| Literature DB >> 34122032 |
Juanjuan Zhang1,2, Steven H Collins1,3.
Abstract
Lower-limb exoskeletons often use torque control to manipulate energy flow and ensure human safety. The accuracy of the applied torque greatly affects how well the motion is assisted and therefore improving it is always of interest. Feed-forward iterative learning, which is similar to predictive stride-wise integral control, has proven an effective compensation to feedback control for torque tracking in exoskeletons with complicated dynamics during human walking. Although the intention of iterative learning was initially to benefit average tracking performance over multiple strides, we found that, after proper gain tuning, it can also help improve real-time torque tracking. We used theoretical analysis to predict an optimal iterative-learning gain as the inverse of the passive actuator stiffness. Walking experiments resulted in an optimum gain equal to 0.99 ± 0.38 times the predicted value, confirming our hypothesis. The results of this study provide guidance for the design of torque controllers in robotic legged locomotion systems and will help improve the performance of robots that assist gait.Entities:
Keywords: control; exoskeleton; gait assistance; iterative learning; rehabilitation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34122032 PMCID: PMC8192972 DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2021.653409
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurorobot ISSN: 1662-5218 Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1Tethered ankle exoskeleton system. Besides sensor data acquisition and outputting control signal to the motor, the dedicated controller has two main computational modules: a high-level controller that generates the desired torque according to ankle angle in real-time, and a low-level controller that generates control signal as desired motor velocity according to desired torque, applied torque and current motor status. Changes in motor motion status tunes the torque applied through Bowden cable transmission to the end effector, an ankle exoskeleton with series spring.
Figure 2The ankle angle based high-level desired torque curve imposed in experiments to realize different desired quasi-stiffness profiles. It commands desired torque that is linearly proportional to exoskeleton joint angle θ defined by anchor point [θ 0] and desired quasi-stiffness K.
List of desired stiffness tested in experiments with assigned ID.
| 2 | 5 | 8.5 |
Figure 3All three tested linear desired torque vs. ankle angle curves used in the form of Equation (7) with θ = −2(deg) and K values listed in Table 1.
Figure 4Instantaneous passive stiffness values under passive walking plotted against the measured torques for different spring configurations, one session for each. Each session consisted of one-hundred strides with motor position locked. The stabilized passive stiffness value of one session was defined as the median of the values over a stabilized region. The effective stiffness of the one configuration was defined as the mean of stabilized values of multiple sessions.
List of passive stiffness values.
| Spring part no. | DWC-148M-13 | DWC-187M-12 | No Spring |
| Length (m) | 0.0635 | 0.0508 | – |
| Spring rate (N/m ×103) | 15.1 | 50.1 | – |
| Max load (N) | 413.7 | 778.4 | – |
| 1.8957 | 3.6672 | 5.9365 |
List of iterative learning gain values tested in experiments (deg/Nm).
| D1 | 0.0443, 0.0593, 0.0885, 0.1328, 0.1770, 0.2655, 0.3540, 0.5310, 0.7081, 0.8851 | 0.0354, 0.0443, 0.0593, 0.0885, 0.1328, 0.1770, 0.2655, 0.3540, 0.5310, 0.7081 | 0.0266, 0.0354, 0.0443, 0.0593, 0.0885, 0.1328, 0.1770, 0.2655, 0.3540, 0.5310 |
| D2 | 0.0443, 0.0593, 0.0885, 0.1328, 0.1770, 0.2655, 0.3540, 0.5310, 0.7081, 0.8851 | 0.0354, 0.0443, 0.0593, 0.0885, 0.1328, 0.1770, 0.2655, 0.3540, 0.5310, 0.7081 | 0.0266, 0.0354, 0.0443, 0.0593, 0.0885, 0.1328, 0.1770, 0.2655, 0.3540, 0.5310 |
| D3 | 0.0443, 0.0593, 0.0885, 0.1328, 0.1770, 0.2655, 0.3540, 0.5310, 0.7081, 0.8851 | 0.0354, 0.0443, 0.0593, 0.0885, 0.1328, 0.1770, 0.2655, 0.3540, 0.5310, 0.7081 | 0.0266, 0.0354, 0.0443, 0.0593, 0.0885, 0.1328, 0.1770, 0.2655, 0.3540, 0.5310 |
| Predicted optimum | 0.2107 | 0.1089 | 0.0674 |
Figure 5Centering process of index-wise ankle positions. (A) Ankle position array of the one hundred strides investigated for an example time index within strides. (B) Ankle position array as shown in (A) zero-phase filtered with a 1/20 cut-off frequency butter-worth filter. (C) Centered ankle position array achieved by subtracting array in (B) from that in (A).
Figure 6Mean of stride-wise root-mean-squared torque tracking errors of all {gain, desired stiffness, passive stiffness} combinations and the relative errors to their peak desired torques. (A) Values computed with raw torque errors. (B) Values computed by normalizing raw torque errors by position-wise ankle position variance.
Calculated relative optimal iterative learning gain values K/K through curve-fitting experimental data.
| (D1, S1) | 0.3923 | 0.3047 | 0.5667 | 0.4823 |
| (D2, S1) | 0.7779 | 0.6472 | 1.1623 | 0.9884 |
| (D3, S1) | 0.7307 | 0.6726 | 0.5850 | 0.3731 |
| (D1, S2) | 0.8006 | 0.8374 | 0.7524 | 0.7738 |
| (D2, S2) | 0.7472 | 0.8150 | 1.0389 | 1.0767 |
| (D3, S2) | 1.0377 | 0.9533 | 1.3639 | 1.1933 |
| (D1, S3) | 1.4233 | 1.1708 | 1.6885 | 1.3190 |
| (D2, S3) | 0.6286 | 0.6147 | 0.6616 | 0.5767 |
| (D3, S3) | 0.9768 | 1.0023 | 1.1173 | 1.1332 |
| Average | 0.8350 ± 0.2892 | 0.7798 ± 0.2547 | 0.9929 ± 0.3846 | 0.8796 ± 0.3398 |