2013
DOI: 10.1088/1748-3182/8/4/046006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bio-inspired swing leg control for spring-mass robots running on ground with unexpected height disturbance

Abstract: Abstract.We proposed three swing leg control policies for spring-mass running robots, inspired by experimental data from our recent collaborative work on ground running birds. Previous investigations suggest that animals may prioritize injury avoidance and/or efficiency as their objective function during running rather than maintaining limit-cycle stability. Therefore, in this study we targeted structural capacity (maximum leg force to avoid damage) and efficiency as the main goals for our control policies, si… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Simple walking and running models have revealed that swing-leg velocity just before the stance transition influences numerous aspects of locomotor dynamics, including stability [14][16], [18], robustness [19], leg work [19], [20], disturbance rejection and collision impact energy losses [18]. Previous studies suggest these factors cannot be simultaneously optimized—resulting in a trade-off between two families of performance objectives: swing-leg velocity can be optimized to minimize peak forces, work and collision impacts [16], [18]–[20], or to provide stability, disturbance rejection and robustness of body centre of mass (CoM) dynamics [15], [16], [18]–[20], but not all simultaneously. Thus, a potential trade-off has emerged between optimal swing-leg trajectory to regulate leg loading for injury avoidance , or alternatively, to facilitate steady gait through disturbance rejection .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Simple walking and running models have revealed that swing-leg velocity just before the stance transition influences numerous aspects of locomotor dynamics, including stability [14][16], [18], robustness [19], leg work [19], [20], disturbance rejection and collision impact energy losses [18]. Previous studies suggest these factors cannot be simultaneously optimized—resulting in a trade-off between two families of performance objectives: swing-leg velocity can be optimized to minimize peak forces, work and collision impacts [16], [18]–[20], or to provide stability, disturbance rejection and robustness of body centre of mass (CoM) dynamics [15], [16], [18]–[20], but not all simultaneously. Thus, a potential trade-off has emerged between optimal swing-leg trajectory to regulate leg loading for injury avoidance , or alternatively, to facilitate steady gait through disturbance rejection .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, minimizing leg impacts and peak forces may also be critical, because animal legs have relatively constant safety factors in musculoskeletal structures around 2–4× the peak forces of steady locomotion [25], [26]. Perfect disturbance rejection can demand large leg forces [18]–[20], which could lead to musculoskeletal injury. Building legs to withstand very large forces would require carrying extra weight, so limited safety factors in animal legs may reflect a compromise between safety and economy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, increasing the pendulum length yields in slower motion 3 and consequently, steeper leg (smaller angle of attack) at touch down. It happens because of swing leg retraction which is observed already in human locomotion [19], [20], [21] and simulated models [22], [23], [13]. Eventually, smaller angle of attack reduces the forward speed [3] which means that the correlation between l p and V x should be around −1.…”
Section: System Analysismentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Leg retraction can affect the stability of the locomotor system (Blum et al, 2011(Blum et al, , 2010Seyfarth et al, 2003), the size of the disturbances a system can reject (Karssen et al, 2011) and the leg loading during a stance phase (Blum et al, 2014;Vejdani et al, 2013). Adjusting leg retraction velocity alters the landing posture, adjusting a trade-off between achieved successful stance phase versus reducing leg loading (Daley and Usherwood, 2010).…”
Section: Vision and Stabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%