Motor Driver Boards Local Control for Robotic Shutdown
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Humanoid robotic systems face challenges in safely shutting down to prevent damage due to error conditions such as CPU failure or loss of communication between the CPU and motors, which can lead to instability and potential damage during walking or movement.
Innovation Solution
Implementing a system where motor driver boards take control of the motors in case of an error condition, allowing the robotic system to move to a stationary position and park safely, using pre-computed trajectories and sensor data to determine the best parking location, thereby reducing the risk of damage.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If the CPU controls all motors centrally, then the robotic system can maintain coordinated movement and stability, but the system becomes vulnerable to damage when the CPU fails or loses communication with motors
Solution Approach 1:
The patent divides the centralized CPU control into distributed control units (motor driver boards) that are located near each motor. Each control unit can independently manage its associated motor, creating segmented control architecture. This segmentation allows the system to maintain operational integrity even when the central CPU fails, as each segment can operate autonomously or enter a safe state independently.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces motor driver boards as intermediary devices between the CPU and motors. These driver boards act as local controllers that can interpret CPU commands and also independently manage motor operations during CPU failures. The intermediaries buffer the system against direct damage by providing a layer of autonomous control that can handle emergencies without requiring continuous CPU intervention.
2Object-affected harmful factors
If the robotic system implements a shutdown method to protect from damage during error conditions, then the system can prevent physical harm, but the shutdown process may cause instability during movement
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements preliminary actions by having control units continuously monitor system state and prepare safe shutdown procedures before actual failures occur. The system pre-computes safe states and transition paths, so when an error condition is detected, the shutdown process follows predetermined safe trajectories rather than abrupt stops. This preliminary preparation ensures stability is maintained throughout the shutdown sequence.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent applies beforehand cushioning by implementing gradual deceleration and controlled positioning mechanisms that soften the transition during shutdown. Instead of immediate motor cutoff that would cause instability, the system gradually reduces motor speeds and positions limbs in predetermined safe configurations before complete shutdown, cushioning the transition and maintaining stability throughout the process.
3Reliability
If the system uses local control boards to take over motor control during errors, then the system can maintain control and move to safe positions, but the device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent designs motor driver boards with multi-functionality, allowing them to serve dual roles: acting as simple motor drivers during normal CPU-controlled operation and functioning as autonomous local controllers during CPU failures. This universality means the same hardware components perform multiple functions depending on system state, avoiding the need for separate dedicated emergency control systems and thereby limiting the increase in overall device complexity.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements self-service by enabling control units to autonomously manage motor operations during CPU failures without requiring external intervention or complex coordination protocols. Each control unit independently detects errors, determines safe states, and executes shutdown procedures on its own, reducing the need for complex inter-component communication and control logic that would otherwise be required to coordinate a system-wide emergency response.
Data Source
AI summary
The present application discloses implementations that involve shutdowns of a robotic system. An example may include controlling, by a robotic system, a plurality of motors of the robotic system with a central processing unit (CPU). The example may also include determining, by the robotic system, an error condition of the robotic system, where the error condition prevents the CPU from controlling at least one of the plurality of motors. The example may also include causing a plurality of motor driver boards to control the plurality of motors of the robotic system in response to determining the error condition of the robotic system. The example may also include receiving, by the plurality of motors, one or more commands from the plurality of motor driver boards to move the robotic system to a stationary position and park the robotic system in the stationary position.