Experimental study on stand-alone assistive suspension system to reduce load on small robot manipulating heavy payload

  • Youngjin MoonEmail author
  • Scott Arthur Banks


This paper presents a single degree of freedom suspension system to assist small six degree of freedom robots manipulating heavy payload. The goal of the system is to reduce the load applied to the last link of a robot manipulating a payload that is heavier than the robot’s specified allowable load capacity. An assistive suspension system was implemented to realize vertical-only motion of the robot. A mathematical model was derived, and a proportional-integral-derivative controller with an inner velocity loop was designed. Variable parameters in the model such as friction coefficients were identified in an experiment on the voltage input and velocity output. To determine how much the assistive system reduces the load on the robot, the system was connected to the robot using an interface attached with magnets and a force sensor was fixed to the last link of the robot. In the experiment, the cable tension was measured and controlled to satisfy the design preference for the assistive system to be stand-alone, rather than relying on force sensor on the robot. The experiment was performed using various control gains under different conditions, such as the periods of input motion and payload weight. The results showed that the system could reduce 3.8 and 6.0 kg payloads on the robot to 50% and 40%, respectively.


Diagnostic robot Weight compensation Assistive control Serial robot Suspension system Tension control 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abolmaesumi, P., Salcudean, S. E., Zhu, W. H., Sirouspour, M. R., and DiMaio, S. P., “Image-Guided Control of a Robot for Medical Ultrasound,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 11–23, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salcudean, S., Bell, G., Bachmann, S., Zhu, W. H., Abolmaesumi, P., and Lawrence, P. D., “Robot-assisted Diagnostic Ultrasound-Design and Feasibility Experiments,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Vol. 1679, pp. 1062–1071, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vilchis, A., Troccaz, J., Cinquin, P., Masuda, K., and Pellissier, F., “A New Robot Architecture for Tele-Echography,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 922–926, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burdea, G. C., Dunn, S. M., and Levy, G., “Evaluation of Robot-based Registration for Subtraction Radiography,” Medical Image Analysis, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 265–274, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li, H., Yan, G., and Ma, G., “An Active Endoscopic Robot based on Wireless Power Transmission and Electromagnetic Localization,” The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 355–367, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slatkin, A. B., Burdick, J., and Grundfest, W., “The Development of a Robotic Endoscope,” Proc. of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 161–169, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Quirini, M., Menciassi, A., Scapellato, S., Stefanini, C., and Dario, P., “Design and Fabrication of a Motor Legged Capsule for the Active Exploration of the Gastrointestinal Tract,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 169–179, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banks, S. A., “Radiographic Medical Imaging System using Robot Mounted Source and Sensor for Dynamic Image Capture and Tomography,” US Patent, No. 7441953B2, 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Banks, S. A., Lightcap, C., and Yamokoski, J. D., “A Robotic Radiographic Imaging Platform for Observation of Dynamic Skeletal Motion and Tomography,” Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 39, Suppl. 1, p. S446, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamokoski, J. D. and Banks, S. A., “Does Close Proximity Robot Motion Tracking Alter Gait?” Gait & Posture, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 508–513, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown, H. B. and Dolan, J. M., “A Novel Gravity Compensation System for Space Robots,” Proc. of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Robotics for Challenging Environments, pp. 250–258, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rahman, T., Ramanathan, R., Seliktar, R., and Harwin, W., “A Simple Technique to Passively Gravity-Balance Articulated Mechanisms,” Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 655–658, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sato, Y., Ejiri, A., Iida, Y., Kanda, S., Maruyama, T., et al., “Micro-G Emulation System using Constant-Tension Suspension for a Space Manipulator,” Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1893–1900, Vol. 3, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hayashibara, Y., Tanie, K., Arai, H., and Tokashiki, H., “Development of Power Assist System with Individual Compensation Ratios for Gravity and Dynamic Load,” Proc. of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 640–646, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Luca, A. and Panzieri, S., “An Iterative Scheme for Learning Gravity Compensation in Flexible Robot Arms,” Automatica, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 993–1002, 1994.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheah, C. C. and Liaw, H. C., “Inverse Jacobian Regulator with Gravity Compensation: Stability and Experiment,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 741–747, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    White, G. and Xu, Y., “An Active Z Gravity Compensation System,” Proc. of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 1181–1187, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miyoshi, T. and Terashima, K., “Development of Vertical Power-Assisted Crane System to Reduce the Operators' Burden,” Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 5, pp. 4420–4425, 2004.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hiroi, Y. and Ito, A., “Are Bigger Robots Scary-the Relationship between Robot Size and Psychological Threat-,” Proc. of IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, pp. 546–551, 2008.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Makkar, C., Dixon, W., Sawyer, W., and Hu, G., “A New Continuously Differentiable Friction Model for Control Systems Design,” Proc. of IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. pp. 600–605, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eppinger, S. D. and Seering, W. P., “Understanding Bandwidth Limitations in Robot Force Control,” Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 4, pp. 904–909, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eppinger, S. D. and Seering, W. P., “Three Dynamic Problems in Robot Force Control,” Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1, pp. 392–397, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pratt, G. A., Williamson, M. M., Dillworth, P., Pratt, J., and Wright, A., “Stiffness isn’t Everything,” Experimental Robotics IV, pp. 253–262, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoogen, J., Riener, R., and Schmidt, G., “Control Aspects of a Robotic Haptic Interface for Kinesthetic Knee Joint Simulation,” Control Engineering Practice, Vol. 10, No. 11, pp. 1301–1308, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ziegler, J. G. and Nichols, N. B., “Optimum Settings for Automatic Controllers,” Transaction of the ASME, Vol. 64, No. 11, pp. 759–768, 1942.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Precision Engineering and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Asan Institute for Life SciencesAsan Medical CenterSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations