International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems
ARTICLE
Kinematic and
Dynamic Analysis of a
Cable-climbing Robot
Regular Paper
Xu Fengyu1*, Shen Jingjin1 and Jiang GuoPing1
1 School of Automation, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunication, Nanjing, China
*Corresponding author(s) E-mail: xufengyu598@163.com
Received 22 August 2013; Accepted 24 April 2015
DOI: 10.5772/60865
© 2015 Author(s). Licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
Abstract
To inspect broken cables or a cracked protective layer on
cable-stayed bridges, a cable-climbing robot has been
proposed and designed. In this paper, the complex 3D
obstacles that may be encountered on cables are theoreti‐
cally described, in order to investigate the obstacle-
climbing capability of the cable-climbing robot. A climbing
model is then proposed and used to design the robot. In the
climbing model, two driven wheels are independently
supported with a spring. Kinematics and dynamics models
are further derived for the obstacle-climbing capabilities of
the driving and driven wheels of the robot. In addition, the
robot’s obstacle-climbing tracks and its obstacle-climbing
performance are simulated. Payload and obstacle-climbing
experiments were conducted on the climbing robot in the
laboratory. Based on the results of the simulation and the
experiments, we obtained the variation of the driving
torque in obstacle climbing. The contribution of this paper
is intended to provide a basis for the precise motion control
of the robot.
Keywords cable-climbing robot, climbing model, climbing
ability
1. Introduction
Rod structures, such as cables, electric wires and pipelines,
are being put to increasing use today. Increasing attention
is being given to the development of corresponding robots,
which can conduct automatic detection and maintenance
operations on these rod structures, in order to prolong their
service time. This suggests that the study of cable-climbing
robots is of importance.
Climbing robots belong to a specialized field of mobile
robots. Their main feature is mobility against the gravita‐
tional pull of the body. One important aspect to consider in
the design of such robots is that they need to be lightweight
and powerful enough to move upwards, supporting their
own weight. Therefore, the designer should not only
consider the robot’s locomotion method, as in conventional
mobile robots, but also its techniques for sticking to the
cable.
Several different types of adhesion method have emerged.
The first of these is magnetic mechanisms for climbing on
ferrous surfaces via electromagnets or permanent magnets
[1–3]. These adhesion mechanisms are suitable for magnet‐
ic surfaces or poles, which can generate a magnetic field.
The second type is vacuum suction technologies for
Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:99 | doi: 10.5772/60865 1
 sticking the robot onto the walls [4–7]. This adhesion
method is stable; however, it is achieved by using air
compressors or some other air source. The third type of
method uses armed mechanisms or micro grippers that can
attach to structure surfaces such as beams, wall surface,
pipes, or tubes [8–10]. This form of suction possesses a high
stability and is suitable for dynamic structures.
In terms of modes of locomotion, climbing robots can be
classified into three main groups. The first group comprises
wheel-driven machines, which climb vertical structures by
combining wheels for translation [11–14]. This movement
mode is very effective, is especially suited to the inspection
of long structures, and is employed in this research. The
second group comprises legged climbing robots [15, 16],
usually consisting of four or six legs, each of them with
magnets, vacuum pumps or claws for attachment, but with
limited manoeuvrability. This moving mode is suitable for
the rugged or dangerous environment. The final mode of
locomotion is based on the use of arms with grippers or
other devices, which provides the robot with skilful
mobility [12, 17–18].
In order to inspect pole-like structures, a number of similar
climbing mechanisms have recently been designed. For
example, Lam has proposed a tree-climbing robot called a
“Treebot” [17], which is capable of climbing from a tree
trunk to a branch. This robot employs several design
principles, such as claw gripping and inchworm locomo‐
tion, that are adopted from arboreal animals. This robot is
also equipped with artificial optimization to achieve high
manoeuvrability in irregular-shaped trees. Ahmadabadi
has presented a human-inspired pole-climbing robot [13],
which inspired the design, static analysis, simulation, and
implementation of a novel design for a naturally stable
climbing robot. By using microspines that catch onto
surface asperities as a basis, researchers have proposed a
spiny-based bio-inspired robot called “RiSE”, for use in
scansorial environments [19, 15]. By using bionics, tradi‐
tional design, and module combination, manufacturers
have built tree-climbing and ground-walking robots by
combining six modules for legs. However, the robots
manufactured using such methods require the use of
numerous driving devices, resulting in complex mechani‐
cal structures. A robot called “Expliner” was proposed by
HiBot Corp. for inspecting electricity lines [20]. This robot
was designed to overcome cable spacers, suspension
clamps and other obstacles, by actively controlling the
position of its centre of mass and changing its configura‐
tion. This design features the novel functions of moving
along live transmission lines and performing detailed
inspections of conductors with no power interruptions,
thereby reducing the risk to the operators. Aracil has
developed the “Crawling Parallel Robot” [21], which can
easily climb along pipeline nodes and overlapping tubular
structures. The column and square rod design of this robot
2 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:99 | doi: 10.5772/60865
allows bending at any angle. Moreover, this robot can
operate on surfaces with an irregular topography, such as
trunk surfaces. Another useful mechanism—“UT-PCR”
(University of Tehran-Pole Climbing Robot) [14]—was
proposed by the Robotics and Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory of the University of Tehran. UT-PCR consists of
a triangular body and six limbs with ordinary wheels at
their tips, and has mainly been used to clean highway
lighting systems. Nevertheless, the robot is powered
through an electrical wire, which can influence the stabili‐
zation when the mechanism works at high altitudes. Other
studies on special pole-climbing robots have been devel‐
oped and put into practice. These robots include the four-
DOF climbing structure known as “PCR” [22], the
ExplorerTM family of pipe robots [23], the “3DCLIMBER”
designed for 3D tubular structures [18], the robot known as
“Robot V2”, which is capable of climbing poles with
cylindrical or conical shapes [11], and a novel biped robot
that can climb poles, trusses and trees [24]. The researchers
of the present study have designed a bridge-climbing robot
for smooth straight cables. This design can be seen in the
references [12, 16, 26].
In extreme offshore environments, robots can carry out a
wide variety of tasks, including monitoring, detecting and
maintenance, processing production interventions, and
cargo transport operations. One of the typical devices
employed is DORIS [25]. This long-span cable-stayed
bridge-climbing robot is a typical robot working at high
altitude. This robot bears a large high-altitude wind load
and can operate in adverse environmental conditions. In
the operation of this robot, an inclined angle of the cable
and the presence of obstacles are the two main conditions.
In our analysis, we set the cable as vertical, which is the
most difficult condition to climb. All the obstacles encoun‐
tered by the robot are caused by cable surface damages. The
obstacles caused by cable surface damage come in different
forms, resulting from the long service time of the cable.
However, these obstacles can be approximately divided
into two categories: (1) damage to the cable’s protective
layer, such as cracks, scallops, scratches, and trunks of the
protective layer; and (2) damage to the cable’s steel wire,
such as steel wire zinc oxidation, steel wire corrosion, and
steel wire fracturing. Fig. 1 shows the two typical forms of
cable damage.
Considering these forms of cable damage, this study first
proposes a climbing model supported by independent
springs to optimize the force of the robot’s driving wheel.
Then, the kinematics and dynamics models of the driving
and driven wheels, during obstacle climbing, are analysed.
Finally, the obstacle-climbing performance of the mecha‐
nism is analysed through simulations and experiments.
The kinematic and dynamic analysis is the main contribu‐
tion of this paper, through which the torque of the driving
motor can be calculated precisely. Based on the kinematics
30 wire, such as steel wire zinc oxidation, steel wire corrosion, and steel wire fracturing. Fig. 1 shows the two typical forms
31 of cable damage.
32 Considering these forms of cable damage, this study first proposes a climbing model supported by independent
33 springs to optimize the force of the robot’s driving wheel. Then, the kinematics and dynamics models of the driving and
34 driven wheels, during obstacle climbing, are analysed. Finally, the obstacle-climbing performance of the mechanism is
35 analysed through simulations and experiments. The kinematic and dynamic analysis is the main contribution of this
36 paper, through which the torque of the driving motor can be calculated precisely. Based on the kinematics and dynamics
37 model, the relation between output torque and time can be obtained.

(a) Cable transverse cracks (b) Cable surface pits

Figure 1. The typical forms of cable damage

2

and dynamics model, the relation between output torque actuated by the powerful DC motor. The passive vehicle is
and time can be obtained. merely applied to provide supporting force to clasp onto
the cable. The driving vehicle (Fig. 4a) consists of the
2. Independently Supported Climbing Model and the driving module (M) and the speed-limited descending
Cable-climbing Robot structure (N); this serves as the power source of the entire
climbing structure. The automatic descending equipment
In general, large trunk obstacles are generally not found on is made up of a cylinder (3), crank slide installations (4, 5),
the surface of the cable. Obstacles can instead be divided and a one-way clutch (7). When the robot descends, the
into five main categories: steps, slopes, bosses, trenches, driving wheel leads the crank, which drives the piston to
and irregular shapes (Fig. 2). Our taxonomy of these five perform the reciprocating motion in the cylinder. Then, the
obstacles is based on the investigations of the bridge gas is inhaled and discharged out of the cylinder through
management department and the observation of modes of a small hole carved at the bottom of the cylinder. Gas
cable failure over a long period. The former four types are damping is then formed to reduce the excessive energy
regular obstacles, and the fifth one is irregular, which can generated by the gravity of the robot.
itself be divided into several conditions. In this manuscript,
The passive vehicle balances the entire structure and
we take the step obstacle as an example to analyse the
provides the clamping force. It possesses upper and lower
robot’s obstacle-climbing ability, as it is the most common
swinging arms, and each swinging arm is connected to a
obstacle. At the same total height, the step is the most
passive wheel (23 and 24) (Fig. 4b). The upper and lower
difficult of the obstacles for the robot to climb.
arms are compressed by the spring, to grip onto the cable
In the mechanism proposed in the literature [12], the upper and provide the clamping force once the robot is installed
and lower driven wheels are only supported by a single on the cable. When encountering the obstacle, the two arms
Fig. 1 The typical forms of cable damage
spring. Although this mechanism can be installed easily, its stretch freely to allow the wheel to come into contact with
1 obstacle-climbing
2 Independentlycapability
supportedisclimbing
not strong. To obtain
model and thea more the cable
cable-climbing robotand adapt to the rough surface.
reasonable mechanical structure, a robot is theoretically
2 In general, large trunk obstacles are generally not foundWith foursurface
on the sets of of
connectors
the cable.(AB1, AB2, AB3,
Obstacles and AB4),
can instead be the
designed as a model such that the upper and lower driven two two-wheeled vehicles are linked in a long barrel form
3 wheels
dividedareinto
individually supported
five main categories: by slopes,
steps, an independent
bosses, trenches, and irregular shapes (Fig. 2). Our taxonomy of these five
that is clamped around the cable. By linking the threaded
4 spring, as shown
obstacles in Fig.
is based on 3. This
the model consists
investigations of an
of the equally
bridge managementholesdepartment
at different anddistances, the linking
the observation location
of modes can be
of cable
5 spaced driving vehicle (A) and a passive vehicle (B) facing
failure over a long period. The former four types are regular obstacles, adjustedandeasily andone
the fifth installed on which
is irregular, cables can
with different
itself be
6 each other. into
divided Eachseveral
vehicleconditions.
possesses Intwo wheel
this limbs atwe
manuscript, its take diameters. Wheel1
the step obstacle asofanthe drivingtovehicle
example can
analyse berobot’s
the driven by
two ends. Only the upper wheel of the driving vehicle is a direct-current motor, to propel the entire structure in its
7 obstacle-climbing ability, as it is the most common obstacle. At the same total height, the step is the most difficult of the
8 obstacles for the robot to climb.

Step Slope Boss Trench Irregular obstacle

Fig. 2 Cable obstacles
Figure 2. Cable obstacles
9 In the mechanism proposed in the literature [12], the upper and lower driven wheels are only supported by a single
10 Xu is
spring. Although this mechanism can be installed easily, its obstacle-climbing capability Fengyu, Shen Jingjin
not strong. and Jiang
To obtain GuoPing:
a more 3
Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of a Cable-Climbing Robot
11 reasonable mechanical structure, a robot is theoretically designed as a model such that the upper and lower driven
12 wheels are individually supported by an independent spring, as shown in Fig. 3. This model consists of an equally
13 spaced driving vehicle (A) and a passive vehicle (B) facing each other. Each vehicle possesses two wheel limbs at its two
20 the cylinder. Gas damping is then formed to reduce the excessive energy generated by the gravity of the robot.
21 The passive vehicle balances the entire structure and provides the clamping force. It possesses upper and lower
22 swinging arms, and each swinging arm is connected to a passive wheel (23 and 24) [Fig. 4b]. The upper and lower arms
23 are compressed by the spring, to grip onto the cable and provide the clamping force once the robot is installed on the
24 cable. When encountering the obstacle, the two arms stretch freely to allow the wheel to come into contact with the cable
25 and adapt to the rough surface.
C1 C2
AB1 AB2
wheel2

T2
s

AB2 wheel1
τ A B
AB1

AB5
AB6
T2

wheel4
s wheel3

AB4 AB3
C4 C3

(a) Climbing model (b) Top view from the axial direction of a cable

Figure 3. The robot climbing model 3

upward climb. The driving and passive wheels form a “V”
shape; this enlarges the contact area, reduces wear and tear,
and prevents a deadlock caused by deviations to the
structure. On each side of the connector, an anti-bias device
is placed, which consists of an anti-deviation universal ball
(C1–C8) and relevant interconnecting links (Fig. 3b). When
the robot is in normal operation, the anti-bias universal
balls remain a certain distance away from the cable. When
the robot exhibits a deviation tendency or is critically
detached from the cable, at least one group of universal
balls remain in contact with the cable, in order to prevent
the robot from deviating from the cableway. A 3D model
of the robot can be seen in Fig. 4c. A picture of the robot is
shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 3 The robot climbing model
1
23
As shown in Fig. 6, θ2 is the induced angle between the
upper swing arm (rod CB) and the horizontal direction; β2
is the induced angle of the spring force of wheel2 and the
vertical direction; N 2 is the normal force that the cable
surface or the obstacle acts on the wheel; F f 2 is the friction
force; T 2 is the spring force; F 2 is the support force of the
swing arm to the driven wheel; mw2 is the mass of wheel2;
d is the diameter of the cable; and α2 is the angle between
the normal force and the horizontal line. The mass of the
upper swinging arm is ignored, and the upper swinging
arm is considered as a two-force bar. Using the driven
wheel2 as an example, the following equations can be
obtained.

22
8

7
6 9 21
5
B
4 10
M
3
26
N
1
24
2 25

(a) The structure of the driving vehicle (b) The structure of the passive (c) 3D model of the robot
vehicle
A) Driving vehicle: 1- body of the driving vehicle, 2- encoder, 3- cylinder, 4- slider, 5- link, 6- driving wheel, 7- one-way
A) Driving vehicle: 1- body of the driving vehicle, 2- encoder, 3- cylinder, 4- slider, 5- link, 6- driving wheel, 7- one-way clutch, 8- connecting piece, 9- bevel
clutch, 8- connecting piece, 9- bevel gear, and 10- electric motor
gear, and 10- electric motor
B) Passive vehicle: 21-
B) Passive upper swinging
vehicle: 21- upperarm, 22- upper arm,
swinging spring,22-
23-upper
upper wheel,
spring, 24-23-
lower passive
upper wheel,24-
wheel, 25-lower
lower spring,
passiveandwheel,
26- lower
25-swinging arm
lower spring,
and 26- lower swinging
Figure 4. Structures of the vehicles arm
Fig. 4. Structures of the vehicles
4 Int
2 J Adv Robot
WithSyst, 2015,
four sets12:99 | doi: 10.5772/60865
of connectors (AB1, AB2, AB3, and AB4), the two two-wheeled vehicles are linked in a long barrel
3 form that is clamped around the cable. By linking the threaded holes at different distances, the linking location can be
4 adjusted easily and installed on cables with different diameters. Wheel1 of the driving vehicle can be driven by a
5 direct-current motor, to propel the entire structure in its upward climb. The driving and passive wheels form a “V” shape;
 of positive pressure changing with θ2 when
β2 = 10 ° , 20 ° , 30 ° , 40 ° , 50 ° , 60 ° , 70 ° , 80 ° , 90 ° from top to
bottom. All of the curves present the maximum values
when β2 = θ2, that is, when the spring force is perpendicular
to the swing arm.

2000

1800

驱(N) wheel(N)
1600

1400

the正driving
1200

正驱
1000

驱驱驱of
positive pressure
800
Figure 5. A picture of the robot
600
Fig. 5 A picture of the robot
400

200
y F2 y F2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
N2 B x B x θ2（ Degree）
α2 Ff 2
N2 Figure 7. The changing law of positive pressure with the variation in swing
β2
β2
Ff 2
Fig. 7 The arm angle
changing law of positive pressure with the variation in swing arm
T2 T2
C θ2 C θ2
3. The Kinematics and Dynamics of Obstacle Climbing
(a) Smooth straight cable climbing (b) Obstacle climbing
3 The kinematics and dynamics by
1 of the independent spring support
Fig. 6 The force
the Robotclimbing
of obstacle Driving Wheel
by the robot driving wheel
Figure 6. The force of the independent spring support
F2 sin θ 2 = T2 cos β2 + mw 2 g + N 2 sin α Although the obstacles on the cables are very small, these
22 + Ff 2 cos αAlthough
2 the obstacles on the cables are very small, these obstacles also greatly influence the m
obstacles also greatly influence the motion performance of
F2 cos θ 2 + T2 F β2 +q Ff=2 sin
sinsin α 2 =bN 2+cos
T2 cos α 2 + N sin a + F cos a
2 2 2 3 mw 2 gthe 2robot.2 Therefore,f2 2 a kinematic theand
robot.
(1) Therefore,
dynamic a kinematic
analysis must be andperformed
dynamic analysis
on its obstacle clim
(1)
lowing equation can F2 cos q 2 + T2 sin b 2 +4Ff 2 sin
be derived from Eq. (1): a 2 = N 2 pressure
positive cos a 2 of the robot’smust movingbe performed
wheel on is its obstacle climbing.
provided Given that
by the spring, morethe factors shou
T cos(θ 2 − β2 ) + mw 2 g cos θ 2 positive pressure of the robot’s moving wheel is provided
N2 = 2 5 cable-obstacle climbing than in by ground-obstacle
the spring, moreclimbing. In this
factors should study, a in
be considered simplified
cable- model (li
sin(θ 2 −The
α 2 ) following
µ cos(θ 2 −equation
α2) can be derived from Eq. (1):
−
sin β2 2 6 employed to analyse the kinematics obstacle
issues.climbing
(2) than inand
The upper ground-obstacle
lower moving climbing.
wheels In are
thisset in differen
study, a simplified model (linkage mechanism) is em‐
T cos(7
α 2 = 0 , the smooth straight cable-climbing q 2 -state
b 2ensure
+m
)can q 2as follows:
g cosonly
that
bew 2obtained one moving wheel is climbing an obstacle at any given time. In addition, the drivi
N2 = 2 ployed to analyse the kinematics issues. The upper and
m cos( q - a ) (2) vehicle
lowerismoving wheels are setthe
in different
robot’s horizontal planes status can
sin(θq2 2 8
T2 cos( β2 − θ 2 ) + mw 2 g cos - a 2 ) -fixed joint, 2
b2
while
2 the passive flexible. Therefore, obstacle-climbing
N2 =
(tan θ 2 − µ ) cos θ 2
sin 2 to ensure that only one moving wheel is climbing an
9 following two cases:
obstacle at any given time. In addition, the driving vehicle
he action of the spring’s force is to press 10 thestraight
wheel (1) ontoDeflection
the cable. Therefore, βclimbing
2 ≠ 0 . If βof 0 , the wheel is body:
When α2 = 0, the smooth cable-climbing state can be
obstacle 2 =the
(wheel) is amain
fixed robot
joint, while the passive vehicle is flexible.
downward by obtainedthe spring, as not
follows:
press onto the cable. According to Eq. (2), whether
11 When the driving wheel1 and Therefore,
for smooth
the driven thewheel4
robot’sclimb
straight obstacle-climbing statusthe
over an obstacle, can be body will pr
robot
climbing or obstacle-climbing, when θ 2 = β2 (spring force is perpendicular to the upper summarized in thethe
swing arm), following two cases:
12 4 is why φ is formed. Obstacle climbing is here completed by the coordination motion of the upp
ntal component of the support force T cos( bthe-maximum
reaches q ) + m value,
g cos qthat is, the positive pressure generated on the 1. Deflection obstacle climbing of the main robot body:
2 = and
2 2 2 w2 2
g wheel achieves the maximumNvalue, 13 the climbing
arms ofcapacity
the driven trolley.
provided by theIn this status,
mechanism is thethe gravity
strongest. Fig.centre of the robot is in plane motion (Fig. 8).
(tan q 2 - m ) cos q 2 When the driving wheel1 and the driven wheel4 climb over
14 with θ 2 when
ws the curves of positive pressure changing β2 = 10°, 20°,30°,obstacle
(2) Non-deflection 40°,50°, 60climbing
°, 70°,80°,90
of° the
from top robot body:
main
an obstacle, the robot body will produce deflection. This is
om. All of the curves present the maximum values when β2 = θ 2 , that is, when the spring force is perpendicular to
15
The action of the spring’s force Given
is to press
thatthe wheel and
wheel1 whyare
onto wheel4 ϕ4 isfixedly
formed.connected,
Obstacle climbing is here completed
when wheel2 and wheel3 by climb over
ing arm. the cable. Therefore, . If β2 =does
16 β2 ≠ 0body 0, thenot
wheel is pulled
produce the Obstacle
deflection. coordination motion is
climbing of here
the upper and lower
completed onlysupport
by the rotation of
downward by the spring, not press onto the cable. Accord‐ arms of the driven trolley. In this status, the gravity centre
17 for smooth
ing to Eq. (2), whether supportstraightarms of the driven wheel
cable–climbing around the jointed point on the trolley. In this status, the grav
of the robot is in plane motion (Fig. 8).
or obstacle-climbing,
18 whenrobot (spring
θ2 = β2body force
is in is perpen‐
uniform rectilinear ascending motion (Fig. 11).
2. Non-deflection obstacle climbing of the main robot
dicular to the upper swing arm), the horizontal component
19 To simplify the issues, the following
of the support force reaches the maximum value, that is, the body: hypotheses are drawn:
positive pressure generated
20 on the
(1) driving wheel achieves
Side sliding Given
does not exist thatthe
along wheel1
wheeland wheel4
axis, are sliding
and the fixedly rotation
connected,around the w
the maximum value, 21 and the climbing
obstacle-climbing capacity provided
wheel and thewhen cablewheel2 and wheel3
surface—that climbmotion—is
is, robot over an obstacle, the
only investigated in th
5
by the mechanism is the strongest. Fig. 7 shows the curves robot body does not produce deflection. Obstacle
22 "– x " refers to the motion direction of the robot.
23 (2) During obstacle climbing, the robot does not Xu rotate
Fengyu, around
Shen Jingjin andcable,
the Jiang GuoPing:
and only5 one mo
Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of a Cable-Climbing Robot
24 obstacle at a time. In addition, a V-shaped wheel flange and the obstacle are in two-point contact.
25 (3) No relative sliding exists between the robot’s moving wheel and the contact point during cli
 1 robot kinematic parameters can be calculated from these parameters. Given that the driving wheel is
2 rotation, OA is also in a uniform rotation during obstacle climbing. Thus, the speed, acceleration,
3 acceleration of the centre of the circle of the robot’s moving wheel, the centre of gravity of the driven w
4 arms, and the centre of gravity of the robot can be determined.
climbing is here completed only by the rotation of the
upper and lower support arms of the driven wheel wheel2 Ff 1
h
B O y
around the jointed point on the trolley. In this status, the wheel1 A
gravity centre of the main robot body is in uniform φ1
rectilinear ascending motion (Fig. 11).
φ5
To simplify the issues, the following hypotheses are drawn: C
φ2 x
1. Side sliding does not exist along the wheel axis, and
the sliding rotation around the wheel axis between the φ7
obstacle-climbing wheel and the cable surface—that is,
l1 y
robot motion—is only investigated in the x-y plane, in P• •
which "– x " refers to the motion direction of the robot. O
φ4
2. During obstacle climbing, the robot does not rotate φ6
around the cable, and only one moving wheel climbs D
θ3 x
an obstacle at a time. In addition, a V-shaped wheel φ8
flange and the obstacle are in two-point contact. φ3
wheel4
3. No relative sliding exists between the robot’s moving wheel H
wheel and the contact point during climbing. E
3 F

3.1 Kinematic Analysis of the Obstacle Climbing of the Driving Fig. 8 Model of the obstacle climbing of the driving wheel
Figure 8. Model of the obstacle climbing of the driving wheel
Wheel

During obstacle climbing, the motion

5 tracks of the climbing
1 Kinematics analysis for wheel1 and wheel4
The following equation can then be derived:
wheel’s centre form an arc around
6 the contact point.
1) The position of The
wheel1 and wheel4
robot’s obstacle-climbing model is simplified according to
7 The centroid coordinate of the driving wheel is
these hypotheses as a 2D model in the "x-y" plane (Fig. 8), y A - yF 3
f4 = arctan[ ]+ p (5)
in which "– x " refers to the motion direction ofx Athe
= Lrobot;
OA cos φ1 L AF - ( y A - yF )
2 2 2
8 
ϕ1 is the reduced angle of the line from the centre of the
 y A = LOA sin φ1 (3
circle to the contact point, and the x direction; ϕ4 is the
The centroid coordinate
as of the AF =rod OHis + HF














elevation angle of the robot; ϕ9 is the
10
Theoriginal phase angle
vector equation of the mechanism is established OA + AF
of the original motive parts (OA);
10 and ωOA and εOA
Transforming theare the equation into an analytical form yields
vector
angular speed and angular acceleration of OA,  xrespective‐ ì x AF 2 = x A + LAF 2 cos f4
F = x A + LAF cos φ 4 = LOA cos φ1 + LAF cos φ 4 (6)
ly. Other robot kinematic parameters
11 can be calculated í
 yF = y A + LAF sin φ4 = LOA sin φ1 î+yLAFAF2 sin = yφA += L − h2 sin f4
r AF
from these parameters. Given that the driving wheel is in a 4 (4
uniform rotation, OA is also12 in a uniform rotation
The following duringcan then be derived:
equation
obstacle climbing. Thus, the speed, acceleration, and b. The speed of wheel1 and wheel4
angular acceleration of the centre
y A − yF 3
13 of the circle of
φ4 the robot’s
= arctan[ ] + πthe first-order derivative of Eq. (3), the
By calculating
moving wheel, the centre of gravity of the driven wheels’ L AF − ( y A − yF )
2 2 2 (5
centroid speed of the driving wheel can be obtained as
support arms, and the centre of gravity of the robot can be
14 The centroid coordinate of thefollows:
AF rod is
determined.
1. Kinematics analysis for15 wheel1 and wheel4 x AF 2 = xA + LAF 2 cos φ4

 y AF 2 = y A + LAF 2 sin φ4 ïì x& A = -f&1 LOA sin f1
a. The position of wheel1 and wheel4 í (7) (6
16driving wheel
2) The is
speed of wheel1 and wheel4 ïî y& A = f&1 LOA cos f1
The centroid coordinate of the
17 By calculating the first-order derivative of Eq. (3), the centroid speed of the driving wheel can b
ì x A = LOA cos
18 f 1 follows: By calculating the first-order derivative of Eq. (4), the
í (3) angular speed of the AF rod and the speed of the wheel can
y
î A = LOA sin f1
 xɺ A = −φɺ1 LOA sin φ1 − ẏ A
19  be obtained as follows: ϕ̇ 4 = L cosϕ
The vector equation of the mechanism is established
 A
ɺ
y = φɺ L as
cos φ AF 4
→ → → → 1 OA 1 (7
OA + AF = OH + HF
20 By calculating the first-order derivative of Eq. (4), the angular speed of the AF rod and the speed of the
Transforming the vector equation into an analytical form ïì x&F = x& A - LAF f&4 sin f4
yields í (8)
ïî y& F = 0 7

ì xF = x A + LAF cos f4 = LOA cos f1 + LAF cos f4

í (4) where 3π / 2 < ϕ4 < π , it is decided by the robot structure;
î yF = y A + LAF sin f4 = LOA sin f1 + LAF sin f4 = r - h there isn’t a singularity.

6 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:99 | doi: 10.5772/60865

By calculating the first-order derivative of Eq. (6), the yB - yC
centroid speed of the AF rod can be obtained as follows: f2 = p - arctan[ ] (14)
LCB - ( yB - yC ) 2
2

ìï x& AF 2 = x& A - LAF 2f&4 sin f4

í
ïî y& AF 2 = y& A + LAF 2f&4 cos f4 The centroid coordinate of the CB rod is

c. The acceleration of wheel 1 and wheel 4

ì xCB 2 = xC + LCB 2 cos f2
By calculating the second-order derivative of Eq. (3), the í (15)
centroid acceleration of the driving wheel can be obtained î yCB 2 = yC + LCB 2 sin f2
as follows:

b. Speed of wheel2
x A = -f&12 LOA cos f1
ïì &&
í (9) By calculating the first-order derivative of Eq. (12), the
y A = -f&12 LOA sin f1
ïî && speed of point C can be obtained as follows:

By calculating the second-order derivative of Eq. (4), the

angular acceleration of the AF rod and the acceleration of ìï x&C = x& A - LAC f&5 sin f5
í (16)
wheel4 can be obtained as follows:
ïî y&C = y& A + LACf&5 cos f5

y + LAF f&42 sin f4

- &&
f&&4 = A
LAF cos f4 By calculating the first-order derivative of Eq. (13), the
angular speed of the CB rod and the speed of wheel2 can
be obtained as follows:
ïì && x A - LAF (f&&4 sin f4 + f&42 cos f4 )
xF = &&
í (10)
ïî &&
yF = 0
ìï x&B = x&C - LCBf&2 sin f2
í (17)
By calculating the second-order derivative of Eq. (6), the ïî y& B = 0 = y& C + LCBf&2 cos f2
centroid acceleration of the AF rod can be obtained as
follows:
− ẏ C − (ẏ A + L AC ϕ̇ 5cosϕ5)
ϕ̇ 2 =
L cosϕ
=
L CB cosϕ2
, where π / 2 < ϕ2 < π , it
x A - LAF 2 (f&&4 sin f4 + f&42 cos f4 )
CB 2
ïì &&
x AF 2 = &&
is decided by the robot structure.
í (11)
ïî && y A + LAF 2 (f&&4 cos f4 - f&42 sin f4 )
y AF 2 = &&
By calculating the first-order derivative of Eq. (15), the
centroid speed of the CB rod can be obtained as follows:
2. Analysis of wheel2

a. Position of wheel2 ìï x&CB 2 = x&C - LCB 2f&2 sin f2

í
If ACDF constitutes the robot body, then ϕ̇ 5 = ϕ̇ 6 = ϕ̇ 7 = ϕ̇ 8 = ϕ̇ 4 ïî y&CB 2 = y&C + LCB 2f&2 cos f2
is known. Thus, the coordinate of point C is
c. Acceleration of wheel2
ì xC = x A + LAC cos f5 By calculating the second-order derivative of Eq. (12), the
í (12)
î yC = y A + LAC sin f5 acceleration of point C can be obtained as follows:

The coordinate of point B is ìï && x A - LAC (f&&5 sin f5 + f&52 cos f5 )

xC = &&
í (18)
ïî && y A + LAC (f&&5 cos f5 - f&52 sin f5 )
yC = &&
ì xB = xC + LCB cos f2
í (13) By calculating the second-order derivative of Eq. (13), the
î yB = yC + LCB sin f2
angular acceleration of the CB rod and the acceleration of
− ÿ C + L CB ϕ̇ 22sinϕ2
where yB = − (h + r + d). Thus, wheel2 can be obtained as follows: ϕ̈ 2 = L CB cosϕ2

Xu Fengyu, Shen Jingjin and Jiang GuoPing: 7

Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of a Cable-Climbing Robot
 ìï && xC - LCB (f&&2 sin f2 + f&22 cos f2 )
xB = && ìï && xD - LDE 2 (f&&3 sin f3 + f&32 cos f3 )
xDE 2 = &&
í (19) í (28)
ïî && yC + LCB (f&&2 cos f2 - f&22 sin f2 )
yB = 0 = && ïî && yD + LDE 2 (f&&3 cos f3 - f&32 sin f3 )
yDE 2 = &&

By calculating the second-order derivative of Eq. (15), the as shown in the following:
centroid acceleration of the CB rod can be obtained as
yE - yD
follows: f3 = arctan[ ] (29)
LDE - ( yE - yD ) 2
2

ìï && xC - LCB 2 (f&&2 sin f2 + f& cos f2 )

xCB 2 = && 2
2
í (20)
ïî && yC + LCB 2 (f&&2 cos f2 - f&22 sin f2 )
yCB 2 = && -( y& A + LADf&6 cos f6 )
f&3 = (30)
LDE cos f3
3. Analysis of wheel3
y + LDEf&32 sin f3
- &&
The analysis process of wheel3 is similar to that of wheel2. f&&3 = D (31)
Through this process, the coordination, speed and acceler‐ LDE cos f3
ation of point D can be obtained as follows:
4. Analysis of the robot body

ì xD = x A + LAD cos f6 Using the same method, the coordinate, speed, and
í (21) acceleration of the centre of gravity (point P) of the robot
î yD = y A + LAD sin f6 can be obtained as follows:

ì xP = x A + LAP cos f7
ìï x&D = x& A - LADf&6 sin f6 í (32)
í (22) î yP = y A + LAP sin f7
ïî y& D = y& A + LADf&6 cos f6
ìï x&P = x& A - LAPf&7 sin f7
í (33)
ìï && x A - LAD (f&&6 sin f6 + f&62 cos f6 )
xD = && ïî y& P = y& A + LAPf&7 cos f7
í (23)
ïî && y A + LAD (f&&6 cos f6 - f&62 sin f6 )
yD = &&
ïì && x A - LAP (f&&7 sin f7 + f&72 cos f7 )
xP = &&
í (34)
The centroid coordinate, speed, and acceleration of wheel3 ïî && y A + LAP (f&&7 cos f7 - f&72 sin f7 )
yP = &&
can be obtained as follows:

Eqs. (3) to (34) constitute the kinematics equation for the

ì xE = xD + LDE cos f3 robot driving wheel’s obstacle-climbing capability. By
í (24)
î yE = yD + LDE sin f3 = -(h + r + d ) using these equations, the kinematics parameters of the
robot’s obstacle climbing can be accurately determined.
5. Analysis of spring force
ïì x&E = x&D - LDEf&3 sin f3
í (25) In obstacle climbing, the two spring forces of the driven
ïî y& E = 0 = y& D + LDEf&3 cos f3
trolley generate slight changes, which are indicated as
follows:
ìï && xD - LDE (f&&3 sin f3 + f&32 cos f3 )
xE = && a. When the driven wheel2 climbs an obstacle,
í (26) T 2 = T 0 + K Δl , where Δl = l2(tgθ2 − tgθ20), that is, the
ïî && yD + LDE (f&&3 cos f3 - f&32 sin f3 )
yE = 0 = &&
positive pressure of wheel2 increases, whereas that of
wheel3 remains unchanged.
The centroid coordinate, speed, and acceleration of the DE
b. The amount of spring compression when the driving
rod can be obtained as follows:
wheel1 climbs an obstacle is shown in Fig. 9, where the
variations in the lengths of MB and NE represent the
ì xDE 2 = xD + LDE 2 cos f3 changes in spring compression during obstacle
í (27)
î yDE 2 = yD + LDE 2 sin f3 climbing. The force of spring2 can be expressed as
T 2 = T 0 + K Δl2, where
π π
Δl2 = l2tg − θ20 − l2tg − θ2 − (2π − ϕ4) . The positive
2 2
ïì x&DE 2 = x&D - LDE 2f&3 sin f3 pressure of wheel2 increases. The force of spring3 can
í be expressed as T 3 = T 0 + K Δl3, where
ïî y& DE 2 = y& D + LDE 2f&3 cos f3 π π
Δl3 = l2tg − θ3 + (2π − ϕ4) − l2tg − θ30 , and the
2 2

8 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:99 | doi: 10.5772/60865

 positive pressure of wheel 3 increases. θ20 and θ30 are spring coefficient, Δl is the spring deformation
the initial angles of θ2 and θ3, respectively, where amount, T 0 is the initial value of the spring force, and
π π
θ2 = ϕ2 − , θ3 = − ϕ4. In these equations, K is the l2 is the length of the lower swing arm.
2 2
1 arm.

M D
•
θ3
B

T2
T3
E
C θ2
N Wheel 3
•
(a) The deformation of the support spring2 (b) The deformation of the support spring3
Fig. 9 The amount of spring deformation
Figure 9. The amount of spring deformation
2 3.2 Dynamic analysis of the obstacle climbing of the driving wheel
3.2 Dynamic Analysis of the Obstacle Climbing of the Driving 4. The forces of the swing arm of the driven wheel3
3 Wheel The inertia force of the component in plane motion is simplified as an inertia force, and an inertia coupled with the
4 torque added on the centroid. The mechanism can be regarded as in equilibrium state. By employing dynamic static
The inertia force of the component in plane motion is
5 force analysis, the force and torque equilibrium equations for each component can be obtained as follows:
simplified as an inertia force, and an inertia coupled with ì FDx + ml 3 g = FEN sin q3 + FET cos q3 + mDE &&
xDE 2
6 the torque
(1) added
The forces of the
on the driving The
centroid. wheel1mechanism can be ï
í FDy + FET sin q3 = FEN cos q3 + mDE &&yDE 2 (38)
regarded as in Fequilibrium state. By employingɺɺdynamic
v1 + m1 g + F1 cos φ1 = F f 1 sin φ1 + m1 x A ï &&

static force analysis, the force and torque equilibrium îmBC g sin q3 lDE 2 + J DEf3 = FET lDE
7  Ff 1 cos φ1 + F1 sin φ1 = Fh1 + m1 ɺɺ
yA
equations for each component can be obtained as follows:
(35)
1 + J1φ1 = τ 1
ɺɺ
1. The forces Foff 1rthe driving wheel1
8 (2) The forces of the driven wheel4 5. The forces of the driven wheel2
ì Fv1 + m1gm+4 gF+1 cosFf 4 = FFN cos θ 4 + FFT sin
x A θ 4 + m4 xF
f1 = Ff 1 sin f1 + m1 && ɺɺ
ïï 
9  F4 + FFN sin θ 4 = FFT cos θ + m4 ɺɺ
í Ff 1 cosf1 + F1 sin f1 = Fh1 + m1 &&
yF
yA 4 (35) q 2 + m2 &&
= ìT2 cos q 2 + m2 g + Ff 2 = FmBT cos q 2 + FmBN sin
(36) xB
ï F r
 &&f 4 4 J ɺɺ
x
4 F r4 ï
ïî Ff 1r1 + J1f1 = t 1 íT2 sin q 2 + FmBN cos q 2 = F2 + FmBT sin q 2 + m2 &&
yB (39)
10 (3) The forces of the swing arm of the driven wheel2 ï J &&
î 2 xB r2 = Ff 2 r2
 F sin θ 2 + ml 2 g = FBT cos θ 2 + FCx + mBC ɺɺ xBC 2
2. The forces ofBNthe driven wheel4
11  Cy
F = FBN cos θ 2 + F BT sin θ 2 + m y
ɺɺ
BC BC 2
 (37)
= + BC&&
φɺɺ2 6. The forces of the driven wheel3
FN cos q 4 + FFT sin q 4 + m4 xF
ìm4 g + Ff 4 =BTFBC
F l m BC g cos θ l
2 BC 2 J
ï (4) The forces of the swing arm of the driven wheel3
12 í F4 + FFN sin q 4 = FFT cos q 4 + m4 && yF (36)
ï F r = J &&xDxF +r4ml 3 g = FEN sin θ3 + FET cos θ3 + mDE ɺɺ
î f4 4 
4F xDE 2 ì FmEN sin q3 + FmET cos q3 + m3 g + Ff 3 = T3 cos q3 + m3 &&
xE
13  FDy + FET sin θ3 = FEN cos θ3 + mDE ɺɺ ï
íT3 sin q3 + FmEN cos q3 = F3 + FmET sin q3 + m3 &&
yDE 2 yE (40)
 ï F r = J && (38)
3. The forcesm
ofBCthe swing
g sin θ3 lDEarm
2 + of
J DEthe
φ3 =driven
ɺɺ FET lDEwheel2 x r
î f3 3 3 E 3

14 (5) The forces of the driven wheel2

ì FBN sin q 2 +Tm2 lcos
g θ=2 F+BTmcos
2g +qF2 f+2 F=CxFmBT
+ mcos &&θ 2 +2 FmBN sin θ 2 + m2 ɺɺxB
BC xBC
ï  2 7. The dynamic equilibrium equation of the total mech‐
í FCy = FBN cosT2qsin θ + FmBNqcos+θm2 = && F2 + FmBT sin θ 2 + m
2 + 2FBT sin
15
BC y BC (37)ɺɺ
2 yB
 J ɺɺ
2 2 anism
ï  g2 xB r2 = F f 2 r2 &&
(39)
F l
î BT BC = m BC cos q l
2 BC 2 + J f
BC 2
16 (6) The forces of the driven wheel3
ì FmCx + T3 cos q3 + sin FmFNθ3 cos q 4 +cos
+ FmET m3qg4 ++FMx
θ 3 +sin
FmFT &&P = FmAv + T2 cosɺɺ q 2 + FmDx
F f 3 = T3 cos θ 3 + m3 xE
ï mEN

17 ï FmAh + FmFT cos

 q 4 = T2 sin q 2 + FmCy + FmDy + T3 sin q 3 + FmFN sin q 4 + My
T3 sin θ3 + FmEN cos θ3 = F3 + FmET sin θ 3 + m3 ɺɺ yE &&P
ï
íT2 sin q 2 ( x A-Fxf 3Mr3)=- JT32 ɺɺ
xcos q ( yM - y A ) - FmCy ( xC - x A ) + FmCx ( y A - yC ) - FmDx ( y A - yD ) - FmDy ( xD - x(40)
E r 32 A) (41)
ï
18 ï-T3 cos(7)qThe
3 ( y Adynamic 3 sin q 3 ( xN equation
- y N ) - Tequilibrium - x A ) + Fof + ( Mg
LAFtotal
mFTthe - Mx&&P ) LAP cos(f7 - p ) - My&&P LAP sin(f7 - p )
mechanism
ï+ J f&& = 0
î P 4

Xu Fengyu, Shen Jingjin and Jiang GuoPing: 9

Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of a Cable-Climbing Robot
11
 
1 T2 sin θ 2 ( xA − xM ) − T2 cos θ 2 ( yM − y A ) − FmCy ( xC − xA ) + FmCx ( y A − yC ) − FmDx ( y A − yD ) − FmDy ( xD − x A )
 (41)
 −T3 cos θ 3 ( y A − y N ) − T3 sin θ3 ( xN − x A ) + FmFT LAF + ( Mg − MxɺɺP ) LAP cos(φ7 − π ) − MyɺɺP LAP sin(φ7 − π )
 + J φɺɺ = 0
 P 4
2 Eqs. (35) to (41) constitute the dynamic equation of the robot driving wheel’s obstacle-climbing capability. A force
3 analysis of the robot components can be seen in Fig. 10.
h Ff 1 FFN FmBN
FFT FmBT T3
O Ff 2 θ3
φ1 A
τ1 B E Ff 2
F F4 F2 F3
Fh1
m1 g m4 g θ2
F1 Ff 4 T2 FmET FmEN
m2 g
Fv1 m3 g

(a) Force of the driving (b) Force of the driven wheel4 (e) Force of the driven (f) Force of the driven
wheel1 wheel2 wheel3

θ2 FmAv
T2 A
M

FBT D FmAh
FBN
FDy
FmCy C
B FDx

• FmCx l1
P• •
• M DE g FmDx
O 2π − φ4

FCx M BC g θ3 E Mg

θ2 FET FEN FmDy D

C FCy
T3 N
F
θ3 FmFT
FmFN

(c) Force of the swing arm of (d) Force of the swing arm of (g) Force of the robot body
the driven wheel2 the driven wheel3
Figure 10. Force of the robot components
Fig. 10 Force of the robot components

{
4 4 Kinematic and dynamic analysis of the obstacle-climbing capability of the robot’s driven wheel2
Eqs. (35) to (41) constitute the dynamic equation of the 4Abe lGB − 16A12with
2 2
5 Given that wheel2 climbs obstacles purely by rolling, a coordinate system can 1lGH
established lGB lGHthe
− 4A2 A3
contact point
robot driving wheel’s obstacle-climbing capability. A α2 = arccos( )
2A2
6 of wheel2 and the obstacle as the origin, where is the
force analysis of the robot components can be seen in Fig.
− x Then,
motion direction of the robot. A simplified model of is ac‐
wheel2 is
lGH − lGB cosα2
7 10.
shown in Fig. 11. α3 = arccos( )
l BC
8 quired.
4.1 Kinematic analysis of the obstacle-climbing capability of the robot’s driven wheel2
4. Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of the Obstacle-
climbing Capability of the Robot’s Driven Wheel2 where 2
A1 = lGH 2
+ lGB 2
+ lHC 2
− l BC , 2
A2 = 4lGH 2
lGB 2 2
+ 4lHC lGB ,
9 1 Displacement equation
2 2 2
lGB . In the equation, α2 denotes the position of
A = A1 − 4lHC



Given that wheel2 climbs obstacles purely by rolling,


a 


3




10 In Fig.11, the vector equation of the mechanism is GB + BC
coordinate system can be established with the contact point wheel2,
= GHthat
+ HCis, .the angle of thethe
Transforming generatrix with theinto
vector equation x axle.
an
11 of wheel2 and
analytical formthe obstacle as the origin, where − x is the
yields α3 is the angle of the supporting rod, that is, the angle of rod
motion direction of the robot. A simplified model of wheel2 BC with the x axle.
l cos α 2 + lBC cos α 3 = lGH
12 is shown in Fig.
GB
11.
The centroid coordinate of the driven wheel2 is
lGB sin α 2 + lBC sin α 3 = lHC (42)
4.1 Kinematic Analysis of the Obstacle-climbing Capability of the
Robot’s Driven Wheel2 ì xB = lGB cos a 2
í (43)
î yB = lGB sin a 2
1. Displacement equation
12The centroid coordinate of the BC rod is
In Fig.11, the vector equation of the mechanism is
→ → → →
GB + BC = GH + HC . Transforming the vector equation into
an analytical form yields ì xBC 2 = xB + lBC 2 cos a 3
í (44)
ìlGB cos a 2 + lBC cos a 3 = lGH î yBC 2 = yB + lBC 2 sin a 3
í (42)
îlGB sin a 2 + lBC sin a 3 = lHC
The coordinate of point C is

10 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:99 | doi: 10.5772/60865

lGB sin α 2
(43)

dinate of the BC rod is

= xB + lBC 2 cos α 3
= yB + lBC 2 sin α 3
(44)

point C is ì xC = xB + lBC cos a 3 ì x&BC 2 = x&B - lBC 2 sin a 3 ga& 3

í (45) í (48)
xB + lBC cos α 3 î yC = yB + lBC sin a 3 î y& BC 2 = y& B + lBC 2 cos a 3 ga& 3
yB + lBC sin α 3
(45)
The speeds of centroids C, D, and P are the same, suggest‐
h ing the speed of these centroids is the ascending speed of
y G the robot.
•
A τ 3. Acceleration equations
B α2
•
By calculating the second-order derivatives of Eq. (42), the
α3 angular acceleration of the driven wheel2 and the BC rod
can be obtained after simplification as follows:
•
H
C

tga 3 B2 - B1
x
ì
ïa&&2 = l sin a + tga l cos a
l1 ï GB 2 3 GB 2
í (49)
P• • ïa&& = tgq B
2 2 - B 1

O ïî 3 lBC sin a 3 + tga 2 lBC cos a 3

By calculating the second-order derivative of Eqs. (43) and

D
(44), the centroid speeds of the driven wheel2 and the BC
rod can be obtained as follows:
F
E
xB = (-lGB sin a 2 ga& 2 )¢ = -lGB (cos a 2 ga& 22 + sin a 2 ga&&2 )
ìï &&
í (50)
yB = (lGB cos a 2 ga& 2 )¢ = lGB (- sin a 2 ga& 22 + cos a 2 ga&&2 )
ïî &&
Fig. 11 Model of the obstacle-climbing capability of the robot’s driven wheel
Figure 11. Model of the obstacle-climbing capability of the robot’s driven
wheel
ations ìï && xB - lBC 2 (cos a 3 ga& 32 + sin a 3 ga&&3 )
xBC 2 = &&
2. Speed equations í (51)
ïî && yB + lBC 2 (- sin a 3 ga& 32 + cos a 3 ga&&3 )
yBC 2 = &&
By calculating
ng the first-order derivative the first-order
of Eq. derivative
(42), the angular of Eq. (42),
speeds thedriven wheel2 and the BC rod can be
of the
ws: angular speeds of the driven wheel2 and the BC rod can be
obtained as follows: 4. The support spring force of the driven wheel2
lɺGH
tgα 3lGB cos α 2 − lGB sinìïαa&2 = l&GH T2 = T20 + KlBC (tan a 30 - tan a 3 )
tga 3lGB cos a 2 - lGB sin a 2
2
ï
lɺ í (46)
l&GH
GH (46)
tgα 2 lBC cos α 3 − lBC sinïïα
a&3 = where T 20 is the initial pressure of the spring, and K is the
î tga 2 lBC cos a 3 - lBC sin a 3 stiffness coefficient.
first-order derivatives of Eqs. (43) and (44), the centroid speeds of the driven wheel2 and the BC rod
By calculating the first-order derivatives of Eqs. (43) and 4.2 Dynamic Analysis of the Obstacle-climbing Capability of the
13 wheel2 and the BC
(44), the centroid speeds of the driven Driven Wheel2
rod can be obtained as follows:
As shown in Fig. 12, the equilibrium equations of force and
torque are listed as follows:
ì x&B = -lGB sin a 2 ga& 2
í (47) 1. Forces of the driven wheel2
î y& B = lGB cos a 2 ga& 2

ìT2 sin a 3 + m2 g + FmBT sin a 3 + FGx - FmBN cos a 3 + m2 &&xB = 0

ï
ï FGy - T2 cos a 3 - FmBT cos a 3 - FmBN sin a 3 - m2 &&yB = 0
í (52)
ï(T2 + FmBT )( yB - yG ) sin a 3 + m2 g ( yB - yG ) + (T2 + FmBT )( xB - xG ) cos a 3
ï+ F ( x - x ) sin a - F ( y - y ) cos a - J a&& = 0
î mBN B G 3 mBN B G 3 2 2

Xu Fengyu, Shen Jingjin and Jiang GuoPing: 11

Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of a Cable-Climbing Robot
 2. Forces of the BC rod

ì FBN cos a 3 + mBC g - FBT sin a 3 - FCx + mBC && xBC 2 = 0

ï
í FBN sin a 3 + FBT cos a 3 - FCy - mBC &&yBC 2 = 0 (53)
ï
î FBT lBC - (mBC g + mBC && yBC 2 ( xC - x3 ) - J BC a&&3 = 0
xBC 2 )( yC - yBC 2 ) - mBC &&

3. By analysing the robot body, the following can be

obtained.
 FmCx + Mg + F3 µ + F4 µ = Ff 1 + T2 sin α 3

 FmCyì F+mCx Mgα+3 +F3Fm3 ++ =F4Fm1 +
T2+cos =F F4f 1 + T2 sin a 3
ï
 F + Tl cos a + F + = F + Fd
T2 ïcos mCy d
1 α 3 ( 2BC +3L2 ) −3 T2 sin1α 3 ( 4sin−αl1 + r2 + lBC cos α 30 ) + FmCy L2 + FmCx ( − l1 + r2 + lBC cos α 30 )
 ïïFmCx + Mg cos+αFl3BC3 µ + F4 µ = F f 1 + T2 2 d 3 2 d (54)
 íFTmCy (54)
+ Ta2 cos
2 cos 3 ( α + F++L=
3a
- T+2 Fsin a 3 ( - l1 + r2 + lBC cos a 30 ) + FmCy L2 + FmCx ( - l1 + r2 + lBC cos a 30 )
2 )F
ï cos 3 1d 4 2 d
 −F3 ( L3 + lDE cos α 43) + F3 µ ( − l1 ) + F4 L4 − F4 µ ( + l1 ) − F1 L1 + Ff 1 ( + l1 ) = 0 d 2
1  ï l 2 αd ( d − l + r + l cos 2 α d ) + F L + F2 (dd − l + r + l cos α )
ïT-
2 cos αL3 (+ l BC cos +a
L2 ))−+TF m
2 sin 3 - l ) +1 F L2 -BC m + l1 ) -mCy
F1 L21 + FmCx
F ( ( F ( f 1 ( 2 + l1 ) = 0
30 1 2 BC 30
2 îïEqs. (52) to (54)
3 3 cosDE
α 3
4 3
constitute the 2 1 4 4 4
2 dynamic equation2of the obstacle-climbing 2 capability of the robot’s(54)
driven wheel2.

 − F3 ( L3 + lDE cos α 4 ) + F3 µ ( d − l1 ) + F4 L4 − F4 µ ( d + l1 ) − F1 L1 + Ff 1 ( d + l1 ) = 0
Eqs.
 (52) to (54) constitute the2 dynamic equation of the FBT FBN
FmBN h2 2
obstacle-climbing capability of the robot’s driven wheel2.
2 Eqs. (52) to (54) constitute the dynamic α3 equation of the obstacle-climbing capability of the robot’s driven wheel2.
FGx B
y T2
• FBT FBN
FmBN
G h FGy
y BT
α3 α 2 FGx • B
2
• α3
G FGy M BC g
B
α2
FmBT C •
α3 FCy
m2 g x FCx
M BC g
FmBT C
(a) Forces of the driven
x wheel2 (b) Forces
FCx ofFthe
Cy upper support arm
m2 g
Fig. 12 The force analysis of the obstacle-climbing capability of the robot’s driven
(a) Forces of the driven wheel2 wheel (b) Forces of the upper support arm
Fig. 12 The force analysis of the obstacle-climbing capability of the robot’s driven
Figure 12. The force analysis of the obstacle-climbing capability of the robot’s driven wheel
3 5 Simulation and experiments on the climbing capacity
wheel
5. Simulation and Experiments on the Climbing Capacity indicates that, when the moving wheel has a diameter of 30
4 5.1 Simulation
3 5 Simulation and experiments on the climbing capacity mm, the robot can surmount an obstacle with a vertical
5 5.1 Based on the kinematic model of the robot, the motion height
Simulation tracks of
of 5.2 mm.
each Based
wheel onswing
and the motion
arm, force model during
and torque of the
4 5.1 Simulation
6 obstacle climbing, can be obtained. A previous study [12] indicatesrobot, that,
the variation
when theinmoving
the driving
wheel force
has a torque during
diameter of 30
5 Based on the on
Based kinematic modelmodel
the kinematic of theofrobot, the motion
the robot, obstacle
the motion tracks of climbing
each wheelcanand
be obtained (Fig.
swing arm, and13), where
torque h = 5 mm
during
7 tracks
mm, theof robot
each wheel and swing
can surmount arm, andwith
an obstacle torque duringheight of 5.2 mm. Based on the motion force model of the robot,
a vertical
6 and the
obstacle climbing, can be obtained. A previous study [12] indicates moving
that, wheel
when the radius
moving r = 30has
wheel mm.
a diameter of 30
8 obstacle climbing,
the variation candriving
in the be obtained. A previous
force torque duringstudy [12] climbing can be obtained (Fig. 13), where h = 5 mm and the
obstacle
7 mm, the robot can surmount an obstacle with a vertical height of 5.2 mm. Based on the motion force model of the robot,
9 8 moving wheel radius r = 30 mm.
the variation in the driving force torque during obstacle climbing can be obtained (Fig. 13), where h = 5 mm and the
9 moving wheel radius r = 30 mm.
8000 8000

7000 7000
Driving torque (N·mm)

Driving torque (N·mm)

8000 8000

6000 6000
7000 7000
Driving torque (N·mm)

Driving torque (N·mm)

5000
6000 60005000

40005000 50004000

30004000 40003000

20003000 30002000

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

0
2000 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Time (s))
2000 Time(s))
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Time (s)) Time(s))
(a) The obstacle-climbing torque of the driven wheel vs. (b) The obstacle-climbing torque of the driving wheel
(a) The obstacle-climbing torque
time (s) of the driven wheel vs. (b) The obstacle-climbingvs.torque of the driving wheel
time (s)
time (s) vs. time (s)
Fig. 13 The input torque of the obstacle climbing of the robot vs. time(s)
Figure 13. The input torque of the obstacle climbing of the robot vs. time(s)
Fig. 13 The input torque of the obstacle climbing of the robot vs. time(s)
10 The driving wheel climbs obstacles by coordinating the motions of the lateral flexible supporting mechanism of the
10 The driving wheel climbs obstacles by coordinating the motions of the lateral flexible supporting mechanism of the
11
12 Int J Adv wheel,
driven Robot Syst, 2015, 12:99
as shown | doi:
in Fig. 14.10.5772/60865
The geological centre A of wheel1, point C, point D, and gravity centre P are all planar
11 driven wheel, as shown in Fig. 14. The geological centre A of wheel1, point C, point D, and gravity centre P are all planar
12 in motion, that is, the motional curve is an arc (Fig. 14a). The centres of the other three wheels move linearly. Figures
12 in motion, that is, the motional curve is an arc (Fig. 14a). The centres of the other three wheels move linearly. Figures
13 13 14b–14c illustrates the motional speeds and acceleration rates of the main reference points (A, C, D, F, P) during obstacle
14b–14c illustrates the motional speeds and acceleration rates of the main reference points (A, C, D, F, P) during obstacle
14 negotiation.
1
0 -70
Velocity of Point A
Velocity of Point C
-80 Velocity of Point D
-50
Velocity of Point F
Velocity of Point P
-90
-100
y-coordinate(mm)

-100
Trajectory of Point A

Velcity(mm/s)
-150
Trajectory of Point C
Trajectory of Point D -110

-200 Trajectory of Point F

Center of gravity -120

-250
-130

-300
-140

-350 -150
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
x-coordinate(mm) Time(s)

(a) Displacement curve (b) Speed curve

500
Acceleration of Point B
400 Acceleration of Point E
Acceleration of Point F
Acceleration of Point P
300
Accleration(mm/s2)

200

100

-100

-200

-300
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Time(s)

(c) Acceleration curve

Fig. 14 Kinematic simulation of obstacle climbing by the driving wheel of the robot
Figure 14. Kinematic simulation of obstacle climbing by the driving wheel of the robot

0 10

The driving wheel climbs obstacles by coordinating the are the same cables used on the Sutong Bridge, which
motions-10
of the lateral flexible supporting mechanism of the is the
8 longest cable-stayed bridge in the world.
Angular velocity or acceleration (r/s or r/s/s)

driven wheel, as shown in Fig. 14. The geological centre A

-20 2. Two cables with lengths of 2.3 and 3.7 m, and a
of wheel1, point C, point D, and gravity centre P are all 6
diameter of 139 mm, can be adjusted vertically and
planar -30
in motion, that is, the motional curve is an arc (Fig.
x-coordinate(mm)

individually slanted at 29°.

14a). The centres of the other three wheels move linearly. 4
Angular velocity
Figures-40 14b–14c illustrates the motional speeds and 3. Numerous steel pipes with diameters ranging from 40
Angular acceleration

acceleration rates of the main reference points (A, C, D, F, mm to 205 mm can be slanted at any angle.
2
-50
P) during obstacle negotiation. Trajectory of Point B
Trajectory of Point C The main0 technical specifications of the robot are listed in
Figure 14 shows the kinematics simulation results of the
-60
Table 1. To validate the theoretical analysis, a control
upper -70driven wheel2 of the robot. The swinging of the system -2 was set up. However, precise detection sensors, a
upper swing arm is used y-coordinate(mm)
to climb obstacles. Figure 15a
-46 -44 -42 -40 -38 -36 -34 -32 -30 -28 -26 -24 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
server motor and feedback quantity Time (s)
would be required if
illustrates the motional curves of support point C of the we were to construct a closed-loop control system. High
upper swing arm and the centre ofcurve wheel2. Figure 15b
(a) Displacement costs would
(b) Curvealsoofbeangular
incurred. As these
velocity main challenges
and acceleration
displays the angular speed and acceleration of the upper
Fig. 15 Kinematics simulation of obstacle climbing by the driven wheel of the robot of a closed-loop
would have to be faced in the development
swing arm surrounding point C.
2 control scheme, for the robot’s motion along the cables in
the presence of obstacles, we only set up a simple control
5.2 Laboratory Experiments
3 5.2 Laboratory Experiments system in the laboratory.
4 A climbing robot was
A climbing designed
robot and used
was designed in used
and experiments To validate
in experiments the inclined
involving load capacity of the robot
and vertical when
cables climbing
to verify the
5 involving inclined and vertical cables to verify the feasibil‐
feasibility of the inspection system. The laboratory conditions theweresmooth cable,aswe
established carried out a number of climbing
follows:
ity of the inspection system. The laboratory conditions were experiments. To validate the obstacle-climbing ability
6 (1) Two cables with lengths of 5.3 and 3.7 m, and a diameter of 100 mm, can be adjusted randomly. These are of
the
established as follows:
the robot and its variety of velocity and driving torque
7 same cables used on the Sutong Bridge, which is the longest cable-stayed bridge in the world.
1. Two cables with lengths of 5.3 and 3.7 m, and a attributes, we also carried out obstacle-climbing experi‐
8 (2) Two cables with lengths of 2.3 and 3.7 m, and a diameter
diameter of 100 mm, can be adjusted randomly. These
of 139 mm, can be adjusted vertically and individually
ments.
9 slanted at 29°.
Xu Fengyu, Shen Jingjin and Jiang GuoPing: 13
16 Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of a Cable-Climbing Robot
 -200

-300
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Time(s)

(c) Acceleration curve

Fig. 14 Kinematic simulation of obstacle climbing by the driving wheel of the robot

0 10

-10
8

Angular velocity or acceleration (r/s or r/s/s)

-20
6
x-coordinate(mm)

-30

4
Angular velocity
-40 Angular acceleration

2
-50
Trajectory of Point B
Trajectory of Point C 0
-60

-70 -2
-46 -44 -42 -40 -38 -36 -34 -32 -30 -28 -26 -24 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
y-coordinate(mm) Time (s)

(a) Displacement curve (b) Curve of angular velocity and acceleration

Fig. 15 Kinematics
Figure 15. Kinematics simulation simulation
of obstacle climbing of obstacle
by the driven climbing
wheel of the robot by the driven wheel of the robot
2
1
3 5.2 Laboratory Experiments
0.3
Climbing velocity of the robot

4 A climbing robot was designed and used in experiments involving

0.25 inclined and vertical cables to verify the
5 feasibility of the inspection system. The laboratory conditions were established
0.2 as follows:
Velocity (m/s)

6 (1) Two cables with lengths of 5.3 and 3.7 m, and a diameter of0.15100 mm, can be adjusted randomly. These are the
7 same cables used on the Sutong Bridge, which is the longest cable-stayed
0.1
2
bridge1 in the world.
3

8 (2) Two cables with lengths of 2.3 and 3.7 m, and a diameter of 139
0.05 mm, can be adjusted vertically and individually

9 slanted at 29°. 0

-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
16 Time(s)
(a) Climbing experiment on a vertical cable (b) Climbing velocity of the robot
Velocity of the climbing obstacle
0.3
1 2 3
0.25

0.2
Velocity (m/s)

0.15

0.1 4 5 6

0.05

-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)
(c) Velocity of obstacle climbing
Fig. 16 Climbing experiments in the laboratory
Figure 16.
2 Climbing experiments in the laboratory
3
Dimensions 392 × 205 × 220 mmClimbing speed 0–0.26 m/s climbing ability of the robot almost corresponds to the
Maximum various cables of different diameters. Small changes were
Mass 7.0 kg 3.5 kg
payload observed in the mass of the robot and the cable diameters.
Diameter scope of Moreover, the climbing ability of the robot was nearly
60–205 mm Height of obstacle >5 mm
the cable identical on cables with diameters ranging from 60 mm to
Table 1. Technical specifications of the robot 205 mm. Line 1 in Fig. 16b represents the nominal speed of
the robot running along a vertical cable with approximately
5.2.1 Climbing Experiments 3.5 kg of payload. The climbing speed is clearly lower than
the nominal value when the payload exceeds 3.9 kg, such
The climbing experiments were performed to test the load as in lines 2 and 3, which represent the climbing velocities
capacity of the robot (Fig. 16a). The results indicate that the with payloads of 3.9 and 4.4 kg, respectively. Lines 1, 2 and

14 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:99 | doi: 10.5772/60865

 1
9000 9000

8000 8000
2
1
7000 7000
Driving torque ( N.mm)

Driving torque (N.mm)

6000 6000

5000 5000

4000 4000

3000 3000

2000 2000

1000 1000
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) Experimental torque of the driven wheel when (b) Experimental torque of the driving wheel when
climbing an obstacle climbing an obstacle

Obstacle
Camera bracket

Camera Driving vehicle

Driving wheel

Connecting bars Electric motor

Cable
wheel 2

Connecting bars
Passive vehicle

(c) Experiments when climbing an obstacle

Fig. 17 Experimental real-time torque
Figure 17. Experimental real-time torque
2 6 Conclusions

33 represent In the
this climbing
manuscript, speed of the robot
the damage formswith
of thevarious be seen
protective layer in Fig.cables
of stayed 17. Points 1 and 2 denote
are described. Then, antheindependent
torque when
payloads. the wheel has just come into contact with the obstacle,
4 spring support robot model is proposed to solve the weak obstacle-climbing capacity of the bilateral climbing robot.
causing the step to appear on the curve. Fig. 17c shows a
5As the required
Based on thetorque increases,
deflection the velocity
conditions decreases
of the robot body, the kinematic and dynamic characteristics of the robot are
picture of the robot when climbing obstacles. The experi‐
6slightly in the process
investigated. of obstacle
Furthermore, climbing.
the influence of On
the the other
spring pressuremental
and theoutcome is inarm
support swing accordance
angle of thewith thewheels
driven simulation
on
hand, the velocity fluctuation is small, since the dimensions
7 the obstacle-climbing capacity of the driven and driving results wheels of arethe input torque
discussed. when
Finally, thethe robotcurve
motion is climbing
of the an
of the obstacles are also small. The curves 4, 5 and 6 obstacle.
8represent
mechanism, and the torque variation curve
the climbing speed when the robot is climbing of the driving torque during obstacle climbing, are obtained and compared
9over through
an obstacle. In theseand
simulations condition, the driving
experimentation. wheel does
According to the simulation and experiments, the robot can take a payload 3.9
6. Conclusions
10not slip, indicating that the friction coefficient of the driving
kg while moving along the cable. The maximum driving torque is 8 Nm when climbing an obstacle, and 2 Nm when
11wheel satisfies the climbing conditions. This finding
climbing on a smooth cable. The result indicates that the climbing In this manuscript,
ability of thethe damage
robot forms
satisfies theofdemands
the protective layer
of cable
demonstrates that the payloads exceed the nominal load- of stayed cables are described. Then, an independent spring
12bearing
detection.
capacity. support robot model is proposed to solve the weak
13 Although the paper offers a simple solution to determining the driving torque, it should be pointed out that the
obstacle-climbing capacity of the bilateral climbing robot.
145.2.2 paper
Obstacle-climbing
hasn’t resolvedExperiments
the robot’s control problems completely. Based on the
To ensure the stability
deflection conditions
of the of the
robot while robotatbody,
working a highthe
15 altitude of several hundred metres, future research should focus kinematic and dynamic
on a control theoremcharacteristics
to overcome the of influence
the robotofare
When the robot is climbing upward, the electric current and investigated.
16 altitude, wind loading and cable vibration on the climbing ability of the robot.Furthermore, the influence of the spring
voltage can be measured, and the actual power can be pressure and the support swing arm angle of the driven
computed. Therefore, the output torque can be calculated wheels on the obstacle-climbing capacity of the driven and
19
according to the electrical formula. The real-time torque can driving wheels are discussed. Finally, the motion curve of

Xu Fengyu, Shen Jingjin and Jiang GuoPing: 15

Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of a Cable-Climbing Robot
 the mechanism, and the torque variation curve of the
driving torque during obstacle climbing, are obtained and
compared through simulations and experimentation.
According to the simulation and experiments, the robot can
take a payload 3.9 kg while moving along the cable. The
maximum driving torque is 8 Nm when climbing an
obstacle, and 2 Nm when climbing on a smooth cable. The
result indicates that the climbing ability of the robot
satisfies the demands of cable detection.
Although the paper offers a simple solution to determining
the driving torque, it should be pointed out that the paper
hasn’t resolved the robot’s control problems completely. To
ensure the stability of the robot while working at a high
altitude of several hundred metres, future research should
focus on a control theorem to overcome the influence of
altitude, wind loading and cable vibration on the climbing
ability of the robot.
7. Acknowledgements
This project is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51005046), the Natural Science
Research Fund of the Nanjing University of Posts and
Telecommunications (NY214071), and the Jiangsu Province
Natural Science Fund Project for Colleges and Universities
(13KJB460013).
8. References
[1] Tavakoli, M., Viegas, C., Marques, L., Pires, J. N.,
and de Almeida, A. T. OmniClimbers: Omni-
directional magnetic wheeled climbing robots for
inspection of ferromagnetic structures [J]. Robotics
and Autonomous Systems, 2013, 61(9): 997–1007.
[2] Rochat, F., Beira, R., Bleuler, H., & Mondada, F.
Tremo: an inspection climbing inchworm based on
magnetic switchable device [C]. International
Conference on Climbing and Walking Robots,
CLAWAR, Paris, France, 2011, pp. 415–422.
[3] Fischer, W., Caprari, G., Siegwart, R., and Moser, R.
Compact climbing robot rolling on flexible magnet‐
ic rollers, for generator inspection with the rotor still
installed [C]. International Conference on Climbing
and Walking Robots, CLAWAR, Paris, France, 2011,
pp. 384–391.
[4] Zhang, H. X., Zhang, J. W., Zong, G. H., Wang, W.,
and Liu, R. Sky Cleaner 3: a real pneumatic climbing
robot for glass-wall cleaning [J]. IEEE Magazine on
Robotics and Automation, 2006, 13(1): 32–41.
[5] Wang, W., Wang, K., Zong, G. H., and Li, D. Z.
Principle and experiment of vibrating suction
method for wall-climbing robot [J]. Vacuum, 2010,
85(1): 107–112.
[6] Koo, I. M., Tran, D. T., Lee, Y. H., Moon, H., Song,
Y. K., and Choi, H. R.. Development of Wall
Climbing Robot System by Using Impeller Type
16 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2015, 12:99 | doi: 10.5772/60865
Adhesion Mechanism [J]. Journal of Intelligent &
Robotic Systems, 2013, 72(1): 57–72.
[7] Liu, R., Chen, R., Shen, H., and Zhang, R. Wall
climbing robot using electrostatic adhesion force
generated by flexible interdigital electrodes [J].
International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems,
2013, 10(36): 1–9.
[8] Lynch, G. A., Clark, J. E., Lin, P.-C., and Koditschek,
D. E. A bioinspired dynamical vertical climbing
robot [J]. The International Journal of Robotics
Research [J]. 2012, 31(8): 974–996.
[9] Bartsch, S., Birnschein, T., Römmermann, M.,
Hilljegerdes, J., Kühn, D., and Kirchner, F. Devel‐
opment of the Six-Legged Walking and Climbing
Robot SpaceClimber [J]. Journal of Field Robotics,
2012, 29(3): 506–532.
[10] Sintov, A., Avramovich, T., and Shapiro, A. Design
and motion planning of an autonomous climbing
robot with claws [J]. Robotics and Autonomous
Systems, 2011, 59(11): 1008–1019.
[11] Tavakoli, M., Marques, L., and Almeida, A. T.
Development of an industrial pipeline inspection
robot [J]. Industrial Robot: An International Journal,
2010, 37(3): 309–322.
[12] Xu, F. Y., and Wang, X. S. Cable Inspection Robot
for Cable-Stayed Bridges: Design, Analysis, and
Application [J]. Journal of Field Robotics, 2011,
28(3): 441–459.
[13] Sadeghi, A., Moradi, H., and Ahmadabadi, M. N.
Analysis, simulation, and implementation of a
human-inspired pole climbing robot [J]. Robotica,
2012, 30(2): 279–287.
[14] Baghani, A., Ahmadabadi, M. N., and Harati, A.
Kinematics Modeling of a Wheel-Based Pole
Climbing Robot (UT-PCR) [C]. Robotics and
Automation, ICRA2005. Proceedings of the 2005
IEEE International Conference on, Barcelona, Spain,
2005, pp. 2099–2104.
[15] Haynes. G. C., Khripin, A., Lynch, G., Amory, J.,
Saunders, A., Rizzi, A. A., and Koditschek, D. E.
Rapid Pole Climbing with a Quadrupedal Robot
[C]. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation (ICRA2009), Kobe, Japan, 2009, pp.
2767–2772.
[16] Xu, F. Y., Wang, X. S., and Jiang, G. P. Design
Method and Analysis for Wall-climbing Robot
based on Hooked-claws [J]. International Journal of
Advanced Robotic Systems, 2012, 9(261): 1–12.
[17] Lam, T. L., and Xu, Y. S. Biologically inspired tree-
climbing robot with continuum maneuvering
mechanism. Journal of Field Robotics, 2012, 29(6):
843–860.
[18] Tavakoli, M., Marjovi, A. and Marques, L. 3DCLIM‐
BER: A climbing robot for inspection of 3D human
made structures [C]. IEEE/RSJ International Con‐
 ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Nice,
France, 2008, pp. 4130–4135.
[19] Spenko, M. J., Haynes, G. C., and Saunders, J. A.
Biologically Inspired Climbing with a Hexapedal
Robot [J]. Journal of Field Robotics, 2008, 25(4-5):
223–242.
[20] Debenest, P., and Guarnieri, M. Expliner – From
prototype towards a practical robot for inspection
of high-voltage lines [C]. 1st International Confer‐
ence on Applied Robotics for the Power Industry
(CARPI 2010), 2010, pp. 1–6.
[21] Aracil, R., Saltaren, R. J., and Reinoso, O. A climbing
parallel robot: a robot to climb along tubular and
metallic structures [J]. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics and Automation, 2006, 13(1): 16–22.
[22] Fauroux, J. C., and Morillon, J. Design of a climbing
robot for cylindro-conic poles based on rolling self-
locking [J]. Industrial Robot: An International
Journal, 2010, 37(3): 287–292.
[23] Schempf, H., Mutschler, E., Gavaert, A., Skoptsov,
G., and Crowley, W. Visual and Nondestructive
Evaluation Inspection of Live Gas Mains Using the
ExplorerTM Family of Pipe Robots [J]. Journal of
Field Robotics, 2010, 27(3): 217–249.
[24] Jiang, L., Guan, Y.S., Zhou, X. F., Xhang, X. M., and
Zhang., H. Grasping analysis for a biped climbing
robot [C]. Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2010
IEEE International Conference on, 2010, pp. 579–
584.
[25] De Carvalho, G. P. S., Freitas, G. M., De Oliveira, J.
F. L., et al. DORIS – Monitoring Robot for Offshore
Facilities [C]. Proceedings of the Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2013,
pp. 927–939.
[26] Xu, F. Y., Hu, J. L., Wang, X. S., and Jiang, G. P. Helix
Cable-Detecting Robot for Cable-Stayed Bridge:
Design and Analysis [J]. International Journal of
Robotics and Automation, 2014, 29(4): 406–414.
Xu Fengyu, Shen Jingjin and Jiang GuoPing: 17
Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis of a Cable-Climbing Robot