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

net/publication/277882325

Dynamics of wheeled mobile robots with flexible suspension: Analytical

modelling and verification

Article · January 2008

DOI: 10.2316/Journal.206.2008.4.206-3183

CITATIONS READS
17 1,047

3 authors, including:

Khalil Alipour S.A.A. Moosavian

University of Tehran K. N. Toosi University of Technology
94 PUBLICATIONS 937 CITATIONS 281 PUBLICATIONS 3,725 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Motion Control of Mobile Robotic Systems View project

RoboWalk assistive device View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S.A.A. Moosavian on 18 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Robotics and Automation, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2008

DYNAMICS OF WHEELED MOBILE ROBOTS

WITH FLEXIBLE SUSPENSION: ANALYTICAL
MODELLING AND VERIFICATION
K. Alipour,∗ S.A.A. Moosavian,∗ and Y. Bahramzadeh∗

Abstract suspension sub-system increases the safety and durability

of the base as well as its mounted arm(s), in response to
Field Robots are defined as robotic systems that can work in shocks and jerks transmitted to them due to irregularity of
unstructured environments. Handling the mobility requirements the open terrain. Consequently, a suspended wheeled mo-
of a challenging rough terrain makes a suspended wheeled mobile bile robot (SWMR) can be considered as a proper system
robot (SWMR), with multiple dexterous manipulators, a proper for movement on any rough or uneven terrain, as shown in
field robot design. In this study, a general systematic procedure Fig. 1.
for dynamics modelling of such complicated systems is presented
based on Newton–Euler’s formulation for a chain of rigid bodies.
Then, to verify the obtained dynamics model, another model for
the considered system is developed using the commercial multibody
dynamic simulation package MSC.ADAMS. Comparison between the
results obtained from these two models confirms the thoroughness
of the proposed modeling approach. The presented approach can
also provide the interaction wrench(es) between the mobile base and
the mounted arm(s). Therefore, the developed model along with a
proper postural stability metric can be employed for stable planning
and model-based control of autonomous SWMRs to perform object
manipulation tasks. Besides, the obtained simulation model provides
an efficient tool for designers of such systems to examine various
behaviours and optimize relevant characteristics.

Key Words

Mobile manipulators, dynamics modelling, suspension system, Figure 1. A dual arm suspended wheeled mobile robot
MSC.ADAMS software which can move on a rough terrain.

1. Introduction Attempts by robotics research community for attaining

In recent years, the trend of academic research has di-
rected towards mobile platforms which accommodate the
terrain roughness. Currently, the exciting scientific results
obtained from Mars Rovers explorations highlight the key
role of field robots with reasonable degrees of mobility.
Exploiting a wheeled mobile robotic (WMR) system in
uneven environments, it is inevitable to use some kind of
suspension/tire compliance module. In addition, the use of
∗ Advanced Robotics & Automated Systems (ARAS) Labora-
tory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, K. N. Toosi
University of Technology, P.O. Box 19395-1999, Tehran, Iran;
e-mail: khalil_aalipour@yahoo.com, moosavian@kntu.ac.ir,
bahramzadehy@alum.sharif.edu
Recommended by Prof. Mohamed Kamel
(paper no. 206-3183)
242
the dynamical equations of motion for mobile robots have
led to successful results. However, most of these results ig-
nore the compliant characteristics of the structure/tire(s)
of the ground mobile robots. A systematic method for
the kinematics and dynamics modelling of a two degree of
freedom (DOF) automated guided vehicle (AGV) has been
presented by Saha and Angeles [1, 2]. They have employed
the notion of natural orthogonal complement to eliminate
the Lagrange multipliers. The kinematics and dynamics of
space robots in the phase of free-floating motion have been
described by Vafa and Dubowsky [3], proposing the idea of
virtual manipulator. In the absence of external forces act-
ing on the system, the system centre of mass (CM) is fixed
in inertial space. Hence, a free-floating space manipulator
can be exchanged with a virtual fixed-base manipulator.
The method of barycentric vector has been adopted to
study kinematics and dynamics of a free-floating single-
arm space robot [4]. Moosavian and Papadopoulos have
developed two basic approaches for kinematics modelling
of multiple manipulators space free-flying robots [5]. It was
shown that the direct path method requires significantly
fewer computations for position and velocity analyses. The
Lagrangian formulation has been applied to generate the
explicit dynamics model of space free-flying robots [6]. The
system kinetic energy is derived and three formats are ob-
tained which describe the contribution of each term of ki-
netic energy to the equations of motion. The idea of direct
path method has been utilized for deriving the dynamics
of differentially driven mobile manipulators equipped with
multiple arms [7]. The kinematics of differentially-driven
and car-like platforms has been described by Papadopoulos
and Poulakakis [8]. Moosavian and Eslamy have investi-
gated the dynamics as well as multiple impedance control
of a differentially driven multiple-arm robotic system to
manipulate a common object [9]. The mass-inertia ma-
trix and vector of nonlinear velocity-dependant terms have
been found to develop an explicit dynamics model that can
be properly used in control law. Abo-Shanab et al. have
described the dynamics modelling of manipulators with
moving bases or those with joints having more than one
DOF using the virtual link approach [10]. By introducing
virtual links appropriately, the method allows transforma-
tion of these types of manipulators into the ones having
fixed bases with one DOF joints. The method of virtual
link has been employed for obtaining the tip-over dynam-
ics of heavy-duty hydraulic mobile machines in different
researches [11–13]. Forward recursive formulation for the
dynamics of multibody systems has been employed to ob-
tain the governing equation of the nonholonomic mobile
manipulator systems [14]. The proposed approach can
be generally used for modelling the nonholonomic wheeled
mobile manipulators and is based on the virtual work. The
Kane’s approach has been reported for the dynamics of
multiple cooperating mobile manipulators moving on flat
surface while transporting an elastic object [15]. The dy-
namic interaction between a single DOF manipulator and
a suspended vehicle has also been addressed [16].
The estimation of dynamic parameters and dynamics
modelling of a mobile manipulator has been reported by
Sujan and Dubowsky in [17]. The linearized dynamics
model of a wheeled mobile robot has been studied to
analyze the frequency response of the body movements
[18]. Park et al. have presented a multilayered suspension
mechanism for two-caster and two wheeled mobile robot
to maintain stability and obtain improved performances
[19]. Dynamics modelling and a combined open/closed-
loop control strategy for a three-wheel autonomous ground
vehicle have been also reported [20]. However, the dynamic
interaction between a mobile base and its multiple arms
has been exploited for evaluation of tip-over stability of
such systems [21–23].
In this paper, a general procedure for dynamics mod-
elling of suspended wheeled mobile manipulators equipped
with multiple arms will be presented for spatial cases. Ver-
ification of the obtained analytical model and also investi-
243
gation of the dynamic interaction between the mobile base
and manipulator arm(s) will be also discussed. To this end,
in Section 2 an algorithm for closed-form computation of
the dynamic interaction between the base and its arm(s)
will be explained. Section 3 describes a spatial benchmark
system. Then, the kinematics and dynamics of the spa-
tial vehicle are derived, and the verification strategy for
spatial mobile robotic system by MSC.ADAMS software is
demonstrated. Simulation results reveal the effectiveness
of the proposed method. Finally, some concluding remarks
will be presented in the last section.
2. Closed-Form Dynamic Interaction between Plat-
form and Arms
A SWMR can be divided into two sub-systems; that is the
module which provides the mobility of the system (vehicle)
and the manipulator arm(s). It is expected that the next
generation of robotic systems become fully autonomous
and dexterous [24]. Dexterity implies the mechanical
capability to carry out various kinds of tasks in various
situations. To have a dexterous mobile robotic system, it
should have two or more arms, rather than just one [24].
Exploiting multiple manipulators will also improve the
grasping feature of a manipulated object. Consequently, in
this paper, a SWMR equipped with multiple manipulators
will be considered.
A general scheme to derive the validated dynamics of
the whole system can be proposed based on the dynamic
interaction between the two systems. Therefore, in this
section, an algorithm for closed-form computation of the
dynamic interaction between the base and its arm(s) is ex-
plained. Such explicit formats which are developed for the
described interaction wrenches can then be exploited for
any kind of locomotion system such as legged, wheeled of
various kinds (including omnidirectional or nonholonomic
drive with conventional, castor and Swedish wheels [25])
or even free-flying systems in space [6], in both planar and
three-dimensional motions. Note that, it is assumed that
the system consists of nt manipulators while each contains
Pi DOF, i = {1, 2, . . . , nt}. As a result, the total
ntDOF for
a three-dimentional motion equals to N = 6 + i=1 Pi .
To derive such analytical model, first consider the
following kinetics equations of the i-th link as:
(k) (k) (k) (k)
fi − fi+1 + mi g = mi R̈c(k)
i
(1a)
(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
ni − ni+1 + li(k) × fi − ri × fi+1 = Ii ω̇ i
(k) (k) (k)
+ ωi × Ii ω i (1b)
where the right superscript k indicates the k-th manipula-
tor, and right subscript i describes the i-th link. Besides,
(k)
fi indicates the force exerted on link i by link (i − 1) and
(k)
ni denotes the torque exerted on link i by link (i − 1).
(k) (k)
Also, mi represents the mass of link i, R̈Ci represents
(k) (k)
the linear acceleration of i-th link CM, vectors li , ri
are invariant body-fixed position vectors which describe
the position of i-th link CM relative to the i-th and i + 1-th
joints (see Fig. 2) and g is the vector of constant grav-
(k) (k)
itational acceleration, respectively. Finally, Ii and ω i
represent the mass moment of inertia and angular velocity between the mobile base and k-th manipulator define a
of i-th link respectively. Equations (1a) and (1b) can be wrench as:
rewritten in the following form:
(k) (k) (k)
W1 = [(n1 )T , (f1 )T ]T (5a)
(k) (k) (k) (k)
fi − fi+1 = mi (R̈Ci − g) (2a)
(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) And correspondingly, the wrench exerted to the en-
ni − ni+1 = − li(k) × fi + ri × fi+1
vironment by the end-effector of the k-th manipulator is
(k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
+ Ii ω̇ i + ω i × Ii ω i (2b) defined as:
(k) (k) (k)
WPk +1 = [(nPk +1 )T , (fPk +1 )T ]T (5b)

which can be obtained via measurements achieved through

force/torque sensor(s) installed at the wrist. It should be
noted that the mutual wrench at the e-th joint can also be
calculated in an analogous manner as follows:
Pk

(k) (k) (k)
fe(k) = fPk +1 − Me(k) · g + mi R̈Ci (6a)
i=e
Pk

(k) (k) (k) (k)
ne(k) = nPk +1 + (−li(k) × fi + ri × fi+1
i=e
(k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
+ Ii ω̇ i + ωi × Ii ω i ) (6b)

(k)
where Me describes the outboard mass after e-th joint of
k-th manipulator. Note that, in this case, the generalized
speeds and acceleration are as follows:

 TC , ω T0 , q T ]T ,
ν = [R ν̇ = [R̈TC0 , ω̇ T0 , q̈T ]
T
(6c)
0

where R  C0 represents the linear velocity of platform CM

Figure 2. The tree-like structure of the system. The base (see Fig. 2), ω 0 denotes the angular velocity of platform
can be either a free flyer or a ground vehicle. and q describes the joint speeds of whole arms, which is:
T T T
If the k-th manipulator arm has Pk links, then by q̇ = [q̇(1) , q̇(2) , . . . , q̇(nt) ]T(N −6)×1 (6d)
writing (2a) and (2b) for all links, summation of the LHS
and RHS of all these equations leads to: Now, to attain the linear acceleration of the CM of
each body in terms of generalized acceleration/speeds the
Pk
 P following kinematic analysis can be considered based on
(k) (k) (k) (k)
(fi − fi+1 ) = mi (R̈Ci − g) (3a) direct path kinematics approach [5]. The inertial position
i=1 i=1 of the CM of an arbitrary typical link can be written as:
Pk
 Pk

(k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
(ni − ni+1 ) = (−li(k) × fi + ri × fi+1 i

(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
i=1 i=1 RCi = RC0 + r0 + [(Δij rj − lj ) + δj qj zj ]
(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) j=1
+ Ii ω̇ i + ωi × Ii ω i ) (3b)
(7a)
It should be noted that, the LHS (3a) and (3b) can be (k)
easily contracted to: where Δij and δj , which determine the considered joint
is revolute or prismatic, are defined as follows:
Pk
 ⎧
(k) (k) (k) (k) ⎨ 1; i = j
f1 = fPk +1 − M (k) · g + mi R̈Ci (4a)
i=1 Δij = 1 − δij = (7b)
⎩ 0; i = j
P

(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) ⎧
n1 = nPk +1 + (−li(k) × fi + ri × fi+1 ⎨ 1; if q (k) is prismatic
i=1 (k) j
δj = (7c)
(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) ⎩ 0; otherwise
+ Ii ω̇ i + ωi × Ii ω i ) (4b)

(k)
where M (k) represents the total mass of the k-th arm. Note where δij is Kronecker delta and r0 describes the position
that the six-dimensional vector of dynamic interaction vector of the first joint of the k-th manipulator with
244
 (k)
respect to the base CM. Note that when qj corresponds
(k) (k) (k) (k)
to a prismatic joint then zj should be considered in the (Ji,Ci )L = [13×3 (J1, i )3×3 (J2, i )3×(N −6) ]3×N (13a)
(k) ⎡ ⎤×
direction opposite to the increase of qj . In addition, to i

(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
obtain the inertial velocity of CM of the i-th body of k-th J1, i = ⎣−r0 + (lj − Δij rj − δj qj zj )⎦
manipulator, (7a) is differentiated to yield: j=1
(13b)
i
 i

 C0 + ω 0 × r(k) +
 Ci = R [ω j
(k)
× (Δij rj
(k) (k)
− lj ) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
R 0 J2, i = (lj − Δij rj − δj qj zj )× Jq, j (13c)
j=1
j=1
(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
+ δj (q̇j zj + qj ω j × zj )] (8) (k)
Jq, j = [03×P1 03×P2 · · · 03×(Pk −1) Δ1 z1
(k) (k)

(k) (k) (k) (k)

× Δ2 z2 · · · Δj zj 03×(Pk −j)
It should be reminded that the term R  C0 + ω 0 × r(k)
0
× 03×Pk+1 · · · 03×Pnt ]3×(N −6) (13d)
represents the inertial velocity of the point of the platform
on which the k-th manipulator has been attached. In case,
the overall joints of k-th arm are revolute then (8) can be (k) (k)
reduced to the following: (Ji )A = [03×3 13×3 Jq, i ] (14)

i
 where (·)× is the cross product operator defined as:
 C0 + ω 0 × r(k) + (k) (k) (k)
 Ci = R
R 0 [ω j × (Δij rj − lj )] (9) ⎡ ⎤
j=1
0 −rz ry
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
(r)× = ⎢ rz 0 −rx ⎥ (15)
For single DOF joints, the angular velocity of an ⎣ ⎦
individual body can be evaluated as: −ry rx 0

i

(k) (k) (k) (k) To obtain the linear and angular acceleration of the
ωi = ω0 + Δj q̇j zj (10a) i-th body of k-th manipulator, (12b) and (12c) should be
j=1
differentiated as:

(k) (k)
where R̈Ci = (J Ci )L ν + (JCi )L ν̇ (16)
⎧ ω̇ =
(k)
(J i )A ν+
(k)
(Ji )A ν̇ (17)
⎨ 0; if qj
(k)
is prismatic
(k) (k)
Δj = 1 − δj = (10b)
⎩ 1; otherwise By substitution (17) into (6a), it can be obtained:

Pk

(k) (k) (k) (k)
By combining (9) and (10a) the following relationship fe(k) = fPk +1 − Me(k) · g + mi ((J Ci )L ν + (JCi )L ν̇)
can be obtained which describes the linear and angular i=e
velocity of the i-th manipulator: (18)

⎧ ⎫ Also, by substitution of (12c), (17) and (18) into (6b)

⎨R Ci ⎬
(k) and some manipulations the following relationship can be
= Ji,Ci ν (11)
⎩ ω (k) ⎭ obtained:
i Pk
(k) (k)
 (k)
ne(k) = nPk +1 + PEE/e × fPk +1 + Qi D(k)
where the Jacobian matrix can be found as: i=e
Pk

⎡ ⎤ +
(k) (k)
[Ii (J i )A ν + Ii (Ji )A ν̇
(k) (k)
(k)
(J )
(k)
Ji,Ci = ⎣ Ci L ⎦ (12a) i=e
(k) (k) (k) (k)
(Ji )A + ((Ji )A ν)× Ii ((Ji )A ν)] (19a)

such that the following relationship can be written: where PEE/e represents the position of k-th arm end-
effector relative to e-th joint of k-th manipulator and is
equal to:
 Ci = (J(k) )L ν
R (12b)
Ci
(k) (k) Pk

ωi = (Ji )A ν (12c) (k) (k)
PEE/e = (−li + ri ) (19b)
i=e
where linear and angular parts of jacobian matrix can be
obtained as: In addition, other matrices can be written as:
245
 3. Spatial Benchmark System
(k) (k) (k) (k) (k) (k)
Qi = [03×3(i−1) mi (−li )× mi+1 (−li + ri )× ···
(k) (k) (k) 3.1 Kinematics/Dynamics Modelling
mPk (−li + ri )× ]3×3Pk (19c)
⎡ ⎤
(k) (k) In this section, a SWMR equipped with two 3-DOF ma-
J L,1 ν + JL,1 ν̇ − g
⎢ ⎥ nipulators is considered and referred as a benchmark. The
⎢  (k) (k) ⎥
⎢ JL,2 ν + JL,2 ν̇ − g ⎥ base is mounted on a suspension sub-system as depicted in
D(k) ⎢
=⎢ ⎥ (19d)
.. ⎥ Fig. 3. The considered platform in Fig. 3 consists of a 6-
⎢ . ⎥
⎣ ⎦ DOF sprung mobile base and four unsprung wheels. Both
(k) (k)
J ν +J
L,Pk ν̇ − g
L,Pk attached manipulators have the configuration of PUMA
3Pk ×1
560 as shown in Fig. 1 where each has three DOFs (with
(k) (k) no wrist).
where JL, i is the representative for (JCi )L . It is worth
noting that the second term on the RHS of (19a) denotes
the moment of force applied at the end-effector about e-th
joint of k-th arm. Also, the third term on the RHS, which
(k)
is a combination of matrix Qi and column vector D(k) ,
represents the effect of centripetal and Coriolis torques.
These terms are generated as a result of the moment of
centrifugal and Coriolis forces applied at the CM of various
links of k-th arm about e-th joint. Finally, the last term on
the RHS depicts the rate of change of angular momentum
of a system comprising the outboard links after e-th joint
of k-th manipulator. Note that the equations of motion of
different bodies of various manipulators can be obtained as
follows:

τe(k) = ne(k) · Ze(k) (20)

It should be noted that the obtained Jacobian matri-

ces are independent of the selected frame and consequently
their components can be projected in any convenient frame
of reference by employing the associated transformation
matrices. The obtained forward kinematics formulation
can moreover be utilized for obtaining the system dy-
namics equations using any energy-based approach (e.g.,
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations).
In summary, by calculation of Jacobian matrices from
(13) and (14) and their derivatives and use of (18), (19) and
(20) the equations of motion of manipulators as well as the
mutual wrenches between the mobile base and manipulator
arms can be obtained. Note that the angular velocity
and acceleration of any individual body, in a kinematic
tree-like structure with single DOF joints can be obtained
using (10) and (17). If there are joints with multi DOF,
then the proposed formulation can still be employed. To
this end, some virtual links/joints will be added to the
original system to substitute the multi-DOF joint with that
of multi-single DOF. Finally, the kinematic and dynamic
properties of the virtual links will be set to zero [10].
It should be mentioned that analytical derivation of the
mutual interaction provides a suitable way for analyzing
the dynamic effects on the performance of a system. Also,
it leads to insight for inclusion or exclusion of various
dynamic terms in the equation of motion so that the
complexity of a model-based controller remains within a
manageable level without sacrificing the performance of the
overall system [14]. Moreover, these interaction dynamic
wrenches can be employed for tip-over stability analysis of
the system [21–23].
246
Figure 3. The mobile base body and suspension sub-
system.
The main body of the platform is modelled as a 6-DOF
body; three DOF for its linear motion along X, Y and
Z-inertial axes, and three DOF for its rotational motion
about three base body frame axes (roll, pitch and yaw).
These frames are depicted in Fig. 3. To present a complete
model for such systems, the wheels are modelled separately
as rigid masses mounted on linear springs. Origin of the
body frame x0 y0 z0 coincides with CM of the base and
travels with the vehicle.
Angular velocities of base body frame are ωx0 , ωy0
and ωz0 about x0 , y0 and z0 -axes, respectively. As it was
mentioned, the vehicle motion is described by the three
linear displacements along inertial X, Y and Z-axes and
three angular displacements which are the X0 _Y 0 _Z 0
Euler angles φ, θ and ψ. These angles are used to describe
the orientation of the base body frame x0 y0 z0 , with respect
to the inertial frame. Note that the body frame x0 y0 z0 is
obtained from the inertial set of axes, XYZ, by means of a
translational motion along with three successive rotations
φ, θ and ψ, respectively. Thus if B denotes a vector in
inertial set of axes and b is the representation of the
corresponding one in inertial set of axes then:
 B = [R]T b (21a) the wheels and ground respectively. In addition, NT and
Nf ric are torques exerted to the platform due to translating
where [R] is the rotation matrix given as: forces FT and Ff ric from their original point of application
to the base body. Furthermore, Nn regulates the platform
⎡ ⎤ heading angle, that is ψ.
cψ −sψ sθ
⎢ ⎥ Applying Newton’s equations in the inertial frame, the
T ⎢ ⎥
[R] = ⎢ sψ + sϕsθcψ cψ − sϕsθsψ −sϕ ⎥ (21b) equations of motion of the base are obtained as:
⎣ ⎦
sϕsψ − sθcψ sϕcψ + sθsψ 1

F X = m 0 aX
C0 (24a)
where s(·) and c(·) stands for sin(·) and cos(·), respectively.
The triple (ϕ, θ, and ψ) is said to be Euler representation FT c(ψ) − Ff ric s(ψ) + (Farms )X = m0 Ẍ (24b)
of roll, pitch and yaw angles of orientation of base body 
F Y = m 0 aY
C0 (24c)
frame with respect to the inertial frame. Note that in our
study, the roll and pitch angles are small and less than 6◦ FT s(ψ) + Ff ric c(ψ) + (Farms )Y = m0 Ÿ (24d)
while the yaw angle can be any finite value. The angular 
F Z = m 0 aZ
C0 (24e)
velocity of the platform can be written as:
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ FF R + FF L + FBR + FBL − m0 g + (Farms )Z = m0 Z̈
cθcψ sψ 0 ϕ̇ (24f)
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
ω 0 = ⎢ −cθsψ cψ 0 ⎥⎢ θ̇ ⎥ (22)
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
sθ 0 1 ψ̇ where FF R , FF L , FBR and FBL are the suspension forces
exerted to the base body (see Fig. 4). Also, (Farms )X ,
(Farms )Y and (Farms )Z indicate overall forces due to inter-
Simple differentiation of angular velocity with respect to
action between the base and arms along axes of the inertial
time leads to absolute angular acceleration. Therefore, the
reference frame and are obtained as follows:
absolute angular acceleration described in the base body
axes is obtained as follows:
 (k)
 (k)
(Farms)X = c(ψ + ψ0 ) (−f1 )x0 − s(ψ + ψ0 ) (−f1 )y0
ω̇x0 = ϕ̈cψ − ϕ̇ ψ̇sψ + θ̈sψ + θ̇ψ̇cψ (23a) k k
 (k)
ω̇y0 = −ϕ̈sψ − ϕ̇ ψ̇cψ + θ̈cψ − θ̇ψ̇sψ (23b) + s(θ + θ0 ) (−f1 )z0 (25a)
k
ω̇z0 = ψ̈ (23c)
(Farms )Y = (s(ψ + ψ0 ) + s(ϕ + ϕ0 )s(θ + θ0 )c(ψ + ψ0 ))
 (k)
The free-body diagram of the base is seen in Fig. 4. × (−f1 )x0 + (c(ψ + ψ0 ) − s(ϕ + ϕ0)s(θ + θ0)s(ψ + ψ0 ))
It is remarked that m0 g represent the base weight force. 
k

(k) (k)
Also, FT and Ff ric denote the resultant longitudinal and × (−f1 )y0 − s(ϕ + ϕ0 ) (−f1 )z0 (25b)
lateral forces exerted to the base due to interaction between k k
(Farms )Z = (s(ϕ + ϕ0 )s(ψ + ψ0 ) − s(θ + θ0 )c(ψ + ψ0 ))
 (k)
× (−f1 )x0 + (s(ϕ + ϕ0)c(ψ + ψ0) + s(θ + θ0)s(ψ + ψ0 ))
k
 (k)
 (k)
× (−f1 )y0 + (−f1 )z0 (25c)
k k

(k)
It is remarked that −f1 indicates the force exerted
to the base body by the k-th manipulator. This force has
been described in base body frame. Also, Euler’s equations
in base body-fixed frame can be written as follows:


NCx00 = Ix0 x0 ω̇x0 − (Iy0 y0 − Iz0 z0 ) ωy0 ωz0 (26a)

NCy00 = Iy0 y0 ω̇y0 − (Iz0 z0 − Ix0 x0 ) ωz0 ωx0 (26b)

NCz00 = Iz0 z0 ω̇z0 − (Ix0 x0 − Iy0 y0 ) ωx0 ωy0 (26c)

Figure 4. The free-body diagram of the mobile base. Substituting (22) and (23) into (26) leads to
247


NCx00 = Ix0 x0 (ϕ̈cψ − ϕ̇ψ̇sψ + θ̈sψ + θ̇ ψ̇cψ)
− (Iy0 y0 − Iz0 z0 )(−ϕ̇ψ̇sψ + θ̇ψ̇cψ) (27a)
 considered system has been developed using MSC.ADAMS
NCy00 = Iy0 y0 (−ϕ̈ sψ − ϕ̇ψ̇cψ + θ̈cψ − θ̇ψ̇sψ)
− (Iz0 z0 − Ix0 x0 )(ϕ̇ψ̇cψ + θ̇ψ̇sψ) (27b)

NCz00 = Iz0 z0 ψ̈ − (Ix0 x0 − Iy0 y0 )
× (−ϕ̇2 sψcψ + θ̇ϕ̇c2 ψ − θ̇ϕ̇s2 ψ + θ̇2 sψcψ)
(27c)
 x0  y0  z0
where N C0 , NC0 and NC0 represent the resultant
overall moments exerted to the base body about various
axes of its frame x0 y0 z0 .
The equation of motion for the wheels (unsprung
masses) can be written as:
⎧
⎨ j = F, B
Ktj (Uji − (Z)ji + (Z0 )ji ) − mtj g = mtj (Z̈)ji ;
⎩ i = R, L
(28)
where UF R , UF L , UBR and UBL are displacements of front
right, front left, rear right and rear left wheels which are
all due to excitation from uneven ground surface profile,
respectively.
It is assumed that in (22)–(28) the pitch and roll
angles are less than 6◦ . This is a valid assumption for a
usual suspension and normal road irregularity. However,
when the system is traversing large concave obstacles [26],
or a hilly topography, the pitch and roll angles of the
platform do not remain small. In that case, the suspension
forces exerted to the platform will not be vertical and
will have different components, and those components
should be taken into account by considering the suspension
characteristics.
Note that, it is often the case in mobile robotics that
the system of interest has fewer actuators say m than de-
grees of freedom n. These systems are called underactuated
and have recently received a great deal of attention in the
literature. This is partly due to the fact that simple control
laws may not work for this case, and the linearized system
may fail to be controllable. A simple example of underac-
tuated systems arises when certain directions of motion are
forbidden due to no-slip constraints, as in wheeled mobile
robots. These constraints, called nonholonomic kinematic
constraints, are nonintegrable equations involving the joint
variables and their first derivatives [27]. It is recalled that
regular WMR systems are typically nonholonomic systems.
For kinematics/dynamics modelling (based on Newton–
Euler’s approach) the nonholonomic constraint, which is
formed due to the rolling wheels, does not generate serious
concerns except adding a differential constraint. However,
the nonholonomic constraint produces special difficulties in
the level of automatic control/planning for mobile robots
[28]. Hence, in this paper this feature has not been dis-
cussed because the focus of this paper is neither automatic
control nor planning for SWMRs.
248
3.2 Verification of the Obtained Dynamics
To verify the obtained dynamics, another model for the
software as shown in Fig. 5. MSC.ADAMS software can
be exploited to produce virtual prototypes for simulating
complicated mechanical systems and also quick analyzing
of design variations to achieve an optimal design. Herein,
as mentioned previously, this software has been exploited
to verify our proposed approach.
Figure 5. The model which has been generated by
MSC.ADAMS software.
Various manoeuvers have been considered and imple-
mented by both models. The behaviour of these two mod-
els during one of these manoeuvers is demonstrated here.
To this end, it is assumed that the base CM moves forward
on a straight path. Also, a rough surface is considered as
depicted in Fig. 6. Note that the first segment of the sur-
face is a flat one. Following the flat part, the second part
is a quintic path versus “X” to examine smooth changes,
and the final piece comprises a harmonic sinusoidal profile.
It should be mentioned that the difference between the
peak and the lowest point of the road roughness for the
right side of the vehicle is 24 cm, while the corresponding
one for the left side of the vehicle is 16 cm. Therefore, a
three-dimensional motion of the base is guaranteed.
In this case study, it has been assumed that the robot
(see Figs. 1 and 3) is moving forward with constant longi-
tudinal speed v = 8 m/s. The mass of the base is 18,000 kg,
and the two manipulators are exactly the same. The mass
of the first link of each arm is 2,000 kg, while the mass of
the second and third links are equal to 1,830 and 688 kg,
respectively. The lengths of the first, second and third
links are 1 m, 5.2 m and 1.8 m, respectively.
The stiffness coefficients for the front and rear springs
is k = 45e4 N/m, and the corresponding damping coefficient
is C = 15e3 N.s/m. The wheel mass or unsprung mass is
considered as mt = 100 kg, and the tires stiffness is equal
to kt = 45e5 N/m. Also, the second and third joints of both
arms are moving up during the manoeuvre, as illustrated
in Fig. 7, while the first joint of both arms are fixed in
their home configurations.
Figure 6. The terrain roughness associated with the wheels: (a) right side and (b) left side.
Figure 7. The snapshot of the movement of the second and
third links during the manoeuvre.
As it can be observed in Figs. 8 and 9, both models
yield similar results and almost the same responses. There-
fore, due to the high nonlinsearities and coupling of the
system it can be concluded that soundness of the proposed
modelling approach is guaranteed.
Figure 8. The bounce of both models.
Figure 9. The pitch of both models.
249
4. Conclusions
In this paper, a general procedure for dynamics modelling
of SWMR was presented. The equations of motion have
been symbolically developed, using Maple VI, and the re-
sults transferred to another code in Matlab VII to complete
numerical simulations for the whole system. Also, the dy-
namic interaction(s) between mobile platform and manip-
ulator arm(s) was (were) investigated. Analytical deriva-
tion of the mutual interaction provides a suitable way for
analyzing the dynamic effects on the performance of a sys-
tem. Also, it leads to the inclusion or exclusion of dynamic
terms in the equation of motion so that the complexity of
model-based controller is maintained within a manageable
level without sacrificing the performance of the overall sys-
tem. Two approaches including iterative Newton–Euler
as well as analytical formulation were presented. To ver-
ify the presented approach, spatial model equipped with
dual arms has been developed by MSC.ADAMS simulation
software. It was observed these models obtained by closed-
form formulation and MSC.ADAMS model yield the same
responses. Therefore, due to the high nonlinearities and
coupling of the system it can be concluded that thorough-
ness of the obtained analytical model is guaranteed. The
obtained dynamics can then be exploited for model-based
control algorithms and tip-over stability analysis of the
mobile robotic system for motion over rough terrains.
References
[1] S.K. Saha & J. Angeles, Dynamics of nonholonomic mechanical
systems using a natural orthogonal complement, ASME Journal
of Applied Mechanics, 58, 1991, 238–244.
[2] S.K. Saha & J. Angeles, Kinematics and dynamics of a three-
wheeled 2-DOF AGV, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and
Automation, Piscataway, USA, 1989, 1572–1577.
[3] Z. Vafa & S. Dubowsky, On the dynamics of manipulators in
space using the virtual manipulator approach, Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Robotics and Automation, Raleigh, NC, 1987, 579–585.
[4] E. Papadopoulos & S. Dubowsky, On the nature of control
algorithms for free-floating space manipulators, IEEE Trans-
actions on Robotics and Automation, 7 (6), 1991, 750–758.
[5] S.A.A. Moosavian & E. Papadopoulos, On the kinematics
of multiple manipulator space free-flyers, Journal of Robotic
Systems, 15 (4), 1998, 207–216.
[6] S.A.A. Moosavian & E. Papadopoulos, Explicit dynamics of
space free-flyers with multiple manipulators via SPACEMAPL,
Journal of Advanced Robotics, 18 (2), 2004, 223–244.
[7] R. Rastegari & S.A.A. Moosavian, Multiple impedance control
of nonholonomic wheeled mobile robotic systems performing
object manipulation tasks, Journal of Engineering Faculty,
Tehran University, 39 (1), 2005, 15–30 (written in Persian).
[8] E. Papadopoulos & J. Poulakakis, Planning and model-based
control for mobile manipulators, Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf.
 Intelligent Robots and Systems, Takamatsu, Japan, October Biographies
2000, 1810–1815.
[9] S.A.A. Moosavian & M. Eslamy, Object manipulation by Khalil Alipour received his B.S.
multiple arms of a wheeled mobile robotic system, Proc. IEEE
and M.S. degrees in Mechanical
Int. Conf. Robotics, Automation & Mechatronics, China, June
2008. Engineering from K. N. Toosi Uni-
[10] R.F. Abo-Shanab, N. Sepehri, & Q. Wu, On dynamic modelling versity of Technology in 2002 and
of robot manipulators: The method of virtual links, Proc. 2004, respectively, both with hon-
ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Montreal, Canada, ours. He is currently working to-
Paper #DETC’02/MECH-34225, 2002.
wards his Ph.D. in Mechanical En-
[11] R.F. Abo-Shanab & N. Sepehri, On dynamic stability of
manipulators mounted on mobile platforms, Robotica, 19, 2001,
gineering at the same school.
439–449. His research is in the areas
[12] R.F. Abo-Shanab & N. Sepehri, Effect of base compliance on of dynamics modelling, automatic
the dynamic stability of mobile manipulators, Robotica, 20, control, motion/path planning of
2002, 607–613. robotic systems and tip-over sta-
[13] R.F. Abo-Shanab & N. Sepehri, Tip-over stability of bility analysis of mobile robots. In 2006, he was one of
manipulator-like mobile hydraulic, ASME Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, 127, 2005, 295–301.
the finalists for the Best Paper Award at IEEE Int. Conf.
[14] Q. Yu & I.-M. Chen, A general approach to the dynamics
on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM 2006).
of nonholonomic mobile manipulator systems, ASME Journal He is a Student Member of IEEE society of Robotics and
of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 124, 2002, Automation.
512–521.
[15] H.G. Tanner, K.J. Kyriakopoulos, & N.J. Krikelis, Modelling of
multiple mobile manipulators handling a common deformable S. Ali A. Moosavian received his
object, Journal of Robotic Systems, 15 (11), 1998, 599–623. B.S. degree in 1986 from Sharif
[16] A. Meghdari, M. Durali, & D. Naderi, Investigating dynamic University of Technology and his
interaction between the one D.O.F. manipulator and vehicle M.S. degree in 1990 from Tar-
of a mobile manipulator, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic biat Modaress University (both
Systems, 28, 2000, 277–290.
in Tehran), and his Ph.D. degree
[17] V.A. Sujan & S. Dubowsky, An optimal information method
for mobile manipulator dynamic parameter identification, in 1996 from McGill University
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2 (2), 2003, 215– (Montreal, Canada), all in Me-
225. chanical Engineering. He is an
[18] M. Prado, A. Simon, A. Perez, & F. Ezquerro, Effects of ground Associate Professor with the Me-
terrain irregularities on wheeled mobile robot, Robotica, 21,
chanical Engineering Department
2003, 143–152.
at K. N. Toosi University of Tech-
[19] J. Park, S.G. Roh, H. Kim, H.-G. Lee, & H. Choi, Design
of multilayered suspension mechanism for differential type nology (in Tehran). He teaches courses in the areas of
mobile robot, Proc. Int. Conf. Control, Automation and System robotics, dynamics, automatic control, analysis and synthe-
(ICCAS), South Korea, October 2003. sis of mechanisms. His research interests are in the areas of
[20] M. Eghtesad & D.S. Necsulescu, Experimental study of the dy- dynamics modelling, and motion/impedance control of ter-
namic based feedback linearization of an autonomous wheeled
ground vehicle, Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems,
restrial and space robotic systems. He has published more
47, 2004, 47–63. than 95 articles in international journals and conference
[21] S.A.A. Moosavian & K. Alipour, Moment-height tip-over mea- proceedings. He is one of the three Founders of the ARAS
sure for stability analysis of mobile robotic systems, Proc. Research Center for Design, Manufacturing and Control of
IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems, Beijing, Robotic Systems, and Automatic Machineries.
China, October 2006, 5546–5551.
[22] S.A.A. Moosavian & K. Alipour, On the dynamic tip-over
stability of wheeled mobile manipulators, International Journal Yousef Bahramzadeh received
of Robotics and Automation, 22 (4), 2007, 322–328. his B.S. degree from K. N. Toosi
[23] S.A.A. Moosavian & K. Alipour, Tip-over stability of suspended University of Technology in 2001
wheeled mobile robots, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Mechatronics
and Automation, China, August 2007, 1356–1361.
and his M.S. degree in 2003 from
[24] Y. Nakamura, Advanced robotics: Redundancy and optimiza-
Sharif University of Technology,
tion (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesely Publishing Company, both in Mechanical Engineering.
1991). He is currently working as a Re-
[25] R. Siegwart & I.R. Nourbakhsh, Introduction to autonomous search Engineer in vehicle dy-
mobile robots (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India, 2005). namic department of AIRIC.
[26] Z. Shiller, Obstacle traversal for space exploration, Proc. IEEE His research is in the areas of
Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, San Francisco, USA,
April 2000, 989–994.
vehicle dynamics, robotics, intel-
[27] V. Kumar, M. Žefran, & J. Ostrowski, Motion planning and
ligent control and vibration. He
control of robots, Handbook of Industrial Robotics (New York: has contributed in various research projects on these fields
John Wiley and Sons, 1997). such as full vehicle simulation of a newly developed car
[28] E. Papadopoulos, I. Papadimitriou, & I. Poulakakis, in the country using MSC.ADAMS/CAR and design of
Polynomial-based obstacle avoidance techniques for nonholo- mobile rescue robot. The results have been published as
nomic mobile manipulator systems, Journal of Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, 41 (4), 2005, 229–247. articles in international conference proceedings such as
JSAE and IEEE.
250
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

View publication stats