Ground Contact Detection Using Air Pressure Sensors For Biped Walking

Ground Contact Detection using Air Pressure Sensors for Biped walking
Graduate School of Science and Engineering Page 18

B. Static Analysis
During foot flat and mid stance of the gait cycle both heel and the toe
will be in contact with ground. Entire weight of the body is distributed between
heels and toe, thus can be treated as the condition of force acting on a simply
supported beam. The robot weighs about 600N and considering safety of the
design 2000N force was applied on the brackets of gimbal mechanism.

Fig.20 Static analysis for mid stance
C. Nonlinear Analysis
Foot off is the final point of the stance phase in gait cycle. During this
a large amount of force acts upon the toe just before it leaves the ground.
Nonlinear analysis will give us an idea how much the tubes of the sensor will
deform during the Foot off. Due to the axial symmetry of the sensor the
analysis is made simple by creating a 2D model.

Fig.21 Nonlinear analysis for toe off


Chapter 5

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Before integrating the proposed sensor and its design method on H1 robot, we
developed an experimental setup to verify the models behaviour. A single 4mm diameter
viscoelastic tube was wounded upon 10mm diameter aluminium shaft. Before winding, 1
end of the tube was melted to seal and another end was tightly fitted to sensor creating a
closed volume. In order to select the proper tube material, the experiment was conducted
with 3 different tube - soft polyurethane, non-shrinkable silicon and rubber tubes.
Mechanical Properties of these flexible tubes used is given in table 3.
Property Unit
Soft
Polyurethane
silicone rubber tube
Tensile
strength
Mpa 21-35 6.8 - 8.7 29-41
Elongation at
break
% 200-400 570 - 795 310-470
Hardness Shore D:80-90 A: 50 - 60 D:30-40
Color - Red Milky white black
Table 3 mechanical property of the flexible tubes

During 1st phase of the experiment, the relationship between the load F and the
output voltage v was derived. For each Standard weights ranging from 1 to 64kg, the output
voltage was noted after a small time gap. The time gap between the voltage readings gave
the sensor sufficient time to settle down thus it gives us a linear relation between static load
and the output voltage. But due to the viscoelastic property, these tubes tend to show creep
and stress relaxation upon dynamic loading. Thus relaxation time for varying load is
determined. The 2nd phase of the experiment aimed to check the repetitive on-off ability
of the sensor without getting any time delay
The experimental setup is as shown in the figure 22 . It consists of a weighing
machine which can measure weight starting from 0.05 kg to 100kg. The proposed sensor is
rigidly fixed upon the weighing machine with the help of elastic bands. A platform for
carrying weights is created with the help of sponge and an Aluminum plate. The platform
is placed upon the sensor, Here Sponge acts as a flexible support to the platform.

The sensor has 5 terminals, 2 Terminals are for the Reference voltage (Vref). In
this case +15v and -15v Vref are used. Other 3 terminals are voltage input, ground and
Voltage output.
During first phase of the Experiment, voltage output and the ground terminal are
connected to the digital Multimeter. This allow us to manually plot a graph between the
weights added and the voltage output.
Due to viscoelastic property of the tube materials, it is important to monitor the
behavior change during static loading as well as the dynamic loading. To make sure best
tube material is used for the sensor development, various tube material are tested and a plot
of force vs voltage are obtained to compare their results.

Fig.8 CAD model assembly of the sensor integrated with foot
Fig.22 Experimental setup
During second phase of the experiment, voltage and ground terminal are connected
to the oscilloscope, the validity of obtained results are verified by using an Arduino
microcontroller. Furthermore a digital filter is created inside the Arduino programming
with allow us to filter low pass signal.
To determine the best Sampling time and cut off frequency for this application,
various filter were tested.


Chapter 6

RESULTS
Result section is mainly divided into 2 section, first section we discuss upon the
results obtained from the experiments on sensor and in second section we will discuss the
simulation results obtained from the designed foot.
6.1 Experimental results
During first phase of the experiment, the response of the sensor to increase in the
weight is determined. The experimental results obtained for different tube material as
follows -
6.1.1 Polyurethane Tubes
The results obtained from 1st phase of experiment on soft polyurethane tubes are as
shown in fig 23 and figure 24. During 5 sec loading time, the maximum output voltage
recorded was 3.2v for a force of 740N, but when the loading time was increased to 30 sec
it can be noticed that the voltage will fall to minimum and will remain constant for any
amount of load applied over 500N. This voltage drop is caused because, the force applied
deforms the tube such that there is only a negligible volume to obtain a pressure change.

Fig.23. Force VS output voltage, with time gap of 5 sec (polyurethane)
force(N) mass (kg) voltage(v)
0 0 0.545
41.202 4.2 0.751
57.3885 5.85 0.835
93.6855 9.55 1.03
140.7735 14.35 1.298
184.9185 18.85 1.4
198.6525 20.25 1.5
241.8165 24.65 1.58
273.699 27.9 1.62
309.015 31.5 1.72
333.54 34 1.83
400.248 40.8 2.03
498.348 50.8 2.3
529.74 54 2.48
619.992 63.2 2.7
729.864 74.4 3.1

y = 0.0034x + 0.6859
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 200 400 600 800
o
u
t
p
u
t

v
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
V
)
Force(N)
trail 1

Fig.24 Force VS output voltage, with time gap of 30 sec (polyurethane)

It can be seen from the graph that, the relaxation time not only increases with
increase in force but it also increases with loading time. The max relaxation time obtained
for polyurethane tube was 380 seconds for 5 seconds loading time and 612 seconds for a
30seconds loading time.

Fig.25 Time VS output voltage, with time gap of (a) 5 sec (b) 30 sec (polyurethane)
force(N)
mass
(kg) voltage(v)
0 0 0.545
41.202 4.2 0.751
57.3885 5.85 0.835
93.6855 9.55 1.03
140.7735 14.35 1.298
184.9185 18.85 1.4
198.6525 20.25 1.5
241.8165 24.65 1.58
273.699 27.9 1.62
309.015 31.5 1.72
333.54 34 1.83
400.248 40.8 2.03
498.348 50.8 2.3
529.74 54 0.68
619.992 63.2 0.64
729.864 74.4 0.59

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 20 40 60 80
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
mass
Mass vs voltage for various number of turns
2 turn
1turns
3 turns
4 turns
To check the influence of number of time tubes were wounded upon
each other, the same experiment was carried out for different number of turns.
The results obtained are discussed below.

2turn 1turns 3 turns 4 turns
mass voltage mass voltage mass voltage mass voltage
0 0.61 0 0.567 0 0.546 0 0.57
4.1 0.841 4.3 0.789 4.2 0.78 4.2 0.772
9.3 1.035 9.65 0.946 8.05 0.99 7.4 0.904
14.3 1.17 17.25 0.76 24.4 1.966 12.5 1.18
20.35 1.268 22.3 0.573 49.2 2.3 19.3 1.628
26.25 1.153 52.3 0.68 22.4 1.87
30.35 0.72 64.2 0.669 37.7 2.27
72 0.54 49.5 3.034
63.6 4.41

Fig.26 Mass VS output voltage, with time gap of 10 sec (polyurethane) varying number of turns

Notice that as the number of turns increase, the sudden voltage drop
which occurs by increasing the mass will also strengthen.
6.1.2 Silicone Tubes
With 5sec loading time
Max voltage obtained was 4.72 v for mass 66.5 kg

Fig.27 Mass VS output voltage, with time gap of 5 sec (silicone)

At time T2=30 seconds
Max voltage obtained was 2.81 v for mass 29.8 kg

Fig.28 Mass VS output voltage, with time gap of 30 sec (silicone)
Mass
KG
V2
volts
0.1445 0.753
0.3635 0.823
1.82 1.06
3.2 1.29
7.3 1.59
12 1.98
19.2 2.54
24.2 2.89
30.2 3.34
44.4 3.9
52.5 4.22
66.5 4.72
mass
KG
V2
volts
0.1445 0.76
0.3635 0.82
1.62 0.96
4.2 1.15
9.5 1.39
12.2 1.46
18.6 1.9
24.2 2.36
29.8 2.81
42.75 1.68
54 1.22
66.2 0.78
y = 0.0609x + 1.116
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 20 40 60 80
v
o
l
t
a
g
e

i
n

v
o
l
t
s
mass in kg
mass VS voltage(with zero time gap)
y = 0.0648x + 0.7876
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
v
o
l
t
a
g
e

i
n

v
o
l
t
s
mass in kg
mass VS voltage(with 30 sec time gap)

T1= initial time, V1= initial voltage
T2=loading time, V2=increased voltage
T3=depressions time, V3= depressions voltage
T4=relaxation time, V4= initial voltage
Max increased voltage was 4.98 V for 69.05 kg. And max relaxation time and
depressions voltage was 92 sec and 0.375 V.

Fig.29 Time VS output voltage, with time gap of 5 sec (silicone)

mass
KG
T1
SEC
V1
volts
T2
SEC
V2
volts
T3
SEC
V3
volts
T4
SEC
V4
volts
0.1445 0 0.644 5 0.803 11 0.649 23 0.644
0.3635 0 0.644 5 0.884 9 0.652 28 0.644
1.6 0 0.644 5 1.18 11 0.636 34 0.644
2.85 0 0.644 5 1.34 11 0.632 34 0.644
4.15 0 0.644 5 1.79 11 0.563 43 0.644
8.75 0 0.644 5 2.2 8 0.522 43 0.644
15.5 0 0.644 5 2.9 10 0.49 39 0.644
20 0 0.644 5 3.21 9 0.432 55 0.644
29.8 0 0.644 5 3.7 11 0.422 64 0.644
42.75 0 0.644 5 4.76 8 0.409 80 0.644
48 0 0.644 5 4.96 7 0.398 79 0.644
69.05 0 0.644 5 4.98 9 0.375 92 0.644
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
TIME in seconds
voltage vs time
0.1445
0.3635
1.6
2.85
4.15
8.75
15.5
20
29.8
42.75
48
69.05


Max increased voltage was 2.36 V for 24.2 kg. And max relaxation time and depressions
voltage was 340 sec and -1.3 V.

Fig.30 Time VS output voltage, with time gap of 30 sec (silicone)

Figure 27 and 28 shows the plot of Mass added vs output voltage obtained and time
vs voltage for Non shrinkable silicon tubes. These tubes are much softer than polyurethane
tubes, thus it was expected to deform more for smaller weights and their by increase the
sensitivity of the sensor. Smallest weight that it could sense was 140 grams and largest
weight was 72 kg for 5 sec loading time and 37.34 kg for 30sec loading time. From figure
29 and 30 it can be observed that these tube had very less relaxation time compared to that
of the soft polyurethane tubes.

mass
KG
T1
SEC
V1
volts
T2
SEC
V2
volts
T3
SEC
V3
volts
T4
SEC
V4
volts
0.1445 0 0.656 30 0.76 41 0.632 50 0.656
0.3635 0 0.656 30 0.82 43 0.521 70.2 0.656
1.62 0 0.656 30 0.96 42 0.305 90.3 0.656
4.2 0 0.656 30 1.15 47 0.21 103.8 0.656
12.2 0 0.656 30 1.46 47 -0.32 174.6 0.656
24.2 0 0.656 30 2.36 40 -0.54 225 0.656
42.75 0 0.656 30 1.68 40 -0.8916 241 0.656
66.2 0 0.656 30 0.78 46 -1.3 340 0.656
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
V
O
L
T
A
G
E
TIME in seconds
voltage vs time
0.1445
0.3635
1.62
4.2
12.2
24.2
42.75
66.2

6.1.3 Rubber tubes
1. Loading time =5 seconds

Fig.31 Mass VS output voltage, with time gap of 5 sec (Rubber)

2. Loading time=30 seconds

Fig.32 Mass VS output voltage, with time gap of 30 sec (Rubber)

Notice that as the time of loading is increased from 5 sec to 30sec the load handling
capacity was decreased from 75.1 kg to 33.2 kg there by voltage o/p is also be reduced from
4.1 V to 2.32 V.
mass
KG
V2
volts
0 0.562
0.1435 0.789
4.2 0.896
6.5 1.1
17.6 1.56
21.5 1.92
28.3 2.17
30.2 2.32
35.6 2.67
39.9 2.96
44.5 3.19
54.2 3.62
62.6 3.89
75.1 4.1
mass
KG
V2
volts
0 0.562
0.1435 0.789
5.6 0.896
7.2 1.1
15.2 1.56
26.3 1.92
29.9 2.17
33.2 2.32
44.6 0.962
50.6 0.882
58.3 0.802
67.9 0.732
74.2 0.629
o
u
t
p
u
t

v
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
V
)
mass(kg)
mass VS output voltage
o
u
t
p
u
t

v
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
V
)
Mass in Kg
mass VS output voltage

3. At time T2=5 seconds

Fig.33 Time VS output voltage, with time gap of 5 sec (Rubber)

4. At time T2=30 seconds

Fig.34 Time VS output voltage, with time gap of 30 sec (Rubber)
Mass
KG
T1
SEC
V1
volts
T2
SEC
V2
volts
T3
SEC
V3
volts
T4
SEC
V4
volts
0.145 0 0.679 5 0.789 22 0.632 19 0.679
17.6 0 0.679 5 1.56 29 0.366 66.3 0.679
35.6 0 0.679 5 2.67 35 0.198 73.2 0.679
54.2 0 0.679 5 3.62 39 0.063 90.7 0.679
75.1 0 0.679 5 4.1 44 -0.1 150.6 0.679
Mass
KG
T1
SEC
V1
volts
T2
SEC
V2
volts
T3
SEC
V3
volts
T4
SEC
V4
volts
0.1435 0 0.524 30 0.789 47 0.632 66 0.524
15.2 0 0.524 30 1.56 56 -0.1 122.3 0.524
33.2 0 0.524 30 2.32 65 -0.27 138.2 0.524
50.6 0 0.524 30 0.882 69 -0.59 159.7 0.524
74.2 0 0.524 30 0.629 70 -1.22 220.6 0.524

Fluorine rubber tubes are harder than silicon tube and softer than polyurethane
tubes. Figure 31 and 32 shows the plot of Mass added vs output voltage obtained and time
vs voltage for rubber tubes. It is noticed that due to high viscoelastic property these tubes,
it can also be used for developing a sensitive sensor and also relaxation time of these tubes
are than silicon tubes. Smallest weight that it could sense was 140 grams and largest weight
was 72 kg for 5 sec loading time and 35.3 kg for 30sec loading time. Table 3 comparison
of results obtained
Loading
time(sec)
Soft
Polyurethane
silicone Fluorine rubber
tube
Max. load before
voltage drop(kg)
5 74 72 72
30 49.2 37.34 35.3
Relaxation time 5 380 98 139
30 615 346 219
Minimum load it
could sense (kg)
- 4.2 0.146 0.146
Hardness - hard Very soft soft

Table 4 compares the results obtained from the experiment.
From the table it can be summarised that both silicone and rubber tube can be used
for the development of sensitive sensor.
6.2 contact detection
The experiment was conducted for sensor made from silicon tubes. These sensor
tubes were subjected to repeated loading with a time interval of 2 sec. The standard weights
used for loading were 9 kg and 22 kg. The results obtained from the experiment is as shown
the figure 35(a) and 35(b).

(a) (b)
Fig.35 Repeated loading result on oscilloscope for (a) 22kg mass (b) 10kg mass
It can be observed that, 9Kg of weight gave a constant output of 2.4V, whereas 22
kg of weight gave a constant output of 3.9v. The sensor has high repeatability and zero time
delay during for on off condition. Thus making them an ideal sensor to detect ground
contact.

The 2nd phase of the experiment was conducted for sensor made from silicon tubes.
These tubes were subjected to repeated loading with a time interval of 0.2 sec. 10 kg and
25 kg standard weights were used for loading in this experiment. The output of the sensor
was connected to the Arduino controller to determine the time response. The results
obtained is shown in the figure 36.

(a) (b)
Fig.36 Repeated loading result on Arduino for (a) 22kg mass (b) 10kg mass
6.3 High pass filter
Since high pass filter allows only the high amplitude signals, this can be used to
define an ON-OFF sensor. The ON-OFF data of the sensor could be used to define a gait
pattern for biped walking. To determine the best Sampling time and cut off frequency for
this application, various filter were tested. The results obtained are as follows.

Fig.37. Cut-off frequency 1.5 Hz, sampling time 100ms

-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
25 75 125 175 225 275 325 375
v
o
l
t
a
g
e

i
n

v
o
l
t
s

time in seconds
8 kg mass - high pass filter

Fig.38. Cut-off frequency 1.5 Hz, sampling time 100ms (stretched time axis)

Cut-off frequency 15 Hz, sampling time 10ms

Fig.39. Cut-off frequency 15 Hz, sampling time 10ms

-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
v
o
l
t
a
g
e

i
n

v
o
l
t
s

time in seconds
8 kg mass - high pass filter
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
time
5 kg mass

Fig.40. Cut-off frequency 15 Hz, sampling time 10ms (stretched time axis)

Fig.41. Cut-off frequency 1.5 Hz, sampling time 10ms

-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
time
5 kg mass
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
time
5 kg mass

Fig.42. Cut-off frequency 1.5 Hz, sampling time 10ms (stretched time axis)
Of all the high pass filter tested, the best result was obtained for the filter with cutoff frequency
1 Hz and a sampling time of 10ms. The maximum output of the sensor was about 3v and has a least
delay time. The results obtained from the filter with cutoff frequency 1 Hz and a sampling time of
10ms are shown below.

Fig.43. Cut-off frequency 1 Hz, sampling time 10ms

-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
time
5 kg mass
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
time , ms
HPF Vs time , CF=1hz , T= 10ms

6.4 Analysis Result
6.4.1 Impact Analysis

(a) (b)
Fig.44 Impact analysis (a) without sensor tubes (b) with sensor tubes

Above results shows that, by the integration of the sensor tubes upon foot, the large amount
of stress (41.2MPa) induced can be reduced up to 50%. These results were obtained exactly after
500milliseconds of impact.
6.5 Static Analysis

(a) (b)
Fig.45 static analysis (a) Whole assembly (b) parallel foot plate
Static analysis was performed by applying fixed supports to the toe and heel sensor.
This will help us to understand how a force of 2000N will generate stress and deformation
in various parts. Fig 45(a) shows that maximum stress of 156.6MPa was generated at toe
sensor support. To understand the stress distribution on parallel foot plates a static analysis
on single foot plate was carried out with similar boundary condition. The results obtained
are as shown in fig 45(b).Analyzing these results we can conclude that the design of foot
had a FOS of 3 for a max load of 2000N.

156.6mpa
41.2mpa

21.6mpa

166.6mpa
YS=505.0mpa

6.6 Nonlinear Analysis

(a)

(b)
Fig.46 Nonlinear analysis (a) 2D sensor assembly (b) Strain VS Time

Nonlinear analysis will helps us understand the deformation of viscoelastic soft
polyurethane tubes under constant load condition .The results obtained from this analysis
are shown in figure 46(a). A measurement sensor was defined upon the cross section of
tube, which will allow us to get the time response. It can be seen from Fig 46(b) that the
deformation of tubes is nonlinear and have a max deformation of 1.62mm at the end of one
second loading. This deformation is for single turn when the number of turns increases the
deformation also increases. For 3 turns, 5.2mm of total deformation was obtained by the
end of this analysis.

1.7 mpa

1.62mm
Sensor

Chapter 7

CONCLUSSION
To achieve the biped walking on rough terrain, it is necessary to stabilize the contact
state between the foot and the ground. We have presented a new foot system that has the
following advantages:
1) Ground contact detection and
2) Absorption of the landing impact.

The foot was designed with an anthropomorphic approach. The foot has 2DOF (pitch
and roll) with potentiometers attached to determine the joint angle movements. To optimize
the design FEM approach was used, where in the design was subjected to various analysis
such as impact analysis, static analysis and dynamic analysis. We have also presented a
new sensor system integrated with differential air pressure sensor which can not only sense
Ground contact detection but also absorb the landing impact. Furthermore, 3 different type
of viscoelastic materials are tested for the development of sensitive sensor, and from the
experimental results it was concluded that the sensitivity and stability of the sensor under
static condition was satisfactory. The repeatability of sensor for contact detection was tested
in the second phase of the experiment, and the results obtained clearly determines the
possibility of using this sensor for ground detection. However, dynamic stability of these
sensor remains as an issues to be used as a force sensor.

Future work will concentrate on testing various possible materials to improve the
sensitivity and reduce the relaxation time of the sensor. With better linear elastic material,
this sensor can be extended to be used as a force sensor. Furthermore, with proper filters
and threshold design a more robustness can be achieved to detect the ground contact. And
in design of the , proposed foot will be integrated with an active toe for more stable walking
and also the arch will be made from a new mechanism that will enhance the flexibility of
foot.


REFFERENCE
[1]M. Raibert, Dynamic legged robots for rough terrain in 10th IEEERAS International
Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2010.
[2]Vaughan, Christopher L. "Theories of bipedal walking: an odyssey." Journal of
biomechanics 36.4 (2003): 513-523.
[3]J. Yamaguchi, A. Takanishi and I. Kato, "Experimental development of a foot
mechanism with shock absorbing material for acquisition of landing surface position
information and stabilization of dynamic biped walking," in Robotics and Automation,
1995. Proceedings, 1995 IEEE International Conference On, 1995, pp. 2892-2899
vol.3.
[4]Vukobratovi, Miomir, and Branislav Borovac. "Zero-moment pointthirty five years
of its life." International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 1.01 (2004): 157-173.
[5]T. Ishida, "Development of a small biped entertainment robot QRIO," in International
Symposium on Micro-Nano Mechatronics and Human Science, 2004, pp. 23-28.
[6]M. Yamada, S. Sano and N. Uchiyama, "Point-contact type foot with springs and landing
control for biped walking on rough terrain," in Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO),
2011 IEEE International Conference On, 2011, pp. 2355-2360.
[7]Kong, K., & Tomizuka, M. (2009). A gait monitoring system based on air pressure
sensors embedded in a shoe. Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on, 14(3), 358-
370.
[8] Marras, W.S., Karwowski, W.: Fundamentals and Assessment Tools for Occupational
Ergonomics. RC Press, Boca Raton (2006)
[9] Kumar, S.: Biomechanics in Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia (1999)
[10] [online].Available: http://www .en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot
[11] R. S. Johansson and R. H. LaMote, Tactile detection thresholds for a single asperity on
an otherwise smooth surface, Somatosensory Research, pp. 21-31, 1983.
[12] [online].Available:http://www.vi.cl/foro/topic/1071-apuntes-de-biologia-y-
quimica/page-48
[13] B.D. Argall and A.G. Billard. A Survey of Tactile Human-Robot Interactions. Robotics
and Autonomous Systems, 58(10):11591176, 2010. ISSN 0921-8890.
[14] H. Ritter, J. Jockusch, and J. Walter. A tactile sensor system for a three-fingered robot
manipulator, in Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1997.
[15] P. Lang. Design and prototyping of a fibre optic tactile array, The Journal of High
School Science, November 2002.

[16] B. Siciliano, and O. Khatib, Force and Tactile Sensors, in Springer Handbook of
Robotics, 1st ed: Springer, 2008, ch. 19, sec 1.4, pp. 459-470.
[17] L. Natale and E. Torres-Jara. A sensitive approach to grasping, in Proceedings of the
sixth international workshop on epigenetic robotics, pages 8794, 2006.
[18] E. Torres-Jara and G. Gomez. Fine sensitive manipulation, in Australasian Conference
on Robotics and Automation, Canberra, Australia, 3-5 December 2008.
[19] [online].Available: http://www.root2being.com/foot- function.html
[20] Hessert, Mary J., Mitul Vyas, Jason Leach, Kun Hu, Lewis A. Lipsitz, and Vera Novak.
"Foot pressure distribution during walking in young and old adults." BMC geriatrics 5,
no. 1 (2005).


Appendix Arduino Programming
const int numReadings =10;
float cf=1;
float k;
long interval = 10;
long previousMillis = 0;
int readings[numReadings]; // the readings from the analog input
int index = 0; // the index of the current reading
int total = 0; // the running total
float average; // the average
int x = 0;
int row = 0;
int inputPin = A3;
float xk;
float x_act;
float y_act;
float input;
float input_act;
float out;
float out_act;

void setup()
{
// initialize serial communication with computer:
Serial.begin(128000);
Serial.println("CLEARDATA");
Serial.println("LABEL,Time,HPF,time taken, analoge data ");
// initialize all the readings to 0:
for (int thisReading = 0; thisReading < numReadings; thisReading++)
readings[thisReading] = 0;

}

void loop()
{

total= total - readings[index];
readings[index] =analogRead(inputPin) ;
total= total + readings[index];
index = index + 1;
if (index >= numReadings)
index = 0;
average = total / numReadings;

unsigned long currentMillis = millis();
if(currentMillis - previousMillis >= interval)
{
previousMillis = currentMillis;
k=(1/(3.147*cf));
xk=(k/(interval*0.001+k));
x_act=-xk;
y_act=-((interval*0.001-k)/(interval*0.001+k));
input =average;
out = input * xk + input_act * x_act + out_act * y_act;
out_act = out;
input_act = input;
float c =out*(5.00/1023.00);
Serial.print("DATA,TIME,");
Serial.print(c,2);
Serial.print(",");
Serial.print(row*interval);
Serial.print(",");
Serial.println(average);
row++;
x++;
}
}

NOTE- This programme requires PLX DAQ software, which can be integrated with
Microsoft Excel to read the serial communication.

Ground Contact Detection Using Air Pressure Sensors For Biped Walking

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ground Contact Detection Using Air Pressure Sensors For Biped Walking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ground Contact Detection using Air Pressure Sensors for Biped walking

Graduate School of Science and Engineering Page 18

You might also like