See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308246185

Understanding the Implementation of Impedance Control in Industrial Robots

Conference Paper · October 2016

DOI: 10.1109/LARS-SBR.2016.52

CITATIONS READS
5 6,907

6 authors, including:

Gustavo Lahr João Victor Rocha Soares

Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia University of São Paulo
23 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Henrique Garcia A.A.G. Siqueira

University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
6 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    176 PUBLICATIONS   1,489 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and Analysis of Adaptive-Robust Force Controllers of Series Elastic Actuators for Impedance Control of SEA-based Rehabilitation Robotic Devices View project

Knowledge discovery and data mining for rehabilitation robotics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gustavo Lahr on 07 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Understanding the Implementation of Impedance Control in Industrial
Robots
Gustavo J. G. Lahr, Joao V. R. Soares, Henrique B. Garcia, Adriano A. G. Siqueira and Glauco A. P. Caurin
Engineering School of Sao Carlos
University of Sao Paulo
Sao Carlos, Brazil
gjgl.lahr@gmail.com
Abstract— This work studies two different algorithms for the
simulation and implementation of impedance control. Potential
applications for using force control can be found in the whole
industry and academia. Since its proposal, impedance control
became one of the most used force control techniques, dealing
with the non linear nature of contact and ensuring stability.
To take advantage of the technique, one may implement in
different ways, although, in the literature it is hard to find
explicit algorithms to help the development. This paper presents
two different impedance control methods that lead to similar
responses to contact. Responses to force step input and contact
stabilization with stiff environment tasks are presented using
computer simulations as well as experimental tests. Results
show that both algorithms accomplish good results for the
second order controller in a no-contact situation compared to
the simulation. In the meanwhile, for a stiff contact, the algo-
rithms show a stable interaction, but with results different from
the simulated, suggesting that the coupled dynamics is subject
to many disturbances and uncertainties, which the impedance
controller still offer a stable execution.
I. INTRODUCTION
Interaction control has been a subject of study in the
last decades, and it gained even more space with the ad-
vances in power electronics, computer power, and sensors
[1]. Research on interaction should provide robots better
knowledge of environment which cannot be achieved using
other sensor. Additionally, many applications can only be
implemented using force and torque control, for example,
precision assembly tasks [2], high assistance mechanisms for
rehabilitation purposes [3] or surgery assistance [4].
In manipulation tasks, dexterity should be provided to the
fingers of a robotic hand or a gripper, in a manner that it
would not allow a grasped object to slip. At the same time,
they must not impose excessive contact forces causing some
damage to the object. Moreover, industrial applications need
to interact to the environment in a wide range of everyday
activities, for example, polishing, deburring, machining and
many assembly tasks [5].
The difficulty is due to contact’s nonlinear behavior, where
classical techniques are not recommended [1], [6]. Other
approaches were developed, dealing with the transition from
unconstrained to constrained motion, and one technique is
called impedance control, proposed by Hogan [6]. Since its
publishing, impedance control gained a huge space in force
control, arguably one of the most successful in its field.
Although many innovative applications use this technique,
it is not an trivial task to achieve, therefore it is worth to
present its corresponding algorithmic implementation.
This paper proposes a clearer explanation on impedance
control implementations to discrete systems, such as micro-
controllers, PCs, and industrial robots. Two different im-
plementations are proposed for the same controller. Both
methods are modeled, numerically simulated, and tested.
Two situations of stable behavior are presented: a force step
as input without contact and a coupled dynamic situation
with stiff contact.
II. IMPEDANCE CONTROL
The exchange of work between two bodies, defined in
[6] as the scalar product of the force1 and the displacement
vectors 1, represents a good metric to quantify the contact.
dW = F • dX (1)
If the forces are almost zero (F → 0), the exchanged work
is null, and the system may be treated as isolated in the
space with pure position control. A situation like this can be
found when machining soft materials, such as polystyrene
and other low density polymers. On the other hand, if
there is a kinematic constraint, then the displacements are
null (dX → 0), and a pure force control may be applied,
disregarding position control, e.g. robots performing pressing
tasks.
However, many applications do not have a negligible work
exchange, i.e. the scalar product is non-zero, therefore force
control techniques should take this situation into account.
Hogan [6] proposed the Impedance Control theory which
deals with all work components. Its stability is independent
of the contact body [7], though the performance changes
from one environment to another [8].
Simplistically, impedance control may be understood as a
complex scheme behaving as a second order dynamic system,
where the user must decide about the coefficients in the
characteristic equation, that defines the system parameters.
Figure 1 displays a simplified model of a mechanical assem-
bly, with inertia, spring and damper components. Equation
1 Force here includes the meaning of forces and torques in the 3 Cartesian
axis, the same applies to displacement, which is equivalent to position and
rotation.
 Fig. 1. Second order system model with interaction force
(2) describes the model’s ODE in time domain, where x(t)
is the displacement of the TCP (Tool Center Point), ẋ(t)
and ẍ(t) are its derivatives, Fint (t) is the interaction force
with the environment, M is the inertia component, B is the
energy dissipation term from the viscous damper, and K is
the stiffness of the equivalent system.
M ẍ(t) + B ẋ(t) + Kx(t) = Fint (t)
Equation (3) shows the relation between the input position
and the output torque at the actuators [6]. It takes into
account the parameters defined in (2), and the inertial cou-
pling torques (C), the robot’s Jacobian (J) and acceleration
coupling terms (G). It shows how to implement a desired
second order behavior into the real system. The constants
M , B, and K are the same as equation 2, while I(θ) is
the manipulator real inertia, and the pair X0 and V0 are the
desired manipulator position and velocity, respectively.
Tact = I(θ)J−1 (θ)M −1 K[X0 − L(θ)] + S(θ)
−1 −1
+ I(θ)J (θ)M B[V0 − J(θ)] + V (ω)
+ I(θ)J−1 (θ)M −1 Fint − Jt (θ)Fint
− I(θ)J−1 (θ)G(θ, ω) + C(θ, ω)
Causality is an important concept for impedance theory,
which is directly connected with the exchange of energy
between the systems. Power is defined as the relationship of
two elements: effort and flow. There is no physical system
capable of imposing both simultaneously, so either a system
receives the effort as input and defines flow as output, or
vice-versa [11]. Every domain has its own variables for this
evaluation, such as velocity and current as flow variables for
mechanical and electrical domains, respectively, and force
and voltage as effort.
If the system is capable of receiving flow as input and
imposes an effort as output, it is, by definition, an impedance.
On the other hand, if effort is input and flow, output, it
is an admittance. This concept defines the implementation
that is desired for each system. As an environment is often
composed by inertias, it accepts force and gives acceleration,
defining an admittance. To deal with the causality, the
acceleration output of the inertia must connect to another
system that accepts flow as input. This way, the robot must
be an impedance, naming the technique.
Collaborative robots are designed to have the capability to
offer forces and torques as outputs, allowing then to behave
Fig. 2. Block diagram for integration method admittance control
as an impedance [12]. Nonetheless, traditional industrial
robots are good sources of velocities due to their high gear
ratios. They are only capable of reading the forces of the
environment with the aid of a force-torque sensor, what
defines the aspect of an admittance. Since the robotics market
still dominated by traditional robots [13], the next section
covers the implementation in traditional ones.
(2)
III. MATH
The theory for impedance control commented at section
I only deals with continuous-time situations. Most of ap-
plications today are developed with micro controllers or
computers, which works at discrete-time, thus, a transfor-
mation from the Laplace domain to discrete domain is
presented. Equation (2) suffers a domain change by applying
the Laplace transform with null initial conditions, leading to
(4). The following sections manipulate (4) depending on the
causality desired.
X(s)(M s2 + Bs + K) = Fint (s) (4)
(3) Since admittance needs effort input and flow output, (4)
may be write in the transfer function form obtained in (5).
X(s) and Fint (s) are in the Laplace domain, while the other
terms are the same constants used in equation (2).
X 1
(s) = (5)
F M s2 + Bs + K
Two methods are presented: the integration, with two
integration steps, and the discretization, which is defined by
the transformation from Laplace domain to the difference
equation form. Both are presented in the next sections with
their simulation and experiments.
1) Integration method: This method was presented by
Caccavale et al. [14], specifically for industrial robots. Figure
2 displays the block diagram for this method (adapted from
[14]).
Three simple steps are the core of this approach and are
presented from equations (6) to (8). The user must define
the values for the inertia M , the damper B, the spring K,
then the force value acquired from the sensor suffers the
subtraction of the stiffness and damping portions. The result
is multiplied by the inverse of the inertia matrix, and its net
value is the acceleration, ∆ẍ, (6) from that amount of forces.
∆ẍ(k) = M −1 (f (k) − K∆x(k) − B∆ẋ(k)) (6)
 Ts
∆ẋ(k) = (∆ẍ(k) + ∆ẍ(k − 1)) + ∆ẋ(k − 1) (7)
2
Ts
∆x(k) = (∆ẋ(k) + ∆ẋ(k − 1)) + ∆x(k − 1) (8)
2
To obtain the correction, one then integrates two times:
once to obtain velocity, ∆ẋ (7) and a second integration to
get position, ∆x (8). This is the reason the method is called
in this work as integration. It obtains the correction from
the force input, which, combined with the desired position
(pRef ), results in the actual displacement executed by the
robot (pAct ).
By the end of the code, the user updates the values
in time and send the correction to the controller. Ts is
the controller loop period and it is usually defined by the
hardware, although some applications it could be chosen by
the programmer.
These equations are easy to implement in any micro
controller and PC, which all deal with discrete events. Also,
it is possible to implement directly into industrial robots,
once they work in discrete. The pseudo code for this method
is described at Algorithm 1, exactly as it is implemented for
the experiments in this work.
Algorithm 1 Integration Method - 1 GDL
1: M ← user def ined inertia
2: B ← user def ined damper
3: K ← user def ined stif f ness
4: ∆x(0) ← x0
5: ∆ẋ(0) ← ẋ0
6: ∆ẍ(0) ← ẍ0
7: loop:
8: f (k) ← updated f orce value f rom sensor
9: ∆ẍ(k) ← M −1 (f (k) − K∆x(k) − B∆ẋ(k))
10: ∆ẋ(k) = (Ts /2)[∆ẍ(k) + ∆ẍ(k − 1)] + ∆ẋ(k − 1)
11: ∆x(k) = (Ts /2)[∆ẋ(k) + ∆ẋ(k − 1)] + ∆x(k − 1)
12: ∆x(k − 1) ← x(k)
13: ∆ẋ(k − 1) ← ẋ(k)
14: ∆ẍ(k − 1) ← ẍ(k)
15: pAct ← pRef + ∆x(k)
16: goto loop.
2) Discretization method: This method takes into account
the theory to transform from Laplace domain to Z domain
[15] using the Tustin’s approximation, related by (9), where
Ts is the loop’s time step. Thus, equation (9) is substituted
at (5), obtaining the direct relation between the correction
output and the force input.
2 z−1
s≈ (9)
Ts z + 1
The Appendix brings the full deduction of this method, from
Laplace to difference equations, while it is just presented
here the final formula for the open-loop correction (Figure
3). The simulations and experiments for the discretizaton
method were conducted with the same M , B, and K
Fig. 3. Block diagram for discretization admittance control
constants as used in the integration. Equation (10) is the
only implementation line needed for this method.
x(k) =[Ts2 f (k) + 2Ts2 f (k − 1) + Ts2 f (k − 2)
− (2KTs2 − 8M )x(k − 1)
(10)
− (4M − 2BTs + KTs2 )x(k − 2)]
∗ 1/(4M + 2BTs + KTs2 )
Algorithm 2 displays the pseudo code for the discretization
method, which also needs to define the gains for the second
order system. It also deal with a reference trajectory and
a actual trajectory send to the robot. The values of mass,
damper and spring do not have to be hard defined, it may
be resulted from an on-the-fly user change.
Algorithm 2 Discretization Method - 1 GDL
1: M ← user def ined inertia
2: B ← user def ined damper
3: K ← user def ined stif f ness
4: x(0) ← x0
5: f (0) ← f0
6: loop:
7: f (k) ← updated f orce value f rom sensor
8: x(k) = [Ts2 f (k)+2Ts2 f (k −1)+Ts2 f (k −2)−(2KTs2 −
8M )x(k − 1) − (4M − 2BTs + KTs2 )x(k − 2))]/(4M +
2BTs + KTs2 )
9: x(k − 2) ← x(k − 1)
10: x(k − 1) ← x(k)
11: f (k − 2) ← f (k − 1)
12: f (k − 1) ← f (k)
13: pAct ← pRef + x(k)
14: goto loop.
IV. SIMULATION
Two simulations and experiments were carried out. For
each task, both integration and discretization were simulated.
All results use Matlab.
1) a 39.24 N pure force step input (4 kg mass);
2) a stiff contact with known environment of 320 kN/m.
The first experiment is characterized by a known weight
of a mass placed on the TCP. When the whole system
is stabilized, the weight is quickly removed. Therefore,
the system which was stable at the position defined by
weightmass /stif f ness, should go to zero.
The result is plotted at Figure 4 for both controllers. The
parameters used were M = 20 kg, B = 250 N s/m, and
 Fig. 4. Open-loop simulation of both methods for a step force input Fig. 5. Closed-loop simulation of both methods for contact with a stiff
environment

K = 4000 N/m. This experiment takes into account the

two open-loop simulations in Figures 2 and 3.
For the contact situation, the robot touches a spring with
known stiffness of Ke = 320 kN/m. An external force loop
was closed around the loops presented at Figures 2 and 3,
with a reference force of 150 N.
However, there is a difference in the impedance control
parameters: since the environment is almost two orders
of magnitude higher than the controller (Ke/K = 80),
this would lead to chatter in the contact [8]. A controller
capability of transferring energy is increased in an impedance
matching case, meaning that the robot-controller system
should have the same order of magnitude of the environment,
leading to a stable and with good performance contact
[9]. That said, a new impedance controller candidate was
defined, which is each parameter increased one thousand,
resulting in M = 20, 000 kg, B = 250, 000 N s/m, and Fig. 6. Experimental set for the force step experiment
K = 4, 000, 000 N/m.
To reach the simulation for this case, two simplifications
were introduced: this only takes into account the moment 64-bit Windows 10 PC connected via Ethernet using UDP
after the contact is reached and, until the end of the experi- protocol, running a C# program with framework v.4.6.
ment, the system never looses the interaction situation. This For the first experiment, the robot TCP was positioned
way it is possible to simulate without the inherent nonlinear perpendicularly to the ground and a known mass of 4 kg
behavior of contact. was dropped at its tip. Since the dropping is a hard task
Either discretization and integration methods have a simi- to allow without uncertainties, the evaluation was done by
lar time response, with the differences generated by numer- removing the mass very fast. The setup is presented at Figure
ical approximations. 6.
At the second experiment, both controllers were submitted
V. EXPERIMENTS to the same situation of contact stabilization, touching a
A Kuka KR16 industrial robot and KR C2 controller spring with stiffness of 320 kN/m. It was placed directly
equipped with a Delta model force-torque sensor from ATI into the ground, which was the most stiff platform available,
Industrial Automation was used for the experiment. All sets as shown at Figure 7. Assuming the ground is infinitely stiff
could only be done with the RSI (Robot Sensor Interface) for the forces applied in this setup, it is possible to compare
v.2.3 installed [10], a package from Kuka that allows the both approaches at the same situation.
user to have access to all sensors and implement advanced Applying all the same values of M , B and K used at the
controllers. The discretization algorithm was implemented at simulation, the main idea is to check the differences in the
the Kuka controller, using objects from the RSI, while the time domain for both methods. The contact force desired is
integration method was implemented on an external Intel i7 150 N in Z direction, which is perpendicular to the ground.
 TABLE I
T IME RESPONSES

Mp [%] tr [s] ts [s] ωn [ rad

s
]

Force step Sim. Discretization 21.3 0.17 0.63 12.9

Integration 27.7 0.14 0.75 14.3
Real Discretization 19.9 0.17 0.65 12.4
Integration 24.9 0.17 0.61 13.6
Stiff contact Sim. Discretization 25.1 0.13 0.35 13.3
Integration 30.2 0.12 0.49 14.8
Real Discretization 21.7 0.44 2.62 4.0
Integration 19.6 0.46 2.66 3.8

Fig. 7. Robot and tool at the stiff contact task

VI. RESULTS

To compare all the results, the same metrics are used,

and the given results are presented at Table I. It displays the
overshoot (Mp ) and rise time (tr ), which follow the same rule
for both experiments. Also, it shows the the settling time (ts )
and natural frequency (ωn ), and this time are different for the
step input and coupled experiments: the step input follows a
10 % rule for the ts and the controller own frequency, while
for the coupled system, the settling time holds a 5 % rule,
and the frequency is determined from the coupled system.
Table I shows the results for all the simulations and
experiments. Figures 8 and 9 show the results from the step Fig. 8. Response of step input experiment
input and stiff contact experiments, respectively.
Results show that for the step input force experiment,
all data are really close, meaning that the controller and
the simulation present a close dynamic behavior. For the
overshoot, for example, the difference for the discretization
is 6.5% and 10.1% for the integration, which represent the
major differences at this experiment, but for the settling time
at the integration method. Settling time and natural frequency
presented a difference of 3% and 4% for the discretization
method, and 18% and 5% for the integration.
Moreover, the values for the two simulation in the stiff
contact also displayed similar results for all metrics, but
both had considerable different values compared to the real
experiment. Only the overshoot showed a proximity (8% for
discretization and 32% for integration), but the rise times
were three times higher than the simulated. A difference that
increases for the natural frequency, which was almost five
times higher, and the settling times were three times higher
for discretization and four times higher for the integration.
This indicates that the coupled system dynamics may be Fig. 9. Response of contact situation with spring experiment
higher order than the second order proposed. However, the
system still reaches contact with notable stability.
 VII. CONCLUSIONS
Two different methods were implemented for discrete
systems and had similar results. Both present good response
times compared to the simulation in the step force input
experiment, and even the stiff contact situation went with
different metrics, the contact was stable.
One important consideration must be done about the
integration method. Its implementation includes the multi-
plication with the inverse of the inertia, so M values close
to zero or significantly smaller than B and K leads to
instability. Also, if the inertia, stiffness and damper values
do not rise together, if in the controller one of its three
parameters is significantly higher than the two others, than
the controller also will not be stable.
All experiments were conducted for one degree of free-
dom, which may be generalized to the six degrees if needed,
or intermediate stages between both.
The stiff contact experiment provides the most interesting
and non intuitive result, leading to an understand that the
coupled dynamics may be a higher order, i.e. it is not
restricted to second order, as assumed in the model. Also,
other possible sources of uncertainties were neglected in the
model, such as compliance in the joints, in the force sensor
and in the environment.
APPENDIX
From equation (5), applying the Tustin’s approximation
(9), it is possible to obtain the transfer function in the Z
domain.
X 1
(z) = =
Z (M ( Ts (z+1) )2 + B( T2s (z−1)
2 (z−1)
(z+1) ) + K)
(Ts2 z 2 + 2Ts2 z + Ts2 )
= and G. Hirzinger, The KUKA-DLR Lightweight Robot arm - a new
C1 z 2 + C2 z + C3
where : C1 = (4M +2BTs +KTs2 ), C2 = (−8M +2KTs2 )
C3 = (4M − 2BTs + KTs2 )
Now, multiplying the right side for z −2 /z −2 :
X (T 2 + 2Ts2 z −1 + Ts2 z −2 )
(z) = s ⇔
Z C1 + C2 z −1 + C3 z −2
⇔ X(z)[C1 +C2 z −1 +C3 z −2 ] = F (z)[Ts2 +2Ts2 z −1 +Ts2 z −2 ]
The time delay rule in the transformation from Z domain to
difference equation [15].
0
z −n F (z) = f (k−n), where : n ≥ 0, k = k Ts and k 0 ∈ N
This way, it is possible to obtain the equation (10).
x(k) =[Ts2 f (k) + 2Ts2 f (k − 1) + Ts2 f (k − 2)
− (2KTs2 − 8M )x(k − 1)
− (4M − 2BTs + KTs2 )x(k − 2)]
∗ 1/(4M + 2BTs + KTs2 )
View publication stats
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like acknowledge to FAPESP (processes
2013/07276-1, 2015/07484-9 and 2015/24343-0), EM-
BRAER (cooperation project GSI-1168-15), CNPq, CAPES
and the School of Engineering of Sao Carlos, University of
Sao Paulo.
R EFERENCES
[1] L. Villani and J. de Schutter, Force Control, in Springer Handbook of
Robotics, B. Siciliano and O. Khatib, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 161184.
[2] Chen and Y. Liu, Robotic assembly automation using robust compliant
control, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 293300,
2013.
[3] H. I. Krebs, G. A. de P. Caurin, and L. Battistella, Rehabilitation
robotics, orthotics, and prosthetics for the upper extremity, in Textbook
of Neural Repair and Rehabilitation, 2nd ed., M. Selzer, S. Clarke,
L. Cohen, G. Kwakkel, and R. Miller, Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2014, p. 760.
[4] R. C. Luo, J. Wang, C. K. Chang, and Y. W. Perng, Surgeons third
hand: An assistive robot endoscopic system with intuitive maneuver-
ability for laparoscopic surgery, in 5th IEEE RAS/EMBS International
Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, 2014, pp.
138143.
[5] R. Bogue, Finishing robots: a review of technologies and applications,
Ind. Robot An Int. J., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 612, 2009.
[6] N. Hogan, Impedance control: An approach to manipulation: Parts I-
III, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control. Trans. ASME, vol. 107, no. 1, pp.
17, 1985.
[7] N. Hogan, Stable execution of contact tasks using impedance control,
in Proceedings. 1987 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, 1987, vol. 4, pp. 10471054.
[8] L. J. Love and W. J. Book, Environment estimation for enhanced
impedance control, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., vol. 2, no.
3, pp. 18541859, 1995.
[9] Sharon, N. Hogan, and D. E. Hardt, The macro/micro manipulator:
An improved architecture for robot control, Robot. Comput. Integr.
Manuf., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 209222, Jun. 1993.
[10] Kuka, Kuka.RobotSensorInterface 2.3, Kuka GmbH, Augsburg, 2009.
[11] P. J. Gawthrop and G. P. Bevan, Bond-graph modeling, IEEE Control
Syst. Mag., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 2445, Apr. 2007.
[12] R. Bischoff, J. Kurth, G. Schreiber, R. Koeppe, A. Albu-Schaeffer,
A. Beyer, O. Eiberger, S. Haddadin, A. Stemmer, G. Grunwald,
reference platform for robotics research and manufacturing, Robotics
(ISR), 2010 41st International Symposium on and 2010 6th German
Conference on Robotics (ROBOTIK). pp. 18, 2010.
[13] IFR, Industrial Robot Statistics, 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ifr.org/industrial-robots/statistics/. [Accessed: 12-Jan-
2016].
[14] F. Caccavale, C. Natale, B. Siciliano, and L. Villani, Integration for
the next generation, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol. 12, no. 3, pp.
5364, Sep. 2005.
[15] G. F. Franklin, D. J. Powell, and M. L. Workman. ”Digital Control of
Dynamic Systems”, 3rd ed. Half Moon Bay, CA: Ellis-Kagle Press,
2006.