Inverse Dynamics with Rigid Contact and Friction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Inverse Dynamics with Rigid Contact and Friction Samuel Zapolsky · Evan Drumwright Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract Inverse dynamics is used extensively in ro- ments gives an upper bound on the performance of such botics and biomechanics applications. In manipulator controllers in situ. For points of comparison, we assess and legged robots, it can form the basis of an effective performance on the same tasks with both error feed- nonlinear control strategy by providing a robot with back control and inverse dynamics control with virtual both accurate positional tracking and active compli- contact force sensing. ance. In biomechanics applications, inverse dynamics control can approximately determine the net torques Keywords inverse dynamics, rigid contact, impact, applied at anatomical joints that correspond to an ob- Coulomb friction served motion. In the context of robot control, using inverse dynam- ics requires knowledge of all contact forces acting on the 1 Introduction robot; accurately perceiving external forces applied to the robot requires filtering and thus significant time de- Inverse dynamics can be a highly effective method in lay. An alternative approach has been suggested in re- multiple contexts including control of robots and phys- cent literature: predicting contact and actuator forces ically simulated characters and estimating muscle forces simultaneously under the assumptions of rigid body dy- in biomechanics. The inverse dynamics problem, which namics, rigid contact, and friction. Existing such inverse entails computing actuator (or muscular) forces that dynamics approaches have used approximations to the yield desired accelerations, requires knowledge of all contact models, which permits use of fast numerical lin- \external" forces acting on the robot, character, or hu- ear algebra algorithms. In contrast, we describe inverse man. Measuring such forces is limited by the ability dynamics algorithms that are derived only from first to instrument surfaces and filter force readings, and principles and use established phenomenological mod- such filtering effectively delays force sensing to a degree els like Coulomb friction. unacceptable for real-time operation. An alternative is We assess these inverse dynamics algorithms in a to use contact force predictions, for which reasonable control context using two virtual robots: a locomoting agreement between models and reality have been ob- quadrupedal robot and a fixed-based manipulator grip- served (see, e.g., Aukes & Cutkosky, 2013). Formulat- ping a box while using perfectly accurate sensor data ing such approaches is technically challenging, however, from simulation. The data collected from these experi- because the actuator forces are generally coupled to the contact forces, requiring simultaneous solution. Samuel Zapolsky Inverse dynamics approaches that simultaneously George Washington University Dept. of Computer Science compute contact forces exist in literature. Though these [email protected] approaches were developed without incorporating all Evan Drumwright of the established modeling aspects (like complemen- George Washington University tarity) and addressing all of the technical challenges Dept. of Computer Science (like inconsistent configurations) of hard contact, these [email protected] methods have been demonstrated performing effectively 2 Samuel Zapolsky, Evan Drumwright on real robots. In contrast, this article focuses on for- We will assess these inverse dynamics algorithms in mulating inverse dynamics with these established model- the context of controlling a virtual locomoting robot ing aspects|which allows forward and inverse dynam- and a fixed-base manipulator robot. We will examine ics models to match|and addresses the technical chal- performance of error feedback and inverse dynamics lenges, including solvability. controllers with virtual contact force sensors for points of comparison. Performance will consider smoothness of torque commands, trajectory tracking accuracy, lo- 1.1 Invertibility of the rigid contact model comotion performance, and computation time. An obstacle to such a formulation has been the claim 1.3 Contributions that the rigid contact model is not invertible (Tod- orov, 2014), implying that inverse dynamics is unsolve- This paper provides the following contributions: able for multi-rigid bodies subject to rigid contact. If forces on the multi-body other than contact forces at 1. Proof that the coupled problem of computing in- state f q; q_ g are designated x and contact forces are verse dynamics-derived torques and contact forces designated y, then the rigid contact model (to be de- under the rigid body dynamics, non-impacting rigid scribed in detail in Section 2.3.3) yields the relationship contact, and Coulomb friction models (with linearized y = fq;q_(x). It is then true that there exists no left in- friction cone) is solvable in expected polynomial time. verse g(:) of f that provides the mapping x = gq;q_(y) 2. An algorithm that computes inverse dynamics-derived for y = fq;q_(x). However, this article will show that torques without torque chatter under the rigid body there does exist a right inverse h(:) of f such that, dynamics model and the rigid contact model assum- for hq;q_(y) = x, fq;q_(x) = y, and in Section 5 we ing no slip along the surfaces of contact, in expected will show that this mapping is computable in expected polynomial time. polynomial time. This article will use this mapping to 3. An algorithm that yields inverse dynamics-derived formulate inverse dynamics approaches for rigid con- torques without torque chatter under the rigid body tact with both no-slip constraints and frictional surface dynamics model and the rigid, non-impacting con- properties. tact model with Coulomb friction in exponential time in the number of points of contact, and hence a proof that this problem is no harder than NP-hard. 4. An algorithm that computes inverse dynamics-derived 1.2 Indeterminacy in the rigid contact model torques without torque chatter under the rigid body dynamics model and a rigid contact model with The rigid contact model is also known to be suscepti- Coulomb friction but does not enforce complemen- ble to the problem of contact indeterminacy, the pres- tarity conditions (again, see Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4), ence of multiple equally valid solutions to the contact in expected polynomial time. force-acceleration mapping. This indeterminacy is the factor that prevents strict invertibility and which, when These algorithms differ in their operating assump- used for contact force predictions in the context of in- tions. For example, the algorithms that enforce nor- verse dynamics, can result in torque chatter that is mal complementarity (to be described in Section 2.3) potentially destructive for physically situated robots. assume that all contacts are non-impacting; similarly, We show that computing a mapping from accelerations the algorithms that do not enforce complementarity as- to contact forces that evolves without harmful torque sume that bodies are impacting at one or more points chatter is no worse than NP-hard in the number of con- of contact. As will be explained in Section 3, control tacts modeled for Coulomb friction and can be calcu- loop period endpoint times do not necessarily coincide lated in polynomial time for the case of infinite (no-slip) with contact event times, so a single algorithm must friction. deal with both impacting and non-impacting contacts. This article also describes a computationally tract- It is an open problem of the effects of enforcing com- able approach for mitigating torque chatter that is based plementarity when it should not be enforced, or vice upon a rigid contact model without complementarity versa. The algorithms also possess various computa- conditions (see Sections 2.3.3 and 2.3.4). The model ap- tional strengths. As results of these open problems and pears to produce reasonable predictions: Anitescu (2006); varying computational strengths, we present multiple Drumwright & Shell (2010); Todorov (2014) have all algorithms to the reader as well as a guide (see Ap- used the model within simulation and physical artifacts pendix A) that details task use cases for these control- have yet to become apparent. lers. Inverse Dynamics with Rigid Contact and Friction 3 This work validates controllers based upon these ap- limit verification that controllers implementing these proaches in simulation to determine their performance inverse dynamics approaches for control work as ex- under a variety of measurable phenomena that would pected. These experiments also examine behavior when not be accessible on present day physically situated modeling assumptions break down. Section 8 analyzes robot hardware. Experiments indicating performance the findings from these experiments. differentials on present day (prototype quality) hard- ware might occur due to control forces exciting unmod- eled effects, for example. Results derived from simula- 1.5 The multi-body tion using ideal sensing and perfect torque control in- dicate the limit of performance for control software de- This paper centers around a multi-body, which is the scribed in this work. We also validate one of the more system of rigid bodies to which inverse dynamics is robust presented controllers on a fixed-base manipula- applied. The multi-body may come into contact with tor robot grasping task to demonstrate operation under “fixed” parts of the environment (e.g., solid ground)