Tag Archives: qdd100

mjbots Monday: New lower prices

One of my goals with mjbots is to make building dynamic robots more accessible to researchers and enthusiasts everywhere. To make that more of a reality, I’m lowering the prices in a big way on the foundational components of brushless robotic systems, the moteus controller and qdd100 servo.

moteus r4.3 controller$119$79
moteus r4.3 devkit$199$159
qdd100 beta$549$429
qdd100 beta devkit$599$469

Don’t worry, if you purchased any of these in the last month, you should be getting a coupon in your email equivalent to the difference.

Happy building!

Cartesian leg PD controller

As I am working to improve the gaits of the mjbots quad A1, one aspect I’ve wanted to tackle for a long time is improving the compliance characteristics of the whole robot. Here’s a small step in that direction.

Existing compliance strategy

The quad A1 uses qdd100 servos for each of its joints. The “qdd” in qdd100 stands for “quasi direct drive”. In a quasi direct drive actuator, a low gearing ratio is used, typically less than 10 to 1, which minimizes the amount of backlash and reflected inertia as observed at the output. Then, high rate electronic control of torque in the servo based on current and position feedback allows for dynamic manipulation of the spring and dampening of the resulting system.

Another option is a series elastic actuator, which uses a traditional high gear reduction servo with a mechanical spring or elastic mechanism inline with the load. Sometimes a separate motorized actuation mechanism can be used to vary the damping properties of the elastic element. This is in principle similar to the quasi direct drive approach, but suffers from a limited overall control bandwidth. Despite being “springy”, QDD servos are still able to have a very high effective mechanical control bandwidth, on the order of hundreds of hertz.

For the quad A1 to date, the compliance it exhibits is largely due to the qdd100’s internal control algorithms, and to a very minor extent, flexing in the mechanical structures of the quad A1 itself. This does work, and gives decent results.


The biggest limitation of solely using this approach, is that since the compliance is performed at the joint level, it has no knowledge of the current 3d configuration of the leg. The resulting compliance in 3D space is highly non-linear and depends upon where in configuration space the leg is at that point in time. For instance, if the back legs are configured to have the knee very bent, but the front legs are not, then the back knee needs a much larger restorative torque per unit rotation to have the same linear restorative force at the tip of the leg.

That results in artifacts like shown in the video at the bottom. When the robot falls with the legs not in an identical configuration, the robot ends up pitching or rolling depending upon how the compliance interacts with the current leg geometry.

A “fix”

In my original designs for the moteus controller, I had left a high rate “inter-leg” bus option in the design, where each controller could exchange IK information at the full control rate, so that all compliance could be performed in the 3D space, rather than in joint space. However, as the design progressed, and I failed to implement it, I dropped that capability to simplify and reduce costs.

Here, I ended up implementing something purely in software which doesn’t have the same level of performance as that system would have, but also doesn’t require additional dedicated high rate communication transceivers on every servo control board. The 3D PD controller is just run on the raspberry pi at the regular control update rate (400Hz currently). That makes the control flow look like this:


While this solution isn’t perfect, it does give better results in many scenarios. I applied some disturbances to the robot with either solely joint level controllers, or joint plus XYZ controllers. For the two cases, I tried to tune the controllers to a similar level of stiffness and damping to make the comparison as fair as possible. Walking is generally improved as well, even with just a constant compliance throughout the gait cycle.

New mjbots.com

https://shop.mjbots.com is now https://mjbots.com (don’t worry, the old site redirects)! The functionality is largely the same, you can still get your qdd100 actuators or moteus controllers. The biggest differences are 1) it looks slightly nicer, and 2) shipping rates are improved, and international shipping rates drastically so. For instance, DHL “Express” 2 day shipping to some points in Europe is now under $35 USD, whereas previously 2 day shipping was over $300. That is often cheaper than even USPS International Priority — which is typically 2-4 weeks.

I’ll be adding some more products over the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to make them as accessible to a worldwide audience as possible!

Leg zeroing fixture

As part of provisioning a quad A1, or anytime the mechanical configuration has been changed, I need to go and record where the zero position of all the joints is.  The “0” position for the software now is with the shoulders perfectly horizontal, and the upper and lower leg sticking straight down.

Up until now, every time I’ve done this it has just been by eyeballing and with lots of foam and bubble wrap to shim things into place long enough to record the level.  Sometimes I had to go back and try a few times, as even determining when something is straight is not, well, straightforward.

So, I made two new fixtures to help with this process:


One that rests on a flat surface and supports the shoulder to be exactly level, and forces the upper leg to be exactly at a 90 degree angle.  This assumes the robot is flipped over on the same flat surface.  The second snaps between the upper and lower leg, forcing them to be exactly straight.

With these two fixtures, I was able to get repeatability of my calibrations down to less than half a degree, which should be good enough for now.


Ground truth torque testing for qdd100

First, a limited number of qdd100 servos are available for sale to beta testers!  Check them out at mjbots.com.

After building up the first set of qdd100 servos, I wanted to empirically measure their performance parameters.  Some astute commenters uncovered in my terrible juggling video, that I didn’t actually have any ground truth measure of torque with these actuators.  Given that the ultimate torque is a pretty useful performance metric, it’s a good thing to have a solid understanding of.

To measure this, I built a simple test fixture (which is also the qdd100 beta development kit), consisting of two brackets.  The first lets the servo be bolted to a table, and the second mounts to the output and has set screws to hold a 1″ diameter pipe.  I used this to insert a 1 meter pipe which then can press against a digital scale.

1m is pretty long for my workshop!

Then I created a simple C++ application which emitted torque commands in response to joystick input and reported back telemetry from the servo: qdd100_test

Using these I was able to generate a plot of actual torque vs motor phase current:

qdd100 torque vs phase current

There are a couple of interesting things here, one is that the torque constant at low phase currents is slightly lower than I had estimated based on the motor’s Kv rating.  Second, the torque constant drops off faster at higher currents than I had anticipated, and third, the motor Kv rating was lower than I had predicted.  Those things combined result in a peak torque of between 12.5 and 15Nm depending upon the servo.  That’s still enough torque to do some serious jumping, but exploring those discrepancies is now on my backlog.

Here’s a video showing how this testing (and max speed testing) was done:

Simple walking gait on the quad A1

After I restructured my control laws to take advantage of high rate force feedback for the pronking experiments, I haven’t actually managed to port the walking gait yet.  Now that I have a brand new robot, it seemed like a good time!

This gait is basically the same thing as I ran on the quad A0 in principle.  The opposing feet are picked up according to a rigid schedule, and moved to a point opposite their “idle” position based on the current movement speed.  Any feet that are completely placed on the ground just move with the inverse of the robot’s velocity.

What differs now is that the leg positions and forces are controlled in 3D at a high rate, 400Hz for now.  At each time step, the position and velocity of all 12 joints is measured.  The gait algorithm calculates a desired 3D position, velocity, and force.  Feedforward force is currently only used to control the weight supporting legs.  Then, those 3D parameters are transformed into a joint position, velocity, and force based on the current joint position, and the command is sent out.

While not conceptually too different, just controlling the system in 3D at a high rate gives significantly improved results for a range of walking parameters.  There is still a lot left to do, but it is a good start!

(also, a limited number of the qdd100 servos are now open for sale to beta testers at mjbots.comhttps://mjbots.com/products/qdd100-beta-developer-kit/)