Compliance Control of Tele-Robot

Teja Swaroop Tumapala, Surendra Singh Saini, Ushnish Sarkar, Debashish Datta Ray
Division of Remote Handling & Robotics
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Mumbai, India 400 085
E-mail: {tejswrp, sainiss, ushinish, dray}@ barc.gov.in

ABSTRACT
Compliance control is essential for tasks involving interaction of
the robot with the environment with contact forces e.g. sliding on
an inclined plane, drawing on a rigid surface, opening the lid of a
box etc. Pure position control is not sufficient for such tasks since
a small variation in relative position at the contact surface may
generate large contact forces which may damage the environment
or manipulator itself. Compliant motion may be produced either
by passive mechanical compliance built in to the manipulator, or
by an active compliance implemented in the control servo loop.
The second method, involving position and force control of the
manipulator end-effector in mutually orthogonal directions, has
been the focus of this work. In this work Compliance Control
Algorithm module has been developed which takes the task as
the input and generate Position Path and Force Profile. These
aforementioned paths and profiles are further given to a Hybrid
Controller to achieve compliant motion. The algorithmhas been
tested by developing a code for the Compliance algorithm and
using a PUMA560dynamic model in MATLAB. Selected
tasks have been performed in simulation to evaluate the
performance of the algorithm. Subsequently, the algorithmhas
also been implemented on TeleRobot, developed by DRHR,
BARC. The results obtained fromthe Tele-robot system indicate
the successful completion of some planned tasks which required
simultaneous position and force-control. The results show that the
method achieves stable and accurate control of force and position
trajectories for a variety of test conditions.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
I.2.9 [Robotics]: Manipulators
General Terms
Algorithms, Experimentation, Verification.
Keywords
Compliance Control; Compliant Motion; Hybrid Position/Force
Control; Tele-Robot.
1. INTRODUCTION
Compliant motion tasks involve interaction forces between the
tool and the work-piece and demand certain amounts of
compliance at either the tool or at the work-piece. When a
manipulator is operating in free-space (i.e., the tool is not in direct
contact with any object), it is sufficient to specify and control the
position of the tool. When contact occurs, the interaction forces
limit or modify the free-space motion in some manner. Such tasks
where the interaction forces must be accommodated rather than
resisted are known as compliant motion tasks.
There are two primary methods for producing compliant motion: a
passive mechanical compliance built in to the manipulator, or an
active compliance implemented in the software control loop i.e.
force control. Passive compliance has the limitation of being
suitable only for the pre-specified tasks; however, the force
control method offers the advantage of programmability and
hence adaptability to suite different tasks. This allows the
manipulator to choose the particular form of compliance
necessary for the particular application. Measurement of
interaction forces of the end-effector of the robot with the
environment is necessary to execute compliant motion tasks and
this can be achieved by the following methods: motor currents
may be measured, motor output torques may be measured, and
wrist or hand mounted sensors may be used. However, for our
application, the Tele-Robot environment has high radiation levels
and hence the Force/ Torque sensors cant be deployed at the end-
effector. The basis for this approach and its analysis can be found
in [1].
1.1 RELATED WORK
Reference [2] classified the robot force control algorithms into
two main groups, as fundamental and advanced force control.
Fundamental force control algorithms can be categorized based on
application of the relationship between position and applied force
or between velocity and applied force, or the application of direct
force feedback, or their combinations.Based on the fundamental
force control methods, there are many advanced force control
techniques, which are classified as adaptive control [3], robust
control and learning control force [4].There are two main modes
of fundamental force control, one involving the relation between
position and applied force in the formof stiffness control, and the
other employing position-force relation directly in the formof
either hybrid position/force control [5]or hybrid impedance
control [6].
2. COMPLIANCE CONTROL: PRINCIPLE
& METHODOLOGY
In this work, compliant motion has been executed through a
hybrid position/ force control algorithm. The scheme has been
simulated for PUMA 560 (6R) manipulator and subsequently
implemented on the Tele Robot developed by D.R.H.R., BARC.
The concept of hybrid controller followed by a scheme of its
software simulation is presented in subsequent subsections.
2.1 HYBRID CONTROLLER
Combining position and force information into one control
scheme [5] for moving the end-effector has been introduced as
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroomuse is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for
components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to
post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee.
Request permissions fromPermissions@acm.org.
AIR '13, July 04 - 06 2013, Pune, India
Copyright 2013 ACM 978-1-4503-2347-5/13/07$15.00.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2506095.2506114
hybrid position/force control. The hybrid controller develops
position controlled torques and force controlled torques in
specified degrees of freedom and makes the manipulator to
performthe required task. The Hybrid position/force controller
solves the three problems as stated below:
1) Position Control of a manipulator along directions in
which a natural force constraint exists,
2) Force Control of a manipulator along directions in
which a natural position constraint exists,
3) A scheme to implement the arbitrary mixing of these
modes along orthogonal degrees of freedom of an
arbitrary frame.
The conceptual schemata of Hybrid mode of control has been
shown in the Fig. 1.
In Fig.1,
a
, X
a
, X
d
describes the actual joint angles, actual
position & orientation and desired position & orientation of the
end effector respectively. X, X
s
,
s
are vectors describing the
error in position, positional error in selected degrees of freedom
(dof) and joint angle errors corresponding to the required position
control in selected dof.

Figure 1. Hybrid Position/Force Control Scheme.

p
is avector describing the required torques to be given to the
corresponding joints for position control. k
Px
, k
Ix
are vectors
representing the proportional and integral gains of Position
Controller.
a
, f
a
, f
d
are vectors describing the actual joint torques
of the robot, actual force experienced by the end effector and
desired force that should be experienced by end effector. . f
e
, f
es
,

es
,
f
are vectors describing the actual force experienced by the
end effector, the force error of an end effector in selected degree
of freedom, joint torque errors corresponding to the required force
control in selected degrees of freedomand required torques to be
given to the corresponding joints for force control. k
Pf
, k
If
are
vectors representing the proportional and integral gains of Force
Controller.

It should be mentioned here that the dimension of all
the aforementioned vectors are equal to the number of degrees of
freedomof the serial mechanismto be controlled.
The Controller architecture essentially consists of a position
control block [7] and a force control block [8]. In the Position
Control block, X
d
(x, y, z, , , ) represents the desired position (x,
y, z) and orientation (, , ) of the end effector. X
a
(x, y, z, , , )
represents the actual position (x, y, z) and orientation (, , ) of
the end effector. The matrices S,

are Selection matrices [9]
introduced to decouple Position/ Force in orthogonal dimensions.
Once the position error matrix is multiplied with S, the vector X
s
(positional error of the end effector in selected degrees of
freedom) is obtained. The positional errors, in turn, can be related
to individual joint angle errors (
s
) through the Inverse J acobian
(J
-1
) [5] of the robot. Each element of
s
corresponds to the
position error of each joint and is given to the respective position
controller (PI-Controller) of that joint. The position controller of
each joint produces the necessary torques and this will be added
with the output of the corresponding force controller and then
given to the corresponding motor drive.
The Position Control Law is,

1
=

1

1
+
1

1
(
1
)

0
for, m N, 6 (1)
Similarly in the Force Control block, f
d
represents the desired
force and f
a
represents the actual force experienced by the end
effector and this is obtained by calculating the end effector force
using joint torques
a
(joint torques are obtained by measuring the
currents[9] in the joint motors and multiplying them with the
corresponding Torque Constant of the motor). The vector f
e

represents the error in force experienced. f
es
(the vector describing
the error in force in selected degrees of freedom) is obtained by
multiplying f
e
with (S)

.It is known that = J

T
F therefore, we
have
es
= J
T
f
es
. Each element of
es
corresponds to the torque error
of each joint and is given to the respective force controller (PI-
Controller) of that joint. The force controller of each joint
produces the necessary torques and this will be added with the
output of the corresponding position controller and then given to
the corresponding drive.
The Force Control Law is,

1
=

1

1
+
1

1
(
1

0
) (J
T
() f
d
)
1
(2)
The feedback to the Force Control Block is the joint torques
which can be mapped to the currently applied force through the
Force Transform[11] as follows:

= [

]
1

(3)
2.2 COMPLIANCE CONTROL
ALGORITHM
For a compliant motion task, the contact between manipulators
end effector and task environment gives rise to Natural
Constraints [9] fromthe geometrical characteristics of the task
pattern and Artificial Constraints [9] fromour decision of the
trajectory of position and force. The variation in the contact
environment should be detectable to control the manipulator
moving within natural constraints. Depending upon the task, the
set of inputs and conditions are given to the algorithmmodule by
the user. The black box model of the Compliance Control
Algorithmdescribing its input and output has been shown in Fig.
2.

Figure 2. Input & Output of Compliance Control Algorithm.
There may be various types of tasks like drawing a known non-
breaking curve on a horizontal plane, drawing a broken curve on a
horizontal plane, drawing a broken/non-breaking curve on any
arbitrary plane etc. The output of the algorithm will be a position
path and force profile for executing the task. Different tasks may
be given as input to the Compliance Control Algorithmas shown
in the following examples:
CCA (string taskname, float arg1, float arg2);
An illustrative set of Input arguments for the algorithmmay be:
taskname =Draw a circle on a plane;
arg1 =a;
arg2 =b;
arg3 =c;
arg4 =d;
arg5 =x
1
;
arg6 =y
1
;
arg7 =z
1
;
arg8 =r;
arg9 =F
x
;
arg10 =F
y
;
arg11 =F
z
;
arg12 =n
x
;
arg13 =n
y
;
arg14 =n
z
;
Similarly the input arguments for a broken line would comprise
of: a taskname argument as Draw broken line, the coefficients
of the equation of the plane in which lines has to be drawn, the
coefficients of the equations of the line segments and the desired
force components.
With these arguments, the Compliance control algorithm
partitions the degrees of freedomas per the task and generates
the required position path and force profile. It is then the
responsibility of the hybrid position/force controller to make the
manipulator follow the position path and force profile.
The flowchart in Fig. 3 depicts the process of achieving compliant
motion for a given task.
Start
Read the Task
(Get the Natural
Constraints)
Check for
Contact
Invoke Hybrid
Control Mode
Invoke Position
Control Mode
Input Artificial
Constraints for
the intended
task
Generate the
Torque in Joint
Co - Ordinates,
c =pc+fc
Yes
Is Task
Complete?
Stop
Generate S - Matrices
No
Decouple Position
and Force Profiles
Convert World
Co Ordinates to
Joint Co -
Ordinates
PID
Yes
No

Figure 3. Flow Chart of Compliant Motion.
For achieving Compliant motion the Compliance Control
algorithmmodule reads the task fromthe user and generates S-
Matrices depending upon the natural constraint geometry. With
the help of Artificial Constraints, the compliance control
algorithmmodule generates position path and force profile. These
paths and profiles are given to hybrid controller which develops
position controlled torques and force controlled torques to drive
the manipulator as intended.
2.3 SOFTWARE SIMULATION OF
COMPLAINCE CONTROL ALGORITHM
The dynamic equation for a manipulator in a general formcan be
written as:
= ()

+ ,

+() +

(, ) (4)
Where, M () is the 6 x 6 Mass matrix of the manipulator (6 -
DOF).
V,

is a 6 x 1 vector of centrifugal and Coriolis terms and G

() is a 6 x 1 vector of gravity terms. Each element of M () and
G () is a complex function that depends on (the position of all
the joints of the manipulator). Each element of (,

) is a
complex function of both and

.
For simulation of a surface, the equation of surface is taken as
z =k and the reaction force fromthe surface is represented by

()

where,

=[0 0 f
r
0 0 0]
T
,
f
r
=
((

())
1
)
31


,

< 0
0


A consolidated block level description for the simulated systemis
shown in Fig. 4 which illustrates the simulation process of a
simplistic task of controlling position in X Y plane and force
along Z-axis.

Figure 4. Computer Simulation of Compliance Control
Algorithm.
As shown in Fig.4, position path and force profiles are generated
by the Compliance Control Algorithmdepending upon the task
input given to it. These paths and profiles are then given as inputs
to the hybrid controller which generates the torques required for
the manipulator joints. These torques are given to the simulated
dynamics model of PUMA560. The dynamics model generates
the response of the manipulator (as the achieved joint angles and
joint torques) under the influence of the given input torques. The
simulation also calculates the torques required to compensate for
gravitational and coriolis components.
3. SIMULATION RESULTS
The PUMA 560 6R manipulator model described in [12], are used
for computer simulations. Point type of contact and Surface
simulation (as mentioned in Fig.4) are considered for the present
study. The link and joint parameters of the Puma 560 used in this
work are given in Table I.
The tasks to be accomplished for this simulation study are,
drawing a circle on a rigid plane (Figures 5, 6), drawing a broken
Equation of plane is say: ax+by+cz =d
Centre of the circle is say: (x
1
, y
1
, z
1
)
Radius of the Circle is say r
Desired Force is say (F
x
, F
y
, F
z
, n
x
, n
y
, n
z
)
curve on a plane (Figures 7, 8) and drawing a line on an inclined
plane (Figures 9, 10). The PUMA 560 manipulator has to apply a
constant pressing force (when contact exists, say 15 N or 5N)
while drawing the above mentioned Position paths.
Table 1. Link & Joint Parameters of PUMA560 Manipulator
Joints

i
(degrees) A
i
(m) D
i
(m)

i
(degrees)
1 90 0 0
1

2 0 0.4318 0
2

3 -90 0.0203 0.15005
3

4 90 0 0.4318
4

5 -90 0 0
5

6 0 0 0
6


The Compliance Control algorithmdevelops decoupled Position
Trajectory and Force Trajectory and is given as input to Hybrid
Controller. The hybrid controller develops torque, which controls
position and force according to the task given. Without loss of
generality, in constrained motion experiments, the trajectories of
the manipulator are always considered in the reachable workspace
without singularities.

Figure 5. Circle drawn on Task Plane by the Manipulator.

Figure 6. Force applied by PUMAs End-Effector on the Task
Plane.
4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ON TELE-
ROBOT
For simulation experiments a dynamic model is necessary, but due
to the unavailability of the Tele Robot [1] Dynamics, the
simulation experiments have not been carried out on it. Moreover
the Dynamic model of PUMA560 is readily available and is
kinematically similar to that of a Tele-Robot. Therefore for testing
of Compliance Algorithm, PUMA 560 model has been
considered.

Figure 7. Broken Curve on Task Plane by PUMA 560.

Figure 8. Force Traced by PUMA while drawing a Broken
Curve.

Figure 9. Position Path of PUMA on an Inclined Plane.

Figure 10. Force applied by PUMAs End-Effector on Inclined
Plane .
This will suffice the simulation testing of the algorithm. Actual
implementation of Compliance Control was carried out on the
Tele Robot (designed in DRHR) since its required kinematics
model was readily available. The D-H parameter table for the
Tele-Robot is shown in Table II. In simulation various aspects e.g.
friction, gear backlash and other non linear effects were not
considered, however, during the actual implementation and
experimental evaluation on the Tele Robot, these effects were
also present. Also, Gravity Compensation was essential in
simulation of PUMA560, however, the Tele-Robot used for this
work uses counter weights in the manipulator links to achieve a
mechanically balanced configuration, therefore, Gravity
Compensation is not required for this experimental work.
Actual force experienced by the end effector is obtained by
calculating the joint torques
a
(joint torques are obtained by
measuring the currents in the joint motors and multiplying them
with the corresponding Torque Constant of the motor).Using the
relation

= [J
T
()]
1
.

, the force experienced by the end

effector is calculated and used as a feedback signal to control the
force.
Table 2. Link and Joint Parameters of Tele - Robot
Joints
i
(degrees) A
i
(m) D
i
(m)

i
(degrees)
1 90 0 0
1

2 0 0.5 0
2

3 90 0.115 0
3

4 -90 0 0.556
4

5 90 0 0
5

6 0 0 0.17
6


For the task of controlling position in X, Z planes and to apply a
force of 15N along the positive Y axis, the hybrid controller
develops position controlled torques along X and Z axis and tries
to maintain the fixed position. The force controlled torques
accelerates the manipulators end - effector along Y direction as
shown in the Fig.11.
For the task of drawing a circle on Y Z plane while applying a
force of 15N along X axis, the hybrid controller accelerates the
end effector along X axis which makes the manipulator to
trace the helical path as shown in the Fig. 12.
The Position Path and Force Profile of a Tele Robot drawing a
circle on a plane while applying a force of 15N normal to the
surface are shown in the Figures 13 and 14 respectively.
The Position Path and Force Profile of a Tele Robot drawing a
broken line on a rigid plane while applying a force of 5N normal
to the surface (when contact exists) are shown in Figures 15and
16 respectively.
The Position Path and Force Profile of a Tele Robot drawing a
line on an inclined plane while applying a force of 5N
perpendicular to the plane are shown in Figures 17 and 18
respectively. Table III summarizes the performance of the control
algorithmfor PUMA 560 in simulation and BARC Tele - Robot
in experiment.
The major component of disturbance in the position and force
control of Tele Robot are due to friction, gear back lash and
other non linear effects.

Figure 11. Position Control along X, Z axis and Acceleration
along Y axis.

Figure 12. Helical Path traced by Tele Robot due to
acceleration along X axis.

Figure 13. Circle drawn on the Task plane by the Tele Robot

Figure 14. Force Applied by Tele Robot End Effector on
Task Plane
Table 3. Performance of Controller for the different tasks for PUMA 560 (Simulation) and Tele Robot (Experimental)
#
The first entry in each cell denotes the value fromSimulation of PUMA560 and the second entry denotes the experimental value obtained fromTele-Robot.
* Prescribed Force 15N, ** Prescribed Force 5N


Figure 15. Broken Curve on task Plane by Tele Robot

Figure 16. Force Traced by Tele - Robot while drawing a
Broken Curve


Figure 17. Position path of Tele Robot on Inclined Plane

Figure 18. Force applied by the Tele Robots End Effector
on the Inclined Plane




Illustrative Task
Mean Position
Error (cm)
Peak Position
Error (cm)
Mean Force
Error (N)
Peak Force (N)
Mean Position
Settling Time
(sec)
Mean Force
Settling Time
(sec)
*Drawing a Straight Line 1.51, 2.55
#
0.55,1.98 01.66, 01.69 16.66, 16.69 00.07, 00.14 00.21, 00.25
**Drawing a Broken curve 1.19, 2.09 0.45, 2.52 00.69, 00.72 5.69, 5.72 00.08, 00.18 00.10, 00.17
*Drawing a Curved Path 1.22, 2.28 0.22, 3.08 01.62, 01.65 16.62, 16.65 00.06, 00.21 00.15, 00.19
*Circular motion along Y Z
Plane with force acting along
X Direction
1.30, 3.39 1.25, 3.25 01.62, 01.65 16.62, 16.65 00.09, 00.16 00.23, 00.29
*Maintaining the abcissa and
applicate constant and
accelerating the ordinate
1.08,2.09 0.09, 0.4 00.72, 00.81 15.72, 15.81 00.11, 00.18 00.11, 00.16
5. CONCLUSION
The compliant motion algorithm takes in a task and outputs the
position and force profiles for completion of the task. For the
tasks demonstrated in this work, like drawing broken and non-
breaking curves on planes with generic inclination, the compliant
motion algorithmhas produced the position/force profiles and the
manipulator motion has been controlled on those command
profiles by the hybrid position/force controller. The results, as
demonstrated in the previous section, are in general satisfactory.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We express our thanks to Division of Remote Handling and
Robotics, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and Homi Bhabha
National Institute for supporting this work.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Ray. D and Singh. M. 2010. Development of a Force
Reflecting Tele Robot for Remote handling in Nuclear
Installations, Proc of 1
st
International Conference on Applied
Robotics for Power Industry, Montreal, (2010), Pages 1 6.
DOI =10.1109/CARPI.2010.5624456
[2] Zeng. G and Hemami. A. 1997. An Overview of Robot Force
Control, Robotica,(1997), Vol. 15, Pages 473-482.
DOI =10.1017/S026357479700057X
[3] Vladimir F. Filaretov and Alexandr V. Zuev. 2008. Position
control. Adaptive Force/Position Control of Robot
Manipulators,Proc. of International Conference on Advanced
Intelligent Mechatronics, (Xi'an, China, July 2008), 2-5.
DOI = 10.1109/AIM.2008.4601641
[4] Kalakrishnan, Mrinal, Ludovic Righetti, Peter Pastor, and
Stefan Schaal. 2012. Learning Force Control Policies for
Compliant Robotic Manipulation. Proc. of International
Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). (2012), 4639-
4644.
[5] Raibert.M. H and Craig. J . J . 1987. Hybrid Position/Force
control of manipulators, Journal of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement and Control, (1981), 126-133.
[6] Robert J . Anderson and Mark W. Spong. 1988. Hybrid
impedance control of robotic manipulators. IEEE Journal of
Robotics and Automation, (1988) vol.4, no. 5, 549-556.
DOI =10.1115/1.3139652
[7] Paul. R. P and Shimano. B, Compliance and Control. 1976.
Proc. of Joint Automatic Control Conference, (SanFrancisco,
1976).
[8] Mozaryn. J , Kurek. J . E. 2002. Design of decoupled sliding
mode control for the PUMA 560 Robot Manipulator, Robot
Motion and Control, (2002), 45 50.
DOI =10.1109/ROMOCO.2002.1177082
[9] Mason. M. T. 1981. Compliance and Force Control for
computed control manipulators, IEEE Trans. on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, (1981), 418-432.
DOI =10.1109/TSMC.1981.4308708
[10] Shimano. B, Force Control, Exploratory Study of Computer
Integrated Assembly Systems, Binford,Stanford Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory Memo, (June, 1977), 285. 4.
[11] Ohishi, K. Miyazaki, M. Fujita, M. 1992. Hybrid Control of
Force and Position without Force Sensor, Proc of
IECON1992, NUMBER 2, (1992), 670.
DOI =10.1109/IECON.1992.254552
[12] Corke. P. I. 1996. A Robotics Toolbox for MATLAB, in
IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine (1996), 24 32.
DOI =10.1109/100.486658