See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224685594

Moment-Height Tip-Over Measure for Stability Analysis of Mobile Robotic

Systems

Conference Paper · November 2006

DOI: 10.1109/IROS.2006.282270 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
36 876

2 authors:

S.A.A. Moosavian Khalil Alipour

K. N. Toosi University of Technology University of Tehran
283 PUBLICATIONS 3,809 CITATIONS 94 PUBLICATIONS 985 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cable Robotics View project

Legged Robotics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S.A.A. Moosavian on 28 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
October 9 - 15, 2006, Beijing, China

Moment-Height Tip-Over Measure for Stability Analysis

of Mobile Robotic Systems

S. Ali A. Moosavian1 Khalil Alipour2

Department of Mechanical Engineering

K. N. Toosi Univ. of Technology, Tehran, Iran, P.O. Box 16765-3381
Email: moosavian@kntu.ac.ir , alipour@alborz.kntu.ac.ir

Abstract - Mobile machines equipped with manipulator arm(s) can be determined to avoid in real work conditions and
are being increasingly used in a variety of areas of industry. When provide safety of the system and its operator. Besides, such a
these mobile utilities perform fast maneuvers, move over rough stability measure can be used in autonomous or unmanned
terrain, manipulate heavy work pieces, or interact large wrenches vehicles and teleoperated mobile manipulators operating in
with their environment, they may go unstable and overturn.
Therefore, safety and efficiency of such systems can be improved with
unknown environment. Several researchers have tried to
a reliable stability recognition metric. For on-line applications, such propose a suitable criterion for dynamic stability margins. For
tip-over stability measure should be computationally simple which instance, the shortest distance of center of mass projected to
makes its presentation a challenging task. In this study, various the horizontal plane from the projected support boundary has
dynamic stability measures are investigated and compared with each been used as a measure, [4]. Dubowsky and Vance considered
other in terms of their reliability and computational complexity. the stability of vehicle as an additional constraint for
Then, a new reliable and efficient metric named as Moment-Height conventional optimal time trajectory planning, [5]. However
Stability (MHS) measure is introduced for mobile manipulators. The they addressed stability against toppling down merely in the
proposed metric is a physically meaningful and reliable measure case of stationary vehicle.
while it contains low computational burden. The MHS measure can
be exploited successfully for wheeled mobile manipulators containing
single or multiple arms. Besides, by some minor modifications the
MHS measure can be also employed for the case of legged
locomotion. Also, the proposed MHS measure may be extended for
the case of suspended mobile manipulator on rough terrains. Several
case studies are presented to reveal the effectiveness of the new MHS
measure compared to the main previous measures.

Index Terms - Mobile Manipulators- Dynamic Stability-Turn

over, Moment-Height measure.

I. INTRODUCTION
In a mobile robotic system, whether wheeled or free-
flying in space, dynamic forces affect the motion of the base
and the manipulators, based on the action and reaction
principle. The kinematics, dynamics and control of such
systems have been described in previous works, [1-3]. One of
the most important problems caused by base movement, when
the system undergoes a fast maneuver or tries to climb a
slopped terrain, is the instability problem or tipping-over. For
instance this phenomenon can happen when such a mobile
robotic system manipulates a heavy object as shown in Fig. 1.
Therefore, to perform path and trajectory planning in
controlling such systems, an instantaneous dynamic stability
measure is required. The planning can also be done off-line
using a simulation routine. Then, based on a proper stability
margin criterion, any critical and hazardous work conditions
1- Associate Professor
2- PhD Candidate
1-4244-0259-X/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE
5546
Fig. 1 A mobile manipulator manipulating a heavy object may go unstable.
The Zero Moment Point (ZMP) has been proposed by
Sugano and his colleagues for the mobile manipulators, [6].
The ZMP criterion was originally used for gait planning in
anthropomorphic robots in which the center-of-mass (c.m.)
position is constant. On the other hand, in mobile
manipulators especially in manipulating heavy objects the
c.m. can be variable. Therefore, the ZMP, in its original form
is not sensitive to the variation of c.m. position. Also, if the
ZMP is calculated in a way presented in [6], the mass moment
of inertia of different rigid bodies will be neglected.
Moreover, the ZMP does not provide any specific indication
about the system instability at all, [7-8]. In order to alleviate
drawbacks of ZMP, the idea of Foot Rotation Indicator (FRI)
criterion presented in [7]. The cooperative motion planning
consisting of a rough motion planning and a local accurate one
considering the dynamic stability of system has been also
proposed, [9], where the links of the manipulator and the
mobile base are considered as several particles ignoring the
mass moment of inertia of them in evaluating the dynamic
stability margin. To include the mass moment of inertia the
original formulation of ZMP has been modified, [10]. Another
measure employs the resultant moment about each boundary
edge based on all external, gravitational and inertial forces,
and exerting torques on the system, [11]. A normalization
procedure is followed in order to change the unit of the margin
to a length unit. But this measure is insensitive to the c.m.
height in its original form. Another stability criterion has been
introduced based on the required energy for placing the c.g.
into a plane (called equilibrium plane) such that the whole
moment exerted on the system is minimized, [12]. Although
this measure incorporates the inertial forces but it assumes a
fixed direction for the external and inertial forces and torques
relative to machine frame during imaginary rotations of the
system. Also, its enormous computation steps require lots of
preliminaries. Papadopoulos and Rey have reported another
measure named force-angle margin, [13]. The measure of
force-angle has been exploited for on-line automatic tip-over
prevention in [14]. Shiller has imposed his stability constraints
for Mars rover motion planning, [15]. Another measure has
been recently reported by Li, [16]. The measure is an
inequality for checking the dynamic stability of mobile
manipulator and has used the normal forces between the
rear/front tires and ground. In [17] a three dimensional
simulation model for heavy-duty hydraulic mobile
manipulators has been presented to investigate tip-over
stability. The notion of virtual links has been exploited to
formulate the connection between the base and the ground.
In this paper, after a brief comparative review of various
dynamic stability measures, the new suggested measure MHS
is presented for wheeled mobile manipulators. The proposed
metric is physically meaningful based on principal concepts,
and can be implemented with limited low computational
effort. The computational complexity of several metrics will
be compared with each other. The suggested MHS measure
can be effectively used for both single and multiple arms
mounted on a single mobile platform. Also, it is sensitive to
the overall center-of-mass height. The suggested MHS can be
successfully employed for both even and rugged terrain. A
few case studies are presented to compare the new MHS
measure with the main previous measures. The obtained
simulation results show the merits of the new proposed MHS
measure which can be used for on-line planning due to limited
computational requirements.
II. MOMENT-HEIGHT STABILITY MEASURE
Instability may happen in several ways such as pure
sliding, pure rotation about a boundary point and combined
sliding and rotation, [7]. In this paper, the case of pure rotation
is of interest. Also, the tip-over of the platform will be devoted
as instability and hence the yaw instability (which may be
experienced in car dynamics) will not be considered as an
5547
unstable pose for system. So during the movement of the
system, the wheels will not slip and therefore the mobile
system is a nonholonomic one. Note that for exploring the
stability of the system most of our attention is concentrated on
the vehicle pose. When the system is in the onset of turning-
over the moving base is going to rotate about an axis which is
named tip-over axis.
Fig. 2 The separation of the whole system into two subsystems.
The original concepts of MHS which have been presented
previously in [18], is shortly reviewed, while it is extended to
uneven terrain applications. To apply the Moment-Height
Stability (MHS) measure, the following steps should be
executed:
1) First divide the whole system into two subsystems i.e. the
mobile platform and the manipulator arm(s) as it is depicted in
Fig. 2. This division is performed since in determination the
MHS measure the basic concentration is on the part which
produces mobility that is the mobile base.
2) Consider the platform as the link number ‘0’ and compute
the acceleration components of point ‘F’ which is the common
point of mobile base and manipulator arm. These components
must be described in the base coordinate frame x y z that is
0 0 0
the frame attached to the mobile base with the origin of point
'F'. The components of angular velocity and acceleration
related to the base are computed and described in the body
frame.
3) Using the outward iterations, the kinematic analysis of the
manipulator arm(s) is completed, and then the inertial
forces/torques for each link are computed. Next, through the
inward Newton-Euler iterations the kinetics of the manipulator
arm(s) is solved, and the wrench exerted on the moving base
(or link ‘0’) by the manipulator(s) is computed, and described
in the base body coordinate.
4) For each edge of the support polygon a unit vector aˆ i is
defined such that all the unit vectors make a closed loop
direction. In this study, we choose the clockwise direction. If
p1 , p 2 , … , p n represent the coordinates of contact points on
the ground, described in the base coordinate frame, then the
unit vectors of the support boundary edges can be computed as
follows:
p i +1 − p i
aˆ i = i = {1, 2, … , n − 1}
p i +1 − p i
(1a)
 aˆ n =
p1 − p n
αˆ =
( hc . m . )
λ
( min(α ) )
i
i

i = {1, 2, … , n }
( min(α ) )
p1 − p n
(1b) ( (h ) )
λnom

c . m . nom i
5) Considering all forces and torques exerted to the base body i
(9)
nom

due to manipulator motion, gravitational forces, inertial force
and external forces/ torques (which are described in the base
body frame), the resultant moment about each edge of support
boundary is computed. Suppose that the total force and couple
exerted on the base (except those generated by interaction
with the ground) are represented by Fr and n r , respectively.
Then the moment of these forces/couples about corner points
(the vertices of support polygon) can be found as follows.
M = − P × F + n i = {1, 2, … , n } (2)
vi i r r
where, M indicates the moment about i-th vertex of support
vi
polygon. Also, P stands for position vector of about i-th
i acceleration of the moving base.
vertex of support pattern.
6) The calculated moments about different vertices can be
projected easily about different edges of support polygon.
These moments about edges 12, 23 and n1 are named as
M 1 , M 2 ,..., M n , respectively, and can be written as
M v = M i .aˆ i
i Considering the procedure of computing three measures
Finally, by considering the most critical case, the dynamic
MHS measure ' α ' is computed as follows:
α = min(α ) i = {1, 2, … , n } (4)
i
i
where α̂ is the normalized dynamic stability margin and
subscript "nom" refers to the corresponding nominal value. In
this study, the initial pose is considered as nominal
configuration. Note that in order to compare different
introduced measures, such a normalization procedure will
make the comparison a fair and meaningful one.
In brief, computation of the MHS measure requires the
following inquiries:
a) All joint angles, velocities and accelerations in order
to calculate the interactive wrench between the manipulator
and the mobile platform (body ‘0’).
b) The linear and angular velocity as well as
c) Complete knowledge of all external forces/torques
exerted on the system.
III. COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY OF DIFFERENT TIP-OVER
STABILITY MEASURES
i = {1, 2, … , n } (3)
including MHS measure, Energy-Equilibrium Plane and
Force-Angle leads to a comparison between these metrics, in
terms of the required computational operations, as depicted in
Table I. Notice that for all measures the coordinates of support

where αi denotes the dynamic stability margin about the i-th polygon vertices are considered as inputs. The number of
boundary edge and is computed as these points is assumed to be 'n'. Also, for all measures the
wrench exerted on the mobile base by the manipulator arm(s)
α i = ( I vi ) Mv i = {1, 2, … , n }
σi

i
(5) is assumed to be available, and hence computations of these
where I vi is the base moment of inertia about the i-th edge of forces/torques are not taken into account. The required
computational effort for the considered system as a benchmark
support boundary edge, and
depicted in Fig. 1 reveals the efficiency of the MHS over the
 +1 ; if M v >0 two other measures. Note that 'N' in Table I indicates the
σi =  i = {1, 2, … , n }
i
number of dof of manipulator arm. Note that by computation
 −1 ; otherwise
(6) of a closed-form solution for c.m. height in terms of joint
Note that the MHS measure incorporates the mass moment of angles the computational burden can still be decreased for
inertia of the moving base, which is a significant factor in MHS computation.
possible rotation of the moving base (for more details see Table I
[18]). Although with the mentioned definition for dynamic The computational complexity of different measures
stability the importance of stabilizing and destabilizing Dynamic Stability Measure Multiplications Additions
Energy based 91n 54n
moments has been addressed, it can be still improved. More Force-Angle 76n+4 52n+2
specifically, the MHS measure in the above form is not MHS (without the c.m. height) 17n+2 13n
directly sensitive to the height of the whole system center-of- MHS (with the c.m. height) 17n+35N+13 13n+24N+5
mass. Therefore, the MHS measure α is improved for direct
incorporation of the c.m. height as follows: IV. MHS FOR ROUGH TERRAIN
α = ( hc . m . ) . min(α i ) i = {1, 2, … , n }
λ
(7) In this section, the proposed MHS is briefly described for
i
uneven terrains. Recall that for the case of rigid suspension
where hc.m. denotes the system c.m. height, and (e.g. our benchmark system) the movement on a rough terrain
−1 ; if min(α ) > 0 i
is meaningless. On the other hand, when there is a wheeled
 λ= (8) i
mobile-field robotic system in hostile environments the use of
 + 1 ; otherwise some kind of suspension/wheel compliance module is
The MHS measure α can also be normalized as follows: inevitable like the one which has been proposed by Sujan and
Dubowsky [19], and also by Abo-Shanab and Sepehri [17].

5548
Such a system is depicted in Fig. 3.. and can be still handled Note that the base is considered as a square so that I v3 = I v1
by MHS measure. To this end, it is just sufficient to prescribe
the coordinates of support polygon vertices as inputs to our and I v4 = I v2 .
proposed algorithm. To be more rigorous, in the presence of
flexible suspension the chassis is considered as a point of
concentration and the distorting force should also be
considered. In Fig. 4 a virtual structure has been considered
for a platform on rough terrain where each tire has a different
height when compared with others.

Fig. 4 A virtual structure for movement of platform on rugged terrain where

each wheel will be on a different height.

It is assumed that the mobile base moves on a flat terrain.

As mentioned before, all calculations have been performed
using a symbolic code developed in Maple 6, and the obtained
models were transferred to another code in Matlab VII to
complete numerical simulations.
Fig. 3 A suspended mobile manipulator which can move on a rough terrain. Table II
The specification for the manipulator arm
Since, the proposed MHS measure is based on the contact Parameter Value (unit) Description
The mass of
points between the base and ground, by considering the virtual m1 ,..., m6 Kg 85, 32, 8, 2, 2, 2
links
structure and the applied forces/torques (except the forced
L1 ,..., L6 ( m ) The lengths of
exerted to the tires) we can compute the applied moments 2, 3, 2, 0.09, 0.2, 0.2 the links
about different edges of support pattern. Hence, the MHS 26.85 0 0 
  Mass moment
metric becomes applicable. Note that since the pure rotation I1  0 0 .43 0 
of inertia for 1
st
 0 0 26.85
has been considered as instability, and the rotation of the  link
system will be caused due to the moments, we believe that the ( Kg .m 2 )
definition of instability by a moment-based metric is  0.0406

−744 E − 8 319 E − 8
 Mass moment
absolutely expected. − 744 E − 8 23.0642 0 
I2  319 E − 8 0 23. 0648  of inertia for 2
nd

Next, the MHS measure is applied on the system shown   link

in Fig. 1 during various maneuvers, and compared to other ( Kg .m 2 )
measures which were introduced previously. 0.0035

0 0 

0 2. 46 0  Mass moment

I3  0 0 2.46
of inertia for 3
rd

V. CASE STUDIES AND DISCUSSIONS  link

( Kg .m 2 )
To compare the MHS measure with the main introduced
 2.1 0 0
measures, three cases for movement of the system are  0 0.00032 0  Mass moment
considered and analyzed. As shown in Fig. 1, the system I4   of inertia for 4
th

 0 0 2.1 link
consists of a relatively heavy mobile base and a 6 degree-of-
( Kg .m 2 )
freedom manipulator arm with the configuration of PUMA
560. Table II expresses the complete specifications of the  0.58 0 0 
 0 0.58 0  Mass moment
mobile manipulator. The D. H. parameters of the manipulator I5   of inertia for 5
th

 0 0 0.00035 
are expressed in Table III. link
The mass moments of inertia about different edges of ( Kg .m 2 )

vehicle are as follows:  0.58 0 0 

 0 0.58 0  Mass moment
I6  
2
I v = 186.7091(kg.m ) of inertia for 6
th

1
 0 0 0.00035  link
2
I v = 686.7091(kg.m ) ( Kg .m 2 )
2
.

5549
 Table III Also the angle between the mobile platform and the horizontal
The D. H. parameters of the manipulator arm
axis ( X ) is considered as a constant value and equals
i α i −1 ai−1 di θi to π (rad ) . As it is seen the movement of mobile base is
4
1 0 0 L1 q1 considered with a variable acceleration along both axes ( X
and Y ). The velocity of mobile platform along either X or Y
2 90 0 0 q2 axis is started with a zero value and will reach to a maximum
3 0 L2 0 q3 one that is equal to 10 (m / sec ) , and finally it will be zero at
L3 t = 20( sec ) . Except the first link of the manipulator which
4 0 0 q4
moves by θ1 (t ) = 0.1 t (rad / sec ) , the other links are locked
5 -90 0 0 90 + q5
at home configuration defined as following angles:
6 90 0 L5 q6
θ 2 (t ) = θ 5 (t ) = θ 6 (t ) = 0, θ 3 (t ) = 4.7124(rad), θ 4 (t ) = 1.571(rad)
7 0 0 L6 0
In Fig. 6, it is seen that the results of two measures
A. First Case including Force-Angle and Moment-Height are very close to
This maneuver has been planned to clarify the effect of each other. Also the ZMP is too precautious compared to other
the system c.m. height. Here, the mobile base is fixed and the measures. Note that as it has been pointed out in previous
second and third manipulator joints are moving to put the sections, ZMP based on [6] does not consider the mass
payload over a higher level. The payload specification is a moment of inertia of various elements of the system and hence
steel cylinder with a mass of 245.987 (kg). Such a maneuver is there exists a great difference between its result and the others.
required in lift-truck machines, and also in wheeled loaders C. Third Case
while trying to unload into a truck. The variation of
normalized dynamic measures can be compared as shown in In this case, we assume that the mobile base with a mass
Fig. 5. It can be observed that except the MHS and Normal of 500 kg is moving along a circular path. A steel cylinder
Supporting Force, the others are insensitive to ever-increasing with a mass of 69.295 kg (diameter = 0.15 m, length = 0.5 m)
in height of system c.m., which reveals their imperfection. has been grasped by the end-effector.
Comparing the MHS and Normal Supporting Force, obviously
the MHS measure is more sensitive, which reveals merits of
the MHS measure compared to the others.

Fig. 6 Comparison between important stability measures for the second case.

Fig. 5: The sensitivity of measures to the system c.m. height during the first
The first joint of the manipulator, moves the arm under the
relation θ1 (t ) = −0.01 t + 0.1t , ( rad ) , while the other
3 2
maneuver.

B. Second Case joints remain in a home configuration as given before.

In this case, the mobile platform moves on a sloping plane The trajectory of the base reference point (point F), and the
base orientation with respect to the horizontal axis ( X ), i.e.
with inclination angle of π (rad ) along a straight path. Also,
ϕ , are as follows:
6
the acceleration of reference point of the mobile base i.e. point X F (t ) = cos(t ) (m )
‘F’ is as following:
3 2
Y F (t ) = sin(t ) (m ) (11)
X F (t ) = −0.033 t + t (m )
(10) ϕ = t +π ( rad )
3 2 2
Y F (t ) = −0.033 t + t (m )

5550
 For such a manoeuvre, between t = 0 and t = 20 S, the
dynamic stability measures are compared in Fig. 7. Also the
MHS measure without normalization associated with different
edges of support pattern is shown in Fig. 8. It can be observed
that the two measures of Energy-Equilibrium Plane and MHS
result in very close patterns. Also the Force-Angle and Normal
Supporting Force are too confident, while the ZMP is too
cautious comparing to the others. So, application of the first
two as part of a planning procedure may become risky, while
application of the ZMP restricts the use of full system
capabilities. Again, this case reveals merits of the MHS
measure compared to the others, as a realistic and reliable
stability measure.
Fig.7 Comparison between important stability measures for the third case.
Fig. 8 The MHS criterion related to different edges of support polygon.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a new measure named as Moment-Height
Stability (MHS) measure was presented for wheeled mobile
manipulators, which can be effectively used for both wheeled
and legged robots. The proposed MHS measure is physically
meaningful based on principal concepts. After a brief
comparative review of various dynamic stability measures,
considering a simple planar static case, basic concepts were
presented. Then, these concept were extended to the general
spatial dynamic case, and successive steps to apply the MHS
measure were briefly explained. Finally, a few case studies
were presented to compare the new MHS measure with the
main existing measures. The obtained simulation results show
the merits of the new proposed MHS measure which can be
5551
View publication stats
used for on-line planning due to limited computational
requirements. These case studies reveal that the MHS measure
can predict the exact time of instability occurrence, without
additional precautions of the other measures which may
confine the manoeuvrability of the system and its capabilities.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Rastegari, and S. Ali A. Moosavian, “Multiple Impedance Control of
Non-Holonomic Wheeled Mobile Robotic Systems Performing Object
Manipulation Tasks,” Journal of Engineering Faculty, Tehran University,
Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 15-30, May 2005 (written in Persian).
[2] S. Ali. A. Moosavian, R. Rastegari, and E. Papadopoulos, “Multiple
Impedance Control for Space Free-Flying Robots,” AIAA Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 939-947,
September 2005.
[3] S. Ali A. Moosavian, and E. Papadopoulos, “Explicit Dynamics of Space
Free-Flyers with Multiple Manipulators via SPACEMAPL,” Journal of
Advanced Robotics, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp 223-244, 2004.
[4] R. B. McGhee and G. I. Iswandhi, “Adaptive Locomotion of a
Multilegged Robot Over Rough Terrain,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man
Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-9, No. 4, pp. 176-182, 1979.
[5] S. Dubowsky and E. E. Vance, “Planning Mobile Manipulator Motions
Considering Vehicle Dynamic Stability Constraints,” Manipulators,”
Proc.of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp.1271-1276,
1989.
[6] S. Sugano, Q. Huang and I. Kato, “Stability Criteria in Controlling
Mobile Robotic Systems,” Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent
Robots and Systems, pp. 832-838, 1993.
[7] A. Goswami, “Postural Stability of Biped robots and the Foot Rotation
Indicator (FRI) Point,” Int. Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 18, No. 6,
pp. 523-533, 1999.
[8] [8] M. Vukobratovic and B. Borovac, “Zero Moment point: Thirty
Five Years of Its Life,” Int. Journal of Humanoid Robotics, Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 157-173, 2004.
[9] Q. Huang and S. Sugano, “Motion Planning of Stabilization and
Cooperation of a Mobile Manipulator,” Proc. of the IEEE/IROS 1996,
pp.568-575.
[10] J. Kim, W. K. Chung, Y. Youm and B. H. Lee, “Real–Time ZMP
Compensation Method Using Null Motion for Mobile Manipulators,”
Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp.1967-1972,
2002.
[11] B. S. Lin and S. M. Song, “Dynamic Modeling, Stability and Energy
Efficiency of a Quadrupedal Walking Machine,” Proc. of the IEEE Int.
Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp.367-373, 1993.
[12] A. Ghasempoor and N. Sepehri, “A Measure of Machine Stability for
Moving Base Manipulators,” Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics
and Automation, pp.2249-2254, 1995.
[13] E. G. Papadopoulos, and D. A. Rey, “A New Measure of Tipover
Stability Margin for Mobile Manipulators,” Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf.
on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3111-3116.1996,
[14] D. A. Rey, and E. G. Papadopoulos, “On-Line Automatic Tipover
Prevention for Mobile Manipulators,” Proc. of the 1997 International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS '97), pp. 1273-
1278, Grenoble, France,September 1997.
[15] Z. Shiller, “Motion Planning for Mars Rover,” Proc. of the IEEE Int.
Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp.257-262, 1999.
[16] Y. Li, “Dynamic Stability Analysis and Control for the Mobile
Manipulator,” Proc. of the IEEE Canadian. Conf. on Electrical &
Computer Engineering, pp.554-559, 2002.
[17] R. F. Abo-Shanab and N. Sepehri, “Tip-Over Stability of Manipulator-
Like Mobile Hydraulic,” ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement, and Control, Vol. 127, pp. 295-301, June 2005.
[18] S. Ali. A. Moosavian and K. Alipour, “Stability Evaluation of Mobile
Robotic Systems Using Moment-Height Measure,” Proc. of the IEEE Int.
Conf. on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM 2006), pp- 97-
102, 7 - 9 June 2006, Bangkok, Thailand.
[19] V. A. Sujan and S. Dubowsky, “An optimal Information Method for
Mobile Manipulator Dynamic Parameter Identification,” IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 215-225, June 2003.