4th IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering
Key Bridge Marriott, Washington DC, USA
August 23-26, 2008
Track-stair and Vehicle-manipulator Interaction Analysis
for Tracked Mobile Manipulators Climbing Stairs
Yugang Liu and Guangjun Liu∗ , Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract— This paper analyzes interactions between the
tracks and the stairs, as well as those between the tracked
mobile robot and the onboard manipulator for tracked mobile
manipulators (TMMs) climbing stairs. Combining a tracked
mobile robot, which has the ability to climb stairs, with an
onboard manipulator, a TMM extends the workspace and
scope of applications of the robot dramatically. However, this
combination gives rise to complex track-stair and vehicle-
manipulator interactions, because the configuration of the
onboard manipulator affects load distribution, which will
further influence the track-stair interactive forces. Unlike the
wheeled mobile robots, which are normally assumed to obey the
nonholonomic constraints, slippage is unavoidable for a tracked
mobile robot, especially when climbing stairs. The track-stair
interactive forces are complicated, which may take the forms
of grouser-tread hooking force, track-stair edge frictional force,
grouser-riser clutching force, and even their compositions. In
this paper, the track-stair and vehicle-manipulator interactions
are analyzed systematically, which are essential for tip-over
prediction and prevention, as well as for automatic control
of TMMs in autonomous and semi-autonomous stair-climbing.
Simulations for a TMM being developed in our laboratory have
demonstrated the usefulness of the presented analysis results.
I. INTRODUCTION
Tracked vehicles have attracted attentions from numerous
researchers in recent years since they provide better floatation
and traction than wheeled ones [1], and this characteristic
brings them substantial application potentials in explosive
ordnance disposing, searching, rescuing, mining, logging,
farming, earth moving and planetary exporting among others.
Traditionally, most tracked vehicles are designed to be bulky
and heavy to suit for field operations on natural terrain, and
they are normally insusceptible to tipping-over. Nowadays,
many lightweight tracked mobile robots are developed for
artificial environments, such as stairways [2]–[8].
In related research works, an autonomous stair-climbing
algorithm is developed for a linkage mechanism actuator
(LMA) tracked mobile robot, and the relevant technical
problems are identified and analyzed [2]. The stair-climbing
process is divided into three steps in terms of riser climbing,
riser crossing and nose-line climbing [3]. The tumbling
of a tracked mobile robot is attributed to the drift of
heading angles, and a feedback system is developed for
automatic heading control to stabilize stair climbing [5].
An autonomous stair climbing algorithm is presented by
introducing extended Kalman filters to estimate the rotational
This work is supported in part by the Canada Research Chair Program and
in part by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
The authors are with the Department of Aerospace Engineering, Ryerson
University, 350 Victoria St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 2K3.
*The corresponding author (gjliu@ryerson.ca)
978-1-4244-2023-0/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE.
velocity measurements provided by a 3-axial gyroscope and
the line parameters acquired from stair-edges’ projection on
a camera image [7].
A tracked mobile manipulator (TMM) integrates a tracked
mobile robot with an onboard manipulator. This combination
extends workspace and the scope of applications of the
robot dramatically. It is difficult to imagine how effective an
explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) robot or a rescue robot
would be without an onboard manipulator. Furthermore, the
terrain adaptability and the stair-climbing ability of tracked
mobile robots have expanded the workspace of the tradi-
tional wheeled mobile manipulators. However, the complex
track-stair and vehicle-manipulator interactions introduced
by this integration make autonomous or semi-autonomous
stair-climbing complicate and intractable tasks. The motion
of the onboard manipulator will lead to load transfer, which
makes the TMM vulnerable to tipping over, and the track-
stair slippage can give rise to failure of stair-climbing.
As well known, slippage is almost unavoidable for a
tracked mobile robot while climbing stairs. However, this
important issue has never been addressed in the literature.
While tracked vehicles and wheeled mobile manipulators [9]
have been extensively studied, few work has been reported
on TMMs [10]. In this paper, the track-stair and vehicle-
manipulator interactions for a TMM in stair-climbing are
analyzed systematically, which lays a solid foundation for
tip-over prediction and prevention, as well as automatic
control of TMMs in stair-climbing.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: the stair-
climbing procedure is presented in the following section.
Slippage and track-stair interactive motions are analyzed
systematically in Section III. the track-stair interactive forces
are analyzed for a TMM climbing stairs with consideration
of vehicle-manipulator interactions in Section IV. To demon-
strate the applications of the proposed analysis methods,
simulations have been conducted on a TMM being developed
in our laboratory, and the simulation results are presented in
Section V. Finally, concluding remarks are given and future
researches are discussed in the last section.
II. G ENERAL P ROCEDURE FOR S TAIR -C LIMBING
The proposed analysis methods are presented on the basis
of a TMM being developed in our laboratory, which is
composed of a tracked mobile robot and a n-rotary-joint
onboard manipulator, as shown in Fig. 1, and the results
can be easily extended to suit for other TMMs. The two
driving wheels can be controlled independently to realize
steering; the two planetary wheels are attached at the tip of
157
 belongs to planar motion and is not studied in this paper.
The stair-climbing procedure can be broken down into four
steps, namely “climbing onto the stairs”, “setting back the
flippers”, “going on the nose line” and “landing on the upper
floor”, as shown in Fig. 2.
Step 1: climbing onto the stairs. When the upper part of the
tracks begins to interact with the stairs, the supporting wheels
leave the ground, and the chassis, together with the onboard
manipulator, turns anti-clockwise, as shown in Figs. 2(a)-(b).
In this step, the TMM is driven by both the tractive force
and the track-stair interactive forces.
(a) Flippers are put forward (b) Flippers are raised to climb onto the stairs Step 2: setting back the flippers. To climb the stairs
Fig. 1. The prototype for a tracked mobile manipulator effectively, the flippers and the planetary wheels are set back
F
Fz
x ext
to put the robot’s center of gravity (COG) forward, as shown
l5

ext
q5
m5 g q4 in Fig. 2(c); then the TMM climbs onto the stairs with the
l4

m4 g
q3
m3 g
P
flippers in the back, as shown in Figs. 2(c)-(e). There are both
q2
l3

m2 g
l2
m1 g L p (θ p
) mp g
Lp
tractive force and track-stair interactive forces in Step 2.
l1

nose line θs
q1
θp
F1 N1
Step 3: going on the nose line. For nose-line climbing, the
l0

ZB mf g
m0 g S
grouser θ
lg nose Om
r L 2 L 2
pitch joint is locked at the position θp = π, and the planetary
h

b D
mm g
hg hm
h0

θs
Fd R Fs N Rs XB Fd N Rd
Nd d OB
s d wheels work as supporting wheels, as shown in Fig. 2(e). The
(a) Interacting with the lower level (b) Climbing onto the stair TMM is driven by the track-stair interactive forces.
Step 4: landing on the upper floor. After the center of
the chassis passing over the edge of the last stair, the pitch
joint rotates anti-clockwise to a definite position, as shown
ZB S in Fig. 2(f). Then the driving wheels continue to drive the
S θp
θs F2 N2 TMM, until it plunges onto the upper level.
Zm Xm
θp θ
Om
The motion after belongs to planar motion again, and the
Om D F1 N1
F1
P
D
N1 P
robot is driven by the tractive forces between the tracks and
XB
Fp N R p OB Fd N Rd Fp NRp
the terrain of the upper level, which is not studied here.
p d p

(c) Setting back the flippers (d) Climbing onto the stair again III. S LIPPAGE AND I NTERACTIVE M OTION A NALYSIS
The interactive forces between the tracks and the stairs are
complicated, which can take the forms of hooking between
the grousers and the tread, as shown in Fig. 3(a), friction
Zm
Xm
between the track and the edge of the stairs, as shown
S
S
D
θp
Om
θ
in Fig. 3(b)–(c), clutching between the grousers and the
F2
N2 Lp F2
riser, as shown in Fig. 3(d), and even their compositions. In
N2
D
Figs. 3(b)–(c), the track works in the same way as pure track
F1 N1 P
F1
without grousers, and the sufficient and necessary condition
N1 F1
P
for non-slipping can be given by −fs ≤ N 1
≤ fs , where fs
Fp
N p Rp is the coefficient of static friction; F1 and N1 are track-stair
(e) Starting to move along the nose line (f) Landing on the upper floor interactive forces, which will be detailed in Section IV.
From Fig. 3(a), the sufficient and necessary firm-hooking
Fig. 2. The general procedure for a TMM climbing stairs
condition, which ensures non-slipping between the grouser
and the tread, can be given by
the flippers via spring loaded prismatic joints to retain tension F11 F1 cos θs − N1 sin θs
in each track; and the two flippers can be driven by the same −fs ≤ = ≤ fs (1)
N11 F1 sin θs + N1 cos θs
pitch motor to ensure synchronization of the two tracks. The
where N1 > 0 and F1 > −N1 · cot θs .
tracks are equipped with grousers, which are designed to
improve the stair-climbing ability of the TMM, as shown in Similarly, the sufficient and necessary condition for firm
clutching as shown in Fig. 3(d) can be given by
Fig. 1(b). For the convenience of presentation, the general
stair-climbing procedure for the TMM is detailed first. F11 F1 sin θs + N1 cos θs
−fs ≤ − = ≤ fs (2)
At the very beginning of stair climbing, the pitch joint N11 N1 sin θs − F1 cos θs
raises the flippers and planetary wheels, and the TMM is where N1 > 0 and F1 < N1 · tan θs .
driven by tractive forces between the lower part of the tracks If fs < cot θs , solving (1) yields
and the terrain at the lower level to get close to the first sin θs − fs cos θs F1 sin θs + fs cos θs
stair, as shown in Fig. 1(b), and also in Fig. 2(a). This step ≤ ≤ (3)
cos θs + fs sin θs N1 cos θs − fs sin θs

158
 Start fs ≥ cotθs ?
Y N
Track Grouser Track Grouser
F1 sin θ s − f s cos θ s N F1 sin θ s + f s cos θ s
≥ ? > ?
Tread Tread N1 cos θ s + f s sin θ s N1 cos θ s − f s sin θ s
F1
θs N11 θs Y Y
The grouser can hook the The grouser cannot hook
d

F11
en

d tread firmly, and there is no the tread, and the track will
en
Tr

Tr slippage, i.e., s12 = 0 slide down from the tread

N1 F11 N1
F1
N11 The grouser can keep contacting with the tread with the
aid of the grouser-tread hooking force and the track-stair
frictional force; and the slippage is negligible, i.e., s1 2 ≃ 0
Riser Riser N

F1 Y
≥ − fs ? Y
(a) Hooking the tread: F1 > −N1 cot θs (b) Leaving from the tread: F1 ≤ 0 N1 f s ≥ tan θ s ?
N N
Y
F1 f sin θ s − cos θ s F1 cos θ s + f s sin θ s
Track ≤ s ? ≥− ?
Track N1 sin θ s + f s cos θ s N1 sin θ s − f s cos θ s
Riser
N11 F Tread Tread N Y
Grouser
Grouser 11 The grouser cannot clutch the N The grousers can clutch the
θs θs riser, and the track will slide up riser firmly, and the slippage is
from the riser s12 ≃ −d g
d
en
N1 Tr
d
en

F1 Report error, send the Store the slippage

Tr

Exit
stop request, and return 1 and return 0
N11
Riser F1 N1
F11
Fig. 4. Slippage and interactive motion analysis for the first two steps.
(c) Leaving from the riser: F1 ≥ 0 (d) Clutching the riser: F1 < N1 tan θs

Fig. 3. Track-stair interactive force classification. F1 and N1 represent the

if the grouser can hook thePtread firmly due to the alternation
n  P n
equivalent tractive and supporting forces; F11 and N11 denote actual forces of hooking points. If i=1 F i i=1 N i ≤ fs , the
generated at the grouser-tread (riser) or track-stair edge contact points; the TMM can climb  Pnon the stairs
 Pn without slippage, even without
hollow arrows show the moving trend of the track.
grousers. If i=1 Fi i=1 N i > f s and if the firm
hooking condition given by (3) can be ensured, slippage
On the other hand, if fs ≥ cot θs , we can only obtain the may occur only at the beginning of Step 3. Otherwise, the
left half part of (3). track will slide down from the treads, and the stair-climbing
If fs < tan θs , solving (2) yields process has to be terminated. In the following, we will
cos θs + fs sin θs F1 fs sin θs − cos θs analyze the slippage of the track in Step 3 on the condition
− ≤ ≤ (4)
sin θs − fs cos θs N1 sin θs + fs cos θs that the grousers can hook the treads firmly. Let ⌈⋆⌉ denotes
Furthermore, the left half part of (4) can be set free on the ceil function, which gives the smallest
√ integer√larger than
2 2 2 2
the condition that fs ≥ tan θs . or equal to “⋆”; define krem = ⌈ bd+h g
⌉ − bd+h g
, the
Remark 1: From the analysis above, we can see that the slippage at the beginning of Step 3 can be determined by:
grouser can always hook the tread of the stair firmly to (
0, s12 = 0
avoid sliding down on the condition that fs ≥ cot θs ; s3,0 = dg krem , s12 6= 0 & krem =
6 0 (5)
even if fs < cot θs , the track-stair engagement has been dg , s12 6= 0 & krem = 0
improved dramatically than the track without grousers since In view of the grousers interacting with the stairs in the
sin θs +fs cos θs
cos θs −fs sin θs >> fs . Similarly, the grouser can always same way as that between gear teeth and racks, the slippage
clutch the riser firmly to avoid sliding up on the condition of the track when a grouser releases from the k th stair s3,k
that fs ≥ tan θs ; even if fs < tan θs , the track-stair can be derived as follows:
engagement can also be improved over the track without (a) If {krem = 0}∪ krem = 12 , there is no slippage when

cos θs +fs sin θs
grousers due to − sin θs −fs cos θs << −fs . This remark a grouse releases from the tread of the k th stair, i.e., s3,k = 0;
explains how grousers can help improve stair-climbing. (b) If 0 < krem < 12 , when one grouser releases from the
In the first two steps, the track-stair interactive forces k stair, another grouser will hook the (k + 1)th one; and
th
can take any form as shown in Fig. 4, and the slippage the slippage in such a small duration is s3,k,1 = dg krem ;
is negligible as long as the grouser can hook the tread (c) If 12 < krem < 1, when one grouser releases from
of the first stair firmly. However, the slippage is difficult the k th stair, another grouser will hook the (k + 2)th one;
to determine, and the performance of the TMM cannot be and the slippage
 √ 2 2in this small√ duration can be calculated as
guaranteed when the track slides up from the riser or slides s3,k,2 = 2 bdg+h dg − 2 b2 + h2 .
down from the tread, which should be avoided or the stair From the analysis above, we can obtain a uniform expres-
climbing may have to be terminated. On the basis of the sion for the slippage of the TMM in Step 3 on the condition
firm-hooking and firm-clutching condition analysis, we can that {s12 = 0} ∪ {krem = 0} as follows:
derive the slippage and track-stair interactive motion for the
√0, krem = 0, 12

first two steps, as illustrated in Fig. 4, in which dg represents  l m
 r (φ−φ30 )− b2 +h2

the distance between two adjacent grousers. 
  √b2 +h2  s3,k,1 , 0 < krem < 12
In Steps 3–4, the interactive forces can only be s3 (φ) = dg (6)
Pin the
 l r (φ−φ30g)−√b2 +h2 m
d
n
form of Figs. 3(a), (c) or their compositions because i=1 Fi 

  2√b2 +h2 
1
s3,k,2 , 2 < krem < 1

keeps positive; and slippage is still almost unavoidable even dg
dg

159
 L (0) L tan( θs )
where φ30 = pr − 2r − cos θ2s represents the rotating respectively, which are constants and can be determined by
angle of the driving wheels at the beginning of Step 3. the track length Lt and the wheel radius r by Lp (0) =
In the same way, the uniform slippage expression in Step 3 Lt −L−2π r π

√(Lt −2π r−2 L)(Lt −2π r)
2 , Lp 2 = 2 .
on the condition that {s12 6= 0} can be derived as follows:
The tractive force and resistant force can be calculated by
0, √ krem = 0, 12 Fd = µx · Nd · [1 − exp (−Ks )] , Rd = fr · Nd (10)

 l m
 r (φ−φ )−s −s −2 b2 +h2
1
√ 2 2 
30 12 30
s3,k,1 , 0 < krem <

where µx and fr are the coefficient of adhesion and the

2

b +h
s3 (φ) = l dg
dg
√ m coefficient of external motion resistance, respectively; and
r (φ−φ30 )−s12 −s30 −2 b2 +h2
 1
 2√b2 +h2  s3,k,2 , < krem < 1 Ks can be determined by a pull slip test [11].



 2
dg
dg
(7) According to the D’Alembert’s principle of inertial forces,
Remark 2: In track-stair interaction analysis presented in the TMM will become an equivalent static system if inertial
this section, the height of the grousers is assumed to be forces and torques are added to the corresponding COG.
negligible comparing to the grouser distance, the riser height Furthermore, a force and moment equilibrium analysis yields
and the tread width; furthermore, the slippage caused by Nd = MI +FIX ·(h−zm )−FIZ ·(xs +b−xm )
{µx [1−exp(−K)]−fr }·h−[xs + L cos θ +b−x
m]
hooking-point difference is not considered. 2
F1 = FIX · cos θs + FIZ · sin θs − Nd · sin θs
−Nd · {µx [1 − exp (−K)] − fr } · cos θs (11)
IV. T RACK -S TAIR I NTERACTIVE F ORCE A NALYSIS
N1 = FIZ · cos θs − FIX · sin θs − Nd · cos θs
In this section, we analyze the track-stair interactive forces +Nd · {µx [1 − exp (−K)] − fr } · sin θs
for TMMs climbing stairs with consideration of vehicle-
where xs = L
2 + r tan θ2s ; FIX , FIY , MI are detailed by
manipulator interactions. To simplify the calculations, the
tracked mobile robot is assumed to be symmetrical, and the  5
P 
x
mm ẍm + {mi ẍci } +2mp ẍcp +2mf ẍcf −Fext
wheel-track slippage is assumed to be negligible. Further- i=0
FIX = 2
more, the grousers are assumed to be rigid.  5
P 
z
The coordinate system is defined as follows: an inertial mm (z̈m +g)+ {mi (z̈ci +g)} −Fext
i=0
base frame OB -XB YB ZB is fixed on the lower level, and a FIZ = 2
frame Om -Xm Ym Zm is attached to the tracked mobile robot, +mp (z̈cp + g) + mf (z̈cf + g)
5 n i
Ii +mi [(xci −xm )2 +(zci −zm )2 ] (12)
 o
as shown in Fig. 2(a),(c). In frame Om -Xm Ym Zm , Om is MI =
P
θ̈ +
P
q̈k
2
selected as the COG of the tracked mobile robot, and Om Zm i=0 k=0

is selected to be vertical with the tracked mobile robot. Then, −mp Lp [ẍcp sin (θ + θp ) − (z̈cp + g) cos (θ + θp )]
−mf Lf [ẍcf sin (θ + θp ) − (z̈cf + g) cos (θ + θp )]
during the course of stair climbing, the motion of the tracked x
Im θ̈+2(Ip +If )(θ̈+θ̈p )+Fext z
·(ze −zm )+Fext ·(xm −xe )
mobile robot can be determined by the position Om (xm , zm ), + 2
5 Pn o
mi [ẍci (zci −zm )−(z̈ci +g)(xci −xm )]
and the turn angle θ. Furthermore, the axis OB ZB is selected − 2
to be consistent with the initial position of Om Zm . i=0

To derive the forces Nd , N1 and F1 for Step 1, we need to where mm denotes mass of the mobile platform; mi denotes
analyze the kinematics first. The rotating angles for the two mass of the ith link; mf and mp denote masses of the flippers
driving wheels should be the same in stair climbing to avoid and the planetary wheels; Ii Im , If and Ip are corresponding
drift of heading angle. Let the rotating angle of the driving moments of inertia; Lf is the distance between Om and the
x z
wheels be φ, which is set as zero at the beginning of stair COG of the flippers; Fext and Fext are external forces added
climbing. With the assumption that the stretch of the tracks to the end-effector along OB XB and OB ZB ; the items with
is negligible, from Figs. 2(a)-(b), we can obtain double dots represent the corresponding accelerations.
xm = r · φ − s (φ) − L2 · (1 − cos θ) Assuming that the change of turn angle for the chassis is
zm = r + hg + L2 · sin θ (8) negligible and the stretch of the tracks can be neglected, from
arcsin [r·φ−s(φ)] sin θs

θ = L Figs. 2(c)–(e) we can obtain the kinematics of the tracked
where r is the radius of the wheels; L is the distance between vehicle in Steps 2–3 as follows:
the supporting wheels and the driving wheels, as shown in xm = L(1+cos θ)
+ [r · φ − L − s (φ)] cos θ
2
Fig. 2(a); s (φ) is the slippage of the TMM, which will be zm = r + L sin
2
θ
+ [r · φ − L − s (φ)] sin θ + hg (13)
detailed in the next section; and 0 ≤ φ ≤ L+s r
12
for Step 1. θ = θs
The trajectory of the planetary-wheel center P is an
ellipse, and the length of the flippers can be determined by: According to the number of track-stair interactive points,
π

Step 2 is divided into one-point and two-point sub-processes.
Lp (0) · Lp 2 For the one-point sub-process, Np , N1 and F1 can be
Lp (θp ) = q (9)
calculated in the same way as that in Step 1. Assuming


L2p π
2
· cos2 θp + L2p (0) · sin2 θp
that the differences of supporting forces at all the points are
where θp is the pitch joint angle; Lp (0) and Lp π2 are the


consistent, from force and moment equilibrium analysis, Np ,
lengths of the flippers at horizontal and vertical positions, N1 , N2 and F12 = F1 + F2 for the two-point sub-process of

160
 TABLE I
Step 2 can be calculated, as follows:
D ESIGN PARAMETERS FOR THE TMM
n o
[MI − r (FIX cos θs + FIZ sin θs )] · (A − 2)
+ (FIZ cos θs − FIX sin θs ) [d2 − (A − 1) B]
N1 = (A·B−d1 )·(A−2)+(A+1)·[d2 −(A−1)·B] Parameter Value Masses Value Length Value
(14)
 
N2 =  (A + 1) N1 − FIZ cos θs + FIX sin θs (A − 2)
L (m) 0.51 mm (kg) 42 l0 (m) 0.10
Np = A · N1 − (A − 1) · N2 {cos θs − kµ · sin θs }
Lt (m) 2.05 m0 (kg) 4 l1 (m) 0.20
F12 = FIX cos θs + FIZ sin θs − Np (sin θs + kµ cos θs )

h0 (m) 0.17 m1 (kg) 4 l2 (m) 0.46
where kµ = µx 1 − e−K − fr ; d1 ,d2 can be calculated by hg (m) 0.01 m2 (kg) 4 l3 (m) 0.46
substituting k = 1 into (20); and dp ,A,B can be detailed by dg (m) 0.07 m3 (kg) 4 l4 (m) 0.30
√
mp (kg) 1.30 m4 (kg) 3 l5 (m) 0.10
L cos θs − L cos θp + 4L2 2 2
p −L sin θp cos(θp +θs )
dp = 2 mf (kg) 1.10 m5 (kg) 3 lg (m) 0.20
1
 L


A = √ − rφ cos θs + dp cos θs +
2
2 (15)
b2 +h2
[µx ·(1−e )−fr ]·(zm −r·cos θs )−dp −r·sin θs
−K
B = cos θs −[µx (1−e−K )−fr ] sin θs subprocess can be derived as follows:
From Fig. 2(e), we can obtain the geometry constraints for xm = xs + ns b − Lp (0) cos θs − Lp (θp ) cos (θp + θ)
successful alternation of track-stair contact points as follows zm = ns h + cosrθs −Lp (0) sin θs − Lp (θp ) sin (θp + θ) (21)
θ = θs − arctan 2 Lp (θp ) sin θp , Lp (θp ) cos θp − L2
2b L 3b
− r · tan θs ≥ Lp (0) + < − r · tan θs (16)
cos θs 2 cos θs The kinematics of the TMM in the second subprocess can
be described as follows
In Fig. 2(e), letting the summation of forces along Om Xm
xm = x41 + r · (φ − φ41 ) · cos θs
and Om Zm be zeros yields
zm = z41 + r · (φ − φ41 ) · sin θs (22)
n θ = θ41
1
P
Fi = 2
· {FIX · cos θs + FIZ · sin θs }
10π
i=1
n (17) where x41 ,z41 ,θ41 can be calculated by substituting θp = 9
1 tan θs
P
Ni = · {FIZ · cos θs − FIX · sin θs } ns b L Σs3
i=1
2 into (21); φ41 = r cos θs+ 2r + cos θ2s
+ r .
The supporting forces N1 and N2
can be calculated as
where n = 2 or n = 3 are corresponding to the cases with
that in Step 3, but replacing r with r + L2 sin (θs − θ), and
two or three interactive points, respectively.
k with ns − 1.
From the force and moment equilibrium analysis with two
track-stair interactive points, N1 , N2 can be calculated as V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
 2 2

In this section, we present the simulation results using a
P  P 
1
N1 = d2 −d1
· d2 · Ni − r · Fi + MI
TMM being developed in our laboratory, which is composed
 i=1
2 i=1
2
 (18)
of a reconfigurable tracked mobile robot and a 5-DOF on-
 
1
P P
N2 = d1 −d2
· d1 · Ni − r · Fi + MI
i=1 i=1 board manipulator, as shown in Fig. 1. The design parameters
for the TMM under consideration are listed in Table I.
For the case with three track-stair interactive points, with
To demonstrate the application of the proposed analysis
the assumption that the difference of supporting forces at the
methods, simulations are conducted for three different cases:
three interactive points are consistent, N1 , N2 and N3 can be
in Case 1, the stair parameters are selected as h = 0.23 m,
calculated from force and moments equilibrium as follows:
 3   3  θs = 50◦ , fr = 0.06, µx = 0.8, Ks = 13, fs = 0.9,
2
P 1
P ns = 12 and the onboard manipulator is locked at q =
N1 = Ni − N3 , N2 = Ni
3
i=1
3
i=1 [0 − π4 0 0 0]T ; the stair parameters and configuration of the
  3
  3
 (19)
1
P d2 +2d1
P onboard manipulator in Case 2 are given by h = 0.16 m,
N3 = r Fi − MI − Ni
d3 −d1
i=1
3
i=1 θs = 30◦ , fr = 0.03, µx = 0.3, Ks = 11, fs = 0.6, ns =
where 12, q = [0 − π6 0 0 0]T ; the same stair parameters as that in
p Case 2 are adopted in Case 3, but replacing the configuration
d1 = p{xm − (xs + k · b)}2 + (zm − k · h)2 − r 2 of the onboard manipulator with q = [0 − π3 0 0 0]T .
d2 = {xm − [xs + (k + 1) b]}2 + [zm − (k + 1) h]2 − r 2 The simulation results are presented in Fig. 5. According
·sgn
p {xm − [xs + (k + 1) · 2b] − r · sin θs } to the relationship between the height and the incline angle of
d3 = {xm − [xs + (k + 2) b]} + [zm − (k + 2) h]2 − r 2 the stairs, regular stairs are distinguished from the irregular
(20)
ones, as shown in Fig. 5(a). Fig. 5(b) gives the slippage
The landing process consists of two sub-processes: as the occurred in the first two cases, from which we can see
first subprocess, the pitch joint rotates anti-clockwise for π9 that the slippage may take quite different forms. The total
to raise the driving wheels, as shown in Fig. 2(f); in the slippage is 0.127 m for Case 1 and 0.33 m for Case 2,
second subprocess, the driving wheels continue to drive the which cannot be neglected for a TMM in stair-climbing.
TMM until it plunges onto the upper floor. Figs. 5(c)–(d) present the load distribution for Case 1. The
From Fig. 2(f), the kinematics of the TMM in the first load distribution for Case 2 can be found in Figs. 5(e)–(f).

161
 0.4
and vehicle-manipulator interactions can not be neglected for
0.3 Irregular stairs: too large autonomous and semi-autonomous stair-climbing.
Height of the stairs (m)

0.3 Case 1

Slippage for Cases 1–2, m

Case 2
0.25
0.2 VI. C ONCLUSIONS AND F UTURE W ORKS
0.2
Regular stairs 0.1 In this paper, track-stair and vehicle-manipulator inter-
0.15
actions are analyzed systematically. Firm-hooking, firm-
0
0.1
Irregular stairs: too small clutching and non-slipping conditions are presented for a
0.05
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
−0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 TMM climbing stairs. The stair-climbing process is divided
The incline angle θ s (◦) Time, s
into four steps. The slippage and track-stair interactive mo-
(a) Regular & irregular stairs (b) Slippage for the first two cases tions are analyzed for each step. Furthermore, track-stair
350
200 interactive forces are derived with consideration of vehicle-
N1
manipulator interactions. To demonstrate the applications
Supporting forces for Steps 3–4, N
Supporting forces for Steps 1–2, N

300 150 N2

250 Nd
N3 of the proposed analysis methods, simulations have been
N1 Np Np
200
100 conducted on a TMM being developed in our laboratory.
150
N1
50
The proposed analysis methods are presented on the basis
N2
100
Nd
of a specific TMM, but the results are general and can be
N1 0
50 1 2 3 4 easily extended to suit for some other TMMs.
N1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
−50
20 30 40 50
As the first attempt to analyze track-stair and vehicle-
Time, s Time, s manipulator interactions for TMMs in stair-climbing, this
(c) Forces for steps 1–2: Case 1 (d) Forces for steps 3–4: Case 1 work lays a solid foundation for further investigations on
300 300
this important topic. Our next step is to develop an efficient
N1 and reliable tip-over prediction algorithm on the basis of the
Supporting forces for Steps 3–4, N
Supporting forces for Steps 1–2, N

250 250 N2
N1 N1
N3
proposed track-stair interactive force analysis method, so as
200 N1 200
to prevent the TMM from tipping-over in stair-climbing. Fur-
150
Nd
N2 150
thermore, the determination of optimal onboard-manipulator
Nd
100
Np
100 configuration and autonomous tip-over stability recovery for
N1 N
50
1 2 3 4
p
50 TMMs in stair-climbing form another two promising topics
0 0
for future research and development.
0 2 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 50
Time, s Time, s
R EFERENCES
(e) Forces for steps 1–2: Case 2 (f) Forces for steps 3–4: Case 2
[1] J. Y. Wong, Theory of Ground Vehicles. NJ, USA: John Wiley &
400 300 Sons Inc., 2001.
[2] P. Ben-Tzvi, S. Ito, and A. A. Goldenberg, “Autonomous stair climbing
Supporting forces for Steps 1–2, N

Supporting forces for Steps 3–4, N

250
300 N1
with reconfigurable tracked mobile robot,” in Proc. of IEEE Workshop
N1 N1 200
N2 on Robotic and Sensors Environ., Ottawa, Canada, Oct. 2007, pp. 1–6.
200
150 [3] J. Liu, Y. Wang, S. Ma, and B. Li, “Analysis of stairs-climbing
N1
100
ability for a tracked reconfigurable modular robot,” in Proc. IEEE
100
Np N1 Int. Workshop on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, Japan, Jun.
Nd 50
0
Nd Np N2 2005, pp. 36–41.
0 N3 [4] C. H. Lee, S. H. Kim, S. C. Kang, M. S. Kim, and Y. K. Kwak,
1 2 3 4
−100 −50
“Double-track mobile robot for hazardous environment applications,”
0 2 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 50
Time, s Time, s
Advanced Robotics, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 447–459, Aug. 2003.
[5] J. D. Martens and W. S. Newman, “Stabilization of a. mobile robot
(g) Forces for steps 1–2: Case 3 (h) Forces for steps 3–4: Case 3 climbing stairs,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation,
San Diego, CA, USA, May 1994, pp. 2501–2507.
Fig. 5. Simulation results [6] D. M. Helmick, S. I. Roumeliotis, M. C. McHentry, and L. Matthies,
“Multi-sensor, high speed autonomous stair climbing,” in Proc.
IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robotics and Systems, EPFL,
Time-varying supporting forces for Case 3 are illustrated by Lausanne, Switzerland, Sep. 2002, pp. 733–742.
Figs. 5(g)–(h). In Fig. 5(d), the minimum supporting force [7] A. I. Mourikis, N. Trawny, S. I. Roumeliotis, D. M. Helmick, and
L. Matthies, “Autonomous stair climbing for tracked vehicles,” Int. J.
N3 has become negative, and the TMM may have already of Robotics Research, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 737–758, Jul. 2007.
tipped over from the stairs. Similarly, the minimum support- [8] Y. Xiong and L. Matthies, “Vision-guided autonomous stair climb-
ing force in Figs. 5(g) and 5(h) are negative, which means ing,” in Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, San
Francisco, CA, USA, Apr. 2000, pp. 1842–1847.
that the TMM will fall up into the tread of the stairs, and the [9] Y. Li and Y. Liu, “Real-time tip-over prevention and path following
stair-climbing process has to be terminated. Comparing the control for redundant nonholonomic mobile modular manipulators
load distributions in Case 2 with those in Case 3, we can see via fuzzy and neural-fuzzy approaches,” ASME Trans. on Dyn. Syst.,
Measur., and Contr., vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 753–764, Dec. 2006.
that the configuration of the onboard manipulator is vital to [10] Y. Liu and G. Liu, “Kinematics and interaction analysis for tracked
the load distribution, which will further affect the track-stair mobile manipulators,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent
interactive forces. With an optimal configuration, the TMM Robotics and Systems, San Diego, CA, USA, Oct. 2007, pp. 267–272.
[11] M. Kitano and H. Jyozaki, “A theoretical analysis of steerability of
can climb onto the stairs successfully; on the other hand, tip- tracked vehicles,” J. of Terramechanics, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 241–258,
over may occur if the onboard manipulator is not configured Dec. 1976.
properly. From these figures, we can see that the track-stair

162