Advertisement

International Journal of Dynamics and Control

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 1379–1391 | Cite as

Fuzzy control of bipedal running with variable speed and apex height

  • Behzad Hazrati
  • Behnam DadashzadehEmail author
  • Maryam Shoaran
Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper we propose a fuzzy-based control scheme to generate stable planar biped running gaits with variable apex height and velocity. The considered biped robot model includes five links with locked torso angles, point feet, and four actuators at the hip and knees. The controller includes two separate levels: upper-level and lower-level. The lower-level part is composed of a state machine, where the trajectory of running sub-phases and their switching time are controlled. The upper-level part includes an event-based fuzzy logic controller that is called at the apex of each flight phase. We use an offline fuzzy training process for designing fuzzy rules before controlling the robot. Fuzzy training is an iterative computational process that is repeated until convergence. Outputs of the fuzzy controller are fed into the state machine to control the running gaits. Simulation results show that the proposed control strategy generates stable gaits with controllable apex height and velocity in each step. Finally, the effects of apex height and velocity in running efficiency are investigated and optimum height is calculated as a function of running velocity.

Keywords

Biped running State machine Fuzzy control Cost of transport 

References

  1. 1.
    Kajita S, Nagasaki T, Kaneko K, Hirukawa H (2007) ZMP-based running control. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 14:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shin HK, Kim BK (2015) Energy-efficient gait planning and control for biped robots utilizing vertical body motion allowable ZMP region. IEEE Trans Industr Electron 62:2277–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marhefka DW, Orin DE, Schmiedeler JP, Waldron KJ (2003) Intelligent Control of Quadruped Gallops. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 8:446–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu Y, Wensing PM, Orin DE, Schmiedeler JP (2011) Fuzzy controlled hopping in a biped robot. In: IEEE International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferreira JP, Crisóstomo MM, Coimbra AP (2009) SVR versus neural-fuzzy network controller for the sagittal balance of a biped robot. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 20:1885–1897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Da X, Harib O, Hartley R, Griffin B, Grizzle JW (2016) From 2D design of underactuated bipedal gaits to 3D implementation: walking with speed tracking. IEEE Access 4:3469–3478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lebastard V, Aoustin Y, Plestan F (2011) Estimation of absolute orientation for a bipedal robots: experiment results. IEEE Trans Robot 27:170–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu Y, Yan G, Lin Z (2011) Feedback control of planar biped robot with regulable step length and walking speed. IEEE Trans Robot 27:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dadashzadeh B, Vejdani HR, Hurst J (2014) From template to anchor: a novel control strategy for spring-mass running of bipedal robots. In: IEEE/RJS international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), Chicago, IL, USA, 2014Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heydarnia O, Dadashzadeh B, Allahverdizade A, Sayyed Noorani MR (2016) Fuzzy partial feedback linearization for stable walking of biped robots. Int J Mechatron Electron Comput Technol 5:1–10Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dadashzadeh B, Mahjoob MJ, Nikkhah Bahrami M, Macnab C (2014) Stable active running of a planar underactuated biped robotusing poincare map control. Adv Robot 28:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geng T (2014) Torso inclination enables faster walking in a planar biped robot with passive ankle. IEEE Trans Robot 30:753–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhao H, Yadukumar SN, Ames AD (2012) Bipedal robotic running with partial hybrid zero dynamics ans human-inspired optimization. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Vilamoura, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Westervelt ER, Grizzle JW, Chevallereau C, Choi JH, Morris B (2007) Feedback control of dynamic bipedal robot locomotion. In: Ge SS, Lewis F (eds) CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park J, Kim YK, Yoon B, Kim K-S, Kim S (2014) Design, analysis ans simulation of biped running robot. In: International symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Edinburgh, Scotland, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spong MW, Hutchinson S, Vidyasagar M (2005) Robot modeling and control. Wiley, Hoboken, p 496Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raibert MH (1986) Legged robots that balance. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang LX (1996) A course fuzzy systems and control. Prentice-Hall International, Upper Saddle River, pp 442–445Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Imani B, Ghanbari A, Noorani S (2013) Modelling, path planning and control of a planar five-link bipedal robot by an adaptive fuzzy computed torque controller (AFCTC). In: International conference on robotics and mechatronics, Tehran, IranGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dadashzadeh B, Esmaeili M, Koohestani B, Noorani S (2014) Hopping gait generation for a biped robot with hill-type muscles. In: Scientific cooperation international workshops on electrical and computer engineering subfields, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechatronics Engineering, School of Engineering-Emerging TechnologiesUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran

Personalised recommendations