...
| Loaded walking | Unloaded walking |
|---|---|
 |  |
•MC Reduction(from baseline)
...
- Metabolic cost reduction when active actuators are added to loaded gait model
- optimal: 10.35% reduction
...
- Saturated: 1.84% reduction
...
- New CMC: 2.68% reduction
•MC Reduction(from baseline)
1.- Metabolic cost reduction when active actuators are added to unloaded gait mode
- optimal: 10.62% reduction
- Saturated: 3.46% reduction
- New CMC: 3.82%
•Saturated input is better than scaled input for MC reduction.
•Realistic force input can help unloaded walking better than loaded walking.
If we take a look at what happens to metabolic cost, we can see that the
- The result from new CMC procedure reduces metabolic cost more efficiently.
- However, the reduction is not significant, and it is much lower than the optimal case.
- The interesting thing is that the realistic actuation input force works better in unloaded walking case than loaded walking case. It makes sense because we requires lower force to assist unloaded walking.
Biarticular actuator
Now that we know both ankle actuator hip actuator works well to reduce metabolic cost during loaded walking, the natural progress is to create biarticular actuator which can affect both ankle plantar flexion and hip extension. In order to reduce the number of actuator, I created biarticular actuator with 1 DOF, and see how much it reduces metabolic cost, and what it’s optimal input force is.
Modeling
Simulation result
Loaded walking- rate of metabolic reduction
...
| Optimal input | Metabolic cost reduction |
|---|---|
 |  |
- Metabolic cost reduction when actuators are added to loaded gait mode
- When ankle actuator is appended: 10.35%
...
- When hip actuator V4 is appended: 6.62%
...
- When biarticular actuator is appended: 3.12%
- Control input is noisy, which makes it hard to realize
- Biarticular actuator is not as effective as uni-articular actuators in terms of metabolic cost reduction.
...
Conclusion
Featured result
...