A New Resistive Belt Sensor for Multipoint Contact Detection of Robotic Wheels

Research Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, a new, simple and cheap sensor is proposed to detect the multipoint contact of a typical robotic wheel. The new sensor empowers a wheeled robot to scan the surface and to find stability margins during real-time locomotion without camera or laser sensors. Furthermore, it enhances the ability of the real-time solution of the dynamic equations. The new sensor is based on the total resistance of a circuit and can be classified into two types. In the first type, the resistive circuit includes a conductive path, a direct voltage source and some resistors by various values. The main advantage of this type of the new sensor is to determine the exact locations of multipoint contact only by means of an input data detecting the voltage of a resistor. The implementation of the new idea is easy to use and to be experimented. It can be used to improve the control process, especially on the rough surfaces and to enhance the locomotion stability. The second type of the new sensor contains a continuous resistive belt with higher accuracy than the first type. The algorithm of the multipoint contact detection is explained and the kinematics relations of the robot are obtained. The surface is scanned during the robot locomotion, and the error of the estimated surface profile is calculated. Finally, the static stability margins are extracted using the new sensor data.

Keywords

Field robots Multipoint contact Resistive belt sensor Real-time stability Surface scanning 

References

  1. Alipour K, Moosavian SAA (2011) How to ensure stable motion of suspended wheeled mobile robots. Ind Robot Int J 38(2):139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argall BD, Billard AG (2010) A survey of tactile human–robot interactions. Robot Auton Syst 58(10):1159–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard M, Kondak K, Maza I, Ollero A (2011) Autonomous transportation and deployment with aerial robots for search and rescue missions. J Field Robot 28(6):914–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickler DB (1993) The new family of JPL planetary surface vehicles. In: Missions, technologies, and design of planetary mobile vehicles. Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, pp 301–306Google Scholar
  5. Bogue R (2012) Robots for space exploration. Ind Robot Int J 39(4):323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogue R (2013) Robots to aid the disabled and the elderly. Ind Robot Int J 40(6):519–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conceicao AG, Correia MD, Martinez L (2016) Modeling and friction estimation for wheeled omnidirectional mobile robots. Robotica 34(09):2140–2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costes NC, Trautwein W (1973) Elastic loop mobility system—a new concept for planetary exploration. J Terrramech 10(1):89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dubey VN, Crowder RM, Chappell PH (1999) Optimal object grasp using tactile sensors and fuzzy logic. Robotica 17(06):685–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebrahimi S, Eberhard P (2005) Contact of planar deformable bodies using a linear complementarity formulation. PAMM Proc Appl Math Mech 5(1):197–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebrahimi S, Mardani A (2015) Dynamic modeling and construction of a new two-wheeled mobile manipulator: self-balancing and climbing. Int J Robot Theory Appl 4(3):22–34Google Scholar
  12. Ellery A (2005) Environment–robot interaction—the basis for mobility in planetary micro-rovers. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 51(1):29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frigola M, Casals A, Amat J (2006) Human–robot interaction based on a sensitive bumper skin. In: 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 283–287Google Scholar
  14. Ghani N (1988) Visual and tactile senses in collaboration. Sens Rev 8(4):210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghotbi B, González F, Kövecses J, Angeles J (2016) Mobility assessment of wheeled robots operating on soft terrain. In: Wettergreen D, Barfoot T (eds) Field and service robotics, vol 113. Springer tracts in advanced robotics, Springer, Cham, pp 331–344Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Iwata H, Sugano S (2005) Human–robot-contact-state identification based on tactile recognition. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 52(6):1468–1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jia Z, Smith W, Peng H (2012) Terramechanics-based wheel-terrain interaction model and its applications to off-road wheeled mobile robots. Robotica 30(3):491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kah-Bin L, Yoon-Song C (1988) Low cost tactile gripper using silicone rubber sensor array. Robotica 6(01):23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kinoshita GI (1983) Representation and tactile sensing of 3-D objects by a gripper finger. Robotica 1(04):217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koo SY, Lim JG, Kwon DS (2008) Online touch behavior recognition of hard-cover robot using temporal decision tree classifier. In: The 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2008. RO-MAN 2008, pp 425–429Google Scholar
  22. Lauber A, Sandell B, Holmbom P, Pedersen O (1988) Tactile sensors for industrial robots. Sens Rev 8(2):84–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowe M, King A, Lovett E, Papakostas T (2004) Flexible tactile sensor technology: bringing haptics to life. Sens Rev 24(1):33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mardani A, Ebrahimi S (2017) Simultaneous surface scanning and stability analysis of wheeled mobile robots using a new spatial sensitive shield sensor. Robot Auton Syst 98:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mehdian M, Johns-Rahnejat PM, Rahnejat H (1993) Elastostatic contact imaging for a mechanoreceptive tactile device. Robotica 11(04):329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Minato T, Yoshikawa Y, Noda T, Ikemoto S, Ishiguro H, Asada M (2007) CB2: a child robot with biomimetic body for cognitive developmental robotics. In: 2007 7th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, pp 557–562Google Scholar
  27. Mitsunaga N, Miyashita T, Ishiguro H, Kogure K, Hagita N (2006) Robovie-IV: a communication robot interacting with people daily in an office. In: 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 5066–5072Google Scholar
  28. Nagatani K, Ishigami G, Okada Y (2016) Modeling and control of robots on rough terrain. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Cham, pp 1267–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nishio S, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2007) Geminoid: teleoperated android of an existing person. INTECH Open Access Publisher, Vienna, pp 343–352Google Scholar
  30. Núñez P, Vazquez-Martin R, Bandera A, Sandoval F (2009) Fast laser scan matching approach based on adaptive curvature estimation for mobile robots. Robotica 27(03):469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ohmura Y, Kuniyoshi Y (2007) Humanoid robot which can lift a 30 kg box by whole body contact and tactile feedback. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2007. IROS 2007, pp 1136–1141Google Scholar
  32. Pan Z, Zhu Z (2005) Flexible full-body tactile sensor of low cost and minimal output connections for service robot. Ind Robot Int J 32(6):485–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sabelli AM, Kanda T (2016) Robovie as a mascot: a qualitative study for long-term presence of robots in a shopping mall. Int J Soc Robot 8(2):211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shabana AA (2009) Computational dynamics, 3rd edn. WileyGoogle Scholar
  35. Siravuru A, Shah SV, Krishna KM (2017) An optimal wheel-torque control on a compliant modular robot for wheel-slip minimization. Robotica 35(2):463–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stiehl WD, Breazeal C, Han KH, Lieberman J, Lalla L, Maymin A, Kishore A (2006) The huggable: a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 emerging technologies, p 15Google Scholar
  37. Tungadi F, Kleeman L (2012) Autonomous loop exploration and SLAM with fusion of advanced sonar and laser polar scan matching. Robotica 30(01):91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wada K, Shibata T (2007) Social effects of robot therapy in a care house-change of social network of the residents for two months. In: 2007 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 1250–1255Google Scholar
  39. Weisbin CR, Lavery D, Rodriguez G (1997) Robots in space into the 21st century. Ind Robot Int J 24(2):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wong JY (2008) Theory of ground vehicles. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  41. Wu Y, Hu S, Tao J, Li J, Lin C (2016) Design of a six-wheeled planetary surface locomotion system with single motor driving folded-deployed suspension. In: Ding X, Kong X, Dai J (eds) Advances in reconfigurable mechanisms and robots II, vol 36. Mechanisms and machine science, Springer, Cham, pp 1009–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xiong H, Xiong H, Chen Y, Chen Y, Li X, Li X, Zhang J (2016) A scan matching simultaneous localization and mapping algorithm based on particle filter. Ind Robot Int J 43(6):607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu H, Zhang Z, Alipour K, Xue K, Gao XZ (2011) Prototypes selection by multi-objective optimal design: application to a reconfigurable robot in sandy terrain. Ind Robot Int J 38(6):599–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ylikorpi TJ, Halme AJ, Forsman PJ (2017) Dynamic modeling and obstacle-crossing capability of flexible pendulum-driven ball-shaped robots. Robot Auton Syst 87:269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yokota S, Ohyama Y, Hashimoto H, She JH, Kawabata K, Kobayashi H, Blazevic P (2007) 3D measurement sensor system for rough terrain mobile robots. Sens Rev 27(3):224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yoshikai T, Hayashi M, Ishizaka Y, Sagisaka T, Inaba M (2007) Behavior integration for whole-body close interactions by a humanoid with soft sensor flesh. In: 2007 7th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, pp 109–114Google Scholar
  47. Yousef Ibrahim M, Barfoot C (1997) Robotization of coal harvesting in open cut lignite mines. Ind Robot Int J 24(5):376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zielinska T, Chmielniak A (2011) Synthesis of control law considering wheel–ground interaction and contact stability of autonomous mobile robot. Robotica 29(07):981–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringYazd UniversityYazdIran

Personalised recommendations