Alejandro Gonz

alez
Faculty of Engineering,
A Third-Order Model of Hip
CONACyT-Universidad Autonoma de
San Luis Potosı,
and Ankle Joints During Balance
San Luis Potosı 78290, Mexico

Angel Cerda-Lugo
Faculty of Engineering,
Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosı,
San Luis Potosı 78290, Mexico
Antonio Cardenas
Faculty of Engineering,
Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosı,
San Luis Potosı 78290, Mexico
Mauro Maya
Faculty of Engineering,
Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosı,
San Luis Potosı 78290, Mexico
Davide Piovesan
Biomedical, Industrial and
Systems Engineering Department,
Gannon University,
Erie, PA 16541
Recovery: Modeling and
Parameter Estimation
Postural stability is important in everyday life as falls can cause severe injuries. Risk of
injuries is higher in the elderly whose balance is often impaired. Modeling postural sta-
bility and the parameters that govern it is important to understand the balance mecha-
nism and allow for the development of fall prevention strategies. Several mathematical
models have been proposed to represent postural stability of bipeds. These models differ
on the number of degrees-of-freedom (DOF) of the skeletal structure, force generation
function for the muscle models, and capability to change their behavior as a function of
the task. This work proposes a nonlinear model that captures fall recovery using a
hip–ankle strategy. The muscle actuation is modeled as a third-order
Poynting–Thomson’s (PT) mechanical system where muscles and tendons are repre-
sented as lumped parameters actuating the aforementioned joints. Both a regression tech-
nique and a Kalman Filter (KF) are used to estimate the muscle–tendon parameters of
the model. With a good model, the direct estimation of these parameters would allow
clinicians to improve postural stability in the elderly, monitor the deterioration of the
physical condition in individuals affected by neuro-degenerative diseases, and develop
rehabilitation appropriate processes. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4042527]

1 Introduction muscle [2], and a third-order system was proposed in the form of
a Poynting–Thomson (PT) model. In the PT model, an additional
Balance impairment affects an ever-growing percentage of the
elastic element is positioned in series with a KV model to repre-
elderly population in the developed world. Injuries that are conse-
sent the tendon. While the PT model is an approximation limited
quence of a fall include, but are not limited to, bruises, contusions,
to a linearized, but physiologically consistent, region of the
and bone fractures. When severe injuries occur, immobilization
force–length–velocity curve, it can provide a realistic account of
can limit functional autonomy for an extended period of time thus
the “contraction dynamics” which arises from the interaction
hampering the cardio-pulmonary system. This is often conducive
between the stiffness of the tendon in series with the contractile
to health complications or even death. Thus, fall prevention is par-
muscle element. This model seems to provide the minimum
amount. It starts with the understanding of the mechanisms that
increase in complexity that can account for the storage of elastic
humans use to control their balance and maintain a stable erect
energy in the tendon. If the stiffness of the contractile element is
posture.
sufficiently high, the tendon will allow for the storage of elastic
Balance is often modeled as a function of the number of
energy that can be transformed in kinetic energy without being
degrees-of-freedom (DOF) of the system’s kinematics, the order
dissipated directly by the damping element (which is constrained
of the muscle models, and the capacity of the dynamic model to
in its movement by the elastic element in parallel with it).
change its behavior in a task dependent manner, the latter apply-
Joint stiffness has often being proposed as a figure of merit to
ing to both the control parameters and the coefficients of the state
assess postural stability [3]. The recovery from fall to quiet stand-
equations. The number of kinematic DOFs depends on the number
ing has been modeled using the skeletal structure [4] actuated by
of joints that have a significant excursion from their equilibrium
first-order muscle models. The stiffness and damping parameters
position. The actuation of the joints is often represented as a com-
of these models can be estimated using a variety of techniques
bination of elastic and viscous elements, representing the storage
either in the frequency [5], time [6–8], and time–frequency
and dissipation of elastic energy within tendons and muscles. If
domains [9,10]. On the other hand, recent literature has demon-
the system is represented as an inverted pendulum, the number of
strated that when modeling an actuator as second-order (and thus
DOFs is equivalent to the number of joints that the model has
the whole musculoskeletal system as third-order), exponential sta-
only if the actuators are first-order (i.e., a Kelvin–Voigt system
bility might not be achievable within the physiological range of
with elastic and viscous elements in parallel). For higher order
the parameters [11]. Using models with higher complexity could
actuation systems, there can be DOFs that are internal to the
highlight different control strategies involving the synchronized
actuators which manifest within the joints’ kinematics as a super-
co-ordination of multiple degrees-of-freedom instead of the mere
position of multiple signals.
increase in lower limb joint stiffness, which is more energy
A dynamic system actuated by a second-order Kelvin–Voigt
demanding [12].
(KV) muscle–tendon model, where a single stiffness and damping
The present work uses the hold-and-release paradigm [13],
elements are in parallel, is not adequate to represent tendons and
combined with a time-based system identification technique [14]
contractile elements independently [1]. It was observed that a KV
to identify the parameters of a multiple DOF third-order skeletal-
model is not able to properly describe the in vivo behavior of the
muscle model actuated at the hip and ankle. We modeled the non-
linear equations of motion of a double inverted pendulum and
Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the
JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND NONLINEAR DYNAMICS. Manuscript received August
used both a linear regression and a Kalman filter (KF) to identify
1, 2018; final manuscript received January 10, 2019; published online September 12, the stiffness associated with both the tendons and the muscle, con-
2019. Assoc. Editor: Xiaopeng Zhao. sidered as separate lumped parameters, as well as the damping of

Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 14 / 101001-1

C 2019 by ASME
Copyright V
the muscles. This work is different from the previous literature above the hip, we are not including any cross-joint stiffness or
[15] as it represents both the behavior at the hip and ankle, esti- damping.
mating a third-order nonlinear skeletal-muscle system with only The position of each mass in the system (rmi ) is determined as a
one perturbation. Note that this study does not include the forces function of the generalized coordinates q ¼ ½ h1 u1 h2 u2 T
at the joints due to the joint ligaments that stabilize the joint. as
While this is a very important problem as described in Refs.
[16–18], we assumed that the ligaments maintain the joint stable rm1 ¼ r1 sin h1^i þ r1 cos h1^j (1)
during the physical activity. It can be demonstrated that while the
ligaments provide a substantial force to prevent the relative trans- rm2 ¼ ðl1 sinðh1 Þ þ r2 sinðh21 ÞÞ^iþðl1 cosðh1 Þ þ r2 cosðh21 ÞÞ^j
lation between bones, their contribution to rotational stiffness
around the joint is minimal. We will address this in the (2)
discussion.
In this work, we present a system identification technique that where h21 ¼ h2  h1 and ½^i; ^j are the basis for “a” reference frame
can identify the control parameters used for the recovery from a as shown in Fig. 1(b).
fall. The system that we modeled is nonlinear and high-order. The system’s total kinetic energy (T) is obtained after deriving
This technique could be used as a diagnostic tool that can help the velocity of each mass and is given by
clinicians to separately identify the properties of the tendons and 
1 2 2 2
muscles and thus help determine if an eventual impairment is due T¼ m1 r12 h_ 1 þ I1 h_ 1 þ I2 h_ 21
2
more to tissue atrophy or poor neural control.  
2_2 2_2 _ _
þm2 l1 h 1 þ r2 h 21  2l1 r2 h 1 h 21 cosðh2 Þ (3)

2 Third-Order Model for a Balancing Human where Ii is the moment of inertia of the segment with respect to
Human movement along the sagittal plane can be modeled by the center of gravity of link i and is a function of its geometry.
means of a double inverted pendulum such as the one shown in The system’s potential energy (V) must include the effect of
Fig. 1(a). In the figure, the bottom segment is used to represent gravity and the energy stored by the elastic elements so that
the legs while the top segment stands for the head, arms, and
trunk. This model does not account for the flexing of the knee but V ¼ gðm1 r1 cosðh1 Þ þ m2 ðl1 cosðh1 Þ þ r2 cosðh21 ÞÞÞ
is enough to study the hip control strategy as reported in Ref. [13]. 1  1 
The two segments are connected by muscles and tendons of differ- þ kt1 u21 þ kt2 u22 þ km1 w21 þ km2 w22 (4)
2 2
ent visco-elastic properties [11,19]. Additionally, the leg segment
is considered to be attached to the ankle joint and rigidly con- where g represents the acceleration due to gravity and wi ¼ hi  ui.
nected to the ground. Finally, the legs and the feet are also con- Finally, we consider the energy dissipated by the dampers [21]
nected using visco-elastic elements. In an attempt to determine as
the numerical value of these parameters while maintaining bal-
 
ance, the dynamics equations governing the model will be 1 2 2
derived. They will then be used to write a nonlinear model suita- D¼ bm1 w_ 1 þ bm2 w_ 2 (5)
2
ble for estimation.
Based on Fig. 1(b) and applying the Euler–Lagrange methodol- The Lagrangian is defined as L ¼ T  V. Considering the
ogy [20], we define mi as the mass of segment i, li as the distance dynamic properties of the system [21], its motion is given by
measured between the two consecutive joints, ri gives the distance
d @L @L @D X
from the distal joint to the segment’s center of mass, kmi and bmi p
@cj
are the joint’s stiffness and damping parameters associated with  þ ¼ Fj  (6)
dt @ q_ @qk @ q_ j¼1
@q k
the muscle element, and kti is the joint’s stiffness associated with
the tendon which is modeled as a purely elastic element. Because
there are no bi-articular muscles spanning from below the ankle to where Fj represents one of p external forces applied to the system
at location cj. P
Under no additional external forces ( pj¼1 Fj  @cj =@q ¼ 0Þ, the
following relationships are found:

0 ¼ ða þ 2b cosðh2 ÞÞ€h1  ðc þ b cosðh2 ÞÞ€h2 þ 1

2
þ b sinðh2 Þðh_ 2  2h_ 1 h_ 2 Þ  gðd sinðh1 Þ  e sinðh21 ÞÞ (7)

0 ¼ kt1 u1  1 (8)
2
0 ¼ c€h 21 þ bðsinðh2 Þh_ 1  cosðh2 Þ€h 1 Þge sinðh21 Þ þ 2 (9)

0 ¼ kt2 u2  2 (10)

where variables  1 and  2 have been defined as

1 ¼ km1 w1 þ bm1 w_ 1 (11)

2 ¼ km2 w2 þ bm2 w_ 2 (12)

Fig. 1 Mechanical representation of the hip balancing strategy.
(a) shows a sagittal view of the hip balancing strategy, while (b)
models the motion as a double inverted pendulum joined by and the model’s inertial parameters are contained in the following
visco-elastic elements. expressions:

101001-2 / Vol. 14, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

 a ¼ I1 þ I2 þ m1 r12 þ m2 ðl21 þ r22 Þ Z ¼ Hk (31)
b ¼ m2 l1 r2
¼ ½ z1 z2 T
c ¼ I2 þ m2 r22 (13) " #
d ¼ m1 r1 þ m2 l1 A11 h1 h_ 1 0 0 0 (32)
H¼
e ¼ m2 r2 0 0 0 A24 h2 h_ 2

For the estimation of the visco-elastic parameters, it is conven- where k ¼ ½ k1 k2 … k6 T is composed of combinations of
ient to write the previous relationships as functions of only h1 and these parameters such that
h2 as they are directly measurable. This can be achieved by solv-
ing for  1 and  2 in Eqs. (8) and (10) and substituting in Eqs. (7) kt1 ¼ k3
and (9). This will yield two expressions which can be used to kt2 ¼ k6
solve for u1 and u2 in terms of h1, h2, and their first and second 2
derivatives. Differentiating these expressions yields u_ 1 and u_ 2 kt1
bm1 ¼
as functions of up to the third derivative of h. Finally, k1 kt1  k2
u1 ; u2 ; u_ 1 ; u_ 2 are substituted into Eqs. (11) and (12) so as to bm1 k2
write them as functions of h1, h2 and their derivatives. More km1 ¼
kt1
details on these operations are given in the Appendix. In this man- kt2 k5
ner, the equations of motion can be written in the following form: km2 ¼
kt2 k4  k5
::: :: :
Mq þ Cq þ Sq þ G ¼ s (14) kt2 km2
bm2 ¼
k5
T
q ¼ ½ h1 h2  (15)
and
and
::: :::
  z1 ¼ ch 2  ah 1 þ b sinðh2 Þð4€h1 h_ 2  €h2 ðh_ 2 þ 2h_ 21 ÞÞ
ða þ 2b cosðh2 ÞÞbm1  ðc þ b cosðh2 ÞÞbm1
M¼ (16) ::: ::: 2
ðc þ b cosðh2 ÞÞbm2 cbm2 þ b cosðh2 Þðh 21  h 1 þ h_ 2 ðh_ 21  h_ 1 ÞÞ
  þ gðd cosðh1 Þh_ 1  e cosðh21 Þh_ 21 Þ (33)
C11 C12
C¼ (17)
C21 C22 ::: :::
2
z2 ¼ ch 21 þ b cosðh2 Þðh 1  h_ 1 h_ 2 Þ
C11 ¼ ða þ 2b cosðh2 ÞÞk1  4b sinðh2 Þh_ 2 bm1 (18)  b sinðh2 Þh€ ðh_ 2 þ 2h_ 1 Þ þ ge cosðh21 Þh_ 21
1 (34)

C12 ¼ ðc þ b cosðh2 ÞÞk1 þ b sinðh2 Þð3h_ 21 þ h_ 1 Þbm1 (19) 2

A11 ¼ b cosðh2 Þð€h21  €h1 Þ þ b sinðh2 Þðh_ 2  2h_ 1 h_ 2 Þ
þ gðe sinðh21 Þ  d sin h1 Þ þ ah€  c€h 2 (35)
C21 ¼ ðc þ b cosðh2 ÞÞk2 þ bðh_ 2 þ 2h_ 1 Þsinðh2 Þbm2 (20) 1

A24 ¼ bðsinðh2 Þh_ 1  cos h2 €h 1 Þ  ge sinðh21 Þþc€h 21

2
C22 ¼ ck2 (21) (36)
 
S11 S12
S¼ (22) 2.1.1 Estimation of Constant Parameters. Consider the fol-
S21 S22 lowing linear system:
2
S11 ¼ 2b sinðh2 Þh_ 2 k1  2b cosðh2 Þh_ 2 bm1 Z ¼ Hk^ þ q (37)
þgðd cosðh1 Þ þ e cosðh21 ÞÞbm1 (23)
where Z is a measurement vector, k^ is a vector containing the esti-
2 mated system’s linear parameters, q contains the estimation error,
S12 ¼ b sinðh2 Þh_ 2 k1 þ ðb cosðh2 Þh_ 2 þ ge cosðh21 ÞÞbm1 (24) and H is known as the configuration matrix. Each row of Z and H
represents one equation which, when aggregated, can be used to
S21 ¼ b sinðh2 Þh_ 1 k2 þ ðb cosðh2 Þh_ 1 h_ 2 þ ge cosðh21 ÞÞbm2 (25) solve the linear system defined by Eq. (31).
When the parameters in k are constant, it is possible to find
S22 ¼ ge cosðh21 Þbm2 (26) their value using a least squares approach. Ideally, there should be
at least enough linearly independent measurements such that H is
  invertible. In practice, it is desirable to create an overdetermined
gðd sinðh1 Þ  e sinðh21 ÞÞk1
G¼
ge sinðh21 Þk2
(27) system [22]. It is possible to find a vector k^ ¼ Hþ Z such that it
minimizes the Euclidean norm of q [23] by using the
" # Moore–Penrose pseudo-inverse [24]
h1 km1 kt1 þ h_ 1 bm1 kt1
s¼ (28)
h2 km2 kt2 þ h_ 2 bm2 kt2 Hþ ¼ ðHT HÞ1 HT (38)

k1 ¼ km1 þ kt1 (29) 2.1.2 Recursive Methods. When the parameter vector k
evolves through time, with known dynamics, a Kalman filter is
k2 ¼ km2 þ kt2 (30) more suitable for estimating its values than the pseudo-inverse
[25]. The Kalman filter equations are written as
2.1 Parameter Estimation. The dynamics of the third-order
model (14) can be expressed as a linear function of the visco- þ 
elastic parameters such that k^k ¼ Ak^k þ Blk (39)

Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 14 / 101001-3


Pþ  T
k ¼ APk A þ Q (40)
1
Kk ¼ P  T  T
k Hk ðHk Pk Hk þ RÞ (41)
 
k^k ¼ k^k þ Kk ðZk  Hk k^k Þ (42)
Pk ¼ ðI  Kk Hk ÞP (43)
k
where A and B determine how the models parameters (k) change
over time; P, Q, and R are the estimation, process, and measure-
ment variance and covariance matrices, respectively; Zk is the
measurement vector; Hk is the configuration matrix; K is the
Kalman gain; and I is an identity matrix of suitable size.
3 Visco-Elastic Parameter Estimation Using
Kinematic Data
We estimated the apparent visco-elastic parameters of six
human subjects (age ¼ 27 6 8, weight ¼ 77.3 6 8.7 kg, and
height ¼ 1.63 6 0.14 m). All subjects were willing participants,
had no prior history of balance issues, and were considered
healthy.
The experiment followed the hold-and-release paradigm [13].
In which the subjects lean forward with the hip at a neutral posi-
tion, with her/his arms crossed and held close to the chest, and
both feet on the ground. After a random amount of time, the sub-
ject is suddenly released. This disturbance forces the subject to
initiate a recovery from a potential fall. The experiment procedure
is illustrated in Fig. 2.
To keep track of the subjects’ oscillations, she/he was equipped
with markers at the torso, ankle, and knee joints; from which joint
angles about the sagittal plane could be computed. The experi-
ment was recorded using an RGB camera with an average framer-
ate of 22.5 Hz. The video was processed using the open source
software KINOVEA which was developed for its applications in sport
science [26,27]. The marker position was filtered using a low-pass
Butterworth with a cutoff frequency of 10 Hz prior to obtaining
joint angles. Angular velocity and acceleration were estimated
using central differences so as to avoid phase shifts [22].
Angular position, velocity, acceleration, and jerk are used to
update the configuration matrix (Hk) and measurement vector Zk
at each time-step by substituting them into Eqs. (31)–(36). These
data were aggregated, and the visco-elastic parameters for each
subject were obtained using a least-squares algorithm constrained
to return positive parameter values. Note that this assumes that the
parameters remain constant throughout the motion thus the
Fig. 2 Experimental estimation of visco-elastic parameters
using the hold-and-release method. In (a), the subject leans for-
ward and is supported by the experimenter. After a random
time, the subject is released (b) creating a disturbance from
which the subject must recover.
101001-4 / Vol. 14, OCTOBER 2019
actuators remain passive. Table 1 shows the estimated parameters
for the six subjects as well as its average value and standard devia-
tion rounded to the nearest integer.
4 Simulation Study
In order to test the parameter estimation procedure, a total of 24
distinct simulations were created to emulate the hold-and-release
experiment. Each of these simulations represent a unique individ-
ual for whom mass, height, and visco-elastic parameters were gen-
erated randomly. For all subjects, their geometric parameters (m1,
m2, l1, r1, and l2) were calculated from the anthropometric data
presented by Winter [28]. Finally, an initial angular value for the
segment representing the legs (h1) was used as to mimic the dis-
turbance applied to the subject while undergoing hold-and-release
tests [13].
For each random subject, the third-order dynamic system pre-
sented in Eq. (14) was solved numerically using a fourth-order
Runge–Kutta approximation with a fixed step of 10 ms. A total of
7 s of data were generated.
Once the simulated angular values were obtained, a random,
normally distributed Gaussian noise was added to them. This
noise was added in order to resemble the measurements obtained
from marker based human motion tracking systems.
4.1 Simulations Based on Measured Visco-Elastic Parameters.
Twelve of the 24 simulated subjects presented visco-elastic
parameters with the same average value and standard deviation
observed in the human experiments described in Sec. 3. Relevant
information can be found in Table 2.
4.2 Data Processing. In order to create the configuration
matrix (H) in Eq. (32) up to the third derivative of angular posi-
tion must be obtained. Following the same procedure utilized with
the experimental data, these derivatives were obtained numeri-
cally after a zero phase filter, low-pass Butterworth filter with a
cutoff frequency of 10 Hz, was applied. An example of the noisy
and filtered signals can be seen in Fig. 3.
4.3 Parameter Estimation. After processing the simulated
measurement data, the visco-elastic parameters for each of the 12
simulated subjects were estimated using (i) a least squares estima-
tion by means of the configuration matrix pseudo-inverse (Pinv)
and (ii) a KF. The KF equation parameters were chosen as follows.
It was assumed that the visco-elastic parameters remained constant
making A in Eq. (40) a suitable identity matrix and lk equal to
zero. The model uncertainty Q was chosen as a small valued diago-
nal matrix where Qi;i ¼ 1  103 . Measurement uncertainty was
considered higher due to the noise introduced to angular measure-
ments making Ri;i ¼ 1  101 . The initial parameter estimate (^k 0 )
was chosen randomly for each simulated subject. Finally, the initial
estimate covariance matrix was chosen to reflect the uncertainty on
the initial parameters with Pi;i ¼ 1  103 .
Figure 4 shows the estimation results for all 12 simulated
experiments. The markers on the six leftmost plots show the
parameters obtained using the pseudo-inverse method while those
on the six rightmost plots show those obtained using the KF. Each
Table 1 Human subject estimated visco-elastic parameters of
a third-order model
Parameter SB1 SB2 SB3 SB4 SB5 SB6 Mean (standard deviation)
kt1 (Nm/rad) 1581 1000 1576 290 661 678 964 (526)
km1 (Nm/rad) 896 545 450 730 2292 2500 1235 (914)
bm1 (Nm s/rad) 1937 512 675 509 1470 1865 1161 (674)
kt2 (Nm/rad) 248 500 500 355 766 260 438 (194)
km2 (Nm/rad) 706 181 179 107 687 230 348 (272)
bm2 (Nm s/rad) 478 30 169 54 1172 170 345 (435)
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 3 Simulated angular value for the orientation of each of the model’s seg-
ments. The full line represents the noisy angular values while the dashed line
shows filtered values after a the zero-phase low-pass Butterworth.

Table 2 Subject data and initial conditions for a simulated subplot has the values used for simulation on the abscissa and the
human subject undergoing a hold-and-release experiment estimated on the ordinate axis. The dashed line represents the
ideal correspondence, that is, perfectly estimated parameters
Parameter Value should fall on this line. For these estimated parameters, the coeffi-
cient of determination R2 against the data that originated them
m (total mass) 72.2613.7 kg ranges from 0.57 to 0.99 (average 0.85 6 0.16).
h (total height) 1.760.1 m
h1 0.30 rad
h_ 1 ; €h 1 0 rad/s 4.4 Simulated Subjects With Abnormal Visco-Elastic
h2 0.30 rad Parameters. The remaining 12 simulated subjects presented
h_ 2 ; €h 2 0 rad larger visco-elastic parameters than those observed in the human
experiments. Each parameter value used was obtained randomly
from a normal distribution with an average and standard deviation

Fig. 4 Real and estimated values for the visco-elastic parameters for 12 randomly simulated subjects based on kinematic
measurements from human subjects. The dashed line shows the ideal estimation.

Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 14 / 101001-5

Table 3 Visco-elastic parameter values used for creating the as shown in Table 3. That is, 95% of the simulated values will be
simulated data and estimated values using the pseudo-inverse within two standard deviations of the mean.
(Pinv) and KF methods For the simulated subjects, the estimation results, for both the
Pinv and the KF, are also given in Table 3. Note that the Pinv and
Parameter Mean (standard deviation)
KF results are very similar, as they both give optimal estimations
m (kg) 68.1 (10.7)
in the least-squares sense [25].
h (m) 1.6 (0.1) Figure 6 shows the estimated joint stiffness and damping for 12
different simulated subjects with abnormal visco-elastic parame-
Simulated value Pinv estimated KF estimated ters. The dashed line represents the ideal correspondence, that is,
perfectly estimated parameters should fall on this line. This figure
kt1 (Nm/rad) 2045 (370) 1864 (418) 1862 (418) seems to indicate that the proposed parameter estimation tech-
km1 (Nm/rad) 3296 (727) 3333 (803) 3326 (803)
nique is suitable for a wide range of combinations of the visco-
bm1 (Nm s/rad) 1168 (314) 1992 (870) 1995 (872)
kt2 (Nm/rad) 1036 (217) 898 (165) 896 (165) elastic parameters. For the estimated parameters shown in Fig. 6,
km2 (Nm/rad) 1446 (361) 2096 (1401) 2118 (1444) the coefficient of determination R2 against the data that originated
bm2 (Nm s/rad) 573 (162) 1038 (813) 1057 (840) them ranges from 0.38 to 0.97 (average 0.81 6 0.19)
While the overall residual error (q) is small for the simulated
experiments, we observe from Fig. 6 that not all parameters are

Fig. 5 Estimated visco-elastic as a function of time using a KF

Fig. 6 Real and estimated values for the visco-elastic parameters for 12 simulated subjects with random, abnormal visco-
elastic parameters. The dashed line shows the ideal estimation.

101001-6 / Vol. 14, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

correctly estimated. As an example, take the trial represented by
the left facing triangle in this figure. Estimated values for the
trunk segment (kt2, km2, and bm2) are close to the ones used for
simulation. This is not so for those corresponding to the ankle
joint (kt1, km1, and bm1). Note that the muscle presents a high stiff-
ness (around 4000 Nm/rad) and low damping coefficients (around
500 Nm s/rad), indicating a large oscillation frequency. It is likely
that this high oscillatory frequency of the ankle is lost due to the
effect of the low pass filter, leading to incorrect parameter
estimation.
5 Discussion
In this paper, we have analyzed a two-joint third-order coupled
model of human standing actuated at each link. The coefficients
of Eq. (14) are nonconstant and change nonlinearly as the function
of the joint angles and their derivatives with respect to time.
The torque applied at each joint is generated by two
Poynting–Thomson muscle–tendon systems where an equivalent
tendon (represented by a linear spring) is in series to an equivalent
muscle (represented by a parallel of a spring and a damper). Note
that despite utilizing a linear model for the actuation, the equation
of motion utilized for our model is highly nonlinear and has not
been linearized due to the large variation of the angles in the act
of recovering from a fall. We have proposed a method that allows
for the estimation of the visco-elastic parameters actuating the
joints. We have presented a least-square method that accurately
estimates constant parameters and a Kalman filter that, with addi-
tional tuning, could allow for the estimation of the parameters
when they are varying as a function of time.
The presentation of such a technique is important as it could
help to quickly diagnose how the control parameters change with
age and neurological diseases. Less complex models, where the
movement of the hip is ignored, have highlighted that the stiffness
of the ankle (modeled as a Kelvin–Voigt actuator) increases with
age [6]. Furthermore, it is also important to analyze the effect that
different impairments could have on the control parameters.
Impairments are usually associated with a higher magnitude of the
control parameters when compared to unimpaired individuals.
This aspect has been reported widely in the literature for a variety
of neurological impairments such as after a stroke [29], Parkin-
son’s disease [30], and multiple scleroses [31] just to name a few.
In order to take the large variation of the parameters which could
occur due the aforementioned factors, we have performed the
Monte Carlo analysis reported in Fig. 4 where the parameter to be
identified was changed within a large range.
Increased stiffness was assumed as an attempt to increase the
margin of stability so that oscillation around the ankle would have
a smaller amplitude. Another way to easily control the dynamics
of second-order systems is to increase the damping so to make the
system exponentially stable. On the other hand, such a simple
model requires a very high metabolic energy for the co-
contraction necessary to increase the stiffness and could not
explain behaviors where the stiffness of the ankle was lower than
the one necessary to maintain postural stability, and yet the system
was not falling [3]. Increasing the complexity of the system to a
single-joint third-order model, provided mathematical proof that if
specific ratios where maintained between the stiffness of the muscle
and the tendon, the system could not be exponentially stable but
could be stabilized asymptotically around a well prescribed orbit.
This provides new insight into the mechanism by which this previ-
ously observed self-sustained oscillation could be obtained [12].
The estimation method proposed here will allow us to experi-
mentally test the control strategy at both the hip and ankle and
evaluate the interaction between the two joints. We speculate that
by an appropriate modulation of the two joint movements, the two
strategies illustrated above could be combined. For example, the
ankle could work as a second-order system where the margin of
stability is increased by increasing the stiffness while the hip strat-
egy might be closer to a third-order system where a self-
Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics
oscillation could provide prompt reactions while still allowing for
a large displacement of the trunk. Indeed, we can observe in
Table 1 that the muscle and tendon stiffness at the ankle are often
very different from each other. Therefore, the behavior of the
actuation system is dominated by the lower stiffness thus acting
very closely to a second-order mass-spring system. On the other
hand, the stiffness of the hip muscle actuator is comparable to the
stiffness of the tendon and thus cannot be approximated as a
second-order system.
The present work does not include the forces at the joints due to
the joint ligaments that stabilize the joint. While this is a very
important problem as described in Refs. [16–18], we assumed that
the ligaments maintain the joint stable during the physical activ-
ity. It can be demonstrated that while the ligaments provide a sub-
stantial force to prevent the relative translation between bones,
their contribution to rotational stiffness around the joint is
minimal.
As an example, we can assume that the cumulative translational
stiffness of the muscle–tendon unit (MTU) is km ¼ 100 N/m, and
the stiffness of the ligament is kl ¼ 1000 N/m. These are values
that are assumed just for ease of the calculation but are of appro-
priate order of magnitude. For more precise values see Ref. [32].
On the other hand, the moment arm of the translational stiffness
with respect to the point of rotation is much larger for the muscle.
Comparing orders of magnitudes, we can loosely assume the
moment arm of the MTU as rmt ¼ 0.1 m and the moment arm of
the ligament as rl ¼ 0.001 m. When the rotational stiffness is cal-
culated for both the muscle–tendon unit and the ligament using
2
kh ¼ kmt rmt þ kl rl2 (44)
the square of the moment arm for the ligament will be many
orders of magnitude smaller than the one for the MTU. Therefore,
the resulting ligament rotational stiffness will be negligible com-
pared to the rotational stiffness generated by the MTU. In the pro-
posed example, the rotational stiffness for the ligaments bundle is
about 1% of the MTU’s rotational stiffness even though the trans-
lational stiffness of the ligament is much higher (Fig. 7).
Finally, while it could be argued that nonparametric techniques
do not need to assume the order of the actuators’ dynamics, they
require the application of external random noise perturbations
[33–35]. Thus, there is a need for an external force/displacement
generator that is difficult to use in the clinical setting and forces
the system to work in un-natural conditions. The technique pro-
posed in this work does not require an apparatus for perturbing the
system. A perturbation with high power can be delivered by sim-
ply asking the subject to lean on the experimenter extended arm
and then quickly releasing the support. This way a gravitational
torque will act as a destabilizing perturbation on the subject that
finds him/herself with a misaligned center of gravity with respect
to the center of pressure. This can be quickly deployed in the
Fig. 7 Equivalent muscle–tendon stiffness around a joint
OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 14 / 101001-7
clinical setting, together with a low cost motion tracking systems [2] Kistemaker, D. A., and Rozendaal, L. A., 2011, “In Vivo Dynamics of the Mus-
as those proposed, for example, in Refs. [6] and [7]. culoskeletal System Cannot Be Adequately Described Using a Stiffness-
Damping-Inertia Model,” PLoS One, 6(5), p. e19568.
[3] Morasso, P. G., and Sanguineti, V., 2002, “Ankle Muscle Stiffness Alone Can-
Acknowledgment not Stabilize Balance During Quiet Standing,” J. Neurophysiol., 88(4), pp.
2157–2162.
The authors would like to thank the C. Christopher Cooney and [4] Chavez-Romero, R., Cardenas, A., Maya, M., Vernaza, K. M., and Piovesan,
Brian Jackman endowed Professorship. D., 2014, “Experimental Validation of Vision-Based System for the Characteri-
zation of Human Standing,” Latin American Congress of Automatic Control
(IFAC-CLCA), Canc un, Mexico, Oct. 14–17, pp. 301–306.
Funding Data [5] de Gooijer-van de Groep, K. L., de Vlugt, E., de Groot, J. H., van der Heijden-
Maessen, H. C. M., Wielheesen, D. H. M., van Wijlen-Hempel, R. S.,
Arendzen, J. H., and Meskers, C. G. M., 2013, “Differentiation Between Non-
 Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologıa (Catedra 2016- Neural and Neural Contributors to Ankle Joint Stiffness in Cerebral Palsy,”
972; Graduate Scholarship Program; Funder ID: 10.13039/ J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 10(1), p. 81.
501100003141). [6] Chavez-Romero, R., Cardenas, A., Rendon-Mancha, J. M., Vernaza, K. M., and
 Gannon University (C. Christopher Cooney and Brian Piovesan, D., 2015, “Inexpensive Vision-Based System for the Direct Measure-
ment of Ankle Stiffness During Quiet Standing,” ASME J. Med. Devices, 9(4),
Jackman Endowed Professorship; Funder ID: 10.13039/ p. 041011.
100006938). [7] Segura, M. E., Coronado, E., Maya, M., Cardenas, A., and Piovesan, D., 2016,
 Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosı (C17-FAI-06- “Analysis of Recoverable Falls Via Microsoft Kinect: Identification of Third-
37.37; Funder ID: 10.13039/501100005324). Order Ankle Dynamics,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, 138(9), p.
091006.
[8] Segura, M. E., Coronado, E., Cardenas, A., and Piovesan, D., 2015, “Time-
Based Identification of Human Ankle Impedance Via Microsoft Kinect,” IEEE
Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), Philadelphia,
Appendix: Derivation of the Third-Order Model PA, Dec. 12, pp. 1–5.
[9] Piovesan, D., Pierobon, A., DiZio, P., and Lackner, J. R., 2012, “Measuring
By solving Eq. (8), we find that  1 ¼ kt1u1. After substituting Multi-Joint Stiffness During Single Movements: Numerical Validation of a
this relationship into Eq. (7), we obtain that Novel Time-Frequency Approach,” PloS One, 7(3), p. e33086.
[10] Piovesan, D., Pierobon, A., DiZio, P., and Lackner, J. R., 2013, “Experimental
0 ¼ ða þ 2b cosðh2 ÞÞ€h1  ðc þ b cosðh2 ÞÞ€h2 þ kt1 Measure of Arm Stiffness During Single Reaching Movements With a Time-
Frequency Analysis,” J. Neurophysiol., 110(10), pp. 2484–2496.
2
þ b sinðh2 Þðh_ 2  2h_ 1 h_ 2 Þ  gðd sinðh1 Þ  e sinðh21 ÞÞ [11] Piovesan, D., Pierobon, A., and Mussa Ivaldi, F. A., 2013, “Critical Damping
Conditions for Third Order Muscle Models: Implications for Force Control,”
ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 135(10), p. 101010.
from where it is possible to solve for /1 [12] Loram, I. D., and Lakie, M., 2002, “Direct Measurement of Human Ankle Stiff-
ness During Quiet Standing: The Intrinsic Mechanical Stiffness Is Insufficient
1 € for Stability,” J. Physiol., 545(3), pp. 1041–1053.
u1 ¼ h 2 ðc þ b cosðh2 ÞÞ  €h 1 ða þ 2b cosðh2 ÞÞ [13] Bortolami, S. B., DiZio, P., Rabin, E., and Lackner, J., 2003, “Analysis of
kt1 Human Postural Responses to Recoverable Falls,” Exp. Brain Res., 151(3), pp.
   387–404.
þ gðd sinðh1 Þ  e sinðh2 1ÞÞ þ b sinðh2 Þ 2h_ 1  h_ 2 h_ 2 [14] Roberts, T. J., and Azizi, E., 2011, “Flexible Mechanisms: The Diverse Roles
of Biological Springs in Vertebrate Movement,” J. Exp. Biol., 214(3), pp.
353–361.
Its time derivative (/_ 1 ) can be written as follows: [15] Coronado, L. E., Chavez-Romero, R., Maya, M., Cardenas, A., and Piovesan,
D., 2015, “Combining Genetic Algorithms and Extended Kalman Filter to Esti-

1 ::: ::: mate Ankle’s Muscle-Tendon Parameters,” ASME Paper No. DSCC2015-9781.
u_ 1 ¼ h 2 ðc þ b cosðh2 ÞÞ  h 1 ða þ 2b cosðh2 ÞÞ [16] Caruntu, D. I., and Hefzy, M. S., 2004, “3-D Anatomically Based Dynamic
kt1    Modeling of the Human Knee to Include Tibio-Femoral and Patello-Femoral
g e cosðh21 Þh_ 21 þ d cosðh1 Þh_ 1  2b sinðh2 Þ €h 2 þ h_ 2 €h 21 Joints,” ASME J. Biomech. Eng., 126(1), pp. 44–53.
  
[17] Caruntu, D. I., Moreno, R., and Freeman, R., 2017, “Knee Muscle and Liga-
2  ment Forces During Drop Landing Exercise,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2017-
þb cosðh2 Þh_ 2 þ sinðh2 Þ 2h_ 1  h_ 2 €h 2 70982.
[18] Salinas, J. M., and Caruntu, D. I., 2018, “2-D Inverse Dynamics Knee Model:
Aligning Anatomical Knee Model With Knee Extension Kinematic Data Using
Ligament Forces,” ASME Paper No. DETC2018-85386.
Note that the third derivative of h appears at this stage. [19] Piovesan, D., Kennett, C., Chavez-Romero, R., Panza, M. J., and Cardenas, A.,
A similar procedure can be done to obtain /2, since  2 ¼ kt2/2. 2015, “Stiffness Boundary Conditions for Critical Damping in Balance Recov-
In this way, we find that ery,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2015-50564.
[20] Meirovitch, L., 2010, Methods of Analytical Dynamics, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
    [21] Ogata, K., 1998, System Dynamics, Vol. 3, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
1 2 NJ.
u2 ¼ b cosðh2 Þ€h 1  sinðh2 Þh_ 1  c€h 21 þ ge sinðh21 Þ [22] Khalil, W., and Dombre, E., 2004, Modeling, Identification & Control of
kt2
      Robots, Kogan Page Science, London.
1 2 ::: [23] Mooring, B. W., Roth, Z. S., and Driels, M. R., 1991, Fundamentals of Manipu-
u_ 2 ¼  b sinðh2 Þ€h 1 2h_ 1 þ h_ 2 þ cosðh2 Þ h_ 1 h_ 2  h 1 lator Calibration, Wiley, New York.
kt2
:::  [24] Penrose, R., 1955, “A Generalized Inverse for Matrices,” Math. Proc. Cam-
þch 21  ge cosðh21 Þh_ 21 bridge Philos. Soc., 51(3), pp. 406–413.
[25] Simon, D., 2006, Optimal State Estimation: Kalman, H Infinity, and Nonlinear
Approaches, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
[26] Charmant, J., 2018, “Kinovea Version 0.8.15,” Bordeaux, France.
Finally, knowing that w1 ¼ h1  u1 and w2 ¼ h2  u2, Eqs. (11) [27] El-Raheem, R. M. A., Kamel, R. M., and Ali, M. F., 2015, “Reliability of Using
and (12) become Kinovea Program in Measuring Dominant Wrist Joint Range of Motion,”
Trends Appl. Sci. Res., 10(4), pp. 224–230.
[28] Winter, D. A., 2009, Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement,
kt1 u1 ¼ km1 ðh1  u1 Þ þ bm1 ðh_ 1  u_ 1 Þ Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
[29] Lamontagne, A., Malouin, F., and Richards, C. L., 2000, “Contribution of Pas-
kt2 u ¼ km2 ðh2  u Þ þ bm2 ðh_ 2  u_ Þ
2 2 2 sive Stiffness to Ankle Plantarflexor Moment During Gait After Stroke,” Arch.
Phys. Med. Rehabil., 81(3), pp. 351–358.
[30] Marusiak, J., Kisiel-Sajewicz, K., Jask olska, A., and Jask
olski, A., 2010,
which can then be written in terms of h1, h2, and their derivatives. “Higher Muscle Passive Stiffness in Parkinson’s Disease Patients Than in Con-
trols Measured by Myotonometry,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 91(5), pp.
800–802.
References [31] Sinkjær, T., Andersen, J. B., Nielsen, J. F., and Nielsen, J., 1996, “Impaired
[1] Tsuji, T., Morasso, P. G., Goto, K., and Ito, K., 1995, “Human Hand Impedance Stretch Reflex and Joint Torque Modulation During Spastic Gait in Multiple
Characteristics During Maintained Posture,” Biol. Cybern., 72(6), pp. 475–485. Sclerosis Patients,” J. Neurol., 243(8), pp. 566–574.

101001-8 / Vol. 14, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

[32] Schmitz, A., and Piovesan, D., 2016, “Development of an Open-Source, Dis-
crete Element Knee Model,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 63(10), pp.
2056–2067.
[33] Perreault, E. J., Kirsch, R. F., and Acosta, A. M., 1999, “Multiple-Input,
Multiple-Output System Identification for Characterization of Limb Stiffness
Dynamics,” Biol. Cybern., 80(5), pp. 327–337.
Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics
[34] Mirbagheri, M., Barbeau, H., and Kearney, R., 2000, “Intrinsic and Reflex Con-
tributions to Human Ankle Stiffness: Variation With Activation Level and Posi-
tion,” Exp. Brain Res., 135(4), pp. 423–436.
[35] Jalaleddini, K., Golkar, M. A., and Kearney, R. E., 2017, “Measurement of
Dynamic Joint Stiffness From Multiple Short Data Segments,” IEEE Trans.
Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng., 25(7), pp. 925–934.
OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 14 / 101001-9