MODULAR ROBOTICS
Submitted by
STUDENT NAME : Mohammad Faaiz
ROLL NO : 62
BRANCH/SECTION : Mechanical
REG. NO : 160909454
E-MAIL ID :
[email protected]CONTACT NO. : +91-8296539907
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING
MANIPAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
(A constituent Institute of MAHE)
MANIPAL - 576 104, KARNATAKA, INDIA
Modular Robotics
INDEX
S.No. Contents Page No.
1. Introduction 2
1.2 History 4
1.3 Motivation for development 5
and Inspiration
2. Structure 7
2.1 Classification 8
3. Application areas 12
3.1 Space Exploration 12
3.2 Bucket of stuff 13
4. Opportunities and 14
challenges
4.1 Planning and control 14
challenge
4.2 Hardware design challenge 15
4.3 Application challenge 16
5. Conclusion 16
6. References 17
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 2
Modular Robotics
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 What are self-reconfigurable modular robots?
Self-reconfigurable modular robots are autonomous kinematic machines with
variable morphology.
Apart from the classical actuations, detection and control generally encountered in
robots with fixed morphology, self-reconfigurable robots are also able to
deliberately modify their own shape by rearranging the connectivity of their parts,
in order to adapt to new circumstances, performing new tasks or recover from
damages.
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 3
Modular Robotics
Self-reconfiguring here means that the mechanism or device is able to use its own
control system, such as an actuator, to modify its overall structural shape. Having
this quality means that the same module or the same set of modules can be added
or removed from the system, instead of being generically "modularized" at large.
The underlying intention is to have an indefinite number of identical modules, or a
finite and relatively small set of identical modules, in a mesh or matrix structure of
modules that are self-reconfigurable.
For example, the robot can take the form of a worm like structure to crawl through
a duct or a pipe, or disassemble into smaller parts to move through crevices and
contours with twists and turns.
1.2 History
The roots of the concept of modular self-reconfigurable robots go back to the "quick
change" end effector and the automatic tool changers in numerically controlled
machining centers in the 1970s. Here, special modules, each with a common
connection mechanism could be replaced automatically at the end of a robot arm.
Toshio Fukuda introduced the basic concept of the common connection
mechanism and applied it to the entire robot in the late 1980s with the CEBOT
(short for Cellular Robot).
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 4
Modular Robotics
In the early 1990s, Greg Chirikjian, Mark Yim, Joseph Michael, and Satoshi Murata
continued to develop these further. Chirikjian, Michael and Murata developed
lattice reconfiguration systems and Yim developed a chain-based system. While
these researchers began with a mechanical engineering focus, designed and built
modules, and then developed code to program them, the work of Daniela Rus and
Wei-min Shen developed hardware, but had a greater impact on programming
aspects. They began a trend towards detectable or verifiable distributed algorithms
for controlling a large number of modules.
One of the more interesting hardware platforms recently has been the MTRAN II
and III systems developed by Satoshi Murata et al. This system is a hybrid chain
and lattice system. It has the advantage of being able to achieve tasks more easily
like chain systems, yet reconfigure like a lattice system.
1.3 Motivation for development and inspiration
There are two main motives for designing modular self-reconfiguring robotic
systems.
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 5
Modular Robotics
Functional Advantage - Self-reconfiguring robotic systems may be more
robust and adaptable than conventional systems. The reconfiguration
capability allows a robot or group of robots to disassemble and reassemble
machines to form new morphologies that are more suitable for new tasks,
such as switching from a legged robot to a snake robot (snake bot) and then
to a rolling robot. Since robot parts are interchangeable (within a robot and
between different robots), machines can also autonomously replace faulty
parts, resulting in self-repair.
Economic Advantage - Self-reconfiguring robotic systems can potentially
reduce the overall cost of the robot by making a series of complex machines
from a single (or relatively few) type of series module that can be mass
produced.
Both advantages have not been fully realized yet. It is likely that a modular
robot will be inferior in performance than a single custom robot tailored to a
specific task. The advantage of modular robotics, however, is only apparent
when considering multiple tasks that would normally require a set of different
robots.
The additional degrees of freedom make modular robots more versatile in
their potential capabilities, but also cause loss of performance and increased
mechanical and computational complexity.
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 6
Modular Robotics
The quest for self-reconfiguring robotic structures is to some extent inspired
by planned applications such as long-term space missions, which require a
long-term, self-sustaining robotic ecology that can handle unforeseen
situations and possibly require self-repair. A second source of inspiration are
biological systems that are self-constructed out of a relatively small repertoire
of lower-level building blocks (cells or amino acids, depending on scale of
interest). This architecture underlies biological systems' ability to physically
adapt, grow, heal, and even self-replicate – capabilities that would be
desirable in many engineered systems.
2. STRUCTURE
Modular robots usually comprise of several building blocks of a relatively small
range of blocks with unified docking interfaces that enable the transmission of
electrical power, and communication throughout the robot, mechanical forces and
moments.
The building blocks generally comprise of a primary structural unit and perhaps
additional specialized units such as wheels, cameras, feet, grippers, payload and
energy storage and production.
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 7
Modular Robotics
2.1 Classification
Modular robots are usually classified into chain-type, lattice-type, or hybrid-type
architectures.
1. Chain Type
Chain-type architectures consist of modules that are connected together in a linear
or tree topology. This structure can fold-up to become space filling, but the
underlying architecture is serial.
Fig.1 Chain type robot self-reconfiguring from snake
configuration to four legged walker configuration
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 8
Modular Robotics
Modular robots which are designed to navigate in different and unknown
environments (e.g., in rescue or space exploration missions), where a modular
Fig.2 PolyBot
Robot needs to change its configuration to avoid obstacles, to pass through narrow
openings, to climb up or down steep slopes, and so on, follow the chain-type
architecture. Ex – PolyBot, M-TRAN I.
Metamorphosis of M-TRAN III
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 9
Modular Robotics
2. Lattice type
A lattice – type robot has modules arranged in a regular three-dimensional (3D)
pattern, such as a cubic or hexagonal grid. Modular lattice-type robots are
inherently self-reconfigurable because reconfiguration is the only means of
locomotion.
Lattice architecture have their units connecting their docking interfaces at points
into virtual cells of some regular grid. This network of docking points can be
compared to atoms in a crystal and the grid to the lattice of that crystal/
Molecube
Therefore, the kinematical features of lattice robots can be characterized by their
corresponding crystallographic displacement groups (chiral space groups). Usually
few units are sufficient to accomplish a reconfiguration step. Lattice architectures
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 10
Modular Robotics
allows a simpler mechanical design and a simpler computational representation
and reconfiguration planning that can be more easily scaled to complex systems.
3. Hybrid Type
Hybrid-type architectures have features of both lattice-type and chain-type
architectures. Some modular robot can be classified as hybrid-type because they
can be configured both as chain and as lattice structures. M-TRAN, Superbot,
SMORES, and Roombots are examples of hybrid-type modular robots.
SuperBot
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 11
Modular Robotics
3. APPLICATION AREAS
3.1 Space Exploration
One application that highlights the benefits of self-configurable systems is long-
term space missions. These require a long-term, self-sustaining robotic ecology
that can handle unforeseen situations and possibly require self-repair.
Self-reconfigurable systems can handle tasks that are not known beforehand,
especially when compared to fixed configuration systems. In addition, space
missions are heavily volume and mass limited. Sending a robotic system that can
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 12
Modular Robotics
be reconfigured to perform many tasks may be more effective than sending many
robots, each capable of completing a task.
Even more expensive than putting a spacecraft in orbit is landing one on
another planetary surface, since additional mass is required for landing
mechanisms and additional fuel for deceleration. Thus, the potential mass and
cost savings associated with modular robotics are even greater in this domain.
Once on the surface, useful capabilities include locomotion, instrument
placement and sample operations, and support of lunar and planetary bases
.In addition to the module types that would be useful in space, there are a
number of surface specific types to consider. Special wheel modules could
allow efficient long-range locomotion, while force sensitive foot modules could
enable legged locomotion over rougher terrain. A range of scientific sensors,
drills, shovels, and other tools could be included as end-effector modules.
3.1 Bucket of Stuff
Another vision for these systems has been called "bucket of stuff". In this vision,
consumers of the future have a container of self-reconfigurable modules say in
their garage, basement, or attic. When the need arises, the consumer calls forth
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 13
Modular Robotics
the robots to achieve a task such as "clean the gutters" or "change the oil in the
car" and the robot assumes the shape needed and does the task.
4. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Since the first demonstrations of early modular self-reconfiguring systems, size,
robustness, and performance have improved continuously. In parallel, planning
and control algorithms have been developed to handle thousands of units.
However, several key steps are needed for these systems to fulfill their promise
of adaptability, robustness and low cost. These steps can be broken down into
hardware design challenges, planning and control algorithms, and the application
4.1 Planning and control Challenge
Though algorithms have been developed for handling thousands of units in ideal
conditions, challenges to scalability remain both in low-level control and high-
level planning to overcome realistic constraints:
Algorithms for parallel-motion for large scale manipulation and
locomotion.
Algorithms for robustly handling a variety of failure modes, from
misalignments, dead-units (not responding, not releasing) to units that
behave erratically.
Algorithms that determine the optimal configuration for a given task.
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 14
Modular Robotics
Algorithms for optimal (time, energy) reconfiguration plan.
Efficient and scalable (asynchronous) communication among multiple
units.
4.2 Hardware design challenge
The extent to which the promise of self-reconfiguring robotic systems can be
realized depends critically on the numbers of modules in the system. To date,
only systems with up to about 50 units have been demonstrated, with this number
stagnating over almost a decade. There are a number of fundamental limiting
factors that govern this number:
Limits on strength, precision, and field robustness (both mechanical and
electrical) of bonding/docking interfaces between modules
Limits on motor power, motion precision and energetic efficiency of units,
(i.e. specific power, specific torque)
Hardware/software design. Hardware that is designed to make the
software problem easier. Self-reconfiguring systems have more tightly
coupled hardware and software than any other existing system.
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 15
Modular Robotics
4.3 Application challenge
Though the advantages of Modular self-reconfiguring robotic systems is largely
recognized, it has been difficult to identify specific application domains where
benefits can be demonstrated in the short term. Some suggested applications are
Space exploration and Space colonization applications, e.g. Lunar
colonization
Construction of large architectural systems
Deep sea exploration/mining
Search and rescue in unstructured environments
Rapid construction of arbitrary tools under space/weight constraints
Disaster relief shelters for displaced peoples
Shelters for impoverished areas which require little on-the-ground
expertise to assemble
CONCLUSION
Over the past twenty years, the field of self-reconfigurable robots has
progressed a long way. Although there are many challenges, as increasing
numbers of researchers enter this field, more exciting work will be done and
the field of robotics will be revolutionized. The possibilities of modular self-
reconfiguring robots are endless.
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 16
Modular Robotics
5. REFERENCES
1. http://cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2013/?page_id=451 Modular Self-Configurable
Robots, Author- Vincent Kee.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reconfiguring_modular_robot.
3. https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1210h/1210%20(Hancher).pdf A
Modular Robotic System with Applications to Space Exploration.
4. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-0-387-
30440-3_334 Modular Self-Reconfigurable Robots, Authors - Mark Yim,
Paul White, Michael Park, Jimmy Sastra
Dept. of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering 17
