Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:48:16.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards dynamic alternating tripod trotting of a pony-sized hexapod robot for disaster rescuing based on multi-modal impedance control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2018

Qiao Sun ,
Feng Gao  and
Xianbao Chen
Qiao Sun
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Feng Gao*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Xianbao Chen
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China. E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Hexapod robots are well suited for disaster rescuing tasks due to their stability and load capability. However, most current hexapod robots still rely on static gaits that largely limit their locomotion speed. This paper introduces a hierarchical control strategy to realize a dynamic alternating tripod trotting gait for a hexapod robot based on multi-modal impedance control. At the low level, a position-based impedance controller is developed to realize an adjustable compliant behavior for each leg. At the high level, a new gait controller is developed to generate a stable alternating tripod trotting gait, in which a gait state machine, a leg compliance modulation strategy, and a close-looped body attitude stabilizer are imposed. As a result, the alternating tripod trotting of the hexapod robot can be synchronized as the running of a bipedal robot with stable body attitude. Moreover, this control strategy was verified by experiments on a newly designed pony-sized disaster rescuing robot, HexbotIV, which successfully achieved a dynamic trotting gait with ability to resist the disturbances of mildly uneven terrains. Our control strategy as well as the experimental study can be a valuable reference for other hexapod robots and thus paves a way to the practical deployment of disaster rescuing robots.

Keywords

Impedance controlDynamic locomotionLegged robotsControl of robotic systemHexapod robots
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 36 , Issue 7 , July 2018 , pp. 1048 - 1076
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. Delcomyn, F. and Nelson, M. E., “Architectures for a biomimetic hexapod robot,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 30 (1), 5–15 (2000).Google Scholar
2. de Santos, P. G., Cobano, J. A., Garcia, E., Estremera, J. and Armada, M., “A six-legged robot-based system for humanitarian demining missions,” Mechatronics 17 (8), 417–430 (2007).Google Scholar
3. Yang, P. and Gao, F., “Leg kinematic analysis and prototype experiments of walking-operating multifunctional hexapod robot,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 28 (12), 2217–2232 (2014).Google Scholar
4. Mena, L., Montes, H., Fernández, R., Sarria, J. and Armada, M., “Reconfiguration of a Climbing Robot in an All-Terrain Hexapod Robot,” Proceedings of Robot 2015: 2nd Iberian Robotics Conference (2016) pp. 197–208.Google Scholar
5. Barai, R. K. and Nonami, K., “Locomotion control of a hydraulically actuated hexapod robot by robust adaptive fuzzy control and dead-zone compensation,” Robotica 25 (03), 269–281 (2007).Google Scholar
6. Irawan, A. and Nonami, K., “Optimal impedance control based on body inertia for a hydraulically driven hexapod robot walking on uneven and extremely soft terrain,” J. Field Robot. 28 (5), 690–713 (2011).Google Scholar
7. Belter, D. and Skrzypczyński, P., “Rough terrain mapping and classification for foothold selection in a walking robot,” J. Field Robot. 28 (4), 497–528 (2011).Google Scholar
8. Stelzer, A., Hirschmüller, H. and Görner, M., “Stereo-vision-based navigation of a six-legged walking robot in unknown rough terrain,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 31 (4), 381–402 (2012).Google Scholar
9. Pratihar, D. K., Deb, K. and Ghosh, A., “Optimal path and gait generations simultaneously of a six-legged robot using a GA-fuzzy approach,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 41 (1), 1–20 (2002).Google Scholar
10. Blickhan, R. and Full, R., “Similarity in multilegged locomotion: Bouncing like a monopode,” J. Comp. Physiol. A 173 (5), 509–517 (1993).Google Scholar
11. Farley, C. T., Glasheen, J. and McMahon, T. A., “Running springs: Speed and animal size,” J. Exp. Biol. 185 (1), 71–86 (1993).Google Scholar
12. Zhang, X., Gong, J. and Yao, Y., “Effects of head and tail as swinging appendages on the dynamic walking performance of a quadruped robot,” Robotica 34 (12), 2878–2891 (2016).Google Scholar
13. Full, R. J., Blickhan, R. and Ting, L., “Leg design in hexapedal runners,” J. Exp. Biol. 158 (1), 369–390 (1991).Google Scholar
14. Vejdani, H., Blum, Y., Daley, M. and Hurst, J., “Bio-inspired swing leg control for spring-mass robots running on ground with unexpected height disturbance,” Bioinspir. Biomim. 8 (4), 046006 (2013).Google Scholar
15. Saranli, U., Buehler, M. and Koditschek, D. E., “RHex: A simple and highly mobile hexapod robot,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 20 (7), 616–631 (2001).Google Scholar
16. Weingarten, J. D., Lopes, G. A., Buehler, M., Groff, R. E. and Koditschek, D. E., “Automated Gait Adaptation for Legged Robots,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2004) pp. 2153–2158.Google Scholar
17. Mcmordie, D., “Towards Pronking with a Hexapod Robot,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Climbing and Walking Robots (2001) pp. 659–666.Google Scholar
18. Neville, N. and Buehler, M., “Towards Bipedal Running of a Six Legged Robot,” Proceedings of the 12th Yale Workshop on Adaptive and Learning Systems (2003).Google Scholar
19. Chou, Y.-C., Huang, K.-J., Yu, W.-S. and Lin, P.-C., “Model-based development of leaping in a hexapod robot,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 31 (1), 40–54 (2015).Google Scholar
20. Huang, K.-J., Chen, S.-C., Komsuoglu, H., Lopes, G., Clark, J. and Lin, P.-C., “Design and performance evaluation of a bio-inspired and single-motor-driven hexapod robot with dynamical gaits,” J. Mech. Robot. 7 (3), 031017 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Cham, J. G., Bailey, S. A., Clark, J. E., Full, R. J. and Cutkosky, M. R., “Fast and robust: Hexapedal robots via shape deposition manufacturing,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 21 (10–11), 869–882 (2002).Google Scholar
22. 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 (9), 903–912 (2006).Google Scholar
23. Birkmeyer, P., Peterson, K. and Fearing, R. S., “Dash: A Dynamic 16g Hexapedal Robot,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2009) pp. 2683–2689.Google Scholar
24. Hoover, A. M., Burden, S., Fu, X.-Y., Sastry, S. S. and Fearing, R. S., “Bio-Inspired Design and Dynamic Maneuverability of a Minimally Actuated Six-Legged Robot,” Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE RAS and EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics BioRob (2010) pp. 869–876.Google Scholar
25. Haldane, D. W., Peterson, K. C., Bermudez, F. L. Garcia and Fearing, R. S., “Animal-Inspired Design and Aerodynamic Stabilization of a Hexapedal Millirobot,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2013) pp. 3279–3286.Google Scholar
26. Haldane, D. and Fearing, R., “Running Beyond the Bio-Inspired Regime,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2015) pp. 4539–4546.Google Scholar
27. Hogan, N., “Impedance control: An approach to manipulation: Part ii-implementation,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 107 (1), 8–16 (1985).Google Scholar
28. Semini, C., Barasuol, V., Boaventura, T., Frigerio, M., Focchi, M., Caldwell, D. G. and Buchli, J., “Towards versatile legged robots through active impedance control,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 34 (7), 1003–1020 (2015).Google Scholar
29. Park, J. H., “Impedance control for biped robot locomotion,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 17 (6) 870–882 (2001).Google Scholar
30. Park, J. and Park, J. H., “Impedance Control of Quadruped Robot and Its Impedance Characteristic Modulation for Trotting on Irregular Terrain,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2012) pp. 175–180.Google Scholar
31. Kwon, O. and Park, J. H., “Asymmetric trajectory generation and impedance control for running of biped robots,” Auton. Robots 26 (1), 47–78 (2009).Google Scholar
32. Hyun, D. J., Seok, S., Lee, J. and Kim, S., “High speed trot-running: Implementation of a hierarchical controller using proprioceptive impedance control on the MIT Cheetah,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 33 (11), 1417–1445 (2014).Google Scholar
33. Montes, H. and Armada, M., “Force control strategies in hydraulically actuated legged robots,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 13 (2), 50 (2016).Google Scholar
34. Bjelonic, M., Kottege, N. and Beckerle, P., “Proprioceptive Control of an Over-Actuated Hexapod Robot in Unstructured Terrain,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2016) pp. 2042–2049.Google Scholar
35. Hodoshima, R., Doi, T., Fukuda, Y., Hirose, S., Okamoto, T. and Mori, J., “Development of a quadruped walking robot TITAN XI for steep slope operation-step over gait to avoid concrete frames on steep slopes,” J. Robot. Mechatronics 19 (1), 13 (2007).Google Scholar
36. Nichol, J. G., Singh, S. P., Waldron, K. J., Luther, I. Palmer, R. and Orin, D. E., “System design of a quadrupedal galloping machine,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 23 (10-11), 1013–1027 (2004).Google Scholar
37. Spröwitz, A., Tuleu, A., Vespignani, M., Ajallooeian, M., Badri, E. and Ijspeert, A. J., “Towards dynamic trot gait locomotion: Design, control, and experiments with Cheetah-cub, a compliant quadruped robot,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 32 (8), 932–950 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Gao, F., Li, W., Zhao, X., Jin, Z. and Zhao, H., “New kinematic structures for 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-DoF parallel manipulator designs,” Mech. Mach. Theory 37 (11), 1395–1411 (2002).Google Scholar
39. Lawrence, D. A., “Impedance Control Stability Properties in Common Implementations,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1988) pp. 1185–1190.Google Scholar
40. Raibert, M. H., Chepponis, M. and Brown, H. B. Jr., “Running on four legs as though they were one,” IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 2 (2), 70–82 (1986).Google Scholar
41. Sardain, P. and Bessonnet, G., “Forces acting on a biped robot. Center of pressure-zero moment point,” IEEE Trans. Man, Cybern. Part A: Syst. Hum. 34 (5), 630–637 (2004).Google Scholar
42. Heglund, N. C. and Taylor, C. R., “Speed, stride frequency and energy cost per stride: How do they change with body size and gait?” J. Exp. Biol. 138 (1), 301–318 (1988).Google Scholar
43. Miller, B., Schmitt, J. and Clark, J. E., “Quantifying disturbance rejection of slip-like running systems,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 31 (5), 573–587 (2012).Google Scholar
44. Dallali, H., Kormushev, P., Tsagarakis, N. G. and Caldwell, D. G., “Can Active Impedance Protect Robots from Landing Impact?” Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (2014) pp. 1022–1027.Google Scholar

Sun et al. supplementary material 1

Supplementary Video

Download Sun et al. supplementary material 1(Video)
Video 64.3 MB