Advertisement

Applied Intelligence

, Volume 49, Issue 11, pp 3801–3814 | Cite as

Closed-loop push recovery for inexpensive humanoid robots

  • Amirhossein HosseinmemarEmail author
  • Jacky Baltes
  • John Anderson
  • Meng Cheng Lau
  • Chi Fung Lun
  • Ziang Wang
Article
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

Active balancing in autonomous humanoid robots is a challenging task due to the complexity of combining a walking gait with dynamic balancing, vision and high-level behaviors. Humans not only walk successfully over even and uneven terrain, but can recover from the interaction of external forces such as impacts with obstacles and active pushes. While push recovery has been demonstrated successfully in, expensive robots, it is more challenging with robots that are inexpensive, with limited power in actuators and less accurate sensing. This work describes a closed-loop feedback control method that uses an accelerometer and gyroscope to allow an inexpensive humanoid robot to actively balance while walking and recover from pushes. Three common balancing strategies: center of pressure, centroidal moment pivot, and step-out, for biped robots are studied. An experiment is performed to test three hand-tuned closed-loop feedback control configurations; using only the gyroscope, only the accelerometer, and a combination of both sensors to recover from pushes. Each of the sensors is discretized into four discrete domains in order to categorize pushes with different strengths. Experimental results show that the combination of gyroscope and accelerometer outperforms the other methods with 100% recovery from a light push and 70% recovery from a strong push. The proposed closed-loop feedback control is examined in both simulation and real-world.

Keywords

Push recovery Humanoid robot Autonomous active balancing Centroidal moment pivot Stepping 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Huang Q, Yokoi K, Kajita S, Kaneko K, Aral H, Koyachi N, Tanie K (2001) Planning walking patterns for a biped robot. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 17(3):280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shojaeipour S, Parhizkar B, Hosseinmemar A, Shojaeipour A, Esfandiari H, Mobasheri E, Gebril B, Mohana Z (2010) Laser-pointer rangefinder between mobile robot and obstacles via webcam based. In: Key Engineering Materials. Trans Tech Publ, Vol 447, pp 609–613Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hosseinmemar A, Baltes J, Anderson J, Lau MC, Lun CF, Wang Z (2018) Closed-loop push recovery for an inexpensive humanoid robot. In: Mouhoub M, Sadaoui S, Ait Mohamed O, Ali M (eds) Recent Trends and Future Technology in Applied Intelligence. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 233–244Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ishiguro H, Ono T, Imai M, Maeda T, Kanda T, Nakatsu R (2001) Robovie: an interactive humanoid robot. Ind Robot: Int J 28(6):498–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cousins S (2010) ROS on the PR2. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 17(3):23–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stephens B (2007) Humanoid push recovery. In: Proceedings of Humanoids-2007. IEEE, Pittsburgh, pp 589–595Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stephens BJ, Atkeson CG (2010) Push recovery by stepping for humanoid robots with force controlled joints. In: Proceedings of Humanoids-2010, Nashville, pp 52–59Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim JY, Park IW, Oh JH (2007) Walking control algorithm of biped humanoid robot on uneven and inclined floor. J Intell Robot Syst 48:457–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuindersma S, Deits R, Fallon M, Valenzuela A, Dai H, Permenter F, Koolen T, Marion P, Tedrake R (2016) Optimization-based locomotion planning, estimation, and control design for Atlas. Auton Robot 40(3):429–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baltes J, Tu KY, Sadeghnejad S, Anderson J (2017) Hurocup: competition for multi-event humanoid robot athletes. Knowl Eng Rev 32:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pratt J, Carff J, Drakunov S, Goswami A (2006) Capture point: A step toward humanoid push recovery. In: 2006 6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots. IEEE, pp 200–207Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee SH, Goswami A (2007) Reaction mass pendulum (RMP): An explicit model for centroidal angular momentum of humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of ICRA-2007, Rome, pp 4667–4672Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kajita S, Morisawa M, Miura K, Nakaoka S, Harada K, Kaneko K, Kanehiro F, Yokoi K (2010) Biped walking stabilization based on linear inverted pendulum tracking. In: Proceedings of IROS 2010. IEEE, Taipei, pp 4489–4496Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vukobratović M (1973) How to control artificial anthropomorphic systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3 (5):497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yi SJ, Zhang BT, Hong D, Lee DD (2011) Online learning of a full body push recovery controller for omnidirectional walking. In: IEEE-RAS International conference on humanoid robotsGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hirai K, Hirose M, Haikawa Y, Takenaka T (1998) The development of Honda humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of ICRA-98, pp 1321–1326Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morisawa M, Kanehiro F, Kaneko K, Mansard N, Sola J, Yoshida E, Yokoi K, Laumond JP (2010) Combining suppression of the disturbance and reactive stepping for recovering balance. In: Proceedings of IROS 2010, Taipei, pp 3150–3156Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cho BK, Park SS, Oh JH (2010) Stabilization of a hopping humanoid robot for a push. In: Proceedings of IROS 2010, Taipei, pp 60–65Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Missura M, Behnke S (2013) Omnidirectional capture steps for bipedal walking. In: Proceedings of Humanoids-2013, Atlanta, pp 401–408Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Collins JJ, De Luca CJ (1993) Open-loop and closed-loop control of posture: a random-walk analysis of center-of-pressure trajectories. Exper Brain Res 95(2):308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmitz A, Missura M, Behnke S (2011) Learning footstep prediction from motion capture. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 6556 LNAI, pp 97–108Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iverach-Brereton C (2015) Rocking the Bongo Board: Humanoid Robotic Balancing on Dynamic Terrain. Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, ManitobaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iverach-Brereton C, Postnikoff B, Baltes J, Hosseinmemar A (2017) Active balancing and turning for alpine skiing robots. Knowl Eng Rev 32:e6, 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tajima R, Honda D, Suga K (2009) Fast running experiments involving a humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of ICRA-2009, pp 1571–1576Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sreenath K, Park HW, Poulakakis I, Grizzle JW (2011) A compliant hybrid zero dynamics controller for stable, efficient and fast bipedal walking on MABEL. Int J Robot Res 30(9):1170–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yun SK, Goswami A (2011) Momentum-based reactive stepping controller on level and non-level ground for humanoid robot push recovery. In: Proceedings of IROS-2011, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee SH, Goswami A (2010) Ground reaction force control at each foot: A momentum-based humanoid balance controller for non-level and non-stationary ground. In: Proceedings of IROS-2010, Taipei, pp 3157–3162Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hofmann A (2006) Robust execution of bipedal walking tasks from biomechanical principles. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robotis: Dynamixel (2018) http://www.robotis.us/dynamixel/
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Trossenrobotics: Robotis usb2dynamixel adapter (2018) https://www.trossenrobotics.com/robotis-bioloid-usb2dynamixel.aspx
  32. 32.
    Pratt J, Carff J, Drakunov S, Goswami A (2006) Capture point: a step toward humanoid push recovery. In: Proceedings of Humanoids-2006, GenoaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    System RO (2016) Kinetic Kame robot operating system http://www.ros.org/
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    System RO (2017) Rviz. http://wiki.ros.org/rviz
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    Ramezani S, Setaieshi A, Pourmohammadi N, Yarahmadi P, Arvand A, Fallah F, Hosseinmemar A, Santos J, Morris K, Lau MC et al (2017) Autman humanoid teen size team description paper robocup 2017 humanoid robot league. Teen-size Humanoid League, Team Description Paper, NagoyaGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Anderson J, Baltes J, Tu KY (2009) Improving robotics competitions for real-world evaluation of ai. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Experimental Design for Real-World Systems, StanfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Autonomous Agents Laboratory, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations