878
as well as presenting simulation results for online tra I11 Neural Network Inverse
jectory tracking. It is shown that the control scheme
is practical and the control system performance is ex
Control
cellent. A new robot control scheme is proposed in this pa
per as depicted in Figure l. The basic concept of this
scheme is that the NN controller acts as the inverse of
I1 ComputedTorque Control the plant(the robot under computedtorque control)
so that the robot response q tracks q d with minimal
The dynamic equation of an n degreesoffreedom ma distortion. So when the NN controller is updated on
nipulator in joint space coordinates is given by : line t o account for the uncertainties in the robot dy
namics, optimal trajectory tracking by the robot can
be achieved. The tracking errors ( ~ , i ,are )used to
update the NN weights. From Figure 1 (called Scheme
where the vectors q , q , q are the joint angle, joint ve A) the control input vector ~ ( tis)
locity, and joint acceleration, respectively; D(q) is
the n x n symmetric positive definite inertia matrix; .(t) = qr + IcD(qr  4) + K P ( q r  9) (6)
H ( q , q ) = C(q,q)q+G(q);C(q,q ) is the n x 1 vector of
Coriolis and centrifugal torques; G(q)is the n x 1 grav where q,. 6,. q,. are reference input vectors to the plant
itational torques; T is the n x 1 vector of joint actuator and they are independently generated by the NN (so
torques; F ( 4 ) is an n x 1 vector representing Coulomb they are independent t o one another, i.e.derivative re
friction and viscous friction forces. Computedtorque lations among them do not necessarily hold). Combin
method is the basic approach to robot control when ing (1) and (6) yields
nominal robot dynamic model is available. That is,
the control law can be written as (qrq)+l(o (qrp)+I(p(qrq) = a'(ADq+Ah+.f)
(7)
To analyze how the NN controller works, let us de
+ 4),
T ( t ) = fi(q)u(t> &I (2) note its three outputs as q h p , d d , and da where q,. =
where a(,) and k(q,q)are estimates of D(q) and 4a, q,. = d d , q,. = dP as shown in Figure 1. Using

the definition of tracking error E = q d q , (7) can be
H ( q , q ) , and u ( t ) is given by
rewritten as
+KDg + + i d k
l<pE =6 + IcDQd Kpqd  (8)
where K p and I(0 are n x n symmetric positive defi where b = &'(AD4 + Ah + f) and ?Ir, = ($a +
nite gain matrices. Combining ( l ) , ( 2 ) , and (3) yields K ~ ) 4 d + l i p d which
~ ) represents the total contribution
the closed loop dynamic equation of the NN outputs to the tracking error equation (8).
When the NN controller is converged, E = 0 and the
i; + ~~i + K p e = b  l ( ~ ~ (+q AH(^,
) q (r) + ~ ( q ) ) ideal N N outputs 4p (bd da satisfy the relationship
(4)
where AD(q) = D(q)  " ( A H ( q , i ) y H ( q , i ] 
a(q, q), e = (q,.  q ) and qr = q d + d P . If D = D , H =
H , F = 0 and cb = 0, then q,. = q d and equation It is seen that Q A is equal t o a combination of the de
(4) becomes the following ideal linear second order sired trajectories and robot model uncertainties. This
equation of motion in error space as follows: means that the function of the N N controller is to
modify the desired trajectories such that its outputs
dP d d d a satisfy the relation (9).
In view of the above analysis it is clear that the
where E = q d  q . Since there are always uncertainties NN controller can be redesigned as shown in Figure
in the robot dynamic model, the ideal error response 2 (called Scheme B). In this scheme, the NN outputs
(5) can not be achieved and the performance is de are added t o the desired trajectories such that q,. =
graded as indicated by (4). Thus the computedtorque ( b a + i d , qr d d + q d , and Qp = dP + q d . Substituting
based control is not robust in practice. To improve ro q,. q,. q,. into (7) yields
bustness, NN controllers are proposed t o compensate
for the uncertainties as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
a79
where 9~ = [+a + I i ' ~ + d+ K p & ] . Thus, for Scheme plant model which provides simple results to (15). In
B, the ideal output of NN at convergence is view of (14), we have
QB =6 (11)
 
In this case the N N is only required to cancel out the
robot model uncertainty. Simulations presented later
show that Scheme B is more efficient than Scheme A.
Comparing the new results with those schemes which where
modify the robot joint torques , the N N in Schemes
A and B have higher dimensional output than that
of scheme by Ishiguro et. al [4]. This increased N N
complexity should provide better controller perfor
mance. Our simulations show that this is true. We
propose to use multilayer feedforward neural network
with backpropagation updating algorithms. (17)
J is a Jacobian for the plant which depends only on
the PD gains. The gradient rule for weight update is
IV Neural Network Controller aE
Design A w J ( ~=) q  + Q Aw(t  1) (18)
820
The standard two layer feedforward neural network where 17 is the update rate and 01 is the momentum
is used as the controller. It is composed of an input coefficient.
buffer, a nonlinear hidden layer and a linear output
layer.
The weight updating law minimizes the objective
function E ( ) which is a quadratic function of track
V Simplification for Controller
ing errors E : Design
E ( E ) = I2( C T ) (12)
The control Schemes A an B involve simultaneous gen
w h e r e E = [ e T iT ET 3 T , ~ = ( q d  q ) , E = ( i d  i ) , a n d eration of the robot reference trajectories qr , 4,., and q,.
= i d  (1. The gradient of E(E) is using three separate tracking errors, E , d , and E . Thus
the total number ofweights is ( n l + l ) n w + ( n ~ + l ) n o .
a q ~ =) Ea f T
 = [ aqT 
 aiT 1aiT E (13)
But in both Q A and 9 ~ the,N N outputs &, and d d are
aw aw aw aw aw weighted more heavily than + a due to the large values
of K D and K p . Therefore we can reduce the complex
In both Scheme A and Scheme B, qr 4,.q,. are func ity of the N N if we eliminate +a from the output and
tions of w so
replace it with the finite difference approximation
  aqT
[] aqT aqT
aw 
aET
aw aw aw
where T is the sampling time. This simplified con
troller, call Scheme C, is shown in Figure 3 in which
Evaluation of the derivatives $$ $ require the
only E and t are employed for N N training. The N N
knowledge of the plant model. Clearly the plant dy controller in Scheme C is represented as
namics is not precisely known in our case. Our pro
posal here is to use the ideal linear error equation(qd
is replaced by q,. in (5))
(ir +
 i )k I c D ( q r  4) I(P(q,  9) = 0 (15) Consequently the number of internal weights are re
duced approximately by one third. We note however
as an approximation to the plant dynamics by neglect that one degree of freedom is lost in (20) so that its
ing the plant uncertainties. The most significant con effectiveness in compensating robot uncertainties is re
sequence of this approximation is that we have a linear duced. Simulations have confirmed this point.
880
VI Simulation Results I Scheme A I Scheme B I Scheme C 1
I n I 0.005 I 0.03 I 0.01 I
A three link elbow robot manipulator whose parame a! 0.9 0.9 0.9
ters are taken from the first three links of Puma 560 E,, 0.20940 0.07511 3.5344
robot are used for simulation studies. The nominal
system parameter; are used as the basis in forming
the robot model D(q) and h(q,d.). A 10 I i g payload
uncertainty is attached t o the third link. Furthermore
Coulomb friction and viscous friction forces are added
+
t o each joint where f ( j ) = 5.0sgn(q) S.O(q). The VI1 Conclusion
sampling rate, T, is 5ms. Six hidden units are used in
the N N controller. The controller gains are selected as A new neural network control technique for robot
KO = diag[20,20,20] and K p = diag[100,100,100]. manipulator control is presented in this paper. The
The values for 7 and a! are listed in Table 1. The per N N controller serves as the inverse model of the
formances of the basic control Scheme A and Scheme computedtorque controlled robot system. Three pos
B are tested by commanding the end point t o track sible schemes are introduced for implementing the
a circular trajectory as shown in Figure 4. The cir control strategy with varying degree of complexities.
cle has a period of 4 secs. The corresponding joint Simulation studies on trajectory tracking showed that
position and velocity errors for 2 cycles are shown in the proposed control technique works extremely well
Figure 5. It is clear that Scheme B converges faster and the controller converges very fast for online con
with better accuracy than Scheme A. It is also seen trol. The performance of Scheme B clearly demon
that the robot joint trajectories converged rapidly in strates the superiority of the proposed technique.
about 1 sec (one fourth of a cycle). The simulation Since the proposed schemes are aimed at modifying
results demonstrate the fast adaptive rate of the N N the desired input trajectory, it can be easily imple
controller for meaningful online application. mented at the command trajectory planning level of
The results of Ep E,, E, in Table 1 are computed an existing controller without having t o modify the
during the second cycle of tracking (controller is well controllers internal structure as would be required by
converged after the first cycle). The update rate q is other existing schemes.
optimized for each case while a is fixed at ct = 0.9. We
see that Schemes A, B and C all performed well and
Scheme B is the best as expected. The improvement in References
accuracies provided by all the NN controller is clearly
demonstrated. K. Narendra and K. Parthasarathy, Identification
and control of dynamical systems using neural net
Table 1. Circular tracking errors during the second works, IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks, vol. 1,
iteration(7 is optimized.) pp. 427, 1990.
881
tor, IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks, vol. 1, pp. .. . .:..
. . ..,,., .. . . .
........ . :.. ...,:.:: . :... .
251265, 1988. ............ : ..... : .... :
. . . ...... . . . . ....,..
. .. .. ..<.: . . . . . ;. ... !.%.
j ...
(c) he(sec)
6 I
8
00

6
e
N
1
P, s 06 a00
0 02
f
6 0
6
0 02
882
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.