Fuzzy Reduced Order Observer-Controller Design for
Biomechanical Sit-to-Stand Movement
Asif M. Mughal
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Center for Advanced Studies in Engineering
Islamabad, Pakistan
asifm@case.edu.pk
Abstract— Successful execution of the biomechanical sit-to-
stand (STS) task combines a forward thrust phase with an
upward extension phase and stable movement termination. We
have previously developed a fuzzy dynamic model to analyze the
STS task by joining two local linear models, defined at the
equilibrium positions, via Gaussian membership functions. The
local linear models were obtained from a four-segment
biomechanical representation of the human body dynamics in the
sagittal plane. Our fuzzy controller model uses an observer to
reconstruct velocity data from noisy observation of joint
positions. In this study, we propose a reduced order observer
with an optimal controller design for the control of STS task. The
fuzzy optimal controller adjusts feedback and feedforward
components of joint torques, where the latter are derived from a
reference trajectory. Our movement control strategy employing
fuzzy reduced order observer with fuzzy controller leads to
physiologically tractable simulation of the STS movement with
results that are superior to those previously obtained with full
order compensators.
Keywords— Biomechanical Model, sit-to-stand, reduced order
observer, fuzzy compensator
I. INTRODUCTION
The sit-to-stand (STS) movement is a simple example of a
coordination task that combines the musculoskeletal structure
together with the neural control and sensory mechanisms in the
human body. Physiologists generally describe the STS
movement in terms of different phases and regions of motions.
For example, ref [1] divided the STS motion into two main
phases: a forward thrust phase and an extension phase. In the
forward thrust phase lifting off from chair consists of forward
flexion of head-arm-and-trunk (HAT), forward and upwards
motion of a lower limb, accompanied by maximum flexion and
dorsiflexion of hip and ankle joints, respectively. Extension of
hip and knee joints and plantar flexion of the ankle joint finally
stabilizes the body in an upright position. Ref [2] described the
determinants and different parameters of sit to stand, which are
important to consider during the task, including height of the
chair and existence of back support, head position, arms, hip,
knee and ankle. The authors noted the need of control variables
which influence the performance of STS movement. Their
experimental setup included force plates, motion video capture
techniques, optoelectronics methods and accelerometers.
The authors in [3] have investigated the STS strategies via
the topology of an associated phase space. The ability of a
person to stand up from seat plays an important role in an aged
Kamran Iqbal
Department of Systems Engineering
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Little Rock, USA
kxiqbal@ualr.edu
person’s functional independence and fall prevention [3].
Physiologists [1-4] have often described STS task in terms of
phases (forward phase, upward extension phase) and
physiological variables such as center of pressure (CoP), center
of mass (CoM), head position (HP) and ground reaction forces
(GRF) etc. The authors in [5] have compared two rules for
movement coordination via muscles and body segments; these
include threshold position control and minimal interactions.
They also simulated the STS task by using two phases similar
to the phases discussed in ref [1]. The results reported in ref [6]
confirm that placing the CoM over the foot and following it
with upward motion makes it easier for humans to attain this
task through minimal coordination of joints.
In our previous studies [5-7], we have used a four-segment
rigid-body biomechanical simulation model that consists of:
foot segment representing the base of support (BoS), lower leg,
upper leg, and the HAT segment. The model has three
rotational degrees of freedom (DOF) at the ankle, knee, and hip
joints. We may note that the assembly of the upper three rigid-
body links represents a triple inverted pendulum model, which
is intrinsically unstable and consistently needs control effort in
the shape of joint torques to maintain a stable posture amid
BoS perturbations. Using such models, STS movement can be
analyzed as a point-to-point movement from a statically stable
sitting position to the statically stable standing position.
Simulation of STS movement requires that reference
trajectories be supplied at the joints. Furthermore, a control
system must be developed to ensure the stability of motion.
Fuzzy modeling provides a useful modeling paradigm for
the computer simulation of STS movement. In our previous
studies of STS [5-7], fuzzy model combines local linear
models using membership functions representing the activation
level of each local model. By using fuzzy models, the STS
movement is simulated as gradual transition from one
equilibrium state to another. The fuzzy observer combines two
reduced order observers, designed to estimate joint velocities at
the terminal positions, with Gaussian membership functions.
The control effort required to generate the movement is based
upon the fuzzy combination of two different stability regions of
sitting and standing position. In order to design Fuzzy
controllers, we linearize the nonlinear model presented in [5] at
two stable positions i.e. the sitting and standing positions.
These local linear models are then integrated using fuzzy sets
and Gaussian membership functions for the analysis and
computer simulation of biomechanical STS movement.
 Fuzzy control systems use a Takagi-Sugeno-Kang (TSK)
type controller model (e.g., [8]) that remains active during the
entire trajectory of the system. Our TSK model combines the
two local linear models using Gaussian membership functions.
As a result, starting the movement from a sitting position, both l3
models stay active until the movement settles in the standing
position. The STS movement is simulated with the nonlinear I3
dynamics, a linear fuzzy controller, and a reduced order fuzzy m3g
observer based on the TSK fuzzy model of the biomechanical θ3
system. In ref [6], we presented full order fuzzy compensator
with active torque and physiological weights for compensation.
τ3 l2
In this paper, we present the design of a feedback controller
using a reduced order fuzzy observer with active (feed- I2
forward) torque component. We simulate the STS movement m2g
in the presence of noise, and obtain physiologically improved θ2
results as evaluated by head displacement, which demonstrates τ2
the applicability of the proposed scheme.
II. MATHEMATICAL MODELING
I1
The nonlinear dynamics of the four-segment biomechanical m1g l1
model (Fig.1) are symbolically described as:
D(θ)θ̈ + H�θ, θ̇�θ̇ + G(θ) = �τ⃑ (1) θ1
τ1
where 𝐷𝐷(𝜃𝜃)θ̈ represents the inertial component of the joint x
moments, 𝐻𝐻�𝜃𝜃, 𝜃𝜃̇ �θ̇ is the Coriolis and nonlinear component, x
and 𝐺𝐺(𝜃𝜃) is the gravitational component included in the rigid Fy Fx
body equations of motion. In this formulation, 𝜃𝜃𝑖𝑖 are the lf
angles from the horizontal and 𝜏𝜏𝑖𝑖 represent the torques at the
ankle, knee and hip joints. The explanation of various terms Figure. 1 Four link rigid body bio-mechanical Model
appearing in the model is given in the Appendix. In Fig. 1, 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥
and 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 are ground reaction forces, 𝐼𝐼 is inertia of the segment, 𝑚𝑚 Next, we define a state vector for the linear model:
is the mass, and 𝑙𝑙 is the length of the segment. Equation (1) is
given as vector matrix notation where the individual matrices x�⃑ = [∆θ1 ∆θ2 ∆θ3 ∆θ̇1 ∆θ̇2 ∆θ̇3 ]T
(5)
of inertial, coriolis and gravitation component are given in the x�⃑ = [x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 ]T
Appendix, and the torque vector is defined as:
where ∆θi = θi − θe , and θe is the equilibrium position. Then,
τ�⃑ = [τ1 − τ2 τ2 − τ3 τ3 ]T (2) the state equation are given as:
Each joint torque comprises of feedback and feedforward ẋ 1 = x4 ẋ 2 = x5 ẋ 3 = x6
components, i.e., τ = τfb + τff . Feedforward component τff ẋ 4 x4
ensures static equilibrium of the system and is computed from ẋ −1 x
� 5 � = D ∙ �−H ∙ � 5 � − G + �τ⃑�� (6)
a reference trajectory. Using the joint angles as velocities as ẋ 6 x6 x=θi,2
state variables, the nonlinear system of equations can be �⃑=τ
τ �⃑1,2
written in the state space form as follows: The matrices represented in the above equation are computed
θ̇ = Iθ at their respective equilibrium points. The two local linear
̈θ = D−1 (θ) ∙ �−H�θ, θ̇� − G(θ) + �τ⃑� (3) models are thus derived from the nonlinear four-segment
model of the body. The local models are defined, respectively,
Equation (3) represents a nonlinear system of equations for a at the sitting and standing positions defined by (4). These local
three-DOF biomechanical model. This system can be LTI models are each described in the state space form:
linearized using Taylor series approximation at a stationary
point. For the STS movement, we assume that sitting and ẋ (t) = Ai x(t) + Bi u(t), i = 1,2. (7)
standing positions are both equilibrium positions; so, the 1.1 Fuzzy Modeling
system is linearized at both these positions. The state variables
for linearizing at sitting and standing posture are 𝑥𝑥1𝑒𝑒 and 𝑥𝑥2𝑒𝑒 The fuzzy biomechanical model for STS movement
respectively given as: combines the local linear models developed at the sitting and
standing positions. STS movement can be interpreted as a
π π T
x1e = �2 0 0 0 0� physical system transitioning from one equilibrium state to
2 another. The control effort required to generate the STS
π π π T
(4)
x2e = �2 0 0 0� movement is based upon two different feasible stability regions
2 2
of sitting and standing position. TSK fuzzy model uses
membership functions whose value represents the activation
level of each local model. Fuzzy If-Then rules are used to
appropriately activate the local models. Applying weights
through membership function assembles all the localized
models into a single model.
In the case of STS movement, the IF-Then rules
incorporate the measurement of knee angle 𝑥𝑥2 . It is thus
assumed that only the knee flexion differentiates the terminal
positions, whereas the remaining joint angles stay the same as
shown in Fig. 2. TSK fuzzy model [8] of STS movement
changes only when the angular position of knee flexion
changes.
(a) Sitting Position (b) Standing Position
Fig. 2 A Comparison of body posture at the two equilibrium positions
Let two normal and convex fuzzy sets representing SIT and
STAND position be defined on the range of 𝑥𝑥2 , where the
Gaussian membership functions corresponding to the two
fuzzy sets are given as:
1− 1�
1+exp�−7�x2 −π�4��
w1 (x2 ) = , w2 (x2 ) = 1 − w1 (x2 ),
1+exp�−7�x2 +π�4��
The fuzzy model for sit-to-stand movement is constructed with
the help of following rules:
RULE 1:
IF 𝑥𝑥2 is SIT, THEN 𝑥𝑥̇ (𝑡𝑡) = 𝐴𝐴1 𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡) + 𝐵𝐵1 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡)
RULE 2:
IF 𝑥𝑥2 is STAND THEN 𝑥𝑥̇ (𝑡𝑡) = 𝐴𝐴2 𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡) + 𝐵𝐵2 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡)
The fuzzy model as a function of the membership weights is
given as:
ẋ (t) = A x(t) + B u(t)
. (9)
= ∑2i=1 �wi �Ai x(t) + Bi u(t)��
III. FUZZY OPTIMAL CONTROLLER
In this section we explore the optimal controllers for the
STS transfer of the fuzzy biomechanical model.
In the controller design, full state availability is assumed
and closed-loop pole placement is achieved by obtaining a
solution of a single Riccati equation by principal of separation
of variables. Both local linear models (i=1,2) are subjected to
linear quadratic regulator (LQR) design for calculation of
optimal control gains. The accompanying Riccati equations for
the individual models are given as
Mi Ai + ATi Mi − Mi Bi R−1 T
i Bi Mi + Q i = 0, i = 1,2
We note that the state weighting 𝑄𝑄 and the input weighting 𝑅𝑅
can be separately chosen for the two component models based
on the requirements for control effort, bandwidth, and the
desired steady state response. For example, the local model
computed at standing position is used for the final settling of
the steady state responses, thus we may choose Q 2 > Q1 ,
where Q1 and Q 2 represent the state weighting for sitting and
standing position, respectively, The controller gain matrix for
each individual model is given as
K i = R−1 T
i Bi Mi , i = 1,2. (11)
The fuzzy control effort for the simulation of STS movement
is given as:
u(t) = −(w1 K1 + w2 K 2 ) ∙ x(t) (12)
A. Fuzzy State Observer
Next, we consider the role of measurement noise as well as
parameter uncertainty in the plant dynamics, arising due to
linearization and modeling errors. A fuzzy linear observer /
estimator can be designed to estimate plant states corrupted by
noise. The fuzzy model with plant and measurement noise is
given by the following equations:
ẋ (t) = ∑2i=1 wi �Ai x(t) + Bi u(t)� + Bv v(t)
(13)
y(t) = Cx(t) + η(t)
where 𝑣𝑣(𝑡𝑡) and 𝜂𝜂(𝑡𝑡) are uncorrelated process noise and
measurement noise vectors. In general we assume stationary
white noise processes where covariance matrices are given as:
(8) E�v(t)v T (t + τ)� = Sv δ(τ)
(14)
E�η(t)ηT (t + τ)� = Sη δ(τ)
The white noise processes and their corresponding, 𝐵𝐵𝑣𝑣 and C
matrices are the same for each local linear model. Then, using
separation principle, the combined controller-estimator
equations for the model are given as:
x�̇ (t) = ∑2i=1 wi �Ax� (t) + Bi u(t) + Li y(t)�
(15)
u(t) = −Kx� (t)
where the fuzzy observer gains are computed via the following
algebraic Riccati equations:
Pi Ai + ATi Pi − Pi CSv−1 CMi + FSη F T = 0 (16)
Li = Pi C T Sη−1 (17)
B. Tracking Model
The linear fuzzy model with the regulated control effort
incorporates stable closed-loop dynamics of the system, which
settle to zero reference (regulation). A reference trajectory is
now added to obtain a desired movement and a stable
(standing) position. This reference trajectory is not fuzzy as a
single reference path is required to reach the desired position.
The reference input is added to the fuzzy dynamical model as:
ẋ (t) = ∑2i=1 wi �Ai x(t) + Bi u(t)� + E ∙ xr (18)
The reference trajectory model for the desired response is
given as:
(10)
 ẋ r = Ar xr (19)
We note that 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟 must be open loop stable matrix. The error in
state variables is defined as 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) = 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑 − 𝑥𝑥(𝑡𝑡). Combining the
reference and the error states, the meta-state model for the
system is defined as:
ė A E e B
� �=� � ∙ � � + � � ∙ u(t) (20)
ẋ r 0 Ar xe 0
In (20), the state vector 𝑒𝑒 is the error from the instantaneous
position to the desired/final position 𝑥𝑥𝑑𝑑 . In the case of a
constant reference, the reference trajectory matrix 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟 = 0, and
only the error model can be used to solve the tracking problem.
Stable error dynamics are necessary to control the nonlinear
plant using linear fuzzy controller, so that the error goes to zero
in moving from initial to the final position. The reference
trajectory also changes the control effort. The additional
control effort is also fuzzy for the non-fuzzy reference
trajectory, where the additional gain matrix for the reference
states is computed as:
K r = w1 K r1 + w2 K r2
(21)
K ri = −R−1 T −1
i Bi (A i − Bi K i ) Mi E
The resulting u(t) changes to:
u(t) = − ∑2i=1(wi [K i ∙ x(t) + K ri ∙ xr ]) (22)
This additional effort is not required if the reference trajectory
matrix 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟 = 0 , i.e,, when the reference position is the
stationary position, and only error from the initial and desired
final positions is used for the error state model. The tracking
error goes to zero as the plant (biomechanical model) achieves
its final position.
C. Reduced Order Fuzzy Observer
The separation principle also applies to the system when
full state measurements are not available. In (15), we described
a full state observer which estimates both angle and velocity
profiles. The fuzzy model is based upon angular differences
and initial and final velocities at both positions are assumed as
zeros. In [5-6], we described the forward thrust phase with
initial velocities, whereas we now assume that velocities are
not measured in the modeling scheme. In both of these cases as
well as in practical data collection for the biomechanical
system, it is difficult to obtain velocity sensor data from the
joints. It is thus necessary that velocity states should be
estimated and angle measurement must be used without
estimation. This scheme will lead to reduced order observer
design of the system and its detailed discussion is given in [9].
This also requires designing two reduced order observer by
combining through same membership function.
Let us define two sets of state variables, one set which is
directly measured and a second set, which are observed. For
both sitting and standing positions, these variables are
independently given as:
�x⃑m (t)
x1.2 = � … . �
������⃑(t) (23)
�x⃑o (t)
The measured angles are given as 𝑥𝑥⃑𝑚𝑚 vector and indirectly
observed states (velocities) are given as 𝑥𝑥⃑𝑜𝑜 vector. The state
space dynamics for both variables are assumed as:
ẋ m (t) = Am ∙ �x⃑m (t) + Amo ∙ �x⃑o (t) + Bm ∙ u(t)
(24)
ẋ o (t) = Aom ∙ �x⃑m (t) + Ao ∙ �x⃑o (t) + Bo ∙ u(t)
The standard observation is given as:
y(t) = Cm ∙ �x⃑m (t) (25)
This implies that
x�⃑m (t) = Cm −1 ∙ y(t) (26)
The standard observer will only be designed for states not
measured and indirectly observed, i.e.,
x�̇ o (t) = Aom ∙ �⃑x� m (t) + Ao ∙ �⃑x� o (t) + Bo ∙ u(t) + Lo y(t)
(27)
The general structure for estimation will be of form:
�⃑x� o (t) = Lo y(t) + z⃑ (t) (28)
rd
Where 𝑧𝑧⃑(𝑡𝑡) is a 3 order vector for estimation of velocities
𝑥𝑥�⃑𝑜𝑜 (𝑡𝑡), and the three angle measurements are available by (23).
The 3rd order observer system is defined as
ż⃑ (t) = F ∙ z⃑ (t) + J ∙ y(t) + N ∙ u(t) (29)
The error dynamic is only due to the observed states, given as:
ė o = ẋ����⃑o − x�̇ o (t)
���⃑ (30)
The error in observed states goes to zero. Further, we define
the vector 𝑧𝑧⃑(𝑡𝑡) as the observer state variables:
z⃑ (t) = �⃑x� o (t) − Lo y(t)
(31)
= �x⃑o (t) − �e⃑o (t) − Lo Cm ∙ �x⃑m (t)
Using (31), error dynamics leads to following simplifications
���⃑
ė o = F ∙ e�⃑o (t) + (Aom + Lo Cm Am − JCm + FLo Cm ) ∙ �x⃑m (t) +
(Ao + Lo Cm Amo − F) ∙ �x⃑o (t) + (Bo − Lo Cm Bm − N) ∙ u(t)
(32)
These matrices are chosen such that the errors in the observed
states go to zero and the overall system should be
asymptotically stable. This implies the following choices of the
matrices:
F = Ao + Lo Cm Amo
N = Bo − L o Cm Bm (33)
JCm = Aom + Lo Cm Am + FLo Cm
The LTI models at sitting and standing positions with only
angular measurements requires reduced order observer
matrices in (33). After calculating these matrices for both
sitting and standing position, the results are combined with
Gaussian membership function of (8), and are given as:
F = w1 F1 + w2 F2
N = w1 N1 + w2 N2 (34)
J = w1 J1 + w2 J2
 IV. STABILITY ANALYSIS
The closed-loop stability of the fuzzy biomechanical STS
model depends upon the combined stability of all local linear
models. The fuzzy biomechanical model is stable if it satisfies
the following two conditions for some positive definitive
matrix 𝑃𝑃 [8].
T torque component based on the assumed reference trajectories.
Acl T cl
i P + P A i < 0 i = 1,2
T compared to the active component, indicating greater
G12 P + P T G12 < 0 (35)
where
G12 = (A1 − B1 K 2 − L1 C2 ) + (A2 − B2 K1 − L2 C1 )
Acl
i = A i − Bi K i − L i Ci (36)
In the above, Acl are the closed-loop systems with controller
and estimator gains, and 𝐺𝐺12 is a cross gain matrix correlating
both local linear models. These stability conditions are also
necessary with the reduced estimator design of the system.
Thus, F should be stable during the entire trajectory implying
F1 and F2 both should have eigenvalues in the stable region.
V. SIMULATION OF STS TASK
We simulated the STS movement using the nonlinear
biomechanical model (1), regulated with fuzzy LQR controller
and fuzzy reduced order observer (22),(32). The MATLAB
simulation scheme built in Simulink is shown in Fig. 3. We
synthesized linear reference trajectories from the reference
model (19). The reference trajectories were used to generate
the active (feedforward) input component, which was added to
the feedback component generated from the reduced order
observer and controller gains (22).
Fig 4 shows the angular profiles (solid blue lines) of ankle,
knee and hip joints with comparison of synthesized reference
trajectories for the joints (red dashed lines). These responses
Figure 3. Simulation of nonlinear model with linear fuzzy LQR and reduced order observer with Gaussian membership weights
settle close to 2 sec at their steady state values, which
corresponds to the average time for healthy humans from
forward thrust to the termination of STS movement. Velocity
estimates similarly reach their zero steady-state values within
2sec without reference trajectories.
Fig 5 presents the total joint torques, as well as the active
There are higher feedback torques generated in the beginning,
contribution from the reflex circuits in the body, but both
components settle at zero values as desired.
Fig 6 shows the profiles of normalized x-COM, y-COM at
foot length (lf) and at body length (l1+l2+l3+b) respectively.
The second plot shows the profile of ground reaction forces 𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥
and 𝐹𝐹𝑦𝑦 , which are seen to settle at zero and the body weight,
respectively. The head movement profile shows that, during
STS, there is an initial dip in the head positon, followed by an
upward stretch, and finally settling together with the COM.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we presented a reduced order observer based
optimal controller for TSK fuzzy modeling of biomechanical
STS movement. This observer model estimates joint velocities
from movement data in the presence of measurement noise.
The fuzzy modeling scheme is relevant to physiologists’
studies (e.g., [1]), which describe the STS motion as a
combination of a forward thrust phase and an upward extension
phase. The TSK fuzzy model with Gaussian membership
functions further elaborates the physiological relevance of
biomechanical STS. Finally, the reduced order fuzzy observer
proposed in this study results in computer simulation of STS
movement that is closer to physiological relevance and
experimental results. The simulation mimics an experimental
scenario where motion data is collected by attaching reflective
markers to the limbs, but no velocity data are collected.
 coordination task. Additional physiological issues such as
Ankle Knee Hip
Angular Profiles 2 2 2.5 neural transmission delays due to feedback latencies, angular
and velocity limits, shifted center of mass, etc., may be studied
1.5 1 2 in this paradigm and further analyzed. Finally, fuzzy modeling
is proposed for further studies involving analysis of sagittal and
1 0 1.5 frontal plane synergistic movements.
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
Actual
Ref APPENDIX:
2 10 5
The coefficient matrices appearing in the nonlinear dynamic
Velocity Profiles

0 5 equation (1) of the four-segment model are given as:

0
-2 0 𝑑𝑑11 𝑑𝑑12 cos(𝜃𝜃1 − 𝜃𝜃2 ) 𝑑𝑑13 cos(𝜃𝜃1 − 𝜃𝜃3 )
-4 -5 -5 𝐷𝐷 = �𝑑𝑑12 cos(𝜃𝜃1 − 𝜃𝜃2 ) 𝑑𝑑22 𝑑𝑑23 cos(𝜃𝜃2 − 𝜃𝜃3 )�
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 𝑑𝑑13 cos(𝜃𝜃1 − 𝜃𝜃3 ) 𝑑𝑑23 cos(𝜃𝜃2 − 𝜃𝜃3 ) 𝑑𝑑33
time time time

0 𝑑𝑑12 𝜃𝜃5 sin(𝜃𝜃1 − 𝜃𝜃2 ) 𝑑𝑑13 𝜃𝜃6 sin(𝜃𝜃1 − 𝜃𝜃3 )

Fig 4. Angular profiles (rads) (blue lines with reference trajectories 𝐻𝐻 = �−𝑑𝑑12 𝜃𝜃4 sin(𝜃𝜃1 − 𝜃𝜃2 ) 0 𝑑𝑑23 𝜃𝜃6 sin(𝜃𝜃2 − 𝜃𝜃3 )�
(red lines) and velocities profile at ankle, knee and hip joints. −𝑑𝑑13 𝜃𝜃4 sin(𝜃𝜃1 − 𝜃𝜃3 ) −𝑑𝑑23 𝜃𝜃6 sin(𝜃𝜃2 − 𝜃𝜃3 ) 0

Ankle Knee Hip 𝐺𝐺 = 𝑔𝑔[𝑓𝑓1 cos 𝜃𝜃1 𝑓𝑓2 cos 𝜃𝜃2 𝑓𝑓3 cos 𝜃𝜃3 ]
800 800 600

700
600 400
The parameter values used for computing the above
600
Total
mathematical model are given below:
500 400 Active
200
TABLE 1
400 Parameter values for biomechanical four-link model terms
Torques

200 0
300 Inertial components [d11 d12 d13 [11.2087 9.6933 5.9652
200 0 -200 (N s2) d22 d23 d33] 9.3593 5.9652 11.8305]
Gravitational
100 [f1 f2 f3] [26.45 22.54 13.87]
-200 -400 components (N m)
0 2
Gravity g (m/sec ) g 9.8
-100
0 1
-400
2 0 1 2
-600
0 1 2 mass of model (kg) m 64.09
time

Fig 5. Total torques (N-m) feedback including both components

feedback and feedforward (blue lines) and feedforward (active) REFERENCES
component (red lines) for stable STS movement. [1] M. W. Rodosky, T. P. Andriachhi, and G. B. Andersson, “The
Influence of chair height on lower limb mechanism during rising.” Journal of
Orthopedic Res, 7, (1989), pp266-271.
CoM
3 Head Position [2] Wim G.M. Janssen, Hans B.J. Bussmann, and Henk J Stam,
Normalized Magnitude

2.5 “Determinants of sit-to-Stand Movement: A Review,” Physical Therapy.

2 x com Volume 82, Number 9, (2002).
y com 2 [3] Patrick D. Roberts and Gin McCollum, “Dynamics of sit-to-stand
1 movement,” Biological Cybernetics. 74, (1996), pp147-157.
1.5 [4] K. Brian, “Evaluation of a generalized model of human postural
0
dynamics and control in the sagittal plane.” Biological Cybernetics. 61,
y- direction

0 1 2
1 (1989).
GRF
2000 [5] Asif Mahmood Mughal and Kamran Iqbal, “Fuzzy Optimal Control of
Fx
0.5 Sit-To-Stand Movement in a Biomechanical Model”, Journal of Intelligent
Fy and Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp247-258, 2013
Magnitude

1000

0 [6] Asif Mahmood Mughal and Kamran Iqbal, “Physiological LQR design
0 for postural control and coordination of sit-to-stand movement,” Cognitive
Computation, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp549-562, 2012
-0.5
-1000
0 1 2
-0.5 0 0.5 [7] Asif Mahmood Mughal, Sunbal Perviaz, and Kamran Iqbal, “LMI
x directon
time (sec) based physiological cost optimization for biomechanical STS transfer,” IEEE
Conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 9~12 Oct
Fig 6. Normalized x-CoM, y-CoM, ground reaction forces Fx Fy and 2011.
head movement for STS movement. [8] Stanislaw. Zak, Systems and Control, Oxford University Press, (2003),
pp421-446.
The fuzzy observer based controller scheme presented here [9] Bernard Friedland, Control System Design McGraw Hill Inc, (1986),
advances the previous studies [5-7], and provides a framework pp276-286.
for physiologically relevant modeling of a movement