Skip to main content
Log in

A geometric tracking of rank-1 manipulability for singularity-robust collision avoidance

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Intelligent Service Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For safe operation of cooperative robots, we propose a real-time collision avoidance algorithm that is robust to kinematic singularities of serial robots. The main idea behind the algorithms is to generate control inputs that increase the directional manipulability of a robot along the object direction by reducing directional safety measures. While existing directional safety measures show undesirable behaviors in the vicinity of the kinematic singularities of the robot, the proposed geometric safety measure, which is a distance on the space of positive semi-definite matrices with rank one, robustly generates control input that drives the robot to safer posture, even at the kinematic singularities. By adding the control input from the geometric safety measure to the conventional repulsive input for collision avoidance, a hierarchical collision avoidance algorithm that is robust to kinematic singularity is implemented. The proposed method is demonstrated and validated with a set of numerical experiments that consist of manipulability tracking and collision avoidance examples for a serial manipulator.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Haddadin S, De Luca A, Albu-Schäffer A (2017) Robot collisions: a survey on detection, isolation, and identification. IEEE Trans Robot 33(6):1292–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. De Luca A, Albu-Schäffer A, Haddadin S, Hirzinger G (2006) Collision detection and safe reaction with the dlr-iii lightweight manipulator arm. In: Intelligent robots and systems, IEEE/RSJ international conference on IEEE, pp 1623–1630

  3. Park KM, Kim J, Park J, Park FC (2021) Learning-based real-time detection of robot collisions without joint torque sensors. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 6(1):103–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sorokin A, Berenson D, Srinivasa SS, Hebert M (2010) People helping robots helping people: Crowdsourcing for grasping novel objects. In: 2010 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 2117–2122

  5. Lee JH, Yun WH, Lee J, Kim J (2017) Synthetic learning set for object pose estimation: initial experiments. In: 2017 14th international conference on ubiquitous robots and ambient intelligence. IEEE, pp 106–108

  6. Fiorini P, Shiller Z (1998) Motion planning in dynamic environments using velocity obstacles. Int J Robot Res 17(7):760–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alves RMF, Lopes CR (2016) Obstacle avoidance for mobile robots: a hybrid intelligent system based on fuzzy logic and artificial neural network. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE). IEEE, pp 1038–1043

  8. Long P, Fanl T, Liao X, Liu W, Zhang H, Pan J (2018) Towards optimally decentralized multi-robot collision avoidance via deep reinforcement learning. In: 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 6252–6259

  9. Khatib O (1986) Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. autonomous robot vehicles. Springer, Berlin, pp 396–404

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brock O, Khatib O, Viji S (2002) Task-consistent obstacle avoidance and motion behavior for mobile manipulation. In: Robotics and automation, IEEE international conference on, vol 1. IEEE, pp 388–393

  11. Dietrich A, Wimbock T, Albu-Schäffer A, Hirzinger G (2012) Integration of reactive, torque-based self-collision avoidance into a task hierarchy. IEEE Trans Robot 28(6):1278–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Flacco F, Kroeger T, De Luca A, Khatib O (2015) A depth space approach for evaluating distance to objects. J Intell Robot Syst 80(1):7–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Polverini MP, Zanchettin AM, Rocco P (2017) A computationally efficient safety assessment for collaborative robotics applications. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 46:25–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kimmel M, Hirche S (2017) Invariance control for safe human-robot interaction in dynamic environments. IEEE Trans Robot 33(6):1327–1342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Solyman AE, Ibrahem KM, Atia MR, Saleh HI, Roman MR (2020) Perceptive augmented reality-based interface for robot task planning and visualization. Int J Innov Comput Inf Control 16(5) 1769–1785

  16. Scott NA, Carignan CR (2008) A line-based obstacle avoidance technique for dexterous manipulator operations. In: Robotics and automation, IEEE international conference on IEEE, pp 3353–3358

  17. Sverdrup-Thygeson J, Moe S, Pettersen KY, Gravdahl JT (2017) Kinematic singularity avoidance for robot manipulators using set-based manipulability tasks. In: 2017 IEEE conference on control technology and applications (CCTA). IEEE, pp 142–149

  18. Di Lillo P, Chiaverini S, Antonelli G (2019) Handling robot constraints within a set-based multi-task priority inverse kinematics framework. In: 2019 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 7477–7483

  19. Khatib O (1995) Inertial properties in robotic manipulation: an object-level framework. Int J Robot Res 14(1):19–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Walker ID (1994) Impact configurations and measures for kinematically redundant and multiple armed robot systems. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 10(5):670–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kang S, Komoriya K, Yokoi K, Koutoku T, Tanie K (2001) Reduced inertial effect in damping-based posture control of mobile manipulator. In: Intelligent robots and systems, IEEE/RSJ international conference on, vol 1. IEEE, pp 488–493

  22. Rossi R, Polverini MP, Zanchettin AM, Rocco P (2015) A pre-collision control strategy for human-robot interaction based on dissipated energy in potential inelastic impacts. In: Intelligent robots and systems, IEEE/RSJ international conference on IEEE, pp 26–31

  23. Heinzmann J, Zelinsky A (2003) Quantitative safety guarantees for physical human-robot interaction. Int J Robot Res 22(7–8):479–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Haddadin S, Haddadin S, Khoury A, Rokahr T, Parusel S, Burgkart R, Bicchi A, Albu-Schäffer A (2012) On making robots understand safety: embedding injury knowledge into control. Int J Robot Res 31(13):1578–1602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mansfeld N, Djellab B, Veuthey JR, Beck F, Ott C, Haddadin S (2017) Improving the performance of biomechanically safe velocity control for redundant robots through reflected mass minimization. In: Intelligent robots and systems, IEEE/RSJ international conference on IEEE, pp 5390–5397

  26. Jaquier N, Rozo LD, Caldwell DG, Calinon S (2018) Geometry-aware tracking of manipulability ellipsoids. In: Robotics: science and systems, number CONF

  27. Bonnabel S, Sepulchre R (2010) Riemannian metric and geometric mean for positive semidefinite matrices of fixed rank. SIAM J Matrix Anal Appl 31(3):1055–1070

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Lynch KM, Park FC (2017) Modern robotics: mechanics, planning, and control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chiu SL (1988) Task compatibility of manipulator postures. Int J Robot Res 7(5):13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nait-Chabane K, Delarue S, Hoppenot P, Colle E (2009) Strategy of approach for seizure of an assistive mobile manipulator. Robot Auton Syst 57(2):222–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Koeppe R, Yoshikawa T (1997) Dynamic manipulability analysis of compliant motion. In: Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robot and systems. Innovative robotics for real-world applications. IROS’97, vol 3. IEEE, pp 1472–1478

  32. Magnus JR (1985) On differentiating eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Econ Theory 1(2):179–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee S, Kim J, Park FC, Kim M, Bobrow JE (2005) Newton-type algorithms for dynamics-based robot movement optimization. IEEE Trans Robot 21(4):657–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lacevic B, Rocco P (2010) Kinetostatic danger field-a novel safety assessment for human-robot interaction. In: Intelligent robots and systems, IEEE/RSJ international conference on IEEE, pp 2169–2174

  35. Polverini MP, Zanchettin AM, Rocco P (2014) Real-time collision avoidance in human-robot interaction based on kinetostatic safety field. In: Intelligent robots and systems, IEEE/RSJ international conference on IEEE, pp 4136–4141

  36. Baerlocher P, Boulic R (1998) Task-priority formulations for the kinematic control of highly redundant articulated structures. In: Proceedings 1998 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. Innovations in theory, practice and applications (Cat. No. 98CH36190), vol 1. IEEE, pp 323–329

  37. Khatib O (1987) A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: the operational space formulation. IEEE J Robot Autom 3(1):43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Park J, Chung W, Youm Y (1999) Computation of gradient of manipulability for kinematically redundant manipulators including dual manipulators system. Trans Control Autom Syst Eng 1(1):8–15

    Google Scholar 

  39. Neuromeka. Indy7 Indy7, Neuromeka Company, [Online]. https://www.neuromeka.com/cobot

  40. Garrido-Jurado S, Munoz-Salinas R, Madrid-Cuevas FJ, Medina-Carnicer R (2016) Generation of fiducial marker dictionaries using mixed integer linear programming. Pattern Recognit 51:481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yun A (2020) Safe reconfigurable robot systems: design, programming, and reactive motion planning. PhD thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alchan Yun.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (mp4 28731 KB)

Appendix: Proof of triangle inequality when \(p=1\)

Appendix: Proof of triangle inequality when \(p=1\)

Given three matrices \(A_1, A_2, A_3\in S^+(1,n)\) in form of \(A_i=\lambda _iu_iu_i^T\), the length (14) satisfies the triangle inequality

$$\begin{aligned} l_{1,2} + l_{2,3} \ge l_{3,1} \end{aligned}$$
(37)

where

$$\begin{aligned} l_{i,j} = \sqrt{\theta _{i,j}^2 + k\left( \log \frac{\lambda _i}{\lambda _j}\right) ^2} \end{aligned}$$
(38)

and \(\theta _{i,j}=\cos ^{-1}(u_i^Tu_j)\).

Proof

For simplicity, we denote that \(\sqrt{k}\log \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _2}=X\) and \(\sqrt{k}\log \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3}=Y\). Then above equation become

$$\begin{aligned} \sqrt{\theta _{1,2}^2 + X^2} + \sqrt{\theta _{2, 3}^2 + Y^2} \ge \sqrt{\theta _{3, 1}^2 + (X+Y)^2}. \end{aligned}$$
(39)

Since the angle part and the logarithm part are the distance on each space, i.e., \(\mathrm{Gr}(1,n)\) and P(1), the following triangle inequality holds.

$$\begin{aligned}&\theta _{1, 2} + \theta _{2, 3} \ge \theta _{3, 1} \end{aligned}$$
(40)
$$\begin{aligned}&2\theta _{1, 2}\theta _{2, 3} \ge \theta _{3, 1}^2 - \theta _{1, 2}^2 - \theta _{2, 3}^2 \end{aligned}$$
(41)
$$\begin{aligned}&|X| + |Y| \ge |X+Y|. \end{aligned}$$
(42)

Taking square on both sides of (39) and rearranging the equation give

$$\begin{aligned}&2\sqrt{\left( \theta _{1, 2}^2 + X^2\right) \left( \theta _{2, 3}^2 + Y^2\right) } \nonumber \\&\quad \ge 2XY + \theta _{3, 1}^2 - \theta _{1, 2}^2 -\theta _{2, 3}^2 \end{aligned}$$
(43)

From (41), it becomes

$$\begin{aligned} 2\sqrt{\left( \theta _{1, 2}^2 + X^2\right) \left( \theta _{2, 3}^2 + Y^2\right) } \ge 2XY + 2\theta _{1, 2}\theta _{2, 3}. \end{aligned}$$
(44)

Taking another square on both sides gives

$$\begin{aligned} \left( \theta _{1, 2}Y - \theta _{2, 3}X \right) \ge 0 \end{aligned}$$
(45)

\(\square \)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yun, A., Ha, J. A geometric tracking of rank-1 manipulability for singularity-robust collision avoidance. Intel Serv Robotics 14, 271–284 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-021-00351-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-021-00351-0

Keywords

Navigation