Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T03:56:21.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between controlled joint torque and end-effector force in underactuated robotic systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2010

Jaeheung Park
Jaeheung Park*
Affiliation:
Seoul National University, 864-1 Iui-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: park73@snu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The generalized Jacobian matrix was introduced for dealing with end-effector control in space robots. One of the applications of this Jacobian is to be used in Jacobian transpose control to generate joint torques given end-effector position error. It would be misleading, however, to consider the transpose of this Jacobian as a mapping from end-effector force/moment to controlled joint torques for underactuated systems or floating base robots. This paper explains why it does not represent the mapping and provides a simple example. Later, the correct mapping is provided using the dynamically consistent Jacobian inverse and then a method to compute the actuated-joint torques is explained given the desired end-effector force. Finally, the effect of using the generalized Jacobian in the Jacobian transpose control is analyzed.

Keywords

Generalized JacobianSpace robotUnderactuationTorque–force relationship

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , July 2011 , pp. 581 - 584
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Umetani, Y. and Yoshida, K., “Resolved motion rate control of space manipulators with generalized jacobian matrix,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 5 (3), 303–314 (June 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Papadopoulos, E. and Dubowsky, S., “On the nature of control algorithms for free-floating space manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 7 (6), 750–758 (Dec. 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Xu, Y. and Kanade, T. (eds.) Space Robotics: Dynamics and Control (Springer, Boston, MA, 1992).Google Scholar
4.Sentis, L. and Khatib, O., “Control of Free-Floating Humanoid Robots Through Task Prioritization,” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain (2005) pp. 1718–1723.Google Scholar
5.Dubowsky, S. and Papadopoulos, E., “The kinematics, dynamics, and control of free-flying and free-floating space robotic systems,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 9 (5), 531–543 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Khatib, O., “A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation,” IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 3 (1), 43–53 (Feb. 1987).Google Scholar
7.Park, J. and Khatib, O., “Contact Consistent Control Framework for Humanoid Robots,” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Orlando, U.S.A. (2006) pp. 1963–1969.Google Scholar
8.Jain, A. and Rodriguez, G., “An analysis of the kinematics and dynamics of underactuated manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 9 (4), 411–422 (Aug. 1993).Google Scholar