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

net/publication/221786637

Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors Based on Visual and Ultrasonic

Sensors for Quadruped Robots

Chapter · September 2007

DOI: 10.5772/5497 · Source: InTech

CITATIONS READS

4 123

4 authors, including:

Maki Habib
American University in Cairo
289 PUBLICATIONS 3,082 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maki Habib on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 8

Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors

Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for
Quadruped Robots
Kiyotaka Izumi, Ryoichi Sato, Keigo Watanabe and Maki K. Habib
Saga University
Japan

1. Introduction
Robots are indispensable today to improve process efficiencies and labor savings in the
industry and service sector. The importance of robots has also been recognized for work in
critical environment, such as, space, ocean bottom, power plants, as well as, in the fields of
clinical medicine, hazard prevention, etc. For this, a large number of robots have been
developed, and researchers continue to design robots with greater capabilities to perform
more challenging and comprehensive tasks (Hirose et al., 1986; Ooka et al., 1986; Cruse et
al., 1994; Chen et al., 2002a; Habib, 2003a). There are many ways for a robot to move across a
solid surface in which wheels, crawlers, and legs were common options for the available
robots. The application fields of such robots are naturally restricted, depending on the
condition of the ground. Wheeled mobile robots are mechanically simple, easy to construct,
easy to implement a controller, dynamically stable in general, and they are ideal for
operation on level and hard surfaces. When the surface is rough and has projections and
Open Access Database www.i-techonline.com

depressions with dimensions that are greater than the diameter of the wheel or when the
surface is soft, resistance to the movement increases drastically and their function as
transport machines is almost lost, which leads to poor performance. The crawler type
locomotion mechanisms have traverse ability higher than that of the wheel, but its control is
hard and the dead-reckoning is difficult to realize, though it is possible to move on different
terrains. In order to have good mobility over uneven and rough terrain a legged robot seems
to be a good solution because legged locomotion is mechanically superior to wheeled or
tracked locomotion over a variety of soil conditions and certainly superior for crossing
obstacles. The path of the legged machine can be (partially) decoupled from the sequence of
footholds, allowing a higher degree of mobility. This can be especially useful in narrow
surroundings or terrain with discrete footholds (Raibert, 1986; Hirose, 2001).
However, creating and controlling a legged machine that is powerful enough, but still light
enough is very difficult. Legged robots are usually slower and have a lower load/power
ratio with respect to wheeled robot. Autonomous legged robots have distinct control issues
that must be addressed. These problems are amplified when the robot is small with an on-
board controller that is purposely simple to accommodate weight and expense restrictions.
The kinematics and dynamics of legged robots are nonlinear, while robot parameters, such
as center of mass position, amount of payload, etc. are not known exactly and might also
Source: Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots, Book edited by: Maki K. Habib
ISBN 978-3-902613-15-8, pp. 544, I-Tech, Vienna, Austria, EU, September 2007
108 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

vary (Nishikawa et al., 1998). In addition, it is difficult to estimate states of the system (Pugh
et al., 1990). The system might be unstable without control, and the goal of keeping balance
is difficult to be decomposed into actuator commands. A legged system has a lot of degrees
of freedom in which a high motion performance and ground adaptation ability on irregular
terrain can be demonstrated. In order to allow a completely decoupled motion over
irregular terrain, at least three degrees of freedom per leg are required. Two joints would be
enough to place the foot in any desired position, and with the third joint, the robot can climb
over much larger obstacles relative to its size and also can climb a slippery hill that a leg
with two joints can not perform. But, this will result in using 12 actuators for a four-legged
robot, which yields to increase weight and control complexity compared to six actuators for
a traditional industrial manipulator (Waldron et al., 1984). Contact forces, in general, only
allow pushing the feet into the surface, not pulling. This directly limits the total downwards
acceleration that can be applied to a walking machine. This initiates a challenge to
investigate the technical problems involved in the realization of a robot that uses legs to
navigate in difficult, partially unstructured and unknown environments.
Navigating and avoiding obstacles in real-time and in real environment is a challenging
problem for mobile robots in general, and for legged robots in specific. There is a large body
of work devoted to the navigation of wheel-based mobile robots. Some common approaches
are odometry, inertial navigation [3] and landmark navigation. The navigability of an
autonomous multi-legged system is a crucial element of its overall capabilities (Go et al.,
2006). Biological systems have a tightly integrated action perception cycle. Hence, for
walking robots, to realize their full potential, distal environment sensing must be tightly
integrated with the walking cycle. Distal sensing is crucial to allow anticipatory gait
adjustment to accommodate varying terrain. Close coupling of the visual and locomotor
cycle can lead to rapid, adaptive adjustment of the robot (Lewis, 2002). This problem is even
more difficult when the robot is unable to generate accurate global models of the obstacles
in its environment. Determining an optimal navigation policy without this information can
be difficult or impossible. A legged mobile robot is a free roving collection of functions
primarily designed to reach a target location. Equipping robots with more sensors increases
the quantity and reliability of information the robot can extract from its environment to
support robot’s intelligent behavior (Ferrell, 1994). In order to facilitate flexible obstacle
detection and avoidance techniques, it is necessary to acquire the 3-dimensional (3D)
information about the surrounding environment. Generally, 3D information is acquired
through external sensors, such as binocular cameras, ultrasonic sensors (Ohya et al., 1997),
laser range finders, etc. However, a high computational cost is required to analyze 3D
information because the binocular camera needs to process two frames from two cameras
(Okada et al., 1999, Okada et al., 2003). In addition, although the ultrasonic sensor can
accurately measure the distance to an object, there is a difficult problem in determining the
azimuth. Therefore, it remains a challenging task to build a robust real-time obstacle
avoidance system for a robot using vision data.

2. Quadruped Robot and Behavior based Solution for Obstacle Avoidance

In this chapter, a quadruped walking robot TITAN-VIII (Arikawa & Hirose, 1996; Hirose &
Arikawa, 2000) has been used as a platform to test and demonstrate the developed behavior
selection based obstacle avoidance technique (See Figure 1.(a)). TITAN VIII is a walking
machine that has four modular legs. The leg mechanism is composed of a planar 2 degrees
Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors
Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for Quadruped Robots 109

of freedom link-wire mechanism and a rotating mechanism which rotates the planar. Hence,
this leg mechanism has 3DOF. One of the characteristics of this leg is usage of wire and
pulley driving system within the leg. The feet of TITAN VIII can be used also as wheels in
order to achieve faster motion on flat surfaces. TITAN VIII walks in a walking posture
jutting out its legs to each side. This is standard walking posture of TITAN VIII. In such a
walking posture, a good energy efficiency can be achieved (Arikawa & Hirose, 1996; Hirose
& Arikawa, 2000). An ART-based Fuzzy controller for the adaptive navigation of a
quadruped robot has been developed (Chen et al., 2002b), and then different type of sensors
has been integrated with the robot to support its navigation (Yamaguchi et al., 2002a;
Yamaguchi et al., 2002b). Visual and ultrasonic sensors have been integrated with the
quadruped robot. The aim of these sensors is to detect and acquire 3D information of
obstacles along the path of the robot. The first sensor was the USB camera. The camera was
fixed at the front side of the robot body (See Figure 1.(b)). In addition, three ultrasonic
sensors have been used and configured at the tip of each of the front legs (See Figure 1.(c)).
The obstacle is roughly measured by processing the image acquired through the USB
camera, and the ultrasonic sensors are used to complement the visual information in
relation to obstacle and to perform the selection of the suitable actions at the right time. In
order to facilitate this process, a set of behavioral actions is decided, designed and
implemented. Currently, the main actions in the list include: default, detour, striding, and
climbing-over obstacles actions. Thus, fusing information through the use of different and
multiple sensors separately according to the situation and obtaining the information
necessary for obstacle avoidance can support the right decision to select the suitable set of
actions to avoid obstacles in real-time.

(a) TITAN-VIII with the integrated sensors

110 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

(b) The USB camera fixed to the body of the robot

(c) The ultrasonic sensors

Figure 1. The quadruped robot and the sensors used

3. Sensory Information and Obstacle Measurement

The size of an obstacle is measured by ultrasonic sensors and a USB camera. The maximum
measurable distance of the ultrasonic sensor is about 600 [mm]. The image resolution of the
camera is set to 320 × 240 [pixel], and the specification of the camera is listed in Table 1. The
camera is mounted on the front of the robot body.

3.1 3-Dimensional Measurements by Single Camera

The measurement model between a camera and an obstacle in top view is shown in Fig. 2.
The parameter definitions relevant to the top view are listed in Table 2.

Sizes W40.4 × D57 × H79 [mm]

Weight 118 [g]
Image reception device 1/4 [in] CMOS sensor
Maximum resolution 640 × 480 [dot]
15 [fps] (VGA)
Frame ratio
30 [fps] (less than 320 × 240 [dot])
The number of colors 16.77 million (24 [bit])

Table 1. Specification of USB camera

Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors
Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for Quadruped Robots 111

Wc

Obstacle

X
Image
L Image
w

Y
α Obstacle h
y

Camera x

Figure 2. Camera model in top view

Symbols Physical meaning

L Distance between an obstacle and the camera
Wc Acquisition range of the camera with distance L
W Width of an obstacle
w Width of an obstacle in image coordinate
h Height of an obstacle in image coordinate
α Horizontal projection angle of the camera
X Maximum image width
Y Maximum image height
x The x axis of the image reference frame
y The y axis of the image reference frame
Table 2. Physical parameters of camera model in the top view

The obstacle width W is calculated by using parameters in the image, such that

Wc
W= w (1)
X
where
α
Wc = 2 L tan (2)
2
In an exploratory experiment, the acquisition range Wc became 220 [mm] when the distance
L was set to 300 [mm]. Therefore, the projection angle α was set to 40 [deg].
Next, parameters in a vertical direction are defined as listed in Table 3 and the
corresponding side view is shown in Fig. 3. The obstacle height is calculated by using
parameters defined for the vertical direction, such that
2H c
H= h (3)
Y
112 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

where H c is given by

β
H c = L tan (4)
2
and L1 is given by

Ic
L1 = (5)
β
tan
2
In an exploratory experiment, the acquisition range H c became 80 [mm] when the distance
L was set to 300 [mm]. Therefore, the projection angle β was set to 30 [deg].

Symbols Physical meaning

Ic Height of the camera from the ground
L1 Distance between the camera and the real point in relation to the bottom line of image
L2 Distance between the bottom of image and an obstacle
H Height of an obstacle
Hc Distance between the center of image and the top of image with distance L
β Vertical projection angle of the camera

Table 3. Physical parameters of the camera model in the side view

Hc

Image Obstacle
Camera
Lh
β H
Ic

L1 L2

Figure 3. Camera model in side view

If the obstacle shape is assumed to be a rectangular parallelepiped, then the obstacle depth
can be obtained by a perspective method. The perspective is the art of making some objects
or people in a picture look further away than others. The concept of perspective is shown in
Fig. 4, where S1 denotes the area of front surface for the object, S0 denotes the area of rear
surface for the object and Z 0 denotes the obstacle depth. The obstacle depth is given by

§ S ·
Z o = ¨ 1 − 1¸ L (6)
¨ S0 ¸
© ¹
Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors
Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for Quadruped Robots 113

Vanishing point
Vanishing line

z S0 Z0
x

y
S1

Figure 4. Concept of perspective to calculate the obstacle depth

3.2 Image Processing

The raw colored image is first converted into the shade (or gray scale) image and further
converted into the monochrome image by image binarization. Then, the 3D size information
of obstacle is calculated based on the perceived number of surfaces of the obstacle. The flow
of this process is illustrated in Fig. 5.

Image acquisition

Shade image

Threshold

Binarization image

(1) (2) (3)

Processing in Processing in Processing in

one surface two surfaces three surfaces

Acquisition of three-dimensional information

Figure 5. Flow of image data processing

X x
0

P1
Vl
Y 2
Obstacle

P2
Y

Figure 6. Image of one surface

114 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

(1) Case of one surface detection

When the acquired image has only the front surface of an obstacle as shown in Fig. 6, the
width w and the height h of the obstacle front surface are given by

w = x2 − x1 (7)

h = y2 − y1 (8)

where the image point ( x1 , y1 ) is for the apex P1 and similarly ( x2 , y2 ) is for the apex P2 .
(2) Case of two surface detection
When the acquired image includes the front and top surfaces as shown in Fig. 7, the width
w and the height h of the obstacle front surface are given by

w = x3 − x1 (9)

h = y1 − y4 (10)

using the image coordinates for apexes P1 , P3 and P4 .

X 2 X x X 2 X x
0 0

P2 P6 P6 P2

P4 P5 P5 P4
Obstacle Obstacle
P1 P3 P3 P1
Y Y

y Left side y Right side

Figure 7. Image of two surfaces

In this case, the vanishing point V (vx , v y ) is the point that the straight line passing through
points P2 and P4 intersects the straight line passing through points P5 and P6 . The height
of rear surface for the obstacle is defined as the distance between the point P2 and the
intersection point at which the vertical perpendicular passing through the y coordinate of
point P2 intersects the straight line passing through points V and P1 . The width of the rear
surface is the distance between the points P2 and P6 . Hence, the area S0 of the rear surface
is obtained using the calculated from the height and the width of the rear surface.
Then, the depth Z o of the obstacle is calculated according to Eq. (6).
(3) Case of three surface detection
When the acquired image includes the front, the top and the side surfaces as shown in Fig. 8,
the width w and the height h of the obstacle front surface are given by

w = x4 − x1 (11)

h = y1 − y4 (12)
Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors
Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for Quadruped Robots 115

using the image coordinates for apexes P1 and P4 . In this case, the height of the rear surface
is the distance between the points P2 and P3 , and the width of the rear surface is the
distance between the points P2 and P5 .

0 X 2 X x 0 X 2 X x

P5 P2 P2 P5
P3 P3 P6
P6
P4 P4
Obstacle Obstacle
P1 P1
Y Y

y Left side y Right side

Figure 8. Image of three surfaces without any lacking of parts

0 X 2 X x 0 X 2 X x

P2 P2

P4 P6 P3 P6 P4
P3
Obstacle Obstacle
P1 P1
Y Y
y y
Left side Right side

Figure 9. Image of three surfaces with the lacking of parts

Let us consider a situation where a part of the obstacle is not reflected in the acquired image,
which is shown in Fig. 9.
In this situation, the width and the height of the front surface are defined as
w = x4 − x1 (13)

h = y1 − y6 (14)

In this case, the vanishing point V is the point that the straight line passing through the
points P1 and P3 intersects the straight line passing through the points P2 and P6 . In this
situation, the width of the rear surface for the obstacle is defined as the distance between the
point P2 and the intersection point at which the horizontal line passing through the x
coordinate of point 2 and parallel to the line passing through the points P4 and P6 ,
intersects the straight line passing through the points V and P4 . The height of the rear
surface is the distance between points P2 and P3 .

4. Design of Actions
Primitive actions with different level of abstraction have been designed and implemented to
support formulating the behavior of a robot using a combination of these actions. In general,
the description of an action set can have the following form,
116 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

{
A = Ai i = 1, 2, n } (15)

where Ai denotes the symbol of i th action and n denotes the number of actions. The action
Ai consists of the series of parameters to move the robot, such as

Ai = {c1 , c2 ,, cm } (16)

where ci denotes i th movement parameter vector and m denotes the number of

movement parameters to perform the action Ai .
In this research, the gait of the quadruped robot is selected to be an intermittent crawl gait
(Tsukakoshi et al., 1996). The leg order in one cycle is 4th leg, 2nd leg, 3rd leg and 1st leg. In
this chapter, the i th movement parameter vector ci composes the traveling distance and
the height of swing leg, such as
ci = [ǻpi ǻlzi ] (17)

ǻpi = [Δxi Δyi Δzi ]

ǻlzi = [ǻzi1 ǻzi 2 ǻzi 3 ǻzi 4 ]

[
ǻzij = Δuzij Δdzij ]
where Δxi , Δyi and Δzi are the translational distance for each direction, and Δuzij denotes
the upward distance of j th leg when the j th leg becomes the swing leg from the support
leg. In addition, Δdzij denotes the downward distance of j th leg, when the j th leg
becomes the support leg from the swing leg.
The following subsections describe the core actions, which enable the robot to avoid obstacle
at different circumstances.

4.1 Default Action: A1

The default action A1 is for a straight translation. Here, we define A1 as

A1 = {c1} (18)

c1 = [200 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50] (19)

where the unit of c1 element is [mm].

4.2 Striding Action: A2

The process sequence of the developed striding action A2 is listed as follows:
1. The robot approaches an obstacle up to the distance in which the robot can stride the
obstacle,
2. Front legs of the robot stride the obstacle,
3. Rear legs of the robot approach the obstacle, and then
4. Rear legs of the robot stride the obstacle.
Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors
Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for Quadruped Robots 117

4.3 Climbing-over Action: A3

The process sequence of the developed climbing-over action A3 is listed below:
1. The robot approaches an obstacle up to the distance in which the robot can climb the
obstacle,
2. Front legs of the robot climb the obstacle,
3. Rear legs of the robot approach the obstacle,
4. Rear legs of the robot climb over the obstacle,
5. Front legs of the robot get off the obstacle, and then
6. Rear legs of the robot get off the obstacle.

4.4 Detour Action: A4

The detour action A4 enables the robot to move around the obstacle by generating a crank
like path. The process sequence of A4 action is listed as follows:
1. The robot approaches an obstacle up to the distance in which the robot can avoid it,
2. The robot moves to side as the crab walking up to the distance in which the robot can
avoid the obstacle, and then
3. The robot moves forward up to the distance in which the robot passes the obstacle.

5. Action Selection
Autonomous intelligent systems are characterized by the fact that they select one from a set
of equivalent action alternatives in a given situation as appropriate (Habib, 2003b). Hence, it
is important to develop a navigation strategy with efficient action selection mechanism.
Currently, the authors have implemented a rule based logical flow to support the selection
of a suitable action according to perceived relation between the robot and the detected
obstacle. Brief listing of the rule based logical flow is shown below,

if ( L >= 600 [mm] ) {

The robot selects the action A1 ;
}
else if ( H >= 320 [mm] ) {
The robot selects the action A4 ;
}
else if ( Z o >= 180 [mm] ) {
The robot selects the action A3 ;
}
else {
The robot selects the action A2 ;
}

where L is the distance between the robot and the obstacle; H is the obstacle height, and
Z o is the obstacle depth.
118 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

3000
Goal

2000
Obstacle
y [mm]

1000

Leg 1
Leg 2
0 Leg 3
Leg 4
Start
Center of gravity
–500 0
x [mm]
Figure 10. Experimental result of striding action

200
z [mm]

0
Start Goal
Leg 1
Obstacle

–200
0 1000 2000 3000
y [mm]
Figure 11. Tip of 1st leg in the experimental result of striding action
Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors
Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for Quadruped Robots 119

6. Experimental Results
Experiments have been conducted to prove that the designed set of action modules enables
the robot to recognize and avoid obstacles in real-time under different situations. The
selected gait of the robot during the experiments was an intermittent crawl gait. In addition,
a unit cycle has been used to illustrate the total time required to perform each action. A unit
cycle represents the time required for moving each of the four legs of the robot once
according to the pattern of the selected gait. However, the total number of cycles depends
on the environment and the type of the available obstacles. The following subsections
highlight the experimental results and achievements.

6.1 Striding Action

This experiment aims to demonstrate a striding action. The observed robot behavior was
described by the following set of actions,

A = {A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A2 A1 A1 A1 A1}
The results obtained through this experiment illustrate the ability of the robot to perform the
striding action successfully. Figure 10 shows the tips of left side legs of the robot, i.e., the 1st
and 3rd legs, didn't have any contact with the obstacle during the avoidance. In addition,
Figure 11 shows the z positions for the tip of the 1st leg. The time performance for executing
the set of actions above as illustrated by Figure 11 is shown below,
Action A1 is performed with 1 cycle, and the total number of A1 action as illustrated in this
behavior is 9;
Action A2 is performed with 6 cycles; and
Thus, the total number of cycles is 5 + 6 + 4 = 15 cycles.

6.2 Climbing-over Action

The climbing-over action has been demonstrated in this experiment, and the observed robot
behavior was described by the following set of actions,

A = {A1 A1 A1 A1 A3 A1 A1}
The robot has performed the climbing-over action successfully. The experimental results are
illustrated in Figure 12, in which it also highlights the case where the tips of left side legs of
the robot didn't have any contact with the obstacle at anytime during swing phase.
Figure 13 shows the z positions for the tip of the 3rd leg. The results illustrate a contact point
between the obstacle and the tip of the robot leg during a support phase while climbing-
over. The time performance for executing the set of actions above as illustrated by Figure 13
is shown below,
Action A1 is performed with 1 cycle, and the total number of A1 action as illustrated in this
behavior is 6;
Action A3 is performed with 10 cycles; and
Thus, the total number of cycles is 4 + 10 + 2 = 16 cycles.
120 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

3000
Goal

Obstacle
2000
y [mm]

1000

Leg 1
Leg 2
0 Leg 3
Leg 4 Start
Center of gravity
–500 0
x [mm]
Figure 12. Experimental result of climbing-over action

200
z [mm]

0
Start Goal
Leg 3
Obstacle

–200
0 1000 2000 3000
y [mm]
Figure 13. Tip of 3rd leg with a climbing-over action
Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors
Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for Quadruped Robots 121

3000 Goal

Obstacle
2000
y [mm]

1000

Leg 1
Leg 2
0 Leg 3
Start Leg 4
Center of gravity
–1000
–400 0 400 800
x [mm]
Figure 14. Experimental result of detour action

Center of gravity
Goal
Leg1
4000
Leg2
Leg3
Leg4
y [mm]

2000
Obstacles

0
Start

–1000 –500 0 500

x [mm]
Figure 15. Experimental result of detour and striding action
122 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

6.3 Detour Action

The observed robot behavior during the execution of the detour action was described by the
following set of actions,

A = {A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A4 A1 A1 A1}

400

200
z [mm]

0
Start Goal
Leg2
Obstacle
–200
0 2000 4000
y [mm]
Figure 16. Tip of 2nd leg with a detour and striding action
The experimental result of a detour action is shown in Fig. 14. The results show none of the
robot’s legs tips did have any contact with the obstacle during the avoidance. The time
performance for executing the set of actions as stated above is,
Action A1 is performed with 1 cycle, and the total number of A1 action as illustrated in this
behavior is 8;
Action A4 is performed with 15 cycles; and
Thus, the total number of cycles is 5 + 15 + 3 = 23 cycles.

6.4 Detour and Striding Actions

An experiment was demonstrated to verify the effectiveness of the present approach in case
of having multiple obstacles crossing the path of the robot. The successful experimental
results with two obstacles are shown in Fig. 15 and Fig. 16. The set of actions that has been
selected to formulate the intended behavior is shown below,

A = {A1 A1 A4 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A2 A1 A1}
During this behavior, the robot approaches the first obstacle with action A1 . Then, the robot
initiates the avoidance of the first obstacle using action A4 . After clearing the first obstacle,
and while the robot approaches the second obstacle using a number of A1 actions, the robot
Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors
Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for Quadruped Robots 123

selects to avoid it by activating the action A2 . The time performance for executing the set of
actions above as illustrated by Figure 16 is shown below,
Action A1 is performed with 1 cycle, and the total number of A1 action as illustrated in this
behavior is 9;
Action A4 is performed with 16 cycles; and
Action A2 is performed with 7 cycles.
Thus, the total number of cycles is 2 + 16 + 5+ 7 + 2 = 32 cycles.

6.5 Detour and Climbing-over Action

The set of actions that has been selected to formulate this behavior is as follow,
{A1 A1 A1 A1 A4 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A3 A1 A1 A1}

6000
Goal
Center of gravity
Leg1

4000 Leg2
Leg3
y [mm]

Leg4
Obstacles
2000

0
Start

–500 0 500 1000

x [mm]
Figure 17. Experimental result of detour and climbing-over action
Successful experimental results have been achieved to avoid two obstacles and it is shown in
Fig. 17 and Fig. 18 respectively. During the execution of this behavior, first, the robot
activates the default action A1 and then it selects the detour action A4 for avoidance. After
taking the detour action and avoiding the first obstacle, the robot activates again the default
action A1 to proceed with the forward trajectory. During the walking course, the robot
detects the second trajectory and according to the situation, it selects the climbing-over
action A3 to avoid the second obstacle. Finally, the robot activates again the default action
to proceed with its trajectory. The time performance for executing the set of actions above as
illustrated by Figure 18 is shown below,
124 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

Action A1 is performed with 1 cycle, and the total number of A1 action as illustrated in this
behavior is 12;
Action A4 is performed with 19 cycles; and
Action A3 is performed with 9 cycles.
Thus, the total number of cycles is 4 + 19 + 5+ 9 + 3 = 40 cycles.

400

200
z [mm]

0
Start Goal
Leg1
Obstacle
–200
0 2500 5000
y [mm]
Figure 18. Tip of 1st leg in the experimental result of detour and climbing-over actions

7. Conclusions
This chapter presented a robust approach to the design of a set of behavioral actions and the
use of a combination of these actions to formulate different high level behaviors for
quadruped robots. It then, enabled the robot to select the suitable behavior in real-time to
avoid obstacles based on sensory information through visual and ultrasonic sensors. The
developed approach was successfully tested to facilitate the navigation in real
environments.

7.1 Future Work

Intelligent systems should exhibit emergence property that is not designed into any of its
individual sub-components.
In order to make these systems adaptable to various situations and goals to be pursued in
the world, it is necessary to dynamically select behaviors and to change their respective
priority to make the system behave appropriately according to the situations it encounters
in the real world.
Since behavior modules take part at different levels of the control hierarchy, an efficient
action selection mechanism should be devised to deal with scheduling, management,
coordination and communication between modules constituting behavior based systems so
that coherent behavior can be achieved. Learning to select appropriate actions is still an
open challenge in terms of real-time performance, complexity of task and the environment
dynamics.
Selection of Obstacle Avoidance Behaviors
Based on Visual and Ultrasonic Sensors for Quadruped Robots 125

8. References
Arikawa, K. & Hirose, S. (1996). Development of Quadruped Walking Robot TITAN-VIII,
Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS'96), Vol. 1, pp. 208-214, 1996.
Chen, X., Watanabe, K., Kiguchi, K., Izumi, K. (2002a). Path Tracking Based on Closed-Loop
Control for a Quadruped Robot in a Cluttered Environment. Transactions of ASME,
Vol. 24, pp. 272-280, June 2002.
Chen, X., Watanabe, K., Kiguchi, K., Izumi, K. (2002b). An ART-Based Fuzzy Controller for
the Adaptive Navigation of a Quadruped Robot . IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 318-328, Sept. 2002.
Cruse, H., Bartling, Ch., Cymbalyuk, G., Dean, J. and Dreifert, M. (1994). A neural net
controller for a six Legged walking system. Proc. of International Conference from
Perception to Action, pp. 55-65, 1994.
Ferrell, C. (1994). Robust and Adaptive Locomotion of an Autonomous Hexapod. Proc. of
International Conference from Perception to Action, pp. 66-77, 1994.
Go, Y., Yin, X., Bowling, A. (2006). Navigability of multi-Legged Robots. IEEE/ASME
Transactions on Mechatronics, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1-8, 2006.
Habib, M. K. (2003a). URUK: an Autonomous Legged Mobile Robot Design and
Implementation. Proc. of International Conference on Mechatronics (ICOM2003), June
2003, UK, pp 497-504.
Habib, M. K. (2003b). Behavior-Based Autonomous Robotic Systems: The Reliability of
Robot’s Decision and The Challenge of Action Selection Mechanisms. Proc. of
International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (AROB' 2003), Jan. 2003, Oita,
Japan, pp.4-9.
Hirose, S., Masui, T., Kikuchi, H., Fukuda, Y., Umetani, Y. (1986). TITAN III: A Quadruped
Walking Vehicle. Proc. of International Conference on Robotics Research, pp. 325-331,
1986.
Hirose, S., Arikawa, K. (2000): Coupled and Decoupled Actuation of Robotic Mechanisms,
Proc. International Conference on Advanced Robots ICRA’2000, San Francisco, pp.33-39,
2000.
Hirose, S. (2001). Super Mechano-System Project in Tokyo Institute of Technology, Proc. of
2001 Int. Workshop on Bio-Robotics and Teleoperation, pp. 7-12, 2001
Lewis, M. A. (2002). Detecting Surface Features during Locomotion using Optic Flow. Proc.
of International Conference of Robotics and Automations (ICRA’2002), Washington DC,
pp. 305 – 310, 2002.
Nishikawa, N., Murakami, T., Ohnishi, K. (1998). An Approach to Stable Motion Control of
Biped Robot with Unknown Load by Torque Estimator. Proc. of International
Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, pp. 82-87, 1998.
Ohya, A., Kosaka, A., Kak, A. (1997). Vision-Based Navigation of Mobile Robot with
Obstacle Avoidance by Single Camera Vision and Ultrasonic Sensing, Proc. of the
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS'97), Vol. 2,
pp. 704-711, 1997
Okada, K., Kagami, S., Inaba, M., Inoue, H. (1999). Vision-based Action Control of
Quadruped Legged Robot JROB-1, Proc. of 9th International Conference on Advanced
Robotics (ICAR'99), pp. 451-456, 1999
 126 Bioinspiration and Robotics: Walking and Climbing Robots

Okada, K., Inaba, M., Inoue, H. (2003). Integration of Real-time Binocular Stereo Vision and
Whole Body Information for Dynamic Walking Navigation of Humanoid Robot,
Proc. of International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent
Systems (MFI'03), pp. 131-136, 2003
Ooka, A., Ogi, K., Takemoto, Y., Okamoto, K. and Yoshida (1986). Intelligent robot system II.
Proc. of International Conference on Robotics Research, pp.341-347, 1986..
Pugh, D. R., Ribble, E. A., Vohnout, V. J., Bihari, E. E., Walliser, T. M., Patterson, M. R.,
Waldron, K. J. (1990). Technical Description of the Adaptive Suspension Vehicle.
International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 24-42, 1990.
Raibert, M. H. (1986). Legged robots that balance. The MIT Press, 1986.
Tsukakoshi, H., Hirose, S., Yoneda, K. (1996). Maneuvering Operations of the Quadruped
Walking Robot on the Slope, Proc. of the IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 863-869, 1996
Waldron, K. J., Vohnout, V. J., Pery, A., McGhee, R. B. (1984) . Configuration of the Adaptive
Suspension Vehicle. International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 37-48,
1984.
Yamaguchi, T., Watanabe, K., Izumi, K., Kiguchi, K. (2002a). Acquisition of An Obstacle
Avoiding Path in Quadruped Robots, Proc. of Joint 1st International Conference on
Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems and 4th International Symposium on
Advanced Intelligent Systems(SCIS & ISIS 2002), 2002.
Yamaguchi, T. , Watanabe, K., Kiguchi, K., Izumi, K. (2002b). Obstacle Avoidance Strategy
for A 4-legged Robot by Getting-over and Striding, Proc. of the 4th Asian Control
Conference, pp. 1438-1443, 2002.

View publication stats