Improving Robot Manipulator Performance with Adaptive Neuro-Control

  • A. G. Pipe
  • A. Lenz
Conference paper

Abstract

An adaptive controller that modifies its characteristics to deal with new situations, in a timely and accurate way, would be a valuable improvement on many existing industrial plant controllers. Furthermore, if such a controller could effectively be “strapped around” the existing controller then there could be many opportunities for performance enhancement of systems already “out in the field”. The new situations that this adaptive controller would need to deal with could arise from time variations in the plant’s characteristics due to wear and tear, or from learning, on-line, about unforeseen new parts of the plant’s operational envelope. The universal approximation abilities of neural networks, combined with permanently active on-line learning, yield powerful features that can be used to great advantage in creating adaptive controllers for such applications. Together they allow accurate control strategies to be developed for these types of plant without the need for a mathematical model. Furthermore, neuro-control algorithms can learn about these dynamical features using signals from the plant that are normally easily obtained. Multi-axis revolute-jointed robot manipulators are good examples of this class of plant. In order to illustrate some of the important advantages of these methodologies, and to inform the reader about some of the important characteristics of these adaptive structures, we review some of our recently reported experiments in applying an on-line learning neuro-control approach to joint level trajectory control of two different industrial robots. In each case, the neuro-controllers are used to enhance performance of the existing PID controllers. This paper is mainly concerned with highlighting these features via the experimental results. However, when a controller learns on-line whilst acting as part of a plant’s closed-loop controller, it is crucial that a careful and rigorous approach is adopted. A strict theoretical basis that guarantees the whole system’s stability is required. To set the experimental work in context therefore, we briefly review our on-line learning neuro-control method, which is used for both sets of experiments.

Keywords

Neural Network Radial Basis Function Neural Network Robot Manipulator Adaptive Controller Linear Controller 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albus J S, 1975, A new approach to manipulator control: the Cerebellar Model Articulation Controller (CMAC), J. Dynamics Systems, Measurement, & Control, Vol.97, pp.220–227Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jin Y, Pipe A G, Winfield A, 1994, Robot Trajectory Control using Neural Networks-Theory & Puma Simulations, Procs. IEEE Int. Symp. on Intelligent Control, Columbus Ohio, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jin Y, 1994, Intelligent Neural Control & its Applications in Robotics, Ph.D. Thesis, University of the West of EnglandGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jin Y, Pipe A G, Winfield A, 1997, Chapter 5: Stable Manipulator Trajectory Control Using Neural Networks, Neural Systems for Robotics, Academic Press, ISBN 0-12-526280-9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kadirkamanathan, Niranjan, 1992, A function estimation approach to sequential learning with neural networks, Cambridge University, Eng. DptGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lenz A, Pipe A G, 2003, A Dynamically Sized Radial Basis Function Neural Network for Joint Control of a PUMA 500 Manipulator, Procs. IEEE Int. Symp. Intelligent Control, ISBN 0-7803-7892-X, pp.170–175Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leong, Saratchandran, Sundararajan, 2002, Real-time performance evaluation of the minimal radial basis function network for identification of time varying nonlinear systems, Computers and Electrical Engineering, vol. 28, pp.103–117Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewis F L, Jagannathan S, Yesildirek A, 1999, Neural Network Control of Robot Manipulators & Nonlinear Systems, London, Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lutz, Wendt, 1998, Taschenbuch der Regelungstechnik, 2. Aufiage Verlag Harri DeutschGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Narendra K S and Parthasarathy K, 1990, “Identification and control of dynamical systems using neural networks”, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 1, pp.4–27Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Narendra K S, 1992, Adaptive Control of Dynamical Systems Using Neural Networks, Handbook of Intelligent Control, pp.141–183, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pipe A G, Randall M J, Cherian R P, Jin Y, 2001, Experiments In On-Line Learning Neuro-Control, International Journal of Computer Research, 10(2), pp.269–295, Nova ScienceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Platt J, 1991, A Resource-Allocating Network for Function Interpolation, Neural Computing, vol. 3, no. 2, pp.213–225Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanner R M and Slotine J J E, 1992, “Gaussian Networks for Direct Adaptive Control”, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, Vol.3, pp.837–863Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suykens, Van de Wall & De Moor, 1995, Artificial Neural Networks for Modelling & Control of Non-Linear Systems, Kluwer AcademicGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yingwei, Sundararajan, Saratchandran, 1997, A sequential learning scheme for function approximation by using minimal radial basis function neural networks, Neural Computing, vol. 9, pp.462–478.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. G. Pipe
    • 1
  • A. Lenz
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Mathematical SciencesUniversity of the West of EnglandBristol

Personalised recommendations