Advertisement

Landing and Perching on Vertical Surfaces with Microspines for Small Unmanned Air Vehicles

  • Alexis Lussier DesbiensEmail author
  • Mark R. Cutkosky
Article

Abstract

We present the first results of a system that allows small fixed-wing UAVs to land and cling on surfaces such as brick walls using arrays of microspines that engage asperities on the surface. The requirements of engaging and loading the spines lead to an approach in which an open-loop pitch-up motion is triggered by a range sensor as the plane nears the wall. The subsequent dynamics result in a period during which the plane stays within an envelope of acceptable orientation and velocity (pitch from 60–105 deg, vertical velocity from 0 to − 2.7 m/s and up to 3 m/s of horizontal velocity) that permit successful perching. At touchdown, a non-linear suspension absorbs the remaining kinetic energy to minimize peak forces, prevents bouncing and facilitates spine engagement. The total maneuver duration is less than 1 s. We describe the spine suspension and its analysis and present results of typical perching maneuvers (10 landings under autonomous control and 20 under manual control). Under calm conditions, the success rate for autonomous perching on building walls is approximately 80%, the failures being attributed to erroneous wall detection. We conclude with a discussion of future work to increase the robustness of the approach (e.g. with wind) and allow subsequent take-offs to resume flight.

Keywords

Perching Landing Vertical surfaces Wall Microspines Adhesion Suspension Unmanned air vehicles Endurance 

References

  1. 1.
    Akella, P.N.: Contact mechanics and the dynamics of manipulation. PhD in Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asbeck, A.T., Kim, S., Cutkosky, M.R., Provancher, W.R., Lanzetta, M.: Scaling hard vertical surfaces with compliant microspine arrays. Int. J. Rob. Res. 25(12), 14 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byrnes, G., Lim, N.T.L., Spence, A.J.: Take-off and landing kinetics of a free-ranging gliding mammal, the Malayan colugo (Galeopterus variegatus). Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B Biol. Sci. 275(1638), 1007–1013 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caple, G., Balda, R.P., Willis, W.R.: The physics of leaping animals and the evolution of preflight. Am. Nat. 121, 455–467 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cory, R., Tedrake, R.: Experiments in fixed-wing uav perching. In: Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frank, A., McGrew, J.S., Valenti, M., Levine, D., How, J.P.: Hover, transition, and level flight control design for a single-propeller indoor airplane. AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, W., Oh, P.: A mav that flies like an airplane and hovers like a helicopter. In: Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. Proceedings (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Green, W., Oh, P.: A fixed-wing aircraft for hovering in caves, tunnels, and buildings. In: American Control Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Green, W., Oh, P.: Autonomous hovering of a fixed-wing micro air vehicle. In: IEEE International Conference of Robotics and Automation (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Illingworth, L., Reinfeld, D.: Vortex attractor—US 6,565,321 B1. United States Patent, p. 40 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim, S., Spenko, M., Trujillo, S., Heyneman, B., Santos, D., Cutkosky, M.R.: Smooth vertical surface climbing with directional adhesion. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 24(1), 65–74 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paparazzi: Paparazzi, the free autopilot. http://paparazzi.enac.fr (2008)
  13. 13.
    Paskins, K.E., Bowyer, A., Megill, W.M., Scheibe, J.S.: Take-off and landing forces and the evolution of controlled gliding in northern flying squirrels glaucomys sabrinus. J. Exp. Biol. 210(8), 1413–1423 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts, J., Cory, R., Tedrake, R.: On the controllability of fixed-wing perching. In: American Controls Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spenko, M., Haynes, G., Saunders, J., Cutkosky, M.R., Rizzi, A., Full, R.: Biologically inspired climbing with a hexapedal robot. Journal of Field Robotics 25, 223–242 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wickenheiser, A., Garcia, E.: Longitudinal dynamics of a perching aircraft. J. Aircr. 43, 1386–1392 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wickenheiser, A., Garcia, E.: Perching aerodynamics and trajectory optimization. In: Proceedings of SPIE (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wickenheiser, A.M., Garcia, E.: Optimization of perching maneuvers through vehicle morphing. J. Guid. 31(4), 815–823. doi: 10.2514/1.33819 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biomimetic and Dextrous Manipulation Laboratory, Center for Design ResearchStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations