Adaptive Dynamic Programming-Based Control of an Ankle Joint Prosthesis

  • Anh MaiEmail author
  • Sesh Commuri
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 325)


The potential of an adaptive dynamic programming (ADP)-based control strategy for learning the human gait dynamics in real-time and generating control torque for a prosthetic ankle joint is investigated in this paper. This is motivated by the desire for control strategies which can adapt in real-time to any gait variations in a noisy environment while optimizing some gait related performance indices. The overall amputated leg–prosthetic foot system is represented by a link-segment model with the kinematic patterns for the model are derived from human gait data. Then a learning-based control strategy including an ADP-based controller and augmented learning rules is implemented to generate torque which drives the prosthetic ankle joint along the designed kinematic patterns. Numerical results show that with the proposed learning rules, the ADP-based controller is able to maintain stable gait with robust tracking and reduced performance indices in spite of measurement/actuator noises and variations in walking speed. Promising results achieved in this paper serve as the starting point for the development of intelligent ankle prostheses, which is a challenge due to the lack of adequate mathematical models, the variations in the gait in response to the walking terrain, sensor noises and actuator noises, and unknown intent of users.


Adaptive dynamic programming Biomechanics Ankle joint prosthesis Optimization Learning 


  1. 1.
    Versluys, R., Beyl, P., Damme, M.V., Desomer, A., Ham, R.V., Lefeber, D.: Prosthetic feet: state-of-the-art review and the important of mimicking human ankle-foot biomechanics. Disability Rehabil Assistive Technol 4, 65–75 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Hitt, J., Sugar, T., Holgate, M., Bellman, R., Hollander, K.: Robotic transtibial prosthesis with biomechanical energy regeneration. Int. J. Ind. Robot. 36, 441–447 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Versluys, R., Desomer, A., Lenaerts, G., Damme, M.V., Beyl, P., Perre, G.V.d., Peeraer, L., Lefeber, D.: A pneumatically powered below-knee prosthesis: design specifications and first experiments with an amputee. In: 2nd Biennial IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechanics, pp. 372–377. Scottsdale, AZ, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Millard, M., McPhee, J., Kubica, E.: Multi-step forward dynamic gait simulation. Comput. Methods Appl. Sci. 12, 25–43 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peasgood, M., Kubica, E., McPhee, J.: Stabilization of a dynamic walking gait simulation. ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 2, 65–72 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thelen, D.G., Anderson, C.: Using computed muscle control to generate forward dynamic simulations of human walking from experiment data. J. Biomech. 39, 1107–1115 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xiang, Y., Arora, J.S., Abdel-Malek, K.: Physics-based modeling and simulation of human walking: a review of optimization-based and other approaches. Med. Bioeng. Appl. 42, 1–23 (2010)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pejhan, S., Farahmand, F., Parnianpour, M.: Design optimization of an above-knee prosthesis based on the kinematics of gait. In: 30th Annual International IEEE EMBS Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brugger, P., Schemiedmayer, H.-B.: Simulating prosthetic gait—lessons to learn. Proc. Appl. Math. Mech. 3, 64–67 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansen, H.: Scientific methods to determine functional performance of prosthetic ankle-foot systems. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 17, 23–29 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Si, J., Wang, Y.-T.: On-line learning control by association and reinforcement. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 12, 264–276 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu, C., Si, J., Xie, X.: Direct heuristic dynamic programming for damping oscillations in a large power system. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern. 38, 1008–1013 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Enns, R., Si, J.: Helicopter trimming and tracking control using direct neural dynamic programming. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 14, 929–939 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Amirouche, L.: Computational Methods in Multibody Dynamics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winter, A.: Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wojtyra, M.: Multibody simulation model of human walking. Mech. Based Des. Stuct. Mach. 31, 357–379 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bruneau, O., Ouezdou, B.: Compliant contact of walking robot feet. In: 3rd ECPD International Conference on Advanced Robotics, Bremen, Germany (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marhefka, D.W., Orin, D.E.: A compliant contact model with nonlinear damping for simulation of robotic systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 29, 566–572 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lewis, F.L., Jagannathan, S., Yesilderek, A.: Neural network control of robot manipulators and nonlinear systems. Taylor & Francis, London, UK (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Winter, D.A.: The biomechanics and motor control of human gait: normal, elderly and pathological. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations