J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

DOI 10.1007/s10846-008-9233-6

A Novel Method of Gait Synthesis for Bipedal Fast

Locomotion

A. Meghdari & S. Sohrabpour & D. Naderi &

S. H. Tamaddoni & F. Jafari & H. Salarieh

Received: 20 May 2007 / Accepted: 5 March 2008 /

Published online: 29 April 2008
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Common methods of gait generation of bipedal locomotion based on

experimental results, can successfully synthesize biped joints’ profiles for a simple
walking. However, most of these methods lack sufficient physical backgrounds which can
cause major problems for bipeds when performing fast locomotion such as running and
jumping. In order to develop a more accurate gait generation method, a thorough study of
human running and jumping seems to be necessary. Most biomechanics researchers
observed that human dynamics, during fast locomotion, can be modeled by a simple spring
loaded inverted pendulum system. Considering this observation, a simple approach for
bipedal gait generation in fast locomotion is introduced in this paper. This approach applies
a nonlinear control method to synchronize the biped link-segmental dynamics with the
spring-mass dynamics. This is done such that while the biped center of mass follows the
trajectory of the mass-spring model, the whole biped performs the desired running/jumping
process. A computer simulation is done on a three-link under-actuated biped model in order
to obtain the robot joints’ profiles which ensure repeatable hopping. The initial results are
found to be satisfactory, and improvements are currently underway to explore and enhance
the capabilities of the proposed method.

Keywords Biped . Locomotion . Gait generation . Mass-spring . SLIP .

Synchronization control

1 Introduction

Motion planning is a crucial step in development of biped robots. Much research has been
done to obtain systematic methods for biped gait generation [1–4]. The method of
formulating objective functions used in conjunction with controllers to regulate the motion
of a planar link-segmental biped robot has been very popular among robotics researchers

A. Meghdari (*) : S. Sohrabpour : D. Naderi : S. H. Tamaddoni : F. Jafari : H. Salarieh

Center of Excellence in Design, Robotics and Automation (CEDRA), School of Mechanical
Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: meghdari@sharif.edu
102 J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

since 1980s. Through this method, biped locomotion is designed in terms of step length,
progression speed, maximum step height and the stance knee bias angle. The joint angular
displacement profiles will be uniquely determined according to objective functions and
based on the initial angles of each step. To obtain a continuous and repeatable gait, special
constraints are applied in the selection of initial joint angles, objective functions, and their
associated gait parameters all of which can be extremely challenging.
To overcome these problems, approximation of the biped joint angle profiles to the
desired trajectories was proposed in the literature, namely: time polynomial functions [5],
and periodic spline interpolations [6]. These methods can be used to find satisfactory or
optimal biped joint profiles, and they have the advantage of easily satisfying some desired
motion conditions, such as repeatability, gait optimization, etc. On the other hand, there are
core disadvantages of a high computing load for large bipedal systems and undesirable
features for the joint angle profiles (that may be imposed due to selection of the
polynomials with improper orders [5]), as well as, their malfunction or undesirable
performance in synthesizing the joint profile for a stable fast locomotion [7].
During the past two decades, a tendency has risen among the biomechanics researchers
to model fast human locomotion by a simple spring-mass system which is currently referred
to as “spring loaded inverted pendulum” or SLIP [8, 9]. This model was based on
observations that revealed the energy level remains approximately constant during running,
hopping and jumping. Furthermore, based on this model and its assumed functionality, the
“leg stiffness” is defined [10]. Experimental results show that leg stiffness remains
essentially constant during such movements. Thus, the SLIP model seemed to provide
acceptable insight to fast human locomotion and was applied by many researchers [11, 12].
Further surveys showed that in spite of the SLIP model's simplicity, it is still capable of
predicting many characteristics of running and jumping. The generally observed force
pattern, shown in Fig. 1, is an example of the SLIP model results.
Stability of the results obtained from the SLIP model is also an interesting subject.
Numerous studies have shown that by properly adjusting the parameters of the model
including leg stiffness and angle of attack, the solution to the spring-mass model becomes
self-stabilized for a minimum running speed [13, 14]. Furthermore, it is concluded that
symmetric stance phases with respect to the vertical axis might result in cyclic movement

Fig. 1 Left Schematic drawing showing the planar spring-mass model for running. Right The observed force
pattern compared with the SLIP force response [8]
J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118 103

trajectories [15]. A vast area of literature in the field of biomechanics is devoted to these
results; however, this model is relatively recent and there remains a lot to be done in the
future.
Although the SLIP model is of great interest among biomechanics researchers, it has
rarely been used for trajectory planning and control of bipeds which are expected to
behave like a human in many ways [16]. So far, robotics research have mostly
concentrated on the biped control as an abstract field, disregarding the fact that biped robots
were invented to be mechanical devices as similar to humans as possible. This approach to
the problem of biped control caused the proposed methods regarding fast locomotion to be
essentially deficient.
In this article, we introduce a novel method of trajectory planning and control of biped
robots in hopping based on a combination of the two aforementioned approaches. Basically,
this method is inspired by the idea that: for a biped to become capable of fast locomotion, it
must be able to follow a human trajectory which is considered as an “ideal case”. Since the
model used for human motion is a simple spring-mass model, the task is straightforward
and is obtained by synchronization of the two models.
This type of biped control has been recently focused on, and links two fields of
locomotion research. While other studies concentrate on controller design enhancement [17,
18]; the core interest in this article is to provide a physical bone for trajectory planning such
that even a simple PD controller can be applied in an efficient and robust way. Using this
approach, one can provide a physical and biomechanical basis for their analyses. There are,
however, some problems regarding this method; for instance, the torques that can be
exerted by the biped actuators are always major obstacles in practical performance. In other
words, the required input control torques may be larger than the capacity of the biped
actuators.
The other feature of the SLIP model which makes it appropriate for the synchronization
control is that one does not need to consider an input torque exerted at the foothold. The
spring-mass system is self-sufficient in order to provide the necessary momentum for
hopping. Furthermore, it is nearly impractical for a biped robot to exert torque at its
foothold. Thus, when synchronized with a SLIP model, a biped model with one-degree-of
under-actuation is expected to exhibit more natural behavior than when controlled in any
other way.
A link-segmental model of the biped with three degrees of freedom and one degree of
underactuation in the ankle joint is considered for the synchronization method. Using the
proposed algorithm, this model is made to follow the corresponding SLIP model from the
same initial conditions. It is discussed later that the initial conditions are set in a way that
periodic motion is achieved. The possibility of such selection of initial conditions is proved
by introducing a mapping between the initial conditions and the final ones. A simulation
has been done and results are presented. Finally, it is verified that by employing the
synchronization method, the model is able to perform a periodic hopping locomotion.

2 Three-Link Biped Model of Hopping: A Case Study

While in walking, three consecutive phases are distinguished: single support phase, single/
double impact, and double support phase [19]. Normal and fast locomotion differs in two
ways: (1) no instance of double support phase occurs in fast locomotion, and (2) the
touchdown in fast locomotion is very different from the impact in walking, because the
running touchdown is regarded to be conservative.
104 J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

Fig. 2 The three-link model of a

biped robot θ3

θ2

θ1

The locomotion of the biped hopping on a flat horizontal surface is constrained in the
sagittal plane. One complete gait cycle of hopping in the forward direction, which is
considered for modeling in this study [20], includes two stages: (1) legs are in contact with
the walking surface supporting the whole body and moving the biped center of mass in a
forward hopping direction. If the biped center of mass reaches a sufficient upward velocity,
the feet lose contact with the ground, and (2) the whole body takes-off the ground until the
feet again come into sudden contact with the ground surface while the center of mass still
has considerable velocity downwards and forwards.
Figure 2 shows the link-segmented model of a biped robot in a case study of hopping
locomotion in the sagittal plane. The biped model in this study has three links, each of
which has length, mass, and moment of inertia. In addition, there is a significant constraint
on the biped control system which is the one-degree-of under-actuation in ankle joint of the
biped, so that the robot cannot apply any torque at its foothold.
The differential equations of motion may be readily derived using the Lagrangian
formulation. If the joints/links angles are measured with respect to the vertical line, the
potential energy P of the system in Fig. 2 may be written as:
!
X
3 X
3 X
i1
P¼ mi gyci ¼ mi g lj cos q j þ di cos q i ð1Þ
i¼1 i¼1 j¼1

where li,di,mi are the link length, the distance between the link center of mass and its
proximal joint, and the mass of the i-th link. Considering (xci,yci) as the coordinates of the
center of mass and Ii as the moment of inertia of link i, the kinetic energy of the system may
be expressed as:

X
3
1 : :  1 :2
K¼ mi x 2ci þ y 2ci þ Ii θi ð2Þ
i¼1
2 2
J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118 105

where for each link, the kinetic energy can be obtained from:
1  :2
Ki ¼ Ii þ mi di2 θ i
2
!2 !2
1 Xi1 : 1 X
i1 : : Xi1  :  2
þ mi lj θ j cos θj þ mi lj θ j sin θj þmi di θ i lj θ j cos θi  θj ;
2 2 ð3Þ
j¼1 j¼1 j¼1

i ¼ 1; 2; 3

Substituting Eqs. 1, 2, and 3 into the Lagrange’s equation of motion will provide us with
the desired biped model. The dynamic model describing the motion of the biped in the
contact phase can be written as the following vector equation;
:: : :
DðθÞθ þ Hðθ; θ Þθ þ GðθÞ ¼ T θ ð4Þ
 :
where D(θ) is the 3×3 positive definite and symmetric inertia matrix, H θ; θ is the 3×3
matrix related to: centrifugal
:: and Coriolis terms, and G(θ) is the (3×1) matrix of gravity
terms. Also, θ; θ; θ , and Tθ are the (3×1) vectors of generalized coordinates, velocities,
accelerations and torques, respectively. For i,j=1,2,3,
8 ! !
>
> P3  
> Dij ðθÞ ¼ mj dj lj þ
> mk li lj cos θi θj
>
>
>
> k¼jþ1
! !
>
<  : P 3  :
Hij θ; θ ¼ mj dj lj þ mk li lj sin θi θj θj ð5Þ
>
>
>
>
k¼jþ1
! !
>
>
>
> P
3
>
: Gi ðθÞ ¼ mj dj g þ mk li g sin θi
k¼iþ1

The underactuation constraint is imposed on the biped model by nullifying the torque of
the first link. This constraint reduces the biped control inputs to torques exerted in the knee
and torso.
During the flight phase, the biped center of mass undergoes a ballistic trajectory which is
independent of the joints’ torques. One should consider takeoff as the initial condition for
the flight phase. In addition we have further assumed that the leg of the robot reaches its
maximum elongation at takeoff. During the flight, the biped system has five degrees-of-
freedom, namely, three joint angles and two degrees locating the biped in x–y coordinates.
The latter two variables are selected to be the coordinates of the biped ankle.
Among all types of motion, the periodic gait is of great interest. In order to synthesize a
periodic gait profile for biped hopping, the state variables at each touchdown must satisfy
certain conditions which are described as:

θni ¼ θnþ1
i ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3
:n : nþ1 ð6Þ
θi ¼ θi ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3

There are several methods of trajectory planning that result in a periodic motion. One
can, for instance, use an optimization method to minimize or even nullify the error defined
by the difference between the states at two consequent touch-downs. Here, another method
is applied by passively planning the joint space trajectory.
106 J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

At first, we notice that there are two input torques which may be used to predetermine
any two of the joint angles. Considering the influence of the joint space trajectory on the
whole body dynamics, these two angles were chosen to be related to the shank and thigh
links of the biped robot. Then, an interpolation by a polynomial of third degree may be used
to describe the profile of these angles between a takeoff and the consequent touchdown.
The conditions imposed on the polynomial at both ends are simply selected such that this
part of the motion becomes periodic.
8  
>
> θi tTO;n ¼ θiTO;n
>
>
< θ: t
>  : TO;n
i TO;n ¼ θi
; i ¼ 1; 2 ð7Þ
>
> θi ðtTD ; nÞ ¼ θi
TD;n1
>
>
>
: : : TD;n1
θi ðtTD ; nÞ ¼ θi

where the indices TO and TD correspond to takeoff and touchdown, respectively.

As before, the Lagrange’s equations are applied to derive the equations of motion, which
could be written as a matrix equation similar to Eq. 4, except that the matrices are either
(5×5) or (5×1). Having calculated θ1 and θ2, there remain three other states, namely, θ3, xf,
and yf that are to be determined. The dynamics of the body in flight phase dictates the
latter coordinates. In order to separate them from the two previously determined
variables, the equations of motion are rewritten as;
2 3
C2
  ::    6 C2  C3 7
D11 D12 X:: 1 N1 6 7
þ ¼6
6 C3 7
7 ð8Þ
D21 D22 X2 N2 4 0 5
0
 T
where X 1 ¼ ::½θ1 θ2 T and X 2 ¼ θ3 xf yf , and the matrices are properly partitioned.
Eliminating X 2 from Eq. 8 yields;
 
 1
 ::  1
 C
D11  D12 D22 D21 X1  N 1  D12 D22 N 2 ¼ C 2 ð9Þ
C3

where
2 3
  0 1
1 0 40
C¼  D12 D1 05 ð10Þ
1 1 22
0 0

Thus, the input torques could be calculated in terms of the known variables and substituted
back into Eq. 8 to yield the differential equation governing X2. One could easily integrate
these equations, with the initial conditions set to the values at the take-off, to obtain X2.
Another issue to be properly addressed here is the periodicity of the motion. The
solution of the above system of differential equations may not be related to a periodic
motion, under the following conditions a periodic motion can be achieved;
 
θ3 tTD;n ¼ θTD;n1
3
:   : TD;n1
θ3 tTD;n ¼ θ3
 
yf tTD;n ¼ 0
:   ð11Þ
yf tTD;n ¼ 0
:  
xf tTD;n ¼ 0
J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118 107

At this point, it is argued that the solution of a system of differential equations is

continuously dependent on its initial conditions. Therefore, there exists a continuous
mapping between the initial conditions and the value of the solution at a specific time. One
type of this mapping is referred to as the Poincare’ map in the literature. A fixed point of a
Poincare’ map corresponds to a periodic solution, under certain circumstances. Here,
Eq. 8 describes only a part of the motion. Thus, we use the concept of the above mentioned
mapping and search for those initial conditions which give rise to a periodic solution for
these conditions (Eq. 11).
A similar analysis for obtaining periodic solutions of a single SLIP model from an
approximate analytical mapping can be found in [11]. A numerical analysis for the same
purpose is presented in [10], and the analytical solutions are obtained. As there is no
analytical solution to the system of differential Eq. 8, one has to numerically integrate the
equations. The authors performed a trial and error process to find the “fixed points” of the
mapping. A fixed point, here, refers to any solution satisfying proper conditions (Eq. 11). It
is evident that the parameter xf has no effect on the periodicity of the motion.
Finally, because of the last two conditions in Eq. 11, there is no need to consider impact
in this model. As the extensive study of a biped model shows [21], impact occurs only if
the tip of the trailing leg has nonzero velocity just before reaching the ground. Also, the
amount of influence of impact on the system, i.e. the impact forces at joints and velocity
changes, is linearly dependent on the velocity change of the trailing limb tip. Since the last
two conditions in Eq. 11 require this velocity change to be zero, impact will not occur and
the velocity profiles remain continuous.

3 Dynamic Model of SLIP

Figure 3 illustrates the parameterization of the mass-spring model as a schematic

representation for the contact phase of hopping or running with at most one foot on the
ground at any time. This model incorporates a rigid body of mass m, possessing a massless
sprung leg attached at the total center of mass (CoM). Figure 3 depicts the angle = formed
between the line joining foothold O to the CoM and the vertical, or gravity axis.
Hopping locomotion of a spring-mass system is divided into a contact phase with
foothold fixed, the leg under compression, and the body swinging forward, i.e., = is
increasing; and a flight phase in which the body describes a ballistic trajectory under the
sole influence of gravity. The contact phase ends when the spring unloads; the flight phase
immediately begins afterward, and continues until touchdown occurs on the landing with

Fig. 3 The mass-spring model

108 J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

the spring uncompressed and set at a predetermined angle. This defines a hybrid system in
which touchdown and takeoff conditions mark transitions between two dynamical regimes.
Once again, to derive the equations of motion, the Lagrangian formulation is utilized.
The kinetic and potential energies of the body are
1   2 2  2
K¼ m ξ þξ = ð12Þ
2

P ¼ mgx cos y þ Uspring ð13Þ

where Uspring denotes the spring potential. The equations of motion for the stance phase of
spring-mass system are obtained as below;
:: : Uξ ð ξ Þ
ξ ¼ ξ = 2  g cos =  ð14Þ
m

:: : :
ξ = ¼ 2 ξ = þ g sin = ð15Þ
@Uspring
where Ux ðxÞ ¼ @x .
Note that neglecting the gravity in stance yields an integrable system. A detailed analysis
of the validity of this approximation for different spring potentials was performed in [22]
using Hamiltonian instead of Lagrangian formulation. Another approximation which
enables an analytical solution to the above equations is by considering = and the maximum
shortening of the spring to be small [11]. Since neither of these approximations is
applicable to biped hopping model, the motion equations of mass-spring system must be
solved numerically.
It should be noted that some of the characteristics of hopping may not be accurately
predicted by the mass-spring model. For instance, it turns out that the vertical component of
the ground reaction force usually exhibits a passive peak just after touchdown, which is
followed by an active peak at nearly the middle of the contact time interval. The mass-
spring model with one sprung mass, though predicting the active peak closely, is incapable
of predicting the passive peak.
In order to build a model for the passive peak, one must consider a more sophisticated
model with two or more sprung masses along with dampers. By adjusting the coefficients
of springs and dampers, the desired model is achieved. Different models with linear and
nonlinear components have been introduced in previous literatures [8]. In this study, for
simplicity, the ordinary spring loaded inverted pendulum, SLIP, model with one linearly
sprung mass is considered.

4 Synchronization Control of SLIP Model and Biped Dynamics

A master-slave synchronization control system is constructed having two systems capable

of modeling the biped locomotion individually. The biped dynamics is considered as the
slave system while the spring-mass dynamics is the master system. Moreover, the joint
torques are taken into account as the control inputs. To synchronize the motion of the robot
with the master dynamics of the SLIP model, two new state variables, namely; the distance
of the biped center of mass from the foothold, η, and the angle of the line passing through
the biped center of mass and the foothold with respect to the vertical axis, +, are considered.
J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118 109

The expressions for these parameters may be derived by considering the coordinates of the
biped center of mass, where xci,yci are the coordinates of the center of mass for each link.
X
i1
xci ¼ lj sin q j þ di sin q i ð16Þ
j¼1

X
i1
yci ¼ lj cos q j þ di cos q i ð17Þ
j¼1

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
!2 !2 ,
u 3
u X X 3 X
3
η¼ t mi xci þ mi yci mi ð18Þ
i¼1 i¼1 i¼1

, !
X
3 X3
1
γ ¼ tan mi xci mi yci ð19Þ
i¼1 i¼1

Double differentiation of these relations yields

:: :
η ¼ fη ðθ; θ: Þ þ gη ðθÞu
:: ð20Þ
+ ¼ f+ ðθ; θÞ þ g+ ðθÞu
 :  :
In these formulae, fη θ; θ and f+ θ; θ are scalars, while gη ðθÞ and g+ (θ) are two row
vectors so that their products with the input column vector u will be a scalar.
Synchronizing control design will be accomplished by defining an error function,
defined as;

ηξ
e¼ ð21Þ
+ =
such that it asymptotically tends to go to zero.
From Eqs. 18 and 19, we have;

:: ::
: ::

:: ηξ fη ðθ; θ: Þ þ gη ðθÞu  ξ

e ¼ :: :: ¼ :: ð22Þ
+ = f+ ðθ; θ Þ þ g+ ðθÞu  =

Based on the feedback linearization method of nonlinear control, the control inputs
should be defined such that the error function becomes asymptotically stabilized around
zero. Therefore, considering a simple PD controller with coefficients Kp and Kd, the biped
joint torques will be extracted from the following system of equations;

  ( : U ðξ Þ : )
gη ðθÞ : ξ = 2  g: cos =  ξm  fη ðθ; θ Þ
u ¼ Kp e þ Kd e þ :  : ð23Þ
g+ ðθÞ 2ξ = þ g sin =
 f+ θ; θ ξ
110 J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

Consequently, the differential equation of the error function takes the following form:
:: :
e þ Kd e þ KP e ¼ 0 ð24Þ
The PD controller gains are chosen appropriately such that stabilization of the error
function around zero is guaranteed.
Functions appearing in Eq. 20 may be explicitly computed from the aforementioned
biped dynamics. Where κ could be either of η and + , differentiating with respect to time
yields:
 @k 
k¼ q ð25Þ
@q
and,

:: :T @ 2 . : @ . ::
.¼θ θþ θ ð26Þ
@θ2 @θ
: : : :
where θ ¼ ½ θ 1 θ 2 θ 3  denotes the time derivative of the joint space column vector, and @k
T
@q
is regarded as a row vector and is obtained by differentiating the function κ with respect to
the states of the joint space. In a similar manner, the symmetric (3×3) Hessian matrix @@qk2
2

consists of elements which are the mixed second partial derivatives of the function κ with
respect to the states of the
:: joint space.
By solving Eq. 4 for θ and substituting the result into Eq. 26, we will have:

: :T @ 2 . : @ . 1
f. ðθ; θ Þ ¼ θ θ D N ð27Þ
@θ2 @θ

@ . 1
g. ðθÞ ¼ D ð28Þ
@θ
:
where N ¼ Hθ þ G is defined from Eq. 4.
Now, turning our attention back to Eq. 23, we notice that this is, in fact, a system of two
linear equations with three unknowns. There is a certain amount of flexibility in the solution
of such system of equations. Thus, an optimization method may be applied to obtain a
desirable solution. However, as it was mentioned before, the system is considered to have
one-degree-of under-actuation in the biped ankle joint, and this constraint is satisfied by
nullifying the torque of the ankle joint. Thus, the vector of generalized torques Tθ is written
in the following form:
0 1
C2  
C
T θ ¼ @ C2  C3 A ¼ M t 2 ð29Þ
C3
C3
where C2 and C3 are input torques applied in the knee and hip joints, respectively, and Mt is
a 3×2 matrix defined by:

2 3
1 0
Mt ¼ 4 1 1 5 ð30Þ
0 1
J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118 111

Therefore, the system of equations in Eq. 23, is transformed into a system of two
equations with two unknowns, as:
    :: :

gη ðθÞ C : ξ  f ðθ; θ:Þ

M t 2 ¼ Kp e þ Kd e þ :: η ð31Þ
g+ ðθÞ C3 =  f+ ðθ; θÞ
or
    1  :: :

C2 gη ðθÞ : ξ  f ðθ; θ:Þ
¼ Mt KP e þ Kd e þ :: η ð32Þ
C3 g+ ðθÞ =  f+ ðθ; θÞ
which always has a unique solution.
The uniqueness of the solution is verified by considering the matrix of coefficients of the
unknowns. The relations 18
" and #19 suggest that gη(θ) and g + (θ) are linearly independent. If
gη ðθÞ
the columns of the matrix are denoted by v1, v2, and v3, it can be easily shown that
g+ ðθÞ
the right product of this matrix with Mt is singular, if and only if there exists a real number
β, such that:
v2 ¼ ð1  β Þv1 þ βv3 ð33Þ
As it may be seen, satisfaction of Eq. 33 is not impossible, but it is expected not to occur
in calculations and during simulation, owing to the form of gη(θ) and g+ (θ).

5 Simulation and Results

A computer simulation is done to examine the performance of the proposed method in

control of a hopping biped. The objective is to obtain a repeatable hopping cycle for a biped
robot using the method proposed in this article.
The simulation is carried out for the link-segmental model in Fig. 2 whose parameters
are presented in Table 1. Moreover, as mentioned before the spring of the SLIP model is
considered linear. The ratio of the spring stiffness to mass in the mass-spring system is also
included in Table 1.
The initial conditions are set for the link-segmental model and those of the SLIP model
are calculated from relations 16 through 19. The initial conditions and the selected PD
controller coefficients are presented in Table 2.
Plots showing the simulation results are as follows: Figure 4a through c show the joint
space states, while Fig. 5 show those of the corresponding SLIP model during the contact
phase. Please note that a complete hopping cycle took 0.14 seconds.

Table 1 Parameters of the simulated model

Link Mass (kg) Moment of inertia Length (m) CoM distance from
(kg.m2) proximal joint (m)

Shank 0.2 Negligible! 0.1 0.05

Thigh 0.2 Negligible! 0.1 0.05
Torso 0.5 0.001 0.1 0.07
Spring stiffness/mass ratio of SLIP model (N/kg. m) 3,000
112 J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

Table 2 Initial conditions of the simulated model

Link Initial position (rad) Initial velocity (rad/s)

p
Shank 10 16.7
p
Thigh 6 −13.7
p
Torso 8 0
Kp 8
Kd 6

Figure 6 reveals the animation of the biped robot hopping based on the control method
of dynamics synchronization of the link-segmental model and the SLIP system.
The control inputs which are the torques applied in knee and torso joints of the biped
robot are plotted in Fig. 7.
The resultant ground reaction forces are compared for the two models in Fig. 8a and b.
Up to now, a new method for generating joint profiles in biped hopping is simulated. To
gain a general view of the applicability and accuracy of this method, another simulation is
performed based on the method proposed by Kajita et al. [23]. Although slight
modifications were made to apply Kajita’s method to our model, the generality of the
problem is untouched. One may notice that both of these methods utilize the CoM
trajectory to design the joints profiles, yet, different results are achieved. Figure 9 shows the
X and Y components of the biped’s CoM trajectory based on Kajita’s method.
It is obvious from the X-component plot that the biped step length is more than 12 cm in
the approach proposed by Kajita. Joint angle profiles are illustrated in Fig. 10 and may be
compared to those of Fig. 4. The periodicity requirement is the core reason for similarities.

a ANKLE JONIT b KNEE JOINT

0.4 -0.2

0.2 -0.3
Angle (rad)

Angle (rad)

-0.4
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 -0.5
-0.2 0 20 40 60 80 100
-0.6
-0.4 -0.7

-0.6 -0.8
Percentage of Cycle (%) Percentage of Cycle (%)

c TORSO JOINT
0.5

0.4
Angle (rad)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Cycle (%)

Fig. 4 Biped joint space states; angles of a shank, b thigh, and c torso
J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118 113

Spring Length in SLIP model Angle in SLIP Model

0.19 0.05
0
0.185 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Length (m)

-0.05

Angle (rad)
0.18 -0.1

-0.15
0.175
-0.2
-0.25
0.17
0 20 40 60 80 100 -0.3
Percentage of Cycle (%) Percentage of Cycle (%)

Fig. 5 SLIP states; left spring length, right spring angle

Fig. 6 Synchronization of the

biped model with the
corresponding SLIP model
(the dots track the SLIP
trajectory)

Fig. 7 Input control torques Input Control Torques

44
KNEE JOINT
34 TORSO JOINT
24
14
Torque (N.m)

4
-6
0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-26
-36
-46
-56
-66
Percentage of Cycle (%)
114 J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

Fig. 8 Ground reaction forces; a X- Component of Ground Reaction Force

X-component, b Y-component 0.5

-0.5

Force (N)
-1

-1.5 LINK-SEGMENTAL MODEL

SLIP MODEL
-2

-2.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Cycle (%)
a
Y- Component of Ground Reaction Force
20

LINK-SEGMENTAL
15 SLIP MODEL
Force (N)

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Cycle (%)
b

Fig. 9 Trajectory of Biped’s X- Component of CoM Trajectory

CoM; a X-component, b Y-com- 0.12
ponent 0.1
Position (m)

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-0.04
Percentage of Cycle (%)
a
Y- Component of CoM Trajectory
0.19
0.185
Position (m)

0.18
0.175
0.17
0.165
0.16
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percentage of Cycle (%)

b
J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118 115

a ANKLE JOINT b KNEE JOINT

0.5 0.1
0.4 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Angle (rad)
0.3
Angle (rad)

-0.1
0.2 -0.2
0.1
-0.3
0
-0.1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -0.4
-0.2 -0.5
-0.3 -0.6
Percentage of Cycle (%) Percentage of Cycle (%)

c TORSO JOINT
0.45
0.4
Angle (rad)

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percentage of Cycle (%)

Fig. 10 Biped joint space states; angles of a shank, b thigh, and c torso

Also, torques at joints during stance are calculated and plotted in Fig. 11. It is to be
noted that torque of the ankle joint is not necessarily zero in the Kajita’s method.

6 Discussions and Conclusions

Recently, most biped robotics researchers apply the two traditional methods to generate
their desired joint profile trajectory for their robots. Although time polynomial function and
periodic spline interpolation result in satisfactory or optimal profiles in biped locomotion,
they can not properly create delicate joint profiles. This is due to the fact that these methods
are based on pure mathematics rather than physics and biomechanics. This deficiency is
much more obvious when these methods are applied to robots performing fast locomotion.
For instance, it is rare that recent biped robots are able to run.
In this article, a novel method is introduced for joint trajectory planning and control of
biped robots during fast locomotion. This method, contrary to the traditional methods, is
mostly based on the physical and biological concept of human fast locomotion.

Fig. 11 Input control torques Input Control Torques

1.5 ANKLE JOINT
KNEE JOINT
1
TORSO JOINT
Torque (Nm)

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-0.5

-1
Percent of Cycle (%)
116 J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

Observations show that the complex, nonlinear dynamics of a runner or jumper can be
substituted by a simple mass-spring model, namely spring loaded inverted pendulum or
SLIP, to predict the resultant ground reaction force.
The presented method has taken these observations into account by synchronizing the
dynamics of link-segmental model with the SLIP representation of the biped. Additionally,
the mathematical complexities involved in the controller design – which is an important
issue in the traditional methods of gait generation and control of bipeds – are overcome and
a simple, but efficient, method for biped control is proposed. In fact, this simplification is
the principal contribution of the current work.
As a case study, periodic hopping locomotion is considered in this paper. Therefore, a
simulation is done on trajectory planning and control of a three-link biped robot with one-
degree-of under-actuation in the ankle joint during hopping. The SLIP model was chosen
for this purpose to satisfy the condition of one-degree-of under-actuation, which was
imposed on the system by assuming the torque exerted at the ankle of the biped to be zero.
The synchronization control was accomplished by the feedback linearization method.
During the flight phase, trajectory of two of the states was predetermined and the others
were calculated from the differential equations of motion. All of the states were finally
made to exhibit periodic behavior.
Obtained results indicate that the biped is in stance phase in about two thirds of the
hopping locomotion cycle, while the rest of the cycle consists of takeoff, flight, and
landing. Total behavior of the biped seems satisfactory, and the biped is capable of
performing a complete periodic hop. The SLIP model behavior is depicted in Fig. 5 and
shows a smooth V-shape in length and an increase in the angle in the stance followed by a
decrease in the flight phase.
As shown in animation of the whole simulated cycle in Fig. 6, in the stance phase, the
ankle joint angle is increasingly trying to roll the biped center of mass to the forward
direction of the hop. In the mean time, flexion and afterward extension of the ankle joint
help the biped bounce back from the previous flight phase. The torso joint angle is
dominated by the SLIP model behavior and is continuously decreasing.
The main strategy of joint profile generation in the flight phase is to set the biped links in
the landing stance at the same state (including position and velocity terms) as the initial
ones, so that a repeatable hopping cycle is obtained. The overshoots in the ankle and torso
joint angles are due to the extension and flexion of knee joint in the flight phase trying to
regain its initial state.
The dynamical results included in the previous section consist of computed biped joint
torque and the resultant ground reaction force. As expected regarding the previous research,

Error in X- Components of Ground Reaction Force Error in Y- Component of Ground Reaction Force
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.15 0.2
Error (N)

0.1
Error (N)

0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.05 -0.1
-0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 -0.3
-0.05 -0.4
Percentage of Cycle (%) Percentage of Cycle (%)

Fig. 12 Error in Ground reaction forces computed using two models; left X-component, right Y-component
J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118 117

a peak in both X and Y components of ground reactions are observed in Fig. 8. During
takeoff and touchdown, the ground reaction force becomes zero since there is no connection
with the ground. The error in the prediction of two models of biped, link-segmental and
SLIP, are plotted in Fig. 12.
As shown, the errors are small with regards to the ground reaction forces. The error in X-
component forces occurred when the shank is held vertical and the knee joint angular
velocity is changing its sign. However, this error gradually decreased afterwards; the error
between Y-components of ground reaction forces is more noticeable than their X-
components errors. It is believed that the one-degree-of under-actuation of the biped model
causes this deficiency in the Y-direction, where the input torques must compensate for the
gravity.
The torques applied in the biped joints are plotted in Fig. 7; the trend is dominated mostly
by the angle extensions and flexions, and the sudden jump is because of the phase change.
The only weak point is the high joint torque required to perform the desired hopping.
An additional simulation for the same model with the same initial conditions was
performed based on an approach proposed by Kajita et al. [23]. Comparing these two
methods reveals that although both of them use the CoM trajectory as the key to the joint
profile generation, they lead to relatively different outcomes. The main difference between
the results can be seen in the vertical ground force reaction; the vertical ground force is
continuous in our method whereas it is discontinuous in [23].
In addition to the continuity of ground reaction force in our method, some other
advantages can be also emphasized over Kajita’s approach: First, one can use our approach to
design gait patterns for either jumping or hopping processes, while Kajita’s method has to be
modified to be applicable for the same purposes. Secondly, the transfer phase between the rest
state and the steady running state cannot be directly designed by Kajita’s method. Lastly,
elimination of undesired impact with the ground and a simple feedback linearization control
law are good features of a biped locomotion control algorithm while considerable impacts and
a complicated five-component controller can be found in Kajita’s method. However, the most
important disadvantage of Kajita’s proposed method is that it requires solving differential
equations with boundary conditions, which may greatly increase the processing load.
On the other hand, there are, some advantages in Kajita’s method over the one presented
here. For instance, larger step length, increased velocity, reasonable input control torques,
and including more trajectory design parameters are some of the advantages. The one
degree of under-actuation in our biped model was the main cause of high joints torque.
One may conclude that the presented method is applicable to any biped model for any fast
locomotion such as jumping, hopping or running by using optimization methods. The core
advantage of this method is that the proposed simulation depends only on initial conditions.
Hence, no pre-determined or offline trajectory is required, which reduces the time needed in
real-time robot gait generation. One may apply this algorithm to control a biped while running.
Periodic solutions of the SLIP model have been found, which can be used for this purpose.
However, when considering a running biped, one should select at least five degrees-of-freedom
for the biped model. Hence, the number of input control torques increase to four provided that
the model is to account for one-degree-of under-actuation. This calls for other constraints to be
imposed on the trajectory planning, such as minimizing the input power.

Acknowledgement This work was supported by Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) under contract
number 84084/8 to whom the authors would like to give their appreciation. Furthermore, we would like to
appreciate the support of Center of Excellence in Design, Robotics and Automation (CEDRA), Sharif
University of Technology, Iran.
118 J Intell Robot Syst (2008) 53:101–118

References

1. Kajita, S., Kanehiro, F., Kaneko, K., Fujiwara, K., Harada, K., Yokoi, K., Hirukawa, H.: Resolved
momentum control: humanoid motion planning based on the linear and anular momentum. IEEE/RSJ
Int. Conf. Int. Robots Syst. 2, 1644–1650 (2003)
2. Kajita, S., Kanehiro, F., Kaneko, K., Fujiwara, K., Harada, K., Yokoi, K., Hirukawa, H.: Biped walking
pattern generation by using preview control of zero-monment point. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics Auto.
2, 1620–1626 (2003)
3. Kuffner, J., Kagami, S., Nishiwaki, K., et al.: Dynamically-stable motion planning for humanoid robots.
J. Auton. Robots 12, (1), 105–118 (2002)
4. Sugihara, T., Nakamura, Y., Inoue, H.: Realtime humanoid motion generation through zmp manipulation
based on inverted pendulum control. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2, 1404–1409 (2002)
5. Chevallereau, C., Aoustin, Y.: Optimal reference trajectories for walking and running of a biped robot.
Robotica 19, 557–569 (2001)
6. Huang, Q., Yokoi, K., Kajita, S., Kaneko, K., Arai, H., Koyachi, N., Tanie, K.: Planning walking
patterns for a biped robot. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 17, 280–289 (2001)
7. Suzuki, T., Tsuji, T., Ohnishi, K.: Trajectory planning of biped robot for running motion. 32nd IEEE
Conf. on Industrial Electronics Society, pp 1815–1820 (2005)
8. Seyfarth, A., Friedrichs, A., Wank, V., Blickhan R.: Dynamics of the long jump. J. Biomechanics, 32,
1259–1267 (1999)
9. Farley, C.T., Glasheen, J., McMahon, T.A.: Running springs: speed and animal size. J. Exp. Biol. 185,
71–86 (1993)
10. Seyfarth, A., Geyer, H., Gunther, M., Blickhan, R.: A movement criterion for running. J Biomech, 35,
649–655, (2002)
11. Geyer, H., Sayfarth, A., Blickhan, R.: Spring-mass running: simple approximate solution and application
to gait stability. J. Theor. Biol., 232, 315–328 (2004)
12. Koditschek, D.E., Robert, J., Buehler, M.: Mechanical aspects of legged locomotion control. J.
Arthropod Struct. Dev., 33, 251–272 (2004)
13. McMahon, T.A., Cheng, G.C.: The mechanics of running: how does stiffness couple with speed? J.
Biomech. 23, (suppl. 1), 65–78 (1990)
14. Blickhan, R.: The spring-mass model for running and hopping. J. Biomech. 22, 1217–1227 (1989)
15. Schwind, W.J.: Spring loaded inverted pendulum running: a plant model. Dissertation, University of
Michigan-Ann Arbor (1998)
16. Tamaddoni, S.H., Alasty, A., Meghdari, A., Sohrabpour, S., Salarieh, H.: Spring-mass jumping of
underactuated biped robots. CD Proc. of the 6th ASME Intl. Conf. on Multibody Systems, Nonlinear
Dynamics, and Control, IDETC (2007)
17. Poulakakis, I., Grizzle J.W.: Formal embedding of the spring loaded inverted pendulum in an asymmetric
hopper. European Control Conference (2007)
18. Westervelt, E.R., Buche, G., Grizzle, J.W.: Experimental validation of a framework for the design of
controllers that induce stable walking in planar bipeds. Int. J. Robotics Res. 23, 559–582 (2004)
19. Tamaddoni, S.H., Jafari, F., Meghdari, A., Sohrabpour, S.: Dynamic simulation and modeling of Sharif
humanoid robot: a case study. Proc. of the 15th ISME Annual Conf. on Mechanical Engineering (2007)
20. Meghdari, A., Aryanpour, M.: Dynamic modeling and analysis of the human jumping process. J. Int.
Robotics Syst. 37, 97–115 (2003)
21. Xiuping, M.: Dynamics and motion regulation of five-link biped robot walking in the sagittal plane.
Dissertation, University of Manitoba (2004)
22. Schwind, W.J., Koditschek, D.E.: Approximating the stance map of a 2 DOF monoped runner. J.
Nonlinear Sci. 10, 533–568 (2000)
23. Kajita S., Nagasaki T., Kaneko K., Hirukawa H.: ZMP-based biped running control. IEEE Robot.
Autom. Mag., 14, 63–72 (2007)