Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:03:29.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimum path planning of robot arms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

V. Braibant  and
M. Geradin
V. Braibant
Affiliation:
Université de Liège, Laboratoire de Techniques Aéronautiques et Spatiales, rue Ernest Solvay, 21, 4000 Liege, (Belgium)
M. Geradin
Affiliation:
Université de Liège, Laboratoire de Techniques Aéronautiques et Spatiales, rue Ernest Solvay, 21, 4000 Liege, (Belgium)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The optimum control of an industrial robot can be achieved by splitting the problem into two tasks: off-line programming of an optimum path, followed by an on-line path tracking.

The aim of this paper is to address the numerical solution of the optimum path planning problem. Because of its mixed nature, it can be expressed either in terms of Cartesian coordinates or at joint level.

Whatever the approach adopted, the optimum path planning problem can be formulated as the problem of minimizing the overall time (taken as objective function) subject to behavior and side constraints arising from physical limitations and deviation error bounds. The paper proposes a very general optimization algorithm to solve this problem, which is based on the concept of mixed approximation.

A numerical application is presented which demonstrates the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithm.

Keywords

OptimumPath PlanningRobot ArmsMixed Approximation
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 323 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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.Luh, J.Y.S. and Lin, C.S., “Optimum path planning for mechanical manipulators”, Transactions of the ASME 102, 142 (06, 1981).Google Scholar
2.Lin, C.S., Chang, P.R. and Luh, J.Y.S., “Formulation and optimization of cubic polynomial joint trajectories for industrial robots”, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. AC-28, 12, 1066–1073 (12, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Luh, J.Y.S., Walker, M.W. and Paul, R.P.C., “Resolved-acceleration control of mechanical manipulators”, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. AC-25, 468–474 (06, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Fleury, C., “A unified approach to structural weight minimization”, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. and Eng. 20, 17–38 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Schmit, L.A. and Fleury, C., “Structural synthesis by combining approximation concepts and dual methods”, AIAA 18, No. 101252–1260 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Braibant, V. and Fleury, C., “An approximation concepts approach to shape optimal design”, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. and Eng. 53, No. 2, 119–148 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Starnes, J.H. and Haftka, R.T., “Preliminary design of composite wings for buckling, strength and displacement constraints”, J. Aircraft 16, No. 8, 564–570 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Prasad, B., “Explicit constraint approximation forms in structural optimization Part I: Analyses and projections”, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. and Eng. 40, 1–26 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Prasad, B., “Approximation, adaptation and automation concepts for large scale structural optimization”, Engineering Optimization 6, 129–140 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Fleury, C. and Schmit, L.A., “Dual methods and approximation concepts in structural synthesis”, NASA Contractor Report, NASA-CR-3226 (1980).Google Scholar
11.Fleury, C. and Braibant, V., “Prise en compte des contraintes linéaires dans les méthodes duales d'optimalisation structurale”, LTAS Report SF-107 University of Liège (1982).Google Scholar