| Literature DB >> 35334701 |
Zhibin Song1,2, Tianyu Ma1,2, Keke Qi1,2, Emmanouil Spyrakos-Papastavridis3, Songyuan Zhang4, Rongjie Kang1,2.
Abstract
A nonlinear stiffness actuator (NSA) can achieve high torque/force resolution in the low stiffness range and high bandwidth in the high stiffness range. However, for the NSA, due to the imperfect performance of the elastic mechanical component such as friction, hysteresis, and unmeasurable energy consumption caused by former factors, it is more difficult to achieve accurate position control compared to the rigid actuator. Moreover, for a compliant robot with multiple degree of freedoms (DOFs) driven by NSAs, the influence of every NSA on the trajectory of the end effector is different and even coupled. Therefore, it is a challenge to implement precise trajectory control on a robot driven by such NSAs. In this paper, a control algorithm based on the Terminal Sliding Mode (TSM) approach is proposed to control the end effector trajectory of the compliant robot with multiple DOFs driven by NSAs. This control algorithm reduces the coupling of the driving torque, and mitigates the influence of parametric variation. The closed-loop system's finite time convergence and stability are mathematically established via the Lyapunov stability theory. Moreover, under the same experimental conditions, by the comparison between the Proportion Differentiation (PD) controller and the controller using TSM method, the algorithm's efficacy is experimentally verified on the developed compliant robot. The results show that the trajectory tracking is more accurate for the controller using the TSM method compared to the PD controller.Entities:
Keywords: Lyapunov stability; compliant robot; terminal sliding mode; trajectory tracking
Year: 2022 PMID: 35334701 PMCID: PMC8951521 DOI: 10.3390/mi13030409
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1The proposed compliant robot with three DoFs.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the NSA.
Figure 3The schematic of TSM controller.
Figure 4The entire experimental platform.
Figure 5PD-based controller experimental result. (a) PD sinusoidal trajectory-tracking experiment results. (b) PD sinusoidal tracking experimental errors.
Figure 6TSM-based controller experimental result. (a) TSM sinusoidal trajectory tracking experiment results. (b) TSM sinusoidal tracking experimental error value.
Figure 7PD-based trajectory tracking controller experimental result.
Figure 8TSM-based trajectory tracking controller experimental result.
Figure 9Trajectory tracking variance mean square. (a) RMSE of TSM-based controller trajectory tracking. (b) RMSE of Trajectory tracking based on PD controller.
Figure 10Trajectory tracking error of joints. (a) The first joint tracking error. (b) The second joint tracking error. (c) The third joint tracking error.