Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T12:10:03.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Statically balanced direct drive manipulator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

H. Kazerooni
H. Kazerooni
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Minnesota, 111 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 (USA)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A practical architecture, using a four-bar-linkage, is considered for the University of Minnesota direct drive rotot. This statically-balanced direct drive robot has been constructed for stability analysis of the robot in constrained maneuvers.2–6 As a result of the elimination of the gravity forces (without any counter weights), smaller actuators and consequently smaller amplifiers were chosen. The motors yield acceleration of 5 g at the robot end point without overheating. High torque, low speed, brush-less AC synchronous motors are used to power the robot. Graphite-epoxy composite material is used for the construction of the robot links. A 4-node parallel processor has been used to control the robot. The dynamic tracking accuracy-with the feedforward torque method as a control law- has been derived experimentally.

Keywords

Direct driveRobotStatically balancedTracking accuracyLinkage.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 143 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.Kazerooni, H. and Kim, S., “Statically Balanced Direct Drive Robot for Compliance Control Analysis”, presented at ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Modeling and Control of Robotic Manipulators and Manufacturing Processes 193–201, Boston (1987).Google Scholar
2.Hogan, N., “Impedance Control, An Approach Manipulation”, ASME J. Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control 107, No. 1, 1–24 (03, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Kazerooni, H., Sheridan, T. B. and Houpt, P. K., Fundamentals of Robust Compliant Motion for Robot Manipulators”, IEEE J. Robotics and Automation 2, No. 2, 83–92 (06, 1986).Google Scholar
4.Kazerooni, H., Houpt, P. K. and SheridanT., B. T., B., “Design Method for Robust Compliant Motion for Robot Manipulators” IEEE J. Robotics and Automation 2, No. 2, 93–105 (06, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Kazerooni, H. and Tsay, T. I., “Stability Criteria for Robot Compliant Maneuvers”, In: Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,Philadelphia, PA, 2, 1166–1172 (04, 1988).Google Scholar
6.Kazerooni, H., “Direct-Drive Active Compliant End Effector (Active RCC)” IEEE J. on Robotics and Automation, 4, No. 3, 324–333 (06, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Asada, H. and Kanade, T., “Design of Direct Drive Mechanical arms” ASME J. Vibration, Acoustics, Stress, and Reliability in Design 105, No. 3, pp. 312–316. (07 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Asada, H. and Youcef-Toumi, K., “Analysis and Design of a Direct Drive Arm with a Five-Bar-Link Parallel Drive Mechanism” ASME J. Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, 106, No. 3, 225–230 (1984).Google Scholar
9.Forrest-Barlach, M.G. and Babcock, S.M., “Inverse Dynamics Position Control of a Compliant Manipulator”, IEEE 1986 International Conference on Robotics and Automation 1, pp. 196–205 (04, 1986).Google Scholar
10.Rivin, E.I., “Effective Rigidity of Robot Structures: Analysis and Enhancement” Proceedings of 85 American Control Conference Boston, MA 1, 381–382 (1985).Google Scholar
11.Craig, J.J., Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control (Addison-Wesley: Reading, Massachusetts, 1986).Google Scholar
12.Takase, K., Hasegawa, T. and Suehiro, T., “Design and Control of a Direct Drive Manipulator” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design and Synthesis, Tokyo, Japan, 333–338 (07 1984).Google Scholar
13.Kuwahara, H., One, Y., Nikaido, M. and Matsumoto, T., “A Precision Direct Drive Robot Arm”, In: Proceedings of American Control Conference Boston, MA 2, 722–727 (1985).Google Scholar
14.Mahalingam, S. and Sharan, A.M., “The Optimal Balancing of the Robotic Manipulators” IEEE 1986 International Conference on Robotics and Automation,San Francisco, CA 2, 828–835 (04 1986).Google Scholar
15.Kazerooni, H. and Houpt, P.K., “On the Loop Transfer Recovery”, Int. J. Control 43, No. 3, 981–996 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Paul, R.P., Robot Manipulators: Mathematics, Programming, and Control (MIT press, Cambridge, MA, 1981).Google Scholar
17.Asada, H., and Slotine, J.-J.E., Robot Analysis and Control (John Wiley and Sons New York, NY, 1986).Google Scholar
18.Luh, J.Y.S., Walker, M.W. and Paul, R.P., “Resolved-Acceleration Control of Mechanical Manipulators” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control AC25, No. 3, 468–474 (06, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.An, C.H. and , C.G., Atkeson, J.D. and Hollerbach, J.M., “Experimental Determination of the Effect of Feedforward Control on Trajectory Tracking Errors” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,San Francisco, CA 1, 55–60 (04 1986).Google Scholar
20.Asada, H., Kanade, T., and Takeyama, I., “Control of a Direct Drive Arm” J. Dynamic Systems, Measurements, and Control 105, 136–142 (09, 1983).Google Scholar