Rolling in nature and robotics: A review

This paper presents a review of recent rolling robots including Rollo from Helsinki University of Technology, Spherical Mobile Robot from the Politecnico of Bari, Sphericle from the University of Pisa, Spherobot from Michigan State University, August from Azad University of Qazvin and the University of Tehran, Deformable Robot from Ritsumeijan University, Kickbot from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gravitational Wheeled Robot from Kinki University, Gyrover from Carnegie Mellon University, Roball from the Université de Sherbrooke, and Rotundus from the Ångström Space Technology Center.Seven rolling robot design principles are presented and discussed (Sprung central member, Car driven, Mobile masses, Hemispherical wheels, Gyroscopic stabilisation, Ballast mass — fixed axis, and Ballast mass — moving axis). Robots based on each of the design principles are shown and the performances of the robots are tabulated. An attempt is made to grade the design principles based on their suitability for movement over an unknown and varied but relatively smooth terrain. The result of this comparison suggests that a rolling robot based on a mobile masses principle would be best suited to this specific application.Some wonderful rolling organisms are introduced and defined as “active” or “passive” depending on whether they generate their own rolling motion or external forces cause their rolling.

[1]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  Introducing the "SPHERICLE": an experimental testbed for research and teaching in nonholonomy , 1997, Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[2]  Puyan Mojabi,et al.  Introducing August: a novel strategy for an omnidirectional spherical rolling robot , 2002, Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292).

[3]  Dominic Létourneau,et al.  Autonomous spherical mobile robot for child-development studies , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[4]  Tomi Ylikorpi,et al.  Biologically inspired solutions for robotic surface mobility , 2004 .

[5]  Mark A. Minor,et al.  Simple motion planning strategies for spherobot: a spherical mobile robot , 1999, Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No.99CH36304).

[6]  Yan Wang,et al.  Motion control of a spherical mobile robot , 1996, Proceedings of 4th IEEE International Workshop on Advanced Motion Control - AMC '96 - MIE.

[7]  Richard Kolacinski,et al.  Low Cost Mars Surface Exploration: The Mars Tumbleweed , 2003 .

[8]  Yangsheng Xu,et al.  A single-wheel, gyroscopically stabilized robot , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[9]  S. M. Deban,et al.  A Novel Antipredator Mechanism in Salamanders: Rolling Escape in Hydromantes platycephalus , 1995 .

[10]  Shinichi Hirai,et al.  Crawling and Jumping by a Deformable Robot , 2006, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[11]  Shawn A. Krizan,et al.  The NASA Langley Mars Tumbleweed Rover Prototype , 2006 .

[12]  A. Gentile,et al.  Rough-terrain traversability for a cylindrical shaped mobile robot , 2004, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, 2004. ICM '04..

[13]  R. Caldwell A unique form of locomotion in a stomatopod—backward somersaulting , 1979, Nature.

[14]  Mary Wong,et al.  Locomotion like a wheel? , 1993, Nature.

[15]  Kiyoshi Ioi,et al.  Design of a gravitational wheeled robot , 2002, Adv. Robotics.