Motion kinematics analysis of wheeled–legged rover over 3D surface with posture adaptation

Abstract

To cite this version:Christophe Grand, Faïz Ben Amar, Frédéric Plumet. Motion kinematics analysis of wheeled-legged rover over 3D surface with posture adaptation. Mechanism and Machine Theory, Elsevier, 2010, 45 (3), pp.477-495. 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2009 Motion kinematics analysis of wheeled-legged rover over 3D surface with posture adaptation AbstractThis paper proposes a general formulation of the kinetostatic model of articulated wheeled rovers that move on rough terrains. Differential kinematic model is used to control the generalized trajectory of the robot, composed of position and posture parameters. These posture parameters have been optimized in order to provide high stability and traction performance, during motion on irregular ground surface. Numerical simulation and experimental results, carried out on a hybrid wheeledlegged robot, show the validity of the approach presented in this paper.

Kinematic control and posture optimization of a redundantly actuated quadruped robot

“…Introduction Figure 1.12 in a bounding gait, though underactuated, is able to move in several different gaits with the use of its hybrid style setup and even perform jumping manoeuvres. Finally, the hybrid quadruped robot Hylos [32][33][34][35][36][37], developed at the Pierre and Marie Curie University, serves as an inspiration for the controller presented in this thesis. Hylos is a relatively lightweight and small robot with pivoting wheels shown to efficiently adapt to uneven terrain (see Figure 1.14).…”

“…In applying Equation (3.2) to compute the mobility of MHT, we define the contact point of each wheel as a three degree of freedom spherical joint, where it is assumed that the wheel are undergoing ideal rolling without slipping (nonholonomic constraint) 1 [35]. In making this assumption, we are determining the instantaneous (or internal) mobility of MHT [47], whereby the terrain topology will not be taken into account.…”

“…In making this assumption, we are determining the instantaneous (or internal) mobility of MHT [47], whereby the terrain topology will not be taken into account. The issue that arises in using the Chebychev-Grüebler-Kutzbach equation, is that it does not consider the dependency among the kinematic constraints [35]. The general constraints of the system can be set up as follows:…”

“…As described by Grand et al [35], the matrix A can be formulated from Eq. (3.23), to be developed in Section 3.5 of the thesis, producing the following form: …”

“…However, independence between all the constraint equations may not necessarily be the case. Therefore, another method of determining the mobility of MHT is to disregard the dependent equations of the system and thus evaluate the mobility of the system according to [35,48].…”