Challenges of Linearization-based Control of Industrial Robots with Cycloidal Drives

Most industrial robots are still controlled with motor-side feedback. To increase the accuracy of industrial robots, controllers with joint-side feedback and explicit consideration of the joint elasticity, such as linearization-based controllers, are needed. The key issue for the performance of linearization-based controllers is a high-fidelity model. Today, the drivetrains installed in the joints of industrial robots of the high payload class usually consist of a permanent magnet synchronous machine and a cycloidal drive. Such robot joints are highly nonlinear due to effects like hysteresis, torque ripples and friction. Therefore, the drivetrain dynamics are crucial for the experimental performance of linearization-based controllers for industrial robots. This paper identifies the challenges in linearization-based control of industrial robots with such a drivetrain configuration based on experimental results on a KUKA KR-210-2. Using an exemplary approach, it is shown that a linearization-based controller does not provide the theoretical performance due to needed model simplifications. For this purpose, simulation and experimental results are compared to a linear robot controller with motor-side feedback. These results indicate why such controllers are still a valid alternative for the practical application of similar industrial robots.

[1]  G. Oriolo,et al.  Robotics: Modelling, Planning and Control , 2008 .

[2]  Paolo Rocco,et al.  Modeling, identification, and compensation of pulsating torque in permanent magnet AC motors , 1998, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron..

[3]  Jonathon W. Sensinger,et al.  Cycloid vs. harmonic drives for use in high ratio, single stage robotic transmissions , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[4]  M. Spong Modeling and Control of Elastic Joint Robots , 1987 .

[5]  Rafael Kelly,et al.  Global regulation of elastic joint robots based on energy shaping , 1998, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[6]  Wolfgang M. Grimm Robustness analysis of nonlinear decoupling for elastic-joint robots , 1990, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[7]  Jan Swevers,et al.  Optimal robot excitation and identification , 1997, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[8]  M. Fliess,et al.  Flatness, motion planning and trailer systems , 1993, Proceedings of 32nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[9]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  State feedback controller for flexible joint robots: a globally stable approach implemented on DLR's light-weight robots , 2000, Proceedings. 2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2000) (Cat. No.00CH37113).

[10]  G. Stein,et al.  Respect the unstable , 2003 .

[11]  Wilson J. Rugh,et al.  Research on gain scheduling , 2000, Autom..

[12]  Michael Ruderman,et al.  Modeling and Observation of Hysteresis Lost Motion in Elastic Robot Joints , 2012, SyRoCo.

[13]  Carlos Canudas de Wit,et al.  Friction Models and Friction Compensation , 1998, Eur. J. Control.

[14]  Miguel Ángel Sebastián,et al.  Overview of the State of Robotic Machining: Current Situation and Future Potential , 2015 .

[15]  Alessandro De Luca,et al.  A general algorithm for dynamic feedback linearization of robots with elastic joints , 1998, Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.98CH36146).

[16]  Elizabeth A. Croft,et al.  Full-State Tracking Control for Flexible Joint Robots With Singular Perturbation Techniques , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology.

[17]  Stig Moberg,et al.  On Feedback Linearization for Robust Tracking Control of Flexible Joint Robots , 2008 .

[18]  Jorge Angeles,et al.  Nonlinear modeling and parameter identification of harmonic drive robotic transmissions , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[19]  H.K. Tonshoff,et al.  Active compensation of kinematic transmission errors in servo drives for machine tools and robots , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 American Control Conference (Cat. No. 99CH36251).

[20]  A. Albu-Schäffer Regelung von Robotern mit elastischen Gelenken am Beispiel der DLR-Leichtbauarme , 2002 .

[21]  T. Brogårdh,et al.  Robot Control Overview: An Industrial Perspective , 2009 .

[22]  Tegoeh Tjahjowidodo,et al.  Theoretical modelling and experimental identification of nonlinear torsional behaviour in harmonic drives , 2013 .

[23]  Alessandro De Luca,et al.  An Acceleration-based State Observer for Robot Manipulators with Elastic Joints , 2007, Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[24]  H. Van Brussel,et al.  Comparison of control algorithms for flexible joint robots implemented on a KUKA IR 161/60 industrial robot , 1991, Fifth International Conference on Advanced Robotics 'Robots in Unstructured Environments.

[25]  Alessandro De Luca Feedforward/Feedback Laws for the Control of Flexible Robots , 2000, ICRA.

[26]  Malcolm Good,et al.  Re-definition of the robot motion control problem: Effects of plant dynamics, drive system constraints, and user requirements , 1984, The 23rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[27]  Jonathon W. Sensinger,et al.  Unified Approach to Cycloid Drive Profile, Stress, and Efficiency Optimization , 2010 .

[28]  P. Tomei A simple PD controller for robots with elastic joints , 1991 .

[29]  Marcus Pettersson,et al.  Drive Train Optimization for Industrial Robots , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.