American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
February  2021, 1(1): 17-31. doi: 10.3934/steme.2021002

Redundancy understanding and theory for robotics teaching: Application on a human finger model

Med Amine Laribi 1,, and  Saïd Zeghloul 1,

1. 

Dept. GMSC, Prime Institute, CNRS - University of Poitiers - ENSMA - UPR 3346, Poitiers, France

* Correspondence: med.amine.laribi@univ-poitiers.fr; Tel: +5-49-496552

Academic Editor: Giuseppe Carbone

Received  October 2020 Revised  January 2021 Published  February 2021

This paper introduces the concept of redundancy in robotics to students in master degree based on a didactic approach. The definition as well as theoretical description related to redundancy are presented. The example of a human finger is considered to illustrate the redundancy with biomechanical point of view. At the same time, the finger is used to facilitate the comprehension and apply theoretical development to solve direct and inverse kinematics problems. Three different tasks are considered with different degree of redundancy. All developments are implemented under Matlab and validated in simulation on CAD software.

Keywords: robotics, redundancy, Matlab, human finger, direct kinematic problem, inverse kinematic problem.
Citation: Med Amine Laribi, Saïd Zeghloul. Redundancy understanding and theory for robotics teaching: Application on a human finger model. STEM Education, 2021, 1 (1) : 17-31. doi: 10.3934/steme.2021002
References:
[1]

Nof, S.Y. (ed.) (1985) Handbook of Industrial Robotics. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Google Scholar

[2]

Angeles, J. (2002) Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical Systems (2nd ed.). Springer Verlag, New York. Google Scholar

[3]

Chiaverini S., Oriolo G., Maciejewski A.A. (2016) Redundant Robots. In: Siciliano B., Khatib O. (eds) Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer Handbooks. Springer. Google Scholar

[4]

E.S. Conkur and R. Buckingham, Clarifying the definition of redundancy as used in robotics, Robotica, 15 (1997), 583-586.  doi: 10.1017/S0263574797000672.  Google Scholar

[5]

C.A. Nelson, M.A. Laribi and S. Zeghloul, Multi-robot system optimization based on redundant serial spherical mechanism for robotic minimally invasive surgery, Robotica, 37 (2019), 1202-1213.  doi: 10.1017/S0263574718000681.  Google Scholar

[6]

H. Saafi, M.A. Laribi and S. Zeghloul, Optimal torque distribution for a redundant 3-RRR spherical parallel manipulator used as a haptic medical device, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 89 (2017), 40-50.   Google Scholar

[7]

de Wit, C.C., Siciliano, B., Bastin, G. (1996) Theory of Robot Control. Springer‐Verlag, London. Google Scholar

[8]

Angeles, J. (2006). Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical Systems: Theory, Methods, and Algorithms (3rd ed.). Springer‐Verlag, New York. Google Scholar

[9]

M.L. Latash and V.M. Zatsiorsky, Multi-finger prehension: Control of a redundant mechanical system, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 629 (2009), 597-618.  doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-77064-2_32.  Google Scholar

[10]

Towell, C., Howard, M., Vijayakumar, S. (2010) Learning nullspace policies. The IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Taipei, pp. 241-248, doi: 10.1109/IROS.2010.5650663. Google Scholar

[11]

C. Mizera, M.A. Laribi, D. Degez, J.P. Gazeau, P. Vulliez and S. Zeghloul, Architecture choice of a robotic hand for deep-sea exploration based on the expert gestures movements analysis, Mechanisms and Machine Science, 72 (2019), 1-19.   Google Scholar

[12]

Hu, D., Ren, L., Howad, D., Zong, C. (2014) Biomechanical analysis of force distribution in human finger extensor mechanisms. BioMed Research International, 2014: Article ID 743460, https: //doi.org/10.1155/2014/743460. doi: 10.1155/2014/743460.  Google Scholar

show all references

References:
[1]

Nof, S.Y. (ed.) (1985) Handbook of Industrial Robotics. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Google Scholar

[2]

Angeles, J. (2002) Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical Systems (2nd ed.). Springer Verlag, New York. Google Scholar

[3]

Chiaverini S., Oriolo G., Maciejewski A.A. (2016) Redundant Robots. In: Siciliano B., Khatib O. (eds) Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer Handbooks. Springer. Google Scholar

[4]

E.S. Conkur and R. Buckingham, Clarifying the definition of redundancy as used in robotics, Robotica, 15 (1997), 583-586.  doi: 10.1017/S0263574797000672.  Google Scholar

[5]

C.A. Nelson, M.A. Laribi and S. Zeghloul, Multi-robot system optimization based on redundant serial spherical mechanism for robotic minimally invasive surgery, Robotica, 37 (2019), 1202-1213.  doi: 10.1017/S0263574718000681.  Google Scholar

[6]

H. Saafi, M.A. Laribi and S. Zeghloul, Optimal torque distribution for a redundant 3-RRR spherical parallel manipulator used as a haptic medical device, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 89 (2017), 40-50.   Google Scholar

[7]

de Wit, C.C., Siciliano, B., Bastin, G. (1996) Theory of Robot Control. Springer‐Verlag, London. Google Scholar

[8]

Angeles, J. (2006). Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical Systems: Theory, Methods, and Algorithms (3rd ed.). Springer‐Verlag, New York. Google Scholar

[9]

M.L. Latash and V.M. Zatsiorsky, Multi-finger prehension: Control of a redundant mechanical system, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 629 (2009), 597-618.  doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-77064-2_32.  Google Scholar

[10]

Towell, C., Howard, M., Vijayakumar, S. (2010) Learning nullspace policies. The IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Taipei, pp. 241-248, doi: 10.1109/IROS.2010.5650663. Google Scholar

[11]

C. Mizera, M.A. Laribi, D. Degez, J.P. Gazeau, P. Vulliez and S. Zeghloul, Architecture choice of a robotic hand for deep-sea exploration based on the expert gestures movements analysis, Mechanisms and Machine Science, 72 (2019), 1-19.   Google Scholar

[12]

Hu, D., Ren, L., Howad, D., Zong, C. (2014) Biomechanical analysis of force distribution in human finger extensor mechanisms. BioMed Research International, 2014: Article ID 743460, https: //doi.org/10.1155/2014/743460. doi: 10.1155/2014/743460.  Google Scholar

Figure 1.  Schematic representation of the hand
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 2.  Kinematic diagram of a single finger
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 3.  Task1 - Trajectory of the fingertip and corresponding joint angles.

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 4.  Task2 - Trajectory of the fingertip and corresponding joint angles.

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 5.  Task3 - Trajectory of the fingertip and corresponding joint angles.

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 6.  Task 1 - Numerical validation of the pseudo-inverse method: (a) Graphical finger construction (b) Trajectory of the fingertip (c) Computed joint angles of the finger.

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 7.  Task 1 - CAD simulation of the finger motion using the pseudo-inverse method.

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 8.  Task 2 - Numerical validation of the pseudo-inverse method: (a) Graphical finger construction (b) Trajectory of the fingertip (c) Computed joint angles of the finger.

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 9.  Task 2 - CAD simulation of the finger motion using the pseudo-inverse method.

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 10.  Task 3 - Numerical validation of the pseudo-inverse method: (a) Graphical finger construction (b) Trajectory of the fingertip (c) Computed joint angles of the finger.

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 11.  Numerical validation of the pseudo-inverse method with a criterion on the joint limits: (a) $ a = 1 $, $ b = 1 $ and $ c = 1 $ (b) $ a = 30 $, $ b = 1 $ and $ c = 1 $ (c) $ a = 100 $, $ b = 1 $ and $ c = 1 $.
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Table 1.  The three tasks of the finger in the $ ({x}_{1}, {z}_{1}) $ plane.
Task Initial Configuration End-effector displacement
T1 $ {q}_{2}=45°, {q}_{3}=90°, {q}_{4}=30° $ 60 mm along $ {x}_{1} $
T2 $ {q}_{2}=45°, {q}_{3}=45°, {q}_{4}=45° $ 40 mm along $ {z}_{1} $
T3 $ {q}_{2}=0°, {q}_{3}=45°, {q}_{4}=45° $ 30 mm along $ {-x}_{1} $ et 20 mm along $ {z}_{1} $
Table Options

Download as excel

Task Initial Configuration End-effector displacement
T1 $ {q}_{2}=45°, {q}_{3}=90°, {q}_{4}=30° $ 60 mm along $ {x}_{1} $
T2 $ {q}_{2}=45°, {q}_{3}=45°, {q}_{4}=45° $ 40 mm along $ {z}_{1} $
T3 $ {q}_{2}=0°, {q}_{3}=45°, {q}_{4}=45° $ 30 mm along $ {-x}_{1} $ et 20 mm along $ {z}_{1} $
Table 2.  Degree of redundancy
Task Degree of redundancy $ (\mathit{n}-\mathit{m}) $
T1 2
T2 2
T3 1
Table Options

Download as excel

Task Degree of redundancy $ (\mathit{n}-\mathit{m}) $
T1 2
T2 2
T3 1
Table 3.  Solutions of the IKM with an additional constraint.
Joint variable Solution 1 Solution 2
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2} $ $ {q}_{2}=atan2\left(\mathrm{sin}{q}_{2}, \mathrm{cos}{q}_{2}\right) $$ \mathrm{cos}{q}_{2}=\frac{-{\overline{x}}_{1}B-{\overline{z}}_{1}A}{{A}^{2}+{B}^{2}} $; $ \mathrm{sin}{q}_{2}=\frac{{\overline{z}}_{1}B-{\overline{x}}_{1}A}{{A}^{2}+{B}^{2}} $
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3} $ $ {q}_{3}^{1}=arcos\left(\frac{{\overline{x}}^{2}+{\overline{z}}^{2}-\left({l}_{3}^{2}+{l}_{2}^{2}\right)}{2{l}_{2}{l}_{3}}\right) $ $ {q}_{3}^{2}=-{q}_{3}^{1} $
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{4} $ $ {q}_{4}=\alpha -{q}_{3}-{q}_{2} $
Table Options

Download as excel

Joint variable Solution 1 Solution 2
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2} $ $ {q}_{2}=atan2\left(\mathrm{sin}{q}_{2}, \mathrm{cos}{q}_{2}\right) $$ \mathrm{cos}{q}_{2}=\frac{-{\overline{x}}_{1}B-{\overline{z}}_{1}A}{{A}^{2}+{B}^{2}} $; $ \mathrm{sin}{q}_{2}=\frac{{\overline{z}}_{1}B-{\overline{x}}_{1}A}{{A}^{2}+{B}^{2}} $
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3} $ $ {q}_{3}^{1}=arcos\left(\frac{{\overline{x}}^{2}+{\overline{z}}^{2}-\left({l}_{3}^{2}+{l}_{2}^{2}\right)}{2{l}_{2}{l}_{3}}\right) $ $ {q}_{3}^{2}=-{q}_{3}^{1} $
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{4} $ $ {q}_{4}=\alpha -{q}_{3}-{q}_{2} $
Table 4.  The limit values of the joint angles.
Joint angle $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{4} $
Maximum value $ 90° $ $ 120° $ $ 70° $
Minimum value $ 0° $ $ 0 $ $ 0 $
Table Options

Download as excel

Joint angle $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{4} $
Maximum value $ 90° $ $ 120° $ $ 70° $
Minimum value $ 0° $ $ 0 $ $ 0 $
Table 5.  The phalangeal lengths of the finger.
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}_{1} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}_{2} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}_{3} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}_{4} $
Phalange length [mm] 152 45 35 32
Table Options

Download as excel

$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}_{1} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}_{2} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}_{3} $ $ \mathit{\boldsymbol{L}}_{4} $
Phalange length [mm] 152 45 35 32
Table 6.  Orientations of the last phalange.
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=\mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2}+\mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3}+\mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{4} $ 165° 135° 90°
Table Options

Download as excel

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3
$ \mathit{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}=\mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{2}+\mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{3}+\mathit{\boldsymbol{q}}_{4} $ 165° 135° 90°
[1]

María Barbero-Liñán, Miguel C. Muñoz-Lecanda. Strict abnormal extremals in nonholonomic and kinematic control systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2010, 3 (1) : 1-17. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2010.3.1
[2]

María Barbero-Liñán, Manuel de León, David Martín de Diego, Juan C. Marrero, Miguel C. Muñoz-Lecanda. Kinematic reduction and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. Journal of Geometric Mechanics, 2012, 4 (3) : 207-237. doi: 10.3934/jgm.2012.4.207
[3]

Marc-Auréle Lagache, Ulysse Serres, Vincent Andrieu. Minimal time synthesis for a kinematic drone model. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2017, 7 (2) : 259-288. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2017009
[4]

Lotfi Romdhane, Mohammad A. Jaradat. Interactive MATLAB based project learning in a robotics course: Challenges and achievements. STEM Education, 2021, 1 (1) : 32-46. doi: 10.3934/steme.2021003
[5]

Jun Lai, Ming Li, Peijun Li, Wei Li. A fast direct imaging method for the inverse obstacle scattering problem with nonlinear point scatterers. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2018, 12 (3) : 635-665. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2018027
[6]

Zhiming Chen, Shaofeng Fang, Guanghui Huang. A direct imaging method for the half-space inverse scattering problem with phaseless data. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2017, 11 (5) : 901-916. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2017042
[7]

David Melching, Ulisse Stefanelli. Well-posedness of a one-dimensional nonlinear kinematic hardening model. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020, 13 (8) : 2271-2284. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020188
[8]

Carsten Collon, Joachim Rudolph, Frank Woittennek. Invariant feedback design for control systems with lie symmetries - A kinematic car example. Conference Publications, 2011, 2011 (Special) : 312-321. doi: 10.3934/proc.2011.2011.312
[9]

Victor Isakov, Joseph Myers. On the inverse doping profile problem. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2012, 6 (3) : 465-486. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2012.6.465
[10]

Raimund Bürger, Kenneth H. Karlsen, John D. Towers. On some difference schemes and entropy conditions for a class of multi-species kinematic flow models with discontinuous flux. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2010, 5 (3) : 461-485. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2010.5.461
[11]

Raimund Bürger, Antonio García, Kenneth H. Karlsen, John D. Towers. Difference schemes, entropy solutions, and speedup impulse for an inhomogeneous kinematic traffic flow model. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2008, 3 (1) : 1-41. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2008.3.1
[12]

Mouhamadou Samsidy Goudiaby, Ababacar Diagne, Leon Matar Tine. Longtime behavior of a second order finite element scheme simulating the kinematic effects in liquid crystal dynamics. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2021, 20 (10) : 3483-3498. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2021116
[13]

Alexandr Mikhaylov, Victor Mikhaylov. Dynamic inverse problem for Jacobi matrices. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2019, 13 (3) : 431-447. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2019021
[14]

Armin Lechleiter, Tobias Rienmüller. Factorization method for the inverse Stokes problem. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (4) : 1271-1293. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.1271
[15]

Nguyen Huy Tuan, Mokhtar Kirane, Long Dinh Le, Van Thinh Nguyen. On an inverse problem for fractional evolution equation. Evolution Equations & Control Theory, 2017, 6 (1) : 111-134. doi: 10.3934/eect.2017007
[16]

Russell Johnson, Luca Zampogni. On the inverse Sturm-Liouville problem. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2007, 18 (2&3) : 405-428. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2007.18.405
[17]

Mikko Orispää, Markku Lehtinen. Fortran linear inverse problem solver. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2010, 4 (3) : 485-503. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2010.4.485
[18]

A. Doubov, Enrique Fernández-Cara, Manuel González-Burgos, J. H. Ortega. A geometric inverse problem for the Boussinesq system. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2006, 6 (6) : 1213-1238. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2006.6.1213
[19]

Ian Knowles, Ajay Mahato. The inverse volatility problem for American options. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020, 13 (12) : 3473-3489. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020235
[20]

Marcus Wagner. A direct method for the solution of an optimal control problem arising from image registration. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2012, 2 (3) : 487-510. doi: 10.3934/naco.2012.2.487

 Impact Factor: 

Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2021 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences