Comparison of unconstrained and constrained calibration methods.

90 Pages·1.1 MB·en_US

by  Wiegand, Michael J.;Driels, Morris R.

:
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
Monterey California
,
THESIS
COMPARISON OF UNCONSTRAINED AND
CONSTRAINEE CALIBRATION METHODS
)
by
Michael J. Wiegand
JUNE 1991
Thesis Advisor Morris R. Driels
Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited
T256349

. .
Unclassified
ECURITYCLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
FormApproved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo0704 0188
1a. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
Unclassified
2a SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONAUTHORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Approved for public release
2b DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Distribution is unlimited
4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
Naval Postgraduate School (IfapplicableM)E Naval Postgraduate School
6c. ADDRESS (City. StateandZIPCode) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, andZIPCode)
Monterey, CA 93943-5000 Monterey, CA 93943-5000
8a NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ORGANIZATION (Ifapplicable)
8c. ADDRESS (City, State, andZIPCode) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBER
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT
ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.
11 TITLE (IncludeSecurityClassification)
COMPARISON OF UNCONSTRAINED AND CONSTRAINED CALIBRATION METHODS
12. PERSONALAUTHORS
MICHAEL J. WIEGAND
13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15. PAGE COUNT
Master's Thesis FROM TO JUNE 1991
8i
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official
policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government
17 COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECTTREoRMbSo(tConticnuaeolnirebverrsaetifniecoesnsaryandidentifybyblocknumbers)
FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP
19.ABSTRACT (Continueonreverseifnecessaryandidentifybyblocknumbers)
The idea of using a passive end point motion constraint to calibrate
robot manipulators is of particular interest because no measurement
equipment is required. The accuracy attained using this method is compared
to the accuracy attained by an unconstrained calibration using computer
simulated measurements. A kinematic model is established for each
configuration using the Denavit-Hartenberg methodology. The kinematic
equations are formulated and are used in the computer simulated calibration
to determine the actual kinematic parameters of the manipulator. The
results are discussed in terms of the effect of measurement noise and the
number of experimental observations on the accuracy of parameter
identification
20.XDXISUTNRCILBAUSTSIIOFNI/EADVA/IULNALBIIMLIITTEYDOF ABSTSRAAMCETAS RPT DTIC USERS ?1. AuBnSTcRlACaTsSsECiURfIiTYeCdLASSIFICATION
22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b.TELEPHONE (IncludeArea Code) 22c OFFICE SYMBOL
Morris R. Driels [phone] ME/Dr
>D Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITYCLASSIFICATION OFTHIS PAGE
Unclassified
S/N 0102-LF-014-6603
i
Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited
Comparison of Unconstrained and
Constrained Calibration Methods
by
Michael J. ,Wiegand
Lieutenant, United States Navy
B.S., Ag. Eng., Michigan State University, 1983
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
JUNE 1991
Anthony J/^Healey, Chairman
Department of' Mechanical Engineering
11
ABSTRACT
The idea of using a passive end point motion constraint
to calibrate robot manipulators is of particular interest
because no measurement equipment is required. The accuracy
attained using this method is compared to the accuracy
attained by an unconstrained calibration using computer
simulated measurements. A kinematic model is established for
each configuration using the Denavit-Hartenberg methodology.
The kinematic equations are formulated and are used in the
computer simulated calibration to determine the actual
kinematic parameters of the manipulator. The results are
discussed in terms of the effect of measurement noise and the
number of experimental observations on the accuracy of
parameter identification.
111
c./
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THEORY 7
A. THE DENAVIT-HARTENBERG METHOD WITH
MODIFICATIONS
7
B. PARAMETER IDENTIFICATIONS 12
III. CALIBRATION METHODS 18
A. UNCONSTRAINED METHOD 18
B. CONSTRAINED (BALLBAR) METHOD 24
IV. DISCUSSION 33
V. CONCLUSIONS 45
APPENDIX A: ZXSSQ 46
APPENDIX B: COMPUTER PROGRAMS 4 8
LIST OF REFERENCES 70
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 72
IV