The ATRON Self-reconfigurable Robot challenges and future directions Kasper Støy Adap. Tronics Group The Maersk Institute for Production Technology University of Southern Denmark www. hydra-robot. dk
ATRON Terrestrial Self-Reconfiguration Henrik H. Lund, Esben H. Ostergaard Richard Beck, Lars Dalsgaard, Morten W. Jorgensen Associated: Kristian Kassow, Leonid Paramonov, Kasper Støy, David Christensen, David Brandt, Danny Kyrping Maersk Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
Self-reconfigurable robots
ATRON Concept § Key insight: 3 D self-reconfiguration can be achieved even-though each module only has one rotational degree of freedom
Mechanics : Prototype 0 Concept: Using arms for alignment and screw to connect Produced in 3 D printer
Mechanics : Prototype 1 A § Connector Concept § Two arms parallel to equator § Test of connector § Too weak
Mechanics : Prototype 1 B § Connector Concept § Trippel Hooks § Dual bars § Test of connector § Prototype broke
Mechanics : Final Prototype § Improved main bearing § Improved connectormechanism
Electronics § Two hemispheres § Two sets of main processors § Connector actuation § Hemispheres connected by slipring § One power management processor § Sensors
Electronics : Power Supply § § Manages recharging Shares power Selects best power source Monitors the organism power supply § Regulates power § 600 batteries sponsored by Danionics
Current Mechanics
Final Module Design
IROS 2004 - Demonstration videos § Misalignment correction § Double rotation § Power sharing
Concept Demonstations § David Christensen § Meta module demo (ATRON Demo 1) § Jakob Stampe Mikkelsen § Walker
Explored control concepts § Local control § Local rules (Esben H. Østergaard) § Gradients and scaffolds (Kasper Støy) § Meta modules (David Christensen) § Centralized control § Planning (David Brandt)
Gradients and scaffold
Local Rules Esben Østergaard
Meta modules David Christensen
Conclusion § Control achievements § Control is difficult, but experience gained § ATRON Achievements § Innovative connector design § Innovative lattice structure resulting in § Simplified modules § Easier control…
Intermezzo Queen of Denmark admires ATRON module together with the Japanese emperor
The Cruel Reality of Self. Reconfigurable Robots Kasper Støy Adap. Tronics Group The Maersk Institute for Production Technology University of Southern Denmark
Vision of self-reconfigurable robots § Robust § Versatile § Cheap
The Reality of Self. Reconfigurable Robots § Fragile § Useless § Expensive
Robust vs Fragile § Robustness comes from redundancy § If a module fails it can be ejected and other modules can take over § Graceful degradation of performance USC’s ISI
Robust vs Fragile § Difficult to detect if a module has failed § Due to motion constraints it is difficult to eject the failed module § Due to weakness of modules it may not be possible to eject the failed module at all
Versatile vs Useless § A self-reconfigurable robot can change into any shape needed for the task
Versatile vs useless § In practice motion constraints make it difficult to change shape
Versatile vs useless § In practice motion constraints make it difficult to change shape
Versatile vs useless Start Goal David Brandt
Versatile vs useless § Too weak to interact with the world § The ATRON and the MTRAN robots can only lift in the order of a few modules
Cheap vs Expensive § ATRON $2000 § MTRAN $3500 § ….
The Reality of Self. Reconfigurable Robots § Fragile! § Useless! § Expensive!
Challenges of self-reconfigurable robots § How do we § Make robot strength greater than O(1)? § Reduce motion constraints to facilitate easy self-reconfiguration? § Reduce the consequences of module failure? § Reduce module complexity (cost)? …while maintaining our successful results
Make robot strength greater than O(1)? § Use module weight to gain leverage (seesaw) § Crystalline/Telec ube parallel chains § ….
Reduce module complexity (cost)? § ATRON is a step forward, but further - no idea… Reduce the consequences of module failure? • No idea
Reduce motion constraints to facilitate easy self-reconfiguration? § Metamodules § Scaffold § Telecube
Hypothesis § The challenges cannot only be addressed at the level of control § The challenges have to be addressed by new innovative hardware design
Challenges of self-reconfigurable robots § How do we design the module to § Make robot strength greater than O(1)? § Reduce motion constraints to facilitate easy self-reconfiguration? § Reduce the consequences of module failure? § Reduce module complexity (cost)? …while maintaining our successful results
Deformable Modular Robots § All modules are permanently connected in a lattice § Modules can only contract or expand (limited but flexible crystalline module)
Concept Demonstration § Physical implementation § Deformatron § Hexatron § Simulation
Deformable Modular Robots § Make robot strength greater than O(1)? § Through parallelisms § Reduce motion constraints to facilitate easy self-reconfiguration? § Done § Reduce the consequences of module failure? § Done § Reduce module complexity (cost)? § No connectors …while maintaining our successful results § Shape change within limits § No self-replicating robot
Conclusion § Self-reconfigurable robots are facing serious challenges § Increase strength, reduce motion constraints, increase fault tolerance, reduce complexity (price) § Radical new hardware designs needed § Deformable modular robots may be able to sidestep the hardest problems, but at a cost
Скачать презентацию The ATRON Self-reconfigurable Robot challenges and future directions
58bf13cca5f8f87b367b19a0c108d964.ppt