1 / 25

Stumpy An autonomous bipedal robot Michael Cowling | Andrew Jeffs | Nathan Kaesler

Mechatronics Honours Project 2005. School of Mechanical Engineering. Stumpy An autonomous bipedal robot Michael Cowling | Andrew Jeffs | Nathan Kaesler Supervisors: Dr Frank Wornle | Mr George Osborne. Background. 2. Mechanical Engineering. History of bipedal walking robots

nuncio
Download Presentation

Stumpy An autonomous bipedal robot Michael Cowling | Andrew Jeffs | Nathan Kaesler

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Mechatronics Honours Project 2005 School of Mechanical Engineering Stumpy An autonomous bipedal robot Michael Cowling | Andrew Jeffs | Nathan Kaesler Supervisors: Dr Frank Wornle | Mr George Osborne

  2. Background 2 Mechanical Engineering • History of bipedal walking robots • 1968~1969: first functional robot: WL-3 • Current: fully functioning humanoidssuch as Honda ASIMO and Sony QRIO • Applications • Prosthetics for the disabled • Entertainment • Human assistance “Bipedal walking robots” www.humanoid.rise.waseda.ac.jp “Multifunctional Above-knee Prosthesis” www.humanoid.rise.waseda.ac.jp Sony 2005 Honda 2005

  3. Motivation 3 Mechanical Engineering • University of Adelaide designedpneumatic muscles • Stimulate robotics research at the University

  4. Seminar Outline 4 Mechanical Engineering • Project aims • Control techniques • Traditional method: biomechanical • Contemporary method: gait synthesis • Passive dynamic design concept • Design process • Passive biped for downhill walking • Pneumatic muscle actuated biped • Results and future directions

  5. Aims 5 Mechanical Engineering • Design and build a unactuated biped • Extend design to incorporate muscle actuation • Make self-contained • Extension goal: incorporate standing still, stopping and starting

  6. Design Methodologies 6 Mechanical Engineering • Two main design methods • Biomechanical control • Traditional control method • Robust and versatile • ‘Robotic’ looking gait • Difficult and expensiveto implement • Unnecessarily complex • Inefficient and heavy • Control based on gait synthesis “Asimo X2 at Robodex 2003” http://www.plyojump.com/asimo.html

  7. Control by Gait Synthesis 7 Mechanical Engineering • Simulate natural kinematics of walking • Begins with essentials of walking • Actuate only when required • Relatively new approach • McGeer 1990, Wisse 2004 • Inherent sequential design • Suited to muscle actuation • Simple control required • Very efficient Collins et al 2005

  8. Control by Gait Synthesis 8 Mechanical Engineering • Passive dynamic concept • Gravitational power only • Perfect starting point • Natural looking gait • Simple and light • Leads to human-likebehaviour • Only dynamically stable Collins et al 2005 Collins et al 2005

  9. Preliminary Design 9 Mechanical Engineering • Gait synthesis approach chosen • Simplifications to human physiology • Fewer degrees of freedom • Minimal actuators • Simplest walker concept • Natural starting point • Prototypes for feasibility • ‘Mancano’ promising • ‘Legoman’ unsuccessful ‘Mancano’ “Simplest Walker” http://mms.tudelft.nl/dbl/research/biped ‘Legoman’

  10. Design of Stumpy 10 Mechanical Engineering • Extremely difficult task • Discrete events and varying configuration • Non-linear and naturally unstable dynamics • Complex mathematical model • Empirical results required • Design based on McGeer’skneed walking model • Unactuated kneed biped • Made goals achievable McGeer 1990

  11. Muscle clamp R Clamp Mass Mechanical Design 11 Mechanical Engineering • Simple mechanical layout • Four legs in pairs • Pinned knee joints • Curved feet • Consideration for tuning and actuation • Limb lengths • Weight distribution • Muscle mounting • Foot position and radius

  12. Final Design 12 Mechanical Engineering

  13. Testing and Results 13 Mechanical Engineering • Many variables • Limb lengths • Foot radius • Mass distribution • Ramp angle • Starting conditions • Success!

  14. Testing and Results 14 Mechanical Engineering • Poor repeatability • Knee bounce main failure mechanism • Knee damping ineffective • Latch required • Very promising for next design stage

  15. Biped Actuation 15 Mechanical Engineering • Passive biped has limited functionality • Only walks downhill • Cannot start, stop or stand still • Actuation can overcome these • Modify passive biped • Add actuation • Add associated power and control

  16. Valve assembly Bladder Gas supply Power Muscle Actuation 16 Mechanical Engineering • Pneumatic muscle operation • Mains air or bottled CO2 supply (~2 bar) • Power required for switching • Preserves passive dynamic action • Other benefits • Simple construction • Light and powerful • Low cost • Efficient

  17. Outer leg lever arm Inner leg lever arm 1 2 3 4 5 Mechanics 17 Mechanical Engineering • Various muscle configurations possible • Actuate knees only • Actuate hips, and use knee latches • Actuate all joints, with either 1 or 2 muscles on each • Five muscles used • Antagonistic hiparrangement • Only two actuators required • Simple lever arm attachment • Muscle-spring systemfor knees

  18. Electronics and Control 18 Mechanical Engineering • Motorola 9S12C32 microcontroller on-board • H-Bridge muscle switching • On/off muscle sequencing • Real-time tuning via PC • On-board user controls • Foot switch cycle initialisation • Li-ion batteries for power and electronics Micro H-Bridge

  19. Final design 19 Mechanical Engineering

  20. Results 20 Mechanical Engineering • Stumpy walks successfully with some assistance

  21. Achievements 21 Mechanical Engineering • Stumpy walked passively • Actuated walking successful • Will improve with fine tuning • Self-contained, but with mobile gas supply

  22. Future Directions 22 Mechanical Engineering • Standing still, starting and stopping • Turning • Incorporating upper body • More degrees of freedom • Two legs • Active ankles

  23. Conclusion 23 Mechanical Engineering • Gait synthesis instead of biomechanical control • Two prototypes built • Passive biped Stumpy based on existing design • Walked successfully • Muscle actuation added to Stumpy • Powered biped walked with some assistance

  24. Acknowledgements 24 Mechanical Engineering • Supervisors • Dr Frank Wornle and Mr George Osborne • Mechanical engineering workshop staff • Electronics and instrumentation staff

  25. Questions 25 Mechanical Engineering

More Related