Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T01:56:35.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of design parameters on strong and immobilizing grasps with an underactuated robotic hand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2022

Roshan Kumar Hota*
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India
Cheruvu Siva Kumar
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: roshan1182.iitkgp@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a study on the effect of design parameters of an underactuated hand on its grasp performance. Three kinds of grasp performance characteristics are considered: grasp range, grasp strength, and immobilizing grasp range. Grasp strength is defined as the stiffness of the grasp. Immobilizing grasps are those in which the object cannot be moved for a force up to a certain threshold. In general, underactuated hands cannot produce immobilizing grasps. However, we show that immobilizing grasps can be created by including joint limits in the hand design. We consider the effect of two design parameters on the grasp performance: torque ratio and finger-base distance. Results show that an optimal finger-base distance and torque ratio exists that maximizes the grasp range and grasp strength. Also, the immobilizing grasp range is increased by decreasing the finger-base distance and increasing the torque ratio and joint limits.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Grasp geometry.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Two cases of successful grasp by the hand (a) having four contacts only with the fingers (b) having five contacts, four with the fingers and one with the palm.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Variation of the largest object grasp ($max(O_r)$) with the torque ratio ($\rho$) and the base distance ($b_r$).

Figure 3

Table I. Parameters and their values used for computation.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Variation of grasp stiffness ($Q_k$) with torque ratio ($\rho$) for different object sizes ($O_r$). The computation has been performed for $b_r=9$.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Illustration of final position of the object with (black lines) and without (faded red lines) joint limits.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Variation of the range of object size ($O_r$) immobilized with torque ratio ($\rho$) for different $b_r$’s ($\theta _{1lim}=0.40$ rad and $\theta _{3lim}=0.35$ rad).

Figure 7

Figure 7. Variation of the range of object size ($O_r$) immobilized with torque ratio ($\rho$) for different $b_r$’s and joint limits.

Figure 8

Table II. Comparison between simulation and computation for two cases without joint limits.

Figure 9

Figure 8. Grasp sequence for a successful grasp with $\rho =1.0$, $b_r=6.0$, and $O_r=10.0$. There are no joint limits.

Figure 10

Figure 9. Grasp sequence for a failed grasp with $\rho =1.0$, $b_r=6.0$, and $O_r=12.0$. There are no joint limits.

Figure 11

Figure 10. Grasp simulation using MATLAB Simscape Multibody: (a) object ($O_r=9.0$) not immobilized by the hand ($\rho =1.0$ and $b_r=6.0$), (b) object is displaced when an external force acts on the object (t = 15 s).

Figure 12

Figure 11. Grasp simulation using MATLAB Simscape Multibody: (a) Object ($O_r=12.0$) immobilized by the hand ($\rho =1.0$ and $b_r=6.0$), (b) object is not displaced when an external force acts on the object at t = 15 s.

Figure 13

Table III. Comparison of simulation and experimental results ($l_{1r} = 11.25 \; (45 \; \textrm{mm})$). I: Immobilized, NI: Not immobilized.

Figure 14

Table IV. Values of the parameters used for experimental results.

Figure 15

Figure 12. Experimental verification of results.