Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
George Kantor
Department of ECE
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
malarfaj@andrew.cmu.edu
Fig. 1.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Dynamically stable robots have been a growing topic of
robotics research in the previous years. Unlike traditional
statically stable robots which require large footprints and a low
center of mass, dynamically stable robots are often designed
2333
ICARCV 2010
Fig. 2.
This wheel allowed the robot to not only move in all directions,
but react to forces from any direction, including centrifugal
forces. However, the inverse mouse-ball drive used in the
system is heavily reliant on friction drives to actuate, which
can cause a lower amount of robustness in comparison to the
fixed drives used in two-wheel robots. Further, it is difficult to
see how the inverse mouse-ball drive can be adapted to operate
on typical outdoor terrains such as grass and broken pavement.
In this paper, a two-wheeled robot is presented which borrows elements from Ballbot in the form of a four-bar linkage as
an additional degree of freedom. This allows an inexpensive
design that is able to compensate for centrifugal forces and
maintain stability by leaning in the lateral direction. A similar
concept was used in EMIEW [5], developed by Hitachi, in
which a limited-motion rocking mechanism consisting of a
single joint was used to assist in smooth turning in indoor
environments. The paper will describe the details of the system,
followed by the control methods used, and performance results.
III. S YSTEM D ESCRIPTION
The robot in simulation can be shown in figure 1. The
robot is 1.8 meters in height, 0.5 meters in width, and weighs
roughly 35 kg. The structure consists of two vertical beams
that intersect two horizontal decks. The decks are connected
to the vertical beams with revolute joints, creating a fourbar linkage. The top deck holds a processing unit which is
intended to house sensors and a micro-controller. The robot
will be actuated using two wheels with radii of 34 cm, which
are roughly the same size of bicycle wheels allowing it to be
suitable for outdoor terrain. In addition, the four-bar linkage
is able to be actuated, allowing the robot to lean laterally as
shown in figure 2.
(2)
+1 = []
(3)
() ()
+1 =
By concatenating states side-by-side as follows,
2334
= [0 1 ... ]
(4)
+1
() ()
+1 = +1
= ()
+1
()
(5)
()
Fig. 3.
()
Decoupler
()
()
Fig. 4.
()
A. Two-Wheeled Stability
The first stage of designing a controller for the system
involves designing a controller for forward-backward stability.
),
For simplification, only the first three states (, ,
and
forward torque ( ) are taken into consideration given this
scope. Using the black-box modeling method described above,
the following model was generated:
0
1.00000 0.00100
0
() = 0.01659 0.99927 0.00080 0.00028 (6)
0.01786 0.00108 1.00119 0.00041
()
+1
=
Decoupler
Block digram with outer velocity and yaw rate control layer
0.99999
0.00100
0.01867 0.99096
=
0.03462 0.01349
0
0
0.00002
0
0.03592
=
0.05363
0
0
0.00036
0
0.00008
1.00013
0
0
1.00000
(7)
Using identity weights once again, LQR was used to generate a final, fully encapsulating controller, () which is able
to control both forward velocity and yaw rate simultaneously.
These weights are applied to the respective inputs to generate
the final block diagram shown in figure 4, where is the
desired turn rate, and is the desired forward velocity.
The resulting system is stable, and can be controlled given
a desired forward velocity, as well as a desired yaw rate. To
demonstrate this, figure ?? shows the systems response to a
step input of 1 m/s forward velocity and 1.0 rad/s yaw rate.
C. Four-bar linkage
2335
Pitch (rad)
10
0.2
0
0.2
10
8
10
12
Pitch Rate (rad/s)
14
16
18
20
2
0.5
Radius of curvature (m)
10
0
0.5
8
10
12
Forward Velocity (m/s)
14
16
18
20
1
0
1
10
10
10
8
10
12
Yaw Rate (rad/s)
14
16
18
20
10
0
1
10
10
12
14
16
18
20
10
10
10
10
Fig. 5.
>
1.558 >
Fig. 6.
(9)
(10)
2336
0.8 rad/s
Forward velocity(m/s)
0
0
5
8
10
12
Yaw Rate (rad/s)
14
16
18
20
8
10
12
Yaw Rate (rad/s)
14
16
18
20
10
12
Roll (rad)
14
16
18
20
8
10
12
Roll Rate (rad/s)
14
16
18
20
14
16
18
20
10
12
Roll (rad)
14
16
18
20
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
With Lean
Without Lean
Forward velocity(m/s)
0.7 rad/s
0.5
8
10
12
Roll Rate (rad/s)
14
16
18
20
0.5
0.5
0
0
0.5
0.5
10
12
14
16
18
10
12
20
Fig. 10.
Fig. 8. Robot turning below and above the centrifugal threshold of 54.6
Newtons
Lean angle and lean rate in this case represent the angle and
angular rate of the four-bar linkage as measured by encoders.
The reason to decoupling the four-bar linkage system from the
rest of the system is largely due to the non-linear correlation
between the velocity and yaw rate of the two-wheel system and
the centrifugal force that effects the four-bar linkage system.
It should be noted that the four-bar linkage also allows the
sensors located on the top deck to remain parallel to the ground
regardless of its configuration in stable states.
The four-bar linkage is modeled using the same black-box
modeling technique above as a separate system, producing
(,) . This realization is then used to generate an LQR controller (,) , using lean rate as a reference signal. By applying
a second controller (,) around the former, lean angle can
be referenced, allowing the four-bar linkage to be sufficiently
controlled. The desired lean angle of the system can then
be calculated using an estimator of the force vector angle
generated when turning. This is derived by using equations
(8) and (9) to obtain:
)
(
( )
=
=
( )
(11)
=
Turning at 2.0 m/s and 0.8 rad/s with and without lean
2337
()
()
Decoupler
()
(,)
Fig. 9.
(,)
0
5
10
15
Yaw Rate (rad/s)
20
25
30
10
15
Roll (rad)
20
25
30
10
15
Roll Rate (rad/s)
20
25
30
10
15
20
25
30
2
0
2
0.1
0
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
Fig. 11.
Forward velocity(m/s)
(,)
2338