A Case Study on Influence of Utilizing Hill-Type Muscles on Mechanical Efficiency of Biped Running Gait

The presence of compliant elements in biped running mechanisms generates a smoother motion and decreases the impact forces. Biological creatures that have a complicated actuation system with parallel and series elastic elements in their muscles demonstrate very efficient and robust bipedal gaits. The main difficulty of implementing these systems is duplicating their complicated dynamics and control. This paper studies the effects of an actuation system, including Hill-type muscles on the running efficiency of a kneed biped robot model with point feet. In this research, we implement arbitrary trajectories compatible with the initial condition of the robot, and we calculate the necessary muscle forces using an analytical inverse dynamics model. To verify the results, we execute the direct dynamics of the robot with the calculated control inputs to generate the robot’s trajectory. Finally, we calculate the contractile element force of the muscles and its cost of transport, and we investigate the effects of the muscles’ elements on reducing or increasing the cost of transport of the gait and maximum actuating forces.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    A. Hill, “The abrupt transition from rest to activity in muscle,” Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, 136, 399–420 (1949).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    G. A. Lichtwark, K. Bougoulias, and A. Wilson, “Muscle fascicle and series elastic element length changes along the length of the human gastrocnemius during walking and running,” J. Biomech., 40, 157–164 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    F. Iida, J. Rummel, and A. Seyfarth, “Bipedal walking and running with spring-like biarticular muscles,” J. Biomech., 41, 656–667 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    K. Hosoda, T. Takuma, A. Nakamoto, and S. Hayashi, “Biped robot design powered by antagonistic pneumatic actuators for multi-modal locomotion,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 56, 46–53 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    R. Niiyama, S. Nishikawa, and Y. Kuniyoshi, “Athlete robot with applied human muscle activation patterns for bipedal running,” in: Proc. 10th IEEE-RAS Int. Conf. (Humanoid Robots) (2010), pp. 498–503.

  6. 6.

    H. Geyer, A. Seyfarth, and R. Blickhan, “Compliant leg behavior explains basic dynamics of walking and running,” Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, 273, 2861–2867 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    M. Srinivasan and A. Ruina, “Computer optimization of a minimal biped model discovers walking and running,” Nature, 439, 72–75 (2006).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    J. R. Rebula and A. D. Kuo, “The cost of leg forces in bipedal locomotion: A simple optimization study,” Plos One, 10, No. 2, 0117384 (2015).

  9. 9.

    B. Dadashzadeh, M. Esmaeili, and C. Macnab, “Arbitrary symmetric running gait generation for an underactuated biped model,” Plos One, 12, No. 1, 0170122 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Q. Guo, C. Macnab, and J. K. Pieper, “Generating efficient rigid biped running gaits with calculated take-off velocities,” Robotica, 29, 627–640 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    I. Poulakakis and J. W. Grizzle, “The spring loaded inverted pendulum as the hybrid zero dynamics of an asymmetric hopper,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 54, No. 8, 1779–1793 (2009).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    B. Dadashzadeh, H. R. Vejdani, and J. Hurst, “From template to anchor: A novel control strategy for spring-mass running of bipedal robots,” IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2014), Chicago, Illinois, September (2014), pp. 2566–2571.

  13. 13.

    M. Ahmadi and M. Buehler, “The ARL monopod II running robot: Control and energetics,” in: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (1999), pp. 1689–1694.

  14. 14.

    T. Nagasaki, S. Kajita, K. Yokoi, K. Kaneko, and K. Tanie, “Running pattern generation and its evaluation using a realistic humanoid model,” in: Proc. ICRA’03. Int. Conf. IEEE in Robotics and Automation (2003), pp. 1336–1342.

  15. 15.

    J. W. Grizzle, J. Hurst, B. Morris, H. W. Park, and K. Sreenath, “MABEL, a new robotic bipedal walker and runner,” in: Proc. American Control Conf. ACC’09 (2009), pp. 2030–2036.

  16. 16.

    B. Dadashzadeh, M. J. Mahjoob, M. N. Bahrami, and C. Macnab, “Compliant leg architectures and a linear control strategy for the stable running of planar biped robots,” Int. J. Adv. Robotic Systems, 10, No. 9, 320 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    R. K. T. Roberts, P. Weyand, and R. Taylo, “Energetics of bipedal running, Part I. Metabolic cost of generating force,” J. Experimental Biology, 201, 2745–2751 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    B. Morris and J. Grizzle, “Hybrid invariance in bipedal robots with series compliant actuators,” in: Proc. 45th IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (2006), pp. 4793–4800.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Dadashzadeh.

Additional information

Published in Prikladnaya Mekhanika, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 133–144, July–August 2020.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dadashzadeh, B., Allahverdizadeh, A., Esmaeili, M. et al. A Case Study on Influence of Utilizing Hill-Type Muscles on Mechanical Efficiency of Biped Running Gait. Int Appl Mech 56, 512–521 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10778-020-01033-7

Download citation


  • biped running
  • gait planning
  • hill-type muscle
  • cost of transport