Advertisement

Mathematical Modeling and Comparative Study of 12-DoF Biped Robot Using Screw Theory and Denavit–Hartenberg Convention

  • K. K. Rohith
  • Navaneeth Varma
  • A. P. SudheerEmail author
  • M. L. Joy
Conference paper
  • 57 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

The studies on legged robots have gained huge attention in recent years because of the agility that makes them applicable to a variety of environments. Biped robots are two-legged robots which replicate human anthropomorphism. Locomotion of biped robots is highly nonlinear, and modeling such a biped system demands some critical assumptions in foot rotation, ground contact, foot, and hip trajectories, etc. The gait pattern of biped walking can be expressed as a combination of single support phases (SSP) and double support phases (DSP). Kinematic and dynamic analysis is required for both configurations so that a realistic behavior can be modeled. There are various methods used for modeling of biped robots and similar open-chain robotic systems. The scope of this paper is to compare the kinematic models of a 12 DoF biped robot using Screw theory framework and Denavit–Hartenberg (D-H) convention. Further, the dynamic modeling is carried out using recursive Newton–Euler method and Lagrangian-Euler method for torque variations for single support phase. Joint angle, velocity, acceleration, and torque variations are analyzed during dynamic walking.

Keywords

Biped robot Screw theory Denavit–Hartenberg convention Recursive Newton–Euler formulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Luxman R, Zielinska T (2017) Robot motion synthesis using ground reaction forces pattern: analysis of walking posture. Int J Adv Rob Syst 14(4)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sarkar A, Dutta A (2015) 8-DoF biped robot with compliant-links. Rob Autonom Syst 63(1):57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rocha CR, Tonetto CP, Dias A (2011) A comparison between the Denavit–Hartenberg and the screw-based methods used in kinematic modeling of robot manipulators. Rob Comput-Integr Manuf 27(4):723–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paden B, Sastry S (1988) Optimal kinematic design of 6R manipulators. Int J Rob Res 7(2):43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pardos JM, Balaguer C (2005) RHO humanoid robot bipedal locomotion and navigation using Lie groups and geometric algorithms. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, Alta, pp 3081–3086Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arbulu M, Balaguer C (2007) Real-time gait planning for Rh-1 humanoid robot, using Local Axis Gait algorithm. In: 7th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots. IEEE, Pittsburgh, pp 563–568Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Man C, Fan X, Li C, Zhao Z (2007) Kinematics analysis based on Screw theory of a humanoid robot. J China Univ Mining Technol 17(1):49–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu A, Shi W, Li Y, Wu M, Guan Y, Zhang J, Wei H (2015) Formal kinematic analysis of a general 6R manipulator using the Screw theory. Math Prob Eng 1(7)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toscano GS, Simas H, Castelan EB (2014) Screw-based modeling of a humanoid biped robot. In: Anais do XX Congresso Brasileiro de Automática. Belo Horizonte, pp 944–951Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Toscano GS, Simas H, Castelan EB, Martins D (2018) A new kinetostatic model for humanoid robots using Screw theory. Robotica 36(4):570–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furusho J, Sano A (1991) Development of biped robot. Adv Psychol 78(1):277–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang J, Li Y (2009) Dynamic modeling of a mobile humanoid robot. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics. IEEE, Bangkok, pp 639–644Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Novaes C, Silva P, Rouchon P (2014) Trajectory control of a bipedal walking robot with inertial disc. In: IFAC proceedings volumes, Vol 47, Issue 3. Elsevier, Cape Town, pp 4843–4848Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sadedel M, Yousefi-Koma A, Khadiv M, Iranmanesh F (2018) Heel-strike and toe-off motions optimization for humanoid robots equipped with active toe joints. Robotica 36(6):925–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanehiro F, Hirukawa H, Kajita S (2004) Open HRP: open architecture humanoid robotics platform. Int J Rob Res 23(2):155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hernández-Santos C, Rodriguez-Leal E, Soto R, Gordillo JL (2012) Kinematics and dynamics of a new 16 DOF humanoid biped robot with active toe joint. Int J Adv Rob Syst 9(5):190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al-Shuka HFN, Corves B, Zhu WH (2014) Dynamic modeling of biped robot using Lagrangian and recursive Newton-Euler formulations. Int J Comput Appl 101(3):1–8Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lynch KM, Frank CP (2017) Modern robotics mechanics, planning, and control, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mittal RK, Nagrath IJ (2017) Robotics and control, 1st edn. McGraw Hill Education, IndiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNational Institute of Technology CalicutKozhikodeIndia

Personalised recommendations