Feedback Regularization and Geometric PID Control for Robust
Stabilization of a Planar Three-link Hybrid Bipedal Walking Model

arXiv:1710.02066v1 [] 5 Oct 2017

W.M.L.T.Weerakoon1, T. W. U. Madhushani2, D.H.S.Maithripala3 and J.M.Berg4
Abstract— This paper applies a recently developed
geometric PID controller to stabilize a three-link planar
bipedal hybrid dynamic walking model. The three links
represent the robot torso and two kneeless legs, with an
independent control torque available at each hip joint. The
geometric PID controller is derived for fully actuated
mechanical systems, however in the swing phase the
three-link biped robot has three degrees of freedom and only
two controls. Following the bipedal walking literature,
underactuation is addressed by choosing two “virtual
constraints” to enforce, and verifying the stability of the
resulting two-dimensional zero dynamics. The resulting
controlled dynamics do not have the structure of a mechanical
system, however this structure is restored using “feedback
regularization,” following which geometric PID control is used
to provide robust asymptotic regulation of the virtual
constraints. The proposed method can tolerate significantly
greater variations in inclination, showing the value of the
geometric methods, and the benefit of integral action.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Insight into bipedal walking may be gained through the
study of the simple three-link planar model shown in Fig.
1, consisting of a torso and two straight, unjointed, legs
[1], [2], [3]. Each leg is connected to the torso at a hip
joint, and each leg is actuated by an independent hip
moment. The free end of each leg is referred to as a foot.
A walking gait alternates between a stance phase, in which
both feet are on the ground, and a swing phase, in which
the foot of the support leg is in contact with the ground,
and the foot of the swing leg is not in contact with the
ground. The stance phase is assumed to be instantaneous,
and is associated with impulsive momentum transfer
between the links as the swing leg impacts the ground and
becomes the support leg [3], [4]. The impact dynamics
associated with the stance phase are discrete, while the
rigid-body dynamics associated with the swing phase are
continuous. Thus the complete description combining both
phases is a hybrid model. This model requires certain
non-physical assumptions, such as neglect of “scuffing” –
that is, incidental contact between the swing foot and the
ground during the swing phase. Other assumptions include
that the support foot may rotate freely, but cannot slip.
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Peradeniya, KY
20400, Sri Lanka. Lasithaweera@eng.pdn.ac.lk
2 Postgraduate and Research Unit, Sri Lanka Technological Campus, CO
10500, Sri Lanka. udarim@sltc.lk
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Peradeniya, KY
20400, Sri Lanka. smaithri@pdn.ac.lk
4 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas Tech University, TX
79409, USA. jordan.berg@ttu.edu

The three-link hybrid model is used in [4] to analyze the
stability of planar walking gaits under a certain class of
control laws. In this paper the approach of [4] is used to
analyze the stability of an alternate class of control laws. In
[4], the desired walking gait is parametrized using the
stance leg angle q1 , which is assumed to increase
monotonically in time. That is, the desired swing leg angle
is written as q2,d = η2 (q1 ) and the desired torso angle is
written as q3,d = η3 (q1 ). Then an output function is defined
as y(q) = [q2 − η2 (q1 ), q3 − η3 (q1 )]T , and the equation
y(q) = [0, 0]T defines the output zeroing manifold. Finally,
a switching hypersurface is defined by S(q) = 0. A
fundamental assumption is that system trajectories intersect
the switching surface, S, transversely. When the trajectory
crosses the switching surface, the swing leg is assumed to
have contacted the ground, and the old stance leg becomes
the new swing leg. A discrete-time stability analysis can be
carried out using the switching surface as a Poincare
section. In [4], partial-feedback linearization (PFL)
followed by a nonlinear finite-time feedback law is used to
guarantee finite-time convergence of the output function to
zero. That is, the system trajectories converge to the output
zeroing manifold in finite time, and remain on that
manifold for the remainder of the swing phase. The
convergence time is chosen so that the system trajectory
converges to the output zeroing manifold before crossing

Fig. 1. Planar three link biped walker on an inclined plane with lumped
masses. The robot consists of a torso and two equal length legs connected
to the torso at the hip. A control moment is applied at the hip joint between
each leg and the torso.

the switching surface, so that the Poincare section can be
taken as the intersection of the switching surface and the
output zeroing manifold. This significantly simplifies their
stability analysis.
Different methods incorporating feedback linearization
have been used extensively to control biped robots on a flat
perfectly horizontal ground [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] as
well as on rough terrain [10], [11], [12]. Decentralized
control methods have been used in [13] for stabilization of
periodic orbits in walking gaits. Human inspired techniques
as well as bionic methods also have been experimented in
[14], [15], [16], [17] to achieve stable periodic gaits.
For the current paper, feedback regularization and
geometric PID control take the place of partial-feedback
linearization and finite-time control. This approach to
exponential tracking for underactuated mechanical systems
was introduced in [18], [19] and a feedback regularization
based geometric PD control for a class planar of three link
was tested in [20]. Geometric PID control as presented in
[21], [22], [23] provides a powerful and intuitive robust
control design method for fully actuated mechanical
systems. To apply this method to underactuated systems,
the configuration variables are replaced by a number of
output functions equal to the number of controls. This
takes care of the underactuation, however the coordinate
change typically destroys the mechanical system structure.
Then feedback is used to recover the form of a mechanical
system – this is the process of feedback regularization.
Now a geometric PID control may be designed. The
resulting closed-loop system is stable if the zero dynamics
resulting from the output functions are stable.
Use of feedback regularization plus geometric PID
guarantees asymptotic convergence of trajectories to the
output zeroing manifold, but the trajectories do not actually
reach the manifold in finite time. However we show that
given any small neighborhood, Zδ , of the zerodynamic
manifold, Z, there exists PID controller gains that
guarantee that if you start in Zδ then you will repeatedly
return to this neighborhood. The underlying motivation for
using this controller is that the robustness provided by the
PID control – particularly the integral action – will result
in a larger region of attraction for the walking gait. Note
that while the planar three-link biped model is simple, it
provides a valuable test bed to demonstrate the robust
properties of the proposed control framework.
Section II presents the hybrid dynamical model used in
[4] for the three-link planar biped model shown in Figure
1. For convenience, and validity of comparison, we use the
same output function as [4]. Section III derives the
feedback regularization and geometric PID controller for
this model, and analyzes the stability of the resulting gaits.
Section IV present simulation results for the proposed
controller on planes with various unknown, but constant,
inclination, and in the presence of substantial parameter
variations showing that the geometric control approach, and
that the use of integral action provides an important degree
of robustness. We consider both uphill and downhill

motion.
II. B IPED ROBOT DYNAMICS
In this section we briefly discuss the mathematical model
of the planar three-link biped robot on an inclined plane of
unknown inclination λ. The model was originally
introduced in [4] and serves as the initial test bed for
control algorithms for a class of biped robots that are
characterized by dynamic stability [4]. As shown in Fig 1
the masses of the links are lumped. The mass of each leg
is denoted by m, the mass of the torso at the hip joint end
is denoted by MH and the mass of the torso at the other
end is denoted by MT . The coordinates q , (q1 , q2 , q3 ) as
indicated in Fig 1 are used to prescribe the configuration of
the robot and we refer the reader to [4] for a detailed
analogous derivation of the mathematical model for a
three-link biped robot on a flat surface.
The motor torques u = [u1 , u2 ]T will be applied between
the torso and the two legs; u1 and u2 are the torques
associated with the stance leg and the non stance leg
respectively. Typically, the dynamics of a biped robot fall
into two distinct phases, the single stance (swing phase)
and the double stance (impact phase) and thus the complete
dynamic behavior of the biped is a hybrid of these two
phases [3], [4].
During the swing pahse, one of the robot’s legs is
implanted on the ground and the other leg is swinging. The
dynamics of the system during this phase is described by
the Euler Lagrange equations,
I∇q̇ q̇ = G + B u

(1)

where ∇q̇ q̇ is the Levi-civita connection associated with the
mass-inertia tensor I that is given by,


4MH r 2 +4MT r 2
+5mr 2




I(q) = 
−



−

mr 2 cos(q1 −q2 )

4
mr 2 cos(q1 −q2 )

2
mr 2

2

4

MT lr cos(q1 −q3 )

MT lr cos(q1 −q3 ) 
0
M T l2

0

the gravitation interactions,

G=











gr(2MH +2MT +3m) sin(q1 −λ)
2


gmr sin(q2 −λ)


−


2
MT gl sin(q3 −λ)

and input matrix,

−1

B= 0
1


0

−1 .
1

The explicit expression for I∇q̇ q̇ in terms of the
coordinates q , (q1 , q2 , q3 )T is provided in equation-(17)
of the appendix for easy reference. We also refer the reader
to the excellent texts [24], [25], [26] for supplementary
material on mechanical systems on Riemannian manifolds.

Letting x , (q, q̇) ∈ X we will denote the state space
representation of the swing phase as,
ẋ = f (x) + g(x) u,

(2)

where f (x) and g(x) are found using (1).
The impact phase is the phase during the infinitesimally
small time when both the legs will be on the ground. It
happens when the swing leg comes and strikes the ground
with the assumption of no slip and no rebound conditions.
At the end of the double stance case the robot will move on
to the single stance again and this periodic cycle is known
as a walking gait. Therefore at the end of the double stance
phase, the labelling of the two legs must interchange, and
hence one must switch the legs, relabelling the stance leg as
the swing leg and the swing leg as the stance leg. A complete
derivation of the impact model is found in [4] and it is used
to derive the reset map for the new step. Taking x− as the
instance just prior to the impact and x+ as the instance just
after the impact, the reset map [4] can be stated as,
x+ = ∆(x− )

(3)

An overview of the reset map is provided in section-B of the
the Appendix for completeness.
The walking gait is a combination of the above
mentioned swing phase and the impact phase. This
combination is referred to as the hybrid model of walking
and can be stated as,
X

:=

(

ẋ = f (x) + g(x) u

; x− ∈
/S

x+ = ∆(x− )

; x− ∈ S

(4)

function for our planar three-link biped robot to be,
qe = (q1 + q2 , q3 − q3ref )T ∈ Ge = S × S where q3ref is a
constant. Notice that the state space X is now
diffeomorphic to T Ge × T S with local coordinates
x = (qe , q̇e , q1 , q̇1 ). The zerodynamics of the system then
evolve on Z , {(0, 0)} × T S ≡ T S.
In this section we will develop a nonlinear controller that
will exponentially stabilize the output during the swing
phase and show that this is sufficient to robustly achieve an
asymptotically stable periodic gait under the Assumption 1.
The controller is based on the notion of feedback
regularization control plus intrinsic PID control introduced
in [18], [19], [22].
From (1) we see that the dynamic model of the biped robot
can be written down in the coupled form:
Ie ω̇e + τe (ωe , ω1 ) + τge = τue
Iz ω̇1 + τz (ω1 , ωe ) +

A

(7)

Ie (qs ) =
Iz (qs ) =



l2 (4 MH +2 MT (1−cosα)
+m(3−2 cos β) )


r2
4

0

0
r 2 (4 MH +2 MT (1−cosα)
+m(3−2 cos β) )




(4 MH +2 MT +3 m−2 MT cos(α)−2 m cos(β))

with α , 2(q1 − q3ref − qe1 ), β , 2(2q1 − qe2 ) and qs ≡
(α, β), and the control inputs,
τue =Be u
τuz =

(5)

with q1ref being a preset constant angle for this work.
When the tracking error is identically equal to zero, the
switching surface (5) indicates the instance when the swing
leg reaches the ground. If the tracking error is not zero
then when the trajectories cross S then either the swing leg
may not have reached the ground or leg scuffing may occur
as 0 < |q2 + q1 | ≤ δ for some δ > 0. Specifically we
assume the following;
Assumption 1: When δ is sufficiently small there exists a
mechanism to initiate contact with the walking surface or
avoid leg scuffing without affecting the impact map.
Thus in effect assuming that it is enough to reach
sufficiently close to the zerodynamics manifold in order to
complete the step.
III. S TABILIZATION OF

=

(6)

τuz

where q̇1 = ω1 and,

where S is the switching surface defined as,
S := {(q, q̇) ∈ X | q1 = q1ref },

τgz

P ERIODIC G AIT

The simplest way to idealize walking is to achieve
posture control and swing leg advancement. It is shown in
[4], [6] that an input-output linearization based finite time
stabilizing controller is sufficient to achieve an
asymptotically stable periodic gait for the class of bipeds
used in this work. Following [4] we select the output

− rl cos( α
2 )−1

r
α
−2 cos( β
2 )− l cos( 2 )

where,
Be 11 = 4MH +3m−2m cos(β) + 4
MT





u

r+l cos( α )
2
r

4 r+l cos(
cos(β)
Be12 = 4MH +3m−2m
+
MT


Be21 = − 4 l+r cos( α2 ) 2 cos( β2 )+1



α+β
α−β
)+l cos(
)
2
2
r

l

Be22 =



β
4 4MH +2MT +5m−2MT cos(α)+2m cos( )
2
−
m
α−β
α+β
4 r cos( α )+r cos(
)+r cos
2
2
2
−
l



Let ωs , q̇s = (α̇, β̇). The quadratic velocity dependent
forces τe (ωe , ω1 ), τz (ω1 , ωe ) and the gravitational
interaction terms τg e , τg z are provided in equations
(20)–(23) in the Appendix. Here (6) represents the error
dynamics of the system and when the output qe (t) is
restricted to zero (7) represents the zerodynamics of the
system.
Following the feedback regularization approach proposed
in [18], [19] we choose the regularizing plus potential
shaping controls,
τue = τge − I−1
e Γ(ωs )ωe + τ̃ ,

(8)

where




Γ(qs , ωs ) =I−1
e 

MT l2 sin(α)α̇
+ml2 sin(β)β̇
−ml2 sin(β)α̇
+MT r 2 sin(α)β̇



ml2 sin(β)α̇
−MT r 2 sin(α)β̇ 

MT r 2 sin(α)α̇
+mr 2 sin(β)β̇



to give the error dynamics (6) the structure of a simple
mechanical system on the Lie group Ge = S × S:
Ie (qs )∇eωs ωe =τ̃u + τd

(9)

where ∇eωs ωe is the unique Levi-Civita connection associated
with the inertia tensor Ie that is explicitly given by,
∇eωs ωe = ω̇e + Γ(ωs )ωe .

(10)

The term τd is introduced here to represent any moments
due to unmodelled disturbances, parameter uncertainties,
and the effects due to the lack of accurate information of
the inclination plane. This structure allows us to use the
intrinsic PID controller proposed in [22] to ensure that the
error dynamics converge to zero exponentially, provided
that the zerodynamics of the system remains bounded. This
PID controller takes the form,
τ̃u = −Is (kp ηe + kd ωe + kI ωI )
Ie (qs )∇eωs ωI = Ie ηe

(11)
(12)

∇eωs ωI = ω̇I + Γ(ωs )ωI ,


sin q3 − q3 ref
Ie ηe =
.
sin(q1 + q2 )

(13)

where,

(14)

Notice that the controller does not require the knowledge
of the inclination of the plane. However, it can be shown
that
the
system
parameters
should
satisfy,
sin(q3ref −λ)
(MT +MH +m)r
≥
for
static
stability.
Hence,
it
sin(λ)
MT l
should be noted that the selection of the desired torso angle
q3ref is not arbitrary for a particular range of inclinations.
Considering the unique Levi-Civita connection of Iz (θz )
that is explicitly given by
Iz (θ1 )∇zω1 ω1 = Iz (θ1 )ω̇1 − MT rl sin(θ1 )ω12 ,
we see that the dynamics (7) also have the mechanical system
structure:
Iz (θ1 )∇zω1 ω1 = −τgz − τz (ωe , ω1 ).

(15)

The gravitational interaction term τgz and the quadratic
velocity term τz (ωe , ω1 ) satisfy the conditions specified in
Assumption 1 of [18] and hence from Theorem 1 of [18]
we have that during the swing phase for any initial
condition set Xe0 × Z 0 ⊂ T Ge × Z there exists PID
controller gains for the controller (11) – (12) such that
limt→∞ (ηe (t), q̇e (t)) = (0, 0) ∈ T Ge exponentially while
ensuring that |q̇1 (t)| remains bounded even in the presence
of bounded parameter uncertainty. Using this result we
prove following theorem in the appendix.

Theorem 1: Given any small δ > 0 there exists PID
controller gains for the controller (11) – (12) such that the
trajectories of the closed loop system (1) satisfies
x(t−
k ) ∈ Zδ , where
p
(16)
Zδ = {(qe , q˙e ) ∈ X | ||ηe ||2 + ||q̇e ||2 ≤ δ},

−
for some increasing sequence of time steps t−
0 < t1 < · · · <
−
tk < · · · .
We point out that Z ⊂ Zδ and that Zδ is a small δneighborhood of the zerodynamics manifold Z. Thus what
this theorem implies is that if the biped robot starts with an
initial condition that is close to Z then the trajectories of
the closed-loop system visit this neighborhood during every
step of the robot. In the following we will show numerically
that these repeated trajectories converge asymptotically to a
periodic orbit. Thus ensuring the asymptotic stabilization of
a walking gait.

IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this section we present the simulation results for the
proposed feedback regularization and geometric PID
controller for the planar three-link biped robot walking on
an inclined plane. The nominal parameters of the robot
used in this work are m = 1kg, MT = 3kg, MH = 1kg,
l = 0.75m and r = 1m which assumes a planar three link
biped carrying a substantial load on its torso. The
maximum inclination of the plane for equilibrium for these
parameters is λmax = 26.7◦ . Thus for the simulations we
use an inclination of λ = 25◦ . The switching surface for all
the simulations were set at q1ref = 15◦ and for all the
simulations we have picked δ = 1.5 × 10−3 . The controller
gains we use are Kp = 1500, Kd = 1250 and KI = 120.
The existence of a periodic orbit, with the trajectory
projected on (q1 , q˙1 , q̇3 ), and the step times are shown in
Fig. 2 which clearly illustrates the convergence of the
trajectory to a periodic orbit. The desired torso angle was
set at q3ref = 105◦ for this simulation. We also show the
robustness of the periodic orbit to parameter uncertainties
as large as 50% in Fig. 3. The output error tracking for the
torso and leg angles for this case are shown in Fig. 4 and it
clearly shows that there exists a periodic orbit that reaches
Zδ at the end of each step.
We re-iterate that the accurate information of the
inclination angle is not required in the controller and we
demonstrate it in Fig. 5 for uphill climbing and Fig. 6 for
downhill descent. The simulation shows that even if the
actual inclined angle is different from the angle set in the
controller the asymptotically stable periodic orbit still exists
even in the presence of large parameter uncertainties. The
simulation also shows that the controller is applicable for
uphill as well as downhill walking.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper we propose a novel control strategy to
obtain an asymptotically stable periodic gait for a class of
under actuated planar biped robots. We have used the
intrinsic notion of feedback regularization plus geometric

112.5

0.58

Torso angle (q3 ) without parameter variations
Torso angle (q3 ) with 50% parameter variations
Desired torso angle (q 3ref )

112

0.57
111.5

Angle (deg)

Time per step (sec)

0.59

0.56
0.55
0.54

111

110.5

0.53
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

110

20

Step Number
109.5
0

a) Step time

5

15

Time (sec)

a) Variation of torso angle with time

×10 -3
-0.8

×10

-3

6

-1

q˙3

q1 + q2 (rad)

-1.2
-1.4
-1.6

without parameter variations
with 50% parameter variations

4

2

0

-1.8
1.4

-2

1.2
1

q˙1

0.8

-0.3

-0.1

-0.2

0.1

0

0.3

0.2

0

5

Fig. 2. Simulation of 20 steps for initial conditions that begin in Zδ with
q̇1 = 1.168rad/s. This shows that the periodic orbit that gives rise from
Zδ converges asymptotically to a closed orbit and has a stable periodic gait
with a step time of 0.56 s. The circle in b) indicates the initial point.

Fig. 4. Simulation of 30 steps which is initialized with pre-impact x− (0) =
(11.25◦ , −15◦ , 112◦ , 1.3 rad/s, −1.4 rad/s, 0). The desired torso angle
was set to 110◦ . This illustrates the robustness of the controller to the
parameter variations and it is seen that the output will visit Zδ repeatedly;
hence asymptotically stable periodic gait.

Time per step (sec)

0.58

without parameter variations
with 50% parameter variations

0.54

15

b) Variation of (q1 + q2 ) with time

q1

0.56

10

Time (sec)

b) Trajectory projected onto (q1 , q˙1 , q˙3 )

Time per step (sec)

10

0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46

0.5

inclination of 25◦
inclination of 20◦
inclination of 15◦

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.44

0.1

0.42
0

5

10

15

20

25

0

30

5

10

15

20

25

Step Number

30

Step Number

a) Step time

a) Step time
inclination
inclination
inclination
initializing

with 50% parameter variations
without any parameter variations
initializing point

of 25◦
of 20◦
of 15◦
point

0

q˙3

q˙3

0

-0.02

-0.02

-0.04

-0.04

0.3

3
0.2

2.5

1.4
0.3

q˙1

0.2

1.2

0.1
0
-0.1

1

-0.2

q1

-0.3

b) Trajectory projected onto (q1 , q˙1 , q˙3 )
Fig. 3. Simulation of 30 steps with and without parameter variations
climbing up a plane with an inclination of λ = 25◦ initialized with a preimpact x− (0) = (11.25◦ , −15◦ , 112◦ , 1.3 rad/s, −1.4 rad/s, 0) and the
desired torso angle set to 110◦ .

0.1
2

0
1.5

q˙1

-0.1
1

-0.2
0.5

-0.3

q1

b) Trajectory projected onto (q1 , q˙1 , q˙3 )
Fig. 5. Simulation for 30 steps for different inclinations of the plane, in the
presence of parameter uncertainties as large as 50%, initialized with preimpact x− (0) = (11.25◦ , −15◦ , 112◦ , 1.3 rad/s, −1.4 rad/s, 0). The
controller was set assuming the inclination λ = 25◦ and desired torso
angle was set to 110◦ .

B. The reset map
The dynamic equation for the double stance model [4] is
as follows;

Time per step (sec)

0.3

15◦ slope
20◦ slope
10◦ slope

0.25

0.2

Dds (qds )q¨ds + Cds (qds , qds
˙ )qds
˙ + Gds = Bds u + δFext

0.15

where the explicit expressions for Dds (qds ), Cds (qds , qds
˙ ),
Gds and Bds can be found in the Appendix of [4].
The coordinate system for this case is taken to be
qds = [q; ph ], where ph = [pxhip ; pyhip ] are the Cartesian
coordinates of the hip. Here the δFext represents the
impact force due to the striking of the non-stance leg on
the ground. The impulsive contact force can be found as,
R t+
Fext = t− δFext dt.
At the instance just before the foot strike, let qds
˙ − be the
velocities and it is obtained from the single stance model.
At this instance, the hip position p−
h = γds (q) can be found
using the body angle coordinates. The reaction force is at
the end of the non-stance leg p2 (qds ). The impact map,

0.1
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Step Number

a) Step time

15◦ slope
20◦ slope
10◦ slope
initial point

0

q˙3

-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
4.5

0.3
0.2

4

0.1
0

3.5

-0.1

3

-0.2

q˙1

2.5

-0.3

(18)

q1

x+ = ∆(x− )

b) Trajectory projected onto (q1 , q˙1 , q˙3 )
Fig. 6. Simulation for 30 steps for different downhill slopes of the plane,
in the presence of parameter uncertainties as large as 50%, initialized with
pre-impact x− (0) = (12.85◦ , −11.25◦ , 2◦ , 4 rad/s, −3.9 rad/s, 0). The
controller was set assuming the inclination λ = −15◦ (15◦ slope) and
desired torso angle was set to 0◦ .

(19)

where,

−
∆
q
q


∆(x− ) = 

− −
∆q̇ (q )q̇


∆q = R
h
∆˙(q − ) = R

PID control to ensure the robust existence of an
asymptotically stable periodic orbit that can be made to
approach the output zerodynamic manifold arbitrarily
closely by picking sufficiently large gains. In particular it
allows the robot to move up or down and inclined plane of
unknown inclination. The controller does not require finite
time stability. Since the notions developed are geometric
and does not depend on coordinates it is expected that
these ideas will equally be valid in the case of a more
realistic five-link or seven-linked biped robot model and
remains as future work.

¯ q˙
∆
ds

∆F 2

i
¯ q ˙ (q − )
03×2 ∆
ds


I
 3×3 
−1 ′
= Dds
E 2 ∆F 2 + 

∂
γ
ds
∂q


I
 3×3 
−1 ′ −1
= −(E2 Dds
E2 ) E2 

∂
γ
∂q ds

E2 (qds ) =

∂
p2 (qds )
∂qds

Here,

A PPENDIX
A. Levi-Civita Connection of the three-linked biped robot
The unique Levi-Civita connection corresponding to the
inertia tensor I that corresponds to the Euler-Lagrange
dynamics during the swing phase is explicitly computed to
be,
I∇q̇ q̇ = Iq̈ + Γ(q, q̇)q̇

(17)

where the non zero elements of Γ(q, q̇) the connection
matrix are given by,
mr 2 sin(q1 − q2 )q˙2
2
= MT lr sin(q1 − q3 )q˙3

Γ(q, q̇)12 = −
Γ(q, q̇)13

mr 2 sin(q1 − q2 )q˙1
2
= −MT lr sin(q1 − q3 )q˙1 .

Γ(q, q̇)21 =
Γ(q, q̇)31



0
R = 1
0

1
0
0


0
0
1

C. Decoupled Dynamic Model
Explicit expressions for the quadratic velocity forces and
gravitational forces for the decoupled systems (6)–(7) are,


 −l (4M q̇2 r+mω2 r+3mq̇2 r) sin( α )+2mq̇2 r sin(β− α ) 
H 1
1

1
e2
2
2 


2
+(mq̇12 r−2mωe2 q̇1 r) sin( α−β


2 )+2MT lωe1 sin(α)



α+β
2
2
+(2mωe2 q̇1 r−mωe2 r−mq̇1 r) sin( 2 )



τe = 



α−β
α+β
2


4MT lr sin( α
)+sin(
)+sin(
)
ω
e1
2
2
2


 +r2 (8MH q̇2 +4MT q̇2 −2mω2 +8mq̇2 +4mωe q̇1 ) sin( β ) 
1
1
1
e2
2 
2



+(4mωe2 q̇1 −2mωe22 ) sin(β)+2MT q̇12 sin(α)

β
+4MT q̇12 sin(α− 2 )

(20)

2

τz =

2
r
MT lr sin( α
2 )ωe1 + 2

−(mωe22 −mq̇12 +2mωe2 q̇1 ) sin( β
2)

+mq̇12 sin(β)+MT q̇12 sin(α)





(21)





gl 2(MH +MT +m) sin(q1 + α


2 −λ)
 −m sin(q1 + α −β−λ)+m sin(q1 − α +β−λ) 
2
2





−(2MH +2MT +m) sin(q1 − α
2 −λ)


e


τg = 

 −2gr (MT +MT ) sin(α−q1 −λ)+m sin(β−q1 −λ) 
β


+(2MH +MT +3m) sin(q1 + 2 −λ)


+(2MH +MT +2m) sin(q1 −λ)


β


−2(MH +MT +m) sin(q1 − 2 −λ)

β

(22)

+MT sin(q1 +α− 2 −λ)

τgz =

− gr
2

(2MH +MT +2m) sin(q1 −λ)+MT sin(α−q1 −λ)
+m sin(β−q1 −λ)



(23)

D. Proof of Theorem-1
Proof of Theorem 1: Consider
the
compact
set
X 0 , Xe0 × Z 0 ⊂ X there exists a positive definite
function We : T Ge → R with a unique minimum at the
origin such that during the swing phase
We (t) ≤ ϑe−κt ,
for all x+ ∈ X 0 , Xe0 × Z 0 for some ϑ, κ > 0 while
ensuring that |q̇1 (t)| ≤ ξ for some ξ > 0. Since q̇1 not zero
we find that q1 (t) reaches the switching surface S ⊂ Z at
+
some time t−
k+1 > tk .
t−

Consider the k th step of the robot and let Wek be the
−
t−
largest set such that Wek ⊂ We−1 (ϑe−κtk ). Thus we see
t+

t−

k
that x(t−
, Wek × {q1 ref } × [−ξ, ξ] for any
k ) ∈ We
+
−
0
0
x(tk ) ∈ X . Now if x(t−
k+1 ) = ∆(x(tk )) ∈ X then in the

t+

t+

k+1
next step x(t−
⊂ Wek . Thus we see that the
k+1 ) ∈ We

t+

trajectories of the closed-loop switched system visit We1 at
the
increasing
sequence
of
time
steps
−
−
t−
<
t
<
·
·
·
<
t
<
·
·
·
.
0
1
k
This set can be made arbitrarily small by picking
sufficiently large gains for the PID controller and/or by
making X 0 sufficiently small. Thus for any given δ > 0 we
can pick either the gains sufficiently large or the initial
condition set sufficiently small such that for any small
t+
δ > 0, We1 ⊂ Zδ . Now it is clear that if X0 ⊂ ∆(Zδ ) then
the trajectories visit Zδ at the end of every swing phase of
the robot.
R EFERENCES
[1] T. McGeer, “Dynamics and control of bipedal locomotion,” Journal
of Theoretical Biology, vol. 163, no. 3, pp. 277 – 314, 1993.
[2] T.McGeer, “Passive dynamic walking,” The International Journal of
Robotics Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 62–82, 1990.
[3] E. Westervelt, J. Grizzle, C. Chevallereau, J. Choi, and B. Morris,
Feedback Control of Dynamic Bipedal Robot Locomotion, ser.
Automation and Control Engineering. CRC Press, 2007.
[4] J. W. Grizzle, G. Abba, and F. Plestan, “Asymptotically stable walking
for biped robots: analysis via systems with impulse effects,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 51–64, Jan
2001.
[5] K. A. Hamed, B. G. Buss, and J. W. Grizzle, “Exponentially stabilizing
continuous-time controllers for periodic orbits of hybrid systems:
Application to bipedal locomotion with ground height variations,” The
International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 977–
999, 2016.

[6] 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, Jan 2003.
[7] J. H. Choi and J. W. Grizzle, “Feedback control of an underactuated
planar bipedal robot with impulsive foot action,” Robotica, vol. 23,
no. 5, pp. 567–580, Sep. 2005.
[8] A. D. Ames, P. Tabuada, A. Jones, W.-L. Ma, M. Rungger,
B. Schürmann, S. Kolathaya, and J. W. Grizzle, “First steps toward
formal controller synthesis for bipedal robots with experimental
implementation,” Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, 2017.
[9] T. T. Lee, “Trajectory planning and control of a 3-link biped robot,”
in Proceedings. 1988 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, Apr 1988, pp. 820–823 vol.2.
[10] H. Dai and R. Tedrake, “L2-gain optimization for robust bipedal
walking on unknown terrain,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, May 2013, pp. 3116–3123.
[11] Q. Nguyen, X. Da, W. Martin, H. Geyer, J. W. Grizzle, and
K. Sreenath, “Dynamic walking on randomly-varying discrete terrain
with one-step preview,” in Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), in
review, 2017.
[12] Q. Nguyen, A. Hereid, J. W. Grizzle, A. D. Ames, and K. Sreenath, “3d
dynamic walking on stepping stones with control barrier functions,”
in 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Dec
2016, pp. 827–834.
[13] K. A. Hamed and R. D. Gregg, “Decentralized feedback controllers for
robust stabilization of periodic orbits of hybrid systems: Application to
bipedal walking,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology,
vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1153–1167, July 2017.
[14] M. H. Raibert, Legged robots that balance. MIT press, 1986.
[15] S. N. Yadukumar, M. Pasupuleti, and A. D. Ames, From Formal
Methods to Algorithmic Implementation of Human Inspired Control
on Bipedal Robots. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
2013, pp. 511–526.
[16] W. L. Ma, H. H. Zhao, S. Kolathaya, and A. D. Ames, “Humaninspired walking via unified pd and impedance control,” in 2014 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May
2014, pp. 5088–5094.
[17] X. Zhou and S. Bi, “A survey of bio-inspired compliant legged robot
designs,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 041001,
2012.
[18] T. W. U. Madhushani, D. H. S. Maithripala, and J. M. Berg,
“Feedback Regularization and Geometric PID Control for Trajectory
Tracking of Coupled Mechanical Systems: Hoop Robots on an
Inclined Plane,” ArXiv e-prints, Sep. 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160909557M
[19] T. W. U. Madhushani, D. H. S. Maithripala, J. V. Wijayakulasooriya,
and J. M. Berg, “Semi-globally Exponential Trajectory Tracking
for a Class of Spherical Robots,” ArXiv e-prints, Aug. 2016, (Preprint submitted to Automatica on 01/03/2017). [Online]. Available:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160801494M
[20] W. M. L. T. Weerakoon, D. H. S. Maithripala, and J. M. Berg,
“Feedback Regularization Based PD Controller for a Planar Three-link
Biped Robot,” in Proceedings. 12th IEEE International Conference on
Industrial and Information Systems, 2017, accepted to appear.
[21] D. H. S. Maithripala, T. W. U. Madhushani, and J. M. Berg, “A
Geometric PID Control Framework for Mechanical Systems,” ArXiv
e-prints, Oct. 2016.
[22] D. H. S. Maithripala and J. M. Berg, “An intrinsic PID controller for
mechanical systems on Lie groups ,” Automatica, vol. 54, pp. 189 –
200, 2015.
[23] R. Gorez, “Globally stable pid-like control of mechanical systems,”
Systems and Control Letters, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 61 – 72, 1999.
[24] F. Bullo and A. D. Lewis, Geometric Control of Mechanical Systems,
ser. Texts in Applied Mathematics. New York-Heidelberg-Berlin:
Springer Verlag, 2004, vol. 49.
[25] O. Cristinel Stoica, “On Singular Semi-Riemannian Manifolds,” ArXiv
e-prints, May 2011.
[26] L. Godinho and J. Natário, “An introduction to riemannian geometry,”
With Applications, 2012.

