Advertisement

Sport Sciences for Health

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 381–393 | Cite as

An optimal control solution to the predictive dynamics of cycling

  • Andrea ZignoliEmail author
  • Francesco Biral
  • Barbara Pellegrini
  • Azim Jinha
  • Walter Herzog
  • Federico Schena
Original Article
  • 261 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Pure predictive dynamics aims at predicting the set of driving inputs in the absence of any a priori data and can be applied in movement science to generate biomechanical variables in many different what-if scenarios. The objective of this research was to solve the problem of the predictive dynamics of sub-maximal cycling by means of an optimal control computational algorithm that makes use of an indirect method.

Methods

To this, a 2D two-legged seven bodies three degrees of freedom model of the lower limbs of a cyclist has been developed and validated against the average behaviour of eight well-trained cyclists pedalling at different sub-maximal intensities (100, 220, 300 W) at constant cadence (90 rpm). Experimental data adopted in model validation consists of the hip, knee, ankle joint centre and crank kinematics and the right/left crank torques.

Results

It has been found that the model can replicate the major features of pedalling biomechanics and the ability of a cyclist to deliver a larger torque if a larger power output is required and the cadence is kept constant. The reported mismatches with experimental data get smaller as the power output increases.

Conclusions

It is suggested that: (1) an optimal control based on an indirect method approach can provide a solution to the predictive dynamics of sub-maximal cycling, (2) predictive dynamics adapts accordingly to real data for changes in power output.

Keywords

Cycling biomechanics Optimal control Indirect method Predictive simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prof E. Bertolazzi for the valuable help in developing the most convenient mathematical formulations of the models.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ackermann M, van den Bogert AJ (2010) Optimality principles for model-based prediction of human gait. J Biomech 43:1055–1060CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson DE, Madigan ML, Nussbaum MA (2007) Maximum voluntary joint torque as a function of joint angle and angular velocity: model development and application to the lower limb. J Biomech 40:3105–3113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnold EM, Ward SR, Lieber RL, Delp SL (2010) A model of the lower limb for analysis of human movement. Ann Biomed Eng 38:269–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berret B, Chiovetto E, Nori F, Pozzo T (2011) Evidence for composite cost functions in arm movement planning: an inverse optimal control approach. PLoS Comput Biol 7:e1002183. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002183 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertucci W, Grappe F, Girard A et al (2005) Effects on the crank torque profile when changing pedalling cadence in level ground and uphill road cycling. J Biomech 38:1003–1010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biral F, Bertolazzi E, Bosetti P (2015) Notes on numerical methods for solving optimal control problems. IEEE J Ind Appl 5:154–166Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davy D, Audu M (1987) A dynamic optimization technique for predicting muscle forces in the swing phase of gait. J Biomech 20:187–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Groote F, Kinney AL, Rao AV, Fregly BJ (2016) Evaluation of direct collocation optimal control problem formulations for solving the muscle redundancy problem. Ann Biomed Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10439-016-1591-9 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Leva P (1996) Adjustments to Zatsiorsky–Seluyanov’s segment inertia parameters. J Biomech 29:1223–1230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Pauw K, Roelands B, Cheung SS et al (2013) Guidelines to classify subject groups in sport-science research. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 8:111–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Delp SL, Loan JP, Hoy MG et al (1990) An interactive graphics-based model of the lower extremity to study orthopaedic surgical procedures. Biomed Eng IEEE Trans 37:757–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dorn TW, Wang JM, Hicks JL, Delp SL (2015) Predictive simulation generates human adaptations during loaded and inclined walking. PLoS One 10:e0121407CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Earnest CP, Wharton RP, Church TS, Lucia A (2005) Reliability of the lode excalibur sport ergometer and applicability to computrainer electromagnetically braked cycling training device. J Strength Cond Res 19:344–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erdemir A, McLean S, Herzog W, van den Bogert AJ (2007) Model-based estimation of muscle forces exerted during movements. Clin Biomech 22:131–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erez T, Todorov E (2012) Trajectory optimization for domains with contacts using inverse dynamics. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 4914–4919Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ericson MO, Nisell R, Németh G (1988) Joint motions of the lower limb during ergometer cycling. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 9:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farahani SD, Bertucci W, Andersen MS et al (2015) Prediction of crank torque and pedal angle profiles during pedaling movements by biomechanical optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 51:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fregly BJ, Zajac FE (1996) A state-space analysis of mechanical energy generation, absorption, and transfer during pedaling. J Biomech 29:81–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fregly BJ, Zajac FE, Dairaghi CA (1996) Crank inertial load has little effect on steady-state pedaling coordination. J Biomech 29:1559–1567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gonzalez H, Hull M (1989) Multivariable optimization of cycling biomechanics. J Biomech 22:1151–1161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gregor R, Cavanagh P, LaFortune M (1985) Knee flexor moments during propulsion in cycling: a creative solution to Lombard’s Paradox. J Biomech 18:307–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jorge M, Hull M (1986) Analysis of EMG measurements during bicycle pedalling. J Biomech 19:683–694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaplan ML, Heegaard JH (2001) Predictive algorithms for neuromuscular control of human locomotion. J Biomech 34:1077–1083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kautz S, Hull M (1995) Dynamic optimization analysis for equipment setup problems in endurance cycling. J Biomech 28:1391–1401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kurosawa H, Walker P, Abe S et al (1985) Geometry and motion of the knee for implant and orthotic design. J Biomech 18:487–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leardini A, Cappozzo A, Catani F et al (1999) Validation of a functional method for the estimation of hip joint centre location. J Biomech 32:99–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee L-F, Umberger BR (2016) Generating optimal control simulations of musculoskeletal movement using OpenSim and MATLAB. PeerJ 4:e1638CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lot R, Da Lio M (2004) A symbolic approach for automatic generation of the equations of motion of multibody systems. Multibody Syst Dyn 12:147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marsh AP, Martin PE, Sanderson DJ (2000) Is a joint moment-based cost function associated with preferred cycling cadence? J Biomech 33:173–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mognoni P, Di Prampero PE (2003) Gear, inertial work and road slopes as determinants of biomechanics in cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol 90:372–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mombaur K, Truong A, Laumond J-P (2010) From human to humanoid locomotion—an inverse optimal control approach. Auton Robots 28:369–383. doi: 10.1007/s10514-009-9170-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mullineaux DR, Bartlett RM, Bennett S (2001) Research design and statistics in biomechanics and motor control. J Sports Sci 19:739–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Neptune R, Hull M (1998) Evaluation of performance criteria for simulation of submaximal steady-state cycling using a forward dynamic model. J Biomech Eng 120:334–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Neptune R, Van den Bogert A (1997) Standard mechanical energy analyses do not correlate with muscle work in cycling. J Biomech 31:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Neptune RR, Hull ML (1996) Methods for determining hip movement in seated cycling and their effect on kinematics and kinetics. J Appl Biomech 12:493–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Neumann DA (2013) Kinesiology of the musculoskeletal system: foundations for rehabilitation. Elsevier Health Sciences, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Olney SJ, Winter DA (1985) Predictions of knee and ankle moments of force in walking from EMG and kinematic data. J Biomech 18:9–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pandy MG (2001) Computer modeling and simulation of human movement. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 3:245–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pandy MG, Zajac FE, Sim E, Levine WS (1990) An optimal control model for maximum-height human jumping. J Biomech 23:1185–1198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Patriarco A, Mann R, Simon S, Mansour J (1981) An evaluation of the approaches of optimization models in the prediction of muscle forces during human gait. J Biomech 14:513–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Porsa S, Lin Y-C, Pandy MG (2016) Direct methods for predicting movement biomechanics based upon optimal control theory with implementation in Opensim. Ann Biomed Eng 44(8):2542–2557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raasch CC, Zajac FE (1999) Locomotor strategy for pedaling: muscle groups and biomechanical functions. J Neurophysiol 82:515–525PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Raasch CC, Zajac FE, Ma B, Levine WS (1997) Muscle coordination of maximum-speed pedaling. J Biomech 30:595–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rao AV (2009) A survey of numerical methods for optimal control. Adv Astronaut Sci 135:497–528Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Redfield R, Hull M (1986) Prediction of pedal forces in bicycling using optimization methods. J Biomech 19:523–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reiser M, Meyer T, Kindermann W, Daugs R (2000) Transferability of workload measurements between three different types of ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol 82:245–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ren L, Jones RK, Howard D (2007) Predictive modelling of human walking over a complete gait cycle. J Biomech 40:1567–1574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Riener R, Edrich T (1999) Identification of passive elastic joint moments in the lower extremities. J Biomech 32:539–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sassi A, Rampinini E, Martin DT, Morelli A (2009) Effects of gradient and speed on freely chosen cadence: the key role of crank inertial load. J Biomech 42:171–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schultz G, Mombaur K (2010) Modeling and optimal control of human-like running. IEEEASME Trans Mechatron 15:783–792. doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2009.2035112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Silder A, Whittington B, Heiderscheit B, Thelen DG (2007) Identification of passive elastic joint moment–angle relationships in the lower extremity. J Biomech 40:2628–2635. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.12.017 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tassa Y, Mansard N, Todorov E (2014) Control-limited differential dynamic programming. In: IEEE conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thelen DG, Anderson FC, Delp SL (2003) Generating dynamic simulations of movement using computed muscle control. J Biomech 36:321–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Todorov E (2004) Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nat Neurosci 7:907–915CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Umberger BR, Gerritsen KGM, Martin PE (2006) Muscle fiber type effects on energetically optimal cadences in cycling. J Biomech 39:1472–1479. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.03.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    van den Bogert AJ, Blana D, Heinrich D (2011) Implicit methods for efficient musculoskeletal simulation and optimal control. Proc IUTAM 2:297–316. doi: 10.1016/j.piutam.2011.04.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    van Ingen Schenau G, van Bobbert M, Rozendal R (1987) The unique action of bi-articular muscles in complex movements. J Anat 155:1Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Van Soest AJK, Casius LJR (2000) Which factors determine the optimal pedaling rate in sprint cycling? Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:1927–1934. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200011000-00017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Voigt B, von Kiparski R (1989) The influence of the rotational energy of a flywheel on the load pulse sum during pedalling on a cycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol 58:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Winter EM (2011) “Critical power”: time to abandon. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43:552–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yamaguchi GT (2005) Dynamic modeling of musculoskeletal motion: a vectorized approach for biomechanical analysis in three dimensions. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CeRiSM Research CentreUniversity of VeronaRoveretoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and MovementUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  4. 4.Human Performance Laboratory, Faculty of KinesiologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations