Proceedings. 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
DOI: 10.1109/robot.1991.132032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inverse kinematic solution for a 7 DOF robot with minimal computational complexity and singularity avoidance

Abstract: One of the problems in real-time control of reduntlant manipulators is considerably increased computational complexity comparing with nonredundant robots. The main idea in this paper is to reduce computational complexity by combining analytical and pseudoinverw solution. In this way the dimensions of Jacobian arc' ronsiderably reduced yielding several times less computational complexity. Further reduction of computat ioiial time is achieved by applying the gradient projection method [6] to the actually redunda… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Shimizu and Kakuya proposed the method of arm angle [4] , which is not universal enough, and obtained the geometric solution of redundant manipulators. Kircanski first proposed the method of pseudo-inverse of the Jacobian matrix [5] , which obtained the least square, and the numerical solution of the norm does not involve the optimization problem. Dubey et al put forward the gradient projection method [6] and optimized the result with the optimal time as the optimization goal.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Shimizu and Kakuya proposed the method of arm angle [4] , which is not universal enough, and obtained the geometric solution of redundant manipulators. Kircanski first proposed the method of pseudo-inverse of the Jacobian matrix [5] , which obtained the least square, and the numerical solution of the norm does not involve the optimization problem. Dubey et al put forward the gradient projection method [6] and optimized the result with the optimal time as the optimization goal.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To handle these two situations, J −1 G is replaced by a generalized inverse. The most well-known ones are the pseudoinverse J † G (that can be calculated using the identity (A.21)), the transpose J T G and the damped least-squares Baillieul, 1986;Buss, 2009;Buss and Kim, 2005;Hsu et al, 1988;Kircanski and Petrovic, 1991;Lau and Wai, 2002;Nenchev, 1989;Pozna et al, 2016;Sung et al, 1996;Wang et al, 2012;Wampler, 1986). Other Jacobian-based methods include the use of the augmented Jacobian (Fratu et al, 2010), the so-called {1}-inverse (Lovass-Nagy and Schilling, 1987) or other generalized inverses based on the pseudoinverse J † G (Manocha and Canny, 1994;Aspragathos and Dimitros, 1998).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%