Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:59:36.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Design of a miniature modular inchworm robot with an anisotropic friction skin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2018

Wael Saab ,
Peter Racioppo ,
Anil Kumar  and
Pinhas Ben-Tzvi
Wael Saab
Affiliation:
Robotics and Mechatronics Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Peter Racioppo
Affiliation:
Robotics and Mechatronics Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Anil Kumar
Affiliation:
Robotics and Mechatronics Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Pinhas Ben-Tzvi*
Affiliation:
Robotics and Mechatronics Laboratory, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper presents the design, analysis, and experimental validation of a miniature modular inchworm robot (MMIR). Inchworm robots are capable of maneuvering in confined spaces due to their small size, a desirable characteristic for surveillance, exploration and search and rescue operations. This paper presents two generations of the MMIR (Version 1—V1 and Version 2—V2) that utilize anisotropic friction skin and an undulatory rectilinear gait to produce locomotion. This paper highlights design improvements and a multi-body dynamics approach to model and simulate the system. The MMIR V2 incorporates a slider-crank four-bar mechanism and a relative body revolute joint to produce high-frequency relative translation and rotation to increase forward velocity and enable turning capabilities. Friction analysis and locomotion experiments were conducted to assess the systems performance on various surfaces, validate the dynamic model and simulation results, and measure the maximum forward velocity. The MMIR V1 and V2 were able to achieve maximum forward velocities of 12.7 mm/s and 137.9 mm/s, respectively. These results are compared to reported results of similar robots published in the literature.

Keywords

DesignMobile robotsRobot dynamicsMechatronics systems
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , March 2019 , pp. 521 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

1. Autumn, K. and Peattie, A. M., “Mechanisms of adhesion in geckos,” Integrative Comparative Biol. 42, 1081–1090 (2002).Google Scholar
2. Denny, M. W., “A quantitative model for the adhesive locomotion of the terrestrial slug, Ariolimax columbianus,” J. Exp. Biol. 91, 195–217 (1981).Google Scholar
3. Stork, N., “Experimental analysis of adhesion of Chrysolina polita (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera) on a variety of surfaces,” J. Exp. Biol. 88, 91–108 (1980).Google Scholar
4. Spenko, M., Haynes, G. C., Sanders, J. A., Cutkosky, M. R., Rizzi, A. A., Full, R. J. and Koditschek, D. E., “Biologically inspired climbing with a hexapedal robot,” Departmental Papers (ESE) 397 (2008).Google Scholar
5. Kim, S., Asbeck, A. T., Cutkosky, M. R. and Provancher, W. R., “SpinybotII: Climbing Hard Walls with Compliant Microspines,” Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, Seattle, WA, USA (2005) pp. 601–606.Google Scholar
6. Kim, S., Spenko, M., Trujillo, S., Heyneman, B., Mattoli, V. and Cutkosky, M. R., “Whole Body Adhesion: Hierarchical, Directional and Distributed Control of Adhesive Forces for a Climbing Robot,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Roma, Italy (2007) pp. 1268–1273.Google Scholar
7. Birkmeyer, P., Peterson, K. and Fearing, R. S., “DASH: A Dynamic 16g Hexapedal Robot,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, St. Louis, MO, USA (2009) pp. 2683–2689.Google Scholar
8. Kim, S., Clark, J. E. and Cutkosky, M. R., “iSprawl: Design and tuning for high-speed autonomous open-loop running,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 25, 903–912 (2006).Google Scholar
9. Saranli, U., Buehler, M. and Koditschek, D. E., “RHex: A simple and highly mobile hexapod robot,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 20, 616–631 (2001).Google Scholar
10. Kim, B., Lee, M. G., Lee, Y. P., Kim, Y. and Lee, G., “An earthworm-like micro robot using shape memory alloy actuator,” Sensors Actuators A: Phys. 125, 429–437 (2006).Google Scholar
11. Koh, J.-S. and Cho, K.-J., “Omegabot: Biomimetic Inchworm Robot using sma Coil Actuator and Smart Composite Microstructures (scm),” Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Guilin, China (2009) pp. 1154–1159.Google Scholar
12. Lim, J., Park, H., An, J., Hong, Y.-S., Kim, B. and Yi, B.-J., “One pneumatic line based inchworm-like micro robot for half-inch pipe inspection,” Mechatronics 18, 315–322 (2008).Google Scholar
13. Hopkins, J. K., Spranklin, B. W. and Gupta, S. K., “A survey of snake-inspired robot designs,” Bioinspiration Biomimetics 4, 021001 (2009).Google Scholar
14. Chirikjian, G. S. and Burdick, J. W., “The kinematics of hyper-redundant robot locomotion,” IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom. 11, 781–793 (1995).Google Scholar
15. Hopkins, J. K. and Gupta, S. K., “Design and modeling of a new drive system and exaggerated rectilinear-gait for a snake-inspired robot,” J. Mechanisms Robot. 6, 021001 (2014).Google Scholar
16. Saab, W. and Ben-Tzvi, P., “Design and Analysis of a Miniature Modular Inchworm Robot,” Proceedings of the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Charlotte, NC, USA (2016).Google Scholar
17. Schulke, M., Hartmann, L. and Behn, C., “Worm-like Locomotion Systems: Development of Drives and Selective Anisotropic Friction Structures,” Proceedings of the 56th International Scientific Colloquium, Ilmenau, Germany (2011).Google Scholar
18. Ohno, H. and Hirose, S., “Design of Slim Slime Robot and its Gait of Locomotion,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2001) pp. 707–715.Google Scholar
19. Hirose, S. and Yamada, H., “Snake-like robots [tutorial],” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 16, 88–98 (2009).Google Scholar
20. Tang, W., Reyes, F. and Ma, S., “Study on Rectilinear Locomotion based on a Snake Robot with Passive Anchor,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Hamburg, Germany (2015) pp. 950–955.Google Scholar
21. Wang, K. and Ma, S., “Kinematic Analysis of Snake-Like Robot Using Sliding Joints,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Tianjin, China (2010) pp. 1484–1489.Google Scholar
22. Chen, I., Yeo, S. H. and Gao, Y., “Locomotive gait generation for inchworm-like robots using finite state approach,” Robotica 19, 535–542 (2001).Google Scholar
23. Chen, S. H. Y. I.-M. and Wong, R. S. P. S., “Design and Development of a Planar Inchworm Robot,” Proceedings of the 17th IAARC International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Taipei, Taiwan (2000).Google Scholar
24. Fang, H., Wang, C., Li, S., Wang, K. W. and Xu, J., “A comprehensive study on the locomotion characteristics of a metameric earthworm-like robot,” Multibody Syst. Dynamics 35, 153–177 (2015).Google Scholar
25. Serrano, M. M., Chang, A. H., Zhang, G. and Vela, P. A., “Incorporating Frictional Anisotropy in the Design of a Robotic Snake Through the Exploitation of Scales,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Seattle, Washington, USA (2015) pp. 3729–3734.Google Scholar
26. Lee, D., Kim, S., Park, Y.-L. and Wood, R. J., “Design of Centimeter-Scale Inchworm Robots with Bidirectional Claws,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Shanghai, China (2011) pp. 3197–3204.Google Scholar
27. Appleton, E. and Stutchbury, N. W., “Novel brush drive robotic tractor for sewer and water main inspection and maintenance,” Ind. Robot: An Int. J. 27, 370–377 (2000).Google Scholar
28. Dovica, M., Gorzás, M., Kováč, J. and Ondočko, Š., “In-pipe Passive Smart Bristled Micromachine,” Proceedings of the 2nd Slovakian-Hungarian Joint Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.bmf.hu/conferences/SAMI2004/dovica.pdf (2004).Google Scholar
29. Hatazaki, K., Konyo, M., Isaki, K., Tadokoro, S. and Takemura, F., “Active Scope Camera for Urban Search and Rescue,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Diego, CA, USA (2007) pp. 2596–2602.Google Scholar
30. Ishikura, M., Wakana, K., Takeuchi, E., Konyo, M. and Tadokoro, S., “Running Performance Evaluation of Inchworm Drive and Vibration Drive for Active Scope Camera,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Budapest, Hungary (2011) pp. 599–604.Google Scholar
31. Marvi, H., Meyers, G., Russell, G. and Hu, D. L., “Scalybot: A Snake-Inspired Robot with Active Control of Friction,” Proceedings of the Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, Arlington, Va (2011) pp. 443–450.Google Scholar
32. Dowling, K. J., Limbless Locomotion: Learning to Crawl with a Snake Robot Ph.D. Thesis (Pittsburgh, PA: The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1996).Google Scholar
33. Schulke, M., Entwurf, Steuerung und Analyse Biomimetischer, Wurmartiger Bewegungssysteme Masters Thesis (Ilmenau, Germany: Diplomarbeit, TU Ilmenau, Fakultät für Maschinenbau, 2011).Google Scholar
34. Dickrell, P., Sinnott, S., Hahn, D., Raravikar, N., Schadler, L., Ajayan, P. and Sawyer, G., “Frictional anisotropy of oriented carbon nanotube surfaces,” Tribology Lett. 18, 59–62 (2005).Google Scholar
35. Hirose, S. and Mori, M., “Biologically Inspired Snake-like Robots,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Shenyang, China (2004) pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
36. Hu, D. L., Nirody, J., Scott, T. and Shelley, M. J., “The mechanics of slithering locomotion,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 106, 10081–10085 (2009).Google Scholar
37. Marvi, H., Bridges, J. and Hu, D. L., “Snakes mimic earthworms: Propulsion using rectilinear travelling waves,” J. Royal Soc. Interface 10, 20130188 (2013).Google Scholar
38. Gmiterko, A., Kelemen, M. and Virgala, I., “The snake rectilinear motion modeling on the flat inclined surface,” Int. J. Mech. Appl. 2, 39–42 (2012).Google Scholar
39. Tang, W. and Ma, S., “Analysis of Rectilinear Motion of a Three-Segment Snake Robot Under Action of Dry Friction,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Seattle, Wa (2015) pp. 3723–3728.Google Scholar
40. Ghanbari, A., Rostami, A., Noorani, S. M. R. S. and Fakhrabadi, M. M. S., Modeling and Simulation of Inchworm Mode Locomotion, vol. 5314 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008).Google Scholar
41. Haug, E. J., Computer Aided Kinematics and Dynamics of Mechanical Systems, vol. 1 (Allyn and Bacon Boston, Boston, Ma, 1989).Google Scholar
42. Tijani Ismaila, B., Salami, M., Akmeliawati, R. and Alfaro, H., “Artificial Intelligent Based Friction Modelling and Compensation in Motion Control System,” In: Advances in Mechatronics (InTech, Shanghai, China, 2011).Google Scholar
43. Harnoy, A., Friedland, B. and Cohn, S., “Modeling and measuring friction effects,” IEEE Control Syst. 28 (6) (2008).Google Scholar
44. Kumar, A. and Ben-Tzvi, P., “Spatial object tracking system based on Linear Optical Sensor Arrays (LOSA),” IEEE Sensors J. 16 (22), 7933–7940 (2016).Google Scholar