Advertisement

A General Approach for Automating Teleoperated Construction Machines

  • Hyung Joo LeeEmail author
  • Sigrid Brell-Cokcan
  • Katharina Schmitz
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 980)

Abstract

Despite enormous research advances in robotics, most of repetitive and dangerous tasks on construction sites are still manually performed. The challenge to robotic automation lies in the nature of construction site. Robots must be able to handle large payloads, outdoor conditions, dirty and dynamic environment. Therefore, attempting to develop a new robot for construction sites is a formidable task. In this paper, a generic method is introduced to adapt existing stable hydraulically driven construction machinery so that proven robots can be obtained at a significant reduction in effort. Fist, the bus system of the machinery is utilized to communicate with the user’s computer. Then, a control framework is developed which is based on the closed-loop inverse kinematic (CLIK). The method is experimentally validated on a demolition machine Brokk 170, that is originally designed to be controlled with a remote controller.

Keywords

Construction robotic Closed-loop inverse kinematics CAN bus Demolition robotics Path planning 

References

  1. 1.
    Montazeri, A., Udo, E.J.: Development of dynamic model of a 7DOF hydraulically actuated tele-operated robot for decommissioning applications. In: American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 1209–1214 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor, C.J., Chotai, A., Robertson, D.: State dependent control of a robotic manipulator used for nuclear decommissioning activities. In: Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2413–2418 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giftthaler, M., Sandy, T., Dörfler, K., Brooks, I., Buckingham, M., Rey, G., Kohler, M., Gramazio, F., Buchli, J.: Mobile robotic fabrication at 1:1 scale: the In situ Fabricator: system, experiences and current developments. Constr. Robot. 1, 3–14 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lussi, M., Sandy, T., Doerfler, K., Hack, N., Gramazio, F., Kohler, M., Buchli, J.: Accurate and adaptive in situ fabrication of an undulated wall using an on-board visual sensing system. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3532–3539 (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stumm, S., Braumann, J., Brell-Cokcan, S.: A human-machine interaction for intuitive programming of assembly tasks in construction. In: Conference on Assembly Technologies and Systems, vol. 44, pp. 269–274 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lublasser, E., Hildebrand, L., Vollpracht, A., Brell-Cokcan, S.: Robot assisted deconstruction of multi-layered façade constructions on the example of external thermal insulation composite systems. Constr. Robot. 1, 39–47 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, S., Chang, P.: Control of a heavy-duty robotic excavator using time delay control with switching action with integral sliding surface. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vukovic, M.: Hydraulic hybrid systems for excavators, Ph.D. thesis RWTH Aachen University, Shaker (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vukovic, M., Murrenhoff, H.: Single edge meter out control for mobile machinery. In: Proceedings of the ASME/BATH 2014 Symposium on Fluid Power & Motion Control (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wydra, M., Geimer, M., Weiss, B.: An approach to combine an independent metering system with an electro-hydraulic flow-on-demand hybrid-system. In: The 15th Scandinavian International Conference on Fluid Power (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Korein, J.U., Balder, N.I.: Techniques for generating the goal-directed motion of articulated structures. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2, 71–81 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldenberg, A., Benhabib, B., Fenton, R.: A complete generalized solution to the inverse kinematics of robots. IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 1, 14–20 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buss, S.R.: Introduction to inverse kinematics with Jacobian transpose, pseudoinverse and damped least squares methods. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 17, 16 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dariush, B., Gienger, M., Jian, B., Goerick, C., Fujimura, K.: Whole body humanoid control from human motion descriptors. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2677–2684 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deo, A.S., Walker, I.D.: Adaptive non-linear least squares for inverse kinematics. In: Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, pp. 186–193 (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nakamura, Y., Hanafusa, H.: Inverse kinematics solutions with singularity robustness for robot manipulator control. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 108, 163–171 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chan, T.F., Dubey, R.V.: A weighted least-norm solution based scheme for avoiding joint limits for redundant joint manipulators. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 11, 286–292 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yoshikawa, T.: Foundations of Robotics, Analysis and Control. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Osumi, H.: Application of Robot Technologies to the Disaster Sites, Report of JSME Research Committee on the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster, pp. 58–74 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyung Joo Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sigrid Brell-Cokcan
    • 1
  • Katharina Schmitz
    • 2
  1. 1.Chair of Individualized Production (IP)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Fluid Power Drives and System (IFAS)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations