The International Journal of

Robotics Research http://ijr.sagepub.com/

A General Procedure to Evaluate Robot Positioning Errors

Ramesh N. Vaishnav and Edward B. Magrab
The International Journal of Robotics Research 1987 6: 59
DOI: 10.1177/027836498700600105

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://ijr.sagepub.com/content/6/1/59

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Multimedia Archives

Additional services and information for The International Journal of Robotics Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://ijr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://ijr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://ijr.sagepub.com/content/6/1/59.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 1987

What is This?

Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014

 Ramesh N. Vaishnav
The School of Engineering and Architecture
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C. 20064
Edward B. Magrab
Precision Engineering Division
Center for Manufacturing Engineering
National Bureau of Standards
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899
Abstract
A new, explicit, and complete formulation that describes the
geometric errors due to both origin translation and misalign-
ments of axes in the positioning of an open-loop robot ma-
nipulator has been presented. The formulation does not use
the usual Denavit-Hartenberg approach. The results clearly
display the role of each quantity involved and allow easy
physical interpretation of each error term. First, a general
kinematic formulation for an ideal robot with an arbitrary
number of links is developed. The geometric errors in axes
locations and orientations are then shown to be skew coordi-
nate transformations with origin translations and are incor-
porated into the analysis using general tensor algebra. The
final forms of forward and backward transformations contain
up to 9 (N + 2) error parameters for a robot with N physical
links. This theoretical formulation is applied to a specific
six-degrees-of-freedom robot. It is observed that of the possi-
ble 72 errors in this robot, only 53 can independently contrib-
ute to the error at the end effector and are the only ones that
can be determined by measurements made at the end effec-
tor. It is shown how a correlation matrix analysis can be
used to isolate these 53 parameters. In addition. it is shown
how, using a successive orthogonalization technique, one can
eliminate from consideration error parameters (eight in the
present case) that are too small to be significant but contrib-
ute to the ill-conditioning of the coefficient matrix. Applica-
tion of the procedure to computer-simulated data shows that
the formulation and the numerical techniques developed here
combine to form a powerful method to calibrate a robot.
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
A General Procedure
to Evaluate Robot
Positioning Errors
1. Introduction
An industrial robot is an assembly of sequentially
linked components capable of executing a variety of
industrially useful mechanical tasks under program
control. The most proximal component of the robot is
generally a base firmly fixed to the ground. The most
distal component (the end effector) is typically a grip-
per. Accurate positioning and orientation of this end
effector is vital to the usefulness of the robot. Although
the robot is usually manufactured and assembled with
great care, numerous unavoidable sources of error
introduce various degrees of inaccuracy in the posi- _
tioning and orientation of the end effector. Errors in
axis alignments, axis locations, and scale alignments
are some of the factors that may contribute to the
.-
inaccuracy in the robot’s final position. By their very
nature, these errors cannot be measured directly but
need to be inferred from a set of carefully made mea-
surements. In this communication we develop a fairly
general approach to error characterization and present
a systematic procedure to calculate the magnitude of
these errors. Once the error parameters are quantita-
tively identified, the software controlling the relative
motions of the robot linkages can be appropriately
modified, and the robot can then be used to more ac-
curately position and orient the end effector on demand.
The kinematics of robotic motion can be studied
using a series of successive coordinate transformations
(Paul 198 1). In a typical robot arm, the axes of rota-
tion of successive links are perpendicular to each other.
The axes of translations, if any, are either parallel or
perpendicular to the axes of the preceding links. The
successive transformations are therefore easy to for-
mulate. When the axes of rotation or translation of
successive links are neither parallel nor mutually per-
59
 ~’ig..~. A sequence of nomi-
nal coordinate systems at-
tached to various links of a
robot.

pendicular, the transformation formulas become

slightly more complicated. The usual approach in
such a case is through a method due to Denavit and
Hartenberg {19SS), which consists of identifying the
common normal to the two nonorthogonal axes of
rotation and defining four kinematic parameters. One
kinematic parameter is the relative rotation between
the links, and the remaining three are the length of the
common normal between the axes of rotation, the
angle between the axes of rotation, and the vertical
separation of two successive normals along the axis of
the common link. In the following sections we present
a general kinematic formulation to describe the kine-
matics of a robot arm and develop a straightforward
approach to account for most of the geometric errors
that can occur. We do not use the traditional Denavit-
Hartenberg type approach here since, as pointed out
by Mooring ( 1983), in an error analysis where only
slight axis misalignments are involved, the Denavit-
Hartenberg procedure results in transformation matri- link coordinate systems with the link variable i ranging
ces with very large elements. The error terms in the from 0 to N + 1. We also designate as joint i (i =

approach presented here are physically identifiable. In 1, ...

N + 1) the joint common to the i - 1 and i
,

addition, the formulation is easy to implement and to
verify by experimental evaluation. Among some other
works addressing the question of error analysis in ro-
botics are those of Chen, Wang, and Yang (1984); Wu
links. There are therefore a total of N + 1 joints; how-
ever, motion of the arm can be articulated only
through N of them. The amount of articulation of link
I.at joint i relative to link 1 1 is the value of the ith
-

(1984); and Mooring and Tang (1984). joint variable. The geometry of the robot can be de-
scribed by means of successive forward and backward
transformations among the N + 2 link coordinate
2. Coordinate Systems systems, which are functions of the joint variables.

2.1. INTRODUCTION
2.2. TRANSFORMATION BETWEEN TWO NOMINAL
Consider a robot arm consisting of N physical links COORDINATE SYSTEMS
connected in an open-loop configuration with a Carte-
sian coordinate system xk (k = 1, 2, 3), with origin at Let (i i I, ¡Î2’ i3) be an orthonormal triad of unit vec-
~A, af6xed to the ith link (Fig. 1). We designate the tors defining the (; x 1, ; x2 , ; x3 ) coordinate system and
; xk system as the ith nominal system and orient it so (i+I1 L a i+l I2 ~ i+lÎ3) their counterparts in the C+IX¡,
that one of the axes is either along the nominal axis of i+lX2, i+lX3) coordinate system. Let the two sets of
rotation (for a revolute joint) or the nominal axis of unit vectors be related as
translation (for a prismatic joint). We also assume in
the case of a revolute joint that the other two axes are
aligned nominally with the 0° and 90° angular marks.
In addition, we designate the end-effector coordinate
system by N+ 1 xk and identify it as the N + 1 link and
designate the world coordinate system as OXk and iden- In Eq. (1), we have used the familiar summation
tify it as the zero link. We thus have a total of N + 2 convention whereby summation over the full range of

60
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
a suffix subscript or a suffix superscript (but not a where 6*~~~ is the Kronecker delta. Equations (2) and
prefix subscript or superscript) is implied when the (10) also imply that
suffix is repeated once. This convention will be used
throughout.
From Eq. (1), it follows that
Equations (7) and (9) are standard Cartesian tensor
transformation formulas extended to incorporate an
origin shift.
Note that ’+; Tkm is the km element of the matrix of
direction cosines relating the orientations of the two
coordinate systems. 2.3. COMPOUND TRANSFORMATION FOR THREE
Referring to Fig. 1, we let P be a point with coordi- ADJACENT LINKS
nates xk (k 1, 2, 3) in the i Xk system and t+,xk
=

(k 1, 2, 3) in the i+lXk system. By considering the

=
The counterpart of Eq. (7) for the i + 2 link is
vector equality

When combined with Eq. (7), it gives

or equivalently,

we can show that

is the product transformation that represents the direct

In the above equations, we defined transition from the i to i + 2 link.
The transformation from the xk to the y+2xk coordi-
nate system in the form of Eq. ( 13) shows the succes-
sive subtransformations clearly; in the form of Eq.
which is the relation between the components of the (14), it emphasizes the similarity with Eq. (7). The
origin shift vector in the xk and ;~. ~ xk coordinate sys- parenthetical quantity in Eq. (14) denotes the coordi-
tems. nates of a generic point in a coordinate system parallel
The inverse transformations to the ith system but located at the origin of the i + 2
corresponding to Eq.
(7) are given, respectively, by system. The last two terms in Eq. (14) represent the
compound effect of the two origin shifts.

2.4. COMPOUND TRANSFORMATION FOR Yl + 1

In obtaining Eq. 9, we have taken advantage of the ADJACENT LINKS
fact that ’~ i Tmx obeys the orthonormality relations
A compound transformation spanning n + 1 links can
now be written down by induction as

61
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
 Fig. 2. Geometry of a skew
coordinate system ~k. Ø3! is
the angle between the ~j axis
and the Cartesian x, axis.

where

and

i=ii

The inverse transformation corresponding to Eq. ( 16)

is simply

The limits on the values of i, n, and i + n stated in

Eq. (16) will be implied in all subsequent equations.

3. Geometry of a Skew Coordinate-System reciprocal with itself.We may, however, define an-
other triad el of contravariant base vectors reciprocal
The preceding treatment was based on the assumption to the triad ek through the relation
that the nominal Cartesian coordinate systems ;xk
used to define various links were perfect: that is, the
coordinate axes truly intersected at a point and were
mutually orthogonal. In reality this cannot be expected From Eq. (20), we see that e’ is perpendicular to both
to be the case and the true axes will in general be e2 and e3 . Similar relationships hold for e2 and C3.
shifted and skewed relative to their assumed positions. Note that ek are directed along the coordinate axes and
The study of such skewed coordinate systems is sim- ek are directed along normals to the coordinate planes.
plified by the use of general tensor algebra (Synge and Let
Schild 1949; Sokolnikoff 1964). To facilitate later
development of the coordinate system error analysis,
we first develop a few relations needed in the treatment
of skew and &dquo;slightly skew&dquo; coordinate systems.
Consider a Cartesian coordinate system xk (k 1, =
denote the transformation expressing the coordinates
2, 3) and a skew (nonorthogonal) coordinate system çk xk in terms of Çm. Let us assume that the determinant
(k 1, 2, 3), both with the same origin as shown in
=
~axk~a~m~ ~ 0, thus guaranteeing the existence of the
Fig. 2. Let ik = ik be a unit triad of Cartesian base inverse transformation
vectors along the xk axes and ek a unit triad of covar-
iant base vectors along the çk axes. Note that the latter
triad is in general not orthonormal and hence is not

62
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
 From Eqs. (21 ) and (22) we have Fij also) are independent. Equivalently, Eq. (28)
states that any six of the angles okm may be chosen as
independent quantities and the remaining three ob-
tained in terms of them. We shall choose the ~km for
k # m as the six independent quantities.
Of particular interest in the present work is the case
of a slightly skew coordinate system. In this case, the
matrix Fkrn is very close to a unit matrix and the ele-
ments H Ian of the matrix defined as

where Fkm axk~a~m and Fbiz a~k~axm is the inverse

= =

of Fk&dquo;t. If r = X’ik is the position vector of a point P

and r + dr (x + dxk)ik is the position vector of a
=
are therefore very small compared to unity. Equiva- _

point P’ an infinitesimally small distance away from lently, the angles akrn, defined as
P, then

This implies that

are quantities. Note that when there is no

also small
and e’ is the set of reciprocal vectors of ek.
skewness, ~k,~ 0(k m) and okm x/2(k # m).
= = =

If Eq. (21) is linear (with or without a constant Thus, ak, 0 for all k and m. Using Eqs. (27-31), we
=

term), Fkm is a constant matrix. This is the case for a can show that
skew Cartesian system. In addition, if the constant
term is absent, that is, the coordinate systems have the
same origin, the transformations embodied in Eqs.

(23) and (24) are applicable to the coordinates them-

selves and not just their differentials.
From Eq. (26) we have

where ~krn is the angle that the çk axis makes with the
x,,, axis (see Fig. 2). Equation (27) also states that the
elements of the kth column of the matrix Fmk are the
To the same degree of approximation as embodied in
Eqs. (32-35), we also find from Eq. (29) that
Cartesian components (the direction cosines) of the
vector ek. Since lekl 1, we have the three relations
=

We now decompose the matrix Hk&dquo;? into its symmetric

part Hk,~ and its skew-symmetric part H’,~&dquo;, as

Thus, only six of the nine elements of Fmk (and thus of

63
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
 Fig. 3. A shifted and tilted
axis, ç3.

The Cartesian decomposition defined by Eqs. (37-39)

is always possible and is unique. However, when
¡Hkml « 1, Hk,~ represent the true mutual angular
deviations of the axes of the slightly skew coordinate
system relative to the original Cartesian system, and
Hkm represent the small rigid-body rotations.
For a robot link, the various small akm (k # rn)
components can be interpreted as follows. Suppose X3
is the nominal axis of rotation, X] is directed along the
0 0 mark and xz along the 0 90 mark. Then a32
= =

and a3, are the x3-axis misalignments in the x, and x2

directions, respectively. If the ~l~2 plane coincides
with the xlx2 plane, the misalignment is a tilting of
the X3 axis and the link will wobble while rotating. If
the çlÇ&dquo;2 plane is perpendicular to the ~3 axis, the link
will not wobble but will rotate in a wrong plane. The
angles a31 and a32 along with a23 and a 13 determine
whether or not the axis of rotation ç3 is perpendicular axis is shifted that it intersects the XIX2 plane in the
so
to the desired plane of rotation. The angle a,2 denotes point P03 (X3,, x32, 0), and is tilted so that its new
at
an error in the alignment of the 0 =
0° mark (and direction is given by the ~3 axis with a unit vector e3 in
presumably the 0 180° mark also), and a2, denotes
=
its direction. Let P3 be a point on the ~3 axis so that
an error in the 0 =
90 mark (and presumably the P03p3 = ç3. The position vector r3 = ~3 of P3 is then
0 270° mark also). Together they decide how much
=
given by
of the error is due to a rigid body rotation of the scale
and how much of it is a distortion.

In a similar manner, we may express two additional

4. Errors in Coordinate position vectors as
System Representations
We now turn toward developing a scheme to account
for the possibility that the nominal coordinate axes for
a link are not the actual axes, and that the actual axes
can be obtained by shifting and tilting the nominal
axes. We develop a procedure to systematically inves-

tigate the errors caused by these geometric aberrations where (0, x 12, x,3 ) and (x2, , 0, x23 ) are points of in-
in terms of the true representation of the position of a tersection of the xi and axes with the X2X3 and
point. x I X3 planes, respectively; el and e2 are unit vectors
Consider the situation shown in Fig. 3 where the x33 along the new directions çl and (2 of the xl and x2

64
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
Fig. 4. Three shifted and
tilted axes.

This can also be expressed as

Hkm is given by Eq. (32). The six terms Hk&dquo;~ and the
three terms Qk represent a total of nine possible errors
present in each coordinate system.
Equation (48) is the transformation equation be-
tween the actual skew coordinates Çm and the nominal
Cartesian coordinates xk, with the vector dk defining
an effective origin shift. Note that six components xij
of the three axis shifts appear in the final transforma-
tion only as the three sums given in Eqs. (49 - 51 ).
Equation (48) can be inverted to give

axes, respectively; and ~’ and (2 are the distances from

the xZx3 and X I X3 planes along the lines ~ and (2 to When the çk system is only slightly skew and the
generic points P, and P2 on these lines, respectively origin shift components are small, Eqs. (48) and (52)
(see Fig. 4). become, respectively,
Now let

be a vector obtained by summing the vectors ri , r2,

and r3. From Eqs. (40-43) we have The prefix i has been reintroduced to emphasize that
these quantities belong to the ith nominal or actual
coordinate system. Note that in Eq. (54) the approxi-
) mation (6~~ + Hk&dquo;t)-‘ = ~~&dquo;, - Hkm has been used and
the products of Hkm and uk terms have been neglected
since they are higher-order terms.
Incorporating Eq. (26) into Eq. (44) and equating the
corresponding ik terms, we get
5. Compound Transformation for Two Links
~ with Coordinate System Error
Terms Included
i
In an error-free system, the resulting rotations and
I translations are specified. In a system with errors,

65
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
however, the resulting values are not the specified
values.
Consider the situation where a point with Cartesian
coordinates /1:k
is specified. If these coordinates are
used with base vectors ;ik, the desired physical point is
obtained. However, if the base vectors iek are used When Eq. (59) holds, Eq. (62) becomes, respectively,
with these coordinates, a point ¡ik ¡ek
is obtained in-
stead. From Eq. (26),

so we have

Equation (63) further gives ,

This means that specifying the point ¡fk results in a

point with coordinates ¡Fkm ;xm in the ;ik coordinate

system. If the error in the origin shift Pm is included,
the point with coordinates ¡Xk given by

results when ¡Ímare specified. When the coordinates

are the components of the matrix ;+, H,S in the ;xk
in the place of ¡xm in Eq. (7), we coordinate system and
¡Xm are substituted
get the coordinates ;+ i k~ ,
which are the specified coor-
dinates for the i + 1 system. Thus, using Eq. (57) we get
are the components of the vector ;+,QP in the ;xk co-
ordinate system. Equations (57), (58), and (62) defined
successive transformations from ;xk to ;xk to ;~, xk to
;+ 1 /l~
coordinates, respectively. Equations (58) and
For the case of a slightly skewed ;~k system, (62) define various basic compound transformations.
The inverse transformation corresponding to Eq. (57) is

and Eqs. (57) and (58) become, respectively, .., ..,.........-.

where the approximation (3~~ + Hkm)-I dkm - Hkm =

has been used. The inverse transformation corre-

sponding to Eq. (58) is

The products of Hkm and ask terms can be neglected in which can be used in Eq. (67) to give
comparison with the first-order terms.
The resulting coordinates ~+1 xk
in the i + 1 coordi-
nate system can now be computed as

66
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
This is the inverse transformation corresponding to which can be combined with Eq. (71 ) to give
Eq. (58).
Note that Eqs. (60), (61), (63), (64), (67), and (69)
are valid only when Eq. (59) holds.
In the following section we concentrate on com-
pounding transformations embodied in Eqs. (58) and
.. R
(69). Forms involving xk coordinates can be obtained
from the results by using an appropriate single trans-
formation in conjunction with the compound trans-
formations.

6. Compound Transformation for n + 1

Adjacent Links with Coordinate System
Error Terms Included

The counterpart of Eq. (G 1 ) for the i + 2 link is

Equation (74) can be easily generalized to

Substituting Eq. (61 ) into Eq. (70) and manipulating

some algebra, the expression for ~+, xm becomes

i+’.11 and t+i~m are given by Eqs. (65) and (66) and

are the components of the vector ~+, ~~p referred to the

;xk coordinate system. The quantity i+2 i Tk, is the
product transformation representing the transition
from the ;xk coordinate system to the i+2Xk coordinate
system. See Eq. (15).
Note that Eq. (64) can be obtained from Eq. (71 ) by
setting ;+; Tkm - (5k and ;+r w,~ 0. This provides a
=

way to incorporate error terms associated with the last We have used the equality
coordinate system in a compound transformation.
The counterpart of Eq. (61) for the i + 3 coordinate
system is

67
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
and the definitions

and

Note that Eqs. (65), (66), and (72) are specializations

of Eqs. (77 - 79) for j =
2.
Thequantity 2:~=2 ;+~_iwp in the double sum in Eq.
(75) can be interpreted as the transformed distance
from the origin of the ith coordinate system to the ori-
gin of the jth system where the transformed error
t+l-iH~p resides. The double sum thus represents the
moment of the error at j about i. Equation (75) degen-
erates to Eq. ( 16) in the absence of the error terms,
that is, those involving Hmp and 6m. Note that general-
ization of Eq. (71 ) to Eq. (75) is not possible without
going through the steps to obtain Eq. (74).
Equation (64) can be further generalized to
a and fl independently stand for either S or R, and y
and 8 are constants whose values depend on the desig-
nations of a and ~3. Specifically, when fl stands for S,
y =
1 and when ~3 stands for R, y 2; when a stands
=
where some additional higher-order terms in Hmp and
am and their products have been neglected, and the
constants y and Q assume the values specified before,
depending on the designations of a and fl.
7. Calibrating a Robot
Equations (80) and (81 ) permit forward and backward
transformations of the link coordinate systems with
the error terms included. The error terms Hmp and 6m
appearing in Eqs. (80) and (81 ) are, however, un-
known initially. They represent a total of 9(N + 2)
terms that could contribute to positional and orienta-
tional inaccuracies in a robot with N physical links.
Under certain conditions some prior knowledge could
be invoked to reduce the possible number of errors. A
systematic procedure must then be used to estimate
the remaining errors. For the time being, we assume all
errors to be present and develop a procedure that can
be used to estimate these errors experimentally for a
given robot.
Let

for S, 6 0 and when a stands for R, 6 1. Equation

= =

(80) thus represents four equations with different be the differences in the coordinates
lower and upper limits on the summations, depending lXp
of a point
upon whether or not the dependent and independent
with coordinates i,,,X,
obtained from Eq. (81 ) and the
coordinates ;xp obtained from the equation
variables are the specified (S) or the resulting (R) co-
ordinates in the i and i + n coordinate systems.
The inverse transformation corresponding to Eq.
(75) is

68
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
which is obtained by setting the Hp9 and ap terms to and need to be estimated experimentally. The experi-
zero on the right-hand side of Eq. (80). Equation (83) mentally obtained values for Hkp and Op can then be
is essentially the same as
are thus the errors in the
(19). The quantities Ep
E~q.
coordinates that would
used in Eq. (81 ) to compute the values for aof ¡lp
xp choice of a set of joint variables and ;+nxm.
accrue if the H pq and (7p terms were not taken into In all, there are a maximum of 6(N + 2) nonzero
account. Note that Ep depends linearly on the
77~ and ;Hpq components and 3(N + 2) nonzero pp compo-
(Jp terms. Using Eqs. (81 ) and (83) in Eq. (82) yields nents. To obtain estimates of these quantities, actual
measurements must be carried out on the robot in
question. A typical observation, for example, would
consist of accurately measuring the world coordinates
01 p of a point with known end-effector coordinates
N+, xP. Subtracting from oxp the corresponding oXp
values computed from Eq. (83), three values of oEp can
be obtained from each observation. Thus, in general a
minimum of 3(N + 2) observations would be required
After some algebraic manipulations, Eq. (84) can be to compute the 9{N + 2) error parameters. In practice,
rewritten as however, one would use a much larger number of
carefully chosen observations, from which a multiple
linear regression analysis would be used to obtain an
estimate of the 9(N + 2) error parameters and their
statistics.
where
The workspace of the robot can be covered either by
a systematic scanning of the space of joint variables or

by choosing a sufficient number of random vectors in

and the joint space to define experimental points. At each
vector of joint coordinates several geometric vectors
N+lxk can be chosen, each combination thus providing
an experimental point. These geometric vectors can
also be chosen in a fixed configuration, which is the
more practical case.
InEqs.(84- 87), ~ ~ i ~ i + n z N + 1.
The most interesting case is where i 0 and i + rr
= =

N + 1. For this case, Eqs. (85 - 87) become, respectively, 8. Specialization of Theoretical Results

Consider the six-degree-of-freedom robot shown in

Fig. 5. Applying the definition and notation of the link
coordinate systems to the robot in Fig. 5A, we obtain
Fig. SB, from which it is seen that the first degree of
articulation for this robot is a waist rotation 0,
(-100 ° ~ 8) ~ 100 ° ) about the vertical axis I X3. The
second degree of articulation is a shoulder rotation 82
(- 23 ° ~ B2 ~ 28 ° ) about the horizontal 2X2 axis with
an axis offset , ¡ W3 1170 mm. The third degree of
=

The errors o€~,, which are associated with a choice of articulation is a linear arm extension 3W, L3 (1600 =

N+l Xm coordinates and a set of joint variables, can be mm ~ L3 ~ 2900 mm) along the 3x, axis. A three-
calculated if the values of H~ and ap are known. In an degrees-of-freedom wrist is attached at the extremity
uncalibrated robot, however, Hkp and (Jp are unknown of the arm and has the following degrees of articula-

69
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
Fig. 5. A. Conflguration of
the six-degrees-of freedom
robot. B. Definitions and
orientations of the coordinate
systems.

tion: a bend angle 04 (-113 Q ~ 84 ~ 113 ° ) about the

4X2 axis, a swivel angle (- 150° ~ ~ ~ 150°) about the
5 x, axis, and a yaw angle B6 (-160 ° ~ 86 ~ 160 ° )
about the 6X3 axis. The axis offsets for these wrist ele-
ments are 4WI 235 mm, 5WI
=
200 mm, and 6W3
= =

210 mm, respectively.

With the robot as defined in Fig. 5B, the corre-
sponding elements of the direction cosine (transforma-
tion) matrices, i+l¡Tkm, and the components of the
coordinate system origin shift vectors, wm, are ob-
tained. They are given in the Appendix.
Specializing Eqs. (88-90) to the particular case of
six links (N = 6) yields

70
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
where ., xm
are the coordinates of a point defined in
the end-effector coordinate system.
For a set of M/3 end-effector positions, Eqs. (91-93)
form a system of M equations relating the M measured
errors a~p with the 72 possible geometric errors: 24 ds
where
and 48 I~’s. See Eq. (48). The quantities T and w ap-
pearing in Eqs. (92) and (93) are given by

and t = 1 when k = 2 and m = 3; t = 2 when k = 3

and m = 1; t = 3 when k = 1 and m = 2. In defining
and - wp and n_; Tkp are specified in the Appendix. the quantities in Eq. (101), we have rearranged them so
When the errors J Qk andHk&dquo;, have been determined, that all the skew-symmetric errors are grouped together
the specified world coordinates,
from Eq. (81 ), which yields
oXp, are obtained and all the symmetric errors are grouped together.
Recall from Eq. (36) that in the small angle approxi-
mation Hj j H22 H33 0. The elements of the
= = =

coefficient matrix C are given by

where the subscripts J, K, and L are defined in Eq. ( 102).

To use the results of the solution to Eq. (100) in Eq.
I
(96) we have to use the following relations, which are
the inverses of Eqs. (11) and (92).

When all the errors are zero, Eq. (96) becomes where k and m take on their values as indicated for
Eq. (102). The right-hand sides of Eq. (104) are related
to the solution vector E by Eq. (101).
In general the number of measurements made will
be such that M > 9(N + 2) and the system of equa-
Using Eqs. (38) and (39) in Eq. (11) yields the fol- tions given by Eq. (100) is overdetermined, requiring a
lowing system of equations solution in the least-squares sense. Thus, from Eq. (100),

where the superscript T denotes the transpose. When

where Eis the column matrix of the M measured C is square and can be inverted, Eqs. (100) and (105)
errors. In Eq. ( 100), E is the column matrix of the
both give
9(N + 2) 72 geometric errors whose elements are
=

given by

71
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
9. Solution of Eqs. (105) and (106)
Calibration based on the measurements made at the
end effector only cannot reveal all the individual errors
Ej. This means that the columns of C are not all lin-
early independent. Although for the particular robot
being considered one could determine those columns
that are linearly dependent using physical reasoning
and the structure of the matrices given in the Appen-
dix, we have selected a more practical and straightfor-
ward mathematical approach: correlation matrix anal-
ysis of CTC (Draper and Smith 1981).
Following the correlation matrix procedure, if any
of the off diagonal elements in the upper triangular
portion of matrix r are exactly equal to unity, then the
corresponding columns can be deleted from the analy-
sis as they are linearly dependent on a previous col-
umn. Note that this correlation matrix has to be
formed only once during a particular evaluation of a
given robot.
When this correlation matrix analysis is performed
on the present robot configuration, it is found that we
can remove the following 18 error terms from Eq. (100):
Origin Shift Errors
Eb~ Es~ Elo, Ell, Ei2> ~i4~ E~6y E21, E22, Ez3a E24
Skew Coordinate Axes Rotation Errors
E3d ~ E34 ~ E38, E40 ~ E48
Skew Coordinate Axes Shear Errors
Ess ~i72
Thus the number of error terms reduces to 54. To
determine the correspondingjHkm, Eqs. ( 1 O 1 ) and
(104) have to be used.
Although this correlation matrix technique success-
fully removes those error terms that are identically
coupled and can be explained on physical grounds (at
least after the fact), a second type of linear dependence
remains: numerical linear dependence. This type of
linear dependence could, for example, be the result of
the individual elements of columns of C being very
nearly equal. The determination and subsequent re-
moval of these columns and the corresponding error
terms is more difhcult.
We have found that the easiest and yet the most
effective method is to transform the reduced M by 54
72
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
matrix C in such a manner as to obtain another M by
54 matrix whose columns are orthogonal to each other
(Draper and Smith 1981 ). This orthogonalization
process transforms those columns that are almost lin-
early dependent on some of the preceding columns
into columns whose elements are 106 to 108 times
smaller in magnitude than those of all the linearly in-
dependent columns. This procedure results in a well-
conditioned matrix from which the remaining Ek can
be determined. For the robot under consideration, the
following additional eight error terms were also re-
moved from the analysis:
Skew Coordinate Axes Rotation Errors
E32 ~ < ~45 ~ E46 ~ E47
Skew Coordirtate Axes Shear Errors
Es9 ~ E6o ~ E7o 1i71
The removal of the above 26 error terms leaves 46
error terms remaining: 13 axes shifts, 15 coordinate
system rotations, and 18 coordinate axes shears.
For subsequent use we introduce a change in nota-
tion to indicate the reduced error matrix E’, with ele-
ments F}. Each EJ is simply a sequential renumbering
of the remaining Ej. We now proceed with the numer-
ical simulation of an experimental method that can be
used to determine the Ek.
10. Computer Simulation of an Experimental
Procedure to Determine E’
A stereotriangulation procedure (W. C. Haight, 1984,
private communication) has been successfully used at
the National Bureau of Standards to determine the
deviation of the true world coordinate location of a
robot’s end point from its world location that was
computed assuming that the robot was error-free. The
procedure uses three manually operated, but computer
read, commercially available theodolites with an on-
line computer data reduction scheme to determine the
end points’ world coordinate locations. The theodo-
lites are focused on the tips of a star-like target shown
in Fig. 6 while the robot is immobilized. In the follow-
ing computer simulation it is assumed that this mea-
surement procedure is being used.
First, in order to obtain a column matrix of physi-
cally reasonable values for E, a set of 46 random values
Fig. 6. One type of end
effector target used in pre-
vious NBS st.ereotriangula-
tion measurements on a
small robot.

used to form Eq. (105), from which 46 EJ are deter-

mined. These 576 ~~ are the values of the errors that
would be incurred if the theory developed in this work
had not been used. If we disregard the direction of the
error Ej and only consider its magnitude, then we find
that for the random set of EJ, whose ranges are limited
as indicated in Eq. (107), the mean value is 3.13 mm
with a standard deviation of 2.98 mm. These values
seem to agree somewhat with the manufacturer’s claim
of an overall accuracy of ± 2.0 mm.

11. Conclusion

A new, explicit, and complete formulation that de-

scribes the geometric errors due to both origin transla-
tions and misalignments of axes in the positioning of
an open-loop robot manipulator has been presented.

Application of the formulation to the specific case of a

six-degrees-of-freedom robot is also presented.
The formulation differs from the usual Denavit-
Hartenberg approach in that it allows an independent
choice of coordinate system for each link of the robot
without the need to determine a common normal to
two adjacent axes of rotation. One advantage of this
method of choosing coordinate systems is that the
error terms for each link relate to the links themselves,
as is desirable in practice. This is in contrast with an

approach based on the Denavit-Hartenberg formula-

tion, where the errors obtained would be relative to
the preceding links. Another advantage of the present
approach is that it is not susceptible to the problems
for E~ was generated. These values were constrained to of possible ill-conditioned matrices that can result
lie within the following regions: with the Denavit-Hartenberg approach when the axes
of rotation are almost parallel.
In the present approach, the formulas clearly display
the role of each quantity involved and allow easy
physical interpretation of each error term. In addition,
the approach presented here is straightforward in that
it involves nothing more than successive application
The values of 7~ for jf =
14, ... , 46 are equivalent of forward and backward transformations with origin
to a maximum robot encoder error of approximately I shifts and deals with origin shifts directly. Finally, the
part in 211. Then a group of {PS}, s = 1, 3, ... 64 ,
method not only incorporates the small, rigid-body
were randomly generated, again constrained to lie rotation errors in coordinate systems, but also the
within the limits stated in Section 8. Since at each (P,) errors due to true mutual angular deviations of coordi-
there are three ~Xpq>, and at each ,xp9> Eq. (91) yields nate axes from their assumed configurations. The
three &dquo;measured&dquo; error terms, we have a total of M = latter errors (called squareness errors in the machine
576(=64 X 3 X 3) equations. These 576 equations are tool and coordinate measuring machine industry)

73
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014
have not been incorporated in other formulations of
robot error analysis.
The transformation formulas developed here allow
one to compute the world coordinates of any point
with specified end-effector coordinates and vice versa.
These formulas also easily allow forward and back-
ward transformations from any one joint coordinate
system to any other and can either include or exclude,
as desired, the error terms associated with either or
both of the initial and final coordinate systems. When
the geometric errors are not known, the formulation
provides a direct and straightforward approach to
estimate their magnitudes and associated statistics,
using multiple linear regression analysis.
The theory to characterize the geometric errors due
to axis shifts and axis misalignments was applied to a
specific six-degrees-of-freedom robot. Theoretically,
for such a robot, there can be up to 72 error parame-
ters. If calibration of the robot is based solely on mea-
surements made at the end effector, however, some of
the errors are coupled with other errors and cannot be
determined independently. Using a correlation matrix
analysis, it was possible to isolate the truly linearly
independent set of error parameters. Furthermore, be-
cause of the smallness of some of the remaining error
Mooring, B. W., and Tang, G.-R. 1984. An improved
method for identifying the kinematic parameters in a six
axis robot. In Computers in Engineering 1984, Vol. 1:
Advanced Automation 1984 and Beyond, ed. W. A.
Gruver, pp. 79-84. New York: ASME.
Paul, R. P. 1981. Robot manipulators: mathematics, pro-
gramming and control. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Sokolnikoff, I. S. 1964. Tensor analysis with application to
geometry and mechanics of continua. 2nd ed. New York:
Wiley.
and Schild, A. 1949. Tensor calculus. Toronto,
Synge, J. L.,
Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Wu, Chi-Haur. 1984. A kinematic CAD tool for the design
and control of a robot manipulator. Int. J. Robotics Res.
3(1):58-67.
Appendix: Elements of Transformation
Matrices and Components of Origin Shift
Vectors

parameters, several additional, almost linearly depen-

dent combinations appeared. Such linear dependence
was not revealed by the correlation matrix analysis,
but was easily determined by a successive orthogonali-
zation technique. A computer simulation of the nu-
merical techniques presented here demonstrates that
the proposed theoretical formulation provides a direct,
systematic, and robust method to calibrate a robot.
REFERENCES

Chen, J., Wang, C. B. and Yang, J. C. S. 1984 (Toronto,

Canada). Robot positioning accuracy improvement
through kinematic parameter identification. 3rd Canadian
CAD/CAM Robotics Conf.: 4.7-4.12.
Denavit J., and Hartenberg, R. S. 1955. A kinematic nota-
tion for lower-pair mechanisms based on matrices. J.
Applied Mechanics 22:215-221.
Draper, N. R., and Smith, H. 1981. Applied regression anal-
ysis, 2nd ed., New York: Wiley, pp. 257-264, 275-278.
Mooring, B. W. 1983. The effect of joint axis misalignment
on robot positioning accuracy. Proc. ASME Computers in

2:151-155.
Eng.

74
Downloaded from ijr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on December 8, 2014