Enpm808J Rehabilitation Robotics Lecture #2 Anindo Roy, PHD

11
ENPM808J
Rehabilitation Robotics
Lecture #2
Anindo Roy, PhD

Suggested reading(s)
• Control Systems
 Position Control Systems (Lectures 2-4)

 Any undergraduate feedback control textbook would do (but not really needed)
12
Technology often motivated by

failures than successes…
Why learn about control systems?

13
The Lokomat Robot

14
The Lokomat Robot

15
The Lokomat Robot

16
The Pelvis Robot (PAM)

17
The Pelvis Robot (PAM)

18
The ReWalk
19
The ReWalk
20
The ReWalk…not quite

• Patient X at the University of Maryland Rehabilitation & Orthopedics
Institute gets therapy with the ReWalk
 Falls at home – a serious adverse event (SAE)
 Study related SAE? Unlikely with only one patient
• Patient Y at the VA New York Bronx undergoes ReWalk therapy

 Falls in the clinic itself while walking with the ReWalk
• Two different patients, two different sites, two independent robots

 Too much of a coincidence
• Potential causes
 Protocol violation (safety) – unlikely (2 sites, different teams)
 Hardware – unlikely (2 different robots)
• What then?
21
What’s the issue?

• State-of-art robots
• One showed no efficacy (disaster), two others were unstable (catastrophe)
• Possibilities: design (unlikely), hardware (perhaps)
• Controller (likely)
 Control strategy – wrong type of controller with respect to application
 Controller settings – right type of controller but poorly tuned
• To understand, we will revisit position control systems (in sufficient

detail)
 Fundamentals of control systems (linear time invariant systems)
 Stability, performance
 Position/trajectory following control
 This will also be a prelude for the rationale for and the theory of impedance control
22
Control Systems: A (thorough)

Primer
Robot Control Systems
•  Closed-‐loop control system

Illustra>on using damped
•  Control-‐law par>>oning spring mass system
•  Trajectory-‐following control
• Closed-‐loop control system

• Control-‐law par>>oning spring mass system
• Trajectory-‐following control
• Force control Illustra>on using damped

spring mass system
We are not going to discuss force control and instead

focus on impedance control

•  Force control Illustra>on using damped

spring mass system
•  Impedance control Both robot manipulator and

damped spring mass systems
35
The feedback control concept

Why "close the loop"?
Input(s) Output(s)
Physical
System
Basic control structure
Input(s) Controller Output(s)
Physical
System
Concept of feed forward control:

Controller outputs invariant of system outputs
Basic control structure
Input(s) Controller Output(s)
Physical
System
Concept of feedback control:

Controller outputs depend on system outputs
The need for control: Why close the loop?
System
stability
Input(s) Output(s)
Inverted pendulum
Physical Inherently unstable
System
Some systems become unstable owing
to nature (e.g. amplitude) of input(s)
Acquired instability
The need for control
System
stability
Input(s) Output(s)
System
performance
Physical
System
Mass-‐spring-‐damper system:
•  Amplitude, frequency response
•  Steady-‐state, rise & decay Emes
Basic control ques>ons
Q1: What is being controlled (i.e. variable/s)?


Q2: What is desired (e.g. stability, performance
characteris>cs)?

characteris>cs)?

Q3: What is the best mode of control (oTen
informed by Q’s 1 & 2)?

characteris>cs)?

Q3: What is the best mode of control (oTen
informed by Q’s 1 & 2)?

Q4: How to design & tune the controller?
Concept of Control Law
Control Law:

Relates the controller output to a system variable
such as system input etc.
u = f(x)

u: controller output (also: control signal)
f: operator or mathema>cal func>on (the “law”)
x: system variable (e.g. input)
Control Law: Feed-‐forward System
u
x Controller y
Physical
System
u = f(x)
Control Law: Feedback System
u
x Controller y
Physical
System
u = f(x, y)

•  Force control Illustra>on using damped

spring mass system
•  Impedance control Both robot manipulator and

damped spring mass systems
Concept of Contact Constraints
Contact Constraints
Contact Constraints
zero Environment sEffness infinity

Contact Constraints
sponge

Contact Constraints
sponge
§  Posi:on Control

§  Applica>ons: Welding, spray-‐
pain>ng, pick-‐and-‐place
§  Ideal posi>on control exhibits
infinite s>ffness
Contact Constraints
sponge
§  Posi:on Control

§  Force Control §  Applica>ons: Welding, spray-‐
§  Applica>ons: Grinding, drilling
pain>ng, pick-‐and-‐place
§  Ideal force control exhibits zero s>ffness §  Ideal posi>on control exhibits
infinite s>ffness
36
Making the case for controllers:

Do we need one?
Physical System: No Control
§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon
f
=f
Natural frequency
(only k)
k: spring sEffness
b: damping constant System
m: mass constants
f: applied force
x: posiEon along axis of applied Damping constant
force (both k and b)
Func>ons of ini>al condi>ons

x(t) =
Exponen>al decay Sinusoid Solu>on valid only for

f = 0
Decaying sinusoidal 0 < ζ < 1
oscillaEons
under-‐damped system
Underdamped (0 < ζ < 1)
Vary ωn
Fix ζ
Decaying
oscillaEons
Fix ωn
Vary ζ
Decaying
oscillaEons
Fix b
Vary k
m=1 kg, b=2 Ns/m, v0=1 m/s

Time to se[le

i.e. reach
steady-‐state
does not vary w/
s:ffness
m=1 kg, b=2 Ns/m, v0=1 m/s

Fix k
Vary b
m=1 kg, k=1 Ns/m, v0=1 m/s

Our objecEve:
Se0ling 3me be upper-‐bounded

That is, the system should aCain its steady-‐state
response within desired :me (the upper bound).

SeCling :me: the >me it takes for the system
response to aaain some propor>on (usually
90-‐100%) of its steady-‐state (final) response
Mathema>cally, by defini>on

Steady-‐state:
Lim tà∞ x(t) = x(∞)

We desire:

x(t = ts) = x(ts) = λx(∞), 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1
x(∞) = Lim tà∞ x(t) =

=0
At t = ts,
x(t = ts) =
t = ts
=0
Since e-σt ≠ 0, αcosωdts – βsinωdts = 0
ts = (1/ωd)tan-1(α/β)
Recall our objecEve:

ts = (1/ωd)tan-1(α/β) ≤ c
Can we assure this?

Recall our objecEve:

Can we assure this?
Need controller to shape performance!!

Physical System: Closed-‐loop Control
f
Closed-‐loop Control System
Choose control
f
Choose control
Propor>onal Control
Part Law
Deriva>ve
Part
Choose control
f
Choose control
Controller
Choose control
Controller
What is controlled here?

Choose control
Controller
Posi>on

Choose control
Controller
Posi>on

Steady state?

Choose control
Controller
Posi>on

Steady state?
x = 0
Physical System: With Control
f
=f
k = k + kp
k: spring sEffness
b: damping constant
m: mass
f: applied force
x: posiEon along axis of applied
force
b = b + kv
Recall our previous objecEve:

Can we assure this?

Recall our previous objecEve:

ts = (1/ωd)tan-1(α/β) = f(kp, kv) ≤ c
Can we assure this?
Yes!!
Adjust PD controller parameters!
Control allows us to shape the performance
Controller System Response

Parameter Se]ng Time Rise Time Overshoot Steady-‐State Error
kp Small Change Decrease Increase Decrease
kv Decrease Small Change Decrease Small Change
“Tuning look-up table”

Underdamped (ζ = 0.1) Overdamped (ζ = 2)
SEffness dominates Damping dominates

More oscillatory Slow convergence
We desire:
Fastest possible transi:on of the system
to its res:ng state (or steady-‐state) value
How?

Cri:cal Damping
(b + kv)2 = 4m(k + kp)
FricEon and damping are in “balance”
CriEcally damped (ζ = 1)

Is the problem solved?
Cri:cal Damping
(b + kv)2 = 4m(k + kp)
Choice of controller parameters

depends on mass (or inerEa)!!
Is the problem solved?
Cri:cal Damping
(b + kv)2 = 4m(k + kp)
Problem:
Make the controller parameters independent
of system proper3es (e.g. mass)
25
Modeling & Analysis in Frequency

Domain
Physical System Modeling
Laplace Transforms
Transfer Functions
26
Modeling Systems
• Systems may be studied in the frequency or time domain
• Frequency-domain: how the amplitude of the signal changes
with respect to frequency
Transfer functions
• Time-domain: how a signal changes over time

State equations
• Equations (either domain) may be used to describe the

relationship between the input and output of a system
This relationship is the

essence of control!
27
Modeling Systems
• The relationship between the input and output is
described by a mathematical function called a transfer
function
• Transfer functions can be used in block diagrams to study
the flow of inputs, outputs, controllers, and so on
• Systems described by differential equations are difficult to
model with block diagrams
Laplace transform may be used
30
Example: Car Suspension

• Modeled as a mass-spring-damper system
• Goal: determine xout d 2x
Newton: F = ma = m 2
Fin dt
Damping:
dx
F = Dv = D
dt
k D xout Spring: F = kx
31

• Modeled as a mass-spring-damper system
• Goal: determine xout Applying Newton’s Second Law:
Fin
2
d x
∑ F = m dt 2 = Fin − FD − Fk
d 2x dx
∑ F = m dt 2 = Fin − D dt − kx
k D xout
d 2x dx
m 2 + D + kx = Fin
dt dt
Second order differential equation
44

• Mass-spring-damper system
• When initial conditions are zero:
Fin
d x(t )
2
dx(t )
m 2
+D + kx(t ) = f (t )
dt dt
xout ms X ( s ) + DsX ( s ) + kX ( s ) = F ( s )
2
k D
We’ve gone from a difficult-to-solve second order LDE

to a quadratic algebraic equation
45

• Mass-spring-damper system
ms X ( s ) + DsX ( s ) + kX ( s ) = F ( s )
2
Fin
(ms + Ds + k ) X ( s ) = F ( s )
2
F (s)
= ms + Ds + k
2
k D xout X (s)
X (s) 1
= 2 = G (s)
F ( s ) ms + Ds + k
54
Where are we headed?

• Transfer functions form the basis of control system design
Fin
k D xout
X (s) 1
= 2 = G (s)
F ( s ) ms + Ds + k
34
Design & Analysis of Feedback

Systems
Error Regulation
35
Analysis and Design of Feedback

Systems
• Now we can engineer system performance parameters
“Unity Feedback” (H = 1)
• Percent overshoot
• Settling time
• Peak time
• Rise time
37
Control Systems: Steady-State Errors

• Previously we noted three requirements for the
performance of a control system:
 Transient response
 Stability
 Steady-state errors
Response
38

• Steady-state error (SSE): difference between the input (command)
and output for a prescribed test input as t → ∞
• SSE depends on type of input and the system type
• *Note: assume all systems are stable*
Response
42

• Sources of steady-state error
• Nonlinear sources
 Backlash in gears
• System configuration: consider system with step input

and pure gain
E ( s) = R( s) − C ( s)
c(t ) SS = Ke(t ) SS
1
e(t ) SS = c(t ) SS
Error diminishes K
as gain K increases
43
SS Error for Unity Feedback Systems

• Steady-state errors can be calculated in two ways
 Closed-loop transfer function, T(s)
 Open-loop transfer function, G(s), for unity feedback system
44

• Let’s explore the steady-state, or final value, of the error
E ( s) = R( s) − C ( s)
C ( s ) = R ( s )T ( s )
E ( s ) = R( s )[1 − T ( s )]
How do we determine the steady-state error at time t?
45

E ( s) = R( s) − C ( s)
C ( s ) = R ( s )T ( s )
E ( s ) = R( s )[1 − T ( s )]
e(∞ ) = lim sE ( s ) = lim sR ( s )[1 − T ( s )]

s →0 s →0
47

 Open-loop transfer function, G(s), for unity feedback system
E ( s) = R( s) − C ( s)
C ( s ) = E ( s )G ( s )
R( s)
E (s) =
1 + G (s)
29
Design & Analysis of Feedback

Systems
Stability Analysis
30
Stability of Control Systems

• Previously we noted three requirements for the
performance of a control system:
 Transient response
 Stability
 Steady-state errors
Response
31

• Recall that the total response of a system is the sum of
the forced and natural responses:
c(t ) = c forced (t ) + cnatural (t )

32

• Using these concepts, we can develop definitions of stability,
instability, and marginal stability
• Stability: tendency of a system’s response to return to its
original, or commanded, state after being disturbed
33

• Using these concepts, we can develop definitions of stability,
instability, and marginal stability
• Stable
 Natural response approaches zero as time approaches infinity
 Every bounded input yields a bounded output
BIBO
• Unstable
 Natural response grows without bound as time approaches infinity
 Any bounded input yields an unbounded output
• Marginally Stable
 Natural response remains constant or oscillates as time approaches
infinity
 Stable for some bounded inputs and unstable for others
34

• Potential issues with unstable systems?
• Degraded performance
• Damage to
 The system
 Adjacent structures
 Human life
35

• Potential issues with over-stable systems?
• Stable aircraft do not tend to turn quickly
 Consider then the limit case of the ultra-stable aircraft
36

• Analysis of closed loop
transfer function poles
• Stable?
 Poles in left half-plane (LHP)
• Unstable?
 Poles in RHP
• Marginally stable?
 Poles on Im axis
37

38
1
K s ( s + 1)( s + 2)
Effect of gain: Trade off between SSE and stability

39
1
K s ( s + 1)( s + 2)
40
1
K s ( s + 1)( s + 2)
41
1
K s ( s + 1)( s + 2)
42
1
K s ( s + 1)( s + 2)
43
1
K s ( s + 1)( s + 2)
44
1
K s ( s + 1)( s + 2)
45
1
K s ( s + 1)( s + 2)

Enpm808J Rehabilitation Robotics Lecture #2 Anindo Roy, PHD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enpm808J Rehabilitation Robotics Lecture #2 Anindo Roy, PHD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11

Anindo Roy, PhD

 Position Control Systems (Lectures 2-4)

Technology often motivated by

Why learn about control systems?

The Lokomat Robot

The Lokomat Robot

The Lokomat Robot

The Pelvis Robot (PAM)

The Pelvis Robot (PAM)

The ReWalk…not quite

• Patient Y at the VA New York Bronx undergoes ReWalk therapy

• Two different patients, two different sites, two independent robots

What’s the issue?

• One showed no efficacy (disaster), two others were unstable (catastrophe)

• Possibilities: design (unlikely), hardware (perhaps)

• To understand, we will revisit position control systems (in sufficient

Control Systems: A (thorough)

• Closed-­‐loop control system

• Closed-­‐loop control system

• Force control Illustra>on using damped

We are not going to discuss force control and instead

• Closed-­‐loop control system

• Force control Illustra>on using damped

• Impedance control Both robot manipulator and

The feedback control concept

Input(s) Controller Output(s)

Concept of feed forward control:

Input(s) Controller Output(s)

Concept of feedback control:

Q1: What is being controlled (i.e. variable/s)?

Q1: What is being controlled (i.e. variable/s)?

Q1: What is being controlled (i.e. variable/s)?

Q1: What is being controlled (i.e. variable/s)?

• Closed-­‐loop control system

• Force control Illustra>on using damped

• Impedance control Both robot manipulator and

zero Environment sEﬀness inﬁnity

zero Environment sEﬀness inﬁnity

zero Environment sEﬀness inﬁnity

§ Posi:on Control

zero Environment sEﬀness inﬁnity

§ Posi:on Control

Making the case for controllers:

§ Damped spring mass with actuaEon

Func>ons of ini>al condi>ons

Exponen>al decay Sinusoid Solu>on valid only for

Underdamped (0 < ζ < 1)

Underdamped (0 < ζ < 1)

Underdamped (0 < ζ < 1)

m=1 kg, b=2 Ns/m, v0=1 m/s

Underdamped (0 < ζ < 1)

Time to se[le

m=1 kg, b=2 Ns/m, v0=1 m/s

Underdamped (0 < ζ < 1)

m=1 kg, k=1 Ns/m, v0=1 m/s

Mathema>cally, by deﬁni>on

x(∞) = Lim tà∞ x(t) =

Since e-σt ≠ 0, αcosωdts – βsinωdts = 0

Recall our objecEve:

Can we assure this?

Recall our objecEve:

•  Closed-‐loop control system

• Closed-‐loop control system

•  Closed-‐loop control system

•  Force control Illustra>on using damped

•  Impedance control Both robot manipulator and

•  Closed-‐loop control system

•  Force control Illustra>on using damped

•  Impedance control Both robot manipulator and

§  Posi:on Control

§  Posi:on Control

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon

§  Damped spring mass with actuaEon