Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
by BLDC motor
Artur Gmerek Edward Jezierski
Technical University of Lodz Technical University of Lodz
Institute of Automatic Control Institute of Automatic Control
Poland, 90-924 Lodz Poland, 90-924 Lodz
Email: artur.gmerek@p.lodz.pl Email: edward.jezierski@p.lodz.pl
Telephone: (+48) 0 42 631 25 40
Abstract— The aim of this paper is to analyze the admittance The combination of stiffness and damping control is
control of a single-axis mechanism actuated by brushless DC called impedance or admittance control. This is essentially
(BLDC) motor. There is also presented an examination of a PD position controller with position and velocity feedback
applied control architecture. Experiments consisted of the study
of high-speed contact of the manipulator with infinitely rigid gains. Adjusting these gains results in changes of mechanical
environment, as well as slow increase in force, which affected the impedance.
manipulator. There are presented simulation results, as well as Another type of an advanced architecture is hybrid
the practical study. The impedance controller drives the torque- impedance control which allows to change the stiffness and
controlled manipulator system. Force between the arm and the damping in position subspace, as well as switching to force
environment was estimated based on motor current. The paper
shows from practical point of view how to efficiently steer BLDC control subspace.
motors with admittance controllers. The concept of robot control with changes of its stiff-
ness and damping parameters was first introduced by
I. I NTRODUCTION Hogan [4]. It was, however, a general concept which
can be developed in many forms. In the concept of
Today’s robots are increasingly faced with situations in- impedance/admittance control, the control system modulates
volving contact with the surrounding environment. In case of the mechanical impedance/admittance of the manipulator. The
robot maneuver in unconstrained space, the motion should effective control of a robot with impedance/admittance con-
be fast and position vector should closely fit the desired troller requires the robot end-point to follow desired position
setpoint. However, when the robot is placed in a constrained and velocity very closely when the robot is not constrained
environment, it should be controlled in a non-destructive way. by the environment and desired reaction to movement in a
Moreover, the motion parameters in constrained environment constrained environment. The desired xd setpoint, also called
should be changed in accordance with desired stiffness of a virtual desired setpoint (or equilibrium point) should only
the manipulator. Such control is very desirable, for example, be reached in case of free motion, when no external forces
during assembly tasks or during cooperation with humans e.g. affect the robot [5]. In this paper it is called virtual setpoint
in social or rehabilitation robots. or virtual position.
In literature there are known many different control ar- The impedance controller in typical implementations has the
chitectures. Force control can be divided into implicit force position and velocity of the end-effector as inputs and gives
control and explicit force control. In implicit force control the motor torques as output. In admittance control, the desired
no sensors are involved [1]. In this type of control the joint compliant behavior is usually realized by an outer control loop.
servo gains are adjusted to achieve the desired stiffness of the The controller generates x setpoint based on the generalized
manipulator. In explicit force control there is a force input, environmental Fe forces and desired virtual xd setpoint. The
instead of position/velocity inputs [2]. controller maps Fe forces onto desired x setpoint.
The combination of pure position and force control is called The developed admittance controller can work without inner
hybrid control [3]. In this architecture matrix S selects which ”natural” control loops. The controller has environmental Fe
axes have to be position and which force controlled. forces, desired xd setpoint and x˙d velocity as an input. As a
A different type of control is applied to change the position result, controller produces position, velocity and acceleration
and velocity gains. One of the principal methods of this is which enter the block with model of the robot. From in-
stiffness control in which sense on the end-effector force is puts/outputs point of view, the controller without the dynamic
mapped to new motion commands. The controller can be model of the robot can be considered as admittance controller,
regulated by changing the stiffness of the actuators. while with the robot model - an impedance controller. In
Damping control is similar to stiffness control. The key the present paper the controller is considered to be the one
difference is that the damping affects the velocity circuit without a dynamic model of robot, therefore the admittance
instead of position. control definition will be used. Admittance control is often
called position-based impedance control. However discussed
considerations lose, their meaning, when two manipulators desi
red
q
accel
erat
ion
cooperate with each other. In this case the concept which robot
is impedance and which admittance, is usually a matter of
vi
rt
ual desi
red
convention. posit
ion i
nvers
ionof pos
iti
on
.
i
nerti
a
Adjustment of desired stiffness and damping to different des
vel
i
r
oc
ed
it
y
virtual
trollers. Mechanical impedance in s-domain is usually defined velocity desired velocity Comparison
virtual
position
desired block
as: Admittance
position
position
controller
Z(s) = Kd + Bd s + Md s2
velocity
Real Model
(1) acceleration
force
gravity forces
friction
m2
Environment
inertia R m1
0
1500
−1000
−2000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time [s] 1000
Stiffness=0.01, Damping=10
2000
1000
500
0
−1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time [s]
Stiffness=20, Damping=1.2
2000
−500
1000
0 −1000
−1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time [s]
−1500
desired position position desired velocity velocity torque torque feedback 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time [s]
desired position position desired velocity velocity torque torque feedback
2500
3500
3000
2500
velocity [rpm]
2000
1500
1000
500
−500
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
time[s]
4A 6A 8A 10A 12A 14A
2000
V. F UTURE W ORK
0
The developed admittance controller is only one of the
−2000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
approaches presented firstly by Hogan [4]. There are also
t[s] other possibilities e.g. [7] or [8]. Future experiments will be
velocity current
300 0.5
200
0
100
-0.5
-100
-200
-1
-300
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -1.5
time[s] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
time[s]
Fig. 14. Time history of velocity due to torque and damping changes. The
graph shows how the system behaves at high values of stiffness, as well as Fig. 16. Time history of velocity, when damping is very low. Undying
when stiffness of the system was reduced before the collision with enironment oscillations can be observed. The motor has been accelerating more and more
(manifested by the increase in force). In the first case the motor has almost and at some time changing the direction of motion.
not responded, in the second case, the motor has changed its direction of
motion (the desired behavior).
[3] R. J. Anderson and M. W. Spong, “Hybrid impedance control of robotic
1600 manipulators,” vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 549–556, 1988.
velocity
damping [4] N. Hogan, “Impedance control: An approach to manipulation,” in Proc.
1400 American Control Conf, 1984, pp. 304–313.
[5] C. Ott, Cartesian Impedance Control of Redundant and Flexible-Joint
1200
Robots. Springer, 2008, vol. 49.
[6] G. Granosik, E. Jezierski, and M. Kaczmarski, “Modelling, simulation
and control of pneumatic jumping robot,” in Proc. European Robotics
1000
Symposium 2008, Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, 2008, pp. 155–
164.
800 [7] H. Kazerooni, “Robust, non-linear impedance control for robot manipu-
lators,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, vol. 4, 1987,
600 pp. 741–750.
[8] I. Bonilla, E. J. Gonzalez-Galvan, M. Mendoza, A. Loredo-Flores,
400 F. Reyes, and B. Zhang, “A vision-based, impedance control strategy for
industrial robot manipulators,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Automation Science
and Engineering (CASE), 2010, pp. 216–221.
200
[9] A. J. Gmerek, “High-level controller for an arm rehabilitation robot -
positioning algorithms with respect to EMG data,” in Proc. 16th Int
0
Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR) Conf, 2011,
pp. 182–187.
-200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
time[s]
Fig. 15. Time history of velocity due to damping changes. The manipulator
is more compliance, when the damping is low. It manifests itself in lower
values of the velocity ripple.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is financially supported by the Ministry of
Science and Higher Education of Poland (Grant No. N N514
469339).
R EFERENCES
[1] D. Whitney, “Historical perspective and state of the art in robot force
control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, 1985,
pp. 262–268.
[2] E. Jezierski, “On electrical analogues of mechanical systems and their
using in analysis of robot dynamic,” in Robot Motion and Control - Recent
Developments, Kozowski, Ed. Springer, 2006, pp. 391–404.