Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T04:13:02.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical perspectives and state of the art in joint force sensory feedback control of manipulation robots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

Dragan Stockić  and
Miomir Vukobratović
Dragan Stockić
Affiliation:
Institute Mihajlo Pupin, P. O. Box 15, Beograd Volgina 15 (Yugoslavia)
Miomir Vukobratović
Affiliation:
Institute Mihajlo Pupin, P. O. Box 15, Beograd Volgina 15 (Yugoslavia)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The application of the joint force sensory feedback in both the gross and fine motion control of manipulation robots is considered in the paper. One of the objectives of the paper is to give a historical overview how the idea of the joint force sensory feedback has appeared and developed in the past two decades. The control schemes, which include joint torque sensory feedback, are surveyed in the paper. The main advantages of this approach are discussed: the joint torque feedback offers an elegant way to compensate for the effects of the robot dynamics without real time computation of the robot dynamics, the control schemes are robust in respect of parameter variations. Various problems regarding design and implementation of joint torque sensor are also considered. Special emphasis is given to the application of this approach in hybrid position/force control schemes.

Keywords

Feedback controlRobot motionJoint torqueForce sensors
Type
Research Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , March 1993 , pp. 149 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Whitneyz, D.E., “Resolved motion rate control of manipulators and human prostheses” IEEE Trans. Man-Machine Systems MMS-10 47–53 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Liégeois, A., “Automatic supervisory control of the configuration and behavior of multibody mechanisms” IEEE Trans. Systems. Man, Cyber. SMC-7 868–871 (1977).Google Scholar
3.Hanafusa, H., Yoshikawa, T. and Nakamura, Y., “Analysis and control of articulated robot arms with redundancy” Prepr. 8th Triennial IFAC World Congress, XIV. (Kyoto, Japan) 78–83 (1981).Google Scholar
4.Yoshikawa, T., “Analysis and control of robotic man- ipulators with redundancy” In:Robotics Research: the First Int. Symp. (eds. Brady, and Paul, ) (Cambridge MIT Press 1984). pp. 735–748.Google Scholar
5.Dubey, R.V. and Luh, J.Y.S., “Redundant robot control for higher flexibility.” Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation 1066–1072 (1987).Google Scholar
6.Dubey, R.V., Euler, J.A. and Badcock, S.M., “An efficient gradient projection optimization scheme for a seven-degree of freedom redundant robot with spherical wrist” Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation28–36 (1988).Google Scholar
7.Klein, C.A. and Huang, C.H., “Review of pseudoinverse control for use with kinematically redundant manipulators” IEEE Trans, on System, Man, Cybern SMC-13 No. 3, 245–250 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Baillieul, J., “Kinematic programming alternatives for redundant manipulators” Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (March, St. Louis) 722–728 (1985).Google Scholar
9.Sciavicco, L. and Sicilliano, B., “A solution algorithm to the inverse kinematic problem of redundant manipulators” Proc. of IEEE Trans, on Robotics and Automation 4, No. 4, 403–410 (1988).Google Scholar
10.Anderson, K. and Angeles, J., “The kinematic inversion of robot manipulators in the presence of redundancies” Int. J. Robotics Research 8, No. 6, 80–97 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Chang, P.H., “A closed-form solution for the control of manipulators with kinematic redundancy” Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation(San Francisco, CA,Apr. 7–10 1986)9–14.Google Scholar
12.Uchiyama, M., Shimizu, K. and Hakomori, K., “Performance evaluation of manipulators using the Jacobian and its application to trajectory planning” In:Robotics Research: the Second Int. Symp. (eds. Hanafusa, H. and Inoue, H.) (Cambridge MIT Press 1985) pp. 446–454.Google Scholar
13.Nakamura, Y. and Hanafusa, H., “Optimal redundancy control of robot manipulators” Int. J. Robotics Res. 6(1), 32–42 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Suh, K.C. and Hollerbach, J.M., “Local versus global torque optimization of redundant manipulators.” Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation(Raleigh. N.C.)619–624 (1987).Google Scholar
15.Kazerounian, K. and Wang, Z., “Global versus local optimization in redundancy resolution of robotic manipulators” Int. J. Robotics Res. 7(5) 3–12 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Martin, D.P., Baillieul, J. and Hollerbach, J.M., “Resolution of kinematic redundancy using optimization techniques.” IEEE Trans, on Robotics and Automation 5, No. 4, 529–533 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Kirk, D.E., Optimal Control Theory (New Jersey Prentice-Hall 1970).Google Scholar
18.Ben-Israel, A. and Greville, T.N.E., Generalized Inverses: theory and applications (New York Krieger 1980).Google Scholar
19.Vetterlinkg, W.T. et al. Numerical Recipes in C (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1988).Google Scholar
20.Choi, B.W., Won, J.H. and Chung, M.J., “A study on the optimal redundancy resolution of a kinematically redundant manipulator” Korean Automatic Control Conf.(Oct. Seoul, Korea)1145–1149 (1990).Google Scholar