Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
August 21-24, 2016, Charlotte, North Carolina
MECHANICAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A WHEELCHAIR MOUNTED ROBOTIC
ARM WITH ADAPTABLE GRIPPER AND REMOTE ACTUATION SYSTEM
Matthew Ahlstedt Carter Duling
Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering
Wichita State University Wichita State University
Wichita, KS USA Wichita, KS USA
Email: mgahlstedt@wichita.edu Email: caduling@wichita.edu
ABSTRACT
Majority of wheelchair users experience upper-body mus-
cular weakness, resulting from neuromuscular diseases, which
limit their ability to perform common activities of daily living. A
Wheelchair Mounted Robotic Arm (WMRA) will assist these in-
dividuals to eat, drink, and move objects as needed. This paper
presents the design of a new WMRA as well as the analysis of
its function. The design is side-mounted onto either a normal or
power wheelchair, and incorporates a slim profile to allow ease
of passage through doorways and be otherwise unobtrusive. The
arm is easily removable, with assistance, for storage or travel.
The mechanical design utilizes a belt and pulley system for re-
mote actuation of each joint, driven by DC Gearmotors located
in the base of the arm. This helps to shift the weight closer to
the wheelchair and to maintain the required speed, torque and
inertia while actively driving each joint of the robot. The end-
effector is a unique design, intended to have the adaptability to
securely lift a large variety of objects. Grasping simulations were
performed on several standard objects which might be encoun-
tered daily. Structural, kinematic and workspace analyses are
conducted, and results confirm that the designed WMRA is rated
to lift a 4 kg payload, while also having a reach of 1.3 meters
long radius.
Index Terms: WMRA, ADL, Assistive Devices, Assistive
Technology
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
IDETC/CIE 2016
DETC2016-60408
Yimesker Yihun
Wichita State University
Wichita, KS USA
Email: yimesker.yihun@wichita.edu
INTRODUCTION
In 2013, 50.7% of Americans age 75+ were classified as
having a disability; considering all Americans, 7.1% had am-
bulatory disabilities, who potentially need wheelchairs or other
mobility assistance devices [1]. Assistive technology systems in
collaboration with humans, have the potential to greatly increase
both productivity and quality of life. WMRAs hold a promis-
ing future in helping the elderly and people with disability. The
idea of a robotic arm with an articulated hand designed to assist
elderly and people with disability is not new [2–6]. But it has
yet to be refined to an efficient and feasible device. For instance,
the two different commercially available models, the Manus and
the Raptor models, which were compared and analyzed at the
University of Florida provide an indication of what need to be
considered in the design [6]. The Manus model is mounted to
the left of the users left knee, and has a fairly large base [7]. This
makes the arm obtrusive and can hinder the users activities and
movements. It also seems to be heavy and not easily removable
from the wheelchair. This arm has limited extension, so pick-
ing objects up off the floor is fairly limited. The Raptor model
has only 4 degrees of freedom (DOF) compared to the 6 DOF of
the Manus [8]. However, the Raptor is smaller and less obtru-
sive. It is mounted to the right of the right knee, but further back
in the wheelchair, near the midpoint of the seat, this makes the
wheelchair slightly wider and more difficult to fit through door-
ways and tight spaces. These show that size is still a problem,
and that a design for a smaller, modular robotic arm is neces-
sary [6,7,9,10]. In general, WMRA design should accommodate
1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
 several parameters such as, the capability to pick up and move
objects with no or minimal vibration, be extendable, easily con-
trollable, lightweight, and be able to attach to a wheelchair easily
and not hinder the users normal activities to name a few. In addi-
tion to these, it should be affordable by the majority of users. The
current commercially available WMRAs are mostly prohibitive
in price, ranging from approximately $5,000 up-to $40,000, or FIGURE 1. The general layout of the WMRA in extended and folded
restricted in functionality with relation to the cost [11–13]. position
The focus of this paper is to discuss a new WMRA de-
sign that addresses many of the limitations in the WMRA indus-
Arm Base Swivel Joint
try while maintaining the required functionalities. In an effort
The base consists of a stationary motor mount clamp,
to address the limitations of existing solutions, the research fo-
mounted to the wheelchair, and carries the complete arm assem-
cused on greatly reducing the price of the robotic arm, as well
bly as shown in Fig.(2). The complete arm assembly will pivot
as making it easy to operate. The proposed design integrates
around a shaft supported by a thrust and axial bearings. The arm
well with the existing wheelchair with no modification on the
swivel joint is driven by a 10 RPM, 127 ozf-in DC gear-motor.
wheelchair design and with no effect on the maneuverability of
The output torque, after gear reduction is 482.6 ozf-in. This mo-
the wheelchair. The proposed WMRA has 5 DOF and is rated
tor can be substituted for a higher torque motor if the frequent
to lift a 4 kg payload, while also having a reach of 1.3 meters
use of the arm for heavy objects (near 4kg) is expected. The up-
wide. The design is side mounted to either a normal or power
per housing is bolted to the 76 tooth spur gear. The spur gear
wheelchair and incorporates a slim profile to allow ease of pas-
is mounted to the 0.5 inch shaft using a 0.5 inch clamping hub.
sage through doorways and be otherwise unobtrusive. The arm
Two mounted thrust bearings support the shaft. The top half of
is easily removable, with assistance, for storage or travel. The
the wall of the lower housing opposite the mounting clamp is re-
mechanical design utilizes a belt and pulley system for remote
movable to provide a clear access to the motors, cables and joint
actuation of each joint, driven by DC Gearmotors located in the
pulleys for a simple maintenance without having a major disas-
base of the arm. The unique hand gripper design allows for the
sembly.
grasping of small and non uniform objects such as a house key or
a cell phone. The highly functional WMRA design is relatively
lightweight and cost effective.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE ROBOTIC ARM

Design Requirements
The mechanical design of this wheelchair mounted robotic
arm was established based on the following criteria: 1) be able
to lift a 4kg object, 2) be able to grasp a variety of objects with
respect to geometry and size, 3) be able to expend up to 1 meter
long or more, 4) be able to fold up and otherwise be unobtrusive
to the operator while not in use, 5) affordability, 6) Must be rel-
atively lightweight (under 5kg weight), 7) Must have desirable
range of motion to accomplish everyday tasks, such as feeding,
picking up objects from the ground, bringing objects to operators
reach, removing or placing objects on a shelf or counter-top.
Detail Design
To maintain lightweight, durability and affordability of the
robotic arm, the components are built from aluminum sheets.
The hollow structure built from the aluminum sheet adds safety
and aesthetic value to the arm by hiding the pulleys, cables and
belts. The general design layout of the WMRA is shown at
Fig.(1).
FIGURE 2. View of the arm swivel joint mechanism. The housings
are transparent for clarity. Quick connect pins are shown through the
flange and the cylinder of the mounting assembly.
Shoulder Joint
The shoulder joint requires the highest torque due to the
large moment created from the distance to the center of the load.
The motor selected to provide the required torque is a NEMA
24Y504S stepper motor, paired with a worm and worm gear
mechanism that provides a 1:50 gear ratio. The output torque
of this system is 21,550 ozf-in, or 152 N-m, before accounting
for frictional losses and other inefficiencies. The worm is fixed
to the shaft using a pin, and the shaft is fit into high-load oil-
embedded flanged sleeve bearings along with collars to transmit

2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the high axial forces to the structural housing. The gear cover is
attached to the shoulder joint motor housing using 8-32 machines
screws Fig.(3). The necessary torque at this joint was found dur-
ing the simulations to be 732 lbf-in, or 11,712 ozf-in, when the
arm is fully extended and all other joints are locked. Based on
a mechanical gear efficiency calculated to be .5647, the torque
supplied by the motor should be efficient for the worst case.
FIGURE 3. Close up views of the shoulder, elbow and wrist motors,
gear mechanisms and attached pulley systems. The wheelchair mount-
ing clamp assembly is also shown. The housings are transparent for
clarity. The wheelchair is omitted from the front view.
Elbow Joint
The elbow joint is driven by a pulley system, with the motor
housed in the base of the arm to keep the center of mass lower on
the arm and prevent higher torque needed in the shoulder joint
(Fig.(3)). The motor drives a gear system which is fixed to a tim-
ing pulley, which in turn drives the belt. The motor specifications
are given in Tab.(2). The large spur gear and timing pulley ro-
tate freely about the shaft with a close running clearance fit with
appropriate lubrication. The timing pulley, shown in Fig.(4) is
fixed to the mounting hub and both are fixed to the shaft, which
in turn is fixed to the upper arm section. The shaft is free to rotate
within the u-bracket on the lower arm section.
FIGURE 4. The elbow joint is powered via the motor located in the
base and belt ran inside the arm.
3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Wrist Tilt Joint
The wrist tilt joint is operated in the same manner as joint
elbow joint. The only difference is the layout of the pulley sys-
tem, in the wrist tilt joint, the timing belts are fixed to each other
and are free to rotate about the shaft (Fig.(5). The timing pul-
ley is fixed to the shaft using a set screw and the shaft is fixed
to mounting hubs and the upper u-bracket. The timing belt is
routed through the upper arm section using two 0.25 inch shafts
which are allowed to rotate with appropriate lubrication to lower
inefficiencies in the system. If needed, bearings can be included
to further reduce frictional losses.
FIGURE 5. View of Wrist Tilt Joint and Hand Rotation Joint. The
arm structure and u-brackets are transparent for clarity
Gripper Assembly
The end effector contains three fingers (Fig.(6)), which are
lined with rubber hemispheres to provide friction for gripping
various surfaces. The fingers are driven by a worm and worm
gear mechanism which provides a maximum output torque of
32.1 N-m (4,590 ozf-in), or a 109.2 N (24.56 lbf) force at the tip
of the finger for the ideal case, before frictional losses. This is
enough force to lift a 4kg object at the tip of the finger, if desired.
The worm gear mechanism was chosen in order to provide a high
output torque while minimizing the size and weight of the motor
needed. Another benefit from this mechanism is due to the fact
that such mechanisms cannot be back driven, so that the load can
be held without requiring additional torque from the motor.
CAD simulations demonstrate the practical uses of the grip-
per, such as the grasping of a standard house key, grasping a
standard 10-inch dining plate, grasping and turning a doorknob
at 80ozf-in, the gripping of a standard water bottle, and the grip-
ping of a 5 inch diameter sphere as shown in Fig.(7 and 8). The
rubber hemispheres provide enough frictional resistance to hold
the plate at any angle and also provide soft grip to avoid any
damage to the plate or any other delicate object. The design is
also not limited to practical, everyday uses alone; the gripping
mechanism also has the capability to hold objects of non-uniform

FIGURE 6. Gripper mechanism.
FIGURE 7. Gripping a ball, door knob, and a key
FIGURE 8. Gripping a plate and water bottle
shape. The low stiffness of the rubber allow some adaptation to
different shapes and surfaces of objects.
Wheelchair Mounting Assembly
The arm is mounted to the wheelchair using a clamping as-
sembly. The assembly is composed of a two inch diameter cylin-
der, split transversely and bored out to 3/4” to fit around the
wheelchair tubing. A 7/8” hole is drilled radially through the
cylinder and threaded to allow a 7/8” diameter rod to be mounted
to the cylinder, allowing the other end of the rod to be mounted
to a flange. The flange is bolted to the joint O motor enclosure.
4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
There are 1/4” diameter quick release pins inserted through radial
holes in the flange, rod, and cylinder in the respective locations to
prevent rotation. These pins may be removed to allow the flange
to unscrew from the rod, in turn allowing the arm to be easily re-
moved from the wheelchair. The assembly can be seen in Fig.(3)
and (2). Currently the split sections of the cylinder are designed
to be clamped together using two standard two inch clamping u-
bolts, however; a more elaborate or integrated solution will be
developed.
Testing and Simulations
One of the challenges of the assistive robot is the difficulties
of experiments and trials. Since the people involved with the tri-
als have to do the testing, they will fatigue within a low number
of trials. Hundreds or thousands of trials are impossible with this
kind of robot. Therefore, tools for analyzing the assistive robot
are necessary. Nowadays, commercial and open-source software
for robot simulation are broadly available. For an example of the
open-source software, Gazebo was illustrated by N. Koenig and
A. Howard [14] in 2004. In platforms like MATLAB, there also
exist robot simulator tools which L. Lajpah [15] demonstrated
and gives detailed information. For the academic purpose, one of
software which is freely used is RoboAnalyzer. This software is
capable of animating the forward and inverse kinematics which
was demonstrated by R. Sadanand and R.G. Chittawadigi [16].
In this paper, the analysis related to the kinematic of the robot
while performing different tasks have been performed through
CAD system for better visualization and simulation of the tra-
jectory planning for the given desired task. As one of the most
recent tools to both design the optimal control system and path
planning before employing on the physical WMRA is Virtual Re-
ality Modeling Language (VRML) [11]. This simulation creates
an environment that surround the testing object and mimic the
working environment of the physical WMRA. This includes fur-
niture, light switches, and can be as detail as cabinet shelves and
drawers. The simulation enables to visualize the trajectory of the
robot and also the performance of different tasks such as opening
doors, turning switches, picking-placing objects, or accessing the
patient mouth. This section presents the structure, kinematic and
workspace analyses of the designed WMRA. For simplification,
the nomenclature shown in Fig.(9) is used to refer each joint of
the robot arm.
Stress Analysis
The structure failures of the robot are needed to be taken
into account. In 2014, S. Pachaiyappan et al [17] successfully
analyzed the structure properties of a robot with a commercial
software named ANSYS. This software is also used by Z. Luo
et al [18] for optimizing the structure shape of a robot arm. In
this paper, to determine the structural integrity of the arm and
 0.4423 inches of displacement, Fig.(11). This is also account-
ing for the highest stress configuration of the hand, which occurs
when the hand is rotated so that only a single finger is support-
ing the load. The displacement at maximum load is within ac-
ceptable limits, considering the length of the arm (51 inches (1.3
meters)). This analysis assumes all joints are locked, considering
each link as rigidly attached.

FIGURE 9. Nomenclature for each joint on the arm. The dimensions

shown are along the Y-axis only, to illustrate the reach of the arm. The
vertical offset dimensions are not shown as to avoid cluttering the figure

its components under load, a finite element analysis (FEA) was

done using Autodesk Inventor Professional 2012. The individual
joints as well as the entire assembly were analyzed. The material
properties assigned in the analysis are shown in Tab.(1).
FIGURE 11. The FEA of the full assembly with maximum load ap-
TABLE 1. Rated material properties for critical components.
Ultimate
plied. The maximum displacement at the fingertips is 0.4423 inches.
Yield Young’s
Tensile
Material Strength Modulus Parts
Strength
(kpsi) (kpsi)
(kpsi)
Servo block, timing pulleys,
Aluminum 6061 39.913 44.993 10000.00 servo horn,bearings,
arm tubing and u-brackets.
Steel, high strength
40.029 65.021 29028.00
Motor and hand enclosures, The FEA was done on the shaft at joint B, which indicated
low alloy motor bracket, various fasteners.
the maximum Von Mises stress of 15.98 ksi, Fig.(12). Using the
Small gears, shafts,
440C Stainless Steel 100.000 125.000 30000.00
bearings, various fasteners.
same value for yield strength as the previous shaft, the safety
Commercial Bronze 45.000 52.200 16700.00 Worm Gears. factor of the shaft at joint B is 1.88. The shaft in the wrist joint is
the critical component, it has the maximum Von Mises stress of
16.8 kpsi on the shaft Fig.(13). This is mainly due to the shafts
The shaft for joint A has been found to have a maximum
diameter of only one quarter inch, which can be designed with a
von Mises stress of 14 ksi under maximum load of 4kg, Fig.(10).
slightly higher safety factor rating with the expense of size and/or
Using a conservative value of 30 ksi for the yield strength of the
cost. At joint O the maximum stress is 12.2 ksi, which indicates
stainless steel shaft, the shaft has a safety factor of 2.14.
a safety factor of 2.46 Fig.(14).

FIGURE 10. The shaft at joint A with max load applied and appro-
priate torque on the worm gear. The maximum Von Mises stress in the
shaft is indicated.
FIGURE 12. The FEA of the shaft of joint B. The lower part of the
The maximum rated load of 4kg at the fingertip causes arm is omitted from view

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 FIGURE 13. The FEA of the Wrist joint. Hand and the rest of the
arm assembly is omitted from the view for clarity
FIGURE 14. The FEA of the joint O
Simulation of the WMRA in the CAD Environment
The dynamics and kinematics of the robot arm have been
performed in the CAD environment for various specified tasks.
The first simulation includes the reaching and grasping of a water
bottle from the ground to a shelf of various heights then moving
the bottle into the facial area of the person, Fig.(15 to 18).
FIGURE 15. View of the arm placing a water bottle on the different
levels of the shelf.
Simulation of the arm moving a water bottle from fully ex-
tended forward position to the operator’s mouth, showing orien-
tation of the bottle as to not spill if it is open, Fig.(16). The bottle
trajectory is shown by the three grouped lines. The trajectory of
the elbow joint is also shown to ensure safety of the operator.
For the simulation shown in Fig.(17), the Cartesian Coordi-
nates of the center of an object (P[X], P[Y], P[Z]) were recorded
6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
FIGURE 16. Simulation of arm moving a water bottle from fully ex-
tended forward position to the operator’s mouth
FIGURE 17. Simulation of arm moving a water bottle from fully ex-
tended forward position to the shelf and then to the mouth
and plotted. The simulation includes picking up the object from
the ground, moving it to a shelf, and then bringing the object to
the users mouth (Fig.(18)). The triad of lines shown illustrate the
orientation of the object throughout the motion. The single black
line is the trajectory of the elbow joint (Joint B). This is impor-
tant to consider for obvious safety reasons. The simulation uses
imposed motion to drive the joints in order to demonstrate the
range and capabilities of the arm. The function for the imposed
motion of the arm was chosen to avoid discontinuities and min-
imize jerk. Linear velocities (Fig.(19) and linear accelerations
(Fig.20) of the object with time are shown for the simulation.
Figure.(21) shows the corresponding joint angle motions.
Torques required for joint actuation for the simulation for
picking up a filled water bottle from the ground, moving it to a
shelf and then bringing the object to the users mouth (Fig.(22)).
Torque analysis for each joint was verified during the simula-
tion, taking inertia into account for the worst case scenario. The
torques for joint O and joint D are small due to imposed motion
on the simulation, which is a result of the slow relative velocity
of the motion. In practice, the torques on these joints will be
larger. The torque on joint C is negative due to the motion of the
 joint, also allowing the force of gravity to do much of the work.
The motor specifications considered in the design are shown in
Table 2.

FIGURE 18. The Cartesian Coordinates of the center of the bottle

FIGURE 22. Torques required for joint actuation for the simulation

TABLE 2. Motor and gearing specs for each joint

FIGURE 19. The velocity of the end-effector Motor speed Torque
Joint Gear Ratio
(RPM) (ozf-in)

Joint O 10 127 1:3.8

Joint A 120 431 1:50
Joint B 98 524 1:48
Joint C 170 306 1:48
Joint D – 133.31 —
Joint E 170 306 1:30

FIGURE 20. The acceleration of the end-effector

The CAD simulation results showed the capability of the

designed WMRA in performing a variety of tasks with a wider
reach of workspace. In the practical implementation, an ap-
propriate trajectory planning will be implemented through the
forward and inverse kinematic analysis. These analyses are
performed through the successive product of the homogeneous
transformations from one coordinate frame to the other. Co-
ordinate frames are assigned based on the Denavit-Hartenberg
convention method [19–21]. Using this convention, the transfor-
mation matrix for each link was computed as Eqn.(1). For the
analysis, the schematics of the robot shown in Fig.(23) is used.
FIGURE 21. The trajectories of the joint angles of the robot The DH-table is also listed as Tab.(3).

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 TABLE 4. Operational range of each joint of the WMRA

Joint Range of Motion

Joint O -1800 to 1150

Joint A -1400 to 1400
Joint B -1080 to 1080
Joint C -1200 to 1200
Joint D -900 to 900

FIGURE 23. The WMRA and the DH-Coordinate Systems

user and to avoid obstacle resulted due to the wheelchair pres-
ence. This workspace of the robot arm will allow the user to
perform several tasks easily.
TABLE 3. D-H Table
i ai αi di θi

1 0 90 5.375 θ1
2 25.04 0 0 θ2
3 14.12 0 0 θ3
4 0 90 0 θ4
5 0 0 13.662 θ5

FIGURE 24. The workspace of the WMRA

 
cos θi − sin θi cos αi sin θi sin αi ai cos θi
 sin θi cos θi cos αi − cos θi sin αi ai sin θi 
Ai = 
 0
 (1)
sin αi cos αi di 
0 0 0 1
The position and orientation of the end-effector are then solved
as a function of the joint variables (θi , di ), and the link dimen-
sions (αi , ai ) by multiplying the individual transformation matri-
ces Eqn (2).
Tn0 = A1 · A2 . . . An (2)
Considering physical interference with the wheelchair, the
user and applying the range of motion of each joint of the arm
(Tab.(4)), the workspace of the WMRA is developed (Fig.(24)).
The arm has a reach of 1.34 meters (52.89 inches), centered
at a height of 28 inches from the ground. This is based from
a standard non-electric wheelchair. If mounted to an electric
wheelchair, the center height can vary based on the specific
model. The sienna shaded region indicated the unreachable space
constraints within the workspace of the arm for the safety of the
Conclusions
A wheelchair-mounted robotic arm (WMRA) is designed to
satisfy various requirements with the objective to assist the el-
derly and people with disability. There are millions of people
that could benefit from such a device but can not afford the WM-
RAs that are on todays market. The proposed design of the 5
DOF robotic arm is estimated at approximately $3000, which is
relatively affordable in the WMRA market. This estimate in-
cludes mechanical and basic electrical components, estimated
machining and manufacturing costs, and a generalized estimate
for business and administrative costs per arm. The design is rela-
tively easy to manufacture, assemble, and maintain. The various
parts of the arm are designed to be easily accessible when main-
tenance is necessary and could eventually be a Do It Yourself
type of assembly. Stress analyses were completed on the critical
components and various simulations were conducted confirming
the functionality of the robotic arm. The broad workspace area
reached by the robotic arm will empower users to accomplish
day-to-day activities. The simulations demonstrates the gripper
mechanism’s ability to grasp various shapes.
In the future, the programming and control aspect of
the robotic arm will be explored. We plan to explore pre-

8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 programmed functions such as folding and extending as well as
a joystick for direct user operation. Due to the elasticity of the
timing belt and lengths of the arm a slight disturbance might be
introduced, which may need advanced control methods such as
robust or adaptive control system which can overcome such un-
certainties and assure the required precision for positioning and
manipulation of tasks.
REFERENCES
[1] Prior, S. D., 1990. “An electric wheelchair mounted robotic
arma survey of potential users”. Journal of medical engi-
neering & technology, 14(4), pp. 143–154.
[2] Jiang, H., Zhang, T., Wachs, J. P., and Duerstock, B., 2014.
“Autonomous performance of multistep activities with a
wheelchair mounted robotic manipulator using body de-
pendent positioning”. In Workshop on Assistive Robotics
for Individuals with Disabilities: HRI Issues and Beyond,
IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intell. Robots and Systems.
[3] Barrett, G., Kurley, K., Brauchie, C., Morton, S., and Bar-
rett, S., 2015. “Wheelchair-mounted robotic arm to hold
and move a communication device-final design.”. Biomed-
ical sciences instrumentation, 51, pp. 1–8.
[4] Schmitz, A., Bhavaraju, S., Somlor, S., Dominguez, G. A.,
Kamezaki, M., Wang, W., and Sugano, S., 2015. “A con-
cept for a robot arm with adjustable series clutch actuators
and passive gravity compensation for enhanced safety”. In
Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), 2015 IEEE In-
ternational Conference on, IEEE, pp. 1322–1327.
[5] Grindle, G. G., Wang, H., Jeannis, H., Teodorski, E.,
and Cooper, R. A., 2015. “Design and user evaluation
of a wheelchair mounted robotic assisted transfer device”.
BioMed research international, 2015.
[6] Alqasemi, R. M., McCaffrey, E. J., Edwards, K. D., and
Dubey, R. V., 2005. “Analysis, evaluation and develop-
ment of wheelchair-mounted robotic arms”. In Rehabilita-
tion Robotics, 2005. ICORR 2005. 9th International Con-
ference on, IEEE, pp. 469–472.
[7] Driessen, B., Evers, H., and v Woerden, J., 2001. “Manusa
wheelchair-mounted rehabilitation robot”. Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of
Engineering in Medicine, 215(3), pp. 285–290.
[8] Mahoney, R. M., 2001. “The raptor wheelchair robot sys-
tem”. Integration of assistive technology in the information
age, pp. 135–141.
[9] Edwards, K., Alqasemi, R., and Dubey, R., 2006. “Design,
construction and testing of a wheelchair-mounted robotic
arm”. In Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. Pro-
ceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE,
pp. 3165–3170.
[10] Hillman, M., Hagan, K., Hagan, S., Jepson, J., and Orp-
9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 11/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
wood, R., 2002. “The weston wheelchair mounted assistive
robot-the design story”. Robotica, 20(02), pp. 125–132.
[11] Schrock, P., Farelo, F., Alqasemi, R., and Dubey, R.,
2009. “Design, simulation and testing of a new modu-
lar wheelchair mounted robotic arm to perform activities
of daily living”. In Rehabilitation Robotics, 2009. ICORR
2009. IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, pp. 518–
523.
[12] Maheu, V., Frappier, J., Archambault, P. S., and
Routhier, F., 2011. “Evaluation of the jaco robotic arm:
Clinico-economic study for powered wheelchair users with
upper-extremity disabilities”. In Rehabilitation Robotics
(ICORR), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE,
pp. 1–5.
[13] Prior, S. D., 1993. “Investigations into the design of
a wheelchair-mounted rehabilitation robotic manipulator”.
PhD thesis, Middlesex University.
[14] Koenig, N., and Howard, A., 2004. “Design and use
paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simula-
tor”. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004).
Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on,
Vol. 3, IEEE, pp. 2149–2154.
[15] Žlajpah, L., 2008. “Simulation in robotics”. Mathematics
and Computers in Simulation, 79(4), pp. 879–897.
[16] Sadanand, R., Chittawadigi, R., and Saha, S., 2013. “Vir-
tual robot simulation in roboanalyzer”. In 1 st International
and 16 th National Conference on Machines and Mecha-
nisms.
[17] Pachaiyappan, S., Balraj, M., and Sridhar, T. “Design and
analysis of an articulated robot arm for various industrial
applications”. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil En-
gineering, 1(7), pp. 42–53.
[18] Luo, Z., Zhao, X., Liang, L., and Wang, F., 2012. “Struc-
tural optimization of slender robot arm based on sensitivity
analysis”. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2012.
[19] McCarthy, J. M., 2000. Geometric Design of Linkages,
first ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[20] Craig, J. J., 1989. Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and
Control, second ed. Prentice Hall.
[21] Tsai, L.-W., 1999. Robot Analysis: The Mechanics of Serial
and Parallel Manipulators. Interscience, New York.