COI'Hi g ilt © IF ,-\ C Tl lt'on 01 Ro bots , SL' R\ ' EY P,-\PERS

"it' IlIl" . .\lI stria IqXI)

ROBOT CONTROL AS A SYSTEM CONTROL

PROBLEM
A. K. Bejczy* and T. J. Tarn**
'j l'l P ro/mt., i ll ll L (/ /WHl l tH)', C(//ijiJrlli(/ ! l/.I lill/ll' IIF TI'(/II /() /II,~'1' , P W(/ t/tI/{/,
C4 9! J(N , ['SA
"* D l'jI(/ /'IIIII' 111 IIf Sysl l' IIIS Srifll ff (/1111 ,\l(/lh t' III(/lin, \ \'(l.I h i llg l ll ll ['lIi ,'n " iIL SI , LOIli.,
,\10 63 !30, USA

AQ~!£~£!. Robot arm control is a mechanical system control problem rather than a
problem of controlling single actuators of a robot arm . Using principles and
techniques of differential geometric system and control theory, a new dynamic system
feedback technique is presented referenced to task space commands. In this task-
driven dynamic control scheme the nonlinear robot arm system is feedback 1inearized
and simultaneously output decoupled by an appropriate nonlinear feedback and a
nonlinear coordinate transformation. The new dynamic control technique actually
transforms robot arm control problems from the joint space to the task space and
performs robot servoing in terms of task space variables within a linear system frame,
allowing also the use of powerful techniques of optimal control of linear systems. On
the joint space level. the new dynamiC control scheme only commands drive forces or
torques or their equivalent quantities addressed to the joint drives. An important
property of the new dynamic control technique is that the planned and commanded task
space trajectory together with its time derivatives directly drives the robot arm
through a linear system model.

A method is briefly presented for task space motion planning matching the requirements
of the new dynamic control scheme. It requires that the planned motion be presented
to the controller as an input in form of a closed function of time. The implications
of the new dynamic control technique are discussed for second and third order model
robot arms with and without force feedback measurements and for two (or more)
dynamically cooperating robot arms using distinguished and indistinguished modeling
for multiple cooperating arms. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of a
suggested computing architecture for implementing the new dynamic control technique
together with the corresponding planning procedures.

INTRODUCTION robot control. The state description of a dynamic

system contains all information that is necessary
The system aspects of robotics in general and of to determine the control action to be taken since,
robot control in particular are clearly manifested by definition of a dynamic s y stem, the future
through a number of technical facts . First, robot evolution of the system is fully determined by its
arms are multi-degree-of-freedom mechanical present state and by future inputs . It should be
~y~!.m~. Their dynamic model is a ~y~!.m of kept in mind that control theories and practices
coupled nonlinear differential equations, and robot evolved from the fundamental idea that control
arm motion requires several actuators acting as an inputs to a given system should be determined from
integrated drive ~y~!.m. Second, robot tasks are the state of the system.
represented through a coupled ~.!!! of kinematic
and geometric equations, and a ~y~!~m of various In the subsequent four sect ions we summarize our
sensors relates robot actions to task performance. work and results for the control of a single-arm
Third, modern robot control is implemented through robot and of multiple-arm robots using a new
computer algorithms embodied in software ~.!!!~ dynamic feedback control technique directly
that are housed in a system of microprocessors with referenced to task space commands , derived through
a supplement of electronic components . Fourth, principles and techniques of differential geometric
industrial robot applications typically define a systems and control theory as described by Tarn,
~y~!.!!! set-up, call for two or more robots Bejczy, and coworkers (1984, 1986a , 1986d, 1987a,
organized in workcells cooperating in performing 1987b) , by Chen (1984) , and by Bejczy, Tarn and
work within a production ~.m. Moreover, in man- coworkers (1985a, 1985b , 1985c , 1986c). In this
extension or teleoperator applications it is task-driven dynamic control technique the nonlinear
customary to employ two robot arms as a left-right robot arm system is feedback 1 inearized and
dual-arm system which obviously is more than just simultaneously output decoupled by an appropriate
two single arms put side by side. Fifth, in the nonlinear feedback and a nonlinear coordinate
development of robot control intelligence the main transformation. In the last section we briefly
point and challenge is the definition and discuss a computational architecture for
algorithmic implementation of hierarchical and implementing dynamic feedback control of robot
relational ~y~!.!!! frames a~d procedures in the arms.
planning and task decomposition programs.

In this paper we focus on robot control algorithms CONTROL OF SINGLE ROBOT ARM
and their implementation in real-time control to
show the need and benefits of rigorous ~y~!~!!! We consider a rigid robot arm mechanism with m
th.Qf.tic ~roach to robot control problems. We degrees of freedom. A mathematical model of the
use state space techniques in our treatment of complete mechanical system comprises the mechanical
2 ..... . K. Be jcz,' alld T. ,1.1';11'11

part of the system and m actnators that actuate one o o

desree of freedom each. Usins hoaoseneons
coordinates together with the Oenavit-Uartenberg o
fonr-parameter representation of robot arm
kinematics. and using Lagrangian techniques to
e"press the dynamical behavior of a rigid
(nonfle"ing) robot arm with m joints results in an o o
equation of the form (Bejczy. 1974. and Paul.
1981).
For simplicity in writing. the dependence of 0i'
0ij and 0ijk on i has been omitted.

i=l ••.. ,m,
where 't i is the general ized force genera ted by or
required for the motion of the i-th mechanical
joint. qi is the coordinate of the i-th mechanical
joint. q = (q1 ..... q m). 0ij (q) is the inertia load
projections to joint "in related to the
acceleration of joint variable "j".
inertia load projections to joint "in related to
the velocity of jOint variables "j" and Ok". and
0i(q) is the gravity load at joint 1.
definitions of the dynamic projection functions 0i'
0ij' and 0ijk can be found in Bejczy (1974) and in
Paul (1981). Actuator models are usually given in
the following form (Vukobratovic and Stokic. 1982)
where ai' fi and b i are constants. and ui is the
input for the i-th actuator. IUil S. k i • a positive
constant.
(1) With task description y solved in the joint space.
we have the following compact representation for
the robot arm control dynamics:
(4)
0ijk(q) is the Yi hi(") ' i =l •...• r.
where the first equation is the state equation and
The function the second is the output or task equation. The
task or output equation Yi here is equal to the
forward kinema t ic sol u t ion of the robot arm. The
functions f(1) and gi(") in (4) can be easily
identified with the corresponding terms in (3).
Note that (4) is the standard representation of a
(2) multi-input and multi - output nonlinear control
dynamics problem . Note also that. in the case of a
robot arm. " are joint space variables and Yi are
task or e"ternal work space variables e"pressed in
terms of joint space variables.

The robot arm control model (3) is highly nonlinear

Let "i = qi' "m+ i = cli' and denote ("1 ..... "2m) by and strongly coupled . Therefore. in the case of
" and ("l ..... "m) by i. From (1) and (2) we then simu! taneons motion of several jOints, the motion
obtain the state equation of the system: and the torque (or force) applied at one joint have
a dynamic effect on the motion at other joints.
Since the dynamic coefficients or projection
fnnctions are dependent on the values of the joint
"I "I
0
I I
0 variables. the effect of dynamic coupling between
motions at different joints will depend on the
actual link configuration during motion.
,L -~- -~I!- + ---------- + Furthermore. we must also notice that. as the
dt "m+1 "m+1 velocity increases. we cannot neglect the
0 0 E- 1 (i)U(,,) centripetal and Coriolis forces.

"2m "2m With the above discussion in mind. to have an

effective dynamic control of robot arms. we ask the
following questions:

1. For a nonlinear and coupled system with certain

, [-_Q_- ] u (3 )
task. does there e"ist a feedback such that in a
suitable coordinate representation the system
can be converted to a linear and output
decoupled system? What are the necessary and
E-1 (i)K
sufficient conditions?

where 2. If the answer to the above question is positive.

then is it possible to construct such a
feedback?
1 - f 0 - f 1 0 12
1 ll 3. Is it possible to construct the feedback
described above for the robot arm system (4)
- f 2 0 21 1 - f2 0 22 with functions given by (3)?
E

- f mDm1 - f m°m2 1 - fmO. . The answer to the above questions is positive. For
mathematical details see Tarn. Bejczy and coworkers
(1984. 1987a) and Chen (1984) . As an enmple. the
general algorithm derived and described in the
above references was appl ied to the second-order
dynamic model of the si1 degree-of-freedom PUMA 560
robot arm with general three degree-of-freedom
U continuous positioning and three degree-of-freedom
continuous orientation tasks (Tarn. Bejczy. Yun.
1985a). The control dynamics of this problem
satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions
 Rohot COlltrol as a S,·s te m COlltrol Prohle m

for feedback linearization and simnltaneous output
decoupling. Therefore. there must exist :
1. A nonlinear feedback u = a(x) + P(x)v where
P(x) is invertible. and u = (ul' u2 ..... u6) is
the joint force or control vector.
2. A diffeomorphic transformation T(x) such that.
after the nonlinear feedback and diffeomorphic
transformation. the new system is linear in the
Brunovsky canonical form and the outputs are
de coupled.
The application of our algorithm as described in
Tarn. Bejczy and coworkers (1984. 1987a) and Chen
(1984) yields the following results :
The control results stated in (5-6) are not
restricted to the control of the PUMA 560 arm only.
They are much more general . They can be applied to
the control of any robot arm as long as the robot
arm dynamic model and task description satisfies
the characteristics used in deriving (5 , 6) . This
is apparent when one considers the details of
proofs elaborated in Tarn, Bejczy and coworkers
(1984. 1985a), and Chen (1984).
We note that equation (7) consists of six
(i=1.2 ..... 6) independent subsystems of the
following form :
(8 )

1 . The required nonlinear feedback is

where
u = a(x) + P(x)v

-K-lE(i)Jj;l
qh:l (i)l + r 1 E(i)J l v.
Zi = [Z2i-1J
z2i

b We also note that each subsystem (8) has double

[ Lth6(i)
where J h is the Jacobian matrix of the task or
output equation h(i).
2. The required diffeomorphic transformation is :
(5)
poles at the origin; thus, the overall system is
unstable. To render it stable we add a linear
feedback loop F to the system and assign the poles
arbitrarily by using the fact that the linear
system is completely controllable . It is not
difficult to see that. as long as F is a constant
block diagonal matrix . the system will remain an
output decoupled linear system. We call this new
system L&D block in Fig. 2.

To stabilize the feedback linearized and output

where the superscript' signifies the transpose. decoupled system by pole assignment. we add a
linear PD feedback controller to each subsystem .
In the above equations L f is the lie derivative . That is.
ah af
-- f - -- h. with f and h defined in
ax ax
ah ar
(3) and (4) . Note that -- and -- are Jacobian Then (8) becomes :
ax ax where F i = [f i l f i2] .

matrices. Note also that Lth = Lf ( Lfh) = [f. Lfh]

= [f. [f.h]J ; in general. Lph = L f (LP- 1 h) = [f.
L?-l h J.
zi [: :J z i + [ : }Vi - Fi z i)
(9)

By using the nonlinear feedback and diffeomorphic

transformation given above. the six degree-of- [-:i1 -: i2J
zi +
[~J Vi

freedom PUMA 560 nonlinear dynamic system (3) with and

six degree-of-freedom trajectory task or output (4) y i = [1 OJ i=l , 2, ...• 6. (l0)
Z i'
is converted into the following Brunovsky canonical
form and simultaneously output decoupled (see also Thus the new system (L &D block in Fig. 2) consists
Fig . 1) : of six subsystems. each has the second order form
(9) with linear output equation (10) .
i Az + Bv ~ f(z) + ;(z)v
(7) It can be computed easily that the poles of the
y Cz !J. h(z) above subsystem are
where
sl . 2 = -~wn ~ wnj ~

Z =
zl
z2
A
0
0
1
0
'0 1
0 where I! = damping ratio, wn = natural frequency,

0 0
For the purpose of controller design we consider

z12 0 '1
0
0
0
the above mathematical model (9.10) as the model of
the real system. Thus the desired (nominal) input
to each subsystem can be derived from the following
equa tions :
0
0
O~o]
1 (11)
B 0 • C
I,
(12)
'0
0 1
The above matrices A. Band C are of dimension where yf is the desired path . and the superscript
12x12. 12x6 and 6x12. respectively . 'd' denotes that these equations are the 'model'
4 .-\. K. Bejel\" and T. J. Tarn

equatious for a robust(or optimal) control system The new stratelY for dynamic control of robot arms
desilu. is summarized in Fil. 2 and has been evaluated by a
dilital simulation technique described in Tarn .
To desiln a robust (or optimal) system. let us Bejczy and coworkers (1984. 1987a); Bejczy. Tarn
denote the output error by and coworkers (198Sa. 1985b. 1985c) and Chen

.
(1984).

e [ei
ei2
il ] = [ : i -
Yi-Yi
~!] The design of a new dynamic control stratelY for
robot arms discussed in this article has three
major steps.
Thus from (9.10) and (11.12) we have

(vcvi) (1) Convert the orilinal nonlinear robot arm

control dynamics into a feedback linearized
That is and simultaneously output decoupled system by
usiUI the required noulinear feedback and
or diffeomorphic transformation. (See (S.6).
the Brunovsky canonical form. (7). and Fil.
1.)

(1i) Stabil ize the feedback 1 inearized and

simultaneously output decoupled system by
designinl a linear error correction PD
Next we introduce an optimal error-correctinl loop controller for each individual (de coupled)
by optimizinl the followinl cost function for AVi: subsystem. (See (9.10),)
J(Avi) = Jfi AviRAvidt + /Oe(t)'Qe(t)dt + e(T)'Se(T) (iii) Render the control robust versus uncertain-
(14) ties in machine and task model parameter
where R = positive definite matrix. Q = positive values by adding an optimal error-correcting
semidefinite matrix. S = positive semidefinite loop to each individual (de coupled and
matrix. T = terminal time. and the symbol' linear) subsystem. (See (13-16) and Fil. 2.)
silnifies transpose.

From the well-known optimal linear control theory EXTENSION OF SINGLE ROBOT ARM CONTROL
the optimal correction is
The feedback linearized and simultaneously output
From the well-known optimal linear control theory decoupled dynam ic control technique for a single
the optimal correction is robot arm discussed in the previous section was
derived under two assumpt ions: (1) the output
equation "y" is a trajectory in the task space and
(IS)
(H) the system dynamics is of second order. These
where two assumptions. however. do not represent leneral
restrictions for our new dynamic control technique.
pet)
Extended Output Equations
is a positive definite solution of the Riccati
equation: Suppose that the robot arm not only moves but also
interacts dynamically with the environment; for
pet) = -P(t)A i - AiP(t) + P(t)biR-1blP(t) - Q. instance. it pushes an obj ect while moving.
Suppose also that we have a six d.o.f. force-torque
PIT) = S. sensor a t the base of the robot end effector. Then
we can rewrite the robot arm dynamic equation (1)
If we consider the steady state solution (t ... ",) of in the following compact form:
the above equation then ~(t) = 0 and the Riccati
equation becomes an allebraic equation D(q)q + G(q.q) + J' (q)F = ~ (17)

transpose of the Jacobian matrix of the direct

that is
1 joint driving torques by the following general
2f i2P12 + R- P!2 - Q11
-P l1 + fi2 P12 + f i1 P22 + R- 1P12 P22
-2(P 1 2 - fi2P22) + R-1~2 - ~2 = 0
Thus (IS) becomes
kinematic solution p(q). F vanishes in the absence
of force-torque constraints. The force measurement
in task space is related to joint variables and
0
expression :
o F = (J(q) J' (q»-l J(q) ~s
where ~s is the portion of joint driving torques
that corresponds to the interactive force F in the
task space. To compensate both position and force.
(16) we use the following mixed task representation

tha t is. (18 )

where Wp and WF are weighting matrices. Equation

(18) is a very general task equation. By selecting
where Wp and WF properly we can obtain the position task.
force task. or hybrid task respectively.

P22 -Rf i2 Let xi = qi' xm+1 = qi and denote (x1 •.. •• x2m) by
x. From (17-18) we obtain the following compact
±. R l"'f-;~;-'2---2-f-i-1-±-2-I-;:f:;;i=1=+=R'""!"lQ"1"lri-+-R---;1:-Q-2-2
representation for the robot arm control dynamics
 Robot Control <IS ,\ Syste m COlltrol 'Problem

m constants. and
x = f(x) + i~l gi(x)ui' (19)
zl h1
y = h(x) z2 Lf h 1
z3 Llh1
where the first equation is the state equation and
the second is the output or task equation.
including the interactive force-torque output in z4 h2
the ta sk spa ce . T(x) "5 Lf h 2

Equation (19) satisfies the sufficient conditions "6 Lth2

for feedback linearization and simultaneous outpnt
decoupling as stated in Theorem 3.7 (Tarn. Bejczy.
1987a) . Applying our algori thm. we can find a "7 h3
nonlinear feedback and a nonlinear state space "8 Lf h3
transformation converting the original nonlinear
system (19) into a linear and decoupled system. "9 L1 h3
This 1 inear system consists of m independent
subsystems. each of which is a double integrator. The above a(x). P(x) and T(x) convert the original
Thus we can use the design method described in the third order nonl inear dynam ic equa t ion with ta sk
previous section to problems involving force space traj ec tory output equa t ions into the
following Brunovsky canonical form
feedback. First we stabilize the feedback
linearized and output decoupled system by designing
a linear error correction PD controller for each
.
1
A

Az + B v 11 f + g v
A

individual (decoupled) subsystem. Then we render A

Y Cz 11 h (23 )
a linear error correction PD controller for each
individual (decoupled) subsystem. Then we render where
the control robust versus uncertainties in machine
and task model parameter values by adding an %1 0 1 0
optimal error-correcting loop to each individual 0 0 1 0 0
%2
(decoupled and linear) subsystem.
"3 0 0 0
Computer simulation studies are being conducted to ---------------------------
evaluate performance of our new dynamic control
"4 0 1 0
technique for force and hybrid position and force
output tasks . 1 = z5 A 0 0 0 0

"6 0 0 0
Third Order Robot Model
---------------------------
Suppose now that. as input to the control system. "7 0 1 0

~J
we take armature voltage applied to actuator motors 0 0 0 0
rather than torques acting on joints. The robot "8
arm system is now described by a set of third order
coupled nonlinear differential equations rather
"9 J 0 0

than of second order ones. It has been shown 0 0 0

(Tarn. Bejczy. Yun. 1985b) that the new third order
system equations satisfy the sufficient conditions 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
for feedback linearization and simultaneous output 1 0 0
decoupling . Thus. we can find a nonlinear feedback
and a nonlinear state space transformation that ---------------------------
convert the original third order nonlinear system 0 0 0
into a linear and output decoupled system . The
high level structure of a(x). P(x) and T(x) in the B= 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
nonlinear feedback (5) and nonlinear state 0 1 0
transformation (6) is preserved although the system
order increases by one. The increased system order ---------------------------
introduces the third order Lie derivatives Lihi of 0 0 0
hi along vector field f in the expression of a(x). 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The diffeomorphism T(x) is constructed by adding
0 0 I
the second order Lie derivatives Lrh1' Lth2 and
L1h3 after the first order Lie derivatives. Note that (23) consists now of three independent
linear subsystems of third order. with poles
located at the origin. Thus . the overall system is
It has been shown in the reference quoted above
unstable. Again. we render it stable by adding a
that . for the first three links of the PUMA 560
1 inear feedback loop F to the system. We assign
robot arm. the nonl inear feedback w = a(x) + P(x)v
the poles arbitrarily by using the fact that the
and nonlinear state transformation z = T(x) are
linear system is completely controllable . If we
constructed as follows :
select F as a constant block diagonal matrix. the
system will remain an output decoupled linear

[L:fh']
system. Computer simulation studies show
interesting performance variations with respect to
a(x) -D Ji? L f h2 (20) pole assignments (Tarn. Bej C1Y. Li. 1986c).

L3 f h3
COORDINATED CONTROL OF MULTIPLE ROBOT ARMS
-1
P(x) D Jh
The feedback linearized and simultaneously output
where D and f include now the electric motor decoupled dynamic control technique is also
(i
applicable to the coordinated control of two or
more dynam ically coopera t ing robot arms. Dynam ic
cooperation implies that two (or more) robot armS
are working on the same object simultaneously. For
the use of our dynamic control technique for
dynamic control coordination of two (or more) robot
arms. two different approaches are possible. In
the first approach. the cooperating arms are
regarded as open loop kinematic chains with
kinematic and dynamic constraints of points on the
object on which they perform work. In the second
approach. the two (or more) arms are regarded as
one kinematic unit forming a closed loop kinematic
chain. In the first approach. two different
methods are possible dependent on sensor
instrumentation of the robot arm. The first method
uses a dynamic coordinator only acting on relative
position and velocity task space errors between two
(or more) robot arms. The second method also acts
on relative force-torque errors between two (or
more) arms as sensed at the end effectors. provided
that such sensing is available.
Coordinated Control of Distinguished Arms
In the first control strategy approach. the robot
arms are distinguished from each other. and each
can be feedback linearized and output decoupled
individually. thus each forms a linear and output
decoupled system. Suppose we have two robot arms
denoted as robot "a" and "b". Follow ing the
linearization and output decoupling by nonlinear
feedback and state transformation . robot "a" is
described as a 1 inear and decoupled system (Tarn.
Bejczy . Yun. 1986a) as
Similarly. robot Ob" is described by
The first control method in the distinguished arms'
coordination strategy considers the two arms in a
"leader/follower" mode . Robot "a" is assigned to
be the "leader" and robot Ob" the "follower." We
design a feedback for robot "a" such that it tracks
the desired trajectory. and an optimal coordinator
for robot "b" such that robot "b" will follow robot
"a" wit h a c 0 n s tan t 0 f f set d i s tan c e . Th e
coordinator is operating on the difference between
outputs of the two robots. minus the constant
offset distance. The idea is demonstrated in Fig.
3 with the absence of loops 2 and 3 around robot b.
Each system described by equations (24) and (25)
consists of six independent subsystems of the
following form
.j
Zi [: :J z~1 +
[:J
y~1 [1 0) z~. 1, . . . , 6;
1 (iii)
where z~
1
[':'-'J
Z2 i
We stabilize both robots with the same constant
a. b.
feedback. Then the new subsystems have the
following second order form :
[-:" -:J
•j
z.
1
z~1 +
y~1 [1 0) z~.
1
i=l, .••• 6;
.-\. K. Beju \ alld T. .J. Tarn
It is noted that the damping ratio ~ and natural
frequenc y w of this second order system are so
2 n
that wn = fi!' 2~wn = f i 2. We can consider (27) as
the new mathematical model of the real system which
is now exactly linearized. output decoupled and
stabilized .
The design of a feedback for master robot "a" to
track a desired trajectory is the same as for a
single robot arm. To design the optimal
coordinator. we denote the constant offset distance
between robot "a" and "b" by a vector
d=(d l ••• •• d )·. The error between the outputs of
6
two robots is defined by
(28)
The objective of coordinator design is to eliminate
the error.
By differentiating the output equations of (27)
combining it with (28) and letting e 2i = e2i-l' we
obtain the dynamic equation for the error:
(29)
[
e - J
2i 1
+ b i ,",vi .
e2 i
In order to eliminate the error e.(t) = (e2 ' (t)
e2i(t». we choose the following co;t functio~-l
(24)
The optimal coordinator is then given by
(25)
where pet) is a positive definite solution of the
Riccati equation
with peT) = S.
The new strategy for dynam ic control of two
cooperative robot arms is summarized in block
diagram form in Fig. 3. It contains four major
steps :
(i) Convert the control dynamics of the two
original nonlinear robot arms into feedback
linearized and simultaneously output
decoupled systems by using the required
nonlinear feedbacks and diffeomorphic
transformations.
Oi) Stabilize the feedback linearized and output
j
Vi
(26)
decoupled systems by designing a linear error
correction PD controller for each decoupled
subsys tem.
a , b,
Render the control robust versus
uncertainties in machine and task model
parameter values by adding an optimal error
correcting loop to each decoupled and linear
subsystem of the "leader" robot arm "a" .
(iv) Guarantee the coordination be tween the
"leader" robot arm "a" and the "follower"
robot arm Ob" by designing an optimal dynamic
coordination loop to each decoupled and
[:J
linear subsystem of the "follower" robot arm
v~1 "b" .
(27)
Computer simulations are being carried out to
a.b.
evalute the performance of the new dynamic control
 Robot Control ~ IS
me thod schema t ica11y shown in Fil. 2 .nd Fig. 3 for
PUMA S60 robot arms restricted to the motionl of
the first three joints. The simulation. are .imed
.t answering the followinl question: how stable
and robust is the new dynamic control method verlus
model imperfections and other c.u.al uncertainties?
It is noted th.t the nonl ine.r feedback is
eS l entially based on robot .rm and lo.d (geometric
and inertia) p.rameters the knowledle of which i.
typically .pproximative only.
The computer simul.tions .re based on the following
proce dure: use of • .!!.2!!!i.!!.!l_.!.£l of p.r.me te r
values in the nonline.r feedback law. and use of an
.!.!.!i.&.!!.£.!L.!.£l of p.r.meter v.lues (different from
the nominal set of values) in computing the "real"
robot arm dynamics. In particular. the initial
conditions .re set away from the trajectory to be
tracked. the load iu the robot hand and dynamic
projection functions are different from the nominal
values by • given percent. and the .v.ilable
control torque or force is set lower th.n the
assumed nominal v.lue by • given percent. This
last difference was designed to compens.te for
uncertainties in joiut drive friction. It is
equivalent to the situation when the actu.tor model
is missing from the nonliuear feedback.
In general. the simulations have shown that as long
as the available ·re.l· control power (.ctu.tor
out put) i s 1 a r I e r t h ant her e qui red ma x i mum
tracking force or torque. the tr.cking position and
velocity errors remain very small. Only the
transient or convergent time increases somewhat
when the required tracking power is somewhat larger
than the maximum available power . However. when
the .vailable power is consider.bly less than the
maximum power required in the steady state. then
the system will output big errors or might even
diverge .
The robustness of our new dynamic control str.tegy
is illustrated in Tables 1 and 2 which show the
effect of assigned dyn.mic par.meter v.ri.tions
relative to the nominal (or 'ideal') values on the
tracking performance . The overall system is
robust.
The second control method in the distinguised arm's
coordination strategy uses the force-torque output
and feedback technique briefly described by (17-19)
in the first part of Section 3 of this paper.
Using the force feedback and output framework we
can obtain a control coordination strategy for two
(or more) robot arms working on the same obj ect in
a "worker/coworker" mode.
In the case of two cooperating robot arms. we first
incorporate the m.ss of the object into the dyn.mic
projection parameters of one of the two robot .rms.
say robot ••• • Let p(qa) be the position and/or
orientation of the object. and let F be the force
and/or torque sensed .t the end effector of robot
·b· . The dynamic equation of motion for robot 'b'
is
and the dynamic equ.tion of motion for robot 'a' is
Considering the enlarged output equ.tion of the
form
y (32)
we can apply the feedb.ck line.rization and
decoupling method to the .bove system such that the
a Syste m Control Problem i
inpnt. ~a only will regulate the outputs p(q.) and
the inputs ~b only w ill regula te the output F.
Note that the solution of this problem has
application in cases where the second robot arm ha.
to support g~.!!.!!!!i£.!ll~ the .ctions of the first
robot arm which are defined in geometric terms.
Using the force-moment output/feedb.ck str.tegy
outlined above we .re now investig.ting (i) the
combination of optim.l coordinator with force
feedback (loop 1 plus loop 2 in Fig . 3) and (ii)
the combination of optimal error corrector with
force feedback (loop 3 plus loop 2 in Fig. 3).
Coordinated Control of Indistinguished Arms
In the second control str.tegy .pproach. the two
(or more) robot arms are indistinguished from e.ch
other ; they form a closed loop kinem.tic ch.i~ As
an example. we consider two robot .rms holding an
object which c.n move gently between the tips of
the end effectors . We assume that the object .nd
the end effectors are mechanically locked and that
each robot .rm has six links . The closed chain h.s
14 links and 14 joints (10 =14) . Those two joints
connecting the object .nd the end effectors have no
.ctuators. From Kutzback-Grubler criterion
(Shigley. 1969). the degree of freedom of the two-
arm ch.in is 6(14-1) - Sm = 8.
We denote the jOint v.riables of the two-.rm ch.in
by
where 8 1 , •.. 8 6 are the original joint variables
of the first robot (or robot ·a·) . 8 7 is the joint
anlle of the joint connecting the object and the
end effector of robot ·a·. 8 , •• • 8 , have the
1 7
same meaning for the second robot (robot ·b·) . The
joint driving torque (or force) vector i s denoted
by F = [F 1 • F 2 •...• F I4 ]·. In case that a jOint
h.s no .ctu.tor. the corresponding component of the
force vector F is assigned to be zero. Choosing
the generalized coordinates in the following way
q [ql q2 q3 q4 qs ~ q7 q8]
A [8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 S 8 6 06' 8 7 ,]
then the function.l relation 8 = O(q) can be
obtained from the inverse kinematics of robot arm
"b".
Suppose that a world coordinate fr.me h.s been
loc.ted in the work sp.ce and that a coordin.te
frame has been assigned to each link of the closed
chain. In the process of expressing the energy. we
will describe the energy of the object in terms of
8 instead of 8 ,. Using homogeneous coordinates
7 7
together with the Denavit-Hartenberg four-par.meter
representa tion of robot arm kinema tics. .nd us ing
the Lagrangian formulation of kinetics. the dynamic
model of the closed-chain is .s follows :
(33)
where D(q)= 1~ D(O(q» 10
= [~1l (q) ••• • ~18 (q)]
D81 (q) .•.• D88 (q)

nll n17
07l D77
il(8 )
il1 'l'
il6 'I'
0 0
E(q,q) 2'
• Cl 9 "
q'---z 7 - q
Cl q
DP (Dp ij ), p=l, ... , 7' ;
-J~ [~1D ,1
G(q) =
7 the feedback I inearized robot arm .
Note that il , , (q) is the inertial load projection
function toljoint "i" related to acceleration at
j oint "j", Di ' k(q) is the centripetal (j=k) or
Coriolis (jlk) rorce prOjection function to joint
"i" related to velocities at joints "j" and "'t",
and Di ( q) is the gra v ity load at joint "i".
geueral function definitions of the D "
D dynamic projection functions
ijk
(Bejczy, 1974; Paul, 1981).
For transferring tasks we take output equations to
be the position and orientation of the object in
the world coordinate frame . More specifically, the
o utputs can be described by a 6 - dimensional vector
hl (q)]
h2 (q)
y (34)
[ "intelligent" since it is capable of directly
h6 (q)
in t erms o f the generali z ed coordinate q.
first three component s hI' h2 and h3 of y represent
the position and the last three components h4' hS
and h6 represent the orientation of the object.
To perf o rm linearization and output block
decoupling f o r the system (33) with output equation
(34), we can now use the algorithm developed by us
(Tarn, Bejcz y , and coworkers, 1984, 1987a; Chen,
1984) to find the required nonlinear feedback and
the required nonlinear coordinate transformation.
The control problem of the two arm closed chain is
then simpl ified to a design problem of linear
sys tems.
Note that the obtained linear system consists of
six independent subsystems. Since each subsystem
is contr o llable, we may locate the poles of each
subsystem by adding a constant feedback. As we
have done f o r o ne arm control system, an optimal
correction loop may also be designed to reduce the
tracking error and to improve the robustness
against model uncertainties .
This formulation has the advantage of automaticall y
handling the coordination and load distribution
between two robot arms through the dynamic
equations . By choosing independent generalized
,\, h , lkjol" and T. l ' Ltrll
coordinates, kinematic and dynamic constraints have
been taken into account in the process of deriving
the eqnations of motion.
TASK PLANNING WITH NONLINEAR FEEDBACK
0 The feedback linearized and simultaneously output
D1 '6'
decoupled dynam ic control technique based on
nonlinear feedback and state transformation
D1 '6' 0 actually transforms robot arm control problems from
the joint space to the task space and performs
robot servoing in terms of task space variables
0 within a linear system frame, allowing also the use
of powerful techniques from optimal control of
linear systems. On the joint space level, our
dynamic control technique commands drive forces on
torques or their equivalent quantities addressed to
the jOint drive system.
The "task-level" nature of the new dynamic control
technique becomes apparent by examining the upper
left part of Fig. 2. As seen there, the expected
output from a task planning program is a commanded
path (or trajectory) "y" in the task space as a
function of time. From this function and its time
derivatives a linear mathematical model "v" is
constructed which becomes a linear control input to
Thus, the
planned and commanded trajectory together with its
time derivatives 4i~££11y 4~i~£~ the robot arm
through a linear system model.
We also note that the optimal error correction loop
sh o wn in the lower left part of Fig. 2 directly
operates on the task level and not on the joint
The control level. The task level errors are then
decomposed b y the nonlinear gain matrix /lex) into
0" and
1 lJ joint f o rce or torque drive c o mmands as shown in
can be found in Fig. 2. It is also important to note that the
non 1 inear compensat ing vect o r u(x) and the
nonlinear gain matrix /lex) in the nonlinear
feedback equation "WO do not change from task to
task, unl e ss the load carried by the robot hand is
changing drastically relati v e to a nominal value
assumed in the nonlinear feedback design. In that
case changes in the u(x) vector and /lex) matrix can
be carried out by using straightforward algebraic
formulas (Bejczy, 1974). Consequently, the basic
control system parameters in the new dynam ic
c o ntrol method do not need readjustment from task
to task . In that sense the control method is
responding to changing task level commands "y"
embodied in the linear task c o ntrol input "v".
The
Motivated b y the new dynamic control method
summarized briefly in the previous sections, our
description of the robot arm motion planning
problem is as follows: given c ertain goal data on
the six d.o.f. movement of the robot hand in the
task space, find a mathematical representation of a
six d.o . f. robot hand trajectory in the task space
in the form of a closed function of time which can
be used as input to the robot arm control system to
achieve a desired robot hand motion . The given
goal data can include a geometric description of a
curve in the 3-D space and the robot hand's
orientation along it, or points in the 3 - D space
the rob o t hand has to pass through, specification
of velocities at some points in the task space
including initial and final velocities, etc. Thus ,
we are only interested in motion planning in the
task space; in our motion planning no
transformation is involved between task space and
joint space. We point out again that this approach
to robot arm motion planning is possible because of
the development of the new dynamic control method
described in the p revious section. This new
control technique only requires the formula t ion of
functions which define the end effector trajectory
and its time derivatives in the six d . o.f. task
space as inputs to the robot arm controller for
position and velocity control of the robot arm.
A general theoretical frame is outlined in (Bejczy, Having obtained r(t), we can easily transform the
Tarn, Li, 1986b) for task space motion planning, representation of AB from the spherical frame to a
matching the requirements of our new dynamic Cartesian world frame by
control technique. In task space motion planning
we use tools from differential geometry. We found
it desirable since this sets the task space motion X(t)] r(t) sinO B cos~B +
planning problem on the same mathematical :y (t) y(t) r( t) s ine B s inc/>B + (37)
foundation as our task driven feedback control [z (t )
[ r(t) cosOB
design briefly described in the previous sections.

In essence, our task space motion planning uses

polynomial approximation. This is rather easy for which is then the position task control input to
end effector position which, in general. is given Our dynamic control scheme.
by a cUrve y in the task space. In the task space
we fix nothing but the origin, Points on the curve Suppose now that we have an orientation requirement
y can then be viewed as vectors starting from the for the robot end effector while it is moving from
origin, Le., bound vectors. This motion A to B as follows:
description by polynomial approximation is
independent of the choice of the task space At to: ele roll axis is parallel to x axis of
reference frame since all coordinate systems in 1R3 task space
are related by nonsingular transform mapping. For
orientation vectors, v. however. we don't have For titl: orientation is unchanged.
immediate mathematical representation since they
are f re eve c tor s i n I R 3. Th us, we h a v e t 0 For [t , t z 1: ele roll axis is changed to
l
transform them into bound vectors like the position become parallel to Z axis of
vectors y that describe the curve y(t) . This task space, where tOitlit2~tf
transform can be accomplished via the frame bundle, for given tl and tZ'
Le .. via moving frames on y (Boothby, 1975).
Instead of detailing the theory which can be found For t2t2: orientation is unchanged.
in (Bejczy, Tarn, Li. 1986b), we use here a simple
This orientation requirement as stated is not
example to illustrate our task space position and
orientation planning procedures. representable as a closed function of time.
Therefore, as proposed in (Bej czy, Tarn, Li,
Suppose that the robot end effector is required to 1986b). we assign parallel coordinate frames along
AB so that the orientation can be written as
travel along a straight line segment in the task
space form point A at time to = 0 to point B at
time tf such that the end effector is at rest at "it) = [s(t), w(t)1 for toititf
points A and B. This impl ies y(t O) = y(tf) = O.
Th i s des cri p t ion e f f e c t i vel y pro j e c t s the
We would also like a smooth robot motion that
implies that the acceleration and its time orientation vectors into one single IR3 space W.
derivative should be continuous along y and such
that 1(t O) = 1(tf) = O. We select a fifth order Without loss of generality, we assume that
polynomial representation of the line segment AB. orientation vectors are unit vectors, and we choose
the path of them in W to be the arc of radius 1 in
Thus, we have: the first quadrant in the X-Z plane. Then we only
have to find a representation for wit). We have:

with conditions
w

. ..
y(tf) = y(tO) o
For simplicity in computation, we select a
spherical reference frame for y(t) with origin at
A. The line segment is now a ray frame with origin w
S = S(A) running to B with representation (r(t),
~B' OB) where ~B and OB are constants. Thus. we
only have to find a fifth order polynomial
To provide smooth transition in orientation, we
representation for r(tl. Denoting the length of AB
by L, we find from six algebraic equation in t require tha t
under the specified initial and terminal conditions
tha t
After some simple algebraic computations (Tarn,
r(t) (36) Bejczy, Li, 1986b), and having introduced again a
fifth order polynomial to represent z(t) s im ilar to
the case of r(t), we obtain for the orientation
We note that this r(t) has a very desirable task:
velocity profile. It reaches maximnm valne of tflZ
where the acceleration becomes zero. We also have J:(O]
, where (38)
that r(O)O for t(tflZ and r(t)(O for t>tfIZ.
These facts also facilitate the handling of caseS [ y( t)

z(t)
when, along with the val ue of L, the maximum
velocity is given instead of tf' In that case we
have to find t f by solving a system of four x(t)
algebraic equations which always is solvable since
the coefficients of the four equation form linearly
independent vectors. y(t)
10
0 for Oitit1
z(t)= (t-t1)3 [P5(t-t1)2+ p4 (t-t1)+P3] for t 1i t i t 2
1 for t2ititf
with P5
6
(t2- t 1 )5
. P4 =
15
(t2- t 1)4
P3 =
Equation (38) is then the orientation taslr. control
input to our dynamic control scheme. This
orientation representation has the same desirable
properties as did the position representation
discussed earlier.
In summary, (37) and (38) together with their time
derivatives directly drive the robot arm through a
linear system model in our feedbaclr. linearized and
simultaneously output decoupled dynamic control
scheme which is based on nonlinear feedbaclr. and
nonlinear state transformation .
COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURE
Th e new d y n a mic con t r 0 1 tee h n i que and the
corresponding new taslr. planning procedure described
in this paper are computational schemes and
algorithms. Their implementation reqnires the use
of high-performance computers in the run-time and
real-time control .
Based on the type of computations involved in the
nonl inear feedbaclr., opt imal error correct ion .
dynamic coordination and taslr. planning. a
distributed but closely integrated computing
architecture suggest itself. similar to the one
described by Bej czy, Ootson. Sulr.aly (1986a). This
.-\ . K. Be jel' a l1d T. J Tam
quoted computing architecture uses several CPUs in
a multibus frame and uses a robot motor control
subsystem with direct BLX bus connection to the
motor control CPU housed in the mul tibus as
indicated in Fig. 4. Multiple bus masters
operating in a closely coupled computing
environment enable sharing of information from
10
(t2- t 1 )3
various sources within a processing node. The
ability to share memory space malr.es it easy to
synchronize multiple processors in order to
coordinate robot control and sensor data handling
for control. A point in case is also that motor
control is integrated into the multibus.
The quoted robot motor control subsystem provides
much richer motor control related sensing
capabilities than today's industrial robot motor
controllers do. The rich sensing capabilities malr.e
it possible to calculate the following quantities
in real time : joint position, joint speed. joint
acceleration" motor torque, load on motor, motor
baclr.-EMF, motor electrical resistance, motor
winding temperature, motor power supply status.
All these quantities are either needed or desired
in our dynamic control scheme.
Considerable R&O worlr. lies ahead to implement our
new dynamic control technique and the corresponding
taslr. planning procedures in the suggested multibus
based architecture before the implementat ion
reaches a presentable level of maturity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was supported in part by the National
Science Founda t ion under grants OMC-8309527. OMC-
8505843. ECS-8515899, and INT-8519654.

REFERENCES
Bejczy, A.IL (1974). R£.!!£.L~.!!LQY!!J!!!!.!£!'_J!!!J!
Control. JPL, TM 33-669.
Bej czy, A.K., T.J. Tarn, and Y.L. Chen (1985a).
Robot Arm Dynamic Control by Computer. f.!££..
of 1985 IEEE International Conf. on Robotics
and Automation, St. Louis, MO.
Bej czy, A.K .. T.J. Tarn, and X. Yun (1985b). Robust
Robot Arm Control with Nonlinear Feedback.
Proc. of IFAC Symposium on Robot Control,
Barcelona, Spain.
Bej czy, A.K., T.J. Tarn, X. Yun, and S. Han
(1985c). Nonlinear Feedback Control of PUMA
560 Robot Arm by Computer. Proc. of 24th IEEE
££!!~£!!-D~£.!!'.!£!!_J!!!J!_££!!!.!£l, Fort Lauder-
dale, FL.
Bej czy, A.K., R.S. Dotson, and Z. Szakaly (1986a).
Computing Architecture for Telerobots in Earth
Orbit. f.!£~£i_~flE_££!!~!!_AJ!~J!!!£~~-1!!
Intelligent Robotic Systems, Cambridge, MA.
Bej czy, A.K., T.J. Tarn, and Z. F. Li (1986b). Task
Driven Feedback Control of Robot Arms; A Step
Towards Intelligent Control. f.!£~£i_l~!h
lEEE_££!!~£!!_Q~£'!!.'!£!!-!!!!J!~£!!!.!£l, Athens,
Greece.
Boothby, W. (1975). An Introduc t ion to Different ial
ManifolJ!!.-!!!!J!_R.!~!!!J!!!.!J!!!~~£!!!~!'!Y.
Academic
Press, New York, NY, pp. 294-297.
Chen, Y.L. (1984). Nonlinear Feedback and Computer
Control of Robot Arms. ~~Q.!!'!'~'!!J!!.!£!!,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
Paul, R.P. (1981). Robot Manipulators : Mathematics,
f'!£A.!J!!!!!!!.!!!AL-J!!!J!_£2!!!'!21. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Shigley, J.E. (1969). !.!!!~!!!J!!.!£_~!!J!ln.!L_2i
Mechanis!!!!., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Tarn, T.J., A.K. Bejczy, A. Isidori, and Y.L. Chen
(1984). Nonl inear Feedback in Robot Arm
Control. f.!2~£i_l~.!J! IEEE Coni. on Decision
and Control. Las Ve gas, NV.
11
Tarn, T.J .. A.K. Bejczy, and Z.F. Li (1986b). Robot
Arm Motion Planning: A Review and A New
Approach, Robot ics Labora tory Report, SSM-RL-
86-06, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
Tarn, T.J .. A.K. Bej czy, and Z.F. Li (1986c).
Computer Simulation of Nonlinear Feedback for
Third Order Dynamic Model of PUMA 560 Robot
Arm with Alternative Pole Assignments.
R2.!!2!.!£!.-1J!.!!2'!J!!£.!Y-R~P2.!!, SSM-RL-86-07,
Washington University, St . Louis, MO .
Tarn, T. J .. A.K. Bejczy, and X. Yun (1986d).
Dynam ic Coordina t ion of Two Robot Arms. Proc.
of 25th IEEE Conf, on Decision and Control,
Athens, Greece.
Tarn, T.J.. and A.K. Bej czy (1987a). Software
Elements: Intelligent Control of Robot Arms.
In R. C. Do rf (E d.), E!!£V£l£P~J!jJ!~i-R£.!!£!.!H'
J. Wiley and Sons, New York, NY (to appear).
Tarn, T.J., A. K. Bejczy, and X. Yun (1987b).
Modeling and Control of Two Coordinated Robot
Arms. In C.1. Byrnes and A. Kurzhanski (Eds.)
M£J!~1.!!!A_J!!!J!_~J!J!P!.!~~_££!!!.!21, Springer
Verlag, New York, NY (to appear).
Vukobratovic, M.. and D. Stokic (1982). Control of
Manipula t ion Robots, Spr inger VerIag, Berl in,
FRG.
Tarn, T.J .. A.K. Bej czy, and X. Yun (1985a).
Nonlinear Feedback for PUMA 560 Robot Arm.
R£.!!2!.!£!._LJ!.!!£'!J!!2.!Y-R~P£.!!' SSM-RL-85-03,
Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
Tarn, T.J., A.K. Bejczy, and X. Yun (1985b). Third
Order Dynamic Equations and Nonlinear Feedback
for PUMA 560 Robot Arm. R£.!!2!.!£!._LJ!.!!2'!J!!2.!Y
Report, SSM-RL-85-04, Washington University,
St. Louis, MO.
Tarn, T.J., A.K. Bejczy, and X. Yun (1986a).
Coordinated Control of Two Arm Robots. f.!2£..
of IEEE International Conf. on Robotics and
Automation, San Francisco, CA.
l~ .\. K. Be jcz\ and I .J T arn

T3bl e l. Simu l ati on ~t' su~ : s f ~) r the C()nt ~ cl \) f One

PL:':..-\ 560 Ro bo t Anr.

DY 7\J ~ M IC \ 10D EL
0% - 5" · 5"G ""0% _100 '0 - 20", - 20% -30"'0 . 30°',
P..).R..l.M ET :: R ERROR

M..l.X.
POSIT ION
W I TH
.!.'I
0 .008 0.23 023 OA6 0.46 0 .9 1 0 .91 ! 1.37 1.37

ER R OR
WlTHC UT
( mm )
~, 0.0 27 0.77 0 .77 1. 55 1.55 3.~ 0 3. ~ O o1. 6ol .1 .65

WIT H
M AX .
0.02 4 0 .099 0.084 0. 19 0 ,17 0.36 0 .35 0. 54 0. 53
V EL OCITY
ERR O R
"
WI THOUT
(m m/ sec l
0. 053 0.32 0.30 0. 61 0. 61 1.2 1 1,2 1 1. 8 1 1.82
"
T OTA L T RAJEC TORY
TI M E (sec )

v•
Table 2. Simul a ti on Re s u l ts for Coord i nated I
Co n trol of Two PUMA 56 0 Ro bot Arms I
v6 I I
DYNAMIC IL _______________
i • Az • Bv ~
I
MODEL ROBOT ..... 0% +10% -10% -20% +30%
PARAMETER
ERRORS ROBOT " b " 0% +10% +10% +20% +30% Fi g. 1. Ex terna l l y Linea riz e d and Ou t put Deco upl ed
Sy stem when Non linear Feedb ack and
MAX . WITH 0.008 0.42 0.76 1.52 1.25 Di ffeomor phi c Tr ansf o rma ti on a r e In t roduc ed
RELATIVE
POSITION
"".
ERROR WITHOUT 0.023 1.20 2.20 4.50 3.60
(mm)
"'.
MAX . WITH 0.045 0.23 0.20 0.45 0.65
RELATIVE ,H
VELOCITY
ERROR WITHOUT 0.137 0.63 0.61 1.20 1.80
(mm/secl
"'.
TOTAL TRAJECTORY
TIME (,ecl 6 6 6 6 6

Y(&yl
TASK PLAN
AND COMMAND

--- -- ---...,
'I I
.----..:-----,-<1
~ •
I
."11 •d
y.I + f') y.I + f"vl
~
Vj
w•
olx) + {3lxlv
w
ROBOT ARM 1--1~ Ttx)
1
t-:~~
I
[: :] [;:]
2 Ir +1 I I·
MATH . MODEL 1 I 1 I
I I 1 I
1
L _______________ BC~.J I
1 I
I I
I i j • A j Zj t bj vii
L __L~N.E.~B~O~K _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..J

[;~ ] [;:]
t ~~------------------------------------------~
F ig. 2. Dy nami c Co nt ro l Me thod Usin g No nl i nea r Feedback a nd Opt im a l Err or
Co rrec t i o n in the Task Space
 Robot COlllrol as a System Control Problem 13

V·
•
Vd
-.
vd
ROBOT " . "

LINEAR
MATHEMATICAL
MODEL ~-----------------------;F'~------~

( LOOP 1 ) OPTIMAL OFFSET

Vd
DYNAMIC
COORDINATOR IoPTIMAL-l
ICORRECTlONI
-DESIRED
-- ---- - -- --_--_ _=_- __-_-_-_-_--_-_-::,~OF CONTACT I
CONTACT ~_ r (
LOOP 2 ) t~':CE __ J
FORCE AT _b
vd
v I NON LINEAR FEEDBACK r __ L __ , ,----1
ROBOT + vb vb I FORCE SENSOR I
HAND
ROBOT " b"

V~ I = V~ + OFFSET)

~------------------------~Fbr.------~

Fig. ]. Control Method for Coordinated Dyn amic Control uf TWd Rohot Arms

~ V M O TOR POWER
/11 SUPPLY

l--poWER
AMPLIF I ERS
MUl TIS US CARO
MUlTtBUSCARD ~ I
r---! I
lOGIC POWER
SUPPl Y
MUl TIBUS CARD
MUl TIBUS CARD
PROCESSOR
JOINT PROCESSOR

vecs { r--:;;JO""7.N.;.T.:;C,;;07.N.;.T;;.RO~lc;l"E:::R:-1"'"
JOINT CONTROLLER

ANY MUL TISUS CARD

120 VAC

OTHER PROCESSOR

JOINT PROCESSOR

uecs
JOINT CONTROLLER CARD I-__--===:;==~~====

JOINT CONTROL LE R CARD

Fig, 4. Unified (or Universal) Computer Control

Subsystem (UCCS) and its major elements for
the Control of Robot Motors