Is it possible to generate large transverse friction forces for soft contacts? #1992

acrylic-origami · 2024-05-11T02:34:17Z

acrylic-origami
May 11, 2024

Hi,

I'm an engineer trying to use MuJoCo for humanoid robotic control.

I'm trying to model grass interactions in MuJoCo, specifically its anisotropic drag against the robot's feet (where it is springy and fairly lossless in the normal direction and frictional in transverse directions). It sounds like friction should be perfect for this. My impression was that I could make the contact soft so the robot could sink into the grass geom, then use large friction coefficients to create transverse drag in spite of the small reaction force.

However, I think I must be misunderstanding the friction model. Symptomatically, when using larger friction values, I don't seem to get much damping, but instead I have noticed the contact seems to get much softer.

For example, here's a box on a pendulum penetrating a relatively soft, undamped plane:

<mujoco>
    <visual>
        <headlight ambient="1 1 1"/>
    </visual>
    <worldbody>
        <geom type="plane" rgba="0 1 0 0.3" size="1 1 1" condim="3" solref="-100 -0.001" friction="0.1" priority="2" solimp="0.9 0.99 0.06" pos="0 0 -0.9" /><!-- The plane has higher priority -->
            <body name="b1">
                <joint type="hinge" name="j1" axis="0 1 0" />
                <geom name="g1" type="box" size="0.1 0.1 0.1" pos="1 0 0" mass="1" />
            </body>
    </worldbody>
</mujoco>

When friction=0.1, I get a springy undamped response as expected:

friction_0p1.mp4

However, when friction=1.0, the stiffness drops out enough for the box to swing to the other side, and I don't see any additional losses:

friction_1p0.mp4

Higher values of friction don't do much, and I worry that I'm heading towards instabilities. Here's friction=10 for completeness:

friction_10p0.mp4

These are all simulated with pyramidal cones, but elliptical cones look much the same.

Is this expected behavior and am I missing something about MuJoCo's slip/friction model? Is there a way to achieve anisotropic dynamic slipping friction for a soft geom (i.e. without resorting to isotropic solref damping)?

acrylic-origami · 2024-05-18T04:17:08Z

acrylic-origami
May 18, 2024
Author

It took a few more reads of the Computation chapter, but I think I'm starting to see where I misunderstood the friction and soft contact models. It's still unclear to me how to generate large transverse drag using only contacts, so I've narrowed the issue title.

I do also appreciate some corrections if I'm still missing some parts of the picture. As I understand it, my mistake was that I thought that dynamic friction was always proportional to the normal force of the contact, and this normal force was defined by the mass-spring-damper system. That assumed:

The transverse (frictional) force was given by: $f_{trans}=-\hat{v}\mu f_{\bot}$, and
The normal force was defined as $f_\bot := -bJ_\bot v_\bot - kr$, where
- $r$ is the scalar, purely normal constraint violation for elliptic cones, and
- $J_\bot$ is the Jacobian of the normal contact component

I now understand that this is wrong, and instead, for small $R$, the constraint dynamics approach $a_{ref}$ up to the friction cone, where $a_{ref} := -bJv - kr$ is defined in all directions, and since $b$ and $r$ are scalars for every contact, the target drag is isotropic. The upshot is that friction can only limit transverse drag components relative to the drag in the normal direction for the same velocity.

It seems the simulations showed just that:

For large friction values and soft, undamped surfaces, the friction cone is large and the forces are mostly unconstrained, so the dynamics approach $a_{ref}$ which is isotropically soft and undamped, including in the transverse directions.
For small friction values, the cone is narrow and the solution is on the cone surface. My understanding is that the minimizer will generate strictly larger normal forces, since the closest point on the cone surface to $a_{ref}$ is further along the normal axis. If so, it's actually the very small friction values that are excessively stiff, not the other way around.

My understanding is that most use cases have hard and dissipative surfaces with very little penetration, so that slip involves being on the friction cone almost all the time, and friction behaves intuitively, being mostly proportional to $\mu$.

Meanwhile, in cases with soft yet grippy surfaces, the better intuition is that the penetrating object "sticks" to the soft surface and encounters the drag as it retracts and pulls the surface of the soft object back to equilibrium.

My issue with isotropic drag is that every step the robot takes will incur large energy losses, even if the robot lifts the foot directly upwards. I'm a bit surprised that I haven't found any other issues about energy losses from rebounding drag for soft surfaces; does using flex/flexcomp avoid this?

2 replies

yuvaltassa Sep 26, 2024
Maintainer

Did you try switching to elliptic friction cones and playing with impratio?

acrylic-origami Oct 16, 2024
Author

@yuvaltassa Thanks for the suggestion. It sounds like the right parameter to tweak, but I've switched to elliptic cones and set impratio to 10 up to 1000, and even with huge friction (up to 10) and solref stiffness (k up to 10000), I didn't see any changes to the pendulum:

Screencast.from.10-15-2024.04.58.05.PM.-.cropped.mp4

...
    <option cone="elliptic" impratio="1000" />
...
        <geom type="plane" rgba="0 1 0 0.3" size="1 1 1" condim="3" solref="-10000 -0.01" friction="10" priority="2" solimp="0.9 0.99 0.06" pos="0 0 -0.9" /><!-- The plane has higher priority -->
...

yuvaltassa · 2024-10-29T17:04:32Z

yuvaltassa
Oct 29, 2024
Maintainer

If you define the contact pair explicitly, you can experiment with different values of solref that apply only to the frictional directions (solreffriction). This is what we did for the table tennis paper. Hope this helps.

2 replies

acrylic-origami Nov 7, 2024
Author

Sweet, that looks pretty convincing!

solreffriction-fix-1992.mp4

<pair geom1="gnd" geom2="g1" friction="4" solreffriction="-0.0 -20" condim="3" solref="-1E2 -3" solimp="0.9 0.99 0.06" />

Is the resulting damping solely a function of the tangent velocity or is it also dependent on the constraint violation in some way? Does this affect the friction cone?

yuvaltassa Nov 11, 2024
Maintainer

For elliptic it's what you'd expect, the tangent force is bounded by the normal force, which depends on the penetration. For pyramidal there is also a dependence, but it's more complicated. I think at this low resolution level of questions, I'd recommend reading the actual code...

lololchen · 2024-11-13T09:05:44Z

lololchen
Nov 13, 2024

For the high friction generated by the normal force, switching to the elliptical cone could sometimes help, because its rounded tip touches the other surface earlier. Do I understand this correctly from to the diagram in the doc?

1 reply

yuvaltassa Nov 14, 2024
Maintainer

That's a reasonable intuition, yes.

A more accurate thing to say is that elliptic friction cones are correct, while the pyramidal approximation is something Anitescu invented 20 years ago that is computationally nice but actually not well-rooted in the reality of friction. You're welcome to read his original papers for some heroic attempts at explaining what they might correspond to 🙂

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Is it possible to generate large transverse friction forces for soft contacts? #1992

{{title}}

Replies: 3 comments 5 replies

{{title}}

{{editor}}'s edit

{{editor}}'s edit

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{editor}}'s edit

{{editor}}'s edit

{{title}}

{{editor}}'s edit

{{editor}}'s edit

{{title}}

{{editor}}'s edit

{{editor}}'s edit

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

Select a reply

Is it possible to generate large transverse friction forces for soft contacts? #1992

acrylic-origami May 11, 2024

Replies: 3 comments · 5 replies

acrylic-origami May 18, 2024 Author

yuvaltassa Sep 26, 2024 Maintainer

acrylic-origami Oct 16, 2024 Author

yuvaltassa Oct 29, 2024 Maintainer

acrylic-origami Nov 7, 2024 Author

yuvaltassa Nov 11, 2024 Maintainer

lololchen Nov 13, 2024

yuvaltassa Nov 14, 2024 Maintainer

acrylic-origami
May 11, 2024

Replies: 3 comments 5 replies

acrylic-origami
May 18, 2024
Author

yuvaltassa Sep 26, 2024
Maintainer

acrylic-origami Oct 16, 2024
Author

yuvaltassa
Oct 29, 2024
Maintainer

acrylic-origami Nov 7, 2024
Author

yuvaltassa Nov 11, 2024
Maintainer

lololchen
Nov 13, 2024

yuvaltassa Nov 14, 2024
Maintainer