Informatics in Control, Automation and

Robotics: 16th International

Conference, ICINCO 2019 Prague,
Czech Republic, July 29-31, 2019,
Revised Selected Papers Oleg Gusikhin
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/informatics-in-control-automation-and-robotics-16th-in
ternational-conference-icinco-2019-prague-czech-republic-july-29-31-2019-revised-se
lected-papers-oleg-gusikhin/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

Informatics in Control Automation and Robotics 10th

International Conference ICINCO 2013 Reykjavík Iceland
July 29 31 2013 Revised Selected Papers 1st Edition
Jean-Louis Ferrier
https://textbookfull.com/product/informatics-in-control-
automation-and-robotics-10th-international-conference-
icinco-2013-reykjavik-iceland-july-29-31-2013-revised-selected-
papers-1st-edition-jean-louis-ferrier/

Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and

Applications: 9th International Conference, SIMULTECH
2019 Prague, Czech Republic, July 29-31, 2019, Revised
Selected Papers Mohammad S. Obaidat
https://textbookfull.com/product/simulation-and-modeling-
methodologies-technologies-and-applications-9th-international-
conference-simultech-2019-prague-czech-republic-
july-29-31-2019-revised-selected-papers-mohammad-s-obaidat/

E Business and Telecommunications 16th International

Conference ICETE 2019 Prague Czech Republic July 26 28
2019 Revised Selected Papers Mohammad S. Obaidat

https://textbookfull.com/product/e-business-and-
telecommunications-16th-international-conference-
icete-2019-prague-czech-republic-july-26-28-2019-revised-
Software Technologies 14th International Conference
ICSOFT 2019 Prague Czech Republic July 26 28 2019
Revised Selected Papers Marten Van Sinderen

https://textbookfull.com/product/software-technologies-14th-
international-conference-icsoft-2019-prague-czech-republic-
july-26-28-2019-revised-selected-papers-marten-van-sinderen/

Informatics in Control Automation and Robotics 12th

International Conference ICINCO 2015 Colmar France July
21 23 2015 Revised Selected Papers 1st Edition Joaquim
Filipe
https://textbookfull.com/product/informatics-in-control-
automation-and-robotics-12th-international-conference-
icinco-2015-colmar-france-july-21-23-2015-revised-selected-
papers-1st-edition-joaquim-filipe/

Information Systems Security and Privacy 5th

International Conference ICISSP 2019 Prague Czech
Republic February 23 25 2019 Revised Selected Papers
Paolo Mori
https://textbookfull.com/product/information-systems-security-
and-privacy-5th-international-conference-icissp-2019-prague-
czech-republic-february-23-25-2019-revised-selected-papers-paolo-
mori/

Agents and Artificial Intelligence 11th International

Conference ICAART 2019 Prague Czech Republic February
19 21 2019 Revised Selected Papers Jaap Van Den Herik

https://textbookfull.com/product/agents-and-artificial-
intelligence-11th-international-conference-icaart-2019-prague-
czech-republic-february-19-21-2019-revised-selected-papers-jaap-
van-den-herik/

Operations Research and Enterprise Systems 8th

International Conference ICORES 2019 Prague Czech
Republic February 19 21 2019 Revised Selected Papers
Greg H. Parlier
https://textbookfull.com/product/operations-research-and-
enterprise-systems-8th-international-conference-
icores-2019-prague-czech-republic-february-19-21-2019-revised-
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 720

Oleg Gusikhin
Kurosh Madani
Janan Zaytoon Editors

Informatics
in Control,
Automation and
Robotics
16th International Conference,
ICINCO 2019 Prague, Czech Republic,
July 29–31, 2019, Revised Selected
Papers
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering

Volume 720

Series Editors

Leopoldo Angrisani, Department of Electrical and Information Technologies Engineering, University of Napoli
Federico II, Naples, Italy
Marco Arteaga, Departament de Control y Robótica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coyoacán,
Mexico
Bijaya Ketan Panigrahi, Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India
Samarjit Chakraborty, Fakultät für Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik, TU München, Munich, Germany
Jiming Chen, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Shanben Chen, Materials Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Tan Kay Chen, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore, Singapore
Rüdiger Dillmann, Humanoids and Intelligent Systems Laboratory, Karlsruhe Institute for Technology,
Karlsruhe, Germany
Haibin Duan, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, China
Gianluigi Ferrari, Università di Parma, Parma, Italy
Manuel Ferre, Centre for Automation and Robotics CAR (UPM-CSIC), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
Madrid, Spain
Sandra Hirche, Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Science, Technische Universität
München, Munich, Germany
Faryar Jabbari, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA,
USA
Limin Jia, State Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control and Safety, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China
Janusz Kacprzyk, Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
Alaa Khamis, German University in Egypt El Tagamoa El Khames, New Cairo City, Egypt
Torsten Kroeger, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Qilian Liang, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA
Ferran Martin, Departament d’Enginyeria Electrònica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra,
Barcelona, Spain
Tan Cher Ming, College of Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Wolfgang Minker, Institute of Information Technology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
Pradeep Misra, Department of Electrical Engineering, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA
Sebastian Möller, Quality and Usability Laboratory, TU Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Subhas Mukhopadhyay, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology, Massey University, Palmerston
North, Manawatu-Wanganui, New Zealand
Cun-Zheng Ning, Electrical Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Toyoaki Nishida, Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
Federica Pascucci, Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Università degli Studi “Roma Tre”, Rome, Italy
Yong Qin, State Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control and Safety, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China
Gan Woon Seng, School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore, Singapore
Joachim Speidel, Institute of Telecommunications, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Germano Veiga, Campus da FEUP, INESC Porto, Porto, Portugal
Haitao Wu, Academy of Opto-electronics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Junjie James Zhang, Charlotte, NC, USA
The book series Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (LNEE) publishes the latest developments
in Electrical Engineering - quickly, informally and in high quality. While original research
reported in proceedings and monographs has traditionally formed the core of LNEE, we also
encourage authors to submit books devoted to supporting student education and professional
training in the various fields and applications areas of electrical engineering. The series cover
classical and emerging topics concerning:
• Communication Engineering, Information Theory and Networks
• Electronics Engineering and Microelectronics
• Signal, Image and Speech Processing
• Wireless and Mobile Communication
• Circuits and Systems
• Energy Systems, Power Electronics and Electrical Machines
• Electro-optical Engineering
• Instrumentation Engineering
• Avionics Engineering
• Control Systems
• Internet-of-Things and Cybersecurity
• Biomedical Devices, MEMS and NEMS

For general information about this book series, comments or suggestions, please contact leontina.
dicecco@springer.com.
To submit a proposal or request further information, please contact the Publishing Editor in
your country:
China
Jasmine Dou, Associate Editor (jasmine.dou@springer.com)
India, Japan, Rest of Asia
Swati Meherishi, Executive Editor (Swati.Meherishi@springer.com)
Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand
Ramesh Nath Premnath, Editor (ramesh.premnath@springernature.com)
USA, Canada:
Michael Luby, Senior Editor (michael.luby@springer.com)
All other Countries:
Leontina Di Cecco, Senior Editor (leontina.dicecco@springer.com)
** Indexing: Indexed by Scopus. **

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7818

Oleg Gusikhin Kurosh Madani
• •

Janan Zaytoon
Editors

Informatics in Control,
Automation and Robotics
16th International Conference, ICINCO 2019
Prague, Czech Republic, July 29–31, 2019,
Revised Selected Papers

123
Editors
Oleg Gusikhin Kurosh Madani
Ford Research and Advanced Engineering University of Paris-EST Créteil (UPEC)
Dearborn, MI, USA Vitry-sur-Seine, France

Janan Zaytoon
University of Reims Champagne Ardennes
Vitry-sur-Seine, France

ISSN 1876-1100 ISSN 1876-1119 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering
ISBN 978-3-030-63192-5 ISBN 978-3-030-63193-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63193-2
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license
to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

The present book includes extended and revised versions of a set of selected papers
from the 16th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and
Robotics (ICINCO 2019), held in Prague, Czech Republic, from July 29 to 31,
2019. The purpose of the 16th edition of this annual conference is to bring together
researchers, engineers and practitioners interested in the application of informatics
to control, automation and robotics. Four simultaneous tracks were held, covering
intelligent control systems, optimization, robotics, automation, signal processing,
sensors, systems modeling and control, and industrial informatics. Informatics
applications are pervasive in many areas of control, automation and robotics.
ICINCO 2019 received 213 paper submissions from 44 countries of which 5%
were included in this book. The papers were selected by the event chairs, and their
selection is based on a number of criteria that include the classifications and
comments provided by the program committee members, the session chairs’
assessment and also the program chairs’ global view of all papers included in the
technical program. The authors of selected papers were then invited to submit a
revised and extended version of their papers having at least 30% innovative
material. The selection has also followed the ambition of an equilibrate highlight
of the four aforementioned conference’s tracks.
We would like to thank all the authors for their contributions and to express our
gratitude to the reviewers who have helped to ensure the quality of this
post-conference publication.

July 2019 Oleg Gusikhin

Kurosh Madani
Janan Zaytoon

v
Organization

Conference Co-chairs

Kurosh Madani University of Paris-EST Créteil (UPEC), France

Janan Zaytoon University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne,
France

Program Chair
Oleg Gusikhin Ford Motor Company, USA

Program Committee
Samir Aberkane Centre de Recherche en Automatique de Nancy
(CRAN), France
El-Houssaine Aghezzaf Ghent University, Faculty of Engineering
and Architecture, Belgium
Eugenio Aguirre University of Granada, Spain
Carlos Aldana University of Guadalajara, Mexico
Mihail Antchev Technical University, Sofia, Bulgaria
Rui Araujo University of Coimbra, Portugal
T. Asokan Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India
M. Amine Atoui UBS, France
Alfonso Baños Universidad de Murcia, Spain
Guilherme Barreto Universidade Federal do Ceará, Brazil
Marcelo Becker Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, Brazil
Laxmidhar Behera Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India
Carsten Behn Schmalkalden University of Applied Sciences,
Germany
Faïz Ben Amar Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Institut
Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique, France

vii
viii Organization

Lyes Benyoucef Aix-Marseille University, France

Karsten Berns University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
Reinaldo Bianchi Centro Universitario da FEI, Brazil
Mauro Birattari Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Jean-Louis Boimond ISTIA, LARIS, France
Magnus Boman The Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Glen Bright University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Marvin Bugeja University of Malta, Malta
Kevin Burn University of Sunderland, UK
Kenneth Camilleri University of Malta, Malta
Angelo Cangelosi University of Plymouth, UK
Giuseppe Carbone Università della Calabria, Italy
Alessandro Casavola University of Calabria, Italy
Riccardo Cassinis University of Brescia, Italy
Marco Castellani University of Birmingham, UK
Jaime Cerda Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de
Hidalgo, Mexico
Kuo-Ming Chang National Kaohsiung University of Applied
Sciences, Taiwan, Republic of China
Yuh-Min Chen National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan,
Republic of China
Albert Cheng University of Houston, USA
Sung-Bae Cho Yonsei University, Korea
Ryszard Choras UTP University of Sciences and Technology,
Poland
Paul Christodoulides Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus
Chengbin Chu ESIEE Paris, Université Paris-Est, France
Feng Chu University of Evry Val d’Essonne, France
Daisuke Chugo Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
Carlos Coello CINVESTAV-IPN, Mexico
James Conrad University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
Erik Cuevas Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico
José Cunha University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro,
Portugal
Prithviraj Dasgupta University of Nebraska, USA
Angel Del Pobil Universitat Jaume I, Spain
Kyriakos Deliparaschos Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus
Mingcong Deng Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology,
Japan
Paolo Di Giamberardino Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Hans Doran Zurich University of Applied Sciences,
Switzerland
António Dourado University of Coimbra, Portugal
Vasile Dragan Romanian Academy, Romania
Venky Dubey Bournemouth University, UK
Organization ix

Ioan Dumitrache University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest,

Romania
Richard J. Duro Universidade Da Coruña, Spain
Marc Ebner Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald,
Germany
Mohammed El-Abd American University of Kuwait, Kuwait
Simon Fabri University of Malta, Malta
Mohammed Fadali UNR, USA
Christophe Farges Bordeaux University, IMS – UMR 5218 CNRS,
France
Paolo Fiorini University of Verona, Italy
Juan Flores University of Michoacan, Mexico
Mauro Franceschelli Università di Cagliari, Italy
Georg Frey Chair of Automation and Energy Systems,
Saarland University, Germany
Toyomi Fujita Tohoku Institute of Technology, Japan
Mauro Gaggero National Research Council of Italy, Italy
Iván Garcíia Daza University of Alcalá, Spain
Maria Garcia-Planas Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain
Paulo Gil Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Portugal
Giuseppina Gini Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Arthur Gómez Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Brazil
Amr Goneid The American University in Cairo, Egypt
Lucian Grigorie Military Technical Academy “Ferdinand I”,
Bucharest, Romania
Lech Grzesiak Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
Jan Haase Helmut Schmidt University of the Federal Armed
Forces Hamburg, Germany
Maki Habib The American University in Cairo, Egypt
Kensuke Harada Osaka University, Japan
Jennifer Harding Loughborough University, UK
Arturo Hernández - Aguirre Centre for Research in Mathematics, Mexico
Noelia Hernández Parra Universidad de Alcalá, Spain
Yasuhisa Hirata Tohoku University, Japan
Wladyslaw Homenda Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
Jonathan How Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Yisheng Huang Nat. Ilan Univ., Taiwan, Republic of China
Daniela Iacoviello Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Gianluca Ippoliti Università Politecnica delle Marche, Italy
Sarangapani Jagannathan Missouri University of Science and Technology,
USA
Michael Jenkin York University, Canada
Myong Jeong Rutgers University, USA
Wootae Jeong Korea Railroad Research Institute, Korea,
Republic of
x Organization

Isabel Jesus ISEP/IPP - School of Engineering, Polytechnic

Institute of Porto, Portugal
Márcio José da Cunha Federal University of Uberlândia, Brazil
Marc Jungers CNRS, Université de Lorraine, France
Fabrício Junqueira University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil
Michail Kalogiannakis University of Crete, Greece
Tohru Kawabe University of Tsukuba, Japan
Rafael Kelly CICESE Research Center, Mexico
DaeEun Kim Yonsei University, Korea
Waree Kongprawechnon Thammasat University, Thailand
Krzysztof Kozlowski Poznan University of Technology, Poland
Ondrej Krejcar University of Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
Kolja Kühnlenz Coburg University of Applied Sciences and Arts,
Germany
Nikolay Kuznetsov Saint Petersburg State University, Russian
Federation
Sébastien Lahaye ISTIA, LARIS, France
Jose Lastra Tampere University of Technology, FAST
Laboratory, Finland
Jimmy Lauber University of Valenciennes, France
Dimitri Lefebvre GREAH, Université Le Havre, France
Kauko Leiviskä University of Oulu, Finland
Roland Lenain Irstea, France
Fabrizio Leonardi FEI University, Brazil
Tsai-Yen Li National Chengchi University, Taiwan,
Republic of China
Christos Liambas Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Gordon Lightbody University College Cork, Ireland
Huei-Yung Lin National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan,
Republic of China
Ángel Llamazares Universidad de Alcalá, Spain
Antonio Lopes University of Porto, Portugal
Sérgio Lopes University of Minho, Portugal
Gonzalo Lopez-Nicolas Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain
Ping Lou Wuhan University of Technology, China
Yu-Shen Lu National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan,
Republic of China
Eric Lucet CEA - French Alternative Energies and Atomic
Energy Commission, France
Martin Lukac Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan
Damian Lyons Fordham University, USA
Danilo Maccio National Research Council of Italy, Italy
José Machado Institute of Engineering, Polytechnic of Porto,
Portugal
Douglas Macharet Universidade Federal De Minas Gerais, Brazil
Organization xi

Anthony Maciejewski Colorado State University, USA

Frederic Maire Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Om Malik University of Calgary, Canada
Tariq Masood University of Cambridge, UK
Seán McLoone Queen’s University Belfast, Ireland
Joaquim Melendez University of Girona, Spain
Nadhir Messai CReSTIC, France
Konstantinos Michail Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus
Agnieszka Miguel Seattle University, USA
Vladimir Mostyn VSB - Technical University of Ostrava,
Czech Republic
Vassilis Moulianitis University of the Aegean, Greece
George Moustris National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Riccardo Muradore University of Verona, Italy
Cairo Nascimento Jr. Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, Brazil
Andreas Nearchou University of Patras, Greece
Juan J. Nieto University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Emmanuel Nuño Ortega University of Guadalajara, Mexico
Fernando Osorio USP - Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil
Ju H. Park Yeungnam University, Korea
Igor Paromtchik Inria, France
Ignacio Parra-Alonso University of Alcalá, Spain
Pierre Payeur University of Ottawa, Canada
Dariusz Pazderski Poznan University of Technology, Poland
Qingjin Peng University of Manitoba, Canada
Fernando Pereira University of Porto, Portugal
D. Pham University of Birmingham, UK
Nirvana Popescu University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest,
Romania
Raul Marin Prades Jaume I University, Spain
Radu-Emil Precup Politehnica University of Timisoara, Romania
José Ragot Centre de Recherche en Automatique de Nancy,
France
Oscar Reinoso Miguel Hernandez University, Spain
Mihailo Ristic Imperial College London, UK
Juha Röning University of Oulu, Finland
Hubert Roth University of Siegen, Germany
António Ruano University of Algarve, Portugal
Jocelyn Sabatier IMS Laboratory, Bordeaux University, France
Christophe Sabourin IUT Sénart, University Paris-Est Creteil (UPEC),
France
Priti Sajja Sardar Patel University, India
Antonio Sala Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain
Abdel-Badeeh Salem Ain Shams University, Egypt
Roberto Sanchis Llopis Universitat Jaume I, Spain
xii Organization

Jurek Sasiadek Carleton University, Canada

Daniel Schmidt SEW-EURODRIVE GmbH, Germany
Gerhard Schweitzer ETH Zurich, Switzerland
João Sequeira Instituto Superior Ténico, Portugal
Roman Sergienko Gini GmbH, Germany
Madhavan Shanmugavel SRM Institute of Science and Technology, India
Jinhua She Tokyo University of Technology, Japan
Michael Short Teesside University, UK
Manuel Silva ISEP-Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto,
Portugal
Vasile Sima National Institute for Research-Development
in Informatics, Romania
Dan Simon Cleveland State University, USA
Daniel Simon Inria, France
Andrzej Sluzek Khalifa University, UAE
Burkhard Stadlmann Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences,
Wels, Austria
Olaf Stursberg University of Kassel, Germany
Raúl Suárez Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC),
Spain
Les Sztandera Jefferson (Philadelphia University + Thomas
Jefferson University), USA
Tianhao Tang Shanghai Maritime University, China
Tomasz Tarczewski Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland
Abdelhamid Tayebi Lakehead University, Canada
Daniel Thalmann Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne,
Switzerland
Gui Tian Newcastle University, UK
Germano Torres PS Solutions, Brazil
Wa-Muzemba Tshibangu Morgan State University, USA
Avgoustos Tsinakos University of Kavala Institute of
Technology/Athabasca University of Canada,
Greece
Antonios Tsourdos Cranfield University, UK
Ali Turgut Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Bartlomiej Ufnalski Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
Roberto Valenti MathWorks, USA
Angel Valera Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain
Antonis Vardulakis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
César Vargas Rosales ITESM - Monterrey, Mexico
Alexandra Velasco Universidad Militar Nueva Granada, Colombia
Ramiro Velazquez Universidad Panamericana, Mexico
Hugo Vieira Neto Federal University of Technology - Paraná,
Brazil
Arnoud Visser Universiteit van Amsterdam, Netherlands
Organization xiii

Damir Vrancic Jožef Stefan Institute, Slovenia

Bernardo Wagner Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany
Mattias Wahde Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Axel Walthelm Siemens AG, Germany
Feng Wan University of Macau, Macau
Jingyu Wang Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU),
China
Long Wang Peking University, China
James Whidborne Cranfield University, UK
Min Wu China University of Geosciences, China
Farouk Yalaoui University of Technology of Troyes, France
Qinmin Yang Zhejiang University, China
Weiwei Yu Northwestern Polytechnical University, China
Marek Zaremba Université du Québec (UQO), Canada
Janan Zaytoon University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne,
France
Jie Zhang Newcastle University, UK
Primo Zingaretti Università Politecnica delle Marche, Italy
Alois Zoitl Johannes Kepler University, Austria

Additional Reviewers
Vítor Barros UFMG, Brazil
Cheng Guo Colorado State, USA
Marcin Kielczewski Poznan University of Technology, Poland
Adriano Siqueira USP - EESC, Brazil

Invited Speakers
Dimitar Filev Research & Advanced Engineering, Ford Motor
Company, USA
Ali Zolghadri University of Bordeaux, CNRS, France
Evangelos Theodorou Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Contents

Towards a PGD-Based Computational Vademecum for Robot

Path Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Nicolás Montés, Francisco Chinesta, Antonio Falcó, Marta C. Mora,
Lucia Hilario, Enrique Nadal, and Jean Louis Duval
Optimal Reachability and Grasping for a Soft Manipulator . . . . . . . . . 16
Simone Cacace, Anna Chiara Lai, and Paola Loreti
On Local Observer Design for LQR Problems with Tracking . . . . . . . . 35
Paolo Di Giamberardino and Daniela Iacoviello
6-DoF Extrinsic Calibration Between a Manipulator
and a 2D Laser Scanner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Jan Alberts, Sebastian P. Kleinschmidt, and Bernardo Wagner
Simultaneous Control of Two Robotics Arms Sharing
Workspace via Visual Predictive Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
E. Le Flécher, A. Durand-Petiteville, V. Cadenat, and T. Sentenac
Advanced Algorithm for Interpolation with Wendland Functions . . . . . 99
Hjortur Bjornsson and Sigurdur Hafstein
An Algorithm for Identifying High-Rank Singularities of Arbitrary
Redundant Robots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Ahmad A. Almarkhi
Adaptive Interaction Control of a Very Flexible Parallel Robot
Manipulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Fatemeh Ansarieshlaghi and Peter Eberhard
Bayesian Transfer Learning Between Uniformly Modelled
Bayesian Filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Ladislav Jirsa, Lenka Kuklišová Pavelková, and Anthony Quinn

xv
xvi Contents

Multi-robot Cooperation for Assembly: Automated Planning

and Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Ludwig Nägele, Andreas Schierl, Alwin Hoffmann, and Wolfgang Reif

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

 Towards a PGD-Based Computational
Vademecum for Robot Path Planning

Nicolás Montés1(B) , Francisco Chinesta2 , Antonio Falcó1 , Marta C. Mora3 ,

Lucia Hilario1 , Enrique Nadal4 , and Jean Louis Duval5
1
Department of Mathematics, Physics and Technological Sciences, University CEU
Cardenal Herrera, C/San Bartolomé, 55, Alfara del Patriarca, Valencia, Spain
{nicolas.montes,afalco,luciah}@uchceu.es
2
PIMM, ENSAM, ParisTech, ESI GROUP, Chair on Advanced Modeling
and Simulation of Manufacturing Processes, Paris, France
francisco.chinesta@ensam.eu
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Universitat Jaume I,
Castellón de la Plana, Castellón, Spain
mmora@uji.es
4
Centro de Investigacion en Ingenieria Mecanica,
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
ennaso@upvnet.upv.es
5
ESI Group, Rungis Cedex, France
Jean-Louis.Duval@esi-group.com

Abstract. The present paper describes the use of the technique known
as PGD-Vademecum in potential-based path planning for mobile robots.
The basic idea of the method is to obtain a Vademecum with all the
possible robot paths from any start to any goal derived from a harmonic
potential field in a predefined map, including any possible dynamic obsta-
cle positions. The PGD is a numerical technique that offers three impor-
tant advantages over other methods. First, the ability to calculate all the
possible Poisson equation solutions for all start, goal and dynamic obsta-
cle combinations in a map, ensuring that the resulting potential field does
not have local minima. Second, the PGD-Vademecum can be expressed
as a sum of uncoupled multiplied terms: the geometric map and the start
and goal configurations. Consequently, the harmonic potential field for
any start and goal robot positions can be reconstructed very fast, in an
almost negligible computational time, allowing real-time path planning.
Third, just a few uncoupled parameters are required to reconstruct the
potential field with a minimum discretization error. The abilities of this
technique are demonstrated by means of simulation results.

Keywords: Model order reduction techniques · PGD · Path

planning · Robot potential field · Laplace equation

1 Introduction
An essential task in robotics is to guide the robot safely from a start to a goal
configuration among a set of obstacles. To this aim, a collision-free path must

c The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

O. Gusikhin et al. (Eds.): ICINCO 2019, LNEE 720, pp. 1–15, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63193-2_1
Towards a PGD-Based Computational Vademecum for Robot Path Planning 13

where
N

K(X, p) = K(X)K p (p) (26)
i=1

and p is the parameter associated to the obstacle. The PGD-solution is expressed

as follows:
N
u(X, p) = Xi (X)Pi (p) (27)
i=1

5 Simulation Results

Some real-time simulations in Matlab have been developed with the aim of test-
ing the advantages offered by the PGD-Vademecum approach. An omnidirec-
tional mobile robot has been modelled that navigates in a 5 × 5 m square envi-
ronment guided by a harmonic potential field approximated by the PGD with
50 × 50 nodes, r = 0.7 and n = 200. For a realistic implementation, only a small
Region Of Interest (ROI) is reconstructed in each algorithm execution. The ROI
is composed of the surrounding nodes of the current robot position and its size
depends on the maximum robot velocity.
In the following examples, for specific Start and Target configurations, the
robot selects the shortest streamline, which is a straight line heading to the
Target. Figure 3 depicts different trajectories followed by the robot from the
Start point S = (1, 4) to subsequent Target points T = (4, 1), (3, 4), (2, 1), (4, 3).
A second example is also presented in the same 5 × 5 m square environment,
with the same potential function and parameters. In this occasion, a square
static obstacle is located in the center of the environment and the robot visits
two consecutive targets or goals. For a specific Start and Target configuration, it
can be seen that the robot selects the shortest streamline heading to the Target
and avoiding the obstacle. Figure 4 depicts the simulation results. Finally, Fig. 5
displays the modification of the streamlines of the potential field due to the
variation in the location of the dynamic obstacle at different instants of time.
Thus, the shortest path to the goal is different at every time instant.

6 Conclusions and Future Work

The present paper develops the application of the numerical technique known
as PGD-Vademecum in the potential-based global path planning problem for
mobile robots. This method generates a sort of Computational Vademecum con-
taining all the possible robot paths for any Start-Target-Obstacle combinations
in a predefined map. This PGD-Vademecum must be computed off-line and
stored in the robot memory in order to be reconstructed on-line for any particu-
lar combination of start, target and obstacle configurations. It is extremely fast
for real-time applications as its formulation results in a simple sum of products.
14 N. Montés et al.

Additionally, during navigation, only the surrounding nodes of the robot location
must be reconstructed in every algorithm execution. As a result, the computa-
tional costs in real-time are very low and almost negligible. The obtained robot
paths are based on the Laplace/Poisson equation and, thus, are free of deadlocks
when the variance is properly adjusted in the PGD approximated solution. This
property makes the proposed approach a promising method to solve the piano
mover’s problem in robotics.

Acknowledgements. This paper has been supported by the project GVA/2019/124

from Generalitat Valenciana.

References
1. Khatib, S.: Handbook of Robotics. Springer (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-32552-1 1
2. Canny, J.F.: The Complexity of Robot Motion Planning. MIT Press, Cambridge
(1988). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574700000151
3. Rimon, E., Koditschek, D.: Exact robot navigation using artificial potential func-
tions. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 8(5), 501–518 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1109/
70.163777
4. Zachmanoglou, E., Thoe, D.W.: Introduction to Partial Differential Equations with
Applications. Dover Publications, Inc., (1986). ISBN 0486652513
5. Connolly, C.I., Burns, J.B., Weiss, R.: Path planning using Laplace’s equation. In:
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
pp. 2102–2106 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1990.126315
6. Kim, J., Khosla, P.: Real-time obstacle avoidance using harmonic potencial func-
tions. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 8(3), 338–349 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1109/
70.143352
7. Akishita, S., Kawamura, S., Hayashi, K.: New navigation function utilizing hydro-
dynamic potential for mobile robot. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International
Workshop on Intelligent Motion Control, vol. 2, pp. 413–417 (1990). https://doi.
org/10.1109/IMC.1990.687354
8. Akishita, S., Hisanobu, T., Kawamura, S.: Fast path planning available for moving
obstacle avoidance by use of Laplace potential. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 1, pp. 673 –678
(1993). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.1993.583188
9. Gulder, J., Utkin, V.I.: Sliding mode control for an obstacle avoidance strategy
based on a harmonic potential field. In: IEEE International Conference on Decision
and Control, pp. 424–429 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.1993.325112
10. Guldner, J., Utkin, V.I., Hashimoto, H.: Robot obstacle avoidance in n-dimensional
space using planar harmonic artificial fields. J. Dyn. Syst. Measur. Control 119,
160–166 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2801228
11. Keymeulen, D., Decuyper, J.: The fluid dynamics applied to mobile robot motion:
the stream field method. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, pp. 378–385 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.
1994.351266
12. Tarassenko, I., Blake, A.: Analogue computation of collision-free paths. In: Pro-
ceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics Automation, pp. 540–545
(1991). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1991.131636
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
King has no authority to adjourn them; he can only signify his desire,
and it is in the wisdom and prudence of either House to comply with
his requisition, or not, as they see fitting. 2 Hats., 232; 1 Blackst.,
186; 5 Grey, 122.
[By the Constitution of the United States, a smaller number than a
majority may adjourn from day to day. I, 5. But “neither House,
during the Session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the
other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than
that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.” I, 5. And in case of
disagreement between them, with respect to the time of
adjournment, the President may adjourn them to such time as he
shall think proper. Const., II, 3.]
A motion to adjourn, simply, cannot be amended, as by adding “to
a particular day;” but must be put simply “that this House do now
adjourn;” and if carried in the affirmative, it is adjourned to the next
sitting day, unless it has come to a previous resolution, “that at its
rising it will adjourn to a particular day,” and then the House is
adjourned to that day. 2 Hats., 82.
Where it is convenient that the business of the House be
suspended for a short time, as for a conference presently to be held,
&c., it adjourns during pleasure; 2 Hats., 305; or for a quarter of an
hour. 5 Grey, 331.
If a question be put for adjournment, it is no adjournment till the
Speaker pronounces it. 5 Grey, 137. And from courtesy and respect,
no member leaves his place till the Speaker has passed on.

SEC. LI.—A SESSION.

Parliament have three modes of separation, to wit: by

adjournment, by prorogation or dissolution by the King, or by the
efflux of the term for which they were elected. Prorogation or
dissolution constitutes there what is called a session; provided some
act was passed. In this case all matters depending before them are
discontinued, and at their next meeting are to be taken up de novo, if
taken up at all. 1 Blackst., 186. Adjournment, which is by themselves,
is no more than a continuance of the session from one day to
another, or for a fortnight, a month, &c., ad libitum. All matters
depending remain in statu quo, and when they meet again, be the
term ever so distant, are resumed, without any fresh
commencement, at the point at which they were left. 1 Lev., 165; Lex.
Parl., c. 2; 1 Ro. Rep., 29; 4 Inst., 7, 27, 28; Hutt., 61; 1 Mod., 252;
Ruffh. Jac., L. Dict. Parliament; 1 Blackst., 186. Their whole session
is considered in law but as one day, and has relation to the first day
thereof. Bro. Abr. Parliament, 86.
Committees may be appointed to sit during a recess by
adjournment, but not by prorogation. 5 Grey, 374; 9 Grey, 350; 1
Chandler, 50. Neither House can continue any portion of itself in any
parliamentary function beyond the end of the session, without the
consent of the other two branches. When done, it is by a bill
constituting them commissioners for the particular purpose.
[Congress separate in two ways only, to wit: by adjournment, or
dissolution by the efflux of their time. What, then, constitutes a
session with them? A dissolution certainly closes one session, and
the meeting of the new Congress begins another. The Constitution
authorizes the President “on extraordinary occasions, to convene
both Houses, or either of them.” I, 3. If convened by the President’s
proclamation, this must begin a new session, and of course
determine the preceding one to have been a session. So if it meets
under the clause of the Constitution, which says, “the Congress shall
assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on
the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a
different day.” I, 4. This must begin a new session; for even if the last
adjournment was to this day, the act of adjournment is merged in the
higher authority of the Constitution, and the meeting will be under
that, and not under their adjournment. So far we have fixed
landmarks for determining sessions. In other cases it is declared by
the joint vote authorizing the President of the Senate and the
Speaker to close the session on a fixed day, which is usually in the
following form: “Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives, that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives be authorized to close the present
session by adjourning their respective Houses on the —— day of
——.”]
When it was said above that all matters depending before
Parliament were discontinued by the determination of the session, it
was not meant for judiciary cases depending before the House of
Lords, such as impeachments, appeals, and writs of error. These
stand continued, of course, to the next session. Raym., 120, 381;
Ruffh. Jac., L. D. Parliament.
[Impeachments stand, in like manner, continued before the Senate
of the United States.]

SEC. LII.—TREATIES.

[The President of the United States has power, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-
thirds of the Senators present concur. Const., II, 2.]
[Resolved, that all confidential communications made by the
President of the United States to the Senate shall be, by the members
thereof, kept secret; and that all treaties which may hereafter be laid
before the Senate shall also be kept secret, until the Senate shall, by
their resolution, take off the injunction of secrecy. Rule 67.[103]]
[Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It
differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign
nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation. In all
countries, I believe, except England, treaties are made by the
legislative power; and there, also, if they touch the laws of the land,
they must be approved by Parliament. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas’s
Rep., 223. It is acknowledged, for instance, that the King of Great
Britain cannot by a treaty make a citizen of an alien. Vattel, b. 1, c.
19, sec. 214. An act of Parliament was necessary to validate the
American treaty of 1783. And abundant examples of such acts can be
cited. In the case of the treaty of Utrecht, in 1712, the commercial
articles required the concurrence of Parliament; but a bill brought in
for that purpose was rejected. France, the other contracting party,
suffered these articles, in practice, to be not insisted on, and adhered
to the rest of the treaty. 4 Russell’s Hist. Mod. Europe, 457; 2
Smollet, 242, 246.]
[By the Constitution of the United States this department of
legislation is confined to two branches only of the ordinary
legislature—the President originating and the Senate having a
negative. To what subjects this power extends has not been defined
in detail by the Constitution; nor are we entirely agreed among
ourselves. 1. It is admitted that it must concern the foreign nation
party to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity, res inter alias
acta. 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must
have intended to comprehend only those subjects which are usually
regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated. 3. It must
have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States;
for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the
whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way. 4. And also
to except those subjects of legislation in which it gave a participation
to the House of Representatives. This last exception is denied by
some on the ground that it would leave very little matter for the
treaty power to work on. The less the better, say others. The
Constitution thought it wise to restrain the Executive and Senate
from entangling and embroiling our affairs with those of Europe.
Besides, as the negotiations are carried on by the Executive alone,
the subjecting to the ratification of the Representatives such articles
are within their participation is no more inconvenient than to the
Senate. But the ground of this exception is denied as unfounded. For
examine, e. g., the treaty of commerce with France, and it will be
found that, out of thirty-one articles, there are not more than small
portions of two or three of them which would not still remain as
subjects of treaties, untouched by these exceptions.]
[Treaties being declared, equally with the laws of the United
States, to be the supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act
of the legislature alone can declare them infringed and rescinded.
This was accordingly the process adopted in the case of France in
1798.]
[It has been the usage for the Executive, when it communicates a
treaty to the Senate for their ratification, to communicate also the
correspondence of the negotiators. This having been omitted in the
case of the Prussian treaty, was asked by a vote of the House of
February 12, 1800, and was obtained. And in December, 1800, the
convention that year between the United States and France, with the
report of the negotiations by the envoys, but not their instructions,
being laid before the Senate, the instructions were asked for and
communicated by the President.]
 [The mode of voting on questions of ratification is by nominal
call.]
[Whenever a treaty shall be laid before the Senate for ratification,
it shall be read a first time for information only; when no motion to
reject, ratify, or modify the whole or any part, shall be received. Its
second reading shall be for consideration, and on a subsequent day,
when it shall be taken up as in a Committee of the Whole, and every
one shall be free to move a question on any particular article in this
form: “Will the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of this
article?” or to propose amendments thereto, either by inserting or by
leaving out words, in which last case the question shall be, “Shall the
words stand part of the article?” And in every of the said cases the
concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present shall be requisite
to decide affirmatively. And, when through the whole, the
proceedings shall be stated to the House, and questions be again
severally put thereon, for confirmation, or new ones proposed,
requiring in like manner a concurrence of two-thirds for whatever is
retained or inserted.]
[The votes so confirmed shall, by the House, or a committee
thereof, be reduced into the form of a ratification, with or without
modifications, as may have been decided, and shall be proposed on a
subsequent day, when every one shall again be free to move
amendments, either by inserting or leaving out words; in which last
case the question shall be, “Shall the words stand part of the
resolution?” And in both cases the concurrence of two-thirds shall be
requisite to carry the affirmative; as well as on the final question to
advise and consent to the ratification in the form agreed to. Rule 69.
[104]
]
[When any question may have been decided by the Senate, in
which two-thirds of the members present are necessary to carry the
affirmative, any member who voted on that side which prevailed in
the question, may be at liberty to move for a reconsideration; and a
motion for a reconsideration shall be decided by a majority of votes.
Rule 20.]

SEC. LIII.—IMPEACHMENT.
 [The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of
impeachment. Const., I, 3.]
[The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.
When sitting for that purpose they shall be on oath or affirmation.
When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice
shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the
concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. Judgment in
cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from
office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States. But the party convicted shall,
nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and
punishment according to law. Const., I, 3.]
[The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United
States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors. Const., II, 4.]
[The trial of crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by
jury. Const., III, 2.]
These are the provisions of the Constitution of the United States
on the subject of impeachments. The following is a sketch of some of
the principles and practices of England on the same subject:
Jurisdiction. The Lords cannot impeach any to themselves, nor
join in the accusation, because they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in
Parl., 12, 63. Nor can they proceed against a commoner but on
complaint of the Commons. Ib., 84. The Lords may not, by the law,
try a commoner for a capital offense, on the information of the King
or a private person, because the accused is entitled to a trial by his
peers generally; but on accusation by the House of Commons, they
may proceed against the delinquent, of whatsoever degree, and
whatsoever be the nature of the offense; for there they do not assume
to themselves trial at common law. The Commons are then instead of
a jury, and the judgment is given on their demand, which is instead
of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, but not try the delinquent.
Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a commoner can now be
charged capitally before the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites
Fitzharris’s case, 1681, impeached of high treason, where the Lords
remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey’s Deb., 325–7;
2 Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1641; 4
Blackst., 257; 9 Seld., 1656.
Accusation. The Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation,
become suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The
general course is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge
against the supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to
impeach him by oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in
the name of the Commons. The person signifies that the articles will
be exhibited, and desires that the delinquent may be sequestered
from his seat, or be committed, or that the peers will take order for
his appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords’
Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324.
Process. If the party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued,
giving him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly
examined. If any error be found in them, a new proclamation issues,
giving a short day. If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and
they may proceed. Seld. Jud., 98, 99.
Articles. The accusation (articles) of the Commons is substituted in
place of an indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in
impeachment for writing or speaking, the particular words need not
be specified. Sach. Tr., 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords’ Journ., 3
June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.
Appearance. If he appear, and the case be capital, he answers in
custody; though not if the accusations be general. He is not to be
committed but on special accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor
only, he answers, a lord in his place, a commoner at the bar, and not
in custody, unless, on the answer, the Lords find cause to commit
him, till he find sureties to attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud.,
98, 99. A copy of the articles is given him and a day fixed for his
answer. T. Ray.; 1 Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist of the Reb.,
379. On a misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may
answer in writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on
accusation for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or
restraint as the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such
he is to answer. Ib., 101. If previously committed by the Commons,
he answers as a prisoner. But this may be called in some sort
judicium parium suorum. Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a right
to counsel by the common law, but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud.,
102, 105.
Answer. The answer need not observe great strictness of form. He
may plead guilty as to part, and defend as to the residue; or, saving
all exceptions, deny the whole or give a particular answer to each
article separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2 Rush., 1374; 12 Parl. Hist., 442; 3
Lords’ Journ., 13 Nov., 1643; 2 Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a
pardon in bar to the impeachment. 2 Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr., 735.
Replication, rejoinder, &c. There may be a replication, rejoinder,
&c. Sel. Jud., 114; 8 Grey’s Deb., 233; Sach. Tr., 15; Journ. H. of
Commons, 6 March, 1640–1.
Witnesses. The practice is to swear the witnesses in open House,
and then examine them there; or a committee may be named who
shall examine them in committee, either on interrogatories agreed
on in the House, or such as the committee in their discretion shall
demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.
Jury. In the case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for
her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this was on a
complaint, not on impeachment by the Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It
must also have been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spiritual
sat in the case, which they do on misdemeanors, but not in capital
cases. Id., 148. The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands and
goods. Id., 188. This, Selden says, is the only jury he finds recorded
in Parliament for misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if the
delinquent doth put himself on the trial of his country, a jury ought
to be impaneled, and he adds that it is not so on impeachment by the
Commons; for they are in loco proprio, and there no jury ought to be
impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld. Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the
murder of L. 2, on an information on the part of the King, and not on
impeachment of the Commons; for then they had been patria sua. He
waived his peerage and was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and
Warwickshire. Id., 125. In 1 H., 7, the Commons protest that they are
not to be considered as parties to any judgment given or hereafter to
be given in Parliament. Id., 133. They have been generally and more
justly considered, as is before stated, as the grand jury; for the
conceit of Selden is certainly not accurate, that they are the patria
sua of the accused, and that the Lords do only judge, but not try. It is
undeniable that they do try; for they examine witnesses as to the
facts, and acquit or condemn, according to their own belief of them.
And Lord Hale says, “the peers are judges of law as well as of fact”; 2
Hale, P. C., 275; consequently of fact as well as of law.
Presence of Commons. The Commons are to be present at the
examination of witnesses. Seld. Jud., 124. Indeed, they are to attend
throughout, either as a committee of the whole House, or otherwise,
at discretion, appoint managers to conduct the proofs. Rushw. Tr. of
Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb., 1709–10; 2 Wood., 614. And
judgment is not to be given till they demand it. Seld. Jud., 124. But
they are not to be present on impeachment when the Lords consider
of the answer or proofs and determine of their judgment. Their
presence, however, is necessary at the answer and judgment in cases
capital, Id. 58, 159 as well as not capital; 162. The Lords debate the
judgment among themselves. Then the vote is first taken on the
question of guilty or not guilty; and if they convict, the question, or
particular sentence, is out of that which seemeth to be most generally
agreed on. Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.
Judgment. Judgments in Parliament, for death, have been strictly
guided per legem terræ, which they cannot alter; and not at all
according to their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the
legal judgment, nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum, non
ultra legem. Seld. Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in
external ceremony, yet differs not in essentials from criminal
prosecutions before inferior courts. The same rules of evidence, the
same legal notion of crimes and punishments, prevailed; for
impeachments are not framed to alter the law, but to carry it into
more effectual execution against too powerful delinquents. The
judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by legal principles
or precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The Chancellor gives
judgment in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward formerly in cases
of life and death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the Steward is deemed not
necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613. In misdemeanors the greatest
corporal punishment hath been imprisonment. Seld. Jud., 184. The
King’s assent is necessary in capital judgments, (but 2 Wood., 614,
contra,) but not in misdemeanors. Seld. Jud., 136.
Continuance. An impeachment is not discontinued by the
dissolution of Parliament, but may be resumed by the new
Parliament. T. Ray., 383; 4 Com. Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lords’ Jour.,
May 15, 1791; 2 Wood., 618.
AMERICAN POLITICS.
 BOOK V.
TABULATED HISTORY OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.
 ESTIMATE of VALUES of FOREIGN COINS.

Country. Monetary Standard Value in United States Standard coin

unit. money.
Austria Florin Silver $0 40.6
Belgium Franc Gold and 19.3 5, 10, and 20 francs.
silver
Bolivia Boliviano Silver 82.3 Boliviano.
Brazil Milreis of 1,000 Gold 54.6
reis
British Possessions in Dollar do 1 00
North America.
Chili Peso Gold and 91.2 Condor, doubloon, and escudo.
silver
Cuba do do 93.2 ¹⁄₁₆, ⅛, ¼, ½, and 1 doubloon.
Denmark Crown Gold 26.8 10 and 20 crowns.
Ecuador Peso Silver 82.3 Peso.
Egypt Piaster Gold 04.9 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 piasters.
France Franc Gold and 19.3 5, 10, and 20 francs.
silver
Great Britain Pound Sterling Gold 4 86.6½ ½ sovereign and sovereign.
Greece Drachma Gold and 19.3 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100
silver drachmas.
German Empire Mark Gold 23.8 5, 10, and 20 marks.
Hayti Gourde Gold and 96.5 1, 2, 5, and 10 gourdes.
silver
India Rupee of 16 Silver 39
annas
Italy Lira Gold and 19.3 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 lire.
silver
Japan Yen Silver 88.7 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20 yen; gold and
silver yen.
Liberia Dollar Gold 1 00
Mexico do Silver 89.4 Peso or dollar 5, 10, 25, and 50
centavo.
Netherlands Florin Gold and 40.2
silver
Norway Crown Gold 26.8 10 and 20 crowns.
Peru Sol Silver 82.3 Sol.
Portugal Milreis of 1,000 Gold 1 08 2, 5, and 10 milreis.
reis
Russia Rouble of 100 Silver 65.8 ¼, ½, and 1 rouble.
copecks
Sandwich Islands Dollar Gold 1 00
Spain Peseta of 100 Gold and 19.3 5, 10, 20, 60, and 100 pesetas.
centimes silver
Sweden Crown Gold 26.8 10 and 20 crowns.
Switzerland Franc Gold and 19.3 5, 10, and 20 francs.
silver
Tripoli Mahbub of 20 Silver 74.3
piasters
Turkey Piaster Gold 04.4 25, 50, 100, 250, and 500
piasters.
United States of Colombia Peso Silver 82.3 Peso.
Venezuela Bolivar Gold and 19.3 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 Bolivar.
silver
INTEREST LAWS OF ALL THE STATES AND TERRITORIES IN THE
UNITED STATES.

STATES & TERRITORIES. PENALTY OF USURY. LEGAL. SPECIAL.

Alabama Loss of interest 8%

Arizona No penalty 10 No limit.
Arkansas Forfeiture of principal and interest 6 No limit.
California No penalty 10 No limit.
Colorado No penalty 10 No limit.
Connecticut Forfeiture of all interest 6 No limit.
Dakota Forfeiture of contract 7 18%
Delaware Forfeiture of contract 6 6
District of Columbia Forfeiture of all interest 6 10
Florida No penalty 8 No limit.
Georgia Forfeiture of excess 7 12
Idaho[105] $300 fine, or imprisonment six months, or both 10 24
Illinois Forfeiture of all interest 6 8
Indiana Forfeiture of interest and costs 6 10
Iowa Forfeiture of interest and costs 6 10
Kansas Forfeiture of excess over 12% 7 12
Kentucky Forfeiture of all interest 6 8
Louisiana Forfeiture of interest 5 8
Maine No penalty 6 No limit.
Maryland Forfeiture of excess 6 6
Massachusetts No penalty; 6% on judgments 6 No limit.
Michigan Forfeiture of excess 7 10
Minnesota Forfeiture of excess over 7% 7 12
Mississippi No penalty 6 No limit.
Missouri Forfeiture of all interest 6 10
Montana No penalty 10
Nebraska Forfeiture of all interest and costs 10 12
Nevada No penalty 10 No limit.
New Hampshire Forfeit of three times interest received 6 6
New Jersey Forfeit of all interest 6 7
New Mexico No penalty 6 12
New York[106] Forfeiture of contract 7 7
North Carolina Forfeiture of double amount of principal, and $1,000 fine 6% 8%
Ohio Forfeiture of excess 6 8
Oregon Forfeiture of principal, interest and costs 10 12
Pennsylvania Forfeiture of excess, Act of 1858 6 6
Rhode Island[107] Forfeiture, unless by contract 6 No limit.
South Carolina No penalty 7 No limit.
Tennessee Forfeiture of over 6%, and $100 fine 6 10
Texas No penalty 8 12
Utah No penalty 10 7
Vermont Forfeit of excess on Railroad Bonds only 6
Virginia Forfeit of excess. No corporation can plead usury 6 No limit.
Washington Territory No penalty 10 6
West Virginia Forfeit of excess 6 6
Wisconsin Forfeit of all interest 7 10
Wyoming Territory No penalty 10 No limit.
 AGGREGATE ISSUES OF PAPER MONEY IN WAR TIMES.

The following table exhibits the amount per capita issued of the Continental money, the French
assignats, the Confederate currency, and the legal-tender greenbacks and National bank notes of the
United States.
POPULATION. AMOUNT AMOUNT PER
ISSUED. HEAD.
Continental money 3,000,000 in 1780. $359,546,825 $119.84
French assignats 26,500,000 (France in 1790). 9,115,600,000 343.98
Confederate currency 9,103,332 (11 Confederate States, 654,465,963 71.89
1860).
Greenbacks and National bank 31,443,321 (United States in 1860). 750,820,228 23.87
notes
Highest amount in circulation, Jan. 750,820,228
’66
ELECTORAL VOTES FOR PRESIDENTS AND VICE-PRESIDENTS
 CANDIDATES. Maine N. Vermont Mass. R. Conn. N. N. Penna. Delaware Maryland Virginia N. S.
Hamp. Island York Jersey C. C.
Washington, Va. 5 10 7 6 10 3 6 10 7
(Fed.)
1788 John Adams, 5 10 5 1 8 5
Mass. (Fed.)
Scattering 2 5 2 3 6 5 7
Washington, Va. 6 4 16 4 9 12 7 15 3 8 21 12 7
(Fed.)
1792 John Adams, 6 4 16 4 9 7 14 3 8 6
Mass. (Fed.)
George Clinton, 12 1 21 12 sc
N. Y. (Rep.)
Adams, Mass. 6 4 16 4 9 12 7 1 3 7 1 1
(Fed.)
Jefferson, Va. 14 4 20 11 8
(Rep.)
1796 Pinckney, S. C. 4 13 4 12 7 2 3 4 1 1 8
(Fed)
Burr. N. Y. 13 3 1 6
(Rep.)
Scattering 6 3 4 5 2 19 5
Jefferson, Va. 12 6 5 21 8 8
(Rep.)
Adams, Mass. 6 4 16 4 9 7 7 3 5 4
1800 (Fed.)
Burr, N.Y. (Rep.) sc 12 8 5 21 8 8
Pinckney, S. C. 6 4 16 3 9 7 7 3 5 4
(Rep.)
Jefferson, Va. 7 6 19 4 19 8 20 9 24 14 10
1804 (Rep.)
Pres. Pinckney, S. C. 9 3 2
(Fed.)
Clinton, N. Y. 7 6 19 4 19 8 20 9 24 14 10
Vice- (Rep.)
Pres. King, N. Y. 9 3 2
(Fed.)
Madison, Va. 6 13 8 20 9 24 11 10
1808 (Rep.)
Pres. Pinckney, S. C. 7 19 4 9 sc 3 2 3
(Fed.)
Clinton, N. Y. 13 8 20 9 24 11 10
Vice- (Rep.)
Pres. King, N. Y. 7 sc 19 4 9 sc 3 2 3
(Fed.)
Madison, Va. 8 25 6 25 15 11
(Rep.)
1812
Pres. De Witt Clinton, 8 22 4 9 29 8 4 5
N. Y. (Cl.
Dem.)
Gerry, Mass. 1 8 2 25 6 25 15 11
Vice- (Rep.)
Pres. Ingersoll, Pa. (Cl. 7 20 4 9 29 8 4 5
Dem)
Monroe, Va. 8 8 4 29 8 25 8 25 15 11
1816 (Dem.)
Pres. King, N. Y. 22 9 3
(Fed.)
Vice- Daniel D. 8 8 sc 4 sc 29 8 25 sc 8 25 15 11
Pres. Tompkins, N.
Y. (Dem.)

1820 James Monroe, 9 7 sc 8 15 4 9 29 8 25 4 11 25 15 11

Pres. Va. (Dem.)
Daniel D. 9 7 sc 8 7 sc 4 9 29 8 25 sc 10 s 25 15 11
Vice-
Tompkins, N.
Pres.
Y. (Dem.)
Jackson, Tenn. 1 8 28 7 15 11
(Dem.)
John Q. Adams, 9 8 7 15 4 8 26 1 3
1824 Mass. (Fed.)
Pres.
Crawford, Ga. 5 2 1 24 9
(Dem.)
Clay, Ky. (Whig) 8 4
Calhoun, S. C. 9 7 7 15 3 29 8 28 1 10 15 11
Vice-
(Dem.)
Pres.
Sanford, N. Y sc sc 7 sc sc sc
Vote Adams (Fed.) 7 6 5 12 2 6 18 1 1 5 1 1
House Jackson (Dem.) 2 5 25 3 1 2 9
Rep.
States Crawford (Dem.) 1 14 1 1 12 10
Jackson, Tenn. 1 20 28 5 24 15 11
1828 (Dem.)
Pres. Adams, Mass. 8 8 7 15 4 8 16 8 3 6
(Fed.)
Vice- J. C. Calhoun, S. 1 20 28 5 24 15 11
Pres. C. (Dem.)
Rush, Pa. (Fed.) 8 8 7 15 4 8 16 8 3 6
Smith, S. C.
Jackson, Tenn. 10 7 42 8 30 3 23 15 sc
1832
(Dem.)
Pres.
Clay, Ky. (Whig.) sc 14 4 8 3 5
Van Buren, N. Y. 10 7 42 8 3 23 15
Vice- (Dem.)
Pres. Sergeant, Pa. sc 14 4 8 sc 3 5 sc
(Whig.)
Van Buren, N. Y. 10 7 4 8 42 30 23 15 sc
1836 (Dem.)
Pres. Harrison, Ohio 7 sc 8 3 10
(Whig)
Johnson, Ky. 10 7 4 8 42 30 15
Vice- (Dem.)
Pres. Francis Granger, 7 14 8 3 sc sc sc
N. Y. (Whig)
Harrison, Ohio 10 7 14 4 8 42 8 30 3 10 15
1840 (Whig)
Pres. Van Buren, N. Y. 7 23 11
(Dem.)
Tyler, Va. (Whig) 10 7 14 4 8 42 8 30 3 10 15 11
Vice-
Pres. Johnson, Ky. 23 sc
(Dem.)
Polk, Tenn. 9 6 36 26 17 9
1844
(Dem.)
Pres.
Clay, Ky. (Whig) 6 12 4 6 7 3 8 11
Dallas, Pa. 9 6 36 26 17 9
Vice- (Dem.)
Pres. Frelinghuysen, 6 12 4 6 7 3 8 11
N. Y. (Whig)
Taylor, La. 6 12 4 6 7 26 8 11
1848 (Whig)
Pres. Cass, Mich. 9 6 17 9
(Dem.)
Fillmore N. Y. 6 12 4 6 36 7 26 3 8 11
Vice- (Whig)
Pres. Butler, Ky. 9 6 17 9
(Dem.)
Pierce, N. H. 8 5 4 6 35 7 27 3 8 15 10 8
1852
(Dem.)
Pres.
Scott, Va. (Whig) 5 13
King, Ala. 8 5 4 6 35 7 27 3 8 15 10 8
Vice- (Dem.)
Pres. Graham, N. C. 5 13
(Whig)
Buchanan, Pa. 7 27 3 15 10 8
(Dem.)
1856 J. C. Fremont, N. 8 5 5 13 4 6 35
Pres. Y. (Rep.)
Fillmore, N. Y. 8
(Am.)
Breckinridge, 7 27 3 15 10 8
Ky. (Dem.)
Vice- Dayton, Ohio 8 5 5 13 4 6 35
Pres. (Rep.)
Donnelson, 8
Tenn. (Am.)
Lincoln, Ill. 8 5 5 13 4 6 35 4 27
(Rep)
Breckinridge, 3 8 10 8
1860
Ky. (Dem.)
Pres.
Bell, Tenn. (Am.) 15
Douglas, Ill. 3
(Dem.)
Hamlin, Me. 8 5 5 13 4 6 35 4 27
(Rep.)
Lane, Oregon 3 8 10 8
Vice- (Dem.)
Pres. Everett, Mass. 15
(Am.)
Johnson, Geo. 3
(Dem.)
Lincoln, Ill. 7 5 5 12 4 6 33 26 7
(Rep.)
1864 J McClellan, N. 7 3
Pres. J. (Dem.)
Vacancies. 10 9 6
Seceded States
Vice- Johnson, Tenn. 7 5 5 12 4 6 33 26 7
Pres. (Rep.)
Pendleton, Ohio 7 3
 (Dem.)
Vacancies 10 9 6
Grant, Ill. (Rep.) 7 5 5 2 4 6 26 9 6
1868 Seymour, N. Y. 33 7 3 7
Pres. (Dem.)
Vacancies 10
Colfax Ind. 7 5 5 12 4 6 26 9 6
(Rep.)
Vice-
Pres. Blair, Me. 33 7 3 7
(Dem.)
Vacancies 10
Grant, Ill. (Rep.) 7 5 5 13 4 6 35 9 29 3 11 10 7
Hendricks, Ind. 8
(Dem.)
Brown, Mo. (Lib. 10
Rep.)
Perkins, Ga.
(Dem.)
1872 Davis, Ill. (Lib.
Pres. Rep.)
Not counted
Horace Greeley,
N. Y. (Lib.
Rep.) died
before meeting
of electoral
college
Wilson, Mass. 7 5 5 13 4 6 35 9 29 3 11 10 7
(Rep.)
Brown, Mo. (Lib. 8
Rep.)
Julian, Ind.
(Dem.)
Colquitt, Ga.
(Dem.)
Palmer, Ill.
Vice-
(Dem.)
Pres.
Bramlette, Ky.
(Dem.)
Groesbeck, Ohio
(Dem.)
Macken, Ky.
(Dem.)
Banks, Mass.
(Lib. Rep.)
Not counted
Hayes, Ohio 7 5 5 13 4 29 7
1876 (Rep.)
Pres. Tilden, N. Y. 6 35 9 3 8 11 10
(Dem.)
Wheeler, N. Y. 7 5 5 13 4 29 7
Vice- (Rep.)
Pres. Hendricks, Ind. 6 35 9 3 8 11 10
(Dem.)
Garfield, Ohio 7 5 5 13 4 6 35 29
(Rep.)
1880 Hancock, N. Y. 9 3 8 11 10 7
Pres. (Dem.)
Weaver, Iowa
(Gr.)
Arthur, N. Y. 7 5 5 13 4 6 35 29
(Rep.)
Vice- English, Ind. 9 3 8 11 10 7
Pres. (Dem.)
Chambers, Tex.
(Gr.)
Cleveland, N. Y. 6 36 9 3 8 12 11 9
1884 (Dem.)
Pres. Blaine, Me. 6 4 4 14 4 30
(Rep.)
Harrison, Ind. 6 4 4 14 4 36 30
1888 (Rep.)
Pres. Cleveland, N. Y. 6 9 3 8 12 11 9
(Dem.)