Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PATIL
COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL PAPER:
ENGINEERING BIOMECHATRONIC EXOSKELETON
AKURDI
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the seminar entitled
“BIOMECHATRONIC EXOSKELETON”
Submitted by
RAJA MANISH
Examination No.-T3080903
For the partial fulfillment for the award of degree of TE (Mechanical Engineering),
University of Pune.
(Guide) (HOD)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my profound thanks to seminar guide Prof. Swati K Dhamale for guiding
me and also to all those who have directly or indirectly guided and helped me in
preparation of this seminar.
RAJA MANISH
T.E. Mechanical
(Exam seat no. T3080903)
ABSTRACT
A human's ability to perform physical tasks is limited, not by his intellect, but by his physical
strength. If, in an appropriate environment, a machine's mechanical power is closely integrated
with a human mechanical strength under the control of the human intellect, the resulting system
will be superior to a loosely integrated combination of a human and a fully automated robot.
Therefore, we ought to develop a fundamental solution to the problem of "extending" human
mechanical power via integrating with a robot.
The paper deals with aspects relevant to the biomechatronic design and control of wearable
robots, here termed as mechatronic exoskeleton, in close cooperation with human actors. We will
find out how these devices work, explore the current and future of biomechatronic research and
learn about the benefits and applications of such devices. We also have case study addressing
outstanding research projects on wearable robots.
INTRODUCTION
The biomechatronic exoskeleton is essentially a wearable robot that amplifies its wearer’s
strength, endurance and agility. There is an effective transfer of power between the human and
the robot. Humans and exoskeletons are in close physical interaction.
A possible classification of wearable robots takes into account the function they perform in
cooperation with the human actor. Thus, the following are instances of wearable robots:
singular aspect of extenders is that the exoskeleton structure maps on to the human
actor’s anatomy.
HISTORY
In the early 1960s, the US Defense Department expressed interest in the development of a
manamplifier, a “powered suit of armor” which would augment soldiers’ lifting and carrying
capabilities. At the same time, at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratories work started to develop the
concept of man–amplifiers – manipulators to enhance the strength of a human operator. In later
work, Cornell determined that an exoskeleton, an external structure in the shape of the human
body which has far fewer degrees of freedom than a human, could accomplish most desired
tasks.
General Electric Co. further developed the concept of human–amplifiers through the Hardiman
project from 1966 to 1971. The Hardiman concept was more of a robotic master–slave
configuration in which two overlapping exoskeletons were implemented. The inner one was set
to follow human motion while the outer one implemented a hydraulically powered version of the
motion performed by the inner exoskeleton. All these studies found that duplicating all human
motions and using master–slave systems were not practical. Additionally, difficulties in human
sensing and system complexity kept it from walking.
Several exoskeletons were developed at the University of Belgrade in the 1960s and 1970s to
aid paraplegics. Although these early devices were limited to predefined motions and had limited
success, balancing algorithms developed for them are still used in many bipedal robots. “HAL”
by Cyberdyne is an orthosis, connected to thighs and shanks that move a patient’s legs as a
function of the EMG signals measured from the wearer.
The concept of extenders versus master/slave robots as systems exhibiting genuine information
and power transmission between the two actors was coined in 1990 (Kazerooni, 1990).
Efforts in the defense and military arena have continued up to the present, chiefly promoted by
the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
PRINCIPLE
The biomechatronic exoskeleton is based on the principle of internal force or external force
systems. Which of these force interaction concepts is chosen depends chiefly on the application.
On the one hand, empowering exoskeletons must be based on the concept of external force
systems; empowering exoskeletons are used to multiply the force that a human wearer can
withstand, and therefore the force that the environment exerts on the exoskeleton must be
grounded: i.e. in external force systems the exoskeleton’s mechanical structure acts as a
loadcarrying device and only a small part of the force is exerted on the wearer. The power is
transmitted to an external base, be it fixed or portable with the operator. The only power
transmission is between the human limbs and the robot as a means of implementing control
inputs and/or force feedback.
On the other hand, orthotic exoskeletons, i.e. exoskeletons for functional compensation of human
limbs, work on the internal force principle. In this instance of a wearable robot, the force and
power are transmitted by means of the exoskeleton between segments of the human limb.
Orthotic exoskeletons are applicable whenever there is weakness or loss of human limb function.
In such a scenario, the exoskeleton complements or replaces the function of the human
musculoskeletal system. In internal force exoskeletons, the force is nongrounded; force is applied
only between the exoskeleton and the limb.
In all, the design consists in using biomechanical data (sEMG) or the contact force between the
extender and human from the limbs to determine the configuration of the actuators and actions
that are applied at joint level.
A. Anthropomorphic Architecture
Another major point of concern in this architecture is that the exoskeleton limb lengths must be
equal to the human limb lengths. This means that for different operators to wear the exoskeleton,
almost all the exoskeleton limbs must be highly adjustable. In general, the anthropomorphic
architecture is erroneously regarded to be the preferred choice because it allows the exoskeleton
to attach to the operator wherever desired.
B. Non-anthropomorphic Architecture
While not as common in exoskeleton designs, many nonanthropomorphic devices are highly
successful, such as bicycles. Non-anthropomorphic architectures open up a wide range of
possibilities for the limb design as long as the exoskeleton never interferes or limits the operator.
Often it is difficult to develop architecture significantly different from a human leg that can still
move the foot through all the necessary maneuvers (e.g. turning tight corners and deep squats).
Safety issues become more prominent with nonanthropomorphic designs since the exoskeleton
must be prevented from forcing the operator into a configuration they cannot reach. Another
problem with this architecture is that the exoskeleton legs may collide with the human legs or
external objects more often because the exoskeleton joints are not located in the same place as
the human joints.
C. Pseudo-anthropomorphic
For maximum safety and minimum collisions with the environment, architecture is chosen that is
almost anthropomorphic. This means, for example the leg is kinematically similar to a human’s,
but does not include all of the degrees of freedom of human legs. Additionally, the degrees of
freedom are all purely rotary joints. Since the human and exoskeleton leg kinematics are not
exactly the same (merely similar), the human and exoskeleton are only rigidly connected at the
extremities (feet and torso). Any other rigid connections would lead to large forces imposed on
the operator due to the kinematic differences. However, compliant connections, allowing relative
motion between the human and exoskeleton, are tolerable. Another benefit of not exactly
matching the human kinematics is that it is easier to size for various operators.
Biosensors
Biosensors detect the user's "intentions." Depending upon the impairment and type of device,
this information can come from the user's nervous and/or muscle system. The biosensor relates
this information to a controller located either externally or inside the device itself. Biosensors
also feedback from the limb and actuator (such as the limb position and applied force) and relate
this information to the controller or the user's nervous/muscle system.
Biosensors detect electrical activity such as galvanic detectors (which detect an electric current
produced by chemical means) on the skin.
Mechanical Sensors
Mechanical sensors measure information about the device (such as limb position, applied force
and load) and relate to the biosensor and/or the controller. There are mechanical devices such as
force meters and accelerometers.
Controller
The controller interfaces the user's nerve or muscle system and the device. It relays and/or
interprets intention commands from the user to the actuators of the device. It also relays and/or
interprets feedback information from the mechanical and biosensors to the user. The controller
also monitors and controls the movements of the biomechatronic device.
Actuator
The actuator is an artificial muscle that produces force or movement. In selecting actuators for a
particular application, a number of requirements may arise. These include power or force
density, efficiency, size and weight, and cost. In general, actuators in wearable robot applications
are used under dynamic operating conditions. Dynamic operation usually produces changing
conditions in the amount of power flow. The actuator can be a motor with cable-drive system,
pneumatic or a hydraulic system that aids or replaces the user's native muscle depending upon
the device. In wearable robotics, traditional actuator technologies, e.g. pneumatic, hydraulic and
electromagnetic actuators, are commonly used. Hydraulic and pneumatic actuators are known for
their high force density and high force or torque characteristics, and have been used in a number
of applications.
Portable Storage
Different types of batteries are commercially available as portable energy solutions. The main
issue with battery technologies is the ability to meet power and energy requirements while
minimizing the weight of the energy storage device. This requirement will be a major factor in
the selection of a given actuation technology and in the practical application of the WR for
interaction with a human being. Battery systems range from reliable technologies, such as lead–
acid, that have been proven and developed over many years, to various newer designs that are
currently under development. Commercial solutions include lithium–ion, sodium–sulfur and
sodium–nickel chloride.
WORKING
In these devices, the operator force on the device is sensed and amplified electronically by use of
a computer to drive the device actuator. In other words, these devices extend the workers
physical power by adding mechanical power to the maneuvering task. The correct amount of
power to add is calculated instantaneously in the device computer. The result is that the
intelligent assist device lifts a pre-programmed larger percentage of the total force of the load
while the operator lifts the remaining much smaller percentage. This smaller percentage is sensed
physically by the operator, so the operator has a feel of the load weight and inertia.
FEATURES
Strength augmentation
Endurance augmentation
The system provides its pilot(i.e. wearer) the ability to carry significant payloads
with minimal effort
Can operate in any type of terrain
Human provides an intelligent control system for the exoskeleton
Control algorithm ensures that the exoskeleton moves in concert with the pilot
with minimal interaction force between the two
exoskeleton’s kinematic chain maps on to the human limb anatomy
CHALLENGES
Followings are some of the challenges for the development of wearable exoskeleton technologies that
DARPA has outlined:
• Structural materials - The exoskeleton will have to be made out of composite materials
that are strong, lightweight and flexible.
• Power source - The exoskeleton must have enough power to run for at least 24 hours
before refueling.
• Control - Controls for the machine must be seamless. Users must be able to function
normally while wearing the device.
• Actuation - The machine must be able to move smoothly so it's not too awkward for the
wearer. Actuators must be quiet and efficient.
• Biomechanics - Exoskeletons must be able to shift from side to side and front to back, just
as a person would move in battle. Developers will have to design the frame with human-
like joints. More and more precision required for sensing the exact desired motion of the
human operator.
• Energy consumption - Energy consumption is a critical issue for wearable robots. It must
be optimized. For example, developments of robot capable of walking down a gentle slope
without any control or actuation.
APPLICATIONS
• In defense establishment where Soldiers could carry heavy loads across rugged terrain without
fatigue. Similarly, military medics could carry injured victims off the battlefield.
• Fire and rescue workers could carry heavy gear or supplies great distances where vehicles
could not travel.
• In industries for material handling purposes.
• In space applications
• They can provide improved motor function that better mimic normal biological function to
impaired individuals. They can also be used to train individuals with impaired motor function
FUTURE SCOPES
“Future is Machine”
Superhuman strength has always been confined to science fiction, but advances in
humanperformance augmentation systems could give a person the ability to lift hundreds of
pounds using the effort they would usually use to lift a fraction of that weight. With this added
strength, soldiers will be able to mount weapons directly to the uniform system.
The Future Force Warrior concept envisions the radical use of technologies such as
nanotechnology, powered exoskeletons etc. to provide the infantry with significantly
higher force multiplier than the opposing force. The U.S. military hopes to develop a fully
realized end product sometime in 2032, incorporating research from U.C. Berkeley’s
BLEEX exoskeleton project and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Institute for Soldier
Nanotechnologies into a final design.
It is clear that technology will not remain confined in the Hollywood blockbusters. We will see that
impaired one will be able to walk properly. Workers in industries will work more with less fatigue
and our soldiers will be more resilient and powerful than what is now.
CONCLUSION
Humans aren't the swiftest creatures on Earth, and most of us are limited in the amount of weight
that we can pick up and carry. These weaknesses can be fatal on the battlefield, and that's why the
U.S. Defense is investing $50 million to develop an exoskeleton suit for ground troops. This
wearable robotic system could give soldiers the ability to run faster, carry heavier weapons and
leap over large obstacles. Imagine a battalion of super soldiers that can lift hundreds of pounds as
easily as lifting 10 pounds and can run twice their normal speed.
Exoskeleton research and development has been ongoing for the past few years. Efforts have been
hindered by a number of challenges, such as developing a system design that does not interfere
with the way a wearer would normally walk and can run on a small battery-powered pack rather
than fuel. M.I.T.'s research is no exception. During test runs, researchers found that although the
loads on their backs were lighter, walking required more exertion, causing the wearer to use 10
percent more oxygen than if he or she was not wearing the exoskeleton.
In India, although the study and research on mechatronics have been here from some time, still
overall progress in the biomechatronic field is way back when compared to the research work
going on other organizations outside the country. Scientists and engineers should consider putting
their effort in such field so that in future our country may stand at least comparable to the
developed one.
REFERENCES
I. Kazerooni, H., A. Chu, R. Steger, “That which does not stabilize, will only make us
stronger” The International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 75-89, January
2007
II. A. Zoss, Kazerooni, H, A. Chu, “On the Biomechanical Design of the Berkeley Lower
Extremity Exoskeleton (BLEEX)”, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Volume 11,
Number 2, pp. 128-138, April 2006
III. Jose L. Pons. “Wearable Robots: Biomechatronic Exoskeletons” CSIC, Madrid, Spain,
Wiley pub. ISBN-10: 0470512946
IV. Ed. Joseph D. Bronzino, “The Biomedical Engineering Handbook”, Second Edition
CRC Press LLC. ISBN: 0-8493-0461-X
OTHER REFERENCES: