Artificial Life and Robotics

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 585–592 | Cite as

Efficiency analysis of telescopic-legged bipedal robots

  • Yuji HarataEmail author
  • Yotaro Kato
  • Fumihiko Asano
Original Article


This paper investigates the stability of underactuated bipedal walking incorporating telescopic-leg actuation. In human walking, knee joints of swing and support legs are bent and stretched. The telescopic legs mimic the motion of the center of mass of human legs via their telescopic motion during the stance phase. First, underactuated telescopic-legged biped robot models are introduced. Second, an output-following control law is applied to the linearized equation of motion of the robot, and the controlled robot’s equation is then specified as a linear time-varying system. The error transition equation is developed to evaluate the stability during the stance phase. Numerical calculations are performed to show the influences of leg telescopic motion on the stability.


Bipedal locomotion Stability Time-varying system Telescopic legs 



This research was partially supported by Grabt-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) no. 16K06154, provided by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).


  1. 1.
    McGeer T (1990) Passive dynamic walking. Int J Robot Res 9(2):62–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goswami A, Thuilot B, Espiau B (1996) Compass-like biped robot Part I: Stability and bifurcation of passive gaits. IINRIA Res Rep 2996Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garcia M, Chatterjee A, Ruina A, Coleman M (1998) The simplest walking model: stability, complexity, and scaling. J Biomech Eng 120:281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asano F, Luo ZW (2008) Energy-efficient and high-speed dynamic biped locomotion based on principle of parametric excitation. IEEE Trans Robot 24(6):1289–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanazawa Y, Asano F (2015) High-speed biped walking using swinging-arms based on principle of up-and-down wobbling mass. In: Proc. the 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 5191–5196Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwab AL, Wisse M (2001) Basin of attraction of the simplest walking model. ASME 2001 design engineering technical conferences, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hobbelen DGE, Wisse M (2007) A disturbance rejection measure for limit cycle walkers: the gait sensitivity norm. IEEE Trans Robot 23:1213–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirata K, Kokame H (2003) Stability analysis of linear systems with state jump-motivated by periodic motion control of passive walker. In: Proc. of IEEE conference on control applications, pp 949–953Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asano F (2015) Stability analysis of underactuated compass gait based on linearization of motion. Multibody Syst Dyn 33(1):93–111MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asano F (2015) Fully analytical solution to discrete behavior of hybrid zero dynamics in limit cycle walking with constraint on impact posture. Multibody Syst Dyn 35(2):191–213MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAROB 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aichi Institute of TechnologyToyotaJapan
  2. 2.Panasonic Smart Factory Solutions Co., Ltd.OsakaJapan
  3. 3.Japan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyNomiJapan

Personalised recommendations