3.8 Proceedings Paper

Digital Guinea Pig: Merits and Methods of Human-in-the-Loop Simulation for Upper-Limb Exoskeletons

出版社

IEEE
DOI: 10.1109/ICORR55369.2022.9896520

关键词

-

资金

  1. Innosuisse the Swiss Innovation Agency [33759.1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers present a simulation framework for validating exoskeleton software, which can simulate the interaction between exoskeletons and human limbs with high accuracy, predicting haptic rendering and control gains of the closed-loop system.
Exoskeletons operate in continuous haptic interaction with a human limb. Thus, this interaction is a key factor to consider during the development of hardware and control policies for these devices. Physics simulations can complement real-world experiments for prototype validation, leading to higher efficiency in hardware and software development iterations as well as increased safety for participants and robot hardware. Here, we present a simulation framework of the full rigid-body dynamics of a coupled human and exoskeleton arm built to validate the full software stack. We present a method to model the human-robot interaction dynamics as decoupled spring-damper systems based on anthropometric data. Further, we demonstrate the application of the simulation framework to predict the closed-loop haptic-rendering performance of a 9-DOF exoskeleton in interaction with a human. The simulation was capable of simulating the closed-loop system's reaction to an impact on a haptic wall. The intrusion into the compliant walls was predicted with a relative accuracy of 6 % to 13 %. Admissible control gains could be predicted with an accuracy of around 14 %, and higher prediction accuracy is indicated when modeling the torque tracking bandwidth of the actuators. Hence, the simulation is valuable for validating prototype software, developing intuition, and a better understanding of the complex characteristics of the coupled system dynamics, even though the quantitative prediction is limited.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据