See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/37537780

Grasping and Control Issues in Adaptive End Effectors

Article · January 2004

DOI: 10.1115/DETC2004-57126 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
38 1,381

2 authors, including:

Richard Michael Crowder

University of Southampton
278 PUBLICATIONS 1,700 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intelligent Neurofuzzy Control of a Robot Manipiulators View project

Designing Robot Swarms View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Michael Crowder on 26 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of DETC’04
ASME 2004 Design Engineering Technical Conference and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
September 28- October 2, 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah USA

DETC2004-57126

GRASPING AND CONTROL ISSUES IN ADAPTIVE END EFFECTORS

Venketesh N Dubey Richard M Crowder

Bournemouth University University of Southampton

School of Design, Engineering & Computing Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia Group
Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow School of Electronics and Computer Science
Poole, BH12 5BB, UK Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Tel. +44 1202 595986 Tel. +44 23 8059 3441
Fax. +44 1202 595314 Fax. +44 23 8059 2865
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION
Research into robotic grasping and manipulation has led to Efforts are being made world wide to remove human
the development of a large number of tendon based end operators from hazardous environments. Such environments
effectors. Many are, however, developed as a research tool, include, space exploration, underwater mining, and operations
which are limited in application to the laboratory environment. in nuclear and chemical industries. The objective is to reduce or
The main reason being that the designs requiring a large remove the risk from the operators. In order to achieve this one
number of actuators to be controlled. Due to the space and has to rely on robotic or autonomous systems that have robust
and flexible mechanical structure to adapt to the environment’s
safety requirements, very few have been developed and
needs. However, the current level of technology does not
commissioned for industrial applications. This paper presents provide off-the-shelf solutions for every possible situation
design of a rigid link finger operated by a minimum number of because such environments are unknown and there is a degree
actuators, which may be suitable for a number of adaptive end of uncertainty involved. The existing systems can meet the
effectors. The adaptive nature built into the end effector (due to needs that are well defined and known in advance, but if the
limited number of actuators) presents considerable problems in operations are to be performed autonomously in such
grasping and control. The paper discusses the issues associated environments the unstructured and non-deterministic nature of
with such designs. The research can be applicable to any the environment precludes all this. This requires special
adaptive end effectors that are controlled by limited number of purpose system to be developed, which may put stringent
actuators and evaluates their suitability in industrial specification on the material and components of the robotic
environments. systems.
The robotic system required to operate in such
Keywords: End Effectors, Finger Design, Robotic Hand, environment should be versatile enough to handle unknown
Adaptive Finger, Robotic grasping objects and situations i.e. the gripper of the robotic system
should be able to grasp objects of different shapes and mass
more like the human hand than a conventional robotic end
effector. The design considered in this paper has evolved from
an industrial need for a tele-operated system to be used in

1 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

nuclear environments. The end effector is designed to assist from an external actuator pack. The Belgrade/USC hand [5]
repair work in nuclear reactors during retrieval operation, was developed with prosthetic application in mind, and has a
particularly for the purpose of grasping objects of various more compact actuating mechanism. Okada [6] designed a
shape, size and mass. three-fingered hand with 11 degrees of freedom using
pulley/tendon system to perform assembly operations. A three-
THE TARGET END EFFECTOR fingered hand developed at the University of Pennsylvania [7]
The development of the end effector is based on the design and is commercially available as BarrettHand has a compact
study carried out for an in-reactor manipulator [1]. design; however, the hand uses four actuators on a worm drive
Specifications of the end effector were developed for the with cable and breakaway clutch to provide finger motions.
Central Electricity Generating Board (now Nuclear Electric plc. Some end effectors developed with industrial application in
UK), as a part of the Magnox reactor repair program. The mind include the Karlsruhe hand [8], and Delft University of
design concept was such that the system was as Technology hand [9] and the dexterous reconfigurable system
flexible/dexterous as possible - “very user specific” is true as for packaging [10].
CEGB defined the design - but in practice the specification is Many dexterous hand designs are tendon based, where
highly generic. The design was developed to produce an each finger joint is connected to a remote actuator by a flexible
adaptive end effector capable of handling most general type of cord or tendon. To achieve full joint motion a minimum of two
objects during debris retrieval. Environment inside the reactor tendons are required per joint. The advantage of this approach
is unstructured by its very nature where objects of different is that the actuators are remote from the hand and hence
shapes, sizes and mass are available. The retrieval operation reducing the overall inertia by removing mass from the end of
does not require manipulative functions nor any tool holding the manipulator. If size is not a limitation, the actuators can be
facilities, only versatile grasping capability of the end effector mounted external to the hand, with the power transmission to
is of paramount importance. The key specifications of the end the hand via tendons. While satisfactory for experimental
effector are: systems, this approach is not suitable for industrial applications.
• The end effector to have three fully articulated fingers
The space restriction imposed by certain industrial applications
result in the external actuators together with tendons not being
typically arranged symmetrically. The fingers should be
a practical design proposition. In addition, the use of hand
capable of handling unusually shaped objects.
mounted pneumatic and hydraulic actuators in many
• The end effector should be capable of gripping a variety of applications are considered to be impractical, due to leakage
objects for example, M6 to M30 nuts, 6 to 50 mm problems. The design of the hand and finger are to a large
diameter bars up to 150 mm long picking them from a flat extent dictated by the approach taken to transmit the actuator
surface, 50 mm cube, 100 mm diameter, 6 mm thick disc forces to the finger joint. If special purpose localized actuators,
from a flat surface. such as artificial muscles [11] are excluded, only two realistic
• The maximum gripping force should be 100 N for a 100 approaches for power transmission within the hand between the
finger-joints and actuators need to be considered; tendons or a
mm diameter disc.
rigid link kinematic chain.
• The maximum overall diameter of the end effector is to be In a number of applications for a fully dexterous hand to
120 mm, should weigh less than 5 kg and should be as operate satisfactorily, electric actuators need to be located
compact as possible. within the profile of the end effector. As physical size of the
• A closure time of 2 to 5 seconds needs to be achieved. system limits the number of actuators, the design solution
presented requires the motion of the fingers to be controlled by
• Each finger should be capable of independent control. solid mechanical linkages. An advantage of this design is the
• A range of sensors needs to be incorporated in the end high reliability of electric motors; this was an important
effector. consideration as the manipulator is intended for continuous
industrial operation.
• The unit is to be manufactured from stainless or low The finger mechanism presented in this paper originated
carbon steel and the structure should be capable of from the design developed for the University of Southampton
absorbing forces of the order of 500 N due to collision. Whole Arm Manipulator (WAM) [12]. This manipulator was
developed for insertion into the human sized rubber glove for
DESIGN RATIONALE use in a conventional glove box. Due to the design requirement,
Based on the above specifications it is clear that the end this manipulator has an anthropomorphic end effector with four
effector should have versatile grasping options for precision adaptive fingers and a prehensile thumb, the grasp being
and power grasps [2] and the design should be mechanically controlled by three motor-gearboxes assembles located within
robust and structurally flexible. This further requires that the the palm, with connections to the finger segments via solids
end effector uses minimum number of actuators and the motion mechanical linkages.
is transmitted via rigid links for space and safety reasons
forming adaptive and compact unit. THE ADAPTIVE FINGER
Over the last thirty years a considerable number of The design of the finger mechanism considered in this
dexterous end effectors have been developed. The most notably paper has been fully described in our previous paper [13] but is
being the Stanford/JPL [3] and Utah/MIT hands [4], which being outlined here to present the issues associated with
were developed for research into object manipulation. These grasping and control. The finger consists of three sections
designs were based on the fingers being actuated via tendons (lower, middle and tip) pivoted together as shown in Fig. 1,

2 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

 •
o
with the maximum relative movements of 90 between each Equalizing mechanism.
sections. The upper two finger sections are used to produce a • Fully independent drives.
co-ordinated curling motion. The tip is linked to the lower • Differential gearbox.
section by link 2, so that any motion of the middle section by
link 1 will cause the tip to move, producing curling motion to Equalizing Mechanism
the finger. The lower and middle sections are individually
The equalizing bar mechanism used in the end effector of
connected to the actuating mechanism at points B and K. The the Whole Arm Manipulator is shown in Fig. 3. In the rest
mechanism is grounded at joints A and J.
position the finger is considered to be in the fully extended
position. To close the finger the equalizer bar is driven to the
Tip
left, by a crank and slider mechanism. Due to the built-in
difference in the mechanical advantages between links A and B
Middle section
and their respective sections, the finger is designed to
Lower section
G preferentially rotate around pivot A of the lower section. The
D F
Link A B design of the mechanism is such that the finger will remain
straight while it rotates around this pivot. The rotation of the
C E
A
I Link 2 complete finger will continue until such time as the lower
Link B section is stopped either at its mechanical limit or by an
K
Link 1 external object.
d1 d2
J
Bell crank
Leadscrews
Middle section
Lower section

Slider Equiliser bar

A
Fig. 1. Basic Finger Mechanism Drive
output
Link A Link 2

Tip
The finger mechanism can be considered to have two degrees
of freedom:
• Bending, where displacement of joint B bends all the three
Link 1

finger segments about joint A. Link B

• Curling, where displacement of joint K results in the

curling of the two upper finger segments about joint C.
Fig. 3. Equalizing bar mechanism
For adaptive mode of grasping the finger is first bent
towards the object. After the first finger-section has made
contact the ‘bend’ component of the motion is impeded and the As the lower section and link A cannot move, force is
actuator effort is directed towards the ‘curl’ component of the transferred to the middle section, via link B, thus causing the
motion. This way all three finger-sections can make contact upper two sections of the finger to curl over and complete the
with the object and adapt to an optimum grasp configuration, as grip around the object. The resultant finger motion is similar to
shown in Fig. 2 (stepwise). that of a human finger and is described as being "tip driven", as
the fingertip effectively leads the motion. The position of the
equalizing bar is controlled by the loads applied to the finger
section thus is considered to be indeterminate. While compact,
the design relies on external forces provided in the WAM
application by the rubber glove, which is used to stabilize the
finger position. The WAM design rationale was dictated by the
tight size constraint of the hand, its enclosing glove and the
operating environment. The WAM hand is capable of forming a
range of grasps, which allowed it to perform a wide range of
handling operations [14]. However, due to the design of the
finger mechanism, the movement of its fingers cannot be
precisely controlled during grasping operation, as this is
(a) (b) (c) determined by the compliance of the glove.

Fully Independent Drives

Fig. 2. The adaptive grasping Here the two motions are independently powered and
controlled. This requires two motors within the end effector
Thus the finger requires two input drives. This can be envelope for each finger. If, however, the finger is to be rotated
produced in a number of ways, depending on the application about its own axis to produce three dimensional capabilities, an
requirements. Three approaches can be considered to drive the additional motor is required. This approach does allow fully
finger:

3 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

controlled independent motion to be achieved, however at the adaptive finger and the presented grasping and control issues
expense of additional cabling and possible size restrictions. relate to this design. The mechanism uses ball leadscrew with
high lead (2 cm) to enable bi-directional motion transmission.
Differential Gearbox The fingers of the end effector are fixed symmetrically at 120o
As discussed, to satisfactorily control the finger both input spacing on a circular base giving a high degree of flexibility in
links need to be individually controlled. However, this will gripping objects. The structure of the finger allows bending and
require two actuators to be controlled thus has space and safety curling action to take place in a plane. The flexibility of the
implications. Due to application constraints imposed, only a hand is enhanced by the capability of the fingers to rotate about
single motor could be used to control all the required motions. their axes allowing generation of either two or three fingered
This requirement led to the development of a mechanism parallel grips, or three fingered pinch grips [16]. The basic
capable of independently controlling the two input links. construction of the finger is based on an open structure using
The design of the actuating mechanism is shown in Fig. 4. side plates and cross pivots. This mode of construction gives
The actuating mechanism has a central differential gearbox the maximum clear space within the profile of finger for
driving two lead screws supported on a rotary frame. The motor accommodating the mechanical linkages and for incorporating
connected to the differential gearbox can be used to drive the sensors. As nine degrees of freedom result from the design, a
two lead screws as well as the mechanism frame, providing large number of precision and power grips can be produced.
three different components of a motion from a single motor. Since the fingers form planar mechanism and capable of
These motions are determined by the use of three rotating about their own axis, it is important to trace the loci of
electromagnetic brakes. the finger to specify the workspace of the end effector. Initially
the fingers are considered to be aligned horizontal, parallel to
the base plate of the end effector. In this situation there are no
bend and curl in the finger and both leadscrews are at minimum
Movable Frame displacements (d1, d2) of 0.006 m (Fig. 1). This corresponds to
Leadscrew nut
the fingertip having a maximum X component and minimum Y
Leadscrew component as shown in Fig. 5. The other three combinations of
the limits of the leadscrews are shown by the starred points in
the figure. Between these limits the finger can adopt to any
combinations of curl and bend depending on the leadscrews
Brake 1 Brake 2
displacement. The zero on X-axis indicates the finger origin
Differential Gearbox and X, Y coordinate represents the fingertip locations. It can be
Motor
seen from the figure that the fingertips can be located 0.1 m
away from the origin at a vertical distance of 0.14 m. Thus the
end effector is capable of gripping objects of up to 200 mm
Fixed Frame
diameter which is more than the requirement laid out in the
specifications. Also the finger is capable of moving to the left
of the origin by 0.05 m at a vertical distance of 0.14 m which
Brake 3 means that the finger is capable of gripping as small object as
possible, only limited by the width of the fingertips.

0.18
Fig. 4. The differential finger drive mechanism (0.006, 0.03)

0.16

As shown in the figure brakes 1 and 2 control the two lead 0.14
screws, while brake 3 controls the finger orientation relative to (0.03, 0.03)
the end effector frame. Thus the mechanism can provide three
fingertip Y, meters

0.12

degrees of freedom to the finger. The structure of the finger 0.1

offers independent curl motion while the bend motion is only
partially independent as this results in a slight curling effect to 0.08 (0.03, 0.006)

the finger. By controlling the three brakes the three components

0.06
of motions can be controlled individually or in combination,
thus the finger can be operated either in adaptive or precise 0.04
(0.006, 0.006)
control mode with concentric or opposing-thumb configuration
0.02
[15]. The presented design is compact and as per the end -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
fingertip X, meters
effector specification, however, this has some implications in
grasping and control as discussed in the following sections. Fig. 5. Fingertip loci with the leadscrews displacement

FINGER CAPABILITY
CONTROL ISSUES
A prototype finger mechanism based on the differential
Even though grasping is not an exact science, some sort of
gearbox has been built to evaluate the performance of the
pre-planning is required to achieve successful grasping. To
system [13]. This is the mechanism used for controlling the
grasp an object, the end effector must be positioned and

4 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

oriented suitably in relation to the object such that gripping can
be possible. If the object is not totally enclosed by the envelope 0.05

of the fingers and not sufficiently restrained, the effect of the 0.045
first contact might simply be to move the object. There is also a
0.04
possibility that fingers can touch the object at points that are not

Leadscrews displacement in meters

equidistant from the center of the end effector. This situation 0.035
curl component (d1)
can arise if the object is of irregular shape or the object is not 0.03

exactly lying on the central axis of the end effector as shown in 0.025
Fig. 6. This may result in formation of an unsymmetrical grasp
0.02
with respect to the points of contact on the grasped object. For
the unsymmetrical grasp the centriod of the triangular grasp 0.015

plane does not lie on the central axis of the end effector which 0.01

means the grasp is unbalanced with respect to finger position 0.005 bend component (d2)
(see the figure). Further due to the complex kinematic chain of
0
the finger, it has been shown that the direction of the fingertip- 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Y-location of the fingertip at a fixed X=0.07 m, in meters
normals are not co-planar at the plane of contact [17], this will
result in force and moment unbalance [18]. The fingers need to
Fig. 7. Leadscrews displacement for vertical motion
move in horizontal and vertical directions co-operatively to
minimize this unbalance and in the proposed end effector this The finger motion with respect to the base joint A can be
has to be achieved by a single motor per finger. Thus it is seen in a simple kinematic chain representation in Fig. 8.
important to see how the leadscrews displacement changes Throughout the vertical motion it has been found that the
when the finger has to track a precise path. leadscrews displacements change in such a way that there is
one and only one vertical fingertip position available for a set
finger2 of d1, d2 displacements. However, the leadscrews displacement
finger2 is seen to be taking place in opposite direction (Fig. 7). This
finger1 finger1 means that for controlling the motion by a single motor using
the differential unit, the motor has to change the direction of
rotation for each individual leadscrew in succession. Due to the
backlash in the system linear motion cannot be achieved and
finger3 the accurate position control in vertical direction is difficult.
finger3

Symmetrical Unsymmetrical
0.14
Fig. 6. Position unbalance in grasp formation
0.12

From the inverse kinematics analysis [13], the leadscrews 0.1

displacement can be generated when the fingertip executes
fingertip Y, meters

straight line motion in vertical as well as in horizontal 0.08

directions. Such motions may have relevance in object
manipulation by the articulated finger. However, here we are 0.06
investigating how to minimize the grasp unbalance by
controlling the finger motion. Fig. 7 shows the leadscrews 0.04
displacement required for the fingertip tracing a vertical
straight line motion from 0.14 m to 0.02 m at a fixed X position 0.02
of 0.07 m.
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
fingertip X, meters

Fig. 8. Simulated vertical motion of the fingertip

While the finger is tracking a horizontal straight line the

leadscrews displacements are as shown in Fig. 9. As a result the
position can be better controlled by sequentially operating each
leadscrews in succession.

5 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

 frictional constraints are already met in the fuzzy control
implementation [19].
0.035 • The mass of the object has not been considered since the
fuzzy control applies appropriate torque to hold the object
0.03 weight.
• Concentric object grasp has been considered in this
Leadscrews displacement in meters

0.025
curl component (d1) implementation.
• Equilibrium of the grasped object has been simulated for tip
0.02 grasp. In the case of wrap around grasp, the object is over-
constrained by several contacts, thus only the contact forces
0.015
need to be controlled to avoid crushing.
bend component (d2)

0.01
The steps involved in grasping by the three fingered end
effector starts with fingers allowed to move in the enclosing
direction. Each finger motion is impeded as soon as it records a
0.005
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 contact event with the object. The fingers under this condition
X-location of the fingertip at a fixed Y=0.14 m, in meters
apply a minimum force to the object. At this situation the lift is
attempted and the control is passed to the fuzzy logic which
Fig. 9. Leadscrews displacement for horizontal motion generates appropriate motor torque for holding the object [20].
Once the fuzzy control has ensured that the grasped object does
It is important to note here that the unbalance minimization not slip, the equilibrium of the grasped object is tested by
in position can mostly be achieved by horizontal movement of conducting the position, force and moment unbalance test. If
the finger, and fortunately this does not require motion reversal the grasp is unbalanced with respect to any of these parameters,
sequence as it was in the previous case. Thus this is an the algorithm attempts to modify the unbalance as far as
interesting feature of the finger, which makes it more suitable possible within the allowed constraints. To ensure successful
for grasping application than manipulation. grasping it is necessary to ascertain that each finger touches the
object so that sensors can provide the measure of contact force.
GRASPING ISSUES The sensing and control part of the end effector have been
One of the most basic and necessary qualities of a grasp is presented in our earlier work [19, 20], here only mechanical
that the grasped object is in equilibrium. A grasp is said to be in aspect of the end effector grasp is considered for unbalance
equilibrium if the components of forces and moments acting on minimization.
the grasped object all add up to zero. In case of the object From the preceding discussions it is clear that the structure
grasped by multifingered end effectors, the equilibrium of grasp of the finger does not allow the control of the finger motion in a
requires that no resultant force acts on the object and the object truly three dimensional space. Thus force and moment balance
is fully restrained. If the resultant force is not zero, there will be can be achieved by changing the fingertip forces and contact
unbalance in force and moment, which will tend to move and positions over the grasped object. Note that the finger rotation
rotate the object. can only be used to change the grasping configurations (from
For the present end effector, unbalances in force and concentric to two fingers and opposing thumb grasp), this
moment may arise even at the equal motor torque at each finger motion cannot be used for changing the finger position over the
due to the unsymmetrical location of fingertips from the central grasped object.
axis of the end effector. This is due to the fact that the structure In order to simulate object grasping, the model allows initial
of the finger offers different contact forces at different locations position unbalance to be introduced into the system and the
for the same motor torque [17]. Also the direction of fingertip- algorithm based on least square method attempts to minimize
normals are different at different fingertip locations, which the distance between grasp centroid and the central axis of the
again results in unbalance in force and moment. Thus in order end effector. This in actual end effector will be achieved by co-
to achieve equilibrium of the grasped object, these unbalance ordinated movement of the three fingers, mostly in horizontal
need to be minimized without slipping the object and satisfying direction, so that object remains in grasp. Fig. 10 shows
the related constraints. position unbalance minimization for the case when finger 1 is
In order to minimize the system unbalance (position, force displaced by 30% inward, finger 2 by 25% outward and finger
and moment), a grasping model of the end effector has been 3 by 15% inward with respect to the corresponding symmetrical
developed which is based on the following assumptions: grasp. As seen in the figure the algorithm is able to minimize
the unbalance to the extent of 80%.
• Direction of the fingertip force is same as the normal vector
at the contact point, which can be defined from the bend of
each finger.
• Fingertips make full contact with the object during grasping
and the force at the fingertip can be provided by the
attached sensors.
• Frictional forces arising at the fingertips are not considered
for the derivation of the equilibrium equations since the

6 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

 10
The resulting effect of minimization can be shown in Figs.
grasp centroid displacement, mm

9
8 13 and 14 where unbalance in force and moment components
7 can be seen to be closing to zero at the end of the process. The
6
fingertip forces considered in the simulation are 3N, 2N and 1N
5
4 for fingers 1, 2 and 3 respectively with the position unbalance
3 as shown in Fig. 10.
2
1
0
number of i te rati ons
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106
number of i terati ons
0.8

0.4

force components, N
0
Fx

Fig. 10. Position unbalance minimization -0.4 Fy

-0.8 Fz

While minimizing the position unbalance it is interesting to -1.2

see from Fig. 11 that the torque required by the motor to drive -1.6
each fingers is also reduced. The leadscrews displacement
during this minimization is shown in Fig. 12. Non-intersecting
and identical slopes of the displacement lines suggest that for Fig. 13. Minimization of the force components
the position unbalance minimization both the leadscrews of the
finger moves in the same direction, thus direction reversal is
not required and can balance position as well as fingertip force
in one minimization process (Fig. 11). The number of iterations number of iterations
on the axis represents the incremental rate at which the 1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106
simulation is being carried out. 0.004
moment components, Nm

0.002
60
Mx
58
0 My
motor torque, mNm

56
fing1 Mz
54
fing2 -0.002
52
fing3
50 -0.004
48
46
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51

number of i te rati ons Fig. 14. Minimization of the moment components

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Fig. 11. Torque variation during unbalance minimization
Grasping and control issues of an adaptive end effector
have been presented in this paper. As far as the design of the
end effector is concerned, the mechanism removes a number of
significant problems experienced with tendon-based designs.
0.03
The finger actuation mechanism forms a compact and positive
leadscrews displacements, m

0.025 drive unit within the end effector’s body with the use of solid
0.02 mechanical linkage and the transmission through the toothed
fing1_d1 belts, thus offering a strong and reliable system for use in
0.015
fing1_d2 industrial environments where safety is an important
0.01 consideration.
0.005 The control of the finger is easier with one motor and three
0
brakes as compared to individually actuated finger joints, since
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 only one motor needs to be controlled together with brakes. The
number of i te rati ons fingers can be driven in adaptive as well as precise control
mode which can be rotated about its own axis allowing it to
form either concentric or two fingers and opposing thumb
grasps. Thus the finger design offers a practical solution to the
Fig. 12. Leadscrews displacement during minimization specific tasks of grasping objects of specified shape and size
securely within the structure of the end effector. However, the

7 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

finger operation for tracking straight line motions are difficult Society 38th conference on remote systems technology, Vol. 2,
to achieve due to the coordinated displacement requirement of pp. 52-58.
the leadscrews, as both the leadscrews are operated by a single
motor and the motion needs to be transferred from one axis to [2] Cutkosky, M R., 1989, “On grasp choice grasp models and
the other in succession. This suggests that design modification the design of hands for manufacturing tasks”, IEEE
to the finger drive mechanism will be required if the fingers are Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 5. No 3, pp.
to track an exact trajectory. A basic mechanical design 269-279.
modification could be to drive each leadscrew by individual
motors, however, this will have control implications, since nine [3] Salisbury, J. K. 1985, “Design and control of an articulated
motors are to be controlled. hand”, In M. T. Mason and J. K. Salisbury edited, Robot hands
As shown in the paper, it is difficult to attain minimum and mechanics of manipulation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
grasp energy configuration at all positions due to the complex pp. 151-167.
kinematic chain of the articulated finger. Hence a method has
been developed to minimize the system unbalance in position, [4] Jacobsen, S. C., Wood, J. E., Knutti, D. F. and Biggers, K.
force and moment. The algorithm operates well for various B., 1986, “The Utah/MIT dextrous hand: work in progress”, In
conditions of the fingertip loading. The algorithm is especially D.T. Pham and W.B. Heginbotham edited Robot Grippers, pp.
valuable in case of finger loading in an unsymmetrical grasp, 341-389.
which is most likely to occur in unstructured environments. The
simplicity in implementation of the minimization algorithm is [5] Bekey, G. A., Tomovic, R. and Zeljkovic, I. 1990, “Control
possible due to the structure of the finger, which is not capable architecture for the Belgrade/UCS hand”, In S.T.
of performing motions in full three dimensional space. Venketaraman edited Dextrous Robot Hands.: Spriger-Verlag
Consequently, it puts constraints in the force and moment New York pp. 136-149.
minimization, which is achieved by changing the finger force
and by planar movement of the fingertip over the grasped [6] Okada, T., 1986, “Computer control of multijointed finger
object. Clearly, the end effector is not designed for object system for precise object handling”, In D.T. Pham and W.B.
manipulation where fine finger motions are required but is Heginbotham edited Robot Grippers, pp. 391-417.
developed for grasping and handling operations. However, the
end effector can execute limited manipulation during grasping. [7] Ulrich, N., Paul, R. and Bajcsy R., 1988, “A medium-
The fingers are shown to coordinate with each other during complexity compliant end effector” Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on
position balance exhibiting a condition of simple manipulation Robotics and Automation, pp. 434-436.
with the grasped object. This minimizes the unbalance in grasp
which also relieves the motor of drawing extra current. The [8] Doll, T. J. and Schneebeli, H. J. 1988, “The Karlsruhe
unbalance minimization algorithm in the actual system will be hand” Proc. on IFAC robot control, Karlsruhe, pp. 383-388.
used as a corrective measure to ensure that none of the fingertip
applies excessive force to cause damage to the grasped object [9] Jongkind, W., 1993, “Dextrous gripping in a hazardous
and to maintain the condition of equilibrium. environment guidelines, fault tolerance and control” Proc.
The end effector with three motors forms a compact unit IEEE Intl. Conf. on Systems Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 1, pp.
and is capable of grasping objects of various shape, size and 509-514.
mass. Even though the motion is transferred from one
leadscrew to the other in succession this does not bring in any [10] Dubey, V. N. and Crowder, R. M., 2003 “Designing a
significant problems as far as grasping in industrial dexterous reconfigurable packaging system for flexible
environment is concerned. The paramount considerations in automation” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference,
such environments are ruggedness, reliability and safety of the DETC2003/DAC-48812, Chicago, Illinois (USA).
system, which the presented end effector is able to provide.
Thus it can be useful in industrial environments where space
[11] Caldwell, D. G., Medrano-Cerda, G. A. and Goodwin, M.
and safety is of highest concern.
1995 “Control of pneumatic muscle actuators”, IEEE Control
Systems Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 40-48.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science, [12] Crowder, R. M., 1991, “An anthropomorphic robotic end
Department of Electrical Engineering of University of effector” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Vol. 7, pp. 253-
Southampton, and the Overseas Research Student award from 268.
the UK Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have
supported this research. The authors acknowledge the [13] Dubey, V. N. and Crowder, R. M., 2002 “A finger
contribution of the Central Design Service, in particular Dave mechanism for adaptive end-effectors” ASME Design
Whatley for the realization of the design, and the construction Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2002/MECH-34317,
of the prototype mechanism. Montreal, Canada.
REFERENCES [14] Crowder, R. M., Dubey, V. N. and Chappell P. H., 1997
[1] Crowder, R. M., 1990 “Special purpose multifingered “A robotic end effector for unstructured environments”
robotic end effectors” Proceedings of the American Nuclear

8 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

American Nuclear Society, 7th Topical Meeting on Robotics
and Remote Systems, Augusta, Georgia (USA), pp. 452-459.

[15] Crowder, R. M., Dubey, V. N., Chappell, P. H. and

Whatley, D. R., 1999, “A multi-fingered end effector for
unstructured environments” Proceedings of the IEEE Intl. Conf.
on Robotics and Automation, Detroit, Michigan, Vol. 4, pp.
3038-3043.

[16] Chappell, P. H., Fateh, M. M. and Crowder, R. M., 2001,

“Kinematic control of a three-fingered and fully adaptive end-
effector using a Jacobian matrix” Mechatronics Vol. 11,
pp. 355-68.

[17] Dubey, V. N., 1997, “Sensing and control within a robotic

end effector”, PhD Thesis, University of Southampton, UK.

[18] Kumar, V. and Waldron, K. J., 1989 “Suboptimal

algorithms for force distribution in multifingered grippers”
IEEE Transaction on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp. 491-498.

[19] Dubey, V.N., Crowder R.M. and Chappell P.H. 1999,

“Optimal object grasp using tactile sensors and fuzzy logic”
Robotica, Vol. 17, No. 6, November, pp. 685-693.

[20] Crowder, R. M., Dubey, V. N. and Chappell P. H. 2000,

“Dynamic control of fingertip force using tactile sensors and
fuzzy logic”, Sixth International Conference on Control,
Automation, Robotics and Vision, Singapore.

9 Copyright © 2004 by ASME

View publication stats