Embedded Motion Control 2015 Group 3/Experiments: Difference between revisions

From Control Systems Technology Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
= Experiments =  
= Experiments =  
This page is part of the [http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Embedded_Motion_Control_2015_Group_3 EMC03 CST-wiki].
This page is part of the [[Embedded_Motion_Control_2015_Group_3|EMC03 CST-wiki]].


== Experiment 1 ==  
== Experiment 1 ==  
Line 19: Line 19:
* Do corridor challenge
* Do corridor challenge


Calibration:
Evaluation:
 
* [[Embedded_Motion_Control_2015_Group_3#Calibration|Here]] the results of the calibration can be found.
In the lectures, the claim was made that 'the odometry data is not reliable'. We decided to quantify the errors in the robot's sensors in some way. The robot was programmed to drive back and forth in front of a wall. At every time instance, it would also collect odometry data and laser data. The laser data point that was straight in front of the robot was compared to the odometry data, i.e. the driven distance is compared to the measured distance to the wall in front of the robot. The following figure is the result:
 
[[File:Originaldata.png|400px|thumb|center|Difference between odometry and LRF]]
 
The starting distance from the wall is substracted from the laser data signal. Then, the sign is flipped so that the laser data should match the odometry exactly, if the sensors would provide perfect data.
Two things are now notable from this figure:
* The laserdata and the odometry data do not return exactly the same values.
* The odometry seems to produce no noise at all.
 
The noisy signal that was returned by the laser is presented in the next figure. Here, a part of the laser data is picked from a robot that was not moving.
 
[[File:staticLRF.png|400px|thumb|center|Static LRF]]
 
* The maximum amplitude of the noise is roughly 12 mm.
* The standard deviation of the noise is roughly 5.5 mm
* The laser produces a noisy signal. Do not trust one measurement but take the average over time instead.
* The odometry produces no notable noise at all, but it has a significant drift as the driven distance increases. Usage is recommended only for smaller distances (<1 m)
 
 
* Driving through a straight corridor went very well. But we could not succeed the corridor challenge yet.
* Driving through a straight corridor went very well. But we could not succeed the corridor challenge yet.


Line 62: Line 43:
Evaluation:
Evaluation:
* Path planning was not very succesfull.
* Path planning was not very succesfull.
* Potential field did very well in corridors (see video). Intersections need some extra attention.
* Potential field did very well in corridors (see [[Embedded_Motion_Control_2015_Group_3#Videos|video]]). Intersections need some extra attention.


== Experiment 5 ==
== Experiment 5 ==
Line 75: Line 56:


== Experiment 6 ==
== Experiment 6 ==
Date:  
Date: Friday June 12


Purpose:
Purpose: Test everything combined. Especially, some difficult situation with doors, open spaces, dead ends and loops.


Evaluation:
Evaluation:  
..
* Localisation was not finished yet.  
* There were some problems with the angular corrections. Therefore, PICO sometimes drove sideways through the corridor.
* We have make adjustments before next experiment on Tuesday June 16.


== Experiment 7 ==
== Experiment 7 ==
Date:  
Date: Tuesday June 16


Purpose:
Purpose:  
*The last repetition for the A-maze-ing challenge


Evaluation:
Evaluation:  
..
* Sometimes PICO made strange choices at intersections. Probably, because the localisation was not working well.
* Therefore, before tomorrow the localisation has to be adjusted. And we will make a back-up plan that is random and uses no localisation at all.

Latest revision as of 18:59, 23 June 2015

Experiments

This page is part of the EMC03 CST-wiki.

Experiment 1

Date: Friday May 8

Purpose:

  • Working with PICO
  • Some calibration to check odometry and LRF data

Evaluation:

  • There were problems between the laptop we used and PICO.

Experiment 2

Date: Tuesday May 12

Purpose:

  • Calibration
  • Do corridor challenge

Evaluation:

  • Here the results of the calibration can be found.
  • Driving through a straight corridor went very well. But we could not succeed the corridor challenge yet.

Experiment 3

Date: Tuesday May 22

Purpose:

  • Calibration
  • Do corridor challenge

Evaluation:

  • Combining the Scan and Drive for path planning was not succesfull.
  • Potential field script was not ready yet.

Experiment 4

Date: Tuesday May 29

Purpose:

  • Test potential field
  • Test path planning

Evaluation:

  • Path planning was not very succesfull.
  • Potential field did very well in corridors (see video). Intersections need some extra attention.

Experiment 5

Date: Friday June 05

Purpose:

  • Test potential field & decision intergration

Evaluation:

  • Integration is almost done. Still has some problems with crossing intersection and taking corners into (short) dead ends like doors.
  • The collision detection behaves somewhat unexpected some times.

Experiment 6

Date: Friday June 12

Purpose: Test everything combined. Especially, some difficult situation with doors, open spaces, dead ends and loops.

Evaluation:

  • Localisation was not finished yet.
  • There were some problems with the angular corrections. Therefore, PICO sometimes drove sideways through the corridor.
  • We have make adjustments before next experiment on Tuesday June 16.

Experiment 7

Date: Tuesday June 16

Purpose:

  • The last repetition for the A-maze-ing challenge

Evaluation:

  • Sometimes PICO made strange choices at intersections. Probably, because the localisation was not working well.
  • Therefore, before tomorrow the localisation has to be adjusted. And we will make a back-up plan that is random and uses no localisation at all.
Retrieved from "https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Embedded_Motion_Control_2015_Group_3/Experiments&oldid=19985"