Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283593923
CITATIONS READS
2 300
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Mathew Schwartz on 28 February 2017.
I. INTRODUCTION
A well designed object simultaneously takes into account
the aesthetics, functionality, durability, and usability. In
robotic design, this means a design should account for visual
meaning (aesthetics), the goal of the robot (functionality),
how long it will last (durability), and how researchers will
interact with the robot (usability). The robot presented in Fig. 1. DYROS (DYnamic RObotic System) Humanoid Leg Robot.
this paper is the result of these aspects considered together
(Fig. 1).
There are many reasons for good aesthetic design within can be easily quantified, however, it remains difficult to
the humanoids field. The most beneficial is within social quantify the human perception of how well the robot moves.
robots in which the appearance of the robot directly affects In this aspect, the qualitative performance of a humanoids’
a humans’ perception of its capability. In addition to the walking style can be closely related to the research of social
social aspect, both compliant motion and visual cues of the robotics. How much a humanoid looks like a human while
robots’ function are critical for safety when humans and walking can depend on the aesthetic design of the legs.
robots coexist. In research of humanoid movement, at a In the field of design, it is known that by just changing
minimum, robotic design must provide functionality of the the aesthetic of an object, the perceived usability will change
structure and usability in the way of accessing vital parts [1]. Paolo Dario suggests in the field of personal robotics that
easily. The weight and durability of the robot are difficult the performance of a robot can be evaluated in the same way
to balance and require thorough planning in regards to as a home appliance [2]. As industrial robots have been de-
material and electronic selection, assembly, and proportion. signed largely for manufacturing facilities and with minimum
As components wear or must be modified, the ability to thought of integration with humans, the knowledge gained
quickly access vital electronics is necessary. in these areas about design cannot be directly transferred
Aesthetics have an important role within the field of [3]. In addition, [4] suggests the social robots which look
motion control. Challenges such as speed and diverse terrain mechanical are not designed as a commercial product and
instead are designed for research. It is important to note that
*This work was supported by the Advanced Institutes of Convergence there may not be one specific design that succeeds above
Technology(Grant AICT-2012-P3-21)
1 Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, Seoul National Uni- all in every category. As found in [5], the overall quality
versity, Republic of Korea umcadop@gmail.com of aesthetic design is more important than the closeness
2 Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul
to anthropomorphic appearance. Similarly, [6] has found a
National University, Republic of Korea. Jaeheung Park is the corresponding
author. {jbs4104,howcan11,js1der,ggory15,park73} difference in the acceptance of a robots’ design based on the
@snu.ac.kr task the robot is performing.
14
C. Electronics ATI DAQ MINI85 FT sensors located above the foot and
As a starting point for motor selection we based our below the ankle motor. An IMU 3DM-GX3-25 is located in
simulation robot on MAHRU [18]. The robot was simulated the upper housing with the computer.
in the physics based simulation software RoboticsLab [19]. D. Design Concept
Contact consistent whole-body control framework was used
After simulation to find the required motors, a simplis-
for the robot control in the simulation [20]. The simulated
tic box model was created with the proper placements
robot weight was 71.295 kg: 40.245kg for the lower body
of the motors. A common method for humanoid design
and 30.05kg for the upper body.
is in maintaining this relatively box-like shape and using
Both squat motion and walking motion were simulated.
lightweight plastic casings to create the desired aesthetic.
The squat motion was controlled up to a 141 degree bend of
DYROS Humanoid was designed to integrate the frame and
the knee joint. Squatting time was simulated at 1 second.
the design. The exclusion of coverings and an open frame
Table I shows the results of the squat simulation. The
design allow for more airflow in cooling the electronics.
TABLE I A combination of curved cylinders and plates are used to
S QUAT M OTION S IMULATION R ESULTS create a unique aesthetic while informing the observer of
the intended human-like movement. Structural front plates
Peak torque Peak velocity RMS torque RMS velocity act as a design component as well as a secondary heatsink.
Joint
(Nm) (rad/sec) (Nm) (rad/sec)
1 0 0 0 0
Through time invested in the multi-dimensional parts, both
2 0 0 0 0 the aesthetic and structural components can be unified.
3 27.030 2.594 11.205 0.832 Additionally, the assembly time, complexity of the robot,
4 182.816 4.916 85.094 2.491 and maintenance difficulty are reduced.
5 24.027 3.286 10.053 1.135
6 0 0 0 0
15
TABLE III
J OINT AND M OTOR S PECIFICATIONS
Joint Hip Yaw (1) Hip Roll (2) Hip Pitch (3) Knee Pitch (4) Ankle Pitch (5) Ankle Roll (6)
Max Cont. Output Power (W) 300 364 427 427 427 209
Reduction Ratio 50 50 50 50 50 50
Cont. Torque after reduction(Nm) 42.8 61.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 21.45
Peak Torque after reduction(Nm) 152.0 231.0 307.5 307.5 307.5 76.5
Speed @ 48V after reduction(rad/sec) 7.92 5.24 6.13 6.13 6.13 15.73
Fig. 4. Left: The first design iteration with two rotations showing an intersection of the link connections. Right: The revised design with a larger range
of motion.
the design and the modification. The second design iteration reduced. Table IV shows the second iteration was stronger,
unified the connection of the cylinders to evenly distribute more aesthetically consistent, and decreased in weight.
loads and strengthened weak areas. The second design with
a 30kg load showed a 5.7015MPa stress and the 150kg load
gave a 16.618MPa stress. The final safety factor is 30.268,
above any future estimates.
G. Manufacturing
TABLE IV
L INK W EIGHTS B EFORE AND A FTER D ESIGN I TERATION Many approaches to manufacturing humanoids in regards
to both material and process have been used. While [9] and
Part 1st Design 2nd Design [10] use almost entirely two-dimensional manufacturing pro-
Upper Link Plate 583.7(g) 402.46(g) cesses, others such as [11] uses a combination of CAD/CAM
Upper Link Cylinder 516.78(g) 767.82(g)
Lower Link Plate 670.32(g) 515.22(g) techniques to create molds and plastic parts. [8] uses A2017
Lower Link Cylinder 411.97(g) 410.15(g) for the frame and [21] uses casting to create magnesium alloy
Total: 2182.77(g) 2095.65(g) links. Due to our designs’ free form shape, either multi-axis
machining or various casting methods were required, such
as the investment casting done in [22]. However, the general
rule of investment casting tolerance starting at +/- 0.010”
F. Design Iteration
for a part dimension of 1” without secondary operations
The links were given constraints in SolidWorks to view [23] is outside the required tolerance for this application.
the range of motion. While the initial design of the structure For the links, a heat treated aluminum alloy (AL7075) was
provided the desired range of motion on each individual used with multi-axis machining to 0.002” tolerance. The
axis, a rotation on more than one axis at the same time final parts were anodized for aesthetics and durability. Two
showed interference by the link connections. The range of designs were manufactured for the foot, one with a curve
motion was extended by modifying some connections to the that can allow the robot to walk in a heel-toe manner, and
motors (Fig. 4). In line with the stress analysis, some parts one that is flat for initial stages of research. The curved foot
were modified for their aesthetics as well as structure. The was machined out of stainless steel for strength under the
cylinders on the upper link were thickened from 18mm to load of the robot while the flat foot was machined with the
22mm to provide a stronger and more balanced visual weight same AL7075 as the links. The upper body was designed to
to the solid front plate. The upper link plate was then reduced temporarily hold electronic components with the intention of
from 10.71mm to 7.99mm thick. The lower link cylinders replacing it in the future. For parts with text written, a water
remained almost the same, while the front plate was also jet cutter was used.
16
Fig. 7. Two bolts are needed to detach the sidebar and easily change
electronics or fix broken wires.
on the upper link and the larger protrusion of the upper plate
create a similar aesthetic to human proportions. Fig. 5 shows
Fig. 5. Side and front view of the robot design with red highlights showing the visual tangents in red, as well as the curvature of the robot
the tangent line of the front plate and cylinder to the motor connections and in different views.
blue line showing the protrusion of the upper link vs. lower link.
Through 3D design programs multiple color combinations
were visualized before anodizing the final parts (Fig. 6). The
two toned colors, black and red, were selected to create focal
points on the elements of most interest such as the curved
plates and rear cylinders. The color combination creates a
unified look of these separate pieces. The black coloring was
applied to the motor casings to detract from their size. In
a practical manner, the brighter red color on the links is
important for the visual understanding of how the links are
moving through space during gait.
B. Parts
Motors of the joints are encased in units directly attached
to the frame by screws. The complex parts minimized
connections required in assembling the legs. The upper link
structure is made up of 8 pieces and 27 screws, while the
bottom consists of 10 pieces and 32 screws. Additional
Fig. 6. Visualization of color combinations for the robot. screws are used in the connection of the structure to the
motors and encoder casings.
The total weight of the robot with the flat aluminum foot
III. RESULT is currently 54.635kg. However, 15.84kg is the temporary
upper body. The lower body is 38.795kg, slightly under the
A. Overview estimated 40kg used in the motor selection and simulation.
The final design of the robot consisted of smooth con- Of this weight, 26.112kg are the structural components while
nections both physically and visually. The flat mounting the rest is made up of screws and electronics, such as the
plates that connect the links directly to the motor follow the motor, making the integrated frame and design 67% of the
tangential lines created by the curve of the front plate and lower leg weight. The stainless steel feet are 1.555 kg while
rear cylinders. From both the front and perspective view, the the flat version in aluminum is 0.318 kg.
frame creates a fully three dimensional shape. The robot leg
takes design influence from the human as the thigh muscle C. Accessibility
in a human is larger than the calf. In this robot, however, the An important feature of the design is the easily accessible
direct connections of the motors prevent the actual structure motor drivers as the electronics and wires are likely to
from achieving the same proportions. For example, the two degrade over time. The side bar is held in place by two
motors directly connected at the ankle joint make the ankle screws as seen in Fig. 7. The removal of these two screws
larger than the knee. While the three planar joints on the side provides easy access to the motor drivers for the link.
view are equal in size, a combination of the thicker cylinder Additionally, the use of multi-axis machining allowed for
17
interference as well as the adjacent leg.
TABLE V
J OINT L IMITATIONS OF S TRUCTURE AND ACTUAL
E. Experiments
The back-drivability and compliant motion are demon-
Fig. 8. Schematic of upper link. The connection for the heatsink is part
of the front plate. Three bolts hold the heatsink and electronics in place.
strated by the experiment of gravity compensation. The robot
stands on the right foot compensating for its own weight in
Fig. 10 (a).
Fig. 9. Top: Flat foot for early research annotated with bolts, f/t sensor, and
steel plate. Bottom: Curved design for future research annotated with side
holes for mounting a plate. Right: Top view of curved foot design showing
8 holes for quick changing of foot design. (a) (b) (c)
Fig. 10. Snapshot of the experiment.
the design to integrate the mounting bar for the heatsink. Then, a person held the left foot and moved it to a certain
This bar reduced the number of extra brackets required to position approximately at 1 second and then moved it back
secure the electronics. Both the thigh and shin have three to the original position approximately at 7.5 seconds as
holes in which the electronic assembly is easily attached and shown in Fig. 10 (b) and (c). During the experiment, another
detached (Fig. 8). By optimizing the connections, the entire person held the body of the robot as there was no balancing
front panel is able to act as a secondary heatsink for the controller, only gravity compensation. Fig. 11 shows the
electronics. plots of data during the experiment. The values of x, y,
The foot is attached to a steel plate that separates the foot z represent the position of the left foot and the measured
and the FT sensor. By removing the 6 bolts, the foot is easily force in Cartesian coordinates are denoted by Fx, Fy, and
switched. As the curved foot is designed for heel-toe rolling Fz, respectively. The x, y and z directions correspond to
in the future, two threaded holes are available for mounting the Ventral, Lateral, and Cranial directions of the robot. The
a flat plate to aid in stability at early stages of research. force sensors are used only to measure how much forces are
Fig. 9 shows the two designs and the configuration of the applied during the movement by the person. It was not used
FT sensor, foot, and steel plate. for force control.
From the experimental data in Fig. 11, it can be noted
D. Range of Motion that the required force to move the foot was from 10 to 40
The range of motion desired was that of a normal human. N. These values are related to static friction of the joints.
In the physical robot, the limiting factors for much of the As soon as the robot started to move, the joints were back-
range of motion is in the wiring and interference with the drivable and compliant to the movement of the person so that
adjacent leg. Table V shows the structural range of motion the person could move the left foot as desired. This result
as measured through computer modeling programs and the demonstrates the performance of compliant motion during
actual range of motion after assembly accounting for wire gravity compensation without using joint torque sensors.
18
60 0.3 [4] F. Hegel, “Effects of a robot’s aesthetic design on the attribution of
Fx measured (N)
40 0.2 social capabilities,” in RO-MAN, 2012 IEEE. IEEE, 2012, pp. 469–
20 0.1
475.
x (m)
[5] D. Hanson, “Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots,” in
0 0
Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium: Toward social
−20 −0.1 mechanisms of android science. Citeseer, 2006, pp. 39–42.
−40 −0.2 [6] J. Goetz, S. Kiesler, and A. Powers, “Matching robot appearance and
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation,” in Robot and
(a) Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003.
50 The 12th IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 2003, pp. 55–60.
0.2
30 [7] K. Hirai, “The honda humanoid robot: development and future per-
Fy measured (N)
0.1
10 spective,” Industrial Robot: An International Journal, vol. 26, no. 4,
y (m)
0 pp. 260–266, 1999.
−10
−0.1 [8] S. Shirata, A. Konno, and M. Uchiyama, “Design and development of
−30 a light-weight biped humanoid robot Saika-4,” in Intelligent Robots
−50 and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ Inter-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(b) national Conference on, vol. 1. IEEE, 2004, pp. 148–153.
[9] I.-W. Park, J.-Y. Kim, S.-W. Park, and J.-H. Oh, “Development of hu-
60 0.3
manoid robot platform khr-2 (kaist humanoid robot 2),” International
40 0.2 Journal of Humanoid Robotics, vol. 2, no. 04, pp. 519–536, 2005.
Fz measured (N)
20 0.1 [10] I.-W. Park, J.-Y. Kim, J. Lee, and J.-H. Oh, “Mechanical design of
z (m)
humanoid robot platform KHR-3 (KAIST humanoid robot 3: HUBO),”
0 0
in Humanoid Robots, 2005 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference
−20 −0.1 on. IEEE, 2005, pp. 321–326.
−40 −0.2 [11] K. Park, Y. Kim, C. Kim, and H. Park, “Integrated application of
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
time(sec) CAD/CAM/CAE and RP for rapid development of a humanoid biped
(c) robot,” Journal of materials processing technology, vol. 187, pp. 609–
613, 2007.
Fig. 11. Experimental data showing the force and foot location of the [12] C. Ott, C. Baumgartner, J. Mayr, M. Fuchs, R. Burger, D. Lee,
motors during gravity compensation. O. Eiberger, A. Albu-Schaffer, M. Grebenstein, and G. Hirzinger,
“Development of a biped robot with torque controlled joints,” in
Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International
Conference on. IEEE, 2010, pp. 167–173.
IV. CONCLUSION [13] D. Gouaillier, V. Hugel, P. Blazevic, C. Kilner, J. Monceaux, P. Lafour-
cade, B. Marnier, J. Serre, and B. Maisonnier, “Mechatronic design of
This paper presented a new humanoid design that utilized NAO humanoid,” in Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA’09. IEEE
multi-axis machining to create an easily accessible robot International Conference on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 769–774.
with an integrated design and frame. The robot is built with [14] G. Nelson, A. Saunders, N. Neville, B. Swilling, J. Bondaryk,
D. Billings, C. Lee, R. Playter, and M. Raibert, “Petman: A humanoid
motors directly connected to the joint with a low gear ratio. robot for testing chemical protective clothing,” Journal of the Robotics
This configuration allows for compliant motion and good Society of Japan, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 372–377, 2012.
back-drivability without using joint torque sensors. These are [15] B. J. Stephens and C. G. Atkeson, “Dynamic balance force control
for compliant humanoid robots,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems
demonstrated by the experimental results of gravity compen- (IROS), 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 2010,
sation. More complex multi-contact compliant motions are to pp. 1248–1255.
be implemented in the future. [16] N. G. Tsagarakis, Z. Li, J. Saglia, and D. G. Caldwell, “The design of
the lower body of the compliant humanoid robot cCub,” in Robotics
The current design is for indoor robotics research focusing and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on.
on control. However, with the current research into materials IEEE, 2011, pp. 2035–2040.
and nano properties, we imagine a time when the open [17] “Size Korea,” http:/sizekorea.kats.go.kr, 2014, [Online; accessed July-
2014].
frame can still be applicable by combining hydrophobic [18] W. Kwon, H. K. Kim, J. K. Park, C. H. Roh, J. Lee, J. Park, W.-K.
treatments to the electronics and breathable fabric over the Kim, and K. Roh, “Biped humanoid robot Mahru III,” in Humanoid
links to protect from water and dust. With the curvature of Robots, 2007 7th IEEE-RAS International Conference on. IEEE,
2007, pp. 583–588.
the frame, such an application would maintain the free-form [19] “Robotics Lab,” http://www.rlab.co.kr, 2014, [Online; accessed July-
aesthetic created in this robot. While this paper presents the 2014].
lower body of a humanoid, the upper body is planned to be [20] J. Park and O. Khatib, “Contact consistent control framework for
humanoid robots,” in Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006.
developed as well. Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2006,
pp. 1963–1969.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [21] K. Kaneko, S. Kajita, F. Kanehiro, K. Yokoi, K. Fujiwara,
H. Hirukawa, T. Kawasaki, M. Hirata, and T. Isozumi, “Design of
The authors acknowledge U3 Robotics for their assistance advanced leg module for humanoid robotics project of METI,” in
in manufacturing and electronics. Robotics and Automation, 2002. Proceedings. ICRA’02. IEEE Inter-
national Conference on, vol. 1. IEEE, 2002, pp. 38–45.
R EFERENCES [22] S. Lohmeier, T. Buschmann, and H. Ulbrich, “Humanoid robot
LOLA,” in Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA’09. IEEE Interna-
[1] A. Monk and K. Lelos, “Changing only the aesthetic features of a tional Conference on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 775–780.
product can affect its apparent usability,” in Home Informatics and [23] H. T. Bidwell, Ed., The Investment Casting Handbook. Investment
Telematics: ICT for The Next Billion. Springer, 2007, pp. 221–233. Casting Institute, 1997.
[2] P. Dario, E. Guglielmelli, and C. Laschi, “Humanoids and personal
robots: Design and experiments,” Journal of robotic systems, vol. 18,
no. 12, pp. 673–690, 2001.
[3] A. Albers, S. Brudniok, J. Ottnad, C. Sauter, and K. Sedchaicharn,
Design of modules and components for humanoid robots. na, 2007.
19