International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.

Heidari

Modeling and Testing of Elastic Joints Mobile

Mechanical Manipulators
M. H. Korayema*, H. R. Heidaria
a-Robotic Research Laboratory, College of Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received: August 8, 2009
Received in revised form: October
15, 2009
Accepted: November 27, 2009

Keywords:
Modeling and Simulation
Manipulator
Ergonomic principle
Flexible joints

ABSTRACT
In this paper, design and manufacturing of a mobile mechanical manipulator with flexible
joints are presented. Ergonomic principals such as balancing the human height and
anthropometric, enough space for moving, accessibility of the controllers, making
environment labor-friendly adapting the manipulator with the load and anthropometric are
considered in order to reduce harm and fatigue. First, the kinematics and dynamic equations
of the mechanism with flexible joints for the three major axis of the mobile robot are derived
and simulated. Next, a method for determination of the dynamic load carrying capacity
(DLCC) for a specific reference is explained subject to both accuracy and actuator
constraints. The manipulator is tested for a given trajectory in order to find the
characteristics of the designed manipulator. While the manipulator is designed to carry the
maximum load, end-effector's speed, robot's compatibility with the operator's condition, and
accuracy are the most important applicable points of the manipulator. Therefore, the
manipulator in different trajectories with various speeds and loads are tested, and then the
results are analyzed.

order to reduce wastage, row material and increase

productivity. The simple mechanism, high speed and the
ease of work allow the operator to use the required
manipulator for a specific purpose. The well-balanced
automated robots allow the operator to move pieces
directionally in a repeated process with a minimum force
required. This system (with or without load) is controlled by
pre-determined regulator and air-jack. There are a number of
research reports on elastic joint manipulators and related
simulations. For instance, M. H. Korayem et al. applied a
general computer programme for deriving dynamic
equations of robot using symbolic language Mathematica
[1]. Thomas et al. have used the load capacity as a criterion
for determining the size of the actuators at the design stage
for robotic manipulator [2]. Streit and Kim experiment on
the Puma 556 robot joints resulted in equality of joint's 1, 2,

1. Introduction
Today, one of the most important problems in the modern
industrial companies is difficulties in the manufacturing for
operators. In addition, in the automation, which needs
operator's accuracy and swiftness, manipulating might cause
errors in measurement especially in hard working situations.
This hard work situation not only might hurt labor but also
cause unqualified production. Mechanization of industries
has been emerged as a result of recent developments.
Although operators controlling role have decreased, there
are some limitations, which hinder full automation. In such
conditions, we use semi-automatic mechanisms. Efficiency
is the main purpose in manipulators usage in industries and
they are tremendously used in carrying pieces. The use of
industrial mechanisms especially robotic manipulators in
production industry has been very important worldwide, in
* Address for correspondence: hkorayem@iust.ac.ir

19

International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.Heidari

3 stiffness. Therefore, they could introduce a general

dynamic model for the Puma 566 robot [3]. Korayem and
Basu [4] have suggested a new formula with its numerical
solution for finding the trajectory of elastic robot. Recursive
linear programming was applied in order to find the load of
the elastic robots with the consideration of the two
constraints. A general programming for multi-link robots
has been presented in full detail. Results from the model
making for the movement of twin-jointed robot reemphasized the importance of the two constraints. A
symbolic program for the expansion of dynamic equation of
robots with elastic joints and links was also developed [5].
This program is easily applicable, due to automatic
simplifications, numerical solutions and graphic formats,
which can be used for multi-link arms. A calculation
technique has also been presented for obtaining maximum
dynamic load of an elastic joint manipulator with specific
attention to the two constraints [6]. Many important factors
influence maximum dynamic load carrying capacity of
robots, among those dynamic robot specifications, movable
parts limitations and flexibility of joints are the ones can be
mentioned. Shigang Yue and Tso have calculated maximum
dynamic load for a flexible arm with a redundant degree of
freedom [7]. A finite element model for a dynamic arm was
used. Bortoff et al. applied computer modeling and dynamic
formulae to manipulators with elastic joints [8]. Ider &
Ozgoren studied the inverse dynamic control of a
manipulator with elastic joints [9]. A computer modeling
was applied to show the accuracy of the results based on a
manipulator with 3 degrees of freedom with elastic joints.
Gamrraado & Yuhara however obtained interesting results
by applying Newton-Euler method to computer modeling
for an elastic robot with two arms and revolute joint [10].
Mitsi et al. have solved the inverse kinematics problem of a
spatial redundant or nonredundant manipulator taking into
account as criteria the collision avoidance and the joint
functionality limits [11]. A simulating manipulator-obstacle
model with convex volumes in order to avoid a collision is
used. The solution of the inverse kinematics has been
conducted by penalty function method. The developed
procedure is demonstrated by solving a spatial manipulator
with five revolute joints and for the off-line programming of
this manipulator, which used in a workstation for various
manufacturing processes. Regnier et al. have solved the
inverse kinematics of all serial, special or general,
manipulator with a new numerical method [12]. This
concept was used with a new formulation of the problem
associated to each local frame. Szkodny applied modeling of
kinematics of the IRb-6 manipulator and obtained equations
of links and actuators kinematics of the IRb-6 manipulator
in matrix form [13]. In addition, solution of equations of
link kinematics, as well as formulas jointing link and
actuator natural coordinate of the manipulator have been
presented. Wang and Ravani have defined an algorithm for
the determination of maximum load carrying capacity of
mechanical manipulators [14].

In this paper, first, we derived and simulated the

manipulators kinematics equations. Then, the Lagrange's
method is used for dynamic modeling of the elastic joint
manipulator. The results were obtained for different joint
stiffness coefficients for a given trajectory. A method to
obtain dynamic load capacity subject to the accuracy and
actuator constraints is described. Calculation also was
presented for dynamic load carrying capacity for the given
trajectory. The results depicted the importance of the two
constraints. According to the accuracy and tracking, they
show which one would be the main. By analyzing results,
modeling and simulating the robot main characteristics of
the robot have been attained. Depending on the operation's
requirements or robot's model, manufacturers test the path
and end-effectors properties. These tests depend on the
operation's requirements and the customer favorite. While
the manipulator was designed to carry the automobile petrol
tank, end-effector's speed, robot's compatibility with the
operator's condition, accuracy and the maximum dynamic
load carrying capacity were the most important applicable
points of the manipulator. Therefore, by experimenting in
various trajectories with different speed and load, we have
attained manipulator's characteristics as accuracy,
repeatability and DLCC.

2. Introducing the manipulator

This manipulator has 3 revolute joints and a mobile base.
These joints make a 360 rotation in the z-axis and 15
vertical motion. The manipulator and the coordinates used in
kinematics modeling are shown in the Fig. 1. Due to the
rail's horizontal motion and negligible flexibility, we ignore
flexibility of the rail.

Figure (1) Schematic of the manipulator

20

International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.Heidari

According to the intermediate circuit's voltage, we used 5V.

Figure (3) is an encoder installed on the second joint.

Figure (3) The encoder connection on joints

2. Intermediate circuit:
Initially raw signals enter into the intermediate circuit and
through a FPGA circuit, used as a signal converter, are
converted to processor-friendly ones. Computer and the
hardware circuit are connected, using a COM1 port and
RS232 standard. Sending rate is 2400 bit per second. The
designed intermediate circuit and the manufactured one are
shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Figure (2). The designed manipulator for carrying automobile petrol
tank

The end-effector's position in all over path should be

determined in order to control manipulator's function and
find the accuracy in the final points. Using an encoder in
regular intervals, finding position of the rotational axis is
possible. Using position of axis, we can find speed and
acceleration. After entering into the electrical circuit and
some convergence A, B and Z pulses into the rotational
orientation and rotational ones in the FPGA circuit, the
information, through the encoders, enter into the
microcontrollers. Through a microcontroller, using the serial
port and the RS232 standard data would be sent to a
computer. We can control the encoder's position by an on
line computer program. In each interval in the experiment,
we can save data of encoder's position. One can review the
raw data, using Matlab software. Applying kinematics
equations, the end-effector's position could be calculated.
However, to attain desired goal these parts are needed.
Three encoders; to determine the three major joint's
position.
Intermediate circuit; to convert the pulses and
orientation.
Computer programming; in order to convert and
save the information and data.
Computer for receiving the information.
We will introduce each part:
1. Encoders:
Encoders as sensitive sensors are used in rotational changing
measurement. There is a code on each encoder to determine
the accuracy. We have used ENB-500-3-1 encoder in the
joints of the manipulator. Number 500 shows the number of
pulses in each revolution. The accuracy of this encoder is
0.72 degree. The encoder's voltage varies from 5V to 24V.

Figure (4) The manufactured intermediate circuit

Figure (5) The schematic's intermediate circuit

3. Computer programming:
We have used Visual Basic program to run computer
program, which processes the received information from the
encoders. In each time, until all three encoder's data are
received, the information would be saved in special array.
The diagram would change with renewed information.
4. Computer:

21

International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.Heidari

All the information, through a serial port No.1, would enter

into the computer and computer program would draw
refreshing data diagram, which was displayed in Figure (6).

Link Number

ai

di

L0

2
0

L1

L2

L3

L4

2
0

A General transformation matrix can be obtained as follows:

C1 4 S1 4 0 x C1 ( L2 L1C 2 ) L3 C1 4
S
C1 4 0
S1 ( L2 L1C 2 ) L3 S1 4
(1)
T40 1 4
0

0
1
L0 L4 L1 S 2

0
0
0
1

Figure (6) Computer programming

A controlling pneumatic system, including pneumatic

cylinder and a relative regulator is used to balance the load
in all the time. There are some compacted pneumatic
cylinders as brake to lock the mechanism in any position.

Where s12 sin1 2 , c12 cos1 2 . It is obvious that

in the above matrix the number of unknowns is greater than
the number of equations. As a result, an extra degree of
freedom can be seen in the equations. Angular velocity must
be calculated using pseudo inverse matrix as below:
V J J T J J T 1 V
(2)

3. Manipulator ergonomic analyzing

Manipulators are designed to make system semi-automated
and reduce operator's tiredness. Therefore, we should
contemplate ergonomic principles such as balancing the
work's surface height and anthropometric, enough space for
moving, accessibility of the controls and making the
environment labour-friendly and adapting the manipulator
with the load, anthropometric and the facilities, fitting knobs
with human hand; in designing. Operator's training is
important too.
In different manipulator's parts, some ergonomic points are
considered.
Rail System: Aluminum structure, hanger system
for suspension, trolley system for frictionless
movement, and accessories like end stops; allow
effortless movements of load in a single line.
Balancer System: using various control modules,
allows zero gravity manipulation of load and the
handles grippers or tackles.
Jib Boom Systems: allow floor or roof mounted
single point support for a cantilevered
transportation of the load.
Manipulator arm: these articulated arms allow the
load to be manipulated with a rigid mechanical
support that allows offset or cantilevered operation
to operate in constrained spaces.
Driver System: it is composed of dry and oil-free
compressed, part grippers and vacuum mechanical
tools to carry loads.

5. Simulation of the manipulator with Matlab

Initially, the path traversed by end-effector was determined
in 3D space using the following equation (Fig. 7).
(3)
X 580 550t Y 250 420t Z 835 150t 30t 2

Fig.7- 3D diagram of the assumed trajectory

The paths traversed by the end effector attained by

experiments and simulation by Matlab were compared. In
simulation, the equations obtained from inverse kinematics
modeling were solved for 4 degree of freedom.

4. Kinematics modeling of mechanical manipulator

Initially, absolute coordinate and four relative coordinates
were selected. As shown in Fig. (1), Denavit-Hartenberg
parameters can be defined for the above mechanism as listed
in Table (1).

6. Dynamic modeling of manipulator with elastic

joints

Table 1 -D-H parameters of the given manipulator

For the current modeling of manipulator and load dynamics,

it is essential to determine maximum load" for a flexible

22

International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.Heidari

A2 q1L B2 q2L C 2 q3L D2 q1L q 2L E 2 q 2L q 2L

joint robot. The joint deflection or oscillation at higher

speed is assumed as much as 25% of the end-effector's
deflection. The elasticity at the i t h joint can be modeled as a
linear torsion spring having the spring constant k i .
Vectors qiL q1L , q2L ,,

as

the

link

angles

F2 q 4L q 4L G2 q 4L H 2 K 22 q 2L q 2J 0
A3 q1L B3 q2L C3 q3L D3 q1L q1L

E3 q1L q 2L F3 q 2L q 2L K 33 q 2L q 2J 0

and

1J K11 q1L q1J 1

J r11q
2J K22 q2L q2J 2
Jr 22 q

qiJ q1J , q2J , as the rotor angles defined for the multilink flexible joint manipulator. A Lagrangian approach was
used in order to obtain the dynamic equations of motion for
the manipulator with elastic joints, as below:
L C(qL , q
L )q
Lq
L G(qL ) F
(4)
D(qL )q
L CqL , q L q L q L GqL KqL qJ 0
DqL q
J KqL qJ
(6)
Jr q

(10)
(11)
(12)

K33 q q 3
(13)
J r33 q
Assuming a given trajectory, variation of joints angles are
determined from the above differential equations. The
graphic representation of the solutions with different
torsional stiffness coefficients are depicted in Figures (9) to
(12) for trolley and joints 1 to 3, respectively. Joint's torques
are shown in Figure (13).
J
3

(5)

Where DqL is the inertia matrix for the associated rigid

system, CqL , q L is the vector of damping, Coriolis and

centripetal forces, Gq is the vector of forces due to

gravity, K diag k1 , k 2 ,, k n is a diagonal matrix of
restoring force constants modeling the joint elasticity,
J r diag J r1 , J r 2 , , J rn is diagonal matrix representing
rotor inertia, and is the generalized force delivered by the
actuator. Each link is moved by an actuator. This motion is
transformed to the next link by either gears or belts but in
each condition, the elasticity of these joints is reason of
elastic coupling between actuator and the link. This elastic
coupling behaves like a spring and such modeling is shown
in Figure (8).

L
3

J
3

Rigid
K1=5*104 ,K2=8*104 ,K4=4*104
K1=5000 ,K2=8000 ,K4=4000
K1=3500 ,K2=5000 ,K4=3000

X(m)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

0.5

1.5

2
T(sec)

2.5

3.5

Fig.9-Linear motion of trolley versus time

0

-0.2

TETA1(rad)

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
Rigid

-1.2

Fig.8-Rotational elastic model of joints

-1.4

K1=5*104 ,K2=8*104 ,K4=4*104

K1=5000 ,K2=8000 ,K4=4000
K1=3500 ,K2=5000 ,K4=3000
0

0.5

1.5

2
T(sec)

2.5

3.5

Fig.10-Angular response of first joint versus time

In this model, qiL represents the general coordinates of

th

(9)

0.2
0.18

J
i

i link, q represents the general co-ordinates of elastic

0.16

i t h joint, k t i represents torsional stiffness coefficient of the

0.14

TETA2(rad)

i t h joint and u i is the applied torque from i t h actuator to

th

i link. According to these, the dynamic equations of the

manipulator with an assumed elastic joint were obtained for
the trolley and three major joints as shown below:
1L B0 q
2L C0 q
3L D0 q1L q 2L
A0 q
(7)
E0 q 2L q 2L F0 q 4L q 4L G0 q 4L F
A1 q1L B1 q2L C1 q3L D1 q1L q 2L E1 q 2L q 2L
(8)
F1 q 4L q 4L G1 q 4L K 11 q1L q1J 0

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04

Rigid

0.02

K1=5*104 ,K2=8*104 ,K4=4*104

K1=5000 ,K2=8000 ,K4=4000
K1=3500 ,K2=5000 ,K4=3000

0.5

1.5

2
T(sec)

2.5

3.5

Fig.11-Angular response of second joint versus time

23

International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.Heidari

0

error calculation and surveying different variations, show

that flexibility and manipulator's initial condition must be
controlled. However, results are acceptable.

-0.02

TETA4(rad)

-0.04

8. Joint flexibility testing in a Circular and Oblique

line motion

-0.06

Constraining end-effector to move on a purposed trajectory,

we can measure joint rotation using the encoders. The
results for two-dimensional Circular and three-dimensional
Oblique line with in which the end-effector proceed the
trajectory in 25 second, are shown in Figures (14) to (17).
Next, we compared the results with the theoretical equations
ones. It shows that the results were acceptable, although,
according to the flexibility, human's fluctuation error and the
simplicity of the controlling pneumatic circuit, there was
0.15m error. Figures (14), (16) show the joint angles in
simulation and experiment. Figures (15), (17) show the
Circular and Oblique line on which the end-effector moves.
The pose accuracy and pose repeatability are reported
ISO9283 standard.

-0.08

-0.1
Rigid
-0.12

-0.14

K1=5*104 ,K2=8*104 ,K4=4*104

K1=5000 ,K2=8000 ,K4=4000
K1=3500 ,K2=5000 ,K4=3000
0

0.5

1.5

2
T(sec)

2.5

3.5

Fig.12-Angular response of third joint versus time

40

F (N)
torque1 (N.m)
torque2 (N.m)
torque4 (N.m)

35
30

Torque(N.m)

25
20

1.5

15

10

0.5
Angle Joints(rad)

5
0
-5

0.5

1.5

2
T(sec)

2.5

3.5

Fig.13-Variation of joint torques with time

As shown in the manipulator angle diagrams (Figures 9 to

12), it is seen that increased torsional stiffness coefficient
does result in joint stiffness, which in turn reduces vibration
in both joint and end-effector path. For a very high
coefficient, the result shows a solution equivalent to a pure
rigid system. Flexibility of joint's drivers and power
transport system would include at least 80% of the total
flexibility. The main reason of the manipulator deviation is
its major joint's flexibility. As shown in Figure (9),
neglecting the rail's flexibility, there is no difference in
displacement for different stiffness. However, according to
the simulated trajectory and manipulator's structure, the
second joint is more sensitive to the stiffness and flexibility.

0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5

10

15

20

25

Time(s)

Fig.14-The joint angles in simulation and experiment on the Circular

path vs. time
1.1

Theory
Test1
Test2
Test3
Test4
Test5
Test6

0.9

position Y (m)

7. Testing the manipulator

While the manipulator is designed to carry the automobile
petrol tank, end-effector speed, robot's compatibility with
the operator's condition, accuracy and the maximum
dynamic load carrying capacity are the most important
applicable characteristics of the manipulator. Maximum
error of a trajectory, accuracy and repeatability are obtained
for this manipulator.
Analyzing and modeling this manipulator, we have tested it
various trajectories, different loads, different speeds in the
laboratory. Various methods used to control the test and

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0
0.05
0.1
position X (m)

0.15

0.2

0.25

Fig.15-2D diagram of the Circular trajectory in various tests

24

0.3

International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.Heidari

1.5

RP L L 3S L

Theory1
Teta1
Theory2
Teta2
Theory3
Teta3

L
Where:

Angle Joints(rad)

0.5

L j ( x j x ) 2 ( y j y) 2 ( z j z ) 2
n

SL
-0.5

(L
j 1

L)2

(17)

n 1

Pose repeatability for this manipulator is shown in Figure

(18).

-1

Constant Velocity & Unload

-1.5

(16)

1 n
Lj
n j 1

10

15

20

Various loads

Various Velocity

25

Time(s)

Fig.16-The joint angles in simulation and experiment on the Oblique

line path vs. time

0.14
0.12
0.1

-0.8

Theory
Test

0.08
0.06

-0.9

position Z (m)

0.04
-1

0.02
0

-1.1
-1.2
-1.3

0.6

Fig.18-Pose Accuracy and Pose Repeatability of the Oblique line

trajectory

0.9
0.4

0.2

-0.2

0.7
-0.4

position Y (m)

0.5

0.8

Flexibility and initial conditions of arm are two important

criteria have been controlled in the experiments. The
absolute error in each point of the trajectory computed from
the difference between the actual quantity and experiments.
Maximum absolute errors e max for the Oblique line
trajectory are shown in Figure (19). Variation and Sum
square error SSE are two controlling criteria that show the
error in each test, as determined in equation (18), (19).
em ax Max xk xt h
(18)

0.6
position X (m)

Fig.17-3D diagram of the Oblique line trajectory in simulation and

experiment

8-1. Pose Accuracy of end-effector (positioning

error)
The manipulator has been guided from a determined point to
command pose z c , y c , x c for N times and its actual pose
z j , y j , x j is determined. The equation (12) calculates the

SSE xk xt h

(19)

SSE

k 2

(20)

pose accuracy ( AP P ).
APP ( x xc )2 ( y yc )2 ( z zc )2

Variation

(14)

Where:
1 n
x xj
n J 1

1 n
y yj
n J 1

1 n
z zj
n J 1

Where n k , xk , nth refer the number of points, measured

quantities, and
theoretical quantities. Although the
experimental results are near to the theoretical, at the end of
the trajectory, due to joints flexibility and manufacturing
low quality of the manipulator, they diverge. Various
controlling is shown in Figure (20).

(15)

z , y , x is barycentre and z j , y j , x j refer to J th attained

pose. The pose accuracy is shown in Figure (18).

8-2. Pose Repeatability

9. End-effector's trajectory in various speeds test

Pose Repeatability refer to the accuracy of attained pose and

command pose, which has been found in a determined pose
in N times. For a given trajectory, pose repeatability ( RPL )
refer to the radial of sphere in the center of cluster as below:

Various speeds and their relation with the error are an

important manipulator's characteristics. We tested six
different speeds in each trajectory and attained the errors.

25

International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.Heidari

According to Figure (19) errors did not change in an

Oblique line.

10-1. Joint actuator torque constraint

Based on the definition of typical torque-speed
characteristics of DC motors, the joint actuator torque
constant was formulated as follows:
(21)
Uallow c1 c2q

9-1. End-effector's trajectory in various loads test

Maximum load carrying capacity is another important
characteristic of a manipulator. Four different loads, 10, 12,
14, 20 Kg have been used in testing and finding the error.
Maximum acceptable load depends on the drift from the
main trajectory. Increasing load would increase the error and
in a trajectory total error calculated in the final point is
unacceptable (Fig. 19).

Uallow c1 c2q
Where k1 s , k 2 s / 0 ,

(22)

is the stall torque, 0 is

maximum no load speed of the motor, and u a and u a are

the upper and lower bounds of the allowable torque. The left
hand side of both equations 21 and 22 gives the upper and
lower allowable torques ( Ua() &Ua() ) of any actuators. An
experimental mass ( m e ), less than maximum estimated load,

Maximum Absolute Error

0.16
0.14

is then used in order to calculate e for any i t h point along

0.12

the given trajectory. The allowable torque limits ( i() &i() )

can then be calculated using the upper and lower allowable
torques of the actuators and ( e ) i , according to following
equations:
(23)
i Ua i e i

0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02

i Ua i e i

0
1

Various loads

Constant Velocity & Unload

The maximum allowable torque of any joint

Various velocity

(24)

( a )i

can then

be calculated as follows:
(25)
a i max i ,i
In order to determine the maximum allowable load, by
considering the actuator constraint, it is essential to define a
load coefficient (ca ) j for any point along the given

Fig.19-Maximum Absolute Error of the Oblique line trajectory

Variation method
0.006
0.005

trajectory as follows

a i
ca j min
, i 1,2,, n

max

max

e
n

0.004
0.003
0.002

Where

(26)

n represent the no-load torque.

0.001

10-2. Accuracy constraint formulation for the endeffector

1
Various loads

Constant Velocity & Unload

The deviation of the end-effector can be related to different

dynamic and/or static factors. As a result, the dynamic load
capacity is therefore different for any point along a supposed
trajectory. Consequently, for determining of maximum
allowable DLCC, by considering the accuracy constraint,
the path is discritized into m separate points. The deviation
of end-effector from a desired trajectory is then calculated
for each point, where ( n ) j represents no-load deflection

Various Velocity

Fig.20-Variation Analyzing of the Oblique line trajectory

10. DLCC formulation for a given trajectory

A flexible manipulator can be considered to carry a
maximum load when the path accuracy is maintained. This
is highly critical when dealing with flexible joint robots. The
path accuracy must therefore be considered in DLCC
determination by imposing this constraint to the endeffector's deflection as well as to the actuator torque, which
is often imposed alone for rigid manipulators. Failing this,
an excessive deviation maybe caused due to end-effector's
deflection for a given trajectory, even though the joint
torque constraint is not violated.

and (e ) j represents deflection under experimental load.

The quantity and direction of deviation due to the
experimental mass (me ) for a selected point j along the
given trajectory can be seen in Fig. (21). A cubical boundary
of radius R p as the end-effector's deflection constraint can
be used with the center of the cube positioned on the
selected point on the given trajectory. (e ) j is a part of R p

26

International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.Heidari

that shows how much load can be carried without ignoring

the accuracy constraint at point j. The difference between
allowable deviation ( R p ) and the amount of deviation due to

lasting equations. Nevertheless, no experiment could be

applied until a prototype has been constructed even the
genuine engineers use the simulation software and the
prototype. In this study, we have designed a manipulator for
carrying automobile petrol tank. Using simulation and
coding in commercial software, we have found the
manipulator characteristic after kinematics and dynamic
studying. For example, we have studied manipulator
workspace, accuracy in different trajectories. Laboratory
tests in different trajectories were accomplished and the
results were compared with the theory and simulation. As
shown in Figures (9) to (12) joints flexibility and quality
manufacturing have substantial effects in the results.
According to Oblique line test, controlling variation would
help to reduce errors and controlling errors sources. In
addition, human's fluctuation error and joints flexibility are
effective factors on manipulator accuracy. Maximum
dynamic load carrying capacity would be attained in
experience in different trajectories with different loads and

experimental mass

(e ) j can be considered as the

remaining allowable deviation from the given trajectory that
can be tolerated. As explained previously, there is a
necessity to define a new load coefficient (c p ) j for each
point along the given trajectory as follows:
cp j min Rp e j , j 1,2,, m
(27)
maxe max n
Where

represents no-load deviation of the end-effector

from the given trajectory.

R P quantity. While in here

R P =0.15

m, the maximum
load is 15 Kg in comparison with 10 Kg for simulation
maximum load with the same R P . According to RD's petrol
tank weight, 10 Kg, the result is acceptable. Improving some
details and considering customer's priorities the manipulator
would be ready for industrial usage.

13. Conclusion
The manipulator is designed, simulated and tested in
different trajectories and pose. While the manipulator is
designed to carry the automobile petrol tank, operator's
facility, end-effector speed, accuracy and DLCC are
considered the main criteria. The main error sources are
human's fluctuation, noise, measurement tools etc. although
the experimental results are near the theoretical ones, at the
end of trajectory, according to joint flexibility and nonaccurate manufacturing they diverge, and the error interval
is about 5-10 percent. Quality manufacturing, manipulator
conditions, adaptable working space and optimizing the
pneumatic system design are main criteria in manipulator
manufacturing. According to manipulator usage, maximum
error in each trajectory, pose accuracy and pose repeatability
are its important characteristics. Regarding error sources, as
human's fluctuation in automobile petrol tank carrying,
deviation from desired path particularly in direct Angular
rotation of the joints, is acceptable.

Fig.21-The cubical boundary on end-effector's deflection

11. Determining the maximum dynamic load

carrying capacity
In order to ensure that both the accuracy and the actuator
torque limits constraints are satisfied for all discretized point
along the given trajectory, a general load coefficient c can
be defined as follows:
(28)
c min{( cp ) j , (ca ) j }, j 1,2,, m
As a result, the maximum allowable mass
calculated as follows:
ml oad cme
Where

me

mlo a d can

be

(29)

is experimental mass and moment of inertia. The

actuator can follow the trajectory within the allowable endeffector's deflection, unless the actual mass and the moment
of inertia of the load are more than maximum calculated
load. Applying 4-atmosphere pressure on this pneumatic
system of the manipulator, while the accuracy in the endeffector has been assumed 0.15 m, allowable dynamic load
would be 10 Kg. According to the minimal size of this
manipulator, this load is considerable.

References
[1] M. H. Korayem, and Gariblu, Analysis of Wheeled
Mobile Flexible Manipulator Dynamic Motions With
Maximum Load Carrying Capacities, Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, Vol. 48, No. 2-3, pp. 63-76, 2004.
[2] M. Thomas, H. C. Yuan-Chou and D. Tesar, "Optimal
actuator sizing for robotic manipulators based on local
dynamic criteria", ASME Journal of Mechanisms,

12. Discussion
To design a robot, one should consider kinematics and
dynamic situations. It needs to solve complicated long

27

International Journal of Robotics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2009) /M.H.Korayem, H.R.Heidari

Transactions and Automation Design, 107 (1985), p163169.

[3] H. Y. Kim, D. A. Streit, "Configuration dependent
stiffness of the puma 560 manipulator: Analytical and
experimental results", Mech. Mach theory 30-8 (1995),
p1269-1277.
[4] M. H. Korayem, A. Basu, "Symbolic derivation of
dynamic equations of motion for elastic manipulator",
Journal of computational Tech. and applications, CTA
(1995), p56-69.
[5] M. H. Korayem, A. Basu, "Formulation and numerical
solution of elastic robot dynamic motion with maximum
load carrying capacities", Robotica, 12 (1994), p253-261.
[6] M. H. Korayem, H. Gariblu and, A. Basu Dynamic
Load Carrying Capacity of Mobile Base Flexible Joint
Manipulators, International Journal of AMT, Vol. 25, No.
1-2, pp. 62-70, 2005.
[7] Sh. Yue, S. K. Tso, "Maximum dynamic payload
trajectory for flexible robot manipulators with kinematic
redundancy", Mechanism and Machine Theory, 36 (2001),
p785- 800.
[8] S. A. Bortoff, J. Y. Hung, and M. W. Spong, "A
discrete-time observer for flexible joint manipulators", Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf Robotics and Automation, 1989, p 20782082.
[9] S. Kemal Ider, M. Kemal Ozgoren, Trajectory tracking
control of flexible joint robots, Computers and structures,
76 (2000), p757-763.
[10] V. O. Gamarraado, E. A. O. Yuhara, Dynamics
modeling and simulation of flexible robotic manipulator,
Robotica, (1999), Vol. 17, p.523-528.
[11] S. Mitsi, K. D. Bouzakis, G. Mansour, "Optimization of
robot links motion in inverse kinematics solution
considering collision avoidance and joint limits", Meach.
Mach. Theory 30 (5) (1995), p653-663.
[12] S. Regnier, F. B. Ouetdou, P. Bidaud, "Distributed
method for inverse kinematics of all serial manipulators",
Mech. Mach. Theory 32 (7) (1997), p855- 867.
[13] T. Szkodny, "Modelling of kinematics of the IRb-6
manipulator", Computers math. Appl: c 29 (9) (1995), p7794.
[14] L. T. Wang and B. Ravani, "Dynamic load carrying
capacity of mechanical manipulators Part I: Problem
formulation", Transactions of ASME, Journal of Dynamic
System, Measurement and Control, 110(1988), p46-52.
[15] Lean Elajpah, "Simulation of n-R planer manipulators
simulation", Practice and Theory 6 (1998), p305-321.

28