Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:59:00.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Single-support heel-off: a crucial gait event helps realizing agile and energy-efficient bipedal walking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2014

Mansoor Alghooneh  and
Christine Q. Wu
Mansoor Alghooneh*
Affiliation:
Nonlinear Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. E-mail: umalghoo@cc.umanitoba.ca
Christine Q. Wu
Affiliation:
Nonlinear Systems Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. E-mail: cwu@cc.umanitoba.ca
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: alghooneh@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Single-support heel-off occurs when the heel of the trailing leg has been lifted from the ground around its toe, while the leading leg is still swinging forward. A similar gait event occurs during human walking, and is crucial to achieve a longer step length and a higher walking speed. In this paper, this crucial gait event is studied, specifically in how it influences the agility and the energy efficiency of bipedal walking. Toward this goal, the concept of limit-cycle bipedal walking which possesses natural and energy-efficient gaits is employed. The aforementioned concept is applied to a flat-foot bipedal model which is developed and actuated by a constant hip torque only during the single-support phase to walk on the ground. The impedance of each ankle is adjusted by using two springs, one at the back-side and the other at the front-side, as well as one damper. In comparison with point/round foot bipedal models, the flat-foot bipedal model produces more versatile limit-cycle gaits comprised of a number of gait series, each of which is a sequence detected among twelve gait postures dictated by the kinetics of the unilateral constraints at the heel, toe, or both. As a result of comprehensive simulations, it is concluded that single-support heel-off significantly improves the agility of bipedal walking because of the increase in the step length and the walking speed. Furthermore, even though limit-cycle gaits including single-support heel-off require higher energy input as compared with gaits excluding such an event, single-support heel-off significantly improves the energy efficiency of bipedal walking since the increase in the step length dominates the increase in the energy input.

Keywords

Single-support heel-offLimit-cycle walking gaitsAgilityEnergy efficiencyBipedal walking
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , June 2016 , pp. 1335 - 1350
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Hobbelen, D. and Wisse, M., “Ankle actuation for limit cycle walkers,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 27 (6), 709–735 (2008).Google Scholar
2.Huang, Y., Wang, L., Chen, B., Xie, G. and Wang, L., “Modeling and gait selection of passivity-based seven-link bipeds with dynamic series of walking phases,” Robotica 30 39–51 (2012).Google Scholar
3.McGeer, T., “Passive dynamic walking,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 9 68–82 (1990).Google Scholar
4.Garcia, M., Chatterjee, A., Ruina, A. and Coleman, M., “The simplest walking model: stability, complexity, and scaling,” J. Biomed. Eng. 120 (2), 281–288 (1998).Google Scholar
5.Wisse, M., Schwab, A. L. and van der Helm, F., “Passive dynamic walking model with upper body,” Robotica 22 (6), 681–688 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Whittington, B. R. and Thelen, D. G., “A simple mass-spring model with roller feet can induce the ground reactions observed in human walking,” J. Biomed. Eng. 131 (1) (2010).Google Scholar
7.Kuo, A. D., “Energetics of actively powered locomotion using the simplest walking model,” J. Biomed. Eng. 124 (1), 113–120 (2002).Google Scholar
8.Koop, D. and Wu, C. Q., “Passive dynamic biped walking-part I: development and validation of an advanced model,” J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 8 (4) (2013).Google Scholar
9.Vukobratovic, M. and Borovac, B., “Zero-moment point, thirty five years of its life,” Int. J. Humanoid Robot. 1 (1), 147–173 (2004).Google Scholar
10.Hirai, K., Hirose, M., Haikawa, Y. and Takenaka, T., “The development of the honda humanoid robot,” Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. 1321–1326 (1998).Google Scholar
11.Vermeulen, J., Verrelst, B., Vanderborght, B., Lefeber, D. and Guillaume, P., “Trajectory planning for the walking biped “lucy”,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 25 (9), 867–887 (2006).Google Scholar
12.Alghooneh, M. and Wu, Q., “A systematic gait-planning framework negotiating biomechanically motivated characteristics of a planar bipedal robot,” Int. J. Humanoid Robot. 09 (04), 1250031 (2012).Google Scholar
13.Sun, Y., Alghooneh, M., Sun, Y.-H. and Qiong Wu, C., “Balancing control is important for biped standing,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 136 (5) (2014).Google Scholar
14.Wisse, M. and van Frankenhuyzen, J., “Design and Construction of Mike; a 2d Autonomous Biped Based on Passive Dynamic Walking,” Conference Adaptive Motion of Animals and Machines (2003).Google Scholar
15.Collins, S. and Ruina, A., “A Bipedal Walking Robot with Efficient and Human-Like Gait,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2005) pp. 1983–1988.Google Scholar
16.Wisse, M. and Schwab, A. L., “First steps in passive dynamic walking,” (2005).Google Scholar
17.Hobbelen, D., de Boer, T. and Wisse, M., “System Overview of Bipedal Robots Flame and Tulip: Tailor-Made for Limit Cycle Walking,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2008) pp. 2486–2491.Google Scholar
18.Hashimoto, S., Narita, S., Kasahara, H., Shirai, H. and Kobayashi, T., “Humanoid robots in waseda university hadaly-2 and wabian,” Auton. Robots 12 (1), 25–38 (2002).Google Scholar
19.Wang, Q., Haikawa, Y. and Wang, L., “Passive dynamic walking with flat feet and ankle compliance,” Robotica 28 413–425 (2010).Google Scholar
20.Huang, Y., Vanderborght, B., Van Ham, R., Wang, Q., Van Damme, M., Xie, G. and Lefeber, D., “Step length and velocity control of a dynamic bipedal walking robot with adaptable compliant joints,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 1–14 (2012).Google Scholar
21.Schmitt, J., “A simple stabilizing control for sagittal plane locomotion,” J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 1 (4) (2005).Google Scholar
22.Millard, M., McPhee, J. and Kubica, E., “Foot placement and balance in 3d,” J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 7 (2) (2012).Google Scholar
23.Greenwood, D. T., Advanced Dynamics (Cambridge University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
24.Mu, X. and Wu, C. Q., “On impact dynamics and contact events for biped robots via impact effects,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 36 (6), 1364–1372 (2006).Google Scholar
25.Mu, X. and Wu, C. Q., “On post-impact angular velocities and resultant impulses with rank-deficient jacobian matrices using newton impact law,” Int. J. Appl. Mech. 2 (3) (2010).Google Scholar
26.Kumar Saha, S. and Angeles, J., “Dynamics of nonholonomic mechanical systems using a natural orthogonal complement,” Trans. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 58 (1), 238–243 (1991).Google Scholar
27.Hobbelen, D. and Wisse, M., “Controlling the walking speed in limit cycle walking,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 27 (9), 989–1005 (2008).Google Scholar
28.Wisse, M., Schwab, A. L., van der Linde, R. Q. and van der Helm, F. C. T., “How to keep from falling forward: elementary swing leg action for passive dynamic walkers,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 21 (3), 393–401 (2005).Google Scholar
29.Ghorbani, R. and Wu, Q., “Adjustable stiffness artificial tendons: conceptual design and energetics study in bipedal walking robots,” Mech. Mach. Theory 44 (1), 140–161 (2009).Google Scholar
30.Jafari, A., Tsagarakis, N. and Caldwell, D., “A novel intrinsically energy efficient actuator with adjustable stiffness (awas),” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 18 355–365 (2013).Google Scholar