1 / 26

Reconfiguration Mechanism Design

Reconfiguration Mechanism Design Mark Yim Associate Professor and Gabel Family Associate Professor Dept. of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Pennsylvania There are two fundamental electro-mechanical components to self-reconfiguring robot systems

paul
Télécharger la présentation

Reconfiguration Mechanism Design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reconfiguration Mechanism Design Mark Yim Associate Professor and Gabel Family Associate Professor Dept. of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Pennsylvania

  2. There are two fundamental electro-mechanical components to self-reconfiguring robot systems • An attaching/detaching mechanism • Some form of motion between reconfigurations. • Focus on hardware, however, choices in hardware effect software design and vice versa.

  3. Costs of micro-scale device(pessimistic view) • Module: 1mm x 1mm x 1mm MEMS (silicon) • Silicon cost ~ $1/sq inch • 2003 Revenue $5.7billion / 4.78 billion sq inch silicon • $200 / 12” diam, $30 /8“ diam wafers • 100um-2000um thick (choose 1mm) • Assume processing costs ~$9/sq inch • Modules cost 1.6¢ • Synthesize human shape • Mark weighs 65 Kg -> 65,000 cm3 • Assume density of water (1kg = 1000 cm3 ) • 65,000,000 modules • 1000 modules per cm3 • Cost: $1,007,502.025

  4. Costs of micro-scale device(optimistic view) • In mature systems, cost goes by the pound. • E.g. Xerox machines • Optimization in space/volume • The process cost can be reduced. Ultimately to near the cost of silicon (factor of 10 savings) • Fill factor of modules does not need to be 100% (factor of 10 savings) • Find a smaller person to synthesize (factor of 2 savings) • Cost $5,037

  5. Outline • Review of Motion mechanisms • Chain style reconfiguration • Lattice style reconfiguration • Review of Latching mechanisms • Discussion

  6. Three Classes of Existing Self-Reconfigurable Robots Mobile Chain Lattice

  7. Lattice Self-Reconfiguration Telecube G1

  8. Proteo Proteo (never built) Rhombic Face (Edge length = 5 cm)

  9. I-Cube, Cem Unsal @ CMU Metamorphic, Chirikjian @ Hopkins

  10. Molecule: Kotay & Rus Crystal: Vona & Rus Dartmouth

  11. Satoshi Murata (lattice) • Fracta • 3D fracta

  12. Molecube, Lipson @ cornell ATRON, Ostergaard, et. al @ U. S. Denmark

  13. Inoue, Pnumatic Riken, Vertical

  14. Stochastic/Graph Grammars • No main actuation (external) • Klavins • Lipson • Latching • Magnets • Pressure differential in oil

  15. Chain Self-ReconfigurationPolyBot Generation 2 (G2), and 3 (G3)

  16. Polypod UPenn superbot

  17. Conro, Shen/will @ ISI Mtran, Murata et al

  18. Nilsson, Dragon

  19. 1 DOF motion docking Local self-collision detection Higher stiffness dock No singularities, No mechanical advantage Discrete motions GeneralManipulation difficult Unstructured environments difficult 6 DOF motion docking Global self-collision detection Lower stiffness dock Singularities Complicates control Arbitrary motions Lattice vs Chain Lattice is easier for self-reconfiguration Chain is easier for locomotion/manipulation

  20. Main drives: • Geared DC motors (most popular) • Magnetic • Pneumatic • None Not shown yet: • Combustive: easier if modules are large • Thermal (nuclear?): perhaps in space • Mechanochemical: does this exist? • Electrostatic: ok if small? High voltages • Molecular motors: if very tiny

  21. Latching mechanisms • Magnetic – issue: strength • Mechanical – issue: actuator (size (strength/speed)) • Pneumatic – issue: valves, supply • Hydraulic – issue: valves, supply Not shown yet: • Electrostatic: ok if small? High voltages • Dry Adhesive: attach/detach motion?

  22. Stolen from: Esbed Ostergaard Thesis U. Southern Denmark

  23. Questions • What are the important parameters for the motion part? What are the tradeoffs? • DOF? • Shape? • #of attachments • Workspace? • What are the important parameters for attaching/detaching mechanisms?

  24. What on earth are we going to do with these robots? • NASA program • It’s going to be more robust to send specialized machine per task • Multifunction cost savings vs capability • Space station repair • Mars exploration • Moon station (selfreplication) • Construction • Locomotion with manipulation • E.g. mine sensor support w/shoring • Building construction • Architecture • Exploration • Search and rescue • Undersea mining • Planetary mining • Shape only • Structures • Telepario • Shady robots • Programmable antennae • Research contribution for itself • On microscale • Self assembling chips (self-walking chips?) • Mechanical RSA (tiles form shapes to open locks) • Mechanical FPGA

  25. Shape vs function • 3 people do shape only • Fundamental assumptions(?) • Self • Organizing • Reconfiguring • Repairing • Funding  • Communities to relate to? • Complexity systems community • Nanoscience community (foundations of nanoscience) • Availability of low cost reliable hardware helps to enable robotics research • Common platform, (e.g. mote like) • Sources of funding? • DARPA, NSF, Europe, (Brad has money) • Japan Aist/TiTech last

More Related