Research Papers

Analysis of Optimal Balancing for Robotic Manipulators in Repetitive Motions

[+] Author and Article Information
Amin Nikoobin

Robotics and Control Lab,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Semnan University,
Semnan 3513119111, Iran
e-mail: anikoobin@semnan.ac.ir

Mojtaba Moradi

Faculty of Computer and Electrical Engineering,
Semnan University,
Semnan 3513119111, Iran
e-mail: moradi.moj@gmail.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT,AND CONTROL. Manuscript received January 18, 2017; final manuscript received December 13, 2017; published online March 7, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Yunjun Xu.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 140(8), 081002 (Mar 07, 2018) (8 pages) Paper No: DS-17-1034; doi: 10.1115/1.4039155 History: Received January 18, 2017; Revised December 13, 2017

Balancing plays a major role in performance improvement of robotic manipulators. From an optimization point of view, some balancing parameters can be modified to decrease motion cost. Recently introduced, this concept is called optimal balancing: an umbrella term for static balancing and other balancing methods. In this method, the best combination of balancing and trajectory planning is sought. In this note, repetitive full cycle motion of robot manipulators including different subtasks is considered. The basic idea arises from the fact that, upon changing dynamic equations of a robotic manipulator or cost functions in subtasks, the entire cycle of motion must be reconsidered in an optimal balancing problem. The possibility of cost reduction for a closed contour in potential fields is shown by some simulations done for a PUMA-like robot. Also, the obtained results show 34.8% cost reduction compared to that of static balancing.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Zhang, Q. , and Zhao, M.-Y. , 2016, “ Minimum Time Path Planning of Robotic Manipulator in Drilling/Spot Welding Tasks,” J. Comput. Des. Eng., 3(2), pp. 132–139.
Gosselin, C. , and Foucault, S. , 2014, “ Dynamic Point-to-Point Trajectory Planning of a Two-DOF Cable-Suspended Parallel Robot,” IEEE Trans. Rob., 30(3), pp. 728–736. [CrossRef]
Spielberg, A. , Araki, B. , Sung, C. , Tedrake, R. , and Rus, D. , 2017, “ Functional Co-Optimization of Articulated Robots,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Singapore, May 29–June 3, pp. 5035–5042.
von Stryk, O. , and Bulirsch, R. , 1992, “ Direct and Indirect Methods for Trajectory Optimization,” Ann. Oper. Res., 37(1), pp. 357–373. [CrossRef]
Nikoobin, A. , and Moradi, M. , 2017, “ Indirect Solution of Optimal Control Problems With State Variable Inequality Constraints: Finite Difference Approximation,” Robotica, 35(1), pp. 50–72. [CrossRef]
Gasparetto, A. , Lanzutti, A. , Vidoni, R. , and Zanotto, V. , 2011, “ Validation of Minimum Time-Jerk Algorithms for Trajectory Planning of Industrial Robots,” ASME J. Mech. Rob., 3(3), p. 031003. [CrossRef]
Ghanaatpishe, M. , and Fathy, H. K. , 2017, “ On the Structure of the Optimal Solution to a Periodic Drug-Delivery Problem,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, 139(7), p. 071001. [CrossRef]
Pappalardo, C. M. , and Guida, D. , 2017, “ Adjoint-Based Optimization Procedure for Active Vibration Control of Nonlinear Mechanical Systems,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, 139(8), p. 081010. [CrossRef]
Wang, Z. , and Li, Y. , 2017, “ An Indirect Method for Inequality Constrained Optimal Control Problems,” IFAC PapersOnLine, 50(1), pp. 4070–4075. [CrossRef]
Fabien, B. C. , 2013, “ Indirect Solution of Inequality Constrained and Singular Optimal Control Problems Via a Simple Continuation Method,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, 136(2), p. 021003. [CrossRef]
Diken, H. , 1995, “ Effect of Mass Balancing on the Actuator Torques of a Manipulator,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 30(4), pp. 495–500. [CrossRef]
Boisclair, J. , Richard, P.-L. , Laliberté, T. , and Gosselin, C. , 2017, “ Gravity Compensation of Robotic Manipulators Using Cylindrical Halbach Arrays,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, 22(1), pp. 457–464. [CrossRef]
Arakelian, V. , 2017, “ Inertia Forces and Moments Balancing in Robot Manipulators: A Review,” Adv. Rob., 31(14), pp. 717–726. [CrossRef]
Moradi, M. , Nikoobin, A. , and Azadi, S. , 2010, “ Adaptive Decoupling for Open Chain Planar Robots,” Sci. Iran. Trans. B, 17(5), pp. 376–386. http://scientiairanica.sharif.edu/article_3336.html
Herman, P. , 2008, “ Dynamical Couplings Reduction for Rigid Manipulators Using Generalized Velocity Components,” Mech. Res. Commun., 35(8), pp. 553–561. [CrossRef]
Nikoobin, A. , and Moradi, M. , 2011, “ Optimal Balancing of Robot Manipulators in Point-to-Point Motion,” Robotica, 29(02), pp. 233–244. [CrossRef]
Nikoobin, A. , Moradi, M. , and Esmaili, A. , 2013, “ Optimal Spring Balancing of Robot Manipulators in Point-to-Point Motion,” Robotica, 31(4), pp. 611–621. [CrossRef]
Ansari, A. , and Murphey, T. , 2015, “ Minimum Sensitivity Control for Planning With Parametric and Hybrid Uncertainty,” Int. J. Rob. Res., 35(7), pp. 823–839.
Kierzenka, J. , and Shampine, L. F. , 2001, “ A BVP Solver Based on Residual Control and the Matlab PSE,” ACM Trans. Math. Software (TOMS), 27(3), pp. 299–316. [CrossRef]
Kebria, P. M. , Abdi, H. , and Nahavandi, S. , 2016, “ Development and Evaluation of a Symbolic Modelling Tool for Serial Manipulators With Any Number of Degrees of Freedom,” IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Budapest, Hungary, Oct. 9–12, p. 004223.
Herman, P. , 2009, “ Dynamical Couplings Analysis of Rigid Manipulators,” Meccanica, 44(1), pp. 61–70. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A general repetitive task with its subtasks and OCP parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Material handling (left) and arc gluing (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Heaviside-like functions defined for abstraction of tasks

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

A schematic of the considered PUMA-like robot

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Optimal trajectories for the cases of: (a) normal (unbalanced), (b) static, and (c) optimal

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Angular velocity of the joints for the (a) normal, (b) static, and (c) optimal cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Applied torques onto the joints for the (a) normal, (b) static, and (c) optimal cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of cost values for the normal, static, and optimal cases



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In