TORP: An open standard framework for humanoid robots

Humanoid robots are an extremely complex interdisciplinary research field. Particularly, the development of high size humanoid robots usually requires joint efforts and skills from groups that are in many different research centers around the world. However, there are serious constraints in this kind of collaborative development. Some efforts have been made in order to propose new software frameworks that can allow distributed development with also some degree of hardware abstraction, allowing software reuse in successive projects. However, computation represents only one of the dimensions in robotics tasks, and the need for reuse and exchange of full robot modules between groups are growing. Large advances could be reached if physical parts of a robot could be reused in a different robot constructed with other technologies by other researcher or group. This paper proposes a new robot framework, from now on called TORP (The Open Robot Project), that aims to provide a standard architecture in all dimensions (electrical, mechanical and computational) for this collaborative development. This methodology also represents an open project that is fully shared. In this paper, the first robot constructed following the TORP specification set is presented as well as the advances proposed for its improvement. © 2010 IEEE.

Caracterización de un robot para aplicaciones de mecanizado con requerimientos de tolerancias

El presente Trabajo fin Fin de Máster, versa sobre una caracterización preliminar del comportamiento de un robot de tipo industrial, configurado por 4 eslabones y 4 grados de libertad, y sometido a fuerzas de mecanizado en su extremo. El entorno de trabajo planteado es el de plantas de fabricación de piezas de aleaciones de aluminio para automoción. Este tipo de componentes parte de un primer proceso de fundición que saca la pieza en bruto. Para series medias y altas, en función de las propiedades mecánicas y plásticas requeridas y los costes de producción, la inyección a alta presión (HPDC) y la fundición a baja presión (LPC) son las dos tecnologías más usadas en esta primera fase. Para inyección a alta presión, las aleaciones de aluminio más empleadas son, en designación simbólica según norma EN 1706 (entre paréntesis su designación numérica); EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe) (EN AC 46000) , EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe)(Zn) (EN AC 46500), y EN AC AlSi12Cu1(Fe) (EN AC 47100). Para baja presión, EN AC AlSi7Mg0,3 (EN AC 42100). En los 3 primeros casos, los límites de Silicio permitidos pueden superan el 10%. En el cuarto caso, es inferior al 10% por lo que, a los efectos de ser sometidas a mecanizados, las piezas fabricadas en aleaciones con Si superior al 10%, se puede considerar que son equivalentes, diferenciándolas de la cuarta. Las tolerancias geométricas y dimensionales conseguibles directamente de fundición, recogidas en normas como ISO 8062 o DIN 1688-1, establecen límites para este proceso. Fuera de esos límites, las garantías en conseguir producciones con los objetivos de ppms aceptados en la actualidad por el mercado, obligan a ir a fases posteriores de mecanizado. Aquellas geometrías que, funcionalmente, necesitan disponer de unas tolerancias geométricas y/o dimensionales definidas acorde a ISO 1101, y no capaces por este proceso inicial de moldeado a presión, deben ser procesadas en una fase posterior en células de mecanizado. En este caso, las tolerancias alcanzables para procesos de arranque de viruta se recogen en normas como ISO 2768. Las células de mecanizado se componen, por lo general, de varios centros de control numérico interrelacionados y comunicados entre sí por robots que manipulan las piezas en proceso de uno a otro. Dichos robots, disponen en su extremo de una pinza utillada para poder coger y soltar las piezas en los útiles de mecanizado, las mesas de intercambio para cambiar la pieza de posición o en utillajes de equipos de medición y prueba, o en cintas de entrada o salida. La repetibilidad es alta, de centésimas incluso, definida según norma ISO 9283. El problema es que, estos rangos de repetibilidad sólo se garantizan si no se hacen esfuerzos o éstos son despreciables (caso de mover piezas). Aunque las inercias de mover piezas a altas velocidades hacen que la trayectoria intermedia tenga poca precisión, al inicio y al final (al coger y dejar pieza, p.e.) se hacen a velocidades relativamente bajas que hacen que el efecto de las fuerzas de inercia sean menores y que permiten garantizar la repetibilidad anteriormente indicada. No ocurre así si se quitara la garra y se intercambia con un cabezal motorizado con una herramienta como broca, mandrino, plato de cuchillas, fresas frontales o tangenciales… Las fuerzas ejercidas de mecanizado generarían unos pares en las uniones tan grandes y tan variables que el control del robot no sería capaz de responder (o no está preparado, en un principio) y generaría una desviación en la trayectoria, realizada a baja velocidad, que desencadenaría en un error de posición (ver norma ISO 5458) no asumible para la funcionalidad deseada. Se podría llegar al caso de que la tolerancia alcanzada por un pretendido proceso más exacto diera una dimensión peor que la que daría el proceso de fundición, en principio con mayor variabilidad dimensional en proceso (y por ende con mayor intervalo de tolerancia garantizable). De hecho, en los CNCs, la precisión es muy elevada, (pudiéndose despreciar en la mayoría de los casos) y no es la responsable de, por ejemplo la tolerancia de posición al taladrar un agujero. Factores como, temperatura de la sala y de la pieza, calidad constructiva de los utillajes y rigidez en el amarre, error en el giro de mesas y de colocación de pieza, si lleva agujeros previos o no, si la herramienta está bien equilibrada y el cono es el adecuado para el tipo de mecanizado… influyen más. Es interesante que, un elemento no específico tan común en una planta industrial, en el entorno anteriormente descrito, como es un robot, el cual no sería necesario añadir por disponer de él ya (y por lo tanto la inversión sería muy pequeña), puede mejorar la cadena de valor disminuyendo el costo de fabricación. Y si se pudiera conjugar que ese robot destinado a tareas de manipulación, en los muchos tiempos de espera que va a disfrutar mientras el CNC arranca viruta, pudiese coger un cabezal y apoyar ese mecanizado; sería doblemente interesante. Por lo tanto, se antoja sugestivo poder conocer su comportamiento e intentar explicar qué sería necesario para llevar esto a cabo, motivo de este trabajo. La arquitectura de robot seleccionada es de tipo SCARA. La búsqueda de un robot cómodo de modelar y de analizar cinemática y dinámicamente, sin limitaciones relevantes en la multifuncionalidad de trabajos solicitados, ha llevado a esta elección, frente a otras arquitecturas como por ejemplo los robots antropomórficos de 6 grados de libertad, muy populares a nivel industrial. Este robot dispone de 3 uniones, de las cuales 2 son de tipo par de revolución (1 grado de libertad cada una) y la tercera es de tipo corredera o par cilíndrico (2 grados de libertad). La primera unión, de tipo par de revolución, sirve para unir el suelo (considerado como eslabón número 1) con el eslabón número 2. La segunda unión, también de ese tipo, une el eslabón número 2 con el eslabón número 3. Estos 2 brazos, pueden describir un movimiento horizontal, en el plano X-Y. El tercer eslabón, está unido al eslabón número 4 por la unión de tipo corredera. El movimiento que puede describir es paralelo al eje Z. El robot es de 4 grados de libertad (4 motores). En relación a los posibles trabajos que puede realizar este tipo de robot, su versatilidad abarca tanto operaciones típicas de manipulación como operaciones de arranque de viruta. Uno de los mecanizados más usuales es el taladrado, por lo cual se elige éste para su modelización y análisis. Dentro del taladrado se elegirá para acotar las fuerzas, taladrado en macizo con broca de diámetro 9 mm. El robot se ha considerado por el momento que tenga comportamiento de sólido rígido, por ser el mayor efecto esperado el de los pares en las uniones. Para modelar el robot se utiliza el método de los sistemas multicuerpos. Dentro de este método existen diversos tipos de formulaciones (p.e. Denavit-Hartenberg). D-H genera una cantidad muy grande de ecuaciones e incógnitas. Esas incógnitas son de difícil comprensión y, para cada posición, hay que detenerse a pensar qué significado tienen. Se ha optado por la formulación de coordenadas naturales. Este sistema utiliza puntos y vectores unitarios para definir la posición de los distintos cuerpos, y permite compartir, cuando es posible y se quiere, para definir los pares cinemáticos y reducir al mismo tiempo el número de variables. Las incógnitas son intuitivas, las ecuaciones de restricción muy sencillas y se reduce considerablemente el número de ecuaciones e incógnitas. Sin embargo, las coordenadas naturales “puras” tienen 2 problemas. El primero, que 2 elementos con un ángulo de 0 o 180 grados, dan lugar a puntos singulares que pueden crear problemas en las ecuaciones de restricción y por lo tanto han de evitarse. El segundo, que tampoco inciden directamente sobre la definición o el origen de los movimientos. Por lo tanto, es muy conveniente complementar esta formulación con ángulos y distancias (coordenadas relativas). Esto da lugar a las coordenadas naturales mixtas, que es la formulación final elegida para este TFM. Las coordenadas naturales mixtas no tienen el problema de los puntos singulares. Y la ventaja más importante reside en su utilidad a la hora de aplicar fuerzas motrices, momentos o evaluar errores. Al incidir sobre la incógnita origen (ángulos o distancias) controla los motores de manera directa. El algoritmo, la simulación y la obtención de resultados se ha programado mediante Matlab. Para realizar el modelo en coordenadas naturales mixtas, es preciso modelar en 2 pasos el robot a estudio. El primer modelo se basa en coordenadas naturales. Para su validación, se plantea una trayectoria definida y se analiza cinemáticamente si el robot satisface el movimiento solicitado, manteniendo su integridad como sistema multicuerpo. Se cuantifican los puntos (en este caso inicial y final) que configuran el robot. Al tratarse de sólidos rígidos, cada eslabón queda definido por sus respectivos puntos inicial y final (que son los más interesantes para la cinemática y la dinámica) y por un vector unitario no colineal a esos 2 puntos. Los vectores unitarios se colocan en los lugares en los que se tenga un eje de rotación o cuando se desee obtener información de un ángulo. No son necesarios vectores unitarios para medir distancias. Tampoco tienen por qué coincidir los grados de libertad con el número de vectores unitarios. Las longitudes de cada eslabón quedan definidas como constantes geométricas. Se establecen las restricciones que definen la naturaleza del robot y las relaciones entre los diferentes elementos y su entorno. La trayectoria se genera por una nube de puntos continua, definidos en coordenadas independientes. Cada conjunto de coordenadas independientes define, en un instante concreto, una posición y postura de robot determinada. Para conocerla, es necesario saber qué coordenadas dependientes hay en ese instante, y se obtienen resolviendo por el método de Newton-Rhapson las ecuaciones de restricción en función de las coordenadas independientes. El motivo de hacerlo así es porque las coordenadas dependientes deben satisfacer las restricciones, cosa que no ocurre con las coordenadas independientes. Cuando la validez del modelo se ha probado (primera validación), se pasa al modelo 2. El modelo número 2, incorpora a las coordenadas naturales del modelo número 1, las coordenadas relativas en forma de ángulos en los pares de revolución (3 ángulos; ϕ1, ϕ 2 y ϕ3) y distancias en los pares prismáticos (1 distancia; s). Estas coordenadas relativas pasan a ser las nuevas coordenadas independientes (sustituyendo a las coordenadas independientes cartesianas del modelo primero, que eran coordenadas naturales). Es necesario revisar si el sistema de vectores unitarios del modelo 1 es suficiente o no. Para este caso concreto, se han necesitado añadir 1 vector unitario adicional con objeto de que los ángulos queden perfectamente determinados con las correspondientes ecuaciones de producto escalar y/o vectorial. Las restricciones habrán de ser incrementadas en, al menos, 4 ecuaciones; una por cada nueva incógnita. La validación del modelo número 2, tiene 2 fases. La primera, al igual que se hizo en el modelo número 1, a través del análisis cinemático del comportamiento con una trayectoria definida. Podrían obtenerse del modelo 2 en este análisis, velocidades y aceleraciones, pero no son necesarios. Tan sólo interesan los movimientos o desplazamientos finitos. Comprobada la coherencia de movimientos (segunda validación), se pasa a analizar cinemáticamente el comportamiento con trayectorias interpoladas. El análisis cinemático con trayectorias interpoladas, trabaja con un número mínimo de 3 puntos máster. En este caso se han elegido 3; punto inicial, punto intermedio y punto final. El número de interpolaciones con el que se actúa es de 50 interpolaciones en cada tramo (cada 2 puntos máster hay un tramo), resultando un total de 100 interpolaciones. El método de interpolación utilizado es el de splines cúbicas con condición de aceleración inicial y final constantes, que genera las coordenadas independientes de los puntos interpolados de cada tramo. Las coordenadas dependientes se obtienen resolviendo las ecuaciones de restricción no lineales con el método de Newton-Rhapson. El método de las splines cúbicas es muy continuo, por lo que si se desea modelar una trayectoria en el que haya al menos 2 movimientos claramente diferenciados, es preciso hacerlo en 2 tramos y unirlos posteriormente. Sería el caso en el que alguno de los motores se desee expresamente que esté parado durante el primer movimiento y otro distinto lo esté durante el segundo movimiento (y así sucesivamente). Obtenido el movimiento, se calculan, también mediante fórmulas de diferenciación numérica, las velocidades y aceleraciones independientes. El proceso es análogo al anteriormente explicado, recordando la condición impuesta de que la aceleración en el instante t= 0 y en instante t= final, se ha tomado como 0. Las velocidades y aceleraciones dependientes se calculan resolviendo las correspondientes derivadas de las ecuaciones de restricción. Se comprueba, de nuevo, en una tercera validación del modelo, la coherencia del movimiento interpolado. La dinámica inversa calcula, para un movimiento definido -conocidas la posición, velocidad y la aceleración en cada instante de tiempo-, y conocidas las fuerzas externas que actúan (por ejemplo el peso); qué fuerzas hay que aplicar en los motores (donde hay control) para que se obtenga el citado movimiento. En la dinámica inversa, cada instante del tiempo es independiente de los demás y tiene una posición, una velocidad y una aceleración y unas fuerzas conocidas. En este caso concreto, se desean aplicar, de momento, sólo las fuerzas debidas al peso, aunque se podrían haber incorporado fuerzas de otra naturaleza si se hubiese deseado. Las posiciones, velocidades y aceleraciones, proceden del cálculo cinemático. El efecto inercial de las fuerzas tenidas en cuenta (el peso) es calculado. Como resultado final del análisis dinámico inverso, se obtienen los pares que han de ejercer los cuatro motores para replicar el movimiento prescrito con las fuerzas que estaban actuando. La cuarta validación del modelo consiste en confirmar que el movimiento obtenido por aplicar los pares obtenidos en la dinámica inversa, coinciden con el obtenido en el análisis cinemático (movimiento teórico). Para ello, es necesario acudir a la dinámica directa. La dinámica directa se encarga de calcular el movimiento del robot, resultante de aplicar unos pares en motores y unas fuerzas en el robot. Por lo tanto, el movimiento real resultante, al no haber cambiado ninguna condición de las obtenidas en la dinámica inversa (pares de motor y fuerzas inerciales debidas al peso de los eslabones) ha de ser el mismo al movimiento teórico. Siendo así, se considera que el robot está listo para trabajar. Si se introduce una fuerza exterior de mecanizado no contemplada en la dinámica inversa y se asigna en los motores los mismos pares resultantes de la resolución del problema dinámico inverso, el movimiento real obtenido no es igual al movimiento teórico. El control de lazo cerrado se basa en ir comparando el movimiento real con el deseado e introducir las correcciones necesarias para minimizar o anular las diferencias. Se aplican ganancias en forma de correcciones en posición y/o velocidad para eliminar esas diferencias. Se evalúa el error de posición como la diferencia, en cada punto, entre el movimiento teórico deseado en el análisis cinemático y el movimiento real obtenido para cada fuerza de mecanizado y una ganancia concreta. Finalmente, se mapea el error de posición obtenido para cada fuerza de mecanizado y las diferentes ganancias previstas, graficando la mejor precisión que puede dar el robot para cada operación que se le requiere, y en qué condiciones. -------------- This Master´s Thesis deals with a preliminary characterization of the behaviour for an industrial robot, configured with 4 elements and 4 degrees of freedoms, and subjected to machining forces at its end. Proposed working conditions are those typical from manufacturing plants with aluminium alloys for automotive industry. This type of components comes from a first casting process that produces rough parts. For medium and high volumes, high pressure die casting (HPDC) and low pressure die casting (LPC) are the most used technologies in this first phase. For high pressure die casting processes, most used aluminium alloys are, in simbolic designation according EN 1706 standard (between brackets, its numerical designation); EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe) (EN AC 46000) , EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe)(Zn) (EN AC 46500), y EN AC AlSi12Cu1(Fe) (EN AC 47100). For low pressure, EN AC AlSi7Mg0,3 (EN AC 42100). For the 3 first alloys, Si allowed limits can exceed 10% content. Fourth alloy has admisible limits under 10% Si. That means, from the point of view of machining, that components made of alloys with Si content above 10% can be considered as equivalent, and the fourth one must be studied separately. Geometrical and dimensional tolerances directly achievables from casting, gathered in standards such as ISO 8062 or DIN 1688-1, establish a limit for this process. Out from those limits, guarantees to achieve batches with objetive ppms currently accepted by market, force to go to subsequent machining process. Those geometries that functionally require a geometrical and/or dimensional tolerance defined according ISO 1101, not capable with initial moulding process, must be obtained afterwards in a machining phase with machining cells. In this case, tolerances achievables with cutting processes are gathered in standards such as ISO 2768. In general terms, machining cells contain several CNCs that they are interrelated and connected by robots that handle parts in process among them. Those robots have at their end a gripper in order to take/remove parts in machining fixtures, in interchange tables to modify position of part, in measurement and control tooling devices, or in entrance/exit conveyors. Repeatibility for robot is tight, even few hundredths of mm, defined according ISO 9283. Problem is like this; those repeatibilty ranks are only guaranteed when there are no stresses or they are not significant (f.e. due to only movement of parts). Although inertias due to moving parts at a high speed make that intermediate paths have little accuracy, at the beginning and at the end of trajectories (f.e, when picking part or leaving it) movement is made with very slow speeds that make lower the effect of inertias forces and allow to achieve repeatibility before mentioned. It does not happens the same if gripper is removed and it is exchanged by an spindle with a machining tool such as a drilling tool, a pcd boring tool, a face or a tangential milling cutter… Forces due to machining would create such big and variable torques in joints that control from the robot would not be able to react (or it is not prepared in principle) and would produce a deviation in working trajectory, made at a low speed, that would trigger a position error (see ISO 5458 standard) not assumable for requested function. Then it could be possible that tolerance achieved by a more exact expected process would turn out into a worst dimension than the one that could be achieved with casting process, in principle with a larger dimensional variability in process (and hence with a larger tolerance range reachable). As a matter of fact, accuracy is very tight in CNC, (its influence can be ignored in most cases) and it is not the responsible of, for example position tolerance when drilling a hole. Factors as, room and part temperature, manufacturing quality of machining fixtures, stiffness at clamping system, rotating error in 4th axis and part positioning error, if there are previous holes, if machining tool is properly balanced, if shank is suitable for that machining type… have more influence. It is interesting to know that, a non specific element as common, at a manufacturing plant in the enviroment above described, as a robot (not needed to be added, therefore with an additional minimum investment), can improve value chain decreasing manufacturing costs. And when it would be possible to combine that the robot dedicated to handling works could support CNCs´ works in its many waiting time while CNCs cut, and could take an spindle and help to cut; it would be double interesting. So according to all this, it would be interesting to be able to know its behaviour and try to explain what would be necessary to make this possible, reason of this work. Selected robot architecture is SCARA type. The search for a robot easy to be modeled and kinematically and dinamically analyzed, without significant limits in the multifunctionality of requested operations, has lead to this choice. Due to that, other very popular architectures in the industry, f.e. 6 DOFs anthropomorphic robots, have been discarded. This robot has 3 joints, 2 of them are revolute joints (1 DOF each one) and the third one is a cylindrical joint (2 DOFs). The first joint, a revolute one, is used to join floor (body 1) with body 2. The second one, a revolute joint too, joins body 2 with body 3. These 2 bodies can move horizontally in X-Y plane. Body 3 is linked to body 4 with a cylindrical joint. Movement that can be made is paralell to Z axis. The robt has 4 degrees of freedom (4 motors). Regarding potential works that this type of robot can make, its versatility covers either typical handling operations or cutting operations. One of the most common machinings is to drill. That is the reason why it has been chosen for the model and analysis. Within drilling, in order to enclose spectrum force, a typical solid drilling with 9 mm diameter. The robot is considered, at the moment, to have a behaviour as rigid body, as biggest expected influence is the one due to torques at joints. In order to modelize robot, it is used multibodies system method. There are under this heading different sorts of formulations (f.e. Denavit-Hartenberg). D-H creates a great amount of equations and unknown quantities. Those unknown quatities are of a difficult understanding and, for each position, one must stop to think about which meaning they have. The choice made is therefore one of formulation in natural coordinates. This system uses points and unit vectors to define position of each different elements, and allow to share, when it is possible and wished, to define kinematic torques and reduce number of variables at the same time. Unknown quantities are intuitive, constrain equations are easy and number of equations and variables are strongly reduced. However, “pure” natural coordinates suffer 2 problems. The first one is that 2 elements with an angle of 0° or 180°, give rise to singular positions that can create problems in constrain equations and therefore they must be avoided. The second problem is that they do not work directly over the definition or the origin of movements. Given that, it is highly recommended to complement this formulation with angles and distances (relative coordinates). This leads to mixed natural coordinates, and they are the final formulation chosen for this MTh. Mixed natural coordinates have not the problem of singular positions. And the most important advantage lies in their usefulness when applying driving forces, torques or evaluating errors. As they influence directly over origin variable (angles or distances), they control motors directly. The algorithm, simulation and obtaining of results has been programmed with Matlab. To design the model in mixed natural coordinates, it is necessary to model the robot to be studied in 2 steps. The first model is based in natural coordinates. To validate it, it is raised a defined trajectory and it is kinematically analyzed if robot fulfils requested movement, keeping its integrity as multibody system. The points (in this case starting and ending points) that configure the robot are quantified. As the elements are considered as rigid bodies, each of them is defined by its respectively starting and ending point (those points are the most interesting ones from the point of view of kinematics and dynamics) and by a non-colinear unit vector to those points. Unit vectors are placed where there is a rotating axis or when it is needed information of an angle. Unit vectors are not needed to measure distances. Neither DOFs must coincide with the number of unit vectors. Lengths of each arm are defined as geometrical constants. The constrains that define the nature of the robot and relationships among different elements and its enviroment are set. Path is generated by a cloud of continuous points, defined in independent coordinates. Each group of independent coordinates define, in an specific instant, a defined position and posture for the robot. In order to know it, it is needed to know which dependent coordinates there are in that instant, and they are obtained solving the constraint equations with Newton-Rhapson method according to independent coordinates. The reason to make it like this is because dependent coordinates must meet constraints, and this is not the case with independent coordinates. When suitability of model is checked (first approval), it is given next step to model 2. Model 2 adds to natural coordinates from model 1, the relative coordinates in the shape of angles in revoluting torques (3 angles; ϕ1, ϕ 2 and ϕ3) and distances in prismatic torques (1 distance; s). These relative coordinates become the new independent coordinates (replacing to cartesian independent coordinates from model 1, that they were natural coordinates). It is needed to review if unit vector system from model 1 is enough or not . For this specific case, it was necessary to add 1 additional unit vector to define perfectly angles with their related equations of dot and/or cross product. Constrains must be increased in, at least, 4 equations; one per each new variable. The approval of model 2 has two phases. The first one, same as made with model 1, through kinematic analysis of behaviour with a defined path. During this analysis, it could be obtained from model 2, velocities and accelerations, but they are not needed. They are only interesting movements and finite displacements. Once that the consistence of movements has been checked (second approval), it comes when the behaviour with interpolated trajectories must be kinematically analyzed. Kinematic analysis with interpolated trajectories work with a minimum number of 3 master points. In this case, 3 points have been chosen; starting point, middle point and ending point. The number of interpolations has been of 50 ones in each strecht (each 2 master points there is an strecht), turning into a total of 100 interpolations. The interpolation method used is the cubic splines one with condition of constant acceleration both at the starting and at the ending point. This method creates the independent coordinates of interpolated points of each strecht. The dependent coordinates are achieved solving the non-linear constrain equations with Newton-Rhapson method. The method of cubic splines is very continuous, therefore when it is needed to design a trajectory in which there are at least 2 movements clearly differents, it is required to make it in 2 steps and join them later. That would be the case when any of the motors would keep stopped during the first movement, and another different motor would remain stopped during the second movement (and so on). Once that movement is obtained, they are calculated, also with numerical differenciation formulas, the independent velocities and accelerations. This process is analogous to the one before explained, reminding condition that acceleration when t=0 and t=end are 0. Dependent velocities and accelerations are calculated solving related derivatives of constrain equations. In a third approval of the model it is checked, again, consistence of interpolated movement. Inverse dynamics calculates, for a defined movement –knowing position, velocity and acceleration in each instant of time-, and knowing external forces that act (f.e. weights); which forces must be applied in motors (where there is control) in order to obtain requested movement. In inverse dynamics, each instant of time is independent of the others and it has a position, a velocity, an acceleration and known forces. In this specific case, it is intended to apply, at the moment, only forces due to the weight, though forces of another nature could have been added if it would have been preferred. The positions, velocities and accelerations, come from kinematic calculation. The inertial effect of forces taken into account (weight) is calculated. As final result of the inverse dynamic analysis, the are obtained torques that the 4 motors must apply to repeat requested movement with the forces that were acting. The fourth approval of the model consists on confirming that the achieved movement due to the use of the torques obtained in the inverse dynamics, are in accordance with movements from kinematic analysis (theoretical movement). For this, it is necessary to work with direct dynamics. Direct dynamic is in charge of calculating the movements of robot that results from applying torques at motors and forces at the robot. Therefore, the resultant real movement, as there was no change in any condition of the ones obtained at the inverse dynamics (motor torques and inertial forces due to weight of elements) must be the same than theoretical movement. When these results are achieved, it is considered that robot is ready to work. When a machining external force is introduced and it was not taken into account before during the inverse dynamics, and torques at motors considered are the ones of the inverse dynamics, the real movement obtained is not the same than the theoretical movement. Closed loop control is based on comparing real movement with expected movement and introducing required corrrections to minimize or cancel differences. They are applied gains in the way of corrections for position and/or tolerance to remove those differences. Position error is evaluated as the difference, in each point, between theoretical movemment (calculated in the kinematic analysis) and the real movement achieved for each machining force and for an specific gain. Finally, the position error obtained for each machining force and gains are mapped, giving a chart with the best accuracy that the robot can give for each operation that has been requested and which conditions must be provided.

Engaging robots: innovative outreach for attracting cybernetics students

Cybernetics is a broad subject, encompassing many aspects of electrical, electronic, and computer engineering, which suffers from a lack of understanding on the part of potential applicants and teachers when recruiting students. However, once the engineering values, fascinating science, and pathways to rewarding, diverse careers are communicated, appropriate students can be very interested in enrolling. At the University of Reading, Reading, U.K., a key route for outreach to prospective students has been achieved through the use of robots in interactive talks at schools, competitions (often funded by Public Understanding of Science projects), a collectable fortnightly magazine, exhibitions in museums, open days at the University, and appearances in the media. This paper identifies the interactive engagement, anthropomorphic acceptability, and inspirational nature of robots as being key to their successful use in outreach activities. The statistical results presented show that the continued popularity of degrees at Reading in cybernetics, electronic engineering, and robotics over the last 20 years is in part due to the outreach activities to schools and the general public.

Model and control of tendon actuated robots

The use of tendons for the transmission of the forces and the movements in robotic devices has been investigated from several researchers all over the world. The interest in this kind of actuation modality is based on the possibility of optimizing the position of the actuators with respect to the moving part of the robot, in the reduced weight, high reliability, simplicity in the mechanic design and, finally, in the reduced cost of the resulting kinematic chain. After a brief discussion about the benefits that the use of tendons can introduce in the motion control of a robotic device, the design and control aspects of the UB Hand 3 anthropomorphic robotic hand are presented. In particular, the tendon-sheaths transmission system adopted in the UB Hand 3 is analyzed and the problem of force control and friction compensation is taken into account. The implementation of a tendon based antagonistic actuated robotic arm is then investigated. With this kind of actuation modality, and by using transmission elements with nonlinear force/compression characteristic, it is possible to achieve simultaneous stiffness and position control, improving in this way the safety of the device during the operation in unknown environments and in the case of interaction with other robots or with humans. The problem of modeling and control of this type of robotic devices is then considered and the stability analysis of proposed controller is reported. At the end, some tools for the realtime simulation of dynamic systems are presented. This realtime simulation environment has been developed with the aim of improving the reliability of the realtime control applications both for rapid prototyping of controllers and as teaching tools for the automatic control courses.

Mapping of indoor environments by robots using low-cost vision sensors

For robots to operate in human environments they must be able to make their own maps because it is unrealistic to expect a user to enter a map into the robot’s memory; existing floorplans are often incorrect; and human environments tend to change. Traditionally robots have used sonar, infra-red or laser range finders to perform the mapping task. Digital cameras have become very cheap in recent years and they have opened up new possibilities as a sensor for robot perception. Any robot that must interact with humans can reasonably be expected to have a camera for tasks such as face recognition, so it makes sense to also use the camera for navigation. Cameras have advantages over other sensors such as colour information (not available with any other sensor), better immunity to noise (compared to sonar), and not being restricted to operating in a plane (like laser range finders). However, there are disadvantages too, with the principal one being the effect of perspective. This research investigated ways to use a single colour camera as a range sensor to guide an autonomous robot and allow it to build a map of its environment, a process referred to as Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM). An experimental system was built using a robot controlled via a wireless network connection. Using the on-board camera as the only sensor, the robot successfully explored and mapped indoor office environments. The quality of the resulting maps is comparable to those that have been reported in the literature for sonar or infra-red sensors. Although the maps are not as accurate as ones created with a laser range finder, the solution using a camera is significantly cheaper and is more appropriate for toys and early domestic robots.

Bearing-only SLAM : a vision-based navigation system for autonomous robots

To navigate successfully in a previously unexplored environment, a mobile robot must be able to estimate the spatial relationships of the objects of interest accurately. A Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) sys- tem employs its sensors to build incrementally a map of its surroundings and to localize itself in the map simultaneously. The aim of this research project is to develop a SLAM system suitable for self propelled household lawnmowers. The proposed bearing-only SLAM system requires only an omnidirec- tional camera and some inexpensive landmarks. The main advantage of an omnidirectional camera is the panoramic view of all the landmarks in the scene. Placing landmarks in a lawn field to define the working domain is much easier and more flexible than installing the perimeter wire required by existing autonomous lawnmowers. The common approach of existing bearing-only SLAM methods relies on a motion model for predicting the robot’s pose and a sensor model for updating the pose. In the motion model, the error on the estimates of object positions is cumulated due mainly to the wheel slippage. Quantifying accu- rately the uncertainty of object positions is a fundamental requirement. In bearing-only SLAM, the Probability Density Function (PDF) of landmark position should be uniform along the observed bearing. Existing methods that approximate the PDF with a Gaussian estimation do not satisfy this uniformity requirement. This thesis introduces both geometric and proba- bilistic methods to address the above problems. The main novel contribu- tions of this thesis are: 1. A bearing-only SLAM method not requiring odometry. The proposed method relies solely on the sensor model (landmark bearings only) without relying on the motion model (odometry). The uncertainty of the estimated landmark positions depends on the vision error only, instead of the combination of both odometry and vision errors. 2. The transformation of the spatial uncertainty of objects. This thesis introduces a novel method for translating the spatial un- certainty of objects estimated from a moving frame attached to the robot into the global frame attached to the static landmarks in the environment. 3. The characterization of an improved PDF for representing landmark position in bearing-only SLAM. The proposed PDF is expressed in polar coordinates, and the marginal probability on range is constrained to be uniform. Compared to the PDF estimated from a mixture of Gaussians, the PDF developed here has far fewer parameters and can be easily adopted in a probabilistic framework, such as a particle filtering system. The main advantages of our proposed bearing-only SLAM system are its lower production cost and flexibility of use. The proposed system can be adopted in other domestic robots as well, such as vacuum cleaners or robotic toys when terrain is essentially 2D.

Spatial cognition for robots

The paper discusses robot navigation from biological inspiration. The authors sought to build a model of the rodent brain that is suitable for practical robot navigation. The core model, dubbed RatSLAM, has been demonstrated to have exactly the same advantages described earlier: it can build, maintain, and use maps simultaneously over extended periods of time and can construct maps of large and complex areas from very weak geometric information. The work contrasts with other efforts to embody models of rat brains in robots. The article describes the key elements of the known biology of the rat brain in relation to navigation and how the RatSLAM model captures the ideas from biology in a fashion suitable for implementation on a robotic platform. The paper then outline RatSLAM's performance in two difficult robot navigation challenges, demonstrating how a cognitive robotics approach to navigation can produce results that rival other state of the art approaches in robotics.

Experiments with cooperative networked control of underwater robots

We present details and results obtained with an underwater system comprising two different autonomous underwater robots (AUV) and ten static underwater nodes (USN) networked together optically and acoustically. The AUVs can locate and hover above the static nodes for data upload, and they can perform network maintenance functions such as deployment, relocation, and recovery. The AUVs can also locate each other, dock, and move using coordinated control that takes advantage of each AUV’s strength.

From robots to animals : Virtual fences for controlling cattle

We consider the problem of monitoring and controlling the position of herd animals, and view animals as networked agents with natural mobility but not strictly controllable. By exploiting knowledge of individual and herd behavior we would like to apply a vast body of theory in robotics and motion planning to achieving the constrained motion of a herd. In this paper we describe the concept of a virtual fence which applies a stimulus to an animal as a function of its pose with respect to the fenceline. Multiple fence lines can define a region, and the fences can be static or dynamic. The fence algorithm is implemented by a small position-aware computer device worn by the animal, which we refer to as a Smart Collar.We describe a herd-animal simulator, the Smart Collar hardware and algorithms for tracking and controlling animals as well as the results of on-farm experiments with up to ten Smart Collars.

Localization and navigation assisted by cooperating networked sensors and robots

In this paper we discuss how a network of sensors and robots can cooperate to solve important robotics problems such as localization and navigation. We use a robot to localize sensor nodes, and we then use these localized nodes to navigate robots and humans through the sensorized space. We explore these novel ideas with results from two large-scale sensor network and robot experiments involving 50 motes, two types of flying robot: an autonomous helicopter and a large indoor cable array robot, and a human-network interface. We present the distributed algorithms for localization, geographic routing, path definition and incremental navigation. We also describe how a human can be guided using a simple hand-held device that interfaces to this same environmental infrastructure.

Towards dynamically-favourable quad-rotor aerial robots

This paper outlines progress towards realising practical quad-rotor robot helicopters and, in particular, the Australian National University’s ‘X-4 Flyer’ platform. Two challenges facing the X-4 are generating sufficient thrust and managing unstable dynamic behaviour. We address these issues with a rotor design technique for maximising thrust and the application of a novel rotor mast configuration. An aero-elastic blade design is described and its performance results are presented. A sprung teetering rotor hub that allows adjustment of the blade flapping characteristics and a quad-rotor dynamic model with blade flapping are introduced. The use of inverted rotors is shown to produce favorable stability properties for the Mark II X-4 Flyer.

Coordinating aerial robots and sensor networks for localization and navigation

We consider multi-robot systems that include sensor nodes and aerial or ground robots networked together. We describe two cooperative algorithms that allow robots and sensors to enhance each other's performance. In the first algorithm, an aerial robot assists the localization of the sensors. In the second algorithm, a localized sensor network controls the navigation of an aerial robot. We present physical experiments with an flying robot and a large Mica Mote sensor network.

Networked robots : flying robot navigation using a sensor net

This paper introduces the application of a sensor network to navigate a flying robot. We have developed distributed algorithms and efficient geographic routing techniques to incrementally guide one or more robots to points of interest based on sensor gradient fields, or along paths defined in terms of Cartesian coordinates. The robot itself is an integral part of the localization process which establishes the positions of sensors which are not known a priori. We use this system in a large-scale outdoor experiment with Mote sensors to guide an autonomous helicopter along a path encoded in the network. A simple handheld device, using this same environmental infrastructure, is used to guide humans.