Biped Robot Leg Collision Avoidance via 2D Foot Projection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing robotic systems face high computational demands and inefficiencies in determining and avoiding leg collisions, particularly in legged robots, as they require complex three-dimensional collision monitoring and corrective measures, which can lead to increased processor load and gait disturbances.

Innovation Solution

The approach simplifies leg collision detection by focusing on two-dimensional forward and lateral positions of the feet, using geometric constraints to determine potential collisions and adjust swing paths, thereby reducing computational requirements and ensuring collision avoidance through intermediate swing points and updated touchdown locations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If complex three-dimensional collision monitoring is used to ensure accurate collision detection, then measurement precision is improved, but device complexity and processor demand increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecollision detection accuracyVSAvoidcomputational complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent extracts only the essential two-dimensional collision detection information (lateral position of swing foot relative to stance foot) from the full three-dimensional problem, eliminating unnecessary computational complexity while maintaining sufficient collision detection accuracy for legged robot operation

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent reduces the collision detection problem from three-dimensional space to two-dimensional space by focusing on lateral position relationships, thereby simplifying the computational model while preserving the ability to detect potential collisions

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

2Reliability

If complex corrective measures are implemented to avoid leg collisions, then reliability is improved, but device complexity and processing requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecollision avoidance reliabilityVSAvoidcontrol system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent calculates an intermediate swing point in advance that accounts for potential collisions, allowing the robot to proactively adjust its swing trajectory before a collision occurs, thereby ensuring reliable collision avoidance through simplified control logic

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Device complexity

If simplified two-dimensional collision detection is used, then device complexity is reduced, but measurement precision may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecomputational complexityVSAvoidcollision detection accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by focusing computational resources on the specific two-dimensional lateral position relationship that is most critical for collision detection, rather than uniformly processing all three-dimensional spatial information, thereby maintaining precision where it matters most

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentUS9969087B1Leg collision avoidance in a robotic device
Publication Date: 2018.05.15 BOSTON DYNAMICS INC
  • US9969087B1 patent drawing
  • US9969087B1 patent drawing
  • US9969087B1 patent drawing

AI summary

An example implementation for avoiding leg collisions may involve a biped robot reducing a three-dimensional system to a two-dimensional projection of the biped robot's feet. An example biped robot may determine a touchdown location for a swing foot. The biped robot may determine lateral positions of the touchdown location and the swing foot, each relative to a stance foot. Based on one or more of the determined lateral positions of the touchdown location and the swing foot, each relative to the stance foot, the biped robot may determine an intermediate swing point for the swing foot that is not on a line defined by the swing foot and the touchdown location. The biped robot may further cause the swing foot to move to the intermediate swing point, and then cause the swing foot to move to the touchdown location.