Embedded Motion Control 2017 Group 9: Difference between revisions
(→Result) |
(→Result) |
||
Line 375: | Line 375: | ||
Phenomenon stated above is illustrated more clearly in Figure "'''First Dead End'''" and "'''Second dead end'''". | Phenomenon stated above is illustrated more clearly in Figure "'''First Dead End'''" and "'''Second dead end'''". | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File:Dead end1.png |400px|thumb|First Dead End]] | | style="text-align: center; width: 400px;"|[[File:Dead end1.png |400px|thumb|First Dead End]] | ||
| [[File:Dead end2.png |380px|thumb|Second Dead End]] | | style="text-align: center; width: 380px;"|[[File:Dead end2.png |380px|thumb|Second Dead End]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| After the Maze Challenge, we lowered the value of detection radius for front obstacle detection and ran the code in simulator. Because it is arbitrary decision, the time PICO costed for maze solving is not a constant. But we found the maze could always be solved within 5 mins. Video "'''Maze Solving performance in simulator'''" shows that "Maze is solved successfully within 5 mins" | | After the Maze Challenge, we lowered the value of detection radius for front obstacle detection and ran the code in simulator. Because it is arbitrary decision, the time PICO costed for maze solving is not a constant. But we found the maze could always be solved within 5 mins. Video "'''Maze Solving performance in simulator'''" shows that "Maze is solved successfully within 5 mins" |
Revision as of 12:34, 18 June 2017
Group Members
Name: | Student id: |
Mian Wei | 1035075 |
Zhihao Wu | 1041226 |
Petrus Teguh Handoko | X |
Bo Deng | X |
Bo Cong | X |
Jian Wen Kok | 0808353 |
Nico Huebel | Tutor |
Initial Design
The initial design for the maze challenge is elaborated below. It includes the requirements, functions, components, schematic of program structure, specifications and interfaces to define the working of PICO. The file for the initial design is included here: File:Assignment-for-week1.pdf
Requirements
➢ PICO drives autonomously through maze
➢ Being able to take a turn without touching a wall
➢ Being able to detect a turn or branching corridors
➢ Avoiding collisions with obstacles (including the walls)
➢ Driving straight and rotating smoothly
➢ PICO should not stand still for 30 seconds
➢ Avoid getting trapped in a loop of the maze
➢ Being able to recognize the door
Functions
Below is the scheme for the functions of PICO. The basic skills enables the advanced skills and these skills are incorporated in the main function to finish the maze.
Components
drive control
‐Holonomic base (omni‐wheels)
‐Pan‐tilt unit for head
detection
‐170◦ wide‐angle camer (Unavailable in this project)
‐Asus Xtion Depth sensor (Unavailable in this project)
‐Laser Range Finder (LRF)
‐Wheel encoders (odometry)
world model
computer
‐Intel I7
‐Ubuntu 14.04
Specifications
- maximum translational speed of 0.5 m/s |
Interfaces
The odometer and LRF generates data for mapping the environment.
The algorithm sets nodes on the junction as a setpoint for navigation, plans the route and put the actuators to work accordingly.
The odometer and LRF keeps on keeping track of the environment and the software recognizes obstructions, dead ends that might be doors and junction.
Corridor Challenge
Design
At first, PICO moves forward with a modified potential field.
When it detects the junction, the potential field goes off and stops when it is in the middle of the junction.
PICO then rotates 90 degree and moves forward.
When PICO detects that it is inside the junction, the potential field goes on and finishes the challenge.
modified potential field
Laser beams A1 and A2 are used to check the relative distance. Based on this relative distance, the robot will be directed to the middle of the corridor by giving both a sidewards and rotational velocity.
potential field
junction detection
Laser beam B1 and B2 are used to check whether a junction exists or not. When a junction is detected, the potential field goes off and waits for A1 and A2 to detect the junction to make sure that PICO will be able to make the turn when it is turned 90 degrees.
junction detection
Result
The corridor challenge failed
In the first trial PICO moved straight forward without potential field.
When it detects the junction it stopped and rotated 90 degrees in the wrong direction.
This inevitably resulted in crashing into the walls.
The second trial PICO did not detect the junction and drove straight forward, this was the latest program.
Evaluation
The first trial used our old program that has proven itself as seen in the video below. Unfortunately we did not push the correct version to PICO. The second trial used our latest program. Potential field is added because there exists a chance that PICO would run into the walls without it. |
Maze Challenge
Design
Architecture
Main Flow
|
Detection
Door Detection
There are two conditions of door, front door and side door.
- Front door detection method
Detecting the distance of three ranges, the range is defined by angle θ=48°, and detection radius φf.
We consider the front door as a dead end, hence the detection is to check whether there is a dead end or not. If the average distance in the three detect ranges all smaller than φf, that means there is a dead end and return possible_door_flag=2 (means there is a front door).
- Side door detection method
Using the left and right side detect ranges to detect the side door, considering the given restrictions the depth of door template is around 0.3m and the corridor width is from 0.5m to 1.5m, we use an annulus range with limitation φA=0.7m and φB=1.3m to define the possible door condition (the red shadow in Figure). To avoid the robot trap by the side door detection loop, we consider front data about 45° should smaller than φC=1m (the yellow line in Figure).
For example, considering the right door in the Figure, first check whether two edge laser data.212 and data.2(±24°) are in the red shadow (in Figure), and the data of front 45°(laser data.303) smaller than φC. If the first condition satisfied then check the second condition: all the other data between scan data.212 and data.2, if 75% data satisfied the length condition (in the red shadow), that means there is a right side door, and return possible_door_flag=1, (for the left door possible_door_flag=3 ).
Junction Detection
In the following picture, it is clear that three laser bundles in forward direction, left direction and right direction are selected to detect the junction. In order to find junction in perfect way, the detection radius and detection angle need to be well calculated. The detection angle is set to be 24° since the maximum detection range is ±114°.
As a result, the boundaries of three laser bundles are:
- Left bundle: +114° and +66°
- Forward bundle: +24° and −24°
- Right bundle: −114° and −66°
The width of the corridor is between 0.5m to 1.5m. In order to detect the widthest corridor, the following equation need to be satisfied:
Also the width of a junction should be bigger than PICO's width, so:
These two equations will make sure the pico can find junction in the widthest corridor and also could go through the junction in open loop. Finally, the detection radius is set to be 0.85.
To find the junction, both boundaries in one laser bundle needs to have longer distance than the detection radius. After that, to increase the robustness of the detection, all the distance of the laser line inside the laser bundle will be measured, if 80% laser line has longer distance than the detection radius, PICO will consider there is a junction.
Two flag are used to describe the exist and feature of junctions: the junction flag and the direction flag.
Junction flag:
- Junction flag is used to describe the exist of junctions
- 0: no junction or only forward junction
- 1: existence of left or right junction
Direction flag:
- Direction flag D[3] is an array, and each number represent a direction
- D[0]=true: right direction available
- D[1]=true: forward direction available
- D[2]=true: left direction available
If junction flag becomes 1, the decision block will be triggered and decide a direction to move based on the direction flag.
Door Open Detection
We use the similar way to detect if door is opened after 5 second. The forwad direction laser bundle has been used. If both boundaries have longer distance and more than 75% laser line inside the laser bundle is longer than detection radius, PICO will consider door has opened.
Decision Block
- Decision Block is consisted of two sub-blocks. One of the sub-blocks is “Corridor Decision Block” and the other block is “Open Space Decision Block”. These two block account for decision in corridor and open-space respectively. The switch between two decision sub-block is based on the value of “openspace_flag”, which indicate the existence of the open space.
- As demonstrated in “Figure2 Flow-Chart of Decision block”, when “Decision Block” is executed, program will be navigated to different sub-blocks. Navigating variables are given by “junction_detection” block. According to the internal logic of the “junction_detection” block, “junction_flag” and “openspace_flag” cannot be true at the same time, which ensures that “Decision” block cannot execute “Corridor Decision Block” and “Open Space Decision Block” in same round.
- The detailed decision logic will be interpreted below:
- “Decision Block” is called after “Detection Block”(junction_detection & door_check) has been executed with the information which indicated the existence of door、junction and open space provided. The value of junction_flag ,openspace_falg and openspace_decision_flag are checked.
- Junction Mode:When junction_flag is true, which indicates that junction is found and the absence of open space due to the mutual exclusiveness between junction indicator and open space indicator, Decision Block will be navigated to “Corridor Decision Block”. Arbitrary choice between available corridor directions will be made in “Corridor Decision Block” .
- Open Space Mode Mode:If it is open space detected, “Open Space Decision Block” will be executed, difference priorities are given to different choice. “turning left” is given the highest priority, so the availability of the corridor at left side of the robot will be check first, and then the check on the availability of corridor at forward direction follows and the last direction to check is right side. With this order, the robot can implement the goal of moving along the left wall in open space. The difference between the second and the third sub-blocks in “Open Space Decision Block” is that they adopt different move-forward mode. When “Openspace_flag==true &&Openspace_decision_flag==true” holds, the robot is moving within the open space or just enter the open space. Under these two circumstance, the moving forward movement controlled in a close loop way to avoid bumping the wall . when “openspace_flag==false && openspace_decision_flag=true?” hold, the robot is gonna to encounter with the exit of the open space. Because of lead detection on open space, the indicator of open space has been reset. To ensure that the robot can move to the middle line of the exit before making the next decision, valuable openspace_decision_flag is declared. With this valuable distinguishing the last forward movement before leaving the open space with other forward movements in the open space, last forward movement is an open loop controlled one navigating the robot to move forward by 0.5 meters. “Protection Block” is executed all the time, which protects the robot from bumping in open loop procedures .
- As for the first sub-block in "Open Space Decision Block", it will give the movement comment "Turning left" and set variable "openspace_decision_flag" at the end of itself, which ensures that it can only be executed by one time in every open space and only executed at the moment when robot enter the open-space.
- Open Space Mode Mode:If it is open space detected, “Open Space Decision Block” will be executed, difference priorities are given to different choice. “turning left” is given the highest priority, so the availability of the corridor at left side of the robot will be check first, and then the check on the availability of corridor at forward direction follows and the last direction to check is right side. With this order, the robot can implement the goal of moving along the left wall in open space. The difference between the second and the third sub-blocks in “Open Space Decision Block” is that they adopt different move-forward mode. When “Openspace_flag==true &&Openspace_decision_flag==true” holds, the robot is moving within the open space or just enter the open space. Under these two circumstance, the moving forward movement controlled in a close loop way to avoid bumping the wall . when “openspace_flag==false && openspace_decision_flag=true?” hold, the robot is gonna to encounter with the exit of the open space. Because of lead detection on open space, the indicator of open space has been reset. To ensure that the robot can move to the middle line of the exit before making the next decision, valuable openspace_decision_flag is declared. With this valuable distinguishing the last forward movement before leaving the open space with other forward movements in the open space, last forward movement is an open loop controlled one navigating the robot to move forward by 0.5 meters. “Protection Block” is executed all the time, which protects the robot from bumping in open loop procedures .
There are three cases that robot may encounter in open space: | |
Case1:
|
|
Case2:
|
|
Case3:
|
Movement
Door Movement
code snippet: door_movement.cpp
Junction Movement
The Junction Movement function consist of five cases: turnStraight, TurnRight, TurnLeft, protection and movForward.
turnStraight:
PICO shortly moves straight for 0.5m or when counters time[3s] has passed and continues with the moveForward function. The counter is needed to prevent the program go into a loop when PICO is not able to move the distance. The forward movement is protected by 5 laser sectors. When it is too close to the wall or obstruction, the forward movement will move backwards with an speed of -0.2m/s. When the laser beams for the obstruction detection on the sides of PICO detects that it is too close to the wall, the program goes into the state of protection and moves PICO away from the obstruction.
turnRight and turnLeft:
Both cases turnRight and turnLeft rotates 90 degrees to the corresponding direction and measures the rotation with the odometer to determine when to stop. To make sure that the odometer is accurate enough, the rotating speed is set at 0.2 rad/s.
movForward:
After finishing the turnStraight, the code will go into the movForward state. PICO moves straight for 5m or stops when counters time[5s] has passed. This movement is exactly the same as the turnStraight movement except for the distance and countertime.
protection:
When an obstruction is detected in the turnStraight or movForward, PICO then stops and moves sideways to avoid the obstruction.
The protection in the junction_movement.cpp and move_forward.cpp are explained here: protection
The code snippet is included below:
code snippet: junction_movement.cpp
Move Forward
Similarly to the junction_movement.cpp, move_forward.cpp uses three front laser bundles to adjust the speed. The forward speed is either 0.5m/s when the detection allows or -0.2 m/s otherwise. What differs from the junction_movement.cpp is that the forward movement will not stop when it adjusts with the side movement to avoid obstruction. With 6 laser bundles, 3 at both sides, it adjusts the sidewards speed. When it detects a obstruction, it will move sidewards to avoid the obstruction.
code snippet: move_forward.cpp
Mapping
Protection
The picture on the left is the front detection for adjusting the forward velocity and on the right picture is the side detection to adjust the sideways velocity. All laser beams takes the average of 15 points. The forward speed is either 0.5m/s when there is no obstruction in the front or -0.2 m/s otherwise. The sidewards speed is 0.2m/s when an obstruction is detected or 0 m/s otherwise. Below is the protection in action to avoid collision.
The code snippet for side protection here:side protection
The code snippet for forward protection here:forward protection
Open Space
"Open Space Detection" block is an extension of "Junction Detection" block. By including another two laser beams at -45° and 45° respectively,the feature of open-space can be distinguished from that of normal junctions. the differences will be introduced below in three different cases in detail: | ||
|
||
|
||
and then, it comes the decision block. Now, the value of junction_flag is zero, Decision block will not execute "Corridor Decision Block" because the condition for this block doesn't hold as showed in figure '"Flow Chart of Decision Block". But the condition for the first case in "Open Space Decision Block" hold in this case and decision in this case is specified as 2(indicator of turning left movement) in this round and another variable "openspace_decision_flag" is set at the end of the this sub-block. When "turning left" movement is completed, same detection procedure is repetitively performed. Because the discovery of right open space, the indicator of the discovery of junctions keep being cleaned and indicator for left junction stays at 0 at the end of "Junction_detection Block", openspace_flag is set at the mean time as stated above. the second time when "Decision Block" is executed, the condition of the first case in "Open Space Decision Block" does't hold anymore beacause the value of "openspace_decision_flag" has been set to 1 and no block help to reset it up to now. It is until "Openspce_case3" that "Decision Block" executes sub-block3 and reset the value of "openspace_decision_flag". That is how open-space algorithms works. |
||
The performance of the algorithm is show in video "Open space performance in simulato" | ||
|
Result
Unfortunately, our algorithm failed again in the challenge because some configurations don't well fit the dimension of the maze.The performance of our robot is disappointing as the follow video "Maze Challenge Record" showes. | |
| |
The robot got trapped at the very beginning. The reason of failure is that the distance which indicates "No way forward" was too large and it made robot conclude that there is no way forward before it moved out of the U shaped structure. The action following the discovery of obstacle forward is 'detecting the existence of corridor on the both sides of the robot to check whether it is an junction or dead end'. Because the robot hasn't moved out of U-shaped structure when it was informed of the discovery of obstacle in front of it by the overlarge front laser beam, its detection on left and right side returned that the corridor doesn't exist on both side, which made the robot conclude that it was located in a dead end and door checking algorithm at dead end was activated. After "door open signal" was sent, the robot waited for 5 seconds and check whether the door was open. Definitely, it wasn't because it was not a door. According to "Door Movement Algorithm For Dead end", If no door was detected open, the robot would rotated back by 180° after waiting for 5s. While, it was a real dead end if it rotated back. So same movement repeated again. And it would rotated back after a failed try to open the door at the second dead end. In this way, PICO got trapped in the loop and would never find way out. Phenomenon stated above is illustrated more clearly in Figure "First Dead End" and "Second dead end". | |
After the Maze Challenge, we lowered the value of detection radius for front obstacle detection and ran the code in simulator. Because it is arbitrary decision, the time PICO costed for maze solving is not a constant. But we found the maze could always be solved within 5 mins. Video "Maze Solving performance in simulator" shows that "Maze is solved successfully within 5 mins" | |
|
Evaluation
The problem of complexity:
By adding states we increase the complexity of the system and this can result very easily into undesired behavior as it is observed. PICO can only perform 20 tasks each second and since we are moving at a speed of 0.5 m/s and this combined with the many states the program has, can result into more undesired behavior.
[mention the problems here or in the blocks itself?]
Right now, states are being used to prevent undesired behavior. This way of solving requires the making of repeating states with different conditions which in itself increases the complexity.
It is proposed to cut down the number of states and only focus on the key tasks: moving block, detection block, door handling block, maze solving block. To prevent undesired behavior a supervisory controller can be used.
The problem of open loop:
where do we have open loop. what problems , how to solve.
The problem of junction detection: use node is more robust--> make lines
Evaluation group9 EMC 2017
Code snippets
corridor challenge
potential field
junction detection
maze challenge
Door Movement
code snippet: door_movement.cpp
Movement
code snippet: move_forward.cpp
code snippet: junction_movement.cpp[math]\displaystyle{ Insert formula here }[/math]