Advertisement

Autonomous Robots

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 301–319 | Cite as

Implementation and stability analysis of prioritized whole-body compliant controllers on a wheeled humanoid robot in uneven terrains

  • Luis SentisEmail author
  • Josh Petersen
  • Roland Philippsen
Article

Abstract

In this work, we implement the floating base prioritized whole-body compliant control framework described in Sentis et al. (IEEE Transactions on Robotics 26(3):483–501, 2010) on a wheeled humanoid robot maneuvering in sloped terrains. We then test it for a variety of compliant whole-body behaviors including balance and kinesthetic mobility on irregular terrain, and Cartesian hand position tracking using the co-actuated (i.e. two joints are simultaneously actuated with one motor) robot’s upper body. The implementation serves as a hardware proof for a variety of whole-body control concepts that had previously been developed and tested in simulation. First, behaviors of two and three priority tasks are implemented and successfully executed on the humanoid hardware. In particular, first and second priority tasks are linearized in the task space through model feedback and then controlled through task accelerations. Postures, on the other hand, are shown to be asymptotically stable when using prioritized whole-body control structures and then successfully tested in the real hardware. To cope with irregular terrains, the base is modeled as a six degree of freedom floating system and the wheels are characterized through contact and rolling constraints. Finally, center of mass balance capabilities using whole-body compliant control and kinesthetic mobility are implemented and tested in the humanoid hardware to climb terrains with various slopes.

Keywords

Prioritized whole-body compliant control Wheeled humanoid robot Uneven terrain mobility 

Notes

Acknowledgments

All experimental and hardware equipment were funded by the Mechanical Engineering Department at The University of Texas at Austin. The research was partly supported by a donation from Willow Garage to the University of Texas at Austin. The authors would like to thank Alan Kwok, Kwan Suk Kim and Nick Paine for their help during experimentation. The mobile base was built by Frank Lima, Somudro Gupta, and Pius Wong at The University of Texas at Austin. Technical support was provided by Meka Robotics. Figure 1 was provided by Ashish Deshpande.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (wmv 73281 KB)

References

  1. Aghili, F. (2005). A unified approach for inverse and direct dynamics of constrained multibody systems based on linear projection operator: applications to control and simulation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 21(5), 834–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alami, R., Chatila, R., Fleury, S., Ghallab, M., & Ingrand, F. (1998). An architecture for autonomy. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 17(4), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkin, R. C., & Murphy, R. R. (1990). Autonomous navigation in a manufacturing environment. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 6(4), 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asfour, T., Berns, K., & Dillmann, R. (2000). The humanoid robot armar: Design and control. The 1st IEEE-ras international conference on humanoid robots (humanoids 2000) (pp. 7–8).Google Scholar
  5. Babic, J. (2009). Biarticular legged robot: Design and experiments. IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics. Bankok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  6. Baerlocher, P. (2001). Inverse kinematics techniques for the interactive posture control of articulated figures. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  7. Beetz, M., Mo, L., Senlechner, & Tenorth, M. (2010). A cognitive robot abstract machine for everyday manipulation in human environments. IEEE/rsj international conference on Intelligent robots and systems (iros) (pp. 1012–1017).Google Scholar
  8. Bouyarmane, K., & Kheddar, A. (2011). Multi-contact stances planning for multiple agents. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Shanghai.Google Scholar
  9. Breazeal, C., Siegel, M., Berlin, M., Gray, J., Grupen, R., Deegan, P., Weber, J., Narendran, K., & McBean, J. (2008). Mobile, dexterous, social robots for mobile manipulation and human-robot interaction. SIGGRAPH08: ACM SIGGRAPH 2008 new tech demos.Google Scholar
  10. Brock, O., Khatib, O., & Viji, S. (2002). Task-consistent obstacle avoidance and motion behavior for mobile manipulation. Proceedings of the ieee international conference on robotics and automation (pp. 388–393). Washingtion, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Chang, K. S., Holmberg, R., & Khatib, O. (2000). The augmented object model: Cooperative manipulation and parallel mechanism dynamics. Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 1, 470–475.Google Scholar
  12. Cotton, S., Murray, A. P., & Fraisse, P. (2009). Estimation of the center of mass: From humanoid robots to human beings. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 14(6), 707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeLuca, A. (1991). Zero dynamics in robotics systems. Proceedings of the IIASA Workshop Progress in Systems and Control Theory, 9, 70–87.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Dietrich, A., Wimbock, T. & Albu-Schaffer, A. (2011). Dynamic whole-body mobile manipulation with a torque controlled humanoid robot via impedance control laws. IEEE/rsj international conference on Intelligent robots and systems (iros) (pp. 3199–3206).Google Scholar
  15. Dubowsky, S., & Papadopoulos, E. (1993). he kinematics, dynamics, and control of free-flying and free-floating space robotic systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 9(5), 531–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edsinger, A., & Kemp, C. (2008). Two arms are better than one: A behavior based control system for assistive bimanual manipulation. Recent progress in robotics: Viable robotic service to human.Google Scholar
  17. Featherstone, R. (1987). Robot dynamics algorithms. Norwell, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Freitas, G., Lizarralde, F., Hsu, L., & Reis, N., Salvi dos R. (2009). Kinematic reconfigurability of mobile robots on irregular terrains. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 1340–1345).Google Scholar
  19. Fuchs, M., Borst, C., Giordano, P. R., Baumann, A., Kraemer, E., Langwald, J., Gruber, R., Seitz, N., Plank, G., Kunze, K., Burger, R., Schmidt, F., Wimboeck, T., & Hirzinger, G. (2009). Rollin’ justin: Design considerations and realization of a mobile platform for a humanoid upper body. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), (pp. 4131–4137).Google Scholar
  20. Halme, A., Leppänen, I., & Salmi, S. (1999). Development of workpartner-robot-design of actuating and motion control system. 2nd international conference on climbing and walking robots, portsmouth (pp. 657–666).Google Scholar
  21. Hanafusa, H., Yoshikawa, T., & Nakamura, Y. (1981). Analysis and control of articulated robot with redundancy. Proceedings of IFAC symposium on robot control. Vol. 4, (pp. 1927–1932).Google Scholar
  22. Hart, S., Yamokoski, J. D., & Diftler, M. (2011). Robonaut 2: A new platform for human-centered robot learning. Robotics Science and Systems.Google Scholar
  23. Hirose, S., et al. (1991). Design of practical snake vehicle: Articulated body mobile robot kr-2. The 5th international conference on advanced robotics, (pp. 833–838).Google Scholar
  24. Holmberg, R., & Khatib, O. (2000). Development and control of a holonomic mobile robot for mobile manipulation tasks. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 19(11), 1066–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyon, S.-H., Hale, J., & Cheng, G. (2007). Full-body compliant human-humanoid interaction: Balancing in the presence of unknown external forces. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23(5), 884–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iwata, H., & Sugano, S. (2009). Design of human symbiotic robot twendy-one. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 580–586).Google Scholar
  27. Jenkins, O. C., & Mataric, M. J. (2004). Performance-derived behavior vocabularies: Data-driven acqusition of skills from motion. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 1(2), 237–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katz, D., Horrell, E., Yang, Y., Burns, B., Buckley, T., Grishkan, A., Zhylkovskyy, V., Brock, O., & Learned-Miller, E. (2006). The umass mobile manipulator uman: An experimental platform for autonomous mobile manipulation. Workshop on manipulation in human environments at robotics: Science and systems.Google Scholar
  29. Khatib, O. (1987). A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation. International Journal of Robotics Research, 3(1), 43–53.Google Scholar
  30. Khatib, O., Sentis, L., Park, J. H., & Warren, J. (2004). Whole body dynamic behavior and control of human-like robots. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 1(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, K.-G., Lee, J.-Y., Choi, D., Park, J.-M. & You, B.-J. (2010). Autonomous task execution of a humanoid robot using a cognitive model. IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics (ROBIO), (pp. 405–410).Google Scholar
  32. Kimura, N., et al. (1991). Locomotion mechanism and its control architecture for disaster preventing robot. Proceedings of international symposium on advanced robot technology, (pp. 375–380).Google Scholar
  33. King, C.-H., Chen, T. L., Jain, A., & Kemp, C. C. (2010). Towards an assistive robot that autonomously performs bed baths for patient hygiene. IEEE/rsj international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), (pp. 319–324).Google Scholar
  34. Lengagne, S., Vaillant, J., Yoshida, E., & Kheddar, A. (2013). Generation of whole-body optimal dynamic multi-contact motions. The International Journal of Robotics Research.Google Scholar
  35. Matsumoto, O., Kajita, S., Tani, K., & Oooto, M. (1995). A four-wheeled robot to pass over steps by changing running control modes. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Vol. 2, (pp. 1700–1706).Google Scholar
  36. Meeussen, W., Wise, M., Glaser, S., Chitta, S., McGann, C., Mihelich, P., Marder-Eppstein, E., Muja, M., Eruhimov, V., Foote, T., Hsu, J., Rusu, R.B., Marthi, B., Bradski, G., Konolige, K., Gerkey, B., & Berger, E. (2010). Autonomous door opening and plugging in with a personal robot. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), (pp. 729–736).Google Scholar
  37. Mistry, M., Buchli, J., & Schaal, S. (2010). Inverse dynamics control of floating base systems using orthogonal decomposition. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, (pp. 3406–3412).Google Scholar
  38. Mistry, M., and Righetti, L. (2011). Operational space control of constrained and underactuated systems. Robotics: Science and systems VII.Google Scholar
  39. Nagasaka, K., Kawanami, Y. Shimizu, S., Kito, T., Tsuboi, T., Miyamoto, A., Fukushima, T., & Shimomura, H. (2010). Whole-body cooperative force control for a two-armed and two-wheeled mobile robot using generalized inverse dynamics and idealized joint units. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), (pp. 3377–3383).Google Scholar
  40. Nakamura, Y., Hanafusa, H., & Yoshikawa, T. (1987). Task-priority based control of robot manipulators. International Journal of Robotics Research, 6(2), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nakanishi, J., Mistry, M., & Schaal, S., (2007). Inverse dynamics control with floating base and constraints. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp. 1942–1947.Google Scholar
  42. Nakano, E., & Nagasaka, S. (1993). Leg-wheel robot: A futuristic mobile platform for forestry industry. Proceedings of IEEE/Tsukuba international workshop on advanced robotics, (pp. 109–112).Google Scholar
  43. Oh, S., Kimura, Y., & Hori, Y. (2010). Force control based on biarticular muscle system and its application to novel robot arm driven by planetary gear system. IEEE/rsj international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Taipei.Google Scholar
  44. Ohmichi, T., et al. (1985). Development of the multi-function robot for the containment vessel of the nuclear plant. Proceedings of international conference on advanced robotics, (pp. 371–378).Google Scholar
  45. Oriolo, G., (1994). Stabilization of self-motions in redundant robots. Proceedings IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, (pp. 704–709).Google Scholar
  46. Pastor, P., Hoffmann, H., Asfour, T. & Schaal, S. (2009). Learning and generalization of motor skills by learning from demonstration. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), (pp. 763–768).Google Scholar
  47. Philippsen, R., Sentis, L., & Khatib, O. (2011). An open source extensible software package to create whole-body compliant skills in personal mobile manipulators. IEEE/rsj international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), (pp. 1036–1041).Google Scholar
  48. Reiser, U., Connette, C., Fischer, J., Kubacki, J., Bubeck, A., Weisshardt, F., Jacobs, T., Parlitz, C., Hagele, M., & Verl, A. (2009). Care-o-bot; 3: Creating a product vision for service robot applications by integrating design and technology. IEEE/rsj international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), (pp.1992–1998).Google Scholar
  49. Righetti, L., Buchli, J., Mistry, M., & Schaal, S. (2011). Inverse dynamics control of floating-base robots with external constraints: A unified view. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), (pp. 1085–1090).Google Scholar
  50. Righetti, L., Buchli, J., Mistry, M., Kalakrishnan, M., & Schaal, S. (2013). Optimal distribution of contact forces with inverse dynamics control. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 32(3), 280–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saab, L., Ramos, O. E., Keith, F., Mansard, N., Soueres, P., & Fourquet, J.-Y. (2013). Dynamic whole-body motion generation under rigid contacts and other unilateral constraints.Google Scholar
  52. Salini, J. (2012). Dynamic control for the task/posture coordination of humanoids: Toward synthesis of complex activities. These de doctorat. Paris, France: Universit Pierre et Marie Curie.Google Scholar
  53. Salini, J., Padois, V., Ibanez, A., Bidaud, P., & Buendia, A. (2011). A goal driven perspective to generate humanoid motion synthesis. Field robotics: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on climbing and walking robots and the support technologies for mobile machines, (pp. 889–897). World Scientific.Google Scholar
  54. Schaal, S., Auke, I., & Aude, B. (2003). Computational approaches to motor learning by imitation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1413), 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sentis, L. (2007). Synthesis and control of whole-body behaviors in humanoid systems. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Sentis, L., & Khatib, O. (2005). Synthesis of whole-body behaviors through hierarchical control of behavioral primitives. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 2(4), 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sentis, L., Park, J., & Khatib, O. (2010). Compliant control of multi-contact and center of mass behaviors in humanoid robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 26(3), 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sentis, L., Petersen, J., & Philippsen, R. (2012). Experiments with balancing on irregular terrains using the dreamer mobile humanoid robot. Robotics science and systems, Sidney.Google Scholar
  59. Siciliano, B., & Slotine, J., (1991). A general framework for managing multiple tasks in highly redundant robotic systems. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on advanced robotics, (pp. 1211–1216). Pisa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  60. Simmons, R., & Apfelbaum, D. (1998). A task description language for robot control. Proceedings IEEE/rsj international conference on Intelligent robots and systems, Vol. 3, (pp. 1931–19373).Google Scholar
  61. Stilman, M., Olson, J., Gloss, W. (2010). Golem krang: Dynamically stable humanoid robot for mobile manipulation. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), (pp. 3304–3309).Google Scholar
  62. Theobold, D., Ornstein, J., Nichol, J. G., Kullberg, S. E., et al. (2008). Mobile robot platform Google Patents. US Patent 7,348,747.Google Scholar
  63. Umetami, Y., & Yoshida, K. (1989). Resolved motion rate control of space manipulators with generalized Jacobian matrix. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 5(3), 303–314. Google Scholar
  64. Vallery, H., Ekkelenkamp, R., Van Der Herman, K., & Buss, M. (2007). Passive and accurate torque control of series elastic actuators. IEEE/rsj international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), (pp. 3534–3538).Google Scholar
  65. Volpe, R., Nesnas, I., Estlin, T., Mutz, D., Petras, R., & Das, H. (2001). The claraty architecture for robotic autonomy. IEEE proceedings on aerospace conference, Vol. 1, (pp. 1–12111321).Google Scholar
  66. Vukobratović, M., & Borovac, B. (2004). Zero-moment point thirty tive years of its life. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 1(1), 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wakita, K., Huang, J., Di, P., Sekiyama, K., & Fukuda, T. (2011). Human-walking-intention-based motion control of an omnidirectional-type cane robot. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 99, 1–12.Google Scholar
  68. Wilcox, B. H., Litwin, T., Biesiadecki, J., Matthews, J., Heverly, M., Morrison, J., et al. (2007). Athlete: A cargo handling and manipulation robot for the moon. Journal of Field Robotics, 24(5), 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ylonen, S. J., & Halme, A. J. (2002). Workpartner: centaur like service robot. IEEE/rsj international conference on intelligent robots and systems Vol. 1, (pp. 727–732).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Halmstad UniversityHalmstadSweden

Personalised recommendations