[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

An Attempt to Raise the Level of Software Abstraction in Assembly Robotics through an Apposite Choice of Underlying Mechatronics

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robot manipulators were meant to be the production engineer"s flexible friend. Assembly robots, however, have failed to fulfill their promise. The problem that has continuously plagued robotic assembly is that of spatial uncertainty. It is our thesis that the ubiquitous problem of spatial uncertainty is an artefact of the fact that current industrial manipulators are designed for an operational paradigm that assumes position control is of primary importance. In this paper we propound an alternative approach based on sliding as the primary motion primitive. We first present a model that uses sliding to allow us to raise the level of abstraction of robot programming tasks. We then describe an inherently accommodating, (planar) three degree of freedom, direct-drive robot arm that was constructed to test our approach. Finally, we present data collected from representative (planar) manipulation tasks that substantiate our claims.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. An, C., Atkeson, C., and Hollerbach, J.: Model-Based Control of a Robot Manipulator, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arai, T.: Application of knowledge engineering on automatic assembly of parts with complicated shapes, in: Proc. 6th Internat. Conf. on Assembly Automation, 1985, pp. 67-76.

  3. Arai, T. and Kinoshita, N.: The part mating forces that arise when using a worktable with compliance', Assembly Automation, 1981, pp. 204-210.

  4. Armstrong, B.: Dynamics for Robot Control: Friction Modeling and Ensuring Excitation During Parameter Identification, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Asada, H.: Teaching and learning of compliance using neural nets: Representation and generation of nonlinear compliance, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1990, pp. 1237-1244.

  6. Asada, H. and Izumi, H.: Automatic program generation from teaching data for the hybrid control of robots, IEEE Trans. Robotics Automat. 5(2) (1989), 166-173.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Asada, H. and Kanade, T.: Design of direct-drive mechanical arms, Trans. ASME J. Vibration Acoustics Stress Reliability Design 105 (1983), 312-316. 8._ Asada, H., Kanade, T., and Takeyama, I.: Control of a direct-drive arm, Trans. ASME J. Dyn. Systems Meas. Control 105 (1983), 136-142.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Asada, H. and Slotine, J.-J.: Robot Analysis and Control, Wiley, New York, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Asada, H. and Youcef-Toumi, K.: Direct-Drive Robots: Theory and Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Barto, A.: An approach to learning control surfaces by connectionist systems, in: M. Arbib and A. Hanson (eds), Vision, Brain, and Cooperative Computation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987, pp. 665-701.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bland, C.: Peg-hole assembly: A literature survey, Technical Report ARC 10, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, Cardiff, Wales, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boothroyd, G.: Design for assembly handbook, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brost, R.: Analysis and planning of planar manipulation tasks, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brost, R. and Mason, M.: Graphical analysis of planar rigid body dynamics with multiple frictional contacts, in: H. Miura and S. Arimoto (eds), Proc. of the 5th Internat. Symp. on Robotics Research, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990, pp. 293-300.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Byrne, C.: A literature survey of classification systems for assembly processes, Technical Report ARC 17, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, Cardiff, Wales, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Byrne, C.: A description of the methodology for the survey and classification of assembly tasks, Technical Report ARC 23, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, Cardiff, Wales, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Byrne, C.: A survey of mechanical and electromechanical assembly tasks, Technical Report ARC 32, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, Cardiff, Wales, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Byrne, C. and Hopkins, S.: An expert system for the identification of assembly tasks, in: '91, Paper C415/078, 1991.

  19. Caine, M.: The design of shape from motion constraints, PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Caine, M., Lozano-Pérex, T., and Seering, W.: Assembly strategies for chamferless parts, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1989, pp. 472-477.

  21. Colgate, E.: On the intrinsic limitations of force feedback compliance controllers, in: Y. Youcef-Toumi and H. Kazeroni (eds), Proc. of ASME Winter Annual Meeting, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1989, pp. 23-30.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Colgate, E. and Hogan, N.: An analysis of contact instability in terms of passive physical equivalents, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1989, pp. 404-409.

  23. Cooper, C.: ASEA industrial robot systems, Personal communication regarding the Soft Servo Control option of the IRB series of industrial robots, 25th November, 1987.

  24. Craig, J.: Introduction to Robotics, 2nd edn, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Electro-Craft Corporation, DC Motors, Speed Controls, Servo Systems, 5th edn, Robbins and Meyers, Eden Prairie, MN, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Deacon, G.: Accomplishing task-invariant assembly strategies by means of an inherently accommodating robot arm, PhD Thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Desai, R. and Volz, R.: Identification and verification of termination conditions in fine motion in presence of sensor errors and geometric uncertainties, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1989, pp. 800-807.

  28. De Schutter, J. and Van Brussel, H.: Compliant robot motion II: A control approach based on external loops, Internat. J. Robotics Res. 7(4) (1988), 18-33.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Elosegui, P., Daniel, R., and Sharkey, P.: Joint servoing for robust manipulator force control, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1990, pp. 246-251.

  30. Eppinger, S.: Modeling Robot Dynamic Performance for Endpoint Force Control, PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Erdmann, M.: On Motion Planning with Uncertainty, Master's Thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Featherstone, R.: The simulator verification experiment, Working paper No. 178, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fisher, W. and Mujtaba, M.: Hybrid position/force control: A correct formulation, Internat. J. Robotics Res. 11(4) (1992), 299-311.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fowler, H. and Eppinger, S.: Bandwidth performance of a direct drive manipulator under joint torque and endpoint force control, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1991, pp. 230-237.

  35. Greer, K.: Physiology of motor control, in: M. Smyth and A. Wing (eds), The Physiology of Human Movement, Academic Press, London, 1984, pp. 17-46.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hirai, S.: Identification of contact states based on a geometric model for manipulative operations, Advanced Robotics 8(2) (1994), 139-155.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hirai, S. and Iwata, K.: A model-based generation of damping control law for part-mating, in: Proc. IEEE/RSJ Internat. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1992, pp. 494-499.

  38. Hogan, N.: Some computational problems simplified by impedance control, in: Proc. of ASME Conf. on Comput. Engineering, 1984, pp. 203-209.

  39. Hogan, N.: Impedance control: An approach to manipulation, Trans. ASME J. Dynamic Systems Meas. Control 107 (1985), 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hopkins, S., Bland, C., and Byrne, C.: A toolbox of assembly strategies, in: Proc. of the 18th Internat. Symp. on Industrial Robots, 1988, pp. 145-156.

  41. Khosla, P. and Kanade, T.: Experimental evaluation of nonlinear feedback and feedforward control schemes, Internat. J. Robotics Res. 7(1) (1988), 18-28.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Klafter, R., Chmielewski, T., and Negin, M.: Robotic Engineering: An Integrated Approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Koutsou, A.: Planning motion in contact to achieve parts mating, PhD Thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Krishnaswamy, S. and Seering,W.: Effects of kinematic force errors on robot task performance, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1994, pp. 2727-2732.

  45. Latombe, J.-C.: Robot Motion Planning, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Laugier, C.: Planning fine motion by reasoning in the contact space, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1989, pp. 653-659.

  47. Little, R.: Force/torque sensing in robotic manufacturing, Sensors 9(11) (1992).

  48. Lozano-Pérez, T.: Task planning, in: M. Brady, J. Hollerbach, T. Johnson, T. Lozano-Pérez, and M. Mason (eds), Robot Motion: Planning and Control, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982, pp. 473-498.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lozano-Pérez, T., Mason, M., and Taylor, R.: Automatic synthesis of fine-motion strategies for robots, Internat. J. Robotics Res. 3(1) (1984), 3-24.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Luh, J.: Conventional controller design for industrial robots-A tutorial, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. 13(3) (1983), 298-316.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Luh, J., Fisher, W., and Paul, R.: Joint torque control by a direct feedback for industrial robots, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 28(2) (1983), 153-161.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Mason, M.: Two graphical methods for planar contact problems, in: '91, 1991, pp. 443-448.

  53. McCallion, H. and Wong, P.: Some thoughts on the automatic assembly of a peg and a hole, Industrial Robot 2 (1975), 141-146.

    Google Scholar 

  54. McCarragher, B.: A Discrete Event Dynamic Systems Approach to Robotic Assembly, PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mundy, J. and Zisserman, A. (eds): Geometric Invariants in Computer Vision, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Nakamura, Y.: Advanced Robotics: Redundancy and Optimization, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Nevins, J. and Whitney, D.: Computer controlled assembly, Scientific American (1978), 62-74.

  58. Ohwovoriole, M.: An extension of screw theory and its application to the automation of industrial assemblies, PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Paul, R.: Problems and research issues assiociated with the hybrid control of force and displacement, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1987, pp. 1966-1971.

  60. Peshkin, M.: Programmed compliance for error corrective assembly, IEEE Trans. Robotics Automat. 6(4) (1990), 473-482.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Popplestone, R., Ambler, A., and Bellos, I.: An interpreter for a language for describing assemblies, Artificial Intelligence 14 (1980), 79-107.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Prentis, J.: Engineering Mechanics, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Raibert, M. and Craig, J.: Hybrid position/force control of manipulators, Trans. ASME J. Dyn. Systems Meas. Control 102 (1981), 126-133.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Rajan, V., Burridge, R., and Schwartz, J.: Dynamics of a rigid body in frictional contact with rigid walls, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1987, pp. 671-677.

  65. Redford, A. and Lo, E.: Robots in Assembly, Open Univ. Press., Milton Keynes, England, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Schimmels, J. and Peshkin, M.: Admittance matrix design for force-guided assembly, IEEE Trans. Robotics Automat. 8(2) (1992), 213-227.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Shimokura, K. and Muto, S.: A high-speed method of detecting contact-state transitions and its implementation in a task-coordinate manipulation system, in: IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1986, pp. 2012-2018.

  68. Simunovic, S.: Force information in assembly processes, in: Proc. of the 5th Internat. Symp. on Industrial Robots, 1975, pp. 415-431.

  69. Stokić, D. and Vukobratović, M.: Historical perspective and state of the art in joint force sensory feedback control of manipulation robots, Robotica 11 (1993), 149-157.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Sturges, R.: A three-dimensional assembly task quantification with application to machine dexterity, Internat. J. Robotics Res. 7(4) (1988), 34-78.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sturges, R. and Laowattana, S.: Virtual wedging in the three-dimensional peg insertion tasks, in: Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Internat. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1992, pp. 494-499.

  72. Swift, K.: A system of classification for automatic assembly, Master's Thesis, Department of Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineering, University of Salford, England, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Trevelyan, J.: Robot force control without stability problems, in: T. Yoshikawa and F.Miyazaki (eds), Proc. Experimental Robotics 3: The 3rd Internat. Symp., Springer, Berlin, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Walker, M. and Orin, D.: Efficient dynamic computer simulation of robotic mechanisms, Trans. ASME J. Dyn. Systems Meas. Control 104 (1982), 205-211.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Watson, P. and Drake, S.: Pedestal and wrist force sensors for automatic assembly, in Proc. of the 5th Internat. Symp. on Industrial Robots, 1975, pp. 501-511.

  76. Whitney, D.: Force feedback control of manipulator fine motions, Trans. ASMEJ. Dyn. Systems Meas. Control 99 (1977), 91-97.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Whitney, D.: Quasi-static assembly of compliantly supported rigid parts, Trans. ASME J. Dyn. Systems Meas. Control 104 (1982), 65-77.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechatronic Systems and Robotics Research Group, School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 5XH, UK

    Graham E. Deacon

Authors
  1. Graham E. Deacon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deacon, G.E. An Attempt to Raise the Level of Software Abstraction in Assembly Robotics through an Apposite Choice of Underlying Mechatronics. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 28, 343–399 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008102809568

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008102809568

Search

Navigation