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

www.lsr.ei.tum.de
Presentation Overview

Introduction

Related Work

Contribution

Results

Conclusion

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

2
Feedback Linearization
Manipulator Dynamics:

M (q)
q +C(q, q)
q+G(q)+F
q = .

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

3
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

3
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

3
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
+ K v e + K p e = 0.
e

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

3
Motivation
System Dynamics estimation:

(
=M + F q,
q d K v e K p e) + N

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

4
Motivation
System Dynamics estimation:

(
=M + F q,
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

4
Motivation
System Dynamics estimation:

(
=M + F q,
q d K v e K p e) + N

M (q)
q + C(q, q)
q + G(q) + F q =

1 (M
e + K v e + K p e = M q + N
+ F q),

=M
where, M M, N
=N
N and F = F F .

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

4
Motivation
System Dynamics estimation:

(
=M + F q,
q d K v e K p e) + N

1 (M
e + K v e + K p e = M q + N
+ F q),

=M
where, M M, N
=N
N and F = F F .

Goal
Design an adaptive controller that removes any mismatch to
achieve better feedback linearization.

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

4
Regressor-based adaptive controller
[Siciliano et al.]
Let: Y (q, q,
q)p = M (q)
q + N (q, q)
+ F q.

1 Y (q, q,
e + K v e + K p e = M q)
p,

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

5
Regressor-based adaptive controller
[Siciliano et al.]
Let: Y (q, q,
q)p = M (q)
q + N (q, q)
+ F q.

1 Y (q, q,
e + K v e + K p e = M q)
p,

State space representation:

x = Ax BM 1 Y (q, q,
q)p,

   
0 In 2n2n 0
A= R ,B = R2nn
K p K v In
and
x = [eT e T ]T

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

5
Regressor-based adaptive controller
[Siciliano et al.]
1 1
= xT P 1 x + pT P 2 p,
V (x, p)
2 2

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

6
Regressor-based adaptive controller
[Siciliano et al.]
1 1
= xT P 1 x + pT P 2 p,
V (x, p)
2 2
If we consider:

p = P 1 1 Y )T B T P 1 x.
2 (M

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

6
Regressor-based adaptive controller
[Siciliano et al.]
1 1
= xT P 1 x + pT P 2 p,
V (x, p)
2 2
If we consider:

p = P 1 1 Y )T B T P 1 x.
2 (M

Then
1
V = xT Qx 6 0
2

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

6
Regressor-based adaptive controller
[Siciliano et al.]
1 1
= xT P 1 x + pT P 2 p,
V (x, p)
2 2
If we consider:

p = P 1 1 Y )T B T P 1 x.
2 (M

Then
1
V = xT Qx 6 0
2

Drawbacks
 Require joint acceleration

 Calculating inverse of Inertia Matrix

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

6
Slotine and Lis adaptive controller
Slotine et al. [1987]
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

7
Slotine and Lis adaptive controller
Slotine et al. [1987]
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
=M K D s = Y (q, q,
v, v)
p,

where K D is a positive definite matrix.

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

7
Slotine and Lis adaptive controller
Slotine et al. [1987]
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
=M K D s = Y (q, q,
v, v)
p,

where K D is a positive definite matrix. Following the same steps

as before:
p = P 1 T
2 Y (q, q, v, v)s.

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

7
Regressor-free adaptive controller
Kai et al. [2013]

q)p = W T Z,
M 1 Y (q, q,
where W is a weighting matrix and Z is a matrix of basis
functions.
1 1 T QW )
V = xT P x + tr(W
2 2
The control law would be:

= Q1 ZxT P B.
W

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

8
Regressor-free adaptive controller
Kai et al. [2013]

q)p = W T Z,
M 1 Y (q, q,
where W is a weighting matrix and Z is a matrix of basis
functions.
1 1 T QW )
V = xT P x + tr(W
2 2
The control law would be:

= Q1 ZxT P B.
W

Then
1
V = xT Qx 6 0
2

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

8
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

9
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

9
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 =

To make converge to and thus e 0, we introduce the

following differential equation:
m
X di
ai = f (e, e),

dti
i=0

is
where the system mismatch and am = 1

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

9
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
dm X di X
= 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
K = P 2 B P 1 , then:
1

Convergence
T Q2
V = xT Q1 x 6 0.

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 >> 0 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:
 
m11 + m11 cos q2 m12 + m12 cos q2
M= ,
m21 + m21 cos q2 m22

n11 sin q2 q22 n12 sin q2 q1 q2

 
N= ,
n21 sin q2 q12
  y0
f11 0 l2
F = y2 x2
0 f22 q1
y1
l1
x1
q1
x0
mass m1 , m2

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

12
Experimental Results
0.45
Trajectory
Regressor
0.4 Slotine/Li
FAT-Based
0.35 Proposed

0.3

0.25
y[m]

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 ym

x + 0b

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

13
 Simulation results

Joint error [rad]

1
e(1)
Torque [Nm]

20 0.5 e(2)

0 0
-0.5
-20 Y1 (q, q,
v, v)
p Y1 (q, q,
v, v)p
-1
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
Time [s] Time [s]

First joint: Y1 is the 1st row of Error in joint angles for the first
regressor matrix rotation.

Joint error [rad/s]

10
20 e(1)

Torque [Nm]

5 e(2)

10
0
0
-5
-10
Y2 (q, q,
v, v)
p Y2 (q, q,
v, v)p
-10
-20 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 Time [s]
Time [s]
Derivative of error in joint angles for
Second joint: Y2 is the 2nd row of
the first rotation.
regressor matrix
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]

1
e(1)
Torque [Nm]

10 0.5 e(2)

0 0
-0.5
-10 (1) + q(1)
(1) + q(1) -1
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
Time [s] Time [s]

First joint angle Error in joint angles.

Joint error [rad/s]

10
10 e(1)

Torque [Nm]

5 e(2)

5
0
0
-5
-5
(2) + q(2)
(2) + q(2) -10
-10 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 Time [s]
Time [s]
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. Cal. Sim. Exp.

m11 0.442 0.442 0.590

m11 0.028 0.027 0.027
m12 0.009 0.008 0.006

m12 0.014 0.015 0.010
n11 0.014 0.014 0.216
n12 0.030 0.028 0.041
f11 0.001 0.004 0.001
m21 0.009 0.009 0.005

m21 0.014 0.015 0.009
m22 0.222 0.222 0.282
n21 0.014 0.013 0.282
f22 0.001 0.006 0.001

Introduction Related Contribution 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
 No Prior knowledge about the system is required

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

17
References

[1] B. Siciliano, L. Sciavicco, L. Villani, and G. Oriolo, Robotics:

modelling, planning and control. Springer Science and
Business Media, 2009.
[2] J. J. Slotine and W. Li, On the adaptive control of robot
manipulators, The international journal of Robotics
Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4959, 1987.
[3] C. Y. Kai and A. C. Huang, A regressor-free adaptive
controller for robot manipulators without Slotine and Lis
modification, Robotica, vol. 31, no. 07, pp. 10511058,
2013.

Introduction Related Contribution Results Conclusion

18