Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering

Front. Mech. Eng.    2020, Vol. 15 Issue (2) : 193-208
Sagittal SLIP-anchored task space control for a monopode robot traversing irregular terrain
Haitao YU(), Haibo GAO, Liang DING, Zongquan DENG
State Key Laboratory of Robotics and Systems, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
Download: PDF(2889 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

As a well-explored template that captures the essential dynamical behaviors of legged locomotion on sagittal plane, the spring-loaded inverted pendulum (SLIP) model has been extensively employed in both biomechanical study and robotics research. Aiming at fully leveraging the merits of the SLIP model to generate the adaptive trajectories of the center of mass (CoM) with maneuverability, this study presents a novel two-layered sagittal SLIP-anchored (SSA) task space control for a monopode robot to deal with terrain irregularity. This work begins with an analytical investigation of sagittal SLIP dynamics by deriving an approximate solution with satisfactory apex prediction accuracy, and a two-layered SSA task space controller is subsequently developed for the monopode robot. The higher layer employs an analytical approximate representation of the sagittal SLIP model to form a deadbeat controller, which generates an adaptive reference trajectory for the CoM. The lower layer enforces the monopode robot to reproduce a generated CoM movement by using a task space controller to transfer the reference CoM commands into joint torques of the multi-degree of freedom monopode robot. Consequently, an adaptive hopping behavior is exhibited by the robot when traversing irregular terrain. Simulation results have demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Keywords legged robots      spring-loaded inverted pendulum      task space control      apex return map      deadbeat control      irregular terrain negotiation     
Corresponding Authors: Haitao YU   
Just Accepted Date: 11 February 2020   Online First Date: 09 March 2020    Issue Date: 25 May 2020
 Cite this article:   
Haitao YU,Haibo GAO,Liang DING, et al. Sagittal SLIP-anchored task space control for a monopode robot traversing irregular terrain[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2020, 15(2): 193-208.
Fig.1  Schematic of the sagittal SLIP-anchored task space control architecture. SLIP: Spring-loaded inverted pendulum.
Fig.2  Illustration of the sagittal SLIP model. (a) Coordinates and variable definitions; (b) entire gait cycle, including flight and stance sub-phase.
Fig.3  Composition of ARM, including the three sub-maps of Pfd, Pst, and Pfu.
Fig.4  Schematic of the variable stiffness policy with piecewise constant profile for the compression and decompression phases. (a) Division of the stance phase, with the instant stiffness variation at the bottom defined as the maximum leg compression; (b) variable stiffness spring with piecewise-constant leg stiffness.
Algorithm: Determination of the touchdown angle and the leg stiffness in solving problem Eq. (7)
The initial apex state S0
The target apex state Sd
The initial leg stiffness ks
The touchdown angle αTD
The leg stiffness kc and kd
1. Initialize the current leg stiffness kcks
2. Compute the energy variation ΔEby using Eq. (9)
3. for αTD = π/4 to π/2 do
4. Compute the approximation of the leg length at BM r˜BM
5. kdkc +2ΔE/ (r r˜BM)2
6. Compute sub-maps Pfd, P˜st, Pfu
7. Compute the A2RM P ˜ P fdP˜stPfu
8. Compute the predicted apex state S˜ n+1 P˜(S0, (αTD ,kc, kd) T)
9. αTD=arg min Sd P˜(S0 ,( αTD,k c,kd)T)
10. end for
11. redo Steps 3 and 4
12. return αTD, kc, and kd
13 Update the leg stiffness for the coming compression sub-phase with kskd
14. end algorithm
Fig.5  Hopping with constant absolute altitude when traversing irregular terrains in the SLIP model. Colored curves represent CoM trajectories of different terrain irregularities. y0 and yd represents the initial and target hopping height, respectively.
Fig.6  Rigid model of the monopode robot. (a) Leg configuration and relevant parameters; (b) entire hopping gait cycle with sub-phase division. AoT αTD and virtual equivalent leg req are the corresponding parameters used in the SLIP model.
Fig.7  FSM for monopode robot hopping.
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Upper body mass mb 12 kg
Shank mass m1 3.5 kg
Thigh mass m2 3.5 kg
Shank inertia J1 0.08 kg·m2
Thigh inertia J2 0.08 kg·m2
Shank length l1 0.5 m
Thigh length l2 0.5 m
Shank CoM length lC1 0.25 m
Thigh CoM length lC2 0.25 m
Tab.2  Model parameters of the monopode robot in the simulation
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Total mass ms 19 kg
Leg length r0 0.8 m
Leg stiffness ks 3200 N/m
Tab.3  Model parameters of the sagittal SLIP model in the simulation
Fig.8  Snapshots of the CoM trajectory of the monopode robot to represent periodic hopping on a flat surface.
Fig.9  Simulation results of selected variables for the monopode robot on constant apex height tracking. (a) Evolution of joint angles q1 and q2; (b) apex height ya and AoT αTD from stride to stride.
Fig.10  Snapshots of the CoM trajectory of the monopode robot executing target apex tracking on a flat surface.
Fig.11  Simulation results of selected variables of the monopode robot on variable apex state tracking. (a) Evolution of joint angles q1 and q2; (b) apex height and velocity from stride to stride.
Fig.12  Snapshots of the CoM trajectory of the monopode robot traversing an irregular terrain.
Fig.13  Simulated horizontal velocity and vertical height of CoM of the monopode robot.
Fig.14  Phase portrait of joint angles q1 and q2 of the robot traversing an irregular terrain. Arrows represent the evolution of the selected variables over time.
Comparison items Traditional SLIP controller [10] Proposed deadbeat controller
System representation Nonlinear differential equations Analytical approximations
Control input AoT AoT and leg stiffness
Control policy Fixed AoT Adjustable AoT and leg stiffness
Steering duration Only flight phase Both flight and stance phase
System energy Conservation Adding/removing energy
Steerable apex state Height or velocity height and velocity (independent)
Period of apex steering Asymptotically Only within a one-gait cycle
Terrain adaptability Flat ground Flat and uneven ground
Practical implementation Fourth-order Runge–Kutta solver Direct coding
Tab.4  General feature comparison between the traditional SLIP controller and the proposed controller
Fig.15  Comparative simulation results of the monopode robot equipped with the traditional and proposed controllers. Shaded areas represent convergence duration for each case.
Fig.16  ARM of the SLIP model equipped with traditional fixed AoT policy. Shaded areas represent the unfeasible region in which stumbling occurs with insufficient initial releasing height ya(i)<r0sinαTD. Stable and unstable fixed points are colored green and red, respectively. The partial view shows the convergence process after initial release at AoT αTD = 64°.
1 R Blickhan, R J Full. Similarity in multilegged locomotion: Bouncing like a monopde. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 1993, 173: 509–517
2 C Hubicki, J Grimes, M Jones, et al. ATRIAS: Design and validation of a tether-free 3D-capable spring-mass bipedal robot. International Journal of Robotics Research, 2016, 35(12): 1497–1521
3 K Sreenath, H Park, I Poulakakis, et al. A compliant hybrid zero dynamics controller for stable, efficient and fast bipedal walking on MABEL. International Journal of Robotics Research, 2011, 30(9): 1170–1193
4 D W Haldane, J K Yim, R S Fearing. Repetitive extreme-acceleration (14-g) spatial jumping with Salto-1P. In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Vancouver: IEEE, 2017, 3345–3351
5 S Seok, A Wang, D Otten, et al. Actuator design for high force proprioceptive control in fast legged locomotion. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Vilamoura: IEEE, 2012, 1970–1975
6 C Farley, J Glasheen, T McMahon. Running springs: Speed and animal size. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1993, 185: 71–86
7 R Blickhan. The spring-mass model for running and hopping. Journal of Biomechanics, 1989, 22(11–12): 1217–1227
8 W J Schwind, D E Koditschek. Approximating the stance map of a 2-DOF monoped runner. Journal of Nonlinear Science, 2000, 10(5): 533–568
9 R M Ghigliazza, R Altendorfer, P Holmes, et al. A simply stabilized running model. SIAM Review, 2005, 47(3): 519–549
10 H Geyer, A Seyfarth, R Blickhan. Spring-mass running: Simple approximate solution and application to gait stability. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2005, 232(3): 315–328
11 Ö Arslan, U Saranli, Ö Morgül. Approximate stance map of the spring mass hopper with gravity correction for nonsymmetric locomotions. In: Proceedings of 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Kobe: IEEE, 2009, 2388–2393
12 M Shahbazi, R Babuška, G A D Lopes. Unified modeling and control of walking and running on the spring-loaded inverted pendulum. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2016, 32(5): 1178–1195
13 H Yu, M Li, P Wang, et al. Approximate perturbation stance map of the slip runner and application to locomotion control. Journal of Bionics Engineering, 2012, 9(4): 411–422
14 M Hutter, C D Remy, A Höpflinger, et al. SLIP running with an articulated robotic leg. In: Proceedings of 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Taipei: IEEE, 2010, 4934–4939
15 G Piovan, K Byl. Approximation and control of the SLIP model dynamics via partial feedback linearization and two-element leg actuation strategy. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2016, 32(2): 399–412
16 A Seyfarth, H Geyer, H Herr. Swing-leg retraction: A simple control model for stable running. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2003, 206(15): 2547–2555
17 J G D Karseen, M Haberland, M Wisse, et al. The optimal swing-leg retraction rate for running. In: Proceedings of 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Shanghai: IEEE, 2011, 4000–4006
18 J Yu, D Hong, M Haberland. Energetic efficiency of a compositional controller on a monoped with an articulated leg and SLIP dynamics. In: Proceedings of 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Madrid: IEEE, 2018, 2221–2228
19 M Rustchmann, B Satzinger, M Byl, et al. Nonlinear model predictive control for rough-terrain robot hopping. In: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Vilamoura: IEEE, 2012, 1859–1864
20 O C Garofalo, A Albu-Schäffer. Walking control of fully actuated robots based on the Bipedal SLIP model. In: Proceedings of 2012 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Saint Paul: IEEE, 2012, 1456–1463
21 P M Wensing, D E Orin. High-speed humanoid running through control with a 3D-SLIP model. In: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Tokyo: IEEE, 2013, 5134–5140
22 P M Wensing, D E Orin. 3D-SLIP steering for high-speed humanoid turns. In: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Chicago: IEEE, 2014, 4008–4013
23 M Ernst, H Geyer, R Blickhan. Extension and customization of self-stability control in compliant legged systems. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 2012, 7(4): 046002
24 O Khatib. A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation. IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation, 1987, 3(1): 43–53
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Kejia LI, Xilun DING, Marco CECCARELL. A total torque index for dynamic performance evaluation of a radial symmetric six-legged robot[J]. Front Mech Eng, 2012, 7(2): 219-230.
Full text



  Shared   0