Preprints 01 the Fourth IFAC

Symposium on Robot Control

September 19-21, 1994, Capri, Italy

ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION OF THE TRAJECTORY

PLANNING PROBLEM FOR RECONFIGURABLE TWO-
ARM ROBOTS

V. TAUSSAC·, E. TABARAH·; E. DOMBRE· and B. BENHABIB··

·Laboratoire d'Informatique de Robotique et de Microelectronique de Montpel/ier, UM II - CNRS

9228, 161 rue Ada, 34392 Montpellier Ceder 5, France
··Computer Integrated Manufacturing Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Univer-
$ity of Toronto , 5 King '$ Col/ege Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A4

Abstract. Two-arm systems configured with modular robots are used to perform tasks in coordi-
nated manner. The synthesis problem, in this context, would address issues such as , distribution of
degrees of freedom (dof) between the two-arms , determination of geometries , and relative placement
of their bases. This paper addresses the first task in the process of solving the synthesis problem,
namely the development of an "analysis" module used to evaluate and compare different robot confi-
gurations for a desired operation. An optim.ization procedure, based on a trajectory-approximation,
is presented herein for determining best continuous path end-effector trajectories for planar systems.

Key Words. Modular robots; two-arm robots ; optimal coordination; workspace ; trajectory reso-
lution

1. INTRODUCTION the two robots are coordinated to move so as the

Reconfigurable modular robots are defined as sys-
tems that consist of standard modular devices ,
such as actuators, links , and connectors , utilized
to configure "special- purpose" robotic arms (Co-
hen et al. , 1992). The industrial application of
such systems would relieve the heavy financial
burden of acquiring sophisticated and general-
purpose robots. Modular robots, by definition ,
offer the possibility of easily and inexpensively re-
configuring the workcell to suit new tasks. There
exists an abundance of literature on the subject of
modular robots , which has started over a decade
ago, with an aim at industrial as well as space
applications. Reference (Tesar and Butler, 1989)
provides an excellent review of the pertinent lit-
erature .
There also exists a wealth of literature dealing
with cooperative two-robot systems. The empha-
sis has usually been on the use of existing robots
in order to form closed-chain systems (Zheng and
Luh, 1988 ; Craigan and Akin , 1989) . Such sys-
tems have been shown to offer a significantly im-
proved load-carrying capability and force /torque
output , as well as an improved rigidity (Tarn et
al .. 1988). However , a novel method has recently
been proposed (Tabarah et al., 1992 ; Jouaneh et
aI. , 1990) which advocates the coordination of two
robots where, instead of the two robots forming
a closed-chain system and operating on a fixed
workpiece, the workpiece is gripped by one robot
while the tool is mounted on the second robot:
tool performs its required motion relative to the
workpiece , Fig. 1. The advantages of maneu-
vering the workpiece , while it is being operated
on, include the fact that the trajectory can be
made more accessible to the tool , thus facilitating
the task and reducing the required workspace , as
well as allowing certain complex operations, that
would otherwise be infeasible for a fixed work-
piece, to be performed in a single run . It has
been shown , for instance, that coordinated two-
robot systems can perform certain manufacturing
operations faster , requiring less power , than us-
ing a single robot . These operations include con-
tact operations, such as deburring, which require
that the tool maintains contact with the work-
piece as it moves , or non-contact operations , such
as arc-welding, which require no contact between
the tool and the workpiece.
The objective of our work is to demonstrate that
modular robots can be utilized effectively in for-
ming two-arm systems, where each arm may have
a number of degrees of freedom (dof) between one
and six (Tabarah et al., 1993). The selection of
the type and exact number of dof for the system,
for a given task , the selection of the number of dof
between the two arms (the dof-distribution prob-
lem), as well as the relative placement of their
bases is a synthesis problem. We have developped
an "analysis" module to be used for the evalua-
tion and comparison of different solutions to this
problem. It implements an optimization proce-

925
dure for determining best continuous path end-
effector trajectories.
Fig. 1. General configuration of a two-robot coordi-
nated system
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
This paper addresses the coordination pro-
blem between two robots performing a common
manufacturing-type task, such as welding or de-
burring , on a workpiece . In order to clarify the
trajectory resolution issue, let us consider a two-
arm planar system. Arm-1 manipulates a tool
that tracks a desired tool- trajectory prescribed
relative to a workpiece held and maneuvered by
arm-2, Fig. 1. If the two- arm system is a non-
redundant one, this trajectory is resolved into a
simple pair of new trajectories for the two robots.
These new trajectories, termed here as conjugate
trajectories, are specified in task space for the two
robots' end effectors. In the case where the system
has redundant dof, there exists an infinite number
of pairs of conjugate trajectories for a given tool
trajectory. Thus , the problem at hand can be de-
fined as the optimal determination of conjugate
trajectories for two-arm systems with redundant
dof.
In this paper , we are encouraging the use of recon-
figurable modular robots where the two arms may
be configured to have less than six dof each. The
number of redundant dof, depending on the task ,
may thus vary between zero and six for a gen-
eral three-dimensional task. Our analysis shows
that the trajectory-resolution problem must then
be addressed individually for each of the differ-
ent numbers of dof- redundancy cases. The dif-
ferent solutions would be based on a generalized
workspace-analysis procedure , where the search
space for the optimal trajectories (i.e., the sys-
tem 's operational workspace) is governed by the
geometry of the two arms as well as the designated
task.
The next two sections will discuss this trajectory
resolution problem and introduce an optimization
procedure for selecting one solution based on cer-
tain optimality criteria.
926
3. TRAJECTORY RESOLUTION
Trajectory resolution can be classified as either
"exact" or "approximate".
Exact trajectory resolution requires full mobility
for both arms. Once a trajectory has been arbi-
trarily guessed for arm-1 it could be sampled into
K points, where K is very large, as dictated by
the robot controller, and defined as functions of
time. In turn, the tool-trajectory on the object is
also sampled into K points. Since both arms have
full mobility, once a point on arm- 1's trajectory is
specified, arm-2 can meet this point by bringing
the corresponding specific point on the object to
arm- 1's trajectory. It is important to note how-
ever that, if arm-2 does not have full mobility , the
above "rendez- vous" procedure would only work
partially. Namely, once a point is chosen on arm-
l's trajectory we would have to solve a pseudo-
synthesis problem in order to determine the cor-
responding contact point on the object. Thus, it
could not be arbitrarily (and optimally) chosen
as in the case of arm- 2 having full mobility. In
both cases, the collection of "rendez- vous" points
forms the conjugate trajectory for arm- 2.
Approximate trajectory resolution does not re-
quire full mobility. It is based on the assump-
tion that even when K is very large the obtained
conjugate trajectories are never exact. This as-
sumption is further strengthened by the following
fact: when we do not have full mobility, even if we
satisfy the K positional constraints , due to their
unknown placement on the object , we would still
have large deviations from desired relative veloci-
ties between the tool and the object.
Based on this assumption, a trajectory appro-
ximation procedure, defined in the literature in
other contexts , will be proposed here for two-arm
robotic systems. The procedure , in its conceptual
form, is as follows:
(a) Approximate the tool-trajectory, defined on
the object, by K points.
(b) Based on a desired relative velocity that the
tool has to follow , describe the K locations
on the tool- trajectory as a function of time ,
[.c(t)) i i = 1, I<.
(c) Solve the inverse kinematics of both arms in-
dividually at [.c)i , where the tool is in con-
tact with the object. It must be noted that
in order to solve the inverse kinematics , the
locations [.c)i have to be defined in a "world"
reference-frame coordinates Fw:
(i) If the two arms , forming a closed-chain
loop at [.c(t))i , have no redundant dof,
then [.c(t))i is uniquely defined with re-
spect to Fw. The inverse kinematics yield
unique arm configurations (O l )i for arm- 1
and (02)i for arm-2.
(ii) If the two arms have some redundant dof,
 then [C(t)]i can be located anywhere in
the workspace subject to some constraints.
Thus, one concludes that there exists infi-
nite arm configurations corresponding to a
single relative [C(t)k In other words, the
problem at hand is the absolute placement
of [C(t)]i with respect to Fw . It is very im-
portant to remember that solving this opti-
mization for the [C(t)]i individually would
only yield a local optimal. In order to ob-
tain a global optimal, all [C(t)]i have to
be optimally determined in a simultaneous
matter.
(d) Fit cubic splines to arm configurations, de-
fined by the optimal (Ol)i and (02)i, i = 1, 1<.
As was shown in (Tabarah et al. , 1993) , the
time intervals set earlier in step (b) in a nor-
malized fashion can be expanded or shrunk
here to satisfy joint velocity and acceleration
constraints, thus yielding an optimal overall
motion-time for example.
(e) Determine both conjugate trajectories for the
end effectors of the two arms.
(f) Based on the (simulated) actual (relative)
tool trajectory calculated in step (e), deter-
mine the position , orientation and velocity er-
rors as functions of time, or locations on the
desired tool trajectory.
(g) If errors determined in step (f) exceed pre-
defined tolerances , the number of points K
has to be increased and the optimization pro-
cedure returns to step (b).
4. OPTIMAL PLACEMENT OF £(t)
In this section, an optimization procedure will be
presented for the optimal placement of [C(t)]; ,
i = 1, J< , in the feasible search space. The pro-
posed technique yields a approximation of the true
globally optimal solution. The result is a sequence
of locations with respect to Fw. First , we will con-
sider the simplest of the cases and then generalize
it to the most general two-arm system.
4.1. Optimization Procedure
Let us consider a two-arm planar system consis-
ting of rotary joints only. Arm-1 carries the tool
and has two dof. Arm- 2 carries the work piece and
has one dof. If the orientational constraint is ne-
glected at the contact point, then we note that
the system has one degree of redundancy. The
tool is required to track a trajectory on the object
bounded by the points A and B, (i.e., the specific
edge of the work piece shown in Fig. 2). When
the tool is in contact with the object at any ar-
bitrary point, [C(tO)] = (x(tO), y(tO)), the closed-
loop chain can be seen as a four-bar mechanism
with a mobility of one dof. For this specific two-
927
arm system, the contact point under consideration
thus can be placed anywhere on an arc, referred
to here as the "iso-pos" curve ("pos" standing for
position). Generalizing this case, one notes that
every contact point chosen would have a corres-
ponding iso-pos curve. The combination of these
iso-pos curves forms the search space for the opti-
mization problem, Fig. 2. The proposed solution
Fig. 2. The task
for the optimal placement of [C]i for the two-arm
system considered in Fig. 2 is as follows:
(i) Determine the iso- pos curves corresponding
to [C]i , i = 1, J< contact points.
(ii) Consider a straight line defined with respect
to Fw by y = ax + b; and, arbitrarily choose
a set of (a, b) coefficients so that the straight
line intersects all the iso- pos curves.
(iii) Determine all intersection points in Fw co-
ordinates and execute the inverse kinemat-
ics solution procedure for both arms. (Since
both arms are individually non- redundant ,
there exist unique solutions for (O l )i and
(0 2 ); i = 1, J<).
(iv) Execute steps (d) to (g) of the trajectory-
resolution procedure described in Section 3.
* If all constraints are satisfied, it implies
that the solution is a feasible one, but not
necessarily the global optimal one. In or-
der to obtain a global solution, the opti-
mization repeats steps (i) to (iv) described
above , by attempting to determine the op-
timal set of (a,b) coefficients . Thus , no
matter how large K is , the optimization is
always two- dimensional , searching for op-
timal (a, bt. (However, as it will be de-
cri bed later and shown by an example this
solution procedure is only an approxima-
tion of the global solution for the placement
of [C]i , i = 1, J<) .
* If anyone of the constraints (described in
Section 3) is not satisfied, K is increased
and the procedure described above, (i) to
(iv), is repeated for the new K locations
(i.e ., for a new set of iso-pos curves).
The above procedure can be further improved by
increasing the order of the curve selected to in-
tersect the iso-pos curves (i.e., using an nth order
polynomial , where n > 1) . The number of dimen-
sions of the optimization is however only n + 1 and
remains independent of the number of locations
chosen on the tool trajectory, K. For example, if
one chooses a third-order polynomial for the inter-
secting curve, instead of a simple straight line, the
optimization determines the global optimal set of
four coefficients. This solution, however, is once
again an approximate one, where the true global
solution for the placement of [C]i can be achieved
only when n = I< - 1. The flowchart shown in
Fig. 3 summarizes the optimization technique
presented above.
~;~~itl:~ ~~~~~~:J~~~~~
K. '
K=K+ I 1----<.
Set up a search to detennine
best coefficient values to
minimize the motion-time
y"
Exit
Fig. 3. Optimization flowchart
In this paper, we suggest that a low-order poly-
nomial intersection-curve (n ~ 3) would be quite
sufficient , since the trajectory for Arm-l carrying
the tool defined by the intersection points would
be a smooth one and can be viewed as being very
close to a 3rd order polynomial. Though it should
be remembered that the actual trajectory is de-
fined by the cubic-splines fitted to the joints vari-
ables .
4 .2. Generalisation for i-dof Redundancy
Position and Orientation Constraints for Planar
Systems. The two-arm robotic system must have
a total offour dof. We assume that the robots can-
not individually be redundant. These dof can be
distributed as 2-2 or 3-1. The latter is achieved
by adding 1 more dof to the 2-dof arm in the
previous system , where the former is achieved by
adding 1 extra dof to Arm- 2 which carries the
object. In both cases , however , the search space
for the optimization consists of K "iso- Ioc" curves
corresponding to K locations, ( "loc" standing for
location: position and orientation) on the tool tra-
jectory. Although only two-dimensional curves
928
can be viewed when plotting the iso-Ioc curves,
one has to note that every point on the curve is
defined by a two-axis frame Ft expressed with re-
spect to Fw by (x, y, a). It can be noticed that
the search space in this case is a subset included
in the search space obtained when orientational
constraint is neglected , (namely limited segments
of the iso-pos curves in Section 4-1) .
Using the iso-Ioc curve definition above, the opti-
mization procedure can be carried out for this case
as well without any modification . Cubic-spline
curves would be fitted to four joint variables, as a
function of time, for K nodes. The treatment of
constraints other than the orientation is the same
as before.
Position Constraint for Spatial Systems. The
two-arm robotic system must have a total of four
dof. These dof can be distributed as 2-2 and 3-
1. The search space for the optimization would
consist of K iso-pos curves, which are spatial in
nature. In this case, one could use an "intersec-
ting surface" , as opposed to an intersecting curve
used in the case of planar systems, in order to
intersect the spatial iso-pos curves. Accordingly,
the number of variables, (i.e., the coefficients of
the polynomial equation describing the spatial in-
tersecting surface), defines the complexity of the
optimization .
Once the intersection points have been deter-
mined , the fitting of the cubic splines to the four
joint variables , and thereafter determination of
the optimal motion time for a feasible K- node
approximation of the tool trajectory continues as
described for the planar case.
Position and Orientation Constraints for Spatial
Systems . The two-arm robotic system must have
a total of seven dof. Moreover , the dof have to be
properly distributed (numerically) and organized
(geometrically) to give an overall desired redun-
dancy of 1. These dof can be distributed as 4-3 ,
5-2 and 6-1 . This case is a combination of cases
(4.2 .1) and (4.2 .2) described above , specially in
regards to the definition of iso-loc curves and the
intersecting surfaces. (In the spatial case , the ori-
entation of Ft with respect to Fw is decribed by
three angles , as opposed to only one, a, needed in
the case of planar systems).
4.3. Generalisation for 2-dof Redundancy
In this case , the optimization procedure devel-
oped for I-dof redundancy case has to be mod-
ified. Also , the optimization may rely on input
from the (human) planner in regards to the def-
inition of the search space and starting point of
the optimization.
Position and Orientation Constraints for Planar
Systems. The two-arm robotic system must have
a total of five dof, which must be distributed as
3-2. The 4-1 dof distribution, though a valid one,
will not be considered herein since the 4-dof arm
is (individually) a redundant one. As can be visu-
alized from Fig. 4, any contact point on the work-
piece can be placed within an "iso-loc region" (as
opposed to an iso-loc curve). For a K-node ap-
,. ,"'. . .
proximation, there would be K iso-pos reglOns,
which might be partially overlapping.
J!!!-
I ~-Ioc r~on
l ~ lOC r'99l on e
Fig. 4. Iso-loc regions
The objective of the optimization is to determine
the optimal set of K points . When we consider the
earlier proposed technique of using a (polynomial)
intersecting curve, we ncte that the intersections
are specific individual segments of the polynomial
curve , as opposed to being individual (intersec-
tion) points . A possible solution to this moder-
ately complex optimization problem is to conduct
a K -dimensional search for the location of the K
nodes for every "guessed" polynomial. The equiv-
alent problem is searching freely for the K-node
locations directly within their 2-dimensional iso-
pos regions. As can be noted, however, in both
cases the optimization is directly coupled to the
number of nodes , which is an undesirable scenario.
The following approximation is proposed herein to
significantly simplify the optimization procedure :
(1) Determine the iso-loc regions for K nodes (or
simply their boundaries) .
(2) Guess a polynomial curve and let it pass
through all the iso- loc regions .
(3) Consider each region individually, by first
determining the segment of the polynomial
curve within it and then simply finding the
mid-point of the segment , Fig. 5.
(4) Solve inverse kinematics at the K mid- points.
(5) Fit cubic- splines . Check for constraints and
find the best objective function value attain-
able. Return to step (2) for guessing a differ-
ent polynomial , and repeat optimization until
"best" intersecting polynomial is determined .
The above procedure 's dimensionality is indepen-
dent of K. It is only dependent on the order of
the polynomial. The accuracy of the optimization
can be further improved without a significant in-
crease on the computational time by shifting the
"constant" overall "string" along the polynomial
curve, Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Locations of mid-points
Position Constraint for Spatial Systems . In this
paper, for spatial systems with more than I-dof
redundancy, only the position constraint will be
considered . As might have been already noted in
(
the I-dof redundancy case, the consideration of
orientation constraints only complicates the def-
inition of the search space used during the opti-
mization, but not the nature of the optimization.
Thus, as in the case of planar systems, increasing
the number of redundant dof will increase the di-
mensions of the iso-pos regions first to two and
then to three .
Let us consider the 3- 2 dof distribution case as
an example. The K contact points on the tool
trajectory could be placed anywhere within the
K iso-pos regions, which are 2 dimensional and
spatial in nature. Thus, by simply extending the
earlier concepts, one can propose first the use of
"polynomial surfaces" intersecting the iso-pos re-
gions, and second the use of mid-point selection
process, for finding K optimal points on the indi-
vidual segments.
4.4 . Generalization for 3-dof Redundancy
Position and Orientation Constraints for Planar
Systems. In this case, both arms have full mo-
bility (i .e., 3 dof each). The only difference with
the 3- 2 dof distribution case is the definition of
the iso-loc regions. Herein , these regions would
be more expanded due to the extra dof.
Position Constraint for Spatial Systems . As in
the case of the planar systems, both arms have
full positional mobility (i.e. , 3 dof each) . The only
difference herein is that the iso-pos regions now
are 3-dimensional. In this case , the solution of the
optimization problem would require the construc-
tion of a hierarchy. In the upper level, the opti-
mization would guess a polynomial surface that
would intersect the "iso-pos volumes" yielding a
set of pseudo iso-pos surfaces . The best set of K
node positions on these surfaces can be found as
explained before within the second level of the hi-
erarchy. The procedure would then return to the
upper level to determine the best polynomial (in-
tersecting) surface and its corresponding optimal
set of K node locations.
929
4.5. Discussion
The complexity of our proposed method increases
significantly as the "dof of redundancy" increases.
However, in the case of modular robots , there is no
need for "high" number of redundant dof, where
one redundant dof is sufficient . Thus, for high
numbers of redundant dof, one may choose to use
an "exact" technique as in (Tabarah et al. , 1992)
(one trajectory is arbitrarily chosen for the arm
carrying the tool and the conjugate trajectory is
solved for the second arm) , and not an approxi-
mation technique as discussed in this paper.
5. EXAMPLE
In order to illustrate the proposed algorithm , the
two-arm planar robot shown in Fig. 2 was consid-
ered . The tool trajectory was approximated by K
points. Positional errors were calculated by deter-
mining indi vid ual points on the (simulated) actual
tool trajectory and finding their shortest distances
to the designated tool trajectory. Similarly, the
velocity vectors were determined at those "paired"
points , and errors in relative speed were calcu-
lated as a percentage of the desired pre-set con-
stant speed that the tool had to follow along the
desired tool trajectory on the object.
the motion. As shown in Fig. 7, f{ = 5 nodes
were necessary to satisfy the position and speed
errors. Once K was set at 5, the motion-time
was minimized, by reducing the constant-time in-
tervals between the nodes, to as low as 0.59 sec-
ondes. The "flexible polyhedron" search method
of Nelder and Mead (Nelder and Mead, 1964) for
non-linear optimization problems, was succesfully
used for determining the two optimal coefficients
of the first-order polynomial used to intersect the
iso-pos curves. When the order of the polynomial
was increased to first n = 2 and then n = 3 the
(reduced) optimal motion times were determined
as 0.50 sec and 0.44 sec respectively. Figures 8
and 9 show that both position and speed errors
remain within their specified tolerances for K 2:
5. The optimization results , in regards to posi-
tional and speed errors, are summarized in Table
2. The motion simulation for the 3rd order inter-
section polynomial is shown in Fig. 6.
Table 1 Robots' parameters
Arm 1 1 2
Joint 1 2 1
qmax(rad/s) 0.5 l.0 0.5
qmax(rad/s 2 ) 10.0 20 .0 10.0
Link Length (m) 0.8 0.8 0.5

Motion- time was considered as the objective func-

System's toAotTon
tion for the optimization. This motion time can
be calculated from the robot 's kinematics as fol-
lows:

IBij(s)1 Robo! I
max max -.- - , max
[ ij ,. ()r;ax ij ,3

O:Ss:S 1;i= 1, 2;j= 1, 2 (1)

where s is a time scale, Bij(S) and Bij(S) are the

first and second derivatives of the joint displace-
ment obtained from the cubic- spline interpola-
tl'on , and Brn
'J
ax and Brn ax are the velocity and ac-
'J
0 . 0
celeration limits on the ith joint of the jth arm. X (m)

The overall optimization , which contained total
motion simulation, was first run using a first-
order polynomial for the intersection curve. The
data used during the simulations are given in Ta-
ble 1 where the base locations of the two arms
were 's et as .c.~ = (0 , 0) and .c.~ = (l.7m, 0) , Fig.
6. The object held by Arm-2 was rectangular in
shape (0.5rn x 0.2m), whose longer edge consti-
tuted the desired tool trajectory. The position-
Fig. 6. System 's layout and optimal motion: K = 5,
yd order intersecting polynomial
Table 2 Maximum position and speed errors
and motion times for first , second and third
order polynomials as a function of K
Number 01 Nodu (K )

error limits were set as ± 0.5 mm and the speed-

error limits were set as ± 1 % of the desired "con- ;;:''7''_1 ~'I Tinx ~'7"mm) ~I'"
't ) Tunt it ) ~':...I ~( .., TIIT'Ie It )
\01 0.'3 O.9!I O~7 0 41 O.6t 0..59 030 O.~2 060
stant" tool speed. Since the motion- time was
DlS ua 0. 44 091 0-X1 OJl 079 0..51
minimized , the desired relative tool velocity was
3'" 0.17 1 60 0 43 0 "9 100 0.4-4 0 42 0.99 0 45
also minimized, but maintained constant during

930
It should be remembered that the time intervals
between the nodes were reduced during the opti-
mization while considering the limits on joint ve-
locities and accelerations.
• •• • o.
ft_
.o.c.) 0 ...... o.
Fig. 7. Position and speed errors - first order polyno-
mial
•• o ••
0 .0 ••• • .0
, . .... c. )
Fig. 8. Position and speed errors - second order poly-
nomial
Fig. 9. Position and speed errors - third order poly-
nomial
It is clear from the simulations that higher-order
polynomial intersecting curves yield a set of K
locations which better approximate the nominal
task-space tool trajectory in terms of minimum
task-execution times. The only disadvantage
to higher-order functions is obviously the larger
number of coefficients that have to be optimized.
6. SUMMARY
The concept of using modular systems to con-
figure two-arm robots was introduced. The two
arms are coordinated to move relative to each
other in order to perform a common task in an
optimal manner. A novel method was presented
for the planning of the coordinated motion for a
1-dof redundancy case. This method allows to
determine a pair of conjugate trajectories for the
two end effectors. An extension of this method
was discussed for higher numbers of dof redun-
dancy. An optimization procedure minimizing a
given cost function (the robot motion time in our
case) for this pair of trajectories was described.
For the overall synthesis problem, it will be nec-
essary to consider other variables during the op-
timization, for example, relative distance between
the two bases or the link lengths. The use of the
dynamics model of the system is also necessary to
take into account the dynamics constraints .
... ...
TI_
...
Co )
• o. .o. o •
7. REFERENCES
Cohen, R ., M.G. Lipton , M.Q. Dai and B. Ben-
habib (1992). Conceptual design of a modular
robot. ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design
114, 117-125.
Craigan, C.R. and D.L. Akin (1989). Optimal
force distribution for payload positioning us-
ing a planar dual-arm robot. ASME, Journal
of Dynamical System, Measurement and Con-
trol 111 , 205- 210 .
o • •
Jouaneh, M.K., Z. Wang and D.A. Dornfeld
0 .0 •• O '
Tl .. , c. )
(1990). Trajectory planning for coordinated
motion of a robot and a positioning table:
part 1 - path specification. IEEE Journal on
Robotics and Automation 6 , 735- 745.
Nelder , J. A. and R . Mead (1964). A simple
method for function minimization. The Com-
puter Journal 7 , 308-313.
Tabarah , E. , B. Benhabib, R.G. Fenton and
G. Hexner (1992). Optimal trajectory resolu-
tion for the coordination of two robots in con-
. '. 0.. ._ tact operations. Proc . ASME 22nd Biennial
to ... c. )
Mechanisms Conference 45 , 455-46 0.
Tabarah , E., V. Taussac , E. Dombre and B.
Benhabib (1993). Optimal trajectory planning
for coordinated two-arm modular robotic sys-
tems. Proc. International Conference on Ad-
vanced Robotics pp. 617-622.
Tarn, T.J., A.K. Bejczy and Z.F. Li (1988). Dy-
namic workspace analysis of two cooperating
robot arms. Proc. A merican Control Confer-
ence 1 , 489- 498.
Tesar , D. and M.S. Butler (1989). A genera-
lized modular architecture for robot struc-
tures . ASME, Journal of Manufacturing Re-
view 2 , 91-117.
Zheng, Y.F. and J.Y.S. Luh (1988). Optimal load
distribution for two industrial robots handling
a single object. Proc. IEEE International Con-
ference on Robotics and Automation pp . 344-
349.
931