Research Papers

Robust Tracking Control of a Prosthesis Test Robot

[+] Author and Article Information
Hanz Richter

Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Cleveland State University,
Cleveland, OH 44115
e-mail: h.richter@csuohio.edu

Dan Simon

Electrical and Computer Engineering Department,
Cleveland State University,
Cleveland, OH 44115
e-mail: d.j.simon@csuohio.edu

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received February 1, 2013; final manuscript received December 1, 2013; published online February 19, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Won-jong Kim.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 136(3), 031011 (Feb 19, 2014) (12 pages) Paper No: DS-13-1052; doi: 10.1115/1.4026342 History: Received February 01, 2013; Revised December 01, 2013

This paper develops a passivity-based robust motion controller for a robot used in prosthetic leg performance studies. The mathematical model of the robot and passive prosthesis corresponds to a three degree-of-freedom, underactuated rigid manipulator. A form of robotic testing of prostheses involves tracking reference trajectories obtained from human gait studies. The robot presented in this paper emulates hip vertical displacement and thigh swing, and we consider a prosthesis with a passive knee for control development. The control objectives are to track commanded hip displacements and thigh angles accurately, even in the presence of parametric uncertainties and large disturbance forces arising from ground contact during the stance phase. We develop a passivity-based controller suitable for an underactuated system and compare it with a simple independent-joint sliding mode controller (IJ-SMC). This paper describes the mathematical model and nominal parameters, derives the passivity-based controller using Lyapunov techniques and reports success in real-time implementation of both controllers, whose advantages and drawbacks are compared.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Laferrier, J., and Gailey, R., 2010, “Advances in Lower-Limb Prosthetic Technology,” J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. North Am., 21(1), pp. 87–110. [CrossRef]
Bellmann, M., Schmalz, T., and Blumentritt, S., 2010, “Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Current Microprocessor-Controlled Prosthetic Knee Joints,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 91(4), pp. 644–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chin, T., Machida, K., Sawamura, S., Shiba, R., Oyabu, H., Nagakura, Y., Takase, I., and Nakagawa, A., 2006, “Comparison of Different Microprocessor Controlled Knee Joints on the Energy Consumption During Walking in Trans-Femoral Amputees: Intelligent Knee Prosthesis (IP) Versus C-Leg,” Prosthet. Orthot. Int., 30(1), pp. 73–80. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Johansson, J., Sherrill, D. M., Riley, P. O., Bonato, P., and Herr, H., 2005, “A Clinical Comparison of Variable-Damping and Mechanically Passive Prosthetic Knee Devices,” Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 84(8), pp. 563–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Segal, A. D., Orendurff, M. S., Klute, G. K., McDowell, M. L., Pecoraro, J. A., Shofer, J., and Czerniecki, J. M., 2006, “Kinematic and Kinetic Comparisons of Transfemoral Amputee Gait Using C-Leg and Mauch SNS Prosthetic Knees,” J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., 43(7), pp. 857–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Seroussi, R. E., Gitter, A., Czerniecki, J. M., and Weaver, K., 1996, “Mechanical Work Adaptations of Above-Knee Amputee Ambulation,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 77(11), pp. 1209–1214. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
“Biomechatronische Systeme,” 2013, Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation, Orthopaedics and Motion Systems, Stuttgart, retrieved on November 2013, http://ipa.fraunhofer.de/Orthopaedics_and_Motion_Systems.83.0.html?&L=2
“Medical Device Solutions–Services,” 2013, Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute, Neuromusculoskeletal Simulator, retrieved on November 2013, http://mds.clevelandclinic.org/Services/BioRobotics/Services.aspx
Richter, H., Simon, D., Smith, W., and Samorezov, S., 2012, “Dynamic Modeling, Parameter Estimation and Control of a Leg Prosthesis Test Robot,” Appl. Math. Modell. (submitted).
Richter, H., Simon, D., Smith, W. A., and Samorezov, S., 2013, “Dynamic Modeling and Parameter Estimation of a Leg Prosthesis Test Robot,” Laboratory Report, retrieved on November 2013, http://academic.csuohio.edu/richter_h/lab/ccfrobot/
Kwan, C., 1995, “Hybrid Force/Position Control for Manipulators With Motor Dynamics Using a Sliding-Adaptive Approach,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 40(5), pp. 963–968. [CrossRef]
Wren, J., and Kreutz-Delgado, K., 1992, “Motion and Force Control of Multiple Robotic Manipulators,” Automatica, 28(4), pp. 729–743. [CrossRef]
Hogan, N., 1985, “Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation: Part II—Implementation,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, 107(1), pp. 8–16. [CrossRef]
Michael, J., 1999, “Modern Prosthetic Knee Mechanisms,” Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res., 361(47), pp. 39–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
van den Bogert, A., Samorezov, S., Davis, B., and Smith, W., 2012, “Modeling and Optimal Control of an Energy-Storing Prosthetic Knee,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 134(5), p. 051007. [CrossRef]
Spong, M., Hutchinson, S., and Vidyasagar, M., 2006, Robot Modeling and Control, Wiley, New York.
Denavit, J., and Hartenberg, R., 1955, “A Kinematic Notation for Lower-Pair Mechanisms Based on Matrices,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 22(2), pp. 215–221.
Utkin, V., 1992, Sliding Modes in Control Optimization, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Corless, M., and Leitman, G., 1981, “Continuous State Feedback Guaranteeing Uniform Ultimate Boundedness for Uncertain Dynamic Systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 26(5), pp. 1139–1144. [CrossRef]
Edwards, C., and Spurgeon, S., 1998, Sliding Mode Control: Theory and Applications, Taylor and Francis, London.
Slotine, J., and Li, W., 1990, Applied Nonlinear Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Sage, H., DeMathelin, M., and Ostertag, E., 1999, “Robust Control of Robotic Manipulators: A Survey,” Int. J. Control, 72(16), pp. 1498–1522. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Damping cylinder and knee geometry. The indicated direction for q3 is positive (flexion), the opposite is extension. The cylinder has separate adjustment rings for the damping coefficient during flexion and extension.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Denavit–Hartenberg coordinate frame assignments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Machine schematic and overall robot installation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Simulation of the RPBC in motion reference tracking with 50% parameter perturbation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Simulation of IJ-SMC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

RPBC: hip displacement and thigh angle tracking performance and control voltages (off-nominal)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

RPBC: hip displacement and thigh angle tracking performance and control voltages (nominal)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

RPBC: knee angle and vertical ground reaction force (nominal)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

IJ-SMC: knee angle and vertical ground reaction force (nominal)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

IJ-SMC hip displacement and thigh angle tracking performance and control voltages (off-nominal)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

IJ-SMC: hip displacement and thigh angle tracking performance and control voltages (nominal)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Simulation of backlash effects: RPBC versus IJ-SMC




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In