Theory of Fast Walking With Human-Driven Load-Carrying Robot Exoskeletons

Reaching and maintaining high walking speeds is challenging for a human when carrying extra weight, such as walking with a heavy backpack. Robotic limbs can support a heavy backpack when standing still, but accelerating a backpack within a couple of steps to race-walking speeds requires limb force and energy beyond natural human ability. Here, we conceive a human-driven robot exoskeleton that could accelerate a heavy backpack faster and maintain top speeds higher than what the human alone can when not carrying a backpack. The key components of the exoskeleton are the mechanically adaptive but energetically passive spring limbs. We show that by optimally adapting the stiffness of the limbs, the robot can achieve near-horizontal center of mass motion to emulate the load-bearing mechanics of the bicycle. We find that such an exoskeleton could enable the human to accelerate one extra body weight up to top race-walking speeds in ten steps. Our finding predicts that human-driven mechanically adaptive robot exoskeletons could extend human weight-bearing and fast-walking ability without using external energy.

Elastic energy savings and active energy cost in a simple model of running

The energetic economy of running benefits from tendon and other tissues that store and return elastic energy, thus saving muscles from costly mechanical work. The classic "Spring-mass" computational model successfully explains the forces, displacements and mechanical power of running, as the outcome of dynamical interactions between the body center of mass and a purely elastic spring for the leg. However, the Spring-mass model does not include active muscles and cannot explain the metabolic energy cost of running, whether on level ground or on a slope. Here we add explicit actuation and dissipation to the Spring-mass model, and show how they explain substantial active (and thus costly) work during human running, and much of the associated energetic cost. Dissipation is modeled as modest energy losses (5% of total mechanical energy for running at 3 m s-1) from hysteresis and foot-ground collisions, that must be restored by active work each step. Even with substantial elastic energy return (59% of positive work, comparable to empirical observations), the active work could account for most of the metabolic cost of human running (about 68%, assuming human-like muscle efficiency). We also introduce a previously unappreciated energetic cost for rapid production of force, that helps explain the relatively smooth ground reaction forces of running, and why muscles might also actively perform negative work. With both work and rapid force costs, the model reproduces the energetics of human running at a range of speeds on level ground and on slopes. Although elastic return is key to energy savings, there are still losses that require restorative muscle work, which can cost substantial energy during running.

Allowing the Load to Swing Reduces the Mechanical Energy of the Stance Leg and Improves the Lateral Stability of Human Walking

Loaded walking with typical rigid backpack results in a significant increase in the mechanical energy of the stance leg and a decrease in lateral stability. Allowing the load to swing, which has been applied in shoulder pole, a tool widely used in Asia for load carriage assistance, may attenuate these effects. This paper theoretically analyzes and experimentally validates the biomechanical and energetic effects of the swinging loads. When walking with a 30 kg load, allowing the load to swing reduces the fore-aft leg impulses by over 19% and further reduces the mechanical energy of the stance leg by 12.9% compared to the typical rigid backpack. The whole-body metabolic cost has no significant change, which may be attributed to the increase in the muscle work of the upper body and the leg swing. Moreover, the load movement out of phase to the human in the lateral direction reduces the lateral excursion of extrapolated center-of-mass by 27.2%, indicating an increase in the lateral margin of stability and implying an improvement in lateral stability. The results demonstrate that allowing the load to swing reduces the horizontal leg impulses and the mechanical energy of the stance leg, and improves the lateral stability of human walking.

Why highly compliant poles are not energetically beneficial during running: Evidence from an optimization-based biped model

Springy poles are a unique load-carrying tool and inspire novel designs of other load-carrying systems. Previous experiments have shown that highly compliant poles with a natural frequency lower than step frequency are more economical than rigid poles during load carriage in walking and this was successfully explained in later modeling studies. However, an energetic benefit was not observed during running with highly compliant poles. We speculate that gait type (running versus walking) may be a factor accounting for the different observations. An optimization-based biped model is adopted to predict the energy cost of load carriage with poles during running, with the parameters from previous experimental studies. The predicted load motion and load-body interaction force agree well with experimental measurements. Compared to running with rigid poles, the highly compliant pole results in reduced peak ground reaction force, longer stance phase duration, and higher energy cost. The changes in running energetics are further found to depend on the natural frequency of the load-pole system relative to the step frequency, but with an opposite trend compared to the changes in walking energetics during pole carriage. Highly compliant poles cost more energy than rigid poles during running, while stiffer poles with a higher natural frequency may offer energetic benefits. This study indicates that the fundamental difference in gait type has a profound influence on the energetic performance of load-carrying devices and this should be taken into consideration in future device designs.