Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
158 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Application-Oriented Co-Design of Motors and Motions for a 6DOF Robot Manipulator (2310.03132v1)

Published 4 Oct 2023 in cs.RO, cs.SY, and eess.SY

Abstract: This work investigates an application-driven co-design problem where the motion and motors of a six degrees of freedom robotic manipulator are optimized simultaneously, and the application is characterized by a set of tasks. Unlike the state-of-the-art which selects motors from a product catalogue and performs co-design for a single task, this work designs the motor geometry as well as motion for a specific application. Contributions are made towards solving the proposed co-design problem in a computationally-efficient manner. First, a two-step process is proposed, where multiple motor designs are identified by optimizing motions and motors for multiple tasks one by one, and then are reconciled to determine the final motor design. Second, magnetic equivalent circuit modeling is exploited to establish the analytic mapping from motor design parameters to dynamic models and objective functions to facilitate the subsequent differentiable simulation. Third, a direct-collocation-based differentiable simulator of motor and robotic arm dynamics is developed to balance the computational complexity and numerical stability. Simulation verifies that higher performance for a specific application can be achieved with the multi-task method, compared to several benchmark co-design methods.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (21)
  1. L. Zhou and S. Bai, “A new approach to design of a lightweight anthropomorphic arm for service applications,” Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 376, 2015.
  2. R. V. Mayorga, J. Carrera, and M. M. Oritz, “A kinematics performance index based on the rate of change of a standard isotropy condition for robot design optimization,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 53, no. 3-4, pp. 153–163, 2005.
  3. E. A. Padilla-Garcia, A. Rodriguez-Angeles, J. R. Resendiz, and C. A. Cruz-Villar, “Concurrent optimization for selection and control of ac servomotors on the powertrain of industrial robots,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 27 923–27 938, 2018.
  4. G. Bravo-Palacios, A. D. Prete, and P. M. Wensing, “One robot for many tasks: Versatile co-design through stochastic programming,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1680–1687, 2020.
  5. S. Števo, I. Sekaj, and M. Dekan, “Optimization of robotic arm trajectory using genetic algorithm,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 1748–1753, 2014.
  6. K. Raza, T. A. Khan, and N. Abbas, “Kinematic analysis and geometrical improvement of an industrial robotic arm,” Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 218–223, 2018.
  7. C. Castejón, G. Carbone, J. C. GARCIA-PRADA, and M. Ceccarelli, “A multi-objective optimization of a robotic arm for service tasks,” Strojnivski vestnik-Journal of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 56, pp. 316–329, 2010.
  8. M. Bugday and M. Karali, “Design optimization of industrial robot arm to minimize redundant weight,” Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 346–352, 2019.
  9. G. Bastos and O. Brüls, “An integrated control-structure design for manipulators with flexible links,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 156–161, 2015.
  10. M. Pettersson and J. Olvander, “Drive train optimization for industrial robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1419–1424, 2009.
  11. T. Dinev, C. Mastalli, V. Ivan, S. Tonneau, and S. Vijayakumar, “A versatile co-design approach for dynamic legged robots.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.04660v3
  12. S. Ha, S. Coros, A. Alspach, J. Kim, and K. Yamane, “Computational co-optimization of design parameters and motion trajectories for robotic systems,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 37, no. 13-14, pp. 1521–1536, 2018.
  13. G. Bravo-Palacios, G. Grandesso, A. D. Prete, and P. M. Wensing, “Robust co-design: Coupling morphology and feedback design through stochastic programming,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 144, no. 2, p. 1680, 2022.
  14. T. Ravichandran, D. Wang, and G. Heppler, “Simultaneous plant-controller design optimization of a two-link planar manipulator,” Mechatronics, vol. 16, no. 3-4, pp. 233–242, 2006.
  15. J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “Casadi – a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,” Mathematical Programming Computation, In Press, 2018.
  16. J. Lemmens, P. Vanassche, and J. Driesen, “Pmsm drive current and voltage limiting as a constraint optimal control problem,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 326–338, 2015.
  17. ——, “A beginner’s guide to 6-d vectors (part 2) [tutorial],” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 88–99, 2010.
  18. ——, “A beginner’s guide to 6-d vectors (part 1),” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 83–94, 2010.
  19. J. T. Betts, “Survey of numerical methods for trajectory optimization,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 193–207, Mar.-Apr. 1998.
  20. Y. Wang, Y. Zhao, S. A. Bortoff, and K. Ueda, “A real-time energy-optimal trajectory generation method for a servomotor system,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 1175–1188, Feb. 2015.
  21. Y. Zhao, Y. Wang, M.-C. Zhou, and J. Wu, “Energy-optimal collision-free motion planning for multiaxis motion systems: An alternating quadratic programming approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 327–338, Jan. 2019.
Citations (3)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.