Simulation of Humanoid Robot Vertebra

  • Mouna SouissiEmail author
  • Vincent Hugel
  • Pierre Blazevic
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 480)


This chapter deals with 2D simulations of a humanoid robot equipped with backbone pitch joints to study the advantages of having such a mechanism for daily human-like movements. The movements under investigation here involve knee flexion for sitting down on a chair or picking up objects on the floor. The trunk is decomposed into a thorax and a lumbar part. As the lumbar region is the most mobile part in the human vertebral column, vertebrae are only placed in the robot’s lumbar part. Simulations are carried out in the sagittal plane to investigate the influence of the number of vertebra pitch joint on the movements. Results show that a number of two pitch joints is a good tradeoff in matter of work at hip and thorax inclination. A parallel mechanism is proposed for the design of humanoid vertebra. This mechanism is inspired by a flight simulator system, and has been adapted and optimized to enable pitch and roll motion of a humanoid trunk at reduced energy cost.


Knee Flexion Vertebral Column Parallel Mechanism Humanoid Robot Serial Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research is supported by the French Single Inter-Ministry Fund ROMEO. The ROMEO Project is a R&D project led by the French company Aldebaran Robotics. It involves twelve partners, including four SMEs, seven academic partners, and one user representative. Half of the 10€M global budget is funded by the French Government, the Ile de France region and the City of Paris. The aim of Romeo is to develop a 1.4 m high humanoid robot that is designed to be an assistant and a companion for elderly people at home.


  1. 1.
    Y. Sakagami, R. Watanabe, C. Aoyama, S. Matsunaga, N. Higaki, K. Fujimura, The intelligent ASIMO: system overview and integration, in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robot and System, vol. 3 (2002), pp. 2478–2483Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Kim, I. Park, J. Lee, M. Kim, B. Cho, J. Oh, System design and dynamic walking of humanoid robot KHR-2, in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2005), pp. 1431–1436Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Loffler, M. Gienger, F. Pfeiffer, Sensor and control design of a dynamically stable biped robot, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2003), pp. 484–490Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Lohmeier, T. Buschmann, H. Ulbrich, F. Pfeiffer, Modular joint design for performance enhanced humanoid robot lola, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2006), pp. 88–93Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Tellez, F. Ferro, S. Garcia, E. Gomez, E. Jorge, D. Mora, D. Pinyol, J. Poyatos, O. Torres, J. Velazquez, D. Faconti, Reem-B: an autonomous lightweight human-size humanoid robot, in 8th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoids (2008), pp. 462–468Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Kaneko, F. Kanehiro, S. Kajita, H. Hirukawa, T. Kawasaki, M. Hirata, K. Akachi, T. Isozumi, Humanoid robot HRP-2, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2004), pp. 1083–1090Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Yoshida, J.P. Laumond, Motion planning for humanoid robots: highlights with HRP-2, in French National Conference on Robotics Research, JNRR (2007), pp. 105–118Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Ogura, H. Aikawa, K. Shimomura, H. Kondo, A. Morishima, Development of a new humanoid robot WABIAN-2, in Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2006), pp. 76–81Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Wimbock, D. Nenchev, A. Albu-Schaffer, G. Hirzinger, Experimental study on dynamic reactionless motions with DLR’s humanoid robot justin, in Proceedings of IROS (2009), pp. 5481–5486Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Torrey, How robots can help communication strategies that improve social outcomes. Dissertation. CMU-HCII-09-102 (May 2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Mizuuchi, S. Yoshida, M. Inaba, H. Inoue, The development and control of the flexible-spine of a human-form robot. Adv. Robot. 17(2), 179–196 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Yoshikai, I. Mizuuchi, D. Sato, S. Yoshida, M. Inaba, H. Inoue, Behavior system design and implementation in spined musle-tendon humanoid ‘Kenta’. J. Robot. Mechatron. 15(2), 143–152 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. Mizuuchi, Y. Nakanishi, Y. Sodeyama, Y. Namiki, T. Nishino, N. Muramatsu, J. Urata, K. Hongo, T. Yoshikai, M. Inaba, An advanced musculoskeletal humanoid Kojiro, in Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) (2007), pp. 294–299Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Mizuuchi, A musculoskeletal flexible-spine humanoid Kotaro aiming at the future in 15 years’ time, in Mobile Robots Towards New Applications, ed. by A. Lazinica (ARS/plV, Germany, 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Sabrié, Analyse d’un mécanisme de simulation de vol sphérique et son contrôle en temps reel. Faculté des sciences et de génie universitaire, Laval, Québec (2004) (In French)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I.A. Kapandji, Physiology of the joints: the trunk and the vertebral column, vol. 3 (Feb 2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Souissi, V. Hugel, P. Blazevic, Design optimization of parallel joint mechanism for humanoid spine, in The 16th IEEE Mediterranenan Electrotechnical Conference (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Versailles Engineering System Laboratory (LISV)University of VersaillesVélizyFrance

Personalised recommendations