Model Identification for Robot
Manipulators using Regressor-Free
Adaptive Control
Rameez Hayat1,2
Martin Buss1,2
1 Institute for Advanced Study
Technical University of Munich
2 Chair of Automatic Control Engineering
Technical University of Munich
UKACC International Conference on Control, 09/01/2016
Presentation Overview
Introduction
Related Work
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Feedback Linearization
Manipulator Dynamics:
M (q)
q +C(q, q)
q+G(q)+F
q = .
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Feedback Linearization
Manipulator Dynamics:
M (q)
q +C(q, q)
q+G(q)+F
q = .
Let:
= M (q)
a + N (q, q)
+ F q,
where, a
= qd K v e K p e,
N (q, q)
= C(q, q)
q+G(q)
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Feedback Linearization
Manipulator Dynamics:
M (q)
q +C(q, q)
q+G(q)+F
q = .
Let:
= M (q)
a + N (q, q)
+ F q,
where, a
= qd K v e K p e,
N (q, q)
= C(q, q)
q+G(q)
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Feedback Linearization
Manipulator Dynamics:
M (q)
q +C(q, q)
q+G(q)+F
q = .
Let:
= M (q)
a + N (q, q)
+ F q,
where, a
= qd K v e K p e,
N (q, q)
= C(q, q)
q+G(q)
PD
e
+ K v e + K p e = 0.
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Motivation
System Dynamics estimation:
(
+ F q,
=M
q d K v e K p e) + N
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Motivation
System Dynamics estimation:
(
+ F q,
=M
q d K v e K p e) + N
M (q)
q + C(q, q)
q + G(q) + F q =
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Motivation
System Dynamics estimation:
(
+ F q,
=M
q d K v e K p e) + N
M (q)
q + C(q, q)
q + G(q) + F q =
1 (M
q + N
+ F q),
e
+ K v e + K p e = M
=M
M, N
=N
N and F = F F .
where, M
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Motivation
System Dynamics estimation:
(
+ F q,
=M
q d K v e K p e) + N
1 (M
q + N
+ F q),
e
+ K v e + K p e = M
=M
M, N
=N
N and F = F F .
where, M
Goal
Design an adaptive controller that removes any mismatch to
achieve better feedback linearization.
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
Siciliano et al.
Regressor-based adaptive controller:
Let: Y (q, q,
q)p = M (q)
q + N (q, q)
+ F q.
e
+ K v e + K p e = M
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Y (q, q,
q)p,
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
Siciliano et al.
Regressor-based adaptive controller:
Let: Y (q, q,
q)p = M (q)
q + N (q, q)
+ F q.
e
+ K v e + K p e = M
Y (q, q,
q)p,
State space representation:
x = Ax BM 1 Y (q, q,
q)p,
0
0
In
R2n2n , B =
R2nn
A=
K p K v
In
and
x = [eT e T ]T
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
1
1
V (x, p)
= xT P 1 x + pT P 2 p,
2
2
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
1
1
V (x, p)
= xT P 1 x + pT P 2 p,
2
2
If we put:
1 Y )T B T P 1 x.
p = P 1
2 (M
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
1
1
V (x, p)
= xT P 1 x + pT P 2 p,
2
2
If we put:
1 Y )T B T P 1 x.
p = P 1
2 (M
Then
1
V = xT Qx 6 0
2
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
1
1
V (x, p)
= xT P 1 x + pT P 2 p,
2
2
If we put:
1 Y )T B T P 1 x.
p = P 1
2 (M
Then
1
V = xT Qx 6 0
2
Drawbacks
Require joint acceleration
Calculating inverse of Inertia Matrix
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
Slotine et al. [1987]
Slotine and Lis adaptive controller:
Slotine et al. reconfigured the system dynamics by considering
s = e + e, where > 0 Rnn . Using this new formulation:
M s + N + F s + M v + F v = ,
v = q d e.
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
Slotine et al. [1987]
Slotine and Lis adaptive controller:
Slotine et al. reconfigured the system dynamics by considering
s = e + e, where > 0 Rnn . Using this new formulation:
M s + N + F s + M v + F v = ,
v = q d e. Considering:
v + F v + N
K D s = Y (q, q,
=M
v, v)
p,
where K D is a positive definite matrix,
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
Slotine et al. [1987]
Slotine and Lis adaptive controller:
Slotine et al. reconfigured the system dynamics by considering
s = e + e, where > 0 Rnn . Using this new formulation:
M s + N + F s + M v + F v = ,
v = q d e. Considering:
v + F v + N
K D s = Y (q, q,
=M
v, v)
p,
where K D is a positive definite matrix, we get:
M s + F s + K D s = Y (q, q,
v, v)
p.
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
Slotine et al. [1987]
Slotine and Lis adaptive controller:
Slotine et al. reconfigured the system dynamics by considering
s = e + e, where > 0 Rnn . Using this new formulation:
M s + N + F s + M v + F v = ,
v = q d e. Considering:
v + F v + N
K D s = Y (q, q,
=M
v, v)
p,
where K D is a positive definite matrix, we get:
M s + F s + K D s = Y (q, q,
v, v)
p.
Following the same steps as before:
v, v)s.
p = P 1 Y T (q, q,
2
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Related Work
Kai et al. [2013]
Regressor-free adaptive controller:
M 1 Y (q, q,
q)p = W T Z,
where W is a weighting matrix and Z is a matrix of basis
functions.
1
1
TM QW
)
V = xT P x + tr(W
2
2
The control law would be:
= Q1 ZxT P B.
W
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Proposed Adaptive Technique
Let = M (q)
q + N (q, q)
+ F q q + a , where a represents
disturbances and unmodeled parameters. Then:
+ qd K v e K p e.
=
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Proposed Adaptive Technique
Let = M (q)
q + N (q, q)
+ F q q + a , where a represents
disturbances and unmodeled parameters. Then:
+ qd K v e K p e.
=
Using the above equation:
,
e
+ K v e + K p e =
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Proposed Adaptive Technique
Let = M (q)
q + N (q, q)
+ F q q + a , where a represents
disturbances and unmodeled parameters. Then:
+ qd K v e K p e.
=
Using the above equation:
,
e
+ K v e + K p e =
converge to and thus e 0, we introduce the
To make
following differential equation:
m
X
i=0
ai
di
= f (e, e),
dti
is
and am = 1
where the system mismatch
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
Proposed Adaptive Technique
at every time instance, is
To evaluate the value of
approximated by a polynomial of order m 1 using Taylor series.
The update law becomes:
m1
X di X
dm
ai i + f (e, e),
=
dtm
dt
i=0
where X = e + K v e + K p e. Assuming Kx = f (e, e),
if
T
1
K = P 2 B P 1 , then:
Convergence
T Q2
6 0.
V = xT Q1 x
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
10
Parameter Identification
Using least squares:
Y p = B,
p = (Y T Y)1 Y T B,
where,
Y = [Y T1 Y T2 ... Y TN ]T ,
B = [ T1 T2 ... TN ]T ,
N is the total number of sampled data points.
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
11
Manipulator Dynamics
A 2-Degree-of-Freedom robot manipulator is considered for
simulation as well as experiments.
Manipulator Dynamics:
n11 sin q2 q22 n12 sin q2 q1 q2
N=
,
y
n21 sin q2 q12
l
0
y2
F =
M=
f11 0
0 f22
y1
l1
q1
mass m1 , m2
Related
q1
x1
m11 + m11 cos q2 m12 + m12 cos q2
m21 + m21 cos q2
m22
Introduction
x2
Contribution
x0
Results
Conclusion
12
Experimental Results
0.45
Trajectory
Regressor
Slotine/Li
FAT-Based
Proposed
0.4
0.35
0.3
y[m]
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
x[m]
Experimental results: position of end effectors starting from 0.5b
x + 0b
ym
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
13
Simulation results
-0.5
-20
Y1 (q, q,
v, v)
p
0.25
0.5
0.75
Time [s]
Y1 (q, q,
v, v)p
0.25
0.5
0.75
Time [s]
1.25
Error in joint angles for the first
rotation.
10
20
10
0
-10
-20
-1
0
1.25
First joint: Y1 is the 1st row of
regressor matrix
Torque [Nm]
Joint error [rad]
e(1)
e(2)
0.5
Y2 (q, q,
v, v)
p
0.25
0.5
0.75
Time [s]
Y2 (q, q,
v, v)p
Second joint: Y2 is the 2nd row of
regressor matrix
1.25
Joint error [rad/s]
Torque [Nm]
1
20
e(1)
e(2)
5
0
-5
-10
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
Time [s]
1.25
Derivative of error in joint angles for
the first rotation.
Results of Slotine and Lis adaptive control for = 4 rad/s, the
estimated model dynamics do not follow the original model.
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
14
Simulation results
Joint error [rad]
Torque [Nm]
1
10
e(1)
e(2)
0.5
0
-0.5
-10
(1) + q(1)
0.25
0.5
0.75
Time [s]
(1)
+ q(1)
-1
0
1.25
0.75
Time [s]
1.25
5
0
-5
(2) + q(2)
0.25
0.5
0.75
Time [s]
(2)
+ q(2)
1.25
Joint error [rad/s]
10
10
Torque [Nm]
0.5
Error in joint angles.
First joint angle
-10
0.25
e(1)
e(2)
5
0
-5
-10
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
Time [s]
1.25
Derivative of error in joint angles.
Second joint angle
Results of proposed adaptive control for = 4 rad/s. Taking a
very low time constant for the update law will confirm the
modeling error to approach zero.
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
15
Parameter estimation
Calculated, simulation and experimental estimation of parameters for 2-DOF
manipulator.
Var.
m11
m11
m12
m12
n11
n12
f11
m21
m21
m22
n21
f22
Introduction
Related
Cal.
0.442
0.028
0.009
0.014
0.014
0.030
0.001
0.009
0.014
0.222
0.014
0.001
Sim.
0.442
0.027
0.008
0.015
0.014
0.028
0.004
0.009
0.015
0.222
0.013
0.006
Contribution
Exp.
0.590
0.027
0.006
0.010
0.216
0.041
0.001
0.005
0.009
0.282
0.282
0.001
Results
Conclusion
16
Conclusion
Design of an adaptive controller that requires less tuning
parameters.
Removal of mismatch during feedback linearization.
Parameters identification for a manipulator.
No prior knowledge required about system parameters.
Low computational cost.
Introduction
Related
Contribution
Results
Conclusion
17
