Advertisement

Autonomous Robots

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 317–329 | Cite as

Push-manipulation of complex passive mobile objects using experimentally acquired motion models

  • Tekin Meriçli
  • Manuela Veloso
  • H. Levent Akın
Article

Abstract

In a realistic mobile push-manipulation scenario, it becomes non-trivial and infeasible to build analytical models that will capture the complexity of the interactions between the environment, each of the objects, and the robot as the variety of objects to be manipulated increases. We present an experience-based push-manipulation approach that enables the robot to acquire experimental models regarding how pushable real world objects with complex 3D structures move in response to various pushing actions. These experimentally acquired models can then be used either (1) for trying to track a collision-free guideline path generated for the object by reiterating pushing actions that result in the best locally-matching object trajectories until the goal is reached, or (2) as building blocks for constructing achievable push plans via a Rapidly-exploring Random Trees variant planning algorithm we contribute and executing them by reiterating the corresponding trajectories. We extensively experiment with these two methods in a 3D simulation environment and demonstrate the superiority of the achievable planning and execution concept through safe and successful push-manipulation of a variety of passively mobile pushable objects. Additionally, our preliminary tests in a real world scenario, where the robot is asked to arrange a set of chairs around a table through achievable push-manipulation, also show promising results despite the increased perception and action uncertainty, and verify the validity of our contributed method.

Keywords

Push manipulation Manipulation planning Experience-based manipulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Joydeep Biswas, Brian Coltin, and Stephanie Rosenthal for their work with the CoBot’s autonomy and task planning. We further thank Çetin Meriçli for his comments on this work and his help with the experiments with CoBot. The first author was partly supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey under Programmes 2211 and 2214, and the Turkish State Planning Organization (DPT) under the TAM Project, number 2007K120610. This research was further supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number IIS-1012733, by the Office of Naval Research under grant number N00014-09-1-1031, and by the Air Force Research Laboratory under grant number FA87501220291. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors only.

References

  1. Agarwal, P. K., Latombe, J., Motwani, R., & Raghavan, P. (1997). Nonholonomic path planning for pushing a disk among obstacles. In Proceedings of ICRA.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, J. V. D., Abbeel, P., & Goldberg, K. (2010). LQG-MP: optimized path planning for robots with motion uncertainty and imperfect state information. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Zaragoza, Spain.Google Scholar
  3. de Berg, M., & Gerrits, D. (2010). Computing push plans for disk-shaped robots. In Proceedings of ICRA.Google Scholar
  4. Biswas, J., Coltin, B., & Veloso, M. (2011). Corrective gradient refinement for mobile robot localization. In Proceedings of IROS.Google Scholar
  5. Bruce, J., & Veloso, M. (2002). Real-time randomized path planning for robot navigation. In Proceedings of IROS.Google Scholar
  6. Dogar, M., & Srinivasa, S. (2012). A planning framework for non-prehensile manipulation under clutter and uncertainty. Autonomous Robots, 33(3), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Igarashi, T., Kamiyama, Y., & Inami, M. (2010). A dipole field for object delivery by pushing on a flat surface. In Proceedings of ICRA.Google Scholar
  8. Lynch, K. M., & Mason, M. T. (1997). Dynamic nonprehensile manipulation: Controllability, planning, and experiments. International Journal of Robotics Research, 18, 64–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Katz, D., & Brock, O. (2008). Manipulating articulated objects with interactive perception. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 272–277). Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Khatib, O. (1986). Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 5(1), 90–98.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Kopicki, M., Zurek, S., Stolkin, R., Mörwald, T., & Wyatt, J. (2011). Learning to predict how rigid objects behave under simple manipulation. In Proceedings of ICRA.Google Scholar
  12. Lau, M., Mitani, J., & Igarashi, T. (2011). Automatic learning of pushing strategy for delivery of irregular-shaped objects. In Proceedings of ICRA.Google Scholar
  13. LaValle, S.M. (1998). Rapidly-exploring random trees: a new tool for path planning. Techncal report, Computer Science Dept., Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  14. LaValle, S. M. (2006). Planning Algorithms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Lynch, K. M. (1996). Nonprehensile robotic manipulation: Controlability and planning. Ph.D. Thesis, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  16. Melchior, N., & Simmons, R. (2007). Particle RRT for path planning with uncertainty. In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp 1617–1624).Google Scholar
  17. Meriçli, T., Veloso, M., & Akın, H. L. (2012). Experience guided achievable push Pplan generation for passive mobile objects. In Beyond Robot Grasping—Modern Approaches for Dynamic Manipulation, IROS’12, Algarve, Portugal.Google Scholar
  18. Meriçli, T., Veloso, M., & Akın, H. L. (2013). Achievable push-manipulation for complex passive mobile objects using past experience. In 12th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Saint Paul, MN Google Scholar
  19. Michel, O. (2004). Webots: Professional mobile robot simulation. Journal of Advanced Robotics Systems, 1(1), 39–42.Google Scholar
  20. Nieuwenhuisen, D., van der Stappen, A., & Overmars, M. (2005). Path planning for pushing a disk using compliance. In Proceedings of IROS.Google Scholar
  21. Nieuwenhuisen, D., van der Stappen, A., & Overmars, M. H. (2006). Pushing using compliance. In Proceedings of ICRA.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenthal, S., Biswas, J., & Veloso, M. (2010). An effective personal mobile robot agent through symbiotic human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of AAMAS.Google Scholar
  23. Salganicoff, M., Metta, G., Oddera, A., & Sandini, G. (1993). A vision-based learning method for pushing manipulation. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Machine Learning in Vision: What Why and How?.Google Scholar
  24. Scholz, J., & Stilman, M. (2010). Combining motion planning and optimization for flexible robot manipulation. In 10th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2010 (pp 80–85). doi: 10.1109/ICHR.2010.5686849.
  25. Veloso, M. M. (1994). Planning and learning by analogical reasoning. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Walker, S., & Salisbury, J. K. (2008). Pushing using learned manipulation maps. In Proceedings of ICRA.Google Scholar
  27. Zito, C., Stolkin, R., Kopicki, M., & Wyatt, J. (2012). Two-level RRT planning for robotic push manipulation. In Proceedings of IROS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tekin Meriçli
    • 1
  • Manuela Veloso
    • 2
  • H. Levent Akın
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringBoğaziçi UniversityBebekTurkey
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations