Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DSCC2010
September 12-15, 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
DSCC2010-
VARIABLE-VELOCITY EXPONENTIAL INPUT SHAPING FOR POSITION
CONTROLLED ROBOTIC SYSTEMS
P. Iravani
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Bath
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
p.iravani@bath.ac.uk
M. N. Sahinkaya
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Bath
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
ensmns@bath.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
This paper demonstrates a new form of Input Shaping for vibration reduction applied to robotic systems that manipulate flexible loads. The method is based on using an exponential function
to define asymptotic and vibration-free trajectories for the flexible system. The required control input is calculated analytically
by using inverse dynamics which ensures the desired end-effector
trajectory. The method is demonstrated experimentally on the
control of point-to-point movements of a robotic manipulator.
INTRODUCTION
This paper focuses on Input Shaping (IS) strategies to minimize vibration in robotic systems that operate flexible systems
at their end-effector. The method defines trajectories in terms of
(position, velocity) pairs and thus does not interfere with lowlevel robot controllers.
The accuracy and settling time of lightly damped mechanical systems are constrained by their inherent flexible properties which introduce undesired vibrations during and after movements. Current robotic research aims at bringing robots closer
to humans. For these new environments, robots will have to be
compliant to ensure user safety. Light-weight links and flexible
joints are currently being designed to ensure mechanical compliance [1, 2]. These introduce new control challenges in relation to vibration minimization, as both introduce elasticity to the
robotic system. Traditional industrial robots have been designed
to be as rigid as possible to minimize vibrations at their endeffectors. Despite their rigid designs, flexible loads, compliant
force sensors and flexible couplers attached at the end-effector
of industrial robots result in unwanted vibrations during motions
in free space [3]. These challenges in robotics make IS an ideal
candidate for vibration-free positioning in robotic systems.
IS strategies have the benefit of being easily applicable
on existing machinery as they dont require feedback measurements. The most popular approach to IS is based on the convolution of the input command with carefully calculated impulses [4].
In essence the method relies on compensating for the vibrations
associated with the systems natural transient response. The resulting motion speed and thus settling time, are determined by
the system dynamics, i.e. the natural frequency and the damping
ratio. Therefore, conventional IS does not allow the control of
the robots settling time.
NOMENCLATURE
c System damping
f Force input
F Normalized force input
k System stiffness
m System mass
n Exponential order
t Time
Ts Settling time
x Desired system trajectory
X Normalized system trajectory
XE End position
XM Motion range
XO Initial position
y Control position input
Y Normalized system control input
u Normalized time
Speed parameter
n Natural frequency
Time constant
Damping ratio
x(t) = XO + XM (1 e(t) )
(1)
n
x(t)
= 1 eu
XM
X(u) =
(2)
This paper compares conventional and EIS methods, it derives a trajectory function for position controlled systems and
demonstrates the application of the new method on a robotic manipulator operating a flexible load.
INPUT SHAPING
Various IS techniques have been developed including posicast control [7], bang-bang control [8], convolution of impulses
[4, 9] and ramped sinusoids [10], all of which rely on compensating vibrations associated with the system natural transient response. For a second order system, the basic form of input shaping termed ZV shapers require two impulses giving zero vibration when the final position is reached. The ZV shapers are sensitive to errors in the natural frequency and the damping ratio
of the system. Robustness can be improved at the expense of a
slower speed by increasing the number of pulses and making the
derivative of the vibrations zero at the arrival of the final position
(ZVD shapers) and also the second derivatives (ZVDD shapers).
However, they can exercise very little control over the response
speed, which is governed mainly by the systems modes.
An alternative approach was developed by [11] using a polynomial shaping function, which is formed from an inverse dynamic analysis. However, the polynomial input function is only
valid up to the point where the output reaches the final destination and it has to be switched to another function in order to keep
the system in its desired position. Switching introduces a discontinuity in the first and second derivatives, and can potentially
induce vibration.
3
n=1
0.8
0.6
Normalised Velocity
Normalised Position
n=2
0.4 n=3
0.2
0
0
n=4
0.5
1
1.5
2
Normalised Time *t
n=4
2
n=3
n=2
n=1
0
0
2.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
Normalised Time *t
n=4
n=3
n=2
Normalised Jerk
Normalised Acceleration
n=1
0
2
0.5
1
1.5
2
Normalised Time *t
Figure 1.
n=4
n=3
10
0
n=1
10 n=2
20
4
0
2.5
2.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
Normalised Time *t
2.5
Inverse dynamics
In order to obtain the required input, an inverse dynamic
analysis is performed assuming that the system responds as a
linear second order system as the one illustrated in Fig. 2.
The equation of motion for a force controlled (Fig. 2(a)) system can be written as:
x(t)
+ 2n x(t)
+ 2n x(t) =
2n f (t)
k
(3)
x(t)
+ 2n x(t)
+ 2n x(t) = 2n y(t)
+ 2n y(t)
7/2
x(t)
= 1 e(u)
XM
7/2
7
x(t)
= u5/2 eu
X(u)
=
XM
2
7/2
49
x(t)
35
3/2
5
=
u u eu
X(u)
= 2
XM
4
4
X(u) =
(4)
tems, f (t) =
+ ky(t), is a low-pass filter with a time conn
2
. For flexible systems with a very low the effect
stant of =
n
of this filter is negligible at low-movement frequencies, therefore
f (t)
.
allowing the following simplification, y(t)
k
A normalized force F(u) can be derived from Eq. 3 as follows:
X(u)
2X(u)
F(u) = 2 +
+ X(u)
(6)
F(u) = 1 +
(5)
!
7/2
35u3/2 49u5 7u5/2
+
1 eu
42
2
(7)
n
f (t)
and =
.
where F(u) =
kXM
=0.1
0
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Normalised Time *t
=2
=510
1
0
=3
1
2
0
2.5
=1
0.5
1
1.5
2
Normalised Time *t
2.5
10
5
0
5
10
15
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Normalised Time *t
2.5
=1
4
50
50
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Normalised Time *t
2.5
EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
This section presents experimental results using the EIS
method and the results are compared with conventional IS, ZV,
ZVD and ZVDD. In order to test the EIS method a flexible beam
was attached at the end-effector of a 6-DOF robotic manipulator
as illustrated in Fig. 5. The beam measures 840 mm, has a width
of 24 mm and a depth of 1.1 mm. A load of 200 grams is attached
at the end of the beam to decrease its natural frequency.
Variable velocity
One of the main advantages of EIS over conventional IS is
that it can achieve zero vibration motions for any desired motion
speed by selecting an appropriate value for the speed parameter
.
Given that the exponential function is asymptotic, the end
trajectory will never be reached. In order to define a motion
speed, a settling time, Ts , is defined as the time it takes for the
system to reach 99% of the desired position. Therefore, the speed
parameter is related to the motions settling time Ts as follows:
Ts (99%) =
p
n
ln(0.01)
(8)
and F(u)
for a system with = 1 and = 0.1 corresponding
to the force illustrated in Fig. 3(b) for = 1.
The maximum normalized velocity Y (u) occurs at u = 0.675
F(0.85)
= 68.47. As these maximum values depend on the system parameters and n , and the speed parameter , they should
be calculated for each particular system.
It was observed that the robustness of the EIS with respect
to errors in specifying n and is a function of the motion
speed and presents similar characteristics to the conventional input shapers at their corresponding speeds.
Figure 5.
A LED was attached at the tip of the flexible beam and a vision system was used to track its position. The vision system runs
at about 30Hz which is sufficient to measure the vibrations in this
experiment. The LED and the vision system are constrained in a
way such that the camera can only measure the beams position
in the vicinity of the target position. This information is sufficient to measure the residual vibration of the system.
Residual vibrations
In order to generate the fastest possible motion with the
conventional IS technique the following method was used. The
maximum robot angular acceleration (10 rad/s2 ) was used to derive the fastest possible position command by double integration.
Figure 8 illustrates the acceleration and velocity command introduced to the conventional IS. Figure 9 illustrates the position input to the shaper and the simulated shaper output. Observe that
the output trajectory is not equal to the desired one. This is due
to the delays introduced by conventional IS.
0.5
0
0.5
estimated system
measured response
1
0
5
Figure 6.
10
Time [s]
15
10
Accleration
Velocity
Normalised response
20
10
0
Figure 8.
0.5
1.5
Time [s]
2.5
Figure 7.
It is clear that both, ZV and EIS drastically reduce the vibrations of the beam. The performance of both methods is comparable, thus this experiment shows that EIS, at the ZV equivalent
speed, performs as well as conventional IS.
0.7
1
Relative Vibration Amplitude
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Traj. Demand
ZV
0.2
ZVD
0.1
ZVDD
0
0
0.5
Figure 9.
1
1.5
Time [s]
0.5
ZV
EIS 1s
1
0
2.5
4
6
Time [s]
Figure 11.
0.7
RESIDUAL VIBRATIONS
0.6
0.5
0.6
1s
2s
Motor Position
0.4
Motor Position
10
0.8
[rad]
[rad]
P2P
0.5
0.3
ZVD
0.2
ZV
0.1
EIS 1.8 s
0.4
0.2
EIS 1.2 s
0
0
Figure 10.
0.5
1
1.5
Time [s]
0
0
2.5
Time [s]
Figure 12.
CONCLUSIONS
A new method for input shaping has been demonstrated for
position controlled systems. The method is based on the inverse
dynamics analysis of an exponential function applied to a second
order flexible system.
The method has the following advantages over conventional
IS:
1. It is based on inverse dynamics, thus the actual trajectory is
0.15
EIS 1s
EIS 1.4 s
EIS 1.8 s
0.1
[5]
0.05
[6]
0
0.05
[7]
0.1
[8]
0
10
Time [s]
Figure 13.
[9]
[10]
[11]
The experiments with the robotic test-bed illustrate the performance of the method. They show how the residual vibrations
of the EIS method are as good as the ones achieved by conventional IS with the advantage of continous variable velocity trajectories.
[12]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council under
Grant RC-ME0436.
REFERENCES
[1] Zinn, M., Khatib, O., Roth, B., and Salisbury, J., 2004.
Playing it safe [human-friendly robots]. Robotics Automation Magazine, IEEE, 11(2), june, pp. 12 21.
[2] Edsinger, A., and Kemp, C., 2006. Manipulation in human
environments. pp. 102 109.
[3] Kamel, A., Lange, F., and Hirzinger, G., 2009. An
Industrial-Robots Suited Input Shaping Control Scheme.
In Motion and Vibration Control, Ulbrich, H and Ginzinger,
L, ed., pp. 177187. 9th International Conference on Motion and Vibration Control, Munich, GERMANY, SEP 1518, 2008.
[4] Singer, N., and Seering, W., 1990. Preshaping Command
Inputs to Reduce System Vibration. Journal of Dynamic