Sub-optimal Solution of the Inverse Kinematic Task of Redundant Robots without Using Lagrange Multipliers

Bence Varga; Hazem Issa; Richárd Horváth; József Tar

doi:10.52846/stccj.2021.1.2.25

Authors

Bence Varga Óbuda University
Hazem Issa Óbuda University
Richárd Horváth Óbuda University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4924-3244
József Tar Óbuda University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5476-401X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52846/stccj.2021.1.2.25

Keywords:

inverse kinematic task, gradient descent method, reduced gradient algorithm, Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse, receding horizon control

Abstract

In the paper a novel approach is suggested for solving the inverse kinematic task of redundant open kinematic chains. Traditional approaches as the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse-based solutions minimize the sum of squares of the timederivative of the joint coordinates under the constraint that contains the task itself. In the vicinity of kinematic singularities where these solutions are possible the hard constraint terms produce high time-derivatives that can be reduced by the use of a deformation proposed by Levenberg and Marquardt. The novel approach uses the basic scheme of the Receding Horizon Controllers in which the Lagrange multipliers are eliminated by direct application of the kinematic model over the horizon in the role of the ”control force”, and no reduced gradient has to be computed. This fact considerably decreases the complexity of the solution. If the cost function contains penalty for high joint coordinate time-derivatives the kinematic singularities are ab ovo better handled. Simulation examples made for a 7 degree of freedom robot arm demonstrate the operation of the novel approach. The computational need of the method is still considerable but it can be further decreased by the application of complementary tricks.

References

H. Issa, B. Varga, and J.K. Tar. A receding horizon-type solution of the inverse kinematic task of redundant robots. In proc. of the IEEE 15th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI 2021), May 19-21, 2021 in Timisoara, Romania., pages 231–236, 2021.

C.S.G. Lee and M. Ziegler. RSD-TR-1-83 A geometric approach is solving the inverse kinematics of PUMA robots. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1109, 1983.

A. Benitez, I. Huitzil, A. Casiano, J. De La Calleja, and M.A. Medina. Puma 560: Robot prototype with graphic simulation environment. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 2(1):15–22, 2012.

P. Chang. A closed-form solution for the control of manipulators with kinematic redundancy. In Proceedings. 1986 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 3, pages 9–14. IEEE, 1986.

E.H. Moore. On the reciprocal of the general algebraic matrix. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 26(9):394–395, 1920.

R. Penrose. A generalized inverse for matrices. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 51:406–413, 1955.

A. Ben-Israel and T.N.E. Greville. Generalized Inverses. Springer- Verlag, 2003.

K. Levenberg. A method for the solution of certain non-linear problems in least squares. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 2:164–168, 1944.

D. Marquardt. An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J. Soc. Indust. Appl. Math., 11(2):431–441, 1963.

J. Baillieul. Kinematic programming alternatives for redundant manipulators. In Proceedings. 1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 2, pages 722–728. IEEE, 1985.

D.N. Nenchev. Restricted jacobian matrices of redundant manipulators in constrained motion tasks. The International journal of robotics research, 11(6):584–597, 1992.

J. Baillieul. Avoiding obstacles and resolving kinematic redundancy. In Proceedings. 1986 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 3, pages 1698–1704. IEEE, 1986.

R.E. Bellman. Dynamic programming and a new formalism in the calculus of variations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 40(4):231–235, 1954.

A. Reda, A. Bouzid, and J. V´as´arhelyi. Model predictive control for automated vehicle steering. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 17(7):163–182, 2020.

N. Moldov´anyi. Model Predictive Control of Crystallisers. PhD Thesis, Department of Process Engineering, University of Pannonia, Veszpr´em, Hungary, 2012.

S. Rohani, M. Haeri, and H.C. Wood. Modeling and control of a continuous crystallization process Part 2. Model predictive control. Computers & Chem. Eng., 23:279, 1999.

N. Muthukumar, Seshadhri Srinivasan, K. Ramkumar, K. Kannan, and Valentina Emilia Balas. Adaptive model predictive controller for web transport systems. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 13(3):181–194, 2016.

J. Richalet, A. Rault, J.L. Testud, and J. Papon. Model predictive heuristic control: Applications to industrial processes. Automatica, 14(5):413–428, 1978.

W.H. Kwon and S. Han. Receding Horizon Control. 01 2005.

T.J. Ypma. Historical development of the Newton-Raphson method. SIAM Review, 37(4):531–551, 1995.

H. Karabulut. Physical meaning of Lagrange multipliers. European Journal of Physics (physics.ed-ph); General Physics (physics.gen-ph), 27:709–718, 2007.

O. Rodrigues. Des lois g´eometriques qui regissent les d´eplacements d’un systeme solide dans l’espace, et de la variation des coordonnees provenant de ces d´eplacement considerees independent des causes qui peuvent les produire (Geometric laws which govern the displacements of a solid system in space: and the variation of the coordinates coming from these displacements considered independently of the causes which can produce them). J. Math. Pures Appl., 5:380–440, 1840.

J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V.B. Shah. Julia. https://julialang.org, Last time visited: 5 May 2019.