Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:11:27.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An optimum path planning for Cassino Parallel Manipulator by using inverse dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

G. Carbone ,
M. Ceccarelli ,
P. J. Oliveira ,
S. F. P. Saramago  and
J. C. M. Carvalho
G. Carbone
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Robotics and Mechatronics, DiMSAT, University of Cassino, Via Di Biasio 43 - 03043 Cassino, (Fr), Italy. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
M. Ceccarelli
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Robotics and Mechatronics, DiMSAT, University of Cassino, Via Di Biasio 43 - 03043 Cassino, (Fr), Italy. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
P. J. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Federal University of Uberllândia Av. Joao Naves de Avila, 2160-38408100 Uberlandia (MG), Brazil. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
S. F. P. Saramago
Affiliation:
Federal University of Uberllândia Av. Joao Naves de Avila, 2160-38408100 Uberlandia (MG), Brazil. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
J. C. M. Carvalho
Affiliation:
Federal University of Uberllândia Av. Joao Naves de Avila, 2160-38408100 Uberlandia (MG), Brazil. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In this paper, a novel algorithm is formulated and implemented for optimum path planning of parallel manipulators. A multi-objective optimisation problem has been formulated for an efficient numerical solution procedure through kinematic and dynamic features of manipulator operation. Computational economy has been obtained by properly using a genetic algorithm to search an optimal solution for path spline-functions. Numerical characteristics of the numerical solving procedure have been outlined through a numerical example applied to Cassino Parallel Manipulator (CaPaMan) both for path planning and design purposes.

Keywords

RoboticsPath PlanningParallel ManipulatorsSimulation
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , March 2008 , pp. 229 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Merlet, J.-P., Parallel Robots (Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, Germany, 2005).Google Scholar
2.Stewart, D., “A Platform with Six Degrees of Freedom,” Proceeding of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London, U.K. 180 (1965) pp. 371–386.Google Scholar
3.Clavel, R., “DELTA: A Fast Robot with Parallel Geometry,” Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Industrial Robots, Lausanne, Switzerland (1988) pp. 91–100.Google Scholar
4.Gosselin, C. and Angeles, J., “The optimum kinematic design of a planar three-degree-of-freedom parallel manipulator,” ASME J. Mech., Transm., Autom. Design 110, 35–41 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Merlet, J. P. and Gosselin, C., “Nouvelle architecture pour manipulateur parallèle a six degrées de liberté,” Mech. Mach. Theory 26 (1), 77–90 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Miller, K., “Experimental Verification of Modelling of Delta Robot Dynamics by Direct Application of Hamilton's Principle,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Nagoya, Japan (1995) pp. 532–537.Google Scholar
7.Tsai, L. W. and Stamper, R., “A Parallel Manipulator with Only Translational Degrees of Freedom,” Proceedings of the ASME DETC, Irvine, California (1996), CD Proceedings, Paper DETC1996/MECH-1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Wang, J. and Gosselin, C. M., “Kinematic analysis and singularity representation of spatial five-degree-of-freedom parallel mechanisms,” J. Robot. Syst. 14 (2), 851–869 (1997).3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Parenti-Castelli, V., Di Gregorio, R. and Bubani, F., “Workspace and Optimal Design of a Pure Translation Parallel Manipulator,” Proceedings of the XIV National Congress on Applied Mechanics, Como, Italy (1999) Paper 17.Google Scholar
10.DiGregorio, R., “A new family of spherical parallel manipulators,” Int. J. Robot. 20 (4), 353–358 (2002).Google Scholar
11.Kosinska, A., Galicki, M. and Kedzior, K., “Design of parameters of parallel manipulators for a specified workspace,” Int. J. Robot. 21 (5), 575–579 (2003).Google Scholar
12.Karouia, M. and Hervé, J. M., “Non-overconstrained 3-dof spherical parallel manipulators of type: 3-RCC, 3-CCR, 3-CRC,” Int. J. Robot. 24 (1), 85–94 (2006).Google Scholar
13.Ceccarelli, M., “A new 3 dof spatial parallel mechanism,” Mech. Mach. Theory 32 (8), 895–902 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Ceccarelli, M. and Figliolini, G., “Mechanical Characteristics of CaPaMan (Cassino Parallel Manipulator),” Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Conference on Robotics and its Application, Tokyo, Japan (1997) pp. 301–308.Google Scholar
15.Ceccarelli, M. and Carbone, G., “A stiffness analysis for CaPaMan (Cassino Parallel Manipulator),” Mech. Mach. Theory 37 (5), 427–439 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Carvalho, J. C. M. and Ceccarelli, M., “A Dynamic Analysis for Cassino Parallel Manipulator,” Proceedings of the 10th IFToMM World Congress, Oulu, Finland 3 (1999) pp. 1202–1207.Google Scholar
17.Carvalho, J. C. M. and Ceccarelli, M., “The Inverse Dynamics of Cassino Parallel Manipulator,” Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Kinematics, Seoul, Korea (2001) pp. 301–308.Google Scholar
18.Carvalho, J. C. M. and Ceccarelli, M., “A closed form formulation for the inverse dynamics of Cassino Parallel Manipulator,” J. Multibody Syst. Dynam. 5 (2), 185–210 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Ottaviano, E., Gosselin, C. M. and Ceccarelli, M., “Singularity Analysis of CaPaMan: A Three-Degree of Freedom Spatial Parallel Manipulator,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Seoul, Korea (2001) pp. 1295–1300.Google Scholar
20.Pugliese, F., Experimental Validation of CaPaMan (Cassino Parallel Manipulator) Master Thesis (Cassino, Italy: LARM, University of Cassino, 1998).Google Scholar
21.Fino, P. D., Dynamic Simulation of CaPaMan (Cassino Parallel Manipulator) Master Thesis (Cassino, Italy: LARM, University of Cassino, 1999).Google Scholar
22.Ceccarelli, M., Pugliese, F. and Carvalho, J. C. M., “An Experimental System for Measuring CaPaMan Characteristics,” Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube Region, Munich, Germany (1999) pp. 31–36.Google Scholar
23.Carvalho, J. C. M. and Ceccarelli, M., “Seismic Motion Simulation Based on Cassino Parallel Manipulator,” Proceedings of the XVth Brazilian Congress on Mechanical Engineering, Campinas, Brazil (1999), CD Proceedings.Google Scholar
24.Galvagno, M., Application and Experimental Validation of CaPaMan (Cassino Parallel Manipulator) as Earthquake Simulator Master Thesis (Cassino, Italy: LARM, University of Cassino, 2001).Google Scholar
25.Ceccarelli, M., Ottaviano, E. and Galvagno, M., “A 3-DOF Parallel Manipulator as Earthquake Motion Simulator,” Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Singapore (2002) Paper P1073.Google Scholar
26.Lin, C. S., Chang, P. R. and Luh, J. Y. S., “Formulation and optimisation of cubic polynomial joint trajectories for industrial robots,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 28, 1066–1073, (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Shin, K. G. and Mckay, N. D., “A dynamic programming approach to trajectory planning of robotic manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control AC-31 (6), 491–500 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Chen, Y. C., “Solving robot trajectory planning problems with uniform cubic B-Splines,” Optimal Control Appl. Methods 12, 247–262 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Zeghloud, S., Blanchard, B. and Pamanes, J. A., “Optimisation of kinematics performances of manipulators under specified task conditions,” Proceedings of the 10th CISM-IFToMM Symposium Romansy 10, Gdansk, Poland (1994) pp. 247–252.Google Scholar
30.Zhao, J. and Bai, S. X., “Load distribution and joint trajectory planning of coordinated manipulation for two redundant robots,” Mech. Mach. Theory 34, 1155–1170 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Johnson, C. G. and Marsh, D., “Modelling robot manipulators with multivariate B-Splines,” Int. J. Robot. 17 (3), 239–247 (1999).Google Scholar
32.Park, F. C., Kim, J. and Bobrow, J. E., “Algorithms for Dynamics–Based Robot Motion Optimisation,” Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on the Theory of Machines and Mechanics, Oulu, Finland (1999) pp. 1216–1221.Google Scholar
33.Choi, Y. K., Park, J. H., Kim, H. S. and Kim, J. H., “Optimal trajectory planning and sliding mode control for robots using evolution strategy,” Int. J. Robot. 18 (4), 423–428 (2000).Google Scholar
34.Saramago, S. F. P. and Ceccarelli, M., “An optimum robot path planning with payload constraints,” Int. J. Robot. 20, 395–404 (2002).Google Scholar
35.Saramago, S. F. P. and Ceccarelli, M., “Effect of some numerical parameters on a path planning of robots taking into account actuating energy,” Mech. Mach. Theory 39 (3), 247–270 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Saramago, S. F. P. and Valder, S. J., “Trajectory modeling of robots manipulators in the presence of obstacles,” J. Optim. Theory Appl. 110 (1), 17–34 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Goldberg, D. E., Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimisation, and Machine Learning (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989).Google Scholar
38.Eschenauer, H., Koski, J. and Osyczka, A., Multicriteria Design Optimisation, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Michalewicz, Z., Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1995).Google Scholar
40.Foley, J. D., Van Dam, A., Feiner, S. K. and Hughes, J. F., Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990).Google Scholar
41.Houck, C. R., Joinez, J. A. and Kay, M. G., A Genetic Algorithm for Function Optimisation: A Matlab Implementation, NCSU-IE Technical Report (1995).Google Scholar