jason campbell and babu pillai intel research pittsburghmmoll/rss06/slides/... · & claytronics...
TRANSCRIPT
1 © 2006 Intel Corporation
Collective ActuationJason Campbell and Babu Pillai
Intel Research Pittsburgh
2
Seth Copen Goldstein#
Carlos Guestrin#
Casey Helfrich#
James Hoburg#
Peter Lee#
Mustafa Emre Karagozler#
Brian T. Kirby#
James Kuffner#
Matt Mason#
Bill Messner#
Todd C. Mowry*#
#ClaytronicsCarnegie Mellon University
Burak Aksak#
Johnathan Aldrich#
Simon Baker#
Preethi Bhat#
Randy Bryant#
Jason Campbell*
Michael DeRosa*#
Ashish Deshpande*
Stano Funiak*#
Phillip Gibbons*
Lily Mummert*
Illah Nourbakhsh#
Padmanabhan Pillai*
Ram Ramachandran*#
Greg Reshko#
Benjamin Rister*#
Srinivasan Seshan#
Metin Sitti#
Sidd Srinivasa*
Rahul Sukthankar*#
Michael Weller#
*Dynamic Physical RenderingIntel Research Pittsburgh
DPR & Claytronics Teams
3
Background: Intel Lab at Carnegie Mellon
! Located on the 4th floor of the “Collaborative Innovation Center” (CIC) building
4
Background: DPR (Intel)& Claytronics (CMU)
! Our focus is on shape-changing ensembles! Envision sub-millimeter modules,
used in groups of 104 to 108 units
Long-term project goals:! Scalable software architecture and tools
for millions of cooperating agents! Hardware design (concepts) suitable for integrated
photolithographic + self-assembly manufacture
Video: CMU Entertainment Technology Center
6
Other Applications
• 3D Visualization & interface (medical, etc.) .
• Product design, computer-assisted sculpting
• New forms of telepresence-based human-human communication
• Shape-shifting antennas
• Variable form-factorcomputing devices
• Malleable user interfaces
• 3D facsimile sampling and reproduction
7
Some Aspects of Shape Control
! Stretchable/shrinkable “lattices”! Linear actuators, even with spherical modules! Larger forces than those possible
from a pair of modules alone! ~Millions of cooperating modules
– Must reduce overall control complexity– Need to deal with failures and variability locally
! Likely trade off spatial resolution (module size) vs. increase strength of each module’s actuators
8
Mesoscale prototype catoms
! Cylindrical (~5cm = 2 inch across)! Electromagnetic actuators/latches
9
Electromagnetic Rolling Demo
10
hexagonalpentagonal octagonal
Physical Manipulation Cast as a Software Problem: “Collective Actuation”
Compose groups of catoms where the outside dimensions change via internal rolling
11
Related Work
! Parallel Manipulators [Luntz97] [Böhringer]! Atron chains [Christensen06]! Rolling locomotion for chain-style MRRs [Atron,
Polybot, Superbot]
12
Kinematics of Module Rolling
! Treat one module as static, the other as moving
! Center of the moving module traces a circle centered on the static module
! Points outside the center of the moving module trace epitrochoids (or epicycloids for d=r)
epicycloid (d=r) eiptrochoid (d<r)
r
b = (2,0)0
bθ
a = (0,0)
kissing point
θ
13
Motion model: Rolling circular modules
r
b = (2,0)0
bθ
a = (0,0)
kissing point
θ
14
Actuator locations
l
depthkissing point
actuator pair
θc
r
b = (2,0)0
bθ
a = (0,0)
kissing point
θ
15
Path of one actuator relative to the other
l
depthing point
actuator pair
θc
r
b = (2,0)0
bθ
a = (0,0)
kissing point
θ
16
Epicycloid & Epitrochoid(depth=0) (depth>0)
17
Epicycloid & Epitrochoid(act. depth=0) (act. depth>0)
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3angle
1
2
3
4intermagnet distance
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3angle
1
2
3
4intermagnet distance
18
A sinusoidal approximation is close, even for out of phase actuators
-90 90 180 270 360rotation angle
1
2
3
4distance between actuators
19
Based on the intercatom geometries, we get a varying “lever arm”
(i.e., mechanical advantage)
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5angle HradL0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5intermagnet distance
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5angle HradL0.25
0.50.75
11.251.5
1.752
dlêdtheta
distancebetween actuators
mechanical advantage
0 angle 180
20
Combining the effects of lever arm and force law (inverse square, etc.)
7.5 15 22.5 30 37.5 45degrees rolled
0.5
1normalized force
red = inverse cubeblack = inverse squareblue = inverse semilog
21
Composing multiple actuators
90 180rolling angle HdegL0.2
0.40.60.8
1relative force
actuator spacing = 25°, d=5%, inverse square law,only one pair of actuators is active at any given time
22
mean vs peak force over varying interactuator angles
20 40 60 80 100interactuator angle
0.5
1average force
23
Quantifying actuator forcein our unitless analysis
2d
r
fm
fmax
“unit” force
max force
24
Math (see the paper for details)
θθ−
=θ
θθ
=cosr2sinr2
ddb
sinr2cosr2
b
φφ−+−φ−+φ−
=
φ−+φ−
φ−+φ−−=
sin)cos)1(1(2)cos)1(1)((cos2
2sin)1(sin22cos)1(cos2)1(
drdr
rdrrdrrd
l
φ−+= cos)22(2 rrdrl
φ−=φ
sin)1(2 drdd l
−−
−=
−−⋅
−=⋅=
θθθθ
θθθθθ
θ cossin
1)csc(
)sin()1(21
cos2sin2
ddrrr
dd
ddb
ddb c
cll
θ−θ
−θ−θ−−θ−θ
==γ
γ
cossin
1))cos()22(2)(csc(
ddrr
ddbq ccll
mcc
mL fdrr
dfq
f γθ−θ−−θ−θθ−−
=
•
=
))cos()22(2)(csc(cos)1(3
10
1232
25
Lifting force for an octagonal cell
octagonal
left sideactuator pairs working
interfaces
stationaryinterface
non-workinginterface
12
3
fL
rollinginterfaces
4
56
26
Lifting force for an octagonal cell
octagonal
left sideactuator pairs working
interfaces
stationaryinterface
non-workinginterface
12
3
fL
rollinginterfaces
4
56
mcc
mL fdrr
dfq
f γθ−θ−−θ−θθ−−
=
•
=
))cos()22(2)(csc(cos)1(3
10
1232
27
Lifting force for an octagonal cell
octagonal
left sideactuator pairs working
interfaces
stationaryinterface
non-workinginterface
12
3
fL
rollinginterfaces
4
56
mcc
mL fdrr
dfq
f γθ−θ−−θ−θθ−−
=
•
=
))cos()22(2)(csc(cos)1(3
10
1232
20 40 60 80degrees rolled
5101520253035
lifting force
fmax
(d=10%, inverse square law)
28
Lifting force for an octagonal cell
20 40 60 80degrees rolled
5101520253035
lifting force
fmax
82 84 86 88 90degrees rolled
50100150200250300
lifting force
fmax
10 fmax
d=10%, inverse square law
29
Experiment: Self-Articulating Structures
1 4
2 3
567
89
10
each servo motordrives one gear
interface
other interfacesare unpowered
pinned links constrain orientation(equivalent to an additional motor held stationary)
30
Experiment: Self-Articulating Structures
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00
extension
min
out
side
rad
ius
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00
min
out
side
radi
usno
rmal
ized
by
thic
knes
s
tightest curvature achieved vs extension
curvature normalized to beam thickness
31
Experiment: Force Test Cell
cell supportsa measuredweight viaa pulley
ammeter tracks servo torque1
4
2
3
5
6
32
Experiment: Force Test Cell
33
Experiment: Force Test Cell
cell supportsa measuredweight viaa pulley
ammeter tracks servo torque1
4
2
3
5
6
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
30 45 60 75 90α
N*m
34
Pinned gears + Servos
35
3D Simulation
36
Control Complexity / Bandwidth Observations
! Reduced DOF: Collective Actuation cells offer a reduced degree-of-freedom means of commanding the structure
! Potential for Aggregation: Depending upon the shape, adjacent cells may be combined into single logical entities for control purposes
! Scalability: Arrays of cells can control large structures with control complexity proportional to the number of desired degrees of freedom in the shape
37
What works
! Kinematic Simulation: octohedral & hexahedral cells in 2D; octohedral in 3D
! Kinematic Prototypes: Pinned 2D cells using toothed gears & servos
! Force-at-distance Driven Prototypes: Magnetically-retained/driven 2D versions using permanent magnets (illustrate force curves around fixed operating points)
38
Selected Unsolved Problems
! Stability of rolling modules, particularly in 3D
! Hardware: Robustness of our current force-at-distance actuators is low – so far our electromagnet prototypes don’t work sufficiently reliably to test this technique
! Distributed Control Algorithm(see future work by Ram Ravichandran)
! Dynamics
! Exploit nonuniform failure modes:It is possible to predict which bonds will break when a cell is overloaded – use this property to strengthen cells or detect and respond to failures
39 © 2006 Intel Corporation