Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Cop n ig ht © IF .

V : Rollot CO ll trol
Karlsru he. FR(; . I'IHH

FORCE/POSITION CONTROL OF
MANIPULATORS IN TASK SPACE WITH
DOMINANCE IN FORCE
S. Chiaverini and L. Sciavicco
DI/Jllrlill/('/,IIJ di I II/U/lI/{//iul /. SI.I/('/I/islim. [ 'lIil'ersi la di .\'apoli , \ 'ia C /alltilO 2 1 ,
SOl25 .\'a/mli, I la/)'

AbG&.rad · 7'he increll3tll dcmand on ro60lic maniptddor pcrformlJrace leau 10 the ue 0/ atl"anced
cordrolli",c'1I1"e.'l. The general tut 0/1 robot COfttrol .,em il to enlbie tile mlnipflllfor en~-eJ!ector
to /0110'" prtlcn'~~ motiOft trajectories, pl"fle~ in 11 ,..tIMe coortliute frame rellled to Ute mll-
rup./lfor loat ".ce, ••11 10 e:«rt prt8Cn'bcll/orceA Ren tile efltl-efJeelor impact" tile cflftronmelll.
IJ.rir&g IdeAl ,ellr, ,etleral coratrol Iclleme.9 lIatJe ~R Pf'OPO'U i" flu litcnJl.re, 'lU!h " pt&re force
coratrol, compli.nce cordrol, imped4nce control, and h,brill conlrol. Hrbritl colllrol i6 the oral, control
stroten wcll "'OfIJ8/or ,imtdtaneou control 0/ motion an~ /orce; Ihe ,'",el.re o/IIU. cofltrol "Item
i. mfHIifie~ ., me.", 0/ "",ort.,,£ ,e1ectiOft maricel ...\icll .re ~efif!.etl ,cco"""g to the tut reqtlire-
mellf. 7'lfi, paper
compli••ce coatrol
,rue."
4'" •
Ile., force colllrol melltfHI "icll mar be thotlg/tl " logic"" tlerivetl/rom
impetl4nt:e coralrol/or dich oral, • reference pMtioR i6 utlall, GMipu. TAe
aitnu:ti"c feat.re 0/ the ,ropOICd control iB that it 41&0 allou for 4 reJeref!.ce force to be GMigned. In
Ihi6 ft, onc ma, oblsin an1l090., performsnce to h,md control .,.tho.t ado,tin, ,elution mlfricts.
'J1e IdNnt. gamed .,.th thi6 choice lilll if!. the .cMewmen' of. tlCfrtC oJ rohBtnCM oJ the COfttrol
Bcleme to i"ace.rlfe e"R",nunelll modeli"g.
Keywords - DccoupliDg; force control; manipulaiion; nonlinear control systems; robots.

INTROJ)UC'fION t.imc conlact occurs be~wecn the cnd-effedor and the en·
vironment, which gives rise to contact forces depending on
I''orce control originated from the need to aUow machines to tlw! st.iffJlftll of the whole system (arm, end-effector, envi-
inierad. with lhe environment in a. controlled manJlffl'. In ronment). In this case, force COD~rol and position control
order &0 control force by lIleanll of purely poeitional system, must iutei'act ill order to allow for desired force exertion
a very accurate maDipulator kinematical mode~ a precise and motion cxecul.ioD. The Datura! du.ality between force
knowledge of the configural.ioD, and the mcchauical char- control and position control can be characterized through
acteristics of the environment arc required. OD tbe other the adoption of natllral and artifICial constraints (Mason,
hand, if foJ'('.e is seJllJed from interaction with the environ- 1981); the natural poeilioJl/force conslraints are defined by
men', a kw; precise knowledge is required in order to realize Ule task goomctry, wbereas the artificial constraints are de-
the desired contact. fined by the position/force trajectories specified by the user.
Uuriny, I't'Jrent years 8CYe:raI foJ"('.(! control 8Chemes have boon The above COfUItraintB mU8t obviously be compatible with
proposed; a survey is given in Whitney (1987) which at- each other.
I.cmp4s a cIa.ificatioD inio dampjDg methods (Whjt.ucy, Damping control, compliance control, and impedance con-
1977), position methods (Salisbury, 1980), impedance con· trol allow to define an assigned rclatioDBhip bclweeD p0-
trol (lIogan, 1985), explicii force control (Ncvins and Whit- sition and force variables rather than to aw>mplish tbeir
ncy, 1973), and bybrid poIIition/force control (RaibeJ1 and dind r.ontrolj in these cases the task requirements are aI-
(hig, 1981). 'fhe deecrip'ion of end-effector l.asb that in- way8moLion requirerneoiB and environment interactioJl8 are
volve coosl.raiDcd motioD and active Corce coot.rol is fnDda. i.akell inio account by means of suitable matrices (sucb as
mcnbl io daUgn a high pcrfOnnaDce control system. Since damping matrix, stitrness mat.rix, impedance matrix). The
the natural framework for tbat dC8Cription is the opera- limited dynamic performances achievable using these tech-
l..ional tad space, all the propOllCd !IOiutioD8 yield control niquEII are counterbalanced by simplicity of the scheme and
IICbenM'8 in the task 8))3(;8. The main features of 80DKl of robusLness io parametric uncertainties (Asada and Sloline,
lhem (Khatib, 1983; Khatib and Ilurdick, 1986; DalesI.rino, 1986).
JJc Mw and Sciavicco, 1983) &re bricfty recalled iD the Col·
lowing in order 10 obtain a unified approach to end-etfector The cxpJidt force control technique can be applied only
constrained motion and adive foJ'('e control. when no simult&ll8OUs positional requirements are desired.
An appropriaLe robot force control system must try to sa~ lIy brid control CIlIIIlre8 t.hc fulfilmcnt of robot control sys-
isfy the task rcquiremeots by acrounting for position/force tem position/force constraints by means of the selcdion
feedback information and eventual trajectory replanning as rnatriml (Raiberl and Craig, 1981); at impact these matri-
&11 impact occurs. l<'or ilrtance, lI8II1lme tbat the given bait ces m~ select, on the basis of the task geometry, wbich
is t.o follow a trajeciory and to exert a force at contad with directioJl8 1.0 control in force and wbich directions to COD-
t.hc environment In the free space the position controller I.rol in position. Since a change iD lhe selection matrices
CDSUres tbat the end-etfector fonows the prescribed trajec- is equivalcnt to a change in the control system structure,
WlJy, whC1"C18 the force controller is iDaclive. At a (.(!riain IIORK! probl<'.Dl8 may arise when the manipulator impacts a
So Chi a,oe rini and L. Scia,oicco

pariially modclcd environment. wJ\('.rc J(q) represents lbe Jacobian mairix. Moreover, the
In this paper a new force control scheme is preeentcd, relationship between the joint space generalized torques and
namely a parallel control, which enables to control force the lask spac.e ~1iM!d forces ill given by
aDd posil.ioo variables ofl'cring !IODIe robusUleas to inaccu-
rate environment modclWg. These features arc obtained
(6)
without using selection matrices in the control acheme bu1
leaving the eow. trajectory planner the tuk to conveniently .'rom (I), (3), (6) the following rclatiooahips can be derived:
combine the actions of the position controller and 0( the
force cootrollcr. The input requirements concern with d~ JT (q)p(:r) =: g(q) (1)
sired force/position trajectories while the force contro1Jcr J1·(q)p(z,i) ~ b(q,q) -- )T(q)A(z)J(q)tj (8)
prevails over the posilion controller; this allowslhe force
controller to carry out aafety opt".raiioM when unplanned which relate the operational space dynamical model to the
iJnpads with lhe environment occur. Simulation resuKa joint space onc.
are presented which refer to a task 0( end~ffector position ()oce thc manipulator dynamical model in the task space
and force exertion for a two d.oJ. planar manipulator; the has been obWned, the end-effector task space ~ioo coo-
obtaiDed performance is compared 10 lhe performance o&- trol can be designed now. The dynanUcal model (3) ~
tained with a hybrid control sr.heme. acnts a highly noDlincar and strongly coupled system; onc
iochnique to deal with such a system is the nonliDear dy-
namic decoupling approach (RaJestrino, De Maria and Sda-
M.ANJPUJ.ATOJt ))VNAMICAL MOl)tL IN vicco, 1983; Jo'reund, 1975), which applied to 'he dynamical
TASK ORffiNTEJ) SPACE model (3) leads to 1he following control structure

AD open kinemalical chain with n joints is considered; the J:- A(z)Mi 1i + jl(z, z) +p(z) (9)
generalized coordimde vector q =-: (ql , . .. , qn)T dcnolcslhe
refative displacements q. be4.ween two links at i-th joint "here A(z), ;(z,%), ;(z) respectively repTelJ6Jlt the esti-
Witll r8llped to such joint based coordina.t.e system, the i
maie8 of A(%), ,,(z, i), p(z), is the command vector of
maDipulator equations of motion can be written in the form t.hc docoupled cnd-e8'ecior, and M4 is a positive definite
desired mass matrix.
A(q)q + b(q, q) + g(q) =1 (I)
With a perfect nonJinear compensation and dynamic d~
b(q,q) is UJe vector of Coriolis and centrifugal terms, ,(q) coupling (i.e. A(z) ""' A(:r), ,;(z, i) ::... I'(z, i), pIs) =- p(:r))
is the vedor of gravitational tcrms, and 1 is the vector of too end-efec&or becomes equivalent to a mass M4 mov-
gcneralSed torques at joints; A(q) is the symmetric and ing in the m·dimensional space. The control structure (9)
posiI.ive definil.e joint apace ineriia matrix, which can also matches the control schemc shown in }<'ig. 1.
be IleCn as thc joint space liDetic energy mairix since it
TCBults
J"ORc};/l'OSJTION }>ARALLEL CONTROL
(2)
The dynamical model in the task space allows a betler in-
where 7'(q, q) is the quadratic form 0( 'he mecbaDism ki-
netic energy expressed in terms 0( joint vanab1es. sipt 0( the inl.eraction with the environment. When the
cad·cfTector impacts 'he environment, driving forces mtal.
Since ta;rget trajectories and forces are usually planned in counterbalance an enemal load f. due 10 contacl forces
a coordinate frame characterizing the task oriented space, and manipula.tor dynamical Ioadj 80 it results
i' a]JPeaI1I more convenieni to implemen~ a control ~
rithm which diredly COIItrols forces and posit.ions of the f:- A(z)i -f ,,(z, %) ·1 p(z) ~ f. (10)
cud·dector in the task oriCDted space. .'or
this purpose
the manipulator dynamia! must be rewritten in that 1IpCIoCC. };q. (10) points out the impossibility to independently and
ny aaroming a set. % 0( m independent configurat.ion pa- congrucntly con'roI both position and force variables.
rameters coos4.ituimg a system 0( generaJiaed coordinates M380Jl (l98J) showed that a gencrical task (interadion
ill a domain of the task space, the end~fI"cdor cquatioDS
0( molion can be written in the form (Khatib and Burdick,
with the environment) may be described in 'erms
0( p0-
sition/force OOD8irainta; 'be conl.ro1 problem coosistency
1986) needs each task component to be subjected to onc kind of
A(%)i of 11(%, i) + p(z) == I (3) constraint given either by the environment or by lhe control
w1Klrc ,,(z,:i) is the vector of Coriolis and centrifugal terms, system.
p(%) is t.hc vector of gravitational terms, and J is the vcdor Jb.aed 00 UleIM! ideas, 'he hybrid (".(In'rol scheme (Raiberl
of gcJlC1aliscd fOn:al at lhe end·effector; A(z) is the sym- aad Craig, 198]) was devcJopcd. 11 con.aists of two inde-
metric and putitive defini1e operational space inertia ma- pendent feedback controllers (a pOOtion controller and a
Uix which can also be BeCII as the I.asl space kiDetic energy force controller), which congruentJy cooperate employing
matrix since it results lhe aeIec1ion matrices lechDique: two complementary di-
agoaal matrices switch OD or else switch off the opporiune
feedback control1crs to accomplish a specified task. In thlB
way tbe control scheme strodure is changed on-line to tit
where 1'(%, z) is tbe quadratic form of mechanism kinetic the task structure. This approach requires two preliminary
energy expreMed in terms of task spar.e variables. usumptions:
Hy equaling (2) and (4) it can be easily (OUJld that i) the planner musl. derive not only the 1.alge1 trajectories
but also the corresponding scJoctioo matrices needed to
A(,) = JT (q)A(z)J(q) (b) accomptish the desired taskj
Cont ro l o f :\!anipulato rs 139

ii) during t.asl execution the right matrices must 00 BC- Eq. (15) points out bow e, prevails over e,; in a steady
lccted ai the npt time; thle aOowa for the correct syn- state llitaatioa, indeed, poeitioll error may be a constaat
chronization. rib a farce error equal to JeJ'O. Th. implies that the foree
Aa example will bcl.ter clcarify this point. COIltrol loop dominaiel aver poaition control loop in that
the overall controll)'stem attempts to obtaiJa le = 14 evell
Ld ihc task 00 approaching a IDa8II to a &tit( wall and, with a poaitioa error that differs from sero.
at the contact, exerting a desired force apinat it. With
regard to i}, two.tepa are easily iDdividuUedj in the &ne It is worth noticing that, if the taak execution idelltically
8&ep the control problem is a purely positional one, while, involves Id = le, the I)'Item behavslike Ule usual J'fBOlved
in U1e &eCOIld step, force control along the cfuedion normal a.ccelera&ion lCheme (Bee Fig. 2). Thie particularly oc:curs
to the waD. and position control in the plane taugeut to it daring unc:onstraiDed motion if the dynamical load at the
are aeeded. With JepI'd to ii), it is obvious thM the control force IeD80r is perfecUy compeuaated by a suitable h
IIUaieO' must be changed just when the DlIM impacl8 the FAI. (IS) deacribes only the behaviour of the control ec:heme;
wall a model of the enviromneat is needed in order to supply
Hybrid control accomplishes this succession or operaiiom eacla time further re1ationahips between eland e, 80 as 10
by me&IIlI of selection matri<:er, comet operation is eDS1U'ed accomplish the task. dellCriptioD.
oaly in a perfectly struclured world in which task plannins In order to evaluate the performance of the claIed loop IIYI"
can be carried out with mailtem.atical pJ9ciBion. Drawbacb tem (16), a simple but significant model of tbe environmea.t
may arise in its implementation rela&ed to tlte fact thM tlte • considered.
position controller and the force controller may interact be-
cauae of an uperfectly modeled euviromoeat. The extreme A,.lming thUB the envirolUnent constituted by a rigid, frie-
caae occurs when a diredion to be force control1ed is ins&ead tionIe6B, aDd elaaticaUy compliant plane, when the end-
pcml.ioa CODtroUedj in this case, iDdeed, the high ~ efFector im~ the walla simple model of the contact force
of a poIiiion control is in contrast with the high ltifnlllll of Call be wmtea at!

the environment in that direction.


le = K(s-sa) (16)
1'0 safely operate iD an unperfectly modeled environment,
it II8eJDII reuoaabIe to think tbM the control system muat where Zo characterises the ItMe of the euvinmment at rest,
be Ilrstly a force coo.trol system all aver the taak compo- and K is the stilfDellJ matrix; in the cue bere considered,
nents, leaving the poeition controller to ad along thoae task. as all (z - %cl) vectors lying on the plane at issue must
components which are not involved in the envircmoent con- belong 10 the nullspace of the K mairix, it obviously I'f!SlI1ts
tacting. This straiegy allowl control e1fediveDMI without ru.k{K) = 1.
changing the controller strudure aad with the reliability to
have always active p08ition and force feedbacb. The above U8t1mptiollll with eq. (16) lead to accompliab
the bilk deecription by means of the following re1a1ioaahip
In order to outline II1ICh a control structure, id Ilrst consider
a reeoIved acce1eratioa position controller (Lub, Walker aad
Paul, 1980); supposing toexactJy compenaa'-'for Iloaliuear-
to, = Ke, + /4 - K(Zd - zo) (17)
ities and coupling effects, the control law takes the form
from eq. (15) it reeuHs
i,:, Mdid + K"(~d -~) + K,(Zd - z) (11)

WheD the end-etfector impada the environment the con-


Mdi-+ K.s+ (K, -t KIK)s + K.K lo'Stlf
trolled syMn model becomes ~ M4Sd + K.~d + K,Zd

i = Mdi + M4A- 1 (z)/e (12) +K,Ud+ Kso) + Ki t(h+ Kso)dr (18)

If the aim is to control/e, the control law must obviously which, with a proper design of the controller parameters,
include the desinld valve of the coo.tact force, namely Id, mmaponds to an uymptoticaUy stable system.
and another term which aUowsto specify the dynamic ev~ It the pn!IICribed task is the simultaneous achievemeJd of a
lution of the force error. The averall control law will thllll poe.iUon . .point and a force . .point, eq. (18) becomes
be expreMed in the form

i = M4id + K,,(Zd - ~) + K,(Zd - z) ~i + K.i + (Kp + K,K)z + K.K tZdr


+ Md! -I (z)/e + "«/d - le) (13)
=K,id + K'(/d + K%cI) + K;(jd + Ksa)' (19)
CJoeiDg Ule control loop and Betting e, =%4-Z, eI =/4- le
it reeulta U c:u be found that, if /4 e R(K), the equilibrium point
for sy*m (19) is given by

%ao = K- /4 + (J - K- K)i4 + Za (20)


Previollll ciiacuaion brought to the issue that force error
m1lllt prevail aver position error; this leads to conveniently where K- is a generalised inVenIe of the elasticity matrix
chooee -,(e/) at! a proportional-integral function. By doiDg K; U1erefore, in tlte steady condition, it reaalts
~u, eq. (H) becomes
le.CID = K(zCID - zo) =KK- /d:;: /4 (21)
Mdt., + K.e, + K,e, + K,e, + Ki foleldr = 0 (15) wb:ll . - that ~e syMem ICbwte tile force let-point
140 S. Chia\ e rini and 1.. Sci,l\ino

Eq. (20) poiDts oat how the system haudJee a contLiding aIao affed the dynamic behaviour of the position control
lIi1a.ation: the target poiDts are projected iD two orthog- if the selection ~ricee either are switched at the WJ'On(
OIIaI complementary eubapacee and the equilibrium point time or inaccurately describe the taU.
is made up by adding the two reeu.hing terms. The 8nt On the other hand, parallel control parameters muM be de-
term is needed to the achievement of the farce set-point (_ signed accounting for the dynamic behaviour of the overal
eq. (21) brinp out), while the other term accounts the only 8)'!rtem; this fad does not allow to uaign the poeitional
compoDeIlts of the position aet-poiDt which do not affed tile
dynamic bebaviov separately from the force ODe, but it
force equilibrium. oBen a better dyumical behaviour with reaped to in.acc.-
H, becaul8 of an Wlperfect traiectorY plaDning, it happens rai;e enviroament modeling.
&.hat the desired fon:e vector ]. has some COIDpOIlent out Simulation results presented in the following have been o~
of R(K) too, a steady solution like eq. (20) for system (19)
is not poIIBib1e; the iDtegral-term contribution K.K :rh, f:
indeed, ill '!ot able to counterbalance tbe linear time-varyiDg
tamed designing parallel control parameters eI18Uring sat-
isfactory belaaviour dving impact traDsients in terms of
ready aDd damped respooae.
term Ki(f. + KS()t. In this case we mu. look for aD
equilibrium tnjedmy rather than for an equilibrium poiDtj With respect to the hybrid control, the K, and K. matriceB
it can be found that a steady solution like
the K, K.,
have been desiped equal to tJ.e parallel control ODes, while
and have been designed allowing for an ~
SOUS impact behaviour. If this choice implkw a bandwidth
:r(t) = t + ut (22)
lower than the bandwidth achievable with a separa1e con-
with i1 E N(K), holds and fi is given by trol design, it allows for more satisfactory behaviour with
respect to iJlar.cvate eovironOleDt modeling.
fJ = K;t K.(I. + Kzo - Kt) (23) ne prescribed task is a straight-line traJectory normal to
the elastic wall in the free space with a typicaltrapesojdal
A8 fI mllllt be in JI(K), it follow8 that I must be cbooeen velocity profile together with exertion of a desired force / •
as • nst it Three events are conBideNd (see Fig. 6):
r = Za +K-/. +(/ - K- K), (24)
i) the task is perfecUy planned. This meatuI that the wall
where , is all arbitrary position vector. is located just at the end of the position tra.jedory and
It ill worth lIoticing from eq. (23) that' is due to the com- desired force values are set rigbttherej the hybrid COIl-
trol muM also switch tlte selection matrices. VeIociti611
/d
ponents of ortItogonal to R(K), and tbat the magnitude
and conl.ad fol'Cell charaderiling each acheme are re-
of the reBaUing drift of the equilibrium point is related not
ported in Fig. 7(a,b). It can be easily 89I!D that they
only to the mismatching between the model and the real en-
are identical;
viroDmcnt, but also to the valU611 assigned to the controUer
parameters K" Ko. Moreover, in a real situation friction ii) the taU ill unpetfecUy planned, in that the wall is ~
fon:ee are not negligible; the drift d06ll DOt quite occur until caied fartlter the plauDed impact point. VeIociti611 and
h is inside the friction CODe characterising the contact, as contact forces characterizing each scheme are reported
fric1ion forces are able to counterbalance the components in fig. 8(a,b). Aa in the previous case they are identi-
of /. orlhogon.al to R{K) . cal;
Once it bill been eJl81lJ'ed that the force controller prevails iii) ~he task is unperfectly planned, in that the planned
over the position controller, the controlaystem eBectiveDMI impact point is located farther the wall Velociti611 and
relies OD the correct position/fon:e trajectory plaDning. The contact forces characterising each scheme are reported
task executed by the selection matrices iD the hybrid con- in Jt'ig. 9(a,b). In thill case the dynamic behaviour is
trol is carried out here, indeed, by the dominance of the quite diBereDt The higber contact force related to tbe
force COJltroller over the positioJl controi1er. Moreover, the hyhrid conl.rol (see Fig. 9b) is due to the stiff p0si-
parallel control is able to settle the p088ible interference tion loop. The force control loop (with /~ = 0) active
between the two controllers with respect to both unper- during the impact reduces the contact force obtained
fcct task modcling and inaccuraie environment modcling with the parallel control (see fig. 9a). ThiB fad ill
accordiDg to the above coosideratioll8. emphamed when impac~ velociti611 are not negligible
(Fig. 10).

CASE STUDY AND SIMULATION RESULT


CONCLUSIONS
The dynamic: beb.aviour of the proposed control echeme
(Fig. 3) will be ieIded in the following referring to a two In this paper a new position/force control acheme ill pr&-
d.o.f. planar manipulator; the enviroament is conMituted eented; it may be logically arraaged between the compli-
by aD elastic plane wall of assigned stiBIle88 matrix K (see aace control scheJDe8 and tbe hybrid coa.trol scheme.
t'ig. 4). The obtained performance is compared to the Compliance conlrol, damping control, and impedaace coa.-
performance obtained by the correspooding hybrid control trol do not allow for direc~ force coa.trolj they only al-
deme (Fig. 5) . Both demes make use of perfect DOnlin- low to define an assigned relatioDsbip between position
ear dyuamic decoupling. aad force variables. The taak requirements are only m0-
IIybrid control parameters can be designed separatelyj K, tion requiremellts and environment interactions are taken
into accomd by means of 81litable matrices (such as damp-
posi~iouaJ. coa.trol, while K, K.,
and K" matrices establish the dynamic behaviour of the
and matrices assign the
dyumic behaviour of the force control; the latter muM be
i~, st.iffDes, impedance, . . .). Their limited dynamic perfor-
mance is oounierbalaooed by simplicity of the scheme and
~ to parametric unc:ertainti6ll.
deaigned accounting for the environment .iffness expresaed
by the K matrix.. It is worth DOticing that since the stiffness Hybrid control alIow8 to directly control force and posi-
mldrix K charaderilee an inheren~ feedback loop, i1 may tioa Tariabb relaied to requiremen1a expraed in ~ of
Control of Manipulators 141

deaiJed positjoa/fon:e; the COIltrol efectiveDe81 is eD81IJ'ed WJaitHy, D.E. (198'7). mnorical penpective ud IiaSe ci
by the WIe of the selection matricee which acromplillh a the an in robot force control. fat. J. RoWu RaareA,
change of the control system strudure. Some problems vol. I, JI. I, 1-14.
may arise wbeD the manipulator impaclB an environmellt
mode&ed with a degree of uncertainty.
Pcmtion/force pu-aI1el control allows to specify pceition aDd
force target trajectories without uaing the eeledioa mai~
cea; the pcmtioa/force coDtroUer interaclion ill driven both x,x
by the tarpt ~ and by the real t~ectorie8. The
COIltrol syatem structure is fixed aDd the force COIltrol pre- decouplinq
vails over the pcmtion COIltrol by meaDS of an integral COIl-
trollaw.
Simula&ioD result. have shown the robusmesa of the lCheme
with respect to unperfedly environment modeliDg.
non linear compensation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
x
This work is based on reeearch supported by the .MiDinero
della PubbJica lsinWoDe under MPI 40% and 60% funds.

REFERENC~

Aaada, H., and Slotine, J.-J.E. (1986). In &601 ...I,. Fig. 1 - Non linear compensation and decoupling.
,;, aN COfttrol. Wiley-IntenJcience, New York. Chap. 7,
pp. 18&-188.
Balaririno, A., De Mw, G., aDd Sciavicco, L. (1983).
Adaptive control of manipulators in the task oriented space.
Proc. 18U& fat. Spa,. Oft Indutrill Ro6ot tlU Ro"," 1,
vol. 13, Chicago, IL, SME, Dearbom, MI, pp. 13-28.
Freund, E. (1975). The siruclure of decoupled DOnJinear
systems. fat. J. Coralr., vol. 21, D. 3, «3-450.
Bogan, N. (1985). Impedance control: an approach to ma-
nipuJation. ASME J. Dp. S,.., Mea., COfttr., vol. 101,
March, 1-24.
Khatib, O. (1983). Dyumic COIltrol of manipulators in
operational apace. hoc. 611t CISM-IJ'ToMM COftl'. Oft
1'IuotJ 0/ Mtlc1mea nl MeelanillfM. Wiley, New York.
pp. 1128-1131.
Khatib, 0., and Burdick, J. (1986). Motion aDd force Fig. 2 - Resolved acceleration scheme.
control of robot manipuJators. hoc. 3N IEEE lraI.
CfmJ. Oft Ro6oIiCl aft~ AllfommOft. San Francleco, CA.
pp. 1381-1386.
Luh, J.Y.s., Walker, M.W., and Paul, R.P.C. (1980). Be-
dved. accelcratioa control of mechanical manipulators.
IEEE Tmu. Oft Allfomatie CMltrol, voI. AC-I6, D. 3, June,
468--474.
Mason, M.T. (1981). Compliance aDd force coDtrol for com-
puter controIled manipulators. IEEE 7nm.t. Oft Sp., M..,
c,6., vol. SMC-U, D. 6, June, 418-432.
NeviDa, J.L., and Whitney, D.E. (1973). The force vedor . . I',
aembJer concept. hoc. 111 CISM-IJ'ToMM s",.,. Oft T1c-
0,., a,u Pradke 0/ Ro6oU nl MtI,.;p.lato". Udine, haly.
IWbert, M.H., and Craig, J.J. (1981). Hybrid poIi-
ma/force control of manipulaiors. ASME J. Dp. Spt.,
NeM., Ctnalr., vol. un, June, 126-133.
SaliIbury, J.1l (1980). Active stiifneae control of a manip-
ulator in carleaian coordinaiftl. Proc. 1" IEEE Onl. Cl.
1hct3iOft tlU Ctnalrol. Albuquerque, NW.
Whitney, D.E. (1977). Force feedback control of manipu-
lators fine motions. ASME J. Dp. Sp., Mea., OOflfr., Fig. 3 - Proposed control scheme.
Jue, 91-97.
142 S. Chiaverini and L. Sciavicco

-
- . r-;= ~~-~-1
y
.~ .j ;::

f
'j
;::
~
I

~
.. i
..a.o 1.1 10
::a.o 1.1 ...
Fig. 7a - Velocities and contact forces (parallel
control) .

Fig. 4 - Model of the environment.

" 1.1 <.1

Fig. 7b - Velocities and contact forces (hybrid


control) .

- -.-----._--
-. I~
;::

/
·i

::
Fig. S - Corresponding hybrid control scheme. '"

:: :: a.o n
a.o <.I 2.1
"
Fig. 8a - Velocities and contact forces (parallel
y control) .

i
i ,,1 I i '
111 I 1
I
- I
I
-.
I
I
I :
j ' '"

;:: I
/
::

I X
I
::u ::
~,~ n
1.' 11
"
Fig . 8b - Velocities and contact forces (hybrid
Fig. 6 - Events considered . control) .
Control of Manipulators 143

:::

Fig. 9a - Velocities and contact forces (parallel


control) .

"7' ~

~
~

:; ::
j
:::
: . j
:
0.0 1.0 <.0 '" 0.0 1.0
~ <.0

Fig. 9b - Velocities and cont:!ct forces (hybrid


control) .

'e

.
b
::: a

-:
b
~
a?a .o
~
. j
08 !.6 1. ' II <.0

Fig. lOa - Velocity histories when impact velocity


is not negligible (a. parallel control /
b. hybria control) .

Fig . lOb Contact forces when impact velocity is


not negligible (a. parallel control
b. hybrid control).

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi