 Original Article
 Open access
 Published:
Analysis and Experiment of a Bioinspired Multimode Octopod Robot
Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering volume 36, Article number: 142 (2023)
Abstract
Legged robots use isolated footholds to support, which have the merit of good terrain trafficability but lack speed ability. In contrast, wheeled robots have the advantages of high speed and efficiency but only run on flat roads. To improve the moving speed and terrain adaptability of the legged robot, this paper proposes a bioinspired multimode octopod robot with rolling, walking, and obstaclesurmounting modes. First, inspired by the multimode locomotion of the Cebrennus rechenbergi spider, the highspeed mobility of the legged robot is realized in involute kickrolling mode through the extendable appendages. Then, the foot and appendage trajectories are analyzed by kinematic method and optimized for walking stability. Based on the static and the kinematic analyses, the terrain adaptability is improved by adhesive obstaclesurmounting mode with the assistance of the appendages affiliated to the main feet. The deformable trunk with one DoF is designed to switch between three modes. Finally, a series of dynamic simulations and experiments are carried out to verify the theoretical analyses of the adhesive obstaclesurmounting mode and the mobility of the involute kickrolling mode. It is shown that the multimode octopod robot can integrate the advantages of high speed and good terrain trafficability from different types of robots and is suitable for performing tasks in unstructured terrains.
1 Introduction
In complex working environments, wheeled and legged robots are gradually playing two important roles. The former have the merits of high moving efficiency, simple structure, light weight, and low energy consumption [1], and are often used in structured roads for highspeed transportation. Legged robots adopt isolated footholds to provide support and traction [2, 3], which endow them with two advantages: high mobility and terrain adaptability. For instance, the leg of BigDog is characterized by four active DoFs and a passive DoF [4]. HyQ and its upgraded version HyQ2Max have three DoFs per leg which are actuated by large torque motors and have wide range motion with joints [5, 6]. Baby elephant robot adopts motorcombined hydraulic actuators and three passive DoFs on the ankle to support a bigger payload and adapt to complex terrains [7, 8]. However, complicated structures also bring the problems of high curb weight, control difficulty, and failure rate. Compared with openchain legged robots, closedchain legged robots are more suitable for reducing weight and simplifing the drive system [9,10,11]. Wu et al. [12] proposed an eightlegged vehicle with a simple control system to improve the obstaclesurmounting ability through its reconfigurable legs.
In the field of the obstaclesurmounting, openchain legged robots can lift their legs to walk above the obstacle. AuSpot is motivated by exploring the extreme environment and is capable of surmounting the obstacle of 400 mm (0.5 times body height) [13]. ANYmal Beth and its posterity ANYmal B have fully rotary joints, which enable their feet to rise high above the ground for crossing large obstacles of 350 mm (0.5 times body height) [14,15,16]. In our previous researches, robots with closedchain leg mechanism are designed to surmount obstacles through geometric variation methods of the leg or trunk mechanism. Wu et al. [17] proposed a novel sixteenlegged vehicle with a reconfigurable leg mechanism to heighten the foot trajectory for surmounting. Ruan et al. [18] developed a multilegged robot with pitch adjustive units that can lift the front legs in obstaclesurmounting mode.
However, the obstaclesurmounting ability can be further improved from the mechanism, and the obstaclecrossing strategy of wheeled vehicles is to convert the contact force with the ground into traction force. Sun et al. [19] studied the obstaclesurmounting performance of sand milling vehicles, and found that whether the vehicle can cross the step depends on the traction force of the wheels. Zhou et al. [20] developed an allterrain eightwheel robot that can climb the vertical obstacle higher than itself through rotatable waist and traction force. Xu et al. [21] designed a magnetic adhesion robot with passive suspension and 6 wheels that is able to run on magnetic walls with different dip angles and cross 5 mm weld seam. He et al. [22] proposed a horseinspired eightwheeled vehicle driven by distributed hydraulic motors that can climb the obstacle like a horse with the help of fourswing arms and the friction of the wheels.
In the field of highspeed movement, wheeled robots have better performance [23,24,25]. Unlike many robots whose wheels are arranged on the sides of the trunk, some novel robots can deform the entire body into a cylinder and roll on the ground. Kim et al. [26] proposed a spherical mobile robot with an elastic external frame, and it is driven by a pendulum placed in the center. Lee et al. [27] built a robot that is actuated by an unbalanced massshifting mechanism rotated by two motors, and the imbalance induced by the weight makes the robot roll. Wait et al. [28] proposed a spherical robot driven by a novel deformable pneumatic method consisting of many inflatable rubber bladders covering the sphere. Inspired by Cebrennus rechenbergi spider, Prof. Rechenberg and his team developed four generations of robots that have a cylindrical shape and can roll by kicking the ground quickly with legs [29].
In order to combine the merits of legged and wheeled robots, many researchers proposed a series of multimode robots that can both roll and walk by switching the modes. Phipps et al. [30, 31] developed a bipedal planar robot that complements its walking and climbing capabilities with rolling. He et al. [32, 33] designed a wheellegged rover that uses four wheels instead of the feet, and can switch different actuating strategies to adapt to regular or irregular terrains. A lowcost quadruped robot proposed by Wang et al. [34] is able to walk in complex terrains and use backflip strategy for selfrecovery. Sun et al. [35] designed a robot with walking, scrolling, and crawler modes that can be actively switched. Based on the reconfigurable 8bar trunk, Zhao et al. [36, 37] proposed a multimimicry quadruped robot that can transform between reptile, arthropod, and mammallike modes. BionicWheelBot, designed by the Festo company in Germany, is a representative model as an example of the combination of the wheeled and legged robots [38]. It has eight legs, six for crawling and two multilink legs for rolling powered by wire ropes.
To better integrate the advantages of wheeled and legged robots, and reduce the complexity of the mode switching process, based on a closedchain legged mechanism, a bioinspired multimode octopod robot with three modes is proposed. In terms of obstaclesurmounting ability, the maneuvering performance is further improved by the adhesive obstaclesurmounting strategy and the attachment mechanism. That is, the robot can climb the obstacles higher than itself with the help of the surface friction force of the obstacles and its appendages. On the other hand, to achieve a highspeed movement, the involute kickrolling gait through the appendages was proposed and inspired by the flicflac spider [39].
The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the layout of the robot and presents three motion modes. Section 3 carries out the kinematic analysis and the optimization of the leg and appendage trajectories. The theoretical analyses of two motion modes are discussed in Section 4 to verify the feasibility. A series of dynamic simulations of the robot are conducted in Section 5 to test the adhesive obstaclesurmounting and the involute kickrolling strategies. Subsequently, an experimental prototype is fabricated in Section 6 to verify the practicability and performance of the proposed robot. Finally, Section 7 concludes the research.
2 Mechanism Design
In this section, the layout design of the robot and its deformable trunk are discussed and presented. To exert the linkage advantages, the closedchain leg and the appendage mechanisms with one actuated degree of freedom are proposed.
2.1 The Layout Design of the Robot
To significantly reduce the DoF of the robot, the whole closedchain legged octopod robot is proposed, and the modes switching is designed to correspond with the trunk deformation. As displayed in Figure 1, the robot consists of a single DoF deformable trunk (4bar linkage), eight planar closechain legs (6bar linkage) and four appendages (4bar linkage). Each pair of adjacent legs is a legged unit with a crank phase difference of 180°. Fourlegged units are driven by one drive motor arranged in the middle of the rear trunk. The pitch angles of legged units will be adjusted with the trunk deformation simultaneously by two planar 4bar linkages to switch different modes. To achieve the kickrolling mode, the trunk and the frontlegged units are equipped with roll cages, which assist in deforming the whole robot into a cylinder.
The legged units of the rear trunk can move together with four appendages, which are fixed on the links of the legs group as submodules. The appendages can improve the obstaclesurmounting ability and achieve kickrolling ability by kicking on the ground. The appendages are divided into two types: the interior type and the exterior type. Both types are used to walk in the obstaclesurmounting mode, but only the exterior type is used in the kickrolling mode.
2.2 Deformable Trunk Design
The robot can switch into different modes by using the electric pushing rod to adjust the pitch angle of the trunk. The lengths of the pushing rod are 340 mm, 299.32 mm, and 220 mm, respectively, corresponding to the obstaclesurmounting mode, walking mode, and kickrolling mode. The maximum range of the pitch angle is 150°. Three modes are illustrated in Figure 2, and the leg mechanism is simplified as one link in the schematic diagram of the mechanism.
The angle between the frontlegged units and trunk and the angle between the rearlegged units and trunk can be adjusted with the deformation of the robot through two designed planar 4bar mechanisms. In walking mode, the values of θ_{b}, θ_{p} and θ_{f} are 90°, 180° and 90°, respectively. In obstaclesurmounting mode, the front legs are raised to walk on the vertical wall, so the values of the three angles are 60°, 240° and 150°, respectively. The values of the three angles are 120°, 90° and 72°, respectively, to make the whole robot curls up into a cylinder in kickrolling mode.
3 Kinematic Analysis and Optimization Design
In this section, the kinematics analysis of the leg mechanism and the appendage mechanism are taken through vector loop method. Then the optimized foot trajectory and the appendage extension trajectory are obtained by dimensional synthesis and inverse kinematic methods, respectively.
3.1 Leg Mechanism Kinematic Analysis and Optimization
The WattI linkage [40], as a planar 6bar closedchain mechanism, is designed to be the leg mechanism. Its vector loop diagram is illustrated in Figure 3b, and r_{i} represents the link vector. The coordinate frame Oxy is established at the crank's rotation center, and xaxis coincides with the horizontal direction.
The vector loops of the leg mechanism are formulized as Eqs. (1) and (2):
In the two ternary links composed of r_{2}, r_{3}, r_{4} and r_{8}, r_{9}, r_{10}:
In Eq. (3), θ_{ij} represents the angle between r_{i} and r_{j}. θ_{i} (i = 1, 2…,10) represents the angle between r_{i} and the horizontal direction of the xaxis, and they can be obtained by solving the Eqs. (4) to (6):
The related intermediate variables are shown in Eqs. (7) and (8):
Then the trajectory of footpoint H can be calculated in Eq. (9):
Based on kinematics analysis, the initial foot trajectory can be obtained. The twodimensional optimization of the initial trajectory can be regarded as a nonlinear optimization problem. The trajectory that satisfies the walking demands should be generated, and the walking characteristics are listed below: (1) the lower part of the supporting phase should be as straight as possible; (2) the stride length of the supporting phase should be as long as possible; (3) the vertical variation during the supporting phase should be as small as possible. As shown in Table 1, eight preassigned points are used to limit the trajectory. The points of i = 3, 4, 5 have the same altitudes, so that the trajectory in the supporting phase can be smooth. The points of i = 1, 7, 8 are set to control the height of the foot trajectory. The points of i = 2, 6 are set to control the length of the foot trajectory.
The maximum approximation of the initial points to the preassigned points can be obtained by the objective function shown in Eq. (10):
where (X_{Hi}, Y_{Hi}) represent the preassigned coordinate points of the trajectory. Accordingly, link lengths (r_{0}, r_{1}..., r_{10}) and link angle (θ_{1}) are the variables of the optimization function Eq. (10).
The initial values and optimal values of link lengths and link angles are listed in Table 2. After optimization, the vertical fluctuation reduces to 12.28 mm, and the stride length increases to 124.15 mm, as displayed in Figure 4.
3.2 Appendage Walking Trajectory Kinematic Analysis
As a submodule, the appendage frame is fixed on the r_{7} link of the leg mechanism. The exterior appendage connects to the appendage frame through a link and a revolute joint, shown in Figure 5a, and its kinematic diagram is displayed in Figure 5b. The whole appendage submodules move with legs together in walking mode, and in obstaclesurmounting mode, they substitute for legs to walk.
In the second stage of obstaclesurmounting mode (described in Section 4.1), the robot uses its extended appendages to walk on the ground. In this mode, the appendages have two main tasks: one is to walk on the ground, and the other one is to put the legged units of the rear trunk above the vertical wall. Therefore, there are two constraints of the appendage trajectory optimization: (1) the stride length should be as long as possible; (2) the extension length of the appendages should be longer than the vertical wall's height. Meanwhile, the mechanical design of the appendages should meet two necessary conditions: (1) the supporting phase should be at the back of the center of gravity; (2) there is a moment when appendages are behind the feet of the rear trunk. The purposes of the two conditions are to prevent the robot from tumbling backward and enable the appendages to put the legged units above the vertical wall without interfering.
The appendage is fixed on r_{7} link so that the foot point K can be defined by parameters x_{1}, y_{1}, and θ_{k}, shown in Figure 5c. The value of θ_{k} is 48.5°, which is the angle between r_{7} link and the negative direction of yaxis when θ_{0} is 0°. The initial x_{1} and y_{1} are 100 mm and 450 mm, respectively. According to the leg mechanism kinematic analysis, the appendage trajectory can be established in Eq. (11):
Based on the four conditions above, the optimal values are x_{1} = 89 mm and y_{1} = 457 mm. The stride length of the appendage trajectory is 253.80 mm, and the vertical fluctuation is 32.52 mm, as shown in Figure 6.
3.3 Appendage Extension Trajectory Kinematic Analysis
During the kickrolling mode, the robot deforms into a cylinder and uses its extendable exterior appendages to kick on the ground for getting the moving force. The DoF of the rigid appendage mechanism can be determined as follows: F_{D} = 3w − 2P_{l} − P_{h} − F' = 1, where w, P_{l}, P_{h}, and F' denote the numbers of moving links (w = 4), low pairs (P_{l} = 5), high pairs (P_{h} = 0), and local DoFs (F' = 1), respectively. In order to achieve excellent rolling performance, the appendage extension trajectory is designed to fit an involute curve. The diagram is shown in Figure 7a.
The appendage kinematic parameters are illustrated in Figure 7b, and r_{i} (i = 13, 14,…,21) represents the link vector. The mechanism is actuated by the extendable link r_{16}, which varies from −164.4 mm to 26.6 mm. The r_{16} and r_{19} are associated links, explained in Section 6.2, and their vector difference is 137.8 mm.
The coordinate frame Cxy is set at the roll cage center. The kinematic analysis of this planar mechanism is carried out by using the vector loop method:
where θ_{i} (i = 13, 14,…,21) represents the angle between r_{i} and the positive direction of the xaxis. The appendage extension trajectory can be calculated as Eq. (13):
where:
According to the scale and the parts of the appendage mechanism, most links' lengths are determined. The position of point D is determined by the length of the appendage and the position of the involute. Then we calculate the length of r_{18} and the coordinate of point E. To fit the trajectory with the desired curve, three preassigned points shown in Table 3 are set on the standard involute, used to calculate the unknown variables.
Through preassigned points and the appendage's scale, the coordinate of point F_{i} can be obtained as Eqs. (14) and (15):
Then, we can obtain the unknown variables (r_{18} and coordinate of point E) as Eqs. (16) and (17):
where,
The variables' values are calculated and shown in Table 4. The appendage extension trajectory is drawn in Figure 8. Δh is the deviation between the trajectory and the standard involute curve, whose maximum value is 1.85 mm.
In the walking mode, the appendage extension mechanism will move together with the movement of the rearlegged unit. Therefore, before the kickrolling motion, we should rotate the crank to a specified angle (343°) to make the base circle of the extension involute coincide with the roll cage.
4 Multimode Motion Analysis
In this section, the force and dynamic analyses of the two modes are developed to verify their feasibility. The analysis results determine the structure and control system design.
4.1 Adhesive Obstacle Surmounting Strategy
In our previous work, the obstaclesurmounting strategy of the closedchain legged robots adopted the geometric variation method to adjust the pitch angle of the legged units [20]. In this method, the robot is capable of surmounting the obstacle of 0.5 times its height without the aid of the obstacle's friction.
To further improve the obstaclesurmounting ability, the adhesive obstaclesurmounting strategy is proposed, which can be divided into two stages as shown in Figure 9. The first stage (states 1 to 3) is the adhesive obstaclesurmounting stage. The robot lifts the front legs perpendicular to the vertical wall, and then the drive motor starts to work. The front legs are pressed on the vertical wall through the friction between the ground and the rear legs so that the front legs can walk upward along the vertical wall until it is higher than the wall. In this stage, the pitch angle of the robot will increase by 12° to 15°. The stride of the two steps will decrease from 248.3 mm to 189.8 mm, and the height of the leg raise will increase from 22 mm to 42 mm under this condition.
In the second stage (states 4 to 7), the appendages gradually extend to lift the trunk and then substitute for the rear legs to walk on the ground. Meanwhile, the front legs are walking on the vertical wall with an inevitable slippage due to stride difference and the position of the robot's centroid, which is located on the rear trunk. Because the appendages' length is longer than the vertical wall's height, the rear legs can be put on the wall when appendages come to the wall. Then the robot contracts its appendages, and walks on the vertical wall.
Next, the feasibility study of the first stage is carried out to analyze the influence of the robot's centroid in the obstaclesurmounting process. To simplify the model, we assume that the sliding between the feet and the ground, the deformation of the feet, and the effects of the feet impulse can be ignored. The force model is established and shown in Figure 10. The rear legs of the robot contact the ground at point P, and the front legs contact the vertical wall at point Q. The coordinate frame Pxy is set, and the xaxis coincides with the PQ's line segment.
In Figure 10, N_{1} and N_{2} denote the supporting forces on the rear legs and front legs, respectively. T_{1}, T_{2} and F_{f1}, F_{f2} represent the traction forces and rolling resistances of the rear legs and front legs, respectively. G is the total gravity of the robot, whose coordinate is (L_{x}, L_{y}). L_{d} is the length of line segment PQ, and β_{p} is the angle between it and the ground, which gradually increases with the progress of the first stage. The whole motion is slow, so the force model can be analyzed through a static equilibrium equation as Eq. (18):
The rolling resistance F_{fi} can be expressed as Eq. (19):
where f_{i} is the rolling resistance coefficient between legs and the ground. Effective traction T_{i} should be satisfied:
where φ_{i} is adhesion coefficient. According to Eq. (20), another form of effective traction T_{i} can be written as follows:
where δ_{i} is effective traction coefficient, δ_{i} ∈ [0, 1].
Substituting Eqs. (19) and (21) into Eq. (18), then we can reach Eq. (22) after rearranging in matrix form:
where,
\({\varvec{U}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\delta_{1} \varphi_{1}  f_{1} } & 0 \\ 0 & {\delta_{2} \varphi_{2}  f_{2} } \\ 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{array} } \right], \, {\varvec{N}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {N_{1} } \\ {N_{2} } \\ \end{array} } \right], \, {\varvec{M}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 0 \\ G \\ 0 \\ \end{array} } \right]\).
For convenience calculation, we assume that δ_{1} = δ_{2} = δ, φ_{1} = φ_{2} = φ, f_{1} = f_{2} = f. To achieve the motion, the torque of the anticlockwise direction of the robot should be greater than or equal to the torque in the clockwise direction, so Eq. (22) can be solved as an inequality:
It can be seen from Eq. (23) that the parameters containing forces such as G, N, and T can be eliminated. Therefore, whether the adhesive obstaclesurmounting mode can be achieved has nothing to do with the robot's gravity, but relates to the centroid's position, pitch angle, and influence coefficients. The value of δ can be obtained from the Adams™ simulation. Because of the vertical fluctuation, it varies between 0.8 and 1, which is calculated as 0.9 in the formula. On dry roads, the rolling resistance coefficient f is 0.01 [41]. The adhesion coefficient φ is the main influence coefficient, which is determined by the materials of the robot's feet, road surface, and other factors.
When the line segment PQ takes the unit length L_{d} = 1, and φ = 0.9, the boundary conditions of the robot’s pitch angles β_{p} relative to the centroid position are illustrated in Figure 11a. We can see that when the pitch angle β_{p} is 0°, the area on the left side of the vertical line can satisfy the condition of the centroid position, and when β_{p} is 50°, the area on the left side of the oblique line can satisfy the condition. In order to satisfy the position condition of centroid at any pitch angle, the feasible region should be selected as the intersection of all areas, which is the area on the left side of the line of 0°.
Then we draw the boundary conditions of the adhesion coefficients φ between the feet and the obstacle relative to robot’s centroid position in the case of L_{d} = 1 and β_{p} = 0°, as shown in Figure 11b. According to modelling analysis, the coordinate of the robot’s centroid is (0.32, 0.25), so the adhesion coefficient φ should meet the condition of greater than 0.72 to enable the robot to complete the adhesive obstaclesurmounting stage. Therefore, the feet of the robot are made of rubber material to increase the adhesion coefficient.
4.2 Involute Kickrolling Strategy
In involute kickrolling mode, the robot can curl up into a cylinder, and then roll by extending the appendages to kick the ground. The appendages should keep touching the ground for a while until the robot rolls for a distance. During this process, the rolling driving force comes from the ground friction.
The kicking force F_{k} can be divided into a torque and a force act at the centroid of the robot. There are two main factors that can affect the rolling performance. One is the force F_{k}, whose value and distance from the robot's centroid determine the size of the acceleration torque. The other is the actuation duration of the force F_{k}, determining the final speed of the robot.
Considering the above factors, the involute kickrolling strategy in Figure 12 is designed. We assume that the appendages extend along the involute and the robot takes a pure rolling movement. In that case, the appendages will contact with the ground at a fixed point, and cause static friction. During the process, the appendages cannot kick the ground from the starting point of the involute, but should kick from the middle of the involute. Because the driving torque can be generated only when point K is to the left of point G. The acceleration of the robot can be controlled by adjusting the force F_{k}.
Next, the force analysis model of the robot is developed to calculate the value of the force F_{k} under the designated acceleration and the translational velocity of the appendage Bowden cable (described in Section 6.2).
The robot is simplified as a cylindrical rigid body with radius R. The coordinate frame is set at the robot's center C, and the xaxis is oriented horizontally. Point G is set at the centroid of the robot. Value e and θ_{e} denote the eccentric distance and initial angular of point G, respectively. The robot and the appendages contact the ground at points B and K, respectively. The robot will make a pure rolling motion under the actuation of the kicking force F_{k} from the appendage. Establish the dynamic equations of the model as Eq. (24):
where a_{c} = \(\ddot{x}\) _{a}, α_{c} = \(\mathop \theta \limits^{..}\)_{a}, and ω = \(\mathop \theta \limits^{.}\)_{a} are the horizontal acceleration, angular acceleration, and angular velocity, respectively. F_{k} and F_{N} are the supporting forces of the ground. F_{S1} and F_{S2} are the frictions on the appendages and the robot, respectively. l_{1} is the distance between point B and point K. I_{G} is the moment of inertia of the robot rotating around point G. From the pure rolling motion, there should be:
where ρ is the inertia radius. The acceleration of the robot can be obtained as Eq. (26):
The kicking force can be obtained as Eq. (27):
The supporting force F_{N} should be greater than or equal to zero. Substitute into Eq. (26), we can get the initial length of l_{1} has a minimum value as Eq. (28). According to the friction formula F_{S1} + F_{S2} ≤ μ (F_{k} + F_{N}), where μ is the static friction coefficient, we can get the robot's acceleration has a maximum value as Eq. (29). The robot will slip if it moves beyond this acceleration.
According to the modelling analysis, we can obtain that ρ = 0.63 R, e = 0.045 m, θ_{e} = 92.30°. Based on the scale and mechanical design of the robot, the values of other variables are R = 0.24 m, m = 12.87 kg, l_{0} = 0.10 m, and we set a constant value of the acceleration a_{c} = 0.5 m/s^{2}.
Next, we calculate the linear velocity of the appendage Bowden cable. Firstly, the length of l_{1} is computed as Eq. (30) and shown in Figure 13a.
Secondly, the other form of appendage foot K coordinate can be expressed as Eq. (31):
Finally, according to Figure 7b and Eq. (31), the linear velocity of the Bowden cable (V_{L}), which is also the derivative of r_{16} length to t, can be calculated as Eq. (32) and illustrated in Figure 13a. We should pull the cable to obey the V_{L} velocity to make the robot roll at the designated acceleration a_{c}.
The kicking force F_{k} can be computed based on Eq. (27) and shown in Figure 13b with its power, which can be obtained as Eq. (33):
After the kickrolling process, the robot will continue to roll with an initial velocity. However, due to the deviation of the centroid, the robot’s velocity would not change steadily. To calculate its velocity curve, the force analysis of the rolling phase is established, as shown in Figure 14.
At this stage, the kinetic energy theorem is used to calculate the robot’s velocity. The rolling kinetic energy of the robot can be decomposed into the translational kinetic energy and the rotational kinetic energy around the center point C, calculated in Eq. (34):
Taking the horizontal height of point C as the potential energy zero, the gravity potential energy of the robot is obtained as Eq. (35):
According to the initial velocity of the robot, the initial mechanical energy possessed by the robot can be calculated as follows: E_{0} = E_{k0} + E_{p0}. So, the kinetic energy theorem formula is established as Eq. (36):
By solving Eq. (36), the angular velocity can be calculated as Eq. (37):
Order θ takes 360 values for every interval Δθ = 1° starting from θ_{0}, which are named θ_{i} (i = 0, 1,…, 359), then the ω_{i} (i = 0, 1,…, 359) can be calculated through Eq. (37). Because the angle difference corresponding to two adjacent ω_{i} is 1°, the time interval can be calculated from the quotient of angle and angular velocity, as shown in Eq. (38):
Then the time t_{i} corresponding to the angular velocity ω_{i} can be obtained. Finally, the robot’s velocity v_{ci} in the rolling phase corresponding to time t_{i} can be calculated through the formula v_{ci}= ω_{i}r, (i = 0, 1,…, 359). For a more accurate calculation result, the value of interval angle Δθ can be taken as 0.1° or less. The speedtime graph combining the kicking and rolling phases is illustrated in Figure 15.
5 Dynamic Simulation
In this section, we constructed a dynamic model in Adams™ to verify the theoretical analysis and performance characteristics. The model was 755 mm long, 590 mm wide, and 340 mm high, and the weight was 12.87 kg. The simulation parameters included gravity coefficient (9.8 m/s^{2}), contact stiffness (30 N/mm), contact damping (1.5 Ns/mm), dynamic coefficient (0.7) and static coefficient (0.72). The contact force, pitch angle, and motor torque were measured in adhesive obstaclesurmounting mode. The speeds and kicking forces in different accelerations were calculated in involute kickrolling mode.
5.1 Adhesive Obstacle Surmounting Simulation
To test the obstaclesurmounting ability, a 350 mm high stair was set in the simulation, which was higher than the robot itself. The process is shown in Figure 16, consistent with the theoretical analysis. It can be seen that the platform can overcome obstacles successfully. The vertical projection of the centroid on the ground is always located in the convex polygon formed by touchdown points of the front and rear legs or appendages.
The front and rear legs are driven simultaneously by rotational motion act on the crank, and the motion speed is set as 30 r/min. The appendages and the trunk deformation are controlled by linear motion. As shown in Figure 16, the robot deformed its trunk to obstaclesurmounting mode during 2 to 4 s. 4 to 6.6 s is the first stage described in Section 4.1, and the robot surmounted the stairs by the traction force between the legs and the ground. In the second stage (6.6 to 10 s), the robot walked with appendages instead of rear legs. The timing of the extension of the appendages is essential, and it needs to coordinate with the timing of the trunk deformation. Eventually, the robot contracted its appendages during 10 to 12 s. The contact force between legs (or appendages) and ground (or obstacle) are illustrated in Figures 17a, b. At the same time, the crank torque and the pitch angle of the robot are illustrated in Figures 17c, d. The pushing force of the rod and the actuating force of appendages are also displayed in Figures 17e, f. It can be seen that the contact forces and motor torque increased a lot in the first and second stages. From the test, the maximum height that the robot can surmount is 352 mm, depending on the lengths of the appendages and trunk. The robot can also surmount the wall below 352 mm, and the appendages only need to extend to a suitable length according to the height of the wall to assist the obstaclesurmounting motion.
Then, we tested the robot’s obstaclesurmounting performance under different adhesion coefficients and recorded the pitch angles of the front trunk. They started from about 30° due to the trunk deformation before the climbing stage. As depicted in Figure 18, the increase of the pitch angle curves slows down with the reduction of the adhesion coefficient φ. Consistent with the result in the motion analysis, only if the adhesion coefficient is greater than 0.70 can the robot cross the obstacle.
5.2 Involute Kickrolling Simulation
To explore a highspeed movement strategy, the involute kickrolling mode is put forward and test the performance. The robot is tested in different designated accelerations by adjusting the Bowden cable velocity, which is explained in Section 4.2. As shown in Figure 19, the robot deforms into a cylinder and rolls by pushing off the ground with its appendages. After one acceleration, the drag spring quickly contracts the appendages, and the robot still rolls for a distance. To consecutive rolling, the robot needs to kick the ground again to get another acceleration after rotating for a circle. It is significant to kick at the appropriate timing. The speed curves and kicking forces of each acceleration test are shown in Figures 20a, b.
From the speed curves, we can see that the robot can move faster than walking. But this mode can only act on relatively smooth terrains. We also tested the robot to roll on the slopes. On downward slopes whose angle is greater than 3°, the robot can roll continuously without pushing off the ground repeatedly. In terms of the upslopes, the maximum angle that the robot can roll is 5°.
6 Prototype and Experiment
Based on the mechanical structure design, a prototype was designed to verify its mobility, and the parts processing, component, and testing instrument selection were completed. Meanwhile, the experiments of the two modes were finished to test the robot’s performance.
6.1 The Layout Design of the Prototype
As shown in Figure 21, the prototype consists of four closedchain legged units. For lightweight design, the trunk frame, the legged units, and the appendages are made of carbon fiber. The feet and the roll cage are made of rubber to increase the friction. The drive system contains a DC reduction motor (DH03X38Nm) installed on the rear trunk, five synchronous belts, and two cardan shafts, which connect the drive motor and the cranks. A DC electric pushing rod (BORSB1100N120mm) is installed between the front and the rear trunk to control the deformation and modes switching. In addition, we installed a steering engine (GX3345BLS) to control the robot turning, which can rotate the frontlegged units 17° left and right. The robot cannot turn in the rolling mode because the left and right roll cages and the appendages are designed symmetrically. In terms of the control system, a microcontroller (Arduino^{®} UNO) was installed in the middle of the rear trunk to control the drive motor, the electric pushing rod, the steering engine, and two servo motors (GX3380BLS), which are used to adjust the extension of the appendages. The whole robot is powered by a lithium battery (6s3300mah) fixed on the rear trunk. The parameters of the prototype are illustrated in Table 5.
6.2 The Mechanical Design of the Appendage
The mechanism of the appendage consists of the first, the second, and the third sections, which are connected through two sliders and two slide rails, as shown in Figure 22a. A steel rope, which wounds around four pulleys installed on both ends of the second section, links the first and third sections to realize the associated motion of the three sections. The exterior appendage extension trajectory is an involute curve. The interior appendage does not participate in the kickrolling mode, and its extension trajectory is a straight line. To reduce the mass of the appendage mechanism, the control module, which is composed of two servo motors and two capstans, is placed on the rear trunk shown in Figure 22b. It could extend the appendage by pulling the Bowden cable, including a wire and a tube. Two ends of the tube are fixed on the first section and the tube fixture, respectively, and two wire ends are fastened on the second section and the capstan, respectively. In obstaclesurmounting mode, the first servo motor's shaft connects the capstan and spins around twice clockwise or anticlockwise to extend or contract four appendages. In kickrolling mode, the second servo motor drives the actuating arm to push the passive block fixed on the other capstan around for extending the exterior appendages. Because of the ball screw, the capstan will move away from the motor, and the passive block will dislocate with the actuating arm after rotating one circle. As a result, the capstan will immediately turn back to the initial angle under the pulling force from a drag spring whose two ends are fixed on the second and third sections of the appendage, respectively.
6.3 Adhesive Obstaclesurmounting Experiment
In this experiment, we verified the robot's obstaclesurmounting ability. As depicted in Figure 23, a 350 mm high block was set in front of the robot on the PVC floor, which is the maximum obstaclesurmounting height in theoretical analysis. Then we used the remote control to manipulate the robot switch into obstaclesurmounting mode. The front trunk of the robot will not touch the ground in state two because two rollers are installed on the rear trunk, as shown in Figure 2b. It can be seen that the robot can lift its front legs to climb the vertical obstacle through the friction, and use its appendages to walk and support the trunk. The whole motion is the same as it performed in the simulation.
6.4 Involute Kickrolling Experiment
In this experiment, we verified the robot's kickrolling ability on the PVC floor. As depicted in Figure 24, the robot deformed into a cylinder through its roll cage and front legs, and then extended its appendages to push off the ground for rolling. The cylinder's crosssection is not a complete circle because it uses the gap to determine the starting and ending posture. It means that the robot touches the ground by the gap before rolling, and after the robot rolls for one circle, it will end rolling because of the resistance from the gap.
However, if the robot extends its appendages again at appropriate timing, it can continue rolling. During the rolling, we measured the kicking force between appendages and ground with a thinfilm pressure sensor (FSR406) and recorded the speed of the robot with a nineaxis gyro sensor (BWT901CL). The data are shown in Figure 25, and we can see the comparison with theoretical analysis and simulation. In the experiment, the robot can roll 0.8 m/s on average, which is 1.06 times the length of the body and much faster than walking (0.12 m/s).
7 Conclusions

(1)
To combine abilities of highspeed movement and adaptability in rough terrain, this paper proposed a bioinspired multimode octopod robot with walking, obstaclesurmounting, and rolling modes switched by the trunk deformation. To improve the control simplicity and integral rigidity, the robot uses the planar closedchain linkage as the trunk and leg mechanism.

(2)
The involute kickrolling mode was proposed inspired by the Cebrennus rechenbergi spider that enhances the robot’s moving speed on flat ground.

(3)
The adhesive obstaclesurmounting mode, which can help the robot climb vertical obstacles through the friction of the obstacle, was put forward to improve the terrain adaptability.

(4)
As the submodule of the main foot, the appendage mechanism with one DoF is designed. It can extend along the involute to kick the ground or substitute for the rear legs to walk, which assists the robot in completing two proposed modes.

(5)
The kinematic analyses of the leg and appendage mechanisms were carried out. The feasibility of two motion modes was verified by establishing the mathematical models. The dynamic simulations were conducted to obtain the contact force, motor torque, and pitch angle of the obstaclesurmounting mode and the moving speed and kicking force of the rolling mode.

(6)
Finally, an experimental prototype, including the mechanical, drive, and control system, was fabricated and tested to verify practicability and performance. The results show that the robot can roll 0.8 m/s, which is 1.06 times the length of the body, and can surmount the obstacle of 350 mm, which is higher than itself.
References
R S Ortigoza, M MarcelinoAranda, G S Ortigoza, et al. Wheeled mobile robots: a review. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 2012, 10(6): 2209–2217. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2012.6418124.
M H Raibert. Legged robots. Communications of the ACM, 1986, 29(6): 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1145/5948.5950.
J He, F Gao. Mechanism, actuation, perception, and control of highly dynamic multilegged robots: a review. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2020, 33: 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10033020004859.
M Raibert, K Blankespoor, G Nelson, et al. BigDog, the roughterrain quadruped robot. IFAC Proceedings, 2008, 41(2): 10822–10825. https://doi.org/10.3182/200807065KR1001.01833.
B Ugurlu, I Havoutis, C Semini, et al. Dynamic trotwalking with the hydraulic quadruped robot—HyQ: analytical trajectory generation and active compliance control. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2013: 6044–6051. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2013.6697234.
C Semini, V Barasuol, J Goldsmith, et al. Design of the hydraulically actuated, torquecontrolled quadruped robot HyQ2Max. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2017, 22(2): 635–646. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2016.2616284.
X B Chen, F Gao, C K Qi, et al. Spring parameters design for the new hydraulic actuated quadruped robot. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 2014, 6(2): 021003. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025754.
X B Chen, F Gao, C K Qi, et al. Kinematic analysis and motion planning of a quadruped robot with partially faulty actuators. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2015, 94: 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2015.05.010.
D Fedorov, L Birglen. Design of a selfadaptive robotic leg using a triggered compliant element. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2017, 2(3): 1444–1451. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2017.2670678.
C H Liang, M Ceccarelli, Y Takeda. Operation analysis of a Chebyshevpantograph leg mechanism for a single DOF biped robot. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2012, 7(4): 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1146501203405.
Z Q Zhang, Q Yang, S Gui, et al. Mechanism design for locustinspired robot with oneDOF leg based on jumping stability. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2019, 133: 584–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2018.12.012.
J X Wu, Y A Yao. Design and analysis of a novel walking vehicle based on leg mechanism with variable topologies. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2018, 128: 663–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2018.07.008.
A Bouman, M F Ginting, N Alatur, et al. Autonomous Spot: longrange autonomous exploration of extreme environments with legged locomotion. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2020: 2518–2525. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS45743.2020.9341361.
P Fankhauser, M Hutter. ANYmal: a unique quadruped robot conquering harsh environments. Research Features, 2018, 126: 54–57. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethzb000262484.
M Hutter, C Gehring, A Lauber, et al. ANYmal  toward legged robots for harsh environments. Advanced Robotics, 2017, 31(17): 918–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2017.1378591.
J Hwangbo, J Lee, A Dosovitskiy, et al. Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots. Science Robotics, 2019, 4(26): aau5872. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aau5872.
J X Wu, Y A Yao, Y B Li, et al. Design and analysis of a sixteenlegged vehicle with reconfigurable closechain leg mechanisms. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 2019, 11(5): 055001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044003.
Q Ruan, J X Wu, Y A Yao. Design and analysis of a multilegged robot with pitch adjustive units. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2021, 34: 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1003302100578z.
Y Sun, H Hu, X D Liang, et al. A Study on obstaclesurmounting performance of sand milling vehicles. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2019, 677(2): 022112. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757899x/677/2/022112.
X Zhou, J He, C Ren, et al. Research on obstacle surmounting performance of allterrain eight wheel drive robot. Chinese Automation Congress (CAC), 2018: 3868–3873. https://doi.org/10.1109/CAC.2018.8623525.
H Xu, Y C Han, W Z Guo, et al. Design and analysis of a novel magnetic adhesion robot with passive suspension. Intelligent Robotics and Applications, 2022, 13456: 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783031138225_33.
M L HE, J L He, C J Ren, et al. A horse inspired eightwheel unmanned ground vehicle with fourswing arms. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020: 7723–7728. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS45743.2020.9341528.
W H Chen, H S Lin, Y M Lin, et al. TurboQuad: a novel leg–wheel transformable robot with smooth and fast behavioral transitions. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2017, 33(5): 1025–1040. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2017.2696022.
F J Comin, W A Lewinger, C M Saaj, et al. Trafficability assessment of deformable terrain through hybrid wheel–leg sinkage detection. Journal of Field Robotics, 2017, 34(3): 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21645.
Y X Xin, X W Rong, Y B Li, et al. Movements and balance control of a wheel–leg robot based on uncertainty and disturbance estimation method. IEEE Access, 2019, 7: 133265–133273. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2940487.
J Kim, H Kwon, J Lee. A rolling robot: design and implementation. 2009 7th Asian Control Conference, 2009: 1474–1479.
J Lee, W Park. Design and path planning for a spherical rolling robot. ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Dynamics, Vibration and Control, 2013: 4A. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE201364994.
K W Wait, P J Jackson, L S Smoot. Self locomotion of a spherical rolling robot using a novel deformable pneumatic method. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2010: 3757–3762. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509314.
R S King. BiLBIQ: A biologically inspired robot with walking and rolling locomotion. Biosystems and Biorobotics, 2013: 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642346828.
C C Phipps, M A Minor. Quasistatic rolling control of the rolling disk biped robot. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2008: 1239–1245. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2008.4543373.
C C Phipps, B E Shores, M A Minor. Design and quasistatic locomotion analysis of the rolling disk biped hybrid robot. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2008, 24(6): 1302–1314. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2008.2007936.
J He, Y L Sun, L M Yang, F Gao. Model predictive control of a novel wheeled–legged planetary rover for trajectory tracking. Sensors, 2022, 22(11): 4164. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22114164.
J He, Y L Sun, L M Yang, et al. Design and control of TAWL—a wheellegged rover with terrainadaptive wheel speed allocation capability. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2022, 27(4): 2212–2223. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2022.3176638.
S Wang, K Wang, C Zhang, J S Dai. Kinetostatic backflip strategy for selfrecovery of quadruped robots with the selected rotation axis. Robotica, 2022, 40(6): 1713–1731. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263574721001326.
X T Sun, S H Lee. Multiplemotion mode switching robot platform. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 2019, 33: 5637–5642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1220601911054.
Z Tang, J S Dai. Metamorphic mechanism and reconfiguration of a biomimetic quadruped robot. ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2018, 1A: 85134. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC201885134.
Z Tang, K Wang, E S Papastavridis, J S Dai. Origaker: a novel multimimicry quadruped robot based on a metamorphic mechanism. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 2022, 14(6): 061005. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4054408.
Festo, Inc. BionicWheelBot, walk and roll like a flicflac spider. Accessed 2020. https://www.festo.com/us/en/e/aboutfesto/researchanddevelopment/bioniclearningnetwork/highlightsfrom2015to2017/bionicwheelbotid_32767/.
P Jäger. Cebrennus Simon, 1880 (Araneae: Sparassidae): a revisionary update with the description of four new species and an updated identification key for all species. Zootaxa, 2014, 3790(2): 319–356. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3790.2.4.
J S Dai, D R Kerr. Geometric analysis and optimization of a symmetrical Watt six bar mechanism. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 1991, 205(4): 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1243/PIME_PROC_1991_205_119_02.
S Taryma, J A Ejsmont, G Ronowski, et al. Road texture influence on tire rolling resistance. Key Engineering Materials, 2013, 597: 193–198. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.597.193.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52205007).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HS was in charge of the whole mechanical design, assembly and drafted the manuscript. CW and HS were in charge of the prototype experiments. JW provided the core idea and modified the manuscript with CW and YY. YY also provided the necessary equipment and sites for experiments. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors’ Information
Hongzhe Sun, born in 1996, is currently a MPhil candidate at Beijing Jiaotong University, China. He received his bachelor’s degree from Shenyang Agriculture University, China, in 2019. His research interests include mechanical design and mobile robotics.
Chaoran Wei, born in 1994, is currently a researcher at Beijing Institute of Control Engineering, China. He received his PhD degree from Beijing Jiaotong University, China, in 2022. His research interests include mechanisms and mobile robotics.
Yanan Yao, born in 1972, is currently a professor and a PhD candidate supervisor at Beijing Jiaotong University, China. He received his PhD degree from Tianjin University, China, in 1999. His research interests include mechanical design and robotics.
Jianxu Wu, born in 1989, is currently a lecturer at Beijing Jiaotong University, China. He received his PhD degree from Beijing Jiaotong University, China, in 2019. His research interests include mechanism design and robotics.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sun, H., Wei, C., Yao, Ya. et al. Analysis and Experiment of a Bioinspired Multimode Octopod Robot. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 36, 142 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1003302300963w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1003302300963w