Unexpected behaviour of checkCollision for robot collision detection

3 次查看（过去 30 天）
fixusc
fixusc 2020-10-22
编辑： fixusc 2020-11-3
I am using the function checkCollision (R2020b version) to detect wheter a robot is in collision with itself. The basic code I use for this is:
robot = importrobot(robotPath,'MeshPath',collisionMeshPath);
isCollision = checkCollision(robot,jointAngles); % joint angles = [a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6]'
This function works great when the robot model does not have a tool attached. However, with a tool attached, the behaviour is not as expected anymore since it always returns true.
I need to shift the mesh of the tool away from the robot so far that no point of the robot sticks into the bottom of the tool even though there is a cut out. I have now removed the entire bottom part covering the tool and still get this problem. You can clearly see that the robot arm is far away from touching the tool but still the output is always true. In the image below, I added 18mm of vertical offset and still get the error. Once I add 19mm, no part of the robot stick into the tool and the error goes away. I want to use the function with no or very small z-offset in order to do a realistic collision detection.
Is this just the normal behaviour of this function or am I doing something wrong here? Is there maybe a workaround?
  1 个评论
fixusc
fixusc 2020-10-22
Here is another strange one. It almost looks like the checkCollision function applies a certain safety margin. When I let the robot move towards the floor, the position in the attached image is about the first one to be detected as a collision, so a few mm above the actual surface.
Is there actually a safety margin built into this function and can it be controlled?

请先登录，再进行评论。

请先登录，再回答此问题。

采纳的回答

Karsh Tharyani
Karsh Tharyani 2020-10-26
It will help to view the robot's collision geometry data instead of the visual data as they might be different. To do so,
show(robot, config, "Visuals", "off", "Collisions", "on");
You can also view the end-effector body's collision data by inspecting the Collisions property of the rigidBody
The next good step will be to find out which bodies are in collision. This can be done by viewing the separation distances between the bodies.
[isColliding, sepDist] = checkCollision(robot, config, "Exhaustive", "on");
In order to find out which bodies are colliding, you can view the entries in the sepDist matrix which are NaNs
[b1, b2] = find(isnan(sepDist));
robot.BodyNames{b1}
robot.BodyNames{b2}
Note that the rows and columns correspond to the body indices. The last row and column corresponds to the robot.Base body's collision with other bodies.
Adjacent bodies are ignored for collisions hence their separation distances are Inf.
Once you have found out which bodies are in collision, you can modify the collision data associated with that body to make the robot self-collision free for that configuration.
I suggest reaching out to Technical Support https://www.mathworks.com/support/contact_us.html in case you still see any unexpected results
  3 个评论
显示 1更早的评论
Karsh Tharyani
Karsh Tharyani 2020-10-26
编辑：Karsh Tharyani 2020-10-26
Ah! I see. It might be the case that the simplification of the tool's mesh might be a result of making the mesh geometry convex. It is hard to point out the cause of this behavior without actually looking into the mesh file. Thus, I recommend to reach out to Technical Support and share your model's mesh file and other info.
You might benefit by adding multiple collision geometries to your tool's rigidBody using addCollision https://www.mathworks.com/help/robotics/ref/rigidbody.addcollision.html
Thus, you can consider making a composite of meshes for your tool in order to make your collision alerts more accurate. The checkCollision function does account for the multiple collision geometries added to a rigidBody.
Also, I see that you want to ignore any collisions involving the base and the end-effector. If that's the case, consider clearCollisions. https://www.mathworks.com/help/robotics/ref/rigidbody.clearcollision.html This should clear all the collision data related to the body.
fixusc
fixusc 2020-10-27
Yes it looks very much like thise is the case. However, it's not just the tool but also the base of the robot which gets a weird shape, leading to premature collision detection with the ground. So is it normal for Matlab to modify the geometry in such a way? Is there no other way to retain the original geometry other than splitting up the mesh into many parts?
I actually do not want to remove any collision mesh entirely but only look at certain cases. E.g. one arm colliding with the ground or the tool colliding with the ground or an arm. But arms colliding with arms is already taken care of by the joint angle limits. This is why I work with the sepDist matrix. But thanks anyway for the hint, I did not know about this function.
I will reach out to support now, thank you for helping me out so far.

请先登录，再进行评论。

更多回答（0 个）

类别

在 Help Center 和 File Exchange 中查找有关 Collision Detection 的更多信息

标签

产品

Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!

Translated by