Page 108 - Read Online
P. 108

Page 102                           Li et al. Intell Robot 2022;2(1):89–104  I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/ir.2022.02

                                  Table 5. Results of different working frequencies with the proposed controller
                                         Max. Error (deg)          Mean Error (deg)
                              Joint    Time     1  2  3    4       1    2      3     4
                              0.25       0.71  0.0021  0.61  0.0016  0.27  0.0004  0.24  0.0003
                              0.15       0.78  0.0039  0.68  0.0021  0.37  0.0013  0.33  0.0007
                              0.50       0.58  0.0004  0.50  0.00025  0.23  0.0001  0.20  0.00008

                                          Table 6. Results by tracking different PPO trajectories
                                      Error Type   Joint     4–5-6-7 th polynomial  5 th polynomial
                                      Max. Error (deg)  Joint 1  0.7113   0.6854
                                                   Joint 2  0.0021        0.0032
                                                   Joint 3  0.6116        0.5875
                                                   Joint 4  0.0016        0.0020
                                      Mean Error (deg)  Joint 1  0.2697   0.2707
                                                   Joint 2  0.0004        0.0013
                                                   Joint 3  0.2404        0.2447
                                                   Joint 4  0.0003        0.0009

























                             Figure 12. The varying RMSEs for different trajectories: (A) Joints 1 and 3; and (B) joints 2 and 4.


               Moreover, different working frequencies and trajectories are selected to evaluate the generalization ability of
               the controller. The results are listed in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Figure 12 shows the varying RMSE for
               different trajectories.


               Fromtheresults, itcanbeseenthattheproposedcontrollershowsgoodperformanceunderdifferentoperating
               frequencies and different trajectories, meaning that the proposed control law can work effectively to track
               different task trajectories and have good generalization capabilities.



               6. CONCLUSIONS
               In this work, an open-closed loop PD type iterative learning control method is proposed for parallel robots to
               track repetitive work trajectories, thanks to its advantages of simple implementation and practicability in in-
               dustrial engineering. According to the complexity and uncertainties of the working environment, two external
               disturbances, i.e., repetitive and non-repetitive ones, are taken into account for the model-based control de-
               sign. The designed controller is compared with the D-ILC law and evaluated along with a 4-dof parallel robot,
               and the results show the better performance of the PD-ILC law compared with the classical D-ILC law. The
               test results with and without disturbances also show the robustness in terms of the trajectory tracking errors.
               In addition, different working frequencies and trajectories are adopted to evaluate the generalization capabili-
   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113