1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

69

Two particular problems are apparent when viewing the generated motion:

  1. All three sampling strategies generate walks with step lengths which vary widely from


one step to the next as shown in Figure 4.12. This contrasts sharply with the uniform

step lengths generated when using up vector RVs.

  1. "Tightrope" walking, similar to that present in some up vector-based walks, is also

prevalent in the swing-COM trials.

The use of swing-COM RVs, however, makes a

reasonable solution possible by choosing Qdwith this problem in mind.


0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0.1 IMAGE Imgs/thesis.final.w6139.gif
0102030405060

IMAGE Imgs/thesis.final.w6140.gif

step

Figure 4.12 - Step length vs step number, SP sampling,
Q
d
= [0.05,0]


0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1
-0.2 IMAGE Imgs/thesis.final.w6141.gif
0102030405060

step

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1
-0.2 IMAGE Imgs/thesis.final.w6142.gif
0102030405060

IMAGE Imgs/thesis.final.w6113.gif

IMAGE Imgs/thesis.final.w6133.gif

step

(a) forward component

(b) lateral component

Figure 4.13- Discrete RV values for SP sampling, Qd= [0.0,±0.03].
Compare with Figure 4.11. Larger lateral step-to-step variation means less tightrope walking.


The first problem will be addressed in the next chapter. To solve the second problem, the lateral

component of Qd
is chosen to give the swing foot a displacement slightly away from the body and

[CONVERTED BY MYRMIDON]