Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:47:51.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Improving the stability level for on-line planning of mobile manipulators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Changwu Qiu*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Qixin Cao
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Leibin Yu
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Shouhong Miao
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: qcw@sjtu.org

Summary

This paper presents a quadratic programming (QP) form algorithm to realize on-line planning of mobile manipulators with consideration for improving the stability level. With Lie group and screw tools, the general tree topology structure mobile robot dynamics and dynamic stability attributes were analysed. The stable support condition for a mobile robot is constructed not only in a polygonal support region, but also in a polyhedral support region. For a planar supporting region, the tip-over avoiding requirement is formulated as the tip-over prevent constraints with the reciprocal products of the resultant support wrench and the imaginary tip-over twists, which are constructed with the boundaries of the convex support polygon. At velocity level, the optimized resolution algorithm with standard QP form is designed to resolve the inverse redundant kinematics of the Omni-directional Mobile ManipulatorS (OMMS) with stability considerations. Numerical simulation results show that the presented methods successfully improve the stability level of the robot within an on-line planning process.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.Garcia, E., Estremera, J. and de Santos, P. Gonzalez, “A comparative study of stability margins for walking machines,” Robotica 20 (6), 595606 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Garcia, E. and de Santos, P. Gonzalez, “An improved energy stability margin for walking machines subject to dynamic effects,” Robotica 23 (1), 1320 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Papadopoulos, E. G. and Rey, D. A., “A New Measure of Tip-Over Stability Margin for Mobile Manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Minneapolis, MN (Apr. 1996) pp. 3111–3116.Google Scholar
4.Ali, A.Moosavian, A. and Alipour, K., “Moment-Height Tip-Over Measure for Stability Analysis of Mobile Robotic Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Beijing, China (Oct. 2006) pp. 5546–5551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Rey, D. A. and Papadopoulos, E. G., “On-Line Automatic Tip-over Prevention for Mobile Manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Grenoble, France (Sep. 1997) pp. 1273–1278.Google Scholar
6.Abo-Shanab, R. F. and Sepehri, N., “On dynamic stability of manipulators mounted on mobile platforms,” Robotica 19, 439449 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Huang, Q., Sugano, S. and Tanie, K., “Motion Planning for a Mobile Manipulator Considering Stability and Task Constraints,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Leuven, Belgium (May 1998) pp. 2192–2198.Google Scholar
8.Yamamoto, Y. and Yun, X., “Effect of the dynamic interaction on coordinated control of mobile manipulator,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat. 12 (5), 816824 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Furuno, S., Yamamoto, M. and Mohri, A., “Trajectory Planning of Mobile Manipulator with Stability Considerations,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Taipei, Taiwan (Sep. 2003), pp. 34033408.Google Scholar
10.Li, Y. and Liu, Y., “A New Task-Consistent Overturn Prevention Algorithm for Redundant Mobile Modular Manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robot and Systems, Alberta, Canada (Aug. 2005), pp. 15631568.Google Scholar
11.Wieber, P. B., “On the Stability of Walking Systems,” Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Humanoid and Human Friendly Robots, Tsukuba (Dec. 2002).Google Scholar
12.Murray, R. M., Li, Z. and Sastry, S. S., A mathematical introduction to robot manipulation (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1993).Google Scholar
13.Park, F. C., Bobrow, J. E. and Ploen, S. R., “A Lie group formulation of robot dynamics,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 14 (6), 609618 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Vukobratovi'c, M. and Brovac, B., “Zero-moment point-thirty five years of its life,” Int. J. Humanoid Robotics 1 (1), 157173 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Albert, A. and Gerth, W., “Analytic path planning algorithms for bipedal robots without a trunk,” J. Int. Robot. Syst. 36, 109127 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Huang, Q., Sugano, S. and Tanie, K., “Stability compensation of a mobile manipulator by manipulator motion: feasibility and planning,” Adv. Robot. 13 (1), 2540 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Qiu, C., Cao, Q. and Sun, Y., “Resolve redundancy with constraints for obstacle and singularity avoidance subgoals,” Int. J. Robot. Automat. 23 (1), 2230 (2008).Google Scholar