ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS

W HEELED M OBILE ROBOTS

Ashitava Ghosal

Department of Mechanical Engineering

&
Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012, India
Email: asitava@[Link]

NPTEL, 2020

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 1 / 86
 1 C ONTENTS

2 L ECTURE 1
Wheeled Mobile Robots (WMR) on Flat Terrain

3 L ECTURE 2
Wheeled Mobile Robots (WMR) on Uneven Terrain

4 L ECTURE 3
Kinematics and Dynamics of WMR on Uneven Terrain

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 2 / 86
O UTLINE

1 C ONTENTS

2 L ECTURE 1
Wheeled Mobile Robots (WMR) on Flat Terrain

3 L ECTURE 2
Wheeled Mobile Robots (WMR) on Uneven Terrain

4 L ECTURE 3
Kinematics and Dynamics of WMR on Uneven Terrain

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 3 / 86
C ONTENTS OF L ECTURE

Introduction to wheeled mobile robots.

Different kinds of wheels and their modeling.
Kinematics of wheeled mobile robots on flat surfaces.
Modeling of wheel slip.
Modeling of a WMR with omni-directional wheels.
Simulation of a WMR with omni-wheels.
Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 4 / 86
I NTRODUCTION

Several robots are now designed to have mobility – They can move on a
surface, in water or in air.
Only robots with capability of mobility on a surface considered.
Earliest examples are automated guided vehicles (AGVs) with wheels used on
flat factory floors.
More recently autonomous robots with legs and/or a combination or wheels
and legs (hybrid) have been built.
Vast majority are wheeled mobile robots or WMRs as they are more efficient
and faster than legged or tracked vehicles.
Legged and tracked vehicles can navigate rough terrain more easily.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 5 / 86
I NTRODUCTION

Autonomous vehicles are used in

Industrial environments to move material (parts and finished goods) from one
place to another.
Military and security applications.
Hazardous environments such as inside nuclear reactors or in deep sea bed.
Providing mobility to handicapped persons.
Planetary exploration.
Analysis of WMRs involve kinematics, dynamics, control, sensing, motion
planning, obstacle avoidance ...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 6 / 86
E XAMPLES OF WMR S
MARS Rover from NASA
A WMR for moving on uneven terrain

AGV’s used on factory floors A WMR with omni-directional wheels

F IGURE : Some Wheeled Mobile Robots .

. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.

A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 7 / 86
I NTRODUCTION

Muir and Newman (1987)

A WMR is “a robot capable of locomotion on a surface solely through the wheel
assemblies mounted on it and in contact with a surface.
A wheel assembly is a device which provides or allow relative motion between its
mount and the surface on which it is intended to have single-point of rolling
contact”.
In practical wheels, due to deformation, there is area contact.
Different types of wheels used in WMRs – 1) Conventional, 2) Omni-directional
and 3) Ball wheels

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 8 / 86
 I NTRODUCTION
Connection to
robot body
Conventional
Conventional wheel most commonly used →
wheel Rotation about axis of wheel & steering.
Hub motor or actuator + Omni-directional wheels also called Swedish
transmission to wheel axis
wheels:
Barrels on the periphery.
Two rows of Barrel can rotate at an angle to the wheel
barrels in the rotation axis – 90◦ in figure.
wheel
Barrel rotation is not actuated & barrel
Encoder rotation leads to ‘sliding’ of wheel.
Actuating motor Two DOF in each wheel & steering.
For connecting to robot Ball or spherical wheels
body
Essentially a sphere which can rotate about
Spherical ball shaped wheel two axis.
– Drive mechanism
Complicated drive and rotation measuring
complicated & not shown
arrangement.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F IGURE : Three main types of wheels in WMR’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 9 / 86
S INGLE W HEEL K INEMATICS
Disk on a plane – Configuration space (x, y , ϕ ), ϕ is the steering angle1 , r is
wheel (disk)
radius. Normal to plane
at point of contact

Tangent at (x,y) Wheel rolling without slip – Motion

-θ r only along tangent to path
Axis of rotation
rotation angle ẋ sin ϕ − ẏ cos ϕ = 0. Velocity
-θ
perpendicular to the tangent vector
x φ is zero.
y Non-holonomic constraint – Cannot
Path of
be integrated to obtain f (x, y , ϕ ) = 0
{0} contact point Constraint q̇ = (ẋ, ẏ , ϕ̇ )T , and not
q = (x, y , ϕ )T .
F IGURE : Wheel rolling on a plane
1 Tilting of wheel from the normal not considered and rotation of wheel θ not required for
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
analysis. If thin disk, tilt must be considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 10 / 86
S INGLE W HEEL K INEMATICS
Justification for non-holonomic nature
Assume ẋ sin ϕ − ẏ cos ϕ = 0 can be integrated.
This implies existence of f (x, y , ϕ ) = 0 ⇒ Two DOF ⇒ Choosing any two out of
x, y , ϕ automatically determines the third!
For example, at x = y = 0 ⇒ ϕ = ϕ ∗ is fixed ⇒ No other value(s) of ϕ is
possible!
This is clearly false – Any ϕ is possible at (0, 0) by simply rotating disk about the
normal.
Hence f (x, y , ϕ ) = 0 is not integrable.
The kinematics of a single wheel is given by
     
ẋ cos ϕ 0
 ẏ  =  sin ϕ  v +  0  ω
ϕ̇ 0 1

where v and ω are the forward speed and steering rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 11 / 86
 T WO W HEEL ROBOT – B ICYCLE
Y φ Four generalised coordinates
WMR
(x, y ) – Point of contact of rear wheel.
C ψ – Orientation of body & rear wheel with X
axis.
l
R ϕ – Steering angle of front wheel with respect
ψ front wheel to body
Two rolling constraints in each wheel:
ẋ sin ψ − ẏ cos ψ = 0
x y rear wheel
ẋ sin(ψ + ϕ ) − ẏ cos(ψ + ϕ ) − l ψ̇ cos ϕ = 0
{0} C − Instantaneous X
Kinematics equations
Centre     
ẋ cos ψ cos ϕ 0
 ẏ   sin ψ cos ϕ   
F IGURE : Two wheel robot (bicycle)     vf +  0  ω
 ψ̇  =  sin ϕ /l   0 
ϕ̇ 0 1
Lines perpendicular to front and rear wheel velocity vector meet at C .
Motion of the bicycle is instantaneously rotation about C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 12 / 86
 T HREE W HEEL ROBOT – T RI - CYCLE
Y φ
WMR Front wheel is steered.
C Wheel speed vi = θ̇i ri , ri is radius of wheel i.
One rear wheel is driven and the speed of the
R l second rear wheel must adjust so that there is
ψ
front wheel a single instantaneous centre C (the second
rear wheel can be free or a differential is
rear wheels used).
y Kinematics of tri-cycle similar to bicycle.
x
C determine relation between R, θ̇i , ri , l, ψ
{0} X
C − Instantaneous and ϕ .
Centre If no single C → Wheel(s) slip will occur.
F IGURE : Three wheeled mobile
robot or tri-cycle
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 13 / 86
 ‘C AR LIKE ’ M OBILE ROBOTS &
OTHERS φi Four-wheeled (car like) mobile robot →
C Steering angle of front wheels is different in a
φo turn.
Ackerman steering to avoid slippage – The
steering angle of ‘inside’ wheel ϕ i and
l ‘outside’ wheel ϕ o are related as

d cot(ϕ i ) − cot(ϕ o ) = d/l

Multi-axle vehicles: truck + trailer

Steering front wheel to the ‘left’ results in
‘right’ motion of wheels on third axle –
C − InstantaneousCentre Non-minimum phase system.
F IGURE : Four-wheeled mobile robot More difficult to analyse and model.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 14 / 86
 O MNI - DIRECTIONAL WHEELS
Six equally spaced ‘free’ barrels on the periphery.
Each barrel can rotate about its axis as shown.
Two rows of barrel → One barrel always in contact with ground.
Distance of point of contact from the vehicle centre changes.
Two rows of barrels
Barrel
rotation
Rotation speed is θ̇ & Sliding speed
axis is σ .
Two components of velocity of wheel
centre for a general case of barrel
axis at an angle α to wheel axis –
Barrel shaped rollers
(r θ̇ + σ cos α , σ sin α )T .
α = 90◦ → Components are
F IGURE : Omni-directional Wheel (r θ̇ , σ )T , r is radius of wheel.
(Balakrishna & Ghosal, 1995)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 15 / 86
 WMR WITH THREE OMNI - WHEELS
Y v1
σ2 WMR with omni-wheels of radius r .
o L σ1 No steering wheel, wheel rotation speed θ̇i , i = 1, 2, 3.
120
Kinematics – No slip condition at wheels
v2 ψ
x     
θ̇1 0 1 L1 ẋ
o
 θ̇2  1 √
120 = −
√ 3/2 −1/2 L2   ẏ 
r
y θ̇3 3/2 −1/2 L3 ψ̇
 
ẋ
v3 = [ R ]  ẏ 
{0} σ3 X ψ̇

Li , i = 1, 2, 3 are the contact points.

F IGURE : WMR with omni wheels
Matrix [R] (analogous to manipulator inverse Jacobian) can be inverted →
WMR controllable with θ̇i .
Can obtain sliding speeds (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 )T in terms of (ẋ, ẏ , ψ̇ )T → Not invertible
⇒ WMR cannot be controlled by σi , i = 1, 2, 3 alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 16 / 86
M ODELING OF S LIP
For rolling without slip in a conventional wheel of radius r , wheel centre
velocity v and wheel angular velocity ω are related by v = r ω .
Either wheel and/or ground must deform for generating tractive force to drive a
wheel.
Deformable wheel and/or ground combination → Wheel slip will occur.
Wheel slip is defined as
λ = (θ̇ − ω ∗ )/y
∆
where ω ∗ = v /r and θ̇ is the wheel angular velocity.
y = ω ∗ when ω ∗ > θ̇ and y = θ̇ when ω ∗ < θ̇ ∗
Above implies −1 ≤ λ ≤ 1
Pure rolling → λ = 0
Rolling in place → λ = 1
Skidding → λ = −1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 17 / 86
 M ODELING OF S LIP (C ONTD .)
Deformable τ
Wheel Translational and rotation dynamics
θ Ft = Mw ẍ, τ = Jw θ̈ + Ft r
Ft : tractive force at wheel-ground interface.
. τ : torque applied at wheel axle.
x Mw , Jw : mass and inertia of wheel.
ẍ, θ̈ : linear and angular acceleration.
Ft
In state-space form
Rigid ground ẋ = f(x) + gτ
N

F IGURE : Single wheel dynamics

Lie algebra approach → Not locally controllable if tractive force Ft is constant.
Ft must be a function of ẋ and θ̇ .
Ft is a function of normal reaction N and adhesion coefficient µa .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 18 / 86
M ODELING OF S LIP (C ONTD .)
µa peak

µa
−1.0
λ , wheel slip 1.0

µa peak

F IGURE : Typical adhesion coefficient Vs wheel slip

Typically µa is a function of wheel slip λ and has a maximum µa peak.
Typical plot shown in figure (Dugoff et al. 1970)
Tractive force developed Ft = µa (λ )N
Actually 0 < |Ft | ≤ µa N: Proper sign of Ft for acceleration or braking.
Stable region – Increasing µa with wheel slip.
After µa peak, tractive force falls with increasing wheel slip. →
. . Unstable!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 19 / 86
E QUATIONS OF M OTION

Equations of motion using Lagrangian formulation

Kinetic energy of platform of mass Mp and inertia Ip .
Kinetic energy of wheels of inertia Ii , i = 1, 2, 3.
No potential energy as motion on flat plane.
Including tractive forces at wheels Fti , torque at each wheel τi and an
approximate µa Vs λ curve.
Equations of motion – 6 ODE’s to take into account slip
       
Mp 0 0 ẍ 0 −Mp 0 ẋ Ft1
 0 Mp 0   ÿ  + Ψ̇  Mp 0 0   ẏ  = r [ R ]  Ft2 
T

0 0 Ip ψ̈ 0 0 0 ψ̇ Ft3
      
I1 0 0 θ¨1 Ft 1 τ1
 0 I2 0  θ¨2  + r  Ft2  =  τ2 
0 0 I3 θ¨3 Ft 3 τ3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 20 / 86
C ONTROL
Desired Cartesian path Xd = (xd (t), yd (t), ψd (t))T prescribed.
PID control
∫
F = [Kv ] (Ẋd − Ẋ) + [Kp ] (Xd − X) + [Ki ] (Xd − X) d τ

X = (x(t), y (t), ψ (t))T .

Cartesian forces F is related to (wheel) actuator torque by
−1
τ = [ R ]T F

Model based control scheme using ‘ideal’ rolling – τ = [α ] τ ′ + β where

[α ] = [ R ]−T [M ∗ ], β = [ R ]−T {Ψ̇ [ Q ] Ẋ}

τ′ = Ẍd + Kv (Ẋd − Ẋ) + Kp (Xd − X)

[M ∗ ] = ([M] + [ R ]T [I ] [ R ]) – mass matrix corresponding. to ‘ideal’ rolling.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 21 / 86
 N UMERICAL SIMULATION RESULTS
Geometry of WMR: L1 = L2 = L3 = 0.5 m, r = 0.1 m
Inertia parameters: Mp = 50.0 Kg, Ip = 5.0 kg m2 , Ii = 2.0 kg m2 .
√
Controller gains equal: Kpi = 15.0, Kvi = 2 Kpi , and Kii = 0.10.

F IGURE : Circular trajectory control using

F IGURE : Straight line trajectory control using model-based controller (Balakrishna &
PID controller (Balakrishna & Ghosal, 1995) Ghosal, 1995)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 22 / 86
N UMERICAL SIMULATION RESULTS
(C ONTD .)

Performance of PID controller is quite poor.

Maximum x error is approximately 0.5 m and maximum y error is approx 0.2 m.
Model based controller using ‘ideal’ rolling as model performs slightly better.
As the µa peak decreases from 0.8 to 0.08, performance of model based
controller becomes poorer.
Maximum radial error from desired circular trajectory of radius 2.0 m is
approximately 1.7 m.
It is important to model or take into account slip in WMR models – borne out
by experiments!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 23 / 86
S UMMARY OF M ODELING OF WMR
WMR is very different from serial and parallel manipulators.
Base is not fixed.
Wheel-ground contact results in non-holonomic constraints – Compare with
holonomic in joints.
Non-holonomic constraints does not restrict the configuration space but restrict
space of velocities!
Various kinds of wheels in use – Conventional, omni-directional and ball wheels.

Conventional wheels rotate about the wheel axis and can be steered about the
normal.
Omni-directional wheel can rotate about its axis, slide along another direction
and also steered.
Ball wheels can rotate about two different axis.
WMR with three wheels simplest – Four wheeled and multi-axle WMR’s more
difficult to model and analyse.
Slip, due to deformation, always present in wheels → Need to be taken into
account in WMR dynamics and control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 24 / 86
O UTLINE

1 C ONTENTS

2 L ECTURE 1
Wheeled Mobile Robots (WMR) on Flat Terrain

3 L ECTURE 2
Wheeled Mobile Robots (WMR) on Uneven Terrain

4 L ECTURE 3
Kinematics and Dynamics of WMR on Uneven Terrain

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 25 / 86
C ONTENTS OF L ECTURE

Introduction
Modeling of torus-shaped wheel and uneven terrain
Single wheel on uneven terrain – Kinematic and dynamic modeling and
simulation.
A WMR for traversing uneven terrain without slip.
Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 26 / 86
I NTRODUCTION

Most WMR are used in industrial environments – Flat & structured surfaces.
Recent interest in uneven and rough terrains & off-road environments.
Planetary exploration.
DARPA Grand Challenge to develope a fully autonomous ground vehicle capable
of completing a off-road course in limited time.
Luxury cars.
Flat terrain – Vehicle platform has 3 DOF consisting of position (x, y ) and
orientation ψ
Uneven terrain – Vehicle platform can possibly have all three components of
translation and three components of orientation → Up to 6 DOF.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 27 / 86
 I NTRODUCTION

Two wheels connected by a fixed length

axle AB.
A Points of contact with uneven ground P,
Q can change → Length PQ is variable
and not equal to AB.
Variation of length PQ require a velocity
component along axle AB and along the
B normal (Waldron, 1995).
P
No instantaneous centre compatible with
both wheels ⇒ Wheel slip will occur.
Q Wheel slip leads to a) localization errors,
and b) wastage of fuel.
F IGURE : Wheel slip on uneven terrain
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 28 / 86
I NTRODUCTION

To overcome wheel slip → Variable length axle (Choi & Sreenivasan, 1999).
Add passive prismatic joint in axle – Prismatic joint changes axle length by
required amount to ensure compatible instantaneous centre for both wheels.
At large inclination, gravity causes prismatic joint to change length in undesired
way!
Actuated (and controlled) prismatic joint – Accurate sensing of slip is required.
New concept of WMR capable of traversing uneven terrain without slip.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 29 / 86
I NTRODUCTION

Main concepts (see Chakraborty & Ghosal (2004, 2005)).

Use of torus shaped wheel – Wheel has single point contact with uneven terrain.
Torus shaped wheels connected to WMR body with passive rotary joints.
Passive rotary joint allow lateral tilting and wheel-ground contact distance (PQ)
to change.
Three actuated joints (for a 3DOF model) in WMR.
Rear wheels are driven and can tilt laterally.
Front wheel steered and can roll freely.
Use of contact equations (Montana, 1988) to model wheel-ground contact.
WMR modeled as a parallel robot at each instant.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 30 / 86
 M ODELING OF S URFACE
A surface in ℜ3 can be represented in
parametric form (x, y , z)T = f(u, v ),
n (u, v ) ∈ U ⊆ ℜ2 maps to 0 p = (x, y , z)T on
Tangent Plane
fv
fu
at 0 p the surface.
Surface
At a point, tangent plane defined by vectors
∂f ∂f
fu = and fv = .
v ∂u ∂v
{0} Ẑ0
fu × fv
0
p
(u, v)
The normal to the surface is n =
|fu × fv |
u

Ŷ0
fu fv
The vectors , , and n form a
|fu | |fv |
X̂0
right-handed basisa at 0 p.
F IGURE : A surface in ℜ3 a Iffu and fv are not orthogonal, then the orthogonal set is
{fu /|fu |, n × fu /|fu |, n}.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 31 / 86
 M ODELING OF A T ORUS - SHAPED
W HEEL Torus
uw = constant
Equation of a torus in parametric
vw = constant r1
form

x = r1 cos uw
y = cos vw (r2 + r1 sin uw )
Uneven
Terrain r
2 z = sin vw (r2 + r1 sin uw )

r1 and r2 are the two radii associated

{0} with a torus.
0p vg = constant
Subscript w on the parameters u and
ug = constant
v denote a wheel.
Uneven terrain/ground
(x, y , z)T = f(ug , vg )
F IGURE : A torus-shaped wheel on uneven terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 32 / 86
M ETRIC , C URVATURE AND T ORSION
OF A S URFACE
From the parametric equation, define
∂ 2f
Second partial of f, f(·)(·) = , with respect to u and v ,
∂ (·)∂ (·)
Partial of n, n(·) , with respect
[ to u and ]v .
|fu | 0
Metric on a surface [M] =
0 |fv |
Curvature form  f ·n f ·n

u u u v
|fu |2 |fu ||fv |
 
[K] =  
fv ·nu fv ·nv
|fu ||fv | |fv |2
[ ]
fv · fuu fv · fuv
Torsion form [T] =
|fu |2 |fv | |fv |2 |fu |
Metric ‘defines’ distance, Curvature determines ‘in-plane’ bending and Torsion
determines ‘out-of-plane’ bending on a surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 33 / 86
 M ODELING OF A T ORUS - SHAPED
W HEEL Torus
uw = constant

vw = constant r1

For the torus-shaped wheel

[ ]
r1 0
Uneven [Mw ] =
r 0 r2 + r1 sin uw
[ ]
Terrain 2

1
r1 0
[Kw ] = sin uw
0 r2 +r 1 sin uw
{0}
cos u
0p vg = constant
[Tw ] = [0 ]
ug = constant
r2 + r1 sin uw

F IGURE : A torus-shaped wheel on uneven terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 34 / 86
M ODELING OF U NEVEN T ERRAIN

Uneven terrain – Smooth and hard, not terrains with sand, dirt or any
discontinuities!
Explicit or parametric equation not available.
Local elevation of a point is known from measurement (laser scanner).
Ill-posed problem to obtain f(u, v ) from measurements– Non-uniqueness.
Use bi-cubic and B-spline surfaces (see Mortenson, 1985)
Bi-cubic surface patch: f(u, v ) = ∑3i =0 ∑3j =0 aij u i v j , (u, v ) ∈ [0, 1]
Can be determined from 4 corner points of the patch.
Patches can be smoothly connected to make up the whole surface.
Higher-order continuity can be obtained by using Non-uniform Rational B-Spline
(NURBS)
MATLAB⃝ R
Spline Toolbox – Partial derivatives of surface available to
compute metric, curvature and torsion form.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 35 / 86
E XAMPLES OF U NEVEN T ERRAINS

2.6 2.2
2.5
2.1
2.4
2
2.3
1.9
2.2

2.1 1.8

2 1.7
10
1.9
3 8

2 2 6 10
8
1 1 4 6
0 2 4
0 2
−1
0 0
−1 −2

F IGURE : A bi-cubic uneven surface F IGURE : A B-spline uneven surface

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 36 / 86
 K INEMATICS OF C ONTACT
{Cr1 }
Two surfaces 1 and 2 described with
respect to {Cr1 } and {Cr2 }.
Surface 1

Parametric equations are f(u1 , v1 )

and f(u2 , v2 ).
{Cl1 } At point of contact 0 p, fix frames
{Cl1 } and {Cl2 }.
{0}
{Cl2 }
Surface 2
ψ – Angle between X axis of {Cl1 }
0
and {Cl2 }.
p
(u1 , v1 ), (u2 , v2 ) and ψ define the 5
{Cr2 }
DOF for single-point contact.
Define metric, [M], Curvature [K ]
F IGURE : Two arbitrary surfaces in and Torsion [T ] for the two surfaces
single-point contact at 0 p.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 37 / 86
K INEMATICS OF C ONTACT

Contact equations: Relationship between (u̇1 , v̇1 , u̇2 , v̇2 , ψ̇ ) and the linear and
angular velocity components vx , vy , vz and ωx , ωy , ωz
(u̇1 , v̇1 )T = [M1 ]−1 ([K1 ] + [K∗ ])−1 [(−ωy , ωx )T − [K∗ ](vx , vy )T ]
T
(u̇2 , v̇2 ) = [M2 ]−1 [Rψ ]([K1 ] + [K∗ ])−1 [(−ωy , ωx )T + [K1 ](vx , vy )T ]
ψ̇ = ωz + [T1 ][M1 ](u̇1 , v̇1 )T + [T2 ][M2 ](u̇2 , v̇2 )T
0= vz

where the relative curvature of surface 2 with respect to 1 is

[K∗ ] = [Rψ ][K2 ][Rψ ]T and the rotation matrix [R] is
( )
cos ψ − sin ψ
[Rψ ] =
− sin ψ − cos ψ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 38 / 86
K INEMATICS OF C ONTACT

Can also invert the equations

(vx , vy )T = −[M1 ](u̇1 , v̇1 )T + [Rψ ][M2 ](u̇2 , v̇2 )T

(ωy , −ωx )T = −[K1 ][M1 ](u̇1 , v̇1 )T − [Rψ ][K2 ][M2 ](u̇2 , v̇2 )T
ωz = ψ̇ − [T1 ][M1 ](u̇1 , v̇1 )T − [T2 ][M2 ](u̇2 , v̇2 )T
vz = 0

vz = 0 holonomic constraint ⇒ Ensures surfaces stay in contact!

Five other equations need to be numerically integrated with initial conditions
for solution.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 39 / 86
K INEMATICS OF C ONTACT

Contact equations similar to constraint equations for joints

Main difference: equations contain derivatives with respect to time!
Two main types of contacts :
Pure rolling — vx = vy = 0 → Important for WMRs.
Pure sliding — ωx = ωy = 0.
Pure rolling vx = vy = vz = 0 → Three DOF in velocities.
Very much unlike a 3 DOF spherical joint → S joint x = y = z are also same
for both links!
Pure rolling — Non-holonomic → Only vx = vy = 0 (also vz = 0) and x, y , z
coordinates of the contact point can change as the rolling proceeds!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 40 / 86
S INGLE W HEEL ON U NEVEN
Torus−shaped wheel
T ERRAIN Zw
r1
Yw
{w}

C
Xw
{Cr2 } is same as {0}.

Uneven
{Cr1 } is fixed at the wheel centre
Terrain {4} Z4
r
2 C, same as {w }.
{Cl1 } and {Cl2 } at the contact
point are denoted by {2} and
0p
w {3}
{1}
{0} {2} {1}.
0p
{3} and {4} as shown in figure.

F IGURE : Single wheel on uneven ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 41 / 86
K INEMATIC A NALYSIS
4 × 4 transformation matrices from assigned frames:
   
l1 m1 n1 ug cos ψ − sin ψ 0 0
  1  − sin ψ − cos ψ 0 0 
0  l2 m2 n2 vg  , [T ] =  
1 [T ] =  l m3 n3 f (ug , vg )  2  0 0 −1 0 
3
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
li , mi , ni , i = 1, 2, 3 are the components of {fu /|fu |, n × fu /|fu |, n}.
Transformation matrices from {2} to {4} are
   
sin uw 0 cos uw 0 1 0 0 0
 0 1 0 0  3  0 − sin vw cos vw 0 
2   , [T ] =  
3 [T ] =  − cos u 0 sin uw −r1  4  0 − cos vw − sin vw −r2 
w
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Transformation matrix from {4} to {w } is
 
−1 0 0 0
 0 1 0 0 
4 
w [T ] =  0

0 −1 0 
0 0 0 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 42 / 86
K INEMATIC A NALYSIS
The transformation matrix from {w } to {0} is
0
w [T ] =01 [T ]12 [T ]23 [T ]34 [T ]4w [T ]

The contact equation for a single-wheel rolling without slip

(u̇w , v̇w )T = [Mw ]−1 ([Kw ] + [K∗ ])−1 [(−ωy , ωx )T ]

(u̇g , v̇g )T = [Mg ]−1 [Rψ ]([Kg ] + [K∗ ])−1 [(−ωy , ωx )T ]
ψ̇ = ωz + [Tw ][Mw ](u̇w , v̇w )T + [Tg ][Mg ](u̇g , v̇g )T
0= vz

w denotes wheel and g denotes ground.

Inputs: ωx , ωy , ωz .
Integrate contact equations to obtain evolution of point of contact on wheel
and ground in time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 43 / 86
K INEMATIC A NALYSIS
Lateral shift of contact point on Uneven terrain
1.6

1.55
u(radian)

1.5

1.45

1.4

1.35
Simulation for bi-cubic
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time(sec) surface shown earlier.
30
v r1 = 0.05 m, r2 = 0.25
ψ(radian)
20 m.
Wheel tilts as it rolls.
v/ψ

10

−10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
time

F IGURE : Variation of uw , vw and ψ with t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 44 / 86
 K INEMATIC A NALYSIS
0.8
Contact Point
Wheel Center
0.6

0.4

0.2 Trace of wheel centre

yc/vg (m)

and ground contact

0
point is different.
−0.2 Unlike a disk rolling on
flat surface.
−0.4

−0.6
−0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
xc/ug (m)

F IGURE : Plot of wheel centre and ground contact point

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 45 / 86
DYNAMIC A NALYSIS
Equations of motion of a torus-shaped wheel on uneven terrain using
Lagrangian formulation.
Non-holonomic constraints

(vx , vy )T = −[Mw ](u̇w , v̇w )T + [Rψ ][Mg ](u̇g , v̇g )T = (0, 0)T

after rearranging [Ψ(q)]q̇ = 0

Kinetic energy of wheel
T
Angular velocity 0w [Ω] from rotation matrix as 0w [Ṙ] 0w [R] .
Linear velocity by differentiating position of wheel centre – 0 Vw =0 ṗw
2
Kinetic energy: KE = 12 ΩT [Iw ]Ω + 12 mw 0 Vw
Potential energy: PE = mw g zwc
Equations of motion

[M(q)]q̈ + [C(q, q̇)]q̇ + G(q) = τ + [Ψ(q)]T λ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 46 / 86
DYNAMIC A NALYSIS

Wheel dimensions: r1 = 0.05 m, r2 = 0.25 m.

Mass of wheel mw = 1.0 kg.
Inertia components of a torus-shaped wheel
 1 2 2

4 mw (3r1 + 4r2 ) 0 0
[Iw ] =  0 1
m w (5r 1
2 + 4r 2 )
2 0 
8
1 2 2
0 0 8 mw (5r1 + 4r2 )

Initial conditions satisfy non-holonomic constrains.

No external force τ = 0
Torus-shaped wheels rolls down under gravity on surface shown next.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 47 / 86
 DYNAMIC A NALYSIS
8
Contact Point
Wheel Center
7

2.1 5

yc/vg (m)
2
4
1.9
f(ug,vg)

1.8 10 3

1.7
2
1.6 5
ug(m)
1
1.5
10 8 6 4 0
2 0 0
vg(m) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
xc/ug (m)

F IGURE : B-spline surface used for single F IGURE : Trace of wheel centre and ground
wheel dynamics contact points

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 48 / 86
 DYNAMIC A NALYSIS x 10
−8

4
2 X−component of slip velocity
Y−component of slip velocity
u(radian) 1.8 3

1.6
2
1.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
30 time(sec) 1

vx/vy (m/s)
v(radian)

20
0
10
−1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
−3 time(sec)
−2
psi(radian)

−3.5 −3

−4 −4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time(sec) time(sec)

F IGURE : Variation of uw , vw and ψ with t F IGURE : Components of slip velocity at

wheel-ground contact point
Slip components are very small (10−8 m/sec).
Simulation checked for conservation of energy.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 49 / 86
A WMR FOR T RAVERSING U NEVEN
T ERRAIN
Three torus-shaped wheels connected to rigid platform with rotary (R) joints.
Two possible configurations – Platform with 3 DOF
Each wheel attached to platform with two R joints.
For rear wheels — One R joint is actuated by a motor making the wheel roll.
For front wheel – One R joint represents steering.
For rear wheels – One R joint is passive allowing lateral tilting about axis
perpendicular to wheel rotation axis.
For front wheel – One R joint represents free rolling of the wheel.
WMR platform with 6 DOF
Each wheel attached to platform by three R joints.
2 R joints in rear and front wheel function as above.
Additional R joint in rear wheel allow for steering.
Additional R joint in front wheel allow lateral tilt.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 50 / 86
3 DOF C ONFIGURATION f3
C3 Top Platform
d2 d1
P
C2 Center of
C 1 Top Platform
q2 q3 q1

G3
{0} G2 G1
O 3−DOF "Non−holonomic" Joint

F IGURE : Schematic of a three-wheeled mobile robot with 3 DOF

Wheel-ground contact has 3 DOF instantaneously – Only velocities are
restricted → Non-holonomic joint.
Grübler criterion – DOF = 6(N − J − 1) + ∑Ji=1 Fi – N = 8, J = 9, and
∑Ji=1 Fi = 15 → DOF = 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 51 / 86
6 DOF C ONFIGURATION f3 Top Platform
C3
f2 f1
P
Center of
C2 C1 Top Platform
d3
d2 d1

q3
q2 q1
G3
{0}
G2 G1
O
3−DOF "Non−holonomic" Joint

F IGURE : Schematic of three wheeled mobile robot with 6 DOF

Wheel-ground contact – 3 DOF non-holonomic joint.
Grübler criterion – DOF = 6(N − J − 1) + ∑Ji=1 Fi , N = 11, J = 12 and
∑Ji=1 Fi = 18 → DOF = 6.
Study kinematics and dynamics of 3 DOF configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 52 / 86
S UMMARY

WMR with fixed length axle, moving on uneven terrain, can slip.
Variable length axle concepts and concept of passive tilting.
Geometric modeling of torus-shaped wheel and uneven terrain.
Contact equations representing 5 DOF between two surfaces in single point
contact.
Kinematic and dynamic analysis and simulation of single wheel on uneven
terrain.
Configuration of a three-wheeled mobile robot for traversing uneven terrain
without slip.
Kinematic, dynamic and stability analysis in next lecture.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 53 / 86
O UTLINE

1 C ONTENTS

2 L ECTURE 1
Wheeled Mobile Robots (WMR) on Flat Terrain

3 L ECTURE 2
Wheeled Mobile Robots (WMR) on Uneven Terrain

4 L ECTURE 3
Kinematics and Dynamics of WMR on Uneven Terrain

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 54 / 86
C ONTENTS OF L ECTURE

Kinematic analysis a three-wheeled mobile robot

Solution of the direct kinematics problem.
Solution of the inverse kinematics problem.
Formulation of Equations of Motion for Dynamic analysis.
Simulation results.
Stability of three wheeled mobile robot on uneven terrain
Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 55 / 86
K INEMATIC A NALYSIS
C3 f3 Top Platform
d2 d1
P
C2 Center of
C 1 Top Platform
q2 q3 q1

G3
{0} G2 G1
O 3−DOF "Non−holonomic" Joint

F IGURE : Equivalent instantaneous parallel manipulator

Instantaneous parallel manipulator with a platform “connected” to ground by
three serial chains.
Actuated: Rear wheel rotations, θ1 and θ2 , front wheel steering ϕ3 .
Passive: Rear wheel tilt δ1 , δ2 and front wheel rotation θ3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 56 / 86
K INEMATIC A NALYSIS

Analyse the WMR as a parallel manipulator at every instant.

Instantaneously – Wheels are not fixed as in a parallel manipulator!
Non-holonomic (no slip) constraints and hence kinematics in terms of joint
rates!
Direct Kinematic: Given actuation rates θ̇1 , θ̇2 and ϕ̇3 , the terrain and WMR
geometry, find orientation of top platform 0p [R] and the position vector of the
centre of the platform.
Inverse kinematics: Given geometry of WMR and terrain and given any three of
Vpx , Vpy , Vpz , Ωpx , Ωpy , Ωpz , find rear wheel actuator inputs θ˙1 and θ˙2 and the
steering input to the front wheel ϕ˙3 .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 57 / 86
K INEMATIC A NALYSIS : A LGORITHM

Step 1: Generate the uneven terrain surface:

Use bi-cubic patches or B-splines to reconstruct the surface from elevation data.
Find [M], [K] and [T] for the ground and wheels at the three wheel-ground
contact points.
Step 2: Form contact equations:
For each wheel, obtain 5 ODEs in ui , vi , ugi , vgi , and ψi i = 1, 2, 3.
For no-slip motion, set vx = vy = 0 for each of the three wheels.
ωx , ωy , and ωz are related to Ωpx , Ωpy , Ωpz , and the input and passive joint
rates
0
(ωx , ωy , ωz )T =0 (Ωpx , Ωpy , Ωpz )T +0 ω input
Above equation couples all five sets of ODEs resulting in a set of 15 ODEs in 21
variables – 15 contact variables, θ1 , θ2 , θ3 , δ1 , δ2 , and ϕ3 .
Out of 21 variables, θ1 , θ2 , and ϕ3 are actuated and known.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 58 / 86
K INEMATIC A NALYSIS : A LGORITHM
Step 3: Obtain the angular and linear velocities of centre of the platform:
If γ , β , α be a Z-Y-X Euler angle parametrization representing the orientation of
the platform, then
0
Ωpx = α̇ cos β cos γ − β̇ sin γ = f1 (ui , vi , ugi , vgi , ψi , u̇i , v̇i , u̇gi , v̇gi , ψ̇i )
0
Ωpy = α̇ cos β sin γ + β̇ cos γ = f2 (ui , vi , ugi , vgi , ψi , u̇i , v̇i , u̇gi , v̇gi , ψ̇i )
0
Ωpz = γ̇ − α̇ sin β = f3 (ui , vi , ugi , vgi , ψi , u̇i , v̇i , u̇gi , v̇gi , ψ̇i ), i = 1, 2, 3

If xc , yc , and zc denote the coordinates of the centre of the platform in {0}, the
linear velocity of the centre of the platform is

∆0
0
(Vpx , Vpy , Vpz )T = (x˙c , y˙c , z˙c )T =0 Vwi +0 (Ωpx , Ωpy , Ωpz )T ×0 pci

i = 1, 2, 3 denote three wheels, 0 pci locates the point of attachment of the wheel
to the platform from the centre of the platform, and 0 Vwi is the velocity of the
centre of the wheel.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 59 / 86
K INEMATIC A NALYSIS : A LGORITHM

Step 4: Form holonomic constraint equations:

Distance between the three points C1 , C2 , and C3 must remain constant for the
moving platform to be rigid.
Holonomic constraint are

∥0 pC1 −0 pC2 ∥2 2
= l12
∥0 pC2 −0 pC3 ∥2 2
= l23
∥0 pC3 −0 pC1 ∥2 2
= l31
0
pCi , i = 1, 2, 3 locate C1 , C2 , C3 , from the origin of {0} and lij is the distance
between centres of wheels i and j, respectively.
Holonomic constraints are same as spherical-spherical pair (S-S) joint constraint.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 60 / 86
K INEMATIC A NALYSIS : A LGORITHM
Solution of Direct Kinematics Problem:
Steps 1, 2 & 4: 15 ODEs, 3 algebraic equations in 21 variables.
18 Unknown variables – θ̇1 , θ̇2 and ϕ̇3 are given!
Differentiate holonomic constraints → Convert to a system of 18 ODEs.
Integrate using ODE solver with initial conditions.
Obtain position vector of centre and orientation of platform from 21 variables at
each t
Solution of Inverse Kinematics Problem:
Steps 1 to 4: 21 ODEs, 3 algebraic equations.
Assuming linear velocity of the platform x˙c , y˙c , angular velocity about vertical, γ̇ ,
are given → 24 unknowns.
Convert DAE’s to ODEs.
Integrate set of 24 ODEs and obtain required θ1 , θ2 and ϕ3 as function of t.
Initial conditions for the direct and inverse kinematics problems must satisfy the
holonomic and non-holonomic constraints.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 61 / 86
N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS
FOR DIRECT KINEMATICS

Geometry of the WMR

Length of the rear axle 1 m.
Distance of the centre of front wheel from middle of the rear axle 1 m.
Torus-shaped wheel: r1 = 0.05 m, r2 = 0.25 m.
WMR centre is at the centroid of the triangular platform.
Initial conditions: u1 = 1.5816, v1 = 32π , ug1 = 4.089 m, vg1 = 0.3917 m,
ψ1 = −3.1414, u2 = 1.5560, v2 = 32π , ug2 = 3.1 m, vg2 = 0.4 m, ψ2 = −3.1413,
u3 = 1.5735, v3 = 32π , ug3 = 3.5977 m, vg3 = 1.4097 m, ψ3 = −3.1404, θ3 = 0,
δ1 = 0, and δ2 = 0 — All angles in radians. Initial conditions satisfy constraints.
Actuator inputs: θ̇1 = −1 rad/sec, θ̇2 = −0.9 rad/sec, ϕ̇3 = 0.005t rad/sec.
Uneven surface same as used for single wheel dynamic simulation.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 62 / 86
 N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS
4.5
Wheel 3 Wheel Ground Contact Point 0.5
Wheel Center delta1
4 Center of Platform 0.45 delta2

3.5 0.4
Wheel 1
Wheel 2
3 0.35

δ1,δ2 (radians)
2.5 0.3

0.25
2
0.2
1.5
0.15
1
0.1

0.5
0.05

0 0
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time(sec)

F IGURE : Locus of wheel-ground contact

F IGURE : Variation of lateral tilt δ1 and δ2
point, wheel centre and platform centre
The locus of wheel centres not same as wheel-ground contact point – Uneven
terrain and lateral tilt!
Lateral tilt changes at different points of the uneven terrain.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 63 / 86
 N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS
cm
−7 −16
x 10 x 10
1.5

contact point (m/s)

10
Constraint 12

Slip velocity at
wheel−ground
Constraint 13
1 Constraint 23
0
0.5

0 −16 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 x 10 time (sec)
10

contact point (m/s)

Slip velocity at
wheel−ground
Constraint

−0.5

0
−1

−1.5 0 −16 2 4 6 8 10 12
x 10 time (sec)
10

contact point (m/s)

Slip velocity at
wheel−ground
−2

−2.5 0

−3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 time (sec)
time(sec)

F IGURE : Satisfaction of holonomic F IGURE : Slip velocities at wheel-ground

constraints contact points for three wheels
The holonomic constraints are satisfied up to 10−7 m
There is virtually no slip – WMR traverses uneven terrain without slip!!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 64 / 86
N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS

F IGURE : Video of direct kinematics of WMR

See video for a simulation of the three wheeled mobile robot on uneven terrain.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 65 / 86
N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS
FOR INVERSE KINEMATICS

Geometry of the WMR – Same as used in direct kinematics

Length of the rear axle 1 m.
Distance of the centre of front wheel from middle of the rear axle 1 m.
Torus-shaped wheel: r1 = 0.05 m, r2 = 0.25 m.
WMR centre is at the centroid of the triangular platform.
Initial conditions: u1 = 1.5801, v1 = 32π , ug1 = 3.9904 m, vg1 = 0.4895 m,
ψ1 = −3.1415, u2 = 1.5535, v2 = 32π , ug2 = 2 m, vg2 = 0.5 m, ψ2 = −3.1411,
u3 = 1.5808, v3 = 32π , ug3 = 3.4898 m, vg3 = 1.5702 m, ψ3 = −3.1414,
zc = 2.22 m, α = −0.0448, and β = −0.0498 — All angles in radians. Initial
conditions satisfy constraints.
Given inputs: ẋc = 0.03 m/sec, ẏc = 0.15 m/sec, and γ̇ = −0.005t rad/sec.
Uneven surface same as used for direct kinematics.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 66 / 86
 N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS
3.5
FOR INVERSE KINEMATICS
Wheel ground Contact point
Center of Platform 0.4
Variation of delta1 and delta2

Wheel Center delta1

3 delta2
0.35

2.5
0.3

2 0.25

δ1,δ2 (radians)
0.2
1.5

0.15
1
0.1

0.5
0.05

0
2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time(sec)

F IGURE : Locus of wheel-ground contact

point, wheel centre and platform centre F IGURE : Variation of lateral tilt δ1 and δ2
Due to uneven terrain, locus of wheel centres are not same as wheel-ground
contact point.
Lateral tilt changes at different points of uneven terrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 67 / 86
 N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS
FOR DIRECT KINEMATICS
−16
−7 x 10
10

contact point (m/s)

x 10
3

Slip velocity at
wheel−ground
Constraint 12
Constraint 13
Constraint 23 0
2

0 −16 2 4 6 8 10 12
x 10 time (sec)
10

contact point (m/s)

1

Slip velocity at
wheel−ground
Constraint

0 0

0 −16 2 4 6 8 10 12
x 10 time (sec)
10

contact point (m/s)

−1

Slip velocity at
wheel−ground
−2 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
−3 time (sec)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time(sec)

F IGURE : Slip velocities at wheel-ground contact

F IGURE : Satisfaction of holonomic constraints points for three wheels
The holonomic constraints are satisfied up to 10−7 m
There is virtually no slip – WMR traverses uneven terrain without
. . . . . . slip!!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 68 / 86
DYNAMIC A NALYSIS

Formulation of equation of motion for WMR using Lagrangian formulation.

Kinetic energy of wheels, platform and ‘links’ connecting actuated and passive
joints to platform.
Potential energy due to gravity.
15 contact variables at three wheel-ground contact points, 3 passive, 3
actuated and 6 variables for position and orientation of WMR platform →
Total 27 generalised coordinates.
Three actuating torques, two in rear wheel and for front wheel steering.
Need 24 independent constraint equations for the system to be well-posed –
Inverse kinematics equations!!
Derive equations of motion subjected to holonomic and non-holonomic
constraints.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 69 / 86
L AGRANGIAN FORMULATION
Total kinetic energy
KE = (KE )w1 + (KE )w2 + (KE )w3 + (KE )platform + (KE )actuators + (KE )links

Total potential energy

PE = (PE )w1 + (PE )w2 + (PE )w3 + (PE )platform + (PE )actuators + (PE )links

All kinetic energy and potential energy components can be found (see
Chakraborty & Ghosal, 2005).
Constraints equation from inverse kinematics: [Ψ]q̇ = 0 – [Ψ] is a 24 × 27
matrix.
Equations of motion from Lagrangian formulation

[M(q)]q̈ + [C(q, q̇)]q̇ + G(q) = τ + [Ψ(q)]T λ

[M(q)] is a 27 × 27 mass matrix, [C(q, q̇)]q̇, G(q) and τ are 27 × 1 vectors.

Only three elements of τ , corresponding to θ1 , θ2 , ϕ3 , are non-zero.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 70 / 86
L AGRANGIAN FORMULATION
λ is 24 × 1 vector of the Lagrange multipliers.
Solve for λ .
Finally obtain a set of 27 second-order ODEs – Obtained in symbolic form by
using Mathematica⃝ R
extensively!
With actuators locked and wheels tilted, WMR falls under own weight! –
Contrary to a normal parallel manipulator !!
Wheel-ground contact modeled as instantaneous 3 DOF joint – Not like a
spherical (S) joint.
Form closure not present → Additional terms modeling a torsion springs and a
damper (preventing falling under own weight with actuators locked) is added in
τ corresponding to lateral tilts

ksi δi + kdi δ̇i , (i = 1, 2)

ksi and kdi are spring constant and damping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 71 / 86
DYNAMIC A NALYSIS : A LGORITHM

Step 1: Generate the uneven terrain surface

Reconstruct the surface from elevation data.
Derivative of constraints are required → C 3 continuity required.
Fourth degree B-spline surface using MATLAB⃝ R
Spline Tool Box.
Step 2: Form equations of motion – 27 second-order ODEs.
Step 3: Obtain initial conditions
Initial conditions must satisfy no-slip and holonomic constraints.
3 actuated variables can be chosen arbitrarily.
Rest 24 obtained using inverse kinematics equations.
Step 4: Solve ODEs numerically – ODE solver in MATLAB⃝
R
used to obtain
evolution of all generalised coordinates.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 72 / 86
 N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS
C3 φ3 Top Platform
δ2
2.2

P δ1 2.1

C2 Center of 2
C1 Top Platform
θ2 θ3 θ1
1.9

1.8

G3 1.7
10
8

{0} G2 G1
6
8
10
4 6
2 4
O 3−DOF "Non−holonomic" Joint 0 0
2

F IGURE : Schematic of the 3 DOF WMR F IGURE : B-spline surface with C 3 continuity

Synthetic elevation data

Uneven terrain generated using MATLAB⃝
R
Spline Tool Box

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 73 / 86
N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS

Mass of platform = 10 kg, Mass of each wheel = 1 Kg.

Maximum allowable deflection of δi is π /4 under self-weight ⇒ ksi = 16.24
N-m/rad and kdi = 0.57 N-m-s/rad.
Initial conditions: u1 = 1.57, v1 = 32π , ug1 = 5.008 m, vg1 = 1.5067 m,
ψ1 = −3.142, u2 = 1.5648, v2 = 32π , ug2 = 4 m, vg2 = 1.5 m, ψ2 = −3.1418,
u3 = 1.5818, v3 = 32π , ug3 = 4.4897 m, vg3 = 2.483 m, ψ3 = −3.1419, θ1 = 0,
θ2 = 0, θ3 = 0, δ1 = 0, δ2 = 0, ϕ3 = 0, zc = 2.3088 m, α = −0.0127, and
β = 0.0133 – All angles in radians.
All the initial values of the first derivatives are chosen to be 0.
Inputs: τ1 = −0.35 N-m, τ2 = −0.5 N-m, and τ3 = −0.001t N-m.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 74 / 86
 N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS
10
Wheel−ground contact point
Center of wheel 0.08
9 Wheel 3 Center of platform
δ1
δ2
0.06
8

7 Wheel 2 Wheel 1 0.04

δ1,δ2 (radian)
6 0.02

5
0

4
−0.02
3

−0.04
2

1 −0.06
3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (sec)

F IGURE : Locus of wheel-ground contact

F IGURE : Variation of δ1 and δ2
point, wheel centre and platform centre

Uneven terrain – δ1 and δ2 varies automatically to avoid slip.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 75 / 86
 N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS RESULTS
−6
x 10 −7
8 x 10

contact point (m/s)

Constraint12 1
vx

Slip−velocity at
wheel−ground
Constraint13
vy
6 Constraint23
0
4
Error in holonomic constraints (m)

−1
0 −7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 x 10 time (sec)

contact point (m/s)

2
vx

Slip−velocity at
wheel−ground
0 vy
0
−2

−2
−4 0 −7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x 10 time (sec)
1

contact point (m/s)

Slip−velocity at
wheel−ground
−6
0

−8 −1
vx
vy
−2
−10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 time (sec)
time (sec)

F IGURE : Satisfaction of holonomic F IGURE : Slip velocities at wheel-ground

constraints in dynamics contact points for three wheels

All constraints are satisfied at least up to 10−7 m.

Three-wheeled mobile robot can traverses uneven terrain without slip!!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 76 / 86
S TABILITY A NALYSIS

Uneven terrain – Loss of vehicle stability due to tip-over or roll over.

Tip-over – Vehicle undergoes rotation resulting in reduction in number of
vehicle-ground contact points.
Mobility is lost and, if rotational motion is not arrested, vehicle overturns.
Need a ‘measure’ of stability to warn operator.
Placement of centre of mass, speed, acceleration, external forces/moments and
nature of terrain determine tip-over or stability.
Various measures of stability – Force-angle stability measure (Papadopoulos
and Rey, 1996) used.
Investigate stability of the earlier studied three-wheeled mobile robots with
torus-shaped wheels for different conditions.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 77 / 86
 F ORCE - ANGLE S TABILITY M EASURE
I2

pc θ2

Y
Centre of mass subjected to a net
I 1 θ1 force fr .
X
fr makes angle θ1 and θ2 with
tip-over axis normals I1 and I2 .
p
1 Force-angle stability measure
fr ξ = min{θ1 , θ2 }||fr ||

F IGURE : Planar force-angle stability measure

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 78 / 86
 F ORCE - ANGLE S TABILITY M EASURE
FOR WMR
Wheel 2 Wheel-ground contact points
nr pi , = (ugi , vgi , zi )T , i = 1, 2, 3 known.
Centre
of I2 Location of centre of mass pc = (xc , yc , zc )T
Mass θ2 known in {0}.
p p2 f2*
c
Z fr a2 Line joining wheel-ground contact points
a1 ai , i = 1, 2, 3 are tip-over axis.
{0} p3
Wheel 3
Component of net resultant force is f2∗ for tip-over
p1
Y a3 axis a2 (see next slide).
Wheel 1
X
Angle θ2 for tip-over axis a2 .
Likewise find θ1 for a1 and θ3 for a3 .
F IGURE : Force-angle stability measure
for WMR If any θi = 0, WMR can tip-over ai .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 79 / 86
F ORCE - ANGLE S TABILITY M EASURE
FOR WMR

Net resultant force at centre of mass: fr = fgravity + fdist − finertial

Force due to fgravity and inertial finertial obtained from dynamic simulation.
frmdist – External disturbance.
Net resultant moment at centre of mass: nr = ngravity + ndist − ninertial
Interested in component fi and ni about tip-over axis ai .
Combine fi and ni to get a net resultant force
Ii × ni
fi∗ = fi + , Ii is the tip-over axis normal.
|Ii |
Angle for stability measure, θi , angle between fi∗ and unit vector along Ii . Sign
of θi determines if the net resultant force in inside the support polygon or not.
Overall force-angle stability measure: ξi = min{θ1 , θ2 , θ3 } ||fr ||
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 80 / 86
N UMERICAL S IMULATION R ESULTS

Geometry, mass and inertial parameters same as in dynamic analysis

Mass of platform = 10 kg and Mass of each wheel = 1 kg.
Spring constant = 16.24 Nm/rad and damping = 0.57 Nms/rad.
Various terrains: Curved path on flat terrain, two rear wheels on two different
planes and uneven terrains.
For each chosen paths and/or input torques, compute at every instant of time t
Net resultant force fr at centre of mass.
Net resultant moment nr at centre of mass.
Compute tip-over axis ai and normal Ii for i = 1, 2, 3
Compute fi∗
Compute force-angle stability measure ξi .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 81 / 86
N UMERICAL S IMULATION R ESULTS
– F LAT PLANE

F IGURE : Curve path on a plane F IGURE : Stability margin for curve path on a plane

Actuator torques (N-m): τ1 = −0.5, τ2 = −0.75, τ3 = −0.004t.

As the WMR turns, stability margin reduces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 82 / 86
 N UMERICAL S IMULATION R ESULTS
– I NCLINED P LANE
1.5
stability margin − 2
slip at wheel−1, wheel−2, wheel−3
1 − wheel 1 Holonomic constraints
2 − wheel 2
3 − wheel 3
3 1

2.8

2.6 3
2.4 0.5
Z in meters

2.2 1
2

1.8 2 0
10
10
8
5 6
Y in meters 4
2 −0.5
0 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
X in meters
Time in seconds

F IGURE : Path traced by WMR on incline plane F IGURE : Stability margin for path on an inclined plane
Input torques (N-m): τ1 = −2.4, τ2 = −4, τ3 = −0.08t.
Initially least stability about axis 2 – As the WMR turns, tip-over starts shifting
from axis 2 to axis 1 → Stability increases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 83 / 86
 N UMERICAL S IMULATION R ESULTS
– U NEVEN T ERRAIN 3.5
Stability margin − 1
1 − Wheel 1 Stability margin − 2
2 − Wheel 2
3 − Wheel 3
Z 1 in meters
3
Z 2 in meters
Z 3 in meters

2.5

3 10 2
3
1 8
Z in meters

2.5
6 1.5

2 2 X in meters
4

1.5 1
10 2
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0
1 0
Y in meters 0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time in seconds

F IGURE : WMR climbing obstacle on a straight path F IGURE : Stability margin along straight path
Input torques (N-m): τ1 = −4, τ2 = −4.0, τ3 = −0.0.
WMR is able to negotiate obstacle on uneven terrain without tip-over.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 84 / 86
 N UMERICAL S IMULATION R ESULTS
– U NEVEN T ERRAIN 2.5

1 − wheel 1
2 − wheel 2
3 2
3 − wheel 3
4 − unstable
2.5
Zc in meters

1.5

3 1
1.5
10
2 4 4
8 1 4 0.5

6
0
Yc in meters
4
Stability margin 2
−0.5
2
10
Stability margin 1
8 9
5 6 7 Z 3 in meters
4
0
1 2 3 Slip v1x in m/s
0
Xc in meters −1
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5

Position of front wheel (v3g) in meters

F IGURE : Path traced by WMR on an uneven terrain

F IGURE : Stability margin on uneven terrain
Input torques (N-m): τ1 = −4, τ2 = −4.0, τ3 = −0.0.
ξ reduces while climbing second peak, tip-over occurs about axis 1.
Simulation strictly not valid after the vertical line – Wheel slip increases to
more than 10−3 m! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
.

A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 85 / 86
S UMMARY

A three-wheeled mobile robot with torus-shaped wheels.

Rear wheels with passive lateral tilting capability.
Modeled as an instantaneous parallel robot with 3 DOF.
Solution of direct and inverse kinematics by integration.
Dynamic modeling and simulation.
Simulation show the capability of traversing uneven terrain without slip.
Use of force-angle stability measure for tip-over stability.
Tip-over stability studied for three-wheeled mobile robot for various terrains.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A SHITAVA G HOSAL (IIS C ) ROBOTICS : BASICS AND A DVANCED C ONCEPTS NPTEL, 2020 86 / 86
Suggested Additional Reading – Week - 11
Numerous books and papers on modeling and control of mobile robots. This is very small sample.
• R. R. Allen and R. C. O’Massey 1981, “Longitudional instability in braked landing gear”,
Trans. of ASME, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, Vol. 103, pp.
259-265.

• J. C. Alexander and J. H. Maddocks 1989, “On the kinematics of wheeled mobile robots”,
The International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 8, pp. 15-27.

• C. L. Bajaj, F. Bernardini and G. Xu 1995, “Automatic reconstruction of surfaces and scalar

fields from 3D scans”, SIGGRAPH ’95 Proceedings, pp. 109-118.

• R. Balakrishna and A. Ghosal 1995, “Modeling of slip for wheeled mobile robots”, IEEE
Trans. on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 11, pp. 126-132.

• F. D. Boyden and A. V. Steven 1994, “Dynamic modeling of wheeled mobile robots for high
load application”, Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Intelligent Robots and System, pp 3071-3078.

• N. Chakraborty and A. Ghosal 2004, “Kinematics of wheeled mobile robots on uneven ter-
rain”, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 39, pp. 1273-1287.

• N. Chakraborty and A. Ghosal 2005, “Dynamic modeling and simulation of a wheeled mobile
robot for traversing uneven terrain without slip”, Trans. of ASME, Journal of Mechanical
Design, Vol. 127, pp. 901-909.

• C. Chang and T. Lee 1990, “Stability analysis of three and four-wheeled vehicles”, JSME
International Journal, Series III, Vol. 33, pp. 567-574.

• B. J. Choi and S. V. Sreenivasan 1999, “Gross motion characteristics of articulated robots

with pure rolling capability on smooth uneven surfaces”, IEEE Trans. on Robotics and
Automation, Vol. 15, pp. 340-343.

• B. J. Choi, S. V. Sreenivasan, and P. W. Davis 1999, “Two wheels connected by an un-actuated

variable length axle on uneven ground: kinematic modeling and experiments”, Trans. of
ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 121, pp. 235-240.

• J. K. Davidson and G. Schweitzer G. 1990, “A mechanical based computer algorithm for

displaying the margin of static stability in four-legged vehicles”, Trans. of ASME, Journal
of Mechanical Design, Vol. 112, pp 480-487.

• H. Dugoff, P. S. Fancher and L. Segel, 1970, “An analysis of tire traction properties and their
influence on vehicle dynamic performance”, SAE Transactions, Paper No. 700377.

• A. Ghasempoor and N. Sepehri 1995, “A measure of machine stability for moving base ma-
nipulators”, Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 2249-2254.

• R. B. McGhee and G. I. Iswandhi 1979, “Adaptive locomotion of a multi-legged robot over

rough terrain”, IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-9, pp. 76-82.

• D. A. Messuri and C. A. Klein 1985, “Automatic body regulation for maintaining stability of
legged vehicles during rough terrain locomotion”, IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation,
Vol. RA-1, pp. 132-141.

1
• D. J. Montana 1988, “The kinematics of contact and grasp”, The International Journal of
Robotics Research, Vol. 7, pp. 17-32.

• M. E. Mortenson 1985, Geometric Modeling, John Wiley & Sons.

• P. F. Muir and C. P. Newman 1987, “Kinematic modeling of wheeled mobile robots”, Journal
of Robotic Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 281-329.

• E. G. Papadopoulous and D. A. Rey 1996, “A new measure of tip-over stability marging for
mobile manipulators” Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3111-3116.

• S. V. Sreenivasan and B. H. Wilcox 1994, “Stability and traction control of an actively

actuated micro-rover”, Journal of Robotic Systems, Vol. 11, pp. 487-502.

• H. Tan and Y. Chin 1991, “Vehicle traction control: variable structure control approach”,
Trans. of ASME, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, Vol. 113, pp.
223-230.

• K. J. Waldron 1995, “Terrain adaptive vehicles”, Trans. of ASME, Journal of Mechanical

Design, Vol. 117B, pp. 107-112.