Acquisition of Lower Limb Joint Variables by an Inertial Card System
C. Ramos1 , C. A. Collazos1 and A. Maldonado1
1 Universidad Manuela Beltrán, Bogotá, Colombia
Abstract— The high cost and low portability of joint variables
acquisition systems that are commercialy used nowadays, make
this technology usually unavailable for the rehabilitation of or-
thopedic problems in the lower limb. This work searches im-
plementing a more economic, portable and efficient alternative
for this kind of instrumentation, by using commercial inertial
cards (IMUs: Inertial Measurement Unit) and the Lab-VIEW
software for registering the joint variables related to knee and
ankle during human gait.
Keywords— IMU, human gait, gait lab, joint variables, lower
limb.
I I NTRODUCTION
This work presents the implementation of an acquisition
system of lower limb joint variables using IMUs.
The fundamental goal of this work is adapt and evaluate a
portable system that is able of capturing kinetic and kinematic
variables, by using commercial inertial cards, in order to de-
tect gait patterns, by analysing the biomechanical behavior of
a lower limb kinematic chain [1]. In [2] and [3] a comparative
summary is made of different acquisition techniques for joint
variables, showing their main advantages and disadvantages.
These different movement acquisition systems can be
found for different purposes. In [4] a system that registers
movement in three dimensions through the reconstruction of
video sequences is presented. This system is applied partic-
ularly for injuries in anterior cruciate ligament. [5] and [6]
present an accelerometer and inertial sensor for analysis of
sports gesture in elite athlets. [7] makes a systematic review
of wireless inertial sensors for biomechanical studies of lower
limb. [8] also makes a review, this time of vision based sys-
temas for recognizing actions and gestures in sports. Finally,
in [9] a classification is presented for different mechanic, op-
tic and electromagnetic systems, with the goal of refining the
golf gesture.
This paper has been structured in the following manner:
section II presents the hardware design. Section III shows the
software design. Section IV displays the tests and results of
the implemented acquisition system and Section V finalizes
with the conclusions.
II H ARDWARE D ESIGN
The card IMU GY-85, shown in figure 1 [10], takes care
of extracting the data of each one of the IMUs, sending it to
the computer for processing and visualization. In this applica-
tion, neither wireless transmission of data nor card integrated
microcontroller usage is necessary because I2C protocol al-
lows for the extraction of the data in a simple, fast and safe
manner, by using 4 lines: two for polarization (the card works
at 5V or 3.3V) and two for control (SCL and SDA, which are
part of I2C protocol).
Fig. 1: IMU GY-85 Card
By having four IMUs GY-85 with I2C transmission, each
working independently, it is necessary to use a signal hub,
a central device that receives all the information of the pe-
ripherals. In this case, an ARDUINO UNO card was chosen,
due to its compatibility with ATMEL microcontrolers and
the compatibility of ARDUINO’s IDE programmation plat-
form with I2C communication protocol [10], [11], [12], [13],
[14], [15]. It was necessary to include an analog multiplexor,
specifically the CD4052 chip [15], to handle the data of the
four IMUs on the I2C bus. The final implemented solution is
shown in figure 2.
The inertial sensor has three sensors: an accelerometer
(ADXL345), a gyroscope (PS-ITG-3205A) and a magne-
tometer (HMC5883L) which deliver data independently, in
the three space axes (x,y,z). These sensors use an I2C com-
munication protocol, which must be adequately configured in
each sensors’ own registers, in order to obtain the desired res-
olutions and sensibilities. The configuration of these registers
is shown in [16], [17] and [18].
III S OFTWARE D ESIGN
Two programs are being used: ARDUINO’s IDE and Lab-
VIEW, which handle specific tasks. In figure 3, each software

Fig. 2: Data acquisition hardware final conection diagram with 4 GY-85
IMUs.
and its main task is shown.
Fig. 3: Software Task Division
The sensors and the data hub use the same programming
platform, which is ARDUINO’s IDE. This software has the
logic that differentiates and organizes the data that comes
from the IMUs. It also transmits the data to the computer
through serial communication and in the computer, data pro-
cessing and visualization take place [19], [20],[21].
In order to extract the data from the four IMUs in a con-
trolled manner, digital pins 11 and 12 in the ARDUINO
UNO card are enabled. These pins control the selectors in the
CD4052 multiplexor. The selectors choose one of the four
IMU cards, adjust each of their own parameters and register
the 9 values of the sensors. The program finishes by send-
ing the information to the computer. This process is inside a
loop, making a continuous register of the data given by all
four cards, allowing real time visualization [22],[23].
In the Lab-VIEW tool, the tasks shown in figure 4 are
performed, beginning by the serial data reception from the
ARDUINO at 115200 bps. Here, the information trace is re-
ceived from the sensors and each of the sensors’ 9 degrees
of freedom are distributed in a matrix, for a total of 36 data.
The storage matrix has a size of 4 rows x 9 columns, mak-
ing it easy to read and visualize each sensor individually, for
posterior numeric analysis [21], [22], [23].
Fig. 4: Lab-VIEW tasks.
In the final user interface, the following results are given
for each axis and IMU separately:
• Acceleration values normalized to 9, 8m/s2 .
• Spin speed values in [◦ /s].
• Normalized magnetic field in Gauss.
• Graphs of the previously listed values for better visual-
ization.
In the kinematic data analysis, the following values are
shown:
• Joint angle measurement for each card, with respect to
the vertical.
• Joint angle measurement for hip, knee and ankle, with
respect to the vertical (which is the reference).
• Joint angle measurement for hip in a graph, with positive
and negative values with respect to the vertical.
• Joint angle measurement for knee, with positive values
with respect to the vertical.
• Joint angle measurement for ankle, with positive and neg-
ative values with respecto to the horizontal [24].
IV I MPLEMENTED S YSTEM VALIDATION
In order to confirm the quality of the data obtained by the
implemented system, validation tests were run through the
Biomechanics lab BTS-GaitLab of the Universidad Universi-
dad Manuela Beltrán [25], [26].
The evaluation was done on the data delivered by both
joint angle measurement equipments, in knee and angle. BTS
System markers (green) and inertial sensors (red) were used
simultaneously, as shown in the figure 5.
Fig. 5: Location of markers for both systems (Inertial and BTS).
Figure 6 shows the geometry that was used for the joint
angle measurement, which are measured simultaneously by
both systems [24].
Fig. 6: Taken joint angles.
Figures 7 and 8 show the variation between knee and an-
kle joint angles during the measurement. Red cirles show the
points where the comparison between both technologies was
made.
Fig. 7: Variation in knee angles graph. Taken with the BTS system.
Fig. 8: Variation in ankle angles graph. Taken with the BTS system.
For analysis, the following time lapses and their respective
subject movements are taken into account:
• From 0 to 5.19 s. Flexed knee. Beginning of the measure-
ment and 1st. evaluation point.
• From 5.19 to 6.68 s. Change from flexion to extension.
• From 6.68 to 3.00 s. Knee Extension. 2nd. evaluation
point.
• From 38.00 to 39.00 s. Change from knee extension to
flexion.
• From 39.00 to 42.00 s. Change from knee flexion to ex-
tension. 3rd. evaluation point.
• From 42.00 to 73.00 s. Knee extension. 4th. evaluation
point.
• From 73.00 to 76.00 s. Change from knee extension to
flexion.
• From 76.00 to 88.00 s. Knee flexion. 5th. evaluation
point.
In table 1 the values measured with both technologies
(BTS and inertial) are shown. This measurements were taken
in the five points shown in figures 7 y 8. The extracted data are
compared from statistic parameters, like absolute error, aver-
age error and standard deviation of the measurements [27]. In
the taken data of table 1, it is observed that the average error
is not greater than 10%, which gives a validation of the data
obtained with the implemented system.
V C ONCLUSIONS
In order to make the reconstruction of the kinematic chain,
when using the BTS technology, the location of the markers
is of vital importance. On the other hand, when using inertial
technology, its location must be respected but it is not neces-
sary for it to be so specific. This is due to the fact that each
marker delivers its own variables and any linearity issue can
be eliminated in the algorithm, thanks to the rotation matri-
ces. These matrices allow for the calculated angles for each
 Table 1: BTS vs. Inertial Systems Measurement Validation 2. Sistemas adaptativos y bioinspirados en inteligencia artificial <http:
//sabia.tic.udc.es/gc/Contenidos%20adicionales/
Joint BTS Inertial Absolute trabajos/Peliculas/Mocap/tecnol.htm> Consulted
Angle Angle Error October 1st 2013, from Sabia.
3. Vera P. Biomecnica de la marcha normal y patolgica. Espaa: IBV 2000.
Knee flexion 4. Krosshaug T, Slauterbeck J R, Engebretsen L, Bahr R. Biomechan-
(sitting). Position 1 83.8 89.5 6.80% ical analysis of anterior cruciate ligament injury mechanisms: three-
dimensional motion reconstruction from video sequences. Scandina-
Knee extension vian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2007;17:508-19.
(sitting). Position 2 24.0 22.7 5.33% 5. James D A, Davey N, Rice T. An accelerometer based sensor platform
for insitu elite athlete performance analysis. in Sensors:1373-76 2004.
Switch from flexion to 6. James D A. The Engineering of Sport 6ch. The Application of Inertial
extension. Position 3 80.0 87.0 7.81% Sensors in Elite Sports Monitoring., :289-94. Springer 2006.
7. Fong D, Chan Y. The Use of Wearable Inertial Motion Sensors in Hu-
Knee extension man Lower Limb Biomechanics Studies: A Systematic Review. Sen-
(standing). Position 4 15.3 13.9 8.63% sors. 2010;10:11556-65.
8. Poppe R. Vision-based human motion analysis: An overview. Com-
Knee flexion puter Vision and Image Understanding. 2007;108:4-18.
9. Noiumkas S, Tirakoat S. Use of Optical Motion Capture in Sports Sci-
(sitting). Position 5 89.5 98.1 9.65%
ence: A Case Study of Golf Swing. in Informatics and Creative Multi-
Ankle. Position 1 80.3 87.3 8.67% media (ICICM), 2013 International Conference:310-3 2013.
10. Spark Fun Electronics <https://www.sparkfun.com/
Ankle. Position 2 69.6 75.6 8.56% search/results?term=imu> Consulted October 1st 2013,
Ankle. Position 3 84.5 87.8 3.91% from Spark Fun Electronics.
11. Vesga J, Sinsel M. Microcontroladores Motorola-Freescale: progra-
Ankle. Position 4 70.4 76.9 9.23% mación, familias y sus distintas aplicaciones en la industria. México:
Ankle. Position 5 84.0 91.0 8.38% Alfaomega 2008.
12. PHILIPS . The I2C Bus tecnhnologies specifications. 2000.
Average error 7.70% 13. Angulo J, Romero S. Microcontroladores PIC: diseño práctico de
Error standard aplicaciones. Segunda parte: PIC16F87X, PIC18FXXXX. España:
McGraw-Hill 2006.
deviation 1.83 14. Garcı́a E. Compilador C CCS y Simulador PROTEUS para Microcon-
troladores PIC. España: Marcombo 2008.
15. Semiconductor National. CD4051BM/CD4051BC Single 8-Channel
Analog Multiplexer/Demultiplexer CD4052BM/CD4052BC Dual 4-
IMU to be located in any referential system. Channel Analog Multiplexer/Demultiplexer CD4053BM/CD4053BC
When comparing the data that is delivered by a commer- Triple 2-Channel Analog Multiplexer/Demultiplexer datasheet.
cial gait laboratory (with BTS technology) with the data ob- 16. Devices Analog. Digital Accelerometer ADXL345L datasheet.
17. InvenSense . PS-ITG-3205A datasheet.
tained with inertial equipment (with IMU technology), the 18. Honeywell . 3-Axis Digital Compass IC HMC5883L datasheet.
observed variations do not surpass 10% in average error. It is 19. Sabrie S. Sensors Handbook. USA: McGraw-Hillsecond edition ed.
important to note that the delivered data with the BTS tech- 2000.
20. Wolf P R. Elements of Photogrammetry with Applications in GIS.
nology are not absolute, despite the fact that their fidelity USA: McGraw-Hillfourth edition ed. 2014.
is very high, specially when working with all the markers, 21. Ruiz J. Utilización de Labview para la Visualización y Control de la
since the system itself generates Euler angles in the center Plataforma Open Hardware Arduino. Herramientas gráficas para la
programación de Arduino. NI 2012.
of the joints. However, the inertial system presents great ad- 22. Monk S. 30 arduino projects for the evil genius. USA: McGraw-Hill
vantages, not only in price, size and easiness of test applica- 2010.
tion, but also, allows the combination of stationary and mo- 23. Barckhahn F, Sebastián D. Interconectividad local de sistema de posi-
cionamiento autónomo para una comunidad de dispositivos compactos
bile data. de arquitectura modular. Chile: Ed. Santiago de Chile 2011.
24. Dı́az C A, Torres A, Ramı́rez J I. Descripción de un dispositivo desti-
nado al análisis de la marcha en dos dimensiones, CineMED. Revista
C ONFLICT OF I NTERESTS EIA. 2006;5:85-92.
25. BTS Gait-Lab <www.btsbioengineering.com>
26. Laboratorio de Biomecnica Digital, Universidad Manuela Beltrán
The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of <http://umb.edu.co/biomed/tecno.html.> Consulted
interest. October 1st 2013, from Laboratorio de Biomecnica Digital UMB.
27. Kawamura C M, Morais M C, al . Comparison between visual and
three-dimensional gait analysis in patients with spastic diplegic cere-
bral palsy. Gait & Posture. 2007;25:18-24.
R EFERENCES
1. Martı́nez F, Gómez F, Romero E. Desarrollo de un laboratorio de mar-
cha con integración sincrónica mediante una arquitectura en módulos.
Acta Biológica Colombiana. 2010;15:235-250.