ARTICLE IN PRESS

Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487

www.elsevier.com/locate/rcim

The workspace mapping with deficient-DOF space

for the PUMA 560 robot and its exoskeleton arm by using
orthogonal experiment design method
Ying Chen, Jiafan Zhang, Canjun Yang, Bin Niu
State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power Transmission and Control, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China
Received 8 March 2005; received in revised form 21 March 2006; accepted 5 May 2006

Abstract

In this paper, a particular emphasis is put on the workspace mapping with deficient-DOF space between the PUMA 560 robot and its
exoskeleton-arm master-type manipulator, which is proved to be the key step for different structure-based master–slave manipulation.
The deficient-DOF space of PUMA 560, made up with the singularity and joint limitation, affects the maneuverability and stability of the
master–slave manipulation system. In this work, the deficient-DOF space in the mapped workspace with master–slave control is
investigated as a main factor of the workspace mapping. Meanwhile, the orthogonal experiment design method is introduced and two
rounds of orthogonal experiments are carried out for this mapping problem, which is simultaneously characterized by many other
variables At last the simulation and experiment results demonstrate that the scheme of the mapping is feasible and the orthogonal
experiment design method is effective. It is a novel application and exploration of the orthogonal experiment design method in the
mechanical or robot optimal design.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Exoskeleton arm; PUMA 560; Master–slave manipulator; Workspace mapping with deficient-DOF-space; Orthogonal experiment design
method

1. Introduction cated geometrically, evaluating whether or not a given

Due to the increasing number of worksites, which are
hazardous or merely inaccessible, remote manipulation has
become more and more important. Several types of systems
and concepts have been defined in the area of remote
manipulation technology [1]. The concept developed by
Ray Goertz in the 1950s, in which a person’s sensing and
manipulation capability was extended to a remote location,
was referred to as a teleoperator. And then many designs
have been developed in this field.
When operating a kinematically dissimilar teleoperator,
human operator is responsible for operating the manip-
ulator within the limit of reachable workspace. Since
workspace and region boundaries are often very compli-
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 571 8795 3096;
fax: +86 571 8795 1941.
E-mail address: caffeezhang@hotmail.com (J. Zhang).
location is reachable can be a tall order. To resolve this
problem, a workspace-mapping method is developed that
maps the master motion trajectory into reachable work-
space of slave manipulator in real time. The kinematical
mapping, including workspace mapping, velocity mapping
[2,3] etc., between the master manipulator and slave robot
arm is an interesting research area [4]. Several mapping
approaches have been developed.
The work described in this paper is part of an effort to
map the workspace with deficient-DOF space of the
PUMA 560 robot with its exoskeleton-arm master-type
manipulator. Meanwhile the orthogonal experiment design
method is used and two rounds of orthogonal experiments
are carried out for adjusting the variables in the mapping
process and obtaining the best mapping result. It is a novel
application of the orthogonal experiment design method
and it is also an exploration of mechanical or robot optimal
design.

0736-5845/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2006.05.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Chen et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487
2. Related work
As known, there are many different types of the
master–slave robot manipulators. At the viewpoint of the
structure and kinematics of a robot and its master
manipulator, they can be divided into two categories,
namely the master–slave robot manipulator with the same
structure and kinematics or with different structure and
kinematics.
For the former, the arm of the operator is placed within
an exoskeleton, which is kinematically similar to the slave
robot. By limiting the allowable motions of the human
upper limb, the transformation to the slave robot motion is
simplified. For the latter, a more complex and expensive
robot manipulator is required, but the master manipulator
is anthropomorphic and can match the motion of the
human upper limb well [5]. So from the discussion above, it
is concluded that it is an ideal design to combine the merits
of the both types: an anthropomorphic master manipulator
for a commonly used slave robot arm, say a PUMA 560,
Stanford series. Thus, due to the different structure, the
workspace mapping with deficient-DOF space turns to be
one of the key techniques to satisfy the master–slave
maneuverability.
When mapping from the master manipulator workspace
to the slave robot arm workspace, there are three classical
methods that can be applied: joint angle mapping (joint-to-
joint mapping) [6], pose mapping [7], and point-to-point
mapping [8]. Among these three methods, the joint angle
mapping method controls the master manipulator to
obtain the same structure slave robot arm. A simple linear
equation yi ¼ mi xi þ bi is always employed for the map-
ping of joint angles [9]. But its application is quite limited
as the structures of most slave robot arms are not similar to
those of the master manipulators. In another existing
approach, known as the pose mapping, transformation
matrix is used to calculate the slave robot arm joint angles
from an arbitrary master manipulator pose by using an
interpolation technique. But with work in [7,10], it is
known that the mapping result of this method is not very
intuitive due to the resulting unpredictable motions. The
point-to-point mapping is also a popular method, which is
effective and satisfying for all the anthropomorphic and
semi-anthropomorphic robot arms and hands. In this
paper, we expand this viewpoint to the workspace mapping
with deficient-DOF space of PUMA manipulator.
Here, some definitions will be referred to in this type of
workspace mapping, joint limitation and singularity. Joint
limitations are the volume of the points, on which one or
some joints of the robot are on the boundary of their
revolute range. It may cause degeneration of the move
directions. Singularity is defined as the configuration where
the values of joint position cause the Jacobian matrix to
become singular (the determinant of the Jacobian matrix is
zero) or when the manipulator loses degree(s) of freedom
[11]. When the robot is close to a kinematical singularity,
the usual inverse differential kinematics solutions based on
479
the Jacobian matrix become ill-conditioned, and this is
experienced in the form of very-high joint velocities or
degeneration of the moving directions. And due to the
existence of the singularities of the slave manipulator in
master–slave control, if the operator attempts to lead the
slave robot through a approaching singularity, the
maneuverability and stability of the system is challenged.
In the last two decades, various ways have been devised to
handle the problem of singularity, starting from the simple
approach of switching into joint space control. In some
techniques [12], the degenerate directions in the end-
effector space associated with a given singularity are
identified and the end-effector velocity components along
those directions in a suitable neighborhood of the
singularity are eliminated. Other techniques [13,14] are
based on a modification of the exact inverse differential
kinematics mapping by resorting to approximate mapping
that offer robustness to singularities at the expense of
reduced tracking accuracy. Anyway, for the master–slave
manipulator, it is better to have as few singularities of the
slave robot arm as possible in the mapped workspace or a
perfect workspace mapping with the singularities mapping.
In this paper, we consolidate the joint limitation and
singularity into the deficient-DOF space for simplification,
where joint velocities of the slave robot arm or the moving
directions are restricted or degenerated. Compared to
the traditional workspace mapping methods, the work-
space mapping with deficient-DOF space is focused on
whether the slave robot arm can follow a certain motion of
the master manipulator on some particular points in the
mapped workspace or not. In Sections 4 and 5, the
orthogonal experimental design method is employed to
solve this workspace-mapping problem with deficient-DOF
space and any other factors considered.
3. The master–slave manipulation system
Fig. 1 explains the schematic diagram of the master–
slave manipulation system. In the system the exoskeleton-
arm manipulator acts as this master-type controller and the
PUMA manipulator with 6 DOF works as the slave robot
arm. The Internet or Ethernet builds the bridge between
master and slave sides.
The exoskeleton-arm manipulator, ZJUESA (Fig. 2) is
the input of the system. It is designed on the philosophy of
Jeong et al. [15] and keeps in the similarity to the anatomy
of the human arm, as shown in Fig. 3, 3 DOF for shoulder
(flexion/extension, abduction/adduction and rotation), 2
DOF for elbow (flexion/extension and rotation) and 2
DOF for wrist (flexion/extension and abduction/ adduc-
tion). ZJUESA adopts a mechanism with 6 DOF, where we
omit the wrists’ abduction/adduction movement.
With the motion of operator, the information from
sensors will be collected. Through the kinematics calcula-
tion, some parameters will then be altered online, such as
position mappings, dynamic parameters in robot server
control implementations and so on, so that the slave robot
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
480 Y. Chen et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487

Fig. 4. The coordinates of the exoskeleton arm.

Fig. 1. The schematic diagram of the master–slave manipulation system.

overlap each other as much as possible to improve the
maneuverability. The point-to-point mapping method is
utilized as it is convenient by considering the position of
the end effector instead of its posture and from this point
the structure differences between the master and slave
manipulators are weakened. The mapping process can be
deduced as follows [16]:
2 3 2 3
Xp cos a sin a 0
6 7 6 7
6 Y p 7 ¼ 6  sin a cos a 0 7
4 5 4 5
Zp 0 0 1
02 32 3 2 31
Fig. 2. The exoskeleton-arm manipulator, ZJUESA.
Sx 0 0 X lx
B6 76 7 6 7C
B 6 76 7 6 7C
@4 0 S y 0 54 Y 5 þ 4 0 5A, ð1Þ
0 0 Sz Z lz

where [Xp Yp Zp]T is the position of the PUMA 560 end

Fig. 3. The anatomy of the human arm.
arm can finish the remote task. On the same time, the force-
feedback information will be sent back from the slave
robot arm to the exoskeleton-arm master-type manipulator
for the fide operation.
4. Workspace mapping
As emphasized above, when operating a kinematically
dissimilar operator, human operator is responsible for
operating the manipulator within the limit of reachable
workspace. Hence the differences in workspace size and
shape should be compensated for and it should adjust the
workspace of master to match that of slave well. The
workspace mapping is to enable these two workspaces to
effector; [X Y Z]T the position of the master manipulator
end effector, a the revolute angle about Z-axis of the
PUMA 560 base frame [17], Sx the scaling factor along the
X-axis of the exoskeleton-fixed frame as shown in Fig. 4,
Sy, the scaling factor along the Y-axis of the exoskeleton-
fixed frame; Sz, the scaling factor along the Z-axis of the
exoskeleton-fixed frame, lx the translation along the X-axis
of the exoskeleton-fixed frame and lz the translation along
the Z-axis of the exoskeleton-fixed frame.
In our master–slave manipulation system, according
with the kinematical parameters of the ZJUESA, D–H
parameters of PUMA 560 [17] and Eq. (2) for serial
manipulator kinematics, it is easy to get the positions of
their end effectors and their corresponding workspaces.
2 3
R33 Px
6 Py 7
6 7
6 7 ¼ 0 A1 1 A2 . . . n1 An , (2)
4 Pz 5
013 1 44
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Chen et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487 481

2 3
where R3  3 are the 3  3 matrices of the end effector pose, C 1 S23 C 1 C 23 S4  S1 C 4 C 1 C 4 C 23 S 5  S 1 S4 S 5 þ C 1 S 23 C 5
6 S1 C 4 C 23 S5 þ C 1 S4 S5 þ S 1 S23 C 5 7
[Px Py Pz]T is the position of the end effector and n1An J 22 ¼ 4 S 1 S23 S1 C 23 S 4 þ C 1 C 4 5.
are the D–H homogeneous transformation matrices. C 23 S 23 S 4 C 23 C 5  S23 C 4 S 5
Fig. 5 shows the original workspace mapping between (6)
ZJUESA and PUMA 560. The red zone represents the
Here, Si, Ci, Sij and Cij represent sin(yi), cos(yi), sin(yi+yj)
workspace of ZJUESA and the blue volume that of
and cos(yi+yj), respectively, and a2, a3 and d3 can be found
PUMA. There are large differences in both shape and size.
in the D–H parameters of the PUMA 560. Thus, the
The workspace of the ZJUESA is much smaller than that
singularities can be identified by checking the determinants
of PUMA and it mostly locates at the central margin of the
of the two 3  3 matrices J11 and J22 as follows:
PUMA workspace casually. It is not an ideal condition.
But for further research, it is found that even with a good detðJ 11 Þ ¼ a2 ðd 4 C 3  a3 S 3 Þðd 4 S23 þ a2 C 2 þ a3 C 23 Þ. (7)
workspace mapping with point-to-point mapped method There are two conditions for forearm singularities. One is
(Eq. (1)), yet the deficient-DOF points, the black points, in the boundary singularity with
the mapped workspace will cause trouble in the manipula-
tion. This symptom cannot be diagnosed by the common gb ¼ d 4 C 3  a3 S 3 ¼ 0, (8)
workspace mapping only and the deficient-DOF space and the other is the interior singularity with
should be considered in the mapping process.
As defined before, the deficient-DOF space includes gi ¼ d 4 S23 þ a2 C 2 þ a3 C 23 ¼ 0. (9)
singularities and joint limitations. For PUMA 560, by Besides, the wrist singularity happens when
defining the control point to be at the wrist, the Jacobian
detðJ 22 Þ ¼ gw ffi S5 ¼ 0. (10)
matrix is a square 6  6 matrix, which can be partitioned into
" # For simplicity, we just discuss the workspace of the
J 11 033 master–slave manipulator by omitting the orientation of the
J¼ , (3) end effector. So in our work the wrist singularity is taken out
J 21 J 22
of account.
where J11, J21 and J22 are defined in Eqs. (4)–(6). In addition, the joint limitation points of the PUMA 560
also restrict the movement, which resource from the joints
2 3
d 4 S 1 S 23  a2 S 1 C 2  a3 S 1 C 23  d 2 C 1 d 4 C 1 C 23  a2 C 1 S 2  a3 C 1 S 23 ðd 4 C 23  a3 S23 ÞC 1
6 ðd 4 C 23  a3 S23 ÞS 1 7
J 11 ¼ 4 d 4 C 1 S23 þ a2 C 1 C 2 þ a3 C 1 C 23  d 2 S 1 d 4 S1 C 23  a2 S 1 S 2  a3 S 1 S 23 5, (4)
0 d 4 S 23  a2 C 2  a3 C 23 d 4 S23  a3 C 23

2 3 works range. At these points, the end effector of the PUMA

0 S 1 S1
6 7 manipulator loses the ability to move in certain direction.
J 21 ¼ 4 0 C1 C 1 5, (5) Thus we also attach importance to them, especially when
1 0 0 the mapped workspace covers the joint limitation space.

Fig. 5. The original workspace mapping between ZJUESA and PUMA 560 with its deficient-DOF space.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
482 Y. Chen et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487
Fig. 6. The ideal result of the work- and velocity-space mapping.
Here we consolidate the joint limitation and singularity
into the deficient-DOF point and their volume to the
deficient-DOF space. In most cases, as it is difficult to
exclude all of the deficient-DOF points of the slave from the
mapped workspace or map the deficient-DOF space of the
master with that of slave well, when the operator attempts to
lead the robot through or on approaching a deficient-DOF
point smoothly, the slave robot arm may have an acute
oscillation or a great deviation. It is harmful for the slave
arm and the tool. In the following parts of the paper we work
on the workspace mapping with deficient-DOF space.
In usual, there are five cases for the original workspace
mapping in the master–slave manipulator based on
different structures, the left ellipse shown in Fig. 6.
Case 1: The workspace of slave robot arm includes that
of the master manipulator completely and the deficient-
DOF space is out of the mapped workspace.
Case 2: The workspace of slave robot arm includes that
of the master manipulator completely and the mapped
workspace contains a part of deficient-DOF space.
Case 3: The workspace of the slave arm is in the margin
of master manipulator workspace.
Case 4: The workspace of slave robot arm covers a part
of the master workspace and the mapped workspace
contains part of the deficient-DOF space.
Case 5: The workspace of slave robot arm covers a part
of the master workspace and the deficient-DOF space is
out of the mapped workspace.
Through workspace mapping with deficient-DOF space,
we can get a better situation. Of course, if the workspace and
deficient-DOF space of the master manipulator and slave
robot arm can be completely matched, respectively, it is the
best, as in the right ellipse in Fig. 6. With the well deficient-
Fig. 7. Two substitution methods for the ideal mapping.
DOF space mapping, at any deficient-DOF point, the master
type controller is also in a singularity or a same joint
limitation to the slave arm, and thus the operator cannot
send the motion command with the master manipulator in
the degenerated direction. The operator can command the
slave arm to finish the mission without the trouble from
deficient-DOF points anywhere in the mapped workspace.
But in most cases the ideal mapping result is infeasible
due to the different structures of the master and slave
manipulator. As a result in Fig. 7, we introduce two
substitutions for the ideal mapping result. In the case a, the
two workspaces overlap each other as much as possible
with avoidance of the deficient-DOF space, while in the
case b, the master workspace includes the whole slave
workspace, of course containing all deficient-DOF space of
the slave arm. Under case a, the manipulator can lead the
slave arm to move smoothly without the trouble from the
deficient-DOF space by expense of reducing the workspace
of the salve arm, and case b, the manipulator can make full
use of the slave arm in its workspace by some control
oscillation or moving limitation. So we should get a
suitable compromise between the large workspace and
control accuracy. In our example, we need the slave arm to
finish the task with smooth movement in a certain space,
rather than in the full workspace, so the case a is referred.
In the following section the orthogonal experiment
design method is introduced and the orthogonal experi-
ments are carried out to optimize the result of the
workspace mapping with deficient-DOF space.
5. Orthogonal experiment design method
5.1. Orthogonal experiment design method
The workspace mapping with deficient-DOF space is to
set efficient parameters for mapping. This is equivalent to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Chen et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487 483

establishing a parameter for creating a better regression Table 1

expression. In this work a method that uses orthogonal L24(56) orthogonal array
experiment design method is outlined because of the Exp# A B C D E F Q
ease with which levels can be allocated and because
of its efficiency. In an orthogonal experiment design, 1 A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 Q1
setting of parameters involves allocating levels by using 2 A1 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2 Q2
3 A1 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 Q3
an orthogonal array [18]. During the mapping trial,
4 A1 B4 C4 D4 E4 F4 Q4
all variables, even continuous ones, are thought of as 5 A1 B5 C5 D5 E5 F5 Q5
being discrete ‘‘levels’’. By discretizing variables in 6 A2 B1 C2 D3 E4 F5 Q6
this way, a design of experiments is advantageous in that 7 A2 B2 C3 D4 E5 F1 Q7
it can reduce the number of combinations and is resistant 8 A2 B3 C4 D5 E1 F2 Q8
9 A2 B4 C5 D1 E2 F3 Q9
to noise and conclusions valid over the entire region 10 A2 B5 C1 D2 E3 F4 Q10
spanned by the control factors and their setting. 11 A3 B1 C3 D5 E2 F4 Q11
Fig. 8 explains the flowchart of the orthogonal experiment 12 A3 B2 C4 D1 E3 F5 Q12
design. 13 A3 B3 C5 D2 E4 F1 Q13
Table 1 describes a L25 orthogonal array involving 6 14 A3 B4 C1 D3 E5 F2 Q14
15 A3 B5 C2 D4 E1 F3 Q15
factors A–F, each at 5 levels [19]. In this array the first
16 A4 B1 C4 D2 E5 F3 Q16
column implies the number of the experiments and factors 17 A4 B2 C5 D3 E1 F4 Q17
A–F are arbitrarily assigned to columns 1–6, respectively. 18 A4 B3 C1 D4 E2 F5 Q18
From the table, 25 trials of experiments are needed, 19 A4 B4 C2 D5 E3 F1 Q19
with the level of each factor for each trial run as indicated 20 A4 B5 C3 D1 E4 F2 Q20
21 A5 B1 C5 D4 E3 F2 Q21
in the array. The elements Ai, Bi, Ci, Di, Ei and Fi, for
22 A5 B2 C1 D5 E4 F3 Q22
i ¼ 1, 2, y, 5, represent the levels of each factors. The 23 A5 B3 C2 D1 E5 F4 Q23
vertical columns represent the experimental factors to be 24 A5 B4 C3 D2 E1 F5 Q24
studied using that array. Each of the columns contains 5 25 A5 B5 C4 D3 E2 F1 Q25
assignments at each level (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) for the
corresponding factors. The last column is the experiment
result under corresponding combination of the factors
level. Parameters can be set easily by allocating variable 5.2. Orthogonal experiment design for the workspace
levels to the individual columns as instructed. It enables mapping with deficient-DOF space
parameter setting merely by selecting an orthogonal array
and therefore, offers excellent convenience. To carry out orthogonal experimental designs, the choice
of the factors is crucial. Numerous factors may influence
the workspace mapping between the exoskeleton master
arm and the PUMA 560 slave robot arm with deficient-
DOF space considered. The mapping quantity Q is the
target function for optimization, when Q is calculated by
Q ¼ Em Pmð1  SLÞ100%, (11)
where Em is the percent of the exoskeleton’s workspace
which the PUMA 560 robot-arm can reach, Pm the percent
of the PUMA 560’s workspace which the exoskeleton can
reach and SL the percent of the PUMA 560’s deficient-
DOF space in the mapped workspace.
Here, Em, Pm and SL are usually determined by the
following factors: the rotation angle about the Z-axis of the
PUMA 560 fixed-frame a (factor A), the scaling factors
along the X-, Y- and Z-axes of the exoskeleton-arm-fixed
frame Sx, Sy and Sz, respectively (factors B, C and D), and
the translation along the X- and Z-axes of the exoskeleton-
fixed frame lx and lz (factors E and F, respectively). Here,
the translation along the Y-axis is ignored when the
workspace of the ZJUESA is symmetrical about the X-axis
in the X–Y plane of the exoskeleton-fixed frame.
Since in this example there are 6 main factors, the L25
orthogonal array of 6 factors with 5 levels is taken.
Fig. 8. The flowchart of the orthogonal experiment design. Without any pre-knowledge about the influence of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
484 Y. Chen et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487

factor, the levels of factors are evenly set over the full Table 2
applicable range, e.g. factor A with AA[0, 360], and can be The factors and their levels of the orthogonal design
set arbitrarily. And the levels of each factor, equivalent to A (1) B C D E (mm) F (mm)
the step length for each variable in other optimal method,
could be chosen roughly in First round orthogonal 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
experiment design. The levels of all factors studied are 2 72 1.5 1.5 1.5 75 25
3 144 2 2 2 150 50
summarized in Table 2. The experimental plan is designed
4 216 2.5 2.5 2.5 225 75
according to an L25(56)orthogonal array. 5 288 3 3 3 300 100
With different combination of the factors levels, the
workspace of the ZJUESA and PUMA manipulator can be
calculated through the kinematical expression, Eq. (2) and
mapping Eq. (1). The volume of these two workspaces can Table 3
be regarded as the composition of many unit volumes Results Q and its analysis (%)
(2  2  2 mm). By comparing the number of these unit A B C D E F
volumes in these two workspace, Em, Pm and SL can
be determined. With Eqs. (11)–(13), we get the result. In Ij1 10.48 3.83 4.85 5.64 5.87 6.80
Table 3, the values resulting from the analysis in Ij2 6.99 5.32 5.40 6.57 7.31 6.86
Ij3 6.22 8.83 8.18 6.37 8.27 7.43
accordance with the orthogonal array are given, where
Ij4 5.57 9.40 9.65 8.65 7.89 7.91
2 3 2 3 Ij5 5.70 7.58 6.87 7.73 5.62 5.96
I A1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0  0 0 0 0
6 7 6 7 Kj 4.89 5.57 4.80 3.01 2.65 1.95
6 I A2 7 60 0 0 0 0 1 1  0 0 0 07
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 I A3 7 60 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 07
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 I A4 7 60 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 07
6 7 6 7
6 7
6 I A5 7 1660 0 0 0 0 0 0  1 1 1 17
7
6 7¼ 6 7
6 7 56 . . . . . . . 7
6 .. 7 6. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. 7
6 . 7 6 . . . . . . .  . . . . 7
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 I F1 7 61 0 0 0 0 0 1  0 0 0 17
6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
6 I F2 7 60 1 0 0 0 0 0  1 0 0 07
4 5 4 5
I F3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0  0 1 0 0
2 3
Q1
6 7
6 Q2 7
6 7
6 7
6 Q3 7
6 7
6 7
6 Q4 7
6 7
6 7
6 5 7
6 Q
7, ð12Þ
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 Q22 7 Fig. 9. The relations between the levels of the factors and Q.
6 7
6 7
6 Q23 7
4 5
Q25 factor level is when the Q gets the largest value, namely A1,
B4, C4, D4, E3 and F4.
It is interesting to know how good the results derived
K j ¼ maxfI j1 ; I j2 ; . . . ; I j5 g  minfI j1 ; I j2 ; . . . ; I j5 g, (13)
from the above 25 trials are, when compared to all other
for j ¼ A, B, C, y, E, F. possible combinations. Because of its mutual balance of
According to Table 3, the relations between the levels of orthogonal arrays, this performance ratio can be guaran-
each factors and Q can be obtained intuitively, as shown in teed by the following theorem in nonparametric statistics
Fig. 9. From this graph, we can easily determine that the [20].
superiority and the degree of the influence (sensitivity) of
each design factor. In this example, it can be concluded Theorem 1. Suppose random variable X is subject to a
that the sensitivity of the factors A–C are high and factors probabilistically continuous distribution F(X), and x1, x2,
E and F have weak influence, since KA, KB and KC are y, xn are simple samples (or random observation values) of
much bigger than KE and KF. The best combination of each X. If x1, x2, y, xn are sorted in ascending order, denoted as
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Chen et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487 485

x1ox2o?o xn, then the performance ratio for xi Formula (15) means that the best experimental result in
(i ¼ 1, 2, y, n) is these simple samples is probabilistically better than
(n/n+1)% of all possible results defined in the whole discrete
i
E½F ðxi Þ ¼ . (14) solution space. In this case, the best result by L25(56) is better
nþ1 than 96.15% (¼ 25/26) results of all 15625 trials.
In particular, Then, for more accurate mapping, we carry out the
second round orthogonal experiment design based on the
n
E½F ðxi Þ ¼ . (15) result of the first round. There are also 6 factors with 5
nþ1 levels, which are allocated near the first round result as A1,
B4, C4, D4, E3 and F4. Table 4 shows the factors and levels
Table 4 of the second round orthogonal design. In this round, the
Factors and levels of the second round orthogonal experiment design difference between the levels of each factor is much smaller
than that in the previous round. This brings small step
A (1) B C D E (mm) F (mm) length of each variable in the calculation. Table 5 shows the
1 0 2.3 2.3 2.3 100 60 results of the second round orthogonal experiment design.
2 10 2.4 2.4 2.4 125 65 In each column, we choose the level corresponding to the
3 20 2.5 2.5 2.5 150 70 maximum value of Q, namely A4, B5, C1, D3, E2 and F1.
4 30 2.6 2.6 2.6 175 75 These levels are the best mapping parameters and listed in
5 40 2.7 2.7 2.7 200 80
Table 6.
By the kinematics calculation, we can get the final
effect of the workspace mapping. Fig. 10 shows the result
Table 5 of the workspace mapping with deficient-DOF space.
Results of the second round orthogonal experiment design (%) Fig. 11 gives the comparison between the workspace of
A B C D E F the ZJUESA and the deficient-DOF space of the
PUMA 560. The figures show that the workspace of the
Ij1 17.75 16.71 20.32 18.22 17.52 19.22 ZJUESA and the PUMA 560 matches each other
Ij2 17.93 17.69 20.19 18.82 18.63 17.69
much better than that in Fig. 5. Only 0.2% points in the
Ij3 17.81 17.83 18.22 19.13 18.48 18.36
Ij4 18.62 19.15 16.33 17.76 18.35 17.90 mapping workspace are deficient-DOF points of PUMA
Ij5 18.55 19.27 15.60 16.73 17.67 17.48 560 robot, which influence the master–slave manipulator
Kj 0.8 2.56 4.72 2.60 1.11 1.74 slightly. For these unavoidable deficient-DOF points, the
Jacobian transpose, pseudoinverse, or selective damped
least-squares method can be easily investigated to solve the
Table 6
problem.
The best parameters for the workspace mapping
6. Conclusion
A (1) B C D E (mm) F (mm)

30 2.7 2.3 2.5 125 60 In this paper our work is focused on the workspace
mapping with deficient-DOF space of the PUMA 560

Fig. 10. The result of the workspace mapping with deficient-DOF space of PUMA 560 and ZJUESA.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
486 Y. Chen et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487
Fig. 11. The comparison between the workspace of ZJUESA and the deficient-DOF space of PUMA 560.
robot and its exoskeleton-arm manipulator, ZJUESA. It is
the extension of research of our previous work on the
workspace mapping of the different structure and kine-
matic master–slave manipulators. It is from the viewpoint
of the mapping optimization to minimize the negative
influence on the master–slave manipulation due to the
singularities and joint limitation points of the PUMA 560
or any other slave-type manipulators.
In the mapping optimization, the main factor, the
deficient-DOF space made up with the singularity and
joint limitation, and any other factors are considered. For
such multi-factor optimal problem, the orthogonal experi-
ment design method is utilized for setting the mapping
parameters, and then two rounds of orthogonal design
experiments are implemented. Because of its convenience,
resistance to noise and validity over the entire region, good
mapping result is obtained. This verifies the feasibility of
the mapping scheme and the effectiveness of the orthogo-
nal experiment design method. However, it is a novel
application and exploration of this method in the mechan-
ical or robot optimal design.
Acknowledgment
The presented work is supported by the Natural Science
Foundation of China (no. 50305035) for which the authors
express thanks.
References
[1] Sheridan TB. Telerobotics. Automatica 1989;25(4):487–507.
[2] Rajiv VD, Everett SE, Pernalete N, Manocha KA. Teleoperation
Assistance Through Variable Velocity Mapping. IEEE Trans
Robotics Autom 2001;17(5):761–6.
[3] Norali P, Wentao Y, Rajiv D, Wilfrido M. Development of a Robotic
Haptic Interface to Assist the Performance of Vocational Tasks by
People with Disabilities. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE interna-
tional conference on robotics and automation, May 2002, Washing-
ton, DC, p. 1269–74.
[4] Wang H, Low KH, Gong F, Wang MY. A virtual circle method
for kinematic mapping from human hand to a nonanthropomorphic
robot hand. The Eighth International Conference on Control,
Automation, Robotics and Vision, Kunming, China, December
2004.
[5] Weston BG, Ryan PF, Michael LT, Mark RC. Calibration and
Mapping of a Human Hand for Dexterous Telemanipulation. Haptic
interfaces for virtual environments and teleoperator systems sympo-
sium, ASME IMECE 2000 conference, 2000.
[6] Bouzit M. Design, Implementation and Testing of a Data Glove with
Force Feedback for Virtual and Real Objects Telemanipulation. PhD
thesis, Laboratoire de Robotique de Paris, University of Pierre Et
Marie Curie, France, 1996.
[7] Liu J, Zhang YR. Dataglove-based grasp planning for multi-fingered
robot hand. In: Proceedings of the 11th world congress on
mechanism and machine science, April 2004, Tianjin, China, vol. 4,
p. 1827–31.
[8] Fischer M, van der Smagt P, Hirzinger G. Learning techniques
in a dataglove-based telemanipulation system for the DLR hand.
In: IEEE proceedings of the international conference on robotics and
automation. May 1998, Leuven, Belgium, vol. 2, pp. 1603–8.
[9] Kyriakopoulos KJ, et al. Kinematic analysis and position/force
control of the Anthrobot dexterous hand. IEEE Trans Syst Man
Cybernet B 1997;27(1):95–104.
[10] Rohling RN, Hollerbach JM. Optimized fingertip mapping for
teleoperation of dexterous robot hands. In: IEEE proceedings
international conference on robotics and automation. May 1993,
Atlanta, GA, USA, vol. 3, pp. 769–75.
[11] Nakamura Y. Advanced Robotics—Redundancy and Optimization.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1991.
[12] Chiaverini S, Egeland O. A solution to the singularity problem for
six-joint manipulators. In: Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE Interna-
tional conference on robot and automation, May 1990, Cincinnati,
OH, p. 644–9.
[13] Nakamura Y, Hanafusa H. Inverse kinematic solution with
singularity robustness for robot manipulator control. ASME J Dyn
Syst Meas Control 1986;108:163–71.
[14] Wampler CW. Manipulator inverse kinematic solutions based on
vector formulations and damped least-squares methods. IEEE Trans
Syst Man Cyber 1986;16:93–101.
[15] Jeong Y, Lee D, Kim K, Park JO. A wearable robotic arm with high
force-reflection capability. In: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Chen et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (2007) 478–487
International workshop on robot and human interactive commu-
nication, September 2000, p. 27–9.
[16] Yang CJ, Niu B, Zhang JF, Chen Y. Different structure-based
control system of the PUMA 560 manipulator with an arm
exoskeleton. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE conference on
robotics, automation and Mechatronics, Singapore, p. 572–7.
[17] Cheng FT, Hour TL, Sun YY, Chen TH. Study and resolution of
singularities for a 6-DOF PUMA 560 manipulator. IEEE Trans Syst
Man Cybern 1997;27(2):332–43.
487
[18] Amago T. Sizing optimization using response surface method
in FOA. R&D Review of Toyota CRDL, vol 37(1), 2002,
p. 1–7.
[19] Shanghai Science and Technology Station. The Method of the
Orthogonal Experiment Design—multi-factors Experiment Method.
Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press; 1975.
[20] Manjunath S. The triplex design group of Chinese Association of
Statistics: orthogonal method and triplex design. Beijing: Science
Press; 1987.