표제지
목차
Nomenclatures 11
요약 14
제1장 서론 15
1.1. 연구 배경 및 목적 15
1.2. 연구 목표 및 내용 21
제2장 휠 모듈 설계 22
2.1. 휠 모듈 메커니즘 22
2.2. 메커니즘 분석 25
2.2.1. 기구학적 분석 25
2.2.2. 동역학적 분석 30
2.3. 서스펜션 사양 선정 33
제3장 휠 모듈 시뮬레이션 모델 개발 및 검증 35
3.1. 로봇 시스템 36
3.2. 시뮬레이션 모델 38
3.3. 주행 시험 및 시뮬레이션 구성 39
3.4. 시뮬레이션 모델 검증 및 결과 분석 42
3.4.1. 휠 모듈을 적용한 이동 로봇의 주행 실험 42
3.4.2. 감쇠 계수 추정 45
3.4.3. 시뮬레이션 모델 검증 및 결과 52
제4장 동역학 시뮬레이션 기반 주행 조건에 따른 감쇠 계수별 주행 성능 분석 56
4.1. 주행 조건 정의 56
4.2. 시뮬레이션 결과 및 분석 60
제5장 결론 64
참고 문헌 66
Abstract 70
Table. 2-1. Length of mobile robot 24
Table. 2-2. Mass of wheel module component 31
Table. 2-3. Specification of damper 34
Table. 2-4. Specification of spring 34
Table. 3-1. Mass of the mobile robot components 37
Table. 3-2. Design variables 46
Table. 3-3. Optimal design variables of damping coefficient 47
Table. 3-4. Comparison of RMS between experiment and simulation when υₘₐₓ=0.5m/s 49
Table. 3-5. Comparison of pitch between experiment and simulation when υₘₐₓ=0.5m/s 50
Table. 3-6. Comparison of RMS between experiment and simulation when υₘₐₓ=1m/s 52
Table. 3-7. Comparison of pitch between experiment and simulation when υₘₐₓ=1m/s 55
Table. 4-1. Range or value of variables 57
Table. 4-2. Example of DOE table 59
Fig. 1-1. Interact analysis' forecast for revenue growth in the mobile robot market 15
Fig. 1-2. Literature review examples of wheel modules (a)Compact Omnidirectional Wheel Modules, (b)Thorvald II, (c)MARS, (d)SDM 17
Fig. 2-1. Wheel module mechanism 22
Fig. 2-2. Design of mobile robot using wheel module 23
Fig. 2-3. Definition of terms for mobile robot length 24
Fig. 2-4. (a)Kinematic diagram and (b)definition of terms for wheel module length 26
Fig. 2-5. The action of the wheel module mechanism shown in the coordinate system 28
Fig. 2-6. Angle θ₁ and θ₂ along the length of the suspension d 29
Fig. 2-7. MBD model of wheel module in recurDyn 30
Fig. 2-8. Force applied to the suspension by mass of the chassis 31
Fig. 2-9. Angle θ₁ by mass of the chassis 32
Fig. 2-10. Vertical displacement of the robot by mass of the chassis 32
Fig. 3-1. Development and validation process of the simulation model 35
Fig. 3-2. Actual prototype of mobile robot system equipped with wheel module 36
Fig. 3-3. The mass of the mobile robot measured by adding weight 37
Fig. 3-4. MBD model of mobile robot in recurdyn 38
Fig. 3-5. (a)Rubber cable protector bumper, (b)bumper profile using recurdyn 39
Fig. 3-6. (a)Attachment position of IMU sensor, (b)position of virtual IMU sensor in simulation 40
Fig. 3-7. Robot velocity curve in experiment 41
Fig. 3-8. Experiment on the mobile robot driving 42
Fig. 3-9. Pitch by damping coefficient when υₘₐₓ=0.5m/s 43
Fig. 3-10. Pitch by damping coefficient when υₘₐₓ=1m/s 43
Fig. 3-11. Vertical acceleration by damping coefficient when υₘₐₓ=0.5m/s 44
Fig. 3-12. Vertical acceleration by damping coefficient when υₘₐₓ=1m/s 44
Fig. 3-13. Optimization process in autodesign tool of recurdyn 45
Fig. 3-14. Object function and constraint violations in SAO 46
Fig. 3-15. Simulation on the mobile robot driving 48
Fig. 3-16. Comparison of vertical acceleration between experiment and simulation when cmin and υₘₐₓ=0.5m/s[이미지참조] 49
Fig. 3-17. Comparison of vertical acceleration between experiment and simulation when cmax and υₘₐₓ=0.5m/s 49
Fig. 3-18. Comparison of pitch between experiment and simulation when cmin and υₘₐₓ=0.5m/s[이미지참조] 51
Fig. 3-19. Comparison of pitch between experiment and simulation when cₘₐₓ and υₘₐₓ=0.5m/s 51
Fig. 3-20. Comparison of vertical acceleration between experiment and simulation when cmin and υₘₐₓ=1m/s[이미지참조] 53
Fig. 3-21. Comparison of vertical acceleration between experiment and simulation when cₘₐₓ and υₘₐₓ=1m/s 53
Fig. 3-22. Comparison of pitch between experiment and simulation when cmin and υₘₐₓ=1m/s[이미지참조] 54
Fig. 3-23. Comparison of pitch between experiment and simulation when cₘₐₓ and υₘₐₓ=1m/s 54
Fig. 4-1. Conditions of driving 56
Fig. 4-2. Rubber cable protector bumper by height 58
Fig. 4-3. Optimal damping coefficient map : isometric view 60
Fig. 4-4. Comparison of damping coefficients for obstacle height 61
Fig. 4-5. Comparison of damping coefficients for velocity 62
Fig. 4-6. Comparison of damping coefficients for mass 62