What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Harmonic drives, quasi-direct drive, series elastic actuators, motor selection, gearing, and everything that makes joints move.
vyoung
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2026 12:05 pm

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by vyoung »

Not sure I fully agree here. 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. Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.
greta78
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2026 8:34 pm

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by greta78 »

@vyoung This matches something I went through recently. 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. 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.
"Torque is a lifestyle."
barbara50
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2024 12:19 pm

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by barbara50 »

Just to be precise about one thing: 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. 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. Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
elarsen69
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2026 3:18 am

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by elarsen69 »

This is exactly the kind of context I was looking for. 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.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
charlesbianchi
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2025 2:51 am

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by charlesbianchi »

@elarsen69 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.
she/her
betty.king
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2025 8:37 am

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by betty.king »

@charlesbianchi Counterpoint: 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.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
young56
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2025 5:26 pm

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by young56 »

@betty.king I don't think that's quite right, for what it's worth. 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.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
donna_wata
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2026 5:06 am

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by donna_wata »

@young56 Worth being a little skeptical of the marketing angle here. 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. 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.
matthew43
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:18 am

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by matthew43 »

@donna_wata Agreed, and I'd add: 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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
emilyperez
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2024 8:03 pm

Re: What's the deal with dual-motor redundancy in critical joints?

Post by emilyperez »

@matthew43 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.
Post Reply