Mit Cheetah Actuator PDF
Mit Cheetah Actuator PDF
Mit Cheetah Actuator PDF
2640183
Proprioceptive Actuator Design in the MIT Cheetah: Impact Mitigation and High-Bandwidth
Physical Interaction for Dynamic Legged Robots
Patrick M. Wensing1 , Albert Wang1 , Sangok Seok2 , David Otten3 , Jeffrey Lang3 , and Sangbae Kim1
Geared*Motor*with*
Abstract—Designing an actuator system for highly-dynamic Geared
Geared
Geared MotorMotor
Motor with with Torque(Force)
Force/Torque*Sensor*
withTorque(Force)
Torque(Force) Series*Elas(c*Actuator*
SeriesSeries
Series ElasticElastic Actuator
Actuator
legged robots has been one of the grand challenges in robotics Sensor
Sensor
Sensor
Elastic Actuator
research. Conventional actuators for manufacturing applications High Gear Ratio High Gear Ratio
High
HighGear
GearRatio
Ratio High
HighGear
GearRatio
Ratio Spring,Spring,
Spring,
have difficulty satisfying design requirements for high-speed Transmission
Transmission Stiff Stiff
Transmission Stiff TransmissionEncoder
Transmission
Transmission EncoderEncoder
locomotion, such as the need for high torque density and the SensorSensor
Sensor
Leg
Leg Leg Leg
Leg Leg
ability to manage dynamic physical interactions. To address motor
motor motor motor motor
motor
this challenge, this paper suggests a proprioceptive actuation
paradigm which enables highly-dynamic performance in legged
machines. Proprioceptive actuation uses collocated force control
at the joints to effectively control contact interactions at the (a)(a)%%(a)
(a) High torque (b) (b)
(b)(b)%%
High
Hightorque
torque
feet under dynamic conditions. Modal analysis of a reduced density density
motor motor
densitymotor
leg model and dimensional analysis of DC motors address the
main principles for implementation of this paradigm. In the
realm of legged machines, this paradigm provides a unique Propriocep(ve**
Proprioceptive
Proprioceptive
Proprioceptive
combination of high torque density, high-bandwidth force control, actuator
Actuator*
actuator
actuator Low Lowleg
Lowinertia
inertia inertia
leg leg
can otherwise be detrimental in high-speed collisions without Letting s be the Laplace variable, the Laplace transform
sufficient compliance. of the ground reaction force F(s) is related to the Laplace
The series elastic actuation (SEA) paradigm [20], [21], transform of the torque T (s) and initial conditions through:
[22] has been employed in legged machines to reduce ini- ⇥ ⇤
F(s) = C(s2 H + K) 1 ST T (s) g/s + H(sq0 + q̇0 )
tial rigid-body impacts by purposefully adding mechanical
(5)
elasticity in series with an actuator. More recently, numerous
To analyze properties of the GRF, drop-test conditions are
designs have been presented for variable stiffness actuators
assumed. The leg is assumed stationary with respect to
(VSAs) to mitigate impacts. Stiffness modulation in VSAs
the body at an impact with initial velocity ẏb,0 . As such,
has been achieved through a variety of mechanisms. Designs T
may strategically load nonlinear springs [23] to modulate q0 = [0, 0] , and q̇0 = [ẏb,0 , 0] . The Laplace transform of
stiffness or may use linear springs by stretching them in the ground reaction force F(s) can then be found through
a nonlinear way [24]. Vanderborght et al. [25] provide a algebraic expansion of (5):
thorough review and classification of the many ways to provide rki mb
F(s) = T (s)+
and modulate stiffness in VSAs. Other SEA designs, such d(s)
as in the quadruped StarlETH, have demonstrated successful ki (mb m` r2 + Imb + Im` ) ⇣ g⌘
execution of controlled variable leg impedance using fixed ẏb,0 + (6)
d(s) s
stiffness joint SEAs [26]. While SEAs offer a great potential
where
actuator solution for legged robots, their force bandwidth can
suffer in comparison to designs without added compliance. d(s) = (mb I + m` I + r2 mb m` ) s2 + ki (mb r2 + I) . (7)
The next section will quantify this effect in a simple leg model.
This
p second-order system has a single natural frequency !n =
ki /me where me is the effective mass felt by the spring
III. P ROPRIOCEPTIVE F ORCE C ONTROL ACTUATION
A. Impact force analysis in a simplified leg model mb I + m` I + r2 mb m`
me = . (8)
mb r 2 + I
This section studies how the design parameters of an
actuation system affect its impact dynamics and force control. It is interesting to note that the reflected actuator inertia
A simple model, shown in Fig. 2, was developed to capture directly modulates the effective mass
essential design parameters for a legged system. The model lim me = m` , and lim me = m` + mb , (9)
consists of a body mass mb at height yb . Forces delivered to I!0 I!1
the mass are modulated by an actuated rack and pinion. A where any increase in I leads to an increase in me
pinion of radius r is driven by an ideal actuator with output dme r2 m2b
torque ⌧ . An inertia I represents the total rotational inertia of = > 0. (10)
dI (mb r2 + I)2
the actuator including gear transmission. The rack, with mass
m` , abstracts the entire leg and interfaces with the ground Further, letting
through a Hookean spring with stiffness ki . This stiffness @y` @y`
J := = [1, r] (11)
represents a lumped stiffness of the ground, foot covering, and @yb @✓
Bandwidth (Hz) Max. Impact Force (N) !1
10 3
10 4
4
10 4
104 !2 q
10 Ir 2 mb m`
!n !
˜2 = ks/
r 2 mb m` +I(m` +mb )
2 2
!
~1
10 10
103:5 !
~2
103:5
Frequency (Hz)
2
10
0 0
10 10 3
q
Inertia (kg"m2 )
Inertia (kg"m2 )
10
103 Ir 2 mb
!
˜1 = ks/
I+r 2 mb
-2 -2 2:5
10 10 10 10 1
102:5
10 -4 10 -4 102
102
10 0 1 2 3 4 5
10 -6 10 -6 101:5 10 10 10 10 10
101:5 Series Spring Constant ks (Nm/rad)
10 -8
10 -4 10 -2 10 0 10 2
10 -8
10 -4 10 -2 10 0 10 2
Fig. 4. Influence of series spring stiffness ks on the natural frequencies
Leg Mass (kg) Leg Mass (kg) of the system, !1 and !2 . The mechanical bandwidth, as determined by the
lowest natural frequency, increases with ks . Parameters r = 0.1 m, I =
Fig. 3. Influence of leg mass m` and actuator inertia I on open-loop force 0.010 kg · m2 , ki = 106 N/m, m` = 3 kg, and mb = 32 kg, roughly match
control bandwidth !n and maximum impact force assuming an initial velocity that of the MIT Cheetah running on rigid ground with a 3 mm rubber footpad.
of ẏb,0 = 1 m/s. Parameters ki = 106 N/m, r = 0.1 m, and mb = 32 kg
were used to roughly match the MIT Cheetah on rigid ground with a 3 mm
rubber footpad.
The system kinetic T and potential V energies take the form:
1 1 2 1
T = mb ẏb2 + I ✓˙m + m` ẏ`2 , and (14)
2 2 2
as the Jacobian for leg mass, straightforward algebra verifies 1 1
V = g mb yb + g m` yl + ki y`2 + ks (✓m ✓)2 . (15)
2 2
1 T 1
me = JH J . (12) A Lagrangian development can be followed to derive the
dynamics, again resulting in a linear system (1).
Thus, me is precisely a task-space (operational-space) inertia Following this development, the ground reaction force for
[27] measured at the foot prior to the interface spring. With this the extended system again matches (5). The torque-to-force
connection, Section III-B generalizes the analysis to higher- transfer function H⌧ (s) satisfies
DoF articulated mechanisms. ks rki mb
H⌧ (s) = C(s2 H + K) 1 T
S = (16)
Returning to the system (6) and examining the impact force ↵s4 + s2 +
in more detail, we assume ⌧ = 0 in order to isolate the passive
where
mechanical properties of the mechanism. The inverse Laplace
transform of (6) then provides ↵ = Ir2 mb m` , (17)
p = ks (Imb + Im` + r2 mb m` ) + Ir2 ki mb , and (18)
f (t) = ẏb,0 ki me sin(!n t) + me g(1 cos(!n t)) . (13) = ks ki (mb r2 + I) . (19)
Letting j represent the imaginary variable, the four poles s =
Figure 3 shows the dependency of the maximum impact force
±j !1,2 of (16) provide the two natural frequencies of this
and mechanical bandwidth !n on the leg design parameters I
system as s
and m` . Due to the dependence of impact force and bandwidth p
⌥ 2 4↵
on me , a combination of low leg mass and low actuator inertia !1,2 = . (20)
simultaneously maximizes open-loop force control bandwidth 2↵
and minimizes impact force magnitudes. For high leg mass, the Graphs of these two frequencies are shown in Fig. 4. As
actuator inertia has comparatively less effect on these metrics. intuition may suggest, !1 ! !n as ks ! 1, where !n is
This analysis was extended to the case of including series the natural frequency for the previous prototype with rigid
compliance into the pinion actuation, as shown in Fig. 2(b). transmission. At low transmission stiffnesses ks , the interface
The addition of compliance helps to soften impact, but is spring ki and leg mass m` do not affect the mechanical
known to have a detrimental effect on closed-loop force bandwidth q
control bandwidth. In terms of design, the requirements of ! Ir 2 mb
˜ 1 := ks/ I+r 2m ⇡ !1 (21)
a closed-loop controller to fight the natural dynamics of b
the system in high-frequency regimes can be minimized by At high stiffnesses ks , a similar, yet less physically meaningful
designing to maximize the open-loop mechanical bandwidth result holds for !2
q
of the mechanism. For this extended model, we approximate Ir 2 mb m`
!
˜ 2 := ks/ r2 m m ⇡ !2 . (22)
its mechanical bandwidth with its lowest natural frequency. +I(m +m ) b ` ` b
In this extended case, the system dynamics can again be Although it is possible to achieve a closed-loop force control
placed in the form of (1). A series spring of stiffness ks is bandwidth beyond the lowest natural frequency of the system,
modeled between a motor angle ✓m and a spring output angle this process is sensitive to model-based information and re-
✓. The extended system thus has configuration q = [yb , ✓, ✓m ]. quires additional actuation effort to fight the natural dynamics
of the system. This is further complicated in applications of such a comparison. The new development in Section III-B2
non-collocated force control which must compensate for the illuminates the effects of actuator design on previous impact
detailed dynamics of potentially many transmission elements analyses, while Section III-B3 formulates the new IMF metric
between the sensor and the actuator. to quantify inertial backdrivability across different robots.
Thus, we argue that the open-loop mechanical bandwidth 1) Rigid-Body Impact Dynamics: Given a floating-body
of a mechanism ultimately limits the practical closed-loop system, with base coordinates qb 2 R6 and internal (joint)
bandwidth. Indeed, with the numbers used in the figure above coordinates qj 2 Rn its dynamics can be compactly described
!n = 79.7 Hz, a value similar to that reported with our frame- through
work in Section V. The addition of a stiffness ks = 70 Nm/rad,
similar to that in StarlETH [26], provides !1 = 13.5 Hz, Hbb Hbj q̈b
+ h(q, q̇) = ST ⌧ + JT f (23)
similar to the 9 Hz closed-loop bandwidth reported in their Hjb Hjj q̈j
LQR-based SEA torque control.
Through this analysis, it follows that to minimize impact where q = [qb , qj ]T 2 Rn+6 , h(q, q̇) 2 Rn+6 includes the
forces and maximize mechanical bandwidth, a design should Coriolis, gravity, and spring-dependent terms, J 2 Rm⇥(n+6)
be sought with minimal reflected actuator inertia, minimal leg is a contact Jacobian, and f 2 Rm represents the contact force.
mass, and minimal actuator compliance. Reflected inertia in For point-foot contacts considered here, m = 3. In a case of
particular has been shown to play an important role in the series compliance at the joints, qj may include both joint and
effective mass that governs collisional dynamics. The next motor angles. In contrast to the previous section, we do not
section will address how to generalize and quantify these model any ground compliance, and assume that impact can be
effects in more complete leg models. considered as an impulsive event. As a result, the analysis is
idealized in comparison to that in the previous section.
Given a state q, q̇ just before a foot impact, the system hits
B. The Impact Mitigation Factor (IMF) the ground with a velocity v = J q̇ and experiences a contact
In more complex mechanisms, factors such as actuator impulse ⇢ 2 R3 as given by [29]:
placement and the structure of the leg articulation ultimately
⇢= ⇤v . (24)
determine how reflected actuator inertias affect the back-
drivability of the robot. While backdrivability includes both ⇤ 2 R3⇥3 is the operational-space inertia matrix (OSIM) [27],
velocity-dependent and inertia-dependent effects [2], inertia- [30], [31] of the system felt at the contact and is given by
dependent effects are much more difficult to shape through
1
closed-loop impedance control [16], [28]. Thus, these passive ⇤= JH 1
JT . (25)
inertial effects are purely dependent on the inherent design
characteristics of the robot. Of these inherent characteristics, 2) Actuator Effects on the OSIM: It is important to note
reflected actuator inertias play an important role. They directly how the reflected inertias of EM actuators affect the OSIM.
determine the degree to which the body inertia contributes to Generally, the mass matrix H, as partitioned in (23), provides
impacts, as observed in the simple leg model in (9). As a a kinetic energy metric
result, the highest loads felt in the legs, gearboxes, and other
1 T
transmission components are governed, in large part, by design T = q̇ H q̇ (26)
decisions centered on reflected actuator inertia. 2
Previous work has addressed the role of the effective contact where T includes the kinetic energy of rigid-body links as well
inertia in modeling impact events [29], which is used in as rotor inertias and gears of EM actuators. Thus, the mass
Section III-B1. This previous work modeled the values of matrix can always be partitioned into a matrix that accounts
impact impulses under specific impact conditions, which may for the kinetic energy of all rigid-body links Hrb and a matrix
be of use in comparing designs for a specific robot. For un- Hmot that accounts for the kinetic energy of the moving parts
structured environments where impact conditions may not be within link-mounted actuators (rotors, gears, etc.)
known, however, maximizing overall inertial backdrivability is
imperative to mitigate impact forces. H = Hrb + Hmot . (27)
With these impact-related motivations, this section quanti- Hmot is often approximated as [32]
fies how effectively the free dynamics of the mechanism are
at reducing impact impulses in a floating-body robot. To em- Hmot = diag(01⇥6 , I1 , . . . , In ) (28)
phasize the importance of actuator design on impact dynamics,
impulse reduction is evaluated through comparison to a design where Ii represents the reflected rotational inertia on DoF
with worst-case reflected inertia, one where all joints are i and scales as the square of its associated gear ratio. This
rigidly locked. Through this approach, a new metric, called the approximation is only valid for actuators with large gear ratios,
impact mitigation factor (IMF), is introduced to quantify the where the only significant kinetic energy of the motor elements
normalized inertial backdrivability of the mechanism. Despite is from rotational kinetic energy along their rotational axes.
the importance of backdrivability to physical interaction, there Regardless of this approximation, it can be seen from
are not yet meaningful metrics to compare backdrivability ⇣ ⌘ 1
1
across machines and to include EM actuator properties in ⇤ = J (Hrb + Hmot ) JT (29)
that any increase to the actuator inertia Hmot (in a positive impacts. Given a direction x, we define the directional IMF
semidefinite sense) necessarily gives rise to an increase in (DIMF) ⇠x as
1 T
contact inertia ⇤, generalizing the simplified result in (10). x ⇤x
⇠x = 1 12 T (36)
In the worst-case scenario, if reflected inertias become 2 x ⇤L x
arbitrarily large on each joint, the system will roughly behave
as if all the joints are locked. This worst-case design can where ⇠x similarly inherits the property that 0 ⇠x 1
be used as a benchmark to evaluate the effects of reflected from the fact that ⇤L ⇤. This DIMF has a clear physical
inertias in designs with the joints free to move. Partitioning interpretation as well. The kinetic energy lost due to an impact
the Jacobian as with velocity v is
⇥ ⇤ 1
J = Jb Jj , (30) T = v⇤v . (37)
2
an impact velocity v would give rise to a contact impulse in Thus, ⇠x quantifies the percent decrease in energetic losses
a locked system ⇢L as afforded through the free dynamics of the mechanism when
impacting in direction x.
1
⇢L = Jb Hbb1 JTb v. (31) 4) Series Elasticity and the IMF: When compliance is
added to a stiff transmission model, portions of the actuator
With this insight, we define a locked contact inertia ⇤L as
inertia are no longer inertially coupled to the foot. This inertial
⇤L = Jb Hbb1 JTb
1
. (32) decoupling affects ⇤ and the associated impact impulse. The
compliance, roughly, redistributes some of the impact impulse
Intuitively, the apparent inertia of the system with joints locked to a window of time following impact. Changes in the values
should be greater that the inertia felt with the joints free to of the stiffness modify how spread out the forces become, but
rotate. This can be shown more formally, that ⇤L ⇤ in a do not change the initial impulse, which is governed by inertial
positive semidefinite sense. Proof is given in the appendix. It properties alone. In this sense, adding compliance to a rigid
is important to note that ⇤L is invariant with changes in gear transmission model will affect the IMF, while changes to the
ratio (assuming negligible change in overall mass). values of stiffness will not. Considering non-impulsive impact
events over a finite window of time, which should always be
3) Impact Mitigation: Development and Metric: Given an the case for collisions in reality, represents an important area
impulse that is experienced in the locked system, it is natural for future extension of the IMF. Further details on the IMF for
to consider: How effectively are the free dynamics of the a system with SEAs are provided in comparison to the design
mechanism at mitigating this impulse? That is, assuming the of the MIT Cheetah leg in Section V.
same impact velocity, how would the impact in the free system
compare to its non-backdrivable equivalent? Given the locked
impulse ⇢L , equal impact velocities v are achieved when the C. Geometric considerations for electromagnetic motors
free system experiences an impulse From the analysis of the previous section, we seek to deter-
mine principles for actuator selection that minimize actuator
⇢ = ⇤⇤L 1 ⇢L (33) inertia while providing the high torques necessary for high-
Roughly, the term ⇤⇤L 1 characterizes how much inertia is speed locomotion. Many design parameters of EM actuators
felt at impact in comparison to the overall (locked) system contribute to overall performance. However, we consider gap
inertia. The reduction in impulse is then given by radius to be a critical parameter for the purposes of maximiz-
ing torque density and providing transmission transparency.
⇢L ⇢= I ⇤⇤L 1 ⇢L . (34) The gap radius of an EM actuator is the radius of the magnetic
| {z } interface between the rotor and the stator. While gap radius
:=⌅
is one of many possible condensed indicators of performance
where ⌅ is introduced as an Impact Mitigation Matrix (IMM), [33], it is directly related to torque density and torque per total
and its determinant inertia. Torque per total inertia, in turn, is directly related to
⇠ := det(⌅) (35) the available bandwidth of the actuator.
Ignoring edge effects, the axial length of the motor does not
as the Impact Mitigation Factor (IMF). This new factor has affect torque density and torque per inertia because increasing
interesting properties that pertain to backdrivability. It is shown axial length is equivalent to adding identical motors on the
in the appendix that 0 ⇠ 1. An IMF ⇠ = 1 corresponds to same axle. In Figure 5, Emoteq HT series motor characteristics
a system with perfect inertial backdrivability that eliminates all are plotted against gap radius. Motors of the same gap radius
impact, whereas ⇠ ! 0 as ⇤ ! ⇤L . Due to the normalization and various lengths have overlapping values of torque density
provided from the locked case (with roughly infinite reflected and torque per inertia, whereas gap radius directly affects those
actuator inertia), the IMF is a nondimensional quantity which characteristics. For extreme geometries beyond these designs,
enables comparison across machines of different scale. edge effects degrade the metrics as length decreases.
Further, one may be interested in the capability of a design 1) Effects of Geometry on Motor Performance Metrics:
to mitigate impact in a particular direction, for instance in To understand the main effects of motor geometry on torque
the case of a hopping robot subject to predominantly vertical density and torque per inertia, we consider a class of designs
10 6 Stator l Assumptions:
tr , ts , M = constant
4 Rotor rg
10
2
10
rg : gap radius
0 l: motor length ts
10 range of motor geometries
tr : rotor thickness
ts : stator thickness tr
-2
10 M: mass
10 -4 = =J / rg !1:6
Fig. 6. Motor performance tradeoffs are considered for a constant mass bud-
-6
= =M / rg 0:8 get under assumptions of constant rotor/stator thickness and electromagnetic
10 Kt2 =R / rg 4:1 similarity.
10 0.5 10 1 10 1.5 10 2
Gap Radius rg (mm) of wires in the cross section n / rg . Thus, the relationship
becomes
Fig. 5. Motor performance metrics ⌧ /J, ⌧ /M , and Kt2 /R extracted from ⌧2
Emoteq frameless HT series motors.
/ rg3 l . (41)
I 2R
2) Comparison to Catalog Data: Figure 5 shows values
for these metrics across data collected from Emoteq HT
under the following simplifying conditions. First, the radial series motors. The max continuous torque as reported on data
thickness of the rotor and stator are assumed fixed. Second, the sheets was used to approximate conditions of electromagnetic
cylindrical geometries of the rotor and stator are approximated similarity. Within this dataset, the torque density was found
to first order as thin walls. As a result, the actuator mass proportional to rg0.8 ; torque per rotor inertia proportional to
is given by M = 2⇡rg l(ts ⇢s + tr ⇢r ) and rotor inertia by rg 1.6 ; and torque production efficiency proportional to rg4.1 .
J = 2⇡ltr ⇢r rg3 , where rg is the gap radius, l is the axial These factors of proportionality, rg0.8 , rg 1.6 and rg4.1 are
length, and t⇤ and ⇢⇤ are the radial thickness and density, relatively consistent with the proportions in our dimensional
respectively, of the stator and rotor. Third, current density is analysis rg1 , rg 1 , and rg3 from (38), (39), and (41) respectively.
assumed constant [34]. Neglecting edge effects, this results The similarity is to be taken considering that the dimensions
in conditions of thermal and electromagnetic similarity, where of these motors used in Fig. 5 do not exactly match our
the steady-state stator temperature and average shear stress s assumptions, and in particular the assumption of constant
on the rotor are constant across designs. The resulting torque stator and rotor thickness. In the Emoteq HT series motors, the
from this stress ⌧ = 2⇡rg2 l s does depend on motor geometry. stator and rotor thicknesses scale by ts / rg0.8 and tr / rg0.4
Therefore, within this class of designs, we predict that respectively. The incorporation of these trends into the pre-
torque density and acceleration capability (torque per rotor vious analysis would lead to a lower ⌧ /J, lower ⌧ /M , and
inertia) scale by the following relationships with rg , and we higher Kt2 /R as observed in the motor catalog data. Changing
observe no effect from axial length. rotor/stator thickness, however, has a nonlinear effect on the
magnitude of the magnetic field at the rotor-stator air gap,
⌧ /M / rg (38)
and heavily influences stator winding design. As a result, the
⌧ /J / 1/rg (39) effects of these changes are difficult to model accurately in
general. The remainder of the section returns to considerations
Another important characteristic is torque production effi- of fixed rotor and stator thickness across designs.
ciency, which is related to the motor constant KM . KM 2
is 3) Optimizing Geometry Under Design Constraints: The
equivalent to the torque squared per unit ohmic power loss. theoretical motor performance metrics (38) and (39) can be
Torque is generated from sheer stress s / IBn/A where I helpful in making initial decisions related to actuator geometry
is the motor current, B is the field strength of the magnets, n while considering design constraints. Such considerations are
is the number of wires in a cross section perpendicular to the unique relative to previous isometric scaling analyses that
axis, and A / rg is the area of the cross section. Using this fixed geometry [34], [35]. Suppose a desired output torque
relationship, torque production efficiency is given as ⌧out and a fixed mass budget M for an actuator in the class
Kt2 ⌧2 rg2 l2 B 2 n2 Aw considered previously. Under this mass budget, motor length
2
KM = = 2 / (40) is constrained to scale by l / 1/rg as shown in Fig. 6. To
R I R ⇢lw
meet the output torque requirements across different designs,
where Kt is the torque constant, R is the terminal resistance, suppose that a gear train with ratio N is used.
Aw is the cross section area of each wire, lw the total length As an initial approximation, assume that the gear box has
of wire, and ⇢ is the the resistivity of the wire material. negligible added mass, inertia, and friction torques from the
An additional set of assumptions is used to simplify this gears themselves. The required gear ratio as a function of gap
relationship. First, a wire length lw / nl is used, which radius is then
assumes all stator wire contributes to winding coils. Second, ⌧out
N= / 1/rg (42)
a fixed wire gauge is assumed, which implies that the number 2⇡rg2 l s
with a reflected rotor inertia through the gearbox of τ"
Jref = Jr N 2 = 2⇡rg3 ltr ⇢r N 2 / rg0 (43) Demag.
Demagne'za'on*
torque
Torque
when the scalings for l and N are considered. While the total
reflected rotor inertia and the total torque at the output shaft Sat.
Satura'on
Torque
stay the same, increasing the gap radius lowers the required Torque
Intermittent Operation
gear ratio. In summary, in a design space where the motor
region
mass and the output torque requirement are held constant, and
gearboxes are idealized, (43) shows that total reflected inertia Cont.
Con'nuous
~0.3kW/kg
torque
remains constant across variations in gap radius. Torque
Continuous operation
Considering the non-idealized effects of gear transmissions, region
however, shows the benefits of high-gap radius designs when 0
the actuator mass budget is fixed. The results of constant operation range recommended by ω"
output torque and constant reflected inertia only hold across motor manufacturer
different design geometries if the mass, friction, and inertia Fig. 7. Different operational limits of a motor in torque-speed space.
of the gears are ignored. If we assume instead that mass, The green area represents the manufacturer-recommended operation that is
friction, and gear inertia increase monotonically with gear ratio bounded by the voltage limit and continuous torque determined by the thermal
limit. The blue area shows the extended operating range of the motor by
N , this implies in turn that ⌧out will decrease and Jr will raising voltage and speed but maintaining current under the continuous torque
increase monotonically with N . Thus, these considerations limit. The motor may intermittently exceed the continuous torque limit and
favor a larger gap radius motor when mass budget is fixed. operate in the transient operation space shown in peach color. Beyond the
saturation torque, parts of iron in the stator become magnetically saturated
Such a design will have a smaller gear ratio, fewer gear stages, and the torque/current relationship becomes highly nonlinear as the torque
and less gear mass, resulting in less friction loss, higher torque constant decreases. This nonlinearity can be compensated for in control to
density, higher bandwidth, and higher IMF. provide accurate torque delivery. At the demagnetization torque, magnetic
fields from the stator begin to demagnetize the rotor magnets, damaging the
Therefore, in this design space, there is no tradeoff, and in motor.
its purest form, this analysis advocates for high-gap-radius
direct-drive robots [36]. However, the geometry required for
Planetary gear
direct drive to have enough torque is typically infeasible. For train (1:5.8)
Base
example, in order to design a direct-drive motor for the MIT Knee Hip
CoM
Stator Stator
Cheetah, one such motor would have been 76.2 cm in diameter
with a 5 mm axial length. Considering these limitations, the Knee Hip
Rotor
optimal actuator for a given mass will thus consist of a motor Rotor
with the largest gap radius as allowed by space and the smallest Output to hip
gear ratio as required by torque specifications. Encoder
4) Other Considerations: For extreme geometries, edge mount
1.5
Tibia
ohmic loss and the saturation torque. The saturation torque 1
220 mm
m2 = 0.157 kg
82 mm
density of the custom designed motor is around 27 Nm/kg 0.5
2
I2 = 13.1 kg cm2
Foot
than 9 Nm/kg in the Emoteq HT-5001. Given this high torque
1
-0.5 84 mm 182 mm m3 = 0.116 kg
0.5
ẑ I3 = 7.4 kg cm2
-1.5
ŷ 0
The rotor inertia of the custom motor is three times that of the -2
-0.5
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5
x̂ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
mitigation factor (IMF), and main dynamics parameters for a leg of the MIT
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
the gear ratio (1:5.8)1 to meet the normal GRF generation Cheetah. The dashed line represents an ideal directional IMF (DIMF) of 1,
while the blue represents the computed DIMF.
requirements for running at a range of speeds up to 13.5 m/s.
We chose a one-stage planetary gear train with four planet 1 1
gears. Such a low gear ratio provides a higher IMF, beneficial
for highly-dynamic locomotion. Unlike traditional serial-link 0.8 0.8
robots in which actuators are present at every joint, two
0.6 0.6
actuators and the gear train are coaxially located at the hip
IMF 9
9x^
of the leg to minimize the total moment of inertia, which 0.4 0.4
allows for a compact and robust design. One of these actuators
directly actuates the hip, while the other actuates the knee 0.2 0.2
compromising leg strength [38]. The shoulder module contains 0.8 0.8
the motors (2.00 kg), heat-treated steel gear trains (0.42 kg),
and framing (1.23 kg) for a total mass of 3.65 kg. A leg with 0.6
Cheetah
0.6
9z^
0.4
SEA Cheetah 0.4
combined mass of 850 g. The lightweight leg allows the center StarlETH
of mass to be located inside of the shoulder module. As a 0.2
Hubo 0.2
result, a small moment of inertia of the leg allows for rapid SEA Hubo
movement and high-bandwidth force control. 0
0 1 2 3
0
0 1 2 3
Knee Angle (rad) Knee Angle (rad)
V. A SSESSMENT AND R ESULTS Fig. 10. Impact mitigation factor and directional impact mitigation factors
A. Impact Mitigation Factor versus knee angle. The coordinate system for these numbers is shown in Fig. 9
for the Cheetah with similar coordinate systems relative to the sagittal plane
In order to assess the backdrivability of the MIT Cheetah for the other morphologies.
leg design, the impact mitigation factor (IMF) was computed
and compared to other legged systems. As noted in Section
III-B, the IMF is configuration dependent. This configuration planetary gears, as estimated from CAD models. The rotor
dependency is shown visually in Fig. 9. The figure shows the has inertia 3.0279 ⇥ 10 4 kg m2 along its rotational axis,
directional IMF (DIMF) ⇠x for directions x in the sagittal with a 5.8:1 gear reduction, resulting in a reflected inertia of
plane. For the Cheetah, the IMF correlates most strongly with 0.0102 kg m2 . Other main parameters of the leg are given in
knee angle, as shown in Fig. 10. Due to the large mass and Fig. 9 for reference.
inertia of the components within the Cheetah’s motors, (28) The IMF of the Cheetah design was also compared with
was not used for simplification in the calculation of the IMF. approximate StarlETH and HUBO Plus models. Rigid-body
The motor rotors, for instance, have rotational inertias on out- masses, CoM locations, and kinematics for StarlETH were
of-plane principal axes that are the same order of magnitude taken from an available publication [26]. Previous work pro-
as for the leg links. These inertial contributions would be vided estimated rotational inertias in the sagittal plane [39]. In-
otherwise ignored through the use of (28). The IMF numbers ertias in other directions were computed from an equi-density
account for the mass and inertias of the motor rotors and assumption on a bounding box estimated from graphical mod-
1 This gear ratio was also driven by practical considerations, as it is the
els. No reflected actuator inertia was modeled for StarlETH, as
largest single-stage ratio available for a standard planetary configuration with its series elastic actuators decouple reflected inertia from the
commodity English geartooth options. endpoint. The HUBO model was taken from a URDF of the
Step Input Test (100N, Radial Direction)
160
HUBO Plus robot [40]. The DC actuators assumed at the joints
had a rotor inertia of 3.33 ⇥ 10 6 kg m2 with a 160:1 gear 140
From 𝑓 × 𝑡 = 0.35
reduction, producing a total reflected inertia of 0.0852 kg m2 . 120 Driver & Motor Current Bandw
Force(N)
Leg System Bandwidth: 103.7H
No reflected inertia effects of the gear reduction were modeled.
(N)
100 Stabilization Time: 55 ms
IMFs were computed assuming impact in the center of the 80
Force
bottom of the foot.
Figure 10 shows that the SEA-actuated StarlETH has the 60
highest impact mitigation factor over a range of knee an- 40 To fully control 400Hz Bandwid
gles. For these computations, the virtual leg in each system
Force SensorSensor
Force
Commanded Force
control frequency should be at
20 Commanded
Estimated fromForce
Motor Usually use x5 to x10 for good
remained upright, while the knee angle was used to modulate Estimated from Motor Target: 4kHz control frequen
0
virtual leg length. Low IMFs for small knee angles are in (250us loop time)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
most part due to reduced backdrivability in the ẑ direction, as Time(ms)
Time (ms)
indicated by ⇠ẑ . A similar degradation in ⇠x̂ is observed in
StarlETH and Cheetah when the leg becomes fully collapsed Fig. 11. Step-input test on the Cheetah robot leg. The force estimated from
at a knee angle of ⇡ rad. The IMF of HUBO experiences the motor is determined from the measured current in the stator windings
less peak-to-peak variability in IMF across knee angle. This using an assumption of static force transfer from the actuator to the foot.
difference can be attributed to the additional articulation in System Rise time Tr (ms) Bandwidth (Hz)
the HUBO hip and ankle which further prevent its upper-body motor driver to winding current 0.875 400
mass from being felt at impact even for small knee angles. motor driver to foot force 3.38 103.7
To assess the relative contribution of reflected actuator TABLE I
inertia to the IMF of HUBO and Cheetah, hypothetical modifi- S YSTEM BANDWIDTH ESTIMATION FROM STEP - INPUT TEST.
cations of these machines were considered that included SEAs
at the joints. Averaged over the configurations considered, the
IMF of unmodified Cheetah was 90% that of the hypothetical
work demonstrated the capabilities of proprioceptive force
SEA Cheetah. In comparison, the IMF of unmodified HUBO
control to realize a virtual stiffness at the foot. The next
was 52% that of a hypothetical SEA HUBO. HUBO’s design
subsection goes beyond impedance control and demonstrates
does include significant actuator mass distally in the leg, which
open-loop force control for more general force profiles.
in part causes this difference.
C. Proprioceptive Force Control Test
B. Step-input test on the MIT Cheetah leg To investigate the performance of proprioceptive force
To initially evaluate proprioceptive force control, the Chee- control for dynamic locomotion, we performed in situ force
tah robot leg was mounted inside of an axial material testing control tests during unconstrained 3D bounding. The robot
device (Zwick Roell BX1-EZ005.A4K-000). Its stock force bounded in free space using a control law from previous
sensor was replaced with a six-axis force-torque sensor (ATI work [41]. The bounding controller would output desired
delta, SI-660-60 calibration) which can measure up to 1980 N forces fpro 2 R3 for each stance leg, to be realized through
in the z-axis with 0.25 N resolution. proprioceptive actuation. These desired forces were mapped
To identify the open-loop force control bandwidth of the to joint torques through
leg, a 100 N step-input test was executed. A pure radial
⌧ d = S` JT fpro . (44)
force was commanded and mapped to desired leg torques
assuming static loading conditions. Desired joint torques were Here J 2 R is a foot Jacobian and S` 2 R
3⇥18
is a 3⇥18
then realized using closed-loop motor current control with selector matrix for the joints in the leg. The desired torque
custom motor drivers and current control taking place at a ⌧ d 2 R3 contains torques for the two proprioceptive actuators
rate of 20 KHz. The currents from these drivers were used to nominally in the sagittal x̂-ẑ plane, as well as for a more
estimate the force at the foot, again under an assumption of traditional hip ab/ad actuator which nominally affects the
static loading conditions. Fig. 11 shows the results of this test. lateral ŷ forces. Coordinate systems follow those in Fig. 10.
In this figure, the black line is the commanded force, the red The ATI delta force-torque sensor was embedded into the
line is the estimated force from measured motor currents, and contact surface such that the front left leg of the robot could
the blue line is the force measured by the external sensor. The run on the sensor without interference to the gait. Figure 12
discrepancy between the estimated force and the exteroceptive shows a figure of this experimental setup.
sensed force highlights the presence of structural compliance Figures 13-15 show the proprioceptive force control track-
in the leg. This structural compliance effectively decreases the ing in the sagittal plane where the proprioceptive actuators
bandwidth of the proprioceptive force control below that of have force control authority. The force control figures show
the electrical dynamics. Assuming a second-order response, high duty ratio bounding (Fig. 13) in comparison to medium
the response bandwidth of the leg system can be estimated and low duty ratio bounding (Figs. 14 and 15). Lower duty
based on the measured rising time, as seen in Table I. ratios require shorter contact times down to 85 ms in the most
Further details on similar experiments with the MIT Cheetah extreme case considered here. Again, we emphasize that aside
leg can be found in our previous publication [5]. This previous from statics (Eq. 44), no model-based information was used to
50
Force fx (N)
0
-50
-100
-150
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (ms)
Proprioceptive
500 Measured
Evaluation Period
Force fz (N)
400
300
200
100
Fig. 12. Experimental setup for proprioceptive force control measurements. 0
The ATI delta force/torque sensor is embedded into the contact surface so 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (ms)
that the front left leg could step on the sensor without interference to the gait.
0 50
-50
Force fx (N)
0
-100
-50
-150
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 -100
Time (ms)
-150
Proprioceptive 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
500
Measured Time (ms)
Proprioceptive
Force fz (N)
200
400
100
300
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 200
Time (ms)
100