The optimal swing-leg retraction rate for running

Swing-leg retraction was introduced as a way to improve the stability and disturbance rejection of running robots. It was also suggested that the reduced foot speed due to swing-leg retraction can help reduce impact energy losses, decrease peak forces, and minimize foot slipping. However, the extent to which swing-leg retraction rate influences all these benefits was unknown. In this paper, we present a study on the effect of swing-leg retraction rate on these benefits. The results of this study show that swing-leg retraction can indeed improve the performance of running robots in all of the suggested areas. However, the results also show that, for moderate and high running speeds, the optimal retraction rate for maximal disturbance rejection and stability is different from the optimal retraction rate for minimal impact losses, peak forces, and foot slipping. This discrepancy indicates an inherent tradeoff to consider when selecting the retraction rate for a robot control system: in general, retraction rate can be optimized for better stability and disturbance rejection or for more favorable efficiency, impact forces, and footing stability, but not all simultaneously. Furthermore, this tradeoff becomes more severe as running speed increases.

[1]  Jonathan E. Clark,et al.  iSprawl: Design and Tuning for High-speed Autonomous Open-loop Running , 2006, Int. J. Robotics Res..

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

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

[4]  Christopher G. Atkeson,et al.  Swing leg retraction helps biped walking stability , 2005, 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2005..

[5]  Marc H. Raibert,et al.  Legged Robots That Balance , 1986, IEEE Expert.

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

[7]  T. McGeer,et al.  Passive bipedal running , 1990, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. Biological Sciences.

[8]  Martijn Wisse,et al.  Swing-Leg Retraction for Limit Cycle Walkers Improves Disturbance Rejection , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[9]  M. Daley,et al.  Two explanations for the compliant running paradox: reduced work of bouncing viscera and increased stability in uneven terrain , 2010, Biology Letters.

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

[11]  Daniel E. Koditschek,et al.  Characterization of monoped equilibrium gaits , 1997, Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[12]  Martijn Wisse,et al.  A Disturbance Rejection Measure for Limit Cycle Walkers: The Gait Sensitivity Norm , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.