Aesthetic Design and Development of Humanoid Legged

Aesthetic Design and Development of Humanoid Legged Robot
Mathew Schwartz,1 Soonwook Hwang,2 Yisoo Lee,2 Jongseok Won,2 Sanghyun Kim,2 and Jaeheung Park1,2
Abstract— This paper presents a new full sized humanoid
leg robot that combines aesthetics and design theory with
practical research goals in robotics. The research goal of the
robot is to create human-like and compliant motion in multiple
contact situations through the use of torque controlled joints.
Low gear ratio and direct connections are used at each joint
for low-friction and back-drivability but without explicit joint
torque sensors. On the other hand, in creating human-like
motions, not only technical specifications but also aesthetic
design is important as the same performance of the robot
can be perceived very differently depending on the design.
The aesthetic design is, in this paper, achieved by the robot
design process using an integrated design and frame through
multi-axis CNC machining. The unique integration of the frame
and design also drastically reduces parts and complexity of
assembly for easy maintenance. In this paper, the design process
and features are presented with range of motion, weight,
and key aesthetic decisions. Compliant motion capability is
demonstrated by experimental results.
I. INTRODUCTION
A well designed object simultaneously takes into account
the aesthetics, functionality, durability, and usability. In
robotic design, this means a design should account for visual
meaning (aesthetics), the goal of the robot (functionality),
how long it will last (durability), and how researchers will
interact with the robot (usability). The robot presented in
this paper is the result of these aspects considered together
(Fig. 1).
There are many reasons for good aesthetic design within
the humanoids field. The most beneficial is within social
robots in which the appearance of the robot directly affects
a humans’ perception of its capability. In addition to the
social aspect, both compliant motion and visual cues of the
robots’ function are critical for safety when humans and
robots coexist. In research of humanoid movement, at a
minimum, robotic design must provide functionality of the
structure and usability in the way of accessing vital parts
easily. The weight and durability of the robot are difficult
to balance and require thorough planning in regards to
material and electronic selection, assembly, and proportion.
As components wear or must be modified, the ability to
quickly access vital electronics is necessary.
Aesthetics have an important role within the field of
motion control. Challenges such as speed and diverse terrain
*This work was supported by the Advanced Institutes of Convergence
Technology(Grant AICT-2012-P3-21)
1 Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea [email protected]
2 Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul
National University, Republic of Korea. Jaeheung Park is the corresponding
author. {jbs4104,howcan11,js1der,ggory15,park73}
@snu.ac.kr
Fig. 1.
DYROS (DYnamic RObotic System) Humanoid Leg Robot.
can be easily quantified, however, it remains difficult to
quantify the human perception of how well the robot moves.
In this aspect, the qualitative performance of a humanoids’
walking style can be closely related to the research of social
robotics. How much a humanoid looks like a human while
walking can depend on the aesthetic design of the legs.
In the field of design, it is known that by just changing
the aesthetic of an object, the perceived usability will change
[1]. Paolo Dario suggests in the field of personal robotics that
the performance of a robot can be evaluated in the same way
as a home appliance [2]. As industrial robots have been designed largely for manufacturing facilities and with minimum
thought of integration with humans, the knowledge gained
in these areas about design cannot be directly transferred
[3]. In addition, [4] suggests the social robots which look
mechanical are not designed as a commercial product and
instead are designed for research. It is important to note that
there may not be one specific design that succeeds above
all in every category. As found in [5], the overall quality
of aesthetic design is more important than the closeness
to anthropomorphic appearance. Similarly, [6] has found a
difference in the acceptance of a robots’ design based on the
task the robot is performing.
Advancements made in manufacturing, computer modeling, material properties, and electronics over the past 40
years have enabled researchers to develop more compact
and able robots, such as the case of Honda P2 to P3 [7].
However, while current CAD/CAM techniques allow for
more complex three-dimensional parts, very few humanoids
have taken advantage of machining techniques beyond the
third axis. Many research robots use two-dimensional parts
to assemble a three-dimensional structure or have used a
minimum amount of three-dimensional machining and put
casings on the robot for a desired aesthetic. However, even
with casings the robots rarely have an aesthetic design that
moves beyond rectangular shapes.
Robots such as Saika-4 [8] and KHR-2 [9] used almost entirely two-dimensional manufacturing. KHR-3 [10]
continued to use two-dimensional manufacturing, with the
exception of one part, while using coverings to create a
desired aesthetic, which remained relatively flat. Bonobo [11]
used a variety of three dimensional manufacturing techniques
which allowed the plastic coverings to act as support for
the frame. However, in the aesthetic aspect, from front and
side views maintains a relatively planar design. One of the
most arbitrarily curved robots has been the adaptation of the
KUKA-DLR-Lightweight-Robots into humanoid legs [12].
While this robot has few rectangular segments, the original
design was not for a humanoid leg.
Although there is a wide range of robot designs, it is
not feasible to describe them all. Some, such as [13] are
too small and limited to discuss manufacturing challenges.
Others, such as Petman [14] demonstrate an impressive
anthropomorphic humanoid that fits almost all aspects of the
robot into a standard human size. However, as the intention
of Petman was for the use of textiles, it is difficult to compare
the robot casings designed for testing the textiles with design
casings of existing robots.
Full scale human proportions were considered alongside
the motor selection. Through a CAD/RP/CAM process the
aesthetic design of the robot was achieved through the frame,
eliminating the need for casings. Multi-axis machining was
used in order to reduce structural components and create
a unique and minimalistic design. The closeness to an
anthropomorphic figure is not necessarily the gold standard
and as such DYROS Humanoid was not designed to replicate
a human but to reference the proportions. The aesthetics are
important to the goal and was approached by an interdisciplinary team of industrial design and engineering.
On the other hand, our robot is developed to create compliant and human-like motion in multi-contact situations. The
torque-controlled robots can have an advantage in creating
these motions over position-controlled robots. While joint
torque sensors can be used to create the torque-controlled
joints as in [12], [15], [16], we choose not to use the
joint torque sensors but to have low gear ratio and direct
connection of motors to joints. This can provide low friction
and back-drivability at joints so that the motor torques
closely match the joint torques after gear reduction.
This paper presents the design process and performance
Fig. 2. Diagram of the link lengths used in the robot based off of an
average Korean female. The lengths are adjusted slightly for simplicity in
design and control. The joint order is listed on the left.
metrics of the design in terms of weight, strength, range
of motion, visual cues, and accessibility. The experimental
results demonstrate the performance of torque-controlled
joints during gravity compensation.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Technical Concept
The robot is designed as a torque-controlled robot with 12
DOF. A low reduction ratio of 50:1 is used for the motors
which are directly connected to the joints. This gear ratio
and direct connection are to provide minimum friction, as
well as providing good back-drivability for compliant motion
control without using joint torque sensors. A small motor size
is chosen in order to maintain a thin leg. While the current
robot consists only of legs, the technical specifications were
chosen to include a full size upper body as well. The joint
connections are, in order: Hip yaw, Hip roll, Hip pitch, Knee
pitch, Ankle pitch, Ankle roll.
B. Proportions
As the robot was developed in South Korea, the average
Korean female proportions [17] were taken as the baseline
for creating the full scale legs. Link lengths and joint order
locations are seen in Fig. 2. A larger distance between the
two legs was used in order to avoid collisions between the
legs as it is one of the most effective and easiest ways to
overcome these collisions. There are two legs with 6 degrees
of freedom each, 3 axis of rotation in the hip joint, 1 in the
knee, and 2 in the ankle.
C. Electronics
As a starting point for motor selection we based our
simulation robot on MAHRU [18]. The robot was simulated
in the physics based simulation software RoboticsLab [19].
Contact consistent whole-body control framework was used
for the robot control in the simulation [20]. The simulated
robot weight was 71.295 kg: 40.245kg for the lower body
and 30.05kg for the upper body.
Both squat motion and walking motion were simulated.
The squat motion was controlled up to a 141 degree bend of
the knee joint. Squatting time was simulated at 1 second.
Table I shows the results of the squat simulation. The
TABLE I
S QUAT M OTION S IMULATION R ESULTS
Joint
1
2
3
4
5
6
Peak torque
(Nm)
0
0
27.030
182.816
24.027
0
Peak velocity
(rad/sec)
0
0
2.594
4.916
3.286
0
RMS torque
(Nm)
0
0
11.205
85.094
10.053
0
RMS velocity
(rad/sec)
0
0
0.832
2.491
1.135
0
ATI DAQ MINI85 FT sensors located above the foot and
below the ankle motor. An IMU 3DM-GX3-25 is located in
the upper housing with the computer.
D. Design Concept
After simulation to find the required motors, a simplistic box model was created with the proper placements
of the motors. A common method for humanoid design
is in maintaining this relatively box-like shape and using
lightweight plastic casings to create the desired aesthetic.
DYROS Humanoid was designed to integrate the frame and
the design. The exclusion of coverings and an open frame
design allow for more airflow in cooling the electronics.
A combination of curved cylinders and plates are used to
create a unique aesthetic while informing the observer of
the intended human-like movement. Structural front plates
act as a design component as well as a secondary heatsink.
Through time invested in the multi-dimensional parts, both
the aesthetic and structural components can be unified.
Additionally, the assembly time, complexity of the robot,
and maintenance difficulty are reduced.
forward walking motion was controlled with a speed up
to 0.3m/sec. In the walking simulation the COM position,
foot position and orientation, and trunk orientation were
controlled in the task space. The double support time was
0.3sec, single support time was 0.7sec, and the stride length
was 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 meters, of which the largest RMS value
in all scenarios was taken. Simulation results of the walking
motion are seen in Table II.
TABLE II
WALKING M OTION S IMULATION R ESULTS
Joint
1
2
3
4
5
6
Peak torque
(Nm)
53.944
91.258
178.823
86.952
114.165
24.255
Peak velocity
(rad/sec)
0.811
0.497
2.536
2.145
2.043
0.628
RMS torque
(Nm)
16.869
46.224
68.671
48.540
30.220
6.562
RMS velocity
(rad/sec)
0.187
0.252
1.124
0.873
0.780
0.231
The motors are chosen as the ones in Table III such that the
peak torque in squat and walking simulation is approximately
two times the continuous torque and less than the peak torque
of each motor. All joints have a Kollmorgen motor and
harmonic gear.
The upper body consists of a computer with an Intel I7630m processor and 4Gbyte DDR3 RAM. The computer
has additional safety features to endure vibration while also
being compact. The computer runs roboticsLab as a realtime
control software. An AS5145 absolute encoder is connected
to the joint link and a RMB incremental encoder is connected
to the motor. In order to control each motor at the same time,
the Elmo gold solo whistle digital servo drive was selected as
the motor driver. EtherCAT is used for fast communication
between the motor drive and computer. The robot has two
Fig. 3. Left: Initial design of upper link showing high stresses and specific
weak points. Right: Revised design with thicker cylinder and integrated
connection points.
E. Stress Analysis
After completing an initial design, a CAD model was
created and basic structural analysis was run in ANSYS. A
stress analysis with a payload of 30kg as a static load with
the material set as AL7075 (yield strength of 503MPa) in
a locked upright position gives a basic structural analysis.
The largest stress recorded at that level was 3.1956MPa.
To account for higher loads during walking, a static upright
analysis with a 150kg load gives a safety factor of 5. In
this scenario, the highest stress was 10.005MPa. The initial
frame design passes with a safety ratio of 50.275. This safety
ratio was higher than needed and allowed for modifications
to the structure and design. Fig. 3 shows the weak points of
TABLE III
J OINT AND M OTOR S PECIFICATIONS
Joint
Max Cont. Output Power (W)
Reduction Ratio
Cont. Torque after reduction(Nm)
Peak Torque after reduction(Nm)
Speed @ 48V after reduction(rad/sec)
Hip Yaw (1)
300
50
42.8
152.0
7.92
Hip Roll (2)
364
50
61.0
231.0
5.24
Hip Pitch (3)
427
50
77.0
307.5
6.13
Knee Pitch (4)
427
50
77.0
307.5
6.13
Ankle Pitch (5)
427
50
77.0
307.5
6.13
Ankle Roll (6)
209
50
21.45
76.5
15.73
Fig. 4. Left: The first design iteration with two rotations showing an intersection of the link connections. Right: The revised design with a larger range
of motion.
the design and the modification. The second design iteration
unified the connection of the cylinders to evenly distribute
loads and strengthened weak areas. The second design with
a 30kg load showed a 5.7015MPa stress and the 150kg load
gave a 16.618MPa stress. The final safety factor is 30.268,
above any future estimates.
TABLE IV
L INK W EIGHTS B EFORE AND A FTER D ESIGN I TERATION
Part
Upper Link Plate
Upper Link Cylinder
Lower Link Plate
Lower Link Cylinder
Total:
1st Design
583.7(g)
516.78(g)
670.32(g)
411.97(g)
2182.77(g)
2nd Design
402.46(g)
767.82(g)
515.22(g)
410.15(g)
2095.65(g)
F. Design Iteration
The links were given constraints in SolidWorks to view
the range of motion. While the initial design of the structure
provided the desired range of motion on each individual
axis, a rotation on more than one axis at the same time
showed interference by the link connections. The range of
motion was extended by modifying some connections to the
motors (Fig. 4). In line with the stress analysis, some parts
were modified for their aesthetics as well as structure. The
cylinders on the upper link were thickened from 18mm to
22mm to provide a stronger and more balanced visual weight
to the solid front plate. The upper link plate was then reduced
from 10.71mm to 7.99mm thick. The lower link cylinders
remained almost the same, while the front plate was also
reduced. Table IV shows the second iteration was stronger,
more aesthetically consistent, and decreased in weight.
G. Manufacturing
Many approaches to manufacturing humanoids in regards
to both material and process have been used. While [9] and
[10] use almost entirely two-dimensional manufacturing processes, others such as [11] uses a combination of CAD/CAM
techniques to create molds and plastic parts. [8] uses A2017
for the frame and [21] uses casting to create magnesium alloy
links. Due to our designs’ free form shape, either multi-axis
machining or various casting methods were required, such
as the investment casting done in [22]. However, the general
rule of investment casting tolerance starting at +/- 0.010”
for a part dimension of 1” without secondary operations
[23] is outside the required tolerance for this application.
For the links, a heat treated aluminum alloy (AL7075) was
used with multi-axis machining to 0.002” tolerance. The
final parts were anodized for aesthetics and durability. Two
designs were manufactured for the foot, one with a curve
that can allow the robot to walk in a heel-toe manner, and
one that is flat for initial stages of research. The curved foot
was machined out of stainless steel for strength under the
load of the robot while the flat foot was machined with the
same AL7075 as the links. The upper body was designed to
temporarily hold electronic components with the intention of
replacing it in the future. For parts with text written, a water
jet cutter was used.
Fig. 7. Two bolts are needed to detach the sidebar and easily change
electronics or fix broken wires.
Fig. 5. Side and front view of the robot design with red highlights showing
the tangent line of the front plate and cylinder to the motor connections and
blue line showing the protrusion of the upper link vs. lower link.
on the upper link and the larger protrusion of the upper plate
create a similar aesthetic to human proportions. Fig. 5 shows
the visual tangents in red, as well as the curvature of the robot
in different views.
Through 3D design programs multiple color combinations
were visualized before anodizing the final parts (Fig. 6). The
two toned colors, black and red, were selected to create focal
points on the elements of most interest such as the curved
plates and rear cylinders. The color combination creates a
unified look of these separate pieces. The black coloring was
applied to the motor casings to detract from their size. In
a practical manner, the brighter red color on the links is
important for the visual understanding of how the links are
moving through space during gait.
B. Parts
Fig. 6.
Visualization of color combinations for the robot.
III. RESULT
A. Overview
The final design of the robot consisted of smooth connections both physically and visually. The flat mounting
plates that connect the links directly to the motor follow the
tangential lines created by the curve of the front plate and
rear cylinders. From both the front and perspective view, the
frame creates a fully three dimensional shape. The robot leg
takes design influence from the human as the thigh muscle
in a human is larger than the calf. In this robot, however, the
direct connections of the motors prevent the actual structure
from achieving the same proportions. For example, the two
motors directly connected at the ankle joint make the ankle
larger than the knee. While the three planar joints on the side
view are equal in size, a combination of the thicker cylinder
Motors of the joints are encased in units directly attached
to the frame by screws. The complex parts minimized
connections required in assembling the legs. The upper link
structure is made up of 8 pieces and 27 screws, while the
bottom consists of 10 pieces and 32 screws. Additional
screws are used in the connection of the structure to the
motors and encoder casings.
The total weight of the robot with the flat aluminum foot
is currently 54.635kg. However, 15.84kg is the temporary
upper body. The lower body is 38.795kg, slightly under the
estimated 40kg used in the motor selection and simulation.
Of this weight, 26.112kg are the structural components while
the rest is made up of screws and electronics, such as the
motor, making the integrated frame and design 67% of the
lower leg weight. The stainless steel feet are 1.555 kg while
the flat version in aluminum is 0.318 kg.
C. Accessibility
An important feature of the design is the easily accessible
motor drivers as the electronics and wires are likely to
degrade over time. The side bar is held in place by two
screws as seen in Fig. 7. The removal of these two screws
provides easy access to the motor drivers for the link.
Additionally, the use of multi-axis machining allowed for
interference as well as the adjacent leg.
TABLE V
J OINT L IMITATIONS OF S TRUCTURE AND ACTUAL
Joint
Hip
Knee
Ankle
Fig. 8. Schematic of upper link. The connection for the heatsink is part
of the front plate. Three bolts hold the heatsink and electronics in place.
Fig. 9. Top: Flat foot for early research annotated with bolts, f/t sensor, and
steel plate. Bottom: Curved design for future research annotated with side
holes for mounting a plate. Right: Top view of curved foot design showing
8 holes for quick changing of foot design.
Y(1)
R(2)
P(3)
P(4)
P(5)
R(6)
Structural (Computer)
Minimum
Maximum
−∞
∞
-109.95
109.95
-104.69
35.91
-101.74
130.94
-89.43
40.01
-43.12
106.21
E. Experiments
The back-drivability and compliant motion are demonstrated by the experiment of gravity compensation. The robot
stands on the right foot compensating for its own weight in
Fig. 10 (a).
(a)
(b)
Fig. 10.
the design to integrate the mounting bar for the heatsink.
This bar reduced the number of extra brackets required to
secure the electronics. Both the thigh and shin have three
holes in which the electronic assembly is easily attached and
detached (Fig. 8). By optimizing the connections, the entire
front panel is able to act as a secondary heatsink for the
electronics.
The foot is attached to a steel plate that separates the foot
and the FT sensor. By removing the 6 bolts, the foot is easily
switched. As the curved foot is designed for heel-toe rolling
in the future, two threaded holes are available for mounting
a flat plate to aid in stability at early stages of research.
Fig. 9 shows the two designs and the configuration of the
FT sensor, foot, and steel plate.
D. Range of Motion
The range of motion desired was that of a normal human.
In the physical robot, the limiting factors for much of the
range of motion is in the wiring and interference with the
adjacent leg. Table V shows the structural range of motion
as measured through computer modeling programs and the
actual range of motion after assembly accounting for wire
Actual (Physical)
Minimum Maximum
-47.3
46.5
-33.4
111
-103.1
31.6
-21.5
121.1
-83.6
35.3
-42.5
67.8
(c)
Snapshot of the experiment.
Then, a person held the left foot and moved it to a certain
position approximately at 1 second and then moved it back
to the original position approximately at 7.5 seconds as
shown in Fig. 10 (b) and (c). During the experiment, another
person held the body of the robot as there was no balancing
controller, only gravity compensation. Fig. 11 shows the
plots of data during the experiment. The values of x, y,
z represent the position of the left foot and the measured
force in Cartesian coordinates are denoted by Fx, Fy, and
Fz, respectively. The x, y and z directions correspond to
the Ventral, Lateral, and Cranial directions of the robot. The
force sensors are used only to measure how much forces are
applied during the movement by the person. It was not used
for force control.
From the experimental data in Fig. 11, it can be noted
that the required force to move the foot was from 10 to 40
N. These values are related to static friction of the joints.
As soon as the robot started to move, the joints were backdrivable and compliant to the movement of the person so that
the person could move the left foot as desired. This result
demonstrates the performance of compliant motion during
gravity compensation without using joint torque sensors.
0.2
20
0.1
0
0
−20
−0.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
(a)
7
8
9
10
11
Fy measured (N)
50
Fz measured (N)
0.2
30
0.1
10
0
−10
−0.1
−30
−50
0
−0.2
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
(b)
7
8
9
10
11
12
60
0.3
40
0.2
20
0.1
0
0
−20
−40
0
y (m)
−40
0
x (m)
0.3
40
z (m)
Fx measured (N)
60
−0.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
time(sec)
8
9
10
11
−0.2
12
(c)
Fig. 11. Experimental data showing the force and foot location of the
motors during gravity compensation.
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper presented a new humanoid design that utilized
multi-axis machining to create an easily accessible robot
with an integrated design and frame. The robot is built with
motors directly connected to the joint with a low gear ratio.
This configuration allows for compliant motion and good
back-drivability without using joint torque sensors. These are
demonstrated by the experimental results of gravity compensation. More complex multi-contact compliant motions are to
be implemented in the future.
The current design is for indoor robotics research focusing
on control. However, with the current research into materials
and nano properties, we imagine a time when the open
frame can still be applicable by combining hydrophobic
treatments to the electronics and breathable fabric over the
links to protect from water and dust. With the curvature of
the frame, such an application would maintain the free-form
aesthetic created in this robot. While this paper presents the
lower body of a humanoid, the upper body is planned to be
developed as well.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge U3 Robotics for their assistance
in manufacturing and electronics.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Monk and K. Lelos, “Changing only the aesthetic features of a
product can affect its apparent usability,” in Home Informatics and
Telematics: ICT for The Next Billion. Springer, 2007, pp. 221–233.
[2] P. Dario, E. Guglielmelli, and C. Laschi, “Humanoids and personal
robots: Design and experiments,” Journal of robotic systems, vol. 18,
no. 12, pp. 673–690, 2001.
[3] A. Albers, S. Brudniok, J. Ottnad, C. Sauter, and K. Sedchaicharn,
Design of modules and components for humanoid robots. na, 2007.
[4] F. Hegel, “Effects of a robot’s aesthetic design on the attribution of
social capabilities,” in RO-MAN, 2012 IEEE. IEEE, 2012, pp. 469–
475.
[5] D. Hanson, “Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots,” in
Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 long symposium: Toward social
mechanisms of android science. Citeseer, 2006, pp. 39–42.
[6] J. Goetz, S. Kiesler, and A. Powers, “Matching robot appearance and
behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation,” in Robot and
Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003.
The 12th IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 2003, pp. 55–60.
[7] K. Hirai, “The honda humanoid robot: development and future perspective,” Industrial Robot: An International Journal, vol. 26, no. 4,
pp. 260–266, 1999.
[8] S. Shirata, A. Konno, and M. Uchiyama, “Design and development of
a light-weight biped humanoid robot Saika-4,” in Intelligent Robots
and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, vol. 1. IEEE, 2004, pp. 148–153.
[9] I.-W. Park, J.-Y. Kim, S.-W. Park, and J.-H. Oh, “Development of humanoid robot platform khr-2 (kaist humanoid robot 2),” International
Journal of Humanoid Robotics, vol. 2, no. 04, pp. 519–536, 2005.
[10] I.-W. Park, J.-Y. Kim, J. Lee, and J.-H. Oh, “Mechanical design of
humanoid robot platform KHR-3 (KAIST humanoid robot 3: HUBO),”
in Humanoid Robots, 2005 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference
on. IEEE, 2005, pp. 321–326.
[11] K. Park, Y. Kim, C. Kim, and H. Park, “Integrated application of
CAD/CAM/CAE and RP for rapid development of a humanoid biped
robot,” Journal of materials processing technology, vol. 187, pp. 609–
613, 2007.
[12] C. Ott, C. Baumgartner, J. Mayr, M. Fuchs, R. Burger, D. Lee,
O. Eiberger, A. Albu-Schaffer, M. Grebenstein, and G. Hirzinger,
“Development of a biped robot with torque controlled joints,” in
Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2010 10th IEEE-RAS International
Conference on. IEEE, 2010, pp. 167–173.
[13] D. Gouaillier, V. Hugel, P. Blazevic, C. Kilner, J. Monceaux, P. Lafourcade, B. Marnier, J. Serre, and B. Maisonnier, “Mechatronic design of
NAO humanoid,” in Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA’09. IEEE
International Conference on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 769–774.
[14] G. Nelson, A. Saunders, N. Neville, B. Swilling, J. Bondaryk,
D. Billings, C. Lee, R. Playter, and M. Raibert, “Petman: A humanoid
robot for testing chemical protective clothing,” Journal of the Robotics
Society of Japan, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 372–377, 2012.
[15] B. J. Stephens and C. G. Atkeson, “Dynamic balance force control
for compliant humanoid robots,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS), 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 2010,
pp. 1248–1255.
[16] N. G. Tsagarakis, Z. Li, J. Saglia, and D. G. Caldwell, “The design of
the lower body of the compliant humanoid robot cCub,” in Robotics
and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on.
IEEE, 2011, pp. 2035–2040.
[17] “Size Korea,” http:/sizekorea.kats.go.kr, 2014, [Online; accessed July2014].
[18] W. Kwon, H. K. Kim, J. K. Park, C. H. Roh, J. Lee, J. Park, W.-K.
Kim, and K. Roh, “Biped humanoid robot Mahru III,” in Humanoid
Robots, 2007 7th IEEE-RAS International Conference on. IEEE,
2007, pp. 583–588.
[19] “Robotics Lab,” http://www.rlab.co.kr, 2014, [Online; accessed July2014].
[20] J. Park and O. Khatib, “Contact consistent control framework for
humanoid robots,” in Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006.
Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2006,
pp. 1963–1969.
[21] K. Kaneko, S. Kajita, F. Kanehiro, K. Yokoi, K. Fujiwara,
H. Hirukawa, T. Kawasaki, M. Hirata, and T. Isozumi, “Design of
advanced leg module for humanoid robotics project of METI,” in
Robotics and Automation, 2002. Proceedings. ICRA’02. IEEE International Conference on, vol. 1. IEEE, 2002, pp. 38–45.
[22] S. Lohmeier, T. Buschmann, and H. Ulbrich, “Humanoid robot
LOLA,” in Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA’09. IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 775–780.
[23] H. T. Bidwell, Ed., The Investment Casting Handbook. Investment
Casting Institute, 1997.

Download Report