Robotics & Computer-Integrate Manufacturing, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.

29-39, 1996
Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0736-5845/96 $15.00 + 0.00

073th5845(95)ouo26-7

l Paper

THE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF TIME-OPTIMAL CONTROL

FOR ROBOTIC MANIPULATORS
Z. SHILLER, H. CHANG and V. WONG
Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering, University of California Los Angeles,
Los Angeles, CA 900954597, U.S.A.

This paper presents experimental results for time-optimal control of robotic manipulators along specified paths. The
implementation of time-optimal control represents several unique problems: (1) the control is generally discontinuous
(bang-bang), (2) actuator dynamics are usually ignored in order to reduce the system order, and (3) the optimal
control leaves no control authority to compensate for tracking errors caused by unmodeled dynamic and the delays
introduced by the on-line feedback controller. To overcome these difficulties, we compensate for motor dynamics
using a simplified friction model, and account for the dynamics of the feedback controller using trajectory
preshaping. Implemented for the UCLA Direct Drive Arm, this is shown to drastically reduce the tracking errors
compared to the errors obtained with no preshaping and no compensation for motor dynamics. The experimental
results demonstrate the merit of time optimal control for reducing motion time as well as for increasing tracking
accuracy.

1. INTRODUCTION difficult implementation issues since the discontin-

Robotic applications can be divided into two major
tasks: (1) point-to-point motions, as in parts
handling and spot welding, and (2) specified path
motions, as in laser cutting, arc welding, glue
dispensing, and painting. The objective of point-to-
point motions is to accurately reach the final point,
whereas the objective of motions along specified paths
is to accurately track the path at the specified speeds.
This paper focuses on the latter, the specified path
problem.
For high productivity, it is desirable that the
specified speeds be time-optimal so as to reduce
motion time and thus minimize cycle times. Time-
optimal motions constitute the highest speeds at
which motion accuracy can be guaranteed. Attempt-
ing to track the specified path at speeds higher than
the time-optimal would require actuator torques that
exceed the actuator limits. If the actuator limits
represent the true actuator capabilities, then motions
faster than the time-optimal would obviously result
in tracking errors, or deviations from the specified
path. Thus, accuracy comparable to the time-optimal
motions using any velocity profile other than the time
optimal can be achieved only at slower speeds and,
hence, longer motion times.
Efficient methods for optimizing motions along
specified paths’*8P1*“1 have been developed for a rigid
manipulator model, using the actuator torques/forces
as the control inputs. It was shown that the time-
optimal control saturates at least one actuator at all
times, and that the actuator torques might be
discontinuous at the switching points. This poses
29
uous control is impossible to realize because of the
unmodeled motor dynamics, and the actuator
saturation leaves no control authority to correct for
the resulting tracking errors.
Although research on time-optimal control of
robotic manipulators dates back to the early
1970~,~ it has been demonstrated to date only in
simulations. One exception is Ref. 3, which demon-
strates a control algorithm that scales the time-
optimal velocity profile to account for modeling
errors. However, the tracking errors of the proposed
controller were too large to consider the resulting
motions of high accuracy, which leaves the practical
benefits of time-optimal control unclear.
In this paper, we discuss implementation issues
and present experimental results for time-optimal
control along specified paths. In particular, we
evaluate the use of a simplified motor model and
trajectory preshaping to compensate for the ignored
actuator dynamics and the delays introduced by the
feedback controller, and thus achieve high motion
accuracy at high speeds.
First, we demonstrate the significance of the
unmodeled actuator/driver dynamics. Using open-
loop control, it is shown that the dynamics of the
brushless DC motor and static joint friction account
for most of the tracking errors. An empirical linear,
and hence invertible, model is then proposed to
account for the motor/driver dynamics and joint
friction. The empirical model, referred to as the
viscous friction model, is used to compute the input to
the motor driver that would produce the nominal
30 Robotics & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
optimal controls. The time-optimal trajectory along a
specified path, computed using the method presented
in Ref. 10, is then preshapedg to account for the
dynamics of the feedback controller.
Using this scheme, we were able to track a
specified path at top (optimal) speeds of 1.8 m
set -’ and mean tracking errors of 0.3 mm. A
comparison to the commonly used trapezoidal
velocity profiles shows that time-optimal trajectories
produce significantly better motion times and
tracking accuracy, or require smaller actuators for
comparable speeds and tracking errors.
This paper is organized as follows: First, we briefly
discuss in Section 2 the method for computing time-
optimal trajectories along specified paths, followed in
Section 3 by a brief discussion of the preshaping
technique. The experimental set-up is described in
Section 4. In Section 5, the significance of the
unmodeled driver and motor dynamics is demon-
strated experimentally, and a simple empirical motor/
driver model is presented. Section 6 presents
experimental results for tracking the time-optimal
trajectory, using trajectory preshaping and motor
compensation.
2. TIME-OPTIMAL MOTIONS ALONG
SPECIFIED PATHS
Here, we briefly review the main results for
computing time-optimal trajectories along specified
paths? The optimization of the motion time along a
specified path can be stated as the following problem:
9
minJ= 1 dt
TEtl
s0
subject to the rigid body manipulator dynamics
M(Q)0 + tlT C(0)8 + G(B) + T,(B, 6) =T
path constraints
q(8)=0; q E dv-l; 0 E 2Tn
and the boundary conditions
e(0) = eO, e(tf- = e,, 8(o) = &<tf> = 0
where tf is the free final time, 0 e 9n is a vector of the
joint displacements, M(8) is the inertia matrix, C(0) is
an array of the coefficients of the centrifugal and
Coriolis forces, G(0), is the vector of the gravity
forces, Tf(B, 6) is a vector of joint friction torques,
and T is the vector of actuator efforts, and YI is the
number of degrees of freedom. Assuming, for
simplicity, constant actuator limits, the set of the
feasible actuator efforts, Sz, is defined as ’ xd(s> :
i-2 = {TITimi, < Ti < Timax; I’= 1,2 ,*.., n}. (5)
The optimization problem is greatly simplified by
parameterizing the path with some parameter, s,
generally selected as the distance along the path. This
reduces the state-space to two independent states, s
l Volume 12, Number 1, 1996
(position) and j, (velocity along the path), and the
control input to a scalar variable, i (the acceleration
along the path). System dynamics (2) can then be
written in the form
m(s>s + b(s)i2 + G(s) + T&, i) = T (6)
where m(s) and b(s) are given in Ref. 10. We use Eq.
(6) to map the actuator constraints (5) to state
dependent bounds on S, of the form:
Since at every s, these bounds are functions of s,
there might exist some j,= S,,, above which no
feasible j; exists. This value defines a state inequality
constraint of the form:
which is represented by the velocity Emit curve in the
8-i plane.
Using this formulation, the computation of the
time-optimal trajectory reduces to minimizing
motion time of the double integrator s--u between ’
the points [0, sfl, subject to the control constraint (7)
and the state inequality constraint (8).
The solution to the reduced problem was shown to
consist of trajectories that either maximize or
minimize the acceleration along the path, or slide
along the state inequality constraint.” Typically, at
least one actuator saturates at every point along the
patha Computation time of a typical trajectory is a
fraction of a second on a 486/33MHz PC.
(1) 3. TRAJECTORY PRESHAPING
The reference trajectory is preshaped to compensate
for the delay introduced by the feedback controller
used to track the time-optimal trajectory. If each
(2) joint is controlled by a SISO controller of the
structure shown in Fig. 1, then zero errors can be
achieved by preshaping the reference trajectory,
(3) &(s), by the inverse of the closed loop transfer
function, as shown in Fig. 2, to produce the new
reference input, Y(s):
(4) y@) -
-
1 + G&)w x @)
(9)
Gc(s)G(s) d *
This would result in a unity transfer function
between the original input, X&), and the output,
X(s), and hence, perfect tracking of the input*.
Since the nominal control, ud(s), for the reference
trajectory is known, we compute Y(s) by adding a
correction term, Z(s), to the reference trajectory,
Y(s) =&(s) + z(s) (10)
*We assume knowledge of the rigid body dynamics. Motor
dynamics can be added as discussed later in this paper.
Other modeling errors can be handled using a tuning
process described in Ref. 9.
 Time-optimal control for robotic manipulators
Fig. 1. A typical state feedback joint controller.
Fig. 2. Trajectory preshaping.
where Z(s) is computed by multiplying the nominal
control input, U&), by the inverse of the feedback
controller:’
This can be done in the frequency domain, as in Eq.
(1 l), or in the time domain by convoluting z&#) with
the impulse response of G$(s), assuming zero initial
conditions.
The feedback controller should be invertible, i.e.
have no non-minimum phase zeros, and be improper
(have at least as many zeros as poles) so that G&)
is proper, to avoid differentiating the typically
discontinuous controls.
For a PD controller of the form G&) = Kp + Kvs,
we compute y(t) by first multiplying &(s) by GE’(s)
then rewriting Eq. (12) in the time domain to yield a
first-order differential equation in z(t)
with z&) as the forcing function. Solving Eq. (13) for
z(t) and assuming z(0) = 0. we obtain the preshaped
trajectory, y(t):
The error introduced by z(t) produces the discontin-
uous controls when filtered through the feedback
controller. This computation is quite simple and can
be done on-line.
This trajectory preshaping scheme is equivalent to
feedforward control, except that it is done at the
trajectory planner level, outside of the controller.
Aside of the benefit to end-users who have no access
to the feedback controller, this allows tuning the
par&meters in GE’(s) to account for unmodeled
dynamics.g
4. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
The time-optimal trajectories were used to drive the
UCLA Direct Drive Arm (DDA), shown in Fig. 3. It
consists of a five-bar mechanism actuated by two
Yokogawa brushless DC motors with rated peak
torques of -1-30
- Nm and peak velocities of
l 2. SHILLER et al.
Fig. 3. The UCLA Direct Drive Arm.
+2.4 rev se& Each motor is equipped with an
-
integrated incremental position encoder with a
resolution of 655,360 counts per revolution. For an
even binary representation, the position counts are
divided by 10 to produce a 16-bit binary signal. The
resolution of the encoder is thus 216= 65,536 per
revolution, or 0.0055* per count. The motor is driven
by a Dynaserv driver, operating in a velocity servo
mode with an internal sampling rate of 1 kHz.
Torque mode was generally not used because of the
potential danger to the system if computational
errors occurred at that level.
The control system of this manipulator is depicted
in Fig. 4. It consists of a 486 PC host controller,
instrumented with high speed digital signal proces-
sing boards. The outer position servo loop is
implemented in C on the PC with a sampling time
of 1 ms. It generates a velocity control signal that is
fed to the Dynaserv driver. The velocity loop
implemented in the driver has manually adjusted
proportional (&) and velocity (J&/v) gains, both
shown in Fig. 4. The velocity loop generates the
current command, @), to the motor driver, which
modulates the voltage of each phase of the 3-phase
brushless DC motor. For simplicity, the current
driver is represented in the velocity loop by the
constant gain, KVa, and the motor is modeled as a
current driven DC motor, and is represented by its
torque constant Kt.
The derivative gain used in the position servo
controller was added to modify the damping ratio
determined by the velocity loop in the Dynaserv
driver. The gains for this controller were selected
manually for the highest bandwidth that does not
excite the structural resonance modes of the base
frame.
The time-optimal trajectories along specified paths
were computed off-line using the method discussed in
Section 2 and presented in Ref. 10. The dynamic
model used in the optimization was the rigid body
model, with no motor dynamics or joint friction. The
trajectory, consisting of the time history of the joint
positions and the nominal actuator torques, was used
32 Robotics & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing l Volume 12, Number 1, 1996
Motor+Driver (velocity mode)
-I-------------

i’
;--

ud
Kp+Kvs Edc - Kva - Kt - Robot -

1_
I
I
I ;
Kflv I
IL- b
-c-------------- -l

Fig. 4. A single joint controller.

as a reference trajectory to the position joint

controllers implemented on the PC.
To preshape the trajectory for the control system
shown in Fig. 4, we first compensated for the
constants in the forward and feedback loops of the
velocity loop to produce the reference velocity input,
v(t), using the nominal joint velocity, &(t), and the
nominal actuator torques, u&):
-5

.. .. . . .. .. . . . Experiment

The reference input to the outer loop was then -10

preshaped to account for the PD controller using Eq. Time [s]
(14), except that 8,(t) was used as the nominal
Fig. 5. Nominal and actual torques.
trajectory and v(t) as the forcing function:
Nominal in Fig. 6. The Experimental curve represents
the actual positions as measured by the position
encoder. Clearly, the actual torques deviate signifi-
This trajectory preshaping scheme compensates for cantly from the nominal input. Consequently, the
the feedback controllers of the position and velocity actual trajectory deviates substantially from the
loops to produce the optimal control, z&(t), at the nominal trajectory, suggesting the need for a better
joints, assuming current driven DC motors, How- motor/driver model.
ever, this motor model ignores the true motor and
driver dynamics, which are quite significant, as
demonstrated next. 5.1. Motor and driver models
The Yokogawa motor is a 3-phase hybrid variable
reluctance and permanent magnet motor. The driver
5. MOTOR AND DRIVER DYNAMICS consists of a current controller and an inverter. The
To demonstrate the significance of motor and driver current controller uses pulse width modulation
dynamics, we operated the motors in torque mode, (PWM), implemented by a 3-phase inverter,7 to
which allowed us to directly specify the current modulate the voltage supplied to each phase of the
command, i(t), and thus bypass the velocity loop. motor? The windings of the motor’s phases are
Specifying the current command is called torque connected in a Y-configuration. ’ 3
mode since the motor command is proportional to
the commanded current. However, the motor toque
is not proportional to the commanded current since
this is not a true DC motor, and the driver is not a
true current amplifier.
In this experiment we apply a square wave torque
command, denoted Nominal in Fig. 5. The torque
command was divided by KvaKt to produce the
current command, i(l). The square wave was set low
at + 5 Nm in order to avoid saturating the motor’s
velocity rating. The actual torque, denoted Experi-
mental in Fig. 5, was computed from the actual
acceleration (differentiated from the position read- -1.0
ings) and the rotating load. Integrating the nominal 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
torques, using the rigid body dynamics, to produce Time [s]
the joint positions, resulted in the curve denoted Fig. 6. Nominal and actual joint positions.
 Time-optimal control for robotic manipulators l 2. SHILLER et al. 33
The electrical dynamics in the winding of the jth
phase are given by: I2
d R
-&b(t) + z b(t) = k { Q(t) + o(t)& sin[lVO(t) + &I}
(17)
where R and L are the resistance and inductance of a
typical winding, respectively, Vj is the phase voltage,
K, is the back EMF coefficient, N is the number of
rotor teeth, and 8 and o are the rotor position and
speed. The phase angles $A, $B, & are 0, -2n/3,2n/ II

3, respectively. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

The total electromagnetic torque generated by the Time [s]
motor is given by:12 Fig. 8. Experimental and simulated (with static friction) torque
output,
T(t) = - K$~(t)sin(A@(t)) - in(t)sin(lve(t)
- 2n/3) + &(t)sin(lVO(t) + 2z/3)] (18)
where Kt is the motor torque constant. 0.8
Using the square wave current command (scaled
from the nominal torque command) as the voltage
input to the models of the driver and the variable
reluctance motor, produced the torque curve,
denoted Motor model, in Fig. 7. The simulated
torques are shown to be in close agreement with
the Experimental torques, also shown in Fig. 7,
except for an offset due to the yet unmodeled static
friction. It is interesting to note that the simulated -0.6
torques closely approximate the actual torque -0.8
ripples, which are the result of the voltage modula- -1 n
tion and the sinusoidal distribution of the magnetic ““0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
flux with the rotor position. The joint positions Time [s]
produced by this model are ,denoted Motor model in Fig. 9. Simulated and actual joint positions.
Fig. 9. Adding static friction to this motor model
resulted in even a better agreement with the current command for better tracking accuracy, as
experimental results, as shown in Figs 8 and 9. This discussed next.
brought the position curve, denoted Motor w/stiction
in Fig. 9, significantly closer to the experimental 5.2. Viscous friction model
results. To account for the steady-state motor/driver
The drawback of this model, however, is that it is dynamics, we propose the following empirical
noninvertible, i.e. it is not possible to derive the model. It was obtained by plotting the difference
current command (to the driver) as a function of the between the actual and nominal motor torques vs
desired torque output. We therefore propose a motor speed, using the square wave torque command
simplified empirical model, called the viscous friction shown earlier in Fig. 5. The resulting curves,
model, which is invertible, and is used to modify the smoothed for several trials, were then fitted with
straight lines, as shown in Fig. 10 for the two motors
loI of the DDA. The equations of these lines are

1.6 + 2.2081 for& > 0

Tn. = (19)
- 1.3 + 1.94 & for81 < 0
for Motor 1, and
1 l 4 + 3.0 e, for & > 0
Tn = (20)
- 2.0 + 2.7182 for & < 0
,.......a,... Motor mo&l

-10’ for Motor 2. This model includes an offset, which is

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 attributed to stiction, and a linear component, which
Time [s] resembles viscous friction, and is likely to include a
Fig. 7. Experimental and simulated torque output. substantial component of the back EMF. It is
 Robotics & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing l Volume 12, Number 1, 1996

i(t,
Td(4 4)
e> =K,,K,* (22)

It is assumed that this current command does not

exceed the driver’s and motor’s rated currents.

6. TIME-OPTIMAL CONTROL-EXPERIMENTS
We have demonstrated that the unmodeled motor
dynamics may contribute to significant errors of the
open-loop system. Closing the loop with a state
feedback would reduce the errors significantly,
-3 -1 0 1 2 3 however, it cannot handle the typical discontinuities
co [rad/s] of the time-optimal control. This is accomplished by
preshaping the trajectory to account for the
Fig. 10. Viscous friction model.
dynamics of the feedback controller, as is demon-
strated in this section.
We first present experimental results for the time-
optimal trajectory, using PD position controllers
with no preshaping and no compensation for motor
dynamics. We then use the friction model and
trajectory preshaping to further reduce the tracking
errors. And finally, the time-optimal trajectory is
compared to the equivalent trapezoidal velocity
profile along the same path.

6.1. PD controller
- - - - Friction model The objective of this experiment is to track the path
-10 shown in Fig. 12 at the minimum time. The path,
-no 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time [s] having a total length of 1.1 m, represents the trace of
the robot’s tip. To restrict the tip velocities to under
Fig. 11. Nominal torques modified by the friction model.
2 m se?, the actuator torque limits were set at
T= + - 10 Nm, which is lower than the manufacturer
specified peak torque of +30
- Nm. The time-optimal
interesting to note the asymmetry of the motor
trajectory and the velocity limit curve along this
response with respect to the direction of rotation, path, computed using the method presented in Ref.
which might be due to the asymmetric voltage
10, are shown in Fig. 13. The optimal motion time
modulation of the driver. The difference between
for this trajectory is 1.17 sec. Hence, the average
the behavior of the two motors might be due to the
speed was about 1 m set-‘, with a peak speed of 1.8
variations in motor structures.
m see-‘.
Subtracting Tf from the nominal torques
produced an approximation of the actual torques Path in Workspace
5 0 r---~-----’ 1 - -
applied at the joint, as shown in Fig. 11.
Integrating the modified torques resulted in the
position curve denoted Friction model in Fig. 9,
which is in close proximity to the experimental
results. This suggests that the simple friction model
can be used as a good substitution for the
comprehensive motor model for the speeds en-
countered in this experiment. For higher speeds, a
second-order model might be necessary.
For the purpose of accurately tracking a time
optimal trajectory, the “friction torque”, Tf(@, is
added to the nominal control, u&), to yield the
desired motor torque, Td(t,@, for each joint:
 Time-optimal control for robotic manipulators a Z. SHILLER et al.
Velocity Limit Curve $I
p--r-,,
I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time [s]
Fig. 13. Time-optimal and trapezoidal velocity profiles for * 10
Nm.
The velocity limit curve represents the upper
bound on the manipulator speeds due to the actuator
limits. Any speeds exceeding the velocity limits would
either violate the actuator constraints (2 10 Nm) or
cause the manipulator to deviate from the specified
path. Using the true ($- 30 Nm) actuator limits would
raise both the time-optimal trajectory and the
velocity limit curve.
The nominal and the actual torques used to track
the optimal trajectory are shown in Fig. 14. The
actual torques were computed from the actual
trajectory using inverse dynamics. The actual
torques trailed behind the nominal torques due to
the delay introduced by the feedback controller, as
is evident from joint 1 in Fig. 14 and from the
velocity profiles shown in Fig. 15. The feedback
controller compensated for these delays by over-
shooting the nominal control after each disconti-
nuity. Since the actuator limits were set
computationally for the nominal trajectory, but
were not enforced during the execution of the
actual trajectory, the actual torque overshot to
about + 15 Nm. The resulting tracking errors
were, therefore, relatively small, as shown in Fig.
16. The mean tracking error along the path was 2.16
mm. Fig. 17 shows the geometric error normal to
the nominal path, with a mean error of 0.88 mm.
Time [sec]
Fig. 14. Nominal and actual actuator torques for + 10 Nm.
35
Tracking the same path at the time-optimal speeds,
computed for actuator torque limits set at 3-30- Nm,
resulted in the optimal motion time of 0.67 sec
( = 1.17/a), and the actuator torques shown in Fig.
18. The actual torques deviated significantly from the
nominal torques, as evident from Fig. 18, resulting in
a significant increase in the tracking errors of joint 1,
as shown in Fig. 19. This increase is partly due to the
increase in speeds, but mostly due to the motor/
driver saturation.
Better results can be achieved by compensating for
a
the motor/driver dynamics and the dynamics of the
1.2 feedback controller, using trajectory preshaping, as is
demonstrated next for actuator limits set at - +10
Nm.
6.2. Trajectory preshaping
In this experiment we preshaped the optimal
trajectory by first using Eqs (22), (19) and (20), to
produce the desired torque, Td, for each motor.
Substituting Td for z&) in Eq. (15) produced the
velocity reference input, which was then used to
produce the preshaped reference trajectory, y(t),
using Eq. (16).
Using the preshaped trajectory as the reference
input to the PD joint controllers resulted in the
actual actuator torques shown in Fig. 20. Also shown
in Fig. 20 are the nominal torques, which are the
optimal torques, modified with the friction model. In
contrast with the torques shown earlier in Fig. 14, the
actuator torques now follow the nominal torques
almost perfectly. The overshoots after each switch
indicate the delays due to the remaining unmodeled
motor dynamics.
The nominal velocity profile is now followed much
closer, as shown in Fig. 21, resulting in significantly
reduced tracking errors, as shown in Fig. 22. The
mean tracking error along the path was 0.3 mm,
representing a significant reduction compared to the
PD controller with no preshaping. The geometric
errors, shown in Fig. 23, are also drastically reduced,
with a mean error of 0.13 mm.
To put these errors in perspective, the time-optimal
trajectory is compared to the equivalent trapezoidal
velocity profile along the same path.
10 t
n
E 0
I
z
L-J
-10 -
-200
0 0.5 1 1.5
Time [sec]
36 Robotics & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing l Volume 12, Number 1, 1996
Tip Velocity
I I 1 1 1 I

0 20 40 60 100 120
Distance along p a t h [cm]

Fig. 15. Nominal and actual velocity profiles for & 10 Nm.

.
o.L)2, , TraykIng Errqr 2

0.015
7
g 0.01
u
0.005

0
0 0.5 1

Time [sec] Time [sec]

Fig. 16. Tracking errors for + 10 Nm.

Path Deviation
1 I I

0 20 40 GO 80 100 120

Distance along path [cm]

Fig. 17. Geometric errors for & 10 Nm.

Torque
* 1
40

20
I n

E 0
E
z
-20

-40 -40 t 1
0 0.5 1 0 0.5
Time [sec] Time [sec]
Fig. 18. Nominal and actual actuator torques for &30 Nm.
 Time-optimal control for robotic manipulators a Z. SHILLER et al. 37
Error 1 Tracking Error 2
Tracking 1 I

0.5 0 0.5 1

T i m e [sec] T i m e [sec]

Fig. 19. Tracking errors for *30 Nm.

Torque 1 20 Torque 2
I 1 1

10 10
n
E
0 1 0
7
- SJ
10 -10

-20
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

T i m e [sec] T i m e [sec]
Fig. 20. Actuator torques with preshaping and motor compensation using the friction model.

Tip Velocity
-,---I- ‘! I
- Actual
-----Nomind-

t
1 1 L t 1 I 1
Q 20 40 60 80 100 120

Distance along p a t h [ c m ]
Fig. 21. Velocity profiles with preshaping and motor compensation.

Tracking Error I Tracking Error 2

0.02 1 I I I

0.015 - 0.015
7 ,a’
2 0.01 - 2 0.01
1 1
0.005 - 0.005 .
i
0-- Ofi
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 O-5 1 1.5
T i m e [sec] T i m e [sec]
Fig. 22. Tracking errors with preshaping and motor compensation.
 38 Robotics & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
Path Deviation
3- 1 1
40
Distance
Fig. 23. Geometric errors with preshaping and motor compensation.
6.3. Comparison to trapezoidal proJiEes
An equivalent trapezoidal velocity profile is one that
traverses the path shown in Fig. 12 at the optimal
time of 1.17 sec. It is compared in Fig. 13 with the
time-optimal trajectory. To achieve the optimal time,
the trapezoidal trajectory crosses the velocity limit
curve twice. Crossing the velocity limit curve would
require higher actuator torques than the specified
limits. Tracking the path at this trapezoidal profile,
using the same PD controller as for the time-optimal
trajectory, resulted in the actual (experimental) mean
tracking error of 1.86 mm, compared to 0.30 mm for
the time-optimal trajectory.
This error is slightly better than the error obtained
for the time-optimal trajectory with no preshaping
since in both cases the torque limits were set
computationally at + 10 Nm, but were not enforced
during the execution of the actual trajectory.
However, there was little we could do to reduce the
errors for the trapezoidal profile since the nominal
actuator torques for joint 1 exceeded 90 Nm at some
points. To achieve tracking errors comparable to the
time-optimal trajectory (with preshaping) using the
trapezoidal profile would mean significantly slowing
the manipulator speed and thus increasing the
motion time, as is illustrated in Fig. 24.
Figure 24 demonstrates the trade-off between
speed and accuracy for trapezoidal velocity profiles.
3.0
2.5
0.5
2 3 4 5
Motion Time [s]
. Fig. 24. Trade-off between mean tracking error and motion time
for trapezoidal trajectories.
l Volume 12, Number 1, 1996
I 1 1
60 80
a l o n g p a t h [ cm]
It shows the experimental tracking errors versus
motion time for the trapezoidal and time-optimal
velocity profiles, along the path shown earlier in Fig.
12. The trapezoidal trajectories consist of constant
accelerations and decelerations, set at 8.0 m secM2 to
match the maximum acceleration and deceleration of
the optimal trajectory. The maximum velocity was
varied, corresponding to the motion times along the
horizontal axis. The resulting mean tracking errors,
obtained experimentally using the same PD con-
troller as for the time-optimal trajectory, are plotted
along the vertical axis in Fig. 24. The experimental
error for the time-optimal trajectory, computed with
actuator limits at & 10 Nm, represents one point in
Fig. 24. Clearly, the tracking errors for the
trapezoidal profiles increase drastically for motion
times lower than the optimal time, mainly due to the
increased motor saturation.
Figure 25 demonstrates the trade-off between the
required torques and the tracking errors. The
maximum required torques depicted in Fig. 25 were
computed, using inverse dynamics, for the various
trapezoidal trajectories. To execute a trapezoidal
trajectory with the optimal time of 1.17 sec would
require a motor with a rated capacity of at least 100
Nm, 10 times the motor capacity used to generate the
time-optimal trajectory, and more than 3 times the
actual motor capacity of the DDA. Using the full
120
100
Time-
- Optimal
0
0 2 3 4 5
Motion Time [s]
Fig. 25. Trade-off between maximum torque and motion time for
trapezoidal trajectories.
 Time-optimal control for robotic manipulators
motor capacity (& 30 Nm instead of zt: 10 Nm) to
compute the time-optimal trajectory would have
resulted in an even more favorable comparison.
These comparisons clearly demonstrate the merit
of the time optimal trajectory over the trapezoidal
trajectories in both motion time and tracking
accuracy.
7. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents experimental evaluations of time-
optimal control of robotic manipulators, demonstrat-
ing the significance of the unmodeled motor
dynamics and the feedback controller, when tracking
time-optimal trajectories, and the high accuracy that
can be achieved with a simple motor model and
trajectory preshaping.
It was shown that the often ignored motor
dynamics of direct drive motors may contribute
significantly to the tracking errors. The complex
model of direct drive motors might be one reason for
ignoring motor dynamics in computing time-optimal
trajectories. We, therefore, propose a linear model,
called the friction model, which was shown to account
for the significant motor and driver dynamics at
moderate speeds. A second-order model might be
required for higher speeds.
Using a PD controller to track the time-optimal
trajectory demonstrated the deficiency of error driven
controllers, which cannot produce the typically
discontinuous optimal control. The controller com-
pensated for the errors caused by the smoothed
controls by exceeding the control limits after each
discontinuity. This resulted in extensive tracking
errors when the control constraints represented the
true control limits.
The errors introduced by the error driven feedback
controller can be reduced using the previously
developed trajectory preshaping? It adds a correc-
tion term to the reference trajectory that, when
passed through the feedback controller, produces the
desired discontinuities of the nominal control. Using
the trajectory preshaping technique and compensat-
ing for the motor and driver dynamics, using the
friction model, resulted in remarkably accurate
tracking.
The time-optimal trajectory was compared to the
commonly used trapezoidal velocity profile. It was
shown experimentally that the equivalent trapezoidal
trajectory, yielding the optimal time along the same
l Z. SHILLER et al. 39
path, resulted in tracking errors six times larger than
the corresponding time-optimal trajectory. The merit
of time-optimal control is, therefore, not only in
reducing motion time but also in increasing motion
accuracy. This might be most beneficial in applica-
tions, such as laser cutting, caulking, and glue
dispensing, for which cycle time a n d accuracy are
essential.
The practical demonstration of the accurate
tracking of time-optimal trajectories presented in
this paper suggest time-optimal control as a viable
alternative to current non-optimal controllers and
motion planners.
REFERENCES
1. Bobrow, J. E., Dubowsky, S., Gibson, J. S.: Time-
optimal control of robotic manipulators. Int. J. Robot.
Res. 4(3): 3-17, 1985,
2. Chen, Y., Desrochers, A. A.: Structure of minimum-
time control law for robotic manipulators with
constrained paths. In IEEE International Conference
of Robotics and Automation, Scottsdale, AZ, May 1989.
pp. 971-976.
3. Dahl, 0.: Path-constrained robot control and limited
torques-experimental evaluation. IEEE Trans. Robot
and Automation RA-1O(5): 658-669, 1994.
4. Kahn, M. E., Roth, B.: The near-minimum time control
of open loop articulated kinematic chains. J. Dyn. Syst.
Measure. Control 93(3): 164-172, 1971.
Kenjo, T.: Power Electronics for the Microprocessor
Age, New York, Oxford University Press, 1990.
Krause, P.: Analysis of Electric Machinery. New York.
McGraw-Hill, 1986.
Ono, Y.: A direct-drive motor control system and its
features. Adv. Robot. t (2): 243-253, 1992.
Pfeiffer, F., Johanni, R.: A concept for manipulator
trajectory planning. IEEE Trans. Robotics and Auto-
mation RA-3(3): 115-123, 1987.
9 . Shiller, Z., Chang, H.: Trajectory preshaping for high-
speed articulated systems. A S M E J. Dyn. Syst.
Measure: Control. In press.
10. Shiller, Z., Lu, H. H.: Computation of path constrained
time-optimal motions with dynamic singularities.
ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Measure. Control 114: 34-40,
1992.
11. Shin, K. G., McKay, N. D.: Minimum-time control of
robotic manipulators with geometric path constraints.
IEEE Trans. Automatic Control AC-30(6): 531-541,
1985.
12. Wong, V.: Mathematical modeling and experimenta-
tion on hybrid permanent magnet motors. M.S. Thesis,
Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering,
UCLA. In press.
13. Yokogawa Precision: Dynaserv Direct-Drive Servo
Actuator Instruction Manual.