# Posts by nicok

• ## Approximating acceleration profiles for PTP motions

UPDATE:

After finding out what was missing in the code I managed to run into a more fundamental problem. Apparently \$GEAR_JERK is write-protected when the subprogram is called (as can be seen in image below in German). I have no idea why it should be write-protected, since I specifically didn't access \$GEAR_JERK_C which I know is write-protected. Does anyone know how to circumvent this or is the only option to use a constant jerk limit for the whole SPTP motion?

In other news, if anyone ever wants to do something similar, I needed to fix a couple of mistakes in the code and now it works with acceleration & velocity constraints at least. Turns out spline motions are a bit finnicky in what parameters they expect.

• TRIGGER WHEN always needs either the DISTANCE or PATH argument. Keep in mind that DISTANCE doesn't work with SPTP. The DELAY is applied relative to the position determined by either of these (see documentation).
• If the trigger calls a subprogram you also need to insert PRIO, where a value of -1 lets the operating software schedule the priority of the subprogram call.
• Both \$ACC_AXIS as well as \$VEL_AXIS understandably expect values of at least 0.1 or greater but my python script that created the motion profile starts with zero acceleration. Not a big deal but I suggest to set a reasonable minimum value in your scripts from the get-go.
• ## Approximating acceleration profiles for PTP motions

I do not know if it holds true but sptp's seem smoother than traditional ptp moves. Im speculating this is because they are bound by diffrent limits

This one I can clear up. The spline motions of Kuka are based on piecewise polynomials of order 5 afaik, which in turn means the position is four times continuously differentiable. If we were to differentiate three times we see the jerk is a piecewise quadratic function (and the snap being linear). This creates a motion that induces significantly less oscillations at higher frequencies (something like >5 Hz). Of course the oscillations occuring in practice are highly dependent on the system.

I only found a website plotting this for S-curves based on third order polynomials. It should look similar for fifth order ones but with a stronger shift of the energies towards f=0.

Mathematics of Motion Control Profiles
To tune motion profiles for maximum performance, understand the mathematics of motion profiles and which profiles are best for your step motor application.
www.pmdcorp.com

• ## Approximating acceleration profiles for PTP motions

Thanks so, so much for the huge amount of info and feedback from all of you, it is truly invaluable to me right now!

You can check \$ACC_AXIS_MA[] there might be a typo in the variable name but it should point you in the right direction

I haven't found a mention of \$ACC_AXIS_MA[] in the systems variables handbook but I assume I will find it either in R1/\$machine.dat or together with \$RAISE_TIME[] in the motor configuration xml-File of the specific axis that Fubini mentioned. But maybe I will just write a program and do an acceleration test. We have acceleration sensors for the tool and if I simply test the individual accelerations of each axis I will get a rough idea of what to expect.

If you want full control over how the robot accelerates and decelerates yourself the only option I can think of is using the RSI package.

Last but not least what you also could do is just "measure" the resulting accelertions by using the built-in oscilloscope function (aka trace) inside the KRC.

The company actually has bought the RSI package for the robot but due to a PLC defect we're using the X11 interface instead and from what I've read without a PLC it is impossible to use the RSI.

Thanks a lot for the tip with the built-in oscilloscope but as I mentioned earlier we have acceleration sensors on hand which I prefer to use, since they are already set up anyway.

If your tool is flimsier in some direction you can quite comfortably set \$ACC_AXIS[6] to something decently low if it is sloppu around flange z axis.

But stiffening up your tool and lowering accelerations and setting speeds, approximation etc up perfectly would be my suggestion.

I will certainly keep in mind to use lower accelerations for axis 6 since our tool is especially flimsy around the flange Z axis. Actually we have planned for creating a stiffer version of the tool in the near future. Unfortunately 'near' is most likely next year which won't make it in time for my thesis deadline.

I've tried to integrate all the feedback for another iteration of the example programs. Especially feedback on Approach 4 would be greatly appreciated as the option to limit jerk would be wonderful for me.

Approach 1 and Approach 3 would stay mostly the same but instead with \$ACC_AXIS[] and \$VEL_AXIS[].

Approach 2 got canned.

If I want to limit jerk I'd need to use spline motions, as they enable me to either set \$GEAR_JERK or take the more customizable route via \$SPL_VEL_RESTR with \$ACC_AXIS[] and \$RAISE_TIME[]. I've written Approach 4 that would do this with SPTP motions and a subprogram for changing the kinematic parameters (jerk, acceleration, velocity). If I only want to use SPTP for the sake of a single PTP motion I shouldn't need to program any additional points in between my start and goal as all the spline supports are computed by the robot controller, is that correct?

• ## Approximating acceleration profiles for PTP motions

First of all, I would like to say a big thanks to both of you. The info you've provided was already a huge help (from what I can tell). I'll try to address everything one by one.

So, my first question is, what's wrong with the robot's inherent accel/decel profile that you want to improve?

There isn't anything 'wrong' per se. We move a relatively large tool, which is basically a 50kg heavy, 2.5m long aluminum construction, that exhibits quite a lot of oscillations at the endpoint of a motion. Due to the robot being used for x-ray imaging, we only tolerate small oscillations during image capture so as to not impede the image quality.

Hence, part of my master thesis is to implement a way to reduce these oscillations to allow for faster cycle times. My core idea is to test a couple of different acceleration profiles for their ability to induce less oscillations in the first place. That's why I need the ability to change not only the ramping time but the accel/decel profile as a whole.

All three of your examples look valid, insofar as they should execute without causing any KRL errors. Your \$VEL and \$ACC values may be a bit high (depends heavily on robot payload and pose).

That's a big relief. I'll probably testing Approach #3 first, as it would be more flexible for my purposes. But if I run into problems I'll likely fall back on Approach #1 and use that instead.

hang on.. isnt ptp motions only limited by axis speed \$VEL_AXIS[] and axis acceleration \$ACC_AXIS[]? Atleast that has been my understanding. \$VEL or \$ACC would do nothing for a ptp motion.

Now that I read over the documentation again I have definitely confused ORI1 and ORI2 for the axis acceleration. Thanks for the heads up, I will definitely have to use \$ACC_AXIS[] and \$VEL_AXIS[] instead.

For example, if you command the robot to accelerate at a rate it physically can't, it will simply apply the maximum acceleration it can. And the physical limit changes, not only with robot payload, but also robot pose and inertia.

I'm well aware of that but for the most part it doesn't matter too much for me right now. The main concept behind the oscillation reduction is based on limiting acceleration/velocity at the right times. I don't mind as much if the motion is slower by a second or even two as long as I don't get more oscillations than intended. The oscillations I encounter usually take 3-10 seconds to die down which takes a lot more time overall when I move to 12 different positions.

I do have two new questions you guys might be able to help me with.

The data sheet for the KR150 2700 extra we use states the maximum speed at 150kg is:

A1: 123 °/s, A2: 115 °/s, A3: 120 °/s, A4: 179 °/s, A5: 172 °/s, A6: 219 °/s
Am I correct in assuming that I can safely set \$VEL_AXIS[] to any value that is equal or smaller to these? Of course if the robot ever reaches these velocities during a motion is a completely different question.

What joint acceleration values does the robot realistically use? In the KUKA docs I haven't found any information at all so far and I don't know if the range is something like 250-500 °/s² or more like 5000-10000 °/s² or anything in between. I only need a rough estimate to know the range I am working with.

• ## Approximating acceleration profiles for PTP motions

Hello everyone,

I am currently trying to approximate a custom acceleration profile for PTP motions. The robot is basically only used to perform rotations of the tool around the TCP, which is why I had some prior issues using LIN motions and decided to stick to PTP motions for now. My intention is to e.g. create a motion that is somewhat similar to an S-curve acceleration profile.

S-curve acceleration profile

(Please excuse the small size, I simply couldn't manage to upload the image directly)

From what I gathered so far, such an acceleration profile could be either accomplished by chopping a single motion into several smaller motions and change \$ACC and \$VEL in between (orange curve) or by adjusting the program override \$OV_PRO either at certain time intervals or in between motions which would result in a smoother acceleration profile but also reduce the programmed velocity by the same factor. I hope I am correct in my understanding so far.

I tried to create example programs to implement this but unfortunately, I only have basic knowledge of KRL programming and limited robot access at the moment. Can anyone tell me if any of my approaches should work as intended or if there are major things I’ve overlooked?

• ## Automating program upload to KRC4 via Ethernet

Thanks for the extensive explanation.

Quote

I should ask: are you aiming for smooth continuous motion along a complex path, or a discrete start/stop at every scan point?

In a perfect world we'd only need discrete start/stop motions as the basic task for our CT scanner-robot is to: 1. move to pose, 2. wait n milliseconds, 3. take CT image, 4. move to next pose and repeat. Unfortunately, due to our huge tool dimensions (~2m long metal arch with X-ray source & detector at the ends) we need to account for oscillations which means we will need to control the deceleration.

I guess we might be able to approximate a "quasi-continuous" end of our path with discrete start/stop motions by dividing the last part of the path into a handful of points and use PTP motions with the desired deceleration. But I am not sure how "choppy" the motion is that could be generated with this approach.

• ## Automating program upload to KRC4 via Ethernet

Damn. These types of answers should be added to the official documentation. Thanks a lot guys!!!

• ## Automating program upload to KRC4 via Ethernet

Thanks so, so, so much!

I had no clue there was an option package just for uploading modules to the controller, I expected this to be included with any networking package.

With "Directory Loader" as a keyword I managed to find a lot of the necessary info on how Kuka handles networking with external devices and what is required. This basically answered all of my questions.

The project finances are stretched thin right now so we try to avoid paying 2k€ for the Directory Loader. For now we decided to take a look how much development work C3Bridge would mean for our application. In the meantime I also found out we might be able to make do with RoboDK's online programming capabilities. For the research project the focus is to show that certain path planning methods are working, so as long as we can generate, send & execute our code remotely we don't need to upload anything.

• ## Automating program upload to KRC4 via Ethernet

Controller: KRC4

OS: KSS 8.6.514

Safety-Interface: X11(but ProfiSafe theoretically available)

In summary:

1. Is uploading & executing programs "at the press of a button" generally possible using the Ethernet/IP connection (Ethernet KRL 3.1)?
2. Can I upload program files to the KRC4 and send the command to execute them by communicating via a C++/Python script or LabView?
3. If I want to communicate via the Ethernet connection outside of WoV then I am forced to use the EthernetKRL server, is that correct?
4. Is it possible for a separate program/script to make the running server do something s.a. upload a XML file?
5. What other documentation should I look at apart from the one for "Ethernet KRL 3.1" and "WorkVisual 6.0"?

Any feedback on the matter is much appreciated. I will gladly dive right back into the documentation but would like to start by looking in the right place if that makes sense.