Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechatronics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechatronics

The design and control of a 3DOF lower limb rehabilitation robot

Junpeng Wu, Jinwu Gao∗, Rong Song, Rihui Li, Yaning Li, Lelun Jiang
School of Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Aiming to assist stroke patients who suffer from motor dysfunction after stroke and reduce the stress of
Received 5 March 2015 physiotherapists, a 3-degree-of-freedom (3DOF) lower limb rehabilitation robot (LLRR) has been developed
Accepted 23 November 2015
for the motion recovery in this paper. At first, a simple and flexible structure of LLRR is designed, which in-
volves hip, knee and ankle joints and can also be adjusted to fit for the different heights of patients. Then,
Keywords: for the controller design, control-oriented model of LLRR is studied and validated by both simulation and ex-
Motor dysfunction periments, including the kinematic model of mechanical system, friction model of rotation joints and motor
Lower limb rehabilitation robot model of actuators. Based on the proposed models, an adaptive robust sub-controller is synthesized to make
Motion recovery each joint track its designed training trajectory, overcome system uncertainties and reject the disturbances
Adaptive robust sub-controller
from patient. At last, experiments are carried out to validate the proposed LLRR by the passive movement
Passive movement training
training.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction physiotherapist. Although physiotherapist can evaluate the effect and

Stroke is an illness that has a high potential of causing disability
in the aged. With the increasing amount of aged people, stroke be-
comes a common illness and often leads to motor dysfunction and
even permanent disability [1,2]. Among the various strokes, lower
limb disability becomes the biggest obstacle in daily life of stroke pa-
tients, which seriously impacts their life qualities. Therefore, improv-
ing motor function for individuals after stroke is still an important
task of rehabilitation treatment [3,4]. Studies [5–7] have shown that
stroke patients can improve their lower limb motor function after re-
habilitation program. High-intensity repetitive task-specific therapy
approach is an effective way to improve lower limb motor function
after stoke [8,9]. The key way of the rehabilitation program is to main-
tain joints range through passive movements, which includes con-
tinue passive motion (CPM) or range of motion (ROM) [10]. Gait tra-
jectory tracking is a typical training of repetitive task-specific therapy,
which integrates both CPM and ROM.
Rehabilitation program can be implemented by physiotherapists.
In natural system, physiotherapist can communicate with patient and
judge training effect based on experience during rehabilitation. This
interaction between physiotherapist and patient greatly improves the
effect of rehabilitation. However, as the amount of stroke patients
is getting larger, high-intensity repetitive task becomes limited be-
cause it is labor intensive and the effect greatly relies on the skill of
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 02039332148.
E-mail address: gaojw3@mail.sysu.edu.cn, hit207@163.com (J. Gao).
improve the rehabilitation scheme in natural system, much more ac-
curate training movements can be applied to patient automatically
and labor intensive is overcome in artificial system. Furthermore, be-
cause lower limb rehabilitation is a long process which is usually sep-
arated into several stages, applying designed high-intensity repetitive
passive movement to patient in specific stages is inevitable. Artificial
system can well instead of physiotherapist in these stages. Therefore,
intelligent rehabilitation robot with accurate joint training and gait
training characteristics is extremely needed in stroke rehabilitation
field. With the development of technology and engineering, lower
limb rehabilitation training using a robot has been proved on the im-
provement of overground locomotion [3,9,11], and the role of a pow-
ered intelligent LLRR becomes very prominent.
Various LLRRs have been developed by companies or institutions.
To the authors’ knowledge, LLRR can be divided into two kinds:
walking gait robots and joint training robots. The representative gait
training robots are LOKOMAT [12] and Gait Trainer [13]. Patient-
cooperative strategy is used in LOKOMAT, and it has been proofed
by good rehabilitation performance. Gait Trainer provides gait-like,
highly symmetrical moment training, which can improve muscle
function. Mentioned to other researches, ALES [14], with training
methods for assisting gait training, can help stroke patient’s gait pat-
tern become consistent with health person. LOPES [15], an active
exoskeleton robot with “patient-in-charge” and “robot-in-charge”
mode, can offer task-specific gait rehabilitation. For joint training
robot, NeXOS [10] and TEM [16] are rehabilitation systems for lower
limbs with some effective training modes. NeXOS can be used in
home and has web-based strategy, while TEM can repeat ROM in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2015.11.010
0957-4158/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
14 J. Wu et al. / Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22
hip joint and knee joint performed by physiotherapist. There are also
some novel lower limb rehabilitation devices. A pneumatically pow-
ered device called KAFO [17], with proportional myoelectric control,
allows to normal gait training. An active knee rehabilitation robot in
[18] can supply variable damping through electrorheological fluid. A
knee rehabilitation exoskeleton called AKROD [19] is designed with
a linear actuator, which uses a kinematic approach to make ROM the
same as human knee joints.
In order to get satisfying control effect, various control approaches
are used for LLRR. In [20], a rehabilitation robot with hybrid posi-
tion/force controller incorporating fuzzy logic is designed. The robot
can guide upper limbs in trajectory tracking movement. In [21], the
robotic rehabilitation system utilizes a fuzzy-logic scheme to intro-
duce compliance into human–robot interaction. A fuzzy clustering
algorithm is used in the rule base, which can accurately reproduce
a prescribed interaction. Sliding control is used to design a trajec-
tory tracking controller in a robotic orthosis [22]. The controller is
able to guide subject’s limb on desired trajectories. Benefiting the ad-
vantage of control accuracy and response speed, a robot manipula-
tor introduced in [23] is able to perform active and passive motion.
A “Human–Machine Interface” with a rule-base control structure is
also considered.
However, robots like LOKOMAT, Gait Trainer, ALES and LOPES are
all designed with a treadmill or at least one physiotherapist is needed
when training. They are complicated and high-cost and manifest
good performance of gait rehabilitation, but they are not fit for a sin-
gle joint training function. Robots as TEM and KAFO et al. are not
designed with three main joints of lower limb. They cannot provide
integral lower limb rehabilitation training. The rehabilitation mode
of NeXOS is limited because it cannot provide joint training and gait
training and it is difficult to control each joint accurately and prevent
the overload. Moreover, some robots are unsuitable for different pa-
tients because system uncertainty from patients and devices is rarely
considered or rarely mentioned in their studies. Therefore, a simple
but effective LLRR with 3DOF joint training and gait training is immi-
nently needed.
Motivated by above discussions, the main goal of this study is to
design a low-cost, convenient-using and accurate-control 3DOF LLRR
with good performance on repetitive task-specific training exercise,
including joint training (ROM trajectory tracking) and gait training
(gait trajectory tracking). By the application of mechatronic tech-
nique, a motor actuated LLRR is design for accurate lower limb re-
habilitation. Because most joint motions of ankle, knee and hip are
taken place in sagittal plane, one DOF in sagittal plane is considered
but still fit for most applications of lower limb rehabilitation. More-
over, the structure of LLRR can be adjusted to the different heights
of patients. In order to overcome the uncertainties of system and in-
teractive disturbance between patient and device, an adaptive robust
sub-controller is synthesized to obtain satisfying performance. The
designed LLRR can assist patients to perform joint training and gait
training, or other desired trajectory tracking in hip, knee and ankle
joints.
2. System design
In order to illustrate the details of the designed system, this sec-
tion is divided into three parts: physiological safety, hardware con-
figuration and operating principle of system. Physiological safety de-
scribes the consideration of LLRR safety; hardware configuration de-
picts the design of LLRR hardware; operating principle of system
presents how LLRR works.
2.1. Physiological safety
In the application of automated LLRR, safety must be considered
at first. To ensure users’ security and prevent accidents, physiological
Table 1
MROM and MS of 3DOF.
Motion MROM MS
Hip flexion −0.8–0.8 rad 1 rad/s
Knee flexion −1.5–0 rad 1 rad/s
Ankle flexion −0.8–0.5 rad 1 rad/s
safety of human’s lower limb is considered in the design of LLRR. The
motions of the lower limb’s three joints in sagittal plane are called hip
flexion, knee flexion and ankle flexion. The maximum ROM (MROM)
and maximum speed (MS) of joints’ flexion should be considered
and LLRR must be restricted to work within these limitations. From
studies [15,24,25], MROM and MS summarized in Table 1 are chosen
as specifications for robot control. The specification is used as con-
straints of the desired trajectory, ensuring that MROM and MS of LLRR
will not exceed patients’ sustainable level. Emergency stop switches
are also designed in both hardware and software. Both of the two
emergency stop switches can stop LLRR working at any time. Once the
MROM of patient, monitored by control program, is out of the spec-
ifications given in Table 1, the software emergency stop switch will
be activated automatically. Whenever a patient feels any discomfort,
training can be stopped as soon as the hardware or software emer-
gency stop switch is pressed. In the control program, an automatic
protection function is provided to ensure that patients will never be
hurt during rehabilitation training.
2.2. Hardware configuration
The designed LLRR is composed of hardware configuration and
control strategy. Detail of LLRR hardware configuration is shown in
Fig. 1. The hardware of LLRR mainly consists of actuator, electronic
driver, signal measurement and control system, as well as mecha-
nism. The actuator is made up of three permanent magnet brushed
DC motors and gear boxes. Three DC motors shown in Fig. 1a, corre-
sponding to three joints of lower limb, are used to drive exoskeleton
to rotate around the joints, respectively. The gear boxes which are
assembled together with DC motors (Fig. 1a) are used to increase ro-
tation torque and slow down the speed of DC motor (MS is less than
1 rad/s), so that sufficiently large torque can be supplied and speed is
fit for rehabilitation training.
According to the characteristics of DC motors, three electronic mo-
tor drivers are designed by the usage of full H-bridge gate driver inte-
grate circuit (IC). Motor drivers can provide precise voltages to control
DC motors by adjusting the duty of pulse width modulation (PWM).
For the sake of electrical safety, embedded micro control unit is also
applied to monitor the status of driver IC, and keep it from the dam-
ages for overvoltage and overload.
The signal measurement and control system is composed of cur-
rent sensor modules, optical encoders and a DAQ card module. The
position of DC motor is measured real time by the optical encoders
(see Fig. 1a, assembled together with DC motors), and the speed of
motor is calculated apparently by the derivative of position signal.
The current of DC motor is measured by the current sensor module,
which is made up of a standard 0.01  resistor and precise instru-
ment amplifier. A professional instrument (DAQ card) made by Na-
tional Instruments Corporation is employed as data acquisition sys-
tem, while a personal computer (PC) with software Labview is used
as control system. The values of speed and current are collected by
the DAQ card module and sent to controller for real time feedback
control. PC runs the control strategy and it also provides a human–
computer interaction interface for physiotherapist and patient. As the
output of controller, the desired duty of PWM is then sent to DAQ card
module and implemented by motor driver.
 J. Wu et al. / Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22 15

a b

Fig. 1. Hardware configuration.

Fig. 2. System description.

The mechanism includes an adjustable exoskeleton and a bracket,
as shown in Fig. 1b. In order to adapt to the different heights of pa-
tients, the length-adjustable aluminum exoskeleton is designed and
its schematic structure is shown in Fig. 1a. Exoskeleton is comprised
of three parts: thigh, calf and foot, in which the length of thigh and
calf are adjustable. Both thigh and calf of exoskeleton are sliding pair
structures, designed into two parts: a male part and a female part,
and array of mechanical screw holes are perforated on each part.
Screws are screwed in holes to assemble two parts together. Based
on the heights of patients, the length of thigh or calf can be adjusted
through different screw holes. Joint connections are made of DC mo-
tors and relevant parts of exoskeleton. In the application, exoskeleton
is bound to patient’s lower limb by five straps (the yellow parts in
Fig. 1b), so that lower limb can be moved with LLRR together. A stable
bracket in the left of Fig. 1b is designed to crutch the whole hardware
system.
2.3. Operating principle of system
The operating principle of system is illustrated elaborately in
Fig. 2. At first, exoskeleton length mentioned in Fig. 1a should be ad-
justed according to patient’s height and five straps should be fixed to
training leg. Before ROM training or gait training, training program
parameters such as the maximum value and time of training, reha-
bilitation training trajectory and choice of training joints must be set
in the interaction interface on PC by the supervisor. When robot sys-
tem is working, every selected joint is driven to follow the desired
trajectory. DC motors are controlled by motor drivers so that the
output torque of motor is precisely regulated. The inputs of motor
drivers are PWMs which are calculated by control strategy module
and sent to motor drivers by the DAQ card module. Then, the rele-
vant control voltage will be realized on DC motor. Consequently, the
DC motors are driven by controller through adjustable PWMs. The
speeds and positions of DC motors are measured at the same time by
the optical encoders while the currents of DC motors are measured
by the current sensor modules. The data of speed, position and cur-
rent are collected by DAQ card module. These feedback data are sent
back to control strategy module for the adjustment of PWM. As a re-
sult, a closed-loop control system of LLRR is set up completely. When
emergency stop switch is activated, motor driver will stop working
immediately and control strategy is invalid at the same time.
3. Model and verification
According to the LLRR designed in this study, the LLRR mathe-
matical model is composed of three parts: kinematic model, friction
model and motor model. Kinematic model describes the relationship
between the lower limb exoskeleton and ideal joint torque; friction
model depicts the compensation to servo system for the influence of
friction; while motor model aims to present the work principle of en-
ergy conversion from electricity to kinetic energy.
3.1. Kinematic model
Among several methods for dynamic modeling of multi-rigid-
body robot, such as Lagrange equation, Newton Euler equation, Kane
16 J. Wu et al. / Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22

obtained by
⎧
i−1  
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪ ẋi = l j θ̇ j cos θ j + di θ̇i cos θi
⎨
j=1
(6)
⎪
⎪
i−1 
 
⎪
⎪ l j θ̇ j sin θ j − di θ̇i sin θi
⎩ẏi = −
j=1

where θ̇i is the angular velocity (generalized velocity). Integrating

equations from (1) to (6), the kinematic model of LLRR in sagittal
plane is given by
M (θ )θ̈ + C (θ , θ̇ )θ̇ + G(θ ) = Ts (7)
where θ̈ ∈ is the angular acceleration; M(θ ) ∈
R3 R3 × 3
  is the sym-
metric positive definite mass (inertia) matrix; C θ , θ̇ ∈ R3×3 is the
centripetal and coriolis force matrix; G(θ ) ∈ R3 is the gravitational
force vector.

Remark. Eq. (7) presents a 3-linkage model of LLRR, and it can be

Fig. 3. 3-linkage model.
used for controller synthesis. Without loss of generality, this method
could also be employed for the modeling of single or two joints of
equation, Newton motional theory and Hamilton theory. Lagrange LLRR. Moreover, since the lengths of linkages can be adjusted to fit
equation and Newton Euler equation are more widely used for con- for the different heights of patients, model parameters, li and di have
troller design [26]. Lagrange equation is expanded from Newton Euler to be changed correspondingly.
equation but focuses on the analysis of energy of the whole system.
Newton Euler equation focuses on the force analysis of component. 3.2. Friction model
In this study, the method of Lagrange is chosen to establish the kine-
matic model of LLRR. As the main motion of LLRR is taken place in the Kinematic Eq. (7) is based on rigid kinematic model, so the effect
sagittal plane, only kinematic model of LLRR in sagittal plane is ana- of non-rigid such as friction is not taken into account. Indeed, friction
lyzed. The assembly drawing of LLRR is depicted in Fig. 1a and LLRR torque plays an important role in exoskeleton control [27]. To better
is simplified as a 3-linkage model (Fig. 3), then the Lagrange equation describe actual system, a widespread friction torque model including
is given by both dynamic friction and steady friction, is given by
⎧
L = Ek − E p (1) ⎪
⎨ Fc sgn(θ̇ ) + σ θ̇ , θ̇ = 0
T f = Tm , (|Tm | < Fs )&(θ̇ = 0 ) (8)
    ⎪
⎩
d ∂L ∂L Fs , (|Tm | ≥ Fs )&(θ̇ = 0 )
Ts = − (2)
dt ∂ θ̇i ∂θi where Fc ∈ R3 is coulomb friction torque; σ θ̇ ∈ R3 is viscous friction
torque; Fs ∈ R3 is static friction torque and Tm ∈ R3 is the output
where Ek is the total kinetic energy of system; Ep is the total potential torques of three motors. According to the mechanical structure, it can
energy of system; L is the Lagrange function; θ i and θ̇i (i = 1, 2, 3) are conclude that
the generalized coordinate and velocity, respectively. Ts is the joint
torque. Ep and Ek can be written as Ts = Kg Tm − T f (9)
where Kg is the gear ratio.

3
Ep = mi gyi (3)
i=1
3.3. Motor model

3 
    Since the output torque of DC motor is proportional to current, the
1 1 2
Ek = mi ẋ2i + ẏ2i + Ii θ̇ (4) motor torque Tm can be obtained by
2 2 i
i=1
Tm = Km im (10)
where mi is the mass of linkage; Ii is the rotational inertia; g is the where Km is torque sensitivity of DC motor; im is the current of DC
acceleration of gravity, and (xi , yi ) is the centroid position of linkage. motor. According to the Kirchhoff law, the DC motor control voltage
For simplicity, the fixed end, O(0, 0) in Fig. 3 is chosen as coordinate Um obeys the following equation,
origin. According to the geometric relation, the centroid position (xi ,
yi ) of every linkage can be written as Um = im R + i̇m Lm + Kv ω (11)
⎧ where R is the armature’s resistance of DC motor; Lm is the armature’s
i−1  
⎪
⎪ 
inductance of DC motor; Kv is the back-EMF constant; ω is the angular
⎪
⎪ xi = l j sin θ j + di sin θi
⎨ velocity. According to Eqs. (10) and (11), the relationship between Um
j=1
(5) and Tm can be expressed as
⎪
⎪
i−1 
 
⎪
⎪ l j cos θ j + di cos θi Ṫm = −RTm + KmUm − Km Kv ω
⎩yi = (12)
j=1
If the motor current can be measured, the output torque of motor is
where di is the distance of centroid position from joint; li is the obtained as well. With the information of angular velocity, control
length of linkage. θ i is the angular between linkage and vertical shaft engineering technology can be employed here to regulate the output
(generalized coordinate). Moreover, the centroid velocity can also be torque of motor accurately.
 J. Wu et al. / Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22 17

Fig. 4. Block diagram of simulation model.

Table 2
Parameters of RRLL.

Parameter i=1 i=2 i=3

mi (kg) 5.5 5 1.5

li (m) 0.5 0.45 0.25
di (m) 0.45 0.4 0.2
Ii (kg m2 ) 0.25 0.2 0.05
Fs (N m ) 0.9 0.9 0.9
Fc (N m ) 0.8 0.8 0.8
σi (N m/rad s−1 ) 1.2 1.2 1.2
Km (N m/A ) 4.32 4.32 4.32
R() 4 4 4
Lm (H) 2.5e−3 2.5e−3 2.5e−3
Kv (v/rad s−1 ) 0.287 0.287 0.287
Kg 16 16 16

3.4. Verification

On the base of Eqs. (7), (8) and (12), a simulation model is built in
Simulink of matlab, as depicted in Fig. 4. The parameters of kinematic
model are decided by geometry and material of LLRR, which are ob-
tained by measurement and basic calculation, while the parameters
of motor model are mainly about its characteristics, obtained from
specification. In the validation experiments, a group of step control
voltages Um are sent to motors as inputs and the actual angles of
joints are recorded. Also, the same Um are sent to simulation model
and simulation results are collected. Aiming to obtain the parameters
of friction model, parameter identification and calibration are imple-
mented by minimizing the disparity between experiment and simu-
lation. Table 2 lists all the parameters of the proposed model.
Fig. 5 gives the final comparison results of model verification be-
tween simulation and experiment, in which Fig. 5a–c represents the
results of hip-joint, knee-joint and ankle-joint, respectively. In de-
tail, the actual values (AV) and simulation values (SV) of positions are
recorded. Moreover, the inputs are different as well for each joint,
because of different load during rehabilitation training. For example,
“SV-10.0” means simulation result and input control voltage is 10.0V;
“AV-15.0” stands for actual experiment result and input control volt-
age is 15.0V; others in a similar way. Fig. 5. Comparison results of model verification.
From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the dynamics of experiment and
Table 3
simulation are the same, such as transition process, time constant.
Steady-state error of the proposed model.
That means the given motor model, kinematic model, friction model
and parameters are highly consistent with the actual LLRR system. Joint Steady-state error (control voltage(V))

However, it also shows that there are till some steady-state dispari- Hip 1.3%(10) 2.5%(15.0) 5.9%(20.0)
ties between experiment and simulation, which are shown in Table 3. Knee 4.3%(5.0) 9.7%(10.0) 8.8%(15.0)
To our knowledge, These are mainly caused by the frictional charac- Ankle 9.3%(2.0) 4.4%(2.5) 9.5%(3.0)
teristics. At rest, the static friction is opposite to the applied force and
can acquire any value in the range of [−Fs Fs ], that means with a
constant input, there are many equilibrium points which thus pro- fluence of friction (system uncertainty) and reject disturbance from
duce the steady-state errors. patient.
Furthermore, apart from the above analysis, the other disturbance
from patient should be considered in practice. During rehabilitation 4. Control strategy
training, LLRR needs to conquer the reaction force of patient be-
cause this unknown disturbance will seriously affect the movement In order to control the designed LLRR with good performance on
of LLRR. Therefore, with the designed mechanical structure of LLRR, a repetitive task-specific training exercise, controller should be syn-
flexible and adaptive control strategy is needed to overcome the in- thesized to both overcome system uncertainties and further reject
18 J. Wu et al. / Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22

the disturbance from patient. Considering LLRR system is nonlinear where λ is a positive definite constant matrix; I3 × 3 is an identity ma-
system, and dynamics of motor is much faster than desired train- trix. Eq. (19) is converted into state space, which can be described as
ing reference, a hierarchic controller is employed for LLRR. First, re-  
λI3×3 0 ė
gard the output torque of motor as virtual control input, then the de- Ṡ =
sired torque Tm, d can be obtained, then combining with given motor 0 I3×3 ë

model, actual control voltages of motors are designed to ensure that ė
the output torque of motor tracks Tm, d . =D
−KD ė − KP e − M−1 (Tc − d )
As depicted in Fig. 6, the designed torque Tm, d in this study in-
  
cludes two parts. For one part, there are two planning torques: ideal 0 I3×3 e 0
joint torque Tsd and friction torque Tf ; for the other part, torque Tc =D +D (Tc − d )
−KP I3×3 −KD I3×3 ė −M−1
is designed to compensate for the effect of system uncertainties and  
disturbance. In the implementation, control algorithm contains two 0 I3×3 −1
0
=D D S + D −1
(Tc − d )
sub-controllers: an adaptive robust (AR) sub-controller for compen- −KP I3×3 −KD I 3×3
−M
sation torque Tc control, and a PI sub-controller for motor control to
= AS + B(Tc − d )
generate the desired torque Tm, d .
where
 
4.1. Adaptive robust sub-controller 0 I3×3 0
A=D D−1 , B = D (20)
−KP I3×3 −KD I3×3 −M−1
For the desired torque Tm, d , it includes two parts: two feedforward
If there exists a positive definite matrix P ∈ R6 × 6 , satisfying the
planning torques including ideal joint torque Tsd and friction torque
following equation:
Tf , and the compensation torque Tc , i.e., Tm,d = K1g (Tsd + T f + Tc ).
According to the control methods for torque calculation intro-
AT P + PA = −Q (21)
duced in study [28] and Eq. (7), the ideal joint input torque Tsd and where Q ∈ R6 × 6 is a positive definite symmetric matrices. Then, the
input angular acceleration a ∈ R3 are given by following Lyapunov functional can be chosen
1 T 1
Tsd = M (θ )a + C (θ , θ̇ )θ̇ + G(θ ) (13) V = S PS + d˜T  −1 d˜ (22)
2 2
where  is the adaptive rate, and d˜ = d − d, ˆ in which dˆ is the estima-
a = θ̈d + KD (θ̇d − θ̇ ) + KP (θd − θ ) (14) tion of d. Integrating Eqs. (20)–(22), it also yields

where θ̈d ∈ R3 , θ̇d ∈ R3 , θ d ∈ R3 are desired angular acceleration, an- 1 T 1 1 1

V̇ = Ṡ PS + ST P Ṡ + d˜˙T  −1 d˜ + d˜T  −1 d˜˙
gular speed and angular; KD , KP are gain coefficients. Trajectory error 2 2 2 2
1 1 T
is defined as = (AS + B(Tc − d )) PS + S P (AS + B(Tc − d )) + d˜˙T  −1 d˜
T
2 2
e = θd − θ (15) 1 T T
= − S QS + S PB(Tc − d − dˆ) + d˜˙  −1 d˜
T ˜
Substituting Eqs. (14) and (15) into (13), we have 2
1
Tsd = M (θ )(θ̈d + KD ė + KP e ) + C (θ , θ̇ )θ̇ + G(θ ) (16) = − ST QS + ST PB(Tc − dˆ) + (d˜˙T − ST PB −1 )d˜
2
Considering system uncertainties and disturbance, such as error in For stability of system, compensation torques Tc and adaptive law of
modeling and load, uncertain item d ∈ R3 is used to describe the sys- d are designed as follows
tem uncertainty. So combining with Eq. (9), kinematic Eq. (7) can be BT PS
rewritten as Tc = dˆ − ρ (S ) (23)
BT PS
Kg Tm − T f − d = M (θ )θ̈ + C (θ , θ̇ )θ̇ + G(θ ) (17) where ρ (S) is a positive gain that can be scheduled by S, and
˙
According to Eqs. (16) and (17), the error equation can be expressed dˆ =  T BT PS (24)
as
then it yields
ë + KD ė + KP e = −M−1 (Kg Tm − T f − Tsd − d ) (18) 1 ST PBBT PS
V̇ = − ST QS − ρ (S )
If the motor torque is equal to Tm, d , Eq. (18) is further rewritten as 2 BT PS
It is evident that if V = 0, it always holds V̇ < 0. That means the state
ë + KD ė + KP e = −M−1 (Tc − d ) (19) S and d˜ will converge to zero at last.
From Eq. (19), we can know that if Tc − d → 0 and KD , KP are appro-
4.2. PI sub-controller
priately selected, then e → 0 (in ideal state). In order to eliminate
the influence of system uncertainty and disturbance d, compensation
For smoothing the chatter of AR sub-controller and getting a more
torques Tc ∈ R3 should be designed to ensure Tc − d → 0 as the time
precise control performance, Eq. (21) is approximate to
goes infinity.
In this study, a variable structure adaptive robust control (ARC) BT PS
Tc = dˆ − ρ (S ) (25)
method is considered to get Tc . As seen in [29,30], they have shown  BT PS +δ
the achievements of adaptive robust control applied in trajectory where δ is a small position scalar. Sine Tm, d is obtained and the de-
tracking of robot with uncertain. According to the variable structure Tm,d
sired current is also calculated by im,d = Km , define the error of mo-
robust control method introduced in studies [31,32], we define the
sliding surface as tor current as ie = im,d − im and ie ∈ R3 . Then a PI sub-controller is
 designed, which is given by

λI3×3 0
S = ė + λe, D = 3×3 Um = k1 ie + k2 ie dt + Kv ω (26)
0 I
 J. Wu et al. / Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22 19

Fig. 6. Control strategy.

Table 4
Parameters values of controller.

Parameter i=1 i=2 i=3

k1i −0.45 −0.45 −0.45

k2i 0.01 0.01 0.01
KD = 15 , KP = 56 , λ = 1.5
ρ = diag{15, 10.5, 4.5}
 = diag{0.01, 0.05, 0.1}
δ = diag{0.1, 0.1, 0.1}

where k1 ∈ R3 , k2 ∈ R3 are proportion gain coefficient and integral

gain coefficient, respectively; Um ∈ R3 is the control voltage. At last,
On the base of calculated control voltage Um , the corresponding PWM
signals are sent to motor drivers.

5. Experiment and results

To verify the controller performance, we firstly add AR sub-

controller and PI sub-controller to the simulation model depicted in
Fig. 4. Controller parameters values, such as KD , KP , k1 , k2 , λ, ρ (S),
 , δ , are adjusted according to trajectory tracking performance, as
shown in Table 4. The results of this verification with controller are
shown in Fig. 7, where the desired trajectory (DT) is same as the step
response in Fig. 5 and AT is the actual trajectory. The subplots Fig. 7a–
c present the closed-loop control of hip, knee and ankle joints with
step response. In Fig. 5, owing to the influences of frictional charac-
teristics and unmodeled dynamics, even with the same inputs, there
are still some steady-state errors between system response and sim-
ulation. But with the effect of the controller designed in this paper,
steady-state errors are eliminated entirely. Also, system response is
fully consistent with simulation response. The results show that con-
troller can conquer the frictional characteristics and unmodeled dy-
namics effectively.
Since the main task of LLRR designed in this paper is to help stroke
patients do repetitive rehabilitation training, including ROM training
and gait trajectory tracking, we therefore design two experiments to
verify LLRR performance, which are ROM joint training experiments
[8,23] in hip joint, knee joint and ankle joint respectively, and gait
training experiment [3,13,33] in the three joints.
In the ROM training experiment, when one joint is training, the
other two joints are locked and can not rotate. In this experiment,
LLRR works without any patient, who will make disturbances and
loads to LLRR in practice. This experiment is a basic validation of
motion control of LLRR in the nominal condition. Fig. 8a shows the
ROM tracking performance of each joint while Fig. 8b shows the con-
trol voltages and the output torques (calculated by Eq. (9)) of actu-
ators. From Fig. 8a it can be seen that AT of rehabilitation joint can
follow the DT perfectly, which ensures the rehabilitation require-
ment. As DTs are periodic signals and there is no load and distur-
bance from patient during experiments, the control signals would be Fig. 7. Step response control with controllers.
20 J. Wu et al. / Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22

Fig. 8. Result of ROM experiment.

periodic signals as well as DTs. Fig. 8b shows that the control voltages
and output torques of three joints are all periodic signals and have
a good consistency. This experiment shows that the model of LLRR
established in this paper is highly accurate and the controller can ac-
complish ROM tracking tasks with good performances.
In order to further validate the function of LLRR, experiments
have been performed on a healthy male subject (24 years old, height
of 174cm and weight of 60 kg). Three ROM trajectories are de-
signed as DTs in joint training experiment. The subject’s gait tra-
jectories are chosen as DTs in gait training experiment, which are
captured by a motion capture system (Vicon MX13, VICON Peak, Ox-
ford, UK). In this experiment, subject is required to stay relaxed en-
tirely. Then LLRR drives subject to finish DTs tracking, and the re-
sults of comparison are used to evaluate the tracking performance
of LLRR. Experiment results of gait training experiment are shown in
Fig. 9.
Experiment results in Fig. 9a show that LLRR has a good perfor-
mance in gait trajectory tracking with patient interference. It means
that patient can acquire the prescribed gait rehabilitation training by
the help of LLRR. With the influence of reaction from patient, the
designed controller needs to overcome the load and disturbance in
achieving DTs so that a better performance can be obtained. The re-
sults of experiment have validated this analysis. Fig. 9b shows that
though control voltage is periodic signal, it is different in each cycle
because the adaptive algorithm of controller is working to compen-
sate for the load and disturbance from patient during rehabilitation
training. Since the reaction of patient is changing time to time, the
control voltage should also change time to time for compensation. In
 J. Wu et al. / Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22 21

Fig. 9. Result of ROM experiment.

Table 5
Results of experiments.

Joint ROM Gait

ME AE RMS R2 M AE RMS R2

Hip 0.0120 0.0001 0.0027 0.9935 0.0164 0.0001 0.0028 0.9954

Knee 0.0420 0.0003 0.0037 0.9934 0.0128 0.0001 0.0010 0.9922
Ankle 0.0110 0.0001 0.0029 0.9922 0.0104 0 0.0009 0.9901

conclusion, this experiment shows that LLRR designed in this paper
can overcome reaction of patient effectively.
Furthermore, let us analyze the tracking performance quantita-
tively. For the above two experiments, Relation coefficients (R2 ) be-
tween DTs and ATs are calculated to evaluate tracking performance.
Maximum errors (ME), average errors (AE) and root mean squares
(RMS) in achieving DTs are listed in Table 5. We can find that all of the
ME and AE are within an acceptable range (less than 0.05 rad). The
maximum RMS is only 0.0037 rad, while the correlations between
ATs and DTs are more than 99% (relation coefficient). It can draw a
22 J. Wu et al. / Mechatronics 33 (2016) 13–22
conclusion that the 3DOF of LLRR has a good tracking performance
with the designed control strategy. The proposed LLRR can be em-
ployed for both single joint training and gait training.
6. Conclusion
In this study, a 3DOF LLRR with an adaptive robust sub-controller
is designed. The exoskeleton is designed with three joints including
hip joint, knee joint as well as ankle joint, and the length of linkages
can be adjusted to fit for the different heights of patients. The model
composed of kinematic model, friction model and actuator model
is then studied and the validations by both simulations and experi-
ments show that the model well reflects the system dynamics. In the
proposed controller, kinematic and friction models based planning
torque is calculated in feed forward channel while an adaptive robust
law is synthesized in the feedback channel to overcome the system
uncertainties and disturbance from patient.
In the experiments, both joint and gait trainings are implemented
to test controller performance without/with human reaction respec-
tively. The results of joint training experiment and gait training exper-
iment show that the LLRR has a good capability of trajectory tracking
with less error. That means LLRR has a good performance in joint re-
habilitation training and gait rehabilitation training. Therefore, the
designed LLRR in this paper can assist stroke patients in performing
passive motion rehabilitation training along the desired trajectory in
three main joints of lower limb. It can help stoke patient complete dif-
ferent complicated lower limb rehabilitation training in passive mo-
tion.
Acknowledgment
This research has been financially supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (nos. 51205423 and 61273359) . It
is also supported by Guangdong Innovative Research Team Program
(no. 2009010057) and the Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of
Sensor Technology and Biomedical Instrument, School of Engineer-
ing, Sun Yat-sen University.
References
[1] Williams GR, Jiang JG, Matchar DB, Samsa GP. Incidence and occurrence of total
(first-ever and recurrent) stroke. Stroke 1999;30(12):2523–8.
[2] Page SJ, Levine P, Leonard AC. Modified constraint-induced therapy in acute
stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair
2005;19(1):27–32.
[3] Mirelman A, Bonato P, Deutsch JE. Effects of training with a robot-virtual reality
system compared with a robot alone on the gait of individuals after stroke. Stroke
2009;40(1):169–74.
[4] Lamontagne A, Fung J. Faster is better - implications for speed-intensive gait train-
ing after stroke. Stroke 2004;35(11):2543–8.
[5] Thielman GT, Dean CM, Gentile AM. Rehabilitation of reaching after stroke: Task-
related training versus progressive resistive exercise. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
2004;85(10):1613–18.
[6] Probosz K, Wcislo R, Otfinowski J, Slota R, Kitowski J, Pisula M, et al. A multime-
dia holistic rehabilitation method for patients after stroke. Cyberpsychol Behav
2009;12(5):646–7.
[7] Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of walking func-
tion in stroke patients: the copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
1995;76(1):27–32.
[8] Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic re-
view. Lancet Neurol 2009;8(8):741–54.
[9] Hesse S, Schmidt H, Werner C, Bardeleben A. Upper and lower extremity robotic
devices for rehabilitation and for studying motor control. Curr Opin Neurol
2003;16(6):705–10.
[10] Bradley D, Acosta-Marquez C, Hawley M, Brownsell S, Enderby P, Mawson S.
Nexos - the design, development and evaluation of a rehabilitation system for
the lower limbs. Mechatronics 2009;19(2):247–57.
[11] Mayr A, Kofler M, Quirbach E, Matzak H, Frohlich K, Saltuari L. Prospective,
blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients us-
ing the lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007;21(4):307–14.
[12] Riener R, Lunenburger L, Jezernik S, Anderschitz M, Colombo G, Dietz V. Patient-
cooperative strategies for robot-aided treadmill training: first experimental re-
sults. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2005;13(3):380–94.
[13] Hesse S, Uhlenbrock D, Sarkodie-Gyan T. Gait pattern of severely disabled hemi-
paretic subjects on a new controlled gait trainer as compared to assisted treadmill
walking with partial body weight support. Clin Rehabil 1999;13(5):401–10.
[14] Banala SK, Kim SH, Agrawal SK, Scholz JP. Robot assisted gait training with active
leg exoskeleton (alex). IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2009;17(1):2–8.
[15] Veneman JF, Kruidhof R, Hekman EEG, Ekkelenkamp R, Van Asseldonk EHF, van
der Kooij H. Design and evaluation of the lopes exoskeleton robot for interactive
gait rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2007;15(3):379–86.
[16] Okada S, Sakaki T, Hirata R, Okajima Y, Uchida S, Tomita Y. Tem: a therapeu-
tic exercise machine for the lower extremities of spastic patients. Adv Robot
2000;14(7):597–606.
[17] Sawicki GS, Ferris DP. A pneumatically powered knee-ankle-foot orthosis (kafo)
with myoelectric activation and inhibition. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2009;6:23.
[18] Nikitczuk J, Weinberg B, Canavan PK, Mavroidis C. Active knee rehabilitation or-
thotic device with variable damping characteristics implemented via an elec-
trorheological fluid. IEEE-Asme Trans Mechatron 2010;15(6):952–60.
[19] Kim K, Kang M, Choi Y, Jang H, Han J, Han C. Development of the exoskele-
ton knee rehabilitation robot using the linear actuator. Int J Precis Eng Manuf
2012;13(10):1889–95.
[20] Ju MS, Lin CCK, Lin DH, Hwang IS, Chen SM. A rehabilitation robot with force-
position hybrid fuzzy controller: hybrid fuzzy control of rehabilitation robot. IEEE
Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2005;13(3):349–58.
[21] Martin P, Emami MR. A neuro-fuzzy approach to real-time trajectory generation
for robotic rehabilitation. Robot Autonom Syst 2014;62(4):568–78.
[22] Hussain S, Xie SQ, Jamwal PK. Control of a robotic orthosis for gait rehabilitation.
Robot Autonom Syst 2013;61(9):911–19.
[23] Akdogan E, Adli MA. The design and control of a therapeutic exercise robot for
lower limb rehabilitation: physiotherabot. Mechatronics 2011;21(3):509–22.
[24] Espregueira-Mendes J, Pereira RB, Monteiro A. Lower limb rehabilitation.
Springer; 2011. p. 485–95.
[25] Malone T, Blackburn TA, Wallace LA. Knee rehabilitation. Phys Ther
1980;60(12):1602–10.
[26] Winter DA. Biomechanics and motor control of human movement. John Wiley &
Sons; 2009. p. 45–236.
[27] Craig JJ. Introduction to robotics: mechanics and control. Pearson Prentice Hall
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA; 2005. p. 150–1.
[28] Markiewicz BR. Analysis of computed torque drive method and comparison with
conventional position servo for a computer controlled manipulator. J. P. L., NASA,
Tech Memo; 1973. p. 33–601.
[29] Imura J, Sugie T, Yoshikawa T. Adaptive robust control of robot manipulators-
theory and experiment. Robot Autom, IEEE Trans 1994;10(5):705–10.
[30] Ortega R, Spong MW. Adaptive motion control of rigid robots: a tutorial. Auto-
matica 1989;25(6):877–88.
[31] Bhattacharyya SP, Chapellat H, Keel LH. Robust control: the parametric approach.
Control Syst, Robot Autom 1995;6:1–16.
[32] Wang RL, Li J, Zhang SS, Gao DM, Sun HL. Robust adaptive control for a class of
uncertain nonlinear systems with time-varying delay. Sci World J 2013;2013:1–8.
[33] Ferris DP, Sawicki GS, Domingo A. Powered lower limb orthoses for gait rehabili-
tation. Top Spin Cord Inj Rehabil 2005;11(2):34–49.