A new formulation of the extended Jacobian method and its use in mapping algorithmic singularities for kinematically redundant manipulators

The extended Jacobian method resolves the redundancy of a kinematically redundant manipulator such that a secondary criterion is kept at an optimal value. This paper describes a new formulation of this algorithm that is well suited numerically for systems with multiple degrees of redundancy and for more general choices of the secondary criterion. This formulation is used here for tracing algorithmic singularities, which mark a boundary of operation for any algorithm using the same secondary criterion to resolve the redundancy. Examples of tracing algorithmic singularities are presented for both planar and spatial systems. >

[1]  Charles A. Klein.  The Lie bracket condition as a test of stable, drift-free pseudoinverse trajectories , 1993, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[2]  A. Liegeois,et al.  Automatic supervisory control of the configuration and behavior of multi-body mechanisms , 1977 .

[3]  Pyung Chang.  A closed-form solution for inverse kinematics of robot manipulators with redundancy , 1987, IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation.

[4]  John Baillieul,et al.  Kinematic programming alternatives for redundant manipulators , 1985, Proceedings. 1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[5]  Charles W. Wampler,et al.  Manipulator Inverse Kinematic Solutions Based on Vector Formulations and Damped Least-Squares Methods , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[6]  Anthony A. Maciejewski,et al.  Numerical filtering for the operation of robotic manipulators through kinematically singular configurations , 1988, J. Field Robotics.

[7]  T. Shamir,et al.  Repeatability of redundant manipulators: mathematical solution of the problem , 1988 .

[8]  Tsuneo Yoshikawa,et al.  Manipulability of Robotic Mechanisms , 1985 .

[9]  Charles A. Klein,et al.  Testing iterative robotic algorithms by their rate of convergence , 1991, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[10]  T. Shamir.  Remarks on some dynamical problems of controlling redundant manipulators , 1990 .

[11]  A. A. Maciejewski,et al.  Obstacle Avoidance , 2005 .

[12]  Charles A. Klein,et al.  Review of pseudoinverse control for use with kinematically redundant manipulators , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[13]  T. Yoshikawa,et al.  Task-Priority Based Redundancy Control of Robot Manipulators , 1987 .

[14]  R. Colbaugh,et al.  Improved configuration control for redundant robots , 1990, J. Field Robotics.

[15]  John Baillieul,et al.  Avoiding obstacles and resolving kinematic redundancy , 1986, Proceedings. 1986 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[16]  Charles W. Wampler.  The Inverse Function Approach to Kinematic Control of Redundant Manipulators , 1988, 1988 American Control Conference.

[17]  Daniel E. Whitney,et al.  Resolved Motion Rate Control of Manipulators and Human Prostheses , 1969 .

[18]  Anthony A. Maciejewski,et al.  Nearest optimal repeatable control strategies for kinematically redundant manipulators , 1992, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[19]  Charles A. Klein,et al.  Dexterity Measures for the Design and Control of Kinematically Redundant Manipulators , 1987 .

[20]  Dragomir N. Nenchev,et al.  Redundancy resolution through local optimization: A review , 1989, J. Field Robotics.

[21]  Shamim Ahmed.  Issues in the repeatability of redundant manipulator control : pseudoinverse drift and algorithmic singularities / , 1992 .

[22]  Pyung Hun Chang,et al.  A closed-form solution for inverse kinematics of robot manipulators with redundancy , 1987, IEEE J. Robotics Autom..