A comparison is made between the dynamics of three possible models for a flexible link and drive-line as used in some robotic or weapons systems. The three models considered are: model 1, a flexible link with compliance in the drive-line; model 2, flexible link with direct drive; and model 3, rigid link with drive-line compliance (flexible joint). Non-dimensional parameters are suggested for the models and comparisons are made between them, by examining the transfer functions poles (resonances) and zeros (anti-resonances). From the study, recommendations are made as to the suitability of the three models for different applications.
SweetL. M.GoodM. C.Redefinition of the robot motion-control problem. IEEE Control Systems Mag., August 1985, 18–25.
2.
GoodM. C.SweetL. M.StrobelK. L.Dynamic models for control system design of integrated robot and drive systems. J. Dynamic Systems, Measmt and Control, 1985, 102, 53–59.
3.
SuttonR. P.HalikiasG. D.PlummerA. R.WilsonD. A.Modelling and H∞ control of a single-link flexible manipulator. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part I, Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 1999, 213 (I2), 85–104.
4.
ThomasS.Dynamics of spacecraft and manipulators. Simulation, July 1991, 56–72.
5.
PurdyD. J.Modelling and simulation of a weapon control system for a main battle tank. In Proceedings of the 8th US Army Symposium on Gun Dynamics, 14–16 May 1996.
6.
PurdyD. J.An investigation into the modelling and control of flexible bodies. PhD thesis, Cranfield University (RMCS), Swindon, 1994.
7.
GhorbelF.SpongM. W.Stability analysis of adaptively controlled flexible jointed manipulators. In Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Decision and Control, Honolulu, Hawaii, December 1990.
8.
SpongM. W.Control of flexible-jointed robots: A survey. In Distributed Parameter Control Systems, New Trends and Application, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1991 (Marcel Dekker, New York).
9.
SchmitzE.Experiments on the end-point position control of a very flexible one-link manipulator. PhD thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, California, April 1985.
10.
KanohH.TzafestasS.LeeH. G.KalatJ.Modelling and control of flexible robot arms. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Decision and Control, Athens, Greece, December 1986.
11.
FraserA. R.DanielR. W.Peturbation Techniques for Flexible Manipulators, 1991 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands).
12.
FaridM.LukasiewiczS. A.On the optimal control of flexible manipulators. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part I, Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 1999, 213 (I4), 267–273.
13.
RankyP. G.HoC. Y.Robot Modelling, 1985 (IFS (Publications) Limited and Springer-Verlag).
14.
SpectorV. A.FlasherH.Modeling and design implications of noncolocated control in flexible systems. J. Dynamic Systems, Measmt and Control, 1990, 112 (6), 186–193.
15.
AleyaasinM.EbrahimiM.WhalleyR.Multivariable hybrid models for rotor-bearing systems. J. Sound Vibr., 2000, 233 (5), 835–856.
16.
BartlettH.WhalleyR.Power transmission system modelling. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part C, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 1998, 212 (C6), 497–508.
17.
MitchellT. P.BruchJ. C.Free vibration of a flexible arm attached to a compliant finite hub. J. Vibr., Acoust., Stress and Reliability in Des., 1988, 110(1).
18.
TseF. S.MorseI. E.HinkleR. T.Mechanical Vibrations Theory and Applications, 2nd edition, 1978 (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts).
19.
HughesP. C.Space structure vibration modes: How many exist? Which ones are important?IEEE Control Systems Mag., February 1987.
20.
Maple, Computer Algebra System, Waterloo Maple Inc..
21.
MiuD. K.Physical interpretation of transfer function zeros for simple control systems with mechanical flexibilities. J. Dynamics Systems, Measmt and Control, 1991, 113(9).
