See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224212730

A Compact Rotary Series Elastic Actuator for Human Assistive Systems

Article  in  IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics · May 2012

DOI: 10.1109/TMECH.2010.2100046 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
235 2,913

3 authors, including:

Kyoungchul Kong Masayoshi Tomizuka

Sogang University University of California, Berkeley
96 PUBLICATIONS   2,425 CITATIONS    1,012 PUBLICATIONS   24,815 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Probabilistic Trajectory Prediction View project

Real time optimization for motion planning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Masayoshi Tomizuka on 10 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

288
A Compact Rotary Series Elastic Actuator for Human
Assistive Systems
Kyoungchul Kong, Member, IEEE, Joonbum Bae, Student Member, IEEE, and Masayoshi Tomizuka, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—Precise and large torque generation, back drivability,
low output impedance, and compactness of hardware are impor-
tant requirements for human assistive robots. In this paper, a com-
pact rotary series elastic actuator (cRSEA) is designed considering
these requirements. To magnify the torque generated by an electric
motor in the limited space of the compact device, a worm gear is
utilized. However, the actual torque amplification ratio provided by
the worm gear is different from the nominal speed reduction ratio
due to friction, which makes the controller design challenging. In
this paper, the friction effect is considered in the model of cRSEA,
and a robust control algorithm is designed to precisely control the
torque output in the presence of nonlinearities such as the fric-
tion. The mechanical design and dynamic model of the proposed
device and the design of a robust control algorithm are discussed,
and actuation performance is verified by experiments. Experimen-
tal results with a human subject are also presented to show the
performance of the cRSEA while interacting with humans.
Index Terms—Embedded system, force mode actuation, human
assistive systems, mechanical impedance, series elastic actuator.
I. INTRODUCTION
UMAN assistive robots, i.e., systems that assist human
H motions with actuation capabilities, have been intensively
developed in recent years based on mechatronic and robotic
technologies [1]–[5]. To effectively assist human motions, such
systems are required to generate large torques (e.g., over 30 N·m
is required to fully support the knee joint during normal walk-
ing). While generating such large torques, high precision is also
required for natural assistance. Moreover, the assistive robots
should be compact and light to minimize discomforts caused by
the robot hardware, which imposes a constraint on the selec-
tion of actuators. To fulfill these requirements, electric motors
equipped with gear reducers have been often utilized in the hu-
man assistive robots. However, not only do the gear reducers
amplify the motor torque by reducing the rotor speed, but they
also increase the mechanical impedance of the system signifi-
cantly. In addition, nonlinearities inherent in the gear reducers
Manuscript received May 11, 2010; revised August 16, 2010; accepted
October 8, 2010. Date of publication January 20, 2011; date of current version
January 20, 2012. Recommended by Technical Editor J. Gu. This work was sup-
ported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant CMMI 1013657.
This paper was presented in part at the 2010 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Anchorage, AK, May 3–10, 2010.
K. Kong is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sogang Univer-
sity, Seoul, Korea (e-mail: kckong@sogang.ac.kr).
J. Bae and M. Tomizuka are with Department of Mechanical En-
gineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA (e-mail:
jbbae@me.berkeley.edu; tomizuka@me.berkeley.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMECH.2010.2100046
1083-4435/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 17, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
(e.g., friction and backlash) make the precise torque control
challenging.
To overcome such drawbacks of the geared motors while tak-
ing advantage of their superior controllability and high power-
mass density, series elastic actuators have been devised [6]–[8].
The series elastic actuators are actuator modules that consist of
an electric motor and a spring. The spring placed between the
actuator and the human joint plays the role of a torque sensor as
well as an energy buffer, which allows the precise control of the
generated torque. Since the spring is able to immediately store
the impact forces exerted from the human joint, compliance can
also be easily guaranteed depending on the control algorithm.
In our previous work, a rotary series elastic actuator
(RSEA) and its robust control algorithm were presented in
the IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS [9]. The
RSEA utilizes a torsional spring and a geared dc motor. A dis-
turbance observer was applied to precisely control the RSEA in
the presence of nonlinearities in the geared motor and model un-
certainties caused by human–robot interactions. The proposed
methods have shown good performance in practice (i.e., back
drivability, low impedance, precise torque control, etc.) and have
applied to actual assistive robots.
In this paper, an improved design of the RSEA, a compact
rotary series elastic actuator (cRSEA), and its control algorithm
are proposed. The cRSEA is designed for knee joint assistance,
and thus, the design parameters are optimized to assist knee joint
motions. In the previous RSEA, a spring was directly installed
between the shaft of the geared motor and the human joint, a
consequence of which was a very stiff spring in order to transmit
large assistive torques. However, the stiff spring deteriorates the
compliance of the system and makes the precise torque control
difficult. Also, nonlinearities of the spring, such as a nonlinear
spring constant, are not negligible in the case of the stiff springs.
In the cRSEA proposed in this paper, a spring is installed in the
chain of gears, so that a small spring can be utilized. The use
of a small spring also contributes to the compact design of the
system.
In the cRSEA, a worm gear as well as spur gears is used to
amplify the torque generated by an electric motor. The worm
gear is self-locked when rotated from the load side, which im-
plies a large mechanical impedance of the system. Interestingly,
the self-locking property of worm gears contributes to mini-
mization of the impedance of the whole system. Note that the
impedance of the whole series elastic actuator is reduced by
precisely controlling the position of the motor, where the con-
trol performance is affected by model uncertainties, nonlinear-
ities, and disturbances transmitted from the load side. Due to
the self-locking nature of worm gears, disturbances are hardly
KONG et al.: COMPACT ROTARY SERIES ELASTIC ACTUATOR FOR HUMAN ASSISTIVE SYSTEMS
Fig. 1. Compact series elastic actuator designed for assisting the knee joint.
It consists of: (a) proposed cRSEA module, (b) thigh brace, (c) calf brace, (d)
motor driver, (e) dc motor, and (f) embedded controller.
transmitted to the motor, which makes it easy to achieve the
desired control performance during operation. In addition, the
worm gear does not make a noisy sound unlike planetary gears,
which is a great advantage from the practical point of view. Its
compactness is another benefit that contributes to the mobility
of the system.
However, the torque amplification ratio of the worm gear is
sensitive to the friction coefficient, which introduces an uncer-
tainty to the system model. Therefore, the dynamic model of
cRSEA is obtained considering the friction between the worm
gear and the worm wheel. Since the cRSEA is exposed to large
model variations as well as disturbances due to interactions
with humans, a robust control method is required. In this pa-
per, a control algorithm inspired by the disturbance observer is
proposed. The controller design procedure is discussed based
on experimental data, in particular, frequency responses of the
system.
The following topics are introduced in this paper: 1) the me-
chanical design and the dynamic modeling of cRSEA are dis-
cussed in Section II; 2) in Section III, a robust control algorithm
is designed for the cRSEA to precisely generate the desired
torque in the presence of model uncertainties; 3) the proposed
control algorithm is implemented in the system and is verified
by experiments in Section IV; and 4) experimental results with
a human subject are introduced in Section V.
II. MECHANICAL DESIGN OF A CRSEA
The cRSEA consists of: 1) a dc motor; 2) a worm gear set;
3) a spur gear set; 4) a torsional spring; 5) two high-resolution
encoders; 6) a motor driver; and 7) an embedded micro controller
(Luminary Stellaris LM3S8962 board [10]) as shown in Figs. 1
and 2. In this section, the mechanical design and the dynamic
model of the cRSEA are introduced.
289
Fig. 2. Power transmission mechanism of cRSEA. (a) Maxon RE40 dc motor,
(b) worm gear, (c) worm wheel, (d) torsional spring, (e) small spur gear (15
teeth), (f) knee frame with a large spur gear (90 teeth), (g) encoder on the motor
side, and (h) encoder on the human side.
A. Selection of a DC Motor and Gears
In order to assist human motions with sufficiently large as-
sistive torques, an electric motor should be selected considering
the characteristics of human motions. Note that the capacity of
a motor is determined by the maximum power, and thus, the
maximum torque and angular velocity required to assist human
motions are important factors in the selection of a motor. The
cRSEA proposed in this paper is designed for assisting a knee
joint, and Fig. 3 shows the knee joint torque and angular velocity
occurred in one stride of a normal gait. The data are obtained
from a male subject with the body weight of 70 kg [14]. The
maximum power consumed by the knee joint is about 80 W.
Considering the safety factor of two, a motor of 150 W, RE40
dc motor of the Maxon Motor Company [11], is selected. The
area surrounded by the continuous lines labeled by 150 W (i.e.,
the gray and light gray areas in Fig. 3) represents the operation
range of the selected motor.
In electric motor systems, the maximum speed and torque
are limited [6]. In the case of the selected motor, the maximum
continuous speed and torque are, respectively, 8200 r/mim
and 0.181 N·m, while the angular velocities of the knee joint
during normal walking are in the range of ±60 r/mim, as shown
in Fig. 3. Note that the operation range can be adjusted by
utilizing a gear reducer. To guarantee the immediate responses
to the knee joint motions, the desired range of the angular
velocity of the knee frame [see Fig. 2(f)] is set to ±140 r/mim,
which is about twice faster than the knee joint motion. Based
on these numbers, the speed reduction ratio is selected to 60:1,
where 10:1 comes from the worm gear and the worm wheel
[see Fig. 2(b) and (c)] and 6:1 comes from the spur gears [see
Fig. 2(e) and (f)]. Note that the reduced maximum speed results
in the increased maximum torque. If the efficiency of the gears
is not considered, the torque generated by the motor is amplified
by the speed reduction ratio, i.e., the cRSEA system may gener-
ate the assistive torques up to 10.86 N·m. However, the friction
between the worm gear and the worm wheel significantly
lowers the efficiency, and the torque amplification ratio is not
290
Fig. 3. The range of knee joint motions during normal walking. The range
that a 150 W dc motor can support is also shown in the figure.
necessarily the same as the speed reduction ratio. The details on
the torque amplification ratio will be discussed in Section II-D.
Note that the maximum torque for short duration is signifi-
cantly larger than the maximum continuous torque. For exam-
ple, the stall torque of the RE40 motor, i.e., the maximum torque
that can be generated by the motor at zero speed, is 2.290 N·m,
which is 1200% larger than the maximum continuous torque.
Therefore, the proposed cRSEA is capable of generating the
assistive torques up to about 130 N·m in the limited conditions.
However, it is reasonable to assume that the motor is to gener-
ate the assistive torque continuously, and therefore, the desired
range of the assistive torque is regarded as ±10 N·m, as shown
in Fig. 3 (the light gray area between the dotted lines in the
figure).
B. Selection of a Spring
In the cRSEA, a torsional spring [see Fig. 2(d)] plays the role
of an energy buffer and a torque sensor. Therefore, the elasticity
of the spring is a critical factor that determines the resolution
of the torque output and the magnitude of the maximum per-
missible torque. Since the range of desired assistive torques was
selected to ±10 N·m (see the previous section), the torque range
for the spring is set to ±1.67 N·m considering the gear ratio of
the spur gears. The specifications on the designed spring are
shown in Table I.
In addition to elasticity, the linearity of the spring is also
critical, because the generated torque is estimated by Hooke’s
law. To assess the linearity of the designed spring, an experiment
was carried out; a load cell was installed at the tip of the knee
frame [see Fig. 2(f)] to measure the force applied by the cRSEA.
Since the torque arm is known, the measured force is converted
into the generated torque by a simple calculation. The deflection
of the spring was measured by the encoders [ Fig. 2(g) and (h)].
Fig. 4 shows the linear relationship between the spring deflection
and the measured torque. The actual spring constant, k in Table I,
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 17, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
TABLE I
SPECIFICATION OF A TORSIONAL SPRING
Fig. 4. Spring constant test. y-axis represents the generated torque measured
by a loadcell, and x-axis represents the spring deflection measured by encoders.
Note that the spring torque is amplified by the spur gears shown in Fig. 2(e) and
(f).
is calculated from the data shown in Fig. 4 considering the gear
ratio of the spur gears.
C. Kinematic Model
The power transmission mechanism of the cRSEA is shown
in Fig. 2. The torque generated by the motor [(a) in the figure]
is amplified by two sets of gears, the worm gear set [(b) and (c)]
and the spur gear set [(e) and (f)]. The frame [(f) in the figure]
is connected to the calf brace, while the main frame is fixed on
the thigh brace, i.e., θ in Fig. 2 represents the knee joint angle.
The motor angle θM and the angle of the small spur gear θS are
measured by high-resolution encoders.
By a simple calculation, the knee joint angle θH can be ob-
tained, i.e.,
θH = NS−1 θS (1)
where NS is the speed reduction ratio between the spur gears
[see Fig. 2(e) and (f)]. In the actual design, NS = 6.
Similarly, a pair of the worm gear and the worm wheel pro-
vides the speed reduction ratio of NW . When the worm gear
rotates one revolution, one pitch of the worm wheel is rotated.
Therefore, the worm gear acts as a single toothed gear, and thus,
the gear ratio is the same as the number of teeth of the worm
wheel. Since one revolution of the worm gear corresponds to
one pitch of the worm wheel, the following kinematic condition
is satisfied:
2πrwg [tan φ]−1 = 2πrww NW
−1
(2)
KONG et al.: COMPACT ROTARY SERIES ELASTIC ACTUATOR FOR HUMAN ASSISTIVE SYSTEMS
Fig. 5. Free body diagrams of the worm gear and worm wheel. fM represents
the force generated by the motor, and fw w , fm s, and fs represent the reaction
forces by the worm wheel, the motor shaft, and the worm-wheel shaft, respec-
tively. (a) Free body diagram of the worm gear. (b) Free body diagram of one
tooth of the worm wheel.
where rwg and rww are the radii of the worm gear and the
worm wheel, respectively. ϕ is the distortion angle of the worm
gear shown in Fig. 5. Note that (2) can be simplified to NW =
[rww /rwg ]tanϕ.
D. Dynamic Model
Fig. 5 shows the free body diagrams of the worm gear and
worm wheel used in the cRSEA [see Fig. 2(b) and (c)]. The
force vectors in Fig. 5 are acting on the point that the worm gear
contacts the worm wheel. Note that the contact point moves
only in the direction of ŷ or Ŷ due to mechanical constraints.
The force balance equations are
1 × τM −
IM θ̈M ŷ = fM ŷ + fm s x̂ − fN ê1 − μfN ê2 (3)
rwg
1
Iww θ̈W Ŷ = −fww Ŷ − fs X̂ + fN Ê2 + μfN Ê1 (4)
rww
where fM , fww , fm s, and fs are as defined in Fig. 5, and IM and
Iww are the inertias of the motor and the worm wheel, respec-
tively. IM includes the inertia of the worm gear. rwg and rww are
the radii of the worm gear and the worm wheel, respectively. μ
represents the friction coefficient between the worm gear and
the worm wheel.
The dot product of (3) and ŷ is
1 = NW = [rww /rwg ]tanϕ. However, in the presence of friction,
IM θ̈M = fM − fN cos ϕ − μfN sin ϕ. (5)
rwg
Similarly,
1 sents the gear angle used in the actual design of cRSEA. Note
Iww θ̈W = −fww + fN sin ϕ + μfN cos ϕ. (6)
rww
The normal force fN can be eliminated by rearranging (5) and
(6), i.e.,
rww (sin ϕ + μ cos ϕ)
fww rww + Iww θ̈W = [fM rwg − IM θ̈M ] .
rwg (cos ϕ + μ sin ϕ)
(7)
Note that fww rww = τ ww and fM rwg = τ M , where τ ww is
the torque applied to the worm wheel and τ M is the torque
generated by the motor. τ ww includes the torque by a spring
291
Fig. 6. Torque amplification ratio. The nominal value (i.e., when the friction is
neglected) is 10.0, which is the same as the speed reduction ratio. If the friction
is increased, the torque amplification ratio deceases.
deflection k(θW − θS ) as well as the torque exerted from the
human side τ H , i.e.,
τww = k(θW − θS ) + NS−1 τH (8)
where k is the spring constant and NS is the speed reduction
ratio of the spur gears. In (8), the friction between the spur gear
set is neglected. Since θM and θW are related by the gear ratio
of the worm gear set (i.e., θM = NW θW ), (7) can be rewritten
as
NS k(θW − θS ) = NS A(φ, μ)
   
Iww
+ IM θ̈M − τH (9)
NW A(φ, μ)
where
rww (sin ϕ + μ cos ϕ)
A(ϕ, μ) = . (10)
rwg (cos ϕ + μ sin ϕ)
A(ϕ, μ) in (10) is a torque amplification ratio of the worm gear
to the worm wheel. In the actual cRSEA, the distortion angle
of the worm gear ϕ is fixed, but the friction coefficient μ may
vary depending on the lubricant or temperature conditions. Note
that the torque amplification ratio is the same as the speed re-
duction ratio, when the friction coefficient is zero, i.e., A(ϕ, 0)
a power loss occurs and the torque is not amplified as desired.
Fig. 6 shows the magnitude of A(ϕ, μ) for some selected friction
coefficients and gear angles. The dotted line in the figure repre-
that when μ = 0, the torque amplification ratio is 10.0, which
is the speed reduction ratio, NW . In Fig. 6, it should be noted
that the torque amplification ratio changes drastically accord-
ing to the variation of the friction coefficient. The variation in
the torque amplification ratio shown in Fig. 6 introduces model
uncertainties to the system.
The dynamic model in (9) implies that the cRSEA is a multi-
input and multioutput system, where the inputs are the motor
torque [τ M , control input] and the human joint torque [τ H ,
disturbance input], and the outputs are the motor angle θM and
292
Fig. 7. Block diagram of the proposed control law. The notations represent
NW : the speed reduction ratio of the worm gear set, NS : the speed reduction
ratio of the spur gear set, PID: the PID controller in (11), and IE : the extended
motor inertia to compensate for the motor dynamics.
the angle of the spur gear θS . The generated torque can be
calculated by Hooke’s law from the measured angles.
III. CONTROLLER DESIGN OF A CRSEA
The performance objectives of the cRSEA are: 1) to precisely
generate the desired torque in the presence of model uncertain-
ties and external disturbances; 2) to minimize the mechanical
impedance; and 3) to minimize the influence of human motions
in the generated torques. In (9), note that the torque output τ O
= NS k(θW − θS ) is influenced by the torques exerted from the
human side τ H and the angular acceleration of the motor shaft
θ̈M . The variation in A(ϕ, μ) also introduces an uncertainty to
the system. In this section, a robust control algorithm is designed
to achieve the performance objectives considering these factors.
A. Controller Design
Suppose the following control law:
τM = IE θ̈M + NS−1 NW
−1
r + KP (r − τO )
 [1 − Q(s)]GH →O (s)
+KD (ṙ − τ̇O ) + KI (r − τO )dt (11)
2
where IE = Iww /NW + IM , which is the extended motor
inertia. r is the reference input and τ O is the torque output
generated by the spring [i.e., τ O = NS k(θW − θS )]. Note that
τ O can be directly calculated from θW = NW −1 θM and θS ,
which are measured by encoders. The parameters KP , KD , and
KI are controller gains to have the torque output follow the
reference input. Note that the proposed control law consists of
three parts: 1) the extended motor dynamics (i.e., IE θ̈M ) that
compensates for the motor inertia; 2) the feedforward input (i.e.,
NS −1 NW −1 r); and 3) the PID controller. Fig. 7 shows the block
diagram of the proposed control law.
For simplicity, suppose that the motor dynamics is canceled
by the extended inertia included in (11). By applying the Laplace
transformation to the remaining closed-loop dynamics, a trans-
fer function is
τO = GR →O (s)r − GH →O (s)τH (12)
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 17, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
where
KD s2 + (KP + NS−1 NW
−1
)s + KI
GR →O (s) = −1 (13)
KD s2 + (KP + NS A−1 )s + KI
NS−1 A−1 s
GH →O (s) = (14)
KD s2 + (KP + NS−1 A−1 )s + KI
where τ O is the torque output, and GR →O (s) and GR →O (s) are
the transfer functions to the torque output from the reference
input and the human joint torque, respectively.
The controller gains KP , KD , and KI can be designed con-
sidering the desired closed-loop poles. In the controller design,
the torque amplification ratio A(ϕ, μ) is regarded as its nom-
inal value NW . For example, if the desired closed-loop poles
are −p1 and −p2 , the controller gains are obtained by (KP
+ NS −1 NW −1 )/KD = p1 + p2 and KI /KD = p1 p2 . Note that
GH →O (s) and GH →O (s), respectively, become close to 1 and
0, as the magnitude of controller gains increases. However, the
high gain control causes discomfort due to chattering in the
torque output, which is not desirable in practice.
Suppose that the reference input r is determined based on
the desired torque τ D and the difference between the generated
torque and the reference input τ O − r, i.e.,
r = τD − Q(s)[τO − r] (15)
where Q(s) is a filter that smoothens the torque error, which plays
the role similar to the Q filter in disturbance observers [9], [12].
Rearranging (15), r = [1−Q(s)]−1 τ D −Q(s)[1−Q(s)]−1 τ O ,
which implies that the reference input is determined based on
the current output torque as well as the desired torque.
Substituting (15) into (12),
τO = G∗D →O (s)τD − G∗H →O (s)τH (16)
where
GR →O (s)
G∗D →O (s) = (17)
1 − Q(s) + GR →O (s)Q(s)
G∗H →O (s) = . (18)
[1 − Q(s) + GR →O (s)Q(s)]ANS
The actuator is required to precisely generate the desired torque
regardless of the human joint torques or motions. Therefore, the
desired transfer function is τ O = τ D , which requires G∗ D →O (s)
= 1 and G∗ H →O (s) = 0. Note that if Q(s) = 1, such conditions
are satisfied. Therefore, Q(s) should be designed such that Q(jω)
= 1 + 0j at frequencies where the precise torque generation is
required.
B. Robust Stability
The characteristic equation of the transfer function in (16) is
1 − Q(s) + GR →O (s)Q(s) = 0. Note that GR →O (s) is subject to
change due to the variation in A(ϕ, μ), which is resulted from
the variation in the friction coefficient. Moreover, IE in (11)
also includes NW , the nominal value of A(ϕ, μ). To encounter
such uncertainties, multiplicative uncertainties imposed on the
system model are considered, i.e.,
GR →O (s) = 1 + W (s)Δ(s) (19)
KONG et al.: COMPACT ROTARY SERIES ELASTIC ACTUATOR FOR HUMAN ASSISTIVE SYSTEMS
Fig. 8. System identification of the actuation system in the cRSEA.
where W(s) is a stable boundary function of the multiplicative
uncertainties and Δ(s) is a random stable transfer function with
bounded magnitude, i.e., Δ∞ ; < 1. Note that in (19), the
nominal model of GR →O (s) is 1(s), because GR →O (s) = 1 when
A(ϕ, μ) = NW [see (13)].
Substituting (19) into the characteristic equation of (16),
1 + W (s)Δ(s)Q(s) = 0.
Equation (20) introduces a constraint to the design of Q(s).
Note that W(s)Δ(s)Q(s) is stable by definition. Therefore, the
system is stable unless W(s)Δ(s)Q(s) encircles −1 + 0j on the
Nyquist plot. However, Δ(s) is unknown, and thus, it is difficult
to directly apply the Nyquist method. A conservative way to
guarantee the stability of the system is to apply the small gain
theorem. Namely, the system is stable if (but not only if)
|W (jω)Δ(jω)Q(jω)| < 1 for allω ∈ 
and, (21) is satisfied if
|Q(jω)| < |W (jω)|−1 for all ω ∈ .
Note that (20)–(22) follow the same principles of the disturbance
observer design [9], [12].
IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPERIMENTS
A. Identification of the Motor Inertia
The motor inertia significantly increases the mechanical
impedance of the system. If the overall gear ratio is N, the
extended motor inertia is increased by N2 . Note that the overall
gear ratio of the cRSEA from the motor shaft to the knee frame
is NW NS = 60, which means that the motor inertia observed
from the human side is 3600 times larger than its original value.
Therefore, it is important to compensate for the motor inertia to
properly generate the desired torque and to minimize the me-
chanical impedance. Also, the compensation of the motor inertia
simplifies the remaining transfer function, as in (12).
Fig. 8 shows the frequency response of an open-loop system,
which includes the motor, the worm gear, and the worm wheel
only. Therefore, the response is mainly due to the extended
motor inertia, where the input is the motor torque τ M and the
output is the motor angle θM . In Fig. 8, the circles show the
experimental data, and the continuous line is an identified model
based on the function of 1/IE s2 . The identified value of IE is
4.255×10−4 kgm2 . Note that the actual responses and the model
match properly, as shown in Fig. 8.
293
Fig. 9. Frequency responses of the PID-controlled cRSEA. The amplitudes of
the excitation inputs (i.e., the desired torques) were varied from 0.2 to 1.0 N·m.
B. Selection of PID Gains
The PID gains in the control law [i.e., KP , KD , and KI in
(11)] are selected considering the desired bandwidth of the sys-
tem. Since the cRSEA is utilized to a knee assistive device in
Section V, it is reasonable to select the PID gains such that the
(20) closed-loop bandwidth is larger than the natural frequency of
the calf, which is about 5 rad/s. In experiments, the PID gains
are selected to KP = 5, KD = 0.251, and KI = 25.1, which are
resulted from p1 = p2 = 10.
Fig. 9 shows the frequency responses of the closed-loop sys-
tems with various excitation amplitudes, where the input and
output are the desired and generated torques, respectively. In
the experiments, the knee frame was mechanically fixed, and
thus, the responses in Fig. 9 may include the effect of external
(21) disturbances. Although the responses are close to 0 dB at low
frequencies, they are apart from 0 dB at high frequencies. Also,
the frequency responses are slightly changed for different exci-
(22) tation amplitudes, which implies the existence of nonlinearity in
the system. Note that the responses are scattered at frequencies
higher than 180 rad/s, which is caused by the motor saturation.
Although the saturation problem can be solved by decreasing
the PID gains, the same gains are used in experiments because
the frequency bandwidth of human motions is much lower than
180 rad/s.
C. Design of the Q Filter
In the proposed control law, the reference input r is deter-
mined by the torque error as well as the desired torque. In this
procedure, a filter Q(s) is utilized as in (15). In the design of
Q(s), the following conditions should be fulfilled to guarantee
robust stability: 1) Q(s) must be stable and 2) the magnitude of
Q(jω) should be less than that of W−1 (jω) for all ω, where W(s)
is a boundary function of the multiplicative uncertainties.
Since the frequency responses from the reference input to the
torque output have been obtained by experiments (see Fig. 9),
the multiplicative uncertainties can be estimated by W(jω)Δ(jω)
= GR →O (jω) − 1. Fig. 10(a) shows the magnitude of the mul-
tiplicative uncertainties calculated from the results in Fig. 9.
Based on the experimentally obtained information, Q(s) can be
designed to satisfy the robust stability condition. A possible Q(s)
is
2500
Q(s) = 2 . (23)
s + 70.5s + 2500
294
Fig. 10. Design of the Q filter. (a) Multiplicative uncertainties and a selected
Q(s). (b) Stability robustness margin, W−1 (s)/Q(s).
Fig. 11. Closed-loop frequency responses from the human joint torque to the
generated (resistive) torque with Q(s) in (23) and Q(s) = 0.
Note that Q(s) in (23) has the cutoff frequency of 50 rad/s and
the magnitude of 1 at low frequencies. Also, it has the robust
stability margin of at least 15 dB for all frequencies, as shown in
Fig. 10(b). For the implementation of Q(s), an equivalent filter
in the discrete time domain, i.e., Q(z−1 ), can be obtained by the
pole-zero matching method [16].
The magnitude of G∗ H →O (jω) in (18) represents how much
the torque output is affected by the human motions or human
joint torques at the frequency ω. When the desired torque is
zero, i.e., τ D = 0, the magnitude of G∗ H →O (jω) shows how
large resistive torque is generated to the human motions. There-
fore, the magnitude of G∗ H →O (jω) is related to the mechani-
cal impedance of the system, and is required to be minimized.
Fig. 11 shows the magnitude of G∗ H →O (jω) with Q(s) in (23)
and Q(s) = 0. Notice that with the designed Q(s), the magnitude
of G∗ H →O (jω) is significantly decreased in the frequency range
up to 30 rad/s, which is higher than the natural frequency of the
calf.
Fig. 12 shows the frequency responses from the desired torque
to the generated torque, i.e., G∗ D →O (jω). As discussed before,
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 17, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
Fig. 12. Closed-loop frequency responses from the desired torque to the gen-
erated torque with Q(s) in (23) and Q(s) = 0.
it is desired that G∗ D →O (jω) = 1 + 0j at frequencies where the
precise torque generation is required. Note that the magnitude of
G∗ D →O (jω) is close to 1 (i.e., 0 dB) when Q(s) in (23) is applied
in the control law. Also, the phase of G∗ D →O (jω) is close to
zero, which implies that the cRSEA immediately generates the
desired torque without a phase delay.
The results in Figs. 11 and 12 confirm that the cRSEA con-
trolled by the proposed control law can precisely generate the
desired torque by compensating for the uncertainties and non-
linearities inherent in the cRSEA system.
V. EXPERIMENTS WITH A HUMAN SUBJECT
Although the control algorithms were designed for the cRSEA
to generate the desired torques precisely, interaction with hu-
mans may affect the performance of the cRSEA. Therefore,
it is important to verify performance by experiments with a
human subject. The performance objectives are: 1) the error
between the desired and generated torques should be mini-
mal (i.e., torque generation performance) and 2) the torque
error caused by the human motions should also be mini-
mal (i.e., minimal impedance). For the sake of quantitative
analysis, the RMS values of the desired assistive torque and
the torque error are calculated. Also, the effect of interac-
tion with humans in the generated torque is analyzed by fre-
quency responses from the knee joint angle to the torque
error.
If the desired torque is set to a predefined smooth function
without noise, the cRSEA generates the desired torque with very
high precision. For example, when τ d = sin(2πt), the magnitude
of the torque error is less than 0.5% to that of the desired torque
in terms of the RMS value. However, if the desired assistive
torque is determined based on the sensor measurements in real
time, uncertainty and noise are introduced to the reference input
of the control system. Thus, the performance of the cRSEA
should be assessed in an actual situation where a human subject
is being assisted.
KONG et al.: COMPACT ROTARY SERIES ELASTIC ACTUATOR FOR HUMAN ASSISTIVE SYSTEMS 295

Fig. 13. Simplified dynamic models of a human leg. (a) Model for the swing
phase. (b) Model for the stance phase.

A. Determination of Desired Assistive Torques

In this experiment, a fictitious gain (FG) method proposed
in [13] is applied to determine the amount of assistive torques
in real time. For the details on the FG method, see [13].
In the FG method, the desired assistive torque is determined
by
K(s) − 1
τD = τknee (24)
K(s)
where K(s) is the FG. In the experiment, K(s) is chosen to
s + aωB
K(s) = (25)
s + ωB
where ω B is the desired frequency bandwidth for assisting hu-
man motions and a is a constant that determines the amount of
assistance or resistance. In the experiment, a = 1.5 and ω B =
20 rad/s. τ knee is the knee joint torque estimated by an inverse
dynamics method, i.e.,
 
τ
τknee = [λSW λST ] SW (26) Fig. 14. Experimental results with a human subject. (a) Knee joint angle. (b)
τST Assistive torque (continuous line: the desired assistive torque, dotted line: the
generated assistive torque). (c) Error between the desired and generated torques.
where τ SW and τ ST are, respectively, the estimated knee joint
torques in the swing phase [see Fig. 13(a)] and in the stance
phase [see Fig. 13(b)], i.e.,
B. Experimental Results
τSW = IC θ̈knee + mC glC sin(θknee ) (27)
As discussed in the previous section, the desired torque [τ d ],
τST = −mU glU sin(θhip ) (28) which is the reference to the proposed control law in (11) and
where mC and mU are the masses of the calf and the upper body (15), is determined in real time based on the measurements of
including the thigh, respectively. λSW and λST are the likeli- joint angles and ground contact forces. Therefore, the desired
hoods of motion phases. For example, [λSW λST ] = [1 0] when assistive torque includes noise and uncertainty due to interac-
the leg is in the swing phase, and [λSW λST ] = [0 1] when it is in tions with humans. Thus, the performance of the cRSEA should
the stance phase. In the transition period between the two phases, be verified by experiments with a human subject. A healthy male
λSW and λST change continuously in the range of 0 and 1. The subject with the body weight of 70 kg was asked to walk on a
summation of λSW and λST is always 1, and thus, they play treadmill wearing the knee joint assistive device shown in Fig. 1.
the role of weighting factors that interpolate the joint torques Fig. 14 shows the experimental results during two strides. In
calculated from the two different models (i.e., the swing model Fig. 14(a), the knee joint angle measured by the encoder [see
and the stance model shown in Fig. 13). The likelihoods are esti- Fig. 2(h)] is shown. Due to the assistive torque applied by the
mated from the ground contact forces measured by smart shoes cRSEA, the joint angle trajectory in Fig. 14(a) is slightly dif-
[14], [15]. For the details of motion phase detection, see [15]. ferent from a normal gait pattern in [17], which shows that the
296
Fig. 15. Frequency response from the desired torque to the torque error.
magnitude of the generated torque was large enough to affect
the human motions. Fig. 14(b) shows the desired and generated
assistive torques during the experiment. Note that the desired
assistive torque [i.e., the dotted line in Fig. 14(b)] is noisy.
The error between the desired and generated assistive torques is
shown in Fig. 14(c). Due to the limited bandwidth of the cRSEA,
the error mainly consists of high-frequency components. Note
that in the design of Q(s) in Section IV-C, the bandwidth was
set to 50 rad/s, and thus, the system may not generate the de-
sired torque at frequencies higher than the selected bandwidth.
In terms of the RMS value, the magnitude of the torque error is
5.5% compared to that of the desired torque. Our previous ver-
sion, RSEA in [9], showed the torque generation performance
with the error of about 9% in similar conditions. If the desired
and generated torques shown in Fig. 14 are low-pass filtered
with a cutoff frequency of 8 rad/s considering the bandwidth of
human calf, the magnitude of the RMS values of torque error is
3.5% compared to that of the desired torque.
Another useful method for verifying performance is fre-
quency response analysis, because it shows the accuracy of the
cRSEA at each frequency. The desired performance objective
is that the cRSEA shows good accuracy in the frequency band-
width of human motions and is insensitive to the high-frequency
noises. The black line in Fig. 15 denotes the torque sensitivity
response (i.e., the frequency response from the desired torque
to the torque error) of the cRSEA with the proposed control
method. The result was obtained by comparing the Fourier co-
efficients of each signal, i.e., τ D (ω) and [τ D (ω)−τ O (ω)]. Note
that the frequency response with the proposed control method
(the black line in Fig. 15) shows low magnitudes at low fre-
quencies, which implies that the error between the desired and
generated torques is small at the low-frequency region. For ex-
ample, the magnitude at 1 rad/s is about −50 dB; the cRSEA
with the proposed control method is able to generate assistive
torques at 1 rad/s with the error of less than 0.32% in terms of
RMS values. In addition, the frequency bandwidth of the cRSEA
with the proposed method is about 30 rad/s; this result is similar
to Fig. 11, which was a result without a human subject. There-
fore, the black line in Fig. 15 confirms that the cRSEA precisely
generates the desired assistive torque with a large bandwidth
even while interacting with humans.
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 17, NO. 2, APRIL 2012
Fig. 16. Frequency response from the human joint motion to the torque error.
For the verification of the proposed control method, both the
results with and without the disturbance rejection function in
(15) are shown in Fig. 15. In both experiments, the same PID
gains were used. Note that the frequency bandwidth has been
significantly improved by the proposed control method; in the
figure, the frequency bandwidth is about 2 Hz when the PID con-
trol was applied only (the gray line) while it is about 20 Hz with
the proposed method (the black line). Although the magnitudes
of the frequency response with the proposed control method are
slightly larger than those with only the PID controller at high
frequencies, the accuracy at lower frequency is of importance
because human motions have a limited frequency bandwidth.
In Fig. 16, the frequency response from the human motions
(i.e., the human joint angle) to the torque error is shown. The
figure shows only the result with the proposed control method,
since the superiority of the proposed control method over the
PID control was already verified in Fig. 15.
In an ideal case, the torque error should not be affected by
the human motions. For example, when the desired torque is
zero, the torque error caused by the human motions is related
to the resistive torque that disturbs the human motions. Thus,
the magnitude of the torque error caused by human motions is
a measure of the mechanical impedance of the system. For low
impedance, which is desirable for human assistive systems, the
magnitude of the frequency response from the human motions
to the torque error should be minimal. Note that the experi-
mentally obtained frequency response shows low magnitudes at
low frequencies, which implies that the torque generation per-
formance of the cRSEA is not sensitive to the human motions.
Since the cRSEA does not generate large resistive torques to the
human motions, the back drivability of the system is guaranteed
and the human can be assisted with precisely generated assistive
torques without discomfort.
VI. CONCLUSION
An actuator module for human assistive devices was proposed
in this paper. The proposed device, a compact series elastic
actuator, utilizes a torsional spring in the chain of spur gears and
worm gears, which allows the precise control of the generated
assistive torque. The proposed system is compact and mobile
such that it can be utilized for mobile human assistive systems.
A robust control algorithm was designed to control the cRSEA.
KONG et al.: COMPACT ROTARY SERIES ELASTIC ACTUATOR FOR HUMAN ASSISTIVE SYSTEMS
The actuation performance of the proposed device (e.g., the
minimal impedance and the precision of torque output) was
verified by experiments.
In the experiment with a human subject, the cRSEA was uti-
lized to assist the knee joint. The desired assistive torque was
determined in real time based on the measurements of joint
angles and ground contact forces. Regardless of the interac-
tions with humans and the noise included in the desired torque
signal, the cRSEA generated the torque precisely with enough
bandwidth.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Hayashi, H. Kawamoto, and Y. Sankai, “Control method of robot suit
HAL working as operator’s muscle using biological and dynamical infor-
mation,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst.( IROS), Aug.
2005, pp. 3063–3068.
[2] H. Kazerooni, J. Racine, L. Huang, and R. Steger, “On the control of the
berkeley lower extremity exoskeleton (BLEEX),” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Rob. Autom.(ICRA), 2005, pp. 4353–4360.
[3] A. Zoss, H. Kazerooni, and A. Chu, “Biomechanical design of the berkeley
lower extremity exoskeleton (BLEEX),” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron-
ics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 128–138, Apr. 2006.
[4] K. Yamamoto, M. Ishii, H. Noborisaka, and K. Hyodo, “Stand alone wear-
able power assisting suit-sensing and control systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Workshop Robot Human Interactive Commun. (ROMAN), 2004, pp. 661–
666.
[5] K. Kong and D. Jeon, “Design and control of an exoskeleton for the elderly
and patients,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 428–432,
Aug. 2006.
[6] J. Pratt, B. Krupp, and C. Morse, “Series elastic actuators for high fidelity
force control,” Int. J. Ind. Robot, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 234–241, 2002.
[7] G. A. Pratt and M. M. Williamson, “Series elastic actuators,” in Proc.
IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robotics Syst. (IROS), Pittsburgh, PA, 1995,
pp. 399–406.
[8] D. W. Robinson, J. E. Pratt, D. J. Paluska, and G. A. Pratt, “Series elastic ac-
tuator development for a biomimetic walking robot,” in Proc. IEEE/ASME
Int. Conf. Adv. Intell. Mech. ( AIM) 1999, Atlanta, GA, pp. 561–568.
[9] K. Kong, J. Bae, and M. Tomizuka, “Control of rotary series elastic ac-
tuator for ideal force-mode actuation in human-robot interaction applica-
tions,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 105–118,
Feb. 2009.
[10] Luminary Stellaris LM3S8962, Luminary Micro, Texas Instruments,
Austin. (2009). [Online]. Available: http://www.luminarymicro.com/.
[11] RE 40 DC Motor, Maxon Motor, Brünigstrasse, Switzerland. (2009). [On-
line]. Available: http://www.maxonmotor.com/.
[12] H. Lee and M. Tomizuka, “Robust motion controller design for high-
accuracy positioning systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 43, no. 1,
pp. 48–55, Feb. 1996.
[13] K. Kong and M. Tomizuka, “Control of exoskeletons inspired by fictitious
gain in human model,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 14, no. 6,
pp. 689–698, Dec. 2009.
[14] J. Bae, K. Kong, and M. Tomizuka, “Real-time Estimation of Lower
Extremity Joint Torque in Normal Gait,” in Proc. Int. Fed. Autom. Control
(IFAC) Int. Symp. Robot Control (SYROCO), 2009, pp. 577–582.
[15] K. Kong and M. Tomizuka, “A Gait Monitoring System Based on Air Pres-
sure Sensors Embedded in a Shoe,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1083–4435, Jun. 2009.
[16] G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell, and M. L. Workman, Digital Control of
Dynamic Systems, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
[17] J. Perry, Gait Analysis. Thorofare, NJ: SLACK Inc., 1992.
[18] K. Kong, J. Bae, and M. Tomizuka, “A compact rotary series elastic
actuator for knee joint assistive system,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Rob.
Autom. (ICRA), 2010, pp. 2940–2945.
View publication stats
297
Kyoungchul Kong (S’04–M’09) received the B.Eng.
degree in mechanical engineering (summa cum
laude), the B.S. degree in physics in 2004, and the
M.S. degree in mechanical engineering in 2006, all
from Sogang University, Seoul, Korea, and the Ph.D.
degree in mechanical engineering from the Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, in 2009.
In 2011, he joined the Department of Mechan-
ical Engineering, Sogang University, Seoul, Korea.
He has authored or coauthored more than 50 tech-
nical articles in journals and conference proceedings
in the area of mechatronics, including human–robot interaction and assistive
systems. His current research interests include design, modeling, and control of
mechatronic systems with emphasis on betterment of quality of life.
Dr. Kong was the recipient of the Best Student Paper Award at the IEEE
Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM) in 2008 and the Best
Paper Award in the Division of Dynamic Systems and Control at the KSME
Annual Conference in 2005.
Joonbum Bae (S’07) received the B.S. degree in
mechanical engineering (summa cum laude) from
Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, in 2006,
and the M.S. degree in mechanical engineering and
the M.A. degree in statistics both from the University
of California, Berkeley, in 2008 and 2010, respec-
tively. He is currently working toward the Ph.D. de-
gree in mechanical engineering at the University of
California, Berkeley.
His current research interests include modeling
and control of biomechatronics systems, sensors for
human–robot systems, and biologically inspired systems.
Mr. Bae was a finalist of the Best Poster Paper at the IFAC World Congress
in 2008. He has been the recipient of the Samsung Scholarship since 2009.
Masayoshi Tomizuka (M’86–SM’95–F’97) re-
ceived the B.S. and M.S. degrees from Keio Univer-
sity, Tokyo, Japan, in 1968 and 1970, respectively,
and the Ph.D. degree from the Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge, all in mechanical en-
gineering.
In 1974, he joined the Department of Mechani-
cal Engineering, University of California, Berkeley,
where he is currently the Cheryl and John Neerhout Jr.
Distinguished Professor Chair. His current research
interests include optimal and adaptive control, digi-
tal control, signal processing, motion control, and control problems related to
robotics, machining, manufacturing, and information storage devices and vehi-
cles.
Dr. Tomizuka was the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON
MECHATRONICS from 1997 to 1999. He is a Fellow of the ASME and the SME.
He was the recipient of the Charles Russ Richards Memorial Award (ASME,
1997), the Rufus Oldenburger Medal (ASME, 2002), and the John R. Ragazzini
Award (2006).