Coupling Motors via Fixed Tendons - Search for Best Practices #927
Replies: 1 comment
-
Missed the deprecated note for the Q&A. Created an issue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Hi everyone,
I am currently aiming to create a fairly accurate model of the Barrett WAM 4DoF Robotic Arm. Doing some first Sys-Id experiments, I realized that the coupling of joints 2 and 3 (e.g. described on Page 68 of the WAM Documentation) makes it hard to accurately capture their dynamics without explicitly modeling this motor coupling.
My idea for coupling the motors was to add two additional joints (representing the motors) that are coupled with the actual joints via a fixed tendon. In XML, this corresponds to
While this works nicely in simulation (Sys-Id is to be done with this model), I was wondering whether there is a more elegant solution that does not require to specify additional rotating bodies. What I don't like about this solution is the need to specify additional inertias and masses. Can this be avoided by representing the actuated joint differently?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions