International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, Vol. 11, No.

9 (2001) 2411–2425
c World Scientific Publishing Company

ON A NORMAL-FORM ANALYSIS FOR

A CLASS OF PASSIVE BIPEDAL WALKERS

PETRI T. PIIROINEN
Department of Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden
HARRY J. DANKOWICZ
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics,
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
ARNE B. NORDMARK
Department of Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden

Received October 23, 2000; Revised December 18, 2000

This paper implements a center-manifold technique to arrive at a normal-form for the natural
dynamics of a passive, bipedal rigid-body mechanism in the vicinity of infinite foot width and
near-symmetric body geometry. In particular, numerical schemes are developed for finding
approximate forms of the relevant invariant manifolds and the near-singular dynamics on these
manifolds. The normal-form approximations are found to be highly accurate for relatively large
foot widths with a range of validity extending to widths on the order of the mechanisms’ height.

1. Introduction Historically, the original impetus to research on

In a series of papers the authors and their collabo-
rators have studied the natural dynamics of bipedal
five-link mechanisms exhibiting passive, gait-like
motions down slight inclines (cf. [Dankowicz
et al., 2001; Adolfsson et al., 1999] and [Piiroinen
et al., 2000]). Here, the main emphasis is on rel-
atively anthropomorphic, two-legged mechanisms
whose characteristic dynamics, in the absence of
external actuation other than gravity, contain
regular and energy-efficient walking motions. The
results obtained thus far show great promise
in translating to low-cost control algorithms for
general-purpose legged robots (see, e.g. [Pratt &
Pratt, 1999]). Similarly, there is considerable over-
lap between the theoretical issues considered in this
research and those underlying design of rehabilita-
tive and prosthetic devices for locomotion-impaired
individuals.
passive, bipedal mechanisms are the pioneering ef-
forts by Tad McGeer [1990a, 1990b], which were
subsequently shouldered by Andy Ruina and his
collaborators [Garcia et al., 1998b, 1998c; Garcia
et al., 1998a]. The inclusion of small amounts of
continuous control on top of an otherwise passive
periodic motion, as a means for stabilizing lateral
dynamics or for propulsion on horizontal ground,
has been reported in work by [McGeer, 1993; Howell
& Baillieul, 1998] and [Kuo, 1999]. Similarly, dis-
crete impulsive control algorithms resulting in so-
called ballistic walking have appeared in the litera-
ture [Formal’sky, 1996; Mochon & McMahon, 1980].
The present group has continued to focus on
unactuated dynamics, with special emphasis on bi-
furcation and stability studies for gait motions in-
volving both in-plane and out-of-plane degrees of
freedom. In particular, in [Piiroinen et al., 2000]

2411
 2412 P. T. Piiroinen et al.
the transition between periodic gaits for constrained
two-dimensional walking mechanisms and similar
motions for unconstrained, asymmetric walking
mechanisms was investigated. It was found that
the inclusion of additional degrees of freedom, the
breaking of configuration constraints, and the intro-
duction of small (or large) measures of asymmetry
in body geometry could lead to dramatic changes
to the existence and stability properties of gait mo-
tions. In particular, it was suggested that a normal-
form approach could be employed to study mecha-
nisms near the constrained, symmetric limit. The
present paper presents a detailed analysis of the
normal-form computations and its use in studying
characteristically non-2D motions.
The paper has the following outline. In Sec. 2
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
we briefly reiterate the modeling assumptions un-
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.
derlying the system kinematics and dynamics. Sec-
tion 3 develops the center-manifold methodology
and the perturbation approach used to arrive at a
suitably low-order approximation of the system dy-
namics. Section 4 develops the numerical algorithm
employed to find approximate forms for the coeffi-
cient functions in the normal forms. It also stud-
ies the degree of accuracy achieved by the center-
manifold technique and the range of validity away
from the singular limit. The paper concludes in
Sec. 5 with a discussion on improvements to the
numerical scheme and possible generalizations to
higher-dimensional center manifolds and the inclu-
sion of more problem parameters.
2. The Model
The model mechanisms studied in this paper have
been described in great detail in previous publica-
tions by members of this group (cf. [Adolfsson et al.,
1999] and [Piiroinen et al., 2000]). Specifically, we
investigate the natural dynamics of rigid-body sys-
tems consisting of a torso free to move and rotate
in physical space, two upper legs with single rota-
tional degrees of freedom relative to the torso, and
two lower legs with single rotational degrees of free-
dom relative to the upper legs. In addition to linear
elastic elements in the knee joints and when mod-
eling collisional interactions with the ground, the
models include dissipative elements in the hip and
knee joints, and during ground contact. To balance
the overall loss of energy during a gait cycle, the
direction of gravity as described by the unit vector
γ = sin(γ)n1 − cos(γ)n3 , (1)
is rotated relative to the plane representing the
ground (here spanned by the n1 and n2 basis vec-
tors and perpendicular to n3 ). Here, γ corresponds
to a plane inclination. Indeed, for γ ∈ (0, π/2),
all parts of the mechanism will experience a force
component along the plane as well as perpendicular
to it, thus pulling the mechanism along down the
incline.
Since no other actuation is imposed on the
model dynamics, these mechanisms are inherently
passive and their dynamical behavior appropriately
natural. As suggested in the references and in the
following sections, there are large ranges of param-
eter choices and regions of initial conditions in state
space, for which the subsequent time evolution to a
large extent resembles that of human gait.
To avoid repeating the model derivation de-
scribed in detail in [Piiroinen et al., 2000], we limit
the discussion to highlighting the small changes in
the variable definitions that distinguish the present
setup from that in the reference.
• The orientation of the torso relative to the in-
ertial reference frame is here given by the three
simple rotations {n, t(1) , 3, q5 }, {t(1) , t(2) , 1, q4 }
and {t(2) , t, 2, q6 }, where the {a, b, i, θ} notation
indicates that the b reference basis is rotated rel-
ative to the a reference basis an angle θ about
the common i-direction (i.e. ai = bi ). This dif-
fers from the model described in [Adolfsson et al.,
1999] and [Piiroinen et al., 2000] only in that the
order of the first two rotations has been reversed.
• The vector from the projection of the hip center
on the ground to the point on the ground where
contact was last established with the jth toe on
the ith foot is written as
L̂i,j = t(1) (dfi,j + si,j,1 hi + dsi,j + si,j,2 0)T .
The position vector of the ground contact point is
piecewise constant in the inertial reference frame.
It follows that
q1 − (si,j,2 + hi + dsi,j ) sin(q5)
+ (si,j,1 + dfi,j ) cos(q5) = constant
,
q2 + (si,j,1 + dfi,j ) sin(q5)
+ (si,j,2 + hi + dsi,j ) cos(q5) = constant
where hi is the distance from the torso center to
(2)
the ith leg in the t2 direction, dfi,j is the distance
from the center of mass of ith shank to the jth
 Normal-Form Analysis for a Class of Passive Bipedal Walkers 2413
(2)
toe point in the t1 direction, and dsi,j is the dis-
tance from the center of mass of ith shank to the
(2)
jth toe in the t2 direction. Differentiating these
relations with respect to time and substituting
the kinematic differential equations, we obtain

ṡi,j,1 = −u1 + u6 (hi + si,j,2 + dsi,j )/ cos(q4 )

ṡi,j,2 = u3 sin(q4 ) − u2 cos(q4 )
− u6 (si,j,1 + dfi,j )/ cos(q4 ) .
(2)
As in [Piiroinen et al., 2000] and [Adolfsson
et al., 1999] we include the eight variables si,j,k ,
i, j, k = 1, 2, (although their definition differs
significantly) in our list of state variables with
evolution equations described by Eqs. (2) and Fig. 1. A bifurcation diagram for 2D walkers under variation
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

of γ. Solid curves represent asymptotically stable solutions.

by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.

discrete jumps whenever contact is re-established

between the corresponding toe and the ground.
We symbolically represent the final set of
dynamical equations of motion as
M (q)u̇(t) = h(u, q) ,
where q, u ∈ R10 and M (q) is an invertible mass
matrix. Together with the kinematical equations of
motion
q̇ = K(q)u ,
Eqs. (2), and the discrete jumps in the si,j,k dynam-
ics, these constitute our dynamical system.
2.1. Going from 2D to 3D
For reference we here repeat the classification
scheme of our model mechanisms that was intro-
duced in [Piiroinen et al., 2000]. These definitions
serve to highlight the transition between 2D-like
gait patterns and those inherently non-2D, some
of which are described in more detail below. For
convenience in the discussion below, we refer to the
plane perpendicular to the incline and containing
the gravity vector as the nominal plane. Through-
out this discussion, all walkers are assumed to have
symmetric geometric and inertial properties with
respect to reflections in the sagittal plane.
3D walkers. These model mechanisms exhibit
the full number of degrees of freedom as described
above. A multitude of periodic gait patterns
have been reported in [Adolfsson et al., 1999] and
[Piiroinen et al., 2000]. Indeed, 3D walkers display
gait patterns containing oscillations about an aver-
age heading straight down the incline (i.e. parallel
to the nominal plane) or on an angle relative to the
nominal plane.
2D walkers. These model mechanisms are con-
strained in such a way that all translations lie in the
nominal plane and all rotations are perpendicular to
this plane, thus reducing the number of degrees of
freedom to seven. 2D walkers may physically be re-
alized by introducing lateral constraints to limit the
out-of-plane dynamics. In the mathematical model-
ing, they may be arrived out without any reference
to an unconstrained model, by the introduction of
constraint forces on an unconstrained model, or by
letting the toe width go to infinity (see [Piiroinen
et al., 2000] for a more detailed discussion).
2D walkers can show a variety of different types
of gaits as we will see below. They will also be
used as starting points for the numerical analysis
in Sec. 4. A typical bifurcation diagram of a 2D
walker under varying slope γ can be seen in Fig. 1
(cf. [Piiroinen et al., 2000]). The solid lines repre-
sent stable solutions and the dashed lines represent
unstable solutions. At the Roman numeral I we
have a saddle node bifurcation where two branches
of symmetric period-one gaits are born, one unsta-
ble and one stable. Here, a gait is symmetric if the
right step is a mirror image of the left step when
reflected in the nominal plane. Moreover, the pe-
riodicity refers to motion repeating itself after an
even number of steps. Decreasing the slope angle
 2414 P. T. Piiroinen et al.
slightly gives rise to a pitchfork bifurcation at II,
where two branches of stable asymmetric walking
are created and the stable symmetric gait turns un-
stable. Further decreasing the slope angle, the sta-
ble limping gaits double their periods at the points
III, and the period-one gaits turn unstable. These
branches collapse back to limping period-one gaits
at IV.
Extended 2D walkers. As an intermediate stage
between 2D and 3D walkers, these mechanisms are
unconstrained 3D walkers with zero hip separa-
tions and symmetrically placed toe points about the
sagittal plane. They form a focal point for the re-
maining discussion in this paper. Indeed, as shown
in [Piiroinen et al., 2000], the extended 2D walk-
ers can exhibit all the motions (whether gait-like
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.
or not) that are available to 2D walkers, but may
also deviate from a 2D-like gait and include oscilla-
tions in the out-of-plane degrees of freedom. Con-
sequently, a bifurcation diagram of 2D-like periodic
dynamics of an extended 2D walker is identical to
that shown for the corresponding 2D walker, except
that the stability characteristics may differ. Indeed,
the difference may be significant, in that none of
the stable gait motions of the 2D walker may retain
their stability when studying a related extended 2D
walker.
Consider a 3D walker with zero hip separation.
Let ε denote the inverse of the separation between
the toe points on either foot and let µ denote the
lateral shift (µ > 0 when the shift is outward) of
the toe line relative to the leg. Then, µ = 0 corre-
sponds to an extended 2D walker. Indeed, as ε → 0,
we expect the stability properties of the 2D-like
gaits of the extended 2D walker to approach those
of the corresponding 2D walker (whereas they may
differ markedly for ε large, as argued above). In
[Piiroinen et al., 2000] an energy-balance argument
is employed to show that as ε → 0, one eigen-
value corresponding to the instantaneous gait head-
ing must always approach 1, rendering the limit-
ing mechanism neutrally stable to perturbations in
heading. This is further supported by numerical
evidence. Indeed, for the limiting mechanism, it
is argued that for every periodic gait in the nomi-
nal plane, there exists a continuum of periodic gaits
that stay constrained to planes perpendicular to the
incline and transversally intersecting the nominal
plane.
For µ, ε 6= 0, the symmetry is broken, thus
introducing 3D components into all gait motions.
For example, a previously asymmetric, limping gait
motion of an extended 2D walker may pick up an
oscillation in heading with an average heading on
angle relative to the nominal plane. Of particular
concern in this paper is the limiting behavior of the
3D walkers for µ, ε  1. From the discussion in
[Piiroinen et al., 2000], we expect that the dynamics
are predominantly a function of the instantaneous
heading angle, q5 , as ε → 0. Indeed this is sup-
ported by numerical evidence as further described
below.
3. Mathematical Tools
The backbone of the semi-analytical analysis pre-
sented below is a numerical integration scheme that
allows simultaneous integration of the dynamical
system, the variational equations for stability anal-
ysis and parameter continuation, and the treatment
of discontinuous jumps in state variable and the
system Jacobian. For further detail, we refer to
[Adolfsson et al., 1999] and [Piiroinen et al., 2000]
(in particular, the former rigorously derives the cor-
rections required to treat system discontinuities).
Since we are primarily concerned with periodic
orbits and their bifurcations, we rely on the concept
of a Poincaré map that relates subsequent points of
intersection of an orbit with a predefined Poincaré
section in state space
zn+1 = P(zn ) (3)
where the state z contains all the generalized coor-
dinates (modulo translations along the incline and
rotations of the torso about the hip axis as described
in [Piiroinen et al., 2000]), generalized speeds and
toe-contact variables si,j,k . There is a one-to-one
correspondence between a periodic solution of the
time-continuous dynamical system and a fixed point
for this Poincaré map, i.e. such that P(z0 ) = z0 .
Similarly, the original periodic orbit is asymptot-
ically stable if all the eigenvalues of the Jacobian
∂z P(z0 ) have magnitude less than 1, unstable if at
least one lies outside the unit circle, and linearly
indeterminate whenever an eigenvalue lands on the
unit circle.
3.1. Center-manifold and
normal-form analysis
In the remainder of this paper we restrict attention
to the dynamics of a 3D walker with zero hip sepa-
ration and µ, ε  1. For a given periodic motion,

recall that as ε → 0, one eigenvalue is expected
to approach 1, such that the limiting mechanism
possesses a continuum of periodic motions locally
uniquely identified by the (constant) value of the
heading q5 , where q5 ∈ (−q5∗ , q5∗ ), q5∗ > 0. We can
reformulate this assertion in terms of the Poincaré
map construction alluded to in the previous section.
In particular, we write
zn+1 = P(zn , ε, µ) ,
where zn and zn+1 are two subsequent intersections
of an orbit with the Poincaré section, and we have
explicitly included the dependence on ε and µ. It
follows that one eigenvalue of ∂z P(z∗ (µ, ε), ε, µ),
where z∗ (µ, ε) corresponds to a fixed point of P,
approaches 1 as ε → 0. Moreover, every hyperbolic
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.
periodic solution of a 2D walker (see e.g. Fig. 1,
where the 2D walker has seven different periodic
solutions at the inclination γ = 0.085) generates
a curve Γ0 , parameterized by the heading q5 , such
that every point on Γ0 is a fixed point of P(·, 0, µ).
All these fixed points have an eigenvalue equal to 1
and the corresponding eigenvector is tangent to the
curve. In particular, Γ0 is parameterized in such
a way that q5 = 0 correspond to the 2D periodic
motion.
The ε = 0 limit is clearly a singular one.
For example, ground reaction torques grow with-
out bounds as ε → 0 for a given ground penetra-
tion. Moreover, the out-of-plane stability character-
istics of the limiting mechanism are trivial, since the
growing toe separation increasingly acts as a con-
straint on the out-of-plane dynamics. Nevertheless,
for ε  1 but nonzero, we are inspired by center-
manifold theory to expect the persistence of an in-
variant curve Γε near Γ0 . Indeed, for sufficiently
small ε and q5 in some interval about q5 = 0, Γε
should still be parameterizable by q5 (and µ) and
the corresponding Poincaré map should reduce to a
one-dimensional map on Γε :
q5,k+1 = c(q5,k , ε, µ) .
Guided by these ideas we assume that for ev-
ery branch Γ0 of periodic points of the Poincaré
map when ε = 0, there exists an invariant one-
dimensional manifold Γε of the form
z = h(q5 , ε, µ) ,
such that
h(q5 , 0, µ) = Γ0 , q5 ∈ (−q5∗ , q5∗ ) .
Normal-Form Analysis for a Class of Passive Bipedal Walkers 2415
Substituting Eqs. (5) and (6) into (4), we find that
h(c(q5,k , ε, µ), ε, µ) − P(h(q5,k , ε, µ), ε, µ) = 0 ,
(7)
which reiterates the invariance of Γε .
In a regular perturbation analysis, the center-
manifold is analytic in the vicinity of the fixed point
for sufficiently small changes in the bifurcation pa-
(4)
rameter. In the present situation, however, the bi-
furcation parameter ε attains a singular limit when
ε = 0. Guided by singular perturbation theory, we
instead expect the presence of exponentially small
terms in ε in any expansion of Γε or c. As long as we
remain close to ε = 0, however, a standard Taylor
expansion should provide an adequate approxima-
tion to the nonlinear dynamics. In light of this, we
make the following ansatz
∞
X εi µj
c(q5,k , ε, µ) = c[i,j] (q5,k )
i,j=0
i!j!
+ exponentially small terms in ε
= c[0,0] (q5,k ) + c[1,0] (q5,k )ε + c[0,1] (q5,k )µ
ε2
+ c[1,1] (q5,k )εµ + c[2,0] (q5,k )
2
µ2
+ c[0,2] (q5,k ) + ··· (8)
2
for the center-manifold dynamics and, similarly,
∞
X εi µj
h(q5 , ε, µ) = z[i,j] (q5 )
i,j=0
i!j!
+ exponentially small terms in ε
= z[0,0] (q5 ) + z[1,0] (q5 )ε + z[0,1] (q5 )µ
ε2
+ z[1,1] (q5 )εµ + z[2,0] (q5 )
(5) 2
µ2
+ z[0,2] (q5 ) + ··· , (9)
2
for Γε . Below we outline a method for numerically
determining the functional form of the unknown co-
efficient functions c[i,j] and z[i,j] .
(6)
For ε = 0 and all values of µ, c(q5 , 0, µ) should
reduce to q5 (at least for q5 ∈ (−q5∗ , q5∗ ), q5∗ > 0),
corresponding to the presence of a continuum of
periodic gaits parametrized solely by the constant
 2416 P. T. Piiroinen et al.

heading angle. It follows that For simplicity of exposition, we introduce the

c[0,0] (q5 ) = q5 and c[0,j] (q5 ) = 0 ,
Similarly, by the invariance of the dynamical sys-
tem under the reflection ε → −ε, we may con-
clude that c[i,·] (q5 ) = 0, odd i. In the dis-
cussion below, we will explicitly make use of
these relations only for terms of order three or
higher in ε and µ (except for the statement
about c[0,0] ). Lower-order terms that should van-
ish by the above reasoning, will be retained as
checks on the success of the numerical algorithm.
following short-hand notation. All explicit ref-
j ≥ 1.
erences to functional dependence on q5 will be
omitted. Thus, z[i,j] denotes z[i,j] (q5 ) and so
on. Moreover, since the perturbation analysis
requires evaluation of a number of functions at
the point z = z[0,0] , ε = 0, µ = 0, these ar-
guments will also generally be omitted. Thus,
we write P = P(z[0,0] (q5 ), 0, 0) and Pzε z1,0 =
Pzε (z[0,0] (q5 ), 0, 0)z[1,0] (q5 ).
If we substitute Eqs. (8) and (9) into (7) and
omit exponentially small terms in ε, we find

h(c(q5,k , ε, µ), ε, µ) = z[0,0] + [z0[0,0] c[1,0] + z[1,0] ]ε + [z0[0,0] c[0,1] + z[0,1] ]µ

Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.

ε2
+ [z00[0,0] c2[1,0] + z0[0,0] c[2,0] + 2z0[1,0] c[1,0] + z[2,0] ]
2

µ2
+ [z00[0,0] c2[0,1] + z0[0,0] c[0,2] + 2z0[0,1] c[0,1] + z[0,2] ]
2

+ [z00[0,0] c[1,0] c[0,1] + z0[0,1] c[1,0] + z0[0,0] c[1,1] + z0[1,0] c[0,1] + z[1,1] ]εµ

 
2z0[1,1] c[1,0] + z0[2,0] c[0,1] + 2z00[1,0] c[1,0] c[0,1] + 2z0[1,0] c[1,1]
 
 
ε2 µ
+
 + z0[0,0] c[2,1] + z00[0,1] c2[1,0] + z0[0,1] c[2,0] + z00[0,0] c[0,1] c[2,0] 

  2
+ 2z00[0,0] c[1,0] c[1,1] + z000 2
[0,0] c[1,0] c[0,1] + z[2,1]

+ ··· ,

where 0 denotes differentiation with respect to q5 , for the left-hand side, and

P(z(q5 , ε, µ), ε, µ) = P + [Pz z[1,0] + Pε ]ε + [Pz z[0,1] + Pµ ]µ

ε2
+ [Pzz z[1,0] z[1,0] + 2Pzε z[1,0] + Pεε + Pz z[2,0] ]
2

µ2
+ [Pzz z[0,1] z[0,1] + 2Pzµ z[0,1] + Pµµ + Pz z[0,2] ]
2

+ [Pzz z[1,0] z[0,1] + Pzµ z[1,0] + Pzε z[0,1] + Pεµ + Pz z[1,1] ]εµ
 
Pzεε z[0,1] + Pzzz z[1,0] z[1,0] z[0,1] + Pzzµ z[1,0] z[1,0] + 2Pzzε z[1,0] z[0,1]
  2
 ε µ
+
 + 2Pzεµ z[1,0] + 2Pzε z[1,1] + 2Pzz z[1,0] z[1,1] 
 2
 
+ Pzµ z[2,0] + Pz z[2,1] + Pεεµ + Pzz z[2,0] z[0,1]

+ ···
 Normal-Form Analysis for a Class of Passive Bipedal Walkers 2417

for the right-hand side. Identifying terms of the same order in ε and µ, we find

ε0 µ0 : z[0,0] = P (10)

ε1 µ0 : z[1,0] + z0[0,0] c[1,0] = Pε + Pz z[1,0] (11)

ε0 µ1 : z[0,1] + z0[0,0] c[0,1] = Pµ + Pz z[0,1] (12)

ε2 µ0 : z00[0,0] c2[1,0] + z0[0,0] c[2,0] + 2z0[1,0] c[1,0] + z[2,0]

= Pzz z[1,0] z[1,0] + 2Pzε z[1,0] + Pεε + Pz z[2,0] (13)

ε0 µ2 : z00[0,0] c2[0,1] + z0[0,0] c[0,2] + 2z0[0,1] c[0,1] + z[0,2]

= Pzz z[0,1] z[0,1] + 2Pzµ z[0,1] + Pµµ + Pz z[0,2] (14)

ε1 µ1 : z00[0,0] c[1,0] c[0,1] + z0[0,1] c[1,0] + z0[0,0] c[1,1] + z0[1,0] c[0,1] + z[1,1]
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.

= Pzz z[1,0] z[0,1] + Pzµ z[1,0] + Pzε z[0,1] + Pεµ + Pz z[1,1] (15)

ε2 µ1 : 2z0[1,1] c[1,0] + z0[2,0] c[0,1] + 2z00[1,0] c[1,0] c[0,1] + 2z0[1,0] c[1,1] + z0[0,0] c[2,1] + z00[0,1] c2[1,0]

+ z0[0,1] c[2,0] + z00[0,0] c[0,1] c[2,0] + 2z00[0,0] c[1,0] c[1,1] + z000 2

[0,0] c[1,0] c[0,1] + z[2,1]

= Pzεε z[0,1] + Pzzz z[1,0] z[1,0] z[0,1] + Pzzµ z[1,0] z[1,0] + 2Pzzε z[1,0] z[0,1] + 2Pzεµ z[1,0]
+ 2Pzε z[1,1] + 2Pzz z[1,0] z[1,1] + Pzµ z[2,0] + Pz z[2,1] + Pεεµ + Pzz z[2,0] z[0,1] . (16)

From Eq. (10), we find and similarly by multiplying (12) with ϕ∗ from the
left we get
z[0,0] (q5 ) = P(z[0,0] (q5 ), 0, 0) , (17) c[0,1] = ϕ∗ Pµ . (19)

on an open interval of q5 = 0. Differentiating this We can now substitute Eqs. (18) and (19) into
identity with respect to q5 , then yields Eqs. (11) and (12) to solve for the functions z[1,0]
and z[0,1] . To guarantee unique solutions, we im-
z0[0,0] = Pz z0[0, 0] , pose the additional constraints

ϕ∗ z[i,j] = 0 , i, j = 0, 1, 2, . . . ,
from which we conclude that z0[0,0] is a right eigen-
vector of Pz corresponding to the eigenvalue λ = 1. where i and j are not simultaneously equal to 0,
Denote this eigenvector by ϕ (again omitting the from which it follows that z[1,0] and z[0,1] satisfy
explicit q5 dependence) and choose the correspond-
! !
ing left eigenvector ϕ∗ , such that (I − Pz ) Pε − c[1,0] ϕ
z[1,0] = (20)
ϕ∗ 0
ϕ∗ = ϕ∗ Pz
and
and ! !
ϕ∗ ϕ = 1 . (I − Pz ) Pµ − c[0,1] ϕ
z[0,1] = , (21)
ϕ∗ 0
Multiplying (11) with ϕ∗ from the left we get
which we can solve numerically. Continuing in this
ϕ∗ (z[1,0] + z0[0,0] c[1,0] ) = ϕ∗ (Pε + Pz z[1,0] ) ⇔ fashion, one finds that the coefficient functions z[i,j]
ϕ∗ z[1,0] + ϕ∗ ϕc[1,0] = ϕ∗ Pε + ϕ∗ z[1,0] ⇔ (18) and c[i,j] must satisfy the equations

c[1,0] = ϕ∗ Pε Abk = ck (22)

 2418 P. T. Piiroinen et al.

where !
(I − Pz ) ϕ
A= ,
ϕ∗ 0

b1 = (z[2,0] c[2,0] )T , b2 = (z[0,2] c[0,2] )T ,

b3 = (z[1,1] c[1,1] )T , b4 = (z[2,1] c[2,1] )T ,

!
Pzz z[1,0] z[1,0] + 2Pzε z[1,0] + Pεε − z00[0,0] c2[1,0] − 2z0[1,0] c[1,0]
c1 = ,
0
!
Pzz z[0,1] z[0,1] + 2Pzµ z[0,1] + Pµµ − z00[0,0] c2[0,1] − 2z0[0,1] c[0,1]
c2 = ,
0
 
Pzz z[1,0] z[0,1] + Pzµ z[1,0] + Pzε z[0,1] + Pεµ
 
 
c3 =  − z00[0,0] c[1,0] c[0,1] + z0[0,1] c[1,0] + z0[1,0] c[0,1] 
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

 ,
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.

 
0
and  
Pzεε z[0,1] + Pzzz z[1,0] z[1,0] z[0,1] + Pzzµ z[1,0] z[1,0] + 2Pzzε z[1,0] z[0,1]
 
 
 + 2Pzεµ z[1,0] + 2Pzε z[1,1] + 2Pzz z[1,0] z[1,1] + Pzµ z[2,0] 
 
 
 

 + Pεεµ + Pzz z[2,0] z[0,1] − 2z0[1,1] c[1,0] − z0[2,0] c[0,1] 

c4 = 

 .


 − 2z00[1,0] c[1,0] c[0,1] − 2z0[1,0] c[1,1] − z00[0,1] c2[1,0] − z0[0,1] c[2,0] 

 
 

 − z00[0,0] c[0,1] c[2,0] − 2z00[0,0] c[1,0] c[1,1] − z000 2
[0,0] c[1,0] c[0,1]


 
0

In the next section a numerical procedure is imple-
mented to perform these computations and evaluate
the success of the approximation.
4. Results
4.1. Numerical techniques
We recognize that the perturbation technique de-
scribed in the previous section requires the evalua-
tion of mixed derivatives of the Poincaré map with
respect to the state variables and the parameters
in the singular limit when ε → 0. Below we im-
plement standard two-point, three-point, and four-
point formulae for this evaluation, keeping in mind
that taking ε too small makes any computations
prohibitively slow. As a comparison for the param-
eter choices quoted below, we note that the total
length of the legs of the mechanism is ≈ 0.7 meters.
To zeroth order in the perturbation analysis
we require a numerical approximation for z[0,0] (q5 )
corresponding to the continuum of periodic orbits
walking down the incline with constant headings q5
and uncoupled in-plane and out-of-plane dynamics
that emanate from a given reference 2D-gait solu-
tion at q5 = 0. Indeed, for ε = 0, we may introduce
arbitrary values of µ with no change in this contin-
uum of solutions. Thus, every point in a µ versus
q5 diagram can be put in correspondence with a pe-
riodic orbit when ε = 0. As soon as we introduce a
nonzero ε, however, the situation changes dramati-
cally. Numerically, we find that, for a given ε, only
a single curve of points in the µ − q5 diagram re-
tains a correlation with periodic gaits (cf. [Piiroinen
et al., 2000]).
Consider the stable, asymmetric, period-one
2D gait on the upper branch in Fig. 1 for slope
γ = 0.075. Let z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) denote the fixed
point in the Poincaré section such that z∗ (0, ε, 0)
coincides with this 2D gait. Here, µ is explicitly
represented as a function of q5 to agree with the
observation in the previous paragraph. Through
 Normal-Form Analysis for a Class of Passive Bipedal Walkers 2419
Fig. 2. The projection of the fixed points z∗ (q5 (µ), ε, µ),
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
over a range of µ values, on the q5 − q9 plane. In order from
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.
above, the curves correspond to ε = 0.1, ε = 0.05, ε = 0.025,
and the estimated ε = 0 limit.
parameter continuation we can trace the function
z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) for fixed values of ε and varying
q5 . As an example, Fig. 2 shows the projection of
z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) on the q5 −q9 plane, for ε = 0.1 (up-
per curve), 0.05 (second curve from top), and 0.025
(second curve from bottom), corresponding to toe
widths of 10, 20 and 40 meters. A careful numerical
analysis suggests that the limit
lim z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 ))
ε→0+
exists. A convenient assumption is then that the
limit corresponds to z[0,0] (q5 ), i.e. z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) is
a continuous function of ε at ε = 0. We have in-
cluded an approximation of this limit in Fig. 2 (solid
line) using extrapolation of the convergence pattern
observed from the three other curves. In the anal-
ysis below, we will consistently use z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 ))
as a replacement for z[0,0] (q5 ), perform the neces-
sary computations for ε = 0.1, 0.05, and 0.025,
and subsequently estimate the limits as ε → 0.
As discussed in previous sections, we have re-
tained coefficient functions in our perturbation ex-
pansions that we know should be identically equal
to zero. These will be used to confirm observa-
tions of convergence in the numerical computations
below.
 
∗ ∗
∗ 1  P(z (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε + h, 0) − 2P(z (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε, 0) 
Pεε (z (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε, 0) = 2
h + P(z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε − h, 0)
We now proceed to compute the coefficient
functions c[1,0] and c[0,1] from Eqs. (18) and (19).
As a side product of the continuation methods used
to compute z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) we also obtain the Jaco-
bian Pz (z∗ (q5 , ε, µ), ε, µ). This allows us to com-
pute the appropriately normalized left and right
eigenvectors ϕ∗ (q5 , ε) and ϕε (q5 , ε), such that the
corresponding eigenvalue approaches 1 as ε → 0. It
remains to numerically estimate Pε and Pµ . Here
we use the following two-point schemes
Pε (z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε, 0)
1
= [P(z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε + h, 0)
2h
− P(z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε − h, 0)]
Pµ (z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε, 0)
1
= [P(z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε, h)
2h
− P(z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε, −h)] .
As an aside, we note that a symmetrical pertur-
bation of ε with ±h is not a symmetric perturba-
tion ∆toe of the length of the toe line other than
when the length of the toe lines are infinite (ε = 0).
Indeed,
1 1
ε= ⇒ ε+h = ⇒
toe toe − ∆toe
1 1 htoe2
∆toe = toe − = toe − = .
ε+h 1 1 + htoe
+h
toe
In Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) we have plotted
c[1,0] (q5 , ε) and c[0,1] (q5 , ε) for the three different
values of ε. Indeed, as ε → 0, these curves ap-
pear to converge to the zero function at a rate pro-
portional to ε−1 , i.e. limε→0+ c[1,0] (q5 , ε) = 0 for
q5 ≥ 0. This is in agreement with the assertions
regarding c[0,j](q5 ) and c[1,·] (q5 ) that were made in
Sec. 3.1.
We proceed to compute higher-order coeffi-
cients as outlined in Sec. 3.1. For the deriva-
tives Pεε and Pµµ we use three-point schemes, for
example
. (23)
 2420 P. T. Piiroinen et al.

(a) (b)
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.

(c) (d)
Fig. 3. The functions (a) c[1,0] (q5 , ε), (b) c[0,1] (q5 , ε), (c) c[1,1] (q5 , ε), (d) c[0,2] (q5 , ε) for ε = 0.1 “O,” ε = 0.05 “,” and
ε = 0.25 “O”. The solid curves indicate the estimated ε = 0 limit.

Terms like Pzz z[1,0] z[0,1] and Pzµ z[1,0] are calculated with the schemes

Pzz (z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), 0, 0)z[1,0] (q5 )z[0,1] (q5 )

 
Pz (z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) + h1 z[1,0] (q5 ) + h2 z[0,1] (q5 ), ε, 0)
 
 − Pz (z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) − h1 z[1,0] (q5 ) + h2 z[0,1] (q5 ), ε, 0) 
1  
=  
 
4h1 h2  − Pz (z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) + h1 z[1,0] (q5 ) − h2 z[0,1] (q5 ), ε, 0) 
 
+ Pz (z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) − h1 z[1,0] (q5 ) − h2 z[0,1] (q5 ), ε, 0)
and
 
P(z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) + h1 z[1,0] (q5 ), ε, h2 )
 
 − P(z∗ (q5 ε, µ(q5 )) − h1 z[1,0] (q5 ), ε, h2 ) 
1  
Pzµ (z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )), ε, 0)z[1,0] (q5 ) =  .
 ∗ 
4h1 h2  − P(z (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) + h1 z[1,0] (q5 ), ε, −h2 ) 
 
+ P(z∗ (q5 , ε, µ(q5 )) − h1 z[1,0] (q5 ), ε, −h2 )
 Normal-Form Analysis for a Class of Passive Bipedal Walkers 2421
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Fig. 4. The function c[2,0] (q5 , ε) for ε = 0.1 “O”, ε = 0.05
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.
“”, and ε = 0.025 “O”. The solid curve indicates the esti-
mated ε = 0 limit. The polynomial approximation made in
[Piiroinen et al., 2000] is included and marked with (“x”).
Rather than compute Pzz and Pzµ and then project
them onto subspaces spanned by z[1,0] and z[0,1] , for
example, we use the directional derivative interpre-
tation of the projections. This significantly reduces
the numerical complexity of the computations.
Using this methodology we estimate c[1,1] (q5 )
and c[0,2] (q5 ), which by the reasoning in Sec. 3.1
should vanish identically. Indeed, this is confirmed
in Figs. 3(c) and 3(d) where the convergence again
goes as ε−1 for c[1,1] and ε−2 for c[0,2] .
4.2. Estimation of the center
manifold and fixed points
The first nonzero coefficient in the center-manifold
dynamics is c[2,0] . Figure 4 shows the results of the
perturbation computations for c[2,0] (q5 , ε) as well as
the estimate of the limiting function c[2,0] (q5 ) (solid
line). Similarly, in Fig. 5 we have plotted c[2,1] (q5 , ε)
for two different lengths of the toe lines (ε = 0.1 and
ε = 0.05), and our estimate. Guided by the experi-
ence from the calculation of c[1,0] (q5 ), c[0,1] (q5 ), and
c[1,1] (q5 ), it is assumed that c[2,1] (q5 , ε) converges to
c[2,1] (q5 ) at a rate proportional ε−1 . Figures 4 and 5
also include the polynomial approximation (marked
with “x”) derived in [Piiroinen et al., 2000]. While
the match between the polynomial approximation
and the curves derived through the perturbation
technique closely agree for c[2,0] , there is a larger
Fig. 5. The function c[2,1] (q5 , ε) for ε = 0.1 “O”, ε = 0.05
“”. The solid curve indicates the estimated ε = 0 limit. The
polynomial approximation made in [Piiroinen et al., 2000] is
included and marked with (“x”).
discrepancy in the case of c[2,1] . Figures 2 and 6(a)–
6(f) show the projection of z0,0 , z1,0 , z0,1 , z2,0 , z0,2 ,
z1,1 and z2,1 on the q9 state variable. Note, for ex-
ample, that z[0,1] and z[0,2] both limit on the zero
function (this is true for all their components). This
is consistent with the assertion that, in the limit
ε → 0, the value of µ has no effect on the dynam-
ics. It is worthwhile to add a cautionary note to
extrapolate highly oscillatory data as in the projec-
tion of z[2,0] , where the limit estimate is close to the
zero function, but for which other projections differ
markedly from the zero function.
We now investigate the agreement between pre-
dictions based on the center-manifold approxima-
tion and direct numerical simulations for nonzero ε.
In particular, let ε = 1/15, µ = 0.004 and consider
initial conditions (except for the value of q5 ) that
coincide with those of the asymmetric, stable gait at
γ = 0.075, as discussed previously. Finally, consider
different initial headings, q5 = 0, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and
0.5 and study the subsequent transient dynamics.
Figure 7(a) shows the projected state space orbits
on the q5 − q9 plane (points). It is clear that the dy-
namics quickly relax onto a manifold parametrized
by q5 . Included is the predicted center manifold us-
ing the Taylor expansion (9). Figure 7(b) through
7(d) show blowups of the transient dynamics for
q5 initially equal to 0, 0.2 and 0.5. Similarly,
Fig. 8 shows the change in heading ∆q5 as a
function of q5 as predicted by the center-manifold
 2422 P. T. Piiroinen et al.
(a)
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.
(c)
(e)
Fig. 6. The projection onto the state variable q9 of the functions (a) z[1,0] (q5 ), (b) z[0,1] (q5 ), (c) z[2,0] (q5 ), (d) z[1,1] (q5 ),
(e) z[0,2] (q5 ), (f) z[2,1] (q5 ) for the walkers with toe width 10 (“· · · ”), 20 (“−−”), 40 meters (“− · −”). Again, solid curves
correspond to the estimated ε = 0 limit.
computation (solid), the polynomial approximation
from [Piiroinen et al., 2000] (dashed), and the nu-
merical simulations (points). The agreement is ex-
cellent — to within 10−5 in the location of the man-
ifold, and to within 10−8 in the manifold dynamics.
Finally, we examine the range of validity in ε
of the normal-form approximation as compared to
the actual dynamics. In particular, we use the for-
mula for the center-manifold dynamics (as obtained
by the polynomial approximation in [Piiroinen
et al., 2000] or using the perturbation technique in
(b)
(d)
(f)
the present paper) to locate the branch of periodic
solutions emanating from the asymmetric, stable
2D gait referred to repeatedly above. Similarly, the
continuation algorithm is used to follow this branch
of solutions for variations in µ for fixed ε. Since
we have only computed c[2,0] (q5 ) and c[2,1] (q5 ) in
the normal-form analysis we will include the poly-
nomial approximations of c[2,2] (q5 ) and c[4,0] (q5 ) to
the normal-form solution. The latter term will al-
low an ε bias in the location of periodic solutions,
which would not be possible otherwise.
 Normal-Form Analysis for a Class of Passive Bipedal Walkers 2423

(a) (b)
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.

(c) (d)
Fig. 7. Transient dynamics for a walker with ε = 1/15, µ = 0.004, inclination γ = 0.075, and initial conditions perturbed off
an asymptotically stable 2D gait, as described in the text, projected on the q5 − q9 plane. The solid line shows the approximate
center manifold.

Figure 9 includes predictions of fixed-point loci
for ε = 0.5 (two-meter-wide feet), ε = 1, and
ε = 2. The combined perturbation-technique and
polynomial-approximation derived curves agree rea-
sonably well with the actual solution for ε = 0.5 and
ε = 1. For ε = 2, any similarities between the actual
solution and the approximations are gone.
We conclude with a few remarks on the origins
of numerical errors in the approximations of the co-
efficient functions c[i,j] (q5 ), z[i,j] (q5 ), namely errors
due to
• Finite step size in numerical integration of the
differential equations. We have used Matlab’s
c
differential-equation solvers ode15s and ode113
with a relative and absolute accuracy of 10−8 .
• Finite differences to estimate partial derivatives.
All finite-difference schemes employed in the
above computations are subject to cancellation
errors as the step size h becomes too small. There
is a delicate balance between taking too large
values for h, resulting in large truncation errors
(of order O(h2 )) or too small values of h for
which cancellation drastically reduces the valid-
ity of the approximation procedure. It is likely
that this is the cause of some of the oscillations
observed in the numerical estimates of z[i,j] as
shown in Figs. 6(a), 6(c) and 6(f). We note, how-
ever, that the sensitivity to the size of h varies
between different components of the coefficient
functions. The different choices of h used in the
numerical calculations reported here were arrived
at through trial and error. In subsequent work, it
might be valuable to develop an automated pro-
cedure for optimizing the value of h.
 2424 P. T. Piiroinen et al.

(a) (b)
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.

(c) (d)
Fig. 8. Transient dynamics for a walker with ε = 1/15, µ = 0.004, inclination γ = 0.075, and initial conditions perturbed off
an asymptotically stable 2D gait, as described in the text, showing the change ∆q5 versus the instantantaneous value of q5 .
The solid curve corresponds to the dynamics predicted by the truncated normal form. Similarly, the dashed curve shows the
prediction of the polynomial approximation (see [Piiroinen et al., 2000]).

Fig. 9. Bifurcation branches of periodic solutions for
ε = 0, 5, ε = 1 and ε = 2, emanating from asymptotically
stable 2D gait under variations in µ. Here, solid curves are
obtained through parameter continuation, while circles (poly-
nomial approximation) and triangles (polynomial approxima-
tion only for c[2,2] (q5 ) and c[4,0] (q5 )) are predictions from the
truncated normal form.
5. Discussion
In this paper, extensions of center-manifold the-
ory to near-singularly perturbed dynamical systems
have been combined with numerical computations
to arrive at approximate functional forms for invari-
ant manifolds and the slow dynamics on these mani-
folds for bipedal, passive walkers with large toe sep-
aration and nearly symmetric foot geometries. The
method has been used to correlate theoretical pre-
dictions about periodic motion for 3D walkers with
motions arrived at through parameter continua-
tion and direct numerical simulation of the differen-
tial equations. Moreover, it has further illustrated
the relation between characteristically 2D-like gait
motions, as exhibited by 2D walkers or extended
2D walkers and some characteristically non-2D
gait motions.
We note that the normal-form dynamics de-
rived here are one-dimensional in nature, corre-
sponding to a single eigenvalue on the unit circle. A
 Normal-Form Analysis for a Class of Passive Bipedal Walkers 2425
natural extension would be to study the appropriate
normal forms in the vicinity of bifurcation points
in the 2D gait dynamics, in which case the cen-
ter manifolds would be higher-dimensional, and the
subsequent dynamics correspondingly richer. For
example, [Piiroinen et al., 2000] report finding Hopf
bifurcations to non-2D gait for 2D gait motions
in extended 2D walkers with sufficiently small feet
(ε ≈ 10). It is possible that the inclusion of ad-
ditional dimensions in the normal forms, as pos-
sible near bifurcation points, would unfold higher-
dimensional bifurcations.
In the numerical investigations conducted to
date, the straight-downhill gait for ε = 0 always
changes from being neutrally stable to asymptoti-
cally stable in heading for ε nonzero. In particular,
Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2001.11:2411-2425. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
the 1 eigenvalue at the ε = 0 limit becomes less
by DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 04/05/16. For personal use only.
than 1 with no subsequent change in stability be-
tween the 2D walker and the extended 2D walker.
There is, however, no reason to expect that this
will always be the case. There might certainly be
other parameter choices, say for γ, for which the
eigenvalue becomes larger than 1, thus rendering
the original periodic solution immediately unstable
to perturbations in heading. This could be inves-
tigated by including additional parameters in the
normal-form (with a need for computing additional
partial derivatives of the Poincaré mapping). It is
notable that by introducing a small foot asymme-
try µ to the extended 2D walker (with 0 < ε  1)
the eigenvalue associated with the heading again
reaches 1 with increasing µ, and the periodic gait
ends up in a saddle-node bifurcation. Moreover, for
µ 6= 0 the asymptotically stable heading changes
from straight-downhill to diagonal.
The normal-form computations are particularly
hampered by the near-singular dynamics in the
ε = 0 limit, resulting in exceedingly long integra-
tion times of the stiff differential equations. It is
possible that some type of multiple scales method
could be implemented here to separate the fast and
slow dynamics. Naturally, given the dimensionality
and hybrid nature (mix of continuous and discrete
time evolution) of the dynamical system, any such
approach would have to be inherently numerical.
As with the calculations reported here, traditional
analytical perturbation techniques can only go
that far in addressing these high-degree-of-freedom
mechanical systems.
Acknowledgment
We gratefully acknowledge the Swedish Founda-
tion for Strategic Research (SSF) for their financial
support of this work.
References
Adolfsson, J., Dankowicz, H. & Nordmark, A. [1999] “3d
passive walkers: Finding periodic gaits in the presence
of discontinuities,” Nonlin Dyn. 24(2), 205–229.
Dankowicz, H. J., Adolfsson, J. & Nordmark, A. B.
[2000] “Repetetive gait of passive bipedal mechanisms
in a three-dimensional environment,” J. Biomech.
123(1), 40–46.
Formal’sky, A. M. [1996] Ballistic Locomotion of a Biped.
Design and Control of Two Biped Machines, CISM
Advanced School on Modelling and Simulation of
Human and Walking Robots Locomotion, Udine.
Garcia, M., Chatterjee, A. & Ruina, A. [1998a] “Effi-
ciency, speed, and scaling of passive dynamical bipedal
walking,” Dyn. Stab. Syst. 15(2), 75–99.
Garcia, M., Chatterjee, A., Ruina, A. & Coleman, M.
[1998b] “Passive-dynamic models of human gait,”
Proc. Conf. Biomechanics and Neural Control of
Human Movement, pp. 32–33.
Garcia, M., Chatterjee, A., Ruina, A. & Coleman, M.
[1998c] “The simplest walking model: Stability, com-
plexity, and scaling,” ASME J. Biomech. Engin. 120,
281–288.
Howell, G. W. & Baillieul, J. [1998] “Simple con-
trollable walking mechanism which exhibit bifurca-
tions,” Proc. 37th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control,
pp. 3027–3032.
Kuo, A. D. [1999] “Stabilization of lateral motion in
passive dynamic walking,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 9(10),
917–930.
McGeer, T. [1990a] “Passive dynamic walking,” Int. J.
Robot. Res. 9, 62–82.
McGeer, T. [1990b] “Passive walking with knees,”
Proc. IEEE Conf. Robotics and Automation, Vol. 2,
pp. 1640–1645.
McGeer, T. [1993] “Dynamics and control of bipedal lo-
comotion,” J. Theoret. Biol. 163, 277–314.
Mochon, S. & McMahon, T. [1980] “Ballistic walking:
An improved model,” Math. Biosci. 52, 241–260.
Piiroinen, P. T., Dankowicz, H. J. & Nordmark, A. B.
[2000] “Breaking symmetries and constraints: Transi-
tions from 2d to 3d in passive walkers,” submitted.
Pratt, J. E. & Pratt, G. A. [1999] “Exploiting natu-
ral dynamics in the control of a 3d bipedal walking
simulation,” Int. Conf. Climbing and Walking Robots
(CLAWAR99).