You are on page 1of 6

Sensor Location Effect on Flexible Robot Control

A. Green Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Carleton University Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

J. Z. Sasiadek
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Carleton University Ottawa, ON, KIS 5B6, Canada jsas@ccs.carleton.ca

agreen2@connect.carleton.ca Abstract
The effect of sensors collocated and noncollocated with robot actuators is simulated using a control strategy for ajlaible robot. A 12.6m x 12.6m square trajectory is tracked with a Jacobian transpose control law. Results are initially obtained for nonadaptive control then for fuzry logic system (FLS) adaptive control. Sensors collocated with joint actuators do not caphrrejlaure and nonminimum phase response while a noncollocated sensor captures inherent nonminimum phase response causing control action delays. Time delay in the feedback loop simulates nonminimum phase response and time delay in the feed forward control loop provides correction. Results demonstrate minimal correction of nonminimum phase responsefor nonadaptive control but significantly improved results with FLS adaptive control for collocated and noncollocated sensors.

inverse kinematics control scheme for both linear and nonlinear control laws and a recursive order-n algorithm for a two-link flexible robot [2]. Sasiadek and Srinivasan applied model reference adaptive control (MRAC) for position and vibration control of a single-link flexible robot using modal expansion to determine the first three significant vibration modes [lo]. They demonstrate use of the modal expansion method within an MRAC strategy to further reduce errors and decrease settling time of transient responses to step inputs. Various results have been obtained using fuzzy logic to control robots [4], [6], [SI.

2 Flexible Robot

1 Introduction
Operational problems with space robots relate to several factors, one most importantly being structural flexibility and subsequently significant difficulties with the control systems, especially, for position control. Elastic vibrations of the links coupled with large rotations and nonlinear dynamics is the primary cause. Also, sensor location adds complication in accurately detecting and controlling endpoint position. This paper demonstrates the effect of sensor location on endpoint tracking of a square trajectory 12.6m x 12.6111 by a two-link flexible robot. The dominant assumed mode of vibration for an Euler-Bernoulli cantilever beam is coupled with rigid-link dynamics to form an Euler-Lagrange inverse flexible dynamics robot model. Initially, tracking results are obtained with nonadaptive control then, further results are obtained with fuzzy logic system (FLS) adaptive control. Square trajectory tracking studies for rigid and flexible dynamics models were presented in previous work [Z], [4], [6], [7], [SI. Banerjee and Singhose obtained excellent results using an input shaping method to reduce residual vibrations coupled with an

Fig. I. Flexible Robot The flexible robot shown in Fig. 1 has planar motion and vibration modes with gravity and friction effects neglected. The robot parameters are taken from Banerjee and Singhose [ 2 ] .

2.1

Rigid Dynamics

Rigid-link robot dynamics are derived using the EulerLagrange formulation [6], [7]. For an independent set qn, of generalized coordinates, q, = q ,,...., the total kinetic and potential energies, T and U, are defined by the Lagrangian.

L(qi,qi) = T - U , i = 1, ...._ ,n The equations of motion are given by:

(1)

Fourth International Workshop on Robot Motion and Control, June 17-20,2004

253

(2) when subjected to a generalized force, Fi , acting on a generalized coordinate qi. The kinetic and potential energies for two rigid links of length L, = L2 = L are given by (3) and (4).
,,

d/df (aL/d4i) - aL/aqi =

4 , i = 1, ..

. ,n

[101:
az/ax2 ( E l a2u(x,l)/ax2)dx+m(x)a2u(*.r)/ar2

(9)
= P(X>t)

The normal modes boundary conditions.

Oi
"

must satisfy (10) and its


2

i = I ,...,n; j = I ...,,r; n

= 2;

r =2

(10) For which, the solution is given by (8). Elastic kinetic and potential energies are given by (1 1) and (12).

(.I+:)

-mim(xNi = o

i=l

The rigid dynamics matrix equations are given by: 'c = M ( e > e + c r (e,e)e (5) where
qL2/3)

+m22 (~3+cosB2)m2L2(!/3+.oEs42)
4 3 Combining rigid and flexible terms the matrix equations are given by:
= M ( q ) q + c (i1,q)q + K q (13) M comprises rigid and flexible link elements, C comprises rigid and elastic Coriolis and centrifugal effects and K is a stiffness matrix. The generalized coordinate vector q comprises joint angles and flexible link deformations. In calculating the assumed modes, small elastic deformations is an underlying assumption where second-order terms of interacting elastic modes can he neglected and orthogonal assumed modes simplifies (13). Omitting elastic Coriolis and centrifugal components gives C, in (5). Full dynamics equations for a multi-degree-of-freedom (do0 manipulator have been derived previously [3].

are the rigid dynamics inertia and coupling matrices respectively.

2.2 Flexible Dynamics


Achieving accurate tracking control of a two-link robot is compounded by deformation of its flexible links, associated flexural vibrations and nonminimum phase response. For a suitable control strategy the robot model must capture the flexible dynamics and residual vibrations must he damped while compensating for nonminimum phase response. Combining -assumed modes of vibration for an Euler-Bernoulli beam with rigid-link dynamics captures flexural and nonlinear multibody interactions of a two-link flexible robot derived in Euler-Lagrange equation form suitable for simulation. Extensive literature exists on the dynamics and control of flexible robots using assumed modes [5], [7], [XI, [9], [IO]. This approach accommodates configuration changes during operation, whereas, natural modes must be continually recomputed. Approximate deformation of an elastic beam subjected to transverse vibrations is given by:

2.3

Cantilever Assumed Modes

From transverse beam vibration theory, cantilever mode shapes are given by, [IO]: Oci (x) = cosh hcjx- cos hCix- k, (sinh hcix- sin h,x) (14) where

kCi= cosh,i~tcoshh,L/sinh,i~+sinhh~iL
for which, h,,L = ( i - 0 . 5 ) ~, i = I ,......, are n numerically approximated roots of the characteristic equation cos(h&cosh(h& + 1 = 0 and modal frequencies given by:

where, Qi(x) is the assumed mode shape. The shape function u ( x , I ) substitutes into the Euler-Lagrange dynamics (I) and (2), [l 11. For an Euler-Bernoulli beam with flexural rigidity E l and loadp(x,,tJ uniformly distributed, the equation of motion is given

wei = ( h C i L ) 2 & G

(15)

Proportional and derivative (PD) gains for the dominant assumed mode are given by:

K,= diag[m:, a] =diag[150.79 150.791 : ,


and

(16)

254

K,,=diag[ 250c1 2<oc1]=diag [l7.364 17.3641(17)

4 Nonminimum Phase Response


Nonminimum phase response is an inherent problem with flexible robot control. This phenomenon exists when joint actuation delays occur in reaction to a control input opposite in sense to that expected. When torque actuates a robot joint it induces flexing and momentary acceleration of the .endpoint in a direction opposite in sense to that commanded by the torque. Analytical control theory describes this behaviour by transfer function poles or zeros occurring in the righthalf s-plane and termed a phase shift or, transport lag, between the actuator and endpoint. For continuous systems this phase shift creates a time delay between actual endpoint position and control action needed to correct position errors and corresponds to the time for mechanical wave propagation through the link from joint to endpoint [I].

for wcI = 12.28 Hz.

3 Control Strategies
3.1

Nonadaptive Control

The nonadaptive control strategy is as shown in Fig. 4 excluding the FLS. A Jacobian transpose control law is given by, [61, [71, [81:

Commanded x., ycendpoint positions input to the control system and sum with actual positions to form position and velocity errors. PD gains I<p and K,, operate on these errors to compute the control law. The damping ratio is estimated at = 0.707.

5 Sensor Location
Closely associated with nonminimum phase response is the distance between sensor and actuator, or noncollocation. This causes time delays in joint control actuation in response to position errors computed using position data fed back from a sensor located at the endpoint. Collocated control provides joint actuation in response to joint angle data from a sensor located at the joint. Typically, collocated control is suitable for fixed-base rigid-link robots operating at speeds where flexibility may be ignored. Noncollocated sensors on rigid-link robots do not encounter nonminimum phase response. But, flexible-link robots exhibit significant deformation at the endpoint necessitating accurate control by adjusting for the phase shift between actuator and endpoint. An operational space control strategy provides a suitable platform for demonstrating noncollocated control as joint angles and rates are transformed through direct kinematics equations into endpoint positions and velocities for generating feedback errors and control law computation. The control strategy given in Fig. 4 is an operational space type. Nonminimum phase response and a sensor located at the endpoint is modeled by implementing a time delay in the feedback loop of Fig. 4, [I]. Transport delay blocks (not shown) with a secondorder Padi approximation are implemented in Matlab/SimulinkTM models. Nonminimum phase response is corrected by a time delay included in the feed forward control torque actuating the robot. The time delays were determined using the transverse beam vibration wave velocity 'c' given by:

3.2 Fuzzy Logic System Adaptive Control


The FLS adaptive control strategy is shown in Fig. 4. Adaptive contiol is achieved with fuzzy output variable h determined in the FLS by elastic link deformation inputs, SI and Sa fed back from the flexible dynamics and operates on (22) to give (23),

Verbal descriptors for positive maximum (PMAX), positive very very high (PVVH), positive very high (PVH), positive high (PH), positive medium (PM), positive low (PL), positive very low (PVL), positive very very low (PVVL), zero (ZERO), negative very high (NVH), negative high (NH), negative medium (NM), negative low (NL) and negative very low (NVL) are used for the experimentally determined membership functions shown in Figs. 2 and 3 to generate f u v y rules of the form; 'IF Si is NL AND SI is PL THEN h is PM', [XI. The FLS is developed intuitively, such that, as link deformation magnitudes vary positively or negatively they complement or counter deformation of the other link. Then A > 0 varies according to the magnitude of resultant deformation and ranges from ZERO for zero deformation to PMAX for the largest deformation, thereby, forming a symmetric fuzzy rule matrix given in Table I . Experimental results established an FLS scaling gain K, operating on the h fuzzy membership functions to modify their base widths and provide improved tracking accuracy as K, increases. Trajectories shown in Figs. 8 and 9 are obtained using K, = SO.

25s

Delay time from joint 1 to endpoint for two link lengths, i.e. 9m, is given by: 9 t --=0.0312s (23)
dl - 2RX~33

Summary and Conclusions

Delay time from joint 2 to endpoint for one link length of 4.5m is given by: 4.5 t =-- 0.0156s (24) d2 288.33 Average trajectory simulation time is 402s for 16000 simulation steps (ss) at 0.001 step size, i.e. 0.0252s per step. Simulation delay time for joint 1: 0.0312 dl = =1.238~~ (25) 0.0252 .'. Simulation delay time for Joint 2: 0.0156 - 0.619s~ (26)

:.

Complexities of link flexibility and classical control deficiencies are overcome by using an FLS adaptive control strategy for a flexible robot. The FLS adapts the control law and significantly reduces. tracking errors. The effect of a noncollocated sensor and nonminimum phase response is simulated by time delay. Results show a drastic difference in nonminimum phase response over a relatively small change in sensor location for nonadaptive control. The difference is less for FLS adaptive control. The effect of corrective time-delay control action is minimal for nonadaptive control but significant for FLS adaptive control. The FLS has overriding effectiveness on tracking control regardless of sensor location. Results may represent more complex dynamics and multi-dof systems

d2=0.0252-

For simulation purposes the time delay is implemented in the position and velocity feedback loops at the maximum delay timed,, i.e. worst case.

References
H. L. Alexander, "Control of Articulated and Deformable Space Structures," Machine Intelligence and Autonomyfor Aerospace Systems, edited by E. Heer and H. Lum, A I M Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1988.
A. K. Banerjee and W. Singhose, "Command Shaping in Tracking Control of a Two-Link Flexible Robot," AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Engineering Note, Vol. 21, No. 6,pp.1012-1015, Reston, VA, 1998. W. Beres and I. 2. Sasiadek, "Finite Element Dynamic Model of Multi-link Flexible Manipulators," Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 231-262, ISSI, University of Zielona G6ra, Poland, 1995. C. W. de Silva, Intelligent Control: Furry Logic Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995. A. R. Fraser and R. W. Daniel, Perturbation Techniquesfor Flexible Manipulators, The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, Vol. 138, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1991. A. Green and J. Z. Sasiadek, "Methods of Trajectory Tracking for Flexible Manipulators," Proceedings of the AIM Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, Reston, VA, 2002.

6 Simulation Results
Trajectories shown in Figs. 5(a), @), (c) and 6(a), (b), (c) track clockwise starting at bottom lek For nonadaptive control and collocated sensors, Fig. 5(a) shows pronounced overshoots occurring at each direction switch caused by flexibility. Fig. 5(b) shows a magnified view of transients at the first direction switch for collocated sensors that sense only joint rotations. The two adjacent transients depict nonminimum phase responses for time delays in the feedback loops to simulate a noncollocated sensor and nonminimum phase response and corrective time-delay control action. Fig. 5(c) is zoomed on the transient peak to clarify the distinction between transients. Similarly, Figs. 6(a), @), (c) show trajectories and first direction switch transients for FLS adaptive control. Comparison of the two sets of results shows there is considerable difference between transient responses for collocated and noncollocated sensors in nonadaptive control than obtained with FLS adaptive control. The effectiveness of corrective time-delay control action is minimal for nonadaptive control but close to the collocated sensors trajectory for FLS adaptive control. The results obtained using FLS adaptive control demonstrates a significant reduction in vibration and significantly improved results for corrective time-delay control action as shown in Figs. 6(a), @), ( 4 . Matlab/SimulinkTM,Control Systems and Fuzzy Logic Toolboxes were used for simulations.

256

[7] A. Green and J. 2. Sasiadek, "Robot Manipulator Control for Rigid and Assumed Mode Flexible Dynamics Models", Proceedings o the AIAA Guidance. Navigation and Control f Conference, Reston, VA, 2003. [8] A. Green and J. Z. Sasiadek, "Adaptive Control of a Flexible Robot Using Fuzzy Logic," Journal ofcuidance, Control and Dynamics, AIAA, to be published. [Y]

[IO] J. Z. Sasiadek and R. Srinivasan, "Dynamic Modeling and Adaptive Control of a SingleLink Flexible Manipulator", Journal o f Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 838-844, AIAA, Reston, VA, 1989.
[ 1I]
W. T. Thomson, Theory o Vibration with f Applications, (2nd ed), Prentice-Hall, Upper

Saddle River, NJ, 1981.

T. G. Mordfin and S. S. K. Tadikonda, "Truth


Models for Articulating Flexible Multibody f Dynamic Systems", Journal o Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 23, No.5, pp. 805811, AIAA, Reston, VA, Sep-Oct 2000.
NVH

N M I N z w o p n PL i

PH

p\RI

-5 0

Fig. 2. Membership Functions for Input Variables &,and S2.

50

I0

Fig. 3. Membership Functions for Output Variable h.

s =. Y Fig. 4. Nonadaptive and FLS Adaptive Control Strategies.


Gal"

Table 1. Fuzzy Logic System Rule Matrix


82 ZERO

NVH

NH PVVH PVH PH PM PL PM PH PVH PVVH

NL PVH PH PM PL PVL PL PM PH PVH

NVL PH PM PL PVL PVVL PVL PL PM PH

PVL PH PM PL PVL PVVL PVL PL PM PH

PL PVH PH PM PL PVL PL PM PH PVH

PH PVVH PVH PH PM PL PM PH PVH PVVH

PVH PMAX PVVH PVH PH PM PH PVH PVVH PMAX

ijl

h NVH NH NL NVL ZERO PVL PL PH PVH

PMAX PVVH PVH PH PM PH PVH PVVH PMAX

PM PL PVL PVVL ZERO PVVL PVL PL PM

251

(c)
Fig. 6. FLS Adaptive Control

258