Table 1 Comparison of different wheel mechanism design options.
From: RWD-DOF: a dual-degree-of-freedom reconfigurable wheel design for improved robotic mobility
Wheel type | Subcategory | Representative robots | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Irregular Wheel Structures | ASGUARD, Amphibious, RHex-style Hexapod, Levo et al. | Good obstacle-crossing ability | Bumps on flat surfaces | |
Passive reconfigurable Wheels | WheeLeR, \(\alpha\)-WaLTR, Wheel Transformer et al. | Suitable for both flat surfaces and step | Reconfiguration success rate depends on external factors; Unsmooth trajectories | |
Active reconfigurable Wheels | 1 DoF | Quattroped, TurboQuad, R-Taichi | Suitable for both flat surfaces and steps; Controlled and reliable reconfiguration | Obstacle-crossing size is limited due to a single DoF; Crossing barriers relies heavily on friction; Unsmooth trajectories |
OmniWheg, Trimode | Suitable for both flat surfaces and steps; Controlled and reliable reconfiguration | Obstacle-crossing size is limited due to a single DoF; Large sudden changes in obstacle-crossing trajectory due to mechanism | ||
2 DOF | SWhegPro | Suitable for both flat surfaces and steps; Controlled and reliable reconfiguration | Both DoFs are limited to wheel rim angle changes; Similar to R-Taichi in nature and drawbacks | |
STEP | Suitable for both flat surfaces and steps; Controlled and reliable reconfiguration; Smoother stair-climbing | Complex control with two actuators; Not suitable for narrow environments | ||
Ours | Suitable for both flat surfaces and steps; Controlled and reliable reconfiguration; Smoother stair-climbing; Easy to integrate with other robots; Smaller size for narrow spaces; Climb dual-side stairs without turning | More complex wheel structure due to modular design |
