Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:23:24.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multiobjective trajectory planner for industrial robots with payload constraints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

R. Saravanan ,
S. Ramabalan  and
C. Balamurugan
R. Saravanan
Affiliation:
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore – Pin: 641 006, Tamil nadu
S. Ramabalan*
Affiliation:
Faculty of CAD/CAM (P.G. Course), J. J. College of Engineering and Technology, Tiruchirapalli – Pin: 620 009
C. Balamurugan
Affiliation:
Faculty of CAD/CAM (P.G. Course), J. J. College of Engineering and Technology, Tiruchirapalli – Pin: 620 009
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A general new methodology using evolutionary algorithms viz., Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) and Multi-objective Differential Evolution (MODE), for obtaining optimal trajectory planning of an industrial robot manipulator (PUMA 560 robot) in the presence of fixed and moving obstacles with payload constraint is presented. The problem has a multi-criterion character in which six objective functions, 32 constraints and 288 variables are considered. A cubic NURBS curve is used to define the trajectory. The average fuzzy membership function method is used to select the best optimal solution from Pareto optimal fronts. Two multi-objective performance measures namely solution spread measure and ratio of non-dominated individuals are used to evaluate the strength of Pareto optimal fronts. Two more multi-objective performance measures namely optimiser overhead and algorithm effort are used to find computational effort of the NSGA-II and MODE algorithms. The Pareto optimal fronts and results obtained from various techniques are compared and analysed. Both NSGA-II and MODE are best for this problem.

Keywords

Optimal trajectory planningNURBSPayload constraintsEvolutionary algorithms—Elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II)Multi-objective differential evolution (MODE)
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , November 2008 , pp. 753 - 765
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.Saramago, S. F. P. and Steffen, V. Jr, “Optimization of the trajectory planning of robot manipulators taking into account the dynamics of the system,” Mech. Mach. Theory 33 (7), 883–894 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Saramago, S. F. P. and Steffen, V. Jr, “Dynamic optimization for the trajectory planning of robot manipulators in the presence of obstacles,” J. Brazilian Soc. Mech. Sci. 21 (3), 1–17 (1999).Google Scholar
3.Saramago, S. F. P. and Steffen, V. Jr, “Optimal trajectory planning of robot manipulators in the presence of moving obstacles,” Mech. Mach. Theory 35 (8), 1079–1094 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Saramago, S. F. P. and Steffen, V. Jr, “Trajectory modeling of robot manipulators in the presence of obstacles,” J. Optim. Theory Appl. 110 (1), 17–34 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Saramago, S. F. P. and Ceccareli, M., “An optimum robot path planning with payload constraints,” Robotica 20, 395–404 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Chettibi, T., Lehtihet, H. E., Haddad, M. and Hanchi, S., “Minimum cost trajectory planning for industrial robots,” European J. Mech. A/Solids 23, 703–715 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Piazzi, Aurelio, “Global minimum-jerk trajectory planning of robot manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 47 (1), 140–149 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Gasparetto, A. and Zanotto, V., “A new method for smooth trajectory planning of robot manipulators,” Mech. Mach. Theory 42 (4), 455–471 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Elnagar, A. and Hussein, A., “On optimal constrained trajectory planning in 3D environments,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 33 (4)195–206 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Lloyd, J. E. and Hayward, Vincent, “Singularity-robust trajectory generation,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 20 (1), 38–56 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Lin, Chih-Jer, “Motion planning of redundant robots by perturbation method,” Mechatronics 14, 281–297 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Tatematsu, N. and Ohnishi, K., “Tracking Motion of Mobile Robot for Moving Target Using NURBS Curve,” Proceedings of IEEE Int. Conference on Ind. Technol., 1 (2003), Maribor, Slovenia, pp. 245–249.Google Scholar
13.Ata, A. A. and Myo, R. T., “Optimal point-to-point trajectory tracking of redundant manipulators using generalized pattern search,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2, 239–244 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S. and Meyarivan, T., “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2), 182–197 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Babu, B. V. and Anbarasu, B., “Multi-Objective Differential Evolution (MODE): An Evolutionary Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization Problems (MOOPs),” http://discovery.bitspilani.ac.in/discipline/chemical/BVb/publications/htmlPrice.Google Scholar
16.Price, K. and Storn, R., “Differential Evolution—A simple evolution strategy for fast optimisation,” Dr. Dobb's J. 22 (4), 18–24, 78 (1997).Google Scholar
17.Piegl, L. and Tiller, W., “The NURBS Book,” 2nd edn. (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar