PHD Thesis

Technische Universität München
Fakultät für Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik
Human-centered Assistive Robotics (HCR)
Center of pressure models to estimate gait features of

heeled gait and post-stroke gait
Karna Potwar
Vollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Elektrotechnik und

Informationstechnik der Technischen Universität München zur Erlangung
des akademischen Grades eines Doktor-Ingenieurs (Dr.-Ing.)
genehmigten Dissertation.
Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr.-Ing. empty

Prüfer der Dissertation:
1. Prof. Dr. Dongheui Lee
2. Prof. Empty
University of —
Die Dissertation wurde am xx.xx.2021 bei der Technischen Universität

München eingereicht und durch die Fakultät für Elektrotechnik und In-
formationstechnik am .............. angenommen.
—————————————————————————————————————–
To Madhuri Potwar and Pushparanjan Potwar
Acknowledgement
My pursuit of a doctorate was possible due to immense efforts by my parents towards my up-
bringing. They spent night and day to provide financial support for my education. I faced a lot of
difficulties during my pursuit of a doctorate degree. But through critique from Dr. Dongheui Lee
and Dr. Leif Johannsen I improved as a researcher.
3
Contents
1. Introduction 23
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.2. Structure of thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.3. Publication note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2. Background research and contributions 27

2.1. Modeling legged locomotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1.1. Postural balance in quiet standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.1.2. Legged locomotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.1.3. Walking models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2. Types of footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.1. Injuries and gait changes due to heeled footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.2. Center of pressure movement for footwear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.3. Gait disorder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3.1. Plantar pressure in post-stroke gait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3.2. Stroke gait event detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.3.3. Soft orthoses for gait rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3.4. Parameters affecting gait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3.5. Overview of the dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3. Estimation of heeled gait kinetics and kinematics 47

3.1. SLIP bipedal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2. Heuristic COP model for heeled gait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3. Parameter search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.4. Model validation and hypothesis testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.4.1. GRF estimation for barefoot and heeled gait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4.2. Individual gait parameter estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4.3. Multiple parameter estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4. Estimation of stroke gait 79

4.1. Stroke gait data pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5
Contents
4.2. COP translation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

4.3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.1. Spatio-temporal estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.2. GRF estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.3.3. Velocity based leg adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
5. Summary of the research 107

5.1. Heeled gait model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.2. Stroke gait estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Appendices 111
A. Dynamical systems 113

A.1. First & second order systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
A.2. Limit cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
A.3. Poincare map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Bibliography 115
6
Abstract
Locomotion is an important activity for human beings to accomplish daily tasks and have a healthy
lifestyle. Locomotion is facilitated by provision of footwear that reduce (DL: reduces?) human
effort and provide comfort. However, addition of certain footwear features, for aesthetics, can
lead to discomfort. These aesthetics alter foot biomechanics during gait as observed during heeled
gait. Similarly, neuromechanical gait disorders can lead to pathological gait causing unequal load-
ing on limbs and asymmetric joint movement as observed during post-stroke gait. Due to simi-
lar biomechanical changes observed in heeled footwear and post-stroke gait, such as constrained
joint movement, poor push-off force, higher impact forces and unstable gait, it is important for
clinicians to understand how do footwear affect (DL: how footwear affects) gait or how can or-
thotic footwear improve post-stroke gait. To answer this question, analysis of gait with heeled
footwear and post-stroke gait can provide insights into changes in biomechanics of the respective
gaits. However, human motion capture is a costly endeavor and requires gait trials in a laboratory
seting(DL: setting). To gain empirical insights into motion of gait with heeled footwear and post-
stroke gait dynamics, computational bipedal models with a center of mass (COM) and two legs
employing forward dynamics can be beneficial.
This thesis deals with modeling the two gaits using passive dynamical gait models to simu-
late respective gait features of heeled and post-stroke gait. Usually, bipedal spring mass systems
simulate barefoot walking and it is still unknown how heeled gait can be modeled. In order to
accomplish this we develop a hypothesis that connects barefoot walking and heeled gait through
transition curves. These transition curves alter the shape of the center of pressure (COP) profile.
Center of pressure profile helps in simulating the movement of point of force application from
heel to toe. Heel to toe movement is affected through heeled footwear. Hence, through simu-
lation of COP dynamics in a bipedal model, we try to distinguish between barefoot and heeled
gait by estimating their respective gait determinants. This way we provide a transitional COP
constraint model connecting barefoot and heeled gait. We take this approach further towards esti-
mating asymmetric post stroke gait characteristics. Post-stroke gait recovery can be irregular with
significant data variability. To accommodate this we test two COP progression models with asym-
metric parameters. For the first COP model, COP acceleration is equal to the COM acceleration
in the anterior-posterior direction to facilitate negative COP movement near mid-stance thereby
simulating COP sway. The second model uses the relationship between COP displacement and
COM-COP inclination angle during stance phase acquired through stroke gait data.
For heeled gait we show that with addition of two new parameters (DL: mention what the two
parameters are.) the bipedal model differentiates between barefoot and heeled gait. Results for
7
Contents
post-stroke gait show accuracy in estimating medium walking speeds. While, very slow walking
gait estimation shows limitations of the bipedal model. Moreover, leg stiffness plays an important
role in estimating ground reaction force at very slow walking speeds in post-stroke gait. The
stroke study demands requirement of an improved control model at very slow walking speeds.
(DL: Highlight the scientific value of this thesis explicitly.)
8
Zusammenfassung
Fortbewegung ist eine wichtige Aktivität fÃ¼r den Menschen, um tägliche Aufgaben zu erledi-
gen und einen gesunden Lebensstil zu haben. Die Fortbewegung wird durch die Bereitstellung
von Schuhen erleichtert, die die menschliche Anstrengung reduzieren und Komfort bieten. Das
Hinzufügen bestimmter Schuhmerkmale aus Ästhetischen Gründen kann jedoch zu Unbehagen
führen. Diese Ästhetik verändert die Biomechanik des Fusses während des Gehens, wie sie beim
Gehen mit Absätzen beobachtet wird. In ähnlicher Weise können neuromechanische Gangstörun-
gen zu einem pathologischen Gang führen, der eine ungleiche Belastung der Gliedmassen und
eine asymmetrische Gelenkbewegung verursacht, wie sie beim Gang nach einem Schlaganfall
beobachtet wird. Aufgrund ähnlicher biomechanischer Veränderungen, die bei hochhackigen
Schuhen und beim Gang nach dem Schlaganfall beobachtet werden, wie z. B. eingeschränkte
Gelenkbewegung, schlechte Abdrückkraft, höhere Aufprallkräfte und instabiler Gang, ist es für
Ärzte wichtig zu verstehen, wie sich Schuhe auf den Gang auswirken oder wie Orthesen wirken
können Schuhe verbessern den Gang nach dem Schlaganfall. Um diese Frage zu beantworten,
kann die Analyse des Gangs mit Stöckelschuhen und dem Gang nach dem Schlaganfall Einblicke
in Veränderungen in der Biomechanik des jeweiligen Gangs geben. Die Erfassung menschlicher
Bewegungen ist jedoch kostspielig und erfordert einen Laboraufbau. Um empirische Einblicke in
die Bewegung des Gangs mit hochhackigem Schuhwerk und die Gangdynamik nach dem Schla-
ganfall zu erhalten, können rechnergestützte Bipedalmodelle mit einem Schwerpunkt (COM) und
zwei Beinen von Vorteil sein, bei denen die Vorwärtsdynamik eingesetzt wird.
Diese Arbeit befasst sich mit der Modellierung der beiden Gangarten unter Verwendung pas-
siver dynamischer Gangmodelle, um die jeweiligen Gangmerkmale von Stöckel- und Post-Stroke-
Gang zu simulieren. In der Regel simulieren Bipedal-Federmassensysteme das Barfusslaufen, und
es ist noch nicht bekannt, wie unbequemes Schuhwerk modelliert werden kann. Um dies zu erre-
ichen, entwickeln wir eine Hypothese, die Barfusslaufen und Fersengang durch Übergangskurven
verbindet. Diese Übergangskurven verändern die Form des Druckmittelpunktprofils (COP). Das
Druckmittelpunktprofil hilft bei der Simulation der Bewegung des Kraftpunkts von Ferse zu Zehe.
Die Bewegung von Ferse zu Zehe wird durch Schuhe mit Absatz beeinträchtigt. Versuchen Sie
daher durch Simulation der COP-Dynamik in einem Bipedal-Modell, zwischen Barfuss- und Ab-
satzgang zu unterscheiden, indem Sie die jeweiligen Gangdeterminanten abschätzen. Auf diese
Weise stellen wir ein Übergangsmodell für COP-Einschränkungen bereit, das Barfuss- und Ab-
satzgang verbindet. Wir gehen diesen Ansatz weiter, um die asymmetrischen Gangcharakteris-
tika nach dem Schlaganfall abzuschätzen. Die Gangwiederherstellung nach einem Schlaganfall
kann unregelmässig sein und eine erhebliche Datenvariabilität aufweisen. Um dies zu berück-
9
Contents
sichtigen, testen wir zwei COP-Progressionsmodelle mit asymmetrischen Parametern. Für das
erste COP-Modell entspricht die COP-Beschleunigung der COM-Beschleunigung in horizontaler
Richtung, um eine negative COP-Bewegung nahe der Mitte des Standes zu ermöglichen und so
das COP-Schwanken zu simulieren. Das zweite Modell verwendet die Beziehung zwischen der
COP-Verschiebung und dem COM-COP-Neigungswinkel während der Standphase.
Für den Gang mit Absatz zeigen wir, dass das Bipedal-Modell mit zwei neuen Parametern
zwischen Barfuss- und Absatzgang unterscheidet. Die Ergebnisse für den Gang nach dem Schla-
ganfall zeigen die Genauigkeit bei der Schätzung der mittleren Gehgeschwindigkeit. Während
Eine sehr langsame Gangschätzung zeigt Einschränkungen des Bipedal-Modells. Darüber hinaus
spielt die Beinsteifigkeit eine wichtige Rolle bei der Abschätzung der Bodenreaktionskraft bei
sehr langsamen Gehgeschwindigkeiten nach dem Schlaganfall. Die Schlaganfallstudie erfordert
ein Kontrollmodell bei sehr langsamen Gehgeschwindigkeiten.
10
List of Publications
Peer reviewed Journals

Karna Potwar and Dongheui Lee, A center of pressure progression model for walking with non
heeled and heeled footwear, In Gait & Posture, pages 300-307, 2020.
Leif Johannsen, Karna Potwar, Matteo Saveriano, Satoshi Endo and Dongheui Lee, Robotic light
touch assists human balance control during maximum forward reaching, In The Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, SAGE, 2020.
Jeffrey Ackerman, Karna Potwar, Justin Seipel, Suspending loads decreases load stability but
may slightly improve body stability, In Journal of Biomechanics, pages 38-47, 2017.
Submitted Manuscripts
Karna Potwar, Elizabeth Chandler, Valerie Pomeroy, Leif Johannsen and Dongheui Lee, Estima-
tion of stroke gait's spatio-temporal events using a passive dynamic bipedal model (submitted), To
Journal of Applied Biomechanics.
Conferences
Karna Potwar, Leif Johannsen, Matteo Saveriano, Martin Langer and Dongheui Lee, Light touch
postural guidance through a robotic system, Asia Haptics, 2018.
Posters
Karna Potwar and Dongheui Lee, Simulating bipedal walking using a dynamic center of pressure
based model, French-German Conference on Humanoid and Legged Robots, 2018
11
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
COM Center of mass
COP Center of pressure
GRF Ground reaction force
SLIP Spring loaded inverted pendulum
IP Inverted pendulum
MP More-paretic
LP Less-paretic
TD Touchdown
LO Lift-off
EMG Electromyogram
AP Anterior-posterior
ML Medio-lateral
IMU Inertial measurement units
13
List of Figures
1.1. Overview of our study. COP progression can provide the missing link in between
heeled gait and barefoot walking gait. We further expect, COP progression can
help in estimating changes in post-stroke gait. Similarities in COP dynamics for
heeled gait and post-stroke gait can aid in foot orthotic design. . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1. Inverted pendulum model with a triangular shaped foot with an ankle joint
reproduced from [39]. In the figure, x denotes CoM projection on the ground, u
denotes position of the CoP, l is the leg length and BoS stands for base of support.
Foot with ankle joint helps in establishing effect of heel to toe span on the COP
movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2. Link segment models with point masses can be used to describe the motion of
human body parts. Scaling of link segment models can help in simulating gaits
of humans with different anthropometric measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3. Inverted pendulum models with translating COP. A) SLIP model with COP
translation for walking [49]. B) Constrained COP translation with curved feet
[3]. C) Inverted pendulum with sliding COP with rigid legs for walking [61]. D)
Spring mass model with ankle joint for running [69]. E) Spring mass model with
compliant leg for running [10]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4. IP models with and without point of force translation (POFT). With POFT the
spring stiffness depends on the initial TD angle φo . POFT is an alternate name for
COP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.5. Various shoe elements. A) A shoe wedge (brown) affects the orientation of the
foot in the frontal plane by being played under the medial or the lateral part of
the foot. B) A shoe lift (brown) provides an increase in the base height of the
foot uniformly throughout the base area compared to a shoe wedge. C) A pressure
insole helps in monitoring plantar pressure progression while providing a soft base
for the foot. D) A heel provides increase in the sub-talar join reducing the heel
contact area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.6. An orthotic shoe with detachable convex pads (red circles) developed by [52].
Different configurations of the convex pad with three medial (M 0.4, M 0.8, M
1.2) and three lateral (L 0.4, L 0.8, L 1.2) placements at a distance of 0.4, 0.8, and
1.2 cm in the medio-lateral direction. The convex pad deviation is measured from
the neutral (N 0.0) sagittal axis (solid line). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
15
List of Figures
2.7. Heel contact and forefoot contact phase for barefoot and heeled gait respec-
tively. A) Change in COM-COP inclination angle for barefoot walking for COP
displacement of dB and B) change in heeled gait inclination angle for a COP dis-
placement of dB . θ1 corresponds to heel touchdown angle and θ2 corresponds to
forefoot contact angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.8. SLIP model can be altered to simulate symmetric heeled gait and asymmetric
stroke gait in the sagittal plane. We consider two variants of SLIP model with
COP progression. For the heeled gait study we propose a symmetric SLIP model.
While, for the post stroke study we propose two COP progression models Ω1 and
Ω2 . For the stroke study, the aim is to estimate spatio-temporal parameters and
gait kinetics, with or without symmetric parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.1. Developing SLIP variant for heeled gait. Relevant gait data like physiologically
plausible TD angles, walking speed and system energy, are used to simulate the
SLIP model. Provision of COP translation is provided through a heuristic function
that can alter COP dynamics. Finally, model and experiment comparison helps to
assess the hypothetical COP curves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2. Leg model and GRF representation. (Left) Superimposed SLIP leg with an
actual human leg. (Middle) SLIP configuration at apex state. (Right) A double
stance phase for the SLIP model, with forces experienced by the COM due to leg
compression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3. COP progression for barefoot and heeled gait. θ1 corresponds to the TD angle
and θ2 is the stance angle at forefoot contact corresponding to the location of the
COP. dB and dH correspond to the COP displacement from TD to forefoot contact
phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.4. COP constraint curves. A). Mean COP barefoot walking constraint curve (solid
line) with standard deviation (gray region) and hypothesized heeled walking COP
curves (C1, C2 and C3). B). Constraint curves (C1, C2 and C3) are a section of
the tangent function within its domain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.5. COP translation profile reproduced from the article by Jung and colleagues
[49]. A) COP displacement, B) COP velocity, C) COP acceleration . . . . . . . . 52
3.6. Periodic solutions density for two scenarios of parameter search. Decrease in
solution density occurs by numerically optimizing k̃ and ẋcp . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.7. Gait events for a SLIP model with COP translation. SLIP model follows a
sequence of apex, touch down (TD), lift off (LO) and apex. Such a sequence is
used to describe a periodic gait. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.8. COP profile generated by the model. A) COP displacement with respect to
change in θ . B) COP velocity profile. C) COP acceleration profile. These profiles
encompass various forward progressing COP profiles including the experimental
COP profiles shown in Fig. 3.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.9. Distribution of periodic solutions at different γ and d values. Compared to
SLIP with fixed pivot, addition of two extra parameters d and γ generates addi-
tional periodic solution plots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.10. GRF comparison of our model with Jung’s data. The parameters corresponding
2π
to each GRF profile are A) k̃ = 30.04, d = 0.225, γ = 3.25d , R2 = 0.82 B) k̃ = 32.07,
d = 0.125, γ = 2.25d , R = 0.83 C) k̃ = 46.43, d = 0.15, γ = 2π
2π 2 2
4d , R = 0.76. . . . . 58
16
List of Figures
3.11. Graphical representation of barefoot and heeled shoe and change in leg length
due to heel height. Heel alters effective leg stiffness of the leg and overall COP
displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.12. GRF comparison of our model with Chien’s data for heeled gait. ess,ds cor-
respond to k̃ = 85.16, d = 0.04, γ = 2π 2 2
4d , Rhorizontal = 0.84, Rvertical = 0.83, estrln
2π
corresponds to k̃ = 39.82, d = 0.03, γ = 3.5d , Rhorizontal = 0.50, R2vertical = 0.23 and
2
2π
ecad corresponds to k̃ = 35.62, d = 0.08, γ = 2.75d , R2horizontal = 0.48, R2vertical = 0.36. 60
3.13. COP displacement d from Shang’s data plotted against a backdrop of model
parameters (k̃ and θ ) and gait events double stance duration %ds and single
stance duration %ss. For %ds, the model shows 38.24% error in predicting the
closest steady state solution at γ = 2π 4d . For %ss, the model shows 16.18% error in
predicting the closest steady state solution at γ = 2π 4d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.14. Single stance duration distribution. Single stance support duration % plotted
2π 2π 2π
for γ = [ 2.1d , 3d , 4d ] for Shang and Chien’s study against model data. . . . . . . 61
3.15. Double stance duration distribution. Double stance support duration % plotted
2π 2π 2π
for γ = [ 2.1d , 3d , 4d ] for Shang and Chien’s study against model. . . . . . . . . . 62
2π 2π 2π
3.16. Cadence distribution. Cadence plotted for γ = [ 2.1d , 3d , 4d ] for Esenyel and
Chien’s study against model data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2π 2π 2π
3.17. Step length distribution. Step length plotted for γ = [ 2.1d , 3d , 4d ] for Esenyel and
Chien’s study against model data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.18. Power of the COM during the four phases of leg during stance phase. Barefoot
and heeled gait curves are plotted at 1.1 m/ and 1 m/s respectively corresponding to
the GRF plots in Fig. 3.10 and Fig. 3.12. Heeled gait power curve shows opposite
behavior during rebound and pre-load stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.19. Potential COP constraint curves for testing hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.20. Hill’s muscle model. Hill’s muscle model consisting of a contractile element
(CE), passive element (PE) and series element (SE) with forces F at either ends of
the muscle fibre. These muscle models are used in musculoskeletal models. . . . 75
3.21. Change in shape of the vertical GRF profile. Stance cycle optimization can
be done by using various shape profiles for vertical GRF. In the plot q represents
shape factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.1. Symmetric and asymmetric variations of SLIP. SLIP model with asymmetries
can help in modeling pathological gait, in this study post-stroke hemiparetic gait.
We provide two COP progression models to test two different constraint conditions. 80
4.2. Overview of motion capture and model simulation. Capturing joint motions,
COP and GRF from motion capture systems and developing gait templates based
on these spatio-temporal variables to obtain in vivo muscle properties. . . . . . . 81
4.3. (Left) Superimposition of the compliant springy leg upon the lower limb of the pa-
tients. The markers represent ASIS/PSIS- Anterior/posterior superior illiac spinae,
LEPI/MEPI - Lateral/medial epicondyle, LMAL/MMAL - Lateral/medial malle-
olous, L and R in the beginning of the abbreviation stand for left and right respec-
tively. (Right) A three apex cycle to simulate asymmetric gait in a SLIP model.d
represents COP displacement, a represents apex state, MP for more-paretic, LP
for less-paretic, k̃ relative leg stiffness, F for leg force, θo heel strike touch down
(TD) angle, l leg length during stance, [x, ẋ, y, ẏ] are COM state variables and xcp
is COP coordinate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
17
List of Figures
4.4. Extraction of COP. Superimposition of heel and toe to denote change in anterior-
posterior COP profile. At heel strike COP coordinate shifts and at toe lift off
returns to zero. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.5. Gait parameter fits for more-paretic and less-paretic leg √ against non dimen-
sionalized walking speed. The walking speed is divided by glo . COP displace-
ment d for each subject is divided by their respective leg length lo . . . . . . . . . 84
4.6. Force length curves based on foot contact frame. Using force length regression
to obtain stiffness constants and coefficient of determination. The TD data frame
was obtained based on contact with force plate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.7. Force length curves based on initiation of COP progression. Using force
length regression to obtain stiffness constants and coefficient of determination.
The change in leg length is calculated as the distance of the COM from the COP
during stance phase. The TD data frame was calculated based on zero slope of
COP curve or point of zero crossing of LMMAL marker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.8. Linear fits for more-paretic and less-paretic leg for 15 subjects. (Red : more-
paretic, Blue : less-paretic, Solid line : data, Dashed line : linear fit) . . . . . . . 87
4.9. COP profiles for Ω1 for subject 1. ẍcp profile resembles ẍ profile due to the
enforced constraint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.10. COP profiles for Ω2 for subject 1. ẍcp has small magnitude close to TD and LO. 90
4.11. Vertical GRF fits for Ω1 for 15 subjects. Subject 1, 3, 5 and 8 show strong corre-
lation fits. We observe multi-period oscillations for GRF profiles due to large k̃ val-
ues. For subject 1 k̃MP = 482.23 and k̃LP = 534.11.23, for subject 3 k̃MP = 497.51
and k̃LP = 43.63, for subject 5 k̃MP = 36.32 and k̃LP = 21.79, for subject 8 k̃MP =
223.70 and k̃LP = 238.62. For subject 1, rsl = 1.22rsl (data) , rSS = 1.58rSS(data) ,
rDS = 0.12rDS(data) .For subject 3, rsl = 0.89rsl (data) , rSS = 2.06rSS(data) , rDS =
9.40rDS(data) For subject 5, rsl )2.08rsl (data) , rSS = 0.64rSS(data) , rDS = 0.12rDS(data) ,
For subject 8, rsl = 1.35rsl (data) , rSS = 0.39rSS(data) , rDS = 0.10rDS(data) . Where r
represents ratio of MP parameter divided LP parameter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.12. Vertical GRF fits for Ω2 for 15 subjects. Subject 1 and 5 show strong cor-
relation fits. For subject 1, k̃MP = 217.42 and k̃LP = 674.44 and for subject 5
k̃MP = 24.67 and k̃LP = 21.13. For subject 1, rsl = 1.14rsl (data) , rSS = 0.48rSS(data) ,
rDS = 0.12rDS(data) . For subject 5, rsl = 1.72rsl (data) , rSS = 1.18rSS(data) , rDS =
0.11rDS(data) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.13. Vertical power profile for 15 subjects with Ω1 . Subjects 4 and 5 showed strong
correlation fits with k̃MP = 32.94 & k̃LP = 39.91 for subject 4 andk̃MP = 38.84 &
k̃LP = 30.71 for subject 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.14. Vertical power profile for 15 subjects with Ω2 . All the subjects show either poor
to moderate correlation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.15. Best fit GRF profiles on a temporal scale. (Red - More-paretic, Blue : Less-
paretic, Solid line : data, Dashed line : model) A). Vertical GRF estimate for sub-
ject n=1, with k̃MP = 29.60, k̃LP = 27.97, dMP(model) = 0.17, dMP(data) = 0.15, dLP(model) =
0.33, dLP(data) = 0.24 B). Vertical GRF estimate for subject n=5, with k̃MP = 24.67, k̃LP =
21.13, dMP(model) = 0.24, dMP(data) = 0.27, dLP(model) = 0.13, dLP(data) = 0.16 C).
Vertical power estimate for subject n=1, with k̃MP = 31.44, k̃LP = 30.62, dMP(model) =
0.16, dMP(data) = 0.15, dLP(model) = 0.32, dLP(data) = 0.24 D). Vertical power esti-
mate for subject n=5, with k̃MP = 29.01, k̃LP = 22.09, dMP(model) = 0.36, dMP(data) =
0.27, dLP(model) = 0.20, dLP(data) = 0.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
18
List of Figures
4.16. GRF estimates obtained using VBLA touch down condition and predefined k̃.
This method shows considerable improvement for subjects 6,8 and 11 as com-
pared to Ω2 with correlation estimates in moderate to strong range. For sub-
ject 6 rsl = 0.87rsl (data) , rSS = 0.92rSS(data) and rDS = 6.45rDS(data) . For sub-
ject 8 rsl = 1.41rsl (data) , rSS = 0.61rSS and rDS = 0.10rDS(data) . For subject 11
rsl = 1.21rsl (data) , rSS = 1.60rSS(data) and rDS = 0.10rDS(data) . . . . . . . . . . . 97
A.1. Poincare section for finding stable fixed points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
19
List of Tables
3.1. Scaled parameters and initial conditions used to generate periodic steady
state walking solutions. We define the COM-COP inclination angle with respect
to the vertical instead of horizontal. Multiplication factor γ is calculated as shown
in Section 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2. Single stance duration parameters corresponding to model and data point
shown in Fig. 3.14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.3. Double stance duration parameters corresponding to model and data point
shown in Fig. 3.15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.4. Cadence distribution for parameters corresponding to model and data point
shown in Fig. 3.16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.5. Step length distribution for parameters corresponding to model and data
point shown in Fig. 3.17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.6. Gait determinants error for Chien’s data. Model simulation parameters corre-
sponding to least error for gait determinants for barefoot and heeled walking. . . 66
3.7. Gait determinants error for Shang’s study. Model simulation parameters cor-
responding to least error for gait determinants for heeled walking. . . . . . . . . 66
4.1. Demographics of chronic stroke patients. F-female, M-male. The table displays
type of stroke and affected side of stroke along with age, sex, weight, uncom-
pressed leg length lo and apex speed vapex of the stroke survivors. . . . . . . . . . 82
4.2. Gait parameter and gait events for the stroke survivors. (MP : more-paretic,
LP : less-paretic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.3. Cumulative error estimates for subjects with Ω1 . Errors are estimated for a
given leg separately from the other leg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.4. Cumulative error estimates for subjects with Ω2 . Errors are estimated for a
given leg separately from the other leg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.5. Simultaneous error estimates for subjects with Ω1 . Errors are estimated simul-
taneously for both legs for a given model solution set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.6. Simultaneous error estimates for subjects with Ω2 . Errors are estimated simul-
taneously for both legs for a given model solution set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
21
List of Tables
4.7. Symmetry ratio for all 15 subjects arranged in ascending order of walking
rs (model) r (model)
speeds. r̄sl = rl and r̄sT = srT is step time ratio. Sharbafi A represents
sl (data) sT (data)
the 3D model with stiffness and leg adjustment subfunctions. Sharbafi B repre-
sents 3D model with stiffness, leg adjustment and posture control subfunctions.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
22
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1. Motivation
Locomotion is necessary to accomplish tasks in personal and professional life. Locomotion al-
lows a person to move from a given point to a target point. It describes a person’s ability to
do tasks independently and is necessary for well being. Neuromuscular disorders caused due to
old age or pathological gait can affect a person’s well being and ability to carry out daily tasks.
To improve the condition of people suffering with gait disorders orthotic devices can provide as-
sistance. These orthotic devices target reducing gait asymmetry and equalizing load distribution
under the feet. Development of these orthotic devices is facilitated by measurement of biome-
chanical parameters. These biomechanical parameters can be broadly classified into observable
and non-observable categories. Observable categories include step length, stance duration and
join angles. These parameters can be measured using devices such inertial measurement units
(IMUs) [80]. IMUs are used to measure gait events like touch down (TD) and lift off (LO) of
the foot by detecting change in acceleration of the lower limbs. However, non-observable pa-
rameters such as dynamic leg stiffness requires computational models that rely on leg modeling.
Jakubowski suggested that [46] developing computational models can help in improvement of or-
thotic devices. Computational models that can reproduce experimental gait dynamics can explain
leg stiffness variation for different pathological gaits. Moreover, walking speed, GRF and leg TD
angle affect dynamic leg stiffness [2, 27, 34]. Thus, an appropriate computational model can lead
towards improvement in lower limb orthotic design.
Different leg designs are used in various generic walking templates [32]. Computational models
such as inverted pendulum (IP) help in reproducing human like gait dynamics [14]. IP model has
evolved from using a rigid leg to compliant leg models. The addition of compliant leg stiffness
helps in reproducing human like GRF and center of mass (COM) trajectory [9, 33, 34]. These
spring mass models provide different stiffness values corresponding to different combination of
walking speeds, GRF and stance leg angles. Apart from gait simulation, the leg stiffness values
can help in optimization of compliant foot orthoses. We believe, apart from GRF, walking speed
and leg TD angle, more gait parameters should be used to improve post-stroke gait estimation.
Kobayashi et al. [54] showed that ankle foot orthoses (AFO) stiffness can regulate ankle stiff-
ness. However, pathological gaits such as post stroke hemiparesis often portray altered foot orien-
tation and foot placement which consequently affects their center of pressure (COP) progression.
23
1. Introduction
Moreover, studies on plantar pressure show its growing relevance in improvement and assessing
post-stroke gait [43, 48, 104, 105]. In addition, COP progression in computational models has
shown to improve gait estimation in healthy subjects [49, 85]. Thus, we believe provision of COP
progression can provide reliable leg stiffness values for post stroke gait.
Foot orthoses share certain biomechanical similarities with shoes. Hence, we believe to improve
foot orthoses design, computational models that can differentiate between barefoot and gait with
footwear can be useful. By incorporating biomechanical parameters that can relate barefoot and
gait with footwear can provide a foundation for foot orthotic design. Shoes prevent transmission
of unwanted shear and normal forces underneath the foot and decrease loading stress on the limbs
[79]. However, footwear can sometimes constrain movement and cause instability, such as heeled
footwear. The added discomfort, due to heeled gait, constraints joints, reduces speed and leads
to concentration of plantar pressure at the toes. Similar discomfort is observed in post-stroke
hemiparesis. In case of heeled gait, a healthy person can just switch to ergonomic shoes for
comfort, like sport shoes. But for post-stroke gait this transition to a comfortable gait depends on
many biomechanical factors. Switching from heeled shoes to sport shoes is simply altering the
physical interaction with the foot-floor interface. But due to hemiparesis, the subject experiences
loss of neuromuscular coordination. Hence, in order to design gait-assisstive devices like soft
orthosis for comfort and gait symmetry, subject specific customization of orthoses is required. We
believe, by generating a relation between barefoot and heeled gait, we would obtain a transition
function that can describe barefoot and gait with footwear. By establishing such a relationship,
we would be in a position to develop foot orthoses for post-stroke gait depending on any gait
similarities in non observable gait parameters for the two gaits Fig. 1.1.
Figure 1.1.: Overview of our study. COP progression can provide the missing link in between
heeled gait and barefoot walking gait. We further expect, COP progression can help in
estimating changes in post-stroke gait. Similarities in COP dynamics for heeled gait
and post-stroke gait can aid in foot orthotic design.
This dissertation tries to answer if COP translation can be a good measure to estimate gait
changes due to heeled footwear and asymmetric gait of stroke patients. By doing so, computa-
tionally effective models can be used to model different footwear or estimate gait asymmetry in
pathological gait. Moreover, such models can explain in vivo biomechanical changes such as ac-
tive and passive stiffness for different walking speeds. By developing a relation between barefoot
and heeled gait, we would gain more insights into how COP movement affects shoe compliance
and plantar pressure progression. By obtaining similarities in COP dynamics for heeled gait and
hemiparetic gait would eventually help in recommending design parameters for soft orthotics. In
this study we try to answer the following question
Can these generic dynamic models estimate gait changes due to footwear? And can they esti-
mate gait changes observed in chronic stroke patients?
24
1.2. Structure of thesis
1.2. Structure of thesis

Chapter 1
This chapter contains the motivation of our studies with consisting of the major attributes of the
two gaits that led to this dissertation. In essence, it describes major features of heeled footwear that
affect gait. It brings to light similarities in between heeled gait and post-stroke gait and how these
similar aspects can be estimated through provision of COP progression models. Furthermore, it
provides an overview of how the two gaits are approached from a modeling perspective along with
the scope of this study.
Chapter 2
This chapter describes the current approaches for gait modeling using generic inverted pendu-
lum models. This is followed up by describing various types of footwear and their effect on gait
kinematics, kinetics and foot injuries. We then explain the effects on COP progression and what
features of COP progression can help in developing a hypothesis for COP progression in barefoot
and heeled gait. It is followed up by injuries occurring due to uncomfortable footwear. Second
part of this chapter deals with post-stroke gait features and techniques to estimate spatio-temporal
parameters in healthy and post-stroke gait. Towards the end we describe features of soft orthotics
and role played by orthotic compliance in providing comfort to pathological gait.
Chapter 3
This chapter deals with testing the hypothesis that connects barefoot gait with heeled gait through
transition curves. First part of the chapter deals with describing the bipedal model and generation
of COP constraint curves. Second part deals with simulation of the bipedal model by provision of
an apex return map. Third part deals with validating the results of the bipedal model by estimating
ground reaction forces and spatio-temporal parameters. The spatio-temporal parameters are esti-
mated on an individual leg and on a combined leg basis to test the two COP models. Finally, the
chapter ends with the main findings, limitations and how COP movement can be manipulated to
provide comfort.
Chapter 4
This chapter deals with simulating the two COP progression models for post-stroke gait. We start
by obtaining correlation for spatio-temporal parameters and linear fits for leg stiffness. Secondly,
the COP constraint curves are described for both COP models. We then follow up by describing
the attributes of an asymmetric bipedal model. Thirdly, both COP models are simulated to obtain
steady state walking solutions which are then compared with GRF profiles and spatio-temporal
data. Finally, GRF profiles for very slow gait are re-estimated by providing an alternative heel
strike condition and a predefined relative leg stiffness. Towards the end, we discuss the main
findings, limitations and model applications.
Chapter 5
This chapter summarizes the main findings of both chapters and model limitations of the COP
progression models.
25
1. Introduction
1.3. Publication note

The articles in this thesis are either accepted or submitted to journals.
Chapter 3
Karna Potwar and Dongheui Lee, A center of pressure progression model for walking with non
heeled and heeled footwear, In Gait & Posture, pages 300-307, 2020.
Chapter 4
Karna Potwar, Elizabeth Chandler, Valerie Pomeroy, Leif Johannsen and Dongheui Lee, Estima-
tion of stroke gait's spatio-temporal events using a passive dynamic bipedal model (submitted) to
Journal of Applied Biomechanics.
26
CHAPTER 2
Background research and contributions
For this study, gaining a grasp on dynamics of footwear and post-stroke gait literature is important
from the point of view of designing the bipedal model. In this chapter we introduce literature deal-
ing with existing bipedal models with their qualitative and quantitative aspects. We also elaborate
upon effect of different footwear and how they affect gait kinematics and gait kinetics. We follow
up by narrating post-stroke gait features, non-invasive spatio-temporal estimation techniques used
to classify stroke gait asymmetry and soft orthotics for post-stroke gait.
2.1. Modeling legged locomotion

Human body is a complex redundant system. It has evolved into a redundant system due to the
necessity to carry out different activities. Analyzing the dynamics of a given activity is important to
improve performance or to diagnose a movement disorder. In order to understand these dynamics,
the field of biomechanics helps to investigate how different muscle groups coordinate to perform
a given activity. Biomechanics uses mechanical systems to simulate joint motions. To design
these mechanical systems, the body is stripped down of its redundancy and the most recruited
muscle groups are used to design the mechanical system. By reductive modeling, researchers can
analyse the kinematics and kinetics of the muscle group at a fundamental level. For example,
while performing squats, thighs show the highest electromyographic (EMG) activity and the neck
muscle hardly shows any EMG activity. Hence, in such a case the body can be reduced to a system
that utilizes movement of the quadriceps, hamstrings and gluteus muscles, in essence the upper
leg muscles. Similarly, during locomotion the person uses friction from the walking surface as
leverage to move forward. The lower limbs switch between single stance and double stance while
the arms counteract the pitching torque of the human torso to maintain an upright posture.
To enable understanding of human movement or locomotion at a fundamental level generic
models called templates are used to simulate motion [32]. A template is a generic model that
describes and predicts the behavior of the body in pursuit of a goal or task. It is a model created by
removing the incidental complexity of joints, muscles and neurons. It is not only a simple model
but also serves as a guide or target for the control of locomotion. General behavior, such as the
relative speed at gait change, can be found by using a template for animals that differ in leg number,
posture and skeletal type. Templates do not incorporate detailed mechanisms. They encode the
motion of the body with respect to the minimum number of variables and parameters. In the
27
2. Background research and contributions
Figure 2.1.: Inverted pendulum model with a triangular shaped foot with an ankle joint re-
produced from [39]. In the figure, x denotes CoM projection on the ground, u denotes
position of the CoP, l is the leg length and BoS stands for base of support. Foot with
ankle joint helps in establishing effect of heel to toe span on the COP movement.
absence of a principled understanding of a simple model, no firm grasp of any more detailed model
is likely. In the following sections we will talk about existing templates for legged locomotion.
2.1.1. Postural balance in quiet standing

Before exploring templates for walking we must delve into postural balance due to quiet standing.
This way we get an idea about support polygon and how breaching this support polygon initiates
gait. To understand human postural balance, many link segment models have been developed.
These models combine biomechanics and sensory control to develop predictive capabilities to
deal with changes in initial conditions when the system is perturbed. At their most simplistic form
they try to maintain the COM within the support polygon by regulating the joint motions. To
understand the neuromechanics behind postural control several simple to complex link segment
models have been developed. These templates (generic models) to anchors (detailed models) have
proven to be useful in understanding postural balance and locomotion not just for humans but also
animals [32, 39, 55]. Templates for postural balance have a rigid link connecting the COM and
COP that sways in the medio-lateral (ML) or anterior-posterior (AP) direction. To understand the
basic relation between COM and COP during postural balance, an inverted pendulum model is
helpful to analyse the dynamics in sagittal and frontal plane. In Fig. 2.1, a triangular shaped foot
28
is attached to a rotating link through a hinge joint atop which rests a point mass. The hinge joint
is provided with no torque or stiffness and provides no active or passive actuation. The movement
of the point mass is governed by the restoring torque provided by the COP movement about the
hinge joint. In this IP representation of postural balance, shown in Fig. 2.1, Euler's equation holds
∑ M = Iα (2.1)
where M represents moment about the ankle joint, α represents angular acceleration and I stands
for moment of inertia of the COM about the ankle joint. For a pendulum with mass m and effective
length l, moment of inertia is given as I = ml 2 . With the vertical projection of the COM denoted
as x and the position of the COP as u, Eqn. 2.1 can be written as
ẍ
(u − x)mg = Iα ≈ −ml 2 (2.2)
l
or
l ẍ
u − x = − ẍ = 2 (2.3)
g ωo
Hof et al. [39] showed that as long as COP position can be manipulated the COM stays within
the base of support (BoS). From Eqn. 2.3, it is evident that as the COM sways further away from
the hinge joint the restoring force increases. While standing, the COP movement is regulated
by movement of joint torques and planar-flexors to induce restoring force in the medio-lateral
or anterior-posterior direction. This establishes a relation for quiet standing for COM and COP
on a fundamental level. Furthermore, even Winter et al. [111] showed that the position of the
COP is manipulated by the ankle plantar-dorsiflexors in the sagittal plane during quiet standing.
From Fig. 2.1 we also infer that smaller the base of support (BoS), less leeway the COM gets to
sway causing the central nervous system (CNS) to be more active as compared to when the BoS is
larger. This suggests that the joints will get stiffer to maintain stability as the BoS area decreases to
maintain the projected COM within the BoS. Compared to quiet standing in the traditional sense,
with the feet side-by-side, standing in tandem Romberg stance can cause the subject to experience
more instability due to reduction in their ML width and increase in their AP length [47]. This study
showed that COP movement was leading COM movement. However, Winter et al. [113] showed
that COP and COM are always in phase during quiet standing and the small delay between them
is due to the damping encountered, suggesting that COP does not display reactive control during
quiet standing. They further showed that stiffness of the inverted pendulum (IP) model increased
as stance width increased and as sway reduced.
Quiet standing can be modeled using no feedback based IP models but there ability to handle
perturbation is limited unlike active control based IP models which can dissipate or counter energy
supplied by perturbations. IP models, however, help in establishing an empirical relationship
between COM and COP which forms the basis of almost all systems used in modeling the body,
foot and surface combine. To understand how IP models benefit locomotion modeling, one needs
to understand dynamics of human walking. The following section deals with legged locomotion
in humans and different phases of gait in typically developing subjects.
2.1.2. Legged locomotion

Moving over from postural balance during quiet standing to legged locomotion leads to addition of
two phases namely single stance and double stance. With these phases, the researcher has to take
into account the leading and lagging foot location when modeling walking dynamics. Walking is
often described as a series of constant falls. These falls occur when the COM moves out of the
29
support polygon, done so intentionally by the user, to move forward. Similar to quiet standing
walking gait can be simulated using templates (Fig. 2.2). Gait characteristics are influenced by
the shape, position and function of neuromuscular coordination and musculoskeletal structures as
well as by the ligamentous constraints of the joints. The primary goal during locomotion is energy
efficiency in progression using a stable kinetic chain of joints and limb segments that work in sync
to transport the payload head, arms and trunk (HAT). Experimental studies have shown that walk-
ing consists of seven phases [5, 45, 110]. However, for optimization-based simulation, gait motion
is simplified so that it covers a partial gait cycle or ignores some phases. In literature, a simpli-
fied gait cycle has been broadly divided into four categories: (1) single support swing motion; (2)
single support with instantaneous double support; (3) single support and double support-a step;
(4) complete gait cycle-a stride. The importance of double support phase switch with single phase
is important from the view point of understanding weight shifting mechanism. This mechanism
can be affected when shifting from an unstable single support to a stable double support phase.
This shift of weight when measured temporally or through spatial movement of COM can prove
to be a gait determinant. Similarly, several such gait determinants can be obtained when analyzing
various non-pathological and pathological gaits. The double stance phase varies significantly from
healthy gait to heeled gait to pathological gait due to their different neuromechanics and postural
control.
Generally, there are two ways to enforce the law of physics for gait simulation: forward dynam-
ics and inverse dynamics. Forward dynamics calculates the motion from given forces by integrat-
ing equations of motion with specified initial conditions. In contrast, inverse dynamics computes
associated forces that leads to a prescribed motion for the system. For forward dynamics optimiza-
tion, forces are the design variables for the optimization problem. During optimization iterations,
motion is obtained by integrating the equations of motion with initial conditions. The optimal
gait is determined by minimizing a human performance measure subject to physical constraints.
This performance measure depends on the number of independent state variables and constrained
functions of the system. The major issue for forward dynamics optimization is the high compu-
tational cost of integration of equations of motion [4, 116]. Hence, when considering addition
of new links to a template one has to take into consideration the increase in computational time
versus the significance of the added parameter or variable. Saving time by reducing the resolution
of parameter search should be done without the loss of generality. However, compared to inverse
dynamics, there is no requirement for joint trajectories to simulate a periodic cycle for forward
dynamics. Hence, the low reliance on data makes these models easy to use. To get an idea of
inverted pendulum models for human gait, we discuss their qualitative and quantitative aspects in
the following section.
2.1.3. Walking models

Walking is a feed forward mechanism whose steady state can be modeled using open loop systems
with no feedback control. Such models are called passive dynamic models that can move under
the influence of gravity. Passive models have elements that consume energy rather than producing
it. This is possible only for steady state walking where the COM displays periodic sinusoidal
behavior unlike at gait initiation or gait termination. Moreover, most of these models work on the
principle of exchange of energy in between kinetic and potential energy. Due to the viscoelastic
properties of the human muscle the decrease in kinetic energy leads to increase in gravitational
potential energy and/or muscle elastic energy. When developing link segment models with no
elastic elements, models shown in Fig. 2.2 can be considered. These models represent movement
of COM of individual body parts. The initial condition of such a link segment model will define
its movement under gravity. Due to several joints the initial condition for each joint (COM coor-
30
dinate and joint angles) should be defined close to the required value to obtain a perpetual motion
under gravity. To obtain such initial states, several initial conditions are provided to simulate the
model behavior. But the model shows periodic motion only for some of the initial conditions.
As mentioned earlier that templates can be converted into anchors to analyze behaviors of several
joints and their contribution towards stabilizing and propagating the body forward. Depending on
the goal of the study, the multi-segment model can be simulated for a given time step, walking
phase or even over a complete stride cycle. To accomplish this, forward dynamics is often used
to integrate the equations of motion over a given time step or walking phase. While switching
between different phases, a phase trigger activates or deactivates an equation of motion of the
corresponding body part. However, multi-segment models, although realistic, require control to
obtain periodic motion and to avoid searching several initial conditions.
Figure 2.2.: Link segment models with point masses can be used to describe the motion of
human body parts. Scaling of link segment models can help in simulating gaits of
humans with different anthropometric measurements.
Walking is a fundamental human motion with complexities in terms of neural control strategies,
contact modeling, dynamic stability, and non-linearity of the mechanical system. There exist ex-
tensive experimental studies that provide detailed descriptions of dynamic human walking. There
exist empirical models that are used to estimate trends in spatio-temporal parameters associated
with walking. These models offer a non-redundant system as humans are over-complete for a
simple task of locomotion. When focusing on the contribution of a given body part, such as foot,
knee or hip, one can rely on such templates. The mechanics of walking in bipeds and quadrupeds
has been characterized by a template referred to as the inverted pendulum (IP) [14]. This simple
model consists of a point mass atop a stiff leg link, yet capably representing the underlying task
of translating an animal’s center of mass - the ’payload’. It is a candidate template because it has
both prescriptive and descriptive properties. It predicts that kinetic energy will be exchanged with
potential energy as the body vaults over a stiff leg. The walking motion in IP models is modeled as
31
successive swing motion in the single support phase. The COM is assumed to move in a cycloidal
motion in the sagittal plane. In addition, the ankle torque around the contact point with the ground
is assumed to be zero.
Walking can be modeled not only using active control but also with passive elements that makes
the model move under the influence of gravity. McGeer [70] proposed the concept of passive
dynamic walking, who studied a compass-like structure for passive sagittal walking down a slope
by gravity-induced motion without actuation. Unlike actively controlled models, passive walkers
consume less energy and have lesser input parameters. The basic idea of passive walking is that
a biped can be purely driven by gravity to walk down a gentle slope automatically without any
actuation and control. Therefore, the model is simple and energy-efficient, and it is suitable for
analysis to gain insights into the basic principles of human walking such as the step length versus
velocity relationship [56], energy expenditure [56, 57], and transition from walking to running
[34, 96]. Energy required for walking has been described by different equations through data
analysis. For passive dynamic models energy acts as a constant of motion which is the sum of
kinetic and potential energies at a given time step of the simulation. One such energy equation
provided by Zarrugh and colleagues [119] related total energy to the square of walking speed given
as
Ew = b + mv2 (2.4)
where Ew is the energy expenditure, b intercept on the energy expenditure plot and v walking
speed. Kuo [56] modeled the energy cost of locomotion as a sum of Etoe + Eswing . As mentioned
above due to the elastic properties of the muscle, addition of an elastic element to the IP model can
make the system more realistic. Cavagna et al. [14] showed that due to the rigidity of the IP link,
the double stance phase could not be simulated. The transition from single to double stance phase
can be modeled through provision of an elastic element. Kuo [56] showed that the sudden change
in velocity direction at the end of single stance caused a discontinuity in the predictive dynamics
which was compensated by provision of a push off force just before leg lift off (LO). In order
to overcome this discontinuous behavior, a spring mass model was developed [9]. Spring mass
model developed by Geyer and colleagues [34] was able to predict walking gait, COM profile and
GRF forces for medium to fast walking speeds and could also model the step-to-step transition
with redirection of COM velocity during the double stance phase. This was an improvement over
the IP model used to describe step-to-step transition. The mechanical model had two rigid links to
represent the stance leg and swing leg. A point mass was considered at the hip. These rigid links
and compliant leg models have shown that passive walking can be self-stabilizing [9,33], estimate
gait kinetics and can describe generic human motion. The spring loaded inverted pendulum (SLIP)
developed by Geyer and colleagues was a passive dynamic walker propagating under the influence
of gravity and through syncing kinetic and potential energy. The energy equation for SLIP is given
as
mv2 k(1 − y2 )
E= + mgy + (2.5)
2 2
where, y is the height at apex of the COM and k is the leg stiffness. The shape factor of the ground
reaction force (GRF) reproduced by the SLIP were similar to gait speeds corresponding to medium
speeds to fast walking speeds, which was a major breakthrough in bipedal modeling.
However, the SLIP model provided different stiffness values for a given walking speed cor-
responding to different orbital energy E. Hence, to narrow down to a relevant stiffness value,
comparison with gait data from subjects helped in obtaining stiffness corresponding to a given
GRF profile. Studies using the SLIP showed that it can model gait kinetics for walking speeds
close to 1 m/s. However, it was limited in estimating spatial and temporal translation of the COM
at TD angles obtained from experimental data for slower and faster walking speeds [66]. One may
32
argue, that why are spatial and temporal estimations necessary. The necessity arises to accurately
estimate gait variability observed in non barefoot or non healthy gaits. As one of the premise
of this dissertation is modeling gait disorder, accuracy on the spatio-temporal scale is necessary.
These estimated values could help in comparing asymmetric gait parameters observed in stroke
gait which will be discussed in the section on gait disorder.
To overcome the spatio-temporal deficits of fixed pivot IP models, templates for translating
COP models have been developed. Most of the walking models consider a fixed pivot negating the
A B C
D E
Figure 2.3.: Inverted pendulum models with translating COP. A) SLIP model with COP trans-
lation for walking [49]. B) Constrained COP translation with curved feet [3]. C)
Inverted pendulum with sliding COP with rigid legs for walking [61]. D) Spring mass
model with ankle joint for running [69]. E) Spring mass model with compliant leg for
running [10].
movement of COP. The need for COP translation arises when considering estimation of spatio-
temporal parameters and foot-ankle modeling. Winter [111] showed that movement of the COP
during quiet standing occurs through action of the ankle plantar flexors which in turn can modu-
late forces. COP movement during barefoot walking can be affected by the walking surface and
muscular strength. By wearing heels, we provide yet another variable that affects the foot-ankle
dynamics. This is especially, relevant to our research as we want to explore generic models with
pivot translation in estimating gait changes due to heeled footwear and stroke gait.
There exist several mono/bi-pedal models with COP progression in literature [3, 10, 49, 53, 62,
109] (Fig. 2.3). Monopedal models are used to simulate running or non-elastic walking while
bipedal models ares used to simulate human like walking. Bullimore et al. [10] showed that by
providing a constant velocity COP progression for running the leg stiffness drastically decreased
which was contradictory to the evidence on running Fig. 2.3E and Fig. 2.4. In their study, due to
the constant velocity COP progression, the COM traveled larger vertical displacement for a given
TD angle. This in turn increased the amplitude of the GRF which differed from experimental GRF
profiles. This suggested that employing COP progression for the sake of replacing foot is not a
33
Figure 2.4.: IP models with and without point of force translation (POFT). With POFT the
spring stiffness depends on the initial TD angle φo . POFT is an alternate name for
COP.
good strategy and COP dynamics should be modeled based on actual COP profiles. Although, the
model showed improved horizontal COM movement and temporal estimation it over-estimated
COM amplitude. This occurred due to large increase in leg compliance. The equation to calculate
the stiffness in their study is given as
F
k0 = 0 (2.6)
∆l
where ∆l 0 = lo (1−cos φo )+∆y (Fig. 2.4). To obtain a periodic walking pattern the state variables at
the start of the leg TD phase should be in accordance with the toe LO phase. For example at leg TD,
COM state is given as [xc − xCOP , y, ẋc , ẏ]T D and the state at toe LO is given as [xc − xCOP , y, ẋc , ẏ]LO .
By symmetry of the two states about the vertical axis passing through mid-stance, the condition
for the two states is given as
(xc − xCOP )T D = −(xc − xCOP )LO

yT D = yLO
ẋT D = ẋLO
ẏT D = −ẏLO
where x and y are position of the COM in the sagittal plane. At TD, the COM velocity will be
directed horizontally forward and vertically downwards and at LO the velocity will be horizontally
forward and vertically upward. These two states are ideal scenarios for IP models as they assume
that the model is symmetric about the vertical axis. As the constant of motion in IP models is
the orbital energy E and the phase difference between kinetic & potential energy, it is necessary
for the model to maintain symmetry for each step to facilitate multiple steps without falling down.
However, multi step periodicity is observed in which the apex state converges to itself after n steps.
The constraint with running models with COP progression is that the vertical oscillation frequency
34
should be equal to the angular frequency which in turn should be equal to the time taken for COP
displacement.
r s
k0 lo 1
= =
m g tCOP
As shown by Cavagna et al. [14] that with non existence of double stance phase in rigid legged
IP models, the model displayed over-estimation of COM amplitude during human locomotion.
This drawback was solved using COP progression by Lee and colleagues [61]. But similar to Bul-
limore’s research, they used pre-defined displacement of the COP. Although it simulated function
of the human foot from heel to toe, the COP progression had no relation with COM movement.
They showed that the difference in the trajectory of the COM between walking and running de-
pends as much on virtual stance-limb touchdown angle as on virtual stance-limb compression.
Bullimore et al. [10] also showed that to obtain similar COM translation, COP progression al-
lows for utilization of same TD angle as observed experimentally. Hence, with introduction of
COP progression, the IP models resembled human walking gait in terms of almost similar COM
amplitude and equal TD angle. But the effect of COP progression on leg stiffness was not inves-
tigated thoroughly. Leg stiffness is an important parameter in gait dynamics because it measures
the overall joint flexion of the hip, knee and ankle joint along with plantar-dorsiflexion of the foot.
Different joint measures can lead to different overall leg stiffness. Hence, when obtaining gait
determinants for a given type of gait, reliance on joint movements is important and spring leg
stiffness helps in quantifying these joint movements into one constant value or a range of values.
One of the aim of our studies is to narrow down the region of leg stiffness values corresponding to
heeled gait and post-stroke gait.
Fig. 2.3A shows the progressing COP model used by Jung and colleagues to simulate walking
at medium to fast walking speeds [49]. They showed improvement in spatio-temporal estimates of
GRF and COM trajectory with an external pivot translation model over the fixed pivot and sliding
pivot IP models. The COP movement was modeled as a time derivative of a sinusoidal heuristic
function. The equation of motion of the COP movement in their study were given as,
2d 2
ẍcp = ω (1 − cos(ωt)) sin(ωt) (2.7)
3π
2d cos(2ωt) 3
ẋcp = − ω(cos(ωt) − − ) (2.8)
3π 4 4
2d sin(2ωt) 3
xcp = − (sin(ωt) − − ωt) (2.9)
3π 8 4
where ω = 2π tss , tss is single stance time and d is the total COP displacement. The COP progression
in their study was only considered during the single stance phase. This is because the subjects in
their study showed balking of the COP movement just before double support. They also showed
that the leg TD angle increased monotonically with increasing leg stiffness at a given walking
speed. This way they utilized a more human like COP model to establish an explicit relation
ship between TD angle and leg stiffness. With their model they removed discontinuities during
phase switches as observed with other COP progression models like the IP model. To allow for
more generalized modeling of COM-COP relation there lies a need to consider COP excursion
throughout the stance phase. Kim et al. [53] used a circular foot,with a radius of 0.3 m, to simulate
COP progression (Fig. 2.3B). They showed that, COP translation is a function of the vertical
oscillation frequency during the single stance phase. This relation was further exploited by Jung
and colleagues in the study mentioned above.
35
Moving over from heuristic COP functions to arc based COP movement, Adamczyk et al. [3]
showed that arc of radius 0.3 times the leg length of the person provides the most economical gait
(Fig. 2.3B. This was accomplished using rigid legs while the curvature of the arc was responsible
in minimizing collision force. This model provided a simple way to model human walking gait
with no springy legs, allowing faster computation time and it also showed the effect of a moving
COP on the economics of walking gait. But arc based model, similar to Kim’s model, do not allow
for irregular COP motion as often observed in patients with movement disorder or healthy subjects
that could potentially show dissimilar COP patterns. By considering a flexible representation of
COP translation, researchers can simulate different COP profiles corresponding to different foot
orientations, foot-ankle roll over shapes and also effect of footwear.
In summary, passive dynamic walking, as seen from existing literature, comprises of minimizing
an error function, which could be either through optimizing energetics, GRF profile or apex return
maps (Appendix A1.1) for initial and final states. This way, the bipedal model can approach the
observed trajectory of the COM. By provision of an extra variable such as COP, one has to take
into consideration the profile of COP progression in order to provide accurate estimates of gait
features. Winter and Hof et al. [39, 112] showed that COM and COP are related and we believe
obtaining a COM-COP dependent relationship can help in explaining mechanism the CNS uses
to control heeled or pathological gait. To explore factors responsible for changes in gait due to
footwear we list studies on footwear effects on gait in the following section.
2.2. Types of footwear

To understand how shoes affect biomechanics is to realize a three-component system in which the
surface, the shoe and the body interact. Shoes assist the user in handling the GRF during walk-
ing. Shoes are one of the types of several footwear available. Footwear are broadly divided into
fashion footwear, leisure footwear, athletic shoes and orthotic shoes (Fig. 2.5). Fashion footwear
provide less comfort and more aesthetic value. Athletic footwear are meant to increase sporting
performance along with providing comfort during fatigue. While, orthotic footwear aid in gait
improvement through reorienting abnormal foot orientation through provision of shoe wedges,
shoe lifts, shoe insoles and inserts. Prolonged usage of uncomfortable shoes can often lead to foot
injuries, along with postural instability. Aesthetic footwear such as heels, stilettos, formal shoes
have rigid soles or heels which can often lead to high impact forces at heel strike. These high
impact forces can destabilize the body and the wearer needs to actively control his/her posture to
maintain balance. The following subsections lists properties of footwear, along with kinematic
and kinetic changes occurring due to different footwear.
2.2.1. Injuries and gait changes due to heeled footwear

Compared to barefoot gait, there are observable trends in heeled gait such as changes in spatio-
temporal parameters, joint moments and walking speed. To test our hypothesis on heeled gait the
bipedal model should predict the spatio-temporal changes associated with heeled gait. Here, we
enlist studies on adverse effects of heeled footwear followed by changes in gait kinematics.
There are many risks associated with wearing heeled footwear. The risk of ankle inversion
injury has been shown to relate to increased heel height [77]. Various studies report that when
the foot is positioned in a high-heeled shoe, several changes can be observed [12, 25, 68, 88]. For
instance, the ankle joint axis moves anteriorly and the line of gravity moves posteriorly toward
the ankle joint. This shift in gravity vector makes the user actively control their posture to prevent
tipping and falling forwards or backwards. Apart from shift in joint axes, height of the heel also
36
Figure 2.5.: Various shoe elements. A) A shoe wedge (brown) affects the orientation of the foot
in the frontal plane by being played under the medial or the lateral part of the foot.
B) A shoe lift (brown) provides an increase in the base height of the foot uniformly
throughout the base area compared to a shoe wedge. C) A pressure insole helps in
monitoring plantar pressure progression while providing a soft base for the foot. D)
A heel provides increase in the sub-talar join reducing the heel contact area.
affects the foot arch and foot-ankle dynamics. The rise in height of the heels causes the total
area of the base of support to decrease leading to reduced stability. Moreover, narrower base area
could affect the snapping of the foot from heel strike to fore-foot contact due to pressure on the
ankle joint. Guo et al. [36] showed that due to unstable heels the foot shows brisk acceleration
making the foot rotate faster from heel strike to fore-foot contact. The foot becomes immediately
shorter because of the rising arch due to high heels causing a decrease in foot length [88]. The
increase in foot height would change barefoot dynamics and could cause permanent damage to the
foot floor. Oeffinger et al. [79] suggested that shoe gait in children is not clinically relevant but
statistically relevant and thus, barefoot kinematics and kinetics should suffice for data analysis.
But by wearing heels the foot shape is altered causing permanent changes in the foot architecture
making clinical intervention necessary. This suggests that there should be a method to differentiate
between comfortable and non comfortable shoes. A flatter foot can also lead to an inefficient roll
over shape observed in plantigrade walking [89, 97]. Stefanyshyn et al. [97] showed that the
maximal braking force increased as a function of heel height. Also, the knee flexion increased
as a function of heel height and plantarflexion moment decreased as a function of heel height.
In addition, Yung-Hui and Wei-Hsien [118] also demonstrated that the impact force during gait
will increase as a function of heel height. Increase in braking force could arise due to unstable
heels leading to faster foot rotation suggesting an observable change in foot rotation compared
to barefoot walking. Incorporating this effect into the bipedal model could help in differentiating
between barefoot and heeled gait.
In long-term high heel wearers, walking in high heels resulted in substantial increase in muscle
fascicle strains and muscle activation during the stance phase compared with barefoot walking
37
[22]. They also showed a reduction in step length compared to barefoot walking when wearing
high heels. Due to high heels there is an increase in overall leg length, which could contribute
towards change in cadence and step lengths. Moreover, change in muscle activation patterns to
control sway, the muscles could stiffen up. Ucanok et al. [102] showed that the ankle angle was
20o greater in magnitude when wearing heels of height 6 cm compared to barefoot walking and
the dorsiflexor moment contributed nothing during the stance phase as the ankle was permanently
plantarflexed. This ankle angle increase may contribute towards an unstable single stance phase
and requiring increased postural control. Lee et al. [61] study on gait of high heels demonstrated
that stance phase time in high-heeled gait increased when compared to low-heeled gait, which
could be an effect of decreased stability of higher heels. In another study, Lee et al. [64] also
indicated that feet become more internally rotated, when compared with barefoot position in high
heels than low heels. This internal rotation could further affect the plantar-dorsiflexion moment
making the ankle joint constrained in its movement. Park et al. [82] showed that heel height and
speed independently affect stride parameters and joint angles without a significant interaction, so
the gait variables are linearly amplified or diminished by the two factors. Independent effects of
velocity suggest that estimating heeled gait through individual parameter comparison can be one
of the ways to test our heeled gait hypothesis. These studies show that changes in lower limb
lengths due to increase in heel height affects stride time, stride length, overall leg length. As
bipedal models are flexible in accommodating different leg lengths, incorporating these changes
in bipedal model design can help improve estimation of heeled gait kinetics.
2.2.2. Center of pressure movement for footwear

To carry over from the previous section and understanding minute effects of footwear on the
body’s postural adaptation, we have to take into consideration the role COP plays for different
footwear. As mentioned before that for postural adaptation during quiet standing the relation be-
tween COM and COP is paramount. We believe this relation could be established by employing
various heuristic COP progression models. We expect the overall change in foot dynamics consist-
ing of plantar-dorsiflexion, foot orientation and foot placement due to heeled gait can be observed
in COP progression. Therefore, COP movement in heeled gait could be an important design factor
for bipedal models.
COP locus/trajectory is dependent on the shoe/heel dimensions which is ultimately responsible
for the kinematic and kinetic changes observed in the gait of a person. Xu et al. [115] showed that
changing the shape of the heel and the location of the rocker-bar1 changed the locus of the COP
in normal individuals while walking. This shows that shoe shape and shoe floor can alter plantar
pressure movement across the foot from heel to toe. Chien et al. [17] showed that adults adopt
a conservative strategy for balance control during narrow-heeled gait and the reduced base of the
heels led to the reduced normalized walking speed. They suggested that control of the COM-COP
motion during double-leg stance is critical for balance. Additionally, they showed heeled gait can
be distinguished from barefoot gait through four gait determinants namely non dimensionalized
walking speed, stride length, double leg support time and single leg support time. They also
showed that the rate of change of COM-COP inclination angle (RCIA) of the contra-lateral leg, at
the moment of leading leg TD, is a gait determinant for heeled gait. However, RCIA variability in
their study was quite large. Their study dealt with understanding risk of falling in adults or elderly
through their study on effects of high heels suggesting heeled gait modeling can provide insights
into gait changes due to gait disorder or loss of neuro-muscular coordination. By manually altering
1A rocker-bar is a small cylindrical wedge placed underneath the insole and adjusted to reorient the foot inside the
shoe.
38
the COP locus, discomfort in shoes can be relieved. One such study by Khoury and colleagues [52]
showed effect of changing COP locus through convex pads. Khoury et al. [52] showed that there
was a significant correlation between the plantar orientation of the shoe device, which was convex
in shape, and the change in COP position (Fig. 2.6). Their results confirm the hypothesis of a
direct association between manipulation of the biomechanical apparatus via translation of elements
in the coronal plane (i.e, from medial to lateral) and the direct shift of the COP trajectory, and
offer a new understanding of lower limb biomechanics that may have implications in the field of
biomechanical apparatus design. By mathematically computing the optimized position of such
convex devices, discomfort in heeled gait could be relieved by redistributing plantar pressure.
Moreover, in humans the position of the COP can be voluntarily varied by means of muscle action,
Figure 2.6.: An orthotic shoe with detachable convex pads (red circles) developed by [52].
Different configurations of the convex pad with three medial (M 0.4, M 0.8, M 1.2)
and three lateral (L 0.4, L 0.8, L 1.2) placements at a distance of 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 cm
in the medio-lateral direction. The convex pad deviation is measured from the neutral
(N 0.0) sagittal axis (solid line).
in the sagittal plane by the ankle plantar- and dorsiflexors (ankle strategy), in the frontal plane
by the hip abductors [111]).These articles suggest COP movement can be regulated to improve a
person’s gait and COP locus is dependent on the footwear architecture. Thus, finding the optimized
position of the orthotic pad and manual capability of a person to modulate the COP can help
towards making heeled gait more comfortable. In order to do so the bipedal model should be able
to obtain steady state gaits for various COP profiles which have regular or an irregular profile.
However, we limit this thesis towards simulating regular2 COP profile for heeled gait.
Experiment by Aboutorabi et al. [1] has shown that the COP displacements with a regular shoe
with functional foot orthosis caused a significant decrease in the level of displacement of the COP
in flat foot children. Their findings indicated a significant improvement in symmetry of steps and
2A regular COP profile corresponds to a trajectory which can be accurately estimated by a heuristic function.
39
walking speed with the functional foot orthosis in comparison to the medical shoe in flat foot
children. Since the medical shoes were heavy, expensive, and do not have a good appearance,
regular shoes with the functional foot orthosis can be suitably replaced for children with flat foot.
This study also suggests how shoes with various dimensions could impact COP progression due
to position of their functional orthoses. Haim et al. [37] conducted similar such experiments
showing the concentration of plantar pressure due to a functional orthoses. They suggested that
biomechanical manipulation via footwear design that incorporates anterior COP offset may induce
an extension shift to the sagittal torque and provide benefit to these patients. In general, shoe floor
bed, and heel heights significantly affect plantar pressure distribution and COP movement. Shoes
also reduce the muscular effort required to move due to provision of comfort and stability as they
bear most of the external load. This shows that shoe dimensions and shoe height alter the COP
movement and effective leg length which could be important parameters while conducting gait
analysis to design different footwear. The effects of impact force, heel rigidity, contact area at heel
strike, shift of the ankle and gravity vector suggest that they affect the rotation of the foot, so that
the wearer can gain stability to overcome the negative effects of high heel design. Furthermore,
mechanical manipulation of COP movement through functional orthoses provides a way to alter
COP movement to improve gait disorder.
Similar to heeled gait, post stroke hemiparetic gait also restraints the joint movement due to
loss of muscular strength. Although both the gaits are markedly different, it is worthwhile to take
note of gait changes occurring at the foot level. This can help in developing models that take into
account the lower extremity features into consideration.
2.3. Gait disorder

Gait disorders occur due to neurological impairments caused by Parkinson’s, stroke, cerebral palsy.
These disorders can cause loss of muscular strength and cause muscular spasticity. Survivors of
these gait disorders have to adapt to an economically stable gait suitable to their joint strength.
In doing so, these patients often experience a decrease in walking speed and limb asymmetry.
Due to neural plasticity, the neuromuscular coordination can be retrained using orthotic devices to
improve the lifestyle of the patient. To measure improvement through rehabilitation, measurement
of joint angles, cost of locomotion, spatio-temporal gait parameters and walking speed is helpful.
2.3.1. Plantar pressure in post-stroke gait

Several studies have shown significance of plantar pressure changes with post stroke hemiparesis
[43, 54, 104, 107]. Insole measurement of plantar pressure showed high correlation with GRF and
ankle moment [43]. In their study, GRF and ankle dorsiflexion/plantarflexion moment measured
by the insole were highly correlated with the motion laboratory measurements, and the %RMS
errors were under 10%. A limitation of this study was that the training models were done on a
subject-specific basis. This means that the results were not applicable to the general population,
and could have resulted in over-fitting of the data. Their long-term goal was to have enough data
collected from a wide variety of patients to result in a set of linear regression models that could be
used for any subject. Kobayashi et al. [54] showed that using adjustable AFO can help in regulating
ankle joint stiffness for clinical settings which was earlier done based on the clinicians’ intuition.
This consequently helped in improving plantar pressure distribution for post-stroke subjects.
Plantar pressure has been an important tool in improving post-stroke gait [107]. Plantar pressure
asymmetry has been noted as a good measure to identify foot pathologies and gait disorder show-
ing growing relevance of this kinetic variable in classifying gait impairments [104]. They found
40
2.3. Gait disorder
levels of asymmetry in plantar pressure in feet to be significantly different for pathological gait and
concentration of pressure around a given area due to pathologies like Metatarsalagia. Assessments
of plantar pressure asymmetry could potentially assist and improve the diagnostic process to de-
termine the presence of a foot pathology. Furthermore, these assessments may serve to be a useful
tool in early detection of plantar injury, and can also aid in the identification of effective treatment
options, allowing for more informed decisions to take place in regards to appropriate methods
of treatment. A handful of bipedal models incorporate plantar pressure progression to improve
spatio-temporal estimation and plantar pressure progression can also be effective in differentiating
spastic leg stiffness which cannot be measured through IMUs. Munoz et al. [74] showed that heel,
mid foot, forefoot and toe play an important part in insole design, to measure plantar pressure
distribution, for foot of post stroke individuals as compared to heel and toe for healthy individuals.
This suggests that concentration of pressure for stroke survivors might be concentrated in the mid
foot region. COP movement has proved to be an important measure in gait instability studies as
it has shown effectiveness in detecting instability. Lee et al. [63] showed that gait instability can
be detected by measuring the COM-COP inclination angle. In their study the patients and healthy
controls walked over obstacles ranging from no height to 10% of the subject’s body height. With
increase in obstacle height the patients showed change in stride length.
Eleven COP and symmetry parameters were used in a regression model that provided a robust
prediction of hemiparetic gait velocity (R2 = 0.90) [73]. These results indicate that bilateral foot
COP measures, especially those representing variability of foot COP control and not only index lo-
comotor function, may also have the potential to provide information about the underlying control
properties of the stroke-injured neuromuscular system. Nolan et al [78] suggested that by improv-
ing COP progression in the AP direction through a foot drop simulator stroke subjects showed
increased stability showing that COP provides stance phase locomotor control. Park et al. [81]
showed that COP displacement is related to post stroke recovery and balance during stroke gait
which further shows that COP movement can act as a posture controller during stance to prevent
falling or tripping.
2.3.2. Stroke gait event detection

Cui et al. [23] showed that multiple measures of kinematic, kinetic and electrophysiological data
can be combined to obtain a stroke gait estimation score which suggests that, single measure
reliability cannot be considered decisive. To measure spatio-temporal asymmetry non-invasive
techniques such as accelerometery have been used. This way one can use this data and through
inverse dynamics obtain various joint moments and forces which can help towards stroke reha-
bilitation. Oyake et al. [80] showed that accelerometeres can be used to measure step time and
step length asymmetry which are the gold standard in measuring asymmetry in stroke patients. In
another study, step length was measured using portable inertial measuring units (IMU) with asym-
metry estimation about 14.6% [106]. Their proposed algorithm required more IMUs, but they
could provide the spatial asymmetry information which had a good performance on adapting to
different walking conditions. However, their method had other limitations. It detected gait events
by the angular velocity of lower limb segments, which might not work well for people who have
atypical profile of lower limb angular velocity during walking, which is often the case in chronic
stroke survivors. In such a case provision of alternate event detection conditions can be usefu.
Muscular stiffness measurement for spastic stroke gait is important from the point of view de-
veloping orthoses, exoskeletons and rehabilitation based gait retraining. Due to lack of computa-
tional means to evaluate leg stiffness for stroke gait, one has to rely on surrogate measures [26,65].
Mathematical modeling has been used to measure passive joint stiffness but through localized joint
movements through passive torque [6] but these techniques cannot be used to measure passive
41
stiffness of muscles during locomotion. The temporal change in dynamic ground reaction forces
(GRF) cannot be reproduced through machines such as dynamic goniometers and requires com-
putational means. Jakubowski et al. [46] suggested that ability to assess non-invasively muscle
stiffness adaptations in vivo would aid in prognosis and treatment following stroke. Mathematical
modeling nowadays allows us to simulate dynamic gait features using bipedal models. Value of a
bipedal model rests on its ability to estimate spatio-temporal and kinetic parameters on an absolute
scale more so when modeling stroke gait. Because stroke asymmetry ratios can compensate for
deviations in paretic/non-paretic variables.
The above studies suggest how muscular stiffness can be important in estimating GRF in post-
stroke gait and how the stance leg motion can be affected with COP progression. Moreover, a
bipedal model in reproducing gait kinetics and spatio-temporal parameters will provide a compre-
hensive tool to simulate stroke gait.
2.3.3. Soft orthoses for gait rehabilitation

Foot orthotics can vary from shoe wedges, inserts and insoles to ankle foot orthoses (AFO).
AFO have been equipped with variable stiffness actuators from the view point of improving
plantar/dorsi-flexion moments to improve push off force [83, 99, 100, 108]. The confidence in
proper foot impact can be restored with the help of appropriate shoes capable in absorbing impact
forces and allowing the full movement of the foot (roll over shape). Mcpoil et al. [71] showed
that soft orthotics reduce vertical GRF during walking and running in a 20 year old and sug-
gested proper fabrication materials are required to design a shoe. This throws light on the fact
that compliance is an important part in shock attenuation and measuring it computationally can
counter prototyping and testing costs for AFOs. Cheung et al. [15, 16] showed that while model-
ing footwear through finite element analysis, insole stiffness proved more significant compare to
shoe dimensions and shoe height. This suggests that shoe compliance should be looked at from a
different view point such as simulation of gait through dynamical models with stiffness models for
shoe-leg-combine. Nester et al. [76] also showed GRF shock attenuation due to medially and lat-
erally wedged shoes. In summary, to reinforce the existing framework for foot orthoses for stroke
gait, a different route that takes into account stiffness estimation through inducing asymmetry via
COP translation could provide more insights into the gait of stroke survivors. Nadeau et al. [75]
showed that weak plantar flexor muscles contributed towards reduced gait speed which suggests
that the movement of pressure helps in maintaining a stable gait in post-stroke subjects and can
prove beneficial in modeling gait models for hemiparesis. Fong et al. [29] showed that pressure
insoles help in estimating GRF with R2 = 0.98 for walking. With fixed pivot passive bipedal mod-
els, angular inclination of COM-COP link has been a control parameter but by providing a COP
translation model, one could expect improvement in gait estimation and more legible stiffness
values for lower extremity leg models.
To make an accurate comparison of the model solutions and gait data from literature, one has to
take into account gait determinants for a given footwear or pathology. In the following section we
list methods and variables that were used to compare gait changes due to footwear. To measure
the efficacy of bipedal models, standardized stroke gait measures should be use. The following
section enlists studies on estimating changes in post-stroke gait’s spatio-temporal parameters.
2.3.4. Parameters affecting gait

Estimating spatio-temporal parameters for walking gait is paramount for clinicians and biomech-
anists to design orthoses or provide rehabilitation strategies. Some of the studies are listed in
this section that estimate gait parameters through mathematical models or measurement devices.
42
2.3. Gait disorder
These studies provide a good comparison for our study with bipedal models and act as benchmark
for the results of our study.
Roislien et al. [87] showed that when using multiple gait parameters in estimating differences
due to gender, age and walking speed, walking speed turned out to be a significant predictor. They
also mentioned that instead of individual effects of parameters, collective effects provided better
prediction. This shows that when evaluating models, not just regression models but also in dy-
namic models one should consider all gait parameters when comparing model and experimental
data. Walking speed being the sole predictor suggests that it should be considered as a benchmark
when correlating gait parameters for dynamical model parameter reduction. Zijlstra et al. [120]
used a similar comparison method to compare walking gait estimates through accelerometry and
treadmill data. As most of the dynamical models use some sort of scaling to reduce parameters,
length of body segments during gait studies cannot be overlooked. Rao et al. [86] showed impor-
tance of body segment parameters in estimating joint kinetics which showed variations from 6%
to 60%, hence their role should not be overlooked when sizing dynamical models based different
subjects. Although, they are capable in providing accurate estimates, a substitute model such as
a COP model that can provide similar effects on the COM can reduce computational time while
maintaining the accuracy. However, detection of gait parameters or trajectory profiles, which are
important towards clinical orthotic design, are an important aspect of post stroke gait that should
be investigated. In addition, estimating effects due to very slow to slow walking speed ranges is
still an area to be investigated from the view point of gait disorder.
2.3.5. Overview of the dissertation
In our study we employ a generic walking model that tries to explain footwear dynamics and post-
stroke gait. The simplest form of generic models are passive dynamic walkers that move under
the influence of gravity and the energy exchange occurs from kinetic to potential. These empirical
models have a fixed pivot and a single leg link to model the lower limbs. To advance the existing
fixed pivot bipedal models, we investigate the phenomenon of heeled gait and pathological gait by
providing a COP translation model as a substitute for the foot-ankle complex.
A) B) θ1 θ2
θ1 θ2
dB dH
Figure 2.7.: Heel contact and forefoot contact phase for barefoot and heeled gait respectively.
A) Change in COM-COP inclination angle for barefoot walking for COP displacement
of dB and B) change in heeled gait inclination angle for a COP displacement of dB . θ1
corresponds to heel touchdown angle and θ2 corresponds to forefoot contact angle.
43
Through careful analysis of the literature on heeled gait we observed that due to instability
caused by high heels, the foot rotates faster causing the attainment of forefoot contact phase faster
∆x
as compared to barefoot walking. We expect this to be caused by a larger magnitude of ∆θcp at
TD and LO for heeled gait, where xcp is COP displacement and θ is the stance angle of the leg.
Hence, we try to show that the hypothesis for heeled gait, given by the inequality θ1d−θ B
2
< θ1d−θ
H
2
,
holds true at heel TD and LO (Fig. 2.7). By evaluating the effect of this condition, we differentiate
between barefoot and heeled gait parameters.
Figure 2.8.: SLIP model can be altered to simulate symmetric heeled gait and asymmetric
stroke gait in the sagittal plane. We consider two variants of SLIP model with COP
progression. For the heeled gait study we propose a symmetric SLIP model. While,
for the post stroke study we propose two COP progression models Ω1 and Ω2 . For the
stroke study, the aim is to estimate spatio-temporal parameters and gait kinetics, with
or without symmetric parameters.
Secondly, we simulate the gait of stroke patients through asymmetric center of pressure models.
We observe from stroke gait literature that pathological gaits such as post stroke hemiparesis often
portray altered foot orientation and foot placement which consequently affects COP progression.
While studies on plantar pressure show it growing relevance in improvement and assessing post-
stroke gait [43, 48, 104, 105]. Moreover, COP progression has shown to improve gait estimation
in healthy subjects walking barefoot [49, 85]. Thus, in addition to walking speed, GRF and stance
leg angle, we believe provision of COP can provide reliable leg stiffness values for stroke gait.
We believe that COP translation models will decrease the spatio-temporal error in stroke gait
estimation. COP models for the stroke study considers two aspects of post-stroke gait, increased
sway at slow walking speeds and relation between COP displacement xcp and inclination angle
θ . This way we provide an update function for the COP for each time step. We then compare
44
2.4. Contributions
the model and data values to check the error in spatio-temporal parameter estimation. With the
COP progression model we expect the model to estimate the stance time on an absolute scale.
We expect a decrease in TD angle error compared to fixed pivot models. We expect the bipedal
model to obtain similar vertical and but not horizontal GRF profiles. We also expect the model to
predict that the more-paretic (MP) leg for the stroke survivors to be more rigid compared to the
less-paretic (LP) leg. Furthermore, we expect the COP progression can help in estimating stroke
gait features at very slow walking speed, in essence the flatter vertical ground reaction force (GRF)
profile.
Fig. ?? shows SLIP model used to design variants for the heeled gait and stroke gait studies. We
restrict our study to the sagittal plane of motion in Cartesian coordinates for both of the above stud-
ies. For both studies we consider an energy conserving bipedal model with no dissipative forces or
actuation. The constraint COP model provides energy during the first half of stance and removes
that energy during the second of stance phase. This way the model is not completely passive. We
optimize the steady state gait of the model through forward dynamics and parameter tuning. To
reduce computation time we numerically optimize certain parameters instead of a comprehensive
parameter search. Although, this reduces the density (amount of periodic solutions) of solutions
but sufficient to obtain walking solutions in the physiological range for barefoot and heeled gait.
This study deals with gait feature estimation, while model stability analysis around a fixed point
or bifurcation of periodic solutions due to change in parameter values is beyond the scope of our
study.
2.4. Contributions
This thesis is divided into two parts, namely heeled gait analysis and stroke gait analysis. We
recruit the spring mass spring loaded inverted pendulum (SLIP) model to estimate changes in
spatio-temporal and GRF profiles for heeled gait. In doing so we show that heeled gait can be
expressed with the help of a parameter that controls the profile of the gradient of the COP dis-
placement with respect to change in COM-COP inclination angle. With this parameter we are
able to distinguish between barefoot and heeled gait. Unlike several studies on gait estimation
which usually consider fixed pivot translation or pre-defined COP translation, this study provides
a model that can relate the independent state variables to the motion of the COP. This way, the
model establishes a link in between the COM and COP movement as is the case in human gait.
Moreover, our bipedal model is able to differentiate between barefoot and heeled gait by utilizing
the gait determinants observed in gait studies comparing the two aforementioned categories.
Secondly, with the stroke study we provide a way to estimate change in spatio-temporal pa-
rameters by using two COP progression models. To induce body sway observed in very slow
post-stroke gait, we provide a COP acceleration model mimicking horizontal COM acceleration
model. While the second model we incorporate COP progression model by inducing asymmetry
through COP gait data for each leg. Unlike the above study on heeled gait we do not restrict the
distance traveled by the COP but provide a constraint describing the relation between COP dis-
placement and inclination angle. We are able to show that with COP progression we observe a
reduction in spatio-temporal estimation error compared to fixed pivot and the model predicts GRF
on a temporal scale better compared to fixed pivot SLIP model. Moreover we show that for very
slow speeds increasing the leg stiffness drastically, helps in estimating the GRF profile showing a
linear stiffness model is sufficient.
45
CHAPTER 3
Estimation of heeled gait kinetics and kinematics
This chapter deals with differentiating in between barefoot gait and heeled gait by the means of
COP constraint curves. We assess the effect of parameters defining he COP curves’ shape factor
and bipedal model that can simulate barefoot and heeled gait. First part deals with defining the
bipedal SLIP model used in our study. The second part deals with defining the COP progression
model and its constraint curves and the algorithm to obtain steady state periodic solutions. The
third part consists of model validation by comparing the gait kinetics and spatio-temporal param-
eters for barefoot and heeled gait (Fig. 3.1). In the third part, we first test our hypothesis for
heeled gait by comparing the model’s input parameters for the best fit GRF. Then we individually
compare spatio-temporal parameters with respect to walking speed, to evaluate if our model can
distinguish between the two gaits using a singular spatio-temporal parameter. Finally, we obtain
the minimum cumulative error for heel gait determinants from the model. Based on the lowest
cumulative error ratios, we check whether the hypothesis holds true.
Barefoot and heeled Estimate GRF and

SLIP template
gait data spatio-temporal parameters
Heuristic COP function
Figure 3.1.: Developing SLIP variant for heeled gait. Relevant gait data like physiologically
plausible TD angles, walking speed and system energy, are used to simulate the SLIP
model. Provision of COP translation is provided through a heuristic function that can
alter COP dynamics. Finally, model and experiment comparison helps to assess the
hypothetical COP curves.
To reiterate, passive dynamic walkers propagate on the principal of conservation of energy and
move under the influence of gravity. These empirical models are prescriptive and descriptive in
nature, as in their estimates can describe the human COM trajectory. Due to this they can be used
to optimize human motion. The bipedal model in this study is constrained to move in the sagittal
plane of motion. To model the equations for simulation, we employ state space representation
47
3. Estimation of heeled gait kinetics and kinematics
of the equations of motion (Appendix A.1). IP models due to their rigid legs cannot reproduce
GRF qualitatively and to suit our requirements we use the bipedal SLIP model. The model in
our study is not completely passive. The power provided by the COP movement during the first
half of stance is removed during the second half of the stance, keeping the overall system energy
constant.
3.1. SLIP bipedal model

The spring mass model developed in the study is a variant of the bipedal spring loaded inverted
pendulum model (SLIP) proposed by Geyer et al. [34] (Fig.3.2). It is an energy conserving model
in which the total energy is comprised of kinetic, gravitational potential and elastic spring energy.
The energy equation is given as
mv2a k(1 − ya )2
E= + mgya + (3.1)
2 2
where, va is horizontal COM speed in the inertial frame, m is mass, g is acceleration due to gravity,
k is leg stiffness and ya is apex height (Fig. 3.2). ẏa = 0 is one of the modeling criterion in this study
which then implies va = ẋa . The energy equation is computed based on the state of the system at
apex. The apex state consists of the minimum amount of independent state variables required to
completely describe the evolution of the system over time. If the model is simulated from the
double stance phase, the state of the system would require position of COP and leg inclination
angles for both legs, apart from the COM state, that would lead to more initial conditions but
with the same outcome as the apex configuration. There exist several orbital energies E and each
energy can have infinite number of limit cycles1 . The number of limit cycles, of course, depends
upon the resolution with which the initial conditions and parameters are searched.
The leg is modeled as a linear elastic spring that stores energy during stance phase of walking.
Leg stiffness k helps in modeling the radial force in the leg during stance, based on Hooke’s law
(Eqn. 3.2) given as
Fspring = k(lo − ldim ) (3.2)
where, lo is uncompressed leg length just before heel strike and ldim is the leg length during stance.
Leg stiffness is a numerical constant that can be represented as a measure of the overall stiffness
due to joint movements at the hip, knee and ankle joint during locomotion. However, in this
study we consider the leg to be virtual connecting the COM with COP. For sake of accuracy
linear stiffness can be replaced with nonlinear stiffness as with the Duffing’s equation (k(1 −
ldim ) + η(1 − ldim )3 ) but SLIP models have shown to reproduce gait for medium to fast walking
speeds with similar GRF profile. Moreover, as shown by [66], constant leg stiffness can estimate
walking parameters at a speed of 1 m/s accurately and also at faster speeds but not at slower
speeds. This stems from the fact that the relation between GRF and compression of leg can be
modeled with a strong correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.92) using linear regression but with poor to
moderate R2 values at slower and faster speeds respectively. In this study we compare solutions
close to a walking speed of 1 m/s and thus a constant stiffness assumption suits the scope of
this study. To calculate the uncompressed leg length lo , Lipfert et al. [66] used regression to
calculate the euclidean distance between COM and COP for a given walking speed. But usually
leg length depends on the user’s anthropometric dimensions. Moreover, leg stiffness in this study
is numerically optimized due to non availability of force-length data for heeled gait.
1A limit cycle is an isolated trajectory in state space, from which he vector field either diverges outwards or inwards,
or the vector field merges into the cycle from inside or outside.
48
3.1. SLIP bipedal model
Figure 3.2.: Leg model and GRF representation. (Left) Superimposed SLIP leg with an actual
human leg. (Middle) SLIP configuration at apex state. (Right) A double stance phase
for the SLIP model, with forces experienced by the COM due to leg compression.
The force vector F acts along the direction of the leg as we consider only radial forces in the leg.
In reality due to joint torques, F acts at an angle to the leg orientation vector. But as we consider an
energy conserving model with no external torques or dissipation, GRF is directed along the virtual
leg as seen in Fig. 3.2. To obtain a generic model, we non-dimensionalize our model equations p by
dividing mass√ by m, the length terms with uncompressed leg length lo , dividing time by lo /g,
velocity by glo and acceleration by g, where g is acceleration due to gravity. The acceleration of
the COM is given as
ma = k(lo − ldim ) sin θ î + (k(lo − l) cos θ − mg) jˆ =⇒

ma klo
= (1 − ldim /lo )(sin θ î + (cos θ − 1) jˆ) =⇒
mg mg
ẍ2 + ÿ2 = k̃(1 − l)
Upon non-dimensionalization the leg force F, COM acceleration ẍ, ÿ and COM-COP inclination
angle θ during stance are defined as (Fig. 3.2)
F = k̃(1 − l) (3.3)
ẍ = FR sin θR + FL sin θL (3.4)
ÿ = FR cos θR + FL cos θL − 1 (3.5)
x − xcp
θ = tan−1 (3.6)
y
klo
p
where l = (x − xcp )2 + y2 , k̃ = mg is relative leg stiffness, k is leg stiffness, m is mass and R
and L denote right and left leg respectively. Through dimensionalization we reduce the number of
simulation parameters.
To simulate steady state of the SLIP model, we simulate three phases of walking i.e., single
stance, double stance and apex. The model alternates between single stance and double stance
phase which occur upon toe lift off (LO) and heel strike touchdown (TD) respectively. Toe LO
49
occurs when the F = 0 i.e., when the leg length l = 1 and the model shifts from double stance to
single stance. We use a constant TD landing angle θo . TD occurs when the vertical height of the
COM is equal to the cosine of the TD angle θo given as
yT D = cos θo (3.7)
At TD, the model shifts from single stance to double stance (Fig. 3.2). Due to these alternating
events during simulation we incorporate a switch that alternates in between 0(off) and 1(on), that
switches on when the leg is in stance and switches off when the leg lifts off. There can be various
other triggers that can be used for TD but as we restrict our steady state to two consecutive apexes,
constant TD angle condition is suitable. The swing phase of the leg does not contribute to the
dynamics of the model simulation due to the leg’s massless design. For the sake of simplicity
we search for apex states where the leg is perpendicular to the walking surface at which point
the vertical velocity of the COM is zero. In the fixed pivot SLIP, the position of the pivot on the
walking surface can be understood to be the mean position of the overall COP movement from
heel to toe occurring during the stance phase. For healthy subjects we consider the parameters
for both legs to be identical. To obtain the steady state solutions we use an error minimization
function which checks for the error in between the consecutive apex states for healthy subject
which is described ahead in the chapter.
3.2. Heuristic COP model for heeled gait
A) B) θ1 θ2
θ1 θ2
dB dH
Figure 3.3.: COP progression for barefoot and heeled gait. θ1 corresponds to the TD angle and
θ2 is the stance angle at forefoot contact corresponding to the location of the COP. dB
and dH correspond to the COP displacement from TD to forefoot contact phase.
COP excursion is measured from the point of contact of the foot at touchdown to point of
release at toe off (Fig. 2.7). With Fig. 2.7, we show that just before mid stance, the heeled gait
will portray a larger COP displacement compared to barefoot gait. In this figure for a given TD
angle until forefoot contact phase, we hypothesize that θ1d−θ B
2
< θ1d−θ
H
2
. We believe this occurs
due to decreased stability of the heeled gait leading to faster foot rotation. COP progression
undergoes four phases of foot contact, initial contact phase, fore-foot contact phase, mid-foot
contact and toe-off [19]. They showed that COP travels around 95% of the foot length but COP
variability is observed across different gaits where the COP can travel lesser distances [78]. The
displacement limit of the COP gait line is accounted for by the foot architecture, shoe base or
physiology of the individual. COP velocity and acceleration profiles often portray high frequency
oscillations but during our modeling we estimate the filtered inherent profile of the COP, to obtain a
50
3.2. Heuristic COP model for heeled gait
regular streamlined trajectory. The COP profile for barefoot walking is obtained from the article on
bipedal walking by Jung and colleagues [49]. To overcome this variability we obtained solutions
for different magnitudes of COP displacement d during stance phase, where maximum value of d
is approximately 0.28 times the uncompressed leg length of the person, which is in essence equal
to the length of the human foot [112]. COP progression in previous studies has shown significant
movement during initial double stance for the leading leg with speeds during toe off going as
high as 22cm/s [78]. To accommodate such variability in COP displacement, we provide COP
translation throughout the stance phase compared to previous studies having COP progression
only during single stance as published by Jung and colleagues [49]. Jung’s data also shows that
COP acceleration in the fore-aft direction represents a sinusoidal curve, with acceleration in the
first half and deceleration in the second half of the stance phase (Fig. 3.4). Such a curve can
be modeled using time dependent functions. But to devise a relation between COM and COP
movement, we model the COP excursion using the independent state variables of our system.
This is achieved by obtaining a mathematical constraint relation from the hypothetical curves for
heeled gait. We obtain a constraint relation between the COP position and COM position using
a logistic function relating the COP displacement xcp and inclination angle θ (Fig. 3.4). Such a
logistic curve can be fitted with a variety of candidate functions and one such function is the tan
function that is used in our study. tan function allows for a smooth transition from barefoot COP
profile to our hypothesis constraint curve for heeled gait.
Figure 3.4.: COP constraint curves. A). Mean COP barefoot walking constraint curve (solid line)
with standard deviation (gray region) and hypothesized heeled walking COP curves
(C1, C2 and C3). B). Constraint curves (C1, C2 and C3) are a section of the tangent
function within its domain.
As mentioned above the experimental COP excursion and inclination angle relation shown in
Fig. 3.4A is approximated using a tangent function. To limit our steady state walking solutions
search, we include only those solutions for which the inclination angle at mid-stance is zero. We
assume that inclination of the leg at TD (touchdown) and LO (liftoff) is equal. At mid-stance,
we look for solutions when the COP attains half the distance of the overall COP displacement
(Fig. 3.4)A. In this way, the equation governing θ to COP excursion displayed in the Fig. 3.4A &
51
B is given as
θ = α tan β (3.8)
where β = (xcp − xcpo − d2 )γ, xcp is the COP position, xcpo is the COP position at TD, d is the
total displacement of the COP of an individual foot, γ and α are multiplication factors. At a given
TD angle θo , several constraint curves are generated lying in between curve C1 and C3 shown in
Fig. 3.4A. These curves simulate different COP acceleration profiles. For example, for a curve of
C1 (β ε[−π/4, π/4]), we obtain − d2 γ = −π/4 at TD, giving us γ = 2d π
. Similarly, other domains
of β are generated by changing the value of γ. Thus, by substituting Eqn. 3.6 into Eqn. 3.8 we get
x − xcp
tan−1 = α tan β . (3.9)
y
Figure 3.5.: COP translation profile reproduced from the article by Jung and colleagues [49].
A) COP displacement, B) COP velocity, C) COP acceleration
This constraint equation ensures that the logistic curve profile is enforced onto the COP dis-
placement. Eqn. 3.9 is a sufficient condition to constraint the COP. ẋcp can be greater than or
less than zero but in order to compare with the given barefoot walking profile, we include only
those constraint curves where ẋcp(T D) = 0 and ẋcp(LO) = 0. In Eqn. 3.9, value of β depends on γ
which is the shape factor of the COP displacement profile and α scales the equation such that the
magnitude θ is equal to θo at TD and LO. To obtain the acceleration curve of the COP we double
differentiate our constraint equation. Upon differentiating Eqn. 3.9 by time and rearranging, we
get
ẋ − ẋcp x − xcp 1 2
( − 2
ẏ)( (x−x 2 ) = αγ sec β ẋcp
y y cp )
1+ 2 y
˙ + yẋ − xẏ + xcp ẏ = αl 2 + αγ ẋcp sec β 2 l 2
−yxcp
ẋcp (αγl 2 sec β 2 + y) = yẋ − xẏ + xcp ẏ
ẋy − (x − xcp )ẏ

ẋcp = (3.10)
αγl 2 sec(β )2 + y
By differentiating Eqn. 3.10 by time once more, Eqn. 3.10 becomes
ẍy − ẋẏ − (ẋ − ẋcp )ẏ − ÿ(x − xcp )

ẍcp = −
αγl 2 sec β 2 + y
˙ sec β 2 + 2αγ 2 l 2 sec β 2 tan β ẋcp + ẏ)
(ẋy − (x − xcp )ẏ)(2l lαγ
(αγl 2 sec β 2 + y)2
52
3.3. Parameter search
(ẍy − ẋẏ − (ẋ − ẋcp )ẏ − ÿ(x − xcp ))(αγl 2 sec β 2 + y) − ψ

ẍcp = (3.11)
(αγl 2 sec β 2 + y)2
˙ sec β 2 + 2αγ 2 l 2 sec β 2 tan β ẋcp + ẏ). Argument β is a simpli-
where ψ = (ẋy − (x − xcp )ẏ)(2l lαγ
fication of the COP position with the position being d2 at mid stance, as it helps in coinciding apex
state of the SLIP model with the COP’s half way displacement. The objective in changing γ is
from the view point of obtaining acceleration profiles that might correspond to heels of various
stiffness and heights.
3.3. Parameter search
Algorithm 1 Algorithm for SLIP with fixed pivot using numerical optimization
Periodic solution search for SLIP with fixed COP
for E = 1 : 0.001 : 1.3 do
for θo = 20o : 0.01 : 1o do
for k̃ = 5 : 0.1 : 200 do
for ya = q 0.9 : 0.001 : 1 do
va = 2E − 2y − k̃(1 − ya )2 , va = ẋa as ẏa = 0 at apex
Define state space equations for ẍ, ÿ
eapex = [x − xcp , y]i+1 − [x − xcp , y]i
end for
end for
end for
end for
From Alg. 1 we observe that by increments in each parameter and initial condition we can
carry out a comprehensive search to obtain a limit cycle. A stable limit cycle solution additionally
satisfies that in the neighbourhood of the fixed points the eigen values λ1,2 of the Jacobian matrix
" δ ∆x δ ∆x
#
a+1 a+1
δ ∆xa δ ya
J= δ ya+1 δ ya+1
δ ∆xa δ ya
should lie within the unit circle (|λ1,2 | < 1) [98], where the magnitude of perturbation provided is
δ ∆xa = 0.001 and δ ya = 0.001. The computational time for such a process can be decreased at
the expense of decreasing the number of periodic solutions by numerically optimizing two of the
parameters, instead of varying each parameter sequentially. For eg., in Alg. 2, by removing the
sequence for k̃, we reduce the computation time but if the return map is not convex in nature then
the optimized k̃ will iterate to solution closest to the initial guess.
Similarly, when developing a comprehensive parameter search based algorithm for SLIP with
COP translation, we carried out search for some of the relevant parameters to understand the nature
of the solutions.
With the addition of two extra parameters γ and d, the ideal scenario is to search all values of
these parameters to obtain periodic solutions as shown by the heptagon in Fig. 3.6. But we restrict
our parameter search by formulating an initial value problem which is iterated to reduce the error
in the apex return map to decrease overall computational time. To do so, we numerically optimize
[k̃, ẋcp ] and select five d = [0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25] values and three γ values of 2π 2π 2π
2d , 3d , 4d to
calculate apex states for the initial conditions specified in Table 3.1. When comparing specific data
53
Algorithm 2 Algorithm for SLIP with fixed pivot

Periodic solution search for SLIP with fixed COP
for E = 1 : 0.001 : 1.3 do
for θo = 20o : 0.01 : 1o do
for ya = 0.9 : 0.001 : 1 do
Numerically
q optimize k̃ ∈ [5, 200] through value initialization
va = 2E − 2y − k̃(1 − yap )2 , va = ẋa as ẏa = 0 at apex
eapex = [x − xcp , y]a+1 − [x − xcp , y]a
end for
end for
end for
Algorithm 3 Algorithm for SLIP with translating pivot

Periodic solution search for SLIP with tarnslating COP
for γ = [ 2π 2π 2π
4d , 3d , 2.1d ] do
for d = [0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25] do
for E = 1 : 0.001 : 1.3 do
for θo = 20o : 0.01 : 1o do
for ya = 0.9 : 0.001 : 1 do
Numerically
q optimize [k̃, ẋcp ] ∈ [[5, 200], [0, 1]]
va = 2E − 2y − k̃(1 − yapex )2 , va = ẋa as ẏa = 0 at apex
Evaluate error (eapex ) between apex states
eapex = [∆xa+1 − ∆xa ; ya+1 − ya ; ẋcpL(a+1) − ẋcpR(a) ; 2(xcpL((a+1) − xcpL(T D) ) −
d; ẋcpL(T D) ; ẋcpR(LO) ]
where ∆xa = xa − xcpa .
end for
end for
end for
end for
end for
values from heeled gait studies, in which the subjects walk at a given walking speed, our solution
search is restricted to that given speed, and searching d and γ with finer increments rather than
coarse increments to get a detailed distribution of solutions. The model is simulated in MATLAB,
Mathworks inc. 2020b using the ordinary differential equation solver package ode45 and numeri-
cal optimizer fmincon. The algorithm to obtain a closed orbit is given in Alg. 3 for the gait cycle
shown in Fig. 3.7.
In the Alg. 3, the term ∆xa+1 − ∆xa evaluates for error in the horizontal displacement of COM,
ya+1 − ya evaluates error in the vertical displacement of COM, ẋcpL(a+1) − ẋcpR(a) evaluates error
in the starting and ending position of the COP, 2(xcpL((a+1) − xcpL(T D) ) evaluates error in the total
displacement of the COP of one foot which should be equal to d, xcpL(a+1) − xa+1 evaluates error
for difference in horizontal displacement of COM with respect to COP and ẋcp checks for TD
velocity of COP.
54
3.4. Model validation and hypothesis testing
Figure 3.6.: Periodic solutions density for two scenarios of parameter search. Decrease in
solution density occurs by numerically optimizing k̃ and ẋcp .
Figure 3.7.: Gait events for a SLIP model with COP translation. SLIP model follows a se-
quence of apex, touch down (TD), lift off (LO) and apex. Such a sequence is used to
describe a periodic gait.

To test the validity of the model solution we first
• Obtain periodic solutions for different γ and d values, spread across different system ener-
gies E.
• Estimate GRF curves for barefoot walking, provided by Jung and colleagues, on an absolute
time scale to check for temporal duration estimation and qualitative assessment of GRF
profiles.
• Estimate heeled gait GRF profile provided by Chien and colleagues [17] to test the heeled
gait hypothesis.
55
• Compare spatio-temporal estimates for heeled gait determinants to further test the hypothe-
sis.
To check if the model provides periodic solution we first simulate it using the parameters pro-
vided in Tab. 3.1.
Simulation parameter Relation Lower Bound Upper Bound
Initial Condition Energy, E 1 1.35
Apex height, ya cos θo 1
Model Parameter Leg TD angle, θo 1o 20o
2π 2π
Mult. factor, γ 4d 2.1d
COP displacement , d 0.05 0.25
Relative leg stiffness, k̃ 5 200
Table 3.1.: Scaled parameters and initial conditions used to generate periodic steady state
walking solutions. We define the COM-COP inclination angle with respect to the
vertical instead of horizontal. Multiplication factor γ is calculated as shown in Section
2.
COP translation profiles for displacement, velocity and acceleration are shown in Fig. 3.8 which
resemble those obtained experimentally shown in Fig. 3.5. Hence, our constraint function is able
to reproduce the desired curve trajectories for barefoot walking and hypothetical heeled gait COP
profiles.
Figure 3.8.: COP profile generated by the model. A) COP displacement with respect to change
in θ . B) COP velocity profile. C) COP acceleration profile. These profiles encompass
various forward progressing COP profiles including the experimental COP profiles
shown in Fig. 3.5.
With the change in γ value the model generates COP dynamics that can cater to different healthy
gait scenarios in which the inherent COP acceleration profile is sinusoidal. The sharp peak for
2π
γ = 2.1d , in Fig. 3.8B, occurs due to a slow increase in θ until close to mid-stance followed by
a rapid increase while, for other γ values ẋcp tends to increase abruptly with t. Fig. 3.8B and
2π
C is scaled with respect to the maximum value as the γ = 2.1dd had a significantly higher value
2π 2π
compared to profiles for γ = 3d and γ = 4d . The spike in COP acceleration occurs due to a larger
slope at TD and LO for ẋcp .
Distribution of stable periodic solutions corresponding to different γ and d values are shown in
Fig. 3.9. The scatter plot shows regions of isolated stable solutions which was unexpected. These
56
Figure 3.9.: Distribution of periodic solutions at different γ and d values. Compared to SLIP
with fixed pivot, addition of two extra parameters d and γ generates additional periodic
solution plots.
isolated regions show missing blue points. The isolated regions can also correspond to bifurcation
of fixed points or the solutions converging to a local minima. For larger d values the solution
density decreases at values of E close to 1.2. As d decreases the solutions increase corresponding
to maximum k̃. The solution density is higher at larger θo and decreases as θo decreases. The
initial starting value for E = 1.35 yields no solution as we filter out solutions in the running regime
corresponding to large walking speeds.
3.4.1. GRF estimation for barefoot and heeled gait

dH dB
To test our hypothesis of ∆θ > ∆θ , we compare model and experimental GRF, individual spatio-
temporal parameter estimates and cumulative parameter estimation. This section deals with es-
timating GRF profiles for barefoot and heeled gait. To analyse the qualitative and quantitative
nature of the periodic solution and check their GRF estimation capabilities we evaluate the coef-
ficient of determination of the GRF profiles along with stance phase duration error. The adjusted
57
R2 for the GRF fits, for barefoot walking, includes a time factor to take into account the temporal
error which is given as
SSE |tmodel − tdata |
R2 = (1 − )(1 − ) (3.12)
SST tdata
where SSE represents sum of squared error estimates, SST represents sum squared of total error,
tdata and tmodel are stance duration. We compare the model GRF forces for barefoot plantigrade
walking with data provided by Jung et al. [49], in which the subjects walked at 1.1m/s, 1.3 m/s
and 1.5 m/s (Fig. 3.10). At a speed of 1.1 m/s the vertical GRF shows a flatter profile around the
mid-stance which is accurately estimated by the model. The model cannot produce the heel strike
impulse observed in Fig. 3.10A which is a limitation of the simple sliding pivot of our model. The
model slightly underestimates the stance time for each case with a temporal duration error close
to 0.07s. On the contrary to our model hypothesis we obtain higher γ values for walking at 1.1
π π
m/s and 1.5 m/s which lie in the heeled gait hypothesis curve region with γ = 3.25d and γ = 4d .
Similarly, we do not observe an increasing or decreasing trend for d with increase in walking
speed. However, k̃ increases with increasing walking speed. R2 value for walking at 1.5 m/s is
slightly lower compared to the other two speeds as the model cannot estimate unequal vertical
GRF peaks due to its symmetrical modeling assumption. The issue with the model fits was having
just one experimental GRF profile instead of a collection of profiles. The increase in stiffness
at higher walking speeds is mainly due to higher energy of the system. With ya always lying in
between 0.9 and 1, with increasing E values, va and k̃ tend to increase.
A) B) C)
Figure 3.10.: GRF comparison of our model with Jung’s data. The parameters corresponding
2π
to each GRF profile are A) k̃ = 30.04, d = 0.225, γ = 3.25d , R2 = 0.82 B) k̃ = 32.07,
d = 0.125, γ = 2.25d , R = 0.83 C) k̃ = 46.43, d = 0.15, γ = 2π
2π 2 2
4d , R = 0.76.
To test our hypothesis for heeled walking, we calculate the residual error between GRF tra-
jectories and gait parameters with the data provided by Chien et al. [18]. The subjects in the
heeled gait group walked approximately at a speed of 1-1.3 m/s with heels of height hheel =
0.03, 0.05, 0.063, 0.073, 0.08m. However, the GRF was provided only for walking at heel height
of 0.073 m at a speed of 1 m/s. To compare model and experimental values we non-dimensionalize
the experimental data with similar scaling mentioned in the description of the bipedal model sec-
tion. In order to do so, we divide the distance terms by length of the leg taking into account
the increase in leg length due to the heel height (Fig. 3.11). Wearing heels lifts, increases un-
compressed leg length by elevating the COM height. The height of the leg and foot for barefoot
walking is calculated using the body part ratios provided by David winter [112]. Usage of this
anthropometric approximation leads to errors in calculation in the estimated and measured length
of the user.
Chien and colleagues provided the vertical and horizontal GRF on a %gait scale, thus, the
coefficient of determination for the GRF was calculated on a %gait scale. To test our hypothesis for
heeled gait, we employ GRF profiles corresponding to minimum single stance support%, double
58
kleg
hH
ks
dB dH
xCP(B) xCP(H)
Figure 3.11.: Graphical representation of barefoot and heeled shoe and change in leg length
due to heel height. Heel alters effective leg stiffness of the leg and overall COP
displacement.
stance support %, cadence and stride length as shown in Fig. 3.12. The formula for error values
between model and experimental gait parameters are given by Eqn. 3.13- 3.16. To obtain % error
estimates, the error estimate for a given value is divided by the corresponding experimental value
and multiplied by 100. The model value is selected at the given walking speed corresponding to
the data and the error is estimated from the mean data point. Double stance duration is calculated
from the point when the leading leg touches down till the point when the trailing leg lifts off.
Single stance duration is calculated when the trailing leg lifts off till it again touches down. Stride
length is considered to be two times the step length. Step length is the distance between the point
where the leg lifts off till point on the floor where the same leg touches down. While cadence is
calculated as the time taken for a given step, which is then scaled to number of steps per minute.
(%dst )model − (%dst )Exp.

%eds = (3.13)
(%dst )Exp.
(%sst )model − (%sst )Exp.
%ess = (3.14)
(%sst )Exp.
(sl )model − (sl )Exp.
%estrln = (3.15)
(sl )Exp.
(c)model − (c)Exp.
%evel = (3.16)
(c)Exp.
where %e represents error, %dst represents double stance support duration percent,%sst represents
single stance support duration percent, sl represents stride length, c represents cadence. The gait
parameter values for heeled walking are (%dst )Exp. = 15.6 ± 1, (%sst )Exp. = 34.9 ± 1.4, (sl )Exp. =
1.16 ± 0.06m, (c)Exp. = 112.32 ± 9.44steps/min [18].
The GRF profile corresponding to single stance/double stance support time resembles the heeled
gait profile quite closely. On the other hand, the profile corresponding to estrln and ecad have larger
magnitudes of peak and lower magnitude of mid-stance GRF (Fig. 3.12). GRF regressed curves
show that for single stance and double stance errors, our model projects that γ = 2π 4d and d = 0.04
corresponds to this error profile, validating our hypothesis on an individual error basis. Similarly
2π
for the step length error it projects a γ = 3.5d and d = 0.03 but with a low R2vertical = 0.50 and
2
Rhorizontal = 0.23. Based on these results our hypothesis holds true for two of the gait determinants
59
Figure 3.12.: GRF comparison of our model with Chien’s data for heeled gait. ess,ds corre-
spond to k̃ = 85.16, d = 0.04, γ = 2π 2 2
4d , Rhorizontal = 0.84, Rvertical = 0.83, estrln corre-
2π
sponds to k̃ = 39.82, d = 0.03, γ = 3.5d , Rhorizontal = 0.50, R2vertical = 0.23 and ecad
2
2π
corresponds to k̃ = 35.62, d = 0.08, γ = 2.75d , R2horizontal = 0.48, R2vertical = 0.36.
of heeled gait. k̃ corresponding to ess GRF profile is 85.16, which equals to 41,654 N/m, for a mass
of m = 50kg and lo = 0.9972m [18]. This is a significant increase over barefoot walking k̃ at the
same walking speed. Similar to the barefoot scenario, the model cannot reproduce the heel strike
spike due to model limitations and simplistic foot model. We did not regress the entire solution
set to fit model estimates but relied on curves with least error corresponding to spatio-temporal
data points so as to simultaneously estimate kinetic and temporal predictive nature of the model.
Due to no absolute time scale representation of GRF, it was necessary to estimate spatio-temporal
errors for the model because in certain cases SLIP can underestimate temporal duration. The GRF
curve from the data were reproduced using PlotDigitizer, which is a software to extract data points
from image files.
3.4.2. Individual gait parameter estimation
Figure 3.13.: COP displacement d from Shang’s data plotted against a backdrop of model
parameters (k̃ and θ ) and gait events double stance duration %ds and single
stance duration %ss. For %ds, the model shows 38.24% error in predicting the
closest steady state solution at γ = 2π
4d . For %ss, the model shows 16.18% error in
predicting the closest steady state solution at γ = 2π
4d
To estimate the gait line associated with heeled gait we estimated the COP displacement d
from the study done by Shang and colleagues [91]. They showed that for heels of height 3cm,
6 cm and 8.2 cm, the gait line length (d) was around 67 cm while walking at a speed of 1 m/s.
2π
Based on this result we simulated our gait model across γ values lying in between 2.1d and 2π
4d
60
at speed of 1 m/s, highlighting the distribution of d against k̃, θo , %ds, %ss (Fig. 3.13). For %ss
and %ds we calculate the euclidean distance error ratio for the pair (%ss, d)model and (%ss, d)data
based on which the error values in Fig. 3.13 are reported. Similar error calculation is done for
the (%ds, d)model/data pair. While estimating d and %ss the model predicts with an absolute error
% of 16.18%. And while estimating, d and %ds, the model predicts with an absolute error%
of 38.24%. Shang showed that the single and double stance corresponded to 34% of gait cycle
duration. During a gait cycle there exist two double stance phases, hence a single double stance
phase will correspond to 17% for Shang’s study. In Fig 3.13, we observe from the first subplot that
k̃ increases as the value of d decreases showing similarity to barefoot walking. Increase in d can
lead to more vertical excursion of the COM causing a compliant k̃. Similarly, θo also decreases
upon decrease in the value of d.
Figure 3.14.: Single stance duration distribution. Single stance support duration % plotted for
2π 2π 2π
γ = [ 2.1d , 3d , 4d ] for Shang and Chien’s study against model data.
To further test the validity of our hypothesis we compared the spatio-temporal values from
literature with the model predicted values of k̃, θo , ẋcp(max) , d. Our model has five parameters
in k̃, d, γ, θo , E. It is possible that when comparing model and experimental data points for a
pair of spatio-temporal parameter and walking speed, the solutions will overlap as is the case in
Fig. 3.14,3.15,3.16,3.17. In order to obtain the closest model solution to the data points plotted, we
obtain the euclidean distance between the model and data point. The % error based on these eu-
clidean distances are reported in Tab. 3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5. We observe that for both Shang and Chien’s
data, the closest model solutions show an error estimate less than 3%. These error values increase
2π
as the value of γ changes from 2.1d to 2π
4d in case of Shang’s data, while the error value is maxi-
61
γ k̃ θo ẋcp(max) d %error
2π
2.1d 19.62 20o 0.13 0.05 0.40
2π
Shang 3d 22.37 19o 0.03 0.05 1.75
2π
4d 22.92 18.80o 0.01 0.05 2.07
2π
2.1d 21.95 19.60o 0.14 0.05 0.27
2π
Chien 3d 26.13 17.20o 0.05 0.10 1.69
2π
4d 25.66 17.60o 0.03 0.10 0.85
Table 3.2.: Single stance duration parameters corresponding to model and data point shown
in Fig. 3.14.
Figure 3.15.: Double stance duration distribution. Double stance support duration % plotted for
2π 2π 2π
γ = [ 2.1d , 3d , 4d ] for Shang and Chien’s study against model.
mum at 2π 3d for Chien’s data. The increase in k̃ is correlated with the increase in error showing a
monotonic increase for Shang’s data points. k̃ shows correlation with error values for Chien’s data.
For both Shang and Chien the model predicts d to be less than or equal to 0.10 which proves our
hypothesis when comparing % ss. TD angle θo for Shang’s estimates show a negative correlation
with k̃ with θo being the least at γ = 2π 2π
4d and maximum at γ = 2.1d . Similar negative correlation is
observed for Chien’s model estimates. Due to lack of information on COP dynamics in either of
the studies by Shang and Chien, we would require further validation on the model predicted val-
ues on ẋcp(max) or d (in case of Chien). Double stance phase duration describes the weight transfer
phase during walking. Greater double stance duration correspond to unstable single stance gait
while lesser double stance duration corresponds to a comparatively stable gait (Fig. 3.15). Shang’s
62
2π
γ = 2.1d 25.75 16.80o 0.15 0.05 2.78
Shang γ = 2π
3d 24.07 17.40o 0.03 0.05 3.66
γ = 2π
4d 22.92 18.80o 0.01 0.05 9.50
2π
γ = 2.1d 21.95 19.60o 0.14 0.05 2.87
Chien γ = 2π
3d 23.51 18.80o 0.03 0.05 1.07
γ = 2π
4d 72.76 10.40o 0.03 0.05 1.18
Table 3.3.: Double stance duration parameters corresponding to model and data point shown
in Fig. 3.15.
2π 2π 2π
Figure 3.16.: Cadence distribution. Cadence plotted for γ = [ 2.1d , 3d , 4d ] for Esenyel and Chien’s
study against model data.
model estimates show counter-intuitive trends compared to %ss in γ and k̃. While, k̃ and θo show
similar negative correlation as observed in %ss. The %error for Shang’s estimates for %ds is larger
compared to the %ss case with minimum error% = 2.78% and maximum error%=9.50%. While
for Chien’s case the error% are still lower with maximum error% = 2.87% and minimum error%
= 1.07%. The %ds at γ = 2π 4d shows a drastic increase in k̃ with 72.76 and significant lowering in
o
TD angle with θo = 10.40 . With slight change in error% values, k̃ and θo show large variation in
magnitudes. This warrants multiple parameter estimation which can narrow down the region for
model parameters for heeled gait.
From the model results seen in Fig. 3.16, we observe that our model predicts cadence value to
as low as 77 steps/min for a walking speed of 0.68 m/s which is an improvement compared to
63
2π
γ = 2.1d 26.17 19.40o 0.24 0.15 1.07
2π
Esenyel γ = 3d 31.82 20o 0.05 0.10 0.59
γ = 2π
4d 34.92 17.20o 0.04 0.20 0.38
2π
γ = 2.1d 23.67 18.80o 0.23 0.15 1.47
Chien γ = 2π
3d 28.03 18o 0.06 0.15 0.57
γ = 2π
4d 31.04 20o 0.01 0.05 1.56
Table 3.4.: Cadence distribution for parameters corresponding to model and data point
shown in Fig. 3.16.
2π 2π 2π
Figure 3.17.: Step length distribution. Step length plotted for γ = [ 2.1d , 3d , 4d ] for Esenyel and
Chien’s study against model data.
the model provided by Jung et al. [49], whose bipedal model predicts walking speeds to as low
as 0.93m/s. This plot shows that the model can also estimate the cadence of the data points from
Esenyel and Chien’s study on heeled gaits. Esenyel showed that heels of height 5.5 cm have a
cadence of 112 steps/min. Based on this data point, our model shows increase in k̃ with changing
2π
from 2.1d to 2π
4d similar to the trend for %ss and %ds for Chien’s data. COP displacement d shows
a maximum value of 0.20 and minimum value of 0.10 which is an increase from d estimates from
%ss and %ds. θo values are not correlated with k̃ for Esenyel’s model estimates. The %error is
below 1.5% for Esenyel’s data points across all γ values. For Chien’s data the model estimates do
not show a correlation between θo and k̃. The maximum %error is equal to 1.56% at γ = 2π 4d . For
step length comparison, Esenyel’s model estimates show a negative correlation between k̃ and θo
64
2π
γ = 2.1d 25.19 19.40o 0.24 0.15 1.17
2π
Esenyel γ = 3d 33.48 17.40o 0.08 0.20 0.42
γ = 2π
4d 36.97 17.20o 0.04 0.20 0.68
2π
γ = 2.1d 25.87 20o 0.13 0.05 2.03
Chien γ = 2π
3d 26.98 17.40o 0.07 0.15 0.02
γ = 2π
4d 26.37 17.60o 0.04 0.15 0.48
Table 3.5.: Step length distribution for parameters corresponding to model and data point
shown in Fig. 3.17.
with minimum error% = 1.17%. These individual error estimates show that model estimates can
predict data points very accurately but there still exists uncertainty in testing the validity of heeled
gait hypothesis. To overcome this uncertainty we explore model capabilities in predicting multiple
parameters.
3.4.3. Multiple parameter estimation

The preceding sections in the results section relied on gait estimation through GRF fits and pair
wise euclidean error estimates of gait parameters to obtain model predicted parameters. To further
evaluate the nature of periodic solutions we segregate model solutions corresponding to the min-
imum cumulative error ratio of the gait determinants provided by Chien and colleague [17, 18].
The error is calculate by the equation given below
ev(model) − ev(data) e%ss(model) − e%ss(data) e%ds(model) − e%ds(data)
Errorcum = ( + + +
ev(data) e%ss(data) e%ds(data)
esl (model) − esl (data) est (model) − est (data)
+ )
esl (data) est (data)
We obtain the minimum cumulative error corresponding to the heel gait determinants namely
single support% (%ss), double support% (%ds), stride length (sl ), non dimensional walking speed
(v) and stance time (st ). The cumulative error is defined as the sum of individual error ratios
corresponding to the gait determinants. To remove the bias between the error due to magnitude
of the different values of the gait determinants, we obtain the ratio of the error with respect to
the experimental value, this way we reduce the error to values lying in between 0 and 1 which
is then used to predict model values. The corresponding error values are shown in Tab. 3.6. We
2π
observe that for Chien’s study our model predicts a γ = 2.25d for barefoot walking and for heeled
2π 2π
gait it predicts γ = 3.5d , 4d which shows that the model is able to differentiate between barefoot
and heeled gait. Although, these error values project the d at 0.25 which could be explained
by the fact that our model considers the COP movement on the force plate rather than the COP
movement predicted by the insole pads inside the heel. The difference in the COP measurement is
evident as the geometry of the foot and shoe are different. This leads to different localization and
movement of pressure along the base of the foot and along the force plate. To further investigate
the difference in these two COP profiles we require more details on the movement of COP along
the force plate or along the insoles. But the model is able to predict COP displacements for lower
d values and higher d values when judging the model for both individual and multiple parameter
estimation. The error% for all cases for non dimensional velocity is less than 11% and error% in
sl is less than 11%. Error% for temporal duration are significantly low with all gait error% lying
65
below 3%. Moreover, the model predicts the TD angle to decrease with increasing height which
2π
would be the case for heeled gait. Similarly, the increase in k̃ with change in γ from 2.1d to 2π
4d was
expected for heeled gait.
Heeled gait determinants (%Error) Model parameters

Heel
Author v sl tst tss tds γ ẋcp d k̃ θ
height
2π
BF 7.01 1.89 1.12 2.57 2.06 2.25d 0.23 0.25 26.60 18.50o
2π
3.9cm 10.87 4.06 1.55 0.47 0.64 4d 0.05 0.25 30.74 17o
Chien 2π
6.3cm 7.46 4.40 1.67 0.44 2.04 4 0.05 0.25 32.59 16.00o
2π
7.3cm 6.30 10.27 1.33 0.14 0.37 3.5d 0.07 0.225 33.00 15.50o
Table 3.6.: Gait determinants error for Chien’s data. Model simulation parameters correspond-
ing to least error for gait determinants for barefoot and heeled walking.
Shang and colleagues did not provided explicit gait determinants for heeled gait and hence, we
considered the same spatio-temporal parameters as used in Chien’s study except for step length
Tab. 3.7. Instead of step length we used ddata experimental COP displacement to obtain corre-
sponding model parameters. Similar to Chien’s study the model predicts a γ = 2π 4d for Shang’s
data points. k̃ is 80.82 which is significantly large compared to Chien’s k̃ estimates. Moreover, the
model predicts close to accurate COP displacement value d with an error of 2.56%. The %error in
%ss and %ds is considerably large as compared to Chien’s model estimates. The decease in d is
accompanied by a monotonic decrease in θo for Shang’s model estimates. Power for heeled gait
Heeled gait determinants (%Error) Model parameters

Author Heel height v dexp. tst tss tds γ ẋcp d k̃ θ
2π
Shang [3,6,8.2]cm 3.02 2.56 10.03 16.83 39.53 4d 0.03 0.08 80.82 11.45o
Table 3.7.: Gait determinants error for Shang’s study. Model simulation parameters corre-
sponding to least error for gait determinants for heeled walking.
is calculated as
Power = F.v (3.17)
where, F is the resultant GRF and v is the resultant walking speed at a given time step tn . Heeled
gait power shows negative rebound trend and positive preload trend compared to barefoot walking.
This occurs because the model predicts a difference of less than 0.01 (BW) between the peak and
mid-stance valley of the vertical GRF for heeled gait for the dotted curve shown in Fig. 3.18.
Power profile is not known to be a gait determinant for heeled gait. Moreover, data on COM
power profile for heeled gait is required to compare the given power profile. Whereas, for barefoot
walking the model shows similar trend as observed for barefoot walking provided by Jung and
colleagues [49].
3.5. Discussion
COP dynamics
The ability of the model to generate similar COP acceleration profile shows that our model is ca-
pable in reproducing qualitatively similar COP profiles for barefoot walking as shown by Jung and
colleagues [49]. Compared to previous studies with COP translation, the constrained curves in our
66
3.5. Discussion
Figure 3.18.: Power of the COM during the four phases of leg during stance phase. Barefoot
and heeled gait curves are plotted at 1.1 m/ and 1 m/s respectively corresponding to
the GRF plots in Fig. 3.10 and Fig. 3.12. Heeled gait power curve shows opposite
behavior during rebound and pre-load stage.
model take into account the independent sate variables required to define the state of the system.
Such a description of the COP-COM dependency is analogous to the description of postural bal-
ance during quiet standing where the COM and COP movement are described using the angle of
inclination [39, 41].
The essential value of model based COP curves is that it captures rotation of the foot from TD
to LO. During TD the foot lands in the rear foot phase, consequently snapping and increasing
the xcp until apex state is achieved. We believe for heeled gait, the forefoot contact is achieved
before the leg is perpendicular to the walking surface which leads to decrease in ẍcp , attaining
zero acceleration at apex. This was also suggested by Stefanyshyn and colleagues that braking
force during heel gait is higher [97]. The experimental COP profile curves considered in our
study are an ideal scenario. In an ideal scenario, the COM decelerates and accelerates horizontally
and the COP accelerates and then decelerates. These curve represent the inherent nature of the
COP dynamics, filtering out the high frequency noise that occurs due to inter-joint movements
for healthy gait. There can be cases where the curves are not regular and symmetric about the
mid-stance. In such cases different COP progression curves can be used to obtain the overall COP
displacement but the profile of the curve has an effect on the leg stiffness and other spatio-temporal
variables as shown by our study. Compared to COP progression model proposed by Bullimore and
colleagues [11] where in they define the COP displacement to be a constant velocity model, we
67
use the biomechanical aspects of foot rotations to develop our hypothesis and how it could affect
the COP movement. Moreover, with the constant velocity model they observed counter-intuitive
changes in leg stiffness for human running suggesting more cautiousness towards an appropriate
choice of COP models. When choosing COP models it is important to consider the qualitative
profile of the COP progression, either in a heuristic form or the COP profile from gait data to
make the bipedal model more plausible. This was the case with Jung and colleagues [49] who
used a sinusoidal time dependent heuristic function to define COP progression which inspired
us to incorporate a non time dependent COP progression model. With our model we were able
to define COP movement based on the model’s instantaneous state. This way we are able to
reproduce COP dynamics having different shape factors that helped us generalize our model for
barefoot and heeled gait.
Steady state solution distribution

Compared to fixed point SLIP consisting of three design parameters, our model consists of five
parameters with the inclusion of d and γ. To reduce computational time we searched for selected
γ and d values without the loss of generality. In order to do so we used numerical optimization
to iterate k̃ and ẋcpa to reduce computational time. Moreover, we provided way points for the
models to filter in trajectories that move through these way points thereby discarding multi-period
trajectories that are frequently observed with SLIP [34]. Data for our model validation consisted
of walking speeds lying in the domain of single period oscillations. In comparison with traditional
SLIP, our model was able to simulate walking speeds as slow as 0.68 m/s, considering lo = 1m,
which was slightly less than the SLIP with fixed pivot and 0.25 m/s slower than the bipedal model
developed by Jung and colleagues. We believe this occurred due to decrease in d making the model
approach fixed pivot behavior. We restricted γ to 2π 4d as increasing the denominator beyond 4d
would not have affected the shape of the constraint curve. The other extremum of the shape factor
2π
γ was restricted to 2.1d because if denominator−→ 2d, γ →− ∞. COP displacement is affected by
several factors, more so by the overall joint torques and the foot dynamics. By varying d we were
able to assess the range of steady state solutions which helped in classifying various heeled gait
scenarios. COP displacements vary from 95% of the foot length to as low as 60% of foot length.
By introducing d, the model is able to provide a generic framework towards COP displacement
modeling. From Fig. 3.9 at d = 0.05 we expected the distribution of the fixed point plot to span a
larger range of E because as COP displacement d approaches lower values the model behaves like
the traditional SLIP model [34]. For a given walking speed, there exist different combinations of
cadence and step length. Variation in these parameters, due to gait variability, affects the stance
time of the leg and dictates the COP displacement and velocity. On the other hand, type of footwear
can also affect the foot dynamics and contact time, causing change in COP movement and stability
of gait. With this model we can explain variations in COP movement to obtain a stable periodic
pattern through provision of γ and d. The gaps observed in Fig. 3.9 for certain plots occur due
to the optimization method as it does not explicitly search every parameter. Hence, it is highly
likely that the distribution has gaps occurring due to bifurcation of a fixed point. Due to a coarse
parameter search, the minimum value of the cost function might lead to a local minima instead of
a global minimum. However, the fixed point distribution pattern had a similar span as shown by
Geyer et al. [34] and Jung et al. [49].
GRF estimation
With a generic COP progression model, the gait model estimates GRF profiles for barefoot gait
from 1.1 m/s to 1.5 m/s with strong correlation coefficients. Compared to fixed pivot SLIP, the
68
3.5. Discussion
model is able to account for temporal and spatial span observed in gait data as shown in Fig. 3.10.
However, compared to Jung’s model, it slightly underestimates the temporal factor by around
0.07s but still maintaining a strong correlation. It is able to account for qualitative GRF profile
at a speed of 1.1 m/s which could be due to the inherent SLIP model dynamics. Due to tem-
poral underestimation we observe a difference of 800 N/m in our stiffness prediction compared
to stiffness reported by Jung and colleagues. Due to the reduced parameter search, it would be
appropriate to suggest that the model skipped a given parameter set that could have provided an
accurate stance time estimate. This reduced parameter search could be the reason behind obtain-
ing underestimated stance times for barefoot GRF profiles. Additionally, the models shows an
increase in stiffness values with increasing speed also shown by other authors [34, 49]. However,
2π
the model predicts γ = 3.25d for a speed of 1.1 m/s which contradicts our hypothesis but predicts
2π
γ = 2.25d which validates our hypothesis. In summary, the barefoot gait data estimates suggest
further evidence to test the hypothesis due to lack of clarity in differentiating γ values. This am-
biguity could also be due to GRF profiles for heeled gait being similar for barefoot and heeled
gait. Due to non-distinguishable GRF profiles the data validation warranted other ways to test the
hypothesis. This way, γ values from GRF fits could not be held accountable to test the heeled gait
hypothesis.
Switching over from barefoot to heeled gait, we compared GRF profile over a %stance cycle due
to lack of absolute time data. To compensate for absolute time scale, we evaluated GRF fits based
on curves representing minimum values for %ss, %ds,%cadence and %stride length solution sets
(Fig. 3.12). This plot suggests that %ess/ds shows the best fit with R2horizontal = 0.84, R2vertical = 0.83
with k̃ = 85.16 and γ = 2π 4d . This further suggests that heeled gait and fast walking barefoot gait
possess similar γ values and could be due to the higher impact force at TD leading to a larger
denominator for γ. Compared to the smooth curvature of the human heel, heeled footwear has rigid
edges causing hard impact at heel strike making the user rotate their foot faster to obtain fore foot
contact faster. Guo et al. [36] mentioned that with heeled footwear, one observes brisk acceleration
and the high initial COP acceleration at γ = 2π 4d suggests this. Moreover, Stefanyshyn [97] also
suggested that heeled gait portrayed increase in braking force, which could be a factor of faster
foot rotation also observed in our study. Thus, trajectories lying beyond γ = γ2π den
(γden > 4d) might
provide solutions for hard sole or high heeled footwear. Usually heeled shoes with hard soles/heel
will have a rigid material with higher stiffness which is reflected by k̃ obtained for heeled gait
for Shang’s model estimates. However, we require evidence on heeled gait material stiffness to
validate the stiffness value. Barefoot walking at 1.1 m/s and heeled walking at 1.08 m/s can be
differentiated on the basis of k̃, with non heeled stiffness being 30.04. The leg length in both cases
was approximately 1m, while average mass of the subjects in Jung’s study was m = 80kg, which
makes the dimensional stiffness equal to 23,575 N/m. With a difference of 18,078 N/m between
the two walking trials, the model suggests that rigid heels could have higher stiffness.
Another important aspect of parameter estimation through bipedal models is the approximation
of dimensional values such as lo and COP distance during stance. Jung et al. [49] used a COP
translation of 0.15 m, which is approximately 60% of the foot length of the subjects in their study.
Due to the uncertainty in COP displacement observed in literature, we simulated the model for dif-
ferent COP displacements d. Grundy et al. [35] showed that the COP velocity under the metatarsal
heads can go as high as 22 cm/s and as low as 6 cm/s. This suggests that the COP progression
beyond the metatarsal phalangeal should not be discounted which is addressed in our model by
considering COP progression throughout the stance phase. Although we constraint our model to
pass zero inclination angle at mid-stance, our model can be altered to simulate asymmetric gaits
in which mid-stance and zero inclination do not occur simultaneously. This way we can simulate
gaits in individuals which deviate from the symmetrical nature of walking observed in healthy
69
subjects.
Gait line length estimation

Lee et al. [62] showed that decrease in step length during walking can make the leg stiffer which
is observed in our model. Due to heeled gait, the joints during walking are constrained causing
less flexion for hip, knee and ankle consequently reducing the overall excursion of the COM,
which could be an appropriate explanation for increase in stiffness. Shang et al. [91] also showed
that change in heel heights hardly changed temporal parameters like %ss and %ds which is also
observed in the model prediction (Fig. 3.13). This is an important step forward for the heuristic
model which is able to simultaneously estimate gait line distance and temporal parameters (%er-
ror=16% for %ds and %38 for %ss) which is an improvement over bipedal model developed by
Jung and colleagues. The capability of a bipedal model is established by its ability to estimate
both spatial and temporal variables which is also observed in the model. The limiting factor for
the result displayed in Fig. 3.13 is having no information about the COP dynamics of the users
in the study. However, by conducting a pairwise error calculation for %ss-d and %ds-d, we are
able to obtain the error estimates showing the degree of closeness for the model-data pair. Gait
line estimation is important towards understanding heel design as it predicts the movement of
plantar pressure for heeled footwear. To improve this estimation, as discussed above; having the
COP acceleration profile helped in narrowing down regions of leg stiffness and stance times. The
model also acts as a substitute for an ankle joint that would require more computational time and
will have at least three extra parameters for foot inclination with the ground, foot-shank inclina-
tion angle and ankle stiffness. With our hypothesis formulation we are able to replace foot-ankle
elements through provision of heuristic COP profiles. The uncertainty with gait line estimation
lies whether it generates the profile underneath the foot or underneath the heel. To tackle this, we
would require data for insole pressure measurements along with force plate COP data for heeled
gait. However, with the ability of the model to handle different d values, we believe the model is
holistic in describing various COP displacements either at foot or heel level.
Multiple-parameter estimation
The model shows that for Chien’s data the estimates show very low error with heeled gait γ values
lying in between 2π 2π
3d to 4d . This proves our hypothesis to a great degree but for future research
obtaining COP displacement data for heeled gait would provide better validation opportunities.
The model does differentiate slightly in between heels of different sizes by suggesting different γ
values in Tab. 3.6. Upon that it also suggests that k̃ would increase with increase in heel height and
θo would decrease. This was also observed by Chien and colleagues showing the inclination angle
decreases with increasing heel heights [18]. As mentioned above the limiting factor is validating
the overall COP displacement which the model suggests is close to 90% of the foot length for
heeled gait. This could be due to the shape of the heel base and heel angle towards the metatarsal
joints. Similarly, for Shang’S study, the model is able to predict a very high stiffness and precise
d value with a very low θo suggesting that the model can estimate data from multiple studies
(Tab. 3.7). However, compared to Shang’s study it drastically deviates from reported %ss and
%ds. Yung Hui and Wei Hsien demonstrated increase in impact force due to increase in heel
height which is observed by the increase in leg stiffness with increase in heel heights [118]. Upon
that increase in TD angle suggests that the leg becomes steeper with increase in heel height, which
can also be extrapolated to the fact that the ankle angle would also increase corroborating the
findings by Ucanok and colleagues [102].
70
3.5. Discussion
When comparing, power phases during the stance phase, we observe that based on the mini-
mum error estimates for heeled gait, the rebound and preloading phase show opposite behavior
compared to barefoot gait (Fig. 3.18). This could be due to the rigid heel leading to decrease in
flexion of the knee causing lower rebound compared to barefoot gait, during which the muscles
flex more and provide a higher upward thrust. During, second half of stance phase, the negative
value arises from the vertically downward velocity of the COM, as both horizontal and vertical
GRF show positive values along with the horizontal COM speed. The opposite trend in heeled
gait power is also due to a flatter vertical GRF profile. Due to the plantarflexed ankle, the down-
ward movement of COM is restricted after the apex state, unlike during barefoot walking when
the ankle shifts from dorsiflexion to plantarflexion. This phase in between dorsiflexion and plan-
tarflexion can cause the walking speed in the vertical direction to increase in magnitude, which, as
our power curve suggests, is not the case in heeled gait due to minimalistic contribution from the
dorsiflexion phase. This behavior is represented in the power plot for the COM, suggesting that γ
values can explain power difference in the two categories of locomotion.
The hypothesis for heeled footwear asserts that the change in COP displacement with respect
to change in COM-COP inclination angle ∆θ is higher compared to barefoot walking. This phe-
nomenon, as expected, arises because the foot snaps faster attaining forefoot phase in heeled gait
faster compared to barefoot walking to avoid imbalance and consequently fast track the gait to-
wards stability [36]. As shown by Schwartz et al. [88] that increase in heel height causes increase
in forefoot pressure compared to rear foot showing an adapted transfer mechanism by the wearer
and further suggesting that the foot spends more time in the forefoot phase which could be due
to increase in the gradient value as suggested by our model. Kaelin et al. [50] showed that the
person adapts to the hardness/softness of the sole while walking, suggesting stiffness changes are
not only related to walking speed and cadence, but also hardness of the shoe. This is evident as,
the overall leg stiffness of the shoe might increase due to hard soles. Existing bipedal models
with or without COP excursion consider barefoot walking and the rollover shape of the foot-ankle
complex. But we provide analysis of gait using a bipedal model and COP excursion model that
can simulate heeled gait through a constraint function, thereby reducing the number of parame-
ters. Several bipedal models have been developed to estimate gait parameters and spatio-temporal
parameters for walking with a translating COP [10, 49, 53, 62, 109]. Most of these models ei-
ther have a predefined pivot architecture like the rolling foot models or an external function for
COP progression. A COP progression model dependent on COM state, like in this study, helped
us understand the inter-dependency between the COM and COP to distinguish between barefoot
walking and heeled gait. The study by Hof et al. [39] on dynamic stability, showing on how COM
controls COP movement to prevent the body from falling, is one of the inspirations for our study
in addition to the above mentioned heeled gait literature. We further took inspiration from the ex-
perimental evidence showing how COP displacement and COM-COP inclination angle are related
during barefoot walking provided by [49]. With this study we were able to develop a transition
function that could cater to barefoot and heeled gait.
Other heuristic COP models

With our tangent function we could simulate only the curves shown in Fig. 3.4A. To simulate other
potential curves shown in Fig. 3.19, we would have to redefine the constraint curve equation as
θ = α tan β (3.18)
where, the shape factor γ would be different due to the flipped curves (Fig. 3.19). This will be
a simpler equation to solve compared to the previous model. However, this equation cannot be
71
Figure 3.19.: Potential COP constraint curves for testing hypothesis.
smoothly transitioned from our hypothesized COP transition model. The goal of the hypothesis
was to provide a transition function that, based on its profile, could transition between barefoot
gait to heeled gait. This means when shifting from barefoot walking to heeled gait, the tangent
function maintains its form but with the potential model, we will need to provide a switch (discrete
value) to shift from the tangent model to this potential model. This discrete switch will lead to
a discontinuity but can be helpful in tackling other scenarios of heeled/footwear gait. Another
limitation of the study is exploring the COP constraint parameters d and γ. We believe finer mea-
surements of γ and d we could have improved the time estimates for barefoot walking. However,
with a strong correlation fit the GRF results were considered appropriate. Usually data variability
in healthy gait occurs but as we had a singular GRF profile, we could not account for other GRF
profiles. We did not explore more γ values because there was no distinguishing feature in the
periodic solution distribution plot (Fig. 3.9) and also γ beyond 2π 4d would be redundant due to no
change in shape factor. For all d and γ values the distribution was almost similar. However, in cer-
tain regions we observed isolated fixed point solutions, which could be due to unstable solutions
around that region. Bifurcation analysis to understand the nature of these points is a potential study
but was not considered relevant for this study. By obtaining branches of fixed points for stable and
unstable solutions a stability analysis can be conducted to gain insight into the stability regime of
the parameters. We also assumed the COP speed to be zero at TD and LO but literature has shown
that in many cases the starting and ending COP speed has values close to 6 to 22 cm/s [78]. By
removing the COP velocity constraint at TD and LO the error minimization functions will com-
press into eapex = [∆xa+1 − ∆xa ; ya+1 − ya ; ẋcpL(a+1) − ẋcpR(a) ; 2(xcpL((a+1) − xcpL(T D) ); xcpL(a+1) −
xa+1 ; ẋcpL(T D) −v1 ; ẋcpR(LO) −v1 ] where v1 is the COP speed at TD and LO. To obtain COP velocity
and acceleration profiles similar to barefoot walking, we imposed the TD and LO constraint for
x−x
ẋcp . As the constraint function is given as tan−1 ( y cp ) = α tan β , this is a sufficient condition to
obtain periodic solutions. However, the initial COP speed causes a discontinuity in the COP veloc-
ity profile. In that case the model could be used as a COP update model by omitting COP velocity
and COP acceleration. The error function in that case will be eapex = [∆xa+1 − ∆xa ; ya+1 − ya ].
72
3.5. Discussion
Usually COP movement depends not just on movement of plantarflexors but overall body move-
ment. Through filtering out noise from COP profiles one can generalize models for other studies
having similar COP profiles. Chiu et al. [20] showed that COP displacement profile in the AP
direction is a sheared S shape and the COP velocity peaks at mid stance. Hence, this confirms that
barefoot walking shows bell shaped curve for COP velocity. On the other hand Cornwall showed
that COP velocity is inverted bell shape which does not comply to our model assumptions [21]. In
such a case, we would require to redefine the COP movement using an alternative function of θ .
The constraint function xcp − xcpo = α2 tan θ , where α2 is the new shape factor, would be a suit-
able assumption for the inverted bell profile (Fig. 3.19). In this case the velocity would decrease
and increase towards LO. Hence, instead of relying on external functions or data, we could use
the relation θ = f (xcp ) to obtain different curves suitable for different studies. This way, COP
movement can be related to COM movement, considering passive dynamic walkers, with springy
legs. We relied on a simplified assumption that at mid-stance COP is displaced half-way and the
COM is at apex. But to involve neighbouring apex states, where this assumption does not hold
true, such as ẏa > 0 or ẏa < 0 or θa > 0 or θa < 0 would provide asymmetric GRF profiles. This
would shift the GRF mid-stance valley regions, as seen in Fig. 3.12 shift leftwards or rightwards.
Similarly, by considering the inequalities xcpa > d/2 or xcpa < d/2, we would provide a three way
asymmetrical apex state. Due to the foot architecture the COM state at TD and LO would dif-
fer and by incorporating the three-way asymmetric conditions our solutions would better explain
other heeled gait scenarios. This could be a task for future research but requires actual COP data
of heeled gait to make accurate comparisons.
That brings us to COP profile for heeled gait. Usually COP can be measured using insole, at foot
level, and at the force plate or shoe base level. These profiles capture different contact scenarios.
In order to make recommendations on relieving pressure due to heeled gait, we would require
COP profiles at both interfaces to further validate our model. That would also affect the domain
of β and α adding more complexity to the system. Issue with limit cycle optimization is that the
model does not use gait data, thus, it has to rely on several design parameters and generate several
limit cycles. With a plantarflexed ankle due to high heels, a preloaded passive spring can be used
at the SLIP pivot, instead of the COP movement. By changing the preload value, the model can
simulate heels of different height. By comparing our model and this potential model with ankle
spring, we would have a better estimate of the overall stiffness change due to heeled gait and effect
of plantarflexion on heeled gait. This would be a similar approach to the one used by Maykranz
and colleagues [69] having an ankle joint. The issue with ankle joint is shift of the COP from heel
to toe in one time step leads to an inflection point in the GRF profile.
The issue with passive dynamic walkers, especially SLIP, is simulating very slow walking gait
features. However, people wearing heels usually walk at medium walking speeds but slow walk-
ing speed representation of human walking using gait models will be a necessity for estimating
pathological gaits in the next study on post-stroke gait estimation. Due to the potential posed by
various COP models, one could conduct several studies with passive dynamic walkers to analyze
effects of potential COP constraint curves for simulating slow walking gait. By removing the hard
constraint for d, we will obtain estimates of d, which could also be an appropriate way to use the
COP model. To trigger LO, leg force should equal zero but LO can be triggered by providing an
upper limit for COP displacement d as done by Jung and colleagues [49]. In such a scenario, the
model will encounter two LO scenarios, which could be used individually or in combination, to
allow the model to select a given scenario for LO. This could provide more stance phase control
models. The stance LO trigger would be equal to LO= xcp − xcpo − d/2. Jung and colleagues
used a COP displacement limit trigger when their model transitioned from single to double stance,
however we would require data on heeled gait and COP gait line for different walking phases to
73
enforce similar conditions. With no feedback loop in our SLIP model, we cannot cater to fluctua-
tions in COP sway. Passive dynamic walkers are not meant to capture COP sway but could prove
beneficial when simulating heeled gaits on the verge of trips or falls. For future studies simulating
heeled gait with velocity control or hip actuation could help with understanding postural control
with heels, similar to the models developed by Sharbafi and colleagues [94]. We used only positive
COP velocities as initial condition at apex but our model can simulate negative COP velocities at
TD and LO. Such negative COP velocity scenarios could also account for COP sway negating the
need for complex sway models. This way the COP velocity bell curve will shift downwards cross-
ing into the fourth quadrant of the sagitall plane based Cartesian coordinate. Similarly, the model
could work with sinusoidal COP velocity functions as the possibilities could be endless as long as
these profiles are symmetric about vertical y-axis at mid-stance. As mentioned by Winter [111],
that the COP position is regulated through twitching of ankle plantarflexors, this twitching can be
recorded using EMG data and transformed into displacement profiles which could then be sim-
ulated using COP constraint curve. Foot drop simulators for stroke gait work towards attaining
COP movement observed in healthy gait. By using transition functions from barefoot to heeled
gait such as tan, our model can help establish a link between barefoot and heeled gait. This way
these transition functions can be used to design the floor-bed of the shoe that provides a COP
locus compensating for a subject’s pathological COP profile. Khoury et al. [52] and others [115]
showed that by providing convex shaped pads (Fig 2.6), the locus of the COP movement could
be changed. The placement of such pads on the inside of the heeled shoe could prove beneficial
in relieving foot stress and decrease excessive concentration of pressure. By using heuristic COP
functions, we could use our COP model constraint curve method to obtain locations inside of the
foot for placement of such convex pads. For example these convex pads will redirect the force F
vector experienced by the foot, consequently changing the inclination angle θ . By predetermining
the profile for F, we could simulate the SLIP to obtain a limit cycle with a constraint curve taking
into account the convex pads. To measure pressure concentration with our COP model, we can
measure the time duration and magnitude of GRF during stance. COM-COP relation should be
paramount when it comes to gait modeling using templates due to studies showing detection of
gait instabilities in elderly people by measuring the change in the COM-COP inclination angle.
Heeled gait has similarities with other foot disorder such as flat foot, which causes decrease in
plantar pressure, due to loss of heel arch [1]. As our model can simulate different COP displace-
ment values we could use our model to provide recommendation towards optimizing overall COP
displacement.
To reduce computational time, we did not exhaustively search each set of the initial conditions
that could give a unique energy value E, instead we reduced it to a numerical optimization prob-
lem, where in the stiffness and ẋcp converged to the closest minima. However, we were able to
maintain the generality of our model solutions when compared with SLIP model with fixed pivot’s
solutions. By addition of more parameters, one has to take into account an additional branch of
periodic solutions formed due to that parameter. To make fair comparisons with real world scenar-
ios of heeled gait, the model outputs should accurately represent observable kinematic and kinetic
properties. Non-observable properties such as leg stiffness can be beneficial if they can be used
towards designing orthoses or pressure relieving soft pads. Due to lack of knowledge of the elastic
properties of the rigid heel, we could not provide a fair assessment of the constant stiffness values
obtained in our study. To gain more insights into the effect of stiffness, we would require factors
such as compression of heel, excursion of COM, change in joint angles. Through more gait data,
numerical value of heel stiffness can be better measured. By obtaining force length curves from
gait data, we can apply regression to obtain stiffness parameters for the SLIP, similar to the study
by Lipfert and colleagues [66]. Chien et al. [17, 18] conducted walking trials to distinguish be-
74
3.5. Discussion
Figure 3.20.: Hill’s muscle model. Hill’s muscle model consisting of a contractile element (CE),
passive element (PE) and series element (SE) with forces F at either ends of the
muscle fibre. These muscle models are used in musculoskeletal models.
tween heeled gait and barefoot gait but similar studies should be done to obtain spatio-temporal
changes as well kinetic changes for heeled footwear to get more insights into COM and COP
relation to improve pressure relieving insoles for heels.
Potential leg models

With an empirical model, the system is a simplified version of human joint chain. The joints
undergo a range of motion through joint rotations. These joint rotations decrease or increase the
overall displacement of point of force application, in this case the COP and the hip joint. To
represent this fluctuation a linear spring stiffness is used, whose force is proportional to change
in the euclidean distance between COM and COP. This decrease in distance is effected by gravity
during passive dynamic walking. Hence, the leg stiffness is a simplification of the rotational
movements of the limb. Hooke’s law for spring force is applicable only for small compression
or elongations. We consider compression upto 10% of the leg length for which the non-linear
part should be considered but it is not. For higher than 10% compression, one could consider the
Duffing’s equation in which the overall force is given by
F = k(1 − l) + knl (1 − l)3 (3.19)
where k̃nl represents the non linear stiffness constant. Another stiffness model is the Hill’s equation
for the muscle, where the muscle consists of a passive element, a contractile element and an active
element (Fig. 3.20). In this case the leg can be considered as a collection of muscle fibres. Hill’s
muscle model takes into account the power generated by the muscle fibre. To obtain very slow
gait features non-linear stiffness models such as the Hill’ muscle model can prove beneficial.
However, we believe the linear stiffness model can be further tested with other COP models that
could provide stance leg control and potentially solve the slow gait phenomena limitation posed
by SLIP. The equation to Hill’s muscle model is given as
(v + b)(F + a) = b(Fo + a) (3.20)
where, where F is the tension (or load) in the muscle, v is the velocity of contraction, F0 is the
maximum isometric tension (or load) generated in the muscle, a coefficient of shortening heat,
b = a · v0 /F0 and v0 is the maximum velocity, when F = 0. With this equation we could eliminate
the need to measure stiffness and the time rate of change in leg length can be associated with the
force in leg length. Through active forcing in the leg’s active element, the muscle could maintain
75
a certain leg length, and the error minimization functions such as for the GRF profile (Fig. 3.21)
can be used. The above equation is a realistic definition of muscular force which is usually used
in musculo-skeletal modeling but to our knowledge has not yet been used in bipedal models.
Figure 3.21.: Change in shape of the vertical GRF profile. Stance cycle optimization can be
done by using various shape profiles for vertical GRF. In the plot q represents shape
factor.
3.6. Conclusion
Walking as mentioned earlier is a combination of neuro-muscular control and traction from the
walking surface. The combination of the two dictates the overall COP movement. Hence, COP
models provide a way to amalgamate all the necessary components into a single variable which
can explain the underlying mechanism of different foot behaviour. With our heuristic COP model,
through introduction of COP shape factor γ and COP displacement d, we obtained gait determi-
nants for heeled gait. Through this study we conduct a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the
hypothesis for heeled gait. Some results suggest that increase in speed and wearing heels have the
same impact on the GRF. While, multiple parameter estimation suggests that there exists a clear
distinction between heeled gait and barefoot gait. By differentiating between heeled and barefoot
gait, we relate COM movement to COP progression which opens avenues to use our constraint
generation techniques for other gaits. The model shows ability to generate different COP dis-
placement values but we require more data on COP progression profiles for heeled gait, measured
by pressure insoles and force plates. With provision of COP update functions, various heuristic
functions can be used to analyse different footwear scenarios and consequently foot-ankle dynam-
ics.
We proposed a hypothesis for modeling heeled gait and proved it using gait kinetics and kine-
matics of heeled gait data and determinants. With this study we were able to show that the heeled
76
3.6. Conclusion
footwear properties can be converted into parameters that define the rotation of the foot during
stance phase. The rotation of the foot corresponded to several aspects such as, ankle moment, foot
orientation, ability to handle impact forces and gait stability, all of which can be represented using
a single gait parameter of γ, which is responsible in altering the sinusoidal acceleration profile of a
forward progressing COP. We were also able to show that our hypothesis holds true when account-
ing for cumulative error values corresponding to gait determinants. With this study we estimated
GRF profiles corresponding to barefoot walking along with its temporal span during stance phase.
In addition, we were able to predict power phases for heeled gait. The tangent function used to
describe the COP constraint demonstrated its versatility in handling different COP profiles corre-
sponding to different gaits. We believe such constraint curves can provide stance leg control which
could solve the very slow walking gait feature generation by the SLIP in future. In summary this
study proposes a method to test the effect of heeled gait which can be further developed to analyze
foot orthoses for pathological gait.
77
CHAPTER 4
Estimation of stroke gait
The motivation to study heeled gait is to further the study towards post-stroke gait estimation.
Heeled gait and post-stroke gait have a few observable similarities like poor push off, unstable
single stance, reduced joint flexion (more-paretic leg) which motivated us to investigate both gaits
for our research. Moreover, the aim is to improve soft orthoses design by estimating leg stiffness
and gait asymmetry. This could be accomplished if there exists a model that can model gait
features due to uncomfortable footwear which was proved in the previous study. Usually, in stroke
gait walking speed provides a measure of the patient’s ability to lead life independently.
Roisilien et al. [87] showed that when predicting gait features, walking speed turned out to
be a significant predictor. With heeled gait we observed that the model achieves speed as slow
as 0.68 m/s. However, post-stroke gait shows walking speeds as low as 0.1 m/s which borders
on the boundary of quiet standing and gait initiation. Regression analysis on spatio-temporal
parameters for very slow walking showed differences in very slow and slow speed trends [95].
This suggests humans show an alternative postural control at slow walking speeds. This warrants
approaching post-stroke gait with an alternative approach compared to medium and faster walking
gaits. Sharbafi et al. showed that the goal of the central nervous system is to maintain an upright
posture during walking which is achieved through provision of hip moments [92]. Their trunk
based SLIP model was able to estimate post-stroke gait for a speed of 0.47 m/s [94]. However,
instead of a point mass they provided a human torso that led to additional variables such as hip
torques and hip stiffness. The role of the hip torque was to stabilize the trunk and reproduce
stroke gait like flatter vertical GRF patterns [76, 94]. We believe a control for the leg during
stance can also help in estimating GRF for post-stroke gait. Ankle moment contributes the most
towards forward propulsion during walking and also shows high correlation to walking speed in
post-stroke gait [73, 75] thus, we believe provision of COP progression can provide the stance leg
control necessary to handle asymmetric parameters during stroke gait. Moreover, through COP
translation we expect to improve spatio-temporal parameter estimation for very slow post-stroke
gaits (Fig. 4.2). To achieve this we employ the SLIP model that is known to be stable for symmetric
and asymmetric parameters [34, 72].
With the COP progression hypotheses we aim to reduce the region of leg stiffness values that can
predict both spatio-temporal and GRF profile. Moreover, there is a need to calculate leg stiffness
for stroke gait through computational means [46]. Usually for dynamical models parameters are
searched comprehensively throughout their parameter space. However, in our study we provide
79
4. Estimation of stroke gait
Figure 4.1.: Symmetric and asymmetric variations of SLIP. SLIP model with asymmetries can
help in modeling pathological gait, in this study post-stroke hemiparetic gait. We
provide two COP progression models to test two different constraint conditions.
initial values for leg stiffness which is numerically optimized similar to the previous study on
heeled gait. GRF estimation along with spatio-temporal estimation through computational model
will help clinicians to provide appropriate gait rehabilitation strategies, design foot orthoses and
moreover help in generalize trends for post-stroke gaits.
To enable the SLIP to simulate slow walking post-stroke gait we test COP progression models.
First model (Ω1 ) is inspired by the study from Hof and colleagues showing how the COP position is
regulated by the plantar-dorsiflexors to maintain the extrapolated COM within the base of support
[39–41]. Moreover, this model is also inspired by the study by Nolan and colleagues in which they
show pre-provision of a foot-drop shoe the COP movement in post-stroke patients shows negative
COP movement [78]. To incorporate negative COP movement, we test a COP progression model
in which the COM and COP acceleration are equal during stance.
• ẍcp = ẍ
This model causes the ẋcp to decrease at mid stance. The decrease in speed at mid-stance allows
the model to have negative ẋcp leading to sway. Essentially, with this model ẋ and ẋcp will have
80
4.1. Stroke gait data pre-processing
Figure 4.2.: Overview of motion capture and model simulation. Capturing joint motions, COP
and GRF from motion capture systems and developing gait templates based on these
spatio-temporal variables to obtain in vivo muscle properties.
the same qualitative profile.

For the second COP model (Ω2 ), we provide constraint curves for COP progression based on
the COP gait data, which are linearly regressed. The condition states
∆xcp
• ∆θ is defined as a linearly regressed curve for COP progression.
With the COP progression models we expect improvement in spatio-temporal estimation com-
pared to the fixed pivot SLIP model. Due to the underlying SLIP model architecture the bipedal
model should be able to estimate similar vertical GRF. The objective of this study is to reduce
spatio-temporal errors and test if the more-paretic leg shows increase in leg stiffness (Fig. 4.3A).
In addition, we test if COP progression helps in estimation of slow walking gait features such
as non-bimodal1 GRF profile. Considering the fact that SLIP models are limited in estimating
very slow walking gait features, we try an alternative method for very slow gaits by fixing the leg
stiffness to a significantly high value.
First part of this chapter deals with data pre-processing of 15 stroke survivors and obtaining
regressed fits for gait parameters with walking speed. Second part consists of modeling COP
translation and an algorithm to find steady state walking solutions. Third part consists of estimat-
ing stroke gait GRF and spatio-temporal parameters for model validation.

For this study, gait data consisted of 15 subjects, with chronic stroke (82 ± 16.75 kg, 1.74 ±
0.10m) (Table 4.1) and varying degree of hemiparesis, obtained from the SWIFT CAST Trial [84].
The gait was captured using a twelve camera motion capture system (Vicon Mx Giganet, Oxford
Metrics, UK) and four force plates (Kistler Instrumente AG, Switzerland). Data sampling was set
at 100 Hz. A marker set Fig. 4.3 consisting of five rigid clusters, each comprised of four 14mm
diameter markers and 17 skin markers placed on anatomical landmarks on the region below the
belly as shown in Fig. 4.3, the latter for calibration purpose only, was employed. All markers
were of the passive reflective type. Clusters were positioned on the distal part of the thigh and
1A bimodal profile has double peaks for the vertical component of the GRF profile.
81
Subject Gender Age Weight Affected side lo (m) vapex (m/s)

1 M 32 73.7 Right 1.07 1.21
2 M 52 126 Right 1.04 0.62
3 M 74 94.5 Left 0.98 0.55
4 M 92 62 Left 1.00 0.74
5 M 60 67 Right 0.86 0.99
6 M 55 68.3 Left 1.02 0.54
7 F 74 90 Left 0.91 0.30
8 M 78 82 Right 0.98 0.39
9 M 56 85.8 Right 0.95 0.88
10 M 70 72 Right 1.02 0.35
11 F 63 72 Left 0.89 0.37
12 M 48 88 Right 1.01 0.16
13 F 58 64 Left 0.89 0.83
14 M 62 72 Right 0.90 0.26
15 F 82 53 Right 0.92 0.22
Table 4.1.: Demographics of chronic stroke patients. F-female, M-male. The table displays
type of stroke and affected side of stroke along with age, sex, weight, uncompressed
leg length lo and apex speed vapex of the stroke survivors.
Figure 4.3.: (Left) Superimposition of the compliant springy leg upon the lower limb of the pa-
tients. The markers represent ASIS/PSIS- Anterior/posterior superior illiac spinae,
LEPI/MEPI - Lateral/medial epicondyle, LMAL/MMAL - Lateral/medial malleolous,
L and R in the beginning of the abbreviation stand for left and right respectively.
(Right) A three apex cycle to simulate asymmetric gait in a SLIP model.d represents
COP displacement, a represents apex state, MP for more-paretic, LP for less-paretic,
k̃ relative leg stiffness, F for leg force, θo heel strike touch down (TD) angle, l leg
length during stance, [x, ẋ, y, ẏ] are COM state variables and xcp is COP coordinate.
shank segments and on the back of test subjects using hypoallergenic double sided tape [13].
Three additional markers on each foot were positioned on the first and fifth metatarsal head and
on the calcaneus to describe the 3D motion of the foot. This marker set allowed the definition of
anatomical frames of reference in accordance with standard recommendations [7, 114] and hence
the reconstruction of the segment model. 10 out of 15 subjects were above the age of 60 that could
show effects of aging and stroke in combination. Leg length of the subjects was assumed to be
82
equal for both legs barring minute differences due to anthropometry or post-stroke differences.
Leg length is required to obtain dimensional values of parameters such as k, vavg etc., as model
simulation is conducted in the non-dimensional domain like the previous study on heeled gait.
Similarly, vapex was assumed to be equal for both apex states corresponding to the more-paretic
(MP) and less-paretic (LP) leg. We observe that seven subjects walked at a speed less than 0.50
m/s, five walked in between 0.50 and 0.85 m/s, while three walked at speeds greater than 0.85 m/s.
Smith et al. [95] showed that walking speed in between 0.2-0.8 m/s shows different relations to
gait speeds faster than 0.8 m/s. The analysis of the results will be done considering the effects of
speeds on gait in addition to hemiparesis. We further assume that va pex to be equal to vavg .
Four force plates were used to measure the GRF and center of pressure (COP) excursion during
stance. To extract the COP profile, location of the heel and toe were used at touchdown (TD) and
Lift-off (LO) as shown in Fig.4.4. To obtain these gait events, the frame corresponding to zero
slope of the COP curve was extracted. Depending on the direction of walking in the global frame
of reference, slope at TD or LO could be either a minima or maxima as shown in Fig. 4.4. In some
cases the change in COP displacement profile was not as obvious as shown in the given figure
due to postural instability, in such a case data point was extracted from the data frame having zero
vertical movement (point of zero crossing) of the LMMAL (Fig- 4.3) marker.
Figure 4.4.: Extraction of COP. Superimposition of heel and toe to denote change in anterior-
posterior COP profile. At heel strike COP coordinate shifts and at toe lift off returns
to zero.
Post stroke gait leads to gait asymmetry due to loss of strength in one half of the body. Although
both sides of the body are affected, one side is more-paretic. Due to varying degree of hemipare-
sis, their exist a lot of variability in gait data consisting of irregular (non-bimodal) GRF patterns
and asymmetrical physiological joint angles at various gait events. The vertical GRF pattern devi-
ates from bimodal profile and the horizontal GRF deviates from the rotated S-shaped profile. As
mentioned above, gait speed is considered an important measure for post-stroke gait improvement
as it helps in categorizing extent of hemiparesis in various stroke survivors [75, 105]. Stroke gait
determinants that show strong correlation with gait speed may help in estimating kinematic and
kinetic trends observed in stroke survivors. These parametric relations can reduce optimization
time by reducing the number of independent parameters required for model simulation.
Gait variables were linearly regressed with respect to walking speed (vavg ) to obtain correlation
83
scores for COP displacement d, TD angle θo , peak GRF Fy(max) and stance time st (Fig. 4.5).
Spatio-temporal parametric relation is essential in conducting studies for design of orthotic device
for gaits with slow speed as such speeds are clinically relevant and show large data variability [95].
Through correlation plots, researchers can get an idea of the targeted variables that affect gait. We
use the frames corresponding to the TD and LO points to calculate the TD inclination angle, i.e.
link connecting the COP and COM. But due to poor to moderate correlations these relations were
not suitable. In essence gait variables help in designing a cost minimization function to simulate
limit cycle behavior.
Figure 4.5.: Gait parameter fits for more-paretic and less-paretic leg √ against non dimension-
alized walking speed. The walking speed is divided by glo . COP displacement d
for each subject is divided by their respective leg length lo .
Another design parameter for the SLIP model is the leg stiffness, which was calculated using
linear regression similar to the method used by Lipfert and colleagues. Lipfert et al. [66] used force
length curves to regress constant stiffness values and leg length lo to design their bipedal SLIP
model. We use a similar approach to obtain stiffness curves by obtaining regression coefficients
for the force length curves. In our case, instead of regressing uncompressed leg length lo we
calculate it as
q
lo = (xCOM(T D− ) − xCOP(T D− ) )2 + yCOM(T D− ) (4.1)
where lo is the distance between the COM and COP, xCOM is the COM data point in the AP
direction, xCOP is the COP data point in the AP direction, yCOM is the COM data point in the
vertical direction and T D− represents frame just before TD. The equation to calculate leg stiffness
84
values for each time frame is given as
−Fleg (t1 ) 1
   
lleg (t1 )
−Fleg (t2 ) 1
lleg (t2 )
!  
  1
 . . kleg
 . 
  = 

 . . 
 lo  . 
 
 . .  . 
−Fleg (tn ) 1 lleg (tn )
where, Fleg corresponds to the total GRF, tn represents the nth data frame, lleg represents leg length,
lo uncompressed leg length and kleg leg stiffness.
Figure 4.6.: Force length curves based on foot contact frame. Using force length regression to
obtain stiffness constants and coefficient of determination. The TD data frame was
obtained based on contact with force plate.
Calculation of leg stiffness was done through two methods. For the first method we extracted
GRF curves based on TD and LO data frames corresponding to COP progression profile given
in Fig. 4.4. Individual GRF data points were fed into Eqn. ?? and the corresponding kl leg was
obtained for each subject shown in Fig. 4.6. For second method, data frame corresponding to
the point of contact with the force plate for the leg was extracted and the point of TO to obtain
the leg length profile to regress values shown in Fig. 4.7. The regressed stiffness values show
a poor correlation for both cases. With the first method (Fig. 4.6) in which the leg length profile
corresponds to the AP COP data frame from Fig. 4.4, we get improved fits but only subject 8 shows
a strong correlation with k̃ = 4.04 for the LP leg. This shows that COP translation potentially
discounts the linear stiffness assumption. We say potentially because regressing stiffness values
with a fixed pivot would lead to lo values deviating from the translating COP based lo . Moreover,
while regressing for fixed pivot stiffness calculation choosing the appropriate fixed pivot point is
ambiguous because compared to healthy subjects COP variability should be accounted in post-
stroke gait. However, choosing of an appropriate COP point needs to be investigated further. In
summary, COP progression is important while considering plantar pressure contribution towards
85
Figure 4.7.: Force length curves based on initiation of COP progression. Using force length
regression to obtain stiffness constants and coefficient of determination. The change
in leg length is calculated as the distance of the COM from the COP during stance
phase. The TD data frame was calculated based on zero slope of COP curve or point
of zero crossing of LMMAL marker.
stance leg control.

Tab. 4.2 shows extracted gait events and gait parameters for 15 subjects. We observe that except
for subjects 1, 5 and 12 all other subjects walked at very slow or slow walking speeds. TD angles
were measured with respect to the vertical axis for either legs. During model-experiment compar-
isonpwe non dimensionalized the given values in Tab. 4.2, by dividing the length terms by lo , time
by lo /g, GRF by mg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Apex velocity (vapex ) of each
subject was obtained from the data corresponding to the peak vertical position of the COM during
stance. Apex velocity was provided as an initial condition to simulate the bipedal model for two
consecutive apex states. By definition, stance time st is calculated as the total duration of the foot
in contact with the force plate. Double stance duration DS, single stance duration SS, cadence and
step length sl were calculated for two combinations of foot placement, when the more-paretic leg
was leading and when the less-paretic leg was leading.
4.2. COP translation model

As shown above, we propose two COP progression models. To restate COP progression can affect
the overall leg stiffness as it can affect the stance duration of the leg. In turn this stance duration
to resonate with the rotation period of the leg and the vertical movement of the COM. To simulate
COP sway, we provide a COP translation model (Ω1 ) equal to the horizontal COM acceleration. To
obtain a generic model, we non-dimensionalize our q model equations by dividing the length terms
√
with uncompressed leg length lo , dividing time by lgo , velocity by glo and acceleration by g,
where g is acceleration due to gravity. The leg force, COM acceleration and COP acceleration
86
4.2. COP translation model
vavg TD angle Single Double

lo (m) Step length(m) Cadence (steps/min)
(m/s) θo (rad.) stance time(s) stance time(s)
MP LP MP LP LP-MP MP-LP LP-MP MP-LP MP LP
1 1.22 1.08 0.26 0.24 0.39 0.46 0.10 0.12 0.64 0.61 103.45 122.45
2 0.56 1.04 0.23 0.24 0.55 0.52 0.24 0.26 0.48 0.55 76.92 75.95
3 0.49 0.98 0.20 0.25 0.55 0.60 0.29 0.28 0.47 0.55 68.18 71.43
4 0.70 1.00 0.24 0.27 0.49 0.40 0.23 0.26 0.50 0.51 90.91 83.33
5 0.96 0.86 0.27 0.30 0.38 0.45 0.15 0.18 0.54 0.57 95.24 113.20
6 0.47 1.02 0.16 0.20 0.49 0.59 0.20 0.30 0.34 0.38 83.33 75
7 0.22 0.92 0.15 0.11 0.37 0.49 0.38 0.60 0.33 0.17 55.05 80
8 0.34 0.98 0.07 0.14 0.38 0.36 0.24 0.35 0.19 0.33 84.51 96.77
9 0.89 0.95 0.23 0.27 0.43 0.55 0.14 0.19 0.07 0.14 81.08 105.26
10 0.28 1.02 0.16 0.23 0.58 0.55 0.38 0.49 0.34 0.40 57.69 62.50
11 0.32 0.89 0.12 0.19 0.29 0.42 0.26 0.44 0.25 0.31 69.77 109.09
12 0.82 1.01 0.19 0.21 0.34 0.46 0.18 0.16 0.58 1.45 96.77 115.38
13 0.14 0.91 0.07 0.07 0.21 0.26 0.69 0.83 0.22 0.17 55.05 66.67
14 0.27 0.90 0.04 0.14 0.41 0.45 0.35 0.53 0.21 0.25 61.22 78.95
15 0.34 0.92 0.18 0.13 0.35 0.73 0.41 0.94 0.52 0.45 35.50 78.95
Table 4.2.: Gait parameter and gait events for the stroke survivors. (MP : more-paretic, LP :
less-paretic)
Figure 4.8.: Linear fits for more-paretic and less-paretic leg for 15 subjects. (Red : more-
paretic, Blue : less-paretic, Solid line : data, Dashed line : linear fit)
during stance are defined as
F = k̃(1 − l) (4.2)
ẍ = FMP sin θMP + FLP sin θLP (4.3)
ÿ = FMP cos θMP + FLP cos θLP − 1 (4.4)
x − xcp
θ = tan−1 (4.5)
y
87
klo
p
where l = (x − x f )2 + y2 , k̃ = mg is relative stiffness, xcp is the COP coordinate, k is leg stiffness
and m is mass. Subscripts MP and LP denote more-paretic and less-paretic leg respectively. For
the second COP model ((Ω2 )), the constraint between xcp and θ was obtained by regressing data
points as shown in Fig. 4.8. The equations of motion for Ω2 are defined as
xcp − xcpo = µθ
x − xcp
xcp − xcpo = µ(arctan )
y
Differentiating both sides with respect to time and rearranging we get,
µ ẋ − ẋcp (x − xcp )ẏ

ẋcp = ( x−x )( − )
( y cp )2 + 1 y y2
µ
ẋcp = (ẋy − (x − xcp )ẏ)
l 2 + µy
Similarly, upon differentiating the above equation with time we get,
1
ẍcp = (ẍy − (x − xcp )ÿ)l 2 µ − ((ẋ − ẋcp )y − (x − xcp )ẏ)(2((x − xcp )(ẋ − ẋcp ) − 2yẏ)) (4.6)
l 4 + µl 2
p
where l = (x − xcp )2 + y2 and µ is the slope of the xcp versus θ linear constraint line.
Both the models are simulated for two consecutive apexes as shown in Fig. 4.3. For hemiparesis
usually, the leg strengths are unequal and it would be logical to prescribe this physiological prop-
erty in the bipedal model. For Ω1 we use TD angle asymmetry to simulate gait asymmetry due
to hemiparesis without defining a MP or LP side. An MP or an LP side can be defined by their
individual properties such as k̃, total COP displacement or even TD angle. While, for Ω2 we en-
force the constraint obtained shown in Fig. 4.8 for each leg. To simulate an apex return map for an
asymmetric model, we have to consider three apex states. With the initial and final being similar
and the middle corresponding to the second leg. With our modeling assumption that the bipedal
model is energy conserving in nature, energy at the initial apex state will be equal to middle and
the final apex state. But the independent state variables will be equivalent only for the initial and
final states when the parameters are asymmetric.
Ea = Ea+1 = Ea+2 =⇒
0.5v2a + ya + 0.5kL (1 − ya )2 = 0.5v2a+1 + ya+1 + 0.5kR (1 − ya+1 )2
0.5v2a+1 + ya+1 + 0.5kR (1 − ya+1 )2 = 0.5v2a+2 + ya+2 + 0.5kL (1 − ya+2 )2
In the equation above va = ẋa = va+2 , ya = ya+2 . As the middle state deviates from the other two
apex states for asymmetric parameters, for a given set of initial condition of [va , ya , xa − xcpa ], there
can exist multiple middle states of [va+1 , ya+1 , xa+1 − xcp(a+1) ] that have the same energy Ea+2 .
Hence, to reduce computational time, instead of iterating through every middle state configuration,
we let the apex return map iterate towards the closest solution. With the inclusion of COP velocity,
the algorithm for the translation based SLIP is
88
4.3. Results
Algorithm 4 Algorithm for SLIP with COP translation

Method for each subject starting at apex state a and terminating at a + 2
for ẋa (ẏa = 0) at apex do
for θLP = 20o : 0.01 : 1o do
for θMP = θLP : −0.5 : 1o do
for ya = 0.9 : 0.001 : 1 do
Numerically optimize [k̃LP , k̃MP , ẋcp(a) , ẋcp(T D)(MP) ] ∈
[[1, 1000], [1, 1000], [0, 1], [0, 1]]
Evaluate error (eapex ) between apex states
aretmap = [∆xa+2 − ∆xa ; ya+2 − ya ; ẋa+2 − ẋa ; ẋcp(a+2) − ẋcp(a) ; ẋcp(T D)(MP) −
ẋcp(LO)(MP) ]
end for
end for
end for
end for
In the above Alg. 4, ∆xa+2(LP) corresponds to the horizontal difference between the COM and
COP at a given apex. The term ẋcp(T D)(MP) − ẋcp(LO)(MP) corresponds to the error in the COP speed
at TD and LO for the given leg. Merker et al. [72] used this concept to conduct a stability analysis
on the SLIP model by perturbing the steady state symmetric gait by altering parametric values by
small amount. For example, periodic symmetric gait of the SLIP model was perturbed by changing
the leg length, TD angle and leg stiffness individually and plotting the shift in the fixed point to
a new attractor. In comparison to their study we obtain steady state solutions at symmetric and
asymmetric gait parameters, using the asymmetric parameters as inputs instead of perturbations.
A given set of initial condition will provide a periodic gait, subjected to the ability of the model
to handle the degree of asymmetry in TD angle (Ω1/2 ) and/or the COP constraint curves for each
leg (Ω2 ). The number of fixed points depends on the model’s ability to handle asymmetry at the
given apex speed for the given subject. Similar to the heeled gait SLIP model, we provide initial
values for the ẋcp and k̃ for both legs, which are numerically optimized. The apex speeds and other
gait parameters are provided in Tab. 4.2. The model is simulated in MATLAB, Mathworks Inc.
Natick, Massachusetts using the ordinary differential solver ode45 solver.
4.3. Results
Evidently from the two COP models, Ω2 with a linear constraint shows negligible variation in
ẋcp and zero acceleration (Fig. 4.10). COP data was sampled at a constant frame rate and thus
the linear constraint curves led to an almost constant AP velocity with low acceleration peaks at
TD and LO. The larger COP displacement for Ω2 occurs due to a larger average speed. Due to
a lower convergence threshold (1e − 3) the apex return map optimized to an apex condition with
small observable deviations in TD and LO state values evident in Fig. 4.9. In essence, COP profile
for Ω1 reproduces COM displacement, velocity and acceleration qualitative profiles in the AP
direction.
4.3.1. Spatio-temporal estimation

Ability of a measurement device depends on it simultaneously estimating gait events for both legs.
For example, an IMU on each leg can detect gait events like initial contact touchdown and toe off.
89
Figure 4.9.: COP profiles for Ω1 for subject 1. ẍcp profile resembles ẍ profile due to the enforced
constraint.
Figure 4.10.: COP profiles for Ω2 for subject 1. ẍcp has small magnitude close to TD and LO.
IMU measurements are compared with motion capture systems or stop watches [28, 117], towards
developing their accuracy. In a similar way, we test the ability of our model towards estimating
spatio-temporal events for a given leg and simultaneously for both legs. Due to chronic stroke
and very low walking speeds, it is possible that the bipedal model shows limited accuracy. To
overcome this deficit we test the model’s output towards estimating individual leg based (Ecum )
and combined leg based (Esim ) spatio-temporal events. The spatio temporal parameter set consists
of single stance time (SS), double stance time (DS), step length (sl ) and COP displacement d. sl
and DS are measured twice to consider two leg configurations LP leading MP and MP leading LP.
Overall, each spatio-temporal parameter has two values, for two leg configurations, for a given
solution set i out of N steady state solutions for a given subject. To calculate cumulative minimum
(Errcum ) for a given subject we have
 
SSsub − SSi + DSsub − DSi + (sl )sub − (sl )i + dsub − di
SSsub − SSi+1 + DSsub − DSi+1 + (sl )sub − (sl )i+1 + dsub − di+1 
 
Errcum =   . 

 . 
SSsub − SSN + DSsub − DSN + (sl )sub − (sl )N + dsub − dN min
where, subscript sub represents a given subject. Errcum is calculated for each leg LP and MP
separately. While, simultaneous error, considering both legs, is given as Errsim = Errcum(LP) +
Errcum(MP) . The single leg and combined leg errors are plotted in the Tab. 4.3, 4.4 and Tab. 4.5,4.6
90
4.3. Results
respectively.
Errcum : For subjects walking at medium walking speeds (subject 1,5 and 12) Ω1 shows least
error for DSMP−LP (5.15%), SSMP (0.37%) and sl(MP−LP) (29.07%). Moreover for subject 5, we get
error% below 10% for dMP , sl(MP−LP) , SSMP . For subjects walking at very slow and slow walking
speeds with subject 2 having 1.51% for sl(MP−LP , SSMP = 4.65% and DS(MP−LP) = 4.34% who
walks at 0.56 m/s, subject 3 shows SSLP = 3.51% and DSLP−MP = 3.99%. While, subject 4 shows
sl(LP−MP) = 3.39%. There are other subjects that show error% below 10%. For Ω2 with subject 1
we get significant error reduction for sl(MP−LP) and SSMP with 1.25% and 2.33% respectively.
Subject Spatio-termporal variables (Errcum %) Ω1 Model parameters

d sl SS DS θo k̃
MP LP MP-LP LP-MP MP LP MP-LP LP-MP MP LP MP LP
1 20.08 67.41 28.95 50.94 50.39 33.68 5.15 60.32 79.91 71.20 476.38 769.66
2 16.85 91.42 1.51 50.51 4.65 29.36 4.34 41.28 38.17 47.83 33.67 164.28
3 56.50 18.32 44.50 15.25 73.51 3.51 30.26 3.99 72.20 81.20 599.99 625.79
4 85.39 3.00 46.03 3.39 43.51 14.70 20.36 15.61 70.27 82.58 443.88 649.24
5 1.23 48.13 1.02 51.64 0.37 39.09 14.11 52.27 78.34 74.43 569.95 497.43
6 35.44 4.52 32.14 3.83 58.29 1.90 2.18 0.07 50.39 90.53 250.60 999.52
7 121.43 52.50 31.57 0.31 30.90 12.49 14.60 54.72 63.45 86.16 589.02 185.16
8 19.93 26.47 5.82 30.89 28.24 62.98 0.92 41.25 86.29 72.98 524.52 514.07
9 106.19 125.42 0.45 4.53 98.22 41.12 44.46 52.21 84.93 90.39 999.97 999.92
10 2.18 94.13 7.70 37.51 11.98 68.05 15.82 34.82 83.24 74.56 78.48 61.01
11 87.15 1.64 22.86 10.00 27.65 5.76 84.18 52.74 52.63 80.19 133.18 226.92
12 67.06 46.47 29.07 143.85 29.50 89.31 36.50 43.93 88.11 88.54 520.68 485.04
13 121.47 24.62 20.77 11.25 39.55 8.60 14.67 83.50 64.24 100.00 212.03 493.65
14 38.91 76.94 1.16 23.47 44.93 78.58 17.27 8.23 41.50 75.71 250.44 500.89
15 1.55 41.12 32.86 39.82 10.70 78.93 53.53 46.11 86.08 62.45 70.47 52.92
Table 4.3.: Cumulative error estimates for subjects with Ω1 . Errors are estimated for a given
leg separately from the other leg.
Subject Spatio-termporal variables (Errcum %) Ω2 Model parameters

d sl SS DS θo k̃
1 1.68 40.75 1.25 55.38 2.33 34.29 21.87 27.48 36.38 38.80 68.26 61.98
2 20.37 49.93 7.40 51.82 9.94 38.78 0.42 6.88 21.78 53.54 40.82 21.64
3 75.41 69.19 45.42 7.35 70.29 4.11 43.81 2.82 62.09 61.69 29.58 30.65
4 57.00 55.71 45.67 0.12 36.13 26.74 41.92 9.89 45.62 54.83 30.00 28.26
5 73.54 42.37 0.25 52.05 3.29 44.95 0.05 41.54 45.86 33.16 73.61 19.14
6 95.78 57.22 31.95 3.91 86.88 2.61 86.50 5.04 88.97 52.67 993.82 23.85
7 110.83 93.06 31.04 0.28 86.13 2.47 118.67 69.71 88.58 69.25 264.90 47.89
8 77.90 95.24 2.54 31.43 11.31 84.76 13.19 13.68 42.89 93.86 39.35 998.51
9 1.48 117.36 33.50 10.16 20.07 52.68 1.97 6.56 51.04 51.96 34.40 49.78
10 48.93 91.73 1.94 38.54 15.70 92.23 18.43 1.80 49.72 88.44 33.86 817.50
11 91.01 106.90 24.17 10.87 90.24 0.24 3.70 56.52 11.03 63.98 13.91 62.07
12 14.01 80.78 1.19 142.26 38.35 64.65 0.001 2.60 13.15 71.36 55.71 131.32
13 119.84 111.21 21.26 11.70 46.97 0.37 17.51 84.99 28.47 88.19 512.62 88.01
14 119.17 117.68 4.46 23.34 0.60 81.17 44.50 1.83 46.26 80.82 47.40 551.97
15 90.44 99.60 33.33 41.29 3.80 83.14 58.04 1.43 85.08 79.14 45.69 184.22
Table 4.4.: Cumulative error estimates for subjects with Ω2 . Errors are estimated for a given
leg separately from the other leg.
Errsim : For simultaneous error comparison we observe Ω2 decreases error % for subject 1 and
5 compared to Ω1 . Similarly, we observe error% below 20% across several subjects with Ω2 but
above 50% with Ω1 showing that for simultaneous prediction Ω2 outperforms Ω1 .
91
Subject Spatio-termporal variables (Errsim %) Ω1 Model parameters

d sl SS DS θo k̃
1 39.44 67.41 53.94 50.94 83.93 33.68 80.39 60.32 73.21 78.40 769.66 705.71
2 6.60 79.25 44.52 51.52 96.54 64.07 81.86 64.28 81.38 84.99 569.69 657.54
3 56.50 69.18 44.50 52.50 73.51 97.53 30.26 86.25 72.20 81.20 599.99 625.79
4 33.06 29.31 41.94 42.94 19.20 85.12 130.15 79.25 65.92 69.67 352.97 322.02
5 90.30 48.13 48.64 51.64 92.65 39.09 81.38 52.27 71.97 77.91 497.43 342.19
6 35.44 59.42 32.14 36.14 58.29 96.47 2.18 93.06 50.39 61.27 250.60 161.81
7 16.45 29.72 29.47 13.47 202.22 76.74 36.50 91.19 88.58 78.47 12.75 996.50
8 49.53 26.47 16.89 30.89 96.43 62.98 79.00 41.25 49.74 82.80 514.07 531.83
9 160.03 117.39 2.80 9.80 89.43 18.94 97.86 84.55 73.64 80.79 999.92 529.53
10 92.02 94.13 31.51 37.51 96.91 68.05 82.28 34.82 63.13 74.56 61.01 603.80
11 52.24 0.50 22.37 28.37 39.88 85.77 165.20 84.03 54.11 81.09 35.76 417.24
12 43.27 46.47 56.85 143.85 98.53 89.31 94.91 43.93 87.20 88.54 485.04 520.67
13 96.84 6.24 21.00 16.00 87.88 99.00 0.32 91.50 90.46 100.00 339.88 330.90
14 87.85 76.94 19.47 23.47 97.60 78.58 85.83 8.23 7.37 78.26 500.89 486.36
15 29.17 41.12 46.82 39.82 95.52 78.93 65.85 46.11 73.15 65.23 52.92 552.24
Table 4.5.: Simultaneous error estimates for subjects with Ω1 . Errors are estimated simultane-
ously for both legs for a given model solution set.
Subject Spatio-termporal variables (Errsim %) Ω2 Model parameters

d sl SS DS θo k̃
1 18.31 40.75 12.02 55.38 19.17 34.29 14.08 27.48 49.77 38.80 68.56 61.98
2 40.90 49.93 7.63 51.82 7.63 38.78 9.08 6.88 51.58 53.54 30.01 21.64
3 75.41 78.30 45.42 20.24 70.29 16.94 43.81 17.12 62.09 72.14 29.58 26.02
4 57.00 60.04 45.67 7.36 36.13 15.85 41.92 25.51 45.62 58.06 30.00 30.00
5 81.13 70.60 5.34 53.07 5.83 56.29 3.97 11.49 52.23 53.50 53.17 32.24
6 95.78 90.73 31.95 32.46 86.88 85.83 86.50 87.63 88.97 95.70 993.82 974.22
7 93.69 82.37 28.97 6.72 45.65 36.16 273.72 49.05 42.89 30.80 1.10 129.73
8 98.36 95.24 14.70 31.43 77.39 84.76 83.23 13.68 88.58 93.86 874.23 998.51
9 2.25 117.36 34.49 10.16 20.76 52.68 1.18 6.56 47.27 51.96 49.01 49.78
10 68.00 80.64 18.46 39.44 11.60 89.75 38.46 57.68 49.72 61.45 31.25 29.02
11 91.01 105.62 24.17 12.33 90.24 7.45 3.70 57.63 11.03 41.46 13.91 55.50
12 22.71 53.56 6.77 137.47 39.45 5.42 9.16 201.30 22.29 22.27 17.72 33.76
13 119.84 115.72 21.26 14.51 46.97 36.26 17.51 19.86 28.47 40.95 512.62 64.82
14 118.81 105.04 5.90 24.19 5.34 91.04 48.14 46.41 216.89 16.89 62.99 12.18
15 85.83 86.84 33.66 38.66 14.99 53.12 60.61 67.04 35.36 2.65 83.93 3.72
Table 4.6.: Simultaneous error estimates for subjects with Ω2 . Errors are estimated simultane-
ously for both legs for a given model solution set.
Asymmetry ratios : We compared the individual leg based errors and the simultaneous errors
with the 3D model developed by Sharbafi and colleagues [94]. Compared to Sharbafi’s models, our
model significantly deviates for the step time ratio calculation. However, it estimates step length
ratio similar to those observed in the gait data. Our model estimates are better at higher walking
speeds. Ω1 estimates rsl =0.94 and rsT =1.15 for the simultaneous error case, which is better than
the Ω2(sim) . At speeds lower than Sharbafi’s subjects we observe better rsl values. rsl are estimated
better compared to rsT at lower gait speeds considering r < 1.5 and r > 0.7. We choose an upper
limit of 1.5 for ratios based on Sharbafi’s values with their highest ratio estimation equal to 1.43.
92
4.3. Results
vavg (m/s) Sharbafi A Sharbafi B Ω1(cum) Ω1(sim) Ω2(cum) Ω2(sim)

r̄sl r̄sT r̄sl r̄sT r̄sl r̄sT r̄sl r̄sT r̄sl r̄sT r̄sl r̄sT
0.16 - - - - -1.61 1.70 -0.98 3.64 -2.33 1.78 -2.48 2.05
0.22 - - - - 1.11 3.80 0.88 2.72 1.13 3.48 1.08 3.26
0.26 - - - - 1.32 2.27 1.05 2.64 1.24 2.67 1.24 2.61
0.30 - - - - 0.68 0.50 0.81 1.94 0.68 0.16 0.66 0.20
0.35 - - - - 1.47 2.12 1.09 2.77 1.59 2.39 1.34 1.82
0.37 - - - - 0.85 0.41 1.08 0.28 0.85 0.27 0.86 0.25
0.39 - - - - 1.53 1.95 1.20 2.49 1.49 2.20 1.24 4.25
0.46 1 0.97 1.07 1.2 - - - - - - - -
0.46 1.34 1.31 1.05 1.17 - - - - - - - -
0.46 1.34 1.31 1.28 1.43 - - - - - - - -
0.54 - - - - 0.65 0.69 1.06 0.46 0.65 0.37 1.00 0.12
0.55 - - - - 0.65 0.54 1.16 0.30 0.58 0.82 0.68 0.80
0.62 - - - - 2.05 1.40 1.14 3.10 2.22 1.26 1.91 1.21
0.74 - - - - 0.55 0.59 1.01 0.57 0.54 0.57 0.58 0.53
0.83 - - - - 0.89 0.34 0.94 0.20 0.89 0.37 0.92 0.41
0.88 - - - - 1.05 0.78 1.07 0.31 1.48 1.19 1.49 1.16
0.99 - - - - 2.04 1.44 1.06 2.01 2.09 1.58 2.01 1.47
1.21 - - - - 1.45 0.92 0.94 1.15 2.21 1.20 1.97 1.16
Table 4.7.: Symmetry ratio for all 15 subjects arranged in ascending order of walking speeds.
rs (model) r (model)
r̄sl = rl and r̄sT = srT is step time ratio. Sharbafi A represents the 3D model
sl (data) sT (data)
with stiffness and leg adjustment subfunctions. Sharbafi B represents 3D model with
stiffness, leg adjustment and posture control subfunctions.
4.3.2. GRF estimation

We follow up with plotting the GRF and power curves for both COP models. The vertical GRF
profile is plotted on a relative time % and for GRF fits with moderate to strong correlation, on the
absolute time scale. With Ω1 , subject 1 shows strong correlation (R2 = 0.92) for the LP leg and
moderate correlation (R2 = 0.51) for the MP leg. Similarly, for subjects 3, 5 and 8 we observe
strong correlation for the MP legs with R2 = 0.80, R2 = 0.89 and R2 = 0.82 respectively. Correla-
tions for other subjects lie mostly in the poor R2 range. We also observe multi-period GRF profiles
which occur due to large k̃ values. Moreover, k̃ for strongly correlated GRF profiles for MP leg are
not always greater than the LP leg except for subject 5, where k̃MP = 36.32 and k̃LP = 21.79. A
larger k̃ value for the MP leg shows that the model predicts the spastic leg to be stiffer. For subject
9 Ω1 did not provide a steady state solution with more than 1 step and hence was not included in
the analysis. Poorly correlated GRF profiles either underestimate the GRF peaks or have a very
low mid-stance force magnitude. Multi-peak GRF profile contributes to poor correlation of GRF
profiles for subject 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15. However, multi-peak GRF profiles show strong fits
for subject 8 and subject 3. Ω1 does not simultaneously fit GRF values for both legs with strong
correlations. We excluded AP GRF force profile as they were either accelerating or decelerating
throughout the stance phase which is impossible to simulate for an energy conserving model like
SLIP. As energy change in the first half of the stance phase is compensated by the energy change
in the second half of the stance phase.
With Ω2 , subject 1 and 5 show strong fits for LP legs with R2 = 0.86 and R2 = 0.82 respectively.
Subject 5 and 12 showed moderate fit with R2 = 0.69 and R2 = 0.70 for MP leg respectively. Sim-
ilar to Ω1 we observe very low mid-stance force values that contribute mainly to poor correlation.
93
Figure 4.11.: Vertical GRF fits for Ω1 for 15 subjects. Subject 1, 3, 5 and 8 show strong correla-
tion fits. We observe multi-period oscillations for GRF profiles due to large k̃ values.
For subject 1 k̃MP = 482.23 and k̃LP = 534.11.23, for subject 3 k̃MP = 497.51 and
k̃LP = 43.63, for subject 5 k̃MP = 36.32 and k̃LP = 21.79, for subject 8 k̃MP = 223.70
and k̃LP = 238.62. For subject 1, rsl = 1.22rsl (data) , rSS = 1.58rSS(data) , rDS =
0.12rDS(data) .For subject 3, rsl = 0.89rsl (data) , rSS = 2.06rSS(data) , rDS = 9.40rDS(data)
For subject 5, rsl )2.08rsl (data) , rSS = 0.64rSS(data) , rDS = 0.12rDS(data) , For subject 8,
rsl = 1.35rsl (data) , rSS = 0.39rSS(data) , rDS = 0.10rDS(data) . Where r represents ratio
of MP parameter divided LP parameter.
Compared to Ω1 , Ω2 performed poor with only two subjects showing strong fit for LP legs com-
pared to 3 subjects showing strong fits for MP leg. For vertical power with Omega1 , subject 4
and 5 showed strong correlation for MP and LP legs with R2 = 0.81 and R2 = 0.82 respectively.
Similar to GRF profile we observed multi period power curves owing to very stiff legs. For Ω2 we
observed poor to moderate correlations with subject 1 and 5 showing the largest R2 values. For Ω2
we plotted subject 1 and 5 GRF and power curve on absolute time scale to evaluate the temporal
estimation of the model. We observe that subject 1, Ω2 estimates the temporal scale for LP leg
with low error. Similarly, for subject 5 it estimates the temporal scale for the MP leg with low
error.
We also plot the moderate and strong fit profiles for vertical power on the absolute time scale.
The adjusted R2 for the GRF fits includes a time factor to take into account the temporal error in
estimation.
SSE |tmod − texp. |
R2 = 1 − .1 − (4.7)
SST texp.
The above equation was used to obtain fits for both GRF and power estimates. The vertical power
of the model was calculated as
Power = Fy .ẏ (4.8)
where, Fy is the vertical acceleration of the COM. By plotting the GRF and power curves, we are
able to assess the cumulative effect of the model in estimating spatio-temporal and gait kinetics
94
4.3. Results
Figure 4.12.: Vertical GRF fits for Ω2 for 15 subjects. Subject 1 and 5 show strong correlation
fits. For subject 1, k̃MP = 217.42 and k̃LP = 674.44 and for subject 5 k̃MP = 24.67 and
k̃LP = 21.13. For subject 1, rsl = 1.14rsl (data) , rSS = 0.48rSS(data) , rDS = 0.12rDS(data) .
For subject 5, rsl = 1.72rsl (data) , rSS = 1.18rSS(data) , rDS = 0.11rDS(data)
for post-stroke gait.
Figure 4.13.: Vertical power profile for 15 subjects with Ω1 . Subjects 4 and 5 showed strong
correlation fits with k̃MP = 32.94 & k̃LP = 39.91 for subject 4 andk̃MP = 38.84 &
k̃LP = 30.71 for subject 5.
With Ω1 (Fig. 4.13) for subject 5 we get a strong fit for the LP leg with R2 = 0.82 and moderate
95
Figure 4.14.: Vertical power profile for 15 subjects with Ω2 . All the subjects show either poor
to moderate correlation.
Figure 4.15.: Best fit GRF profiles on a temporal scale. (Red - More-paretic, Blue : Less-
paretic, Solid line : data, Dashed line : model) A). Vertical GRF estimate for subject
n=1, with k̃MP = 29.60, k̃LP = 27.97, dMP(model) = 0.17, dMP(data) = 0.15, dLP(model) =
0.33, dLP(data) = 0.24 B). Vertical GRF estimate for subject n=5, with k̃MP =
24.67, k̃LP = 21.13, dMP(model) = 0.24, dMP(data) = 0.27, dLP(model) = 0.13, dLP(data) =
0.16 C). Vertical power estimate for subject n=1, with k̃MP = 31.44, k̃LP =
30.62, dMP(model) = 0.16, dMP(data) = 0.15, dLP(model) = 0.32, dLP(data) = 0.24 D). Ver-
tical power estimate for subject n=5, with k̃MP = 29.01, k̃LP = 22.09, dMP(model) =
0.36, dMP(data) = 0.27, dLP(model) = 0.20, dLP(data) = 0.16
fit for the MP leg R2 = 0.58. For subject 4 the MP leg shows a strong correlation with R2 = 0.81
and LP leg shows moderate correlation R2 = 0.58. For subject 1 we get a moderate fit for the MP
leg power with R2 = 0.55. While, for other subjects the model poorly correlates profiles. Similar to
GRF we exclude the AP component of the GRF force to obtain power curves as shown in Eqn. 4.8.
With Ω2 , we get moderate fits for LP leg for subject 1, 5 and 11 with R2 = 0.68, R2 = 0.55 and
R2 = 0.51 respectively. While, moderate fits for the MP leg for subjects 5, 6 and 12 with R2 = 0.50,
R2 = 0.54 and R2 = 0.58 respectively. Out of Ω1 and Ω2 , we observed better temporal estimation
96
4.3. Results
for Ω2 across all subjects with for GRF and power values. The best fit GRF and power curves
based on temporal error are shown in Fig.4.15. This analysis is based on improving estimation of
bipedal models on a temporal and spatial scale which is underestimated by fixed pivot models like
SLIP. We get higher k̃ values for the MP leg with these GRF and power fits. We also get close
to accurate measures for overall COP displacement for both subjects for at least one of the legs.
However, the model is limited in simultaneously estimating gait parameters for both legs.
4.3.3. Velocity based leg adjustment
Figure 4.16.: GRF estimates obtained using VBLA touch down condition and predefined
k̃. This method shows considerable improvement for subjects 6,8 and 11 as com-
pared to Ω2 with correlation estimates in moderate to strong range. For subject 6
rsl = 0.87rsl (data) , rSS = 0.92rSS(data) and rDS = 6.45rDS(data) . For subject 8 rsl =
1.41rsl (data) , rSS = 0.61rSS and rDS = 0.10rDS(data) . For subject 11 rsl = 1.21rsl (data) ,
rSS = 1.60rSS(data) and rDS = 0.10rDS(data)
As described earlier, VBLA model allows for a larger region of stable walking solutions com-
pared to other swing leg adjustment controls. Based on this swing leg control, we obtained steady
state solutions for the stroke gaits that were poorly correlated by Ω1 and Ω2 . For VBLA models
the leg orientation at TD is defined by the equation
~ = ρ~v + (1 − ρ)G
O ~ (4.9)
where O~ corresponds to the leg orientation vector, ~v corresponds to the velocity vector of the
COM at TD and G ~ corresponds to the gravity vector [0 − 1] in the sagittal plane. Value of ρ
lies in between (0,1) which is tuned for a given walking solution. To obtain a TD condition with
the above equation, we obtain the angle between the leg vector O ~ and G~ whose component in the
vertical direction should coincide with the vertical component of the COM height. With VBLA at
97
TD the following relations should hold
~ G
O. ~
cos θo =
~ G
O ~
yT D = l cos θo
Instead of using constant TD angles shown in Alg. 4, we replace them with the above equation
and scan tune ρ. Hence, the leg orientation vector is linearly dependent on the other two vectors.
In addition to this change, the relative stiffness k̃ is fixed at 1000 for one leg and varied for the
other leg with values 900,1000 and 1100. We choose these discrete values based on the approach
by Sharbafi and colleagues [94] in which they pre-define leg stiffness. Moreover, we choose
these high values as the upper limit of the numerical optimization process for k̃ was 1000. By
making the leg rigid we obtain multi-peak oscillations as shown in the GRF profile plots with
Ω1 . Decreasing leg compliance will increase the peak values but decrease their amplitude which
could fit very slow walking gait GRF profiles. This way we made the legs rigid as would be the
case with spastic legs and low walking speeds. By narrowing down our solution search to these
stiffness values, we wanted to analyze the change in GRF estimates. For subjects 6, 8 and 11 we
see improvement in estimation with strong R2 values. Subject 6 shows R2 = 0.73 for the MP leg
which is an improvement over Ω1 . Similarly, MP leg of subject 8 has R2 = 0.94 which is greater
than ω1 correlation value. Moreover, we get a shift in the peaks of the GRF profile which occurs
due to asymmetrical stiffness or asymmetrical TD angle.
4.4. Discussion
Spatio-temporal estimation
We chose 2 different approaches to estimate spatio-temporal errors one with minimizing parame-
ters for a given leg and other combined minimization of both legs. The idea of bipedal models in
terms of pathological gait is to provide high level understanding of the central nervous system or
develop shoe orthoses. To achieve this the bipedal model should be able to estimate several fea-
tures for a given gait accurately. Moreover, Hebenstreit et al. [38] showed that all distinct gait sub
phases should be included when considering spatiotemporal analysis for different walking speeds.
Due to availability of several measurement tools like IMU and accelerometers symmetry ratios
can be easily measured. However, depending on their size they may or may not affect the move-
ment of the joints. Moreover, these devices do not provide a measure of gait kinetics such as GRF
and power of each leg during locomotion. These variables are important from the point of view
of measuring leg strength and development of assisitive devices. Yang et al. [117] showed that
IMUs are powerful devices to measure stroke gait asymmetry but the asymmetry measurement
was restricted to speeds greater than 0.70 m/s. With our model we provide asymmetry ratios for
step lengths for gait speeds as low as 0.22 m/s. However, the absolute error values for step lengths
deviate significantly from gait data. Ferrari et al. [28] showed that Kalman filter helped in esti-
mating step length with a 2.9% error. The Kalman filter was provided on an Android app and data
from 1300 subjects was collected before testing their model. With a forward dynamics model not
relying on data we get step length error% to as low as 0.31 m/s for gait speed of 0.22 m/s (subject
7) which is the lowest gait speed across all subjects in the gait data. Similarly for subject 5 with
Ω2 we get a step length error% of 0.25 with Ecum . For the Ecum Ω1 shows five subjects and Ω2
shows seven subjects with less than 2.9% error with at least one leg below the error value. Com-
pared to a previous study by Lipfert and colleagues using fixed pivot SLIP model, which showed
98
4.4. Discussion
around 40 % error in estimating stance time for healthy subjects, our model shows reduction in
temporal error to less than 5 % for several subjects. This suggests COP translation had an effect on
minimizing spatio-temporal errors. With COP translation we wanted to investigate the role plantar
flexors played in estimating spatio-temporal asymmetry. Hsu et al. [44] showed that plantar flexors
showed a strong correlation in predicting spatio-temporal asymmetry in stroke gait (R2 = 0.75).
Hence, instead of a fixed pivot, a progressing pivot modeling the COP movement was expected to
reduce the error involved in predicting stroke gait but that was only observed for a few subjects
with the Ω1 . Lauzier et al. [60] explained that due to numerous symmetry ratios for stroke it is
important to use absolute values to calculate ratios as slight bias can lead to a different outcome.
Hence, we used absolute time and distance scales to measure error percentage in spatio-temporal
parameters.
For very slow walking speed we do see low error values for the spatio-temporal parameters with
Ω1 . What separates medium walking speed with slow and very slow walking is the need to stabi-
lize the postural sway while moving forward. Hence, an energy conserving model without stance
leg control is limited in exhibiting similar gait kinetics as seen in Fig. 4.12. Passive dynamic walk-
ers like SLIP, rely on the phase difference between kinetic and potential energies. With asymmetric
parameters this phase difference is affected leading to model instability which can be compensated
by providing control. Sharbafi and colleagues showed that for modeling GRF at very slow walking
speeds of 0.47 m/s model estimates are most accurate when utilizing all locomotor subfunctions
namely, leg stiffness, swing leg control and postural control. As this thesis dealt mostly with un-
derstanding benefits of COP translation and its effect on locomotor parameters, hip actuation was
not considered in our model design. Moreover, the gait models should be able to reproduce the
qualitative behavior of the GRF profiles, such as low vertical GRF amplitudes which is observed
with our models.
Large error% in d occurs because of unconstrained COP movement during stance phase. Due
to the passive nature of the model, with added asymmetry, the model is limited in finding multi-
step periodic solutions with asymmetric parameters. Hence, in many cases the limit cycles do not
approach a low threshold error (10− 6) but a higher error of 10− 2 in between consecutive apex
states. The goal of numerical optimization is to assume the initial apex state to be a fixed point
and force the error function to attain low error threshold by iterating k̃ and ẋcp . However, the
iteration sometimes converges to an alternative apex state having larger error than the threshold.
COP translation compensates the error in TD angle by improving step length estimates. This
inaccuracy could occur due to over-estimation of d, leading to a lower θo . Moreover, SLIP model
has an apex return map that reduces the state error by maintaining the same apex speed and a
given θo (for constant TD angle condition). Hence, at very low θo values close to 1o , the cadence
increases due to the relation governing speed, cadence and step length. This causes unrealistic
increase in cadence which is not physiologically possible showing that at very slow walking, with
low θo , SLIP fails to estimate stance time as opposed to step length.
One of the reasons to use plantar pressure movement is due to its relevance in measuring stroke
gait asymmetry as shown by Wafai and colleagues [104]. COP progression is measured through
insoles but by providing heuristic or non-heuristic COP curves, one can generalize and reproduce
gait dynamics cost effectively. Such a method can help in simulating various symmetric and
asymmetric gaits. We used two error minimization techniques to estimate spatio-temporal data
COP dynamics
As mentioned in the methodology of the section, the aim of the study was to seek how closely
COP translation could improve spatio-temporal estimation. With low threshold error and param-
eter asymmetry model’s ability to obtain multi-step gaits could be affected leading to observable
99
differences in apex consecutive apex sate configurations. This occurs due to an energy conserving
system incapable in handling high degree of asymmetric parameters or if the initial conditions do
not converge to a stable limit cycle. As suggested by previous authors that SLIP is a self-stabilizing
system. However, control is required when the model approaches regions of neutral stability or
unstable behavior. We believed, provision of COP progression could provide stance leg control.
With the COP progression models we aimed at obtaining similar post-stroke gait features by en-
forcing COP constraints instead of exploring gradual changes in parameter space corresponding to
the slope of the constraint curves for Ω2 . Moreover, COP progression was not critical in improving
gait performance at slower speeds. The major difference in the two COP models is that, Ω1 con-
siders only TD angle asymmetry with no enforced MP or LP condition, while Ω2 along with TD
angle asymmetry, utilizes the xcp0 vs θ linear fit for the MP and LP leg simultaneously. These lin-
ear fits have different slopes which we expected to behave in a similar way as the model developed
by Sharbafi with postural control. With a certain degree of asymmetry the GRF profile is altered
due to added phase difference from asymmetrical parameters. However, the bipedal model could
not handle the asymmetry of the COP progression profile. Furthermore, not all COP constraint
curves for Ω2 showed a strong linear fit which could have added to the inaccurate estimation.
The motivation to use translatory COP models is also to predict spastic leg stiffness. For nine
subjects Ω2 (Errsim ) suggested that the MP leg has a higher stiffness, which physiologically is
appropriate due to increased contribution of the passive stiffness [58, 59]. While seven subjects
with Ω1 show larger MP leg stiffness. COP translation has shown to affect stiffness in inverted
pendulum models as shown by Bullimore and colleagues [10]. They encountered a rapid reduction
in stiffness due to constant velocity translation of COP for simulating running gait. Hence, it is
evident that for a given COM speed, due to increased stance time, the loss in potential energy
is more. This is because the term x − xcp in the leg length equation contributes to the overall
leg stiffness and the trajectory of the GRF. For fixed pivot SLIP model the variable x − xcp solely
depends on the ẋ, while for COP translation models on ẋ− ẋcp . For each time step and at a common
TD angle θo for a forward progressing COP, the change in x − xcp will be less compared to a fixed
pivot model. This leads to the translating COP estimating accurate TD angle compared to fixed
∆x0
pivot. During push-off for healthy barefoot walking, the gradient ∆θcp at the time of LO is very
low, showing that the push off occurs due to rapid change in θ at the expense of negligible change
0
0 . But for stroke subjects a linear fit shows that ∆xcp is constant throughout, similar to the
in xcp ∆θ
heeled gait hypothetical constraint curves. Hence, due to loss of muscular strength the plantar
flexion moment decreases in both legs, causing the foot to use an alternative push-off force that
utilizes more forefoot contact area as compared to healthy gait. This linear fit is observed across
many stroke survivors in our study. This suggests even at medium walking speeds, the foot can
alter muscle recruitment to maintain a given walking speed. Moreover, Howell et al. [43] showed
that plantar pressure, measured by an insole, showed high correlation in measuring GRF. Hence,
several COP trajectories could provide a way to reproduce insole measurements, similar to heeled
gait and stroke gait studies. Instead of using a constant stiffness, by using variable stiffness for each
time-step in our forward dynamics model, one could obtain a stiffness profile and a much better
trajectory fit. This option is to be fully explored to provide functions for stiffness and hip actuation
that can reduce estimation error for COM or GRF or power depending on the optimization criterion
similar to the model by Sharbafi and colleagues [94].
With Ω1 , we enforce he COP speed to reduce at mid-stance suggesting that the plantar pressure
concentrates at the mid-foot. This was also observed by Munoz and colleagues [74]. Decrease
in ẋcp not only simulates concentration of plantar pressure at mid-foot but allows negative COP
movement as observed in some stroke patients in the study by Nolan and colleagues [78]. In our
study some cases do show decrease in COP speed. Mizelle et al. [73] showed that COP measures
100
4.4. Discussion
help in estimating gait velocity and could provide information about stance leg control which is
one of the reasons why we incorporated COP progression as a method for stance leg control.
GRF estimation
The regressed plots for stiffness suggested that linear stiffness approximation is not possible by
providing COP progression. However, Sharbafi et al. [94] showed that with linear stiffness and
postural control in their model reproduced asymmetrical GRF peaks and reduced GRF amplitude
which motivated us to consider COP progression as a form of stance leg control that could com-
pensate for lack of lower limb joint control. This shows even with non linear stiffness plots, our
models (Ω1 , Ω2 ) could simulate the given data with constant stiffness and COP displacement and
showed moderate to strong GRF fits. This opens more avenues for the COP displacement model
to be tested with better control policy such as through hip actuation.
For Ω2 constraint curve correlations for subjects 1,5 and 12, for the MP leg, are R2 = 0.55, 0.75, 0.99
which correspond to the GRF estimates with R2 = 0.52, 0.69, 0.70 portraying a trend. This sug-
gests that Ω2 constraint had an effect in estimation of GRF profile, which is a novel finding.
Similarly, for subjects 1 and 5, for the LP leg we observe strong (R2 = 0.86, 0.82) GRF fits and
high R2 = 0.76, 0.97 for the constraint curve values. These finding also suggest that a high R2 for
GRF results in a high R2 for the constraint curves but not the other way round. For Ω2 , with the
MP GRF profiles (Fig. 4.12), we observe average fits for subject 1 and subject 5 and moderate
fit for subject 12. The expectation from our hypothesis was that COP translation with enforced
xcp0 − θ relation would improve gait estimation accuracy. Bypenforcing constrained movement of
the COP, we alter the radial forcing of the leg given by k̃(1 − (x − xcp )2 + y2 ) as COP position is
updated based in the current COM state. The main difference between Ω1 and Ω2 is that although
the former estimates GRF with moderate to very good R2 , the COP acceleration does not account
for the actual profile, which makes it an inaccurate model compared to Ω2 . Limiting factor for
our study was that every subject provided a single trial of walking across the force plate. This
restricted our analyses from comparing several force profiles. Instead of mean data, we made a
percent error comparison. Instead of averaging out step times, we considered just those steps that
were taken over the force plates, so as to maintain the correspondence across all temporal and
spatial events. We did not employ any constraint on the length displacement of the COP. As the
bipedal models were unable to handle the TD angle asymmetry, provision of an additional stance
constraint would have affected the optimization.
It is known that passive stiffness of ankle for the MP leg is higher than the LP leg but through
measurement techniques that are not non-invasive. With Ω1 and Ω2 we were able to provide a
non-invasive computational method to evaluate the MP leg stiffness for medium walking speeds.
With our previous article on heeled gait [85], we showed that steeper heel strike TD angle, low
joint flexion and decreased push off force, which are also the characteristic of the MP leg, can
be reproduced using a COP translation function. With the stroke model, we observe that COP
constraint curves for heeled gait and stroke gait can be linear in nature which shows similarities
in between the two gaits. Based on our results for subject 1 and 5 (Fig. 4.15), for spatio-temporal
and GRF fits, we observe that MP leg shows greater leg stiffness. Similarly, for heeled gait the
stiffness increased with increasing height suggesting that the nature of discomfort for both gaits
has similarities and can be modeled using bipedal model with COP progression.
Owing to model simplicity, SLIP fits vertical GRF values which inherently have an M-shaped
(bimodal) profile. For subject 5, the MP leg showed a similar M-shaped profile which is unchar-
acteristic and could be due to the medium walking speed of the subject. Post-stroke recovery of
subject 5 could play a role in regaining push-off force leading to an M-shaped vertical GRF pro-
file. This shows that with Ω2 the model fits M-shaped profile for medium walking speeds and has
101
only limited use in estimating non-M-shaped profiles for slow gaits. Lipfert et al. [66] showed
that for slow walking speeds the constant stiffness assumption for SLIP is not valid, which could
be a factor in our modelâFIXME™s limited predictive nature for non-M-shaped profiles. Another
issue with the model is that it can reproduce only M-shaped GRF profiles for speeds below 0.9
m/s with Ω2 , with a large amplitude at mid-stance. Force modulated compliant hip (FMCH) and
velocity based leg adjustment (VBLA) models for pathological gait, that use constant leg stiffness,
have suggested the need for using nonlinear stiffness to obtain similar GRF profiles but the authors
also showed that these attributes do not necessarily reproduce COM and GRF patterns observed
in stroke gait [92, 93]. VBLA and FMCH provide postural control during walking which was also
expected from the COP progression model in our study. By providing a COP model dependent on
the state variables of the COM, we could explicitly define the stance leg control without the model
tripping or falling. This way we modeled the effect of foot ankle dynamics. Similar to swing leg
control or trunk control, COP progression provides stance leg control which is not the case with
fixed pivot models. As suggested by Sharbafi and colleagues that non-linear stiffness is not a ne-
cessity to obtain stroke gait GRF profiles, we carried out another method that fixes k̃ equal to 1000
for the starting leg. With this we were able to make the leg significantly rigid. In this method we
employ the VBLA control which may have led to improvement in estimation for three (6, 8 and
11) subjects. We believe this occurred due to the SLIP model’s ability to simulate multi-period
oscillations at high stiffness values. For a spring mass model, the vertical oscillation of the leg
can be understood from the equation lo∗ = lo − mg k . This equation represents resting length in the
vertical direction for the spring-mass system and lo∗ is the equilibrium length about which the mass
oscillates. Time period for vertical oscillation is given as T = 2πmk . As the value of k increases to
large magnitudes, the oscillation frequency in the vertical direction increases leading to multiple
peaks. As these peaks grow in number their amplitude decreases and thus, we obtain the GRF fits
observed in Fig. 4.16. The MP leg of subject 6 and 8 show the oscillations smoothing out and
fitting the experimental GRF profile.
At slow walking due to increased postural control, the active muscle element contributes mode
in modulating joint movements and with our passive model this active factor can be modeled with
the predefining the k̃ to large values. This way we show that the active component of the muscle
at slow speeds makes the muscle rigid by reducing joint flexion and the cumulative effect of the
passive and active element can be modeled with rigid spring with constant stiffness. Prognosis
and evaluation of stroke gait can be improved by measuring the passive stiffness of the leg, which
was the aim of our study. Sharbafi and colleagues showed that, instead of evaluating the passive
stiffness of the leg, fixing the stiffness of the MP leg to a higher value can enforce rigidity for
spastic leg in the model. Therefore, with the VBLA approach we used a coarse parameter search
for relative leg stiffness instead of numerical optimization to fit the GRF profiles. This shows
that parameter tuning, and initialization of parameters are important aspects when conducting op-
timization specially in dynamical models. We use a passive dynamic walking model to generate
stroke gait spatio-temporal asymmetry events and kinetics in the sagittal plane. Bauby and Kuo [8]
claim that unlike for fore-aft stability high-level neural feedback control is necessary for maintain-
ing lateral stability but not fore-aft stability in sagittal plane. Hence, by using a gravity-based
model with no active elements, our method was still appropriate to seek stroke like gait kinet-
ics in the sagittal plane. The practical motivation for studying passive walking is that it makes
for mechanical simplicity and relatively high efficiency. Moreover, the simplicity of the machine
promotes understanding.
One study showed that knee quasi-stiffness could be obtained through just the subject weight
and height with an average error of 9% showing that leg stiffness through the energy equation
can be compared to other measures of stiffness to gain clarity in its physical interpretation [90].
102
4.4. Discussion
Having more than one interpretation or more than one variable to gauge stiffness can provide
better intuition to researchers as stiffness is a virtual measure. Hong et al. [42] showed that springy
dynamics with damping describes walking in older adults as well but adults in these speed walked
at speeds close to 1 m/s. We believe, the effect of stiffness was not completely explored by previous
authors, which led us to choose high magnitudes of relative stiffness leading to multi-peak GRF
profile. Such GRF profiles were able to fit the GRF data for stroke suggesting that requirement
of complex leg models is not mandatory to simulate stroke gait. Denotter et al. [24] showed
that at very slow speed due to increased postural demands some muscles show negative gains in
EMG activity which may lead to high frequency oscillation as observed in some GRF profiles.
With very high stiffness, we can model these muscular gain outcomes showing the effectiveness
of linear springs even in cases where the force length curves show nonlinear trends Fig. 4.6,4.7.
This suggests that researchers should consider the active stiffness component over change in leg
length to obtain regressed curves which we believe could be linear. The model fits for slow speed
suggests that combination of the active and passive component (Fig. 3.20) in the Hill’s muscle
model will be constant for slow speeds but we would require EMG data to corroborate this fact.
Moreover Liu et al. [67] showed that at very slow walking speeds, skeletal alignment provided
vertical support during early stance compared to soleus and vasti at faster walking speeds. This
shows that the stiffness can drastically increase with vaulting over bones compared vaulting over
flexed knees.
Model applications
There can be several aims in gait rehabilitation. One of the aims is to improve joint symmetry
to reduce joint loads. By using the velocity dependent stride parameters equations [95], we can
use the stiffness values from our studies to provide a link to improve gait symmetries in stroke
survivors. Gait rehabilitation in stroke survivors is often done through physiotherapy and treadmill
training. It is difficult to measure the extent of improvement but some studies have provided
quantifiable measures after gait retraining of stroke. Fulk et al. [30, 31] showed that improvement
in stroke gait through physical therapy led to an increase of 0.175 m/s in walking speed from
0.56 m/s mean walking speed suggesting gait speed should be considered as a reliable measure
in improvement post-stroke. The minimum threshold to seek improvement in gait speed post
stroke has not been measured until Tilson and colleagues [101] showed that 0.18 m/s mean speed
increase is observed after 20 days and 0.39 m/s after 60 days suggesting this could be used as
a good benchmark in analysing dynamic model predictability in estimating improved symmetry
in gait events. Minimum detectable change in kinematic and GRF parameters can be a useful
measure to base future model analysis on predicting estimated changes in post-stroke ambulation.
By exploring COP profiles closed to the constraint curve profiles in this study, we can obtain
symmetric gait parameters or improve GRF symmetry in both legs. Such a process will help in
developing rehabilitation strategies for stroke survivors. Khoury et al. [52] showed that providing
convex pads can help in relieving pressure and COP trajectory through such convex pads can be
used to simulate gait features using bipedal models and vice versa. Hof et al. [41] also suggests
that symmetric leg function is not a necessary goal for gait rehabilitation, however symmetric
bipedal models are considered appropriate in analyzing healthy gait and can serve as a benchmark
in designing orthotics and gait enhancing systems such as shoe lifts, shoe wedges and shoe soles.
Moreover, when using SLIP models for predictions, utilizing asymmetric parameters to simulate
symmetric gait events could be one of the ways to obtain corresponding changes in parameters
that could be used to design orthoses.
Gait assisstive devices help in providing auxiliary power which the paretic leg muscles cannot
generate [83, 99, 100, 108]. Through our modeling techniques we can provide a range of stiffness
103
values for AFOs that can help in improving gait symmetry. For stroke gait not only equalizing GRF
for both legs is a priority but also to increase walking speed. Kerr et al. [51] showed that tibia angle
in the sagittal plane for stroke gait provides a good measure for improvement in stroke gait. On
that lines, our bipedal model provides a way to take this angle into account by approximating the
complete leg with a singular segment. In order to achieve that leverage from the walking surface
to move forward efficiently is important. To achieve proper leverage from the surface, appropriate
shoe designs can provide push off force and impact absorption and streamline load distribution
along the length and breadth of the foot.
Ω1 considers the horizontal GRF force of the model as input but does not estimate the horizontal
force from the data. This is due to the fact that most of the subjects portray a strictly decelerating
or accelerating horizontal GRF, unlike the energy conserving SLIP horizontal COM acceleration
makes sure that the positive work done is cancelled out by the negative work during the stance
phase. Hof et al. [41] explained how horizontal COM and COP acceleration are related during
quiet standing balance, which was one of the inspiration for the model Ω1 as very slow walking
gaits lie close to the motion of quiet standing and gait initiation.
4.5. Conclusion
There exist a gray area as to what is considered suitable for gait analysis for pathological gait.
Due to the nature of the disease it is important to provide an accurate model that can be used by
clinicians to diagnose and improve gait disorders. Hence, a bipedal model should estimate gait
dynamics or explain many attributes of the pathological gait. Misdiagnosis or incorrect recom-
mendation through computational models is possible if the model has certain limitations. Hence,
we test the bipedal model for spatio-temporal parameter estimation on an individual leg and a
combined leg basis. In addition, we test the model in simultaneously predicting gait kinematics
and gait asymmetry parameters. Computational models can only be considered relevant if they can
evaluate neuromuscular mechanics of pathological gait and can generalize the behavior. Usually
for a small cohort, the study could lose its value with unwanted complexity in the models. The
aim is to not only convince clinicians but also to generalize results. That said, COP progression
provides an appropriate starting point to simulate heel to toe movement of the pivot which is nec-
essary to develop orthotic shoes. This progression allows us to understand concentration of plantar
pressure and consequently force magnitude under the foot.
[103] showed that for very slow walking inverted pendulum gait is the most economical, which
was one of the reasons of using the bipedal SLIP model with springy legs. Usually, inverted pen-
dulum models are rigid signifying rigid legs but in our case in order to estimate the stiffness values
generating reduced peak GRF values, modeling the legs as compliant element was important. The
springy legs also allow double stance weight shifting phase which is significantly less for very slow
walking speeds. Although walking is not an energy conserving activity but can be modeled using
energy conserving models as SLIP. Similarly stroke gait requires active control but we attempted
in modeling the hemiparetic gait using the energy conserving SLIP. Although the SLIP model can
handle asymmetry, it does not incorporate body sway during its gait. At very slow speeds body
sway becomes significant as the task at hand is not only moving forward but also postural balance.
As the models do not take into account foot architecture and dynamics apart from COP movement,
poor GRF fits could be a result of this simplification of foot joint.
COP displacement for all subjects showed an overall positive displacement. Hence, even if the
model could not estimate the exact profile of the COP, it was able to estimate the overall displace-
ment for some of the subjects (1 and 5). For future analysis it will be beneficial to simulate the
model by conducting a fine search on the initial conditions for parameters and more initial values
104
4.5. Conclusion
for the apex states. In addition to that we used a singular apex speed value corresponding to the
COM maximum vertical displacement, which also restricted the periodic solution output from the
model. With energy conserving SLIP, several energy values can lead to a common walking speed.
By allowing a certain range of apex speeds, density of steady state solutions can be increased.
Patients walking at very slow speeds did show a significant increase in leg stiffness compared
to survivors walking with medium walking speeds (subjects 1 and 5). This shows that inverted
pendulum models with very stiff legs can predict very slow walking speeds.
Bipedal models are developed to understand basics of walking and high level understanding of
normal and pathological gait. With our passive walker we wanted to show the effect of heel to
toe shift of pivot via the COP translation model and its effectiveness in predicting gait events. We
propose a passive walking model with COP translation that is able to drastically reduce spatio-
temporal errors compared to the fixed pivot spring mass model. By estimating on an absolute
scale, these models can help estimate different stroke gait symmetry ratios by eliminating the need
to rely on a given ratio. By moving from ratio to absolute scale, we eliminated need to stick to a
given ratio but rather use any symmetry index ratio for classification of stroke gait. By simulating
COP translation, we provided effect of plantar pressure progression to a bipedal model, which has
shown to significantly predict spatio-temporal asymmetry in stroke gait.
COP translation was used to provide stance leg control to handle asymmetric TD angles. How-
ever, results suggest that there exists a large gap in estimation of gait events for both legs simulta-
neously. We believe, at very slow walking speeds provision of actuating elements is necessary to
provide input energy to overcome extremely irregular gait profiles as observed in some subjects.
Moreover, COP progression provides a way to simulate additional state variables corresponding
to foot movement but are not sufficient enough to improve gait estimation capabilities of bipedal
models. We observe that step length ratios are accurately estimated by the model, however, the
absolute measures are mostly underestimated. This shows that COP progression, across several
cases, did not provide the improvement in absolute measures as expected.
(DL: Add a section on future research directions?)
105
CHAPTER 5
Summary of the research
5.1. Heeled gait model

Effect of COP progression
With our heeled gait studies we showed how simple dynamical models can be used to describe
dynamics of heels of different heights. The study used a non redundant model of the foot with
a simple constrained COP function that could accurately estimate effects of heeled footwear. By
using COP progression as a replacement for ankle moments, foot length and sub-talar joint height
rise, we were able to shown the effect of passive dynamic walkers as a means to understand heeled
gait scenarios. We proposed a model that can recruit different heuristic functions to simulate COP
movement. Such COP functions provide a suitable trajectory of the total effect of overall joint
movements during walking. With the model solutions limited to medium walking speed range,
we did not extend the study to higher or lower speed ranges when it came to heeled gait due to
lack of available data. Wearing heeled footwear in itself requires healthy physiology in order to
handle the impact forces and postural instability. With the linear constraint profile for the COP
movement we, showed that the change in inclination angle is linearly dependent with the change in
COP displacement. Such a relation was also observed in arced foot inverted pendulum models but
these models with no springy legs and double contact phase,required external actuation. Although
the arced foot model showed a linear relation in between θ and xcp , our model showed ability to
reproduce similar gait estimation on temporal and spatial levels with its self stabilizing and energy
conserving nature.
Compared to other COP progression models, where in COP progression was defined using a
constant velocity model, we utilized the biomechanical aspects of foot rotations to develop our
hypothesis and how it could affected the COP movement. Moreover, with the constant velocity
model there were counter-intuitive changes in leg stiffness for human running suggesting that
researchers should be cautious in choosing a heuristic function. Choosing an appropriate function
based on the qualitative profile of the COP can provide accurate leg stiffness estimates. We took
this concept further and provided a relation between COM and COP which could explain how
the central nervous system controls heeled gait. Through this constraint relation, we were able to
define COP movement based on the COM’s instantaneous state. This way we are able to reproduce
COP dynamics having different shape factors that helped us generalize our model for barefoot
107
5. Summary of the research
and heeled gait. COM-COP relation should be paramount when it comes to gait modeling using
templates as studies have shown gait instabilities in elderly people through measurement of change
in the COM-COP inclination angle.
COP limitations
COP movement can be measured at two different interfaces using insoles and using force plates.
Although our model predicts COP displacement for heeled gait for different studies, we would
still need evidence to make a good estimation of the COP movements. In order to measure the
effect of heel rigidity on walking gait, we would also require data on the heel material such as
Young’s modulus to calculate the energy stored and compression of the heel during stance phase.
This would provide more certainty to the results and expose limitations of our model assumptions.
We assumed that to obtain an apex map, the COM position at mid-stance should coincide with
half the displacement of COP which is a simplification of our model. This way we eliminate slight
deviations of the state variables from the mid-stance position. In reality this is not a scenario but
this assumption allows us to restrict the amount of initial conditions searched.
Footwear design
With models like ours, one can improve the existing state of footwear design or provide orthoses
to alleviate pain. By obtaining footwear dimensions and their effects on foot physiology, with our
model, one can recommend corrective measures such decrease in stiffness or heel height to restore
smooth movement and prevent exaggeration of the injury. Considering the fact that footwear
design is a complex framework, with our model, we provide a way to simulate steady state gait
with or without treadmill testing of footwear.
By using heuristic COP functions, we could use the model to obtain locations inside of the foot
for placement of convex pads that can alter COP trajectory. For example these convex pads will
redirect the force vector experienced by the foot, consequently changing the COM-COP inclina-
tion angle. By predetermining the profile the force vector, we could simulate the SLIP to obtain a
limit cycle with a constraint curve taking into account the convex pads and most economical COP
trajectory. To measure pressure concentration with this model, we can measure the time duration
and magnitude of GRF during stance.
5.2. Stroke gait estimation

With our bipedal model, we strive towards simultaneously estimating spatio-temporal and gait
kinetics. We provided a non-invasive way to estimate certain spatio-temporal parameters and gait
kinetics not possible by other means like IMUs and dynamics goniometers. Bipedal models are
tools that can be used to predict gait improvement if they can validate the existing pathological
gait. This was one of the motivations for this study to predict pathological gait. By considering
only the COP progression function, we were evaluating the stance leg control and how it can lead
to more asymmetric steady sate solutions compared to fixed pivot SLIP. Through COP progression,
we wanted to maintain the simplicity of the gait model and prevent addition of other body parts
such as the trunk, knee or ankle.
A bipedal model should estimate gait dynamics or explain many attributes of the pathological
gait. Misdiagnosis or incorrect recommendation through computational models is possible if the
model has certain limitations. Hence, we tested the bipedal model for spatio-temporal parameter
estimation on an individual leg and a combined leg basis. Computational models can only be
108
5.2. Stroke gait estimation
considered relevant if they can evaluate neuromuscular mechanics of pathological gait and can
generalize the behavior. Usually for a small cohort, the study could lose its value with unwanted
complexity in the models. The aim is to not only convince clinicians but also to generalize re-
sults. That said, COP progression provides an appropriate starting point to simulate heel to toe
movement of the pivot which is necessary to develop orthotic shoes. With our model we observed
improvement in estimating step length ratios for very slow walking speeds. Moreover, there were
significant reduction in absolute error measurements. However, the model frequently underesti-
mated many spatio-temporal parameters for slow walking gait. This suggests that an improved
control mechanism for the stance leg can benefit such a study in future.
Using passive dynamic bipedal models that work on the action of gravity and constant energy,
restrict the analysis to medium walking speeds when it comes spring-mass models. We took a
simple model and provided it with COP translation which showed drastic reduction in absolute
error values for certain slow walking cases. The spring mass model was a simple case scenario to
simulate the stroke gait data. We say simple as postural control was required to simulate unstable
stroke gait scenarios not possible with energy conserving models. This could have affected our
qualitative results for GRF profile and power. This study utilized COP data to simulate asymmet-
ric gaits to assess the benefits of COP translation on pathological gait along with a COP model
equivalent to the horizontal COM movement. We also observed that there are certain similarities
between stroke gait and heeled gait, such as the COP constraint curves are linear in nature.
(DL: Future research directions or outlooks? Applications of this study?)
109
Appendices
111
APPENDIX A
Dynamical systems
A.1. First & second order systems

To begin with dynamical analysis of mechanical systems, one needs to understand about first order
and second order systems.
ẋ = f (x) (A.1)
Here x(t) is a real-valued function of time t, and f (x) is a smooth real-valued function of x.
We call such equations one-dimensional or first-order systems. We do not allow f to depend
explicitly on time. Time-dependent or non-autonomous equations of the form ẋ = f (x,t) are more
complicated because one needs two pieces of information, x and t to predict the future state of the
system. Thus, ẋ = f (x) should be regarded as a two dimensional system.
As discussed in elementary physics, the bÂ´vibration of a mass hanging from a linear spring
are governed by the linear differential equation
mẍ + kx = 0 (A.2)
where m is the mass k is the spring constant and x if the displacement of the mass from equilibrium.
When solving he above equation it is easy to solve it analytically as it is a linear system. For the
nonlinear equations of ultimate interest to us, it is usually impossible to find an analytical solution.
We want to develop methods for deducing the behavior of equations like Eqn. A.2 without actually
solving them. Therefore, we rewrite the equation in terms of x and v as follows:
−k
ẋ = vv̇ = x (A.3)
m
A.2. Limit cycle

A limit cycle is an isolated trajectory. isolated means that neighbouring trajectories are not closed,
they spiral either outward or away from the limit cycle. If all neighbouring trajectories approach
the limit cycle, we say the limit cycle is stable or attracting. Otherwise the limit cycle is unstable,
or in exceptional cases, half-stable.
113
A. Dynamical systems
A.3. Poincare map

A Poincare return map is used to find steady-state walking motions and to analyze motion stability.
In Fig. A.1, the gray region is the Poincare section and denotes an instance in the walking motion
(e.g., before foot-strike, after foot-strike, mid-stance). We assume the Poincare section to be the
instance just after foot-strike. Let q0 be the state after foot-strike. Then, there is a function S that
takes the initial condition, q0, and returns the state after one step, q1. The function S is called the
stride map. Thus, the Poincare map is, q1 = S(q0). There is an initial condition q0 such that q0 =
S(q0). The above condition defines a period-one limit cycle. In other words, the initial condition
after foot-strike q0, defines a walker state that maps onto itself after one step. Similarly, one can
find a period-two limit cycle by applying the function S twice and so on. In general, it is not
possible to find S and the state q0 analytically, so one needs to resort to numerical techniques. To
find initial conditions in q0, the zeros of (q0 S(q0) = 0) are found. The zeros can be found by root
finding techniques such as Newton-Raphson method. In our experience, a good initial guess is of
paramount importance for the root finder to give quick results.
Figure A.1.: Poincare section for finding stable fixed points.
114
Bibliography
[1] Atefeh Aboutorabi, Hassan Saeedi, Mohammad Kamali, Behshid Farahmand, Arezoo
Eshraghi, and Roghaye S Dolagh. Immediate effect of orthopedic shoe and functional
foot orthosis on center of pressure displacement and gait parameters in juvenile flexible flat
foot. Prosthetics and orthotics international, 38(3):218–223, 2014.
[2] Jeffrey Ackerman, Karna Potwar, and Justin Seipel. Suspending loads decreases load sta-
bility but may slightly improve body stability. Journal of biomechanics, 52:38–47, 2017.
[3] Peter G Adamczyk, Steven H Collins, and Arthur D Kuo. The advantages of a rolling foot
in human walking. Journal of experimental biology, 209(20):3953–3963, 2006.
[4] Frank C Anderson and Marcus G Pandy. Storage and utilization of elastic strain energy
during jumping. Journal of biomechanics, 26(12):1413–1427, 1993.
[5] Ed Ayyappa. Normal human locomotion, part 1: Basic concepts and terminology. JPO:
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 9(1):10–17, 1997.
[6] Tadej Bajd and B Bowman. Testing and modelling of spasticity. Journal of biomedical
engineering, 4(2):90–96, 1982.
[7] Richard Baker. Isb recommendation on definition of joint coordinate systems for the report-
ing of human joint motion-part i: ankle, hip and spine. Journal of biomechanics, 2(36):300–
302, 2003.
[8] Catherine E Bauby and Arthur D Kuo. Active control of lateral balance in human walking.
Journal of biomechanics, 33(11):1433–1440, 2000.
[9] Reinhard Blickhan, Andre Seyfarth, Hartmut Geyer, Sten Grimmer, Heiko Wagner, and
Michael GÃ¼nther. Intelligence by mechanics. Philosophical transactions. Series A, Math-
ematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 365:199–220, 02 2007.
[10] Sharon R Bullimore and Jeremy F Burn. Consequences of forward translation of the point of
force application for the mechanics of running. Journal of theoretical biology, 238(1):211–
219, 2006.
[11] Sharon R Bullimore and J Maxwell Donelan. Criteria for dynamic similarity in bouncing
gaits. Journal of theoretical biology, 250(2):339–348, 2008.
[12] Judith M Burnfield, Courtney D Few, Olfat S Mohamed, and Jacquelin Perry. The influence
of walking speed and footwear on plantar pressures in older adults. Clinical biomechanics,
19(1):78–84, 2004.
115
Bibliography
[13] Aurelio Cappozzo, Angelo Cappello, U Della Croce, and Francesco Pensalfini. Surface-
marker cluster design criteria for 3-d bone movement reconstruction. IEEE Transactions
on Biomedical Engineering, 44(12):1165–1174, 1997.
[14] Giovanni A Cavagna, Norman C Heglund, and C Richard Taylor. Mechanical work in ter-
restrial locomotion: two basic mechanisms for minimizing energy expenditure. American
Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 233(5):R243–
R261, 1977.
[15] Jason Tak-Man Cheung and Ming Zhang. A 3-dimensional finite element model of the
human foot and ankle for insole design. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation,
86(2):353–358, 2005.
[16] Jason Tak-Man Cheung and Ming Zhang. Parametric design of pressure-relieving foot
orthosis using statistics-based finite element method. Medical engineering & physics,
30(3):269–277, 2008.
[17] Hui-Lien Chien, Tung-Wu Lu, and Ming-Wei Liu. Control of the motion of the body’s
center of mass in relation to the center of pressure during high-heeled gait. Gait & posture,
38(3):391–396, 2013.
[18] Hui-Lien Chien, Tung-Wu Lu, Ming-Wei Liu, Shih-Wun Hong, and Chien-Chung Kuo.
Kinematic and kinetic adaptations in the lower extremities of experienced wearers dur-
ing high-heeled gait. Biomedical Engineering: Applications, Basis and Communications,
26(03):1450042, 2014.
[19] Min-Chi Chiu, Hsin-Chieh Wu, and Li-Yu Chang. Gait speed and gender effects on center
of pressure progression during normal walking. Gait & posture, 37(1):43–48, 2013.
[20] Min-Chi Chiu, Hsin-Chieh Wu, and Li-Yu Chang. Gait speed and gender effects on center
of pressure progression during normal walking. Gait & Posture, 37(1):43–48, 2013.
[21] Mark W Cornwall and Thomas G McPoil. Velocity of the center of pressure during walking.
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 90(7):334–338, 2000.
[22] Neil J Cronin, Rod S Barrett, and Christopher P Carty. Long-term use of high-heeled shoes
alters the neuromechanics of human walking. Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(6):1054–
1058, 2012.
[23] Chengkun Cui, Gui-Bin Bian, Zeng-Guang Hou, Jun Zhao, Guodong Su, Hao Zhou, Liang
Peng, and Weiqun Wang. Simultaneous recognition and assessment of post-stroke hemi-
paretic gait by fusing kinematic, kinetic, and electrophysiological data. IEEE Transactions
on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 26(4):856–864, 2018.
[24] A.R den Otter, A.C.H Geurts, T Mulder, and J Duysens. Speed related changes in muscle
activity from normal to very slow walking speeds. Gait & Posture, 19(3):270–278, 2004.
[25] Christine J Ebbeling, Joseph Hamill, and Jill A Crussemeyer. Lower extremity mechanics
and energy cost of walking in high-heeled shoes. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical
Therapy, 19(4):190–196, 1994.
116
Bibliography
[26] Sarah F Eby, Heng Zhao, Pengfei Song, Barbara J Vareberg, Randall R Kinnick, James F
Greenleaf, Kai-Nan An, Shigao Chen, and Allen W Brown. Quantitative evaluation of
passive muscle stiffness in chronic stroke. American journal of physical medicine & reha-
bilitation, 95(12):899, 2016.
[27] Claire T Farley and Octavio Gonzalez. Leg stiffness and stride frequency in human running.
[28] Alberto Ferrari, Pieter Ginis, Michael Hardegger, Filippo Casamassima, Laura Rocchi,
and Lorenzo Chiari. A mobile kalman-filter based solution for the real-time estimation
of spatio-temporal gait parameters. IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation
engineering, 24(7):764–773, 2015.
[29] Daniel Tik-Pui Fong, Yue-Yan Chan, Youlian Hong, Patrick Shu-Hang Yung, Kwai-Yau
Fung, and Kai-Ming Chan. Estimating the complete ground reaction forces with pressure
insoles in walking. Journal of Biomechanics, 41(11):2597–2601, 2008.
[30] George D Fulk and John L Echternach. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change
of gait speed in individuals undergoing rehabilitation after stroke. Journal of Neurologic
Physical Therapy, 32(1):8–13, 2008.
[31] George D Fulk, Miriam Ludwig, Kari Dunning, Sue Golden, Pierce Boyne, and Trent West.
Estimating clinically important change in gait speed in people with stroke undergoing out-
patient rehabilitation. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 35(2):82–89, 2011.
[32] Robert J Full and Daniel E Koditschek. Templates and anchors: neuromechanical hypothe-
ses of legged locomotion on land. Journal of experimental biology, 202(23):3325–3332,
1999.
[33] Hartmut Geyer. Simple models of legged locomotion based on compliant limb behavior=
Grundmodelle pedaler Lokomotion basierend auf nachgiebigem Beinverhalten. PhD thesis,
2005.
[34] Hartmut Geyer, Andre Seyfarth, and Reinhard Blickhan. Compliant leg behaviour explains
basic dynamics of walking and running. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, 273(1603):2861–2867, 2006.
[35] Michael Grundy, PA Tosh, RD McLeish, and L Smidt. An investigation of the centres
of pressure under the foot while walking. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British
volume, 57(1):98–103, 1975.
[36] Lan-Yuen Guo, Chien-Fen Lin, Chich-Haung Yang, Yi-You Hou, Hung-Lin Liu, Wen-Lan
Wu, and Hwai-Ting Lin. Effect on plantar pressure distribution with wearing different base
size of high-heel shoes during walking and slow running. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine
and Biology, 12(01):1250018, 2012.
[37] Amir Haim, Nimrod Rozen, and Alon Wolf. The influence of sagittal center of pressure
offset on gait kinematics and kinetics. Journal of biomechanics, 43(5):969–977, 2010.
[38] Felix Hebenstreit, Andreas Leibold, Sebastian Krinner, GÃ¶tz Welsch, Matthias
Lochmann, and Bjoern M. Eskofier. Effect of walking speed on gait sub phase durations.
Human Movement Science, 43:118–124, 2015.
117
Bibliography
[39] AL Hof, MGJ Gazendam, and WE Sinke. The condition for dynamic stability. Journal of
biomechanics, 38(1):1–8, 2005.
[40] At L. Hof. The âFIXME˜extrapolated center of massâFIXME™ concept suggests a simple

control of balance in walking. Human Movement Science, 27(1):112–125, 2008.
[41] At L Hof, Renske M van Bockel, Tanneke Schoppen, and Klaas Postema. Control of lateral
balance in walking: experimental findings in normal subjects and above-knee amputees.
Gait & posture, 25(2):250–258, 2007.
[42] Hyunhwa Hong, Seyoung Kim, Cheolwoong Kim, Soonhyuck Lee, and Sukyung Park.
Spring-like gait mechanics observed during walking in both young and older adults. Journal
of Biomechanics, 46(1):77–82, 2013.
[43] Adam M Howell, Toshiki Kobayashi, Heather A Hayes, K Bo Foreman, and Stacy J Morris
Bamberg. Kinetic gait analysis using a low-cost insole. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering, 60(12):3284–3290, 2013.
[44] An-Lun Hsu, Pei-Fang Tang, and Mei-Hwa Jan. Analysis of impairments influencing gait
velocity and asymmetry of hemiplegic patients after mild to moderate stroke. Archives of
physical medicine and rehabilitation, 84(8):1185–1193, 2003.
[45] Verne T Inman, Howard D Eberhart, et al. The major determinants in normal and patholog-
ical gait. JBJS, 35(3):543–558, 1953.
[46] Kristen L Jakubowski, Ada Terman, Ricardo VC Santana, and Sabrina SM Lee. Passive ma-
terial properties of stroke-impaired plantarflexor and dorsiflexor muscles. Clinical biome-
chanics, 49:48–55, 2017.
[47] John J Jeka and James R Lackner. Fingertip contact influences human postural control.
Experimental brain research, 79(2):495–502, 1994.
[48] Leif Johannsen, Karna Potwar, Matteo Saveriano, Satoshi Endo, and Dongheui Lee.
Robotic light touch assists human balance control during maximum forward reaching. Hu-
man factors, page 0018720820950534, 2020.
[49] Chang Keun Jung and Sukyung Park. Compliant bipedal model with the center of pressure
excursion associated with oscillatory behavior of the center of mass reproduces the human
gait dynamics. Journal of biomechanics, 47(1):223–229, 2014.
[50] X Kaelin, J Denoth, A Stacoff, and E Stuessi. Cushioning during runningâFIXME”material

tests contra subject tests. In Biomechanics: Current interdisciplinary research, pages 651–
656. Springer, 1985.
[51] Andy Kerr, Philip Rowe, Allan Clarke, Elizabeth Chandler, Jess Smith, Chris Ugbolue,
and Valerie Pomeroy. Biomechanical correlates for recovering walking speed following a
stroke. the potential of tibia to vertical angle as a therapy target. Gait and Posture, 76:162–
167, 2020.
[52] Mona Khoury, Alon Wolf, Eytan M Debbi, Amir Herman, and Amir Haim. Foot center of
pressure trajectory alteration by biomechanical manipulation of shoe design. Foot & ankle
international, 34(4):593–598, 2013.
118
Bibliography
[53] Seyoung Kim and Sukyung Park. Leg stiffness increases with speed to modulate gait fre-
quency and propulsion energy. Journal of biomechanics, 44(7):1253–1258, 2011.
[54] Toshiki Kobayashi, Aaron KL Leung, Yasushi Akazawa, and Stephen W Hutchins. De-
sign of a stiffness-adjustable ankle-foot orthosis and its effect on ankle joint kinematics in
patients with stroke. Gait & Posture, 33(4):721–723, 2011.
[55] Arthur D Kuo. An optimal control model for analyzing human postural balance. IEEE
transactions on biomedical engineering, 42(1):87–101, 1995.
[56] Arthur D Kuo. A simple model of bipedal walking predicts the preferred speed–step length
relationship. J. Biomech. Eng., 123(3):264–269, 2001.
[57] Arthur D Kuo, J Maxwell Donelan, and Andy Ruina. Energetic consequences of walking
like an inverted pendulum: step-to-step transitions. Exercise and sport sciences reviews,
33(2):88–97, 2005.
[58] Anouk Lamontagne, Francine Malouin, and Carol L Richards. Locomotor-specific mea-
sure of spasticity of plantarflexor muscles after stroke. Archives of physical medicine and
rehabilitation, 82(12):1696–1704, 2001.
[59] Anouk Lamontagne, Francine Malouin, Carol L Richards, et al. Contribution of pas-
sive stiffness to ankle plantarflexor moment during gait after stroke. Archives of physical
medicine and rehabilitation, 81(3):351–358, 2000.
[60] Selena Lauziere, Martina Betschart, Rachid Aissaoui, and Sylvie Nadeau. Understanding
spatial and temporal gait asymmetries in individuals post stroke. Int J Phys Med Rehabil,
2(3):201, 2014.
[61] Chang-Min Lee, Eun-Hee Jeong, and Andris Freivalds. Biomechanical effects of wearing
high-heeled shoes. International journal of industrial ergonomics, 28(6):321–326, 2001.
[62] Cynthia R Lee and Claire T Farley. Determinants of the center of mass trajectory in human
walking and running. Journal of experimental biology, 201(21):2935–2944, 1998.
[63] Heng-Ju Lee and Li-Shan Chou. Detection of gait instability using the center of mass and
center of pressure inclination angles. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation,
87(4):569–575, 2006.
[64] KH Lee, JC Shieh, A Matteliano, and T Smiehorowski. Electromyographic changes of leg

muscles with heel lifts in women: therapeutic implications. Archives of physical medicine
and rehabilitation, 71(1):31–33, 1990.
[65] Geng Li, Mohammad S Shourijeh, Di Ao, Carolynn Patten, and Benjamin J Fregly. How
well do commonly used co-contraction indices approximate lower limb joint stiffness trends
during gait? bioRxiv, 2020.
[66] Susanne W Lipfert. Kinematic and dynamic similarities between walking and running.
Kovač Hamburg, 2010.
[67] May Q. Liu, Frank C. Anderson, Michael H. Schwartz, and Scott L. Delp. Muscle contribu-
tions to support and progression over a range of walking speeds. Journal of Biomechanics,
41(15):3243–3252, 2008.
119
Bibliography
[68] MG Mandato and E Nester. The effects of increasing heel height on forefoot peak pressure.
[69] Daniel Maykranz, Sten Grimmer, Susanne Lipfert, and Andre Seyfarth. Foot function in
spring mass running. In Autonome Mobile Systeme 2009, pages 81–88. Springer, 2009.
[70] Tad McGeer et al. Passive dynamic walking. I. J. Robotic Res., 9(2):62–82, 1990.
[71] TG McPoil and Mark W Cornwall. Rigid versus soft foot orthoses. a single subject design.
[72] Andreas Merker, Juergen Rummel, and Andre Seyfarth. Stable walking with asymmetric
legs. Bioinspiration & biomimetics, 6(4):045004, 2011.
[73] Chris Mizelle, Mary Rodgers, and Larry Forrester. Bilateral foot center of pressure mea-
sures predict hemiparetic gait velocity. Gait & posture, 24(3):356–363, 2006.
[74] Mario Muñoz-Organero, Jack Parker, Lauren Powell, Richard Davies, and Sue Mawson.
Sensor optimization in smart insoles for post-stroke gait asymmetries using total variation
and l 1 distances. IEEE Sensors Journal, 17(10):3142–3151, 2017.
[75] Sylvie Nadeau, Denis Gravel, A Bertrand Arsenault, and Daniel Bourbonnais. Plantarflexor
weakness as a limiting factor of gait speed in stroke subjects and the compensating role of
hip flexors. Clinical biomechanics, 14(2):125–135, 1999.
[76] CJ Nester, ML Van Der Linden, and P Bowker. Effect of foot orthoses on the kinematics
and kinetics of normal walking gait. Gait & posture, 17(2):180–187, 2003.
[77] E Nieto and SH Nahigian. Severe ankle injuries while wearing elevated” platform” shoes.
Ohio state medical journal, 71(3):137–141, 1975.
[78] Karen J Nolan, Mathew Yarossi, and Patrick Mclaughlin. Changes in center of pressure
displacement with the use of a foot drop stimulator in individuals with stroke. Clinical
Biomechanics, 30(7):755–761, 2015.
[79] Donna Oeffinger, Bridgett Brauch, Shelley Cranfill, Cary Hisle, Cyndi Wynn, Ramona
Hicks, and Sam Augsburger. Comparison of gait with and without shoes in children. Gait
& Posture, 9(2):95–100, 1999.
[80] Kazuaki Oyake, Tomofumi Yamaguchi, Masafumi Sugasawa, Chihiro Oda, Shigeo Tanabe,
Kunitsugu Kondo, Yohei Otaka, and Kimito Momose. Validity of gait asymmetry estima-
tion by using an accelerometer in individuals with hemiparetic stroke. Journal of physical
therapy science, 29(2):307–311, 2017.
[81] Ji-Won Park, Ki-Seok Nam, and Mi-Youn Back. The relationship between the plantar
center of pressure displacement and dynamic balance measures in hemiplegic gait. Physical
Therapy Korea, 12(1):11–21, 2005.
[82] Sumin Park and Jaeheung Park. Effect of heel height and speed on gait, and the relationship
among the factors and gait variables. Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 35(1):39–
52, 2016.
[83] Marcus Pohl and Jan Mehrholz. Immediate effects of an individually designed functional
ankle-foot orthosis on stance and gait in hemiparetic patients. Clinical rehabilitation,
20(4):324–330, 2006.
120
Bibliography
[84] Valerie M Pomeroy, Philip Rowe, Allan Clark, Andrew Walker, Andrew Kerr, Elizabeth
Chandler, Mark Barber, Jean-Claude Baron, and SWIFT Cast Investigators. A randomized
controlled evaluation of the efficacy of an ankle-foot cast on walking recovery early after
stroke: Swift cast trial. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 30(1):40–48, 2016.
[85] Karna Potwar and Dongheui Lee. A center of pressure progression model for walking with
non heeled and heeled footwear. Gait & Posture, 84:300–307, 2021.
[86] Guillaume Rao, David Amarantini, Eric Berton, and Daniel Favier. Influence of body seg-
mentsâFIXME™ parameters estimation models on inverse dynamics solutions during gait.
[87] Jo Røislien, Øivind Skare, Marit Gustavsen, Nana L Broch, Linda Rennie, and Arve
Opheim. Simultaneous estimation of effects of gender, age and walking speed on kine-
matic gait data. Gait & posture, 30(4):441–445, 2009.
[88] R Plato Schwartz and Arthur L Heath. Preliminary findings from a roentgenographic study
of the influence of heel height and empirical shank curvature on osteo-articular relationships
in the normal female foot. JBJS, 41(6):1065–1076, 1959.
[89] R PLATO SCHWARTZ, ARTHUR L HEATH, DAVID W MORGAN, and RICHARD C

TOWNS. A quantitative analysis of recorded variables in the walking pattern of” normal”
adults. JBJS, 46(2):324–334, 1964.
[90] Kamran Shamaei, Gregory S Sawicki, and Aaron M Dollar. Estimation of quasi-stiffness
of the human knee in the stance phase of walking. PloS one, 8(3):e59993, 2013.
[91] Jiangyinzi Shang, Xiang Geng, Chen Wang, Li Chen, Chao Zhang, Jiazhang Huang,
Xu Wang, Alan Yan, and Xin Ma. Influences of high-heeled shoe parameters on gait cy-
cle, center of pressure trajectory, and plantar pressure in young females during treadmill
walking. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, 28(2):2309499020921978, 2020.
[92] Maziar A Sharbafi and Andre Seyfarth. Fmch: a new model for human-like postural control
in walking. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS), pages 5742–5747. IEEE, 2015.
[93] Maziar A Sharbafi and Andre Seyfarth. Vbla, a swing leg control approach for humans
and robots. In 2016 IEEE-RAS 16th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Hu-
manoids), pages 952–957. IEEE, 2016.
[94] Maziar A Sharbafi, Matjaž Zadravec, Zlatko Matjačić, and Andre Seyfarth. A 3d template
model for healthy and impaired walking. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 1218–1225. IEEE, 2018.
[95] Andrew J.J. Smith and Edward D. Lemaire. Temporal-spatial gait parameter models of very
slow walking. Gait & Posture, 61:125–129, 2018.
[96] Manoj Srinivasan and Andy Ruina. Computer optimization of a minimal biped model
discovers walking and running. Nature, 439(7072):72–75, 2006.
[97] Darren J Stefanyshyn, Benno M Nigg, Veronica Fisher, Barry O’Flynn, and Wen Liu. The
influence of high heeled shoes on kinematics, kinetics, and muscle emg of normal female
gait. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 16(3):309–319, 2000.
121
Bibliography
[98] S.H. Strogatz. Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: with application to physics, biology, chem-
istry and engineering. CRC press, 2018.
[99] Carly M Thalman, Tiffany Hertzell, and Hyunglae Lee. Toward a soft robotic ankle-foot or-
thosis (sr-afo) exosuit for human locomotion: Preliminary results in late stance plantarflex-
ion assistance. In 2020 3rd IEEE International Conference on Soft Robotics (RoboSoft),
pages 801–807. IEEE, 2020.
[100] Carly M Thalman, Joshua Hsu, Laura Snyder, and Panagiotis Polygerinos. Design of a soft
ankle-foot orthosis exosuit for foot drop assistance. In 2019 International Conference on
Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8436–8442. IEEE, 2019.
[101] Julie K Tilson, Katherine J Sullivan, Steven Y Cen, Dorian K Rose, Cherisha H Kora-
dia, Stanley P Azen, Pamela W Duncan, and Locomotor Experience Applied Post Stroke
(LEAPS) Investigative Team. Meaningful gait speed improvement during the first 60 days
poststroke: minimal clinically important difference. Physical therapy, 90(2):196–208,
2010.
[102] GM Ucanok and DR Peterson. Knee and ankle deviations during high-heeled gait. In
Proceedings of the IEEE 32nd Annual Northeast Bioengineering Conference, pages 17–18.
IEEE, 2006.
[103] James R Usherwood, AJ Channon, JP Myatt, JW Rankin, and TY Hubel. The human foot
and heel–sole–toe walking strategy: a mechanism enabling an inverted pendular gait with
low isometric muscle force? Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 9(75):2396–2402,
2012.
[104] Linah Wafai, Aladin Zayegh, John Woulfe, Syed Mahfuzul Aziz, and Rezaul Begg. Iden-
tification of foot pathologies based on plantar pressure asymmetry. Sensors, 15(8):20392–
20408, 2015.
[105] Jeen-Shing Wang, Che-Wei Lin, Ya-Ting C Yang, and Yu-Jen Ho. Walking pattern clas-
sification and walking distance estimation algorithms using gait phase information. IEEE
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 59(10):2884–2892, 2012.
[106] Lei Wang, Yun Sun, Qingguo Li, and Tao Liu. Estimation of step length and gait asymmetry
using wearable inertial sensors. IEEE Sensors Journal, 18(9):3844–3851, 2018.
[107] Mo Wang, Zhuochen Fan, Fei Chen, Sixu Zhang, Chen Peng, et al. Research on feature
extraction algorithm for plantar pressure image and gait analysis in stroke patients. Journal
of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 58:525–531, 2019.
[108] Michael Wehner, Yong-Lae Park, Conor Walsh, Radhika Nagpal, Robert J Wood, Talia
Moore, and Eugene Goldfield. Experimental characterization of components for active
soft orthotics. In 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical
Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), pages 1586–1592. IEEE, 2012.
[109] Ben R Whittington and Darryl G Thelen. A simple mass-spring model with roller feet
can induce the ground reactions observed in human walking. Journal of biomechanical
engineering, 131(1):011013, 2009.
[110] David A Winter. Biomechanics and motor control of human gait: normal, elderly and
pathological. 1991.
122
Bibliography
[111] David A Winter. ABC (anatomy, biomechanics and control) of balance during standing and
walking. Waterloo Biomechanics, 1995.
[112] David A Winter. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. John Wiley & Sons,
2009.
[113] David A Winter, Aftab E Patla, Francois Prince, Milad Ishac, and Krystyna Gielo-Perczak.
Stiffness control of balance in quiet standing. Journal of neurophysiology, 80(3):1211–
1221, 1998.
[114] Ge Wu, Sorin Siegler, Paul Allard, Chris Kirtley, Alberto Leardini, Dieter Rosenbaum,
Mike Whittle, Darryl D DâFIXME™Lima, Luca Cristofolini, Hartmut Witte, et al. Isb
recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting
of human joint motionâFIXME”part i: ankle, hip, and spine. Journal of biomechanics,
35(4):543–548, 2002.
[115] Hong Xu, Masami Akai, Shuichi Kakurai, Kazuhiko Yokota, and Hideo Kaneko. Effect of
shoe modifications on center of pressure and in-shoe plantar pressures1. American journal
of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 78(6):516–524, 1999.
[116] Gary T Yamaguchi and Felix E Zajac. Restoring unassisted natural gait to paraplegics via
functional neuromuscular stimulation: a computer simulation study. IEEE Transactions on
biomedical engineering, 37(9):886–902, 1990.
[117] Shuozhi Yang, Jun-Tian Zhang, Alison C Novak, Brenda Brouwer, and Qingguo Li. Esti-
mation of spatio-temporal parameters for post-stroke hemiparetic gait using inertial sensors.
Gait & posture, 37(3):354–358, 2013.
[118] Lee Yung-Hui and Hong Wei-Hsien. Effects of shoe inserts and heel height on foot pressure,
impact force, and perceived comfort during walking. Applied ergonomics, 36(3):355–362,
2005.
[119] MY Zarrugh, FN Todd, and HJ Ralston. Optimization of energy expenditure during level
walking. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 33(4):293–
306, 1974.
[120] Wiebren Zijlstra and At L Hof. Assessment of spatio-temporal gait parameters from trunk
accelerations during human walking. Gait & posture, 18(2):1–10, 2003.
123

PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technische Universität München

Fakultät für Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik

Human-centered Assistive Robotics (HCR)

Center of pressure models to estimate gait features of

Vollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Elektrotechnik und

Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr.-Ing. empty

Die Dissertation wurde am xx.xx.2021 bei der Technischen Universität

2. Background research and contributions 27

3. Estimation of heeled gait kinetics and kinematics 47

4. Estimation of stroke gait 79

4.2. COP translation model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5. Summary of the research 107

A. Dynamical systems 113

Peer reviewed Journals

COM Center of mass

COP Center of pressure

GRF Ground reaction force

SLIP Spring loaded inverted pendulum

IMU Inertial measurement units

A.1. Poincare section for finding stable fixed points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

1.2. Structure of thesis

1.3. Publication note

Background research and contributions

2.1. Modeling legged locomotion

2.1.1. Postural balance in quiet standing

2.1.2. Legged locomotion

2.1.3. Walking models

(xc − xCOP )T D = −(xc − xCOP )LO

2.2. Types of footwear

2.2.1. Injuries and gait changes due to heeled footwear

2.2.2. Center of pressure movement for footwear

2.3. Gait disorder

2.3.1. Plantar pressure in post-stroke gait

2.3.2. Stroke gait event detection

2.3.3. Soft orthoses for gait rehabilitation

2.3.4. Parameters affecting gait

2.3.5. Overview of the dissertation

Estimation of heeled gait kinetics and kinematics

Barefoot and heeled Estimate GRF and

Heuristic COP function

3.1. SLIP bipedal model

ma = k(lo − ldim ) sin θ î + (k(lo − l) cos θ − mg) jˆ =⇒

3.2. Heuristic COP model for heeled gait

ẋy − (x − xcp )ẏ

ẍy − ẋẏ − (ẋ − ẋcp )ẏ − ÿ(x − xcp )

(ẍy − ẋẏ − (ẋ − ẋcp )ẏ − ÿ(x − xcp ))(αγl 2 sec β 2 + y) − ψ

3.3. Parameter search

Algorithm 2 Algorithm for SLIP with fixed pivot

Algorithm 3 Algorithm for SLIP with translating pivot

3.4. Model validation and hypothesis testing

3.4.1. GRF estimation for barefoot and heeled gait

(%dst )model − (%dst )Exp.

3.4.2. Individual gait parameter estimation

3.4.3. Multiple parameter estimation

Heeled gait determinants (%Error) Model parameters

Heeled gait determinants (%Error) Model parameters

Steady state solution distribution

Gait line length estimation

Other heuristic COP models

Figure 3.19.: Potential COP constraint curves for testing hypothesis.

Potential leg models

F = k(1 − l) + knl (1 − l)3 (3.19)

(v + b)(F + a) = b(Fo + a) (3.20)