Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:47:40.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maximum load carrying capacity of mobile manipulators: optimal control approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

M. H. Korayem ,
A. Nikoobin  and
V. Azimirad
M. H. Korayem*
Affiliation:
Robotic Research Laboratory, College of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
A. Nikoobin
Affiliation:
Robotic Research Laboratory, College of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
V. Azimirad
Affiliation:
Robotic Research Laboratory, College of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In this paper, finding the maximum load carrying capacity of mobile manipulators for a given two-end-point task is formulated as an optimal control problem. The solution methods of this problem are broadly classified as indirect and direct. This work is based on the indirect solution which solves the optimization problem explicitly. In fixed-base manipulators, the maximum allowable load is limited mainly by their joint actuator capacity constraints. But when the manipulators are mounted on the mobile bases, the redundancy resolution and nonholonomic constraints are added to the problem. The concept of holonomic and nonholonomic constraints is described, and the extended Jacobian matrix and additional kinematic constraints are used to solve the extra DOFs of the system. Using the Pontryagin's minimum principle, optimality conditions for carrying the maximum payload in point-to-point motion are obtained which leads to the bang-bang control. There are some difficulties in satisfying the obtained optimality conditions, so an approach is presented to improve the formulation which leads to the two-point boundary value problem (TPBVP) solvable with available commands in different softwares. Then, an algorithm is developed to find the maximum payload and corresponding optimal path on the basis of the solution of TPBVP. One advantage of the proposed method is obtaining the maximum payload trajectory for every considered objective function. It means that other objectives can be achieved in addition to maximize the payload. For the sake of comparison with previous results in the literature, simulation tests are performed for a two-link wheeled mobile manipulator. The reasonable agreement is observed between the results, and the superiority of the method is illustrated. Then, simulations are performed for a PUMA arm mounted on a linear tracked base and the results are discussed. Finally, the effect of final time on the maximum payload is investigated, and it is shown that the approach presented is also able to solve the time-optimal control problem successfully.

Keywords

Maximum payloadMobile manipulatorPath planningOptimal controlIndirect methodPontryaginRedundancy
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 147 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.Cosma, C., Confente, M., Governo, M. and Fiorini, R., “An autonomous robot for indoor light logistics,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems Sendai Japan 3, pp. 3003–3008 (2004).Google Scholar
2.Huntsberger, T. L., “Autonomous multi-rover system for complex planetary retrieval operations,” Proceedings of the SPIE Symposium on Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in Autonomous Robotic Agents, Boston 3209 (1997) pp. 220–229.Google Scholar
3.Seraji, H., “A unified approach to motion control of mobile manipulators,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 17 (12), 107–118 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Wang, L. T. and Ravani, B., “Dynamic load carrying capacity of mechanical manipulators-Part 1,” Trans. ASME, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 110, 46–52 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Wang, L. T. and Ravani, B., “Dynamic load carrying capacity of mechanical manipulators-Part 2,” Trans. ASME, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 110, 53–61 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Chettibi, T., Lehtihet, H. E., Haddad, M. and Hanchi, S., “Minimum cost trajectory planning for industrial robots,” Eur. J. Mech., A/Solids 23, 703–715 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Hull, D. G., “Conversion of optimal control problems into parameter optimization problems,” J. Guid. Control Dyn. 20 (1), 57–60 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Wang, C-Y. E, Timoszyk, W. K. and Bobrow, J. E., “Payload maximization for open chained manipulator: Finding motions for a Puma 762 robot,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 17 (2), 218–224 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Ge, Xin-Sheng and Chen, Li-Qun, “Optimal motion planning for nonholonomic systems using genetic algorithm with wavelet approximation,” Appl. Math. Comput. 180, 76–85 (2006).Google Scholar
10.Haddad, M., Chettibi, T., Hanchi, S. and Lehtihet, H. E., “Optimal motion planner of mobile manipulators in generalized point-to-point task,” 9th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, Istanbul (2006) pp. 300–306.Google Scholar
11.Kelly, A. and Nagy, B., “Reactive nonholonomic trajectory generation via parametric optimal control,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 22 (8), 583–601 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Papadopoulos, E., Poulakakis, I. and Papadimitriou, I., “On path planning and obstacle avoidance for nonholonomic platforms with manipulators: A polynomial approach,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 21 (4), 367–383 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Korayem, M. H. and Ghariblu, H., “Maximum allowable load of mobile manipulator for two given end points of end-effector,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 24 (10), 743–751 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Korayem, M. H. and Gariblu, H., “Maximum allowable load on wheeled mobile manipulators imposing redundancy constraints,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 44, 151–159 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Korayem, M. H. and Gariblu, H., “Analysis of wheeled mobile flexible manipulator dynamic motions with maximum load carrying capacities,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 48 (3), 63–76 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Gariblu, H. and Korayem, M. H., “Trajectory optimization of flexible mobile manipulators,” Robotica 24 (3), 333–335 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Arora, J., Introduction to Optimum Design (Second Edition, Elsevier, Academic Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Kirk, D. E., Optimal Control Theory, An Introduction (Englewood Cliffis New Jersey, 1970).Google Scholar
19.Shiller, Z. and Dubowsky, S., “Robot path planning with obstacles, actuators, gripper and payload constraints,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 8 (6), 3–18 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Szyszkowski, W. and Fotouhi, R., “Improving time-optimal control maneuvers of two-link robotic manipulators,” J. Guid. Control Dyn. 23 (5), 888–889 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Shiller, Z., “Time-energy optimal control of articulated systems with geometric path constraints,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Diego, CA USA (1994) Vol. 4, pp. 2680–2685.Google Scholar
22.Fotouhi, R. and Szyszkowski, W., “An algorithm for time optimal control problems,” J. Guid. Control Dyn. 120, 414–418 (1998).Google Scholar
23.Bessonnet, G. and Chessé, S., “Optimal dynamics of actuated kinematic chains, Part 2: Problem statements and computational aspects,” Eur. J. Mech., A/Solids 24, 472–490 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Bertolazzi, E., Biral, F. and Da, M., “Symbolic–numeric indirect method for solving optimal control problems for large multibody systems,” Multibody System Dynamics 13 (2), 233–252 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Sentinella, M. R. and Casalino, L., “Genetic algorithm and indirect method coupling for low-thrust trajectory optimization”, 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, California (2006).Google Scholar
26.Mohri, A., Furuno, S., Iwamura, M. and Yamamoto, M., “Sub-optimal trajectory planning of mobile manipulator,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Seoul, Korea (2001) pp. 1271–1276.Google Scholar
27.Mohri, A., Furuno, S. and Yamamoto, M., “Trajectory planning of mobile manipulator with end-effector's specified path,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems Maui, HI, USA (2001) pp. 2264–2269.Google Scholar
28.Furuno, S., Yamamoto, M. and Mohri, A., “Trajectory planning of mobile manipulator with stability considerations,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Taipei, Taiwan (2003) pp. 3403–3408.Google Scholar
29.Ghasempoor, A. and Sepehri, N., “A measure of stability for mobile based manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Nagoya, Japan (1995) pp. 2249–2254.Google Scholar
30.Rey, D. A. and Papadopoulos, E. G., “Online automatic tip-over prevention for mobile and redundant manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Grenoble, France (1997) pp. 1273–1278.Google Scholar