Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:36:36.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In situ measurement of motor electrical constants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

Peter I. Corke
Peter I. Corke
Affiliation:
Senior Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Manufacturing Technology, P.O. Box 883, Kenmore, Australia. 4069
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Motor torque constant is an important parameter in modeling and controlling a robot axis. In practice this parameter can vary considerably from the manufacturer's specification, if available, and this makes it desirable to characterise individual motors. Traditional techniques require that the motor can be removed from the robot for testing, or that an elaborate technique involving weights and pulleys be employed. This paper describes a novel method for measuring the torque constant of robot servo motors in situ and is based on the equivalence of motor torque and back EMF constants. It requires a very simple experimental procedure, utilizes existing axis position sensors, and eliminates effects due to static friction and joint cross coupling. A straightforward extension to this approach can provide a measurement of motor armature impedance. Experimental results obtained for a Puma 560 are discussed and compared with other published results.

Keywords

Robot motorElectrical constantsIn situ measurementSensorsPuma 560.
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , July 1996 , pp. 433 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Paul, R., “Modelling, trajectory calculation and servoing of a computer controlled arm” Tech. Rep. AIM-77 (Stanford University, Artifical Intelligence Laboratory, 1972).Google Scholar
2.Lloyd, J., “Implementation of a robot control development environment” Master's Thesis (McGill University, Dec. 1985).Google Scholar
3.Armstrong, B., Khatib, O. and Burdick, J., “The explicit dynamic model and inertial parameters of the Puma 560arm” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automtion, vol. 1,(Washington, USA,1986) pp. 510–518.Google Scholar
4.Liu, M., “Puma 560 robot arm analogue servo system parameter identification” Tech. Rep. ASR–91–1 (Dept. Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Melbourne, Feb. 1991).Google Scholar
5.Corke, P. and Armstrong-Hélouvry, B., “A search for consensus among model parameters reported for the PUMA 560 robot” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation,(San Diego)(May, 1994). pp. 1608–1613.Google Scholar
6.Kenjo, T. and Nagamori, S., Permanent-Magnet and Brushless DC motors (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985).Google Scholar
7.Ljung, L., System Identification Toolbox (The MathWorks, Inc., 24 Prime Park Way, Natick, MA 01760, 1988).Google Scholar
8.Corke, P. and Armstrong-Hélouvry, B., “A meta-study of PUMA 560 dynamics: A critical appraisal of literature data” Robotica 13, Part 3, 253–258 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Paul, R., Rong, M. and Zhang, H., “Dynamics of Puma manipulator” American Control Conference(June, 1983) pp. 491–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Tarn, T., Bejczy, A.K., Yun, X. and Li, Z., “Effect of motor dynamics on nonlinear feedback robot arm control” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 7, 114–122 (02., 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Andeen, G.B. (ed.), Robot Design Handbook (McGraw- Hill, New York, 1988).Google Scholar
12.Tarn, T., Bejczy, A., Marth, G., and Ramadorai, A., “Performance comparison of four manipulator servo schemes” IEEE control Systems Magazine 13, 22–29 (02, 1993).Google Scholar
13.Tarn, T. J., Bejczy, A. K., Han, S. and Yun, X., “Inertia parameters of Puma 560 robot arm” Tech. Rep. SSM-RL-85–01 (Washington University, St. Louis, MO., Sept. 1985).Google Scholar
14.Goor, R. M., “A new approach to minimum time robot control” Tech. Rep. GMR-4869 (General Motors Research Laboratories, Nov. 1984).Google Scholar