From Motion Explanation to Control Guidance: A Review of the Inverted Pendulum, Compass Gait, and SLIP in Bio-Inspired Legged Robotics
Main Article Content
Keywords
bio-inspired robotics, legged locomotion, minimal models, compass gait, robot control
Abstract
Minimal models have played a central role in legged locomotion research by reducing complex biological and robotic systems to interpretable dynamical templates. This review examines three representative models—the inverted pendulum, compass gait, and sprin g-loaded inverted pendulum (SLIP) —to clarify their theoretical significance and continuing relevance to bio-inspired legged robotics. Through a comparative review of representative studies, the paper analyses how these models explain locomotion mechanics, support gait analysis, and inform robot control and design. The analysis shows that the inverted pendulum captures the global mechanics of walking and centre-of-mass motion, the compass gait highlights passive dynamics, hybrid transitions, and gait stability, and the SLIP model emphasises compliance, elastic energy storage, and dynamic efficiency. Taken together, the three models form a progressive theor etical chain from motion explanation to control-oriented abstraction. Although their simplifying assumptions limit direct application to modern robotic platforms, they remain valuable as interpretable and transferable templates for analysing locomotion, structuring controller design, and guiding future model extension. This review therefore argues that classical minimal models continue to provide an important conceptual bridge between biomechanics, dynamical analysis, and robotic implementation.
References
- [1] R. J. Full and D. E. Koditschek, “Templates and anchors: Neuromechanical hypotheses of legged locomotion on land,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 202, no. 23, pp. 3325–3332, 1999.
- [2] P. Holmes, R. J. Full, D. Koditschek, and J. Guckenheimer, “The dynamics of legged locomotion: Models, analyses, and challenges,” SIAM Review, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 207–304, 2006.
- [3] J. Reher and A. D. Ames, “Dynamic walking: Toward agile and efficient bipedal robots,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 4, pp. 535–572, 2021.
- [4] R. McN. Alexander, “Walking and running,” American Scientist, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 348–354, 1984.
- [5] R. McN. Alexander, “Energy-saving mechanisms in walking and running,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 160, pp. 55–69, 1991.
- [6] T. McGeer, “Passive dynamic walking,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 62–82, 1990.
- [7] A. Goswami, B. Espiau, and A. Keramane, “Limit cycles in a passive compass gait biped and passivity-mimicking control laws,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 4, pp. 273–286, 1997.
- [8] A. Goswami, B. Thuilot, and B. Espiau, “A study of the passive gait of a compass-like biped robot: Symmetry and chaos,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 1282–1301, 1998.
- [9] R. Blickhan, “The spring-mass model for running and hopping,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 22, nos. 11–12, pp. 1217–1227, 1989.
- [10] H. Geyer, A. Seyfarth, and R. Blickhan, “Compliant leg behaviour explains basic dynamics of walking and running,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 273, no. 1603, pp. 2861–2867, 2006.
- [11] I. Poulakakis and J. W. Grizzle, “The spring loaded inverted pendulum as the hybrid zero dynamics of an asymmetric hopper,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1779–1793, 2009.
- [12] J. Carpentier and P.-B. Wieber, “Recent progress in legged robots locomotion control,” Current Robotics Reports, vol. 2, pp. 231–238, 2021.
- [13] P. M. Wensing, M. Posa, Y. Hu, A. Escande, N. Mansard, and A. Del Prete, “Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 43–63, 2024.
- [14] A. D. Kuo, “A simple model of bipedal walking predicts the preferred speed-step length relationship,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 264–269, 2001.
- [15] A. D. Kuo, “Choosing your steps carefully: Trade-offs between economy and versatility in dynamic walking bipedal robots,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 18–29, 2007.
- [16] E. R. Westervelt, J. W. Grizzle, and D. E. Koditschek, “Hybrid zero dynamics of planar biped walkers,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 42–56, 2003.
- [17] S. H. Collins, M. Wisse, and A. Ruina, “A three-dimensional passive-dynamic walking robot with two legs and knees,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 607–615, 2001.
- [18] S. Collins, A. Ruina, R. Tedrake, and M. Wisse, “Efficient bipedal robots based on passive-dynamic walkers,” Science, vol. 307, no. 5712, pp. 1082–1085, 2005.
- [19] M. H. Raibert, “Hopping in legged systems —Modeling and simulation for the two-dimensional one-legged case,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 451–463, 1984.
- [20] U. Saranli, W. J. Schwind, and D. E. Koditschek, “Toward the control of a multi-jointed, monoped runner,” in Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), vol. 3, Leuven, Belgium, 1998, pp. 2676–2682.
- [21] S. Katayama, M. Murooka, and Y. Tazaki, “Model predictive control of legged and humanoid robots: Models and algorithms,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 298–315, 2023.
- [22] J. Hwangbo, J. Lee, A. Dosovitskiy, D. Bellicoso, V. Tsounis, V. Koltun, and M. Hutter, “Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,” Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 26, Art. no. eaau5872, 2019.
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.