Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T11:32:00.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time-optimal task scheduling for articulated manipulators in environments cluttered with obstacles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

E. K. Xidias ,
P. Th. Zacharia  and
N. A. Aspragathos
E. K. Xidias
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras, Greece
P. Th. Zacharia*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras, Greece
N. A. Aspragathos
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras, Greece
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: zacharia@mech.upatras.gr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

This paper proposes a new approach for solving a generalization of the task scheduling problem for articulated robots (either redundant or non-redundant), where the robot's 2D environment is cluttered with obstacles of arbitrary size, shape and location, while a set of task-points are located in the robot's free-space. The objective is to determine the optimum collision-free robot's tip tour through all task-points passing from each one exactly once and returning to the initial task-point. This scheduling problem combines two computationally NP-hard problems: the optimal scheduling of robot tasks and the collision-free motion planning between the task-points.

The proposed approach employs the bump-surface (B-Surface) concept for the representation of the 2D robot's environment by a B-Spline surface embedded in 3D Euclidean space. The time-optimal task scheduling is being searched on the generated B-Surface using a genetic algorithm (GA) with a special encoding in order to take into consideration the infinite configurations corresponding to each task-point. The result of the GA's searching constitutes the solution to the task scheduling problem and satisfies optimally the task scheduling criteria and objectives. Extensive experimental results show the efficiency and the effectiveness of the proposed method to determine the collision-free motion among obstacles.

Keywords

Articulated robotsTask schedulingBump-surfaceGenetic algorithms

Information

Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , May 2010 , pp. 427 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

References

1.Lawer, E., Lenstra, J., Kan, A. R. and Shmoys, D., The Travelling Salesman Problem (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1985).Google Scholar
2.Latombe, J. C., Robot Motion Planning (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Garey, M. R., Graham, R. L. and Johnson, D. S.. “Some NP-Complete Geometric Problems,” Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States (1976) pp. 10–22.Google Scholar
4.Papadimitriou, C. H., “Euclidean TSP is NP-complete,” TCS 4, 237–244 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Abdel-Malek, L. and Li, Z., “The application of inverse kinematics in the optimum sequencing of robot tasks,” Int. J. Prod. Res. 28 (1), 75–90 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Petiot, J., Chedmail, P. and Haschoët, J.-Y., “Contribution to the scheduling of trajectories in robotics,” Robot. Cim-Int. Manuf. 14 (3), 237–251 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Dubowsky, S. and Blubaugh, T., “Planning time-optimal robotic manipulator motions and work places for point-to-point tasks,” IEEE Trans. Robot Autom. 5 (3), 377–381 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Zacharia, P. T. and Aspragathos, N. A., “Optimal robot task scheduling based on genetic algorithms,” Robot. Cim-Int. Manuf. 21 (1), 67–79 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Rahmanian-Shahri, N. and Torch, I., “Collision avoidance control for redundant articulated robots,” Robotica 13 (2), 159–168 (1995).Google Scholar
10.Mayorga, R. V., Jambi Sharifi, F. and Wong, A. K. C., “A fast approach for the robust trajectory planning of redundant robot manipulators,” J. Robot. Sys. 12 (2), 147–161 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Chen, J.-L., Liu, J.-S., Lee, W.-C. and Liang, T.-C., “On-line multi-criteria based on collision-free posture generation of redundant manipulator in constraint workspace,” Robotica 20 (6), 625–636 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Lozano–Perez, T., “Spatial planning: A configuration space approach,” IEEE T. Comput. C-32 (2), 108–120 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Barraquand, J., Langlois, B. and Latombe, J.-C., “Numerical potential field techniques for robot path planning,” IEEE T. Syst. Man Cy. 22 (2), 224–241 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Conkur, E. S., “Path following algorithm for highly redundant manipulators,” Robot Auton. Syst. 45 (1), 1–22e (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Goldberg, D. E., Genetic Algorithm in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989).Google Scholar
16.Michalewitz, Z., Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs, 3rd ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Liang, T.-C. and Liu, J.-S., “An improved trajectory planner for redundant manipulators in constrained workspace,” J. Robot. Syst. 16 (6), 339–351 (1999).3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Conkur, E. S., “Path planning using potential fields for highly redundant manipulators,” Robot Auton. Syst. 52 (2–3), 209–228 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Nearchou, A. C. and Aspragathos, N. A., “A genetic path planning algorithm for redundant articulated robots,” Robotica. 15 (2), 213–224 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Tian, L. and Collins, C., “Motion planning for redundant manipulators using a floating point genetic algorithm,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 38 (3–4), 297–312 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Azariadis, P. and Aspragathos, N., “Obstacle representation by bump-surfaces for optimal motion-planning,” Robot Auton. Syst. 51 (2–3), 129–150 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Piegl, L. and Tiller, W., The NURBS Book (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Xidias, E. K., Azariadis, P. N. and Aspragathos, N. A., “Energy-minimizing motion design for nonholonomic robots amidst moving obstacles,” Comput. Aided Des. Appl. 3 (1–4), 165–174 (2006).Google Scholar
24.Xidias, E. K., Nearchou, A. C. and Aspragathos, Nikos A., “Routing and Scheduling for a Car-Like Robot in 2D Manufacturing Environment with Time Windows,” Ind. Robot. 36 (2), 176–183 (2009).Google Scholar
25.Holland, J. H., Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems (The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI; 1975).Google Scholar
26.Thomsen, R., Fogel, G. and Krink, T., “A Clustal Alignment Improver using Evolutionary Algorithms,” Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation—CEC'02, Honolulu, HI, USA (May 12–May 17 2002) pp. 309–314.Google Scholar
27.Davis, L., “Applying Adaptive Algorithms to Epistatic Domains,” Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, Calif (August 1985) pp. 162–164.Google Scholar