What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Harmonic drives, quasi-direct drive, series elastic actuators, motor selection, gearing, and everything that makes joints move.
choi98
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:32 am

What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by choi98 »

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but here goes. Anti-backlash techniques in production actuators range from mechanical preloading (spring-loaded gear meshes) to purely software compensation that models and corrects for known backlash in the control loop. Harmonic drives use high reduction ratios (often around 100:1), which gives excellent force density, stiffness, and thermal endurance for continuous-duty lifting - the tradeoff is low backdrivability and some backlash. Interested in both agreement and pushback here.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
jwang
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2025 7:28 pm

Re: What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by jwang »

@choi98 Here's what I know on this: A lot of the per-joint cost in a modern actuator isn't the motor - it's the combination of a precision gearbox, integrated encoders, torque sensing, and the driver electronics, all of which have to fit inside a housing the size of a fist. Encoder resolution requirements scale with how tightly you need to control low-speed motion - coarse encoders are fine for open-loop swing phases but cause visible stutter during precise placement or fine force control.
shill
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:09 pm

Re: What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by shill »

Respectfully, I think this undersells it a bit. Field-oriented control (FOC) tuning directly affects how smooth torque output feels - poorly tuned current loops show up as audible whine and jerky low-speed motion, while well-tuned FOC can make even a geared actuator feel fairly fluid. Series elastic actuators add a spring element in series with the drivetrain, which gives cheap, precise torque sensing (measure spring deflection) and passive shock absorption, at the cost of reduced control bandwidth and added complexity.
young56
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2025 5:26 pm

Re: What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by young56 »

@shill This matches something I went through recently. Quasi-direct drive (QDD) actuators use lower gear ratios (roughly 6:1 to 10:1) paired with high-torque-density motors, trading some peak force density for backdrivability and low reflected inertia, which matters a lot for impact tolerance and fall recovery. For dynamic walking and recovery, joint control bandwidth in the tens of Hz range is typically necessary to react to a stumble before the center of mass gets too far outside the support polygon. Totally unrelated but has anyone else noticed how fast component costs are dropping this year.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
williams84
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:50 am

Re: What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by williams84 »

Not to derail, but this reminds me of something adjacent: Boston Dynamics' commercial electric Atlas switched fully from hydraulic to QDD-style electric actuation, ending up quieter and lighter with comparable or better dynamic performance than the old hydraulic platform. Reflected inertia is what a limb 'feels like' to the outside world through the gearbox - a high-ratio harmonic drive reflects a lot of the rotor's inertia back to the joint, making the limb feel stiffer and less forgiving on unexpected impacts.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
charlesbianchi
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2025 2:51 am

Re: What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by charlesbianchi »

Side note that might be relevant: Torque sensing is frequently integrated directly into the actuator housing via strain gauges near the output flange or spring element, rather than bolted on as an external sensor, to save weight and reduce noise from mechanical slop.
she/her
gimbalmar65
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2025 4:14 am

Re: What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by gimbalmar65 »

Slight correction, though the overall point stands: Backdrivability is the property that lets an external force move a joint without destroying the gearbox or the motor - it's central to both safe human-robot contact and to letting a leg comply naturally when the robot stumbles.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
scott21
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:57 am

Re: What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by scott21 »

From hands-on experience, Cycloidal drives are a less common but real alternative to harmonic drives - lower cost at high ratios, decent efficiency, but historically bulkier for the same torque density, which is part of why they haven't fully displaced harmonic drives in commercial hips and knees.
she/her
jhansen
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:27 am

Re: What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by jhansen »

Sorry if this is a basic question, but Motor cogging torque (the 'notchy' feel from magnet-to-slot interactions) shows up as small periodic torque ripple that can translate into visible joint jitter at low speeds - it's usually mitigated with skewed magnets, better current control, or software compensation tables. It's common for a single humanoid to mix actuator types by joint - harmonic drives or hybrid geared actuators at the hips and shoulders where sustained torque matters most, and lower-ratio QDD-style actuators at ankles and knees where backdrivability and impact tolerance matter more.
barbara.jones
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2025 6:12 pm

Re: What's a reasonable joint bandwidth target for dynamic walking?

Post by barbara.jones »

From hands-on experience, Series elastic actuators add a spring element in series with the drivetrain, which gives cheap, precise torque sensing (measure spring deflection) and passive shock absorption, at the cost of reduced control bandwidth and added complexity.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
Post Reply