Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:08:04.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal mapping of joint faults into healthy joint velocity space for fault-tolerant redundant manipulators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2011

Hamid Abdi ,
Saeid Nahavandi ,
Yakov Frayman  and
Anthony A. Maciejewski
Hamid Abdi*
Affiliation:
Centre for Intelligent Systems Research (CISR), Deakin University, Waurn Ponds Campus, VIC 3217, Australia. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Saeid Nahavandi
Affiliation:
Centre for Intelligent Systems Research (CISR), Deakin University, Waurn Ponds Campus, VIC 3217, Australia. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Yakov Frayman
Affiliation:
Centre for Intelligent Systems Research (CISR), Deakin University, Waurn Ponds Campus, VIC 3217, Australia. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Anthony A. Maciejewski
Affiliation:
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Self-reconfiguration of robotic manipulators under joint failure can be achieved via fault-tolerance strategies. Fault-tolerant manipulators are required to continue their end-effector motion with a minimum velocity jump, when failures occur to their joints. Optimal fault tolerance of the manipulators requires a framework that can map the velocity jump of the end-effector to the compensating joint velocity commands. The main objective of the present paper is to propose a general framework for the fault tolerance of the manipulators, which can minimize the end-effector velocity jump. In the present paper, locked joint failures of the manipulators are modeled using matrix perturbation methodology. Then, the optimal mapping for the faults with a minimum end-effector velocity jump is presented. On the basis of this mapping, the minimum end-effector velocity jump is calculated. A generalized framework is derived from the extension of optimal mapping toward multiple locked joint failures. Two novel expressions are derived representing the generalized optimal mapping framework and the generalized minimum velocity jump. These expressions are suitable for the optimal fault tolerance of the serial link redundant manipulators. The required conditions for a zero end-effector velocity jump of the manipulators are analyzed. The generalized framework in this paper is then evaluated for different failure scenarios for a 5-DOF planar manipulator and a 5-DOF spatial manipulator. The validation includes three case studies. While the first two are instantaneous studies, the third one is for the whole trajectory of the manipulators. From the results of these case studies, it is shown that, when locked joint faults occur, the faulty manipulator is able to optimally maintain its velocity with a zero end-effector velocity jump if the conditions of a zero velocity jump are hold.

Keywords

Robotic manipulatorsOptimal fault toleranceOptimal joint velocityActuator failuresRedundancy resolutionDependabilitySelf-reconfiguration
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , July 2012 , pp. 635 - 648
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.Wu, E., Diftler, M., Hwang, J. and Chladek, J., “A Fault Tolerant Joint Drive System for the Space Shuttle Remote Manipulator System,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, USA (1991) pp. 2504–2509.Google Scholar
2.Goel, M., Maciejewski, A. A., Balakrishnan, V. and Proctor, R. W., “Failure tolerant teleoperation of a kinematically redundant manipulator: An experimental study,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cyber. Part A: Syst. Humans 33, 758–765 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Harpel, B. M., Dugan, J. B., Walker, I. D. and Cavallaro, J. R., “Analysis of Robots for Hazardous Environments,” Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Philadelphia, PA, USA (1997) pp. 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Colbaugh, R. and Jamshidi, M., “Robot manipulator control for hazardous waste-handling applications,” J. Robot. Syst. 9, 215–250 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Dhillon, B. S., Fashandi, A. R. M. and Liu, K. L., “Robot systems reliability and safety: A review,” J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 8 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Abdi, H. and Nahavandi, S., “Optimal Actuator Fault Tolerance for Static Nonlinear Systems Based on Minimum Output Velocity Jump,” In: IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, China, (2010) pp. 1165–1170.Google Scholar
7.Yi, Y., McInroy, J. E. and Jafari, F., “Optimum Design of a Class of Fault Tolerant Isotropic Gough-Stewart Platforms,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2004) pp. 4963–4968.Google Scholar
8.Tosunoglu, S. and Monteverde, V., “Kinematic and structural design assessment of fault-tolerant manipulators,” Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 4, 261–268 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Notash, L. and Huang, L., “On the design of fault tolerant parallel manipulators,” Mech. Mach. Theory 38, 85–101 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.McInroy, J. E., O'Brien, J. F. and Neat, G. W., “Precise, fault-tolerant pointing using a Stewart platform,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 4, 91–95 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Maciejewski, A. A., “Fault Tolerant Properties of Kinematically Redundant Manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Cincinnati, OH, USA (1990) pp. 638–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Abdi, H. and Nahavandi, S., “Designing Optimal Fault Tolerant Jacobian for Robotic Manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Montréal, Canada (2010) pp. 426–431.Google Scholar
13.Paredis, C. J. J. and Khosla, P. K., “Designing fault-tolerant manipulators: How many degrees of freedom?,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 15, 611–628 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Roberts, R. G., Siddiqui, S. A. and Maciejewski, A. A., “Designing Equally Fault-Tolerant Configurations for Kinematically Redundant Manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, Tullahoma, TN, USA (2009) pp. 335–339.Google Scholar
15.Roberts, R. G., “On the local fault tolerance of a kinematically redundant manipulator,” J. Robot. Syst. 13, 649–661 (1998).3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Roberts, R. G., “The dexterity and singularities of an underactuated robot,” J. Robot. Syst. 18, 159–169 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Abdi, H. and Nahavandi, S., “Minimum Reconfiguration for Fault Tolerant Manipulators,” Proceedings of the 34th Annual Mechanisms and Robotics Conference, Parts A and B, ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE), Montreal, Quebec, Canada (2010), pp. 1345–1350.Google Scholar
18.Caccavale, F., Chiacchio, P. and Walker, I. D., “A time-delayed observer for fault detection and isolation in industrial robots,” Robotica 24, 557–565 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Carreras, C. and Walker, I. D., “Interval methods for fault-tree analysis in robotics,” IEEE Trans. Reliab. 50, 3–11 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Notash, L., “Joint sensor fault detection for fault tolerant parallel manipulators,” J. Robot. Syst. 17, 149–157 (2000).3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Park, J., Chung, W. K. and Youm, Y., “Failure Recovery by Exploiting Kinematic Redundancy,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (1996) pp. 298–305.Google Scholar
22.Yang, J. M., “Fault-tolerant crab gaits and turning gaits for a hexapod robot,” Robotica 24, 269–270 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Yang, J. M., “Gait synthesis for hexapod robots with a locked joint failure,” Robotica 23, 701–708 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Paredis, C. J. J. and Khosla, P. K., “Fault tolerant task execution through global trajectory planning,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 53, 225–235 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Chen, Y., McInroy, J. E. and Yi, Y., “Optimal, fault-tolerant mappings to achieve secondary goals without compromising primary performance,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 19, 680–691 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Roberts, R. G., “The dexterity and singularities of an underactuated robot,” J. Robot. Syst. 18, 159–169 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.From, P. J. and Gravdahl, J. T., “On the mobility and fault tolerance of closed chain manipulators with passive joints,” Model. Identif. Control 29, 151–165 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Abdi, H. and Nahavandi, S., “Joint Velocity Redistribution for Fault Tolerant Manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Robotics Automation and Mechatronics (2010) pp. 492–497.Google Scholar
29.Roberts, R. G., Yu, H. G. and Maciejewski, A. A., “Fundamental limitations on designing optimally fault-tolerant redundant manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 24, 1224–1237 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Güdemann, M., Ortmeier, F. and Reif, W., “Formal Modeling and Verification of Systems with Self-x Properties,” Autonomic and Trusted Computing, 4158, 38–47 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Zhao, J., Zhang, K. L. and Feng, D. D., “Sudden change of joint velocity during fault tolerant operations for redundant manipulators: Not available online,” Beijing Gongye Daxue Xuebao/J. Beijing Univ. Technol. 33, 1121–1125 (2007).Google Scholar
32.Zhao, J., Yao, Y. and Yao, X., “On the Sudden Change in Joint Velocity during Fault Tolerant Operations for Spatial Coordinating Redundant Manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Beijing (2006) pp. 3885–3890.Google Scholar
33.Roberts, R. G., Yu, H. G. and Maciejewski, A. A., “Fundamental limitations on designing optimally fault-tolerant redundant manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 24, 1224–1237 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Lewis, C. L. and Maciejewski, A. A., “Fault tolerant operation of kinematically redundant manipulatorsfor locked joint failures,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 13, 622–629 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Burdick, J. W., “On the Inverse Kinematics of Redundant Manipulators: Characterization of the Self-Motion Manifolds,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1989) pp. 264–270.Google Scholar
36.Roberts, R. G. and Maciejewski, A. A., “A local measure of fault tolerance for kinematically redundant manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom 12, 543–552 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Roberts, R. G., Yu, H. G. and Maciejewski, A. A., “Characterizing Optimally Fault-Tolerant Manipulators Based on Relative Manipulability Indices,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Diego, CA, USA (2007) pp. 3925–3930.Google Scholar
38.Croke, P., “A robotics toolbox for MATLAB,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 3, 24–32 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Zhao, J., Jing, H. and Nie, L., “Motion punning based on two new fault tolerant indexes for redundant manipulators” Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 17, 240–243 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Zhao, J. and Li, Q., “An Analytical Algorithm with Minimum Joint Velocity Jump for Redundant Robots in the Presence Of Locked-Joint Failures,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Pasadena, CA, USA (2008) pp. 1987–1992.Google Scholar