{"title":"研究异质可变募集流体人工肌肉束在追踪性能和能量之间的权衡。","authors":"Nicholas Mazzoleni, Matthew Bryant","doi":"10.1088/1748-3190/ad649d","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In traditional hydraulic robotics, actuators must be sized for the highest possible load, resulting in significant energy losses when operating in lower force regimes. Variable recruitment fluidic artificial muscle (FAM) bundles offer a novel bio-inspired solution to this problem. Divided into individual MUs, each with its own control valve, a variable recruitment FAM bundle uses a switching control scheme to selectively bring MUs online according to load demand. To date, every dynamic variable recruitment study in the literature has considered homogeneous bundles containing MUs of equal size. However, natural mammalian muscle MUs are heterogeneous and primarily operate based on Henneman's size principle, which states that MUs are recruited from smallest to largest for a given task. Is it better for a FAM variable recruitment bundle to operate according to this principle, or are there other recruitment orders that result in better performance? What are the appropriate criteria for switching between recruitment states for these different recruitment orders? This paper seeks to answer these questions by performing two case studies exploring different bundle MU size distributions, analyzing the tradeoffs between tracking performance and energetics, and determining how these tradeoffs are affected by different MU recruitment order and recruitment state transition thresholds. The only difference between the two test cases is the overall force capacity (i.e. total size) of the bundle. For each test case, a Pareto frontier for different MU size distributions, recruitment orders, and recruitment state transition thresholds is constructed. The results show that there is a complex relationship between overall bundle size, MU size distributions, recruitment orders, and recruitment state transition thresholds corresponding to the best tradeoffs change along the Pareto frontier. Overall, these two case studies validate the use of Henneman's Size Principle as a variable recruitment strategy, but also demonstrate that it should not be the only variable recruitment method considered. They also motivate the need for a more complex variable recruitment scheme that dynamically changes the recruitment state transition threshold and recruitment order based on loading conditions and known system states, along with a co-design problem that optimizes total bundle size and MU size distribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":55377,"journal":{"name":"Bioinspiration & Biomimetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigation of the tradeoffs between tracking performance and energetics in heterogeneous variable recruitment fluidic artificial muscle bundles.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Mazzoleni, Matthew Bryant\",\"doi\":\"10.1088/1748-3190/ad649d\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In traditional hydraulic robotics, actuators must be sized for the highest possible load, resulting in significant energy losses when operating in lower force regimes. Variable recruitment fluidic artificial muscle (FAM) bundles offer a novel bio-inspired solution to this problem. Divided into individual MUs, each with its own control valve, a variable recruitment FAM bundle uses a switching control scheme to selectively bring MUs online according to load demand. To date, every dynamic variable recruitment study in the literature has considered homogeneous bundles containing MUs of equal size. However, natural mammalian muscle MUs are heterogeneous and primarily operate based on Henneman's size principle, which states that MUs are recruited from smallest to largest for a given task. Is it better for a FAM variable recruitment bundle to operate according to this principle, or are there other recruitment orders that result in better performance? What are the appropriate criteria for switching between recruitment states for these different recruitment orders? This paper seeks to answer these questions by performing two case studies exploring different bundle MU size distributions, analyzing the tradeoffs between tracking performance and energetics, and determining how these tradeoffs are affected by different MU recruitment order and recruitment state transition thresholds. The only difference between the two test cases is the overall force capacity (i.e. total size) of the bundle. For each test case, a Pareto frontier for different MU size distributions, recruitment orders, and recruitment state transition thresholds is constructed. The results show that there is a complex relationship between overall bundle size, MU size distributions, recruitment orders, and recruitment state transition thresholds corresponding to the best tradeoffs change along the Pareto frontier. Overall, these two case studies validate the use of Henneman's Size Principle as a variable recruitment strategy, but also demonstrate that it should not be the only variable recruitment method considered. They also motivate the need for a more complex variable recruitment scheme that dynamically changes the recruitment state transition threshold and recruitment order based on loading conditions and known system states, along with a co-design problem that optimizes total bundle size and MU size distribution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioinspiration & Biomimetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioinspiration & Biomimetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/ad649d\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioinspiration & Biomimetics","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/ad649d","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在传统的液压机器人技术中,执行器的大小必须满足尽可能高的负载要求,这就导致在低力状态下工作时能量损失巨大。可变募集流体人工肌肉(FAM)束为这一问题提供了一种新颖的生物启发式解决方案。可变募集流体人工肌肉束分为单个人工肌肉单元,每个单元都有自己的控制阀,它采用开关控制方案,根据负载需求选择性地将人工肌肉单元联机。迄今为止,文献中的所有动态可变招募研究都考虑了包含相同大小 MU 的同质束。然而,自然哺乳动物的肌肉单元是异质的,主要根据海尼曼的大小原则运行,即从最小到最大招募肌肉单元。FAM 可变招募束是根据这一原则运行更好,还是有其他招募顺序能带来更好的性能?对于这些不同的招募顺序,在招募状态之间切换的适当标准是什么?本章试图通过两个案例研究来回答这些问题,这两个案例研究探索了不同的束 MU 大小分布,分析了跟踪性能和能量学之间的权衡,并确定了不同的 MU 招募顺序和招募状态转换阈值对这些权衡的影响。两个测试案例之间的唯一区别在于束的总体受力能力(即总大小)。针对每种测试案例,我们都构建了不同 MU 大小分布、招募顺序和招募状态转换阈值的帕累托前沿。结果表明,总体捆绑规模、MU 规模分布、招募顺序和招募状态转换阈值之间存在复杂的关系,对应于帕累托前沿的最佳折衷变化。总之,这两个案例研究验证了亨尼曼大小原则作为可变招募策略的有效性,但也表明它不应该是唯一可以考虑的方法。
Investigation of the tradeoffs between tracking performance and energetics in heterogeneous variable recruitment fluidic artificial muscle bundles.
In traditional hydraulic robotics, actuators must be sized for the highest possible load, resulting in significant energy losses when operating in lower force regimes. Variable recruitment fluidic artificial muscle (FAM) bundles offer a novel bio-inspired solution to this problem. Divided into individual MUs, each with its own control valve, a variable recruitment FAM bundle uses a switching control scheme to selectively bring MUs online according to load demand. To date, every dynamic variable recruitment study in the literature has considered homogeneous bundles containing MUs of equal size. However, natural mammalian muscle MUs are heterogeneous and primarily operate based on Henneman's size principle, which states that MUs are recruited from smallest to largest for a given task. Is it better for a FAM variable recruitment bundle to operate according to this principle, or are there other recruitment orders that result in better performance? What are the appropriate criteria for switching between recruitment states for these different recruitment orders? This paper seeks to answer these questions by performing two case studies exploring different bundle MU size distributions, analyzing the tradeoffs between tracking performance and energetics, and determining how these tradeoffs are affected by different MU recruitment order and recruitment state transition thresholds. The only difference between the two test cases is the overall force capacity (i.e. total size) of the bundle. For each test case, a Pareto frontier for different MU size distributions, recruitment orders, and recruitment state transition thresholds is constructed. The results show that there is a complex relationship between overall bundle size, MU size distributions, recruitment orders, and recruitment state transition thresholds corresponding to the best tradeoffs change along the Pareto frontier. Overall, these two case studies validate the use of Henneman's Size Principle as a variable recruitment strategy, but also demonstrate that it should not be the only variable recruitment method considered. They also motivate the need for a more complex variable recruitment scheme that dynamically changes the recruitment state transition threshold and recruitment order based on loading conditions and known system states, along with a co-design problem that optimizes total bundle size and MU size distribution.
期刊介绍:
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics publishes research involving the study and distillation of principles and functions found in biological systems that have been developed through evolution, and application of this knowledge to produce novel and exciting basic technologies and new approaches to solving scientific problems. It provides a forum for interdisciplinary research which acts as a pipeline, facilitating the two-way flow of ideas and understanding between the extensive bodies of knowledge of the different disciplines. It has two principal aims: to draw on biology to enrich engineering and to draw from engineering to enrich biology.
The journal aims to include input from across all intersecting areas of both fields. In biology, this would include work in all fields from physiology to ecology, with either zoological or botanical focus. In engineering, this would include both design and practical application of biomimetic or bioinspired devices and systems. Typical areas of interest include:
Systems, designs and structure
Communication and navigation
Cooperative behaviour
Self-organizing biological systems
Self-healing and self-assembly
Aerial locomotion and aerospace applications of biomimetics
Biomorphic surface and subsurface systems
Marine dynamics: swimming and underwater dynamics
Applications of novel materials
Biomechanics; including movement, locomotion, fluidics
Cellular behaviour
Sensors and senses
Biomimetic or bioinformed approaches to geological exploration.