approach. Internal and external models are combined to improve
the accuracy of the parameter estimates.
4.3.1 Description of test case and robot model
The considered test case is a KUKA IR 361 robot (ﬁgure 4.1) placed on
a KISTLER 9281 B21 force/torque platform (Kistler Instrumente AG)
which is provided with sensors able to measure the three components
of the forces and the three components of torques between the base
plate and the ﬁrst link of the robot.
X
Z
Y
Force/torque
platform
Figure 4.1: Schematic representation of a KUKA IR 361 robot
In the experiments, only the ﬁrst three robot axes are considered.
Parameter vector δ
i
contains 14 independent barycentric parameters.
4.3. Experimental identiﬁcation results 105
The subset δ
e
\ δ
i
contains 5 additional inertial parameters which only
appear in the external model (Chenut et al., 2000).
The friction model considers viscous and Coulomb friction, yielding
6 parameters. One parameter per joint is added to take oﬀset on the
joint torque measurements into account.
The torque generated by the gravity compensation spring is a com
plex nonlinear function of the angular position of the second joint q
2
and
the spring parameters, and requires two parameters (see section 3.7.4).
This yields 11 parameters appearing only in the internal model and
forming the subset δ
fg
.
4.3.2 Description of the experiments
The experiments investigate how the accuracy of the parameter esti
mates and of the actuator torque prediction can be improved by com
bining internal and external models. Therefore, three diﬀerent identiﬁ
cation experiments are considered: (1) identiﬁcation using the internal
model, which contains 25 parameters, (2) identiﬁcation using the exter
nal model, which contains 19 parameters and (3) identiﬁcation using
the combined model containing all 30 parameters.
The excitation trajectory is the same as the one used for the experi
ments in section 3.7 of the previous chapter. For comparison purposes,
only one trajectory is optimized and used for all three experiments.
The signals measured during excitation are: (1) the joint angles,
measured by means of the encoders mounted on the actuator shafts,
(2) the actuator currents, which are considered proportional to the
actuator torques, and (3) the six reaction forces/torques measured at
the base of the robot. In order to avoid aliasing, reaction forces/torques
are ﬁltered using the same lowpass butterworth ﬁlters as used for the
motor currents.
The variance of the noise on the averaged actuator torque and the
reaction forces and torques measurements is estimated by calculating
the sample variance: σ
τ
1
= 3.26 Nm, σ
τ
2
= 4.58 Nm, σ
τ
3
= 1.47 Nm,
σ
f
X
= 10.68 N, σ
f
Y
= 11.20 N, σ
f
Z
= 5.10 N, σ
m
X
= 12.06 Nm, σ
m
Y
=
11.54 Nm and σ
m
Z
= 2.70 Nm. The estimation of the variance and
the improvement of the signaltonoise ratio through data averaging
106 Combining internal and external model
are only possible because of the periodicity of the excitation, as it is
explained in section 3.7.6.
The trajectory parameters q
i,0
, a
i,k
, and b
i,k
(equation (3.6)) are
(re)estimated using the discrete Fourier transform of the averaged en
coder measurements, in order to account for tracking errors during the
execution of the experiments due to robot controller limitations. The
joint velocities and accelerations are then calculated analytically.
4.3.3 Discussion of the experimental results
Parameter accuracy
The columns of table 4.1 present the parameter values resulting from
the three identiﬁcation experiments using combined, internal, and ex
ternal model respectively. In the rows, ﬁrst all parameters δ
i
appearing
in both internal and external model are given, followed by the para
meters of the gravity compensation device and friction δ
fg
and ﬁnally
the parameter set δ
e
\ δ
i
. Table C.1 of appendix C gives the physical
meaning of the diﬀerent parameters.
Most of the parameter values obtained with the three models lie
very close to each other. This result indicates that all models are
converging to the same parameter values and that the measurements
of the actuator torques and force/torque platform are consistent, i.e.
the calibration constants for both kind of signals are probably correct.
The model parameters are estimated using the Markov estimator.
The variances on these parameters can be calculated explicitly based
on knowledge of the model parameters and of the variance of the noise
on the torque/force data (Swevers et al., 1997). Comparison of these
variances (table 4.1) shows that combining the internal and external
models and measurements yields a signiﬁcant improvement of the ac
curacy of the parameter estimates: the accuracy of the parameters
in the set δ
i
is highly improved by the base platform measurements
since more measurements are taken into account in one parameter es
timation problem. Actually, the combined model yields the best accu
racy for each parameter in comparison to the internal and the external
model (Chenut et al., 2000). This conclusion can also be veriﬁed by
calculating a scalar measure of the parameter covariance matrices, e.g.
4.3. Experimental identiﬁcation results 107
the determinant of the covariance matrix is related to the volume of
the uncertainty ellipsoid for the parameters. For the covariance ma
trix C
comb,δ
ifg
of the parameters δ
i
and δ
fg
obtained with the combined
model, this measure equals 3.8 · 10
−45
, which is smaller than 2.0 · 10
−43
for the covariance matrix C
int,δ
ifg
obtained with the internal model.
The same conclusion holds for the parameters δ
e
of the external model:
the scalar measure for C
comb,δ
e
equals 1.2 · 10
−36
which is again smaller
than 3.8 · 10
−32
for C
ext,δ
e
.
Actuator torque prediction for the excitation trajectory
Figure 4.2 presents the actuator torque prediction for the excitation
trajectory using the combined model. The measured torque, shown in
the ﬁrst column, was used in the identiﬁcation, i.e. the measured torque
averaged over 16 periods to reduce the noise. The torque prediction
error is the diﬀerence between the measured and estimated torque.
This prediction error is small, except at velocity reversal because of
the insuﬃciently accurate friction model at low velocity. As could be
expected from the fact that the estimated parameter values do not
diﬀer much between the diﬀerent models, the torque prediction of the
internal and external model are practically equal. This is conﬁrmed by
calculating the root mean square value of the torque prediction error
in table 4.2.
Figure 4.3 and table 4.3 give the corresponding results for the pre
diction of the reaction forces and torques using external and combined
model. The results of the prediction are also very good. We conclude
that combining internal and external model does not signiﬁcantly im
prove the prediction of the reaction forces and torques. It should how
ever be noticed that the noise level on the reaction forces is relatively
high in proportion to the force ranges. Concerning the excitation, we
could consider to change the identiﬁcation trajectory or to measure
more periods. This option is not worked out here, because the identi
ﬁcation already provided satisfying parameter estimates.
108 Combining internal and external model
combined σ
c
internal σ
i
external σ
e
units
Kr
1,zz
18.681 0.079 18.719 0.097 18.730 0.093 kgm
2
Kd
2
10.818 0.091 10.879 0.113 10.847 0.105 kgm
2
K
2,xz
0.137 0.065 0.230 0.081 0.111 0.075 kgm
2
Kr
2,yz
2.614 0.097 2.393 0.116 2.881 0.120 kgm
2
K
2,xy
0.008 0.174 0.099 0.209 0.012 0.212 kgm
2
b
3,z
0.069 0.255 0.061 0.273 0.057 0.451 kgm
b
3,x
2.999 0.151 3.025 0.161 2.789 0.274 kgm
Kd
3
2.441 0.077 2.416 0.093 2.486 0.091 kgm
2
K
3,xz
0.141 0.146 0.090 0.180 0.122 0.173 kgm
2
K
3,yz
0.199 0.082 0.169 0.093 0.285 0.106 kgm
2
K
3,xy
0.180 0.096 0.144 0.107 0.249 0.127 kgm
2
K
2,yy
23.288 0.223 23.501 0.237 23.510 0.458 kgm
2
K
3,yy
5.370 0.132 5.328 0.135 5.188 0.423 kgm
2
b
2,x
0.193 0.115 0.224 0.134 0.078 0.226 kgm
grav
1
353.693 0.283 355.451 0.286 − − Nm
grav
2
3.284 0.284 3.296 0.286 − − N
f
v
1
10.694 0.246 10.572 0.252 − − Nms
f
c
1
34.363 0.144 34.343 0.145 − − Nm
f
v
2
17.187 0.272 17.285 0.274 − − Nms
f
c
2
39.199 0.281 39.190 0.282 − − Nm
f
v
3
5.260 0.162 5.241 0.163 − − Nms
f
c
3
16.094 0.136 16.123 0.136 − − Nm
o
1
12.723 0.291 12.724 0.291 − − Nm
o
2
5.828 0.199 5.820 0.225 − − Nm
o
3
1.806 0.136 1.924 0.144 − − Nm
b
2,z
16.622 0.088 − − 16.824 0.104 kgm
b
1,x
0.405 0.092 − − 0.433 0.100 kgm
br
1,y
19.420 0.110 − − 19.294 0.115 kgm
K
1,xz
0.832 0.187 − − 0.931 0.189 kgm
2
K
1,yz
2.118 0.227 − − 2.230 0.248 kgm
2
Table 4.1: Set of estimated parameter values and standard devia
tions for the combined, internal and external model
4.3. Experimental identiﬁcation results 109
0 5 10
−200
−100
0
100
Measured actuator torque
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
1
(
N
m
)
0 5 10
−200
−100
0
100
Predicted actuator torque
0 5 10
−200
−100
0
100
Torque prediction error
0 5 10
−200
−100
0
100
200
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
2
(
N
m
)
0 5 10
−200
−100
0
100
200
0 5 10
−200
−100
0
100
200
0 5 10
−100
−50
0
50
100
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
3
(
N
m
)
Time (s)
0 5 10
−100
−50
0
50
100
Time (s)
0 5 10
−100
−50
0
50
100
Time (s)
Figure 4.2: Measured and predicted actuator torques and the cor
responding prediction errors for the excitation trajec
tory using the combined model
RMS prediction error axis 1 axis 2 axis 3
internal model 6.099 Nm 6.303 Nm 2.863 Nm
combined model 6.098 Nm 6.340 Nm 2.864 Nm
Table 4.2: Root mean squared actuator torque prediction errors for
the excitation trajectory
110 Combining internal and external model
0 5 10
−100
0
100
f
X
(
N
)
Measured force/torque
0 5 10
−100
0
100
Predicted force/torque
0 5 10
−100
0
100
Force/torque prediction error
0 5 10
−100
0
100
f
Y
(
N
)
0 5 10
−100
0
100
0 5 10
−100
0
100
0 5 10
−50
0
50
f
Z
(
N
)
0 5 10
−50
0
50
0 5 10
−50
0
50
0 5 10
−600
−400
−200
0
200
m
X
(
N
m
)
0 5 10
−600
−400
−200
0
200
0 5 10
−600
−400
−200
0
200
0 5 10
−400
−200
0
200
400
m
Y
(
N
m
)
0 5 10
−400
−200
0
200
400
0 5 10
−400
−200
0
200
400
0 5 10
−100
−50
0
50
100
Time (s)
m
Z
(
N
m
)
0 5 10
−100
−50
0
50
100
Time (s)
0 5 10
−100
−50
0
50
100
Time (s)
Figure 4.3: Measured and predicted reaction forces and torques
and the corresponding prediction errors for the excita
tion trajectory using the combined model
4.3. Experimental identiﬁcation results 111
RMS prediction error
f
X
f
Y
f
Z
external model 11.803 N 13.611 N 4.491 N
combined model 11.805 N 13.604 N 4.518 N
m
X
m
Y
m
Z
external model 14.748 Nm 12.388 Nm 3.225 Nm
combined model 14.604 Nm 12.686 Nm 3.255 Nm
Table 4.3: Root mean squared reaction force/torque prediction er
rors for the excitation trajectory
Uncertainty on actuator torque prediction
The uncertainty on the actuator torque predictions depends on the
accuracy of the parameter estimates in δ
i
and δ
fg
, because of the
linear dependency of the torque prediction on these model parame
ters (Schoukens and Pintelon, 1991). Before, it has already been men
tioned that the covariance matrix of the parameters obtained with
the combined approach is smaller than this obtained with the inter
nal model, i.e. C
comb,δ
ifg
< C
int,δ
ifg
. This means that the diﬀerence is
negative deﬁnite. From the deﬁnition of positive deﬁniteness (Golub
and Van Loan, 1989), it follows that
∀x = 0 : x
T
C
comb,δ
ifg
x < x
T
C
int,δ
ifg
x. (4.13)
Since this inequality holds for all vectors x which are diﬀerent from a
zero vector, this is also true for all rows of the identiﬁcation matrix.
This proves that the uncertainty on the actuator torque prediction
based on the parameter estimates from the combined model is smaller.
Experimental model validation
The validation step veriﬁes if the identiﬁed parameter set is able to ac
curately predict the actuator torque required to drive the robot along
a trajectory which is diﬀerent from the excitation trajectory. The val
idation trajectory has been deﬁned before and goes through 20 points
randomly chosen in the workspace.
112 Combining internal and external model
0 20 40
−100
0
100
Measured actuator torque
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
1
(
N
m
)
0 20 40
−100
0
100
Predicted actuator torque
0 20 40
−100
0
100
Torque prediction error
0 20 40
−200
−100
0
100
200
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
2
(
N
m
)
0 20 40
−200
−100
0
100
200
0 20 40
−200
−100
0
100
200
0 20 40
−50
0
50
T
o
r
q
u
e
a
x
i
s
3
(
N
m
)
Time (s)
0 20 40
−50
0
50
Time (s)
0 20 40
−50
0
50
Time (s)
Figure 4.4: Measured actuator torque, predicted torque and the
corresponding torque prediction errors for the valida
tion trajectory using the combined model (ﬁltered)
Figure 4.4 compares the measured and predicted actuator torques
and the corresponding prediction errors, obtained using the parameter
estimates resulting from the combined model identiﬁcation. Compar
ison of the prediction errors with the measured torques shows that
the obtained model is capable of accurately predicting the actuator
torque data. The peaks in the prediction error occur at low joint an
gular velocity, which indicates that the assumed friction model, which
includes viscous and Coulomb friction only, is too simple. Including
more advanced friction and gear models results in smaller prediction
errors (Swevers et al., 2002).
Unlike for the identiﬁcation measurements, the validation trajec
tory consists of pointtopoint motions, which are not guaranteed to
be exactly the same when they are repeated. Therefore, it was not
4.3. Experimental identiﬁcation results 113
possible to reduce the noise level by averaging over multiple periods.
Therefore, the measured forces and torques and corresponding predic
tion errors shown in ﬁgures 4.4 and 4.5 have been ﬁltered with a second
order Butterworth ﬁlter with a cutoﬀ frequency of 10 Hz. To calculate
the values in tables 4.4 and 4.5, however, the unﬁltered data are used.
Table 4.4 shows the root mean squared (RMS) actuator torque pre
diction errors obtained with the diﬀerent sets of estimated parameters
for this validation trajectory. The RMS prediction errors for axes 1,
2 and 3 resulting from the combined model are less than 1% smaller
than those resulting from the internal model. This improvement is
rather limited and does not correspond to the signiﬁcant improvement
predicted by the simulation results presented in (Chenut et al., 2000).
The reasons for that are quite simple. The estimated noise levels on
the measured reaction forces and torques are much higher than the lev
els that were assumed in simulation. E.g. the estimated noise variance
on reaction force f
X
equals 10.5 N, while the simulations presented
in (Chenut et al., 2000) assumed a noise variance equal to 2 N. The
estimated noise levels on the measured actuator torques are lower than
the levels that were assumed in simulation.
RMS prediction error axis 1 axis 2 axis 3
internal model 8.950 Nm 11.824 Nm 4.446 Nm
combined model 8.949 Nm 11.811 Nm 4.419 Nm
Table 4.4: Root mean squared actuator torque prediction errors for
the validation trajectory
In addition, the parameter values used in the simulation are esti
mated based on one period only, while the experimental measurements
have been averaged over 16 periods ﬁrst and then been used for the
identiﬁcation. It is clear that in the experimental case the noise level
already has been reduced suﬃciently by averaging. This explains why
combined and internal model perform nearly as well. If in the simu
lation more periods had been used in the estimation, the prediction
errors would certainly become even more similar.
From this discussion, it can be concluded that combining internal
and external measurements would require less periods to be measured,
114 Combining internal and external model
i.e. a reduced measuring time, to reach the same parameter and torque
prediction accuracy. This eﬀect will be stronger if the signaltonoise ra
tio of the reaction force/torque measurements (external measurements)
is higher.
An important advantage of this combined model is that it also
allows to predict the robot base plate reaction forces/torques accurately
(see table 4.5). Figure 4.5 compares the measured values, the predicted
values, and the prediction errors for these reaction forces/torques. The
prediction errors are small with respect to the measured values.
RMS prediction error
f
X
f
Y
f
Z
external model 17.605 N 17.402 N 6.132 N
combined model 17.604 N 17.393 N 6.126 N
m
X
m
Y
m
Z
external model 21.415 Nm 21.628 Nm 6.491 Nm
combined model 21.392 Nm 21.683 Nm 6.480 Nm
Table 4.5: Root mean squared reaction force/torque prediction er
rors for the validation trajectory
It can be seen clearly that these predictions are suﬃciently accurate.
As a result, the obtained combined model can be used for path planning
and optimization taking into account limits on actuator torques and
base plate reaction forces and torques.
4.4 Practical considerations
This section discusses some practical problems which do not appear in
a theoretical analysis, but which arise during the implementation and
might disturb the experimental results.
The force/torque sensor shows some small drift on the signals. From
time to time, a recalibration of the sensor oﬀsets is required. Normally
such oﬀsets can be measured by taking sensor readings at zero load. In
this setup, the robot manipulator is standing on top of the sensor, and
4.4. Practical considerations 115
0 20 40
−100
0
100
f
X
(
N
)
Measured force/torque
0 20 40
−100
0
100
Predicted force/torque
0 20 40
−100
0
100
Force/torque prediction error
0 20 40
−100
0
100
200
f
Y
(
N
)
0 20 40
−100
0
100
200
0 20 40
−100
0
100
200
0 20 40
−50
0
50
100
f
Z
(
N
)
0 20 40
−50
0
50
100
0 20 40
−50
0
50
100
0 20 40
−400
−200
0
200
m
X
(
N
m
)
0 20 40
−400
−200
0
200
0 20 40
−400
−200
0
200
0 20 40
−400
−200
0
200
400
m
Y
(
N
m
)
0 20 40
−400
−200
0
200
400
0 20 40
−400
−200
0
200
400
0 20 40
−50
0
50
Time (s)
m
Z
(
N
m
)
0 20 40
−50
0
50
Time (s)
0 20 40
−50
0
50
Time (s)
Figure 4.5: Measured and predicted reaction forces and torques
and the corresponding prediction errors for the valida
tion trajectory using the combined model (ﬁltered)
116 Combining internal and external model
forces and torques due to gravity are mixed with the sensor oﬀsets. It is
practically impossible to remove the robot for every oﬀset calibration.
The calibration of the oﬀsets can be carried out as follows:
• Move the robot to a reference position, and reset the sensor signal.
• With the robot standing still, the forces in X and Y direction
and the torque around the Z axis should be zero.
• Gravity is the only force working in the Z direction when the
robot is not moving. By putting the measured force in Z direction
equal to zero in the reference position, the gravity load, which is
related to the total robot mass, disappears from the equations.
• The torques around X and Y axis experience a torque due to
gravity. Therefore, the oﬀsets cannot be calculated from one mea
surement. It can be realized by measuring both torques, moving
the ﬁrst robot axis over 180 degrees, and measuring again. From
both torque measurements the remaining oﬀsets can easily be
calculated.
When using data from diﬀerent measurement devices to estimate
the same parameters, calibration of the measurement channels becomes
important. The force platform can be calibrated very accurately. It
is based on piezo crystals, which keep their properties for a very long
time. Mostly a calibration sheet is provided by the manufacturer. The
actuator torques however are not directly available. They are measured
indirectly by means of the motor current. For permanent magnet DC
motors the torque constant K
m
relates the torque output τ
i
to the
current i
m
: τ
i
= K
m
i
m
. In practice, the actuator torque constant
can vary considerably from the manufacturer’s speciﬁcation. Torque
constants may even show considerable variation between similar motor
types on a single robot. In most cases, the measured torque constant
is less than the manufacturer’s speciﬁcation. Torque constants reduce
gradually with time due to demagnetization. For all these reasons it is
necessary to frequently recalibrate the actual torque constant for each
motor in a robot, e.g. using (Corke, 1996).
The combined model possibly allows us to discover badly known
torque constants. When the number of periods measured increases, the
4.5. Conclusions 117
noise level can be reduced by averaging the measurements such that
the estimation results of internal and combined model should converge.
This is only valid under the assumption that the model is able to explain
all dynamics in the measured signal. Any unmodelled eﬀect will result
in a systematic error on the parameter estimates.
4.5 Conclusions
Combining internal and external measurements in one robot identiﬁca
tion can improve the model accuracy, compared to identiﬁcation based
on internal measurements only. The signiﬁcance of the improvement
depends on the number of periods measured and on the quality of the
external reaction force/torque measurements.
More importantly, this combined approach yields models that allow
to accurately predict actuator torques and base plate reaction forces
and torques. Both of them are important for robot path planning and
optimization, especially in space robotics applications. In our case, we
cannot observe a signiﬁcant improvement of the prediction of the actu
ator torques and the reaction forces and torques by combining internal
and external model approaches. This indicates that the individual ap
proaches are already suﬃciently accurate.
The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has adopted this new com
bined experimental robot identiﬁcation method to their SMTrobot
mounted on a force/torque platform. The purpose of this hydraulic
robot is to simulate on earth the behavior of the manipulator that
will be mounted on the International Space Station. For that purpose,
accurate prediction of the actuator torques is required to compensate
gravity as accurately as possible, in order to simulate zero gravity con
ditions. Accurate prediction of the base plate reaction forces/torques is
required for the path optimization taking into account tight restrictions
on these reaction forces/torques.
118 Combining internal and external model
5
Robot payload identiﬁcation
Experiment is the sole interpreter of the artiﬁces of nature
Leonardo da Vinci
5.1 Introduction
For many years already experimental robot identiﬁcation techniques
have successfully been applied to obtain an accurate dynamic robot
model that is suitable for simulation purpose and for controller design.
The literature on robot identiﬁcation is very extensive, but in most
cases no distinction is made between the robot links and the robot
payload. The payload is considered as a part of the last link and the
identiﬁcation method is applied to the robot with payload.
119
120 Robot payload identiﬁcation
Nevertheless, the robot payload will have an increasing importance
in industrial robot manipulators. The newest KUKA KR500 palletiz
ing robot is a sixaxis robot in the 500 kg payload category. It has a
weight of only 2350 kg in relation to its payload. This gives a ratio
of the payload mass to the manipulator mass of 1 to 5. The DLR
lightweight robot (LWR) has a ratio of 1 to 2, and their most recent
developments tend towards a ratio of 1 (Hirzinger et al., 2002). As a
consequence, the payload brings about a much larger contribution to
the actuator torques and accurate knowledge of the payload inertial
parameters becomes more important for the controller performance.
In addition, the robot payload may be diﬀerent from one application
to another and then a full identiﬁcation of the robot dynamics is re
quired. This procedure is very time consuming and error prone because
a persistent excitation of the full robot system is required in order to
identify accurately all robot parameters.
This chapter presents a robot payload identiﬁcation method which
is based on the general robot identiﬁcation method discussed in chap
ter 3. It does not require a full dynamic identiﬁcation, but uses as much
a priori information as possible. Robot payload identiﬁcation should
fulﬁll the following requirements. For simulation purposes and con
troller design, the obtained model should be able to accurately predict
the required actuator torques for a desired robot motion. This require
ment is already satisﬁed for the existing general robot identiﬁcation
method. For acceptance in an industrial environment, however, the
estimated parameter values should correspond to the physical values.
This is necessary to gain the conﬁdence of the users on the industrial
work ﬂoor because they mostly have an idea about at least the mass
and the position of the payload’s center of mass. The ﬁrst objective of
the payload identiﬁcation approach will be to obtain accurate estimates
of the inertial parameters. It will be shown that this new requirement
is more diﬃcult to achieve than accurate actuator torque prediction.
Like in standard experimental robot identiﬁcation techniques (Gau
tier and Khalil, 1992; Olsen and Bekey, 1986; Swevers et al., 1997), the
parameters of the dynamic robot model are estimated based on motion
and actuator torque data measured during welldesigned identiﬁcation
experiments. The actuator torque data are obtained through actuator
current measurements. This way no additional sensors are required.
5.2. Robot payload identiﬁcation approach 121
Although this may be considered as an advantage at ﬁrst sight, the
major disadvantage is that a more extensive identiﬁcation model is re
quired. When a wristmounted forcetorque sensor is used to determine
the inertial parameters of the payload (Atkeson et al., 1986), kinematic
information is suﬃcient to derive the identiﬁcation model. Using the
experimental robot identiﬁcation approach on the other hand requires
much more a priori information (Craig, 1986), which makes the iden
tiﬁcation result more sensitive to errors. In this approach, the torque
contribution of the robot links should be compensated for, an appropri
ate friction model should be used, and other losses and dynamic eﬀects
should be included in the identiﬁcation model (Swevers et al., 2002).
In addition, the actuator current measurements are more diﬃcult to
calibrate than a force sensor.
This chapter applies the robot identiﬁcation approach developed
in the previous chapters to the identiﬁcation of the robot payload.
The chapter is outlined as follows. Section 5.2 describes the dynamic
model used for robot payload identiﬁcation and section 5.3 discusses
diﬀerent approaches to identify the payload parameters. In section 5.4
we investigate the possible causes of systematic errors on the parameter
estimates and on the actuator torque prediction using a sensitivity
analysis. Section 5.6 discusses the results obtained on an experimental
setup. A last section summarizes the conclusions.
5.2 Robot payload identiﬁcation approach
This section brieﬂy discusses the developed robot payload identiﬁca
tion approach (Swevers et al., 2002), which is based on periodic robot
excitation and the maximum likelihood parameters estimation, as it
was discussed in chapter 3. First, the dynamic model for a manipula
tor with payload is derived and some additional eﬀects are described.
Then, the modiﬁcations in the parameter estimation are discussed.
5.2.1 Dynamic robot model for payload identiﬁcation
The generation of a dynamic robot model constitutes a basic step in any
identiﬁcation approach. Although the model derivation is based on the
122 Robot payload identiﬁcation
same physical principles, a dynamic model for payload identiﬁcation
is quite diﬀerent from a model for robot identiﬁcation. In the latter,
some simpliﬁcations are often introduced by neglecting the contribution
of some inertial parameters to the joint torques. Some parameters
which are not essential for the unloaded robot may become essential
for the loaded robot. For instance, in a standard anthropomorphic
manipulator, the dynamic eﬀect of the wrist axes on the base axes is
usually negligible due to the compact construction and small inertia of
the wrist. For robot payload identiﬁcation, however, an accurate model
of the wrist is required and the contribution of the payload to the joint
torques of the base axes becomes signiﬁcant. The key element in the
applied dynamic model for payload identiﬁcation is the inclusion of
some additional eﬀects in addition to the rigid body dynamics resulting
from the robot. This identiﬁcation model allows to obtain accurate
parameter estimates for the payload.
A. Rigid body dynamics
The dynamic model of an n
dof
degrees of freedom robot manipulator
without payload was derived in chapter 3:
τ
G
= M(q
G
)¨ q
G
+C(q
G
, ˙ q
G
) ˙ q
G
+g(q
G
). (5.1)
It is a dynamic relation between the gear torques τ
G
, i.e. the joint
torques that drive the links, and the motion of the links (q
G
, ˙ q
G
, ¨ q
G
).
When a payload is attached to the manipulator, the required actu
ator torques will change. The payload exerts a wrench w on the end
eﬀector. This results in additional actuator torques τ
payload
which are
calculated by the formula
τ
payload
= J
T
(q
G
) w, (5.2)
where J
T
(q
G
) is the n
dof
× n
dof
transposed Jacobian matrix of the
manipulator. The wrench w consists of three force components f
ee
and three torques t
ee
. If a wristmounted force sensor were used, this
wrench could be measured directly.
5.2. Robot payload identiﬁcation approach 123
The total dynamic model of manipulator with payload becomes
τ
G
= M(q
G
)¨ q
G
+C(q
G
, ˙ q
G
) ˙ q
G
+g(q
G
) +J
T
(q) w (5.3)
= τ
robot links
+τ
payload
. (5.4)
Equation (5.4) reveals an interesting property: the robot links and
the payload contribute each separately to the joint torques,
i.e. no coupling eﬀect exists. This suggests a possible identiﬁcation
approach. Since the inertial parameter values of the robot links do not
change when adding a payload, the torque contribution of the robot
links τ
robot links
can be calculated in advance based on the available
parameter estimates and can easily be compensated for. This means
that the inertial robot parameter values must not be estimated again
for each new payload. The diﬀerent approaches for the compensation
will be discussed in section 5.3.
The payload is characterized by ten inertial parameters
[m, c
x
, c
y
, c
z
, I
xx
, I
yy
, I
zz
, I
xy
, I
xz
, I
yz
]
T
(5.5)
with m the mass, [c
x
, c
y
, c
z
]
T
the center of gravity expressed in the end
eﬀector frame, and I the moments and products of inertia with respect
to the frame in the center of gravity. As already discussed in chapter 3,
the parameter estimation is signiﬁcantly simpliﬁed if the identiﬁcation
model is linear in the unknown parameters. By deriving the dynamic
robot model using the NewtonEuler coordinates (Atkeson et al., 1986),
the inertial parameters of the payload body are expressed with respect
to the end eﬀector frame R. The ten ‘modiﬁed’ inertial parameters of
the payload are
θ
L
= [m, s
x
, s
y
, s
z
, I
R
xx
, I
R
yy
, I
R
zz
, I
R
xy
, I
R
xz
, I
R
yz
]
T
(5.6)
with m the mass, s the ﬁrst order moments with respect to the end
eﬀector frame, and I
R
the moments of inertia with respect to the frame
R of the end eﬀector.
Using this parameter transformation, the equations for the wrench
of the payload executed on the end eﬀector can be written as
f
ee
= m ˙ v
ee
+ ˙ ω
ee
×s +ω
ee
×(ω
ee
×s) (5.7)
t
ee
= s × ˙ v
ee
+I
R
˙ ω
ee
+ω
ee
×(I
R
ω
ee
). (5.8)
124 Robot payload identiﬁcation
˙ v
ee
represents the linear acceleration of the end eﬀector frame, and ω
ee
and ˙ ω
ee
are the angular velocity and acceleration respectively. These
equations are linear in the inertial parameters of the payload. The
transformation using the transpose of the Jacobian matrix will not
aﬀect this linearity, such that the identiﬁcation model can be written
as
τ
G
= τ
robot links
+φ
L
(q
G
, ˙ q
G
, ¨ q
G
)θ
L
. (5.9)
The payload identiﬁcation matrix φ
L
is derived based on the kinematic
data of the robot manipulator and does not depend on the inertial
parameters of the robot. On the other hand, the torque contribution
of the robot links only depends on their inertial parameters. Since
these parameters can be determined a priori, the torque contribution
for the desired motion is calculated and compensated for.
B. Additional eﬀects
Model (5.9) does not consider any losses in the motors and the trans
missions, nor coupling between the actuator torques. These and other
eﬀects are however essential for an accurate payload identiﬁcation and
are described in this section.
Relation between motor current and torque. Modern robot
manipulators are equipped with permanent magnet synchronous
motors. The relation between the actuator torque τ
M
and cur
rent i
m
of these motors has been found to be weakly nonlinear.
The relation can be described by a polynomial model, e.g. a
third order polynomial
τ
M
= µ sign(i
m
)(γ
0
+γ
1
i
m
 +γ
2
i
2
m
+γ
3
i
m

3
) (5.10)
= h(i
m
, µ, γ). (5.11)
µ is the transmission ratio, and γ represents the vector which con
tains the parameters of the third order polynomial. This model
is more accurate than the often used linear relation between mo
tor current and torque, especially at large motor currents where
saturation results in a lower torque for a given current.
5.2. Robot payload identiﬁcation approach 125
The transmission ratio is already taken into account, e.g. the
actuator angles and torques are transformed to the link side by
respectively dividing and multiplying them with the appropriate
transmission ratio. As a consequence, the variables that appear
in the dynamic equations are all related to the link side. This is
advantageous because then the parameter values have almost the
same order of magnitude which improves the conditioning of the
identiﬁcation problem.
Actuator dynamics. A considerable part of the actuator torques is
consumed by actuator friction and by the accelerating and decel
erating rotor inertia. Therefore, an accurate robot model should
include these eﬀects.
Accelerating or decelerating the rotor inertia I
m
requires the fol
lowing torque:
τ
I
= I
m
¨ q
M
. (5.12)
The friction model includes viscous and Coulomb friction:
τ
f
= f
v
˙ q
M
+f
C
sign( ˙ q
M
). (5.13)
The net actuator torque which remains to drive the robot links
and the payload is:
τ
T
= τ
M
−τ
I
−τ
f
(5.14)
= τ
M
−I
m
¨ q
M
−f
v
˙ q
M
−f
C
sign( ˙ q
M
). (5.15)
Eﬃciency of the transmission. The mechanical gear transmission
between the actuator and link is a complex system, with many
parts moving at diﬀerent angular velocities. Such system has
many losses which are diﬃcult to model in detail. Instead, we
employ an empirical model that is typically used in practice. Each
drive is assumed to have a certain eﬃciency, i.e. a reduction
of the nominal input torque by a constant percentage yielding
the eﬀective output torque. This model for the losses in the
transmission depends in a nonlinear way on the joint velocity ˙ q
G
126 Robot payload identiﬁcation
and torque τ
G
. It is modelled using only one parameter η per
joint :
τ
G
= g(τ
T
, ˙ q
M
, η) (5.16)
=
τ
T
· η if τ
T
· ˙ q
M
> 0
τ
T
/η if τ
T
· ˙ q
M
< 0
(5.17)
τ
T
and τ
G
are the torques at the actuator and link side of the
transmission, respectively. The model of equation (5.17) is not
linear in the parameter η, requiring a nonlinear parameter esti
mator. In this chapter, we will verify if this increase in complexity
is justiﬁed by more accurate parameter estimates.
Coupling between the actuator torques. The axes of the wrist of
many manipulators, and also of the considered robot, are mechan
ically coupled in the sense that the motion of each wrist link is
determined by more than one wrist actuator. This coupling is de
scribed as a known ﬁxed linear transformation between the joint
and actuator space:
q
G
= V q
M
(5.18)
τ
G
= V
T
τ
G
. (5.19)
The vector q
M
indicates the actuator position, and V represents
the coupling matrix.
Systematic errors can occur when one of these eﬀects are neglected
or when the a priori information related to these eﬀects is inaccurate.
Kinematic calibration can determine e.g. the coupling matrix V , but
other variables, e.g. rotor inertia, should be known a priori or should
be identiﬁed.
5.2.2 Parameter estimation
As for the robot identiﬁcation method, the payload estimation is based
on the maximum likelihood estimator presented in (Swevers et al.,
1997). This method yields the payload parameter vector θ
L
that max
imizes the likelihood of the measurement data, and guarantees an un
biased estimate.
5.2. Robot payload identiﬁcation approach 127
To simplify the parameter estimation, parameters that do not de
pend on robot payload, and that are not timedependent, are identi
ﬁed a priori, e.g. rotor inertias and inertial parameters of the robot
links. These known parameter are combined in a set θ
k
. As a result,
only the friction, the payload inertial parameters, and if desired the
transmission eﬃciency are estimated. The vector θ
u
contains these
unknown parameters. If no transmission eﬃciency is considered, the
model equation (5.9) extended with the friction model remains linear
in the unknown parameters θ
u
. This problem can be solved using a
weighted linear least squares estimator.
However, the estimation problem becomes nonlinear in the parame
ters if the transmission eﬃciency is taken into account. The parameter
estimation is then formulated as the following nonlinear least squares
problem:
θ
ML
= arg min
θ
N
¸
k=1
¸
i∈ϑ
(τ −F(q(k), ˙ q(k), ¨ q(k), θ
u
, θ
k
))
2
σ
2
τ
i
, (5.20)
where F represents the total identiﬁcation model which depends on
the motion and on the unknown and known parameter set. σ
τ
i
is the
standard deviation of the noise on the measured torque. ϑ indicates
the set of axes which are actuated during the identiﬁcation experiment.
Equation (5.20) can be solved using iterative search methods such as
the GaussNewton or LevenbergMarquardt method. The application
of these methods requires an initial estimate of the unknown model
parameters.
The unique estimation of all inertial parameters of the robot pay
load requires the Jacobian of the total identiﬁcation model with respect
to the unknown parameters to be of full rank (Schoukens and Pintelon,
1991). This condition does not require that all robot axes are acti
vated during the payload identiﬁcation experiment. The identiﬁcation
matrix is of full rank if axes 3 to 6 are actuated. In that case, all iner
tial parameters of the payload can be uniquely identiﬁed. If only the
axes 4 to 6 are excited, this identiﬁcation matrix is not of full rank. It
can easily be veriﬁed that the payload mass cannot be estimated and
should be given as a priori information.
128 Robot payload identiﬁcation
5.3 Approach to payload identiﬁcation
As indicated in section 5.2.1 the torque contribution of the robot links
should be separated from that of the payload. A ﬁrst approach, which is
frequently applied, realizes the separation after the parameter estima
tion by subtracting the known parameter values of the robot links. An
alternative approach immediately compensates for the torque contri
bution of the robot links in order to independently identify the payload
inertial parameters. The dynamic parameters of the rotor inertia and
the robot links are constant in time and independent of temperature.
Therefore, it is logical to take into account this information in advance.
This way, less parameters have to be estimated, which reduces uncer
tainty on these parameters. The compensation can be realized based on
a measurement or using a dynamic robot model. This section discusses
the three alternative approaches.
5.3.1 Compensation based on parameter estimates
In a ﬁrst approach, all robot and payload parameters are estimated
from the experiment data. In order to obtain a minimal model de
scription, some payload parameters will form linear combinations with
the robot parameters. The payload parameter values can be calcu
lated by subtracting the known robot parameters from the estimated
parameters. This a priori information of the robot parameters can be
obtained from a diﬀerent identiﬁcation experiment in which only the
robot parameters are identiﬁed. The approach is graphically repre
sented in ﬁgure 5.1.
The disadvantage of this approach is the requirement of an excita
tion trajectory that suﬃciently excites the full robot system such that
all parameters can be estimated accurately. This persistent excitation
is more diﬃcult to realize with an unknown payload attached, because
the workspace is more limited and care should be taken not to overload
the actuators. This approach will not be discussed any further since
the following approaches based on torque compensation have some clear
advantages.
5.3. Approach to payload identiﬁcation 129
Experiment
withpayload
Modelgenerationand
parameterestimation
payloadparameters q
L
Desiredexcitationtrajectory
q,q,q
d d d
q,q,q t
1
q
Determine
robotparameters
fromseparate
identification
experiment
Derivepayloadparameters
fromparameterestimates
q
robotlinks
full
Figure 5.1: Compensation based on parameter estimates
5.3.2 Torque compensation by measurement
A second possibility to compensate for the dynamics of the rotor in
ertias and robot links is to perform two measurements using the same
excitation trajectory: one with payload, and another without payload
(ﬁgure 5.2). In this case, the measurement without payload contains
all information about the rigid body dynamics of the robot links.
This approach has the advantage that no full robot identiﬁcation
is required. This means that the excitation trajectory can be designed
such that especially the payload parameters are identiﬁed more ac
curately. In addition, the torque measurement also compensates for
nonlinearities which are not modelled.
A ﬁrst disadvantage is the increased measurement time because two
excitation measurements should be carried out. It could be considered
to do the measurements without payload once in advance and store the
130 Robot payload identiﬁcation
Experiment
withoutpayload
Experiment
withpayload
Modelgenerationand
parameterestimation
payloadparameters q
L
(+differenceinfrictionparameters)
Desiredexcitationtrajectory q,q,q
d d d
t
2
q,q,q
t
1
Dt
torquecontributionof
payloadanddifference
infrictiontorque
+

Figure 5.2: Torque compensation by measurement
measured motion and torque data. This limits however the number of
practical usable trajectories: a diﬀerent payload may require a diﬀerent
excitation trajectory due to workspace limits. When an additional
mass is added to the robot, all measurements without a payload must
be redone. This is costly and time consuming. Another disadvantage
appears when the tracking error is larger for the measurement with
payload. In that case no correct compensation of the robot dynamics
is obtained.
Although the compensation with the measured torque seems likely
to allow the elimination of the friction eﬀect, friction is shown to be
payload dependent. Hence, it is better to reestimate the friction pa
rameters.
5.3. Approach to payload identiﬁcation 131
5.3.3 Torque compensation by modelling
A third approach uses a dynamic robot model to describe the dynamic
eﬀects of the robot links and the motor inertia. Figure 5.3 illustrates the
approach. The calculation is based on inertial parameter values of the
Inversedynamics
ofrobotlinks
F q ( ) q,q,q .
Experiment
withpayload
Modelgenerationand
parameterestimation
payloadparameters q
L
(+frictionparameters)
Desiredexcitationtrajectory
q,q,q
d d d
t
q,q,q
t
1
Dt
torquecontribution
ofpayload
andfrictiontorque
+

q
robotlinks
robotlinks
robotlinks
Figure 5.3: Torque compensation by modelling
robot links. This approach requires very accurate a priori information.
Every deviation of the used inertial parameter values from the real
values will induce a systematic error. Mostly the a priori information
originates from inaccurate CAD data. Alternatively, the parameters
can be estimated from a preceding identiﬁcation, e.g. as presented in
chapter 4.
The main advantage of this approach is its independency from the
excitation trajectory used, because the torque contribution can be cal
culated from the model parameters. This gives an important ﬂexibility
in the design of an optimal excitation trajectory. On the other hand,
132 Robot payload identiﬁcation
the accuracy directly depends on the accuracy of the actuator torque
prediction, and consequently on the accuracy of the dynamic model
and the robot parameter values.
5.4 Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors
Obtaining the correct parameter values from experimental measure
ments is not straightforward. Two diﬀerent kinds of error sources de
termine the accuracy of the parameter estimates. Stochastic errors, e.g.
noise on the measurements, produce uncertainty on the result, which
can be reduced in theory to any desired level if more measurements are
taken into account. The deterministic errors on the other hand, e.g.
incorrect a priori information, an incomplete model description or an
inappropriate estimation method, cannot be compensated for, and give
rise to a systematic error on the resulting parameter estimates.
This section discusses the sensitivity analysis of the payload identi
ﬁcation approach from the perspective of these systematic errors, and
shows the inﬂuence of inaccurate a priori information or identiﬁcation
model on the ﬁnal accuracy of the payload parameter estimates.
5.4.1 Simulation model of the KUKA KR15
The sensitivity analysis uses a simulation model of a KUKA KR15 in
dustrial robot with six degrees of freedom. The dynamic model in
equation (5.9) is evaluated for an excitation trajectory in which the
last four axes of the robot are moved. To make the simulation as real
istic as possible, the inertial parameter values of the robot model are
obtained from a robot identiﬁcation experiment. For the reference pay
load, the inertial parameters of the CAD model are used (table 5.2).
The simulation model takes into account the coupling matrix V be
tween the actuator torques (equation (5.18)). At the actuator side,
the dynamics of the rotor inertia and friction including Coulomb and
viscous friction, are modelled. The friction parameter values are given
in table 5.1. Obviously, no noise is added to the simulated actuator
currents, because these nonsystematic errors can be reduced by mak
ing longer measurements and averaging over more periods, as indicated
5.4. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 133
axis 1 2 3 4 5 6
f
C
[Nm] 33.4 32.6 19.6 28.3 21.9 18.6
f
v
[Nms] 99.1 121.8 58.8 32.5 10.4 3.6
Table 5.1: Coulomb and viscous friction parameters used in the
simulation model
before. The simulated actuator torques are converted to currents by
division by the torque constants assuming a linear relation.
5.4.2 Approach used in the sensitivity analysis
The payload identiﬁcation approach uses a dynamic model which is
linear in the parameters. The inertial parameters of the payload and
the friction parameters are estimated in each experiment. Afterwards
the inertial parameters are recalculated towards the center of gravity.
The inertial parameters of the robot links and rotor inertia are not
estimated, but are compensated for based on a priori information.
The purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to determine which a priori
information shows the largest inﬂuence on the estimation. Therefore,
in every experiment, only one error is introduced by changing one a
priori known value, yielding a univariate sensitivity analysis. For each
introduced error, the identiﬁcation is carried out and the parameters
are estimated. Some experiments required the simulation model to
be adapted and new simulation data to be created, e.g. in order to
investigate the inﬂuence of an incomplete identiﬁcation model. This
will be indicated when applicable.
5.4.3 Results of the analysis
The results are presented in table 5.2. The columns represent the ten
inertial parameters of the robot payload expressed with respect to the
center of gravity. The ﬁrst row gives the true calibrated values for
the robot payload inertial parameters used for the simulation. The
subsequent rows give the estimated parameter values in the presence
of the diﬀerent errors. In table 5.3, the deviations are expressed in
134 Robot payload identiﬁcation
percentages. The inﬂuence on the actuator torque prediction will be
discussed in section 5.4.4.
1. Actuator torque constant
The measured actuator currents are converted to torques by the actua
tor torque constant. In practice however, this constant is very diﬃcult
to determine on an existing robot. In addition, this constant may
change with the warmup and the lifetime of the robot.
In a ﬁrst experiment, we change this torque constant used in the
identiﬁcation for actuator 3 from 1.23 by 3% to 1.27 Nm/A. The esti
mation result clearly shows that the mass estimate, which changes by
10%, is very sensitive to this error. This can be explained by the fact
that only the measurements of the third axis contribute to the mass
estimation, because the mass is not identiﬁable if only the last three
axes are excited. In addition, the robot links have a big contribution
to the torque of the third actuator. Due to a too large torque constant,
the compensation for the robot links inertia is (relatively) too small.
The latter only ampliﬁes the eﬀect on the mass estimation by a lever
eﬀect.
In a second experiment, the actuator torque constant for actuator
four are changed from 0.63 to 0.65 Nm/A, while in a third experiment
both torque constant for actuators ﬁve and six are changed from 0.67
to 0.65 Nm/A. These errors have a much smaller inﬂuence on the pa
rameter accuracy, especially on the mass which is not estimated from
the measurements of axes four to six. The mass estimation is only
indirectly aﬀected.
To evaluate the eﬀect when more torque constants are incorrectly
known at the same time, a fourth and ﬁfth experiment is done where
the torque constants are change respectively for actuators four to six,
and for actuators three to six. The errors appear to be cumulative. As
a consequence, it cannot be assumed that the eﬀect of a torque constant
which is too small, will be compensated by the eﬀect of another that
is too large. An accurate calibration of the actuator torque constants
is therefore required.
5.4. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 135
I
n
e
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
m
c
x
c
y
c
z
I
x
x
I
y
y
I
z
z
I
x
y
I
x
z
I
y
z
[
k
g
]
[
m
m
]
[
m
m
]
[
m
m
]
[
k
g
m
2
]
[
k
g
m
2
]
[
k
g
m
2
]
[
k
g
m
2
]
[
k
g
m
2
]
[
k
g
m
2
]
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
9
.
5
7
9
2
4
9
0

2
0
2
0
.
6
1
2
0
.
0
6
3
0
.
6
3
7

0
.
1
5
8

0
.
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
8
1
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
3
1
0
.
5
5
5
2
2
.
7
8
4
.
3

1
8
7
.
0
0
.
6
7
0
0
.
1
1
3
0
.
6
4
4

0
.
1
6
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
4
9
.
6
4
8
2
3
.
8
8
9
.
3

1
9
4
.
4
0
.
6
9
7
0
.
1
4
2
0
.
6
4
9

0
.
1
6
0
0
.
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
2
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
5
+
6
9
.
6
1
6
2
3
.
9
8
9
.
8

1
9
8
.
6
0
.
5
9
1
0
.
0
5
0
0
.
6
1
6

0
.
1
5
6

0
.
0
0
2

0
.
0
0
7
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
4

6
9
.
6
8
5
2
3
.
7
8
9
.
1

1
9
1
.
1
0
.
6
7
6
0
.
1
2
9
0
.
6
2
8

0
.
1
5
8
0
.
0
0
1

0
.
0
0
0
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
3

6
1
0
.
6
6
1
2
2
.
4
8
3
.
6

1
7
7
.
2
0
.
7
3
0
0
.
1
7
6
0
.
6
3
4

0
.
1
6
1
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
1
0
2
r
o
b
o
t
l
i
n
k
s
6
.
6
5
3
3
5
.
7
1
3
4
.
6

2
7
6
.
4
0
.
5
3
5

0
.
0
1
8
0
.
5
8
2

0
.
1
5
1

0
.
0
1
5

0
.
0
8
0
3
r
o
t
o
r
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
9
.
8
3
2
2
3
.
6
8
7
.
6

1
7
8
.
8
0
.
8
4
0
0
.
2
9
5
0
.
6
5
0

0
.
1
5
8
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
1
2
4
w
r
i
s
t
c
o
u
p
l
i
n
g
9
.
6
1
5
2
4
.
3
8
9
.
7

1
9
8
.
3
0
.
6
2
9
0
.
0
8
0
0
.
6
3
1

0
.
1
5
7

0
.
0
0
5

0
.
0
0
7
5
e
ﬃ
c
i
e
n
c
y
9
0
%
9
.
6
4
2
2
5
.
7
9
1
.
2

2
0
5
.
5
0
.
6
0
4
0
.
0
5
8
0
.
6
4
4

0
.
1
5
1

0
.
0
0
8

0
.
0
1
6
e
ﬃ
c
i
e
n
c
y
9
5
%
9
.
5
7
1
2
4
.
9
9
0
.
8

2
0
4
.
2
0
.
6
0
6
0
.
0
5
9
0
.
6
3
9

0
.
1
5
4

0
.
0
0
5

0
.
0
1
2
6
j
o
i
n
t
f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
9
.
5
7
6
2
4
.
1
9
0
.
1

2
0
2
.
3
0
.
6
0
2
0
.
0
5
4
0
.
6
3
6

0
.
1
5
8

0
.
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
9
7
k
n
o
w
n
p
a
y
l
o
a
d
m
a
s
s
9
.
5
7
9
2
4
.
9
9
3
.
1

2
4
0
.
6
0
.
4
2
5

0
.
1
2
4
0
.
6
4
5

0
.
1
6
1

0
.
0
1
3

0
.
0
4
6
k
n
o
w
n
p
a
y
l
o
a
d
m
a
s
s
2
9
.
5
7
9
2
4
.
0
9
0
.
0

1
8
8
.
2
0
.
6
7
4
0
.
1
3
0
0
.
6
2
6

0
.
1
5
8
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
3
k
n
o
w
n
p
a
y
l
o
a
d
m
a
s
s
3
9
.
5
7
9
2
4
.
2
8
9
.
0

1
8
9
.
4
0
.
6
7
5
0
.
1
3
1
0
.
6
2
7

0
.
1
5
9
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
3
8
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
b
i
a
s
1
1
.
1
6
4
2
1
.
3
7
9
.
8

1
7
6
.
2
0
.
6
8
3
0
.
1
2
0
0
.
6
4
7

0
.
1
6
2
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
1
2
9
e
x
c
i
t
e
d
a
x
e
s
9
.
8
1
9
2
3
.
8
8
8
.
4

2
0
0
.
2
0
.
6
1
4
0
.
0
5
8
0
.
6
4
2

0
.
1
5
9

0
.
0
0
3

0
.
0
0
5
e
x
c
i
t
e
d
a
x
e
s
2
1
0
.
5
6
6
2
2
.
7
8
4
.
2

1
8
5
.
9
0
.
6
7
3
0
.
1
1
3
0
.
6
4
3

0
.
1
6
1

0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
4
T
a
b
l
e
5
.
2
:
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
v
a
l
u
e
s
w
h
e
n
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
a
p
r
i
o
r
i
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
i
d
e
n
t
i
ﬁ
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
l
136 Robot payload identiﬁcation
2. Dynamic model of robot links
As mentioned before, the torque contribution of the robot links can be
calculated a priori and compensated for. The calculation is however
based on a set of a priori identiﬁed robot parameters or obtained from
a CAD model. Consequently, they are subject to uncertainty.
The identiﬁcation experiment uses a set of CAD data for the robot
parameters provided by the manufacturer (table C.3), which is diﬀerent
from the set of identiﬁed robot parameter values used for the simula
tion. The sensitivity analysis shows that the inﬂuence is signiﬁcant.
Again, it is concluded that the mass estimate is very sensitive to an
error in this a priori information.
3. Inaccurately known rotor inertia
The actuator inertial dynamics consume a considerable part of the
actuator torque. Mostly, the inertia information provided by the man
ufacturer is not accurate. In addition, also the gear wheels of the trans
mission have an inertia which should, at least partly, be added in the
model to the rotor inertia. This leads to a systematic underestimation
of the inertia if only the rotor inertia is taken into account.
The results in table 5.2 correspond to a reduction with 5% of the
a priori values for the rotor inertia, which are changed from 6.6 kgm
2
,
2.9 kgm
2
, 3.91 kgm
2
and 0.62 kgm
2
to 6.29 kgm
2
, 2.76 kgm
2
, 3.72 kgm
2
and 0.59 kgm
2
for the actuators three to six respectively. These values
are already reduced to the reduction side by taking into account the
transmission ratios. This reduction of 5%, considered as realistic, in
troduces signiﬁcant systematic errors in the robot payload parameter
estimates.
4. Coupling between the axes
As mentioned in section 5.2.1, the wrist axes are mechanically coupled.
This coupling is expressed by the equation
q
G
=V q
M
(5.21)
τ
G
=V
T
τ
G
(5.22)
5.4. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 137
I
n
e
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
(
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
)
m
c
x
c
y
c
z
I
x
x
I
y
y
I
z
z
I
x
y
I
x
z
I
y
z
1
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
3
1
0
.
2

5
.
6

6
.
3

7
.
4
9
.
4
7
8
.
8
1
.
0
2
.
0

1
0
6
.
2

1
3
7
.
1
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
4
0
.
7

0
.
8

0
.
7

3
.
7
1
3
.
9
1
2
5
.
9
1
.
8
1
.
2

1
2
4
.
9

8
9
.
8
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
5
+
6
0
.
4

0
.
5

0
.
2

1
.
7

3
.
4

2
0
.
1

3
.
2

1
.
2

2
1
.
5

1
0
.
1
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
4

6
1
.
1

1
.
2

1
.
0

5
.
4
1
0
.
4
1
0
5
.
0

1
.
4

0
.
0

1
4
5
.
8

9
9
.
4
t
o
r
q
u
e
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
3

6
1
1
.
3

6
.
7

7
.
1

1
2
.
3
1
9
.
3
1
7
9
.
1

0
.
4
1
.
9

2
4
3
.
1

2
2
7
.
7
2
r
o
b
o
t
l
i
n
k
s

3
0
.
5
4
8
.
6
4
9
.
5
3
6
.
8

1
2
.
5

1
2
9
.
2

8
.
6

4
.
2
6
4
0
.
6
9
0
3
.
8
3
r
o
t
o
r
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
2
.
6

1
.
7

2
.
7

1
1
.
5
3
7
.
2
3
6
5
.
9
2
.
1
0
.
3

2
6
5
.
0

2
4
3
.
9
4
w
r
i
s
t
c
o
u
p
l
i
n
g
0
.
4
1
.
1

0
.
3

1
.
8
2
.
8
2
6
.
4

0
.
9

0
.
5
1
4
4
.
7

9
.
4
5
e
ﬃ
c
i
e
n
c
y
9
0
0
.
7
6
.
9
1
.
4
1
.
7

1
.
4

7
.
7
1
.
1

4
.
4
3
0
1
.
7
1
0
2
.
9
e
ﬃ
c
i
e
n
c
y
9
5

0
.
1
3
.
6
0
.
9
1
.
1

1
.
1

6
.
0
0
.
3

2
.
3
1
5
2
.
2
5
5
.
4
8
6
j
o
i
n
t
f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n

0
.
0
0
.
3
0
.
1
0
.
2

1
.
7

1
4
.
2

0
.
2
0
.
1
5
3
.
8
1
1
.
9
7
k
n
o
w
n
p
a
y
l
o
a
d
m
a
s
s
0
3
.
7
3
.
4
1
9
.
1

3
0
.
6

2
9
6
.
0
1
.
3
2
.
0
5
4
1
.
8
4
7
1
.
9
i
d
e
m
2
0

0
.
1

0
.
0

6
.
8
1
0
.
2
1
0
5
.
7

1
.
8
0
.
1

1
7
3
.
2

1
3
2
.
3
i
d
e
m
3
0
1
.
0

1
.
1

6
.
2
1
0
.
4
1
0
7
.
4

1
.
5
0
.
3

1
3
2
.
9

1
3
5
.
6
8
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
b
i
a
s
1
6
.
5

1
1
.
1

1
1
.
3

1
2
.
8
1
1
.
5
9
0
.
7
1
.
6
2
.
2

2
4
8
.
8

2
5
0
.
7
9
e
x
c
i
t
e
d
a
x
e
s
2
.
5

0
.
9

1
.
8

0
.
9
0
.
2

7
.
3
0
.
8
0
.
8
2
5
.
8

3
2
.
0
e
x
c
i
t
e
d
a
x
e
s
2
1
0
.
3

5
.
4

6
.
4

8
.
0
1
0
.
0
7
9
.
7
0
.
9
2
.
1

8
4
.
7

1
4
6
.
7
T
a
b
l
e
5
.
3
:
D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
r
u
e
v
a
l
u
e
(
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
i
n
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
)
138 Robot payload identiﬁcation
where V represents a known ﬁxed linear transformation matrix, e.g.
for the KUKA KR15,
V =
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 V
2
1 0
0 0 0 V
0
V
1
1
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
, (5.23)
with V
0
= −0.0245, V
1
= 0.0243, and V
2
= −0.0111.
The mechanical coupling between the wrist axes is in the order of
magnitude of one to two percent. Therefore, it is sometimes assumed
that no coupling is present, and the V matrix (equation (5.23)) is re
placed by the identity matrix. Although this may seem an appropriate
approach, table 5.2 shows that this simpliﬁcation introduces a signiﬁ
cant systematic error, which can easily be avoided.
5. Transmission eﬃciency
Every transmission is characterized by some eﬃciency ratio η, deﬁned
as the ratio of the outgoing to the ingoing power. As the inclusion of
this eﬀect in the dynamic model would make the estimation nonlinear,
the transmission eﬃciency is mostly neglected. It is then assumed that
the standard friction model used for the actuator losses can accurately
describe the losses in the gear transmission.
To evaluate the eﬀect of the eﬃciency on the parameter estimation,
the simulation model is extended, and adapted simulation data are
created. The eﬃciency η of the transmission is considered to be 90%
for all axes. The linear least squares estimation, which is equal to
assuming that the eﬃciency is 1, shows that the friction model is not
completely equivalent with the eﬃciency model, because a systematic
error is introduced. In the estimation step, it was observed that the
eﬃciency estimate strongly depends on the initial guess. This indicates
the presence of local minima.
5.4. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 139
6. Neglecting joint friction at the link side
The discussed model considers actuator friction only, i.e. neglects fric
tion in the joints. The diﬀerence between the joint and actuator mo
tion, and therefore also friction, is introduced by the wrist coupling.
Transformation of the actuator friction by means of the coupling matrix
introduces additional coupling friction torques that are approximately
2% of the actuator friction torques. Neglecting joint friction torques
introduces errors. In simulation, we assume that 25% of the friction
torques are in the joint, i.e. at the link side, which is an estimate of the
real distribution. The estimation including only actuator friction re
sults in parameter values which are very close to the desired values. It
is concluded that modelling the friction in the actuator and in the joints
with only one friction model doesn’t introduce signiﬁcant systematic
errors.
The following points discuss some choices which might be consid
ered in the identiﬁcation procedure to improve the parameter estimates.
To evaluate these choices, the torque constant of the third actuator is
changed as described in point 1. of this section.
7. Using payload mass as a priori information
As mentioned before, the payload mass is only estimated based on the
third actuator torque, while the estimation of all other inertial param
eter depends on the torque measurements of axes 3 to 6. To avoid an
inaccurate mass estimation, the payload mass can be weighed and taken
into account as a priori information. The results show however that
the inertia estimates get worse: the bad scaling of the third actuator
torque dominates the parameter estimation.
The results are diﬀerent when only the last three axes are excited.
In this experiment, the actuator torque constants for actuators 4 to 6
are changed by 3%. Then, the other inertial parameters are identiﬁed
using the measured torques which makes the estimation less sensitive
to errors.
140 Robot payload identiﬁcation
8. Estimation of measurement bias
Often, actuator current measurements contain a bias. This bias can
easily be taken into account by estimating the bias in the identiﬁcation
procedure, because theoretically the bias parameter is independently
identiﬁable. However, this method may produce unexpected results.
When the torque constant of the third actuator is not accurately known
(see point 1.), inclusion of a bias in the estimation model even nega
tively aﬀects the estimated payload inertial parameters.
9. Number of excited axes
When in addition the base axes are excited, more measurements are
available to estimate the diﬀerent parameters of the payload, yielding
a decreased sensitivity to an error on the a priori information, e.g.
inaccurately known motor torque constant or rotor inertia. Of course,
excitation of all robot axes in the payload identiﬁcation experiment
requires a priori information about more inertial parameters (i.e. those
of the base axes) of which the accuracy is again crucial.
To obtain the result in table 5.2, the torque constant of the third
axis is changed and all six axes of the robot have been excited. The
parameter accuracy is clearly better than in the ﬁrst case (see point 1.).
5.4.4 Actuator torque prediction accuracy
The previous section showed that the presence of some systematic er
rors has a big inﬂuence on the actual parameter estimates. Although
there exists a direct, mostly linear, relation between parameter values
and torque prediction, expressed in equation (5.9), it turns out that
most systematic errors don’t have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the actua
tor torque prediction accuracy.
Figure 5.4 shows the torque prediction for a validation trajectory,
which is diﬀerent from the excitation trajectory. The simulated torque
based on the exact model is compared with the predicted torque based
on the parameters estimated using the discussed payload identiﬁca
tion approach and erroneous a priori knowledge, i.e. inaccurate torque
constants for the actuators three to six and inaccurate estimates of
5.4. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 141
0 10 20 30
−400
−200
0
200
Simulated and predicted actuator torque
A
x
i
s
3
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−5
0
5
10
Actuator torque prediction error
0 10 20 30
−500
0
500
A
x
i
s
4
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−5
0
5
0 10 20 30
−500
0
500
A
x
i
s
5
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−5
0
5
0 10 20 30
−200
0
200
Time (s)
A
x
i
s
6
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−0.5
0
0.5
Time (s)
Figure 5.4: Measured and prediction actuator torque and the cor
responding prediction error
the inertial parameters of the robot links. The torque prediction er
ror, plotted on the right side of the ﬁgure, is small compared to the
standard deviation of the noise and to the torque scale.
The root mean square (RMS) value of this simulated prediction
error is small compared to the level of noise that is present on actuator
torque measurements on a real robot. For a KUKA KR15, the standard
deviation of the noise on the torque is typically 10 Nm, 6 Nm, 5 Nm,
and 2 Nm respectively for the axes three to six, as shown in table 5.4.
From this analysis it can be concluded that the actuator torque
prediction is only slightly aﬀected by the presence of system
atic errors.
142 Robot payload identiﬁcation
typical standard RMS simulated
deviation of noise prediction error
axis 3 10 Nm 2.2 Nm
axis 4 6 Nm 1.9 Nm
axis 5 5 Nm 0.9 Nm
axis 6 2 Nm 0.1 Nm
Table 5.4: Standard deviation of the noise and RMS actuator
torque prediction error
5.4.5 Discussion and conclusion
This section discussed the inﬂuence of systematic errors on the accu
racy of robot payload identiﬁcation by means of a univariate sensitivity
analysis. The use of simulated data allowed to clearly separate and in
vestigate each eﬀect. The sensitivity analysis shows that the quality
of almost all a priori information is very important. The identiﬁcation
is especially sensitive to the accuracy of actuator torque constants and
to the inertial parameters of the robot links and the rotor. Accurate
estimation results can only be obtained if accurate values for all these
a priori known parameters are available.
The parameter estimates are less sensitive to the model used to de
scribe the losses in the manipulator. Traditionally, losses are assumed
to be concentrated in the actuator and are described by viscous and
Coulomb friction. If the real transmission is characterized by an eﬃ
ciency ratio or friction is present in the joint, only a small systematic
error is introduced in the parameter estimation.
Using the payload mass as a priori information and increasing the
number of excited axes does not necessarily improve the accuracy of the
parameter estimates if one of the previously mentioned errors occur.
Whereas the parameter estimates are obviously aﬀected, the ac
tuator torque prediction is almost insensitive to the presence of the
discussed errors. An accurate actuator torque prediction is therefore
no guarantee for accurate parameter estimates.
5.5. The experimental setup 143
5.5 The experimental setup
This section will brieﬂy describe the experimental setup which was
used to validate the payload identiﬁcation approach. The setup con
sists of the industrial robot KUKA KR15 and a reconﬁgurable reference
payload.
5.5.1 The industrial robot KUKA KR15
The KUKA KR15 robot is a modern industrial robot with a PCbased
robot controller (ﬁgure 5.5). This industrial robot has six degrees of
freedom and a payload capacity of 15 kg.
Figure 5.5: The KUKA KR15 robot
The excitation software
The company Amatec GmbH has put at our disposal a software mod
ule for the robot controller that allows us to apply periodic excitation
trajectories. Unfortunately, the module does not provide full freedom
in choosing the trajectory parameters. The input parameters for the
144 Robot payload identiﬁcation
excitation trajectory are the position ranges of the diﬀerent joint axes.
Based on this input and on the maximal velocity and acceleration, the
software module chooses the number of harmonics and determines the
trajectory parameters. The number of harmonic terms is limited to
only two terms per axis. Mostly only the ﬁrst harmonic and the 20th
or the 25th harmonic are included. The period is ﬁxed to 30 seconds
and the sampling period is 12 ms, yielding 2499 sample points per pe
riod. For every experiment, ten periods are measured after a transient
period of 60 seconds.
Identiﬁability of parameters
Since the excitation software does not allow to move the ﬁrst two joint
axes, the excitation is limited to the last four axes of the manipulator.
This is no strong restriction because theoretically the excitation of these
four axes is suﬃcient to identify all inertial parameters of the payload.
Notice that the excitation of the third robot axis is required in order
to estimate the payload mass. This means that the mass appears only
in the dynamic equations of the third axis as a separate parameter.
5.5.2 The reference payload
To validate the accuracy of the identiﬁcation, a calibrated reference
payload is necessary. For this payload all ten inertial parameters are
known from an accurate CAD model. This way, the estimated inertial
parameter values can be compared to their real values.
The design of the payload
In order to evaluate the general applicability of the payload identiﬁca
tion method it is not suﬃcient to have only one ﬁxed reference payload.
Therefore, a reconﬁgurable payload was designed and built which is ca
pable of covering a wide range of inertia and mass. E.g. the mass can
be varied from 1.4 kg to 15 kg, the center of mass from 390 to 390 mm
in x and y direction and has a range of 160 mm in the z direction. The
principal inertias range from nearly zero to over 3 kgm
2
. An example
of the reference payload is shown in ﬁgure 5.6.
5.5. The experimental setup 145
Figure 5.6: A conﬁguration of the reference payload
The payload is designed to withstand an acceleration of 6 times the
gravity. The eigenfrequency lies above 15 Hz, which is much higher
than the maximal frequency in the excitation trajectory.
Diﬀerent payload conﬁgurations
In the validation of the proposed identiﬁcation approach various con
ﬁgurations of the designed reference payload have been used. Table 5.5
gives the inertial parameter values for three payload conﬁgurations that
are used for the experimental results. The conﬁgurations are chosen
such that a relevant range of parameter values is covered.
The medium conﬁguration (shown in ﬁgure 5.6) is situated in the
middle of the parameter ranges. It can be considered as a nominal
payload which is frequently used with the KUKA KR15 manipulator.
In this chapter, this conﬁguration is used to compare the diﬀerent ap
proaches and to discuss the alternative options in the torque compen
sation model.
The small conﬁguration has a mass of only 5.84 kg, and conse
quently also rather small moments of inertia. This makes it more dif
ﬁcult to obtain accurate parameter estimates. For the large conﬁgura
tion, these parameter values are much higher. The mass of 13.56 kg is
close to the maximal payload mass. In this case, the excitation should
be limited in order not to overload the manipulator. Both conﬁgura
tions are shown on the left and the right side of ﬁgure 5.7 respectively.
146 Robot payload identiﬁcation
Payload conﬁguration
Parameter Small Medium Large
m [kg] 5.8444 9.579 13.555
c
x
[mm] 53.7 24 −95.1
c
y
[mm] 201.4 90 25.4
c
z
[mm] −362.6 −202 −272.1
I
xx
[kgm
2
] 0.2961 0.612 0.102
I
yy
[kgm
2
] 0.0502 0.063 1.028
I
zz
[kgm
2
] 0.2871 0.637 1.091
I
xy
[kgm
2
] −0.0709 −0.158 0.267
I
xz
[kgm
2
] 0.0096 −0.002 −0.003
I
yz
[kgm
2
] 0.0361 −0.008 0.001
Table 5.5: Exact inertial parameter values for various payload con
ﬁgurations
5.6 Experimental results
This section presents the experimental results of the proposed payload
identiﬁcation approaches. The ﬁrst section presents the experimental
results for the approach in which the torque contribution of the robot
links is compensated for using a measurement without payload. Sec
ondly, the approach using an identiﬁed robot model is discussed. A
third section deals with the warmup problem which negatively aﬀects
the parameter estimates.
The actuator torque constants were not accurately known and a
recalibration was required before doing any experiment in order to
obtain accurate parameter estimates for the robot link and payload
parameters. Improved values for the torque constants are determined
as the bestﬁt estimate over a set of experiments. Each experiment
uses a diﬀerent payload conﬁguration with known inertial parameters.
5.6. Experimental results 147
Figure 5.7: Small (left) and large (right) conﬁguration of the ref
erence payload
5.6.1 Identiﬁcation with compensation by measure
ments
Section 5.3.2 presented a payload identiﬁcation approach that requires
no a priori information. The identiﬁcation consists of doing two ex
citation experiments: one with payload and another without payload.
The diﬀerence ∆τ in actuator torque measurements is the input for
the parameter estimation. Along with the payload parameters, also
the change in the friction coeﬃcients is estimated since it was shown
that friction is payload dependent. The experimentally measured tra
jectories are considered to be the same for both experiments, because
the diﬀerence in position is smaller than 10
−3
radians.
The experimental results for the payload identiﬁcation are obtained
with the following procedure. Ten diﬀerent identiﬁcation experiments
are done, each using a diﬀerent excitation trajectory. For each exper
iment, the payload parameters are estimated. From the ten resulting
parameter sets, a mean value and a standard deviation are calculated.
Table 5.6 gives the experimental results. The estimated parameter val
ues are close to the exact CAD values. The mass is estimated within
148 Robot payload identiﬁcation
Average estimation values
Parameter Exact Estimated Standard Single
value value deviation experiment
m [kg] 9.579 9.5445 0.1464 9.5866
c
x
[m] 0.024 0.0248 0.0004 0.0248
c
y
[m] 0.090 0.0943 0.0012 0.0955
c
z
[m] −0.202 −0.2070 0.0029 0.2061
I
xx
[kgm
2
] 0.612 0.6416 0.0208 0.6531
I
yy
[kgm
2
] 0.063 0.0501 0.0144 0.0597
I
zz
[kgm
2
] 0.637 0.6459 0.0113 0.6504
I
xy
[kgm
2
] −0.158 −0.1707 0.0059 0.1681
I
xz
[kgm
2
] −0.002 −0.0030 0.0011 0.0021
I
yz
[kgm
2
] −0.008 −0.0079 0.0025 0.0097
Table 5.6: Experimental results for compensation by measure
ments
40 g, and the positions of the center of gravity are known within a few
millimeters. The standard deviation conﬁrms the goodness of the re
sults. The exact parameter values are within two standard deviations
from the estimated values. The large variation on the mass estimate
can partly be explained by the warmup eﬀect (see also section 5.6.3):
the estimated value of the mass tends to increase as the robot gets
warmed up. The last column of table 5.6 shows that also for a single
experiment the estimated parameter estimates are already close to the
exact values.
The estimated payload parameter values allow accurate torque pre
diction. Figure 5.8 shows the measured and predicted actuator torques
required to move the payload. Both curves lie almost perfectly on top
of each other. The measured torque is obtained as the torque diﬀerence
between the two measured excitation trajectories. The accurate torque
prediction is conﬁrmed by the small RMS values of the prediction error,
given in table 5.7.
5.6. Experimental results 149
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
−300
−200
−100
0
100
200
A
x
i
s
3
(
N
m
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
−100
−50
0
50
100
A
x
i
s
4
(
N
m
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
−100
−50
0
50
100
A
x
i
s
5
(
N
m
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
−100
−50
0
50
100
A
x
i
s
6
(
N
m
)
Time (s)
Figure 5.8: Measured and predicted torques required to move the
payload. Both torques coincide almost perfectly.
150 Robot payload identiﬁcation
RMS prediction error
axis 3 axis 4 axis 5 axis 6
9.658 Nm 5.109 Nm 2.678 Nm 2.442 Nm
Table 5.7: Root mean squared prediction error for the actuator
torque due to the payload
5.6.2 Identiﬁcation with compensation using modelling
The alternative approach, which was discussed in section 5.3.3, uses
the dynamic robot model to compensate for the torque contribution
of the robot links. As mentioned, this compensation approach is the
more ﬂexible one. There still exists the freedom to decide which a priori
information is used for the compensation, and which information should
be reestimated.
Parameter estimation for the medium reference payload
The results for this approach are ﬁrst discussed for the medium refer
ence payload. The identiﬁcation procedure estimates the ten payload
parameters and the friction parameters. All other inertial parameters
are taken into account as a priori knowledge for the torque compensa
tion.
To present the experimental results, the same procedure as above
is applied. The results given in table 5.8 are calculated from ten dif
ferent payload identiﬁcation experiments. The estimated parameter
values are again close to the exact values. Compared to the previ
ous approach, the standard deviations on the parameter estimates are
larger. This indicates that a model based compensation of the robot
link torques does not perform as well as the measurement based ap
proach. The payload mass estimate is the furthest away from the exact
value. The minimal and maximal mass estimate obtained in the ten
experiments are respectively 9.38 kg and 9.87 kg. This large deviation
is probably due to a weak excitation of the system with respect to this
parameter and the variation of the actuator torque constants. The
estimation results for a single experiment prove that it is possible to
5.6. Experimental results 151
Average estimation values
Parameter Exact Estimated Standard Single
value value deviation experiment
m [kg] 9.579 9.6179 0.1735 9.5981
c
x
[m] 0.024 0.0246 0.0010 0.0260
c
y
[m] 0.090 0.0930 0.0016 0.0946
c
z
[m] −0.202 −0.2065 0.0064 0.2103
I
xx
[kgm
2
] 0.612 0.6770 0.0765 0.6277
I
yy
[kgm
2
] 0.063 0.1210 0.0773 0.0783
I
zz
[kgm
2
] 0.637 0.6211 0.0204 0.6373
I
xy
[kgm
2
] −0.158 −0.1642 0.0105 0.1455
I
xz
[kgm
2
] −0.002 −0.0038 0.0097 0.0152
I
yz
[kgm
2
] −0.008 −0.0105 0.0156 0.0248
Table 5.8: Exact and estimated inertial parameter values for
medium payload conﬁguration
obtain accurate parameter estimates.
Figure 5.9 shows the actuator torque predictions based on the pa
rameter estimates for a validation trajectory. As expected, the iden
tiﬁed model of robot with payload is able to accurately predict the
required actuator torque. The measured and the predicted actuator
torques are almost equal, which is conﬁrmed by the small prediction
errors.
The sensitivity analysis revealed that the torque prediction is suﬃ
ciently accurate, even if the parameter estimates are not very accurate.
This conclusion is conﬁrmed by the experimental results. The torque
prediction is not strongly aﬀected by rather inaccurate parameter esti
mates.
Choice of the appropriate a priori information
In the torque compensation step of the payload identiﬁcation proce
dure, one has to decide which information is taken into account a priori
and which eﬀects are included in the identiﬁcation model. The possible
choices were already introduced in the sensitivity analysis (section 5.4).
152 Robot payload identiﬁcation
0 10 20 30
−600
−400
−200
0
200
Measured and predicted actuator torque
A
x
i
s
3
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−600
−400
−200
0
200
Actuator torque prediction error
0 10 20 30
−200
0
200
A
x
i
s
4
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−200
0
200
0 10 20 30
−200
0
200
A
x
i
s
5
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−200
0
200
0 10 20 30
−100
0
100
Time (s)
A
x
i
s
6
(
N
m
)
0 10 20 30
−100
0
100
Time (s)
Figure 5.9: Measured and predicted actuator torques for the vali
dation trajectory
5.6. Experimental results 153
Average estimation values
Parameter Exact Estimated Standard
value value deviation
m [kg] 9.579 9.3354 0.1373
c
x
[m] 0.024 0.0249 0.0012
c
y
[m] 0.090 0.0982 0.0014
c
z
[m] −0.202 −0.2004 0.0044
I
xx
[kgm
2
] 0.612 0.6997 0.0652
I
yy
[kgm
2
] 0.063 0.1177 0.0622
I
zz
[kgm
2
] 0.637 0.7588 0.0423
I
xy
[kgm
2
] −0.158 −0.1602 0.0089
I
xz
[kgm
2
] −0.002 −0.0090 0.0083
I
yz
[kgm
2
] −0.008 −0.0078 0.0139
Table 5.9: Eﬀect of including the transmission eﬃciency on the es
timated inertial parameter values
In this section, some of these choices are discussed based on the exper
imental experience.
Nonlinear relation between the actuator current and torque.
Taking into account the torque saturation for high actuator cur
rents has no visible inﬂuence on the parameter estimates. This
could be expected from the fact that the deviation from a linear
relation is very small in the relevant range.
Estimation of the transmission eﬃciency. Including the losses in
the transmission makes the parameter estimation nonlinear. The
estimation results, averaged over ten experiments, are presented
in table 5.9. If we compare these results to those in table 5.8, we
see that most parameter values are similar, except the estimate
of the mass, which is much worse. The mass estimate tends to
vary even more when the starting values of the transmission eﬃ
ciencies are changed. The standard deviation on most parameter
estimates are a bit smaller than those mentioned above.
The nonlinear estimation requires that starting values are chosen
for all parameters. The eﬃciencies are initially set to 95%. The
154 Robot payload identiﬁcation
ﬁnally estimated values are close to their initial guesses. The
same eﬀect is observed for other initial guesses, e.g. 90% or 100%.
This indicates that the nonlinear optimization gets stuck in a
local minimum.
Based on this discussion, it cannot be concluded that estimat
ing the eﬃciencies yields more accurate estimates of the payload
parameters. The increased complexity due to the nonlinear pa
rameter estimation is therefore not justiﬁed.
Payload mass a priori known. The payload mass could be consid
ered as a priori known in order to eliminate the sensitivity prob
lem of this parameter. Experimental results show that this does
not improve the accuracy of the other parameter estimates.
In general, it is better to take into account as much a priori infor
mation as there is available. This reduces the number of parameters
to be estimated, which in turn improves the condition of the estima
tion problem. An important requisite is that the quality of the a priori
information is very good.
Parameter estimates of other payload conﬁgurations
Until now, all of the presented results were obtained using the medium
payload conﬁguration. The results and conclusions are however gener
ally valid. To prove that the presented payload identiﬁcation approach
also applies to other payload conﬁgurations, this section gives the iden
tiﬁcation results for a small and a large payload conﬁguration.
Table 5.10 shows the estimated parameter values for the small pay
load. Although some individual parameter values are relatively small,
their estimates are very accurate. For this conﬁguration, the diﬀerences
between estimated and exact parameter values are even smaller than
one standard deviation. Similar to the results of the medium payload
conﬁguration, the standard deviations on the mass m and on the mo
ments of inertia I
xx
and I
yy
are relatively large. This indicates that
the excitation does not perform well with respect to these parameters.
The same conclusions apply to the results of the large payload con
ﬁguration in table 5.11.
5.6. Experimental results 155
Average estimation values
Parameter Exact Estimated Standard Single
value value deviation experiment
m [kg] 5.8444 5.8748 0.0668 5.8947
c
x
[m] 0.0537 0.0571 0.0025 0.0570
c
y
[m] 0.2014 0.2089 0.0090 0.2150
c
z
[m] −0.3626 −0.3624 0.0142 0.3519
I
xx
[kgm
2
] 0.2961 0.2866 0.0841 0.3200
I
yy
[kgm
2
] 0.0502 0.0430 0.0963 0.0899
I
zz
[kgm
2
] 0.2871 0.2728 0.0305 0.2563
I
xy
[kgm
2
] −0.0709 −0.0715 0.0049 0.0636
I
xz
[kgm
2
] 0.0096 0.0009 0.0062 0.0087
I
yz
[kgm
2
] 0.0361 0.0278 0.0246 0.0280
Table 5.10: Exact and estimated inertial parameter values for
small payload conﬁguration
Average estimation values
Parameter Exact Estimated Standard Single
value value deviation experiment
m [kg] 13.555 13.5909 0.1863 13.5056
c
x
[m] −0.0951 −0.0976 0.0012 0.0978
c
y
[m] 0.0254 0.0258 0.0006 0.0252
c
z
[m] −0.2721 −0.2687 0.0052 0.2729
I
xx
[kgm
2
] 0.102 0.2350 0.0985 0.3045
I
yy
[kgm
2
] 1.028 1.2392 0.0947 1.3112
I
zz
[kgm
2
] 1.091 1.0440 0.0211 1.0302
I
xy
[kgm
2
] 0.267 0.2706 0.0122 0.2530
I
xz
[kgm
2
] −0.003 −0.0055 0.0186 0.0039
I
yz
[kgm
2
] 0.001 0.0146 0.0215 0.0308
Table 5.11: Exact and estimated inertial parameter values for large
payload conﬁguration
156 Robot payload identiﬁcation
5.6.3 Eﬀect of the warmup on the accuracy of the pa
rameter estimates
The experimental results of chapter 3 already showed that friction is
temperature dependent. In the experiments of this chapter, it was ob
served that also the payload parameter estimates are strongly aﬀected
by the warmup of the robot. This inﬂuence was experimentally veri
ﬁed with the large payload conﬁguration attached to the manipulator.
A payload identiﬁcation was repeated for 20 successive experiments.
In each experiment, the same excitation trajectory was used.
Figure 5.10 shows the evolution of the friction parameter estimates.
This conﬁrms that the friction parameters change when the robot gets
warmed up. Generally, the friction torque decreases with increasing
temperature, except the Coulomb friction of the third axis. Variation
of only the friction should not cause any problem for the payload iden
tiﬁcation as long as the measurement time is short in comparison with
the time constant of the temperature variation.
We observe however that also the parameter estimates of the pay
load show a variation with temperature. The evolution of these pa
rameter values is shown in ﬁgure 5.11. Especially the estimates of the
payload mass m and the moment of inertia I
zz
seem to be very sen
sitive to the warmup eﬀect. It is physically impossible that the mass
and the inertias change with temperature. This suggests that the rela
tion between actuator current and actuator torques, i.e. the actuator
torque constant, varies with temperature. Consequently, the measure
ment signals are badly calibrated and no accurate measurements of the
actuator torque are available anymore. This is bad news, because it
becomes impossible to obtain consistent and accurate parameter esti
mates in all situations. Fortunately, all other measurements on which
the results in this chapter are based were done in similar conditions.
This explains why the results are accurate and consistent for diﬀerent
excitation trajectories and diﬀerent payload conﬁgurations.
5.6. Experimental results 157
5 10 15 20
32
34
36
38
40
A
x
i
s
3
Coulomb friction coefficient
5 10 15 20
20
30
40
50
60
Viscous friction coefficient
5 10 15 20
26.5
27
27.5
28
28.5
A
x
i
s
4
5 10 15 20
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
13.5
5 10 15 20
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
A
x
i
s
5
5 10 15 20
7
8
9
10
11
5 10 15 20
10
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8
11
Number of measurement
A
x
i
s
6
5 10 15 20
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
Number of measurement
Figure 5.10: Evolution of the estimated friction coeﬃcients with
warmup of the manipulator
158 Robot payload identiﬁcation
5 10 15 20
13.4
13.6
13.8
14
14.2
14.4
m
5 10 15 20
−0.1
−0.098
−0.096
c
x
5 10 15 20
0.0248
0.025
0.0252
0.0254
0.0256
c
y
5 10 15 20
−0.275
−0.27
c
z
5 10 15 20
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
I
x
x
5 10 15 20
0.27
0.275
0.28
0.285
0.29
I
x
y
5 10 15 20
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
I
y
y
5 10 15 20
−12
−10
−8
−6
−4
−2
x 10
−3
I
x
z
5 10 15 20
1.06
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
Number of measurement
I
z
z
5 10 15 20
0.026
0.027
0.028
0.029
0.03
Number of measurement
I
y
z
Figure 5.11: Evolution of the estimated inertial payload parameter
values with warmup of the manipulator
5.7. Conclusions 159
5.7 Conclusions
The presented experimental robot payload identiﬁcation method is
based on the robot identiﬁcation method described in chapter 3. The
experiment design using periodic trajectories and maximum likelihood
parameter estimation is adopted. The modelling approach however is
a little bit diﬀerent. Since we are mainly interested in the payload pa
rameters, there is no need to identify the full manipulator again. The
torque contribution of the robot links is compensated for based on a
priori known dynamic robot model. The rotor inertias and inertial pa
rameters of the links are set to a priori determined values. This results
in an identiﬁcation model that only depends on the payload inertial
parameters and the friction parameters.
Experimental results show that this payload identiﬁcation approach
satisﬁes the requirements of the industrial users. The obtained iner
tial parameter estimates correspond to the physical values and the re
sulting dynamic model is able to provide an accurate actuator torque
prediction. The ﬁrst requirement is more diﬃcult to achieve because
the parameter estimation is very sensitive to the quality of all a pri
ori knowledge. An accurate robot identiﬁcation should precede the
payload identiﬁcation step.
The experimental results cannot prove that the inclusion of the
transmission eﬃciency in the identiﬁcation model yields signiﬁcantly
better parameter estimates; a friction model including Coulomb and
viscous friction is therefore suﬃcient to describe the losses in the sys
tem. It is observed that the actuator torque constants change with
the warmup of the robot. This negatively aﬀects the accuracy of the
payload identiﬁcation approach.
160 Robot payload identiﬁcation
6
Trajectory compensation
The performance of any real system is limited by its constraints
E. Goldratt
6.1 Introduction
Industrial robots have become an indispensable means of automation
to increase productivity and ﬂexibility of production systems. The
ever increasing quality standards and international competition im
pose higher requirements on reliability and positioning accuracy, and
above all on velocity of industrial robots. Moreover, modern applica
tions like laser cutting and welding require an increasing path tracking
accuracy. For some applications, such as spray painting, it is necessary
to move the end eﬀector of a manipulator along some desired paths
with predescribed speed.
161
162 Trajectory compensation
Path tracking errors mainly originate from kinematic errors, con
troller performance limitations, and joint ﬂexibility (Bernhardt and
Albright, 1993). The kinematic errors can easily be compensated in
the path planning, and ﬂexibility is mostly negligible because commer
cial robots have high transmission stiﬀness. Although typical indus
trial controllers are suﬃcient for simple pickandplace applications,
they don’t take into account nonlinearities like centrifugal, gravitation,
Coriolis forces, friction, actuator dynamics, and dynamic coupling be
tween the axes, resulting in deviations from the desired motion. The
inclusion of these nonlinear eﬀects is however necessary for accurate
high speed path tracking. Due to the complexity of advanced control
algorithms developed in robotics research (Adams, 1992; Craig, 1986;
Sciavicco and Siciliano, 1996), the classical control techniques are still
widely used in industrial robot applications. Nevertheless, there is a
growing interest from industry for an improved path tracking accuracy
with the current generation of robots and controllers.
Since there is a rather slow evolution to change the standard con
trollers of industrial robots, a compensation of the nonlinear dynamics
can presently only be realized by adding a compensation to the desired
trajectory (Alban and Janocha, 1999). Lange et al. present an adap
tive learning algorithm that reduces the path deviations (Lange and
Hirzinger, 1994; Lange and Hirzinger, 1999). The measured deviations
are taken into account in the compensation scheme.
This chapter presents a model based method that uses a priori
knowledge of the robot dynamics to improve the path tracking accuracy
by generating an additional velocity feedforward based on the robot
dynamics. The precompensation module can be seen as an oﬀline
compensation of the velocity trajectory in such way that after execution
the end eﬀector follows the desired position trajectory more accurately.
Section 6.2 presents the diﬀerent steps of the developed trajectory
precompensation method. The implementation of the method on a
KUKA IR 361 industrial robot is discussed in section 6.3. Validation of
the method is performed by means of circular trajectories. The results
clearly show the improved path tracking accuracy on these trajectories.
Section 6.4 discusses some practical limitations which make it diﬃcult,
or even impossible, to implement the trajectory precompensation on
any standard industrial robot.
6.2. Trajectory precompensation 163
6.2 Trajectory precompensation
Obtaining perfect path tracking of a complex dynamic system is not
easy to realize. When we apply the desired trajectory to the command
input, a classical proportional controller with feedback will always lag
behind in executing the trajectory. The reason is that a position and
velocity tracking error is used to build up the required torque. As a
consequence, a high actuator torque cannot be obtained unless there is
a large tracking error.
The right solution to this control problem is to add a torque feedfor
ward. Unfortunately, most industrial control manufacturers do not al
low us to intervene directly at this level of the control structure. Hence,
we must be smarter, and ﬁnd a way to make the feedback controller
generate the torque we want. This means that we have to determine
the (position) command to be applied to the controller input that will
produce the desired actuator torque output.
Figure 6.1 presents the general idea of precompensation. The de
sired trajectory q
d
is ﬁrst compensated by ﬁltering it using the inverse
model of the robot system. This model consists of the controller and
robot dynamics in closed loop conﬁguration. The compensated trajec
tory q
d,comp
is then applied to the real system, yielding perfect path
tracking if no disturbances or modelling errors are present.
System
Controller
+
Robot
Inverse
system
q q
d act
q q
q
d
d,comp
act
q q
q
d
d,comp
act
Figure 6.1: General idea of precompensation
To implement the trajectory precompensation module, a model of
the inverse system has to be identiﬁed. The inverse system consists
of two main parts: an inverse dynamic model of the robot, and an
inverse model of the controller. The two parts of the inverse model
and the trajectory precompensation are discussed in the following sec
tions. Section 6.2.1 discusses the identiﬁcation of an inverse dynamic
164 Trajectory compensation
model of the robot which includes the nonlinear dynamic eﬀects. In
the second step (section 6.2.2), a model of the linear robot controller is
constructed. Finally, the obtained models are combined to implement
the precompensation module in section 6.2.3.
6.2.1 The dynamic robot model
The dynamic robot model describes the relation between the robot
motion and the required actuator torques. It includes nonlinearities
like friction, centrifugal, gravitation, and Coriolis forces. The equations
of the inverse robot dynamics can be written in the following form
τ = M(q)¨ q +C(q, ˙ q) +g(q) +τ
f
( ˙ q). (6.1)
The inverse dynamic robot model can be written in a linear form which
forms the basis for an accurate and eﬃcient experimental parameter
identiﬁcation. These identiﬁcation techniques were extensively dis
cussed in chapters 3 and 4. The experimental results showed that
the identiﬁed inverse dynamic robot models allows accurate actuator
torque predictions for any desired motion.
6.2.2 Controller dynamics
In addition to the robot dynamics, a model of the controller dynam
ics is required for the compensation method. An accurate model can
be obtained using experimental identiﬁcation, yielding a transfer func
tion G(s) for the controller. This step includes the determination and
the selection of the model structure and the parameter estimation, i.e.
the number and the values of the poles and zeros of G(s) have to be
determined. This information might be provided by the robot manu
facturer or has to be obtained experimentally. The inverse ﬁltering step
of the precompensation method involves the inversion of the transfer
function G(s) associated with the controller.
In most practical robot systems, the controller consists of three
cascaded control loops: an analog actuator current controller, an analog
velocity controller, and a digital position controller.
6.2. Trajectory precompensation 165
Analog Digital
Offline
Velocitycontroller
Robot
+

+
q
q
d q
act
Inversedynamicmodel
+ G
G
1
PI
t
d
f( , , ) qqq
d d d
q
contr
contr
d,comp
Positioncontroller

+ t
q
act
ò
d
dt
+
+
q
d
Figure 6.2: Structure of robot with nonlinear precompensation
The current controller is the most inner loop, and has a high band
width. Since the most important nonlinearities are due to the me
chanics, which have a smaller bandwidth, the dynamics of the current
controller may be neglected.
The analog velocity controller feeds back the measured motor ve
locity and compares it with the desired velocity. A PI structure with
tachometer feedback has been identiﬁed as an appropriate model for
the analog velocity controller, represented as G
contr
. Its estimation will
be discussed in section 6.3.2.
In the outer loop, the position controller is implemented digitally,
is completely known, and allows us to add a velocity feedforward to the
position controller. This extra input is used to apply the compensation
signal.
6.2.3 The trajectory precompensation
Figure 6.2 shows the global scheme of the robot and its controller with
the precompensation in the oﬀline part. Nonlinear precompensation
uses an inverse model of the closed loop system to ﬁlter the desired
trajectory. This inverse model consists of the inverse dynamic robot
model, describing the rigid body dynamics and joint friction, and the
inverse model of the analog velocity controller. The current controller
dynamics are neglected.
The desired actuator torques τ
d
required to generate the desired
166 Trajectory compensation
robot motion q
d
are calculated in a ﬁrst step from equation (6.1):
τ
d
= M(q
d
)¨ q
d
+C(q
d
, ˙ q
d
) +g(q
d
) +τ
f
( ˙ q
d
)
= Φ(q
d
, ˙ q
d
, ¨ q
d
) θ. (6.2)
In a second step, the inverse model of the velocity controller con
verts the desired actuator torques τ
d
to compensated desired velocities
G
contr
( ˙ q
d,comp
− ˙ q
d
) = τ
d
⇓
˙ q
d,comp
= G
−1
contr
τ
d
+ ˙ q
d
, (6.3)
which are implemented as a velocity feedforward (see ﬁgure 6.2). Be
cause the standard industrial controller cannot be changed to provide
a computed torque feedforward, the trajectory precompensation is
added using the available velocity feedforward controller input. Equa
tion (6.3) clearly shows that this feedforward generation corresponds
to a trajectory precompensation: the desired velocity trajectory ˙ q
d
is
compensated using the inverse controller model G
−1
contr
and the torques
τ
d
required to generate the desired motion q
d
.
This method combines the general idea and advantages of
computedtorque with the standard industrial controller. Like
computedtorque, the inverse dynamics of the robot are used to calcu
late the expected actuator torques for the desired joint motion. Since
there is no torque interface available, the resulting values are converted
to a velocity feedforward using the inverse model of the controller.
It is necessary to preserve a position feedback to control deviations
from the nominal trajectory, originating e.g. from inaccuracies in the
dynamic model or external disturbances. As desired position we pre
serve q
d
.
The practical implementation of the precompensation scheme re
quires the further ﬁnetuning of the precompensation scheme by iden
tifying additional constants and time delays which can only be deter
mined in a closed loop identiﬁcation. Section 6.3.3 gives more details
about this ﬁnetuning.
6.3. Experimental veriﬁcation 167
Figure 6.3: KUKA IR 361 robot
6.3 Experimental veriﬁcation
This section discusses the experimental application and validation of
the presented method on a KUKA IR 361 robot in the PMA lab. Sec
tion 6.3.1 presents the test setup. The used robot and controller model
are shortly discussed in section 6.3.2. Section 6.3.3 introduces the ref
erence trajectory, used to ﬁnetune the precompensation scheme, and
the validation trajectories. Finally, the results have been validated by
using diﬀerent trajectories (section 6.3.4). Some performance criteria
are used to express the improvement of the path tracking accuracy.
6.3.1 Description of test case
The considered test case is a KUKA IR 361 robot (ﬁgure 6.3). Only the
ﬁrst three robot axes are considered.
The position controller is digitally implemented in the COMRADE
software (Van de Poel et al., 1993). This ﬂexible control environment
allows us to add a velocity feedforward. The digital controller runs at a
sampling rate of 150 Hz. The standard industrial controller RC 22/42
is maintained for the analog control levels.
168 Trajectory compensation
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency (Hz)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
(
d
B
)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
−150
−100
−50
0
50
Frequency (Hz)
P
h
a
s
e
(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
G
ETFE
G
contr
Figure 6.4: Experimentally measured transfer function and identi
ﬁed controller model of axis 3
6.3.2 Description of the robot controller model
The velocity controller dynamics are identiﬁed by applying multisine
trajectories with a bandlimit of 5 Hz (Schoukens and Pintelon, 1991).
This frequency is far below the bandwidth of the velocity controller,
but high enough for the given application. The measured signals that
are used in the identiﬁcation are: the velocity command signal, the
tachometer signal and the actuator torque. A PI structure with tacho
meter feedback is the most appropriate model structure yielding the
best correspondence with the experimental transfer function estimate
(ETFE) (Schoukens and Pintelon, 1991) resulting from these measure
ments. The experimentally measured transfer function and identiﬁed
controller model for the velocity controller of axis 3 are shown in ﬁg
ure 6.4.
6.3. Experimental veriﬁcation 169
6.3.3 Reference and validation trajectories
The reference and validation trajectories are circles in vertical and hor
izontal planes. These trajectories have a simple analytic description in
the Cartesian space, and yield periodic and continuous joint trajecto
ries. This allows time domain averaging and frequency domain calcu
lations of the velocity and accelerations, which is more accurate than
applying numerical diﬀerentiation techniques.
The reference trajectory is executed 15 times. The measurements of
this excitation are averaged over all the measured periods and used to
ﬁnetune the precompensation scheme. This ﬁnetuning is necessary
because the identiﬁcation of the inverse model was performed in sep
arate parts. Scaling factors that exist between these submodels have
to be determined using measurements of the closed loop behavior. In
order to obtain optimal results, it is also necessary to compensate for
the transport delays due to the digital implementation of the position
controller. This is done by taking into account a time shift of approxi
mately 3 ms for the desired position signal, which is smaller than the
sampling period of the position controller.
The precompensation method is validated using several circular
trajectories. These validation trajectories diﬀer from each other in cir
cle diameter, position and orientation in the workspace, and path veloc
ity. The performance of the industrial controller with precompensated
velocity feedforward and normal velocity feedforward are compared.
6.3.4 Experimental results
The results are evaluated both at the joint level and at the Cartesian
level. At the joint level, the joint position tracking error q
d
−q
act
is used.
The tracking error is a measure of the remaining modelling errors and
disturbances, and hence the achieved control performance. Figure 6.5
shows the tracking error q
d
− q
act
with and without compensation of
the nonlinear dynamics for a circle with a diameter of 40 cm executed
at a velocity of 600 mm/s in a horizontal plane. The corresponding
maximum absolute values of the tracking error are listed in table 6.1.
These values clearly show the improved control performance.
170 Trajectory compensation
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
x 10
−3 Without precorrection
Time (s)
J
o
i
n
t
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
e
r
r
o
r
(
r
a
d
)
Joint 1
Joint 2
Joint 3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
x 10
−3 With precorrection
Time (s)
J
o
i
n
t
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
e
r
r
o
r
(
r
a
d
)
Joint 1
Joint 2
Joint 3
Figure 6.5: Tracking error for a circle (diameter 40 cm at velocity
0.6 m/s) in a horizontal plane without compensation
(top) and with compensation (bottom) of the nonlinear
dynamics
6.3. Experimental veriﬁcation 171
without compensation with compensation
joint 1 1.95 · 10
−3
rad 0.58 · 10
−3
rad
joint 2 2.60 · 10
−3
rad 0.13 · 10
−3
rad
joint 3 5.34 · 10
−3
rad 0.62 · 10
−3
rad
Table 6.1: Maximum absolute value of tracking error for circle with
diameter 40 cm at a velocity of 0.6 m/s in the horizontal
plane
Figure 6.6 compares the measured position tracking error for joint
axis 3 before trajectory compensation to the joint velocity. We observe
a small bend in the tracking error near velocity reversal, which can be
explained by the Coulomb friction. In ﬁgure 6.5, we see that this eﬀect
is signiﬁcantly reduced.
To have a measure of the improvement of the absolute path track
ing accuracy, the Cartesian positions have been calculated from the
measured actuator positions using the forward kinematics. Possible
deviations due to kinematic errors and joint ﬂexibilities are not con
sidered for simplicity. An external measurement of the absolute end
eﬀector accuracy would also take into account these deviations. Fig
ure 6.7 shows the calculated deviations from the desired trajectory for
the given circle.
The distance between the measured point (x, y, z) on the trajectory
and the corresponding point (x
d
, y
d
, z
d
) on the desired trajectory in
Cartesian coordinates is given by the Euclidean distance:
d
i
=
(x
d
(i) −x(i))
2
+ (y
d
(i) −y(i))
2
+ (z
d
(i) −z(i))
2
. (6.4)
To evaluate the experiments, the following performance criteria are
deﬁned:
• Mean deviation from the desired trajectory
d
mean
=
1
N
N
¸
i=1
d
i
(6.5)
which gives the mean distance between the desired and the cor
responding actually measured position, and N is the number of
measured points on the trajectory.
172 Trajectory compensation
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
x 10
−3
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
e
r
r
o
r
(
r
a
d
)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
−2
−1
0
1
2
Time (s)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
a
x
i
s
3
(
r
a
d
/
s
)
Figure 6.6: Relation between tracking error and velocity for joint
axis 3 (without the precompensation)
6.3. Experimental veriﬁcation 173
0 0.5 1 1.5
−2
−1
0
1
2
3
X
−
e
r
r
o
r
(
m
m
)
Cartesian errors
0 0.5 1 1.5
−2
−1
0
1
2
Y
−
e
r
r
o
r
(
m
m
)
0 0.5 1 1.5
−1
0
1
Z
−
e
r
r
o
r
(
m
m
)
Time (s)
Figure 6.7: Cartesian error for a circle (diameter 40 cm at velocity
0.6 m/s) in a horizontal plane without (full line) and
with compensation (dashed line)
174 Trajectory compensation
• Maximum deviation from the desired trajectory
d
max
= max
i
d
i
. (6.6)
Table 6.2 shows the values for these performance criteria, and con
ﬁrm the improved path tracking accuracy by using trajectory pre
compensation.
d
mean
[mm] d
max
[mm]
without compensation 1.422 2.01
with compensation 0.249 0.45
Table 6.2: Performance criteria for circle with diameter 40 cm at
velocity 0.6 m/s
The experiments have been repeated for other diameters of the
circle, with diﬀerent velocities and for other positions of the circle in
an horizontal and vertical plane, yielding similar results. Some of these
results are summarized in table 6.3.
d
mean
[mm] d
max
[mm]
diameter 30 cm at velocity 600 mm/s
without compensation 1.017 1.72
with compensation 0.062 0.16
diameter 40 cm at velocity 300 mm/s
without compensation 0.260 0.67
with compensation 0.042 0.19
diameter 40 cm at velocity 150 mm/s
without compensation 0.138 0.609
with compensation 0.057 0.204
diameter 40 cm at velocity 75 mm/s
without compensation 0.123 0.540
with compensation 0.056 0.208
Table 6.3: Performance criteria for circles with an other diameter
and a diﬀerent velocity in a vertical plane
6.4. Practical limitations for implementation 175
6.4 Practical limitations for implementation
The experimental setup available in the lab consists of an industrial
manipulator and its industrial controller. The position controller is re
placed by a home made version and is implemented in software. This
opens a lot of opportunities to implement and test the trajectory pre
compensation, because the full controller structure is known and the
full software source code is available. The setup has the disadvantage
that the original industrial path planner and position controller can
not be used anymore. It was therefore not possible to compare the
performance of the precompensation against the original controller
performance.
Implementing the presented precompensation procedure on a real
industrial setup is however not straightforward. First of all, most in
dustrial controllers do not have an open interface which allows to apply
a trajectory correction immediately and in realtime to the controller
input. Some manufacturers have an additional software module that
makes it possible to exchange data between the controller and an exter
nal system. Unfortunately, the communication is often characterized
by a signiﬁcant delay and jitter, and therefore not useful for realtime
control. Furthermore, it is desirable to be able to read out several con
troller signals, e.g. tracking error or the controller output, especially
in the development phase. In practice, it is sometimes possible to log
these signals to a ﬁle, but at a lower sampling rate than the controller
sampling rate. This may introduce aliasing which should be avoided.
A more ideal situation would be an open robot controller software.
In that case, the controller structure is completely known, which is
valuable information to design the inverse controller part of the pre
compensation scheme. Some nonlinear parts can make it diﬃcult, if not
impossible, to experimentally determine the controller structure. For
instance, the use of an antiwindup controller or the inclusion of a signal
saturation block to avoid overloading of the output signal are very hard
to detect. Even the use of a velocity and acceleration feedforward can
complicate the application of a trajectory compensation.
We conclude that an optimal implementation and validation of the
trajectory precompensation cannot be realized without the commit
ment of a robot manufacturer. An open interface to the robot con
176 Trajectory compensation
troller and knowledge about the controller structure are indispensable
for a successful application.
6.5 Conclusions
This chapter presented a method to compensate oﬀline for the non
linear robot dynamics. A trajectory precompensation is calculated
by ﬁltering the desired trajectory with an inverse dynamic robot
model including the controller dynamics yielding an improved veloc
ity feedforward signal. The experimental results of this trajectory pre
compensation approach show that it is possible to achieve a signiﬁcant
improvement of the path tracking accuracy.
The challenge remains to implement the trajectory compensation
online on a real industrial manipulator and validate it using arbitrary
continuous trajectories generated by the standard path generator. This
development however requires a software interface to the robot con
troller and information about the controller structure.
7
Conclusions
Each success only buys an admission ticket to a more diﬃcult problem
Henry Kissinger
7.1 Summary of the conclusions
Recent technological developments, like increased computational power
at a lower cost, have removed the major objections to implementing
model based control techniques for industrial robot manipulators. New
industrial applications demanding higher accuracy and performance
will beneﬁt from the inclusion of more system knowledge into the con
troller design. The implementation requires validated and accurate
dynamic robot models.
This research project continues the development of an experimen
tal identiﬁcation approach for industrial robot manipulators, which is
177
178 Conclusions
based on a model generation step that yields linearity in the unknown
parameters. The experiment design uses periodic excitation which al
lows analytic diﬀerentiation and calculation of information on the noise
level. This statistical information is used in the parameter estimation
step which is based on the maximum likelihood framework. Finally,
the validation is performed both on the torque prediction and on the
individual parameter values.
This thesis makes contributions in the area of experimental robot
identiﬁcation by improving the existing approach, validating the com
bined model approach, identifying the inertial parameters of the robot
payload, and improving the dynamic accuracy with trajectory pre
compensation. All presented methods are experimentally implemented
and validated on industrial serial robot manipulators. This aspect in
creases the industrial relevance of this research.
Improvement of the existing identiﬁcation approach
This thesis brings the dynamic robot identiﬁcation procedure closer to
industrial practice. The dynamic eﬀects of the gravity compensation
spring and the rotor inertias are described by models which preserve the
linearity of the identiﬁcation model and which are derived from physical
properties (chapter 3). This ensures an easy parameter estimation and
has the advantage that the parameters have a physical interpretation.
Whenever available, speciﬁcation data from the robot manufacturer
is compared to the estimated parameter values. Each time, a good
correspondence is found, which conﬁrms the validity of the approach.
This thesis conﬁrms that a good calibration of the actuator torque
constants is required to obtain this good correspondence.
Validation of the combined identiﬁcation approach
In order to improve the accuracy of the parameter estimates an ex
ternal force/torque sensor is added to the test setup which measures
the reaction wrench of the manipulator on its base plate (chapter 4).
The external identiﬁcation model associated with these measurements
is combined with the classical internal robot identiﬁcation model into
7.1. Summary of the conclusions 179
one identiﬁcation model. This thesis presents the ﬁrst experimental re
sults ever obtained with this combined approach. To obtain consistent
estimation results for both approaches, it is also necessary to have a
good calibration of the measurement signals and to take into account
the eﬀect of the rotor inertias. Since the rotor inertias have a diﬀerent
torque contribution to the internal and the external model, the link and
rotor inertias are considered separately in the identiﬁcation model. It
is experimentally veriﬁed that the combined model reduces the uncer
tainty on the inertial parameter estimates. The accuracy improvement
largely depends on the noise level on the diﬀerent measurement signals.
The resulting combined robot model allows to accurately predict both
the actuator torques and the reaction forces and torques on the base
plate. An improvement of the actuator torque prediction is however
not conﬁrmed by the results in this thesis.
Identiﬁcation of the inertial payload parameters
The robot payload becomes a more important factor in the robot dy
namics. This thesis recognizes this evolution and extends the classical
robot identiﬁcation procedure to the problem of identifying the inertial
parameter values of the payload (chapter 5). The presented approach
does not require a full identiﬁcation of the manipulator, as it is done in
other approaches, but compensates for all known robot dynamics based
on available a priori information. A sensitivity analysis is performed
based on a simulation model of the robot with payload. It shows that
accurate payload parameter estimates can only be obtained if all a pri
ori knowledge is suﬃciently accurate. In addition, the analysis reveals
that obtaining accurate parameter estimates is more diﬃcult to achieve
than accurately predicting the actuator torques. To experimentally val
idate the payload identiﬁcation approach, a calibrated reference pay
load is designed of which all inertial parameters are accurately known.
The ﬁnally obtained parameter and actuator torque prediction accu
racy satisfy the requirements imposed by industrial users of robots.
Only the warmup eﬀect, yielding a change in the actuator torque con
stants, makes it diﬃcult to guarantee accurate parameter estimation
in all situations.
180 Conclusions
Improvement of the path tracking accuracy
To compensate oﬀline for the nonlinear robot dynamics, a trajectory
precompensation method has been developed (chapter 6). The desired
trajectory is ﬁltered with an inverse dynamic robot model including the
controller dynamics yielding a velocity feedforward signal. The exper
imental results obtained in this thesis show a signiﬁcant improvement
of the path tracking accuracy. The main advantage of this method is
that no change of the existing robot controller is required. However,
most commercial robot controllers do not even have an open interface
in order to apply a trajectory precompensation. This brings a strong
practical limitation for industrial application. Therefore, this thesis
holds a plea for more open realtime interfaces to existing robot con
trollers. Both manufacturers and industrial users will beneﬁt from the
improved accuracy.
7.2 Future work
Experimental work is never ﬁnished, nor does this thesis pretend to
be the end of all stories. Although the theoretical framework forms a
solid basis, some questions remain unanswered. In addition, every new
robot manipulator has its own peculiarities and requires a customized
approach.
As a starting point, all presented methods, like model combining,
payload identiﬁcation, and trajectory compensation, should be imple
mented and validated on the same experimental setup. This synthesis
exercise will allow us to evaluate the accuracy of each application, be
cause the results should be consistent for all experiments.
An important requirement to obtain consistency is to have accurate
actuator torque constants and to consider the temperature and load
dependency of friction. A good insight in how the actuator torque
constants and the friction evolve with the warmup of the manipulator
can result in better parameter estimates and can open opportunities to
do a better compensation of the robot dynamics over a longer time.
The excitation trajectory design should be considered from a prac
tical point of view. Several trajectory parameters are available to act
7.2. Future work 181
on the quality of the excitation. An eﬃcient optimization algorithm
has to be selected which is capable of ﬁnding a satisfying excitation tra
jectory within a reasonable time. A new optimization criterion should
be found, which is able to express the uncertainty on the parameter
estimates and which, at the same time, takes into account the desired
parameter accuracy. This optimization criterion should reach an appro
priately chosen minimal level that guarantees suﬃcient excitation, but
avoids that further optimization would not yield practical signiﬁcant
better parameter estimates. The performance of diﬀerent optimized
excitation trajectories can be evaluated by looking at the parameter
estimation accuracy.
Time is ready to bring the developments of robot identiﬁcation
to industry. Research results are mostly only validated on one spe
ciﬁc setup. Therefore, the validity can not always be guaranteed for a
wider application area. An industrial experience could give a valuable
feedback to research. In addition, also industry might beneﬁt from the
implementation, because manipulators are made more accurate. A ﬁrst
step is made in this thesis with the development of the trajectory pre
compensation method. This method still remains to be implemented
on a commercially available robot controller, which should allow the
application of a trajectory compensation. Only then it makes sense to
compare the performance of the trajectory precompensation method
with the performance of the original controller. An external measure
ment system can be used to validate the obtained improvement in path
tracking accuracy.
In further steps, the knowledge of the dynamic model should be
included in the control algorithm of industrial robots. A close inte
gration of the dynamic model in both controller and path planner will
result in robots which are more accurate. It is however well known
that developers of standard robot controllers today have great diﬃcul
ties in supporting this need for integration. More speciﬁcally, an open,
realtime interface to the commercial robot controller is not available.
Development of an opensystem architecture based on software modules
will enable the control engineer to implement desired control features,
with a minimum of degradation on eﬃciency and safety.
To facilitate the integration in industry, a readytouse software
framework for dynamic modelling and identiﬁcation of robot manipu
182 Conclusions
lators should be developed in close cooperation with manufacturers to
learn in an early phase about their requirements. This should evolve
towards a software concept that is based on a library of modular com
ponents, which can be conﬁgured to a speciﬁc application for the user.
Finding attractive, appealing and relevant applications will push robot
identiﬁcation to a shouldhave toolbox.
This is where my academic research on robot identiﬁcation ends.
Time has come to bring the results to industry, and to convince them of
the advantages of experimental identiﬁcation such that the techniques
obtain as much acceptance in industry as they get from academics.
Bibliography
Aberger, M. (2000). Eﬀects of nonlinearities in black box identiﬁcation
of an industrial robot. Technical Report LiTHISYR2322, De
partment of Electrical Engineering, Link¨oping University, SE581
83 Link¨oping, Sweden.
Adams, M. (1992). Nonlinear control of ﬂexible robots. PhD thesis,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engi
neering, Leuven, Belgium.
Alban, T. and Janocha, H. (1999). Dynamic calibration of industrial
robots with inertial measurement systems. In Proc. of the Euro
pean Control Conference ECC’99. Karlsruhe.
AlbuSch¨aﬀer, A. (2001). Regelung von Robotern mit elastischen Ge
lenken am Beispiel der DLRLeichtbauarme. PhD thesis, DLR.
AlbuSch¨aﬀer, A. and Hirzinger, G. (2001). Parameter identiﬁcation
and passivity based control for a 7dof torque controlled light weight
robot. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, pages 2852–2858, Seoul, Korea.
An, C. H., Atkeson, C. G., and Hollerbach, J. M. (1986). Experimen
tal determination of the eﬀect of feedforward control of trajectory
tracking errors. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Con
ference on Robotics and Automation, pages 55–60, San Francisco,
CA.
Antonelli, G., Caccavale, F., and Chiacchio, P. (1999). A systematic
procedure for the identiﬁcation of dynamic parameters of robot
manipulators. Robotica, 17:427–435.
183
184 Bibliography
Armstrong, B. (1989). On ﬁnding exciting trajectories for identiﬁca
tion experiments involving systems with nonlinear dynamics. The
International Journal of Robotics Research, 8(6):28–48.
ArmstrongH´elouvry, B., Dupont, P., and Canudas de Wit, C. (1994).
A survey of models, analysis tools and compensation methods for
the control of machines with friction. Automatica, 30(7):1083–
1138.
Atkeson, C., An, C., and Hollerbach, J. (1986). Estimation of iner
tial parameters of manipulator loads and links. The International
Journal of Robotics Research, 5(3):101–119.
Bernhardt, R. and Albright, S. L. (1993). Robot Calibration. Chapman
& Hall.
Bernhardt, R., Schreck, G., and Willnow, C. (1995). Realistic robot
simulation. Computing and Control engineering journal, 6(4):174–
176.
Bona, B., Calaﬁore, G., and Indri, M. (2000). Calibration of robotic
manipulators: a robust approach. In 1st IFAC Conference on
Mechatronic Systems, pages 501–506, Darmstadt, Germany.
Caccavale, F. and Chiacchio, P. (1994). Identiﬁcation of dynamic para
meters and feedforward control for a conventional industrial ma
nipulator. Control Engineering Practice, 2(6):1039–1050.
Calaﬁore, G. and El Ghaoui, L. (2001). Robust maximum likelihood
estimation in the linear model. Automatica, 37(4):573–580.
Calaﬁore, G. and Indri, M. (1998). Experiment design for robot dy
namic calibration. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Con
ference on Robotics and Automation, pages 3303–3309, Leuven,
Belgium.
Calaﬁore, G., Indri, M., and Bona, B. (2001). Robot dynamic calibra
tion: Optimal excitation trajectories and experimental parameter
estimation. Journal of Robotic Systems, 18(2):55–68.
Bibliography 185
Canudas de Wit, C., No¨el, P., Aubin, A., and Brogliato, B. (1991).
Adaptive friction compensation in robot manipulators : Low veloc
ities. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 10(3):189–
199.
Canudas de Wit, C., Olsson, H., Astr¨om, K., and Lischinsky, P. (1995).
A new model for control of systems with friction. IEEE Transac
tions on Automatic Control, 40(5):419–425.
Canudas de Wit, C., Siciliano, B., and Bastin, G. (1996). Theory of
robot control. Springer.
Chen, J. (1989). The eﬀects of gear reduction on robot dynam
ics. In Proc. NASA Conf. on Space Telerobotics, pages 297–307,
Pasadena, CA.
Chenut, X., Samin, J., Swevers, J., and Ganseman, C. (2000). Com
bining internal and external robot models for improved model pa
rameter estimation. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing,
14(5):691–704.
Corke, P. (1996). In situ measurement of robot motor electrical con
stants. Robotica, 14(4):433–436.
Craig, J. J. (1986). Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics & Control.
AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
Craig, J. J. (1988). Adaptive control of Mechanical Manipulators.
AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
da Silva, A. R., Sch¨afer, B., de Souza, L., and Fonseca, R. (2000).
Space robotics joints nonlinear modeling and online parameter
identiﬁcation. In Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium
on Robotics, pages 461–467, Montreal, Canada.
Daemi, M. and Heimann, B. (1996). Identiﬁcation and compensation
of gear friction for modeling of robots. In Proceeding of the 11th
CISMIFToMM Symposium on the Theory and Practice of Robots
and Manipulators, pages 89–96, Udine, Italy.
186 Bibliography
Daemi, M. and Heimann, B. (1998). Separation of friction and rigid
body identiﬁcation for an industrial robot. In Proceeding of the
12th CISMIFToMM Symposium on the Theory and Practice of
Robots and Manipulators, pages 35–42, Paris, France.
Dahl, P. (1977). Measurement of solid friction parameters of ball bear
ings. In Proceedings of 6th Annual Symp. on Incremental Motion,
Control Systems and Devices, pages 49–60, Illinois.
Denavit, J. and Hartenberg, R. (1955). A kinematic notation for lower
pair mechanism based on matrices. Trans. ASME Journal of Ap
plied Mechanics, 22:215–221.
Fisette, P., Raucent, B., and Samin, J.C. (1996). Minimal dynamic
characterization of treelike multibody systems. Nonlinear Dy
namics, 9:165–184.
Ganseman, C. (1998). Dynamic modelling and identiﬁcation of mecha
nisms with application to industrial robots. PhD thesis, Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Leu
ven, Belgium.
Gautier, M. (1986). Identiﬁcation of robots dynamics. In Proceedings of
the IFAC Symposium on Theory of Robots, pages 351–356, Vienna,
Austria.
Gautier, M. (1990). Numerical calculation of the base inertial parame
ters of robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, pages 1020–1025, Cincinnati, USA.
Gautier, M. (1997). Dynamic identiﬁcation of robots with power model.
In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation, pages 1922–1927, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Gautier, M., Janin, C., and Press´e, C. (1993). Dynamic identiﬁcation of
robots using least squares and extended kalman ﬁltering methods.
In Proceedings of the Second European Control Conference, pages
2291–2296, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bibliography 187
Gautier, M. and Khalil, W. (1989). Identiﬁcation of the minimum
inertial parameters of robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE Interna
tional Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 1529–1534,
Scottsdale, USA.
Gautier, M. and Khalil, W. (1990). Direct calculation of minimum
set of inertial parameters of serial robots. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics and Automation, 6(3):368–373.
Gautier, M. and Khalil, W. (1992). Exciting trajectories for the iden
tiﬁcation of base inertial parameters of robots. The International
Journal of Robotics Research, 11(4):362–375.
Gautier, M., Khalil, W., and Restrepo, P. P. (1995). Identiﬁcation
of dynamic parameters of a closed loop robot. In Proceedings of
the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
pages 3045–3050, Nagoya, Japan.
Gautier, M. and Poignet, P. (2001). Extended kalman ﬁltering and
weighted least squares dynamic identiﬁcation of robot. Control
Engineering Practice, 9(1):1361–1372.
Golub, G. and Van Loan, C. (1989). Matrix Computations. The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Grotjahn, M., Daemi, M., and Heimann, B. (2001). Friction and rigid
body identiﬁcation of robot dynamics. International Journal of
Solids and Structures, 38(1013):1889–1902.
Grotjahn, M. and Heimann, B. (2000). Determination of dynamic pa
rameters of robots by base sensor measurements. In Proc. of the
6th IFAC Symposium on Robot Control, Syroco, Vienna, Austria.
Grotjahn, M. and Heimann, B. (2002). Modelbased feedforward con
trol in industrial robotics. The International Journal of Robotics
Research, 21(1):45–60.
Guglielmi, M., Jonker, E., and Piaso, J. M. (1987). Modelling and iden
tiﬁcation of a two degree of freedom SCARA robot using extended
Kalman ﬁltering. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Advanced Robotics, pages 137–148, Paris, France.
188 Bibliography
Hansen, E. R. (1992). Global optimization using interval analysis. Pure
and applied mathematics: a series of monographs and textbooks.
Dekker New York (N.Y.).
Heim, A. and von Stryk, O. (2000). Trajectory optimization of indus
trial robots with application to computeraided robotics and robot
controllers. Optimization, 47:407–420.
Heim, A., von Stryk, O., Pesch, H. J., Sch¨aﬄer, H., and Scheuer, K.
(1997). Parameteridentiﬁkation, Bahnoptimierung und Echtzeit
steuerung von Robotern in der industriellen Anwendung, pages
551–564. SpringerVerlag.
Hirzinger, G., Sporer, N., AlbuSch¨aﬀer, A., H¨ahnle, M., Krenn, R.,
Pascucci, A., and Schedl, M. (2002). DLR’s torquecontrolled light
weight robot iii  are we reaching the technological limits now? In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, pages 1710–1716, Washington DC.
Honegger, M. and Corke, P. (2001). Modelbased control of hydrauli
cally actuated manipulators. In Proceedings of the IEEE Interna
tional Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 2553–2559,
Seoul, Korea.
Horst, R. and Pardalos, P. (1995). Handbook of Global Optimization.
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Isermann, R. (1999). Modeling, identiﬁcation and simultation of
mechatronic systems. In Proceedings of the 14th Triennial World
Congress IFAC, pages 395–404, Beijing, China.
Jaulin, L., Kieﬀer, M., Didrit, O., and Walter, E. (2001). Applied
Interval Analysis. SpringerVerlag.
Khalil, W. and Dombre, E. (2002). Modeling, identiﬁcation & control
of robots. Hermes Penton Ltd.
Khalil, W. and Gautier, M. (2000). Modeling of mechanical systems
with lumped elasticity. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 3965–3970, San
Francisco, CA.
Bibliography 189
Khosla, P. (1989). Categorization of parameters in the dynamic robot
model. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 5(3):261–268.
Khosla, P. and Kanade, T. (1987). An algorithm to estimate ma
nipulator dynamics parameters. IEEE Journal of Robotics and
Automation, 2(3).
Khosla, P. and Kanade, T. (1988). Experimental evaluation of non
linear feedback and feedforward control schemes for manipulators.
The International Journal of Robotics Research, 7(1):18 – 28.
Khosla, P. and Ramos, S. (1988). A comparative analysis of the hard
ware requirements for the LagrangeEuler and NewtonEuler dy
namics formulations. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 1, pages 291 –
296, Philadelphia.
Kozlowski, K. and Dutkiewicz, P. (1996). Experimental identiﬁcation
of robot and load dynamics. In Triennial World Congress IFAC,
pages 397–402, San Francisco, USA.
Krypton (1998). RODYM6D Product Description and User Manual.
Krypton Electronic Engineering N.V., Heverlee, Belgium.
Lampaert, V., AlBender, F., and Swevers, J. (2003). A generalized
Maxwellslip friction model appropriate for control purposes. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Physics and
Control, pages 1170–1178, SaintPetersburg, Russia.
Lampaert, V., Swevers, J., and AlBender, F. (2002). Modiﬁcation of
the Leuven integrated friction model structure. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 47(4):683–687.
Lange, F. and Hirzinger, G. (1994). Learning to improve the path
accuracy of position controlled robots. In Proc. of the Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 494–501. Munich.
Lange, F. and Hirzinger, G. (1996). Learning of a controller for non
recurring fast movements. Advanced Robotics. Special issue on
Behavior and Learning.
190 Bibliography
Lange, F. and Hirzinger, G. (1999). Adaptive minimization of the max
imal path deviations of industrial robots. In Proc. of the European
Control Conference ECC’99. Karlsruhe.
Lefebvre, T., Gadeyne, K., Bruyninckx, H., and Schutter, J. D. (2003).
Exact Bayesian inference for a class of nonlinear systems with
application to robotic assembly. Bayesian Statistics 7, J. M.
Bernardo, M. J. Bayarri, J. O. Berger, A. P. Dawid, D. Heck
erman, A. F. M. Smith and M. West (Eds.), pages 587–596.
Liu, G., Iagnemma, K., Dubowsky, S., and Morel, G. (1998). A base
force/torque sensor approach to robot manipulator inertial param
eter estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Con
ference on Robotics and Automation, pages 3316–3321, Leuven,
Belgium.
Ljung, L. (1987). System identiﬁcation: theory for the user. Prentice
Hall Inc., Englewood Cliﬀs, New Jersey.
Luh, J. Y. S., Walker, M. W., and Paul, R. P. (1980). Online compu
tational scheme for mechanical manipulators. Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, 102(2):69–76.
Maes, P., Samin, J., and Willems, P. (1989). Linearity of multibody
systems with respect to barycentric parameters : dynamic and
identiﬁcation models obtained by symbolic generation. Mechanics
of Structures and Machines, 17(2):219–237.
Mayeda, H., Yoshida, K., and Osuka, K. (1990). Base parameters
of manipulator dynamic models. IEEE Journal of Robotics and
Automation, 6(3):312–321.
Morel, G., Iagnemma, K., and Dubowsky, S. (2000). The precise control
of manipulators with high jointfriction using base force/torque
sensing. Automatica, 36(7):931–941.
Mukerjee, A. and Ballard, D. (1985). Selfcalibration in robot manip
ulators. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, pages 1050–1057.
Bibliography 191
Murotsu, Y., Senda, K., and Ozaki, M. (1994). Parameter identiﬁcation
of unknown object handled by freeﬂying space robot. Journal of
Guidance Control and Dynamics, 17(3):488–494.
Nocedal, J. and Wright, S. J. (1999). Numerical Optimization.
Springer.
Norrl¨of, M. (2002). An adaptive iterative learning control algorithm
with experiments on an industrial robot. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics and Automation, 18(2):245–251.
Norrl¨of, M., Tj¨arnstr¨om, F., and
¨
Ostring, M. (2002). Modeling and
identiﬁcation of a mechanical industrial manipulator. In Proceed
ings of the 15th IFAC World Congress, Barcelona, Spain.
Olsen, H. and Bekey, G. (1986). Identiﬁcation of robot dynamics. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, pages 1004–1010, San Francisco, USA.
Olsen, M., Swevers, J., and Verdonck, W. (2002). Maximum likelihood
identiﬁcation of a dynamic robot model: implementation issues.
International Journal on Robotics Research, 21(2):89–96.
Olsen, M. M. and Petersen, H. G. (2001). A new method for estimating
parameters of a dynamic robot model. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics and Automation, 17(1):95–100.
Onder Efe, M. and Kaynak, O. (2000). A comparative study of soft
computing methodologies in identiﬁcation of robotic manipulators.
Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 30(3):221–230.
¨
Ostring, M. and Gunnarsson, S. (2002). Recursive identiﬁcation of
physical parameters in a ﬂexible robot arm. In 4th Asian Control
Conference, Singapore.
¨
Ostring, M., Gunnarsson, S., and Norrl¨of, M. (2001). Closed loop
identiﬁcation of the physical parameters of an industrial robot. In
32nd International Symposium on Robotics, Seoul, Korea.
Pfeiﬀer, F. and H¨olzl, J. (1995). Parameter identiﬁcation for industrial
robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, pages 1468–1476, Nagoya, Japan.
192 Bibliography
Pham, M. T., Gautier, M., and Poignet, P. (2001). Identiﬁca
tion of joint stiﬀness with bandbass ﬁltering. In Proceedings of
the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
pages 2867–2872, Seoul, Korea.
Pintelon, R. and Schoukens, J. (2001). System identiﬁcation: a fre
quency domain approach. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Press´e, C. and Gautier, M. (1992). Bayesian estimation of inertial pa
rameters of robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Con
ference on Robotics and Automation, pages 364–369, Nice, France.
Press´e, C. and Gautier, M. (1993). New criteria of exciting trajectories
for robot identiﬁcation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 907–912, Atlanta,
USA.
Pr¨ ufer, M., Schmidt, C., and Wahl, F. (1994). Identiﬁcation of robot
dynamics with diﬀerential and integral models : a comparison. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, pages 340–345, San Diego, USA.
Pr¨ ufer, M. and Wahl, F. (1994). Friction analysis and modelling for
geared robots. In Preprints of the Fourth IFAC SYmposium on
RObot COntrol, pages 551–556, Capri, Italy.
Raucent, B. (1990). Identiﬁcation des param`etres dynamiques des
robots manipulateurs. PhD thesis, Universit´e catholique de Lou
vain, D´epartement de M´ecanique, Louvainlaneuve, Belgium.
Raucent, B., Campion, G., Bastin, G., Samin, J., and Willems, P.
(1992). Dynamic parameter identiﬁcation of an industrial robot
and its application to trajectory controls. Automatica, 28(5):1011–
1016.
Raucent, B. and Samin, J.C. (1993). Modelling and identifying the
dynamic parameters of robot manipulators. Robot Calibration,
eds. Bernhardt R. and Albright S.L, pages 197–232.
Raucent, B. and Samin, J.C. (1994). Minimal parameterization of
robot dynamic models. Mechanics of Structures and Machines,
22(3):371–396.
Bibliography 193
Saramago, S. F. P. and Steﬀen, V. (1998). Optimization of the
trajectory planning of robot manipulators taking into account
the dynamics of the system. Mechanisms and Machine Theory,
33(7):883–894.
Sch¨afer, B. and da Silva, A. R. (2000). Space robotics experiments
for increasing dynamics modelling ﬁdelity. In European Congress
on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering,
ECCOMAS 2000, Barcelona.
Schoukens, J. and Pintelon, R. (1991). Identiﬁcation of linear systems:
a practical guideline to accurate modeling. Pergamon Press, Ox
ford.
Sciavicco, L. and Siciliano, B. (1996). Modeling and Control of Robot
Manipulators. Electrical and Computer Engineering Series. Mc
Graw Hill, Englewood Cliﬀs, New Jersey.
Sciavicco, L., Siciliano, B., and Villani, L. (1996). Lagrange and
NewtonEuler dynamic modelling of a geardriven rigid robot
manipulator with inclusion of motor inertia eﬀects. Advanced
Robotics, 10(3):317–334.
Sheu, S.Y. and Walker, M. (1989). Basis sets for manipulator inertial
parameters. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, pages 1517–1522, Scottsdale, USA.
Slotine, J.J. E. (1985). The robust control of robot manipulators. The
International Journal of Robotics Research, 4(2):49–64.
Steinbach, M. C., Bock, H. G., Kostin, G. V., and Longman, R. W.
(1998). Mathematical optimization in robotics: Towards auto
mated high speed motion planning. Survey on Mathematics for
Industry, 7(4):303–340.
Swevers, J., AlBender, F., Ganseman, C., and Prajogo, T. (2000).
An integrated friction model structure with improved presliding
behaviour for accurate friction compensation. IEEE transactions
on Automatic Control, 45(4):675–686.
194 Bibliography
Swevers, J., Ganseman, C., Bilgin, D., De Schutter, J., and Van Brus
sel, H. (1997). Optimal robot excitation and identiﬁcation. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 13(5):730–740.
Swevers, J., Ganseman, C., De Schutter, J., and Van Brussel, H. (1996).
Experimental robot identiﬁcation using optimized periodic trajec
tories. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 10(5):561–577.
Swevers, J., Verdonck, W., Naumer, B., Pieters, S., and Biber, E.
(2002). An experimental robot load identiﬁcation method for in
dustrial application. International Journal on Robotics Research,
21(8):701–712.
Tafazoli, S., Lawrence, P. D., and Salcudean, S. E. (1999). Identiﬁca
tion of inertial and friction parameters for excavator arms. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 15(5):966–971.
T¨orn, A. and
˘
Zilinskas, A. (1989). Global Optimization. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
Tsai, L.W. (1999). Robot Analysis: The mechanics of serial and par
allel manipulators. J. Wiley & sons, Inc.
Van de Poel, P., Witvrouw, W., Bruyninckx, H., and De Schutter, J.
(1993). An environment for developing and optimizing compliant
robot motion tasks. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Advanced Robotics, pages 713–718, Tokyo, Japan.
Vandanjon, P., Gautier, M., and Desbats, P. (1995). Identiﬁcation
of robots inertial parameters by means of spectrum analysis. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, pages 3033–3038, Nagoya, Japan.
Vandenberghe, L. and Boyd, S. (1996). Semideﬁnite programming.
SIAM Review, 38(1):49–95.
West, H., Papadopoulos, E., Dubowsky, S., and Cheah, H. (1989). A
method for estimating the mass properties of a manipulator by
measuring the reaction moments at its base. In Proceedings of
the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
pages 1510–1516, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Bibliography 195
Zeng, H. and Unbehauen, H. (1999). Modelling and identiﬁcation of a
fourlink manipulator. In Proceedings of the 14th Triennial World
Congress IFAC, pages 153–157, Beijing, China.
Zhu, W.H. and De Schutter, J. (1999). Adaptive control of mixed
rigid/ﬂexible joint robot manipulators based on virtual decomposi
tion. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 15(2):310–
317.
196 Bibliography
List of publications
International peer reviewed journal articles
1. J. Baeten, W. Verdonck, H. Bruyninckx and J. De Schutter,
“Combining force control and visual servoing for planar con
tour following”, International Journal on Machine Intelligence
and Robotic Control, Vol. 2 (2), pp. 69–75, 2000.
2. W. Verdonck, J. Swevers, and J.C. Samin, “Experimental robot
identiﬁcation: advantages of combining internal and external
measurements and of using periodic excitation”, Transactions of
the ASME Journal of dynamic systems, measurement, and con
trol, Vol. 123 (4), pp. 630–636, December 2001.
3. M.M. Olsen, J. Swevers, and W. Verdonck, “Maximum likelihood
identiﬁcation of a dynamic robot model: implementation issues”,
The International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 21 (2), pp.
89–96, February 2002.
4. J. Swevers, W. Verdonck, B. Naumer, S. Pieters, and E. Biber,
“An experimental robot load identiﬁcation method for industrial
application”, The International Journal of Robotics Research,
Vol. 21 (8), pp. 701–712, August 2002.
Full papers in proceedings of international con
ferences
1. W. Verdonck, J. Swevers, X. Chenut and J.C. Samin, “Combin
ing internal and external robot models to improve model param
197
198 List of publications
eter estimation”, Proceedings of the IEEE International Confer
ence on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2846–2851, Seoul, Korea,
May 2001.
2. W. Verdonck and J. Swevers, “Improving the dynamic accuracy
of industrial robots by trajectory precompensation”, Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa
tion, pp. 2846–2851, Washington D.C., USA, May 2002.
3. J. Swevers, B. Naumer, S. Pieters, E. Biber, W. Verdonck and J.
De Schutter, “An experimental robot load identiﬁcation method
for industrial application”, Lecture Notes in Control and Informa
tion Sciences 250. The 8th International Symposium on Exper
imental Robotics, pp. 318–327, Springer, Sant’Angelo d’Ischia,
Italy, July 2002.
4. W. Verdonck and J. Swevers, “Analysis of systematic errors in
robot load identiﬁcation”, Proceedings of the International Con
ference on Advanced Robotics, pp. 941–946, Coimbra, Portugal,
July 2003.
Biography
Personal data
Name Walter Verdonck
Born January 12, 1977, SintNiklaas, Belgium
Nationality Belgian
Education
• 19992004: Ph.D. student in the Robotics Research Group
at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, division PMA
of K.U.Leuven under supervision of prof. Jan Swevers and
prof. Joris De Schutter.
The research was funded by a fouryear doctoral scholarship from
the Flemish Institute for the Promotion of Scientiﬁc and Techno
logical Research in Industry (IWT).
My research interests are in modelling, optimization, parameter
estimation and control of industrial robot manipulators.
• 19941999: Mechanical engineering student at the Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.
July 1999: Master degree in Mechanical Engineering, specialisa
tion Mechatronics and Machine Design, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, Belgium.
My master thesis ‘Improving contour tracking with a force con
trolled robot using vision’ tackled the problem of integration of
force and vision information into one control algorithm.
199
200
A
Kinematics
A.1 Introduction
The kinematics of a robot refer to the geometric relationship between
the motion of the robot in joint space and the motion of the tool frame
relative to the base frame of the robot. In this appendix the concept
of forward kinematics will be described using the modiﬁed Denavit
Hartenberg representation.
A.2 Forward position kinematics
In the modelling of the forward kinematics of a robot manipulator the
concept of kinematic chains is used. This means that the manipulator
consists of a set of rigid links connected together in a chain. Suppose the
robot has n +1 links connected with n joints. The links are numbered
from 0 to n where joint i connects link i − 1 and i. In typical robots,
each joint has one degree of freedom, either translational or rotational.
The relative position and orientation of frame i with respect to
201
202 Kinematics
frame i − 1 are represented by the 4 × 4 homogeneous transformation
matrix
i−1
T
i
=
¸
i−1
R
i
p
i
0
1×3
1
. (A.1)
where p
i
is the position vector of the origin of frame i expressed in
frame i −1 and
i−1
R
i
the rotation matrix. The columns of the matrix
i−1
R
i
represent the components of the unit vectors of frame i expressed
in frame i −1.
The forward kinematics gives the coordinate frame, or pose, of the
last link. It is obtained by
0
T
n
=
0
T
1
1
T
2
· · ·
n−1
T
n
, (A.2)
which is the product of the coordinate frame transformation matrices
for each link. The pose
0
T
ee
of the robot endeﬀector (EE) with re
spect to the base requires an extra transformation
n
T
ee
to be added to
equation (A.2).
A coordinate system is attached to all links to indicate the posi
tion and orientation of the joint axes. The DenavitHartenberg (DH)
convention is a systematic method to choose these coordinate systems.
A.2.1 DenavitHartenberg representation
The DenavitHartenberg representation (Denavit and Hartenberg,
1955) is commonly used in industry to relate a transformation ma
trix T
i
to its scalar joint position value and the parameters describing
the joint geometry. Each transformation is deﬁned with four scalar pa
rameters. In its original standard form, frame i has its origin along the
axis of joint i + 1. However, many diﬀerent deﬁnitions of the Denavit
Hartenberg representation have been used through the years.
One of these deﬁnitions has the origin of frame i along the axis of
joint i, and is frequently referred to as ‘modiﬁed DenavitHartenberg’
(MDH) form (Craig, 1986). This form is commonly used in literature
dealing with manipulator dynamics, and was also used in this work.
The MDH convention assumes that the link’s coordinate systems have
been placed according to the following rules:
A.2. Forward position kinematics 203
joint 1 i
joint i
joint +1 i
link 1 i
link i
T
i1
T
i
X
i1
Y
i1
Z
i1
Y
i
X
i
Z
i
a
i1
a
i
d
i
Figure A.1: Modiﬁed DenavitHartenberg
Z
i
: lies along the axis of motion of the joint,
X
i
: lies along the common normal between Z
i
and Z
i+1
,
Y
i
: completes the righthanded coordinate system.
These conventions are graphically represented in ﬁgure A.1. The four
parameters that deﬁne the transformation are
a
i
: the distance from Z
i
to Z
i+1
measured along X
i
α
i
: the angle between Z
i
to Z
i+1
measured about X
i
d
i
: the distance from X
i−1
to X
i
measured along Z
i
θ
i
: the angle between X
i−1
to X
i
measured about Z
i
For revolute joints, θ
i
is the joint variable, and for prismatic joints, d
i
is
the variable. E.g. for a manipulator with revolute joints θ
i
= q
i
+θ
i,0
,
where θ
i,0
is any joint position oﬀset.
With these conventions we can describe the general joint transfor
mations as a composition of four elementary transformations:
1. Rotate an angle α
i−1
about the X
i
axis.
2. Translate a distance a
i−1
along the X
i
axis.
3. Rotate an angle θ
i
about the Z
i
axis.
4. Translate a distance d
i
along the Z
i
axis.
204 Kinematics
The resulting homogeneous matrix:
i−1
T
i
= Rot(X
i
, α
i−1
)Trans(X
i
, a
i−1
)Rot(Z
i
, θ
i
)Trans(Z
i
, d
i
) (A.3)
=
cos θ
i
−sin θ
i
0 a
i−1
sin θ
i
cos α
i−1
cos θ
i
cos α
i−1
−sin α
i−1
−d
i
sin α
i−1
sin θ
i
sin α
i−1
cos θ
i
sin α
i−1
cos α
i−1
d
i
cos α
i−1
0 0 0 1
¸
¸
¸
¸
(A.4)
transforms the coordinates of a point from frame i to i −1. This trans
formation is not constant, but varies as a function of the corresponding
joint variable.
A.3 Forward velocity and acceleration kine
matics
The forward position kinematics can be summarized by the following
equation
x
ee
= for kin(q), (A.5)
which expresses the position and orientation of the manipulator end
eﬀector as a function of the joint positions q.
Diﬀerentiating equation (A.5) with respect to time gives the veloc
ity and acceleration of the endeﬀector as a function of the positions,
velocities, and accelerations of the joints:
˙ x
ee
= J(q) ˙ q (A.6)
¨ x
ee
= J(q) ¨ q +
˙
J(q) ˙ q (A.7)
The manipulator Jacobian matrix J transforms velocities in joint space
to velocities of the endeﬀector in Cartesian space. The matrix
˙
J is the
time derivative of the Jacobian.
B
Dynamics of serial manipulators
B.1 Introduction
This appendix describes the dynamics of serial manipulators. First,
the inertial elements of a rigid body are deﬁned and the conventions
which have been used throughout this work are indicated. Second, the
equations to describe the dynamic behavior of a serial manipulator are
introduced. They can be formulated by diﬀerent methods (Tsai, 1999).
In this work, the application of the recursive NewtonEuler equations
is chosen to describe the inverse dynamics. By using an appropriate
transformation, the equations can be reformulated to be linear in the
inertial parameters, which is suitable for identiﬁcation purposes.
B.2 Mass properties
The dynamic parameters of each rigid body consist of its mass m, the
position of the center of gravity (COG), expressed in frame O
c
O
= [c
x
c
y
c
z
]
T
, (B.1)
205
206 Dynamics of serial manipulators
x
y
z
x
C
y
C
z
C
O
C
O
c
bodyi
Figure B.1: Moments of inertia with respect to a reference frame
i.e. the vector from the coordinate frame O to the COG, and the second
order moments of inertia
I
O
=
I
xx
I
xy
I
xz
I
yx
I
yy
I
yz
I
zx
I
zy
I
zz
¸
¸
(B.2)
I
O
is called the inertia matrix or inertia tensor of the body about the
axes of the frame O, with
I
xx
=
V
(y
2
+z
2
)ρ dV,
I
yy
=
V
(z
2
+x
2
)ρ dV,
I
zz
=
V
(x
2
+y
2
)ρ dV,
I
xy
= I
yx
= −
V
xy ρ dV,
I
yz
= I
zy
= −
V
yz ρ dV,
I
xz
= I
zx
= −
V
xz ρ dV, (B.3)
where x, y, and z are the coordinates of a diﬀerential volume of mass
in the volume V of the body with respect to the reference frame O.
The inertia matrix is symmetric and positive deﬁnite.
B.2. Mass properties 207
An alternative to the use of the COG, are the ﬁrst moments of
inertia
s = [s
x
s
y
s
z
]
T
= m c
O
. (B.4)
Steiner’s or parallel axis theorem
The elements of the inertia matrix (equation (B.2)) depend on the
choice of the reference frame. When calculating the moments of inertia,
it is generally easier to perform the calculation with respect to a frame
with its origin in the COG of the object. The parallel axis theorem
shows that, if we know the moments of inertia about a frame in the
COG, we can easily ﬁnd the moments of inertia about any other frame
that is parallel to the one in the COG.
Let C be a Cartesian coordinate frame attached to the center of
gravity and O a reference frame. It can be shown that
I
O
xx
= I
C
xx
+m (c
2
y
+c
2
z
),
I
O
yy
= I
C
yy
+m (c
2
z
+c
2
x
),
I
O
zz
= I
C
zz
+m (c
2
x
+c
2
y
),
I
O
xy
= I
C
xy
−m c
x
c
y
,
I
O
yz
= I
C
yz
−m c
y
c
z
,
I
O
zx
= I
C
zx
−m c
z
c
x
, (B.5)
or more compactly in a closed form formula
I
O
= I
C
+m
(c
T
c)1 −(c c
T
)
, (B.6)
where 1 is the 3 ×3 identity matrix.
Transformation of inertia matrix
The inertia matrix also depends on the orientation of the reference
frame. Let I
A
and I
B
be the inertia tensor referred to the frames A
and B, respectively, with a coinciding origin. The inertia matrix can
be calculated from one frame to the other using the relation
I
B
= RI
A
R
T
, (B.7)
208 Dynamics of serial manipulators
with R the rotation matrix of frame A with respect to frame B. If the
axes of the frame coincide with the central axes of inertia, then the
inertia products are zero and the inertia tensor is a diagonal matrix.
B.3 Inverse dynamic equations
The inverse dynamics computation is used to determine the joint forces
and torques that are required for the desired motion which is speciﬁed
by joint positions, velocities and accelerations.
Two formulations have been used to derive the dynamic equations
of a robot manipulator: the closedform EulerLagrange formulation
and the recursive NewtonEuler formulation. This section presents the
recursive NewtonEuler (RNE) formulation of the dynamics of serial
manipulators. The NewtonEuler formulation incorporates all forces
and torques acting on the individual link of a robot manipulator. The
same underlying formulation based on these NewtonEuler equations
serves for both rigidbody link and payload parameter estimation.
B.3.1 Recursive NewtonEuler formulation
The NewtonEuler formalism for a serial manipulator, implies two re
cursive computations: a forward (kinematics) recursion from the base
to the endeﬀector of the manipulator which computes the velocity and
acceleration of each link, and a backward (dynamics) recursion from
the endeﬀector to the base of the manipulator which computes forces
and torques applied to each link.
In the formulation of the RNE algorithm, following notations are
employed:
σ
i
: is the joint type: σ
i
= 1 for a revolute joint and σ
i
= 0
for a prismatic joint;
e
i
: is a unit vector along the ith joint axis and expressed
in the ith frame. E.g. when the modiﬁed Denavit
Hartenberg formulation is used for the kinematics e
i
=
[0 0 1]
T
;
i
R
i−1
: rotational transformation from frame i −1 to frame i;
B.3. Inverse dynamic equations 209
p
i
: position vector of the origin of the ith link with respect
to (i −1)th link frame;
q, ˙ q, ¨ q : joint position, velocity, and acceleration;
i
: velocities, accelerations, forces and torques are expressed
in frame i.
The NewtonEuler dynamics algorithm
Forward iterations for i = 1, 2, . . . , n
The forward computation computes recursively the angular velocity
ω, angular acceleration ˙ ω, linear velocity v, and linear accelerations ˙ v
of each link in terms of its preceding link. The initial conditions for the
base frame are ω
0
= 0, ˙ ω
0
= 0, v
0
= 0, and ˙ v
0
= g, where g represents
the vector of gravity.
ω
i
=
i−1
R
T
i
ω
i−1
+σ
i
˙ q
i
e
i
(B.8)
˙ ω
i
=
i−1
R
T
i
˙ ω
i−1
+σ
i
(¨ q
i
e
i
+
i−1
R
T
i
ω
i−1
×( ˙ q
i
e
i
)) (B.9)
v
i
=
i−1
R
T
i
v
i−1
+ω
i
×p
i
+ (1 −σ
i
)
i−1
R
T
i
( ˙ q
i
e
i
) (B.10)
˙ v
i
=
i−1
R
T
i
[ ˙ v
i−1
+ω
i−1
×(ω
i−1
×p
i
) + ( ˙ ω
i−1
×p
i
)]
+ (1 −σ
i
)(¨ q
i
e
i
+ 2ω
i
×( ˙ q
i
e
i
)) (B.11)
The linear acceleration of the center of gravity is calculated by
˙ v
C
i
= ˙ v
i
+ ˙ ω
i
×c
i
+ω
i
×(ω
i
×r
i
) (B.12)
The dynamic parameters for a link body i are indicated in ﬁgure B.2.
Backward iterations for i = n, n −1, . . . , 1
Once the velocities and accelerations of the links are found, the joint
forces f and torques t are calculated in the backward computation,
210 Dynamics of serial manipulators
linkbody i
w
i
jointaxis i+1
jointaxis i
q
i
f
i+1
t
i+1
p
i+1 O
v
i
C
i
O
i+1
t
i
f
i
c
i
C
Figure B.2: Deﬁnition of dynamic parameters for a link body with
rotational joint
starting from the endeﬀector link and ending at the base link.
F
i
= m
i
˙ v
C
i
(B.13)
T
i
= I
C
i
˙ ω
i
+ω
i
×(I
C
i
ω
i
) (B.14)
f
i
=
i
R
i+1
f
i+1
+F
i
(B.15)
t
i
= T
i
+
i
R
i+1
t
i+1
+p
i+1
×
i
R
i+1
f
i+1
+c
i
×F
i
(B.16)
τ
i
= σ
i
t
T
i
e
i
+ (1 −σ
i
)f
T
i
e
i
(B.17)
F
i
and T
i
are the reaction forces and torques acting on joint axis i due
to the dynamics of link i alone. f
i
and t
i
take into account the dynamic
eﬀect of all descendant links and give the full reaction forces and torques
acting on joint axis i. τ
i
gives the force or torque of actuator i required
to move link i and all its descendants.
External forces f
n+1
and torques t
n+1
acting on the endeﬀector
can be taken into account. The position of the endeﬀector frame with
respect to the frame of link n is given by the rotation matrix
n
R
n+1
and
the translation vector p
n+1
. These elements allow to take into account
the wrench exerted by the payload on the robot endeﬀector.
B.3.2 Linearity in the inertial parameters
The NewtonEuler algorithm can be reformulated to obtain a model
that is linear in all of the inertial parameters (Atkeson et al., 1986).
B.3. Inverse dynamic equations 211
To obtain this, the ﬁrst moments (equation (B.4)) are used and the
inertia matrices are expressed about the axes of the link frames instead
of the frames in the centers of gravity. The parallel axis theorem of
equation (B.6) is used for the recalculation.
The modiﬁed equations of the recursive NewtonEuler algorithm
become linear in the inertial parameters:
F
i
= m
i
˙ v
i
+ ˙ ω
i
×s
i
+ω
i
×(ω
i
×s
i
) (B.18)
f
i
=
i
R
i+1
f
i+1
+F
i
(B.19)
t
i
=
i
R
i+1
t
i+1
+p
i+1
×
i
R
i+1
f
i+1
+s
i
× ˙ v
i
+I
i
˙ ω
i
+ω
i
×(I
i
ω
i
)
(B.20)
τ
i
= σ
i
t
T
i
e
i
+ (1 −σ
i
)f
T
i
e
i
. (B.21)
This linearity is extremely useful for identiﬁcation purposes because it
allows to use linear estimators.
B.3.3 Calculation the identiﬁcation matrix
For identiﬁcation of the inertial parameters, the identiﬁcation matrix is
required. This matrix contains the partial derivatives of the dynamic
equations to the inertial parameters. As the equations are linear in
these parameters, one column of the identiﬁcation matrix can easily
be obtained by setting one inertial parameter equal to one and all the
others to zero. Repeating this procedure for all inertial parameters in
the model gives the identiﬁcation matrix.
In general the obtained identiﬁcation matrix is not of full rank.
This requires model reduction techniques, based on QR factorization,
singular value decomposition (SVD), or inspection of the rank of the
identiﬁcation matrix (Gautier, 1990; Mayeda et al., 1990; Sheu and
Walker, 1989). All parameters which do not dynamically contribute
to the joint torques are set to zero and eliminated from the model.
The remaining parameters have to be regrouped to eliminate all linear
dependencies. Symbolic reduction methods are found in (Gautier and
Khalil, 1990; Fisette et al., 1996; Khalil and Dombre, 2002).
Khalil (Khalil and Dombre, 2002) derived a formula to deduce the
212 Dynamics of serial manipulators
number of minimal inertial parameters of a manipulator:
b ≤ 7n
r
+ 4n
p
−3 − ¯ σ
1
−2n
g
(B.22)
with n
r
the number of revolute joints, n
p
the number of prismatic
joints, ¯ σ
1
is 1 if the ﬁrst joint is revolute, 0 otherwise, and n
g
= 1 if
the ﬁrst joint is revolute and parallel to gravity. In most cases, this
formula gives the exact number of base inertial parameters.
B.3.4 Base reaction model
The reaction model can also be obtained from the recursive Newton
Euler equations. The equations of the backward iteration should be
calculated one iteration step further, down to i = 0. The forces f
0
and torques t
0
compose the reaction wrench exerted on the robot base
plate.
Similar numerical reduction methods as above can be used to ﬁnd
the minimal model. Fisette et al. (Fisette et al., 1996) presented sym
bolic reduction rules for the reaction model using the barycentric pa
rameters. Recently, Grotjahn (Grotjahn and Heimann, 2000) obtained
similar rules using the NewtonEuler parameters.
C
Robot models
C.1 KUKA IR 361
The KUKA IR 361 is a six degreesoffreedom industrial robot with
seven joint axes. The wrist is of the Doppelwinkel type, and contains
several harmonic drives. The standard industrial controller RC 22/42
is maintained for the analog control levels. The path planner and po
sition control loop are digitally implemented in the COMRADE soft
ware (Van de Poel et al., 1993), running at a sampling rate of 150 Hz
The frame assignments for the ﬁrst three joint axes are given in
ﬁgure C.1. Table C.1 gives the physical meaning of the minimal set of
parameters for this manipulator. The inertial properties are described
using the barycentric parameters.
213
214 Robot models
parameter physical meaning units
parameters from both internal and external model
Kr
1,zz
I
zz,1
+m
1
c
2
x,1
+m
1
c
2
y,1
+m
2
c
2
y,2
+m
3
c
2
y,3
+(I
zz,2
+m
2
c
2
x,2
+I
xx,2
+m
2
c
2
z,2
+m
3
l
2
23
+I
zz,3
+m
3
c
2
x,3
+I
xx,3
+m
3
c
2
z,3
)/2 kg m
2
Kd
2
(I
zz,2
+m
2
c
2
x,2
−I
xx,2
−m
2
c
2
z,2
−m
3
l
2
23
)/2 kg m
2
K
2,xz
I
xz,2
−m
2
c
x,2
c
z,2
kg m
2
Kr
2,yz
I
yz,2
−m
2
c
y,2
c
z,2
−m
3
c
y,3
l
23
kg m
2
K
2,xy
I
xy,2
−m
2
c
x,2
c
y,2
kg m
2
b
3,z
m
3
c
z,3
kg m
b
3,x
m
3
c
x,3
kg m
Kd
3
(I
zz,3
+m
3
c
2
x,3
−I
xx,3
−m
3
c
2
z,3
)/2 kg m
2
K
3,xz
I
xz,3
−m
3
c
x,3
c
z,3
kg m
2
K
3,yz
I
yz,3
−m
3
c
y,3
c
z,3
kg m
2
K
3,xy
I
xy,3
−m
3
c
x,3
c
y,3
kg m
2
K
2,yy
I
yy,2
+m
2
c
2
x,2
+m
2
c
2
z,2
+m
3
l
2
23
kg m
2
K
3,yy
I
yy,3
+m
3
c
2
x,3
+m
3
c
2
z,3
kg m
2
b
2,x
m
2
c
x,2
kg m
parameters from internal model
grav
1
l r k −g b
2,z
(gravity spring) Nm
grav
2
k l
0
/1000 (gravity spring) N
f
v
1
viscous friction 1 Nms
f
c
1
Coulomb friction 1 Nm
f
v
2
viscous friction 2 Nms
f
c
2
Coulomb friction 2 Nm
f
v
3
viscous friction 3 Nms
f
c
3
Coulomb friction 3 Nm
o
1
measurement bias 1 Nm
o
2
measurement bias 2 Nm
o
3
measurement bias 3 Nm
parameters from external model
b
2,z
m
2
c
z,2
+m
3
l
23
kg m
b
1,x
m
1
c
x,1
kg m
br
1,y
m
1
c
y,1
+m
2
c
y,2
+m
3
c
y,3
kg m
K
1,xz
I
xz,1
−m
1
c
x,1
c
z,1
kg m
2
K
1,yz
I
yz,1
−m
1
c
y,1
c
z,1
kg m
2
Table C.1: Physical meaning of the reduced parameter set for
KUKA IR 361
C.2. KUKA KR15 215
X
3
Z
3
Y
3
X
1
X
2
Y
1
Y
2
Z
1
Z
2
Y
0
X
0
Z
0
l
0
1
=
1
0
5
0
m
m
l
2
3
=
4
8
0
m
m
l
3
e
e
=
7
6
5
m
m
Figure C.1: Kinematic structure of KUKA IR 361
C.2 KUKA KR15
The KUKA KR15 (ﬁgure C.2) is a six degrees of freedom robot. With a
nominal payload of 15 kg, it is one of the smaller manipulators in the
product range from KUKA. The KR C1 robot controller is PCbased
and uses VxWorks as realtime operating system.
Table C.2 gives the kinematic description of the KUKA KR15 using
the DenavitHartenberg representation. The dynamic parameters in
table C.3 are obtained from CAD data and are used in the path planner.
Link 6 has no separate inertial parameters, but the table speciﬁes for
this link the parameters of the nominal payload.
216 Robot models

+
+
+


+
+

A5
A6
A2
A4
+

A1
A3

Figure C.2: The 6 DOF industrial robot KUKA KR15/2
joint i α
i−1
[rad] a
i−1
[m] θ
i
[rad] d
i
[m]
1 π 0 0 0
2
π
2
0.3 0 0
3 0 0.65 0 0
4
π
2
0.155 0 0.6
5 
π
2
0 0 0
6
π
2
0 0 0
Table C.2: DenavitHartenberg parameters of KUKA KR15
link 1 link 2 link 3 link 4 link 5 link 6/payload
m[kg]  33 32 19 9 15
c
x
[m]  0.245 0.155 0 0 0.120
c
y
[m]  0 0.026 0 0.024 0
c
z
[m]  0 0 0.150 0 0.290
I
xx
[kgm
2
]  0.09 0.60 0.50 0.05 0.225
I
yy
[kgm
2
]  1.98 0.31 0.46 0.02 0.225
I
zz
[kgm
2
] 4.4 2.00 0.68 0.12 0.04 0.225
I
xy
[kgm
2
]  0 0 0 0 0
I
xz
[kgm
2
]  0 0 0 0 0
I
yz
[kgm
2
]  0 0 0 0 0
Table C.3: Dynamic parameters of KUKA KR15
D
Contribution of the rotor inertia
D.1 Introduction
This appendix derives the equations of the torque contribution of the
rotor inertias for the KUKA IR 361 robot. In this robot, the ﬁrst actua
tor is mounted on the robot base, while the second and third actuator
are both mounted on the second link. This robot structure is graphi
cally represented in ﬁgure D.1. The mounting of actuators and links on
another link body is indicated by a full line, the drive train connection
by a dashed line. Since only rotations and torques are involved in the
dynamics of the rotor inertia, all equations related to translations and
forces are omitted.
D.2 Forward kinematics
In the reference state, all link frames are chosen to be parallel. This
results in the following conventions for the KUKA IR 361. The ﬁrst link
rotates around the −Z axis, while its actuator uses the +Z axis. The
second link and actuator and the third link have the +Y axis as their
217
218 Contribution of the rotor inertia
Link0(base)
Link1 (Z)
Link2 (+Y)
Actuator1 (+Z)
Actuator2 (+Y) Actuator3 (Y) Link3 (+Y) level3
level2
level1
level0
m
2
m
1
m
3
Figure D.1: Tree structure of the manipulator: links and actua
tors with their positive rotation axis. The drive train
connections are indicated by a dashed line and the
transmission ratio.
axis of rotation, and the second actuator the −Y . The direction is
indicated in parenthesis in ﬁgure D.1. The rotation matrices between
the diﬀerent link frames are, respectively,
0
R
1
=
cos q
l
1
sin q
l
1
0
−sin q
l
1
cos q
l
1
0
0 0 1
¸
¸
,
1
R
2
=
cos q
l
2
0 sin q
l
2
0 1 0
−sin q
l
2
0 cos q
l
2
¸
¸
. (D.1)
(D.2)
The subscript ·
l
indicates a variable related to the link motion. For the
motor variables the subscript ·
m
is used. The rotations between the
actuator frames and the frames of the links on which they are mounted,
are given by
0
R
m
1
=
cos q
m
1
0 −sin q
m
1
0 1 0
sin q
m
1
0 cos q
m
1
¸
¸
,
2
R
m
2
=
cos q
m
2
0 sin q
m
2
0 1 0
−sin q
m
2
0 cos q
m
2
¸
¸
,
2
R
m
3
=
cos q
m
3
0 −sin q
m
3
0 1 0
sin q
m
3
0 cos q
m
3
¸
¸
. (D.3)
Equations (B.8) and (B.9) of appendix B are used to calculate the
forward kinematics of the actuator. The initial conditions for the base
frame are ω
0
= 0 and ˙ ω
0
= 0.
D.2. Forward kinematics 219
Level 1 The ﬁrst link of this manipulator is situated on the ﬁrst level.
It moves around the Z axis, with e
l
1
= [0 0 −1]
T
:
ω
l
1
=
0
R
T
1
ω
0
+ ˙ q
l
1
e
l
1
=
0 0 −˙ q
l
1
T
(D.4)
˙ ω
l
1
=
0
R
T
1
˙ ω
0
+ (¨ q
l
1
e
l
1
+
0
R
T
1
ω
0
×( ˙ q
l
1
e
l
1
)) =
0 0 −¨ q
l
1
T
. (D.5)
A similar equation is obtained for the ﬁrst actuator, which rotates
around the +Z, i.e. e
m
1
= [0 0 1]
T
:
ω
m
1
=
0
R
T
m
1
ω
0
+ ˙ q
m
1
e
m
1
=
0 0 ˙ q
m
1
T
(D.6)
˙ ω
m
1
=
0
R
T
m
1
˙ ω
0
+ (¨ q
m
1
e
m
1
+
0
R
T
m
1
ω
0
×( ˙ q
m
1
e
m
1
)) =
0 0 ¨ q
m
1
T
.
(D.7)
Level 2 The second link is found on the second level of the manip
ulator tree structure. For this second joint e
l
2
= [0 1 0]
T
, and the
kinematics
ω
l
2
=
1
R
T
2
ω
l
1
+ ˙ q
l
2
e
l
2
=
˙ q
l
1
sin q
l
2
˙ q
l
2
−˙ q
l
1
cos q
l
2
¸
¸
(D.8)
˙ ω
l
2
=
1
R
T
2
˙ ω
l
1
+ (¨ q
l
2
e
l
2
+
1
R
T
2
ω
l
1
×( ˙ q
l
2
e
l
2
)) (D.9)
=
¨ q
l
1
sin q
l
2
+ ˙ q
l
1
˙ q
l
2
cos q
l
2
¨ q
l
2
−¨ q
l
1
cos q
l
2
+ ˙ q
l
1
˙ q
l
2
sin q
l
2
¸
¸
. (D.10)
Level 3 This level contains the actuators of the second and the third
link. The kinematics for the second actuator (e
m
2
= [0 1 0]
T
) are
ω
m
2
=
2
R
T
m
2
ω
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
e
m
2
=
˙ q
l
1
sin(q
l
2
+q
m
2
)
˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
−˙ q
l
1
cos(q
l
2
+q
m
2
)
¸
¸
(D.11)
˙ ω
m
2
=
2
R
T
m
2
˙ ω
l
2
+ (¨ q
m
2
e
m
2
+
2
R
T
m
2
ω
l
2
×( ˙ q
m
2
e
m
2
)) (D.12)
=
¨ q
l
1
sin(q
l
2
+q
m
2
) + ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
) cos(q
l
2
+q
m
2
)
¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
−¨ q
l
1
cos(q
l
2
+q
m
2
) + ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
) sin(q
l
2
+q
m
2
)
¸
¸
, (D.13)
220 Contribution of the rotor inertia
and similar for the third actuator (e
m
3
= [0 −1 0]
T
)
ω
m
3
=
2
R
T
m
3
ω
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
3
e
m
3
=
˙ q
l
1
sin(q
l
2
−q
m
3
)
˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
−˙ q
l
1
cos(q
l
2
−q
m
3
)
¸
¸
(D.14)
˙ ω
m
3
=
2
R
T
m
3
˙ ω
l
2
+ (¨ q
m
3
e
m
3
+
2
R
T
m
3
ω
l
2
×( ˙ q
m
3
e
m
3
)) (D.15)
=
¨ q
l
1
sin(q
l
2
−q
m
3
) + ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
) cos(q
l
2
−q
m
3
)
¨ q
l
2
− ¨ q
m
3
−¨ q
l
1
cos(q
l
2
−q
m
3
) + ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
) sin(q
l
2
−q
m
3
)
¸
¸
, (D.16)
D.3 Inverse dynamics
The backward recursion step calculates the dynamics, starting from
the kinematic information derived above and using equations (B.14)
to (B.17). Only the moment of inertia around the rotation axis gives
a torque contribution of the rotor, which is diﬀerent from that of the
link body. All the inertial parameters of the links are set to zero. This
information is taken into account and simpliﬁes the equations. The
equations have been veriﬁed using the symbolic multibody software
package Robotran (Raucent, 1990; Fisette et al., 1996).
D.3.1 The actuator torques
For the third actuator, this yields
t
m
3
= I
m
3
˙ ω
m
3
+ω
m
3
×(I
m
3
ω
m
3
) (D.17)
=
I
m
3
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
) cos(q
l
2
−q
m
3
)
I
m
3
(¨ q
l
2
− ¨ q
m
3
)
I
m
3
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
) sin(q
l
2
−q
m
3
)
¸
¸
(D.18)
τ
m
3
= t
T
m
3
e
m
3
= I
m
3
(¨ q
l
2
− ¨ q
m
3
). (D.19)
Given that q
m
3
= µ
3
q
l
3
, and reducing the actuator torques to the link
side, the actuator torque required to move the third rotor inertia I
m
3
equals:
τ
3,I
= I
m
3
(µ
3
¨ q
l
2
−µ
2
3
¨ q
l
3
). (D.20)
D.3. Inverse dynamics 221
For the second actuator, analogue calculations give
t
m
2
= I
m
2
˙ ω
m
2
+ω
m
2
×(I
m
2
ω
m
2
) (D.21)
=
I
m
2
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
) cos(q
l
2
+q
m
2
)
I
m
2
(¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
)
I
m
2
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
) sin(q
l
2
+q
m
2
)
¸
¸
(D.22)
τ
m
2
= t
T
m
2
e
m
2
= I
m
2
(¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
). (D.23)
Equation (D.23) does not yet give us the full torque required to move
the second actuator. Since this actuator drives the second link, an
additional coupling is introduced in level 2 of the robot structure.
On the second level, no actuator is mounted, so that T
2
= 0. The
dynamic equations are
t
2
=
2
R
m
2
t
m
2
+
2
R
m
3
t
m
3
(D.24)
=
I
m
2
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
) cos q
l
2
+I
m
3
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
) cos q
l
2
I
m
2
(¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
) +I
m
3
(¨ q
l
2
− ¨ q
m
3
)
I
m
2
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
) sin q
l
2
+I
m
3
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
) sin q
l
2
¸
¸
(D.25)
τ
2
= t
T
2
e
l
2
= I
m
2
(¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
) +I
m
3
(¨ q
l
2
− ¨ q
m
3
). (D.26)
Equation (D.26) gives the torque at the joint axis of the second link.
In order to obtain the full actuator torque, τ
2
must be combined with
τ
m
2
of equation (D.23). Hereby, the transmission ratio µ
2
is taken into
account and the equations are transformed to the link side
τ
2,I
= µ
2
(I
m
2
(¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
)) +I
m
2
(¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
) +I
m
3
(¨ q
l
2
− ¨ q
m
3
) (D.27)
= I
m
2
(µ
2
(¨ q
l
2
+µ
2
¨ q
l
2
) + (¨ q
l
2
+µ
2
¨ q
l
2
)) +I
m
3
(¨ q
l
2
−µ
3
¨ q
l
3
) (D.28)
= I
m
2
¨ q
l
2
(1 +µ
2
)
2
+I
m
3
(¨ q
l
2
−µ
3
¨ q
l
3
) (D.29)
In the same way, the torque contribution on the ﬁrst level is ob
tained. Here, Z is the axis of rotation. For the branch along the ﬁrst
link, the joint torques are
t
1
=
1
R
2
t
2
(D.30)
=
I
m
2
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
) +I
m
3
˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
)
I
m
2
(¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
) +I
m
3
(¨ q
l
2
− ¨ q
m
3
)
0
¸
¸
. (D.31)
222 Contribution of the rotor inertia
The joint torque of the motor branch on the ﬁrst level is
t
m
1
= I
m
1
˙ ω
m
1
+ω
m
1
×(I
m
1
ω
m
1
) =
0
0
I
m
1
¨ q
m
1
¸
¸
. (D.32)
The ﬁrst actuator torque due the rotor inertia of the actuators becomes:
τ
m
1
=
1
µ
1
t
T
1
e
l
1
+t
T
m
1
e
m
1
= I
m
1
¨ q
m
1
, (D.33)
or transformed to the link side
τ
1,I
= µ
2
1
¨ q
l
1
I
m
1
. (D.34)
Equation (D.33) shows the rotor inertias on the second or third level
do not aﬀect the actuator torque on the ﬁrst level.
D.3.2 The base reaction torques
The reaction torques on the ﬁrst level joints are further transformed to
level 0 in order to obtain the reaction torques at the robot base
t
0
=
0
R
1
t
1
+
0
R
m
1
t
m
1
(D.35)
=
((¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
) sin q
l
1
+ ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
) cos q
l
1
)I
m
2
+((¨ q
l
2
− ¨ q
m
3
) sin q
l
1
+ ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
) cos q
l
1
)I
m
3
((¨ q
l
2
+ ¨ q
m
2
) cos q
l
1
− ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
+ ˙ q
m
2
) sin q
l
1
)I
m
2
+((¨ q
l
2
− ¨ q
m
3
) cos q
l
1
− ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
− ˙ q
m
3
) sin q
l
1
)I
m
3
−I
m
1
¨ q
m
1
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
(D.36)
=
(¨ q
l
2
(1 +µ
2
) sin q
l
1
+ ˙ q
l
1
˙ q
l
2
(1 +µ
2
) cos q
l
1
)I
m
2
+((¨ q
l
2
−µ
3
¨ q
l
3
) sin q
l
1
+ ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
−µ
3
˙ q
l
3
) cos q
l
1
)I
m
3
(¨ q
l
2
(1 +µ
2
) cos q
l
1
− ˙ q
l
1
˙ q
l
2
(1 +µ
2
) sin q
l
1
)I
m
2
+((¨ q
l
2
−µ
3
¨ q
l
3
) cos q
l
1
− ˙ q
l
1
( ˙ q
l
2
−µ
3
˙ q
l
3
) sin q
l
1
)I
m
3
−I
m
1
µ
1
¨ q
l
1
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
.
(D.37)
2
KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN FACULTEIT TOEGEPASTE WETENSCHAPPEN DEPARTEMENT WERKTUIGKUNDE AFDELING PRODUCTIETECHNIEKEN, MACHINEBOUW EN AUTOMATISERING Celestijnenlaan 300B, B3001 Leuven (Heverlee), Belgi¨ e
Experimental robot and payload identiﬁcation with application to dynamic trajectory compensation
Jury: Voorzitter: Prof. dr. ir. Leden: Prof. dr. ir. Prof. dr. ir. Prof. dr. ir. Prof. dr. ir. Prof. dr. ir. Prof. dr. ir.
J. Berlamont J. Swevers, promotor J. De Schutter, promotor S. Van Huﬀel J.C. Samin (UCL–PRM) H. Bruyninckx W. Desmet
Proefschrift voorgedragen tot het behalen van het doctoraat in de toegepaste wetenschappen door Walter VERDONCK
UDC 681.3*I29 April 2004
c
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven – Faculteit Toegepaste Wetenschappen Arenbergkasteel, B3001 Heverlee (Belgium)
Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden vermenigvuldigd en/of openbaar gemaakt worden door middel van druk, fotokopie, microﬁlm, elektronisch of op welke andere wijze ook zonder voorafgaandelijke schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever. All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced in any form by print, photoprint, microﬁlm or any other means without written permission from the publisher. D/2004/7515/14 ISBN 9056824767
Voorwoord
Vier en een half jaar lang heb ik me een langeafstandsloper gevoeld. Informatie opzoeken, idee¨n bestuderen, formules aﬂeiden, experimenten e uitvoeren, studenten begeleiden, verslagen en papers schrijven, presentaties voorbereiden, . . . , er leek geen eind te komen. Uithouding en doorzetting zijn dan ook cruciaal gebleken. Met het voltooien van dit boek ben ik in de laatste rechte lijn gekomen en is de eindmeet in zicht. Hoewel ‘lopen’ noch ‘doctoreren’ een teamsport zijn, kan je het niet in je eentje tot een goed einde brengen. Een heleboel mensen hebben al die jaren vertrouwen in mij gehad en mij van op de zijlijn aanmoedigingen toegeschreeuwd. Al die trouwe supporters wil ik oprecht bedanken voor hun interesse en steun die me steeds deden ‘voortlopen’. In de eerste plaats wens ik mijn beide promotoren te danken voor de kans die ze mij gaven dit doctoraat te beginnen. Professor Jan Swevers stippelde als dagelijkse trainer mee de weg uit, sprong met raad en daad bij waar nodig, maar gaf mij tevens voldoende vrijheid om zelf keuzes te maken. Mijn tweede promotor professor Joris De Schutter volgde als sportief manager vanop enige afstand mijn vorderingen en gaf mij het vertrouwen om deze vier jaren zijn oefenzittingen mee te verzorgen. Ik dank ook de leden van mijn begeleidingscommissie, professor S. Van Huﬀel en professor J.C. Samin, voor het kritisch nalezen en beoordelen van de tekst. Verder apprecieer ik ten zeerste de spontane bereidheid van de professoren Herman Bruyninckx en Wim Desmet om deel uit te maken van de jury en van professor Berlamont om de jury voor te zitten. Ik dank het IWT voor de ﬁnanci¨le steun gedurende vier jaren. e GOA/99/04 en IUAP–AMS (‘Intelligent Mechatronic Systems’) gaven
i
De thesisstudenten Sven en Sabine en daarna Kris e en Peter bedank ik voor hun inzet en het uitvoeren van talrijke experimenten.ii mij mee de kans dit werk voor te stellen op workshops en internationale conferenties. maar ﬁjn. die een aangenaam gezelschap waren na een soms zware . Bram. Ik e dank de ﬁrma Krypton voor het uitvoeren van een kinematische kalibratie van onze robot en hun hulp bij de zoektocht naar een geschikte opstelling voor de trajectcompensatie. elektronica en informatica verdienen eveneens een woord van dank. Ren´. Buiten de werkuren kon ik voor ontspanning rekenen op mijn vrienden die af en toe naar Leuven centrum afzakten voor een kaartavond of een hapje en een drankje. Ook de vele (ex)kotgenoten wens ik te vermelden. en Christophe. je tiens ` remercier le a professeur Samin et ses coll`gues de la division Production m´canique e e et machines de l’UCL pour la coop´ration agr´able. Goele en Nathalie. Ook binnen het departement zal ik vele mensen nog lang herinneren. bureau gedeeld met Wim S. Hoewel zij meestal in de schaduw staan van de uiteindelijke onderzoeksresultaten. Drie jaren heb ik een klein. Johan. Dans le contexte de l’IUAP. De mensen van het secretariaat. I am grateful to the Amatec company for providing me a software module for the payload identiﬁcation. Herman Bruyninckx toonde in de voorbije jaren regelmatig belangstelling in mijn onderzoek en begreep als geen ander mijn nood aan open robotsturingen. Zij hebben dit werk mee vorm gegeven. Ook Tine. Mijn bureaugenoten waren steeds opgewekt en wisten problemen te relativeren met een portie humor. Het laatste anderhalve jaar heb ik doorgebracht in het gezelschap van Bob en een bende jonge assistenten Peter. Klaas. de werkplaats. Wim M. de e afdeling en het departement hebben elk op hun wijze bijgedragen aan de aangename werksfeer. Vincent. De ﬁrma’s KUKA en St¨ubli a hebben een bijgedrage geleverd door het opzoeken van speciﬁcatiegegevens over onze robots. Dries. was hun hulp onontbeerlijk. Voor praktische problemen met onze ‘goeie ouwe’ ontwikkelomgeving Comrade kon ik steeds terecht bij Johan Baeten en Erwin Aertbeli¨n. e e Graag vermeld ik de inbreng van enkele industri¨le partners. en Brecht. de diensten meetsystemen. en andere collega’s van de robotgroep. Ik denk hier in het bijzonder aan mijn buren Els.
Dankzij hen was elk weekend voor mij het moment waarop ik me thuis voelde en tot rust kon komen. Tenslotte dank ik ook mijn ouders voor de kansen die ze mij geboden hebben en voor de praktische en morele steun die ze mij gaven.iii dagtaak. hebben ze tijd noch moeite gespaard om mij te omringen met de beste zorgen. In hun rotsvast vertrouwen dat dit proefschrift tot een goed einde zou worden gebracht. Walter Verdonck Maart 2004 .
iv .
the design of robot controllers should include accurate dynamic robot models. a force/torque platform) sensors. The use of diﬀerent types of sensors into one combined identiﬁcation problem provides more information on the robot dynamics. This research improves and extends the existing experimental identiﬁcation methods and applies the obtained dynamic models to improving path tracking control. but compensates for all known robot dynamics based on available a priori information. In this application not only the actuator torque prediction accuracy is important. but special attention is paid to the accuracy of the individual parameter estimates. Further. A sensitivity analysis v . The ever increasing quality standards and new applications impose higher requirements on accuracy. Robot identiﬁcation is an experimental technique to estimate realistic and accurate dynamic robot models from motion data and actuator torques measured during ‘welldesigned’ experiments. Due to the growing importance of the robot payload. This work presents a payload identiﬁcation approach which does not require a full identiﬁcation of the manipulator.e. The inﬂuence of a kinematic calibration and more appropriate model descriptions for some additional eﬀects on the obtained model accuracy has been investigated. yielding improved parameter estimation accuracy and actuator torque prediction. this work presents the experimental validation of an identiﬁcation approach using both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ (i. reliability and performance. the robot identiﬁcation method is extended to the estimation of the inertial parameters of the robot payload.Abstract Industrial robot manipulators have become an indispensable means of automation to increase ﬂexibility and productivity. Due to the complex nonlinear robot dynamics.
Feeding this precompensated trajectory to the robot controller. The improvement of the dynamic accuracy is experimentally evaluated. the obtained dynamic robot model is used to improve the path tracking accuracy of robots without large adaptations to the present hardware. the resulting executed trajectory is much closer to the desired one. which calculates oﬀline a correction to the robot trajectory using the dynamic model. This is realized by ﬁltering the desired trajectory with the inverse model of the robot and its controller.vi is performed to investigate the inﬂuence of the quality of the a priori information on the ﬁnal accuracy of the payload parameter estimates. In view of industrial relevance. .
Beknopte samenvatting Industri¨le manipulatoren zijn een onontbeerlijk automatiseringsmide del geworden om de ﬂexibiliteit en productiviteit te verhogen. is de robotidentiﬁcatiemethode uitgebreid naar het schatten van de inertieparameters van de robotlast. Het gebruik van verschillende types sensoren in ´´n gecombineerd identiﬁcatieprobleem levert meer ee informatie over de robotdynamica. Vanwege het groeiend belang van de robotlast. Robotidentiﬁcatie is een experimentele techniek die toelaat om op een eﬃci¨nte wijze realistische en nauwkeurige dynae mische modellen te bekomen uit bewegingsdata en de aandrijfkoppels gemeten tijdens speciaal ontworpen experimenten. betrouwbaarheid en prestaties. Dit onderzoek heeft tot doel de bestaande identiﬁcatiemethoden te verbeteren en toe te passen om de trajectnauwkeurigheid van robots te verbeteren. Verder presenteert dit werk de experimentele validatie van een identiﬁcatiebenadering die zowel ‘interne’ als ‘externe’ sensoren gebruikt. Omwille van de complexe nietlineaire robotdynamica moet bij het ontwerpen van regelaars gebruik gemaakt worden van nauwkeurige dynamische robotmodellen. maar alle gekende robot vii . maar wordt speciale aandacht geschonken aan de nauwkeurigheid van de afzonderlijke parameterwaarden. Dit werk presenteert een lastschattingsmethode die geen volledige identiﬁcatie van de robot vereist. Steeds toenemende kwaliteitsnormen en nieuwe toepassingen leggen hogere eisen op aan nauwkeurigheid. De invloed van een kinematische kalibratie en geschiktere modelbeschrijvingen voor enkele bijkomende eﬀecten op de bereikte modelnauwkeurigheid is onderzocht. Dit resulteert in een verbeterde nauwkeurigheid van parameterschatting en voorspelling van het actuatorkoppel. Voor deze toepassing is niet enkel de nauwkeurigheid van de koppelvoorspelling van belang.
Wanneer dit gecompenseerde traject naar de robotregelaar wordt gestuurd. Met het oog op industri¨le relevantie is het bekomen dynamisch e robotmodel gebruikt om de trajectnauwkeurigheid van robots te verbeteren zonder ingrijpende wijzigingen in de aanwezige hardware. e . ligt het uitgevoerde traject dichter bij het gewenste traject. Deze verbetering van de dynamische nauwkeurigheid is experimenteel ge¨valueerd. Deze ﬁlter berekent oﬀ line een correctie op het robottraject op basis van het dynamisch model. Dit is gerealiseerd door het gewenste traject te ﬁlteren met een invers model van de robot en zijn regelaar. Een sensitiviteitsanalyse is uitgevoerd om de invloed van de kwaliteit van deze informatie op de uiteindelijke nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschattingen van de robotlast te onderzoeken.viii dynamica compenseert op basis van a priori gekende informatie.
. . . xxv . . . xxxvii . . . . . . . . . . ix . . . . . . .2 Belangrijkste bijdragen van dit werk . .1 Modelgeneratie .2 Compensatie van a priori gekende dynamica . . . . . 5. . . 5. . . . . . 6 Dynamische compensatie door trajectaanpassing . . . . . . . . xli . . xix . . . . . . . . . 6. . xxx . xxvii . . . . . . . 3 Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering . . . . . . . 1. xx . 2 Literatuuroverzicht . xxxviii . .1 Motivatie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Praktische beperkingen voor implementatie . . . xix . . . . . . xxv . 4. . . . . . .1 Nietlineaire trajectprecompensatie . . 5 Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de robotlast . . . . . . . . . . .1 Procedure voor experimentele robotidentiﬁcatie 3. . . . 5. . . . xxxv .1 Modelgeneratie .2 Experimentele resultaten voor de KUKA IR 361 6. . . . . . . . . . xxi . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . xl . . . . . . . 5.2 Experimentele resultaten . . . xxxv . .3 Sensitiviteitsanalyse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Experimentele resultaten . . . . . .5 Besluit . . . . . . . . . xxxi . . . . . . . xlv . . . . . . . 3. 4.3 Besluit . . . . .3 Besluit . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . xlii . . . xxxii .Contents Voorwoord Abstract Beknopte samenvatting Contents Notation Nederlandse samenvatting 1 Inleiding . i v vii ix xv xix . . . . . .2 Experimentele resultaten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xliii . . . . . 6. 4 Combineren van intern en extern model . xxx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxviii . . xxxiv . . . . . 1. .
. .7 Experiment design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Linearity in the parameters . . . . 2. . 2. . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. .2 Model generation . .4. xlv xlvi 1 1 5 6 7 9 11 11 12 14 17 18 18 23 25 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 42 46 50 51 51 52 52 54 56 58 58 59 61 62 1 Introduction 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Separation of experiments . . . . . . . . . . .2 Identiﬁability and minimal set of parameters 2. 2 Literature Survey 2. . . .1 Background and motivation . . . . . . . . 3. . . . 3 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues 3. . . . . . .9 Optimization techniques . . 3. . . . . . . . . . .3 Additional eﬀects . . . . . 3. . .1 General problem formulation . . . . .7. . 3. . . .1 Introduction . . .2 Serial robot manipulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Trajectory parameterization . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Besluit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Approaches to modelling and identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 The parameters of the identiﬁcation model . .4 Rotor inertia . . . . 3. . . . . . . .5 Model generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . .2. . . . . . 2. . . . . . Algemeen besluit en toekomstig werk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Introduction to identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . 2. . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . .2 Models including joint ﬂexibility . . . .x Contents 7 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . .2 Properties of periodic excitation . . . . .3 Approach . . . . .4 Generation of the excitation trajectory . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . .7. . . . .2 Optimization criteria . . . . 2. . . . . . . .5. . . . . . 2. . . . . . 2. . . . . . .11 Conclusions . . 3.3 Experiment design using periodic robot excitation . . .1 General manipulator structure . . . . . . . . . . .5. 2. . . 2. . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . .2. . .1 Derivation of the dynamic equations . . . .3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . 2. . .2 The rigid body dynamics . . . . . . .10 Applications of dynamics models . . . .3 Friction modelling . . . .5 Chapter by chapter overview . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Main contributions of this research 1. . . . . . .3 Parameterization for the excitation trajectory 2.8 Parameter estimation . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . .4 Procedure for experimental identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . 1. 3. .
. . Parameter estimation .4 3.4. . . . . . . .4 Practical considerations . . . . .2 Robot payload identiﬁcation approach . . . . . .2 Parameter estimation . . . . . . . Validation . . . . . . .4. 4. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . 4. . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . .6 Advantages of using periodic excitation . . . . . . 5. . . . 5.5 3. trajec. . . .4 Gravity compensation spring . . . . . . . . . .3. . .4.2. . . . . . . 5. . . .3. . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Compensation based on parameter estimates . .7 3.3 Approach to payload identiﬁcation . . . . . . . . .3 Rotor inertia .1 Introduction . . .3 Torque compensation by modelling . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . .1 Simulation model of the KUKA KR15 . . . . 3. .4 Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors . . . . . 4. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . .Contents xi 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . .2 Torque compensation by measurement . 3. . . Limitations for obtaining the optimal excitation tory . . . . . . . .2 Approach used in the sensitivity analysis . . . . . . . 3. . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . .5 Conclusions . . . . . . . 5. . . . .5 Friction . . . . . 4. . . . . . . .4 Actuator torque prediction accuracy . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . .2 Generation of dynamic robot models . .3 Advantages of combining internal and external robot models . . . .8 Solution by optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Description of the setup and the experiments . . Heuristic solution .3. . . . . . . . . . .7. . .2. Conclusions . . . . . .2 Kinematic calibration . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . 5 Robot payload identiﬁcation 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . .4. .3. . .1 Dynamic robot model for payload identiﬁcation 5. . .3 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Experimental identiﬁcation results . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . 5. . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . .1 Combining internal and external robot models . . 4.2 Eﬀect of rotor inertia .4. . . . .2 Description of the experiments .7. . . . . . . 3. . .3 Results of the analysis . . . . . . . Experimental results . . . . .6 3. . . . . . . .7. . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Description of test case and robot model . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Discussion of the experimental results . .3.2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . .2. 64 67 70 72 73 77 77 82 83 84 88 93 96 97 97 99 99 101 102 104 104 105 106 114 117 119 119 121 121 126 128 128 129 131 132 132 133 133 140 4 Combining internal and external model 4. . . . . . . .
. . .2 Controller dynamics . . . . . .6. . .2 Identiﬁcation with compensation using modelling . . . 6. .3.3. . . . . . . . . .3 Reference and validation trajectories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . .1 Description of test case . . .1 The dynamic robot model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . 6.5 Conclusions .2 The reference payload . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . 7. . . . .2. . .5 Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . A. .2. . . . .2 Forward position kinematics . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . .6 5. 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B Dynamics of serial manipulators B. . . . . . . The experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2 Future work . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The industrial robot KUKA KR15 .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography List of Publications Biography A Kinematics A. . . . . . . .5.1 DenavitHartenberg representation . . . . . . . . . .3 Experimental veriﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Experimental results . .3 Eﬀect of the warmup on the accuracy of the parameter estimates . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental results . 5.3 The trajectory precompensation . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . .4 Practical limitations for implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. A. . . . . .1 Summary of the conclusions . . .1 Introduction . . .2. . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusions 7. . . . . . . . 6. . 6. . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . 5. . . . .1 Identiﬁcation with compensation by measurements . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . .7 5. . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . .xii Contents 5. .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Forward velocity and acceleration kinematics . . 142 143 143 144 146 147 150 156 159 161 161 163 164 164 165 167 167 168 169 169 175 176 177 177 180 183 197 199 201 201 201 202 204 205 205 6 Trajectory compensation 6. . . . . . . .2 Description of the robot controller model 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Trajectory precompensation . . . . . 6. . . . . . . 6.
. . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 KUKA IR 361 . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Base reaction model . . . . . . . . . . . . D Contribution of the rotor inertia D. . . . . . . . . .3. .3 Inverse dynamic equations . . . . . . . .2 Forward kinematics . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . .2 Mass properties . . . . . B. . . . . . .2 Linearity in the inertial parameters . . . . . . . . D.3 Inverse dynamics . . . . . . . 205 208 208 210 211 212 213 213 215 217 217 217 220 220 222 C Robot models C. . . . . . .1 The actuator torques . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. B. . . . . D. .2 KUKA KR15 .3. . . . . .2 The base reaction torques . . . . .1 Recursive NewtonEuler formulation B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. .Contents xiii B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Calculation the identiﬁcation matrix B. . . . . . . . . D.
xiv Contents .
Notation Symbols b : Barycentric moment [kgm] c : Position of center of mass of rigid body [m] c = cx cy cz e f fv fC g im k m m m n q q ˙ q ¨ s t t v : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Unit vector Reaction force [N] Viscous friction coeﬃcient [Nms] Coulomb friction coeﬃcient [Nm] Vector of gravitational forces or torques Actuator current [A] Spring stiﬀness [N/m] Reaction moment [Nm] Mass of a rigid body [kg] Barycentric mass [kg] Number of degrees of freedom of a manipulator Joint position [rad] Joint velocity [rad/s] Joint acceleration [rad/s2 ] First order moment of rigid body s = m c [kgm] Reaction torque [Nm] Time [s] 3 × 1 velocity vector [m/s] xv .
Iyz . Izz : Principal moment of inertia of a rigid body about the coordinate axes of a ﬁxed frame [kg m2 ] Ixy . Izx : Product of inertia of a rigid body about the coordinate axes of a ﬁxed frame [kg m2 ] Im : Rotor inertia [kg m2 ] J : Jacobian matrix K : Barycentric tensor Km : Actuator torque constant M : Mass or inertia matrix T : Period [s] Ts : Sampling period [s] V : Coupling matrix β δ η µ : : : : Vector of trajectory parameters Parameter vector Transmission eﬃciency Transmission ratio . Iyy .xvi Notation w : Wrench w= f t z C C E G(s) Gcontr IR I : Extended state variable : : : : : : Matrix containing Coriolis and centrifugal eﬀects Covariance matrix Energy Transfer function Controller model Tensor of second order moment with respect to frame R : Inertia tensor containing the moments and products of inertia Ixx Ixy Ixz I = Ixy Iyy Iyz Ixz Iyz Izz Ixx .
which is function of position.Notation xvii ω : ωf : σ : τ : θ : Φ : 3 × 1 angular velocity vector [rad/s] Fundamental pulsation [rad/s] Standard deviation Torque (or force) Parameter vector The identiﬁcation matrix. and acceleration Ψ : Identiﬁcation matrix Σ : Weighing matrix L K P C : : : : Lagrangian Kinetic energy Potential energy Convex set Functions x ˙ x ¨ cond(·) det sign(·) σ(·) ·T : : : : : : : Derivative of variable x Second derivative of variable x Condition number Determinant of a matrix Sign function singular value of · Transpose of a matrix or vector Indices ·min ·max ·mean : Minimal value : Maximal value : Mean value . velocity.
xviii Acronyms and abbreviations ARX : AutoRegressive with eXogenous input ARMAX : AutoRegressive Moving Average models with eXogenous inputs BJ : BoxJenkins CAD : Computer Aided Design COG : Center of gravity CSA : Canadian Space Agency DLR : Deutsches Zentrum f¨r Luft. Integral.und Raumfahrt u DOF : degree of freedom EE : End eﬀector EKF : Extended Kalman ﬁlter ETFE : Experimental transfer function estimate GA : Genetic Algorithm LED : Light Emitting Diode LMI : Linear Matrix Inequality LP : Linear programming LS : Least squares MDH : Modiﬁed DenavitHartenberg MLE : Maximum likelihood estimator PID : Proportional. Derivative PTP : Pointtopoint QP : Quadratic programming RLS : Recursive least squares RML : Robust maximum likelihood RMS : Root Mean Square RNE : Recursive NewtonEuler RRS : Realistic robot simulation SDP : Semi deﬁnite programming SQP : Sequential Quadratic Programming SVD : Singular Value Decomposition TCP : Tool center point WLS : Weighted least squares .
Bovendien dient stilstand e zoveel mogelijk ge¨limineerd te worden door gebruik van simulatie en e oﬀ line programmering. wat de levensduur en de betrouwbaarheid aanzienlijk verkleint.1 Inleiding Motivatie Industri¨le robots zijn een onontbeerlijk automatiseringsmiddel gewore den om de productiviteit en ﬂexibiliteit van productieeenheden te verhogen. Dit e xix . Door de stijgende druk op snelheid en productiviteit worden heel wat robots systematisch overbelast. Daarom dient de identiﬁcatieprocedure uitgebreid te worden om de ware inerti¨le en fysisch interpreteerbare parameters te bepalen. Om betrouwbare programmering van snelle bewegingen toe te laten. De inertieparameters van deze last maken eveneens deel uit van een dynamisch model van de robot. met toepassing op dynamische trajectcompensatie 1 1.Nederlandse samenvatting Experimentele identiﬁcatie van robot en last. die ook rekening houden met de last of het gereedschap dat de robot voor zijn taken gebruikt. Ook de alsmaar stijgende kwaliteitseisen en internationale concurrentie leggen steeds hogere verwachtingen op aan betrouwbaarheid en nauwkeurigheid van industri¨le robots. zijn gevalideerde dynamische robotmodellen nodig.
De identiﬁcatieprocedure maakt gebruik van periodische excitatie en de meest waarschijnlijke parameterschatter. De identiﬁcatie. die tijdrovend en kostelijk zijn omdat de robot uit productie moet genomen worden.en compensatiemethodes zijn experimenteel ge¨ ımplementeerd en gevalideerd op industri¨le seri¨le robots. In dit werk werden de methodes voor het modelleren en experimenteel identiﬁceren van de dynamica van industri¨le robots e verder ontwikkeld. Dit type robot e e wordt in de industrie frequent gebruikt en bestaat uit een seri¨le ketting e van gelederen die zijn verbonden door middel van rotatie. Dit resulteert in afwijkingen van de gewenste beweging en vereist bijgevolg manuele correcties.en Corioliskrachten. Hoewel de hedendaags bereikte nauwkeurigheid voldoende is voor relatief trage assemblagebewegingen. e e • Er werd nagegaan wat de invloed is op de modelnauwkeurigheid van een kinematische kalibratie en het in rekening brengen van de motorinerties. De implementatie van deze geavanceerde regelalgoritmes vereist een goede kennis van het dynamisch gedrag van de robot.a. 1.of translatiegewrichten. ‘computedtorque’.2 Belangrijkste bijdragen van dit werk Dit werk concentreert zich op industri¨le seri¨le robots. De geschatte parameterwaarden zijn vergeleken . o. In moderne toepassingen zoals laserlassen en snijden wordt toenemend belang gehecht aan de trajectnauwkeurigheid. Het bekomen dynamisch model is gebruikt om een trajectcompensatie voor de standaard robotregelaar te berekenen. Standaard industri¨le regelaars negee ren echter de nietlineariteiten in de robotdynamica zoals centrifugale. gravitatie. zijn de resulterende trajecten minder nauwkeurig bij hoge snelheidsmaneuvers. Een fysisch model werd afgeleid voor de gravitatiecompensatieveer. Deze nietlineariteiten kunnen gecompenseerd worden door nieuwe modelgebaseerde besturingen die meer a priori kennis van de robot gebruiken. Deze complexe nietlineaire eﬀecten overwegen echter bij erg snelle bewegingen. wrijving. motordynamica en dynamische koppeling tussen de verschillende assen.xx laatste is belangrijk voor een vlotte integratie en aanvaarding van de methode op de werkvloer.
Deze bevestie gen dat de methode nauwkeurige schattingen levert van de parameterwaarden voor verschillende conﬁguraties van de robotlast. 2 Literatuuroverzicht Wiskundige modellen worden veelvuldig gebruikt bij ontwerp of simulatie van mechatronische systemen. 1986. Experimenten tonen aan dat het gewenste traject nauwkeuriger uitgevoerd wordt (paragraaf 6). • De identiﬁcatiemethode is toegepast om de inertieparameters van de robotlast te bepalen. terwijl experimentele identiﬁcatie de modelparameters bepaalt uit metingen van ingang en uitgang van het systeem. • Het bekomen dynamische model van robot met last is gebruikt om een geschikte trajectcompensatie te berekenen die als voorwaartse snelheidskoppeling in de bestaande regelaar toegevoegd wordt. De klassieke benadering schat de parameters uit bewegingsdata (motorencoders) en motorkrachten en koppels (stroommetingen). Literatuuroverzicht xxi met de speciﬁcaties van de constructeur (paragraaf 3). Een gekalibreerde referentielast is ontwikkeld en de methode is experimenteel gevalideerd op een industri¨le robot. beide gemeten met ‘interne’ sensoren (Gautier. Voor de identiﬁcatie van inertieparameters zijn verschillende benaderingen voorgesteld in de literatuur. 1996). Hierbij was het nodig om de robotpols nauwkeurig te modelleren en bijkomende eﬀecten in rekening te brengen. Een sensitiviteitsanalyse is uitgevoerd om de invloed van a priori kennis op de parameternauwkeurigheid na te gaan. • Metingen van de motorkoppels (intern model) en van de reactiekrachten en momenten aan de basis van de robot (extern model) zijn gecombineerd in ´´n identiﬁcatieschema om de nauwkeurigee heid van de inertieparameters te verbeteren. De modelvergelijkingen worden vaak afgeleid uit gekende fysische wetmatigheden.2. De experimentele veriﬁcatie van deze benadering is in dit werk uitgevoerd (paragraaf 4). Swevers et al.. en de vereiste motorkoppels nauwkeurig voorspelt (paragraaf 5). samengevat in ﬁguur 1. Het .
. Een alternatieve benadering gebruikt een zogenaamd extern model (Raucent and Samin... 2000) toonde aan dat beide benaderingen gecombineerd kunnen worden. 1986. De meest directe manier is een krachtsensor te monteren tussen last en eindeﬀector die de reactiekrachten meet (Atkeson et al. 1986. Liu et al. Deze benadering vormt het uitgangspunt van paragraaf 5.. Mukerjee and Ballard. Chenut (Chenut et al. De volgende paragrafen bespreken kort de verschillende stappen in een identiﬁcatieprocedure. 1996). 1998). Dit model relateert de beweging van de robot tot de reactiekrachten en koppels aan de basis van de robot. gemeten door een extern krachtplatform.xxii intern model robot motorstroom paragraaf 3 extern model kracht/koppel platform onder basis paragraaf 4 last motorstroom paragraaf 5 krachtsensor aan eindeffector Figuur 1: Mogelijke identiﬁcatiebenaderingen bijhorende dynamisch model krijgt dan de naam intern model. 1985). Gautier et al. Dit is experimenteel gevalideerd in paragraaf 4. 1993. 1999).. 1986. 1986. Olsen and Bekey. . Analoge benaderingen kunnen gedeﬁnieerd worden voor de identiﬁcatie van de inertieparameters van de robotlast. Zeng and Unbehauen. Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz. 1995. 1993. De procedure om experimentele identiﬁcatie te doen is algemeen aanvaard (Atkeson et al. Gautier. De andere benadering maakt opnieuw gebruik van de gemeten motorkoppels (Raucent and Samin.
. τ de vector van de motorkoppels en q de snelheidsvector. Olsen and Bekey.2. Parameterreductie Het identiﬁcatiemodel is over het algemeen niet lineair in de parameters. Een gepaste combinatie van de inertieparameters. De meest bekende zijn het recursieve NewtonEuler algoritme (Atkeson et al.. bijvoorbeeld in barycentrische co¨rdinaten (Raucent and Samin. De eerste methode gebruikt de totale energie Etotal van het systeem (Gautier and Khalil. q) modelleert de ˙ centrifugaal. Verschillende algoritmes zijn voorgesteld om de vergelijkingen te genereren. 1986). C(q. 1989). . g(q) modelleert de gravitatiekrachten. o laat toe om de dynamische vergelijkingen lineair in de onbekende parameters te maken τ = Φ(q.en eindtijdstip van het experiment. Deze eigenschap vereenvoudigt sterk ˙ ¨ de parameterschatting. q)q + g(q). 1986). o 1994) of de gewijzigde NewtonEuler co¨rdinaten (Atkeson et al. positie van het zwaartepunt. Literatuuroverzicht xxiii Modelgeneratie De eerste stap in een identiﬁcatieprocedure is het opstellen van een model op basis van een fysische beschrijving. 1986) en de EulerLagrange energiemethode (Sheu and Walker. Er bestaan twee verschillende methodes om de modelvergelijkingen af te leiden. Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz. q )θ. Het nadeel is dat de wrijving moeilijker in rekening te brengen is en dat het model niet bruikbaar is om het motorkoppel te voorspellen. Khosla and Kanade. q ˙ ˙ (2) M(q) is de inertiematrix afhankelijk van de set van gewrichtsposities q en bevat de inert¨ ıele parameters (massa. 1987.. q. Dit model relateert de beweging van de gelederen tot de benodigde motorkoppels τ τ = M(q)¨ + C(q. 1986.en Corioliskrachten. Deze methode heeft als ˙ voordeel dat de versnelling van de assen niet berekend moet worden. 1989. inertieproducten en inertiemomenten). Een tweede methode start vanuit de bewegingsvergelijkingen (Atkeson et al. 1996) t2 Etotal = t1 τ T q dt ˙ (1) met t1 en t2 begin.
1989) of de determinant van de parametercovariantiematrix (Swevers et al. 1992) en een robuuste schatter (Calaﬁore and El Ghaoui. het conditiegetal van de identiﬁcatiematrix (Armstrong.. Verder zijn een Bayesiaanse benadering (Press´ e and Gautier. 1990). 2002) en uitgebreide Kalmanﬁlter (Gautier and Poignet.a.. Swevers (Swevers et al. 1986. Een procedure om deze basisset te bepalen kan gebaseerd zijn op symbolische manipulatie van de vergelijkingen (Gautier and Khalil. omdat deze gebaseerd is op een statistisch kader dat de parameters met minimale onzekerheid wenst te schatten. Wanneer de positiemetingen ruisvrij zijn. terwijl Daemi (Daemi and Heimann. worden sommige parameters ge¨limineerd of gecombineerd totdat een minie male basisset van parameters bekomen wordt. o. 2001) gebruikt vijfde orde polynomen. Swevers (Swevers et al. 2001) . 1997). Parameter estimation De klassieke kleinste kwadratenschatter is vanwege zijn eenvoud een veelgebruikte methode om een overgedetermineerd stelsel van lineaire vergelijkingen op te lossen (Atkeson et al.. 1997) stelt het gebruik van de meest waarschijnlijke schatter voor. 1996). Voor on line parameterschatting bestaan technieken zoals recursieve kleinste kwadraten (Gautier. ¨ Ostring and Gunnarsson. 1996) introduceert het concept van periodische excitatie. Het excitatietraject bestaat uit een som van harmonische functies. Canudas de Wit et al.. vereenvoudigt het probleem zich tot een gewogen kleinste kwadratenschatting.. Experimentontwerp De bewegingsdata en de aandrijfdata worden opgemeten tijdens speciaal ontworpen testbewegingen. Ook de keuze van de trajectparametrisatie is belangrijk. 1998) heenenweer bewegingen rond een werkingspunt voorstelt met een trapezoidaal snelheidsproﬁel. 1989. 2001) toegepast op robotidentiﬁcatie. Gautier. Om een goede excitatie te bekomen zijn verscheidene optimalisatiecriteria gedeﬁnieerd. 1990) of op een numerieke methode zoals een singuliere waardenontbinding (Sheu and Walker. Om te garanderen dat alle parameters afzonderlijk identiﬁceerbaar zijn.xxiv Ten gevolge van de bewegingsbeperkingen komen niet alle inert¨ ıele parameters onafhankelijk voor in de dynamische vergelijkingen. Gautier (Gautier and Poignet. 1986.
3. De positie qi van gewricht i van een robot: N qi (t) = qi. d. beschreven door de dynamische vergelijking (2) en afgeleid m. Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering xxv 3 Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering Bij het toepassen van experimentele robotidentiﬁcatie moeten deﬁnitieve keuzes gemaakt worden. Vaak wordt verondersteld dat de wrijving bestaat uit Coulomb.k cos(kωf t)) (4) . q )θ. een beperkte Fourierreeks.i. Experimentontwerp Voor de excitatie is gekozen voor een traject dat bestaat uit een eindige som van harmonische functies. q. Aan deze vergelijkingen worden voor elk gelid termen toegevoegd om de aandrijving te modelleren. de schattingsmethode en de validatiecriteria. Deze bestaat uit de overbrenging en de motor. De modelbeschrijving wordt vastgelegd. het recursieve NewtonEuler algoritme.1 Procedure voor experimentele robotidentiﬁcatie Modelgeneratie Een robot bestaat uit verschillende componenten die samen de modelstructuur bepalen.i. gekenmerkt door een inertie en wrijvingsverliezen. ˙ ˙ Na de modelreductie bekomt men een identiﬁceerbare set van parameters en een minimale set van vergelijkingen (d. evenals het optimale excitatietraject.0 + k=1 (ai.b. een identiﬁceerbaar model) die lineair in de onbekende parameters is: τ = Φ(q.v. ˙ ¨ (3) met Φ de bewegingsmatrix en θ de gereduceerde set van te identiﬁceren parameters. Centraal in deze structuur staat de seri¨le kinee matische ketting van starre lichamen.k sin(kωf t) + bi. 3.en viskeuze wrijving: τwrijving = fC sign(q) + fv q.
de motorbeperkingen en de beschikbare of toelaatbare werkruimte van de robot. Deze gegevens zijn nodig voor de schatting volgens de methode van de maximale waarschijnlijkheid. Een aantal eenvoudige regels laat toe om reeds goede waarden voor de trajectparameters te bekomen. e Parameterschatting Voor de parameterschatting is de methode van de maximale waarschijnlijkheid (ML) toegepast. • de periodiciteit van de trajecten laat de analytische berekening van de gewrichtssnelheden en versnellingen toe op basis van de gemeten gewrichtsposities. • de periodiciteit laat toe om de ruiskarakteristieken te schatten. In het algemene geval veronderstelt deze methode dat de gemeten posities en de motorkoppels beide verstoord zijn .xxvi met ωf de fundamentele pulsatie van de Fourierreeks en N het aantal harmonische termen. zoals ﬂexibiliteiten of nietlineaire eﬀecten. snelheden en versnellingen van de gelederen.k en qi. Hierbij moet rekening gehouden worden met beperkingen zoals de toegelaten maximale en minimale posities. Bij een heuristische oplossing worden ook ωf en N vrijheidsgraden. Bij optimalisatie zijn ai. De trajectparameters worden gekozen zodat alle modelparameters kunnen worden geschat en de invloed van meetruis op de geschatte waarden van de dynamische parameters minimaal is. Toch moet bij het bepalen van het optimaal excitatietraject opgelet worden dat geen nietgemodelleerde dynamica. bi.k . wordt ge¨xciteerd. Deze periodische trajectparametrisatie heeft volgende voordelen: • middeling in het tijdsdomein verbetert de signaaltotruisverhouding van de experimentele data. waarbij de beperkingen optimaal benut worden. Het optimalisatieprobleem met beperkingen is echter sterk nietlineair zodat slechts een lokaal optimum gevonden wordt De keuze van de startwaarden is daarom cruciaal voor een goede excitatie.0 de te bepalen trajectparameters. De keuze van de trajectparameters kan gebeuren door middel van optimalisatie of op basis van heuristische regels.
De tweede categorie kijkt direct naar de nauwkeurigheid van de geschatte parameterwaarden. Beschrijving van optimale resultaten Om het belang van bijkomende eﬀecten te kunnen beoordelen. 3.3. Dit optimale referentiemodel bevat een viskeus en Coulombwrijvingsmodel en houdt rekening met de rotorinertie. Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering xxvii door witte ruis en levert dit een nietlineair kleinste kwadratenprobleem. Hierin is duidelijk te zien dat het ge¨ ıdentiﬁceerde model de metingen zeer goed verklaart. De eerste e categorie van criteria beoordeelt de nauwkeurigheid van de voorspelde motorkoppels door te vergelijken met de gemeten koppels of door de predictiefout te bekijken. . Validatie De validatiestap evalueert de kwaliteit van de bekomen resultaten. maar niet met een kinematische kalibratie. Twee categori¨n van validatiecriteria worden gedeﬁnieerd.2 Experimentele resultaten De besproken methode is toegepast op de eerste drie assen van de KUKA IR 361 robot. Deze paragraaf gaat na in welke mate een aantal bijkomende eﬀecten en modelwijzigingen bijdragen tot de parameternauwkeurigheid. Tabel 1 geeft de RMS waarden van de predictiefout voor de verschillende modellen die hieronder besproken worden. Figuur 2 vergelijkt het gemeten en voorspelde koppel en de predictiefout voor het excitatietraject. De vereenvoudiging tot een gewogen kleinste kwadratenschatting (WLS) is toegelaten aangezien het ruisniveau op de positiemetingen veel kleiner is dan het ruisniveau op de koppelmetingen en het model lineair is in de onbekende parameters. is een referentiemodel opgesteld dat optimale resultaten geeft.
281 as 3 2.271 6.104 as 2 6. Om de invloed van kinematische fouten op de nauwkeurigheid van het dynamisch model na te gaan.850 3. BijgeRMS predictiefout optimale referentie geen rotorinertie met kinematische kalibratie as 1 6.101 6.282 6. De kinematische fouten zeer echter klein.xxviii Gemeten en voorspeld motorkoppel Koppel as 1 (Nm) 200 100 0 −100 −200 400 200 0 −200 −400 100 50 0 −50 −100 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 −20 0 2 4 6 8 10 −50 40 20 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 −50 −100 50 50 0 Predictiefout van het motorkoppel 0 2 4 6 8 10 Koppel as 2 (Nm) 2 4 6 8 10 Koppel as 3 (Nm) Tijd (s) 0 2 4 Tijd (s) 6 8 10 Figuur 2: Gemeten en voorspelde motorkoppel en de predictiefout voor het excitatietraject Invloed van bijkomende eﬀecten Kinematische kalibratie Elke mechanische structuur vertoont kinematische en geometrische fouten door afwijkingen tijdens de fabricage of assemblage. waardoor de verbetering van de nauwkeurigheid van het dynamisch model verwaarloosbaar is.849 Nm Nm Nm Tabel 1: RMS van de predictiefout voor het excitatietraject .277 6.339 2. werden de eerste drie assen van de KUKA IR 361 robot kinematisch gekalibreerd.
Robotidentiﬁcatie: praktische benadering xxix volg geeft het inrekenen van de kinematische fouten geen signiﬁcant betere voorspelling van de nodige motorkoppels en valt de bijdrage van de extra parameters tot het koppel binnen de onzekerheidsmarges op o. wrijvingskracht) is experimenteel opgemeten en vergeleken met het gebruikte Coulomb. Daarom zijn wrijvingsmodellen voorgesteld die beter aansluiten . Experimentele resultaten tonen aan dat de geschatte parameterwaarde van de rotorinertie goed overeenkomt met de speciﬁcatie van de fabrikant. Vaak wordt de rotorinertie toegevoegd aan de gelidinertie. Wrijving De wrijvingskarakteristiek (snelheid vs. Indien niet. Rotorinertie Commerci¨le industri¨le robots worden vaak aangedree e ven met overbrengingsverhoudingen tussen 50 en 200.3.w. De experimenteel bekomen waarden voor de veerparameters vertonen een sterke overeenkomst met de speciﬁcaties van de fabrikant. De wiskundige beschrijving τveer = l r sin(q2 )k − l r sin(q2 ) l2 + r2 − 2l r cos(q2 ) P0 (5) is afgeleid op basis van fysische eigenschappen waardoor het model veel dichter aansluit bij het werkelijke gedrag van de veer. Gravitatiecompensatieveer Veel robots zijn uitgerust met een veer om het eﬀect van de zwaartekracht op de tweede as te compenseren. Daarom kan de toegenomen complexiteit niet gerechtvaardigd worden. 1996).en viskeus wrijvingsmodel. De kinematische kalibratie blijft echter wel noodzakelijk om een goede positienauwkeurigheid te garanderen. d. de wrijving. kan de rotorinertie onafhankelijk van de gelidinertie bepaald worden. De rotorinertie kan dan een belangrijke factor worden in de robotdynamica. Deze werkwijze is enkel verantwoord als aan de voorwaarde eT i+1 ωi = 0 voldaan m is (Sciavicco et al. de rotoras moet loodrecht staan op de hoeksnelheid van het gelid waarop de motor gemonteerd is..z. is de bestaande modelbeschrijving lineair in de onbekende parameters k en P0 gemaakt. Door het gebruik van a priori kennis van enkele afmetingen.a. De grootste afwijkingen treden op bij lage snelheden.
Het experimentontwerp is gebaseerd op periodische excitatie. Opmerking: Kalibratie van de meetsignalen is zeer belangrijk bij parameteridentiﬁcatie.3 Besluit Het identiﬁcatiemodel is lineair in de onbekende parameters en brengt wrijving en rotorinertie in rekening. en toeneemt bij gebruik van een zwaardere robotlast. In de praktijk kan deze constante aanzienlijk afwijken van de speciﬁcatie van de fabrikant. wat enkele belangrijke voordelen biedt. Naast een optimalisatie. 4 Combineren van intern en extern model In de klassieke identiﬁcatiebenadering worden de parameters geschat uitgaande van metingen van bewegingsdata en aandrijfkoppels. Een goede overeenkomst tussen de geschatte parameterwaarden en de speciﬁcatie valideren de voorgestelde werkwijze. Daarbij is vastgesteld dat de wrijving afneemt met de opwarming van de robot. Meestal worden de motorkoppels indirect gemeten via de motorstroom en geeft de koppelconstante het verband tussen beide. 3.en uitgangen relateert noemt men het intern model. Het is daarom belangrijk om elk experiment in zoveel mogelijk constante omstandigheden uit te voeren. Verder is de wrijvingskarakteristiek experimenteel opgemeten en is een geschikter model voor de gravitatiecompensatieveer voorgesteld. is een heuristische oplossing besproken vanuit praktisch oogpunt. terwijl de rotorinertie wel een belangrijke rol speelt. De experimentele resultaten tonen aan dat een kinematische kalibratie geen signiﬁcant eﬀect heeft op de modelnauwkeurigheid. Om goede experimentele resultaten te behalen. is het noodzakelijk om regelmatig de actuele waarden van de koppelconstante voor elke motor te bepalen. gemeten door ‘interne’ sensoren. De klassieke benadering . Het dynamisch model dat deze in. De parameterschatting is gebaseerd op de methode van de maximale waarschijnlijkheid.xxx bij de experimenteel gemeten karakteristiek. De keuze van de trajectparameters blijft echter een probleem.
q. Deze gecombineerde benadering is in dit werk experimenteel gevalideerd. en τe is de vector met reactiekrachten en momenten op de grondplaat van de robot. Deze benadering laat toe de inertieparameters nauwkeuriger te schatten omdat het model volledig onafhankelijk is van interne koppels zoals wrijving. De parameters van de wrijving zijn echter belangrijk voor een nauwkeurige voorspelling van de motorkoppels bij modelgebaseerde controle. Combineren van intern en extern model xxxi vertoont een aantal gebreken: de krachten die aangelegd worden in de gewrichten zijn niet direct meetbaar zodat ze be¨ ınvloed zijn door modelleringsfouten op het wrijvingskoppel en door de gebrekkige kennis van de koppelconstanten van de motoren. 4. Dit model wordt uitgebreid met de parameters die het wrijvingkoppel en het systeem voor gravitatiecompensatie modelleren. 1993). . evenals de wrijvingsparameters. Het extern model bestaat uit een herformulering van de dynamica die de beweging van de robot relateert tot de reactiekrachten en momenten op de grondplaat. q. Beide modellen samenvoegen geeft een gecombineerd model dat alle inertieparameters bevat. De reactiekrachten worden gemeten met een extern krachtplatform dat geplaatst is onder de robot. q ) δi . Dit model relateert de beweging van de robot aan de reactiekrachten en momenten op de grondplaat van de robot. de beweging van de gewrichten als externe reactiekrachten worden dan gebruikt als meetdata.4. q ) δe ˙ ¨ (7) waarbij δe de barycentrische parameters in het extern model bevat.1 Modelgeneratie Het intern model (vergelijking (3)) is herschreven in een vorm die lineair is in de barycentrische parameters: τi = Ψi (q. Een alternatieve benadering maakt gebruik van het extern model van de robot (Raucent and Samin. Zowel de motorkoppels. ˙ ¨ (6) δi bevat barycentrische parameters en Ψi is de bijhorende identiﬁcatiematrix. Bovendien heeft de vergelijking van het extern model een analoge lineaire vorm als vergelijking (6) : τe = Ψe (q. Ψe is de overeenkomstige identiﬁcatiematrix.
¨ (9) (10) waarbij µ1 de overbrengingsverhouding is en Im1 de rotorinertie.2 Experimentele resultaten Beschrijving van de testopstelling en het experiment De beschouwde testopstelling bestaat uit een KUKA IR 361 robot geplaatst op een KISTLER 9281 krachtplatform. zijn de koppelbijdrages tot het intern en extern model respectievelijk τ1 = µ2 q1 Im1 . Wanneer intern en extern model echter gecombineerd worden. q ) θ ˙ ¨ kan onderverdeeld worden in drie subsets: (1) de set van barycentrische parameters δi die zowel in intern als extern model verschijnen. 4. Rotorinertie De inerties van de motor en de overbrenging worden vaak vervangen door een equivalente inertie die toegevoegd wordt aan de gelidinertie. Wanneer de rotorinertie gekend is kan deze a priori in rekening gebracht worden. De kolommen van Ψe1 en Ψe2 komen overeen met die kolommen van matrix Ψe (vergelijking (7)) die gerelateerd zijn tot de elementen van δi en δe \ δi respectievelijk. 1¨ mZ = µ1 q1 Im1 . (2) de set overige barycentrische parameters δe \ δi die enkel voorkomen in het extern model. Voor de rotorinertie van de eerste robotas. levert de rotorinertie een andere koppelbijdrage tot het intern model dan tot het extern model.xxxii De set van parameters in het gecombineerd model τ = Φ(q. Het totale gecombineerde robotmodel kan geformuleerd worden als: δi τi Ψi Ψf g 0 δf g = (8) τe Ψe1 0 Ψe2 δe \ δi Ψi en Ψf g komen respectievelijk overeen met het deel van de matrix Φi (vergelijking (6)) dat samenhangt met de barycentrische parameters δi en δf g . q. Het excitatietraject be . anders dient ze als een aparte parameter geschat te worden. en (3) parameters gerelateerd aan gravitatiecompensatie en wrijving δf g die enkel voorkomen in het intern model.
(2) identiﬁcatie met het extern model. is bijgevolg de onzekerheid op de voorspelde motorkoppels kleiner. Om te onderzoeken hoe de nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschatting en de motorkoppelvoorspelling verbetert door intern en extern model te combineren. 2 en 3 bij het gecombineerd model zijn minder dan 1% lager dan bij het intern model. 2000) wegens het veel hogere ruisniveau bij de re¨le metingen.. Bovendien levert het gecombineerd model de beste nauwkeurigheid voor elke parameter in vergelijking met het intern en extern model. Voorspelling van de motorkoppels De onzekerheid op de voorspelde motorkoppels hangt rechtstreeks af van de nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschattingen in δi en δf g . Aangezien de onzekerheid op de parameters die ge¨ ıdentiﬁceerd zijn met het gecombineerde model kleiner is. Parameternauwkeurigheid Op basis van de variantie van de ruis op de krachtmetingen kan de variantie op de geschatte parameters expliciet berekend worden. Tabel 2 geeft deze resultaten weer. Tabel 3 toont de RMS waarde van fout op de motorkoppelpredictie bij het validatietraject voor de verschillende sets van parameters. Vergelijken van de varianties toont dat het combineren van interne en externe modellen en metingen een signiﬁcante verbetering levert van de nauwkeurigheid van de parameters: de nauwkeurigheid van de parameters in δi wordt sterk verbeterd doordat er meer meetdata wordt gebruikt in ´´n parameterschattingsee probleem. en (3) identiﬁcatie met het gecombineerde model. omwille van de lineaire afhankelijkheid van de koppelpredictie van de modelparameters. Combineren van intern en extern model xxxiii staat uit een Fourierreeks met 5 harmonischen met een periode van 10 seconden. e .4. Deze verbetering komt niet overeen met de opmerkelijke verbetering uit de simulatie (Chenut et al. werden drie verschillende identiﬁcatieexperimenten beschouwd: (1) identiﬁcatie met het intern model. De RMS predictiefout voor assen 1.
8792 0.1988 0.8183 0.1630 16.0973 10.2816 5.zz Kd2 b3.1512 23.2739 23. Beide zijn belangrijk voor trajectplanning en optimalisatie.7889 0.2883 0. .y K1. vooral in ruimtetoepassingen.4053 0. intern en extern model RMS predictiefout intern model gecombineerd model as 1 8.8471 0.6808 0.5102 0.5007 0.0787 10.7301 0.1355 16.2598 0.3 Besluit We kunnen besluiten dat het combineren van interne en externe metingen (1) de nauwkeurigheid op de parameters die zowel in het interne als het externe model voorkomen.1151 0.6222 0.8236 0.950 Nm 8.419 Nm Tabel 3: RMS predictiefout voor het validatietraject 4.1605 23.949 Nm as 2 11.0939 0.yy fv2 fc2 fv3 fc3 b2.2940 0.811 Nm as 3 4.4197 0.0906 2.1899 0.2849 0.1360 − − − − − − − − extern schatting σe 18.1230 0.z b1.1620 16.0249 0.824 Nm 11.1865 0. De waarde van de verbetering hangt af van het aantal gemeten perioden en de kwaliteit van de metingen.2740 39.2234 17. Bovendien laat het gecombineerd model toe om zowel de motorkoppels als de reactiekrachten en momenten op de grondplaat nauwkeurig te voorspellen.1099 0.xxxiv Kr1.4325 0.1129 3.7188 0.1891 Tabel 2: Set geschatte parameterwaarden en bijhorende standaarddeviatie voor gecombineerd.0930 10.x br1.x K2.1053 2.0880 0.1039 0.446 Nm 4.2812 5.4576 − − − − − − − − 16.0997 19.9993 0.9307 0.0922 19. sterk verbetert en (2) de nauwkeurigheid op de parameters die enkel in het interne model model voorkomen in beperkte mate verbetert.xz gecombineerd schatting σc 18.1874 intern schatting σi 18. Het kan dus overwogen worden om krachtplatformmetingen te gebruiken om de dynamische identiﬁcatie van robots te verbeteren.2372 17.2724 39.8316 0.2412 0.
door middel van identiﬁcatie. Dit resulteert in een bijkomend motorkoppel τrobotlast = JT (qG ) w. Identiﬁcatie maakt het mogelijk om ook de inerti¨le parameters van deze robotlast te bepae len. (11) waarbij J(qG ) de Jacobiaanmatrix is van de robot. In dit onderzoek gebruiken we de methodes van robotidentiﬁcatie gebaseerd op de gemeten motorstromen. Hiervoor dient het dynamisch model voor robot met last in staat te zijn een nauwkeurige voorspelling te leveren voor het koppel dat nodig is om een gewenste beweging uit te voeren.z. Voor een vlotte integratie in de werkomgeving is het tevens noodzakelijk dat de bekomen schattingen voor de lastinerties fysisch interpreteerbaar zijn naar nauwkeurigheid toe. 1986). De robotlast oefent een ‘wrench’ w (d. Mathematisch kan nagegaan worden dat het dynamisch model van de robot met last op . kracht en moment) uit op de eindeﬀector..5. 5.. 1995). Deze informatie kan dan gebruikt worden om de bewegingen te optimaliseren zonder overbelasting van de motoren. In dit onderzoek gaan we een stap verder door de dynamica van de robot reeds op voorhand te bepalen. Een veelgebruikte methode om de inertieparameters van de robotlast te bepalen meet via een krachtsensor de reactiekrachten op de eindeﬀector van de robot (Atkeson et al.1 Modelgeneratie Dynamisch model van de last Zoals bij elke identiﬁcatieprocedure is de eerste stap het opstellen van een dynamisch model van de robot met last. Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de robotlast xxxv 5 Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de robotlast Om zijn taken uit te voeren. Toepassingen in de literatuur beschouwen de last als een extra gelid en identiﬁceren telkens opnieuw de ganse robot (Gautier et al. o. beschikt elke robot over een gereedschap of last die bevestigd is aan het polsgewricht.w.a. en als a priori kennis in rekening te brengen bij de identiﬁcatie van de inertieparameters van de robotlast.
Verliezen ten gevolge van wrijving in de motor en de overbrenging worden beschreven met een Coulomb en een viskeus wrijvingsmodel. Verband tussen motorstroom en motorkoppel Vele robots zijn uitgerust met permanent magneet synchrone motoren.. Iyz )) . (12) (13) d. qG )qG + g(qG ) + JT (q) w q ˙ ˙ = τrobotgelederen + τrobotlast .a. met qM de hoekversnelling van de motor ¨ ¨ en Im de inertie van de rotor.w. 1986) voor om de inertieparameters uit te drukken ten opzichte van de rotatieas in plaats van het massacentrum. (Atkeson et al. Izz ) en drie inertieproducten (Ixy . Deze werkwijze levert een set gewijzigde inertieparameters die rechtstreeks gerelateerd zijn tot de tien ‘ware’ inertieparameters van de last (de massa m. Om een dynamisch model te bekomen dat lineair is in de inertieparameters stellen Atkeson e.a. Ixz . de robotgelederen en de robotlast leveren elk een additieve bijdrage tot de motorkoppels. . o. Iyy . de koppeling die bestaat tussen de verschillende assen en verliezen in de motor en de overbrenging. cy . drie inertiemomenten (Ixx . Dit koppel bedraagt τI = Im qM . de drie co¨rdinaten van het o massacentrum (cx . cz ). Bijgevolg kan de bijdrage van de robotgelederen in rekening worden gebracht op basis van een a priori bepaald dynamisch robotmodel.xxxvi gesplitst kunnen worden in twee afzonderlijke modellen. Bijkomende eﬀecten Voor robotlastidentiﬁcatie is het van uiterst belang rekening te houden met bijkomende eﬀecten. Dynamica van de motor Een aanzienlijk deel van het motorkoppel wordt gebruikt om de rotorinertie te versnellen of af te remmen. en dienen enkel de inertieparameters van de last opnieuw bepaald te worden bij het wijzigen van de robotlast. τG = M(qG )¨G + C(qG . Het lichtjes nietlineaire stroomkoppelverband bij hoge motorstromen kan beschreven worden met een derdeorde veelterm.z.
Deze koppeling wordt beschreven door een vaste lineaire transformatie qG = V qM tussen motorruimte (E: actuator space) en gewrichtsruimte (E: joint space). kan de koppelbijdrage van de robotgelederen gescheiden worden van deze van de robotlast. Het ee verschil tussen beide metingen geeft het motorkoppel ten gevolge van de robotlast. De derde benadering geeft de meeste ﬂexibiliteit aangezien niet telkens hetzelfde excitatietraject moet worden gebruikt en geen volledige identiﬁcatie van de robot vereist is. Door modellering: Hierbij wordt het koppel ten gevolge van de gelederen berekend uit het dynamisch model en a priori gekende parameterwaarden.2 Compensatie van a priori gekende dynamica Zoals hoger opgemerkt. Door gekende parameterwaarden: Hierbij wordt een identiﬁcatie gedaan van de volledige robot. 5. De metingen worden gecompenseerd voor dit berekende koppel. De verliezen in de overbrenging kunnen worden beschreven door een zeker rendement η. en eventueel de variatie van de wrijving. Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de robotlast xxxvii Rendement van de overbrenging De robotmotoren drijven de gelederen aan via een overbrenging waarin vele onderdelen met verschillende hoeksnelheden bewegen. De inertieparameters van de last worden dan berekend uit het verschil tussen de geschatte parameters en de gekende parameterwaarden voor de robotinertie. Dit model zorgt er echter voor dat het identiﬁcatiemodel nietlineair wordt in de onbekende parameters. . zodat iteratieve schattingsmethoden vereist zijn. Door meting: Deze benadering doet twee experimenten met hetzelfde excitatietraject: ´´n met last en een ander zonder last.5. Drie mogelijke benaderingen om de a priori kennis in rekening te brengen worden hier kort beschreven. Koppeling tussen de motorkoppels Bij heel wat industri¨le roe bots zijn de bewegingen van meerdere assen van de robotpols mechanisch gekoppeld.
Terwijl de ge¨ ıntroduceerde fouten de parameterwaarden duidelijk be¨ ınvloeden.xxxviii 5. zijn de laatste drie assen voldoende. De parameterschattingen zijn minder gevoelig voor het model dat gebruikt wordt om de verliezen te beschrijven. geven systematische afwijkingen op de resultaten. De analyse toont dat de kwaliteit van de a priori informatie erg belangrijk is. Een complexer nietlineair identiﬁcatiemodel is daarom niet verdedigbaar. is vastgesteld dat de motorkoppelvoorspelling nagenoeg ongevoelig is. Ruis op de metingen introduceert onzekerheid die kan gereduceerd worden door uitmiddelen van periodische metingen. 5. Figuur 3 toont een mogelijke conﬁguratie van de referentielast.3 Sensitiviteitsanalyse Goede resultaten behalen is niet vanzelfsprekend. Een nauwkeurige koppelvoorspelling is daarom geen garantie voor nauwkeurige parameterwaarden. volstaat het de assen drie tot zes van de robot te exciteren. Indien de massa van de last a priori gekend is. De identiﬁcatie is vooral gevoelig voor de nauwkeurigheid van de koppelconstanten en van de inertieparameters van de robotgelederen en rotorinerties. zoals een onvolledig model of onnauwkeurige a priori informatie. Deterministische fouten. .4 Experimentele resultaten De voorgestelde identiﬁcatieprocedure is toegepast op een KUKA KR15 industri¨le robot. Het in rekening brengen van het overbrengingsrendement geeft geen merkbare verbetering ten opzichte van de resultaten uit de lineaire schatting waarbij deze rendementen verwaarloosd worden en de verliezen opgenomen worden in de viskeuze en Coulombwrijving. Een sensitiviteitsanalyse gebaseerd op simulatie is uitgevoerd om de invloed na te gaan van deze fouten op de uiteindelijke nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschattingen van de robotlast. Om de juistheid van de inerti¨le parameters te validee e ren is een gekalibreerde referentielast ontwikkeld waarvan alle inerti¨le e parameters gekend zijn. Om alle inertieparameters van de last eenduidig te kunnen bepalen.
d. de afwijkingen zijn beperkt tot minder dan ´´n standaarddeviatie. Beide koppels komen goed overeen. Niet enkel de wrijving varieert. zodat we mogen stellen dat het bekomen model in staat is een nauwkeurige voorspelling te maken van het koppel dat nodig is om een gegeven beweging uit te voeren.5. maar ook de geschatte inertieparameters veranderen. Voor een goede aanvaarding op de werkvloer moet de identiﬁcatie ook in staat zijn om de inertieparameters van de last nauwkeurig te bepalen. ee Ook experimenteel werd vastgesteld dat de resultaten erg gevoelig zijn aan een schaalfactor die gebruikt wordt om het gemeten stroomsignaal om te zetten naar het motorkoppel. De geschatte parameterwaarden komen goed overeen met de werkelijke waarden.w. Bij een te kleine koppelconstante zijn de parameterschattingen stelselmatig te klein. Figuur 4 toont het gemeten motorkoppel voor een validatietraject en vergelijkt dat met het koppel dat voorspeld wordt op basis van het ge¨ ıdentiﬁceerde model van robot en last. en vice versa. Bovendien heeft de opwarming van de robot een belangrijke invloed op de resultaten. Dit wijst erop dat de koppelconstante . Tabel 4 geeft de resultaten voor de gebruikte conﬁguratie van de referentielast. dat de geschatte waarden de werkelijke zo goed mogelijk moeten benaderen. Bepalen van de inertieparameters van de robotlast xxxix Figuur 3: E´n mogelijke conﬁguratie voor de referentielast e Bij de experimentele resultaten maken we een onderscheid tussen de koppelpredictie en de inertieparameters van de last. Het gemiddelde en de standaarddeviatie zijn berekend uit de resultaten van tien verschillende lastidentiﬁcatieexperimenten.z.
xl 200 As 3 (Nm) 0 −200 −400 −600 0 200 As 4 (Nm) 0 Gemeten en voorspeld motorkoppel 200 0 −200 −400 −600 0 200 0 −200 0 200 0 −200 0 100 0 −100 0 Predictiefout van het motorkoppel 10 20 30 10 20 30 −200 0 200 As 5 (Nm) 0 10 20 30 10 20 30 −200 0 100 As 6 (Nm) 0 10 20 30 10 20 30 −100 0 10 Tijd (s) 20 30 10 Tijd (s) 20 30 Figuur 4: Gemeten en voorspelde koppel voor validatietraject wijzigt met de opwarming. Hierdoor is het niet meer nodig om de ganse robot opnieuw te identiﬁceren wanneer de robotlast gewijzigd wordt.5 Besluit Voor de lastidentiﬁcatie is het mogelijk de inertieparameters van de robot a priori in rekening te brengen. Experimentele resultaten tonen aan dat het bekomen model in staat is om het vereiste motorkoppel voor een gewenste beweging nauwkeurig te voorspellen. Er is echter vastgesteld dat de koppelconstanten van de motoren veranderen met de opwarming van de robot. Hierdoor wordt het zeer moeilijk om in alle omstandigheden dezelfde nauwkeurigheid te garanderen. 5. Ook de schattingen van de inertieparameters van de last voldoen aan de door industri¨le gebruikers vereiste nauwkeurige heid. . Dit heeft een negatieve invloed op de nauwkeurigheid van de lastidentiﬁcatie.
0105 Standaarddeviatie 0. Krachtige modelgebaseerde regelalgoritmen.0930 0.090 0. Dynamische compensatie door trajectaanpassing xli Inertieparameter m [kg] cx [m] cy [m] cz [m] Ixx [kgm2 ] Iyy [kgm2 ] Izz [kgm2 ] Ixy [kgm2 ] Ixz [kgm2 ] Iyz [kgm2 ] Gekalibreerde waarde 9. Hoewel de klassieke lineaire regelaars voldoen voor toepassingen waarbij hoge positienauwkeurigheid en lage snelheid vereist zijn. maar worden omwille van hun complexiteit niet gebruikt in de industrie.063 0.6. .0105 0. Bovendien vereisen ze een interface waarlangs het gewenste motorkoppel kan opgegeven worden.0010 0.0016 0.2065 0.0204 0.1210 0.0156 Tabel 4: Gekalibreerde en geschatte inertieparameters van de referentielast 6 Dynamische compensatie door trajectaanpassing Er is een groeiende vraag vanuit de industrie om de performantie en de trajectnauwkeurigheid bij de huidige generatie robots te verbeteren door rekening te houden met de nietlineaire dynamische eﬀecten.002 0.1642 0.612 0.637 0.008 Geschatte waarde 9. 1996).1735 0.579 0. 1986.0064 0.158 0.024 0. zoals ‘computedtorque’ en adaptieve methoden (Craig. Sciavicco and Siciliano. Om de nietlineaire dynamica te kunnen compenseren met behoud van de bestaande standaard industri¨le regelaar.202 0.6179 0.0765 0.6211 0.0773 0.0038 0.0097 0. is een compensatiemoe dule voorgesteld die op basis van een dynamisch model een aanpassing op het gewenste robottraject berekent zodat bij uitvoering de eindeffector het gewenste traject volgt. vormen een alternatief.0246 0. geven ze aanleiding tot niet verwaarloosbare trajectafwijkingen bij hoge snelheid.6770 0.
comp wordt dan aangelegd aan het echte systeem.comp Positieregelaar qd +  PI + + + Snelheidsregelaar Gcontr t Robot qact Analoog ò qact Off line Digitaal Figuur 6: Structuur van de robot opstelling met de nietlineaire precompensatie . Het gecompenseerde traject qd.qd) q d dt td Gcontr qd 1 + + qd. Figuur 6 toont de globale structuur van het precompensatieschema.comp qd.en stroomregelaar van de robot. Het gewenste traject qd wordt eerst gecompenseerd door het te ﬁlteren met het invers model van het robotsysteem met regelaar.1 Nietlineaire trajectprecompensatie Figuur 5 geeft het algemene idee van de precompensatie weer.xlii 6. en een invers model van de analoge snelheids. Dit invers model bestaat uit het inverse dynamisch robotmodel.qd. dat de ‘rigid body’ dynamica en de wrijving bevat.comp Systeem Robot + Regelaar qact qact qact Figuur 5: Algemeen idee van precompensatie Nietlineaire precompensatie gebruikt een invers model van het gesloten lus systeem om het gewenste traject te ‘ﬁlteren’. Dit resulteert in perfect trajectvolgen als er gen verstoringen of modelfouten zijn. De nodige motorkoppels τd voor een gewenst traject qd worden in een Invers dynamisch model f(qd. qd qd qd Invers systeem qd.
In beide gevallen werd de voorwaartse koppeling van de snelheid gebruikt. z) op het traject en het dichtstbijgelegen punt (xd . Aan de hand van het aﬂeggen van validatietrajecten is nagegaan wat de verbetering van de dynamische nauwkeurigheid is. qd ) θ ˙ ¨ (14) Een model Gcontr van de analoge regelaar wordt bepaald door identiﬁcatie op basis van multisinusexcitatie. ˙ Figuur 7 toont de volgfout qd − qact met en zonder compensatie van de nietlineaire dynamica. Als gewenste positie blijft qd behouden. zd ) op het gewenst traject in Cartesische . qd )qd + g(qd ) + τf (qd ) q ˙ ˙ ˙ = Φ(qd . qd . Een oﬀ line berekening bepaalt de gewenste hoekposities qd van de assen en de gecompenseerde snelheden qd. bijvoorbeeld door onnauwkeurigheden in het dynamisch model of verstoringen van buitenaf. Voor de identiﬁcatie van een model van de analoge snelheidsregelaars is gebruik gemaakt van multisinusexcitatie met een bandbreedte van 5 Hz. is de voorgestelde methode toegepast op de KUKA IR 361 robot. Als model werd een PIregelaar met tachoterugkoppeling vooropgesteld. 6. De afstand tussen het gemeten punt (x. Het is noodzakelijk een positieterugkoppeling te behouden om afwijkingen van het nominaal traject weg te regelen. Dit traject heeft een eenvoudige analytische beschrijving met als voordeel dat de gewenste hoeksnelheden en versnellingen kunnen berekend worden zonder fazeverschuiving. die worden aangelegd aan de voor˙ ˙ contr waarts gekoppelde snelheid. converteert de inverse regelaar de motorkoppels naar gecompenseerde gewenste snelheden qd.comp = G−1 τd + qd . In een tweede stap.6.2 Experimentele resultaten voor de KUKA IR 361 Om de prestaties en toepasbaarheid te evalueren. Dynamische compensatie door trajectaanpassing xliii eerste stap bepaald uit vergelijking (3): τd = M(qd )¨d + C(qd . De cirkel heeft een diameter van 40 cm en wordt gevolgd met een (Cartesische) baansnelheid van 0. Dit geeft een aanvaardbare kwaliteit voor het bekomen model.comp .6 m/s. yd . y. Als validatietraject is een cirkel in het horizontale vlak gekozen.
8 1 1.2 0.xliv 6 x 10 −3 Zonder precompensatie 4 2 Positievolgfout (rad) 0 −2 −4 As 1 As 2 As 3 −6 0 0.2 0.6 0. snelheid 0.4 0.4 1.6 Tijd (s) Figuur 7: Volgfout bij een cirkel (diameter 40 cm.2 1.4 1.6 0.6 m/s) in een horizontaal vlak zonder compensatie (boven) en met compensatie (onder) van de nietlineaire dynamica .2 1.4 0.6 Tijd (s) 6 x 10 −3 Met precompensatie 4 2 Positievolgfout (rad) 0 −2 −4 As 1 As 2 As 3 −6 0 0.8 1 1.
6.3 Praktische beperkingen voor implementatie Bij de beschikbare experimentele opstelling werd de oorspronkelijke trajectgenerator en positieregelaar vervangen werden door eigen ontwikkelde software. (15) In tabel 5 zijn enkele performantiecriteria opgenomen. 6. dmax = maxi di  1 geeft de maximale afwijking en dmean = N N di geeft de gemiddelde i=1 waarde van de afwijkingen.01 mm 0. Meestal laat de regelaar niet toe om in realtime correcties toe te voegen aan het gewenste traject. zonder compensatie met compensatie dmean 1. Toch is de implementatie op een standaard industri¨le robot niet e vanzelfsprekend. Dynamische compensatie door trajectaanpassing xlv co¨rdinaten wordt gegeven door: o di = (xd (i) − x(i))2 + (yd (i) − y(i))2 + (zd (i) − z(i))2 . Dit beperkt sterk de industri¨le relevantie en overe tuigingskracht van de compensatiemethode en laat niet toe om een meer diepgaande validatie uit te voeren. Telkens werd een gelijkaardige verbetering e bekomen.45 mm Tabel 5: Performantiecriteria bij diameter 40 cm en snelheid 0.6 m/s De experimenten werden herhaald voor andere diameters van de cirkel.4 Besluit Een trajectcompensatiemethode is ontwikkeld om een verbeterde voorwaartse snelheidskoppeling te berekenen die rekening houdt met de . waarbij N het aantal gemeten punten is op het traject.25 mm dmax 2. 6. voor verschillende snelheden en voor een andere ligging en ori¨ntatie van de cirkel. Voor verdere implementatie is daarom een samenwerking vereist is met een industri¨le partner e die een open interface cre¨ert en de nodige informatie over de structuur e van het regelschema ter beschikking stelt.42 mm 0.
Het ee is experimenteel gevalideerd dat dit gecombineerd model parameterschattingen geeft met kleinere onzekerheidsmarges. . Om consistente resultaten te bekomen voor beide benaderingen is het noodzakelijk om het eﬀect van de rotorinertie expliciet in rekening te brengen en om een goede kalibratie te hebben van de meetsignalen. Om de nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschattingen verder te verbeteren is een externe krachtsensor toegevoegd aan de opstelling om de reactiekrachten en momenten van de robot op de basis te meten. In een volgende stap is de klassieke identiﬁcatieprocedure toegepast op het identiﬁcatieprobleem van de inertieparameters van de robotlast. De behaalde experimentele resultaten tonen aan dat een opmerkelijke verbetering van de trajectnauwkeurigheid mogelijk is.xlvi nietlineaire robotdynamica. Het belang van de nauwkeurigheidsverbetering hangt hoofdzakelijk af van het ruisniveau op de verschillende meetsignalen. Het identiﬁcatiemodel is lineair in de onbekende parameters en is afgeleid vanuit fysische eigenschappen. waardoor analytisch aﬂeiden en berekenen van het ruisniveau mogelijk zijn. Het resulterende gecombineerd model laat toe om de motorkoppels en de reactiekrachten en momenten op de grondplaat nauwkeurig te voorspellen. Deze procedure is toegepast om het dynamisch model van een industri¨le seri¨le manipulator te identiﬁceren. Bovendien komen de geschatte parameterwaarden goed overeen met de gegevens van de fabrikant. De berekening van de trajectprecompensatie is gebaseerd op een ge¨ ınverteerd dynamisch model van de robot en de snelheidsregelaar. Het experimentontwerp gebruikt periodische excitatie. Het bij deze metingen horende extern identiﬁcatiemodel is gecombineerd met het klassieke interne model tot ´´n globaal identiﬁcatiemodel. De experimentele resultaten e e tonen aan dat het bekomen dynamisch model in staat is om het vereiste motorkoppel voor elke gewenste beweging nauwkeurig te voorspellen. Deze statistische informatie wordt gebruikt bij de meest waarschijnlijke parameterschatter. 7 Algemeen besluit en toekomstig werk Dit werk vertrok van een bestaande robotidentiﬁcatieprocedure.
Hoewel het theoretisch kader reeds een stevige basis vormt. blijven sommige vragen onbeantwoord. Een goed inzicht in hoe de koppelconstanten en de wrijving vari¨ren met de opwarming van de manipulator kan zorgen voor betere e parameterschattingen en biedt de mogelijkheid om de robotdynamica ook over een lange tijdspanne beter te compenseren. Het gewenste traject is geﬁlterd met een invers model van de robotdynamica en de dynamica van de regelaar resulterend in een voorwaartse koppeling op de snelheid. terwijl de koppelvoorspelling hiervoor veel minder gevoelig is. Algemeen besluit en toekomstig werk xlvii Bij deze toepassing wordt de koppelbijdrage van de robotgelederen gecompenseerd op basis van zoveel mogelijk a priori gekende informatie. Verschillende vrijheidsgraden in de trajectparametrisatie laten toe om de kwaliteit van de excitatie te be¨ ınvloeden. De experimentele resultaten tonen een signiﬁcante verbetering van de trajectnauwkeurigheid. Deze synthese laat toe de nauwkeurigheid en consistentie van de resultaten voor elke toepassing te evalueren. Een eﬃci¨nt optimalisatiealgoritme moet gezocht worden om het optie malisatiecriterium te minimaliseren zodat een minimaal vereist niveau . lastidentiﬁcatie en trajectcompensatie. Om te beginnen dienen alle methoden.7. Een sensitiviteitsanalyse heeft aangetoond dat de nauwkeurigheid van de parameterschattingen in directe verhouding staat met de kwaliteit van de a priori informatie. zoals gecombineerd model. De laatste stap stelde een trajectcompensatiemethode voor om oﬀ line de nietlineaire robotdynamica te compenseren. Een belangrijk voordeel van deze methode is dat er geen koppelinterface vereist is. De experimenteel behaalde nauwkeurigheid voldoet aan de vereisten voor de industrie.en lastafhankelijkheid van de wrijving. Experimenteel werk is nooit gedaan. Een belangrijke vereiste voor consistentie is te beschikken over een nauwkeurige schatting van de motorkoppelconstanten en het in rekening brengen van de temperatuur. en dit geldt evenmin voor dit werk. ge¨ ımplementeerd en gevalideerd te worden op eenzelfde experimentele opstelling. Enkel de opwarming die een wijziging in de koppelconstanten veroorzaakt. Het ontwerp van het excitatietraject moet bekeken worden vanuit een praktisch standpunt. maakt het moeilijk om deze nauwkeurigheid in alle gevallen te garanderen.
Toepassing in de industrie kan daarom een waardevolle feedback opleveren. Dit moet evolueren tot een software concept dat gebaseerd is op een bibliotheek van modulaire componenten. e Door het ontwikkelen van een modulaire en open systeemarchitectuur kan de controleingenieur elke gewenste uitbreiding toevoegen zonder veel aan eﬃci¨ntie en veiligheid in te boeten. een open realtime interface naar de commerci¨le regelaar is niet beschikbaar. ontwikkeld in nauwe samenwerking met robotconstructeurs. Een extern meetsysteem moet de bekomen verbetering van de trajectnauwkeurigheid nog valideren. Bovendien zal de implementatie ook de industrie ten goede komen. Onderzoeksresultaten worden meestal enkel gevalideerd op ´´n opee stelling waardoor de toepasbaarheid vaak niet vanzelf ge¨xtrapoleerd e kan worden. Het vinden van relevante en aantrekkelijke toepassingen zal robotidentiﬁcatie maken tot een noodzakelijk hulpmiddel. Meer bepaald. e Om de integratie in de industrie te vereenvoudigen is er nood aan kantenklare software voor dynamische modellering en identiﬁcatie van robots.xlviii van excitatie gegarandeerd is. Om te beslissen of het verschil in parameterschatting van praktisch belang is. omdat de robots nauwkeuriger worden. In verdere stappen dient het dynamisch model ge¨ ıntegreerd te worden in de regelalgoritmes en de trajectgenerator van industri¨le robots e teneinde hun nauwkeurigheid te verhogen. kunnen de resultaten bekomen met verschillende excitatietrajecten vergeleken worden. die geconﬁgureerd kunnen worden voor de speciﬁeke toepassing van de gebruiker. Een eerste stap hiernaar is gezet in dit werk met de ontwikkeling van de trajectcompensatie. Het is echter geweten dat de ontwikkelaars van standaard robotregelaars grote moeite hebben om deze behoefte voor integratie te ondersteunen. Deze methode moet echter nog ge¨ ımplementeerd worden op een commercieel beschikbare robotregelaar. .
1 Background and motivation Ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution. 1 . The ever increasing quality standards. Albert Einstein 1. Improvement of the output is the major motivation behind the development of new techniques.Introduction 1 The whole of science is nothing more than a reﬁnement of everyday thinking. the industrial world has been confronted with better technologies and changing expectations of customers. This evolution still continues nowadays and new upcoming challenges have to be taken up. and especially on speed of production processes. international competition and economic reasons put higher requirements on reliability and accuracy.
Previously. gravitational. and Coriolis forces. etc. all these aspects must go hand in hand. gluing or painting. Typical tasks executed by these manipulators go from palletizing. A kinematic calibration procedure estimates the geometric properties and the compliance of the manipulator. transportation and assembly tasks to cutting. this teaching is mostly done onsite and relies on a good repeatability. In modern applications like laser welding and laser cutting increasing importance is attached to path accuracy. the emphasis was put on producing high volumes for a mass market. To reach a suﬃcient accuracy. proﬁt margins can be increased by product diﬀerentiation and customization. This involves that products must be assembled or even completely built to order. friction. A calibrated kinematic model is essential for accurate oﬀline programming and makes it easier to exchange manipulators without reprogramming. Flexibility should however not go to the detriment of precision. the term ﬂexibility has reached the work ﬂoor and changed the production concept fundamentally. In this context. As marketeers know for years already. like centrifugal. Furthermore. Implementing such strategy requires more ﬂexibility in the production lines because every product is diﬀerent.2 Introduction More recently. motor dynamics. . Robot manipulators are commonly used in fully automated production lines in car factories. These standard products had to be made at the lowest cost and with a short lead time. Standard industrial controllers neglect however all nonlinearities in robot dynamics. Such custom tailored products try to fulﬁll the customer’s wishes as close as possible. welding. robots are able to work in hazardous environments and are more reliable. The justintime philosophy enhances this evolution towards increased ﬂexibility: batch sizes are reduced. quality or productivity. or only with limited accuracy and speed. machine setup requires less time. On the contrary. The obtained kinematic model is used to calculate position corrections. They can be employed for tasks which cannot be executed by human beings. Robots are programmed by teaching the sequence of positions and orientations which are necessary to execute the desired task. the manipulator and its environment need to be calibrated. industrial robot manipulators have become an indispensable means of automation to increase productivity and ﬂexibility of production units. To improve position accuracy. rather than on a good absolute accuracy.
it is possible to calculate the dynamic model within the realtime constraints of the controller. Moreover. the mass and inertia properties of the links. This evolution created a renewed interest in these control algorithms and stimulated the need for accurate dynamic models of robot manipulators. . The gap between the desired accuracy of the production process and the intrinsic accuracy of the robot manipulator can be also bridged by means of calibration. Background and motivation 3 and dynamic couplings between the diﬀerent joint axes. and those of the objects that the manipulator picks up. computed torque controllers. and dynamic calibration oﬀers a possibility to reduce path deviations. Accordingly.1. Since computers have become more powerful nowadays.1. trajectory optimization algorithms can be applied. The productivity in industrial situations is aﬀected by the speed of operation. e. the control law may not decouple and linearize the closedloop system errors. but at the same time guarantee constant accuracy. In order to maximize the operational speed it is necessary to minimize the total travelling time for the robot. in many situations. Static or kinematic calibration already proved its usefulness for improving the position accuracy. These parameter values. when we have a poor knowledge of the parameters. these control techniques have only been adopted in specialized robotic labs. may change as the robot ages. A practical diﬃculty is that the physical values in the manipulator dynamic model are often not known accurately. and may in fact cause the system to be unstable. The implementation of these advanced control algorithms requires a good knowledge of the dynamic behavior of the robot manipulator. This results in deviations from the desired motion. limits on the actuator power and torques. for example. For many years. As soon as reliable dynamic models are available. These nonlinearities can be compensated for with new advanced controllers that include more a priori knowledge of the robot manipulator. Therefore. They take into account physical limits of the robot such as: the workspace of the robot. are not precisely known. Considerable gains in productivity can be achieved by minimizing the cycle time. having an accurate dynamic model is impossible.g. Picking up of various parts and tools also inﬂuences the dynamic characteristics of the manipulator.
These algorithms allow to distribute the load eﬃciently over the diﬀerent actuators. Oﬀline programming gives the opportunity to produce small series in a ﬂexible way. This leads to large tracking errors and consequently requires manual teachin corrections. This prevents the manipulator from being dynamically overloaded resulting in a better reliability. The accuracy of the robot is also aﬀected by the robot payload or tool. which signiﬁcantly reduces lifetime and reliability. As a result. To allow reliability in oﬀline programming of fast motions. The reason lies in the factor that commercial systems for oﬀline programming use. In practice. Although the achieved accuracy is suﬃcient for relatively slow assembly motions. kinematic models which take into account only robot geometry and constraints on position and velocities. In order to reduce the price.4 Introduction and on the reaction forces/torques of the robot on the base plate. These models do not include the complex nonlinear dynamics of fast motions. validated and accurate dynamic robot models are required. Nevertheless. Modern oﬀline programming processes assume a certain basic positioning accuracy of the robot manipulator. which are time consuming and costly because the robot manipulator has to be taken out of production. the resulting trajectories are rather inaccurate at high speed. Standstill is economically not acceptable and should be eliminated as much as possible. Last but not least. manufacturers tend to make the robot structure lighter weight. a relatively larger part of the actuator torques is required to move the payload. the inertial parameters of this payload are only roughly known. These models facilitate the testing and control design on the ground of space robots . space applications make intensive use of dynamic models of both the manipulator and its payload. The payload will certainly attract more attention in the near future. This causes a lot of robots to be systematically overloaded. this leads to a signiﬁcant improvement of ﬂexibility and productivity. mostly uncalibrated. Competition creates an increasing demand to further improve both the ﬂexibility and the accuracy by oﬀline programming. Oﬀline programming and simulation programs make it possible to program robot motions on an external computer without the need to interrupt the production.
They form a multibody system with the topological structure of a kinematic chain.2 Serial robot manipulators A robot is a machine designed to execute one or more tasks repeatedly. A tool or payload may . and nonholonomic mobile robots. walking machines. We limit the discussion to industrial serial robot manipulators. Throughout this work we will simply use the terms robot or manipulator. These machines contain sensors and programmable controllers. The joint axes of a six degrees of freedom industrial robot can be divided into two main categories: the base axes and the wrist axes. This section motivated the search for experimental identiﬁcation methods for robot manipulators. with speed and precision. These robot types are frequently used in industry. The serial manipulator is an openended structure consisting of several links connected in series. The ﬁrst three joint axes are the base axes which are mainly used for positioning the end eﬀector. It would be impossible to derive detailed identiﬁcation techniques which are applicable to all of these types of robots. and other advanced features. The robot links are assumed to be rigid bodies connected by revolute or prismatic joints with a single degree of freedom each.2. There may be as many diﬀerent types of robots as there are tasks for them to perform. The most traditional types are serial manipulators and Cartesian or gantry robots. There clearly exists a need for accurate dynamic models and the range of applications keeps growing. Other types of robotic systems are humanoids. Serial robot manipulators 5 and satellites. and can also be equipped with speech recognition. The human arm is a good example of a serial manipulator. The Stewart platform is an example of a parallel manipulator. 1. This section deﬁnes which type of manipulator is considered in this work and introduces some commonly used concepts and terminology.1. This manipulator has six joints in parallel which oﬀers excellent stability and high stiﬀness. robotic hands. The last three joint axes are the wrist axes which realize the orientation of the end eﬀector.
The physical modelling approach gives the opportunity to introduce two extensions.3 Approach This research presents identiﬁcation methods to experimentally obtain a model describing the dynamics of both robot and its payload. As a result. Simpliﬁed or special purpose research robots do not have realistic dynamic properties. and ﬁnally (4) the validation of the obtained model. The mechanical design done by major robot manufacturers has been worked out considering many application. On the other hand. providing additional measurements that can improve the parameter accuracy. an external sensor can be added to the setup. In applied robot research. In this work industrial robots with electric drives are considered. i. the developed robot identiﬁcation method can be extended to identifying the robot payload parameters. quality. the model parameter values have a physical interpretation and their estimates can be compared to the true values. (3) the estimation of the model parameters.e. 1. (2) the generation of optimized excitation trajectories. Research applications on such robots remain very relevant from an industrial point of view. on the mounting plate of the last link. The sensor provides measures of the reaction wrenches at the base of the robot. The model equations consider the rigid body dynamics and are derived based on physical properties. . The restriction to industrial serial manipulators does not limit the applicability of the methods presented in this work. it is important to use robot manipulators that are commonly used in industry. The experimental identiﬁcation procedure consists of the following typical steps: (1) the generation of an identiﬁable dynamic model. and maintenance demands. Most of these methods can be extended for application to other robotic systems after some modiﬁcations. On the one hand. if available. This is an advantage over blackbox methods where only the goodness of ﬁt for the output prediction can be evaluated.6 Introduction be mounted on the end eﬀector.
The use of different types of sensors into one combined identiﬁcation problem provides more information on the robot dynamics. also the other parameters in the internal or external model take advantage of . The identiﬁcation and compensation methods are experimentally implemented and validated on industrial serial robot manipulators. the link and rotor inertias are considered separately in the identiﬁcation model. As a ﬁnal validation the obtained dynamic model is used to improve the robot accuracy. the identiﬁcation model becomes linear in the inertial parameters. This thesis presents the experimental validation of this combined approach. which facilitates the parameter estimation. not only the standard deviation on the parameters appearing in both models is smaller. Due to an appropriate parameterization. The main contributions of this thesis are as follows: • Experimental validation of the identiﬁcation approach using both internal and external sensors. The inertial parameters of a rigid body manipulator are estimated from measurements taken during an excitation experiment.4 Main contributions of this research This thesis deals with the dynamic robot identiﬁcation problem and the compensation of the nonlinear dynamics. The resulting dynamic model is used to calculate a trajectory compensation for the robot controller. which allows data reduction by data averaging which improves the signaltonoise ratio.4. The experimental results conﬁrm the reduced uncertainty on the inertial parameter estimates. With control and simulation applications in mind. The parameter estimation is based on the maximum likelihood estimator. Main contributions of this research 7 Distinct in our identiﬁcation approach with respect to literature is the use of periodic trajectories for the excitation of the system. Since the rotor inertias have a diﬀerent torque contribution to the internal and the external model. This step is realized without major modiﬁcations to the existing industrial controller. This allows to improve the accuracy of the parameter estimation and the actuator torque prediction.1. 1. accurate torque prediction is the ﬁrst objective.
and the current generation KUKA KR15 and St¨ubli RX130. This precompensation method is implemented on an experimental setup. To experimentally validate the approach. The experimental results show a signiﬁcant improvement of the path tracking accuracy. . The obtained dynamic robot model with payload is used to improve the path tracking accuracy of industrial robots. • Extension of the robot identiﬁcation method to the estimation of the inertial parameters of the robot payload. a calibrated reference payload is designed of which all inertial parameters are accurately known. and to predict accurately the required actuator torques. This experience enlarges a the industrial relevance of the presented methods. • Improvement of the path tracking accuracy by trajectory precompensation. but special attention is paid to the accuracy of the individual parameter estimates. During this research three diﬀerent industrial manipulators have been used for the experimental validation of the methods. These include the older generation KUKA IR 361 manipulator. the ﬁrst evaluation objective becomes the accuracy of the individual parameter estimates. but compensates for all known robot dynamics based on available a priori information. An improvement of the actuator torque prediction is however not conﬁrmed by the experimental results. Based on a dynamic model of the robot manipulator and the controller. In this application not only the actuator torque prediction accuracy is important. Therefore.8 Introduction the combined approach. A sensitivity analysis is performed to investigate the inﬂuence of the quality of the a priori information on the ﬁnal accuracy of the payload parameter estimates. a dynamic correction is calculated which is introduced in the standard industrial controller as a trajectory compensation. The experimental results show that the presented payload identiﬁcation approach is able to provide accurate parameter estimates for diﬀerent payload conﬁgurations. This work presents a payload identiﬁcation approach which does not require a full identiﬁcation of the manipulator.
1.5. Chapter by chapter overview
9
1.5
Chapter by chapter overview
First, chapter 2 brieﬂy surveys the wide range of literature related to this research domain. Chapter 3 explains in more detail the elements of the identiﬁcation approach and the elements which are taken into account in the dynamic robot model. In chapter 4 internal and external models are combined into one identiﬁcation scheme. The experimental validation shows the improved parameters accuracy and torque prediction. Chapter 5 presents an approach to identify the inertial parameters of the robot payload. The sensitivity of the diﬀerent elements in the model is discussed. Chapter 6 uses the dynamic robot model, obtained by applying above mentioned methods, to calculate oﬀline an appropriate feedforward signal for the robot controller. The feedforward signal compensates for the nonlinear robot dynamics, resulting in an improvement of the path tracking accuracy of industrial manipulators. Finally, chapter 7 concludes this work and gives some suggestions for future work. The appendices give the kinematic and dynamic equations used, the derivation of the contribution of the rotor inertias, and other relevant information about the industrial manipulators.
10
Introduction
Literature Survey
2
If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants Isaac Newton
2.1
Introduction
Since the ﬁrst generation of robots in the 1970s, the application area of robotics has expanded over the years. Manipulators have become more intelligent, more powerful and more accurate. The literature of the robotics world is accordingly very extensive. Even the ﬁeld of modelling, identiﬁcation and control of robot manipulators went through an important evolution. The ﬁrst papers dealt mainly with the kinematic aspects of robots. As dynamics became more important to increase speed also more elaborate methods have been presented
11
12
Literature Survey
about this aspect. Initially rather theoretical methods were developed to describe and to control the robot dynamics. Due to the increasing computing power, especially in the last decade, most of these methods have been implemented and tested experimentally. It is impossible to describe the full literature on robot dynamics within the scope of this chapter. This chapter presents a survey of the research in the ﬁeld of experimental identiﬁcation, particularly applied to serial robot manipulators. The most relevant techniques and applications found in literature are summarized. After a short introduction to identiﬁcation in section 2.2, the diﬀerent modelling approaches for robot and payload identiﬁcation are given in section 2.3. Section 2.4 presents the general identiﬁcation procedure. The diﬀerent steps are discussed in the following sections: model generation (section 2.5), the model parameters (section 2.6), experiment design (section 2.7), and parameter estimation (section 2.8). Section 2.9 gives an overview of optimization techniques for nonlinear problems. To illustrate the usefulness of experimental identiﬁcation, section 2.10 shows applications of dynamic models in path planning, modelbased control and simulation.
2.2
Introduction to identiﬁcation
Mathematical models are required for various steps in the design, simulation or control design of mechatronic systems. There are mainly two ways to obtain these models, the theoretical modelling based on physical principles and design data, and the experimental modelling (or identiﬁcation) which builds a model based on measured input and output variables. In many cases the basic model structure is known from theoretical modelling, however, some parameters are not known precisely or change with time. The easiest method would be to use CAD data. However, these data are mostly not very accurate, because wiring, internal electronic components, etc. are not included in the CAD model. A better alternative would be to dismantle the robot manipulator and experimentally determine all inertial parameters. This method suﬀers from the drawback that not all parameters can be measured, e.g. friction. Moreover, dismantling is a time consuming activity and not convenient for use in an industrial environment. Hence, for ob
2.2. Introduction to identiﬁcation
13
Figure 2.1: Nonlinear models
taining precise mathematical models generally identiﬁcation methods have to be applied. They ﬁt models developed by theoretical modelling to the measurements. The ideal solution would be a combination of these methods as was done for the light weight robot (LWR) of the German Aerospace Center (DLR). This allows the identiﬁcation methods to be validated by comparing the estimated parameter values to the real values. Identiﬁcation methods can be classiﬁed in various categories according to the models they use: linear and nonlinear models, continuous time and discrete time models, parametric and nonparametric models (Isermann, 1999). In this work, only the nonlinear models are relevant because of the nonlinearity of the robot dynamics. Figure 2.1 shows a classiﬁcation for nonlinear models. When a priori knowledge is available about the system, parametric models can be used. The model is derived based on the laws of physics and mechanics resulting in a set of nonlinear diﬀerential equations. The unknown model parameters have a physical meaning and can be identiﬁed from measurements. The parametric modelling approach is widely used for robot identiﬁcation. Nonparametric models are a practical alternative when no knowledge is available about the structure of the nonlinear system. Lookup tables contain the response values for diﬀerent combinations of the input variables. For systems with a large number of variables polynomial models provide an alternative, e.g. Volterra series describe the output of a nonlinear system as the sum of the responses of a ﬁrst order, sec
Swevers et al. Tafazoli et al. Other popular blackbox models are neural networks and fuzzy models. In this work. both measured by ‘internal’ measurement devices. They can be divided into two categories according to the models and the type of sensors they use... An alternative approach to identify the inertial parameters makes use of the socalled reaction or external model of the robot (Liu et al. In the classical and most widely used identiﬁcation approach (Gautier. nonlinear parametric models are used. no additional sensors are required. Zhu and De Schutter. 2. Sometimes identiﬁcation is done online and integrated in the control law. therefore.. The builtin encoders of the actuators are used to measure the motion. The equations are derived according to physical properties which allows to take into account all a priori available information and to interpret the estimated parameter values. totally independent from internal torques such as joint friction torques. Adaptive control of robots has received considerable attention over the last decades. Learning and adaptive techniques have the advantage that they do not require special excitation experiments. 1998. 1999). the parameters are estimated from motion data and actuator torques or forces. 1996. 1996. several approaches have been developed in the last decade. The dynamic model relating these inputs and outputs is called internal model. The robot motion can be measured by means of joint . i.. 1986. and the actuator torque data are obtained through actuator current measurements.e. Raucent and Samin. An important number of globally stable algorithms have been developed that result in zero tracking error in the steady state (Canudas de Wit et al. 1999). 2000). An overview of softcomputing methodologies for identiﬁcation of robotic manipulators is given in (Onder Efe and Kaynak. 1996).3 Approaches to modelling and identiﬁcation With respect to the identiﬁcation of inertial parameters.14 Literature Survey ond order. This model relates the motion of the robot to the reaction forces and torques on its base plate and is. third order operator and so on. 1993). because they are used online (Lange and Hirzinger.
This is very advantageous because it avoids the need for a robot controller interface which provides encoder readings.. Approaches to modelling and identiﬁcation 15 encoders (internal sensors) or by means of a highprecision visual position sensor (external sensor).. The presentation was however based on simulation results and did not include an experimental validation. Based on this approach. Liu et al. Especially for the small parameters of the hand axes large improvements are obtained due to the absence of friction. West et al. which uses the base force sensor measurements and the manipulator joint positions and velocities. Chenut (Chenut et al.3. Grotjahn (Grotjahn and Heimann.2. (West et al. 1989) use a basemounted force/torque sensor to estimate the mass properties of a manipulator statically. 1992) introduced a method based on barycentric parameters to estimate the inertial properties from external measurements without requiring base reorientation. A lowpass ﬁlter technique eliminates the requirement for joint accelerations. The reaction forces and torques are measured by means of an external sensor: a force/torque platform. This method does not yield all inertial parameters and the parameters are therefore only applicable for gravity compensation. From an experimental application he concludes that the reaction method yields much better results than the identiﬁcation by motor current measurements. In chapter 4 of this work this com . (Morel et al. 2000) derived analytical simpliﬁcation and regrouping rules which lead to a formulation of the base force/torque equations of serial robots which is linear with respect to the dynamic parameter vector. 2000) presents a measurementbased method to compensate for joint friction using a sixaxis force/torque sensor mounted under the base of the robot. 2000) showed that the internal model and the external reaction model can be combined into one identiﬁcation scheme. it requires the reorientation of the base of the robot. The position of each link is measured by a highprecision visual position sensor. (Liu et al.. which is not very practical. Further. The manipulator is mounted on a sixdegreesoffreedom force sensor and the reaction forces and torques are measured for diﬀerent positions of the manipulator joints and diﬀerent orientations of the base. Raucent et al. This approach allows to improve the accuracy of the parameter estimates and obtain more accurate actuator torque prediction.. (Raucent et al. Recently. 1998) presented an estimation algorithm derived from the NewtonEuler algorithm..
this payload becomes a part of the manipulator dynamics and its inertial parameters have to be identiﬁed and taken into account in the dynamic model. This approach has the advantage that it is easy to implement since only kinematic data is required to calculate the payload inertial parameters and no dynamic information of the manipulator itself. it is split up in two body subsystems and the inertial parameters of the object are calculated. . A ﬁrst approach uses a force/torque sensor to measure the reaction wrench exerted by the payload on the robot end eﬀector (Atkeson et al. A similar approach was used by (Zeng and Unbehauen. Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz. 1994) identiﬁes the parameters of an unknown object handled by a space robot. Identiﬁcation of the inertial parameters of the robot payload is complementary to dynamic robot identiﬁcation. The other approach uses the motor currents as a measure of the actuator torques. This sensor is mounted between end eﬀector and payload. Murotsu (Murotsu et al. From the change in the robot parameters the payload parameters are estimated. However. Similar to above. Diﬀerent payloads are attached to the robot and the estimated parameters are compared. the parameters identiﬁed without payload plus the known payload parameters are compared to the values identiﬁed with the payload in order to validate the robot identiﬁcation results. 1996. Raucent (Raucent and Samin. not only the torque contribution of the payload is measured.16 Literature Survey bined approach will be applied to the identiﬁcation of an industrial robot and experimentally validated. 1995). 1999). 1986).. Olsen and Bekey. In this case. In (Gautier et al. The last robot link and the object are considered as one body in the identiﬁcation. because a wristmounted force sensor is not always present and its allowed force range might be too small for a persistent excitation. but also the rigid body dynamics of the robot links. 1986. two approaches can be distinguished based on external and internal sensors respectively... When a tool is attached to the robot end eﬀector or an object is picked up. Afterwards. this approach is not applied in this work. 1993) modiﬁes the system by adding a known mass to the last link and the change in the corresponding barycentric parameters are compared to the exact values.
4. the identiﬁcation procedure can be formulated as follows: • First. Gautier. Khalil and Dombre. Mukerjee and Ballard.2: Identiﬁcation possibilities framework Figure 2.. the dynamic identiﬁcation model of the manipulator is de . 1986.4 Procedure for experimental identiﬁcation of dynamic parameters The procedure to experimentally identify parameter values of a real robot system is generally accepted in literature (Antonelli et al. Most of the alternatives presented are variations of the same scheme. 2. 2002. Chapter 3 illustrates the general robot identiﬁcation procedure using the internal model..2 summarizes the diﬀerent approaches to robot and payload identiﬁcation and shows the coherence of the chapters in this thesis. Procedure for experimental identiﬁcation 17 internal model robot motor current chapter 3 external model force/torque platform at base chapter 4 wristmounted payload motor current chapter 5 force sensor at end effector Figure 2. 1985). Atkeson et al. Roughly. The following chapter 4 combines the internal and external model approach for the robot identiﬁcation. 1986.2. In chapter 5 a payload identiﬁcation approach will be presented which is based on motor current measurements. 1999. For both applications internal or external sensors can be used.
e. With some small modiﬁcation. in symbolic form. 1995). or by considering the kinematic or geometric structure of the manipulator. the set of base parameters. e.18 Literature Survey rived.. • Estimates of the unknown dynamic parameters are obtained by applying a suitable estimation algorithm. In most cases. • The identiﬁed dynamic model is experimentally validated.1 Derivation of the dynamic equations Literature presents two methods to obtain an identiﬁcation model of the rigidbody dynamics of the manipulator. 2. during which the motion and the required forces and torques are measured. • The minimal set of dynamic parameters to be identiﬁed. This modelling is mostly based on physical principles. the methods presented in this section can also be applied to closed loop robots (Gautier et al. • The identiﬁcation experiment is executed. i. Usually.5 Model generation A robot manipulator is constructed with mechanical bodies that are interconnected by joints. the diﬀerent steps in this procedure are discussed in more detail. In the following sections.g. It is possible to simplify the dynamic model by neglecting the contribution of certain parameters to the joint torques. This includes the choice of a trajectory parameterization and an optimality criterion.5. 2. is computed. this is realized by comparing the predicted and the measured torques for a trajectory which is diﬀerent from the trajectory used in the excitation. • Excitation trajectories have to be designed in order to guarantee good quality of the measured data. One method uses the . the robotic multibody system has a tree structure.
This system is solved using a parameters estimation algorithm. The total energy Etotal is expressed as t2 Etotal = t1 τ T q dt ˙ (2. On the other hand. Model generation 19 total energy of the system. Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz. To obtain a set of equations from which the parameters can be estimated. m diﬀerent times in the experiment are chosen. Kozlowski (Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz.2.1 should be evaluated between two diﬀerent time instants. This results in a number of equations which constitute an overdetermined set of equations in the unknown parameters. and q the velocity ˙ vector. a part of the . Another possibility is to apply the socalled long time integral.e. The identiﬁcation model based on the energy theorem is function of the joint positions and velocities. and does not require estimates or measurements of the accelerations. 1996). q)θ ˙ where t1 and t2 represent respectively the begin time and end time of the experiment. A suitable parameterization gives a model which is linear in the parameters: Φ is the identiﬁcation matrix and θ are the unknown inertial parameters. To include friction in the model. Kozlowski proposes the following. In this approach we always start from a ﬁxed start time t0 (i. In (Gautier and Khalil. while the other method is based on the equations of motion.5. For each interval (t1 . 1996) provides us with two possibilities. The total energy Etot is used on the one hand to move the robot from one position to an other position.1) = Φ(q. the integral in equation 2. the model is obtained by applying the energy theorem. t2 ) the integral should be evaluated. The integral formulation or the energy approach A ﬁrst method to derive a full model uses the total energy of the system. t1 = t0 ) and for t2 . τ is the vector of actuator torques. 1989. One possibility is to divide the total experiment time into k intervals.
20
Literature Survey
energy will get lost due to friction losses. This dissipation can be calculated a priori using equation (2.1) which is reformulated to
t2
Etotal =
t1
τ T q dt ˙
t2 T τf q dt ˙ t1
= H(t2 ) − H(t1 ) +
(2.2)
where τf represents the total friction torque and H(ti ) the sum of kinetic and potential energy at time ti . A procedure in which each link is moved separately around an equilibrium position allows to compensate for friction. The link is moved with constant velocity which is increased incrementally in successive experiments. An appropriate choice for the equilibrium positions cause the term H(t2 ) − H(t1 ) to become negligibly small with respect to the friction term. Using equation (2.3) τf can be determined. This information can be used as a priori knowledge in the ﬁnal estimation using equation (2.2). τf q=const = ˙
t1 t2
τ dt
t2 − t1
(2.3)
An alternative method to take into account friction in the integral formulation is presented in (Gautier et al., 1995). The authors propose a friction model including Coulomb and viscous friction τf = fc sign(q) + fv q. ˙ ˙ Including this model in the integral formulation gives:
t1 t2 T τf q dt = fC ˙ t1 t1
(2.4)
qdt + fv ˙
t2 t2
q 2 dt. ˙
(2.5)
Since the friction characteristic is usually not constant, but varies in time, friction has to be identiﬁed for each experiment. Equation (2.5) allows to estimate the friction coeﬃcients together with the other inertial parameter values.
2.5. Model generation
21
The diﬀerential formulation or dynamic model approach A second method to derive a complete model starts from the equations of motion which can be formulated as a system of second order diﬀerential equations (Atkeson et al., 1986; Khosla and Kanade, 1987; Olsen and Bekey, 1986). This model serves for control and relates the joint motion to the joint torques. The dynamics of a rigid body robot with revolute joints can be described adequately using the equations of motion (Canudas de Wit et al., 1996; Sciavicco and Siciliano, 1996), resulting in M(q)¨ + C(q, q)q + g(q) = τ, q ˙ ˙ (2.6)
where q is the vector of generalized joint coordinates, M(q) is the symmetric positive deﬁnite inertia matrix, C(q, q)q is the vector containing ˙ ˙ all velocity dependent coupling terms arising from Coriolis and centrifugal forces, g(q) represents the vector of gravitational torques, and τ is the vector of torques acting at the joints. A number of algorithms have been proposed for generating the dynamic equations of motion for a robot manipulator in terms of the speciﬁed kinematic and inertial parameters of the links, such as the recursive NewtonEuler method (Atkeson et al., 1986), Lagrange energy method (Sheu and Walker, 1989), Kane’s method based on virtual power, etc. In one form or another, the models are obtained from known Newtonian physical laws. These methods are equivalent to each other in the sense that they describe the dynamic behavior of the same physical robot manipulator. However, the structure of these equations and, particularly, the computational eﬃciency of the equations may diﬀer, as they are obtained for various reasons and purposes, such as suitability for simulation, realtime control, parameter estimation, controller design, etc. Among these methods, the Lagrange and the NewtonEuler formulation have been generally used. These methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. Atkeson (Atkeson et al., 1986) starts from the NewtonEuler equation to derive the set of equations. The advantage of the NewtonEuler method is that the amount of computation necessary to obtain the joint torques is quite small. In order to design control strategies and to perform dynamic simulations, an
22
Literature Survey
explicit set of closed form diﬀerential equations in statespace form is often useful. An alternative method uses the equations of Lagrange and is based on energy considerations. The dynamic model of a manipulator is obtained from the Lagrange equations ∂L d ∂L − = τj , dt ∂ qj ˙ ∂qj j = 1, . . . , n (2.7)
where L = K − P is the Lagrangian, K is the kinetic energy, and P is the potential energy of the system. τj represent the generalized forces, i.e. a torque or force applied to the system, e.g. caused by an actuator. The Lagrange formulation for the dynamics is a relatively simple, elegant approach which yields a set of diﬀerential equations in which the physical meaning of each term in the equations is clear. For this reason, this approach is widely used in theoretical derivations. The most signiﬁcant drawback of the Lagrange formulation arises from the computational ineﬃciency of its general form, which has traditionally been a bottleneck for modelbased control (Khosla and Ramos, 1988). Both approaches lead to a model τ = f (q, q, q , θ) that is mostly ˙ ¨ nonlinear in the physical inertial parameters. Using an appropriate combination of the inertial parameters, e.g. using barycentric coordinates (Raucent and Samin, 1994) or the modiﬁed NewtonEuler formulation (Atkeson et al., 1986), the set of equations can be reformulated to become linear in the inertial parameters τ = Φ(q, q, q )θ. This will ˙ ¨ be addressed in more detail in section 2.6. Linearity in the parameters is a very interesting property because it allows to use linear parameter estimation algorithms. Friction and other eﬀects can easily be introduced in the dynamic model. This can be done by adding extra terms to the model equation, as indicated in the following sections. The integral versus diﬀerential formulation In (Gautier et al., 1995), (Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz, 1996) and (Pr¨fer u et al., 1994), both formulations have been compared. Their conclusions are brieﬂy summarized.
2.5. Model generation
23
• The integral formulation does not require to calculate or measure accelerations. As a consequence, this formulation is less rich in information. • Following from the previous point, it is important to apply a good excitation trajectory. This trajectory should be able to excite as good as possible all information which is present in the model equations. • If the trajectory measurements do not ﬁt an analytical description, analytical diﬀerentiation cannot be applied, and numerical diﬀerentiation techniques have to be used in order to calculate velocity and acceleration. This introduces additional (numerical) errors. The integral formulation has the advantage that the information about the acceleration is not required. In this work, we apply the diﬀerential formulation to derive the model equations. This choice is motivated by the fact that the dynamic model will be used for control purposes, which immediately leads to the diﬀerential formulation.
2.5.2
Models including joint ﬂexibility
The abovementioned dynamic model considers all robot links as rigid body elements. Neglecting ﬂexibilities is an appropriate approximation for the dynamics of industrial robots which are constructed to be very stiﬀ. The constant pressure to reduce prices and increase performance make that manufacturers reduce the weight of new generation manipulators at the cost of an increased ﬂexibility. Taking into account ﬂexibility will therefore gain importance in the future. In literature two extensions to the classical rigid body approach are found: (1) a robot with elastic joints, and (2) a robot with elastic bodies. The latter type of ﬂexibility is of less importance than the ﬁrst one. Joint elasticity is the major source of ﬂexibility in many applications. Especially if the robot is moving fast, we cannot assume the robot joint to be stiﬀ. In the last years, new eﬀorts have been done to identify this stiﬀness of industrial manipulators. However, most (experimental) results are restricted to one joint axis and neglect the nonlinear dynamic coupling (Norrl¨f o
24
Literature Survey
et al., 2002; Pham et al., 2001). Frequency response methods and other linear identiﬁcation models provide good results for systems that are approximately linear. In their paper, Norrl¨f et al. (Norrl¨f et al., 2002) motivate the use o o of a linear model for the ﬁrst joint of a manipulator using a special odd multisine excitation (Pintelon and Schoukens, 2001). They con¨ ¨ clude that most nonlinearities are actually negligible. Ostring (Ostring et al., 2001) makes a derivation of a physical model of one joint axis using three inertias, i.e. actuator, gear and link inertia, with ﬂexibility and damping in between them. Such model corresponds better to the physical structure. The system is excited using a chirp signal with constant amplitude as the reference signal. The identiﬁcation results performed using a blackbox BoxJenkins model are compared to the results from the physically parameterized model. He concludes that the Bode plot of both models have the same characteristics. The analysis is however restricted to only one joint. Moreover, introduction of nonlinearities such as friction or backlash aﬀects the Bode plot (Aberger, 2000). AlbuSch¨ﬀer (AlbuSch¨ﬀer and Hirzinger, 2001) addresses the a a problem of identifying the parameters of a ﬂexible joint robot. In addition to motor position sensors, the joints are equipped with torque sensors as well as link position sensors. To avoid complex nonlinear optimization problems which result in local minima and unreliable parameter values, each joint and its successive link are identiﬁed separately before the assembly of the robot. Experimental results show a good correspondence with the design data from the CAD program. In (Khalil and Gautier, 2000) a method is presented for the modelling of mechanical systems with lumped elasticity. Pham (Pham et al., 2001) identiﬁes ﬂexibilities of robot joint moving one axis at a time. The dynamic model reduces to a dynamic model which is linear in the inertial parameters. If no joint position measurements are available, this method requires to calculate the fourth derivative of the measured motor position. Linear models for ﬂexible robot joints are well studied in literature, but dynamic coupling between the joint axes, nonlinear friction, and the nonlinear compliant behavior in real harmonic and cycloidal drives
e.10) .9) sign(qi ) ˙ (2. Stribeck friction model includes the eﬀect that for low velocities the friction takes a higher value that decreases with increasing velocity.2. Therefore. The classical approach describes friction as a nonlinear and discontinuous function of the relative velocity between the contacting surfaces.5. Furthermore. it must be included as an additional component in robot modelling. This requires more builtin sensors. Model generation 25 are mostly not included. Viscous friction gives a linear relation with the velocity τvisc = fv qi ˙ with fv the viscous friction coeﬃcient. In this work we consider no ﬂexibility of the bodies and joints and only look at the rigid body dynamics. This model often includes the following components Coulomb friction is described as τC = fC sign(qi ) ˙ which results in a discontinuity at zero velocity. 2. and a more extended identiﬁcation model to estimate the pronounced nonlinearities. τS = fS e ˙ − qq ˙ s (2.8) (2. it is shown that compensation for the nonlinear rigid body dynamics in the controller already gives a signiﬁcant improvement of the dynamic behavior. This approach is allowed because industrial manipulators are constructed for being stiﬀ.3 Friction modelling It is well known that friction is a major source of disturbances aﬀecting motion quality. An exponential function is used in the modelling. literature brings no full solution for the identiﬁcation of a sixdegreesoffreedom ﬂexible manipulator.5.g. Although ﬂexibilities will have an increasing importance in the near future. joint torque and position sensors.
14) For the dry friction.. a modiﬁed classical Coulomb friction model is taken. In robot identiﬁcation applications. In addition. 1999. not capable of fully describing the experimentally measured friction characteristic. these models have a discontinuity at zero velocity.. It should be noted that model parameters in (2.11) (2. Daemi and Heimann (Daemi and Heimann. Pfeiﬀer and H¨lzl. the friction model can be explicitly restricted to a certain velocity range (Antonelli et al.12) (2. This can be smoothed by replacing the Coulomb friction term with an appropriate approximation. 1995). 1996) propose better descriptions of the measured friction characteristics: τf = f0 + f1 sign(q) + f2 q + f3 q 3 ˙ ˙ ˙ 1 q ≥ qmin ˙ ˙ q < qmin ˙ ˙ (2. Caccavale and Chiacchio. ˙ ˙ =0 where qmin is a suitable velocity threshold. The viscous friction model is extended with a nonlinear cubic term. that accounts for the Stribeck eﬀects.g. some models are presented to model a the friction torques inside an harmonic drive gear. yielding: τvisc = f1 q + f2 q 3 .12) and (2.13) no longer represent physical properties. however. ˙ 2000) In (Sch¨fer and da Silva. e. 2000). Gautier et al. Canudas de Wit et al. These models are mainly . ˙ This simple model is.26 Literature Survey where fS is the stiction force at zero velocity.13) τf = f0 + f1 sign(q) + f2 q + f3 arctan(f4 q). 1994) τf = fC sign(q) + fv q.. the term fi arctan(ci q) with a suitable constant ci (Heim and von Stryk. and qs is the critical ˙ Stribeck velocity. ˙ ˙ ˙ These models provide better results than the classical approach. e 1994. Since it is diﬃcult to derive a simple model for the stiction eﬀects at low velocity.. ˙ ˙ (2. Such model is linear in the parameters which signiﬁcantly o simpliﬁes the parameter estimation. 1991. a model including viscous and Coulomb friction is frequently applied (ArmstrongH´louvry et al. 1995.
˙ q1 and q2 have to be determined experimentally. 1998) show the time variation of the friction characteristics. These models account for the microsliding displacements observed at motion start or reversal resulting in hysteresis. Model generation 27 combinations of the abovementioned components. 1994).17) where τ is the driving torque. the friction becomes signiﬁcantly larger.. This makes it impossible to guarantee always the same measurement conditions. 1994. .5. (fC + ν1 τ  + ν2 τ 2 )(1 + fS e ˙ − qq ˙ s ) sign(q) + fv q ˙ ˙ (2. Lampaert et al.2..16) q ˙ q − q˙ δs ˙ + fS e q˙s q1 ˙ q1 ˙ The subscript ·C indicates the Coulomb friction and the subscript ·S is related to the part modelling the Stribeck eﬀect. Typically in robot identiﬁcation. 2002. Daemi et al. τdry1 = fC + fS e τdry2 = fC arctan ˙ − qq δs ˙ s sign(q) ˙ (2. qs . The temperature dependence of friction was already mentioned in (Pr¨fer and Wahl. 2003. and ν1 and ν2 are the corresponding coeﬃcients.. Lampaert et al. Swevers et al. the paper mentions that the friction model depends on the driving torque.. AlbuSch¨ﬀer (AlbuSch¨ﬀer.15) (2. The constants fS . Canudas de Wit e et al. These are unmodelled eﬀects leading to systematic errors in the identiﬁcation. Measurements show that this is not generally possible for industrial robots. even with a good excitation.. The last model avoids ˙ ˙ discontinuities at zero velocity. After a short break in the measurements. 1977. (Daemi and Heimann. the robot is warmed up for some time in order to reach stationary temperature and lubrication. 1995. orthogonal polynomials were used to describe friction as a function of velocity and temperature. Dahl. Furthermore. Since friction varies almost linearly with u temperature. 2000). The resulting model is applied in robot control to overcome the friction eﬀects. 2001) reports a load dependency of a a the friction parameters. More detailed microscopic and stochastic friction models are presented in literature (ArmstrongH´louvry et al.
4 Rotor inertia Each joint in a serial manipulator is driven by a motor through a gear unit. 1996) consider the link and rotor contributions separately in the derivation of the dynamic model. very slow motions and small displacements do not frequently appear such that a simpler friction model will give suﬃciently good results. 1990) and Sciavicco et al. 1999). 2. it has been shown that the inertial eﬀect of fast spinning rotors may have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the dynamic behavior (Chen. Additional contributions have to be introduced in the oﬀdiagonal elements of the inertia matrix to account for Coriolis and centrifugal eﬀects of the relative rotor motion.28 Literature Survey Two diﬀerent friction regimes can be therefore distinguished (Swevers et al. Nevertheless. Sciavicco et al. where the friction force is a function of the sliding velocity. Raucent (Raucent. it follows that this approximation is only exact when eT i+1 ωi = 0. where the friction force appears to be a function of displacement rather than velocity. In practical robot applications. complex friction identiﬁcation mostly requires the inertia to be known a priori and the advanced friction models are nonlinear in the unknown parameters. these advanced friction models combine a simple friction model for faster motions with a complex model for the small displacements. Sciavicco et al. it is common practice to add the rotor inertia to the inertia of the corresponding link in the dynamic model. however. Tsai. 2000): the presliding regime. quantify the error made by simply adding the reduced rotor inertia µ2 Im to the i inertia of the corresponding link. When the rotor inertias are relatively small. This is because the rotor inertia is multiplied with the square of the transmission ratios. These units use typically reduction ratios µi between 50 and 100.. Hence.18) . m (2. In their paper. From the derivation. This makes them inconvenient for inclusion in a dynamic robot identiﬁcation procedure..5. 1996. In addition. 1989. (Sciavicco et al.. and the gross sliding regime. and in the case of harmonic drives even up to 200.
2.6. It is implicitly assumed that the joint axis i + 1 is parallel to the rotation axis of actuator i + 1. Each link i is characterized by ten inertial parameters: • the mass mi .18) expresses that the simpliﬁcation is allowed for motors mounted on links with an angular velocity which is zero or orthogonal to the rotor axis for any conﬁguration of the manipulator.3: The link body frame R and the center of gravity ci COG y bodyi . Equation (2. and emi+1 is the unit vector lying along the rotation axis of the rotor.2. The parameters of the identiﬁcation model 29 Here. A suitable transformation of these parameters allows to rephrase the equations into a form which is linear in the transformed parameters.i cy. Finally.i cz. ωi is the angular velocity of the link i on which the motor is mounted. a reduction of the parameter vector gives the base set of parameters. and z bodyi1 R x Figure 2.3). The unknown parameters to be identiﬁed are selected and added to the parameter vector.i ]T expressed in the link frame R (see ﬁgure 2. • the position of the center of gravity ci = [cx.6 The parameters of the identiﬁcation model The previous section derived the dynamic equations and presented models for additional eﬀects such as friction. In this section these equations are reformulated in a form that is suitable for identiﬁcation.
22) Fortunately..24) .21) (2. q)q + g(q) q ˙ ˙ = F(q. A commonly used transformation to achieve linearity results in the use of ﬁrst and second order moments of inertia (Atkeson et al.i Ixy. The dynamic model is already linear with respect to the inertia moment of the rotor and the friction coeﬃcients. The property of linearity is interesting because it allows a much simpler parameter estimation. θf ull ) ˙ ¨ (2.i T .3). other parameterizations and parameter transformations have been presented which allow to rewrite the equations as a linear relation of the set of dynamic parameters τ = Φ(q. Consequently. pT 2 ··· pT n T (2.30 Literature Survey • the six components of the inertia tensor I expressed with respect to the center of gravity: Ixx.5. q .6. the actuator inertia and the friction coeﬃcients are added.i Iyy. 1996) R R R R R R plinear. 1990.6) are mostly a nonlinear function F of the elements of θf ull as they are deﬁned above.. θlinear is the vector of transformed parameters. Khosla. q. if a friction model was selected that is linear in the unknown parameters (cfr. Sciavicco et al. q. 1989. τ = M(q)¨ + C(q.i Izz.i Ixz.23) with Φ the observation or identiﬁcation matrix.i Iyz. q ) θlinear ˙ ¨ (2. section 2.i = [m sx sy sz Ixx Iyy Izz Ixy Ixz Iyz Im fC fv ]T .20) 2.. the corresponding parameters do not need any transformation. For the full manipulator structure with ndof degrees of freedom. (2. (2. mostly containing 13 parameters when a Coulomb and viscous friction model is used. This results in a parameter vector pi for each link. 1986.19) To this set of inertial parameters. this leads to the parameter vector θf ull = pT 1 containing 13ndof parameters.1 Linearity in the parameters The dynamic equations (2. Mayeda et al.
the dynamic model parameters cannot all uniquely be identiﬁed. Unidentiﬁability results from the fact that the kinematic construction limits the relative motion between the links. The matrix Φ in equation (2. In order to be able to estimate uniquely all inertial parameters. neglecting second order terms such as Coriolis and centrifugal terms. 1990).23) is proposed in (Gautier and Khalil. Other parameterizations like the barycentric parameters (Raucent and Samin.23) is generally not of full rank. the neglected terms may become signiﬁcant. The reformulation of the recursive NewtonEuler equations using the transformed parameters are given in appendix B. Sheu and Walker.2. A procedure to obtain the set of base parameters based on symbolic manipulation of equation (2. The dynamic parameters can be divided in three categories: completely identiﬁable.6.. The base set can be found by considering the rank of the identiﬁcation matrix Φ. identiﬁable in linear combinations. 1990. The second order moments produce the inertia tensor expressed relative to the origin of the link frame.. The set of standard dynamic parameters can be simpliﬁed to obtain the set of base inertial parameters (Mayeda et al. At high speed however. Similar rules to obtain the minimal set of barycentric . Such strategy improves the condition number of the identiﬁcation matrix since less signiﬁcant parameters are omitted. 2. 1991).2 Identiﬁability and minimal set of parameters Generally. 1989). 1986).6. and unidentiﬁable (Atkeson et al. making accurate position control of the manipulator impossible. Some authors have introduced extra simpliﬁcations in their models. These parameters can be obtained from the standard inertial parameters by eliminating those which have no eﬀect on the dynamic model and by regrouping some others in linear combinations. the Jacobian of the identiﬁcation model with respect to the unknown parameters must be of full column rank (Schoukens and Pintelon. The base set is deﬁned as the minimal set of parameters needed to describe the dynamic model. 1994) immediately result in a model which is linear and minimal in the parameters. The parameters of the identiﬁcation model 31 The ﬁrst order moments si equal mi ci .
is directly related to the choice of the excitation trajectory.7 Experiment design A critical issue for identiﬁcation of dynamic parameters is the choice of the excitation trajectory. some parameters may become unidentiﬁable or very sensitive to noise on the measured data. and solving the optimization problem. 2. 1998. If this condition is not satisﬁed. 1995). The ﬁrst considerations on ﬁnding excitation trajectories for the identiﬁcation of dynamic robot parameters were presented by Armstrong (Armstrong.e. 1996). This is a complex procedure. the choice of a trajectory parameterization and an optimization criterium. An automatic procedure to determine a set of base parameters is a numerical method based on the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) (Gautier. however.. Many researchers recognize the importance of a good excitation experiment design (Armstrong. 1989. It should suﬃciently excite the system in order to estimate all unknown parameters in the model unambiguously. i. Calaﬁore and Indri. that the linear combinations in the base set may change when another trajectory is used. Vandanjon et al. Gautier and Khalil. 1995. 1992. 1989).32 Literature Survey parameters was presented in (Fisette et al. This makes it diﬃcult to compare the identiﬁcation results and it does not simplify the physical interpretation of the estimated parameters. Sheu and Walker. Therefore. The design of a good excitation trajectory includes the decision which joint axes have to be excited. . The quality of the measured signals can be enhanced slightly by ﬁltering or the use of an observer. but cannot replace a suitable trajectory optimization. 1989). The disadvano tage of this procedure is. especially when the number of links is large. The quality of the resulting parameter estimates depends on the quality of the available input and output signal. Pfeiﬀer and H¨lzl. it is better to ﬁnd once a unique minimal set of parameters which is valid for all possible motions.. 1990.
. the torques of the last actuator are determined by only the inertial parameters of the last body (and the payload). This simpliﬁes the estimation procedure. 1986. Each group is estimated in diﬀerent sets of experiments. this method is extended to the inertial parameters which are separated in three groups. The identiﬁcation matrix has a triangular structure due to the serial chain construction of a manipulator. To collect measurements for the friction model. Gautier (Gautier et al. Grotjahn et al. the gravitational torque is measured at diﬀerent conﬁgurations and the corresponding inertial parameters are identiﬁed. only the base axes are excited and the remaining dynamic parameters are identiﬁed. It is clear that repeating this procedure for diﬀerent velocities is very time consuming. all identiﬁed parameter sets are combined to yield the overall base parameter vector. while the ﬁrst actuator torque is inﬂuenced by all inertial parameters. respectively the diagonal and oﬀdiagonal elements of the mass/inertia matrix are identiﬁed. 1995) proposes to carry out the identiﬁcation in two experiments. and which joint axes will be used in each experiment. Experiment design 33 2. each axis is moved separately and constant velocity trajectories are applied. (Daemi and Heimann. First. Due to the large diﬀerence between the values of the inertial parameters of the wrist with respect to those of the base. 2001).2. Finally. Measurements are carried out with simple motions in the neighborhood of especially selected joint conﬁgurations. The triangular structure makes it possible to estimate the parameters in a sequential procedure (Atkeson et al. the parameter set for a 6dof robot is reduced by 12 elements. This way. The contribution of the already known gravitational parameters is compensated for. one has to decide if all parameters will be identiﬁed in only one experiment or in separate experiments. Daemi et al. In a second experiment.. 1986). which each excite some parameters. 1998..7. 1996) propose to identify the friction model for each link separately. Olsen and Bekey. These approaches use diﬀerent trajectories. In (Daemi and Heimann. First.7. Next..1 Separation of experiments First. all joints are moved and the inertial parameters of the wrist axis are identiﬁed. and to compensate for its inﬂuence on the measured torques before starting the robot identiﬁcation.
1989). are only identiﬁable when more than one axis is moved during the excitation.2 Optimization criteria A proper choice of trajectory should ensure the excitation of the full system in a suﬃcient way such that all parameters can accurately be identiﬁed. 1989). such as hydraulic manipulators. This minimizes the bias of the estimate due to unmodelled dynamics. In this work we will identify all parameters in one identiﬁcation experiment using one optimized excitation trajectory. 2. 1989.34 Literature Survey Kozlowski (Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz. Golub and Van Loan. Therefore. Most papers related to experimental robot identiﬁcation still use the condition number of the identiﬁcation matrix as a measure of inﬂuence of the disturbance on the parameter estimates (Gautier and Khalil. For slow moving robots.g. the oﬀdiagonal elements of the inertia matrix. A shortcoming of axis by axis excitation is the risk of accumulating errors since the values of the already identiﬁed parameters will be used as a priori knowledge in the identiﬁcation of the remaining parameters (Khalil and Dombre. Some parameters. We recognize that this approach might not be appropriate in all cases. this approach may lead to a badly conditioned estimation problem. Armstrong suggested to minimize the condition number or the inverse of the smallest singular value of the observation matrix (Armstrong. 1996) only uses movements of single joints and simultaneous movements of two joints. A small condition number decreases the sensitivity of the least squares solution to errors in the measured torques τ or in the identiﬁcation matrix Φ (Armstrong. 2002). 1996). e. optimization techniques are used. This section discusses some commonly used optimization criteria which should guarantee the trajectory to be persistently exciting. .7. Kozlowski and Dutkiewicz. The condition number of a matrix Φ is deﬁned as cond(Φ) = σmax (Φ) σmin (Φ) (2.25) with σmax (Φ) and σmin (Φ) the largest and smallest singular value of Φ. 1992.
and the eﬀort needed to calculate velocity and accelerations from the position measurements.2.28) 2. Experiment design 35 ˜ If good a priori knowledge θ about the unknown parameters θ is ˜ available. another popular criterion is based on a scalar measure of the covariance matrix. 2002). σmin (Φ) (2. (2.27) The variable λ indicates the relative importance of the two criteria. e. Other optimization criteria have been proposed (Antonelli et al. It minimizes − log det(ΦT Σ−1 Φ). Σ is the diagonal covariance matrix of the actuator torques. The doptimal criterion is the most appealing because it guarantees minimal uncertainty on the parameter estimates when only the torque measurements are corrupted by noise and the identiﬁcation matrix is free of noise (Ljung. Instead. 1989. Large singular values ensure a small standard deviation on each parameter. Swevers et al.26) A condition number of this weighted identiﬁcation matrix equal to one then means that all parameters are estimated with the same relative accuracy. .7. 1987. 1993. the identiﬁcation matrix can be weighted by θ (Press´ and e Gautier..g. ˜ Φw = Φdiag(θ). It directly determines the number of parameters in the optimization problem. Combining this criterion with the condition number gives cond(Φ) + λ 1 .3 Parameterization for the excitation trajectory The choice of parameterization for the excitation trajectory is a very important issue. 1993). We remark that excitation trajectories should not excite any unmodelled dynamics. 1999. Khalil and Dome bre. like joint ﬂexibilities. All presented optimization criteria fail to include this requirement. Press´ and Gautier.7. maximization of the smallest singular value. 1997).. (2. Armstrong.
They ﬁrst solve the optimization problem to ﬁnd a set of optimal measurement points. The coeﬃcients can be optimized using some nonlinear optimization algorithm. Instead of constructing the identiﬁcation matrix only with . The polynomial coeﬃcients are ﬁxed by imposing continuity constraints between the trajectory segments. 2001) use ﬁfth order polynomials. and part B solves the homogeneous boundary conditions. 1998). In more recent work (Daemi and Heimann.. ﬁnal points qt2 and one intermediate point qt1 are deﬁned for each axis and seventh order polynomial trajectories are calculated to connect them. The use of seventh order polynomials ensures shock.g.29) where ai and bi are deﬁned such that part A solves the given boundary conditions. By varying d1 and d2 a number of diﬀerent trajectories can be generated. Next. These trajectories have the advantage that they can be realized easily in typical industrial robot controllers. Therefore. Daemi et al. 1999) use a diﬀerent approach.36 Literature Survey Gautier et al. the joint velocities and accelerations are estimated with bandpass ﬁltering of the position using a low pass butterworth ﬁlter in both forward and reverse direction and the central diﬀerence algorithm for derivatives because it is very important to avoid distortion of the identiﬁcation matrix Φ. initial points qt0 .and jerkless trajectories such that the elasticities of the joints are not excited by the driving torques. (Gautier and Poignet. 1996) use a method with only a few parameters in order to reduce convergence problems and keep computation time low. by using ﬁfth order polynomials or splines. e. (Antonelli et al. (Daemi and Heimann. The interpolated trajectories for each axis consist of two parts 6 6 q(t) = i=0 ai ti +(d1 + d2 t) i=1 A bi ti B (2. Antonelli et al. Velocities and acceleration are set to zero at the initial and ﬁnal points. these optimal points are interpolated to obtain smooth joint trajectories to be executed by the manipulator. the same authors move the axes along some trapezoidal velocity proﬁle about the operating point in a ‘backandforth’ movement. In the identiﬁcation step.
During this experiment the required signals are measured. which avoids phase distortions. Parameter estimation 37 the optimized points.8. The properties and advantages of periodic excitation will be discussed in more detail in section 3..e. In practice. Solving such problem requires a lot of computation time and may result in a local minimum. Two classes of estimation methods exist. introduce the concept of periodic excitation. On the one hand. A sample is removed if the inclusion increases the optimization criterion (which is the condition number) with at least η.30) Although these trajectories are more diﬃcult to implement on an industrial setup. the unknown model parameters are estimated. The optimization problem is solved using a Genetic Algorithm (GA). The authors propose that these additional samples to be taken along the trajectory are selected via the following criterion. Calaﬁore (Calaﬁore et al. oﬀline estimation methods use a batch of measurement data and calculate . possible to calculate the velocities and accelerations in the frequency domain. In (Swevers et al. a suitably selected threshold. 1996). Based on the collected data.3 of the next chapter. a ﬁnite fourier series N qi (t) = qi0 + k=1 ai sin(kωf t) + bi cos(kωf t) . 2. the actual experiment can be carried out. The actual optimization of the excitation trajectory generally involves a high number of optimization variables. 2001) presents a method based on a parameterization using harmonic functions. this parameterization has several advantages.. It is e. The excitation trajectory consists of a sum of harmonic functions. additional points along the trajectory are added because this improves the optimization criterion.2.g.8 Parameter estimation When the dynamic model has been derived and the excitation trajectory is optimized. k k (2. i. such optimization algorithms have proven to be particularly eﬃcient and robust in the global search of solutions of nonlinear optimization problems. Swevers et al.
i.38 Literature Survey the unknown parameter values in one calculation. However. the error is weighted with a weighting matrix Σ.31)). the least squares estimator is often used in literature (Atkeson et al.. and the solution becomes ˆ θW LS = arg min (τ − Φθ)T Σ−1 (τ − Φθ). 1996). Grotjahn et al. ˙ ¨ (2. (2. Canudas de Wit et al.1. this condition is not satisﬁed which leads to a bias on the parameter estimates (Schoukens and Pintelon.33) . 1997. Khalil and Dombre. An improvement over the classical LS estimator is the use of a weighted least squares (WLS) estimator (Gautier. 2002). θ (2. This LS estimator supposes that the torque measurements are corrupted with Gaussian white noise and that the standard deviation is equal for all actuators. the set of parameters is minimal. In the online estimation methods the parameter estimates are updated every time a new measurement is available. As indicated in section 2.31) The easiest way to estimate θ is the least squares (LS) solution of an overdetermined linear system (Canudas de Wit et al.e.32) where (ΦT Φ)−1 ΦT is the pseudoinverse of the matrix Φ. The LS estimator assumes the the identiﬁcation matrix Φ is of full column rank.. due to its simplicity. The least squares solution is ˆ θLS = (ΦT Φ)−1 ΦT τ. More available a priori knowledge generally yields better properties of the estimators. q.. 2001). Oﬀline estimation methods are more frequently used because they are easier to implement. Oﬀline parameter estimation The classical leastsquares method is a wellknown method to solve an overdetermined set of linear equations (equation (2. 1996. the dynamic model is in most cases linear in the inertial parameters τ = Φ(q. do not require starting values and have no calculation time constraint. In practice. 1986. Other more complex methods exist that allow to take into account information about the noise on input and output.6. q )θ. In this estimator.. 1991).
In (Grotjahn et al.2. The weights are the variance estimates of the actuator torques. Simulation results show that this Bayesian approach results in smaller conﬁdence intervals on the parameter estimates. the identiﬁcation matrix is considered to be free of noise and the maximum likelihood parameter estimation corresponds to a Markov (or WLS) estimation problem. This information can be obtained from CAD data of the manufacturer or from the previous step in an iterative identiﬁcation process. The maximum likelihood estimate θM L is given by the value of θ which maximizes the likelihood. To further improve the estimation method. The reason for this is that the variances of the noise on the torque measurements are dominant compared to the noise on the joint position measurements. A robust version .. 2001). This assumption is. Finding the solution of this estimation problem is computationally expensive and requires a good initial guess of the parameter values. Literature shows that this estimator is consistent. Under these assumptions. 1997) proposed an approach based on the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE). the maximum torque of each axis is used as the weighting factor. asymptotically unbiased and eﬃcient. this WLS estimator is called the Markov estimator. are free of noise.. and that the joint angle measurements. and consequently also the joint velocities and accelerations. Experimental results show that this maximum likelihood estimator performs as well as the weighted least squares estimator. Swevers (Swevers et al. however. e 1992) proposes to take into account statistical a priori information about the inertial parameters. In practical cases. the parameter estimation assumes that the measured actuator torques are corrupted by independent zeromean Gaussian noise. Parameter estimation 39 When the covariance matrix of the noise on τ is used as the weighting matrix Σ. where models only approximate reality. seldom veriﬁed in practice. 2001) implemented the full maximum likelihood estimator which considers both noise on the torque measurements and on the joint position measurements and the derivatives velocity and acceleration. The maximum likelihood principle assumes that the true parametric model is known exactly. Olsen (Olsen and Petersen.8. (Press´ and Gautier.
however. i. In these situations. Parameters may show variation with temperature or with time. The proposed methodology computes an ellipsoid of conﬁdence for the unknown parameters. A monitoring system can be used to detect the breakdown of a machine or a possible critical situation by looking at the parameter values. 2000). faces two diﬃculties (AlbuSch¨ﬀer. The estimate maximizes the worstcase likelihood of the measured sample. In (Bona et al. it can be considered to estimate the parameters online in order to cover time variations of parameters.g. 2001): a 1. For instance. This is especially the case if the estimation is done during normal operation and no optimized excitation trajectory is used. In particular. the lower bound on the worstcase value of the likelihood function is maximized. This application. the behavior of a satellite can be diﬀerent in space or on earth due to modiﬁed temperature conditions and the absence of gravity.. due to wear and tear. Online parameter updating Some critical parameter values might change due to diﬀerent operation conditions. e. The method takes into account both uncertainty on the measurements and uncertainty in the regression matrix.e. Calaﬁore and El Ghaoui (Calaﬁore and El Ghaoui. To achieve convergence of the parameters the applied motion must be persistently exciting the system. a nonlinear iterative estimation procedure is required and the methods of GaussNewton or LevenbergMarquardt can be used.40 Literature Survey of maximum likelihood takes the uncertainty in the underlying statistical model explicitly into account. 2001) show that the robust maximum likelihood (RML) estimation problem with uncertainty in the regression matrix and in the observations covariance can be solved as a semideﬁnite optimization problem (SDP) using convex programming. . the measured signals should include all necessary information. robust linear estimation is applied to the problem of manipulator parameter estimation and experimentally validated. This information is directly used in the expression of the robust control law. When the dynamic model is nonlinear in the unknown parameters.
. 1993. 2000). Ostring and Gunnarsson. An alternative method that takes into account uncertainty. 1986. a modia ﬁed Recursive Least Squares (RLS) algorithm with variable gain has been derived. . an online estimation algorithm can be applied. The recursive version of the classical least squares does not require remembering all the past measurements. 2000. Sch¨fer and da Silva. 2001) observes that the identiﬁcation results for the EKF are very sensitive with respect to the a priori knowledge of initial values and convergence speed is lower than for WLS. The EKF is suitable as an online state estimator which is also useful for control. A ﬁrst order discretization of the dynamic equations (equation (2. The extended state includes both position and velocity and the model parameters. In (da Silva et al. measures should be taken to assure stability of the system.. For the timedependent behavior of the physical parameters.34) is nonlinear in the state parameters. Gautier and Poignet. Based on the direct dynamic model an extended state z is deﬁned. Gautier (Gautier et al. The gain is adjusted considering how good the previous estimate has been. The dynamic model −1 q ¨ M [τ − C(q.8.34)) leads to the model equations for the extended Kalman ﬁlter (EKF). is the use of Kalman ﬁltering (Guglielmi et al. 2002). It does not appear to be an advantage for the EKF because the oﬀline ﬁltering for the WLS can take special care to avoid introducing phase distortion on the calculation of velocity and acceleration. 1987).. The resulting estimate is the same as if we had solved one large estimation problem using all the data at once. The EKF algorithm estimates both the velocities and the parameters while WLS estimation needs the joint velocity and acceleration to be calculated separately using bandpass ﬁlters. If the identiﬁed parameters are simultaneously used in the control algorithm. q)q − g(q)] ˙ ˙ ˙ q ˙ z = q = ˙ ˙ 0 θ (2. such a the Recursive Least¨ Squares (RLS) (Gautier. Parameter estimation 41 2.2.
Experimental results show that this parameter adaptation leads to an improved performance of the feedforward controller. 2001) present an application to a hydraulic manipulator where the dynamic parameters. the decision maker has to choose the option that is optimal in a certain sense. 1999). linear least squares (LLS) and quadratic programming (QP) methods. In this work we will use an oﬀline estimator based on the maximum likelihood framework. A gradient descent algorithm is used to adapt the dynamic parameters. a NonMinimal State Kalman Filter (Lefebvre et al. that are required in the calculation of the feedforward torque. such as linearity in the parameters and no uncertainty on the identiﬁcation matrix.g. A lot of real world problems can be expressed as optimization problems. It is a ﬁnitedimensional Bayesian ﬁlter that linearizes any kind of nonlinear measurement equation in a higher dimensional state space. A Kalman ﬁlter solves the linear estimation problem in this higher dimensional space. usually with equality or inequality constraints.9 Optimization techniques Optimization is an important tool in science and engineering. There exists no universal optimization algorithm. However. the estimator becomes in practice a weighted least squares estimator. are identiﬁed online using adaptation algorithms. Honegger and Corke (Honegger and Corke.42 Literature Survey Recently. In many design applications. Numerous powerful algorithms are available which are each appropriate for a speciﬁc application. Due to the properties of the dynamic model. this ﬁlter cannot be applied because also the process model is nonlinear. e. in (Nocedal and Wright. 2003) is presented. 2.. The goal is to ﬁnd the values of these design variables that optimize the objective function and satisfy the constraints. A more theoretical discussion can be found in literature. This section gives a short overview of optimization theory for constrained nonlinear optimization problems. In practice. . An objective function or cost function quantiﬁes the performance of a design option as a function of the design variables. starting from linear programming (LP).
(2.36) .e. because they suﬀer from the drawback that they are not guaranteed to reach the global optimum. αx + (1 − α)y ∈ C for all α ∈ [0. The term convex is applicable to both set and function. are the convex optimization problems. Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) is one of the most eﬀective and a widely used algorithms. Unfortunately. Optimization techniques 43 the objective function becomes frequently a more complex nonlinear function and constraints are added to satisfy physical properties or design requirements. 1].35) A function f is convex if its domain is a convex set and if for all x and y in this convex set. This results in using constrained and nonlinear programming methods. y ∈ C. we have f (αx + (1 − α)y) ≤ αf (x) + (1 − α)f (y) for all α ∈ [0. i. Therefore. Standard nonlinear programming techniques have not been successful for solving these problems with multiple local minima. 1].2. 1999). There are two alternatives: exploit the structure of the problem. Convex optimization A special class of optimization problems where the global optimum is found. A set C is a convex set if the line segment connecting any two points in C lies completely in C.9. In many practical engineering applications. methods designed for global optimization are required. An additional requirement is that the equality constraints should be linear and the inequality constraints concave. or give up the guarantee to ﬁnd the global minimum. The diﬃculty that arises is that the objective function may have several local minima in the region of interest. The ﬁrst alternative may lead to convex optimization. every optimization should return the global optimum. this approach is not feasible in practice. This process is repeated iteratively until convergence. the objective function is locally approximated by a quadratic function and the minimum of this approximation become the new guess for the minimum of the objective function (Nocedal and Wright. Ideally. while the latter is mostly based on random search strategies. it is sometimes essential or at least desirable to determine the global optimum of the objective function. for any x. (2. They are characterized by a convex objective function and a convex feasible set. In each iteration step.
As a consequence. which may be classiﬁed as follows. In that case we face nonconvex optimization problems which may have many local minima. In the absence of a priori information it seems rational to collect information about the problem by taking a number of points uniformly distributed over the whole region and evaluate the objective function in these points. the guarantee to ﬁnd the global optimum has often to be given up and the full workspace has to be searched. These problems can be solved numerically with great eﬃciency. Therefore.44 Literature Survey Convex problems have interesting properties. If the algorithm converges. and multistart. the stochastic approach uses the idea of random search in constructing global optimization algorithms. the solution attained is guaranteed to be the global optimum. Global optimization Unfortunately. singlestart. The major drawback lies in the fact that recognizing a convex problem and ﬁnding an appropriate reformulation towards a convex optimization problem requires training and relies a lot on experience (and luck). Horst and Pardalos. The belief exists that many convex problems occur in engineering problems. Pure random search does not include local reﬁnement at all. The research in this ﬁeld is basically divided in two branches. not all optimization problems can be formulated as a convex programming problem. The three simplest random search algorithms are pure random search. In contrast o to local optimization for which a gradient equal to zero and a condition for the Hessian indicate a local minimum. no such criterion exists in global optimization for asserting that the global minimum has been reached. On the one hand. This is a widely used solution strategy. 1989. standard nonlinear optimization methods may fail to locate the global minimum and other more general global optimization methods can be ˘ used (T¨rn and Zilinskas. but they are not recognized as such. A detailed discussion on convex optimization theory is given by Vandenberghe and Boyd (Vandenberghe and Boyd. The cost is proportional to the number of function evaluations performed and will be higher if the grid is made ﬁner. In singlestart a single local search is . 1996). 1995).
2. A function is considered as simple if its bound on every interval can be computed accurately and easily. A BranchandBound method employs branching and bounding steps. but they are rather ineﬃcient. In multistart each random point is taken as a starting point for local optimization. The BranchandBound concept is the main idea here. multiplication and division. The drawback of these methods is that possibly none of the subsets can be cut oﬀ if the lower bounds are not suﬃciently tight. although their rate of convergence is rather slow. One class of modiﬁed methods are the clustering methods. 1992. The idea is to start just one local search for each local minimum. This solution implicitly searches all of the domain. 2001) applies this concept to objective functions that are composed of simple onedimensional functions and the four arithmetic operations addition.9. A lower bound on the optimal value can be determined by calculating the function interval for the optimization domain. Other stochastic methods like simulated annealing and genetic algorithms which use only function values are very popular among users. If the lower bound of a subproblem is larger than the function value at a known feasible point. further reﬁnement will not produce the global minimum and the subproblem can be cut oﬀ. These algorithms are very simple and will obviously ﬁnd the global minimum as the number of function evaluations approaches inﬁnity. Deterministic methods on the other hand are guaranteed to ﬁnd the global minimum. Jaulin et al. Branching is done by splitting a problem into several disjoint subproblems. In order to improve their eﬃciency these methods have been modiﬁed in diﬀerent ways. Bounding is carried out by determining a lower and an upper bound on the optimal value of the objective function for each of these subproblems.. Interval analysis (Hansen. These bounds are used to discard subproblems. In every iteration. Optimization techniques 45 performed starting from the best point in the sample. This feature of BranchandBound methods make them very powerful if it is possible to cut oﬀ subproblems early in the process. the algorithm has to explore every subset and becomes very ineﬃcient. In these a cluster analysis algorithm is used to group points which lie around a local minimum. In this case. some part of the domain is bisected into subregions and the lower bounds on the . subtraction.
10 Applications of dynamics models The ﬁnal purpose of applying experimental robot identiﬁcation techniques is improving the accuracy of industrial robots. the robot controller should execute the trajectory with minimal tracking error. At present. both path planner and robot controller should use an accurate dynamic . 2. To describe both kinematics and dynamics in a suﬃciently accurate way. To perform this. Finally. A close interaction between all elements is needed. Mathematical Modelling Parameter estimation Simulation and offline programming Modelbased control Path planning Figure 2. acceleration and actuator torque. which are used to calculate the motion of the endeﬀector. the region with the least lower bound is split.46 Literature Survey objective function in all regions is evaluated. Typically. This requires more than only an accurate dynamic model. deterministic methods are useful only for wellstructured problems with a very restrictive class of objective functions and the required computational eﬀort increases exponentially with the dimension of the problem. and the dynamics.4: Problem interaction for accurate industrial robots models describe the kinematics. Based upon these models the path planner can generate an optimal trajectory which realizes the desired motion within the workspace constraints and maximal velocity. used to calculate the required actuator torques for that motion. kinematical and inertial parameters should be identiﬁed.4. as illustrated in ﬁgure 2. the geometrical.
while reducing the actuator torque limits does not degrade performance much.10. Applications of dynamics models 47 model. only the initial and ﬁnal point are speciﬁed.. (Heim et al. The authors remark that timeoptimal trajectories are very aggressive. In this case.2. Optimizing a trajectory with minimal energy consumption results in a trajectory that is only 10% slower. A logical following step is to incorporate all these elements in a simulation program. Optimal path planning As soon as reliable dynamic models are available. 2000) present a method for solving the constraint trajectory optimization problem by using full dynamic robot models. (Steinbach et al. These data uniquely deﬁne the joint positions. Research on robot trajectory optimization began in the early sixties. which eliminates the need for numerical integration of diﬀerential equations. Heim et al. 1997. A sensitivity analysis reveals that a reduction of the speed limit increases the time required for the motion. the shape of the trajectory is subject to optimization. During the last decade the topic has received great interest and various approaches have been proposed based on diﬀerent problem formulations and diﬀerent types of robot models. In the pointtopoint problem. so that only the velocity proﬁle along the path remains to be optimized. This puts extremely high loads on the joints. In (Saramago and Steﬀen. optimization algorithms can be applied to minimize the cycle time of certain maneuvers. This reduces the wear of the robot and proves to be more robust in practice. In the prescribed path problem. but with considerably lower forces and torques on the joints.. optimal travelling time and minimum mechanical energy of the actuators are considered together to build a multiobjective . The two major types of trajectory optimization problems are the prescribed path problem and the pointtopoint (PTP) problem. facilitating oﬀline programming. the tool center point (TCP) is required to move along a predeﬁned trajectory with given orientation. Heim and von Stryk. Small deviations from the desired trajectory may lead to instabilities. 1998) present an optimization method for timeoptimal motion planning using the inverse dynamic model. reaching the performance limits for at least one actuator. Steinbach et al. 1998).
. In contrast. One of the modelbased techniques is the feedforward dynamics compensation method which computes the desired torques from the given trajectory and injects these torques as feedforward control signals. Even partial compensation of the dynamics still gives good performance. Khosla and Kanade (Khosla and Kanade. 1985). 1980. Craig. Experimental identiﬁcation . they are not widely used in industry. Slotine. Modelbased control Industrial manipulators are usually controlled by conventional PIDtype independent joint controllers. 1994). They are designed under the assumption that the dynamics of the links are uncoupled and linear. and the time required to compute the model online. He also reported in (Craig. the lack of accurate model parameters (Craig. Although theoretical and experimental results have shown that modelbased control techniques outperform the conventional PID controller. 1986) emphasized that the control algorithm synthesis problem of this feedback control algorithm is more diﬃcult compared to other control schemes. it does not achieve exact decoupling. The main reasons for this are the dominant friction.48 Literature Survey function. 1988) that the computedtorque servo scheme is an excellent way to use a dynamic model of a manipulator (if it were exact) in the controller... The optimization problem takes into account kinematic and dynamic constraints and uses a dynamic model. The available computation power nowadays removes the latter practical objection to implementing modelbased control. 1986). To improve the performance of the PID controllers. 1996. An et al. the modelbased manipulator control problem has been studied extensively in robotics literature and many control schemes have been proposed (Luh et al. the results obtained on an industrial setup have conﬁrmed that it is worth using feedforward compensation control (Caccavale and Chiacchio. Craig (Craig. However. 1986. Canudas de Wit et al. Despite the fact that industrial experiment conditions are far from those provided by research setups. 1988) reported that this scheme with the feedforward signal eﬀectively linearizes the manipulator system about a given trajectory. the computedtorque scheme in which the dynamic model is included in the feedback loop achieves both the linearization as well as decoupling. 1988.
Applications of dynamics models 49 is an eﬃcient way to obtain good parameter estimates. The calculated desired torques are transferred into trajectory corrections using the inverted controller model. Lange and Hirzinger. 2002) applied Iterative Learning Control to industrial o o robots. Although considerable eﬀorts were done. Norrl¨f (Norrl¨f. 1988). The only remaining possibility is to add a correction to the reference position signal. accurately predicting the robot behavior. The situation was signiﬁcantly improved by the project ‘Realistic Robot . Grotjahn (Grotjahn and Heimann. 1996. Depending on the experience and intuition of the personnel. 2002) presents a method which reduces path deviations by precorrection of the desired trajectory. The adaptive version of the inverse dynamics control scheme was studied in (Craig.2. learning control techniques have been presented. Lange (Lange and Hirzinger. This reduces the need for costly and time consuming reteaching. In the beginning of the 1990’s. Simulation and oﬀline programming Today onsite teaching is still common practice. collisionfree trajectories. The corrections are calculated based on a nonlinear dynamic model of the robot.10. will be presented in chapter 6. and if joint angles and torques are measurable. this method results in accurate. the precise simulation of robot motion behavior was a major obstacle for successful oﬀline programming of industrial robots. 1999) proposed the use of linear decoupled impulse response models for each joint controller in order to reduce path deviations. Advanced oﬀline programming and simulation tools using a dynamic robot model make it possible to design and simulate oﬀline robot motions. The method is applicable to industrial robots if an interface for path corrections is available. simulated trajectories deviated from real ones due to diﬀerences between the simulation model and the real robot motion planner and controller. This method does not take into account the nonlinear eﬀects. To circumvent the problem of ﬁnding an accurate dynamic model. A similar trajectory compensation approach which was developed almost simultaneously. A more practical objection to using modelbased control is the absence of a torque interface to apply the feedforward signal.
The model generation of the rigid body dynamics is based on the integral formulation or on the diﬀerential formulation. Although the aim of the project was very attractive. the recursive least squares estimator and the extended Kalman ﬁlter are frequently used. The most widely known oﬀline estimation techniques are the least squares estimator. A standard interface was deﬁned to allow the coupling of any robot software with any simulation system software. several parameterizations for the excitation trajectories were presented in literature which are optimized according to an appropriate criteria. Unfortunately. 1995). The obtained rigid body model is extended to account for additional effects. modelbased control. and simulation and oﬀline programming were presented.50 Literature Survey Simulation’ (RRS) (Bernhardt et al. The most frequently used optimization criteria are the condition number of the identiﬁcation matrix and the determinant of the covariance matrix. Diﬀerent identiﬁcation approaches using internal and external models were introduced. a short overview of convex and global optimization techniques was given. To ensure persistent excitation of the robot system.11 Conclusions This chapter presented an overview of the literature on experimental robot identiﬁcation. like friction. robot manufacturers only oﬀer speciﬁc commercial software tools for oﬀline programming and simulation of their robots. some applications for dynamic models in the domain of optimal path planning. The latter is more appropriate for control purposes. The parameter estimation step of the identiﬁcation procedure can be done oﬀline or online. In order to ﬁnd the globally optimal excitation trajectory. When the estimation is done online. Finally. . the weighted least squares estimator and the maximum likelihood estimator. The approach was to integrate the motion software of robot controllers into simulation systems. Both approaches follow a similar identiﬁcation procedure. 2.. no dynamic model is included in these tools.
They should be integrated in order to become a coherent procedure. which all have their speciﬁc advantages. 51 . When we proceed from theory to a practical application.Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues 3 Things should be made as simple as possible. ﬁnal choices have to be made to ﬁll in the diﬀerent elements of the identiﬁcation procedure.1 Introduction Literature has presented several approaches to experimental robot identiﬁcation. Albert Einstein 3. but not any simpler. This chapter works out the identiﬁcation procedure in more detail and applies it to the identiﬁcation of an industrial manipulator.
1 gives a schematic representation of a robot manipulator. it is important to describe the general manipulator structure. i. 3. parameter estimation.2.4.6. Finally. linear. To preserve linearity in the unknown parameters. Before going into more detail on the individual components. It must include enough detail to describe the real behavior of the manipulator with suﬃcient accuracy and detail.1 General manipulator structure A robot manipulator consists of several components which are connected and interact in order to execute the task. On the other hand. an adequate parameterization must be chosen and the required a priori information should be collected. This section discusses the components to be taken into account for the model generation.3 and 3. the inﬂuence of considering additional eﬀects is illustrated using experimental results presented in section 3. The use of periodic excitation and the design of an optimal excitation trajectory are discussed in sections 3. The validation step of the identiﬁcation procedure is the subject of section 3. The robot structure can be divided into a vertical and a horizontal direction. Figure 3.2 describes the manipulator model structure and derives a dynamic model which is linear in the inertial parameters. A good model has to satisfy two conﬂicting objectives. the maximum likelihood parameter estimation framework and its statistical properties are brieﬂy introduced. it should permit a wellconditioned parameter estimation. For each component it is important to ﬁnd a suitable mathematical description which allows accurate and simple. This subsystem . The necessary degree of detail may depend on the actual application and on the required accuracy.e.52 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues Section 3. 3. The vertical direction represents the serial robot construction where all robot links are interconnected in a chain.2 Model generation The dynamic robot model is certainly the most important part for the identiﬁcation procedure.5.7. In section 3.
Friction should be added to these components since it consumes a part of the actuator torque. Model generation 53 actuator 6 actuator 5 actuator 4 actuator 3 actuator 2 actuator 1 transmission transmission transmission transmission transmission transmission friction friction friction friction friction friction link 6 link 5 link 4 link 3 link 2 link 1 robot base rigid body dynamics of serial manipulator payload Figure 3. instead of the actuator side. friction losses are as . such as the recursive NewtonEuler equations. Although servo drives have a small rotor inertia. The actuators generate the torques which drive the motion of the manipulator. In the horizontal direction of the manipulator structure. friction and the robot link. accelerating and decelerating the rotor inertia requires a considerable part of the generated actuator torque. the gear transmission. Many algorithms were presented. we ﬁnd the drive train of each joint axis consisting of the actuator. the dynamic parameters are often expressed at the reduction or joint side. This requires the measured torques and encoder positions to be transformed to the joint side. Mostly. The inertia of the gear transmission is usually neglected and added to the rotor inertia or the link inertia. The rotor inertia is transformed by multiplication with the square of the transmission ratio. This is due to the high transmission ratios which result in a fast spinning actuator rotor.1).2.1: Schematic representation of manipulator is described by the rigid body dynamics and introduces the nonlinear coupling eﬀects between the axes.3.5. Models describing the rigid body dynamics are well studied in literature (see the discussion of integral and diﬀerential formulation in section 2. To simplify the model generation.
The robot payload is connected to the end eﬀector of the last link..2) which is deﬁned as the mass of the link body. In identiﬁcation. q)q + g(q) q ˙ ˙ (3. To obtain linearity in the unknown parameters. the descendants are the following links in the chain up to the end eﬀector and the payload. the payload will be discarded. 1989). Therefore. For a serial manipulator. . In this chapter.2 The rigid body dynamics The rigid body dynamics are the central part of the manipulator structure.1) gives the required torque for a desired motion of the robot links. The inverse dynamics equation τ = M(q)¨ + C(q. it is impossible to distinguish the diﬀerent friction sources. 3. (3. augmented by the total mass of all descendants (j > i) in the treelike structure.2) are deﬁned as follows: • The barycentric mass mi = mi + ¯ j>i mj . ci and IiC ). an appropriate parameterization must be chosen instead of the classical parameters (mi . which are combinations of the inertial parameters of the diﬀerent bodies. Its identiﬁcation will be the subject of chapter 5. friction is arbitrarily introduced in the scheme as a separate block. Barycentric parameters One way to obtain the abovementioned linear identiﬁcation model is based on the socalled barycentric parameters (Maes et al. however. In this work. the barycentric parameters and the NewtonEuler parameters are used.2. The equations can be derived according to the recursive NewtonEuler formulation or the Lagrange formulation.54 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues sumed to be spread over the actuator and the gears. The barycentric parameters for link body i (ﬁgure 3.
i .i cy.g.i cx. ci = cz.4) where ˜ denotes the skewsymmetric tensor associated with the · cross product.3. rules are established to deﬁne the minimal set of dynamical parameters (Fisette . deﬁning lik = lij for i < j ≤ k.3) with lij the joint vector which locates the connection point of body j on link body i.i ˜ (3.i 0 −cx. (3. Model generation 55 j Ci k lij lil l ci Oi Link body i Figure 3. l l (3. Since this vector is only deﬁned for consecutive bodies.5) −cy. e.2: Geometric parameters for link body i • The barycentric moment bi = mi ci + j>i mj lij . • The barycentric tensor Ki = IC − mi ci ci − ˜ ˜ i j>i mj ˜ij ˜ij .: 0 −cz. the notation is extended to all the indices k.2.i 0 The use of these barycentric parameters provides a model for the robot dynamics which is linear in a combination of the inertial parameters of both robot links and payload. In addition.
i. the dynamic robot model includes more components than only the link inertias. This means that most barycentric parameters change when the robot payload is changed. The barycentric parameters of the last link are exactly the same as the NewtonEuler parameters. The resulting models are linear in the unknown parameters.g. which simpliﬁes signiﬁcantly their estimation. with ci the position of the center of gravity expressed in the link frame. 3. 1996). A side eﬀect of the barycentric parameters appears when it comes to payload identiﬁcation. This parameterization is widely used in literature and contains the following parameters • The mass mi • The ﬁrst order moment si = mi ci .e.56 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues et al. This parameterization has the same advantages as the barycentric parameters. • The second order moments and products of inertia I. These parameters will be used for the payload identiﬁcation in chapter 5.3 Additional eﬀects As depicted in ﬁgure 3. the physical interpretation of the NewtonEuler parameters is much easier. The parallel axis theorem is used for the recalculation between the two frames. The rigid body dynamics are certainly the most complex component which is extensively discussed in . all barycentric parameters contain a contribution of the inertial parameters of the descendent link bodies. The payload is the last link body in the robot tree structure. and therefore also those of the robot payload. the inertia tensor is expressed about the axes of the link frame instead of the frame in the center of gravity.2. e. However.. link body k in ﬁgure 3. A disadvantage of barycentric parameters is the more diﬃcult physical interpretation of the parameter values. which will be discussed next.1.2. In addition. NewtonEuler parameters Another way towards linearity uses the NewtonEuler parameters.
. The fast spinning rotor inertias of some actuators introduce an additional dynamic coupling between the diﬀerent joint axes. Gravity compensation device. Friction. This makes it possible to compare diﬀerent alternatives and draw conclusions on the performance of a individual model description.2. the additional eﬀects. like friction and rotor inertia. Nevertheless. Some manipulators are equipped with a spring which partly compensates the gravitational torque on one joint axis. but appropriate model extensions for these eﬀects will be given in section 3. This torque can be modelled and included in the identiﬁcation model. Inclusion of rotor inertia. A calibration procedure can identify more accurate geometric and kinematic information. Model generation 57 the robot literature. This phenomenon is present in each mechanical manipulator and consumes a signiﬁcant part of the actuator torque. The discussion will be based on measurement results. An accurate model describing the real physical behavior is therefore required. This information must be used for the derivation of the rigid body dynamics model. Linearity in the unknown parameters will be a very important criteria.7. The results from the literature survey will not revisited here. Every mechanical construction contains some small deviations from the original speciﬁcation which affect the position accuracy of the manipulator. Especially for fast motions this eﬀect becomes important. are indispensable to obtain an accurate dynamic model. The following eﬀects aﬀect the accuracy of the dynamic model and should be taken into account: Kinematic calibration.3.
i. i. The excitation trajectory is a ﬁnite Fourier series.e. This Fourier series speciﬁes a periodic function with period Tf = 2π/ωf .58 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues 3. yielding a periodic response. This approach is adopted and the advantages related to the periodicity of the excitation are discussed here and illustrated in section 3. (Swevers et al. and (2) whether the processing of the resulting data is simple and yields consistent and accurate results.1 Trajectory parameterization Several approaches to robot excitation have been presented in literature (section 2. Each Fourier series contains 2N +1 parameters. and t is the time.. after the transient robot response has died out.7. the angular position qi for each joint i is written as a ﬁnite sum of harmonic sine and cosine functions: N qi (t) = qi. Accurate robot identiﬁcation requires specially designed experiments. This section discusses the approach used in this work and shows how both requirements are satisﬁed if the robot excitation is periodic.7).e.3 Experiment design using periodic robot excitation The second step in the identiﬁcation procedure is the design and execution of a robot excitation experiment. 3.6. The ﬁxing of the optimal trajectory parameters is the subject of the following section.k sin(kωf t) + bi. which are . all measured signals are periodic. In the design of an identiﬁcation experiment. They all use a diﬀerent trajectory parameterization. 1997) propose a robot excitation which is periodic. most of them not resulting in periodic trajectories. This is one of the key elements of the presented robot identiﬁcation method.3.0 + k=1 (ai. Swevers et al. The excitation trajectory for each joint is a ﬁnite Fourier series.6) with ωf the fundamental pulsation of the ﬁnite Fourier series.k cos(kωf t)) (3. it is essential to consider whether (1) the excitation is suﬃcient to provide accurate and fast parameter estimation in the presence of disturbances. Experiment design includes choosing a trajectory parameterization and ﬁxing the corresponding optimal trajectory parameters.
Experiment design using periodic robot excitation 59 the degrees of freedom for the optimization problem: the amplitudes ai. The fundamental pulsation is common for all joints. This is advantageous because it allows: • timedomain data averaging.7. or by solving a complex nonlinear optimization problem with motion constraints.3. • to specify the bandwidth of the excitation trajectory. which yields data reduction and improves the signaltonoise ratio of the experimental data.3.3. • to reduce the experiment time.0 which is the oﬀset on the position trajectory. which is possible because of the periodicity of the data. This problem is addressed in section 3.6 based on experimental results. 3.k of the sine and cosine functions. • estimation of the variance of the measurement noise by calculating the sample variance. The averaged trajectory q and torque τ are obtained from ¯ ¯ 1 q= ¯ M τ= ¯ 1 M M qm m=1 M (3.8) .4. • continuous derivatives up to higher order. resulting in a periodic robot excitation. and qi.k and bi. as it is done in industry. Appropriate values for these trajectory parameters can be selected by means of trial and error. The signaltonoise ratio of the measured signals can be improved by data averaging.2 Properties of periodic excitation The advantages of using periodic excitation are discussed in more detail now. • analytic calculation of the joint velocities and accelerations from the measured joint angles. for k = 1 to N . and will be illustrated in section 3.7) τm m=1 (3.
the index k and the subscript m indicate the kth sample of the mth period. as a ﬁnite sum of sine and .9) 2 στ = (τm (k) − τ (k))2 . and qm and τm the mth period of the trajectory and the measured torque. Noise results in a nonsystematic error that can be reduced as much as desired by measuring for a longer time and averaging the measured position and torque signals over more periods.11) qi (t) = ¨ (3. ¯ k=1 m=1 K M (3.10) where K is the number of samples per period. ¯ k=1 m=1 (3. ﬁnite Fourier series. 1991).k kωf sin(kωf t)) 2 2 −ai.10) by M .k kωf cos(kωf t) − bi. maximum likelihood. without performing additional measurement: 2 σq = 1 (M K − 1) 1 (M K − 1) K M (qm (k) − q (k))2 . Improving the signaltonoise ratio is extremely important since motor current measurements are usually very noisy. e. The calculation of the joint velocities and accelerations can be performed by analytical diﬀerentiation of the measured joint angles.k k 2 ωf sin(kωf t) − bi.g. The variance of the noise on the averaged joint position and actuator torque measurements is estimated by dividing the equations (3. This technique is preferable to lowpass noise ﬁltering because ﬁltering colors the noise. parameter estimation (Schoukens and Pintelon. the measured encoder readings are ﬁrst approximated in a least squares sense. This is possible because these signals are periodic. N qi (t) = ˙ k=1 N (ai.12) For the analytical diﬀerentiation. and consequently complicates a consistent and eﬃcient.9) and (3.60 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues where M is the number of measured periods. Knowing the noise variance is valuable information for the maximum likelihood parameter estimation discussed below. The variance of the noise on the measured signals can be calculated by means of the sample variance.k k 2 ωf cos(kωf t) k=1 (3.
multiplied with jω and −ω 2 . the 5th order polynomial has a discontinuity in the jerk. This design criterion is not available with random pointtopoint motions. The obtained frequency spectra are then transformed back into time domain using the inverse discrete Fourier transform. The use of a Fourier series gives a trajectory which is continuously diﬀerentiable up to any order. This approach corresponds to frequency domain diﬀerentiation combined with frequency domain windowing. this approach is used in this thesis and its advantages are maximally exploited.e. The choice of the base frequency and the harmonics immediately makes it possible to specify the bandwidth of the excitation signal. e. First. i.4. The selected frequency lines are then multiplied with the frequency response of a pure single and double diﬀerentiator.4 Generation of the excitation trajectory Although the advantages of a periodic excitation trajectory are easy to understand. the problem of ﬁnding the parameters of the optimal . This eliminates the need for special sets of motions to achieve accurate estimates of the dynamic parameters. respectively.3. Generation of the excitation trajectory 61 cosine functions.6). the discrete Fourier transform of the averaged encoder readings is calculated and the excited frequency lines are selected by frequency domain windowing (using a rectangular window). The frequently used polynomial trajectories do not have this property. It is clear that periodic excitation has several advantages over the classical excitation trajectories. The highest frequency can be chosen to be lower than the resonance frequency of the manipulator.g. Therefore. This is an interesting property since it avoids the excitation of unwanted dynamic eﬀects. is then analytically diﬀerentiated once or twice to obtain velocity and acceleration. yielding joint velocities and accelerations. This approximation is done to avoid a systematic errors due to a tracking error which give a deviation from the desired excitation trajectory. with ω the frequency in radians per second. which corresponds to equation (3. 3. The resulting sum. The global approach to trajectory design allows to excite all joint axes in only one experiment.
the optimal trajectory will cover the workspace as much as possible and use the maximum speed and acceleration. the acceleration should be high. Example 3.13) where I is the only unknown parameter.1 Optimal use of the acceleration is illustrated with an example. e. etc. In this section. .3 shows two approaches for the excitation. This follows from the equation of the robot dynamics (3. In practice. Figure 3.1). for the centrifugal and Coriolis terms the velocity should be high.4. some criteria have been deﬁned to express the exciting performance. the situation on the left is obtained. The estimated response (solid line) deviates from the true response (dashed line) due to the noise on the individual sample points. To excite the inertia. this problem is formulated and diﬀerent solution approaches are discussed. 3. the trajectory parameters should be chosen to obtain a persistent excitation. also realized by peri¨ odic excitation. The sample points are chosen close to the extreme values of the acceleration qmin and ¨ qmax . As a result. The repetition of the sample points. If the sample points are spread over the full acceleration range. the estimated response is less sensitive to the noise.1 General problem formulation Once the trajectory parameterization has been chosen. and ﬁnally for the gravitational parameters the joint positions should be chosen such that gravity generates the largest torque diﬀerences at the actuators. the condition number of the observation matrix.62 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues trajectory is much more diﬃcult. A better alternative is shown on the right side of the ﬁgure. reduces the noise level. is suﬃcient to provide accurate parameter estimation in the presence of disturbances.g. or the determinant of the parameter covariance matrix. and yields consistent and accurate results. In literature. This means that it is essential to consider whether the excitation gives an acceptable signaltonoise ratio. Assume the simple identiﬁcation model τ =I q ¨ (3.
• maximum velocity qmax and maximum acceleration qmax . the robot should be able to execute them. i.3: Choice of the sample points: randomly distributed (left). • maximum actuator torque τmax . • constraints imposed by the environment of the robot to avoid collision. The consideration of the actual robot kinematics and dynamics imposes a number of constraints: • maximum and minimum joint angles qmax and qmin . The evaluation of this constraint poses diﬃculties because it requires the inertial parameters to be known. in which the robot end eﬀector should stay. close to the extreme values (right). Estimated response in solid line and true response in dashed line The trajectories should however be feasible.4. Generation of the excitation trajectory 63 torque qmin torque qmax : : acceleration acceleration Figure 3. im˙ ¨ posed by the robot manufacturer to prevent wearing of the robot or by the maximal forces and torques allowed. speciﬁed by a minimum and maximum radius ree and height hee . These constraints involve forward kinematics calculations. imposed by the maximum current in the armature windings. This region is frequently approximated by a cilinder. imposed by the robot construction.3.e. .
the covariance matrix C of the parameter estimates is optimized. A trajectory which is optimal according to the optimization cost function and satisﬁes the ﬁrst constraints.. A cost function or optimization criterion is deﬁned which is a measure of the goodness of the trajectory as a function of the trajectory parameters. • avoid excitation of ﬂexibilities. Therefore. The actuator torque and velocity are limited by physical and technical characteristics of the motor and the reduction. In this work. 1997). Constraints are added which express the physical limitations of the manipulator. the problem of ﬁnding the trajectory parameters can be tackled. optimization techniques solve the problem by optimizing the cost function but also satisfying the constraints. Finally. Now that the requirement of persistent excitation is explained and the constraints deﬁned.2 Solution by optimization The ﬁrst alternative describes the problem of ﬁnding the optimal excitation trajectories as an optimization problem.64 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues • maximum forces in the transmission gears. 3. The last constraint concerning the ﬂexibilities is impossible to quantify and include since we only consider rigid body dynamics in this work.4. Both alternatives are discussed in the following two sections. The trajectory parameters can be ﬁxed through optimization (Swevers et al. other prevent the motor and gear from destruction. or by means of a heuristic solution. the unmodelled but excited dynamics will result in large estimation residuals. Exceeding these limits can cause the gear teeth to break. This remark imposes an important restriction on the meaning of optimality. Since this matrix cannot be used directly as an optimization . for instance. Some of the limits ensure a certain lifetime of the drive under normal operation. we should be very careful when designing the excitation experiment. backlash and nonlinearities which are not taken into account in the identiﬁcation model. will probably not be optimal for the last constraint. Otherwise. It is however very important to have measurements which are consistent with the used model.
ai.k of equation (3. q (β)) θ ≤ τmax .3. Minimizing this criterion also minimizes the uncertainty on the parameter estimates. In the case of the Markov estimate (Swevers et al.4. The doptimality criterion has an interesting physical interpretation: the determinant of the covariance matrix is related to the volume of the uncertainty ellipsoid for the parameters. it is replaced by a scalar measure log det(·) of the parameter covariance matrix. The optimization problem can be formulated as: minimize log det C subject to qmin ≤ q(β) ≤ qmax qmin ≤ q(β) ≤ qmax ˙ ˙ ˙ qmin ≤ q (β) ≤ qmax ¨ ¨ ¨ rmin ≤ ree (q(β)) ≤ rmax hmin ≤ hee (q(β)) ≤ hmax τmin ≤ Φ(q(β).0 . To simplify the optimization.. . In addition.k and bi. Generation of the excitation trajectory 65 criterion. yielding the socalled doptimality criterion (Ljung. Due to the use of Fourier series for the trajectory.29)) and depends only on the robot trajectory via the identiﬁcation matrix Φ and the variance of the noise on the torque measurements. q(β).14) The optimization algorithm returns the trajectory parameter vector β which solves this problem.6) for all joints.16) (3. they are speciﬁed by the robot manufacturer. these constraints are linear in the parameters of β.15) (3. In most cases. and accelerations which are imposed by physical limitations.19) (3.15) to (3. It does not depend on the model parameters θ. the vector β includes only the trajectory parameters qi.17) are respectively the motion constraints on the joint angles. velocities. ˙ ¨ (3. Equations (3. the parameter covariance matrix equals C = (ΦT Σ−1 Φ)−1 (equation (3. this is an advantageous property when formulating a convex optimization problem.17) (3. the motion constraints are easy to handle and rather cheap to evaluate.20) (3. 1996) estimate.18) (3. The constraint equations are all function of the trajectory parameters β. Therefore. The fundamental pulsation ωf and the number of harmonics are ﬁxed in advance. 1987).
In general the constraints are almost linear in the trajectory parameters β. or they can be approximated by a linear function. an excitation trajectory is designed without taking into account the dynamic constraint. Equation (3.14)) is however a complex nonlinear function of the trajectory parameters β. an optimal excitation trajectory is found which takes into account all constraints. This experiment is aimed at obtaining initial estimates of the dynamic parameters. The cost function (equation (3. and iterative search algorithms.20) expresses the constraint on the maximum actuator torque which prevents the actuator from being overloaded. Since the dynamic parameter values are not known for the ﬁrst experiment design. This dynamic constraint requires the evaluation of the inverse dynamics. these equations are mainly function of the positions of the second and third joint axes. the global optimum is not guaranteed to be found. As a consequence.g. First. Repeating the optimization using many diﬀerent starting values increases the chance of ﬁnding a better excitation trajectory. this dynamic constraint can only be taken into account if a priori knowledge about the parameter values is available. e. For a standard industrial manipulator. Although this approximation is not equivalent. To simplify the equations. this constraint is frequently replaced with a tighter constraint on the maximal acceleration. but it may easily be approximated by some linear constraints. have to be used. They locally approximate the cost function converging to a local minimum. This type of constraint involves forward kinematics calculations.18)) and on the height hee (equation (3. In a second design. The dynamic constraint remains however nonlinear in the trajectory parameters β. the constraint becomes linear in β and no a priori knowledge is required. like sequential quadratic programming (SQP).19)).66 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues In a concrete working environment. the allowed workspace for the end eﬀector is approximated by a cylinder. . which cannot easily be reformulated in a convex form. from CAD or a previous identiﬁcation experiment. Therefore. The constraint on the end eﬀector motion is nonlinear in the trajectory parameters. making them easy to evaluate. A constraint is then imposed on the radius ree (equation (3. the motion of the robot end eﬀector position in the cartesian space is limited in order to avoid collision of the robot with the environment and with itself. This suggests an iterative experiment design.
3. If not. i. it is not guaranteed that the global optimum is found. Beside the coeﬃcients. the more local minima exist. the following remarks can be made. yielding an optimization problem which is hard to solve. Generation of the excitation trajectory 67 This is however a very time consuming solution. This section summarizes the experiences gained in this work in a qualitative way.e. By observing the optimization problem. some heuristic rules of thumb can be found which might give insight in the parameter selection. As an alternative the trajectory parameters can be selected by means of trial and error. 3. a good excitation requires a high number of harmonics for each joint trajectory. and the number of joints axes excited during the identiﬁcation experiment should be chosen. a minimal level of optimality may be deﬁned such that we should not worry about reaching only a local optimum. Although eﬃcient optimization algorithms are used.3 Heuristic solution Using the optimization approach requires a lot of calculation time to ﬁnd a (satisfying) solution.4.4. In practice however. the number of periods measured. . First. as is frequently done in industry. Second.21) where A is the amplitude and the angle ϕ represents the phase. more degrees of freedom are available to set up the excitation experiment. it is impossible to ﬁnd an appropriate excitation trajectory within an acceptable time. also the fundamental pulsation ωf . many optimization parameters in the trajectory parameter vector β. it should experimentally be veriﬁed if the diﬀerence between an optimal and a suboptimal excitation trajectory results in a practical signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the accuracy of the dynamic parameter estimates. The optimization considers only the coeﬃcients of the sine and cosine functions as the degrees of freedom. Concerning the solution of the trajectory design by optimization. Since the more degrees of freedom there are in the optimization problem. the number of harmonic terms. The coeﬃcients ai and bi are related to the amplitude and phase of one frequency by the goniometric equation ai cos θ + bi sin θ = A cos(θ − ϕ) (3.
68
Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
The amplitudes are limited by the motion constraints in equations (3.15) to (3.17). For a trajectory which only contains the kth harmonic q(t) = Ak sin(kωf t), the amplitude Ak is constrained by qmax qmax ˙ ¨ , 2 2 kωf k ωf
Ak  ≤ min qmax ,
.
(3.22)
This means that the higher k is, the smaller the amplitude Ak will be for a given maximal velocity and acceleration. An optimal harmonic k can be found which maximizes the use of both the velocity and acceleration range. On the other hand, the amplitude of a harmonic term should have a minimal value. A small amplitude only introduces additional velocity reversals and excites the system in the range where backlash and stiction forces have a negative inﬂuence on the accuracy. The phase angle determines the time shift between the diﬀerent harmonic terms. An appropriate choice of the phase angles allows to obtain an optimal distribution of the minima and maxima over the measurement period. The number of harmonic terms speciﬁes the bandwidth of the excitation trajectory. The lowest frequency is ﬁxed by the fundamental pulsation. Higher frequencies can be selected based upon the discussion of the coeﬃcients above. It is not necessary to include all frequency terms. The more terms that are taken into account, the more local minima appear in the optimization problem and hence the more diﬃcult it becomes to ﬁnd an optimal set of coeﬃcients. In addition, every additional term introduces additional velocity reversals which increases the number of sample points in the low velocity range. Section 3.7.5 will note that the friction model is not very accurate at low velocities. Too many harmonic terms is therefore not a good idea.
3.4. Generation of the excitation trajectory
69
The fundamental pulsation ωf has inﬂuence on the duration of one period. The duration of one measured period equals T = 2π . ωf (3.23)
Here, a tradeoﬀ should be made between noise sensitivity and more measurement data. On the one hand, a higher fundamental pulsation results in a shorter period. Given a limited measurement time, this allows to measure more periods, and hence averaging improves the signaltonoise ratio. We should keep in mind that this eﬀect decreases as more periods are taken into account. A longer measurement period with the same sampling frequency, on the other hand, gives more measurement data and hence more information is available for the parameter estimation. In addition, it allows us to excite in a wider workspace given the same maximal joint velocity and acceleration. This aspect is closely related with the discussion of the coeﬃcients. Example 3.2 A trajectory is described by q(t) = A cos(ωt). The corresponding acceleration is q (t) = −Aω 2 cos(ωt). Suppose that ¨ the maximal acceleration qmax is the limiting factor to increase ¨ the amplitude. Dividing ωf by a factor two and holding the same qmax , the amplitude A may be increased by a factor ¨ four. The discussion is similar if the velocity were the limiting constraint. This discussion shows that for a manipulator with relatively small allowable maximal velocity or acceleration, it might be appropriate to choose a longer measurement time and a lower fundamental frequency. The number of periods measured in combination with the duration of one period determines the total experiment time. This variable should be chosen such that averaging suﬃciently reduces the remaining noise level. If the maximal experiment time is limited, the number of periods cannot be chosen independently anymore, but follows from the given experiment time and the fundamental pulsation.
70
Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
original q q
reversed
time
Figure 3.4: Reverse the excitation trajectory
time
Every excitation trajectory that is obtained immediately gives rise to an alternative trajectory design. The periodic trajectory can be executed in the reverse order as illustrated in ﬁgure 3.4. Since this alternative trajectory includes the same joint positions, no problem with collisions are introduced. The maximal velocities and accelerations don’t change either. In the reversed trajectory all points are approached from the opposite direction compared to the original trajectory. This is advantageous because the nonlinearities, e.g. backlash which is present in the transmission, are excited from both sides resulting in a compensation. Including the original and reversed trajectory in the estimation problem will therefore result in more consistent parameter estimates. A trajectory design based on rules of thumb and experience will not produce the optimal trajectory. Therefore, the heuristic trajectory design may be followed by a local optimization. Better starting values are available from the heuristic approach and convergence is faster because the optimization starts closer to a minimum. This way, the advantages of both approaches are combined.
3.4.4
Limitations for obtaining the optimal excitation trajectory
The discussion shows that it is not straightforward to ﬁnd the best excitation trajectory. The most important limitations for the experiment design are summarized here.
3.4. Generation of the excitation trajectory
71
In the ﬁrst place, the quality of the excitation is limited by the constraints that are taken into account in the optimization. These constraints are necessary to avoid a collision of the robot with the environment or with itself or overloading the robot manipulator. Enlarging the range of an active constraint makes it possible to obtain a better trajectory. However, care should be taken not to excite too many unmodelled dynamics, since this would only lead to systematic errors. A trade oﬀ must be made between enlarging the range and avoiding systematic errors. As a consequence, we must accept to ﬁnd only a suboptimal excitation trajectory. Therefore, it is questionable whether the use of sophisticated optimization algorithms can still be justiﬁed. Due to the complex nature of the objective function, no fast optimization algorithm exists that guarantees global convergence. Therefore, we should accept that only a local minimum is reached. By choosing appropriate starting values for the optimization, an excitation trajectory can be found which approaches the performance of the global optimal trajectory. The industrial controller may also become an additional constraint. Implementing periodic multisine trajectories requires the possibility to apply user deﬁned trajectory setpoints to the controller input. Unfortunately, most industrial controllers only allow users to generate very simple trajectories like lines, pointtopoint motions and circles. In the worst case, excitation trajectories have to be implemented using standard builtin pointtopoint motions, specifying ﬂyby or precision points. In that case, the trajectory period is mostly no multiple of the sampling period, and an approximation of the trajectory with a limited number of harmonic terms in the Fourier series is rather inaccurate. Then, periodicity and its nice properties have to be given up and other ﬁltering methods are required to calculate the velocity and acceleration. Sometimes, however, the manufacturer provides a module which allows us to apply some feedforward or compensation signal to the (servo) controller. If this signal is added in joint space, periodic excitation is possible without limitations. As soon as a Cartesian space compensation is used, it becomes important to avoid all singularities. In practice, this puts additional constraints on the joint positions and
72
Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues
considerably limits the allowed workspace. Consequently, the quality of the excitation will be worse. It is optimal to have an open interface to the robot controller which allows to specify the trajectory in joint space.
3.5
Parameter estimation
The following step in the identiﬁcation procedure is the estimation of the robot parameters from the measured data (Gautier and Khalil, 1992; Swevers et al., 1997). The selection of an appropriate parameter estimation method is a compromise between accuracy and complexity of implementation. The maximum likelihood parameter estimation method presented by Swevers et al. (Swevers et al., 1997) will be applied, since this approach is based on a statistical framework aiming at estimating the robot model parameters with minimal uncertainty. The maximum likelihood estimate of the parameter vector θ is given by the value of θ that maximizes the likelihood of the measurement. The minimization of such a likelihood function is a nonlinear least squares minimization problem. In general, this method assumes that the measured joint positions and actuator torques are both corrupted by independent zeromean Gaussian noise. If the measured joint angles are free of noise and the model is linear in the parameters, which is the case if barycentric parameters are used, this minimization problem simpliﬁes to the Markov estimate, i.e. a weighted linear least squares estimate. This simpliﬁcation is justiﬁed since in almost all practical cases the noise level on the joint position measurements is much smaller than the noise level on the force/torque measurements (Swevers et al., 1997). The dynamic model is evaluated for a number of time steps tk , k = 1, . . . , K, and combined in the global observation matrix φ(qt1 , qt1 , qt1 ) ˙ ¨ φ(qt2 , qt2 , qt2 ) ˙ ¨ . . . (3.24)
Φ= , φ(qtK , qtK , qtK ) ˙ ¨
are periodic (see section 3.6 Validation Validation is a very important aspect to check the general applicability of a developed identiﬁcation procedure.2). The error is assumed to have a normal distribution with zero mean. 3.3. which can be calculated without additional measurements if the robot excitation.. . . Although validation doesn’t inﬂuence or improve . Validation 73 and the corresponding measured torques in τt1 τt 2 τ = . (3. q.28) Φ) Σ + −0.26) where ε represents the error due to measurement noise. The weighted leastsquares solution of (3.5 τ. τtK This leads to the overdetermined set of linear equations τ = Φ(q.6.25) (3.29) The standard deviation of the parameters are the square root of the variances found on the diagonal of this covariance matrix. and therefore also the measured joint torques.26) is given by ˆ θW LS = (ΦT Σ−1 Φ)−1 ΦT Σ−1 τ = (Σ −0.27) (3. A consistent estimate of the noise variance is provided by the sample variance (Swevers et al.5 (3. The use of a statistical framework allows to calculate uncertainty bounds on the estimated parameter vector. It is however not frequently discussed in literature. The covariance matrix C ˆ of θW LS is given by C = (ΦT Σ−1 Φ)−1 . Σ is the diagonal covariance matrix containing the standard deviation of the noise on the measured torque data. 1996).3. q )θ + ε ˙ ¨ (3. .
74 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues the identiﬁcation results. Considering the actuator torques is an appropriate validation method when the identiﬁed model will be used for control. RMS value of the prediction error. In particular. or (2) check the accuracy of the parameter estimates. Plotting both the predicted and measured torques on the same ﬁgure allows us to do a visual inspection. The value . Two main methods exist: (1) evaluate the torque prediction accuracy. Compare predicted and measured torques. An alternative uses the diﬀerence between predicted and measured torque.e. i. The ﬁrst validation method is important for modelbased control. q. Both curves are compared and it can easily be evaluated if both curves are similar. The drawback of these techniques is their subjectivity. To improve the objectivity of the validation some measure of goodness is needed to evaluate how accurate a particular identiﬁcation experiment is. while the latter is applied for payload identiﬁcation in chapter 5. the prediction error or prediction residue ε = τ − Φ(q. Not every user might have the same expectation towards good accuracy. These graphical techniques are very easy to use because they give a direct impression of the result. The following criteria can be used to evaluate the quality of the predicted torques. q )θ. it is an indispensable step in the identiﬁcation procedure. An experienced user might be able to ﬁnd an indication of what possibly went wrong during the identiﬁcation. The ﬁrst validation method simulates the system using the estimated parameter values. An unsatisfactory validation will lead to reconsidering some previous steps of the identiﬁcation procedure. This section proposes some methods to validate the accuracy of an identiﬁcation experiment. The prediction error should be small ˙ ¨ in comparison to the torque signal. the inverse dynamic equations are evaluated and the actuator torques for the desired motion are calculated. Prediction error. A good validation requires the validation trajectory to be different from the excitation trajectory.
The criterion value should be compared to the noise level on the actuator torques which can be estimated using equation (3. Parameter values estimated from diﬀerent trajectories. q )θ)T (τ − Φ(q. Diﬀerent criteria are available for this validation method. Comparing the corresponding values gives an idea about their accuracy. This method is more appropriate when the physical interpretation of the estimated values is important. The RMS prediction error for each torque signal gives an idea of the uncertainty on the torque prediction. According to the central limit theorem the averaged ¯ parameter set θ should be a better estimator for the parameter values. The closer the two values are to each other. Therefore. All parameter sets obtained from these experiments are estimates of the same parameters.6. To verify the quality of the identiﬁed model a number of diﬀerent excitation trajectories can be used. q. An alternative method to validate the goodness of the estimation checks the accuracy of the estimated parameter values. q )θ).32) .31) K is the number of sample points in the trajectory. it will be used to evaluate the payload identiﬁcation in chapter 5. q. the better the measured dynamics are explained by the model. ˙ ¨ ˙ ¨ K (3.3.30) 1 (τ − Φ(q.10). ∆θRM S = 1 J J ¯ (θj − θ)2 j=1 (3. Validation 75 used for this purpose is the total root mean squared (RMS) prediction error and is calculated in the following way: ∆τRM S = = 1 K K ε2 k k=1 (3. The spreading of the estimated parameter sets can be expressed mathematically by calculating the root mean squared deviation from the averaged parameter set.
A more formal way to decide about signiﬁcance is to set up a hypothesis test. Starting from the covariance matrix it is possible to calculate the standard deviation for every parameter. We should however keep in mind that CAD data are mostly not very accurate. gives a full description of the dynamics. Using a priori information. and if the calibration factors of the measurement signal are correct. Addition of a known load. In this method a known load is added to the robot end eﬀector and the identiﬁcation experiment is repeated. from CAD. If zero is included in the conﬁdence interval. It is known that moments of inertia should be positive and that the center of mass should lie within the physical dimensions of a link body. The estimated parameter values can be evaluated based on their physical interpretation. This method is based on statistical properties of the estimator discussed in the previous section. ∆θRM S gives a measure of the true uncertainty on the parameter estimates. Some parameters are not inﬂuenced by the additional load and consequently their parameter values should not change. If values for the parameters are available. they can be used for comparison. The multiple is found in tables of a statistical distribution for a desired conﬁdence level. The conﬁdence interval is used to decide if a parameter is statistically signiﬁcant. The change in the parameter vector should correspond to the contribution of the inertial parameters of the additional load.76 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues J is the number of diﬀerent excitation trajectories used. Conﬁdence intervals. there is no statistical evidence that the parameter values signiﬁcantly diﬀers from zero and the parameter may be discarded from the model.g. e. This validation allows us to test if the identiﬁcation model is complete.e. This value can be compared to the estimated parameter uncertainty calculated by means of the parameter covariance matrix. i. The conﬁdence interval is then determined by taking a multiple of the standard deviation above and below the parameter value. This approach . This information comes at the cost of doing an extra identiﬁcation experiment.
7. Only the ﬁrst three robot axes are considered in the experiments. The excitation trajectory consists of ﬁveterm Fourier series. Finally. Then. First. and alternative friction models.7 Experimental results In this section experimental result are presented which are obtained on a real industrial robot manipulator.1 Hz. a gravity compensation spring. the advantages of periodic excitation over the classical approach using numerical diﬀerentiation are shown experimentally. 3. 3.5 Hz bandwidth for the excitation signal. and a 0. The robot is equipped with an internal spring which compensates the gravitation for the second link. Unfortunately. the rotor inertia. Experimental results 77 is suitable for the evaluation of a payload identiﬁcation using a calibrated reference load. Figure 3. yielding a period of 10 seconds.1 Description of the setup and the experiments The industrial manipulator KUKA IR 361 is used to carry out the experiments. some additional eﬀects are introduced in the model: a kinematic calibration.5 shows the optimized trajectory for the three robot axes. The value of a validation method depends largely on the application. yielding 11 trajectory parameters for each joint. and on the assumptions that were made in the modelling and estimation step. there exists no best way to perform the validation.7. The optimization of the trajectories is based on the doptimality criterion. on available information. The excitation experiment The fundamental frequency of the trajectories is 0.3. The trajectories are . the experimental setup and the excitation and validation trajectories are presented. This is a six degreeoffreedom manipulator with a payload capacity of 8 kg. Their inﬂuence on the parameter and torque prediction accuracy is discussed.
5: Optimized robot excitation trajectory: axis 1 (full line). After the transients have died out. 1997).5 −2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (s) Figure 3. before their A/Dconversion.5 −1 axis 1 axis 2 axis 3 −1. they are ﬁltered using 8thorder analog lowpass Butterworth ﬁlters with a cutoﬀ frequency of 40 Hz. axis 2 (dashed line) and axis 3 (dashdotted line) During the experiment the encoder positions and the motor currents are measured. Excitation trajectory KUKA IR 361 2 1.5 Position (rad) 0 −0.. 16 periods are measured and used for the identiﬁcation.. The motor currents are analog signals. 1 Compliant Motion Research And Development Environment .78 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues implemented on the COMRADE1 (Van de Poel et al.5 1 0. 1993) software platform and runs at a sampling rate of 150 Hz. In order to avoid aliasing. The phase shift introduced by these ﬁlters is compensated for digitally (Swevers et al.
It goes through 20 points randomly chosen in the workspace of the robot. Figure 3.5 −1 −1.7. the identiﬁed model is used to predict the torque of a validation trajectory which is diﬀerent from the excitation trajectory. Experimental results 79 The validation experiment To validate the accuracy of the results. Validation trajectory KUKA IR 361 2. axis 2 (dashed line) and axis 3 (dashdotted line) . This results in a trapezoidal velocity proﬁle between two successive points.6: Joint angular position for the validation trajectory: axis 1 (full line). The robot moves with maximum acceleration and deceleration between these points.5 0 −0.3.5 −2 −2.5 2 1.6 shows the validation trajectory. and comes to a full stop at each point.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (s) 30 35 40 45 50 Figure 3.5 1 Position (rad) 0.
849 Nm Nm Nm Table 3.806 axis 3 4. The root mean squared prediction errors obtained for the diﬀerent models are given in table 3. a reference model is deﬁned which gives optimal accuracy.971 9. This dynamic model includes the rigid body dynamics and Coulomb and viscous friction.395 4. Table 3.2: RMS of the actuator torque prediction errors for the validation trajectory The optimal reference model In order to be able to evaluate the importance of an additional eﬀect.289 11.756 4.6). the model including the rotor inertia (section 3.277 6.32 gives the estimated parameter values.282 6.1: RMS of the actuator torque prediction errors for the excitation trajectory RMS prediction error optimal reference no rotor inertia with kinematic calibration axis 1 8.339 2. The rotor inertia of the third actuator is included as a separately identiﬁable parameter.1 for the excitation trajectory and in table 3.970 axis 2 11.395 Nm Nm Nm Table 3.80 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues RMS prediction error optimal reference no rotor inertia with kinematic calibration axis 1 6.7.262 8. several models will be discussed which each take into account an additional eﬀect. The parameters indicated with a inertias 2 ∗ include a contribution of the actuator rotor .281 axis 3 2. The physical meaning of the diﬀerent parameters is given in table C.7. The parameter estimates are obtained with diﬀerent models: the optimal reference model.3). In the following sections.101 6.271 6.806 12.104 axis 2 6. Kinematic imperfections are neglected. and using numerical diﬀerentiation of the position measurements to calculate joint velocity and acceleration (section 3.850 3.1 of appendix C.2 for the validation trajectory.
258 0.263 35.0509 3.x Kd3 K3.724 6.978 33.114 0.3: Set of estimated parameter values for diﬀerent approaches: the optimal reference model.311 38.139 12.739 15.467 5.784 11.782 34.159 − numerical diﬀerentiation 25.zz Kd2 K2.020 23.502 297.xz K3.593 0.986 6.443 0.782 3.856 9.013 10.159 5.182 15.757 2.237 0.159 0.616 8.260 16.075 0.670 0.265 346.909 0.790 15.498 0.632 0.990 0.184 12.110 7.599 221.157 6.263 2.352 11.959 9.xy b3.3.259 33.515 1.0531 0.762 0.601 16.931 2.xz Kr2.358 3.050 0.z b3.282 0.398 2.450 4.109 1.x grav1 grav2 fv1 fC1 fv2 fC2 fv3 fC3 o1 o2 o3 Im3 optimal reference 29.yz K2.581 3.450 16.379 units kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm kgm kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm Nm N Nms Nm Nms Nm Nms Nm Nm Nm Nm kgm2 Table 3.xy ∗ K2.231 12. Experimental results 81 ∗ Kr1.147 6.0057 3.841 2.734 2.022 2.yy K3.yz K3.yy b2.006 2.7.640 16.113 0.364 0.937 32.729 7.990 39. and an approach using numerical diﬀerentiation of the position measurements to calculate joint velocity and acceleration . a model neglecting the eﬀect of the rotor inertia.640 0.705 36.099 10.219 10.935 no rotor inertia 29.0421 0.
A ﬁrst category includes the lengths of the diﬀerent links.1 and 3. The identiﬁed kinematic variables can be divided into two categories. The values are very close to the values of the non calibrated kinematic model where all joint axes are considered to be perfectly orthogonal or parallel.123 mm 0. which determine the distance between successive joint axes. 1998) is used to perform a kinematic calibration procedure which identiﬁes the kinematic variables of the ﬁrst three axes of the KUKA IR 361. Tables 3.2 Kinematic calibration Every mechanical structure contains kinematic and geometric errors due to imperfections in the manufacturing and assembly process.008465 degrees length link 2 encoder oﬀset axis 2 Table 3. This section investigates the inﬂuence of kinematic errors on the accuracy of the dynamic model.4). oﬀsets on the encoder reading. Table 3. These variables can directly be taken into account without deriving a new dynamic model.4: Kinematic calibration: results for joint axis 2 The second category includes variables expressing position and orientation error of the joint axes.82 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues 3.2 show no improvement in the accuracy of the dynamic model with respect to . To include these deviations with respect to the non calibrated model in the dynamic identiﬁcation procedure. A kinematic calibration procedure determines the actual properties. and the oﬀset on the actuator encoders (table 3. For this purpose the Krypton RODYM6D dynamic measurement system (Krypton. the orientations of the joint axes. 1993). This information can be used in a kinematic compensation module to improve the position accuracy.7. These errors inﬂuence the static position accuracy of the robot (Bernhardt and Albright. speciﬁcation 480 mm 0 degrees measured value 480.5 gives the extended set of DenavitHartenberg parameters for the KUKA IR 361. In the case of the KUKA IR 361 this results in four additional barycentric parameters to be estimated. such as the dimensions of the links. etc. a new dynamic model must be derived.
000207 0. Moreover.571636 0.570796 a 0 0.480123 d 1.141593 1.3 Rotor inertia Commercial industrial robots often have gears or harmonic drives with typical transmission ratios between 50 and 200. the identiﬁcation matrix has become very badly conditioned. As we know from literature. no better prediction of the required actuator torques for a given trajectory is obtained.000209 θ 0 0 1. Consequently.7. In this respect. we cannot conclude that taking into account the kinematic errors results in a signiﬁcant improvement of the dynamic model. resulting in an identiﬁcation matrix which is close to singularity. Since the torque contribution of the additional parameters will be very small anyway. A closer look reveals that the four additional barycentric parameters are not very well excited. Hence. 3. a dynamic calibration is complementary to the kinematic calibration. This result can be explained by the fact that in our case the kinematic errors are relatively small.3.000052 β 0 0 0.020 0 0 Table 3.e. Therefore the increased complexity cannot be justiﬁed. It is important to emphasize that a kinematic calibration remains necessary to guarantee a good position accuracy. which does not take into account the kinematic calibration. Nevertheless the rotors are frequently considered as rigid bodies joined with the links on which they are located. Experimental results 83 Frame joint 1 joint 2 joint 3 α 3. it makes no sense to extend the dynamic model with these additional parameters.7.5: Extended set of DenavitHartenberg parameters for KUKA IR 361 (angles are expressed in radians. i. and lengths in meter) the reference model. the motors may perform several thousands of rotations per minute which makes the rotor inertia a signiﬁcant factor in robot dynamics. this simpliﬁcation .
both axes are parallel and the rotor inertia can be estimated as a separate parameter. From the manufacturer’s speciﬁcation. For a common industrial manipulator. tachogenerator and brake together equals 10.35) with µ1 and µ2 the transmission ratios of the ﬁrst and second joint.935 kgcm2 . respectively. Example 3.00101 · 103.18) is satisﬁed.3 gives an estimated value for the rotor inertia Im3 of the third actuator of 9. and for parallel rotation axes of link and rotor. The torque prediction and the corresponding prediction error are shown in ﬁgure 3. 2 (3.1 kgcm2 or 0.e. The eﬀect is clearly visible in the prediction error for axis three.2 prove that failing to include the rotor inertia as a separate parameter increases the actuator torque prediction error. eT i+1 ωi = 0 m (3.00101 · 94.33) holds.2352 = 10.1 and 3. Tables 3.yy contain the contribution of the rotor inertia of the ﬁrst two actuators. Table 3. ∗ ∗ The parameters Kr1.33) for any conﬁguration of the robot.4 Gravity compensation spring Some industrial manipulators are equipped with a gravity compensation device on the second joint axis in order to reduce the torque needed .7. i. Their contributions are.3 The third actuator of the KUKA IR 361 is mounted on the second link and its rotor inertia can be estimated. the rotor of the ﬁrst actuator moves with respect to the ﬁxed base.34) (3.1472 = 8. however. which is close to the speciﬁed value. such that equation (3. The rotation axis em2 of the second actuator is perpendicular to the motion axis of the ﬁrst joint.952 kgm2 1 Im2 µ2 = 0. 3.764 kgm2 .7.00101 kgm2 .zz and K2.84 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues is only permitted when the condition of equation (2. Im1 µ2 = 0. we know that the moment of inertia of the rotor. such that ω0 = 0. The rotor inertia cannot be distinguished from the link inertia and has to be considered as one body. For the third actuator.
3.7. Experimental results 85 Model without rotor inertia Measured and predicted torque Torque axis 1 (Nm) 200 100 0 −50 −100 50 50 0 Prediction error −100 −200 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Torque axis 2 (Nm) 0 −200 −400 100 50 0 0 −20 0 2 4 6 8 10 −50 40 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Torque axis 3 (Nm) −50 0 2 4 6 8 10 −100 Time (s) 0 2 Time (s) Prediction error 4 6 8 10 Model with rotor inertia Measured and predicted torque Torque axis 1 (Nm) 200 100 0 −50 −100 50 50 0 −100 −200 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Torque axis 2 (Nm) 0 −200 −400 100 50 0 0 −20 0 2 4 6 8 10 −50 40 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 Torque axis 3 (Nm) −50 0 2 4 6 8 10 −100 Time (s) 0 2 Time (s) 4 6 8 10 Figure 3.7: Prediction error for the excitation trajectory without (upper ﬁgure) and with (lower ﬁgure) inclusion of rotor inertia .
Ganseman (Ganseman.86 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues rotation axis second link q2 r l gravity compensation spring Figure 3.36) where k is the stiﬀness of the spring. the torque generated by the gravity compensation spring is a complex nonlinear function of the angular position of the second joint q2 and the spring parameters: τspring = k( l2 + r2 − 2 l r cos(q2 ) − l0 )l r sin(q2 ) l2 + r2 − 2 l r cos(q2 ) (3.8).8: Gravity compensation spring by the actuator of the second link (ﬁgure 3. and l the distance between the joint axis and the mounting point of the spring. For robots which are designed to handle heavy loads. In the case of rotational joints. a passive pneumatic weight compensation system is often used to support the upper arm motor when the arm is inclined. This nonlinear function and the low sensitivity of spring force for changes in its parameters make the estimation of the real spring parameters from noisy data cumbersome. l0 is the initial length when the spring is unloaded. 1998) presented a diﬀerent modelling ap . mostly a gravity compensation spring is used. as is the case in this work. In the case of small industrial robots. r is the radius of the lever.
3. The resulting torque on the second joint can then be modelled as: Ns τspring = n=1 An2 cos(nq2 ) + Bn2 sin(nq2 ) (3.7. 2. This equation is linear in the unknown parameters k and P0 . yielding 6 additional parameters: An2 . This modelling approach suﬀers from the fact that it does not give consistent parameter estimates for diﬀerent excitation trajectories.5 For the KUKA IR 361 the following a priori information is available: l = 488 mm and r = 100 mm.38) where P0 = k l0 .z . Ns = 3 in equation (3. only the fundamental sine and cosine functions and their ﬁrst and second harmonics have to be considered (i.z related to the center of gravity of the link on which τspring is working. the estimated parameters of the model can be compared to a priori information. Experimental results 87 proach.38) is linearly related with the torque contribution of the barycentric inertial parameter b2. The torque resulting from the combined eﬀect of gravity and a gravity compensation spring can be approximated by means of a series of Ns harmonically related sine and cosine functions of q2 . Furthermore.37) Example 3. This is an indication that equation (3. Example 3.3.36) can be rewritten to τspring = l r sin(q2 )k − l r sin(q2 ) l2 + r2 − 2l r cos(q2 ) P0 (3. the coeﬃcients of sin(q2 ) are combined resulting in a new model parameter grav1 = l r k −g b2.37) models not only the compensation spring torque. In order to obtain a minimal parameter set. The model description can be improved if more a priori knowledge is available.e. Bn2 for n = 1. equation (3. This physical parameterization is much more interesting because it is linear in the unknown parameters and it ﬁts closer to the real behavior of the spring.4 In the case of the KUKA IR 361 robot.37)) for accurate modelling. but also some unmodelled dynamic eﬀects. When the lengths r and l are known. The parameters k and l0 of . The model reduction step reveals that the ﬁrst term in equation (3.
Every robot joint is moved separately with constant velocity while the actuator torque is measured (indirectly through the actuator current).310 m.7. 0.162 m (3.4 N is found for a total spring length of 387 mm. This validated the presented approach.5 Friction Experiments show that friction consumes up to thirty percent of the actuator torque. For a stroke of 162 mm the spring force increases from 729. l0 = 0.4 N = 10904 N/m. an accurate friction model is necessary.4 N = 0.4 N to 2495.40) The parameters k and l0 can be calculated from the identiﬁed parameter values grav1 and grav2 (see table 4.42) Comparing these estimated values with the abovementioned a priori information shows a good correspondence.39) Knowing that the force of 729. The friction characteristic To have a good idea of the friction characteristic. the friction torque is measured as a function of joint velocity. This gives a spring stiﬀness of k= 2495.41) (3.8 N. Since friction has such a large inﬂuence.3201 m 10904 N/m (3.387 m − 729. and looks for a suitable friction model. 3.1 in chapter 4).88 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues the model can be calculated from the manufacturer’s speciﬁcations. yielding following results grav1 + g b2. the joint axis . we can calculate the length l0 where the spring force is zero.z = 10588 N/m lr grav2 l0 = 1000 = 0. When possible. This section experimentally measures the friction characteristic. k k= (3.8 N − 729.
9 shows the resulting friction characteristic for the ﬁrst joint axis of the KUKA KR15. At high velocities the friction torque increases linearly with joint velocity. The Stribeck friction can be observed for very low velocities (smaller than 0. The velocity is stepwise increased to cover the full velocity range. Experimental results 89 400 300 200 Friction torque τf.01 rad/s) did not show the presence of Stribeck friction.1 (Nm) 100 0 −100 −200 −300 −400 −500 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 Joint velocity (rad/s) Figure 3. 1996) and by experiments on a KUKA IR 361. To obtain the friction characteristic the measured actuator torques are averaged and plotted against the corresponding velocity. so Stribeck friction will be neglected further on. measurements at low velocities (down to 0. So all conclusions are expected to be generally valid and applicable to . Anyway. Figure 3.3. as predicted by the viscous friction model in literature. The shape of the friction characteristic is conﬁrmed by the results presented by (Daemi and Heimann.9: Measured friction characteristic for joint 1 of KUKA KR15 orientation is chosen such that inﬂuence of gravity is eliminated.7. The friction characteristics for the other axes are similar. For the wrist axes.025 rad/s). we claim that these low velocities do not appear frequently in trajectories.
An oﬀset may also model a bias on the measurements or other unmodelled dynamics. but appropriate friction model with fC and fv the Coulomb and viscous friction coeﬃcient respectively. Hence.10 conﬁrms that this gives a better approximation (dashdotted curve). In addition. One should be very careful when interpreting this parameter. However. A signiﬁcant improvement is obtained by replacing the Coulomb friction term with a smoother term τf = f1 q + f2 q 3 .3) which give a better approximation of the friction characteristic. Figure 3. Equation (3. i. Compare the dashed line with the black dots.43) This is a simple. this condition is satisﬁed for most industrial robots (Grotjahn et al. An asymmetric Coulomb friction can be modelled by introducing an oﬀset parameter. ˙ ˙ 1 (3.43) to the measurements.43) assumes a symmetric friction characteristic. lubrication and wearout of gears and hence change with time. ˙ ˙ ˙ (3. More model extensions are presented in literature (section 2. 2001). This could be avoided by eliminating all measurements with low velocity from the estimation.. they depend on the temperature.90 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues other industrial manipulators. Fortunately. .10 shows the ﬁt of the classical model of equation (3. Friction coeﬃcients are very diﬃcult to measure. the creation of a comprehensive model is rather complicated.5.44) The ﬁgure 3. but this would reduce too much of the available information.e. we introduce a systematic model error by using the classical friction model. the model holds for both positive and negative velocity. It is clear that this friction model shows signiﬁcant deviations. Friction modelling Literature frequently presents the classical model for the friction term τf (q) which consists of Coulomb and viscous friction: ˙ τf (q) = fC sign(q) + fv q. especially at low velocities.
7.3. . It is therefore important to guarantee a good warmup of the robot manipulator and to ensure that the temperature remains constant during the measurement. It is therefore not a good idea to use a measured friction characteristic as a priori knowledge. The inﬂuence of adding a payload is shown in ﬁgure 3. it is necessary to estimate the friction parameters in each identiﬁcation experiment in order to obtain accurate results.11 shows that robot warmup decreases the friction torque.10: Approximation with friction models Inﬂuence of temperature and load Besides the dependency on the velocity. Experimental results 91 40 30 20 Friction torque (Nm) 10 0 −10 −20 measured Coulomb + viscous viscous + velocity1/3 −30 −40 −10 −8 −6 −4 −2 Joint velocity (rad/s) 0 2 4 6 8 10 Figure 3. the friction torque also depends on the motor temperature and on the load. Both ﬁgures conﬁrm that the general shape of the friction characteristic remains similar. Figure 3. but that the friction coeﬃcients change. On the contrary.12. A higher payload increases the friction torque.
92 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues 150 100 Friction torque τf.12: Inﬂuence on friction torque of adding a payload for joint 6 of KUKA KR15 .6 (Nm) 10 0 −10 −20 −30 without payload with payload −40 −10 −5 Joint velocity (rad/s) 0 5 10 Figure 3.11: Inﬂuence on friction torque of temperature for joint 4 of KUKA KR15 40 30 20 Friction torque τf.4 (Nm) 50 0 −50 −100 cold robot after warm−up −150 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 Joint velocity (rad/s) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 3.
.13 compares the joint accelerations obtained by analytical and numerical diﬀerentiation (using Tustin’s bilinear diﬀerentiation rule) of the joint angles measured during the experiment discussed in section 3.. The noise on the velocity and acceleration data inﬂuences the accuracy of the robot identiﬁcation. The maximum likelihood estimation method presented in (Olsen and Petersen.1. but have never been demonstrated experimentally. has been applied to the experimental data. The corresponding standard deviations are presented in table 3. In order to show the mentioned loss of accuracy.6 Advantages of using periodic excitation for robot excitation The advantages of periodic excitation in robot identiﬁcation have been brieﬂy mentioned in (Swevers et al. which is the case for the linear least squares or Markov estimation.5. 1997). However.7.10).6. 2001) is capable of handling this situation. this method did not show any improvement in a practical robot identiﬁcation experiment (Olsen et al. Experimental results 93 3. In addition. which are required to calculated the identiﬁcation matrix Φ (equation (3. This result can mainly be explained by the small noise level on the joint position measurements. yielding a small uncertainty on the identiﬁcation matrix. The discussion is based on the experimental data presented in this chapter. the Markov parameter estimation method discussed in section 3. which are systematic errors. Noise on the elements of the identiﬁcation matrix Φ introduces systematic estimation errors if it is not considered appropriately in the parameter estimation. The Fourier transform of nonperiodic signal would introduce leakage errors. which requires a good initial parameter estimate to avoid local minima. because of the used iterative optimization scheme.9) and (3. Analytic diﬀerentiation of the ﬁnite Fourier series allows us to calculate accurate and noisefree estimates of the joint velocities and accelerations. providing noisefree velocity and acceleration data.3. Figure 3.7.7.24)). 2002). The frequency domain windowing mentioned corresponds to ideal noise ﬁltering. this estimation method is complex. Periodic trajectories allow us to estimate the noise level by calculating the sample variance using equations (3. Joint velocities and accelerations are obtained . This is the purpose of this section. This approach can only be applied for periodic signals.
5 Nm Table 3.3 Nm 4.6: Estimated standard deviations of the noise on position and torque measurements by means of the numerical diﬀerentiation rule mentioned above. Table 3.4 10 actuator torque 3.94 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues Analytical calculation of acceleration 5 Acceleration (rad/s2) 0 −5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Numerical calculation of acceleration 5 Acceleration (rad/s2) 0 −5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (s) 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 3.9 10−5 rad 1.2 10−5 rad joint position 9. axis 2 (dashed line) and axis 3 (dashdotted line) standard deviation of noise axis 1 axis 2 −5 rad 11.6 Nm axis 3 6.13: Accelerations obtained by analytical and numerical diﬀerentiation (using Tustin’s bilinear diﬀerentiation rule) of joint angle measurements: axis 1 (full line). The comparison is based on the RMS actuator torque prediction errors for the validation .7 compares the accuracy of the models obtained using analytical and numerical diﬀerentiation of the joint angle data.
This choice is quite diﬃcult if the bandwidth of the excitation signal is not clearly speciﬁed.971 Nm 10. 1992). forward and backward ﬁltering is required in order to avoid phase distortions.3. Remark that numerical diﬀerentiation combined with lowpass ﬁltering reduces the noise level on the estimated velocities and accelerations. Conclusion on periodic excitation Periodic excitation is a key element for accurate experimental robot identiﬁcation. In addition. mainly because it allows us to calculate noisefree joint velocities and accelerations from joint angle measurements.471 Nm axis 3 4.643 Nm axis 2 11. Gautier and Khalil. A decrease of the accuracy up to 75% shows the importance of analytical diﬀerentiation.395 Nm 7. Experimental results show that this approach yields robot models that are more accurate in predicting actuator torques than models resulting from robot identiﬁcation that do not take advantage of this periodicity. 1989. an appropriate choice of the cutoﬀ frequency is crucial. or that use nonperiodic excitation. The selection of the ﬁlter cutoﬀ frequency is then a compromise between eliminating as much noise as possible without eliminating too much of the original useful signal.806 Nm 17. and consequently of periodic excitation. Experimental results 95 diﬀerentiation method analytical numerical axis 1 8.7. However. as it is the case for the nonperiodic excitation trajectories presented in (Armstrong.6). .7: Comparison of RMS actuator torque prediction errors using analytical and numerical diﬀerentiation for the validation trajectory trajectory (ﬁgure 3.781 Nm Table 3. therefore requiring the application of numerical diﬀerentiation techniques.
.96 Experimental robot identiﬁcation: practical issues 3. the obtained parameter estimates are compared to the available a priori information. Furthermore. Finally. A good correspondence was found. Wherever possible. the friction characteristic was experimentally measured and a more suitable model for the gravity compensation spring was presented.8 Conclusions This chapter discussed the experimental identiﬁcation procedure in more detail. the inclusion of the rotor inertia as a separate parameter gives an improvement. The experiment design is based on periodic excitation which has several advantages over the use of traditional polynomial trajectories. which proves the validity of the identiﬁcation approach. the estimation simpliﬁes to a weighted least squares estimation. Both a solution by optimization and a heuristic solution were discussed from a practical point of view. The presented identiﬁcation procedure was applied experimentally to an industrial manipulator. The use of barycentric parameters and NewtonEuler parameters gives a rigid body model that is linear in the unknown parameters. The experimental results show that a kinematic calibration does not aﬀect the accuracy of the dynamic model. Since the dynamic model is linear in the unknown parameters. On the other hand. Finding a set of optimal trajectory parameters remains the main problem. validation criteria were deﬁned to express the torque prediction accuracy and the parameter value accuracy. The parameter estimation is based on the maximum likelihood estimator which allows us to calculate statistical properties.
we must do Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 4. Willing is not enough. the full drive train including 97 .Combining internal and external model 4 Knowing is not enough. but estimated from the actuator currents. Both signals are measured by ‘internal’ sensors. A diﬃculty with this method is that the actuator torque constants are only approximately known and that the torque estimation is corrupted by joint friction. Since the signals are measured at the actuator side. The torques are not measured directly.1 Introduction The previous chapter discussed the classical approach to robot identiﬁcation where the robot inertial parameters are estimated from motion data and actuator torque measurements. we must apply.
limits on the actuator power and torques. the same sensor can be used for a number of diﬀerent systems. Its main advantage compared to identiﬁcation by motor measurements is that the identiﬁcation model is totally independent from internal torques such as joint friction torques. optimization of robot trajectories with respect to cycle time is an important issue. One approach uses an ‘external’ sensor (Raucent and Samin. Based on these approaches two identiﬁcation models can be deﬁned. In robotics.98 Combining internal and external model the rotor inertia and the gear transmissions have to be included in the dynamic model. Too high reaction forces/torques may disturb the often very sensitive laboratory equipment present in these space stations. Liu et al. In order to improve the accuracy of the parameter estimates. 1998) to measure the reaction forces and torques at the base of the robot. All ﬂexibilities and nonlinearities that appear between the actuator and the link bodies negatively aﬀect the accuracy of the manipulator. estimates of the robot inertial parameters are obtained. Since the sensor is external to the manipulator. From these measurements. This approach allows combining the advantages of both models and improving the accuracy of the parameter estimates. .. the most important aspect of the robot models for these applications is their ability to accurately predict the required actuator torques and the resulting base plate reaction forces/torques based on the desired robot motion. 1993.. and on the reaction forces/torques of the robot on the base plate. The limits on the base plate reaction forces/torques are extremely important and often very tight for robots that will be used on space stations. Hereby physical constraints of the robot have to be taken into account: the workspace of the robot. As a result. The socalled reaction or external model relates the motion of the robot to the reaction forces and torques on its base plate. The classical internal model is used to predict the required actuator torques for a given desired motion of the robot. Both models have their own speciﬁc relevance. 2000). In this chapter both models are combined into one identiﬁcation model (Chenut et al. For industrial robots these limits are speciﬁed by the robot manufacturer. alternative approaches were investigated.
q. which presents the experimental identiﬁcation results obtained on a KUKA IR 361 industrial robot and discusses the advantages of using a combined internalexternal robot model. The results presented in section 4. q )δe . the advantages of combining internal and external robot models are given. The use of this combined model approach in robot identiﬁcation was ﬁrst presented in (Chenut et al.. however without any experimental validation. and the advantages associated with this. brieﬂy discusses how both models can be combined. The inertial parameter set is split up into diﬀerent subsets and the eﬀect of the rotor inertia in the diﬀerent approaches is worked out. q )δi .2 Generation of dynamic robot models This section deﬁnes the internal and external models.2.1) The external model relates robot motion (inputs) to reaction forces and torques measured at the base of the robot (outputs).1) : τe = Ψe (q.2) . 4. ˙ ¨ (4. Generation of dynamic robot models 99 Section 4.2. the external model equations have a form similar to equation (4. Finally. 4. two diﬀerent models can be deﬁned: external and internal models. The main part of this chapter is section 4. Internal models relate actuator torques or forces (outputs) to the robot motion (inputs): τi = Ψi (q. 2000). and explains how both models can be combined into one identiﬁcation scheme. q.3.2 describes the generation of dynamic robot models (internal and external models).4.3 are the ﬁrst experimental results ever obtained with this combination of external and internal measurements.1 Combining internal and external robot models Based on the type of measured inputs and outputs. As a result. ˙ ¨ (4. The experiment design resulting in optimal periodic robot excitation and the parameter estimation have been discussed in chapter 3. It can be easily obtained by projecting the force and torque vectors at the ﬁrst joint on the axes of the inertial reference frame attached to the base plate.
Chenut et al.4) (4. • the remaining set of barycentric parameters of the external model: δe \ δi . The parameter vector θc appearing in the combined model δi θc = δf g (4. This has been discussed in detail in section 3. The internal model has to be extended with some additional eﬀects. ˙ ¨ with τ= τi τe .100 Combining internal and external model Equations (4.7. and can be divided in three subsets: • a minimal set of barycentric parameters of the internal model: δi . It is common to include a friction model which consists of Coulomb and viscous friction (see equation (3. (Chenut et al. q. . We assume that the vector δf g contains the additional parameters for the friction and the gravity compensation spring.4.2) describe the forces and torques due to the motion of the rigid bodies..3) a column vector containing actuator torque measurements τi and base sensor force/torque data τe . and combining internal measurements (actuator torques and forces) and external measurements (reaction forces and torques of the robot to its base plate measured by a external base force/torque sensor) can be formulated as the following set of linear equations: τ = Φ(q. an appropriate parameterization has to be used in the internal model.. If the robot manipulator is equipped with a gravity compensation device. 1996).43) in chapter 3). They appear only in the external model.5) δe \ δi contains all inertial parameters. They appear in both internal and external model and are a subset of barycentric parameters of the external model δe . q )θc . all friction parameters and gravity compensation parameters. They are linear and minimal in the parameters.1) and (4. due to the use of barycentric parameters (Fisette et al. (4. 2000) show that a dynamic robot model based on barycentric parameters.
including the inertia of the transmission and that of the brake. The identiﬁcation matrix Φ of the combined model consists of following submatrices: Φ= Ψi Ψf g 0 Ψe1 0 Ψe2 .3). Maes et al. usually . When we consider the robot as the system. The columns of Ψe1 and Ψe2 correspond to the columns of the regression matrix Ψe of the external model (equation (4. Within the robotics research ﬁeld. redundant parameters are removed (Fisette et al.. the following simpliﬁcation strategy is frequently applied (see also section 3. (4. The rotor inertia. Therefore. 1989).2. these forces are internal and have no eﬀect at the base plate. When combining internal and external models into a combined model.2.2 Eﬀect of rotor inertia The model reduction removes unidentiﬁable parameters and combines parameters that can only be estimated in combination. the reduced dynamic equations correspond to dynamic equations of the link only and rotor and transmission dynamics are not identiﬁed separately.7.6) The matrix Ψi is the rigid body regression matrix of the internal model deﬁned in equation (4. Ψf g models the friction torques and gravity compensation devices.1). To avoid this. 4. the rotor inertias have to be included and estimated as separate parameters in the combined model. these parameters only appear in the internal model. All parameter sets are assumed to be minimal.e. As a result. Generation of dynamic robot models 101 • the parameters related to gravity compensation devices and joint friction: δf g . is replaced by an equivalent inertia which is added to the link inertia. however. the mentioned simpliﬁcation would yield that the combined inertial parameters of the internal model δi is no subset anymore of the external model parameters δe . i.. knowledge of the values of the rotor inertias.2)) related to the elements of δi and δe \ δi respectively. If the inﬂuence of these rotor inertias is signiﬁcant.4. this simpliﬁcation cannot be applied anymore because the rotor inertia has a diﬀerent contribution to the internal model than to the external model. 1996. However.
3 Advantages of combining internal and external robot models The classical robot identiﬁcation approach using the internal model suﬀers from an important drawback: the torques applied to the links are not directly measurable. µ3 = 51. the brake and the tachometer. 4. simpliﬁes this problem. the following torques have to be subtracted from the measured robot reaction torques on the base plate in X. The reaction forces and torques are measured .235.2. Example 4. The external model is totally independent of internal torques such as joint friction torques.I = (µ3 q2 − ¨ µ2 q3 )Im3 . µ2 = 103. Imi is the inertia of the actuator of joint i.1 For the ﬁrst three axes of the KUKA IR 361 robot. The inertia includes the inertia of the rotor.441). Y .I = µ2 q1 Im1 1¨ q ¨ τ2. so the accuracy of their estimates depends on friction torque modelling errors and the precision of the actuator torque constants.9) For the external model.7) (4.102 Combining internal and external model provided by the manufacturers. the torque contribution of the rotor inertia to the internal model is respectively: τ1.147.12) (4. 3¨ 2 (4. and Zdirection respectively: mX.I =(¨2 (1 + µ2 ) sin q1 + q1 q2 (1 + µ2 ) cos q1 )Im2 q ˙ ˙ + ((¨2 − µ3 q3 ) sin q1 + q1 (q2 − µ3 q3 ) cos q1 )Im3 q ¨ ˙ ˙ ˙ mY.I = − µ1 q1 Im1 ¨ (4.8) (4.I = (1 + µ2 ) q2 Im2 + (¨2 − µ3 q3 )Im3 ¨ τ3. The derivation of these equations can be found is appendix D.I =(¨2 (1 + µ2 ) cos q1 − q1 q2 (1 + µ2 ) sin q1 )Im2 q ˙ ˙ + ((¨2 − µ3 q3 ) cos q1 − q1 (q2 − µ3 q3 ) sin q1 )Im3 q ¨ ˙ ˙ ˙ mZ.11) (4.10) with µi the transmission ratios of joint i (µ1 = 94. simply by subtracting the torque contributions of these inertias from the actuator torque measurements.
the combined model provides estimates of the base plate reaction forces and torques. joint torque data with base reaction force and torque data. however. however.4) separately from inertial parameters of the links. Another drawback is that a force/torque platform is required and that for each identiﬁcation experiment the manipulator has to be placed on the platform. By including the actuator torque measurements. the combined model allows us to estimate more parameters separately than would be possible with the internal or external model alone. space robots. i. The combined model allows us to take into account more measurement data. This also holds for trajectory optimization taking into account the physical limits of the robot. . This approach. It is e.. as it is shown in (Chenut et al.2) and the parameters of the gravity compensation device (section 3.g. yielding more accurate robot model parameter estimates. The improved robot model parameter accuracy yields more accurate actuator torque predictions. and its performance depends directly on the model accuracy. In addition.7. as explained in the introduction. because the design of an advanced robot controller. Furthermore.g. Generation of dynamic robot models 103 by means of an external sensor: a force/torque platform. Since the base sensor method is not inﬂuenced by friction.4.2. in one parameter estimation problem. such as a computed torque controller. possible to estimate the rotor inertias of the actuators (section 4. which is important for the path planning of e.e. this method results in a more accurate estimation of the inertial parameters. These parameters are important for accurate actuator torque prediction which is used in advanced control algorithms and path optimization. this method is able to provide an estimation of the friction torque as well.2. Experimental robot identiﬁcation beneﬁts from combining internal and external robot models. This is quite interesting. Chenut reported that the RMS actuator torque prediction errors resulting from the combined model are between 20% and 50% smaller than those resulting from the internal model only. is based on the robot model. 2000) by means of simulations. suﬀers from the fact that joint friction parameters cannot be estimated.
. 4. Internal and external models are combined to improve the accuracy of the parameter estimates.3.1: Schematic representation of a KUKA IR 361 robot In the experiments.1) placed on a KISTLER 9281 B21 force/torque platform (Kistler Instrumente AG) which is provided with sensors able to measure the three components of the forces and the three components of torques between the base plate and the ﬁrst link of the robot. Z Y Force/torque platform X Figure 4.3 Experimental identiﬁcation results using a combined internal/external model This section discusses the application of the abovementioned identiﬁcation approach.1 Description of test case and robot model The considered test case is a KUKA IR 361 robot (ﬁgure 4. only the ﬁrst three robot axes are considered. Parameter vector δi contains 14 independent barycentric parameters.104 Combining internal and external model 4.
reaction forces/torques are ﬁltered using the same lowpass butterworth ﬁlters as used for the motor currents. σmX = 12. The excitation trajectory is the same as the one used for the experiments in section 3.4. The friction model considers viscous and Coulomb friction. only one trajectory is optimized and used for all three experiments. 4. which contains 25 parameters. στ3 = 1.3. στ2 = 4. measured by means of the encoders mounted on the actuator shafts. (2) identiﬁcation using the external model. σfY = 11. and requires two parameters (see section 3.26 Nm.54 Nm and σmZ = 2. One parameter per joint is added to take oﬀset on the joint torque measurements into account. (2) the actuator currents.7 of the previous chapter.10 N.. The signals measured during excitation are: (1) the joint angles. 2000). σmY = 11.3.4). which are considered proportional to the actuator torques.20 N. This yields 11 parameters appearing only in the internal model and forming the subset δf g . The estimation of the variance and the improvement of the signaltonoise ratio through data averaging .47 Nm. In order to avoid aliasing. three diﬀerent identiﬁcation experiments are considered: (1) identiﬁcation using the internal model. which contains 19 parameters and (3) identiﬁcation using the combined model containing all 30 parameters. Experimental identiﬁcation results 105 The subset δe \ δi contains 5 additional inertial parameters which only appear in the external model (Chenut et al.70 Nm.2 Description of the experiments The experiments investigate how the accuracy of the parameter estimates and of the actuator torque prediction can be improved by combining internal and external models.68 N. σfX = 10. yielding 6 parameters. σfZ = 5.58 Nm. The variance of the noise on the averaged actuator torque and the reaction forces and torques measurements is estimated by calculating the sample variance: στ1 = 3. For comparison purposes.7.06 Nm. and (3) the six reaction forces/torques measured at the base of the robot. Therefore. The torque generated by the gravity compensation spring is a complex nonlinear function of the angular position of the second joint q2 and the spring parameters.
. internal. followed by the parameters of the gravity compensation device and friction δf g and ﬁnally the parameter set δe \ δi .1 present the parameter values resulting from the three identiﬁcation experiments using combined. the calibration constants for both kind of signals are probably correct. The variances on these parameters can be calculated explicitly based on knowledge of the model parameters and of the variance of the noise on the torque/force data (Swevers et al. e. Actually. and bi.. Most of the parameter values obtained with the three models lie very close to each other. as it is explained in section 3. the combined model yields the best accuracy for each parameter in comparison to the internal and the external model (Chenut et al. This result indicates that all models are converging to the same parameter values and that the measurements of the actuator torques and force/torque platform are consistent.7. ai. and external model respectively. This conclusion can also be veriﬁed by calculating a scalar measure of the parameter covariance matrices. in order to account for tracking errors during the execution of the experiments due to robot controller limitations. 4.1 of appendix C gives the physical meaning of the diﬀerent parameters.k (equation (3.. Comparison of these variances (table 4. 2000). ﬁrst all parameters δi appearing in both internal and external model are given. The trajectory parameters qi. 1997). Table C.1) shows that combining the internal and external models and measurements yields a signiﬁcant improvement of the accuracy of the parameter estimates: the accuracy of the parameters in the set δi is highly improved by the base platform measurements since more measurements are taken into account in one parameter estimation problem.106 Combining internal and external model are only possible because of the periodicity of the excitation.6.k .e. i.g.3. In the rows. The model parameters are estimated using the Markov estimator.0 .3 Discussion of the experimental results Parameter accuracy The columns of table 4. The joint velocities and accelerations are then calculated analytically.6)) are (re)estimated using the discrete Fourier transform of the averaged encoder measurements.
this measure equals 3.2.e. except at velocity reversal because of the insuﬃciently accurate friction model at low velocity.δe .8 · 10−32 for Cext.2 · 10−36 which is again smaller than 3. The torque prediction error is the diﬀerence between the measured and estimated torque.δe equals 1. This prediction error is small. . shown in the ﬁrst column.4.0 · 10−43 for the covariance matrix Cint. This option is not worked out here. Figure 4. For the covariance matrix Ccomb. because the identiﬁcation already provided satisfying parameter estimates.8 · 10−45 .δifg of the parameters δi and δf g obtained with the combined model. i. The measured torque. Concerning the excitation. This is conﬁrmed by calculating the root mean square value of the torque prediction error in table 4.2 presents the actuator torque prediction for the excitation trajectory using the combined model. The same conclusion holds for the parameters δe of the external model: the scalar measure for Ccomb. The results of the prediction are also very good. We conclude that combining internal and external model does not signiﬁcantly improve the prediction of the reaction forces and torques. the torque prediction of the internal and external model are practically equal. As could be expected from the fact that the estimated parameter values do not diﬀer much between the diﬀerent models. Actuator torque prediction for the excitation trajectory Figure 4.δifg obtained with the internal model. which is smaller than 2. we could consider to change the identiﬁcation trajectory or to measure more periods. It should however be noticed that the noise level on the reaction forces is relatively high in proportion to the force ranges. the measured torque averaged over 16 periods to reduce the noise.3 and table 4.3 give the corresponding results for the prediction of the reaction forces and torques using external and combined model.3. was used in the identiﬁcation. Experimental identiﬁcation results 107 the determinant of the covariance matrix is related to the volume of the uncertainty ellipsoid for the parameters.
274 0.252 0.123 12.284 0.145 0.057 2.285 39.199 0.281 0.291 0.008 0.405 19.135 0.x grav1 grav2 fv1 fc1 fv2 fc2 fv3 fc3 o1 o2 o3 b2.226 − − − − − − − − − − − 0.832 2.093 0.730 10.291 0.173 0.116 0.069 2.296 10.820 1.096 0.224 355.719 10.724 5.078 − − − − − − − − − − − 16.169 0.187 0.107 0.y K1.151 0.127 0.924 − − − − − σi 0.146 0.209 0.093 0.174 0.xz K3.451 3.847 0.141 0.501 5.104 0.824 0.273 0.088 0.572 34.393 0.136 0.230 σe 0.225 0.190 5.122 0.510 5.079 0.105 0.161 0.118 σc 0.1: Set of estimated parameter values and standard deviations for the combined.193 353.230 2.097 0.110 0.363 17.180 23.241 16.828 1.282 0.237 0.091 0.099 0.486 0.272 0.106 0.xz K1.693 3.614 0.458 0.xz Kr2.077 0.288 5.199 0.yz K3.420 0.093 0.x Kd3 K3.132 0.082 0.094 12.yz combined 18.xy b3.115 0.144 − − − − − external 18.199 5.092 0.881 0.yy b2.097 0.286 0.025 2.163 0.274 0.136 0. internal and external model .212 0.818 0.x br1.433 19.694 34.113 0.343 17.294 0.091 0.144 23.065 0.081 0.370 0.285 0.246 0.108 Combining internal and external model Kr1.249 23.120 0.283 0.999 2.yy K3.090 0.328 0.136 0.723 5.111 2.180 0.115 0.260 16.100 0.137 2.yz K2.xy K2.223 0.188 0.681 10.416 0.806 16.187 39.z b3.227 internal 18.162 0.879 0.189 0.255 0.zz Kd2 K2.248 units kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm kgm kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm2 kgm Nm N Nms Nm Nms Nm Nms Nm Nm Nm Nm kgm kgm kgm kgm2 kgm2 Table 4.451 0.061 3.134 0.789 2.284 10.144 0.012 0.286 0.441 0.z b1.931 2.423 0.622 0.075 0.
863 Nm 2.340 Nm axis 3 2.098 Nm axis 2 6.3. Experimental identiﬁcation results 109 Measured actuator torque Torque axis 1 (Nm) 100 0 −100 −200 0 200 100 0 −100 −200 0 5 10 100 50 0 −50 0 5 10 −100 100 0 −100 −200 Predicted actuator torque 100 0 −100 0 5 10 Torque prediction error 5 10 −200 0 200 100 0 −100 −200 5 10 Torque axis 2 (Nm) 200 100 0 −100 −200 0 5 10 0 100 50 0 −50 5 10 Torque axis 3 (Nm) 100 50 0 −50 −100 Time (s) 0 Time (s) 5 10 −100 0 Time (s) 5 10 Figure 4.2: Measured and predicted actuator torques and the corresponding prediction errors for the excitation trajectory using the combined model RMS prediction error internal model combined model axis 1 6.303 Nm 6.864 Nm Table 4.099 Nm 6.2: Root mean squared actuator torque prediction errors for the excitation trajectory .4.
3: Measured and predicted reaction forces and torques and the corresponding prediction errors for the excitation trajectory using the combined model .110 Combining internal and external model Measured force/torque 100 f (N) 0 −100 0 100 Predicted force/torque 100 0 −100 Force/torque prediction error 100 0 −100 X 5 10 0 100 0 −100 5 10 0 100 0 −100 5 10 f (N) 0 −100 0 5 10 Y 0 5 10 0 5 10 50 50 0 −50 0 5 10 200 0 −200 −400 0 5 10 −600 400 200 0 −200 0 5 10 −400 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 50 0 −50 0 200 0 −200 −400 −600 400 200 0 −200 −400 0 5 10 0 5 10 5 10 f (N) m (Nm) m (Nm) 0 −50 Z 200 0 −200 −400 −600 400 200 0 −200 −400 Y X 100 100 50 0 −50 0 5 10 −100 0 5 10 100 50 0 −50 −100 0 5 10 m (Nm) 50 0 −50 −100 Z Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.
e.255 Nm Table 4.491 N 4.611 N combined model 11.604 N mX mY external model 14. 1991). because of the linear dependency of the torque prediction on these model parameters (Schoukens and Pintelon.748 Nm 12. This proves that the uncertainty on the actuator torque prediction based on the parameter estimates from the combined model is smaller. The validation trajectory has been deﬁned before and goes through 20 points randomly chosen in the workspace.225 Nm 3.803 N 13.4. this is also true for all rows of the identiﬁcation matrix. Experimental identiﬁcation results 111 RMS prediction error fX fY external model 11. it has already been mentioned that the covariance matrix of the parameters obtained with the combined approach is smaller than this obtained with the internal model.3: Root mean squared reaction force/torque prediction errors for the excitation trajectory Uncertainty on actuator torque prediction The uncertainty on the actuator torque predictions depends on the accuracy of the parameter estimates in δi and δf g .δifg < Cint.13) Since this inequality holds for all vectors x which are diﬀerent from a zero vector.686 Nm fZ 4.3. From the deﬁnition of positive deﬁniteness (Golub and Van Loan. Experimental model validation The validation step veriﬁes if the identiﬁed parameter set is able to accurately predict the actuator torque required to drive the robot along a trajectory which is diﬀerent from the excitation trajectory. Before.δifg x < xT Cint.604 Nm 12. (4.388 Nm combined model 14. . This means that the diﬀerence is negative deﬁnite. it follows that ∀x = 0 : xT Ccomb. 1989). i.δifg . Ccomb.805 N 13.δifg x.518 N mZ 3.
2002).112 Combining internal and external model Measured actuator torque Torque axis 1 (Nm) 100 0 −100 0 20 40 Predicted actuator torque 100 0 −100 0 200 100 0 −100 20 40 100 0 Torque prediction error −100 0 200 100 0 −100 20 40 −200 0 50 0 −50 20 40 Time (s) 0 20 40 Time (s) 20 40 20 40 Torque axis 2 (Nm) 200 100 0 −100 −200 0 50 0 −50 0 20 40 Time (s) 20 40 −200 0 50 0 −50 0 Torque axis 3 (Nm) Figure 4. is too simple. predicted torque and the corresponding torque prediction errors for the validation trajectory using the combined model (ﬁltered) Figure 4. Unlike for the identiﬁcation measurements.4: Measured actuator torque. which are not guaranteed to be exactly the same when they are repeated. Comparison of the prediction errors with the measured torques shows that the obtained model is capable of accurately predicting the actuator torque data.4 compares the measured and predicted actuator torques and the corresponding prediction errors. which includes viscous and Coulomb friction only. The peaks in the prediction error occur at low joint angular velocity. which indicates that the assumed friction model.. the validation trajectory consists of pointtopoint motions. Including more advanced friction and gear models results in smaller prediction errors (Swevers et al. Therefore. it was not . obtained using the parameter estimates resulting from the combined model identiﬁcation.
the unﬁltered data are used.5. Table 4. however. The estimated noise levels on the measured reaction forces and torques are much higher than the levels that were assumed in simulation. E. 2000) assumed a noise variance equal to 2 N.4.446 Nm 4. The RMS prediction errors for axes 1.419 Nm Table 4. the measured forces and torques and corresponding prediction errors shown in ﬁgures 4. while the simulations presented in (Chenut et al. 2000). This improvement is rather limited and does not correspond to the signiﬁcant improvement predicted by the simulation results presented in (Chenut et al. Therefore. If in the simulation more periods had been used in the estimation. the parameter values used in the simulation are estimated based on one period only.g.3. . RMS prediction error internal model combined model axis 1 8. Experimental identiﬁcation results 113 possible to reduce the noise level by averaging over multiple periods.950 Nm 8. To calculate the values in tables 4.4 and 4.4 and 4. This explains why combined and internal model perform nearly as well. From this discussion. the estimated noise variance on reaction force fX equals 10. 2 and 3 resulting from the combined model are less than 1% smaller than those resulting from the internal model.5 have been ﬁltered with a second order Butterworth ﬁlter with a cutoﬀ frequency of 10 Hz.4: Root mean squared actuator torque prediction errors for the validation trajectory In addition. It is clear that in the experimental case the noise level already has been reduced suﬃciently by averaging.4 shows the root mean squared (RMS) actuator torque prediction errors obtained with the diﬀerent sets of estimated parameters for this validation trajectory. the prediction errors would certainly become even more similar.824 Nm 11..949 Nm axis 2 11..5 N. The estimated noise levels on the measured actuator torques are lower than the levels that were assumed in simulation. it can be concluded that combining internal and external measurements would require less periods to be measured. The reasons for that are quite simple.811 Nm axis 3 4. while the experimental measurements have been averaged over 16 periods ﬁrst and then been used for the identiﬁcation.
604 N 17.393 N mX mY external model 21.4 Practical considerations This section discusses some practical problems which do not appear in a theoretical analysis. In this setup.132 N 6. RMS prediction error fX fY external model 17.5 compares the measured values. As a result. but which arise during the implementation and might disturb the experimental results. From time to time. Normally such oﬀsets can be measured by taking sensor readings at zero load.683 Nm fZ 6. the predicted values. An important advantage of this combined model is that it also allows to predict the robot base plate reaction forces/torques accurately (see table 4.392 Nm 21. The force/torque sensor shows some small drift on the signals. 4.402 N combined model 17. a recalibration of the sensor oﬀsets is required.e. This eﬀect will be stronger if the signaltonoise ratio of the reaction force/torque measurements (external measurements) is higher.5). the robot manipulator is standing on top of the sensor.126 N mZ 6. The prediction errors are small with respect to the measured values.605 N 17. and . a reduced measuring time.480 Nm Table 4.415 Nm 21. the obtained combined model can be used for path planning and optimization taking into account limits on actuator torques and base plate reaction forces and torques. to reach the same parameter and torque prediction accuracy.114 Combining internal and external model i.5: Root mean squared reaction force/torque prediction errors for the validation trajectory It can be seen clearly that these predictions are suﬃciently accurate. and the prediction errors for these reaction forces/torques. Figure 4.491 Nm 6.628 Nm combined model 21.
4.4.5: Measured and predicted reaction forces and torques and the corresponding prediction errors for the validation trajectory using the combined model (ﬁltered) . Practical considerations 115 Measured force/torque 100 fX (N) 0 100 0 −100 0 200 100 0 −100 100 50 0 −50 Predicted force/torque Force/torque prediction error 100 0 −100 0 200 100 0 −100 100 50 0 −50 −100 0 200 100 0 20 40 20 40 20 40 fY (N) −100 100 50 0 −50 0 20 40 0 20 40 0 20 40 fZ (N) 0 20 40 0 20 40 0 20 40 200 200 0 −200 −400 0 20 40 400 200 0 −200 0 20 40 −400 0 20 40 0 20 40 200 0 −200 −400 0 400 200 0 −200 −400 0 20 40 20 40 mX (Nm) mY (Nm) 0 −200 −400 400 200 0 −200 −400 50 50 0 −50 0 20 40 0 20 40 50 0 −50 0 20 40 mZ (Nm) 0 −50 Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.
By putting the measured force in Z direction equal to zero in the reference position. From both torque measurements the remaining oﬀsets can easily be calculated. disappears from the equations. The combined model possibly allows us to discover badly known torque constants. the oﬀsets cannot be calculated from one measurement. • The torques around X and Y axis experience a torque due to gravity. Torque constants reduce gradually with time due to demagnetization. and reset the sensor signal. Therefore. It can be realized by measuring both torques. Torque constants may even show considerable variation between similar motor types on a single robot. the . e. which is related to the total robot mass. For permanent magnet DC motors the torque constant Km relates the torque output τi to the current im : τi = Km im . which keep their properties for a very long time. When the number of periods measured increases. It is practically impossible to remove the robot for every oﬀset calibration. and measuring again. For all these reasons it is necessary to frequently recalibrate the actual torque constant for each motor in a robot. The actuator torques however are not directly available. the measured torque constant is less than the manufacturer’s speciﬁcation. When using data from diﬀerent measurement devices to estimate the same parameters. In most cases. Mostly a calibration sheet is provided by the manufacturer. using (Corke. In practice. calibration of the measurement channels becomes important. They are measured indirectly by means of the motor current.g. moving the ﬁrst robot axis over 180 degrees. • Gravity is the only force working in the Z direction when the robot is not moving. The force platform can be calibrated very accurately. the forces in X and Y direction and the torque around the Z axis should be zero. • With the robot standing still. the gravity load. It is based on piezo crystals. 1996).116 Combining internal and external model forces and torques due to gravity are mixed with the sensor oﬀsets. The calibration of the oﬀsets can be carried out as follows: • Move the robot to a reference position. the actuator torque constant can vary considerably from the manufacturer’s speciﬁcation.
Accurate prediction of the base plate reaction forces/torques is required for the path optimization taking into account tight restrictions on these reaction forces/torques. Conclusions 117 noise level can be reduced by averaging the measurements such that the estimation results of internal and combined model should converge. For that purpose. The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has adopted this new combined experimental robot identiﬁcation method to their SMTrobot mounted on a force/torque platform. in order to simulate zero gravity conditions.5. In our case. . especially in space robotics applications. this combined approach yields models that allow to accurately predict actuator torques and base plate reaction forces and torques. More importantly. The purpose of this hydraulic robot is to simulate on earth the behavior of the manipulator that will be mounted on the International Space Station. This indicates that the individual approaches are already suﬃciently accurate.5 Conclusions Combining internal and external measurements in one robot identiﬁcation can improve the model accuracy. accurate prediction of the actuator torques is required to compensate gravity as accurately as possible. Both of them are important for robot path planning and optimization. The signiﬁcance of the improvement depends on the number of periods measured and on the quality of the external reaction force/torque measurements.4. Any unmodelled eﬀect will result in a systematic error on the parameter estimates. we cannot observe a signiﬁcant improvement of the prediction of the actuator torques and the reaction forces and torques by combining internal and external model approaches. This is only valid under the assumption that the model is able to explain all dynamics in the measured signal. compared to identiﬁcation based on internal measurements only. 4.
118 Combining internal and external model .
The payload is considered as a part of the last link and the identiﬁcation method is applied to the robot with payload. 119 .1 Introduction For many years already experimental robot identiﬁcation techniques have successfully been applied to obtain an accurate dynamic robot model that is suitable for simulation purpose and for controller design.Robot payload identiﬁcation 5 Experiment is the sole interpreter of the artiﬁces of nature Leonardo da Vinci 5. but in most cases no distinction is made between the robot links and the robot payload. The literature on robot identiﬁcation is very extensive.
This way no additional sensors are required. This gives a ratio of the payload mass to the manipulator mass of 1 to 5. This chapter presents a robot payload identiﬁcation method which is based on the general robot identiﬁcation method discussed in chapter 3. Robot payload identiﬁcation should fulﬁll the following requirements. For simulation purposes and controller design. The actuator torque data are obtained through actuator current measurements. the estimated parameter values should correspond to the physical values. and their most recent developments tend towards a ratio of 1 (Hirzinger et al. This is necessary to gain the conﬁdence of the users on the industrial work ﬂoor because they mostly have an idea about at least the mass and the position of the payload’s center of mass. the robot payload will have an increasing importance in industrial robot manipulators. the payload brings about a much larger contribution to the actuator torques and accurate knowledge of the payload inertial parameters becomes more important for the controller performance. Swevers et al. It does not require a full dynamic identiﬁcation. The newest KUKA KR500 palletizing robot is a sixaxis robot in the 500 kg payload category. The DLR lightweight robot (LWR) has a ratio of 1 to 2. It has a weight of only 2350 kg in relation to its payload. This requirement is already satisﬁed for the existing general robot identiﬁcation method. but uses as much a priori information as possible. It will be shown that this new requirement is more diﬃcult to achieve than accurate actuator torque prediction. As a consequence. the robot payload may be diﬀerent from one application to another and then a full identiﬁcation of the robot dynamics is required. . 1997). however.120 Robot payload identiﬁcation Nevertheless. In addition. 1986.. 2002). Like in standard experimental robot identiﬁcation techniques (Gautier and Khalil.. Olsen and Bekey. the parameters of the dynamic robot model are estimated based on motion and actuator torque data measured during welldesigned identiﬁcation experiments. The ﬁrst objective of the payload identiﬁcation approach will be to obtain accurate estimates of the inertial parameters. 1992. the obtained model should be able to accurately predict the required actuator torques for a desired robot motion. This procedure is very time consuming and error prone because a persistent excitation of the full robot system is required in order to identify accurately all robot parameters. For acceptance in an industrial environment.
5. In addition. as it was discussed in chapter 3.4 we investigate the possible causes of systematic errors on the parameter estimates and on the actuator torque prediction using a sensitivity analysis. When a wristmounted forcetorque sensor is used to determine the inertial parameters of the payload (Atkeson et al. 2002). and other losses and dynamic eﬀects should be included in the identiﬁcation model (Swevers et al. Although the model derivation is based on the . A last section summarizes the conclusions.2 Robot payload identiﬁcation approach This section brieﬂy discusses the developed robot payload identiﬁcation approach (Swevers et al. Using the experimental robot identiﬁcation approach on the other hand requires much more a priori information (Craig. Section 5.2 describes the dynamic model used for robot payload identiﬁcation and section 5. 5. the modiﬁcations in the parameter estimation are discussed. First. In this approach.6 discusses the results obtained on an experimental setup. In section 5. kinematic information is suﬃcient to derive the identiﬁcation model. which is based on periodic robot excitation and the maximum likelihood parameters estimation.. 1986).. 2002). which makes the identiﬁcation result more sensitive to errors.2.2. Then. 1986).. the torque contribution of the robot links should be compensated for. Section 5. Robot payload identiﬁcation approach 121 Although this may be considered as an advantage at ﬁrst sight. This chapter applies the robot identiﬁcation approach developed in the previous chapters to the identiﬁcation of the robot payload. an appropriate friction model should be used.1 Dynamic robot model for payload identiﬁcation The generation of a dynamic robot model constitutes a basic step in any identiﬁcation approach. the dynamic model for a manipulator with payload is derived and some additional eﬀects are described. the actuator current measurements are more diﬃcult to calibrate than a force sensor. 5. the major disadvantage is that a more extensive identiﬁcation model is required.3 discusses diﬀerent approaches to identify the payload parameters. The chapter is outlined as follows.
this wrench could be measured directly. i. If a wristmounted force sensor were used. The payload exerts a wrench w on the end eﬀector. qG )qG + g(qG ). a dynamic model for payload identiﬁcation is quite diﬀerent from a model for robot identiﬁcation. qG ). q ˙ ˙ (5.122 Robot payload identiﬁcation same physical principles. in a standard anthropomorphic manipulator. For instance. the required actuator torques will change. In the latter. and the motion of the links (qG . A. ˙ ¨ When a payload is attached to the manipulator. This identiﬁcation model allows to obtain accurate parameter estimates for the payload. The key element in the applied dynamic model for payload identiﬁcation is the inclusion of some additional eﬀects in addition to the rigid body dynamics resulting from the robot. Rigid body dynamics The dynamic model of an ndof degrees of freedom robot manipulator without payload was derived in chapter 3: τG = M(qG )¨G + C(qG . the dynamic eﬀect of the wrist axes on the base axes is usually negligible due to the compact construction and small inertia of the wrist. The wrench w consists of three force components fee and three torques tee . an accurate model of the wrist is required and the contribution of the payload to the joint torques of the base axes becomes signiﬁcant. (5. .2) where J T (qG ) is the ndof × ndof transposed Jacobian matrix of the manipulator. the joint torques that drive the links. This results in additional actuator torques τpayload which are calculated by the formula τpayload = J T (qG ) w.e. For robot payload identiﬁcation. some simpliﬁcations are often introduced by neglecting the contribution of some inertial parameters to the joint torques. Some parameters which are not essential for the unloaded robot may become essential for the loaded robot. however. qG .1) It is a dynamic relation between the gear torques τG .
qG )qG + g(qG ) + J T (q) w q ˙ ˙ = τrobot links + τpayload . Using this parameter transformation. (5.e.6) with m the mass. [cx . Ixx . cy . As already discussed in chapter 3. Ixz . Izz . This suggests a possible identiﬁcation approach. Ixx . Iyz ]T (5. sz . The payload is characterized by ten inertial parameters [m. and I R the moments of inertia with respect to the frame R of the end eﬀector. Ixz . Ixy . cz ]T the center of gravity expressed in the end eﬀector frame.8) .4) reveals an interesting property: the robot links and the payload contribute each separately to the joint torques. cy .5) with m the mass. Izz . Iyy . sy .7) (5. the torque contribution of the robot links τrobot links can be calculated in advance based on the available parameter estimates and can easily be compensated for. Since the inertial parameter values of the robot links do not change when adding a payload. s the ﬁrst order moments with respect to the end eﬀector frame. The diﬀerent approaches for the compensation will be discussed in section 5. Robot payload identiﬁcation approach 123 The total dynamic model of manipulator with payload becomes τG = M(qG )¨G + C(qG .4) Equation (5. the parameter estimation is signiﬁcantly simpliﬁed if the identiﬁcation model is linear in the unknown parameters. and I the moments and products of inertia with respect to the frame in the center of gravity. sx . no coupling eﬀect exists. Iyy .5. The ten ‘modiﬁed’ inertial parameters of the payload are R R R R R R θL = [m.3) (5. 1986).3. By deriving the dynamic robot model using the NewtonEuler coordinates (Atkeson et al. the inertial parameters of the payload body are expressed with respect to the end eﬀector frame R. Iyz ]T (5.. i.2. Ixy . ˙ ˙ (5. This means that the inertial robot parameter values must not be estimated again for each new payload. the equations for the wrench of the payload executed on the end eﬀector can be written as fee = m vee + ωee × s + ωee × (ωee × s) ˙ ˙ tee = s × vee + IR ωee + ωee × (IR ωee ). cx . cz .
This model is more accurate than the often used linear relation between motor current and torque. . and ωee ˙ and ωee are the angular velocity and acceleration respectively. On the other hand. µ. Since these parameters can be determined a priori.11) µ is the transmission ratio. B. Modern robot manipulators are equipped with permanent magnet synchronous motors. qG . The relation between the actuator torque τM and current im of these motors has been found to be weakly nonlinear. ˙ ¨ (5. a third order polynomial τM = µ sign(im )(γ0 + γ1 im  + γ2 i2 + γ3 im 3 ) m = h(im .124 Robot payload identiﬁcation vee represents the linear acceleration of the end eﬀector frame. γ). The relation can be described by a polynomial model. These ˙ equations are linear in the inertial parameters of the payload. The transformation using the transpose of the Jacobian matrix will not aﬀect this linearity.10) (5. the torque contribution for the desired motion is calculated and compensated for. Additional eﬀects Model (5.9) The payload identiﬁcation matrix φL is derived based on the kinematic data of the robot manipulator and does not depend on the inertial parameters of the robot. and γ represents the vector which contains the parameters of the third order polynomial. These and other eﬀects are however essential for an accurate payload identiﬁcation and are described in this section. qG )θL . (5. Relation between motor current and torque. e. such that the identiﬁcation model can be written as τG = τrobot links + φL (qG . the torque contribution of the robot links only depends on their inertial parameters.g.9) does not consider any losses in the motors and the transmissions. especially at large motor currents where saturation results in a lower torque for a given current. nor coupling between the actuator torques.
This model for the losses in the transmission depends in a nonlinear way on the joint velocity qG ˙ .15) Eﬃciency of the transmission. ˙ ˙ (5. with many parts moving at diﬀerent angular velocities. Each drive is assumed to have a certain eﬃciency. Instead. we employ an empirical model that is typically used in practice. e. Such system has many losses which are diﬃcult to model in detail. ¨ ˙ ˙ (5. Accelerating or decelerating the rotor inertia Im requires the following torque: τI = Im qM .14) (5.13) (5. The mechanical gear transmission between the actuator and link is a complex system. A considerable part of the actuator torques is consumed by actuator friction and by the accelerating and decelerating rotor inertia. Actuator dynamics.g.5. the variables that appear in the dynamic equations are all related to the link side. This is advantageous because then the parameter values have almost the same order of magnitude which improves the conditioning of the identiﬁcation problem. a reduction of the nominal input torque by a constant percentage yielding the eﬀective output torque. Robot payload identiﬁcation approach 125 The transmission ratio is already taken into account.e. the actuator angles and torques are transformed to the link side by respectively dividing and multiplying them with the appropriate transmission ratio.2. As a consequence. ¨ The friction model includes viscous and Coulomb friction: τf = fv qM + fC sign(qM ). an accurate robot model should include these eﬀects.12) The net actuator torque which remains to drive the robot links and the payload is: τT = τM − τI − τf = τM − Im qM − fv qM − fC sign(qM ). i. Therefore.
This coupling is described as a known ﬁxed linear transformation between the joint and actuator space: qG = V qM τG = V τG . and V represents the coupling matrix.17) τT and τG are the torques at the actuator and link side of the transmission.18) (5. e. 5. T (5. and also of the considered robot. . The model of equation (5. are mechanically coupled in the sense that the motion of each wrist link is determined by more than one wrist actuator. the payload estimation is based on the maximum likelihood estimator presented in (Swevers et al. requiring a nonlinear parameter estimator.17) is not linear in the parameter η. 1997). Systematic errors can occur when one of these eﬀects are neglected or when the a priori information related to these eﬀects is inaccurate.16) (5. the coupling matrix V .2. rotor inertia. Kinematic calibration can determine e. It is modelled using only one parameter η per joint : τG = g(τT . but other variables. η) ˙ = τT · η if τT · qM > 0 ˙ τT /η if τT · qM < 0 ˙ (5. In this chapter.2 Parameter estimation As for the robot identiﬁcation method. qM .126 Robot payload identiﬁcation and torque τG . respectively.. should be known a priori or should be identiﬁed.g. Coupling between the actuator torques. This method yields the payload parameter vector θL that maximizes the likelihood of the measurement data.g. we will verify if this increase in complexity is justiﬁed by more accurate parameter estimates.19) The vector qM indicates the actuator position. and guarantees an unbiased estimate. The axes of the wrist of many manipulators.
parameters that do not depend on robot payload. If no transmission eﬃciency is considered. The identiﬁcation matrix is of full rank if axes 3 to 6 are actuated. The parameter estimation is then formulated as the following nonlinear least squares problem: N θM L = arg min θ k=1 i∈ϑ (τ − F(q(k). 2 στi (5. If only the axes 4 to 6 are excited. rotor inertias and inertial parameters of the robot links. It can easily be veriﬁed that the payload mass cannot be estimated and should be given as a priori information. However. this identiﬁcation matrix is not of full rank. θu . In that case. Equation (5.20) can be solved using iterative search methods such as the GaussNewton or LevenbergMarquardt method. θk ))2 ˙ ¨ . . This condition does not require that all robot axes are activated during the payload identiﬁcation experiment. and that are not timedependent. q(k). q (k). the model equation (5.9) extended with the friction model remains linear in the unknown parameters θu . As a result. only the friction.g. These known parameter are combined in a set θk . e. The vector θu contains these unknown parameters. στi is the standard deviation of the noise on the measured torque. The application of these methods requires an initial estimate of the unknown model parameters. the payload inertial parameters. and if desired the transmission eﬃciency are estimated.5.2. Robot payload identiﬁcation approach 127 To simplify the parameter estimation. all inertial parameters of the payload can be uniquely identiﬁed.20) where F represents the total identiﬁcation model which depends on the motion and on the unknown and known parameter set. are identiﬁed a priori. 1991). the estimation problem becomes nonlinear in the parameters if the transmission eﬃciency is taken into account. The unique estimation of all inertial parameters of the robot payload requires the Jacobian of the total identiﬁcation model with respect to the unknown parameters to be of full rank (Schoukens and Pintelon. This problem can be solved using a weighted linear least squares estimator. ϑ indicates the set of axes which are actuated during the identiﬁcation experiment.
1 the torque contribution of the robot links should be separated from that of the payload.1 Compensation based on parameter estimates In a ﬁrst approach. it is logical to take into account this information in advance. The dynamic parameters of the rotor inertia and the robot links are constant in time and independent of temperature. less parameters have to be estimated. because the workspace is more limited and care should be taken not to overload the actuators. some payload parameters will form linear combinations with the robot parameters. This way.2. This a priori information of the robot parameters can be obtained from a diﬀerent identiﬁcation experiment in which only the robot parameters are identiﬁed. In order to obtain a minimal model description. This section discusses the three alternative approaches. Therefore. The disadvantage of this approach is the requirement of an excitation trajectory that suﬃciently excites the full robot system such that all parameters can be estimated accurately. A ﬁrst approach. all robot and payload parameters are estimated from the experiment data.3 Approach to payload identiﬁcation As indicated in section 5.1.3. 5.128 Robot payload identiﬁcation 5. The compensation can be realized based on a measurement or using a dynamic robot model. realizes the separation after the parameter estimation by subtracting the known parameter values of the robot links. The payload parameter values can be calculated by subtracting the known robot parameters from the estimated parameters. This persistent excitation is more diﬃcult to realize with an unknown payload attached. An alternative approach immediately compensates for the torque contribution of the robot links in order to independently identify the payload inertial parameters. which is frequently applied. which reduces uncertainty on these parameters. . The approach is graphically represented in ﬁgure 5. This approach will not be discussed any further since the following approaches based on torque compensation have some clear advantages.
1: Compensation based on parameter estimates 5.3. This approach has the advantage that no full robot identiﬁcation is required. In this case. qd Experiment with payload q. and another without payload (ﬁgure 5.2 Torque compensation by measurement A second possibility to compensate for the dynamics of the rotor inertias and robot links is to perform two measurements using the same excitation trajectory: one with payload.2).3. This means that the excitation trajectory can be designed such that especially the payload parameters are identiﬁed more accurately. In addition.5. It could be considered to do the measurements without payload once in advance and store the . q t1 Model generation and parameter estimation qfull Determine robot parameters from separate identification experiment qrobot links Derive payload parameters from parameter estimates payload parameters qL Figure 5. the measurement without payload contains all information about the rigid body dynamics of the robot links. qd. A ﬁrst disadvantage is the increased measurement time because two excitation measurements should be carried out. q. the torque measurement also compensates for nonlinearities which are not modelled. Approach to payload identiﬁcation 129 Desired excitation trajectory qd.
130 Robot payload identiﬁcation Desired excitation trajectory qd. Although the compensation with the measured torque seems likely to allow the elimination of the friction eﬀect. Hence.2: Torque compensation by measurement measured motion and torque data. qd Experiment with payload t1 q. friction is shown to be payload dependent. . it is better to reestimate the friction parameters. Another disadvantage appears when the tracking error is larger for the measurement with payload. q + Dt Model generation and parameter estimation Experiment without payload t2 torque contribution of payload and difference in friction torque payload parameters qL (+ difference in friction parameters) Figure 5. This limits however the number of practical usable trajectories: a diﬀerent payload may require a diﬀerent excitation trajectory due to workspace limits. q. This is costly and time consuming. When an additional mass is added to the robot. In that case no correct compensation of the robot dynamics is obtained. qd. all measurements without a payload must be redone.
e. This approach requires very accurate a priori information. qd. because the torque contribution can be calculated from the model parameters. On the other hand.3: Torque compensation by modelling robot links. The main advantage of this approach is its independency from the excitation trajectory used. trobot links torque contribution of payload and friction torque Model generation and parameter estimation payload parameters qL (+ friction parameters) Figure 5.3 Torque compensation by modelling A third approach uses a dynamic robot model to describe the dynamic eﬀects of the robot links and the motor inertia.q.3 illustrates the approach.3.g. qd Experiment with payload t1 q. as presented in chapter 4. the parameters can be estimated from a preceding identiﬁcation. The calculation is based on inertial parameter values of the Desired excitation trajectory qd. . Approach to payload identiﬁcation 131 5. q + Dt  qrobot links Inverse dynamics of robot links F(q. q. Every deviation of the used inertial parameter values from the real values will induce a systematic error.5.q) qrobot links . Alternatively.3. This gives an important ﬂexibility in the design of an optimal excitation trajectory. Figure 5. Mostly the a priori information originates from inaccurate CAD data.
because these nonsystematic errors can be reduced by making longer measurements and averaging over more periods. At the actuator side.132 Robot payload identiﬁcation the accuracy directly depends on the accuracy of the actuator torque prediction.18)). 5.g. The deterministic errors on the other hand.g. This section discusses the sensitivity analysis of the payload identiﬁcation approach from the perspective of these systematic errors. The simulation model takes into account the coupling matrix V between the actuator torques (equation (5. noise on the measurements. For the reference payload.9) is evaluated for an excitation trajectory in which the last four axes of the robot are moved. which can be reduced in theory to any desired level if more measurements are taken into account. e.4 Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors Obtaining the correct parameter values from experimental measurements is not straightforward. the inertial parameters of the CAD model are used (table 5. are modelled. The friction parameter values are given in table 5.1. and give rise to a systematic error on the resulting parameter estimates. as indicated . Two diﬀerent kinds of error sources determine the accuracy of the parameter estimates.4. Stochastic errors.1 Simulation model of the KUKA KR15 The sensitivity analysis uses a simulation model of a KUKA KR15 industrial robot with six degrees of freedom.2). produce uncertainty on the result. The dynamic model in equation (5. the inertial parameter values of the robot model are obtained from a robot identiﬁcation experiment. the dynamics of the rotor inertia and friction including Coulomb and viscous friction. Obviously. e. To make the simulation as realistic as possible. 5. and consequently on the accuracy of the dynamic model and the robot parameter values. incorrect a priori information. and shows the inﬂuence of inaccurate a priori information or identiﬁcation model on the ﬁnal accuracy of the payload parameter estimates. cannot be compensated for. an incomplete model description or an inappropriate estimation method. no noise is added to the simulated actuator currents.
4. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 133 axis fC [Nm] fv [Nms] 1 33.4. Afterwards the inertial parameters are recalculated towards the center of gravity. 5.6 Table 5.3. only one error is introduced by changing one a priori known value. The columns represent the ten inertial parameters of the robot payload expressed with respect to the center of gravity.3 Results of the analysis The results are presented in table 5.9 10. The purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to determine which a priori information shows the largest inﬂuence on the estimation.g.1: Coulomb and viscous friction parameters used in the simulation model before.6 58. The ﬁrst row gives the true calibrated values for the robot payload inertial parameters used for the simulation. Therefore.4 6 18.6 3. For each introduced error.2 Approach used in the sensitivity analysis The payload identiﬁcation approach uses a dynamic model which is linear in the parameters. the identiﬁcation is carried out and the parameters are estimated. e. in order to investigate the inﬂuence of an incomplete identiﬁcation model.2.4. 5. In table 5.5.8 3 19.4 99.8 4 28.5 5 21. The inertial parameters of the payload and the friction parameters are estimated in each experiment. yielding a univariate sensitivity analysis. The subsequent rows give the estimated parameter values in the presence of the diﬀerent errors. the deviations are expressed in . The inertial parameters of the robot links and rotor inertia are not estimated.3 32. This will be indicated when applicable. Some experiments required the simulation model to be adapted and new simulation data to be created. in every experiment. but are compensated for based on a priori information.6 121. The simulated actuator torques are converted to currents by division by the torque constants assuming a linear relation.1 2 32.
is very sensitive to this error. To evaluate the eﬀect when more torque constants are incorrectly known at the same time. Due to a too large torque constant. this constant may change with the warmup and the lifetime of the robot. and for actuators three to six. This can be explained by the fact that only the measurements of the third axis contribute to the mass estimation. 1. In practice however. The errors appear to be cumulative.4.65 Nm/A. Actuator torque constant The measured actuator currents are converted to torques by the actuator torque constant. The estimation result clearly shows that the mass estimate. because the mass is not identiﬁable if only the last three axes are excited. the compensation for the robot links inertia is (relatively) too small. we change this torque constant used in the identiﬁcation for actuator 3 from 1. while in a third experiment both torque constant for actuators ﬁve and six are changed from 0.63 to 0. In a second experiment. In addition. These errors have a much smaller inﬂuence on the parameter accuracy.4. In a ﬁrst experiment. the actuator torque constant for actuator four are changed from 0.134 Robot payload identiﬁcation percentages. which changes by 10%. The mass estimation is only indirectly aﬀected. especially on the mass which is not estimated from the measurements of axes four to six. will be compensated by the eﬀect of another that is too large. As a consequence.65 Nm/A. . The latter only ampliﬁes the eﬀect on the mass estimation by a lever eﬀect. An accurate calibration of the actuator torque constants is therefore required. In addition.23 by 3% to 1.67 to 0. a fourth and ﬁfth experiment is done where the torque constants are change respectively for actuators four to six.27 Nm/A. The inﬂuence on the actuator torque prediction will be discussed in section 5. it cannot be assumed that the eﬀect of a torque constant which is too small. the robot links have a big contribution to the torque of the third actuator. this constant is very diﬃcult to determine on an existing robot.
591 0.050 0.3 89.130 0.1 177.1 93.158 0.158 0.555 9.158 0.295 0.0 79.683 0.164 9.425 0.9 23.653 9.676 0.3 25.080 0.2 90.8 90.0 24.6 188.003 0.3 240.158 0.628 0.9 Inertial Ixx [kgm2 ] 0.6 24.636 0.7 23.637 0.685 10.008 0.4 178.627 0.162 0.161 Ixz [kgm2 ] 0.054 0.649 0.9 24.058 0.007 0.612 0.832 9.8 22.0 194.7 22.697 0.675 0.3 23.642 0.614 0.005 0.2 276.0 89.113 0.015 0.176 0.645 0.113 0.602 0.670 0.160 0.673 Ixy [kgm2 ] 0.005 0.003 0.582 0.661 6.6 134.643 Iyz [kgm2 ] 0.154 0.674 0.3 89.840 0.6 89.9 24.7 24. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 6 7 8 9 reference torque constant 3 torque constant 4 torque constant 5+6 torque constant 46 torque constant 36 robot links rotor inertia wrist coupling eﬃciency 90% eﬃciency 95% joint friction known payload mass known payload mass 2 known payload mass 3 measurement bias excited axes excited axes 2 m [kg] 9.010 0.7 23.1 83.2 185.4 84.4.1 24.626 0.2: Estimated inertial parameter values when using incorrect a priori information or identiﬁcation model 135 .1 2 3 4 5 5.4 35.129 0.005 0.000 0.535 0.650 0.018 0.009 0.2 202.647 0.003 0.7 91.8 23.156 0.059 0.2 200.606 0.615 9.002 0.571 9.644 0.120 0.629 0.161 0.639 0.058 0.579 10.644 0.604 0.2 cz [mm] 202 187.579 9.008 0.003 0.001 0.012 0.4 198.616 0.8 88.4 176.7 cy [mm] 90 84.012 0.003 0.616 9.579 9.730 0.000 parameters Iyy Izz [kgm2 ] [kgm2 ] 0.642 9.159 0.131 0.8 198.2 21.1 90.576 9.003 0.151 0.001 0.002 0.566 cx [mm] 24 22.6 87.001 0.648 9.5 204.161 0.631 0.6 191.003 0.013 0.3 205.2 189.007 0.158 0.003 0.819 10.004 Table 5.000 0.579 11.124 0.8 89.002 0.634 0.151 0.002 0.142 0.012 0.161 0.046 0.016 0.159 0.157 0.080 0.063 0.
Consequently. introduces signiﬁcant systematic errors in the robot payload parameter estimates. The results in table 5.21) (5.2 correspond to a reduction with 5% of the a priori values for the rotor inertia.29 kgm2 .136 Robot payload identiﬁcation 2. 2.1.62 kgm2 to 6.91 kgm2 and 0. it is concluded that the mass estimate is very sensitive to an error in this a priori information. considered as realistic. In addition. 3. at least partly.3). Inaccurately known rotor inertia The actuator inertial dynamics consume a considerable part of the actuator torque. 4. the inertia information provided by the manufacturer is not accurate. This coupling is expressed by the equation qG =V qM τG =V T τG (5. This reduction of 5%.6 kgm2 . which are changed from 6. also the gear wheels of the transmission have an inertia which should. 3. Mostly. This leads to a systematic underestimation of the inertia if only the rotor inertia is taken into account.9 kgm2 . The sensitivity analysis shows that the inﬂuence is signiﬁcant.2. the torque contribution of the robot links can be calculated a priori and compensated for. These values are already reduced to the reduction side by taking into account the transmission ratios.22) . The calculation is however based on a set of a priori identiﬁed robot parameters or obtained from a CAD model. 3. Again. 2. which is diﬀerent from the set of identiﬁed robot parameter values used for the simulation. Dynamic model of robot links As mentioned before. Coupling between the axes As mentioned in section 5.59 kgm2 for the actuators three to six respectively. be added in the model to the rotor inertia. the wrist axes are mechanically coupled.76 kgm2 .72 kgm2 and 0. they are subject to uncertainty. The identiﬁcation experiment uses a set of CAD data for the robot parameters provided by the manufacturer (table C.
8 0.3 12.6 1.4 11.4.7 13.3: Deviation of the estimated inertial parameters from the true value (expressed in percentage) 137 .4 7.5 1.3 Inertial cx 5.4 1.9 132.9 in percentage) Ixy Ixz 2.4 129.8 107.1 6.7 3.5 2.7 32.4 19.9 7.8 10.8 0.8 1.5 90.1 99.1 11.3 30.2 1.5 2.1 53.7 11.3 14.0 from reference Iyy Izz 78.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 145.4 0.4 0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 2.0 0.8 11.0 0 0 0 16.7 48.1 0.9 1.2 0.2 1.0 125.7 Table 5.3 135.3 1.5 144.4 0.0 106.7 1.8 12.4 301.8 1.2 105.7 1.2 296.8 2.5 2.7 3.2 0.0 0.7 0.8 1.8 2.8 2.3 105.1 12.4 1.3 19.4 227.6 0.1 3.3 265.1 6.1 0.2 10.1 30.4 102.0 146.1 4.2 6.1 1.4 9. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 8 9 torque constant 3 torque constant 4 torque constant 5+6 torque constant 46 torque constant 36 robot links rotor inertia wrist coupling eﬃciency 90 eﬃciency 95 joint friction known payload mass idem 2 idem 3 measurement bias excited axes excited axes 2 m 10.9 1.4 Iyz 137.9 471.2 8.4 8.9 243.0 1.0 11.0 1.48 11.8 0.2 21.7 3.2 1.7 1.1 6.6 250.7 1.4 10.4 0.3 7.1 0.5 10.4 179.8 20.2 0.8 79.3 132.7 4.5 0.7 0.9 2.2 640.1 173.7 parameters (deviation cy cz Ixx 6.6 0.1 84.9 55.1 1.9 9.2 248.6 365.3 3.5 36.5 37.0 5.9 3.7 0.6 7.2 6.1 26.4 1.1 89.9 0.3 49.3 0.8 243.9 0.0 6.9 1.3 152.8 25.7 1.1 0.7 903.8 10.5 1.9 2.4 1.2 1.2 124.0 541.8 0.9 5.6 0.0 10.
the simulation model is extended.0243. This indicates the presence of local minima. In the estimation step. Although this may seem an appropriate approach. The eﬃciency η of the transmission is considered to be 90% for all axes. the transmission eﬃciency is mostly neglected. deﬁned as the ratio of the outgoing to the ingoing power. which is equal to assuming that the eﬃciency is 1. As the inclusion of this eﬀect in the dynamic model would make the estimation nonlinear.23)) is replaced by the identity matrix. it was observed that the eﬃciency estimate strongly depends on the initial guess. for the KUKA KR15.23) with V0 = −0. and adapted simulation data are created.2 shows that this simpliﬁcation introduces a signiﬁcant systematic error. e. which can easily be avoided. and V2 = −0.0245. To evaluate the eﬀect of the eﬃciency on the parameter estimation. shows that the friction model is not completely equivalent with the eﬃciency model. The mechanical coupling between the wrist axes is in the order of magnitude of one to two percent. It is then assumed that the standard friction model used for the actuator losses can accurately describe the losses in the gear transmission. Transmission eﬃciency Every transmission is characterized by some eﬃciency ratio η. . (5.0111.g. Therefore.138 Robot payload identiﬁcation where V represents a known ﬁxed linear transformation matrix. V = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 V2 1 0 V0 V1 0 0 0 0 0 1 . it is sometimes assumed that no coupling is present. 5. V1 = 0. because a systematic error is introduced. table 5. and the V matrix (equation (5. The linear least squares estimation.
5. at the link side. To evaluate these choices. .e.e. the torque constant of the third actuator is changed as described in point 1. Using payload mass as a priori information As mentioned before. The results show however that the inertia estimates get worse: the bad scaling of the third actuator torque dominates the parameter estimation. the payload mass can be weighed and taken into account as a priori information. The diﬀerence between the joint and actuator motion. which is an estimate of the real distribution. In simulation. i. In this experiment. while the estimation of all other inertial parameter depends on the torque measurements of axes 3 to 6. is introduced by the wrist coupling. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 139 6. It is concluded that modelling the friction in the actuator and in the joints with only one friction model doesn’t introduce signiﬁcant systematic errors.4. the actuator torque constants for actuators 4 to 6 are changed by 3%. neglects friction in the joints. The estimation including only actuator friction results in parameter values which are very close to the desired values. 7. The following points discuss some choices which might be considered in the identiﬁcation procedure to improve the parameter estimates. Neglecting joint friction torques introduces errors. of this section. Neglecting joint friction at the link side The discussed model considers actuator friction only. the payload mass is only estimated based on the third actuator torque. Then. To avoid an inaccurate mass estimation. and therefore also friction. the other inertial parameters are identiﬁed using the measured torques which makes the estimation less sensitive to errors. we assume that 25% of the friction torques are in the joint. The results are diﬀerent when only the last three axes are excited. i. Transformation of the actuator friction by means of the coupling matrix introduces additional coupling friction torques that are approximately 2% of the actuator friction torques.
4 shows the torque prediction for a validation trajectory. inaccurately known motor torque constant or rotor inertia.4. because theoretically the bias parameter is independently identiﬁable. The simulated torque based on the exact model is compared with the predicted torque based on the parameters estimated using the discussed payload identiﬁcation approach and erroneous a priori knowledge. This bias can easily be taken into account by estimating the bias in the identiﬁcation procedure.e. To obtain the result in table 5. 5. e. Estimation of measurement bias Often. expressed in equation (5. actuator current measurements contain a bias. Although there exists a direct.). the torque constant of the third axis is changed and all six axes of the robot have been excited. mostly linear. When the torque constant of the third actuator is not accurately known (see point 1. inclusion of a bias in the estimation model even negatively aﬀects the estimated payload inertial parameters.). relation between parameter values and torque prediction. excitation of all robot axes in the payload identiﬁcation experiment requires a priori information about more inertial parameters (i.e. Number of excited axes When in addition the base axes are excited.4 Actuator torque prediction accuracy The previous section showed that the presence of some systematic errors has a big inﬂuence on the actual parameter estimates. those of the base axes) of which the accuracy is again crucial.9). i. yielding a decreased sensitivity to an error on the a priori information. this method may produce unexpected results. Of course. it turns out that most systematic errors don’t have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the actuator torque prediction accuracy. The parameter accuracy is clearly better than in the ﬁrst case (see point 1.140 Robot payload identiﬁcation 8. more measurements are available to estimate the diﬀerent parameters of the payload. inaccurate torque constants for the actuators three to six and inaccurate estimates of .g. However.2. Figure 5. which is diﬀerent from the excitation trajectory. 9.
The torque prediction error. .4. The root mean square (RMS) value of this simulated prediction error is small compared to the level of noise that is present on actuator torque measurements on a real robot. the standard deviation of the noise on the torque is typically 10 Nm. as shown in table 5.5 0 10 20 30 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 5. From this analysis it can be concluded that the actuator torque prediction is only slightly aﬀected by the presence of systematic errors. For a KUKA KR15. 6 Nm. 5 Nm.4. and 2 Nm respectively for the axes three to six. Sensitivity analysis to deterministic errors 141 Simulated and predicted actuator torque 200 10 5 0 0 500 10 20 30 −5 5 0 Actuator torque prediction error Axis 3 (Nm) 0 −200 −400 10 20 30 Axis 4 (Nm) 0 0 −500 500 0 10 20 30 −5 5 0 10 20 30 Axis 5 (Nm) 0 0 −500 200 0 10 20 30 −5 0. plotted on the right side of the ﬁgure.4: Measured and prediction actuator torque and the corresponding prediction error the inertial parameters of the robot links.5.5 0 10 20 30 Axis 6 (Nm) 0 0 −200 0 10 20 30 −0. is small compared to the standard deviation of the noise and to the torque scale.
4.142 Robot payload identiﬁcation axis axis axis axis 3 4 5 6 typical standard deviation of noise 10 Nm 6 Nm 5 Nm 2 Nm RMS simulated prediction error 2. Accurate estimation results can only be obtained if accurate values for all these a priori known parameters are available.2 Nm 1. If the real transmission is characterized by an eﬃciency ratio or friction is present in the joint.9 Nm 0.4: Standard deviation of the noise and RMS actuator torque prediction error 5.1 Nm Table 5.9 Nm 0. only a small systematic error is introduced in the parameter estimation. The use of simulated data allowed to clearly separate and investigate each eﬀect. Using the payload mass as a priori information and increasing the number of excited axes does not necessarily improve the accuracy of the parameter estimates if one of the previously mentioned errors occur. The sensitivity analysis shows that the quality of almost all a priori information is very important. The parameter estimates are less sensitive to the model used to describe the losses in the manipulator. Traditionally. losses are assumed to be concentrated in the actuator and are described by viscous and Coulomb friction.5 Discussion and conclusion This section discussed the inﬂuence of systematic errors on the accuracy of robot payload identiﬁcation by means of a univariate sensitivity analysis. The identiﬁcation is especially sensitive to the accuracy of actuator torque constants and to the inertial parameters of the robot links and the rotor. An accurate actuator torque prediction is therefore no guarantee for accurate parameter estimates. . Whereas the parameter estimates are obviously aﬀected. the actuator torque prediction is almost insensitive to the presence of the discussed errors.
The experimental setup 143 5. This industrial robot has six degrees of freedom and a payload capacity of 15 kg.5.5.5 The experimental setup This section will brieﬂy describe the experimental setup which was used to validate the payload identiﬁcation approach.5. 5. The input parameters for the . Unfortunately.5: The KUKA KR15 robot The excitation software The company Amatec GmbH has put at our disposal a software module for the robot controller that allows us to apply periodic excitation trajectories. the module does not provide full freedom in choosing the trajectory parameters. The setup consists of the industrial robot KUKA KR15 and a reconﬁgurable reference payload.1 The industrial robot KUKA KR15 The KUKA KR15 robot is a modern industrial robot with a PCbased robot controller (ﬁgure 5.5). Figure 5.
The principal inertias range from nearly zero to over 3 kgm2 . This is no strong restriction because theoretically the excitation of these four axes is suﬃcient to identify all inertial parameters of the payload. For every experiment. The period is ﬁxed to 30 seconds and the sampling period is 12 ms. E. This means that the mass appears only in the dynamic equations of the third axis as a separate parameter. the excitation is limited to the last four axes of the manipulator.5. The design of the payload In order to evaluate the general applicability of the payload identiﬁcation method it is not suﬃcient to have only one ﬁxed reference payload. Identiﬁability of parameters Since the excitation software does not allow to move the ﬁrst two joint axes. The number of harmonic terms is limited to only two terms per axis.2 The reference payload To validate the accuracy of the identiﬁcation. 5. the mass can be varied from 1. Therefore. For this payload all ten inertial parameters are known from an accurate CAD model.6. ten periods are measured after a transient period of 60 seconds. the center of mass from 390 to 390 mm in x and y direction and has a range of 160 mm in the z direction.144 Robot payload identiﬁcation excitation trajectory are the position ranges of the diﬀerent joint axes.g. An example of the reference payload is shown in ﬁgure 5. the estimated inertial parameter values can be compared to their real values. This way. Notice that the excitation of the third robot axis is required in order to estimate the payload mass. yielding 2499 sample points per period. a reconﬁgurable payload was designed and built which is capable of covering a wide range of inertia and mass. the software module chooses the number of harmonics and determines the trajectory parameters. Mostly only the ﬁrst harmonic and the 20th or the 25th harmonic are included.4 kg to 15 kg. . Based on this input and on the maximal velocity and acceleration. a calibrated reference payload is necessary.
It can be considered as a nominal payload which is frequently used with the KUKA KR15 manipulator. This makes it more difﬁcult to obtain accurate parameter estimates. The medium conﬁguration (shown in ﬁgure 5.5. The small conﬁguration has a mass of only 5.7 respectively. this conﬁguration is used to compare the diﬀerent approaches and to discuss the alternative options in the torque compensation model.5 gives the inertial parameter values for three payload conﬁgurations that are used for the experimental results. the excitation should be limited in order not to overload the manipulator. Table 5. The mass of 13. Both conﬁgurations are shown on the left and the right side of ﬁgure 5.6) is situated in the middle of the parameter ranges. For the large conﬁguration. In this chapter. The eigenfrequency lies above 15 Hz. Diﬀerent payload conﬁgurations In the validation of the proposed identiﬁcation approach various conﬁgurations of the designed reference payload have been used.56 kg is close to the maximal payload mass. . In this case. The conﬁgurations are chosen such that a relevant range of parameter values is covered.84 kg.5.6: A conﬁguration of the reference payload The payload is designed to withstand an acceleration of 6 times the gravity. these parameter values are much higher. and consequently also rather small moments of inertia. which is much higher than the maximal frequency in the excitation trajectory. The experimental setup 145 Figure 5.
5: Exact inertial parameter values for various payload conﬁgurations 5.1 201.003 0.028 0.102 0.063 1.0709 −0.0502 0.267 0.2961 0.2871 0. . The ﬁrst section presents the experimental results for the approach in which the torque contribution of the robot links is compensated for using a measurement without payload.637 1.7 24 −95.091 −0.0096 −0.001 Table 5. Secondly.6 −202 −272. the approach using an identiﬁed robot model is discussed.4 90 25. Each experiment uses a diﬀerent payload conﬁguration with known inertial parameters. A third section deals with the warmup problem which negatively aﬀects the parameter estimates.6 Experimental results This section presents the experimental results of the proposed payload identiﬁcation approaches.1 0.158 0. The actuator torque constants were not accurately known and a recalibration was required before doing any experiment in order to obtain accurate parameter estimates for the robot link and payload parameters.146 Robot payload identiﬁcation Parameter m [kg] cx [mm] cy [mm] cz [mm] Ixx [kgm2 ] Iyy [kgm2 ] Izz [kgm2 ] Ixy [kgm2 ] Ixz [kgm2 ] Iyz [kgm2 ] Payload conﬁguration Small Medium Large 5.579 13.0361 −0.002 −0.4 −362. Improved values for the torque constants are determined as the bestﬁt estimate over a set of experiments.8444 9.008 0.612 0.555 53.
6 gives the experimental results. Experimental results 147 Figure 5. From the ten resulting parameter sets. the payload parameters are estimated. Along with the payload parameters. The experimental results for the payload identiﬁcation are obtained with the following procedure. a mean value and a standard deviation are calculated. The mass is estimated within .2 presented a payload identiﬁcation approach that requires no a priori information. also the change in the friction coeﬃcients is estimated since it was shown that friction is payload dependent. each using a diﬀerent excitation trajectory. Ten diﬀerent identiﬁcation experiments are done. The diﬀerence ∆τ in actuator torque measurements is the input for the parameter estimation. The estimated parameter values are close to the exact CAD values. Table 5.3.7: Small (left) and large (right) conﬁguration of the reference payload 5.1 Identiﬁcation with compensation by measurements Section 5. because the diﬀerence in position is smaller than 10−3 radians.5.6.6. The identiﬁcation consists of doing two excitation experiments: one with payload and another without payload. For each experiment. The experimentally measured trajectories are considered to be the same for both experiments.
0012 −0.0030 0.158 −0.6416 0.2070 0. Figure 5. Both curves lie almost perfectly on top of each other.0059 −0.0501 0. given in table 5.002 −0.6 shows that also for a single experiment the estimated parameter estimates are already close to the exact values.090 −0.1464 0.0011 −0. The standard deviation conﬁrms the goodness of the results.148 Robot payload identiﬁcation Parameter m [kg] cx [m] cy [m] cz [m] Ixx [kgm2 ] Iyy [kgm2 ] Izz [kgm2 ] Ixy [kgm2 ] Ixz [kgm2 ] Iyz [kgm2 ] Exact value 9.0021 0.612 0.008 Average estimation values Estimated Standard value deviation 9.8 shows the measured and predicted actuator torques required to move the payload. .0943 0. The accurate torque prediction is conﬁrmed by the small RMS values of the prediction error.0597 0.0248 0.0113 −0. and the positions of the center of gravity are known within a few millimeters.6504 0. The estimated payload parameter values allow accurate torque prediction.0025 Single experiment 9.3): the estimated value of the mass tends to increase as the robot gets warmed up. The last column of table 5. The measured torque is obtained as the torque diﬀerence between the two measured excitation trajectories.0097 Table 5.637 −0.579 0.024 0.0029 0.6: Experimental results for compensation by measurements 40 g.0955 0.5445 0.0248 0.1707 0.6.6459 0.0144 0.202 0.6531 0. The exact parameter values are within two standard deviations from the estimated values.5866 0. The large variation on the mass estimate can partly be explained by the warmup eﬀect (see also section 5.0079 0.0208 0.7.1681 0.063 0.2061 0.0004 0.
5. Both torques coincide almost perfectly.8: Measured and predicted torques required to move the payload. . Experimental results 149 200 100 Axis 3 (Nm) 0 −100 −200 −300 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 100 50 0 −50 −100 Axis 4 (Nm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 100 50 0 −50 −100 Axis 5 (Nm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 100 50 0 −50 −100 Axis 6 (Nm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (s) Figure 5.6.
uses the dynamic robot model to compensate for the torque contribution of the robot links. All other inertial parameters are taken into account as a priori knowledge for the torque compensation.3. The payload mass estimate is the furthest away from the exact value.38 kg and 9. the standard deviations on the parameter estimates are larger. and which information should be reestimated.6. The identiﬁcation procedure estimates the ten payload parameters and the friction parameters.658 Nm RMS prediction error axis 4 axis 5 5. this compensation approach is the more ﬂexible one. The minimal and maximal mass estimate obtained in the ten experiments are respectively 9. As mentioned. The estimation results for a single experiment prove that it is possible to .87 kg.150 Robot payload identiﬁcation axis 3 9. The estimated parameter values are again close to the exact values.3. the same procedure as above is applied. which was discussed in section 5. To present the experimental results.8 are calculated from ten different payload identiﬁcation experiments.2 Identiﬁcation with compensation using modelling The alternative approach.442 Nm Table 5. Compared to the previous approach.7: Root mean squared prediction error for the actuator torque due to the payload 5.109 Nm 2.678 Nm axis 6 2. The results given in table 5. Parameter estimation for the medium reference payload The results for this approach are ﬁrst discussed for the medium reference payload. This large deviation is probably due to a weak excitation of the system with respect to this parameter and the variation of the actuator torque constants. There still exists the freedom to decide which a priori information is used for the compensation. This indicates that a model based compensation of the robot link torques does not perform as well as the measurement based approach.
As expected.0064 0.0946 0.9 shows the actuator torque predictions based on the parameter estimates for a validation trajectory.5981 0.5.6770 0.1735 0.002 −0.1455 0.0038 0.0248 Table 5. .024 0.0930 0.008 Average estimation values Estimated Standard value deviation 9. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the torque prediction is suﬃciently accurate. one has to decide which information is taken into account a priori and which eﬀects are included in the identiﬁcation model.2103 0.0773 0.579 0.090 −0.6179 0. The measured and the predicted actuator torques are almost equal.6211 0. Experimental results 151 Parameter m [kg] cx [m] cy [m] cz [m] Ixx [kgm2 ] Iyy [kgm2 ] Izz [kgm2 ] Ixy [kgm2 ] Ixz [kgm2 ] Iyz [kgm2 ] Exact value 9.0097 −0.6373 0.612 0.063 0.637 −0.2065 0.0152 0.0016 −0.0260 0.1210 0. even if the parameter estimates are not very accurate. the identiﬁed model of robot with payload is able to accurately predict the required actuator torque. The possible choices were already introduced in the sensitivity analysis (section 5. which is conﬁrmed by the small prediction errors.202 0.6.0783 0. The torque prediction is not strongly aﬀected by rather inaccurate parameter estimates. Figure 5.4).158 −0.8: Exact and estimated inertial parameter values for medium payload conﬁguration obtain accurate parameter estimates.0156 Single experiment 9.0204 −0.0010 0.1642 0.0105 0.0246 0.0765 0.0105 −0.6277 0. Choice of the appropriate a priori information In the torque compensation step of the payload identiﬁcation procedure. This conclusion is conﬁrmed by the experimental results.
152 Robot payload identiﬁcation Measured and predicted actuator torque 200 Axis 3 (Nm) 0 −200 −400 −600 200 Axis 4 (Nm) 0 10 20 30 200 0 −200 −400 −600 200 0 Actuator torque prediction error 10 20 30 0 0 −200 200 Axis 5 (Nm) 0 10 20 30 −200 200 0 10 20 30 0 0 −200 100 Axis 6 (Nm) 0 10 20 30 −200 100 0 10 20 30 0 0 −100 0 10 Time (s) 20 30 −100 0 10 Time (s) 20 30 Figure 5.9: Measured and predicted actuator torques for the validation trajectory .
0249 0.0089 −0. The nonlinear estimation requires that starting values are chosen for all parameters. The estimation results.008 Average estimation values Estimated Standard value deviation 9. averaged over ten experiments.9: Eﬀect of including the transmission eﬃciency on the estimated inertial parameter values In this section.002 −0.0014 −0.8.6. The .0622 0.090 −0.3354 0.0078 0. except the estimate of the mass. Taking into account the torque saturation for high actuator currents has no visible inﬂuence on the parameter estimates.6997 0.024 0.202 0.0083 −0.0982 0.7588 0. some of these choices are discussed based on the experimental experience.1373 0.0652 0. If we compare these results to those in table 5.1177 0. which is much worse.0090 0.2004 0.637 −0.063 0.579 0. Nonlinear relation between the actuator current and torque.158 −0.0139 Table 5.1602 0. The standard deviation on most parameter estimates are a bit smaller than those mentioned above. Experimental results 153 Parameter m [kg] cx [m] cy [m] cz [m] Ixx [kgm2 ] Iyy [kgm2 ] Izz [kgm2 ] Ixy [kgm2 ] Ixz [kgm2 ] Iyz [kgm2 ] Exact value 9. The eﬃciencies are initially set to 95%.0044 0. The mass estimate tends to vary even more when the starting values of the transmission eﬃciencies are changed. Estimation of the transmission eﬃciency. are presented in table 5. This could be expected from the fact that the deviation from a linear relation is very small in the relevant range.9.5. Including the losses in the transmission makes the parameter estimation nonlinear.0012 0. we see that most parameter values are similar.0423 −0.612 0.
Although some individual parameter values are relatively small. The same conclusions apply to the results of the large payload conﬁguration in table 5. An important requisite is that the quality of the a priori information is very good. The same eﬀect is observed for other initial guesses. it cannot be concluded that estimating the eﬃciencies yields more accurate estimates of the payload parameters. This indicates that the excitation does not perform well with respect to these parameters. The results and conclusions are however generally valid. . This indicates that the nonlinear optimization gets stuck in a local minimum. the diﬀerences between estimated and exact parameter values are even smaller than one standard deviation.g. their estimates are very accurate. which in turn improves the condition of the estimation problem. Similar to the results of the medium payload conﬁguration. Table 5. e. For this conﬁguration. Parameter estimates of other payload conﬁgurations Until now. Experimental results show that this does not improve the accuracy of the other parameter estimates. this section gives the identiﬁcation results for a small and a large payload conﬁguration. To prove that the presented payload identiﬁcation approach also applies to other payload conﬁgurations. all of the presented results were obtained using the medium payload conﬁguration. the standard deviations on the mass m and on the moments of inertia Ixx and Iyy are relatively large. The payload mass could be considered as a priori known in order to eliminate the sensitivity problem of this parameter.10 shows the estimated parameter values for the small payload. This reduces the number of parameters to be estimated. Payload mass a priori known. The increased complexity due to the nonlinear parameter estimation is therefore not justiﬁed. In general. it is better to take into account as much a priori information as there is available. Based on this discussion. 90% or 100%.11.154 Robot payload identiﬁcation ﬁnally estimated values are close to their initial guesses.
3200 0.0537 0.0246 Single experiment 5.0440 0.2089 0.8748 0.2150 0.3624 0.2687 0.0254 −0.2350 0.0252 0.0361 Average estimation values Estimated Standard value deviation 5.0096 0.0978 0.0211 0.0278 0.3112 1.2871 −0.555 −0.0571 0.0052 0.0502 0.0025 0.5056 0.10: Exact and estimated inertial parameter values for small payload conﬁguration Parameter m [kg] cx [m] cy [m] cz [m] Ixx [kgm2 ] Iyy [kgm2 ] Izz [kgm2 ] Ixy [kgm2 ] Ixz [kgm2 ] Iyz [kgm2 ] Exact value 13.0087 0.0186 0.0709 0.0012 0.2728 0.5909 0.0142 0.2014 −0.0280 Table 5.091 0.2961 0.2866 0.2530 0.0049 0.0039 0.2721 0.0963 0.0122 −0.003 0.0570 0.2706 0.0430 0.1863 −0.2729 0. Experimental results 155 Parameter m [kg] cx [m] cy [m] cz [m] Ixx [kgm2 ] Iyy [kgm2 ] Izz [kgm2 ] Ixy [kgm2 ] Ixz [kgm2 ] Iyz [kgm2 ] Exact value 5.0090 −0.102 1.0636 0.6.2563 0.0985 1.0899 0.0009 0.0715 0.028 1.3519 0.0976 0.8444 0.0951 0.2392 0.0308 Table 5.0062 0.11: Exact and estimated inertial parameter values for large payload conﬁguration .0668 0.0215 Single experiment 13.3626 0.0841 0.5.3045 1.0302 0.0305 −0.0258 0.0055 0.001 Average estimation values Estimated Standard value deviation 13.0947 1.8947 0.0006 −0.267 −0.0146 0.
In each experiment. Generally. This is bad news. . varies with temperature. except the Coulomb friction of the third axis. Figure 5. it was observed that also the payload parameter estimates are strongly aﬀected by the warmup of the robot. because it becomes impossible to obtain consistent and accurate parameter estimates in all situations. all other measurements on which the results in this chapter are based were done in similar conditions. A payload identiﬁcation was repeated for 20 successive experiments. This conﬁrms that the friction parameters change when the robot gets warmed up. the friction torque decreases with increasing temperature. Variation of only the friction should not cause any problem for the payload identiﬁcation as long as the measurement time is short in comparison with the time constant of the temperature variation. We observe however that also the parameter estimates of the payload show a variation with temperature. This explains why the results are accurate and consistent for diﬀerent excitation trajectories and diﬀerent payload conﬁgurations. the actuator torque constant.10 shows the evolution of the friction parameter estimates. In the experiments of this chapter. i.6.3 Eﬀect of the warmup on the accuracy of the parameter estimates The experimental results of chapter 3 already showed that friction is temperature dependent. This inﬂuence was experimentally veriﬁed with the large payload conﬁguration attached to the manipulator. the same excitation trajectory was used. It is physically impossible that the mass and the inertias change with temperature. Fortunately. This suggests that the relation between actuator current and actuator torques. The evolution of these parameter values is shown in ﬁgure 5. the measurement signals are badly calibrated and no accurate measurements of the actuator torque are available anymore.e. Especially the estimates of the payload mass m and the moment of inertia Izz seem to be very sensitive to the warmup eﬀect.11. Consequently.156 Robot payload identiﬁcation 5.
5 11 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 9.6.5 13 12.8 1.7 11 10 9.3 9.4 10.2 2 1.2 5 10 15 20 7 5 10 15 20 11 10.4 2.10: Evolution of the estimated friction coeﬃcients with warmup of the manipulator .2 10 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 Number of measurement Number of measurement Figure 5.8 9.5.6 2. Experimental results 157 Coulomb friction coefficient 40 38 60 50 40 30 20 Viscous friction coefficient Axis 3 36 34 32 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 28.5 12 27 26.5 28 13.4 9 8 9.6 Axis 5 9.8 2.6 Axis 6 10.5 9.5 Axis 4 27.5 11.6 10.
1 1.4 14.1 1.14 1.0256 0.05 0.2 Ixx 0.08 1.0252 0.12 5 10 15 20 −6 −8 −10 −12 0.0254 −0.8 13.27 x 10 −3 5 10 15 20 I 5 10 15 20 1.03 5 10 15 20 0.027 0.29 0.27 5 10 15 20 −0.275 5 10 15 20 0.028 0.6 13.096 cx −0.025 cz −0.28 0.25 −2 −4 1.275 0.11: Evolution of the estimated inertial payload parameter values with warmup of the manipulator .0248 5 10 15 20 0.1 0.25 0.1 5 10 15 20 −0.029 yz Izz 1.15 1.2 Iyy Ixz 1.285 xy 0.158 Robot payload identiﬁcation 14.026 5 10 15 20 I 5 10 15 20 Number of measurement Number of measurement Figure 5.06 0.4 0.098 cy m 0.2 14 13.15 0.
5. Since we are mainly interested in the payload parameters. The experimental results cannot prove that the inclusion of the transmission eﬃciency in the identiﬁcation model yields signiﬁcantly better parameter estimates.7. This results in an identiﬁcation model that only depends on the payload inertial parameters and the friction parameters. a friction model including Coulomb and viscous friction is therefore suﬃcient to describe the losses in the system. there is no need to identify the full manipulator again. It is observed that the actuator torque constants change with the warmup of the robot. The experiment design using periodic trajectories and maximum likelihood parameter estimation is adopted. Experimental results show that this payload identiﬁcation approach satisﬁes the requirements of the industrial users.7 Conclusions The presented experimental robot payload identiﬁcation method is based on the robot identiﬁcation method described in chapter 3. The rotor inertias and inertial parameters of the links are set to a priori determined values. Conclusions 159 5. This negatively aﬀects the accuracy of the payload identiﬁcation approach. An accurate robot identiﬁcation should precede the payload identiﬁcation step. The ﬁrst requirement is more diﬃcult to achieve because the parameter estimation is very sensitive to the quality of all a priori knowledge. The modelling approach however is a little bit diﬀerent. . The obtained inertial parameter estimates correspond to the physical values and the resulting dynamic model is able to provide an accurate actuator torque prediction. The torque contribution of the robot links is compensated for based on a priori known dynamic robot model.
160 Robot payload identiﬁcation .
Goldratt The performance of any real system is limited by its constraints 6. it is necessary to move the end eﬀector of a manipulator along some desired paths with predescribed speed. For some applications.Trajectory compensation 6 E.1 Introduction Industrial robots have become an indispensable means of automation to increase productivity and ﬂexibility of production systems. The ever increasing quality standards and international competition impose higher requirements on reliability and positioning accuracy. such as spray painting. modern applications like laser cutting and welding require an increasing path tracking accuracy. Moreover. and above all on velocity of industrial robots. 161 .
controller performance limitations. 1999). the classical control techniques are still widely used in industrial robot applications. Validation of the method is performed by means of circular trajectories. . Since there is a rather slow evolution to change the standard controllers of industrial robots. Although typical industrial controllers are suﬃcient for simple pickandplace applications. actuator dynamics. and dynamic coupling between the axes.4 discusses some practical limitations which make it diﬃcult. The precompensation module can be seen as an oﬀline compensation of the velocity trajectory in such way that after execution the end eﬀector follows the desired position trajectory more accurately. resulting in deviations from the desired motion. Sciavicco and Siciliano. 1996). and ﬂexibility is mostly negligible because commercial robots have high transmission stiﬀness. gravitation.162 Trajectory compensation Path tracking errors mainly originate from kinematic errors. The inclusion of these nonlinear eﬀects is however necessary for accurate high speed path tracking. a compensation of the nonlinear dynamics can presently only be realized by adding a compensation to the desired trajectory (Alban and Janocha. 1994. The implementation of the method on a KUKA IR 361 industrial robot is discussed in section 6. or even impossible. Lange et al. This chapter presents a model based method that uses a priori knowledge of the robot dynamics to improve the path tracking accuracy by generating an additional velocity feedforward based on the robot dynamics. Section 6.2 presents the diﬀerent steps of the developed trajectory precompensation method. The kinematic errors can easily be compensated in the path planning. they don’t take into account nonlinearities like centrifugal. there is a growing interest from industry for an improved path tracking accuracy with the current generation of robots and controllers. Coriolis forces. The results clearly show the improved path tracking accuracy on these trajectories. 1986. and joint ﬂexibility (Bernhardt and Albright. Nevertheless. to implement the trajectory precompensation on any standard industrial robot.3. present an adaptive learning algorithm that reduces the path deviations (Lange and Hirzinger. Lange and Hirzinger. 1999). 1992. Due to the complexity of advanced control algorithms developed in robotics research (Adams. Craig. The measured deviations are taken into account in the compensation scheme. Section 6. friction. 1993).
This means that we have to determine the (position) command to be applied to the controller input that will produce the desired actuator torque output. The right solution to this control problem is to add a torque feedforward.1 presents the general idea of precompensation. and an inverse model of the controller. qd qd qd Inverse system qd.2 Trajectory precompensation Obtaining perfect path tracking of a complex dynamic system is not easy to realize. Section 6.6. The desired trajectory qd is ﬁrst compensated by ﬁltering it using the inverse model of the robot system. The inverse system consists of two main parts: an inverse dynamic model of the robot. The reason is that a position and velocity tracking error is used to build up the required torque.comp is then applied to the real system. a high actuator torque cannot be obtained unless there is a large tracking error. yielding perfect path tracking if no disturbances or modelling errors are present. Unfortunately.1: General idea of precompensation To implement the trajectory precompensation module.2. The compensated trajectory qd. a classical proportional controller with feedback will always lag behind in executing the trajectory. we must be smarter. Hence.comp System Controller + Robot qact qact qact Figure 6. The two parts of the inverse model and the trajectory precompensation are discussed in the following sections. most industrial control manufacturers do not allow us to intervene directly at this level of the control structure.comp qd. and ﬁnd a way to make the feedback controller generate the torque we want.1 discusses the identiﬁcation of an inverse dynamic . This model consists of the controller and robot dynamics in closed loop conﬁguration. When we apply the desired trajectory to the command input. As a consequence. Trajectory precompensation 163 6. a model of the inverse system has to be identiﬁed.2. Figure 6.
3. gravitation.2. This information might be provided by the robot manufacturer or has to be obtained experimentally. centrifugal. The equations of the inverse robot dynamics can be written in the following form τ = M(q)¨ + C(q. i. In the second step (section 6. the controller consists of three cascaded control loops: an analog actuator current controller. These identiﬁcation techniques were extensively discussed in chapters 3 and 4.164 Trajectory compensation model of the robot which includes the nonlinear dynamic eﬀects. q ˙ ˙ (6. a model of the linear robot controller is constructed. yielding a transfer function G(s) for the controller.2).2.e. the number and the values of the poles and zeros of G(s) have to be determined. the obtained models are combined to implement the precompensation module in section 6. . 6.2 Controller dynamics In addition to the robot dynamics. It includes nonlinearities like friction. an analog velocity controller. The inverse ﬁltering step of the precompensation method involves the inversion of the transfer function G(s) associated with the controller.1 The dynamic robot model The dynamic robot model describes the relation between the robot motion and the required actuator torques. The experimental results showed that the identiﬁed inverse dynamic robot models allows accurate actuator torque predictions for any desired motion.1) The inverse dynamic robot model can be written in a linear form which forms the basis for an accurate and eﬃcient experimental parameter identiﬁcation. and Coriolis forces. This step includes the determination and the selection of the model structure and the parameter estimation. 6.2. In most practical robot systems. An accurate model can be obtained using experimental identiﬁcation.2. Finally. q) + g(q) + τf (q). a model of the controller dynamics is required for the compensation method. and a digital position controller.
comp Position controller qd +  PI + + + Velocity controller Gcontr t Robot qact Analog ò qact Offline Digital Figure 6. The current controller dynamics are neglected. and has a high bandwidth. describing the rigid body dynamics and joint friction. which have a smaller bandwidth.3. Since the most important nonlinearities are due to the mechanics. the position controller is implemented digitally. The analog velocity controller feeds back the measured motor velocity and compares it with the desired velocity. Nonlinear precompensation uses an inverse model of the closed loop system to ﬁlter the desired trajectory. The desired actuator torques τd required to generate the desired . is completely known. and allows us to add a velocity feedforward to the position controller.2. This inverse model consists of the inverse dynamic robot model.qd.2. In the outer loop.3 The trajectory precompensation Figure 6.2.qd) q d dt td Gcontr qd 1 + + qd. 6. the dynamics of the current controller may be neglected. A PI structure with tachometer feedback has been identiﬁed as an appropriate model for the analog velocity controller.6. Trajectory precompensation 165 Inverse dynamic model f(qd. and the inverse model of the analog velocity controller.2 shows the global scheme of the robot and its controller with the precompensation in the oﬀline part. represented as Gcontr . This extra input is used to apply the compensation signal. Its estimation will be discussed in section 6.2: Structure of robot with nonlinear precompensation The current controller is the most inner loop.
Section 6. Because the standard industrial controller cannot be changed to provide a computed torque feedforward.comp − qd ) = τd ˙ ˙ ⇓ qd. It is necessary to preserve a position feedback to control deviations from the nominal trajectory. Like computedtorque. originating e. the resulting values are converted to a velocity feedforward using the inverse model of the controller. ˙ ¨ (6. the inverse dynamics of the robot are used to calculate the expected actuator torques for the desired joint motion.166 Trajectory compensation robot motion qd are calculated in a ﬁrst step from equation (6.2) In a second step.1): τd = M(qd )¨d + C(qd .3) clearly shows that this feedforward generation corresponds to a trajectory precompensation: the desired velocity trajectory qd is ˙ −1 compensated using the inverse controller model Gcontr and the torques τd required to generate the desired motion qd . qd ) + g(qd ) + τf (qd ) q ˙ ˙ = Φ(qd . the trajectory precompensation is added using the available velocity feedforward controller input.g.3. Since there is no torque interface available. The practical implementation of the precompensation scheme requires the further ﬁnetuning of the precompensation scheme by identifying additional constants and time delays which can only be determined in a closed loop identiﬁcation.3) which are implemented as a velocity feedforward (see ﬁgure 6. qd . the inverse model of the velocity controller converts the desired actuator torques τd to compensated desired velocities Gcontr (qd. Equation (6. This method combines the general idea and advantages of computedtorque with the standard industrial controller. from inaccuracies in the dynamic model or external disturbances. qd ) θ.3 gives more details about this ﬁnetuning. As desired position we preserve qd . .2).comp = G−1 τd + qd . ˙ ˙ contr (6.
3. the results have been validated by using diﬀerent trajectories (section 6. The standard industrial controller RC 22/42 is maintained for the analog control levels. The used robot and controller model are shortly discussed in section 6.3. This ﬂexible control environment allows us to add a velocity feedforward. Only the ﬁrst three robot axes are considered. and the validation trajectories.2. The digital controller runs at a sampling rate of 150 Hz..3.3. The position controller is digitally implemented in the COMRADE software (Van de Poel et al.6.1 presents the test setup. Section 6.1 Description of test case The considered test case is a KUKA IR 361 robot (ﬁgure 6. Section 6.3: KUKA IR 361 robot 6. 6.3).4). 1993). .3.3 Experimental veriﬁcation This section discusses the experimental application and validation of the presented method on a KUKA IR 361 robot in the PMA lab. used to ﬁnetune the precompensation scheme. Some performance criteria are used to express the improvement of the path tracking accuracy. Finally. Experimental veriﬁcation 167 Figure 6.3 introduces the reference trajectory.3.
.2 Description of the robot controller model The velocity controller dynamics are identiﬁed by applying multisine trajectories with a bandlimit of 5 Hz (Schoukens and Pintelon. A PI structure with tachometer feedback is the most appropriate model structure yielding the best correspondence with the experimental transfer function estimate (ETFE) (Schoukens and Pintelon.5 4 4. 1991) resulting from these measurements.5 3 3. the tachometer signal and the actuator torque.5 5 Frequency (Hz) Figure 6.3. This frequency is far below the bandwidth of the velocity controller.5 1 1.4. The measured signals that are used in the identiﬁcation are: the velocity command signal.168 Trajectory compensation 30 25 GETFE Gcontr Amplitude (dB) 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.5 2 2. 1991).5 2 2.4: Experimentally measured transfer function and identiﬁed controller model of axis 3 6. but high enough for the given application. The experimentally measured transfer function and identiﬁed controller model for the velocity controller of axis 3 are shown in ﬁgure 6.5 3 3.5 1 1.5 5 Frequency (Hz) 50 Phase (degrees) 0 −50 −100 −150 0 0.5 4 4.
This is done by taking into account a time shift of approximately 3 ms for the desired position signal. position and orientation in the workspace.3. which is smaller than the sampling period of the position controller. The corresponding maximum absolute values of the tracking error are listed in table 6. The precompensation method is validated using several circular trajectories. The tracking error is a measure of the remaining modelling errors and disturbances. it is also necessary to compensate for the transport delays due to the digital implementation of the position controller.3 Reference and validation trajectories The reference and validation trajectories are circles in vertical and horizontal planes. The reference trajectory is executed 15 times. These trajectories have a simple analytic description in the Cartesian space. These values clearly show the improved control performance. In order to obtain optimal results. At the joint level. These validation trajectories diﬀer from each other in circle diameter.4 Experimental results The results are evaluated both at the joint level and at the Cartesian level. Scaling factors that exist between these submodels have to be determined using measurements of the closed loop behavior. and path velocity. Figure 6. and yield periodic and continuous joint trajectories. Experimental veriﬁcation 169 6. This allows time domain averaging and frequency domain calculations of the velocity and accelerations. This ﬁnetuning is necessary because the identiﬁcation of the inverse model was performed in separate parts.3.6. 6.5 shows the tracking error qd − qact with and without compensation of the nonlinear dynamics for a circle with a diameter of 40 cm executed at a velocity of 600 mm/s in a horizontal plane. and hence the achieved control performance.3. . The performance of the industrial controller with precompensated velocity feedforward and normal velocity feedforward are compared. the joint position tracking error qd −qact is used. which is more accurate than applying numerical diﬀerentiation techniques.1. The measurements of this excitation are averaged over all the measured periods and used to ﬁnetune the precompensation scheme.
170 Trajectory compensation 6 x 10 −3 Without precorrection 4 Joint position tracking error (rad) 2 0 −2 −4 Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 −6 0 0.2 1.8 1 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.4 1.5: Tracking error for a circle (diameter 40 cm at velocity 0.8 1 1.2 0.6 0.6 Time (s) Figure 6.4 1.6 m/s) in a horizontal plane without compensation (top) and with compensation (bottom) of the nonlinear dynamics .6 Time (s) 6 x 10 −3 With precorrection 4 Joint position tracking error (rad) 2 0 −2 −4 Joint 1 Joint 2 Joint 3 −6 0 0.
Experimental veriﬁcation 171 joint 1 joint 2 joint 3 without compensation 1. (6.95 · 10−3 rad 2.60 · 10−3 rad 5.58 · 10−3 rad 0. we see that this eﬀect is signiﬁcantly reduced. To have a measure of the improvement of the absolute path tracking accuracy.7 shows the calculated deviations from the desired trajectory for the given circle. In ﬁgure 6. Possible deviations due to kinematic errors and joint ﬂexibilities are not considered for simplicity. the following performance criteria are deﬁned: • Mean deviation from the desired trajectory dmean = 1 N N di i=1 (6. . and N is the number of measured points on the trajectory. An external measurement of the absolute end eﬀector accuracy would also take into account these deviations. y. We observe a small bend in the tracking error near velocity reversal.5) which gives the mean distance between the desired and the corresponding actually measured position. The distance between the measured point (x. Figure 6.34 · 10−3 rad with compensation 0.62 · 10−3 rad Table 6. yd .1: Maximum absolute value of tracking error for circle with diameter 40 cm at a velocity of 0.6. zd ) on the desired trajectory in Cartesian coordinates is given by the Euclidean distance: di = (xd (i) − x(i))2 + (yd (i) − y(i))2 + (zd (i) − z(i))2 .6 m/s in the horizontal plane Figure 6.6 compares the measured position tracking error for joint axis 3 before trajectory compensation to the joint velocity. which can be explained by the Coulomb friction.5.13 · 10−3 rad 0. the Cartesian positions have been calculated from the measured actuator positions using the forward kinematics. z) on the trajectory and the corresponding point (xd .3.4) To evaluate the experiments.
6 2 Velocity axis 3 (rad/s) 1 0 −1 −2 0 0.4 1.6 Time (s) Figure 6.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.172 Trajectory compensation Position tracking error (rad) 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 −6 x 10 −3 0 0.8 1 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.8 1 1.2 0.6: Relation between tracking error and velocity for joint axis 3 (without the precompensation) .2 1.
5 1 1.5 1 1.6.7: Cartesian error for a circle (diameter 40 cm at velocity 0.5 Z−error (mm) 1 0 −1 0 0.5 Time (s) Figure 6.5 1 1. Experimental veriﬁcation 173 Cartesian errors 3 X−error (mm) 2 1 0 −1 −2 2 0 0.3.5 Y−error (mm) 1 0 −1 −2 0 0.6 m/s) in a horizontal plane without (full line) and with compensation (dashed line) .
01 0.45 without compensation with compensation Table 6.260 0. i (6.16 diameter 40 cm at velocity 300 mm/s without compensation 0.057 0.123 0.3.6 m/s The experiments have been repeated for other diameters of the circle.2 shows the values for these performance criteria.042 0.6) Table 6.017 1.174 Trajectory compensation • Maximum deviation from the desired trajectory dmax = max di .208 Table 6.540 with compensation 0.2: Performance criteria for circle with diameter 40 cm at velocity 0.422 0.138 0. Some of these results are summarized in table 6.056 0. yielding similar results. with diﬀerent velocities and for other positions of the circle in an horizontal and vertical plane.062 0.72 with compensation 0.609 with compensation 0.19 diameter 40 cm at velocity 150 mm/s without compensation 0.204 diameter 40 cm at velocity 75 mm/s without compensation 0. dmean [mm] dmax [mm] diameter 30 cm at velocity 600 mm/s without compensation 1.3: Performance criteria for circles with an other diameter and a diﬀerent velocity in a vertical plane .67 with compensation 0.249 dmax [mm] 2. dmean [mm] 1. and conﬁrm the improved path tracking accuracy by using trajectory precompensation.
the communication is often characterized by a signiﬁcant delay and jitter. This opens a lot of opportunities to implement and test the trajectory precompensation. Practical limitations for implementation 175 6. but at a lower sampling rate than the controller sampling rate. For instance. A more ideal situation would be an open robot controller software. Furthermore. it is sometimes possible to log these signals to a ﬁle. which is valuable information to design the inverse controller part of the precompensation scheme.6.4. An open interface to the robot con . In that case. e. if not impossible. The setup has the disadvantage that the original industrial path planner and position controller cannot be used anymore. Implementing the presented precompensation procedure on a real industrial setup is however not straightforward. Some manufacturers have an additional software module that makes it possible to exchange data between the controller and an external system. most industrial controllers do not have an open interface which allows to apply a trajectory correction immediately and in realtime to the controller input. The position controller is replaced by a home made version and is implemented in software. the use of an antiwindup controller or the inclusion of a signal saturation block to avoid overloading of the output signal are very hard to detect. the controller structure is completely known. especially in the development phase. tracking error or the controller output. to experimentally determine the controller structure. First of all. because the full controller structure is known and the full software source code is available. Some nonlinear parts can make it diﬃcult. Unfortunately. it is desirable to be able to read out several controller signals. Even the use of a velocity and acceleration feedforward can complicate the application of a trajectory compensation.4 Practical limitations for implementation The experimental setup available in the lab consists of an industrial manipulator and its industrial controller. We conclude that an optimal implementation and validation of the trajectory precompensation cannot be realized without the commitment of a robot manufacturer. In practice. It was therefore not possible to compare the performance of the precompensation against the original controller performance.g. and therefore not useful for realtime control. This may introduce aliasing which should be avoided.
A trajectory precompensation is calculated by ﬁltering the desired trajectory with an inverse dynamic robot model including the controller dynamics yielding an improved velocity feedforward signal.176 Trajectory compensation troller and knowledge about the controller structure are indispensable for a successful application.5 Conclusions This chapter presented a method to compensate oﬀline for the nonlinear robot dynamics. The challenge remains to implement the trajectory compensation online on a real industrial manipulator and validate it using arbitrary continuous trajectories generated by the standard path generator. This development however requires a software interface to the robot controller and information about the controller structure. The experimental results of this trajectory precompensation approach show that it is possible to achieve a signiﬁcant improvement of the path tracking accuracy. 6. .
have removed the major objections to implementing model based control techniques for industrial robot manipulators. The implementation requires validated and accurate dynamic robot models. which is 177 .Conclusions 7 Each success only buys an admission ticket to a more diﬃcult problem Henry Kissinger 7. like increased computational power at a lower cost.1 Summary of the conclusions Recent technological developments. This research project continues the development of an experimental identiﬁcation approach for industrial robot manipulators. New industrial applications demanding higher accuracy and performance will beneﬁt from the inclusion of more system knowledge into the controller design.
Whenever available. validating the combined model approach. This statistical information is used in the parameter estimation step which is based on the maximum likelihood framework. All presented methods are experimentally implemented and validated on industrial serial robot manipulators. Improvement of the existing identiﬁcation approach This thesis brings the dynamic robot identiﬁcation procedure closer to industrial practice. This thesis makes contributions in the area of experimental robot identiﬁcation by improving the existing approach.178 Conclusions based on a model generation step that yields linearity in the unknown parameters. This thesis conﬁrms that a good calibration of the actuator torque constants is required to obtain this good correspondence. This aspect increases the industrial relevance of this research. This ensures an easy parameter estimation and has the advantage that the parameters have a physical interpretation. The dynamic eﬀects of the gravity compensation spring and the rotor inertias are described by models which preserve the linearity of the identiﬁcation model and which are derived from physical properties (chapter 3). and improving the dynamic accuracy with trajectory precompensation. The experiment design uses periodic excitation which allows analytic diﬀerentiation and calculation of information on the noise level. Finally. Validation of the combined identiﬁcation approach In order to improve the accuracy of the parameter estimates an external force/torque sensor is added to the test setup which measures the reaction wrench of the manipulator on its base plate (chapter 4). a good correspondence is found. The external identiﬁcation model associated with these measurements is combined with the classical internal robot identiﬁcation model into . speciﬁcation data from the robot manufacturer is compared to the estimated parameter values. the validation is performed both on the torque prediction and on the individual parameter values. Each time. which conﬁrms the validity of the approach. identifying the inertial parameters of the robot payload.
This thesis recognizes this evolution and extends the classical robot identiﬁcation procedure to the problem of identifying the inertial parameter values of the payload (chapter 5). Summary of the conclusions 179 one identiﬁcation model. the link and rotor inertias are considered separately in the identiﬁcation model. The ﬁnally obtained parameter and actuator torque prediction accuracy satisfy the requirements imposed by industrial users of robots. but compensates for all known robot dynamics based on available a priori information. yielding a change in the actuator torque constants. The accuracy improvement largely depends on the noise level on the diﬀerent measurement signals. It is experimentally veriﬁed that the combined model reduces the uncertainty on the inertial parameter estimates. It shows that accurate payload parameter estimates can only be obtained if all a priori knowledge is suﬃciently accurate. A sensitivity analysis is performed based on a simulation model of the robot with payload. The presented approach does not require a full identiﬁcation of the manipulator. To experimentally validate the payload identiﬁcation approach. the analysis reveals that obtaining accurate parameter estimates is more diﬃcult to achieve than accurately predicting the actuator torques. as it is done in other approaches. Since the rotor inertias have a diﬀerent torque contribution to the internal and the external model. it is also necessary to have a good calibration of the measurement signals and to take into account the eﬀect of the rotor inertias. An improvement of the actuator torque prediction is however not conﬁrmed by the results in this thesis. This thesis presents the ﬁrst experimental results ever obtained with this combined approach. In addition. Only the warmup eﬀect. To obtain consistent estimation results for both approaches. a calibrated reference payload is designed of which all inertial parameters are accurately known.7. The resulting combined robot model allows to accurately predict both the actuator torques and the reaction forces and torques on the base plate. makes it diﬃcult to guarantee accurate parameter estimation in all situations. . Identiﬁcation of the inertial payload parameters The robot payload becomes a more important factor in the robot dynamics.1.
However. and trajectory compensation.2 Future work Experimental work is never ﬁnished. Both manufacturers and industrial users will beneﬁt from the improved accuracy. Therefore. nor does this thesis pretend to be the end of all stories. a trajectory precompensation method has been developed (chapter 6). The desired trajectory is ﬁltered with an inverse dynamic robot model including the controller dynamics yielding a velocity feedforward signal. The experimental results obtained in this thesis show a signiﬁcant improvement of the path tracking accuracy. Several trajectory parameters are available to act . every new robot manipulator has its own peculiarities and requires a customized approach. should be implemented and validated on the same experimental setup. Although the theoretical framework forms a solid basis. 7. The excitation trajectory design should be considered from a practical point of view.180 Conclusions Improvement of the path tracking accuracy To compensate oﬀline for the nonlinear robot dynamics. some questions remain unanswered. This brings a strong practical limitation for industrial application. In addition. because the results should be consistent for all experiments. most commercial robot controllers do not even have an open interface in order to apply a trajectory precompensation. The main advantage of this method is that no change of the existing robot controller is required. like model combining. This synthesis exercise will allow us to evaluate the accuracy of each application. An important requirement to obtain consistency is to have accurate actuator torque constants and to consider the temperature and load dependency of friction. this thesis holds a plea for more open realtime interfaces to existing robot controllers. A good insight in how the actuator torque constants and the friction evolve with the warmup of the manipulator can result in better parameter estimates and can open opportunities to do a better compensation of the robot dynamics over a longer time. As a starting point. payload identiﬁcation. all presented methods.
the knowledge of the dynamic model should be included in the control algorithm of industrial robots. which should allow the application of a trajectory compensation. This optimization criterion should reach an appropriately chosen minimal level that guarantees suﬃcient excitation. An external measurement system can be used to validate the obtained improvement in path tracking accuracy. but avoids that further optimization would not yield practical signiﬁcant better parameter estimates. An industrial experience could give a valuable feedback to research. at the same time. Therefore. an open.2. It is however well known that developers of standard robot controllers today have great diﬃculties in supporting this need for integration. The performance of diﬀerent optimized excitation trajectories can be evaluated by looking at the parameter estimation accuracy. takes into account the desired parameter accuracy. the validity can not always be guaranteed for a wider application area. A ﬁrst step is made in this thesis with the development of the trajectory precompensation method. Future work 181 on the quality of the excitation. a readytouse software framework for dynamic modelling and identiﬁcation of robot manipu .7. To facilitate the integration in industry. Only then it makes sense to compare the performance of the trajectory precompensation method with the performance of the original controller. More speciﬁcally. A new optimization criterion should be found. An eﬃcient optimization algorithm has to be selected which is capable of ﬁnding a satisfying excitation trajectory within a reasonable time. Time is ready to bring the developments of robot identiﬁcation to industry. In addition. In further steps. which is able to express the uncertainty on the parameter estimates and which. A close integration of the dynamic model in both controller and path planner will result in robots which are more accurate. also industry might beneﬁt from the implementation. with a minimum of degradation on eﬃciency and safety. Research results are mostly only validated on one speciﬁc setup. Development of an opensystem architecture based on software modules will enable the control engineer to implement desired control features. because manipulators are made more accurate. realtime interface to the commercial robot controller is not available. This method still remains to be implemented on a commercially available robot controller.
which can be conﬁgured to a speciﬁc application for the user. appealing and relevant applications will push robot identiﬁcation to a shouldhave toolbox. Finding attractive. This should evolve towards a software concept that is based on a library of modular components. and to convince them of the advantages of experimental identiﬁcation such that the techniques obtain as much acceptance in industry as they get from academics. Time has come to bring the results to industry. This is where my academic research on robot identiﬁcation ends. .182 Conclusions lators should be developed in close cooperation with manufacturers to learn in an early phase about their requirements.
H.. Nonlinear control of ﬂexible robots. Link¨ping University. G. P. C. Eﬀects of nonlinearities in black box identiﬁcation of an industrial robot. Atkeson. M. Sweden. Technical Report LiTHISYR2322. (1986). A systematic procedure for the identiﬁcation of dynamic parameters of robot manipulators. In Proc. and Hirzinger. and Hollerbach. Seoul. Alban. H. Caccavale. SE581 o 83 Link¨ping. (2001). CA.Bibliography Aberger. (1992). pages 55–60. of the European Control Conference ECC’99. M. A. (1999).. Karlsruhe. Korea. AlbuSch¨ﬀer. M. 17:427–435. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. and Janocha. and Chiacchio. Parameter identiﬁcation a and passivity based control for a 7dof torque controlled light weight robot. J.. pages 2852–2858. An.. (2001). Department of Electrical Engineering. F. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. G. C. AlbuSch¨ﬀer. 183 . o Adams. Leuven. DLR. PhD thesis. (1999). Robotica. T. Regelung von Robotern mit elastischen Gea lenken am Beispiel der DLRLeichtbauarme. San Francisco. (2000). Experimental determination of the eﬀect of feedforward control of trajectory tracking errors. Antonelli. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Belgium. G. Dynamic calibration of industrial robots with inertial measurement systems. Department of Mechanical Engineering. PhD thesis. A.
Caccavale. P. Automatica. and Hollerbach. M. The International Journal of Robotics Research. R. Chapman & Hall. (1995). R. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.. Robot Calibration.. and Bona. (1986). On ﬁnding exciting trajectories for identiﬁcation experiments involving systems with nonlinear dynamics. Estimation of inertial parameters of manipulator loads and links. L.. Leuven. 8(6):28–48. F. and Indri. pages 3303–3309. Calibration of robotic manipulators: a robust approach. and Indri. and Chiacchio. S. 30(7):1083– 1138. Calaﬁore. (1993). and El Ghaoui. Bona. and Canudas de Wit. Bernhardt. G. Schreck. 6(4):174– 176. B. (1989). B. (2001). Robust maximum likelihood estimation in the linear model. Germany. Belgium.. (1994).. Realistic robot simulation. C. C. B. Experiment design for robot dynamic calibration. C. 2(6):1039–1050.. Robot dynamic calibration: Optimal excitation trajectories and experimental parameter estimation. Atkeson. 18(2):55–68. Calaﬁore. M. (1994). pages 501–506. ArmstrongH´louvry. P. 37(4):573–580. The International Journal of Robotics Research. Control Engineering Practice. C. G. In 1st IFAC Conference on Mechatronic Systems. G. (2000). .. G... (1998). Dupont. Journal of Robotic Systems. B. An. and Albright. e A survey of models. Identiﬁcation of dynamic parameters and feedforward control for a conventional industrial manipulator.. J. Automatica. G. 5(3):101–119. L. Indri. analysis tools and compensation methods for the control of machines with friction. Darmstadt. and Willnow. Calaﬁore.184 Bibliography Armstrong. Computing and Control engineering journal. Bernhardt. M. Calaﬁore. (2001).
Canudas de Wit. Olsson. Combining internal and external robot models for improved model parameter estimation. (2000). Italy. Reading. (1989). Craig. In Proc.. B.. The eﬀects of gear reduction on robot dynamics. 10(3):189– 199.. (2000).Bibliography 185 Canudas de Wit. Pasadena.. Swevers.. Astr¨m. The International Journal of Robotics Research. Sch¨fer. P. H. J. Udine. C. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing.. B. Corke. (1995). X. CA. K. AddisonWesley. and Heimann. Canudas de Wit. Siciliano. o A new model for control of systems with friction.. P. In Proceedings of the 31st International Symposium on Robotics. pages 461–467.. B. .. MA. J. J. C.. (1996). (1988). and Fonseca. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. M. a Space robotics joints nonlinear modeling and online parameter identiﬁcation.. and Ganseman. G. Chen. Identiﬁcation and compensation of gear friction for modeling of robots. and Lischinsky. In situ measurement of robot motor electrical constants. (1986). C. Chenut. de Souza. A. B. and Brogliato. Theory of robot control. Canada.. Robotica. (1996). Montreal. A. 14(4):433–436.. 40(5):419–425. NASA Conf. Adaptive control of Mechanical Manipulators. da Silva. Aubin.. (1996). Samin. and Bastin. P. 14(5):691–704. R. R. Reading. J. J. No¨l. L. Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics & Control. pages 297–307. Daemi. (1991). C. In Proceeding of the 11th CISMIFToMM Symposium on the Theory and Practice of Robots and Manipulators. Craig. pages 89–96. e Adaptive friction compensation in robot manipulators : Low velocities. J. MA. J. AddisonWesley. Springer. on Space Telerobotics.
Leuven. (1993). Albuquerque. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.186 Bibliography Daemi. Ganseman.. (1977). C. Groningen. Raucent. . Dynamic modelling and identiﬁcation of mechanisms with application to industrial robots. 9:165–184. pages 351–356. ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics.C. Minimal dynamic characterization of treelike multibody systems. USA. M. Vienna. (1996). and Hartenberg. Numerical calculation of the base inertial parameters of robots. In Proceedings of 6th Annual Symp. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Dahl. M. and Press´. and Heimann. Austria. (1998). In Proceedings of the Second European Control Conference. Trans. Janin. pages 2291–2296. R. Measurement of solid friction parameters of ball bearings.. (1997). Separation of friction and rigid body identiﬁcation for an industrial robot. Cincinnati. Denavit. B. In Proceedings of the IFAC Symposium on Theory of Robots. and Samin. Dynamic identiﬁcation of e robots using least squares and extended kalman ﬁltering methods. Identiﬁcation of robots dynamics. In Proceeding of the 12th CISMIFToMM Symposium on the Theory and Practice of Robots and Manipulators. (1986). C. The Netherlands. M. (1998). J.. New Mexico. PhD thesis. J. Department of Mechanical Engineering. M. Gautier. Nonlinear Dynamics. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Gautier. Gautier. P. Control Systems and Devices. (1955). Illinois. on Incremental Motion. pages 1922–1927. 22:215–221. Paris. C. pages 35–42. B. M. A kinematic notation for lower pair mechanism based on matrices. pages 49–60. Belgium. pages 1020–1025. Fisette. P. (1990).. Gautier. France. Dynamic identiﬁcation of robots with power model.
Grotjahn. 38(1013):1889–1902. . pages 137–148. Japan. E. J. 9(1):1361–1372.. M. (1990).. 21(1):45–60. C. (2001). Austria. Grotjahn. 11(4):362–375. The International Journal of Robotics Research. Matrix Computations. In Proc. Extended kalman ﬁltering and weighted least squares dynamic identiﬁcation of robot. (2002). M. Identiﬁcation of the minimum inertial parameters of robots. France. B. Syroco. Gautier. and Khalil. Khalil. (2000).Bibliography 187 Gautier. Friction and rigid body identiﬁcation of robot dynamics. M. P. Modelbased feedforward control in industrial robotics. Gautier. Exciting trajectories for the identiﬁcation of base inertial parameters of robots. Gautier. M. B. and Khalil. M. Nagoya. Guglielmi. Modelling and identiﬁcation of a two degree of freedom SCARA robot using extended Kalman ﬁltering. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Jonker. W. and Heimann. The International Journal of Robotics Research. Scottsdale. Daemi. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Robotics. Grotjahn. 6(3):368–373. M. W. (1989). (1989). pages 1529–1534. and Heimann. The Johns Hopkins University Press. (1987). P. USA. and Khalil. and Piaso. Gautier. M. and Restrepo. (2001). International Journal of Solids and Structures... and Van Loan. of the 6th IFAC Symposium on Robot Control. Vienna. (1992). Control Engineering Practice. M. Determination of dynamic parameters of robots by base sensor measurements. and Poignet. and Heimann.. Direct calculation of minimum set of inertial parameters of serial robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. B. P. Golub. M. M. W. W.. (1995). Paris. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. M. Identiﬁcation of dynamic parameters of a closed loop robot. G. pages 3045–3050.
Parameteridentiﬁkation. Seoul. Trajectory optimization of industrial robots with application to computeraided robotics and robot controllers.. pages 395–404.188 Bibliography Hansen. Khalil. (2002). Honegger. and Pardalos.Y. Heim. Applied Interval Analysis. . Khalil. A.. O. O. In Proceedings of the 14th Triennial World Congress IFAC. a a Pascucci. Isermann. L. W... R. (2002). von Stryk.). and Gautier. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Dordrecht.. G. P. (2000). H. and Dombre. San Francisco. M.. (1992). J. pages 1710–1716. M. (2000). R.are we reaching the technological limits now? In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Modelbased control of hydraulically actuated manipulators. W.. China. SpringerVerlag. M. M. H. 47:407–420. Washington DC. Pesch. (1999). (2001). Bahnoptimierung und Echtzeitsteuerung von Robotern in der industriellen Anwendung. Pure and applied mathematics: a series of monographs and textbooks. K. E. Kieﬀer. and von Stryk. pages 3965–3970. P.. DLR’s torquecontrolled light weight robot iii . CA. Optimization. O.. Sch¨ﬄer. Modeling of mechanical systems with lumped elasticity. Beijing. Global optimization using interval analysis. N. SpringerVerlag. identiﬁcation & control of robots. Korea. E. identiﬁcation and simultation of mechatronic systems. Handbook of Global Optimization. (2001). A. Hermes Penton Ltd. Dekker New York (N... Modeling. Krenn. pages 551–564. (1995). a (1997). Hirzinger. A. M. pages 2553–2559. A. H¨hnle. Modeling. E. Jaulin. Didrit. Sporer.. Heim. R.. and Walter. R. Kluwer. and Scheuer. AlbuSch¨ﬀer. and Schedl. and Corke. Horst.
. (1988). and Hirzinger. 47(4):683–687. A comparative analysis of the hardware requirements for the LagrangeEuler and NewtonEuler dynamics formulations. pages 1170–1178. T. Lange. (1996). Kozlowski. Khosla. A generalized Maxwellslip friction model appropriate for control purposes. In Triennial World Congress IFAC. and Dutkiewicz. F. and Hirzinger. The International Journal of Robotics Research. F. Russia. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. P. (1994). In Proc. (2003). Learning of a controller for nonrecurring fast movements.. SaintPetersburg. and Kanade. pages 494–501. V. J.V. RODYM6D Product Description and User Manual. (1988). (2002). (1989). P.Bibliography 189 Khosla. Khosla.. F. . pages 291 – 296. Categorization of parameters in the dynamic robot model. S. Krypton Electronic Engineering N.. 5(3):261–268. G. of the Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation. pages 397–402. AlBender. Advanced Robotics. Khosla. and AlBender. Swevers. Experimental identiﬁcation of robot and load dynamics. (1996). (1987). Learning to improve the path accuracy of position controlled robots. Belgium. V. P. 7(1):18 – 28. Lampaert. Lange. 2(3). F. K. and Swevers. Heverlee. Krypton (1998). G. P. J. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. P. USA. Lampaert. Munich. Modiﬁcation of the Leuven integrated friction model structure. volume 1. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Physics and Control. Experimental evaluation of nonlinear feedback and feedforward control schemes for manipulators. and Ramos. Special issue on Behavior and Learning. San Francisco. Philadelphia. and Kanade. An algorithm to estimate manipulator dynamics parameters.. T.
(2003). Journal of Dynamic Systems. G. Liu. Exact Bayesian inference for a class of nonlinear systems with application to robotic assembly. Ljung. A. Walker. D. J. Iagnemma. 17(2):219–237. Online computational scheme for mechanical manipulators. M. F. M. Yoshida. In Proc. Smith and M. S. Y. Mechanics of Structures and Machines. (1989). J. (2000). D.190 Bibliography Lange. Morel. H. 102(2):69–76. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Bayesian Statistics 7. Automatica. Samin. Bruyninckx.. Base parameters of manipulator dynamic models. K. (1987).. J. Linearity of multibody systems with respect to barycentric parameters : dynamic and identiﬁcation models obtained by symbolic generation.. and Schutter. The precise control of manipulators with high jointfriction using base force/torque sensing. PrenticeHall Inc. Adaptive minimization of the maximal path deviations of industrial robots. L. System identiﬁcation: theory for the user. pages 1050–1057. D. . IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation. Mayeda. M. A. and Morel. (1990). and Paul. (1998). West (Eds. (1985). of the European Control Conference ECC’99. Dawid. Leuven. P. P. K.). A. K. Belgium. Selfcalibration in robot manipulators. Dubowsky.. T. and Dubowsky.. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. pages 3316–3321. R.. pages 587–596. Karlsruhe.. K. J.. Bayarri.. and Willems. G.. G. Maes. P. (1999).. S. Mukerjee... and Hirzinger. Measurement. Iagnemma. 36(7):931–941. P. O. J. and Osuka. Berger. Bernardo. J. (1980). G. New Jersey. K. F. and Ballard. 6(3):312–321. Lefebvre. and Control. Heckerman. Gadeyne. A base force/torque sensor approach to robot manipulator inertial parameter estimation. M.. W. S.. H. Luh. Englewood Cliﬀs.
(2002). 17(1):95–100.. 17(3):488–494.. Barcelona. J. (1999). M. 18(2):245–251. Japan. W. O. (2002). pages 1004–1010. ¨ Norrl¨f. (1986). Singapore. and Bekey. In 4th Asian Control Conference. M. H. M. Parameter identiﬁcation for industrial o robots. G. Seoul.. ¨ Ostring. (2002). A new method for estimating parameters of a dynamic robot model.. Nagoya. An adaptive iterative learning control algorithm o with experiments on an industrial robot. USA. M. Recursive identiﬁcation of physical parameters in a ﬂexible robot arm.. and Ozaki. Springer. S. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. H. (2001). M. In Proceedings of the 15th IFAC World Congress. Tj¨rnstr¨m. Numerical Optimization.. Robotics and Autonomous Systems. (1994). and Gunnarsson. 30(3):221–230. A comparative study of softcomputing methodologies in identiﬁcation of robotic manipulators. F. Olsen. Senda. and Wright. S. K. Nocedal. Modeling and o a o identiﬁcation of a mechanical industrial manipulator. ¨ Ostring. Onder Efe. Norrl¨f. and Norrl¨f. and Petersen. M. Maximum likelihood identiﬁcation of a dynamic robot model: implementation issues. J. . IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. and Verdonck. Korea. In 32nd International Symposium on Robotics. Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. F. G. Gunnarsson. Swevers. pages 1468–1476. Spain. (1995).Bibliography 191 Murotsu. M. Olsen. Pfeiﬀer. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. and Ostring. S. (2002).. (2000). and Kaynak.. M. Closed loop o identiﬁcation of the physical parameters of an industrial robot. and H¨lzl. Y. Olsen. San Francisco. 21(2):89–96. M. M. Parameter identiﬁcation of unknown object handled by freeﬂying space robot. (2001). J. International Journal on Robotics Research. M. J. Identiﬁcation of robot dynamics.
Dynamic parameter identiﬁcation of an industrial robot and its application to trajectory controls. Samin. pages 551–556. Identiﬁcation of robot u dynamics with diﬀerential and integral models : a comparison. Press´. P. eds. e e Raucent. Belgium. J. System identiﬁcation: a frequency domain approach. Press´..L. M. (1992). and Gautier. Nice. Capri. USA. Raucent. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Korea. Louvainlaneuve. San Diego. B. J.192 Bibliography Pham. and Albright S. In Preprints of the Fourth IFAC SYmposium on RObot COntrol. B. pages 340–345. Pintelon. G. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. (1992). Italy. C. Pr¨fer. Raucent. USA. M. M. Robot Calibration. (1993). pages 364–369. and Gautier. Inc. New criteria of exciting trajectories e for robot identiﬁcation. and Wahl. (2001). and Samin. C. P. and Schoukens.. 22(3):371–396. Identiﬁcation des param`tres dynamiques des e robots manipulateurs. T. Automatica. R. 28(5):1011– 1016. and Willems. Friction analysis and modelling for u geared robots. Identiﬁcation of joint stiﬀness with bandbass ﬁltering. B. and Wahl. John Wiley & Sons. Minimal parameterization of robot dynamic models. M. Bernhardt R. Atlanta. (1993). (1990). (1994). Mechanics of Structures and Machines.. and Poignet. Bayesian estimation of inertial pae rameters of robots. M. Schmidt. (2001). France. pages 907–912. (1994). B. and Samin. G. Raucent. Modelling and identifying the dynamic parameters of robot manipulators. D´partement de M´canique. Pr¨fer. M. F.C. Seoul. C. pages 197–232... J. Universit´ catholique de Loue vain.. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. J. . In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.. pages 2867–2872. (1994). Campion.. Gautier.C. Bastin. F. PhD thesis.
Optimization of the trajectory planning of robot manipulators taking into account the dynamics of the system.. Survey on Mathematics for Industry. Steinbach. Mathematical optimization in robotics: Towards automated high speed motion planning.. H.J. Pergamon Press.Bibliography 193 Saramago. V. J. Kostin. Mc Graw Hill.. S. and Siciliano. and Walker. 7(4):303–340. Siciliano. USA. Oxford.. Swevers. . Englewood Cliﬀs. T. Basis sets for manipulator inertial parameters. and Steﬀen. Sciavicco. Electrical and Computer Engineering Series. B. and Pintelon. AlBender. P. and Villani. (1998). W. F. C. Bock. and da Silva. (1998). R. G.. IEEE transactions on Automatic Control. Slotine. ECCOMAS 2000. J. (1996). V. M. C. (1996). An integrated friction model structure with improved presliding behaviour for accurate friction compensation. M. 45(4):675–686. The International Journal of Robotics Research. B. 4(2):49–64. Scottsdale. Identiﬁcation of linear systems: a practical guideline to accurate modeling. Sch¨fer. In European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Space robotics experiments a for increasing dynamics modelling ﬁdelity. 33(7):883–894. L. R. R. J. 10(3):317–334. Sheu.. Sciavicco. Advanced Robotics. Barcelona. F.. and Prajogo. (1985). Lagrange and NewtonEuler dynamic modelling of a geardriven rigid robot manipulator with inclusion of motor inertia eﬀects. (1991). (2000). pages 1517–1522.. The robust control of robot manipulators. New Jersey. L. Mechanisms and Machine Theory. Schoukens. Ganseman. (2000). E. A. B. and Longman. Modeling and Control of Robot Manipulators. (1989). G.Y. L. S.
21(8):701–712.. 38(1):49–95. pages 713–718.. Semideﬁnite programming. J.194 Bibliography Swevers. West. Swevers. J.. (1996). (2002). In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Identiﬁcation of robots inertial parameters by means of spectrum analysis. C. Naumer. Japan. An environment for developing and optimizing compliant robot motion tasks.. 13(5):730–740. De Schutter.. H.. and Van Brussel.. ˘ T¨rn. Global Optimization. H. Bruyninckx. (1996). Arizona. and De Schutter. Gautier.W. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. (1989). Witvrouw. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation.. (1999).. and Biber. Van de Poel. Optimal robot excitation and identiﬁcation. Papadopoulos. J. P. and Desbats. (1999).. M. P. 15(5):966–971. P. J. Lecture Notes o in Computer Science. pages 1510–1516. SIAM Review. and Zilinskas. S. Bilgin. Experimental robot identiﬁcation using optimized periodic trajectories. Robot Analysis: The mechanics of serial and parallel manipulators. Tokyo. H. Lawrence. and Boyd. and Van Brussel.. Pieters. Scottsdale. H. L... International Journal on Robotics Research.. An experimental robot load identiﬁcation method for industrial application. J. (1997). E. Nagoya. . Tafazoli.. Vandanjon. 10(5):561–577. Verdonck. A method for estimating the mass properties of a manipulator by measuring the reaction moments at its base. A. S. (1995). and Salcudean. D. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. C.. (1989)... De Schutter. Inc. H. Ganseman. D. Swevers. Wiley & sons. and Cheah. Vandenberghe. Ganseman. Japan. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Robotics. W. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. (1993). S. Springer Verlag.. Dubowsky. P. E. Identiﬁcation of inertial and friction parameters for excavator arms. E. A. W. Tsai. L. B.. Heidelberg. J. pages 3033–3038. S.. J. S.
15(2):310– 317. China. (1999). Adaptive control of mixed rigid/ﬂexible joint robot manipulators based on virtual decomposition. Beijing. In Proceedings of the 14th Triennial World Congress IFAC. . and Unbehauen. W. pages 153–157. H.Bibliography 195 Zeng. Modelling and identiﬁcation of a fourlink manipulator. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation. Zhu. H. J.H. (1999). and De Schutter.
196 Bibliography .
“Experimental robot identiﬁcation: advantages of combining internal and external measurements and of using periodic excitation”. Verdonck. M. Transactions of the ASME Journal of dynamic systems.M. Verdonck. and control.C. December 2001. pp. Verdonck. 2 (2). S. August 2002. W.List of publications International peer reviewed journal articles 1. Verdonck. Olsen. “Combining force control and visual servoing for planar contour following”. 3. and J. Vol. and W. Naumer. Swevers. 123 (4). Swevers. “Combining internal and external robot models to improve model param 197 . Vol. Biber. Full papers in proceedings of international conferences 1. Pieters. Swevers. Samin. pp. Vol. and E. J. pp. “Maximum likelihood identiﬁcation of a dynamic robot model: implementation issues”. Swevers. 2000. Baeten. 4. pp. W. Vol. Chenut and J. Bruyninckx and J. W. H. De Schutter. The International Journal of Robotics Research. J. W. 69–75. 21 (2). measurement. J. B. Samin. 701–712. The International Journal of Robotics Research. X. J. “An experimental robot load identiﬁcation method for industrial application”. Verdonck. 21 (8).C. International Journal on Machine Intelligence and Robotic Control. 89–96. J. 2. February 2002. 630–636.
J. May 2002. De Schutter. . W. W. “An experimental robot load identiﬁcation method for industrial application”. Verdonck and J. pp. pp.C. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. B. S. 2. July 2002. Washington D. Swevers. Springer. Sant’Angelo d’Ischia. Coimbra. 4. Pieters. Swevers. “Analysis of systematic errors in robot load identiﬁcation”. Biber. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. USA. Italy.198 List of publications eter estimation”. The 8th International Symposium on Experimental Robotics. W. Seoul. Portugal. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences 250. Korea. 318–327. pp. Swevers. May 2001. Verdonck and J. Naumer. 3. 2846–2851. Verdonck and J. July 2003. E.. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Robotics. “Improving the dynamic accuracy of industrial robots by trajectory precompensation”. 2846–2851. pp. 941–946.
D. Jan Swevers and prof. SintNiklaas. parameter estimation and control of industrial robot manipulators. Belgium Belgian Education • 19992004: Ph. • 19941999: Mechanical engineering student at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Biography Personal data Name Born Nationality Walter Verdonck January 12. Joris De Schutter. specialisation Mechatronics and Machine Design. student in the Robotics Research Group at the Department of Mechanical Engineering. optimization. 1977. The research was funded by a fouryear doctoral scholarship from the Flemish Institute for the Promotion of Scientiﬁc and Technological Research in Industry (IWT). 199 . Belgium.Leuven under supervision of prof. My master thesis ‘Improving contour tracking with a force controlled robot using vision’ tackled the problem of integration of force and vision information into one control algorithm. Belgium.U. division PMA of K. July 1999: Master degree in Mechanical Engineering. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. My research interests are in modelling.
200 .
A. The relative position and orientation of frame i with respect to 201 . In this appendix the concept of forward kinematics will be described using the modiﬁed DenavitHartenberg representation.Kinematics A.2 Forward position kinematics In the modelling of the forward kinematics of a robot manipulator the concept of kinematic chains is used. This means that the manipulator consists of a set of rigid links connected together in a chain.1 Introduction A The kinematics of a robot refer to the geometric relationship between the motion of the robot in joint space and the motion of the tool frame relative to the base frame of the robot. The links are numbered from 0 to n where joint i connects link i − 1 and i. In typical robots. either translational or rotational. Suppose the robot has n + 1 links connected with n joints. each joint has one degree of freedom.
2. This form is commonly used in literature dealing with manipulator dynamics.1) where pi is the position vector of the origin of frame i expressed in frame i − 1 and i−1 Ri the rotation matrix. many diﬀerent deﬁnitions of the DenavitHartenberg representation have been used through the years.1 DenavitHartenberg representation The DenavitHartenberg representation (Denavit and Hartenberg.202 Kinematics frame i − 1 are represented by the 4 × 4 homogeneous transformation matrix i−1 Ti = i−1 R i 01×3 pi . 1986). A coordinate system is attached to all links to indicate the position and orientation of the joint axes. The forward kinematics gives the coordinate frame. It is obtained by 0 Tn = 0 T1 1 T2 · · · n−1 Tn .2). The columns of the matrix i−1 R represent the components of the unit vectors of frame i expressed i in frame i − 1. The DenavitHartenberg (DH) convention is a systematic method to choose these coordinate systems. and is frequently referred to as ‘modiﬁed DenavitHartenberg’ (MDH) form (Craig. (A. of the last link. One of these deﬁnitions has the origin of frame i along the axis of joint i. In its original standard form. or pose. However. and was also used in this work. The pose 0 Tee of the robot endeﬀector (EE) with respect to the base requires an extra transformation n Tee to be added to equation (A. frame i has its origin along the axis of joint i + 1. 1955) is commonly used in industry to relate a transformation matrix Ti to its scalar joint position value and the parameters describing the joint geometry. A. 1 (A.2) which is the product of the coordinate frame transformation matrices for each link. The MDH convention assumes that the link’s coordinate systems have been placed according to the following rules: . Each transformation is deﬁned with four scalar parameters.
: lies along the common normal between Zi and Zi+1 .1. 3. 4. di is the variable. for a manipulator with revolute joints θi = qi + θi. The four parameters that deﬁne the transformation are ai αi di θi : : : : the the the the distance from Zi to Zi+1 measured along Xi angle between Zi to Zi+1 measured about Xi distance from Xi−1 to Xi measured along Zi angle between Xi−1 to Xi measured about Zi For revolute joints. : completes the righthanded coordinate system. Rotate an angle θi about the Zi axis.A. θi is the joint variable.0 . 2.0 is any joint position oﬀset. Rotate an angle αi−1 about the Xi axis.1: Modiﬁed DenavitHartenberg Zi Xi Yi : lies along the axis of motion of the joint.g. These conventions are graphically represented in ﬁgure A. E.2. . where θi. Translate a distance di along the Zi axis. and for prismatic joints. Forward position kinematics 203 joint i1 link i1 joint i joint i+1 link i ai Zi Z i1 Yi Yi1 a Ti1 X i1 i1 Ti di X i Figure A. With these conventions we can describe the general joint transformations as a composition of four elementary transformations: 1. Translate a distance ai−1 along the Xi axis.
204 Kinematics The resulting homogeneous matrix: i−1 Ti = Rot(Xi . A. The matrix J is the time derivative of the Jacobian. αi−1 )Trans(Xi . ai−1 )Rot(Zi .6) (A. This transformation is not constant. .5) which expresses the position and orientation of the manipulator endeﬀector as a function of the joint positions q. θi )Trans(Zi . velocities. and accelerations of the joints: xee = J(q) q ˙ ˙ xee = J(q) q + J(q) q ¨ ¨ ˙ ˙ (A. but varies as a function of the corresponding joint variable.4) transforms the coordinates of a point from frame i to i − 1.3 Forward velocity and acceleration kinematics The forward position kinematics can be summarized by the following equation xee = for kin(q). Diﬀerentiating equation (A.7) The manipulator Jacobian matrix J transforms velocities in joint space ˙ to velocities of the endeﬀector in Cartesian space.5) with respect to time gives the velocity and acceleration of the endeﬀector as a function of the positions. (A. di ) (A.3) cos θi − sin θi 0 ai−1 sin θi cos αi−1 cos θi cos αi−1 − sin αi−1 −di sin αi−1 = sin θi sin αi−1 cos θi sin αi−1 cos αi−1 di cos αi−1 0 0 0 1 (A.
By using an appropriate transformation. the application of the recursive NewtonEuler equations is chosen to describe the inverse dynamics. the equations to describe the dynamic behavior of a serial manipulator are introduced. expressed in frame O cO = [cx cy cz ]T . In this work.2 Mass properties The dynamic parameters of each rigid body consist of its mass m. Second. the equations can be reformulated to be linear in the inertial parameters. (B. First. They can be formulated by diﬀerent methods (Tsai. 1999). B.1 Introduction B This appendix describes the dynamics of serial manipulators.Dynamics of serial manipulators B. which is suitable for identiﬁcation purposes. the position of the center of gravity (COG).1) 205 . the inertial elements of a rigid body are deﬁned and the conventions which have been used throughout this work are indicated.
the vector from the coordinate frame O to the COG. with Ixx = V (y 2 + z 2 )ρ dV.e. and the second order moments of inertia Ixx Ixy Ixz IO = Iyx Iyy Iyz (B.3) where x. V Ixy = Iyx = − Iyz = Izy = − V yz ρ dV. xz ρ dV. The inertia matrix is symmetric and positive deﬁnite. and z are the coordinates of a diﬀerential volume of mass in the volume V of the body with respect to the reference frame O. xy ρ dV. V Ixz = Izx = − (B. .2) Izx Izy Izz I O is called the inertia matrix or inertia tensor of the body about the axes of the frame O. V Iyy = Izz = V (x2 + y 2 )ρ dV. (z 2 + x2 )ρ dV.1: Moments of inertia with respect to a reference frame O xC body i i. y.206 Dynamics of serial manipulators zC yC z C c y O x Figure B.
Steiner’s or parallel axis theorem The elements of the inertia matrix (equation (B. x y O C Ixy = Ixy − m cx cy . Mass properties 207 An alternative to the use of the COG.B. It can be shown that O C Ixx = Ixx + m (c2 + c2 ). Let IA and IB be the inertia tensor referred to the frames A and B.2)) depend on the choice of the reference frame. it is generally easier to perform the calculation with respect to a frame with its origin in the COG of the object. we can easily ﬁnd the moments of inertia about any other frame that is parallel to the one in the COG. O C Iyz = Iyz − m cy cz . are the ﬁrst moments of inertia s = [sx sy sz ]T = m cO .2. Let C be a Cartesian coordinate frame attached to the center of gravity and O a reference frame. When calculating the moments of inertia. y z O C Iyy = Iyy + m (c2 + c2 ). with a coinciding origin. Transformation of inertia matrix The inertia matrix also depends on the orientation of the reference frame. respectively. The parallel axis theorem shows that. where 1 is the 3 × 3 identity matrix.7) (B. (B. (B. The inertia matrix can be calculated from one frame to the other using the relation IB = RIA RT .5) or more compactly in a closed form formula IO = IC + m (cT c)1 − (c cT ) .6) .4) (B. if we know the moments of inertia about a frame in the COG. O C Izx = Izx − m cz cx . z x O C Izz = Izz + m (c2 + c2 ).
The same underlying formulation based on these NewtonEuler equations serves for both rigidbody link and payload parameter estimation.208 Dynamics of serial manipulators with R the rotation matrix of frame A with respect to frame B. B. B. and a backward (dynamics) recursion from the endeﬀector to the base of the manipulator which computes forces and torques applied to each link.g. ei : is a unit vector along the ith joint axis and expressed in the ith frame. when the modiﬁed DenavitHartenberg formulation is used for the kinematics ei = [0 0 1]T .1 Recursive NewtonEuler formulation The NewtonEuler formalism for a serial manipulator. following notations are employed: σi : is the joint type: σi = 1 for a revolute joint and σi = 0 for a prismatic joint.3 Inverse dynamic equations The inverse dynamics computation is used to determine the joint forces and torques that are required for the desired motion which is speciﬁed by joint positions. velocities and accelerations. Two formulations have been used to derive the dynamic equations of a robot manipulator: the closedform EulerLagrange formulation and the recursive NewtonEuler formulation. E. The NewtonEuler formulation incorporates all forces and torques acting on the individual link of a robot manipulator. In the formulation of the RNE algorithm. This section presents the recursive NewtonEuler (RNE) formulation of the dynamics of serial manipulators. If the axes of the frame coincide with the central axes of inertia.3. iR i−1 : rotational transformation from frame i − 1 to frame i. implies two recursive computations: a forward (kinematics) recursion from the base to the endeﬀector of the manipulator which computes the velocity and acceleration of each link. . then the inertia products are zero and the inertia tensor is a diagonal matrix.
ωi = ωi = ˙ vi = vi = ˙ i−1 T Ri ωi−1 + σi qi ei ˙ i−1 T T Ri ωi−1 + σi (¨i ei + i−1Ri ωi−1 × (qi ei )) ˙ q ˙ i−1 T i−1 T Ri vi−1 + ωi × pi + (1 − σi ) Ri (qi ei ) ˙ i−1 T Ri [vi−1 + ωi−1 × (ωi−1 × pi ) + (ωi−1 × pi )] ˙ ˙ (B.12) The dynamic parameters for a link body i are indicated in ﬁgure B. where g represents ˙ ˙ the vector of gravity. the joint forces f and torques t are calculated in the backward computation. linear velocity v.9) (B. 1 Once the velocities and accelerations of the links are found. and linear accelerations v ˙ ˙ of each link in terms of its preceding link. ω0 = 0.2. . ˙ ¨ i : velocities.10) (B. accelerations. . 2. and acceleration. .B. v0 = 0. and v0 = g. q. .3. Inverse dynamic equations 209 : position vector of the origin of the ith link with respect to (i − 1)th link frame. q. q : joint position. forces and torques are expressed in frame i.11) + (1 − σi )(¨i ei + 2ωi × (qi ei )) q ˙ The linear acceleration of the center of gravity is calculated by vi = vi + ωi × ci + ωi × (ωi × ri ) ˙C ˙ ˙ (B. n − 1. . pi The NewtonEuler dynamics algorithm Forward iterations for i = 1. Backward iterations for i =