27.12.2012 Views

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

second derivatives ( ) of .<br />

Joint torques ( ) were computed by a top-bottom process based on iterative Newton-<br />

Euler equations (Luh et al, 1980) in which inertial parameters were provided by tables<br />

from de Leva (1996). Numerical optimizations were computed during the knee flexion<br />

phase of the movement. We specified fifty-one connecting points to compute the<br />

quantic splines.<br />

4. RESULTS<br />

Horizontal and vertical measured ground reaction forces were compared with those<br />

computed by classical top-down inverse dynamics and optimal inverse dynamic<br />

approaches (see Fig. 2). Large differences were observed between measured forces and<br />

forces computed using classical inverse dynamic equations. The maximal plot deviation<br />

was larger than 50N. In contrast, forces computed using dynamic optimization showed<br />

similar patterns for each of the fifty-one connecting points compared with the measured<br />

forces. The unknown joint accelerations were perfectly adjusted to match the discrete<br />

force plate measurements. As a result, the residual force was not observed while using<br />

our dynamic optimization approach.<br />

Fig. 2: Horizontal (left) and vertical (right) ground reaction forces measured by the force plate (continuous<br />

black lines) and computed using classical top-bottom inverse dynamics (red dotted lines) and optimal inverse<br />

dynamics (black dots) approaches.<br />

Optimal joint accelerations and joint torques showed smoother patterns compared with<br />

those computed with the classical method (see Fig. 3). Joint acceleration values were<br />

underestimated by the classical method. As an example, the knee acceleration amplitude<br />

was 60% larger while it was computed using our optimization approach (see Tab. 1).<br />

Table 1: Amplitude of the joint accelerations and joint torques computed using classical top-bottom inverse<br />

dynamics and optimal inverse dynamics approaches.<br />

Classical approach Optimal approach<br />

Joint acceleration amplitude (rad.s -2 )<br />

Hip 4.56 4.9<br />

Knee 5.6 9.16<br />

Ankle<br />

Joint torques amplitude (N.m)<br />

7.6 8.4<br />

Hip 110 98<br />

Knee 115 110<br />

Ankle 93 47

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!