1990 American Control Conference 1990
DOI: 10.23919/acc.1990.4791231
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Issues in Robot Adaptive Control

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

1993
1993
1996
1996

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We now investigate the stability of the error dynamics from Eq. (7) using the Lyapunov function candidate of Eq. (8).…”
Section: Partwly Decentralized Adaptive Control Schemementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We now investigate the stability of the error dynamics from Eq. (7) using the Lyapunov function candidate of Eq. (8).…”
Section: Partwly Decentralized Adaptive Control Schemementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, these adaptive controllers can lack robustness to unmodelled dynamics, sensor noise, and external disturbances. 6,7 In the second approach to adaptive motion control, referred to as performance-bused adaptive control, the adaptive laws adjust the controller gains directly based on the system performance. These schemes assume that very little information is available concerning the structure and the parameter values of the robot dynamic model (e.g., refs.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, their design requires precise knowledge of the structure of the entire robot dynamic model, including friction and transmission effects, which is often an unrealistic requirement in practice. Additionally, recent studies have indicated that these indirect adaptive controllers can lack robustness to unmodelled dynamics, sensor noise, and other disturbances [20,21]. Another drawback of this approach is that implementation of these schemes with robots possessing more than two or three joints can be computationally intensive, particularly if it is desired to implement them with system generalized coordinates other than the manipulator joint angles.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…W ith this approach the adaptation is driven by the tracking error. In contrast, indirect adaptive control involves use of the difference between measured torques and predicted torques to drive the parameter adaptation algorithm [9].…”
Section: F U Ll-s Tate Feedback a D A P Tiv E C Ontrolmentioning
confidence: 99%