Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences &

Computers and Information in Engineering Conference

IDETC/CIE 2014
August 17-20, 2014, Buffalo, New York, USA

DETC2014-35513

DESIGN OF AN UNDERACTUATED ROBOTIC END-EFFECTOR WITH A FOCUS ON

POWER TOOL MANIPULATION

Michael Rouleau Dennis Hong PhD

Virginia Tech University of California Los Angeles
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Los Angeles, California, USA

ABSTRACT
End-effectors require careful design considerations to be
able to successfully hold and use power tools while maintaining
the ability to also grasp a wide range of other objects. This
paper describes the design of an end effector for a humanoid
robot built for disaster response scenarios. The end effector is
comprised of two independently actuated fingers with two
opposing stationary rigid hollow pylons built to allow the
pinching of objects and to provide protection for the opposing
fingers when retracted and not in use. Each finger has two
degrees of freedom (DOF) and is actuated with one servo motor
through the use of an underactuated four bar linkage. Using
only two fingers and two actuators the end-effector has the
ability to hold a power tool while also being able to
simultaneously actuate the trigger of the tool independently.
The combination of compliant fingers and rigid pylons along
with the careful design of the palm structure creates a strong Figure 1: The end effector attached to its wrist joint. The parts
robust dexterous end-effort that is simple to control. are machined from Aluminum 6061.

1. INTRODUCTION A number of groups have investigated robotic end effectors

The end-effector shown in Figure 1 is designed primarily
for the Tactical Hazardous Operations Robot (THOR) a
humanoid robot built for disaster response. The requirements
of the end-effector are that it must be robust, reliable and able
to manipulate a wide range of objects such as rocks, valves,
levers, door handles, railings, debris, and power tools while
maintaining low weight and size. Manipulating power tools is
an important feature of an end effector because it allows the
robot to use the power, efficiency, and effectiveness of various
power tools designed for humans without spending the time,
energy, and resources required to create individual specialized
end effectors for each specific task.
for dexterous manipulation. Laliberté presented the design of
an underactuated finger mechanism that could grasp a wide
variety of objects [1]. Their work is the inspiration for the end
effector presented in this paper. Bartholet uses a similar linkage
mechanism to drive a trio of underactuated fingers [2].
Townsend presents the design of a cable actuated finger that is
lightweight and low friction [3]. Bicchi presents metrics for
evaluating the quality of a robotic grasp [4-6]. Additionally, a
number of other research teams have explored end-effectors for
robotic applications [7-11].
The DARPA Robotics Challenge is a disaster response
competition that places robots into simulated disaster scenarios.
It includes a wide range of manipulation tasks, some of which
require bi-manual manipulation. For a disaster response robot

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 such as THOR an end effector needs to have the versatility to simple example. Each finger is 85 mm long and is actuated by
manipulate objects of various shapes and sizes. a 3.5 Nm torque at their base through the two Robotis MX-
While the end effector presented in this paper was designed 106R servo motors. If both fingers are opposite each other
to manipulate a wide array of objects, the focus of this paper while pinching a small box at their tips they will apply 41 N on
will be towards the design features which led to the successful either side of the box. Now suppose if both fingers were on the
completion of the end effector’s most difficult task which was same side of the box pushing it into a fixed surface; the box
the manipulation of power tools. Furthermore the focus will be will then have a summed force of 82 N pushing in on either
on the manipulation of a standard corded drill which shares the side. This arrangement significantly increases grip strength by
same primary human interface as many other power tools utilizing reaction forces generated by fixed surfaces and having
which is a cylindrical handle and a trigger. The other goals that the fingers work together instead of against each other.
drove the design of the end-effector was to maintain a low
weight and a small distance from the object to the wrist which
results in a smaller moment arm and thus torque about the wrist
joint.
Section 2 of this paper will provide an overview of the end
effector design. The design of the underactuated finger will be
presented in Section 3, including the linkage shapes and model.
Section 4 will detail the design of the rigid palm, which directs
the manipulation targets to the center of the end effector.
Section 5 shows some testing results of manipulating various
objects, and Section 6 will conclude the paper.

2. DESIGN OVERVIEW
In order to reduce weight and system complexity, the
minimum number of fingers needed to accomplish all the
desired tasks was determined. At least one finger was needed
to hold a power tool and another needed to actuate the trigger.
An underactuated four-bar linkage presented by Laliberté [1]
inspired the finger design which further reduced weight and
system complexity by requiring only one actuator for each two
DOF finger. The end-effector requires a strong grasp due to the
large forces and torques typically applied on tools during their
Figure 2: Explanation of some of the nomenclature used in the
operation. High strength is also needed to hold power tools
paper. Neoprene rubber is used to increase the grip quality of
with one finger which is difficult due to the large often times
the hand. The palm consists of four rails, each split into two
cantilevered weight of power tools such as with corded drills.
distinct sections; an inclined rail and vertical rail. The two
The ability to do this is valuable because it allows the robot to
hollow rigid fingers are referred to as pylons.
carry tools while the second finger is not engaged leaving the
tool’s trigger unpressed. Power tools generate large amounts of
The fingers are positioned so their bottom joints are inline
vibration during operation even when idling which can apply
on the same axis of rotation which increases the simplicity of
extra fatigue on both mechanical and electrical hardware and
controlling and positioning the end-effector while also
also interfere with onboard sensing. The ability to turn on
increasing its symmetry. The final end-effector can successfully
power tools only when needed conserves energy on battery
pick up and hold a cordless drill with one finger and actuate the
operated tools and mitigates the negative effects of vibration
trigger with the other and can then proceed to drill a hole in a
which is especially vital during delicate tasks such as bipedal
wooden block. The end-effector has a mass of 0.960 kg, has a
locomotion with robots like THOR. Having a strong grip also
distance of 45 mm from its bottom to the typical base of an
allows the robot to grasp heavier objects increasing the robots
object being held and can grasp objects ranging in size from a
usefulness.
4”x4” wooden block to an object 20 mm wide. While grasping
In order to increase the strength of the end-effector’s grip
an object with typical contact points the end-effector can supply
without augmenting or adding actuators both fingers are placed
a maximum force of 64 N and 45 N through the distal and
side by side across from two rigid pylons as shown in Figure 2
proximal phalanges respectively of each finger.
as opposed to the more traditional two finger grippers which
typically have both fingers on opposite sides facing each other
3. FINGER DESIGN
in the same plane. If the two fingers are independently
The main functionality of the finger mechanism can be
actuated, this simple design feature can increase the grip
seen in Figure 3. The orange member is driven by a servo
strength of the end-effector up to 100% during certain
motor and the blue member is able to rotate freely about Point
operations. The justification of this claim can be shown with a

2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 O1
1
2
O
Figure 3: The four-bar underactuated
Figure 3: The mechanism
underactuated
used
mechanism
in both fingers.
member is actuated directly from the motor. A compression spring is located between Points 1 & 2.
O. When contact between an object is not present a
compression spring connected to Points 1 and 2 forces the
finger to remain rigid by pushing the distal phalange into a
mechanical stop. As the finger rotates and the proximal
phalange comes into contact with an object the distal phalange
breaks away from the mechanical stop and rotates about Point
O1 until it also comes into contact with the object. The force
applied to the object through the two contact points is directly
related to the amount of torque applied to the orange member,
but the relationship of the two forces between each other are
dependent on the mechanism geometry. Figure 4 shows this
geometry and the resulting force vectors produced at the distal
and proximal contact points which are Fj and Fk respectively.
Figure 4: The schematic of the four-bar finger mechanism
presented by Laliberté [1]
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
used inPoint
the finger
O is stationary and the orange
The design of the finger was driven by two primary
goals. The distal phalange had to supply enough force to
completely pull the triggers on various power tools and
secondly both phalanges of the fingers should remain in contact
with and supply forces on the object being held to ensure a
secure and stable grasp. These two goals were accomplished
by selecting appropriate dimensions for the four-bar
mechanism.
3.1 Finger Shape
A small survey of handle sizes and shapes showed there is
substantial variance in crucial dimensions that had to be taken
into consideration to ensure successful trigger pulling for a
broad range of tools. The survey consisted of an assortment of
five different power tool handles. The distance from the back
of the handle to the front of the trigger and the handle width for
the five tools varied by 18 mm and 12 mm respectively.
Figure 5a shows the two extreme cases of these two
dimensions along with the resulting orientation of a flat edge
finger attempting to pull the trigger. The variance in the
dimensions cause the distal phalange to contact the triggers at
extreme angles causing a substantial portion of the produced
force to be wasted on vectors perpendicular to the trigger axis.
With this design pulling the triggers on various tools may
become impossible depending on the friction between the
finger and trigger. The solution used to fix this issue can be
seen in Figure 5b. By introducing an offset between the handle
and Point O1 the angle of the force vector produced by the
distal phalange becomes shallower in respect to the trigger axis
and therefore more favorable. As Point O1 is moved further
from the handle, the length of the moment arm about Point O1
increases leading to a decrease in Fj so a careful balance
between the two concepts had to be found. The offset is created
by adding a small protruding bump on the proximal phalange as
shown in Figure 3 which leads to a design that is more robust to
varying handle sizes.
3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

O1
O1
(a) (b)
Figure 5: A demonstration of how adding an offset to the
proximal phalange can move the pivot point of the distal
phalange to a more favorable position.
A small circular bump was also added to the tip of the
distal phalange increasing the probability of making contact at
that location which is favorable while contacting many objects.
Although offset bumps were used on both phalanges in this
design, the force and kinematic studies were done using a
simple flat edge model like the one shown in Figure 4 to
decrease the complexity of the calculations and models. The
justification lays in an assumption that the addition of the
circular bumps will in most cases increase the grip forces at the
contact points as opposed to decrease them due to effects of
wedging meaning the force results presented in this paper are
assumed to be conservative and real grip strength to be larger
than predicted. This assumption however is unproven and will
be a focus for future work and research.
3.2 Finger Model
Using Figure 4 with Member A serving as an input the
kinematic solution of the system can easily be found by solving
the loop equation for a traditional four-bar mechanism.
By assuming zero friction, massless members, and only
one contact point per phalange and by neglecting the spring
forces a simple kinetic solution of the system can be found by
solving the system of equation resulting from an x-y component
force summation for each member which has been done here.
The system of equations is solved using a numerical
computation program and as a result a symbolic expression for
Fj and Fk cannot easily be attained. Laliberté though presents
an alternative method for solving the kinetic model using
virtual work allowing for the symbolic expression of Fj and Fk.
When making the same assumptions presented above there
only exists one value of jc for a given value of θ which results
in a stable grasp when the proximal phalange is not in contact
with the object (𝐹𝑘 = 0) where jc is the distance from Point O1
to the contact point of the distal phalange and θ is the angle
between the two phalanges. This circumstance is the result of
the three force vectors applied to the distal phalange
intersecting at the same point and the special value of jc at
which this occurs can be represented by e and can be calculated
with the following equation [1],
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
𝑒 = 𝑐 cos(𝜃) (cos(𝜃 − 𝜓) − sin(𝜃 − 𝜓)) cot 𝛽 (1)
When contact is made with only the distal phalange, it will
roll along the object while moving the contact point in the
direction that enables jc to converge to e which results in a
stable grasp once fully converged. When contact is made above
e, θ tends to decrease pushing the proximal phalange towards
the object until it makes contact in which case both phalanges
apply force to the object resulting in stable favorable grasp. If
θ reaches zero before contact is made with the proximal
phalange a mechanical stop is struck and the finger locks into a
rigid configuration and acts as a simple clamp mechanism. The
third scenario is if jc reaches e before contacting the proximal
phalange or reaching the mechanical stop in which case the
finger only contacts the object with the distal phalange. Even
though this scenario results in a stable grasp it is typically
unfavorable for this particular application because the grasp is
susceptible to side loads and torqueing of the object.
When contact is made below e, θ tends to increase pulling
the proximal phalange away from the object until jc converges
to e resulting in a one phalange grasp which is unfavorable
again due to the above reason. In the occasion of e being
located off of the surface of the distal phalange (e>j, where j is
the length of the distal phalange) a situation known as ejection
occurs as the contact point slides to the tip of the finger until it
eventually slides off and contact is lost [1]. It should be noted
that e is not stationary and varies with respect to θ and is
constantly sliding along the phalange as jc attempts to converge.
Through careful design a favorable grasp is achieved by
striving to make e as low as possible to increase the probability
of making contact with an object well above this point resulting
in either a stable pinch (θ = 0) or a stable two phalange grasp (θ
>0) as opposed to a one phalange grasp or object ejection.
Typically as e is decreased in a design Fk increases but Fj
decreases. As mentioned previously Fj must remain large
enough to successfully pull the triggers of power tools. A
balance must be made between these two opposing concepts by
first determining the required force needed to pull various
power tool triggers.
The small sample survey mentioned earlier also measured
the force required to pull the various triggers of the assorted
power tools. The largest required trigger force in the sample
was about 18 N. The maximum angle between the trigger axis
and force vector Fj is expected in a worst case scenario to be
40° based on conservative estimates of predicted finger
dimensions and the measured sample handle sizes. Accounting
for the possible 40° angle offset from the trigger axis and the
addition of a factor of safety of 2.0 to account for possible
friction between the trigger and distal phalange and other
unforeseeable factors the design must supply a minimum distal
phalange force, Fj, of 47 N throughout the angle it comes into
contact with the trigger (60< θ <100°).
The finger lengths j and k were kept short enough to ensure
they would not come into contact with the pylons but long
enough to supply an adequate encompassing grasp around the
4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 key objects mentioned in the introduction. The lengths j and k
were chosen to be 35 mm and 50 mm respectively through
geometrical analysis with computer aided design (CAD)
software using models of the desired objects to be grasped. By
using the numerical computation program mentioned earlier the
remaining dimensions of the finger mechanism were
determined iteratively by modifying the link lengths a, b, and c
and angle ψ and analyzing the resulting force curves for Fj and
Fk and for the e-curve over the desired range of θ which was
0<θ<100°.
The goal of this iterative process was to decrease e while
maintaining the minimum force needed for Fj over the range
60<θ<100° as previously discussed. A solution set of
dimensions that accomplished these goals can be found in Table
1. These dimensions are used in the current design presented in
this paper.
The force curves for Fj and Fk are both dependent on the
location of the contact points jc and kc. Figure 7 shows the
typical case when contact is made at the center of both bumps
on the distal and proximal phalanges; jc = 35 mm and kc = 40
mm. The resulting force curves accomplish the desired goals
and it can be seen the force produced by the proximal phalange,
Fk, is large and close to Fj leading to a relatively uniform and
encompassing grasp which is often favorable.
90
Fk
80 Fj
70
60

Force (N)
50
Table 1: The dimensions selected for the finger geometry in
relation to the geometry presented in Figure 4. 40
Dimension Value
30
a 22 mm
b 35 mm 20

c 8 mm 10

j 37 mm
k 50 mm
ψ 150°
The e value over the full range of motion of the distal
phalange can be seen in Figure 6 for the selected set of
dimensions in Table 1. The maximum value of which is 19
mm. For most cases the distal phalange will not contact any
object below 20 mm due to the interference caused by the offset
bump used on the proximal phalange, which fulfills the goal of
always preferring to make contact above e. In most cases the
contact of the proximal phalange will be located around 40 mm
because it is the location of the center of the proximal bump
and is the furthest point protruding from the phalange.
20
10
0
e (mm)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
 (deg)
Figure 7: The values of Fj and Fk blue and green respectively,
over the range of motion of the distal phalange for the common
case when jc = 35 mm and kc = 40 mm. When θ is at its
maximum value (100°) Fj and Fk are also at their local
maximum values which are 64 N and 45 N respectively.
4. PALM STRUCTURE DESIGN
The finger design is matched with a specialized palm that
is designed to hold objects in desirable positions regardless of
size and shape. Using the sample set of handle dimensions in
the sample survey the palm structure was designed to position
the handles in a way that allows the finger to apply force on
both the side and top of a broad range of handle shapes as
depicted in Figure 8d. The two pylons support four vertical
rails which are across from four inclined rails as shown in
Figure 2. The inclined rails create both horizontal reaction
force components as well as vertical components when force is
applied through the distal phalange on the top of an object as

-10 also depicted in Figure 8d resulting in a more secure grasp.

The vertical rails supply a fixed surface for returning horizontal
-20 reaction forces for various shaped objects.

-30

-40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
 (deg)

Figure 6: The value of e over the range of motion of the distal

phalange

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Workspace
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 8: (a) The workspace of the hand dictated by the finger
and palm geometry, (b) a small 30 mm diameter cylinder being
pinched, (c) the grip strategy used for the grasping of a 4x4
piece of lumber, (d) a power tool handle of typical size being
grasped with the distal phalanx in an opportune position to pull
the trigger.
The pocket of empty space shown in Figure 9 has been
intentionally left vacant to allow room for the butt of power
tools which commonly have handles at backward facing angle
as shown in Figure 10a. When the handle is grasped vertically
the butt of the tool tends to protrude into the top of the hand,
the pocket though allows this collision to be avoided.
Figure 10b shows the scenario in which the back side of
some power tool handles are curved with radius r. When the
handle is grasped its backside tends to make contact at its
furthest protruding point which in this case is the center of the
handle leading to an unstable grasp. To mitigate this issue the
two inner inclined rails shown in Figure 2 are lower than the
two outside rails which allows the backside of the handle to rest
on the two outer rails resulting in a more stable grasp. This
feature can also be utilized when grasping other large round
objects.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Empty Space
Dimples
Figure 9: The fingers are protected by the hollow pylons when
they are not in use. The pylons and dimples give the hand a
broad stable base to push on.
Many power tools’ operation involves pushing the tool tip
into a surface parallel to the handle such as with a drill. The
palm structure was designed to position the force vector from
this action, which can become relatively large, through the
center of the wrist joint to decrease the torque applied to the
wrist actuators. To accommodate the desired finger and palm
positions and shapes the two servo motors were placed in an
“L” shape in between the fingers to allow unobstructed rotation
of the fingers about Point O and to sustain a small distance
from the base of an object being held to the wrist joint which
again reduces torque applied to the wrist joint when the forearm
is not perpendicular to the ground.
r
Φ < 90°
(a) (b)
Figure 10: Two features of power tool handles which were
taken into consideration while designing the palm structure. (a)
The shape of a fire hose nozzle in which φ is less than 90°, (b)
the shape of a power drill in which the back side of the handle
is curved with radius r.
As shown in Figure 9 the fingers can be retracted into the
rigid pylons when not in use which protect the fingers from
unnecessary impacts and damage. The dimples also protect the
bottom of the fingers by protruding in the direction of potential
collisions with other surfaces. When the fingers are retracted,
the tips of the rigid pylons and the dimples shown in Figure 9
6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 were designed to supply a flat wide base for the robot to place
on the ground for extra support during four-limb crawling or
during attempts to stand up after sustaining a fall.

5. TESTING
The end effector’s true functionality was tested after
fabrication. The end-effector can reliably and successfully pick
up and hold a cordless drill with one finger while waving it in
many different orientations. It can actuate all the triggers of the
power tools used in the sample survey and securely hold a
cordless drill while sustaining the stresses produced during the
task of drilling multiple holes in wooden boards.
The end effector has two main grasping modes a full grasp
(θ > 0) and a pinching mode (θ = 0). The full grasp mode is
designed to supply a strong encompassing grasp while always
making contact with both distal and proximal phalanges. As
shown in Figure 11 this mode is capable of securely grasping
large and irregular shaped objects.

Figure 12: A demonstration of the collapsible trait of the finger

and its ability to pinch small objects by picking up a marker

6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

Figure 11: The end effector manipulating a battery powered
drill, a 4”x4” piece of lumber, and an aluminum truss section.
By contacting objects with only the distal phalange above
the location of e results in a pinching mode where θ remains
equal to zero and the object is pushed into the tips of the rigid
pylons. The rigid towers are augmented with angled v-shaped
rails which supply two points of contact per rail for smaller
objects resulting in a more secure hold than would be achieved
with flat straight rails. The underactuation of the fingers allows
them to utilize a collapsing action when the tips come into
contact with a surface. The collapsing feature mitigates the
damage caused by impacts and allows for positioning error of
the end effector while grabbing an object on a surface as shown
in Figure 12.
This paper presents an end-effector that is capable of
securely grasp a broad range of objects commonly found in
disaster response scenarios. A focus was placed on power tool
manipulation which drove the size of the hand. The end effector
accomplished its primary goals while maintaining low weight
and size. The use of only two fingers and two actuators allows
the hand to be easily controlled and the relative simple design,
low number of DOF’s, and additional protection of the pylons
allow the end-effector to be robust and reliable.
There are many areas for future investigations regarding
this end effector. First the assumption stated at the end of
Section 3.1 should be investigated. The wedging effects
described in that section could potentially increase the grip
strength of underactuated hands. Exploring the use of a
compact gear train could increase the torque applied to the
fingers. While the linkages proved to be effective, there could
be a further optimization of the finger mechanism. A further
investigation into reducing the width of the end-effector would
reduce interference from wrist guards used by some power
tools. Finally, removing a pylon to mimic a human hand with
only one protruding thumb could reduce weight and also allow
for the less obtrusive pinching of objects.

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is supported by DARPA through grant N65236-

12-1-1002 and by ONR through grant N00014-11-
1-0074. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their
valuable feedback.

REFERENCES
[1] Laliberté, T., Birglen, L., and Gosselin, C., “Underaction
in Robotic Grasping Hands”. Machine Intelligence &
Robotic Control, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 1-11, 2002.
[2] Bartholet, S., “Reconfigurable End Effector”. U.S. Patent
5 108 140, Apr. 28, 1992.
[3] Townsend, W., “The BarrettHand Grasper –
Programmably Flexible Part Handling and Assembly”.
Industrial Robot: An International Journal, Vol. 27, Iss: 3,
pp. 181-188, 2000.
[4] Bicchi, A. and Kumar, V., “Robotic Grasping and Contact:
A Review”. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1, pp. 348-353, 2000.
[5] Bicchi, A., “Hands for Dextrous Manipulation and Robust
Grasping: a Difficult Road Toward Simplicity”. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 16, Iss. 6,
pp. 652-662.
[6] Bicchi, A., “On the Closure Properties of Robotic
Grasping”. The international Journal of Robotics
Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 319-334, 1995.
[7] Lovchik, C. and Diftler, M., “The Robonaut Hand: A
Dexterous Robot Hand for Space”. Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Robotics &
Automation, pp. 907-912, 1999.
[8] Jacobsen, S., et al., “Design of the Utah/M.I.T. Dextrous
Hand”. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 1520-1532, 1986.
[9] Ulrich, N., Paul, R., and Bajcsy, R., “A Medium-
Complexity Compliant End Effector”. Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, pp. 434-436, 1988.
[10] Crisman, J., Kanojia, C., and Zeid, I., “Graspar: A
Flexible, Easily Controllable Robotic Hand”. IEEE
Robotics and Automation Magazine, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 32-
38, 1996.
[11] Ruoff, C. and Salisbury, K., “Multi-Fingered Robotic
Hand”. U.S. Patent 4 921 293, May 1, 1990.

8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/31/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use