Contact Formations and Design Constraints: A New Basis for the Automatic Generation of Robot Programs

  • Rajiv Desai
  • Jing Xiao
  • Richard A. Volz
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 50)


In order to achieve an ultimate goal of automatically generating assembly programs for robots from design information, it is necessary that one be able to devise part-mating strategies that will work in spite of sensor, control and manufacturing errors. In general, this is almost certainly unachievable. However, if appropriate design and motion constraints relating nominal and error parameters (of the system) are enforced, significant progress can be made. As the first step in our approach, we introduce a concept of contact formations to describe contacts among parts in a system, aiming at reducing the dimensionality of assembly verification. We also describe a technique for identifying contact formations in spite of system errors. Next, we develop a replanning strategy together with design and motion constraints sufficient to guarantee the success of the strategy for certain insertion tasks. The constraints are reasonable in the sense that they do not impose unrealistic conditions on typical designs. Simulation results uphold the theoretical derivations and show empirically that the theoretical constraints can be relaxed somewhat with excellent results still obtained.


Contact Force Line Contact Contact Formation Design Constraint Motion Error 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    T. Lozano-Perez. Task planning. In M. Brady, J. M. Hollerbach, T. L. Johnson, T. Lozano-Perez, and M.T. Mason, editors, Robot Motion Planning and Control, MIT Press, May 1983.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Canny. Collision detection for moving polyhedra. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-8(2):200, March 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. Lozano-Perez. A simple motion-planning algorithm for general robot manipulators. IEEE J. Robotics and Automation, RA-3(3):244, June 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    V.J. Lumelsky. Effect of kinematics on motion planning for planer robot arenas moving amidst unknown obstacles. IEEE J. Robotics and Automation, RA-3(3):207, June 1987.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    R.A. Brooks and T. Lozano-Perez. A subdivision algorithm in configuration space for findpath with rotation. IEEE Trans, on SMC, 15(2):224–233, March 1985.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    T. Lozano-Perez and M. Wesley. An algorithm for planning collision-free paths among polyhedral obstacles. Comm. ACM, 22(10):560–570, October 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    T. Lozano-Perez. Automatic planning of manipulator transfer movements. Artificial Intelligence Lab, MIT, December 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J. Barber, R. Volz, R. Desai, R. Rubinfeld, B. Schipper, and J. Wolter. Automatic evaluation of two-fingered grips. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, RA-3(4):356–361, August 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    R.C. Brost. Automatic grasp planning in the presence of uncertainty. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1575, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. R. Cutkowsky. Robotic Grasping and Fine Manipulation. Kluwer Academic Publ., Boston, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    H. Hanafusa and H. Asada. Stable prehension by a robot hand with elastic fingers. Robot Motion: Planning & Control, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J.W. Jameson. Analytic technique of automated grasp, Phd. dissertation. Stanford Univ, June 1985.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. T. Mason. Manipulator grasping and pushing operations. In M. T. Mason and J. K. Salisbury, editors, Robot Hands and the Mechanics of Manipulation, pages 171–298, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J.D. Wolter, R.A. Volz, and A.C. Woo. Automatic generation of gripping positions. IEEE Trans on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-15(2):204–513, March 1985.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. Gini. Symbolic and qualitative reasoning for error recovery in robot programs. Int. NATO Workshop, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. H. Taylor. The synthesis of manipulator control programs from task-level specifications. Artificial Intelligence Lab, Stanford Univ., July 1976.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R.A. Brooks. Symbolic error analysis and robot planning. International Journal of Robotics Research, 1(4):29, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    B. Dufay and J. C. LaTombf. An approach to automatic robot programming based on inductive learning. August 1983. unpublished.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    T. Lozano-Perez, M. T. Mason, and R. H. Taylor. Automatic synthesis of fine-motion strategies for robots. The International Jour, of Robotics Research, 3(l):3–24, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    M.T. Mason. Automatic planning of fine motions: correctness and completeness. Int. Conf. on Robotic, 492–503, March 1984.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Erdmann. Using backprojections for fine motion planning with uncertainty. The Int’l Journal of Robotics Research, 5(1): 19–45, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    B.R. Donald. Robot motion planning with uncertainty in the geometric models of the robot and environment: a formal framework for error detection and recovery. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf on Robotics and Automation, 1588, 1986.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    D.E. Whitney. Historical perspective and state of the art in robot force control. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, 262, March 1985.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    O. Khatib and J. Burdick. Motion and force control of robot manipulators. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, 1381, 1986.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    M. T. Mason. Compliance and force control for computer controlled manipulators. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-11(6):418–432, June 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    M.T. Mason. Compliant motion. 1982. unpublished.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    M. H. Raibert and J. J. Craig. Hybrid position / force control of manipulators. ASME Jour. of Dynamics Systems, Measurement and Control, 102:126–133, June 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    D. E. Whitney. Force feedback control of manipulator fine motion. ASME Jour. of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, 126–133, June 1977.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    D. E.Whitney. Quasi-static assembly of compliantly supported rigid parts. 1982. unpublished.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    M. Erdmann and M. T. Mason. An exploration of sensorless manipulation. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf on Robotics and Automation, 1569, 1986.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    M.A. Peshkin and A.C. Sanderson. Planning robotic manipulation strategies for sliding objects. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, 696, 1987.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    J.J. Kalker. Numerical contact elastostatics. Preprint of paper presented at Euromech Colloquium No. 110 Contact Problems and Load Transfer in Mechanical Assemblages, September 1977.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    T. Torigaki and N. Kikuchi. Finite element stree analysis of a class of three dimensional contact problems with friction. Canadian Conference on Industrial Computer Systems, May 1984.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    R. Desai. On fine motion in mechanical assembly in presence of uncertainty. Ph.D. Dissertation, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    T. Goto, K. Takeyasu, and T. Inoyama. Control algorithm for precision insert operation robots. IEEE, 19–25, 1980.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    H. Inoue. Computer controlled bilateral manipulator. Bull.JSME, 14(69):199, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    J. Juan and R. P. Paul. Automatic programming of fine-motion for assembly. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf on Robotics and Automation, 1582, 1986.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    E. Vaaler and W. Seering. Automatic assembly with systems having significant manipulator and part location errors. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf Robotics and Automation, 1357, 1987.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    J. Xiao and R. Volz. Design and motion constraints of part-mating planning in the presence of uncertainties, submitted to IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajiv Desai
    • 1
  • Jing Xiao
    • 2
  • Richard A. Volz
    • 2
  1. 1.Jet Propulsion LaboratoryUSA
  2. 2.The Robotics Research Laboratory College of EngineeringThe University of MichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations