3-Wheel Swerve

From DEW Robotics
Revision as of 03:01, 9 August 2014 by MaiKangWei (talk | contribs) (Control Logic & Mathematics)

Jump to: navigation, search

The 2013 change in perimeter rules (112 in overall perimeter vis-à-vis 28in x 38 in) open new potentials for non-rectangular robots. The team decided to explore this.

In particular, the new rules reduce the stability penalty of a 3-wheeled robot design vis-à-vis the preceding 28" x 38" chassis limits.

Benefits & deficits

Known, expected and perceived benefits and potential benefits of a 3-wheeled swerve drive-train are:

  • Reduced drive-train weight and cost
  • Enabling a more capable swerve drive-train (via 2-CIMS per module and/or shifting) by the consolidation of mass & cost into three modules in lieu of four
  • Reduced processing burden on controller (one less PID loop)
  • 60° corners could be more effective at driving between opposing robots than 90° corners
  • Longer sides could enable longer (wider) side mechanisms such as pick-ups
  • Stability is enhanced (vis-à-vis a square bot) during on-point collisions
  • Most likely loss-of-wheel-contact scenarios should still leave 2/3rds of wheels in contact with the field surface

Known, expected and perceived deficits of a 3-wheeled swerve drive-train are:

  • Reduced stability in general and especially during side-on collisions
  • Reduced chassis footprint area will make for a more crowded robot
  • Could be easier to block or pin due to longer sides
  • Most parts are square and fit more naturally and easily into a square chassis
  • We are going to need to remove bumpers to fit through standard width doors
  • Wheels will wear more quickly (for same surface area per wheel)
  • An ultimately wider chassis could have trouble negotiating a crowded or restricted field
  • Joystick controls are more naturally organized for rectangular/square robots
  • It is perceived that reduced wheel contact area will reduce traction (not true under Newtonian friction models, but friction is a complex phenomenon)

Chassis Concepts

Stability Calculations

Chassis stability is measured by the outer perimeter of the pivot axes (or casters, if these replace pivots). If the acceleration and incline adjusted projection of the robot's center of mass remains in this perimeter, the robot remains upright; but if that projection falls outside this perimeter, the robot can tip over. When stationary & level, this projection of the center of mass is straight down (gravity being the other acceleration at work). The same is true when the robot is moving at a constant velocity (with velocity being a vector; comprising both speed and direction). Inclining the robot (such as on a ramp), does not change the direction of the projection, but the incline does move the projected point on the field surface. Acceleration (which includes stopping and direction changes) shifts the direction of the projection (the gravitational and negative acceleration vectors are added).

Naturally, chassis stability is angle dependent.

Chassis stability was assessed for chassis with 3, 4, 5 & 6 pivots on a regular polygonal pattern. Pivot axes were 2.7 inches from the frame perimeter (to allow pivot rotation). Chassis perimeters were constant at 111 inches (versus 112 inch 2013 rule maximum). Polygon apexes were truncated to the 2.7" tangent from the pivot axes. The stability of both polygonal and round chassis were determined. DEWBOT IX was included in the analysis as a reference.


Control Logic & Mathematics

Ocelot.jpg

White Paper: The Trouble with Tribots (pdf)
Tribot control models (xls)





Assembly and Testing