Design and Locomotion of a Semi-passive Mobile Platform
This paper presents a novel design and a motion planner for a semipassive mobile robot. The robot consists of an upper circular body and three identical semi-passive driving mechanisms. Each mechanism consists of a passive wheel that can freely roll, a rotation actuator along the normal axes and a linear actuator for motion along the radial direction of the upper body center. The robot is equipped with an inclinometer to measure the surface slope. Each wheel is also equipped with a rotational encoder to measure roll. Using an odometric model, data from these encoders determines vehicle position. Kinematic analysis provides tools for designing a motion path that steers the robot to the desired location, and determines the singular configurations. Due to the passive roll, there is no longitudinal slippage, and lateral slippage is determined from the kinematic and odometric models. This enables accurate and reliable localization even with slippage. A gait pattern planer for downhill, as well as horizontal and uphill surfaces is presented. A prototype robot has been built and field tested. Experimental results verify the suggested models.
KeywordsPassive motion planning skid steering slippage
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.P. Bidaud, R. Chatila, G. Andrade-Barroso, and F. Ben Amar. Modeling robotsoil interaction for planetary rover motion control. In IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 576–581, Victoria B.C., Canada, October 1998.Google Scholar
- 2.J. Borenstein and L. Feng. Gyrodometry: A new method for combining data from gyros and odometry in mobile robots. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 423–428, Minneapolis, Minnessota, April 1996.Google Scholar
- 3.S. Dubowsky and K. Iagnemma. Mobile robot rough-terrain control (rtc) for planetary exploration. In Proceedings of ASME DETC/CIE: 26th Biennial Mechanisms and Robotics Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, September 2000.Google Scholar
- 4.G. Endo and S. Hirose. Study on roller-walker (multi-mode steering control and self-contained locomotion). In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 2808–2814, San Francisco, CA, April 2000.Google Scholar
- 5.G. Ferretti, G. Magnani, G. Martucci, P. Rocco, and V. Stampacchia. Friction model validation in sliding and presliding regimes with high resolution encoders. In Experimental Robotics VIII B. Siciliano and P. Dario Eds., pages 328–337. STAR Springer, Heidelberg, 2002.Google Scholar
- 6.C. Frederik, W. Heger, and V. Kumar. Design and gait control of a rollerblading robot. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 3944–3949, New Orleans, LA, April 2004.Google Scholar
- 7.K. Iagnemma and S. Dubowsky. Vehicle wheel-ground contact angle estimation: with application to mobile robot traction control. In 7th Int. Symposium on Advances in Robot Kinematics, Piran-Portoroz, Slovenia, June 2000.Google Scholar
- 8.D. E. Koditschek. The application of total energy as a lyapunov function for mechanical control systems. In J. Marsden, Krishnaprasad, and J. Simo, editors, Control Theory and Multibody Systems, AMS Series in Contemporary Mathematics, 97:131–158, 1989.Google Scholar
- 9.G. Lafferriere and H. J. Sussman. A differential geometry approach to motion planning. In Nonholonomic Motion Planning Z. Li and J. F. Canny Eds., pages 235–270. Kluwer, 1993.Google Scholar
- 10.S. Shimizu, K. Hasegawa, and T. Nagasawa. Alpine ski robot. Journal of Robotics Society of Japan (JRSJ) special issue on Amusement Robot, 8(3):126, June 1990.Google Scholar
- 11.K. Yoshida and H. Hamano. Motion dynamics of a rover with slip-based traction model. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 3155–3160, Washington D.C., May 2002.Google Scholar