2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

Congress Center Hamburg

Sept 28 - Oct 2, 2015. Hamburg, Germany

Locust-Inspired Miniature Jumping Robot

V. Zaitsev, O. Gvirsman, U. Ben Hanan, A. Weiss, A. Ayali and G. Kosa

elastic strips, which are loaded by rotating a one directional



Abstract— Jumping is one among successful locomotion gaits

for small scale robots to overcome obstacles and traverse rough
terrains. Design of a jumping robot features many engineering
challenges; some of them may be solved by seeking inspiration
and solutions in nature. This paper entails the conceptual and
detailed design of TAUB, a miniature jumping robot whose
design was inspired by the Desert Locust's legs. The jumping
mechanism consist a pair of legs each with two equal segments,
mimicking the femur and tibia, joined by torsion springs,
mimicking the Semi-Lunar Process (SLP) of the Locust's legs.
The jumping legs enable relatively large opening angle of 150
degrees, similar to the locust, allowing using softer springs and
increase the energy storing and jumping performance. The
𝟐𝟐. 𝟔 𝒈𝒓 autonomous robot prototype constructed outperforms
other existing robots, by jumping to a height of 𝟑. 𝟏 𝒎 covering
a distance of 𝟑 𝒎.
I. INTRODUCTION
Jumping of small scale robots is an energetic-efficient
way of locomotion and intended to be used widely in many
robotic field tasks, such as reconnaissance and rescue
missions, where the robots are required to traverse unknown,
rough terrain [1]. Indeed, previous studies [2-5] have found
jumping to be the most suitable form of locomotion for
mobile robots traversing problematic terrains. Efficient
jumping introduce the need for downscaling the size of a
robot, and as a result the relative size of obstacles increases
[6], making outdoor mobility more difficult, while energy
becomes limited due to the use of a necessarily small power
source. Therefore, design and jumping performance should
be optimized, in order to overcome large obstacles and with
low energy cost.
Several small jumping robots have already been
developed, for example [4,5,7,15]. The 7 gr EPFL jumper
[8], utilizes a torsion spring loaded through a gear system and
a CAM, while the CAM is also used for energy release. A
four-bar mechanism converts the stored energy into a jump.
Later version of this robot includes self-righting capability.
Other robots were presented in [9,10]. These robots constitute
a jumping mechanism which is based on a spring's loading in
the x direction along a linear guide. During the energy
release, a shorter motion is accomplished in the y direction,
while the relation between the applied force and motion is
nonlinear, which is suitable for the acceleration phase.
Another running and jumping robot [11] stores the energy in
*Resrach supported by Pearls of Wisdom Association.
G. Kosa, O. Gvirsman are with the School of Mechanical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Tel Aviv University (corresponding author to
provide phone: 972-3-6408788; fax: 972-3-6407334; e-mail: gkosa@
post.tau.ac.il, omergman@gmail.com).
A. Ayali is with the Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences,
Tel Aviv University (ayali@post.tau.ac.il).
V. Zaitsev, U. Ben Hanan and A. Weiss are with the Mechanical
Engineering Department, Ort Braude College (e-mail:
valentinz@mail.tau.ac.il, ubenhana@braude.ac.il, avi@braude.ac.il).
bearing, and pulling a leg with a cable towards the robot's
body. Once the bearing passes the vertical upward position,
the energy is released. Another interesting jumping and
walking robot is described in [12]. This robot uses only one
motor, when the motor rotates clockwise the robot jumps and
when it rotates counter-clockwise the robot walks. The robot
utilizes two torsion springs, which are loaded by rotating a
grooved cylinder, and pulling a cable connected to a slider
that moves along a follower. When the springs are fully
loaded the slider releases the wire while moving along the
cylinder's groove.
The main problems encountered by most of the robotic
jumpers are insufficient jump performance and mechanical
complexity. The present study focused on creating a simple
mechanism that would enable jumping similar to that of the
desert locust [4], while jumping higher than other robots,
whose performance can be found in [10]. In addition the
energy storage and release mechanism enables high
performance such as a leap as high as 31 body lengths (legs
closed ready to jump, see Fig. 1).
Figure 1. TAUB - Locust inspired miniature jumping robot: prototype
(above) and robot model (below)
This study was inspired by the desert locust (Schistocerca
gregaria). Adult locusts of this species weigh 1.5-3.5 gr and
have a body length of 50-60 mm [13]. Like all insects, they
have three pairs of legs, of which the front and middle pairs
are used mainly for walking and are weak and short
compared to the long hind legs which are particularly active
during kicking and jumping. The hind legs, which were the
model for the design of the jumping mechanism, consist of
two main segments, approximately similar in length (See Fig
2.). The two segments are connected by a single degree-of-
freedom revolute joint that moves from 00 to 1500 degrees
during the jump [14]. The much thicker segment, the femur,
comprises two muscles: the flexor, which is responsible for
folding the tibia towards the femur; and the extensor, which

978-1-4799-9994-1/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE 553

is larger and much more powerful, and is responsible for
extending the tibia away from the femur (Fig. 2). An
additional key element in the jumping bio-mechanism is the
semi-lunar process (SLP; Fig. 2). This thickened, elastic
cuticle is attached to the femuro-tibial joint and serves to
store energy as a linear spring when bent.
Figure 2. Two main segments of the hind leg. Colored areas on the femur
show approximate areas occupied by the extensor and flexor muscles
II. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Capturing and imitating nature’s designs may be
extremely challenging, while also not necessarily providing
optimal solutions to a given engineering task. We thus
selected only part of the biomechanical features of the locust
jump mechanism as inspiration for the design of our artificial
jumping mechanism. The TAUB (Tel-Aviv University &
Braude) jumping robot utilizes a pair of legs, each with two
segments, inspired by the hind legs of the locust. Torsion
springs as the elastic elements are connecting the two legs’
segments. The “muscle” of the mechanism is an electrical
motor connected directly to the lower part of the legs by wire.
Finally, the legs of the jumping mechanism are connected to
the robot's body through a revolute joint, similar to the
connection of the locust’s legs to its body. The elements of
the conceptual design are shown in Fig. 3.
Torsion Springs
Electric Motor
Legs
Tendon-like
Wires
Figure 3. TAUB's conceptual design
TAUB's suggested mechanism has an advantage in torque
enhancement over other existing mechanisms based on CAM
design, for example [4, 8], as shown in Fig. 4. The
transmission ratio between the CAM's output torque and the
torsion spring's torque is approximately 𝑙1 /𝑙2 where 𝑙1 is the
vertical distance from the follower to the CAM's pivot point,
and 𝑙2 is the vertical distance from the follower to the spring's
pivot point. We estimate that the practical ratio 𝑙1 /𝑙2 can vary
from 1/5 to 1/10 thus resulting in maximal torque
enhancement around 10 times of the CAM's output torque. In
TAUB's mechanism however, the torque enhancement is
caused by a natural lever ratio obtained by the length of the
legs and the motor's axle radius, as shown in Fig. 4.
554
Figure 4. On the left hand side is a CAM based torque enhancement. On
the right hand side is TAUB's mechanism's torque enhancement
The transmission ratio between the springs and the motor
can be expressed as follows:
2𝑅 (1)
𝐾=
𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃)
where L is the length of each link of the legs, R is the
motor’s axle radius and 𝜃 is the deformation angle of the
springs. The practical transmission ratio is around 1/50 thus
making it more effective than CAM mechanism for torque
enhancement. The minimal lever ratio is obtained when the
springs are fully deformed and 𝜃 is minimal. Another
advantage of TAUB's mechanism is that the springs have a
relatively large angle of deformation, around 1500 degrees,
similar to the locust [14], compared to other designs, for
example 800 degrees [8], which allows lowering their
stiffness and thus decreasing the load on the joints and legs.
Despite its advantages, TAUB's torque enhancement features
a disadvantage of prolonging the charging time. However, in
real-life scenario, we argue that this is least important issue.
III. MODELING
Although intuition suggests that the smaller the mass, the
higher the jumping height, it is not necessarily true. There are
three key features regarding the optimization of the jumping
height of the robot. These features are: mechanical strength,
leap speed and aerodynamic drag, and all of them have to be
optimized simultaneously.
The effective power of the driving mechanism scales
down with the reduction of the mass. This decrease in
strength causes a decrease in the energy storage capability,
decreasing the jumping height. The second key point is the
relation between mass and leap speed, which means that as
the mass scales down, with some given energy amount
stored, the leap speed increases due to energy conservation
during the leap, thus increasing the jumping height. Larger
mass causes increased aerodynamic drag, which leads to
insufficient jumping height. In addition, too high leap speed
also causes high aerodynamic drag lowering the jumping
height as well.
Therefore, the three design directives mentioned above
controvert, which suggests that a single optimal value for the
robot mass may be derived. In order to optimize the mass
required for the leap of the robot with the jump height, we
simplify the problem, by assuming a straight upward jump.
Based on this assumption, the upward direction equation of
motion, describing the vertical position of the robot during
the jump is:
1 (2)
𝑦̈ (𝑡) = −𝑔 − 𝜌𝐶 𝐴 𝑦̇ (𝑡)2
2𝑚 𝐷 𝑆
 where 𝑦(𝑡) designates the vertical position of the point coefficient, and 𝐴𝑆 = 3.5 ∙ 10−3 𝑚2 is the cross-sectional
mass, 𝑔 is the gravity acceleration, 𝑚 is the robot's mass, 𝜌 is area, approximately based on the CAD model of the robot
the air density, 𝐶𝐷 is the drag coefficient and 𝐴𝑆 is the cross- designed in the next section and presented in Fig. 1, 𝑔 =
sectional area in the direction of motion. It can be seen from 9.81 𝑚/𝑠 2 is the gravity acceleration, ∆𝜃 = 2.61 𝑟𝑎𝑑 is the
(2) that a combination of small mass with high speed causes deflection angle of the springs and 𝐾 = 0.036 𝑁𝑚/𝑟𝑎𝑑 is
large downward acceleration, which will result in low the spring coefficient, both based on the robot's design. The
jumping height, as was stated earlier. The initial conditions range for the mass was set to 𝑚 = 1𝑔𝑟 to 30𝑔𝑟. The number
for (2) are: 𝑦(0) = 0, 𝑦̇ (0) = 𝑉0 meaning that the jump of springs, N, was set from 1 to 10 in order to quant the
started from the origin of a fixed frame with an initial speed energy storage. Fig. 5 presents the result of the analysis.
of 𝑉0 . The solution of (2) results in the robot’s vertical speed:
𝑔 (3)
𝑦̇ (𝑡) = √ 𝑡𝑎𝑛(𝛾 − √𝛼𝑔𝑡)
𝛼
Where 𝛾 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (𝑉0 √𝛼/𝑔) and 𝛼 = 𝜌𝐶𝐷 𝐴𝑆 /2𝑚. The
height of the robot is given by:
1 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛾 − √𝛼𝑔𝑡) (4)
𝑦(𝑡) = 𝑙𝑛 ( )
𝛼 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛾)
In order to find the maximal height, we compute the time
that would cause 𝑦̇ (𝑡) to be equal to zero: 𝑡 = 𝛾/√𝛼𝑔. The
maximal height achieved by the robot is:
Figure 5. Maximal height as a function of mass for different energy levels.
(5) Lines are going from low to high energy according to the arrow

1 1 It can be seen from the results that there is an optimal

ℎ= 𝑙𝑛
𝛼 jumping height for a given energy level. For example, when
𝛼
𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (√ 𝑉0 )) using five springs (0.61 𝐽), the optimal jumping height is
( 𝑔 ) around 2.7 𝑚 and achieved when the mass is 9 𝑔𝑟. Another
In order to determine the initial condition of the ballistic interesting result is that for a given energy level, the same
phase, V0, we assume all the elastic energy stored in the jumping height is achieved with two different masses that are
jumping mechanism is converted into kinetic energy: quite apart. For example, when using five springs (0.61 𝐽),
the jumping height of 2.5 𝑚 is achieved for a mass of 5 𝑔𝑟 or
1 1 (6) 15 𝑔𝑟, a difference of 200 percent. These results have their
𝑚𝑉0 2 = 𝐾𝑁(∆𝜃)2
2 2 impact on all of the design considerations regarding the
𝐾 is the spring coefficient of a torsion spring, 𝑁 is the robot. The slow decay to the right of the curves makes it
number of springs connected in parallel, and ∆𝜃 is the logical to design the robot to an overall mass located to the
deflection angle of the springs. The initial speed is: right side of the optimum point.

(7) IV. DETAILED DESIGN

𝐾𝑁
𝑉0 = √ ∆𝜃 Using the theoretical results from section III we tried to
𝑚 aim to the optimum relation in (9). In practice, there is a large
variety of parameters, such as components selection,
Substituting (7) into (5) results in the following relation
coefficients determination etc. that limits the design options.
between the mass of the robot and the maximal jumping
In order to simplify the design process, we ignored the
height:
aerodynamic effects described in the modeling section.
𝛿 2 Therefore, our aim was to design the lightest possible
ℎ(𝑚) = 𝜎 ∙ 𝑚 ∙ 𝑙𝑛 (1 + ( ) ) (8) mechanism, nonetheless capable of storing as much energy as
𝑚
possible, thus achieving maximal height.
where: 𝛿 = ∆𝜃√𝜌𝐶𝐷 𝐴𝑆 𝐾𝑁/2𝑔 and 𝜎 = 1/𝜌𝐶𝐷 𝐴𝑆 The robot comprises 4 main sub-systems: the driving
From (8) it can be seen that the value of 𝜎 doesn’t affect the system, the energy storage element, the power source and the
optimum. The maximal height is (𝑑ℎ(𝑚)/𝑑𝑚 = 0) achieved legs structure. Each sub-system should be as light as possible
at the value: and in addition, the whole system should store the highest
energy possible. The overall design is iterative and
𝛿 (9) simultaneous nonetheless each sub-systems design is
𝑚≅ presented here separately. The 3D model of the robot is
1.98
shown in Fig. 6, and the 22.6 gr constructed prototype is
Equation (9) is a design rule for the jumping robot which shown in Fig. 7.
enables the proper choice of the robots dimensions, driving
motor, and battery. We demonstrate this design rule by
simulating (8). In Fig. 5 the following parameters were used:
𝜌 = 1.2 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 is the air density, 𝐶𝐷 = 1.3 is the drag

555
 Battery
Controller
Spring
s
Motor
Legs Carbon rod
Figure 6. 3D model of the jumping robot
The driving system is at the heart of the design. It
comprises a small and powerful electric motor with an
embedded gear system. The gearing system enables reducing
the motor's consumed current, as well as increasing the
output torque, in addition to the lever ratio torque
enhancement mechanism discussed earlier. A 4.5 gr geared
servo electric motor (HS-35HD) with a stall torque to mass
ratio of 17.43 𝑁𝑚𝑚/𝑔𝑟, highest among evaluated motors,
was selected. Although the gearing system increases the
charging duration of the robot, it is still the preferred solution
for the driving system, because of the large variety of such
actuators. Another disadvantage of the gearing system, the
slowdown of the leap process caused by the gears, is
discussed later.
The elastic elements are torsion springs made of A-228
music wire (see Fig. 7) with coefficient of 𝐾 = 0.04 𝑁𝑚/
𝑟𝑎𝑑. Each spring was designed with only 2 coils in order to
prevent residual bending moments and for decreasing its
weight. In addition, there are 2 directions of coiling, a right
hand one and a left hand one, due to symmetry
considerations, such as vertical planar motion of the legs
during charging. The joints connecting the springs were
designed to mount as many springs as required up to ten.
Therefore, any combination of two to ten springs can be
utilized, increasing the energy storage limit with each
additional spring.
The legs structure consists of four carbon rods (Fig. 7).
The carbon rods are light and stiff. Note the fact there is a
tradeoff between mass and mechanical strength. On the one
hand, large diameter of the rods increases their mechanical
strength and enables mounting more springs, but on the other
hand increases the robot's weight. After several design
iterations 2.5 mm diameter and 80 mm length rods, were
selected, combined with eight springs. In order to fix the
springs to the carbon rods we used aluminum joints specially
fabricated to be light and strong.
The power source is a battery (see Fig. 7) that was
selected to be as light as possible to fulfill the charging
profile of the system, starting with low current (opened legs)
and ending with high current (closed legs). Note the fact that
the mechanism's lever ratio described earlier, keeps growing
as the charging advances, thus restraining current increase.
The selected battery was 110 (mAh) Lipo-Battery weighing 3
gr. We tested this battery to estimate its life-time and
measured 123 jumps of the robot.
556
Springs Motor
Battery
Legs
Figure 7. 22.6 gr autonomous jumping robot prototype
The control unit includes a micro-controller, and a limit-
switch. The control unit was designed for minimal weight,
including only the necessary electronics in order to operate
the robot. The limit switch, mounted in the joint between the
femur and tibia, is toggle switch, indicating whether the legs
are closed or not. The body holding the motor, the battery
and the microcontroller, was produced by a 3D printer using
ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) and was designed to
secure these components in place, with minimal weight to
strength ratio.
The most significant problem of using the gearing system
is the slowdown of the leap process due to residual friction
forces and inertia effects caused by the gears, as was stated
earlier. When the springs are charged, the tendon-like wire is
fully coiled on the motor's axle, preventing the robot from
jumping. The jump occurs when the motor is released, thus
the faster the motor allows the wire to uncoils, the higher the
initial jump velocity. Thus, anything that slow the uncoiling
process reduces the initial jump velocity, which reduces the
maximal height of the jump. To overcome the slowdown
imposed by the gear system, we designed a latch mechanism
to hold the legs while the wire unwinds, and only after the
wire is loose, the latch is released and the leap is executed
with no gear related slowdown.
The latch mechanism consists of a hook, the motor's axle
and a nut, and is operated utilizing the same motor, without
additional actuators, in order to reduce the robot's weight, and
is shown in Fig. 8.
Thread
Rubber band
Nut
Hook
Springs
Figure 8. Latch mechanism's components
The hook rotates around the rotation axis of the joints
connecting the legs to the body, and its shape was designed to
allow rotation only to one direction as shown in Fig. 8. In
addition, the hook returns to its initial position after any slight
rotation, due to a small rubber band fixed on the motor and
attached to the hook. The locking occurs when the carbon rod
fixed in the tips at the lower part of the legs (see Fig. 6),
touches the round curvature of the hook from beneath. The
carbon rod causes the hook to rotate, and when it surpasses Start
the curvature, the rubber band quickly returns the hook back,
enabling the fixation of the carbon rod at the flat surface
above the curvature. In order to release the lock, the nut Receive
moves on the external thread of the motor's axle and pulls the command
hook again, using a second wire connected to the hook (the
connection of the second wire is the green dot, see Fig. 8).
In TAUB's mechanism, the motor's axle radius is 1.5 mm, Y N
Limit switch open
thus with the leg's length, resulting in an approximate lever
ratio of 3/160, thus enhancing the motor's torque in addition Motor Motor
to the gears. rotates to rotates to
one side other side
V. ROBOT OPERATION
Before the jump starts the legs are open, the springs are
The robot
not loaded, the tendon-like wire is completely loose and the N jumpes
nut is at the end of the motor's axle, as shown in Fig. 7. The Limit switch close
motor starts rotating to one direction as shown in Fig. 9(a)
causing the tendon-like wire to wind-up on the axle. Thus, Y
the tibia approaches the femur while the springs deform, End
storing the required energy for the jump, and the nut moves Motor stops
towards the motor. In the end of the charging process, which
lasts roughly ten seconds, the hook locks the tibia, as shown
in Fig 9(b).
Figure 10. Robot's control sequence
(a) (b)
VI. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Experiments were conducted using the prototype
weighing 22.6 gr (see Fig. 7), with the main purpose of
examining the jumping trajectory and leap speed. The
experiments we report in this paper were carried outside and
were recorded using fast speed camera (Fujifilm HS-10)
capable of producing 240÷1000 frames per second. Analysis
was conducted using video analysis software Tracker. In Fig.
11, the jumping trajectory and the jumping height versus time
are presented, using the 240 fps filming. In Fig. 12, the leap
(c) (d) phase is presented, using the 1000 fps filming. Prior to the
charging phase, the robot's posture on the ground was similar
Support to that of Fig. 7, and before the leap itself the posture was as
shown in the model of Fig. 6.
𝒀(𝒎)
Figure 9. Robot's operation sequence 3

Next, the motor starts rotating to the other direction, as

shown in Fig. 9(c), while the tibia stays locked in the hook 2.25
and the tendon-like wire unwinds from the axle. During this
phase, the nut moves away from the motor towards its
original place at the end of the axle, in a duration of roughly 1.5 3.1(m)
ten seconds as well. At a certain point, the second wire 𝑙1
connecting the nut to the hook is suddenly stretched,
unlocking the tibia from the hook and allowing the leap, as 0.75
shown in Fig. 9(d). The leap occurs since the tendon-like
wire is completely loose at this stage. During charging and
0
releasing, the motor axle is supported by the body to prevent
the bending of the axle under the loading of the springs and
also the leap impact. 0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 𝑿(𝒎)

An external IR remote is used to command the robot and 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 𝒕(𝒔𝒆𝒄)
the operation procedure's command scheme is shown in Fig.
Figure 11. Jumping trajectory and jumping height versus time using 240 fps
10.

557
 The current version of TAUB presented in this paper has
few shortcomings compared to several existing jumping
robots, mainly because it lacks the ability to perform
continues jumps (although not every other robots has the
ability to perform such multiple jumps), it lacks the ability of
steering, and it also lacks the ability of alter its leap angle,
meaning the direction of jump and trajectory remain
uncontrolled. Therefore, we are currently working on self-
righting and steering mechanism that would enable TAUB to
execute multiple jumps with navigation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was funded by Pearls of Wisdom
Figure 12. Leap speed sequance sample points from Tracker using 1000 fps Association (http://www.pwa.org.il). We thank Zickel
Engineering (http://www.zickel.net) for the controller design.
The estimated leap speed extracted from Tracker
averaged around 9 𝑚/𝑠 which is in good agreement with the REFERENCES
theoretical value of 9.3 𝑚/𝑠 obtained using (7) with the [1] A. B. Seeni, B. Schafer, and G. Hirzinger, "Robot mobility
system parameters, based on the robot's design. It can be seen systems for planetary surface exploration–state-of-the-art and
from the results that a jumping height of 3.1 𝑚 is obtained future outlook: a literature survey," Aerospace technologies
with a distance of over 3 𝑚. The jumping height may be advancements. Intech Publ, 2010.
compared, in good agreement to the theoretical value of 3 𝑚 [2] S. Dubowsky, S. Kesner, J. S. Plante, and P. Boston, "Hopping
mobility concept for search and rescue robots," Industrial Robot-
from the simulation results presented in Fig. 5, in the an International Journal, vol. 35, pp. 238-245, 2008.
Modeling section. However, in contrary to the simulation, the [3] D. F. Hougen, S. Benjaafar, J. C. Bonney, J. R. Budenske, M.
robot had passed horizontal distance, thus the energy amount Dvorak, and M. Gini, "A miniature robotic system for
stored in the springs was more than we predicted. In addition, reconnaissance and surveillance," in ICRA'00. IEEE
the robot jumped with angular velocity of 40 𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠 which International Conference 2000, p. 7.
[4] Q. V. Nguyen and H. C. Park, "Design and Demonstration of a
affected the landing and caused bouncing of the robot after
Locust-Like Jumping Mechanism for Small-Scale Robots,"
impacting the ground. The jump and closed-view operation Journal of Bionic Engineering, vol. 9, pp. 271-281, Sep 2012.
of the robot are shown in the video attachment to this paper. [5] E. Ackerman, "Boston dynamics sand flea robot demonstrates
astonishing jumping skills," IEEE Spectrum Robotics Blog, vol.
VII. DISCUSSION 2, p. 1, 2012.
[6] M. Kaspari and M. D. Weiser, "The size-grain hypothesis and
TAUB's jumping performance is better compared to other interspecific scaling in ants," Functional Ecology, vol. 13, pp.
robots, in a single jump. The posture of the TAUB after 530-538, Aug 1999.
landing is unpredicted, and only if the robot stands firmly on [7] Z. Kai, Y. Junmao, C. Diansheng, and W. Tianmiao, "Design
its legs, the legs can execute sufficient kick and perform the and Kinematics Simulation for Bionic Crank-slider Mechanism
next jump. In addition, the surface from where the jump starts of Jumping Robot," in Intrenational Conference on Robotics and
Biomimetics Guangzhou, China, 2012, p. 6.
needs to be relatively flat, in order to allow firm kicking, and [8] M. Kovac, M. Fuchs, A. Guignard, Z. J.-C., and D. Floreano, "A
without significant obstacles that may prevent the effective miniature 7g jumping robot," presented at the ICRA 2008. IEEE
locking of the latch mechanism. Nonetheless, TAUB's International Conference on, 2008.
jumping performance surpasses existing miniature jumping [9] J. Zhao, N. Xi, B. Gao, M. W. Mutka, and L. Xiao, "Design and
robots (comparison of several such robots can be found in Testing of a Controllable Miniature Jumping Robot," presented
at the The 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
table presented in [10]) by jumping to a height of more than
Intelligent Robots and Systems, Taipei, Taiwan, 2010.
3 𝑚 covering a distance of more than 3 𝑚 as well, in a single [10] J. Zhao, J. Xu, B. T. Gao, N. Xi, F. J. Cintron, M. W. Mutka, et
jump. A quantitative comparison between miniature jumping al., "MSU Jumper: A Single-Motor-Actuated Miniature
robots is presented in TABLE 1. Steerable Jumping Robot," Ieee Transactions on Robotics, vol.
29, pp. 602-614, Jun 2013.
TABLE I. Comparison between recent miniature jumping robots [11] J. Zhao, W. Yan, N. Xi, M. W. Mutka, and L. Xiao, "A
Miniature 25 Grams Running and Jumping Robot," presented at
Robot (year) Weight Jumping height Onboard energy & the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics &
(gr) (cm) control
Automation (ICRA), Hong Kong, China, 2014.
Miniature 25 grams [11] 25 143 yes
(2014) [12] J. Zhang, G. Song, G. Qiao, Z. Li, W. Wang, and A. Song, "A
Flea-Inspired [15] 1.104 64 no Novel One-Motor Driven Robot that Jumps and Walks,"
(2012) presented at the International Conference on Robotics and
7 g jumping robot [8] 7 138 yes Automation (ICRA), Karlsruhe, Germany, 2013.
(2008) [13] H. Bennet-Clark, "The energetics of the jump of the locust
7 g locust-inspired[4] 7 71 no Schistocerca gregaria," Journal of Experimental Biology, vol.
(2012)
63, p. 21, 1975.
Miniature Jumping 54.1 20 yes
Robot (2010) [9]
[14] W. Heitler, "The locust jump," Journal of comparative
Jump & walk robot 52 33 no physiology, vol. 89, p. 10, 1974.
(2014) [12] [15] M. Noh, S. W. Kim, S. An, J. S. Koh, and K. J. Cho, "Flea-
MSU Jumper (2013) 23.5 87 yes Inspired Catapult Mechanism for Miniature Jumping Robots,"
[10] Ieee Transactions on Robotics, vol. 28, pp. 1007-1018, Oct
TAUB (2015) 22.6 310 yes 2012.

558