Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 358365

Innity-norm acceleration minimization of robotic redundant

manipulators using the LVI-based primaldual neural network
Yunong Zhang

, Jiangping Yin, Binghuang Cai

Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Received 13 February 2007; received in revised form 18 January 2008; accepted 7 February 2008
Abstract
Kinematically redundant manipulators admit an innite number of inverse kinematic solutions and hence the optimization of different
performance measures corresponding to various task requirements must be considered. Joint accelerations of these mechanisms are
usually computed by optimizing various criteria dened using the two-norm of acceleration vectors in the joint space. However, in
formulating the optimization measures for computing the inverse kinematics of redundant arms, this paper investigates the use of the
innity norm of joint acceleration (INAM) (also known as the minimum-effort solution). The innity norm of a vector is its maximum
absolute value component and hence its minimization implies the determination of a minimum-effort solution as opposed to the
minimum-energy criterion associated with the two-norm. Moreover, the new scheme reformulates the task as the online solution to a
quadratic programming problem and incorporates three levels of joint physical limits, thus keeping the acceleration within a given range
and avoiding the torque-instability problem. In addition, since the new scheme adopts the LVI-based primaldual neural network, it does
not entail any matrix inversion or matrixmatrix multiplication, which was embodied in others researches with expensive O(n
3
)
operations. This new proposed QP-based dynamic system scheme is simulated based on the PUMA560 robot arm.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Redundancy resolution; Minimum innity-norm acceleration; Quadratic programming (QP); LVI-based primaldual neural network
1. Introduction
Redundant manipulators are those having more degrees
of freedom than required to perform specied tasks. In
addition to the end-effector task, the extra degrees of
freedom are useful for manipulators in executing subtasks
such as obstacle avoidance [1], joint limits avoidance [2],
singularity avoidance [3], and optimization of various
performance criteria [46]. Redundant manipulator motion
planning and control is thus an appealing area in robotics
research. The inverse kinematics problem, namely, to nd
the joint motion for a given end-effector task, is one of the
vital and challenging issues in redundant manipulator
control because there are an innite number of joint
congurations which accomplish a specic end-effector
task. As we know, the end-effector position and orientation
in Cartesian space is related to the joint space through a
forward-kinematic equation:
r(t) = f (y(t)), (1)
where r(t) c R
m
is the position and orientation of the end-
effector in the Cartesian space, y(t) c R
n
is the joint
variable for a redundant manipulator (since mon in
redundant manipulators), and f () is a continuous non-
linear function with known structure and parameters for a
given manipulator.
Unfortunately, the inverse kinematics problem is usually
difcult to solve due to the nonlinearity of f (), and thus
the redundancy-resolution problem is to be solved at the
velocity or acceleration level. That is, differentiating (1)
with respect to time t gives the linear relation between the
Cartesian velocity _ r and joint velocity
_
y:
J(y)
_
y = _ r, (2)
where J(y) = qf =qy c R
mn
is the Jacobian matrix.
Differentiating (2) with respect to time t yields the relation
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/rcim
0736-5845/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2008.02.002

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 20 84113597; fax: +86 20 84113673/

84113597.
E-mail address: ynzhang@ieee.org (Y. Zhang).
between the joint acceleration

y and Cartesian
acceleration r:
J(y)

y = r
a
, (3)
where r
a
= r
_
J(y)
_
y. In a redundant manipulator, (1)(3)
are underdetermined since mon and hence they may admit
an innite number of solutions.
For the redundancy resolution of (3), researchers have
paid more attention to the two-norm minimization of joint
acceleration. That is, to minimize |

y|
2
2
=

y
T

y. One of the
main reasons is that the two-norm is more mathematically
tractable than other norms. The two-norm minimization
scheme minimizes the sum of squares of joint acceleration
variables, which may not necessarily minimize the magni-
tude of individual joint accelerations. That is, there could
be unequal distribution of the energy, resulting in a
relatively high acceleration for a particular joint. This is
evidently undesirable in situations where the individual
joint acceleration (instead of its two-norm value) is of
primary concern. Thus, the innity-norm acceleration
minimization scheme is investigated in this paper for
robotic redundant manipulators, which could have a better
control of the individual components of joint acceleration
vector, even distribution of workload, and motion diversity
analysis.
It is worth mentioning that the computation of the
inverse kinematics solution is time-consuming, especially in
high degree-of-freedom robotic systems because of its time-
varying nature and matrix-inverse related calculation.
Parallel computational methods such as recurrent neural
networks could be effective and efcient alternatives for the
inverse-kinematics solution [8]. In recent years, many
recurrent neural networks have been proposed and applied
to robot kinematic and dynamic control, e.g., [815]. In
particular, Ding and Tso [11] presented a neural network
approach that uses the TankHopeld (TH) network [13]
to nd the innity-norm optimization solution of redun-
dant manipulators. The TH network, however, carries
nite penalty parameters which must be very large or they
would reduce the accuracy of the solution. Ding and Wang
[12] proposed a scheme that decomposes the minimum
innity-norm solution into two parts and uses two neural
networks presented in [8,15] to nd the solution for each
part. Although the scheme presented in [12] works well in
computing the innity-norm solution, this paper shows
that, based on the improved problem formulation in
Section 3 which transforms the innity-norm minimization
problem into a linear program (LP) (being a special case of
QP problem), the minimum innity-norm solution of
redundant manipulators can be computed by using a single
neural network presented in [16] and has a less cost of
implementation.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the
preliminaries on the innity-norm acceleration minimiza-
tion subject to all levels of joint physical limits. Section 3
reformulates the problem as a general quadratic-program-
ming problem. Section 4 describes the dynamic QP solver
in the form of an LVI-based primaldual recurrent neural
network. The simulation results for an industrial robot are
shown and discussed in Section 5. Section 6 concludes this
paper with nal remarks.
2. Innity-norm acceleration minimization
In this section, we will convert the proposed innity-
norm acceleration minimization (INAM) problem into a
quadratic/linear program which can be solved by the LVI-
based primaldual neural network [16].
For a vector x = [x
1
; x
2
; . . . ; x
n
]
T
c R
n
, with superscript
T
denoting the transpose operator, its innity-norm |x|
o
is
dened as
|x|
o
= max{[x
1
[; [x
2
[; . . . ; [x
n
[] = max
1pipn
[I
T
i
x[, (4)
where [ [ denotes the absolute value of a scalar, and I
i
c
R
n
is the ith column vector of identity matrix I. The
minimization of a redundant-manipulator acceleration is
achieved by solving the following time-varying optimiza-
tion problem while considering joint physical limits
simultaneously:
minimize |

y|
o
(5)
subject to J(y)

y = r
a
, (6)

yp

, (7)
_
y

p
_
yp
_
y

, (8)
y

pypy

, (9)
where Eqs. (7)(9) are incorporated for the avoidance of
joint acceleration limits, joint velocity limits, and joint
limits, respectively. The superscripts

and

in (7)(9)
denote, respectively, the lower and upper bounds of a
corresponding joint vector. For example, y

and y

denote
the lower and upper physical limits of joint vector
y(t) c R
n
.
Remark 1. Computing an inverse-kinematic solution by
minimizing the innity norm will yield a joint acceleration
vector, of which the maximum (absolute) joint acceleration
will be minimized among all vectors satisfying (6)(9).
Such a solution can thus be thought of as a minimum-
amplitude (or termed, minimum-effort [6]) solution, as
opposed to the minimum-energy solution associated with
the two-norm. This is an important issue in practice, since,
if the solution generated has an unexpected component
outside the joint acceleration limits, the actual trajectory
implemented will be clipped at the corresponding joint,
leading to a solution which can not satisfy the end-effector
requirement (3).
3. Quadratic-programming reformulation
In this section, we propose an O(n
3
)-free and inverse-free
problem reformulation for the acceleration-level minimum-
effort redundancy resolution depicted in (5)(9). This
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Zhang et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 358365 359
O(n
3
)-free and inverse-free QP reformulation is achieved by
resolving redundancy at the joint-acceleration level, i.e.,

y.
This is because resolving redundancy at the acceleration
level could simultaneously and directly handle all levels of
joint physical limits depicted in (7)(9).
3.1. Handling joint physical limits
Previously, in the aforementioned schemes (including the
two-norm scheme), it was usually assumed that there
existed no joint limits or joint velocity limits, not to
mention the joint acceleration limits. However, joint limits
are physical constraints of the work space of a robot and
they do exist for all kinds of robot. If a solution exceeds the
mechanical joint rotation limits, the desired path becomes
impossible to accomplish and the solution is then useless.
On the other hand, if we take the physical constraints into
consideration, advantages are obvious: (1) we can keep all
the joint variables within their mechanical range (e.g.,
_
y

p
_
yp
_
y

) so as to avoid so-called weariness phenomen-

on, (2) by considering the acceleration limits, we can avoid
the torque-divergence problem, and (3) we can provide
further insights into humanoid robots and human move-
ment researches.
In this subsection, we will incorporate three physical
constraints into a unied constraint in the form of double-
sided joint acceleration constraint. That is, as the
redundancy is to be resolved at the acceleration level, the
joint physical limits (8) and (9) have to be converted into an
expression based on joint acceleration

y. Firstly, the limited
joint velocity range (9) can be formulated in terms of

y by
using variable bounds:
k
v
(
_
y

_
y)p

ypk
v
(
_
y

_
y),
where design parameter k
v
40 is usually selected as 20.
Secondly, the limited joint range (9) can also be formulated
in terms of

y by using variable bounds:
k
p
(my

y)p

ypk
p
(my

y),
where design parameter k
p
40 is also selected as 20, and
design parameter m c (0; 1) is dened as the critical-region
coefcient in light of the inertia movement during
deceleration. m is usually selected as 0.9 to dene a critical
region [y

; my

] or [my

; y

] such that there will appear a

deceleration when the robot joints enter such a critical
region. So, joint limits Eqs. (7)(9) can be nally combined
into the following bound constraint:
Z

ypZ

, (10)
where the ith elements of Z

and Z

are
Z

i
= max{k
p
(my

i
y
i
); k
v
(
_
y

i

_
y
i
);

y

i
],
Z

i
= min{k
p
(my

i
y
i
); k
v
(
_
y

i

_
y
i
);

y

i
]. (11)
3.2. Handling the innity-norm
To handle |

y(t)|
o
, let us introduce a new scalar variable
yX0 to represent the value of |

y(t)|
o
, and we have the
following lemma.
Lemma. The pure |

y(t)|
o
minimization problem can be
rewritten as
minimize y
subject to
I 1
v
I 1
v
" #

y(t)
y(t)
" #
p
0
0
" #
, (12)
where 1
v
= [1; . . . ; 1]
T
c R
n
is a one-vector, I c R
nn
is the
identity matrix, and 0 c R
m
here is a null vector.
Proof. See Appendix A. &
Now by combining bound constraint (10) and end-
effector requirement (6), we have a new problem formula-
tion for the innity-norm acceleration problem.
minimize y
subject to
I 1
v
I 1
v
" #

y(t)
y(t)
" #
p
0
0
" #
,
J

y = r
a
,
Z

ypZ

. (13)
Using the augment decision vector, x:=[

y
T
; y]
T
c R
n1
, the
following result is naturally obtained.
Theorem 1. The acceleration-level minimum effort redun-
dancy resolution scheme, (5)(9), can be reformulated as a
quadratic programming problem of the following form:
minimize x
T
Qx=2 p
T
x (14)
subject to Cx = d, (15)
Axpb, (16)
x

pxpx

, (17)
where the coefcients are dened as Q = 0, p =
[0; . . . :; 0; 1]
T
c R
n1
, C = [J; 0] c R
m(n1)
, d = r
a
c R
m
,
b = 0 c R
2n
, and with constant $b0 being sufciently large
to represent o for numerical simulation purposes,
A =
I 1
v
I 1
v
" #
c R
2n(2n1)
; x

=
Z

0
" #
,
x

=
Z

$
" #
c R
n1
.
Proof. Following the above analysis starting from Section
3.1 and ending at Section 3.2. &
4. Online QP solver
In the previous section, we have reformulated the
physically constrained joint acceleration minimization
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Zhang et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 358365 360
problem as a time-varying quadratic program subject to
hybrid kinds of constraints, i.e., in (14)(17). This
reformulation separates major mathematic problems from
an originally very complex robotic context, making the
redundancy-resolution task much clearer and easier to
implement. In addition, different from others researches,
the new reformulation has no matrix computation of O(n
3
)
operations, especially, no matrix inversion. In this part, we
extend the LVI-based primaldual neural network to
solving general QP/LP (14)(17) as follows.
Firstly, we convert QP/LP (14)(17) to an LVI problem
formulation via Theorem 2.
Theorem 2 (QP/LP-LVI reformulation). The quadratic
program (14)(17) can be converted to a set of linear
variational inequalities (LVI). That is, to nd a primal
dual equilibrium vector z
n
c O such that \z c O:={z[z

i
pz
i
pz

i
; i = 1; 2; . . . ; (3n m 1)] _ R
3nm1
,
(z z
+
)
T
(Wz
+
q)X0, (18)
where the primaldual decision vector z, together with its
lower/upper bounds, is dened as
z =
x
u
v
2
6
4
3
7
5; z

=
x

1
v
$
0
2
6
4
3
7
5; z

=
x

1
v
$
1
v
$
2
6
4
3
7
5,
and u and v are dual decision vectors corresponding to
equality constraint (15) and inequality constraint (16), res-
pectively. The augmented coefcients are dened as
W =
Q C
T
A
T
C 0 0
A 0 0
2
6
4
3
7
5; q =
p
d
b
2
6
4
3
7
5.
Proof. Can be generalized from Ref. [16]. &
Secondly, it is known from [16] and the references
therein that Eq. (18) is equivalent to the piecewise-linear
equation: P
O
(z (Wz q)) z = 0, where piecewise-line-
ar projection operator P
O
(): R
3nm1
O is extensively
used in the dual neural network design and its applications
[8,9,11,1416]. In our context, P
O
(z):=[P
O
(z
1
); . . . ;
P
O
(z
3nm1
)]
T
with the ith element being
P
O
(z
i
) =
z

i
if z
i
oz

i
;
z
i
if z

i
pz
i
pz

i
z

i
if z
i
4z

i
:
8
>
<
>
:
; \i c {1; . . . ; 3n m 1],
For graphical interpretation of P
O
(), see Fig. 1(a).
Finally, from our neural-network design experience in
[4,11,14,16,17], it follows naturally that the LVI-based
primal-dual neural network, being the QP/LP solver for
(14)(17), can use the following dynamics equation:
_ z = g(I W
T
){P
O
(z (Wz q)) z], (19)
where g40 is the design parameter used to scale the
network convergence. Furthermore, we have the following
global (exponential) convergence of the LVI-based primal-
dual neural network when solving QP/LP (14)(17).
Theorem 3 (Solver convergence). With the existence of at
least one optimal solution x
+
to QP (14)(17), starting from
any initial state z(0), the state vector z(t) of the LVI-based
primaldual neural network (19) is convergent to an
equilibrium point z
+
, of which the rst n 1 elements
constitute the optimal solution x
+
to the QP problem
(14)(17). Moreover, if there exists a constant R40 such
that |z P
O
(z (Wz q))|
2
2
XR|z z
+
|
2
2
, then the expo-
nential convergence can be achieved with exponential
convergence rate proportional to gR.
Proof. Can be generalized from [18] and the references
therein by using Lyapunov function candidate |z z
+
|
2
2
and projection-related inequalities. &
As shown in Fig. 1(b), with simple matrix/vector
augmentations and operations, the LVI-based primaldual
neural network could be constructed to generate optimal
solution x
+
(i.e.,

y in the acceleration-level minimum-effort
redundancy resolution scheme).
Remark 2. The dynamic equation described in (19) and
Theorem 3 show that the LVI-based primaldual neural
network is of simple piecewise linear dynamics, global
convergence to optimal solutions, and capability of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. (a) Piecewise-linear projection operator P
O
() and (b) block
diagram of the LVI-based primaldual neural network (19) for solving
QP/LP (14)(17).
Y. Zhang et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 358365 361
handling QP and LP simultaneously. In addition, the LVI-
based primaldual neural network does not rely on penalty
parameters, high-order nonlinear terms, or matrix inverses.
Consequently, the architecture of the LVI-based primal
dual neural network to be implemented nally on analog
circuits or VLSI could be much simpler than those of
existing recurrent neural network approaches [10,13]. In
terms of computational complexity, there is no online
matrix inversion or O(n
3
) operations in our approach. The
numerical algorithms or discrete-time neural networks
derived from model (19) could thus be more efcient than
general-purpose numerical methods [10,11,13].
Before ending this section, it is worth mentioning that
without the scaling matrix (I W
T
), the simplied LVI-
based primaldual network of (19) could only solve strictly
convex quadratic programming problems [15]. The proof
of Theorem 3 could also be generalized from [18], and is for
time-invariant coefcient matrices W and q. Due to the
global (exponential) convergence to optimal solutions, the
LVI-based primaldual neural network (19) is able to
handle time-varying coefcient matrices, as to be shown in
the ensuing simulation results.
5. Simulation studies
Based on the Unimation PUMA560 arm [18], a number
of computer simulations have been performed by using the
aforementioned INAM redundancy-resolution scheme and
the LVI-based primaldual neural network as the real-time
QP/LP solver. When both the Cartesian position and
orientation are considered, the PUMA560 arm is not
a redundant robot. However, if we consider only
the positioning of the end-point of its attached tool, the
PUMA560 becomes a redundant manipulator and the
associated Jacobian matrix is J(y) c R
36
.
5.1. Straight-line path
In the simulation, parameters k
p
; k
v
and m are, respec-
tively, 20, 20 and 0.9. In this subsection, the desired motion
of the end-effector is a straight-line Cartesian path with
length 0:2

2
_
m and task duration T = 5 s, which can be
seen from the Fig. 4(a).
Comparing Fig. 2 with Fig. 3, it is shown in Fig. 3 via the
proposed INAM scheme that by taking into consideration
joint physical limits, the build-up of very large null-space
joint velocities/accelerations could be reduced. Therefore, it
will provide a remedy to the torque instability problem
which is shown in Fig. 2), where, without considering joint
physical limits, the conventional INAM redundancy-
resolution scheme fails at time t = 0:55 s.
+ Specically, without considering joint physical limits
Eqs. (7)(9), as seen from Fig. 2(b)(d), the joint
velocity, joint acceleration and joint torque become
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
2
1
0
2
4
time t (s)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
80
40
0
40
80
time t (s)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
3000
2000
1000
0
1000
2000
3000
time t (s)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
time t (s)
Fig. 2. Conventional INAM scheme without considering joint physical limits, which fails at t = 0:55 s: (a) joint vector in rad, (b) joint velocity in rad/s, (c)
joint acceleration in rad/s
2
and (d) joint torque in Nm.
Y. Zhang et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 358365 362
larger and larger as time goes on. This nally results in
the torque-instability problem.
+ After incorporating joint physical limits, as shown in
Fig. 3, all joint physical variables have been kept within
their mechanical limits by using the proposed QP-based
INAM redundancy-resolution neural scheme.
By the way, as shown in Fig. 5(a), by using the INAM
redundancy-resolution scheme and the LVI-based primal-
dual neural network, the maximal Cartesian positioning
error at the tool tip of PUMA560 robot arm is less than
0.055 mm.
5.2. Circular path
In this subsection, by applying the proposed INAM
redundancy-resolution scheme and the LVI-based primal-
dual neural network to the PUMA560 robot arm, we show
the situation that the end-effector of the PUMA560 robot
tracks a circular path. The desired motion of the end-
effector is a circle with the radius being 10 cm and the
revolute angle about the X-axis being p=6. The task
duration of the desired motion is 10 s and the initial joint
variables y(0) = [0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0]
T
. Design parameter g = 10
5
.
Fig. 4(b) illustrates the situation of the PUMA560
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
time t (s)
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
time t (s)
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
time t (s)
0 1 2 3 4 5
5
0
10
20
30
40
time t (s)
Fig. 3. The proposed inverse-free INAM neural scheme applied to PUMA560 with joint physical limits considered: (a) joint vector in rad, (b) joint velocity
in rad/s, (c) joint acceleration in rad=s
2
, and (d) joint torque in Nm.
0
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
X
Y
Z
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0
0.5
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
X
Y
Z
Fig. 4. Motion trajectories of PUMA560 robot: (a) with the end-effector tracking a straight line and (b) with the end-effector tracking a circular path.
Y. Zhang et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 358365 363
manipulator tracking a circle in the three-dimensional
workspace. As shown in Fig. 5(b), the maximal Cartesian
positioning error at the tool tip of PUMA560 robot arm is
less than 0.11 mm where e
X
, e
Y
, and e
Z
denote, respec-
tively, the X-, Y-, and Z-axis components of the
positioning error with respect to the base frame.
6. Conclusions
This paper has established an inverse-free QP formula-
tion for acceleration-level minimum-effort redundancy
resolution of robot manipulators. The QP formulation
has incorporated joint physical limits and thus naturally
keeps all the joint variables within their mechanical limits.
The latest LVI-based primaldual neural network has been
discussed and applied as a real-time QP solver. Computer
simulations based on the PUMA560 robot have substan-
tiated the presented theoretical results. In addition to its
robotic applications, this research may also provide useful
insights into human motion control and analysis. Future
research may lie in the hardware/circuit implementation of
the LVI-based primaldual neural network, and the
development of numerical algorithms or discrete-time
neural models derived from this LVI-based primaldual-
neural network.
Acknowledgments
Continuing the line of this research, the corresponding
author, Yunong Zhang, had been with National University
of Ireland at Maynooth, University of Strahclyde, Na-
tional University of Singapore, Chinese University of Hong
Kong, since 1999 (before joining the Sun Yat-Sen
University in 2006). He was supported by various scholar-
ships and research fellowships. This research is funded by
National Science Foundation of China under Grant
60643004 and by the Science and Technology Ofce of
Sun Yat-Sen University.
Appendix A
Proof of the Lemma. For

y = [

y
1
;

y
2
; . . . ;

y
n
]
T
, its innity-
norm |

y|
o
is dened as
|

y|
o
= max{[

y
1
[; [

y
2
[; . . . ; [

y
n
[] = max
1pipn
[I
T
i

y[,
where [

y
i
[ denotes the absolute value of element

y
i
, and
I
i
c R
n
is the ith column vector of identity matrix I. By
dening the scalar variable y = |

y|
o
, the minimization of
|

y|
o
is then equivalent to
minimize y
subject to [I
T
i

y[py; \i c {1; 2; . . . ; n].

Rearranging the above inequality constraint into a
compact matrix form, we thus have
minimize y
subject to
I 1
v
I 1
v
" #

y
y
" #
p0,
where 1
v
c R
n
and 0 c R
2n
are vectors composed, respec-
tively, of ones and zeros. The above compact matrix form
is now the same as the one appearing in the lemma, and the
proof is thus complete. &
References
[1] Sciavicco L, Siciliano B. Modelling and control of robot manip-
ulators. New York: Springer; 2000.
[2] Allotta B, Colla V, Bioli G. Kinematic control of robot manipulators
with joint constraints. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control 1999;121(3):
43342.
[3] Zhang Y, Wang J. A dual neural network for constrained torque
optimization of kinematically redundant manipulators. IEEE Trans
Syst Man Cyber B 2002;32(6):65462.
[4] Zhang Y, Wang J, Xia Y. A dual neural network for redundancy
resolution of kinematically redundant manipulators subject to joint
limits and joint velocity limits. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 2003;
14(3):65867.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 1 2 3 4 5
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
x 10
5
time t (s)
e
X
e
Y
e
Z
0 2 4 6 8 10
5
0
5
10
15
x 10
5
time t (s)
e
X
e
Y
e
Z
Fig. 5. Positioning errors of the PUMA560 manipulator: (a) with the end-effector tracking a straight line and (b) with the end-effector tracking a circular
path.
Y. Zhang et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 358365 364
[5] Yoshikawa T. Manipulability of robot mechanisms. Int J Robot Res
1985;4(2):39.
[6] Deo AS, Walker ID. Minimum effort inverse kinematics for
redundant manipulators. IEEE Trans Robot Automat 1997;11(5):
76775.
[8] Lee S, Kil RM. Redundant arm kinematic control with recurrent
loop. Neural Networks 1994;7(4):64359.
[9] Chen TH, Cheng FT, Sun YY, Hung MH. Torque optimization
schemes for kinematically redundant manipulators. J Robot Syst
1994;11(4):25769.
[10] Cheng FT, Shen RJ, Chen TH. The improved compact QP method
for resolving manipulator redundancy. IEEE Trans Syst Man
Cybernet B 1995;25(2):152130.
[11] Ding H, Tso SK. Minimum innity-norm kinematic solution for
redundant robots using neural networks. Proc. IEEE Conference
Robotics and Automation 1998;12(1):1719924.
[12] Ding H, Wang J. Recurrent neural networks for minimum innity-
norm kinematic control of redundant manipulators. IEEE Trans Syst
Man Cybernet B 1999;29(2):26976.
[13] Tank DW, Hopeld JJ. Simple neural optimization networks: an
A/D converter, signal decision circuit and a linear programming
circuit. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst 1986;33(5):53441.
[14] Xia Y. A new neural network for solving linear programming
problems and its applications. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 1996;
7(2):5259.
[15] Zhang Y, Wang J. A dual neural neural network for convex quadratic
programming subject to linear equality and inequality constraints.
Phys Lett A 2002;298(10):278.
[16] Zhang Y. On the LVI-based primaldual neural network for
solvingonline linear and quadratic programming problems. In:
Proceedings of American control conference, 2005. p. 135156.
[17] Corke PI, Armstrong HB. A search for consensus among model
parameters reported for the PUMA560 robot. In: Proceedings of IEEE
international conference on robotics and automation, 1994. p. 160813.
[18] Zhang Y, Ge SS, Lee TH. A unied quadratic programming based
dynamical system approach to joint torque optimization of physically
constrained redundant manipulators. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyber-
net B 2004;34(10):212632.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Zhang et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25 (2009) 358365 365