PERIODICA POLYTECHNICA SER. MECH. ENG. VOL. 43, NO. 2, PP.

121–130 (1999)

NEW APPROACH OF DYNAMIC SIMULATION OF PUMA 560

IMPLEMENTED IN LabVIEW

Alexei S OKOLOV and Sándor J. T ÓTH

Department of Manufacture Engineering
Technical University of Budapest
1111 Budapest, Egry J. u. 1
Hungary
Received: Sept 4, 1999

Abstract

Nowadays the growing computer capacity provides a new opportunity of the simulations regarding
more reliable and accurate models and fast computation. This paper presents a complete dynamic
simulation of the Puma 560 robot. The simulation is based on the dynamic model of the servo
drives of the joints and the robot model taking into account mass, inertia, frictions, etc. The robot
model and the simulation are implemented in LabVIEW. This approach has several advantages; the
opportunities of parallel computation, built in functions provide easy and fast numerical calculation,
fast implementation of different models and methods. Several simulation results are demonstrated
using different trajectory planning methods for one given path.
Keywords: Puma 560, dynamic simulation, LabVIEW, trajectory planning methods.

1. Introduction

The advance of high-speed technology, the growing computer capacity and the
technical improvement of the control devices provide realistic opportunity for new
robot control, new simulation technique and new control theories. The trend of
this, the technical improvement together with the need for high-performance robots
created faster, more accurate and more intelligent robots using new robot controls,
new drives and advanced control algorithms. The new control algorithms, the new
control devices and in most cases any robot application need simulations before
the real operation. That is why the simulation is still emphasized in our research.
This paper presents a complete dynamic simulation of the Puma 560 robot. All
the geometrical data, mass, inertia, friction of the robot were taken into account
in creating the realistic model of the Puma 560. The simulation utilises also the
dynamic model of the servo drives of the joints. The robot model and the simulation
were implemented using high level graphical programming language (LabVIEW).
The programming in LabVIEW has several advantages; the opportunities of par-
allel computation, built in mathematical functions provide easy and fast numerical
calculation and the main advantage is the opportunity of the fast implementation
of different models and methods. The purpose of the presented simulation is to
improve different trajectory planning methods that are used in the real control sys-
122 A. SOKOLOV and S. TÓTH

tem. Also the simulation can be used for tuning the parameters of the real control
systems. Using the same given path different trajectory planning methods are tested
from the accuracy point of view.
The following paragraphs present the models – control system (control card),
amplifier, servo motor, friction model and robot hardware (links) – what the Lab-
VIEW software utilises in the presented dynamic simulation of the PUMA 560
robot.

2. The Model of the Servo Motor and the Amplifier of the Robot

Fig. 1. The model of the amplifier – DC motor combination

The simulation model of the robot utilises the simplified DC motor model, which
is well-known and frequently used for simulation and control purpose. Fig. 1
shows the equivalent-circuit model of amplifier and DC motor, where ea (t) is the
input voltage of armature coil, R is the resistance of the motor armature coil, La
is the self-inductance of the motor armature circuit, eb (t) is voltage drop (inverse
electromotive force), Jeff is the effective inertia and  is the angular position of the
shaft. According to the Kirchoff law for the electrical side of the DC motor one can
write:
di(t) d(t)
ea (t) = L a · + R · i(t) + K · . (1)
dt dt
where K is a motor constant. The model for amplifier-motor combination is easily
obtained by substituting KA e(t) for ea (t) and (R0 + R) for R in Eq. (1)

di(t) d(t)
K · ea (t) = L a · + (R0 + R) · i(t) + K · . (2)
dt dt
The torque developed on the shaft by the current – magnetic field interaction (Am-
pere’s rule) is T (t) = K ∗ i(t). Euler’s law applied to the output shaft gives us the
following equation:

d2 (t)
[K · i(t) − µ · TL (t) − Beff (ω(t))] = Jeff · . (3)
dt 2
 PUMA 560 IMPLEMENTED IN LabVIEW 123

The well-planned DC motor is capable to accelerate the given robot links (Jeff
inertia) to compensate the Beff damping effect and the TL loading torque.

3. The Control System

Fig. 2. The block diagram of the control system

The control algorithm utilises Proportional feedback, Integral feedback and

Velocity feedback based on a real robot control card developed by Compumotor
[9]. Fig. 2 describes the block diagram of the control system. The model of the
control system was planned so, that the model utilises the same algorithms as the
Compumotor control card in the real control system in order to be closed to the
reality. The control system consists – in sequence – of the control card including
the control algorithm, the amplifier, the DC motor, the friction as disturbance of the
process and the robot hardware (links, joints). The parameters of the control system,
the DC motor, the amplifier, the friction and the robot hardware characteristic were
either measured or they were found in the literature.

4. The Friction Model

Fig. 3 describes the friction in function of the velocity applied at the joints. The
two relevant parameters are Fsa = 0.146 Nm and Fsb = 0.124 Nm.
Fig. 4 describes the block diagram of the simulation. The first step in the simulation
is the trajectory planning where the path and the velocity profile of the joints are
determined. The simulation model concentrates to the first three joints of the robot
in this experiment, however, the model is capable to calculate all the six joints.
The simulation makes all the calculations parallel through the control algorithm the
amplifier and the servo motor. Then comes the direct dynamic calculation block,
which is the essential part of the simulation. Dynamic modelling of the robot
manipulator consists of finding the mapping between the forces exerted on the
124 A. SOKOLOV and S. TÓTH

if AB S(V ) = 0 and τ ≤ Fsa then Fs = τ ;

Fs
Fsa 6
if AB S(V ) = 0 and τ ≥ −Fsa then Fs = τ ; Fsb
if AB S(V ) = 0 and τ ≥ Fsa then Fs = Fsa ; -
if AB S(V ) = 0 and τ ≤ −Fsa then Fs = −Fsa ; v
−Fsb
if AB S(V ) > 0 then Fs = Fsb ∗ S I G N(V ); −Fsa

Fig. 3. The friction model

structures and the joints positions, velocities and acceleration. Two formulations
are mainly used to derive the dynamic model: the Lagrange formulation and the
Newton–Euler formulation.

5. Direct Dynamic Calculation

In the direct dynamic calculation block, basically, the Lagrange formulation is

used, but with small changes. In that case when the Lagrange formulation is used
and (n = 6 joints) there are 425 multiplies and 369 additions are required to
take in one simulation step. The Fig. 5 shows the block diagram of the direct
dynamic calculation related to Lagrange formulation. This calculation is based on

Fig. 4. The block diagram of the simulation

 PUMA 560 IMPLEMENTED IN LabVIEW 125

Fig. 5. The block diagram of the direct dynamic calculation

the Lagrange equation, which is described by Eq. (4)

τ = H (q) · q̈ + h(q, q̇) · q̇ + C(q), (4)

where the H (q) is the n × n symmetric, positive definite inertial matrix of the robot,
h(q, q) is the n degree vector of centrifugal, and Coriolis forces and C(q) is the n
degree vector of gravitational forces.
Big amount of calculations are required to produce the H (q) inertial matrix,
the h(q̇, q) and the C(q) and the parameters maybe not so punctual as the simu-
lations require. The solution that the authors propose utilises the Newton–Euler
formulation to determine the H , h and C matrixes in the following way.
A. The following state is assumed in a given moment of the movement

q = qn−1
q̇ = 0; Newton → τ .
c1
q̈ = 0; Euler

Substituting these values to Newton–Euler formulation τc1 is determined.

Then using the Lagrange formulation and taking the assumption into consid-
eration
τc1 = C(q) (5)
the C(q) function is obtained.
B. In the second step of the calculation another state is assumed in the same
moment of the movement
q = qn−1
q̇ = q̇n−1 ; Newton → τ .
c2
q̈ = 0; Euler
126 A. SOKOLOV and S. TÓTH

Then using the Lagrange formulation as in the previous step

τc2 = h(q, q̇) · q̇ + C(q) (6)

the h(q, q̇) function is obtained.

C/1. In the third step of the calculation the H matrix will be determined

q = qn−1 , q̇ = q̇n−1 ;

and



0 a13
q̈ = Newton → τ
0 c3/1 τc3/1 = a23 · q̈ +h(q, q̇)· q̇ +C(q). (7)
1 Euler a33

C/2.
q = qn−1 , q̇ = q̇n−1 ;
and



0 a12
q̈ = Newton → τ
1 c3/2 τc3/2 = a22 · q̈ +h(q, q̇)· q̇ +C(q). (8)
0 Euler a32

C/3.
q = qn−1 , q̇ = q̇n−1 ;
and



1 a11
q̈ = Newton → τ
0 c3/3 τc3/3 = a21 · q̈ +h(q, q̇)· q̇ +C(q). (9)
0 Euler a31

After these calculations the Lagrange formulation can be used and based on the
simulation module of the direct dynamic (Fig. 5) using Eq. (10) the q̈ value is
obtained

q̈ = (H (q) + Z 2 I )−1 · (τ − h(q, q̇) · q̇ + C(q)) , (10)

Where Z is the gear ratio and


I d1 0 0
I = 0 I d2 0 (11)
0 0 I d3
I d1 , I d2 and I d3 are the inertia of the motor shafts.
Using two times the Adams–Basforth Integrator the q̇ and q values can be
obtained. These two values are stored in shift registers for the next calculation step.
 PUMA 560 IMPLEMENTED IN LabVIEW 127

6. Simulation Results

The presented dynamics calculation method is faster than the normal use of La-
grange computation. In our case the simulation time step was dt = 0.0005 s and
the T = 24 s, it means 48000 simulation steps. Using Pentium II.(300 Mhz) based
PC the simulation took 337 s. Fig. 6 describes the path of the robot and Fig. 7 shows
the arbitrary speed profile applied along the path.

Fig. 6. The trajectory of the robot in x y plane

Fig. 7. The arbitrary speed profile along the path

In this case the maximum speed along the path is 0.1 m/s. This is a rather low value
compared to the real speed values of the robots. Fig. 9 describes the absolute error
along the path.
128 A. SOKOLOV and S. TÓTH

Fig. 8. The trajectories of the first three joints

Fig. 9. The absolute error along the path

Fig. 10. The arbitrary speed profile along the path

The maximum difference between the desired and the simulated values is 0.65 mm,
which value is a reasonable one considering the low speed value along the path. By
 PUMA 560 IMPLEMENTED IN LabVIEW 129

Fig. 11. The absolute error along the path

increasing the speed value and using the same arbitrary velocity profile – Fig. 10
describes it – the maximum error value increases too – see in Fig. 11.

Fig. 12. The zoomed speed profile

Fig. 12 describes the part of the speed profile using the zoom function. This figure
shows the dynamic behaviour of the system. The whole profile consists of small
responds for step functions.

7. Conclusion

The presented dynamic simulation of the Puma560 gives reasonable results regard-
ing to the real robot behaviour. Further study should be made to make a comparison
130 A. SOKOLOV and S. TÓTH

experiment between the real system and the model using an external measuring sys-
tem. The simulation model used the first three joints of the robot in this experiment,
but the dynamic calculation module takes into account all the six joints dynamics.
The authors described a new way of calculation of the direct dynamics, which
is faster than the usual way of use of the Lagrange formulation. The simulation
model of the robot was developed using LabVIEW. This achievement provides easy
and fast further development in improving the model and the trajectory planning
methods. In this paper the arbitrary trajectory planning method was used to make
comparison in absolute error regarding to the speed along the path.

Acknowledgement

The presented achievement was supported by the Research Fund of the Hungarian Academy
of Sciences (OTKA T026407) and (OTKA T029072) for which the authors express thanks.
The authors express sincere thanks to their research advisors Professor János Somló and
Dr. György Lipovszki.

References

[1] S HIN , K. G. – M C K AY, N. D. (1985): Minimum-time Control of Robotics Manipulators with

Geometric Path Constraints, IEEE of Automatic Control AC-30, Vol. 6, pp. 531–541.
[2] S INGH , S. K. (1991): Trajectory Planning for Robot Control: A Control System Perspective,
Control and Dynamic System Series, Advances in Robotics System, pp. 105–146, Academic
Press Inc.
[3] P ODURAJEV, J. – S OMLÓ , J. (1993): A New Approach to the Contour Following Problem in
Robot Control (Dynamic Model in Riemann Space), Mechatronics, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 241–263.
[4] S OMLÓ , J. – P ODURAJEV, J. (1994): Optimal Cruising Trajectory Planning for Robots, Mecha-
tronics, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 517–538.
[5] J. T ÓTH , S. (1994): Optimal Trajectory Planning for Robots, MSc Thesis, Budapest Technical
University.
[6] L IPOVSZKY, G Y. (1994): TUBSIM Digital Simulation Program,
http://www.rit.bme.hu/letoltheto/szamszim/modsim.html#Eleje.
[7] Z ENTAY, P. – Z OLLER , Z.: Time Optimal Trajectory Planning for Robots in LabView Pro-
gramming System MicroCAD’99 (to be published).
[8] E RD ŐS , G. (1988): Ipari robotok geometriai, kinematikai és dinamikai modellezésének új
szimbólikus módszere, Ph.D. Thesis, Budapest.
[9] Servo Tuner User Guide, Compumotor Division Parker Hannifin Corporation, 1994.
[10] Robotics: Control, Sensing, Vision and Intelligence, K.S.Fu, R.C. Gonzalez, C.S.G. Lee, Lon-
don, 1989.