A Model-Based Two-Arm Robot various empirical details, the model is sufficient to predict the

robot behavior. This conclusion further suggests that the behavior

With Dynamic Vertical and Lateral development of the robot can indeed be explored and evaluated by
using the simple climbing model in the simulation environment in
Climbing Behaviors place of extensive trial-and-error on the physical robot.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4032777]
Wei-Hung Ko1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, 1 Introduction
National Taiwan University, The climbing robot has various potential applications for
Taipei 106, Taiwan replacing humans to perform tasks in dangerous work environ-
e-mail: b99502083@ntu.edu.tw ments. Examples include unknown-environment exploration,
building wall maintenance, military missions, and disaster relief.
Wei-Hsuan Chiang1 Various climbing robots have been developed in the last 20 yrs. In
general, the robots can be categorized into several different cate-
Department of Mechanical Engineering, gories according to their locomotive mechanisms, such as legged
National Taiwan University, type [1–14], wheeled type [15–17], tracked type [18–21], and
Taipei 106, Taiwan snake type [22]. On the other hand, the robots can be categorized
e-mail: b99502085@ntu.edu.tw into several different categories according to their attachment
mechanism as well, such as the suction type [1,11,16,19,22], mag-
Ya-Han Hsu netic type [3,17,21], mechanical-lock type [5,8–10], biomimetic
Department of Mechanical Engineering, type [6,7,15,18], electroadhesion [20], wet adhesion [14], friction
[2,4,13], and hot melt adhesion [12].
National Taiwan University, While animals such as geckos [23] and cockroaches [24] per-
Taipei 106, Taiwan form robust, agile, and dynamic climbing locomotion with a
e-mail: b99502115@ntu.edu.tw strong resistance to external disturbances, most of the climbing
robots that have been developed perform slow quasi-static loco-
Ming-Yuan Yu motion because of the limited attachment force between the robot
Department of Mechanical Engineering, and the wall. Though the availability of adequate attachment
National Taiwan University, mechanisms has already been a critical constraint for the empiri-
cal climbing robot to climb even quasi-statically on general surfa-
Taipei 106, Taiwan ces, the animals’ climbing behaviors reveal that the dynamic
e-mail: b98502039@ntu.edu.tw climbing strategy is also an important factor and should be inves-
tigated simultaneously. Previously, Goldman et al. demonstrated
Hung-Sheng Lin that a reduced-order two-arm model can represent the dynamic
Department of Mechanical Engineering, climbing locomotion of multilegged animals through extensive
National Taiwan University, experimental work on the climbing cockroaches and geckos as
Taipei 106, Taiwan well as simulations via the commercial software working model
2D [24]. Following this research, the robotic team at UPenn had
e-mail: r02522813@ntu.edu.tw scaled up and revised the model into a form that can be physically
built while maintaining the dynamic characteristics, and then, the
Pei-Chun Lin2 team built a bio-inspired climbing robot with this specific mor-
Mem. ASME phology [9]. By utilizing the designed passive claws, which pro-
Department of Mechanical Engineering, vided an adequate attachment and detachment mechanism
National Taiwan University, between the robot and the vertical carpet wall, the robot could
Taipei 106, Taiwan dynamically climb the vertical wall. In addition, the team also
found that a sprawled posture is required for stability and sug-
e-mail: peichunlin@ntu.edu.tw gested that a sprawled posture may yield a significant energetic
advantage [25]. The team studied the relation between the sprawl
posture and the wall inclination as well [10].
We report on the model-based development of a climbing robot Here, following our initial presentations at Refs. [26] and [27],
that is capable of performing dynamic vertical and lateral climb- we report on the sequential development of the dynamic two-arm
ing motions. The robot was designed based on the two-arm climbing robot. The contribution of this work lies in two aspects.
vertical-climbing model inspired by the dynamic climbing motion First, instead of using commercial simulation software, the
of cockroaches and geckos, with the extension of introducing the reduced-order two-arm dynamic model (i.e., not computer-aided
arm sprawl motion to initiate the lateral climbing motion. The design (CAD) model or kinematic model) was further simplified
quantitative formulation of the model was derived based on and redeveloped based on Lagrangian mechanics to explore the
Lagrangian mechanics, and the numerical analysis of the model relation between the individual model parameters and the result-
was conducted. The robot was then built and controlled based on ant dynamic behavior of the model. In addition, the model behav-
the analysis results of the model. The robot can perform the ior also served as the reference for robot development and
behaviors predicted by the model in which the climbing speed behavior planning. Second, in addition to the original design in
decreases when the swing magnitude increases, and the lateral which the robot had one active degree-of-freedom (DOF) per arm,
climbing motion can be initiated when the arm sprawl motion is the robot is revised to include one extra active DOF for control-
introduced. The experimental validation of the robot confirms that ling the arm sprawl angle for better maneuverability. By coordi-
though the reduced-order two-arm model is abstract and ignored nating this DOF with the other two-arm DOFs based on the model
analysis, the robot can be maneuvered to perform not only the
1
vertical-up climbing locomotion but also the tilted or horizontal
W.-H. Ko and W.-H. Chiang contributed equally to this work.
2
Corresponding author.
climbing locomotion. Because lateral locomotion has a different
Manuscript received April 15, 2015; final manuscript received February 5, 2016; attach/detach pattern between the claw and the wall, the claw was
published online March 10, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Xilun Ding. also revised to include a controllable attach/detach mechanism.

Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics Copyright V

C 2016 by ASME AUGUST 2016, Vol. 8 / 044503-1

Downloaded From: http://mechanismsrobotics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmroa6/935090/ on 02/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.o

 The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 where a and a are the geometrical parameters defining the relative
introduces the two-hand model, and Sec. 3 discusses the effect of position of the left shoulder joint (SL ) and the COM. Equation (1)
the model parameters on the model’s dynamic behavior. Section 4 reveals that rL is a function of uL and hm , and r_ L is a function of u,
_
describes the mechanic design of the climbing robot. Section 5 uL , h_ m , and hm . Unlike rL , the orientation configuration of the
reports on the performance evaluation of the robot, and Sec. 6 COM with respect to the origin (hL ) is passively determined by
presents the conclusion of this paper. the model dynamics.
The kinetic energy (T) and potential energy (V) of the model
2 The Two-Hand Climbing Model can be expressed as
The reduced-order two-arm model was first proposed by Gold-   2  1
m 2
man et al. [24]. It had a rigid body and two arms with translational T¼ ðr_ L Þ2 þ rL2 h_ L þ mR2g h_ b (2)
2 2
movement, and the arm was composed of two serially connected
components: a linear actuator and a passive spring–damper sys- V ¼ mgrL sin hL (3)
tem. The actuator provided the climbing force to pull the body up,
and the passive system acted as the interface to smooth the dra- where hb ¼ hL  wL  hm and g are the body orientation and
matic force change after the engagement of the hand to the wall. gravity constants, respectively. The angle included in the arm (uL )
In this study, the two-arm model was further simplified, as and the rL vector, wL , can be expressed as
shown in Fig. 1. The new model also has two massless arms and a
rigid body with mass (m) and moment of inertia (I ¼ mR2g , where wL ¼ cos1 ððu2L þ rL2  a2 Þ=2uL rL Þ (4)
Rg is the radius of gyration), but the serially connected passive
spring–damper system on the arm was removed so the arm length The angle hL is set as the generalized coordinate, so the
(uL ) could be actively controlled by the linear actuator without Lagrange’s equation can be expressed as
involving any passive dynamics. In addition, the arm sprawl angle 
d @L @L
(hm ) was treated as an active and controllable DOF, and the two  ¼ QL (5)
arms were assumed to have the same hm to configure symmetri- dt @ h_ L @hL
cally respective to the body, as defined in Fig. 1. Thus, the model
has three active DOFs in total ðuL ; uR ; hm Þ. Several assumptions where the Lagrangian function is L ¼ T  V, and QL is a noncon-
have been made to simplify the analysis: (i) There was one arm servative force. The QL of the model includes the resultant
attached to the wall at all time. (ii) When the arm was in motion, Coulomb friction (F) and resultant viscous damping with the
its hand attached to the wall was regarded as a revolute joint fixed damping coefficient C acting on the model COM, and it can be
to the wall. Thus, when the robot climbed, its motion was similar expressed as
to a pendulum with a fixed pivot point and a variable length. (iii)
rL2 h_ L
The model was assumed to have Coulomb friction and viscous QL ¼ F qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  C rL2 h_ L (6)
damping acting on the center of mass (COM) of the model. This 2
r_ þ r 2 h_
2
L L L
energy nonconservative assumption makes the model more practi-
cal to be mapped to the physical system. (iv) When the model
Note that the energy loss along with the direction rL can be
switched the hands, the linear momentum of the model in the
actively compensated by the arm actuation, so only the energy
unconstrained direction (i.e., perpendicular to the vector formed
loss in the perpendicular direction to the rL is considered. Thus,
by the hand and the COM) remained unchanged.
the fraction multiplied by F was utilized to compute the vector
The quantitative formulation of the model was developed based
component of the friction force along the direction perpendicular
on Lagrangian mechanics. Figure 1 shows the scenario when the
to rL , and the term multiplied by C is the COM velocity along the
left arm is attached to the wall as the demonstration. The origin of
direction perpendicular to rL . Next, by substituting Eqs. (2), (3),
the Cartesian coordinate system (OL ) is set on the left hand (i.e.,
and (6) into Eq. (5), the equation of motion (EOM) of the model
the revolute joint). When the model climbs, the arm length (uL )
when the left arm of the model attaches to the wall can be
and sprawl angle (hm ) change according to the control commands,
expressed as
so the resultant distance between the COM and the origin (rL ) is a
function of these two variables and can be actively determined as  
m rL2 þ R2g €h L þ 2mrL r_ L h_ L þ mgrL cos hL
  
p 1=2  
rL ¼ a2 þ u2L  2auL cos hm þ a þ (1) rL2 h_ L
€ þ €h m  F qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 ¼ mR2g w L  CrL2 h_ L (7)
_r 2L þ rL2 h_ L 2

Note that rL and wL are functions of controlled inputs and model

parameters, so the only unknown variable to be determined is hL .
Similarly, the model EOM when the right arm attaches to the wall
can be expressed as
 
m rR2 þ R2g €h R þ 2mrR r_ R h_ R þ mgrR cos hR
  rR2 h_ R
¼ mR2g w€ þ €h m  Ff qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  C rR2 h_ R (8)
R
2
2 2
r_ R þ rR h R _

As shown in Eqs. (7) and (8), the two-arm model is a two-

Fig. 1 The sketch and notations of the two-arm model (a) and
the physical robot (b)
model system, and its continuous climbing motion requires the
model’s switching mechanisms to be clearly defined. As shown in
Fig. 2(a), when the left arm of the model is attached to the wall
(hereafter referred to as the “left-arm model”), the arm length (uL )
decreased to pull the body up. In the meantime, the right-arm
length (uR ) increased to reconfigure its state for the next wall

044503-2 / Vol. 8, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanismsrobotics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmroa6/935090/ on 02/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.o


Fig. 2 The motion sequence of the model in vertical climbing (a) and lateral climbing (b) simulated using MATLABV
engagement. More specifically, the arms were assumed to have
the same motion profile but with a 180 deg phase difference. The
switching time is set to activate when the arms reach their maxi-
mum/minimum length states. In a complete climbing stride with
an actuation period tp , the robot is pulled up by the left arm and
right arm in a sequence. When the model switches from the left-
arm to the right-arm at t ¼ tp =2 (i.e., the final state of the left-arm
model and the initial state of the right-arm model), the coordinate
system also switches, and the configuration relations of the two
coordinate systems (i.e., the relation of the two hands) can be
defined by a vector h as shown in Fig. 1
h ¼ rL ðcos hL f i^ þ sin hL f jÞ
^  rR ðcos hR i i^ þ sin hR i jÞ
^ (9)
where the subscripts f and i represent the final and initial states,
respectively. At this point, the orientation configuration of the
COM with respect to the new origin (hR i ) is a function of that of
the old origin (hL f ) and the robot configuration, and it can be
expressed as
hR i ¼ hL f  ð2hm þ wL þ wR Þ (10)
In addition, the COM velocity perpendicular to the rL direction
when the model switches remains unchanged, so the initial angu-
lar speed h_ R i can be expressed as
1    
h_ R i ¼ r_ L sin hL f  hR i þ rL h_ L f cos hL f  hR i (11)
rR
Similarly, when the model switches from the right-arm to the left-
arm, the initial angular speed h_ L i can be expressed as
1    
h_ L i ¼ r_ R sin hR f  hL i þ rR h_ R f cos hR f  hL i (12)
rL
Finally, by importing the initial conditions (hL i , h_ L i ) or (hR i ,
h_ R i ) shown in Eqs. (10)–(12) into the left-arm model shown in
Eq. (7) or the right-arm model shown in Eq. (8), the dynamic
response of the model can be numerically simulated. In addition,
by using Eq. (9), the dynamic responses of the model in multiple
strides can be sequentially composed. As a result, by giving
the initial conditions of the model in its first stride, the COM tra-
jectory of the model during the entire climbing motion can be
quantitatively computed.
In addition to the vertical-climbing motion, the sequential com-
position of the model behavior shown in Eqs. (9)–(12) can be uti-
lized for the lateral climbing motion by incorporating its sprawl
DOF (hm ) with the arm length DOFs (uL , uR ). Figure 2(b) shows
Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics
Downloaded From: http://mechanismsrobotics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmroa6/935090/ on 02/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.o
R
lateral climbing toward the right side as the demonstration. If the
arm sprawl angle moves to its maximum when the right arm
extends to its extreme, the right hand can grab the position, which
is further toward the right side in comparison with the condition
without the arm sprawl motion. Next, the arm sprawl angle moves
to its minimum when the left arm retracts to its extreme, and the
left hand can grab the position, which is also further toward the
right side. Therefore, by repeating the motion, the robot can per-
form a lateral climbing motion. The described planning trajectory
requires the periodic motion of the arm length and the sprawl
motion to be synchronized and in phase where both arms reach
the extreme simultaneously.
3 Dynamic Behavior of the Model
In addition to the model formulation described in Sec. 2, the
active DOFs ðuL ; uR ; hm Þ should also be clearly defined before
the performance analysis of the model. Because these 3DOFs in
the physical robot are controlled by the actuators, empirical con-
siderations should be incorporated to make the defined motion
feasible. The arms of the model ðuL ; uR Þ are assumed to stretch
and retract alternately and periodically. Though a linear motor
may fit the motion requirement from a mechanism aspect, it is not
empirically suitable for the following reasons. First, it is designed
to have a high-speed and low-force motion profile, which did not
fulfill the low-speed and high-force demand for this application.
Second, in this application, the linear motor had to accelerate and
decelerate to achieve an arm reciprocating extend/retract motion.
This would cause the motor to operate in the energy inefficient
region where nontrivial joule heat generates, and it may even
damage the motor. Thus, as in the previous design [9], a rotational
actuator with a crank-and-slider mechanism is utilized to generate
the reciprocating motion, as shown in Fig. 1(b). In this case, the
actuator continues to rotate in the same direction, so the motor
can be operated nearly constant speed. In contrast, though the arm
sprawl motion of the robot is also reciprocal, its motion requires
less torque because of a lower gravity effect. Thus, a rotational
actuator can be utilized to move reciprocally.
The formulation of the active DOFs is described as follows.
The arm sprawl angle (hm ) is parameterized as
hm ¼ Am cos ð2pt=tp þ /m Þ þ Om (13)
where Am is the swing amplitude, and Om and /m are two offset
angles with different purposes. The offset angle Om determines
the offset of the swing central line with respect to the body’s
fore–aft direction, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The offset phase /m
determines the relative phase between the arm sprawl angle (hm )
AUGUST 2016, Vol. 8 / 044503-3
 Table 1 Physical parameters common to both initial and modi-
fied robot versions

m 5 kg
Rg 0.11547 m
(a,a) (0.117 m, 52.64 deg)
ln 0.111 m
l1 0.06 m
l2 0.105 m
N 54
Ns 540
Body size 0.142 m  0.215 m

and the arm length ðuL ; uR Þ, and its nominal value is set to p.
Because both the arm DOFs and the sprawl DOF should reach the
extreme simultaneously for effective vertical and lateral climbing
motions, the arm length uL is set as

uL ¼ ln þ l1 cosð2pt=tp  ðhm  Om ÞÞ
þ ðl22  l21 sin2 ð2pt=tp  ðhm  Om ÞÞ1=2 (14)

where ln , l1 , and l2 are the geometrical constants, as shown in

Fig. 1(b). In addition, the right-arm length uR has the same motion
profile but with a 180 deg phase difference.
After the two-arm model was quantitatively formulated, the
R
dynamic motion of the model was simulated using MATLABV, and
the manner in which the parameters of the model affected its
dynamic behavior could be investigated. The values of the model
parameters during simulation are listed in Table 1. The perform-
ance and behavior of the model are mainly accessed by the climb-
ing velocity of the model, including the speed and the direction.
Figure 3 shows the climbing speed (v) of the model versus the
resultant Coulomb friction force (F) and the resultant viscous
damping with the damping coefficient (C). The model is initially
in the vertical posture (i.e., hb ¼ 0 deg) and operates with the
settings Om ¼ 5 deg, Am ¼ 0 deg, and tp ¼ 1 s. Several observa-
tions can be made: (i) When the F becomes larger, the body has
less lateral swing motion because the larger portion of the gravity
potential would be used to compensate the friction force, not to
convert it to kinetic energy to initiate the swing motion of the
model. (ii) The magnitude of the lateral swing motion has the
opposite behavior of the climbing speed. When the lateral swing
motion is less, the hand of the arm in the aerial phase is easier to
pivot toward the wall at a higher position with respect to the pivot
of the other arm. (iii) Though F and C have slightly different
behaviors because the viscous damping is proportional to the
velocity, in general, their effect difference is insignificant to the
model dynamics. Therefore, in the following development of
the model, the effect of these two forces were treated as one
“resistant force (F & C)” and varied together to represent the
resultant energy loss condition of the model. As this parameter
increases, the climbing speed of the model increases, and the lat-
eral motion of the model decreases.
Figure 4 shows the dynamic behavior of the model with differ-
ent initial body orientations (hb ) spanning between 40 deg and
40 deg. The offset angle Om and the period tp were also varied for
evaluation. The figure shows that the dynamic behaviors of the
model in its first step (first half of the first stride) have a large vari-
ation owing to the effect of the ICs, and the variation decreases
beginning from the second step (second half of the first stride).
Moreover, the behaviors of the model with different ICs quickly
converge to the same behavior before the third stride. This phe-
nomenon indicates that the natural dynamics of the model domi-
nate its behavior, and the model has a large attraction region to
converge its behavior to it natural dynamics.
Figure 5 shows the COM velocity of the model (ðvx ; vy Þ) with
different resistant forces (F & C), periods (tp ), swing amplitudes
(Am ), and offset angles (Om ). In the figure, if the marker is located
above the origin, the model climbs vertically. In contrast, if the
Fig. 3 The climbing speed (v ) of the model versus the result-
ant Coulomb friction force (F) and the damping coefficient
(C) shown in a 3D view in (a), a side view in (b), and a front view
in (c)
marker is located on the right side of the origin, the model has lat-
eral movement. When the maker is located at the upper right cor-
ner, the model has both vertical and lateral movements. The figure
reveals the following trends: (i) The swing amplitude (Am ) has a
critical effect on the motion direction of the model. When the
swing amplitude increases, the model has more lateral motion. (ii)
In contrast, the offset angle (Om ) has a critical effect on the
motion speed of the model. When the offset angle increases, the
model has less climbing speed. This effect is significant especially
when the model has a low period of 1 or 1.5 s. In some cases, the
model even climbs down instead of climbing up. (iii) When the
model has a low period of 1 or 1.5 s, the climbing speed increases
as the resistant force increases. The trend of climbing speed versus
resistant force is the same, as observed in Fig. 3. (iv) When the
model period is larger than 2 s, the resistant force has less effect
on the model behavior. In this case, the swing motion of the model
is damped before the hand switching, so the climbing motion is
more quasi-static. In addition, though the stride length of the
model increases when the period increases, the overall climbing
velocity decreases.
4 Robot Design
The morphology of the climbing robot basically follows that of
the two-arm model described in Sec. 2, and the detailed mecha-
nism was designed to achieve the actuation requirement of the
active DOFs ðuL ; uR ; hm Þ. Figure 6(a) plots the CAD drawing of
the robot mechanism. For the DOF of the left arm (uL ), the slider
is driven by the left-arm motor through a bevel gear pair and the
crank-and-slider mechanism, which is discussed in detail in the

044503-4 / Vol. 8, AUGUST 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanismsrobotics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmroa6/935090/ on 02/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.o

 Fig. 4 The dynamic behavior of the model with different body orientations
first paragraph of Sec. 3. The right arm has a mechanism symmet-
rical to that of the left arm with respect to the sagittal plane of the
robot. For the arm sprawl DOF (hm ), the rail of the slider (i.e., the
ground link of the four-bar linkage) is rotated by the sprawl motor
through a shaft coupler, a worm and worm gear pair, and a pulley-
and-belt system. Note that the worm gears of the two arms are
driven by the same worm, so they have synchronized and opposite
rotations, as designed in the model.
The mapping from the left-arm motor, the right-arm motor, and
the sprawl motor, ð/L ; /R ; /S Þ, to the model inputs ðuL ; uR ; hm Þ
can then be quantitatively formulated based on the mechanism
details as shown in Fig. 6(a). The arm sprawl angle (hm ) is a func-
tion of /S
h_ m ¼ NS /_ S (15)
where NS is the summation of the gear ratio of the motor gearbox,
the worm and worm gear pair, and the pulley-and-belt system.
In contrast, the left-arm length (uL ) is a function of both /S and
/L . The former one links to the uL by hm , as shown in Eq. (14),
and the latter one links to the uL in Eq. (14) by tp ¼ 2pN=/_ L . The
symbol N is the rotation speed ratio from the motor to the crank
of the four-bar linkage, and it is determined by the summation of
the gear ratio of the motor gearbox and the bevel gear pair.
The attachment/detachment mechanism of the hand to the wall
is also an important issue to address. The hand of the model was
assumed to have a rigid but rotatable contact to the wall, and in
the previous design, this was achieved by using passive claws to
engage the carpet wall [9]; however, the passive claw was only
functional when the robot climbed up because its attachment/
detachment mechanism was based on the unsymmetrical
“hooklike” design as shown in Fig. 6(b). In contrast, the robot in
Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics
Downloaded From: http://mechanismsrobotics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmroa6/935090/ on 02/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.o
our work was also designed to perform lateral motion, so the
passive claw was no longer a feasible solution. Therefore, two
attachment/detachment-active claws on each hand were adopted,
and the claws were driven by a servo motor through a four-bar
linkage mechanism, as shown in Fig. 6(c), for two purposes: To
amplify the torque for attachment/detachment and to use the link-
age mechanism to support the body weight, avoiding passing the
load through the small servo motors. In addition, as shown in
Fig. 6(c), a perforated plastic sheet was used as the wall material
for the claw to attach and detach to the wall as well as to preserve
the rotational freedom of the hand with respect to the wall.
Figure 7 shows the photos of the robot, and its specifications
are listed in Table 1. The robot has a real-time embedded control
system (sbRIO-9602, National Instruments, Austin, TX). The
left-arm, right-arm, and sprawl motors are brushed DC motors
(IG-36PGM TYPE1, Shayang, Taiwan) with encoders (HS-302-
512P-3A, Honest Sensor Corp., Taiwan), and the motors for claw
motion are servomotors (HS-645MG, Hitec RCD, Poway, CA).
Hall-effect sensors (SS443A, Honeywell, Morris Plains, NJ) were
utilized for the initial configuration calibration of the arm with
respect to the robot’s body.
5 Experiment Evaluation
The development of the model and the robot is tightly coupled.
On the one hand, the model was utilized to analyze and predict
the dynamic behavior of the robot. On the other hand, the robot
was also utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of the model. Most
of the parameters (such as mass, inertia, and geometrical dimen-
sions) of the model and robot were easy to map. The actuation
period tp selected for experimental evaluation was 1, 1.5, and 2 s.
When the actuation period of the robot increased beyond 2 s, the
AUGUST 2016, Vol. 8 / 044503-5
 Fig. 5 The COM velocity of the model with different resistant forces (F &C), periods (tp ), swing amplitudes (Am ), and offset
angles (Om )
motion of the robot gradually changed from dynamic behavior to
quasi-static behavior. The resistant force of the model was deter-
mined based on the vertical-climbing behaviors of the model and
the robot. The trajectories of the model with different resistant
forces were generated and matched to the robot’s trajectory.
Because the resistant force was designed to be applied to the
swing direction, the model with the least-squared trajectory error
to the robot trajectory in the lateral direction was selected as the
correct model setting, which yielded the resultant Coulomb fric-
tion force F ¼ 2:5 (N) and the coefficient of the resultant damping
force C ¼ 17:5.
Figure 8 shows the COM trajectories of the two-arm model (a)
and the robot (b) with different offset angles, Om ¼ 5, 0, and
5deg. Three experiments were all conducted in eight total steps
with the settings T ¼ 2 and Am ¼ 0 . The robot motion trajectory
was computed based on the sequential snapshots taken by a sta-
tionary HD camcorder (HDR-SR11, Sony) viewing the wall
where the robot climbed (i.e., “top view” of the robot). The robot
showed the same motion trend as the model predicted. When the
swing motion increased, the climbing speed decreased because
the vertical displacement between the engaged hand positions in
consecutive swing steps decreased. The robot with Om ¼ 5 had
the smallest swing motion, and its climbing speed was about
0.087 m/s, 6% slower than the model prediction of 0.093 m/s.
When Om ¼ 0, the swing motion of the model increased, and the
speed decreased to 0.062 m/s, 20% slower than the model predic-
tion of 0.078 m/s. The discrepancy between the model and the
robot increased because, empirically, we found that the large
044503-6 / Vol. 8, AUGUST 2016
Downloaded From: http://mechanismsrobotics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmroa6/935090/ on 02/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.o
swing motion of the robot also deteriorated the engagement qual-
ity of the hand to the wall, and the claw often slid on the wall
before it could firmly attach to the wall. This phenomenon was
observed when the robot climbed with the settings Om ¼ 0 (i.e.,
the vertical segments of the COM trajectories), and this phenom-
enon was severe when the robot climbed with the settings Om ¼ 5
in which the robot could not climb up but maintained the swing at
the same position.
Figure 9 shows the COM trajectories of the two-arm model (a)
and the robot (b) with three different actuation periods, tp ¼ 2,
1:5, and 1s. The three experiments were all conducted in eight
total steps with the settings Om ¼ 5 and Am ¼ 0 . When the
period decreased, the robot COM trajectories of the model and the
robot become sharper. This phenomenon resulted from the fact
that the arm motion was faster than the swing dynamics of the
model, so the former one dominated the COM trajectory, which
pulled the robot toward the engaged hand. Note that though the
zig–zag COM trajectories have similar sizes, because the actua-
tion periods were different, the speed of the robot increased when
the period decreased. The robot with tp ¼ 1 had a speed of about
0.16 m/s, which is twice as the speed of the robot with tp ¼ 2. The
speed of the robot was 7% faster than the model prediction of
0.15 m/s.
Figure 10 shows the COM trajectory of the robot with three
different combinations of the swing amplitudes (Am ) and the
offset angles (Om ), Om ¼ 5; Am ¼ 10, Om ¼ 10; Am ¼ 15, and
Om ¼ 15; Am ¼ 20. Unlike the results shown in Figures 8 and 9
where the arm sprawl angle hm of the robot was not varied, the
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 6 The detailed CAD drawings of the robot arm (a) and the
claw (c), and (b) the CAD drawing of the passive claw utilized in
Ref. [9]
arm sprawl angle was varied to initiate the lateral climbing
motion. Because the physical robot has a minimum achievable
sprawl angle of hm ¼ 5, when the swing amplitude (Am )
increased, the offset angle Om had to increase simultaneously to
avoid the collision of the two robot arms. The robot in these three
testing combinations had the same minimum sprawl angle,
hm ¼ 5. Figure 10 reveals that when the Am increased, the lateral
climbing motion of the robot increased. When the Am increased to
20 deg, the robot moved almost horizontally. The figure also
shows that the COM trajectories of the model had a greater lateral
climbing motion behavior than that of the robot (i.e., had a larger
lateral/vertical displacement ratio). The difference mainly results
from the mechanism backlash of the robot, which yields about
65 deg error of the sprawl angle, and the backlash decreases the
effective sprawl angle of the robot in this specific lateral climbing
motion. The experimental results confirm that the robot could
indeed perform the lateral motion by using the swing motion of
the arms, which also matched the prediction of the model, as
shown in Fig. 5.
Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics
Downloaded From: http://mechanismsrobotics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmroa6/935090/ on 02/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.o
Fig. 7 The photo of the robot
Fig. 8 The COM trajectories of the two-arm model (a) and the
robot (b) with three different offset angles (Om )
6 Conclusion
We report on the model-based development of a climbing robot
that is capable of performing vertical and lateral climbing
motions. The robot was designed based on the two-arm vertical-
climbing template inspired by the dynamic climbing motion of
cockroaches and geckos with the extension of introducing the arm
sprawl motion to initiate the lateral climbing motion. The quanti-
tative formulation of the model was derived based on Lagrangian
mechanics, and the numerical analysis of the model reveals sev-
eral facts. (i) The two-arm model has a self-stabilizing mechanism
in which the model with different initial conditions (i.e., body ori-
entation, hb ) converges to the same dynamic behavior in one or
two strides. (ii) The resultant Coulomb friction force (F) and the
AUGUST 2016, Vol. 8 / 044503-7

Fig. 9 The COM trajectories of the two-arm model (a) and the
robot (b) with three different actuation periods (tp )
Fig. 10 The COM trajectories of the two-arm model (a) and the
robot (b) with three different combinations of the offset angles
(Om ) and the swing amplitudes (Am )
viscous damping (C) acting on the model COM have very similar
effects on the model dynamics. When the values of these two
terms increase, the model has less swing motion and faster climb-
ing speed. (iii) The swing amplitude (Am ) has a critical effect on
the motion direction of the model. When the swing amplitude
increases, the model has a more lateral climbing motion. (iv) The
offset angle (Om ) has a critical effect on the motion speed of the
model. When the offset angle increases, the model has a slower
climbing speed.
The robot was then built and controlled based on the findings of
the model dynamics. Three motors were installed to provide arm
stretch/retract and sprawl motions. The experimental results of the
robot reveal that the climbing speed of the robot decreases when
the swing magnitude increases, which was the same trend in the
model. In addition, the large swing of the robot may also result in
the slip behavior when the hands try to engage to the wall. When
the arm sprawl motion was introduced, the robot could indeed per-
form a lateral climbing motion, as predicted by the model. The
qualitative behaviors between the model and the robot match quite
well, and this further suggests that the behavior development of
the robot can indeed be explored and evaluated using a simple
reduced-order model in the simulation environment, which
044503-8 / Vol. 8, AUGUST 2016
Downloaded From: http://mechanismsrobotics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmroa6/935090/ on 02/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.o
eliminates the necessity of extensive trial-and-error on the physi-
cal robot.
The experimental results also indicate that better robot perform-
ance and the precise mapping between the model and the robot
would require improvements in both the model and the robot. For
the model, the arm mass can be included, and a better energy loss
model can be investigated so that the model dynamics match the
empirical robot behaviors better. For the robot, the attachment/
detachment failure is the major cause for behavior discrepancies
between the model and the robot, and a better hand mechanism
should be investigated. Perhaps, the arm motion of the robot can
also be redesigned with the goal of reducing the maximum inter-
action forces between the hand and the wall. A model-based feed-
back control strategy capable of failure recovery would definitely
improve the robot’s climbing performance, and in this case, the
robot must have a body status sensory system and extra DOFs to
jointly generate this real-time hand reattachment motion. This is
not a trivial task and is currently under investigation.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the undergraduate students of
the Bio-inspired Robotics Laboratory for their help in building the
prototype of the robot.
This work was supported by the National Science Council
(NSC), Taiwan, under Contract Nos. NSC 101-2815-C-002-103-
E, NSC 102-2815-C-002-074-E, and NSC 102-2221-E-002-214-
MY3.
Nomenclature
Am ¼ swing amplitude of the sprawl DOF
C ¼ coefficient of the resultant damping force acting on
the model COM
F ¼ resultant Coulomb friction acting on the model
COM
g ¼ gravity constant
h ¼ relative position vector between the two hands at
hand switching
I ¼ moment of inertia of the two-arm model, and
I ¼ mR2g , where Rg is the radius of gyration
l1 , l2 , ln ¼ geometrical parameters of the arm mechanism
m ¼ mass of the two-arm model
N ¼ gear ratio between the motor rotation and the arm
sprawl motion
NS ¼ gear ratio between the motor rotation and the arm
crank rotation
Om ¼ offset angle of the sprawl DOF
ri ¼ distance between the hand and the COM, and
i ¼ R or L indicates right or left
t ¼ time
T, V ¼ kinetic energy and potential energy of the two-arm
model
tp ¼ actuation period of the arm and sprawl DOFs
ui ¼ arm length of the two-arm model, and i ¼ R or L
indicates right or left
hb ¼ body orientation of the two-arm model with respect
to the inertia frame
hi ¼ orientation configuration of the COM with respect
to the hand, and i ¼ R or L indicates right or left
hm ¼ arm sprawl angle
wi ¼ angle included by the ui and the ri vectors
v ¼ climbing speed, including lateral and vertical
components ðvx ; vy Þ
/m ¼ offset angle between the sprawl DOF and the arm
length DOF
/L ; /R ; /S ¼ rotation of the left-arm motor, the right-arm motor,
and the sprawl motor
ða; aÞ ¼ geometrical parameters defining the relative position
of the shoulder joint (Si ) and the COM
Transactions of the ASME

References
[1] Luk, B. L., Cooke, D. S., Galt, S., Collie, A. A., and Chen, S., 2005, “Intelligent
Legged Climbing Service Robot for Remote Maintenance Applications in
Hazardous Environments,” Rob. Auton. Syst., 53(2), pp. 142–152.
[2] Wei, T. E., Quinn, R. D., and Ritzmann, R. E., 2005, “A CLAWAR That Bene-
fits From Abstracted Cockroach Locomotion Principles,” Climbing and Walk-
ing Robots, Springer, Berlin, pp. 849–857.
[3] Krosuri, S. P., and Minor, M. A., 2005, “Design, Modeling, Control, and Evalu-
ation of a Hybrid Hip Joint Miniature Climbing Robot,” Int. J. Rob. Res.,
24(12), pp. 1033–1053.
[4] Nabulsi, S., Montes, H., and Armada, M., “Roboclimber: Control System
Architecture,” Climbing and Walking Robots, Springer, Berlin, pp. 943–952.
[5] Bretl, T., 2006, “Motion Planning of Multi-Limbed Robots Subject to Equilib-
rium Constraints: The Free-Climbing Robot Problem,” Int. J. Rob. Res., 25(4),
pp. 317–342.
[6] Kim, S., Spenko, M., Trujillo, S., Heyneman, B., Santos, D., and Cutkosky,
M. R., 2008, “Smooth Vertical Surface Climbing With Directional Adhesion,”
IEEE Trans. Rob., 24(1), pp. 65–74.
[7] Spenko, M., Haynes, G. C., Saunders, J., Cutkosky, M. R., Rizzi, A. A., Full,
R. J., and Koditschek, D. E., 2008, “Biologically Inspired Climbing With a
Hexapedal Robot,” J. Field Rob., 25(4–5), pp. 223–242.
[8] Provancher, W. R., Jensen-Segal, S. I., and Fehlberg, M. A., 2011, “ROCR: An
Energy-Efficient Dynamic Wall-Climbing Robot,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mecha-
tron., 16(5), pp. 897–906.
[9] Lynch, G. A., Clark, J. E., Lin, P. C., and Koditschek, D. E., 2012, “A Bioins-
pired Dynamical Vertical Climbing Robot,” Int. J. Rob. Res., 31(8),
pp. 974–996.
[10] Dickson, J., and Clark, J. E., 2012, “The Effect of Sprawl Angle and Wall Incli-
nation on a Bipedal Dynamic Climbing Platform,” International Conference on
Climbing and Walking Robots and the Support Technologies for Mobile
Machines (CLAWAR), Baltimore, MD, July 23-26.
[11] Guan, Y. S., Zhu, H. F., Wu, W. Q., Zhou, X. F., Jiang, L., Cai, C. W., Zhang,
L. M., and Zhang, H., 2013, “A Modular Biped Wall-Climbing Robot With
High Mobility and Manipulating Function,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.,
18(6), pp. 1787–1798.
[12] Osswald, M., and Iida, F., 2013, “Design and Control of a Climbing Robot
Based on Hot Melt Adhesion,” Rob. Auton. Syst., 61(6), pp. 616–625.
[13] Degani, A., Long, A. W., Feng, S. Y., Brown, H. B., Gregg, R. D., Choset, H.,
Mason, M. T., and Lynch, K. M., 2014, “Design and Open-Loop Control of the
ParkourBot: A Dynamic Climbing Robot,” IEEE Trans. Rob., 30(3),
pp. 705–718.
[14] He, B., Wang, Z. P., Li, M. H., Wang, K., Shen, R. J., and Hu, S. Q., 2014,
“Wet Adhesion Inspired Bionic Climbing Robot,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mecha-
tron., 19(1), pp. 312–320.
Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics
Downloaded From: http://mechanismsrobotics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jmroa6/935090/ on 02/11/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.o
[15] Murphy, M. P., Tso, W., Tanzini, M., and Sitti, M., “Waalbot: An Agile Small-
Scale Wall Climbing Robot Utilizing Pressure Sensitive Adhesives,” IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Beijing,
Oct. 9-15, pp. 3411–3416.
[16] Koo, I. M., Trong, T. D., Lee, Y. H., Moon, H., Koo, J., Park, S. K., and Choi,
H. R., 2013, “Development of Wall Climbing Robot System by Using Impeller
Type Adhesion Mechanism,” J. Intell. Rob. Syst., 72(1), pp. 57–72.
[17] Tavakoli, M., Viegas, C., Marques, L., Pires, J. N., and de Almeida, A. T.,
2013, “OmniClimbers: Omni-Directional Magnetic Wheeled Climbing Robots
for Inspection of Ferromagnetic Structures,” Rob. Auton. Syst., 61(9),
pp. 997–1007.
[18] Greuter, M., Shah, G., Caprari, G., T^ache, F., Siegwart, R., and Sitti, M.,
“Toward Micro Wall-Climbing Robots Using Biomimetic Fibrillar Adhesives,”
3rd International Symposium on Autonomous Minirobots for Research and
Edutainment (AMiRE 2005), Fukui, Japan, Sept. 20-22, Springer, Berlin, pp.
39–46.
[19] Kim, H., Kim, D., Yang, H., Lee, K., Seo, K., Chang, D., and Kim, J., 2008,
“Development of a Wall-Climbing Robot Using a Tracked Wheel Mechanism,”
J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 22(8), pp. 1490–1498.
[20] Wang, H. Q., Yamamoto, A., and Higuchi, T., 2014, “A Crawler Climbing
Robot Integrating Electroadhesion and Electrostatic Actuation,” Int. J. Adv.
Rob. Syst., 11, p. 191.
[21] Nam, S., Oh, J., Lee, G., Kim, J., and Seo, T., 2014, “Dynamic Analysis During
Internal Transition of a Compliant Multi-Body Climbing Robot With Magnetic
Adhesion,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 28(12), pp. 5175–5187.
[22] Zhang, H., Gonzalez-Gomez, J., Chen, S., Wang, W., Liu, R., Li, D., and
Zhang, J., “A Novel Modular Climbing Caterpillar Using Low-Frequency
Vibrating Passive Suckers,” IEEE/ASME International Conference on
Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), Zurich, Switzerland, Sept. 4-7.
[23] Autumn, K., Hsieh, S., Dudek, D., Chen, J., Chitaphan, C., and Full, R., 2006,
“Dynamics of Geckos Running Vertically,” J. Exp. Biol., 209(2), pp. 260–272.
[24] Goldman, D. I., Chen, T. S., Dudek, D. M., and Full, R. J., 2006, “Dynamics of
Rapid Vertical Climbing in Cockroaches Reveals a Template,” J. Exp. Biol.,
209(15), pp. 2990–3000.
[25] Lynch, G. A., Rome, L., and Koditschek, D. E., 2011, “Sprawl Angle in Simpli-
fied Models of Vertical Climbing: Implications for Robots and Roaches,” Appl.
Bionics Biomech., 8(3), pp. 441–452.
[26] Ko, W. H., Chiang, W. H., Hsu, Y. H., Fang, I. L., Lin, H. S., Yu, M. Y., and
Lin, P. C., 2014, “A Dynamic Vertical Climbing Robot,” International Confer-
ence on Advanced Robotics and Intelligent Systems (ARIS), Taipei, Taiwan,
June 6-8, p. 248.
[27] Yu, M. Y., Lin, H. S., Ko, W. H., Chiang, W. H., Fang, I. L., Hsu, Y. H., and
Lin, P. C., 2014, “Analysis of a Dynamic Climbing Two-Arm Model,” Interna-
tional Conference on Advanced Robotics and Intelligent Systems (ARIS),
Taipei, Taiwan, June 6–8, p. 250.
AUGUST 2016, Vol. 8 / 044503-9