Factorial experiment demonstrates terrain roughness and compliance influence hexapod robot locomotion more than leg thickness, indicating environment dominates morphology in fixed-gait movement.
This study presents the design, embedded implementation, and screening-level experimental terrain-performance evaluation of an RHex-inspired hexapod robot using a fixed encoder-assisted alternating-tripod state-machine gait. The work aims to provide an experimentally grounded assessment of how terrain properties and practical leg-thickness variation influence the locomotion of a fabricated low-complexity legged platform. A 2 × 2 × 2 full-factorial screening design was adopted to evaluate terrain roughness, terrain compliance, and leg thickness. Four terrain conditions were tested: concrete, rocky terrain, foam mats, and grass, corresponding to smooth–rigid, rough–rigid, smooth–soft, and rough–soft surfaces, respectively. Each treatment combination was evaluated in two replicate runs using final forward displacement, lateral displacement, absolute displacement, and peak current as the response variables. The full-factorial analysis showed that terrain roughness had the clearest significant effect on forward displacement and absolute displacement, while terrain compliance significantly affected absolute displacement and showed observable trends in lateral displacement and peak current. Leg thickness did not produce a statistically significant main effect within the tested 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm configurations, fixed gait, and terrain set. The findings indicate that, for this platform and experimental scope, terrain roughness and compliance affected locomotion more strongly than the tested morphology variation. The study contributes a reproducible baseline workflow for terrain-performance evaluation in low-complexity legged robots and identifies directions for future work involving stronger replication, quantified terrain characterization, improved energy measurement, and closed-loop terrain-adaptive control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abayan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: