Scribd
Upload
46 views18 pages

2.12. Inverse Kinematics Problem

The document discusses the inverse kinematics problem, which is determining the joint variables corresponding to a given end effector position and orientation. It notes that this problem is more complex than direct kinematics for several reasons, including that the equations are often nonlinear and may have multiple, infinite, or no solutions. It provides examples of algebraic and geometric solution techniques for three-link planar arms and discusses challenges that can arise in solving inverse kinematics problems.

Uploaded by

Ece Taşdemir
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views18 pages

2.12. Inverse Kinematics Problem

The document discusses the inverse kinematics problem, which is determining the joint variables corresponding to a given end effector position and orientation. It notes that this problem is more complex than direct kinematics for several reasons, including that the equations are often nonlinear and may have multiple, infinite, or no solutions. It provides examples of algebraic and geometric solution techniques for three-link planar arms and discusses challenges that can arise in solving inverse kinematics problems.

Uploaded by

Ece Taşdemir
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

2.12.

Inverse Kinematics Problem:


The direct kinematics equation, either in the form (2.50) or in the form (2.82),
establishes the functional relationship between the joint variables and the end
effector position and orientation. The inverse kinematics problem consists of the
determination of the joint variables corresponding to a given end-effector position
and orientation.

The solution to this problem is of fundamental importance in order to transform the


motion specifications, assigned to the endeffector in the operational space, into the
corresponding joint space motions that allow execution of the desired motion.

The inverse kinematics problem is much more complex for the following reasons:
• The equations to solve are in general nonlinear, and thus it is not always possible
to find a closed-form solution.
• Multiple solutions may exist.
• Infinite solutions may exist, e.g., in the case of a kinematically redundant
manipulator.
• There might be no admissible solutions, in view of the manipulator kinematic
structure.
The existence of solutions is guaranteed only if the given end-effector position
and orientation belong to the manipulator dexterous workspace.

On the other hand, the problem of multiple solutions depends not only on the
number of DOFs but also on the number of non-null DH parameters; in general, the
greater the number of non-null parameters, the greater the number of admissible
solutions. For a six-DOF manipulator without mechanical joint limits, there are in
general up to 16 admissible solutions. Such occurrence demands some criterion to
choose among admissible solutions (e.g., the elbow-up/elbow-down case of
Example 2.6). The existence of mechanical joint limits may eventually reduce the
number of admissible multiple solutions for the real structure.
Computation of closed-form solutions requires either
• algebraic solution or
• geometric solution
When there are no — or it is difficult to find — closed-form solutions, it might be
appropriate to resort to
• numerical solution techniques.

Reminder:
2.12.1 Solution of Three-link Planar Arm
Assume that the orientation of the effector is specified as

If  is not specified, then the arm is redundant and there exist infinite solutions to
the inverse kinematics problem.
If only the endeffector position (in the plane) is specified, that structure presents a
functional redundancy (n = m = 3, r = 2); this is lost when also the end-effector orientation
in the plane is specified (n = m = r = 3). On the other hand, a four-DOF planar arm is
intrinsically redundant (n = 4, m = 3).

is needed, having taken n aligned with z0


Squaring and summing (2.91), (2.92)
yields

The existence of a solution obviously imposes that −1 ≤ c2 ≤ 1, otherwise the given


point would be outside the arm reachable workspace. Then, set

where the positive sign is relative to the elbow-down posture and the negative sign
to the elbow-up posture. Hence, the angle ϑ2 can be computed as

Having determined ϑ2, the angle ϑ1 can be found as follows. Substituting ϑ2 into
(2.91), (2.92) yields an algebraic system of two equations in the two unknowns s1
and c1, whose solution is

In the case when s2 = 0, it is obviously ϑ2 = 0, π; as will be shown in the following,


in such a posture the manipulator is at a kinematic singularity. Yet, the angle ϑ1
can be determined uniquely, unless a1 = a2 and it is required pWx = pWy = 0.
Finally, the angle ϑ3 is found from (2.90) as
An alternative geometric solution

the two admissible configurations of the triangle are shown in Fig. 2.31. Observing
that cos (π - ϑ2) = -cos ϑ2 leads to

For the existence of the triangle, we must have

Otherwise, the given point is outside the arm reachable workspace!


It is better to compute using
To compute β, applying again the cosine theorem yields

and resorting to the expression of c2 given above leads to

with β ∈ (0, π) so as to preserve the existence of triangles. Then, it is

where the positive sign holds for ϑ2 < 0 and the negative sign for ϑ2 > 0.
Finally, ϑ3 is computed from (2.90).

NOTES on The Inverse Kinematics Problem


• The problem is not simple!
• A general approach for the solution of this problem does not exist
• Unfortunately, the solution is not unique
• In general we may have:
o No solution (e.g. starting with a position x not in the workspace)
o A finite set of solutions (one or more)
o Infinite solutions

• A manipulator will be considered solvable if the joint variables can be


determined by an algorithm that allows one to determine all the sets of joint
variables associated with a given position and orientation.
• It is considered very important to design a manipulator so that a closed-form
solution exists. Manipulator designers discovered this very soon, and now
virtually all industrial manipulators are designed sufficiently simply that a
closed-form solution can be developed.
• *Within the class of closed-form solutions, we distinguish two methods of
obtaining the solution: algebraic and geometric.
• Luckly, for the most common kinematic structures, a scheme for obtaining the
solution has been found.
• We seek for closed form solutions not based on numerical techniques (???) The
analytic solution is more efficient from the computational point of view

Difficulties and Possible Problems of Inverse Kinematics


• Nonlinear (Revolute joints → inverse trigonometry)
• Discontinuities and singularities
• Can lose one or more DOFs in some configurations
• Multiple solutions for a single Cartesian pose
• Infinitely many solutions
• Possibly no solutions
• No closed-form (analytical) solutions
• Not enough!! [Dynamics: in reality, we want to apply forces and torques
(while respecting physical constraints), not just move arm!]
The other way: use geometry (Algebraic or Analytical Approach)

Geometric Approach
Solution for positive angle q2

Case of negative angle q2


Algebraic Approach
The Pieper Approach
Given a 6 DOF manipulator, a sufficient condition to find a closed form solution for the IK
problem is that the kinematic structure presents:
1. three consecutive rotational joints with axes intersecting in a single point, or
2. three consecutive rotational joints with parallel axes

In many 6 DOF industrial manipulators, the first 3 DOF are usually devoted to position the
wrist, that has 3 additional DOF give the correct orientation to the end-effector.
In these cases, it is quite simple to decompose the IK problem in the two subproblems (position
and orientation).

Inverse kinematics for robots with spherical wrist


Inverse kinematics of polar (RRP) arm
EXAMPLE OF INVERSE MANIPULATOR KINEMATICS

The PUMA 560


The PUMA 560 The Unimation PUMA 560 (Fig. 3.17) is a robot with six degrees of freedom and
all rotational joints (i.e., it is a 6R mechanism).
This simple technique of multiplying each side of a transform equation by an inverse is often
used to advantage in separating out variables in the search for a solvable equation.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy