Various golfers can play different golf swing motions even if they hold the same golf club. This phenomenon casts light on the significance of the dynamic interaction between the golfer’s arm and golf club. The dynamic interaction results in different swing motions, even if the robot has the same input torque of the shoulder joint as that of a golfer. Unfortunately, such influence has not been considered in the conventional control of a golf swing robot. An impedance control method is proposed for a golf swing robot to emulate different-arm-mass golfers in consideration of the dynamic interaction between human arm and golf club. Based on the Euler–Lagrange principle and assumed modes technique, a mathematical model of golf swing considering the shaft bending flexibility is established to simulate the swing motions of different-arm-mass golfers. The impedance control method is implemented to a prototype of golf swing robot composed of one actuated joint and one passive joint. The comparison of the swing motions of the robot and different-arm-mass golfers is made and the results show that the proposed golf swing robot with the impedance control method can emulate different-arm-mass golfers.

1.
Hunt
,
E. A.
, and
Wiens
,
G. J.
, 2003, “
Design and Analysis of a Parallel Mechanism for the Golf Industry
,”
Proceedings of Tenth International Congress on Sound and Vibration
,
Stockholm, Sweden
, Jul. 7–10, p.
8
.
2.
Suzuki
,
S.
, and
Inooka
,
H.
, 1998, “
A New Golf-Swing Robot Model Utilizing Shaft Elasticity
,”
J. Sound Vib.
0022-460X,
217
(
1
), pp.
17
31
.
3.
Ming
,
A.
, and
Kajitani
,
M.
, 2000, “
Motion Planning for a New Golf Swing Robot
,”
Proceedings of 2000 IEEE International Conference on System, Man and Cybernetics
,
Nashville
, pp.
3282
3287
.
4.
Ming
,
A.
, and
Kajitani
,
M.
, 2003, “
A New Golf Swing Robot to Simulate Human Skill-Accuracy Improvement of Swing Motion by Learning Control
,”
Mechatronics
0957-4158,
13
(
8–9
), pp.
809
823
.
5.
Hoshino
,
Y.
,
Kobayashi
,
Y.
, and
Yamada
,
G.
, 2005, “
Vibration Control Using a State Observer That Considers Disturbance of a Golf Swing Robot
,”
JSME Int. J., Ser. C
1340-8062,
48
(
1
), pp.
60
69
.
6.
Cochran
,
A.
, and
Stobbs
,
J.
, 1999,
Search for the Perfect Swing
,
Triumph Books
,
Chicago
.
7.
Jorgensen
,
T.
, 1994,
The Physics of Golf
,
AIP Press
,
New York
.
8.
Theodore
,
R. J.
, and
Ghosal
,
A.
, 1995, “
Comparison of the Assumed Modes and Finite Element Models for Flexible Multi-Link Manipulators
,”
Int. J. Robot. Res.
0278-3649,
14
(
2
), pp.
91
111
.
9.
De Luca
,
A.
, and
Siciliano
,
B.
, 1991, “
Closed-Form Dynamic Model of Planar Multilink Lightweight Robots
,”
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.
0018-9472,
21
(
4
), pp.
826
839
.
10.
Jones
,
R.
, 1966,
Bobby Jones on Golf
,
Doubleday
,
New York
.
11.
Milne
,
R. D.
, and
Davis
,
J. P.
, 1992, “
The Role of the Shaft in the Golf Swing
,”
J. Biomech.
0021-9290,
25
(
9
), pp.
975
983
.
12.
Hogan
,
N.
, 1984, “
Adaptive Control of Mechanical Impedance by Coactivation of Antagonistmuscles
,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
0018-9286,
AC-29
(
8
), pp.
681
690
.
13.
Williams
,
D.
, 1967, “
The Dynamics of the Golf Swing
,”
Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math.
0033-5614,
20
(
2
), pp.
247
264
.
14.
Lampsa
,
M. A.
, 1975, “
Maximizing Distance of the Golf Drive: An Optimal Control Study
,”
ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control
0022-0434,
97
(
4
), pp.
362
367
.
15.
Sprigings
,
E. J.
, and
Mackenzie
,
S. J.
, 2002, “
Examining the Delayed Release in the Golf Swing Using Computer Simulation
,”
Sports Eng.
1369-7072,
5
(
1
), pp.
23
32
.
16.
Jorgensen
,
T.
, 1970, “
On the Dynamics of the Swing of a Golf Club
,”
Am. J. Phys.
0002-9505,
38
(
5
), pp.
644
651
.
You do not currently have access to this content.