A dedicated solver for fast operational-space inverse dynamics

The most classical solution to generate whole-body motions on humanoid robots is to use the inverse kinematics on a set of tasks. It enables flexibility, repeatability, sensor-feedback if needed, and can be applied in real time onboard the robot. However, it cannot comprehend the whole complexity of the robot dynamics. Inverse dynamics is then a mandatory evolution. Before application as a generic motion generator, two important concerns need to be solved. First, when including in the motion-generation problem the forces and torques variables, the numerical conditioning can become very low, inducing undesired behaviors or even divergence. Second, the computational costs of the problem resolution is much more important than when considering the kinematics alone. This paper proposes a complete reformulation of the inverse-dynamics problem, by cutting the ill-conditioned part of the problem, solving in a same way the problem of numerical stability and of cost reduction. The approach is validated by a set of dynamic whole-body movements of the HRP-2 robot.

[1]  Eiichi Yoshida,et al.  Considering Floatting Contact and Un-Modeled Effects for Multi-Contact Motion Generation , 2011, Humanoids 2011.

[2]  François Keith,et al.  Generation of dynamic motion for anthropomorphic systems under prioritized equality and inequality constraints , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[3]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  Efficient algorithm for extended operational space inertia matrix , 1999, Proceedings 1999 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Human and Environment Friendly Robots with High Intelligence and Emotional Quotients (Cat. No.99CH36289).

[4]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation , 1987, IEEE J. Robotics Autom..

[5]  Jean-Jacques E. Slotine,et al.  A general framework for managing multiple tasks in highly redundant robotic systems , 1991, Fifth International Conference on Advanced Robotics 'Robots in Unstructured Environments.

[6]  Jun Nakanishi,et al.  Operational Space Control: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison , 2008, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[7]  Sylvain Miossec,et al.  Continuous gradient proximity distance for humanoids free-collision optimized-postures , 2007, 2007 7th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots.

[8]  C. Loan.  On the Method of Weighting for Equality Constrained Least Squares Problems , 1984 .

[9]  A. Liegeois,et al.  Automatic supervisory control of the configuration and behavior of multi-body mechanisms , 1977 .

[10]  Alain Micaelli,et al.  Dynamic balance control of humanoids for multiple grasps and non coplanar frictional contacts , 2007, 2007 7th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots.

[11]  Claude Samson,et al.  Robot Control: The Task Function Approach , 1991 .

[12]  Paolo Baerlocher,et al.  Inverse kinematics techniques of the interactive posture control of articulated figures , 2001 .

[13]  Nicolas Mansard,et al.  Task Sequencing for High-Level Sensor-Based Control , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[14]  Nicolas Mansard,et al.  Dynamic motion capture and edition using a stack of tasks , 2011, 2011 11th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots.

[15]  J. B. Rosen.  The gradient projection method for nonlinear programming: Part II , 1961 .

[16]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  Control Strategies for Robots in Contact , 2006 .

[17]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  Synthesis and control of whole-body behaviors in humanoid systems , 2007 .

[18]  Robert H. Halstead,et al.  Matrix Computations , 2011, Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing.

[19]  Patrick Rives,et al.  A new approach to visual servoing in robotics , 1992, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[20]  J. B. Rosen.  The Gradient Projection Method for Nonlinear Programming. Part I. Linear Constraints , 1960 .