CN119347853A - A test method and device for force control performance of a robot system - Google Patents
A test method and device for force control performance of a robot system Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN119347853A CN119347853A CN202411946446.3A CN202411946446A CN119347853A CN 119347853 A CN119347853 A CN 119347853A CN 202411946446 A CN202411946446 A CN 202411946446A CN 119347853 A CN119347853 A CN 119347853A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- test
- force control
- force
- substrate
- testing device
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
Classifications
-
- B—PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
- B25—HAND TOOLS; PORTABLE POWER-DRIVEN TOOLS; MANIPULATORS
- B25J—MANIPULATORS; CHAMBERS PROVIDED WITH MANIPULATION DEVICES
- B25J19/00—Accessories fitted to manipulators, e.g. for monitoring, for viewing; Safety devices combined with or specially adapted for use in connection with manipulators
- B25J19/0095—Means or methods for testing manipulators
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Robotics (AREA)
- Mechanical Engineering (AREA)
- Manipulator (AREA)
Abstract
The application provides a method and a device for testing force control performance of a robot system, and relates to the technical field of robot performance testing. A method for testing force control performance of a robot system comprises the steps of setting a plurality of test action elements of the robot system, determining a plurality of force control performances to be tested corresponding to the test action elements, and respectively constructing corresponding testing devices based on the plurality of force control performances to be tested so as to test the robot system. According to the embodiment of the application, the performance of the robot or the mechanical arm based on the control of the force can be accurately evaluated.
Description
Technical Field
The application relates to the technical field of robot performance testing, in particular to a method and a device for testing the force control performance of a robot system.
Background
The performance index of the robot or the mechanical arm is an index for evaluating the performance of the robot or the mechanical arm system in the aspect of specific tasks or functions, and can be used for evaluating the performance of the robot or the mechanical arm system in the aspects of precision, efficiency, speed, reliability, energy consumption and the like. The force control performance is a key index of the robot or the mechanical arm in executing various tasks.
Currently, solutions for robots or robotic arm systems to perform force-based manipulation tasks mainly use external force or moment sensors at the ends to sense force information and then perform corresponding control actions based on the sensed force information. While these solutions are provided by robot manufacturers and third party integrators as software packages, there are typically no other performance specifications other than sensing functions.
At present, collaborative robots use inherent torque sensors at the joint level to resolve forces or torques at the tool center point, and these joint force sensor based robots can be programmed to accomplish force based manufacturing tasks. In the aspect of industry specification, the current testing standards of robots or mechanical arms comprise position, gesture, track and simple flexibility tests, and no force control performance testing method and standard of the system exist.
Disclosure of Invention
According to one aspect of the application, a method for testing the force control performance of a robot system is provided, and the method comprises the steps of setting a plurality of test action primitives of the robot system, determining a plurality of force control performances to be tested corresponding to the plurality of test action primitives, and respectively constructing corresponding testing devices based on the plurality of force control performances to be tested so as to test the robot system.
According to some embodiments, the plurality of test action primitives includes a grip action primitive, a carry action primitive, a touch action primitive, a press action primitive, a push-pull action primitive, a plug action primitive, a screw action primitive, and/or a throw action primitive.
According to some embodiments, determining a plurality of force control performances to be tested corresponding to a plurality of test action primitives comprises determining that the force control performances to be tested corresponding to a grip action primitive comprises grip touch sensitivity and finger force, determining that the force control performances to be tested corresponding to a carry action primitive comprises cooperative motion control, determining that the force control performances to be tested corresponding to a touch action primitive comprises touch sensitivity and touch force, determining that the force control performances to be tested corresponding to a press action primitive comprises pressing force control stability, disturbance suppression capability and force/position hybrid control, determining that the force control performances to be tested corresponding to a push-pull action primitive comprises push-pull force control stability and push-pull force tracking, determining that the force control performances to be tested corresponding to a plug action primitive comprises plug force control stability and maximum card resistance, determining that the force control performances to be tested corresponding to a screw action primitive comprises screw force control stability, screw and maximum screw torque, and determining that the force control performances to be tested corresponding to a throwing action primitive comprises throwing force.
According to some embodiments, corresponding testing devices are respectively built based on a plurality of to-be-tested force control performances to test a robot system, and the method comprises the steps of building a first testing device based on the force control performances of the grip touch sensitivity, the finger strength and the touch sensitivity, and respectively testing the corresponding force control performances of the robot system according to a preset grip touch sensitivity testing rule, a preset finger strength testing rule and a preset touch sensitivity testing rule based on the first testing device.
According to some embodiments, corresponding testing devices are respectively built based on a plurality of to-be-tested force control performances to test the robot system, and the method comprises the steps of building a second testing device based on the force control performances of the cooperative motion control, and testing the corresponding force control performances of the robot system according to preset cooperative motion control testing rules based on the second testing device.
According to some embodiments, corresponding testing devices are respectively built based on a plurality of to-be-tested force control performances to test the robot system, wherein the method comprises the steps of building a third testing device based on the force control performances of touch force and pressing force control stability, and carrying out corresponding force control performance test on the robot system based on the third testing device according to a preset touch force testing rule and a preset pressing force control stability testing rule.
According to some embodiments, corresponding testing devices are respectively constructed based on a plurality of to-be-tested force control performances to test the robot system, and the method comprises the steps of constructing a fourth testing device based on the force control performances of disturbance rejection capability, and testing the corresponding force control performances of the robot system according to preset disturbance rejection capability testing rules based on the fourth testing device.
According to some embodiments, corresponding testing devices are respectively constructed based on a plurality of to-be-tested force control performances to test the robot system, wherein the method comprises the steps of constructing a fifth testing device based on the force control performances of the force/position hybrid control, and testing the corresponding force control performances of the robot system according to preset force/position hybrid control testing rules based on the fifth testing device.
According to some embodiments, corresponding testing devices are respectively constructed based on a plurality of to-be-tested force control performances to test the robot system, wherein the method comprises the steps of constructing a sixth testing device based on push-pull force control stability and push-pull force tracking force control performances, and respectively testing the corresponding force control performances of the robot system according to preset push-pull force control stability testing rules and preset push-pull force tracking testing rules based on the sixth testing device.
According to some embodiments, corresponding testing devices are respectively constructed based on a plurality of to-be-tested force control performances to test the robot system, wherein the method comprises the steps of constructing a seventh testing device based on the plug force control stability and the force control performance of the maximum card resistance, and respectively testing the corresponding force control performance of the robot system according to a preset plug force control stability testing rule and a preset maximum card resistance testing rule based on the seventh testing device.
According to some embodiments, corresponding testing devices are respectively built based on a plurality of to-be-tested force control performances to test a robot system, wherein the method comprises the steps of building an eighth testing device based on the screwing force control stability, the screwing sensitivity and the maximum screwing torque force control performance, and respectively testing the corresponding force control performances of the robot system according to a preset screwing force control stability testing rule, a preset screwing sensitivity testing rule and a preset maximum screwing torque testing rule based on the eighth testing device.
According to some embodiments, corresponding testing devices are respectively constructed based on a plurality of to-be-tested force control performances to test the robot system, and the method comprises constructing a ninth testing device based on the throwing force control performances, and testing the corresponding force control performances of the robot system according to preset throwing force testing rules based on the ninth testing device.
According to an aspect of the present application, there is provided a testing apparatus for use as a first testing apparatus in the above-described method, comprising a base substrate fixed to a surface of a test bed, a lower surface of the base substrate being in contact with the surface of the test bed, a top substrate disposed opposite to the base substrate, a force sensor fixed between an upper surface of the base substrate and a lower surface of the top substrate, and a test workpiece fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, wherein the test workpiece has a cylindrical structure, and a top of the test workpiece includes a cylindrical buffer module.
According to an aspect of the present application, there is provided a testing device for use as a second testing device in the method described above, comprising a base substrate, a top substrate disposed opposite the base substrate, a force sensor fixed between an upper surface of the base substrate and a lower surface of the top substrate, a first testing workpiece fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, and a second testing workpiece fixedly connected to the lower surface of the base substrate, wherein the first testing workpiece and the second testing workpiece are cylindrical links.
According to an aspect of the present application, there is provided a test apparatus for use as a third test apparatus in the above-described method, comprising a base substrate fixed to a surface of a test bed, a lower surface of the base substrate being in contact with the surface of the test bed, a top substrate disposed opposite to the base substrate, a force sensor fixed between an upper surface of the base substrate and a lower surface of the top substrate, and a test workpiece fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, wherein the test workpiece has an octagon structure.
According to an aspect of the present application, there is provided a testing apparatus for use as a fourth testing apparatus in the method described above, comprising a base substrate fixed to a surface of a test bed, a lower surface of the base substrate being in contact with the surface of the test bed, a top substrate disposed opposite to the base substrate, a force sensor fixed between an upper surface of the base substrate and a lower surface of the top substrate, and a test workpiece fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, wherein the test workpiece has an irregularly shaped structure and comprises a plurality of faces of different angles.
According to an aspect of the present application, there is provided a testing device for use as a fifth testing device in the above-described method, including a bottom substrate fixed to a surface of a test bed, a lower surface of the bottom substrate being in contact with the surface of the test bed, a top substrate disposed opposite to the bottom substrate, a force sensor fixed between an upper surface of the bottom substrate and a lower surface of the top substrate, and a test workpiece fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, wherein the test workpiece has a disk structure and is made of a plurality of different materials, and the plurality of different materials are correspondingly distributed in a plurality of areas of the test workpiece.
According to an aspect of the present application, there is provided a testing apparatus for use as a sixth testing apparatus in the above-described method, comprising a bottom substrate fixed to a surface of a test bed, a lower surface of the bottom substrate being in contact with the surface of the test bed, a top substrate disposed opposite to the bottom substrate, a force sensor fixed between an upper surface of the bottom substrate and a lower surface of the top substrate, a test piece fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, wherein the test piece comprises a spring, a bottom fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, a connecting member, the bottom fixedly connected to the spring, and a hook detachably connected to a top of the connecting member.
According to an aspect of the present application, there is provided a test apparatus for use as a seventh test apparatus in the above-described method, comprising a bottom substrate fixed to a surface of a test bed, a lower surface of the bottom substrate being in contact with the surface of the test bed, a top substrate disposed opposite to the bottom substrate, a force sensor fixed between an upper surface of the bottom substrate and a lower surface of the top substrate, and a test piece fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, wherein the test piece comprises a disk structure having a hole at a center, or a plurality of gears, or a snap structure.
According to an aspect of the present application, there is provided a test apparatus for use as an eighth test apparatus in the above-described method, comprising a base substrate fixed to a surface of a test bed, a lower surface of the base substrate being in contact with the surface of the test bed, a top substrate disposed opposite to the base substrate, a force sensor fixed between an upper surface of the base substrate and a lower surface of the top substrate, a test piece fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, wherein the test piece comprises a spring, the base is fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, a connecting member including a plurality of holes, the base is fixedly connected to the spring, a connecting rod connected to the connecting member through the plurality of holes, and a bolt connected to the connecting member through the holes at the top of the connecting member.
According to an aspect of the present application, there is provided a test apparatus for use as a ninth test apparatus in the above-described method, comprising a base substrate fixed to a surface of a test bed, a lower surface of the base substrate being in contact with the surface of the test bed, a top substrate disposed opposite to the base substrate, a force sensor fixed between an upper surface of the base substrate and a lower surface of the top substrate, and a test piece fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate, wherein the test piece comprises a support spring having one end fixedly connected to the top substrate, and a load-bearing test plate fixedly connected to the other end of the support spring.
According to the embodiment of the application, the force control capability of robots with different sensing and control schemes can be tested and measured through independent external sensing measurement systems, adaptation mechanisms and algorithms so as to promote the credibility, unbiasedness and unified comparability of a cross-system of an evaluation system. In addition, the technical scheme of the application adopts the high-precision six-dimensional force sensor and the modularized test workpiece to independently measure the performance of the robot, and has the characteristics of high test precision, comprehensive test force direction and variety and the like.
It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only and are not restrictive of the application as claimed.
Drawings
In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, the drawings that are needed in the description of the embodiments will be briefly introduced below, and it is obvious that the drawings in the description below are only some embodiments of the present application.
Fig. 1 shows a flowchart of a method of testing force control performance of a robot system according to an exemplary embodiment of the present application.
Fig. 2 shows a schematic diagram of a first test device according to an exemplary embodiment of the application.
Fig. 3 shows a schematic diagram of a second test device according to an exemplary embodiment of the application.
Fig. 4 shows a schematic diagram of a third test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
Fig. 5 shows a schematic diagram of a fourth testing device according to an exemplary embodiment of the application.
Fig. 6 shows a schematic diagram of a fifth test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
Fig. 7 shows a schematic diagram of a sixth test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
Fig. 8 shows a schematic diagram of a seventh test device according to an exemplary embodiment of the application.
Fig. 9 shows a schematic diagram of an eighth test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
Fig. 10 shows a schematic diagram of a ninth test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
Detailed Description
Example embodiments will now be described more fully with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, the exemplary embodiments can be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein, but rather, these embodiments are provided so that this disclosure will be thorough and complete, and will fully convey the concept of the exemplary embodiments to those skilled in the art. The same reference numerals in the drawings denote the same or similar parts, and thus a repetitive description thereof will be omitted.
The described features, structures, or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments. In the following description, numerous specific details are provided to give a thorough understanding of embodiments of the application. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize, however, that the application can be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, devices, operations, etc. In these instances, well-known structures, methods, devices, implementations, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail.
The flow diagrams depicted in the figures are exemplary only, and do not necessarily include all of the elements and operations/steps, nor must they be performed in the order described. For example, some operations/steps may be decomposed, and some operations/steps may be combined or partially combined, so that the order of actual execution may be changed according to actual situations.
The terms first, second and the like in the description and in the claims and in the above-described figures are used for distinguishing between different objects and not necessarily for describing a sequential or chronological order. Furthermore, the terms "comprise" and "have," as well as any variations thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion. For example, a process, method, system, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of steps or elements is not limited to only those listed steps or elements but may include other steps or elements not listed or inherent to such process, method, article, or apparatus.
The application provides a method and a device for testing the force control performance of a robot system, which can test and measure the force control capacity of robots with different perception and control schemes.
A method and apparatus for testing force control performance of a robot system according to embodiments of the present application will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.
Fig. 1 shows a flowchart of a method of testing force control performance of a robot system according to an exemplary embodiment of the present application.
As shown in fig. 1, in step S1000, a plurality of test action primitives of the robotic system are set.
After the motion actions of the robot system are analyzed, the testing task of the robot system is simplified into a plurality of testing action primitives.
According to some embodiments, the plurality of test action primitives includes a grip action primitive, a carry action primitive, a touch action primitive, a press action primitive, a push-pull action primitive, a plug action primitive, a screw action primitive, and/or a throw action primitive.
Wherein the test of the grip movement element is a test for a manipulator.
The test of the handling motion element is a test for a two-arm robotic system.
The touch action primitive test is a test for a manipulator/arm.
The test of the pressing action primitive is a test for the mechanical arm pressing force control performance.
The test of the push-pull action element is a test for the push-pull force control performance and the push-pull motion control performance of the mechanical arm.
The test of the plug action primitive is a test for the control performance and the motion control performance of the plug force of the mechanical arm.
The test of the screwing action primitive is a test for the screwing force control performance and the movement control performance of the mechanical arm.
The test of the throwing action primitive is a test for the control performance of the throwing action of the mechanical arm.
In step S2000, a plurality of force control performances to be tested corresponding to the plurality of test action primitives are determined.
After determining the plurality of test action primitives, the force control performance of each test action primitive is analyzed to determine the force control performance to be tested.
According to some embodiments, the force control performance to be tested corresponding to the grip action primitive includes grip touch sensitivity and finger force.
Where touch sensitivity is a dynamic measurement of the minimum contact force exerted by a robot finger on an object, affecting fine interaction operations and the ability to detect small force disturbances. Factors affecting touch sensitivity include hand sensors, motion controllers, bandwidth, joint speed, finger size, finger configuration, and the like.
Finger strength is a dynamic measure of the maximum force applied by a robot finger to the environment, affecting the overall force of the manipulator when gripping or manipulating, and measuring finger strength on a single finger basis. Factors affecting finger strength include hand actuator capabilities, motion controllers, mechanical design, finger configuration, and the like.
According to some embodiments, the force control performance to be tested corresponding to the handling motion primitive includes cooperative motion control.
The cooperative motion control is a dynamic measurement of the force exerted by the two arms of the robot on the object, information about the internal acting force of the two arms on the object during carrying is generated, and the coordination capacity of the two arms of the robot in the carrying process is reflected. Factors that affect the coupled force control characteristics include single arm motion controllers, dual arm motion controllers, bandwidth, handling configuration, object size, and the like.
According to some embodiments, the force control performance to be tested corresponding to the touch action primitive includes touch sensitivity and touch force.
The touch sensitivity is a dynamic measurement of the minimum contact force exerted on an object by a robot finger or a tail end of a mechanical arm, and influences fine interaction operation and the capability of detecting small-force disturbance. Factors that affect touch sensitivity include force sensors, motion controllers, bandwidth, speed of motion, and finger/tip configuration, among others.
The touch force is a dynamic measure of the maximum force applied to the environment by the robot finger/arm tip, affecting the overall force of the robot finger/arm tip during the touch operation. Factors that affect touch force include actuator capabilities, motion controllers, mechanical design, finger configuration, and the like.
According to some embodiments, the force control performance to be tested corresponding to the pressing action primitive includes pressing force control stability, disturbance rejection capability, and force/position hybrid control.
The pressing force control stability refers to measurement of the setup time, overshoot and steady state error when the mechanical arm is in contact with the target surface, reflecting the ability of the controller to detect and maintain contact with an object. Factors affecting the stability of the pressing force control include force sensor, motion controller, bandwidth, motion speed, etc.
The disturbance rejection capability is the deviation of the actual contact force from the desired contact force as the end of the robotic arm moves along the surface profile, and may reflect the ability of the robot to perform successive compressions over a range of operating speeds. Factors that affect disturbance rejection include force sensors, motion controllers, bandwidth, motion speed, etc.
The force/position hybrid control is a dynamic measurement of the force applied to the environment while the tail end of the mechanical arm moves, and comprehensively reflects the motion control performance and the force control performance of the mechanical arm. Factors influencing force/position hybrid control include actuator capabilities, motion controllers, mechanical design, motion speed, and contact environment, among others.
According to some embodiments, the force control performance to be tested corresponding to the push-pull action element comprises push-pull force control stability and push-pull force tracking.
The push-pull force control stability refers to measurement of the set-up time, overshoot and steady state error when the mechanical arm is in contact with the target surface, and reflects the capability of the controller to detect and maintain contact with an object. Factors that affect the stability of the push-pull force control include force sensors, motion controllers, bandwidth, speed of motion, and test objects, among others.
Push-pull force tracking refers to tracking the characteristics of a desired force after the robotic arm is in contact with the target surface, reflecting the ability of the controller to detect and maintain contact with an object. Factors that affect force control stability include force sensors, motion controllers, bandwidth, speed of motion, test object, and contact environment, among others.
According to some embodiments, the force control performance to be tested corresponding to the plug action primitive includes plug force control stability and maximum card resistance.
The plug force control stability refers to measurement of the set-up time, overshoot and steady state error when the mechanical arm is in contact with the surface of the target object, reflects the capability of the controller to detect and control contact with the object, and characterizes the flexible control characteristic of the mechanical arm. Factors affecting the stability of the plug force control include force sensors, motion controllers, bandwidth, motion speed, and objects of operation, etc.
The maximum card resistance is the maximum contact force when the mechanical arm is in a card resistance state in the plugging and unplugging assembly process, reflects the capacity of the controller for detecting the card resistance state and controlling the contact force, and characterizes the flexible control characteristic of the mechanical arm. Factors that affect the maximum detent force include force sensor, motion controller, bandwidth, speed of motion, object of operation, and gap ratio, etc.
According to some embodiments, the force control performance to be tested corresponding to the screwing motion primitive includes screwing force control stability, screwing sensitivity and maximum screwing torque.
The screwing force control stability refers to measurement of the set-up time, overshoot and steady state error when the mechanical arm is in contact with the surface of a target object, reflects the capability of a controller to detect and control contact with the object, and characterizes the flexible control characteristic of the mechanical arm. Factors that affect the stability of the screw force control include force sensors, motion controllers, bandwidth, speed of motion, and objects of operation, among others.
The threading sensitivity is a dynamic measurement of the minimum threading torque applied by the end of the robotic arm to the object, affecting the threading interaction and the ability to detect small torque disturbances. Factors affecting the sensitivity of the screw include sensors, motion controllers, bandwidth, joint speed, operator configuration, etc.
The maximum screwing torque is a dynamic measurement of the maximum torque applied to the environment by the tail end of the mechanical arm, and influences the whole strength of the mechanical arm when the mechanical arm performs screwing operation. Factors affecting the maximum screwing torque include force sensor, motion controller, bandwidth, motion speed, and operation object, etc.
According to some embodiments, the force control performance to be tested corresponding to the throwing action primitive includes a throwing force.
The throwing power refers to the maximum power capability of a standard test workpiece to be thrown by a mechanical arm in a windless condition in a common mode, and reflects the throwing maximum power and the control performance of a controller. Factors that affect throwing power include motion controller, bandwidth, objects operated, environmental factors, and the like.
In step S3000, corresponding test devices are respectively constructed based on the plurality of force control performances to be tested, so as to test the robot system.
After determining a plurality of force control performances to be tested, respectively constructing different testing devices according to different force control performances to be tested so as to test the corresponding force control performances of the robot system.
According to some embodiments, the first test device is constructed based on force control performance of grip touch sensitivity, finger force, and touch sensitivity.
Further, based on the first testing device, the force control performance of the grasping touch sensitivity of the robot system is tested according to a preset grasping touch sensitivity testing rule, the force control performance of the finger force of the robot system is tested according to a preset finger force testing rule, and the force control performance of the touch sensitivity of the robot system is tested according to a preset touch sensitivity testing rule.
According to some embodiments, the second test device is constructed based on force control performance of the cooperative motion control.
Further, based on the second testing device, the force control performance of the cooperative motion control of the robot system is tested according to a preset cooperative motion control testing rule.
According to some embodiments, the third test device is constructed based on the force control performance of the touch force and the pressing force control stability.
Further, based on the third testing device, the force control performance of the touch force of the robot system is tested according to a preset touch force testing rule, and the force control performance of the pressing force control stability of the robot system is tested according to a preset pressing force control stability testing rule.
According to some embodiments, a fourth test device is constructed based on the force control performance of the disturbance rejection capability.
Further, based on the fourth testing device, the force control performance of the disturbance rejection capability of the robot system is tested according to a preset disturbance rejection capability test rule.
According to some embodiments, a fifth test device is constructed based on the force control performance of the force/position hybrid control.
Further, based on the fifth testing device, the force control performance of the force/position hybrid control of the robot system is tested according to a preset force/position hybrid control testing rule.
According to some embodiments, a sixth test device is constructed based on push-pull force control stability and force control performance of push-pull force tracking.
Further, based on the sixth testing device, the force control performance of the push-pull force control stability of the robot system is tested according to a preset push-pull force control stability testing rule, and the force control performance of push-pull force tracking of the robot system is tested according to a preset push-pull force tracking testing rule.
According to some embodiments, a seventh test device is constructed based on the plug force control stability and the force control performance of the maximum card resistance.
Further, based on the seventh testing device, the force control performance of the plug force control stability of the robot system is tested according to a preset plug force control stability testing rule, and the force control performance of the maximum card resistance of the robot system is tested according to a preset maximum card resistance testing rule.
According to some embodiments, an eighth test device is constructed based on the torque control performance of the torque control stability, the torque sensitivity and the maximum torque.
Further, based on the eighth testing device, the force control performance of the screwing force control stability of the robot system is tested according to a preset screwing sensitivity testing rule, the force control performance of the screwing sensitivity of the robot system is tested according to a preset maximum screwing torque testing rule, and the force control performance of the maximum screwing torque of the robot system is tested according to a preset maximum screwing torque testing rule.
According to some embodiments, a ninth test device is constructed based on the force control performance of the throwing power.
Further, based on the ninth testing device, the force control performance of the throwing power of the robot system is tested according to a preset throwing power testing rule.
According to the embodiment of the application, the force control performance of robots with different perception and control schemes can be tested and measured through an independent external sensing measurement system, an adaptive mechanism and an algorithm, the testing precision is high, and the direction and the type of the testing force are comprehensive.
Fig. 2 shows a schematic diagram of a first test device according to an exemplary embodiment of the application.
As shown in fig. 2, the first test device 10 includes a bottom substrate 110, a top substrate 120, a force sensor 130, and a test piece 140.
The base substrate 110 is fixed to the surface of the test bed. Wherein the lower surface of the base substrate 110 is in contact with the surface of the test stand.
The top substrate 120 is disposed opposite to the bottom substrate 110.
The force sensor 130 is fixed between the upper surface of the bottom substrate 110 and the lower surface of the top substrate 120.
According to some embodiments, force sensor 130 may employ a six-dimensional force sensor.
The test piece 140 is fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate 120.
According to some embodiments, the test piece 140 may be a cylindrical structure, and the top of the test piece 140 may include a cylindrical buffer module 141.
The first test device 10 further comprises a data processing module (not shown in fig. 2) for performing the collection and analysis of test data.
According to some embodiments, the grip touch sensitivity of the robotic system may be tested by the first testing device 10 according to a preset grip touch sensitivity test rule. The preset grip touch sensitivity test rule includes the steps of:
S10, the robot finger approaches the test workpiece 140 at a preset joint speed.
S11, when the robot finger is fully extended, the robot finger contacts with the contact surface of the buffer module 141 and stops moving. At this time, the Cartesian velocity of the tip of the robot finger is the greatest, and the greatest impact force is generated at the time of collision.
S12, recording test data of the force through a data processing module.
S13, repeating the steps from S10 to S12 for 10 times in a circulating way, and calculating the average value of the maximum contact force and the 95% confidence interval through the data processing module.
S14, setting different closing speeds of the robot finger, namely 10%, 50% and 100% of the maximum speed of the robot finger, repeating the steps S10 to S13, and evaluating different touch sensitivities of the robot finger at different speeds through the data processing module.
According to some embodiments, the finger strength of the robotic system may be tested by the first testing device 10 according to a preset finger strength test rule. The preset finger strength test rule comprises the following steps:
S20, fully stretching the robot finger, placing the robot finger right above the force sensor 130 and correcting the zero force reading of the force sensor 130.
S21, in the position control mode, the robot fingers are fully closed to cause control saturation.
S22, recording data of the force sensor 130 through a data processing module, and extracting the contact force between the robot finger from the quasi-static (stable) force area and the test workpiece 140.
S23, repeating the steps from S20 to S22 for 10 times in a circulating way, calculating the maximum fingertip force through the data processing module, and calculating an average value and a 95% confidence interval to estimate the finger force of the robot.
According to some embodiments, the touch sensitivity of the robotic system may be tested by the first testing device 10 according to a preset touch sensitivity test rule. The preset touch sensitivity test rule comprises the following steps:
s30, the tail end of the robot finger/mechanical arm approaches the test workpiece 140 at a preset speed in the X-axis direction.
And S31, stopping moving after the tail end of the robot finger/mechanical arm contacts with the contact surface of the buffer module 141, recording force data by the data processing module, and extracting a contact force peak value.
S32, repeating the steps from S30 to S31 for 10 times in a circulating way, and calculating the average value of the maximum contact force and the 95% confidence interval.
S33, setting different touch speeds of the tail end of the robot finger/mechanical arm, namely 10%, 50% and 100% of the maximum speed of the tail end of the robot finger/mechanical arm, repeating the steps S30 to S32, and evaluating different touch sensitivities of the tail end of the robot finger/mechanical arm at different speeds through a data processing module.
S34, repeating the steps S30 to S33 in the Y-axis direction and the Z-axis direction respectively, and testing the touch sensitivity of the tail end of the robot finger/mechanical arm in different directions.
Fig. 3 shows a schematic diagram of a second test device according to an exemplary embodiment of the application.
As shown in fig. 3, the second test device 20 includes a bottom substrate 210, a top substrate 220, a force sensor 230, a first test piece 240, and a second test piece 250.
The top substrate 220 is disposed opposite the bottom substrate 210.
The force sensor 230 is fixed between the upper surface of the bottom substrate 210 and the lower surface of the top substrate 220.
According to some embodiments, force sensor 230 may employ a six-dimensional force sensor.
The first test piece 240 is fixedly coupled to the upper surface of the top substrate 220.
The second test piece 250 is fixedly connected to the lower surface of the base substrate 210.
According to some embodiments, the first test piece 240 and the second test piece 250 may be cylindrical links.
The second testing device 20 further comprises a data processing module (not shown in fig. 3) for performing the collection and analysis of the test data.
According to some embodiments, the cooperative motion control performance of the robotic system may be tested by the second testing device 20 according to a preset cooperative motion control test rule. The preset cooperative motion control test rule comprises the following steps:
s40, the first test workpiece 240 and the second test workpiece 250 are respectively grabbed by double-arm cooperation of the robot, horizontal transverse carrying movement is carried out according to a movement expected track, and quasi-static force and moment are calculated through a data processing module.
S41, the first test workpiece 240 and the second test workpiece 250 are respectively grabbed by double-arm cooperation of the robot, horizontal and longitudinal carrying movement is carried out according to a movement expected track, and quasi-static force and moment are calculated through a data processing module.
S42, the first test workpiece 240 and the second test workpiece 250 are respectively grabbed by double-arm cooperation of the robot, vertical carrying movement is carried out according to a movement expected track, and quasi-static force and moment are calculated through the data processing module.
S43, repeating the steps from S40 to S42 for 10 times in a circulating way, and calculating the mean value of the quasi-static force and the moment and the 95% confidence interval through the data processing module.
S44, repeatedly executing the steps S40 to S43 on the first test workpiece 240 and the second test workpiece 250 with different diameters, and obtaining the carrying cooperative motion control performance of the test workpieces with different sizes.
S45, calculating L2 norms of static force and moment mean values in three directions, two lower bounds and two upper bounds of confidence intervals through a data processing module to determine the cooperative motion control performance of the robot.
Fig. 4 shows a schematic diagram of a third test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
As shown in fig. 4, the third test device 30 includes a bottom substrate 310, a top substrate 320, force sensors 330, and a test workpiece 340.
The base substrate 310 is fixed to the surface of the test bed. Wherein the lower surface of the base substrate 310 is in contact with the surface of the test stand.
The top substrate 320 is disposed opposite the bottom substrate 310.
The force sensor 330 is fixed between the upper surface of the bottom substrate 310 and the lower surface of the top substrate 320.
According to some embodiments, force sensor 330 may employ a six-dimensional force sensor.
The test piece 340 is fixedly attached to the upper surface of the top substrate 320.
According to some embodiments, the test workpiece 340 may be an octagon structure.
The third testing device 30 further comprises a data processing module (not shown in fig. 4) for performing the collection and analysis of the test data.
According to some embodiments, the touch force of the robot system may be tested by the third testing device 30 according to a predetermined touch force test rule. The preset touch strength test rule comprises the following steps:
s50, fully stretching the robot finger, placing the end of the robot finger/mechanical arm right above the force sensor 330 along the X-axis direction and correcting the zero force reading of the force sensor 330.
S51, in a position control mode, the fingers of the robot are completely closed, or the tail end of the mechanical arm is continuously moved for 5mm along the current axial direction, so that control saturation is caused.
S52, recording test data of the force sensor 330 through a data processing module.
And S53, repeating the steps from S50 to S52 for 10 times in a circulating way, and extracting the contact force between the tail end of the robot finger/mechanical arm in the quasi-static force area and the test workpiece 340 through the data processing module.
S54, acquiring the maximum fingertip force through the data processing module, and calculating an average value and a 95% confidence interval to estimate the touch force of the tail end of the robot finger/mechanical arm.
S55, repeating the steps S50 to S54 in the Y-axis direction and the Z-axis direction respectively, and testing the touch force of the robot finger/the tail end of the mechanical arm in different directions.
According to some embodiments, the press force stability of the robotic system may be tested by the third testing device 30 according to preset press force stability testing rules. The preset pressing force control stability test rule comprises the following steps:
S60, inputting expected step force Fd according to the movement direction perpendicular to each surface of the test workpiece 340 in sequence, so that the mechanical arm can maintain proper force when contacting the surface of the test workpiece 340.
S61, the robot is in a non-contact state at the beginning, and after the robot contacts the contact surface of the test workpiece 340, the robot moves in the direction of the contact surface and applies a normal force to the contact surface.
S62, setting the minimum acting force Fdmin capable of causing the effective robot to respond, and testing.
And S63, setting the expected force as a maximum value Fdmax in the payload capacity range, and performing a test.
And S64, setting the expected force to be an intermediate value Fdmid between the minimum and maximum test forces, and performing a test.
S65, recording test force data acquired by the force sensor 330 through the data processing module, and repeating the test 10 times for the pressing force control stability of each test direction for evaluation.
S66, calculating the average value, the stable time, the steady state error and the 95% confidence interval of the peak value of the contact force through the data processing module, and calculating the peak value overshoot, the stable time and the steady state error.
Fig. 5 shows a schematic diagram of a fourth testing device according to an exemplary embodiment of the application.
As shown in fig. 5, the fourth test apparatus 40 includes a bottom substrate 410, a top substrate 420, force sensors 430, and a test workpiece 440.
The base substrate 410 is fixed to the surface of the test stand. Wherein the lower surface of the base substrate 410 is in contact with the surface of the test stand.
The top substrate 420 is disposed opposite the bottom substrate 410.
The force sensor 430 is fixed between the upper surface of the bottom substrate 410 and the lower surface of the top substrate 420.
According to some embodiments, force sensor 430 may employ a six-dimensional force sensor.
The test piece 440 is fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate 420.
According to some embodiments, the test piece 440 may be an irregularly shaped structure and include a plurality of differently angled faces.
In an embodiment of the present application, the test piece 440 includes 12 faces at different angles.
The fourth testing device 40 further comprises a data processing module (not shown in fig. 5) for performing the collection and analysis of the test data.
According to some embodiments, the disturbance rejection capability of the robotic system may be tested by the fourth testing device 40 according to a preset disturbance rejection capability test rule. The preset disturbance rejection capability test rule comprises the following steps:
S70, the robot tip is made to perform linear spatial motion along a specified segment on the angled plane of the test workpiece 440.
S71, the robot is in a non-contact state at the beginning, and after the robot contacts the contact surface of the test workpiece 440, the robot moves at a preset speed along a set direction and applies a normal force to the contact surface.
S72, setting the minimum acting force Fdmin capable of causing the effective robot to respond, and testing.
And S73, setting the expected force as a maximum value Fdmax in the payload capacity range, and performing a test.
And S74, setting the expected force to be an intermediate value Fdmid between the minimum and maximum test forces, and performing a test.
S75, force data of the force sensor 430 is recorded by the data processing module, and the test is repeated 10 times for each test direction of movement for evaluation.
S76, calculating the contact force average value, the stable time, the steady state error and the 95% confidence interval of the robot and the test workpiece 440 through the data processing module, and calculating the peak overshoot, the stable time and the steady state error.
And S77, modifying the movement speed to be 10%, 50% and 100% of the maximum speed of the mechanical arm, repeatedly executing the steps S70 to S76, and testing the disturbance inhibition capability of the mechanical arm at different speeds.
Fig. 6 shows a schematic diagram of a fifth test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
As shown in fig. 6, the fifth test device 50 includes a bottom substrate 510, a top substrate 520, force sensors 530, and a test workpiece 540.
The base substrate 510 is fixed to the surface of the test stand. Wherein the lower surface of the base substrate 510 is in contact with the surface of the test stand.
The top substrate 520 is disposed opposite the bottom substrate 510.
The force sensor 530 is fixed between the upper surface of the bottom substrate 510 and the lower surface of the top substrate 520.
According to some embodiments, force sensor 530 may employ a six-dimensional force sensor.
The test piece 540 is fixedly attached to the upper surface of the top substrate 520.
According to some embodiments, the test piece 540 may be a disk structure, and the test piece 540 is made of a plurality of different materials that are correspondingly distributed over a plurality of regions of the test piece.
In the embodiment of the present application, the test workpiece 540 is made of 3 different materials, and the 3 different materials are correspondingly distributed in 3 regions of the test workpiece, namely, the first material region 541, the second material region 542 and the third material region 543.
The fifth testing device 50 further comprises a data processing module and a laser tracker (both not shown in fig. 6) for collecting and analyzing the test data.
According to some embodiments, the force/position mixture control performance of the robotic system may be tested by the fifth testing device 50 according to a preset force/position mixture control test rule. The preset force/position hybrid control test rules include the steps of:
S80, setting a desired contact force and setting the movement speed of the tail end of the mechanical arm.
S81, enabling the tail end of the mechanical arm to approach the test workpiece 540 along the Z-axis direction until the tail end of the mechanical arm contacts the test workpiece 540.
S82, the tail end of the mechanical arm is kept in contact with the test workpiece 540, and the contact force is kept according to the set value of the expected contact force.
S83, the tail end of the mechanical arm moves in the areas corresponding to the 3 different materials of the test workpiece 540 according to the expected movement track, and meanwhile track information and force information recorded by the laser tracker and the force sensor 530 are acquired through the data processing module.
S84, the mechanical arm circularly repeats the motion trail from the step S80 to the step S83 for 10 times.
S85, calculating a motion track error and a contact force error through a data processing module, and calculating an average value and a 95% confidence interval to estimate the touch force of the mechanical arm.
S86, respectively setting the movement speed to be 10%, 50% and 100% of the rated speed of the mechanical arm, repeatedly executing the steps S80 to S85, and testing the force/position hybrid control performance of the mechanical arm at different speeds.
Fig. 7 shows a schematic diagram of a sixth test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
As shown in fig. 7, the sixth test device 60 includes a bottom substrate 610, a top substrate 620, force sensors 630, and a test workpiece 640.
The base substrate 610 is fixed to the surface of the test stand. Wherein the lower surface of the base substrate 610 is in contact with the surface of the test stand.
The top substrate 620 is disposed opposite the bottom substrate 610.
The force sensor 630 is fixed between the upper surface of the bottom substrate 610 and the lower surface of the top substrate 620.
According to some embodiments, force sensor 630 may employ a six-dimensional force sensor.
The test piece 640 is fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate 620.
According to some embodiments, the test piece 640 includes a spring 641, a connector 642, and a hook 643.
According to some embodiments, the bottom of the spring 641 is fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate 620, the connector 642 is fixedly connected to the spring 641, the hook 643 is connected to the top of the connector 642, and the hook 643 is detachable.
In accordance with some embodiments, with the hooks 643 attached to the top of the connector 642, the test piece 640 may be used for testing of the force control performance of the pull portion in the force control performance test of push-pull force stability and push-pull force tracking.
According to some embodiments, the test piece 640 may be used for testing of the force control performance of the thrust portion in the force control performance test of push-pull force control stability and push-pull force tracking with the hook 643 disconnected from the top of the connector 642 (i.e., the hook 643 has been detached).
The sixth testing device 60 further comprises a data processing module (not shown in fig. 7) for performing the collection and analysis of the test data.
According to some embodiments, the push-pull force control stability of the robotic system may be tested by the sixth testing device 60 according to a preset push-pull force control stability test rule. The preset push-pull force control stability test rule comprises the following steps:
S90, enabling the tail end of the robot to conduct linear pushing/pulling motion on the test workpiece 640 along the normal direction of the test workpiece 640.
S91, the robot is in a non-contact state at the beginning, and after the robot pushes/pulls the test workpiece 640, the robot continues to push/pull until the expected force is reached.
S92, setting the minimum acting force Fdmin capable of causing the effective robot to respond, and testing.
S93, setting the expected force as a maximum value Fdmax in the payload capacity range, and testing.
And S94, setting the expected force to be an intermediate value Fdmid between the minimum and maximum test forces, and performing a test.
S95, force data of the force sensor 630 are recorded through the data processing module, and for push/pull force control stability of the robot in each test direction (namely X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis directions) for evaluation, the steps from S90 to S94 are repeated for 10 times in a circulating manner.
S96, replacing the test workpieces 640 with different elasticity and specifications, and repeating the steps S90 to S95.
S97, calculating an average value, a stable time, a steady state error and a 95% confidence interval of the peak value of the contact force through the data processing module, and calculating a peak value overshoot, a stable time and a steady state error.
According to some embodiments, the push-pull force tracking performance of the robotic system may be tested by the sixth testing device 60 according to a preset push-pull force tracking test rule. The preset push-pull force tracking test rule comprises the following steps:
S100, enabling the tail end of the robot to conduct linear pushing/pulling motion on the test workpiece 640 along a preset direction.
S101, the robot is in a non-contact state at the beginning, and after the robot pushes/pulls the test workpiece 640, the robot continues to push/pull until the desired force is reached.
S102, the tail end of the robot tracks the expected force according to the expected force track.
S103, force data of the force sensor 630 are recorded through the data processing module, and the steps S100 to S102 are repeated for 10 times for tracking performance of pushing/pulling force of the robot in each test direction (namely X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis directions) for evaluation.
S104, replacing the test workpieces 640 with different elasticity and specifications, and repeating the steps S100 to S103.
S105, calculating the average value, the stabilization time and the 95% confidence interval of the contact force error through the data processing module.
Fig. 8 shows a schematic diagram of a seventh test device according to an exemplary embodiment of the application.
As shown in fig. 8, the seventh test device 70 includes a bottom substrate 710, a top substrate 720, force sensors 730, and a test piece 740.
The base substrate 710 is fixed to the surface of the test bed. Wherein the lower surface of the base substrate 710 is in contact with the surface of the test stand.
The top substrate 720 is disposed opposite the bottom substrate 710.
The force sensor 730 is secured between the upper surface of the bottom substrate 710 and the lower surface of the top substrate 720.
According to some embodiments, force sensor 730 may employ a six-dimensional force sensor.
The test piece 740 is fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate 720.
According to some embodiments, the test piece 740 may be a disk structure with a hole at its center. The shape of the hole at the center of the test tool 740 may be set according to the cross-sectional shape of the link of the robot end to be tested, such as a circular hole or a square hole.
According to some embodiments, the test piece 740 may also be a plurality of gears arranged horizontally for performing the insertion and extraction operations of gears of the robot tip, meshing, etc.
According to some embodiments, the test piece 740 may also be a horizontally disposed snap structure for performing a snap-in operation of a robotic end snap-ring or the like.
The seventh testing device 70 further comprises a data processing module (not shown in fig. 8) for performing the collection and analysis of the test data.
According to some embodiments, the plug force stability of the robotic system may be tested by the seventh testing device 70 according to a preset plug force stability test rule. The preset test rule for the plug force control stability comprises the following steps:
s110, the robot performs the insertion and extraction actions of the connecting rod access hole on the test workpiece 740.
S111, recording force data measured by the force sensor 730 through a data processing module, and repeating the test 10 times according to the step S110.
S112, calculating the average value, the stable time, the steady state error and the 95% confidence interval of the peak value of the contact force through the data processing module, and calculating the peak value overshoot, the stable time and the steady state error.
S113, repeatedly executing the inserting and pulling operations of the snap ring, the gear insertion, the engagement and the like of the robot according to the steps from S110 to S112, recording test data through the data processing module, and analyzing relevant characteristics.
According to some embodiments, the maximum card resistance performance of the robotic system may be tested by the seventh testing device 70 according to a preset maximum card resistance test rule. The preset maximum card resistance test rule comprises the following steps:
S120, enabling the test workpiece 740 to execute the assembly action of the connecting rod access hole of the robot in a blocking posture with a preset inclination angle, stopping the action if the contact force exceeds a set maximum threshold value Fmax, recording the data of the force sensor 730 in the operation process through the data processing module, and extracting the maximum contact force.
S121, repeating the test 10 times according to the step S120.
S122, calculating an average value, a stable time, a steady state error and a 95% confidence interval of the peak value of the contact force through the data processing module, and calculating a peak overshoot, a stable time and a steady state error.
And S123, repeatedly executing the inserting and pulling operations such as gear insertion, engagement and the like according to the steps S120 to S122, recording test data through the data processing module and analyzing relevant characteristics.
Fig. 9 shows a schematic diagram of an eighth test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
As shown in fig. 9, the eighth test device 80 includes a bottom substrate 810, a top substrate 820, force sensors 830, and a test workpiece 840.
The base substrate 810 is fixed to the surface of the test stand. Wherein the lower surface of the base substrate 810 is in contact with the surface of the test stand.
The top substrate 820 is disposed opposite the bottom substrate 810.
Force sensor 830 is secured between the upper surface of bottom substrate 810 and the lower surface of top substrate 820.
According to some embodiments, force sensor 830 may employ a six-dimensional force sensor.
The test piece 840 is fixedly attached to the upper surface of the top substrate 820.
According to some embodiments, test piece 840 includes spring 841, connector 842, and link 843. The bottom of the spring 841 is fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate 820, and the bottom of the connector 842 is fixedly connected to the spring 841.
According to some embodiments, the connector 842 includes a plurality of holes around and on top.
According to some embodiments, a plurality of links 843 may be coupled to the connector 842 through a plurality of holes around the connector 842.
According to some embodiments, test piece 840 may further include a bolt 844 (not shown in FIG. 9) that may be coupled to connector 842 through a hole in the top of connector 842.
The eighth testing device 80 further comprises a data processing module (not shown in fig. 9) for performing the collection and analysis of the test data.
According to some embodiments, the screw-force stability of the robotic system may be tested by the eighth testing device 80 according to a preset screw-force stability test rule. The preset screwing force control stability test rule comprises the following steps:
s130, adjusting the length of the link 843 so that the robot end approaches the end of the link 843 at a preset speed, performing a small-arm screwing motion on the test workpiece 840.
S131, recording force data measured by the force sensor 830 through a data processing module, and repeating the test 10 times according to the step S130.
S132, calculating an average value, a stable time, a steady state error and a 95% confidence interval of the peak value of the contact force/moment through the data processing module, and calculating a peak value overshoot, a stable time and a steady state error.
S133, repeating the screwing operations of large screw arm screwing, bolt screwing and the like of the mechanical arm according to the steps from S130 to S132, recording test data through a data processing module and analyzing relevant characteristics.
According to some embodiments, the screw sensitivity of the robotic system may be tested by the eighth testing device 80 according to preset screw sensitivity testing rules. The preset screwing sensitivity test rule comprises the following steps:
S140, adjusting the length of the connecting rod 843 so that the end of the mechanical arm approaches the end of the connecting rod 843 at a preset speed, and performing a small-radius arm screwing action on the test workpiece 840.
S141, after the arm tip contacts the link 843, the arm stops moving.
S142, recording data of the force sensor 830 through a data processing module.
S143, repeating steps S140 to S142 for 10 times.
S144, calculating the average value, the stable time, the steady state error and the 95% confidence interval of the peak value of the contact force/moment through the data processing module, and calculating the peak value overshoot, the stable time and the steady state error.
And S145, repeating the screwing operations of large screw arm screwing, bolt screwing and the like of the mechanical arm according to the steps S140 to S144, recording test data through a data processing module and analyzing relevant characteristics.
S146, setting different tail end speeds of the mechanical arm, namely 10%, 50% and 100% of the maximum speed, repeating the steps S140 to S145, and evaluating different screwing sensitivities of the mechanical arm at different speeds.
According to some embodiments, the maximum screwing torque of the robotic system may be tested by the eighth testing device 80 according to a preset maximum screwing torque test rule. The preset maximum screwing moment test rule comprises the following steps:
And S150, the tail end of the mechanical arm performs screwing action on the test workpiece 840, the target rotates 180 degrees, and test data of the force sensor 830 are recorded through the data processing module.
And S151, repeating the test 10 times according to the step S150.
S152, calculating an average value, a stable time, a steady state error and a 95% confidence interval of the peak value of the contact force/moment through the data processing module, and calculating a peak overshoot, a stable time and a steady state error.
Fig. 10 shows a schematic diagram of a ninth test device according to an example embodiment of the application.
As shown in fig. 10, the ninth test device 90 includes a bottom substrate 910, a top substrate 920, a force sensor 930, and a test workpiece 940.
The base substrate 910 is fixed to the surface of the test bed. Wherein the lower surface of the base substrate 910 is in contact with the surface of the test stand.
The top substrate 920 is disposed opposite the bottom substrate 910.
Force sensor 930 is secured between an upper surface of bottom substrate 910 and a lower surface of top substrate 920.
According to some embodiments, force sensor 930 may employ a six-dimensional force sensor.
The test piece 940 is fixedly connected to the upper surface of the top substrate 920.
According to some embodiments, test piece 940 includes support springs 941 and a load test plate 942. One end of the supporting spring 941 is fixedly connected to the top substrate 920, and the other end of the supporting spring 941 is fixedly connected to the load test board 942.
According to some embodiments, the number of support springs 941 may be adjusted according to actual scene requirements.
The ninth test device 90 further includes a data processing module and a motion trajectory capturing module (both not shown in fig. 10) for collecting and analyzing test data.
According to some embodiments, the throwing power of the robotic system may be tested by the ninth test apparatus 90 according to a preset throwing power test rule. The preset throwing power test rule includes the steps of:
s160, placing the baseball at the initial position and placing the ninth testing device 90 at the origin of coordinates of the mechanical arm by 3 meters.
S161, setting the throwing target point as the center point of the carrying test plate 942 of the ninth test apparatus 90. After determining the position of the throwing target point, the mechanical arm grabs the baseball and throws the baseball towards the throwing target point in a preset direction.
S162, recording the motion track of the baseball through the motion track capturing module, recording the force information measured by the force sensor 930 through the data processing module, and extracting the peak value of the contact force.
S163, repeating the steps from S160 to S162 for 10 times in a circulating way, and calculating the average value of throwing power of the mechanical arm and the 95% confidence interval through the data processing module.
The foregoing detailed description of the embodiments of the application has been presented only to assist in understanding the method and its core ideas of the application. Meanwhile, based on the idea of the present application, those skilled in the art can make changes or modifications on the specific embodiments and application scope of the present application, which belong to the protection scope of the present application. In view of the foregoing, this description should not be construed as limiting the application.
Claims (21)
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202411946446.3A CN119347853B (en) | 2024-12-27 | 2024-12-27 | Method and device for testing force control performance of robot system |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202411946446.3A CN119347853B (en) | 2024-12-27 | 2024-12-27 | Method and device for testing force control performance of robot system |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN119347853A true CN119347853A (en) | 2025-01-24 |
| CN119347853B CN119347853B (en) | 2025-05-27 |
Family
ID=94318174
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202411946446.3A Active CN119347853B (en) | 2024-12-27 | 2024-12-27 | Method and device for testing force control performance of robot system |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN119347853B (en) |
Citations (6)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA3097239A1 (en) * | 2018-04-16 | 2019-10-24 | Flexible Robotic Solutions | A robot system and method for non-destructive testing |
| CN114260938A (en) * | 2021-12-21 | 2022-04-01 | 中科新松有限公司 | System and method for testing braking performance of robot |
| WO2022166329A1 (en) * | 2021-02-07 | 2022-08-11 | 深圳市优必选科技股份有限公司 | Human-robot collaboration control method and device for robot, and robot |
| CN115070726A (en) * | 2022-06-16 | 2022-09-20 | 浙江理工大学 | High-precision force perception control system and method based on heavy-load robot |
| CN117516844A (en) * | 2023-11-08 | 2024-02-06 | 苏州康多机器人有限公司 | Surgical robot instrument end vibration testing system and method |
| CN117921737A (en) * | 2022-10-13 | 2024-04-26 | 库卡机器人制造（上海）有限公司 | Collaborative robot testing system, control method, control device, and storage medium |
-
2024
- 2024-12-27 CN CN202411946446.3A patent/CN119347853B/en active Active
Patent Citations (7)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA3097239A1 (en) * | 2018-04-16 | 2019-10-24 | Flexible Robotic Solutions | A robot system and method for non-destructive testing |
| US20210148866A1 (en) * | 2018-04-16 | 2021-05-20 | Flexible Robotic Solutions | A robot system and method for non-destructive testing |
| WO2022166329A1 (en) * | 2021-02-07 | 2022-08-11 | 深圳市优必选科技股份有限公司 | Human-robot collaboration control method and device for robot, and robot |
| CN114260938A (en) * | 2021-12-21 | 2022-04-01 | 中科新松有限公司 | System and method for testing braking performance of robot |
| CN115070726A (en) * | 2022-06-16 | 2022-09-20 | 浙江理工大学 | High-precision force perception control system and method based on heavy-load robot |
| CN117921737A (en) * | 2022-10-13 | 2024-04-26 | 库卡机器人制造（上海）有限公司 | Collaborative robot testing system, control method, control device, and storage medium |
| CN117516844A (en) * | 2023-11-08 | 2024-02-06 | 苏州康多机器人有限公司 | Surgical robot instrument end vibration testing system and method |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| CN119347853B (en) | 2025-05-27 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| US20190234819A1 (en) | Retroreflective Multi-Axis Force Torque Sensor | |
| Dollar et al. | Contact sensing and grasping performance of compliant hands | |
| Falco et al. | Grasping the performance: Facilitating replicable performance measures via benchmarking and standardized methodologies | |
| US4855923A (en) | Parts assembly using signature analysis | |
| Tegin et al. | based learning and control for automatic grasping | |
| JP2009269127A (en) | Holding device and method of controlling the same | |
| US11701775B2 (en) | Method of setting target force upper limit and robot system | |
| Calli et al. | Learning modes of within-hand manipulation | |
| JP2023086924A (en) | Control method, control system and program | |
| CN119347853B (en) | Method and device for testing force control performance of robot system | |
| Gordić et al. | Collision detection on industrial robots in repetitive tasks using modified dynamic time warping | |
| Zubrycki et al. | Test setup for multi-finger gripper control based on robot operating system (ROS) | |
| Friedl et al. | Experimental evaluation of tactile sensors for compliant robotic hands | |
| Gerasin et al. | Dependable robot's slip displacement sensors based on capacitive registration elements | |
| Romero et al. | Modeling and evaluation of human-to-robot mapping of grasps | |
| US12358132B2 (en) | Robot system and picking method | |
| Najjari et al. | Integrated sensor-based control system for a flexible assembly cell | |
| JP7167667B2 (en) | Inspection method and robot system | |
| JP7537192B2 (en) | Robot system and picking method | |
| Pettersson-Gull et al. | Intelligent robotic gripper with an adaptive grasp technique | |
| Tegin et al. | Real life grasping using an under-actuated robot hand-Simulation and experiments | |
| Hashem et al. | Harnessing Symmetry Breaking in Soft Robotics: A Novel Approach for Underactuated Fingers | |
| Hashimoto et al. | Fundamental study on robotic assembly of modular fixture parts by a low cost 4-finger 12 dof hand | |
| Sharma et al. | Performance Comparison of Parallel and 3 Finger Gripper Using Human Hand Grasping Taxonomies | |
| Babković et al. | Force sensor with enhanced contact detection capability |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant |