The Natural Bipeds, Birds and Humans: An Inspiration for Bipedal Robots

  • Anick Abourachid
  • Vincent Hugel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9793)


Despite many studies, the locomotion of bipedal legged robots is still not perfect. All the current robots are based on a humanoid model, which is not the unique one in Nature. In this paper we compare the natural bipedies in order to explore new tracks to improve robotic bipedal locomotion. This study starts with a short review of the historical bases of the biological bipedies to explain the differences between the structures of the human and bird bodies. The observations on the kinematics of bird walking describe a modular system that can be reproduced in robotics to take advantage of the bird leg versatility. For comparison purposes, a bird model is scaled up to have the same mass and the same height of the center of mass as a humanoid model. Simulation results show that the bird model can execute larger strides and stay on course, compared with the humanoid model. In addition the results confirm the functional decomposition of the bird system into the trunk and the thighs for the one part, and the distal part of the leg for the other part.


Human bipedy Bird bipedy Kinematics Robotics modeling 


  1. 1.
    Hope, S.: The Mesozoic radiation of Neornithes. In: Chiappe, L.M., Witmer, L.M. (eds.) Mesozoic Birds, Above the Head of Dinosaurs, pp. 339–388. University of California Press, Berkeley (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norberg, U.M.L.: Vertebrate Flight. Springer, Berlin (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gatesy, S.M., Middleton, K.M.: Bipedalism, flight and the evolution of theropod locomotor diversity. J Vertebr. Paleontol. 17, 308–329 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Porter, A.M.W.: Modern human, early human and Neanderthal limb proportions. Int. J. Osteoarchaeology 9, 54–67 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pontzer, H., Holloway 3rd, J.H., Raichlen, D.A., Lieberman, D.E.: Control and function of arm swing in human walking and running. J. Exp. Biol. 212, 523–534 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayot, C.: 3D biomechanical analysis of the human walk: comparison of mechanical models. PhD thesis, Poitiers (in French), France (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winter, D., Quanbury, A., Reimer, G.: Analysis of instantaneous energy of normal gait. J. Biomech. 9, 253–257 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, Y., Wang, W., Crompton, R.H., Gunther, M.M.: Free vertical moments and transverse forces in human walking and their role in relation to arm-swing. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 47–58 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gatesy, S.M.: Guineafowl hind limb function. I cineradiographic analysis and speed effects. J. Morphol. 240, 115–125 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abourachid, A., Hackert, R., Herbin, M., Libourel, P.A., Lambert, F.O., Gioanni, H., Provini, P., Blazevic, P., Hugel, V.: Bird terrestrial locomotion as revealed by 3D kinematics. Zoology (Jena) 114, 360–368 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stoessel, A., Fischer, M.: Comparative intralimb coordination in avian bipedal locomotion. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 4055–4069 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Provini, P., Tobalske, B.W., Crandell, K.E., Abourachid, A.: Transition from leg to wing forces during take-off in birds. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 4115–4124 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Provini, P., Goupil, P., Hugel, V., Abourachid, A.: Walking, paddling, waddling: 3D kinematics of Anatidae locomotion (Callonetta leucophrys). J. Exp. Zool. 317, 275–282 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cavagna, G.A., Heglung, N.C., Taylor, R.: Mechanical work in terrestrial locomotion: two basic mechanisms for minimizing energy expenditure. Am. J. Physiol. 2, 243–261 (1977)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taylor, C.R., Heglund, N.C., Maloy, G.M.O.: Energetics and mechanics of terrestrial locomotion I Metabolic energy consumption as a function of speed and body size in birds and mammals. J. Exp. Biol. 97, 1–21 (1982)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fedak, M.A., Heglund, N.C., Taylor, C.R.: Energetics and mechanics of terrestrial locomotion II kinetic energy changes of the limbs and body as a function of speed and body size in birds and mammals. J. Exp. Biol. 79, 23–40 (1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abourachid, A.: Mechanics of standing in birds: functional explanation of lamness problems in giant turkeys. Br. Poult. Sci. 34, 887–898 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hugel, V., Hackert, R., Abourachid, A.: Kinematic modeling of bird locomotion from experimental data. IEEE Trans. Robot. 27(2), 185–200 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zorjan, M., Hugel, V.: Generalized humanoid leg inverse kinematics to deal with singularities. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4791–4796 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kajita, S.: Humanoid Robot. Ohmsha Ltd, 3–1 Kanda Nishikicho, Chiyodaku, Tokyo, Japan (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hugel, V., Jouandeau, N.: Walking patterns for real time path planning simulation of humanoids. In: IEEE RO-MAN, pp. 424–430 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zorjan, M., Hugel, V., Blazevic, P., Borovac, B.: Influence of rotation of humanoid hip joint axes on joint power during locomotion. Adv. Robot. 29(11), 707–719 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Museum of Natural HistoryParisFrance
  2. 2.University of ToulonToulonFrance

Personalised recommendations