arxiv: v1 [cs.sy] 19 Dec 2018

Transcription

1 Saturated control without velocity measurements for planar robots with flexible joints P Borja, T Wesselink and JMA Scherpen Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands s:lpborjarosalesjmascherpen@rugnl, tcwesselink@studentrugnl arxiv:8857v cssy 9 Dec 8 Abstract In this work, we propose a passivity-based controller that addresses the problem of set point regulation for planar robots with two links and flexible joints Moreover, the controller is saturated and does not require velocity measurements Additionally, we present experiments that corroborate the theoretical results of this note Keywords-Port-Hamiltonian systems, passivity-based control, saturation, asymptotic stabilization Introduction Energy-based models, eg, the Euler-Lagrange (EL) and port-hamiltonian (ph) frameworks, have been extensively used to represent mechanical systems, see for example,, 3, 4, 5, 6 One of the main advantages of these modeling approaches is that they provide a systematic procedure to obtain mathematical models that capture the nonlinear phenomena and preserve conservation laws present in physical systems A well-known property of mechanical systems is that they are passive, loosely speaking this means that these systems are not able to generate energy by themselves Particularly, in the EL and ph representations, this passivity property can be verified by considering as storage function the total energy of the system Accordingly, a natural way to control passive systems is to design controllers that give a desired shape to the energy of the closed-loop system This process is known as energy-shaping and it is the main idea of several passivity-based control (PBC) approaches In this work, we focus on the ph representation of planar robots with flexible joints, where the objective is to address the problem of set-point regulation for this class of systems Additionally, we are interested in controllers that can overcome two common issues that arise during practical implementation, namely, the lack of sensors to measure the velocities and limitations in the actuators, particularly, the necessity of saturated signals to ensure the safety of the equipment Following these ideas, the main contribution of this work is the design of a controller that solves the set-point regulation problem for planar robots with flexible joints The aforementioned controller has the following appealing properties: The closed-loop system preserves the ph structure and, consequently, the passivity property The control design does not require the solution of partial differential equations (PDEs) The control signals are constrained to a desired interval Thus, for implementation purposes, it is not necessary to include additional saturation blocks to prevent damage to the motors The control design only requires position measurements Therefore, the controller can be implemented without the necessity of filters or observers that estimate the velocities The outline of this paper is as follows First, we provide the model of the system and the problem formulation in Section Section 3 is devoted to the control design, where we present two saturated controllers and the experimental results derived from their implementation Finally, we give closure to this note with some concluding remarks and future work in Section 4 Notation: We denote the n n identity matrix as I n, and the n s matrix of zeros as n s Consider the vector x R n, the square matrix A R n n, the function f : R n R, and the mapping F : R n R m Then: we denote the i th element of x as x i The symmetric part of A is given by sym{a} := (A + A ) When A = A, A is said to be positive definite, A >, or positive semidefinite, A, if and only if x Ax >, x Ax for all x n, respectively If A >, we denote the Euclidean weighted-norm as x A := x Ax We define the ( ) differential operator x f := f and x x f := f x For F, we define the ij-th element of its n m Jacobian matrix as ( x F) ij := F j x i When clear from the context the subindex in is omitted For any F and the distinguished element x R n, we define the constant matrix F := F(x ) All mappings are supposed smooth enough

2 Model and problem setting The system to be controlled consists of two links, each one attached to a motor shaft through a spring As is stated above, we adopt a ph model to characterize the behavior of the system Therefore, we consider as state vector the positions q R 4 and the momenta p R 4 related to the elements of the robot arm, namely, q = ql q m, p = ql q m where the vectors q l R, q m R denote the angular position of the links and the motors, respectively; while, p l R represent the momenta of the links, and the momenta of the motors are given by p m R Hence, the system dynamics is expressed as q 4 4 I 4 q H(q, p) 4 = + u ṗ I 4 R p H(q, p) B () H(q, p) = p M (q l )p + q l q m K s with Ml (q M(q l ) = l ) M m a + a M l (q l ) = + b cos(q l ) a + b cos(q l ) a + b cos(q l ) a Dl R = D m M m = diag{i m, I m } D l = diag{d l, D l } D m = diag{d m, D m } K s = diag{k s, k s } B = I where a, a and b are constants related to the moment of inertia (MoI) of the links; and u R is the input vector which corresponds to the torques of the motors All the parameters are positive and their physical meaning is explained in Table 3 in the Appendix of this note Problem setting the objective of this work is to stabilize system () to a constant point that belongs to the set () (3) E := {q R 4 q l = q m, p = 4 } (4) Furthermore, we consider that only measurements of the positions q are available; and the elements of the controller are constrained to given intervals, that is, u(t) U for all t, where U := u max, u max u max, u max For an alternative ph representation of this system, we refer the reader to 7 3 Control design In this section, we present three controllers that stabilize the planar robot to a reference The first controller is based on the PI-PBCs reported in 8, which is used as a starting point towards the development of the saturated controllers The second controller satisfies the requirements established in Section, nonetheless, the experiments exhibit a steady state error Finally, the third controller is an extension of the previous one, where an integral-like action is added to eliminate the steady state error, this is corroborated in the experimental results 3 Preliminary PI controller In 8, a constructive procedure to stabilize ph systems is proposed, an advantage of this approach over other PBC techniques is that the control law is obtained without the necessity of solving PDEs Furthermore, the controllers derived from this approach can be interpreted as PI regulators, where the feedback signal is the passive output of the system In Proposition we provide a modified PI that stabilizes system () to a desired reference, and where the passive output is given by the velocities of the motors Then, based on this PI controller, in subsequent sections we develop a control law that satisfies the requirements imposed in Section Proposition Consider system () in closed-loop with the controller u = K Pm q m K I (q m q ) K Pl q l (5) where q R is the desired position of the links, and the matrices K Pm, K Pl, K I R verify K Pm >, K I > D m + K Pm 4 K P l D l K Pl > Then, the following statements hold true (6) (i) The closed-loop system admits a ph representation, that is q 4 4 I 4 q H PI (q, p) = (7) ṗ I 4 J PI R PI p H PI (q, p) where R PI := Dl K P l K, P l D m + K Pm J PI := K P l K Pl H PI (q, p) := H(q, p) + q m q K I (8) We recall that ph(q, p) = M (q)p = q

3 (ii) The point x := (q l, q m, p l, p m ) = (q, q,, ) is an asymptotically stable equilibrium of the closedloop system with Lyapunov function H PI (q, p) Proof: Note that, based on a Schur complement analysis, (6) implies that R PI > Moreover, Dl J PI R PI = (9) K Pl D m K Pm Hence, replacing (5) in () we get 3 ṗ l = ql H D l pl H ṗ m = qm H (D l + K Pm ) pm H K Pl pl H K I (q m q ) Therefore, since q H PI = q H +, K I (q m q ) p H PI = p H, () we claim that (i) holds true To proof (ii), note that Ḣ PI = ( q H PI ) ( p H PI ) q = ṗ p H PI R PI, () which implies that H PI is non-increasing Moreover, some straightforward computations show that where ( H PI ) = 8 ( KPI H PI ) = 4 4 > 4 4 M K PI := Ks K s K s K s + K I () Therefore, H PI has a minimum at x Thus, the stability of the equilibrium is proved by applying the direct method of Lyapunov, see 9 Furthermore, Ḣ PI = p = 4 = ṗ = 4 = K } s(q l q m ) = = q K I (q m q ) = m = q l = q (3) Hence, the asymptotic stability property is proved by Barbashin Theorem, see 9 Remark The natural damping of the system ensures that the inclusion of the term K Pl q l is possible at the same time that the ph structure is preserved On one hand, the aforementioned term injects damping to the links, which attenuate the oscillations On the other hand, the structure preservation is desirable for analysis purposes, and potentially, physical interpretation of the closed-loop system 3 Due to space constraints, in the sequel, during the development of the proofs, the arguments of the functions are omitted when they are clear 3 Saturated control without velocity measurements Although the controller defined in (5) stabilizes the system at the desired point, it clearly requires information of the velocities Moreover, it is not possible to ensure that the control signals remain in the range of operation of the motors Accordingly, to overcome the aforementioned issues, we propose two modifications to the control law: To replace the integral term K I (q m q ) with a saturated function To inject damping without the necessity of measuring the velocities A method to inject damping without velocity measurements, for mechanical systems, is proposed in The main idea of this methodology is to propose a virtual state that is linearly related to the positions, then, this new state is used to inject damping into the closed-loop system Proposition establishes one of the main contributions of this note, where a combination of the damping injection approach reported in with the PI of Proposition is proposed Proposition Let the controller state vectors x cl, x cm R Define the functions 4 z l (q l, x cl ) := q l q + x cl, z m (q m, x cm ) := q m q + x cm, α li Φ l (z l ) := ln(cosh(β li z li )) β i= li α mi Φ m (z m ) := ln(cosh(β mi z mi )) β mi i= where α li, α mi, β li, β mi R > Consider the dynamics (4) ẋ cl = R cl xcl Φ l (z l (q l, x cl )) ẋ cm = R cm xcm Φ m (z m (q m, x cm )) + K c x cm, (5) where R cl, R cm, K c R are positive definite constant matrices verifying R cl 4 Consider the control law Then: ( D l + Dm ) > (6) u = zl Φ l (z l (q l, x cl )) zm Φ m (z m (q m, x cm )) (7) (i) The elements of the input vector u are saturated (ii) Consider system () in closed-loop with (7) Hence, the dynamics of the augmented state space ζ = q, p, x c l, x c m admit a ph representation 4 Due to space constraints, the arguments (q l, x cl ), (q m, x cm ) of functions z l, z m, respectively, are omitted in the definitions of Φ l (z l (q l, x cl ), Φ m(z m(q m, x cm ) 3

4 (iii) The point ζ = (x,, ) is an asymptotically stable equilibrium of the closed loop system with Lyapunov function Proof: H ζ (ζ) = H(q, p) + Φ l (z l (q l, x cl )) +Φ m (z m (q m, x cm )) + x c m K c To proof (i), note that αl tanh(β zl Φ l = l z l ) α l tanh(β l z l ) αm tanh(β zm Φ m = m z m ) α m tanh(β m z m ) (8) (9) Therefore, the control law (7) reduces to u αl tanh(β = l z l ) + α m tanh(β m z m ) () u α l tanh(β l z l ) + α m tanh(β m z m ) Thus, (α li + α mi ) u i α li + α mi () To proof (ii) note that, since ql z l = xcl z l = qm z m = xcm z m = I, () from the chain rule we get ql Φ l = xcl Φ l = xcl H ζ = zl Φ l, qm Φ m = xcm Φ m = zm Φ m (3) Therefore, in closed-loop, the dynamics of the momenta vector take the form ṗ l = ql H D l p H = ql H ζ D l p H ζ + xcl H ζ ṗ m = qm H D m pm H + u = qm H ζ D m pm H ζ xcl H ζ Moreover, (5) can be rewritten as ẋ cl = R cl xcl H ζ ẋ cm = R cm xcm H ζ (4) (5) Hence, from (4) and (5), the closed-loop system takes the form ζ = F ζ H ζ, (6) with, 4 4 I I 4 R Γ ζ 4 F ζ := 4 4 R cl ; Γ ζ := I I 4 4 R cm (7) Furthermore, from (6), it follows that R sym{f ζ } = Γ ζ 4 (8) 4 Γ ζ R cl 4 4 R cm To proof (iii) note that, from (6) and (8), we have Ḣ ζ = ( H ζ ) ζ = ( Hζ ) F ζ H ζ, (9) which implies that H ζ (ζ) is non-increasing Moreover, z l = = ( ql Φ l ) = ( xcl Φ l ) =, z m = = ( qm Φ m ) = ( xcm Φ m ) = Therefore, Furthermore, since (3) ( H ζ ) = ( H) = (3) K c x cm q l Φ l = xcl ( ql Φ l ) = ql ( xcl Φ l ) = x cl Φ l = diag{β l α l sech (β l z l ), β l α l sech (β l z l )} q m Φ m = xcm ( qm Φ m ) = qm ( xcm Φ m ) = x cm Φ m = diag{β m α m sech (β m z m ), β m α m sech (β m z m )}, some straightforward computations show that ( H ζ ) = K S + A 4 4 A 4 4 M 4 4 >, (3) A 4 4 A + K C where A := diag{β l α l, β l α l, β m α m, β m α m }, Ks K K S := s, K K s K C := s K c Accordingly, from (3) and (3), arg min{h ζ (ζ)} = ζ Thus, the stability property of ζ is proved by invoking Lyapunov theory Moreover, to proof the asymptotic stability property, note that p H ζ = 4 = p = 4 Ḣ ζ = xcl H ζ = = z l = xcm H ζ = = K c x cm = qm Φ m ql Φ l = { } = ṗ l = = Ks (q l q m ) = x ṗ m = cm = = { } qm = q l = z m = { qm = q l = q x cl = (33) Hence, the asymptotic stability property is proved by Barbashin Theorem We corroborate the analytical results of Proposition through the implementation of the controller in a physical system Below we report the obtained experimental results Experimental results the controller (7) is implemented in the robot arm DOF serial flexible joint by Quanser We fix the following control parameters R cm = diag{5, 5}, β l =, R cl = diag{, 4}, β l =, K c = diag{5, 5}, β mi = ; (34) 4

5 Positions Control signals u u 5 5 Angle rad -5 q l q m q l q m Current A Time s Figure : Behavior of the positions for C Time s Figure : Control signals for C and we study three cases for different values of the parameters α li, α mi which are shown in Table 5 Positions Table : Cases for different values of the parameters α Case values for α li values for α mi C 8 4 C C3 The three cases under study illustrate the effect of the term zl Φ l (z l (q l, x cl )) in the behavior of the closed-loop system This term is interpreted as damping in the links of the planar robot, therefore, is expected that as the values α li increase, the oscillations in the response decrease Accordingly, the experiments for the three cases are carried out under the same initial conditions, ζ() =, and the same reference, q = (, ) Figures 5, 6 depict the results of case C, Figures 3, 4 show the results of case C; and Figures, correspond to the results of case C3 From the aforementioned plots, we conclude the following: The existence of steady state error can be observed for all the cases This situation is probably a consequence of phenomena that are not taken into account in the model, eg, nonlinear friction terms Moreover, from the experiments, we notice the actuators are not able to provoke any displacement when u i, Therefore, the positions remain constant, even when the control signals are different from zero This is particularly notorious in Figure There exists a trade off between the damping injected to the links and the magnitude of the steady state error Furthermore, a similar relationship takes place between the magnitude of α li and the oscillations, where, a greater magnitude of these values yields into an important attenuation in the oscillations Both relations can be noticed in Figures, 3 and 5 From a theoretical point of view, the control law (7) solves the problem stated in Section, that is, the controller de- Angle rad Current A Angle rad Time s q l q m q l q m Figure 3: Behavior of the positions for C Control signals 5 5 Time s Figure 4: Control signals for C Positions 5 5 Time s q l q m q l u u q m Figure 5: Behavior of the positions for C3 5

6 Control signals u with z l, z m, Φ l, Φ m defined as in (4) Fix a reference q and define the matrices Current A Time s Figure 6: Control signals for case C3 veloped in this section is saturated and does not depend on the measurement of velocities Nonetheless, as is reported above, a new issue has arisen during the implementation of the controller, namely, the presence of steady state error In the following subsection we propose an alternative to overcome this problem 33 Eliminating the steady state error Customarily, the steady state error is eliminated by the negative feedback of an integral term of the error between some measurements and the reference In our case, such an error is the difference between the positions of the motors and the reference, that is, (q m q ) Moreover, the derivative of this error is given by q m, which is the passive output of the system Hence, following the approach adopted in this note, the term that eliminates the steady state error is given by a double integrator of the passive output Accordingly, Proposition 3 provides an alternative control law that includes a double integral-like term, which eradicates the steady state error and ensures that the control signals remain saturated, alas, the ph structure is not preserved anymore Proposition 3 Consider the vector state σ R whose dynamics are given by σ = Φ σ (σ)(q m q ) K σ σ, (35) where the matrix K σ R and the function Φ σ : R R are defined as Φ σ (σ) := i= u α σi β σi ln(cosh(β σi σ i )) (36) K σ := diag{k σ, k σ } (37) with α σi, β σi, k σi R > Consider F ζ, given in (7) and assume that R cl verifies (6) Consider the control law u = zcl Φ l (z l (q l, x cl )) zcm Φ m (z m (q m, x cm )) Φ σ (σ), (38) A σ := diag{β σ α σ, β σ α σ }; A ξ := 6 A σ, A ξ := A σ, 4 8 Fζ ( H ζ ) A ξ A := A, ξ K σ where ( H ζ ) is given in (3) Then: (i) The elements of the input vector u are saturated (39) (ii) Consider system () in closed-loop with (38) If the matrix A is Hurwitz, then ξ = q q is a (locally) asymptotically stable equilibrium point of the closed-loop system Proof: To proof (i), note that ασ tanh(β Φ σ = σ σ ) (4) α σ tanh(β σ σ ) Furthermore, from the proof of item (i) in Proposition and (4), we get Moreover, u i = α li tanh(β li z li ) α mi tanh(β mi z mi ) α σi tanh(β σi σ i ) (α li + α mi + α σi ) u i α li + α mi + α σi To proof (ii), define the new state space ξ := ζ σ, and the error ξ := ξ ξ Then, some lengthy but straightforward computations show that the linearization of closedloop system, around ξ, is given by ξ = A ξ The proof is completed by applying Lyapunov s Indirect Method, see Chapter 4 of 9 While the main theoretical contributions of this document are the results of Proposition, with the implementation of the control law (38) the closed-loop system exhibits a better performance in terms of steady state error and oscillations Below, we report the experimental results of this implementation Experimental results the control law (38) is implemented in the robot arm Towards this end, we select the control matrices as R cl = diag{5, 4}, K c = I, R cm = 5I, K σ = I, The rest of the control parameters is given in Table (4) 6

7 Table : Control parameters α l = 6 α l = 3 α m = 5 α m = 6 α σ = 35 α σ = 3 β l = 3 β l = β m = β m = β σ = 5 β σ = 3 Positions Current A 5-5 Control signals u u Angle rad 5-5 q l q m q l q m Time s Figure 8: Control signals with the addition of an integrallike term Time s Figure 7: Behavior of the positions with the addition of an integral-like term Moreover, we fix the reference q = (, ), and we carry out the experiments under initial condition ξ() = 4 Note that with this selection of the parameters of the controller, we ensure that the matrix A, defined in (39), is Hurwitz and consequently the point ζ is an asymptotically stable equilibrium of the closed-loop system Figure 7 depicts the positions of the links and motors, where the error of the final position with respect to the desired reference is almost zero On the other hand, Figure 8 shows the control signals, where the value of both signals is close to zero From the plots we conclude the implementation of controller (38) has in overall a better performance than controller (7) Moreover, in this case the trade off between the attenuation of the oscillations and the steady error seems to have been removed The errors that persist can be result of several factors, eg, slips in the motors, numerical errors, the tuning of the gains 4 Conclusions and future work We present a controller that solves the stabilization problem for planar robots with flexible joints Additionally, the control law is designed without the necessity of solving PDEs nor velocity measurements; and the control signals are saturated Furthermore, the controller is designed for the two links case, nonetheless, can be extended to the case of n links We remark the fact that by considering the natural damping of the system we are able to inject damping in the links and preserve the ph structure For implementation purposes, we add an extra term dependent on a virtual state which is similar to an integral of the error (q m q ) This extra term improve the performance of the closed-loop system with the elimination of the steady state error and the attenuation of the oscillations in its behavior Furthermore, after the addition of this extra term, the property of saturation in the control law is preserved As future work, we aim to extend the proposed methodology to ph systems, in different domains, that can be stabilized with PI-PBC, eg, electrical circuits, electromechanical systems or fluid systems Table 3 contains the information about the physical parameters of the robot arm DOF serial flexible joint by Quanser These parameters were taken from the datasheet of the robot and Table 3: System parameters Parameter Physical meaning Value Units a 48 a 73 b 86 I m MoI of motor 7 I m MoI of motor 7 D l Damping on link 38 N m s/rad D l Damping on link 3 N m s/rad D m Damping on motor 8435 N m s/rad D m Damping on motor 36 N m s/rad k s Spring constant 9 N m/rad k s Spring constant 4 N m/rad The experiments reported in Section 3 were carried out using the Matlab/Simulink interface Where, u max = u max = A Note that, the saturation value is given in terms of the currents supplied to the motors, nonetheless, these cur- 7

8 rents satisfy a linear relationship with the torques of the motors The details of these linear relations are provided by Quanser R Miranda-Colorado, L T Aguilar, and J Moreno- Valenzuela, A model-based velocity controller for chaotization of flexible joint robot manipulators: Synthesis, analysis, and experimental evaluations, International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol 5, no 5, p , 8 References F Bullo and A D Lewis, Geometric control of mechanical systems: modeling, analysis, and design for simple mechanical control systems Springer Science & Business Media, 4, vol 49 M W Spong, Modeling and control of elastic joint robots, Journal of dynamic systems, measurement, and control, vol 9, no 4, pp 3 38, R Olfati-Saber, Nonlinear control of underactuated mechanical systems with application to robotics and aerospace vehicles, PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 4 R Ortega, A Loria, P Nicklasson, and H Sira- Ramirez, Passivity-Based Control of Euler-Lagrange Systems: Mechanical, Electrical and Electromechanical Applications Communications and Control Engineering Springer Verlag, London, A J van der Schaft, L -Gain and Passivity techniques in nonlinear control, 3rd ed Berlin: Springer, 6 6 R Ortega, M W Spong, F Gomez-Estern, and G Blankenstein, Stabilization of a Class of Underactuated Mechanical Systems Via Interconnection and Damping Assignment, Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, vol 47, no 8, pp 8 33, Aug 7 H Jardón-Kojakhmetov, M Muñoz-Arias, and J M Scherpen, Model reduction of a flexible-joint robot: a port-hamiltonian approach, IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol 49, no 8, pp , 6 8 P Borja, R Cisneros, and R Ortega, A constructive procedure for energy-shaping of port-hamiltonian systems, Automatica, vol 7, pp 3 34, 6 9 H Khalil, Nonlinear systems, 3rd ed New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, D A Dirksz, J M Scherpen, and R Ortega, Interconnection and damping assignment passivity-based control for port-hamiltonian mechanical systems with only position measurements, in Decision and Control, 8 CDC 8 47th IEEE Conference on IEEE, 8, pp