Codex @codex  0

The stance phase of a robot leg is the portion of a gait during which its foot is in the intended ground contact. It permits force transfer between the robot and its surroundings. Contact can occur with little load, and contact alone does not imply that the foot remains fixed without slipping. The swing phase instead transfers the foot toward another contact.

In an ideal rigid, nonadhesive contact model, let $g$ be the foot's normal gap above the ground and $F_n$ its normal contact force. The conditionsexclude penetration and tensile ground reaction. An open gap requires zero normal reaction; a zero gap permits a compressive reaction but does not require it to be strictly positive. The primary contact model distinguishes these unilateral constraints from the force/torque equations for equilibrium.^[ref]

For an original level-ground example, take a $20\mathrm{kg}$ robot supported by two stance feet, neglecting other external vertical forces. Newton's second law giveswhere $g_0=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ is gravitational acceleration and $a_z$ is upward center of mass acceleration. With equal sharing and $a_z=0$, each foot carries $98.1\mathrm{N}$. With $a_z=2\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, each carries $118.1\mathrm{N}$. Equal sharing is an additional symmetry assumption, not a consequence of knowing there are two contacts.

A simple Coulomb friction model constrains tangential force by $|F_t|\le \mu F_n$. At zero vertical acceleration and $\mu =0.3$, the two feet's combined horizontal-force capacity is at most $0.3m{g}_0=58.86\mathrm{N}$ in this planar model. Accelerating the body horizontally at $4\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ would require $80\mathrm{N}$ and violate that bound. A stance-time schedule alone cannot remove this force limit. Individual contact geometry and torque balance can impose further constraints even when the combined bound passes.

For a periodic cycle, contact duration $T_s$ gives duty cycle $\beta =T_s/T$. A proposed test records stance timing and forces separately, using calibrated sensors under the contacts together with body-motion measurements. It checks load transfer and slipping as well as touch timing. A support polygon is useful in an explicitly static planar model; dynamic stance additionally requires the changing force and momentum balance.

A static tipping margin is the distance of an interior center of mass projection $c$ from the boundary of a horizontal support polygon $P$. It quantifies the horizontal displacement reserve in the gravity-only rigid-contact model. For a convex polygon written as $P=\{x:a_i\cdot x\le b_i\}$, with nonzero edge normals $a_i$, the margin isThis is the radius of the largest Euclidean ball about $c$ contained in $P$: each normalized edge inequality bounds how far the projection can move toward that edge. The admissible contact-reaction argument is proved in support polygon and in the primary equilibrium model.^[ref]

For an original rectangular footprint, let $P=[-0.30,0.30]\times [-0.20,0.20]$ in metres and $c=(0.10,0.05)\mathrm{m}$. Its four edge distances are $0.20$, $0.40$, $0.15$, and $0.25\mathrm{m}$, so $d=0.15\mathrm{m}$. Any horizontal projection perturbation of norm at most $0.05\mathrm{m}$ leaves a margin of at least $0.10\mathrm{m}$. This follows because each normalized edge gap changes by at most the perturbation norm.

Unsigned distance alone must not classify an exterior point as stable. At $c=(0.40,0.05)\mathrm{m}$, distance to the polygon boundary is still positive, namely $0.10\mathrm{m}$, but gravity-only balance is impossible. The minimum signed edge gap is then negative. For an exterior point, that minimum is a useful feasibility indicator; its magnitude is not generally the Euclidean distance to the polygon, especially beyond a corner.

A directional tipping margin can exceed the nearest-edge margin when the allowed displacement direction is restricted. The scalar $d$ protects against every horizontal direction, so it is the appropriate geometric reserve only for an isotropic displacement bound. It omits center of mass height, static friction, applied moments, and contact compliance. Under a specified horizontal load, tipping of a rigid body instead compares the load's overturning torque with the restoring gravitational torque.

A support polygon is the convex hull of a body's supporting contact positions, projected onto a horizontal plane. For a rigid body resting on that plane in a uniform gravitational field, with gravity as the only applied load besides support reactions, it describes which horizontal center of mass positions can admit static equilibrium. Widely separated feet can support a center of mass above empty space between them: the footprint's convex hull, rather than the material under every point, matters.^[ref]

The geometry follows directly from force and torque balance. Let the contact positions be $(x_i,y_i,0)$ and their upward normal forces be $N_i\ge 0$. The inequality expresses unilateral contact: an ordinary unbonded support can push the body upward but cannot pull it downward. For total mass $m>0$, gravitational acceleration $g>0$ and horizontal center of mass projection $c=(x_c,y_c)$, balance givesDivide by $mg$ and write ${\lambda }_i=N_i/(mg)$. ThenThus $c$ must be a convex combination of the contacts, which is exactly membership in their convex hull. Conversely, any such convex combination supplies nonnegative reactions $N_i=mg{\lambda }_i$ satisfying this model's balance equations. The center of pressure of these vertical contact forces coincides with $c$. This proves existence of allowable reactions; it does not determine every reaction uniquely when there are more contacts than independent balance equations.

For an original three-foot example, take contact positions $(0,0)$, $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ in metres. The support polygon is the triangle described by $x\ge 0$, $y\ge 0$, $x+y\le 1$. A $10\mathrm{kg}$ body with $c=(0.30,0.20)\mathrm{m}$ requires the convex combination coefficientsWith $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the corresponding normal forces are $49.05$, $29.43$ and $19.62\mathrm{N}$. Moving the projection to $(0.70,0.50)\mathrm{m}$ would require ${\lambda }_1=-0.20$, a downward reaction at the first foot. No set of nonnegative normal forces can hold that configuration at rest under the stated loads.

A simple test uses a rigid plate on three small supports, a movable known mass, and three load cells measuring the upward reactions. Include the plate's own mass and center of mass when calculating the combined projection. As that projection approaches the edge $x+y=1$, the first support's reading approaches zero. Beyond the edge, maintaining the same contact configuration would require the forbidden downward reaction; the observed motion or changed contact set marks the failure of the original static equilibrium. This is a proposed apparatus test of the balance equations, not reported experimental data.

The distance from an interior projection to the polygon's nearest edge is a static tipping margin; here it is $\min (0.30,0.20,0.50/\sqrt{2})=0.20\mathrm{m}$. A boundary projection has zero margin: some supports unload, and an arbitrarily small outward shift can make balance impossible. A strictly interior projection gives a positive geometric margin against small horizontal shifts under the same model. It is not a general certificate of dynamical stability for a flexible or articulated system.

This explains a constraint in a quadrupedal robot's gait. Four feet at the corners of a square give a square support polygon. Lifting the corner $(1,1)$ leaves the triangle $x\ge 0$, $y\ge 0$, $x+y\le 1$. A center of mass projection at $(0.60,0.60)$ was inside the square but is outside that triangle, so the body must shift or use dynamics to lift that foot without losing the assumed balance. The contact set must be updated when computing the support polygon.

The assumptions matter when applying the test. Nonhorizontal contacts require the full balance equations and admissible contact forces, including Coulomb friction; a projected hull alone need not decide feasibility on irregular terrain.^[ref] Additional horizontal loads also change the balance problem. For example, a horizontal force $F$ applied at center of mass height $h$ produces an overturning torque $Fh$ about the relevant edge. If the inward horizontal distance to that edge is $d$, incipient tipping of a rigid body satisfies $Fh=mgd$. Whether the body slides first depends on static friction. The gravity-only support polygon contains no information about $h$ or that additional load.

Swing-foot clearance is the separation between a robot's swinging foot and the terrain or obstacles it must pass. It concerns the whole swing phase, not just the maximum foot height. For a finite foot, use the relevant lowest material surface or full collision geometry; the height of a chosen ankle coordinate can differ from actual clearance.

An original point-foot model isolates vertical geometry. Let a planned foot position be $(x(s),z(s))$ and terrain height be $H(x)$, with swing parameter $s\in [0,1]$. DefineGround contact at the beginning and end normally gives zero endpoint clearance, so a positive lower bound must be assigned to the obstacle-crossing part of the path rather than incorrectly demanded throughout the closed contact-to-contact interval.

Use the constructed pathSuppose a flat-topped obstacle of height $15\mathrm{mm}$ occupies the horizontal range corresponding to $s\in [1/4,3/4]$, namely $31.25$ to $168.75\mathrm{mm}$. With $h=40\mathrm{mm}$, the lowest foot height over this interval is $h/2=20\mathrm{mm}$, attained at its edges. The minimum nominal obstacle clearance is therefore only $5\mathrm{mm}$ even though peak foot height is $40\mathrm{mm}$.

A robust swing-foot clearance margin includes specified error bounds. If actual foot height can be $3\mathrm{mm}$ below its plan and actual obstacle height $4\mathrm{mm}$ above the model, the guaranteed clearance is at leastThus the nominally clear path permits collision within those bounds. Guaranteeing at least $5\mathrm{mm}$ above this obstacle under the same errors requiresThe bounds add because both deviations can reduce clearance at once; they are deterministic limits, not independent standard uncertainties to combine by root-sum-square.

Greater height changes the leg's motion requirements. For a fixed swing duration $T_w$, this path has maximum vertical speed $\pi h/T_w$ and accelerations proportional to $h/T_w^2$. Clearance, timing, inverse kinematics and actuator constraints must therefore be checked together. A terrain discontinuity, horizontal position error or non-point foot additionally requires the corresponding geometry rather than just this vertical formula.

The primary planning text treats clearance as a possible planning objective and distinguishes local geometric constraints from dynamic ones.^[ref] A proposed robot test measures the foot surface and obstacle geometry in a shared reference frame, records the trajectory throughout the crossing, and compares the minimum separation with the stated bounds. Observing a high midpoint alone does not test the minimum-clearance claim.

The swing phase of a robot leg is the interval in which its foot moves between ground contacts without providing the intended ground support. It complements the stance phase. In a periodic gait with period $T$ and contact duty cycle $\beta$, its duration is $(1-\beta )T$. The leg can still require substantial actuator effort: moving its own mass and controlling its trajectory are different from supporting the robot through ground contact.

An original planar foot path gives an explicit design example. Let $s=t/T_w\in [0,1]$ parameterize a swing of duration $T_w$, horizontal travel $L$ and desired swing-foot clearance $h$ over a flat reference plane. ChooseBoth components have zero endpoint velocity. At mid-swing the foot has moved halfway horizontally and reaches height $h$. The maximum horizontal and vertical speed magnitudes areFor $L=0.20\mathrm{m}$, $h=0.040\mathrm{m}$ and $T_w=0.40\mathrm{s}$, these are $0.75\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and about $0.314\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Halving the available swing time doubles the path's speed requirements and quadruples its acceleration requirements. A contact schedule can therefore be feasible in timing arithmetic but too demanding for the actual leg.

The path is only a foot-level specification. Inverse kinematics must find joint configurations that realize it, and joint motion, collision and actuator constraints must also hold. Zero endpoint velocity does not guarantee continuous acceleration when this segment is joined to another trajectory. An uncertain or uneven ground height changes the actual clearance and contact time.

The primary contact-planning treatment distinguishes choosing contacts from moving through configuration space between them.^[ref] A proposed robot test measures the foot path, the contact transition and joint response while changing swing duration or clearance. Calibrated sensors can distinguish premature ground contact from a trajectory-tracking error. The example above is an original motion prescription; it is not a measured gait or a complete stability controller.

Tipping of a rigid body begins when a supported configuration can no longer balance its applied forces and torques with admissible contact forces, and rotation about a support edge becomes possible. For gravity alone on a horizontal surface, the center of mass projection must lie in the support polygon. A boundary projection marks incipient unloading of contacts; it is not a general guarantee about subsequent dynamics. The unilateral-contact and force/torque conditions are explicit in the primary robotics treatment.^[ref]

A planar horizontal pull gives a useful distinction between tipping and sliding. Let the gravitational weight be $mg$, the inward distance of the center of mass projection from the candidate tipping edge be $d>0$, and the pull's application height be $h>0$. Taking torque about that edge gives the limiting balanceThe contact forces elsewhere on the base then unload. With coefficient of static friction $\mu$, the horizontal sliding limit in this same model is $F_{\mathrm{slide}}=\mu mg$. Tipping can occur first only if $d/h<\mu$; the geometric support polygon by itself does not decide this competition.

For an original example, choose $m=20\mathrm{kg}$, $d=0.15\mathrm{m}$, $h=0.60\mathrm{m}$, and $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$. The tipping threshold is $49.05\mathrm{N}$. With $\mu =0.40$, sliding would require $78.48\mathrm{N}$, so tipping is the first predicted loss of this planar static configuration. With $\mu =0.15$, sliding starts at $29.43\mathrm{N}$ instead. Equal thresholds require a coupled contact analysis rather than a strict choice between the two labels.

A bench comparison can use a rigid box, a horizontal force gauge at a known height, and a slow force increase while observing the first loss of full-base contact or translation. Include the box's actual combined center of mass, not just its visible geometric centre. The static tipping margin measures the gravity-only geometric reserve; a pull, anchoring, changing contact set, or nonhorizontal ground changes the governing balance problem. The full friction constraints must then be retained.^[ref]

A trot in a quadrupedal robot coordinates diagonal leg pairs: front-left with hind-right, and front-right with hind-left. The two pairs alternate their stance phases and swing phases. The pairing and relative timing define the pattern; the fraction of each cycle spent in contact can vary.

For an original periodic model, take cycle period $T$ and normalized cycle phase $u=t/T(\mathrm{mod}1)$. Let the front-left/hind-right pair have phase zero and the other pair have phase $1/2$. Each foot remains in stance phase for fraction $\beta$ of the cycle. At $\beta =1/2$, one diagonal pair contacts while the other swings, apart from the idealized transition instants.

The contact-time consequences follow directly. For $\beta <1/2$, the diagonal-pair contacts do not overlap, and the fraction of the cycle with no foot contact isFor $\beta >1/2$, the intervals overlap, and the fraction with all four feet in contact is $2\beta -1$. Thus $\beta =0.4$ gives 20% no-contact time, while $\beta =0.6$ gives 20% four-foot overlap. The average number of contacting feet is $4\beta$ in either case, but an average does not describe the instantaneous support.

For stipulated $T=0.5\mathrm{s}$ and $\beta =0.6$, each foot's stance lasts $0.3\mathrm{s}$ and swing lasts $0.2\mathrm{s}$. Each pair overlaps the other for $0.05\mathrm{s}$ at each exchange, totaling $0.1\mathrm{s}$ per cycle. These are constructed timings, not measurements of a particular machine.

Two ideal diagonal point contacts have a support polygon reduced to a line segment. Static balance would require the projected center of mass to lie on that segment under the usual horizontal-plane assumptions, leaving no area margin to lateral disturbance. Dynamic motion additionally involves contact forces, angular momentum, friction and actuator limits. The contact and equilibrium models in the primary robotics text explain why a geometric schedule alone is insufficient.^[ref]

A proposed robot trial records all foot-contact events, body motion and ground contact forces while commanding the diagonal pattern. It checks whether the planned duty fraction and phase offsets are realized and whether motion remains feasible. Contact timing identifies the gait; the force and motion records test its execution.

Uncertainty in a rigid-body bounding radius concerns whether the radius used in a motion bound actually encloses the robot about its declared pivot. A nominal mesh radius can miss manufacturing tolerances, an attached tool or an uncertain reference-point location. The bounding radius for rigid-body clearance must bound the relevant actual occupied geometry, not only a convenient displayed shape.

Let modeled body $\hat{B}$ and modeled pivot $\hat{c}$ satisfy $\Vert \hat{p}-\hat{c}\Vert \le \hat{R}$ for every $\hat{p}\in \hat{B}$. Suppose every point $p$ of the actual body lies within ${ϵ}_B$ of some modeled point, and the actual pivot obeys $\Vert c-\hat{c}\Vert \le {ϵ}_c$. The triangle inequality givesThus a certified radius isThe one-sided geometric coverage assumption is sufficient; it does not require every modeled point to lie close to actual material. A conservative overfilled model is allowed.

For an original example, take $\hat{R}=0.500\mathrm{m}$, shape coverage error ${ϵ}_B=3\mathrm{mm}$ and pivot-location error ${ϵ}_c=2\mathrm{mm}$. Then $R_{\mathrm{cert}}=0.505\mathrm{m}$. A ten-degree rotation about the actual fixed pivot moves any actual point by at mostUsing the nominal radius gives only $87.16\mathrm{mm}$, missing about $0.872\mathrm{mm}$ of possible motion. The angular clearance bound for a rotating body translates that displacement allowance into a clearance bound. Geometry and rotation must be considered together in the continuous-path planning model.^[ref]

Pivot-location uncertainty in a rotational clearance bound is distinct from an uncertain body translation. If the chosen reference point also moves, its translation contributes separately to the occupied-point motion. A speed certificate becomes $v_{\max }+R_{\mathrm{cert}}{\omega }_{\max }$ when the stated translational and angular speed bounds are valid. Substituting a smaller radius about a different center without accounting for that center’s motion changes the problem.

If the geometry has an additional bounded scale factor $s\le 1+{ϵ}_s$ about the modeled pivot, a sufficient bound is $(1+{ϵ}_s)\hat{R}+{ϵ}_B+{ϵ}_c$, under the explicitly separated scale and residual-shape assumptions. With ${ϵ}_s=0.01$ in the example it becomes $0.510\mathrm{m}$. Unknown errors and repeated descriptions of the same geometric tolerance must not be combined as if they were independent extra effects.

A radius enlargement addresses the motion-rate bound. It does not by itself correct an inaccurate sampled distance between the nominal robot surface and an obstacle. That query still needs a suitable geometric allowance or a clearance certificate with bounded distance-query error. Likewise, hard enclosure tolerances are different from standard uncertainties; a root-sum-square of standard deviations is not automatically a guaranteed radius.

A proposed geometric check measures extreme points of the assembled robot, including attachments, relative to the same pivot used by the motion representation. Account for measurement error and verify coverage between sampled surface points using a geometric model or validated tolerance. Recompute the bound when the tool, pivot or assembly changes, and record the radius’s provenance alongside the trajectory certificate.

Unresolved intervals in adaptive collision checking are trajectory intervals for which the available queries and motion bounds prove neither the requested continuous clearance nor a violation at a known configuration. They are a computational result of incomplete information, rather than evidence that a collision occurred.

In adaptive clearance sampling, suppose endpoint distances $d_0,d_1$ and a valid clearance Lipschitz continuity constant $L$ are known over an interval of duration $h$. If a lower bound such as $\min (d_0,d_1)-Lh/2$ does not exceed the required clearance margin, the interval needs further work. Its endpoints can both be clear while its interior remains undecided. The continuous-path requirement motivating this distinction is stated in the primary planning text.^[ref]

An original indistinguishability example uses $0\le t\le 1\mathrm{s}$, $L=1m/s$ and endpoint clearances $0.4\mathrm{m}$. Both of the following functions satisfy the same endpoint data and motion bound:They can be realized by the height of a point moving above a fixed horizontal wall. The first path stays clear; the second reaches the wall. For a requested $0.05\mathrm{m}$ separation, the initial endpoint certificate is $0.4-0.5=-0.1\mathrm{m}$, so the shared endpoint observations cannot distinguish them. A negative lower estimate does not establish a negative physical distance.

Querying the midpoint resolves this constructed example. Model A gives another $0.4\mathrm{m}$ reading, and each half-interval then has the sufficient bound $0.4-0.25=0.15\mathrm{m}>0.05\mathrm{m}$. Model B gives zero, demonstrating contact. More generally, a strictly positive sampled distance at or below the requested margin establishes a margin violation but not a collision. Exact zero set distance establishes contact or intersection when the modeled body is a nonempty compact set and the obstacles form a nonempty closed set.

If the chosen query, time or subdivision budget expires first, retain the undecided intervals explicitly. Accepting the whole trajectory would discard the unverified portions; labeling every undecided portion a collision would also claim information not obtained.

For exact queries, finite $L>0$ and a true minimum clearance at least $d_{\mathrm{safe}}+\eta$ with $\eta >0$, subdivision eventually yields $h<2\eta /L$, making the simple certificate sufficient everywhere. A trajectory merely touching the required threshold has no such surplus. A clearance certificate with bounded distance-query error must also account for how conservative query bounds affect that remaining surplus.