Towards Reactive Control of Transitional Legged Robot Maneuvers

  • Jeffrey DuperretEmail author
  • Daniel E. Koditschek
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics book series (SPAR, volume 10)


We propose the idea of a discrete navigation problem—consisting of controlling the state of a discrete-time control system to reach a goal set while in the interim avoiding a set of obstacle states—to approximate a simplified class of transitional legged robotic tasks such as leaping which have no well established mathematical description that lends itself to synthesis. The control relation given in Theorem 1 is (assuming a task solution exists) necessary and sufficient to solve a discrete navigation problem in a minimum number of steps, and is well suited to computation when a legged system’s continuous-time within-stride controller anchors sufficiently simple stance mechanics. We demonstrate the efficacy of this control technique on a physical hopping robot affixed to a boom to reactively leap over an obstacle with a running start, controlling in continuous time during stance to exhibit a linear stance map.



This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-0822 held by the first author and in part by the Army Research Office under Grant No. W911NF-17-1-0229.


  1. 1.
    Seok, S., Wang, A., Chuah, M.Y., Hyun, D.J., Lee, J., Otten, D.M., Lang, J.H., Kim, S.: Design principles for energy-efficient legged locomotion and implementation on the mit cheetah robot. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 20(3), 1117–1129 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hyun, D.J., Seok, S., Lee, J., Kim, S.: High speed trot-running: implementation of a hierarchical controller using proprioceptive impedance control on the mit cheetah. Int. J. Robot. Res. 33(11), 1417–1445 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    De, A., Koditschek, D.E.: Vertical hopper compositions for preflexive and feedback-stabilized quadrupedal bounding, pacing, pronking and trotting, (under review) (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guckenheimer, J., Holmes, P.J.: Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector Fields, vol. 42. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mayne, D.Q.: Model predictive control: recent developments and future promise. Automatica 50(12), 2967–2986 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, J.H.: Model predictive control: review of the three decades of development. Int. J. Control. Autom. Syst. 9(3), 415–424 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Park, H., Wensing, P.M., Kim, S.: Online planning for autonomous running jumps over obstacles in high-speed quadrupeds. Robot. Sci. Syst. 11 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tedrake, R., Manchester, I.R., Tobenkin, M., Roberts, J.W.: Lqr-trees: Feedback motion planning via sums-of-squares verification. Int. J. Robot. Res. 29(8), 1038–1052 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Majumdar, A., Ahmadi, A.A., Tedrake, R.: Control design along trajectories with sums of squares programming. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4054–4061 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burridge, R., Rizzi, A., Koditschek, D.: Sequential composition of dynamically dexterous robot behaviors. Int. J. Robot. Res. 18, 534–555 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arslan, O., Saranli, U.: Reactive planning and control of planar spring-mass running on rough terrain. IEEE Trans. Robot. 28(3), 567–579 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conner, D.C., Choset, H., Rizzi, A.A.: Integrated planning and control for convex-bodied nonholonomic systems using local feedback control policies. Robot. Sci. Syst. 2, 57–64 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bertsekas, D.P., Rhodes, I.B.: On the minimax reachability of target sets and target tubes. Automatica 7(2), 233–247 (1971)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mayne, D.Q., Schroeder, W.R.: Robust time-optimal control of constrained linear systems. Automatica 33(12), 2103–2118 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rakovi, S.V., Mayne, D.Q.: Robust time optimal obstacle avoidance problem for constrained discrete time systems. In: Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, and the European Control Conference, CDC-ECC ’05, vol. 2005, pp. 981–986 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rakovi, S.V., Blanchini, F., Crck, E., Morari, M.: Robust obstacle avoidance for constrained linear discrete time systems: a set-theoretic approach. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 188–193 ( 2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lozano-Prez, T., Mason, M.T., Taylor, R.H.: Automatic synthesis of fine-motion strategies for robots. Int. J. Robot. Res. 3(1), 3–24 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mason, M.: Automatic planning of fine motions: correctness and completeness. In: Proceedings of the 1984 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, pp. 492–503. IEEE (1984)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Erdmann, M.: Using backprojections for fine motion planning with uncertainty. Int. J. Robot. Res. 5(1), 19–45 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alessio, A., Bemporad, A.: A Survey on Explicit Model Predictive Control. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 384 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bemporad, A., Borrelli, F., Morari, M.: Model predictive control based on linear programming - the explicit solution. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control. 47(12), 1974–1985 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keerthi, S.S., Gilbert, E.G.: Computation of minimum-time feedback control laws for discrete-time systems with state-control constraints. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control. 32(5), 432–435 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Duperret, J., Koditschek, D.E.: Technical report on: towards reactive control of simplified legged robotics maneuvers. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Full, R.J., Koditschek, D.E.: Templates and anchors: neuromechanical hypotheses of legged locomotion on land. J. Exp. Biol. 202(23), 3325–3332 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Avik De, Kenneally, G., Koditschek, D.E.: Design principles for a family of direct-drive legged robots. In: Robotics: Science and Systems, Workshop (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Systems EngineeringUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations