Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:31:16.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Kinematic models and isotropy analysis of wheeled mobile robots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2008

Luis Gracia*
Affiliation:
Dept. of Systems Engineering and Control, Technical University of Valencia, P.O. Box: 22012, E-46071, Valencia(Spain)
Josep Tornero
Affiliation:
Dept. of Systems Engineering and Control, Technical University of Valencia, P.O. Box: 22012, E-46071, Valencia(Spain)
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: luigraca@isa.upv.es

Summary

This research presents a comprehensive and useful survey of the kinematic models of wheeled mobile robots and their optimal configurations. The kinematic modeling of wheeled mobile robots with no-slip is presented, by considering four common types of wheels: fixed, orientable, castor, and Swedish. Next, the accuracy of the kinematic models is discussed considering their sensitivity or relative error amplification, giving rise to the isotropy concept. As practical application of the previous theory, all types of three-wheeled mobile robots are modeled and their optimal (isotropic) configurations for no error amplification are obtained. Finally, three practical examples of error amplification are developed for several types of wheeled mobile robots in order to illustrate the benefits and limitations of the isotropic configurations.

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.Campion, G., Bastin, G. and D'Andrea-Novel, B., “Structural properties and classification of kinematic and dynamic models of wheeled mobile robots,” IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom. 12 (1), pp. 4761 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Muir, P. F. and Neuman, C. P., “Kinematic modeling of wheeled mobile robots,” J. Robot. Syst. 4 (2), pp. 281329 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Alexander, J. C. and Maddocks, J. H., “On the kinematics of wheeled mobile robots,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 8 (5), pp. 1527 (1989).Google Scholar
4.Gracia, L. and Tornero, J., “A new geometric approach to characterize the singularity of wheeled mobile robots,” Robotica 25 (5), pp. 627638 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Saha, S. K., Angeles, J. and Darcovich, J., “The design of kinematically isotropic rolling robots with omnidirectional wheels,” Mech. Mach. Theory 30 (8), pp. 11271137 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Low, K. H. and Leow, Y. P., “Kinematic modeling, mobility analysis and design of wheeled mobile robots,” Adv. Robotics 19, pp. 7399 (2005).Google Scholar
7.Kim, S. and Kim, H., “Isotropy analysis of caster wheeled omnidirectional mobile robot,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, USA (2004) pp. 3093–3098.Google Scholar
8.Kim, S., Kim, H. and Moon, B., “Local and global isotropy of caster wheeled omnidirectional mobile robots,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain (2005) pp. 3457–3462.Google Scholar
9.Kim, S., Moon, B. and Jung, I., “Optimal isotropic characteristics of caster wheeled omnidirectional mobile robot,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Beijing, China (2006) pp. 5576–5581.Google Scholar
10.Golub, G. H. and Van Loan, C. F., Matrix Computations (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 3rd ed.Baltimore, 1996), pp. 80, 242.Google Scholar
11.Higham, N. J., Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms (SIAM Publications, Philadelphia, 1996), ch. 7, 20, 21.Google Scholar
12.Lipkin, H. and Duffy, J., “Hybrid twist and wrench control for a robotic manipulator,” ASME J. Mech. Transm. Autom. Des. 110, pp. 138144 (1988).Google Scholar
13.Tandirci, M., Angeles, J. and Ranjbaran, F., “The characteristic point and the characteristic length of robotic manipulators,” Proceedings. of the ASME 22nd Biennial Mechanisms Conference, Arizona (1992) 45, pp. 203–208.Google Scholar
14.Ma, O. and Angeles, J., “Optimum architecture design of platform manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics, Pisa, Italy (1991) pp. 1131–1135.Google Scholar
15.Stocco, L., Salcudean, S. E. and Sassani, F., “Matrix normalization for optimal robot design,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Leuven, Belgium (1998) 2, pp. 1346–1351.Google Scholar
16.Stocco, L. J., Salcudean, S. E. and Sassani, F., “On the use of scaling matrices for task-specific robot design,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 15 (5), pp. 958965 (1999).Google Scholar