Advertisement

Autonomous Robots

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 327–344 | Cite as

Optimal shape and motion planning for dynamic planar manipulation

  • Orion TaylorEmail author
  • Alberto Rodriguez
Article
  • 251 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue on Robotics: Science and Systems

Abstract

This paper presents a framework for optimizing both the shape and the motion of a planar rigid end-effector to satisfy a desired manipulation task. Both shape and motion play key roles in determining contact interaction, and while both are commonly seen as design/control freedoms, their synergies are rarely formally explored. In this paper we study quasistatic problems like cam design, or dynamic problems like ball throwing, where both the shape and motion of the surfaces at contact are relevant. We frame this design problem as a nonlinear optimization program, where shape and motion are decision variables represented as splines. The task is represented as a series of constraints, along with a fitness cost, which force the solution to be compatible with the dynamics of frictional hard contact while satisfying the task. We illustrate the approach with the example problem of moving a disk along a desired path or trajectory, and we verify it by applying it to three classical design problems: the rolling brachistochrone, the design of teeth of involute gears, and the pitch curve of rolling cams. We conclude with a case study involving the optimization and real implementation of the shape and motion of a dynamic throwing arm.

Keywords

Manipulation Optimization Robot end effector design 

Notes

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (mp4 20699 KB)

References

  1. Becker, A., & Bretl, T. (2012). Approximate steering of a plate-ball system under bounded model perturbation using ensemble control. In IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) (pp. 5353–5359).Google Scholar
  2. Brokowski, M., Peshkin, M., & Goldberg, K. (1995). Optimal curved fences for part alignment on a belt. Transactions-America Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal of Mechanical Design, 117, 27–35.Google Scholar
  3. Caine, M. (1994). The design of shape interactions using motion constraints. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 366–371).Google Scholar
  4. Chen, P. T. (2010). Simulation and optimization of a two-wheeled, ball-flinging robot. Masters thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  5. Cristescu, A., Cristescu, B., & Laurenia, A. (2014). Generalization of multispeed gear pitch curves design. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 659, 559–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gill, P. E., Murray, W., & Saunders, M. A. (2005). SNOPT: An SQP algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization. SIAM Review, 47(1), 99–131.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Goss, V. G. A. (2013). Application of analytical geometry to the form of gear teeth. Resonance, 18(9), 817–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ha, S., Coros, S., Alspach, A., Kim, J., & Yamane, K. (2017). Joint optimization of robot design and motion parameters using the implicit function theorem. In Robotics: Science and systems.Google Scholar
  9. Hargraves, C. R., & Paris, S. W. (1987). Direct trajectory optimization using nonlinear programming and collocation. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 10(4), 338–342.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Lippiello, V., Ruggiero, F., & Siciliano, B. (2016). The effect of shapes in input-state linearization for stabilization of nonprehensile planar rolling dynamic manipulation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 1(1), 492–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Litvin, F. L., Fuentes-Aznar, A., Gonzalez-Perez, I., & Hayasaka, K. (2009). Noncircular gears: Design and generation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu, J. Y., & Chen, Y. C. (2008). A design for the pitch curve of noncircular gears with function generation. In Proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists (Vol. 2).Google Scholar
  13. Lynch, K. M., & Mason, M. T. (1999). Dynamic nonprehensile manipulation: Controllability, planning, and experiments. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 18(1), 64–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lynch, K. M., Shiroma, N., Arai, H., & Tanie, K. (1998). The roles of shape and motion in dynamic manipulation: The butterfly example. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 1958–1963).Google Scholar
  15. Montana, D. J. (1988). The kinematics of contact and grasp. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 7(3), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Posa, M., Cantu, C., & Tedrake, R. (2014). A direct method for trajectory optimization of rigid bodies through contact. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 33(1), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reist, P., & D’Andrea, R. (2009). Bouncing an unconstrained ball in three dimensions with a blind juggling robot. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 1774–1781).Google Scholar
  18. Reist, P., & D’Andrea, R. (2011). Design of the pendulum juggler. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 5154–5159).Google Scholar
  19. Rodgers, E. (1946). Brachistochrone and tautochrone curves for rolling bodies. American Journal of Physics, 14(4), 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rodriguez, A. (2013). Shape for contact. Ph.D. thesis, CMU-RI-TR-13-21, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  21. Rodriguez, A., & Mason, M. T. (2012). Grasp invariance. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 31(2), 237–249.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Rodriguez, A., & Mason, M. T. (2013). Effector form design for 1DOF planar actuation. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 349–356).Google Scholar
  23. Ryu, J. C., Ruggiero, F., & Lynch, K. M. (2012). Control of nonprehensile rolling manipulation: Balancing a disk on a disk. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 3232–3237).Google Scholar
  24. Sussmann, H. J., & Willems, J. C. (1997). 300 years of optimal control: From the brachystochrone to the maximum principle. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 17(3), 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yang, D. C., & Tong, S. H. (1998). Generation of identical noncircular pitch curves. Journal of mechanical design, 120, 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zarbski, I., & Saaciski, T. (2008). Designing of non-circular gears. Archive of Mechanical Engineering, 55(3), 275–292.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations