Study and Choice of Actuation for a Walking Assist Device

Conference paper
Part of the Mechanisms and Machine Science book series (Mechan. Machine Science, volume 38)

Abstract

A walking assist device (WAD) with bodyweight support reduces energy expenditure of a walking person. However, it is also important that the location of actuators in the WAD will be optimally chosen. For this purpose a wearable assist device composed of a bodyweight support, legs and shoes articulated with hip (upper joint), knee (middle joint), and ankle (lower joint) is discussed. Since human walk involves large displacements only in sagittal plane, a planar model is considered. In order to evaluate the optimal distribution of input torques, a bipedal model of a seven-link system with several walking velocities is coupled with the mentioned WAD. To study the efficiency of the WAD and to choose an appropriate actuation, the torque cost is evaluated when the same walking pattern are tracked with and without a WAD. The paper deals with the torque cost for the human and the WAD with several types of actuation. It is shown that full actuation with six motors or partial actuation with two motors located at the upper joints are two more efficient solutions while an actuation at the middle joints or lower joints only is ineffective. The numerical simulations carried out for several walking velocities confirm the mentioned observations.

Keywords

Assist device Walking gait Optimization Torque costs Biped fully assisted Biped partially assisted 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation and by Région des Pays de la Loire, Project LMA and Gérontopôle Autonomie Longévité des Pays de la Loire.

References

  1. 1.
    Priebe JR, Kram R (2011) Why is walker-assisted gait metabolically expensive? Gait Posture 34:265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang X, Hashimoto M (2012) Synchronization-based trajectory generation method for a robotic suit using neural oscillators for hip joint support in walking. Mechatronics 22:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ikeuchi Y, Ashihara J, Hiki Y, Kudoh H, Noda T (2010) Walking assist device with bodyweight support system. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, St Louis, pp 4073–4079Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aoustin Y (2015) Walking gait of a biped with a wearable walking assist device. Int J HR 12(2):1550018-1–11550018-20Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vukobratovic M, Borovac B (2004) Zero-moment point-thirty five years of its life. Int J Hum Robot 1(1):157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaneko K, Kanehiro F, Kajita S, Hirukawa H, Kawasaki T, Hirata M, Akachi K, Isozumi T (2004) Humanoid robot hrp-2. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation ICRA, New-Orleans, Louisiana, pp 1083–1090Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuo AD, Donelan JM, Ruina A (2005) Energetic consequences of walking like an inverted pendulum: step-to-step transitions. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 33(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Englsberger J, Ott C, Roa MA, Albu-Shäffer A, Hirzinger G (2001) Bipedal walking control based on capture point dynamics. In: Proceedings of international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), San Francisco, pp 4420–4427Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pratt JE, Koolen T, de Boer T, Rebula JR, Cotton S, Carff J, Johnson M, Neuhaus PD (2012) Capturability-based analysis and control of legged locomotion, part 2: application to m2v2, a lower-body humanoid. Int J Robot Res 31(10):1117–1133Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Behnke S (2006) Online trajectory generation for omnidirectional biped walking. In: Proceedings of international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Orlando, pp 1597–1603Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graf C, Häryl A, Röfer T, Laue T (2009) A robust closed-loop gait for the standard platform league humanoid. In: Proceedings of workshop on humanoid soccer robots of the IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, Paris, France, pp 30–37Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Powell MJ, Heraeid A, Ames AD (2013) Speed regulate in 3d robotic walking through motion transitions between human-inspired partial hybrid zero dynamics. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Karlsruhe, Germany, pp 4803–4810Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tomic M, Vassallo C, Chevallereau C, Rodic A, Potkonjak V (2014) Arms motion of a humanoid inspired by human motion. In: Proceedings of international conference on medical and service robotics (MESROB 2014), Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Formalskii AM (1982) Locomotion of Anthropomorphic Mechanisms. Nauka, Moscow, Russia (in Russian)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khalil W, Dombre E (2002) Modeling, identification and control of robots. Butterworth HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beletskii VV, Chudinov PS (1977) Parametric optimization in the problem of bipedal locomotion. Izv. An SSSR. Mekhanika Tverdogo Tela [Mechanics of Solids], no 1, pp 25–35Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chevallereau C, Aoustin Y (2001) Optimal reference trajectories for walking and running of a biped. Robotica 19(5):557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.L’UNAM, Institut de Recherche en Communications et Cybernétique de Nantes, UMR 6597, CNRS, École Centrale de NantesUniversité de NantesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations