(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,

Vol. 12, No. 6, 2021

Kinematic Analysis for Trajectory Planning of

Open-Source 4-DoF Robot Arm

Han Zhong Ting1 , Mohd Hairi Mohd Zaman2 , Mohd Faisal Ibrahim3 , Asraf Mohamed Moubark4
Department of Electrical, Electronic and Systems Engineering
Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract—Many small and large industries use robot arms This study aims to develop a suitable methodology for
to establish a range of tasks such as picking and placing, and solving the forward and inverse kinematic problem for a 4-DoF
painting in today’s world. However, to complete these tasks, one articulated robotic manipulator with relative ease. A kinematic
of the most critical problems is to obtain the desire position model with an accurate correlation between the forward and
of the robot arm’s end-effector. There are two methods for inverse kinematics of a 4-DoF articulated robotic manipulator
analyzing the robot arm: forward kinematic analysis and inverse
kinematic analysis. This study aims to model the forward and
is developed using MATLAB software. The performance of
inverse kinematic of an open-source 4 degrees of freedom (DoF) the developed kinematic model is assessed and evaluated in
articulated robotic arm. A kinematic model is designed and Robot Operating System (ROS) on Ubuntu. The robot arm
further evaluated all the joint parameters to calculate the end- assessed in this research is the OpenMANIPULATOR-X robot
effector’s desired position. Forward kinematic is simple to design, arm manufactured by Robotis, which is an open-source robotic
but as for the inverse kinematic, a closed-form solution is needed. platform.
The developed kinematic model’s performance is assessed on a
simulated robot arm, and the results were analyzed if the errors A. Kinematic Modeling
were produced within the accepted range. At the end of this study,
forward kinematic and inverse kinematic solutions of a 4-DoF Kinematic is a branch of mechanics that studies the motion
articulated robot arm are successfully modeled, which provides of bodies and structures without taking force into account.
the theoretical basis for the subsequent analysis and research of Geometry is used to research the movement of multi-DoF
the robot arm. kinematic chains that make up the robot arm’s structure. The
Keywords—Robot arm; kinematic analysis; forward kinematic; relationship between the robot arm’s linkages and its position,
inverse kinematic; open-source orientation, and acceleration is studied in robot kinematics.
Kinematic analysis is an effective method when planning the
robot arm’s trajectory can be divided into two types: forward
I. I NTRODUCTION kinematic and inverse kinematic.
A robot arm is made up of a movable chain of links Forward kinematic refers to using the kinematic equa-
that are linked together by joints. A hand or end-effector tions of a robot arm to compute the position of the end-
that can move freely in space is typically connected to one effector’s frame and joint variables relationship. Meanwhile,
end, which is fixed to the ground. Robot arms are capable of inverse kinematic is the reverse process that calculates the
performing repetitive tasks at speeds and precision well above joint parameters that achieve an end-effector’s position. The
those of human operators. Robot arms are used in various fields reverse operation, on the other hand, is much more challenging
requiring high precision, for instance medical, industry, and in general. The reverse operation is, in general, much more
some hazardous places. However, controlling the robot arm challenging. Forward kinematic has a simple and straightfor-
has been challenging with a higher degrees of freedom (DoF). ward solution if compared with the inverse kinematic solution,
Position analysis and trajectory planning of robot arm is an which has many equations with a highly complex form to be
essential step in design and control. solved [10].
Robotics research has gotten much traction over the years, In robotics, the inverse kinematic approach uses the kine-
thanks to advances in robot technology and the growing matic equations to find the joint parameters that give each
use of robotics in various fields. The robotics researchers of the robot arm’s end-effectors the desired configuration
have been focusing on more current configurations, intelligent (position and rotation). Motion planning determines the robot
actions, autonomous robotics, and high-level intelligence. All arm’s movement so that its end-effectors move from an initial
of these areas are related to robot kinematic, both forward and configuration to the desired configuration. Inverse kinematic
inverse. However, there are no excellent universal algorithms transforms the motion plan into joint actuator trajectories
for producing the forward and inverse kinematic of a robot for the robot arm. Forward kinematic measures the chain’s
arm, especially finding the correlation between both kinematic configuration using joint parameters, while inverse kinematic
models. The problem involves an error in achieving an accurate reverses this calculation to find the joint parameters that
correlation between the forward and the inverse kinematic of achieve the desired configuration [11].
a robot arm [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. To plan
an accurate robot arm’s movement, we have to understand the B. Mechanism of Robot Arm
relationship between the forward and inverse kinematic of the
actuators to control the robot’s resulting position in an accurate A robot arm can be either serial configuration with an
manner. Hence, there remains a scope to investigate further and open-loop structure or parallel configuration with a closed-
work towards finding better solutions. loop structure. The joint type for an industrial robot arm can
www.ijacsa.thesai.org 768 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 6, 2021

be revolute or prismatic, and the link type can be rigid or

flexible. Furthermore, a hybrid structure comprising both open
and closed-loop mechanical chains is possible. The serial robot
arm is characterized by the fact that the first joint is always
starting from the fixed base and the end of the chain is free
to move in space. Several different configurations of the robot
arm can be formed due to the revolute and prismatic joints,
and the axes of two adjacent joints can be either parallel or
orthogonal. Orthogonal joints intersect by 90◦ with respect to
their common normal, and it can be parallel when one axis
rotates 90◦ [12]. Some of the robot arm mechanisms arise from
open, closed, and hybrid open and closed kinematic chains. Fig. 2. Definition Parameters of a Robot Arm [15].

In addition, the DoF can be defined as the particular

motion of links related to any mechanism or machine. When
performing a specific task, the DoF often plays an important defined using four parameters, known as the D-H parameters.
role. The total number of DoF is always equal to the number The parameters taken are as follows:
of independent displacements of links. The number of DoF
permitted by a joint and their characteristics can be determined 1) Joint offset, di : This parameter is the intersection
by the design constraints of the body or link. point’s length at the common normal line on the
zi joint axis. The measured value is at a distance
C. Articulated Robot Arm between xi and xi+1 , which is measured along zi.
2) Joint angle, θi : This parameter is the angle between
The articulated robot arm is a robot arm with revolute the orthogonal projection on the common normal line,
joints and is also called a revolute, or anthropomorphic robot xi and xi+1 , and the normal plane to the zi joint axis.
arm. The anthropomorphic resembles the human arm’s design, The rotation direction is closely related to the param-
including shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints [13]. The articulated eter value; when the rotation is counterclockwise, it is
robot arm can range from a simple two-joints structure to sys- positive. This parameter is taken at degrees between
tems with 10 or more interacting joints [14]. The configuration xi and xi+1 , measured approximately zi .
of a 4-DoF articulated manipulator is shown in Fig. 1. 3) Link length, ai : This parameter is taken at the dis-
tance of the common normal to zi and zi+1 , measured
y2 along xi+1 .
y3 4) Twist angle, αi : This parameter is the angle between
the orthogonal projections on the axis of the joint zi
x2 x3 and zi−1 to the normal plane on the common normal
z2 θ y4 line. This value can be obtained from the degree
3
y1 between zi and zi+1 , measured by xi .
z3 θ4
x1 A transformation matrix can be obtained based on the D-
x4 H parameters, which define the transformation of the i-frame
z4 relative to the i − 1 frame. This matrix can be represented as
z1
θ2 Tii−1 , and can be calculated as,
z0
θ1 c(θi ) −s(θi )c(αi ) s(θi )s(αi ) ai c(θi )
 
s(θ ) c(θi )c(αi ) −c(θi )s(αi ) ai s(θi )
x0 Tii−1 = i (1)
0 s(αi ) c(αi ) di 
0 0 0 1
y0
where c and s represent sin and cos, respectively. For n
Fig. 1. Configuration of a 4-DoF Articulated Robot Arm. DoF consisting of n + 1 frames, the sum of the numbers for
the transformation matrix is n [16]. The concatenated matrix
provides the required transformation from the n frame that
D. Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) Convention corresponds to the end-effector to the 0-frame mounted on the
base as follows:
In the Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) convention, the link
notation can describe the spatial relationship between two
relative joints. The frame that connects with another joint Tn0 = T10 · T21 · T32 . . . Tnn−1 (2)
has a relationship to the position and geometry with another
joint. Fig. 2 shows that the link parameters are αi and ai , E. Closed-Form Solution
and the joint offset (di ) is fixed to provide the manipulator
configuration. This configuration achieves a specific posture A closed-form solution is an expression for an exact
using n of θi [15]. The posture of every configuration or end- solution given with a finite amount of data [17]. If an equation
effector can be changed if the value of θi changes. solves a given problem in terms of functions and mathematical
operations from a given commonly accepted set, it is said to be
Once the link frame has been set, the position and ori- a closed-form solution. An infinite sum, for example, will not
entation of the i-frame in relation to i − 1 are completely be considered a closed-form solution. The closed-form solution
www.ijacsa.thesai.org 769 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 6, 2021

can be applied in solving the inverse kinematic of the robot

arm. The solution obtained has the advantages of being exact,
includes all solution sets, and low computational cost.

II. M ETHODS
Some considerations should be emphasized to ensure the
robot arm can maneuver correctly, including its software and
hardware. Accordingly, software should be stable and easy to
use to prevent difficulties. Furthermore, hardware plays a role
in forming a solid robot arm and able to move as planned. The
MATLAB software (MathWorks) has been used to develop the
algorithm in this study.
The primary hardware utilized in this study is the
OpenMANIPULATOR-X robot arm manufactured by Robotis.
The OpenMANIPULATOR-X robot arm is made up of pieces
from the DYNAMIXEL-X series and 3D printing. The daisy
chain method is adopted by DYNAMIXEL, which has a
modular design. It enables users to add or remove joints
for their own use easily. Fig. 3 shows the structure of the
OpenMANIPULATOR-X robot arm [18].

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the Process of Kinematic Modeling.

Fig. 3. Structure of the OpenMANIPULATOR-X Robot Arm [18].

A. Forward and Inverse Kinematic Analysis

Fig. 4 shows the flowchart of the forward and inverse kine-
matic analysis. Forward kinematic modeling was performed
using the Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) convention method. For
inverse kinematic modeling, the closed-form solution method
was used to obtain all sets of possible solutions. Next, cor-
relation analysis between the forward and inverse kinematic
was performed to determine whether there are any relationship
between both kinematic models. Finally, performance evalua-
tion was carried out using trajectory planning and waypoint
tracking algorithm in MATLAB and ROS on Ubuntu. Fig. 5. Configuration Analysis of the OpenMANIPULATOR-X Robot Arm.

B. Modeling of Forward Kinematic

TABLE I. D-H PARAMETERS
The D-H convention method used to model the forward
kinematic of the robot arm can be divided into three pro- Joint θi ( ◦ ) αi (◦ ) ai (m) di (m)
cesses. The first process is the configuration analysis of the
robot arm to obtain its D-H parameters. Fig. 5 shows the 1 θ1 90 0 0.077
OpenMANIPULATOR-X robot arm’s configuration analysis, 2 θ1 − θ0 0 0.130 0
while Table I shows the D-H parameters obtained after the
configuration analysis is performed. 3 θ3 + θ0 0 0.135 0

There is an offset between joint 2 and joint 3 on the robot 4 θ4 0 0.126 0

arm, resulting in an offset angle. The offset angle is identified
and considered in D-H parameters. Fig. 6 shows the calculation
of the offset angle, θ0 , between joints 2 and 3.
www.ijacsa.thesai.org 770 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 6, 2021

0.024 where p(px , py , pz ) is the position vector of the end-

effector while n(nx , ny , nz ), o(ox , oy , oz ) and a(ax , ay , az )
are orthogonal unit vectors that determine the orientation of
the frame for the end-effector. px , py , and pz are the values
for x, y, and z coordinates of the end-effector.
 
−1 0.024
0.128 θ0 = tan ≈ 11◦
θ0 0.128
C. Modeling of Inverse Kinematic
The closed-form solution method involving geometric and
algebraic solutions is used to model the robot arm’s inverse
Fig. 6. Calculation of Offset Angle, θ0 between Joint 2 and 3. kinematic. The solution is divided into two processes. The first
process is the calculation to get the angle for joint 1. The
movement of the robot arm on the x − y surface depends only
on the angle of joint 1.
The second process in the D-H convention involves the
calculation of the transformation matrix. After obtaining the Regarding the x-y surface projection of the robot arm
value of the D-H parameters, the parameters will be included movement, the angle for joint 1, θ1 can be calculated as
in the transformation matrix. Since 4 frames or 4 DoF were follows:
used, the limit for the linked matrix is T40 . The transformation
matrix equations can be formulated as follows: 
py

θ1 = tan−1 (11)
  px
c(θ1 ) 0 s(θ1 ) 0
s(θ1 ) 0 −c(θ1 ) 0 
T10 = (3) Since θ1 is the rotational angle for the robot arm’s base,
0 1 0 d1 
the angle range is between −180◦ and 180◦ . The quadrant for
0 0 0 1
θ1 is identified to determine the sign for each trigonometric
  ratio in a given quadrant. Table II shows the signs for the
c(θ2 ) −s(θ2 ) 0 a2 c(θ2 ) trigonometric ratio in each quadrant.
1 s(θ2 ) c(θ2 ) 0 a2 s(θ2 )
T2 =  (4)
0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 1 TABLE II. S IGNS FOR THE T RIGONOMETRIC R ATIO IN E ACH Q UADRANT

  px py Quadrant θ1
c(θ3 ) −s(θ3 ) 0 a3 c(θ3 )
+ + 1 θ1
2 s(θ3 ) c(θ3 ) 0 a3 s(θ3 )
T3 =  (5)
0 0 1 0  - + 2 θ1 + 180◦
0 0 0 1
- - 3 θ1 − 180◦
  + 1 4 θ1
c(θ4 ) −s(θ4 ) 0 a4 c(θ4 )
3 s(θ4 ) c(θ4 ) 0 a4 s(θ4 )
T4 =  0 0 1 0  (6) The second process involves calculating the angles for
0 0 0 1 joints 2, 3, and 4 (θ2 , θ3 , and θ4 ). For obtaining the solution
for θ2 , θ3 , and θ4 , the 3-dimensional (3D) space which is
consisting of the x, y, and z coordinate axes, is simplified
After obtaining values for T10 , T21 , T32 and T43 , the next
to a 2-dimensional (2D) surface. The x and y-axis are merged
step is to combine them in a sequence to simplify them.
as a new axis and known as the r-axis, as shown in Fig. 7.

T42 = T32 · T43 (7) y

r
T41 = T21 · T42 (8) pr
py

T40 = T10 · T41 (9)

The final process in the D-H convention is to obtain θ1

the position vector for the end-effector. After completing the x
simplification process, the transformation matrix equation is as px
follows: Fig. 7. Combination of x and y-Axis as r-Axis.
 
nx ox ax px
0  ny oy ay py  The x-coordinate and the y-coordinate for the end-effector
T4 = n oz az pz  (10) are combined as r-coordinate using the Pythagorean equation
z
0 0 0 1 as follows:
www.ijacsa.thesai.org 771 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 6, 2021

pr 2 = px 2 + py 2 (12) r2 = r3 − a4 cos φ (17)

q
pr = px 2 + py 2 (13)
z2 = z3 − a4 sin φ (18)
Fig. 8 shows the projection of the r-z surface for the
movement of the robot arm. The r3 coordinates and the z3
coordinates can be calculated as follows:

r2 2 + z2 2 − a2 2 + a3 2
cos θ3 = (19)
2 a2 a3
r3 = pr (14)

!
z3 = pz − d1 (15) r2 2 + z2 2 − a2 2 + a3 2
θ3 = ± cos−1 (20)
2 a2 a3
z

r2 = a2 cos θ2 + a3 cos (θ2 + θ3 ) (21)

a4 (r3 , z3 )
z2 = a2 sin θ2 + a3 sin (θ2 + θ3 ) (22)
−θ4

z2
a3
r2 = cos θ2 (a2 + a3 cos θ3 ) − sin θ2 (a3 sin θ3 ) (23)
θ3
a2

θ2 z2 = cos θ2 (a3 sin θ3 ) + sin θ2 (a2 + a3 cos θ3 ) (24)

d1
r2 r (a2 + a3 cos θ3 ) r2 + (a3 sin θ3 ) z2
cos θ2 = (25)
Fig. 8. Projection of the r − z Surface for the Movement of the Robot Arm.
r2 2 + z2 2

The range of the total sum of angles for θ2 , θ3 , and θ4 are

between −90◦ and 90◦ as shown in Fig. 9. (a2 + a3 cos θ3 ) z2 + (a3 sin θ3 ) r2
sin θ2 = (26)
r2 2 + z2 2

 
−1 sin θ2
θ2 = tan (27)
cos θ2

90◦
θ4 = φ − (θ2 + θ3 ) (28)
−90◦

There are two possible configurations for the robot arm,

namely “elbow up” and “elbow down”. Both configurations
are considered in the calculation of θ2 , θ3 , and θ4 .
Fig. 9. Maximum and Minimum of the Sum of Angle for Joint 2, 3 and 4.
The angle range for θ2 , θ3 , and θ4 is between −90◦ and
90◦ , respectively. Based on the configuration of the robot arm
θ2 , θ3 , and θ4 can be calculated using the following in ROS, the angle range for θ2 becomes 0◦ and 180◦ and the
equations: angle range for θ3 becomes −180◦ and 0◦ . The angle limit for
each joint in ROS ranges between −90◦ and 90◦ . Thus, the
angle range for θ2 to be considered in kinematic modeling is
φ = θ2 + θ3 + θ4 (16) between 0 and 90◦ , while for θ3 is between −90◦ and 0◦ .
www.ijacsa.thesai.org 772 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 6, 2021

III. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION

A. Modeling of Forward Kinematic
Fig. 11 shows the flowchart of the forward kinematic mod-
eling algorithm. D-H parameters are included in the developed
algorithm to obtain the end-effector’s coordinate of the robot
arm, and the transformation matrix is calculated to obtain
the equations for the end-effector’s coordinates. Next, random
values of the four joint angles are generated by using the
“randi” function. This function is able to generate uniformly
distributed random integers from the specified interval. Finally,
the end-effector’s coordinates are calculated by inserting the
random values for the four joint angles into the transformation
matrix equations. Table III shows the results of the forward
kinematic modeling developed.

Fig. 10. Simulation Procedures for Trajectory Planning and Waypoint

Tracking.

D. Trajectory Planning and Waypoint Tracking

The simulation of trajectory planning and waypoint track- Fig. 11. Flowchart of Forward Kinematic Modeling Algorithm.
ing is done using MATLAB software with the help of Robotics
System Toolbox, Simulink and Simscape Multibody. Fig. 10
shows the simulation procedure for trajectory planning and
waypoint tracking. The first step to be completed is to analyze TABLE III. R ESULTS OF F ORWARD K INEMATIC M ODELING
the data using MATLAB software. This procedure aims to
identify and overcome the dependencies of the simulation files. Joint Angles (◦ ) End-Effector’s Coordinates
Next, the algorithm includes uploading files related to the Case
robot arm into MATLAB software. After that, the algorithm θ1 θ2 θ3 θ4 px py pz
configures one point or a set of points to be used. The 1 103 15 -5 21 -0.1489 0.3508 0.115
points are obtained from the modeling of the robot arm and
2 56 3 -13 79 0.1716 0.2544 0.1531
incorporated into the algorithm. This step is very important to
determine the similarity with the actual robot arm. 3 65 68 -23 -20 0.1185 0.2542 0.3347

The next step is to calculate and form a smooth trajectory. 4 -22 34 -21 53 0.2804 -0.1133 0.2733
This process runs the trajectory process and uses the points 5 48 8 -65 32 0.2125 0.236 -0.0963
configured in the previous step. Trajectory planning is one of
the critical processes in robots, where it involves the smooth 6 11 70 -8 -67 0.2512 0.0488 0.2966
movement of the end-effector from the initial position to the 7 166 42 -35 -40 -0.3407 0.0849 0.0918
target position [18]. When an arbitrary endpoint is given, the
algorithm computes the optimal feasible path for the robot 8 82 38 -58 36 0.0632 0.3583 0.1246
arm’s movement based on the kinematic constraints. 9 -158 56 -79 14 -0.3158 -0.1276 0.0965

The final process involves performing inverse kinematic 10 -54 75 -37 9 0.1465 -0.2017 0.3691
of the points found on the robot arm workspace. There are
six values in the weight vector. The first three values are for
rotational purposes, and the last three values are for transition B. Modeling of Inverse Kinematic
purposes. Then, the algorithm configures a number greater
than the number of points previously configured to ensure the Fig. 12 shows the flowchart of the inverse kinematic model-
robot arm’s smooth movement. After that, it uses a kinematic ing algorithm. The coordinates of the end-effector are entered
solver for each end-effector position and uses the previous into the algorithm to obtain the joint angles that achieve a
configuration to make an initial guess. After completing all particular end-effector position. Next, the angle value for joint
the processes, the movement of the robot arm is simulated. 1 is calculated, followed by calculating the angle values for
www.ijacsa.thesai.org 773 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 6, 2021

joints 2, 3, and 4. Finally, all solution sets for the joint angles decimal point for the joint angles, as shown in Table V.
are obtained.
TABLE V. R ESULTS OF I NVERSE K INEMATIC M ODELING

End-Effector’s Coordinates Joint Angles (◦ ) Number of Solution Sets

Case
px py pz θ1 θ2 θ3 θ4 0 DP 1 DP 2 DP

1 -0.0833 0.361 0.1744 103 15 -5 21 66 668 6672

2 0.1716 0.2544 0.1531 56 3 -13 79 179 1769 17686

3 0.1185 0.2542 0.3347 65 68 -23 -20 76 762 7616

4 0.2804 -0.1133 0.2733 -22 34 -21 53 134 1346 13454

5 0.2125 0.236 -0.0963 48 8 -65 32 132 1318 13174

6 0.2512 0.0488 0.2966 11 70 -8 -67 147 1462 14617

7 -0.3407 0.0849 0.0918 166 42 -35 -40 156 1546 15468

8 0.0632 0.3583 0.1246 82 38 -58 36 120 1192 11902

9 -0.3158 -0.1276 0.0965 -158 56 -79 14 176 1752 17518

10 0.1465 -0.2017 0.3691 -54 75 -37 9 64 630 6310

Fig. 12. Flowchart of Inverse Kinematic Modeling Algorithm.

C. Correlation Analysis of Kinematic Modeling
Table IV shows the set of solutions for joint angles in Referring to the forward and inverse kinematic modeling
integers obtained using MATLAB software. Referring to case 1 results, as shown in Tables III and V, the solution is precisely
from the results of the forward kinematic modeling in Table V, the same when comparing the joint angles from the forward
a total of 66 sets of solutions can be obtained for the end- and inverse kinematic. The same solution set of joint angles
effector’s coordinates (px = −0.0834, py = 0.3611 and could be obtained using the inverse kinematic model, as
pz = 0.1744) including the desired solution set, which is the applied in the forward kinematic model. Thus, the correlation
65th set of solution (θ1 = 103◦ , θ2 = 15◦ , θ3 = −5◦ and between the developed forward and inverse kinematic model
θ4 = 21◦ ). is said to be accurate.

D. Performance of End-Effector Coordinates

TABLE IV. S ET OF S OLUTIONS FOR J OINT A NGLES IN THE F ORM OF
I NTEGER Fig. 13 and 14 display the example of simulation results
of trajectory planning and waypoint tracking for the set of
Joint Angles (◦ ) Joint Angles (◦ )
Solution Solution solutions for the joint angles. The simulation results show that
θ1 θ2 θ3 θ4 θ1 θ2 θ3 θ4
1: 103 28 -2 -28 34: 103 40 -39 14
the solution set of joint angles which produce the most feasible
2: 103 38 -20 -19 35: 103 11 17 -12 trajectory are θ1 = 103◦ , θ2 = 42◦ , θ3 = −35◦ and θ4 =
3: 103 26 2 -28 36: 103 39 -39 16 0◦ . Furthermore, Table VI depicts the comparison of the end-
4: 103 39 -24 -15 37: 103 11 17 -10 effector’s coordinates obtained from the modeling process in
5: 103 24 5 -28 38: 103 39 -39 17
6: 103 40 -27 -13 39: 103 10 16 -9
MATLAB and output from ROS. The most significant errors
7: 103 23 7 -28 40: 103 38 -38 18
occurred in case 1 and case 5. Errors occur between the end-
8: 103 41 -29 -10 41: 103 10 16 -7 effector’s coordinates obtained from the results of modeling
9: 103 21 9 -27 42: 103 37 -38 20 and output from ROS due to the rounding calculations that
10: 103 41 -31 -8 43: 103 10 15 -5
unavoidable in modeling and the kinematic constraints on the
11: 103 20 10 -26 44: 103 37 -37 21
12: 103 42 -32 -5 45: 103 10 15 -3
simulated robot arm in ROS as follows:
13: 103 19 12 -25 46: 103 36 -37 22
14: 103 42 -34 -3 47: 103 9 14 -1
1) Joint Bounds:
15: 103 18 13 -25 48: 103 35 -36 23 This constraint is satisfied if the robot configuration
16: 103 42 -35 -1 49: 103 9 13 0 vector maintains all joint positions within the bounds
17: 103 17 14 -24 50: 103 34 -35 24 specified.
18: 103 42 -36 1 51: 103 9 12 2
19: 103 16 14 -22 52: 103 33 -34 25
2) Cartesian bounds:
20: 103 42 -36 2 53: 103 10 11 5 This constraint is satisfied if the end-effector origin’s
21: 103 15 15 -21 54: 103 32 -33 26 position relative to the target frame remains within
22: 103 42 -37 4 55: 103 10 9 7 the bounds specified.
23: 103 14 16 -20 56: 103 31 -31 27
3) Orientation target:
24: 103 42 -38 6 57: 103 10 8 9
25: 103 14 16 -19 58: 103 29 -30 27
This constraint requires the end-effector orientation to
26: 103 41 -38 8 59: 103 11 6 11 match a target orientation within an angular tolerance
27: 103 13 16 -18 60: 103 28 -28 28 in any direction. The target orientation is specified
28: 103 41 -38 9 61: 103 12 3 14 relative to the body frame of the reference body.
29: 103 12 17 -16 62: 103 26 -25 28
30: 103 41 -39 11 63: 103 13 0 17
4) Pose target:
31: 103 12 17 -15 64: 103 24 -22 28 This constraint requires the end-effector’s pose to
32: 103 40 -39 13 65: 103 15 -5 21 match a target pose within a distance and angular
33: 103 11 17 -13 66: 103 21 -17 27 tolerance in any direction. The target pose is specified
relative to the body frame of the reference body.
To obtain more accurate angles with more decimal points, 5) Position target:
the number of solution sets increases. The number of solution This constraint requires the end-effector position to
sets increases by about 10 times with the increase of one match a target position within a distance tolerance in
www.ijacsa.thesai.org 774 | P a g e
 (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 6, 2021

any direction. The target position is specified relative IV. C ONCLUSION

to the body frame of the reference body.
This study successfully modeled both the forward and
inverse kinematic model for the 4-DoF articulated robot arm.
Correlation between the forward and inverse kinematic model
is analyzed, and the performance of the kinematic model is
evaluated on the simulated robot arm. The developed kinematic
model serves as a theoretical framework for further research,
for instance robot arm trajectory planning, and structural
optimization of robot design.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was financially supported by Universiti Ke-
bangsaan Malaysia (grant no. GGPM-2019-051 and GUP-
2018-103).

R EFERENCES
[1] G. Bao, S. Liu, and H. Zhao, “Kinematics simulation of 4 DOF
manipulator,” vol. 123, pp. 400–408, 2017.
[2] Z. Chao, F. Wang, C. Zhang, and H. Li, “Inverse kinematics solution
and verification of 4-DOF hydraulic manipulator,” Journal of Physics:
Fig. 13. Simulation Results of Trajectory Planning and Waypoint Tracking Conference Series, vol. 916, no. 1, 2017.
for Joint Angle 1.
[3] T. Dewi, S. Nurmaini, P. Risma, Y. Oktarina, and M. Roriz, “Inverse
kinematic analysis of 4 DOF pick and place arm robot manipulator
using fuzzy logic controller,” Int. Journal of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, vol. 10, no. 2, 2020.
[4] S. Gómez, G. Sánchez, J. Zarama, M. C. Ramos, J. E. Alcántar,
A. Nuñez, J. Torres, S. Santana, and F. Nájera, “Design of a 4-Dof
robot manipulator with optimized algorithm for inverse kinematics,” Int.
Journal of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, vol. 9, no. 6, pp.
929–934, 2016.
[5] A. A. Mohammed, and M. Sunar, “Kinematics modeling of a 4-DOF
robotic arm,” in Proceedings of the 2015 Int. Conf. on Control, Automa-
tion and Robotics, pp. 87—91, 2015.
[6] A. Novitarini, Y. Aniroh, D. Y. Anshori, and S. Budiprayitno, “A closed-
form solution of inverse kinematic for 4 DOF tetrix manipulator robot,” in
Proceedings of the 2017 Int. Conf. on Advanced Mechatronics, Intelligent
Manufacture, and Industrial Automation, pp. 25—29, 2017.
[7] L. Rónai, and T. Szabó, “Kinematical investigation and regulation of a
4DOF model robot,” Acta Mechanica Slovaca, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 50–56,
2016.
[8] A. Singh, and A. Singla, “Kinematic Modeling of Robotic Manipulators,”
in Proceedings of the 2017 National Academy of Sciences India Section
A - Physical Sciences, pp. 303—319, 2017.
[9] T. Singh, P. Suresh, and S. Chandan, “Forward and inverse kinematic
Fig. 14. Simulation Results of Trajectory Planning and Waypoint Tracking analysis of robotic manipulators,” Int. Research Journal of Engineering
for Joint Angles 2, 3 and 4. and Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1459–1469, 2017.
[10] A. El-Sherbiny, M. Elhosseini, and A. Haikal, “A comparative study
of soft computing methods to solve inverse kinematics problem,” Ain
Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 2535–2548, 2018.
[11] P. Jha, “Inverse kinematic analysis of robot manipulators,” India:
TABLE VI. P ERFORMANCE OF E ND - EFFECTOR C OORDINATES FROM National Institute of Technology Rourkela, 2015.
M ODELING AND ROS. [12] J. M. McCarthy, and G. S. Soh, “Geometric design of linkages,” New
York: Springer, 2010.
End-Effector’s Coordinates
Error (%) [13] L. Luthsamy, H.F. AL-Qrimli, S.Shazzana Wan Taha, and N.A. Raj,
Case Modeling Output from ROS “Design and control of an anthropomorphic robotic arm,” Journal of
px py pz px py pz px py pz Industrial Engineering Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2016.
1 -0.0833 0.361 0.1744 -0.073 0.366 0.1784 14.25 1.34 2.24
[14] I. Al-Naimi, “Introduction to robot manipulators,” Robotics and Au-
tomation, 2018.
2 0.1716 0.2544 0.1531 0.178 0.246 0.155 3.6 3.41 1.23
[15] P. Corke, “Robotics, vision and control: Fundamental algorithms in
3 0.1185 0.2542 0.3347 0.127 0.247 0.327 6.69 2.91 2.35 MATLAB,” 2nd ed. Switzerland: Springer, 2017.
4 0.2804 -0.1133 0.2733 0.282 -0.109 0.271 0.57 3.94 0.85 [16] S. Singh, and E. Singla, “Service arms with unconventional robotic
5 0.2125 0.236 -0.0963 0.221 0.232 -0.087 3.85 1.72 10.69 parameters for intricate workstations: Optimal number and dimensional
synthesis,” Journal of Robotics, pp. 1-–11, 2016.
6 0.2512 0.0488 0.2966 0.257 0.048 0.287 2.26 1.67 3.34
[17] M. v. Hoeij, “Closed form solutions,” Florida: Florida State University,
7 -0.3407 0.0849 0.0918 -0.318 0.082 0.091 7.14 3.54 0.88 2017.
8 0.0632 0.3583 0.1246 0.061 0.35 0.129 3.61 2.37 3.41 [18] Robotis, “OpenMANIPULATOR-X,” Available online:
9 -0.3158 -0.1276 0.0965 -0.294 -0.124 0.101 7.41 2.9 4.46 https://emanual.robotis.com [accessed on 18 May 2021].
10 0.1465 -0.2017 0.3691 0.153 -0.194 0.362 4.25 3.97 1.96

www.ijacsa.thesai.org 775 | P a g e