Adapting stiffness and attack angle through trial and error to increase self-stability in locomotion.

Biological systems are outperforming machines in legged locomoting under almost any conditions. This is partly due to their capability of learning from failure and adapting their control approach and morphological features. This paper proposes an approach that extends the spring-loaded inverted pendulum (SLIP) model with the capability to adapt its attack angle (control) and stiffness (morphology) based on previous locomotion attempts. A set of different update rules, i.e., how this experience is used to adapt, are systematically investigated. The results suggest that modifying either attack angle, or stiffness, or both is beneficial with respect to achieve stable locomotion. Particularly, if the current system configuration (control and morphology) outperforms the previous one, the results suggest that increasing the angle and decreasing the stiffness of the system leads to more stable solutions. Consequently, the basic SLIP model extended by the proposed learning capabilities is able to reach stable locomotion over a much wider range of parameter combinations simply through trial and error.

[1]  R. McNeill Alexander,et al.  Principles of Animal Locomotion , 2002 .

[2]  Scott Kuindersma,et al.  Modeling and Control of Legged Robots , 2016, Springer Handbook of Robotics, 2nd Ed..

[3]  Alfred A. Rizzi,et al.  Physically Variable Compliance in Running , 2005 .

[4]  Reinhard Blickhan,et al.  A movement criterion for running. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[5]  Hartmut Geyer,et al.  Swing-leg retraction: a simple control model for stable running , 2003, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[6]  Helmut Hauser,et al.  Towards a theoretical foundation for morphological computation with compliant bodies , 2011, Biological Cybernetics.

[7]  Helmut Hauser,et al.  A variable stiffness mechanism for improving energy efficiency of a planar single-legged hopping robot , 2013, 2013 16th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR).

[8]  Reinhard Blickhan,et al.  Spring-Legged Locomotion on uneven Ground: A Control Approach to keep the running Speed constant , 2009 .

[9]  Fumiya Iida,et al.  Motor control optimization of compliant one-legged locomotion in rough terrain , 2007, 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[10]  Giorgio Grioli,et al.  Variable Stiffness Actuators: Review on Design and Components , 2016, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics.

[11]  Manuel G. Catalano,et al.  Variable impedance actuators: A review , 2013, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[12]  Susanne W. Lipfert,et al.  Swing leg control in human running , 2010, Bioinspiration & biomimetics.

[13]  John Schmitt,et al.  A Simple Stabilizing Control for Sagittal Plane Locomotion , 2006 .

[14]  Martijn Wisse,et al.  Running with improved disturbance rejection by using non-linear leg springs , 2011, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[15]  T. McMahon,et al.  The mechanics of running: how does stiffness couple with speed? , 1990, Journal of biomechanics.

[16]  Helmut Hauser,et al.  The role of feedback in morphological computation with compliant bodies , 2012, Biological Cybernetics.

[17]  R. Blickhan The spring-mass model for running and hopping. , 1989, Journal of biomechanics.

[18]  R J Full,et al.  How animals move: an integrative view. , 2000, Science.

[19]  Juergen Rummel,et al.  Manuscript: Stable Running with Segmented Legs ¤ , 2008 .

[20]  Fumiya Iida,et al.  Enlarging regions of stable running with segmented legs , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[21]  A. Ishiguro,et al.  Enhancing Self-stability of a Passive Dynamic Runner by Exploiting Nonlinearity in the Leg Elasticity , 2006, 2006 SICE-ICASE International Joint Conference.

[22]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Stride Period Adaptation of a Biomimetic Running Hexapod , 2004, Int. J. Robotics Res..