Design and Characterization of an Open-Source Robotic Leg Prosthesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Design and Characterization of an Open-source Robotic Leg Prosthesis Alejandro F. Azocar, Student Member, IEEE, Luke M. Mooney, Levi J. Hargrove, Member, IEEE, and Elliott J. Rouse, Member, IEEE Abstract—Challenges associated with current prosthetic muscle activity of other joints, such as the hip [7], [8]. technologies limit the quality of life of lower-limb amputees. Compensatory changes to gait mechanics can lead to further Passive prostheses lead amputees to walk slower, use more complications, including osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and energy, fall more often, and modify their gait patterns to back pain [9]. Thus, restoring appropriate gait characteristics compensate for the prosthesis’ lack of net-positive mechanical requires robotic leg prostheses that are safe, stable, and energy. Robotic prostheses can provide mechanical energy, but intuitively controlled. may also introduce challenges through controller design. Fortunately, talented researchers are studying how to best Over the past decade, many encouraging robotic leg control robotic leg prostheses, but the time and resources prostheses have been developed [10]–[13]. Three required to develop prosthetic hardware has limited their generations of knee-ankle prostheses were created at potential impact. Even after research is completed, comparison Vanderbilt University. The original design was of results is confounded by the use of different, researcher- pneumatically powered, and, after several revisions, the specific hardware. To address these issues, we have developed current prosthesis uses electric motors and a belt/chain the Open-source Leg (OSL): a scalable robotic knee/ankle transmission [14], [15]. In addition, investigators at the prosthesis intended to foster investigations of control strategies. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) developed This paper introduces the design goals, transmission selection, robotic ankle and knee systems independently. The robotic hardware implementation, and initial control benchmarks for ankle utilized series and parallel elasticity and was the OSL. The OSL provides a common hardware platform for commercialized by BiOM, and now Ottobock [16]. Their comparison of control strategies, lowers the barrier to entry for robotic knee prosthesis used a clutchable series-elastic prosthesis research, and enables testing within the lab, actuator (CSEA) for minimal electrical energy consumption community, and at home. [17]. Finally, researchers at Arizona State University I. INTRODUCTION developed a spring ankle with regenerative kinetics (SPARKy), which integrated an electric motor, lead screw, Over one million lower-limb amputees live in the United and a series spring [18]. Many other research groups, some States, and their quality of life is affected by the performance who focus on prosthesis control, have also developed of today’s prostheses [1]. Most amputees walk slower, use promising robotic prostheses and emulators [19]–[23]. more energy, and are less stable than able-bodied individuals [2]–[4]. In part, these deficits stem from the passive nature of While the design of high-performance robotic leg traditional prosthetic legs; that is, most leg prostheses cannot prostheses is challenging, development of intelligent control provide net-positive mechanical energy, which contrasts with systems is especially difficult. Prosthesis control systems the abilities of the human neuromuscular system [5]. Without must accomplish multiple tasks, such as recognizing the added mechanical energy, certain activities are especially amputee’s intended movements (high-level control), applying challenging for individuals with amputations, including stair an appropriate control law based on the amputee’s intent and ramp ascent [6]. Furthermore, to compensate for the lack (mid-level control), and using local feedback to command the of mechanical energy, amputees often adopt an asymmetrical actuation systems within the prosthesis (low-level control) gait pattern and significantly modify the biomechanics and [24]. Controller complexity increases further during simultaneous control of both knee and ankle joints [25]. Researchers have developed control systems capable of *This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1324585, NSF controlling multiple joints across various ambulation modes National Robotics Initiative (NRI) under Grant No. CMMI 1734586, and (level ground walking, ramp ascent/descent, stair the MSL Renewed Hope Foundation. ascent/descent); however, these control strategies are highly A. F. Azocar is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, sophisticated, sometimes containing over 100 parameters and University of Michigan, and also with the Neurobionics Lab, University of requiring hours of tuning [26]. Before robotic legs can realize Michigan (e-mail: [email protected]). Luke M. Mooney is with Dephy, Inc., Boston, MA 02129 USA (e-mail: their full potential for clinical impact, future work is needed [email protected]). in the control of these systems. Levi J. Hargrove is with the Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, The lack of open, available prosthetic hardware has Evanston, IL 60208 USA, and also with the Center for Bionic Medicine, limited the impact of the field, particularly with respect to Shirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, IL 60611 USA (e-mail: l- intuitive, seamless control systems. A number of researchers [email protected]). around the world are independently developing robotic E. J. Rouse is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the prostheses on which to test their control strategies; however, Robotics Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA, and also with the Neurobionics Lab, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI this development requires a substantial level of time and 48109 USA (phone: 734-763-3629; e-mail: [email protected]). financial resources. Thus, this high investment may preclude talented researchers in related fields, such as bipedal robotics, from applying their research to prostheses. Furthermore, even after research is completed, the differences in mechanical designs and performance can hinder comparisons. Researchers use different prostheses that vary widely in size, weight, transmission design, controllability, and degrees of freedom. Additionally, many research groups use prostheses that must be tethered to a power supply, limiting their research to within the laboratory. Low-cost, open-source prosthetic hardware and software will enable more researchers to enter the prosthetics field, improve comparison of control strategies, and promote worldwide collaboration to improve amputee quality of life. In this paper, we introduce the Open-source Leg (OSL): a robotic leg prosthesis that facilitates control system development and comparison [27]. We present the overarching design objectives, transmission selection, hardware implementation, and characterization in the time and frequency domains. The intent of the OSL is to offer a common hardware platform for comparison of control strategies, lower the barrier to entry for prosthesis research, and enable testing within the lab, community, and at home. II. DESIGN A. Design Objectives The overall goal of the OSL (Fig. 1) is to provide a common hardware platform that streamlines the development and testing of robotic leg prostheses. The OSL includes the prosthesis hardware, sensors, low-level control software, and an Application Peripheral Interface (API) to communicate with researchers’ preferred high-level control systems. We have developed several characteristics that have guided the overarching design: 1. Simple: the leg does not require high-precision machine Fig. 1. Rendering (top) and physical implementation (bottom) of the OSL. components (e.g., ball or roller screws) and can be easily assembled and disassembled. All hardware components are B. Transmission Design machined by a single manufacturer. To investigate potential prosthesis designs, able-bodied 2. Portable: the prosthesis is lightweight and does not locomotion data were obtained from the literature. Data from require a tether to a power supply. Each joint has its own walking at slow, self-selected, and fast speeds, in addition to onboard battery, allowing researchers to use the prosthesis data from ascending/descending stairs, were used [28]. These outside of the laboratory easily. data yielded insight into the prosthesis’ kinetic, kinematic, and electromechanical requirements, across a range of 3. Scalable: the ankle and knee operate independently, transmission ratios and stiffness coefficients for the series enabling researchers to work with both transtibial and elasticity. The associated torque/velocity, and accompanying transfemoral amputees, in single and dual joint current/voltage requirements were used as the foundation for configurations. Control strategies can be implemented in a the mechanical design decisions [17]. single embedded system that operates both joints. To simplify manufacturing, assembly, and control, the 4. Customizable: the knee joint is selectable series-elastic, knee and ankle joints follow similar design strategies. Both and can be configured with varying amounts of series joints use an electric motor coupled to a multi-stage belt drive elasticity (or none at all). In addition, the ankle can use both transmission, increasing the torque provided at the output. low-profile and flat feet,