No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An on-line task modification method for singularity avoidance of robot manipulators
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2009
Summary
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
In this paper, we present an on-line task modification method (OTMM) to realize singularity avoidance for nonredundant and redundant manipulators at the velocity level. The method introduces a correction vector, constructed from the task velocity and the singular vector corresponding to the minimum singular value, into the task velocity. The performance is simply affected by the choice of the lower limit of the minimum singular value and a scalar adjusting function, which is monotone with respect to the minimum singular value. The method makes unnecessary avoiding the singularity point by off-line path planning for nonredundant or redundant manipulators, and the effort to check whether the singularity is escapable for redundant manipulators. The simulation results show the effectiveness of the OTMM for on-line singularity avoidance in manipulator motion control.
Information
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008
References
1.Wampler, C. W., “Manipulator inverse kinematic solutions based on vector formulations and damped least-squares methods,” IEEE Trans. Sys. Man, Cybernetics, SMC-16 (1), 93–101 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Nakamura, Y. and Hanafusa, H., “Inverse kinematic solutions with singularity robustness for robot manipulator control,” J. Dynamic Sys. Meas. Control 108, 163–171 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Egeland, O., Sagli, J. R. and Spangelo, I., “A Damped Least-Squares Solution to Redundancy Resolution,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, (1991) pp. 945–950.Google Scholar
4.Chiaverini, S., “Singularity-robust task-priority redundancy resolution for real-time kinematic control of robot manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Automation 13 (3), 398–410 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Liu, T. S. and Tsay, S. Y., “Singularity of robotic kinematics: A differential motion approach,” Mech. Mach. Theory 25 (4), 439–448 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Cheng, F. T., Hour, T. L. and Sun, Y. Y., “Study and resolution of singularities for a 6-DOF PUMA manipulator,” IEEE Trans. Sys. Man Cybernetics 27 (2), 165–178 (1997).Google ScholarPubMed
7.Aboaf, E. W. and Paul, R. P., “Living with the Singularity of Robot Wrists,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Raleigh, North Carolina (1987), pp. 1713–1717.Google Scholar
8.Chiaverini, S. and Egeland, O., “A Solution to the Singularity Problem for Six-Joint Manipulators,” IEEE International Conference on Robot and Automation, Cincinnati, OH (1990), pp. 644–649.Google Scholar
9.Duleba, I. and Sasiadek, J. Z., “Modified Jacobian Method of Transversal Passing through Singularities of Nonredundant Manipulators,” Robot. 20, 405–415 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Mayorga, R. V., Wong, A. K. C. and Ma, K. S., “An efficient local approach for the path generation of robot manipulators,” J. Robot. Sys. 7 (1), 23–55 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Mayorga, R. V. and Wong, A. K. C., “A Singularities Prevention Approach for Redundant Robot Manipulators,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Cincinnati, OH, (1990) 2 pp. 812–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Muszyński, R. and Tchoń, K., “Singularities of nonredundant robot kinematics,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 16 (1), 60–76 (1997).Google Scholar
13.Tchoń, K. and Muszyński, R., “Singular inverse kinematic problem for robotic manipulators: A normal form approach,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Automation 14 (1), 93–104 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Bedrossian, N. S., “Classification of Singular Configurations for Redundant Manipulators,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New York (1990), pp. 818–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Seng, J., O'Neil, K. A. and Chen, Y. C., “Escapability of Singular Configuration for Redundant Manipulators via Self-Motion,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, New York (1995), Part 3, pp. 78–83.Google Scholar
16.Donelan, P. S., “Singularity-theoretic methods in robot kinematics,” Robot. 25, 641–659 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Nakamura, Y., Hanafusa, H. and Yoshikawa, T., “Task priority based redundancy control of robot manipulators,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 6 (2), 3–15 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Cheng, F.-T. and Shih, M. S., “Multiple-goal priority considerations of redundant manipulators,” Robot. 15 (6), 675–691 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Marani, G., Kim, J., Yuhl, J. and Chung, W. K., “A Real-Time Approach for Singularity Avoidance in Resolved Motion Rate Control of Robotic Manipulators,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Washington, DC (2002), pp. 1973–1978.Google Scholar
20.Tan, J., Xi, N. and Wang, Y., “A singularity-free motion control algorithm for robot manipulators—a hybrid system approach,” Automatica 40, 1239–1245 (2004).Google Scholar
21.Maciejewski, A. and KBein, C. A., “The singular value decomposition: Computation and applications to robotics,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 8 (6), 63–79 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Maciejewski, A., “Real-Time SVD for the Control of Redundant Robotic Manipulators,” IEEE International Conference on Systems Engineering, Fairborn, OH (1989), pp. 549–552.Google Scholar
23.Kirćanski, M., Kirćanshi, N., Leković, D. and Vukobratović, M., “An experimental study of resolved acceleration control of robots at singularities: Damped least-squares approach,” J. Dynamic Sys. Measurement Control 119, 97–101 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.O'Neil, K. A. and Chen, Y. C., “Instability of pseudoinverse acceleration control of redundant mechanisms,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Francisco, CA (2000), pp. 2575–2582.Google Scholar
You have
Access
- 17
- Cited by