Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:14:35.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Balance control based on six-dimensional spatial mechanics and velocity adjustment through region intervention and foot landing for quadruped robot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2022

Bende Luo Open the ORCID record for Bende Luo [Opens in a new window]
Bende Luo*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, South China University of Technology, People’s Republic of China
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Currently, the body balance control algorithm of a quadruped robot executing trot gait motion is more complex and computationally intensive, which is not conducive to improving the real-time control performance of the robot. This paper proposes a six-dimensional spatial mechanics decoupling algorithm to enhance the balance control accuracy during trot gait while optimizing the computational effort. A 6 × 6 matrix is established to describe the relationship between six ground reaction forces of the diagonal supporting leg and six spatial forces and torques controlling robot degrees of freedom, which is optimized to reach the full rank. Decoupling calculation is adopted to obtain required ground reaction forces by matrix inverse operation, and forces are converted to joint motor torques utilizing the Jacobian matrix. The trajectory of the swing leg foot is generated based on cubic interpolation, and the robot motion speed is adjusted by selecting the landing point. This paper also proposes a region intervention control method based on center of mass projection to regulate the moving speed while ensuring the balance of the robot. Finally, the algorithm is verified by simulation using open source software Webots. The results show that when the robot moves at an average speed of 0.5 m/s, the lateral displacement change of the robot is less than 0.009 m, the height change is less than 0.003 m, and the rotating angles around the x, y, and z axes are less than 0.0036 rad, 0.0013 rad, and 0.001 rad, respectively.

Keywords

body balance controlquadruped robottrot gaitsix-dimensional spatial mechanicscubic interpolationlanding pointregion intervention control
Type
Research Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 40 , Issue 8 , August 2022 , pp. 2855 - 2877
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gor, M. M., Pathak, P. M., Samantaray, A. K., Yang, J.-M., and Kwak, S. W., “Control oriented model-based simulation and experimental studies on a compliant legged quadruped robot,” Rob. Auton. Syst. 72, 217–234 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biswal, P. and Mohanty, P. K., “Modeling and effective foot force distribution for the legs of a quadruped robot,” Robotica 39(8), 1504–1517 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Carlo, J., Wensing, P. M., Katz, B., Bledt, G. and Kim, S., “Dynamic locomotion in the MIT Cheetah 3 through convex model-predictive control,” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Madrid (2018) pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Bledt, G., Powell, M. J., Katz, B., Di Carlo, J., Wensing, P. M. and Kim, S., “MIT Cheetah 3: design and control of a robust, dynamic quadruped robot,” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Madrid (2018) pp. 2245–2252.Google Scholar
Horvat, T., Melo, K. and Ijspeert, A. J., “Model predictive control based framework for CoM control of a quadruped robot,” 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Vancouver, BC (2017) pp. 3372–3378.Google Scholar
Rutschmann, M., Satzinger, B., Byl, M. and Byl, K., “Nonlinear model predictive control for rough-terrain robot hopping,” 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vilamoura-Algarve, Portugal (2012) pp. 1859–1864.Google Scholar
Koenemann, J. et al., “Whole-body model-predictive control applied to the HRP-2 humanoid,” 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Hamburg, Germany (2015) pp. 3346–3351.Google Scholar
Wieber, P.-B., “Viability and predictive control for safe locomotion,” 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Nice (2008) pp. 1103–1108.Google Scholar
Saab, L., Ramos, O. E., Keith, F., Mansard, N., Soueres, P. and Fourquet, J.-Y., “Dynamic whole-body motion generation under rigid contacts and other unilateral constraints,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 29(2), 346–362 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, D., Jorgensen, S. J., Lee, J., Ahn, J., Luo, J. and Sentis, L., “Dynamic locomotion for passive-ankle biped robots and humanoids using whole-body locomotion control,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 39(8), 936–956 (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saputra, A. A., Ijspeert, A. J. and Kubota, N., “A neural primitive model with sensorimotor coordination for dynamic quadruped locomotion with malfunction compensation,” 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Las Vegas, NV, USA (2020) pp. 3783–3788.Google Scholar
Lee, Y., Hwang, S. and Park, J., “Balancing of humanoid robot using contact force/moment control by task-oriented whole body control framework,” Auton. Robot. 40(3), 457–472 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuindersma, S., Permenter, F. and Tedrake, R., “An efficiently solvable quadratic program for stabilizing dynamic locomotion,” 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Hong Kong, China (2014) pp. 2589–2594.Google Scholar
Ijspeert, A. J., “Central pattern generators for locomotion control in animals and robots: a review,” Neural. Netw. 21(4), 642–653 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Q., Liu, C., Zhang, J. and Chen, Q., “Survey of locomotion control of legged robots inspired by biological concept,” Sci. China Ser. F-Inf. Sci. 52(10), 1715–1729 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutishauser, S., Sprowitz, A., Righetti, L., and Ijspeert, A. J., “Passive compliant quadruped robot using Central Pattern Generators for locomotion control,” 2008 2nd IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, Scottsdale, AZ (2008) pp. 710–715.Google Scholar
Billard, A. and Ijspeert, A. J., “Biologically inspired neural controllers for motor control in a quadruped robot,” Proceedings of the IEEE-INNS-ENNS International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. IJCNN 2000. Neural Computing: New Challenges and Perspectives for the New Millennium, Como, Italy (2000) vol. 6, pp. 637–641.Google Scholar
Nagashino, H., Nomura, Y., and Kinouchi, Y., “A neural network model for quadruped gait generation and transitions,” Neurocomputing 38–40, 1469–1475 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-2312(01)00504-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, C. P. and Matos, V., “Gait transition and modulation in a quadruped robot: A brainstem-like modulation approach,” Rob. Auton. Syst. 59(9), 620–634 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, C. P. and Matos, V., “CPG modulation for navigation and omnidirectional quadruped locomotion,” Rob. Auton. Syst. 60(6), 912–927 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raibert, M. H. and Tello, E. R., “Legged robots that balance,” IEEE Expert. 1(4), 89 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehler, M., Playter, R. and Raibert, M., “Robots step outside,” International Symposium on Adaptive Motion of Animals and Machines (AMAM), Ilmenau, Germany (2005) pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Raibert, M. H., “Trotting, pacing and bounding by a quadruped robot,” J. Biomech. 23, 79–98 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(90)90043-3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pratt, J., Chew, C.-M., Torres, A., Dilworth, P. and Pratt, G., “Virtual model control: An intuitive approach for Bipedal locomotion,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 20(2), 129–143 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, G. A., “Legged robots at MIT: What’s new since Raibert?,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 7(3), 15–19 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marhefka, D. W., Orin, D. E., Schmiedeler, J. P., and Waldron, K. J., “Intelligent control of quadruped gallops,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 8(4), 446–456 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, L. R., Orin, D. E., Marhefka, D. W., Schmiedeler, J. P. and Waldron, K. J., “Intelligent control of an experimental articulated leg for a galloping machine,” 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.03CH37422), Taipei, Taiwan (2003) vol. 3, pp. 3821–3827.Google Scholar
Estremera, J. and Waldron, K. J., “Thrust control, stabilization and energetics of a quadruped running robot,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 27(10), 1135–1151 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J.-M., “Two-phase discontinuous gaits for quadruped walking machines with a failed leg,” Rob. Auton. Syst. 56(9), 728–737 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimas Pristovani, R., Rindo, W. M., Henfri, B. E., Subhan, K. H. A. and Pramadihanto, D., “Basic walking trajectory analysis in FLoW ROBOT,” 2016 International Electronics Symposium (IES), Denpasar (2016) pp. 329–334.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-H., “Multi-axis force-torque sensors for measuring zero-moment point in humanoid robots: A review,” IEEE Sensors J. 20(3), 1126–1141 (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pongas, D., Mistry, M. and Schaal, S., “A robust quadruped walking gait for traversing rough terrain,” Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Rome, Italy (2007) pp. 1474–1479.Google Scholar
Kalakrishnan, M., Buchli, J., Pastor, P., Mistry, M. and Schaal, S., “Fast, robust quadruped locomotion over challenging terrain,” 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Anchorage, AK (2010) pp. 2665–2670.Google Scholar
Zhiqiang, L., Yuanbing, H., Xiuli, C. and Yun, M., “A grid gradient approximation method of energy-efficient gait planning for biped robots,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 18(2), 1–11 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prahlad, V., Dip, G. and Meng-Hwee, C., “Disturbance rejection by online ZMP compensation,” Robotica 26(1), 9–17 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalakrishnan, M., Buchli, J., Pastor, P., Mistry, M. and Schaal, S., “Learning, planning, and control for quadruped locomotion over challenging terrain,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 30(2), 236–258 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Jiang, L., Zou, F., Xing, B., Wang, Z. and Su, B., “Research on path planning of quadruped robot based on globally mapping localization,” 2020 3rd International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS), Harbin, China (2020) pp. 346–351.Google Scholar
Kazemi, H., Majd, V. J. and Moghaddam, M. M., “Modeling and robust backstepping control of an underactuated quadruped robot in bounding motion,” Robotica 31(3), 423–439 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar