Dynamics, Analysis, and Experiments of Obstacle Negotiation for Wheeled Mobile Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hybrid wheel-leg robots combine the high efficiency of wheeled locomotion with the obstacle negotiation abilities of articulated suspension. Effective performance indicators are needed as optimization goals for both mechanism design and trajectory planning to take full advantage of the abilities of these robots. This work investigates the concept of admissible kinetic energy and related performance indicators to develop a framework for obstacle negotiation analysis, design, and control. A four wheeled-legged robot was used as a test platform to analyze the suite of performance indicators based on velocity and joint position, and predict which wheels are in contact at the moment of impact. A physical test platform including current sensors, encoders, and an accelerometer was designed and constructed to validate the simulation results. A dynamic model of the test platform constructed for impact analysis is validated through a combination of high-speed camera measurements, force measurements, and current sensing. Selected performance indicators based on admissible kinetic energy are shown to influence the abilities of these robots to negotiate an obstacle, with and without accounting for the configuration dependent effect of traction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".