1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135
58 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
result in a number of successful steps but eventually fall. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
successful walking limit cycle. Some walks don't fall despite seemingly chaotic motion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4. 1 |
Up Vector Regulation Variables |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The first results we show use the base PCG of Figure 3.7and the stance hip perturbations |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
described in Section 3.6. |
The RVs consist of the components of the up vector, as illustrated in |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 3.12 (c). |
Torso servoing is not applied. |
Figure 4.2shows a representative set of RV |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
trajectories corresponding to |
successful |
walking |
trials |
of |
60 |
steps. |
These |
curves |
are |
the |
||||||||||||||||||
experimentally-based equivalents of the idealized cyclic trajectories shown earlier, such as those of |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 3.3. chaotic. |
In three of the plots, a clear limit cycle emerges. |
In the fourth, the trajectory is |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(a) F-L sampling, Qd= [.25,0] |
(b) L-F sampling, Qd= [.2,0] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(c) SP sampling, Qd= [.3,0] |
(d) L-F sampling, Qd= [.35,0] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 4.2- |
Continuous-time |
up-vector |
RV |
component |
phase |